Recovering Rhapsodes: A New Vase by the Pantoxena Painter

SHERAMY BUNDRICK

Classical Antiquity. Vol. 34, Issue 1, pp. 1–31. ISSN 0278-6656(p); 1067-8344 (e).Copyright © 2015 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Pleasedirect all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University ofCalifornia Press’s Rights and Permissions website at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.DOI:10.1525/CA.2015.34.1.1.

Recovering Rhapsodes:A New Vase by the Pantoxena Painter

This paper discusses an Athenian calyx krater whose style, shape, and inscription allowattribution to the Pantoxena Painter, a member of the Polygnotan workshop. I argue thatthe unusual scene on the obverse—with a wreathed, draped youth mounting a bema beforeNikai and judges—provides the only known image of a rhapsode from the second half of thefifth century BC and joins the very small group of scenes that depict this contest at all. Given thesimilarity to images of kitharodes and victors in other mousikoi agones, the krater testifies tothe continued prestige given rhapsodia in this period. Unfortunately, because the krater waslooted from the tomb in Tarquinia where it was placed after export from Athens, its meaningfor an Etruscan viewer is more difficult to evaluate. The lack of documentation and physicalcontext means that only part of this vase’s biography can be recovered.

The lack of documentation and physical context means that only part of thisvase’s biography can be recovered. In the magazzini of the Museo ArcheologicoNazionale Tarquiniense can be found a red-figured Athenian calyx krater that waslooted from a tomb in one of the necropoleis of Tarquinia and subsequently seizedby the carabinieri (Figs. 1–2). Since then it has only been published and displayed

This article was researched and written in early 2014, during a postdoctoral Rome Prize fellowship inAncient Studies at the American Academy in Rome. I thank the Academy for its generosity in fundingthe fellowship; the staff of the Academy library; and Giulia Barra of the Academy’s Programs Officefor her assistance in obtaining permission to study the vase in Tarquinia and acquiring photographs.Special thanks are due to Alfonsina Russo and Maria Laura Falsini of the Soprintendenza peri Beni Archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale for the authorization to study and photograph thevase, and Beatrice Casocavallo of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale Tarquiniense for facilitatingthe visit. For assistance with photographs and permissions, thanks are due to Philippe Bretagnonand Eric Magnien (Bibliotheque Nationale de France); Nathan Pendlebury and Andrew Jackson(National Museums Liverpool); and Maria Laura Falsini and Massimiliano Piemonte (ArchivioFotografico, Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale). Additional thanksare due to editor Mark Griffith and the two Classical Antiquity peer reviewers for their helpful

CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY Volume 34/No. 1 /April 20152

once, in a 2004 exhibition in Viterbo called “Scavo nello scavo: Gli Etruschi nonvisti,” which included other recovered objects as well as previously unknownpieces from museum storerooms.

Although lacking its original context, which would yield significant infor-mation about its life in Etruria, the krater features a scene that is unique amongsurviving Athenian vases and merits close scrutiny. In the first section of thispaper, I discuss the krater’s style, shape, and inscription, demonstrating that itcan be attributed to the Pantoxena Painter, a member of the prolific Polygnotanworkshop.2 In the discussion of the vase’s iconography that follows, I use thePanathenaic festival program as a guide and conclude that the krater providesthe only known image of a rhapsode from the second half of the fifth centuryBC. Through its heretofore unprecedented imagery, the krater adds considerablyto our knowledge of rhapsodic contests, as well as the perception of this eventamong contemporary Athenians.

DESCRIPTION AND ATTRIBUTION

The Tarquinia krater stands approximately 50 cm in height and has a diameterof 50 cm across the mouth. With certain details of shape, it is typical of calyxkraters from the mid-fifth century BC and later, for example those associated withthe Polygnotan workshop: the alignment between the edges of the handles andouter rim of the mouth, spreading handles with slightly upturned ends, fairly verti-cal walls, narrower bowl compared to kraters from earlier in the century, and over-all “solidly weighted” appearance.3 Lotus-and-palmette friezes appear both aboveand below the main scenes and above each handle, lending an ornate quality to thekrater even with the otherwise spare composition and draftsmanship. The reverse(Fig. 2) depicts three figures in a libation and/or departure scene: to left, a man withstaff, to center, a woman with phiale and torch, and to right, a draped youth withoinochoe. The male figure at left departs from the norm in being not only beardedbut visibly balding; it is tempting to suggest that he is the head of the householdjoined by his wife and oldest son, the two latter facing him. The torch held bythe woman seems superfluous in this context but could identify her as mother ofthe oikos, as a mother would carry torches during wedding ceremonies. Despite

comments and suggestions on the manuscript; Seth Pevnick for his feedback on a draft of thearticle before submission; fellow Ancient Studies Fellows at the American Academy in Rome forlooking at photographs of the Greek inscription with me after my visit to Tarquinia, especiallyStephanie Frampton for assisting with a transcription of visible letters; and John Oakley for lookingat photographs of the krater and steering me toward the Polygnotan workshop. I dedicate this articlewith gratitude to Alan Shapiro for his mentorship and constant inspiration.

2. Tarquinia 137262: Moretti Sgubini 2004: 259–60.3. Cf. Matheson 1995: 179, with general discussion of the calyx krater shape at 178–79. D.

Rizzo in Moretti Sgubini 2004: 260 dates the vase to the mid-fifth century BC but does not venture anattribution to a specific painter or workshop. For calyx kraters generally, see Frank 1990.

BUNDRICK: Recovering Rhapsodes 3

some uncommon characteristics, these appear to be stock figures in the mannerof most krater reverses of the period and likely have no relation to the other side.

The composition of the obverse scene (Fig. 1)—the primary focus of thispaper—takes full advantage of the krater’s large size, featuring five figures butwith little crowding. The viewer’s eye is drawn to a beardless youth in the center,wrapped in a himation and wearing around his head a wreath tucked into a fillet,an unusual combination. He climbs with his right foot onto the lower step of atwo-stepped bema, or platform, right arm held immobile against his chest, leftarm visible by his side although also wrapped in fabric. The lines of his body canbe seen through the garment, especially his legs, and his forward-looking gaze isfocused and confident. Two Nikai fly, one to either side, smaller in scale, grantinghim further visual prominence: the one to left holding a wreath mostly flakedaway but visible under raking light, the one to right a fillet, similarly abraded(Fig. 3). As is frequently the case when Nikai appear in pairs on vases, they arenot identically dressed and also wear different head coverings. At the far left ofthe scene stands a beardless man holding a staff and wearing a himation similarto that of the central figure, but only a wreath around his head. To the far rightsits a male figure on a klismos; because his upper half does not survive, onecannot know if he was beardless like the figure at left, or bearded and thereforeolder.

A significant element of the krater’s obverse scene is a fragmentary three-lineinscription in the center above the youth’s head, partly discernible under rakinglight but otherwise invisible (Fig. 3).4 Close examination reveals eight survivingletters in the topmost line, four in the central, and one in the lowermost, which canbe transcribed as follows:

P A N • • X S E N A

• O R • • • O I [ • • ]v v K [ - - - 7 - - - ]

With the exception of the alpha at the end of the first line, which followsclosely upon the nu, the letters are neatly spaced and stoichedon in arrangement.Presuming that the kappa in the third line is most likely to begin the word kalosor kale on an Attic vase, one can compare other surviving vases to discover apainter of ca. 440 BC responsible for multiple three-line kale inscriptions: thePantoxena Painter, a member of the Polygnotan workshop, who twice elsewhere

4. D. Rizzo in Moretti Sgubini 2004: 259 says of the inscription, “Tra le due figure involo compaiono alcune lettere in alfabeto greco, quasi totalmente scomparse,” and provides notranscription. According to Dott.ssa Beatrice Casocavallo of the Museo Archeologico NazionaleTarquiniense, a transcription of the krater’s inscription had not been undertaken prior to myexamination of the vase, which took place at the museum on 15 January 2014.


celebrates a pretty girl of that name.5 On a skyphos from Vulci today in the Cabinetdes Medailles (Fig. 4), the three-line, nearly stoichedon inscription between Eosand Tithonos (impossible to see in photographs) reads ΠΑΝΤΟ&ΕΝΑ ΚΑΛΑΚΟΡΙΝΘΟΙ, kala being a Doric form of kale.6 A skyphos fragment todayin Boston presents the more complicated scenario of a three-line preliminaryinscription under the glaze (ΠΑΝΤΟ&ΕΝΑ ΚΟΡΙΝ[Θ]ΟΙ ΚΑΛΗ) and anotherpainted over it after firing (ΠΑΝΤΟ&ΕΝΑ ΚΟΡΙΝ[Θ]ΟΙ ΗΟΡΙΑ ΚΑΛΑΙΣ).7

Henry Immerwahr identified the two inscriptions on the Boston fragment as beingby different hands and suggested that the final version reads “Pantoxena is ahandsome hen for Korinthos,” kalais being a Doric word for “hen.”8

From the surviving letters, three-line format, and stoichedon arrangement(the latter helping to determine the number of missing letters through spacing) theinscription on the Tarquinia krater can be reconstructed as follows:

P A N [T O] X S E N A

K ]O [ R I N Y O] I v vv v K [A L A ] v v v v

Because the Tarquinia inscription seems closest to the inscription on the Parisskyphos, albeit with inverted words, I have opted for kala in the reconstruction,but kale would also be a possibility as on the Boston fragment’s preliminaryinscription. Worth noting is the spelling of the xi-sound as ΧΣ in the Pantoxenaof the Tarquinia krater, which differs from the use of & on both the Parisskyphos and Boston fragment. ΧΣ is more typical of Attic script and spelling,whereas & was used in Ionic script and by many vase painters in Athens afterthe mid-fifth century.9 Xi was also used in Corinthian script, which may proveimportant, as we shall see.10 This discrepancy in the spelling of the namePantoxena should not be troubling, for one finds similar variations among differentspellings of the name Pistoxenos in the slightly earlier vases attributed to thePistoxenos Painter, P.S. Painter, and Epiktetos: here with an Ionic xi, therewith the Attic chi-sigma (the latter in one case spelled backwards).11 The three-

5. Matheson 1995: 120–21 on the painter generally.6. Cabinet des Medailles 846, BAPD 213628, Matheson 1995: 435, cat. no. PA1, and 120, pl.

102. Drawings of the inscription appear in de Ridder 1902: 498. Obverse: Eos chasing Tithonos, withDardanos and Priamos, all inscribed. Reverse: conversation scene with draped youths and drapedman.

7. Boston 10.224, from Piraeus, BAPD 213629, Matheson 1995: 435, cat. no. PA2, and 121,pl. 103. A drawing of the fragment showing the inscriptions appears in Immerwahr 1990: fig. 138.The scene depicts two fragmentary Thracian women to left and right and a falling figure in center,and has been interpreted as the death of Orpheus.

8. Immerwahr 1964: 21–24; Immerwahr 1990: 174, n. 6; Immerwahr 2007: 175–76. For the“hen” reference, see also ARV2 1050.2.

9. Immerwahr 1990: 152 on the appearance of xi on Attic vase inscriptions after mid-century.10. Jeffery 1990: 115.11. For which see Pevnick 2011: 143.


stroke Attic sigma was used elsewhere by the Pantoxena Painter and others inthe second half of the fifth century, even though by now the four-stroke sigma hadbecome more typical in Athenian state inscriptions.12 The left-aligned stoichedonarrangement of the letters would, however, imply a certain “awareness of officialscript.”13 One notes the use of stoichedon inscriptions by other contemporarypainters, namely the Achilles Painter, some of whose kalos-inscriptions includea patronymic for added pseudo-officiality.14 These latter kalos-inscriptions andthe Pantoxena Painter’s kale-inscriptions rank among the last examples of thistype of text on Athenian vases, a tradition among painters that had persistedfor decades but which may have fallen out of fashion with the Periklean radicaldemocracy.15

The meaning of the Pantoxena Painter’s inscriptions on the Paris skyphos(Fig. 4) and Boston fragment has been debated and has depended on each scholar’sinterpretation of Korinthoi, i.e., as referring to a place in the dative (the city ofCorinth) or to a person (Korinthos). Martin Robertson and others read the word aslocative, e.g., “Pantoxena is beautiful at Corinth,” and cite Corinth as “famousfor its prostitutes.”16 Henry Immerwahr, however, as noted above with the finalversion of the Boston fragment’s inscription, read Korinthos as a person; heunderstood the Boston fragment’s preliminary inscription and the Paris skyphosinscription as “Pantoxena is kale to Korinthos” or something similar.17 Of thetwo possibilities, the second seems more likely, especially given parallels citedby Immerwahr of two vases with kalos/kale inscriptions and a second personnamed in the dative as the handsome/pretty person’s admirer.18 This in turn opensinteresting albeit speculative scenarios. Korinthos and Pantoxena might haveboth been acquaintances of the painter, but given that “Korinthos” could implya foreigner in Athens (“the Corinthian”), one can perhaps go a step further andidentify him as the vase painter himself.19 It might not have been his real name but

12. Cf. Immerwahr 1990: 179.13. Immerwahr 2007: 166.14. For these see, e.g., Shapiro 1987 and Oakley 1997: 10–14.15. Cf. Shapiro 1987: 117–18, who notes the aristocratic undertones of the kalos inscriptions.

