“Regional Theatre in the Fourth Century. The Evidence of Comic Figurines of Boeotia, Corinth and...

Regional Theatre in the Fourth Century 333

Regional Theatre in the Fourth Century.The Evidence of Comic Figurines of Boeotia,

Corinth and Cyprus

J. Richard Green

We are inevitably athenocentric in our view of Greek theatre, and we tend for example tothink of so-called phlyax vases in a direct relationship to Attic; but many other centres pro-duced comedy in the fourth century. This paper attempts to explore, albeit in a preliminaryway, some aspects of the bigger picture of fourth-century theatre through a quick glance ata selection of regional material. It is concerned in part with defining the style of comic per-formers, mostly terracotta figurines, of some non-Athenian centres, and then with usingthat evidence in assessing the possible degrees of independence of their local traditions inthe face of the sophisticated Athenian product.

As a first example we may glance at a fragment of red-figure pottery in Olympia. It hasbeen known for some years but has only recently seen publication (fig. 13.1)1. The man de-picted on it is clearly a comic actor, not far from Athenian in style, complete with his curv-ing, knobbly staff. It is hardly surprising since the red-figure of Elis seems likely to have ar-rived with the people around Phidias when he went to Olympia to construct the Zeus orwith others who came to join them soon after2. The piece should in any case be datedwithin the fifth century. One supposes a vase-painter would not have created such a scenefor sale to a public that had no idea of the subject-matter. It implies a knowledge of theatreperformance. What is important too is the motif, of an actor in company with a personwho is not an actor, a female piper, rather like a satyr pursuing a maenad. It is possibly ourearliest example, I should think a little before our earliest South Italian example, a piece as-sociated with the circle of the Amykos Painter3.

Another early site of theatre performance to bear in mind is that of Cyrene in NorthAfrica, and here again it seems to come directly from Athens. In this case we are dealingwith a figurine that is an absolutely straightforward depiction of a hetaira in a popular

1 For the initial publication of the piece, seeFroning 2009, 117 fig. 5.

2 McPhee 1990; note also Trendall – McPhee1984; Trendall – McPhee 1986. One mayalso note the 15 Attic white-ground lekythoifrom Elis published by Serbeti 2001: such ob-jects normally imply the presence of Athenians.M. Bentz 2009. 2013 has published importantAttic pottery from throughout the fifth cen-tury, of which there is less than one might haveexpected, and there are other items in Yalouris

1996 fig. 176f., together with a piece of localred-figure at fig. 178. Fundamental is Schiering1964. Note also Sinn 1978 and Georgiadou2009.

3 Once Freiburg i. Br., Galerie Günter Puhze:Kunst der Antike 11 (n. d. [1995]) no. 205(colour ill.); Puhze calendar for May 1995(detail). On the nature of the motif, see Green1995b. Bakola 2010, 112 with n. 102 and Ta-plin 2011 failed to observe the early examplesand came to misleading conclusions.

Bereitgestellt von | De Gruyter / TCSAngemeldet | 46.30.84.116

Heruntergeladen am | 08.07.14 11:50

334 J. Richard Green

type from the so-called New York Group (fig. 13.2)4. The important thing about it is thatit is made of local clay. Someone in Cyrene thought it worthwhile to make a careful copyfrom an imported figurine, and while it is of course possible that this was a random, mean-ingless exercise, there is surely a good chance that it is evidence for local theatre produc-tion. And the chance is increased by the now well-known relief which Chamoux is cer-tainly right to believe shows Heracles leading back Alcestis and that it is inspired byEuripides’ play at a date that cannot really be much later than 4005.

4 Paris, Louvre inv. MN 642. MMC3 AT 10e(with earlier refs); Green 1994, 36 fig. 2.14;Jeammet 2003, 133 no. 79 (colour ill.); Jeam-met 2010, 74 no. 36 (colour ill.); Hart 2010,126 no. 67. One may note that at 8.5 cm high,it is smaller than the example in New York (AT10a: 10.7 cm) or the one in London (AT 10c:

9.5 cm), in this respect revealing its secondarynature.

5 Chamoux 1998. See also Ceccarelli – Milanezi2007 with their further references to trade be-tween Athens and Libya. The relief, Cyrene,Museum inv. 15003, is well illustrated in Wün-sche 2003, 205 fig. 31.2. On the pottery trade,

Fig. 13.1. Olympia, Archaeological Museum:Red-figure krater fragments from Olympia.




