temple-sculpture, we should be able to trace analogies in other
lines. The most interesting is found in the design and
execution of sepulchral monuments. Milchhoefer[58] is of the
opinion that the tomb was not originally marked by an upright
slab with sculptured figures. He finds what he thinks the
oldest representation of sepulchral ornament in a black-figured
vase of the so-called "prothesis" class.[59] Here are two women
weeping about a sepulchral mound on which rests an amphora of
like form to the one that bears the scene. He maintains then
that such a prothesis vase was the first sepulchral monument,
that this was later replaced by a vase of the same description
in marble, of course on account of the fragile nature of
pottery. For this reason, too, we find no certain proof of the
fact in the old tombs, though Dr. Wolters[60] thinks that the
discovery of fragments of vases on undisturbed tombs makes the
case a very strong one. The use of such vases or urns of marble
for this purpose became very prevalent. They are nearly always
without ornament, save for a single small group, in relief or
sometimes in color, representing the dead and the bereaved
ones. A very evident connecting-link between these urns and the
later sepulchral stele appears in monuments which show just
such urns projected in relief upon a plane surface. The relief
is sometimes bounded by the outlines of the urn itself,[61]
sometimes a surrounding background is indicated. In many cases
this background assumes the form of the ordinary sepulchral
stele. The Central Museum at Athens is especially rich in
examples of this kind. On two steles which I have noticed
there, three urns are represented side by side. A still more
interesting specimen is a stone so divided that its lower part
is occupied by an urn in relief, above which is sculptured the
Page 38 usual scene of parting. This scene has its normal place as a
relief or a drawing in color on the surface of the urn itself;
here, where the step in advance of choosing the plane stele to
bear the relief seems already taken, the strength of tradition
still asserts itself, and a similar group is repeated on the
rounded face of the urn below. The transition to the more
common form of sepulchral monument has now become easy; but the
characteristics which point to its genesis in the funeral vase
are still prominent.
[Footnote 58: _Mitth. Athen._, v, 164.]
[Footnote 59: _Monumenti dell' Inst._, viii, _tav._ v. 1.
_g.h._: found near Cape Kolias; at present in the Polytechnic
Museum at Athens.]
[Footnote 60: _Attische Grabvasen_, a paper read before the
German Institute in Athens, Dec. 9, 1890.]
[Footnote 61: Examples are Nos. 2099 and 2100 in the archaic
room of the Louvre. I remember having seen nothing similar in
any other European museum.]
This process of development, so far as can be judged from
existing types, reaches down to the beginning of the fourth
century B.C. Steles of a different class are found, dating from
a period long before this. Instead of a group, they bear only
the dead man in a way to suggest his position, or vocation
during life. All show distinctly a clinging to the technic of
ceramic art. Sculptured steles and others merely painted exist
side by side. The best known of the latter class is the Lyseas
stele, in the Central Museum at Athens. Many more of the same
sort have been discovered, differing from their vase
predecessors in material and form, but keeping to the old
principles. The outlines, for example, are first incised, and
then the picture is finished with color. The Aristion stele may
be taken as an example of the second order. Relief plays here
the leading part; but it must still be assisted by painting,
while the resemblance to vase-figures in position, arrangement
of clothing, proportion and profile, remains as close as in the
simply painted stele. An ever present feature, also, is the
palmette acroterium, treated in conventional ceramic style.
Loeschke thinks that the origin of red-figured pottery is to be
found in the dark ground and light coloring of these steles.
Whether the opinion be correct or not, it points to a very
close connection between the two forms of art.
The influence of ceramic decoration spread still further. Large
numbers of steles and bases for votive offerings have been
discovered on the Acropolis, which alike repeat over and over
again conventional vase-patterns, and show the use of incised
lines and other peculiarities of the technic of pottery.[62]
[Footnote 62: BORRMANN, _Jahrbuch des Instituts_, III, 274.]
As to specific resemblances between the pediments of the
Acropolis and vase-pictures, the subjects of all the groups are
Page 39 such as appear very frequently on vases of all periods. About
seventy Attic vases are known which deal with the contest of
Herakles and Triton. One of these is a hydria at present in the
Berlin Museum, No. 1906.[63] Herakles is represented astride
the Triton, and he clasps him with both arms as in the
Acropolis group. The Triton's scaly length, his fins and tail,
are drawn in quite the same way. It is very noticeable that on
the vase the contortions of the Triton's body seem much more
violent; here the sculptor could not well follow the
vase-painter so closely. It was far easier for him to work out
the figure in milder curves; but he followed the vase-type as
closely as possible. On the other hand, if the potter had
copied the pedimental group the copy could perfectly well have
been an exact one. The group is very similar also to a scene in
the Assos frieze, with regard to which I quote from
Friedrichs-Wolters;[64] "It corresponds to the oldest Greek
vase-paintings, in which we find beast fights borrowed from
Oriental art, united with Greek myths and represented after the
Greek manner." This frieze is ascribed to the sixth century
B.C., and is not much later than our pediments.
