Elpenor, Amymone, and the Truth in the Lykaon Painter's Painting

BaBesch 74 (1999)

Elpenor, Amymone, and the Truth in the Lykaon Painter’s Painting

Annette L. Giesecke for Emily Vermeule

He evidences the awkwardness and imperfection Culture. Here the authors dictate that one ought to of a true primitive. Can he really paint land- investigate “…the importance of the overall icono- scapes? He grasps their character, their color, graphic context of (an) image”, to consider both the their light. He translates their intimacy and their historical context of that image and its context in grandeur, but runs aground in the art of sepa- the oeuvre of the artist4. The authors further urge rating his planes and in giving the illusion of dis- art historians not to ignore the role of the ancient tance. His meager knowledge betrays him 1. viewer and “to think of the viewer as practicing an ideologically charged, socially motivated, intellec- The criticism and misunderstanding which the work tually engaged act of interpretation.”5 This state- of Cézanne incurred is part and parcel of a career in ment of the work’s programmatic and polemical the art world, and were it not for his letters to Émile stance precedes an essay by Lissarague who seeks Bernard, we too, like many of Cézanne’s contem- to illuminate the significance to one another and to porary critics, would be left in the dark regarding the ancient viewer of three images, one in the inte- the truth or truths in and of his painting2. In the case rior and one on either side of the exterior of a cup of Athenian vase painting, however, neither letters by Epiktetos6. This sort of complete analysis of a nor statements of intent written by vase painters given pot and the images which adorn it is a rarity, exist. Accordingly, modern scholarship has been and it is primarily in the case of drinking cups that compelled to attempt to arrive at an understanding all of the images on a pot are considered as part of of Greek vase painting – its methods, its purpose, a signifying whole7. It may be that this is the case and its themes – through an examination of physi- because cups are often decorated with continuous cal remains, the painted pottery itself. Although figured friezes which lead the viewer’s eye around approaches to the criticism of Greek vase painting have evolved over time to yield more comprehen- sive results, the full truth in these paintings has 1 Lecomte 1899. Cézanne has been chosen as the starting point remained elusive due to the way that we continue to of this paper for a reason; it was with Cézanne and the interpretation of his own words about his work that Derrida’s The look at Greek vases. Truth in Painting begins. Derrida’s work, in turn, has served as Continued and intensified scholarly interest in the the ideological framework for the argument constructed in this iconography of Greek vase painting, especially the paper. See Derrida 1987. study of the relationship between texts and images, 2 Rewald 1948, 198-205 especially 200. “The truth in painting,” the phrase which appears both in the title and repeatedly in the has advantageously resulted in a number of books body of this paper, alludes both to Cézanne’s letter to Émile which make this subject readily accessible even to Bernard dated to October 23, 1905 (which he concludes with the those who are not students of art and archaeology3. much discussed sentiment: “Je vous dois la vérité en peinture While being enormously useful tools, these and et je vous la dirai…” – for which see Bernard 1926, 66-7) and to the title of Derrida’s work, Derrida 1987. other iconographic studies tend to focus on painters’ 3 These works include: Carpenter 1991; Hedreen 1992; representations or interpretations of certain myths, Rasmussen and Spivey 1991; Shapiro 1994; Woodford 1993; dramatic performances, or major works of art; as well as Schefold 1978 and 1981. therefore, they catalog only a very small portion of 4 Goldhill and Osborne 1994, 2. 5 Goldhill and Osborne 1994, 8. Similar sentiments also appear the overall decorative schema of a given vase. The in M. Beard’s contribution to Rasmussen and Spivey 1991, 12- great disadvantage of this method is the fact that the 35 where it is argued that we must shift our attention from the reader remains unaware of the compositional rich- vase painter to the ancient viewer/consumer if we are to progress ness and hermeneutic challenges of a vase bearing in our understanding not only of iconography but also of the function or role of decorated pottery in antiquity. Only this way a number of images which may or may not be the- can we determine whether pots were items of prestige, were cre- matically related to one another and which may ated for export, were merely tomb offerings with no previous derive from a variety of sources. household life, and so forth. Some of the most overt criticism of the “tradi- 6 Goldhill and Osborne 1994, 12-27. 7 Thus, for instance, Keuls remarks that kylikes have an “A, B, tional” and restricted approaches to Greek vase I” tripartite decorative program, “A” and “B” referring to the painting can be found in Goldhill and Osborne’s images on the sides of the cup and “I” referring to the tondo introduction to Art and Text in Ancient Greek iconography. This program is detailed in Keuls 1984, 256-9.

63 of this means, generally speaking, is that sloppily executed or otherwise seemingly uninteresting B- sides have received and continue to receive unbal- anced and incomplete critical analyses. The tendency to ignore one side of a vase has been amplified and promoted by the limitations of pho- tography and other two-dimensional media in accu- rately portraying a three-dimensional object. Recognizing this tendency is of the utmost importance as partial renderings continue to hamper our understanding of the role or purpose of painting on Greek pottery9. Thus when one side of a vase has consistently failed to be reproduced in our texts and critical works, it has tended to fall into Vergessenheit, to sink into oblivion as if it had never existed. This is the fate which has befallen a pur- portedly well-known and understood pelike by the Lykaon Painter in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. The vase in question dates to ca. 440 BC and is decorated with images linked with contemporary 5th c. theater, literature, and mural painting.

PART 1: ELPENOR AND ODYSSEUS

The A-side of this pelike depicts Odysseus’ con- frontation with the ghost or spirit, cuxß, of his lost Fig. 1. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 34.79, Attic Red companion Elpenor in the presence of Hermes (Fig. Figure Pelike by the Lykaon Painter, Side A, ca. 440 BC, 1). The figures of Elpenor, Odysseus, and Hermes William Amory Gardner Fund. Photo courtesy Museum are located on different levels in a rocky terrain, and of Fine Arts, Boston. these various levels are indicated by wavy lines painted in a whitish-yellow. The landscape is further defined by the reeds growing in a clump behind the cups’ exterior. This preconditions the modern the figure of Elpenor rising, or rather heaving him- critic to consider that two seemingly independent self, from a chasm in the earth on the left side of the images on opposite sides of a cup may have an composition. Odysseus himself is seated on a rock underlying connection, a connection which a sym- facing Elpenor and still holds the sword with which posiast might discover as the cup is handled, turned, he has slit the necks of the sheep lying at his feet. and eventually emptied to reveal yet another image, Striding towards Odysseus with his hand out- that in the cup’s interior. Thus, for instance, when stretched as if signaling or eliciting the emergence the iconographic program of an entire vase is dis- of Elpenor is Hermes, whose eyes are firmly fixed cussed in Robertson’s important recent book on red on the spirit. figure vase painting, it is almost exclusively in the Upon its acquisition by the Museum of Fine Arts, case of cups. These cups include the Brygos this vase was described as being of “startling interest” not only because of its stylistic excellence but Painter’s Iliupersis, the same painter’s illustration of the content and aftermath of a symposium, and the Foundry Painter’s cup portraying Thetis receiving 8 For these three cups (Louvre G 152, ARV2 369.1; Achilles’ new armor from Hephaistos in its interior Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum 479, ARV2 372.32; and mortal metal smiths at work on the exterior8. and Berlin Staatliche Museen 2294 ARV2 400.1 respectively), see Robertson 1992, 94-6 and 108. Robertson’s work is, of course, primarily devoted to 9 The statement that “linear presentation constrains what is actu- the discussion of the evolution or development of ally a circular affair” drives home this point. See Goffman 1974, painting “style” rather than to iconography, and it 11. With respect to this issue, it is a shame that the cyclograph is accordingly infrequent that the so-called B-sides is not commonly used in reproducing vases in our texts in spite of the slight distortion which the decorative scheme of a vase of other types of vases, especially amphorae and undergoes through the use of this device. For further discussion kraters, receive more than a mention unless they of the truth in photographic representation and a refutation of have been deemed stylistically significant. What all the adage “ the camera doesn’t lie,” see Gombrich 1977, 59 ff.