Another piece from Cyrene that seems to be a copy manufactured locally is a figurineof a brothel-keeper (fig. 13.3)6. It is again of a purely Athenian type, and it happens to bein better condition than the example preserved in Athens, which is more worn as well asfrom a tireder mould and without the detailed modelling in the face (fig. 13.4)7. Note thatshe has a yellow chiton, a purple-red himation, and of course a whitened face that is typical

see Elrashedy 2002. The presence of smallchoes and the occasional loutrophoros maywell suggest the existence of Athenians thereat this period. Note also the Exeter pelike withthe scene at the Tomb of Agamemnon; diffi-cult as it is, it may suppose knowledge of the-atre.

6 Paris, Louvre inv. MN 638 (N 4878). MMC3

AT 70a (with earlier refs.); Besques 1992, no.

C 647; Hughes 2006, 51 fig. 5; Jeammet 2010,74 no. 35 (colour ill.).

7 Athens, National Archaeological Museuminv. 6074 (P 398). MMC3 AT 70b pl. IVc–d.This preserves traces of red on the face (thusshowing up a different aspect of her character),blue on the chiton, and white and red on thehimation. For earlier versions of the type, seeMMC3 AT 17.

Fig. 13.2. Paris, Louvre inv. MN 642:Hetaira from Cyrene. Ht 8.5 cm.




of these sorts of women7a. One supposes that it dates to somewhere in the first half of thefourth century, the Athens example perhaps nearer the middle.

From here on we shall concentrate on terracotta figurines, looking at their subject-matter and style. Athenian is of course dominated by the New York Group althoughwe should remember that there were a few, but not many, others. The series begins at ora little before 400 and they are still important numerically by the time of the sack ofOlynthus in 348. They have often been thought to derive from metal figurines and onehas to admit that the late fifth century is a high period for metalwork, especially in relief,but the care and fine detail is perhaps better thought of as being an aspect of the so-calledRich Style, applied to something as improbable as figurines of something so crude ascomic actors. It is curious too that the New York Group is still a self-contained series,without any hint of similar material for any other class of material outside these theatre-related pieces.

7a Among the comic poets see, for example, Eubu-lus PCG F 98.

Fig. 13.3a–b. Paris, Louvre inv. MN 638 (N 4878):Old woman (brothel-keeper?) from Cyrene. Ht 8 cm.




Well known as they are, those who rely on photographs have only a poor idea oftheir actual character. This is in part because most examples are known only fromfrontal views, and one rarely sees three-quarter, side or back views8. The figurines wereconceived in the round and there is in fact no single good viewpoint from which to lookat them.

The drapery is reasonably subtle in its contrast between complex and simple, and inthe interplay of tension points with folds. Notice too the tilt of the head which offers a cer-tain engagement with the viewer, as the character surely did on stage. We shall see that thistechnique was employed in other centres as well.

8 Notable exceptions are Jeammet 2010 and an-other useful exhibition catalogue, Trofimova –Piotrovskij 2005.

Fig. 13.4a–b. Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv. 6074 (P 398).Old woman (brothel-keeper?). Ht 7.3 cm.




The point about their being conceived in the round is even more obvious with piecessuch as a standing male in New York (fig. 13.5)9. Again there is a tilt in the head and thedeparture from the vertical is continued down in what one might call a series of sub-Poly-clitan shifts right down to the feet. The detail is fine but not exaggerated. One might evendiscern an Attic grace in the handling even of so gross a figure. These are all elements thatcharacterise the Attic style.

Boeotia

Much more difficult is the case of Boeotia. Although there has been considerable dis-cussion of Kabirion vases in recent years, the terracotta figurines of what are clearly comic

9 New York, Met. Mus. inv. 13.225.28. MMC3

AT 18a (with refs.). In addition to AT 18b(Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv.4463), there is now a further example of thetype in the Goulandris collection inv. 143, from

Thera: Doumas – Marangou 1978, 323 no. 196;Marangou 1985, 135 no. 202 (ill.); Marangou1996, 136 (ill.); Kahlau – Rügler 2006, 79fig. 173. Worn and battered, missing below theknees, but once a good version with crisp detail.

