Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:30:32.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Light on Old Walls: The Murals of the Theseion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

John P. Barron
John P. Barron
Affiliation:
University of London King's College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Less than two years after the brilliant victories of Plataiai and Mykale, the Athenians and their Ionian kinsfolk, grown weary of the arrogance of Pausanias the king, declined to serve further under Spartan command and in effect withdrew from the Grand Alliance. Instead, they formed an association of their own, centred upon the shrine of all Ionians at Delos, and swore to fight the Mede till iron should float. The date, 478/7 B.C., is contained in the Aristotelian Ἀθηναίων Πολιτϵία, and it is to be trusted. The first military action of the new alliance was to besiege and take Eion upon the Strymon, a Persian fort, its second the capture and resettlement of the island of Skyros, a nest of Dolopian pirates. In both campaigns the allied commander was Kimon. The siege of Eion is dated to the archonship of Phaidon, that is to the year 476/5; and the capture of Skyros followed an oracle which the Athenians had received in this same archonship. The god had commanded them to recover the bones of Theseus and to watch over them in honour among themselves. Driven from Athens by Menestheus the Erechtheid pretender, Theseus had gone to Skyros and there met his death at the hands of King Lykomedes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 92 , November 1972 , pp. 20 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This paper is a somewhat expanded version of one read to the Society on November 12, 1970, and subsequently delivered in Oxford and Swansea. It could not have been written without the constant encouragement of Professors P. E. Corbett and C. M. Robertson, with each of whom I have discussed nearly every step in the argument on more than one occasion; they must not, however, be taken necessarily to agree with all my conclusions. To Professor Robertson I am additionally grateful for allowing me to use the incomparable store of material which is the late Sir John Beazley's photographic archive, now in the Ashmolean Museum. I am glad to acknowledge the help which I have at various stages received from Professor B. Ashmole, Dr H. A. Cahn, Mr B. B. Shefton, Professor Homer A. Thompson and Professor T. B. L. Webster.

Plates Ia, IIIc, Vc, VIa–c, are reproduced from A. Furtwängler and K. Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei. Plate IIIa is reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. I am grateful to the Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, and to Yale University Press, for permission to reproduce Plates IIa–b, IIIb, IVa–b and VIIf—all Rogers Fund, 1906–8. I am indebted to Phaidon Press Ltd. for Plate VIIc, reproduced from B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia. Plate VIIe is taken from J. D. Beazley, Athenian Red-Figured Vases in American Museums.

1 Thuc. i 94–6; Plut., Arist. 23–5.1, interpreted in the light of Hdt. i 165.3.

2 Ath. 23.5. See Meritt, B. D., Wade-Gery, H. T. and McGregor, M. F., The Athenian Tribute Lists iii (Princeton, 1950) 191–3, and n. 33, ‘This date is a cornerstone of the early history of the Confederacy.’Google Scholar

3 Thuc. i 98.1–2; Plut., , Kimon 8.3–4Google Scholar.

4 Schol. Aischin. ii 31 (34 Dindorf). For the date of Phaidon's archonship, see D.S. xi 48.1; D.H., Rh. ix 18.1. Mr J. D. Smart has sought to bring down the dates of the campaigns at Eion and Skyros from 476/5 to 470/69–469/8, accepting from D.S. xi 63.1 that the archon in the latter year was a second Phaidon or Phaion and not, as other sources have it, Apsephion, : JHS lxxxvii (1967) 136Google Scholar f. In support, Diodoros himself dates the capture of Eion and Skyros to the previous year, 470/69, xi 60.2. The difficulty is that according to Thuc. i 98.1–2 these campaigns were the first undertaken by the Delian League; and it is hard to suppose that a newly founded military alliance could have remained inactive for almost a decade since 478/7.

5 Plut., Thes. 36.1–4; cf. id., Kimon 8.5–7. The occasion of the oracle was perhaps a plague: cf. schol. Aristoph., Pl. 627. See Parke, H. W. and Wormell, D. E. W., The Delphic Oracle (Oxford, 1956) i 181, ii 51 no. 113.Google Scholar

6 Plut., Thes., loc. cit.

7 Podlecki, A. J., JHS xci (1971) 141–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, rightly emphasizes that the date given is that of the oracle only, and suggests that the capture of Skyros may have taken a few years to achieve. See also Busolt, , Gr. Gesch. III i (Gotha, 1897) 105Google Scholar f. n. 2, suggesting 474/3 or 473/2 as the date. Nevertheless it is more likely that the oracle was dated from a record of the capture than that its own date was preserved independently.

8 Plut., Thes. 36.4.

9 Paus. i 17.2.

10 Cf. Wycherley, R. E., JHS lxxix (1959) 155Google Scholar; Plommer, H., Gnomon xxix (1957) 33Google Scholar.

11 Cf. Wycherley, op. cit. 153–6.

12 Some years ago Professor Homer Thompson believed that he had identified the Gymnasion of Ptolemy and the Theseion in the so-called South Square of the Agora: ‘The Sanctuary of Theseus in Athens’, paper read to the Archaeological Institute of America, December 29, 1964, and circulated privately; cf. id., Hesp. xxxv (1966) 40–8. However attractive this suggestion, Professor Thompson has since withdrawn it, and once more regards the proposed Theseion as the Heliaia. I am most grateful to Professor Thompson for discussing the identification of this structure with me by letter.

13 FGrH 328 F18 (Plut., , Thes. 35.2)Google Scholar. IG ii2 956.16–17; 957.11; 958.13 (these three all found north-east of the Akropolis, near the church of Demetrios Katephores); 1035.48. D.S. iv 62.4. The ancient references to the Theseion are conveniently assembled by Wycherley, R. E., The Athenian Agora iii, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia (Princeton, 1957) 113–19Google Scholar.

14 See the brief discussion by K. Latte, RE ‘Temenos’ no. 1.

15 Paus. i 17.2, 6.

16 For hieron as an area to be fenced, only obscurely distinguished from a temenos, see IG i2 94 of 418/7 B.C.; Wycherley, R. E., ‘Neleion’, BSA lv (1960) 60–6Google Scholar, referring to previous discussions.

