Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze Author(s): Jenifer Neils Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 6-20 Published by: CAA Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3051284 Accessed: 23-09-2018 21:59 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact email@example.com.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
CAA is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin
This content downloaded from 184.108.40.206 on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:59:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze Jenifer Neils
One of the greatest enigmas of classical art is the low-relief frieze executed for the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis sometime between 447 and 432 B.C.E. In spite of over two hundred years of scholarship extending as far back as the second volume ofJames Stuart and Nicholas Revett’s famous Antiquities of Athens published in 1787,1 many of the issues pertaining to the Parthenon frieze are as yet unresolved. New interpretations of the overall program and diverse identifica- tions of individual figures or groups appear regularly in the scholarly literature dealing with the frieze.2 Applications of newer methodologies from semiotics to queer theory have led to alternative readings of the relief and its iconography.3 And yet today art historians are still confounded by what has been called the best-known but least understood monument of
The reasons for the frieze’s obscurity and the attendant proliferation of interpretations are not hard to find. First, no ancient literary or epigraphic source specifically cites the frieze. Although in his second-century C.E. Guide to Greece the periegete Pausanias mentioned the subject matter of the Parthenon pediments, he ignored both the metopes and the
frieze.4 Plutarch’s Life of Pericles (13.4-9 and 31.2-5) informs us that Pheidias supervised the sculptural program of the Parthenon and its team of artists, but the only work of art actually attributed to his hand is the colossal gold and ivory Athena Parthenos, which dominated the cella.5 Secondly, sec- tions of the frieze are missing, and those that have survived are not in good condition.6 The heads in particular were badly damaged, reputedly at the end of the Ottoman occupa- tion of Greece. The drawings of the frieze made in 1674 (thirteen years before the explosion of the temple) and attributed to the Flemish artist Jacques Carrey, although not entirely accurate, help somewhat in filling in the gaps, but many obscure areas remain.7 Thirdly, all of the original paint as well as the additions made in metal (indicated by drill holes), which might aid in identifying individual figures, are missing. Unlike the earlier frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi or the much later one on the Pergamon Altar, this one has no inscriptions, painted or carved, labeling the partici- pants. Finally, there is no precedent in Greek art for an Ionic frieze of this length and complexity on a Doric temple.8 Comparanda for the metopes and pediments are readily available, as, for example, the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (ca. 470-456 B.C.E.), but the Parthenon frieze is unique in the history of Greek architectural sculpture.
One particularly important but problematic section of the frieze is the group of seated figures above the pronaos at the east end of the Parthenon, now unanimously identified as twelve Olympian deities with two attendants (Figs. 1, 2). These, the only seated figures on the frieze, are configured into two groups of six and represent the earliest extant
depiction of what later became the canonical Twelve Gods of Greek and Roman art.9 Throughout the years these figures have been variously identified and then interpreted in rela- tion to the overall subject of the frieze, to the deity worshiped in the temple (Athena), and to religion as practiced in the cults of ancient Attica.10 Problems that seem to trouble
scholars are the presence of twelve gods on a temple of Athena alone, the intended location of this conclave (Mt. Olympos, Acropolis, or Agora?), the positioning of the gods vis-it-vis each other (why, for instance, are such antithetical goddesses as Artemis and Aphrodite linked arm in arm?), and the fact that they are seated with their backs to the central, and presumably most important, scene. There is the even more basic issue of whether any viewer could have seen them, positioned as they are directly behind the two central columns of the east facade (Fig. 18). This paper will address the gods’ identification, the possible meanings that can be attributed to their positions on the frieze, their peculiar spatial arrange- ment, the temporal setting, and their influence on later art.
Iconography The Greek gods are clearly the predominant theme of the eastern end of the Parthenon (Figs. 1, 2); this makes sense because the entrance to the Parthenon is here, the cult statue faced in this direction, and the altar would have been at this
end of the temple.11 From the sculptures of the pediment to the relief on the base of the cult statue the gods appear in various groups witnessing or taking part in climactic events. Seventeen of them react to the birth of Athena from the head
of Zeus in the east pediment; sixteen contend with the giants in the east metopes; fourteen gather on the frieze to await a religious procession; and twenty, according to Pliny (Natural History 36.18), witnessed the adorning of the newly born Pandora on the no-longer-extant base of the Athena Parthe- nos.12 The number of divinities depicted in each area varies, and most identifications are largely conjectural. It is only on the frieze, where the gods are sufficiently well preserved, that there is some consensus about their identifications.
The entire Ionic frieze measures 524 English feet in length and just over 3 feet in height. The portion with the gods (Figs. 3-6) appears on three exceptionally long slabs of the 114 that make up the frieze, and their appearance in the central section of the east or major temple facade gives them special prominence, as does their large size in relation to the humans on the frieze. The frieze is isocephalic for both riding, standing, and seated figures; hence, if the gods rose from their seats they would be approximately 35 percent taller than the humans standing near them. They are seated in groups of six with one smaller (that is, younger) standing attendant in each grouping.13 The most reliable clues to their identities are the carved attributes, such as the petasos, or traveler’s cap,
This content downloaded from 220.127.116.11 on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:59:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 7
17 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 47
(4 ( 1 IA U
1 Parthenon, Athens, east frieze, drawing (Skulpturhalle Basel)
40. ;-rrr~r~;~–i ~?- — I — lV– –TTEI
2 Parthenon, east frieze, cast of slabs IV-VI (photo: D. Widmer)
3 Parthenon, east frieze, slab IV, 24-27 (photo: British Museum)
~~::~~a~c~ 4~B~R~.~i~’l-‘,’B~LbPi[ -rr. ~i~i?. ”
P ?I -1 ~aF
.. *I? ::; .3? *i ~;?b??-I- .r i3 ?~ “‘ – %
i–~ `ra BE – I?lpr~;r~61Fr~?raur._ -rie~~gb~Ly
4 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 28-30 (photo: D. Widmer)
and boots of Hermes (E24), the torch of Demeter (E26), the throne of Zeus (E30), the snaky aegis lying on the lap of Athena (E36), and the crutch tucked under the arm of the smith god Hephaistos (E37), a discreet allusion to his lame- ness. Drill holes around his head indicate that the youthful god E39 was wearing a headband, most likely the characteris- tic laurel wreath of Apollo. Particular gestures associated with individual deities provide another means of identifica-
tion-the brooding pose of Demeter mourning for her daughter Persephone,14 the anakalypsis, or unveiling, of the perpetual bride Hera (E29),15 or the restless knee-grabbing pose of Ares (E27). Even more subtle is the gesture of Apollo, who has hooked his right thumb inside his cloak, an incipient act of revealing himself, suggestive of the god of truth and light.16 Equally significant are the relationships of one god to another. Hera, for instance, not only is seated beside her
This content downloaded from 18.104.22.168 on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:59:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
8 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
5 Parthenon, east frieze, slab V, 36-37 (photo: British Museum)
6 Parthenon, east frieze, slab VI, 38-42 (photo: British Museum)
husband Zeus, but she also turns her upper body toward him. The winged boy Eros (E42) lounges in the lap of his mother, Aphrodite (E41), and tucks his right hand under her outer garment. The youthful pair seated next to one another are the inseparable siblings Apollo (E39) and Artemis (E40). Of the fourteen figures this leaves two seated males (E25 and E38) and one standing female (E28) unaccounted for. Although the twelve Olympians had not been codified as such in the mid-fifth century B.C.E., one who was prominent among them and must have been on the frieze is the older sea god Poseidon, and he is usually identified as the bearded male (E38) conversing with Apollo. A painted trident can be supplied to his raised left hand. As for the other seated male (E25), because of damage to the head it is not known whether he was bearded or not, but by a process of elimination he is taken to be Dionysos, although Herakles has been sug- gested.17 The fact that he is seated on a cushion and leans back onto another god, unlike the other deities except Aphrodite, suggests the god of the symposium. His intimacy with Hermes refers not only to their relationship as stepbroth- ers but also to the care Hermes took of the baby Dionysos when he placed him under the protection of the Nymphs. Also supporting this identification is the fact that the god of viticulture has his legs interlocked with those of another agrarian deity, Demeter.18 Who then is the standing winged female (E28)? She is posed directly beyond Hera, wears a long dress, and appears
to be arranging her hair. Her left hand is raised to the back of her head, while her right hand seems to be adjusting the folds of her dress.19 Alternatively, one could reconstruct her right hand with a taenia, or ribbon, once rendered in paint.20 She is traditionally interpreted as Iris, the messenger goddess, but scholarly opinion has recently opted for Nike, the goddess of victory.21 In Classical Greek art it is often difficult to differenti- ate these goddesses because both are usually depicted as winged and in flight or rapid movement, as Iris (N) in the west pediment.22 They also can both be shown pouring libations from an oinochoe, or wine jug. Iris is most securely identified when she carries her kerykeion, or caduceus, or when she is shown in a short chiton and winged footgear; wings, apparently, are not essential to her identity.23 More- over, Nike is more closely associated with Zeus and Athena than with Hera; a wingless Nike is thought to be Athena’s charioteer in the west pediment, and she crowns Athena in east metope IV. Taking the clues of gesture and relationship into account, it is possible to revive an earlier identification for this figure, namely Hebe.24 Hebe, the personification of youth, was the daughter of Zeus and Hera, and this attendant figure stands in intimate relation to Hera as Eros does to Aphrodite. Both the scale and position of these two attendant figures suggest that they are children still dependent on their mothers. The familial connection is reinforced by the next figure to the left, Ares, the son of Hera and brother of Hebe. As the god of
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 9
7 Sophilos, dinos, detail. London, British Museum
bloody battle, Ares was never a popular Olympian and, therefore, not a common figure in Greek art. It would appear that the designer of the frieze was making an effort to present this dysfunctional Olympian family (recall the discord of Hera and Zeus) in an idealized light. Family, whether of the gods (east pediment) or of ancestral Athenians (west pediment), is an important theme permeating the sculptural program of the Parthenon. In addition to the family groups Aphrodite and Eros and the twins Apollo and Artemis, Athena seems to be shown with her ward Erichthonios, indicated by the fact that here, as nowhere else in Greek art, she is seated next to
Hephaistos (another child of Hera, but one whom she cast out of Mt. Olympos because of his lameness). Athena, the virgin goddess, had rejected the advances of Hephaistos, resulting in the birth of the autochthonos Athenian king Erichthonios from the Attic soil. This youth, whom Athena graciously raised on the Acropolis, is surely alluded to in the boy involved in the peplos ceremony (E35) standing just behind Athena and Hephaistos.25 In discussing this overrid- ing theme, Ira Mark has written, “The assembly presents in one group the Olympians as protectors of the bearing and raising of children, and in the other, the Olympians as, the model for and protectors of marriage.”26 As we shall see, Hebe in one figure represents both marriage and offspring.
