DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14696#0132
82
Iupiter-Columns
So far, then, we can accept Hertlein's view. But when, following
A. Riese1, he contends that the prone or prostrate giant represents
the earth2, he seems to be deserting the principle of interpretation
that he has himself propounded. For the Germanic earth-power
would have been a goddess (Nerthus3 or the like) rather than a
god. Besides, she would surely have been figured below, not above,
the Romanised Irminsul—a pillar that ex hypothesi linked earth
with heaven. I should therefore prefer to explain the giant along
other lines. The provincial sculptor, bound to express himself in
the art-speech of Rome, would naturally draw his design for a
warlike Iupiter from the Graeco-Roman type of the Gigantomachy.
Hence his Iupiter as rider or driver with uplifted bolt. Hence too
his giant always with serpentine legs4, sometimes with a club5, and
in one case with a second giant beside him". Further, when this
pictorial composition, suitable enough for relief-work or intaglio
or painting on the fiat, was translated into sculpture in the round,
1 A. Riese in the Gesellschaft fiir lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde:
Jahrbttch 1900 xii. 324 ff.
2 F. Hertlein op. cit. p. 47 f.
3 Tac. Germ. 40. For recent opinion with regard to Nerthus see W. Mannhardt JVald-
und Feldkulte'2 Berlin 1904 i. 567—602, M. Ihm in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii. 274—277,
E. Mogk in the Grundriss der germanischen Philologie'1 Herausgegeben von H. Paul
Strassburg 1900 iii. 367—369, R. M. Meyer Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte Leipzig
1910 pp. 204—209, K. Helm Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte Heidelberg 1913 i.
4 This feature of the Gigantes is discussed by E. Kuhnert in Roscher Lex. Myth. i.
1670ft"., M. Mayer Die Giganten und Titanen Berlin 1887 pp. 274—282 ('Typhoeus;
Schlangenfussler'), cp. ib. pp. 216, 223 with n. 167, A. von Salis Der Altar von Pergamon
Berlin 1912 p. 67 b, E. Kiister Die Schlange in der griechischen LCunst und Religion
Giessen 1913 pp. 95—97.
5 Stipra p. 80.
e A group from Pfalz (?) now in the Museum at Mayence (F. Hertlein op. cit. pp. 18,
40 b, 42 b, 45) has a pair of giants, one bearded, the other beardless. This exceptional
arrangement, like the occasional duplication of the giant's club {supra p. 80 n. 2), might
be referred to a mere feeling for symmetry (as is perhaps the case with some of the
doublets cited by E. Gerhard Zwei Minerven (Winckelmannsfest-Progr. Berlin viii)
Berlin 1848, Overbeck Gr. Kunstmyth. Zeus p. 257 n.c), but is more probably to be
explained as a reminiscence of the Gigantomachy.
1 c
Iupiter-Columns
So far, then, we can accept Hertlein's view. But when, following
A. Riese1, he contends that the prone or prostrate giant represents
the earth2, he seems to be deserting the principle of interpretation
that he has himself propounded. For the Germanic earth-power
would have been a goddess (Nerthus3 or the like) rather than a
god. Besides, she would surely have been figured below, not above,
the Romanised Irminsul—a pillar that ex hypothesi linked earth
with heaven. I should therefore prefer to explain the giant along
other lines. The provincial sculptor, bound to express himself in
the art-speech of Rome, would naturally draw his design for a
warlike Iupiter from the Graeco-Roman type of the Gigantomachy.
Hence his Iupiter as rider or driver with uplifted bolt. Hence too
his giant always with serpentine legs4, sometimes with a club5, and
in one case with a second giant beside him". Further, when this
pictorial composition, suitable enough for relief-work or intaglio
or painting on the fiat, was translated into sculpture in the round,
1 A. Riese in the Gesellschaft fiir lothringische Geschichte und Altertumskunde:
Jahrbttch 1900 xii. 324 ff.
2 F. Hertlein op. cit. p. 47 f.
3 Tac. Germ. 40. For recent opinion with regard to Nerthus see W. Mannhardt JVald-
und Feldkulte'2 Berlin 1904 i. 567—602, M. Ihm in Roscher Lex. Myth. iii. 274—277,
E. Mogk in the Grundriss der germanischen Philologie'1 Herausgegeben von H. Paul
Strassburg 1900 iii. 367—369, R. M. Meyer Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte Leipzig
1910 pp. 204—209, K. Helm Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte Heidelberg 1913 i.
4 This feature of the Gigantes is discussed by E. Kuhnert in Roscher Lex. Myth. i.
1670ft"., M. Mayer Die Giganten und Titanen Berlin 1887 pp. 274—282 ('Typhoeus;
Schlangenfussler'), cp. ib. pp. 216, 223 with n. 167, A. von Salis Der Altar von Pergamon
Berlin 1912 p. 67 b, E. Kiister Die Schlange in der griechischen LCunst und Religion
Giessen 1913 pp. 95—97.
5 Stipra p. 80.
e A group from Pfalz (?) now in the Museum at Mayence (F. Hertlein op. cit. pp. 18,
40 b, 42 b, 45) has a pair of giants, one bearded, the other beardless. This exceptional
arrangement, like the occasional duplication of the giant's club {supra p. 80 n. 2), might
be referred to a mere feeling for symmetry (as is perhaps the case with some of the
doublets cited by E. Gerhard Zwei Minerven (Winckelmannsfest-Progr. Berlin viii)
Berlin 1848, Overbeck Gr. Kunstmyth. Zeus p. 257 n.c), but is more probably to be
explained as a reminiscence of the Gigantomachy.
1 c