STOP
Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World
This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world by JSTOR.
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.
We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.
Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early-
journal-content .
JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.
REVIEWS AND' BOOK NOTICES. 329
Professor Huelsen will present us with a complete topography,
aus einem Gusse, whose maps and other accompaniments will be
worthy of the words of him who more than any living man has
advanced the knowledge of the topography of ancient Rome.
Rome, April, 1907. JESSE BENEDICT CARTER.
Aegina. Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. Unter Mitwirkung von
Ernst R. Fiechter und Hermann Thiersch herausgegeben
von Adolf Furtwangler, mit 130 Tafeln, 1 Karte, 6
Beilagen und 413 Abbildungen im Text. Munchen, 1906.
2 vols. 4°. Pp. IX, 504.
Among recent archaeological publications this monumental
work holds properly a high rank. The treatment of the subject
is thorough, and the technical execution, both of text and plates,
is excellent. Its appearance so soon after the conclusion of the
excavations deserves much commendation and makes the reader
lenient in criticism of the many misprints and errors of reference.
The lack of an index is less easy to pardon. According to
the division of labor among the authors, Fiechter contributes
the chapter on architecture, Thiersch has charge of the pottery,
bronzes and other smaller finds, while Furtwangler writes the
important chapters on the name and sculpture of the sanctuary.
Since the announcements of discoveries, which were published
from time to time in the course of the excavations, the name of
Aphaia in connection with this temple has become familiar, but
a full presentation of the question appears now for the first time.
In regard to the deities formerly associated with the sanctuary,
mention is made of the recovery of the forged inscription on
which rested Cockerell's theory in favor of Zeus Panhellenios,
who is thereupon dismissed; but the claims of Athena are dis-
cussed at considerable length. Since the time of Ross she has
been regarded generally as the Goddess of the temple from the
witness of several boundary stones with the inscription Spot
tc/xcvovs 'A.3r/vaias, but Furtwangler shows that only one of these
stones was found in situ far from the temple and close to the
town, while the same inscription is cut in the living rock in
a valley on the southern point of the island at the farthest
possible distance from the temple. So he is undoubtedly right
in declaring that these inscriptions can have no reference to any
temple of Athena, but probably come from the time of the
Peloponnesian war when the Athenians, after expelling the
Aeginetans and settling their island, devoted certain portions of
land to their Goddess.
But it is not justifiable to argue against Athena on the ground
that as the patron of Athens she was the foe of Aegina. Such an
330
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
idea is wholly foreign to the polytheistic religion of the Greeks,
who could afford to scorn no God, and in fact indulged in a
practice just the opposite of that suggested. Cp. the famous
instance in II. VI 297 ff. The enmity between Athens and
Aegina was not primaeval, but merely the result of mercantile
rivalry beginning in the early sixth century. There is no a priori
reason why the Aeginetans should not have worshipped Athena
ages before that date. There is further not the slightest proof that
they regarded her as a foe, but on the contrary we find her
mentioned as their friend by Pindar, N. VII 143. The next
point against Athena which rests on the silence of Pausanias is
hardly more convincing if we remember that such omissions in
Pausanias are not rare and that the temple was deserted in
Roman times. But Pausanias does in fact mention a sanctuary
of Aphaia which he locates on the way to the mountain of Zeus
Panhellenios. This description does not fit the position of the
present temple, and Furtwangler's suggestion that these two were
the only sites worth seeing in the interior of the island and that
one therefore was on the way to the other from the visitor's point
of view is of course pure assumption. The next argument in
favor of Aphaia is startling and shows that the author is willing
to resort to extreme measures in order to support his case. In
Herodotos III 59 where reference is made to the dedication of
certain captured prows es to iphv rr)t 'AdipcuV if Aiyivn he believes
that 'Afalqc should be substituted for 'Afyyuiy on no other ground
apparently than that such a sanctuary of Athena in Aegina is
irreconcilable with his theory. These arguments are uncon-
vincing, and Aphaia would not be considered in the matter were
it not for the testimony of the inscriptions. In all only eleven
were found in the sanctuary, on two of which the name Aphaia
is fully preserved, while two others give it in part. The most
important is the great archaic inscription which reads : "In the
priesthood of Kleoitas the house (ot/cos) and the altar were built
for Aphaia, the ivory was added and the precinct constructed".