64 also, and primarily, because it was considered to be would imagine him to have assumed. He is seated “the earliest and by far the most impressive repre- on a rock with his right hand beneath his chin and sentation in ancient art of a famous passage in the the right elbow propped up on his right knee; in his Odyssey.”10 The passage in question is, of course, left hand is a sword which he extends over the pit. Odysseus’ Nekuia, invocation of the dead, in the Odysseus’ pose is one both of deep reflection and eleventh book of the poem, and there are indeed sorrow. What does not correspond with Homer’s numerous points of contact between Homer’s account is the presence of Hermes who is clearly a description of Odysseus’ meeting with Elpenor and central figure in this nekuia. the Lykaon Painter’s rendering. In Homer’s tale, Hermes’ presence in the Lykaon Painter’s image can Circe had informed Odysseus that he would have to be explained in a number of ways. Hermes was, of make a journey into the dread house of Hades in course, not only the patron god of travelers and the order to consult the seer Teiresias prior to making messenger of the gods but also the psychopompus, his final departure from her island. This meeting the conveyer of souls of the dead to their new would take place at the mouth of Hades where abodes in Hades. The last is a role which he increas- Puriphlegethon and Kokytos flow into Acheron ingly assumes in vase painting of the 5th c. BC. (∂nqa mèn eîˇ ˆAxéronta Puriflegéqwn te Further, the god regularly served as a guardian or Åéousin / KÉkutóˇ qˆ… 10. 513-4), and the exact general helper of heroes and other mythological location was marked by a rock (10. 514-5). Here he characters, particularly those endeavoring to pene- was to dig a pit of specific dimensions into which trate the abodes of the dead12. The implication of drink offerings for the dead were to be poured Hermes’ inclusion in this image is accordingly that (bóqron ôrúzai, ºson te pugoúsion ∂nqa kaì his intervention was necessary not only for ∂nqa, / âmfˆ aût¬ç dè xo®n xe⁄sqai p¢sin Odysseus to make contact with the deceased but nekúessin 10. 517-8). In Book Eleven Odysseus also to find his way to the place of access to the tells us that after he had done all of this, he first realms of the dead in the first instance13. In addition offered prayers to the dead and then, as a final offer- to this, the presence of Hermes, which is certainly ing, slit the necks of the sacrificial sheep over the apposite to the general theme of the image, lends trench he had dug (…tà dè m±la labÑn balance to this elegant composition, and the fram- âpedeirotómjsa / êˇ bóqron, Åée dˆ aﬁma ing of Odysseus by Hermes and Elpenor, a god and kelaineféˇ 11. 35-6). Once Odysseus completes a ghost (two other-worldly beings either side of a the requisite sacrifice, the spirits of the dead gather mortal man) results in a concentration on the emo- in throngs to drink, and the first spirit to approach tional impact of the meeting on Odysseus rather is that of Elpenor. His meeting with Elpenor is an than Elpenor. As a mortal, Odysseus is and must emotional one; the conversation centers on logically be isolated in the depth of his emotion. The Elpenor’s accidental death and the burial he still isolation of Odysseus is emphasized by the Lykaon requires. Odysseus later closes his account of this Painter’s use of inscriptions. Elpenor and Hermes meeting with a brief summary of events: “So we sat are labeled using the genitive case, ELPJNOROS exchanging words of sadness, I on the one side and JRMO respectively, while Odysseus’ name holding my sword aloft over the blood and the shade appears in the nominative. By this way of thinking, of my friend on the other speaking freely” (N¬i Elpenor in the genitive would mean “spirit of mèn ¡ˇ êpéesin âmeiboménw stugero⁄sin / Elpenor” and Hermes in the genitive would mean Ømeqˆ, êgÑ mèn ãneuqen êfˆ aÿmati fásganon “image/representation of Hermes”. Odysseus the ÷sxwn, / e÷dwlon dˆ ëtaírou póllˆ âgóreuen. 11. man can be portrayed as such, but when a ghost and 81-3)11. a god are portrayed in the manner of a man, some The Homeric details recounted above correspond extremely well with the contents of the Lykaon 10 Caskey 1934, 40. Painter’s image. On the vase we can see a pit dug 11 All translations are my own, and quotations of ancient into the ground and sheep lying next to it with blood authors are drawn from the Oxford editions. still streaming from their recently cut throats. The 12 For the role of Hermes in Athenian vase painting, see Felten pit is located at the base of a substantial rock upon 1975, 53-7. A complete summary of the functions of Hermes in vase painting can be found in Siebert 1990, 285-387 especially which the ghost of Elpenor props himself, and the 329-39 for Hermes in chtonian contexts. presence of reeds by this pit suggests that there is a 13 Vermeule 1979, 35 suggests that when the deceased is pic- river very near by, or at the very least that the tured as a bodily entity which accordingly needs to walk to ground is marshy. Thus the locale could indeed be Hades rather than be wafted there, he or she may need the assistance of Hermes as a guide to the nether regions. By extension, the place where the tributaries of Acheron meet. In it certainly follows that any corporeal creature, any hero addition to this, the posture assumed by Odysseus included, would require Hermes’ assistance as only the psyche is precisely that which, according to Homer, one can wing its way to Hades without any help at all.

65 Fig. 2. Paris, Musée du Louvre G 341, Attic Red Figure Fig. 3. Paris, Musée du Louvre G 341, Attic Red Figure Calyx-Krater by the Niobid Painter, Side “A”, Second Calyx-Krater by the Niobid Painter, Side “B”. quarter of the 5th c.; Photo M. Chuzeville, Courtesy Musée du Louvre.

indicator may be required to underline the actual was active in the first half of the 5th c. BC. distance between the worlds from which they issue Reconstructions of Polygnotos’ work are based and the world of man14. Lastly, and least convinc- largely on Pausanias’ description of the paintings, on ingly, it has also been argued that the presence of remarks in the works of Pliny and Aristotle, and on Hermes is to be attributed to the influence of the developments in choice or application of theme and Aeschylean tragedy entitled the Psychagogoi, of style in contemporary vase painting17. Among the which only a single fragment remains, or to the vases which are considered to exhibit “typically” influence of some other lost literary work15. As this Polygnotan stylistic characteristics is the name-vase view rests entirely on conjecture, it is the least ten- of the Niobid Painter which dates to ca. 460 BC. able, and it is important to bear in mind that vase (Figs. 2-3)18. On this krater the traditional frieze-like painters, even when seemingly following a literary or other model, felt perfectly at ease in adding figures who did not appear in that model or in other- 14 This was suggested to me by François Lissarague. On the dis- wise deviating from their ultimate source of inspi- tance between the three figures, see also Neer 1995, 135-46. 15 See Touchefeu-Meynier 1968, 136. ration. The vision which vase painters produced was 16 Among the many works which touch on this subject are: entirely their own; it was a vision created by their Green 1991, 15-49; Hedreen 1992, especially 105-17 and 1996, imagination. These visions were perhaps influenced 158-84; Lowenstam1992, 165-98 and 1997, 21-76, both of by a literary work or by drama but were never which are particularly relevant to the Boston pelike because of 16 its Homeric content; and Neer 1995, 118-53. entirely dependent on a model . 17 See Arist. Poet. 2 and 6; Paus. 10.25-32; and Pliny HN Interestingly, Hermes also fails to appear in another, 33.56-7, 35.5-41, and 36.60 for ancient sources. For the most and very famous, Odyssean nekuia, that embellish- recent modern reconstruction, see Stansbury-O’Donnell 1990, ing the walls of the Lesche of the Cnidians at Delphi; 213-35. 18 See, for instance: Swindler 1929, 195-236, still an invaluable this wall painting was executed by Polygnotos of source for any student of ancient painting; Robertson 1975, 240- Thasos, a mural painter of considerable note who 58 and 1992, 180-5; and Webster 1968.

