The sculptural compositions of the Parthenon are among the best-known monuments of Classical Greek Art. Among other sculptures, the pediments always draw our attention to their unique iconography, their colossal size, and their virtuosity of execution. Although the birth of Athena, observed by the gods, on the east, has more frequently been placed at the center of scholarly evaluation, her clash with Poseidon, observed by Athenian mythical ancestors, on the west—the sculptures first seen by ancient spectators ascending the Acropolis—has received less attention. Ioannis Mitsios’ new study of the west pediment’s iconography offers new interpretations.
The book comprises five chapters. The author begins by summarizing all previous research, which he organizes in three principal strands: (a) the attribution of fragments; (b) the few studies that take under consideration aspects of mythology; and (c) the depiction of Athena’s and Poseidon’s contest for the land of Attica (p. 2). He then articulates the objectives of his study through the combined lenses of iconography, myth, cult and Athenian topography, while giving sustained attention to the drawings produced by travelers and artists from the 15th to 19th centuries (pp. 2–3). These drawings are further reviewed in the second chapter, where Mitsios begins with Cyriacus of Ancona, who visited the Acropolis in 1436. His drawings, mostly imaginary rather than real, were copied and distributed in publications, the most famous being the “Hamilton Codex” in Berlin and the “Sangallo copy” in Rome. More central to Mitsios’ method, however, are the copies made by the “Nointel Artist,” widely accepted as Jacques Carrey or Arnould de Vuez,[1] now in the National Library of France. They record various details because they were executed thirteen years before F. Morosini’s bombardment in 1687 that destroyed much of the pediment. To these, Mitsios compares post-destruction drawings by R. Dalton, W. Pars, W. Gell, R. Smirke and J. Thürmer, produced in the 18th and 19th centuries (pp. 5–6).
The third chapter gathers all the surviving figures and their attributed fragments, preserved both in the Acropolis and the British Museums. All previous opinions are briefly presented in combination with the aforementioned drawings. As in previous treatises, the pedimental figures are numbered with Latin letters ordered from the viewer’s left to right; an asterisk denotes figures that have been lost. Mitsios is careful in his descriptions. Even though he describes each and every figure, he does not identify them, leaving this analysis for the following chapter. Several of Mitsios’ observations are worthy of comment. On page 9 the author mentions the snake fragment (British Museum inv.no. 1816.0610.104), usually placed between figures B and C, which belongs either to the completely lost figure A* or figure B. This is depicted not only in Pars’ drawing but also in those of the “Nointel Artist” and Gell. As for the poorly preserved figure D, only one fragment from a seated woman wearing a chiton and himation is preserved, which Mitsios identifies as a right knee (Acr. Mus. inv.no. 1028). However, as A.H. Smith and much later A. Mantis have shown, this fragment comes from her left knee.[2] Additionally, the traces of the fingers of figure E’s right hand placed on the knee reinforce this identification as the left knee since it would be anatomically awkward for E to extend his hand up to D’s right knee. Moreover, the reclining female figure W, near the right corner of the pediment, leans on her right and not her left elbow (p. 17) as is shown in the “Nointel Artist’s” drawing.
In the fourth chapter—the core of the monograph—Mitsios presents his new interpretations. When identifying the figures, based on a decidedly synthetic approach, integrating literary evidence, iconographic parallels (mostly vase painting) and the Acropolis’ topography, Mitsios either accepts previous interpretations or proposes new ones. Beginning with figure A, a reclining man near the left corner of the pediment, Mitsios newly identifies him with the river Kephisos, who is more relevant to Attic royalty and, like other figures of the pediment, has kourotrophic functions (p. 19). According to an inscription (IG I3 987), Kephisos received a cult in a sanctuary at Phaleron.[3] Furthermore, as Pausanias informs us (1.37.3), from Homer’s time young children offered their hair to the river in order to receive protection. Moreover, river gods, apart from being the Athenian’s mythic ancestors, were also used to strengthen their autochthonous nature. As for the now lost figure A* his interpretation as the nymph Praxithea should remain conjectural, since the figure was lost from the time of the “Nointel Artist’s” drawings (1674). Mitsios agrees with most scholars (whose opinions are summarized in table 4.1) in interpreting male figure B, who sits on a rocky ground, as Kekrops due to the small snake fragment under his left thigh, denoting his hybrid nature (p. 21).
The author proceeds with figures C, D, E and F, which depict three adult females and a young male. Figure C, kneeling next to B, wears a belted chiton and himation that leaves her left breast bare. Mitsios identifies it with one of Kekrops’ daughters. According to a myth as described in Pausanias (1.18.2), the daughters were involved in Erichthonios’ birth and nurture and this female may represent one of them: either Pandrosos, the obedient daughter who respected Athena’s orders not to open the chest, or Aglauros, who opened the chest and, frightened by the snake within, jumped from the Akropolis to her death. As Mitsios emphasizes, the exposed breast here is not connected with kourotrophy, but rather shows physical violence, distress and peril, as one sees elsewhere, e.g., the lapith women on the Centauromachy of the Parthenon’s south metopes, and contemporary vase painting (pp. 22–23). Yet C’s proximity to Kekrops has also prompted the suggestion that C may represent Kekrops’ wife, who, according to later sources, e.g., Apollodorus (3.14.2), was named Aglauros. In addition, Mitsios points out that under both Kekrops and Aglauros a small part of a rocky ground is depicted, indicating that this “recalled to viewers” the place (Acropolis), where Aglauros committed suicide and “may have reminded” them that her cave-sanctuary was located on the eastern slope of the rock (p. 24). If we consider the fact that Aglauros was Kekrops’ spouse, then this might explain why she is hugging him probably for one last time before the suicide or the self-sacrifice. However, no images, either in vase painting or sculpture, show this specific embrace, leaving the case open for future interpretations.[4] Although the seated figure of D might be Pandrosos, almost nothing of the figure, save for the left knee, survives. E, according to Mitsios, might be Erichthonios, son of Athena, Hephaistos and Ge, leaning next to his kourotrophos (p. 28). However, this interpretation is rather conjectural due to the almost entire loss of D. As for figure F, Mitsios proposes that it represents Herse, due to her placement next to H, whom he believes is possibly Hermes, her husband, based on descriptions in Pausanias (1.38.3) and Ovid (Met. 2.722–835).
