|
The Gigantomachy from the Pediment of the Ancient Temple of Athena on the Acropolis.
[Ath.Mitt. XXII 1897 pp.59-112]
In
the course of the past year (1895) in the Acropolis Museum in Athens a
monument of Old Attic sculpture was resurrected, which, almost
hopelessly shattered, had to wait longer than the other finds from the
Persian rubble to be restored: the Gigantomachy from the gable of the
old Athena temple. Despite major gaps, and despite the disfiguring
damage, this work impressively brings to mind the height that Attic
monumental art had already reached before the Persian wars, and most
welcomely complements the series of archaic individual works that have
come to light from the Persian rubble.
Since Studniczka had
discovered the first traces of this composition with fortunate
perspicacity in 1886, numerous new fragments had been added by the
final excavations of the Greek Archaeological Society at the castle.
The ordering and assembling of what was there, long begun, was
completed in the autumn of last year under the energetic care of the
General Ephorus of Greek Antiquities, Mr. Kavvadias. If Mr. Kavvadias
deserves general thanks for this, I also owe him a special personal thank
you for the liberality with which he allowed me to study the fragments
in detail, to monitor their composition and to publish my observations
and conclusions here. During the work I received the most gracious
support from the Ephoros of the Acropolis, Mr. Kastriotis.
[p.60)
The fragments of the Gigantomachy are scattered almost all over the
Acropolis, but have all been found in layers of rubble from the 5th
century; some in the backfill of the eastern half of the ring of walls,
most in the large heap between the south-east corner of the Parthenon
and the southern wall, or in the masses of rubble that were raised at
the same time as the southern foundation of the Parthenon, i.e. in the
actual Persian rubble. In the first-mentioned find area, in the
southeast corner of the castle, the head of Athena came to light as
early as 1864, during basic excavations for the construction of a
museum, together with the calf-bearer and some other archaic sculptures
[1].
In second place in 1882, along with
many others, was the piece that gave Studniczka the impetus for his
momentous discovery: the left shoulder of Athena covered with the
aegis, to which he attached the long-known and admired head of the war-like advancing goddess [2]. The number of fragments
assembled by Studniczka at that time of Athena as well as of several
strongly moved naked warriors - gods or giants - was significantly
increased by the further diggings at the same place [3], and finally
the Persian rubble provided a number of fragments and thus the proof -
if it was still needed - of the pre-Persian origin of the group. Far
removed from the head, Athena's lower right leg and many pieces of her
robe were found here [4].
The preservation of the fragments is
as excellent as that of the other sculptures originating from the
Persian rubble: hardly one or the other piece shows traces of
weathering, most of them had fresh (p.61) colors when they came out of
the earth, these are not completely extinguished even now. Few have
suffered from fire.
Finding the fragments of the pediment from
the mass of Archaic marble fragments was not very difficult, once the
important scale of the figures and the magnificent decorative work had
become clear through the pieces assembled by Studniczka. The material,
too, a coarse-grained, often blue-stained marble that tended to break
up in layers, gave an easily recognizable feature. So many fragments
were recognized right away during the excavations, others later, when
the fragments were arranged in the extension of the Acropolis Museum,
especially through the efforts of B. Sauer. A new careful examination
of the numerous fragments kept in the castle, which I undertook,
yielded only a small gleaning.
The merging of the rubble had
already been started here and there; here, too, B. Sauer made a special
contribution. Despite all this, the work didn't seem very promising at
first. If one remembered the enormous dimensions of the gable - about
20 m in length, 2 1/2 m in height - and then looked at this moderately
large heap of smashed limbs and almost unrecognizable large and small
chunks, one could scarcely imagine that something coherent could emerge
from it. As the work progressed, however, the fragments were gradually
distributed among a few figures and, with arduous attempts back and
forth, four figures grew together, into which the fragments merged
except for a small remainder.
