Thoughts On The Oresteia Before Aischylos

Bulletin de correspondance
hellénique
Thoughts on the Oresteia before Aischylos

Mark I Davies
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Davies Mark I. Thoughts on the Oresteia before Aischylos. In: Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Volume 93, livraison 1,
1969. pp. 214-260;
doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/bch.1969.2185
https://www.persee.fr/doc/bch_0007-4217_1969_num_93_1_2185
Fichier pdf généré le 19/04/2018

214 M. I. DAVIES
THOUGHTS ON THE ORESTEIA
BEFORE AISCHYLOS
Boston
Three
Oresteia
years bave
Krater,
passed
in ansince
article
Mrs.which
Emilywill
Vermeule
always remain
published
a landmark
the magnificent
in the
long series of studies concerned with the evidence for the Oresteia legend in classical
art and literature (1). As a useful collection of material, and a most learned and
stimulating discussion of its significance, her publication must command the
respect and gratitude of all those whose pleasure — and anguish — it is to work
with the difficult archaeological and literary problems which abound in this
subject. One measure of Mrs. Vermeule's success in arousing interest and
response is the fact that at least three Archaeological Notes and one Notice have
been published within a space of fifteen months after her work appeared, all of
which deal specifically with problems and questions which she raised in her
article (2). It is hoped that the present study will demonstrate once more the
(1) Emily Vermeule, «The Boston Oresteia Krater», AJA 70 (1966), 1-22. Calyx krater
by the Dokimasia Painter, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 63.1246 (Beazley, ARV* 1652). For
the abbreviations used in this paper, see AJA 69 (1965), 199-206. I should like to thank the
following individuals for their interest in and criticism of the present study: Prof. Erik Sjôqvist,
for reading a draft of my first ideas on this subject, and for providing me with encouragement
and careful criticism; Prof. A. E. Raubitschek, who also read a draft of this paper and made
numerous helpful suggestions; Profs. Bernard G. Fenik and Robert D. Murray, Jr., for reading
portions of this paper and suggesting improvements. I have also had the pleasure and benefit
of discussing my work with Prof. Christoph Clairmont, who has been most helpful with his
criticism. My sincere thanks are also due to Professor Georges Daux for accepting my English
manuscript and for his assistance with the final proofs. In expressing my gratitude to these
individuals I hasten to assume sole responsibility for the opinions here expressed. For financial
assistance in the preparation of this study, I am grateful to the Committee for the Spears Fund
at Princeton University. This paper collects some preliminary thoughts on the early Oresteia
legend(s) in art and literature which I plan to develop into a dissertation as a doctoral candidate
at Princeton University. The main body of the present study was written in the winter of
1967/68, and the final version submitted for publication in January, 1969.
(2) Known to me are: C. W. Clairmont, «Zum Oresteia-Krater in Boston», Antike Kunst 9
(1966), 125-127; E. G. Pemberton, «A Note on the Death of Aigisthos», AJA 70 (1966), 377-378;
R. R. Dyer, «The Iconography of the Oresteia after Aeschylus», AJA 71 (1967), 175-176;
THE ORESTEIA BEFORE AISCHYLOS 215
effectiveness of her work as a catalyst, one which should ever stimulate further
researches into the many questions which remain as yet unanswered, even though
the results may take the form of suggestions rather than definitive conclusions.
Such is the nature of the present investigation, which will take up different aspects
of the Oresteia legend in both art and literature, and will attempt to suggest
answers to several problems which, though often discussed, have remained
unresolved due to the fragmentary nature of the extant literary and artistic
evidence.
Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion
Fig. 1. — Fragment of Mycenaean chariot krater from Enkomi, B. M. G 339

(courtesy Trustees of the British Museum).
I. Fragment of a Chariot Krater from Enkomi (fig. 1) (1)
Whether one can recognize individual mythological subjects in Mycenaean art

is a question which has elicited considerable debate among scholars in recent
J. G. Griffith, «Aegisthus Citharista», AJA 71 (1967), 176-177. Prof. Raubitschek has also
referred me to T. B. L. Webster's comments in Lustrum 11 (1966), 14-16, to which may be added
T. B. L. Webster, Monuments Illustrating Tragedy and Satyr Play (Second Edition with Appendix).
Univ. of London, Institute of Classical Studies, Bulletin Supplement No. 20, 1967, p. 137.
I understand that we may look forward soon to another article by Prof. Dyer, as indicated
in AJA 71 (1967), 175, n. 3.
(1) Enkomi, OT. 67: 1076 = British Museum G 339. I should like to thank Mr. Denys
E. L. Haynes of the British Museum for assistance in obtaining a photograph for publication.
216 M. I. DAVIES
years (1). It is beyond the scope of this study to enter into this debate, however,
and fortunately it will be unnecessary to take a stand on this vexed issue for the
purpose of this discussion of a fragmentary scene from an amphoroid chariot krater
found at Enkomi, Cyprus. The scene represents, from left to right, a naked
standing male figure to r., who holds two variously interpreted objects in his
hands; in front of him a robed standing male figure to r., who wears a sword in a
tasseled sheath; in front of this figure a chariot to r., drawn by two horses, within
which are two robed figures; vases of various shapes and sizes in the field between
the figures. It has been suggested that the scene may possibly represent an axe-
wielding Orestes about to murder Aigisthos, and for this reason it has been
.
included in this tripartite study. Before presenting my own conclusions,
however, it may be helpful to review chronologically the publications which have
discussed this scene, and particularly the various interpretations of the two figures
standing behind the chariot.
In the original publication of the fragment, it was suggested that the
representation was one of a funeral ceremony, and that the vases in the field were
meant to represent prizes offered at funeral games (2). Scenes on Dipylon
vases were cited as parallel in conception, and a fragment of another krater from
Enkomi representing a contest of two athletes was mentioned as a possible example
of another scene of funeral games (3).
E. Pottier noted in the scene what he interpreted as « la présence d'un serviteur,
qui suit le char en tenant un parasol ouvert » and suggested that since this was
an Oriental custom preserved on Assyrian reliefs, the fragment thus provided
further evidence of Asiatic influence in the Mycenaean world (4). This inter-
Another fragment (Nicosia A2024) of Mycenaean III A date may belong to the same vase.
It represents the head and shoulders of a robed figure with two vases in the field. No join between
the two fragments appears possible from photographs, but the fill ornamentation is extremely
rare in the decoration of such chariot kraters (see n. 3, p. 217, infra). Cf. H. W. Catling, Cypriot
Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (Oxford: 1964), p. 151, n. 8 and PI. 19:g; BSA 60 (1965), 221,
no. 2; CVA Cyprus 1, Cyprus Museum 1, IIC, PI. 3, no. 4 (p. 2) and V. Karageorghis, Mycenaean
Art from Cyprus (Nicosia: 1968), p. 23 and PI. 14, 5.
(1) See especially M. P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion (2nd éd., Lund: 1950),
Appendix 1: «Mythological Representations in Mycenaean Art»; L. Banti, «Myth in Pre-Classical
Art», AJA 58 (1954), 307-310; V. Karageorghis, «Myth and Epic in Mycenaean Vase Painting»,
AJA 62 (1958), 383-387; E. T. Vermeule, «Mythology in Mycenaean Art», CJ 54 (1958), 97-108;
A. Sacconi, «II mito nel mondo miceneo», La Parola del Passato 15 (1960), 161-187. S. Marinatos,
«Some Hints about Eastern Mediterranean Mythology», Arch. Eph. (1964), 1-14.
(2) A. S. Murray, A. H. Smith, and H. B. Walters, Excavations in Cyprus (London: 1900),
p. 37, fig. 65, no. 1076. Discussion ibid, on page 9.
(3) Ibid., p. 9, fig. 15, no. 1287 (British Museum C 334). Also published in Jdl 26 (1911),
220, Abb. 5; H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum,
Vol. I, Part II (London: 1912), p. 64, fig. 108; CVA Great Britain 1, British Museum 1, II C b,
pi. 11,15; Ε. Ν. Gardiner, Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford: 1930), p. 13, fig. 6; BSA 60
(1965), 221, no. 1 (pi. 58:1).
(4) E. Pottier, BCH 31 (1907), 242. Cf. Assyrian relief of Assurpanipal illustrated in
G. Perrot et C. Chipiez, Histoire de Varl dans Vanliquité, tome II (Paris: 1884), pi. X (opp., p. 549).
Bibliography and sources for parasols in M. Ebert, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte, vol. 12 (Berlin:
1928), s.v. Sonnenschirm.
pretation was accepted by A. de Ridder, who identified the standing robed figure
as a Cypriote « roitelet », and who compared the representation to a similar scene
from a sarcophagus of the second half of the sixth century B.C. found at Amathous,
Cyprus (1).
II. B. Walters, in the British Museum catalogue of vases, observed a «man to
r., carrying a staff with cross-piece at top in r. hand, and wearing a long loose robe
spotted all over, with borders along the edge: he is followed by a nude attendant,
who holds a sunshade over him with his 1. hand. In the field between them are a
ladle and a masios-shaped vase with one handle and horizontal stripes of paint;
in front of the first man, a jug with pointed base and a spade-shaped object» (2).
A. Furumark considered our fragment to be one of the earliest chariot
compositions, and noted that the small vases placed in the field were unique as
fill ornaments in Mycenaean decoration (3). He found that the closest parallels
to this arrangement were preserved on Oriental seal cylinders. Noting that most
of the decorative vases were markedly un-Aegean, and that all of them had
counterparts from the Near East, he saw in these observations an indication of
the Eastern origin of this class of vase painting. In his opinion, the scene on
this fragment could have been inspired by a processional fresco, but he preferred
to consider the two standing figures as a separate subject merely juxtaposed with
the chariot group by the artist. Furumark was apparently the first to suggest
that the nude figure was carrying in his right hand what appears to be a dagger,
while he continued to interpret the object in his left as a sunshade.
Mrs. Vermeule, in an article which appeared in The Classical Journal of
December, 1958, discussed all of the scenes in Mycenaean art which previously
had been termed mythological by different scholars, only to reject all of the
candidates without exception (4). Of all the possibilities, however, she was most
tempted by the fragment from Enkomi under discussion. In her words, «It
suggests classical compositions of Orestes axing Aigisthos from behind. The
pots hanging on the wall recall the indoor setting of this murder in the Odyssey,
(1) A. de Ridder, Les antiquités chypriotes (vol. V of Collection de Clercq) (Paris: 1908),
p. 307, n. 3. Sarcophagus from Amathous illustrated in L. P. di Cesnola, A Descriptive Atlas
of the Cesnola Collection of Cypriote Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
vol. I (Boston: 1885), pi. CL (1187); also J. L. Myres, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of
Antiquities from Cyprus (New York: 1914), no. 1365A. It should be noted that on this sarcophagus
and the Assyrian relief (n. 4, p. 216, supra), the bearer of the sunshade stands actually in the
chariot itself. Cf. also the sixth-century Etruscan relief plaque illustrated in AJA 72 (1968),
pi. 48, fig. 19 and pi. 50, fig. 20.
(2) Walters, op. cit. [supra, n. 3, p. 216), pp. 65-66, fig. 110. Walters' description and/or
placement of the vases in the field is clearly mistaken.
(3) A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm: 1941), p. 435, fig. 75. Discussion
on pp. 239, 435-437, 444-445 and 463: Myc. IIIA:2 early. Two other examples of vases used as
fill ornament: see n. 1, p. 215, supra, and a chariot krater from Suda Bay, Crete illustrated in
F. Matz, Forschungen auf Krela 1942 (Berlin: 1951), Taf. 3,2 and Emily Vermeule, Greece in the
Bronze Age (Chicago & London: 1964), pi. XXXII, D. Cf. CVA Cyprus 1, Cyprus Museum 1,
p. 2 (on PI. 3, no. 4) for a different point of view.
(4) Vermeule, op. cit. {supra, n. 1, p. 216)
218 M. I. DAVIES
although pots were used as filling ornaments outdoors also. One wishes it were
Klytaimestra perched behind the charioteer, but in spite of the frontal
development it is a man. The object in Orestes' hand is usually interpreted as a
sunshade being held by an attendant, yet it looks very much like a pickaxe, and
he holds a dagger in the other hand» (1). In her opinion, it is just possible that
the scene represents an excerpt from recent dynastic history brought to Cyprus
by Mycenaeans following the Trojan Wars, though it may also simply be a scene
from daily life on Cyprus.
V. Karageorghis follows Furumark in describing the objects held by the nude
figure as a dagger and sunshade (2). Reasserting that this custom of holding
a parasol over the head of an important figure is an Oriental fashion, Karageorghis
nevertheless admits that the «aide de camp» in fact holds the sunshade over his own
head, a feature perhaps due to lack of skill and of concern for detail on the part
of the artist. Moreover, in response to Mrs. Vermeule's suggestion that the
object in his left hand could be an axe, Karageorghis objects that it is too large,
and held improperly (3). As for the vases in the field, he thinks it not improbable
that they signify offerings which were placed beside the dead as kterismata in the
tombs. This interpretation follows Lorimer and others in. seeing funerary
significance in the decoration of this and other chariot kraters (4).
H. W. Catling and A. Millett, in «A Study in the Composition Patterns of
Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery from Cyprus» (5), have not ventured any new
interpretation of the scene on the fragment from Enkomi under discussion, but
have shown convincingly that its fabric is typical of much of that found in the
Peloponnesos, and have suggested with reason that the krater was made in this
part of the Mycenaean world. It may be noted that these authors continue to
interpret the figure on the left as a parasol-carrier, but suggest that fresco paintings
or relief sculpture from one of the palaces in Greece provided the inspiration for
such scenes (6).
Before offering one more interpretation of this problematic scene, I should like
to return to the hesitant interpretation which Mrs. Vermeule has suggested for it,
namely that it just might represent the Death of Aigisthos at the hands of Orestes
— though it must be remembered that Mrs. Vermeule rejected her own suggestion.
Nevertheless, since I cannot agree with her that this scene provides us with even
(1) Ibid., p. 104 (fig. 10).

(2) V. Karageorghis, BCH 83 (1959), 198-199 (fig. 1). Cf. BABesch 33 (1958), 40.
(3) Karageorghis contrasts Sir Arthur Evans, The Palace of Minos, vol. IV: Part II (London:
1935), p. 414, fig. 343, where axes are held in a resting position over the shoulders of «princely
and sacerdotal personages» represented on bead-seals. The comparison, however, proves
nothing, as the bead-seals depict subjects which appear entirely unrelated to the scene on the
Enkomi fragment. Moreover, it will be demonstrated below (see n. 4, p. 222) that the axe is
not too large, as Karageorghis asserts.
(4) H. L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London: 1950), pp. 48 and 391. For other
interpretations of these scenes, see esp. Furumark, op. cil. [supra, n. 3, p. 217), pp. 430-470;
Vermeule, op. cit. [supra, n. 10), p. 205; Catling, in AJA 72 (1968), 45.
(5) BSA 60 (1965), 212-224.
(6) BSA 60 (1965), 221 (pi. 58:2).
the « most hopeful» mythological representation in Mycenaean art, I should like

to offer additional grounds for rejecting this work without hesitation from our
corpus of Oresteia representations. To begin with, if this is a scene of murder,
the figures are curiously inactive and unagitated — especially the attacking
«Orestes». This fact cannot be due simply to lack of skill in rendering physical
action on the part of the artist, since aggressive boxers seem to have been a common
motif on vases of this type (1). Furthermore, there is little connection between
the two figures and their postures, apart from their physical proximity, and even
less of what one might sense to be intent to act on the part of the nude figure.
This lack of articulated relationship between the two men becomes more evident
Fig. 2. — Fragment of Mycenaean chariot krater from Enkomi. BCH 90 (1966) 305, fig. 16b.
by comparison with another krater fragment discovered in 1965 at Enkomi, on