This is strong evidence, and yet the arguments for Athena have
not been silenced and no word has been said about the statues of
Athena found in the precinct. The matter is not yet satisfac-
torily settled.
We come next to Fiechter's admirable chapter on the archi-
tecture of the sanctuary which discusses the measurements and
proportions of the earlier buildings as well as those belonging
to the fifth century. Particularly instructive are the comparative
tables which show at a glance the relation of the present temple
to various others of the Doric order in their architectural prop-
erties. In this way it is proved that the date of the temple falls
between that of the Athenian treasury at Delphi (510-490) and
that of the Zeus temple at Olympia (470-457), while the degree
of relationship shows that it is nearer to the former than the
latter, a view which is substantiated by the style of the sculpture.
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
331
Very ingenious is Fiechter's explanation of the fact that all the
columns of the peristasis are monoliths with the exception of
three on the north side. Here was the best approach for the
conveyance of the massive architectural members, and therefore
the great monoliths were placed on the stylobate, and the cella
walls were raised to an equal height before the opening on the
north was closed. As there was no longer room for handling
monoliths the final columns were constructed of drums. Another
interesting detail of the building is the presence of a door in the
west cella wall connecting the temple hall proper with the opistho-
domos, where there is a stone table which would indicate that the
opisthodomos was also used for sacrificial purposes. On the
cella floor were found marks of the basis of the cult statue,
which show that it was a small and probably seated figure, but
give no further clue toward its identification. As no piece of the
metopes was found, it is reasonable to accept the view that they
were constructed of wood.
The heart of the book is devoted to the" treatment of the
sculpture which was the primary cause which led to the present
excavations whose most conspicuous success rests on the light
thrown by the new fragments on the existing groups. Beside
the pieces of sculpture a few blocks of the floor of the pediment
were found, which show the marks where the plinths of the
statues were placed and thus furnish important evidence for the
new arrangement. Furtwangler begins the chapter with a brief
sketch of the history of the marbles referring to his Beschreibung
der Glyptothek in Munich (1900) for all details. They were
discovered by Cockerell and von Haller in i8n,and through
a misunderstanding on the part of the English, were purchased
by Bavaria, and after restorations had been made by Thorwaldsen
were deposited at Munich in 1828. The new reconstruction rests
on the recent discoveries, on the original notes of Cockerell and
von Haller, and on a close study of the weathering of the marble.
Its most important element is the determination of the position of
a group of combatants on either side of Athena instead of the group
in the centre which has hitherto been assumed as fixed. The dis-
covery under the south half of the west pediment of a right hand
holding a stone which lies on a block is an indication of the presence
of a fourth fallen man in that pediment. This is further supported
by the marks in a block of the pedimental geison of the west
front which show a compact group of three persons, two facing
each other over a third between. And finally, the necessary four
combatants are supplied by the observation that the head on
a fallen figure in the Glyptothek has a helmet with an ancient
cutting at the top in proof that it belonged to a figure standing
under the right slope of the pediment roof and that it was turned
to the left. The warrior preserved, who is rightly turned to the
left, as the weathering shows, has his original head ; and
hence there were two combatants turned to the left who demand
332
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
two opponents. Thus this grouping is well attested for the west
pediment and while, as Furtwangler says, a similar arrangement
is probable for the east, there is slight evidence for it.
Of the other figures in the west pediment there is a shifting of
position in the case of each pair. Those in the corners exchange
places because immediately under the south corner a right lower
leg was found and identified as the piece missing from the figure
in the Glyptothek which has always been placed in the opposite
end. The new position agrees with Cockerell's original drawing
which was made at the time and based on the place of discovery.
The position of the next figure is fixed on the north side since a
piece of the left leg and the left arm were found under that end
and it was thus placed by Cockerell. The upright combatant is
moved from the right to the left side and the bowmen exchange
places on the witness of Cockerell alone. In the case of the bow-
men the weathering proves that they were headed toward the
corners, while those in the east pediment are shown in the earliest
sketches as facing the centre. Again on the testimony of
Cockerell the corner men in the east have their feet toward the
corner, and the so-called " Zugreifender " in each case occupies the
third place from Athena.
