the untroubled ease of Dionysos and his immediate attendants,
to the violence and confusion of the struggle. Thus the first
pair (III: III¹) seem to feel that their active participation
is unnecessary, and so belong rather to the central scene;
while the second pair (iv: iv¹), hurrying to the combat, are
to be reckoned rather with those who are actively engaged. This
is also emphasized by the symmetrical alternation of young and
old satyrs, _i.e._:
old young old young old young
VIa Vb IV IV¹ V¹b VI¹b
and by their correspondence to VII: VII¹.
On the left side we have next a group, turned toward the right,
consisting of a young satyr with flowing panther-skin (Vb), who
places his left knee on the back of a prostrate pirate (Va)
whom he is about to strike with a club which he holds in his
uplifted right hand. The pirate (face now somewhat damaged) is,
like all of his fellows, youthful and nude. The corresponding
group on the right, faces the left, and represents a nude
bearded satyr (V¹,) with left knee on the hip of a fallen
pirate (V¹a), whose hands he is about to bind behind his
back. Thus the arrangement of the two groups corresponds, but
the action is somewhat different.
I now wish to point out an error which is interesting and
instructive as illustrating how mistakes creep into standard
archæological literature to the detriment of a proper
appreciation of the original monuments; and I may perhaps hope
not only to correct this error once for all, but also, in so
doing, to make clearer certain noteworthy artistic qualities of
this composition.
If we turn to the reproductions of the Lysikrates frieze in the
common manuals of Greek sculpture, we find that the group
(V¹) has exchanged places with the next group to the right
(VI¹) while the corresponding groups on the left side (V,
VI) retain their proper position. In order to detect the source
of this confusion, we have only to examine the drawings of
Stuart and Revett, from which nearly all the subsequent
Page 49 illustrations are more or less directly derived. In the first
volume of Stuart and Revett, the groups (V¹, IV¹) occupy
plates XIII and XIV, and it is evident that the drawings have
been in some way misplaced. These plates have been reproduced
on a reduced scale in Meyer's _Gesch. d. bildenden Künste[92]_
(1825); Müller-Wieseler[93] (1854); Overbeck,[94] _Plastik³_
(1882); W.C. Perry, _History of Greek Sculpture[95]_ (1882);
Mrs. L.M. Mitchell, _History of Ancient Sculpture;[96]_
Baumeister, _Denkmäler[97]_ (1887); Harrison and Verrall,
_Andent Athens[98]_ (1890), and in all with the same
misarrangement.
Nevertheless correct reproductions of the frieze, derived from
other sources, have not been wholly lacking. There is, for
example, a drawing of the whole monument by S. Pomardi in
Dodwell's _Tour through Greece[99]_ (1819), in which the
correct position of these groups is clearly indicated. In 1842
appeared volume IX of the _British Museum Marbles_ containing
engravings of a cast made by direction of Lord Elgin, about
1800.[100] Inasmuch as this cast or similar copies have always
been the chief sources for the study of the relief, owing to
the unsatisfactory preservation of the original, it is the more
strange that this mistake should have remained so long
uncorrected,[101] or that Müller-Wieseler should imply[102]
that their engraving was corrected from the British Museum
publication, when no trace of such correction is to be found. A
third drawing in which the true arrangement is shown, is the
engraving after Hansen's restoration of the whole monument,
published in Von Lützow's monograph[103] (1868). Although
Stuart's arrangement violates the symmetry maintained between
the other groups of the frieze, yet Overbeck[104] especially
commends the symmetry shown in the composition of these
portions of the relief.
[Footnote 92: _Tajel_ 25.]
[Footnote 96: I _Taf._ 37.]
[Footnote 94: II, p. 91.]
[Footnote 95: P. 474.]
[Footnote 96: P. 487.]
[Footnote 97: II, p. 841.]
[Footnote 98: P. 248.]
[Footnote 99: I, opposite p. 289.]
[Footnote 100: H. MEYER, _Gesch. der bildenden Künste_, II, p.
242. note 313.]
[Footnote 101: Since I first noticed the error from study of
the original monument, it gives me pleasure to observe that Mr.
Murray in his _History of Greek Sculpture_, II, p. 333, note,
has remarked that there is a difference between Stuart's
drawing and the cast, without, however, being able to determine
positively which is correct, owing to lack of means of
verification. He was inclined to agree with the cast.]
[Footnote 102: I, _Taf._, note 150: _Mit Berücksichtigung der
Abbildungen nach später genommenen Gypsabgüssen in Ancient
Marbles in the Brit, Mus._]
[Footnote 103: Between pp. 240 and 241.]