which is represented a robed figure to r., toward whom a smaller figure behind
extends his left arm (fig. 2) (2). Despite the extremely fragmentary nature of this
newly discovered scene, the idea of pursuit or otherwise meaningful gesticulation
by the smaller man is clear in this case, and stands out in contrast to the very
static composition of the «Orestes-Aigisthos» scene. In fact, I hope to show that
in the latter instance it is more likely that the functions and actions of the nude
and robed figures were intended to be distinct and separate. Furumark has noted
what he terms a lack of coherence in the majority of the scenes found on chariot
vases; to him there exists no apparent relation in most cases between the standing
men and the chariots (3). It should not be such a great step, then, to extend this
lack of coherence in some cases to the standing figures themselves.
(1) See Furumark, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 217), pp. 443-444 (no. 4) for boxers as a motif in
Myc. IIIA:2 and Β pictorial vase painting. British Museum G 335 is now illustrated in BSA 60
(1965), pi. 60:1 (with different interpretation). See also the description of British Museum C 352
given in BSA 60 (1965), 222, no. 8 which seems preferable.
(2) Inv. 1965/VIII-17/3. BCH 90 (1966), 305, fig. 16b (Myc. IIIA). Cf. also AJA 72
(1968), pi. 23, no. 18.
(3) Furumark, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 217), p. 437 ; cf. 462-463.
220 M. I. DAVIES
With these observations in mind, I should like to suggest that the nude figure
in the fragment under discussion may very well be an ordinary athlete with what
in classical times were two of his common attributes: a pickaxe and either a pointed
marking stake or strigil. The very fact that his hands are overly encumbered
by these two objects suggests that they are emphatic iconographical details
intended to aid the interpretation of the scene rather than to suggest their imminent
and simultaneous use. One may well ask whether Orestes could have effectively
used both an axe and a dagger, rather then a single weapon as we find in later
representations. Furthermore, if our figure is bearing a sunshade, he is singularly
ineffective, as Karageorghis has already noted. Rather than postulate lack of
skill on the part of the artist to explain this detail of the composition, however,
I should prefer to believe with Mrs. Vermeule that the artist intended this object
to be understood as a pickaxe, since it is well-drawn as such (cf. fig. 3). He has
placed it in the best position which the composition afforded, as an attribute to
identify the man holding it as an athlete. It should also be noted that the parasols
or sunshades which have been adduced previously for comparative purposes
(n. 4, p. 216 and n. 1, p. 217, supra) have spreaders or spokes which then (as
now) held the canopy open. There would have been no reason to omit them
on the- Enkomi fragment.
Examples of athletic scenes from black- and red-figure vase painting in which
pickaxes abound as a standard part of the iconography, whether lying on the
ground or held in the hand, are so numerous that mention and illustration of only
a few should suffice here to make the following point (figs. 4 and 5) (1). In the
Classical Period artists felt that it was appropriate to use pickaxes as filling
ornaments, whether for empty space or the hands of the athletes. In the majority
of cases they are not represented in use, even though they were recommended for
exercise and employed to soften the ground for jumping and wrestling (2).
Moreover, as in the case of the Enkomi fragment, the pickaxe may occupy only
one hand of an athlete, while other athletic equipment is held in the other (fig. 4).
The object in the right hand of the athlete on the Enkomi fragment is poorly
preserved, and certainty as to its exact form and purpose is impossible. Perhaps
it served as a strigil and one or more of the vases in the field contained oil. One
may compare the nude figure on a similar vase in the British Museum who seems
a close counterpart to our pickaxe-bearing athlete and carries a bowl-shaped object
which could well correspond in function to the classical aryballos filled with
cleansing oil for an athlete. Of course it also may simply be a libation bowl
carried by an attendant (3).
(1) Here illustrated: cup by the Scheurleer P. (Amsterdam inv. 997): CVA Pays-Bas 1,
Musée Scheurleer (La Haye) 1, III I a, pi. 1,1 ( = Pays-Bas 31,1); cup in Munich, 2637 (J. 795)
by Onesimos: JHS 27 (1907), 264, fig. 12, also illustrated in RbmMill 63 (1956), Taf. 41,1-2.
Other examples: E. Pottier, Vases antiques du Louvre (Paris:1922), pi. 134 (G 292), cf. parasols
with spokes in pi. 130 (G 220) and pi. 134 (G 285); Gardiner, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 216), figs. 52,
56, 119, 133, 147 and ?205; H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics (London: 1964), pi. 9B, 13A.
(2) Gardiner, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 216), p. 84.
(3) British Museum G 344, illustrated in BSA 60 (1965), pi. 58:4. On the fragment from
Enkomi under discussion (G 339), the object next to the left hand of the nude figure, which
Walters (supra, n. 2, p. 217) described as a ladle, could be a prototype for the classical kyathos in
Fig. 3. — Bronze double adze from Meniko, Cyprus. Nicosia, 1953/IX-3/3. Length : 31.3 cm.
H. W. Catling, Cypriot Bronzework in the Mycenaean World (Oxford, Clarendon Press), pi. 7:a.
Fig. 4. — Cup by the Scheurleer Painter (Amsterdam 997). CVA Pays-Bas 31, 1.
222 M. I. DAVIES
If not a strigil, the object in the right hand of our athlete might also be a
marking stake for a throwing contest, such as are found depicted in athletic scenes
from the Classical Period (fig. 5) (1). It seems too short to be a small javelin
or one of the rods used to measure a jump, corresponding to the classical akontia
or kanones (2).
One may object that it is hazardous to compare Mycenaean and Classical
material for the purposes of identification and interpretation. It should be
remembered, however, that Greek athletic customs and equipment changed very
slowly, either because this activity was originally closely related to (funeral)
ritual and/or because uniformity and observance of time-honored tradition were
simply desiderata as they are today (3). Moreover, archaeological evidence from
the Mycenaean world which supports the interpretation which I have given to
the Enkomi fragment is not wanting. Several examples of bronze double adzes
and pickaxes from Crete and Cyprus have been published whose forms could well
have served as models for the object which I have termed a pickaxe (cf. fig. 3) (4).
In his discussion of the Cypriote double adzes, Professor Catling suggests that the
implement was brought to Cyprus by twelfth-century Aegean settlers. He
conjectures further that mainland Greece adopted the tool from Crete, and that
its form changed somewhat between its earliest occurrence in a Minoan context
and its appearance in twelfth-century Cyprus (5). The painter of the Enkomi
which the oil was measured out from a larger container: see Gardiner, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 216),
p. 78. Many of the nude figures on similar chariot kraters carry unexplained objects, and one must
consider the possibility that many of them may be athletic paraphernalia when they cannot be
otherwise explained. Even weapons such as spears could well have been used in sport.
(1) See also Gardiner, op. cit., p. 157, fig. 115.
(2) See JHS 24 (1904), 179 f., fig. 1 on these items of athletic equipment.
(3) Gardiner, op. cit., p. 33.
(4) J. Deshayes, Les outils de bronze, de Γ Indus au Danube, 2 vols. (Paris: 1960), nos. 2092,
2093 (double adzes from Crete), pli. XXXV,10, LX,7 and XXXV,14; no. 2305 (pickadze from
Hagia Triada), pi. XXXIX,15. Deshayes tentatively suggests a date in the second palace
period for these implements, and stresses their agricultural use, an interpretation which would
not preclude their use by athletes also. See also the double adzes illustrated in Catling, op. cit.
{supra, n. 1, p. 215), pi. 7:a (whence my fig. 3), 7:d, and 7:e. The first is a surface find from Meniko,
the second two are from Knossos, of uncertain date. I should like to thank Prof. Catling and the
Oxford University Press for permission to reproduce pi. 7:a here. All of the examples mentioned
here measure over 30 cm. in length. One cannot be certain whether the object depicted on the
Enkomi fragment is a pickaxe or double adze, since it is drawn in profile, and I have merely
followed Gardiner's terminology {supra, n. 3) in referring to it as a pickaxe. It should also be
noted that none of the examples cited here may be contemporary with the Enkomi fragment,
but there is no reason to believe that the artist could not have had a very similar model with
which to work. I should like to thank Prof. Sjoqvist for referring me to some of this material.
(5) Catling, op. cit. {supra, η. 1, p. 215), p. 90. Three discussions of the chariot on the Enkomi
fragment may be appended here: E. von Mercklin, Rennwagen in Griechenland (Leipzig: 1909)
I. p. 20, no. 23; Lorimer, op. cit. {supra, n. 4, p. 218), p. 316 (fig. 45); H. W. Catling, «A Mycenaean
Puzzle from Lefkandi in Euboea», AJA 72 (1968), 44, pi. 22, no. 12. In the last-mentioned
article, Catling points out that the type of chariot represented on the Enkomi fragment was a
Minoan development possibly invented in Crete. The pickaxe could well have been another
Minoan development adopted by mainland Greece (as Catling suggests), both of which were
familiar to a mainland artist interested in such matters.
Fig. 5. — Cup by Onesimos (Munich 2637). JHS 27 (1907) 264, fig. 12.
fragment could in this event have had firsthand knowledge of the object which he
wished to represent in the hand of an athlete.
This identification of the nude figure as an athlete is well suited to the original
interpretation of the vases in the field as prizes for funeral contests, perhaps filled
with oil, and is supported by the representations of boxers on other similar kraters.
The robed figure may be sacerdotal, or a member of the royalty, or perhaps an
official at the games. He is not necessarily closely related in function to the
nude figure behind him. Whatever exact interpretation is given to this scene,
however, it should remain non-specific and should not attempt to see a mythological
or historical event taking place. It seems far more likely that the artist wished
to represent an athlete with both hands occupied by appropriate and easily
recognized attributes, similar to those used in similar contexts and for the same
reasons by vase painters of the Classical Period. If correct, then, this
interpretation would cast some light upon the conservative transmission of athletic
customs and equipment from the Mycenaean into the Classical Period. The
fragment does not illuminate the early iconography of the Oresteia legend.
224 M. I. DAVIES
II. The Death of Agamemnon on a steatite Disk Seal from

Central Crete (figs 6-8) (1)
I should like to turn next to a discussion of an unusually fine example of

engraved art from the very late eighth century or early seventh century B.C.,
said to have been found in «central Crete (2). On the obverse of its impression
a nude, bearded man is represented seated to r., facing a woman in a long dress
standing to 1.. They are depicted in the stylized, abstract manner characteristic
of this period, with the distinctive beak type of head, and seem to be engaged in
some specific — and unusual — activity to judge by the positions of their arms and
legs. Behind the woman, below her left hand, a vase with a large handle and
high spout is just visible in the field. On the reverse are represented two goats
mating with three variously interpreted objects filling the empty field above,
below and to their left. Due to the unusual composition of the scene on the
obverse, several attempts have been made to explain the activity of the man and
the woman. In his original publication of the disk in 1894, Evans gave the
following interpretation and description which I should like to quote here in full,
since it seems to have been ignored by subsequent studies of the disk: «In certain
cases the figures on these early engraved stones seem to have a reference to some
(1) New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ace. no. 42.11.1. Diameter: 3/4" (19 mm.).
Bibliography: A. J. Evans, JHS 14 (1894), 343, fig. 67 whence A. J. Evans, Cretan Pictographs
and Prae-Phoenician Script (London: 1895), p. 74, fig. 67, and p. 138; A. Jolies, Jdl 19 (1904), 48,
Abb. 21; C. R. Wason, AAA 23 (1936), 55, pi. 27, no. 9; E. Herkenrath, AJA 41 (1937), 422;
A. J. Evans, An Illustrative Selection of Greek and Greco-Roman Gems, to which is added a Minoan
and Proto-Hellenic Series Acquired... by Sir Arthur Evans (Privately printed at the University
Press, Oxford: 1938), p. 7, no. 17; G. M. A. Richter, Ancient Gems, from the Evans and Beatty
Collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ν. Υ. (New York: 1942), no. 4; G. M. A. Richter,
Handbook of the Greek Collection, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Ν. Υ. (Cambridge: 1953),
p. 146; G. M. A. Richter, Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, N. Y. (Rome: 1956), pi. 1,3; Enciclopedia delVarte antica III (Rome:
1960), p. 958, fig. 1203; J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford: 1961), pp. 123 and
n. 1, 140, n. 3; J. Boardman, Island Gems (London: 1963), pp. 128-129, pi. XV, G6.
I have chosen to illustrate here two of my own photographs taken at the Museum, to illustrate
the disk seal under different light orientations (fig. 6a and b); another photograph of the
impressions of the disk seal taken by the author, with these objects oriented properly as will be argued
infra (fig. 7); a Museum photograph of the impressions (fig. 8). I should like to thank Mr. Andrew
Oliver, Jr. for his assistance in obtaining the last-mentioned photograph, and for permission to
publish it.
(2) Evans originally believed the disk seal to be prehistoric, but subsequently dated it to the
Geometric Period, op. cit., 1895 {supra, n. I), pp. 74, 138; op. cit., 1938 {supra, n. 1), p. 7.
Jolies, op. cit. {supra, n. 1), p. 48: «aus der pramykenischen Zeit». Wason, op. cit. {supra, n. 1),
p. 55: «dark ages». Richter, opp. citt., 1942, 1953, 1956 {supra, n. 1): Eighth Century.
Boardman, op. cit., 1961 {supra, n. 1), p. 140 and op. cit., 1963 {supra, n. 1), pp. 128 and 164,
n. 2: first half of the seventh century and «good early orientalising». I should venture to date
the disk seal in the very last years of the eighth century while admitting that such an object
«floats» in time and is not subject to precise dating. The descriptions which follow refer to the
impressions rather than to the disk seal itself, unless otherwise stated.
episode in personal or family history. On the green steatite disk Fig. 67, the
other face of which is occupied by two goats, a branch, and other objects, we see
what, owing to the naiveness of the art, may either be interpreted as a comic or a
tragic scene. A figure in a long tunic, behind which is a high-spouted vase, is
represented attacking and apparently overthrowing a naked figure seated on a
stool» (1).
Other interpretations diverge sharply from this description. Miss Richter
mentions that the scene has been interpreted as Eurykleia washing the feet of
Odysseus (Odyssey 19.386ff.), but notes that the foot bath is missing (2). One
might also object that to wash another person's foot with one's right hand held at
or near the other person's waist, as the woman does in this scene, would be very
awkward, if not impossible — not to say tiring for the person extending his
unsupported leg to be washed. Two other descriptions of the scene, however, imply
that the authors may have correctly observed that the woman's right hand is
holding what appears to be an elongated object outlined against the man's body (3).
With the scene of the mating goats on the reverse in mind, Professors Herkenrath
and Boardman have suggested that the man and the woman may be involved in
some sort of erotic activity — presumably due to the position of their hands at
each other's waist, or because they thought that she was actually holding his
erect phallus. Other gems and stones with erotic scenes, however, show both
figures nude and usually (if not always) depict coitus a tergo (4). If this is a scene
of erotic play, moreover, it is unusually discrete and subtle, especially when the
scene on the reverse is so direct in its content. It is my opinion that a better
(1) Evans, op. cit., 1894 {supra, n. l,p. 224), p. 343 (= Evans, op. cit., 1895 (supra, ibid.), p. 74).
(2) Richter, op. cit., 1956 (supra, ibid.}, p. 1 (on pi. I, 3). As parallels for the vase,
Miss Richter cites those on a steatite from Crete: A. Furtwangler, Die antiken Gemmen (Leipzig +
Berlin: 1900), Taf. IV,28.
(3) Herkenrath, op. cit. [supra, n. 1, p. 224), p. 422 and Boardman, op. cit., 1963 [supra, ibid.), p. 48
n. 1 and p. 129. Neither author, however, makes an explicit statement regarding this object in the
woman's hand. It is clearly visible in the reproductions of Richter, op. cit., 1942 (supra, ibid.),
no. 4, and Wason, op. cil. (supra, ibid.), pi. 27, no. 9, as well as in the photographs illustrated here
(figs. 6-8). Evans originally described an attack, but did not mention a weapon, while his artist
has drawn the object above the woman's hand, outlined against the man's chest: Evans, op. cit.,
1895 (supra, ibid.), p. 74, fig. 67a. Personal examination of the disk seal and its impression at
the Metropolitan Museum has convinced the present writer that the woman does indeed hold
such an object, which has been incised as a distinct groove within the area of the man's torso
(cf. fig. 6a and b). I am most grateful to Mr. Andrew Oliver, Jr. and Mr. Brian F. Cook for
making it possible for me to examine and photograph the disk seal at the Museum. Their
hospitality greatly facilitated my work.
(4) Other erotic scenes on gems are represented in Boardman, op. cit., 1963 (supra, ibid.),
pi. VI, 177A (p. 49); pi. XIV, B23 (p. 118); pi. XV, F29A (p. 127). It should be noted, however,
that the erect phallus usually appears in a more horizontal — or even inclining — position on these
gems, and there was no reason not to so represent it here if the artist had erotic activity in mind.
The distinction between sword and phallus, however, is not an easy one to make in such abstract
compositions. Another engraved stone depicting a scene which Boardman interprets as a duel
between two men (pi. XIV, B19, p. 118), I should prefer to interpret as erotic. My point is
simply that the disk under discussion (pi. XV, G6, pp. 128-9) has very little in common with these
examples of human erotic activity.
15
226 M. I. DAVIES
Fig. 6 a. — Steatite disk seal from central Crete (N. Y. 42.11.1). The Metropolitan Muaeum
of Art, Purchase, 1942, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest.
Fig. 7. — Steatite disk seal from central Crete (impressions). Same as fig. 6.
Fig. 6 b. — See Hg. 6 a.
Fig. 8. — Steatite disk seal from central Crete (impressions). Same as fig. 6 (courtesy Metropolitan
Museum).
228 M. I. DAVIES
Fig. 9. — Terracotta pinax from Gortyn, Crete. Ht. : 8.4 cm.; W. : 6.2 cm. (courtesy Professor
Doro Levi).
explanation can be found for the positions of the two figures' arms and legs, and
that they fall into a definite iconography established at an early period for scenes
of violent death inflicted on seated figures.
A composition with many similar features appears in a scene represented on a
pinax discovered in 1954 on the acropolis of Gortyn, where a woman standing
to r. faces a seated man to 1., behind whom another man is standing (figs. 9 and
10) (1). This scene was interpreted by the excavator as the Death of Agamemnon
(1) D. Levi, «Gli scavi del 1954 sull'Acropoli di Gortina», ASAtene 33/34 (1955/56), 275-277,
fig. 56. Cf. T. J. Dunbabin, The Greeks and Their Eastern Neighbours (London: 1957), p. 83;
G. M. A. Richter, A Handbook of Greek Art, 2nd rev. ed. (London: 1960), p. 220, fig. 326;
Pemberton, op. cit. {supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 377, pi. 96, fig. 1; Griffith, op. cit. {supra, ibid.), pp. 176-
177; T. B. L. Webster, Lustrum 6 (1961), 17 and op. cit. {supra, ibid.), p. 15; K. Schefold, Myth and
Legend in Early Greek Art (New York: 1966), p. 47, pi. 33; E. A. S. Butterworth, Some Traces of
the Pre-Olympian World in Greek Literature and Myth (Berlin: 1966), p. 89 ff. and pi. II;
at the hands of Klytaimestra and Aigisthos,