The difficult and laborious
attachment of the fragments to one another is the work of the excellent
marble worker of the museum, P. Kaludis, who was so well proven in the
reconstruction of the poros groups of the Acropolis. The sculptor
Vitalis was called in to complete the figures, which was naturally
limited to a few parts necessary for their cohesion.
I. Description of the remains.
1. Athena (cf.
plate 3). The fragments of Athena are arranged in two large, connected
masses, which are only a few centimeters apart, but in such a way that
the posture of the whole figure is secured.
Plate III: Figures of Athena and giant, from pediment of the old temple of Athena.
The large fragment found in 1888 had long been attached
to the head and the left shoulder, which was covered with the aegi. A
wedge-shaped piece pushed into the gap between the two shoulder pieces
[5], which reveals the wide belt and above it the hem of the outer
garment. Two richly pleated corners of this garment, which fall below
the knee and which apparently correspond to the usual sloping coat of
the Archaic Koren in the castle, could be attached at the front [6]. At
the back was the part of the right gluteus already known to Studniczka
(No. 4 in his case), from which the position of the far receding right
thigh resulted
The second group of fragments is illustrated in
figs.1 and 2 in front and rear views. The fragment of the right
lower leg completes another one to the right, which belongs to the robe
hanging down between the striding legs. In front one sees the typical
wide central fold painted with a rich, now almost extinct meander, to
the left and right of it flat incised fold strokes, which converge
upwards towards the girdle (p.63). The back is treated much more
simply; in the flat surface roughly parallel to the front, some folds
are indicated by indented furrows of triangular cross-section. Four of
them, the extreme left ones, intersect at an acute angle with the rest,
apparently descending from the belt; they must emanate from the far
protruding left thigh.
Figs.1 and 2: Fragments of right lower leg of Athena.
The
position of the right lower leg is now given by the piece of the plinth
preserved under the foot; the piece of robe must be immediately on the
right because the thickness is exactly the same. How high it was to be
mounted was shown by the consideration that only a little is missing
under the large central bar on the front, so that the piece is probably
broken off just above the plinth. By placing it at the appropriate
height and matching the folds on both sides with those obtained on the
thigh, the fractures were made to fit exactly over a distance of 8 cm.
This was the connection between the upper part of the figure and the
lower one. For the continuation of the central fold upwards is
preserved on the cloak hanging down from the right breast, and the
breaks fit together for a short distance, but completely sharply. The
whole now reaches the stately height of 2m (without the 10-12 cm high
plinth). The left leg is unfortunately completely lost and had to be
supplemented as well as possible; his preserved attachment to the
gluteus and the hollow of the knee offered some clues for the (p.64)
production of the right thigh.
The overall impression of the
figure, as it now stands there, seems to me to confirm the correctness
of the composition and every examination of the individual leads to the
same result. Suffice it to say that the fold lines preserved on the
right gluteus merge perfectly with those on the back of the right lower
leg, and that the rivulets of rain-dissolved paint on the back of the
aegis are exactly vertical, as might be expected.
Unfortunately,
there is no new material available to supplement the arms. This much is
certain, that the right arm was raised high, the upper left arm greatly
lowered, and from the curvature of the aegis in the lowest surviving
piece it follows that the lower left arm stretched forward, not
sideways. After that, the position of the surviving left hand can be
determined roughly as assumed in the supplement. In any case, the staff
that the fingers enclose had a vertical direction; only by holding the
fist in this way can it be explained that the aegis hangs parallel on
the outside and inside of the hand. This is important for the
assessment of that staff, which is preserved in a short approach below
on the hand, above which was evidently made of bronze, as a large
borehole with verdigris spots on the edge teaches. Studniczka was
inclined to supplement this staff as a lance and found two
possibilities for explaining the striking phenomenon of Athena grasping
a spear with her left hand (p. 189): 'either the goddess snatched her
with her right hand swung her own weapon, with the other her opponent's
his, or she bore her spear into his body with both hands.' The first
assumption is contradicted by the position of the left hand, which
grips the staff but does not pull on it, the second by the strong
lifting of the right arm, clearly recognizable on the shoulder piece,
which can in no way be associated with the staff (p.65).
