LITMIR.BIZ

Figure 5 The “Serpent Column” dedicated by thirty‐one Greek city‐states at Delphi after defeating the Persians; now in Istanbul. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snake_column_Hippodrome_Constantinople2007.jpg. Gryffindor This panoramic image was created with Autostitch (stitched images may differ from reality). Public domain.

      SCULPTURES (stone and BRONZE) formed part of the votive landscape in Greek sanctuaries, and hence were rarely deemed worthy of mention by Herodotus. He notes very special DEDICATIONS that were made entirely of GOLD: a Spartan statue of APOLLO (1.69.4) and a representation of ALEXANDER I of MACEDON, at Delphi (8.121). Other gold statues are non‐Greek products: Lydian (1.50.3, 51.5); Babylonian (1.183.2–3); Persian (7.69.2). Gilded statues also appear (2.182, given by the Egyptian king AMASIS to CYRENE; 6.118, stolen statue of Apollo). The magnificent fragmentary archaic gold and ivory seated statues discovered in the "Halos" deposit at Delphi, along with a life‐sized SILVER bull, provide testimony to the richness of the offerings there, not least because Herodotus makes no mention of them (Colonia 2006, 167–219 illustrates).

      Anecdotal utility or historical significance can create exceptions to the practice of no specific reference to artworks. For example, whereas in some archaic sanctuaries, the stone kouros (single‐standing youth) was the preferred masculine dedication, the type is mentioned only once (and then only by inference): at the close of the tale of CLEOBIS AND BITON (1.31.5), Herodotus notes that the Argives had εἰκόνες (images) of the valorous youths made to be dedicated at Delphi, without comment on their form or medium. Discovery at Delphi of a pair of stone kouroi, datable c. 580 BCE, with fragmentary texts mentioning an Argive sculptor, initially led to their association with Cleobis and Biton. Modern readings of the INSCRIPTIONS establish that the pair of statues represents, rather, the DIOSCURI (Vatin 1982; Faure 1985).

Herodotus’ occasional references to bronze sculpture probably refer to life‐sized works (1.164.3; 5.82) rather than the solid‐cast statuettes that survive in some sanctuaries. In the mid‐sixth century bronze emerged as the medium of prestigious sculptural production, as a result of innovation in casting techniques that enabled production of large figures (Mattusch 1988). Complex groups became possible. One dedication mentioned by Herodotus, a tithe from Athenian ransom of Chalicidian and Boeotian prisoners (507/6), took the form of a four‐horse CHARIOT, a conspicuously large sculptural composition (5.77.4). It was located at the entrance to the Athenian ACROPOLIS; parts of the base survive (IG I³ 501; ML 15).

      References to paintings (graphai) are limited to a sanctuary context (1.164.3; 2.182; 4.86). The votive paintings left by the fleeing Phocaeans (1.164.3) were perhaps wooden pinakes (tablets); surviving examples in wood and fired clay are simple compositions, showing mortal or divine subjects. The one work of art described in detail by Herodotus (4.88) is a painting mentioned due to its historical interest. MANDROCLES of SAMOS, the engineer who designed the pontoon BRIDGE for the Scythian campaign of DARIUS I, dedicated the painting as a tithe in the Samian HERAION. On it he had depicted “all the bridging of the BOSPORUS, king Darius sitting on a throne, and his army crossing over”; an epigram accompanied it. The painting sounds more spatially ambitious than anything we know in Greek art of the ARCHAIC AGE; there is no known parallel in the arts of PERSIA, but prior Neo‐ASSYRIAN relief sculpture includes complex historical themes. This image of Darius on a throne VIEWING the crossing of his army perhaps lies behind Herodotus’ own description of XERXES later observing events from an elevated position (7.44; 8.90.4).

      A monumental painting of the 460s, the Battle of Marathon in the Stoa Poikile (“Painted Stoa”) in the Athenian AGORA—a radical new separation of graphic arts from the sanctuary context—possibly served as a source for Herodotus’ account of the iconic battle. Herodotus does not mention the painting; we know of it from elsewhere, notably Pausanias (1.15.3) and a Roman sarcophagus in Brescia including a battle with Persians on ships. Curious gaps in Herodotus’ narrative, and echoes between the apparent tripartite structure of the painting and his account of the battle on the plain, in the marshes, and at the ships, may be explained by the painting (Jeffery 1965). On it CALLIMACHUS as polemarch was conspicuous, but so, too, were the hero Echetlus, the general MILTIADES THE YOUNGER, and CYNEGEIRUS (AESCHYLUS’ brother), whose hand was chopped off as he grasped a Persian ship (6.114). The prominence of Miltiades, father of CIMON THE YOUNGER, is notable. The painting, commissioned by one of Cimon’s circle, evidently aimed to repair family reputability after Miltiades’ post‐MARATHON disgrace. There is good reason to suspect that all subsequent understanding of the battle was shaped by this carefully crafted representation dating a full generation after the actual event.

      SEE ALSO: Archaeology; Architecture (Temples); Epigraphy; Inventions; Monumentality; Temples and Sanctuaries

      REFERENCES

      FURTHER READING

ARTABANUS (Ἀρτάβανος, ὁ)

      CARLO SCARDINO

       Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf

Brother of DARIUS I and uncle of XERXES, two successive kings of PERSIA. During Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 BCE. Artabanus served as regent in Persia. In the Histories he appears above all as an ADVISER and warner‐figure. Thus he unsuccessfully warns Darius in a short, indirect speech before the king’s campaign against the SCYTHIANS in 513 (4.83). Similarly he is Darius’ conversation partner in a longer indirect dialogue at the end of that campaign (4.143).

      Most significant is his role in the royal council before Xerxes’ campaign against Greece (7.8–19), where Artabanus serves as a warner‐figure

Скачать книгу