Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:14:58.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Portland vase: a reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Denys Haynes
Denys Haynes
Affiliation:
Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In JGS xxxii (1990), a volume devoted to the Portland vase, the sections on the discovery of the vase (85-102) and on the interpretation of its frieze (130-6) are jointly contributed by Kenneth Painter and David Whitehouse (hereafter P. and W.), who refer at some length to my own published views on these problems, but only to dismiss them as untenable. The purpose of this note is to show why they have not persuaded me to change my mind on either.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 115 , November 1995 , pp. 146 - 152
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 Haynes, , The Portland vase (London 1964, revised ed. 1975)Google Scholar; Gnomon xxxviii (1966) 730 ff. (review of Möbius, H., ‘Die Reliefs der Portlandvase und das antike Dreifigurenbild’, ABAW lxi [1965] 6–31)Google Scholar; ‘The Portland vase again’, JHS lxxxviii (1968) 58–72.

2 Simon, E., Die Portlandvase (Mainz 1957) 8–29.Google Scholar

3 Suet. Aug. xciv 4; Dio Cass. xlv 1, 2 f.

4 On Hecuba's dream see RE xviii,4 (1949) s.v. ‘Paris’ 1489–92 (E. Wüst).

5 Apart from P. and W., the only scholars still sharing Simon's opinion that the creature is a snake, seem to be Polacco, L. (‘IL vaso Portland, venti anni dopo’, Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano. Studi in onore di Achille Adriani iii [Rome 1984] 734 ff.)Google Scholar and Schindler, W. (Mythos und Wirklichkeit in der Antike [Berlin 1988] 202).Google Scholar Simon complains (LIMC ii [1984] s.v. ‘Apollon/Apollo no.499’) that I and others have paid too little attention to ‘die mit der Frau auf der Hauptseite verbundene Schlange … sie ist, wie Bastet (Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek xvii [1967] 1–29) in seiner Untersuchung zu Recht feststellt, kein Ketos.’ Bastet did, it is true, at one time identify the creature as a snake, implausibly comparing it with the painted snakes of Roman larario (BABesch xii [1966] 148–50, review of Möbius [n. 1]); but in the more considered Jaarboek article cited by Simon he accepts that it must be a ketos (cf. Haynes 1968 [n. 1] 72). Whether my own discussion of the problem (ibid. 61f) was inadequate, others must judge; but the reader will, I hope, forgive me for repeating here things I have said before. It is sometimes hard to persuade prejudiced eyes to recognize the self-evident.

6 Simon (1984 n. 5) maintains that a ketos can only be identified as such if it can be seen to have a Triton's body and forelegs, or (Augustus. Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende [Munich 1986] 164) a fish's tail. But it is not difficult to find kete of which only the head and neck are visible: e.g., Rumpf, A., Die Meereswesen auf den antiken Sarkophaqreliefs (Berlin 1939) pl. 19 no. 76Google Scholar, pl. 29 no. 70, Pl. 37 no. 93. A series of decorative marble panels now in the Capitoline Museum and probably from the Porticus Octaviae is carved in relief with symbolic objects, including ship's prows emblazoned with ketos-heads (FIG. 3 a; Zanker, P., Augustus und die Macht der Bilder [Munich 1987] fig. 102 b).Google Scholar Despite the lack of a corroborative Triton's body and forelegs or fish's tail, Simon does not hesitate to describe the heads as those of kete (Helbig, Führer 4 ii [Tübingen 1966] 189Google Scholar no. 1382 e, f).

7 Of the assorted snakes and snake-like creatures reproduced by Polacco (n. 5, fig. 2) from Daremberg and Saglio, only two are Roman, and none bears the smallest resemblance to the creature on the vase.

8 Römisch-Germanisches Museum inv. no. 72, 153; La Baume, P., Glas der antiken Welt (Mainz 1974) K 3, pl. 47, 3Google Scholar; Zwierlein-Diehl, E., ‘Simpuvium Numae’, Taenia. Festschrift fur Roland Hampe (Mainz 1980) 409, pl. 76 3, 4Google Scholar; Simon 1986 (n. 6) fig. 214. The snake's head, the modelling of which is very indistinct, is seen from above. Apart from the sharply-pointed nose, the only discernible features are two parallel excrescences on top of the head which have been taken to be ears, but might perhaps be a divided crest. No beard is visible.

