AISCHYLOS AND THE VASE PAINTINGS
§ 1. INTRODUCTION.
Notwithstanding the fact that the oldest of the tragedians was the least
read in the fourth century B.C., he easily rivals Sophokles in his
influence on art. This was not due to his being more admired, and can
only be accounted for by the bold situations that he invented-situations
new and striking. There are certain of his plays that left a lasting
impression on Greek and Roman art. Such are the _Choephoroi_, the
_Eumenides_, and the _Lykurgeia_. Further than these, Aischylean plays
did not appeal to the artist to any great extent. It is the peculiarly
popular inventions distinguishable in these tragedies, their uniqueness,
so to speak, that set them apart by themselves, a mark for the artist.
The character of the plays is easily denoted. They ring with cries of
murder and resound with the storming fury of avenging deities; we are
struck by the perils of the situations and remain all but breathless to
learn the issue. These features attracted the painter and sculptor, and
this is what meets one on all the monuments that may be called
Aischylean. The deep religious vein that pulsates in every line of the
mighty tragedian is reflected to some degree on the vases and the
sarcophagi. This force in art was rather epic; it was, in a way,
Polygnotean, and the ethical nature of it all but condemned it for the
artists who sought the πάθος of Euripides. This very fact explains why
Aischylos and Sophokles did not address themselves more to the
succeeding generations of artists. The ethical was more difficult to
express than was the pathetic, and it was not so attractive. The spirit
of the times, moreover, demanded the latter as it demanded Euripides,
and consequently one should not expect to meet a large number of vase
paintings that were made under the influence of either Aischylos or
Sophokles. Those that can be associated with the extant tragedies of the
former are given in the following pages. It will be observed that
certain scenes from Aischylos were greatly in favour in Lower Italy. All
of the nine paintings published are from Italian ware. Not one Attic
vase that shows an Aischylean scene has, so far as I know, been
discovered. In the West, however, where he was quite as much at home as
in his own Athens and where he was destined to end his days, the vase
decorators were largely influenced by him.
§ 2. CHOEPHOROI.
There is no proof at hand that epic literature knew aught of Elektra or
the part which she played in avenging her father’s murder. The fragments
from the lyric poet Stesichoros furnish the oldest literary source for
the _Oresteia_ which became later so popular under the hands of the
fifth-century tragedians. The trilogy of Aischylos which has happily
come down to us is, therefore, the oldest extant authority. When one
turns to works of art one discovers a series of vase paintings
representing the death of Aigisthos; yet these are but a little older
than Aischylos’ work[118]. Events concerned with Orestes’ return are
even less common in early art. The Melan terra cotta _plaque_ in the
Louvre, which represents a scene somewhat similar to the opening of the
_Choephoroi_, is the oldest of the _Oresteia_ monuments, but still must
be dated within the fifth century B.C.[119] It may be considered as
fairly well established that Elektra and Orestes first appeared in art
but a few years before the production of Aischylos’ trilogy in 458 B.C.
Nor is it possible, so far as I know, to discover any influence of the
_Agamemnon_ or _Choephoroi_ upon artistic productions in the last half
of the century. A small group of vase paintings from Lower Italy
belonging to the fourth century B.C. do, however, present situations
which one may well believe to have been suggested by the early part of
the _Choephoroi_.
[Illustration:
FIG. 1.
]
The painting shown in fig. 1[120] represents a tomb, the base of which
is decorated with triglyphs. Surmounting this is a stele, crowned with a
Corinthian helm, and bearing the name ΑΓΑΜΕ[Μ]ΝΩΝ. Sitting with her back
to the stele on the left is Elektra, ΕΛΕΚΤΡ[Α, wearing a chiton and
mantle and clasping her left knee in a meditative mood; beside her is
another female figure similarly dressed and holding a toilet box in the
left arm, an unusually common article on the vases of Lower Italy.
Perhaps the box is meant to recall the offerings which were brought in
it to the grave. This person is not necessarily Chrysothemis, although
her dress would be more appropriate for Elektra’s sister than for her
attendant. It is, however, the work of the latter to carry such a box of
offerings for Elektra. The figure may therefore be left unnamed. Her
face is turned towards Orestes, ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ, who stands on the right and
appears to be speaking to Elektra, who pays no attention to his words or
his gesture. He is in travelling costume, chlamys, petasos, and carries
a spear and sword, but curiously enough wears no boots. Below him to the
right in a similar attitude stands Pylades. He has simply a chlamys and
a spear. Another youth sits above on a _terrain_. He serves to round out
the picture, and indicates at the same time the attendants of Orestes.
