Veiling, αίδώς, and a red-figure amphora by Phintias

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Volumn 116, Issue , 1996, Pages 152-158

  Cairns, Douglas L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938695328     PISSN: 00754269     EISSN: 20414099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/631962     Document Type: Article

References (291)

1. Aidôs (Oxford 1993).
2. Cf. E. Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder (Berlin 1840–1858) i 81
3. J. Overbeck, Griechische Kunstmythologie (Leipzig 1871–1889) iii 387.
4. = Gods and heroes in late archaic Greek art (Eng. trans. Cambridge 1992) 71 (cited hereafter from trans.).
5. Cf. A. Greifenhagen.‘Tityos’, Jb. Berl. Mus. i (1959) 19
6. J. Hani in J. Duchemin (ed.), Mythe et personnification (Paris 1980) 105.
7. On (Art.) Eukleia, see now LIMC ii.1, 677 (L. Kahil)
8. H.A. Shapiro, Personifications in Greek art (Zürich 1993) 70–78.
9. On ABV 269, 41
10. LIMC ii pl. 553
11. Artemis 1300
12. cf. P.E. Arias and M. Hirmer, A history of Greek vase painting (rev. B. Shefton, London 1962) 318.
13. Schefold (n. 3) 337 n. 353
14. also identifies as Arete the figure crowning Heracles on two vases described by J.D. Beazley (AK iv [1961] 56 no. 3, 57 no. 6).
15. F. Hauser, in A. Furtwängler and K. Reichold, Griechische Vasenmalerei (Munich 1904–1932) ii 273 n. 1, rejects the ‘abbreviation’ view, but interprets the letters as a slip for ’ Ap$
16. cf. H.R. Immerwahr, Attic script (Oxford 1990) 67.
17. The hypothesis of M. Vickers and D. Gill, Artful Crafts (Oxford 1994)—that Attic painted pottery (including its inscriptions) imitates gold- and silverware—might explain how a slip was made (see esp. 164) but cannot prove that a slip was made.
18. see Immerwahr (n. 7) 66–67. Sotinos and Sosias are the two older spectators; $, goes with Sostratos and Demostratos is the recipient of the greeting; but it is unclear whether the discus-thrower is Sostratos or Chares, the acontist Chares or Demostratos; and neither $ nor $, inscriptions need refer to individuals depicted on the vase. On A, the three $ inscriptions are most probably extra-iconic; given their position, it is unlikely that they and the other inscriptions are to be construed as one complete sentence (‘Hail Apollo, son of Leto, hail Aidos!’).
19. But not all; see Roscher, ML v 1043 (O. Waser).
20. Certainly London E 278 (ARV2 226, 2
21. LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 36 = Apollon 1070 = Ge 43
22. Munich 2689 (ARV2 879, 2
23. LIMC ii pl. 275, Apollon 1071 = Ge 45 = Leto 45
24. Louvre G375 (ARV2 1032, 54; Leto designated $
25. a rf krater from the Loeb Collection (Munich, Loeb 472
26. J. Sieveking, Bronzen, Terrakotten, Vasen der Sammlung Loeb [Munich 1930] 61 and pl. 48
27. LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 38 = Artemis 1368
28. perhaps also Berlin 1835 (ABV 286, 10
29. A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium [Berlin 1885] 331–2); and possibly those canvassed in nn. 15–16 below). On an Argive-Corinthian shield-band relief of c. 540 in Basle
30. LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 40) Leto draws her veil just as on the vases.
31. (n. 3) 19–27; cf. P. Zancani Montuoro and U. Zanotti-Bianco, Heraion alia Face del Sele (Rome 1951–1954) ii 325–329
32. J. Henle, Greek myths (Bloomington 1974) 35–37.
33. The interpretation which see Ge as practically a fixture in scenes of the pursuit/killing of Tityos goes back to Overbeck (n. 2) iii 383–90, and is well represented by the entries s.v. ‘Tityos’ in Roscher and RE (e.g. K. Scherling in RE vi A 1599: ‘Wenn eine Frau neben T. oder zwischen ihm und Apollon steht, so ist es seine Mutter Ge’)
34. despite rebuttal by Greifenhagen and Henle, it has some more recent adherents (e.g. G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst [Berlin 1965] 178 n. 127, 189 n. 280).