9 On draco standards see now Coulston, J., ‘The “draco” standard’, JRMES ii (1991) 101–14.Google Scholar Though P. and W. do not mention them, there are Roman representations of Dacian draco-standards which do in fact closely resemble the creature on the vase: those on the Domitianic(?) trophy-pilasters in Florence (Crous, J., ‘Florentiner Waffenpfeiler und Armilustrium’, RM xlviii [1933] 1–119Google Scholar; Mansuelli, G., Galleria degli Uffizi. Le sculture i [Rome 1958] 25 f.Google Scholar, nos. 2, 3). But here, as Coulston (op. cit. 111 n. 16) points out, the sculptor evidently had little first-hand knowledge of the originals and so had recourse to the Ketos-stereotype to represent them. It was only when Dacian spoils began to reach Rome in quantity as a result of Trajan's campaigns, that Roman sculptors came to know what Dacian draco-standards really looked like.

10 Carettoni, G., Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin (Mainz 1983) 27Google Scholar, pls. 6, 7, 8, D, G. Cf. Beyen, H., Die Pompeianische Wanddekoration Tafelband i (The Hague 1938) 54 no. 210Google Scholar (Casa dei Grifi); Tafelband ii (The Hague 1960) 32 (no. 86a Casa dei Epigrammi); Brigantini, I. and de Vos, M., Le decorazioni della villa romana della Farnesina (Rome 1982) pls. 5, 139, 154, 157, 160.Google Scholar

11 Rizzo, G., Le pitture della ‘Casa di Livia’ Palatina (Rome 1936) 41Google Scholar, fig. 30, pls. B, IV; Beyen 1960 (n. 10) fig. 232; Simon 1986 (n. 6) fig. 248.

12 e.g., on the frieze of an annexe of the Baths of Agrippa (Lugli, G., I monumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio iii [Rome 1938] fig. 26Google Scholar) and on the cornice of the Temple of Venus Genetrix (Ward-Perkins, J., Roman imperial architecture [Harmondsworth 1981] fig. 34Google Scholar).

13 Amelung, W., Die Skulpturen des Vatikanischen Museums (Berlin 1903) 834 f.Google Scholar, pl. 94; Helbig, Führer4 i (Tübingen 1963) 380 f.Google Scholar no. 481 (H. von Heintze); Zanker (n. 6) 82, fig. 60.

14 Zanker (n. 6) 351: ‘Der Versuchung, in den idealen Gesichtern der Figuren Bildniszüge zu sehen, sind schon viele Interpreten erlegen. Das Phänomen ergibt sich aus der klassischen Stilisierung der offiziellen Porträts.’ Cf Becatti, G., Arch. Class, xix (1967) 211.Google Scholar Of the figures on the Portland vase Bernard Ashmole roundly declares: ‘For my own part, I cannot see the faintest resemblance in any of [them] to any Roman historical personage’ (‘A new interpretation of the Portland vase’, JHS lxxxvii [1967] 3).

15 The unmistakable characterization of A as a lover rules out his identification as Theseus visiting Amphitrite (Möbius [n. 1], followed by Becatti [n. 14] and Harrison, E., ‘The Portland vase: thinking it over’, In memoriam Otto J. Brendel. Essays in archaeology and the humanities [Mainz 1976] 131–42)Google Scholar or Achilles visiting Thetis (Brown, E., ‘The Portland vase’, AJA lxxiv [1970] 189Google Scholar; Schwarz, G., ‘Achill und Polyxena in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, RM xcix [1992] 287).Google Scholar Becatti's contention that the Eros ‘battistrada’ symbolizes Theseus's amorous nature in general, not his particular motivation in the present scene, is unconvincing.