an interpretation which has since been
accepted by other scholars. Numerous
points of similarity may be noted between
this representation, dated to the second
quarter of the seventh century (1), and
that on the disk, although interpretations
of various points of detail on the rather
poorly preserved pinax have differed
somewhat (2). Agamemnon is seated on
a throne without a backrest, a sword
hanging obliquely across his chest, while a
spear held in his left hand rests on the
ground and over his left shoulder. His
right hand is raised, apparently to grasp
the wrist of Klytaimestra's right arm.
His body is draped in some kind of material
which covers his upper body and hangs
Fig. 10. — Author's drawing of fig. 9.
from his left shoulder almost to the
ground. The position of his legs should
be noted, his left slightly bent back and his right extended with toes raised as
though lifting from the ground.
Klytaimestra attacks from the left, dressed in a long Cretan tunic pleated and
belted at the waist. She leans forward, grasping the back of Agamemnon's
head which she pulls toward her with her left hand, and holding in her right
hand a sword or a dagger, the point of which is no longer preserved. Its blade,
E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece. Its Origins in the Mediterranean and Near East (New York: 1968),
p. 220; R. A. Higgins, Greek Terracottas (London: 1967), p. 28; H. Bartels, «Mitren», VIII. Bericht
iiber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Berlin: 1967), pp. 196-207 (esp. p. 199 ff.). Mrs. Vermeule
omitted this work in her publication of the Boston Oresteia Krater, but apparently later appended
it to her list of the scenes of the Death of Agamemnon (cf. AJA 71 (1967), 177, n. 2). I should like
to thank Prof. Levi for providing me with a photograph of the Gortyn pinax (fig. 9) for publication
here, and for the reference to the study by Butterworth. Fig. 10 is a drawing by the present
author, to illustrate my interpretation of several points of detail in the scene on the pinax.
(1 ) See however Pemberton, op. cit. (supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 377, who gives stylistic reasons for
dating the pinax to the latter part of the seventh century in Elizabeth M. Gummey, The Death
of Aegisthus, her unpublished M. A. thesis in the Dept. of Fine Arts, Columbia University (1964),
pp. 5-6; Dunbabin, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 83: ?sixth century (Death of Aigisthos).
(2) Schef old's description, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 47, is the most accurate, in my
opinion. The translation of the original German is misleading on one detail, however: Klytaimestra
is not represented actually stabbing her husband, but rather on the point of stabbing him. See
K. Schefold, Friihgriechische Sagenbilder (Munchen: 1964), p. 44: «im Begriff, mit dem Dolch
in ihrer Rechten den grossen Kônig zu erstechen». It is interesting to compare the similar— but
static — pose of the solitary enthroned figure who holds a spear in his left hand, depicted on a
fragmentary mould of a terracotta relief plaque dated to the early fifth century B.C. (from the
Athenian Pnyx): G. R. Davidson and D. B. Thompson, «Small Objects from the Pnyx: I»,
Hesperia, Suppl. VII (1943), p. 156, fig. 68, no. 102 (T 147).
230 M. I. DAVIES
however, issues upwards from her hand, while the fingers of Agamemnon's right
hand appear visible grasping her wrist just above and behind her hand (1).
Klytaimestra, then, is just about to stab her husband, or about to follow up an
initial attack with a second thrust of the blade, a moment which is dramatically
represented on classical vase paintings of the deaths of both Agamemnon and
Aigisthos (2).
Aigisthos on the Gortyn pinax is bearded, and holds his right arm in an awkward
position over the head of Agamemnon. It may well be that he is holding the
infamous net over him, rendering his victim helpless while his mistress commits
the actual murder (3). He holds the king's spear with his left hand (4).
Despite the fact that the Gortyn pinax contains a three-figured composition
(1) Levi, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 275: «Non è del tutto chiaro se la destra della donna
afferri il polso destro del personaggio seduto, ο non impugni invece una daga ferendolo alia testa;
la sua sinistra sembra tenerlo fermo, passando dietro alia testa stessa.» On the position of her
right hand, Pemberton, op. cit. (supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 377 and Butterworth, op. cit. (supra, n. 1,
p. 228), p. 91 follow the former interpretation, while Schefold, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 47 and
myself accept the latter. Bartels, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 203 also implies a drawn sword in
Klytaimestra's hand. Against the former interpretation one may object that Agamemnon's
forearm would not only be absurdly long, but «broken» in Klytaimestra's grip. What may seem
to be the fingers or back of Agamemnon's right hand, supporting his inclined head, is rather a
fold of the net-robe descending from the top of his head to his shoulder (cf. note 3, infra). I have
tried to illustrate these points in my drawing (fig. 10).
(2) See Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), pll. 1-8. I am here concerned solely with the
moment captured by the artist: that of a murder in progress. This moment appealed to later
artists who depicted male killers in similar attitudes. See also the Death of Agamemnon
on the Etruscan urn cited p. 235, infra.
(3) Levi, op. cit. (supra, n.l, p. 228), p. 276 suggests that he either strikes Agamemnon with some
sort of weapon, or holds a net over his head. Schefold, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 47 and Webster,
op. cit. (supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 15 follow the latter interpretation, while Gummey, op. cil. (supra, n. 1 ,
p. 229), p. 5 sees instead traces of a fillet or wreath. Certainty is impossible, but Agamemnon does
seem to be draped in some material corresponding to the net-robe later so dramatically depicted
by the imagery of Aischylos (Ag. 1115, 1382). Here the cloth arches over his head, held by
Aigisthos, its folds (though broken and worn) effectively framing both sides of Agamemnon's
face and joining the mass of material which lies heavily upon his shoulders. The artist has, in
effect, «cut away» this material to reveal the king's face. It is difficult to believe, in any
event, that Agamemnon is normally dressed as an enthroned king. Cf. Butterworth's
comments, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 89 ff., where it is suggested that «Clytaemnestra is ... shown
beginning to pass the cloth over the seated Agamemnon's head». In the interpretation here
advanced, only the left hand of Klytaimestra could be holding the material of the net-robe.
(4) The spear appears again, standing by itself, on a shield band from Olympia, dated 600-
580 B.C., and apparently corresponds to xb σκήπτρον πατρώϊον, άφθιτον αίεί belonging to
Agamemnon in the Iliad 2.186 (cf. 2.101-108, 203-206), the symbol of Agamemnon's royal
authority. Cf. Iliad 3,179; 23.890-91: Agamemnon renowned as an αίχμητής or ήμων. See also
Aischylos, Cho. 362, Eum. 626; Sophokles, El. 417 ff.; Euripides, El. 321, Or. 437, 1146; Seneca,
Ag. 10, 111, 194, 930. Pausanias (9.40.11-41.1) tells how the people of Chaeronea venerated the
scepter of Agamemnon, calling it a spear. On the above-mentioned shield band from Olympia
and possibly one other from Aigina dated 580-560 B.C., Aigisthos appears likewise in a restraining
role, merely assisting Klytaimestra who stabs her husband from behind with a sword. See
AJA 70 (1966), pi. 7, fig. 20a and b for these shield bands and bibliography. Add Schefold,
op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 94, fig. 43 and WS 80 (1967), 18.
and the disk a scene with only two persons, certain points of similarity are quite
striking. The seat represented on the latter, though incised without details, is
the same type as that on the former, without back or arms (1). Furthermore,
in both scenes the seated male figure has either begun to raise, or has already
raised, one of his legs, as one would do if thrown backward by the attack of an
onrushing assailant (2). This feature of the raised and/or extended leg is often
included in later representations of legendary and mythological characters
murdered in a seated (or reclining) position, and often appears as part of the
iconography in scenes of the deaths of Aigisthos, Priam, Linos and Orpheus, as well as
Agamemnon, to name some examples (3). It is a detail which strengthens the
impression of a sudden attack, and a victim helpless and off balance before his
assailant. Finally it should be noted that as Agamemnon on the Gortyn pinax
grasps his wife's arm, so the left arm of the man on the disk is shown in what is
most likely a defensive posture, feebly attempting to hold off his assailant (4).
( 1 ) Gummey, op. cit. (supra, n. 1 , p. 229), p. δ calls the seat on the Gortyn pinax «a low, armed
chair», but what must appear to her to be an arm of the seat is actually the sheath of Agamemnon's
sword, the handle of which is visible next to Agamemnon's right elbow.
(2) That the position of their legs is meaningful becomes clear by comparison to seated
figures on other gems whose legs are not raised and/or extended: A. Furtwàngler, Die anliken
Gemmen I (Leipzig & Berlin: 1900), pi. IV, 33; Evans, op. cit., 1895 [supra, n. 1, p. 224), p. 68, fig.
55c. The former example is also illustrated in H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and
Cameoes, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum (London: 1926), pi. V, no. 225 (p. 28).
(3) The following list — which could be greatly expanded — may be given for illustrative
purposes: Death of Aigisthos : Calyx krater by the Dokimasia P. (Boston, 63.1246). ARVi 1652
and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 4, fig. 6. Frag, stamnos by the Triptolemos P. (Basel, H. Kahn fr. 42).
ARVi 1648, no. 6 bis and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 5, fig. 11. Pelike by the Berlin P. (Vienna, 3725).
ARV* 204, no. 109 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 6, fig 12. Stamnos by the Copenhagen P. (Berlin,
2184). ARV* 257, no. 6 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 6, fig. 13. Column krater by the Aigisthos P.
(Bologna, 230). ARV* 504, no. 8 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 6, fig. 14. Frag, stamnos by the
Tyszkiewicz P. (Zurich). ARV* 291, no. 19 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 7, fig. 15. Stamnos by the
Berlin P. (Boston, 91.226b and 91.227a). ARV* 208, no. 151 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 8, fig. 17.
Herculaneum relief (so-called «Telephos relief»). AJA 70 (1966), pi. 96, fig. 2. Death of Priam:
Hydria in Wurzburg, 311 (Leagros Group). ABV 362, no. 35 ; 669 ; 695. Column krater in
Rome, Villa Giulia, 3578. ARV* 290, no. 9. Calyx krater in Ferrara, T. 936 (Niobid P.).
ARV* 601, no. 18. Terracotta altar from the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 31 (1962), 256, fig. 1
and pi. 90, nos. 19, 20. Shield band from Olympia. Ε. Kunze, «Archaische Schildbander»,
Olympische Forschungen 2 (1950), Taf. 31c. Death of Linos : Stamnos by the Tyszkiewicz P.
(Boston, 66.206). ARV% 291, no. 18 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 6, fig. 18. Death of Orpheus : Neck
amphora by the Niobid P. (Brooklyn Museum 59.34). ARV* 604, no. 57; 1701 and The Brooklyn
Museum Handbook (Brooklyn: 1967), pp. 110-113. Even in cases where the seat has been
removed from the composition, as in the scene of the Death of Agamemnon on the Boston Oresteia
Krater (cf. AJA 70 (1966), pi. 1, fig. 1), the artist may retain this position for the victim's legs.
See Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1 , p. 214), p. 4 on this point: «His right leg takes his weight, his left is
stretched forward parallel to Aigisthos' like a yielding partner in a dance glide», and p. 20 on the
absence of the chair and reworking of the archaic seated figure composition.
(4) This must have been Evans' impression also, op. cit., 1895 (supra, n. 1, p. 224), p. 74. Cf.
the similar (suppliant) gesture of Agamemnon on the Boston Oresteia Krater, and Mrs. Vermeule's
comments, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 4 and pll. 1-3. The gesture of the man on the disk
may also be one of supplication, as in the case just cited, though one would expect in this event
that his hand would be held higher, closer to the woman's chin.
232 M. I. DAVIES
His right arm, as in many later representations of the deaths of seated

mythological or legendary figures, is bent behind his body in an effort to brace himself.
The female figure on the disk is draped in a long tunic similar to that shown
on the Gortyn pinax, though without the details of the folds and belt (1). She
leans forward slightly and — in my interpretation — thrusts a sword or dagger
upwards into the chest of the male figure, with a force which has just begun to
knock him backwards. This effect may be seen when the disk is correctly oriented
so that the bodies of the man and the woman appear at a very slight angle to the
vertical (2). Examination of the disk at the Metropolitan Museum revealed that
this correct orientation is achieved when the ends of the bronze pin still visible
in the disk directly opposite each other on the side fall on a hypothetical horizontal
line (figs. 6 and 7). In the woman's right hand, the long blade of the weapon is
just visible, issuing upwards from her grasp, while part of the handle protrudes
just below her hand (cf. η. 3, p. 225, supra). However, instead of reaching toward
the man's head as is usual in such scenes, she holds her left arm behind her in
a position which skillfully balances that of the man's right arm and draws attention
to the vase just visible behind her. It was apparently this vase, and the fact
that the woman's left hand (as well as the man's) happens to be near the man's
raised foot, that gave rise to the interpretation of the scene as one of Eurykleia
washing the feet of Odysseus (p. 225, supra).
The iconographies of the deaths of seated mythological and legendary figures
are often so similar that one may postulate the existence of a general iconography
of «The Death of a Seated Figure» with variant details. Its characteristic elements
are an assailant pressing diagonally upon the seated victim, who shrinks or topples
backwards, with one leg lifting or lifted, the other frequently bent under, while
one arm is usually braced behind the body or (less often) held with the hand at the
chest, and the other arm supplicates or defensively wards off the attacker.
Flanking figures may be present but are not essential (3). It is true that the disk under
(1) Similar dresses are worn by two Gorgons on an ivory seal from the Argive Heraion,
dated by Hampe to the first quarter of the seventh century B.C. in R. Hampe, Frùhe griechische
Sagenbilder in Bôolien (Athen: 1936), pp. 64-65, Abb. 26. Also illustrated in JHS 68 (1948),
pi. VII.
(2) Among previous publications, see especially the reproduction of Wason, op. cit. (supra,
n. 1, p. 224), pi. 27, no. 9.
(3) Cf. the observations of Mrs. Vermeule, op. cit. [supra, n. 1 , p. 214), p. 3 and n. 6, and the very
brief comments of H. Môbius on «das stark zuruckgesetzte Bein», «das Motiv des Zurucklehnens»,
and «das Aufstiitzen des Armes» in archaic representations of seated figures: AthMitt 41 (1916),
201. Also recently, G. Neumann, Gesten und Gebàrden in der griechischen Kunsi (Berlin: 1965),
p. 37 ff. The influence of the iconography of «The Death of a Seated Figure» may also be present
in scenes which do not depict murder. On the «François Vase» in Florence by Kleitias and
Ergotimos, Priam is shown seated on a thakos at the moment when he receives the terrible news
about Troilos from Antenor, who hurries toward the king. Elements taken from the
iconography of murder scenes heighten the effect of an old man stricken by the news and struggling
to get to his feet in shock and fear. See P. E. Arias, M. Hirmer and B. Shefton, A History of
discussion reveals a composition in some respects closest to classical