35. See most recently M. Moore in LIMC iv.1, 175–176
36. L. Kahil, LIMC, vi.1, 260.
37. Greifenhagen (n. 3) 22, against
38. (e.g.) Waser in Roscher, ML v 1047.
39. Scherling in RE vi A 1602; the motif of Antaeus' need to maintain contact with Earth appears to be post-classical
40. see Gerhard (n. 2) ii 104
41. G. Oertel in Roscher, ML i 362
42. A. Furtwangler in Roscher, ML i 2208
43. E.N. Gardiner, JHS xxv (1905) 282–284
44. R. Olmos/L.J. Balmaseda in LIMC i.1,810–11.
45. On one vase (New York 08.258.21, ARV2 1086, 1
46. LIMC ii pl. 275, Apollon 1072 = Leto 37) the figure depicted between Leto's children and Tityos in the pose supposedly typical of Ge is named as Leto.
47. The presence of Ge in a version of the pursuit of Tityos is guaranteed by the inscription ΓE on a Tyrrhenian amphora in the Louvre (E 864, ABV 97, 33
48. LIMC ii pl. 274, Apollon 1066 = Ge 10)
49. cf. Moore (n. 12) 175; n.b. Ge does not veil here.
50. Two other vases (Tarquinia RC 1043 [ABV 97, 32
51. LIMC Ge 11 = Leto 42 = Niobidai 3]
52. Villa Giulia, ABV 121,6
53. LIMC iv pl. 97 Ge 12 = Leto 34]) offer more than one female character (besides Art.)
54. so also permit an identification of Ge as a participant (cf. Moore, LIMC.)
55. in both, the central female figure, between pursuers and pursued, is veiling, and Greifenhagen ([n. 3] 11, 14) is prepared to allow that this is Ge rather than Leto. Leto's veiling, however, is more easily motivated than Ge's, and on the other vases depicting a veiled woman that figure is clearly Leto. But it is sufficient for our purposes that Leto's veiling should be a regular element of the scene, whereas the very presence of Ge is certain in only one example, and the possibility of her veiling highly uncertain.
56. Henle (n. 11) 37.
57. In only one case (a calyx krater by the Aegisthus Painter, Louvre G 164 [ARV2 504, 1
58. LIMC Ge 44 = Leto 44]) is there any difficulty in identifying a single veiled female as Leto
59. cf. Henle, 175–6 n. 7. The difficulty lies in the strange ‘pin cushion’ object attached to the figure's chest, into which Apollo has apparently shot his arrows
60. some see this as symbolic of the invulnerability of Ge (e.g. Waser in Roscher, ML v 1050), or of Apollo's arrows (untypically) falling to earth
61. E. Buschor in Furtwängler-Reichold [n. 7] iii 280; but the figure does veil, does stretch out her hand to Apollo, and her position in front of a palm suggests Leto or Artemis.
62. Leto remains a strong possibility (so Greifenhagen [n. 3] 25–27), but the scene is enigmatic.
63. See further A. Griffiths, JHS cvi (1986) 65 n. 37
64. BICS xxxvii (1990) 131–133.
65. Contrast Henle (n. 11) 37.
66. The significance of Leto's veil is reflected in the detail given by Apollonius (i 759–62)
67. the Suda (s.v. ‘Tityos’; iv 564–5 Adler), that Tityos dragged Leto by the $.
68. Cf. Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco (n. 11) ii 326.
69. See, e.g. Leningrad 709 (ARV2 487, 61
70. C. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Reading’ Greek culture [Oxford 1991] pls 9–10
71. Leningrad 777 (ARV2 502, 11
72. Sourvinou-Inwood pl. 6
73. Madrid 11038 (ARV2 586, 46
74. K.J. Dover, Greek homosexuality [London 1978] R750
75. London E 64 (ARV2 455, 9
76. Paris, Petit Palais 316 (ARV2 639, 58).
77. See Cairns (n. 1) 15, 98–9 n. 151, 158, 184, 217–18, 231, 292–3, 312, 352
78. also in CQ 46 (1996).
79. Cf. Her. 1159–1162, IT 372–6, Or 459–61
80. Cairns [n. 1] 292–293
81. Pho. 1485–1492
82. pl. Phdr. 237a, Aeschin. i 26 (etc.)