17 Eur., Erechth. fr. 65 line 90 Austin; D.H., Rh. exc. xiv 2. See Austin, C. A., Rech. de Pap. iv (1969) 58 fGoogle Scholar. νηός, Hdt. viii 55; ἱερόν, Hesych., s.v. οἰκουρὸν ὄφιν.

18 Paus, i 17.3.

19 Hesych, s.v. Θήσϵιον; cf. Et. Mag., s.v. Θήοϵιον.

20 Photios, s.v. Θήσειον; cf. Bekker, , Anecd. Gr. i 264.21.Google Scholar

21 And., de Myst. 45; Thuc. vi 61.2, ἐν Θησείῳ τῷ ἐν πόλει. Thucydides' phrase distinguishes this sanctuary of Theseus from others. According to Philo-choros, FGrH 328 F 18 (Plut., Thes. 35.2), there were four temene of Theseus. Cf. Eur., HF 1328 f.; schol. Aischin. iii 13, δνὸ Θήσϵια ἐν τῇ πόλει; IG ii2 2498, a Theseion at Peiraieus; Paus. i 30.4, a shrine shared with Peirithoos at Kolonos Hippios. Cf. Wycherley, , JHS lxxix (1959) 156Google Scholar. According to Ath. 15.4, Peisistratos held an armed muster in the Theseion, which was, from the context, situated near the Propylon to the Akropolis. Polyainos, however, tells the same story but names the Anakeion instead of the Theseion, Strat. i 21.2.

22 Aischin., in Ctes. 13; Ath. 62.2.

23 IG ii2 1039.2–3.

24 IG ii2 956.16–17; etc.

25 FGrH 328 F 177 (Et. Mag., s.v. Θήσειον); cf. Aristoph., Eg. 1312 and schol.; D.S. iv 62.4; Plut., Thes. 36.4.

26 Photios, s.v. Θήσειον; Et. Mag., loc. cit.

27 Hesych., s.v. Θήσειον; Et. Mag., loc. cit.

28 Paus. i 17.3.

29 It is worthwhile to recall the whole context of Euripides' reference to the Erechtheion. Athena speaks to the king's widow (Erechth. fr. 65, lines 90 f. Austin): We have seen that Pausanias called the Theseion a sekos, and that Plutarch described it as ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει. Is it possible that Euripides' words echo the oracle which enjoined the foundation of the Theseion? (On Euripides and the Erechtheion, seen now Treu, M., Chiron i [1971] 124Google Scholar fi.)

30 Benndorf, O. and Niemann, G., Das Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Vienna, 1890)Google Scholar, esp. drawings, pls. i–v; see also Eichler, F., Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Vienna, 1950)Google Scholar.

31 Cf. Hesp. xxxv (1966) 42 n. 8.

32 Paus. i 17.2–3.

33 Harpokr., s.v. codd.: Θησέως ἱερῷ Reinesius.

34 Anakeion, Paus. i 18.1; Poikile, ibid. 15. On the Poikile, see Jeffery, L. H., BSA lx (1965) 41–57Google Scholar.

35 Cf. Jacobsthal, P., Theseus auf dem Meeresgrunde (Leipzig, 1911) 6Google Scholar ff.; Schefold, K., Mus. Helv. iii (1946) 66Google Scholar f.

36 Plut., Thes. 29.3.

37 Paus. × 11.5; Coste-Messelière, P. de la, Sculptures du Trésor des Athéniens, Fouilles de Delphes IV iv (Paris, 1957), with discussion of the date 259 ff.Google Scholar

38 Cf., among many, Curtius, E., Arch. Zeit. xli (1883) 347Google Scholar ff.; Robert, C., Die Marathonschlacht und weiteres über Polygnot, 18. Hall. Winckelmansprogr. (Halle, 1895) 45Google Scholar; F. Hauser, FR ii (1909) 244 ff., 312 fr.; E. Buschor, ibid. iii (1932) 288 ff.; Six, J., JHS xxxix (1919) 130–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schrader, H., Phidias (Frankfurt, 1924) 169Google Scholar; Löwy, E., Polygnot (Vienna, 1929)Google Scholar; Rumpf, A., Malerei und Zeichnung, Handb. d.Arch. III i (Munich, 1953) 91 ff.Google Scholar; Robertson, M., Greek Painting (Geneva, 1959) 111–35Google Scholar.

39 Louvre MNC 511 (G 341): ARV 2 601.22; FR ii pl. 108, iii pl. 165; Webster, T. B. L., Der Niobidenmaler, Bilder gr. Vasen viii (Leipzig, 1935) pls. 2–5Google Scholar; Arias, P., Hirmer, M. and Shefton, B. B., History of Greek Vase Painting (London, 1962) pls. 173–5Google Scholar.

40 This is not noticed in the careful description of the technique by Reichhold, FR ii 253, or by Webster, op. cit. 9.

41 Cf. Robert, C., Annali dell' Inst, liv (1882) 273–89Google Scholar.

42 Berlin 2403: ARV 2 598.9; plate VIIc–d; Webster, op. cit., pl. 24.b–c; Ashmole, B. and Yalouris, N., Olympia (London, 1967) fig. 21 opp. p. 180Google Scholar. (The drawing in Löwy, op. cit. pl. 4, is not accurate.) Rimini, Mus. Missionario, and Ancona, from S. Marina di Pesaro: Beazley, J. D., Paralipomena to ABV and ARV (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar: hereafter cited as Para.) 395.4 bis; Zuffa, M., Atti del I Convegno di Studi etruschi (Stud. etr. xxv suppl., Florence, 1959) 137 ffGoogle Scholar. and pls. xviii 6, xx 1a–d; Clairmont, C. W., Antike Kunst vi (1963) 26Google Scholar and pl. ix 3. Reggio: Para. 396; plate VIIb. I owe my knowledge of this fragment, as well as the attribution of it, to the generosity of Mr Brian Shefton.

