Mantle Figures and Visual Perception in Attic Red-Figure Vase Painting1

Mariachiara Franceschini, Berlin

Oἱ γάϱ που βέλτιστοι ἡμῶν ἀκϱοώμενοι Ὁμήϱου ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν τϱαγῳδοποιῶν μιμουμένου τινὰ τῶν ἡϱώων ἐν πένϑει ὄντα καὶ μακϱὰν ῥῆσιν ἀποτείνοντα ἐν τοῖς ὀδυϱμοῖς ἢ καὶ ᾁδοντάς τε καὶ κοπτομένους, οἶσϑ᾽ ὅτι χαίϱομέν τε καὶ ἐνδόντες ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἑπόμεϑα συμ- πάσχοντες καὶ σπουδάζοντες [...]2

With these words by Plato, we focus on a central element of poetic staging: the audience. In fact, the existence of a narrative can only be explained by the presence of spectators willing to hear or see – and thus to experience – the narration. The poet, and so the painter, who is without a public to speak to, to draw the attention of, to involve in the illusion, does not need to create a narrative. Plato’s consideration on the effect of the poetry on listeners or viewers3 gives us the occasion to consider how the audience was never understood in ancient Greece as a passive receiver of the narrative, but as an agent requiring interaction4. Thus, artists have to understand what kind of audience they are addressing in order to make the expected effects of the narrative actually work. Shifting from the poetic performance to the imagery of vase painting, we have to deal with difficulties in order to reconstruct the

1 This paper presents a small aspect of my dissertation thesis Relevanz und Neubewertung eines standardisierten Motivs. Die Mantelfiguren in der rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei des 6. – 5. Jhs. v. Chr., defended October 2014 at the Freie Universität Berlin. I would like to thank Ursula Kästner, Johannes Laurentius and Prof. Dr. Lorenz Winkler- Horacek for providing me with the photographs and allowing me to reproduce them. 2 Plat. rep. 10, 605c–d. “I think that the best of us, listening to Homer or any other Trage- dians, who imitate one of the heroes mourning, or indulging his whining in a long speech, or singing and beating his chest, are pleased and follow deeply affected and interested” (translated by the author). 3 Which he considers here to be negative, since this citation is contextualized within the discussion on mimesis’ effect on the soul (about it cf. Catoni 2005, 71–78. 293–355; Giuliano 2005, esp. 102–118. 263–282). 4 Cf. Franzoni 2006, 209–210.

visualpast.de 164 Visual Past 2016 involvement and the reactions of the viewing audience. In the Attic vase painting, the presence of a different kind of onlooker on stage provides an anchor to interpret the ideal response of the ancient public to visual narratives5. One of the oldest representations of an audience sitting on bleachers on the dinos fragment of Sophilos shows us the public’s reaction to the plays put on in honour of Patroklos6. Here, spectators are clearly separated from the action, although they are meant to react directly to what they see7. Most often, onlookers simply remain besides the action taking place in the middle of the decorated field8; they can be men or women and react more or less directly to the events, for they are visually located on the same spatial level. Such spectators appear seamlessly on black- and red-figure attic vases, although their characteristics, roles and positions in the images changed over time. The red-figure vases produced in the sixth and fifth centuries BC, in particular, had male mantle figures as onlookers framing the narrative. During the fifth century, they were gradually displaced onto other decorated fields (fig. 1). Groups of mantle figures, so called conversation pieces9, especially, seem to be isolated on a secondary side,

5 On the reaction of the spectators as a key to understanding how to respond to the action, cf. Gombrich 1982, 89–90; cf. also Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 231–232. 6 Athens, National Mus., 15499 (BAPD 305075; Alexandridou 2011, fig. 41). Other later representations of such an audience appear, for example, on the Tyrrhenian amphora in Florence, Mus. Archeologico Etrusco, 3773 (BAPD 310008) and on the Panathenaic Am- phora in Paris, Cabinet des Médailles, 243 (BAPD 1047; CVA Paris, Bib. Nat. [2] pl. 88, 1. 4; 89, 1). 7 The public seems to applaud the heroes, who take part in the games, although Alexan- dridou has newly interpreted the excitement of the audience as a hint of the disagree- ment between some heroes mentioned in Homer’s Iliad (Alexandridou 2011, 58–59). 8 E. g. Taranto, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, 4362 (BAPD 310218; CVA Taranto [3] III H pl. 18, 1–2); Athens, National Mus., 20349 (BAPD 9530; CVA Athens [3] pl. 22, 1–3); Cincinnati, Art Mus., 1959.1 (BAPD 340563). 9 Since the beginning of the twentieth century, conversation pieces was the term used to describe a group of figures, mostly mantled, who are supposed to be involved in a dialogue (cf. Swindler 1916, 323; Richter 1917a, 118; Richter 1917b, 3–5; Beazley 1918, 101). The definition was first used to define a genre of painting since the sixteenth century, which was later famous with the oeuvre of William Hogarth, and its usage spread in art history to define a scene with a bourgeois background (on the story behind the definition cf. Praz 1971, 33–34; Staring 1956; Sitwell 1969). With the shift in the archaeological vocabulary, the original meaning was mostly lost and the term began to assume Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 165 detached from the narrative contest of the other image. Thus arose as yet unanswered questions about the iconographical development of these kinds of onlookers and the reason behind their different positions on vases. It remains to be clarified how those mantled spectators were integrated into the pictorial narrative at that time, to re- invest them with meaning and investigate their influence on the perception of the external viewer with regards to the ancient cultural context.

Fig. 1: Berlin, Antikensammlung, F2188 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Johannes Laurentius).

Spectators and mantle figures: studies and open questions Previous studies on spectators focused on the so-called bystanders of the black-figure production10 (fig. 2). Their calm attitude and cere- monial clothing11 were connected to controlled behaviour in the civic

a more negative connotation, endangering the important communicative potentiality in- trinsic to the definition (cf. Praz 1971, 34). 10 Esp. Carpenter 1986, 30–54; Scheibler 1988; Vierneisel – Kaeser 1990, 151–156; Brijder 1991, 337–340; Fehr 1996; van Wees 1998; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006. 11 The clothing and the use of arms, esp. spears and swords, were interpreted as an expression of social status (Fehr 1996, 829; van Wees 1998, 352–358; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 183–184). The growing success of the himation over time leads to the gradual

166 Visual Past 2016

Fig. 2: Berlin, Antikensammlung, F1717 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Ingrid Geske). public sphere, and were thus seen as an expression of political and social sophrosyne in the citizens12. Furthermore, the anonymity of these figures highlights the equality of the society they represent, as the basis to preserve stability and good order in the polis13. In some cases, however, these figures are treated pejoratively: they are considered secondary and supernumerary decorative figures, thus not requiring particular interpretation14. Bert Kaeser refers to these viewers as witnesses of the actuality and importance of the action taking place before them15. At the same time, they were models for the viewer

omission of weapons. Van Wees argued that the mantle forces immobility, since it would be difficult to maintain an appropriate posture with a sword or spear in the hand (van Wees 1998, 351–352). However, other attributes replace the sword, so that the thesis does not seem to be entirely convincing. The sword as attribute had already disappeared in the second quarter of the seventh century, although we can find spears until the last decades of the sixth century (Barbagli 2003, 51–52). Instead, the use of the stick as an alternative to arms spread from the second quarter of the seventh century (van Wees 1998, 359). 12 Fehr 1979, 16–23; Fehr 1996, 833–837. 13 Fehr 1996, 831–833. 14 Bothmer 1971, 124–125; Bothmer 1985, 70; Carpenter 1986, 53 (although he recog- nises a Dionysian meaning for some onlookers). 15 These onlookers are then “[…] ‘Zeugen’, welche die Realität und Wichtigkeit der Tat anzeigen – und zugleich die Bedeutung der Gesellschaft, für die solche Taten wichtig sind” (Vierneisel – Kaeser 1990, 156); cf. also Vierneisel – Kaeser 1990, 151–156; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 230–233. Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 167 and were therefore compared to a chorus16. Recently Mark Stans- bury-O’Donnell has dealt intensively with the topic and classified different kind of male and female spectators17: the presence of such spectators helps to “encode” the behaviour of different gender groups within the polis18, indicating to whom the story is addressed19. We also owe Stansbury-O’Donnell a precise definition of the onlooker as “a figure who observes the action of the nucleus but is not involved in it, or will not immediately be affected by it physically”20. The premise of this definition is therefore the presence of an action, which constitutes the nucleus of the narrative21. The strict distinction between myth and genre scenes operative in hermeneutic research has led in the past to consideration of mythological representations only as narration22. New methods and approaches have attracted further scholarly attention to so-called genre scenes. By dissecting images in minimal formal units, every detail, character, gesture and attribute together create a sort of readable code. By putting together the pieces of this code and interpreting it correctly, it is possible to follow more or less evident plots of narration23. Each image, mythological or not, in which a diachronic development or a sequence of

16 Giudice Rizzo 2002, 105–107. 205; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 110–111. 17 Stansbury-O’Donnell considers spectators as a phenomenon of archaic attic vase painting between 575 and 490 BC, rather than as a general characteristic of Greek art (Stans- bury-O’Donnell 2006, 50–51). Therefore, he does not pay any particular attention to the later red-figured mantle youths. As Sian Lewis has pointed out in light of some consideration of Stansbury-O’Donnell, we are currently lacking a new interpretation of mantel figures and conversation scenes of red-figure vase painting (cf. Lewis 2007, 227). 18 Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 232. Brijder has also tried to highlight some differences in different groups of spectators’ behaviour, cf. Brijder 1991, 337–340. 19 Steiner 2007, 56; cf. also Scheibler 1988, 551–555. 20 Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 13. 21 Using Roland Barthes’ term, indicating the central point of a narrative (Barthes 2001, 265; cf. also Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 18–19). 22 Since the hermeneutic work of Carl Robert (Robert 1919) scholars have often focused on the interpretation of mythological representations (as representatives cf. Brilliant 1984; Carpenter 1991; Shapiro 1994; Giuliani 2003). 23 About the application of semiotic and anthropological methods in the hermeneutics of vase painting, cf. esp. Durand – Lissarrague 1980; Lissarrague – Schnapp 1981; Bérard et al. 1984; Lissarrague 2009. An example of a different approach considering representations of violence is provided by the works of Matthias Recke (Recke 2002) and Susanne Muth (Muth 2008). The first examines only mythological representations; the second