83. on veiling as stage business in tragedy see F.L. Shisler, AJP lxvi (1945) 385.
84. Od. i 333–4, xvi 415–16, xviii 209–10, xxi 64–5; interpreted as a gesture of $ by Julian Orat. iii 127c-d
85. cf. H. F. North, Sophrosyne [Ithaca 1966] 308 n. 143.
86. See M. Nagler, Spontaneity and tradition (Berkeley 1974) 44–72, 80
87. who also (47–9) notes the significance of the removal of the $ at Il. xxii 468–72, Od. vi 100
88. cf. R. Seaford in T.H. Carpenter, C.A. Faraone [eds.], Masks of Dionysus [Princeton 1993] 177–121
89. id. Reciprocity and ritual [Oxford 1994] 333, 350–351.
90. Contrast F. Studniczka, Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht (Vienna 1886) 125–127
91. H. Haakh, Gymnasium lxvi (1959) 374–380
92. Neumann (n. 12) 179 n. 134
93. who believe that Penelope is unveiling herself in order to appear more attractive to the suitors. Cf. K. Friis Johansen, The Attic grave reliefs of the classical period (Copenhagen 1951) 41 n. 1, re sepulchral reliefs
94. C.M. Gait, AJA xxxv (1931) 373–393
95. also the summary of a paper by M.E. Mayo in AJA lxxvii (1973) 200, which appears to have argued that the drawing of the veil always represents unveiling (even in rape scenes). There need be no dispute that the gesture can (be intended to) be attractive to men, since manifestations of $ (lowering the eyes, blushing, etc., as well as veiling) were attractive to men
96. cf. J.M. Redfield, Arethusa xv (1982) 196.
97. Cf. F. Eckstein, LIMC i.1, 352
98. also R. Schulz, AIΔΩΣ (Diss. Rostock 1910) 98–99
99. Von Erffa, AIΔΩΣ 57.
100. Cf. the remark of Pliny (xxxv 63) that in his portrait of Penelope Zeuxis pinxisse mores videtur (cited by T.H. Carpenter, Art and myth in ancient Greece [London 1991] 235)
101. Carpenter is no doubt right to say that Zeuxis depicted Penelope as in his fig. 347 (Chiusi 1831, ARV2 1300, 2)
102. the pose of this seated, veiled Penelope is very similar to that of the Persepolis torso which Eckstein, JDAI lxxiv (1959) 137–157
103. LIMC i.1, 352–3 (pl. 270, Aidos 1 in LIMC i.2)
104. regards as the Aidos/Penelope discussed by Pausanias; against this identification, see E. Langlotz, JDAI Ixxvi (1961) 72–99
105. cf. W. Gauer, JDAI cv (1990) 31–65.
106. On the wedding veil, see M.L. Cunningham, BICS xxxi (1984) 9–12
107. D. Armstrong and E.A. Ratchford, BICS xxxii (1985) 1–14
108. R. Seaford, JHS cvii (1987) 124–125
109. A. Carson in D.M. Halperin, J.J. Winkler, and F.I. Zeitlin (eds.), Before sexuality (Princeton 1990) 160–164
110. J.H. Oakley, R.H. Sinos, The wedding in ancient Athens (Madison, Wis. 1993) passim, esp. 25–6, 30–2, 44.
111. For Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 18) 69 the gesture of veiling is in itself polysemic, but in the particular context of erotic pursuits conveys an allusion to the marriage veil
112. See I. Jenkins, BICS xxx (1983) 137–146
113. cf. Redfield (n. 22) 183–192
114. H. King in A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Images of women in antiquity (London 1983) 109–117
115. H.P. Foley, Ritual irony (Ithaca NY 1985) 86–9 etc.
116. Seaford (n. 25) 106–130
117. JHS cviii (1988) 118–124.
118. C. Sittl, Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig 1890), at least discusses veiling, sees the connexion with $ (84 and n. 7), and notes the iconographic link between wedding, abduction, and the ‘marriage of death’ (278–9), but his discussion is brief and unsystematic. In Neumann (n. 12) veiling receives no discussion in its own right, and prima facie similar poses involving the veiling of the head are distinguished on the most tenuous of criteria.