representations of the Death of Aigisthos, rather than Agamemnon, but three points should
be kept in mind in this regard: 1) the existence of this general iconography of « The
Death of a Seated Figure»; 2) the scarcity of scenes of the Death of Agamemnon
for comparative purposes; and 3) the fact that the extant evidence does not indicate
that Elektra took such an active part in the earliest versions of the Oresieia,
so that it is most unlikely that she is here represented killing Aigisthos.
Mrs. Vermeule has stated her belief that the scene of the Death of Agamemnon on
the Boston Oresteia Krater imitates «the established Orestes- Aigisthos pattern...
because it had no traditional iconography of its own», and that «it was produced
out of the more familiar Aigisthos tradition» (1). I prefer to think that both scenes
on the Boston Oresteia Krater show the influence of this general iconography of
«The Death of a Seated Figure», even though Agamemnon is standing in this
instance (cf. note 3, p. 231, supra).
I wish to suggest, then, that the scene of assassination on the Cretan disk seal,
the violent nature of which is accentuated by the opposing diagonals and parallels
of the figures' arms and legs (2), constitutes the earliest representation of the Death
of Agamemnon yet discovered, an interpretation which is reinforced by comparison
with such a scene on a relief dated only slightly later and from the same part
of the Aegean world (3). The Gortyn pinax, however, seems to place the scene
of the murder on the throne, while that depicted on the disk is not as easily
determined. It has already been suggested that the latter scene is one of washing
(p. 225, supra), and if this were so it would be most interesting to have such
an early representation of the Death of Agamemnon in the bath, as Aischylos so
vividly described it in his Oresteia. The vase, however, is more likely to have
ritual significance, suggesting instead that Agamemnon is seated on a throne like
that on the Gortyn pinax. Murder on the throne, indeed, seems far more likely (4).
In the event that the vase indicates ritual libation or purification, two possibilities
come to mind. The first is that Klytaimestra was about to present her husband
1000 Years of Greek Vase Painting (New York: 1961), pi. 44 (bottom). Such influence is also
to be seen in an Attic grave relief which depicts a woman seized by birth pangs and sinking back
in pain, illustrated in K. Friis Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period
(Copenhagen: 1951), p. 51, fig. 26.
(1) Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), pp. 2 and 6.
(2) Cf. Mrs. Vermeule's excellent comments on the use of «symmetry and counterpoint»,
«complementary diagonals and mirror images», and «parallel diagonals» on the Boston Oresteia
Krater, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), pp. 2 and 5.
(3) It should be noted that Levi, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 275 mentions a fragment of a
second pinax from Gortyn which depicts the same scene. Prof. Levi has kindly informed me by
letter that this fragment preserves only the lower half of the scene, and that a detailed
description of the fragment is forthcoming in vol. 1 of the Santuario di Gortina publication, edited
by Prof. Giovanni Rizza. I wish to thank Prof. Levi for this information.
(4) See Gummey, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 229), p. 49 ff. and Pemberton, op. cit. (supra, n. 2,
p. 214), p. 378 for the importance of the throne in scenes of the Death of Aigisthos. The disk seal
and the Gortyn pinax seem to indicate that it was also a common iconographical detail in some
early scenes of the Death of Agamemnon.
À
234 M. I. DAVIES
the vase so that he might pour a libation as part of a homecoming ritual, when she
suddenly dropped the vase and attacked him with a hidden sword or dagger. Such
a situation could well be imagined at the throne in the palace of Nestor at Pylos,
where libations seem to have been poured by the enthroned kings. Perhaps this
arrangement was not unique among Mycenaean palaces (1). The second
possibility is suggested by literary evidence of later date. In the Agamemnon of Aischy-
los (lines 1395-8), Klytaimestra appears just after murdering her husband and says,
«If it were possible to pour a libation in suitable fashion over this corpse, it would be
just, indeed more than just. For he, having filled our cup with so many accursed
evils within the house, has himself come home to drain it». This passage (cf.
lines 1035-8, 1092), the very title of the second play in Aischylos' trilogy, and the
fact that a τεύχος or άγγος often appears as a kind of leitmotif in the works of
Aischylos, Sophokles and Euripides which are related to the Oresteia legend, all
suggest that these passages are echoes of an important motif from an early version
or versions of the Oresteia, the exact nature of which is now lost (2). Finally, if the
object in Klytaimestra's hand is indeed a sword or dagger, as I believe, this point
of iconographical detail is in harmony with other early representations of the
Death of Agamemnon by sword at the hands of his wife (3).
It may be objected that the composition of the scene on the impression of the
disk differs from the Gortyn pinax and most other representations of deaths of
seated mythological and legendary figures because the attacker approaches the
victim from right to left instead of left to right (figs. 7 and 8). This point, however,
need not trouble us, since if the engraver of the disk worked from a prototype with
a composition like that on the (later) Gortyn pinax, the finished surface of the disk
itself would more naturally show the attacker facing to the right (fig. 6a and b),
while the impression would present the reverse orientation. Furthermore, there
are numerous examples of murder scenes in which the attacker approaches from
(1) See Archaeology 13 (1960), 38, fig. 6 and C. Blegen and M. Rawson, The Palace of Nestor
(Princeton: 1966), p. 88 and fig. 70. Cf. Odyssey 6.308-9; 7.159 ff.: Palace of Alkinoos. It is
tempting to see a distant echo of such a scene in Sophokles, El. 267-270, where Elektra describes
Aigisthos seated on her father's throne, wearing his robes, and pouring libations beside the
hearth where Agamemnon died.
(?) See Aischylos, Ag. 435, 815, 1128; Cho. 99; Eum. 742; Sophokles, El. 1114, 1118, 1120,
1205; Euripides, El. 55, 140, 496 ; IT. 169, 953, 960. Cf. also the frequent use of the word
λέβης: Aischylos, Ag. 444, 1129; Cho. 686; Euripides, El. 802; Sophokles, El. 1401; as well as
the word χοή: Aischylos, Cho. 15, 23, 87, 149, 156, 164, 486, 515, 525, 538; Eum. 107; Euripides,
El. 324; Or. 96, 113, 117, 124, 472, 1187, 1322; IT. 61, 159, cf. 960; Sophokles, El. 406, 440.
Add Kallimachos, fr. 178, lines 1-2 (Pf.s): «Orestes' pitchers (χόες) bring a bright day for slaves».
On ritual elements in the Death of Agamemnon, see the references cited p. 246, n. 2, infra.
(3) See not only the pinax from Gortyn, but also the shield bands from Olympia and Aigina
(supra, p. 230), both dated to the first half of the sixth century B.C. I am concerned here
solely with the detail of the sword as Klytaimestra's weapon. On this subject, see G. G. W. Warr,
«Clytemnestra's Weapon», CR 12 (1898), 348-350 and more recently E. Fraenkel (éd.), Aeschylus,
Agamemnon, vol. Ill (Oxford: 1950), Appendix B: «On the Weapon with which, according to the
Oresteia, Agamemnon was murdered». The latter study is reviewed in WS 80 (1967), 20-21.
right to left, so that one cannot consider this a fixed part of the iconography of
such scenes (1).
That Klytaimestra does not grasp Agamemnon's head with her left hand, as
she does on the Gortyn pinax, presents another difficulty. It may be due to the
artist's desire for balance in the composition, to match the position of Agamemnon's
right arm, and/or to stress the importance of the vase as a meaningful motif.
It is, in any case, a natural position for the free arm of someone thrusting forward
with a sword.
The most serious objection to this identification of the scene on the disk,
moreover, might be the fact that an Aigisthos figure is missing. The Gortyn
pinax, however, would seem to indicate that there existed an early version of the
Oresleia in Crete which portrayed Klytaimestra rather than Aigisthos as the
dominant figure in the crime, contrary to the version used by Homer in the
Odyssey (see infra). Perhaps the artist who engraved the disk wished to emphasize
this aspect of the story to the point of eliminating Aigisthos from the scene of
the murder entirely. Moreover, there was scarcely room for three figures in the
space afforded by the disk seal, and by limiting the composition to two figures the
artist was also able to render the details more clearly.
It is interesting to compare the relief depicting the Death of Agamemnon on
an Etruscan urn in Florence (no. 74625), dated to the second century B.C.
(fig. 17) (2). If one ignores the two end figures of the relief as Etruscan inventions,
the scene takes on considerable importance with regard to the identification of
the scene on the Cretan disk seal. It is clear from this Etruscan scene that there
existed a visual tradition in the second century B.C. which depicted the Death
of Agamemnon as a two-figure composition, with a simple throne lacking back
and arms, and a vase placed curiously upon the ground nearby. Despite the fact
that Klytaimestra 's posture and weapon (a footstool) have been altered, and
Agamemnon is here shown struggling to free himself from the enfolding net-robe,
I should like to suggest that this relief may be considered a very distant descendent
of the Cretan disk seal, contaminated by intervening elements, but preserving
the essential characteristics of Klytaimestra and Agamemnon alone as attacker
(1) Attacker from the right, seated victim on the left: Death of Aigisthos on a shield band
from Olympia, illustrated in AJA 70 (1966), pi. 7, fig. 20c and on another shield band from
Isthmia, illustrated in Hesperia 28 (1959), 331, fig. 8, Panel 5. Death of Priam: «Vivenzio
Hydria» in Naples, 2422 by the Kleophrades P. (Beazley, ARV* 189, no. 74; 1632); terracotta
altar from the Athenian Agora, illustrated in Hesperia 31 (1962), 256, fig. 1 and pi. 90, nos. 19
and 20; shield band from Olympia, illustrated in Jdl 53 (1938) II. Bericht iiber die Ausgra-
bungen in Olympia (Winter 1937/38), p. 85, Abb. 53 and Taf. 30. Uncertain subject: Pediment
of the Temple of Artemis at Korfu, illustrated in AJA 58 (1954), pi. 55, fig. 1 as the Death of
Priam.
(2) G. C. Conestabile, Bullettino deW Institute di Corrispondenza Archeologica 36 (1864),
231-2; 37 (1865), 257-60; F. Schlie, Annali delV Institute di Corrispondenza Archeologica 40 (1868),
331-5, Tav. d'agg. N; E. Brunn, / rilievi délie urne etrusche, vol. I (Roma: 1870), p. 90f., pi. 85,4;
J. Thimme, StEtr. 25 (1957), 124-5, fig. 15. I am indebted to Dr. Jiirgen Thimme for providing
me with the present photograph for publication here (fig. 17).
236 M. I. DAVIES
and victim, a simple throne, and a vase. The existence of such a scene in the
Hellenistic Period is most tantalizing, as it indicates that other scenes of the Death
of Agamemnon — hitherto so rare — may be forthcoming, scenes which may enable
us to provide connecting links between these two compositions.
Finally, it may be thought that the reverse of the disk seal presents a rather
inappropriate scene to accompany one of such tragic implications on the obverse.
I should prefer to think, however, that an artist of this period would not have
been concerned with such niceties, and would have treated the two sides of the disk
seal as two separate esthetic entities (1).
In conclusion to the second part of this study, I should like to comment
briefly on the traditions and forms of some of the earliest extant literary versions
of the Oresteia legend, and in particular on the possible existence of a Cretan version
which seems to emerge from these works of art which have already been discussed
in detail. On the Gortyn pinax and the disk seal, a version of the Oresieia legend
is represented which stresses the role of Klytaimestra rather than that of Aigisthos
in the Death of Agamemnon. In addition to these representations, moreover,
there exists a bronze Cretan mitra found recently at Olympia, dated to the seventh
century, which has been interpreted as a scene of Orestes about to murder an
enthroned Klytaimestra (2). Even if Aigisthos was represented on the missing
portion of this mitra, the emphasis is clearly upon the matricide and the usurping
queen in the version here represented. If correctly interpreted, then, this scene
provides a fitting sequel to that on the pinax from Gortyn and that on the disk
(1) It is interesting, though perhaps superfluous, to recall the ancient etymology of the name
Aigisthos: «Goatsuckled». See Aelian, Varia Historia 12.42; Hyginus, fab. 87, 88, 252; Tzetzes,
Historiarum Variorum Chiliades 1.452-455; Etgmologicon Magnum (ed. Th. Gaisford, Oxford:
1848), 137, 35-36 and 27, 54-56; cf. Etymologicum Gudianum (éd. E. A. de Stefani, Leipzig:
1909-20), 35, 21-22. The representation of goats on the reverse of the disk seal under discussion,
therefore, might be thought to be a particularly appropriate choice here, but such sophisticated
symbolical manipulation of subject matter cannot be expected of an artist at this early stage of
Greek art. Moreover, the etymology is probably a late aetiological myth, unknown at the
time the disk seal was engraved. The version of the Oresteia legend here represented is one in
which the figure of Aigisthos is either suppressed or subordinated to that of Klytaimestra, so
that an allusion to her lover on the reverse would be unnecessary, if not inappropriate. It is
also likely that Klytaimestra in this early version was not motivated primarily by the kind of
desire depicted on the reverse, but rather by a desire for the throne of her husband (see n. 4, p. 233,
supra and the representation interpreted as the Death of an enthroned Klytaimestra on a Cretan
mitra, note 2, infra). Contrast Odgssey 3.263ff. (esp. 272) where the former type of amorous
desire for Aigisthos is suggested as a motive.
(2) See N. Yalouris, AthMitt 75 (1960), 59 ; E. Kunze, Deltion 17 (1961/62), ΧΡΟΝΙΚΑ 118;
Κ. Schefold, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), pp. 47-48; full publication by Bartels, op. cit. (supra,
ibid.)f pp. 198-205, Taff. 102-105 and Abb. 74 (Mitra B4900). H. Brandenburg, Studien zur Mitra
(Munster, Aschendorff: 1966) p. 25, nn. 41-42. I am grateful to Prof. Levi and Prof. Schefold
for referring me to the publication of the mitra by Bartels. It must be admitted that the
interpretation of the scene and identification of the figures represented are extremely difficult, due to
the fragmentary nature of the mitra. Another scene, on a bronze relief from a tripod found at
Olympia dated ca. 570 B.C., may represent Orestes slaying Klytaimestra, while Aigisthos flees,
though there is no throne in this scene. See BCH 84 (1960), 720 and pi. 18,2; Schefold, op. cit.
(supra, ibid.), p. 95 and pi. 80; AJA 70 (1966), 377.
seal: Klytaimestra rather than Aigisthos is the primary object of Orestes' revenge,
as the murderer of her husband and usurper of his throne. Such a version closely
matches that recently found in a papyrus fragment of the Hesiodic Catalogue of
Women which relates events in the lives of the daughters of Leda, a version which
contrasts with the story as it is told in Homer (see infra). In this fragment,
Iphimede ( = Iphigeneia) is sacrificed to Artemis, and though she is made immortal,
this event might well have driven her mother Klytaimestra to kill Agamemnon
with the motivation of revenge, though this is not made explicit in the surviving
text (1). The very subject of Hesiod's work, moreover, would suggest that
Klytaimestra's role was somehow emphasized in a less than favorable way (2).
Finally, we do learn from this fragment that Orestes when he had grown up
avenged the murder of his father by punishing the man who killed him and by
killing his mother with pitiless bronze:
λοΐσθον δ' εν μεγά[ροισι Κλυτ]αιμηστρη κυα[νώπις
γείναθ' ύποδμηθ[εΐσ' Άγαμέμν]ον[ι δΐ]ον Όρέ[στην,
δς ρα και ήβήσας άπε[τείσατο π]ατροφο[ν]ήα,
κτεΐνε δέ μητέρα [ην ύπερήν]ορα νηλέι [χαλκώι (3).
The emphasis is clearly on the latter action (the matricide), and despite the fact
that Aigisthos alone is called a murderer, Klytaimestra therefore may be presumed
to have been either the protagonist or at the very least an equal partner in the
murder of her husband.
It appears significant, moreover, that in such legends of intrigue, murder and
usurped thrones, Cretan women often played major roles. The Cretan Aerope,
wife of Atreus, seems to have been actively involved in Thyestes' attempt to
gain her husband's throne in Euripides' Cretan Women, and the Cretan Phaidra
offered Theseus' throne to Hippolytos in the same author's First Hippolytos (4).
(1) Such motivation may have been developed by Simonides: see Oxyrhynchus Papyri 25
(1959), 2434 Fr. l(a) (p. 95ff.) and Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 12. It was clearly
a part of the version of the legend known to Pindar (Pythian 11.22-3) and later authors.
(2) See R. Merkelbach and M. L. West, Fragmenta Hesiodea (Oxford: 1967), fr. 176 and
compare Odyssey 11. 436-9; 24.199-202.
(3) Merkelbach and West, op. cit. (supra, n. 2), fr. 23(a), lines 27-30. Contrast the emphasis
in Odyssey 3.304-310. In the Nostoi of Agias of Troizen, composed in the seventh century,
Agamemnon was killed by both Aigisthos and Klytaimestra (A. Severyns, Recherches sur la
Chrestomathie de Proclos IV (Paris: 1963), p. 95, 301-303). The vengeance of Orestes and
Pylades was probably directed against both of them, though there is no explicit statement to
this effect. See the scene of the deaths of Agamemnon and Kassandra at the hands of Aigisthos
and Klytaimestra on a bowl from Thebes, which according to the inscription illustrates Agias'
version of the legend: Jdl 34 (1919), 72ff. and Taf. 6. Also A. Olivieri, «II mito di Oreste nel
poema di Agia di Trezene», RivFC 25 (1897), 570-576.
(4) See the recent discussions of these plays by T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides
(London: 1967), pp. 37ff. and 64ff. Cretan Aerope is also remembered in Euripides' Orestes,
lines 18 and 1009, and was mentioned by Hesiod: Merkelbach and West, op. cit. (supra, n. 2),
frr. 194 and 195.
238 M. I. DAVIES
It should not be surprising, then, if the people of Crete preferred a version of the
Oresteia legend in which Klytaimestra played the leading role in the murder of her
husband and seizure of his throne. Such a version, however, existed side by side
with a version or versions in which Aigisthos played a very active, if not the
dominant role. As such the story was related by Homer, and may have been
represented by artists in the first half of the seventh century B.C. (fig. 16) (1).
Homer, as others have often pointed out, used the Oresteia legend in the Odyssey
both as a moral lesson (1.28 ff.) and in order to make the suitors as a group and the
figures of Odysseus, Telemachos and Penelope more heroic by association with the
parallel figures of Aigisthos, Agamemnon, Orestes and Klytaimestra, respectively.
In order to make use of the Oresteia as an effective paradeigma for the tale of the
return of Odysseus and the revenge upon the suitors, however, Homer had to
emphasize the role of Aigisthos rather than that of Klytaimestra in the murder
of Agamemnon. Therefore, although the tale is not consistently presented, in
the Telemachy Klytaimestra's role is negligible, while it is understandably in the
words of her husband in the Nekyia that she appears at her worst as an equal
partner with Aigisthos. Whether Homer in thus presenting different versions
of the legend was merely using traditional material, or whether he created his own
variants to suit his purposes, is a question difficult to resolve (2). In the Nekyia
(11.441ff. and 24.192ÎT.), Agamemnon contrasts the evil Klytaimestra and the
faithful Penelope, just as Orestes would later do so in Euripides' Orestes (lines
585-590). It has generally been assumed that the «standard» version of the
(1) Relief pithos from Thebes (Boston 528) with a scene interpreted most recently
by some as the Death of Priam, by others as the Death of Aigisthos (fig. 16): A. de Ridder, BCH 22
(1898), 501-2, figs. 15-16; F. Courby, Les vases grecs à reliefs (Paris: 1922), p. 66f. (D) and fig. 16: D
(p. 71); A. Fairbanks, Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases I (Cambridge, Mass.: 1928), pi. 52
(no. 528); Hampe, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 232), pp. 56-58, 71, 86, Taf. 38; Kunze, op. cit. (supra,
n. 3, p. 231), pp. 157, n. 3 and 169; M. I. Wiencke, AJA 58 (1954), 292, n. 25; Dunbabin, op. cit.
(supra, n. 1 , p. 228), p. 82; J. Schàfer, Studien zu den gri. Reliefpilhoi (Kallmunz: 1957), p. 82 (B7);
Schefold, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 48, pi. 36b. [Add.:] G. Karusos, Jdl 52 (1937) 184 n. 5;
Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco, op. cit. (infra, n. 3, p. 250) p. 281 n. 6; F. Brommer,
Marb. Winckelmann-Programm (1956) 16, 19 and Vasenlislen zur griechischen Heldensage*
(Marburg/Lahn: 1960), p. 322, El; I. Scheibler, Die symmetrische Bildform in der friihgriechischen
Flàchenkunst (Kallmunz: 1960), p. 50. I believe this to be a scene of the Death of an enthroned
Aigisthos, but certainty is impossible due to its condition.
(2) See the following passages (with speaker given): Odyssey 3.193ff. Nestor; 3.234f. Athena;
3.248ff. Telemachos; 3.255ÎT., 303fT. Nestor; 4.91f. Menelaos; 4.512ff. and 546f. Proteus; 11.409ff.
Agamemnon; 11.439 Odysseus; 11.452f. Agamemnon; 24.20-22 (narrative); 24.96f., 199ff.
Agamemnon. The literature on this problem is extensive. See in particular A. Olivieri,
«La morte di Agamennone secondo l'Odissea», RivFC 24 (1896), 145-207; E. F. D'Arms and
K. K. Hulley, «The Oresteia-Story in the Odyssey», TAPA 77 (1946), 207-213; H. Hommel,
«Aigisthos und die Freier», Studium Générale 8 (1955), 237-245; and the works cited n. 1, p. 239,
infra. A very detailed analysis of the variant traditions contained in the Odyssey will also
be found in W. Ferrari, «L'Orestea di Stesicoro», Athenaeum n.s. 16 (1938), 1-37 (esp. 1-9). Most
recently, Butterworth, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), pp. 67-68 has come to conclusions in some
respects similar to those expressed here. See however ibid., p. 93ff. where the various
traditions are interpreted differently.
Oresteia legend in Homer's time was that which made Aigisthos rather than
Klytaimestra the protagonist in the murder of Agamemnon, and that it was later
authors who progressively denigrated her character (1). In the light of the
evidence provided by the pinax from Gortyn, the disk seal from central Crete,
and the Cretan mitra from Olympia, however, this view must be reconsidered.
It now seems clear that there existed a well-known, «standard» version of the
legend — at least in Crete — in Homer's time which presented Klytaimestra as the
protagonist, and that where Homer presents Aigisthos as the protagonist,
subordinating Klytaimestra's role, he may well be using a less well-known version
or even creating his own variant of the legend (2).
Moreover, there may be traces of a Cretan version of the Oresleia in the Odyssey
itself. Nestor mentions Gortyn specifically in his description of the return
of Menelaos' ships via Sounion, Cape Malea, the coast of Crete, and Egypt (Od.
3.294). Since Nestor's tale is told in answer to Telemachos' questions concerning
the Death of Agamemnon, as well as the travels of Menelaos, one may wonder
whether a version of the Oresteia popular in central Crete is reflected in this
passage of the Odyssey, and how it might be related to the version reflected in visual
form on the Gortyn pinax and the disk seal (also from central Crete), as well as
on the Cretan mitra from Olympia. This tradition is presumably reflected in
the words of Velleius Paterculus (1.1.2): «Agamemnon tempestate in Cretam
insulam reiectus tris ibi urbis statuit» (3).
Professor Schefold, in a recent discussion of representations of the Oresteia
(!) Studies dedicated specifically to the character of Klytaimestra have been numerous.
Those known to me are: W. H. Roscher, Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rômischen
Mythologie. Vol. II (1890-97), s.v. Klytaim(n)estra (Hôfer); RE, s.v. Klytaimestra (Bethe);
R. Glaser, Klytamnestra in der griechischen Dichtung (Budingen: 1890); K. Kunst, «Die Schuld der
Klytaimestra», WS 44 (1924/25) 1:18-32; 11:143-154; F. M. B. Anderson, «The Character of
Clytemnestra in the Agamemnon of Aeschylus», TAPA 60 (1929), 136-154 and «The Character
of Clytemnestra in the Choephoroe and the Eumenides of Aeschylus», AJP 53 (1932), 301-319;
I. During, «Klutaimestra-νηλής γυνά. A Study of the Development of a Literary Motif»,
Eranos 41 (1943), 91-123; R. P. Winnington- Ingram, «Clytemnestra and the Vote of Athena»,
JHS 68 (1948), 130-147; J. Alsina, «Observaciones sobre la figura de Clitemestra», Emerita 27
(1959), 297-321; A. Lesky, «Die Schuld der Klytaimestra», WS 80 (1967), 5-21. I find myself
in agreement with many of the views expressed in the last-named study, and believe that the
archaeological evidence presented here strengthens these common conclusions.
(2) See M. M. Willcock, «Mythological Paradeigma in the Iliad», CQ 58 (1964), 141-154,
where similar thoughts are expressed with regard to Homer's treatment of myth in the Iliad;
esp. the conclusions on pp. 147 and 152: «The poet was perfectly prepared to invent even the
central details of his paradeigma, to assimilate it to the situation to which it is adduced as a parallel».
I am indebted to Mr. James McCaughey for this reference.
(3) Virgil also reflects this tradition in the Aeneid (3.121ÎT.), where Aeneas travels to Crete
and founds a city (Pergamon) there (cf. also Od. 19.186ff.). See also Dictys Cretensis 6.3.
The difficulty of rounding Cape Malea is often stressed in the Odyssey (3.286ÎT., 4.514ff., 9.79ff.,
19.186ff.) and became proverbial: see Eustathius, ad Odyssey 3.287 (1468, 10); schol. ad Odyssey
9.80; Q. Aurelius Symmachus, epistula 8.61. On the subject of Cape Malea, see M. P. Nilsson,
The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (New York, The Norton Library: 1963), pp. 70-73
with bibliography and add A. Momigliano, «Zeus Agamennone e il capo Malea», Stltal n.s. 8
(1930), 317-319.
240 M. I. DAVIES
legend in the first half of the seventh century B.C., postulates a literary model
for the scenes which represent Klytaimestra as the protagonist, in which she might
have been compared to her sister Helen. In addition to the evidence which he
has collected, the Cretan disk seal discussed here supports his suggestion that one
of the short epics of the Homeric Age may well have been devoted to the figure of
Klytaimestra (1). Whether or not such a hypothetical short epic actually steins
from Homer himself, as Schefold hints that it might, the literary and artistic
evidence which has been discussed above throws an interesting light on Homer's
manipulation of his material in the Odyssey to select a version of a legend to suit
his purposes, and/or to create his own appropriate variants in the words of
different characters in different situations.
At the same time, the conclusions reached in this study should also serve to
stress once again the importance of Cretan art for our understanding of the
development of the early iconography of myth and legend in Greek art at the end
of the Geometric and beginning of the Archaic Periods. Finally, the high
artistic achievement revealed by the Cretan disk seal, and the terrible, violent
moment which the artist has so skillfully captured upon its surface, are worthy
of study in themselves. The meaning of its representation can best be
understood by contemplation of the object itself, and cannot be adequately
expressed in words or photographs.
Addendum: Prof. Rizza's publication of the Gortyn pinax and its twin
fragment arrived after the above discussion had been written (see supra, n. 3, p. 233):
G. Rizza and V. Santa Maria Scrinari, // santuario suit1 acropoli di Gortina, vol. I
(vol. II of Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane
in Oriente). Roma: 1968. See pages 182 (n. 212a and b), 234 and 264 with
pi. 32 and fig. 334 (p. 241).
III. Aigisthos Psaltës: A Reconsideration