For the Hydra pediment, there exists a still closer parallel,
in an archaic Corinthian amphora, published by Gerhard.[65]
Athena appears here as a spectator, though she has no part in
the pedimental group; but in every other point, in the drawing
of the Hydra, of Herakles and Iolaos, the identity is almost
complete. Athena seems to have been omitted, because the artist
found it difficult to introduce another figure in the narrow
space. Evidently the vase must have represented a type known to
the sculptor and copied by him.
[Footnote 63: Published by GERHARD, _Auserlesene griechische
Vasenbilder_, No. 111; RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram.
Grecque_. fig. 57, p. 125. In the National Museum at Naples,
No. 3419, is a black-figured amphora which repeats the same
scene. The drawing and position of the two contestants is just
as on the Berlin vase, the Triton seeking with one hand to
break Herakles' hold about his neck, while with the other he
holds a fish as attribute. Athena stands close by, watching the
struggle.]
[Footnote 64: _Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke_, Nos. 8-12.]
[Footnote 65: _Auserlesene Vasenbilder_, Nos. 95, 96.]
For the Typhon pediment, no such close analogies are possible,
at least in the form and arrangement of figures. It would seem
that this is so simply because no vase-picture of this subject
Page 40 that we know so far answers the conditions of a pedimental
group that it could be used as a pattern. In matters of detail,
a hydria in Munich, No. 125,[66] offers the best illustration.
For example, the vase-painting and the relief show quite the
same treatment of hair, beard and wings in the figure of
Typhon.
Speaking more generally, we find continually in the pediments
reminiscences of ceramic drawing and treatment. The acroteria,
painted in black and red on the natural surface of poros stone,
take the shape of palmettes and lotuses. The cornices above and
below are of clay or poros, painted in just such designs as
appear on the Olympian terracottas; and these designs are
frequently repeated in the sculptures themselves. The feathers
of Typhon's wings are conventionally represented by a
scale-pattern; the arc of the scales has been drawn with
compass; we observe still the hole left in the centre by the
leg of the compass. The larger pinions at the ends of the wings
have been outlined, regularly by incised lines, and then filled
up with color. All this is as like the treatment of
vase-figures, as it unlike anything else in plastic art. In the
former the scale-pattern is used conventionally to denote
almost anything. Fragments of vases found on the Acropolis
itself picture wings in just this way; or it may be Athena's
aegis, the fleece of a sheep or the earth's surface that is so
represented. On the body of the Triton and the Echidna of the
pediments no attempt is made to indicate movement and
contortion by the position of the scales; it is everywhere the
lifeless conventionality of archaic vase-drawing. In sculptured
representations the scale device is dropped, and with it the
rigid regularity in the ordering of the pinions. Further, in
drawing the scales of the Triton, the artist has dropped usual
patterns and copied exactly a so-called bar-ornament which
decorates the cornice just over the pediment. Here again he
chooses one of the most common motives on vases. For the body
of the Echidna, on the other hand, it is the so-called
lattice-work pattern which represents the scale covering,--a
pattern employed in vases for the most varied purposes, and
found on the earliest Cypriote pottery. Even the roll of the
snake-bodies of Typhon seems to follow a conventional spiral
which we find on old Rhodian ware.
[Footnote 66: _Ibid._, No. 287.]
Page 41 The outlining and coloring of the figures is most interesting.
The poros stone of the reliefs is so soft that it could easily
be worked with a knife; so incised lines are constantly used,
and regular geometrical designs traced. Quite an assortment of
colors is employed: black, white, red, dark brown, apparent
green, and in the Typhon group, blue. It is very noticeable
that these reliefs, unlike the others which in general furnish
the closest analogies, the metopes of the temple at Selinous
and the pediment of the Megarian Treasury at Olympia, have the
ground unpainted. This is distinctly after the manner of the
oldest Greek pottery and of archaic wall paintings. Herein they
resemble also another archaic pedimental relief, found near the
old temple of Dionysos at Athens, and representing just such a
procession of satyrs and mænads as appears so often on vases.
To give a local habitation to the class of pottery which most
nearly influenced the artist of these reliefs, is not easy.
