Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2013
The focus of this paper is a series of representations depicting a youth, with or without spears, pursuing a girl who is fleeing before him (PLATES IIb—c and IIIa—d). I call the pursuits in which the youth is carrying spears ‘type 1’ and those in which he is not ‘type 2’. I also discuss various matters pertaining to girls, marriage and the relations between the sexes, and to myths such as Peleus' capture of Thetis.
1 For references to works discussing culture-determination see ‘Menace’, the footnotes to section 2, where I discuss this issue and the ways in which it affects the reading of classical vase-paintings.
2 For a methodological discussion of the appropriate strategies for achieving this goal: ‘Menace’ section 2.
3 But they do not denote attack; the spears' character as not weapon in use/about to be used in an attack is stressed in several scenes. For instance, the spears may be held in the left or the spearheads turned away from the girl: see discussion in ‘Menace’ 3 ii a.II). The distinction between attack and muted intimations of violence/menace must not be blurred (Cf. ‘Menace’ 3 ii a.II). It differentiates heroic pursuits from divine ones, which can be shown either through the same iconographical scheme as the heroic or with a threatening, attacking, pursuer. I argued (‘Menace’ 3 iii) that the fact that the heroic pursuer is never an attacker corresponds to a significant difference between the semantic fields ‘erotic pursuit by a god’ and ‘erotic pursuit by a hero’.
4 The combination of spears and ‘grabbing’ (see e.g. the column-krater in Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseum [ARV 284.5]) puts even more emphasis on the ‘violent intimations’. There is a significant spectrum of differences in emphasis in the different scenes, from ‘almost consensual’ to ‘implicit connotations of violence/Menace’. The closeness between types 1 and 2 is confirmed by the existence of an ‘intermediate’ type: on the skyphos Providence 25.072 (ARV 973.10) the youth has put down the spears (shown resting on the ground) and is running after the girl.
5 I discuss the need not to overlook apparently small divergences in ‘Menace’ section 2. As Gombrich (Gombrich, E. H., Art and illusion. A study in the psychology of pictorial representation 5 [Oxford 1977] 53)Google Scholar noted, small divergences are more immediately obvious to the members of the cultural community in which the images are produced.
6 See e.g. the satyr pursuing a maenad on the cup Oxford 1927.71 (CVA Oxford 2 pl. 52.3). (On satyrs pursuing maenads see Hoffmann, H., Sexual and asexual pursuit, Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper xxxiv [London 1977] 3–4.Google Scholar)
7 See e.g. the hydria in the Hague, A. W. Byvanck, Gids voor de Bezoekers van het Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum (1912) pl. xxx 634 (ARV 1209.58), and compare it with, e.g., Leningrad 728 (here PLATE IIc). I am not including the theme ‘Eros pursuing a boy’: I exclude non-exact equivalents to avoid overlooking important differences by making the culture-dependent judgement that they are not significant.
8 As Boardman, J. in Boardman, J. and La Rocca, E., Eros in Greece (London 1978) 20Google Scholar implies.
9 In La cité des images. Religion et société en Grèce antique (Mont-sur-Lausanne 1984)Google Scholar (hereafter Cité) 32–3.
10 On this theme and the problem of the identification of the protagonists see Jahn, O., Archäologische Beiträge (Berlin 1847) 34–41;Google Scholar Beazley in Caskey, L. D. and Beazley, J. D., Attic vase paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Oxford 1931–1963;Google Scholar hereafter CB) ii 81; Ghali-Kahil, L., Les enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène (Paris 1955) 311;Google ScholarLezzi-Hafter, A., Der Schuwalow-Maler. Eine Kannenwerkstatt der Parthenonzeit (Mainz 1976) 73–5;Google Scholar K. Schefold, Wort und Bild (1975) 93; id., RA (1982) 233; Boardman, J., BSA liii–liv (1958/1959) 171;Google Scholar N. Alfieri, P. E. Arias and M. Hirmer, Spina. Die neuenentdeckte Etruskerstadt und die griechischen Vasen ihrer Gräber (1958) 32; see also Brommer, F., Theseus: die Taten des griechischen Helden in der antiken Kunst und Literatur (Darmstadt 1982) 95,Google Scholar and id., AA (1979) 509.
11 Lezzi-Hafter (n. 10) 73–5 seems to have misunderstood Beazley's remark in JHS xlvii (1927) 147;Google Scholar Beazley is saying that the inscription reads ‘Theseus’, as Pottier had originally thought, and not ‘Peleus', as he later came to believe. See also Beazley in CB (n. 10) ii 81.
