Skip to main content

Full text of "[untitled] The American Journal of Philology, (1907-01-01), pages 329-335"

See other formats


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.