66 arrangement of figures standing on a uniformly hor- and reflective, is reminiscent particularly of the izontal ground line has been replaced by a scheme in Niobid Painter’s rendering of what may be Theseus which the figures are placed on different levels on and Perithoos’ descent into Hades on the A-side of the picture plane. The varied placement of figures, the vase22. all of which have been rendered in the same scale, is There can be little doubt, then, that the Lykaon an attempt at grappling with the problem of per- Painter painted in the style of the Thasian spective. Vanishing points and perspectival diminu- Polygnotos, but his debt to the latter may well go tion of scale have not yet come into play. Here dis- beyond matters of style and include his choice of tance is translated into height on the picture plane; subject matter. Indeed the temptation is great to accordingly, a figure represented above another is to assume that the composition which appears on the be understood as located behind it. The various lev- Boston pelike is an excerpt from the larger-scale els on which the figures stand are marked by indi- Nekuia of Polygnotos. Strictly or very literally vidual wavy ground lines creating the impression of speaking this cannot be true, as there are a number a hilly terrain, and a solitary tree further expresses of notable discrepancies between the two composi- the outdoor setting. In addition to employing new tions23. One difference between the vase and the techniques in the suggestion of space and setting, the Polygnotan Nekuia has already been mentioned; this Niobid Painter has put considerable effort into con- is the fact that the latter does not include Hermes veying the three-dimensionality of his figures. This who figures so prominently in the Lykaon Painter’s effect is the result of the painter’s use of shading and representation. In addition to this, Pausanias says of foreshortening as well as his representing figures in Polygnotos’ painting that Odysseus was represented frontal and three-quarter views. Finally, the general squatting with his buttocks resting on his heels and mood of the composition is subdued; here the holding his sword over the pit which Teiresias was impetuous action of the Archaic period has given approaching (10.29.8). In Polygnotos’ vision, there way to Classical sublimity and self-control, a qual- were no slain sheep lying alongside this pit; instead, ity particularly evident in the figure of Athena on he represented the sheep as being carried to the what Robertson has designated the A-side of the vase appointed place of sacrifice by two of Odysseus’ (Fig. 2)19. comrades elsewhere on the mural. Accordingly, Stylistically there are very strong links between the Odysseus’ seated posture on the Lykaon painter’s Niobid Painter and the Lykaon Painter. The latter vase and the placement of the sacrificial victims belongs to a group of vase painters which has been cannot have been copied with any precision (Paus. named “Polygnotan” after its leading representative, 10.29.1)24. Where exactly Elpenor was located in the the vase painter Polygnotos20. This Polygnotos and Polygnotan Nekuia, Pausanias does not specify, but those vase painters associated with him are thought it seems reasonable to assume that he was neither to descend directly from the Niobid Painter’s work- rising out of the pit nor standing between Odysseus shop. It comes as no surprise, then, that the Lykaon and Teiresias. The impression one gets from Painter’s work should manifest nuances of style Pausanias is that Odysseus is completely fixated on characteristic of the Niobid Painter, details such as drapery folds “shaped like ropes or long sausages,” 19 Robertson 1992, 181-2. nor does it come as a surprise that some of his 20 This Polygnotos is to be distinguished from the Lewis painter pieces, this pelike included, should reflect those and the Nausikaa Painter, both of whom also signed their work compositional details which appear on the Niobid with the name Polygnotos. See Matheson 1995, especially 3-95 Krater and ultimately look back to the muralist for a discussion of Polygnotos’ style, his relation to the Niobid 21 Painter, and the composition of his “workshop”. For further Polygnotos . As is the case with the Niobid Krater, information regarding the influence of mural painting on the the figures on the Lykaon Painter’s vase have all schools of the Niobid Painter and Polygnotos see Robertson been placed on different levels, and they have all 1992, 180-90 and 210-15. 21 The quote stems from Matheson 1995, 93. been represented in the same scale. Another char- 22 See Robertson 1992, 181-2; Barron 1972, 20-45; and acteristic which the pelike shares with the Niobid McNiven 1989, 191-8. Krater is the fact that setting is indicated; here reeds 23 This suggestion is by no means a new one. Both the possi- and a rocky topography have been rendered with a bility of thematic inspiration and the ultimate inconclusiveness of any argument have been explored in some depth in similar, suggestive economy of line. Furthermore, Touchefeu-Meynier 1968, 135-6 and Lippold 1951, 10-21. Elpenor has been represented in three-quarter view, 24 Although Odysseus’ posture on the Lykaon Painter’s vase and there are traces of shading, particularly on the does not match the description of Odysseus in the Lesche of the hat of Odysseus. Again, three-quarter views and the Cnidians, it is still very much Polygnotan in character. His posture is similar, though not identical, to that employed by restrained use of shading are features which appear Polygnotos for Hektor who was shown “sitting deeply immersed also on the Niobid Krater. Finally, the general mood in grief with both hands clasped around his knees,” in the same of the Lykaon Painter’s vase, which is very quiet painting (Paus. 10.31.5).

67 Fig. 4. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 34.79, Attic Red Fig. 5. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 34.79, Attic Red Figure Pelike by the Lykaon Painter, Side View. Figure Pelike by the Lykaon Painter, Side B.

Teiresias’ approach and that Elpenor, whose odd the mural. He distilled the Polygnotan pageant so garment choice is remarked upon, was placed some- that only its essence remained. The nekuia repre- where in the vicinity. sented by Polygnotos was, after all, that of What, then, was the source of inspiration for the Odysseus, a fact almost lost amid the richness of Lykaon Painter’s nekuia? As one beholds this that many-figured tableau. By opting for a more painter’s composition, one is struck by a sense of concentrated image, one that focused on Odysseus thematic grandeur and emotional concentration and Elpenor, the Lykaon Painter restored primacy which is almost inappropriate for the medium of of place to Odysseus and the emotional intensity of vase painting. The surface of the pot has become, or his ordeal in the underworld. The Lykaon Painter’s attempted to become, a fluid canvas on which three- focus has become that encounter which is the most dimensional, corporeal figures move in a clearly memorable of those recounted in Homer’s Odyssey defined space, and the inspiration for this composi- which, together with the Minyad and the Nostoi, tion must ultimately have been the grand work of was listed as one of Polygnotos’ primary literary the muralist Polygnotos. The Lykaon Painter was sources by Pausanias (10.28.1-31.12). This en- not working in a cultural vacuum, and the work of counter is so memorable because it is the first and a great painter, perhaps the most renowned at that time, would naturally have made an impression on him, so great an impression that he was inspired to 25 The notion that artists working in different media, visual and 25 performing alike, influenced one another continues to be shown attempt an Odyssean nekuia of his own . As a true as true. See, for example: Barron 1972; Matheson 1995, espe- artist, rather than merely an imitator, he did not slav- cially 39-64; Stewart 1985, 53-74; Green 1991; and Trendall ishly copy his model. He reoriented and reinvented and Webster 1971.