12 Lezzi-Hafter (n. 10) 74 n. 247.
13 See e.g. Hydria Syracuse 36330 (ARV 1062.2, CVA pl. 25).
14 See e.g. oinochoe Ferrara sequestro Venezia 2505 (ARV 1206.3, Para 463, Add 169, Lezzi-Hafter [n. 10] pl. 102).
15 See, for example, the stance of the youth on the stamnos Krefeld Inv. 1034/1515 (ARV 502.5, CVA Germany 49, pls. 37.1, 38.1) side B.
16 See, for example the Krefeld vase (n. 15), sides A and B; column-krater Louvre G 362 (ARV 1115.17, CVA pl. 27.4.5).
17 See e.g. for both features the bell-krater Leningrad 777 (St. 1786) (ARV 502.11, Para 513, Add 123; here PLATE IIIa) side B.
18 See e.g., stamnos Oxford 1911.619 (ARV 629.16; here PLATE IIIb).
19 See e.g. type 2: Nolan amphora Syracuse 20537 (ARV 1015.16); type 1: neck-amphora London 1928.1–17.58 (ARV 1010.5, CVA pl. 59.3).
21 Moreover, there is no evidence that anyone else did, except Peleus, whose scenes, we shall see, were firmly signalled.
22 On Theseus' chlamys and its significance see Barron, J. P., BICS xxvii (1980)Google Scholar esp. 1, 3–4.
23 On Theseus' hats see Barron (n. 22) 1, 5 n.4.
24 In my view, the use of dolphins in Attic iconography is not loose, as Beazley CB (n. 10) ii 81 thought. The dolphin was not a monosemic sign that only meant ‘Peleus and Thetis’. All signs are polysemic and every sign acquires its value in context (see ‘Menace’ section 2). Thus a dolphin in an abduction had, for a fifth-century Athenian, a different meaning when it ‘qualified’ an erotic pursuit involving our type of pursuer, from that which it had in the representation of Boreas abducting Oreithyia on the hydria Bowdoin 08.3 (ARV 606.68, Para 395, Add 130; Buitron, D. M., Attic vase-painting in New England collections [Cambridge Mass. 1972] no. 64)Google Scholar in which one of Oreithyia's companions is holding a dolphin, a scene mentioned by Beazley as an example of such looseness—with the alternative explanation that it may have been a slip. This transfer of a sign belonging to Peleus' abduction to a different abduction may be a play on the fact that there was a Nereid called Oreithyia (Horn. Il. xviii 48) and, through the Nereid allusion or a direct sea-allusion, may hint at the naval help which Boreas gave to the Athenians in the Persian Wars (Hdt. vii 189)—an Athenian propaganda theme which is at least one reason for the great popularity of Boreas and Oreithyia scenes in Attic iconography after the Persian Wars. (On Boreas and Oreithyia cf. Simon, E., AuA xiii  101–26;Google ScholarNeuser, K., Anemoi. Studien zur Darstellung der Winde und Windgottheiten in der Antike [Rome 1982] 30–87Google Scholar. The view that Boreas' help is the main motivation behind this popularity has been challenged [Agard, CJ lxi (1966) 241–6,Google ScholarSchauenburg, K., AuA x (1961) 78Google Scholar]; but it cannot be doubted—since that belief was part of the assumptions though which the Athenians thought about Boreas—that it is one of the main reasons behind that popularity.) Such take-over was feasible because there was no possibility of mistaking Boreas and Oreithyia for Peleus and Thetis.
25 See e.g., for type 1: the scene on the pedestal of a lebes gamikos in the Robinson Collection (CVA Robinson 2 pl. 51a–c); for type 2: the stamnos Villa Giulia 5241 (ARV 484.9). On the iconography of Peleus and Thetis: Krieger, X., Der Kampf zwischen Peleus und Thetis in der griechischen Vasenmalerei (Münster diss. 1973; 975)Google Scholar. As we shall see, Thetis' companions and father (on whom see Krieger 88–113), also our girl's.
26 CB (n. 10) ii 81.
27 See e.g. the cup Oxford 1913.311 (CVA pls. 4.3 and 13.1–2) and the lekythoi Oxford 1938.909 and 1920.104 (ARV 993–93–4).
