The Altar of Zeus in Pergamon

Xiaoyuan Jiang Topics in Art History: Professor Edith Balas Tuesday, March 4, 2008

In Berlin a museum houses a large rectangular structure. It is an altar most commonly attributed to Zeus, the leader of the Olympian gods in Greek mythology. Its architecture has a Greek style, a high structure of marble, prominently displaying a large frieze portraying an epic battle on the walls of its base. The cracked figures on the frieze struggle violently against each other, and even with the deterioration of age, their features are keen and their faces show much varied expression. A large set of stairs leads into the temple and there is a row of columns from the base to support the roof. Inside is another smaller frieze that is more subdued, detailing a story more historical than mythological. The altar was built in Pergamon (or Pergamum, another common spelling). Its purpose, in addition to being a tribute to the gods, was most likely to commemorate a victory of the Pergamene people over their enemies. Commissioned by a Pergamene king, the altar and its frieze is considered by many Greek art historians one of the most well-preserved and beautifully made examples of ancient Greek sculpture. Soon Pergamon fell out of power and was absorbed into the Roman Empire but the altar remains, serving as a powerful piece of legacy. After many centuries, what remained of the altar was moved to Berlin, where it stayed in the Pergamon museum. The reconstructed structure stands as a testament to the marvel and

artistic capacity of ancient history. The Greek art historian Gisela Richter considers it the most famous altar of Hellenistic times (Handbook 32). The history of Pergamons Altar of Zeus is complex and tied into ancient history itself. It begins with the start of Pergamon itself. At the height of the Hellenistic Age, Alexander the Great had conquered a vast empire from the Mediterranean to East Asia. With his victories came not only territory but a great wealth. After Alexander died, his companions and generals divided this great Hellenistic empire amongst themselves and ruled these lands as separate dynasties. Pergamon was ruled by the Attalid dynasty (Spivey, 354). With the death of Alexander the Great, a struggle ensued among his successors for the wealth he left behind. Ultimately Lysimachus, a Macedonian of Thrace, was victorious. He consequently relocated most of the treasure to Thrace. However, he chose to leave behind a significant portion of nine thousand talents in one of his territories in Asia Minor (Papaioannou, 549). He entrusted this sum to Philedairos (also referred to as Philetaerus), who was the son of a Macedonian general named Attalos. Philedairos task was to safeguard, and he chose Pergamon as the ideal location to hold the treasure. After he died in 263 B.C., his duty to Lysimachus and the treasure were passed on to his nephew, Eumenes I. Eumenes I made Pergamon an independent state, effectively launching the dynasty that his father began, the dynasty that would rule Pergamon for several generations. (Spivey, 358) Eumenes I and his successors of Pergamon effectively kept the treasure, even after the death of Lysimachus. They spent amounts of it on security, financing mercenaries and paying off nearby enemies to prevent an invasion. The money was also used to fund art, in order to model Pergamon after the Athens of ancient Greece, building several public works such as the Altar of Zeus which still survives today (Spivey, 358).

The primary enemies of the Pergamene people were the Gauls or Galatians, a Celtic people that hailed from central Europe. The Gauls were known for antagonizing Pergamon on several occasions, for around 280 B.C. they were well-known for being the enemies of the various Hellenistic kingdoms (Spivey, 358). Along with the other kingdoms, Pergamon was coerced many times to pay heavily in tributes to these barbarians. The ruler of Pergamon from 241 to 197 B.C. was Attalos I (or Attalus I). Instead of continuing to pay tributes, at around 240 to 230 B.C. he engaged the Gauls in battle and defeated them in his territory (Spivey, 363). This victory was an oft-celebrated event in Pergamons history, and the people of Pergamon held it in great importance. They commemorated this success to a great extent, depicting it in legendary stories and works of art, such as the famous sculpture aptly named The Dying Gaul. From 197 to 159 B.C. Eumenes II ruled Pergamon (Richter, Sculpture 49). As the successor and son of the triumphant Attalos I, many historians believe it was he who sponsored the Altar of Zeus starting at around 180 B.C. The altar was to be built in honor of the victory of Rome and its allies over Antiochus III the Great of Syria, eight years earlier. This decisive battle resulted in Eumenes IIs acquisition of a significant portion of the Seleucid Empire (Janson, 160).

