The Pedimental Sculpture of the Hephaisteion
THE PEDIMENTALSCULPTURE OF THE HEPHAISTEION (PLATES 48-64) INTRODUCTION T HE TEMPLE of Hephaistos, although the best-preserved ancient building in Athens and the one most accessible to scholars, has kept its secrets longer than any other. It is barely ten years since general agreement was reached on the name of the presiding deity. Only in 1939 was the evidence discovered for the restora- tion of an interior colonnade whicli at once tremendously enriched our conception of the temple. Not until the appearance of Dinsmoor's study in 1941 did we have a firm basis for assessing either its relative or absolute chronology.' The most persistent major uncertainty about the temple has concerned its pedi- mental sculpture. Almost two centuries ago (1751-55), James Stuart had inferred 1 The general bibliography on the Hephaisteion was conveniently assembled by Dinsmoor in Hesperia, Supplement V, Observations on the Hephaisteion, pp. 1 f., and the references to the sculpture loc. cit., pp. 150 f. On the sculpture add Olsen, A.J.A., XLII, 1938, pp. 276-287 and Picard, Mamtel d'Archeologie grecque, La Sculpture, II, 1939, pp. 714-732. The article by Giorgio Gullini, " L'Hephaisteion di Atene" (Archeologia Classica, Rivista dell'Istituto di Archeologia della Universita di Roma, I, 1949, pp. 11-38), came into my hands after my MS had gone to press. I note many points of difference in our interpretation of the sculptural history of the temple, but I find no reason to alter the views recorded below. Two points of fact in Gullini's article do, however, call for comment.
[Show full text]