28 See Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.3–5. Pollux, Onom. x 16. On the chlamys see also Ch. Pelekidis, Histoire de l'ephébie attique (1962) 115–16; on the spears: Pelekidis 231–2. On ephebes and ephebeia in general see esp. P. Vidal-Naquet, Le chasseur noir 2 (1983) 151–75; 191–7; See also Pelekidis op. cit.; Siewert, P., JHS xcvii (1977) 102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Boardman (n. 10) also suggests that some of these scenes are not truly mythological (though he sees it in terms of loss of ‘any specific mythological explanation’).
30 On this type of indeterminacy see also Schefold 1975 (n. 10) 27; I. Krauskopf, AA 1977, 28. An element such as the presence of Athena (e.g. on the krater Corinth C 33.129 and 138 [with new fr. added in 1979]: ARV 592.29; Boulter, C. G. and Bentz, J. L., Hesperia xlix  300–1Google Scholar pls. 82–3) pushes the scene more towards the mythological pole, though it is also compatible with the generic version.
31 Because the Theseus-Helen connotations are not ideal for a paradigm concerning matrimony. On Helen's abduction by Theseus see Kahil (n. 10) 305–13, C. Calame, Les choeurs de jeunes filles en Grèce archaique (1977) 281–5; Lloyd-Jones, H., JHS ciii (1983) 95Google Scholar. I discuss briefly certain problems pertaining to Helen's age and connotations in a book in preparation: ‘Girls as Bears (and other animals)’ part 2, ch. iii 3 and nn. 250, 252. See also infra n. 93.
32 On Eriboia/Periboia/Phereboia and Theseus: Barron (n. 22) 2–3. My argument is not circular here; because of each figure's connotations the protagonists' identity contributes to the theme's meanings, but since we have no independent evidence for the girl's identity, I am simply considering whether we know of a girl who fits the theme's connotations as reconstructed on the basis of its other elements.
33 Barron (n. 22) 2–3 and n. 30.
34 Whether or not Periboia had replaced an earlier girl in our theme is not important. The theme becomes very popular starting with the Niobid Painter's generation. Since my argument is not affected, I will not consider the changes in the chronological framework proposed by Vickers, M. J. and Francis, E. D. (e.g. JHS ciii  49–67)Google Scholar, other than to say that, in my view, they have made a case for the reexamination of this framework.
35 See Athen. xiii 557a–b ( = Pherekydes FGrH 3 F 153).
36 For example, in scenes in which she is the victim of an attack: the neck-amphora Vienna 741 (ARV 203.101, Add 96); and the amphora London 1948.1015.2 (Moret, J.-M., L'Ilioupersis dans la céramique italiote [Rome 1975] pl. 17.1)Google Scholar. ‘Fleeing woman’ in a wedding context: see e.g. the pyxis Munich 2720 (ARV 1223.4, Add 173, Roberts, S. R., The Attic Pyxis [Chicago 1978] pls. 99.3; 100.–2Google Scholar [commentary on p. 182; see also p. 184]) in which the woman is represented fleeing, through the ‘fleeing woman’ scheme, away from a door which represents emblematically the notion ‘wedding’ (Roberts 182). One possible interpretation of this figure is that she emblematically signifies that semantic facet of wedding/marriage which allows it to be represented through the model of abduction; another is that she represented a part of the wedding ceremony, the bride's resistance in the course of a mock-abduction rite. An example of a different type of context is afforded by the Nolan amphora Leningrad 697 (St. 1628) (ARV202.76, Para 510): on A Athena running, on B a woman running, shown according to the ‘fleeing woman’ scheme. On codification: Guiraud, P., Semiology (Engl, transl. London 1975) 24–5Google Scholar.
37 The post-structuralist notion of signification is, in my view, the most convincing (for references to discussions see ‘Menace’ n. 5).
38 See e.g. skyphos Providence 25.072 (ARV 973–10).
39 See e.g. the volute krater Izmir Inv. 3361 (ARV 599–7).
40 See also Foley, H. P., Arethusa xv (1982) 161Google Scholar. On flower-picking associated with Persephone's myth and cult, especially in connection with her bridal aspect: Blech, M., Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen (Berlin, New York 1982) 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see also 349–51 on flower-gathering in Artemis' cult.); Sourvinou-Inwood, C., JHS xcviii (1978) 109Google Scholar.
41 On this see Blech (n. 40) 352 n. 95.
42 See e.g. the lebes gamikos in the Robinson collection (cf. n. 25).
43 See e.g. the representation of a man and a hetaira which involves the same general iconographical scheme: Boardman-La Rocca (n. 8) 90.