Shapiro also notes the Periklean Citizenship Law of 451/0 BC and its possible influence on boththe appearance and disappearance of the kalos inscriptions with patronymic.

16. Robertson 1992: 218. Cf. also S. G. Miller 2001: 87.17. Immerwahr 1964: 21–24 and Immerwahr 2007: 175–76.18. a) black-figured hydria attributed to the Taleides Painter, Louvre F38, BAPD 301126,

inscription: Andokides ka[l]os dokei; b) red-figured alabastron, London E718, BAPD 203141,inscription: Aphrodisia kale, tos dokei Euchiroi.

19. Cf. Immerwahr 1964: 24 without elaboration on this idea, also Webster 1972: 44 aboutthe Boston and Paris vases, “they seem to be a pair made by the vase painter for his lady friend.”While the Boston vase fragment was found in the Piraeus and therefore one assumes had a localowner (although without a known findspot, it could have been part of a vase deposit intended forexport from the port), the Paris vase was exported to Vulci; to accept Webster’s thesis that thesewere gifts to Pantoxena, one would either also have to accept his theory of the secondhand trade,or that the painter had changed his mind and sold the skyphos to a trader after all. Neither seems


an immigrant’s nickname, as has been suggested for potters and painters in Athenswith unusual nomenclature in epoisen and egrapsen inscriptions: Syriskos (“thelittle Syrian”), Lydos (“the Lydian”), Pistoxenos (“the trusty foreigner”), andseveral others.20 It would not be surprising to find an artisan and xenos metoikosof Corinthian birth in the Classical Kerameikos; Corinthian immigrants may havebeen working in Athenian ceramic workshops as early as the seventh century BC.21

The painter’s use of the Doric words kala and kalais, and perhaps even his use ofletter xi, may support this theory.22 As for Pantoxena, she is likely to be a hetaira,as all commentators thus far have agreed, with her name a nom de guerre perhapstranslatable to “friendly to all.”23 Is she someone the artisans of the Kerameikosknew well in their neighborhood? More speculatively still, is the painter’s choiceto place two of these inscriptions on scenes of Eos chasing Tithonos (the Parisskyphos) and the Thracian women attacking Orpheus (the Boston fragment) meantto be a jest about Pantoxena’s beauty, prowess, and tendency to be a femme fatale?

The inscription alone supports an attribution of the Tarquinia krater to thePantoxena Painter, but compositional and stylistic features of the vase confirmit: namely, comparanda to the four other vessels that have been given to thepainter thus far.24 The tidy placement of the stoichedon inscription between thetwo Nikai and above the head of the youth climbing the bema finds a parallel inthe equally tidy position of the nearly stoichedon inscription on the obverse of the

likely. Matheson 1995 identifies only five Polygnotan skyphoi, including the two by the PantoxenaPainter, and all but the Piraeus fragment seem to have been exported. Moreover, the Paris skyphos islarger in scale (height: 29.8 cm, diameter of mouth: 35.3 cm), which while not exclusive to vasesexported to Etruscan communities, seems to have been favored there. It remains unclear why somany vases made by Athenian workshops and exported to Etruria, many surely intended for exportall along (or at least expected to be sold to traders for export), were given kalos and kale inscriptions.

20. For recent discussion of foreigners (both non-Attic and non-Greek) in the Kerameikos, seePevnick 2011, especially 23–49 with further references and 215 for the most recent list of likely non-Athenian potters and painters. “Korinthos” as a name is not attested in Attica until the Hellenisticand Roman periods (Fraser and Matthews 1996: 270–71), but it is attested in Argos in the laterfifth century, so did exist in the Classical period (Fraser and Matthews 1997: 255). For the use ofcity names as personal names, namely for immigrants residing elsewhere who perhaps wished tocommemorate their birthplace, see Fraser 2009: 215–24.

21. See, e.g., Papadopoulos 2009 with further references. If this identification is correct, it is allthe more striking to find a non-Athenian signing himself “the Corinthian” after the passage of thePeriklean Citizenship Law (451/0 BC), which limited full citizenship to children of Athenian-bornfathers and mothers, perhaps in response to the large influx of metics into the city after the PersianWars (cf. Patterson 2007 with earlier references). Proud defiance in the form of a vase inscription?

22. Herbert 1977: 4 interpreted the Pantoxena Painter’s vases as “especially inscribed for aDorian, possibly a Corinthian” on the basis of the Doric word forms, but this theory is negated by thefact that of his now five attributed vases, four went to Italy and the fifth stayed nearby in the Piraeus.

23. I thank editor Mark Griffith for this suggestion.24. The Paris skyphos and Boston fragment cited above, plus: a) calyx krater with satyr, maenad,

and herm on obverse, draped youths on reverse, from Camarina (necropolis of Passo Marinaro, tomb400, used as a cinerary urn for a youth), Syracuse 22934, BAPD 213631, Matheson 1995: 435,cat. no. PA4 and 121, pl. 104; Giudice 2010: 138–39, cat. no. L37; and Oakley 2011: 128–29;and b) calyx krater fragment from Gela with Theseus and the Minotaur, London E509.4, BAPD213630, Matheson 1995: 435, cat. no. PA3.


Paris skyphos (Fig. 4), between the heads of Eos and Tithonos (their names alsoinscribed). The wings of Eos on the Paris skyphos, meanwhile, recall those of bothNikai on the Tarquinia krater—stippled on the top half, feathers more carefullydelineated as vertical panels in the bottom half—while Eos’ hairstyle, headdress,and earring are identical to those of the right-hand Nike on the latter vase. Therendering of the profile, eye, chin, and hair of the young man climbing the bemais reminiscent of Tithonos on the Paris skyphos obverse, as well as the youngdraped males on the Paris skyphos reverse (Fig. 5). The Paris skyphos reversealso features a half-balding man with pointed beard, who echoes the similar figurefacing right on the Tarquinia krater reverse (Fig. 2). Although these two maleslook satyr-like (and indeed, one can compare a satyr on the calyx krater attributedto the Pantoxena Painter in Syracuse), they seem to be ordinary men of a certainage, each holding a staff, represented in a common stock scene. One should alsohighlight the fact that two of the four vases attributed to the Pantoxena Painterare calyx kraters (the Syracuse krater and a fragment in London), while three ofthe four have Italian findspots—Camarina (Syracuse), Gela (London), and Vulci(Paris)—with the fourth vase said to be from Piraeus near Athens (Boston).

ICONOGRAPHY AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT

With the attribution established to the Pantoxena Painter, and by extensionto the Polygnotan workshop and a date of ca. 440 BC, one can turn to the un-usual iconography of the Tarquinia krater’s obverse scene (Fig. 1), which findsno parallel among known Attic vases, and consider both the representation it-self and its larger context. The two Nikai bearing prizes and wreathed youthmounting a bema suggest from the outset a young victor in an agon, or contest.On surviving vases of the second half of the fifth century, including those pro-duced by the Polygnotan workshop, Nikai appear in scenes related to athleticcompetitions (gymnikoi agones), equestrian contests (hippikoi agones), and mu-sical contests (mousikoi agones).25 Victorious musicians from these latter agonesas represented on vases include kitharodes or kitharists with their instruments,auletai (aulos or pipe players who performed instrumental compositions with-out vocal accompaniment), and participants in aulodic contests (aulos playersaccompanied by singers). Winners in most of the athletic, equestrian, and mu-sical agones appear on both surviving red-figured vessels and the black-figuredPanathenaic amphorae that continued to be produced in Athens to commemo-rate the festival of that name.26 In the sole publication of the Tarquinia krateruntil this point, the Scavo nello scavo catalogue of 2004, Daniela Rizzo fa-

25. See Thone 1999: 77–96 for discussion and 141–45 for catalogue.26. Panathenaic amphorae do not seem to have been awarded as prizes in the mousikoi agones,

but one example with a prize inscription and a kitharodic contest scene does survive, for which seebelow.


vored the identification of the youth as an athlete in her brief commentary: “Lascena figurata, sobriamente composta, narra la premiazione di un giovane, prob-abilmente un atleta, alla presenza del giudice di gara, che segue la cerimoniaseduto.”27

Identifying to which agon the Pantoxena Painter’s young victor belongs—athlete or otherwise—becomes a process of elimination focused on iconographicdetails. The two male figures to left and right are likely best identified as judges(athlothetai); similar characters appear in all manner of agon scenes. Each has anattribute attesting to his authority: the figure to left holds a long, straight staff, andthe figure to right sits upon a klismos, both common choices for athlothetai infifth-century iconography.28 Much of the upper half of the seated man is missing,but it is clear that he held no staff and was probably shown wrapped in hishimation. Comparisons can be found in the seated and bearded male judge ona slightly later calyx krater in the manner of the Peleus Painter, likewise from thePolygnotan workshop and depicting a kitharodic contest (Fig. 6), as well as theright-hand, seated male figure—presumably a judge although beardless—on thesingle known black-figured Panathenaic amphora with kitharodic contest, fromperhaps the 420s.29 On the Pantoxena Painter’s krater, the proximity of the right-hand Nike to the seated judge, which does not allow room for a staff, would makethis posture and costume the best possibility. He was probably bearded like themajority of athlothetai on Athenian vases prior to the fourth century, although thecited Panathenaic prize amphora leaves open the possibility that he was beardless.

The standing figure to left, meanwhile, is definitely beardless—less commonthan bearded figures for images of judges or athlothetai but, as noted above, notunprecedented.30 Given the similarity between his costume and the young man

27. In Moretti Sgubini 2004: 260.28. If the figure to left were leaning upon a staff as opposed to holding it, he would more likely

be a casual spectator than a judge/athlothetes. Similarly, a knobbly stick as opposed to a straightstaff would be more indicative of a casual spectator, possibly of elite status (a “privileged citizenabout town,” as described in Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006: 142); cf., e.g., red-figured amphora bythe Dikaios Painter from Vulci, London E254, BAPD 200166, Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006: 161, fig.53. Stansbury-O’Donnell (2006: 142) notes that bearded male figures who stand upright and holda staff straight and out in front of them first appear in the last quarter of the sixth century, nearly all in“music, palaistra, or athletic contexts.” Seated spectator figures likewise first occur in sixth-centuryiconography (Stansbury-O’Donnell 2006: 144). It is admittedly difficult to be certain in many musicand athletic scenes whether one is seeing an actual judge or an elite spectator; however, when figuresof Nike or other motifs indicate victory in a contest along with attributes like a straight staff orklismos, identifying these figures as judges or athlothetai seems like a safe choice.

29. Calyx krater: London E460 (ex Hamilton collection, from Gela), BAPD 213525, Matheson1995: 442, cat. no. PEM3; Bundrick 2005: 169, fig. 99. Panathenaic prize amphora: Hermitage17794, from Tanais, BAPD 303118, Kotsidu 1991: 295, cat. no. P17; Bentz 1998: 152, cat. no.5.179. At 54 cm in height, the latter is undersized but does have the prize inscription, raisingquestions about its usage given that the fourth-century sources do not mention olive oil as a prizein the mousikoi agones.

