THE SANCTUARY AND ALTAR OF CHRYSE IN ATTIC RED-FIGURE VASE-

PAINTINGS OF THE LATE FIFTH AND EARLY FOURTH CENTURIES B.C.

Two vases exist on which the sanctuary of Chryse is definitely identified by inscriptions.
The first is an Attic red-figure stamnos, Louvre G413, attributed to Hermonax, on which is
depicted Philoktetes being bitten by the snake at the altar of Chryse.1 The second is an Attic
red-figure bell-krater, Vienna Inv. 1144, of the late fifth century B.C., which depicts Herakles
sacrificing at the altar of Chryse. With the first vase may be associated an Attic red-figure
calyx-krater, Louvre G342, attributed to the Altamura Painter, which bears no inscriptions,
but undoubtedly represents the same scene; 2 and with the second may be grouped four other
vases of the late fifth and early fourth centuries B.C., which resemble it sufficiently closely to
suggest that they too represent the sanctuary of Chryse. The interpretation of the two Louvre
vases has never been in doubt, since they obviously illustrate the story of the biting of Philoktetes
by the snake in the sanctuary of Chryse,3 but the interpretation of the other group of vases has
been the subject of some dispute. In this article, therefore, I propose to discuss the connection
of these vases with one another and with the two Louvre vases, and to examine their relation
to the literary treatment of the legends concerning this sanctuary.
The group consists of the following five vases:—
1. London E494 (Fig. 1). Fragments of an Attic red-figure bell-krater of c. 430 B.C.4 A bearded man
stands to the left of an altar built of large rough stones, on top of which parts of the victim are burning in a fire
of logs. Behind the altar and a little to the right is a Doric column supporting a draped female image, the upper
part of which is missing; and to the left of the column is a tree with three votive pinakes hanging from the branches.
Between the bearded man and the altar a youth (01AO $ KET - -) , 6 of whom only the top of the head remains, holds
meat over the fire on a double spit. On the other side of the altar stands a second youth (Al ), who
is also roasting meat on a double spit. To the right of him is part of a draped female figure, and to the right
again stands Athene. On the far left of the scene is a curious object which has not yet been identified with
certainty.
2. Vienna Inv. 1144 (Fig. 2). Attic red-figure bell-krater of the late fifth century B.C.8 In the centre
is an altar of rough stone slabs with a fire on top, and behind the altar is a Doric column supporting a draped
female image (XPYIH). To the left of the altar Herakles (HPAKAHI) turns and beckons to a youth on the left
(lOAEflN), who is bringing to the altar a bull with a fillet on its horns. On the other side of the altar stands
Nike (NIKH), holding a basket containing three twigs in her left hand and a small pot 7 in her right. On the
right a naked boy is taking the lid off a casket.
3. Taranto (Fig. 3). Fragments of an Attic red-figure calyx-krater classified as in the manner of the
Pronomos Painter and dated late fifth century B.C.8 To the left of an altar of rough stones stands a man with a
sceptre resting against his left shoulder. Behind the altar is an Ionic column supporting a draped female image, and
in front of this appears a small pot evidently held by an attendant on the other side of the altar. To the left of
the man a youth brings a bull to the altar, while above him a sitting youth converses with a standing youth.
Another fragment from the same vase has the legs of a male figure wearing chlamys and boots and the foot of
a second figure to the left of these, indicating the presence of at least two figures to the right of the altar. In front
of the altar is a casket.
4. Leningrad 43f (Fig. 4). Attic red-figure pelike attributed to the Kiev Painter and dated late fifth
century B.C.9 In the centre is an altar of rough stones with wood on the top, and behind the altar is a Doric
column supporting a draped female image. To the left of the image stands Herakles resting on his club and
holding a spray of leaves in each hand. On the left a youth brings to the altar a bull with a fillet on its horns.
On the other side of the altar stands a youth holding a small pot in his right hand and a basket containing three
twigs in his left. On the right Dionysos (?) talks to Apollo, and above them is Athene. Above the youth with
the bull is Hermes conversing with Ares (?).
5. Leningrad 33A (Fig. 5). Fragments of an Attic red-figure volute-krater attributed to the Painter of