45 On the capture of animals as part of the ephebic training see A. Schnapp, Cité (n. 9) 67–8 (and passim).
46 Vidal-Naquet (n. 28) 169–74; id., in J.-P. Vernant and P. Vidal-Naquet, My the et tragédie en Grèce ancienne (Paris 1972/1981) 161–2; Brelich, A., Paides e parthenoi (Rome 1969) 175, 199;Google Scholar Schnapp (n. 45) 67–82; id., Dial, di arch. i (1979) 40; Lloyd-Jones (n. 31) 98; Detienne (n. 44) 23–6. On the iconography of ephebic hunts see P. Schmitt and A. Schnapp, RA (1982) 57–74, esp. 65–8.
47 The most famous mythological pursuit and capture of an animal, of the Kerynian hind, is closely associated in some versions (Pind. Ol. 3.28–30; Schol. Pind. Ol. 3.53) with the erotic pursuit of a girl. I discuss this myth elsewhere (n. 31).
48 ARV 333.2, Cité (n. 9) fig. 120 (right).
49 I discuss the differentiation between the theme of erotic pursuit and the attack scene ‘Theseus with a sword' in Menace passim.
50 The capture of wild animals is closely associated with the erotic sphere: Schnapp, Cité (n. 9) 71–82; P. Schmitt-Pantel and F. Thelamon in F. Lissarague and F. Thelamon eds., Image et céramique grecque. Actes du Colloque de Rouen (1983) 17. On hunting and sexuality see Schnapp, op. cit. 67–82; Burkert, W., Homo necans (Berlin, New York 1972) 73–81;Google Scholar Detienne (n. 44) 25–52 passim; Borgeaud, Ph., Recherches sur le dieu Pan (Rome/Geneva 1979) 55Google Scholar. Hunting as metaphor for homosexual pursuit: Dover, K.J., Greek homosexuality (London 1978) 87–8Google Scholar. In this context (capture, through pursuit, of a girl) the endromides, worn by many of the pursuers, and the petasos, also worn by hunters as well as ephebes—and travellers and others—would perhaps also call up the characterization ‘hunter’ and contribute to the allusion.
51 See Loraux, N., Arethusa xi (1978) 43–87,Google Scholar esp. 59–69; ead., Anc Soc xi–xii (1980/1981) 125Google Scholar. King, H., in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A., eds., Images of women in antiquity (London and Canberra 1983) 109–27Google Scholar. The unmarried girl is ‘tamed’, a process ending with marriage: King III, 122–3; Calame (n. 44) 411–20. See also infra.
52 Thetis' transformations are usually interpreted only in terms of her nature as a sea-deity. But mythological motifs are polysemic and acquire meaning in context; here the relevant aspects of this context are 1. Thetis' associations with ‘erotic pursuit as a paradigm for marriage’, and 2. The Greek mentality about the girls' animality and its association with the notion of the girl's capture (the iconography of which is closely related to that of Thetis). Thus, Thetis' metamorphoses are correlative with, and so were inevitably seen as articulating, her (paradigmatic parthenic) animality, which is tamed (albeit temporarily) through her capture by/marriage to Peleus. Her ability to metamorphose herself allows the animality to be expressed in narrative terms. In Eur. IA 703 the union between Peleus and Thetis is presented as resulting from an engye.
53 I discuss this in ‘Menace’ 3 iii.
55 On the special status conferred on Peleus: see e.g. Pind. Nem. 4 65–8; see also Thetis' promise to Peleus that he will be a god: Eur., Androm. 1253–8.
56 See Lesky (n. 54) 406.
57 See e.g. Roberts (n. 36) 178–9, and the lebes gamikos CVA Robinson 2 pls. 50–51c where the erotic pursuit of Thetis on the pedestal is juxtaposed to the Epaulia on the body of the vase.
58 For fifth-century Athenian perceptions on rape and sexual violence against women see Walcot, P., Arethusa xi (1978) 137–47Google Scholar. On eros seen by the Athenians in terms of aggression and domination see E. Keuls in W. G. Moon ed., Ancient Greek art and iconography (1983) 214.
