thenon, published at Hamburg in 1855. This writer, seeing that the subject of the frieze could not, by any possibility, be a single procession, and remarking that many elements known to have been present in the Panathenaic procession were absent from the frieze, concluded, naturally enough, that two processions were represented, neither of them the Panathenaic. So far his position was unassailable. When, however, he undertook to identify these processions with the Plyntêria and Arrhêphoria, he was obliged to indulge in such wild guessing and such capricious theories that he threw discredit upon his whole work. His negative criticism, nevertheless, was so effective, that Overbeck, who entered into an elaborate refutation of his views,* was obliged to admit "I have never denied, nor do I deny now, that the frieze opposes difficulties to the explanation which assumes its subject to be the Panathênaia.” At the same time, he devoted sixteen pages to proving that "in the Parthenon frieze, the Panathenaic procession is represented." His arguments were frequently by no means cogent, and he himself has long ago abandoned some of those which he stated most positively; still they served to keep alive the popular faith in the Panathenaic theory. Nevertheless that theory could not be made to tally with the facts of the frieze closely enough to command universal acceptance. In 1864, August Mommsen,†

* Rheinisches Museum, N. F., vol. xiv. (1859), pp. 161-199. † Heortologie, pp. 177 sqq.

inspired by a fragmentary inscription,* of very doubtful reference, gave it as his opinion that the eastern portion of the frieze represented two preliminary sacrifices, one on the Akropolis, the other on the Areiopagos, while the rest was occupied with three distinct scenes from the procession. In regard to this theory, Michaelis very justly says, "No serious attempt to prove the truth of these casual and certainly false aphorisms was made by the author, who, indeed, generally, in the matter of archæological testimonies and questions, brings forward little else but absurdities." † The ease with which Mommsen's theory could be refuted only helped to confirm the belief that the subject of the frieze was the Panathenaic procession. So, in spite of evident and admitted objections, that theory still holds its ground, for the sole reason (apart from prejudice) that no better one has been proposed. Indeed, since Petersen's unfortunate attempt, in 1855, no person has been bold enough to challenge openly and entirely the current opinion. Hence, at the present day, nearly all archæologists, excepting, of course, Bötticher, hold the subject of the frieze to be the Panathenaic procession or some ceremony more or less closely connected with the same. Some, like

*Rhangavis, Antiquités Helléniques, No. 814. This inscription may also be found in Michaelis, Der Parthenon, p. 332, and in Bötticher's Der Zophoros am Parthenon, p. 16. There is no reason to believe that it refers to the Panathenaia.

† Der Parthenon, p. 210.

Michaelis, Lübke, Eugen Petersen, and Watkiss Lloyd, declare unreservedly for the procession proper, ending in the presentation of the peplos.* The last confidently heads one of his pages, "The Panathenaic Frieze;" and, indeed, this expression has become quite common. Other archæologists, like Brunn,† Flasch, and Overbeck,§ doubting or denying the presence of the peplos on the frieze, but determined, for the sake of orthodoxy, to retain the word Panathenaic, decide in favour of the sacrificial procession of the Panathenaia. Friedrichs, alone, with true scientific candour, declares, "The meaning of the whole procession is by no means yet made out" || (durchaus nicht ermittelt).

Such then is the present condition of the question in regard to the subject of the Parthenon frieze. Setting aside the views of Bötticher, E. Curtius, and A. Mommsen, as plainly groundless, capricious, and false, we find that the existing theories reduce themselves to two, both of which assume that the subject stands in some way connected with the Panathenaic festival. According to the one, this subject is the

* See Michaelis, Der Parthenon, pp. 210 sqq.; Lübke, Geschichte der Plastik, p. 147; Petersen, Die Kunst des Pheidias am Parthenon und zu Olympia, pp. 236 sqq., 300; Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, vol. ii. p. 175.

† Sitzungsber. der münch. Akad., 1874, pp. 44 sqq. Zum Parthenonfries, pp. 83 sqq.

Gesch. der gr. Plastik, 3rd edit., vol. i. pp. 329 sqq.

|| Bausteine zur Gesch. der griechisch-römischen Plastik vol. i. p. 168.

peplos-procession; according to the latter, the sacrificial procession.

Before proceeding to examine and refute these theories, let us first ask, What are the grounds for assuming that the subject of the Parthenon frieze is anything connected with the Panathenaic festival? This assumption, it will be remembered, was originally made by Stuart, a man by no means versed in archæology, and gained currency through his great work. The most direct answer to our question we shall find in the work of Christian Petersen already alluded to: "For the assumption that the procession is the Panathenaia there is no ground other than this syllogism The Parthenon is the chief temple, the Panathenaia the chief festival, of Athênâ, a festival which had relation specially, if not entirely, to this temple. Hence, the procession represented on the chief temple must be that of the Panathenaia.” * Overbeck virtually admits the truth of this, merely objecting that, in certain respects, the Parthenon was not the chief temple of Athênâ, and substituting for the words "a festival which had relation specially, if not entirely, to this temple," these stronger ones, borrowed from Stark, "the only festival which stood in necessary relation to the Parthenon."† With these corrections, then, the syllogism reads thus: The Panathenaia was the only festival that stood in necessary relation to the Parthenon; therefore, that festival is

* Die Feste der Pallas Athene, p. 199.

† Rhein. Mus., N. F. (1859), vol. xiv. pp. 184, 185.

the one represented on its frieze. Properly speaking, this is not a syllogism, but only an enthymeme. Let us convert it into a syllogism, by expressing the major premise with the generality implied in the argument.

The subjects employed for the plastic decoration of a temple are always such as stand in necessary relation to its purpose.

The subject of the Parthenon frieze is a procession, and the only procession standing in necessary relation to the Parthenon is the Panathenaic.

Therefore, the subject of the frieze is the Panathenaic procession.

Of course, if either of these premises is groundless, so also is the conclusion. What shall we say, if both are false? Let us examine them separately and in order. Is it true, then, that the subjects employed for the plastic decoration of a temple always stand in necessary relation to its purpose? A very slight knowledge of the plastic decoration of Greek temples suffices to enable us to reply in the negative. For example, what necessary connection has a battle between Centaurs and Lapithai with a temple of Zeus? And yet this was the subject chosen for the western pediment of the temple of that god at Olympia. Connection, relation, to be sure, there is; for what is there that has no relation to Zeus? but necessary relation, in the sense implied in the argument, there certainly is not, otherwise the same subject would not appear so frequently on friezes having no connection with temples of Zeus. Again,