A Depiction of Paris in Luxor Temple and the Eidolon of Helen

ZÄS 136 (2009)

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

141

COLLEEN MANASSA 1

A Depiction of Paris in Luxor Temple and the “eidolon” of Helen Hierzu Tafel XIX–XXII

ȃİȓȜȠȣȝ!ȞĮoįİțĮȜȜȚʌȐȡșİȞȠȚœȠĮȓ 9ȢEȞIJȓįqĮȢȥĮțWįȠȢǹeȖWʌIJȠȣȖWĮȢ ȜİȣțZȢIJĮțİȓıȘȢȤȚ2ȞȠȢRȖȡĮȓȞİȚįȡ2ı.w

Here flows the Nile with its fair nymphs! Fed by melting of pale snow it drenches Egypt’s fields 2 with moisture in place of rain sent from Zeus. – Helen’s Introductory Speech, Euripides, “Helen”, lines 1–3 Phorkyas. Doch sagt man: du erschienst ein doppelhaft Gebild, In Ilios gesehen und in Ägypten auch. . . . Helena. Ich als Idol, ihm dem Idol verband ich mich. Es war ein Traum, so sagen ja die Worte selbst. Ich schwinde hin und werde selbst mir ein Idol. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Faust”, Part II, Act III

Until the last decades of the Nineteenth Century, the first court of Luxor Temple (the “Ramesside court”) remained buried beneath centu3 ries of accumulated debris . When the deposition of two millennia was cleared, an impressive

1

The inspiration for the present article was twofold. While reading Faust in a course taught by Prof. Cyrus Hamlin at Yale University in 1999, I came across the quoted passage and the explanatory footnote referring to Helen’s sojourn in Egypt and the myth of her idol (J. W. Go ethe, Faust, W. Arndt, trans., C. Hamlin, ed., [New York, 1976], p. 224 n. 1). Prof. John Darnell suggested that I pursue the topic through the graffito of Paris in Luxor Temple, and I would like to thank him for numerous helpful conversations and references on this topic as well as his comments on a draft of this article and assistance with the drawing of the graffito. A preliminary version of this paper was presented to the Greco-Roman Lunch at Yale University in March, 2002. 2 D. Kovacs, ed. and trans., E ur ipid es V: Helen, Phonecian Women, Orestes = LCL 11 (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 12– 13. 3 G. Dar ess y, Notice explicative des ruines du Temple de Louxor (Cairo, 1893), pp. iii–ix.

monument was revealed, as well as many more 4 modest inscriptions . At the southeast corner of the Ramesside court, on one of the “corner” columns, a visitor during the Graeco-Roman Period left a unique record of his visit, which 5 has received virtually no commentary – a graf-

4

While most of the decoration in the first court of Luxor Temple dates to the reign of Ramesses II (B. Por ter and R. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings, vol. II: Theban Temples, 2nd ed. [Oxford, 1994], pp. 306 – 309), the back wall of the Ramesside court, which includes the facade of the Colonnade Hall, contains several large inscriptions added by Pinudjem I alongside a substantial number of smaller “graffiti”, including several Carian and Greek inscriptions – see The Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple, vol. 2: The Facade, Portals, Upper Register Scenes, Columns, Marginalia, and Statuary in the Colonnade Hall, OIP 116 (Chicago, 1998). For more on the “votive” character of the front of the Colonnade Hall, see below, p. 148. 5 The inscription is on the north face of the column in the southeast corner of the Ramesside Court, directly opposite a standing colossus of Ramesses II (this colossus is no. 59 in Por ter and Mos s, Topographical Bibliography, vol. II, key plan 30; a description of this colossus of Ramesses II, but without mention of the graffito of Paris, appears in Dar es sy, Temple de Louxor, p. 39). The sole publication of the graffito is W. Mu r nane, “Helene, Égyptienne?”, in Louqsor, Temple du Ka Royal, Dossiers histoire et archéologie 101 (January, 1986): 40; idem., The Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt (London, 1996), p. 305 includes a colorful description that merits quoting: “The statues in the south-east corner are especially well preserved, and one Greek tourist so admired the lissom Queen Nefertari who stands besides the king’s leg that, on the column adjoining, he carved a figure of a huntsman with its name, ‘Paris’ – a delicate compliment – above its head.” A photograph of the statue of Nefertari opposite the column with the Paris inscription visible (although not commented upon) appears in H. C. Schmi d t and