Moreover,
both assumptions leave unexplained why the thick seam of the aegis,
which is clearly expressed on the outside and inside of the hand, is
worked off on top of the fist. The reason for this cannot be that this
part was not visible; the whole back of the figure is less fine, but
executed in the same way as the front, e.g. B. at the tedious and
intricate snake hem. Apparently one wanted to use this flattening to
create a support for an object connected to the rod. This speaks
clearly for the third possibility cited by Studniczka, that Athena was
holding onto her opponent's crest, as is often the case in vase
paintings [7]. The rod then means the high tube, which regularly
carries the metal crest with the bush in Attic helmets. Athena grasps
the tube, the crest resting on her fist. In her right hand the lance is
of course to be thought of: with a mighty stride she pierces the one in
front of her collapsed giant, grabs him tightly by the helmet and
plunges the lance into his chest. For the time being, the giant placed
in front of Athena may serve to complete the group, even if its
affiliation with Athena can only be proven later.
Although the
movement of Athena is thus clear, as a glance at Plate 3 shows, large
gaps remain and it should not come as a surprise that some pieces that
probably belonged to it could not be adapted. They are the following:
1.
From the back of the lower body. The flat surface shows three lines of
folds of similar work to those visible in fig. inventory no. 4199.
Height 27 cm, width 25 cm, thickness 15 cm.
2. From the right thigh:
a)
A piece just below the gluteus, with a fold line similar to those on
the lower leg. The obtained surface measures 17:6 cm, thickness 25 cm.
(p.66)
b) A little above the knee, with a similar crease. Height 12 cm, Width 19 cm.
3. Three pieces from the Aegis:
a)
The piece illustrated by Studniczka under No. 3, which, as he states on
p. 189, comes from the forearm, near the left hand; 13cm long.
b) A piece of the edge of the part hanging down at the back, 26 cm high, 10 cm wide (mentioned by Studniczka loc. a. 0.).
c) A piece of snake fringe, 12 cm long, with a snake head of particularly delicate and lively modelling.
Perhaps
the small remnant of a right hand, which held a weapon embedded in a
drill hole about 2.5 cm wide, can also be counted as part of Athena.
Only the beginnings of the index and middle fingers have survived,
which seem to match the masses on Athena's left hand.
The
colored decoration that she once wore is still missing from the picture
of Athena just obtained. Fortunately, enough traces of painting and
metal ornaments have been preserved to show how magnificently and
cheerfully the artist decorated the goddess.
Fig.3: fragment of border design.
The
scheme of that border is shown in fig.3. The (p.67) dark streaks show
the green, presumably resulting from oxidation of blue copper paint;
the filling of the rectangles has disappeared except for traces of red,
the spikes with blue dots at the top have almost completely
disappeared. The pattern of the meander can also no longer be traced in
detail; In any case, it was very artificial, as in the figure
reproduced in color in the antique monuments I plate 39 (Collignon, Histoire de La sculpture grecque I plate 1) (Acropolis Museum No. 682). I didn't notice any scatter patterns like those on this and other figures.
The
color of Athena's weapons is more closely related. The aegis, which,
thrown on the left arm, runs diagonally across the chest in a rather
narrow stripe, while at the back it once hung down to the knee, is
painted with scales inside and out, in such a way that rows of red and
blue alternate with colorless ones. A snake's body grows out between
each two semicircular sections of the edge, which bends back towards
the edge in the shape of an S, so that the neck and head lie on the
body of the neighboring snake. A wide blue stripe accompanies this
curved border and also marks the backs of the snakes, whose finely
modeled heads are animated with red lines and dots.
Remnants of
the blue paint on the helmet were still present when it was found [8].