In the background are a sword and shield; on the grave is an amphora, as
an offering, exactly the shape of the vase on which the painting occurs.
There are numerous restorations in the work, but the main part seems to
be antique. Heydemann states that the inscription on the stele is
genuine, and also ΕΛΕΚΤΡ[Α. Doubt is expressed concerning ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ.
We have before us the grave of Agamemnon, at which the first 585 verses
of the _Choephoroi_ were played. There is no trace of palace or royal
building. Orestes, accompanied by Pylades, enters the orchestra and lays
his tribute upon his father’s tomb, τύμβου δ’ ἐπ’ ὄχθῳ (v. 4), but
suddenly withdraws to avoid the company of women which approaches with
ceremonial step. The chorus and Elektra proceed to perform their
services when the latter discovers the lock of hair, ἄγαλμα τύμβου (v.
200), and the footprints—two proofs that Orestes must be near. While she
is still examining the tracks the latter comes up and proves beyond a
doubt, by pointing to the garment that Elektra had once woven, who he is
(vs. 212–232). Perhaps one may think of Elektra as sitting upon the
grave at some point between v. 84 and v. 212, but when she had
discovered the traces of Orestes’ presence, she must have been actively
scanning the surroundings. It pleased the artist, however, to represent
her as ignoring the appeal of her brother, or at least manifesting no
signs of recognizing him. But for the presence of the τύμβος one would
be inclined to see the influence of Sophokles’ _Elektra_, where Orestes’
words gain credence very slowly, and where Elektra hesitates long,
before believing his assertions that he is living and standing before
her (v. 1219 ff.). But the Sophoklean tragedy is played before the
palace. The pedagogue and Orestes leave the orchestra to pour their
libations on the grave (v. 82 ff.) when Elektra comes out of the house.
The fact that the recognition scene is represented as taking place at
the grave gives us therefore ample reason for accepting our painting as
under the influence of the _Choephoroi_. This painting is strikingly
free in its conception; no words of the poet can be cited as fitting the
situation. The suggestion, the setting, are Aischylean; all else is the
artist’s. The work is far removed from the character of an illustration.
[Illustration:
Fig. 2 (_vid. p. 47 ff._).
]
The second painting is on a Lucanian hydria[121]. The central scene is
again the τύμβος of Agamemnon, built up with several steps and
surmounted by a stele with Ionic capital and bound by a fillet. Elektra
sits upon the upper step in veil and chiton. She holds the former with
her right hand and looks away into space. On other steps below her are a
lekythos and other small vases, also a pomegranate and a fillet. The
offerings are much more abundant here than in fig. 1. Unnoticed by his
sister, Orestes approaches the stele on the left, dressed as in fig. 1,
with the addition of boots. He is about to pour a libation from a kylix
in his left hand. The male figure sitting next to him is doubtless
Pylades. He turns his head towards the main scene. The remaining figure
here is but remotely associated with the action. The persons on the
right are more interesting. The youth standing on the step of the grave
about to lay a wreath upon the stele is denoted by his kerykeion as
Hermes. He wears a travelling costume without the usual boots. An
elderly, bearded, male figure stands behind him. He is not characterized
except by a mantle and a long staff, but has been interpreted as
Orestes’ pedagogue. The only objection to this is his dress[122], but
this may be due to the carelessness of the artist. Behind him is another
bearded male figure sitting upon a sort of bag, or pack. His short
chiton, shoes, and staff all point him out as a traveller. The peculiar,
close-fitting cap denotes him as a foreigner. The female figure on the
extreme right in Doric peplos carries an aryballos in her left hand, and
gazes at the group before her. Perhaps she belongs to Elektra.
The discussion of fig. 1 above applies equally well to Orestes and
Elektra here. We have practically a repetition of the group. The former
figure is, however, thought of at an earlier moment. By removing Elektra
one may think of Orestes at the opening of the play. He holds the vase
in his hand rather than the lock of hair. The first words of the
prologue are suggestive—
Ἑρμῆ χθόνιε πατρῷ’ ἐποπτεύων κράτη,
σωτὴρ γενοῦ μοι ξύμμαχός τ’ αἰτουμένῳ.
Chthonian Hermes, who guards the ancestral rights, has really manifested
himself in the painting, and has appeared as a particular ally. The act
of crowning the stele declares Hermes’ friendliness toward the family
and his interest in Agamemnon’s shade. Elektra addresses him also and
beseeches him to hear her supplications and pity her and her dear
Orestes (v. 124 ff.). We may note, therefore, a special fitness in the
artist’s expressing this double relation of Hermes to the children.