142

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

fito depicting a nude man with various attributes standing on a pedestal, with a label in Greek 6 letters arched above his head: Ȇǹȇǿ& . The location of the inscription about a meter above the original flooring of the temple guarantees its antiquity, since debris covered the inscription until the clearance of the Ramesside Court in the 7 1880’s (Tf. XIX) . The inscription is carved over the incised lines depicting the pointed leaves at 8 the base of the papyrus-capital column , opposite a sculpted figure of queen Nefertari, part of 9 a colossal statue of Ramesses II (Tf. XX). The inscription of Paris at Luxor Temple, which juxtaposes an apparent depiction of the infamous lover with a beautiful Egyptian statue, J. Willeitner, Nefertari, Gemahlin Ramses’ II., 2nd ed. (Mainz am Rhein, 1997), p. 37, Abb. 45a, b. 6 The Paris inscription also stands out as one of the few labeled depictions from the entire corpus of Graeco-Roman graffiti, the vast majority of which are texts employing a ʌȡȠıțȪȞȘȝĮ-formula (on this formula, see V. A. Foertmeyer, Tourism in Graeco-Roman Egypt [unpublished PhD Thesis, Princeton University, 1989], pp. 11– 12; G. G er aci, “Ricerche sul Proskynema”, Aegyptus 51 [1971]: 3 – 211). For non-textual rock art in the post-pharaonic period, see D. Huyg e, “Art on the Decline? Egyptian Rock Drawings from the Late and Graeco-Roman Periods”, Egyptian Religion, the Last Thousand Years, OLA 85 (Leuven, 1998), vol. 2, pp. 1377 – 1392. For other Greek graffiti at Luxor Temple, see p. 148 below. 7 The photograph on plate XIX, taken by Antoine Beato in the 1880’s, shows the south-east corner of the Ramesside Court, with the colossus of Ramesses II and column with graffito of Paris; the head of Paris is visible in the photograph. The uncleared debris to either side of the column reach above the level of the graffito, and the watermark on the column itself indicates that the recently cleared debris entirely covered the area of the graffito (N. N. Per e z, Focus East, Early Photography in the Near East (1839– 1885) [New York, 1988], pp. 12, 97). Compare the commentary in Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple 2, p. 60 on the antiquity of inscriptions below the seventh course of stones on the columns in the Colonnade Hall. 8 J. P. Phillips, The Columns of Egypt (Manchester, 2002), pp. 8 – 9; see also the discussion of papyruscapital columns in L. Bor ch ar d t, Die Aegyptische Pflanzensäule (Berlin 1897), pp. 25– 43. 9 The colossus is original to Ramesses II and was not one of the intercolumnar statues usurped from Amenhotep III; for these colossi, see C. Str auß Seeb e r , “Zum Statuenprogramm Rameses’ II. im Luxortempel”, Tempel und Kult, ÄA 46 (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 24– 42.

ZÄS 136 (2009)

suggests that at least one Graeco-Roman tourist visiting Egypt was aware of an alternate version of the myth of Helen; this graffito may also provide further evidence for the original appearance of the famous statue of Paris-Alexander attributed to the sculptor Euphranor. Far from being alone as a late addition to the decoration of the Ramesside court, the small depiction of Paris is one of a number inscriptions of late pharaonic through Graeco-Roman date clustered in the east side of the south end of the first open court of Luxor Temple. The graffito of Paris not only illumines an alternate version of the Greek epic tradition, but demonstrates how Graeco-Roman graffiti may continue the earlier pharaonic prac10 tice of “votive inscriptional surcharging” of temple surfaces. The inscription of Paris is deeply carved, and although some features are indistinct, the overall quality of the image is impressive (Tf. XXI– XXII). Paris’ head is ovoid with distinct facial features – the large eyes have separately indicated irises, the nose is small, consisting of two parallel lines connected with a curving line at the bottom, and the mouth is a triangular indentation beneath the long, diagonal lines of a mustache. The short hair and beard, which together surround the head, were created by a series of 11 small pecks in the stone . The proper left ear appears as a slightly larger and deeper indentation, but the right ear is indistinguishable from the hair and beard. Two parallel lines form Paris’ long neck, which is set upon downward sloping shoulders. Paris’ right elbow is bent at his waist, while his right hand grasps the upper portion of a 12 slightly recurved bow . The bow-string meets 10 Borrowing the terminology of J. C. Da r nell, The Inscription of Queen Katimala at Semna, YES 7 (New Haven, 2006), p. 4. 11 For bearded depictions of Paris, see N. Hi mmelm ann, Reading Greek Art (Princeton, 1998), pp. 73– 74, 80 – 81. For other examples of bearded images of Paris, compare three depiction of the judgment of the goddesses on Attic vases (R. Hamp e , “Alexandros”, LIMC I:1, pp. 499 (nos. 7 –9), 524; LIMC I:2, pp. 376– 377). 12 On Paris as archer, see Ha mpe, LIMC I:1, pp. 513 – 514, and citations therein, including B. L. Hijma ns, “Archers in the Iliad”, Festoen, Festschrift

ZÄS 136 (2009)

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

the main portion of the bow at the point where Paris grasps the bow. The upper portion of the proper left arm is held close to Paris’ body, while the lower portion of his arm extends away from the body. The depiction of the left hand delineates the four fingers and thumb extending below a circular object, almost certainly an apple, held in the palm of Paris’ hand (for more on the Judgment of Paris, see below). Above Paris’ right shoulder is a cylindrical shape and two additional lines that represent the Trojan’s quiver containing at least two arrows. The figure’s only clothing consists of a cloak secured around his neck, leaving his left shoulder and arm covered, while his right arm remains bare. Several V-shaped incisions within the cloak indicate a pattern on the surface. The cloak does not cover Paris’ lower torso or legs, and his genitalia are clearly represented. The cloak in the graffito may be the same as the ȤȜĮȝȪȢhe wears in other 13 contexts ; however, the incised decoration suggests that the cloak instead alludes to the leopard skin Paris wears when Menelaos sees him on the battlements of Troy before their duel, which ends with Aphrodite spiriting away the weaker 14 Paris into Helen’s bed . The use of the leopard skin cloak contrasts with the iconography of