A trio of figures follows. Two young males, P and R, flank the seated adult female Q. As already argued in his previous publication,[5] Mitsios identifies these figures as Athenian mythical royal ancestors. He rightly emphasizes that the identifications of the boys as the Boreads, Zetes and Kalais, with their seated mother Oreithyia, are weak because of the absence of wings and the fact that they are never depicted in any kourotrophic context (pp. 29, 33). Instead, after reading Apollodorus (3.14.8 and 3.15.1) and Pausanias (1.26.1), comparing Archaic and Classical artifacts (his figs. 4.23–4.28), and pointing out the topographical relationship with the Erechtheion, where Athena’s and Poseidon’s contest took place and where they left their presents-martyria (olive tree and salty water fountain), the author proposes that Pandion’s wife, Zeuxippe, together with her two sons, Boutes and Erechtheus, are shown. Both children are two of the oldest and most esteemed heroes of the Athenians. Already from Homeric times Erechtheus was an Athenian hero, nurtured by Athena.[6] Boutes, like his brother, was the founder of the Athenian genos of Eteoboutadai and received a cult, together with Erechtheus, Athena and Poseidon in the Erechtheion. This interpretation stumbles on the fact that no iconographical representations of Zeuxippe with her two sons depicted as children are preserved either in vase painting or sculpture, and, as Mitsios adds, there is no literary testimony of Zeuxippe’s cult (p. 32). Mitsios proposes that figures S and T depict Ion and Kreousa as their myth of birth and nurture resonates with that of Erichthonios and Kekrops’ daughters (p. 34). According to the author, the seated adult female figure U (pp. 35–36) may be Erechtheus’ daughter, Prokris. If this is the case, then like other daughters in the pediment, Prokris should be positioned near a mature male signifying the figure’s father (cf. figs. 4.32–4.33). But Erechtheus is shown as a child; therefore, the identification of U should remain open. Lastly, U* and V, interpreted by Mitsios as Kephalos and river Heridanos, likewise remain speculative, since the former, like A*, is lost and Heridanos is never shown near his daughter Zeuxippe.
In the final chapter Mitsios pulls the threads together and highlights the themes of autochthony, civic identity, genealogical progression and heroic past, all central to Athenian self-understanding.
The book is not without flaws. Mitsios occasionally repeats information unnecessarily, e.g., the date of Morosini’s bombardment or the names of Kekrops’ daughters, and errors “with others suggest” (p. 13) and “they heroine” (p. 32) interrupt the flow. Some illustrations should have been of better quality, such as fig. 3.44 on which the caption’s letters betray that the image was borrowed from another book, or the blurred image in fig. 4.16.
In sum, Mitsios’ treatise offers fresh insights on the most famous Athenian monument. Unlike the east pediment, where a goddess is awaited by the Olympians, the west shows that family matters, specifically when kourotrophy is shown between the Athenian families of Kekrops and Erechtheus. Treatises on the Parthenon’s pedimental compositions enrich our knowledge and open new avenues for future research into the demanding field of iconography through fragments, which have suffered the vicissitudes of time and are divided among various museums. Accompanied by many, mostly color images and a carefully organized index, this monograph is a welcome addition to the bibliography on the Parthenon’s pediments after the last published thirty-two years ago.[7]
Notes
[1] J.P. de Rycke, “Arnould de Vouez, auteur des dessins du Parthénon attribués à Carrey,” BCH no. 131.1 (2007), 721–753.
[2] A. H. Smith, British Museum. The Sculptures of the Parthenon, London 1910, 24, no. 102, pl. 14b. A. Mantis, “Μουσείο Ακρόπολης 922+9331+9200. Η αποκατάσταση ενός εναέτιου γλυπτού του Παρθενώνα,” in Αρχαία Ελληνική Γλυπτική. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του γλύπτη Στέλιου Τριάντη, edited by D. Damaskos, Athens 2002, 117–128, 122, n. 26.
[3] E. Voutiras, “Φροντίσματα: Το ανάγλυφο της Ξενοκράτειας και το ιερό του Κηφισού στο Νέο Φάληρο” in Έπαινος Luigi Beschi, edited by A. Delivorrias, G. Despinis and A. Zarkadas, Athens 2011, 49–58, on Xenokratia’s and Xeniades’ relief.
[4] LIMC I (1982), 283–298, s.v. Aglauros, Herse, Pandrosos (U. Kron).
[5] I. Mitsios, “New identifications of heroes and heroines on the west pediment of the Parthenon: the case of P, Q and R,” in Greek Art in Motion: Conference in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday, edited by R. Morais, D. Leão and D.R. Pérez, Oxford 2019, 480–488.
[6] Hom. Il. 2.546–551, Od. 7.80–81.
[7] O. Palagia, The Pediments of the Parthenon, Leiden 1993.