[Footnote 104: Plastik³, II, p. 94.]
Page 50 Now let us examine the symmetry as manifested in the corrected
arrangement. After the figures which we have found to have a
thoroughly symmetrical disposition, we have on the left side a
group consisting of a bearded satyr (face damaged), with
panther-skin (VI a), about to strike with his thyrsus a pirate
kneeling at the left (VI b), with his hands bound behind his
back. The face of this figure is also somewhat injured. The
corresponding group on the right (VI¹ instead of the erroneous
V¹), represents a youthful satyr with panther-skin thrown over
his arm (VI¹ a), about to strike with the club which he holds
in his uplifted right hand, a pirate (VI¹ b), who has been
thrown on his back, and raises his left arm, partly in
supplication and partly to ward off the blow. As in the groups
V: V¹, so in VI: VI¹, persons, action, and arrangement, are
closely symmetrical, while a graceful variety and harmony is
effected by so modifying each of these elements as to repeat
scarcely a detail in the several corresponding figures.
After these five fighters, we observe on the left a powerful
bearded satyr (face much injured), with flowing panther-skin,
facing the right, and wrenching away a branch from a tree
(VII). The corresponding figure on the right side (VII¹) is a
nude, bearded satyr, who is breaking down a branch of a tree.
At first the correspondence does not seem to be maintained, for
this satyr faces the right, whereas after the analogy of
figures VII and IV we might expect him to face the left. But a
closer examination shows that this lack of symmetry is apparent
only when figures VII: VII¹ are considered individually, and
apart from the scenes to which they belong. For while IV and
VII, the outside figures of the main scene on the left,
appropriately face each other, the figures IV¹ and VII¹,
which occupy the same position with regard to the chief scene
on the right, are placed so as to face in opposite directions.
By this subtle device, for which the relation between the
figures III¹ and IV¹ furnishes an evident motive, the
sculptor has contrived to indicate distinctly the limits of
these scenes, while the symmetry existing between them is
heightened and emphasized by the avoidance of rigid uniformity.
The trees serve also to mark the end of the preceding scenes,
and to contrast the land, upon which they stand, with the sea,
of which we behold a portion on either side, while a pair of
Page 51 corresponding, semi-human dolphins (VIII: VIII¹) are just
leaping into the element which is to form their home. These
dolphins are not quite accurately drawn in Stuart and Revett,
for what appears as an under jaw is, as Dodwell[105] rightly
pointed out, a fin, and their mouths are closed; the teeth,
which are seen in Stuart's drawing and all subsequent
reproductions of it, do not exist on the monument. The correct
form of the head may be seen in the British Museum publication.
[Footnote 105: I, p. 290.]
After these dolphins, we have on each side another piece of
land succeeded again by a stretch of sea. On these pieces of
land are seen on each side two groups of two figures each,
while a third incipient dolphin (0¹), which does not stand in
group-relation with any of the other figures, leaps into the
sea between them. In these groups there is a general
correspondence, but it does not extend to particular positions
or to accessories.
At the left we observe first a bearded satyr with torch and
flowing panther-skin (IX a), pursuing a pirate, who flees to
the left (IX b). The space between the satyr and his victim is
in part occupied by a hole, which was probably cut for a beam
at the time when the monument was built into the convent. In
the corresponding places on the right side, we have a bearded
satyr with panther-skin (IX¹ a), about to strike with the
forked club which he holds in his uplifted right hand, a seated
and bound pirate (IX¹ b), whose hair the satyr has clutched
with his left hand. The heads of both figures are considerably
damaged, and the lower part of the right leg of the pirate is
quite effaced. To return to the left side, the tree at the left
of the fleeing pirate (IX b), does not correspond with any
thing on the right side. It serves to indicate the shore of the
sea, while on the other side this is effected by the high rocks
upon which the pirate (X¹ b) is seated.
The next group on the left is represented as at the very edge
of the water, and consists of a nude bearded satyr (X b), who
is dragging an overthrown pirate (X a) by the foot, with the
evident intention of hurling him into the sea. The legs and the
right arm of this pirate have been destroyed by another hole,
similar to that which is found between figures IX and IX a. On
Page 52 the right side, a bearded satyr, with flowing panther-skin
(x¹ a) rushes to the right, thrusting a torch into the face
of a pirate who is seated on a rock (x¹ b), with his hands
bound behind his back. In his shoulder are fastened the fangs
of a serpent, which is in keeping here as sacred to Dionysos.