43 Paus. × 25–31; see Robertson, op. cit. 122 f.

44 Zenob., Prov. iv 28; cf. Souda, s.v. θᾶττον ἢ Βούτης.

45 Paus. × 31.5.

46 Ibid. 30.3, 31.10.

47 For the archaic convention, cf. Antaios on the calyx-krater by Euphronios, Louvre G 103: ARV 2 14.2; Arias, Hirmer and Shefton, op. cit. pl. 109. Cf. also singers, as the Kleophrades Painter's Mainad on the pointed amphora in Munich, Mus. Ant. Kleinkunst 2344: ARV 2 182.8; Arias etc. pl. 124.

48 Pliny, , NH xxxv 58Google Scholar; cf. Webster, op. cit. 15.

49 Webster, op. cit. 9.

50 Palermo G 1283, volute-krater: ARV 2 599.2; plate Vb; Arias etc. pl. 179. Ferrara T 313, calyxkrater: ARV 2 602.24; Webster, op. cit. pl. 16; Alfieri, N., Arias, P. E. and Hirmer, M., Spina (Munich, 1958) pl. 35Google Scholar.

51 Naples 2421, volute-krater: ARV 2 600.13; Plate VIb–c; FR i pls. 26–8; Löwy, op. cit. pl. 10a–b. See Pliny's comment on Polygnotos, xxxv 58, ‘primus mulieres tralucida ueste pinxit’.

52 New York 07.286.84: ARV 2 613.1; plates IIa–b, IVa; Richter, G. M. A. and Hall, L. F., Red-Figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum (New Haven, 1936) ii pls. 97–8Google Scholar; Löwy, op. cit. pls. 6–7; Hesp. xxxi (1962) pl. 110; for the whole vase, Becatti, G., The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome (London, 1968) 149Google Scholar.

53 Shefton, B. B., Hesp. xxxi (1962) 338–44Google Scholar, 353–67, with list of representations.

54 Odyss. xxi 295 ff.

55 Iliad ii 742 f. For the Pheres, see also ibid, i 268.

56 Iliad i 262 ff. Line 265, adding Theseus to the Lapiths, is to be regarded as an interpolation: see Jacoby, F., FCrH III B Suppl. ii 342Google Scholar n. 7.

57 Scut. 178 ff.

58 Florence, Mus. Arch. 4209: ABV 77.1; Arias, etc. pls. 41, 43; Minto, A., Il Vaso Franςois (Florence, 1960Google Scholar) pls. vi, xxvi.

59 Florence, Mus. Arch. 3997: ARV 2 541.1, by the Florence Painter; Pfuhl, Muzfig. 489; Dugas, C. and Flacelière, R., Thésée, Images et Recits (Paris, 1958) pl. 11Google Scholar.

60 Pindar fr. 166 Snell (150 Bowra, 203 Turyn: Athen. 476b); cf. fr. 167 (150, 204: P. Oxy. 2447 fr. 15; cf. Plut., Mor. 1057D), the death of Kaineus. Cf. also the brief account given by Plut., Thes. 30.3–4, which is there said to have been known to, and rejected by, Herodoros who fl. c. 400 B.C. (FGrH 31 F 27).

61 Ovid, , Met. xii 182–535Google Scholar. See below, p. 30.

62 Paus. v 10.8; Ashmole and Yalouris, op. cit. 17–22 and pls. 62–142, and folding pl. at end.

63 Ibid. pl. 86.

64 Cf. Hauser, FR ii 311.

65 The only other vase by this painter to show a figure with the extra division is a hydria in the Vatican: ARV 2 614.11; Mus. Etr. Greg. (Rome, 1842) ii pl. 19.2; Jacobsthal, P., Die melischen Reliefs (Berlin, 1931) 194Google Scholar fig. 71. Between two sceptred women, one of them accompanied by a dog, is a wide platform on which a nude warrior with spear and shield stands beside an altar. To the left is a building, to the right a tree drawn in the manner of the Niobid Painter, and beyond it a third woman swathed in a large himation covering her head, turned threequarters to her right, seated on the ground in a pose reminiscent of the ‘Penelope’ type. For all its ‘mural’ features, the subject is hard to identify. It has some affinity with Polygnotos' portrayal of Aias in the Sack of Troy at Delphoi: But it is not easy to see who the sceptred women might then be. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs was inspired by Polygnotos' other rendering of the same subject in the Stoa Poikile (Paus, i 15.2), in which Aias' trial was the central motif. One more vase by this painter, though it shows no anatomical oddities, may be mentioned for its plainly mural subject: Louvre CA 3482: ARV 2 613.3; Devambez, P., ‘Un cratère à volutes attique du milieu du Ve siècle avant notre ère', Mon. Piot lv (1967) 77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pls. iii–iv. The subject is the death of Aktaion, set in an extensive landscape with undulating ground-lines; and three-quarter views are favoured, both for Aktaion himself and for Artemis’ chariot.

66 Only the anatomical eccentricity itself, separately considered, would indicate an earlier date. For it disappears from sculpture by c. 520 (cf. Richter, G. M. A., Kouroi 3 [London, 1970] 131Google Scholar, 133), and from vase-painting c. 500–490. One of the latest archaic vase-paintings to show the quadripartite muscle is the Kleophrades Painter's calyx-krater, Tarquinia RC 4196: ARV 2 185.35; Arias, etc., pls. 119–21. Elsewhere this artist shows the correct triple division: cf. the athletes on the neck of the pointed amphora, Munich 2344: ARV 2 182.6; Arias, etc., pls. 122–3.

67 Paus. v 10.2; cf. Hdt. iv 148.4.

68 D.S. xi 54.1. See Andrewes, A., Phoenix vi (1952) 2 f.Google Scholar; cf. Forrest, W. G., CQ n.s. x (1960) 229Google Scholar.