Perhaps it is a reasonable conjecture to make it Kamiros of
Rhodes. Kamiros ware shows just such an admixture of oriental
and geometrical designs as characterizes our pediments. Strange
monsters of all kinds are represented there; while in the
reliefs before us a goodly number of such monsters are
translated to Greek soil.
CARLETON L. BROWNSON.
American School of Classical Studies,
Athens, Nov. 10, 1891.
Page 42
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
THE FRIEZE OF THE CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF
LYSIKRATES AT ATHENS.[67]
[PLATE II-III.]
The small circular Corinthian edifice, called among the common
people the Lantern of Diogenes,[68] and erected, as we know
from the inscription[69] on the architrave, to commemorate a
choragic victory won by Lysikrates, son of Lysitheides, with a
boy-chorus of the tribe Akamantis, in the archonship of
Euainetos (B.C. 335/4), has long been one of the most familiar
of the lesser remains of ancient Athens. The monument was
originally crowned by the tripod which was the prize of the
successful chorus, and it doubtless was one of many buildings
of similar character along the famous "Street of Tripods." [70]
It is the aim of this paper to show, that the earliest
publications of the sculptured reliefs on this monument have
given a faulty representation of them, owing to the
transposition of two sets of figures; that this mistake has
been repeated in most subsequent publications down to our day;
that inferences deduced therefrom have in so far been vitiated;
and that new instructive facts concerning Greek composition in
sculpture can be derived from a corrected rendering of the
original.
[Footnote 67: It is a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to
the Director of the School, Dr. Waldstein, who has kindly
assisted me in the preparation of this paper by personal
suggestions.]
[Footnote 68: This does not exclude the tolerably well-attested
fact, that the name "Lantern of Diogenes" formerly belonged to
another similar building near by, which had disappeared by
1676.]
[Footnote 69: _C._ 1. _G._ 221.]
[Footnote 70: _Cf._ PAUS., I, 20, 1.]
Although we are not now concerned either with the subsequent
fortunes of the monument arid the story of its preservation, or
Page 43 with its architectural features and the various attempts which
have been made to restore the original design, it may be
convenient to recall briefly a few of the more important facts
pertaining to these questions. The Monument of Lysikrates first
became an object of antiquarian interest in 1669, when it was
purchased by the Capuchin monks, whose mission had succeeded
that of the Jesuits in 1658, and it was partially enclosed in
their _hospitium_.[71] The first attempt to explain its purpose
and meaning was made by a Prussian soldier, Johann Georg
Transfeldt, who, after escaping from slavery in the latter part
of 1674, fled to Athens, where he lived for more than a
year.[72] Transfeldt deciphered the inscription, but was unable
to decide whether the building was a "_templum Demosthenis_" or
a "_Gymnasium a Lysicrate * * * exstructum propter juventutem
Atheniensem ex tribu Acamantia_." [73] Much more important for
the interpretation of the monument was the visit of Dr. Jacob
Spon of Lyons, who arrived at Athens early in the year 1676.
Spon also read the inscription,[74] and, from a comparison with
other similar inscriptions, determined the true purpose of
edifices of this class.[75] Finally the first volume of Stuart
and Revett's _Antiquities of Athens_, which appeared in 1762,
confirmed, corrected and extended Spon's results. Careful and
exhaustive drawings accompanied the description of the
monument.
In the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the
nineteenth century, Athens was visited by many strangers from
western Europe, and the hospitable convent of the Capuchins and
the enclosed "Lantern," which at this time was used as a closet
for books, acquired some notoriety. Late in the year 1821,
however, during the occupation of Athens by the Turkish troops
under Omer Vrioni, the convent was accidentally burned, and its
most precious treasure was liberated, to be sure, but, as may
still be seen, sadly damaged by the fire, and what was still
more unfortunate, left unprotected and exposed to the
destructive mischief of Athenian street-arabs and their less
innocent elders.
[Footnote 71: SPON, _Voyage_, II, p. 244; LABORDE, _Athènes_,
I, p. 75 and note 2.]
[Footnote 72: MICHAELIS, _Mitth. Athen_., I, p. 103. ]
[Footnote 73: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 114.]
[Footnote 74: SPON, III, 2, p. 21 f. ]
[Footnote 75: SPON, II, p. 174.]
