HERAKLES IN ATTIC VASE-PAINTING OF THE PEISISTRATBAN PERIOD HERAKLES IN ATTIC VASE-PAINTING OF THE PEISISTRATEAN PERIOD by JOHN A. TAMM, B.Sc. A Thesis SubITlitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial FulfJITlent of the RequireITlents for the Degree Master of Arts Mc.Master University © Copyright by John A. T aIll1ll, Septe=1er 1995. MASTER OF ARTS (1995) McMASTER UNIVERSITY (Classical Studies) Halllilton, Ontario TITLE: Herakles in Attic vase-painting of the Peisistratean period. AUTHOR: John A. Tallllll, B.Sc. (Chelll. 1985, COlllp. Sci. 1988, McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Professor W.]. Slater NUMBER OF PAGES: vii, 136 11 ABSTRACf During the second half of the sixth century B.C., the popularity of Herakles scenes in Attic vase-painting reached a peak. New scenes were developed, old scenes gained variants. This phenomenon was noticed by John Boardman who used it as the background to a novel theory, that Peisistratos and his sons were deliberately using Herakles as a propaganda tool to further their own interests, and moreover, that in this program there was some association of Peisistrc!±DS with Hexakles, FurlhermQJ:~, he argued that certain Herakles scenes reflected specific events from Peisistratos' Career. This theory was developed in several influential articles in the 1970's, and subsequently attracted many followers. In this thesis however I shall argue that the theory is seriously flawed, so much so that it must be considered untenable. The thesis will begin by setting out Boardman's side of the argument. First, the developments in the iconography of Herakles are laid out (Chapter One), then Boardman's (and his followers') interpretations of them (Chapter Two). A critical examination of the theory follows. The statistical evidence is not as supportive of Boardman's theory as he suggests (Chapter Three), nor do the developments occur in ways that would necessarily confirm his interpretation (Chapter Four). No more supportive are the historical events taken to lie behind the images (Chapter Five). The possible mechanisms for the transmission of the needed influence from the Peisistratids to the vase-painters create another major problem area (Chapter Six). A variety of other factors also argue against the political interpretation (Chapter Seven). As a result of the failure of this interpretation, a different explanation must be found for Herakles' popularity dUring this era (Conclusion). ill ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank first of all my supervisor, Dr. W.J. Slater, for his assistance and encouragement throughout the writing of this thesis. I am also indebted to Dr. M. George and Dr. K.M.D. Dunbabin; their helpful suggestions are gratefully acknowledged. A special note of thanks is due to Dr. A. Harrison, who was of much help during the early stages of this work, and whose seminar inArchaic vase-painting was its inspiratiD_n~ My QolleClgues hav~ b~~l! sl1pportive, my f<!mily elldlessly so; to each I would like to express my gratitude. J.T. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations ....................................................." VI Notes and Abbreviations vii Introduction ...................................................... 1 Chapter One: Changing Scenes 4 Chapter Two: Images and Politics -. .................................... 8 Chapter Three: Statistical Enquiries 21 Chapter Four: A Closer Look at the Changes 38 Chapter Five: Historical Allusions in Vase-paintings 53 Chapter Six: Influences ........................................... 88 Chapter Seven: Further Criticisms 112 Conclusion .................................................... 119 Plates 122 Bibliography 130 v LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1: B.f. lekythos, in the Manner of the Gorgon Painter (Louvre CA 823). Battle of Herakles and NereusfTriton, old scheme. (Ahlberg-Cornell 1984, 109 Ill. 12.) Plate 2: B.f. amphora, from the Medea Group (New York MMA 56.171.21). Battle of Herakles and NereusfTriton, new scheme. (CVA New York MMA 4 (USA 16), PI. 30.1.) Plate 3: Rf. amphora, by the Amasis Painter (Orvieto, Faina 40). Herakles' Introduction to Olympos, foot procession. (Shapiro 1989, PI. 25a.) Plate 4: B.f. amphora, near the Madrid Painter (ex-Castle Ashby). Herakles' Introduction to Olympos, chariot procession. (CVA Castle Ashby (Great Britain 15), PI. 11.1.) Plate 5: B.f. amphora (Vatican 16598). Herakles' Theft of the Tripod, standing scheme. (Shapiro 1989, PI. 30b.) Plate 6: B.f. amphora, by the Rycroft Painter (Basel Antikenmuseum BS 409). Herakles' Theft of the Tripod, running scheme. (Moon 1985, Fig. 17a.) Plate 7: East pediment of the Siphnian treasury, Delphi. (de la Coste-Messelihe 1943, PI. 91.) VI NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS NOTES: All dates are B.C. unless otherwise noted. ABBREVIATIONS: In the fo()tnotes and bibliogra£hy, journal abbreviations follow those set forth in AlA 95 (1991), 1-16. Abbreviations for ancient authors and texts follow the Oxford Classical Dictionary, second edition (Oxford 1970). Other abbreviations are given below. ABV Beazley, J.D. 1956 Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. Oxford. (Reprinted 1978. New York.) ARV2 Beazley, J.D.1963 Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. Second edition. Oxford. (Reprinted 1984. New York) CVA Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. FGH Jacoby, F. 1923- Die Fragmente del' griechischen Historiker. Berlin & Leiden. IG Inscriptiones Graecae. NC Payne, H. 1931 Necrocorinthia: A Study 0/ Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Oxford. Para Beazley, J.D. 1971 Paralipomena. Oxford. SIG Dittenberger, W. 1915-24 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Third edition. Leipzig. V1! INTRODUCTION In the history of Attic vase-painting a period of especial interest is that of Peisistratos and his sons.1 In terms of style, black-figure reached its peak while the invention of red-figure enabled new approaches and new solutions to the probleIlls of depicting forllls. Although these stylistic developlllents are certainly noteworthy, no less iInportant are the iconographical developlllents. There appears to haveheen_ct thorough change in the types oftheInesdepicted- Illany scenes that had be_en popular lost their standing, while new scenes took their places.2 Herakles scenes played an iIllportant role in the changes; in this period their popularity rose in general, new scenes appeared and SOllle old scenes developed variants, and certain painters or groups of painters showed a definite preference for depicting Herakles.3 So Illuch can be said with certainty; when an explanation for the changes and the popularity is sought, then the reak of speculation and controversy is entered. One scholar who has atteIllpted an explanation is Boardlllan. He, claiIning a great increase in the popularity of Herakles scenes and seeing this as a peculiarly Athenian, Peisistratean phenolllenon, has argued that Herakles was used for propaganda purposes by Peisistratos and his sons, even to the extent that Peisistratos and Herakles 1 Because of the nature of the source material, the chronology of Peisistratos and his sons has been debated at great length, and unanimity has proved unattainable. For such a thesis however as this, in which the chronology will playa part, a decision between the competing proposals must be made. Rhodes' chronology is accepted here, although it is understood that other systems have merit as well. Peisistratos' first two tyrannies, especially the first one, are therefore seen as being very short, lasting perhaps as little as only a few months each. Peisistratos' first accession to power is dated to 561/0, his second to 557/6 or 556/5, and his third to 547/6 or 546/5. This third attempt at tyranny was successful; his rule lasted until his death in 528/7. His son Rippias then assumed power, and ruled until his expulsion in 511/0. Cf. Rhodes 1976, esp. 231, and also 219 n.1, in which a selection of the previous bibliography is given. 2 Cf. Shapiro 1990. This argument will be explored more fully in Chapter Four. 3 cf. Chapter Three for a discussion of the statistical background to this assertion. 1 2 were sometlines asslinJated to some degree. Certain Herakles Scenes are thereby seen as direct reflections of historical events, and their usage as a promotion of the Peisistratids and their policies.4 Other scholars, inspired by this example and not necessarJy lliniting themselves to Herakles scenes, s have joined in the search for political allusions in the vase-paintings of this period. Whatever their validity, such interpretations have at least forced much more thought to be given to the cultural context of the linages. Boardman's arguments have also been criticised,6 but a full examination has so far been lacking. Such an examination is necessary, given the importance of this theory for the working of archaic Athenian society in general and specifically for the conditions under which the vase-painters of this period laboured, perhaps even for the political views of some. If his arguments are true, linportant insights into all these aspects of Athenian life could be obtained. In this thesis/ however, I shall argue that the idea of Herakles as a propaganda toot at least in the way Boardman and his followers have argued it, is untenable,7 and that a different explanation for Herakles' popularity must be found. The examination will begin by setting out the changes in Herakles scenes, as Boardman sees them. Following this will be a summary of the political interpretations of a comprehensive selection of scenes, both Herakles scenes and others. Next will come a discussion of the statistical background that Boardman has presented for his theory, in which I hope first to point out the flaws in Boardman's 4 Cf. Boardmart 1972, 1975a, 1978a for the major statements of his views. 5 cf. Brijder 1984b; Glynn 1981; Keuls 1984; Shapiro 1983b, 1981b; and Williams 1983 for a selection of such arguments. 6 Cf. Bazant 1982; Blok 1990; Cook 1987; Moon 1983b; Osborne 1983/4; and Viviers 1987b for a selection of the criticism offered. 7 Cf. Boardm;m 1989, where a defence of his argument is presented. Although there has been some retreat from his previous position, he still feels that his theory is the best available.