of the Boston Oresteia Krater
The third and final part of this study is devoted to a discussion of the origin
and possible implications of an iconographical detail which appears in at least
two extant scenes of the Death of Aigisthos by the Dokimasia Painter and the
Berlin Painter (figs. 11 and 12) (2). In these representations, the victim is
(1) Schefold, op. cit. {supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 48. Ferrari, op. cit. {supra, n. 2, p. 238), p. 28ff.
discusses a hypothetical Eoia devoted to the figure of Klytaimestra, and a Doric tradition of the
legend with the scene of the action in Lakonia. See now the fragment of a Hesiodic Eoia cited
in note 3, p. 237, supra.
(2) Calyx krater in Boston (63.1246) by the Dokimasia Painter (Beazley, ARV* 1652) and
stamnos in Boston (91.227) by the Berlin Painter (Beazley, ,4flFs208,no. 151), illustrated in AJA
70 (1966), pi. 4, figs. 6 and 7, and pi. 8, fig. 17. The fragmentary stamnos in Basel by the Trip-
tolemos Painter (Beazley, ARV2 1648, no. 6 bis), illustrated in AJA 70 (1966), pi. 5, fig. 11, also
depicted as a minstrel who dies with his stringed instrument in his hand. While
no literary evidence for Aigisthos as a lyre-player has been known to exist, several
attempts to explain this feature of the iconography have already been made, based
on possible visual contaminations from the iconographies of other mythological
representations. These theories have been conveniently summarized by
Mrs. Vermeuie in her article on the Boston Oresteia Krater, and need not be
repeated here (1).
Mrs. Vermeuie herself, however, and J. G. Griffith have recently attempted
to find explanations based on literary evidence. Mrs. Vermeuie, in discussing
the Boston Oresteia Krater and the Berlin Painter's stamnos, recalls how Aigisthos
contrasts the voices of the chorus and Orpheus after the murder of Agamemnon
in Aischylos' Oresteia (Ag. 1629), and suggests that «Perhaps by some psychological
twist the association between Aigisthos' voice, his unmanliness, and the image of
Orpheus playing, became imbedded in the artists' conception of their villain, and
when the time came for him to die they placed the poet's lyre ironically in his
hand». Otherwise, Mrs. Vermeuie would resort to the explanation that possibly
«the two painters tried for novelty in their rather conventional Aigisthos scenes,
and so mixed up his proper iconography with motifs drawn from the deaths of
Orpheus or Linus to attract the customer in search of something different» (2).
More recently, Professor Griffith has advanced an attractive theory that, like
one of his own pupils, the painters may have mistakenly identified Aigisthos with
the Homeric αοιδός άνήρ to whom Agamemnon entrusted his wife and estate
before leaving for the Trojan Wars [Od. 3.267-268). According to this reasoning,
the vase painters could have given the lyre to Aigisthos without any conscious
recollection of the Homeric αοιδός, but also might have intentionally wished to
emphasize that Helen and Klytaimestra as sisters both fell for similar «carpet-
knights» (cf. //. 3.54-55) (3).
Like Mrs. Vermeuie and Prof. Griffith, I should like to find an explanation
for the Aigisthos-minstrel motif based on literary evidence which might indicate,
moreover, that some lost literary Oresteia actually depicted Aigisthos as the player
of a lyre or some related stringed instrument. It is my belief that such evidence
is to be found in an allusion in the work of Machon, a mid-third century comic
poet and collector of anecdotes, or chreiai (4). Fragment XI of Machon, whose
work is partially preserved in the Deipnosophislai of Athenaios, contains nine
anecdotes in the life of Stratonikos, an Athenian kitharistês of considerable
seems a possible example, though if Aigisthos held an instrument, it is now lost. See Vermeuie,
op. cit. [supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 15, no. 12. A fourth possible example will be proposed below
(p. 252, infra). I should like to thank Mrs. Vermeuie for her assistance in obtaining photographs
of the Boston Oresteia Krater (figs. 12 and 13) and the stamnos by the Berlin Painter (fig. lia
and b) for publication here.
(1) Vermeuie; op. cit. [supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 16.
(2) Vermeuie, op. cit. [supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 20.
(3) Griffith, op. cit. [supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 176.
(4) A. S. F. Gow (éd.), Machon: The Fragments (Cambridge: 1965), henceforth referred
to as Gow, Machon. Gow (p. 7) gives 260-250 B.C. as «a reasonable guess» at a floruit for Machon.
16
242 M. I. DAVIES
reputation (1). We are concerned here with the second anecdote, which tells the
following story:
«An unskilled psaltës was once entertaining Stratonikos and displayed his art
to him during the drinking. Though the entertainment was splendid and lavish,
Stratonikos, sated with the music but having no one else with whom he might
converse, smashed his cup to pieces. He then called for a larger one and having
taken many ladles of wine he showed the kylix to the sun, and having drained it
hastily, fell asleep leaving the situation to fate. By chance some others —
acquaintances as it seems — came to the psaltës for the revel, and Stratonikos immediately
became drunk. When they persisted in asking why he, who was always drinking
heavily, had quickly become drunk, he replied: 'This scheming and accursed
psaltës, he said, having given me a feast, has slaughtered me like an ox at the
stall.'»
Ό γαρ επίβουλος κάναγής ψάλτης, εφη,
ώς βοΰν επί φάτνη δειπνίσας άπέκτονεν (2).
The last line of this passage, as has been noted by editors, recalls Odyssey
4.535 and 11.411, where the Death of Agamemnon at the hands of Aigisthos is
described similarly:
έκτα or κατέπεφνε
δειπνίσσας ώς τις τε κατέκτανε βουν επί φάτνη.
It is difficult to understand why Stratonikos should have chosen these words to