30. It is not known what ages the athlothetai would have been in the fifth century, althoughfourth-century evidence suggests they were older than thirty, Rhodes 1981: 116. Harrison 1996:


climbing the bema, one would be tempted to identify him as another competitorin the agon, were it not for the staff in his hand: no ordinary, plain staff, butinstead one that thickens and separates at the top, with a slight curve. Staffs witha prominent fork are held by judges or trainers in athletic and musical contestscenes from the sixth and early fifth centuries, but as Panos Valavanis and oth-ers have observed, the staffs of athlothetai change shape to subtler variationslike this one after the mid-fifth century.31 They are held by judges at athleticcontests, as Valavanis and John Oakley have both stressed. To choose exam-ples from the later fifth century, a red-figured bell krater attributed to the NikiasPainter includes two athlothetai with these staffs supervising a long jump—abearded one at center and beardless one at right—while a black-figured Pana-thenaic prize amphora attributed to the Robinson Group from ca. 430 BC featuresa single bearded athlothetes with staff observing a wrestling match.32 Theserenderings make clear that the staffs are foliate, although whether they repre-sent palms, reeds, or some other plant remains a point of debate.33 In somefourth-century representations, the same staffs are held by athletes themselvesand seem to be tokens of victory.34 This second scenario does not seem tobe the case on the Tarquinia krater, for the central youth is a clear victor andthe painter would be unlikely to show two winners of a single contest withoutmore clarity.

The foliate staffs of the later fifth and fourth centuries BC are not uniqueto athletic contests; in other words, the staff alone cannot secure the victor onthe Pantoxena Painter’s krater as a participant in one of the gymnikoi agones.One can compare, for instance, the mousikos agon on a red-figured bell kraterattributed to the Painter of Munich 2335, found in the Certosa necropolis ofBologna: here, the bearded judge seated on the klismos before a bearded kithar-ode holds a long staff that thickens at the top and seems to be a more schematicrendition of those seen in athletic images.35 Similar staffs, although not as ar-ticulated, are held by standing judges in four contemporary scenes typicallyidentified as aulodic contests, with an aulos player and singer standing upon a

201 and 212n.10 suggests, in rebuttal to B. Nagy’s (1992) suggestion that athlothetai are shownon the Parthenon frieze, that beardless figures on the frieze could not represent athlothetai. However,with regard to vase paintings, one must keep in mind the trend toward youthfulness in the second halfof the fifth century, as for instance the portrayal of bridegrooms at this time as young men whencustom meant they were likely older. Vase painters’ tendency to show figures as bearded or beardlesswas often inconsistent and may not be demonstrative of actual practice.

31. E.g., Valavanis 1990: 345; Kratzmuller 2001; Oakley 2007: 82.32. Bell krater: Vienna 1034, BAPD 217464, cited in Oakley 2007: 82n.10. Panathenaic prize

amphora: Robinson Collection, University of Mississippi Collection at Oxford, 1960.55.3, BAPD303113.

33. Palms, e.g., Valavanis 1990: 345 and Oakley 2007: 82. Reeds: Kratzmuller 2001.34. E.g., Louvre MNB706, from Benghazi, BAPD 303149, Oakley 2007: 84, fig. 5.35. Bologna 314, BAPD 215379, Castaldo 1993: 31, cat. no. 68. Castaldo identifies the staff

here as “una palma.”


bema (Fig. 7).36 Although three of the judges in these latter scenes, includingthe illustrated example, are bearded, the fourth is beardless like the comparablefigure on the Tarquinia krater; so too a beardless, standing judge in a fifth aulodiccontest scene.37

As one considers the many scenes on Athenian vases that show a bema inthe context of an agon, none depicts an athletic contest, as discussed furtherbelow. Moreover, in every confirmed scene in which an athlete receives aprize, he not only stands upon the ground but is shown nude.38 An examplefrom the Polygnotan workshop is a red-figured pelike attributed to the PeleusPainter in Taranto: the young, nude athlete stands to the left of the scene,where he is crowned by a Nike standing upon a post or altar.39 Facing him isa taller, bearded man wearing a himation and clutching a staff, lifting his chinwith open mouth as if publicly proclaiming the victory. A second young, nudeathlete at the right of the scene is similarly lauded by a second Nike standingupon a second post or altar. From slightly later comes the Nikias Painter’sname vase in the British Museum, a red-figured bell krater where the (againnude) winner in a torch race stands beside an altar and is lauded by an olderathlothetes with staff who proclaims the victory with open mouth and upturnedhead.40 Numerous similar examples exist from the earliest athletic scenes inthe sixth century BC down into the fourth. Not only should one expect thePantoxena Painter’s young victor to be nude if he were an athlete, but clearlythe modern Olympic trope of mounting a platform to receive an award wasnot part of ancient Athenian practice or at least not ancient Athenian vaseiconography.

The bema appears largely in scenes related to musical contests, but even inthese images, the bema signifies the place of performance and not the acquisition

36. Pelike attributed to the Painter of Oxford 529, from Kameiros (Rhodes), London E354,BAPD 214813; pelike attributed to the Kassel Painter, from Greece, Leiden ROII60, BAPD 214557;unattributed column krater, from Spina, Ferrara T715VT (2996), Berti and Restani 1988: 74, cat. no.19, BAPD 31649; column krater attributed to the Orpheus Painter, from Spina, Ferrara 2813 (T392),BAPD 216175. Aulodic contests: e.g., Vos 1986, Shapiro 1992: 60–61, Bundrick 2005: 170–71.

37. Beardless judges in aulodic contests: Ferrara 2813 (above, n.36) and see also a columnkrater attributed to the Orestes Painter, Baranello, Museo Civico 86, BAPD 10231. A beardlessfigure with staff likewise watches the aulodic contest on a bell krater in Oxford, but because heleans upon the staff rather than holds it authoritatively, he could be a casual spectator instead ofa judge (Oxford 1960.1220, attributed to the Kadmos Painter, BAPD 215713).

38. Charioteers wear robes in Athenian athletic imagery, but they differ from the carefullywrapped himation on the Tarquinia krater; moreover, one would expect the painter to include anactual chariot for clarity. Cf., e.g., amphora by the Peleus Painter with Nike bringing a Panathenaicamphora to a charioteer who is mid-race, Athens, Agora Museum P9486, BAPD 213516, Matheson1995: 440, cat. no. PE22.

39. Taranto 52368, BAPD 213513, Matheson 1995: 439, cat. no. PE19; G. A. Maruggi ind’Amicis et al. 1997: 344–46, cat. no. 121.1.

40. London 98.7–16.6, BAPD 217462.


of victory.41 More specifically, to represent a musician mounting the bema wasto show him in the last moments before the performance began, with numerousexamples surviving from the late sixth century BC into the late fifth. The presenceof Nike or multiple Nikai became more frequent as the fifth century progressed.Close in time to the Pantoxena Painter’s krater and from the same Polygnotanworkshop is the calyx krater in the manner of the Peleus Painter noted above(Fig. 6), where the action is synoptically compressed: the kitharode has notbegun playing, and yet the Nikai with phiale and fillet respectively assure theviewer that he will prevail.42 Like the youth on the Pantoxena Painter’s krater,this performer is both framed and highlighted by the compositional elementsaround him, although his downward gaze—the line of his body in turn echoingthe curves of his instrument—appears perhaps more modest. In other cases, itis not clear that victory will be attained, as on the black-figured Panathenaicprize amphora cited earlier where two judges watch the kitharode but no Nikaiappear, or a red-figured pelike attributed to the Pan Painter where the kitharodemounts the bema alone.43 Vase painters seem to have liked showing kitharaplayers in this particular posture and moment in time, since the majority ofsurviving representations depict these musicians. Among the fewer than fifteenexamples with mortal musicians stepping onto the bema, only two representauletai.44 Of particular interest among black-figured scenes are the approximatelytwenty that present Herakles as kitharode mounting the bema and preparing toperform, discussed further below.45

The bema and climbing posture on the Pantoxena Painter’s krater challengean interpretation of the youth as victorious athlete; however, the lack of musicalinstrument poses a difficulty. One would expect to see a kithara or aulos asattribute, or if he were a young singer participating in an aulodic contest, theinclusion of an aulete to accompany him (compare Fig. 7).46 Fortunately, the

41. A noteworthy exception is a hydria attributed to the Niobid Painter, in which a femalebarbitos player sits upon a bema in what could otherwise be interpreted as a domestic setting—not an“official” contest, but the bema gives it the trappings of one: Solow Art and Architecture Foundation,BAPD 11020, Bundrick 2005: 93, fig. 57. Another exception is a debated red-figured cup attributedto the Kiss Painter, where the young nude figure on the interior standing upon a bema could be astatue as easily as a living person: John Hopkins University Museum B5/1784, BAPD 201626.

42. See above, n.29.43. See above, n.29 for the prize amphora. Pan Painter pelike: Solow Art and Architecture

Foundation, BAPD 2460, Bundrick 2005: 167, fig. 98. The fact that the performance has notyet begun is made clear on the pelike by the kitharode’s tuning his instrument as he climbs theplatform. The inscription kalos on the bema’s upper step announces his worthiness without a visualproclamation of victory.

44. Louvre G103, red-figured calyx krater by Euphronios from Cerveteri, BAPD 200064,Bundrick 2005: 163, fig. 97; London 1910.6–15.1, red-figured pelike with two aulos players (thesynaulia contest?) attributed to the Painter of Athens 1183, BAPD 214855.

45. For these scenes generally, see Schauenburg 1979; Kotsidu 1991: 113–14; Shapiro 1992:70; Bundrick 2005: 160–61; Power 2010: 285–93, and further references below.

46. Compare also a bell krater by the Kadmos Painter, Oxford 1960.1220, BAPD 215713;Bundrick 2005: 171, fig. 100.


program of the Panathenaic festival—with which the Pantoxena Painter wouldpresumably have been most familiar and drawn upon for his representation—offers an additional possibility, unmentioned thus far because the event has not yetbeen identified on a vase of this period: a rhapsode, who performed portions of theHomeric poems without singing them and without any musical accompaniment.47

Although in modern scholarship rhapsodic contests tend to be discussed separatelyfrom their counterparts for kithara and aulos, in Classical Athens they were justas much part of the mousikoi agones—mousike as a Greek word encompassingmore than the English word “music” and including “arts of the Muses” of allkinds.48 This conception of rhapsodia is made clear in the opening lines of Plato’sIon, in which Sokrates encounters a young rhapsode en route to the Panathenaia(530a):

Sok.: Greetings, Ion. Where from on this present visit? Your home inEphesus?Ion: No, Sokrates, from Epidaurus and the festival of Asclepius.Sok.: You don’t mean the Epidaurians also offer the god a contest ofrhapsodes?Ion: They do indeed, and the other branches of music and poetry too.49

The dialogue even references the use of the bema in rhapsodic competition, asIon describes looking down at spectators (535e). The visual resemblance betweenthe Tarquinia krater’s scene and contemporary images of other mousikoi agonessuggests that the Pantoxena Painter thought of them equitably and ranked thisyoung man among kitharodes, auletes, and singers.

Unfortunately, little is known of the Panathenaic rhapsodic contests, exceptfor what can be deduced from later sources. Plato’s Ion takes place during the latefifth century, which implies the agon’s inclusion in the program at that time, but itis thought to have been introduced to the Panathenaia earlier, perhaps close tothe alleged foundation (more likely, reorganization) of the festival in 566 BC. Thesources suggest significant reforms to the contest ca. 522 BC, during the time ofHipparchos, one of the sons of Peisistratos, with the pseudo-Platonic dialogueHipparchos claiming he was “the first to bring over to this land [Athens] thepoetic utterances of Homer, and he forced the rhapsodes of the Panathenaia togo through these utterances in sequence, by relay, just as they do even nowadays”(Hipp. 228b–c).50 Since rhapsodia already existed as a contest, this statementis taken by some scholars to mean that Hipparchos played a role in bringing

47. For the Panathenaic rhapsodia, see, e.g., Ford 1988; Kotsidu 1991: 41–44; Shapiro 1992:72–75; Shapiro 1993; Boyd 1994; Shear 2001: 365–68; Collins 2001a, 2001b; G. Nagy 2002 (withreferences to earlier work by Nagy); West 2010: 3–5; G. Nagy 2012; and Rotstein 2012: 102–106, allwith other references.