Fig. 13.5. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art inv. 13.225.28:Young adult male, his head covered, Attic, from Athens, New York Group. Ht 10.8 cm.




actors have largely been ignored, ignored in fact since the time of scholars such as Koerte10.The overall pattern is reasonably straightforward. The earlier figurines are of a local stylethat make the Attic look almost couth, and they imply a local style of comedy. The later fi-gurines, as we shall see, are atticising and suggest that Athenian comedy was becomingdominant as one approaches the later part of the fourth century. But there is the distinctpossibility of overlap, when the two styles were competing.

One should also bear in mind that different regions within Boeotia may have beendoing things slightly differently. I am conscious that Violaine Jeammet is beginning to dis-tinguish Theban from Tanagran in her recent catalogue of figurines in the Louvre, butthere is some way to go yet on these issues, particularly where comic figurines are con-cerned11. From the history of terracottas as a whole in a slightly later period, one might ex-pect Tanagra to be more inclined to Athens than was Thebes12.

The most popular type (six examples are listed in MMC3) is of a somewhat heavilybuilt male standing with his legs apart, his right hand held within his himation up near hischin (figs. 13.6–7)13. He is bearded and wears a wreath or fillet on his head. He seems tohold a torch (rather than a club) in his left hand14. He is given a prominent belly and alarge, flaccid phallos: it is unclear if it is attached to the outside of the himation or if thegarment is somehow parted to expose it15. The face is shown as coarse and unattractiveby normal Greek standards: the beard is straggly – so far as this can be shown in a terra-cotta – the nose is large and pendulous, the eyes are made prominent. There is somechange of detail within the series; for example they become slightly neater in their hand-ling. I would suppose that they begin early in the fourth century and that they continuefor some time.

A somewhat later type, though still from within the first half of the century, is repre-sented by a well-known figurine in the Louvre (fig. 13.8)16. From the fact that he has apolos and wears effeminate dress, the figurine should surely be Dionysus. This pose, withthe weight on one leg, is typical of all the Boeotian series. So is the tilt of the head; it issomewhat exaggerated by Athenian standards. The drapery is fairly complex.

A figurine in Copenhagen (fig. 13.9), though classically Boeotian in its style, is show-ing Athenian influence in the looped phallos and to some extent the form of the mask

10 On Kabirion vases, see more recently the illus-trations and brief comments in Boardman1998, 258 and figs. 506–510; Maffre 2000, to-gether with a fuller study by Daumas 1998,also Daumas 2001. She sees them as reflectingritual performances with elements of parodyand burlesque, rather than formal, scripteddrama, a view in which she is generally fol-lowed by Maffre. Note also Stansbury-O’Don-nell 2009, although he does not claim that thescenes represent comedy, and Schachter 2003who sees no connection with comedy. Körte1893 represented a major step in the develop-ment of our subject, and it was he who inspiredWebster’s interest when the latter worked withhim for a while in the later 1920s (and indeedbecame a family friend).

11 Jeammet 2010, 111–131 and the section byBouquillon et al. in it, 228–231.

12 See for example the opinions of Kleiner 1984,and more recently Lönnqvist 1997.

13 MMC3 BT 1a–f, with refs.14 Jeammet takes it as a club and the figure there-

fore as Heracles; also Wünsche 2003, 379fig. 61.11 (colour) on Munich inv. 5391(MMC3 BT 1b). He would make a somewhatimprobable Heracles.

15 For an example of a phallos seemingly at-tached to the front of a himation, see the typeof MMC3 AT 1 and the plastic vase AV 2, e.g.Trumpf-Lyritzaki 1969, pl. 13d. pl. 31c. Theplastic vase is illustrated in colour in Grewenig1998, 72. It dates to about 400.

16 Paris, Louvre inv. CA 1627. MMC3 BT 10(with refs.).




which approaches the Athenian mask H17. We may note the disposition of the legs as wellas their individual construction from rolls of clay. In terms of style, note too the brow-lines, the fussy hair, the outlined eyes, and yet relatively simple treatment of the beard. Thedrapery tends to be complex and at times fussy without the overall structure of the Attic.Compare fig. 13.5 from which it seems to be derived.

The Heidelberg hetaira (fig. 13.10), similarly, could never be taken for Athenian, butthere are clear echoes of Athenian in the conception of the type18. The drapery is very likethat of the Dionysus-figure in the Louvre (fig. 13.8) and it is tempting to see them as prod-ucts of the same workshop. The treatment of the face of the mask also betrays the figu-rine’s Boeotian origins.