A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta (Groningen, 1975), pp. 343 – 352, who challenges the idea that archery was less well-regarded than other types of combat in Homeric warfare. 13 Compare among the many examples L. Ghal iKahil, Les enlèvements et le retour d’Hélène dans les textes et les documents figurés (Paris, 1955), vol. 2, pl. 10, no. 3, pl. 13, no. 4, pl. 14, no. 2; pl. 34, nos. 1 and 2. In some cases, Paris’ cloak bears a decorative pattern (cf. H ampe , LIMC I:1, p. 512 no. 69*, LIMC I:2, p. 390). The V-shaped incisions in the Paris graffito are also reminiscent of the designs on Parthian clothing, which frequently forms a part of Paris’ iconography (see below); for the decoration of Parthian garb, see M. F. Vos, Scythian Archers in Attic Vase-Painting (Groningen, 1963), pp. 43 –47 and pls. 3, 4b, 9, 12a, 16a, 17a. 14 Hom er , Iliad III.16 – 20. For an Attic vase depicting Paris – with a leopard pelt draped over his arm – shooting at Achilles, see Hamp e, LIMC I:1, p. 518, no. 92, vol. I:2, p. 393; on that vase, interlocking halfcircles are used to represent the distinctive markings of the leopard’s fur. Another vase depicts a simple, undecorated cloak draped over Paris’ arm as he shoots the fatal arrow; see, ibid., vol. I:1, p. 518, no. 93, vol. I:2, p. 394.

143

Paris in Greek vase paintings that often show 15 him in Parthian garb . 16 Above the figure is the name Ȇǹȇǿ& , letters of which are arranged in a slight arc; the letters are not uniform in size, probably due to the author’s lack of familiarity with carving in stone, but at the same time cursive forms are avoided 17 in favor of more “formal” letters . The most notable epigraphic features of this short inscrip18 tion are the small round serifs, lunate sigma , and form of the alpha, the last of which suggests a date in the late second century through middle 19 of the third century CE . The use of the name 15

Compare among the many examples, Ham pe, LIMC I:1, pp. 500, no. 15, 506, no. 47, 525; I. R aab, Zu den Darstellungen des Parisurteils in der griechischen Kunst (Frankfurt, 1972), pp. 61 –62. 16 Although Paris is commonly attested as a personal name in Egypt (F. Preisigke, Namenbuch [Heidelberg, 1922], col. 280) and a name for slaves with Greek masters (B. H. Mc Lean , An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (332 B.C. – A.D. 337) [Ann Arbor, 2002], pp. 102– 103), the depiction of the nude male figure on a pedestal, his detailed iconography, and placement opposite a statue of a woman all argue for his identification with the Trojan prince and not a private individual. The context of the graffito also rules out an identification of the inscription with the famous Egyptian actor Paris, a contemporary of Diocletian (for a literary pun identifying the actor with his legendary namesake, see M. J. E d war d s, “A Quotation of Sappho in Juvenal Satire 6”, Phoenix 45 [1991]: pp. 255 –257; I would like to thank Mr. David Klotz for bringing this to my attention). 17 I would like to thank Prof. Bentley Layton for assistance with the paleographic discussion. 18 The lunate sigma appears frequently in Greek inscriptions in Egypt from the reign of Augustus onwards; Ptolemaic examples are less common, but wellattested (cf. an inscription dating to the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II at Philae, in A. Ber nand , Les inscriptions grecques de Philae [Paris, 1969], vol. 1, pp. 148 – 151, pl. 22, no. 15). 19 The extension of the right oblique stroke of the alpha beyond the left oblique stroke is common in Egyptian inscriptions dating between 150 and 250 CE; for example, E. Breccia, Iscrizioni, Greche e Latine, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée d’Alexandrie, Nos. 1 – 568 (Cairo, 1911), pp. 53 –56, nos. 72 (pl. 19, no. 50), 75, 76 (pl. 20, no. 53, pl. 21, no. 54), from the reign of Marcus Aurelius; pp. 56 – 57, no. 78, from the reign of Commodus; pp. 86 – 87, no. 147, dated to ca. 250 CE; F. Kayser , Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines (non funéraires)

144

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

Paris rather than Alexandros, the latter of which is a more common designation in the Homeric tradition, does not contribute to a finer dating of 20 the inscription . In addition to his distinct garb and label, one of the most notable features of the figure of Paris is the pedestal upon which he stands. The figure of Paris is not entirely devoid of movement – his left leg is straight and his left foot is turned to the left, but his right leg is bent and his right foot is shown pointing downwards, as if 21 Paris is lifting his heel . However, the presence of the pedestal and the only slight asymmetrical stance renders the graffito a plausible depiction of an existing statue of Paris. In the fourth century BCE, the sculptor and painter Euphranor created a bronze statue of Paris that Pliny the