48. E.g., Rotstein 2012: 94, among other references.49. Trans. in Allen 1996: 9.50. Trans. G. Nagy 2002: 9–10, and cf. also discussion of the so-called Panathenaic Regulation

of performance in G. Nagy 2012: 21–23 (also known elsewhere as the Panathenaic Rule).


authoritative versions of the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey to Athens from Ionia.51

The second part is often interpreted as referencing the organization of the contest,with rhapsodes performing one after another, perhaps proclaiming parts of agiven text in sequence.52 Exactly how this worked remains unknown, but theword rhapsode—first attested in the fifth century, although surely an older term—appears to derive from rhapto and aoide, and may thus relate to the mode ofperformance (“he who stitches the song”).53 Recent scholarship has stressed theflexibility as opposed to fixity of the performances, at least in the early centuriesof the contest; instead of reciting a memorized text word for word the same wayeach time, more likely rhapsodes had the freedom to embellish or even improvisethe Homeric passages.54

Further evidence for the administration of the rhapsodic agon is scanty. Thepseudo-Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians must surely include the con-test as it lists mousikoi agones among the Panathenaic events and describesthe ten athlothetai who oversaw all the festival games and arranged for prizes(60.1–3).55 Athlothetai are first attested by this name in the sources for ca.446 BC, in the time of Perikles, although some manner of leadership and over-sight surely existed earlier.56 Most intriguing is the fragmentary inscription from

51. Shapiro 1992: 72–73, for instance, argues for taking the statement as historical fact; G.Nagy 2002: 13 will not rule it out but suggests caution.

52. Exactly how the rhapsodes performed “by relay” is debated, i.e., whether they performedpassages that were consecutive in the Homeric texts, each rhapsode picking up where the previoushad left off, or whether “by relay” simply meant one single performer following the next, thereforedifferent from a chorus. It does not seem that an entire epic could have been presented in oneagon; rather, key passages familiar to listeners may have been forefronted. G. Nagy 2012: 22emphasizes the “ritualistic nature of the regulation of rhapsodic competitions” and suggests that“rhapsodes collaborate as well as compete in the process of performing, by relay, successive partsof integral compositions like the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey.” West 2010: 3 suggests rhapsodesbeing “organized into a team and assigned their portions of text,” but notes that individual winnerscould still be chosen as competitors were judged against one another. One cannot completely rule outthe possibility that the figure at left on the Tarquinia krater is a second performer in the “relay”;however, his different wreath and position and pose similar to the athlothetai in aulodic contestscenes speak against it.

53. “He who stitches the song,” Collins 2001b: 12–13, and see also Ford 1988: 303; Shapiro1992: 72; and West 2010: 2. This explanation of the word comes from one of the scholia to PindarNem. 2.1–3, whereas another of the scholia claims that the term derives from rhabdos, or staff(Sch. ad. Nem. 2.1c 29–30, cited in Collins 2001b: 13). Scholars formerly accepted the rhabdosetymology but most now discount it, with Ford 1988: 300 for instance stating that it is “phonologicallyimpossible.” Fifth-century appearances of the word, e.g., Herodotos 5.67.1 and Sophokles OedipusTyrannos 391, as noted in Ford 1988: 300 and West 2010: 2–3.

54. As stressed for instance in Collins 2001a, 2001b.55. Translation in, e.g., G. Nagy 2002: 40–41.56. Periklean reforms, see below. For athlothetai at the Panathenaia generally, see Shear 2001:

455–63. Shear argues that at some point in the fifth century, the athlothetai attained greater controlover the festival compared to the hieropoioi, but the date of this change remains unknown. Ifathlothetai did indeed grow in their responsibilities, that might explain their greater visibilityin athletic, musical, and other contest scenes, especially in those also including Nikai grantingprizes.


ca. 380 BC that lists several of the Panathenaic events and their prizes (IG II2

2311).57 Mostly missing lines above the list of five prizes for the kitharodesindicate an event that had three prizes; although the reconstruction has beendebated, the most recent readings place rhapsodes here in the inscription.58 Ifthis is correct, then listing rhapsodes first may indicate the prestige of thiscompetition within the Panathenaia. In current reconstructions of the festi-val program, all the mousikoi agones are thought to have taken place on thefirst day.59

As for the winnings, from the Panathenaic prize inscription one can inferthree prizes for the top rhapsodes, with only part of the first-prize line remainingand suggesting a stephanos perhaps made of gold, whose worth in drachmas ismissing from the text. Based on the number and types of prizes listed elsewhere inthe inscription, the rhapsodic contest would appear to have been more prestigiousand with more valuable prizes than both the auletic and aulodic contests, butless prestigious than the kitharodic and kitharistic agones, at least in the fourthcentury. The kitharodic agon, seemingly the most prestigious of all because theperformer both played his instrument and sang, had five winners with prizes thatsurpassed the rest in value, first prize being a gold stephanos worth 1000 drachmastogether with a cash prize of 500 silver drachmas. The kitharistic contest had threeprizes like the rhapsodia, but the first-place winner seems to have won a 300-drachma cash prize along with a stephanos worth 500 drachmas, whereas theinscription leaves no room for a cash prize for the winning rhapsode, only acrown. The aulodic and auletic contests, meanwhile, offered two prizes apiece;first prize for the men’s aulodic contest was a stephanos worth 300 drachmas. AsAndrea Rotstein has recently discussed, this prize hierarchy—kitharode, kitharist,rhapsode, aulodic singer and musician, solo aulos player—is consistent acrossother known contests with known prizes and seems to encapsulate contemporaryattitudes toward the different events and musical and poetic genres.60 It is criticalto keep in mind, though, that the evidence for prizes is all fourth-century and later,and so cannot necessarily be taken as indicative of fifth-century attitudes.

Despite the apparent high visibility of rhapsodes at the Panathenaia, recog-nizing them on surviving Athenian vases has proven difficult. This is primarilybecause scenes like the Pantoxena Painter’s that depict a figure suggestive ofa rhapsode with the trappings of victory—unambiguously establishing the rep-resented event as part of a festival program—are otherwise nonexistent. AlanShapiro has made a strong case for finding rhapsodes on a group of sixth-century

57. The inscription is discussed in detail in, e.g., Neils 1992b: 15–16 and Rotstein 2012:103–106, with other references.

58. E.g., Shear 2003: 103–105, West 2010: 4, and Rotstein 2012: 103.59. E.g., Neils 1992b: 15, and cf. Boyd 1994: 110.60. Rotstein 2012; note for instance a comparative table of known prizes on p. 113. Thus a

decree from the festival of Artemis at Eretria establishing musical contests (ca. 340 BC, IG XII 9.189)gives the three top prizes for rhapsodes as 120 drachmas, 50, and 20 respectively.


black-figured vases using other criteria, the earliest example being the reverseof a pseudo-Panathenaic amphora from ca. 540 BC (Fig. 8).61 Although not aprize amphora because it lacks the official inscription, the shape of the vaseand the Athena-between-columns on the obverse call to mind the Panathenaicfestival, an impression furthered by the scene itself, which includes a stand-ing, bearded man in center with a staff, flanked by two bearded men seated ondiphroi. Even without a bema, the composition recalls contemporary scenes ofmousikoi agones, for instance a pseudo-Panathenaic amphora with aulodic contestattributed to the Princeton Painter.62 As Shapiro notes with regard to the Liverpoolamphora, “it is difficult to see what else this man could be if not a rhapsode.”63

The flanking seated figures on this vase, however, are less obviously athlothetaisuch as those seen on the Pantoxena Painter’s krater and are more likely ele-gant, elite spectators. Shapiro draws attention to the flower held by the man atright, which recalls the flower-bearing audience members of some contemporaryscenes of musical contest, like the aforementioned amphora by the PrincetonPainter.

A second black-figured pseudo-Panathenaic amphora identified by Shapiroas representing a rhapsode is slightly later in date (ca. 520 BC), attributed to theRed-line Painter, and is said to come from Orvieto.64 All three bearded men in thisreverse scene stand, but the central figure is given clear prominence through abema (one step rather than two), wreath, and staff with small crook at the top.65

The bema and vase shape both lend credence to the identification of a Panathenaicrhapsode, who in this case appears to be mid-performance. The left-hand figureseems engaged by the goings-on as he extends his hand in an apparent appreciativeresponse; his forked staff may mark him as a judge, as noted earlier. The right-hand spectator, meanwhile, leans upon his staff in a posture of studied leisure,appropriate for the elite status he presumably holds.

A final black-figured scene with likely rhapsode, according to Shapiro, ap-pears on a pelike from the last quarter of the sixth century, said to be near the

61. Liverpool, World Museum 56.19.18: BAPD 43332; Shapiro 1992: 74–75, figs. 51a–b;Shapiro 1993: 98–102, figs. 26–27.

62. New York 1989.281.89 (ca. 540 BC), BAPD 42104, Neils 1992a: 155, cat. no. 18.63. Shapiro 1993: 100.64. Oldenburg, Stadtmuseum XII.8250.2: BAPD 4662; Shapiro 1992: 74 and fig. 50; Shapiro

1993: 98 and 100, fig. 25; Scholz 2010: 60–63. The rhapsode identification for this vase is alsoaccepted in Vos 1986: 122 and Kotsidu 1991: 294, cat. no. P6.

65. As noted above, the word rhapsode used to be thought a derivation from rhabdos, or staff,but has since been shown to derive from rhaptein, to sew or stitch together (e.g., Ford 1988: 300).In his discussion of this and other vases with alleged rhapsodes, Shapiro nonetheless describes thedepicted staff as a rhabdos and notes that even without the etymological connection, “it is still quitepossible that the rhabdos was a regular attribute of the rhapsode, a token of his itinerant career”(Shapiro 1993: 95). I contend that even if Shapiro is correct in suggesting the rhapsode in theblack-figured scenes he discusses is given a distinctive staff, because rhapsodia is not derived fromrhabdos, the absence of such a staff (as on the Tarquinia krater) does not rule out the possibilityof a rhapsode being depicted.


Acheloos Painter, with original provenience unknown.66 Unlike the previous twoexamples, the shape itself does not provide strong evidence; however, as Shapironotes, scenes of performances were unusually popular for pelikai in both blackand red figure, especially kitharodic concerts or contests.67 The obverse scene, aGigantomachy, prominently depicts the goddess Athena and by extension evokesher festival.68 On the reverse, a bearded figure who seems to be mid-performancestands in the center of the composition on a low bema, framed by a standing lis-tener at left and seated listener on a diphros at right. Like the left-hand spectator onthe pseudo-Panathenaic amphora in Oldenburg, the listener at right stretches out ahand as if reacting to the performance. He holds a staff in a somewhat authoritativeposition; however, it is unclear whether he is a judge or casual audience member.Completing the scene is a dog at left beside the standing man, chewing a bone. Allthree male figures are bearded as in both previous examples, suggesting their ageand status in the community.

In his discussion of these black-figured scenes, Shapiro noted their signifi-cance within the broader chronology of rhapsodic competition at the Panathenaia.The Liverpool amphora, for instance (Fig. 8), with its date of ca. 540 BC, im-plies that rhapsodic agones were incorporated early into the Panathenaic programjust as has been postulated for other mousikoi agones, perhaps even soon afterthe festival’s supposed inception or reorganization in 566 BC.69 The Oldenburgamphora and Dunedin pelike, meanwhile, date after the alleged changes given tothe contest by Hipparchos discussed above. The appearance of rhapsodic scenesat this time may support the idea that Hipparchos had enacted some kind of reformand reinvigorated the event to public acclaim.70 Similar ideas have been arguedfor the distinctive scenes of Herakles as kitharode that occur from ca. 530 BC untilthe end of the century: in some examples the hero mounts a bema, as mentionedearlier, while in others he performs either standing or seated, with or without abema.71 Often he is accompanied by Athena, his divine patroness, sometimes byadditional deities like Hermes or Dionysos.72 The confinement of these scenes,

66. Dunedin E48.226, BAPD 302889; Shapiro 1989: 46 and pl. 22a–c; Shapiro 1997: 66, figs.6–7. The rhapsode identification for this vase is likewise accepted in Vos 1986: 122 and Kotsidu1991: 303, cat. no. V12.