16 That the object of A's advance cannot by any stretch of the imagination be C, was pointed out by Polacco long ago (‘Osservazioni intorno al vaso Portland’, Athenaeum [pavia] xxxvi [1958] 132; cf. Haynes 1968 [n. 1] 59 f.). Hence these figures cannot be identified as Peleus and Thetis (Ashmole [n. 14] 5–7; Clairmont, C.. ‘A note on the Portland vase’, AJA lxxii [1968] 280 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hind, J., ‘Greek and Roman epic scenes on the Portland vase’, JHS xcix (1979) 20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smart, J., ‘The Portland vase again’, JHS civ [1984] 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meyer, H., ‘Griechische Mythen in römischen Kontexten: die Ara Telesina und die Portlandvase’, Boreas xii [1989] 123–34Google Scholar; Harrison, S.J., ‘The Portland vase revisited’, JHS cxii [1992] 150)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, or as Perseus and Andromeda (Felten, F., ‘Neuerlich zur Portlandvase’, RM xciv [1987] 205–22Google Scholar; Hunger, K-H., Das Geheimnis der Portlandvase [Munich 1988])Google Scholar, or as Apollo and Atia (Simon 1957 [n. 2], 1984 [n. 5] 1986 [n. 6]; Schindler [n. 5]).

17 Felten (n. 16 208) asks: ‘hätte tatsächlich ein Verschieben der Figur [of Eros] um einen Zentimeter nach links die Interpretation verändern können?’ The answer is no. But to bring the Eros into a position between A and C, as his interpretation of the scene demands, the god would have to be shifted more than two centimetres to the left, which would effectively destroy the composition.

18 Harden, , JGS xxv (1983) 45, 47Google Scholar, believes that the disc was fitted to the vase in antiquity because a ‘limy weathering’ which occurs on the grazed bottom edge of the body is also found on the upper surface of the disc, even, to some extent, in the circular groove cut in it to receive the body. But might not this ‘limy weathering’ be the remains of a cement used to join the disc to the vase and no older perhaps than a few hundred years? To me at least, the repair looks too botched to be ancient, more like a crude attempt by its sixteenth-century finders to make the vase more marketable.

19 According to my measurements, the fracture in the vase is 11.9 cm long, that in the disc 11.4 cm.

20 Harden (n. 18) 46 f.

21 Schwarz (n. 15) 289 n. 104 reproaches P. and W. for failing to mention that Polacco (1984 [n. 5] 773 and n. 31) has identified the object lying on the ground at F's feet as a Phrygian cap, an observation which, she thinks, would have given their ‘recht eigenwillige Interpretation’ of this figure as Hecuba much needed support. But the object cannot possibly be a cap: its stepped shape and rigidly rectilinear contours clearly indicate something hard and unyielding, a conclusion confirmed by the fact that it unmistakably props up the isolated capital beside it. To say what it is, is more difficult: another fragment of architecture perhaps, or simply a stylized lump of rock. Not dissimilar forms occur in the rock at the bottom of the tree between Ariadne and the Maenad on one of a pair of cameoglass panels from the House of Fabius Rufus at Pompeii (Harden, D. et al. , Glass of the Caesars [Milan 1987] 72, 73 no. 32).Google Scholar

22 Cf. Haynes 1968 (n. 1) 73 67 f. with figs. 5, 9 and 15. The pose occurs most often in representations of Endymion and Ariadne, but is evidently a stereotype characterizing a particular situation rather than a particular person. Harrison (n. 15 132) claims that F ‘conforms in every respect, including her dress and coiffure, to the familiar Hellenistic and Roman type of the sleeping Ariadne’; but this very miscellaneous category includes no really close parallel, so far as I can see. Certainly no Ariadne holds a torch.

23 Cf. Haynes 1986 (n. 1) 58 f. with figs. 2–4.

24 Cf. Haynes 1968 (n. 1) 67 with figs. 10–14.

25 Blue Vase from Pompeii: Harden et al. (n. 21) 76 no. 33; Naples cameo: Lippold, G., Gemmen und Kameen des Altertums und der Neuzeit (Stuttgart 1922) pl. XLVIII, 1.Google Scholar Similar rhomboid blocks but without central holes occur on two other cameo works: one on a large sard intaglio in the Hague (Maaskant-Kleibrink, M., Catalogue of the engraved gems [The Hague 1978] 370 no. 1166, pl. 184Google Scholar; Simon 1986 [n. 6] 163, fig. 213) where it leans against the rock on which Venus sits, and the other on the cameo-glass panel from Pompei already mentioned (n. 21), where the goat to the right of Ariadne sets a foot on it.