68 thus at once the symbol and synopsis of all those too is the placement of all the figures on a single which are still to come. ground line, a technique which denies the composition any kind of depth29. Furthermore, this image, quite unlike the nekuia, exhibits signs of hasty exe- PART 2: POSEIDON AND AMYMONE cution. The stylistic simplicity and lack of precision of the As one rotates the Boston pelike in a counter-clock- Amymone scene is presumably what led Caskey to wise direction, a female figure comes into view declare in his publication of the vase that “the (Fig. 4). This is Amymone, and she is represented design on the reverse of the newly acquired pelike here as the object of Poseidon’s pursuit. Amymone requires little comment,” and with a few summary is on the god’s left and glances back at him as she remarks, he dismissed it30. The image was later retreats (Fig. 5). There is a pitcher in her left hand, dealt with in somewhat greater detail by Beazley, and with her right hand she gestures to Poseidon to but still the pursuit of Amymone did not attract the keep his distance. The god, who is either running same attention as the Odyssean nekuia31. With the or walking with very long strides, is right on her passage of time, the Amymone scene was deemed heels. He wears a wreath on his head and has a worthy of intensified scholarly consideration, espe- cloak draped over his left shoulder and forearm. In cially when it was recognized as belonging to a par- his right hand he holds his trident in a menacing ticular pictorial tradition. It was an image with a way26. On Poseidon’s right is another young female, history. presumably one of Amymone’s sisters. She too is A half-century long trend of representing deities fleeing, but is doing so in the opposite direction. amorously pursuing mortals was initiated by Attic From Apollodorus and Hyginus we learn that vase painters around 500 BC32. Pursuit scenes had Amymone, one of the fifty daughters of Danaus, begun to feature in the painters’ repertory at an ear- was sent by her father in search of water at a time lier stage within the Archaic period, but the cast of when the land of Argos was experiencing a drought characters was different. For example, an angry resulting from the wrath of Poseidon; the god had Apollo was shown running after Heracles attempt- been greatly angered by Inachos’ testimony to the ing to steal the Delphic tripod, and satyrs chased fact that this land belonged to Hera rather than to after maenads in sympotic settings. The inclusion himself27. In the course of her search for water, of amorous activities of the gods in the pursuit- Amymone accidentally struck a satyr as she hurled scene tradition is likely to have occurred as a result her shaft at a deer. This satyr countered the blow of the influence on the general populace of dramatic with an attempt to rape his assailant, but Poseidon performances which treated such subjects and to the intervened in order to take her for his own. As a intellectual climate of the 5th c. BC, a time of con- reward for sleeping with him, Poseidon provided fidence in the intimate relationship between mortals her with water by striking a rock with his trident; a and the gods they worshipped. The new cast of further boon resulted from their union, namely the characters in the pursuit scene category includes birth of Nauplios who later founded the city of Nauplia. In an alternate version of the story, which 26 On the iconography of pursuit more generally and the very is also recorded by Hyginus, the satyr attempted to real suggestion of violence directed at women who are the assault Amymone when she, weary from her fruit- objects of pursuit see Sourvinou-Inwood 1984, 41-55 and 1987, less search for water, had fallen asleep (Fab. 169A). 131-53 as well as Keuls 1984. In the last, weapons in pursuit “Reading” the Lykaon Painter’s representation of scenes are shown to reflect the violence inherent in sexual dom- ination. the Amymone myth is relatively simple; the artist 27 Apollod. Bibl. II. 1,4 and Hyg. Fab. 169. has depicted the point in the tale at which the satyr 28 As is remarked in Shapiro 1994, 87, figures are frequently has been chased off and Poseidon has turned his added by painters for the purpose of creating a balanced com- attention to Amymone alone. The presence of position, and the result of this can often be an obscuring of the narrative. Strictly speaking, her sister would, of course, not have Amymone’s sister can be explained by the painter’s been present when Amymone was pursued by Poseidon, and desire to create a balanced composition reminiscent accordingly, the artist has “altered,” or deviates from, the story of that on the vase’s other side28. The rigid sym- as we know it from the literary sources. metry of this composition is, however, one of the 29 “Archaizing” here means quite literally: rendered in the manner characteristic of the Archaic period prior to the efforts early elements which makes it decidedly less spectacular in the 5th c. BC of Euthymides, Euphronius, and Phinitas, oth- than the nekuia which accompanies it. This com- erwise known as the Pioneers. For the innovations attributed to position has an archaizing feel to it in that the drama the Pioneers, see Robertson 1992, 7-42. of the episode is conveyed purely by gesture and 30 Caskey 1934, 44. 31 Caskey and Beazley 1954, 89-93. violent movement, not by expression as it might 32 For the view presented here, see Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979, have been in a Polygnotan composition. Archaizing especially 26-30 and 43-7.

69 Zeus and Ganymede, Boreas and Oreithyia, and Eos opinion that the Amymone scenes of the pursuit and Kephalos. Poseidon and Amymone did not enter type might also have been inspired by a satyr play, the tradition until somewhat later, around 460 BC, specifically Aeschylus’ Amymone, which was con- and here, as in the case of the other divine pursuit temporary with the appearance of this sequence of scenes, the images differed little from one another. images35. Brommer did realize that in the case of Poseidon is always bearded and wears a wreath or vase painting influenced by the theater, what is rep- fillet on his head. Normally he is clad in a chiton resented is not a literal record of what took place and himation, but he is sometimes, as in the Lykaon on stage but rather an image capturing the essence Painter’s version, represented nude with his cloak of the play. He also realized that it is very difficult draped over his arm. The trident is his usual distin- to tell the difference between vases representing a guishing attribute, but the inclusion of a dolphin, given myth as it was passed down in the oral tradi- symbolic of the sea, may also serve to identify him. tion and those representing theatrical performances Amymone is always shown looking back at the god of the same myths36. The difficulty lies in the fact as she flees, and she can be identified by the fact that a convincing performance blurs the distinction that she is carrying a hydria. The garment she is between illusion and reality. Vase painters tended most frequently shown wearing is the chiton, and to paint the illusion37. In the case of Poseidon and after the middle of the 5th c., the peplos. As in the Amymone, it was not actors in costume who cap- case of Poseidon, her head is usually adorned; she tured the imagination of the painters and, of course, is shown wearing a diadem, a wreath, or a kekrypha- their patrons but the mythological characters them- los, a net-like headdress. Lastly, Amymone and selves. The essence of the myth, the god’s pursuit, Poseidon are sometimes accompanied by another of was chosen as the moment to be depicted, and in the Danaids or Danaus himself33. this case, the myth’s essence corresponded to a cur- Sometime between 450 and 440 BC the pursuit rently popular iconographic type38. scenes, both those featuring the Poseidon- These discoveries regarding the Lykaon Painter’s Amymone group and those centering on the other Amymone scene, its relation to the theater and its gods, effectively ceased to be produced. The divine place in an iconographic series, are certainly inter- amours did not, however, die out altogether; the esting and important; important too is the recogni- iconography of pursuit was merely replaced by that tion that the accompanying nekuia was inspired by of a quiet conversation between the protagonists. a contemporary mural. However, the vast majority Other representational alterations were made as of the discussions resulting in these illuminating well. For instance, in the case of the Poseidon and conclusions have tended to treat each scene as if it Amymone series, additional figures such as Eros, appeared on a fragment of pottery, a fortuitously Aphrodite, and Peitho, all functioning as personifi- preserved excerpt from a lost conceptual whole. As cations underlining the thematic content of the a result of this, some basic and important issues scene, began to appear with some regularity. Satyrs regarding the workings of the potters’ quarter and too came to be represented in the Amymone series. the patrons’ use and appreciation of this and other The combination of Amymone and Poseidon with vases have been overlooked. These issues have been one or more satyrs led Brommer to conclude that overlooked precisely because these vases have these images were inspired by the production of a tended not to be viewed as a signifying whole. What satyr play with the Amymone myth as its theme34. has occurred here is, in the words of Goffman, a Aeschylus produced his Danaid trilogy, (the “framing error,” in this case “an illusion as error Supplices, the Aigyptoi, and the Danaids) to which resulting from a misconstruing that no one induced a satyr play entitled Amymone belonged, between purposely.”39 This illusion is the belief that one is 465 and 459 BC, and it was naturally this satyr play entitled, or even enabled, to comment on the artis- which Brommer wished to connect with the tic and broader cultural merits and significance of Amymone-Poseidon-satyr vase series. The respec- a vase while keeping one side hidden from view. tive dates of the satyr play’s performance and the images he was dealing with led Brommer to hypothesize that it was a reproduction of Aeschylus’ 33 On the iconography of the Amymone-Poseidon series see Amymone or a play written at a later time on the Kaempf-Dimitriadou 1979, 26-30 and Simon 1981, 742-52. 34 Brommer 1959, 49-52. same theme which inspired these images. This may 35 See especially Simon 1981, 750-2. be true enough, given that the Amymone theme 36 Brommer 1959, 8, 22, and passim. remained popular for such a long time. However, 37 See: Brommer 1959, 22; Green 1994, 24-7; Hedreen 1992, Brommer seemed unwilling to see a satyr play 105-17; Lissarague 1990, 227-36; Shapiro 1994, especially 10 and 87; and Woodford 1993, 7. behind an image which did not include satyrs, and 38 See Simon 1981, 750-1 and 1982, 123-48. for this reason it was left to others to voice the 39 Goffman 1974, 112.