d’Alexandrie impériale, BdÉ 108 (Cairo, 1994), pp. 41 – 43, no. 12 (pl. 8), 48– 51, no. 14 (pl. 9), both from the reign of Caracalla; pp. 79 –84, no. 21 (pl. 13), dated to 160 CE; for other inscriptions with this form of the alpha dated to end of the second through the third centuries CE, compare inter alia pp. 140 – 143, no. 33; 145– 146, no. 36; 150– 153, no. 39, pp. 290 – 293, no. 99, pp. 296– 301, no. 101. Rock inscriptions of possible Ptolemaic date may already exhibit the same form of the alpha – compare J. L. Four net, “Les inscriptions greques d’Abu Kş‘ et de la route QuftQusayr”, BIFAO 95 (1995): 191 and fig. 45 (Inscription 20); pp. 201 –202 and fig. 64 (I.Ko.Ko 5). For the difficulty of dating Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions on the basis of paleography alone, compare the remarks of McLean , An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, pp. 42– 45 (I would like to thank Prof. Bentley Layton for this reference). 20 For the double name Alexandros/Paris, the latter being a “marked, divine name,” see A. Sute r , “Language of Gods and Language of Men: the Case of Paris/Alexandros”, Lexis 7/8 (1991): 13– 25. Both names appear in labeled depictions of Alexandros/Paris; for the Luxor graffito in particular, one should note the use of “Paris” when the Trojan prince appears as an archer (Ham pe, in LIMC I:1, p. 524). Interestingly, a possible historical parallel for Homer’s Alexandros may appear in a late Bronze Age Hittite document as Alaksandu (T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 2nd ed. [Oxford, 2005], p. 359); for more on the Late Bronze Age historical background of the Trojan War, see note 42 below. 21 A neo-Attic relief depicts Paris Alexander with a similar placement of his feet, although the figure also appears to be leaning some of his weight upon the lance held in his left hand (Hampe, in LIMC I, p. 508, no. 55).

ZÄS 136 (2009)

Elder hailed for its success in capturing all three of Paris’ most significant mythological roles: judge of the goddesses, lover of Helen, and slay22 er of Achilles . Pliny does not elaborate upon his description nor explain how Euphranor’s 23 statue accomplished its praiseworthy task . The graffito of Paris at Luxor Temple, however, may provide further ancient evidence for the original appearance of Euphranor’s work. If the image was created during the late second or third century, as the paleography of the inscription indicates, the depiction of the beard and separate indication of the irises may reflect a mixture of contemporary Roman imperial por24 traiture and accurate representations of the artist’s recollection of the bronze statue of Euphranor or later copies thereof. In either case, the image in Luxor Temple succeeds in representing the three roles of Paris, which was one of the most important features of Euphranor’s work and may indicate at the very least the iconography of his bronze statue of Paris. The object in Paris’ proper left hand is most likely an apple, which pars pro toto embodies the entire mythical episode of the “beauty contest” be-

22 Pliny, Hist. Nat. 34.77 –78: Euphranoris Alexander Paris est, in quo laudatur quo omnia simul intellegantur, iudex dearum, amator Helenae et tamen Achillis interfector. “Euphranor made the Alexander Paris, praised because he is shown at once as the judge of the goddesses, the lover of Helen and yet the slayer of Achilles.” (trans. O. Palagia , Euphranor [Leiden, 1980], p. 33); for the reliability of Pliny’s passages on Euphranor’s artistic work, see W. D. E. Coulso n, “The Nature of Pliny’s Remarks on Euphranor”, The Classical Journal 67:4 (1972): 323– 326. For Book 34 of Pliny’s Natural History, see J. Isager , Pliny on Art and Society, The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art (Odense, 1991), pp. 80– 108 (I would like to thank Prof. Milette Gaifman for this reference). 23 As Palagi a , Euphranor, p. 33 notes, Pliny neither indicates Paris’ potential attributes nor even mentions the location of the statue; no extant statues appear to be copies of Euphranor’s Paris, although scholars have identified several statues as such (ibid., pp. 33 –34). 24 The nudity of the figure could also be either a reflection of a Greek statue of Paris or contemporary Roman portraiture – see C. H. Halle t, The Roman Nude, Heroic Portrait Statuary 200 BC – AD 300 (Oxford, 2005).

ZÄS 136 (2009)

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris 25

tween Aphrodite, Athena, and Hera . As a result of Paris’ judgment in favor of Aphrodite, the Trojan prince is promised the most beautiful woman on earth – Helen – and through her abduction, Paris ignites the Trojan War. Thus some of the same attributes that Paris would adopt as the slayer of Achilles could indirectly allude to the Trojan’s role as Helen’s lover. In the Luxor graffito, Paris holds a bow, the weapon with which he kills Achilles, and his quiver is equipped with arrows; most likely, the sculptor Euphranor also used a bow, or even simply a quiver, as an allusion to Paris’ successful attack on the Greek hero. The graffito’s only clothing – a cloak with incised decoration – may reinforce the allusion to Paris’ participation in the battle, since Paris wears a leopard skin prior to his duel with Menelaus. The result of the hand-to-hand combat is Aphrodite’s intervention and the reunification of Paris and Helen, so the leopard cloak could also signify Paris’ role as the lover of Helen. The Paris graffito in the Ramesside Court of Luxor Temple contains a more direct – and three-dimensional – indication of the Trojan’s abduction of Helen. The image of Paris is placed directly opposite a statue of Nefertari, part of one of the intercolumnar statues of Ramesses II. Nothing obscures Nefertari’s lithe figure, and her heavy wig only accentuates her breasts and 26 slender waist ; one can easily imagine the creator of the Paris graffito identifying the particularly striking Ramesside queen with the woman 25