69 Paus. v 10.4. A contemporary copy of the dedicatory inscription he quotes has survived, apparently in the alphabet of Corinth, to whom an additional couplet refers: Olymp. v 253; Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M., Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1969) no. 36Google Scholar; Jeffery, L. H., Local Scripte of Archaic Greece (Oxford, 1961) 129 f.Google Scholar, 132 no. 38, pl. 21.

70 Ashmole, B., Proc. Brit. Acad. xlviii (1962) 217Google Scholar f.

71 Shefton, B. B., ‘Herakles and Theseus on a Redfigured Louterion’, Hesp. xxxi (1962) 330–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 2 facing p. 335 and pls. 105–6. Athens, Agora P 12641: ARV 2 1043; Para. 444, Group of Polygnotos.

72 Op. cit. 338 ff., 356 ff.

73 Oinochoe, Florence, Mus. Arch. PD 376 and Breitbrunn, Buschor: ARV 2 874.6; Shefton, op. cit. pl. 109d.

74 Ibid. 353 ff.

75 New York 06.1021.140: ARV 2 1408.2, Painter of the New York Centauromachy; Shefton, op. cit. pl. 107a.

76 Ibid. 360 f., cf. 341 ff.

77 Boston 00.344 and 00.345: ARV 2 1319.2–3; FR iii pls. 128–9; Caskey, L. D. and Beazley, J. D., Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston iii (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar pls. 103–5; Hesp. xxxi (1962) pls. 107b, 108.

78 For authoritative readings of all these names, different in several respects from those given, e.g. in FR, see Caskey and Beazley, op. cit. 86.

79 He may, for instance, have been shown as a wrestler, as on Aristophanes' cups. Cf. the wrestler on the early krater in Florence (above, n. 59).

80 London E 176: ARV 2 497.10. Professor Robertson kindly drew my attention to this vase.

81 Ferrara T 136 A VP: Riv. Ist. n.s. iv (1955) 117 fig. 23, 119 fig. 26. Cf. Caskey and Beazley, op. cit. 85.

82 See above, p. 26.

83 Cf. Shefton, op. cit. 361 n. 119. Columnkraters: Harrow 50 (ARV 2 516.5, Cleveland Painter); Louvre G 367 and Tarquinia RC 1960 (ARV 2 1088.1–2, Painter of the Louvre Centauromachy). See also the neo-Attic puteal in Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg 284: Billedtavler (1907) pl. 20.

84 See above, n. 59.

85 Louvre Camp. 10749, to which Tübingen E 97 has been added, having been recognised by MrShefton, : ARV 2613.2Google Scholar, Para. 397; Arch. Anz. 1965, 154; Mon. Piot lv (1967) 94–5, figs. 7–10; Shefton, op. cit. pl. 109a–b (photomontage, not quite accurate).

86 For a list of representations of the Centauromachy at the feast, see Shefton, op. cit. 365–7.

87 FGrH 31 F 27: Plut., Thes. 30.3. See also above, p. 26 and n. 60.

88 The Makedonian sarisa (466), for instance, is not likely to have come from a pre-Hellenistic source; the word is first found in Theophr. HP iii 12.2. See, in general, Corbett, P. E., Gnomon xliii (1971) 65Google Scholar f.

88a British Museum: Kenner, H., Der Fries des Tempels von Bassae-Phigalia (Vienna, 1946) pls. 1–11 (Kaineus, pl. 11)Google Scholar.

88b Bey, O. Hamdy and Reinach, Th., Une nécropole royale à Sidon (Paris, 1892) pl. 15Google Scholar; Lawrence, A. W., Classical Sculpture (London, 1929) pl. 73Google Scholar.

88c Eichler, F., Die Reliefs des Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Vienna, 1950) pls. 4–5, B 3Google Scholar.

89 Brommer, F., Die Metopen des Parthenon (Mainz, 1967) pls. 149–239Google Scholar; the Centauromachy in Carrey's drawings, pls. 149–52. Brommer, ibid. 230–40, argues that the Centauromachy reproduced is an otherwise unrecorded local tale. Corbett, however, op. cit. 63–6, successfully defends the usual interpretation as the Thessalian Centauromachy.

90 Thompson, H. A., AJA lxvi (1962) 346Google Scholar, suggests that in the Hephaisteion there is continuity between the struggle at the feast in the west pediment (identified by E. B. Harrison, ibid. lx [1956] 178) and the outdoor Centauromachy shown on the west frieze. This is, however, a matter of illustrating both episodes, and does not imply a narrative of a single continuous battle. (Notice the axe-man as a participant in the outdoor scene here: see Sauer, B., Das sogenannte Theseion [Leipzig, 1899] pl. 4, no. 9.Google Scholar)

91 See n. 75.

92 Berlin F 2403: ARV 2 599.9; see n. 42 above.

93 Cf. above, p. 24. This scene was not, however, composed on several distinct levels, as on both sides of the artist's krater in the Louvre. In composition it resembled rather the two Amazonomachies in New York (plate IVa–b), scenes arranged on a similarly undulating drawn ground-line rather than on the straight line of the lower border of the frieze.

94 The man carrying a staff has been thought to be the bride's father: Löwy, , Polygnot 21Google Scholar. He is, however, beardless—though Löwy's fig. 4 adds a beard in the drawing. The bride's father is to be recognised at the extreme right of the scene on the krater in New York by the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs (plate IIb).

95 That is, the upper part of the Centaur must have been erect and twisted, creating a composition very much like the extreme left-hand group in the Niobid Painter's neck frieze of the Centauromachy on his volute-krater in Palermo, Mus. Naz. G 1283: ARV 2 599.2; plate Va; Arias, etc., pl. 176. This is to be deduced from the fact that the table-legs point towards Theseus. For it is natural—and other illustrations agree—to grasp the table by its underframe, not by its top, so that the legs point towards the holder. The Lapith swings the axe in both hands, and no one but the Centaur can therefore be holding the table. The table is, moreover, adjacent to the stump of one of the handles of the pot. The group therefore stood at the left of its composition—again like the version in Palermo. For a different reconstruction with the Centaur in three-quarter view from the rear, see Oelschig, H., De Centauromachiae in Arte Graeca Figuris (Halle, 1911) 37Google Scholar, cited by Shefton, op. cit. 361 n. 119.