168 Visual Past 2016 different moments of an action can be seen by reading the different compositions’ details24, is therefore a medium for narrative. What changes is not the manner of narrating using images, responding to the same logical schemes and mental archetypical compositions25, but the content of the narration. That content clearly refers to mythological tales through the introduction of an additional interpretative level, or represents generic situations that can be repeated and adapted to different subject matter without the need for precise definition of the protagonists26. Thus, both mythological and genre images convey narrative content and must be considered as the background for the spectators. The use of spectators, who correspond to this definition, is not a peculiarity of black-figure production since they also appear copi- ously on red-figured vases. There are, however, relevant stylistic and iconographical differences, especially if spectators are mantle figures, i. e., males of different ages, characterized by a single piece of clothing, namely, the himation, in contrast to black-figured onlookers, who wear a chitōn underneath their himatia. From the second half of the sixth century BC onwards, the appearance of mantle figures spread

also takes into account non-mythological images, like hoplite scenes. Due to a perspective change proposed by Giuliani, the images can be incorporated into two new catego- ries: narrative and descriptive (Giuliani 2003, 282–285). Nevertheless archaeological research is still influenced by an artificial distinction between myth and genre scenes, deny- ing to the second a narrative aspect. Recently, Giuliani has revised his model, recognising the mutual interdependence between myth and genre (Giuliani 2014, 221–222). For a critical analysis of the problem of classification of narrative and non-narrative images and a positive reconsideration of genre scene, see Harvey 1988; Stansbury-O’Donnell 1995, 319; Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 31–53; Ferrari 2002, 17–21; Ferrari 2003; Elsner 2005; for an overview of former theories on visual narratives see Bracker 2015, esp. 334–338. 24 Cf. Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 31–53; Ferrari 2002, 22–34, both resting on structuralist theories. 25 The iconographical vocabulary of both mythological and genre scenes refers, in fact, to the same elements and compositions, cf. Schmidt 2009, 11; Meyer 2009, 25–27; Ferrari 2003, 40. 26 Scenes of pursuit, for example, mostly have similar compositions, with the actual pursuit framed by spectators and fleeing figures, if a god, hero or anonymous warrior is involved; cf. Bologna, Mus. Civico, 204 (BAPD 206076; CVA Bologna [1] III Ic pl. 40, 1); Bologna, Mus. Civico, 195 (BAPD 207886; CVA Bologna [1] III Ic pl. 26, 1); Istanbul, Archaeological Mus., 2914 (BAPD 206979); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 642 (BAPD 206217; CVA Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. [2] pl. 88, 1). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 169 until the fourth century BC. Several scholars, including Beazley, have considered mantle figures to be purely ornamental decorations to avoid having an unpainted side of the vase (thus, the so-called B- side)27, and which had no function or meaning other than to witness their presence28. Consequently, in the twentieth century mantle figures were mentioned mostly marginally and sporadically as secondary motifs29. In fact, if we think about mantle figures, firstly we have to deal with the numerous conversation pieces of the fifth century30 and, above all, with the more frequent and monotonous representations of the fourth century31 (fig. 3). At a cursory glance, these images can give an inaccurate and inchoate impression, making the viewer doubt that they can contain a deeper meaning.

27 Beazley 1959, 51; CVA Rennes (1), 23–23 pl. 23 (Laurens-Touchefeu), cf. also Langner 2014, 396, about mantle figures of the fourth century BC. 28 Dentzer 1982, 142, cf. also 111–116. 141. 29 Mantle figures were only briefly mentioned in connection with different kinds of scenic contexts, e. g., sepulchral (Schmidt et al. 1976, 25 n. 27), athletic (Karouzou 1962, 446– 458; Jüthner 1968, 161–170), or erotic (Koch-Harnack 1983, 60–61. 68; Shapiro 1981; Robertson 1982, 182–183). Among those of particular interest is the Dionysian interpretation by Isler-Kerényi (Isler-Kerényi 1993; Isler-Kerényi 1996). Heinz-Günter Hollein first attempted to classify and analyse the mantle figures extensively (Hollein 1988), although his study has several questionable aspects (Stahl 1990; Isler-Kerényi 1996, 50 n. 10). In the last few years, scholars have focused on the interpretation of mantle figures as citizens (Zanker 1995, 50–57. 62–69; Catoni 2005, 267–278; Franzoni 2006, 169– 172. 192–197; cf. also Fehr 2011, 22–31. 84–91 on the Parthenon frieze) and on the transfer of the motif into other cultural contexts (Fless 2002, 99; Langner 2007; Langner 2012a). Thus, a wider and complete analysis of the motif is still outstanding. 30 E. g. Mannheim, Reiss-Mus., 60 (BAPD 203075; CVA Mannheim [1] pl. 29, 5); Kassel, Antikensamml., T716 (BAPD 1205; CVA Kassel [1] pl. 33, 2; 36, 8); Madrid, Mus. Arqueologico Nacional, 32656 (BAPD 205606; CVA Madrid [2] pl. III Ic 15, 1b); Chiusi, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, C1822 (BAPD 7566; CVA Chiusi [2] pl. 6, 2; 7, 2); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G531 (BAPD 213806; CVA Paris, Louvre [4] III Id pl. 21, 10); Würzburg, Wagner Mus., 4919 (BAPD 213818; CVA Würzburg [2] pl. 21, 2); Bologna, Mus. Civico, PU426 (BAPD 215712); London, British Mus., 1898.7-16.6 (BAPD 217462). 31 E. g. Paris, Mus. Rodin, TC1 (BAPD 218050; CVA Paris, Rodin [1] pl. 23, 2); Kiel, Antikensamml., B795 (BAPD 29128; CVA Kiel [2] pl. 40, 4); Brussels, Mus. Royaux, A726 (BAPD 230410; CVA Brüssel [3] III Ie pl. 4, 12a); Vaticano, Mus. Gregoriano Etrusco, 9098 (BAPD 218108); Brüssel, Mus. Royaux, A1729 (BAPD 230764; CVA Brüssel [3] III Ie pl. 4, 10); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 116 (BAPD 231170; CVA Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. [1] pl. 34. 4. 9); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, MN757 (BAPD 230436); Turin, Mus. di Antichità, 2066 (BAPD 8029; CVA Turin [2] III I pl. 14, 2).

170 Visual Past 2016

Fig. 3: Berlin, FU Institutssammlung, G27/52 (Photo courtesy: Institut für Klassische Archäo- logie, Freie Universität Berlin). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 171

However, if we consider the whole corpus of mantle figures, we gain a wider range of figure-types, compositions and themes, among which static, standardized mantle figures in conversation pieces only represent a minority32. On the basis of different representations, where mantle figures appear as more or less interested spectators, it is possible to follow the significant iconographic and semantic development and standardization of this motif and to understand the pro- gressive spread of conversation pieces.

Iconography and composition of mantle-figure spectators The development of the iconographic and scenic standardization of mantle figures is a complex process, which leads to the crystallization of certain formal and thematic elements. In this paper, I will focus only on particular phases and aspects of the process affecting mantle figures as spectators33. The already mentioned bystanders of the black-figure productions are not really comparable with mantle figures, not only because of the chitōn’s presence but also because the iconography, position and role of the audience changed since the beginning of red-figure vase painting. However, mantle figures were already appearing on the last black-figured vases, replacing the bystanders from 540 BC34 (fig. 4); henceforth, they were developed by the first red-figure painters and pioneers who seamlessly continued this experimental phase. As spectators, they are still closely related to the bystanders of the

32 In the numerous images, mantle figures show a significant potential to adapt to different roles and content, and thus to convey different messages. Mantle figures thereby mostly take on the role of active protagonist in the action. Among ca. 5,000 scenes with mantle figures produced between 540 and 380 BC, which I have classified in my doctoral thesis, only 25 % are conversation pieces, not allowing a more precise thematic definition. 33 A wider and complete iconographical analysis will appear on the publication of my doctoral thesis. 34 E. g. Copenhagen, National Mus., CHRVIII806 (BAPD 302209; CVA Copenhagen, Nat. Mus. [3] pl. 105, 3); Dunedin, Otago Mus., E48.226 (BAPD 302889; CVA Dunedin [1] pl. 17, 4). Sometimes, mantle figures and bystanders with chitōn coexist in the same image in black-figure vase painting, cf. Cincinnati, Art Mus., 1959.1 (BAPD 340563); Minneap- olis, Institute of Arts, 57.1 (BAPD 350448; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 2–3 fig. 1–3).

172 Visual Past 2016

Fig. 4: Berlin, Antikensammlung, F1717 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Johannes Laurentius). previous vase production and they appear mostly on the edge, framing the action35 (fig. 5). Despite this marginal position, the figures can often also be assigned a central role in the narrative36. Furthermore, starting from the last decades of the sixth century BC, mantle-figure spectators are not always anonymous and static bystanders, they can also interact in some way with the protagonist of the action. They can be identified, e. g., as trainers or paidagōgoi, who look with interest at their pupils37, can play an active public role and bring flowers to

35 For example compare the red-figure hydria London, British Mus., E160 (BAPD 202049; CVA London [5] III Ic pl. 72, 2) with the black-figure one in New York, Sotheby’s (BAPD 9050). See also: Basel, Antikenmus., BS491 (BAPD 200004; CVA Basel [3] pl. 1, 2; 2, 2); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G1 (BAPD 200002; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 25, 3); Munich, Antikensamml., 2421 (BAPD 200126; CVA Munich [5] pl. 222, 1; 223). Sometimes, mantle figures wear a richly decorated himation in this phase. 36 As we can see in some of the examples in n. 35, mantle figures are mostly used as agents of action, not only as spectators. 37 Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G42 (BAPD 200116; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 28, 5. 7); Tessin, private coll. (BAPD 8252; LIMC VII [1994] 279 no. 18 pl. 218 s.v. Peliou Athla [R. Blat- ter]); Munich, Antikensamml., 2308 (BAPD 200161; CVA Munich [4] Taf. 169, 2; 170, 2); Brussels, Mus. Royaux, A3581 (BAPD 200189). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 173 the winners; or move with light dance steps besides the players38. Thus the iconographic and semantic spectrums of the onlookers spread: they can now show different gestures and interact with other figures ideally without being physically affected by them, but clearly being involved somehow in the action.

Fig. 5: Berlin, Antikensammlung, F2279 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Johannes Laurentius).