70 Fig. 6. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 34.79, Attic Red Figure Pelike by the Lykaon Painter, four views.

71 The Lykaon Painter’s pelike is, for instance, often subordinate to the other, yet indispensable because praised in our texts for its beauty, the exquisite one of the images, in the painter’s opinion, deserved quality of its painted decoration, but even this most to be elevated over the other. The viewer’s gaze basic observation regarding the aesthetic merit of needed to be directed. the piece is invalid because it is not based on a con- The notion that the Amymone scene is to be sideration of the object as a whole. The remedy for regarded as parergon, as frame rather than center- this error and illusion is simple; turn the vase piece, is reinforced by the painter’s use of inscrip- around – literally, if possible, or figuratively – and tions. All of the figures in the A-side bear identify- look carefully at all of its surfaces. This is what the ing inscriptions; that is, Odysseus, Elpenor, and continuous band of meander ornament, which acts Hermes are clearly labeled as such. Amymone, her upon the viewer subliminally, reminds one to do in sister, and Poseidon, by contrast, are not labeled. the case of the Lykaon Painter’s pelike; the pal- One might argue that tags were not needed in the mette band, for its part, is a focusing device which case of this scene because it can be easily recog- regulates the turn so that one slows the rotation as nized and that lack of inscriptions does nothing to the A and B sides come into full view40. reduce the status of that image. It is, however, pre- Let us then “undertake” the activity which consti- cisely the familiarity of this scene which makes it tutes the remedy for this illusion. When one con- the perfect frame – a frame beyond the conventional siders both the nekuia and the Amymone pursuit and more literal border of ornament – for the spec- together, one is immediately struck by the differ- tacular A-side44. Indeed, the Amymone scene is to ence in quality between the two images (Fig. 6). be seen here as the equivalent of the “mantle fig- What has traditionally been designated the A-side, ure” group which adorns the B-side of the other the meeting of Elpenor and Odysseus, is not only vase by the Lykaon Painter in Boston, the bell more carefully and artfully painted than the other, krater portraying the death of Aktaion on its A-side. but it is also a unique image, one for which we pos- Two women and one young man appear on the B- sess no parallel, paired with a representation of what side of the Aktaion krater (Fig. 7). This female- Caskey described so many years ago as “a stock male grouping is a variation of the two or three fig- subject, drawn hastily and without inspiration.”41 ure ensembles of male figures which regularly Caskey was not alone in thinking the B-side of lit- appear on the B-sides of Polygnotan vases. These tle interest, and so it was the A-side alone which mantle figures, figures with no personality or iden- found its way into the pages of books on Greek tity, became so common that Robertson coined a painting as an example of Classical vase painting at phrase, “reverse style,” to describe the B-sides of its best42. The B-side was, of course, eventually vases bearing such figures45. These figures are, gen- remembered and cataloged as part of an image erally speaking, unremarkable and stereotypical in sequence, the divine pursuit. As such, the B-side style and execution; they unquestionably constitute was viewed as the A-side had been, as ergon, as a the frame for the A-side which is cast into relief and whole object complete within itself. What must, given precedence by this frame. however, be acknowledged now is that the Amymone scene’s function vis-à-vis the nekuia is parergonal. It is the frame which designates the PART 3: THE DEATH OF AKTAION nekuia as the focus of attention and which separates and distinguishes the A-side from its “milieu” both In the case of the Aktaion vase, the A-side is once modern and ancient, “from the whole field of his- again a unique and iconographically complex torical, economic, political inscription in which the drive to signature is produced”43. Thus in antiquity, as now, the viewer’s gaze would have passed over 40 I owe this extremely important observation to Matthew the Poseidon-Amymone image rather quickly. It is O’Reilly. 41 Caskey 1934, 44. a “stock” scene, easily decoded and not particularly 42 Among these texts are the following: Boardman 1989, 60-3; memorable, hastily rendered and “popular.” The Richter 1958, 127-9; and Robertson 1992, 210-3 and 1975, 327. viewer’s gaze, would, however, have come to rest 43 Derrida 1987, 61. The preceding discussion, together with on the nekuia, on the stunning and painterly image the quote, is derived from Derrida’s discourse on Kant’s definition of ergon and parergon in the third Critique. which strove to vie, in its own way, with the 44 On the boundaries provided by ornament in vase painting and works of the muralist Polygnotos. The ancient Greek art more generally, see Hurwit 1992, 63-72 and 1977, viewer would not have become aware of a thematic 1-30. connection between the two sides of the vase; the 45 See Robertson 1992, especially 242, 255 and 269. Buschor 1940, 207 coined another phrase with which to describe this phe- contents of one do not inform the reading of the nomenon, the prevalence of one side of a vase over another; he other. The images are not equal in stature; one is called it a “Fassadenstil”.