59 See e.g. the abducted girl caressing Theseus' hair on the amphora Munich 2309 (ARV 27.4, 1620, Para, 323, Add. 75).
60 See Sourvinou-Inwood, C., BICS xx (1973) 12–20;Google Scholar end. JHS 1978 (n. 40) 104–14 passim; Foley (n. 40) 169; L. Kahn and N. Loraux, Dictionnaire des mythologies, s.v. ‘Mort. Les mythes grecs’ 8.
61 Similar perceptions of this myth are expressed in Kahn-Loraux (n. 60); Jenkins, I., BICS xxx (1983) 142Google Scholar.
62 On this: BICS 1973 (n. 60) 17.
63 See BICS 1973 (n. 60); Jenkins (n. 61) 137–8.
64 On which see now Jenkins (n. 61) 139–41; see also BICS 1973 (n. 60) 21 n. 54.
65 See BICS 1973 (n. 60).
66 For other gestures and behaviour pertaining to abduction in weddings see BICS 1973 (n. 60) 16–17; Redfield, J., Arethusa xv (1982) 191Google Scholar.
67 See BICS 1973 (n. 60) passim: Jenkins (n. 61) passim; see n. 140.
68 See King (n. 51).
69 See Sourvinou-Inwood, Theseus (n. 20) 10, 53–5.
70 Jenkins (n. 61) 141–2; Foley (n. 40) 169–70. Another perception that may also be reflected in this metaphor is that suggested by Redfield (n. 66) 191 for the mock-abduction of the marriage ceremony, which he relates to the great value of virginity and the desire for the contradiction in terms which is the chaste wife.
71 In C. Calame, L'amore in Grecia (1983) xxii. Compare the many nuptial representations in which Eros is depicted: see e.g. the loutrophoros Boston 10.223 (ARV 1017.44, J. H. Oakley, AA  115 fig. 2) which shows Eros flying and holding a taenia.
72 See e.g. the cup Würzburg 479 (ARV 372.32, 1649, Para. 366, 367, Add 111–12).
73 See e.g., the small neck-amphora Leningrad 709 (ARV 487.61; PLATE IIIc—d); Nolan amphora Bonn 77 (ARV 1015.12).
74 For such brides see e.g. loutrophoros-hydria Copenhagen 9080 (ARV 841.75, Para 423); pyxis Athens Acr. 569 (ARV 890. 172, Add 148); loutrophoros once in Berlin (ex Sabouroff) (Furtwängler, A., La Collection Sabouroff [Berlin 1883–1887] pls. 58–9)Google Scholar. Cf. also the cup Louvre G 265 (ARV 416.1, Cité [n. 9] fig. 39) which, in my view, probably represents Theseus and his bride, since the outside shows deeds of Theseus. This scene would be the aftermath (in narrative terms) of, and/or the other frame of reference for, our erotic pursuits. If this is right, and Theseus' wedding had been an established iconographical theme, it would reinforce the view that the pursuits had a nuptial semantic facet. Similar use of the ‘himation over the head’ element to that postulated here: e.g. on A of the skyphos Boston 13.186 showing Paris leading Helen away (ARV 458.1, Para 377, Add 119).
75 For the notion of consent in marriage see Redfield (n. 66) 192; Foley (n. 40) 169. As for the force, the transfer of legal guardianship of the woman from one man to another, and her removal away from her familiar world to an unfamiliar one, are elements of force, pertaining to the woman, which were among the perceptions animating the abduction metaphor for marriage.
76 Redfield (n. 66) 186; see 188 on a related duality.
77 See also Redfield (n. 66) 192.
78 On spatial indicators see C. Bérard and J.-L. Durand, in Cité (n. 9) 27–31, C. Bérard, Eludes de Lettres (1983) 14: Keuls (n. 58) 216.
79 I have argued elsewhere (‘Palms’ section 2) that the palm is a significant iconographical element in the pursuit, despite the fact that it is part of the handle decoration.
80 See also Theseus (n. 20) 42.
81 On the meanings of the spatial indicators see n. 78. On Greek houses see e.g. Laurence, A. W., Greek architecture 2 (Harmondsworth 1962) 240–9;Google Scholar S. Walker, in Cameron and Kuhrt (n. 51) 81–91, 86 fig. 6.1, 87 fig. 6.2a and b, 88 fig. 6.3 a and b. On the role of the house altar of the bridegroom's house in wedding rites and representations: Holscher, F., in Cahn, H. A. and Simon, E. eds., Tainia. Roland Hampe zum 70. Geburtstag am 2. Dezember 1978 dargebracht (Mainz 1980) 176Google Scholar. On Zeus Herkeios: see Hdt. vi 68, S. Ant. 487. Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion i 3 (Munich 1967) 402–3,Google ScholarBurkert, W., Greek Religion (Oxford 1985) 130, 248, 255–6Google Scholar.