This trend continues in the first quarter of the fifth century, when spectators move and interact more freely with the nucleus through their gestures. Spectators, leaning on their sticks, as in fig. 7, show their interest in the nucleus of the narration by leaning forwards and gesturing in the direction of the nucleus. In another example on a

38 Cleveland, Mus. of Art, 1976.89 (BAPD 200027; CVA Cleveland [2] pl. 75, 2); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G1 (BAPD 200002; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 25, 3); Rome, Villa Giulia (BAPD 7043).

174 Visual Past 2016 stamnos in Basel39, the mantle figure who looks at the conversing Odysseus and Achilles is also a hero, labelled as Diomedes, and can thus be considered part of the main narrative. In addition, if by taking a certain distance and looking quietly at the nucleus from the margins marks him out as a spectator, nevertheless, his posture and gestures communicate his attention and concern towards the central action40. About 490–480 BC, the first representations of lively conversation scenes appeared sporadically, for example on vases by Duris and the Kleophrades Painter41. Thereby, the direct or emotional connection of the mantle figures to the events on the other side of the vase still appeared to be strong42. Gestures are still the key to understanding the link between the sides of the vase, as on the Berlin Amphora where the mantle figures direct attention to the Minotauromachie on the other side with their hands43 (fig. 6. 9). Simultaneously, representations of single mantle figures alone appeared on one side of the

39 Basel, Antikenmus., BS477 (BAPD 203796; CVA Basel [3] pl. 23,1); cf. Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G163 (BAPD 202217; CVA Paris, Louvre [1] pl. 8, 1–4; 9, 1–3); Malibu, Getty Mus., 86.AE.314 (BAPD 204682; Shapiro 1994, 15–17 fig. 7–8). 40 This can also be seen as erotic interest, like on Berlin, Antikensamml., F2322 (BAPD 203389; CVA Berlin [1] pl. 39, 5–6); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 3729 (BAPD 202608; CVA Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. [2] pl. 66, 1–4); Stockholm, Medelhavsmus., 1963.1 (BAPD 275163). 41 E. g. Berlin, Antikensamml., F2288 (BAPD 205176; CVA Berlin [2] pl. 82, 1–2; 83,1–3); Boston, Mus. of Fine Arts, 00.343 (BAPD 205187; Buitron-Oliver 1995, no. 186 pl. 104). Sometimes the distinction between conversation or courtship scenes is unclear, e. g. on Küsnacht, coll. Hirschmann, 34 (BAPD 7240; Buitron-Oliver 1995, no. 185 pl. 103). 42 The eventual possibility of connecting both sides of the vases has already been discussed, cf. esp. Himmelmann 1967, 95; Neer 2002, 70–72; Harari 2008, 338–339; Stansbury- O’Donnell 2014. Ann Steiner suggested that this connection could be created by repeat- ing some elements in the two pictures (Steiner 1993, 211; Steiner 1997, 163–167; Stei- ner 2007, 39. 94–128). About the relation of mantle figures with the other sides, cf. Isler- Kerényi 1971, 28–30; Isler-Kerényi 1977, 65–69; Isler-Kerényi 1993, 96. 100; Isler- Kerényi 1996; Langner 2012a, 14. 43 Greifenhagen 1972, 13–16; Langner 2012a, 14; cf. also the Stamnos London, Coll. Mal- colm H. Wiener (BAPD 202929), where the connection between the sides is purely emotional, as the women and the young mantle figures seem to await anxiously the outcome of Theseus’ mission. Isler-Kerényi suggests that they might be Athenian mothers and sons, destined for immolation by the Minotaur (Isler-Kerényi 1977, 65–69; Isler-Kerényi 1993, 97). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 175

Fig. 6: Berlin, Antikensammlung, 1970.5 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Mu- seen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Isolde Luckert). vase, like the majestic figures by the Berlin Painter44. By looking at their gestures, we see that these figures are even more closely related to the other side45 than the groups of mantle figures: their action and meaning cannot be understood if we do not link the two images correctly. These mantle figures, in a group or alone, are still to be

44 E. g. Boulogne, Mus. Communale, 656 (BAPD 201856); Philadelphia, University Mus., 31.36.11 (BAPD 201823; Isler-Kerényi 1971, pl. 8, 1–2); Vaticano, Mus. Gregoriano Etrusco (BAPD 201821); Baltimore, Mus. of Fine Arts, 48.57 (BAPD 201855; CVA Balti- more, Walters [1] pl. 9, 1–2; 10, 4–5); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G214 (BAPD 201904; CVA Paris, Louvre [6] III I pl. 40, 3–4. 7. 10). 45 In the tondo of the kylix in Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mus., GR16.1937 (BAPD 201440; CVA Cambridge [2] pl. 6, 1; 8, 7) the mantle figure refers directly to the pictures on the other side. Not only do his gesture and position recall the other mantle youth between the warriors, but he also holds a helmet and flowers, which constitute a clear reference to the scene on the external side of the cup. Thus the figure in the tondo is meant to be part of a broader scene composed of all decorated fields; cf. also: Basel, Antikenmus., KÄ425 (BAPD 205075; CVA Basel [2] pl. 19, 2–4; 20); Dresden, Kunstgewerbemus. (BAPD 205077); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G118 (BAPD 205079).

176 Visual Past 2016 thought of as spectators46: their behaviours and gestures show their emotional involvement in the action on the other side and allow them to unify the narrative and the public, despite their physical distance from it. In the following decades, until the middle of the fifth century, the mantle figures enjoyed the greatest popularity in Athenian vase painting. They were still present as spectators on the edge of the action and interacted at different levels with those shown at the centre of the narrative’s nucleus47. Representations of conversation pieces evolved towards further standardization and scheme consolidation: both the individual figures, whose gestures and postures appear to be more schematic and repetitive, and the images’ compositions simplify48. The link between the two sides is not always clearly indicated as in the former phase, but it is mostly still recognizable because, for example, some mantle figures move or turn towards the other side49. From the third quarter of the fifth century, the tendency to reduce iconographic and thematic variations is confirmed by the rising num-

46 Such a connection between black-figure spectators and the other side of the vase was already underlined by Stansbury-O’Donnell (2006, 115–118). 47 E. g. New York, Metropolitan Mus., 41.162.20 (BAPD 205597; CVA Hoppin Gallatin [1] pl. 14, 3); Sydney, Nicholson Mus., 98.30 (BAPD 206294); Bologna, Mus. Civico, 195 (BAPD 207886; CVA Bologna [1] III Ic pl. 26, 1). 48 The standardization started with the productions of Harrow Maler and his contemporary painters around 480–470 BC; cf. Bologna, Mus. Civico, 189 (BAPD 202882; CVA Bolo- gna [1] III Ic pl. 24, 5); Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania, 2464 (BAPD 202691); Montauban, Mus. Ingres, 87.4.14 (BAPD 202884). In later years, the process further developed, cf. Chiusi, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, C1822 (BAPD 7566; CVA Chiusi [2] pl. 6, 2); Palermo, Mus. Nazionale, 2556 (BAPD 205729; CVA Palermo [1] pl. 45, 3); San Francisco, Legion of Honour, 1874A (BAPD 207135; CVA San Francisco [1] pl. 18, 2); Gotha, Schlossmus., 80 (BAPD 211961; CVA Gotha [1] pl. 47, 2–3). This fact does not affect the iconographical richness of the figure types negatively, which never simplified completely and did not result in any banalization (for a wider analysis I refer to the forth- coming publication of my doctoral thesis). 49 E. g. Kassel, Staatliche Mus., T716 (BAPD 1205; CVA Kassel [2] pl. 33, 2); Rome, Mus. Capitolini, 23 (BAPD 202877; CVA Rome, Capitolini [2] III I pl. 19, 1); Trieste, Mus. Storia e Arte, S391 (BAPD 206489; CVA Trieste [1] III I pl. 1, 2); San Simeon, Hearst Historical State Monument, 10445 (BAPD 207205); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G364 (BAPD 206530; CVA Paris, Louvre [4] pl. 27, 11). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 177 ber of extremely simplified and almost monotonous groups of mantle figures in conversation50. Mantle figures appear only sporadically as spectators on the same image field of the action51 and disappeared gradually over time. On the contrary, the series’ production of conversation scenes increased until the beginning of the fourth century. These compositions tended towards a further iconographic fixation and would proliferate in the fourth century52 (fig. 3), only rarely showing a clear connection to the other side of the vase53. To summarize, mantle figures appeared as spectators since the beginning of the red-figure production, evolving from late black-figure models. Firstly disposed of on the margins of the action, these figures were gradually displaced onto the other side of the vase, taking their distance from the narrative’s nucleus. Parallel to this was the development of conversation pieces’ iconography and composition, which increasingly included mantle figures. This process of standardization is not to be regarded as a purely iconographic and stylistic evolution, but involves important seman- tical changes in a component of the Athenian iconographic vocabulary, contributing to the shaping of new forms of visual communication. A further analysis of the meaning of the different stages of this process will provide plausible explanations for the increase of this kind of composition.

50 E. g. Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau-Mus., 325 (BAPD 213698; CVA Altenburg [2] pl. 56, 7); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G433 (BAPD 217553; CVA Paris, Louvre [8] III Id pl. 43, 4); Würzburg, Wagner Mus., 4919 (BAPD 213818; CVA Würzburg [2] pl. 21, 2); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 1064 (BAPD 214595; CVA Wien, Kunsthist. Mus. [2] pl. 97, 5). 51 E. g. Gotha, Schlossmus., 51 (BAPD 213391; CVA Gotha [2] pl. 57, 2); Omaha, Joslyn Art Mus., 1963.485 (BAPD 215389; CVA Omaha [1] pl. 33, 2); San Antonio, Art Mus., 86.134.80 (BAPD 30962; Lezzi-Hafter 1988, 313 no. 17; pl. 12); Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Mus., GR 6.1955 (BAPD 214624); Athens, National Mus., 1466 (BAPD 215332). 52 E. g. San Francisco, de Young Memorial Mus., 253.24876 (BAPD 218052; CVA San Fran- cisco [1] pl. 22, 2); New York, Metropolitan Mus., 08.258.20 (BAPD 230396); Stuttgart, Landesmus., 132 (BAPD 12597; CVA Stuttgart [1] pl. 33, 2); Edinburgh, National Mus. of Scotland, 1956.466 (BAPD 230472; CVA Edinburgh [1] pl. 27, 8); cf. also n. 31. 53 E. g. London, British Mus., 1923.10-16.1 (BAPD 214713); New York, Metropolitan Mus. of Art, 21.88.4 (BAPD 214487).