Hebe was clearly an important goddess as early as 580 B.C.E., as witnessed by her solo appearance at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis on the dinos (bowl) signed by Sophilos (Fig. 7),27 but without an inscription we might never recognize her. Since she lacks any distinctive attribute other than an oino- choe, she is difficult to identify in Greek art.28 However, recent studies of Hebe in fifth-century Athenian vase painting have stressed her intimate association with her mother, Hera. On a
red-figure column krater by the Syriskos Painter of about 460 B.C.E., for instance, a winged girl pours a libation for Zeus, seated to her right, while she holds hands with Hera, seated at her left; it has been argued that the intimate gesture depicted here is one of mother and daughter.29 Hebe is so closely allied to Hera that she functions almost as an attribute of her
mother, as Eros does for Aphrodite. Thus, we can identify Hera’s young attendant on the large skyphos attributed to the
?-/%; ~?- :*?
:: r? ‘
8 Kleophon Painter, skyphos. Toledo Museum of Art, Gift of Edward Drummond Libbey
9 Castelgiorgio Painter, kylix. London, British Museum
Kleophon Painter in Toledo (Fig. 8) as Hebe; she is fanning her frustrated mother, who awaits the arrival of Hephaistos to liberate her from her magic throne.30 Note especially how she is standing directly beyond her mother, their legs overlap- ping, indicative of their intimate, familial relationship.
In addition to being an attendant of Hera, Hebe has two major roles in Greek mythology: as cupbearer to the gods and as a bride of Herakles when he was deified after his labors. As
the female equivalent of Ganymede, she is shown on a red-figure kylix by the Castelgiorgio Painter of about 480-470 B.C.E. saluting and holding an oinochoe for Hera, just as her young male counterpart does for Zeus (Fig. 9).31 Although no name is inscribed, her identification in this scene is assured
since she acts in the same role for her mother as Ganymede does for Zeus. Also, the unusual presence of Ares between the two cupbearers helps to confirm her identity. She is given prominent wings, as on another cup to be discussed below (Fig. 12). Winged or not, this image of Hebe as libation- pourer for her parents is common in Attic vase painting, although the figure is frequently mistaken for Nike or Iris.
Just as frequently Hebe is depicted as the bride of Herakles, and again the context serves to identify her. She is often shown in a chariot accompanying the hero during his apotheo-
10 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
. , . … . , – ,q W’. . …..
-mm : ” m – ..
10 Eretria Painter, epinetron. Athens, National Museum (photo: DAI, Athens)
11 Siana cup, detail. London, British Museum
sis; these apotheosis-by-chariot scenes are iconographically indistinguishable from wedding scenes.32 Hebe does not need wings in such scenes because she has an alternate mode of travel and she is easily identified by her association with her famous bridegroom. Hebe can also stand alone in a bridal context, as on the Eretria Painter’s red-figure epinetron (thigh guard) of about 425-420 B.C.E. (Fig. 10).33 Here, she plays an accessory role at the wedding of Harmonia, but her gesture of arranging her hair is identical to that of E28 on the frieze. In both instances she is making herself beautiful for the coming ceremony, and the action of binding one’s hair is characteristic of brides in Attic red-figure vase painting of this period.34
As the bride of Athena’s favorite hero and future Olympian Herakles, Hebe certainly deserves a place in the Olympian family. In fact, there is an important precedent both for her appearance among the Olympians and for the Olympians gathered together, seated and awaiting an arrival-namely, the scene of Herakles’ introduction into Olympos. This scheme was very popular in Attic sixth-century vase painting and even figured on an Archaic limestone pediment on the Acropolis.35 In these scenes Hebe is usually present, not only because she is Herakles’ bride/prize but also because she represents the eternal Youth that the hero is awarded after his labors. On one early Athenian Siana cup of about 560 B.C.E.
iir~f- ~Z~F a :-I,,.? J~.~a~i~~~rlPr-~I~4~p~sp~sa~?~?sy~~ ~.;-
12 Sosias Painter, kylix, detail. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung (photo: UteJung)
(Fig. 11) she is depicted as a young girl standing between an enthroned Zeus and Hera, poised on her mother’s footstool, as Hermes, Athena, Artemis, and Ares lead Herakles into the
presence of his divine father.36 On a later black-figure hydria of about 510 B.C.E. in Basel, Zeus and Hera sit enthroned in
the center with Hebe, crowned in myrtle facing them, while two pairs of confronted gods, Herakles and Athena and Hermes and Ares, flank them.37 Clearly, these vases suggest an attempt to reconcile Herakles with his stepmother, Hera, via his marriage to her daughter Hebe, and the inclusion of Ares, normally a malevolent sign, is intended to indicate a harmoni- ous Olympian family.38
But what of the fact that E28 has wings? As we have seen above, Hebe with wings is not unknown in Athenian art, and J. D. Beazley once made the astute comment, “Greek artists are ready to wing and unwing at need.””39 On the Sosias Painter’s cup of about 500 B.C.E. in Berlin (Fig. 12), where her name is inscribed, a winged Hebe stands between two seated couples, Zeus and Hera and Poseidon and Amphitrite, pouring a libation from her oinochoe into her mother’s proffered phiale.4? On the other side of the cup Herakles approaches the assembly of Olympians escorted by Hermes, Apollo, and Athena. As a winged female figure Hebe is virtually interchangeable in Attic vase painting with Nike and Iris, and so Athenians viewing the frieze would have taken their cue from the girl’s age, that is, her size, from her proximity to Hera, both her mother and the goddess who presided over Athenian weddings, and to her brother Ares, the god of battle who needs youth on his side, and from her gesture, which better suits a bride than it does Iris or Nike. She, like Eros, is distinguished from the “official” Olympians by the fact that she is winged. The wings also serve to indicate that Hebe and Eros are immortals, since in size they are no different from the mortals on the frieze.
Finally, Hebe as the personification of youth is a theme that permeates the rest of the frieze, from the vigorous riders at the rear of the procession to the nubile maidens who lead it into the presence of the gods. Evelyn Harrison has written of the frieze, “The great majority of the participants are very young, because in each age the young represent the purest potential, and the success of the state depends on the use it
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE I
makes of this potential.”41Just as Hebe restores Iolaus’s youth to enable him to be successful in battle in Euripides’ Heraclei- dae (lines 850-58), a play produced about 430 B.C.E.,42 so she is important here for the idealized Athenian cavalry. Likewise, her presence resonates with the mass of young girls of marriageable age, the kanephoroi, on the east frieze. The Athenian official who received the procession asked the maidens’ names and those of their fathers and mothers,
thereby assuring a citizenry based on legitimate and fruitful marriage, an issue of great concern to Pericles, as evidenced by his restrictive citizenship decree passed a few years earlier (451/0 B.C.E.).43 Thus, the youthful citizens of the frieze in general and Hebe in particular accord perfectly with Pericles’ model for the city as recorded by Thucydides and Plutarch. Or to paraphrase Pericles’ funeral oration after the siege of Samos in 439 B.C.E. when he stated that the city without its youth was like a year without spring: the Parthenon without Hebe (Youth) is like a city without hope.
