¹ Aidôs (Oxford 1993).

² Cf. Gerhard, E., Auserlesene Vasenbilder (Berlin 1840–1858) i 81Google Scholar; Overbeck, J., Griechische Kunstmythologie (Leipzig 1871–1889) iii 387.Google Scholar

³ = Gods and heroes in late archaic Greek art (Eng. trans. Cambridge 1992) 71 (cited hereafter from trans.). Cf. Greifenhagen, A.. ‘Tityos’ Jb. Bert. Mus. i (1959) 19Google Scholar; Hani, J. in Duchemin, J. (ed.), Mythe et personnification (Paris 1980) 105.Google Scholar

⁴ On (Art.) Eukleia, see now LIMC ii.l, 677 (L. Kahil); Shapiro, H.A., Personifications in Greek art (Zürich 1993) 70–8.Google Scholar

⁵ On ABV 269, 41 (LIMC ii pl. 553, Artemis 1300); cf. Arias, P.E. and Hirmer, M., A history of Greek vase painting (rev. Shefton, B., London 1962) 318.Google Scholar

⁶ Schefold (n. 3) 337 n. 353 also identifies as Arete the figure crowning Heracles on two vases described by Beazley, J.D. (AK iv [1961] 56 no. 3, 57 no. 6).Google Scholar

⁷ Hauser, F., in Furtwängler, A. and Reichold, K., Griechische Vasenmalerei (Munich 1904–1932) ii 273 n. 1Google Scholar, rejects the ‘abbreviation’ view, but interprets the letters as a slip for cf. Immerwahr, H.R., Attic script (Oxford 1990) 67.Google Scholar The hypothesis of Vickers, M. and Gill, D., Artful Crafts (Oxford 1994)Google Scholar—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.

⁸ The complete list of inscriptions is: (A) (both horizontal, to left of Apollo) (vertical, to right of Ap.) (vert., to right of L.) (horiz., above Art.'s raised right hand) (vert., to right of Art.) (B) (horiz., above the two central figures) (horiz., at top right of scene) (vert., to right of figure on far left) (vert., to right of discus-thrower) (vert., between acontist's legs) (vert., to right of acontist) (vert., to right of spectator on far right); see Immerwahr (n. 7) 66–7. Sotinos and Sosias are the two older spectators; goes with Sostratos and Demo-stratos 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!’).

⁹ But not all: see Roscher, ML v 1043 (O. Waser).

¹⁰ Certainly London E 278 (ARV ² 226, 2; LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 36 = Apollon 1070 = Ge 43); Munich 2689 (ARV ² 879, 2; LIMC ii pl. 275, Apollon 1071 = Ge 45 = Leto 45); Louvre G375 (ARV ¹ 1032, 54; Leto designated ); a rf krater from the Loeb Collection (Munich, Loeb 472; J. Sieveking, Bronzen, Terrakotten, Vasen der Sammlung Loeb [Munich 1930] 61 and pl. 48, LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 38 = Artemis 1368); perhaps also Berlin 1835 (ABV 286, 10: Furtwängler, A., Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium [Berlin 1885] 331–2)Google Scholar; and possibly those canvassed in nn. 15–16 below). On an Argive-Corinthian shield-band relief of c. 540 in Basle (LIMC vi pl. 133, Leto 40) Leto draws her veil just as on the vases.

¹¹ (n. 3) 19–27; cf. Zancani Montuoro, P. and Zanotti-Bianco, U., Heraion alia Face del Sele (Rome 1951–1954) ii 325–9Google Scholar, Henle, J., Greek myths (Bloomington 1974) 35–7.Google Scholar

¹² 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’); despite rebuttal by Greifenhagen and Henle, it has some more recent adherents (e.g. Neumann, G., Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst [Berlin 1965] 178 n. 127, 189 n. 280CrossRefGoogle Scholar). See most recently M. Moore in LIMC iv.1, 175–6, L. Kahil, ibid, vi. l, 260.

¹³ Greifenhagen (n. 3) 22, against (e.g.) Waser in Roscher, ML v 1047, Scherling in RE vi A 1602; the motif of Antaeus' need to maintain contact with Earth appears to be post-classical: see Gerhard (n. 2) ii 104; Oertel, G. in Roscher, , ML i 362Google Scholar; Furtwängler, A. in Roscher, , ML i 2208Google Scholar; Gardiner, E.N., JHS xxv (1905) 282–4Google Scholar; and Olmos, R./Balmaseda, L.J. in LIMC i. 1, 810–11.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On one vase (New York 08.258.21, ARV ² 1086, 1: 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.