1
2
CVA III Id. pi. 18.1-4. into it. Sir John Beazley there states that it was a kind of
3
CVA III Id. pll. 4.2—3, 5.1—2. measure and suggests that it may have contained the barley-
D. Chr. 59.9; Tz. ad Lye. 911; Eust. 330.1; Sch. II. groats for sprinkling on the altar. This function, however,
2.722;
4
Sch. S. Ph. 194. seems less probable here where Nike is also holding a
6
Schefold, Jdl LII, 50. sacrificial basket in which the barley was usually carried
Professor C. M. Robertson is of the opinion that the $ in along with the sacrificial knife and fillets (Sch. Ar. Pax 956).
this inscription is confused as if the painter had tried to Perhaps the measure here contains incense, which was
correct
6
it. sometimes
8
burnt on the altar in the same way.
I am indebted to Sir John Beazley for the dating of this 9
ARV, 850.
vase.
7
Ibid. 852. Schefold, loc. cit., attributes this vase to the
A similar vessel appears on an Attic r.f. fragment (JUS Pronomos Painter and dates it c. 390 B.C.
LIX, 23) where the priest appears to be putting his hand
35
 E. M. HOOKER

FIG. I.—FRAGMENTS OF ATTIC R.F. BELL-KRATER, LONDON £494.

(By permission cf the Trustees of the British Museum.)

FIG. 2.—ATTIC R.F. BELL-KRATER, VIENNA INV. I 144.

