The
Hellenistic period, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the period of time
between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE (pictured below) and the battle of Actium
in 31 BCE. This is a complex and nuanced period of time, with a previously
unseen exchange of ideas, peoples and goods between the kingdoms of the
Mediterranean. Rather than write a grueling chapter, I will say a few things
briefly for now, and jump into this period more as I go along.
Fundamental
to understanding why there were kings, and other powerful men and women
building monuments and civic buildings in Greece, specifically in Athens, is
discussing how benefaction worked in the ancient world. Hellenistic kings sought
to be perceived by their Greek subjects as benefactors of their cities, for
which Greek citizens gave them honours. This reciprocal transaction of inscriptions
and proclamations of honours for benefactions, or more symbolic rewards,
established the legitimacy that the kings needed, and in turn continued the
cultural autonomy of the Greek citizens.
Alexander the Great, Athens Archaeological Museum - 2008 |
In tangible
terms, this could take the form of a king, say Eumenes II of Pergamon, building
a massive stoa (covered walkway/shopping arcade) for the leisure and enjoyment
of Athenians. Eumenes II, in return, is possibly given an inscription and
official proclamation that his patronage of Athens is appreciated, and they
acknowledge him as a powerful ally and friend of the Greeks. Seems like an
uneven exchange, does it not?
A defining
feature of the period was the ongoing warfare and rivalry between the
Hellenistic kings. Their kingdoms were composed of the partitioning of Alexander
the Great’s spear-won territories. The problem that these generals of Alexander
faced was that they were not princes or kings in their own right. Sure, they
could claim a connection to the famous world conqueror and construct their
reputation and dynasties, but there was nothing inherent in being a descendant
of a Macedonian general that would necessarily dissuade the Greeks to revolt
against them.
In fact,
quite the opposite. The Greeks had fought against the encroaching Macedonian
power as it had grown following the end of the Peloponnesian wars in 430 BCE.
Even Alexander and his father, Phillip II, had to walk a fine line on occasion
when dealing with the Greeks. The relationship of benefaction, illustrated by
the stoas, on the surface appears as other empires doing homage to Athens,
forms part of an intersection between the idea of Greek independence and the
reality of their domination by the Macedonians and later Romans. The
careful negotiation of power between the new rulers and their subjects was
facilitated by the perception of mutual benefit.
Eumenes II (who
ruled from 197 – 159 BCE.) had a contentious reign, with plots against his life
(as was typical). At one point, a rumor spread about his untimely death, and
his brother Attalos II, was hailed as king of Pergamon and married his brothers
widow. Once the truth was revealed that Eumenes was still alive, rather than
causing a civil war, Attalos abdicated and returned his new wife back to his
borther. Amazingly, they carried on as before until Eumenes’ eventual death when
his brother once more took the reigns of empire, married his brothers widow
again, and held up his promise to pass on the kingdom to his brother’s son upon
his death. This could be the least toxic Hellenistic dynasty in history.
Built on the
south slope of the Acropolis, between the Theatre of Dionysus and the Odeon of
Herodes Atticus, this stoa was a decadent promenade and one of the most costly
benefactions which the Athenians received from a king of Pergamon. It is likely
this stoa was designed by the same architect as that of Attalos II.
Reconstruction drawing from placard in Athens - 2016 |
As in all
things, location is key. The stoa served the Athenians going to the theatre, as
a respite from the sun.
Stoa of Attalos - 2016 |
Stoa of Attalos
Attalos II of
Pergamon (rule from 159 – 138 BCE.), who commissioned its construction, was the
inheritor to the Attalid dynasty. Remember all that preamble about the
reciprocal behavior of Hellenistic kings? To understand why half of the
buildings and statues that we see in Athens are even there, you have to
understand why non-Greeks spent the money and time to put them there.
The Atallids
were building their empire from the collapse of the Lysimachian empire. Where
Lysmachus’ empire had created legitimacy in the wake and division of Alexander
the Greats’ conquered lands through aggressive military exploits, marrying
royal heirs and alliances with the other successor kings, once his territories
were conquered, what remained was divided.
The Attalid
dynasts needed to create some quick and culturally relevant links to power to
legitmise their rule. The centre of their power base was the great Turkish city
of Pergamon.
Built
between 159 – 138 BCE., the stoa of Attalos II was a high end shopping centre.
The two-storied collonaded stoa has two architectural orders: the ‘Doric order’
was used for the exterior colonnade, and the ‘Ionic order’ was used for the
interior colonnade. As with other Hellensitic building projects of the time,
the stoa was a very large and elaborate – a statement piece.
Theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus
View of the Theatre of Dionysus from the Acropolis - 2016 |
What is
incredible to me is that you can actually stand in the spot where some of the
most famous plays in literature were performed, in the shadow of the Acropolis.
Tradition has it that the first tragedy was performed at the Dionysia by
actor-playwright Thespis (Thespis- thespian...see what they did there?) in the
early 530s BCE.
There were
several phases of the Theatre of Dionysus, commencing with wooden seating in
the 6th century BCE. The theatre is currently in pretty rough shape,
though reconstruction work was completed between 2009 - 2015. The main
problem, as with most buildings from antiquity, was that much of the stone
was pilfered and used in other buildings nearby, or possibly carried off to be
burned down in lime kilns.
The Theatre of Dionysus held significance for the Athenians’ sense of identity and history. The famous plays, still studied by students today, were a popular feature on this stage, even several hundred years after the initial opening night.
The presence
of the past was notable, even during the Roman period of control over Athens,
and this theatre is an interesting case study of a 'classical nostalgia' which
everyone since the Romans has been guilty of when considering Athens. It has
been suggested by scholars that the dearth of new material in the Hellenistic
and Roman period in Athens, coupled with the frequent re-staging of the greats
by Aechylus and Euripides, can be interpreted as savvy business decisions by
elites to invest money in revivals of Athenian theatre for which benefactors
could be certain of quality and popular acclaim.
Rather than making the riskier financial decision to invest in the support of new plays, which perhaps cut too closely to home (really reflecting the loss of autonomy felt by Greeks), instead the attention was focused on a golden age where their independence was trumpeted and powerful.
The Monument of Lysikrates
Built around 333/334 BCE, this interesting dedicatory monument speaks to a time which is perhaps difficult for us in the modern era to imagine. A time when, wealthy patrons could put on an impressive show for the citizens of Athens, and through their sponsorship of plays, compete against other wealthy elites for honours.
Awarded to the choregos, who was responsible for the training and sponsoring of the chorus in dramatic contests held in the Dinonysia, this is the only existing example of remaining in Athens today. Sculptures like this, would have been crowned with a bronze tripod which no longer survives. The limestone podium is topped with a cylindrical tholos of Pentelic marble, and six Corinthian columns which are topped by eight acanthus leaves.
Apparently, the Corinthian capital was used for the first time on the exterior of decorative structure or building. It would not be until three hundred years later until the Corinthian ‘order’ became a recurring order in Rome. This type of column capital would go on to become the preeminent Roman capital type. The change of the governance of the Mediterranean would shift, favouring the rising strength of Italy. The Roman period of Athens follows similar pathways towards controlling Greeks through benefactions and building projects.
The Theatre of Dionysus held significance for the Athenians’ sense of identity and history. The famous plays, still studied by students today, were a popular feature on this stage, even several hundred years after the initial opening night.
A detail view of the carved theatre seat - 2016 |
Rather than making the riskier financial decision to invest in the support of new plays, which perhaps cut too closely to home (really reflecting the loss of autonomy felt by Greeks), instead the attention was focused on a golden age where their independence was trumpeted and powerful.
The Monument of Lysikrates
Built around 333/334 BCE, this interesting dedicatory monument speaks to a time which is perhaps difficult for us in the modern era to imagine. A time when, wealthy patrons could put on an impressive show for the citizens of Athens, and through their sponsorship of plays, compete against other wealthy elites for honours.
Awarded to the choregos, who was responsible for the training and sponsoring of the chorus in dramatic contests held in the Dinonysia, this is the only existing example of remaining in Athens today. Sculptures like this, would have been crowned with a bronze tripod which no longer survives. The limestone podium is topped with a cylindrical tholos of Pentelic marble, and six Corinthian columns which are topped by eight acanthus leaves.
Apparently, the Corinthian capital was used for the first time on the exterior of decorative structure or building. It would not be until three hundred years later until the Corinthian ‘order’ became a recurring order in Rome. This type of column capital would go on to become the preeminent Roman capital type. The change of the governance of the Mediterranean would shift, favouring the rising strength of Italy. The Roman period of Athens follows similar pathways towards controlling Greeks through benefactions and building projects.
The perception and goodwill of the public would be an ongoing preoccupation of the elites and leaders in Greece and Italy moving forward.
I would really love to visit this area someday...wow
ReplyDeleteIt is really beautiful, and hard to do justice to the incredible history which informs the art and archaeology so much! I hope you do get the chance to visit!
Delete