96 Ovid., , Met. xii 226–40Google Scholar: he killed Eurytos by throwing a krater at him.

97 Paus. i 17.2. Professor F. J. Tritsch kindly pointed out to me the relevance of this to the Berlin fragment.

98 Bologna 268: ARV 2 598.1; CVA Bologna v (Italia xxxiii) pl. 98.3–5. The main scene is an Iliupersis.

99 Palermo, Mus. Naz. G 1283: see above, n. 95. On the back of both this vase and Bologna 268 the neck-frieze is of Herakles with Pholos.

100 Villa Giulia 3577: CVA Villa Giulia i (Italia i) pls. 3–4; Pfuhl, , MuZfig. 491Google Scholar; FR i 72, pl. 15; ii 132, 317, 319; Buschor, E., Gr. Vasenmalerei (Munich, 1925) 185Google Scholar f., fig. 135. Not attributed in ARV 2 nor in Para.

101 The raid on Pherekydes, ThemiskyraFGrH 3 F 151–2Google Scholar; the defence of Attica, A., Eu. 685 ff. See Plut., , Thes. 26–8Google Scholar. Apollod., , Epit. 1.16–17Google Scholar, speaks of two Amazon invasions of Attica of which the first is in question here.

102 Paus. i 17.2, stating that this was the same battle that was depicted on the shield of the Athena Parthenos and on the bathron of the statue of Zeus at Olympia. The latter is presumably to be identified with the thranion on which Zeus' feet rested, which bore an Amazonomachy described as (v 11.7). That this was in fact the attack on Attica is clear from Hdt. ix 27 and similar rhetorical commonplaces elsewhere. Moreover, at Olympia the raid on Themiskyra is otherwise accounted for, having been represented on the kanones of the throne itself (Paus. v 11.4; cf. Plut., , Thes. 26.1)Google Scholar.

103 See von Bothmer, D., Amazons in Greek Art (Oxford, 1957) 124–30Google Scholar and pls. 67–8.

104 Plut., , Kimon 4.6–7Google Scholar; Paus. i 15.1–3; Arrian, , Anab. vii 13.5Google Scholar.

105 On the Poikile, see the careful discussion by Jeffery, L. H., ‘The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile’, BSA lx (1965) 41–57Google Scholar.

106 Meritt, Lucy Shoe, ‘The Stoa Poikile’, Hesp. xxxix (1970) 233–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. H. A. Thompson, ibid. xix (1950) 327–9.

107 Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 7, 167 f., pl. 75. For other vases with this motif, see ibid. 175: the list includes an oinochoe probably by the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs, Ferrara T 607 (ARV 2 614.12; Bothmer, op. cit. 175 no. 18).

108 On a fragment perhaps of an oinochoe from La Monedière (ARV 2 614.13; JHS lxxix [1959] pl. 1) are the remains of an Amazonomachy by the same artist: escaping from a mounted Amazon, a nude Greek with shield held obliquely. He has two divisions of the abdominal muscle above (and none at) the navel. This might be derived from an original in which the muscle was quadripartite, with one division at the navel and two above.

109 Bothmer, op. cit. ch. x, 161–207.

110 Ferrara T 607: see above, n. 107.

111 Odessa Univ.: ARV 2 614.11; Farmakovsky, B. V., Vazovaya (St Petersburg, 1902) pl. 17Google Scholar; Bothmer, op. cit. 201 no. 150.

112 New York 07.286.86: ARV 2 616.3; Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 2, 165 f., pl. 74.2; FR ii pls. 118–19; Richter and Hall, op. cit. pl. 99.

113 ‘Antiope’, Bothmer, op. cit. 166; cf. Plut., , Thes. 27.6Google Scholar; Paus. i 2.1.

114 Cf. for instance the Nolan amphora, New York 41.162.16: ARV 2 529. 1, Alkimachos Painter; Bothmer, op. cit. 184 no. 74; CVA Gallatin (U.S.A. i) pl. 22. An Amazon brings her tomahawk down upon a Greek who has already collapsed on to his right knee. Her pose recalls an Amazon on the calyx-krater, her belted chiton with kolpos the hydria in Odessa, while her victim reminds us of the defeated Greek on the volute-krater—and he, too, carries the same charge upon his shield, a horse.

115 The detailed relationships are brilliantly worked out by Bothmer, op. cit. ch. x. Clumsily drawn though it is, one may mention here the scene on a calyx-krater, Geneva MF 238 (ARV 2 615.1, Geneva Painter; Pfuhl, , MuZfig. 509Google Scholar), which gives a ‘rear view’ of the mounted Amazon on New York 07.286.86, a version of the central group on Bologna 289 and the Niobid Painter's kraters (see below), an Amazon with head in three-quarter view, and another with tomahawk raised in both hands as on New York 07.286.84. See Bothmer, op. cit. 161, no. 3, 169 f.

116 Bologna 289: ARV 2 891; Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 1, 164 f., pl. 74.1; FR ii pls. 75–6. Bothmer argues for the identification of the artist with the Penthesilea Painter himself, following Furtwängler, FR ii 88; Beazley remained unconvinced. The scene on the painter's name-piece, Munich 2688 (ARV 2 879.1; Bothmer, op. cit. 143 no. 30; Axias, etc., pls. 168–9), may well reflect the Athenian Amazonomachy rather than Achilles and Penthesilea: Bothmer, op. cit. 147 f.

117 Palermo G 1283: ARV 2 598.2; Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 5, 166 f.; Arias, etc., pls. 176–81.

118 Cf. Snodgrass, A. M., Arms and Armour of the Greeks (London, 1967) 92Google Scholar.

119 See, first, the corselet worn by the next Greek to the left of the same scene, with one division at the navel, one above, and then the boundary; secondly, Naples 2421 (next note), plate VIc. Cf. Oxford 280: ARV 2 604.56; CVA Oxford i (Gt Britain iii) pl. 16.3. Also Louvre G 343: ARV 2 600.17; CVA Louvre iii (France iv) pl. 6.1, 3. Also Ferrara T 313: ARV 2 602.24; Spina pls. 34–6; Webster, op. cit. pl. 16.