Perhaps, as Stuart has suggested,[106] he may be a
metamorphosis of the cord with which the pirate's hands are
bound; but the sculptor has not made this clear. The figures of
this group, which were in tolerable preservation at the time
when Lord Elgin's cast was made, have since been nearly
effaced, particularly the face, legs and torch of the satyr,
and the face and legs of the pirate, also the rocks upon which
he is seated, and the serpent. Between these figures and the
following dolphin, there is a third hole, similar to those
mentioned already, and measuring 15x16 centimetres.
[Footnote 106: I, p. 34. Stuart cites Nonnus, _Dionys._ XLV.
137. _Cf._ also _Ancient Marbles in the British Mus._ IX. p.
115.]
The less rigid correspondence of these groups (x, ix: ix¹,
x¹), as caused some difficulty. In the text of the _British
Museum Marbles_[107], all that falls between the pair of
dolphins (VII: VIII¹), is regarded as belonging to a
separate composition, grouped about the single dolphin (0¹).
But such an interpolated composition, besides having no purpose
in itself, would vitiate the unity of the entire relief. For,
although the circular form is less favorable to a strongly
marked symmetry than is the plane, at least in compositions of
small extent, still the individual figures and groups must bear
some relation to a common centre, and there can be no division
of interest, or mere stringing together of disconnected figures
or groups of figures. Such a stringing together is assumed by
Mr. Murray, when, in his _History of Greek Sculpture_,[108] he
speaks of seven figures after the pair of dolphins, which,
"though without direct responsion among themselves, still
indicate the continued punishment of the pirates." In the
pirate seated on the rocks (x b), however, Mr. Murray[109]
finds what he calls a "sort of echo" of Dionysos, inasmuch as
he is seated in a commanding position, and is attacked by the
god's serpent. There is, to be sure, a certain external
resemblance in the attitudes of the two figures, but direct
Page 53 connection cannot be assumed without separating x¹ a from
x¹ b, with which, however, it obviously forms a group, and
entirely disregarding the relations which the groups x, ix:
ix¹, x¹ bear to one another and to the dolphin 0¹. And
this Mr. Murray does, when he takes seven figures, among which
x¹ b is evidently to be considered as central instead of what
is plainly four groups of two figures each, _plus_ one dolphin.
[Footnote 107: IX, p. 115.]
[Footnote 108: II, p. 333.]
[Footnote 109: II, p. 332.]
There is, as we have already said, a general correspondence
between these groups. This is effected, in such a way that the
group ix resembles x¹ in action and arrangement, rather than
9¹, which, on the other hand, resembles group x, rather than
group ix. In other words, the diagonalism which we have noticed
above in the arrangement of young and old satyrs (vi a, v b,
iv: iv¹, v¹ b, vi¹ a), is extended here to the groups
themselves.
Moreover, the stretches of sea with the paired dolphins (viii:
viii¹), which are introduced between these groups and those
which had preceded, are not to be regarded as separating the
composition into two parts, but as connecting the central scene
with similar scenes in a different locality. These scenes are
again joined by another stretch of sea with the single dolphin
(0¹), which thus forms the centre of the back of the relief,
opposite Dionysos, and the terminus of the action which
proceeds from the god toward either side.
I do not mean to say, however, that these scenes beyond the
dolphins (viii: viii¹), are to be looked upon as a mere
repetition of those which have preceded, distinguished only by
greater license in the symmetry, or that the changes of
locality have no other purpose than to lend variety to the
action. On the contrary, if we examine the indications of
scenery in this relief, we see that those features by which the
artist has characterized the place of this part of the action
as the seashore, the trees near the water's edge, the
alternating stretches of land and sea, the dolphins, the satyr
pulling the pirate into the water (x), are confined to the
space beyond the trees. In the scenes on the other side of the
trees, there is not only no suggestion of the sea, but the
rocks and the sequence of figures up to Dionysos indicate
rather that his place of repose is some elevation near the
seashore. The contrast between the more peaceful and luxurious
surroundings of the god and the violent contest with the
Page 54 pirates, is thus carried out and enforced by the sculptural
indications of landscape, as well as by the leading lines of
the composition. Though I would not imply that the composition
of this frieze was in any way governed by the laws which rule
similar compositions in pediments, it is interesting and
instructive to note that the general principles of distribution
of subject which have been followed, are somewhat similar to
those which we can trace in the best-known pediments extant;
thus, as the god in his more elevated position would occupy the
centre of the pediment, so the low-lying seashore and the
scenes which are being enacted upon it correspond to the wings
at either side.