178 Visual Past 2016

Mantle figures and external spectators As we have seen, at the beginning of red-figure production, mantle figures appear at the edge of the action as more or less active onlook- ers54. Even if they do not take part directly in the action, their active emotional involvement in the events is clear, since their gestures express their reactions to the main narrative. Bringing the hand to the face or hiding the face under the himation show, for example, concern for the departing warrior55. Leaning on the stick while directing full attention to the action indicates a clear interest56 (fig. 7).

Fig. 7: London, British Museum, 1843,1103.11 (Photo courtesy: © The Trustees of the British Museum).

54 The mantle figures assume here the role of the former black-figure bystanders, framing the action, cf. Fehr 1996, 829–839; van Wees 1998; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006; see also Fehr 2011, 24–27, where the author emphasizes the connection between archaic bystanders and the use of mantle figures as “watchers”, but without developing this argu- ment. 55 E. g. London, British Mus., E254 (BAPD 200166; CVA London [3] III Ic pl. 2, 2); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 1040 (BAPD 215530; CVA Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. [2] pl. 93, 4). About the gesture cf. Longo 1985, 246–247; Rizzini 1998, 97–103; Pedrina 2001, 85–86. 101– 105; Franzoni 2006, 107–124. esp. 110–111. 56 E. g. Munich, Antikensamml., 2421 (BAPD 200126; CVA Munich [5] pl. 222, 1); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G44 (BAPD 200156; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 29, 2); cf. Franzoni 2006, 170–172, with n. 16. Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 179

In such compositions, spectators experience the visual narration as present and near: they are not only onlookers of the narrative but are also an essential part of it, inviting the external viewer to participate directly in the narrative57. In this phase, mantle figures can also appear as a concert audience58 (fig. 8). If we consider both sides of the vase as connected, we may have the intriguing impression that the subject of the concert could be the narrative on the other decorated field, which at this time were mostly mythological events59. We then register a change in the semantics of spectatorship: the viewer, who identifies himself with this audience, does not experience the narrative in the first person anymore, but through the mediation of an oral performance60. Thus, a strong metanarrative element is created61, in- creasing a sense of identification with the community taking part in the symposium62, where the vase may influence the topic of the actual conversation63. In this manner, we can imagine the audiences of the performance on the vase and in the symposium dynamically flow- ing together. Gradually, the mantle figures are separated from the action and moved to the other decorated field64. The repetition of syntactic elements, the gestures and the direction of the gaze65 of the figures help

57 On black-figure production, cf. Vierneisel – Kaeser 1990, 156. 58 E. g. Cleveland, Mus. of Art, 1976.89 (BAPD 200027; CVA Cleveland [2] pl. 75, 2); Basel, Antikenmus., BS491 (BAPD 200004; CVA Basel [3] pl. 1, 2; 2, 2); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G1 (BAPD 200002; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 25, 3). 59 On the cited Cleveland eye-cup 1976.89 (cf. n. 58) the concert appears between the eyes, intensifying the effect on the viewer’s perception (cf. Frontisi-Ducroux 1995, 194– 196; on this also Frontisi-Ducroux 1984; Ferrari 1986; Frontisi-Ducroux 1995, 216–224; Neer 2002, 41–42). 60 On communicating knowledge through oral narration, cf. Havelock 1983, 35–71; Thomas 1992, 29–51. 101–127. 61 On archaic spectators as “metanarrative signs”, cf. Steiner 2007, 53–62. 62 On the symposium as a context for the performance, e. g. Lissarrague 1987, 119–133. 63 Langner 2014, 385 n. 4; 395–396 (with further bibliography). 64 See above n. 44. 45. 65 The gaze is in these cases essential for establishing communication (Rizzini 1998, 97) and therefore completes the effect of gestures. Gaze, seen in literary sources as a very con- crete experience, allows a direct connection between viewers and viewed, affecting both (Simon 1992; Rizzini 1998, 127–144; Snell 2002, 19–24; Stansbury-O'Donnell 2006, 61–67).

180 Visual Past 2016

Fig. 8: Paris, Musée du Louvre, G103 (nach A. Furtwangler – K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasen- malerei. Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder. Serie II. Tafeln, Munich 1909, pl. 93). to restore the link between the two sides of the vase and thus understanding of these figures as spectators of action taking place in other images. Like these individual figures, the group of mantle figures may also show a direct connection to the other decorated field, as the brothers of Aegeus on a crater in Athens66, or the youths on the Ber- lin amphora (fig. 9). In these compositions, the image field seems to be extended in order to form a single macro scene67. Mantle figures are thereby re-integrated into the pictorial programme, establishing a more distant68 connection between the external viewer and the events depicted by directing the onlooker’s attention to the other side. The mantle figures are not only looking, but now also conversing with each other69. The narration is no longer sung, but told by the speaking mantle figure: thus, spectators of the narration became

66 Athens, National Mus., 2.735 (BAPD 202955; Robert 1919, 143 fig. 112). 67 Cf. Himmelmann 1967, 95; Langner 2012a, 14. 68 This is because the columns seem to frame and separate the conversing figures from the actual action on the other side and create a complementary world (Langner 2012a, 14; Stansbury-O’Donnell 2014, 375 with n. 6). 69 The youths on the Berlin amphora hold their open hands to their partner, which is to be interpreted as a clear communicative gesture, cf. Neumann 1965, 11–17; Greifenhagen 1972, 13–16 (who considered the erotic nuances of the conversation); Langner 2012a, 14. Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 181 the storytellers themselves. This aspect will be more and more strongly underlined in later productions with the increase and gener- alization of conversation pieces.

Fig. 9: Berlin, Antikensammlung, 1970.5 (Photo courtesy: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Mu- seen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz; Photograph: Johannes Laurentius).

From the second quarter of the fifth century, direct references to the other side of the vase in conversation pieces are mostly neglected. Nev- ertheless, gestures and gazes still build in a more latent way a connection between the decorated fields, e. g., if mantle figures walk towards the other side70. Therefore, the subject of the narrative was no longer only mythological71, but genre scenes became predominant72.

70 See above n. 49. 71 E. g. Ferrara, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, 817 (BAPD 206431; CVA Ferrara [1] pl. 33, 4); Chiusi, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, C1822 (BAPD 7566; CVA Chiusi [2] pl. 6, 2; 7, 2); Melbourne, University, MUV82 (BAPD 7294); London, British Mus., 1898.7-16.5 (BAPD 213383; CVA London [3] III Ic pl. 25, 2). 72 Aléria, Mus. Archeologique, 2155A (BAPD 10533); Budapest, Mus. of Fine Arts, 50.531 (BAPD 207208); London, British Mus., 1910.6-15.1 (BAPD 214855); New York, Metro- politan Mus. of Art, 21.88.73 (BAPD 213402); Göttingen, Universität, J36 (BAPD 207209); Oxford, Ashmolean Mus., V562 (BAPD 213813; CVA Oxford [1] pl. 24, 2; 25,

182 Visual Past 2016

In the second half of the fifth century, mantle figures gradually became static: they now stood with their sticks or were completely wrapped up in their himatia73 (fig. 1). Their relationship with the other side of the vase is difficult to recognize, so the figures appear to be isolated in their decorated field: their potential for communication no longer seems to be directed outside to the viewer, but remains en- closed within the conversing group. Following the former consideration about the development of the conversation pieces, we can still recognize the roles of spectator and storyteller in these mantle figures, even if they are distant and pensive, of narrations on the other side. Thus, mantle figures continue to constitute a metanarrative element involving external viewers in the action so that they might perceive the narrative in a newly personal way. “Visual images have an almost infinite capacity for verbal exten- sion, because viewers must become their own narrator, changing the image into some form of internalized verbal expression”74, Brilliant pointed out. The artists, he continued, do not leave the viewers in complete freedom; instead, they communicate with the viewers using a mutual grammatical code to construct the images75. Viewers do not only have to learn the story being told by the picture, they also need to react correctly to what they see. However, the manner of communicating using images also changes over time, parallel to the development of the mantle-figure spectators. Thus, we can assume that the painter helps himself by guiding the viewers through the images by using spectators. Archaic spectators have been compared to a the- atrical chorus76, perhaps reflecting the intention of the painter that

7); Ferrara, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, T364 (BAPD 205899; CVA Ferrara [1] pl. 40, 1–2); Bologna, Mus. Civico, 234 (BAPD 205900); Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsamml., 321 (BAPD 214617). 73 See above n. 50; cf. also lone mantel figures, e. g. London, British Mus., E344 (BAPD 205926; CVA London [5] III Ic pl. 69, 1); Leiden, Rijksmus. van Oudheden, XVIIIL44 (BAPD 214919; CVA Leiden [3] pl. 137, 4); St. Petersburg, Hermitage Mus., ST1611 (BAPD 215021). 74 Brilliant 1984, 16. 75 Brilliant 1984, 17. 76 Stansbury-O’Donnell had already proposed comparison of black-figure viewers to choral performers (Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 109–126, esp. 110–111, cf. also Fehr 1996, 833), while the chorus represents the collectivity of citizens and civic harmony (Vernant Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 183 the image was to be perceived like a performance, as a vivid and an- imated narration, where the internal viewer sympathizes with the external audience77. The external viewer is invited to behave like a chorus, to comment on and judge the action78. With the appearance and development of mantle figures as spectators, not only do their position and composition change but, most importantly, the conceptual relation between spectators and the nucleus of the action also changes. The different approach to onlookers emerging during the classical period thus reflects changes in the ways in which external viewers are invited to perceive the depicted narration, dependent on more general cultural changes. If the first mantle figures of the archaic period were still involved in the narrative like a chorus, allowing the external viewer to take part in action directly through the figures’ point of view, the distance between spectators and the nucleus grew gradually. Thus, spectators assumed a more active role in the transmission and mediation of the narrative messages to the viewers. First, they became the audience of music performances and experienced the action not directly but through oral transmission, thus introducing a further element of mediation to the perception of the viewers. Lately, mantle figures, alone on one side of the vase, distance themselves definitively from the nucleus, with which they are however still ideally connected through syntactical elements. This shift to the other side and, furthermore, the rising success of conversation pieces correspond reasonably well to the introduction of the third actor in the tragedy, so actors begin to speak between themselves, separate from the chorus, thus changing the nature and the relation of the audience to the illusion of the scene79. A similar effect can be reached in vase painting through the

– Vidal-Naquet 1986, 21–23; Vidal-Naquet 1986, 158–159; Taplin 1996, 193; Goldhill 1996, 252–253; cf. also Giudice Rizzo 2002, 105, interpreting mantle figures as showing a new dramatic perspective in a more human environment). 77 On tragic chorus cf. Taplin 1996, 191. 78 Cf. Calame 2004, 128–129. As the chorus represents not only the position of the poet, but also the idealized spectator (Calame 2004, 125–126), the audience is required to actively take his point of view (Calame 2004, 149. 153). 79 About the third actor and the changes in the tragedy, cf. Elsner 2006, 87–88.