120 Naples 2421: ARV 2 600.13; Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 6, 167; FR i pls. 26–8; Pfuhl, , MuZfig. 505Google Scholar; Webster, op. cit. pl. 23.

121 Bothmer, op. cit. 167, again recognises Antiope, and regards the Amazon charioteer as likewise pro-Athenian. It is to be noticed that neither wears a helmet.

122 Ferrara T. 11 C VP: ARV 2 600.14; Alfieri, N. and Arias, P. E., Spina, Guida al Museo (Florence, 1960) pl. 60Google Scholar; Pelizzola, , Mostra graphica di Spina (Bologna, 1967) pl. 7Google Scholar.

123 Bielefeld, E., Amazonomachia, Hallische Monogr. xxi (1951) 13Google Scholar, 59 f., regards the motif as peculiarly ‘mikonisches’. von Bothmer, D., Gnomon xxiv (1952) 199Google Scholar, emphasises its age; but this in no way entails that it was not an important element in at least one mural treatment of the subject.

124 London 99.7–21.5: ARV 2 1052.29; Bothmer, , Amazons 162Google Scholar no. 12, 170 f.; FR i pl. 58; CVA Brit. Mus. vi (Gt Britain viii) pl. 103; Löwy, op. cit. pl. 34.

125 See, for instance, the pelike Syracuse 9317: ARV 2 1059.132, Group of Polygnotos; Bothmer, op. cit. 177 no. 31; Arias, etc., pl. 191. Pelike, Syracuse 23507: ARV 2 1032.53, Polygnotos; Bothmer, op. cit. 179 no. 48; Löwy, op. cit. pl. 38; CVA Siracusa i (Italia xvii) pl. 4.1–2. Column-krater, Syracuse 37175: ARV 2 1104.2, Orpheus Painter; Bothmer, op. cit. 177 no. 29, pl. 77.5; Arias, etc., pl. 192. (The fact that on this vase the Greek on the left attacks an enemy beyond the frame of the picture proves that we have to do with an excerpt.) Other instances of the motif are listed by Bothmer, op. cit. 177 ff., β, γ, δ. See also Bielefeld, op. cit. 13 f., 60 ff., ‘zweites mikonisches Hauptmotiv’. Cf. Ashmole, B., JHS lxxxix (1969) 22–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

126 London E 450: ARV 2 1043.1, Epimedes Painter; Bothmer, op. cit. 180 no. 51; CVA Brit. Mus. iii (Gt Britain iv) pl. 23.1.

127 On other vases, still other figures are named Theseus. Conflation of two originals, that in the Theseion and that in the Stoa Poikile, has been suggested to explain the naming of two Amazons Peisianassa and Dolope on a bell-krater in Ferrara by Polygnotos (T 411: ARV 2 1029.21; Bothmer, op. cit. 198 no. 132, pl. 83.7): Beazley, J. D., AJA xxxiii (1929) 366Google Scholar. For Peisianax built the Poikile, and the Theseion followed Kimon's victory over the Dolopians. But, since the Poikile was a ‘Kimonian’ building, Dolope would not be out of place there; and all that is proved is the allusion contained in the name of Peisianassa.

128 Boston 95.48: ARV 2 1248.2; Bothmer, op. cit. 177 no. 30, pl. 77.6.

129 Cf. above, p. 29.

130 Ferrara T 579: ARV 2 612.1; N. Alfieri, P. E. Arias and M. Hirmer, Spina, pls. 42–4; Simon, E., AJA lxvii (1963) 54 ffGoogle Scholar. The second scene is perhaps to be recognised as an expiation ceremony, of the Argonauts for the killing of Kyzikos (cf. Apollod. i 9.18). The scene of the Seven includes several warriors whose poses have much in common with our Greeks and Amazons.

131 ARV 2 612.3; Bothmer, op. cit. 162 no. 8, 169; CVA Bologna iv (Italia xxvii) pls. 62–6; Pfuhl, MuZfig. 508 (drawing).

132 Cf. Bothmer, op. cit. 169.

133 Cf. ibid. For the Amazons' breastplates, see the Niobid Painter's krater in Ferrara, above p. 37 and n. 122. There are Greeks in black corselets, a rarity but to be paralleled on Bologna 289, plate VIa.

134 ARV 612.2. I owe my knowledge of this vase to the excellent photographs of the Beazley Archive, and the generosity of Professor Robertson.

135 Rumpf, , Mal. u. Zeich. 94Google Scholar f., proposed to derive the multi-level compositions such as Bologna 279 from the Poikile, the single-level scenes from the Theseion.

136 Paus. i 41.7; Plut., , Thes. 27.6Google Scholar; cf. Paus. i 2.1.

137 Cf. calyx-krater, Ferrara T 1052: ARV 2 991.53, Achilles Painter; Bothmer, op. cit. 161 no. 4, 170; Riv. Ist. n.s. ii (1953) 15–25, figs. 1–13; Alfieri, Arias and Hirmer, op. cit. pl. 33.

138 Cf. Apollod., , Epit. 1.16–17Google Scholar.

139 Cf. Kenner, op. cit. pls. 14, 18, 19.

140 Cf. plates IVb, Va,c, VIc.

141 Cf. plates IIIb, IVa, Va, c, VIa (including one back view), b, c.

142 Paus, i 8.5; cf. Pliny, , NH xxxiv 70Google Scholar; Arrian, , Anab. iii 16.7Google Scholar.

143 Marmor Parium, FGrH 239 A 54; cf. Paus., loc. cit. For the statues, see Richter, G. M. A., The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks 3 (New Haven, 1950) 199 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 565–77; Shefton, B. B., ‘Some Iconographic Remarks on the Tyrannicides’, AJA lxiv (1960) 173–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pls. 49–52.