Invoked by both of them as a protecting god he introduces nothing that
is not in harmony with the spirit of Aischylos. The addition of this
figure is, moreover, a good instance of the liberty which the vase
painters took with their authors, and shows well the difference between
illustration and independent work. It cannot be denied that with the
assistance of this monument one is led to see between the lines of the
_Choephoroi_. The pedagogue who does not appear in Aischylos is
nevertheless a natural extension of the group. It will be remembered
that he speaks the prologue in the _Elektra_ of Sophokles and occupies
the place which Pylades usually fills. In Euripides’ _Elektra_ (v. 16),
Autourgos says that Orestes had been given into the charge of a τροφεύς.
The person resting on the pack appears at first sight a gratuitous
addition of the artist, but on closer examination the suggestion for him
is found in the poet. When Orestes explains to the chorus that he and
Pylades will attempt to gain an entrance to the palace, he states that
they will disguise themselves as foreigners by speaking the Phokean
dialect (v. 563 f.). To Klytaimestra’s interrogations (v. 668 ff.) he
replies—
ξἐνος μέν εἰμι Δαυλιεὺς ὲκ Φωκέων·
στείχοντα δ’ αὐτόφορτον οἰκείᾳ σαγῇ
εἰς Ἄργος ...
In other words, he is a stranger from Phokis who has to carry his own
pack. It is upon this σαγή that the figure is resting. The artist has
characterized him as a foreigner by the peculiar cap. No Greek ever wore
such a head-dress. The make-up hints at the appearance of Orestes
seeking admittance to the palace, while, of course, the person is to be
understood merely as one of the latter’s servants. Whatever he may have
said about carrying his own pack, no artist would have thus represented
him. On the oldest of the Orestes-Elektra monuments, the Melan
relief[123], there is such a figure standing behind Orestes with his
luggage strapped to his shoulders. It seems to me that the painter has
naïvely caught up the spirit of the text and brought in a figure which
goes far towards adding a charm and interest to the scene.
Another Lucanian hydria representing the same scene is published here
for the first time, in fig. 3[124]. It will be more instructive to point
out the few points in which the two paintings differ from each other
than to describe this one entire. The column in 3 has a Doric capital,
with maeander and checker-board ornament; in 2 the capital is Ionic. In
3 Hermes stands on the ground; in 2 he stands on the step to the grave.
Elektra reaches out her left hand in 3 as though to receive the
libation; in 2 she is unmindful of Orestes. The latter holds a kylix in
2, and in 3 a pitcher. His hat is a pilos in 3, and he wears it; in 2
the petasos hangs on the back of his neck. The Phokean attendant sitting
upon the luggage is in 3 upon the left, and in 2 upon the right. There
is an extraordinary likeness between the two. There is the same crooked
nose, short chiton, and odd cap, but the latter has no tassel in 3. The
servant wears, besides, a chlamys and rests his stick over his leg.
Behind him is the nude youth, as in 2, upon the left, holding an
ointment vase in a sort of carrier. The two male figures of 2 adjoining
the main scene are wanting in 3. In their stead is a female figure
sitting upon a stool and holding a large toilet box. She is dressed in a
Doric peplos with an _apoptygma_. She is evidently an attendant of
Elektra, and reminds one strongly of the figure in fig. 1. Behind her is
the charming girl, exactly as in 2, except that she carries the
aryballos in her right, and in the left hand a small box.
[Illustration:
Fig. 3 (_vid. p. 51 ff._).
]
The painting is, it would seem, more beautiful than that of fig. 2,
although the publication of the latter is an old one, and may be more or
less inaccurate. I have not seen the vase myself. The scene is
abbreviated by one figure; Pylades would be expected.
Still another painting is given in fig. 4[125], showing a further step
of simplification. Only the middle group, with the female attendant
carrying the aryballos, occurs. Hermes’ position is the same as in fig.
2, but the artist has forgotten to draw the wreath in his right. His
chlamys, too, is buttoned properly instead of being wrapped around his
arm. The latter, however, has the same stumpy appearance seen in 2 and
3. As the scene is simpler, so the offerings on the tomb are fewer.
Orestes’ libation is here in a kantharos. The painting is a careless
piece of work, and cannot be ranked with the other two. It is, however,
very interesting as giving another link to the chain of evidence.
There can be little doubt that these vases all belong to the same artist
or that they come from the same locality. The marvellous agreement that
runs through them is something quite extraordinary. I know of no other
similar cases in vase paintings of the red figured ware. The popularity
of this scene, and therefore of Aischylos’ _Choephoroi_, is attested by
such a series of paintings as one cannot find in the case of any other
work in Greek literature.
[Illustration:
Fig. 4.