184 Visual Past 2016 use of conversing onlookers, who no longer reflect a chorus of Athe- nians but are Athenians themselves. They appear as metanarrative elements, which not only explain to the external viewer the nature of the pictorial illusion on the vases, but also invite them to think about and discuss what they see. Thus, mantle figures always show their interest in the nucleus by speaking about the action. Spectators who have experienced the action directly and objectively give up emotional involvements and develop a more pensive and subjective approach to the narrative; they became omniscient narrators in the imagery, as the external viewer had to be in his own world. A similar process stressing the development of the audience’s subjectivity and self-awareness80 also occurred in literature and philosophy during the fifth and fourth centuries BC81. Through the use of the mantle figures as actors and also spectators of the narrative, the painter suggests to the external viewer that he has to deal with an illusion of a world which is similar to his own world and, at the same time, shows him how to relate his own experience to this imagery, responding to different inputs of the period’s cultural spirit. Furthermore, the mantle figures allow the localization of the imagery in the time and space of democratic Athens82 and the identification of the actual public of the narrative. Most importantly, they allow connections to be made between different nuclei of the narra- tive83. As has already been pointed out, through specific use of these

80 Cf. Havelock 1983, 161–172. 81 This occurred in tragic poetry, as in art, in the early fifth century, while appearing in comedy and philosophy in the fourth century (mostly due to Plato’s new literary dialogue form, cf. Elsner 2006, 89–91) and corresponded chronologically to important changes in spectators’ iconography: their gradual displacement onto the other side and the final standardization of conversation scenes. In this regard, the influence of rhetoric on the construction of the images in vase painting ought not to be underestimated, as Stefan Schmidt has pointed out (Schmidt 2005, cf. esp. his conclusion p. 286–291). 82 Since they refer to the Athenian context and everyday life, cf. Langner 2012a, 12–14; Langner 2012b, 343–344. 83 We can perhaps claim that they work in a broader sense as indices and informants (Barthes 2001, 263–265. 267–268; Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 18–31). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 185 spectators, different vase decorations had to be seen as a whole en- tity84. Nevertheless, the redundancy of the mantle figure as an essential part of the narrative can have a greater potential by guiding the viewer to connect not only different vase fields, but also different vases85. Hence, redundancy in this case allows the viewers to see a unified narrative system across the whole imagery of painted pottery, by linking different vases and images together through the constant presence of these spectators and anchoring this system solidly in the Athenian cultural environment. The standardization of mantled spectators had, in this sense, to be seen not as a simple formal and iconographical simplification but as hiding a deeper meaning, reflecting the fixation of narrative functions. The painter, sender of the narrative messages, fixes in this way a precise code and, by sharing it with the recipient86 in the same form consistently, makes that code clearly recognizable. Thus, the sure understanding of the role of mantle figures would be guaranteed and self-evident for the ancient viewer, by making both the internal and the external spectators of the narrative message communicate with and affect each other87.

Mantle figures and Greek identity Other than black-figure onlookers88, spectators in the fifth century are mostly clothed like figures acting out the narration, with both wearing himatia. Thus, the narrative and spectators declare their belonging to the same world. Such a diffuse use of himatia had to be explained in light of the need to link the imagery with the world of the external viewer. Engagement with imagery is guaranteed for the

84 Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 115–118, cf. above S. 12–14 n. 42. 85 Thus, redundancy of iconographic elements also spreads diachronically from painter to painter (Steiner 1997, 167), creating a homogeneous communicative system surviving over time. 86 For the author having to use a shared code with his preferred recipient (Eco 1994, 7). 87 This is so not only because the mantle figure affects the external viewer, but because the gaze is mutual (cf. above n. 65) and cultural change in the viewer’s community also affects the ways that the spectators have to be represented, cf. above. 88 The clothing mostly distinguishes the onlookers from the acting figures (Stansbury- O’Donnell 2006, 119).

186 Visual Past 2016 external viewers through a process of identification89, allowing them to be part of the narrative and perceive it in different ways, by recog- nizing themselves in the collective idealized viewer within the image. To enable this interchange between the internal and the external viewers, identification works on a subconscious level90, requires anchoring points and familiar characteristics to be adopted and understood in the receptive context91. Such common traits are provided in case of mantel figures by the himation92, symbolizing qualities and ideals, as literary sources suggest, that the external viewer shares with their internal counterpart and must make their own. Different forms and types of mantle overlapped or alternated chronologically in ancient Greece since the Homeric period93. By focusing on the classical period, it is possible to outline some particular socio-historical aspect of the uses and contents of the himation in Attic society and to define its importance in vase painting. Firstly, the use of himatia shows a clear gender differentiation. In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae women clothe themselves with their hus- bands’ mantles in order to take part in the Ecclesia94. Thus, himatia appear to be a typical piece of clothing for Athenian men, expressing

89 Elsner 2006, 89. 90 Gombrich 1982, 27. 91 Cf. Stansbury-O’Donnell’s discussion of psychoanalytical approaches, requiring “the adoption of traits of the model” to construct identity (Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006, 59– 60. 85). 92 Regarding the use of clothing to communicate and express identity, cf. Hall 2007, 343– 344; Miller 2013. 93 The word ἱμάτιον appears first in Aisopos’ Fabulae; e. g. Aisop. fab. 36. 46. 179 (Haas – Hunger 1959); Aisop. fab. 216. 301; fab. Synt. 55 (Hunger 1970). The himation is used here, like the chlaina, to protect from cold, and can be used differently depending on the weather. Another issue regards the theft of the mantle, implying its great economical value. In a fragment, Hesiod mentions “ἱμάτιον γυναικεῖον” (Hes. Fr. 194 [Merkelbach – West 1983]), however, it is only cited in a Byzantine scholion (Tzetz. Schol. Exeg. Iliad. A 122) and, therefore, cannot be considered as the first mention of the himation. Hence- forward, ἱμάτιον was used until the sixteenth century AD with different meanings, sometimes diverging from the original use. 94 Aristoph. Eccl. 26–29. 73–75. Men’s himatia differ from women’s, and seem to be thicker and warmer; (Aristoph. Eccl. 535–542); cf. also Xen. mem. 2, 7, 5, asserting the difference between “ἱμάτιά τε ἀνδϱεῖα καὶ γυναικεῖα”. Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 187 equality among male bearers95. Particular interest arises regarding the way that himatia should be worn, which is not arbitrary, but requires adherence to a certain etiquette. Conventionally and correctly, the himation had to be draped ἐπιδέξια, i. e., from left to right, as we read in Aristophanes’ Birds, where Poseidon, upset because of Tiriballus’ carelessness, bids him to wear the mantle the right way96: βάϱβαϱος is the one who does not dress the himation properly97. The correct wearing of the himation is therefore to be understood as a sign of civilized life, which reflects the values and ideals that characterize laudable behaviour. A sign of modesty and sophrosyne is to wrap oneself carefully in the mantle98, while it was inappropriate and therefore to be avoided in Pericles’ time to speak in public while gesturing with the hands outside the himation99. By wearing the himation, the authority

95 Although literary sources differentiate between himatia in material (wool, linen or cotton, e. g. Xen. oik. 7, 6. 36; Plat. Krat. 389, b; Scamon Fr. 5, 57 [FHG]) and colour (e. g. Archipp. Fr. 39, 1 [Kock 1880]; Herakl. Hist. Fr. 1, 19 [FHG]; Crates Fr. 31, 1 [Kock 1880]; Xen. hell. 1, 7, 8; Plat. Krit. 44, a–b; rep. 8, 557, c; Aristoph. Plut. 530; Lys. 13, 40–41; De- mosth. or. 21, 4; cf. Bieber 1967, 429–430; Pekridou-Gorecki 1989, 34–37), they are mostly undecorated in vase painting and thus equalized. Exceptionally, the mantle can be decorated with flowers or geometric elements, mostly in the early red-figure production; e. g. Basel, Antikenmus., BS491 (BAPD 200004; CVA Basel [3] pl. 1, 2; 2, 2); Munich, Antikensamml., 2607 (BAPD 200906). Esp. in white-ground vase painting and in sculpture polychromy in garments is attested (cf. Koch-Brinkmann 1999; Brinkmann 2003, esp. 51–54. 69–71; Koch-Brinkmann – Posamentir 2004; Brinkmann 2008, esp. 27–28; Brinkmann 2010, 58–60); e. g. Munich, Antikensamml., SS78 (BAPD 212459; CVA Munich [15] pl. 28); Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus., 143 (BAPD 217802; Koch-Brinkmann 1999, pl. 83–87. XIV); Basel, Antikensamml., KÄ413 (BAPD 217807; Koch-Brinkmann 1999, pl. 88–91- XV); Munich, Antikensamml., 7706 (BAPD 9024408; CVA Munich [15] pl. 61); Sakai, Coll. Oka, 17 (BAPD 217647; CVA Japan [2] pl. 34, 5). 96 Aristoph. Av. 1567–1571; cf. also Plat. Phaidr 228, d. This way of wearing the mantle is also attested to in visual sources, where mantle figures stretch the right arm to dress or undress, hiding the left under the mantle; e. g. Havana, Mus. Nacional, 165 (BAPD 210032); Firenze, Mus. Archeologico, PD54 (BAPD 210136; CVA Firenze [4] III I pl. 128, 3); Boston, Mus. of Fine Arts, 21.4 (BAPD 217081; Lezzi-Hafter 1988, pl. 63 no. 84); Berlin, Antikensamml., 4052 (BAPD 207562); Tampa, Mus. of Art, 86.68 (BAPD 217140; Lezzi-Hafter 1988, pl. 107 no. 163); Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, 290 (BAPD 217077); cf. Lezzi-Hafter 1988, 144–145. 97 Aristoph. Av. 1573; cf. also Ktesias Fr. F 45f*, 23–24 (FGrHist), where pygmies dress with their hair instead of wearing himatia. 98 Xen. Lak. pol. 3, 4; Aristoph. Nub. 987–989. 99 Aischin. Tim. 25–26; cf. also Plat. Tht. 175, a; Plut. Phoc. 4, 2; Aristot. Ath. pol. 28, 3; cf. Zanker 1995, 50–57. 62–69; Zanker 2006, 68–72; Catoni 2005, 267–278.