17 Copenhagen, Nat. Mus. inv. 4738, from Boeo-tia. Ht 9.2 cm. Breitenstein 1941, no. 328 pl.39; Hjortsø 1980, 51 fig. 37c; MMC3 95 BT 7.Reddish brown clay, remnants of white slipand blue-green paint on mantle.

18 Heidelberg inv. TK 319 (no recorded prov-enience). Ht 15 cm. Pfisterer-Haas 1989, 147no. VI.12 fig. 151. Not in MMC3.

Fig. 13.6. Munich, Staatliche Antiken-sammlungen und Glyptothek inv. 6929:Reveller with torch, Boeotian. Ht 16 cm.

Fig. 13.7. Once [1976] London, market:Reveller with torch, Boeotian. Ht 13.4 cm.




Later pieces tend to have the phallos looped like the Copenhagen figurine (fig. 13.9)rather than hanging, again no doubt an influence from Athenian. The man with wreath orfillet carrying a young goat is apparently a popular type (fig. 13.11)19. What is evident inthis series, and most obviously on the examples in Paris and Munich, is that the figures arenow wearing leggings – like their Athenian counterparts. It could be dangerous to simplyassume that the phenomenon is an element of stage performance borrowed directly fromAthens: it is possible that actual Boeotian performers had worn them throughout but thatthe coroplasts had chosen not to make them explicit. One could imagine that Boeotianstoo had been in the habit of concealing a performer’s identity with full covering of the bodyexcept for hands and feet. It may be that the practice of showing them had been adoptedfrom elsewhere, whether Athens or indeed Corinth (see below). This said, the style of thisseries is incontrovertibly Boeotian.

19 MMC3 BT 14a (Berlin inv. TC 8265, fromThespiae), BT 14b (Paris, Louvre inv. CA 239,“from Greece”), BT 14c (Athens, National Ar-

chaeological Museum inv. 12631, ex coll. Pa-padimas).

Fig. 13.8. Paris, Louvre inv. CA 1627:Dionysus wearing polos, Boeotian. Ht 13 cm.

Fig. 13.9. Copenhagen, NM inv. 4738:Local version of the type of Fig. 12.5,

from Boeotia. Ht 9.2 cm.




Chronology is a major problem. A pedestal base is normally a sign of later rather thanearlier, and it would not be surprising if these ram-bearers are contemporary with Athe-nian New Comedy. Similarly the man with knobbly knees carrying a tambourine is quitelikely later than he looks (fig. 13.12)20. He was found in the same grave as some miniaturemasks which are patently of the early phase of New Comedy as we see it in Athens.

And then, in the later part of the fourth century, as in so many centres, we have moreand more direct copies of Athenian types, manufactured in a local clay. They surely indi-cate a comedy that is Athenian, of Athenian style, or something very like it. These are ofthe phase transitional to New Comedy.

In brief, Boeotian theatre loses its independence steadily as the century wears on,even if it began by being quite different. The nature of the comedy represented by theearlier figurines (if comedy is the right word) would seem to have been festive, evoking

20 Paris, Louvre inv. CA 540, from Boeotia.MMC3 BT 24; Dugdale 2008, 17 left (shownin mirror-image); Jeammet 2010, 73 no. 33(colour ill.). Jeammet takes the manufacture asAttic, presumably on the basis of the clay, but

the style as well as the provenience indicateBoeotia – which is not to say that it could nothave been manufactured in provincial Atticaunder Boeotian influence.

Fig. 13.10. Heidelberg, Antikenmuseum of theUniversity inv. TK 319: Hetaira in elaborate dress

and with hair in topknot, Boeotian. Ht 15 cm.




Fig. 13.12a–c. Paris, Louvre inv. CA 540: Man with tympanon from Boeotia. Ht 12 cm.

Fig. 13.11. Athens, National Archaeological Museuminv. 12631, ex coll. Papadimas:

Man with a goat on his shoulders, Boeotian. Ht 14.2 cm.




happiness and the good times but otherwise relatively limited in its scope: ritual theatreif one wishes to use such a term21.

