DOI article:
Essay IV: The western pediment of the Parthenon, and the Venice fragment
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0152
IV.] THE WESTERN PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON. I 27
figures. As I have said before1, the individual differences may be
traced back to the intention of the artist to indicate the special
character of the figure represented, or they may to some degree
possibly be attributed to the difference of workmanship of the
various sculptors who were engaged in executing the different
parts of the immense work designed by Pheidias. Now the differ-
ence in workmanship between the seated female figure nearest
the centre of the western pediment (Plate IV. and No. 1, r. on
Fig. 4) and the seated figures of the eastern pediment (Plate VII.),
is far greater than between the fragment and these figures. Nay,
the difference in the indication of folds between the figure (No.
I, r. Fig. 4) from the western pediment and the drapery of the
so-called Hygieia (No. 4 on the left), as well as the piece hang-
ing from the left arm of the Kephissos (No. 7, 1.) of the same
pediment, is greater than the difference between these latter
figures and the Venice fragment. Thus, judging from the style,
we should have been more inclined to consider the Venice
fragment part of the western pediment than the fragment no.
1, r. of that pediment, had the latter not been found in situ.
One more question now remains to be considered: Is there
any possible or probable position for the figure of which the
fragment is apart, in the western pediment? The extant figures
from this pediment are very few in number; in fact, besides a
few small fragments, there only exist seven torsos that can give
an idea of what the statues were.
We are thus driven to compare the fragment with the figures
from the western pediment as found in the drawings made
before its destruction in the year 1678. Now, valuable as we
have seen these drawings to be for the study of the composition,
they are, as has been pointed out by Michaelis2, too sketchy and
on too small a scale to be of value for the study of the style of
most of the individual figures. But we must not lose sight of
the fact that our aim is not to make the comparison between the
fragment and the sketch of the figures from the pediment the
positive and main test that the fragment belongs to this
pediment. All that we are bound to establish is an answer to
this question, does this comparison of the fragment with the
1 See Essay I., p. 33.
2 Der Parthenon, p. 102
figures. As I have said before1, the individual differences may be
traced back to the intention of the artist to indicate the special
character of the figure represented, or they may to some degree
possibly be attributed to the difference of workmanship of the
various sculptors who were engaged in executing the different
parts of the immense work designed by Pheidias. Now the differ-
ence in workmanship between the seated female figure nearest
the centre of the western pediment (Plate IV. and No. 1, r. on
Fig. 4) and the seated figures of the eastern pediment (Plate VII.),
is far greater than between the fragment and these figures. Nay,
the difference in the indication of folds between the figure (No.
I, r. Fig. 4) from the western pediment and the drapery of the
so-called Hygieia (No. 4 on the left), as well as the piece hang-
ing from the left arm of the Kephissos (No. 7, 1.) of the same
pediment, is greater than the difference between these latter
figures and the Venice fragment. Thus, judging from the style,
we should have been more inclined to consider the Venice
fragment part of the western pediment than the fragment no.
1, r. of that pediment, had the latter not been found in situ.
One more question now remains to be considered: Is there
any possible or probable position for the figure of which the
fragment is apart, in the western pediment? The extant figures
from this pediment are very few in number; in fact, besides a
few small fragments, there only exist seven torsos that can give
an idea of what the statues were.
We are thus driven to compare the fragment with the figures
from the western pediment as found in the drawings made
before its destruction in the year 1678. Now, valuable as we
have seen these drawings to be for the study of the composition,
they are, as has been pointed out by Michaelis2, too sketchy and
on too small a scale to be of value for the study of the style of
most of the individual figures. But we must not lose sight of
the fact that our aim is not to make the comparison between the
fragment and the sketch of the figures from the pediment the
positive and main test that the fragment belongs to this
pediment. All that we are bound to establish is an answer to
this question, does this comparison of the fragment with the
1 See Essay I., p. 33.
2 Der Parthenon, p. 102