In any case, it did not have a bronze coating, as can be seen from the
drill holes in the report of the Bullettino del'Instituto
1864, p. 85, which goes back to communications from Pervanoglu and
Decharme and has since been adopted more often [9]. It has not been
taken into account that the entire surface of the helmet is worked just
as smoothly (p.68) as that of the visible parts of the figure and that
the "Stephane" running around the helmet shows traces of bronze
decorations placed on the marble, wol gilded rosettes, namely 18
boreholes, several of which are surrounded by a slightly indented
circular area of 2.5 cm in diameter.
The two remains of
verdigris, which stick to the helmet in front and behind just above the
"stephane", are not the remains of a bronze coating, but are the result
of rust dripping off the bronze helmet crest. This was inserted into
the large square hole on the swivel; the bush hung very low: two
boreholes in the middle of the forehead, 20 cm below the rim of the
helmet, served to fasten it. Painting and gilding were certainly used
extensively on the crest and bush.
As on the helmet, the traces
of paint on the head have also disappeared, since the piece was set up
outdoors for a long time. Apparently it was painted in the usual way on
his lips, eyes and hair. The remains of the torso prove the hair: on
each breast four long, wavy locks of red color spread out, on the left
on the colorful background of the aegis, on the right on the white of
the robe. A broad red tuft falls on the nape of the neck.
Traces
of the jewelry usual on female figures of this time are not missing.
The earlobe disappears under a disc on which the circular ear ornament
was once attached in two holes drilled diagonally from the center into
the marble. Above the neckline of the Aegis, which is not shown
plastically but only in colour, there is a drilled hole on the left and
right of the shoulder curls, apparently intended for the attachment of
a necklace.
So magnificently dressed the goddess strides along:
in a bright robe resplendent with colored braids, in the colorful
aegis, towered over by the mighty crest radiant with gold and colors,
she herself radiates with healing, glad of the fight that is her
element.
(p.69) There is still a need to describe some of the
technical devices that seem to have been used to set up the figure in
the gable.
At the lower depression of the wide central fold of
the robe (fig.1 at a) there is a shallow square indentation of 10 x 7.5
cm, which must originate from a deep hole drilled from below through
the plinth into the figure. Mounted right in the middle of the figure,
it apparently served to anchor it in the gable floor. On the same
fragment, the right half of the central fold has been roughly worked
off with a pointed iron, up to a height of 40 cm, and on the left edge
of the break a similar work is aimed at 25 cm far up. One would like to
assume that both were made to push the opponent who has fallen at
Athena's feet close to her, but precisely these places are not touched
by the giant now positioned in front of her, whose affiliation can only
be proven later. So I can't give a definite explanation for this, any
more than for a round hole between 7 and 9 cm wide, which was driven
through the robe just above the plinth next to the right foot (cf.
fig.1 and 2 at b). It doesn't go through in a straight line because
you've worked in from the front and back at a slant downwards. Only
doubtfully do I express the assumption that it was made for the purpose
which it has now served again when the figure is set up on the base,
namely to pull the ropes through for winding up. One might want to
avoid letting these go under the base as they would be difficult to
remove later. The hole was of course covered by the giant in front of
it, which is also not visible in the current setup.
2. Athena's adversary
(cf. Plates 3 and 4). Studniczka had identified the fragments of the
giant to be grouped with Athena according to an external feature, the
red and blue color spots, which he noticed particularly numerous on a
group of fragments [p.70) of a naked man and as traces of the red and
blue scales Aegis paint washed away by the rain explained (p. 191). The
connection between these fragments and the movement of the figure
assumed by Studniczka has been ensured through the assembly; however,
that shrewd and captivating interpretation of the patches of color
proved to be deceptive when the figures were set up, and thus the only
external evidence that the figure belonged to Athena was lost. Since
the inner reasons for this can only be explained when considering the
whole composition, we will for the time being completely disregard the
relationship of the figure to Athena.
Plate 4: Rear view of the figure of a giant, grouped with Athena in Plate 3.