]
Since writing the above I have discovered in the Louvre another Lucanian
vase that represents a further simplification of this scene[126]. The
painting is practically identical with the middle group in fig. 3.
Peculiar to the Louvre painting are the tomb with five steps and the
rather tall column, Doric order, surmounted by a krater; an aryballos
and strigil, in addition to the taenia, are fastened to the column.
There is a further slight variation in Elektra’s position, for on her
right is a krater. On her left is a lekythos; below are the two
pomegranates, taenia, and black lekythos, just as in fig. 3. The only
difference in the other persons is that Orestes holds out a kylix and
not a pitcher.
The painting is evidently a product of the same studio as are those in
figs. 2, 3 and 4. It forms another member of this remarkable class of
pictures that stands alone, unique in Greek ceramics, and bears witness
to the enormous popularity of this scene from Aischylos. In the face of
this important chain of evidence one is safe, it seems to me, in
claiming that Aischylos was acted in the fourth century B.C. and that
considerably. What kept this scene before the public and induced the
artist and his pupils to turn out so many copies of the same work? To
have been thus so saleable the picture must have been popular, and this
could have come about best through the acted drama. These vases and
those following, based on the _Eumenides_, must impress the impartial
student with the fact that Euripides and Sophokles did not by any means
oust Aischylos completely in Lower Italy.
§ 3. EUMENIDES.
The various stories which may have been popularly told in regard to
Orestes’ purification, and his reconciliation with the Furies, prior to
March 458 B.C. were swept for ever into oblivion by the last member of
Aischylos’ trilogy. The stamp of his genius has ever remained upon the
myth, and no one ever attempted to repeat his work[127]. All the
elements of the persecution were cast by him into their final mould. The
immense influence of this work is attested in no way more forcibly than
by the monuments of art to which one can point. There is a long line of
vase paintings, dating from the fifth century, that bear witness to the
wide popularity of the _Eumenides_, and that give the most direct and
authoritative testimony of the influence of the play upon the masses of
the people. A sharp distinction must be made, however, between paintings
that illustrate the general myth and those that exhibit unmistakable
Aischylean features. Orestes’ pursuit and expiation were universally
known, and the tale was so popular that it often found its way into art
where the artist had in mind no poetic version of the story. So it is
that there is a number of paintings representing Orestes either pursued
by the Furies or already having reached the omphalos, which do not
represent any situation or combination of situations that can be traced
to Aischylos[128]. Of the number whose subject is Orestes at Delphi, at
least four, it seems to me, are to be explained as substantially under
the influence of the _Eumenides_ and representing the first scene of the
tragedy in more or less modified form.
I discuss first the scene on the St. Petersburg krater[129], fig. 5. The
painting belongs to the latest period of ceramic art, and is in nearly
every detail a hasty and careless piece of work. In an Ionic temple on
four columns, all painted white, Orestes, flesh dark red, sits _en face_
with his left arm around the omphalos which is covered with a white net.
He holds the sword in the right and the sheath in the left, and wears
boots and chlamys. On the steps of the temple lie five sleeping Furies.
They are painted, flesh black, only in rough outline. Their dress is a
short chiton. On the right, hastening from the temple, is the Pythia in
long chiton and veil. She carries the big key—emblem of her office as
κλῃδοῦχος[130]. Her flesh is white.
[Illustration:
Fig. 5.
]
The addition of the temple strikes one at once as being in harmony with
the poet. To be sure, this need not mean a particularly close relation
with the actual production of the play in a Greek theatre. Our temple is
merely one of the numerous buildings of this class found upon the vases
of Lower Italy, some of which were intended evidently as suggestions of
the stage setting. In the present instance the coincidence is a happy
one. The _Agamemnon_ and the _Choephoroi_, which had just been produced,
were both played before the palace at Argos, and this scenery was
changed to represent the Apollo temple at Delphi for the third play.