Such in outline is the new reconstruction which is final as far as
it is based on facts though it may be doubted if it is legitimate to
lay so much weight on the position reported by Cockerell. The
main difference between the pediments is that there are two dis-
tinct groups on either side of Athena in the west in contrast to
the single group in the east. The arrangement in the west is well
supported and fairly satisfactory but in the east it rests chiefly on
theory and is not convincing in all details. In the general style
and execution of the individual figures the west pediment is more
archaic than the east, which leads Furtwangler to the belief that
the sculptures are the work of two different artists.
In addition to these works the new excavations have brought
out the remarkable fact that the sanctuary contained another series
of sculptures showing the hand of several other artists. Thirty -
eight fragments were found on the east terrace of the precinct
which indicate that there were other warriors very similar to
those in the pediments in style, size, plan and conception, which
yet could not have been in the pediments. There were found
also pieces belonging to a third Athena and fragments of a third
akroterion. As there is no building to which they could belong
Furtwangler maintains that they were made in competition with
those finally accepted for the temple and later bought and dedi-
cated in the sanctuary, where there are great foundations on
either side of the altar. This is a startling idea and it is hardly a
comfortable parallel to refer to the Amazon statues boueht after
competition by the fabulously wealthy sanctuary of the Ephesian
Artemis. Beside a slight difference in style the fragments are
too numerous to be assigned to the pedimental groups, but there
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 333
is no proof to support the theory suggested. Further it is clear
that in the position he selects the author himself furnishes an
argument against the Aphaia theory, for no self-respecting God-
dess would allow a hostile Athena to stand directly over her altar.
On the interpretation of the sculpture and the meaning of the
groups the traditional view has been largely followed. Apart from
the central figure in each group, Athena, the only member that can
be identified is Herakles in the east pediment, who, though without
the lion's skin, wears its head on his helmet. The statement that
this representation of Herakles and a similar figure on a metope
of the Athenian treasury at Delphi are the only examples of such
representation in the whole realm of ancient art is distinctly
extravagant in view of the vase at Bonn and the other instances
cited by Korte (Arch. Jahrb. VII, p. 68 and VIII Arch. Anz.,
p. 199), which at least leave the question an open one. A new
interpretation is given to the so-called " Zugreifender". The dis-
covery of his original arm which held a helmet and was raised at
a different angle to the body, together with an examination of the
evidence literary and monumental, has led Furtw'angler to the
conclusion that these figures are not there to seize the fallen body
but are squires (vwriperai), bearing the extra weapons of the master.
But as the group arrangement of the east pediment is based only
on theory any attempt to explain this puzzling figure seems futile.
Athena, the dominating figure in each group, is declared by the
author to have no relation to the temple but to be present only
as the Goddess of battle (p. 310). This is surprising when taken
in connection with the description of her as the foe of Aegina
and inconsistent with the custom of representing the deity in the
sculpture which was followed without exception in temples of the
fifth century as far as our limited knowledge goes (see A. J. A.
VIII, p. 18 ff.). If Furtwangler's arguments are sound, Athena is
the most inappropriate deity that could have been placed in these
pediments.
In his discussion of the position of the sculptures in the history
of art our author is very successful, and we have interesting and
instructive chapters on the development of pedimental sculpture
in general, which our modern artists might study with much profit,
the relation of the Aegina works to the vase paintings and their
close connection with the Samian school of art. This last point
is emphasized in an effort to prove that there was a school of
marble sculpture in Aegina which was strongly influenced by the
Samian artists. But it is remarkable that no word is said of the
unmistakable signs of bronze influence on the statues themselves
in view of the bronze tradition for which the island is famous.
The painting of the sculpture is treated at some length but
without satisfactory result. From the few traces of color which
remain Furtw'angler argues that only two colors, red and blue, were
used with perhaps the merest touch of gold for occasional contrast
on a blue ground. As the works on the Akropolis show green and
334
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
yellow this does not seem very probable, but the theory is not as
shocking as are the shades of red and blue which are selected.
The whole matter is of course largely subjective and allowance
must be made for the difficulty of reproducing on plates the
colors of the models, but still the result is inconceivably harsh.