119. For the interaction of ‘marriage’ and ‘abduction’ motifs, see (e.g.) the Meidias Painter's depiction of the rape of the Leucippides (London E 224, ARV2 1313, 5
120. L. Burn, The Meidias painter [Oxford 1987] 16–17, 25 and pls la, 2b-3, 4b-9b); Eriphyle is lifted aloft by Castor, who holds her exactly as Tityos does Leto on the Phintias vase (cf. n. 47 below), but the tugging at her veil is at once a spontaneous response to sexual outrage and a detail which recalls the wedding ceremony; the latter is yet more explicitly recalled in Polydeuces' use of a chariot to carry off Hilaeira (who also draws her veil).
121. On the chariot, cf. R. Lindner, Der Raub der Persephone in der antiken Kunst [Wurzburg 1984].
122. Cf. Arezzo 1460, ARV2 1157, 25 (Pelops and Hippodameia)
123. depictions too numerous to list of the abduction and recovery of Helen in L. Ghali-Kahil, Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène (Paris 1955)
124. LIMC iv pls 291–359 passim
125. cf. R. Rehm, Marriage to death [Princeton 1994] 39.
126. On abduction/marriage, cf. A. van Gennep, The rites of passage (Eng. trans. London 1960) 123–129
127. T.B.L. Webster, Potter and patron in classical Athens (London 1972) 107
128. Jenkins (n. 26)
129. Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 18) 65–70
130. passim, ead. BICS xx (1973) 12–21
131. Rehm 36–40. The occurrence of the bridal gesture in other contexts suggestive of $ is reason to doubt the contention of Oakley and Sinos (n. 25) 30, 36, 44 that it always signifies unveiling in wedding iconography. Like Mayo (n. 22), they refer to ‘the gesture known as the anakaly-psis’ (44); but no ancient author uses the term $ in the sense or the connexion they require.
132. Haakh (n. 22) 375–6; see his pl. xv (= Munich 2415, ARV2 1143, 2
133. for the correct interpretation, see G. Davies, Apollo cxl no. 389 [July 1994] 6–7
134. cf. Würzburg 160
135. A. Rumpf, Chalkid-ische Vasen (Leipzig 1927) no. 14 pls 31–34.
136. See R. Peter in Roscher, ML iii 3276–3277
137. Langlotz (n. 24) 84–85
138. North (n. 21) 308–309
139. M. Grant, Roman imperial money (Amsterdam 1972 [1 1954]) 159–161.
140. See Livy x 23, 3–10 (esp. 9)
141. Festus p. 242
142. Paulus p. 243 Müller
143. cf. Peter in Roscher, ML iii 3277–3279
144. G. Williams, JRS xlviii (1958) 23–24
145. N. Rudd, Lines of enquiry (Cambridge 1976) 42–43
146. Hani (n. 3) 107
147. E. D'Ambra, MDAI(R) xcviii (1991) 243–248
148. Private lives, imperial virtues (Princeton 1993) 36–9, 56–8, 79
149. G. Davies in E. Marshall, M. Harlow (eds.), Messages from the past (Exeter 1996).
150. Bf vases typically show the procession, with bride and groom in chariot, and the bride normally draws her mantle; on if vases the bride is most often led, veiled but not veiling, $; see Oakley and Sinos (n. 25) 26–34 (with ill).
151. Cf. veiling/$ motifs in the ‘marriage of death’ on Berlin 1902 (ABV 363, 37)
152. Athens NM 1926 (ARV2 846, 193); also the grave relief of Myrrhine (Athens NM 4485
153. Friis Johansen [n. 22] fig. 82. Equally, some representations of Roman Pudicitia depict a veiled rather than a veiling woman
154. S.W. Stevenson, A dictionary of Roman coins (London 1964) 668. Some (quasi) wedding scenes are better understood as depicting unveiling rather than veiling (e.g. the Selinus metope showing Zeus and Hera
155. O. Benndorf, Die Metopen von Selinunt [Berlin 1873] 54–6 and pl. 8
156. cf. Hera and Zeus on the Parthenon frieze [K. Schefold, Die Göttersage in der klassischen undhellenistischen Kunst (Munich 1981) pl. 302]
157. where Hera clearly is revealing her attractions to Zeus in what I.S. Mark [Hesperia liii (1984) 303–304] regards as an allusion to the $ but (a) unveiling implies previous veiling, to which $ is still relevant, and (b) this unveiling should not be assimilated to the modest gesture of drawing the himation across the face (see n. 22 above). (On the $