There can be no question as to this σκηνή for the _Oresteia_, at least,
even though one does not allow an extensive background for the earlier
plays. The painting is well adapted, therefore, for placing the opening
scene vividly before us. It brings one closer to the meaning of the text
than is apparent at first sight. In v. 1048 ff. of the _Choephoroi_
Orestes saw the Furies. They wore bright chitons, and had snakes in
their hair. He calls them hounds from whose eyes oozed ugly drops of
blood. The chorus evidently did not see them, for Orestes cries, ‘You do
not behold them here, but I do’.[131] At these words he is away to
Delphi to seek Apollo’s protection. During the intermission which
followed between the two plays the necessary alterations were made in
the σκηνή and the costumes were changed. The chorus in particular, which
had represented Argive maidens, underwent considerable transformation in
order to appear again as Furies. The _Eumenides_ is opened by the
Pythia, who comes from the temple. She recounts the nature of her
duties, and mentions various gods in her address until v. 30, at which
point she turns from the orchestra to re-enter the temple and attend to
the delivery of responses. In a moment she reappears in great fright,
and begins to relate the cause of her alarm. The sight described is
exactly that which the painter had in mind. One is able, however, to get
behind the scenes with the aid of the picture, for the front of the
temple is removed so that the interior is plainly in view. To compare
the words of Aischylos and the painting more closely—the Pythia says
that a terrible sight drove her ἐκ δόμων τῶν Λοξίου[132]. The artist has
expressed this with some action, for she is actually represented as
leaving ‘the house of Loxias.’ She adds further—
ὁρῶ δ’ ἐπ’ ὀμφαλῷ μὲν ἄνδρα θεομυσῆ
ἕδραν ἔχοντα προστρόπαιον, αἵματι
στάζοντα χεῖρας, καὶ νεοσπαδὲς ξίφος
ἔχοντ’ ...
The picture shows the man upon the omphalos, and in his hand the drawn
sword. One may imagine that the suppliant’s hands are stained with
blood, when but a short time before he had fled from the scene of the
murder in Argos. Even greater explicitness characterizes the next words
of the priestess:—
πρόσθεν δὲ τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε θαυμαστὸς λόχος
εὕδει γυναικῶν ἐν θρόνοισιν ἥμενος.
Surely a ‘marvellous troop of women’ fits the group which we see before
us. In this particular the work is practically an illustration of the
text. The distinction is at once made that the figures are not women nor
Gorgons nor Harpies[133]. They are ἄπτεροι and μέλαιναι, and snore with
unapproachable blasts. It should be noted that the figures in the
painting are also black, as though in direct agreement with
Aischylos[134]. They are further wingless, while the unpleasant details
added are conceivable from the appearance of the ugly creatures. The
number five is of course a mere accident. They lie here in an
unconscious stupour till the ghost of Klytaimestra arouses them again.
The _Eumenides_ is, as is well known, the only extant Greek tragedy in
which the chorus is not visible from the beginning of their part. In the
_Persai_ and _Supplices_ of Aischylos and the _Bakchai_ and _Supplices_
of Euripides the chorus is, however, in the orchestra when the play
opens.
There are still two other vase paintings to be considered in this
connexion. They present minor variations from the one just discussed,
but on the whole the three betray a common source. In fig. 6[135] one
sees also the interior of the temple represented by three Ionic columns.
Various dedicatory articles hang from the wall and ceiling. Further
indications of the sanctuary are the two tripods, the laurel tree, and
the omphalos. Orestes, characterized as usual by the drawn sword and
flying chlamys, has fled to the latter and embraces it. His erect hair
shows his fright. Apollo with bow and arrows hastens behind him and
gestures with his right hand to drive back a Fury who is swooping down
upon Orestes. She is but half in sight, and wears a short Doric peplos,
and her flesh is black. The Pythia, with dishevelled gray hair and
frightened mien, quits the sanctuary on the left. Her key, indistinctly
drawn in Jahn’s publication, owing probably to the copyist’s ignorance
of what the article really was, has just fallen from her hands. Artemis
in her huntress-costume, carrying two spears, stands on tiptoe on the
right of the omphalos and shades her eyes with her right hand as she
peers at the disturbance. Two dogs are with her.
[Illustration:
Fig. 6
]
The time of the Pythia’s exit from the temple, as in fig. 5, and the
later moment when Apollo orders the Erinyes from the sanctuary, are well
combined in this painting:—
ἔξω, κελεύω, τῶνδε δωμάτων τάχος
χωρεῖτ’, ἀπαλλάσσεσθε μαντικῶν μυχῶν,
μὴ καὶ λαβοῦσα πτηνὸν ἀργηστὴν ὄφιν,
χρυσηλάτου θώμιγγος ἐξορμώμενον,
ἀνῇς ὑπ’ ἄλγους μέλαν’ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀφρόν.
vs. 179 ff.
Apollo’s authoritative bearing and absolute power in his own precinct
are very well brought out by the artist. One can all but hear the ἔξω,
κελεύω of Aischylos, and the arrows that the god holds in his left hand
seem to show that Apollo is quite ready to carry out his threat. The
whole is, moreover, dramatically told, and in this respect the stage
influence is easily traceable in the painting. That the Fury is black
accords again with the poet’s μέλαιναι (v. 52). The presence of Artemis
lends a certain charm that one can attribute to the artist’s desire to
appear original[136].