83 See e.g. the column-krater in Stockholm, Medelhavsmuseum (ARV 284.5); hydria Florence 4014 (ARV 1060.144). That he is the girl's father is confirmed by his correspondence to Nereus in Thetis's pursuit (On Nereus in such scenes: Krieger [n. 25] 88–113.)
84 On the breaking of the father-daughter bond brought about by the daughter's marriage see Redfield (n. 66) 186–8.
85 See e.g. Florence 4014 (n. 82).
86 See e.g. the volute-krater Bologna 275 (ARV 1029. 18).
87 See Redfield (n. 66) 187–8.
88 I interpret as mother the woman with sceptre on, for example, side A of the stamnos Krefeld Inv. 1034/1515 (ARV 502.5; CVA Germany 49, pls. 37.1–4, 38.1— 4). The mother has the most important role in the ritual part of the ceremony (see Redfield [n. 66] 188), the father in the legal part, as in the facet of ideality represented in our scenes.
89 The fact that the father is also present in some representations of Eos' pursuit of Kephalos (see Kaempf-Dimitriadou, S., Die Liebe der Götter in der attischen Kunst des 5. Jhs. v. Chr., AntK Beiheft xi [Bern 1979] 18–19)Google Scholar does not invalidate these interpretations: the scheme ‘erotic pursuit of a girl by a hero’ was adapted (see e.g. the inclusion of both Kephalos' companions and his sisters, like the pursued girl's companions running to their father [see e.g. neck-amphora Madrid 11097 (ARV 1043.2, Kaempf-Dimitriadou no 108)]) to show a youth's abduction by a goddess, with all the connotations of danger and helplessness carried by this theme (see ‘Menace’ 3 iii).
90 See ‘Palms’ section 1.
91 See ‘Palms’ section 1 and n. 7.
92 See ‘Palms’ passim.
93 See Calame (n. 31) 176–7, 189–90, Plut. Thes. 31.2 tells us that Theseus abducted Helen from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia.
94 See Schol. BT Horn. Il. i 594; Hdt. iv 154, vi 138; Suda s.v. Brauron.
95 Osborne (n. 93) 161–2, 168 also concluded, independently, and on the basis of different considerations, that the stories connecting the sanctuary of Brauron with rape had a close connection with the ritual.
96 This is elaborated elsewhere (n. 31).
97 Again, a similar conclusion was reached independently by Osborne (n. 93) 165–9. A related perception would also seem to underlie Detienne's formulation (n. 44) 31 that the Athenian girls ‘do the bear before marriage in honor of Artemis of Mounichia or Brauron to purify themselves, in the words of an ancient exegete, of any trace of savagery’ (with references in p. 99 n. 43).
98 The element ‘running’ also connects the Brauron rites with erotic pursuits: the running of the girl, her companions, and the pursuer has a cultic counterpart in initiatory rites (see n. 44). The palm brings the two closer: the Brauron girls are shown dancing and running among, and towards, palms, altars and altar + palm complexes. There is thus a correspondence between the Brauron girls' ritual race and the girls (e.g. the Nereids) running during an abduction.
99 Even after she was tamed and brought into male society, the danger remained that her domestication could be reversed: see King (n. 51) esp. 110, 124; Lefkowitz (n. 82) 16–18.
100 See ‘Palms’ section 2.
101 See ‘Palms’ section 2.
102 See ‘Palms’ section 2.
103 See CB (n. 10) ii 81.
104 I am discussing it as an illustration; a similar system of relationships, pertaining to slightly different aspects of the ‘erotic pursuit’, is observed on the Bologna krater.
106 Examples of a pursuer with a wreath: stamnos Oxford 1911.619 (here PLATE IIIb); bell-krater Louvre G 423 (ARV 1064.6).
107 See e.g. Thetis' abduction by Peleus (a marriage paradigm) on the cup London, Victoria and Albert Museum 4807.1901 (ARV 89.14) Peleus, Thetis and the Nereids are all wearing wreaths.
108 See e.g. loutrophoros Boston 10.223 (n. 71); Ioutrophoros once in Berlin (ex Sabouroff) (n. 74). On wreaths at weddings: Blech (n. 40) 75–81.