describe his plight, but Gow's suggestion (ad loc.) that Stratonikos wanted to
stress the lavishness of the banquet, and the «murderous» playing of his host,
is probably on the right track.
Machon clearly collected and preserved the nine anecdotes concerning
Stratonikos in Fragment XI for the quotation attributed in each to this learned and
clever musician. In this case, of course, the witticism was all the more valuable
because Stratonikos was borrowing from an earlier literary source (Π). We
know, moreover, that Machon's collection of memorabilia contained more than
one such quotation borrowed from works related to the Oresteia legend, since in
Fragment XV, line 230 we have preserved the following words, spoken by the
(1) On the sources for the life of Stratonikos and his wide reputation, see Gow, Machon,
pp. 80-81; 90-91. He seems to have flourished in the first half of the fourth century.
(2) Gow, Machon, Fragment XI, lines 104-118 ( = Athenaios 348F-349A). Translation by
the author, following Gow's notes on the passage, to which the reader is referred for explanation
of various difficult points of interpretation.
(3) That Stratonikos was a man of considerable literary erudition is clear from the allusions
and quotations which he uses in the following passages, in addition to those mentioned here in
the text (see Loeb edition): Athenaios 8.350D [Iliad 16.250); 8.351B (Aristophanes, Ranae 85);
8.351 G and 352B-C (allusion to Penelope's suitors); 8.351 D (Aristophanes, Vespae 1431 ). Ephoros
{ap. Athenaios 8.352C) claimed that Stratonikos emulated the witticisms of Simonides.
244 M. I. DAVIES
hetaira Mania to the king Demetrios: «Son of Agamemnon, now it is possible for
you to have that (which you have requested)».
'Αγαμέμνονος παΐ, νυν έκεΐν' εξεστί σοι (1).
Editors have compared Sophokles' Eleklra, line 2f., where the Paidagogos shows
Argos to Orestes and says: «Now it is possible for you to see in person those things
for which you have always yearned».
'Αγαμέμνονος παΐ, νυν έκεΐν' εξεστί σοι
παρόντι λεύσσειν, ών πρόθυμος ήσθ' άεί.
Apparently, then, Machon's source(s) included more than one quotation which
could easily be recognized as echoes of different versions of literary Oresteias, even
though they might be adapted to suit the context. It may be helpful to summarize
here some of A. S. F. Gow's recent observations on the nature of Machon's work
which are relevant to our present study of Fragment XI.
Athenaios (13.577D) tells us that the title of Machon's work was Χρεΐαι,
and defines the anecdotes in it as απομνημονεύματα (13.579D). According to
Gow's definition, the chreiai «must be simple and memorable, convey a valuable
maxim or principle, and be associated with known characters» (2). It seems likely
that Machon arranged his anecdotes according to the occupations of their
characters, among which musicians, parasites, and hetairai are conspicuous — the
«inhabitants of the demi-monde» rather than the subjects of weighty history or
literature (3). The question of Machon's sources remains unresolved, but is
answered as fully as possible by Gow's cautious conclusion that «To sum up,
Machon's sources cannot be determined; there is good reason to think that some
of them were literary and no strong reason to think that any were oral though the
anecdotes relating to the characters of the late fourth and the third centuries may
occasionally have been so» (4). Of greater interest to us, however, is Gow's
observation that Machon must have derived the tales of Stratonikos from books,
and that the nine anecdotes in Fragment XI more than any others seem to have
come from a literary source (5). Finally, the anecdotes have been composed in
verse form in order that they might be more easily memorized by someone
consulting Machon's collection (tt).
With these considerations in mind, I should like to suggest that both lines 117
and 118 of Fragment XI (quoted above) have as their ultimate source a lost Oresleia
(!) See Gow, Machon, p. 103 on the transmission of this anecdote and its ultimate source.
On the literary quotations used by Machon's jesters in general (incl. Stratonikos), see Gow,
Machon, p. 88 (note on Fragment XI, line 136). Gf. also Kaibel on Fragment XVII, line 385:
« τόν λιπόστεγον conieci, ut tragici poetae de Oresta verba fuerint »; but see Gow, ad loc.
(2) Gow, Machon, p. 13.
(3) Gow, Machon, pp. 17-19.
(5) Gow, Machon, pp. 20-21. Cf. p. 18 and note 3 on Machon's use of a source which
grouped anecdotes about an individual.
which portrayed Aigisthos as a minstrel who, as the story goes in the Odyssey,
gave Agamemnon a feast upon his return from Troy, and then murdered his guest.
The fact that Machon's source or sources for the anecdotes concerning Stratonikos
were apparently literary does not, of course, indicate necessarily that the latter's
own quotation of two lines stems from a single literary origin, but it may lend
partial support to such a theory. More important is the fact that Stratonikos
himself was familiar in detail with a wide range of literature (see n. 3, p. 242, supra).
That these two lines belong together, moreover, is indicated by the εφη which
Stratonikos includes at the end of the first line, as though the entire quotation
belonged to a speech from some literary composition. The word is, of course,
helpful to the meter, but if chosen for metrical considerations it is quite awkward
in this context, as it is redundant following άπεκρίνατο in line 116. It is better,
I believe, to assume that it is included here because it belonged in the original
context of the two lines, and that Stratonikos and Machon have remained as
faithful as possible to the wording of the ultimate source within the limitations
of the meter.
J. G. Griffith, as we have seen, has attempted to find a source in the Odyssey
for the vase-painters' motif of what he terms «Aegisthus Githarista», while it might
now be maintained that Stratonikos' source portrayed Aigisthos as a psaltës.
This discrepancy, however, is of little importance to the present argument, and
it seems unnecessary to discuss musical terminology here in detail. A kitharistës
apparently played his instrument(s) with a plektron, while a psallês used his fingers
directly on the strings (ψάλλειν). Both methods could be employed in performing
on a lyre such as Aigisthos holds in the two scenes under discussion (figs. 11 and
12) (1). It may be noted that Apollo himself, god of the lyre, received the epithet
psaltës, and that lexicographers sometimes equated the two types of performers (2).
For these reasons, it might be correct to give Aigisthos the more common epithet
Citharista, since Stratonikos — himself a kitharistës — could have used the term
psaltës only to make the parallel between the legendary villain and his host a closer
one, while his source actually portrayed Aigisthos as a kitharistës. This remains
a small point, however, and one which cannot be resolved with our present
evidence (3).
(1) See Gow, Machon on Fragment XI, line 104: «An inscription of the second cent. B.C.
from Teos (Ditt., Syll.* 578) prescribes as an instructor in a school κιθαριστήν ή ψάλτην, and if,
as seems likely, Machon is using words carefully, it is plain that Stratonicus's host is not, like
himself, a citharode or citharist. He will be a performer on some instrument the strings of which
were plucked with the fingers, not with a plectrum — for instance magadis or pectis...» Could
not the distinction refer primarily to the method of playing, rather than to the instrument(s)
used? See also contests in το ψάλλειν and τό κιθαρίζειν in an inscription of the second century
B.C. from Chios (Ditt., Syll.* 959.10). Herodotos 1.155: ψάλλειν ορρ. κιθαρίζειν. Ion Eleg.
3.3: πριν μέν σ' έπτάτονον ψάλλον {se. τήν λύραν). Athenaios 4.183D: κατά χείρα δίχα πλήκτρου
έψαλλεν.
(2) Apollo ψάλτης and ψαλμοχαρής in Palatine Anthology 9.525.24. ψάλτιγξ = κιθάρα :
Hesychios and Suidas, ψάλτης = κιθαριστής : Hesychios.
(3) Machon rather than Stratonikos might be responsible for such a change, for metrical
considerations: cf. Gow, Machon, p. 24. I have been unable to determine at what period the term
246 M. I. DAVIES
In the first line of his quotation, Stratonikos describes the psaltês as επίβουλος
κάναγής, adjectives which are well suited to the figure of Aigisthos, though to my
knowledge these specific words are never used in any extant literature to describe
him. The verb έπιβουλεύω, however, is possibly used by Euripides to describe
the murderous plotting against Klytaimestra, and its cognate would have been
well-chosen to describe her scheming paramour (1). The adjective εναγής,
properly used of a person under a curse or pollution, is often used to describe the
Alkmeonidai, and would be especially appropriate for Aigisthos if he had killed
Agamemnon while the latter was involved in some religious act (sacrifice or
supplication at an altar?) after the feast (2).
If, then, an early literary Oresteia echoed by Stratonikos provided the Aigisthos-
minstrel motif which is reflected in visual form on two red-figure vases of the
first half of the fifth century, one might speculate as follows about its plot and
its influence. In the Odyssey (3.267-272), as we have seen, when Agamemnon
departed for Troy he left in charge of his wife and estate a bard whom Aigisthos
exiled to his death on a desert island in order to seduce Klytaimestra. Athenaios
(1.14B) mentions this singer and his role as Klytaimestra's moral guardian during
her husband's absence, and likens him to the singer who, forced to sing for
Penelope's suitors, openly expressed his distaste for them. Athenaios concludes
from these examples that the character of singers was generally considered
unimpeachable (σώφρον) in Homer's time, and points out that Homer expressly
describes all singers as αΐδοίους and for this reason favored of the Muses (Od.
8.480-481). What irony we might imagine to have arisen in the Oresteia known
psaltês first appeared in Greek literature. For the use of the term ψαλμός to designate the sound
of strings plucked with the fingers, see Telestes, fr. 6.4 (Page); Phrynichos, fr. 11 (Nauck);
Pindar, fr. 110a. 3 (Bowra); Aischylos, fr. 57.7 (Nauck); Euripides, Rhesos 363. Anakreon uses
the verb ψάλλειν (frr. 28.3 and 29.1 Page), but with the pectis and magadis as instruments.
It seems unknown whether a minstrel who produced such sounds on his instrument(s) was for
this reason known as a psaltês or whether (as Gow would have it, supra, n. 1, p. 245) a psaltês was
identified with certain specific instruments other than the lyre, kithara, barbiton, etc.
Whatever the case may be, we must not expect that these vase-painters or Stratonikos or Machon
concerned themselves with the exact distinctions between these instruments and performers,
or with such literal faithfulness to their literary source when it came to representing Aigisthos
as a minstrel in visual form, or quoting lines about him which might fit better in context with a
slight change of terminology.
(1) Eur., Or. 1236: έπεβούλευσα. But cf. Eur., El. 1224: έπεγκέλευσα, which may be the
correct verb in both passages.
(2) Used of the Alkmeonidai: Herodotos 1.61; 5.70ff.; Thukidides 1.126.11. See the
comments of Butterworth, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 79 on the Agamemnon of Aischylos:
«Agamemnon's murder takes place within the framework of a ritual; he is slain in ordered
ceremony at a sacrifice»; and p. 82: «The sacrifice at which Agamemnon died was surely not the
invention of Aeschylus». Cf. the observations of F. I. Zeitlin, «The Motif of the Corrupted
Sacrifice in Aeschylus' Oresteia», TAPA 96 (1965), 463-508 and «Postscript to Sacrificial Imagery
in the Oresteia [Ag. 1235-37)», TAPA 97 (1966), 645-653. Of the later versions of Agamemnon's
death, see Hyginus, fab. 117: «quem sacrificantem securi cum Cassandra interfecerunt»; also
Servius ad Virgil, Aeneid 11.267; Seneca, Ag. 218-219, 897-900. Butterworth, op. cil. (supra,
ibid.), pp. 82 and 93 lists other examples of this motif of death at a sacrifice. See the Death of
Agamemnon at an altar on an Etruscan urn: Brunn, op. cit. (supra, n. 2, p. 235), pp. 92-3, pi. 74,2.
248 M. I. DAVIES
to Stratonikos, if its author followed Homer's version of a singer-guardian assigned

by Agamemnon to protect his wife, but subsequently portrayed another minstrel
of a nature entirely foreign to his profession, who displaced the Homeric bard,
seduced his charge, and murdered the husband upon his return (1). Finally, if
the Boston Oresteia Krater and the stamnos by the Berlin Painter do indeed reflect
this version, we may imagine that the sequel to the Death of Agamemnon was a
scene in which an armed Orestes rushed in upon an unsuspecting Aigisthos as this
supposititious minstrel was serenading his mistress, and swiftly avenged his
father's death (figs. 11 and 12) (2).
It may never be possible to determine with certainty which of the several
Oresteias composed between the time of Homer and Aischylos presented the legend
in the form which we have just postulated, using the words of Stratonikos and the
representations of two red-figure vases as a basis for reconstruction (3). For the
sake of the present argument, however, and to demonstrate that at least one of the
early Oresleias left to us in fragmentary form might qualify as a candidate to
which such motifs might be assigned, let us examine relevant portions of the
Oresteia of Stesichoros, composed in the very late seventh or early sixth century (4).
There is no extant reference to a net or robe in the few fragments of this work
which have survived, but it is more than possible that the Death of Agamemnon
took place following a feast. In his invocation to the Muse at the beginning of
his Oresteia (fr. 33), Stesichoros asks her to sing not of wars but of «weddings of
the gods and feasts of men and festivities of the blessed ones». Feasting and
(1) On the Homeric αοιδός άνήρ, see Τ. Β. L. Webster in Antiquity 29 (1955), 14: «Here for
a moment the poet steps out of this normal role of court minstrel to become the guardian of the
queen. Such a man might have been a keeper of the king's records and the framer of his orders».
It is possible that originally the Homeric bard and Aigisthos were one and the same character,
and that the distinction between them is a later development in the legend. Prof. Raubitschek
draws my attention to Elektra's description of Aigisthos in Euripides' Eleklra, lines 948-951:
κόσμος έν χοροΐς μόνον and to J. A. LaRue's recent comments on this passage in CJ 63 (1968),
210, as well as Denniston's note ad loc. I would also cite Euripides' Eleklra 326-327, where
the drunken Aigisthos leaps about on Agamemnon's tomb; Sophokles' Elektra 280, where dances
established by Klytaimestra to commemorate the day on which her husband died are mentioned;
and Lucian, On the Dance 67: a mimic dance in which Aigisthos is depicted. I hope to return
to this subject in more detail elsewhere.
(2) Athenaios (8.350C) preserves another anecdote in the life of Stratonikos, in which the
latter speaks what appears to be almost a senlentia from a literary source: ώ βασιλεϋ, σκήπτρον,
Ιτερον δέ πληκτρον. Could one not imagine these words spoken scornfully by Orestes to
Aigisthos just before he attacked the usurper? Such a line in such a context would be highly
effective, but I hardly wish to press this point.
(3) See Mrs. Vermeule's useful recapitulation of the history of the Oresteia legend in Greek
literature to the time of Aischylos, op. cit. {supra, n. 1, p. 214), pp. 11-13.
(4) On the fragments of the Oresteia of Stesichoros, see esp. K. Seeliger, Die Uberlieferung
der griechischen Heldensage bei Stesichoros I. (Meissen: 1886) 2. Die Oresteia (pp. 17-29);
J. Vurtheim, Slesichoros' Fragmente und Biographie (Leiden: 1919), pp. 45-56; Ferrari, op. cil.
(supra, n. 2, p. 238); G. M.Bowra, Greek Lyric Poetry* (Oxford: 1961), pp. 112-118; and the works
cited by Mrs. Vermeule, op. cil. [supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 10, note 24. References to the
fragments are by Page's numbering: Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford: 1962).
festivities — perhaps some musical entertainment from Aigisthos himself —might
then have occupied a considerable portion of this composition, with violence
suddenly intruding upon a seemingly peaceful scene (1).
We do not know from our existing evidence exactly who struck what fatal
blow to kill Agamemnon in this version, but we do know that Agamemnon appeared
to Klytaimestra in a dream, as a snake with a bloody head (fr. 42) :
ται δε δράκων έδόκησε μολεΐν κάρα βεβροτωμένος άκρον,
εκ δ' άρα του βασιλεύς Πλεισθενίδας έφάνη.
It is not certain whether the words βασιλεύς Πλεισθενίδας refer to Agamemnon
himself or to Orestes: either we are to understand that a vision of Agamemnon
is transformed out of the snake, or that the snake remains the embodiment of
Agamemnon and Orestes is born from it. In any case, Agamemnon has been
struck on the head and one might imagine that after he had been mortally stabbed
by Aigisthos' sword, Klytaimestra ran up and delivered the coup de grâce with
her double axe, as the scene seems to be depicted on the Boston Oresteia Krater
(fig. 13). Furthermore, as the shade of Agamemnon described his fate to
Odysseus in the Odyssey (11.409ff.), we might well imagine that here in
Klytaimestra 's dream Agamemnon spoke of his cruel murder, chastising his wife
for her complicity, and that he used nearly the same words that he spoke in the
Odyssey (11.411) — words which are echoed in the quotation of Stratonikos, but
not preserved with this fragment of Stesichoros. I should therefore like to suggest
that the first interpretation of the fragment given above is preferable, and that
Agamemnon himself appeared (έφάνη) from the snake, assumed human form, and
upbraided Klytaimestra for her part in his murder (2).
(1) The poem itself may have been sung at a Spartan festival. See Bowra, op. cit. [supra,
n. 4, p. 248), p. 115 and p. 116: « The Oresteia of Stesichorus clearly began in a mood of high
exaltation before moving on to its more disturbing and more sinister elements.» Note also that
in the Odyssey both Agamemnon and Penelope's suitors are killed at festival feasts, a tradition
echoed in Sophokles' Elektra, lines 203 and 284. See D'Arms and Hulley, op. cit. (supra, n. 2,
p. 238), p. 213 and most recently Butterworth, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), passim on this point.
(2) For a discussion of some of the arguments for and against both interpretations, see Bowra,
op. cit. (supra, n. 4. p. 248), p. 117. An excellent article on this fragment is that of S. M. Bock,
«Die Schlange im Traum der Klytaimestra», Hermes 71 (1936), 230-236 and 476. Bock maintains
that Stesichoros' Oresteia reflects a Lakonian version of the legend, and that the fragment under
discussion may be explained by the popular belief in Sparta that dead men and heroes could
assume the form of snakes. This hypothesis suits G. M. Bowra, «Stesichoros in the Péloponnèse»,
CQ 28 (1934), 115-119 (whence Bowra, op. cil. [supra, n. 4, p. 248J, p. 112ff.). Stesichoros (fr. 39)
placed the scene of his Oresteia in Lakedaimon, while Pindar (Pyth. 11.32) designated Amyklai
as the scene of the action. Pausanias (3.19.6) mentions an alleged tomb of Agamemnon at
Amyklai, a tradition perhaps connected with the versions of Stesichoros and Pindar. If in the
popular belief of the audience a dead man or hero could undergo metamorphosis into the form
of a snake, would it not then seem more logical if in Klytaimestra's dream Agamemnon simply
returned to his former appearance, reversing the process which he had undergone at his death?
See M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion9 (Miinchen: 1967), p. 199 on «die Schlange
als Verkôrperung des Toten».
250 M. I. DA VIES
Such a borrowing from Homer on the part of Stesichoros would be entirely