The following work falls still further away from the scenery of the
play. Fig. 7 shows a painting on the neck of a large Apulian amphora in
Berlin[137]. The limited space, and the secondary position likewise,
have perhaps curtailed the scope of the work. No architectural details
are given. The sanctuary is denoted by the omphalos and the tripod.
Orestes has sought protection at the former, as in the preceding scenes,
and looks back at a Fury, with short dress and huge wings, who runs
toward him with a dagger in her right and a burning torch in the left
hand. Apollo, who sits upon the tripod, a laurel bough in his hand and
wreath in his hair, extends his right hand to repel the Fury as in fig.
6. On the right the Pythia, dressed as in fig. 5, leaves the shrine in
fright, gesturing at the unexpected visitors. The painter has forgotten
to give her the key. Beside her is an attendant carrying a sort of kylix
in the left hand and looking back at the sanctuary.
[Illustration:
Fig. 7.
]
It does not appear necessary to take up the details here after the
examination which has been given to the preceding paintings. The
artist’s debt to Aischylos was quite as direct as in the case of the two
other works. The greatest modification occurs in the figure of the Fury,
which is a being far removed from the Aischylean type.
A painting on a bell-shaped krater in the Louvre is less hampered by the
scene given in Aischylos, and is accordingly more artistic[138]. The
inventiveness and individuality of the artist come prominently to view,
and the result is an intensely interesting composition. The combination
of events and the manner in which all is told bring one a great deal
nearer to the deeper meaning of _Eumenides_ than any other monument with
which I am acquainted.
[Illustration:
Fig. 8.
]
The shrine of Apollo, the μυχός of vs. 39 and 170, is denoted by a
platform on two steps, above which are the laurel tree and the omphalos.
The god stands to the left in large, embroidered chiton or chlamys,
grasping the tree with his left hand and extending his right, in which
is a young pig, over the head of Orestes, who sits with his back to the
omphalos. The latter holds his sword in his right hand, which is raised
meditatively to his chin. Artemis stands behind the platform on the
right, characterized by her costume and the spears. In the left-hand
upper corner the shade of Klytaimestra, veiled, is engaged in arousing
two Furies who sit fast asleep. She points toward Apollo with her right
hand. Below is the half-figure of another Fury apparently rising out of
the ground wide-awake. The Erinyes are all dressed like Artemis, in
short costume and high boots.
The artist has combined with the first scene a moment earlier than the
action of the play. Orestes’ expiation preceded the prologue of the
Pythia. The purificatory rite had been performed immediately on his
arrival at Delphi, for, when he first appears in the _Eumenides_, he is
undefiled. This is plainly declared to Athena in vs. 237 ff., and to the
Chorus and Athena in vs. 280 ff. While the purification is represented
in various ways upon the other vase paintings[139], this ceremony is the
only one that reminds us of Aischylos. The latter hints at the manner of
the rite, and this passage has unquestionably suggested the group which
we have before us:—
ποταίνιον γὰρ ὂν πρὸς ἑστίᾳ θεοῦ
Φοίβου καθαρμοῖς ἠλάθη χοιροκτόνοις. vs. 282 f.
‘While the blood was fresh it was cleansed at the shrine of the god
Phoibos by purification with the blood of pigs.’ The ceremony is
referred to again in
σφαγαὶ καθαιμάξωσι νεοθήλου βοτοῦ. v. 450.
There is, therefore, in the painting a representation of this service
with pig’s blood. The freshness and beauty of the scene are peculiar to
works of art in the Pheidian age, and the painting must be considered as
a valuable witness of Aischylos’ influence. The fact that the work is
Apulian and not Attic supplies an interesting bit of evidence for the
extension of Athenian literature in Lower Italy during the fifth century
B.C. Tarentum, which was scarcely less Athenian than Athens, received an
edition of the plays brought out at the Greater Dionysia soon after
their appearance in Athens. It is further to be remembered that
Aischylos’ long connexion with Syracuse had probably made him more
widely known in the West than was either Sophokles or Euripides during
the fifth century. Our vase belongs to the last decades of the century,
perhaps as early as 420 B.C., and in this period Euripides had scarcely
gained a large following in Magna Graecia.