(By permission of the Kunsthistorisches Museum.)
 THE SANCTUARY AND ALTAR OF CHRYSE 37
the New York Centauromachy and dated early fourth century B.C.10 In the centre is an altar of rough stones
with wood on top, and behind it is an acanthus-column. To the left of the altar Herakles ( KAHZ) stands
leaning on a stick and holding a fillet for the victim. On the left is a boy (A1XAI) bringing a bull to the altar,
and behind the bull is a Doric column supporting a tripod. To the right of the altar stands a youth holding a
pot in his right hand and a basket containing three twigs in his left. Above and to the right are the knees
of a seated figure, while the drapery above Lichas may belong to a second seated figure.
These vase-paintings have been variously explained. Vienna 1144 was first published by
Uhden,11 who explained the scene as representing the sacrifice offered by Herakles on his way to
Troy 12 and read the inscription over the youth with the bull as IOAEQN for Iolaos, quoting
Suidas for 'IoAecos as the Attic form of the name. 13 The unnamed boy he identified as
Philoktetes, who was said to have been present at this sacrifice. Millingen,14 however, took the
inscription as IHZQN, marking the second two letters as doubtful, and explained the episode
as the founding of the altar by the Argonauts.15 This interpretation was generally accepted,16
the subordinate position of Iason being explained by traces of a tradition according to which
Herakles and not Iason was the leader of the Argonauts.17 The inscription has also been
restored in various other ways.18 Dr. F. Eichler of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, however,
has sent me a tracing of the inscription, in which it clearly appears as IOAEON, and he states
that, although the A is faint, clear traces of it can be seen under a lens. This entirely rules
out the reading IHIQN, and supports Uhden's theory that the two youths are Iolaos and
Philoktetes.
In 1845 Gerhard 19 for the first time connected London E494 with Vienna 1144, interpreting
both as the Argonautic sacrifice. The British Museum Catalogue of Vases of 1851 20 also
described these fragments as representing a sacrifice offered by Herakles to Chryse, but identified
the youth on the right as Philoktetes, the inscription (DlAOSKET . . having been found on one
of the fragments. Others took the inscription as a KocAos-name 21 or a potter's signature,22
but these theories were soon disproved by the discovery of the inscription AI . . ., and in
the British Museum Catalogue of 1896 A. S. Murray 23 described the two youths as Philoktetes
and Lichas. He also stated that it had been found impossible to join Athene to the draped
figure without ruining both the shape of the vase and the proportions of Athene. 24
The presence of Lichas on London E494 led Murray to connect these fragments with the
scene on Leningrad 33A,25 which had been explained by Stephani 26 as the sacrifice performed
