|
The Relation of the Archaic Pediment-Reliefs of the Acropolis to Vase Painting
(Article written in 1891, originally published in 1897 in Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Volume VI, 1890-1897, pp. 302-317.)
From
one point of view it is a misfortune in the study of archaeology 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
archaeology.
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. Bruckner of the German Institute (p.303) has written a
full monograph on the subject,[1] and it has also been fully treated by
Lechat in the Revue Archeologique.[2] Shorter papers have appeared in the Mittheilungen
by Studniczka [3] and P. J. Meier. [4] 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,[5] in a
fairly good state of preservation, represents Hercules in his conflict
with the Hydra, and at the left Iolaus, his charioteer, as a spectator.
Corresponding to this, is the second group,[6] with Hercules
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 [7] repeating the scene of Hercules and the
Triton, the other [8] representing the three-headed Typhon in conflict,
as supposed, with Zeus (plate 1). 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 Cimon'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.
Plate 1: The Typhon Pediment of the Acropolis (from Plate 21, Brownson 1897)
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 made by the Germans at (p.304) Olympia and
confirmed by later researches in Sicily and Magna Graecia, are of the
utmost importance.[9] In the Byzantine west wall at Olympia were found
great numbers of painted terracotta plates [10] 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 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. Dorpfeld's
demonstration [11] removes all possible doubt. Pausanias [12] tells us
that in the Hereum at Olympia there was still preserved in his day an
old wooden column. No 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.
(p.305)
In order to carry the investigation a step further Messrs. Dorpfeld,
Graber, Borrmann and Siebold undertook a journey to Gela and the
neighboring cities of Sicily and Magna Grsecia.[13] The results of this
journey were most satisfactory. Not only in Gela, but in Syracuse,
Selinus, Acrse, Croton, 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 [14] mentions such acroteria on the Stoa
Basileios on the agora of Athens. Pliny [15] 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 Heraeum at Olympia,[16] a great disk of clay over
seven feet in diameter. It forms a part, says Dr. Dorpfeld, 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 again and
(p.306) again, maeanders, palmettes, lotuses, the scale and
lattice-work patterns, the bar-and-tooth ornament, besides spirals of
all descriptions. In execution, also, the parallel is quite as close.
In the great acroterium of the Herseum, 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 ot an incidental
remark of Pausanias in his description of Olympia.
He says (v. 10.):
xxx xxx xxxx. That is, originally acroteria 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.
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,[17] 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, masander
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 [18] 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-paintingi 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.
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 bounded the pedimental space, above and below,
and finally (p.307) 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 ictures.
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
Heraeum 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 decoraion, 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 History (p.308) (xxxv. 156. j:
Lauded (Varro) et Pasitelen qui plasticen matron caclaturae et
statuariae sculptwaeque dixit et cum esset in omnibus his summits nihil
unquam fecit antequam finxit. Also (xxxiv. 35.): Similitudines
exprimendi quae prima fuerit origo, in ea quam plasticen Graeci vocant
did comerdentius 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
ereta fingere, primusque personas tegularum extremis imbricibus
inposuit, quae inter initia prostypa vocavit, posiea idem ectypa fecit,
hinc et fastigia templorum orta. The phrase hinc et fastigia temphrum
orta, 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,[19] 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.
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 [20]
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 Megarian
Treasury at Olympia, which, on artistic (p.309) 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 ?
In
the second step of the stereobate, under the great pier just mentioned,
and in a stone now lying near it, are the remains of an ancient drain
discovered by Botticher in 1862, the purpose of which has always been
more or less enigmatical. The direction of the drain is from the corner
by the porch of the Kopa. This corner was, as we have seen, probably
occupied by a building, the water from the roof of which must have run
off into the enclosed court-yard west of the Erechtheion. The drain was
probably intended merely to carry off this rain-water.
It
is a commonplace to say that sculpture in relief is only one branch of
painting. Conze [21] publishes a sepulchral monument which seems to him
to mark the first stage of growth. The surface of the figure and that
of the surrounding ground remain the same; they are separated only by a
shallow incised line. Conze says of it ; " The tracing of the outline
is no more than, and is in fact exactly the same as, the tracing
employed by the Greek vase-painter when he outlined his figure with a
brush full of black paint before he filled in with black the ground
about it." The next step naturally is to cut away the surface outside
and beyond the figures; the representation is still a picture except in
the clearer marking of the bounding-line. The entire further growth and
development of the Greek relief is in the direction of rounding these
lines and of detaching the relief more and more from the back surface.
This primitive picturesque method of treatment is found as well in high
relief as in low. How then can the process of development be different
for the two ? I quote from Friederich Wolters [22] on the metopes of
the temple of Apollo at Selinus, which are distinctly in high relief: "
The relief of these works stands very near to the origin of relief style.
The
surface of the figures is kept flat throughout, although the effort to
represent them in their full roundness is not to be (p.310)mistaken.
Only later were relief-figures rounded on the front and sides after the
manner of free figures. Originally, whether in high or in low relief,
they were flat forms, modelled for the plane surface whose ornament
they were to be." As the sculptured works were brought out further and
further from the background, this background tended to disappear. It
was no longer a distinctly marked surface on which the figures were
projected, but now higher and now lower, serving only to hold the
figures together. When this point was reached, the entire separation of
the figures from one another and from the background, became easy. That
is, the change in conception is an easy step by which the relief was lost
and free-standing figures substituted. This process of change was
especially rapid in pedimental groups, for the reason stated above. The
pediment field from its architectonic conditions was never suited to
decoration in relief. But we find from the works before us that such a
system was at least attempted, that painting and an increased
projection of relief were employed as aids. "We are bound to seek a
logical explanation of the facts and of their bearing on the later
history of art, and it is safer to assume a process of regular
development than a series of anomalous changes.