67. Shapiro 1993: 98 and see further discussion in Shapiro 1997.68. Cf. a black-figured amphora in the Museo Civico of Orvieto (found in a tomb at the Crocifisso

del Tufo necropolis), which can perhaps be attributed to the Painter of Berlin 1686, with group ofprocessing kitharodes on the reverse and Gigantomachy on the obverse, BAPD 24089. I believeit likely that these kithara players were intended by the painter to be associated with the Panathenaicprocession or else the mousikoi agones.

69. Shapiro 1993: 98–103.70. Shapiro 1992: 72–75 and Shapiro 1993.71. See the references above, n.45, as well as Boardman 1988: 810–17 (with catalogue); Goulaki

Voutira 1992: 2–5; and Heuck Allen 1999: 27–33, discussing a previously unpublished example.72. E.g., black-figured amphora attributed to the Leagros Group in which Herakles stands upon a

bema with his kithara as Athena and Hermes both watch: Worcester 1966.63, BAPD 1986, Bundrick2005: 161, fig. 95.


many so evocative of the mousikoi agones, to a particular period has inspiredcomparison to Hipparchos and the Kulturpolitik of the Peisistratid regime.73 Anyimplication that vase painters were parroting Peisistratid propaganda via a trickle-down effect is probably misguided; the ceramic industry does not seem to haveworked that way, and some vases may date after Hipparchos’ assassination in 514BC. However, it is surely correct to see in both these and contemporary rhapsodicimages a desire to assert Athens as a rising star of mousike in the Greek world asemblematized in the Panathenaic mousikoi agones, challenging the preeminenceof the Pythian Games at Delphi and other festivals.74

If properly identified as showing a rhapsode, the Pantoxena Painter’s krater(Fig. 1) brings representation of these contests into the Classical period, providinga chronological bridge that leads to fourth-century sources such as Plato’s Ion(whose action takes place in the late fifth century, as noted previously) and thePanathenaic prize inscription. Its approximate date of ca. 440 BC places it at aparticularly noteworthy time for the mousikoi agones. Plutarch’s later biographygrants Perikles a critical role (13.11): “Perikles, seeking acclaim, decreed firstthat a contest in music [mousike] be held at the Panathenaia, and when he hadhimself been chosen as athlothetes he prescribed how they should compete inpiping, singing, and playing the kithara. Then and thereafter they used to watchthe music competitions [mousikoi agones] in the Odeion.”75 Although Plutarchdoes not mention the rhapsodic contest, the phrase mousikoi agones implies thatit was included. However, he was wrong to credit Perikles with the brand-newintroduction of mousikoi agones, since ample iconographic evidence exists fortheir prior institution; more likely, Perikles reorganized the existing contests,perhaps by adding or removing events, changing the prizes awarded, the rules,their oversight, etc.76 Plutarch states earlier in his text that the construction of theOdeion on the south side of the Akropolis was credited to Perikles (cf. Perikles13.9–10), so at the very least the performances had a new venue.77 The PantoxenaPainter’s rhapsode can perhaps be imagined in that structure, which was mostlikely built before the Panathenaia of 446/5 BC.78

73. Most famously by John Boardman, e.g., in Boardman 1975: 10–11 and Boardman 1984:245–46.

74. Cf., e.g., Shapiro 1992, Bundrick 2005: 160–61, and Power 2010: 285–93 (who suggeststhat Herakles is/will be singing of his own exploits, namely the Gigantomachy). Shapiro 1989:159–60 notes the relevance of these scenes to Herakles as a patron of gymnasia and symbol of thearchaia paideia, similarly Goulaki Voutira 1992: 4.

75. Trans. M. C. Miller 1997: 222.76. Cf. Shapiro 1992: 57; Bundrick 2005: 171; and Power 2010: 427.77. Despite Vitruvius crediting Themistokles with the construction of the Odeion (5.9.1), recent

scholarship accepts the attribution to Perikles, e.g., M.C. Miller 1997: 218–42; Mosconi 2000;Bundrick 2005: 172 with earlier references; and Power 2010: 545–49.

78. Cf., e.g., Boyd 1994: 113 and West 2010: 4 on rhapsodic agones possibly being held inthe Odeion. Despite Plutarch’s helpful description of this building, the material remains do not allowfor precise determination of some of its features, namely whether it was open on the sides or how the


The Pantoxena Painter’s scene features marked differences from the sixth-century images identified as rhapsodic agones which are consistent with fifth-century iconographic and stylistic tendencies. Prize-granting Nikai, for instance,first appear in musical contest scenes around mid-century, on vases attributed to theworkshop of the Niobid Painter.79 The rhapsode here is also beardless, in contrastto the three black-figured vases discussed above. On the one hand, beardlessnessis more prevalent in Classical-period iconography generally—even some divineand heroic figures like Dionysos and Achilles lose their beards—which seems toreflect a contemporary idealization of youthfulness. In contest scenes of kitharaand aulos players, more beardless performers are found compared to sixth-centuryexamples, too.80 As far as the rhapsodic contests specifically are concerned,the ages of competitors are unknown, but it is unlikely that this rhapsode isyounger than eighteen, despite his shorter stature that allows for placementof the inscription and a pleasing composition. If rhapsodia and its prizes arecorrectly reconstructed as the opening lines of the IG II2 2311 Panathenaic prizeinscription, there is room only for a single contest for men, not two for menand boys respectively, at least in the fourth century.81 As with the contest forkitharoidia, where there was similarly only one contest for andres, men fromtheir late teens upward competed together in the rhapsodic agon, making eithera bearded or beardless performer plausible in a scene.82

The costume of the Pantoxena Painter’s rhapsode likewise departs from theearlier, sixth-century depictions, in which the performers clearly wear both chitonand himation, and in a more loosely draped style. Added paint enlivens thegarments on the Liverpool amphora (Fig. 8), whereas the Pantoxena Painteropted for a plain himation, albeit carefully arranged (Fig. 1). The only textual

interior was arranged in terms of seating and performance space. See above, n.77 for referencesto the Odeion in recent scholarship, including discussion of its architecture.

79. Cf. Bundrick 2005: 168, with references and examples attributed to the Altamura Painterfrom that workshop, and cf. previously Kotsidu 1991: 104–29 and Thone 1999: 89–94 and 144–46(catalogue). Prior to these more populated scenes, painters like the Berlin Painter depicted Nikecarrying a kithara and approaching a musician; these are usually taken to reference the mousikoiagones and attest to the continuation of the contests after the Persian Wars. For these images, see,e.g., Schafter 1991; Kotsidu 1991: 117 and examples in the catalogue at pp. 312–15; Thone 1999;and Bundrick 2005: 167–68.

80. Beardless kithara players had, however, been present in sixth-century scenes, likely toassociate them with the always-beardless Apollo, to the extent that it is sometimes difficult todistinguish between god and mortal in black-figured imagery, Shapiro 1992: 65–66.

81. Surviving lines of the inscription specify a kithara players (kitharistai) contest and aulodiccontest for men, implying that contests for boys (paides) were listed elsewhere; Shear 2003: 93 and103 places these at the missing lines 22a–f (although see Rotstein 2012: 104–105 for an alternativepossibility). The kitharodic contest and contest for auletai without singers listed on the inscriptiondo not specify andres as competitors, which leads Shear and others to believe that there was only oneevent, for men (Shear 2003: 91n.14, and see also Kotsidu 1991: 58, whereas Rotstein 2012: 104is less convinced). The rhapsodic contest would thus be consistent with these latter agones.

82. Cf. Power 2010: 484–85 on beardless and bearded figures in the kitharoidia scenes, notingthat “beards and ‘youthful’ looks are not clear indices of agonistic category” (485).


evidence for rhapsodic dress close to this period occurs in Plato’s Ion, whenSokrates describes rhapsodes as being “decked out in many-colored [poikile]clothing and crowned with gold” (535d, trans. Allen 1996: 15), in other words, ina sumptuous manner similar to that described for kitharodes in textual sources (cf.,e.g., Herodotos 1.23–24 on the kitharode Arion). It is unclear, however, whetherthe dialogue reflects actual practice of rhapsodic dress or is an exaggeration,particularly since Ion uses similar phrasing to describe his own “decking out” orembellishment of Homer (530d). It is possible that Plato uses costume strategicallyand symbolically to make a statement about rhapsodes, and one must considerwhether the Pantoxena Painter has done the same. Certainly costume, gesture,and other niceties of pose and dress carry meaning in Athenian vase painting—meaning that sometimes eludes scholars’ efforts at decipherment.

The best comparisons to the rhapsodic dress on the Tarquinia krater are thehimations of singers in aulodic contests (Fig. 7), similarly wrapped so that theperformer’s arms and hands are obscured.83 Most of these scenes are close intime to the Pantoxena Painter’s krater, either slightly earlier or slightly later. Innearly all cases—save a much earlier and fragmentary amphora by the AndokidesPainter, in which both aulete and singer are dressed in patterned garments—theauletai also wear plain himations, usually without a chiton in the most prevalentfashion of the day.84 In these cases, the similarity of dress between aulos playerand singer showcases their harmony in a visual way meant to echo the imaginedharmony onstage. The painter avoids the distraction and clutter that would comefrom having both figures in “busy” costumes, or else the asymmetry of havingone in a garment more detailed than the other. The singers’ hands being wrappedin such a manner also gives them something to do, the alternatives of gesturing orhaving their arms by their sides perhaps seeming clumsy to a painter’s eyes. Thiscostume and pose recall boys and youths in “school scenes” on Athenian vases, asfor instance boys standing before paidogogoi on the two exterior scenes of Douris’famous cup of ca. 490–480 BC, and may therefore suggest the ages of the singers orthe degree of their education.85 One can also compare an unusual cup attributed tothe Briseis Painter from ca. 480–470 BC, where eight youths wrapped in himationsdecorate the exterior, along with columns and two auletai; while debated, the mostplausible reading identifies the scene as competing dithyrambic choruses.86 Themarkedly shorter height of the singers in aulodic contest scenes may indicateage, unlike what I have suggested for the Pantoxena Painter’s rhapsode; thePanathenaic festival may have included boys’ auloidia among the events, andone can imagine the high-pitched voices of boys bringing as much pleasure to

83. Vos 1986: 130, cat. nos. 46–49 and 51–52 for comparanda.84. Basel BS491, BAPD 200004, Shapiro 1992: 67, fig. 45.85. Berlin F2285, from Cerveteri, BAPD 205092, Bundrick 2005: 2–3, figs. 1–2.86. New York 27.74, BAPD 204417; dithyrambic chorus identification, e.g., Hedreen 2013:

183n.35.


ancient Greek listeners as those in later times. Meanwhile, it is worth recallingthat in at least two instances, the athlothetes who watches the aulodic contestsis beardless, another parallel to the Pantoxena Painter’s krater.

Performers in other fifth-century musical contest scenes, whether kitharaor aulos players, appear in a dazzling array of costumes that contrast withthe Pantoxena Painter’s rhapsodic himation, celebrating the abilities of bothcontemporary musicians and the vase painters themselves. These depictionsdo recall the textual evidence, for instance Herodotos’ description of Arionnoted above and other sources that emphasize the skeuai (dress, accoutrements,accessories) of musicians as much as their performance.87 Kithara and aulosplayers in the agones had been given fancy garb in black-figured scenes as well, butalmost always a combination of chiton and himation, often richly detailed throughincised patterns or added color. In fifth-century imagery, different garments joinedthe chiton and himation, namely the long-sleeved, usually patterned chiton knownas the chiton cheiridotos and the sleeveless, usually patterned tunic known as anependytes, worn over a long chiton.88 Even “ordinary” chitons featured a varietyof possibilities, whether voluminous, ungirt, and bordered with a wide stripe (themost common garment on surviving vases); simple and belted as on the kitharodeof a famous amphora attributed to the Berlin Painter; or meticulously draped witha cascade of folds, as on the krater in the manner of the Peleus Painter discussedhere (Fig. 6).89 A plain himation with no chiton, meanwhile, is uncommon outsidescenes of auloidia, the only published or otherwise accessible example of a scenewith a judge and Nikai being on a stamnos attributed to the Peleus Painter.90

Here, the young musician wearing a himation with nothing underneath—standardcostume in fifth-century Athens—stands on a low bema before a seated, beardedathlothetes with long staff, this central pair framed by two approaching Nikai. Hedoes not play the concert kithara found most commonly in scenes of mousikoiagones, but instead the so-called Thracian kithara, a instrument that is almost ahybrid between concert kithara and chelys lyre, with a flat bottom and woodensoundbox but otherwise lacking the concert kithara’s complexity.91 The crowdedcomposition may have influenced the Peleus Painter’s choice of garments; as is,

87. For the costumes in musical contest scenes generally, see, e.g., Bundrick 2005: 166, withfurther references, and for skeuai in practice, see most recently Power 2010: 11–27.