The Altar of Zeus had a similar purpose to the other altars of its time. According to cultural history, an altar usually serves as a place of entrance to a temple of gods. As Richter states, The altar in an open precinct preceded the temple as a place of worship and later remained an essential adjunct of the temple, being placed either inside it, or more commonly outside, facing the entrance. Generally it was a simple oblong or

circular structure, occasionally of great size, and sometimes decorated with friezes of triglyphs and metopes and other elements. (Handbook 32) It appears from the portion of the altar that was recovered that the altar had a large, square base four hundred feet total in perimeter. On that perimeter was an elaborate seven-foothigh frieze. From the base was a series of steps leading up to a rectangular court, surrounded by Greek columns (Janson, 160). It was built on one of the terraces of the citadel It consisted of an Ionic portico with two projecting sides, the whole set on a high podium which was decorated in high relief with the battle of gods and giants. The inner side of the back wall of the portico had a smaller frieze representing the story of Telephos and the foundation of Pergamon. Inside this three-sided structure stood the altar proper. (Richter, Handbook 33) Many have noted on how well the altar stayed intact compared to other ancient ruins. Not only was the structure salvageable but the artistic works that decorated have maintained much of their beauty through the centuries, unlike many of its contemporary Hellenistic works, which have been destroyed by the passing of time or by Christians wishing to purge the world of pagan influences.

On the perimeter of the altar is a frieze a portion near or above the base of a classical entablature, such as a temple, which is often decorated with patterned bands or sculpture. While friezes were fairly popular architectural adornments at the time, this outer frieze is particularly famous. The sculpted figures on it form the climax of Greek realistic representations in modeling, composition, and expression of emotion (Richter, Handbook 162).

Its quality was evident, and scholars have speculated that it, among others, was one of the inspirations for subsequent reliefs such as the frieze of the Basilica Aemilia in Rome, another famous frieze (Brilliant, 29). It is unknown who was the person responsible for creating the frieze. Richter insists that we cannot even propose a name for a master designer, though sixteen executive sculptors have left their identities on the work (6, 365). However, Richard Brilliant has stated that the construction of Pergamons altar had an noteworthy source of inspiration; its composition depends on the literary culture of Pergamon for its ideology (35). The frieze portrays the story of the Gigantomachy. It is a Greek myth about how the giants, the children of Gaia, rose against the gods of Olympus and were ultimately defeated. The story is a traditional one in Greek mythology; it is popularly told even in architecture as on the frieze of the Siphnian Treasury (Janson, 160). In the story of the Gigantomachy (Gigantomachia), the Giants (Gigantes) were enormous human-like creatures born after the blood of Uranus genitals came in contact with Gaia the Earth, inseminating her (Hard, 86). These massive beings were portrayed in several ways, from handsome armored soldiers, to half or fully naked savages who attacked by throwing boulders to, as in the case of the altars frieze, human-shaped beings with intertwined serpents for legs (90). The reason for their revolt is unresolved whether it is due to offending the gods or Herakles, or in revenge for the Olympians murdering their Titan predecessors. Nevertheless, virtually every account describes them being crushed by the gods with the aid of Herakles, suffering he and Apollos arrows, the overwhelming might of Poseidon, Hephaestos, and Athena, and Zeuss thunderbolts (88-91). The giants ultimately lost the battle.