Aside from some slight repairs and the clearing away of
rubbish, the monument remained in this condition until 1867,
Page 44 when the French Minister at Athens, M. de Gobineau, acting on
behalf of his government, into whose possession the site of the
former monastery had fallen, employed the architect Boulanger
to make such restorations as were necessary to save the
monument from falling to pieces.[76] At the same time the last
remains of the old convent were removed, and some measures
taken to prevent further injury to the ruin. Repairs were again
being made under the direction of the French School at Athens,
when I left Greece, in April, 1892.
For the architectural study of the monument of Lysikrates
little has been done since Stuart's time. In the year 1845 and
in 1859, the architect Theoph. Hansen made a new series of
drawings from the monument, and upon them based a restoration
which differs somewhat from that of Stuart, especially in the
decoration of the roof. This work is discussed in the monograph
of Von Lützow.[77]
Confining our attention to the sculptures of the frieze, we
will examine certain inaccuracies of detail which have hitherto
prevailed in the treatment of this important landmark in the
history of decorative reliefs of the fourth century. The
frieze, carved in low relief upon a single block of marble,
runs continuously around the entire circumference of the
structure. Its height is only .012 m. (lower, rectangular
moulding) + .23 m. (between mouldings) + .015 m. (upper,
rounded moulding).[78] It is to be noticed that the figures
rest upon the lower moulding, while they are often (in fourteen
cases) carried to the top of the upper moulding.
[Footnote 76: VON LÜTZOW, _Zeitschr für bildende Kunst_, III,
pp. 23, 236 f.]
[Footnote 77: Pp. 239 ff., 264 ff. For another restoration of
the roof _cf._ SEMPER, _Der Stil_, vol. II, p. 242.]
[Footnote 78: My own measurements.]
The question as to the subject of the relief was a sore puzzle
to the early travellers. Père Babin finds "_des dieux
marins_";[79] Transfeldt, "_varias gymnasticorum figuras_,"
which he thought represented certain games held "_in Aegena
insula_" in honor of Demosthenes.[80] Vernon (1676), who
regarded the monument as a temple of Hercules, sees his labors
depicted in the sculptures of the frieze.[81] Spon, while not
accepting this view, admitted that some, at least, of the acts
of Herakles were represented; so that the building, apart from
Page 45 its monumental purpose, might also have been sacred to that
deity.[82] To Stuart and Revett[83] is due the credit of being
the first to recognize in these reliefs the story of Dionysos
and the pirates, which is told first in the Homeric Hymn to
Dionysos. In the Homeric version, Dionysos, in the guise of a
fair youth with dark locks and purple mantle, appears by the
seashore, when he is espied by Tyrrhenian pirates, who seize
him and hale him on board their ship, hoping to obtain a rich
ransom. But when they proceed to bind him the fetters fall from
his limbs, whereupon the pilot, recognizing his divinity,
vainly endeavors to dissuade his comrades from their purpose.
Soon the ship flows with wine; then a vine with hanging
clusters stretches along the sail-top, and the mast is entwined
with ivy. Too late the marauders perceive their error and try
to head for the shore; but straightway the god assumes the form
of a lion and drives them, all save the pious pilot,
terror-stricken into the sea, where they become dolphins.
[Footnote 79: WACHSMUTH, _Die Stadt Athen_, I, p. 757.]
[Footnote 80: _Mitth. Athen._, I, p. 113.]
[Footnote 81: LABORDE, I, pp. 249 f.]
[Footnote 82: SPON, II, p. 175.]
[Footnote 83: I, p. 27.]
In the principal post-Homeric versions, the Tyrrhenians
endeavor to kidnap Dionysos under pretext of conveying him to
Naxos, the circumstances being variously related. Thus in the
[Greek: Naxiaca] of Aglaosthenes (_apud_ HYGIN. Poet. Astronom.
II. 17),
the child Dionysos and his companions are to be taken to the
nymphs, his nurses. According to Ovid,[84] the pirates find the
god on the shore of Chios, stupid with sleep and wine, and
bring him on board their vessel. On awaking he desires to be
conveyed to Naxos, but the pirates turn to the left, whereupon,
as they give no heed to his remonstrances, they are changed to
dolphins and leap into the sea. Similarly Servius, _Ad. Verg.
Aen._, I. 67. In the _Fabulæ_ of Hyginus (CXXXIV), and in
Pseudo-Apollodorus,[85] Dionysos engages passage with the
Tyrrhenians. Nonnus, however, returns to the Homeric story,
which he has modified, extended, and embellished in his own
peculiar way.[86] These versions, to which may be added that of
Seneca,[87] all agree in making the scene take place on
shipboard, and, if we except the "comites" of Aglaosthenes, in
none of them is the god accompanied by a retinue of satyrs. But
Philostratus[88] pretends to describe a painting, in which two
Page 46 ships are portrayed, the pirate-craft lying in ambush for the
other, which bears Dionysos and his rout.
