Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:12:18.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Onesimos and the interpretation of Ilioupersis iconography*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Michael J. Anderson
Michael J. Anderson
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Ilioupersis cup of Onesimos in the J. Paul Getty Museum offers a unique opportunity for the study of Ilioupersis iconography (PLATES la and lb). The tondo in the cup's interior features the murder of Priam, and the surrounding circular zone contains eight further scenes of the sack in all, nine scenes decorating a single surface. In his recent article on the cup, Dyfri Williams has discussed the iconography of each of these scenes individually. In this paper I hope to complement Williams' acute observations by drawing attention to the visual and thematic interaction among the nine scenes when viewed in combination.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 115 , November 1995 , pp. 130 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1995

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

1 Malibu 83.AE.362, 84.AE.80 and 85.AE.385, BA (= Beazley Addenda) 404; published by Williams, D., ‘Onesimos and the Getty Iliupersis’, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum v (1991) 41–64Google Scholar (henceforth referred to as Williams). Williams 47 dates the cup to between 500 and 490 BC.

2 The cup is unusually large. Williams (n. 1) 47 records its diameter as 46.5 cm. This rarely employed scheme of cup decoration is particularly well suited to the simultaneous presentation of multiple, thematically related scenes. Compare the arrangement of the deeds of Theseus on a large red-figure cup of the Penthesilea Painter, Ferrara 44885 (T I8C VP), ARV 882.35 and 1673, Para 428, BA 301.

3 For further general information on the iconography of the sack of Troy in the early fifth century see Moret, J.-M., L'Iliupersis dans la céramique italiote (Geneva 1975) esp. i 53–60.Google Scholar For information on specific episodes see in the notes below.

4 See Ervin, M., ‘A relief pithos from Mykonos’, AD xviii (1963) 37–75.Google Scholar

5 Black-figure amphora, Berlin F 1685, ABV 109.24, BA 30. For illustrations see Wiencke, M., ‘An epic theme in Greek art’, AJA lviii (1954) 285–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 14, and Carpenter, T.H., Art and myth in ancient Greece (London 1991) fig. 36.Google Scholar

6 Black-figure amphora frr., Paris Louvre F 29, ABV 109.21 and 685, Para 44, BA 30, 560–540 BC. For an illustration see Demargne, P., ‘Athena’, LIMC ii.1 (1984) p. 967.Google Scholar

7 Red-figure hydria, Naples 2422, ARV 189.74, Para 341, BA 189, c 480 BC. For illustrations see Simon, E., Die Griechischen Vasen (Munich 1981) pls 184–88.Google Scholar On the iconography of the vase see Boardman, J., ‘The Kleophrades Painter at Troy’, AK 19 (1976) 3–18.Google Scholar

8 Polygnotos depicts the immediate aftermath of the sack rather than the sack itself. See Pausanias x 25–27. Compare also Polygnotos' painting in the Stoa Poikile at Athens, Pausanias i 15.

9 See Boardman, J. and Finn, D., The Parthenon and its sculptures (London 1985) 232 and 234.Google Scholar

10 The scenes also exhibit a chronological progression from left to right. Aineias' escape from Troy, the far left scene, occurs before the Achaian attack in the Archaic and Classical literary sources (in contrast to the later version recorded by Vergil). See Proklos' summary of the Ilioupersis in Bernabé, A., Poetae Epici Graeci I (Leipzig 1987) 88–89Google Scholar lines 8–9, and Sophokles Laokoon fr. 373 (Radt). The three central scenes belong to the attack proper. The rescue of Aithra in the scene to the right takes place after the Achaians have captured the city; see Proklos' Ilioupersis summary 21–22 (Bernabé).

11 Critics since E.G. Welcker have noted the importance of doubling and parallelism in the epic development of the cycle episodes; see Kullmann, W., ‘Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker über Homer und den epischen Kyklos’ in Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker: Werk und Wirkung, Hermes Einzelschriften xlix (1986) 118.Google Scholar It is not surprising therefore that the artists employ similar techniques in their representations of the Trojan saga.

12 See pp. 133–4 below for further interpretation of this combination of scenes.

13 The exterior of the cup features two episodes from earlier stages in the Trojan saga: the taking of Briseis from Achilles and the fight between Hektor and Aias. The relationship between interior and exterior scenes does not seem to be governed by the immediate visual and thematic similarities operating among the interior scenes. I therefore do not discuss the exterior scenes in this paper.