144 Cf. Shefton, op. cit. 174 n. 10, cf. n. 8.

145 Paus. i 17.3.

146 Bacch. xvii, esp. 116. See also Hyg., Astr. ii 5.

147 Louvre G 104 and Florence PD 321: ARV 2 318.1; Arias, etc., pl. 134. For a full discussion of this episode and the illustrations of it, see Jacobsthal, P., Theseus auf dem Meeresgrunde (Leipzig, 1911)Google Scholar.

148 New York 53.11.4: ARV 2 406.7; Bull. Metr. Mus. xiii (1954–5) 62 f. and figs.

149 Cf. Jacobsthal, op. cit. 6 ff.

150 From the late archaic and early classical periods we have the following representations of Theseus' introduction to Poseidon and Amphitrite, all composed on a single level using the lower border of the scene as ground-line—a typical vase-painters' composition, quite unrelated to mural work. Paris, Cab. Méd. 418: ARV 2 260.2, Syriskos Painter; Jacobsthal, op. cit. pl. 1.2; JHS xviii (1898) 278. Harvard Univ. 60.339: ARV 2 274.39, Harrow Painter; Jacobsthal, op. cit. pl. 3.5; JHS xviii (1898) 279; CVA Robinson ii (U.S.A. vi) pls. 31–32. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg 2695: ARV 2 362.19, Triptolemos Painter; Poulsen, F., Aus einer alten Etruskerstadt (Copenhagen, 1927) pl. xii 24Google Scholar. Yale Univ. 143: ARV 2 503.25, Painter of the Yale Oinochoe; Beazley, J. D., Attic Red-figured Vases in American Museums (Cambridge, Mass., 1918) 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baur, P. V. C., Cat.…Stoddart Coll. of Greek and Italian Vases (New Haven, 1922) 97, pl. 10Google Scholar.

151 Bologna 303: ARV 2 1184.6; Jacobsthal, op. cit. 8 ff., pl. 4.7; Dugas and Flacelière, Thésée pls. 18–19; Six, J., JHS xxxix (1919) 133Google Scholar fig. 3, 140 ff.

152 A second krater by the Kadmos Painter, Syracuse 17427, bears an equally ‘mural’ composition: ARV 2 1184.4; Dugas and Flacelière, op. cit. pls. 20–1. The subject is the parting of Theseus and Ariadne, with Athena and Dionysos, Poseidon and a ship. The design is a pendant to that on the krater in Bologna. But there is no record and no reason to suppose that the subject was shown in the Theseion. Both kraters, then, if not original conceptions of the Kadmos Painter, will have been derived from murals elsewhere and of later date.

153 Above, pp. 23–25: plate I. For recent discussion of the subject, see Simon, E., ‘Polygnotan Painting and the Niobid Painter’, AJA lxvii (1963) 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with bibliography, 61 f.; Jeppeson, K., Ἐτεοκλέονς Σύμβασις, Acta Jutlandica xl 3 (1968)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Professor Webster for much stimulating discussion of the problem.

154 Cf. A. Furtwängler, in Roscher's Lexikon, s.v. ‘Dioskuren’, col. 1172; Rumpf, A., ‘Kranos Boiotiourges’, Abh. Berl. Akad., Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1943, 3–5Google Scholar; Chrimes, K. M. T., Ancient Sparta (Manchester, 1949) 362 f.Google Scholar; Kardara, C., BSA lv (1960) 150 n. 6, on the wider use of this hat in the later fifth centuryGoogle Scholar.

155 Robert, C., Annali dell' Inst. liv (1882) 273–89Google Scholar; Mon. Inst. xi (1882) pls. 38–9; cf. Paus, i 18.1. See also Gardner, E. A., JHS x (1889) 117 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robert, C., ‘Die Nekyia des Polygnot’, 16. Hall. Winckelmansprogr. (1892) 40Google Scholar; cf. ARV 2 601.22. As a variant, Klein, W. saw Athena and Jason recruiting Herakles for the Argonautic expedition: Jahrb. xxxiii (1918) 2 ffGoogle Scholar. Girard, P. proposed to recognise Herakles rebuking the Argonauts for their delay among the Lemnian women: Mon. Assoc. Et. Gr. 1895/7, 18 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Pottier, E., Cat. Vases Louvre ii (1905) 1082 ffGoogle Scholar; Webster, T. B. L., Der Niobidenmaler 15 ffGoogle Scholar. But where are the Lemnian women?

156 F. Hauser, FR ii (1909) 246 ff.; cf. Simon, op. cit. 43.

157 Hauser, loc. cit.; cf. Paus. i 15.3. See also Buschor, E., Gr. Vasen 197Google Scholar, arguing for the battles in the Poikile, with an inclination towards Oinoe rather than Marathon.

158 Cf. Webster, op. cit. 15.

159 Jeppeson, op. cit. (above, n. 153). For the offer of reconciliation, see Eur., Supp. 734 ff.

160 Paus. ix 4.2.

161 There is, of course, nothing to be said for identifying him with the sculptor Onatas (cf. Jeppeson, op. cit. 53 f.).

162 Euryganeia, Paus. ix 5.11. (For her, not Iokaste, as the brothers' mother, see Paus., loc. cit., citing Oidipodia fr. 1 K.)

163 Jeppeson, op. cit. 44 ff., Abb. 17a.

164 Ibid. 21 f., 38, 42 f.

165 For a vase-painting which is certainly of the Seven against Thebes, and which seems equally certainly to be derived from a mural painting, see the volute-krater, Ferrara T 579, by the Painter of Bologna 279: ARV 2 612.1; Jeppeson, op. cit. Abb. 22b on p. 57; above, n. 130.

166 Gardner, E. A., ‘A Vase of Polygnotan Style’, JHS x (1889) 117–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 Six, J., ‘Mikon's Fourth Picture in the Theseion’, JHS xxxix (1919) 130–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Fink, J., Antike u. Abendland ix (1960) 82Google Scholar.