Meaning This brings us to the possible meaning of the groupings of gods on the east frieze. Since 1829 there has been a general trend to interpret the gods in terms of their cults, and more specifically in terms of cult location or topography.44 Thus, in 1919 Carl Robert stated that seven of the twelve gods were chosen in reference to specific cult sites “on or near” the Acropolis; so, for example, Hephaistos and Poseidon sit next to one another because they had nearby cults in the Erech- theion.45 This design principle of cult identity led George Elderkin in 1936 to misidentify Poseidon and Apollo as Butes and Erechtheus and Artemis as Pandrosos because of their
shrines in or near the Erechtheion.46 These scholars and others believed that Attic cults dictated the selection of the
twelve divinities for the frieze, and that one could correlate
their position on the frieze, north versus south, to their primary cult locations in the city. In an important article published in 1976, Elizabeth Pemberton advanced the system of identification further by making the claim that the gods were represented in cult guise, that is, they were portrayed in such a way as to recall specific aspects of one of their cults.47 This idea has been developed by other scholars,48 but it has resulted in considerable disagreement over what particular cult epithet should be attached to any one deity. For instance, Apollo is said to portray Apollo Hypoakraios (North Slope), Apollo Patroos (Agora), Apollo Pythios (Ilissos), Apollo Delphinios (Ionia), and Delian Apollo (Delos).
Relating the locations of the gods on the frieze to their topographical associations within Attica is an interesting methodological gambit, but one that has no foundation in antiquity. While we have the benefit of accurate topographical maps on which to plot cult locations, the ancient Athenian pedestrian certainly related to the landscape in a different and more intimate way, via landmarks, boundary stones, and the roads and paths that led from one area to another. It is anachronistic to impose our aerial vantage point on a popula- tion that saw the terrain from a very different perspective.49 And how do we determine whether the designer placed Apollo on the north side because of his cult in the Agora to the northwest, his cult in Agrai to the south, or his cult in
Porto Rafti to the northeast? Nor does it make sense that the
ancient Athenian would want to identify a specific cult with the gods on the frieze. It seems much more logical that the Athenians in general and Pericles in particular would seek to universalize the twelve gods rather than tie them to particular cult places in Attica. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the Athenians viewed cult in more general terms. Dedicatory inscriptions to Athena found on the Acropolis rarely use cult epithets; in the Archaic and Classical periods 64 percent of the inscriptions address the city goddess simply as “Athena” or “the goddess,” not as Athena Polias, Athena Parthenos, or Athena Ergane.50 The topographical or cult guise scheme is one that simply does not work for the frieze, so we should seek another rationale for the arrangement of these important figures. A rejection of this design principle in no way diminishes the subtlety of the frieze; it in fact liberates us to look for other factors influencing the design.
In a search for the possible meaning behind the groupings of the gods on the frieze it is useful to return to the original intent of the temple built in this particular location. It is generally accepted that an older Parthenon was begun in the 480s as a thank offering for the victory at Marathon.51 This temple, to the extent that it was constructed, was mostly destroyed in the Persian sack of 480 B.C.E., with parts of it later
prominently displayed in the north wall of the Acropolis. Its successor was begun some forty years later in 447 B.C.E. at the height of the Athenian empire. It is reasonable to assume that this replacement temple was also a thank offering for military victory. WhileJohn Boardman has argued that the Ionic frieze was a specific commemoration of Marathon and its 192 Athenian victims,52 this second incarnation of the new temple to Athena more likely refers to all the successful battles against the Persians. Unlike the land victory at Marathon, these battles (Salamis, Plataia, Mykale, Eurymedon) involved both navy and infantry.
The land and sea duality may have resonance in the arrangement of the gods. Recently Erika Simon has demon- strated that the four gods in the right half of the assembly (Fig. 6: Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, and Aphrodite) all relate to Theseus, and in particular his voyage overseas to slay the Minotaur.53 More generally they are all divinities related to the sea and as such were worshiped in Attic ports, like Apollo at Porto Rafti and later Phaleron, Poseidon at Sounion, and
Artemis at Aulis, Brauron, and Mounychia in the Piraeus. The divine twins were born and worshiped in sea-girt Delos. Aphrodite was literally born from the sea, and in addition she was invoked by sailors as Aphrodite Euploia (“Of the Safe Voyage”).54 The four gods on the other side (Fig. 3) all have strong associations with the land. Dionysos as god of viticul- ture and Demeter as goddess of agriculture are firmly rooted to the soil, and especially the Attic soil, as at Ikarion, Eleutherai, and Eleusis.55 Hermes is both a god of herdsmen and a god of the crossroads. He is closely connected with land travel and was worshiped at herm shrines throughout the Attic countryside. Finally, Ares is the god par excellence of bloody hoplite battle; he had no temple in the city but was worshiped in rural Acharnai.
The eight gods arranged thus in two groups referencing land and sea reflect not only Athens’s past glories in the wars
12 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
against the Persians but also its present power as realized in its preeminent position as head of the Delian League. In this way the gods’ arrangement echoes Pericles’ contemporary poli- cies. As we have seen, his emphasis on citizen families and women bearing children for the state (Thucydides 11.44) finds its reflection in the close family groupings of the frieze (Athena and Hephaistos together as “parents” of the king Erichthonios; Hera and Zeus with Ares and Hebe). He twice referred to Athenian military action on land and sea: “As a matter of fact none of our enemies has yet been confronted with our total strength, because we have to divide our attention between our navy and the many missions on which our troops are sent on land” (11.39); “For our adventurous spirit has forced an entry into every sea and into every land [7rITuav p v 0&kXarav Kai yfqv] and everywhere we have left behind us everlasting memorials of good done to our friends or suffering inflicted on our enemies” (11.41).56
One can find even closer links between the Olympian divinities and Athenian battles against the Persians. The nuptials of Hera and Zeus, for instance, were celebrated in an annual festival in their sanctuary at Plataia, the site of the Greeks’ decisive land battle against Xerxes in 479 B.C.E. Artemis was worshiped at the Euboian promontory of Cape Artemision, where the Persian fleet was routed in 480 B.C.E. At
the festival honoring Artemis Mounychia, one of the most important festivals held in Attica, Athenians also commemo- rated the anniversary of their naval victory at Salamis, since “on that day the goddess shone with a full moon upon the Greeks as they were conquering at Salamis” (Plutarch, Mora- lia 349f) .57 One could amplify these examples, but the point is not to indicate that specific deities were associated with specific battles but simply that the Athenians accorded the Olympian gods the credit for their defeat of the Persians, giving them reason to feel thankful to each and every one of them. The Parthenon frieze, as also the east metopes, where the gods individually battle the giants, and the east pediment, where they witness the birth of Athena, pay homage to this collectivity of gods without whom victory was impossible.58
Space One of the persistently problematic aspects of the frieze, which continues to confound scholars, is what for lack of a
better phrase might be called the seating plan of the gods. All twelve are posed on diphroi, or simple stools, with the exception of Zeus, who sits on a throne, his left arm resting on the back. Two of the stools, as noted above, carry narrow cushions, and Aphrodite’s is luxuriously draped. Within the two groups all figures are posed in profile to the left and right respectively with the exception of Dionysos, who looks to the left but is sitting to the right, placing him back-to-back with Hermes (Fig. 3).59 The gods clearly are looking toward the two files of processional figures who are approaching, and Aphrodite is in fact frankly acknowledging the procession by pointing it out to Eros. Directly in front of the gods are clusters of male figures, variously identified as officials or eponymous heroes,60 who seem to have already arrived and are standing in groups conversing.
The problem resides in the fact that the gods, with one exception (Dionysos), have their backs to the central scene,
the ceremony of the peplos, and the highpoint of the festival in honor of Athena. As Jane E. Harrison once noted, “No artist in his senses would have so arranged the slabs that Athene should actually turn her back on the gift offered her.”61 Others have cited it as a design flaw; P. E. Corbett, for example, states, “The composition has however a weakness, which may at first pass unnoticed in the general excellence of the execution; the gods turn their backs on the central group, and though Apollo, Hephaestus and Hera look around at their neighbours, and so toward the middle, the abruptness of the division cannot be ignored.””62 Various ingenious explana- tions have been offered as to why the gods are posed thus: the artist’s way of indicating their invisibility;63 the designer’s attempt to show that the ceremony of the peplos is taking place within the Parthenon, and so out of sight;64 the central ceremony represents not the presentation of the new peplos but simply the folding of the old one, which is not worthy of special notice;65 the possibility that the cloth is not a peplos at all but some other garment offered to the statue of Athena.66
All of these proposed solutions, awkward at best, generally cannot be reconciled with the overall high quality of the design and execution of the frieze.
A new approach to the dilemma is clearly called for, one that addresses the issues of space and setting, rather than positing hypotheses based exclusively on iconography. It seems clear that the designer of the frieze was wrestling with a spatial problem; what we are presented with is his solution and what we need to determine is the problem with which he was confronted. By looking at other frieze compositions with groups of deities, such as the east frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi (ca. 525 B.C.E.) or the east frieze of the so-called Hephaisteion in Athens (ca. 430 B.C.E.), we also find two groupings of gods. However, they are confronting each other. On the Siphnian Treasury the gods are debating the outcome of a Trojan War battle depicted on the right half of the frieze.67 In the Hephaisteion frieze six gods, divided into two groups of three, are watching a battle taking place between the groups.68 In the first instance the gods are meant to be on Mt. Olympos, and in the latter case they are seated on rocks, probably in the Attic countryside. Hence, in respect to both arrangement and subject matter these scenes offer no precise parallel for the east frieze of the Parthenon.