88. Patterned chiton cheiridotos worn by a kitharode, e.g., bell krater attributed to the Painterof Munich 2335, from Spina, Ferrara 3112/T784 VT, BAPD 215380, Berti and Restani 1988: 72, cat.no. 17. Patterned ependytes worn by an aulos player, e.g., on the amphora by the Kleophrades Paintercited below (n.110), Bundrick 2005: 36, fig. 21.

89. Chiton with wide stripe, e.g., on the Pan Painter pelike above, n.43; amphora by the BerlinPainter, New York 56.171.38, BAPD 201811, Bundrick 2005: 4, fig. 3.

90. Vatican 16556, from Vulci, BAPD 213505, Matheson 1995: 207, pl. 258.91. So-called Thracian kithara, Bundrick 2005: 26–29, with earlier references. This instrument

has been the source of much scholarly discussion, for instance if it even existed or was purely a“mythical” instrument. Even though it does appear in some clearly mythological scenes, it alsoappears in scenes of mousikoi agones that are not readily identified as mythological.


all four figures wear plain himations (the men) or peploi (the Nikai), and unityis preserved.

The elaborate costumes adorning the majority of kithara and aulos playerson vases likely served many purposes. Painters used the garments as an oppor-tunity to indulge themselves and show off their technical mastery to viewers,as well as for compositional ends: the very complexity of the concert kithara,for example, is visually balanced by an equally complex skeue, and often cos-tume complements a vase’s shape. As for deeper meanings, Margaret Miller hasdiscussed the East Greek (Ionian) origins of the ependytes and chiton cheiri-dotos, suggesting that the adoption of such garments in the fifth century re-flects a larger Athenian interest in Eastern exotica after the Persian Wars.92

The vase painters’ renditions likely communicate the Ionian origins of manymusical competitors at the Panathenaia, since the mousikoi agones were notlimited to Athenian citizens, as well as the overall international flavor of thefestival.93 In a few instances, such as a pelike attributed to the Kassel Painter inAthens, the performer wears what seem to be Thracian garments, in this case,boots.94 Thracians and Thracian garments appear intermittently in fifth-centuryiconography to various ends, but in a musical context the performer is likelymeant to resemble the mythical wandering poet, Thamyris.95 This likelihoodis supported by the fact the kithara player on the pelike carries the so-calledThracian kithara, which on fifth-century vases sometimes appears in Thamyris’hands. One could argue that in highlighting the “foreignness” of these musi-cians, Athenian vase painters were claiming their musical heritage for the city,much as Athens itself was emphasizing its Ionian ancestral ties at this time.One can further speculate that vase painters were attempting to convey visuallythe dazzling sounds of contemporary musical performance: poikilia, a word thatcould be used to describe patterned, colorful, and otherwise intricate textiles, wasalso used in the fifth century to describe elaboration and complexity in musicalcompositions.96

Even as vase paintings celebrate these musicians by celebrating their skeuai,the garments also set them apart: not only by seeming foreign, but by markingthem as professional performers. In sixth-century imagery, the decorated chitonsand himations of the musicians are matched by the similar garments not onlyof elite spectators to the performances but the god Apollo himself, to the extentthat it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a kithara player is mortal or not.97

92. M. C. Miller 1997: 161–63 and 174–75.93. Cf. Bundrick 2005: 166.94. Athens 1469, BAPD 214558.95. For Thamyris, see, e.g., Bundrick 2005: 126–31 and Wilson 2009, both with earlier

references.96. For poikilos/poikilia used in connection to the so-called New Music of the fifth century

(often negatively), see most recently Wallace 2009 and LeVen 2013, both with earlier references.97. Cf. Shapiro 1992: 65 and Bundrick 2005: 166.


This situation shifts over the course of the fifth century, a likely response tothe expansion of demokratia and the escalating prominence of the Panathenaicmousikoi agones: spectators and athlothetai watching the agones tend to wear theplain himation typical of citizens, so that they are clearly differentiated from themusicians. Even Apollo’s garments change; he still wears a chiton and himationin the fifth century, but usually plain and undecorated, and often he wears onlya himation with bare chest in the style of a citizen. It becomes impossible toconfuse him with a professional kitharode, all the more so because he frequentlycarries not a professional’s concert kithara but an amateur’s chelys lyre, anothershift from sixth-century iconography.98 Vase painters seem to have articulateda difference between “amateur” and “professional” using the language of dress,not necessarily suggesting that one is superior to the other, but indicating a cleardemarcation. This hypothesis is supported by a glance at auletai shown in othercontexts. When accompanying athletic events, aulos players are often representedin patterned chitons that likely reveal them as professionals hired for the occasion(and emphasize them as such), but aulos players accompanying a sacrifice usuallywear a citizen’s himation, more in keeping with the spirit of the ritual even ifthey too were hired professionals.99

Although one must exercise caution when considering a unique vase, thechoice of an everyday himation for the rhapsode on the Pantoxena Painter’skrater may have carried its own subtexts. Composition may have played a role,as suggested above for the Peleus Painter’s stamnos; the Pantoxena Painter mayhave thought a patterned garment too overwhelming given four other figures in thescene, the complex ornamentation, and three-line inscription directly overhead.But as scholars like A. G. Geddes and Gloria Ferrari have shown, the plainhimation was itself loaded with meaning, all the more when worn this way,enveloping the body down to the hands. It seems to contradict a rhapsode’s“reality” in the message it sends; even though their prizes were apparently notas valuable as those of kitharodes and kitharists, victorious rhapsodes receivedwinnings that could have financed skeuai the way that musicians would havepaid for their own ensembles out of prize income. Plato’s Ion does suggest somesort of special garment for a rhapsode (even if he might be exaggerating), whilea fourth-century decree from a festival of Artemis at Eretria asks rhapsodes andother performers in the mousikoi agones to participate in the sacrificial processiondressed in their skeuai.100 Moreover, to a contemporary Athenian viewer such ahimation likely implied an Athenian citizen or at least a resident of the city,whereas many rhapsodes traveled from elsewhere. Plato’s Ion is said to be

98. Cf. Sarti 1992, especially 97–101, Bundrick 2005: 145–46, Power 2010: 445–46n.66.99. Example of aulos player in decorated chiton in athletic scene: cup by Douris, Basel Ka 425,

BAPD 205075, Bundrick 2005: 76, fig. 76. Aulos players wearing himations at sacrifices, e.g., bellkrater by the Kleophon Painter, from Capua, Boston 95.25, BAPD 215220, Bundrick 2005: 154,fig. 89, and see further Bundrick 2014a.

100. See above, n.60 for references.


from Ephesos, perhaps reflecting a particular concentration of East Greeks inthe profession.

The himation may well express an imagined reality of the representedrhapsode—he becomes a “virtual Athenian,” as Gregory Nagy described Plato’sIon, who may come from abroad but whose craft had been celebrated in Athenssince early times.101 As Nagy has shown, an alternative aetiology arose forthe rhapsodia during the democratic age—an attribution of the manner of theagon’s performance to Solon rather than Hipparchos and the tyrannic Peisistratidregime—while a speech by Lycurgus from 330 BC (granted, a hundred yearslater than the krater) credits the “ancestors” with making Homer such an im-portant poet that he would be celebrated at the Panathenaia.102 Just as Homer’swork had been appropriated by the Athenians over time, the performer of hiswork on this vase looks suitably Athenian himself. As Geddes discussed, thehimation emblematized Athenian civic life through its elaborate, unpinned, andeven restrictive drapery, meaning that someone who engaged in manual labor orworked out in the country could not wear such a thing.103 It further suggestedisonomia, an equality among citizens who wore the same clothes; in this reading,the rhapsode is not set apart from the spectators who watch him but is part ofthe group, indicated visually on the krater by the wearing of the same garmentas the athlothetai. The effect is amplified by the rhapsode’s being completelywrapped in his himation, which further gives an impression of sophrosyne, ormoderation, and even aidos, or modesty.104 One recalls again the boys and youthsof “school scenes”: might the wrapped himation suggest the lifelong educationof a rhapsode, trained since childhood to learn and proclaim the texts?105 Likethe figures in school scenes, he becomes a literal embodiment of the archaiapaideia, whose emphasis on mousike would later be superseded by a prefer-ence for rhetoric and grammata, but which at this point in the fifth centuryheld strong.106 Indeed, the rhapsodes formed part of the archaia paideia; hear-

101. G. Nagy 2012: 11.102. G. Nagy 2012: 23–25.103. Geddes 1987, especially 323–28.104. E.g., in Ferrari 1990, 2002; and cf. Zanker 1995: 49. Cf. also Aischines In. Tim. 25, in

which he describes a statue of Solon with a similar pose and compares it to the sophron bearingof “speakers of old” like Perikles, Themistokles, and Aristides, Zanker 1995: 46–47.

105. For the “lifelong apprenticeship” of a rhapsode, see, e.g., Gonzalez 2005: 164. Cf. also theyouths wrapped in himations on the Briseis Painter’s cup possibly showing dithyrambic choruses;see above, n.86. Here, the two auletai wear the patterned, ungirt chitons typical of professionalaccompanists, for example in athletic scenes, likely reflecting the fact that auletai were hired forthe choruses, including non-Athenians. The youths, meanwhile, would all be citizens as was typicalfor the tribal dithyrambic contests, and their himations communicate this. Their educations helpedprepare them for participation in the event.

106. For the shift in educational emphases over the course of the fifth century and into the fourth,see, e.g., Morgan 1999 and Bundrick 2005: 49–51 and passim. Robb 1994: 184–212 discusses thepersistence of mousike in fifth-century [aristocratic] education and the role of epic poetry, includingthe belief that training in mousike could help cultivate sophrosyne.


ing public performances of Homer was considered an essential part of a youngboy’s education.107

These possibilities suggest a revisit of a vase from earlier in the fifth centurywith a similarly dressed figure whose scene has been variously interpreted. A red-figured neck amphora attributed to the Harrow Painter, said to be from Etruria,features only two characters: a bearded man wrapped in his himation in a style akinto the Pantoxena Painter’s figure, standing on a three-stepped bema at left—thetop step preserving the last three letters of a kalos inscription—and a beardedspectator with voluminous himation leaning against a staff at right.108 The man onthe bema is significantly smaller in scale, but because both figures are beardedand therefore the same age, the discrepancy is compositional. Edmond Pottiersuggested that the “rare et curieux” scene might depict a poetic contest, whilesome scholars have gone further and interpreted the scene as a rhapsodic agon.109

Much recent scholarship, however, has favored identifying the man on the bemaas an orator because of his costume, which does resemble fourth-century andHellenistic statues of orators like Aischines.110 To depict a political scene likea speaker at assembly would be unusual for an Athenian vase; moreover, therhetores that were both famed and notorious in the democratic assembly and lawcourts did not become common, or at least well-known, until after the reformsof Ephialtes in 462 BC and especially later in the fifth century, in other words,after the approximate date of the Harrow Painter’s amphora (ca. 480–470 BC).111

Instead, comparison of the Harrow Painter’s stepped bema and wrapped himationwith the Pantoxena Painter’s similar scene leads back to the idea of an agon,and more specifically to the probability of a rhapsode, bearing in mind that theHarrow Painter tended to favor more ambiguous images.112 The fragmentary kalosinscription on the bema recalls the inclusion of similar inscriptions in scenes ofmousikoi agones, as for instance a pelike attributed to the Pan Painter mentionedabove, and an amphora attributed to the Kleophrades Painter likely representing

107. Robb 1994: 193, 196.108. Louvre G222: BAPD 202843. The Etruria provenience is given in the Corpus Vasorum

Antiquorum.109. Pottier 1922: 207. Rhapsode identification, e.g., Vos 1986: 122; Padgett 1989: 162–63, cat.

no. H7 (“probably a rhapsode”); Kotsidu 1991: 306, cat. no. V46.110. Orator identification, e.g., Shapiro 1993: 97, observing that the figure here lacks a “rhabdos”

(although see above, n.65 for this issue), but admitting that the scene is “problematic;” Zanker1995: 45; Mitchell 2009: 172; Ghedini 2009: 51. Shapiro (1993: 95–97) debunks a different vaseoften described as showing a rhapsode (amphora by the Kleophrades Painter, London E270, BAPD201668), with his argument accepted in Bundrick 2005: 165 (contra, e.g., Kotsidu 1991: 111–12).The “rhapsode” on this amphora, who has an inscription near his mouth with a line of poetry, ismore likely an aulode who joins in performance with the aulete on the opposite side, participants in amen’s contest instead of one for boy singers.