by Herakles on Mt. Kenaion just before his death. He accordingly described the object behind
Herakles as the poisoned robe 27 and took the whole scene to represent a confusion between the
sacrifice to Chryse and a sacrifice to Zeus Patroos on Mt. Oite. 28 More recently this theory was
discarded by Schefold,29 who took all three vases as representing a sacrifice to Chryse and
10
Beazley, op. cit. 870. Schefold, loc. cit., attributes this it simply as a sacrifice of the heroic age.
20
vase to the Talos Painter and dates it c. 390 B.C. Birch & Newton, Catalogue of Greek & Etruscan Vases in
11
Abh. Berl. Akad., (1810) 63 ff. the British Museum I 248 no. 804*. Cf. Flasch, op. cit., 19 ff.
la 21
Sch. S. Ph. 194. Cf. Philostr. Jun. Im. 17.2; Arg. Michaelis, Annali XXIX 243.
22
1 S. Ph. C. Smith, JHS IX 1 ff., pi. 1. Cf. Engelmann, Bilder-
13
Suid. s.v. 'l6Aaos. atlas zu Homer (Od.) pi. 4, fig. 17.
11 23
PVA pi. 51, pp. 76 ff. (1813). BMC Vases III, 300 ff., pi. 16.
15 2i
Philostr. Jun. loc. cit.; AP 15.25 (Besant. Ara), 15.26 C. Smith had wished to join the head of Athene to the
(Dosiad, Ara). draped figure and take the scene as a sacrifice to Athene
10
Inghirami pi. 17, p. 39; de Witte, Catalogue Durand on the Akropolis at Athens.
25
113 no. 322; El. 2 p. 361; Guignaut & Creuzer, Rel. de I'ant., He was followed in this by A. H. Smith {JHS XVIII
pi. 94.354; Gerhard, AZ (1845) 161 ff., pi. 35 (reading 274 ff.), who quoted Bakchylides 16.13 ff. to account for the
IA2ON in text, AOEON in illustration), AVB 3 p. 21 nn. 5 presence of Athene on the London fragments.
20
& 6; Muller, Denkm. 1.10, pi. 2; Milani, Filottete 61 f., pi. CRend (1869) 179 ff.
1.1, Annali LIII 284 ff. " This is highly unlikely. If the scene represented the
17
D.S. 4.41. sacrifice on Mt. Kenaion, Herakles would be wearing the
18
IOEON, Laborde 1 p. 30; I.OEHN, Arneth, Das K.K. poisoned robe; but here we have the very end of the sacrifice
Munz-undAntiken-Kabinet, 22 no. 276; AOEHN, AZ (1845) pi. with the meat being roasted over the altar-fire, and the robe
35.1 (this is stated by Gerhard to be the reading of Ameth); is supposed still to be hanging up behind Herakles!
28
AOEHNI, Jahn, Arch. Anz. (1854) 451 no. 275 and von Sacken The reference to Mt. Oite is surely an error. Herakles
& Kenner, Die Sammlungen des K.K. Mu'nz- und Antiken- made no sacrifice on Mt. Oite, for he was already dying
Cabinetes 243 no. 276; TEAAMON, Stephani, CRend (1873) 227 when he was brought there. The description of the sacrifice
and Flasch, Angebliche Argonautenbilder 17 f.; AOEflN, Stengel, to Zeus Patroos in the Trachiniai of Sophokles (S. TV. 237 f.,
Die Griechischen Kultusaltertumer pi. 3, fig. 11. 287 ff., 752 ff.), which Murray cites, refers to the sacrifice
18
Gerhard, AZ, (1845) 178 f., pi. 35.2. Raoul-Rochette, on Mt. Kenaion.
28
in his Peint. ant. inid., 401 ff., pi. 6, had already published Jdl LII 50. ff., fig. 10.
38 E. M. HOOKER