188 Visual Past 2016 and credibility of the public man is also emphasized in official situa- tions100. Furthermore, the himation also represents a certain lifestyle. In the famous duet from The Acharnians, while Lamachus takes his weapons and goes to war, Dicaeopolis, equipped with his himation, prepares for symposia101. Thus, the himation is also connected with leisure and enjoyment of life102 for well-bred Athenians103. Literary sources clearly refer to an Athenian context104, where mantle figures declare their affiliation to the polis by wearing himatia, and their acceptance of its cultural and social values. Therefore, the himation can be seen as a uniform by which the polis’ inhabitants might be identified, and which reflects their ideology. Thus, mantle- figure spectators always recognize the constant presence of the Athe- nian polis as an ideal background of narratives on vases. Further- more, himatia were also intended to mark cultural differences between the Greeks and barbarians, and refer in this sense not only to an Athenian community but also to a wider perception of Greek- ness105. Not only does the use of himatia in literary sources referring to other Greeks lead us to such an interpretation106, but the iconography of mantle figures also spread with great success in other local red-figure productions besides that of Athens107.

100 E. g., Plutarch points out that Agesilaus used to dress carefully with his himation in critical moments to gain authority (Plut. Ages. 32, 4). 101 Aristoph. Ach. 1136–1141. 102 Cf. Geddes 1987, 323–324. 103 Having a himation is also a sign of richness (cf. Ctesias Fr. F1q [FGrHist]; Xen. Kyr. 5, 2, 20; Plat. Alk.1 122, b–c); the mantle can be used as article of exchange (Ctesias Fr. F45, 390 [FGrHist]; Demosth. or. 41, 27) and is listed under inherited properties (Demosth. or. 27, 10). Solons’ prohibition against offering more than “ἱματίων τριῶν” at tombs is therefore interesting in this regard (Plut. Sol. 21, 5). 104 Although sometimes the word ἱματίων is standardized to indicate garment in general and is therefore also used for other contests; cf. Hdt. 2, 47. 95. 121; 3, 8; 4, 23; Xen. Kyr. 4, 5, 4; 5, 1, 11–12; 8, 3, 3; Plat. leg. 637, e. 105 On mantle figures as symbol for Greekness, cf. Langner 2012a, 20. 106 Cf. Ctesias Fr. F 45f*, 23–24 (FGrHist). Himatia can refer to Spartans (Critias Fr. 34, 4 [Diels – Kranz 1952]; Xen. Lak. pol. 2, 4; 3, 4; Plut. Ages. 32.4). 107 E. g., in Boeotia (CVA Paris, Louvre [17] pl. 43, 1; CVA Harrow [1] pl. 30, 1–3; CVA Berlin [11] pl. 71, 2; Sabetai 2014, 15. 17–20. 32–34), Corinth (CVA Athens, Benaki [1] pl. 70, 1–4; 71, 1–2; 72, 1–4; McPhee – Trendall 1986; McPhee 2014, 107–108. 111) and also in Macedonia (Akamatis 2014, 185–186). I would like to focus here only on Greek production, but certainly the use of mantle figures in regional vase painting in Magna Graecia Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 189

Nevertheless, this Greekness expresses not just a political but also a cultural belonging, and therefore it is also possible for the Thracian singer Orpheus, the most Greek of the barbarians108, to wear a himat- ion109; both his figure110 and his mind appear to be Greek. The himation characterizes, therefore, a wider Greek cultural identity111 and clearly connotes belonging to the Hellenic world, where Athens always functioned as a privileged model. The external viewer, who dresses like the mantel figures and shares the same cultural ideals, is thereby allowed to identify with them through the common attributes of the spectators on the vases. Thus, the ideal community of “mantel-spectators” in the imagery reflects the current polis community, and the himation allowed both to converge and create a deeper sense of Athe- nian and Greek cultural identity. In conclusion, the iconographic development of mantle figures as spectators reflects the historical and cultural background of the democratic polis. The ritualized presence of black-figure bystanders had to be replaced in the classical period with other models of self-representation. By then, mantle figures had developed parallel to the on- going democratization of the polis and flourished together with the proliferation of new subjective, philosophical and rhetorical approaches and ways of thinking. Over the course of the fifth century,

and Etruria should still, in some regards, be more deeply examined (cf. esp. Langner 2012a, 14–20). 108 Saporiti 2009, 136–137; cf. also Roch 2004, 146. 109 E. g. Berlin, Antikensamml., 3172 (BAPD 216168; CVA Berlin [11] pl. 14); London, British Mus., E390 (BAPD 215217); Paris, Mus. du Petit Palais, 319 (BAPD 214705; CVA Paris, Petit Palais [1] pl. 18, 2–6). Esp. if Orpheus is hunted or killed by Thracian women, the contrast between his himation and the women’s garments and tattoos (Cohen 2000, 108–114; Saporiti 2009, 136–137) underlines their cultural difference, e. g. Adria, Mus. Archeologico Nazionale, 22110 (BAPD 204442; CVA Adria [1] pl. 17, 3); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G416 (BAPD 205400; CVA Paris, Louvre [4] III Id pl. 20, 1–2); Mus. du Louvre, G436 (BAPD 214178; CVA Paris, Louvre [8] III Id pl. 37, 1–2). The same considerations can be applied to Chiron, for example, who as “δικαιότατος Κενταύϱων” (Hom. Il. 11, 832) also wears the himation, for he acts culturally like a civilized man (Winkler-Horaček 2008, 519–520); cf. Berlin, Antikensamml., F4220 (BAPD 200512; CVA Berlin [2] pl. 52, 1); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G3 (BAPD 200435; CVA Paris, Louvre [5] III Ic pl. 27, 2. 4); Paris, Mus. du Louvre, G373 (BAPD 206594; CVA Paris, Louvre [8] pl. 40, 3). 110 Paus. 10.30.6. 111 Understood as a set of shared practices to build a coherent system of values, norms and habits (cf. Hodos 2010, 3–4).

190 Visual Past 2016 the external viewers identified more appropriately with a pensive and conversing audience, reflecting on the narrative and so becoming narrating subjects in their own right. The mediation of internal spectators provides the viewers over time with direct access to the narrative and to the proper manner of entering it, by belonging to both worlds: the imagery of the Greek community and the Greek community itself. Therefore, the process of standardization and the redundancy of mantle figures in conversation pieces can no longer be considered a meaningless stylistic evolution, but rather as expressing a semantic fixing of mantle figures as the alter ego of a Greek community of active spectators, as a consequence of substantial cultural change.

Mariachiara Franceschini is holding the travel scholarship of the German Archaeological In- stitute 2015/2016 as well as a research grant from the DAI Rome for a project concerning the material from the northeastern part of the Agora of Selinus. 2014–2015 she was Re- search Assistant at the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus collection of the National Museums in Berlin. In October 2014 she has defended her Dissertation at the Freie Unviersität Berlin about the mantle-figures in Athenian red-figured vase painting of the 6th and 5th century BC. (2010-2013 Scholarship of „Elsa-Neumann-Stipendium“). 2006–2008 Master degree in Classical Archaeology at the University of Pavia. 2003–2006 Bachelor degree in Classical and Ancient Studies at the University of Pavia. 2003–2009 University joint-degree at IUSS Pavia, Institute for Advanced Studies. Between 2007 and 2013 participation in archaeological excavations, especially in Etruria (Orvieto, Umbria).

Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 191

Bibliography Akamatis 2014: N. Akamatis, Local Red-figure Pottery from the Macedonian King- dom. The Pella Workshop, in: S. Schierup – V. Sabetai (Ed.), The Regional Production of Red-figure Pottery. Greece, Magna Graecia and Etruria, Gösta Enbom Monographs 4 (Aarhus 2014) 177–190. Alexandridou 2011: A.-F. Alexandridou, The early black-figured pottery of Attika in context (c. 630-570 BCE), Monumenta Graeca et Romana 17 (Leiden, Boston 2011). Barbagli 2003: D. Barbagli, L’abbigliamento in Grecia. Trasparenza e austerità, in: A. Bottini – D. Barbagli (Ed.), Moda, costume, bellezza nell’antichità. Firenze, Mus. Ar- cheologico Nazionale, 25 ottobre 2003 – 31 marzo 2004 (Livorno 2003) 40–53. Barthes 2001: R. Barthes, Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives, in: R. Barthes – S. Sontag (Ed.), A Barthes reader 12(New York 2001) 251–295. Beazley 1918: J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figured Vases in American Museums (Cam- bridge 1918). Beazley 1959: J. D. Beazley, Spina e la ceramica greca, in: Spina e l’Etruria padana. Atti del I. Convegno di studi etruschi, Ferrara 8–11 settembre 1957, Suppl. SE 25 (Firenze 1959) 47–57. Bérard et al. 1984: C. Bérard – C. Bron – J.-L. Durand – F. Frontisi-Ducroux – F. Lis- sarrague – A. Schnapp (Ed.), Le Cité des images. Religion et société en Grèce antique (Paris 1984). Bieber 1967: M. Bieber, Entwicklungsgeschichte der griechischen Tracht. Von der vorgriechischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der Antike (Berlin 1967). Bothmer 1971: D. von Bothmer, Three vases by the Amasis Painter, MM 12, 1971, 123–130. Bothmer 1985: D. von Bothmer, The Amasis Painter and his world. Vase-painting in sixth-century B.C. Athens (New York 1985). Bracker 2015: J. Bracker, Wandernde Bilderzählungen und die Erzählforschung in der Klassischen Archäologie, in: J. Bracker – A.-K. Hubrich (Ed.), Die Kunst der Rezep- tion/The Art of Reception. Eine trans- und interdisziplinäre Tagung an der Universität Hamburg 28.–30. November 2013 (Hamburg 2015) 315–346. Brijder 1991: H. A. G. Brijder, Siana cups II. The Heidelberg Painter, Allard Pierson series 8 (Amsterdam 1991). Brilliant 1984: R. Brilliant, Visual narratives (Ithaca 1984). Brinkmann 2003: V. Brinkmann, Die Polychromie der archaischen und frühklassischen Bildwerke, Studien zur antiken Malerei und Farbgebung 5 (München 2003). Brinkmann 2008: V. Brinkmann, The polychromy of ancient greek sculpture, in: R. Panzanelli – E. D. Schmidt – K. D. S. Lapatin (Ed.), The color of life. Polychromy in sculpture from antiquity to the present (Los Angeles 2008) 18–39.