Now
the connection is established between this leg and the large piece of
the body (No. 9), 'which starts at the top with the lower edge of the
chest muscles and reaches about the middle of the abdomen'. The gap is
filled by a fragment showing the small of the back, most of the right
gluteus and just the beginning of the right thigh.
The gap
between the right lower leg and the right foot (No. 11) has also been
closed by a piece encompassing the heel and both ankles. The foot,
although stretched downwards, sticks to the ground only with the heel;
the sole is freely worked. A remnant of the plinth has been preserved
on the heel, which made it possible to find the position of the body on
the plinth. All that was needed was the small missing piece of the
right gluteus. on which the body rested and to lead the surface of the
plinth from there to the heel. The shape of the remains of the plinth
(p.71), like the lowering of the right foot, required the plinth to
slope from the center to the edge, as is also the case with these
figures.
The foot was attached in a very odd way, probably
having broken off during the work itself. The raw preparation of the
sole, which was only detached from the plinth with a few blows with a
chisel, shows that it was not executed on its own, but on the figure. A
piece of marble remained after the pickaxe, which Studniczka
misinterpreted as the remains of a tenon embedded in the base (p.191).
The leg is cut off where the instep attaches, roughly perpendicular to
the surface of the plinth, and numerous roughly horizontal, slightly
converging grooves are cut into the cut surface with a drill. Similar
ones are also found on the cut surface of the foot, but only toward its
outside. The rest is roughly picked and it turned out, when you put
your foot on it, that there was a wide gap between the heel and the
foot on its inside. Presumably the original intention of fixing the
foot with a thin layer of putty embedded in the grooves was later
abandoned and some marble was worked on at the foot in order to use
more putty. The purpose of a 2.5 cm deep drill hole in the middle of
the cut surface of the foot is not clear. There is nothing similar on
the leg.
For the production of the left leg, the part of the
lower leg known only to Studniczka (No. 12) was followed by its upper
continuation up to the knee, and not directly adapting it, but
certainly belonging to the foot after measurements and movement. A
piece from the middle of the thigh could most likely be added [10]. The
remains of the plinth, also preserved here on the heel, determined the
movement of the lower leg and thus that of the whole (p.72) leg, which,
slightly bent, only touched the ground with the heel.
The thigh
together with the knee was made up with the help of that remnant, and
the part of the body missing up to the large fragment of the upper body
(No. 9) was also filled in.
The production of the chest and
shoulders turned out to be unexpectedly fortunate. They could be
reassembled from a large number of fragments so that what little was
missing could certainly be added [11]. Only small gaps remained on the
back. The impression of the powerful, strongly twisted body is hardly
affected by these minor defects. The head and neck are unfortunately
completely lost, but one can still see from the fall of the long mane
of wavy strands of hair flowing down the back that the head was lowered
and slightly turned to the right (cf. the rear view on plate 4).
Most
gratifyingly, however, is that the magnificent right arm (No. 6), which
has always aroused admiration, fits the shoulder a little but perfectly
securely. He is not raised to defend himself, but sinks powerlessly,
similar to the way the head bows wearily instead of turning towards the
opponent. The missing hand was apparently holding a sword; it was
supported by a square piece of marble, the base of which survives a
stretch below the center of the chest. The stump of the lost left arm
is raised so high that the hand cannot have been on the ground.
p.73)
No doubt that the giant supported itself with the shield. A drill hole
on the left shoulder blade, already in the hair, in the middle of an
elevation of the marble that is now almost completely broken away, must
have served to fasten the shield rather than to attach the end of the
crest. The hole is cut by a second, thinner drill hole, which is made
at a slight angle from top to bottom in the surface of the back. It was
probably used to pour in the lead.
So there is hardly anything
left in doubt about the movement of the figure; Above all, what is
particularly striking about it is the violent rotation of the upper
body in the front view, completely secure, since the artist only
succeeded in this movement in the general plan. the addition of the
lower abdomen and left thigh had to forgo coming close to the original
and be content to close an unbearable gap as inconspicuously as
possible.
