DOI Heft:
No. 3
DOI Artikel:Daszewski, Wiktor Andrzej: The so called "Attis Statue" from the National Museum in Warsaw
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17138#0083
some objects of tliis group. It is enough to add that in antiquity often Attis was identificd with
other deities especially in the late period of tlic Empire, and attributes of other gods were added
to liim, c.g. Dionysos, Apollo14 etc. On the other hand we know a representation of Mithra
where the latter appears in "open trousers" which are characteristic only for Attis15. The si-
milarities apply also to other representations concerning Mithra. It appears especially in
the figures of dadophoroi. Represented in couples, the pensive dadophoroi remind Attis especially
when he, too, is represented in Iwo identical figures at the same time, as for esample on the
altar mentioned by Cumont16. This anthor iuterprets this as two "tomb Attisses" or as two
priests.
Will's doubts regarding this interpretation17 seem to be very well founded. On the basis
of numerous analogies he suggests that the representations coinmonly considered as "Attis"
are simply figures of servants in oriental garments. On Hellenistic and Roman reliefs
at the Museum in Istambuł, in bancjuet scenes, beside the main figures of the participants of
the feast, we sec smaller figures of servants the representation of which is deceptively
sirailar to the "Attisses" bul in hełlenic dresses18. In Belcvi ncar Ephesus in the lV-th
century mausoleum a representation of a servant in Phrygian garments19 was found. His posturę,
the hands foldcd in the characteristic way of the "tomb Attisses" remind of our statuę'-0. The date
of its origin cxcludcs any connection with the cult of Mithra. The ancient Greek tradition,
compelling the servants to deplore their masters and to guard their tombs, confirms Will's
doubts. lf most of the so-called "tomb Attisses" were not gods, but only represent servants,
can then the similar statues decorating pieces of furniture having often little to do with cult
represent this god? Is it possible to snppose that the Attisses decorated four feet of a bronze
table from the museum in Yienne ?21 Their postures do not differ from the so often mentioned
here "tomb Attisses" and G. Richter is right in describing them as "young men"22. It should
be added that a more correct definition would be "servants", as it would emphasize the service
rendered by the table and this wras probably the intention of the ancients. "Attisses" in the
same way as "Maenades" and "Amazons" are symbols of the Roman sepulchral art with no
special character of cult23. On the other hand the longlasting tradition of representing servants,
and this in attitudes similar to those mentioned above, suggests to limit and to consider the
representations of Attis only on those monuments which have uadoubtful attributes or
characteristic features of this god, as it was done by Perdrizet. The "characteristic attitude"
does not prove, anything; as we have seen it is very common in different representations
in Roman art. In similar attitudes appear dadophoroi, as well as tomb Eros24 or the abovc
mentioned servants.
These remarks suggest that it would be worth while to vcrify the definition of the statuę
decorating the foot of the table found in Hercuhmum and published by Maiuri as a represen-
tation of Attis25. There are no typical attributes permitting to define its connection with Attis.
It is true that the Phrygian cap bas "ends falling on the shoulders", what, according to Cumont26
may indicate the Phrygian god, but similar caps were worn not only by Attisses, on the contrary,
14. Enckłopedia deWarte ani., I, p. 908.
15. Relief from Kertch, sec Encid. deWarte ant., p. 908.
16. Cumont F., Lcs Religions oricntales dans le paganisme romain, Faris, 1929, p. 53, fig. 3.
17. Will E., op. cii., p. 201 and 202.
18. Mendel G., Catalogue dc Constaulinople III. Ganstantinople, 1914, Ko 896-1053.
19. Jahreshefle, 1934-35, XXIX, Beibl. p. 139, fig. 54.
20 . Will E., op. cit., fig. 36.
21- Richter G.M., Ancient Furniture, Oxford, 1926, fig. 323.
22- Richter G.M., op. cit., p.138.