¹⁵ The presence of Ge in a version of the pursuit of Tityos is guaranteed by the inscription ΓΕ on a Tyrrhenian amphora in the Louvre (E 864, ABV 97, 33; LIMC ii pl. 274, Apollon 1066 = Ge 10); cf. Moore (n. 12) 175; n.b. Ge does not veil here. Two other vases (Tarquinia RC 1043 [ABV 97, 32; LIMC Ge 11 = Leto 42 = Niobidai 3], Villa Giulia, ABV 121,6 [LIMC iv pl. 97 Ge 12 = Leto 34]) offer more than one female character (besides Art.), and so also permit an identification of Ge as a participant (cf. Moore, loc. cit.); 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.

¹⁶ Henle (n. 11) 37. In only one case (a calyx krater by the Aegisthus Painter, Louvre G 164 [ARV ² 504, 1; LIMC Ge 44 = Leto 44]) is there any difficulty in identifying a single veiled female as Leto (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; 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 (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. Leto remains a strong possibility (so Greifenhagen [n. 3] 25–7), but the scene is enigmatic. See further Griffiths, A., JHS cvi (1986) 65 n. 37Google Scholar and BICS xxxvii (1990) 131–3.

¹⁷ Contrast Henle (n. 11) 37. The significance of Leto's veil is reflected in the detail given by Apollonius (i 759–62) and the Suda (s.v. ‘Tityos’; iv 564–5 Adler), that Tityos dragged Leto by the Cf. Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco (n. 11) ii 326.

¹⁸ See, e.g. Leningrad 709 (ARV ² 487, 61; Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Reading’ Greek culture [Oxford 1991] pls 9–10Google Scholar); Leningrad 777 (ARV ²502, 11; Sourvinou-Inwood pl. 6); Madrid 11038 (ARV ² 586, 46; Dover, K.J., Greek homosexuality [London 1978] R750)Google Scholar; London E 64 (ARV ² 455, 9); Paris, Petit Palais 316 (ARV ² 639, 58).

¹⁹ See Cairns (n. 1) 15, 98–9 n. 151, 158, 184, 217–18, 231, 292–3, 312, 352; also in CQ 46 (1996).

²⁰ Cf. Her. 1159–62, IT 372–6, Or 459–61 (Cairns [n. 1] 292–3), Pho. 1485–92; P1. Phdr. 237a, Aeschin. i 26 (etc.); on veiling as stage business in tragedy see Shisler, F.L., AJP lxvi (1945) 385.Google Scholar

²¹ Od. i 333–4, xvi 415–16, xviii 209–10, xxi 64–5; interpreted as a gesture of by Julian Orat. iii 127c-d (cf. North, H. F., Sophrosyne [Ithaca 1966] 308Google Scholar n. 143).

²² See Nagler, M., Spontaneity and tradition (Berkeley 1974) 44–72, 80Google Scholar, who also (47–9) notes the significance of the removal of the at II. xxii 468–72, Od. vi 100 (cf. Seaford, R. in Carpenter, T.H., Faraone, C.A. [eds.], Masks of Dionysus [Princeton 1993] 177–21Google Scholar, id. Reciprocity and ritual [Oxford 1994] 333, 350–1). Contrast Studniczka, F., Beiträge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen Tracht (Vienna 1886) 125–7Google Scholar; Haakh, H., Gymnasium lxvi (1959) 374–80Google Scholar; and Neumann (n. 12) 179 n. 134, who believe that Penelope is unveiling herself in order to appear more attractive to the suitors. Cf. Johansen, K. Friis, The Attic grave reliefs of the classical period (Copenhagen 1951) 41 n. 1Google Scholar, re sepulchral reliefs; Galt, C.M., AJA xxxv (1931) 373–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also the summary of a paper by Mayo, M.E. in AJA lxxvii (1973) 200Google Scholar, 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; cf. Redfield, J.M., Arethusa xv (1982) 196.Google Scholar

²³ Cf. F. Eckstein, LIMC i.l, 352; also Schulz, R., ΑΙΔΩΣ (Diss. Rostock 1910) 98–9Google Scholar; von Erffa, 57.