The seven-foot frieze exhibits the Olympians fighting with those powers that are commonly attributed to them. As an example, Nigel Spivey notes that we see Artemis as the mistress of animals, her pet lion sinking its teeth into the nape of a failing challenger. The giants are anchored to the earth by their snaketailed bodies, defining them as reptilian; frequently we see them being pulled by the hair, raging but essentially impotent. (367) The emotions of the figures are very distinguished. As the portrayal of the battle is unified; the winning and losing sides are clearly cut and easily perceived, the look of suffering in defeat is pervasive on all the giants contorted faces. All the while, Zeus and his fellow gods are expressionless, their faces uniformly calm (Spivey, 367). The story told by the altars frieze is heavily symbolic. Historian and author of History of Art, H. W. Janson suggests that the triumph of the gods represents the personal successes of its sponsor, Eumenes II (160). However, the prevailing idea among many is that the story has a different meaning. The primordial battle of the gods against the giants, notes Spivey is a theme already quite fitting for an altar on a temple which pays reverence to Zeus since this was mythically the establishment of supremacy by Zeus and his fellow Olympians over the earths undisciplined, aboriginal inhabitants (365). However, he considers it yet more likely that the losing giants represent the Gauls, who were defeated by Attalus I, the father of Eumenes II; he notes the similarity of the facial structures between the portrayed giants and their defeated barbarian enemies (397). The style of the frieze is very intense. The fighting figures are crowded together in tight, interconnected groups, distinguishing it from earlier friezes in the middle of the fourth century B.C., which were of more spacious composition in which each figure is clearly standing out,

alone (Richter, Sculpture 131). There is so much violent movement portrayed in the work that the battling giants and gods are seemingly detached from the wall behind them. Indeed, the action spills out onto the stairs, where several figures are locked in mortal combat (Janson, 160). The style of carving in the frieze creates high contrasts by creating expressive body movement of the figures and a sense of depth in the way the fold clothing fold. The figures of the frieze are dynamic, having high relief with the carving, as evidenced by beating wings and windblown garments on the figures (Janson, 160). According to Richter the frieze epitomizes the sculptural style of the Hellenistic period (Handbook 32-33). In the fourth century B.C., Greek sculpture had moved toward a style of portraying the human figure more naturally. They did this by adjusting several aspects associated with the existing style. Beginning with the head, the sculptors began differentiating between the different hair strands to display more variation; instead of flat locks and strands there are irregular tufts of considerable depth creating manifold shadows which create more variegated contrasts (Richter, Sculpture 75-76). On the faces, the bridge of the nose is made wider, the brow is emphasized the lips are made rounder and fleshier with the top lip fuller than the bottom, and the mouth is opened slightly as to exhibit teeth (76). During the Hellenistic period these features, the sunken eyes, furrowed brow, and open mouth were stressed, these planes creating a dramatic contrast with their shadows (76). The changes gave not only the faces but the entire sculpture a new and expressive essence. Indeed, these features were displayed very much in the Altar of Zeus. They allow the powerful emotions on the faces of the sculpted figures to radiate intensely; the faces deep and varied styling creates such strong shadows which add to the feeling of restlessness and turmoil

(Richter, Sculpture 132). Accordingly, there is introduced in the Hellenistic period a love of movement and violent contrasts, and the altars frieze achieves it; the way the cloth on the figures swirl exudes power and recklessness (167). More contrast is between light and dark is added by the crowded composition, which in itself adds to the restless nature of the entire work (174).

There is an interesting argument that indicates that the influence of Athens on Pergamon is very substantial and can be seen in several aspects of the citys culture. One example is that the Pergamene people worship Athena, the patron goddess of Athens. Furthermore, the great outer frieze can be seen as evidence for the argument that Pergamon was a city modeled after Athens. An indication of this would be how the frieze features Athena prominently, which in the words of H.W. Janson serves in promoting Pergamon as a new Athens (190). Athena is emphasized so much that, in fact, Gisela Richter in both her books A Handbook of Greek Art and The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks make reference to the altar as the Altar of Zeus and Athena. It is interesting to note the importance of Athena in Pergamene culture. Sixty-five feet above the altar is built a sanctuary dedicated solely to the goddess. Dedications in the form of inscriptions and art can be found throughout the city. For instance, the image of this wisdom goddess overlooks Pergamons famed library. In that work Athena is associated with Nike, or Victory, just as she is in the Gigantomachy frieze. Furthermore, the author of Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age John Onians has noted the possible influence of the artwork decorating the Athenian Parthenon, which was built about three hundred years earlier, on the Pergamene frieze. It is known that the Parthenon had several