Apollo’s speech follows directly upon that of the Pythia’s. How the god
appeared in the orchestra is a question on which scholars are not
agreed. The most widely accepted view is that the ekkyklema was brought
into use, and that on it the whole company was in some manner rolled or
pushed out from the temple to the orchestra. This means that the chorus
of twelve or fifteen, together with Orestes, Apollo, and Hermes, was
moved bodily forward from the σκηνή, far enough at least to give the
audience a glimpse of what had been the interior of the temple with all
its surroundings. Apollo seems to speak of the Furies and Orestes as
though he himself saw them and as though the audience could see
them[140]. They are in fact in plain view if one insists upon the
literal meaning of his words. It is argued on the other hand that such a
ponderous weight could not have been moved by any machinery at
Aischylos’ command. In other words, the ekkyklema, in the interpretation
usually given the term, is not to be counted apart of the Aischylean
scenic apparatus[141]. If Apollo stood in the doorway of the temple
where he could look in upon the Furies and Orestes, and at the same time
be seen by the audience, one has really no need of any machinery. The
shade of Klytaimestra must also be thought of as appearing in the same
place. She glances in upon the Furies who continue to give forth their
grunts till v. 140, when they for the first time appear in the
orchestra. There is much in favour of this explanation of the
arrangements for the scene. Fortunately for our purpose it makes little
difference which of the two opinions one follows. Conclusive evidence is
hardly to be reached either one way or the other, yet the notion that
Aischylos did not employ such extensive machinery as the ekkyklema must
have been certainly does not harmonize either with the extant plays or
with the tradition in regard to Aischylos’ inventions. My conviction is
that from v. 64 the interior of the temple was in some way visible, and
that the whole audience could see Orestes at the omphalos, surrounded by
the slumbering Furies. The god reassures the suppliant of his support,
and bids him leave for Athens and embrace the sacred image of Athena. He
turns to Hermes, who is at hand for the occasion, and bids him accompany
Orestes. At this point, v. 93, the two quit the orchestra, Orestes
passing over the bodies of the Furies[142].
Our painting follows the development in vs. 94–140, where the shade of
Klytaimestra appears and chides the Erinyes for neglecting their duty
and forgetting her and her rights. The artist has grasped the spirit of
the poet, and has given a graphic account of the scene such as one is
not likely to forget. The dread figure of the veiled ghost, who glances
searchingly at the sleeping instruments of her vengeance and endeavours
to rouse them into consciousness, is a creation but little inferior to
that in Aischylos[143]. Her position on the extreme limits of the
sanctuary serves to express the uncleanliness of the spirit and the
incongruity of its appearing within the sacred ground. The gesture
towards the main group connects the two scenes and lends a unity to the
whole. This is real art and no illustration. One must remember that
Orestes is at this time on his way to Athens, and that the shade did not
appear in his presence. The very fact that the painter chose to unite
the two moments adds greatly to the general effect. The tragedy is
played in part before us. The number of Furies representing the chorus
is the same that one meets first in Euripides[144], and that is
particularly emphasized also by Aischylos in
ἔγειρ’, ἔγειρε καὶ σὺ τήνδ’, ἐγὼ δέ σε. v. 140.
Their dress is that of the later type of Erinyes—the huntress-costume of
Artemis. This facilitated their motion. Perhaps the half-figure of the
awakened Fury may be rising from the earth to continue the pursuit, but
it seems to me more probable that the half-figure is such from choice.
After the appearance of the Erinyes in the _Choephoroi_ they are
certainly above ground till conducted to their new home under the
Areopagos.
While the story of Agamemnon’s murder and the succeeding terrible
revenge wrought by Orestes, as well as the latter’s atonement at Delphi,
were all a part of the legendary inheritance from a very early period
and had played for some centuries, at least, before Aischylos an
important rôle in the epic[145] and lyric[146] literature, it remained
for the great tragedian to break new ground for the last chapter of the
_Oresteia_. Orestes’ acquittal and deliverance were, prior to Aischylos,
distinctly Delphic in setting; in his hands all became decidedly
Athenian. Apollo had once been the sole divinity to absolve the
murderer; Athena became the new arbiter and director of the case. The
temple at Delphi gave way to the ‘Old Temple’ of Athena upon the
Acropolis. Keeping these facts in mind, one has to look about for vase
paintings which show traces of this Attic turn. So far, only the early
scene at Delphi has claimed our attention, and here it has been possible
to point out several compositions that demand the _Eumenides_ to the
exclusion of popular tradition.
From v. 235 the scene is transferred from Delphi to Athens, and remains
throughout the rest of the play the ‘Old Temple’ on the Acropolis[147].
Athena becomes the centre. Everything moves about her. The one
impressive figure in this part of the tragedy is the goddess. Orestes is
simply a poor helpless mortal—the apparent subject of the action. He and
the Erinyes sink into insignificance when compared with the majestic
figure of Athena. Substantial traces of the influence of Aischylos’
invention have reached us on the vases. A small number of paintings
claim the right to be considered under this head. The composition of all
(I know three such) is so similar that it seemed necessary to reproduce
only one.