²⁴ Cf. the remark of Pliny (xxxv 63) that in his portrait of Penelope Zeuxis pinxisse mores videtur (cited by Carpenter, T.H., Art and myth in ancient Greece [London 1991] 235Google Scholar); Carpenter is no doubt right to say that Zeuxis depicted Penelope as in his fig. 347 (Chiusi 1831, ARV ² 1300, 2); the pose of this seated, veiled Penelope is very similar to that of the Persepolis torso which Eckstein, , JDAI lxxiv (1959) 137–57Google Scholar, LIMC i.l, 352–3 (pl. 270, Aidos 1 in LIMC i.2), regards as the Aidos/Penelope discussed by Pausanias; against this identification, see Langlotz, E., JDAI lxxvi (1961) 72–99Google Scholar; cf. Gauer, W., JDAI cv (1990) 31–65.Google Scholar

²⁵ On the wedding veil, see Cunningham, M.L., BICS xxxi (1984) 9–12Google Scholar; Armstrong, D. and Ratchford, E.A., BICS xxxii (1985) 1–14Google Scholar; Seaford, R., JHS cvii (1987) 124–5Google Scholar; Carson, A. in Halperin, D.M., Winkler, J.J., and Zeitlin, F.I. (eds.), Before sexuality (Princeton 1990) 160–4Google Scholar; and Oakley, J.H., Sinos, R.H., The wedding in ancient Athens (Madison, Wis. 1993)Google Scholarpassim, esp. 25–6, 30–2, 44.

²⁶ 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; this allusion is certainly present (for the representational schemes ‘marriage’ and ‘abduction’ constantly feed off each other in Greek art), but the basic reason why veiling is common to brides and to the objects of erotic pursuit (as well as to victims of rape, e.g. Leto) is that veiling typically expresses and the normal focus of women's is sexual. For the bride's veiling as expression of her see E. IT 372–6. There, Iphigeneia's is clearly a genuine emotional reaction; but it may be naive to assume that reflections of such anxiety in literature and myth are to be understood purely in terms of female psychology, for the bride's at leaving her father (as in the Pausanias passage) and at the thought of her future as a sexual being is also a valuable indication of her loyalty to her and of her innocence, and thus of her eligibility and promise as a wife; there may therefore have been a considerable element of cultural role-playing as well as of spontaneous emotion in her attitude. See Jenkins, I., BICS xxx (1983) 137–46Google Scholar; cf. Redfield (n. 22) 183–92; King, H. in Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Images of women in antiquity (London 1983) 109–17Google Scholar; Foley, H.P., Ritual irony (Ithaca NY 1985) 86–9 etc.Google Scholar; Seaford (n. 25) 106–30, JHS cviii (1988) 118–24.

²⁷ Sittl, C., Die Gebärden der Griechen und Römer (Leipzig 1890)Google Scholar, at least discusses veiling, sees the connexion with (84 and n. 7), and notes the iconographic link between wed ding, 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.

²⁸ 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, ARV ² 1313, 5; Burn, L., The Meidias painter [Oxford 1987] 16–17Google Scholar, 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). (On the chariot, cf. Lindner, R., Der Raub der Persephone in der antiken Kunst [Würzburg 1984]).Google ScholarCf. Arezzo 1460, ARV ² 1157, 25 (Pelops and Hippodameia), and depictions too numerous to list of the abduction and recovery of Helen in Ghali-Kahil, L., Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène (Paris 1955)Google Scholar and LIMC iv pls 291–359 passim (cf. Rehm, R., Marriage to death [Princeton 1994] 39).Google Scholar On abduction/marriage, cf. van Gennep, A., The rites of passage (Eng. trans. London 1960) 123–9Google Scholar; Webster, T.B.L., Potter and patron in classical Athens (London 1972) 107Google Scholar; Jenkins (n. 26); Sourvinou-Inwood (n. 18) 65–70 and passim, ead. BICS xx (1973) 12–21; 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 anakalypsis’ (44); but no ancient author uses the term in the sense or the connexion they require.

²⁹ Haakh (n. 22) 375–6; see his pl. xv (= Munich 2415, ARV ² 1143, 2; for the correct interpretation, see G. Davies, Apollo cxl no. 389 [July 1994] 6–7; cf. Würzburg 160, Rumpf, A., Chalkidische Vasen (Leipzig 1927) no. 14 pls 31–4.Google Scholar

³⁰ See R. Peter in Roscher, , ML iii 3276–7Google Scholar; Langlotz (n. 24) 84–5; North (n. 21) 308–9; Grant, M., Roman imperial money (Amsterdam 1972 [¹ 1954]) 159–61.Google Scholar