in keeping with what we now know about his method of composition. The
recently discovered fragments of Stesichoros' Geryoneis reveal clearly the extent
of this poet's debt to Homer, especially in his choice of epic forms and narrative
technique (1).
The Oresteia of Stesichoros was divided by Alexandrian editors into two books,
a fact which would lend considerable support to a theory that the Death of
Agamemnon and the Death of Aigisthos were fully developed as two thematically
related events in his version of the legend, just as the two episodes are illustrated
on the Boston Oresteia Krater as two interconnected scenes (figs. 12 and 13) (2).
An opening section might have led up to the Death of Agamemnon at the end of,
or just following the feast, and the rescue of Orestes by the nurse Laodameia
(fr. 41); subsequently the poet might have described Klytaimestra's confrontation
with Agamemnon in the dream, as a premonition of the revenge to come, and
concluded with Orestes' revenge on the minstrel Aigisthos and probably his mother
as well.
The above partial reconstruction of the Oresteia of Stesichoros must, of
course, remain hypothetical and open to question (3). Nevertheless, I submit that
it is supported by the weight of the scant evidence which we still possess, and may
(1) See T. B. L. Webster, «Stesichoros: Geryoneis», Agon 2 (1968), 1-9 and especially his
comments on p. 8: «The dactylo-anapaestic metre allows Stesichoros to take over words and
phrases straight from Homer and later epic, and the new fragments amply confirm Bowra's
judgment that Stesichoros was familiar with the epic manner of narrative and the epic language:
on some twenty-five words or phrases in the Geryoneis Dr. Lobel quotes Homeric parallels and
the parallels help to complete the fragmentary text.» In Webster's words, the Geryoneis was
«a choral ode as long as a long book of Homer. It seems in fact to be a more or less straight
transposition of epic into choral lyric.» Cf. also Bowra, op. cit. (supra, n. 4, p. 248), pp. 77-79 on
Stesichoros' knowledge of another episode very similar to one from our version of the Odyssey.
Perhaps the two lines quoted by Stratonikos may be tentatively added to this evidence. I am
grateful to Prof. Webster for mentioning this material to me in a conversation before his article
appeared.
(2) That the two scenes on the Boston Oresteia Krater have been thematically linked by the
Dokimasia Painter has been well demonstrated by Mrs. Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 6.
I cannot, however, agree with Mrs. Vermeule when she states (p. 12) that «Nothing suggests that
Stesichoros really concentrated in narrative time on the death of Agamemnon; the emphasis
seems to be as it is in Choephoroi or the Eleklras, the first act far in the past, the second act brought
to the front plane as in art.» Bowra, op. cit. (supra, n. 4, p. 248), pp. 115 and 126 has correctly
emphasized the magnitude of the Oresteia of this Sicilian poet, and there seems to have been
plenty of room for the development of both episodes of the legend.
(3) The three metopes from the Heraion on the Silaris River, as presently interpreted by
the excavators, present some difficulty to this reconstruction of the Oresleia of Stesichoros, if
one sees in them reflections of this author's conception of the legend: P. Zancani Montuoro and
U. Zanotti-Bianco, Heraion alia foce del Sele II.2 (Roma: 1954), pp. 269-300, Taw. 44-46, 86-89,
figs. 60, 61, 66; also P. Zancani Montuoro, «Riflessi di una Oresteia anteriore ad Eschilo», RendNap
26 (1951), 270-279. If one accepts the present reconstruction, these metopes will have to be
reinterpreted, or dissociated from the influence of the Sicilian poet, both of which are possible.
Cf. Page, op. cit. (supra, n. 4, p. 248), pp. 95-96 and Bowra, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 118. I hope
to return to this problem in some detail in another paper.
stand as a working hypothesis until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Furthermore, the Oresteia of Stesichoros is by no means the only candidate to
which we may be permitted to assign these various motifs. Stratonikos
apparently was well-versed in a wide range of literature from which he could draw
quotations, and familiar in detail with the work of Simonides, to whom another
Oresteia has been attributed (1). Surely there were enough different versions
of the Oresteia legend composed between the time of Homer and Aischylos to
provide the motifs which appear on the vases by the Dokimasia Painter and the
Berlin Painter, and seem to be echoed in the words of Stratonikos. Stesichoros'
poem was certainly not the only early version of the legend familiar to Athenians
of the fifth century (2). Even the Death of Agamemnon in a net or robe, whether
following a feast or in the bath, is a motif which originated in a form of the legend
which antedates the fifth century (3). Finally, it is not my intention to insist
dogmatically that the Boston Oresteia Krater and the stamnos by the Berlin
Painter are direct illustrations in every detail of the work of one poet, though I
have tried to show that this is a possibility. Painters were too often eclectic
in their choice of motifs, combining not only the motifs of different poets, but
elements of both visual and literary traditions in one composition (4). My
(1) Cf. η. 3, p. 242, supra. For the remains of the Oresteia of Simonides, see Page, op. cit.
[supra, n. 4, p. 248), p. 287 (fr. 44) and E. Lobel, Oxyrh. Papyri 25 (1959) 2434 Fr. l(a) (p. 95ff.).
It is noteworthy that Simonides also may have set the scene of the legend in Sparta (fr. 44) and
may therefore have been influenced by the tradition(s) which Stesichoros used. His lyric poetry
may have been written in dramatic form.
(2) J. Viirtheim, op. cit. (supra, n. 4, p. 248), p. 55 has suggested convincingly that lines from
the Oresteia of Stesichoros (fr. 33) which Aristophanes incorporated in one of his comedies (Pax
775ff.) would have been recognized by at least a good part of the audience. Cf. C. Robert,
Bild und Lied (Berlin: 1881), p. 176 and L. Séchan, Éludes sur la tragédie grecque dans ses rapports
avec la céramique (Paris: 1926), p. 26 n. 5. On the influence which the Oresteia of Stesichoros
exercised on later versions of this legend, see esp. Stesichoros, fr. 40. Sokrates knew his
Stesichoros well. Cf. Eupolis, fr. 361 (Edmonds) and Ammianus Marcellinus 28.4.15.
(3) Mrs. Vermeule has asserted, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 10 that «It is barely possible
that an Oresteia earlier than Aischylos' inspired [the Boston Oresteia Krater], Agamemnon, robe,
and all». Our evidence is too fragmentary to justify such a statement, and it seems to me to be a
likely possibility, as I have tried to show. It is unfortunate that the pinax from Gortyn (fig. 9)
was not included in Mrs. Vermeule's study, as it suggests that even the Death of Agamemnon in
a net or robe belonged to one of the very earliest versions of the Oresteia legend. Cf. Butter-
worth, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), passim. Moreover, on the Boston Oresteia Krater, it is neither
certain that Agamemnon's beard is wet, nor that he has just stepped from a bath, as Mrs. Vermeule
suggests (pp. 4 and 20). His beard is that of an aging king, the scene is simply an indoor one,
and conclusions more precise than this are impossible. Finally, the Dokimasia Painter could
well have visualized the net-robe from the vivid poetry of such an author as Stesichoros or
Simonides, without actually seeing it in the theater. If, as Mrs. Vermeule herself states (p. 21),
«We can imagine it well enough, from words alone», then we must credit artists with as much or
more imagination.
(4) The Berlin Painter himself drew from more than one source in his two treatments of the
Death of Aigisthos on the stamnos in Boston (supra, n. 2, p. 240) and the pelike in Vienna, 3725
(Beazley, ARV* 204, no. 109 and AJA 70 (1966), pi. 6, fig. 12). Why the Death of Agamemnon as
it is depicted on the Boston Oresteia Krater (fig. 13) is such a rarity in Attic painting is a difficult
question to answer. Perhaps some of our fragmentary scenes of the Death of Aigisthos had
252 M. I. DAVIES
primary point remains that there are no details or motifs in the scenes by these
two painters and in the words of Stratonikos which cannot logically be assigned
to a literary version or versions of the Oresteia legend which antedated, yet
survived into, the fifth century B.C.
It is my belief, moreover, that Aigisthos may have appeared as 9 minstrel
in the Oresteia legend even before the time of Stesichoros, and that we possess
visual evidence for this motif on a Proto-Attic krater by the Ram Jug Painter,
dated in the second quarter of the seventh century (figs. 14-15) (1). On one side,
four figures are partially preserved in a scene of murder which has usually been
companion scenes of the Death of Agamemnon, which are now lost. It will be argued below
that we possess an example of the Death of Agamemnon in Proto-Attic painting. Otherwise
one can only suggest that other examples have perished (including wall paintings), and/or that
for some reason the vase-painters usually preferred to explore the motif of revenge. See
Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), passim on this problem.
(1) Berlin A 32. Bibliography: GVA Deutschland 2, Berlin (Antiquarium) 1 (Munchen :
1938), pp. 19-20, pll. 18-21 ( = Deutschland 64-67); A. Greifenhagen, Pantheon (1939), 198-202,
Abb. 5; E. Buschor, Griechische Vasen (Munchen: 1940), p. 39, Abb. 46; M. Pallottino, La critica
(Tarle 7 (1942), 14, Tav. V, fig. 19; E. Homann-Wedeking, Die Anfange der griechischen Gross-
plastik (Berlin: 1950), p. 136, Abb. 64; Kunze, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 231), p. 74 n. 4, p. 169;
F. Matz, Geschichle der griech. Kunst (Frankfurt am Main: 1950), pp. 307-309, pll. 210-211;
J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-Figure (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1951), pp. 8-9,
titlepage and pi. 3; W. Kraiker, Aigina, Die Vasen des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin: 1951),
nos. 582, 584, 585; Ε. Buschor, BSA 46 (1951), 40; S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou, Arch. Ε ph. (1952),
158; A. Rumpf, Malerei und Zeichnung (Handbuch der Archàologie 4.1) (Munchen: 1953), p. 25,
Taf. 3, 10; D. Frey, Archivio di Filosofla (1953), p. 119; Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco,
op. cit. (supra, n. 3, p. 250), p. 285, fig. 63, p. 267 n. 1, p. 281 n. 3, pp. 298-9; T. B. L. Webster, Bull,
of the John Rylands Library, Manchester 36 (1954), 584; T. B. L. Webster, Greek Theatre Production
(London: 1956), no. F 1, pp. 133, 157, 192; G. E. Mylonas, Ho Prôtoatlikos Amphoreus tes Eleusinos
(1957), passim (fig. 37, γ); Dunbabin, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), pp. 77 and 83 (and Gnomon 25
(1953), 247); T. B. L. Webster, Greek Art and Literature, 700-530 B.C. (London: 1959), p. 113,
no. 35; F. De Ruyt, BendPontAcc 33 (1960/61), 102, figs. 5-6; G. Gullini, La pittura grecaarcaica I
(Torino: 1961), p. 109ff.; Ε. Τ. Η. Brann, The Athenian Agora VIII: Late Geometric and
Protoattic Pottery (1962), p. 92, no. 538; Schefold, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 228), p. 47, pi. 36a;
Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 214), p. 13, no. 1; K. Friis Johansen, The Iliad in Early Greek Art
(Copenhagen: 1967), pp. 34 and 85; J. Boardman et al., The Art and Architecture of Ancient Greece
(London: 1967), p. 150, figs. 109/110. [Add.:] H. Gôtze, RomMitt 54 (1939) 67 n. 2; G. Hofkes-
Brukker, BABesch 15.1-2 (1940) 12 n. 110; L. Quarles van Ufford, BABesch 17.2 (1942) 43-44,
BABesch 18.1 (1943) 11; A. W. Byvanck, De Kunst der Oudheid Vol. II (Leiden: 1949), p. 155
and PI. 33, Alb. 124; L. Banti, BdA 36 (1951) 104 n. 20; T. Dohrn, Jdl 70 (1955) 51; H. B.
Jessen, AA (1955) 284-285; B. Schweitzer, RomMitl 62 (1955) 99 n. 100; F. Brommer, Marburger
Winckelmann-Programm (1956) 14-15, 18; L. Byvanck-Quarles van Ufford, BABesch 31 (1956)
45 n. 30,48; F. Brommer, Vasenlisten zur griechischen Heldensage* (Marburg/Lahn: 1960), p. 321,
Al; H. Kenner, Weinen und Lachen in der griechischen Kunst (Wien: 1960), pp. 11-12; I. Scheibler,
Die symmetrische Bildform in der friihgriech. Flàchenkunst (1960), p. 54; G. Hafner, Geschichle der
griech. Kunst (1961), pp. 86-87, Abb. 87; Neumann, op. cit. (supra, n. 3, p. 232) pp. 36, 89; F. F.
Jones, Record of the Art Museum, Princeton Univ. 26 (1967), 10-11; E. Akurgal, The Art of Greece
(New York: 1968), pp. 194 and 196, Fig. 130. See also the comments (in reviews of GVA Berlin 1)
of R. S. Young, AJA 43 (1939), 715; J. M. Cook, JHS 59 (1939), 151; G. Lippold, Deutsche
Literalurzeitung 61 (1940), 628; A. Rumpf, Philologische Wochenschrift 60 (1940) 27. I wish to
thank Dr. Elisabeth Rohde of the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin for her assistance in obtaining
the three photographs of this vase for publication here (figs. 14-15).
Fig. 14. — Detail of Proto-Attic krater by the Ram Jug Painter (Berlin A 32). Death of
Agamemnon (courtesy Staatliche Museen zu Berlin).
interpreted as the Death of Aigisthos (fig. 14) (1). I should prefer to interpret
this scene as the Death of Agamemnon at the hands of Aigisthos, who prepares
to stab his victim from behind. An outstretched hand is just visible behind
Aigisthos, in what seems to be a gesture of supplication (note the shoulder of this
female figure preserved in fig. 15b), while another female figure in front of
Agamemnon tears her cheeks in anguish. Interpreted in this way, the scene thus
presents a version of the legend in which Aigisthos is the protagonist and villain,
that version which may have first gained wide acceptance due to its use by Homer
(1) Beazley states that the scene has also been interpreted as the Death of Agamemnon, but
rejects the suggestion, op. cil. [supra, n. 1, p. 252), p. 8. Rumpf, op. cit., 1953 (supra, ibid.)
suggests that the scene depicts an episode from the Herakles cycle, while Webster, op. cit., 1959
[supra, n. 1, p. 252), p. 18, n. 24 and p. 113, no. 35 suggests I.ichas and Iole. Cf. CE 67 (1953),
128. I should like to thank Prof. Clairmont for his helpful criticism of this section of the present
study. While I have greatly benefited from his comments, I do not wish to imply necessarily
his agreement with my conclusions.
254 M. I. DAVIES
in the Odyssey (see Part II, supra). Moreover, while it is of course possible that
the figure in front of Agamemnon is Klytaimestra, I should much prefer to assume
that the artist has here framed the central scene of murder by means of two
horrified maid servants or attendants, depicted in similar attitudes of supplication (1).
The interpretation of the scene is aided by the emphasis which the Ram Jug
Painter has placed on the gesture of the bearded Aigisthos. The assassin here
disables Agamemnon's head by drawing a gossamer net over his head and in front
of his face. He might simply have been depicted grasping the top of his victim's
head, as is usual in such murder scenes on Proto-Attic vases. Instead, the Ram
Jug Painter chose to lengthen Aigisthos' arm so that he might reach farther forward
to draw down the delicate hair-like net in such a labored way that one can only
assume that such a posture was considered important by the painter for purposes
of identification and interpretation. Considerations of iconography have
suppressed considerations of style. It should be noted that Aigisthos also holds
a net over the king's head on the nearly contemporary Gortyn pinax (fig. 9),
though on the latter representation, it is Klytaimestra who prepares to stab her
husband. Perhaps the Ram Jug Painter has conflated more than one version
of the legend in this scene, boldly attempting to portray the lethal net in painterly
fashion but choosing to emphasize the role of Aigisthos to the exclusion of the
faithless wife. It is not certain, in any event, that Klytaimestra and the net-robe
were inextricably associated together in poetic compositions, and it is therefore
possible that this painted scene preserves a single version otherwise unknown to
us. The net is an important element in the scene on the Boston Oresteia Krater
(fig. 13), where Aigisthos is without doubt the protagonist, though Klytaimestra
is present as his accomplice. Finally, having interpreted this scene by the Ram
Jug Painter as one of the Death of Agamemnon, it may be stressed that the throne
is an important— if not essential— element in scenes of the Death of Aigisthos,
while Agamemnon is often murdered in a standing position in later
compositions (2).
(1) Most previous scholars seem to have been misled by the fragmentary nature of this scene.
No particular emphasis has been placed upon the female figure on the right, and if the
corresponding «maid servant» on the left is to be restored with the same gestures of horror and grief, I should
prefer to pair these two flanking figures as an affective, moving frame for the scene, rather than
to pair the woman on the right with Agamemnon as husband and wife. Nevertheless, there
is no compelling reason why Klytaimestra could not be involved here in the murder of her husband,
and yet be horrified in the face of the actual deed. Elektra and the nurse are less likely to have
been represented in such an early version. Rumpf, op. cit., 1940 (supra, n. 1, p. 252) has
described this scene as 'da3 eindrucksvolle Bild eines Gefangenentransportes.' If the
interpretation of the companion scene on this vase offered here is correct (see infra), perhaps the movement
of the figures toward the right was intended to draw the viewer's attention around the vase
in such a way as to connect the two scenes more closely and suggest that the scene on the reverse
follows logically the action shown on the obverse. Finally, the suppliant gesture of the victim
is in keeping with the iconography of the scene of the Death of Agamemnon on the Boston
Oresteia Krater (fig. 13), and need not imply that the victim is a coward, as has been suggested.
(2) Agamemnon is murdered in a standing position on the shield bands from Olympia and
Aigina, cited n. 4, p. 230, supra, and on the Boston Oresteia Krater (fig. 13). For the importance
of the throne in scenes of the Death of Aigisthos. see n. 4, p. 233, supra. I do not consider this
a conclusive point, however.