109 See Blech (n. 40) 430–1, 450; see also 124, 264–5.
110 See e.g. oinochoe Ferrara sequestro Venezia 2505 (ARV 1206.3).
111 See e.g. the Boston loutrophoros (n. 71) and the Sabouroff loutrophoros (n. 74); loutrophoros Copenhagen inv. 9080 (ARV 841.75, Para 423). On the diadem worn by the bride see Blech (n. 40) 76–81.
112 See e.g. side B of the bell-krater Leningrad 777 (here PLATE IIIa); neck-amphora at Mykonos by the Oinokles Painter (ARV 648.24).
113 See e.g. the neck-amphora Leningrad 709 (ARV 487.61, Para 512, here PLATE IIIc); stamnos Warsaw 1423 53 (ex Czartoryski 51) (ARV 501.2).
114 Calyx-krater Geneva MF 238 (ARV 615.1).
115 See Redfield (n.66) 195.
116 See e.g. Redfield (n. 66) 188; Epaulia gifts including a taenia: Roberts (n. 36) 184, see pls. 56–7, 58.2, 59.1. That the taenia in the field on the erotic pursuit cup Carlsruhe 59.72 (see text) and in wedding scenes (e.g. the Copenhagen loutrophoros [n. 111]) does not denote an indoor space is shown by scenes where the spatial indicators locate the scene in the courtyard, and a taenia is hanging in the field (e.g. the pyxis Athens Acr. 569 [ARV 890.172, Roberts (n. 36) 84 pls. 56–7, 58.2] by the Penthesilea Painter, like the Carlsruhe cup).
118 See e.g. oinochoe Ferrara sequestro Venezia 2505 (ARV 1206.3); bell-krater Istanbul 2914 (ARV 603.41, Reisner, G. A., Fisher, C. S., Lyon, D. G., Harvard Excavations of Samaria [Cambridge, Mass. 1924] pls. 69;Google Scholar 70).
119 See e.g. the calyx-krater at Aachen, Ludwig (ARV 1661.7 bis, Para 396, Add 130). On the hydria London E 198 (see text section 6 no. 2) the father wears a wreath and holds a branch. The Niobid Painter and his group who stressed the nuptial dimension of ‘erotic pursuit’ through spatial elements also liked to include wreaths and branches, which again allude to weddings. Dr M. Schmidt, who has kindly let me know that she agrees with my argument relating erotic pursuits to marriage, also thinks that the fathers' branches in the pursuits allude to sacral rites. For Krieger (n. 25) 80 the torches held by Chiron in some scenes of Thetis' pursuit/capture allude to marriage.
120 See ‘Palms’ n. 100.
121 See C. Bron and F. Lissarague, in Cité (n. 9) 17.
122 See e.g. the upper frieze of the calyx-krater New York 06.1021. 173 (ARV 1092.75).
123 See e.g. side B of the bell-krater Louvre G 423 (ARV 1064.6).
124 Boreas pursuing Oreithyia on A relates to the erotic pursuit along another semantic axis, that of pursuit.
125 E.g.: Frankfort cup, side A; calyx-krater New York 06.1021.173 (n. 122): Eos pursuing a youth on A, our pursuit on B. Our pursuit with Peleus': volute-krater Naples 2421 (ARV 600.13, Para 395).
126 See the stamnos Oxford 1911.619 (ARV 629.16).
127 Similar scenes have been interpreted as showing professional musicians and/or educated hetairai by D. Williams (in Cameron and Kuhrt eds. [n. 51] 99–102) because of the presumed lack of education of respectable Athenian women. In my view, the latter is problematic; it is dependent on certain types of male ideality which may not necessarily reflect reality. Bérard, Cité (n. 9) 86–8 argues that a group of scenes of this type indicates that rich Athenian women could be cultured. In my view, the fact that our women alternate with the Muses and Sappho who are presented according to this type of iconographical scheme (cf. Williams 100) suggests that they are Athenian citizens.
128 As we may conclude when he is not characterized as some particular divine being, or the pursuit is not otherwise defined as representing some divine pursuit. I discuss divine pursuits and their relationship to heroic/human ones in ‘Menace’ 3 iii.