72 Fig. 7. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 00.346, Attic Red Fig. 8. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 00.346, Attic Red Figure Bell Krater by the Lykaon Painter, Side B, ca. Figure Bell Krater by the Lykaon Painter, Side A. 440 BC, Henry Lillie Pierce Fund, photo courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

composition inspired by public art, in this case by the and moves outward from the picture plane in such a theater and by the prevailing trends in mural paint- way as to penetrate the viewer’s space. At this terri- ing (Fig. 8). Here the painter has depicted Aktaion fying moment he is surrounded, in the first instance, who, having fallen onto one knee, defends himself by his ravening dogs and by Lyssa, forces who con- vigorously with a spear against the onslaught of his stitute a surge of fury from which there would be lit- maddened dogs. Aktaion is clad only in hunting tle hope of escape. Aktaion’s pitiful plight is, how- boots and a cloak which is slung over his shoulder, ever, sealed by Zeus and Artemis, the king of the and, alarmingly, his body is no longer entirely gods and the goddess wronged, eerily calm in the human. Antlers have grown on his head, and his ears face of human suffering and confident in the are those of a deer; furthermore, there are tufts of supremacy of their precedence over weak and falli- fur, which have been rendered in brown stippling, on ble humanity. As far as the painterly style of this his forehead, nose, and cheeks. The attacking dogs image is concerned, it, like the nekuia, is thoroughly are three in number, and they are being egged on by Polygnotan. Spatial effects and the expression of set- the clapping of Lyssa, Madness personified, who is ting are somewhat less pronounced here than in the approaching Aktaion on his right. Lyssa is clad in nekuia, but they do feature; white lines suggest a hunting boots and a chiton over which she wears a mildly hilly terrain, and there is one lone plant next kandys, a Persian long-sleeved jacket, and an animal to Aktaion. skin tied around her torso46. From the crown of her head grows a dog’s head which is symbolic of her essence, insane fury manifested in a rabid canine 46 For the description of the vase and its decoration, see Caskey and Beazley 1954, 83-6. rage. On Lyssa’s right stands Zeus with thunderbolt 47 It is appropriate that Artemis should be holding both her bow and scepter in hand overseeing the events, and on the and a torch, for it was as a huntress that she encountered the left of Aktaion stands Artemis holding a bow and a hunter Aktaion, while the torch, an attribute which she shares torch47. The Olympian deities, looking rather aloof with Hekate, assimilates her with the dark side of that goddess, with death and the avenging Erinyes. For the iconography of but intimately involved in the action nevertheless, Artemis, see Kahil 1984, 618-753. The presence of Zeus, as sug- cleverly bracket the two liminal figures of Lyssa and gested in Caskey and Beazley 1954, 85, could mean that the Aktaion. The latter are both part-beast, and both of painting refers, at least in part, to the version of the myth in them are figures far removed from the Olympian which Aktaion was a rival of Zeus’ for the affections of Semele (Apollod. Bibl. 3.4.4). The more usual version is that Aktaion’s sphere. It is clearly Aktaion, however, who is the punishment was the result of his having caught sight of Artemis focus of this composition; this is his tragedy, and he bathing (Paus. 9.2.3) or having boasted that he was a better alone, the figure most accessible to the viewer, faces hunter than Artemis (Eur. Bacch. 339-40).

73 Among the noteworthy features of this krater is the the punitive agents would be equivalent to wolves. fact that it is one of the earliest vases to represent Ritual may have influenced the pictorial tradition of the actual, rather than intimated, metamorphosis of the myth directly or may have influenced the liter- Aktaion48. The earliest representations of Aktaion’s ary tradition, lyric and dramatic, which in turn death, which appear in the middle of the 6th c. BC, impressed itself on the artisan. show the hero, who is bearded and unclothed, run- A further explanation for the deerskin iconography ning away from the dogs who encircle him. Around is that it was inspired by stage costumes. The cos- 470 BC, however, the iconography of the Aktaion tume imitated could have appeared in Phrynichus’ myth changes. There are several examples from this or even Aeschylus’ dramatized versions of the myth. later period of representations of the hero in a van- It is equally possible that dramatic performances quished attitude and with no indication of meta- influenced the conception of yet another Aktaion morphosis.49 At this time too begins a series of type, that which the Lykaon Painter exemplifies, images in which the hero, who is either standing and namely the horned Aktaion. In his enumeration of defending himself or fallen, is clad in a deerskin. types of Greek tragic masks, Pollux (4.141) men- This latter series is commonly associated with the tions that of ˆAktaíwn kerasfóroˇ, horned Stesichorean version of the Aktaion myth reported Aktaion, and it is likely that this was the type of by Pausanias in which it is said that Artemis “cast mask or headpiece employed in Aeschylus’ the skin of a deer about him” (9.2.3). Opinions Toxotides54. Because so little remains of the text of regarding the actual meaning of these words differ. this play, all that can be said with certainty about its Some scholars believe that Stesichorus was attempt- subject matter is that a description of the dismem- ing to rationalize the myth and that Aktaion was lit- berment of Aktaion was included. Presumably these erally clad in a deerskin50. The skin would then have grim details were reported in a messenger speech as been a device intended to induce the dogs to mis- was the norm for treating gruesome climaxes on take their master for an animal to be preyed upon. stage. Alternatively it has been suggested that Stesichorus’ The presence of the figure of Lyssa on the Lykaon words are to be taken metaphorically and that a Painter’s vase is the feature which is cited as the metamorphosis was indicated51. Substantiating this main bit of evidence by those who believe the piece last reading is the nature of Polygnotos of Thasos’ to be influenced by Aeschylean tragedy, and their rendering of both the Aktaion and Callisto myths in claim is that because Lyssa appeared in the Xantriai, his Delphian Nekuia. Callisto, the nymph who was it is likely that she appeared in the Toxotides as well. transformed into a she-bear, is shown seated on a Lyssa would certainly be appropriate to the theme bearskin, and Aktaion, together with his mother, of the latter production, but it does not follow that holds a deer and is seated on a deerskin (Paus. because Lyssa appeared in one Aeschylean play she 10.31.10). In the case of Aktaion, Pausanias explic- was included in another55. Not only are personifi- itly states that what Polygnotos was suggesting here cations, usually taking the female form, quite com- via the deerskin and surrogate deer was the manner mon in Greek art at this time, but as was the case of Aktaion’s death (10.30.5). It may be remarked in with the inclusion of Hermes in the Lykaon addition that Classical artists tended only to suggest Painter’s nekuia, a painter could and would exercise the grotesque; such, for instance, was the fate of his imagination even when a given subject was Medusa who was gradually transformed from a inspired by a dramatic performance, known work of hideous apotropaic monster into a comely young art, or piece of literature56. That inspiration does not woman by the 5th c.52. More difficult to explain than the meaning of Stesichorus’ words is the radical change of the 48 For a complete survey of representations of the Aktaion Aktaion images early in the 5th c. If the new group myth, see Guimond 1981, 454-69. 49 Among these is the famous image painted by the Pan of images in which the hero is clad in a deerskin Painter (MFA 10.185, ARV2 550.1). does reflect Stesichorus, one is faced with the chal- 50 See Bowra 1961, 99ff. lenge of rationalizing the 100 year delay in the artis- 51 See Nagy 1973, 179-80. tic response to the poet. Alternatively, it must be 52 See Krauskopf 1988, 285-330. 53 Burkert 1983, 91. borne in mind that the depiction of Aktaion in a 54 Aeschylus fr. 244 TrGF. For discussions of the dependence deerskin reflects the reality of ritual practice. of the Aktaion scene on the Toxotides, see Kossatz-Deissmann Burkert suggests a connection with the fate of those 1978, 147 n. 865 and Séchan 1926, 132. who transgressed the boundary of the sacred 55 Cf. Kossatz-Deissmann 1978, 147ff.; Séchan 1926, 132ff.; and Trendall-Webster 1971, 62. precinct of Mt. Lykaon; all who entered were forth- 56 53 On personifications in Greek art, see Boardman 1989 and with regarded as stags to be hunted and killed . The Shapiro 1993, especially 168-70 for Lyssa. For the presence of transgressor would be in “costume” for his role, and Lyssa due to “artistic license,” see Séchan 1926, 135 n. 5.