23. Will E., op. cit., p. 200.
24. Will E., op. cit., p. 201.
25. Maiuri A., op. cii., p. 58.
26. Cumont F., Monuments figuris relatifs aux mysteres dc Mithra, op. cit. II, p. 437.
69
other deities especially in the late period of tlic Empire, and attributes of other gods were added
to liim, c.g. Dionysos, Apollo14 etc. On the other hand we know a representation of Mithra
where the latter appears in "open trousers" which are characteristic only for Attis15. The si-
milarities apply also to other representations concerning Mithra. It appears especially in
the figures of dadophoroi. Represented in couples, the pensive dadophoroi remind Attis especially
when he, too, is represented in Iwo identical figures at the same time, as for esample on the
altar mentioned by Cumont16. This anthor iuterprets this as two "tomb Attisses" or as two
priests.
Will's doubts regarding this interpretation17 seem to be very well founded. On the basis
of numerous analogies he suggests that the representations coinmonly considered as "Attis"
are simply figures of servants in oriental garments. On Hellenistic and Roman reliefs
at the Museum in Istambuł, in bancjuet scenes, beside the main figures of the participants of
the feast, we sec smaller figures of servants the representation of which is deceptively
sirailar to the "Attisses" bul in hełlenic dresses18. In Belcvi ncar Ephesus in the lV-th
century mausoleum a representation of a servant in Phrygian garments19 was found. His posturę,
the hands foldcd in the characteristic way of the "tomb Attisses" remind of our statuę'-0. The date
of its origin cxcludcs any connection with the cult of Mithra. The ancient Greek tradition,
compelling the servants to deplore their masters and to guard their tombs, confirms Will's
doubts. lf most of the so-called "tomb Attisses" were not gods, but only represent servants,
can then the similar statues decorating pieces of furniture having often little to do with cult
represent this god? Is it possible to snppose that the Attisses decorated four feet of a bronze
table from the museum in Yienne ?21 Their postures do not differ from the so often mentioned
here "tomb Attisses" and G. Richter is right in describing them as "young men"22. It should
be added that a more correct definition would be "servants", as it would emphasize the service
rendered by the table and this wras probably the intention of the ancients. "Attisses" in the
same way as "Maenades" and "Amazons" are symbols of the Roman sepulchral art with no
special character of cult23. On the other hand the longlasting tradition of representing servants,
and this in attitudes similar to those mentioned above, suggests to limit and to consider the
representations of Attis only on those monuments which have uadoubtful attributes or
characteristic features of this god, as it was done by Perdrizet. The "characteristic attitude"
does not prove, anything; as we have seen it is very common in different representations
in Roman art. In similar attitudes appear dadophoroi, as well as tomb Eros24 or the abovc
mentioned servants.
These remarks suggest that it would be worth while to vcrify the definition of the statuę
decorating the foot of the table found in Hercuhmum and published by Maiuri as a represen-
tation of Attis25. There are no typical attributes permitting to define its connection with Attis.
It is true that the Phrygian cap bas "ends falling on the shoulders", what, according to Cumont26
may indicate the Phrygian god, but similar caps were worn not only by Attisses, on the contrary,
14. Enckłopedia deWarte ani., I, p. 908.
15. Relief from Kertch, sec Encid. deWarte ant., p. 908.
16. Cumont F., Lcs Religions oricntales dans le paganisme romain, Faris, 1929, p. 53, fig. 3.
17. Will E., op. cii., p. 201 and 202.
18. Mendel G., Catalogue dc Constaulinople III. Ganstantinople, 1914, Ko 896-1053.
19. Jahreshefle, 1934-35, XXIX, Beibl. p. 139, fig. 54.
20 . Will E., op. cit., fig. 36.
21- Richter G.M., Ancient Furniture, Oxford, 1926, fig. 323.
22- Richter G.M., op. cit., p.138.
23. Will E., op. cit., p. 200.
24. Will E., op. cit., p. 201.
25. Maiuri A., op. cii., p. 58.
26. Cumont F., Monuments figuris relatifs aux mysteres dc Mithra, op. cit. II, p. 437.
69