158. see J.H. Oakley, AA (1982) 113–118
159. R.F. Sutton in id. [ed.], Daidalikon: studies … Schoder [Wauconda, III. 1989] 357–359
160. Oakley and Sinos [n. 25] 25–6, 30
161. Rehm [n. 28] 141–142.
162. On Mantelknaben and $, see Sittl (n. 27) 7–8 (to his refs add Aeschin. i 26 [Athens]
163. Xen. Lac. Pol. 3. 4 [Sparta]. Illustrations in Dover (n. 18) R637, 791, 851 (boys), 867 (woman)
164. M.F. Kilmer, Greek erotica (London 1993) R196, 322, 576, 622.1 (boys), C1 (woman)
165. cf. the muffled boy on Munich 2421 (ARV2 23, 7)
166. cf. also the progressive unmuffling of the woman undergoing ‘Bacchic initiation’ (Florence 391, ARV2 769, 4
167. Oxford 1924.2, ARV2 865, 1
168. C. Bërard [et al.], A city of images [Eng. trans. Princeton 1988] figs 199–200
169. also the gesture of drawing the veil practised by women encountering strange men (Para. 73, 1 bis. Add.2 49
170. Würzburg 452 [ARV2 63, 6
171. LIMC i pl. 60
172. Achilleus 35
173. London F 175 [A.D. Trendall, The red-figured vases of Lucania, Campania, and Sicily (Oxford 1967) 103 no. 539
174. LIMC iv pl. 304
175. Helene 73
176. Ban 4394 [A.D. Trendall and A. Cambitoglou, The red-figured vases of Apulia (Oxford 1978–1982) 17 no. 71
177. Ghali-Kahil (n. 28) pl. 29
178. cf. the shy Maenad on Chiusi 1830, ARV2 975, 36. See in gen.
179. Gait (n. 22).
180. ARV2. (n. 12) 134 (on the rf Pen.), 130–52 (in general), with figs 67–9, 71–2, 76. For Neumann these attitudes, in which veiling is a common factor, are distinguished by the position of the hands; but he cites no evidence to corroborate the fine nuances he assumes.
181. London E 76 (ARV2 406, 1
182. LIMC iii pls 133, 136, Briseis 1, 14
183. Ach. veiled, Briseis veiled and led $ Munich 8770 (Para. 341, Add2 189
184. LIMC i pl. 104
185. Achilleus 445
186. London E 56 (ARV2 185, 39)
187. cf. LIMC i, Achilleus 439–48, 452–453.
188. Vienna 3695 (ARV2 429, 26
189. LIMC i pl. 243
190. Aias I 81
191. London E 69 (ARV2 369, 2
192. LIMC i pl. 244
193. Aias I 84.
194. As in the mourning figures in the ‘Penelope pose’ in Langlotz (n. 24) figs 17–23; D.C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek burial customs (London 1971) pl. 44
195. see also Friis Johansen (n. 22) 36–37 and fig. 18, figs 25, 79, 83
196. cf. the ‘weeping women sarcophagus’, R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Greek sculpture (New York 1960) 89–90 and pls 207–9
197. also the female mourners of Memnon on the cup, Ferrara 44885 (ARV2 882, 35).
198. As in the three examples in Haakh (n. 22) pls 16–18
199. cf. Friis Johansen (n. 22) figs 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 21, 24, 67. On the deceased's veiling/unveiling
200. cf. Rehm (n. 28) 40 and n. 49.
201. See Cairns (n. 1) 157–158
202. contrast N.J. Richardson, The Homeric hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974) ad. locc.
203. Cf. the figure in the ‘Penelope pose’ from the ‘Tomb of Persephone’ at Vergina, identified as Demeter by M. Andronicos, Vergina (Athens 1987) 88–9 and fig. 48.