168 D.S. iv 63.4; Hyg., Fab. 79; Apollod., , Epit. 1.24Google Scholar.

169 Op. cit. (above, n. 153).

170 Ibid. 44.

171 Cf. ibid. 45. For the dress and equipment, Bacch. xviii 47 ff.; for the hair, Plut., , Thes. 5Google Scholar. Among a horde of vases, the following are typical. London E 48: ARV 2 431.47, Douris; Hoppin, J. C., Handbook of Attic Red-figured Vases (Cambridge, Mass., 1919) i 238Google Scholar. Leningrad 649 (St. 830): ARV 2 460.13, Makron; Dugas and Flacelière, op. cit. pl. 10. Yale-Univ. 143 (above, n. 150)—perhaps the best parallel.

172 Paus. x 31.5: cf. above, p. 24.

173 Virgil, Aen. vi 617 f., following a version in which Theseus was not delivered by Herakles—a version which had been followed by Polygnotos when he placed both Theseus and Peirithoos on their thrones in Hades at the time of Odysseus' visit, Paus. x 29.9. This version is perhaps implied in Odyss. xi 631. Elsewhere Virgil seems, however, to have known of Theseus' release: Aen. vi 119–23.

174 Cf. for instance a shield-band of c. 600 found at Olympia: Kunze, E., Olymp. Forsch. ii (1950) 112 f.Google Scholar, 129, Beil. 7; Schefold, K., Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art (London, 1966) 69Google Scholar fig. 24.

175 Paus. x 29.9.

176 Panyassis fr. 9 K, ap. Paus., loc. cit. On the date of Panyassis, see MacLeod, W., ‘Studies on Panyassis—an Heroic Poet of the Fifth Century’, Phoenix xx (1966) 95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

177 Berlin 30035: ARV 2 532.57; Beazley, J. D., Athenian Red-Figured Vases in American Museums 137 fig. 85Google Scholar. The bearded hero is usually Peirithoos, as on the krater described next. Beazley, loc. cit., thought of him as Theseus dejected, with three days' growth of beard; but he later changed his mind in favour of Peirithoos.

178 New York 08.258.21: ARV 2 1086.1, Nekyia Painter; Richter and Hall, op. cit. ii pl. 135.

179 Niobidenmaler 15 f.

180 Louvre F 204: ARV 2 4.11; Arias, etc., pl. 88. Cf. Odyss. xi 625.

181 Was this a detail in Panyassis' narrative? Or even a specially heroic Athenian version in which the hero actually succeeded in freeing himself by his own efforts?

182 In Odyss. xi 298–304, it is not clear whether the heroes succeed one another in living and dying, or are alternately alive and dead together. Despite the different view taken by later authorities (as Virg., Aen. vi 121 with Servius ad loc., and Lucian, Dial. Mort. i init.), the ambiguity was determined for the early classical period by Pindar, (Nem. x 55 ffGoogle Scholar. and schol.), who explains that Polydeukes chose alternate days of life and death rather than continuous immortality precisely in order to be with his brother.

183 Simon, op. cit. 52–4, cf. 47: Paus. i 30.4; Soph., OC 1589; schol. ibid., saying that there was no evidence to show whether Peirithoos and Theseus also descended here.

184 On the site, see Judeich, W., Topographie von Athen 2 (Munich, 1931) 414Google Scholar, cf. 45.

185 J. Six, op. cit. (above, n. 167); Overbeck, J., Die ant. Schriftquellen zur Gesch. d. bild. Künste bei den Griechen (Leipzig, 1868) 208 no. 1086Google Scholar; Brunn, H., Gesch. der griech. Künstler 2 (Stuttgart, 1889) 17Google Scholar.

186 Paus. i 17.2–3: above, p. 22.

187 Paus. i 17.4–6; cf. Plut., , Thes. 31, 35Google Scholar.

188 Six, op. cit. 135 f.

189 Cf. Plut., , Thes. 36.3Google Scholar.

190 Ibid. 2: cf. Simon, op. cit. 45.

191 See above, p. 23 and n. 33.

192 Pliny, , NH xxxv 58Google Scholar; Paus. × 25–31. Cf. above, p. 24.

193 Cf. above, n. 44.

194 Aristoph., Lys. 678 f.; Phrynichos, ab. Bekker, , Anecd. Gr. i p. 33.25Google Scholar. (For γέρρα as Persian equipment, see Hdt. vii 61.1, etc.) Cf. above, pp. 35 f. and plates IV–VI.

195 Paus. vi 6.1; for the date, 472 B.C., id. v 9.3; cf. Pliny, , NH xxxiv 88Google Scholar. For the practice of sculptors, see above, n. 66. I owe this argument to Professor Robertson. However, Pliny has a tradition that Polygnotos also was a sculptor, xxxiv 85; but no works are recorded.

196 First mentioned by Synesius, , Epist. 54Google Scholar, 135, but perhaps confirmed by the spike-holes for their attachment on the remains of the walls of this building—at least, if these were rightly identified by Thompson, H. A., Hesp. xix (1950) 328 fGoogle Scholar. and pl. 103c; cf. L. Shoe Meritt, ibid. xxxix (1970) 248–50 and pl. 65.

197 Cf. the technique of contemporary Etruscan paintings, Swindler, M. H., Ancient Painting (New Haven, 1929) 419 fGoogle Scholar.

198 Cf. Pliny, , NH xxxv 122Google Scholar. The technique was popular in Ptolemaic Egypt, and good examples survive. See Swindler, op. cit. 425 f.

199 Cicero, , Brut. 18.70Google Scholar; Pliny, , NH xxxiii 160Google Scholar, xxxv 42; Plut., , de Defect. Oracul. 47Google Scholar (Mor. 436B–C). See Robertson, M., Greek Painting 96Google Scholar; cf. below and n. 201.

200 Cf. Robertson, op. cit. 111–35; Rumpf, A., Malerei und Zeichnung 95Google Scholar.

201 Now in the museum at Paestum: Napoli, Mario, Paestum (Novara, 1970) figs. 92–3.Google Scholar