DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9187#0122
HEROIZING RELIEFS
93
inappropriate to a peaceful and non-equestrian deity like
Asklepius. Such contamination of one class of monuments
by another, such transfer of symbols from one artistic field
to another, is among the common phenomena offered by
Greek art.
We have now reached phenomena which require careful
consideration. We have found that there is no clear line
of distinction to be drawn between banqueting reliefs which
were set up in honour of dead persons and reliefs which belong
to the cultus of heroes, and even of deities who partake of the
nature of heroes, such as Asklepius. It is always difficult
in dealing with ancient monuments to separate the particular
class of which we propose to treat from other classes which
arc akin to it in origin and in meaning. It is always necessary
at last to draw a somewhat arbitrary line, and to adhere to
it for the sake of order and method.
In Greek cultus and belief there is no broad distinction
to be made between the veneration paid to the more note-
worthy of those who were recently dead, and the worship
accorded to local and national heroes, Theseus and Orestes,
the Dioscuri and Asklepius. In a sense, all the dead were
heroes, and any of them might become a worthy object of
periodic sacrifice, proprietor of a sacred domain, and lord
of a priesthood. I have already (Chap. II) dwelt on these
facts from the point of view of custom and cultus; it remains
to show their working in the field of art.
In dealing, not with actual gravestones, but with the oblong
reliefs which had a closer relation to cultus, and were dedicated
only to the more distinguished of the dead, it is quite impossible
to distinguish clearly those which were set up in honour of
recognized mythic heroes, from those which belonged strictly
to the cult of ancestors. Sometimes the inscription may help
us to a decision, or sometimes we may find direction in the
place where the relief is found. Apart from these external
93
inappropriate to a peaceful and non-equestrian deity like
Asklepius. Such contamination of one class of monuments
by another, such transfer of symbols from one artistic field
to another, is among the common phenomena offered by
Greek art.
We have now reached phenomena which require careful
consideration. We have found that there is no clear line
of distinction to be drawn between banqueting reliefs which
were set up in honour of dead persons and reliefs which belong
to the cultus of heroes, and even of deities who partake of the
nature of heroes, such as Asklepius. It is always difficult
in dealing with ancient monuments to separate the particular
class of which we propose to treat from other classes which
arc akin to it in origin and in meaning. It is always necessary
at last to draw a somewhat arbitrary line, and to adhere to
it for the sake of order and method.
In Greek cultus and belief there is no broad distinction
to be made between the veneration paid to the more note-
worthy of those who were recently dead, and the worship
accorded to local and national heroes, Theseus and Orestes,
the Dioscuri and Asklepius. In a sense, all the dead were
heroes, and any of them might become a worthy object of
periodic sacrifice, proprietor of a sacred domain, and lord
of a priesthood. I have already (Chap. II) dwelt on these
facts from the point of view of custom and cultus; it remains
to show their working in the field of art.
In dealing, not with actual gravestones, but with the oblong
reliefs which had a closer relation to cultus, and were dedicated
only to the more distinguished of the dead, it is quite impossible
to distinguish clearly those which were set up in honour of
recognized mythic heroes, from those which belonged strictly
to the cult of ancestors. Sometimes the inscription may help
us to a decision, or sometimes we may find direction in the
place where the relief is found. Apart from these external