[Illustration:
Fig. 9 (_vid. p. 70 ff._)
]
The painting shown in fig. 9[148] represents the sanctuary at Delphi
with the tripod and the omphalos; kneeling upon the latter is Orestes,
in the same costume as that noticed in the preceding monuments, holding
two spears in addition to the νεοσπαδὲς ξίφος. He glances up to the
right, where Athena looks down upon him. Her right foot rests on a sort
of plinth; she carries a double-pointed spear in her left hand and wears
a Corinthian helm with peculiar crest[149]. Her dress is an embroidered
Ionic chiton and large aigis. The latter is not uncommon on the
fourth-century vases, and is characteristic of the exaggeration of types
in this period. Apollo stands on the left of the omphalos, with a laurel
branch on which are hung fillets and πινάκια[150]. He looks to the left
at a winged Fury with a very elaborate costume, a huge serpent about her
body and one in her hair; above the tripod is the bust of another Fury
on whom are four snakes. In the left-hand upper corner a bust of a youth
with chlamys, pilos, and a spear is most likely meant for Pylades.
Corresponding to this on the other side are the head and shoulders of a
woman, interpreted as Klytaimestra.
The two other vase paintings are, in the main, close counterparts of
this and need not be described here. The Vatican amphora[151] is
particularly interesting as representing Athena with aigis extended over
Orestes to protect him from the Furies. The Capua hydria in Berlin[152]
takes precedence over the other two in age, and furnishes us with the
nearest approach to Aischylos’ time. It falls within the fifth century,
while the others are to be placed in the last half of the fourth
century.
The introduction of Athena is the unmistakable sign. She intervenes at
Delphi simply because Aischylos introduced her in Athens. The artist
transferred her to Delphi and combined the two scenes of the tragedy. If
one considers only Orestes and Athena in fig. 9, and reads the interview
between them in the _Eumenides_, he will appreciate at once how well the
painter has managed his task. The whole make-up of the figures is that
of stage characters. This is especially noticeable in the dresses of the
Fury and Athena. This elegance and finery on vases of the fourth century
were widely regulated by dramatic performances.
The set of paintings which thus associates Athena with Orestes’ delivery
may be counted as the direct product of the _Eumenides_, and therefore
important witnesses for the influence of Aischylos upon the succeeding
century of Greek art.
§ 4. THE LOST PLAYS.
One might carry on a long and fruitless discussion concerning certain of
the lost plays, and paintings that present subjects common to them. It
must be all but ‘fruitless,’ since we know next to nothing about the
character of some of these tragedies, as, for example, the _Pentheus_.
But this whole question lies outside the province of the present work,
and I shall not go further than to append a list of the vase paintings
that do in all probability owe much to Aischylos.
LYKURGEIA.
1. Apulian amphora, Munich, no. 853. Pub. Millin, _Tombeaux de
Canose_, pl. 13.
2. Apulian krater, Naples, no. 2874. Pub. Müller-Wieseler, _Denkmäler
der Alten Kunst_, ii. pl. 37, 440. Cf. Welcker’s _Aeschyleische
Trilogie_, p. 327.
3. Amphora from Ruvo, Naples, no. 3219 (p. 500 of Heydemann). Pub.
_Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 16, B.
4. Krater from Anzi in the Basilicata, no. 3237 in Naples. Pub.
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 1 = Müller-Wieseler, _op.
cit._ ii. pl. 38, 442 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 834.
5. Krater in Ruvo-Jatta coll. Pub. _Catalogo Jatta_, pl. 2. 5 =
_Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. R.; cf. _ibid._ p. 194 ff.
6. Krater, also from Ruvo, in Brit. Mus.; cat. iv. F 271. Pub. _Mon.
d. Inst._ v. pl. 23. Cf. Brunn in _Annali d. Inst._ 1850, p. 336
ff.
7. Fragment of an Apulian amphora in Dresden museum. Pub. _Arch. Anz._
1891, p. 24; cf. p. 23 f.
8. Marble relief-vases. Pub. Welcker, _Alte Denkmäler_, ii. pl. 3. 8;
cf. _ibid._, p. 94 ff.; _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 45.
Cf. further for a discussion of most of these monuments, Michaelis,
_Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 248 ff.
PHRYGIANS.
1. Tarentine amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ v. pl. 11; cf. _Annali d.
Inst._ 1866, p. 249 ff., and _Arch. Ztg._ 1879, p. 16, and
G. Haupt. _Commentationes archaeologicae in Aeschylum,
Dissertationes Hallenses_, xiii. 1895, p. 13 ff. Vid. also this
work for the whole subject of Aischylos and the monuments.