meteotypes symbolically portraying through their stories the glory of Athenian achievements. Such stories the Parthenon illustrated included the Amazonomachy (the mythical battle waged between legendary Greeks and the Amazons) and more pertinently, the Gigantomachy. The triumphs of the protagonists in these stories paralleled Athens victories in the Persian Wars, just as the triumph of the Olympians portrayed on the outer frieze on the Altar of Zeus paralleled Attalos IIs own (Onians, 81). Onians hypothesizes that the pride of overcoming the barbaric Gauls had elevated the Pergamene to consider themselves the successors to the paragon of civilization that the Athenians had once been, and both Athenians and Pergamene associate this heroic pride in the character of Athena (Onians, 81). The inclusion of Athena in the story is ideal not only in that she is the patron goddess but also in some versions of the myth the war of gods and giants was in fact directly linked to Athenas creation (Spivey, 367). Not only is there a possible correlation between thematic presentation between the Parthenon and the Pergamene altar, but there also may have been a direct inspiration in style as well between the two works. Onians, after analysis and comparison between documents detailing the sculpted works on the Parthenon, concludes that the pose and treatment of the major figures on the frieze [on the Altar of Zeus] were carefully derived from the Parthenons pediment structure (84). Perhaps most revealing is the way the compositional device of two figures striding outwards with strikingly opposed diagonal poses, which is the key to the dynamic unity of the Parthenon pediments, occurs repeatedly in the Pergamene frieze. Such symmetry is found first in the crucial group of Zeus and Athena, and also in the group of Artemis and Apollo which occupies an identical position

at the other end of the north frieze; it reappears in the figures of Amphitrite and Dionysus who dominate the west frieze (85) It is easy to be surprised at the notion that such a violent work of art was inspired by art of an era known for its restraint and calm. However, one must realize that this characterization of Attic sculpture is merely a misconception, as that era produced works whose style was easily comparable with the Gigantomachy frieze (85). Thusly Onians has found that the eleven-foot-high figures on the western pediment of the Parthenon to share a number of similarities, such as in the depth of relief, method of handling of nude bodies and cloth, and groupings of figures together. The sculptural similarities go beyond scale and simple three-dimensional characteristics. Several frieze figures in particular had counterparts in ancient Athens. The Zeus in Pergamon had a look that paralleled that of Poseidon of Athens (Onians, 85). Also, the expressions of the defeated giants matched the angry faces of the few remaining bulge-eyed centaurs on Parthenon in beastliness and emotional intensity, while the gods in both cases are quite unruffled and in control of their expressions (87). Ultimately, when one compares the reliefs of the Parthenon with those of the Altar of Zeus, it becomes clear that they have exercised a profound effect on the sculpture of the Pergamene Gigantomachy (Onians, 85). While this frieze may be inspired, its powerful imagery and lack of deterioration compels art historians to acknowledge it as one of the most wonderful examples of Hellenistic art and a centerpiece of Pergamons ancient legacy.