R aab , Zu den Darstellungen des Parisurteils, pp. 49– 60. For a seventh century BCE depiction of Paris holding an apple before three goddesses, see A. Sev er yns, “Pomme de discorde et jugement des déesses”, Phoibos 5 (1950– 1951): 160, citing R. M. Dawk ins, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta (London, 1929), p. 223 and pl. 127. On the “Judgment of Paris” in general, see H. Dami sch, Le jugement de Pâris (Paris: Flammarion, 1992), pp. 81– 98; T. Gant z, Early Greek Myth, A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore, 1993), pp. 567– 571; T. C. W. Stint on, Collected Papers on Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1990), pp. 17– 75. 26 On statuary of Nefertari, including this example from Luxor Temple, see J. Willeitner, “Wie sah Nefertari aus? Die Königin in rundplastischen Darstellungen”, in Nefertari, Gemahlin Ramses’ II., 2nd ed., pp. 37– 46.

145

who “launched a thousand ships”. The GraecoRoman visitor placed Paris opposite a physical embodiment of beauty, which could represent both Aphrodite whom Paris chose as the most beautiful goddess, as well as his reward, the most beautiful mortal woman, Helen. Lacking further details concerning Euphranor’s “Paris”, one must keep open the possibility that the sculptor achieved his multiple allusions through the placement of the statue within a three27 dimensional context , like the more modest Egyptian graffito. While Nefertari’s physical perfection could certainly be considered divine, the specific Egyptian context of the Paris graffito suggests that the carver considered the queen to represent Paris’ lover Helen. For although Homer’s Iliad tells of Helen’s shameful journey to Troy, an alternate version of the events prior to the Trojan War formulates a uniquely important role for Egypt as Helen’s 28 ultimate destination . In the Homeric tradition, Egypt already appears as one of the places where Helen and Menelaus land after being blown off-course during their return to Sparta. According to the Odyssey, Helen acquires potent magico-medical knowl-

27

Cf. Palagi a , Euphranor, p. 33: “One wonders if Euphranor’s bronze was not part of a Judgement or some other group, but there is no indication of this in Pliny.” 28 For the mythology of Helen see inter alia B. Hu ghes, Helen of Troy (New York, 2005); N. Austin, Helen of Troy and Her Shameless Phantom (Ithaca, 1994); L. L. C l ad er , Helen, The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition (Leiden, 1976); R. E. Meagher , Helen, Myth, Legend, and the Culture of Misogyny (New York, 1995); L. Ka hil, “Helene”, LIMC IV, pp. 498 – 563. For the worship of Helen as a goddess see inter alia E. Vand i v er , Heroes in Herodotus, The interaction of Myth and History (Frankfurt am Main, 1991), pp. 102– 107; Clad e r , Helen, pp. 63 –80; O. Skutsch, “Helen: Her Name and Nature”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 102 (1987): 188 –193; C. Calame, trans., D. Colli ns and J. O r ion, Choruses of Young Women in Ancient Greece, Their Morphology, Religious Role, and Social Functions (Lanham, 1997), pp. 191 – 202. Helen even appears in later gnostic theology, where she is identified with the Ennoia, the fallen thought of god, in criticism of Gnostic theology in St. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (H. J onas, The Gnostic Religion [Boston, 1963], p. 107).

146

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

edge at the court of the pharaoh Proteus during 29 her seven years in Egypt ; thus even in Homer, one of Helen’s significant traits derives from a sojourn within the Nile Valley. An alternate tradition, however, elevates Egypt to the very pivot of dissent with Homer’s version of the tale. The myth of Helen in Egypt has its origins in a recantation, or palinode, ascribed to the sixth 30 century poet Stesichorus , which introduces the concept of Helen’s eidolon, the phantom image of Helen that journeyed to Troy, while the woman 31 herself remained far from the battlefield . Stesichorus’ ode challenged the fundamental premise of Homer’s Trojan War, and later writers would join the literary fray by either rationalizing or augmenting Helen’s eidolon – in both cases placing Egypt in center stage. During his tour of Memphis, Herodotus visited a shrine dedicated to the “Foreign Aphro29