Corinth

Corinth is exceptional in mainland Greece in having a series of red-figure vases with comicscenes in the fourth century. We all know the vase in the National Archaeological Museum,Athens (fig. 13.13; pl. 15.3), showing on its obverse a pair of slaves for some reason attempt-ing women’s work, with pestles at a mortar, and being attacked by geese who know theydon’t belong in what one supposes is a domestic courtyard22. The mortar has a row of whitedots just above the lip, and the pestles held by the figures have marks near their ends, pre-sumably representing the grain or the hulls of the grain they were pounding. What I don’tknow is why there is a piece of string or a ribbon tied around the neck of the holmos: perhapsit was decorative and celebratory – the masks of the actors are fitted with elaborate wreaths,seen more easily from in front of the vase and in the drawing published by Körte than in

Fig. 13.13. Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv. 5815 (CC 1927, old cat. 1391):Corinthian red-figure stemless bell-krater, said to be from Boeotia. Ht 24.5 cm.

21 Nielsen 2001, and her briefer version (2000),although she is mostly concerned with theplaces of performance.

22 Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv.5815 (CC 1927, old cat. 1931), said to be fromBoeotia. Stemless bell-krater. Ht 24.5 cm. PhV2

25 no. 14; Körte 1894; Bieber 1961, 48fig. 203; Ghiron-Bistagne 1976, 244 fig. 94;Corinth, VII 4 34. 47 pl. 29, lower right;McPhee 1997, 118 no. 35; Froning 2002, 88

fig. 199; MMC3 98, CV 2. On the objects andtheir use, see recently Villing 2009, and, forcomments on males at the mortar and this vasein particular, 326 and n. 45. For an additionalrepresentation of a woman at work at a hol-mos, see the terracotta figurine from Akanthos:Kaltsas 1998, 65 t. 1427. 70 no. 1119. pl. 72. Itwas found in the grave of a young womanalong with figurines of bread-making andbread-baking. Also Tsoukala 2009. 2012.




modern photographs. The symbolism of the male pestle pounding the female mortar was notlost on fifth- and fourth-century Greeks, but whether it was made overt in the performancehere, we cannot know. Their costume approaches Attic standards very closely with sleevesand leggings, phalloi, and some padding – but note that it is not as pronounced as in Attic.

There are of course at least two more pieces with comic scenes. The one is from a cupand has a figure with a short chiton – therefore a slave? – carrying a jug (fig. 13.14)23. Theother is from a calyx-krater and has a hunched, white-haired old man and his slave who isturned away from him (fig. 13.15)24. The slave has classically unkempt hair. The old manlooks very like figures one sees in Sicilian. Indeed if it were not from Corinth and patentlymade of Corinthian clay, one might be forgiven for thinking it Sicilian25. The potentiallinks are fascinating.

In dealing with these sorts of issues, we have tended to forget Corinth’s close tradingties with the West, ties that had lasted over centuries. If we concentrate on the middle andlater fourth century, we can point for example to the links evident in the copying of Co-rinthian metalware shapes in Gnathia pottery in Taranto, in the sharing of a particularform of bell-krater that appears only in Tarentine Gnathia (not red-figure interestinglyenough) and in contemporary Corinthian, and then in even the importation of a certainamount of Gnathia pottery in Corinth26.

The fragment C-73–195 (fig. 13.16), probably from an oinochoe, is likely to show acomic actor, and it was taken as such by McPhee, but there is not enough to be absolutely

23 Corinth inv. C-70–380, from Corinth. Max.dim. 4.1 cm. Corinth, VII 4 no. 176 pl. 29.

24 PhV2 25 no. 15; MMC3 98 CV 3; Corinth, VII 4,47 no. 73 pl. 14; McPhee 1983, 151 fig. 9 (theprofile); McPhee 1997, 118f. no. 37 pl. 41.

25 For actual Sicilian red-figure found in Corinth,see McPhee – Pemberton 2004, nos. 1–2.

26 McPhee 1997. For Gnathia pottery in Corinth,see for example Pemberton 1970.

Fig. 13.15. Corinth, Mus. inv. C-70–380.CP-534. CP-2710: Fragments of Corinthian red-figure calyx-krater, from Corinth.

Est. diam. lip 29.5 cm.

Fig. 13.14. Corinth, Mus. inv. C-70–380:Fragment of Corinthian red-figure cup, from

Corinth. Max. dim. 4.1 cm.