74 entail strict imitation has been and continues to be viewer would not focus on, but merely glance at, a strong contention in iconographic studies. Lyssa the frame. These vases have in essence become can- is the blind fury which has possessed Aktaion’s vases in the hands of the Lykaon Painter, thus dogs; she must be present, either in body or spirit, bringing to a head what Robertson has called “the when the dogs turn on Aktaion. It is the tendency of crisis in the art of vase-painting” because “the Greek vase painters to make manifest, corporeal, effect achieved…was deeply at variance with the what is known but not normally seen to be true or traditional Greek concept of what constitutes suit- to exist, and it may very well be the case that this able decoration for a pot.”58 Experiments in solid- is what has occurred here. ity and depth undermined the solidity of the surface As regards the inspiration of the Aktaion image by of the pot and effaced its essential three-dimen- the Toxotides, there is an additional detail on this sionality. It was for this reason that these painterly vase which greatly enhances the credibility of that effects were employed cautiously, even by those theory. Above the figure of Aktaion stands the kalos groups or workshops of painters, like that of the name Euaion, a name which appears a number of Niobid Painter and Polygnotos, whom we consider times on vases dating to roughly this period57. It is to have been most heavily influenced by the wall tempting to equate the person designated here with painters. This so-called crisis in vase painting the Euaion who figures on vases of the Phiale resulted, in very simplified terms, in two traditions Painter. The words “Euaion kalos son of Aeschylus” of vase painting, two different approaches. The one are written above the figure of Perseus on a white- is that represented by the Polygnotans, on many of ground kalyx-krater which was decorated by the whose vases one side took precedence over the Phiale Painter and was certainly inspired by the pro- other, and the other by the Meidias Painter and his duction of Sophocles’ Andromeda. The same name followers, in whose most “distinctively Meidian” appears again on another vase by the same painter, work no such distinction between sides was made59. a vase thought to reflect Sophocles’ Thamyras. It has In the work of the latter we find a return, or rather been suggested that the Euaion named on these vases adherence, to the age-old horror vacui, to filling the is the son of the tragedian Aeschylus and that the surface of the pot with patterns which emphasized inscriptions designate him as the actor who portrayed and complemented its shapely solidity. That is not the tagged character on the stage. The Suda entry on to say that the Meidians ignored the new trends in Aeschylus’ son Euaion refers to him as tragikóˇ, painting; indeed their vases tend to be covered with which indicates that he could have been an actor, a figures set up and down the picture field. There are producer of his father’s tragedies, a tragedian him- broken ground lines and touches of landscape. The self, or all of the above. It would accordingly be rea- figures are expertly drawn and have a real corpore- sonable to suppose that the Lykaon Painter’s Euaion ality and vigor. What is also the case, however, is was this very son of Aeschylus and that he was the that the figures are not only many in number but actor who portrayed Aktaion. Euaion may also have also rather small in scale. They tend not to exten- been responsible for producing the Toxotides. This sively overlap one another and are placed such that would presumably be a second production, the first their positioning does not indicate location in space. having been in Aeschylus’ lifetime, and the closer The figures have become a dense surface pattern one can move a date of production to the time of the akin to the florettes of Corinthian pottery or vase painting’s execution, the more likely it becomes chevrons, meanders, and hatching of geometric pot- that a revival of the play indeed served as the picto- tery. This is a style which was not restricted to the rial stimulus. Meidians themselves. Even in the grand and elabo- On the basis of the evidence provided by the Boston rate Paris Gigantomachy by the Suessula Painter, an pelike and bell-krater, it is readily apparent that the image which is un-Meidian in both scale and sub- Lykaon Painter drew his inspiration from a variety ject matter, the dense disposition of the figures and of sources, from the theater and from prominent monuments, both integral to civic life. In the case of both of these vases, one side, the A-side, has 57 See ARV 2, 1579. The Providence Painter’s Euaion would be been rendered in a painterly manner, with elements too early to be the same as the Lykaon Painter’s, and the same may be true of the Euaion Painter. The Phiale Painter’s Euaion, of landscape, spatial effects, and the suggestion of designated as the son of Aeschylus, could, however, well be the three-dimensionality, all characteristics derived same person named on the Lykaon Painter’s vase at least as far from innovations in wall painting. The B-sides, as the relative dates of the pieces are concerned. See Matheson however, both feature stock three-figure groups ren- 1995, 266; Trendall and Webster 1971, 4-5; Robertson 1992, 20, 194, 207, and 211-2; and Shapiro 1987, 108-9. dered with considerably less care than the figures 58 Robertson 1992, 133. on the A-sides. The nekuia and death of Aktaion are 59 See Robertson 1992, 231, 237-47 (especially 242), and 255-9 thus images upon which the viewer focuses; the for what characterizes the Meidian style.

75 Fig. 9. Paris, Musée du Louvre MNB 810, Attic Red Fig. 10. Paris, Musée du Louvre MNB 810, Attic Red Figure Neck Amphora by the Suessula Painter, Side Figure Neck Amphora by the Suessula Painter, Side “A”, ca. 400 BC Gigantomachy. Photo P. Lebaube, “B”. Courtesy Musée du Louvre.