204. See Od. viii 83–6 (Od. covers his face out of $; cf. viii 532), xix 118–22
205. cf. Il. xxiv 90–91
206. E. Her. 1162, 1200, Or. 280–2, IA 981–2. Thus even the veiling of Priam as he grieves for Hector on a Melian relief (Toronto 926.32, Carpenter [n. 24] fig. 319) may indicate an element of $ in the way that he copes with his emotions
207. cf. Achilles grieving for Patroclus on London E 363 (ARV2 586. 36, Carpenter fig. 313)
208. on mourners' restraint on Attic white-ground lekythoi, see H.A. Shapiro, AJA xcv (1991) 652–653.
209. In Roscher, ML v 1043; cf n. 9.
210. See Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 83
211. Immerwahr (n. 7) 112, 183–184.
212. The personification in E. Hipp. 78 (Aidos as Artemis' gardener; cf. Aidos as Athena's nurse, schol. vet. A. PV 12c Herington) does not prove that Artemis herself could be designated Aidos. Personification of $ on a vase (cf. the many similar cases in Shapiro [n. 4]) would not be impossible (though no example exists), but that is not what we have here, where the figure in question is clearly Artemis.
213. On personification of $, see Hani [n. 3].
214. Here I build on the suggestion of R. Osborne, Classical landscape with figures (London 1987) 110–11, that the scenes on this amphora are related. For a suggestive approach to interaction between figure-scenes on vases
215. see F. Lissarrague in S. Goldhill and R. Osborne (eds.), Art and text in ancient Greek culture (Cambridge 1994) 12–27, esp. 18–19, 22–5.
216. See (e.g.) Tityos and Leto themselves on a metope from the Heraion at Foce del Sele (Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco [n. 11] ii 322–9 and pl. 93)
217. cf. Theseus and Antiope (a) from the temple of Apollo at Eretria (F. Brommer, Theseus [Darmstadt 1982] pl. 19)
218. (b) on a rf cup in Oxford (1927.-4065, ARV2 62, 77).
219. See Dover R750 (cf. n. 18 above)
220. Castor and Eriphyle (cf. n. 28 above)
221. Boreas and Oreithyia (Munich 2345, ARV2 496, 2
222. LIMC iii pl. 19, Boreas 626
223. cf. K. Neuser, Anemoi [Rome 1982] 30–87)
224. Theseus and ‘Corone’ (Munich 2309, ARV2 27, 4)
225. Peleus and Thetis (e.g. P. Jacobsthal, Die melischen Reliefs [Berlin 1931] no. 14 and pl. 8, no. 15 and fig. 2; vases: Boston 1972.850 [Carpenter (n. 24) fig. 287]
226. Munich 2619A [ARV2 146, 2]
227. Berlin 2279 [ARV2 115.2]
228. London, V&A 4807.1901 [ARV2 89, 14]
229. Villa Giulia 2491 [J.D. Beazley, Etruscan vase painters (Oxford 1947) 7, 80–4, pl. xx, 1]).
230. See X. Krieger, Der Kampf zwischen Peleus and Thetis in der griechischen Vasenmalerei (Diss. Munster 1973 [1975]) 21, 25–43, 55–60, 66–74, 89–105, 113–21, with pis 2b-c, 3–4, 8b.
231. Examples featuring Heracles now most conveniently in LIMC; see s.vv. ‘Acheloos’, ‘Antaios I’, ‘Halios Geron’, ‘Herakles’, ‘Nereus’. Cf. R. Vollkommer, Herakles in the art of classical Greece (Oxford 1988).
232. Theseus and Cercyon, see the Hephaesteum metope (Brommer [n. 46] pl. 7b)
233. vases: London E 36 (ARV2 115, 3)
234. London E 48 (ARV2 431, 47)
235. Florence 91456 (ARV2 108, 27)
236. Madrid 11265 (ARV2 1174, Aison 1)
237. Louvre G 104 (ARV2 318, 1)
238. Louvre G 195 (ARV2 318, 174).
239. On wrestling/pankration techniques in mythological scenes, see E.N. Gardiner, JHS xxv (1905) 14, 282–4, xxvi (1906) 11–12, 15–18
240. Athletics in the ancient world (London 1930) 181, 205, 220
241. Schefold (n. 3) 71, 94, 138, 311
242. Brommer (n. 46) 19
243. M.B. Poliakoff, Combat sports in the ancient world (New Haven 1987) 136–139
244. on mythological paradigms for wrestling/athletics, see Webster (n. 28) 56, 62, 251, 260, 265.