If we imagine the gods of the Parthenon frieze as acknowl- edging the procession (as Aphrodite clearly indicates) and as witnessing the peplos ceremony, as surely they must, then a seating plan must be devised that takes into account these two events. An arrangement that acknowledges both of these foci is a semicircle. In 1892 A. H. Smith suggested that the peplos ceremony was meant to be taking place “in front of the two groups of gods, who sit in a continuous semicircle,”69 but this idea has not been generally accepted by scholars even though it neatly solves the spatial problems.70 Where exactly might this semicircle be? Smith states, “These deities are supposed to be invisible, and doubtless, in a picture they would have been placed in the background, seated in a semicircle and looking inwards.””71 However, by placing the semicircle of seated gods in front of and facing the temple (which temple is still an issue), the peplos ceremony can be read as taking place in the center and the procession as arriving in two
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 13
AM i o ?;
…..| ” ….
.. …. : ?. : ,.,. . i
13 Parthenon, east frieze, computer reconstruction of seated
gods byJoe Delly
South North Procession Procession
ZEUS & ATHENA
14 Seating plan of gods of the Parthenon, east frieze (author)
streams at the two ends of the arc of seated gods (Figs. 13, 14). The north procession is received by Aphrodite and the south by Hermes, the two divinities closest to the people.72 This seating plan takes into account both the two files of the procession and the ceremony. If we project this arc convexly to the front of the Parthenon and then try to imagine how an artist would depict this spatial arrangement on a flat frieze without the devices of illusionism at his disposal, we arrive at precisely the solution he adopted. The designer in effect had to flatten the semicircle onto the low-relief band, leave space in the center for the peplos ceremony, and rotate the gods into profile positions for complete legibility.
A closer look at the poses of the gods lends support to this configuration. In many instances we see them deliberately turning to the front, unlike the gods of the Siphnian Treasury, for example, who are in strict profile. Eight (Dionysos, Demeter, Hera, Zeus, Hephaistos, Apollo, Artemis, Aphro- dite) of the twelve present their upper bodies frontally, as if it were a clue to the viewer that we are meant to read them thus.
The persistent overlapping of these figures, like the riders on the north and south friezes, also suggests a three-dimensional as opposed to planar arrangement. In an earlier period, vase painters may have grappled with similar problems of trying to represent the gods in a semicircle, as for example the nine seated gods (including Herakles) on an amphora by Exekias in Orvieto (Fig. 15).7 At first glance they appear to be placed helter-skelter, overlapping and facing one way or the other, in no apparent order, but if viewed as a concave semicircle with
15 Exekias, amphora, detail. Orvieto, Museo Claudio Faina (photo: DAI, Rome)
Zeus, Herakles, and Athena in the center, the arrangement is much more logical. Thus, the varied poses of the gods on the frieze, which seem at first glance to be natural and casual, almost anecdotal, are clues to the viewer of a spatially more complex composition.
It is often claimed that Greek art, whether painting or relief sculpture, was purely two dimensional, with no attempt to show depth other than via corporeal perspective. That Greek artists of the fifth century B.C.E. were entirely capable of designing in three-dimensional terms is indicated by vase paintings, as, for instance, that on the outside of a cup in the British Museum dated to about 490-480 B.C.E. and signed by Douris (Fig. 16).74 This symposium scene shows banqueters reclining on three couches, two of which are shown in profile, the third depicted head-on with the symposiast’s back toward the viewer. Given the serving boy posed beyond the table alongside the couch, this furniture is clearly meant to be projecting beyond the picture plane and into our space. This was a popular device in Attic red-figure vase painting of the late sixth and fifth centuries B.C.E.75 and accurately reflects the actual space of the andron, or men’s dining room, where couches were arranged end-to-end along the four sides of the usually square room.76 Thus, it would not have been a radical departure for a Greek viewer to project the gods of the frieze out into his space as he viewed the facade of the temple.77
Another element that supports this configuration of the frieze is the pivotal figure E47 (Fig. 17), who is taken to be a marshal. Although he is situated on the north half of the east
14 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
‘1 .-A~~ ‘~~IP .! v:~~ C~IT~~~ I~ G~ _SL
16 Douris, kylix. London, British Museum
frieze just beyond the group of standing male figures (E43- 46), he is shown raising his right hand to beckon to the first maiden at the head of the south procession (E17), who is three slabs away (Fig. 1). IanJenkins has written, “His gesture must be intended for the head of the procession on the south side of the east frieze. Here we have a subtle reminder that the
two processions are in fact one.”78 The marshal’s sight line in effect creates the cord of the semicircle by cutting across the gods, the peplos ceremony, and the two groups of standing male figures. His simple gesture across space serves to indicate that all of these figures are physically situated beyond, or in terms of the Acropolis topography, to the east of the heads of the two processions. He serves also to separate visually the human from the heroic/divine realm by creating a dividing line across the intervening space.
In addition to these internal clues, there are two external
factors that support a semicircular arrangement. First, there is a long tradition of setting out stools or couches for the gods in a ceremony known as theoxenia, defined by Hesychios as a common entertainment for all of the gods. Recently Michael Jameson has shown that this ritual was much more common than has been previously recognized.79 He describes it as “a type of ritual in which the Greeks explicitly honored supernatu-. ral figures by using the conventions of entertaining guests: they issued an invitation, they set out a couch on which they laid out coverings and put beside it a table which they adorned with, among other things, dishes containing food and drink.”80 One of the fullest accounts describing such a ritual is the law pertaining to the festival of Zeus Sosipolis and the Twelve Gods at Magnesia on the Meander; it involved a large procession, the carrying of the statues of the Twelve Gods dressed in the most beautiful clothes possible, the pitching of a tholos (presumably a temporary circular struc- ture), the spreading of three of the most beautiful couches possible, music, and animal sacrifice to specific deities.81 The gods are not imagined as coming to partake in their own animal sacrifice; instead, they are conceived of as guests enjoying the honors accorded to the patron deities of the city. The deities of the Parthenon frieze can be interpreted in this collective sense as well, as a theoxenia, sitting on specially prepared seats (stools, given the presence of female gods, as
women do not recline in Greek society) and witnessing the specific rites held in honor of one of their members, Athena.
As early as 1937, Lily Ross Taylor proposed that the religious ceremony on the east frieze might relate to the Roman ritual of the sellisternium, which was based on Greek
cult practice.82 At Roman festivals and spectacles, stools, thrones, and chairs, often richly draped and cushioned, were set out for the gods in order to secure their presence and goodwill for the ceremonies. She specifically noted the elaborate draping of the stool of Aphrodite, which resembles the draped stool depicted on Flavian coins. That such a rite may be connected with the Parthenon is indicated by the temple treasuries, which list “seven Chian couches, ten Milesian couches, six thrones, four diphroi [regular stools] and nine folding stools” for the year 434/3 B.C.E.83 One could well imagine this furniture being set out for the gods on the Acropolis during the Panathenaia, the festival in honor of Athena, so that they could watch the procession’s arrival at the east end of the Acropolis, culminating with the presenta- tion of the peplos and the hecatomb sacrifice to Athena at the altar in front of her temple. Although some scholars have suggested that the gods are on Mt. Olympos or in the Agora in the city below,84 in most scenes of sacrificial processions in Greek vase painting, the deity stands beyond the altar, so we should imagine the Olympians situated similarly.85 What we then see depicted on the frieze is the blessed epiphany of the twelve gods who have literally and in an ideal sense accepted the invitation of the Athenians to the theoxenia in honor of the
city’s chief deity, have descended to the Acropolis, and have taken their respective seats.
Second, it is possible to associate the circular arrangement of the gods with another ritual practice, namely, dining in sanctuaries in round buildings.86 The round building, or tholos, was a distinctive type in ancient Greece, and a signifi- cant number of these are found in sanctuaries. Evidence
suggests that, given the space limitations, they were used for dining by seated rather than reclining banqueters. In Athens the practice of dining in a round building was institutional- ized by the Athenian democracy; the round building in the Agora known as the Tholos functioned as a dining room for fifty prytaneis (tribal representatives) and six to ten officials.87 The small size of this building (55 feet in diameter) makes it clear that it probably could not accommodate couches for all fifty officials, who must have sat on chairs or benches arranged in a circle. Upright seating in a semicircular arrangement is also characteristic of the Greek theater, where spectators watched the drama taking place in the center, where an altar was usually present. In view of these long- standing Greek traditions, it is not improbable that the Olympian gods of the friezes were arranged in a semicircle.
This arrangement has the added advantage iconographi- cally of placing Athena and Zeus side by side (rather than back to back), as they are so often shown in Greek, especially Athenian, art. They fight together in the Gigantomachy, they sit side by side in conclaves of the gods (as in Fig. 15), and they were both worshiped on the Acropolis under the guise of city divinities: Zeus Polieus and Athena Polias. Athena derived her
aegis and by extension her protective power from her father.88 Aeschylus demonstrated their intimate relationship at the
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 15
~~~O~a ~ Ic~ca~r I mi~wr~s~I ~~ BCI I ~ At
17 Parthenon, east frieze, slab VI, 47 (photo: British Museum)
end of the Eumenides (lines 826-28) when Athena says to the Furies, “I rely on Zeus … I am the only one of the gods who knows the keys to where his thunderbolts are kept.” As the two tutelary divinities of the Athenian Acropolis, father and daughter belong close together here on the frieze,just as they are together on the pediment above.89 First among equals, they sit together enjoying both the theoxenia and the Panathe- naia presented by the city in Athena’s honor.