14 For the Priam/Astyanax scene in Greek art of the sixth and fifth centuries see Wiencke (n. 5) and Touchefeu, O., ‘Astyanax I’, LIMC ii (1984) 929–37.Google Scholar

15 Note that Onesimos uses this same combination of Priam, Neoptolemos and Polyxene to decorate the tondo of a slightly earlier cup, Vatican, no inv. no., and Berlin 2280 and 2281, ARV 19.1 and 2, BA 153. Only fragments remain. See Stenico, A., ‘Nuovi frammenti della kylix berlinese con l'Iliupersis di Euphronios, conservati nei Musei Vaticani’, Acme vi (1953) 497–508, pls 1–2Google Scholar; and Speier, H., ‘Die Iliupersisschale aus der Werkstatt des Euphronios’, in Lullies, R. (ed.), Neue Beitrage zur klassischen Altertumskunde (Stuttgart 1954) 113–24.Google Scholar For the most recent reconstruction of the fragments and the attribution to Onesimos, see Williams, D., ‘The Iliupersis cup in Berlin and the Vatican’, JBerMus xviii (1976) 9–23Google Scholar, figs 6 and 7. Although the female figure in the tondo is not identified with an inscrip tion, comparison with the Getty cup suggests that she is Polyxene. See Williams (n. 1) 50.

16 Williams (n. 1) 51 suggests that Onesimos might perhaps have made a slight slip and written Daïphonos instead of Daïphobos’. I suggest that rather than an error, the name Daïphonos is for Onesimos an alternative to Daïphobos (or Deiphobos). Compare the tondo of Onesimos' earlier Ilioupersis cup (on which see n. 15). Three inscriptions appear on and below the altar: above the moulding, in the middle, and retrograde below the base. These inscriptions have been read together as by Speier (n. 15) 114. I suggest instead two separate inscriptions: for the location and for the name of the fallen warrior. It would be normal for the inscription to originate near the warrior's head, and therefore it is written retrograde. Perhaps this figure is as on the Getty vase.

17 See Williams (n.l) 51.

18 For the iconography of Kassandra see Davreux, J., La légende de la prophétesse Cassandre d'après les textes et les monuments (Paris 1942)Google Scholar, and Touchefeu, O., ‘Aias II’, LIMC i (1981) 336–51.Google Scholar

19 The altar itself, a notable feature of the story already in its epic renderings, was still a particularly potent image in late Archaic and Classical Athens, where the altar of Zeus Herkeios served as a focal point of the home; see, for example, Aristotle Ath.Pol. 55. The only other known example of an inscription on this altar in the Priam scene occurs on Onesimos' earlier Ilioupersis cup (nn. 15 and 16).

20 Other examples of the combination include a black-figure amphora by Lydos (n. 6); the Vivenzio hydria of the Kleophrades Painter (n. 7); red-figure cup fragments, Akropolis 212, Touchefeu (n. 14) no. 17, c. 500 BC; fragments of a red-figure cup by the Steiglitz Painter, Akropolis 355, ARV 828.29, 480–470 BC; and a red-figure volute-krater of the Niobid Painter, Bologna 268, ARV 598.1, Para 394, BA 265, 475–450 BC.

21 ‘See Proklos’ summary of the Ilioupersis 22–23: (Bernabé).

22 London 1897.7–27.2, ABV 97.27 and 683, Para 37, BA 26, 565–550 BC, Boardman, J., Athenian Black Figure Vases (London 1974) fig. 57.Google Scholar On the disputed provenance of the ‘Tyrrhenian’ amphorae see Carpenter, T.H., ‘The Tyrrhenian Group: problems of provenance’, OJA ii (1984) 45–56Google Scholar, and Ginge, B., ‘A new evaluation of the origins of Tyrrhenian pottery: Etruscan precursors of Pontie ceramics’, in Christiansen, J. and Melander, T. (eds), Ancient Greek and related pottery (Copenhagen 1988) 201–10.Google Scholar The uncertainty does not significantly affect my arguments.