192 Visual Past 2016

Brinkmann 2010: V. Brinkmann, Die Farbe der archaischen und frühklassischen Skulp- tur, in: V. Brinkmann – A. Scholl (Ed.), Bunte Götter. Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulptur (München 2010) 47–67. Buitron-Oliver 1995: D. Buitron-Oliver, Douris. A master-painter of Athenian red-figure vases (Mainz am Rhein 1995). Calame 2004: C. Calame, Performative aspects of the choral voice in Greek tragedy. Civic identity in performance, in: S. Goldhill – R. Osborne (Ed.), Performance culture and Athenian democracy (Cambridge 2004) 125–153. Carpenter 1986: T. H. Carpenter, Dionysian imagery in archaic Greek art. Its development in black-figure vase painting, Oxford monographs on classical archaeology (Ox- ford 1986). Carpenter 1991: T. H. Carpenter, Art and myth in ancient Greece. A handbook, World of art (London 1991). Catoni 2005: M. L. Catoni, Schemata. Comunicazione non verbale nella Grecia antica (Pisa 2005). Cohen 2000: B. Cohen, Man-killers and their Victims. Inversions of Heroic Ideal in Classical Athens, in: B. Cohen (Ed.), Not the classical ideal. Athens and the construction of the other in Greek art (Leiden, Boston 2000) 99–131. Dentzer 1982: J. M. Dentzer, Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 246 (Roma, Paris 1982). Diels – Kranz 1952: H. Diels – W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker II (Berlin 1952). Durand – Lissarrague 1980: J.-L. Durand – F. Lissarrague, Un lieu d’image? L’espace du loutérion, Hephaistos 2, 1980, 89–106. Eco 1994: U. Eco, The role of the reader. Explorations in the semiotics of texts, Ad- vances in semiotics (Bloomington 1994). Elsner 2005: J. Elsner, Sacrifice and narrative on the arch of the Argentarii at Rome, JRA 18, 2005, 83–98. Elsner 2006: J. Elsner, Reflection on the “Greek Revolution” in art. From changes in viewing to the transformation of subjectivity, in: S. Goldhill – R. Osborne (Ed.), Re- thinking revolutions through ancient Greece (Cambridge 2006) 68–96. Fehr 1979: B. Fehr, Bewegungsweisen und Verhaltensideale. Physiognomische Deu- tungsmöglichkeiten der Bewegungsdarstellung an griechischen Statuen des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Chr. (Bad Bramstedt 1979). Fehr 1996: B. Fehr, Kouroi e korai. Formule e tipi dell’arte arcaica come espressione di valori, in: S. Settis (Ed.), I Greci. Storia cultura e società. 2 Una storia greca. I For- mazione (Torino 1996) 785–843. Fehr 2011: B. Fehr, Becoming good democrats and wives. Civic education and female socialization on the Parthenon frieze (Münster 2011). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 193

Ferrari 1986: G. Ferrari, Eye-Cup, RA 1986, 5–20. Ferrari 2002: G. Ferrari, Figures of speech. Men and maidens in ancient Greece (Chi- cago 2002). Ferrari 2003: G. Ferrari, Myth and Genre on Athenian Vases, ClAnt 22, 2003, 37–54. Fless 2002: F. Fless, Rotfigurige Keramik als Handelsware. Erwerb und Gebrauch at- tischer Vasen im mediterranen und pontischen Raum während des 4. Jhs. v. Chr (Rahden 2002). Franzoni 2006: C. Franzoni, Tirannia dello sguardo. Corpo, gesto, espressione nell’arte greca (Torino 2006). Frontisi-Ducroux 1984: F. Frontisi-Ducroux, Au miroir du masque, in: C. Bérard – C. Bron – J.-L. Durand – F. Frontisi-Ducroux – F. Lissarrague – A. Schnapp (Ed.), Le Cité des images. Religion et société en Grèce antique (Paris 1984) 147–161. Frontisi-Ducroux 1995: F. Frontisi-Ducroux, Du Masque au visage. Aspects de l’iden- tité en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1995). Geddes 1987: A. G. Geddes, Rags and riches. The costume of Athenian men in the fifth century, ClQ 37, 1987, 307–331. Giudice Rizzo 2002: I. Giudice Rizzo, Inquieti commerci tra uomini e dei. Timpanisti, Fineo A e B di Sofocle. Testimonianze letterarie ed iconografiche, itinerari di ricerca e proposte, Studia archaeologica 117 (Roma 2002). Giuliani 2003: L. Giuliani, Bild und Mythos. Geschichte der Bilderzählung in der griechischen Kunst (München 2003). Giuliani 2014: L. Giuliani, Mythen- versus Lebensbilder? Vom begrenzten Gebrauchs- wert einer beliebten Opposition, in: O. Dally – T. Hölscher – S. Muth – R. M. Schnei- der (Ed.), Medien der Geschichte. Antikes Griechenland und Rom (Berlin 2014) 204– 226. Giuliano 2005: F. M. Giuliano, Platone e la poesia. Teoria della composizione e prassi della ricezione (Sankt Augustin 2005). Goldhill 1996: S. Goldhill, Collectivity and Otherness. The Authority of the Tragic Cho- rus, in: M. S. Silk (Ed.), Tragedy and the tragic. Greek theatre and beyond (Oxford 1996) 244–256. Gombrich 1982: E. H. Gombrich, The image and the eye. Further Studies in the Psy- chology of Pictorial Representation (Oxford 1982). Greifenhagen 1972: A. Greifenhagen, Neue Fragmente des Kleophradesmalers (Hei- delberg 1972). Haas – Hunger 1959: H. Haas – H. Hunger, Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum I 2. Fab- ulae Aesopicae soluta oratione conscriptae. Fasciculus 2, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana 2(Berlin 1959). Hall 2007: J. Hall, The Creation and Expression of Identity. The Greek World, in: S. E. Alcock – R. Osborne (Ed.), Classical archaeology (Malden 2007) 337–354.

194 Visual Past 2016

Harari 2008: M. Harari, Corpo, collo, piede, lati A e B. Punti di vista nella pittura va- scolare, in: G. Sena Chiesa (Ed.), Vasi, immagini, collezionismo. La collezione di vasi Intesa Sanpaolo e i nuovi indirizzi di ricerca sulla ceramica greca e magnogreca. Gior- nate di studio Milano, 7–8 novembre 2007 (Milano 2008) 335–362. Harvey 1988: F. Harvey, Painted Ladies: Fact, Fiction and Fantasy, in: J. Christiansen – T. Melander (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen August 31 – September 4, 1987 (Copenhagen 1988) 242–254. Havelock 1983: E. A. Havelock, Cultura orale e civiltà della scrittura da Omero a Pla- tone (Bari 1983). Himmelmann 1967: N. Himmelmann, Erzählung und Figur in der archaischen Kunst (Mainz 1967). Hodos 2010: T. Hodos, Local and global perspectives in the study of social and cultural identities, in: S. Hales – T. Hodos (Ed.), Material culture and social identities in the ancient world (Cambridge 2010) 3–31. Hollein 1988: H.-G. Hollein, Bürgerbild und Bildwelt der attischen Demokratie auf den rotfigurigen Vasen des 6.–4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Frankfurt am Main 1988). Hunger 1970: H. Hunger (Ed.), Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum. Fabulae Aesopicae soluta oratione conscriptae I (Berlin 1970). Isler-Kerényi 1971: C. Isler-Kerényi, Ein Spätwerk des Berliner Malers, AntK 14, 1971, 25–31. Isler-Kerényi 1977: C. Isler-Kerényi, Stamnoi (Lugano 1977). Isler-Kerényi 1993: C. Isler-Kerényi, Anonimi ammantati, in: V. Tusa (Ed.), Studi sulla Sicilia Occidentale in onore di Vincenzo Tusa (Padova 1993) 93–100. Isler-Kerényi 1996: C. Isler-Kerényi, Un cratere selinuntino e il problema dei giovani ammantati, in: G. Rizza (Ed.), I vasi attici ed altre ceramiche coeve in Sicilia. Atti del convegno internazionale I, Catania, Camarina, Gela, Vittoria 28 marzo – 1 aprile 1990, CronA 29 (Catania 1996) 49–53. Jüthner 1968: J. Jüthner, Die Leibesübungen der Griechen II 1 (Wien 1968). Karouzou 1962: S. Karouzou, Scène de palestre, BCH 86, 1962, 430–466. Koch-Brinkmann 1999: U. Koch-Brinkmann, Polychrome Bilder auf weißgrundigen Lekythen. Zeugen der klassischen griechischen Malerei, Studien zur antiken Malerei und Farbgebung 4 (München 1999). Koch-Brinkmann – Posamentir 2004: U. Koch-Brinkmann – R. Posamentir, L’orna- mento e la pittura di una lekythos funeraria attica (Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copen- hagen), in: P. Liverani (Ed.), I colori del bianco. Policromia nella scultura antica, Collana di studi e documentazione 1 (Roma 2004) 197–208. Koch-Harnack 1983: G. Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke (Berlin 1983). Kock 1880: T. Kock, Comicorum Atticorum fragmenta I. Antiquae comoediae fragmenta (Leipzig 1880). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 195