Fig. 15 a and b. — Detail of
Proto-Attic krater by the Ram
Jug Painter (Berlin A 32). Death
of Aigisthos(?) (courtesy Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin).

256 M. I. DAVIES
In the firm belief that this scene represents the Death of Agamemnon at the
hands of Aigisthos, I should like to reexamine the very fragmentary scene on the
reverse of the krater, which has usually been interpreted as a confrontation of
Apollo and Artemis (fig. 15a and b). While certainty is impossible due to its
condition, I should like to suggest that this scene depicts the revenge of Orestes
upon the minstrel Aigisthos. The Ram Jug Painter is known to have used both
sides of a vase for the development of his subject matter, and it is certainly not
impossible that he has here depicted two thematically sequential scenes on a single
vase (1). In my interpretation, Orestes approaches from the left, his right arm
bent in a position which suggests that he held a sword drawn for the kill (now
lost). In the missing center of the composition, one may imagine that
Aigisthos sat enthroned, holding a lyre in an outstretched hand behind
him (2). Part of the lyre and his extended arm are preserved in the
fragment which has arbitrarily been placed in front of Orestes, while a
corner of one of the rear legs of the throne may be preserved just in front
of the forward leg of the figure at the right hand edge of the scene. This figure
has usually been assumed to be female, and has been interpreted as Artemis with
her bow and quiver full of arrows (3). The presence of this goddess in a scene
of the Death of Aigisthos would be unique in this instance, but not necessarily
inappropriate. Artemis was an important figure in the myths related to the
Oresleia legend treated by ITesiod (cf. p. 237, supra) and by the poet of the
Cypria (4). Furthermore, it is possible that «Artemis-Diana Orestea» was
considered a tutelary goddess of the hero as early as the seventh century, and is
so represented here in a version the details of which are now lost (5).
The above interpretation of the second scene as the revenge of Orestes upon
the minstrel Aigisthos is supported by the existence of a scene with many similar
features on a contemporary relief pithos from Thebes, interpreted above as a scene
(1) Cf. Beazley's comments, op. cit. {supra, n. 1, p. 252), p. 10 (pi. 4) on the neck-amphora in
Berlin (A 9) which depicts Peleus bringing Achilles to Chiron, also by the Ram Jug Painter.
Both sides of the body of this vase have been used for the representation of this myth.
(2) It may be thought a weakness of the interpretation here advanced that in the scene of
the Death of Agamemnon on the other side of the vase, Aigisthos is represented as a black figure,
while the arm holding the lyre on the reverse is a white arm. Such distinctions of color seem
to have been arbitrary and devoid of meaning, however, and this discrepancy is not likely to
have troubled a Proto-Attic painter.
(3) Cook, op. cit. (supra, n. 1, p. 252), p. 151 has pointed out that the lack of a beard does
not prove the sex of this figure. Nevertheless, a representation of Apollo offering Orestes a bow
to ward off the Furies would be surprising at this early date, if not inappropriate (without the
matricide). Cf. Stesichoros, fr. 40, where Orestes does receive a bow as a gift from Apollo. It
must be noted that a bearded Orestes is unusual — whether he is placed on this or the other side
of the vase.
(4) Severyns, op. cit. {supra, n. 3, p. 237), pp. 82-83, 135-143.
(5) Cf. RE, s.u. Oresteia and the following sources: Ovid, Met. 15.489; Epist. ex Ponlo
1.2.78; Hyginus, fab. 261; Solinus 2.11; Servius ad Virgil, Aeneid 2.116; 6.136; Pseudo-Acron,
schol. ad Horace, Carm. 1.7.10; Scriptores Rerum Mythicarum, vol. I (ed. Bode, Cellis: 1834):
Mythogr. 1.20; 11.202. These are admittedly late sources, and the presence of Artemis must,
for the present, remain troublesome to this interpretation of the scene.
Fig. 16. — Detail of Boeotian amphora from Thebes (Boston 528). Death of Aigisthos (?)
(courtesy Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Henry L. Pierce Fund).
of the Death of Aigisthos (n. 1, p. 238, supra). The latter representation (fig. 16) is
poorly preserved, but certain points of similarity are quite striking. Orestes (here
beardless) strides forward from the left, with his right arm bent and wielding a
sword (now lost except for the point), and grasps his victim's right wrist with his
left hand. Aigisthos seems to be seated on an elaborate throne, parts of which are
still preserved. Only his head and right forearm are preserved, however, and it is
impossible to determine whether he held a lyre in his left hand. Behind him stands
a female figure, holding out an unexplained object in her right hand, as the
Artemis-figure on the vase by the Ram Jug Painter held out her bow. The two
scenes, I submit, are so similar that they may well have a common subject: the
Death of Aigisthos at the hands of Orestes.
If, then, all of the details in the scenes by the Dokimasia Painter and the
Berlin Painter (figs. 11-13) and in the words of Stratonikos can plausibly be
attributed to a version or versions of the Oresteia legend which existed prior to the
fifth century, and perhaps even as early as the seventh century, we must reexamine
Mrs. Vermeule's suggestion that the Boston Oresteia Krater may have been
painted in 458 B.C. or the following year, and that it seems to depend on the
17
258 M. I. D AVIES
performance of the Oresteia of Aischylos for inspiration (1). Mrs. Vermeule has
convincingly shown in her article on this particular vase that its two scenes are
visually linked and exhibit thematic unity. In her words, the Dokimasia Painter
«is the only illustrator to insist on the linked halves of the tragedy, to understand
that the death of Aigisthos is meaningless without the death of Agamemnon,
to coordinate the phases of action and reaction visually as Aischylos coordinated
them dramatically» (2). But it seems likely that at least one earlier poet and
possibly one earlier painter had also explored some of the implications of murder
and ensuing revenge, and closely connected the two events in their compositions.
Instead of arguing ex siletilio that there is no literary evidence for a Death of
Agamemnon in robes before Aischylos, as it is represented on the Boston Oresteia
Krater (fig. 13), and that therefore this vase owes the motif to the work of this
author, I should prefer to argue that there is no evidence for a Death of Aigisthos
as a minstrel in the trilogy of Aischylos, and that there is an excellent possibility
that such a motif did appear in an earlier version of the Oresteia, as well as the Death
of Agamemnon in a robe or net (3).
There are better reasons, however, for placing the Boston Oresteia
Krater back in the 470's where it belongs stylistically within accepted
red-figure chronology — reasons based on the Oresteia of Aischylos itself (4). In
this great trilogy, Aigisthos' role in the murder of Agamemnon is so shadowy
and so unimportant that it is practically ignored by all the characters throughout
the three plays. It is instead the wife, Klytaimestra, who becomes so horribly
alive in the characterization given her by Aischylos, to an extent that Aigisthos
has no significant role in the actual murder of her husband (5). Aigisthos himself
says boastfully (Ag. 1608-9): «I seized this man even though I was elsewhere,
having contrived the entire scheme of the terrible plan». As the Chorus scornfully
emphasizes [Ag. 1633ff., 1643fl\), he may have planned the crime, but he did
not have the courage to take part in the murder himself, as the scene is depicted
on the Boston Oresteia Krater (fig. 13). Indeed, the poet was careful not to let
the figure of Aigisthos interfere in any way with his emphasis on the death of a
husband at the hands of his wife, and his exploration of the implications and
consequences of matricide. Regarding the sequel to the Death of Agamemnon,
(1) Vermeule, op. cit. {supra, n. 1, p. 214), pp. 6-7, 19-20, 21-22.
(2) Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 6. It may be, however, that the Ram Jug Painter
treated the legend similarly two hundred years earlier.
(3) Cf. Vermeule, op. cit. (supra, ibid.), p. 19: «There is no evidence fora death of Agamemnon,
in robes, before Aischylos; there is no evidence that any painter illustrated a death of Agamemnon
before the Dokimasia Painter or felt the impulse to stress an inevitable connection between the
first two acts of the tragedy-myth.» Prof. Raubitschek has kindly referred me to the comments
of T. B. L. Webster, op. cit., 1966 (supra, n. 2, p. 214), pp. 15-16, who has anticipated some of the
points which I have raised here and has also suggested Stesichoros' Oresteia as a possible source
for these motifs.
(4) Mrs. Vermeule has rightly pointed out that the Boston Oresteia Krater «floats» in time
between about 475 and 450 B.C. with regard to its shape and ornament : Vermeule, op. cit. (supra,
n. 1, p. 214), p. 10.
(5) See the studies of the character of Klytaimestra cited in note 1, p. 239, supra.
Fig. 17. — Relief from Etruscan urn (Florence 74625). Death of Agamemnon (courtesy-
Dr. Jiirgen Thimme).
Orestes' words express the poet's own point of view (Cho. 989-90): «I have no
thought for the death of Aigisthos; he has the punishment of an adulterer, as is
lawful.» Such an attitude could hardly have inspired the painter of the Boston
Oresteia Krater to such an effective visual representation of Orestes' revenge upon
Aigisthos (fig. 12). In the trilogy, the revenge is carried out only incidentally
upon Aigisthos, and primarily upon the mother, and it is just this fact which is
emphasized throughout the last two plays. To cite all the passages which
demonstrate that in the Oresteia of Aischylos, Klytaimestra dominates the action
and takes the leading role in the murder of her husband, and that in avenging his
father Orestes practically ignores Aigisthos, should be unnecessary. Anyone
who witnessed the production of these three plays in 458 B.C. would have been
indelibly impressed by Klytaimestra's horrifying description of the manner in
which she felled her husband with her own hand (Ag. 1372ff.) — without any mention
of assistance from Aigisthos in the act. For this reason alone, the Boston
Oresteia Krater could not possibly have been painted with the work of Aischylos
fresh in the artist's mind: a scene portraying Aigisthos as the protagonist in the
murder of Agamemnon, complemented by another depicting the revenge of
Orestes emphatically upon the adulterer rather than his mother, reveals an
attitude foreign to the Aischylean conception of the legend. I submit that the
260 M. I. DAVIES
characterizations, the imagery, and the total effect of Aischylos' poetry upon the
viewer would have been so powerful as to render impossible such an interpretation
as that which is depicted on the Boston Oresteia Krater, precisely because these
painted scenes are so un-Aischylean. It is far better to assume that such scenes
of the Death of Agamemnon at the hands of Aigisthos, and the latter's subsequent
punishment at the hands of Orestes, belong in the tradition of the Oresteia prior
to Aischylos— certainly not immediately following (1). The masterpiece of the
Dokimasia Painter is valuable and interesting to the student of Greek myth and
legend precisely because it provides further evidence that one of Aischylos' most
vivid and powerful motifs — the net or robe which enveloped the dying king —
was established as part of the legend before his time by another poet or poets.
The originality of Aischylos' literary effort lies not so much in his invention of
new motifs. Rather it is to be found in his skillful use of pre-existing ones in
his imagery, his exploitation of the role of Klytaimestra to emphasize the horror
of a woman's bold revenge upon a great king, and his exploration of the even greater
terror which befalls him who commits matricide.
Princeton University. Mark I. Davies.
(1) Cf. Dyer's comments, op. cit. {supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 176.

Thoughts On The Oresteia Before Aischylos

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Thoughts On The Oresteia Before Aischylos

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Bulletin de correspondance

Thoughts on the Oresteia before Aischylos

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Fichier pdf généré le 19/04/2018

THOUGHTS ON THE ORESTEIA

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 1. — Fragment of Mycenaean chariot krater from Enkomi, B. M. G 339

I. Fragment of a Chariot Krater from Enkomi (fig. 1) (1)

Whether one can recognize individual mythological subjects in Mycenaean art

(1) Ibid., p. 104 (fig. 10).

the « most hopeful» mythological representation in Mycenaean art, I should like

by comparison with another krater fragment discovered in 1965 at Enkomi, on

II. The Death of Agamemnon on a steatite Disk Seal from

I should like to turn next to a discussion of an unusually fine example of

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Fig. 6 b. — See Hg. 6 a.

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

at the hands of Klytaimestra and Aigisthos,

His right arm, as in many later representations of the deaths of seated

discussion reveals a composition in some respects closest to classical

III. Aigisthos Psaltës: A Reconsideration

It is difficult to understand why Stratonikos should have chosen these words to

to Stratonikos, if its author followed Homer's version of a singer-guardian assigned

Such a borrowing from Homer on the part of Stesichoros would be entirely

stand as a working hypothesis until evidence to the contrary comes to light.

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Illustration non autorisée à la diffusion

Princeton University. Mark I. Davies.

(1) Cf. Dyer's comments, op. cit. {supra, n. 2, p. 214), p. 176.

Você também pode gostar