Having situated the gods in space, is it also possible to establish a temporal setting? The element of time in the Parthenon frieze has been much discussed of late. Evelyn Harrison sees four phases of Athenian history in the four sections of the frieze: the west with Theseus as early times; the north with groups of four as pre-Kleisthenic; the south with groups of ten as the Democracy; and the east as “timeless.”90 Lin Foxhall has distinguished between “human time” and “monumental time” in Greek thought and singles out the Parthenon frieze as the one monument that bridges both.91 A unitarian might argue the view that the frieze represents a time-space continuum like the painting of the Battle ,of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile, in which there was a cotermi-
nous movement in time and space through the picture from left to right, from beginning to end. Certainly, one of the great artistic achievements of the frieze is its seamless move- ment through time and space, from the preparations for the procession at the west end to a sort of conclusion (some say anticlimax) at the center of the east.
However, by restricting our consideration to the east end of the temple, it is possible to take cues from the temporal elements of the other sculptural decoration. In the east metopes, for instance, it can be determined by the presence of Helios at the far right that the long night of fighting the giants is over, the tide has turned in favor of the gods, and victory is assured. In the pediment above, the sun rises as the moon (or night) sets, thereby providing the viewer not only with a locale (heaven) but a time (dawn) as well. As for the specific timing of the action, the full-length standing pose of Athena indicates that the process of being born from the
head of Zeus is completed.92 Likewise, on the base of the Athena Parthenos the action of creating Pandora is complete and she is being adorned. All these sculptures suggest a phase after the main action, a denouement so to speak, when the future is assured, in striking contrast to the east pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, where there is a strong sense of foreboding and anticipation of events to come.
Returning to the east frieze, one can use these external clues to detect an impression of conclusion in the narrative. There is no sense of anxiety or foreboding here. The gods are chatting casually after the main event, the presentation of the peplos. The peplos itself is being folded up, not unfolded, to be put away until the next ceremony.93 In temporal terms, the frieze conveys that the goodwill of the gods is assured through the timeless reenactment of the ritual, which has been carried
out successfully once again. In this sense the east frieze transmits the same message as the chryselephantine statue in which Nike has alighted on the hand of the goddess-namely, victory is assured.
Given these messages borne by the gods on the east frieze, we must inevitably ask the somewhat mundane question: Could anyone even see them? Their location directly behind the fourth and fifth columns of the east facade and their height at forty feet are not favorable for viewing.94 Standing directly in front of the east colonnade one saw only the two main couples, Hera and Zeus at the left, and Athena and Poseidon at the right, and their “children” Hebe and the boy-king Erichthonios (Fig. 18). The other gods have to be viewed from an angle; if one moves south of center one can align the south group of gods between columns VI and V, and the north group between columns V and IV (Fig. 19), but the ensemble can never be viewed in its entirety. This pattern of viewing supports the interpretations proposed above, namely, that on the one hand the viewer is to relate to the family associations of the gods and on the other to the division of land and sea deities into distinct units within the larger collective.
We are also compelled to conclude that these figures could be seen in antiquity because they exercised a perceptible
16 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
,I ‘ (4)
18 Parthenon, east frieze, frontal view between central columns (Stillwell, “The Panathenaic Frieze,” pl. 63, fig. 14)
19 Parthenon, east frieze, diagonal view through columns (Stillwell, pl. 63, fig. 13)
influence on later sculpture. An obvious example is the fourth-century B.C.E. statue known as the Ares Ludovisi (Fig. 20), which echoes remarkably faithfully the leg-holding pose of Ares on the frieze.95 However, the best-known example of the frieze’s influence in relief sculpture is from the Augustan era, a period in which the style of fifth-century Greek art was deliberately imitated. In particular, the two processions of draped figures on the Ara Pacis in Rome consciously copy the standing draped men and women of the east frieze, who also approach from two directions.96 Less often cited in this context is the panel showing the Italic goddess of fertility, Tellus (Fig. 21).97 In her seated pose with right leg extended, her attention to her offspring, her veiled head, and even to the buttoned sleeve descending to her right elbow, she closely resembles Aphrodite on the Parthenon frieze, enough to suggest that the Roman artist adapted the figure for Tellus simply by adding a second child. AnotherJulio-Claudian work of art that bears echoes of the Parthenon frieze is the Gemma Augustea (Fig. 22).98 In the center a relaxed, half-draped Augustus sits enthroned facing left, a lituus, or augur’s staff, in his right hand, and his left arm
resting on the back of his throne. Although lacking a beard, he closely resembles Zeus on the Parthenon frieze, and the eagle under his throne is a direct allusion to Jupiter. His companion, Roma, seated at his right side, look backs toward Augustus just as Hera turns toward her husband. The youth Germanicus standing beyond Roma recalls Hebe in his close juxtaposition, so that the three can be read as a triad, like Zeus, Hera, and their daughter. The somewhat awkward composition in which the figures to the right of Augustus are seated with their backs to him also evokes the arrangement of
“: . : ‘
i .. .-.
20 Ares Ludovisi. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano (photo: Alinari)
the gods on the frieze. Perhaps we are meant to interpret the seated figures on the Gemma Augustea in a similar fashion, that is, as arranged in an arc awaiting the arrival of Tiberius. While the figure of Tellus here does not copy the Aphrodite of the frieze, her child tucks his right hand into his mother’s drapery, which may be a direct echo of the pose of Eros. Extending the analogy even further, it is possible to see the lower register of the Gemma Augustea as analogous to the peplos ceremony, that is, as an event taking place in front of the assembled mortals and divinities in the upper register. The trophy being erected and the captured enemy indicate that victory has been attained. While in Roman terms it undoubtedly represents a specific rather than a timeless event, in temporal terms it conveys the same message as the Parthenon frieze.
These comparisons suggest that the Parthenon east frieze not only was visible but that it also exerted an influence on later, particularly Augustan art. That this prototype was deliberately chosen is indicated by the fact that the Greek and the Roman reliefs have similar political agendas. In the case of Aphrodite and Tellus, the message is one of fecundity and future prosperity. The triads Zeus/Hera/Hebe and Augustus/ Roma/Germanicus place a similar emphasis on progeny and dynastic succession. At the right beyond the throne of Augustus one sees the two gods Oikoumene and Neptune, personifying respectively the cities of the empire and the ocean that surrounded the world. Thus, the land and sea
duality that we have observed in the arrangement of gods on
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 17
. I r
-? t— ,,? .r;
.. j 1 ~ri~r 2. -?,:? \ ~*,
-.74 1 51
~g ~I~~se ~ 1; t s k ‘?
i /r’r i 3″i .; . s? :,,
; :I^ ~,~ I ? ic: ~ei I
s?? .’ i .. 5~
.?? .-~ ?Ir ? ?i.
-C ; ?..
” ~.SE.’ ~? i~YI~ rri :1
i, 21 Ara Pacis Augustae, Rome, Tellus panel (photo: Art Resource, New York/Alinari)
22 Gemma Augustea. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
the Parthenon frieze may be alluded to here in a Roman cameo carved some five hundred years later.99 In spite of distance and time, the Romans well understood the ideology of Athenian imperial art, and they incorporated it into their own artistic masterpieces.
Ruth Coulter Heede Professor of Art History at Case Western Reserve
University, Jenifer Neils organized the exhibition Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens (1992) and edited
the related volume of symposium papers, Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon (1996). She is writing a book on the
Parthenon frieze [Department of Art History and Art, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7110].
Frequently Cited Sources
ARV2: J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963).
18 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
Berger, Ernst, ed., Parthenon-Kongress, Basel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1984). Brommer, Frank, Der Parthenonfries, 2 vols. (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977). Jenkins, Ian, The Parthenon Frieze (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994). LIMC: Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, 8 vols. (Zurich: Artemis,
1981-97). Mark, Ira, “The Gods on the East Frieze of the Parthenon,” Hesperia 53
(1984): 189-342. Neils, Jenifer, ed., Worshipping Athena: Panathenaia and Parthenon (Madison,
Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996).
All of us who deal with issues of classical sculpture and Athenian iconography are deeply indebted to the scholarship of Professor Evelyn B. Harrison, as this paper will attest. A consummate teacher, she is ever willing to discuss new ideas and share her wealth of knowledge of the ancient world. I am also most grateful to the many colleagues and students with whom I have had fruitful discussions about the Parthenon frieze over the years, in particular Carla Antonaccio, Malcolm Bell, Ian Jenkins, Olga Palagia, Alan Shapiro, and Erika Simon. Aspects of this paper were presented at Yale University in January 1998 and at Lincoln College, Oxford, in April 1998; I thank the audiences on both occasions for their useful questions and observations. I also am grateful to the anonymous readers for the Art Bulletin, who offered many helpful comments on a draft of this article. I warmly thank Dyfri Williams and Ian Jenkins for assistance at the British Museum, as well as Tomas Lochman of the Skulptur- halle Basel and Alan Shapiro for providing photographs.
1. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett, The Antiquities ofAthens, vol. 2 (London: J. Haberkorn, 1787), 4, 12. Surveys of the earlier literature on the frieze up to 1871 can be found in Adolf Michaelis, Der Parthenon (Leipzig: Breitkopf und H~rtel, 1871), and from 1871 to 1976 in Brommer, 289-91.
2. For the most recent literature, see Ernst Berger and Madeleine Gisler- Huweiler, Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries, 2 vols. (Basel: Skulpturhalle, 1996). The newest and most highly publicized interpretation of the frieze’s subject is that of Joan B. Connelly, “Parthenon and Parthenoi: A Mythological Interpretation of the Parthenon Frieze,” American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996): 53-80. That her interpretation of the central scene as the sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus has met a surprising degree of acceptance in the popular literature is indicated by the latest edition of H. W. Janson’s History of Art, 5th ed., rev. (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1997), 149, fig. 194. For a convincing refutation, see Evelyn B. Harrison, “The Web of History: A Conservative Reading of the Parthenon Frieze,” in Neils, 198-214. Since my article deals primarily with the gods, I will not address directly the meaning of the central scene, although I follow the traditional interpretation of it as the peplos ceremony of the Greater Panathenaia during which a specially woven robe was presented to the cult statue of the goddess. I will treat this subject in greater depth in my forthcoming book, Viewing the Parthenon Frieze: Style, Iconography, and Historiography, Cambridge University Press.
3. See, for example, John G. Younger, “Gender and Sexuality in the Parthenon Frieze,” in Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality, and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology, ed. Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow and Claire L. Lyons (London: Routledge, 1997), 120-53; and Jenifer Neils, “Priest and Pais: A Semiotic Approach” (forthcoming).
4. Pausanias (1.24.5), the primary source for a description of the Athenian Acropolis in the 2d century c.E., mentions only the pediments of the Parthenon and the chryselephantine statue inside. For a discussion of Pausanias’s method, see Christian Habicht, Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985).
5. For the sources on Pheidias, see Jerome J. Pollitt, The Art ofAncient Greece: Sources and Documents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 53-65. For a recent discussion of the oeuvre of Pheidias, see Evelyn B. Harrison, “Pheidias,” in Personal Styles in Greek Sculpture, Yale Classical Studies, vol. 30, ed. Olga Palagia and J. J. Pollitt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 16-65; she sees links between the style of the frieze and works assigned to Alkamenes, a student of Pheidias (40).
6. For reconstructions of the missing sections of the frieze, see Brommer andJenkins, passim.
7. Theodore R. Bowie and Dieter Thimme, eds., The Carrey Drawings of the Parthenon Sculpture (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1971).
8. For a discussion of the development of the Ionic frieze and Archaic precedents, see Brunilde S. Ridgway, “Notes on the Development of the Greek Frieze,” Hesperia 35 (1966): 188-204; and David Castriota, Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Oficial Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 202-26.
9. On the Twelve Gods, see Charlotte R. Long, The Twelve Gods of Greece and Rome (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987); and Gratia Berger-Doer, “Dodekatheoi,” in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (LIMC), vol. 3 (1986), 646-58. The canonical Twelve Gods consist of six males and six females; on the frieze Dionysos replaces Hestia. See also Stella Georgoudi, “Les Douze Dieux des Grecs: Variations sur un theme,” in Mythes grecs au figure de l’antiquiti au baroque, ed. Stella Georgoudi and Jean-Pierre Vernant (Paris: Gallimard, 1996), 43-80.
10. For a list of the earlier interpretations, see Michaelis (as in n. 1), 262-63; Brommer, 257-63; and Berger and Gisler-Huweiler (as in n. 2), 153-56, 160-65.
11. There are no traces of an altar in front of the Parthenon; to date the only altar to Athena is situated to the north, on axis with the Old Athena Temple, destroyed by the Persians in 480 B.C.E. For the topography of the Acropolis, see John Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (New York: Praeger, 1971), 52-71.
12. For the east pediment, see Frank Brommer, Die Skulpturen der Parthenon- Giebel (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1963); Olga Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993). For the east metopes, see Frank Brommer, Die Metopen des Parthenon (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1967), 22-38; M. A. Tiverios, “Observations on the East Metopes of the Parthenon,” American Journal of Archaeology 86 (1982): 227-29; Ernst Berger, Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zu den Metopen des Parthenon, vol. 2 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1986); and Katherine A. Schwab, “Parthenon East Metope XI: Herakles and the Gigantomachy,” American Journal of Archaeology 100 (1996): 81-90. For the base of the Athena Parthenos, see Neda Leipen, Athena Parthenos: A Reconstruc- tion (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1971), 23-27; Laszlo Berczelly, “Pan- dora and Panathenaia,” Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 8 (1990): 53-86; Jeffrey M. Hurwit, “Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos,” American Journal of Archaeology 99 (1995): 171-86; and Harrison (as in n. 5), 48-51.
13. The numbering of the slabs and individual figures followsJenkins. 14. On this brooding gesture, see Gerhard Neumann, Gesten und Gebarden in
dergriechischen Kunst (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965), 136-45. Some scholars have taken this figure to be Hekate because of the torch.
15. On this gesture associated with brides, see John H. Oakley and Rebecca H. Sinos, The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993), 30.
16. See Evelyn B. Harrison, “Apollo’s Cloak,” in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen, ed. Giinter Kopcke and Mary B. Moore (Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin, 1979), 91-98.
17. Based on this figure’s robust physique, Martin Robertson has argued that he might be Herakles rather than Dionysos; see Robertson, “Two Question-marks on the Parthenon,” in Kopcke and Moore (as in n. 16), 75-78. See also the discussion of this identification and a defense of the figure as Dionysos in Thomas Carpenter, Dionysian Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 90-92.
18. For the relationship of Demeter and Dionysos as a quasi marriage, see Harrison (as in n. 2) in Neils, 206.
19. For a discussion of the theme of dressing in the Parthenon frieze, see Jenifer Neils, “Pride, Pomp, and Circumstance: The Iconography of Proces- sion,” in Neils, 177-97.
20. As done, for instance, by Mark, 306, fig. 1. 21. See Brommer, 114, 259-60; Mark, 304-12. John Boardman in Greek
Sculpture: The Classical Period; A Handbook (London: Thames and Hudson, 1985), fig. 94, labels the figure “Nike (or Iris).”
22. Cf. the comments regarding Nike of Mark, 310: “She is a graceful, delicate being, most often floating, weightless. .. ”
23. On the iconography of Iris, see LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), s.v. “Iris.” The inscribed Iris on a red-figure pyxis of ca. 460-450 B.C.E. from Attica in Berlin (3308, ARV2, 977, no. 1), for instance, is not winged; see LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), 747, no. 56.
24. The identification of this figure as Hebe was very common in the 19th century; see Michaelis (as in n. 1), 262. A more recent study that supports the identification of Hebe is that of Chrysoula Kardara, “Glaukopis-O Archaios Naos kai to Thema tes Zophorou Parthenonos,” Archaiologike Ephemeris 1961 (1964): 116-18, 131.
25. Mark, 291, asserts that there is no iconographic tradition for the pairing of Athena and Hephaistos, claiming that they “are never so represented on vases.” In fact, they appear together at three important birth scenes depicted on Attic vases: that of Athena herself, who emerged from Zeus’s head after the blow delivered by Hephaistos; that of their “son” Erichthonios; and that of Pandora. While later (329-30) he cites the births of Pandora and Erichtho- nios, he concludes, “Without question the Parthenon stands apart from these precedents.”
26. Mark, 312. I would not agree with him when he goes on to say: “Typical mythological characteristics and affiliations have been placed to the side.” The emphasis on the societal institutions of marriage and family can be easily effected by accentuating the gods’ most characteristic traits and their mythological/familial associations.
27. London, British Museum, GR 1971.11-1.1. See Dyfri Williams, Greek Vases (London: British Museum, 1985), 26-28, figs. 30, 31.
28. For Hebe in general, see Annie-France Laurens, “Hebe I,” in LIMC, vol. 4 (1988), 458-64.
29. New York, private collection. ARV2, 260, no. 15. Beazley identifies the figure as “Nike (or rather Iris),” presumably because of Hermes at the far left. A convincing identification of the winged libation-pourer as Hebe appears in
Annie-France Laurens, “Identification d’H(be? Le nom, I’un et le multiple,” in Images et socidte en Grice ancienne, Cahiers d’Arch(ologie Romande, no. 36 (Lausanne: Institut d’Arch(ologie et d’Histoire Ancienne, Universit& de Lausanne, 1987), 59-72. For the identification of Hebe with Hera on the name vase of the Cleveland Painter based on a unique passage from the Iliad, see
RECONFIGURING THE GODS ON THE PARTHENON FRIEZE 19
Jenifer Neils, “The Cleveland Painter,” Cleveland Studies in the History of Art 1 (1996): 24-25.
30. Toledo Museum of Art, 82.88. See Cedric G. Boulter and Kurt Luckner, Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Toledo Museum of Art, U.S.A., fasc. 20, Toledo Museum of Art, fasc. 2 (Toledo: Toledo Museum of Art, 1984), 11-13, pls. 84-87. The figure is not identified in the text.