Langner 2007: M. Langner, Athen in der Fremde: Die Athenisierug der griechischen Welt, in: U. Kästner – M. Langner – B. Rabe (Ed.), Griechen, Skythen, Amazonen. Per- gamonmuseum, Berlin, 14. Juni bis 21. Oktober 2007 (Berlin 2007) 17–19. Langner 2012a: M. Langner, Mantle-figures and the Athenization of Late Classical Im- agery, in: S. Schierup – B. B. Rasmussen (Ed.), Red-figure Pottery in its Ancient Set- ting. Acts of the International Colloquium held at the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen November 5-6. 2009 (Aarhus 2012) 11–20. Langner 2012b: M. Langner, Meisterwerk und Massenware. Chronologie, Dekor und Funktion spätrotfiguriger Bildervasen aus Athen (Habilitationsschrift Freie Universi- tät Berlin, Berlin 2012). Langner 2014: M. Langner, Where Should We Place the Krater? An Optimistic Re- construction of the Vessel’s Visibility during the Symposion, in: A. Avramidou – D. Demetriou (Ed.), Approaching the ancient artifact. Representation, narrative, and function (Berlin 2014) 385–398. Lewis 2007: S. Lewis, Rev. of M. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase Painting, Gender, and Social Identity in Archaic Athens (London 2007), JHS 127, 2007, 227–228. Lezzi-Hafter 1988: A. Lezzi-Hafter, Der Eretria-Maler. Werke und Weggefährten, For- schungen zur antiken Keramik. II. Reihe, Kerameus 6 (Mainz 1988). Lissarrague 1987: F. Lissarrague, Un Flot d’images. Une esthétique du banquet grec (Paris 1987). Lissarrague 2009: F. Lissarrague, Reading Images, Looking at Picutres, ad After, in: S. Schmidt – J. H. Oakley (Ed.), Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, Beihefte zum CVA 4 (München 2009) 15– 22. Lissarrague – Schnapp 1981: F. Lissarrague – A. Schnapp, Imagerie des Grecs ou Grèce des imagiers?, Le temps de la réflexion 2, 1981, 275–297. Longo 1985: O. Longo, Silenzio verbale e silenzio gestuale nella Grecia antica. Alla riscoperta di un codice culturale, Orpheus 6, 1985, 241–249. McPhee 2014: I. McPhee, Corinthian Red-figure Pottery. A Brief Survey, in: S. Schierup – V. Sabetai (Ed.), The Regional Production of Red-figure Pottery. Greece, Magna Graecia and Etruria, Gösta Enbom Monographs 4 (Aarhus 2014) 103–120. McPhee – Trendall 1986: I. McPhee – A. D. Trendall, Six Corinthian red-figure vases, in: M. A. Del Chiaro – W. R. Biers (Ed.), Corinthiaca. Studies in honor of Darrell A. Amyx (Columbia 1986) 160–167. Merkelbach – West 1983: R. Merkelbach – M. L. West, Fragmenta Selecta, in: F. Solmsen (Ed.), Hesiodi Opera, Oxford classical texts (Oxford 1983). Meyer 2009: M. Meyer, Zur Relevanz bildlicher Darstellungen mythischer Figuren, in: S. Schmidt – J. H. Oakley (Ed.), Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, Beihefte zum CVA 4 (München 2009) 23–32.

196 Visual Past 2016

Miller 2013: M. C. Miller, Clothes and Identity. The Case of the Greeks in Ionia c. 400 BC, Antichthon 47, 2013, 18–38. Muth 2008: S. Muth, Gewalt im Bild. Das Phänomen der medialen Gewalt im Athen des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, New York 2008). Neer 2002: R. T. Neer, Style and politics in Athenian vase-painting. The craft of democracy, ca. 530-460 B.C.E (Cambridge 2002). Neumann 1965: G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst (Berlin 1965). Pedrina 2001: M. Pedrina, I gesti del dolore nella ceramica attica, VI–V secolo. Per un’analisi della conversazione non verbale nel mondo greco (Venezia 2001). Pekridou-Gorecki 1989: A. Pekridou-Gorecki, Mode im antiken Griechenland. Textile Fertigung und Kleidung (München 1989). Praz 1971: M. Praz, Scene di conversazione. Conservation pieces (Roma 1971). Recke 2002: M. Recke, Gewalt und Leid. Das Bild des Krieges bei den Athenern im 6. und 5. Jh. v. Chr (Istanbul 2002). Richter 1917a: G. M. A. Richter, Handbook of the classical collection. Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 1917). Richter 1917b: G. M. A. Richter, Two Vases Signed by Hieron in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, AJA 21, 1917, 1–7. Rizzini 1998: I. Rizzini, L’occhio parlante. Per una semiotica dello sguardo nel mondo antico (Venezia 1998). Robert 1919: C. Robert, Archäologische Hermeneutik. Anleitung zur Deutung klassi- scher Bildwerke (Berlin 1919). Robertson 1982: M. Robertson, A Red-Figure Krater: South Italian or Etruscan?, OxfJA 1, 1982, 179–185. Roch 2004: E. Roch, Die Lyra des Orpheus. Musikgeschichte im Gewande des My- thos, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 61, 2004, 137–159. Sabetai 2014: V. Sabetai, Sacrifice, Athletics, Departures and the Dionysiac Thiasos in the Boeotian City of Images, in: S. Schierup – V. Sabetai (Ed.), The Regional Pro- duction of Red-figure Pottery. Greece, Magna Graecia and Etruria, Gösta Enbom Mo- nographs 4 (Aarhus 2014) 14–37. Saporiti 2009: M. Saporiti, L’immagine tatuata, in: M. Harari – S. Paltineri – M. T. A. Robino (Ed.), Icone del mondo antico. Un seminario di storia delle immagini. Pavia, Collegio Ghislieri, 25 novembre 2005 (Roma 2009) 129–137. Scheibler 1988: I. Scheibler, Die Kuroi des Amasis-Malers, in: J. Christiansen – T. Me- lander (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery, Copenhagen August 31 – September 4, 1987 (Copenhagen 1988) 547–557. Schmidt et al. 1976: M. Schmidt – A. D. Trendall – A. Cambitoglou, Eine Gruppe apu- lischer Grabvasen in Basel (Basel 1976). Franceschini, Mantle Figures and Visual Perception 197

Schmidt 2005: S. Schmidt, Rhetorische Bilder auf attischen Vasen. Visuelle Kommu- nikation im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr (Berlin 2005). Schmidt 2009: S. Schmidt, Hermeneutik der Bilder, in: S. Schmidt – J. H. Oakley (Ed.), Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei, Beihefte zum CVA 4 (München 2009) 9–14. Shapiro 1981: H. A. Shapiro, Courtship Scenes in Attic Vase-Painting, AJA 85, 1981, 133–143. Shapiro 1994: H. A. Shapiro, Myth into art. Poet and painter in classical Greece (Lon- don 1994). Simon 1992: G. Simon, Der Blick, das Sein und die Erscheinung in der antiken Optik (München 1992). Sitwell 1969: S. Sitwell, Conversation pieces. A survey of English domestic portraits and their painters (London 1969). Snell 2002: B. Snell, La cultura greca e le origini del pensiero europeo (Torino 2002). Stahl 1990: M. Stahl, Rez. zu H.-G. Hollein, Bürgerbild und Bildwelt der attischen De- mokratie auf den rotfigurigen Vasen des 6.–4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Frankfurt am Main 1988). Stansbury-O’Donnell 1995: M. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Reading pictorial narrative. The law court scene of the shield of Achilles, in: E. Vermeule – J. B. Carter – S. P. Morris (Ed.), The Ages of Homer. A tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin 1995) 315– 334. Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999: M. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Pictorial narrative in ancient Greek art, Cambridge studies in classical art and iconography (Cambridge 1999). Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006: M. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Vase painting, gender, and social identity in archaic Athens (New York 2006). Stansbury-O’Donnell 2014: M. Stansbury-O’Donnell, Composition and Narrative on Skyphoi of the Penelope Painter, in: A. Avramidou – D. Demetriou (Ed.), Approaching the ancient artifact. Representation, narrative, and function (Berlin 2014) 373–384. Staring 1956: A. Staring, De Hollanders thuis: gezelschapstukken uit drie eeuwen (The Hague 1956). Steiner 1993: A. Steiner, The meaning of repetition. Visual redundancy on archaic Athenian vases, JdI 108, 1993, 197–219. Steiner 1997: A. Steiner, Illustrious repetitions. Visual redundancy in Exekias and his followers, in: J. H. Oakley – W. D. E. Coulson – O. Palagia (Ed.), Athenian potters and painters. The conference proceedings, American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1.–4.12.1994, Oxbow monograph 67 (Oxford 1997) 157–169. Steiner 2007: A. Steiner, Reading Greek vases (Cambridge, New York 2007). Swindler 1916: M. H. Swindler, The Bryn Mawr Collection of Greek Vases, AJA 20, 1916, 308–345.

198 Visual Past 2016

Taplin 1996: O. Taplin, Comedy and the tragic, in: M. S. Silk (Ed.), Tragedy and the tragic. Greek theatre and beyond (Oxford 1996) 188–202. Thomas 1992: R. Thomas, Literacy and orality in ancient Greece, Key themes in ancient history (Cambridge 1992). van Wees 1998: H. van Wees, Greeks bearing arms. The state, the leisure class, and the display of weapons in archaic Greece, in: N. Fisher – H. van Wees (Ed.), Archaic Greece. New approaches and new evidence (London 1998) 333–378. Vernant – Vidal-Naquet 1986: J.-P. Vernant – P. Vidal-Naquet (Ed.), Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne, Textes à l’appui. Histoire classique (Paris 1986). Vidal-Naquet 1986: P. Vidal-Naquet, Œdipe à Athènes, in: J.-P. Vernant – P. Vidal- Naquet (Ed.), Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne, Textes à l’appui (Paris 1986) 149– 173. Vierneisel – Kaeser 1990: K. Vierneisel – B. Kaeser (Ed.), Kunst der Schale. Kultur des Trinkens (München 1990). Winkler-Horaček 2008: L. Winkler-Horaček, Fiktionale Grenzräume im frühen Grie- chenland, in: A. Alexandridis – M. Wild – L. Winkler-Horaček (Ed.), Mensch und Tier in der Antike. Grenzziehung und Grenzüberschreitung. Symposion vom 7. bis 9. April in Rostock (Wiesbaden 2008) 503–525. Zanker 1995: P. Zanker, Die Maske des Sokrates. Das Bild des Intellektuellen in der antiken Kunst (München 1995). Zanker 2006: P. Zanker, La fatica del pensare. Poeti e filosofi nell’arte antica, in: A. Bottini (Ed.), Musa pensosa. L’immagine dell’intellettuale nell’antichità (Milano 2006) 65–77.