Koepp (cf.
supra), for example, assumes that these two pediments in low relief are
simply exceptions to the general rule, accounting for them by the fact
that it was difficult to work out high reliefs from the poros stone of
which they were made. He seems to forget that the higher reliefs from
the Acropolis are of the same poros.
This material in fact appears
to have been chosen by the artist because it was almost as easy to
incise and carve as the wood and clay to which he had been accustomed.
The monuments of later Greek art give no hint of a distinction to be
drawn between high and low relief. We find on the same stele figures
barely attached to the ground, and others in mere outline. If then
there are reasons for finding the origin of pedimental decoration in a
plane or low relief composition of terracotta, made more effective both
by a framing of like material and technic, and by the acroteria at
either extremity and above, then the process of development which leads
at length to the pediments at Aegina and the Parthenon becomes at once
easy and natural. We note first the change from terracotta to a low
painted relief in stone, then this relief becomes, (p.311) from the
necessities of the ease, higher and higher until finally it gives place
to free figures.
If ceramic art really did exert such an
influence on temple sculpture, we should he ahle to trace analogies in
other lines. The most interesting is found in the design and execution
of sepulchral monuments. Milehhoefer [23] 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 or sepulchral
ornament in a black-figured vase of the so-called " prothesis " class.
[24] 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 ot the fragile nature of pottery. For this reason,
too, we find no certain proof of the fact in the old tombs, though Dr.
Wolters [25] 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, [26] sometimes a surrounding
background is indicated. In many cases this back, ground 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 usual scene
of parting.
(p.312) 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 hear 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
helow. 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.
This process of
development, so far as can be judged from existing types, reaches down
to the beginning of the fourth century BC. 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 bis 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. Loeschcke [27]
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.[28]
As to
specific resemblances between the pediments of the Acropolis and vase
pictures, the subjects of all the groups are such (p.313) as appear
very frequently on vases of all periods. About seventy Attic vases are
known which deal with the contest of Hercules and Triton. One of these
is a hydria at present in the Berlin Museum, ]STo. 1906. [29] Hercules 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 Friederichs-Wolters; [30] "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 BC, 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.[31] 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 Hercules and Iolaus, 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.
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 that (p.314) 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
[32] 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 is 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 segis, 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.
[p.315] 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, whits, 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 Selinus 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
Dionysus at Athens, and representing just such a procession of satyrs
and mrenads 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 Camirus of Rhodes. Camirus 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.
Footnotes:
1 Mitth. deutsch. arch. Inst. Athen, XIV, p. 67; xv, p. 84.
2. Rev. Arch., XVH, p. 304 ; xvin, pp. 12, 137.
3. Mitth. Athen, xi, p. Gl.
4. X, pp. 237, 322. Cf. Studniczka, Jahrbuch deutsch. arch. Inst., I, p. 87; Purgold, xxxx xxxxx 1884, p. 147, 1885, p. 234.
5. Mitth. Athen, X, cut opposite p. 237; 'KQ-ruitpis, 1884, jrivaf 7.
6. Mitth. Athen, XI, Tqf. 11.
7. Idem, XV, Taf. 11.
8. Idem, XIV, Taf. 11, in.
9. I follow closely Dr. Dorpfeld's account and explanation of these discoveries in
Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, V, 30 seq. See also Programm zum Winckelmannsfeste,
Berlin, 1881 ; Ueber die Verwendung Terracotien, by Messrs. Dorpfeld, Graeber,
Borrmann, and Siebold.
10. Reproduced in Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, V, Taf. xxxiv; BaumbISTKR, Donkmaler des klassischen Altertums, Taf. xlv ; Raykt et Collignon, Histoire de la Ceramique Grecque, pi. xv.
11. Historische und philologische Aufsdlze, Ernst Curtius gewidmet, Berlin, 1884,
p. 137 seq. 13 v, 20. 6.
12.
13. Cf. supra, Programm zum Winckelmannsfesie.
14. 1, 3. 1.
15. Hist. Nat., xxxv, 158.
16. Ausgrabungcn zu Olympia, v, 35 and Taj. XXXIV.
17. Arch. Zeitung, xxix, 1872, Taf. 41; Rayet et Collignon, Hist. Ceram. Grecque, fig. 143.
18. Arch. Zeitung, 1882, Taf. 13.
19. Olymp., xni, 21.
20. Jahrbuch deutschen archaol. Inutituis, II, 118.
21. Das Relief bei den Griechen, SUzungs-Berichte der Berliner Akademie, 1882, 507.
22. Gipsabgiisxc antiker Pi/denrerkc, Nos. 149—151.
23. Mitth. Athen, V, 164.
24. Monumenti dell' List., VIII, tav. v. 1. g. h. : found near Ciipe Colias; at
present in the Polytechnic Museum at Athens.
25. Attische Giytbvasen, a paper read before the German Institute in Atbrti.-, Dec. 9, 1890.
26.
Examples are Nos. 2099 and 2100 in the archaic room of the Louvre. I
remember having seen nothing similar in any other European museum
27. Mitth. Athen, IV, 36.
28. Borrmann, Jahrbuch des Institute, nr, 274.
29. Published by Gerhard, Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder, No. Ill ; Kaybt
et Collignon, Hist. Ceram. Grecque, fig. 57, p. 125. In the National Museum at
Naples is a black-figured amphora, No. 3419, 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 Hercules' hold about his neck, while with the other
he holds a fish as attribute. Athena stands close by, watching the struggle.
30. Gipsabgiisse antikcr Bildwerke, Nos. 8-12.
31. Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Nos. 95, 96.
32. Auserlesene Vasenbilder, No. 237.
[Return to table of contents]
|
|