To recapitulate, the concordance of figures in this relief is
then briefly as follows: In the central scene, _i.e._, inside
the vases, and in the first pair of transitional figures (III,
II, I: I¹), (II¹, III¹), equality of persons, but not of
accessories (drapery, thyrsi); action symmetrical. In the
immediately adjacent scenes, including the second pair of
transitional figures and the satyrs at the trees (VII, VI, V,
IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹, VII¹), the persons are diagonally
symmetrical in VIa, Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b, VI¹a (_i.e._,
old, young, old: young, old, young), equal in VII: VII¹. The
drapery is diagonally symmetrical in Vb, IV: IV¹, V¹b
(_i.e._, panther-skin, nudity: panther-skin, nudity), equal in
VIa: VI¹a, not symmetrical in VII: VII¹, and the weapons
are not symmetrical, except in VII: VII¹ (_i.e._, thyrsus,
club, torch: club, no weapon, club). The action is symmetrical
throughout, although not exactly the same in V: V¹. In the
scenes beyond the dolphins, the persons are equivalent (X, IX:
IX¹, X¹), while the action, drapery and weapons are
harmonious, but not diagonally symmetrical (_i.e._, IXa =
X¹a, but Xb IX¹a). At the left, a tree, at the right, a
pile of rocks and a serpent.--The persons are, accordingly,
symmetrical throughout; the action is so until past the
dolphins (VIII: VIII¹); the drapery only in II: II¹, and
in VI, V, IV: IV¹, V¹, VI¹; and the weapons not at all.
It is thus apparent that the correspondence of the figures in
this frieze is by no means rigid and schematic or devoid of
life, but that, on the contrary, the same principles of
symmetry obtain which have been pointed out by many authorities
as prevalent in Greek art.[110] The whole composition exhibits
Page 55 freedom and elasticity, not so indulged in as to produce
discord, but peculiarly appropriate to the element of mirth and
comedy which characterizes the story, and upon which the
sculptor has laid especial stress.
HERBERT F. DE COU
Berlin, August 19, 1892.
[Footnote 110: Brunn, _Bildwerke des Parthenon_; Flasch, _Zum
Parthenonfries_ pp. 65 ff.; and Waldstein, _Essays on the Art
of Pheidias_, pp. 80f., 114ff., 153ff., 194f., 205, 210.]
Page 56
PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES AT ATHENS.
DIONYSUS [Greek: en Limnais].[B]
The dispute over the number of Dionysiac festivals in the Attic
calendar, more particularly with regard to the date of the
so-called Lenaea, is one of long duration.[111] Boeckh
maintained that the Lenaea were a separate festival celebrated
in the month Gamelio. To this opinion August Mommsen in the
_Heortologie_ returns; and maintained as it is by O.
Ribbeck,[112] by Albert Müller,[113] by A.E. Haigh,[114] and by
G. Oehmichen,[115] it may fairly be said to be the accepted
theory to-day. This opinion, however, is by no means
universally received. For example, O. Gilbert[116] has
attempted to prove that the country Dionysia, Lenaea, and
Anthesteria were only parts of the same festival.
[Footnote B: I wish to express my hearty thanks to Prof. U. von
Wilamowitz-Möllendorff of the University of Göttingen, Prof. K.
Schöll of the University of Munich, Prof. A.C. Merriam of
Columbia College, and Dr. Charles Waldstein and Prof. R. B.
Richardson, Directors of the American School at Athens, for
many valuable criticisms and suggestions.]
[Footnote 111: _Vom Unterschied der Lenäen, Anthesterien und
ländlichen Dionysien, in den Abhdl. der k. Akad. der Wiss. zu
Berlin_, 1816-17.]
[Footnote 112: _Die Anfänge und Entwickelung des Dionysoscultus
in Attika._]
[Footnote 113: _Bühnen-Alterthümer._]
[Footnote 114: _The Attic Theatre._]
[Footnote 115: _Das Bühnenwesen der Griechen und Römer._]
[Footnote 116: _Die Festzeit der Attischen Dionysien._]
But while the date of the so-called Lenaea has been so long
open to question, until recently it has been universally held
that some portion at least of all the festivals at Athens in
honor of the wine-god was held in the precinct by the extant
theatre of Dionysus. With the ruins of this magnificent
structure before the eyes, and no other theatre in sight, the
temptation was certainly a strong one to find in this
neighborhood the Limnae mentioned in the records of the
ancients. When Pervanoglu found a handful of rushes in the
neighborhood of the present military hospital, the matter
Page 57 seemed finally settled. So, on the maps and charts of Athens we
find the word _Limnae_ printed across that region lying to the
south of the theatre, beyond the boulevard and the hospital.