Austin, Helen of Troy, pp. 75 –77; Clad er , Helen, pp. 32 – 33; C. A. Far ao ne, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge, 1999), p. 37. The pharaoh Proteus appears prominently in Herodotus’ version of the Helen myth (see note 33 below). For Helen’s medical training in Egypt and additional Egyptian themes in Homer’s Odyssey, see A. v on Liev e n, “Fiktionales und historisches Ägypten. Das Ägyptenbild der Odyssee aus ägyptologischer Perspektive”, in Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee, Zetemata 125 (Munich 2006), pp. 61 – 75; R. Dr ew G r iffit h, “Sailing to Elysium: Menelaus’ Afterlife (“Odyssey” 4.561 – 569) and Egyptian Religion”, Phoenix 55 (2001): 213 – 243. 30 For the sources relating to Stesichorus’ Palinode, see Austin, Helen of Troy, pp. 94 – 117 (including earlier bibliography cited on p. 94 n. 9); K. Bassi, “Helen and the Discourse of Denial in Stesichorus’ Palinode”, Arethusa 26 (1993): 51– 75; C. M. B owr a , “The Two Palinodes of Stesichorus”, The Classical Review n.s. 13 (1963): 245 – 252; Ghal i-K ah il, Les enlèvements et le retour d’Hélène, pp. 285 –301. The possible attribution of the alternate version of Trojan War to Hesiod will not be addressed here – for the debate, see Austi n, Helen of Troy, pp. 104 –110; G. Sc had e, Stesichorus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2359, 3876, 2619, 2803 (Leiden, 2003), p. 3 and n. 8. Later commentators claimed that Stesichorus located the real Helen within Egypt, but this could have been a conflation of the original palinode and later authors, such as Herodotus and Euripides (see Austin, Helen of Troy, p. 97 n. 14, particularly Bowr a, The Classical Review n.s. 13 [1963]: 250– 251). 31 Based on Plato, Republic 9.586 C, since the Palinode itself is not extant.

ZÄS 136 (2009)

32

dite” , whom the Greek traveler immediately identified as Helen of Sparta, Proteus’ honored 33 foreign guest in the Odyssey . Herodotus claims that inquiries about this unusual cult prompted the priests to relate a detailed narrative about 34 Helen that differs radically from Homer’s Iliad . Without needing recourse to a phantom image, Herodotus’ account reconciled the occurrence of the Trojan War with the revisionist version that removes the casus belli – Helen herself – 35 from the scene . Herodotus also provides an Egyptian pedigree for his alternate version of the Trojan War: Egyptian priests within an Egyptian temple recount the story of Helen’s

32

The “foreign Aphrodite” was a manifestation of Astarte, whom the Phoenicians worshipped at Memphis – see D. J. Cr a wfor d , “Ptolemy, Ptah and Apis in Hellenistic Memphis”, Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis (Lovanii, 1980), pp. 16 – 17; A. B. Llo yd , “Herodotus on Egyptian Buildings, A Test Case”, The Greek World (London, 1995), p. 285; P. Kap lan, “Cross-cultural Contacts among Mercenary Communities in Saite and Persian Egypt”, Mediterranean Historical Review 18:1 (2003): 8 – 9. For the worship of Helen as a goddess in Egypt, see C. E. Visser, Götter und Kulte im ptolemäischen Alexandrien (Amsterdam, 1938), pp. 19 –20. 33 On the pharaoh Proteus, see A. B. Lloyd , Herodotus Book II, Commentary 99– 182 (Leiden, 1988), vol. 3, pp. 43-44. 34 Histories, Book II, 113 –120; on the Helen myth in Herodotus, see Lloyd , Herodotus Book II, Commentary 99–182, pp. 46 – 52; Austin, Helen of Troy, pp. 118 – 136; for use of myth in Herodotus and its relation to Helen, see P. Car tl ed ge and E. Gr ee nwood , “Herodotus as a Critic: Truth, Fiction, Polarity”, Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (Leiden, 2002), pp. 354 – 356; P. Vasunia, The Gift of the Nile, Hellenizing Egypt from Aeschylus to Alexander (Berkeley, 2001), pp. 121 – 126; Vand iv er , Heroes in Herodotus, pp. 124 – 130; J. W. N e v i l l e , “Herodotus on the Trojan War”, Greece and Rome 24 (1977): 3– 12. Interestingly, Herodotus explicitly claims that Homer was also aware of this alternate version of the tale – see L. E d mund s, “Myth in Homer”, A New Companion to Homer (Leiden, 1997), pp. 422 –423. 35 For the process of rationalization in the Helen myth, compare Austin, Helen of Troy, p. 132: “In Homer the Spartan goddess had become a fallen woman. Stesichorus ostensibly remedied this error and restored to her divine stature by substituting a phantom Helen at Troy. But when the phantom disclosed its flimsy construction, yet another Helen was needed – Helen in Egypt.”

ZÄS 136 (2009)

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris 36

years in the Nile Valley . Euripides’ drama “Helen” further popularized the alternate version of the Trojan War by emphasizing Helen’s physical presence within the Nile Valley and the creation of an eidolon that Paris carries off to 37 Troy . The depiction of Paris at Luxor Temple suggests a popular awareness of the alternate version of the Helen myth not otherwise prominently attested in the epigraphic or archaeologi38 cal record . The modest inscription from Luxor 36