245. Vatican 414 (ABV 343, 3); bronze group, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 54.972 (Poliakoff fig. 32
246. cf. Gardiner, Athletics fig. 171
247. O. Tzachou-Alexandri, Mind and body [Athens 1988] pl. 165
248. Boston 01.8019 (ARV2 24, 1 I); Munich 1461 (Gardiner fig. 164).
249. For literary parallels, see Pi. I. 3/4.61–73 (Her. and Antaeus
250. cf. N. 4.62–5, Peleus' wrestling with Thetis in an ode for a boy wrestler); B. 13. 46–57 (Her. and lion)
251. B. 18. 26–7 (Thes. and Cercyon)
252. S. Tr. 497–530
253. Her. and Achelous
254. cf. Davies ad he, and Gardiner JHS [1906] 16)
255. Theocr. 25,262–71. For Plato (Leg. 796a), too, Antaeus and Cercyon are paradigmatic pankratiasts.
256. One is himself stripped for exercise, the other an interested bystander (not a trainer; Arias-Hirmer [n. 5] 318).
257. On the pentathlon, see Gardiner, Athletics (n. 48) 177–180
258. H.A. Harris, Greek athletes and athletics (London 1964) 77–80
259. id. Sport in Greece and Rome (London 1972) 33–39.
260. The javelin, discus, and jump were peculiar to the pentathlon, and thus were used, singularly or in combination, to denote that event on Panathenaic amphoras (cf. Gardiner, Athletics 177
261. Webster [n. 28] 213
262. J. Neils et al., Goddess and polls [Princeton 1992] 35, 85–6, 205 n. 46.
263. D.G. Kyle, Athletics in ancient Athens (Leiden 1987) 180–1, notes that the same pentathletic events also tend to be combined in generic ‘palaestra’ scenes.
264. 55 Cf. Pi. P. 4.90–93.
265. See (e.g.) A. Ag. 1206
266. S.frr. 618, 941.13 R (with Pearson ad locc)
267. Ar. Ach. 273–6, 994, Peace 896–9, Eccl. 259–61, 964–6
268. see J. Taillardat, Les Images d'Aristophane (Paris 1965) 336
269. J. Henderson, The maculate Muse (New Haven 1975) 156, 169–170
270. M.B. Poliakoff, Studies in the terminology of the Greek combat sports (Frankfurt 1986)41–2, 101–136.
271. Cf. $ (a hetaira) on a rf psykter, Leningrad 644 (ARV2 16, 15
272. Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 209
273. Kilmer [n. 33] R20.
274. N.b. the metaphorical use (Ar. Ach. 274
275. cf. Ael. Ep. Rust. 9
276. Straton, A.P. xii 206, 222, ps.-Luc. Asinus 10) of $ (vel sim.), i.e. Tityos' hold on Leto
277. see Gardiner (n. 48) JHS (1905) 24–6, 288
278. Athletics 191–192
279. Poliakoff, Studies 40–53.
280. See Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 195–196
281. F. Lissarrague, The aesthetics of the Greek banquet (Eng. trans. Princeton 1991) 60–67.
282. See Webster (n. 28) 42–62 passim
283. Dover (n. 18) 117–119.
284. On sympotic virtues and vices, see K. Bielohlawek, WS lviii (1940) 11–30
285. W.J. Slater, ICS vi (1981) 205–214
286. id. in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotlca (Oxford 1990) 213–220
287. N.R.E. Fisher, Hybris (Warminster 1992) 71–2, 203–7, 218–19, 223–4, etc.
288. See LIMC ii, Apollon 630–45b, 651a-54, Artemis 1105–23 (n.b. Leto [alone] is veiled on at least three of these [Apollo 651b, Artemis 1110, 1116]).
289. Perhaps similarly, the ‘relief of the gods’, Brauron Mus. 1180 (L. Kahil in J.N. Coldstream and M.A.R. CoIIedge (eds.), XI international congress of classical archaeology [London 1978] 78 and pl. 32
290. LIMC ii Artemis 1225a depicts a veiled Leto, matron of a divine family (Zeus, Apollo) greeting the arrival of Artemis.
291. On the intersection of archaic poetry and vase-painting, see Lissarrague (n. 57) 123–139.