129 As for the selection of a corpus (on which see Bérard E.L. [n. 78] 27; Schmitt-Pantel and Thelamon [n. 50] 17), mine is—I hope—conceptually open—though space forced me to confine my analyses to scenes involving Theseus or one youth depicted through the Theseus scheme. I left out scenes such as that on the stamnos Athens NM 18063 (ARV 1028.13, 1678, Add 155) which includes a chariot (an element which belongs to the iconography of some abductions, but not to our pursuit's) though it may be semantically related to our theme, because this is the methodologically neutral strategy: for if (as is probable, given the important divergence) it represents a different subject, its inclusion would distort our analyses. A comparison of such scenes to our pursuit must only take place after both have been thoroughly studied independently.
130 With spears: see e.g.: Column-krater Ferrara T.375 (ARV 957.60, Para 433); without: see e.g. column-krater Chiusi, Museo archeologico nazionale, già Coll. Civica n. 1822 (CVA pls. 6–7).
131 See CVA (n. 130) where it is maintained that it is Boreas. On Boreas and Oreithyia see n. 24.
132 See e.g. Nolan amphora London E 310 (ARV 202.84); neck-amphora Oxford 1914.733 (ARV 1058.120); stamnos Brussels R 311 (ARV 502.6); column-krater in Leningrad from Kerch (ARV 532.46); oinochoe Florence 21B 308 frr. (ARV 1167.14).
133 Not recognized as an erotic pursuit by Bothmer, (von Bothmer, D., Amazons in Greek art [Oxford 1957] 184 no. 73 and pp. 187–8)Google Scholar.
135 On the defeat of dominant women who represent chaos and misrule see J. Bamberger in M. Z. Rozaldo and L. Lamphere eds., Woman, culture and society (1974) 263–80; Zeitlin, F. I., Arethusa xi (1978) 149–84Google Scholar.
136 Theseus and Antiope: see e.g. the amphora Louvre G 197 (ARV 238.1, Para 349, Add 100) where Antiope also carries a battle axe.
137 K. Schefold, RA (1982), 233–6.
138 On the drawn sword and its meanings see ‘Menace’ 3 ii a.I, where I discuss the relationship between the themes ‘erotic pursuit’ and ‘Theseus with a drawn sword’.
139 Exposed and suckled by a bear: Apollod. iii 9.2. On Atalanta: Immerwahr, W., De Atalanta (Berlin 1885)Google Scholar. Fontenrose, J., Orion: the myth of the hunter and the huntress, U. Cal. Publ. in Classics xxxiii (1981) 175–81 and 202–4Google Scholar. (The Hesiodic Catalogue describes a straight forward race between Atalanta and her suitor. [On Atalanta in Hes. Catal.: frr. 72–6 Merkelbach-West]). There are two Atalantas in myth, one Arcadian and one Boeotian. Fontenrose 176 following Immerwahr 23–6 argues that there is only one Atalanta, who is primarily a fast runner in the Boeotian legend and a bowmaid in the Arcadian one. I prefer to say that different, if related, myths, pertaining to a wild parthenos who refuses marriage, were crystallized in the figure of Atalanta.
140 Melanion or Hippomenes: see Apollod. iii 9.2 and Frazer, J. G., Apollodorus. The Library (London 1921)Google Scholarad loc. On Melanion as a wild ephebe and his relationship to Atalanta: Vidal-Naquet (n. 28) 171–2.
141 Cf. Appollod. iii 9.2. The fact that this erotic pursuit is presented as a test supports the suggestion that the theme ‘pursuit and capture of a girl’ included a perception of an ephebic test.
142 A properly acculturated Greek man does not go hunting with his wife. The two paradigms of refusal to marry and become acculturated have been made to marry in myth, to express the notion ‘wild marriage of not properly acculturated parthenos and/or youth’.
143 See e.g. Apollod. iii 9.2; and Frazer's commentary ad loc. (n. 140) with references; Vidal-Naquet (n. 28) 173; Fontenrose (n. 139) 179–80. On the prohibition of copulation in a sanctuary: Parker, R., Miasma (Oxford 1983) 76Google Scholar.
144 My interpretation fits the scene on the lekythos Cleveland 66.114 (Para 376.266 bis, Add 118, Boardman, J., The Art Institute of Chicago Centennial Lectures. Museum Studies x [Chicago 1983] 3–19)Google Scholar which shows Atalanta as a bride, fleeing, pursued by three Erotes holding flowers and a wreath (connoting marriage) and a whip, usually wielded by Eros in pursuit of boys: the inverted pursuit as a paradigm of wild marriage corresponds to the image of the fleeing wild girl as a bride pursued (by Erotes connoting marriage and especially) by an Eros with a whip, characteristic of schemata involving young males.