vases. would be hazardous, if not indeed actually perverse. Herein indeed lies the fundamental weakness in Dörpfeld's argument. It consists in a neglect of the larger problem of the origin of this architectural feature as it affects all of these different groups of He selects a small number of paintings and treats them as an insulated genre a method that surely invites disaster. This becomes even more obvious when we compare another series of pictures in which the building represents a temple, as in the numerous Iphigenia-vases. To seek the prototype of the temple in the theater would be both gratuitous and absurd, as Dörpfeld himself recognized (p. 310), and yet in some instances the representation of the temple is virtually identical with that of the palace. The artists' copybook is again in evidence (cf. Fig. 26).220 Indeed a study of a score or more of the vase-paintings, in which occur representations of palaces, temples and the like, forces one to the conclusion that none of these reproduces in any dependable manner the architectural arrangements of the scene-building. The Medea-vase therefore cannot be admitted as evidence of a projecting portico before the skene a conclusion that appears to be reënforced by the further consideration that the scene in question, the agony and death of Creusa, was in all probability not enacted in the presence of the audience, that is in the vestibule, but took place within the palace itself.221 The interpretation of the Antigone-vase (Fig. 27) 222 is still more 220 The temple appears in many different forms; see Overbeck, Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und troischen Heldenkreis (1857), Taf. 30; Vogel, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.; Huddilston, op. cit., figs. 18-21. Figure 26 (Monumenti dell' Instituto, VI, 66) is from an amphora which is (or was) in the Hermitage Museum at Petrograd. 221 Dörpfeld (p. 307) parries this objection. I say "in all probability," for unfortunately we do not know whether the painting was inspired by the Medea of Euripides or by that of some later poet. For a partial bibliography of this controversy, see note 217. 222 Heydemann, Ueber eine nacheuripideische Tragödie (1868); Mon. dell' Inst., X, Taf. 26-27; Vogel, op. cit. (note 217), pp. 50 ff.; Baumeister, Denkmäler, I (1885), 84; Klügmann, Ann. dell' Inst. Arch. (1876), 173 ff.; Harrison, Themis (1912), pp. 376, 377. Heracles, Antigone, Haemon, Creon difficult. It is generally assumed that the building represents a palace; but this is far from certain. Within the structure stands Heracles, and his name appears in large letters upon the architrave. This is most puzzling. If Heracles was the deus ex machina, his appearance within the building is not easy to explain; while on the other hand he cannot have been the protagonist in any Antigone, and for this reason assigned to a central position in the composition. Possibly the artist drew upon other sources than the drama for this portion of his picture - an explanation adopted by Miss Harrison, who resolves the mystery by calling the structure an Heracleum or heroon of Heracles: In the saga he [Heracles], for some reason not given, asks Creon a favor. He is no daimon; he is just one mortal of royal race asking a boon of another. But art is more conservative. Heracles was the hero of Thebes and on the amphora his heroon, marked by his name, bulks proportionately large. He, not Creon, for all Creon's kingly sceptre, is the Hero to be intreated. It is a strange instructive fusion and confusion of two strata of thinking.22 and Ismene are named; the other figures are uncertain. The scene appears to be borrowed from a lost drama by an unknown poet, the plot of which is preserved by Hyginus (Fab. 72). 223 Themis (1912), p. 377. The structures pictured on the Archemorus-vase (Fig. 28) 224 and on the Meleager-vase (Fig. 29) 225 are less ornate. The latter bears a slight resemblance to the conventional proskenion,226 but the columns at the rear render this connection dubious. Neither of these paintings, however, contributes any dependable information regarding the appearance of the scene-building. Indeed it is not absolutely certain that either of them was directly inspired by the drama. And when we reflect that in Greek houses the prothyron was regularly a space or room extending inward from the front wall rather than outward toward the street 227 the theory that in the early theater a projecting portico was sometimes erected before the skene appears to lose every vestige of support. In conclusion one other ancient picture deserves to be mentioned. This is the beautiful painting representing a scene from the sad story of Niobe and her children (Fig. 30),228 the original of which in Robert's opinion was the work of an Athenian artist of the fifth century. The building, which is apparently of unusual construction, Robert at first explained in accordance with Dörpfeld's restoration of the scene-building; but later he withdrew this 224 Vogel, op. cit. (note 217), pp. 99 ff.; Baumeister, op. cit., I, 114; Gerhard, "Archemoros und die Hesperiden,” Gesammelte Abhandlungen, I, 5; Decharme, Euripides and the Spirit of his Dramas; translated by Loeb (1905), p. 198. At the bottom of the picture is the body of Archemorus lying on the bier; an elderly woman approaches to place a wreath upon his head. Above in the center stands his grief-stricken mother Eurydice. On her right appears Hypsipyle in an attitude of supplication; on her left, Amphiaraus, who seems to be interceding for the unhappy Hypsipyle. 225 Jahn, Archaeologische Zeitung, 1867, 33 ff., Tafel 220; Vogel, op. cit., pp. 80 ff.; Engelmann, Archaeologische Studien zu den Tragikern (1900), pp. 80 ff. Supported by his sister Deianira and his half-brother Tydeus, Meleager sinks in death upon a bed. 226 So Engelmann, Arch. Stud., p. 80. 227 See Guhl-Koner, Leben der Griechen und Römer, ed. 6, 1893, 194; Daremberg-Saglio, op. cit., art. "Domus," p. 346. 228 The painting is upon marble and was found at Pompeii in the year 1872. The predominating colors are gold and a delicate shade of violet. For Robert's discussion of this picture see Hermes, XXXVI (1901), 368 ff., Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, CLXIV (1902), 430, and Hallisches Winckelmannsprogramm, no. 24 (1903). Figure 30 is a photograph of the colored reproduction in the article last mentioned; reference may be made to this article for additional bibliographical material. |