Fig. 13.16. Corinth, Mus. inv. C-73–195:Fragment of Corinthian red-figure oinochoe (?),

from Corinth. Max. dim. 3.3 cm.




sure27. It has a bearded head shown frontal, with a spiked fillet done in white washed withdilute glaze. It should belong to the earlier half of the fourth century, perhaps the secondquarter rather than the first28.

Corinthian comic terracottas are relatively plentiful29. A series from the earlier partof the fourth century has a distinctive style. The example in the University collection inGroningen is a good example although somewhat more complex than most (fig. 13.17)30.We may compare with it a fragment found in the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth31. The mostdistinctive element is the bell-shaped chiton together with the fact that they were manu-factured free-hand and not mould-made apart from the heads – and note the simple legsformed from rolls of clay. Even the phallos has its own style, but in terms of comparisonwith Attic practice, it may be important to note that some, and perhaps the earlier ones,

27 Corinth C-73–195, from Corinth. Max. dim.3,3 cm. McPhee 1983, 151 no. 47 pl. 41.

28 Two fragments from a small bell-krater weretaken by Trendall as comic, but I see no sign ofcomic costume and I believe they are gro-tesque, funny in that sense but not comic in oursense, as one also sees commonly in SouthItaly: Corinth inv. CP-2577 + C 31.83.83, fromCorinth. PhV2 25 no. 16; Trendall 1962, 22no. 15 bis pl. 1, 1; Corinth, VII 4, 52 no. 87pl. 15; MMC3 98 CV 4.

29 For a useful recent overview of Corinthian ter-racottas, see Merker 2003, but she does notgive particular emphasis to the dramatic figu-rines.

30 Groningen, University, no inv. no., said to befrom Corinth. Ht 12 cm. MMC3 CT 3 (withearlier refs.).

31 Corinth inv. KT 16–28, from the Potters’Quarter. Pres. ht 3.9 cm. Corinth, XV 2, 145no. 18 pl. 29; MMC3 CT 2c. A. N. Stillwellnoted several other fragments of identical type.

Fig. 13.17a–b. Groningen, University:Man with tympanon, said to be from Corinth. Ht 12 cm.




have the phallos hanging loose whereas others, including the piece illustrated here, have ittied up. The theme of the figures is fairly generic and the range of types limited, without theimplication of a complex script with its multiplicity of roles that one sees in Attic32. Theexample in Groningen (fig. 13.17) has the figure playing a tympanon, but in the others, thearms (where preserved) are outstretched. In its subject-matter, but not its style, the figurereminds us of Boeotian33: at this point both communities seem to have had a com-paratively simple kind of theatre when contrasted with Attic.

When they begin to manufacture mould-made figurines, there is nonetheless somethingone could define as a Corinthian style. For one thing the modelling is more lively and has aplasticity that is less evident in Attic. The faces carry more expression, partly through thetreatment of the eyes and brows, and beards tend to be rougher, more modelled, not sur-face-decorated in the way that they are in Attic.

Among the more interesting figurines is one of a woman holding a large skyphos(fig. 13.18)34. The style is clearly Corinthian, as is the clay. There is blue on the himation,

32 Other examples include London, BM inv.1867.2–5.22 (MMC3 CT 2a) and Boston, MFAinv. 01.8012 which is possibly the same as theone noticed by Körte 1893, 78 no. 17.

33 Compare the well-known piece in the Louvreinv. CA 479. Bieber 1961, fig.179; Mollard-Besques 1971, 70 no. C 642 pl. 96b; MMC3

AT 63. Besques pointed out that the clay isneither Attic nor Boeotian. For the motif, com-pare here fig. 13.12 and also MMC3 XT 4.

34 Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv.12556. MMC3 CT 12. It was already com-pared there with the female from the paintedscene in Würzburg.

Fig. 13.18a–b. Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv. 12556:Woman leaning forward and holding a large skyphos with both hands, Corinthian. Ht 14.6 cm.




red for the skyphos and for her hair, flesh-colour for the face and arms and perhaps pinkfor the chiton. The immediate question that springs to mind is whether it has anything todo with the scene from Thesmophoriazusae (fig. 13.19)35. She is dressed much the same,with her himation coming over the back of her head, and, importantly, the fall of thedrapery around her legs suggests that she is moving forward like the one in the scene inWürzburg.

The equation is not impossible. Drink-crazed women are of course a topos of AthenianOld and Middle Comedy, and presumably a lowest common denominator of Athenian so-

35 Würzburg inv. H 5697. Ht 18.5 cm. Kossatz-Deissmann 1980, pl. 60; Beckel 1983, 134f.no. 60 (colour ill.); Trendall 1989, ill. 109;Csapo 1986; Taplin 1987a; Taplin 1987b; Ta-plin 1993, pl. 11 no. 4; Green 1994, 64fig. 3.37; Green – Handley 1995, 52 fig. 27;Schmidt 1993, 29f. fig. 1; CVA Würzburg (4)pl. 4, 1–4 (with further refs.); Sinn – Weh-

gartner 2001, 114f. no. 50 (colour ill.);Moraw – Nölle 2002, 87 fig. 118 (Froning);McDonald – Walton 2007, 126 fig. 1; De-noyelle – Iozzo 2009, 132 fig. 191; Csapo2010, 54 fig. 2.3; Hart 2010, 109 fig. 3.5;RVAp I 65 no. 4/4a. Attributed to the SchillerPainter and perhaps by him; ca 370. Note thesmall size of the vase and therefore the image.

Fig. 13.19. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum inv. H 5697:Apulian red-figure bell-krater. Ht 18.5 cm.




ciety in general. On the other hand this is the only dramatic figurine I know from anymanufacturing centre with a woman holding a skyphos36. It would seem that the type didnot become popular as a conventional character, and for that reason the probability of ourfigurine’s reflecting Thesmophoriazusae increases37.

We are accustomed to the repetition of images with scenes from Menander, and so sucha phenomenon should not be completely surprising in the context of Old and MiddleComedy. There are parallels of a kind. For example the series of reliefs on some South Ita-lian (probably Lucanian) black-glaze gutti, though of the late fourth century, re-use metalreliefs of the late fifth century38. One could also point to other examples.

I am very tempted by the possibility of Thesmophoriazusae in Corinth. Indeed it is dif-ficult to see any other explanation for the figurine. And if it does reflect that scene, whotook the play or the image from the play to South Italy, the Athenians or the Corinthians?Certainly there was a long gap in time between production of the play in Athens in 411 andthe representation now in Würzburg which cannot be earlier than, say, 380 and could ea-sily belong around 370. Furthermore one might reasonably claim that figurines imply apopular market with multiple sales. There are many other questions to be raised, and Ihope to come back to them on another occasion.

If we move on to figurines of Heracles, it is worth remembering that he is of course thecommonest male figure. There are three main versions. The type of MMC3 AT 26, withhim leaning on his club, is the most frequent in the Attic sequence. He stands cross-leggedand carries his bow and quiver in his left hand. The lion-paws are knotted on his chest. Theskin in this version is noticeably shaggy. His chiton is dotted (as regularly in the New YorkGroup) and the phallos looped. The example from Delphi (fig. 13.20) is the best as well asthe most detailed, and there is no supporting zone between his club and his legs39. Theexample in Berlin is also from fairly early in the series40. Pieces from further on in the se-quence of the type have the legs reinforced by having them in relief against a ground. Thisis true already in the example from Melos in the British Museum which still preserves quitegood detail41. In the better examples, there is fine detailing, for instance for the teeth of thelion above the brow, for wrinkles on the forehead, the dots of curly hair and beard, theknobs of the side of the club, and so on. The mouth is shown as extraordinarily wide, asseems to have been typical of the hero in comedy.

36 There are occasional non-dramatic ones suchas Paris, Louvre inv. CA 2295, from Pantika-paion: Mollard-Besques 1971, no. D 323pl. 70a, or the well-modelled piece publishedby Peredolskaya 1964, pl. 5, 1–2, but even theyare surprisingly rare. Contrast the popularityof the drunken old woman with lagynos inHellenistic and Roman sculpture, not to men-tion the red-slipped plastic vases from RomanNorth Africa. A figurine in Lipari (inv. 3243)seems at first sight to be a candidate for themotif, but on close inspection, the woman infact holds a cooking pot: e.g. Bernabò Brea1981, 95 fig. 140. On the other hand Lipari inv.10782 (Bernabò Brea 1981, 93 fig. 132 colourpl. 15a) and inv. 15210k (Bernabò Brea 2001,99 fig. 98b) have an old woman with an askos.

37 At least the coroplast got the handles of theskyphos in the right position, whereas the vase-

painter, working in two dimensions, was moreconcerned to demonstrate that it was a skyphos,not a bowl.