³¹ See Livy x 23, 3–10 (esp. 9); Festus p. 242, Paulus p. 243 Müller; cf. Peter, in Roscher, , ML iii 3277–9Google Scholar; Williams, G., JRS xlviii (1958) 23–4Google Scholar; Rudd, N., Lines of enquiry (Cambridge 1976) 42–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hani (n. 3) 107; D'Ambra, E., MDA1(R) xcviii (1991) 243–8Google Scholar, Private lives, imperial virtues (Princeton 1993) 36–9, 56–8, 79; Davies, G. in Marshall, E., Harlow, M. (eds.), Messages from the past (Exeter 1996).Google Scholar

³² 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.). Cf. veiling/ motifs in the ‘marriage of death’ on Berlin 1902 (ABV 363, 37); Athens NM 1926 (ARV ²846, 193); also the grave relief of Myrrhine (Athens NM 4485; Friis Johansen [n. 22] fig. 82). Equally, some representations of Roman Pudicitia depict a veiled rather than a veiling woman; Stevenson, S.W., A dictionary of Roman coins (London 1964) 668.Google Scholar Some (quasi) wedding scenes are better understood as depicting unveiling rather than veiling (e.g. the Selinus metope showing Zeus and Hera; Benndorf, O., Die Metopen von Selinunt [Berlin 1873] 54–6Google Scholar and pl. 8; cf. Hera and Zeus on the Parthenon frieze [Schefold, K., Die Göttersage in der klassischen undhellenistischen Kunst (Munich 1981) pl. 302Google Scholar], where Hera clearly is revealing her attractions to Zeus in what Mark, I.S. [Hesperia liii (1984) 303–4Google Scholar] 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 see Oakley, J.H., AA (1982) 113–18Google Scholar; R.F. Sutton in id. [ed.], Daidalikon: studies … Schoder [Wauconda, III. 1989] 357–9; Oakley and Sinos [n. 25] 25–6, 30; Rehm [n. 28] 141–2.)

³³ On Mantelknaben and see Sittl (n. 27) 7–8 (to his refs add Aeschin. i 26 [Athens], Xen. Lac. Pol. 3. 4 [Sparta]). Illustrations in Dover (n. 18) R637, 791, 851 (boys), 867 (woman); Kilmer, M.F., Greek erotica (London 1993) R196, 322, 576, 622.1Google Scholar (boys), Cl (woman); cf. the muffled boy on Munich 2421 (ARV ² 23, 7); cf. also the progressive unmuffling of the woman undergoing ‘Bacchic initiation’ (Florence 391, ARV ² 769, 4; Oxford 1924.2, ARV ² 865, I; C. Bérard [et al.], A city of images [Eng. trans. Princeton 1988] figs 199–200); also the gesture of drawing the veil practised by women encountering strange men (Para. 73, 1 bis. Add. ² 49; Wiirzburg 452 [ARV ² 63, 6; LIMC i pl. 60, Achilleus 35]; London F 175 [Trendall, A.D., The red-figured vases of Lucania, Campania, and Sicily (Oxford 1967) 103 no. 539Google Scholar; LIMC iv pl. 304, Helene 73]; Bari 4394 [Trendall, A.D. and Cambitoglou, A., The red-figured vases of Apulia (Oxford 1978–1982) 17 no. 71Google Scholar, Ghali-Kahil (n. 28) pl. 29]); cf. the shy Maenad on Chiusi 1830, ARV ² 975, 36. See in gen. Gait (n. 22).

³⁴ Op. cit. (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.

³⁵ London E 76 (ARV ² 406, 1; LIMC iii pls 133, 136, Briseis 1, 14; Ach. veiled, Briseis veiled and led Munich 8770 (Para. 341, Add ² 189; LIMC i pl. 104, Achilleus 445); London E 56 (ARV ² 185, 39); cf. LIMC i, Achilleus 439–48, 452–3.

³⁶ Vienna 3695 (ARV ² 429, 26; LIMC i pl. 243, Aias I 81). London E 69 (ARV ² 369, 2: LIMC i pl. 244, Aias I 84).

³⁷ As in the mourning figures in the ‘Penelope pose’ in Langlotz (n. 24) figs 17–23; Kurtz, D.C. and Boardman, J., Greek burial customs (London 1971) pl. 44Google Scholar; see also Friis Johansen (n. 22) 36–7 and fig. 18, figs 25, 79, 83; cf. the ‘weeping women sarcophagus’, Lullies, R. and Hirmer, M., Greek sculpture (New York 1960) 89–90 and pls 207–9Google Scholar; also the female mourners of Memnon on the cup, Ferrara 44885 (ARV ² 882, 35).

