DOI article:
Essay VI: The Athene from the Parthenon frieze and the Louvre plaque
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0222
194
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PHEIDIAS.
[VI.
period there is no doubt that it was placed like a sail on
the mast of a ship which was rolled through the street on
wheels, very much as is the custom now at Palermo during
the procession of Rosalia. This custom, in keeping with the
maritime character of the Athenian people, contained a re-
ference to Athene as the inventor of the sail and the pro-
tectress of ship-building; a regatta at the Piraeus also formed
a part of the celebrations during the festival. At that time
the peplos had to be taken from the ship before reaching the
steep ascent of the Acropolis, and was carried to the temple
by the chosen maidens.
Almost all archaeologists are agreed that the frieze of the
Parthenon is a representation of this procession. The objec-
tions which individual archaeologists, such as Bdtticher1, Chris-
tian Petersen2, and August Mommsen3, put forth against this
assumption appear comparatively without weight and have not
met with any further support. They are all grounded upon one
line of argument, namely, on the deviation from the rendering
of the procession in sculptured relief from the detailed descrip-
tion of the elements of the procession in the classical authors.
The great artistic merit of the composition of the frieze, in
which life and variety take the place of the monotonous rank
and file of a solemn procession, and the graceful proportion of the
heads in their relation to the body is maintained instead of a
monotonous series of top-heavy figures, with their heads
covered with wreaths,—this very artistic merit is made the
chief antiquarian4 reason for doubting about the proper archaeo-
logical interpretation. But these arguments have not as yet
been of sufficient strength to alter the opinion held by most
modern authorities that the frieze does represent a procession,
and moreover the procession of the Panathenaic festival.
1 Erbkam's Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen, 1852, 1853; Arch. Anz. 1854, p. 426 seq.,
1S58, p. 175 seq., 1859, p. 66 seq. &c. It would lead us too far from the immediate
aims of this Essay to enter more closely into the discussions of this point. The reader
must be referred to Michaelis, Dcr Parthenon, p. 206 seq., and to Eug. Petersen,
Die Kunst des Pheidias, &c., for a further statement of the discussion and for reference
with regard to further reading.
2 Arch. Zeit. XIII. p. 19 seq. ; Zcitschr.fiir die Altcrthtimswisscnschaft, 1857, pp.
193 seq., 308 seq., 385 seq. ; Arch. Anzeiger, 1859, P- 89 se1-
3 Heortologie, p. 116 seq. 4 See Essay I. p. 26.
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PHEIDIAS.
[VI.
period there is no doubt that it was placed like a sail on
the mast of a ship which was rolled through the street on
wheels, very much as is the custom now at Palermo during
the procession of Rosalia. This custom, in keeping with the
maritime character of the Athenian people, contained a re-
ference to Athene as the inventor of the sail and the pro-
tectress of ship-building; a regatta at the Piraeus also formed
a part of the celebrations during the festival. At that time
the peplos had to be taken from the ship before reaching the
steep ascent of the Acropolis, and was carried to the temple
by the chosen maidens.
Almost all archaeologists are agreed that the frieze of the
Parthenon is a representation of this procession. The objec-
tions which individual archaeologists, such as Bdtticher1, Chris-
tian Petersen2, and August Mommsen3, put forth against this
assumption appear comparatively without weight and have not
met with any further support. They are all grounded upon one
line of argument, namely, on the deviation from the rendering
of the procession in sculptured relief from the detailed descrip-
tion of the elements of the procession in the classical authors.
The great artistic merit of the composition of the frieze, in
which life and variety take the place of the monotonous rank
and file of a solemn procession, and the graceful proportion of the
heads in their relation to the body is maintained instead of a
monotonous series of top-heavy figures, with their heads
covered with wreaths,—this very artistic merit is made the
chief antiquarian4 reason for doubting about the proper archaeo-
logical interpretation. But these arguments have not as yet
been of sufficient strength to alter the opinion held by most
modern authorities that the frieze does represent a procession,
and moreover the procession of the Panathenaic festival.
1 Erbkam's Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen, 1852, 1853; Arch. Anz. 1854, p. 426 seq.,
1S58, p. 175 seq., 1859, p. 66 seq. &c. It would lead us too far from the immediate
aims of this Essay to enter more closely into the discussions of this point. The reader
must be referred to Michaelis, Dcr Parthenon, p. 206 seq., and to Eug. Petersen,
Die Kunst des Pheidias, &c., for a further statement of the discussion and for reference
with regard to further reading.
2 Arch. Zeit. XIII. p. 19 seq. ; Zcitschr.fiir die Altcrthtimswisscnschaft, 1857, pp.
193 seq., 308 seq., 385 seq. ; Arch. Anzeiger, 1859, P- 89 se1-
3 Heortologie, p. 116 seq. 4 See Essay I. p. 26.