31. London, British Museum, 4 E67. ARV2, 386, no. 3, 1649. See LIMC, vol. 4 (1988), 461, no. 34.
32. The earliest is probably the Ricci Hydria in the Villa Giulia; see Annie-France Laurens, “Pour une ‘Systhematique’ iconographique: Lecture du vase Ricci de la Villa Giulia,” in Iconographie classique et identitis rigionales, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, suppl., 14 (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1986): 45-56, where Hebe grabs Herakles by the arm as she boards the chariot.
33. Athens, National Museum, 1629. ARV2, 1250, no. 34. See Adrienne Lezzi-Hafter, Der Eretria-maler; Kerameus, vol. 6 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1988), 253-62, 347-48, no. 257, pls. 168, 169.
34. For the binding of the hair as an emblematic motif with nuptial connotations, see Victoria Sabetai, “Aspects of Nuptial and Genre Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens: Issues of Interpretation and Methodology,” in Athenian Potters and Painters, ed. John H. Oakley, William D. E. Coulson, and Olga Palagia (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1997), 319-35, esp. 328-29. See also Oakley and Sinos (as in n.15), figs. 21, 23, 24.
35. See LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), 160-63, s.v. “Herakles,” nos. 3292-312. For discussion of these groups of deities at Herakles’ apotheosis, see Heinrich Knell, Die Darstellung der G6itterversammlung in der attischen Kunst des VI. u. V Jahrhunderts v. Chr (Darmstadt: H. Knell, 1965), 47-61; and H. Alan Shapiro, Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1989), 157-63.
36. London, British Museum, B 379. See H.A.G. Brijder, Siana Cups I and Komast Cups (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum, 1983), 146-47, 246-47, no. 121, pl. 24.
37. Basel, Antikenmuseum, BS 499. See LIMC, vol. 5 (1990), 162, s.v. “Herakles,” no. 3308.
38. For a discussion of red-figure vases that depict the apotheosis of Herakles, many of which include Hebe, see K. W. Arafat, Classical Zeus: A Study in Art and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 104-12. For Ares, see Irmgard Beck, Ares in Vasenmalerei, Relief und Rundplastik, Archdologische Studien, vol. 7 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984).
39.J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-Figure: A Sketch (London: Oxford University Press, 1928), 21. A red-figure lekythos by the Klugmann Painter (Martin von Wagner Museum, Wurzburg, 555) that is contemporary with the frieze shows a rare winged Artemis; ARV2, 1198, no. 8. See John Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Classical Period (London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), fig. 215.
40. Berlin, Antikenmuseum, F 2278. ARV2, 260, no. 15. See Nikolaus Himmelmann-Wildschfitz, “Die G6tterversammlung des Sosias-Schale,” Mar- burger Winckelmann-programm (1960): 41-88, pls. 4-12; reprinted in English (trans. H. A. Shapiro) in Reading Greek Art: Essays by Nikolaus Himmelmann, ed. Hugo Meyer and William Childs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 139-55.
41. Harrison (as in n. 2) in Neils, 208. 42. See John Wilkins, “The Young of Athens: Religion and Society in
Herakleidai of Euripides,” Classical Quarterly 40 (1990): 329-39. I thank my colleague Angeliki Tzanetou for this reference.
43. See most recently Alan L. Boegehold, “Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451/50 B.C.,” in Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, ed. Alan L. Boegehold and Adele C. Scafuro (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 57-66.
44. The first to advance this theory was C. O. Mfiller, Annali dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica 1 (1829): 221-26.
45. Carl Robert, Archaeologische Hermeneutik (Berlin: Weidmann, 1919), 21-35.
46. G. W. Elderkin, “The Seated Deities of the Parthenon Frieze,” American Journal ofArchaeology 40 (1936): 92-99. His method is revealed by the following statements: “The sequence of the five ‘Erechtheid’ divinities was entirely determined in the frieze by their sequence from east to west on the holiest site of the acropolis” (95) and “Pheidias placed these seven figures in the northern group because their cults were all situated to the north of the Parthenon .. ” (95).
47. Elizabeth Pemberton, “The Gods of the East Frieze of the Parthenon,” American Journal of Archaeology 80 (1976): 113-24.
48. Andreas Linfert, “Die G6tterversammlung im Parthenon-Ostfries und das attische Kultsystem unter Perikles,” Athenische Mitteilungen 94 (1979): 41-47; Mark. It has also been applied to the gods on the east pediment; see Evelyn B. Harrison, “Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon,” American Journal ofArchaeology 71 (1967): 57-58.
49. For a discussion of Athens’s relationship to the countryside, see Robin Osborne, Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and Its Countryside (London: George Philip, 1987).
50. These dedications have been summarized by Dan Geagan, “Who Was Athena?” in Religion in the Ancient World: New Themes and Approaches, ed. Matthew Dillon (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1996), 145-64.
51. On the Older Parthenon, see most recently Robin Francis Rhodes, Architecture and Meaning on the Athenian Acropolis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 30-32.
52.John Boardman, “The Parthenon Frieze-Another View,” in Festschrift fiirFrank Brommer, ed. Ursula H6ckmann and Antje Krug (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1977), 39-49. This interpretation is also expounded in a fictional narrative in John Boardman and David Finn, The Parthenon and Its Sculptures (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985), esp. 36-46.
53. Erika Simon, “Theseus and Athenian Festivals,” in Neils, 9-26. 54. See Sappho fr. 5.1 Lobel/Page. For the state shrine of Aphrodite
Euploia at the Piraeus, see Robert Garland, The Piraeus from the Fifth to the First Century B.C. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987), 150. This shrine is likely to be the one dedicated by Themistokles after the Battle of Salamis.
55. On these sites, see Richard Stillwell, ed., The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976). See also Albert Henrichs, “Between Country and City: Cultic Dimensions of Dionysos in Athens and Attica,” in Cabinet of the Muses: Essays on Classical and Comparative Literature in Honor of Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, ed. Mark Griffith and Donald J. Mastronarde (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 257-77.
56. For a different application of Pericles’ ideology to the Parthenon frieze, see Jerome J. Pollitt, “The Meaning of the Parthenon Frieze,” in The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome, Studies in the History of Art, vol. 49, ed. Diana Buitron-Oliver (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1997), 51-65.
57. It should also be noted that Artemis Agrotera received an annual sacrifice of goats in honor of the land victory at Marathon.
58. The gods’ association with battle in general is addressed by Robin Osborne, “Democracy and Imperialism in the Panathenaic Procession: The Parthenon Frieze and Its Context,” in The Archaeology ofAthens and Attica under the Democracy, ed. W.D.E. Coulson et al. (Oxford: Oxbow, 1994), 143-50.
59. A close parallel for this back-to-back arrangement of figures can be found on the Meidias Painter’s hydria in Florence, Museo Archeologico, 81947. ARV2, 1312, no. 2. See Lucilla Burn, The Meidias Painter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pl. 29b.
60. On the identity of these figures, see most recently Uta Kron, “Die Phylenheroen am Parthenonfries,” in Berger, 235-44; Ian Jenkins, “The Composition of the So-Called Eponymous Heroes on the East Frieze of the Parthenon,” American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1985): 121-27; and Blaise Nagy, “Athenian Officials on the Parthenon Frieze,” American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992): 55-69.
61. Jane E. Harrison, “Some Points in Dr. Furtwaengler’s Theories on the Parthenon and Its Marbles,” Classical Review 9 (1895): 91.
62. P. E. Corbett, The Sculptures of the Parthenon (Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1959), 21-22.
63. Eugen A. F. Petersen, Die Kunst des Pheidias am Parthenon zu Olympia (Berlin: Weidmann, 1873), 301.
64. Adolf Furtwdingler, Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik: Kunstgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig: Giesecke und Devrient, 1893), 183-92.
65. This theory was first suggested by G. F. Hill, “The East Frieze of the Parthenon,” Classical Review 8 (1894): 225-26; he was followed by Martin Robertson, The Parthenon Frieze (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 11, and Helga von Heinze, “Athena Polias am Parthenon,” Gymnasium 100 (1993): 410. It would imply that the old peplos did not carry the same religious significance as the new. Given the presence of a peplotheke, or storage place for peploi, on the Acropolis, one can assume that even the old peploi continued to be revered and deemed valuable. On this storage building, see Blaise Nagy, “The Peplotheke: What Was It ?”‘ in Studies Presented to SterlingDow on His Eightieth Birthday, ed. Alan L. Boegehold (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1984), 227-32.
66. See Blaise Nagy, “The Ritual in Slab V-East on the Parthenon Frieze,” Classical Philology 73 (1978): 136-41.
67. See Vinzenz Brinkmann, Beobachtungen zum formalen Aufbau und zum Sinngehalt der Friese des Siphnierschatzhauses (Ennepetal, Germ.: Biering und Brinkmann, 1994). For a comparison of the Parthenon frieze with the Siphnian frieze, see Rastko Vasic, “The Parthenon Frieze and the Siphnian Frieze,” in Berger, 307-11.