[Footnote 84: _Met._, III. 605 ff.]
[Footnote 85: _Bibliotheca_, III. 5. 3.]
[Footnote 86: _Dionys._, XLV. 119 ff.]
[Footnote 87: _Oedipus_, VV. 455-473.]
[Footnote 88: _Imag._, I. 19.]
In our frieze, however, the myth is represented in an entirely
different manner. The scene is not laid on shipboard, but near
the shore of the sea, where, as the action shows, Dionysos and
his attendant satyrs are enjoying the contents of two large
craters, when they are attacked by pirates. The satyrs who are
characterized as such by their tails, and in most cases (9 +
2:7) by the panther-skin, forthwith take summary vengeance upon
their assailants, of whom some are bound, others beaten and
burned, while others take refuge in the sea, only to be changed
into dolphins by the invisible power of the god.
These modifications of the traditional form of the story have
usually[89] been accounted for by the necessities of plastic
art; and this view has in its favor that the representation in
sculpture of any of the other versions which are known to us,
would be attended by great difficulties of composition, and
would certainly be much less effective. Reisch, however, has
suggested[90] that this frieze illustrates the dithyrambus
which won the prize on this occasion, and that the variations
in the details of the story are due to this. There is no
evidence for this hypothesis, inasmuch as we have no basis upon
which to found an analogy, and know nothing whatever of the
nature of the piece in which the chorus had figured.
[Footnote 89: _E.g._ OVERBECK, _Plastik³_, II. p. 92;
Friedrichs-Wolters, _Bausteine_, p. 488.]
[Footnote 90: _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 102.]
The general arrangement and technic of this relief, the skill
with which unity of design is preserved despite the circular
form, the energy of the action, and the variety of the
grouping, have often been pointed out. More particularly, the
harmony and symmetry, which the composition exhibits, have been
noticed by most of the later writers who have had occasion to
describe the frieze. It is here, however, that we find the
divergencies and inaccuracies which have been alluded to above,
and these are such as to merit a closer examination.
To begin with the central scene, which is characterized as such
by the symmetrical grouping of two pairs of satyrs about the
Page 47 god Dionysos and his panther and is externally defined by a
crater at either side, we observe that, while the two satyrs
immediately to the right (I¹) and left (I) of Dionysos (0),
correspond in youth and in their attitude toward him, the satyr
at the left (I) has a thyrsus and a mantle which the other does
not possess. These figures have unfortunately suffered much;
the central group is throughout badly damaged, the upper part
of the body and the head of Dionysos especially so. Of the tail
of the panther as drawn in Stuart's work, no trace exists. The
faces of the two satyrs and the head of the thyrsus are also
much mutilated. The other two satyrs (II: II¹), whose faces
are also mutilated, correspond very closely in youth, action,
and nudity. In these two pairs of figures it is also to be
noticed that the heads of I and II at the left face the central
group, while the heads of I¹ and II¹ at the right are
turned away from the centre, toward the right. By this device
the sculptor has obviated any awkwardness which might arise
from the necessity of placing Dionysos in profile.
Passing now to the scenes outside of the vases, we observe
that, of the first pair of satyrs, the bearded figure at the
left (III), leans upon a tree-stump, over which is thrown his
panther-skin, as he contemplates the contest between his
fellows and the pirates, while against his right side rests a
thyrsus. The corresponding satyr on the right (III¹), also
bearded, but with his head now nearly effaced, wears his mantle
slung over the left shoulder as he advances to the right,
offering with his right hand the freshly filled wine-cup to a
youthful companion (IV¹). The latter, with panther-skin over
left shoulder and arm, and club (partially effaced) in
outstretched right hand, is moving rapidly to the right, as if
to join in the battle; his face (also somewhat mutilated) is
partly turned to the left, and despite his attitude of refusal
he forms a sort of group with his neighbor on that side
(III¹), and has no connection, as has been wrongly
assumed,[91] with the following group to the right (V¹).
Corresponding with this youthful satyr, we have on the left
(IV) a nude bearded satyr (face somewhat damaged,) armed with a
torch instead of a club, moving swiftly to the left to take
Page 48 part in the contest. He has no group-relation with his neighbor
on the right (III), although he maybe supposed to have just
left him. The relation is not sufficiently marked in the case
of the corresponding figures on the other side (III¹,
IV¹) to injure the symmetry.
[Footnote 91: _British Museum Marbles,_ IX, p. 114.]