³⁸ As in the three examples in Haakh (n. 22) pls 16–18; cf. Friis Johansen (n. 22) figs 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 21, 24, 67. On the deceased's veiling/unveiling, cf. Rehm (n. 28) 40 and n. 49.

³⁹ See Cairns (n. 1) 157–8, and contrast Richardson, N.J., The Homeric hymn to Demeter (Oxford 1974)Google Scholarad. locc. Cf. the figure in the ‘Penelope pose’ from the ‘Tomb of Persephone’ at Vergina, identified as Demeter by Andronicos, M., Vergina (Athens 1987) 88–9 and fig. 48.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Od. viii 83–6 (Od. covers his face out of cf. viii 532), xix 118–22 (cf. II. xxiv 90–1); 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; cf. Achilles grieving for Patroclus on London E 363 (ARV ² 586. 36, Carpenter fig. 313); on mourners' restraint on Attic white-ground lekythoi, see Shapiro, H.A., AJA xcv (1991) 652–3.Google Scholar

⁴¹ In Roscher, ML v 1043; cf n. 9.

⁴² See Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 83; Immerwahr (n. 7) 112, 183–4.

⁴³ Vases regularly shift between the nom. and the gen. in naming figures (Kretschmer 137).

⁴⁴ 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. (On personifica tion of see Hani [n. 3].)

⁴⁵ Here I build on the suggestion of Osborne, R., Classical landscape with figures (London 1987) 110–11Google Scholar, that the scenes on this amphora are related. For a suggestive approach to interaction between figure-scenes on vases, see Lissarrague, F. in Goldhill, S. and Osborne, R. (eds.), Art and text in ancient Greek culture (Cambridge 1994) 12–27, esp. 18–19, 22–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ 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 pi. 93); cf. Theseus and Antiope (a) from the temple of Apollo at Eretria (F. Brommer, Theseus [Darmstadt 1982] pl. 19) and (b) on a rf cup in Oxford (1927.–4065, ARV ² 62, 77).

⁴⁷ See Dover R750 (cf. n. 18 above); Castor and Eriphyle (cf. n. 28 above); Boreas and Oreithyia (Munich 2345, ARV ² 496, 2; LIMC iii pl. 19, Boreas 626; cf. Neuser, K., Anemoi [Rome 1982] 30–87)Google Scholar; Theseus and ‘Corone’ (Munich 2309, ARV ²27, 4); Peleus and Thetis (e.g. Jacobsthal, P., Die melischen Reliefs [Berlin 1931] no. 14 and pl. 8Google Scholar, no. 15 and fig. 2; vases: Boston 1972.850 [Carpenter (n. 24) fig. 287]; Munich 2619A [ARV ² 146, 2]; Berlin 2279 [ARV ² 115.2]; London, V&A 4807.1901 [ARV ² 89, 14]; Villa Giulia 2491 [Beazley, J.D., Etruscan vase painters (Oxford 1947) 7, 80–4, pl. xx, 1]).Google Scholar See Krieger, X., Der Kampf zwischen Peleus and Thetis in der griechischen Vasenmalerei (Diss. Münster 1973 [1975]) 21, 25–43, 55–60, 66–74, 89–105, 113–21Google Scholar, with pls 2b–c, 3–4, 8b.

⁴⁸ Examples featuring Heracles now most conveniently in LIMC; see s.vv. ‘Acheloos’, ‘Antaios I’, ‘Halios Geron’, ‘Herakles’, ‘Nereus’. Cf. Vollkommer, R., Herakles in the art of classical Greece (Oxford 1988).Google Scholar Theseus and Cercyon, see the Hephaesteum metope (Brommer [n. 46] pl. 7b); vases: London E 36 (ARV ² 115, 3); London E 48 (ARV ² 431, 47); Florence 91456 (ARV ² 108, 27); Madrid 11265 (ARV ² 1174, Aison 1); Louvre G 104 (ARV ² 318, 1); Louvre G 195 (ARV ² 381, 174). On wrestling/pankration techniques in mythological scenes, see Gardiner, E.N., JHS xxv (1905) 14, 282–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar, xxvi (1906) 11–12, 15–18, Athletics in the ancient world (London 1930) 181, 205, 220; Schefold (n. 3) 71, 94, 138, 311; Brommer (n. 46) 19; Poliakoff, M.B., Combat sports in the ancient world (New Haven 1987) 136–9Google Scholar; on mythological paradigms for wrestling/athletics, see Webster (n. 29) 56, 62, 251, 260, 265.