23 Berlin 1902, ABV 363.37, Para 161, BA 96, late 6th c. BC, Vermeule, E., ‘The vengeance of Achilles’, Bull MFA lxiii (1965) fig. 6.Google Scholar The same scene appears on a red-figure cup by Makron, Louvre G 153, ARV 460.14 and 481, BA 244, Beazley, J.D., ‘A cup by Hieron and Makron’, Bull Vereen xxix (1954) 12–15.Google Scholar

24 A similar combination of Priam and Polyxene is found on the Ilioupersis cup of the Brygos Painter, Louvre G 152, ARV 369.1 and 1649, Para 365, BA 224, Arias, P., Hirmer, M. and Shefton, B.B. (tr. and rev.), A history of Greek vase painting (London 1962) pls 139–41.Google Scholar As a warrior leads her away by the hand, Polyxene looks back upon the murder of her father. The Brygos Painter has borrowed the combination of Polyxene plus warrior (found on the Leagros Group amphora, n. 23) and transferred it to a new location. In the resulting double composition the suggestion of Polyxene's imminent death provides a parallel to the immediate death of Priam. Similarly, on both of Onesimos' Ilioupersis cups the fates of Polyxene and Priam are implicitly compared.

25 For Helen see Kahil, L., ‘Hélène’, LIMC iv (1988) 498–563Google Scholar, esp. 499–500 for the literary sources and 537–52 for the recovery scene.

26 On the characteristic nudity of Kassandra see Touchefeu 351.

27 For a similar suggestive representation of Helen's body compare the Makron skyphos Boston MFA 13.168, ARV 458.1 and 481, Para 377, BA 243, Simon (n. 7) pl. 166. Note that transparent clothing is found on the Getty vase also on the figures of Akamas, Demophon (w) and the pestle-swinger (NW). The technique cannot be considered unusual. Nevertheless, the painter did have the choice of whether or not to reveal Helen's body, and the decision to do so has provided a parallel with the Kassandra scene. Note also that as the century progresses the iconography of Helen's recovery becomes further assimilated to that of Kassandra.

28 See Williams (n. 1) 56 for the suggested identification of this figure as Aphrodite.

29 I am grateful to Oliver Taplin for pointing out this parallel.

30 The remains of an inscription suggest that this figure may be Hekabe. Williams (n. 1) 54 notes, however, that the figure appears too young to be Hekabe and suggests instead Klymene, a slave of Helen whose name appears at Iliad iii 144. Because of the figure's active resistance I would more readily identify her as a Trojan, perhaps belonging to the royal house. See p. 7 below. For other armed women in Ilioupersis scenes see, for example, the Ilioupersis cup of the Brygos Painter (n. 24) and the Vivenzio hydria of the Kleophrades Painter (n. 7). Note also the presence of a pestle in the tondo of the Getty cup; see Williams (n. 1)51–52.

31 The fragmentary inscription suggests that this is Andromache; see Williams (n. 1) 56.

32 Williams (n. 1) 56 suggests that the space ‘was probably filled by a fight scene’.

33 This arrangement is reminiscent of Onesimos' earlier Ilioupersis cup (n. 15). On one side of the exterior are two pairs of fighting men; on the other are two groups, each consisting of a Trojan woman fleeing from a Greek warrior. As on the Getty cup, scenes of male combat are balanced against groups composed of women and warriors.

34 Compare the cloaks worn by the Trojan men on the Brygos Painter's Ilioupersis cup (n. 24). Men in scenes of feasting and celebration often wear similar cloaks. See for example a cup by Douris, Cab. Méd. 542, ARV 438.133 and 1653, Para 375, BA 239, Arias (n. 24) pl. 148; a skyphos by the Brygos Painter, Louvre G 156, ARV 380.172 and 1649, Para 366, BA 227, Simon (n. 7) pls 151–53; and a cup by the same, Würzburg 479, ARV 372.32 and 1649, Para 366 and 367, BA 225, Simon (n. 7) pls 154–56.

35 Male nudity can, of course, convey a wide range of meaning in Greek art. In scenes of combat nudity may be employed as a heroic convention. It may sometimes be associated with imminent or immediate death. In the context of the sack of Troy, however, the iconographie contrast between naked and fully armed warriors appears to be a deliberate attempt to represent an imbalance between the Achaians and Trojans, an imbalance that was probably traditionally recorded in poetic accounts of the Ilioupersis; see Apollodoros Epitome v 20 for the Achaian assault on the sleeping Trojans. For the theme of unequal combat compare Iliad xxii 124–25, where Hektor says of Achilles,

36 On Aithra see Kron, U., ‘Aithra I’, LIMC i (1981) 420–31Google Scholar, esp. 420 for the literary sources and 426–27 for the rescue.