68. See Jose D6rig, La frise est de l’Htphaisteion (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1985); Angelos Delivorrias, “The Sculpted Decoration of the So-Called Theseion: Old Answers, New Questions,” in Buitron-Oliver (as in n. 56), 82-107.
69. A. H. Smith, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, vol. 1 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1892), 157. See also idem, The Sculptures of the Parthenon (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1910), 51.
70. To the best of my knowledge only one other scholar has expressed this idea in print; see C. D. Bicknell, “Some Vases in the Lewis Collection,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 41 (1921): 229. This arrangement serves to refute Connelly’s contention (as in n. 2, 67), that “the gods may face away from the sacrifice intentionally, as it is unseemly for gods to watch mortals die.”
71. Smith, 1892 (as in n. 69), 151. 72. Aphrodite is known in Attica by the epithet Pandemos (“of all the
people”), and Hermes Psychopompos conducted the souls of the dead to Hades.
73. Orvieto, Museo Claudio Faina, 2748; J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), 144, no. 9. See Shapiro (as in n. 35), pls. 25d, 26a-b. Parenthetically, the young woman seated next to Poseidon but confronting Ares might well be Hebe, since Herakles is present.
20 ART BULLETIN MARCH 1999 VOLUME LXXXI NUMBER 1
74. London, British Museum, E 49. ARV2, 432, no. 52. See Diana Buitron- Oliver, Douris, Kerameus, vol. 9 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1995), 78, no. 96, pl. 62.
75. The earliest extant example of the back view of a symposiast from the late 6th century B.C.E. is published by Dyfri Williams, “The Drawing of the Human Figure on Early Red-Figure Vases,” in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, Studies in the History of Art, vol. 32, ed. Diana Buitron-Oliver (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1991), 292, fig. 8. Foreshortened views of animals occur on Greek vases and sculpture as early as the mid-6th century B.C.E.; see ibid., 299 n. 26.
76. For a diagram of the Greek dining room and a discussion of the position of the viewer, see Bicknell (as in n. 70), 228. See also Birgitta Bergquist, “Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Greek Dining-Rooms,” Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium, ed. Oswyn Murray (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 37-65.
77. A similar evocation of three-dimensional ritual space is observed on Attic vases showing women flanking masks of Dionysos hung on pillars; see FranCoise Frontisi-Ducroux, Le dieu-masque, une figure du Dionysos d’Athines (Paris: Ecole FranCaise de Rome, 1991), 67-135. A related study of the spatial relationships between spectators and the gods in the context of the Greek theater is that of Ruth Padel, “Making Space Speak,” in Nothing to Do with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social Context, ed. John J. Winkler and Froma I. Zeitlin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 336-65.
78. Jenkins, 81. 79. Michael H. Jameson, “Theoxenia,” in Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the
Epigraphical Evidence, Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 November 1991, ed. Robin Higg (Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1994), 35-57.
80. Ibid., 36. 81. Ibid., 41-42. See also F. Sokolowski, Lois sacris de l’Asie Mineure (Paris:
Ecole FranCaise d’Ath~nes, 1955), 32. The law is dated 196 B.C.E. 82. Lily Ross Taylor, “A Sellisternium on the Parthenon Frieze?” in
Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake, ed. Robert P. Casey, Silva Lake, and Agnes K. Lake (London: Christophers, 1937), 253-64. See also her earlier article “The Sellisternium and the Theatrical Pompa,” Classical Philology 30 (1935): 122-30.
83. For the inventories of the Parthenon, see Diane Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). The thrones and stools were located in the Parthenon proper, which refers to the west chamber of the temple.
84. For a list of where various scholars locate the gods, see Berger and Gisler-Huweiler (as in n. 2), 170. The absence of Hestia would support the fact that the gods are somewhere other than Mt. Olympos, for she stays home to tend the hearth.
85. For scenes of sacrifice, see F. T. van Straten, Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995).
86. See Fred Cooper and Sarah Morris, “Dining in Round Buildings,” in Murray (as in no. 76), 66-85, pls. 5, 6.
87. For the Tholos, see Homer A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Agora of Athens, The Athenian Agora, vol. 14 (Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1972), 41-46; and Steven G. Miller, The Prytaneion: Its Function and Architectural Form (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 54-60. Miller’s reconstruction (55, fig. 2) indicates that the building could accommodate at most thirty-four couches; he concludes that dining in the Tholos was done in shifts.
88. For the close relationship of Zeus and Athena, see C. J. Herington, “Athena in Athenian Literature and Cult,” in Parthenos and Parthenon, Greece
and Rome, suppl. to vol. 10, ed. G.T.W. Hooker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 61-73. For a discussion of the relationship of Athena and Zeus in the context of the Panathenaia, see Jenifer Neils, Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, exh. cat., Hood Museum of Art, Hanover, N.H., 1992, 38.
89. For an arrangement of the east pediment that also positions Athena on Zeus’s right, or favored, side, see Olga Palagia, “First among Equals: Athena in the East Pediment of the Parthenon,” in Buitron-Oliver (as in n. 56), 29-49.
90. These ideas were first expressed in her article “Time in the Parthenon Frieze,” in Berger, 230-34. A summary can be found in Neils, 208-9.
91. Lin Foxhall, “Monumental Ambitions: The Significance of Posterity in Greece,” in Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology, ed. Nigel Spencer (London: Routledge, 1995), 132-49.
92. Earlier images of the birth of Athena normally show her as a half-length figure emerging from the head of Zeus. See Frank Brommer, “Die Geburt der Athena,” Jahrbuch des Rdmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz 8 (1961): 66-83.
93. For the ceremonies involving the peplos, see John M. Mansfield, “The Robe of Athena and the Panathenaic ‘Peplos,’ ” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1985.
94. For the problems of viewing the frieze, see Richard Stillwell, “The Panathenaic Frieze: Optical Relations,” Hesperia 38 (1969): 231-41; and Robin Osborne, “The Viewing and Obscuring of the Parthenon Frieze,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 107 (1987): 98-105. Osborne argues that the culminating experience for the viewer of the frieze is not the peplos ceremony but the chryselephantine cult statue within the temple. However, it is doubtful that the doors of the temple would be open on a regular basis because of the treasures stored inside, and only the privileged few would be allowed a glimpse of the costly image.
95. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano, 8602. See Beatrice Palma, I Marmi Ludovisi nel Museo Nazionale Romano: Museo Nazionale Romano, Le Sculture, vol. 1,
pt. 5 (Rome: De Luca, 1983), 115-21; and Brunilde S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture, vol. 1, The Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C. (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 84-87, 103 n. 22. The Eros under the figure’s legs is a copyist’s addition.
96. For a discussion of this influence as well as other sources for the
Augustan altar, see Diana E. E. Kleiner, “The Great Friezes of the Ara Pacis Augustae: Greek Sources, Roman Derivatives, and Augustan Social Policy,” Milanges de l’Ecole Franraise de Rome, Antiquiti90 (1978): 753-76.
97. For the Tellus panel of the Ara Pacis, see Erika Simon, Ara Pacis Augustae (Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic Society, n.d.), 26-29. G. Karl Galinsky argues that the figure is in fact Venus without, however, citing the parallels with the Parthenon frieze; see Galinsky, “Venus in a Relief of the Ara Pacis Augustae,” American Journal of Archaeology 70 (1966): 223-43. His discussion is extended in “Venus, Polysemy, and the Ara Pacis,” American Journal of Archaeology 96 (1992): 457-75. On Augustan art and ideology in general, see Paul Zanker, The Power of mages in the Age ofAugustus, trans. Alan Shapiro (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1988).
98. For a recent discussion of the iconography, see John Pollini, “The Gemma Augustea: Ideology, Rhetorical Imagery, and the Creation of a Dynastic Narrative,” in Narrative and Event in Ancient Art, ed. PeterJ. Holliday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 258-98.
99. It is perhaps worth noting in this context that the figure of Tiberius in the chariot crowned by Nike recalls Berger’s reconstruction of Ares and Iris in the east pediment of the Parthenon; see Boardman (as in n. 21), fig. 78.
- Issue Table of Contents
- Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 1-179
- Front Matter [pp. 1-5]
- Reconfiguring the Gods on the Parthenon Frieze [pp. 6-20]
- The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in Silver [pp. 21-52]
- A “Secret and Feverish Genesis”: The Prefaces of the Old English Hexateuch [pp. 53-71]
- The Neville of Hornby Hours and the Design of Literate Devotion [pp. 72-92]
- Giotto’s Annunciation in the Arena Chapel, Padua [pp. 93-107]
- Van Eyck’s Washington Annunciation: Technical Evidence for Iconographic Development [pp. 108-116]
- Van Eyck’s Washington Annunciation: Narrative Time and Metaphoric Tradition [pp. 117-125]
- Pseudo-Science and Mythic Misogyny: Oskar Kokoschka’s Murderer, Hope of Women [pp. 126-148]
- An Introduction to the Classical Modern Art of Bulgaria [pp. 149-162]
- New Findings in Titian’s Fresco Technique at the Scuola del Santo in Padua [pp. 163-164]
- Book Reviews
- Review: untitled [pp. 165-168]
- Review: untitled [pp. 168-175]
- Books Received (October-December 1998) [pp. 176-179]
- Back Matter
- Art Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 1-179