When, therefore, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, by
Harrison and Verrall, appeared over a year ago, those familiar
with the topography of Athens as laid down by Curtius and
Kaupert were astonished to find, on the little plan facing page
5, that the Limnae had been removed from their time-honored
position and located between the Coloneus Agoraeus and the
Dipylum. That map incited the preparation of the present
article.
While investigating the reasons for and against so
revolutionary a change, the writer has become convinced that
here, Dr. Dörpfeld, the author of the new view, has built upon
a sure foundation. How much in this paper is due to the direct
teaching of Dr. Dörpfeld in the course of his invaluable
lectures _An Ort und Stelle_ on the topography of Athens, I
need not say to those who have listened to his talks. How much
besides he has given to me of both information and suggestion I
would gladly acknowledge in detail; but as this may not always
be possible, I will say now that the views presented here after
several months of study, in the main correspond with those held
by Dr. Dörpfeld. The facts and authorities here cited, and the
reasoning deduced from these, are, however, nearly all results
of independent investigation. So I shall content myself in
general with presenting the reasons which have led me to my own
conclusions; for it would require a volume to set forth all the
arguments of those who hold opposing views.
The passage Thucydides, II. 15, is the authority deemed most
weighty for the placing of the Limnae to the south of the
Acropolis. The question of the location of this section of
Athens is so intimately connected with the whole topography of
the ancient city, that it cannot be treated by itself. I quote
therefore the entire passage:
[Greek:
to de pro toutou e acropolis e nun ousa polis en kai to up'
auten pros noton malista tetrammenon. tecmerion de. ta gar
iera en aute te acropolei kai allôn pheôn esti, kai ta exô pros
touto to meros tes poleôs mallon iorutai, to te tou Dios tou
Olympiou, kai to Pythion, kai ta tes Ges, kai to en Limnais
Dionysou, ô ta archaiotera Dionysia te dodecate poieitai en meni
Anthesteriôni. ôsper kai oi ap' Athenaiôn Iônes eti kai nun
Page 58 nomixousin. idrutai de kai alla iera taute archaia. kai te crene
te nen men tôn turannôn autô okeuasautôn Enneacrounô kaloumene
to de palai phanerôn tôn pegôn ousôn Kallirron ônomasmene
ekeien te eggus ouse ta pleistou exia echrônto, kai nun eti apo
tou archaiou pra te gamicôn kai alla tôn ierôn nomixetai tô
udati chresthai.]
Two assumptions are made from this text by those who place the
Limnae by the extant theatre. The first is that [Greek: up'
auten] includes the whole of the extensive section to the south
of the Acropolis extending to the Ilissus, and reaching to the
east far enough to include the existing Olympieum, with the
Pythium and Callirrhoe, which lay near. The second assumption
is that these are the particular localities mentioned under the
[Greek: tekmerion de]. Let us see if this is not stretching
[Greek: up' auten] a little. I will summarize, so far as may be
necessary for our present purpose, the views of Dr. Dörpfeld on
the land lying [Greek: upo ten acropolin], or the Pelasgicum.
That the Pelasgicum was of considerable size is known from the
fact that it was one of the sacred precincts occupied when the
people came crowding in from the country at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War,[117] and from the inscription[118] which
forbade that stone should be quarried in or carried from the
precinct, or that earth should be removed therefrom. That the
Pelasgicum with its nine gates was on the south, west, and
southwest slopes, the formation of the Acropolis rock proves,
since it is only here that the Acropolis can be ascended
easily. That it should include all that position of the
hillside between the spring in the Aesculapieum on the south
and the Clepsydra on the northwest, was necessary; for in the
space thus included lay the springs which formed the source of
the water-supply for the fortifications. That the citadel was
divided into two parts, the Acropolis proper, and the
Pelasgicum, we know.[119] One of the two questions in each of
the two passages from Aristophanes refers to the Acropolis, and
the other to the Pelasgicum, and the two are mentioned as parts
of the citadel. That the Pelasgicum actually did extend from
the Aesculapieum to the Clepsydra we know from Lucian.[120]
[Footnote 117: THUCYDEDES, II. 17.]
[Footnote 118: DITTENBERGER, _S. I. G._ 13, 55 ff.]
[Footnote 119: THUCYDEDES, II. 17; ARISTOPHANES, _Birds_, 829
ff.; _Lysistrata_, 480 ff.]
[Footnote 120: _Piscator_, 42.]