37 For Antenor see Williams (n. 1) 55–56, and Davies, M.I., ‘Antenor I’, LIMC i (1981) 811–15Google Scholar, esp. 812 for the literary sources and 813 for the rescue at Troy. See Pausanias x 26.7–8 for the rescue of Antenor in the wall-painting by Polygnotos in the Knidian Lesche at Delphi. The skin hung over Odysseus' shoulder in this scene, as Williams tentatively suggests, must be the skin which Odysseus hangs before Antenor's house as a sign to the Achaians not to attack. See also Sophokles Aias Lokros fr. 11 (Radt) and Strabo xiii 1.53.

38 We might, furthermore, suspect that the Antenor scene also took place at a sanctuary, since Theano is the priestess of Athena. The literary sources, however, place the family of Antenor in their home at the time of the sack; see Pausanias x 26.7–8.

39 Compare the arrangement of scenes on the Vivenzio Hydria (n. 7). In the centre Neoptolemos murders Priam. At the far left Aineias leaves the city with his father and son, and to the far right Aithra is rescued by her grandsons. As on Onesim os' Getty cup, the death of Priam is contrasted with two scenes of survival. The arrangement on the Vivenzio hydria also emphasizes the theme of family. Already at Iliad xx 302–8 the eventual survival of the family of Anchises and Aineias is explicitly contrasted with the destruction of the family of Priam. The Kleophrades Painter's depiction of Aineias escaping with his father and son provides a foil to the death of Priam and Astyanax and reflects the contrast in family fates as observed in the Iliad. In addition, the Kleophrades Painter extends this theme into the Aithra scene through the addition of a small female figure, analogous to the figure of Ainieas' son opposite (both placed below round shields), and again to be contrasted with the dead figure of Astyanax in the central scene.

40 See Iliad iii 205–8 for Antenor as host. For the plot see Iliad xi 138–42 and Apollodoros Epitome iii 28–29. Antenor's hospitality and protection of the ambassadors probably formed part of the Kypria. Compare also Bakchylides 15 for the reception of the embassy by Antenor and Theano.

41 See Iliad vii 344–78, where Antenor urges that Helen be returned, Paris refuses and Priam tacitly sides with his son.

42 See Kron (n. 36) 420 for a discussion of the Aithra myth in early literature. Aithra appears already at Iliad iii 143–44 as an attendant of Helen.

43 This relationship between the Aithra scene and those adjacent would encourage a search for a similar relationship between the Antenor scene and its neighbours, but the lack of one adjacent scene and the obscurity of the other make even speculation difficult.

44 Note that the Aineias scene appearing on the Vivenzio hydria would not provide a suitable thematic replacement for the Antenor scene on the Onesimos cup. In contrast to Antenor, who opposed the Trojan claim to Helen, Aineias actually accompanied Paris on his journey to Sparta. With the inclusion of Aineias, the artist would weaken the theme of retribution, expressed here in the contrast between Priam and Antenor.

45 See n. 16 above.

46 Compare Euripides Troades 959–60, where Helen tells Menelaos that Deiphobos married her against her will. On the differing representations of Helen in Greek literature see Kakridis, J.Th., ‘Problems of the Homeric Helen’, in Homer revisited (Lund 1971) 25–53.Google Scholar

47 Compare Williams (n. 1) 61 on the intensity of the brutality and sacrilege. I would, however, disagree with Williams' interpretation of the cup as a ‘Greek celebration of the Greek defeat at Troy’.

48 Attempts have been made to identify Aithra's rescue in black-figure vase-paintings, but the identification is doubtful; see Kron (n. 36) nos 59–65. Apart from the Onesimos cup, the earliest certain representation of the scene appears on a red-figure calyx-krater by Myson, BM E458, ARV 239.16, Para 349, BA 201, Kron no. 66. The Krater is dated to between 500 and 490 BC and is therefore contemporary with the Onesimos cup.

49 Compare the much earlier Kretan bronze shields and Phoenician bowls decorated with concentric bands of figures. The shield on Pheidias' Athena Patinenos seems not to have been decorated according to the geometric scheme employed by Onesimos.

50 Onesimos' previous interest in the Ilioupersis theme is demonstrated by his earlier Ilioupersis cup (nn. 15 and 16). The Priam scene in the tondo of the earlier cup (very similar to that of the Getty cup—n. 16) and the exterior scenes of fighting and pursuit (comparable to the fight scenes on the Getty cup—n. 33) perhaps represent earlier stages in Onesimos' development of the iconography.