Perhaps the most distressing detail is the Athena of the east
pediment. Here Furtwangler in defiance of accepted theory and
precedent paints the linen Ionian himation a single color, deep
red, because there was found a small fragment of the lower edge
of the back of the garment that was painted red. The author
passes lightly over the aversion of the Greeks to paint completely
large surfaces of their Parian marble and is little troubled by the
fact that no Akropolis maiden shows any such himation, but rests
his case on the parallel with the Apollo in Olympia whose mantle
is painted red. This fact is mentioned several times, but it seems
strange to compare the bit of color on the Apollo which was
added only to break the glare of the marble with the great mass
of Athena's garment. Further, there is too great a contrast be-
tween this figure and all the other female figures on the temple
to whom are given garments painted like those of the Akropolis
maidens in borders and rosettes. No one will disagree with Furt-
wangler in his declaration (p. 304) of the great need that is now
felt for a satisfactory work on polychromy in Greek sculpture.
Among the briefer chapters, contributed by Thiersch, those on
bronzes and on vases must be mentioned on account of their im-
portance and the excellent way in which they are treated.
Because of the division of labor it is inevitable that there should
be some disagreement among the authors which makes some
passages inconsistent with others. So, for example, we read in
the last chapter (p. 4go) that a view expressed by Fiechter in the
early part of the work is false. Now Thiersch, agreeing with the
common belief that there was a famous bronze school in Aegina,
is surprised that no large bronzes and few small images even
were found in the sanctuary. This fact leads him to the conclu-
sion that it was an "armliches Landheiligtum", a view which is
hard to reconcile with Furtwangler's description of a great national
sanctuary in which captured prows would be dedicated and
treasure stored, and which could buy numerous pedimental
statues not needed for the temple. Most of the bronzes found
are articles for personal use and adornment, such as rings, pins,
mirrors, knives, nails, etc., and of these by far the largest group is
that of the pins used for fastening garments. This has led
Thiersch to give a sketch of the history of the use of these pins
from the early type of the straight stick pin to its gradual devel-
opment into the fibula. It is an important study, but there is
one point which should be criticised. Thiersch advances
the theory that these pins were not dedicated alone but
together with the garments in which they were used. But
Herodotos (V 88) says that Aeginetan women dedicated chiefly
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
33S
clothing pins to a particular sanctuary after the Athenian women
had stabbed to death the sole survivor of the Aeginetan expedi-
tion, and there is a verification of this in the inventory of the
treasure of the temple of Mnia and Auzesia which mentions over
three hundred pins and then states that a few (thirteen in all) were
dedicated on the garments. There is no reason for assuming a
greater proportion in the case of other sanctuaries.
The chapter on vases is little more than a catalogue, as Furt-
wangler reserves the material for his own use in reconstructing
the history of the sanctuary. They begin with the late Myce-
naean period, ca. 1200, and practically cease with the Attic ware.
The large number of groups represented is proof of the great
mercantile activity of the people of the island. One point that
should be mentioned, on which there is again a difference of
opinion between Furtw'angler and Thiersch, is in regard to the
home of the Proto-Corinthian class. Both of the authors reject
Professor Hoppin's theory expressed in the Argive Heraeum and
Thiersch thinks that Aegina itself as well as Sikyon may be
suggested as the place. The claims of Aegina, however, are
denied by Furtw'angler in his concluding chapter, who believes
with Dragendorff that the greatest evidence now is in favor of
Sikyon. But cp. A. J. P. XXVI, p. 465.
The last chapter, the history of the sanctuary by Furtw'angler,
is to some extent a summary of what has preceded. Worship
on the site was begun about 1200 B. c. but no building of any
kind was erected until the second half of the seventh century.
This temple was superseded by a larger one in the first third of
the sixth century which was burned perhaps by the Persians, and
the great new building was constructed between 490 and 480.
The cult declined rapidly in the Hellenistic age and in Roman
times the sanctuary was totally deserted. This is an interesting
section and a notable illustration of the information that can be
gleaned by the expert from a careful excavation and exact study
of successive deposits of pottery, of innumerable dedications and
of architectural remains.
The book is the complete final publication of an archaeological
unit, and in spite of some points that are open to criticism, is a
brilliant and inspiring work of the highest value not only to artists
and archaeologists but to all students of classical antiquity.
T. L. Shear.
Barnard College.