111. Cf., e.g., Arthurs 1994 and Worthington 2007, both with further references to the growthof oratory in democratic Athens over the course of the fifth century.

112. For which see, e.g., Bundrick 2012.


an aulodic contest.113 Certainly the Pantoxena Painter’s figure could not be anorator, given the judges, prizes, and Nikai. Is it possible that the later iconographyof sophron orators—compared by Paul Zanker to the iconography of sophronschoolboys on fifth-century vases—grew from the iconography of rhapsodes likethese? As Jose Gonzalez recently noted, the very craft of oratory was influenced byrhapsodia.114 The desire to stress the sophrosyne of rhapsodes by showing themenveloped in their himations may have even superseded a final characteristicof sixth-century rhapsode scenes, the staffs held by the performers as seen onShapiro’s three black-figured examples.115

If correctly identified as representing rhapsodes, both the Harrow Painter’samphora and the Pantoxena Painter’s krater close critical chronological gaps:for the period just after the Persian Wars and the period just after the Perik-lean Panathenaic reforms, respectively. The Pantoxena Painter’s krater in partic-ular questions assumptions both about the rhapsodic agon in general and itsportrayal by vase painters. Surviving evidence has long suggested that vasepainters of the second half of the fifth century found kithara and aulos play-ers an important subject, with such scenes experiencing an apparent uptickin popularity reflecting first the Periklean reforms and later the growing in-fluence of the so-called “New Music.”116 But clearly the rhapsodes were de-picted, too, and the existence of even one vase opens the possibility of othersnow lost: likely not as many as represented the auletic and especially kitharo-dic agones, for both iconographically and in actual performance the rhapsodelacked the razzle-dazzle of these other musicians. A vase painter would face achallenge in making the rhapsodic contest both easily recognizable and visuallyappealing.

The Pantoxena Painter responded to this challenge by depicting a sophron“virtual Athenian”: confident, lauded, receiving the same accolades as any kithar-ode although distinguished from them by different costume. On this krater atleast, rhapsodia is presented as equal in prestige to kitharoidia, even thoughother evidence strongly suggests the kitharodes received more valuable prizesand perhaps more popular attention.117 Certainly the scene speaks against thedisdainful attitude toward rhapsodes espoused in later sources like Plato’s Ion orXenophon’s Symposion (3.6).118 It instead supports the notion that in the mid-fifth

113. Pan Painter pelike: see above, n.43. Kleophrades Painter amphora: see above, n.110.114. Gonzalez 2005.115. The elimination of the staff held by the performer also eliminates any confusion between

rhapsode and athlothetes, the latter typically holding them with similar pose and authority. Staffs andthe language of staffs in fifth-century imagery as a whole require more expansive examination than ispossible here.

116. Cf. Shapiro 1992 and Bundrick 2005: 169–74 with further references.117. For possible rivalry between kitharodes and rhapsodes, see, e.g., Power 2010: 250–57.118. Cf. also Pl. Leg. 658d, in which the rhapsodic contests are said to be for gerontes, old men.

Modern scholars challenging the view of rhapsodes presented in Plato, e.g., Ford 1988; Collins 2001a,


century, the rhapsodes were still respected and still seen as bastions of Atheniantradition and the archaia paideia, even at a time of cultural change.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Thus far in this paper, the Pantoxena Painter’s calyx krater has been con-sidered solely from an Athenian perspective, with the contention that it representsa particularly Athenian subject. The fact that it was found in Tarquinia ratherthan Athens, however, raises questions about the reception of Athens-centeredsubjects beyond the city. The ability to evaluate the krater’s imagery from anEtruscan perspective would be easier if its full context were known, namely theobjects found with it in the funerary assemblage, how it was placed in the tomb,and the gender of the deceased. Even without that information, which is miss-ing for the majority of Athenian vases found in Etruria, for many subjects onecan postulate an interpretatio etrusca. For instance, athletic and musical contestscenes discussed in this paper that might have a Panathenaic association for theirAthenian maker and any Athenian viewer would be meaningful in a different wayto Etruscan viewers, who had a well-documented appreciation for these themes asshown in their funerary art. Many myths found on Athenian vases can likewise beparalleled with Etruscan art and meanings: for example, the Pantoxena Painter’sskyphos in Paris (Fig. 4), which as noted above has a provenience of Vulci al-though its exact findspot remains unknown, would have had particular resonancein an Etruscan funerary context because of its Eos and Tithonos imagery. Multiplewinged female deities appear in Etruscan iconography, among them Thesan, oftenequated with the Greek Eos in that she was a goddess of the dawn, and Vanth,a so-called demon who helped guide souls to the afterworld.119 Erotic pursuitscenes, like Eos and Tithonos on the skyphos, were popular among Etruscanbuyers in the early mid-fifth century; it is likely that they would be understoodfrom an eschatological perspective as a mortal snatched by a god in prematuredeath.120

The rhapsode scene on the Pantoxena Painter’s calyx krater is more difficultto parse from an Etruscan and eschatological point of view; just as it lacksparallels in surviving Athenian imagery, so it does in Etruscan. If one beginswith the two winged female figures carrying wreath and fillet, perhaps for theTarquinian viewer they ranked among the so-called demons of the afterworld

2001b; and also note West 2010: 2 on terminology, “We should not draw any sharp distinction betweenthe creative aiodos and the non-creative rhapsoidos.” West 2010: 5 does suggest that rhapsodes wereincreasingly “marginalized as entertainers by musical virtuosi such as citharodes and auletes” astime progressed and that by the fourth century the custom may have seemed “old-fashioned andunnecessary now that people were used to reading Homer for themselves.”

119. Thesan: Bloch and Minot 1986 and de Grummond 2006: 106–11, with further references.Vanth: Weber-Lehmann 1997 and de Grummond 2006: 220–29, with further references.

120. Cf. Bundrick 2014b, with further references.


bearing tokens to celebrate the deceased, understood here as the young manmounting the bema.121 The scene may imply heroization and status, with both thesubject and the krater shape—the latter evoking the banquet—appropriate for amale deceased. It seems unlikely that the Tarquinian viewer would be familiarenough with Athenian customs to read this as a rhapsodic scene, even though ithas sometimes been argued that precisely such a familiarity would render vasesattractive to Etruscan consumers who wished to advertise their knowledge.122

One can compare another red-figured calyx krater attributed to the Polygnotanworkshop and sent to Tarquinia: a drunken, nearly nude Dionysos holds aloft akantharos and follows a satyr with chous and torch toward a building where awoman stands inside an open door and a second satyr sits on the doorstep.123

Although surely representing Dionysos and his mythical bride Ariadne—thetorch-bearing satyr recalling the bride’s mother in a wedding procession andthe seated satyr a door-porter, or thuroros—an Athenian viewer would havedoubtless recalled the Anthesteria ceremony of the hieros gamos between thearchon basileus and basilinna, aided especially by the chous that emblematizedthe festival.124 An Etruscan viewer, meanwhile, would see Fufluns and Areatha,and within a funerary context would grant the scene completely new significance.

The Polygnotan workshop was without doubt the most prolific in ClassicalAthens, producing red-figured vases in a variety of shapes, exporting them tonumerous sites across the eastern and western Mediterranean while at the sametime maintaining a steady market at home. Kraters ranked among their greatestoutput, with calyx kraters second in surviving numbers only to bell kraters; calyxkraters with known provenience belonging to the workshop’s painters are notquite evenly divided between south Italy, Sicily, southern and northern Etruria(including sites in the Po valley), and Athens and Greece itself.125 With now fivevessels given to him, three of them calyx kraters, the Pantoxena Painter wouldseem at first to be a minor figure in the workshop.126 The handsome draftsmanshipand unique subject of the newly attributed krater in Tarquinia, however, bring this

121. Cf. Krauskopf 2009.122. E.g., Avramidou 2011: 69–70, focusing on strongly Attic myths on vases produced by the

Codrus Painter.123. Tarquinia RC4197, BAPD 213726, Matheson 1995: 467, cat. no. PGU106.124. Matheson 1995: 191 summarizes the Anthesteria theory, which is espoused for instance in

Simon 1983: 97–98. Carpenter 1997: 66–67, however, urges caution towards a cultic interpretation,while Hedreen 1992: 46–48 notes the incongruity of depicting what was supposed to be a secret rite.These and others favor a Dionysos and Ariadne interpretation, while acknowledging Anthesteriaundertones.

125. Using the catalogue in Matheson 1995 (who does not discuss provenience of the workshopvases) and adding the new Pantoxena Painter krater.

126. Although note Sapirstein 2013: 503–504, who discusses the possibility of “minor” handsbeing combined (cf. Pevnick 2011 on Pistoxenos-Syriskos). Sapirstein also suggests that thePolygnotan painters may have thrown their own vases, which would have lowered their output(506).


artisan new attention, while his vase grants new insight into the elusive worldof the Athenian rhapsode.

University of South Florida St. [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, R. E. 1996. Plato: Ion, Hippias Minor, Laches, Protagoras. New Haven andLondon.

Arthurs, J. 1994. “The Term Rhetor in Fifth- and Fourth-Century -B.C.E. Greek Texts.”RSQ 23: 1–10.

Avramidou, A. 2011. The Codrus Painter: Iconography and Reception of Athenian Vasesin the Age of Pericles. Madison.

Bentz, M. 1998. Panathenaische Preisamphoren: Eine athenische Vasengattung und ihreFunktion vom 6–4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Basel.

Berti, F., and D. Restani, eds. 1988. Lo specchio della musica: Iconografia musicalenella ceramica attica di Spina. Bologna.

Bloch, R., and N. Minot. 1986. “Eos/Thesan.” LIMC 3: 789–97.Boardman, J. 1975. “Herakles, Peisistratos, and Eleusis.” JHS 95: 1–12.

. 1984. “Image and Politics in Sixth Century Athens.” In H. A. G. Brijder, ed.,Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International Vase Symposiumin Amsterdam, 12–15 April 1984, 239–47. Amsterdam.

. 1988. “Herakles.” LIMC 4: 728–838.Boyd, T. W. 1994. “Where Ion Stood, What Ion Sang.” HSCP 96: 109–21.Bundrick, S. D. 2005. Music and Image in Classical Athens. Cambridge.

. 2012. “Housewives, Hetairai, and the Ambiguity of Genre in Attic Vase Paint-ing.” Phoenix 66: 11–35.

. 2014a. “Selling Sacrifice on Classical Athenian Vases.” Hesperia 83: 653–708.

. 2014b. “Under the Tuscan Soil: Reunitng Attic Vases with an Etruscan Tomb.”In J. H. Oakley, ed., Athenian Potters and Painters, Volume III, 11–21. Oxford.

Carpenter, T. H. 1997. Dionysian Imagery in Fifth-Century Athens. Oxford.Castaldo, D. 1993. Immagini della musica nella Grecia antica: Iconografia musicale

nelle ceramiche attiche e magnogreche del Museo Civico Archeologico di Bologna.Bologna.