No ancient Egyptian accounts of Helen’s story survive, but a first century CE demotic parallel for the story that precedes hers in the Histories – the Pheros Story – suggests that Hellenistic Egyptians might have translated some of Herodotus’ material into demotic or that both Herodotus and the demotic text are based on a lost earlier Egyptian original; for the demotic version of the “blinding of pharaoh,” see K. R yh olt, The Petese Stories II (Copenhagen, 2006), pp. 13, 31 –46. The larger issue of Egyptian origins for the specific Helen myth will not be addressed here, although based on the newly published demotic texts, the rejection of all Egyptian influence on Herodotus’ Helen (cf. D. Fehling, Herodotus and his ‘Sources’, Citation, Invention, and Narrative Art [Liverpool, 1989], pp. 59 – 65) should be reconsidered (see also the arguments of v on Lie v en, in Geschichte und Fiktion in der homerischen Odyssee, pp. 70 –72). Textual and pictorial evidence also suggests that educated Hellenized Egyptians were aware of Homeric epic – see P. Der chain , “Miettes”, RdE 26 (1974): 15– 19 (possible Homeric allusions in the Conflict of Horus and Seth at Edfu Temple); H. J. Thissen, “Homerischer Einfluss im Inaros-Petubastis-Zyklus?”, SAK 27 (1999): 369 – 387. The Trojan Horse appears in an additional Egyptian context, as part of a cycle of frescos from Tuna elGebel – see S. Gabra and É. Drioton, Peintures à fresques et scènes peintes à Hermoupolis-ouest (Touna el-Gebel) (Cairo, 1954), pl. 16. 37 See inter alia D. J. Conach er , Euripidean Drama: Myth, Theme, and Structure (Toronto, 1970), pp. 286 – 302; Aust in, Helen of Troy, pp. 137 – 203; Vasu nia, The Gift of the Nile, pp. 58 –64. 38 Another possible depiction of the arrival of Paris and Helen in Egypt appears in a wall painting within the Aula Isiaca on the Palantine Hill in Rome (see inter alia K. Schefol d , “Helena im Schutz der Isis”, Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson on his Seventieth Birthday [St. Louis, 1953], vol. 2, pp. 1096– 1097; I. Iaco pi, La decorazione pittorica dell’Aula Isiaca [Rome, 1997], pp. 17 – 23; Kahil, LIMC IV, pp. 533– 534). The only other representation of Helen in Egypt appears to be an illustration in a Byzantine manuscript that may depict Helen in Egypt after the Trojan War (Kahi l, LIMC IV, p. 553, no. 375 and pp. 562– 563).

147

temple not only provides unique evidence for the myth of “Helen in Egypt” within the Nile Valley itself, but represents a further example of thoughtful interaction between Graeco-Roman tourists and the ancient Egyptian sites they visited. The tourism industry flourished in GraecoRoman Egypt, complete with travel books and local guides for the most famous and popular 39 monuments . The distribution of tourist graffiti among ancient Egyptian monuments on the west bank of Thebes suggests that tour guides were on hand to interpret hieroglyphic texts for 40 foreign visitors . If the visitor who carved the inscription of Paris possessed a guidebook or employed a local priest, he might have known that the colossal statue with its smaller female companion belonged to a pharaoh Ramesses, who contributed his name to Herodotus’ Rhamp41 sinitus , the successor of Proteus, Helen’s royal 42 protector . 39

Foer tmey e r , Tourism in Graeco-Roman Egypt, pp. 82, 166-170, passim; C. Ad a ms, “‘Travel Narrows the Mind’: Cultural Tourism in Graeco-Roman Egypt”, Travel, Geography and Culture in Ancient Greece, Egypt and the Near East (Oxford, 2007), pp. 161 –184. The following discussion will also use the broad definition of “tourism” set forth in Fo er tme yer , Tourism in Graeco-Roman Egypt, p. 17 n. 3. For Greek settlements in Egypt in the Saite Period and pre-Hellenistic tourism, see G. Vittman n, Ägypten und die Fremden im ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend (Mainz am Rhein, 2003), pp. 194 – 235. 40 For example, the only link between the “colossus of Memnon”, a monumental statue of Amunhotep III, and the “tomb of Memnon”, the tomb of Ramesses VI (KV 9) is the shared prenomen of the two pharaohs (1EP$DW5D); see further Foertmeyer, Tourism in Graeco-Roman Egypt, p. 27; A. Gar d iner , “The Egyptian Memnon”, JEA 47 (1961): 97; R. S. Bianchi , “Memnonskolosse”, LÄ IV, cols. 23 – 24. 41 Histories II, 121–123; Lloyd , Herodotus Book II, Commentary 99– 182, pp. 52– 60. 42 The ultimate coincidence created by the location of the inscription of Paris within Luxor Temple is the correlation between the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Dynasties in Egypt and the historical events that formed the template for Homer’s Trojan War (for the historical basis of the Trojan War, see now Br yc e, The Kingdom of the Hittites, 2nd ed., pp. 357 – 371). The Achaians of Homeric tradition are probably to be identified with the Ahhiyawa of Late Bronze Age Hittite records (for the Mycenaean-Ahhiyawa equation, see ibid., pp. 57 –60), one of the many groups of “Sea Peo-