10

When one climbs up the altars steps, another frieze comes into view. Located inside the altar and behind the columns, this lesser-known frieze is significantly different from the one on the outside perimeter in terms of size, story, style, and symbolic inferences. A pertinent difference is easily seen when comparing the two friezes: inner frieze is significantly smaller than the outer. While the giants and gods seven-foot-high outer frieze are carved larger-than-life, the human figures on the inner frieze are built only half life-sized (Onians, 145). However, one similarity between the two that art historians have deduced is that both depict popular legends in the context of Pergamons cultural background, promoting the Pergamene history through sculpted myth. This frieze tells a story of the beginning of the Attalid dynasty many years before the arrival of Philedairos in Pergamon. The narrative traces the lineage back to the earliest known Attalid ancestor, Telephos (or Telephus) a long-ago ruler of Mysia and Trojan War participant (Papaioannou, 550). Through detailed analysis of ancient literature, it is speculated that the frieze portrays the Herakles of legend either as the father to Telephos or in the very least aiding him in the beginning of his adventure (Spivey, 372). Hence, the relationship to this Gigantomachy warrior and bastard child of Zeus is what sets Telephos as the link between the gods of legend the other frieze and the Attalids of Pergamon. The story then involves the brief role of Telephos in the Trojan War, where he appears alternatively as a victim and an ally of the Greeks (Spivey, 372). This mythical equivocation would have been arguably beneficial, according to Nigel Spivey. At the time of the altars construction, the Roman Empire was quickly rising in influence and power. Therefore, in order to maintain the peace, recognition had to be conceded to Roman culture. In this, the ambiguity of

11

the Telephos allegiances in the story appeals to both Greece and Rome; as an ally of Greece, patriotism to Greek heritage is preserved while as a sympathizer to Troy, tribute is paid to the mythical roots of Rome. And, if the Romans were consolidating their own myth-history and tracing their origins from the Trojan side of the Trojan War, then it made sense for the Attalids to align themselves as old neighbors in the Troad region (Spivey, 372). The smaller frieze exhibits a more detailed story. As described in Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age, John Onians describes that while the large frieze shows one event, the battle of the gods and giants, on all its faces, the small frieze is composed of a whole series of scenes illustrating the story of Telephus Each scene is filled out with all the landscape details and minor participants who are necessary to make the small frieze a convincing illustration of the scenes selected from the Telephus story. Such features are absent from the large frieze. (145) Indeed, while the perimeter frieze encompasses a scene containing a singular wild brawl between gods and giants, the inner frieze consists of scenic panels depicting discrete events such as Building of Auges boat. This is a heavy contrast between singular unity of the portrayal of one group after another as they would have fought side by side in the battle with the chronologically linear discontinuity of a series of scenes which constitute a selection of the most significant events in the lives of different people, events which are often separated from each other by many years or hundreds of miles (146). Onians concludes that is does more than make a simple fanfare of beating the Gauls, but rather to persuade by a careful documentation of a series of events that the Attalids can trace their descent from Zeus and Hercules; hence while the Gigantomachy frieze is but a public

12

oration of praise the complex and detailed narrative sequence of the inner frieze has characteristics of a legal document (145). He conjectures that the targeted audience of this frieze may have been higher-class intellectuals instead of the public masses, as evidenced by the lack of inscriptions identifying any of the figures on the Telephos frieze. Meanwhile, such identifying inscriptions are present on the outer frieze, which Onians suggests is indicative that the people depicted on the inner frieze are not popularly known and meant to be only recognized by a learned few (145-146). Political and intellectual subtleties aside, another difference between the two is that the inner frieze is more restrained. The fight in the outer frieze is very physical and emotive, with actions exaggerated and the giants faces twisted. The shadows are deep, caused by intense relief. However, the inner frieze has much lighter relief. These cause the contrast to be lessened. Also, Facial expressions and movements are more controlled, as can be seen in a comparison of the running Teuthras and the aggressive Amphitrite, and, reflecting the calmness of the inner frieze, the clothing on its figures do not fly about in complex folds but instead drape down in elegant linear patterns (Onians, 145). These contrasts against the outer frieze indicate that the inner was constructed later (144), and more associated with a fairly different style of Neo-Attic art (145). The Telephos frieze is definitely not as well-known as its outer counterpart; often even expert art historians would neglect to mention it when discussing Pergamon or the Altar of Zeus, instead to focus on the depiction of the Gigantomachy. Neither is it as grand and explosive, and a few of its reliefs were noticeably unfinished (Papaioannou, 550). However, this frieze carries with it the importance of an ancient and legendary history that the Attalid dynasty held with pride.