FIG. 3.—FRAGMENTS OF ATTIC R.F. CALYX-KRATER, TARANTO. (By permission of the R. Museo Nazionale, Taranto.)

FIG. 4.—ATTIC R.F. PELIKE, LENINGRAD 43F. (By permission of the Hermitage Museum.)
 THE SANCTUARY AND ALTAR OF CHRYSE 39
compared with them Leningrad 43f, which he himself had already published.30 He further
assumed the existence of a wall-painting dated c. 440 B . C , from which all these vase-paintings
were copied. The object to the left of Herakles on London E494 he explained as part of a ship,31
an explanation which had already been suggested by Hauser. The Taranto fragments have
now been added to the series by Sir John Beazley,32 who suggested that they might represent a
sacrifice to Chryse.
In spite of the plausibility of the theory which interprets London E494 and Leningrad 33A as
the sacrifice on Mt. Kenaion, there can be little doubt that all the vases in this group represent
the same scene. In each instance Herakles 33 is shown sacrificing a bull at an altar of rough
stones with the assistance of two youths. 34 On four of the vases there is the statue of a goddess
set on a pillar behind the altar, while on the fifth its place is taken by an acanthus-column,
which may have been conceived as supporting an image, just as similar columns support
tripods in another red-figure vase-painting.35 These marked similarities make it probable that
all five vases depict the same episode, which can be certainly identified, by means of the
inscriptions on Vienna 1144, as a sacrifice to Chryse. This interpretation is supported by the
presence of a similar image and altar on Louvre G342 and G413, which are also known to depict
the sanctuary of Chryse. The presence of Athene on London E494 might be explained on the
grounds that Chryse was sometimes identified with Athene, 36 but it is more probable that she is
present as the patron and helper of Herakles, as she frequently appears in Greek art.
The sacrifice is evidently that offered by Herakles on his way to Troy, as is indicated by the
presence of Philoktetes on London E494. The theory which explained the sacrifice as that
offered by the Argonauts at the founding of the altar is far less probable. Its main support was
the reading of the inscription on Vienna 1144 as 1HZQN, and this has now been shown to be
untenable. Moreover, the legend attributes the founding of the altar, not to Herakles, but to
Iason; and there is no evidence for supposing that Philoktetes accompanied Herakles on the
Argonautic expedition, whereas it is specifically mentioned that he was with Herakles at the
sacrifice to Chryse on the way to Troy. It is simplest to suppose that all five vases represent
this sacrifice and that in each instance one of the two youths is Philoktetes, as required by the
legend, while the other is variously described as Iolaos or Lichas, who were both known to have
been attendants of Herakles. The fact that Lichas was present at the sacrifice on Mt. Kenaion
is no reason for supposing that he could not also have been present at that to Chryse, for
Philoktetes is known to have been present at both and Lichas may have been also.
The appearance of the sanctuary on all the vases agrees with the descriptions of it in literature.
The presence of trees on London E494 and Vienna 1144 indicates an open-air sanctuary, as
described by Sophokles.37 The form of the altar is especially significant, for rough stone altars
are rare in vase-paintings,38 and it is therefore noteworthy that not only is the altar of this type
on allfivevases in this group, but the altars on the two Louvre vases, though somewhat different
in general appearance, are of similarly crude and improvised construction. We should be
justified in assuming from this that legend ascribed a rough stone altar to this sanctuary, and
in fact we have traces of a literary tradition to this effect. The metrical argument to the
Philoktetes of Sophokles refers to the altar of Chryse as Pco^ov STTIKEXCOCT^VOV, while Tzetzes speaks
30 3
Schefold, U., figs. 70, 71. " A r g . 1 S. Ph.; AP 15.25 (Besant. Ara); T z . a d L y e .
31
Cf. parts of ships on other red-figure vases, e.g., Bologna 9 1 1 ; Sch. II. 2.722 ; Sch. S. Ph. 194, 1326. Sophokles,
303, Mon. sup. p i . a 1, a n d R u v o , J a t t a , 1501, AZ ('846) however, seems t o have regarded Chryse as a separate
pll. 4 4 - 4 5 . goddess (S. Ph. 194, 1327). Cf. Eust. 330.1.
32
Beazley, op. cit., 8 5 0 . " S. Ph. 1326.
33 38
The identity of the sacrificer is less certain on the An altar of this type is depicted on a red-figure bell-
Taranto fragments, where he has no attribute and there are krater (Naples Market, AZ, 1853, p. 59); and low altars
no inscriptions, but the similarity between these fragments of rough stones appear on a red-figure hydria (Berlin 2380,
and the two Leningrad vases makes it highly probable that AZ, 1867, pi. 222), on a red-figure column-krater (Louvre
all three depict the same scene. K343, FR. 3 p. 365), and on a red-figure bell-krater (Syra-
34
On the Taranto fragments only one youth appears cuse 41621, CVA III I pi. 22.1), all depicting Orestes taking
assisting at the sacrifice, but there was probably a second refuge at the altar from the Erinyes. There is a low altar
youth on the missing part of the vase. The small pot held of small pebble-like stones on a white-ground lekythos
in front of the column clearly indicates the presence of an (Berlin 2251, Benndorf pi. 27.3). There seem to be no other
attendant to the right of the altar. examples of rough stone altars in vase-paintings.
36
Leningrad (St. 1790), CRend (1866) pi. 4.1.
40 E. M. HOOKER
of it as K£)(COCTp£vov (3COIJI6V.39 Jebb was puzzled by these epithets,40 since he felt that they should
mean ' heaped-up ', but could see no point in so describing an altar. He therefore took it as
meaning ' defiled with debris' and suggested translating EK&8ocip£v in Tzetzes as ' cleansed '
rather than ' purified '. This description of the altar, however, evidently reflects the tradition
which was followed by the vase-painters when they depicted the altar as a heap of stones, ypoz
is more usually used of mounds of earth, but there is no reason why it should not here be used of
a mound of stones, and there seems to be no doubt that the epithets do in fact denote an altar
of the kind depicted in the vase-paintings.