26 Berlin F 2588, LIMC vi s.v. ‘Mnesteres II no. 19’. Among many other examples we may mention two amphorae in Würzburg: one by the Berlin Painter with Herakles and Apollo (Beckel, G. et al., Werke der Antike im Martin von Wagner Museum der Universität Würzburg [Mainz 1983] 96 f. no. 41Google Scholar), the other by the Kleophrades Painter with Hector and Ajax (ibid. 100 f. no. 43). We may also mention, as an example closer to the Portland vase in technique and time, the J. Paul Getty Museum's cameo-glass cup (JGS xxxii [1990] 143 ff. no. A4, figs. 100, 101) whose handles with the Silenus-masks under them separate Dionysus and his companions from Ariadne and hers, but whose two sides constitute nevertheless, as P. and W. themselves admit, ‘a single figured frieze.’

27 Cf. Haynes 1968 (n. 1) 69 f.

28 The ketos occurs as an attribute of Amphitrite on silver cladding from Marengo (Bendinelli, G., IL tesoro di argenteria di Marengo [Turin 1937] 22, pl. vii–viiiGoogle Scholar, fig. 14); of Tethys on mosaics from Antioch (Levi, D., Mosaic pavements from Antioch ii [Princeton 1947] pl. CLVIIb)Google Scholar, Shahba-Philippopolis (Balty, J., Mosaïques antiques de Syrie [Brussels 1970] 66 ff,. nos. 28–29Google Scholar) and Anazarbus (Budde, L., Antiken Mosaiken in Kilikien ii [Recklinghausen 1972] fig. 82)Google Scholar, and of an unidentified sea-goddess on a fragment of a Roman sarcophagus in the J. Paul Getty Museum (Koch, G., Roman funerary sculpture. Catalogue of the collections, the J. Paul Getty Museum [Malibu 1988] 66 no. 22).Google Scholar

29 For the identification of E as Hermes see Haynes (n. 1) 70. In support of her theory that this figure represents Theseus on the point of abandoning Ariadne, Harrison (n. 15 133) quotes Simon (n. 2 25): ‘er sitzt so leicht und flüchtig da, wie sonst nur der Götterbote;’ and Felten (n. 16 209) and Meyer (n. 16 131), who both follow Harrison in identifying the figure as Theseus, likewise describe it as restless. But far from suggesting any intention of flight, E's pose clearly characterizes him as a settled spectator, being closely comparable, for example, with that of the herdsman admiring Apollo on a painting from the Casa della Caccia Antica, Pompeii (LIMC ii [1984]Google Scholar s.v. ‘Apollon/Apollo no. 281’), or the Vulcan paired with Venus on a sarcophagus with Mars and Rhea Silvia in the Palazzo Mattei (Haynes 1968 [n. 1] fig. 9), or the bearded observer of Dionysus and Ariadne on a sarcophagus in Baltimore (Matz, F., Die dionysischen Sarkophage [Berlin 1969] pls. 225, 226 no. 226Google Scholar), or the personified Latmos looking on as Selene approaches Endymion on a sarcophagus in the Louvre (Baratte, F. and Metzger, C., Catalogue des sarcophages en pierre d'époques romaine et paléochrétienne [Paris 1985] 71 f. no. 25).Google Scholar Although spelt out by Polacco (n. 16 131) long ago, the ludicrous implications of supposing E to be F's lover continue to be disregarded. Others opting for Theseus and Ariadne are Möbius (n. 1) and Becatti (n. 14), while Achilles and Helen are preferred by Ashmole (n. 14), Clairmont (n. 16) and Hind 1993 (‘Archaeology around the Black Sea 1982–92’, AR xxxix [1992–93] 91), Achilles and Iphigenia by Smart (n. 16), Achilles and Deïdameia by Brown, (‘Achilles and Deïdameia on the Portland vase’, AJA lxxvi [1972] 379)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Achilles and Polyxena by Schwarz (n. 15), Perseus and Andromeda by Hunger (n. 16), Paris and Helen by Harrison (n. 16) and Apollo and Atia by Simon (1984 [n. 5], 1986 [n. 6]).

30 On a cameo-glass jug from Besançon (Koltes, J., Catalogue des collections archéologiques de Besançon VII: la verrerie gallo-romaine [Paris 1982] 31–7Google Scholar no. 82, pls. 46–8) a purely Bacchic frieze is interrupted by a Gorgon handle-mask.