⁴⁹ See (e.g.) Berlin 1853, CVA Berlin v, pl. 33.2; Vatican 414 (ABV 343, 3); bronze group, Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 54.972 (Poliakoff fig. 32; cf. Gardiner, Athletics fig. 171; Tzachou-Alexandri, O., Mind and body [Athens 1988] pl. 165)Google Scholar; Boston 01.8019 (ARV ² 24, 11); Munich 1461 (Gardiner fig. 164).

⁵⁰ For literary parallels, see Pi. I. 3/4.61–73 (Her. and Antaeus; cf. N. 4.62–5, Peleus' wrestling with Thetis in an ode for a boy wrestler); B. 13. 46–57 (Her. and lion); B. 18. 26–7 (Thes. and Cercyon); S. Tr. 497–530 (Her. and Achelous; cf. Davies ad loc, and Gardiner JHS [1906] 16); Theocr. 25,262–71. For Plato (Leg. 796a), too, Antaeus and Cercyon are paradigmatic pankratiasts.

⁵¹ One is himself stripped for exercise, the other an interested bystander (not a trainer; Arias-Hirmer [n. 5] 318).

⁵² On the pentathlon, see Gardiner, Athletics (n. 48) 177–80; Harris, H.A., Greek athletes and athletics (London 1964) 77–80Google Scholar; id. Sport in Greece and Rome (London 1972) 33–9. The javelin, discus, and jump v/ere peculiar to the pentathlon, and thus were used, singularly or in combination, to denote that event on Panathenaic amphoras (cf. Gardiner, Athletics 177; Webster [n. 28] 213; Neils, J.et al., Goddess and polls [Princeton 1992] 35, 85–6, 205 n. 46).Google ScholarKyle, D.G., Athletics in ancient Athens (Leiden 1987) 180–1Google Scholar, notes that the same pentathletic events also tend to be combined in generic ‘palaestra’ scenes.

⁵³ Cf. B. 9.30–9, where discus, javelin, and wrestling represent the pentathlon.

⁵⁴ The relation between the mythological and non-mythological sides of the vase thus bears comparison with those (contemporary) vases discussed by Webster (n. 28) 56, 251 which juxtapose athletic events and mythological paradigms of athletic events.

⁵⁵ Cf. Pi. P. 4.90–3.

⁵⁶ See (e.g.) A. Ag. 1206; S.frr. 618, 941.13 R (with Pearson ad locc); Ar. Ach. 273–6, 994, Peace 896–9, Eccl. 259–61, 964– 6; see Taillardat, J., Les Images d'Aristophane (Paris 1965) 336Google Scholar; Henderson, J., The maculate Muse (New Haven 1975) 156, 169–70Google Scholar; Poliakoff, M.B., Studies in the terminology of the Greek combat sports (Frankfurt 1986) 41–2, 101–36.Google ScholarCf. (a hetaira) on a rf psykter, Leningrad 644 (ARV ² 16, 15; Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 209, Kilmer [n. 33] R20). N.b. the metaphorical use (Ar. Ach. 274; cf. Ael. Ep. Rust. 9, Straton, A.P. xii 206, 222, ps.-Luc. Asinus 10) of (vel sim.), i.e. Tityos' hold on Leto; see Gardiner (n. 48) JHS (1905) 24–6, 288, Athletics 191–2; Poliakoff, Studies 40–53.

⁵⁷ See Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 195–6; Lissarrague, F., The aesthetics of the Greek banquet (Eng. trans. Princeton 1991) 60–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Webster (n. 28) 42–62 passim, Dover (n. 18) 117–19.

⁵⁹ On sympotic virtues and vices, see Bielohlawek, K., WS lviii (1940) 11–30Google Scholar; Slater, W.J., ICS vi (1981) 205–14Google Scholar; id. in Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica (Oxford 1990) 213–20Google Scholar; Fisher, N.R.E., Hybris (Warminster 1992) 71–2, 203–7, 218–19, 223–4Google Scholar, etc.

⁶⁰ 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]). Perhaps similarly, the ‘relief of the gods’, Brauron Mus. 1180 (Kahil, L. in Coldstream, J.N. and Colledge, M.A.R. (eds.), XI international congress of classical archaeology [London 1978] 78Google Scholar and pl. 32; LIMC ii Artemis 1225a) depicts a veiled Leto, matron of a divine family (Zeus, Apollo) greeting the arrival of Artemis.

⁶¹ On the intersection of archaic poetry and vase-painting, see Lissarrague (n. 57) 123–39.