148

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

Several other Greek graffiti appear on the back south sides of the front pylons of Luxor Temple, around the triple bark shrine of Ramesses II, and along the front of the Colon43 nade Hall ; these inscriptions are primarily names, titles, and the common ʌȡȠıțȪȞȘȝĮformula. Earlier pharaonic graffiti in Luxor Temple also cluster around the facade of the Colonnade Hall, and the eastern portion of this wall seems to have been particularly appropriate 44 for “votive surcharging” . Such votive activity at Luxor Temple could also interact with the existing decoration of the temple, much like the juxtaposition of the Paris graffito with the statue

ples” who invade Egypt during the fifth regnal year of the pharaoh Merneptah, ca. 1208 BCE (C. Ma nassa , The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the Thirteenth Century B.C., YES 5 [New Haven, 2003], pp. 77 – 82), and the eighth regnal year of pharaoh Ramesses III, ca. 1176 BCE (see inter alia R. Dr ew s, “Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships, and Migration Theories”, JNES 59 [2000]: 161 –190; J. O sing, “Notizen zu den Seevölkern”, Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück, BSAK 9 [Hamburg, 2003], pp. 315 – 321); the “Sea People” invasions were part of the widespread collapse of the major civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean during the twelfth century BCE, which probably included the destruction of Troy (R. Dr ews, The End of the Bronze Age: changes in warfare and the catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. [Princeton, 1993]; E. H. Cline and D. O’Connor, “The Mystery of the ‘Sea Peoples’”, in D. O’Connor and S. Qui r k e, eds., Mysterious Lands [London, 2003], pp. 107 – 138). 43 M. E l-Sa gh ir , et al., Le Camp Romain de Louqsor (Paris, 1986), pp. 101 ff.; Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple 2, pls. 206 (GR. 20, 27, 28), 207, (GR. 32 – 38), 209, 213. Several Carian inscriptions were also carved in this area of the temple – ibid., pl. 205 (GR 12), pl. 206 (GR 19, 21 –26); for Carian-Egyptian interactions, see Vittm ann, Ägypten und die Fremden, pp. 155– 179. 44 Bell, JNES 44 (1985): 270– 271; idem., “The New Kingdom ‘Divine’ Temple: the Example of Luxor”, Temples of Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, 1997), pp. 163 – 172; see also A. Ped en, The graffiti of pharaonic Egypt: scope and roles of informal writings (Boston, 2001), pp. 272 – 274. The facade of Semna Temple provides a nice parallel for votive surcharging of a single temple wall over hundreds of years, beginning in the Eighteenth Dynasty and continuing through the Third Intermediate Period with the tableau of Queen Katimala (Darnell, Katimala, pp. 3 – 4).

ZÄS 136 (2009)

of Nefertari. For example, a Graeco-Roman visitor added a well-carved image of the god Khonsu, annotated with two columns of hieroglyphic text before a much larger image of the goddess Mut, part of the original Ramesside decoration of the facade of the Colonnade 45 Hall . Graeco-Roman tourists could similarly enhance the significance of their graffiti by situating them on or near earlier carved decoration; a ʌȡȠıțȪȞȘȝĮ-formula addressed to the Ǻǹ&ǿȁǼȊȅȃ(sic) ȉȅȊȀȅ&ȂȅȊ “ruler of the world” was appropriately carved over the twin 46 feathers of the crown of Amun , whose hieroglyphic epithets often include QE SW “lord of 47 heaven” . The rarity of annotated figural graffiti from the Graeco-Roman Period makes the inscription of Paris a significant addition to the corpus of post-pharaonic graffiti. The inscription’s author not only engaged in a dialogue with an ancient Egyptian monument, but also a commentary on the Homeric epic tradition. One cannot know what specific text the tourist had in mind when he or she carved the image of Paris, but the Greek historical and literary evidence for Helen in Egypt certainly played some role in the image’s creation. Our ancient artist may even have attempted to reproduce Euphranor’s famous statue of Paris as he carved an image to complement the beautiful Helen. The Paris inscription encapsulates the complex interaction and purposeful intersection of classical literary imaginings of Egypt and the experienced reality of Graeco-Roman tourists; for those Greeks and Romans who made the journey, the Nile Valley and its ancient monuments could bring parts of their own great epics to life.

45

Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple 2, pl. 202 (GR. 3) and pp. 54 –55. 46 Ibid., pl. 207 (GR 34) and pp. 57 –58. 47 For the equivalence of Egyptian SW and Greek țȩıȝȠȢ, see Epigraphic Survey, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Luxor Temple 2, p. 58.

ZÄS 136 (2009)

149

C. Ma nassa : Depiction of Paris

Summary

Keywords

In the Ramesside court of Luxor Temple is a small depiction of a statue of Paris, placed intentionally opposite a statue of Nefertari, part of a colossus of Ramesses II. The image of Paris represents the only non-literary evidence for the Greek tradition of Helen being in Egypt during the Trojan War and suggests that Graeco-Roman tourists were aware of this alternate version of events. A consideration of this graffito within an art historical context suggests that it might relate to Euphranor’s lost statue of Paris.

Klassische Literatur – Homer – Römer in Ägypten – Griechen in Ägypten – Graeco-ägyptische Mischkultur – Luxor-Tempel

TAFEL XIX

Southeast corner of the Ramesside Court of Luxor Temple shortly after clearance; white arrow shows the location of the graffito of Paris (photograph of Antoine Beato, 1880’s) (zu Manassa, Depiction of Paris).

TAFEL XX

View of the statue of Nefertari, part of the colossus of Ramesses II in the southeast corner of the Ramesside Court, which is directly opposite the graffito of Paris, marked with a white box (photograph by the author) (zu Manassa, Depiction of Paris).

TAFEL XXI

The graffito of Paris in the southeast corner of the Ramesside Court of Luxor Temple (photograph by the author) (zu Manassa, Depiction of Paris).

TAFEL XXII

Drawing of the graffito of Paris (zu Manassa, Depiction of Paris).