13

Unfortunately for the Attalids, this dynasty did not last forever. Succeeding the financer of the great altar, Eumenes II, was Attalos II. Attalos II ruled Pergamon from 159 to 138 B.C. and brought conquered land and prosperous wealth to the city during his rule (Papaioannou, 550). Attalos II was succeeded by Attalos III, who ruled until 133 B.C. At the time, the power of Rome became immensely overarching. Because of that reason, Attalos III made the choice to hand over the city to the Romans, who made it a province of Rome. After joining a unified Greek revolt against Roman occupation in 88 B.C. and a devastating Arab assault on the city in 716 A.D, the city slipped into history (550). Due in part to the monumental Altar of Zeus, the legacy of this city is still remembered, recounted, and discussed in artistic history as a paragon of Hellenistic buildings. In the 20th century the altars western front was excavated and recovered. The remaining structure and its friezes were moved to Berlin and reconstructed and still stands today, the hundred-foot square base with its stairs up to the entrance of the court (Janson, 160).

Lysimachus, the man who defeated Alexanders other generals to attain the massive wealth he left behind, had entrusted Philedairos to deposit nine thousand talents of this treasure on the citadel hilltop of Pergamon. Attalos II, the descendant of Philedairos, had led his army to crush the Gauls that harassed his city all too constantly and was celebrated greatly for his triumphant victory in battle. Eumenes II, the successor of Attalos II sponsored the building of an altar using money from the treasury. Attalos III had bequeathed Pergamon to the Roman Empire. Today, the treasure of the Great who carved out east Europe and west Asia is gone, and so are the Galatians who once roamed and pillaged with barbaric fervor. The dynasty of the Attalids

14

ended as Rome became overwhelmingly great, yet even the Roman Empire fell in time. It seems that the passing years will ultimately spare nothing from an end to existence. The new collect the debris of the old to retrace what has once been, but what has been destroyed cannot be rebuilt in what glory it formerly had. Nevertheless, the centuries have been relatively merciful to the grand altar commissioned by Eumenes II. Of course, fractures and breaks perforate the figures of the main frieze, as the segments of the serpents entwining the giants have broken off along with Athenas face. However, in comparison to the works of its time, the art on the Altar of Zeus have survived in good condition. The details of the figures rippling muscles and swirling clothing are maintained in its original deep-cut relief. The startling contrast of light and shadow, the agonized emotion and stoicism of the two opposing sides are fortunately preserved, still clearly visible. The sculpted story of Telephos which chronicles the exploits of the first member of the Attalid dynasty is still there as well, rich with history. The great Altar of Zeus has been mentioned even in Revelation of Saint John the Divine as Satans Throne and is often referred to as a marvel of the ancient world (Papaioannou, 550). At the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, it stands prominent for any visitor wishing to visit. What makes the altar so revered? Perhaps it is the larger-than life architecture or the style of the art that surrounds it, which exudes strength and dominance. Maybe, for if one looks at the seven-foot rendering of the battle of gods of high Olympus against the giants of the earth at the pivotal point when the gods are set to deal the killing blow to their barbarian enemies, a realization may come: In the sum of these twisting, wrestling stone bodies is the culminated triumph of a proud and ancient dynasty at the peak of its glory.

15

Works Cited

Brilliant, Richard. Visual Narratives: Storytelling in Etruscan and Roman Art. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Hard, Robin. The Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Janson, Horst Woldemar. History of Art. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1997.

Onians, John. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age: The Greek World View 350-50 B.C. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1979.

Papanioannou, Kostas. The Art of Greece. Trans. I. Mark Paris. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1972.

Richter, Gisela M. A. A Handbook of Greek Art. London: Phaidon Press, 1967.

---. The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1930.

Spivey, Nigel. Greek Art. London: Phaidon Press Limited., 1999.

16