76 the profusion of detail hark back to the Meidias Caskey. L.D. and J.D. Beazley. 1954, Attic Vase Painter (Figs. 9-10)60. Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston II, Giving precedence to one side of a vase over the other Oxford. has some obvious implications for the vase’s use Castriota. D. 1995, The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance in Later Greek and Early and/or display. If the Lykaon Painter’s pelike func- Roman Early Imperial Art, Princeton. tioned as a container for wine at a symposium rather Derrida. J. 1987, The Truth in Painting, translated by G. than an objet d’art, a certain difficulty involving its Bennington and I. McLeod, Chicago. orientation would arise. That is, one might risk Felten. W. 1975, Attische Unterweltsdarstellungen des offending a guest if it were the B-side rather than the VI. und V. Jh. vor Chr., München. A-side which faced him or her61. Would the pelike be Galinsky. K. 1996, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive carried in such a way that the A-side faced the sym- Introduction, Princeton. posiasts? Would it then be set down so that the A- Goldhill. S. and R. Osborne (eds.). 1994, Art and Text in side was still prominently displayed? Alternatively, Ancient Greek Culture, Cambridge. Goffman. E. 1974, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the was the pelike purchased as a prized “artifact”? If Organization of Experience, Harvard. this was the case, one would imagine it displayed in Gombrich. E.H. 1977, Art and Illusion: A Study in the a niche so that passers-by would all see the A-side, Psychology of Pictorial Representation 5, Oxford. and those who took more than a casual interest would Green. J.R. 1991, On Seeing and Depicting the Theatre catch a glimpse of the figures on the B-side as well, in Classical Athens, GRBS 32, 15-49. figures which would trigger an almost immediate 1994, Theater in Ancient Society, London. recognition, thereby drawing the viewer’s gaze back Guimond. L. 1981, Aktaion, LIMC I.1, 454-69. to the unfamiliar A-side. Might it be the case that the Hedreen. G.M. 1992, Silens in Attic Black-figure Vase- pelike, as well as the Boston krater, was part of a painting, Michigan. 1996, Image, Text, and Story in the Recovery of series of vases of programmatic content, of vases Helen, ClAnt 27 no. 1, 158-84. which commented in some way on human encounters 62 Hurwit. J. 1977, Image and Frame in Greek Art, AJA 81, with death, the dead, or the dying? These are ques- 1-30. tions to which there may never be answers, but one 1992, A Note on Ornament, Nature, and Boundary in cannot even ask them if one does not look at the vase Early Greek Art, BABesch 67, 63-72. as a whole. To focus on the nekuia is to ignore the Kaempf-Dimitriadou. S. 1979, Die Liebe der Götter in truth in that painting, that it was the Lykaon Painter’s der attischen Kunst des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., response to the wall painter Polygnotos, a piece in Basel. which the actual surface for the painting was trans- Keuls. E. 1984, Patriotic Propaganda and Counter-cultural Protest in Athens as Evidenced by Vase formed into the equivalent of a framed canvas. To Painting, in H.A.G. Brijder (ed.), Ancient Greek and focus only on the Amymone pursuit is to ignore the Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International full truth in that image. In this instance and point in Vase Symposium in Amsterdam 12-15 April 1984, time this image had become popular and stereotypi- Amsterdam, 256-9. cal, the perfect frame for a more innovative compo- Krauskopf. I. 1988, Gorgo, Gorgones, LIMC IV.1, 285- sition. The whole truth in Greek vase painting still 330. eludes us, but the truths which can be gleaned should not be obfuscated by inadvertently or deliberately concealing any part of a vase. 60 See Robertson 1992, 259. 61 It was pointed out to me by Larry Marceau that this is a consideration in Japanese tea ceremonies where care is taken by the REFERENCES host to orient the bowl such that its adorned side faces the guest. Upon receiving the bowl of tea, the guest extends the same courtesy to the host. Barron. J.P. 1972, New Light on Old Walls: The Murals 62 of the Theseion, 92, 20-45. The programmatic content of vases in the same collection has JHS been discerned by Lissarague 1994 in a pair of cups in Vienna Bernard. E. 1926, Souvenirs sur Paul Cézanne, Paris. which issued from the same tomb at Caere. The notion of pro- Boardman. J. 1989, Athenian Red-figure Vases: The grammatic painting itself on vases is merely an extension of Classical Period, London. what is already recognized as a concern in Greek and Roman art Bowra. C.M. 1961, Greek Lyric Poetry2, Oxford. and architecture more generally. The bibliography on this sub- Brommer. F. 1959, Satyrspiele, Berlin. ject is vast, but see, for example: Castriota 1995; Galinsky 1996, Burkert. W. 1983, Homo Necans, translated by P. Bing, especially 141-224 with bibliography on art and architecture; Berkeley. Ling 1991, especially 135-41 with bibliography; Rhodes 1995; Buschor. E. 1940, , München. Stewart 1985; Thompson 1961, 36-77; and Wirth 1983, 450-5. Griechische Vasen In concluding, I would like to thank Steve Crawford, Donald Carpenter. T.H. 1991, Art and Myth in Ancient Greece, Dunham, Marit Jentoft-Nilsen, Sarah Morris, Matthew O’Reilly, London. and Alan Shapiro for their kind assistance and criticism. Finally, Caskey. L.D. 1934, Odysseus and Elpenor in the Lower I would like to thank Emily Vermeule for sending me to the World, BMFA XXXII no.191, 40-44. MFA to take a hard look at the Lykaon Painter’s paintings.

77 Kahil. L. 1984, Artemis, LIMC II.1, 618-753. 1993, Personifications in Greek Art, Zürich. Kossatz-Deissmann. A. 1978, Dramen des Aischylos auf 1994, Poet and Painter in Classical Greece, London westgriechischen Vasen, Mainz. and New York. Lecomte. G. 1899, La Revue d’Art 6, collected in Siebert. G. 1990, Hermes, LIMC V.1, 285-387. J. Wechsler. 1981, The Interpretation of Cézanne, Simon. E. 1981, Amymone, LIMC I.1, 742-52. Ann Arbor, 17. 1982, Satyr-plays on Vases in the Time of Ling. R. 1991, Roman Painting, Cambridge. Aeschylus, in The Eye of Greece: Studies in the Art Lippold. G. 1951, Antike Gemäldekopien, AbhMünch of Athens, Cambridge, 123-48. NF 33. Sourvinou-Inwood. C. 1984, Menace and Pursuit: Lissarague. F. 1990, Why Satyrs are Good to Represent, Differentiation and the Creation of Meaning, in in J.J. Winkler and F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Nothing to Do Images et société en Grèce ancienne, Lausanne, en with Dionysos? Athenian Drama in Its Social 41-55. Context, Princeton, 227-36. 1987, A Series of Erotic Pursuits: Images and Lowenstam. S. 1992, Uses of Vase-Depictions in Meanings, JHS 152, 131-53. Homeric Studies, TAPA 122, 165-98. Stansbury-O’Donnell. M.D. 1990, Polygnotos’s Nekyia: 1997, Talking Vases: The Relationship between the A Reconstruction and Analysis, AJA 94 no. 2, Homeric Poems and Archaic Representations of Epic 213-35. Myth, TAPA 127, 21-76. Stewart. A.F. 1985, History, Myth, and Allegory in the Matheson. S.B. 1995, Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Program of the Temple of Athena Nike, Athens, in Classical Athens, Wisconsin. Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, McNiven. T.J. 1989, Odysseus on the Niobid krater, JHS National Gallery of Washington, Studies in the 109, 191-8. History of Art 16, Washington D.C, 53-74. Nagy. G. 1973, On the Death of Actaion, HSCP 77, Swindler. M.H. 1929, Ancient Painting, New Haven, 179-80. 195-236. Neer. R.T. 1995, The Lion’s Eye: Imitation and Thompson. M.L. 1961, The Monumental and Literary Uncertainty in Attic Red-Figure, Representations 51, Evidence for Programmatic Painting in Antiquity, 118-53. Marsyas 9, 36-77. Rasmussen. T. and N. Spivey (eds.). 1991, Looking at Touchefeu-Meynier. O. 1968, Thèmes Odysséens dans Greek Vases, Cambridge. l’art antique, Paris. Rewald. J. 1948, Paul Cézanne, A Biography, New York. Trendall. A.D. and T.B.L. Webster. 1971, Illustrations Rhodes. R.F. 1995, Architecture and Meaning on the of Greek Drama, London. Acropolis, Cambridge. Vermeule. E. 1979, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art Richter. G.M.A. 1958, Attic Red-Figured Vases, New and Poetry, Berkeley. Haven. Webster. T.B.L. 1968, Der Niobidenmaler , Rome. Robertson. M. 1975, A History of Greek Art I, Cambridge. Wirth. T. 1983, Zum Bildprogramm der Räume N und P 1992, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, in der Casa dei Vettii, RM 90 pt.2, 450-5. Cambridge. Woodford. S. 1993, The Trojan War in Ancient Art, Schefold. K. 1978, Götter- und Heldensagen der London. Griechen in der spätarchaischen Kunst, München. 1981, Die Göttersage in der klassischen und hellenis- tischen Kunst, München. Séchan. L. 1926, Études sur la tragédie grecque dans DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES ses rapports avec la céramique, Paris. AND LITERATURES Shapiro. H.A. 1987, Kalos-Inscriptions with Patronymic, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE ZPE 68, 108-9. NEWARK, DE 19716 USA