The position of her left hand was decisive for the
positioning of the giant in front of Athena, which was to be justified
later. He had to be positioned in such a way that the vertebrae reached
just under the helmet tube in that hand. Of course, with the loss of
Athena's left arm and the giant's head, only an approximation of
certainty could be attained, which, if I am not mistaken, is helped by
the group's favorable impression. The entire posture of Athena, the
strong bending of the upper body, the tilt of the head, the direction
of the gaze, everything is natural with the opponent in this position
close to her feet.
In any case, it is impossible to get the
giant's legs under the aegis in such a way that, as Studniczka assumed,
those spots of paint could have dripped off it.
Another
explanation for this is also suggested by the fact that, according to
Studniczka (p. 195), similar stains were also present on a right calf,
which can be assigned to the left corner figure of the gable.
(p.74)
Since this figure demonstrably only had the ascending geison above it,
the assumption is that it was the Sima, painted with a blue and red
pattern, which, with a suitable wind, caused the rain of colors to fall
on the parts that came closest to the outer edge who sent down figures.
3. The right corner figure.
It is permissible to take this designation in advance for the figure
reproduced in fig.4, since the first glance shows that this figure is
composed for the right gable corner.
Fig.4: Drawing of figure of a giant in the right corner of the pediment..
Little
has been added to the large fragments compiled by Studniczka under No.
5, but a renewed examination of those fragments has taught us that the
movement of the figure is to be understood differently than Studniczka
had assumed at the time, and some new fragments have suited this
picture admirably inserted. Just enough of the right thigh is preserved
to show that the legs are spread too far apart to belong, as Studniczka
thought, to a striding figure (p. 193; cf. Fig.5 b there). Rather, the
figure has fallen to the right knee and stretches the left leg
backwards [12] The direction of the limb that was added confirmed this
assumption and parts of the legs could be partly (p.75) adjusted,
partly without hesitation to complete the figure used in this sense.
Footnotes:
1. Cf. Arch. Zeitung XXII, 1864, p. 233, Bulletino del'innstituto 1864
p. 85. Several pieces found on the north wall, east of the Erechtheion are mentioned in Ath.Mitt. 1887 p.145.
2. Cf. Ath.Mitt. 1886 p. 185 ff.
3. See Ath.Mitt. 1887 p. 367. 1888 p.107.
4. Cf. Ath.Mitt. 1888 p. 225.
5.
Cf. the illustrations in Overbeck, History of Greek Sculpture I p.194, or in Collignon, Histoire de la sculpture grecque I p.376.
6. B. Sauer had already gotten that far.
7. Cf. the a. a. 0. p. 190 note 1.
8. Cf. Postolakkas, Arch. Zeitung XXII, 1864, p. 233 *. Wolters, as he tells me, was able to detect a small trace of the blue color about ten years ago.
9. Milchhöfer, Athens Museums p. 54. Philios, 'Ephemeris arche " 1883 p. 94. Studniczka loc. a. 0. p. 189.
10. The same is extended almost to the knee by a 25 cm long,
18 cm thick fragment that Th. Wiegand subsequently discovered among the
fragments piled up between the two museums.
11. A small fragment from the right breast has received a
special feature which is indicative of the care taken in the execution:
a drilled hole at the level of the right pectoral muscle, apparently
intended to accommodate the nipple, which is made of a different
material. One finds something similar on marble individual works of
earlier and later times, e.g. For example, the archaic youth torso from
the Acropolis mentioned by Kalkraann in the Institute's yearbook 1892
p. 132 note 11 has nipples of blue marble. A Bohrlorh on the right
breast of Zeus Ammon from Pergamon must have served the same purpose ( Calalogue des sculptures du Musee Imp. Ottoman No. 68). Nothing similar seems to occur in decorative works.
12. This had already been joined by B. Sauer.
[Continue to part 2]
[Return to Table of Contents]
|
|