Collins, D. 2001a. “Homer and Rhapsodic Competition in Performance.” Oral Tradition16: 129–67.

. 2001b. “Improvisation in Rhapsodic Performance.” Helios 28: 11–27.D’Amicis, A., et al. 1997. Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto,

catalogo della mostra, Taranto, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 9 aprile 1994. I:3,Atleti e guerrieri, tradizioni aristocratichi a Taranto tra VI e V sec. a C. Taranto.

de Grummond, N. T. 2006. Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend. Philadelphia.De Ridder, A. 1902. Catalogue des vases peints de la Bibliotheque Nationale. Paris.Ferrari, G. 1990. “Figures of Speech: The Picture of Aidos.” Metis 5: 185–204.

. 2002. Figures of Speech: Men and Maidens in Ancient Greece. Chicago.Ford, A. 1988. “The Classical Definition of Rhapsodia.” CP 83: 300–307.


Frank, S. 1990. Attische Kelchkratere: Eine Untersuchung zum Zusammenspiel vonGefassform und Bemalung. Frankfurt.

Fraser, P. M. 2009. Greek Ethnic Terminology. Oxford.Fraser, P. M., and E. Matthews, eds. 1996. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Volume

II. Attica. Oxford.. 1997. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, Volume III, A. The Peloponnese,

Western Greece, Sicily, and Magna Graecia. Oxford.Geddes, A. G. 1987. “Rags and Riches: The Costume of Athenian Men in the Fifth

Century.” CQ 37: 307–31.Ghedini, F. 2009. “L’oratore fra Grecia e Roma: I gesti dell’eloquenza attraverso le

immagini.” In M. Salvadori and M. Baggio, eds., Gesto—Immagine tra antico emoderno. Riflessioni sulla comunicazione non-verbale, Antenor Quaderni 16, 47–61.Rome.

Giudice, G. 2010. Attikon...keramon. Veder greco a Camarina dal principe di Biscariai nostri giorni. Vol. 1. Catania.

Gonzalez, J. 2005. “Rhapsoides, Prophetes, and Hypokrites: A Diachronic Study of thePerformance of Homeric Poetry in Ancient Greece.” Ph.D. dissertation, HarvardUniversity.

Goulaki Voutira, A. 1992. “Heracles and Music.” International Repertory of MusicalIconography, Newsletter 17: 2–14.

Harrison, E. B. 1996. “The Web of History: A Conservative Reading of the ParthenonFrieze.” In J. Neils, ed., Worshipping Athens: Panathenaia and Parthenon, 198–214.Madison.

Hedreen, G. M. 1992. Silens in Attic Black-Figure Vase Painting: Myth and Performance.Ann Arbor.

. 2013. “The Semantics of Processional Dithyramb: Pindar’s Second Dithyramband Archaic Athenian Vase-Painting.” In B. Kowalzig and P. Wilson, eds., Dithyrambin Context, 171–97. Oxford.

Herbert, S. 1977. Corinth VII, part IV. The Red Figure Pottery. Princeton.Heuck Allen, S. 1999. “Mortal and Divine Performances: New Evidence from the

Breakers.” In S. S. Lukesh, ed., Interpretatio Rerum: Archaeological Essays onObjects and Meaning by Students of R. Ross Holloway, Archaeologia Transatlantica17, 23–33. Providence.

Immerwahr, H. R. 1964. “Some Inscriptions on Attic Pottery.” The James Sprunt Studiesin History and Political Science 46: 15–27.

. 1990. Attic Script: A Survey. Oxford.

. 2007. “Aspects of Literacy in the Athenian Ceramicus.” Kadmos 46: 153–98.Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Oxford.Kotsidu, H. 1991. Die musischen Agone der Panathenaen in archaischer und klassischer

Zeit. Munich.Kratzmuller, B. 2001. “‘Ραβδουχοι auf Panathenaischen Preisamphoren.” In M. Bentz

and N. Eschbach, eds., Panathenaıka: Symposion zu den Panathenaischen Preisam-phoren, Rauischholzhausen 25.11–29.11.1998, 101–107. Mainz am Rhein.

Krauskopf, I. 2009. “Daemones anonymi in Etruria.” LIMC suppl. 1: 143–56.LeVen, P. 2013. “The Colors of Sound: Poikilia and Its Aesthetic Contexts.” Greek and

Roman Musical Studies 1: 229–42.Matheson, S. B. 1995. Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens. Madison.


Miller, M. C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in CulturalReceptivity. Cambridge.

Miller, S. G. 2001. Excavations at Nemea II: The Early Hellenistic Stadium. Berkeley.Mitchell, A. G. 2009. Greek Vase-Painting and the Origins of Visual Humour. Cam-

bridge.Moretti Sgubini, A. M., ed. 2004. Scavo nello scavo: Gli Etruschi non visti. Ricerche

e “riscoperte” nei depositi dei musei archeologici dell’Etruria meridionale. Romeand Viterbo.

Morgan, T. J. 1999. “Literate Education in Classical Athens.” CQ 49: 46–61.Mosconi, G. 2000. “La democrazia ateniese e la ‘nuova’ musica: L’Odeion di Pericle.”

In A. Cassio, D. Musti, and L. Rossi, eds., Synaulia: Cultura musicale in Greciae contatti mediterranei, 7–55. Naples.

Nagy, B. 1978. “The Athenian Athlothetai.” GRBS 19: 307–13.. 1992. “Athenian Officials on the Parthenon Frieze.” AJA 96: 55–69.

Nagy, G. 2002. Plato’s Rhapsody and Homer’s Music: The Poetics of the PanathenaicFestival in Classical Athens. Washington, D.C.

. 2012. Homer the Preclassic. Berkeley.Neils, J., ed. 1992a. Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens.

Princeton.. 1992b. “The Panathenaia: An Introduction.” In Neils 1992a, 13–27.

Oakley, J. H. 1997. The Achilles Painter. Mainz am Rhein.. 2007. “A Unique New Depiction of a Panathenaic Victor.” In O. Palagia and A.

Choremi-Spetsieri, eds., The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an InternationalConference Held at the University of Athens, May 11–12, 2004, 81–90. Oxford.

. 2011. “The Polygnotans and Camarina.” In G. Giudice and E. Giudice, eds.,Attikon...keramon. Veder greco a Camarina dal principe di Biscari ai nostri giorni,vol. 2, 123–31. Catania.

Padgett, J. M. 1989. “The Geras Painter: An Athenian Eccentric and His Associates.”Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.

Papadopoulos, J. 2009. “The Relocation of Potters and the Dissemination of Style:Athens, Corinth, Ambrakia, and the Agrinion Group.” In J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia,eds., Athenian Potters and Painters, Volume II, 232–40. Oxford.

Patterson, C. 2007. “Other Sorts: Slaves, Foreigners, and Women in Periclean Athens.”In L. J. Samons II, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, 153–78.Cambridge.

Pevnick, S. D. 2011. “Foreign Creations of the Athenian Kerameikos: Images andIdentities in the Work of Pistoxenos-Syriskos.” Ph.D. dissertation, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.

Pottier, E. 1922. Vases antiques du Louvre. Troisieme serie, Salle G, Le style attiquea figures rouges. Paris.

Power, T. 2010. The Culture of Kitharoidia. Washington, D.C.Rhodes, P. J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.Robb, K. 1994. Literacy and Paideia in Ancient Greece. Oxford.Robertson, M. 1992. The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens. Cambridge.Rotstein, A. 2012. “Mousikoi Agones and the Conceptualization of Genre in Ancient

Greece.” CA 31: 92–127.Sapirstein, P. 2013. “Painters, Potters, and the Scale of the Attic Vase-Painting Industry.”

AJA 117: 493–510.


Sarti, S. 1992. “Gli strumenti musicali di Apollo.” AION 14: 95–104.Schafter, D. 1991. “Musical Victories in Early Classical Vase Painting.” AJA 95: 333–34.Schauenburg, K. 1979. “Herakles Musikos.” JDAI 94: 49–76.Scholz, B. 2010. “Die panathenaische Preisamphora in Bremen und zwei pseudopana-

thenaische Amphoren in Bremen und Oldenburg.” In Folia in memoriam Ruth Lind-ner collecta, 53–65. Dettelbach.

Shapiro, H. A. 1987. “Kalos-Inscriptions with Patronymic.” ZPE 68: 107–18.. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz am Rhein.. 1992. “Mousikoi Agones: Music and Poetry at the Panathenaia.” In Neils 1992a,

53–75.. 1993. “Hipparchos and the Rhapsodes.” In C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds.,

Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece, 92–107. Cambridge.. 1997. “Correlating Shape and Subject: The Case of the Archaic Pelike.” In

J. H. Oakley, W. D. E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, eds., Athenian Potters and Painters,63–70. Oxford.

Shear, J. L. 2001. “Polis and Panathenaia.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Pennsylvania.. 2003. “Prizes from Athens: The List of Panathenaic Prizes and the Sacred Oil.”

ZPE 142: 87–108.Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary. Madison.Stansbury-O’Donnell, M. D. 2006. Vase Painting, Gender, and Social Identity in Archaic

Athens. Cambridge.Thone, C. 1999. Ikonographische Studien zu Nike im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Unter-

suchungen zur Wirkungsweise und Wesensart. Heidelberg.Valavanis, P. 1990. “La proclamation des vainqueurs aux Panathenees.” BCH 114: 325–

59.Vos, M. F. 1986. “Aulodic and Auletic Contests.” In H. Brijder, ed., Enthousiasmos:

Essays on Greek and Related Pottery, 121–30. Amsterdam.Wallace, R. 2009. “Plato, Poikilia, and New Music in Athens.” In E. Berardi, F. Lisi, and

D. Micalella, eds., Poikilia, Variazioni sul tema, 201–13. Rome.Weber-Lehmann, C. 1997. “Vanth.” LIMC 8: 173–83.Webster, T. B. L. 1972. Potter and Patron in Classical Athens. London.West, M. L. 2010. “Rhapsodes at Festivals.” ZPE 173: 1–13.Wilson, P. 2009. “Thamyris the Thracian: The Archetypal Wandering Poet?” In R. Hunter

and I. Rutherford, eds., Wandering Poets in Ancient Greek Culture: Travel, Locality,and Pan-Hellenism, 46–79. Cambridge.

Worthington, I. 2007. “Rhetoric and Politics in Classical Greece: Rise of the Rhetores.”In I. Worthington, ed., A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, 255–71. Oxford.

Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity. Trans.H. A. Shapiro. Berkeley.

BUNDRICK FIGURE 1

Fig. 1: Calyx krater by the Pantoxena Painter, obverse scene (Tarquinia, MuseoNazionale Tarquiniense 137262, photograph: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologicidell’Etruria Meridionale).

FIGURE 2 BUNDRICK

Fig. 2: Calyx krater by the Pantoxena Painter, reverse scene (Tarquinia, MuseoNazionale Tarquiniense 137262, photograph: Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologicidell’Etruria Meridionale).

BUNDRICK FIGURE 3

Fig. 3: Calyx krater by the Pantoxena Painter, detail of obverse scene with inscription(Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale Tarquiniense 137262, photograph: author, publishedby concession of the Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici dell’Etruria Meridionale).

FIGURES 4–5 BUNDRICK

Fig. 4: Skyphos by thePantoxena Painter, obversescene (Cabinet des Medailles846, photograph: BibliothequeNationale de France).

Fig. 5: Skyphos by thePantoxena Painter, reversescene (Cabinet des Medailles846, photograph: BibliothequeNationale de France).

BUNDRICK FIGURES 6–7

Fig. 6: Calyx krater inthe manner of the PeleusPainter (British MuseumE460, photograph ©Trusteesof the British Museum).

Fig. 7: Pelike attributedto the Painter of Oxford529 (British Museum E354,photograph ©Trustees of theBritish Museum).

FIGURE 8 BUNDRICK

Fig. 8: Pseudo-Panathenaic amphora with scene of rhapsode (Liverpool,World Museum 56.19.18, photograph courtesy National Museums Liverpool).

Documents

Recovering Rhapsodes: A New Vase by the Pantoxena Painter