31 Cf. RE suppl. viii (1956), s.v. ‘Pan’, 1000, 1002 (F. Brommer); LIMC ii (1984), s.v. ‘Aphrodite’, 128 f. (A. Delivorrias et al.)

32 Ashmole (n. 14) 10.

33 On the date of the tomb see Coarelli, F., ‘L'urbe e il suburbio’, Roma, politica, economia, paesaggio urbano. Società romana e impero tardoromano ii, ed. Giardina, E. (Rome and Bari 1986) 56–8.Google Scholar

34 Helbig, , Führer4 ii (Tübingen 1966) 73–6Google Scholar, no. 1222 (B. Andreae). On the purchase negotiations see Lanciani, R., Storia degli scavi di Roma ii (Rome 1903) 87 f.Google Scholar, iii (Rome 1907) 58.

35 ‘The British School at Rome’, Athenaeum (London) no. 4222 (27 Feb. 1909) 265.

36 I give Vacca's text as edited by Schreiber, Th., ‘Flaminio Vacca's Fundberichte’, Sitzungsberichte der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften xxxiii (1881).Google Scholar

37 An unfortunate argument to use against Vacca when defending the uncorroborated evidence of someone writing more than a century after the event.

38 Michaelis, A., ‘La collezione capitolina di antichità’, RM vi (1891) 6.Google Scholar

39 Sauer, B., ‘Geschichte der Archäologie’, Handbuch der Archäologie, ed. Bulle, H. (Munich 1913) 83Google Scholar: ‘Mit besonderem Ruhm ist des Bildhauers Flaminio Vacca zu gedenken, der wie ein geschulter Archäolog über stadtrömische Funde berichtet.’

40 Ashmole (n. 14) 10 f.

41 P. and W. describe Lazzaro as the owner of ‘a notable collection of antiquities in the Palazzo del Bufalo’, but it comprised only four pieces: a pilaster, a tombstone (CIL vi no. 1924), an inscription (CIL vi no. 8658) and a statue of Venus, all of which he had acquired as part of the property (Lanciani [n. 34] i [Rome 1902] 104). Nothing suggests that he was himself a collector.

42 On the disastrous consequences for Roman antiquities of the hunt for building materials see Lanciani, R., The destruction of ancient Rome (New York 1899) chap. xix.Google Scholar

43 In English, too, a corpse may be described as ashes: Poor key-cold figure of a holy King! Pale ashes of the house of Lancaster! (Shakespeare, King Richard III I ii 6 f.)

44 ‘Keiner von den vielen Imperatoren erregt so sehr die Teilnahme der Nachwelt wie dieser im Verhältnis zu seiner Gesamtumgebung unbegreifliche Mensch [Alexander Severus], ein wahrer Sanct Ludwig des Altertums’ (J. Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen). Cf. Calderini, A., ‘Le “virtù” di Alessandro Severo’, Studi dedicati alla memoria di Paolo Ubaldi (Milan 1937) 431–42.Google Scholar

45 Thomas Elyot, The image of governance (1541). On Elyot's influence see Lehmberg, S., Sir Thomas Elyot, Tudor humanist (Austin, Tex. 1960)Google Scholar; Major, J., Sir Thomas Elyot and renaissance humanism (Lincoln, Nebr. 1964).Google Scholar

46 Jaffé, D., ‘Peiresc, Rubens, dal Pozzo and the Portland vase’, The Burlington Magazine cxxxi (1989) 556, 588 no. 25.Google Scholar

47 We might compare the frequent multiplication of saintly relics resulting from ecclesiastical rivalries. The body of St. Teilo, for example, miraculously triplicated itself overnight to satisfy the competing claims of Llandeilo, Penally and Llandaff.

48 This is not the only occasion on which Bartoli's testimony is open to question. There are grounds for doubting whether the Protesilaos sarcophagus formerly in the Barberini Palace and now in the Vatican was found in a tomb on the Via Appia (Gli antichi sepolcri pls. 53–5; cf. Robert, C., Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs iii 3 [Berlin 1899] 498 no. 423)Google Scholar, or the Farnese Palace strigil-sarcophagus in the tomb of Caecilia Metella (Gli antichi sepolcri pls. 35–8; cf. Canina, L., La prima parte della Via Appia [Rome 1853] 87 n. 25).Google Scholar