FIG. 5.—FRAGMENTS OF ATTIC R.F. VOLUTE-KRATER, LENINGRAD 33A.

(By permission of the Hermitage Museum.)

Schefold supposed that the vases in this group were copied from a wall-painting of c. 440 B.C,
and this seems at first sight to behighlyprobable. There are, however, certain differences between
the vase-paintings, which one would not expect if they had been copied from a single original or
from one another. London E494 represents the end of the sacrifice with portions of the victim
burning on the altar and the meat being roasted on spits, while the other four vase-paintings
represent the beginning with the victim being led to the altar. The persons present at the
sacrifice vary: Nike is present on Vienna 1144 and perhaps also on London E494, but not on
Leningrad 43f; Athene appears in company with other gods on Leningrad 43^ as the sole
spectator on London E494, and not at all on Vienna 1144; the two youths are Philoktetes and
Lichas on London E494 and probably on Leningrad 33 A also, but one of the youths on Vienna
38 40
Arg. 1 S. Ph.; Tz. loc. cit. J e b b , Sophocles: the Philoctetes 4 n. 1.
 THE SANCTUARY AND ALTAR OF CHRYSE 41
1144 is Iolaos; on the Taranto fragments several youths take the place of the assembly of gods
on Leningrad 43f. On Leningrad 33A the usual column and image of Chryse are replaced by
an acanthus-column, while the exact form of the altar differs slightly in each instance. It is
possible that the two Leningrad vases and the Taranto fragments may be copied from a common
original, since their differences of detail are to some extent offset by a general similarity in the
grouping and attitudes of the figures 41 and in the shape of the stones of which the altar is
constructed, but these resemblances are not shared by London E494 and Vienna 1144, which
differ markedly both from one another and from the other three vases.42 Such differences
would be strange if all these vase-paintings were copied from a single wall-painting; but they
are quite reasonable if we suppose them to be based on a single verbal description which
mentioned a sacrifice at an altar of rough stones set in front of an image of Chryse and named
Herakles and Philoktetes as present, leaving most of the other details to the imagination of the
hearers. Such a description may well have been contained in the Philoktetes of Euripides, which
was produced in 431 B.C.,43 shortly before the probable date of the earliest of the vases in this
group. It is quite likely that in the course of this play Philoktetes described how, as a boy, he
accompanied Herakles to the sanctuary of Chryse and how he subsequently visited it on his way
to the Trojan War and was bitten by the snake; and it is possible that a vivid description was
given of the sanctuary with its ancient altar and image. Many vase painters of this period
drew their inspiration from the theatre, 44 and the influence of a successful play might well
continue for many years after its original production, since the memory of it would be strength-
ened by revivals at the lesser dramatic festivals outside Athens. It is probable that the later
vases of this group owe their existence to such a revival. The absence of theatrical costumes in
these vase-paintings need be no objection, since the episode in question did not form part of the
action of the play, but would merely be described by one of the characters, so that the paintings
would not have been influenced by the scene upon the stage.
The two Louvre vases, which depict the biting of Philoktetes, also differ from one another in
a way that suggests that both were based on a description rather than on a picture, but the
vases are earlier in date and appear to follow an earlier tradition in which the appearance of
the altar was less clearly described. The original account of the altar evidently made it clear
that it was an improvised structure, but did not define the exact method of its construction, so
that, whereas in Louvre G413 it appears as a few stones grouped together on the ground,
Louvre G342 depicts it as a mound of earth, or possibly a roughly shaped piece of rock. By
c. 430 B.C, however, the altar is established as a pile of large stones, and so it appears in all the
five vase-paintings under discussion. As to whether there was an actual sanctuary of Chryse
in existence in the fifth century B.C. with a primitive altar and image, it is impossible to be
certain. It is more likely that Euripides, if he did indeed give an account of the sanctuary,
derived the details partly from some earlier poet's description and partly from his own imagin-
ation, than that he had any first-hand knowledge of the sanctuary itself.
My thanks are due to Mr. Bernard Ashmole, Sir John Beazley, Professor C. M. Robertson
and Professor T. B. L. Webster for their many helpful suggestions and comments; to Lady
Beazley for supplying me with photographs of the Taranto fragments; to Dr. F. Eichler for
information about the Vienna krater and for a photograph of it; to Mr. M. Goukovsky for
photographs of the Leningrad vases; and to Dott. Ciro Drago for a drawing of the Taranto
fragments.
EDNA M. HOOKER.
University of Birmingham.

41
The attitude of Herakles is identical on the two London E494 of c. 430 B.C ; Vienna 1144 of the late fifth
Leningrad vases, except that on Leningrad 33A a stick is century; and a wall-painting or a third vase-painting of
substituted for the club of Leningrad 43f, and a fillet for about the same date, from which the Leningrad vases and
the two sprays of leaves. • the Taranto fragments may have been derived.
12 43
Thus, even if the two Leningrad vases and the Taranto Arg. 2 E. Med.
44
fragments are to be grouped together, there must have been Bieber, Greek & Roman Theater 49 ff.
at least three independent representations of this scene: