Part 4

[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 DÖRPFELD, _Olympia_, _Textband_ II, pp. 19 ff. FLASCH, in Baumeister's _Denkmäler_, 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, DÖRPFELD, _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 Kekulé gewidmet_, pp. 92-101.]

[Note 17: _Eighth Annual Report of the Archæological 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, _Antichità 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 Archæological 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 Denkmäler, 1666-69.]

[Note 25: [Greek: Ephemeris Archaiologike], 1884, pp. 49-60; 1885, pp. 41-44. For the date see FOUCART, _Bull, de corr. hellén._, 1890, pp. 589-92.]

[Note 26: PAUS., IX. 11. 4. The date given above conforms to the view of BRUNN, _Sitzungsber. d. Münch. 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, _Musée 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 Archæological Institute. The date given above for the building is that suggested by DÖRPFELD, _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 archæology 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 archæology.

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 Brückner 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. Dörpfeld'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. Dörpfeld'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. DÖRPFELD, GRÄBER, BORRMANN, and SIEBOLD.]

[Footnote 45: Reproduced in _Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_, V, _Taf._ XXXIV. BAUMEISTER, _Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums_, _Taf._ XLV. RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Histoire de la Céramique Grecque_, pl. XV.]

[Footnote 46: _Historische und philologische Aufsätze_, _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. Dörpfeld, Gräber, 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. Dörpfeld, 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 ecastô tou orophou tô 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.

[Footnote 52: _Arch. Zeitung_, xxix, 1872, _Taf._ 41; RAYET et COLLIGNON, _Hist. Céram. Grecque_, fig. 143.]

[Footnote 53: _Arch. Zeitung_, 1882, _Taf._ 13.]

From this point of view, it does not seem impossible that pedimental groups might have fallen under the influence of vase technic. The whole architectural adornment of the oldest temple was of pottery. It covered the cornice of the sides, completely Page 33 bounded the pedimental space, above and below, and finally crowned the whole structure in the acroteria. It would surely be strange if the pedimental group, framed in this way by vase designs, were in no way influenced by them. The painted decoration of these terracottas is that of the bounding friezes in vase-pictures. The vase-painter employs them to frame and set off the central scene. Might not the same end have been served by the terracottas on the temple, with reference to the scene within the typanum? We must remember, also, that at this early time the sculptor's art was in its infancy while painting and the ceramic art had reached a considerable development. Even if all analogy did not lead the other way, an artist would shrink from trying to fill up a pediment with statues in the round. The most natural method was also the easiest for him.

On the question of the original character of the pedimental group, the Heraion at Olympia, probably the oldest Greek columnar structure known, furnishes important light. Pausanias says nothing whatever of any pedimental figures. Of course his silence does not prove that there were none; but with all the finds of acroteria, terracottas and the like, no trace of any such sculptures was discovered. The inference seems certain that the pedimental decoration, if present at all, was either of wood or of terracotta, or was merely painted on a smooth surface. The weight of authority inclines to the last view. It is held that, if artists had become accustomed to carving pedimental groups in wood, the first examples that we have in stone would not show so great inability to deal with the conditions of pedimental composition. If ever the tympanum was simply painted or filled with a group in terracotta, it is easy to see why the fashion died and why consequently we can bring forward no direct proof to-day. It was simply that only figures in the round can satisfy the requirements of a pedimental composition. The strong shadows thrown by the cornice, the distance from the spectator, and the height, must combine to confuse the lines of a scene painted on a plane surface, or even of a low relief. So soon as this was discovered and so soon as the art of sculpture found itself able to supply the want, a new period in pedimental decoration began.

Literary evidence to support this theory of the origin of pediment sculpture is not lacking. Pliny says in his Natural Page 34 History (xxxv. 156.): _Laudat_ (Varro) _et Pasitelen qui plasticen matrem caelaturæ et statuariæ sculpturaeque dixit et cum esset in omnibus his summus nihil unquam fecit antequam finxit_. Also (xxxiv. 35.): _Similitudines exprimendi quae prima fuerit origo, in ea quam plasticen Graeci vocant dici convenientius erit, etenim prior quam statuaria fuit_. In both these cases the meaning of "plasticen" is clearly working, that is, moulding, in clay. Pliny, again (xxxv. 152.), tells us of the Corinthian Butades: _Butadis inventum est rubricam addere aut ex rubra creta fingere, primusque personas tegularum extremis imbricibus inposuit, quae inter initia prostypa vocavit, postea idem ectypa fecit. hinc et fastigia templorum orta_. The phrase _hinc et fastigia templorum orla_, has been bracketed by some editors because they could not believe the fact which it stated. _Fastigia_ may from the whole connection and the Latin mean "pediments." This is quite in accord with the famous passage in Pindar,[54] attributing to the Corinthians the invention of pedimental composition. Here then we have stated approximately the conclusion which seems at least probable on other grounds, namely, that the tympanum of the pediment was originally filled with a group in terracotta, beyond doubt painted and in low relief.

[Footnote 54: _Olymp._, XIII, 21.]

But if we assume that the pedimental group could have originated in this way, we must be prepared to explain the course of its development up to the pediments of Aegina and the Parthenon, in which we find an entirely different principle, namely, the filling of these tympana with figures in the round. It is maintained by some scholars, notably by Koepp,[55] that no connection can be established between high relief and low relief, much less between statues entirely in the round and low relief. High relief follows all the principles of sculpture, while low relief may almost be considered as a branch of the painter's art. But this view seems opposed to the evidence of the facts. For there still exists a continuous series of pedimental groups, first in low relief then in high relief, and finally standing altogether free from the background, and becoming sculpture in the round. Examples in low relief are the Hydra pediment from the Acropolis and the pediment of the Page 35 Megarian Treasury at Olympia, which, on artistic grounds, can be set down as the two earliest now in existence. Then follow, in order of time and development, the Triton and Typhon pediments, in high relief, from the Acropolis; and after these the idea of relief is lost, and the pediment becomes merely a space destined to be adorned with statuary. Can we reasonably believe that the Hydra and Triton pediments, standing side by side on the Acropolis, so close to each other in time and in technic, owe their origin to entirely different motives, merely for the reason that the figures of one stand further out from the background than those of the other? Is it not easier to suppose that the higher reliefs, as they follow the older low reliefs in time, are developed from them, than to assume that just at the dividing-line a new principle came into operation?

[Footnote 55: _Jahrbuch deutschen archäol. Instituts_, II, 118.]