38 For a full discussion of this and related issues,see the forthcoming study by the author andAdrienne Lezzi-Hafter, but see in the mean-while my comments in Green 1994, 66, andthen in 2006, with further refs.

39 MMC3 AT 26i, Delphi inv. 4320, from Delphi,ht 11.9 cm; FdD V 163 no. 294 pl. 22, 2 (Perdri-zet); Bieber 1920, no. 73; Himmelmann 1994,108 fig. 49; Maass 1996, 179 no. 91 (ill.).

40 MMC3 AT 26c, Berlin inv. TC 8838, fromSouth Russia, ht 13.5 cm; Bieber 1920, no. 73pl. 67, 2; Bieber 1961, fig. 171.

41 London, BM inv. 1842.7–8.752, ht 9 cm.MMC3 AT 26b (with refs.); Moretti 2001, 151fig. 15. Probably of Athenian clay.




This type is known in at least 17 preserved versions including the mould from the areaof the Pnyx in Athens42. Other known proveniences are Thebes, Larisa, Eleusis, Melos,South Russia and the Crimea, Taranto and ‘South Italy’43.

We may note in passing that in this as in all versions he is shown in what was by thena remarkably old-fashioned style, as we know him from black-figure and earlier red-fig-ure vase-painting (one thinks of the splendid versions by the Kleophrades Painter), not tomention architectural sculpture of the Archaic period. He is typically a strong-lookingfigure, with heavily-muscled arms and legs, wide shoulders, a markedly narrow waistand heavy thighs. His eyes are often shown as wide-open, even large, in keeping with theperception of his active, bold nature. His hair and beard are usually done in tight curls44.For the head, one might also compare the Late Archaic head-vases on which the curls aredone with blobs of clay to simulate such curls45. It goes without saying that he is usuallyshown wearing the lionskin, with its head covering his46. Yet he is already beardless inthe East Pediment of the temple of Aegina of about 480, and the slightly awkward rep-

42 MMC3 AT 26a.43 There are derivative versions in Boeotian and

Corinthian as well as in Lipari.44 See Mackay 2002.45 For example those of the Cook Class, ARV2

1539.

46 Aside from the many representations in Atticblack-figure, one thinks for example of hisdepiction in the bowl of Helios in the tondo ofthe Vatican cup in the manner of Douris.

Fig. 13.20a–b. Delphi, Mus. inv. 4320:Attic figurine of Heracles standing cross-legged with grounded club in right hand,bow and quiver in left hand, from Delphi. Ht 11.9 cm. (Type of MMC3 AT 26).




resentation by the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs on the calyx-krater in Palermo has himnude and frontal-facing as he rests after defeating the lion seen at his feet47. It shoulddate to around 460–450 and is an attempt to show the ‘Classical moment’ rather thanthe action.

By the late fifth century and into the fourth century, he is shown in non-theatrical con-texts as a young hero, beardless, well-built but no more so than any contemporary athlete.He is often without the lionskin, identified simply by his club. He is popular in the late fifthcentury in this reinvented form, and he continues to look like this in Apulian red-figurewell down into the fourth century48.

The comic versions were remarkably old-fashioned by contemporary standards: it is acommonplace of the genre to seek its amusement through the use of old-fashioned stan-dards. What is interesting is just how old-fashioned it was in this case, and the presupposi-tion that the audience was familiar with such a version despite the way he was shown indepictions they saw outside the theatre. It should also be a hint on how we should perceiveother figures.

Another Heracles type in the Attic sequence is that of MMC3 AT 11. It seems to havebeen invented early but then to have been abandoned. The hero stands with his weightmore or less evenly balanced but with his head tilted to the right and his finger in hismouth. Although he has a lionhead as part of the mask, the skin runs independently overhis left shoulder and around his arm (as would a himation), and although the detail is in-distinct, there seems to be another lionhead at its bottom, against his left thigh. His mouthis again shown as extraordinarily wide. As in the Late Archaic versions, his legs and armsare heavy. This terracotta type is known in only three examples, the one in the New Yorkset and then two minor, secondary versions.

Two certainly Corinthian figurines of Heracles belong to a slightly different tradition(figs. 13.21–22)49. They have him standing with his legs straight; his right hand steadiesthe club that stands on the ground by his right leg; his left hand comes to his waist, hisarm wrapped in the lionskin, even if it is treated almost as a himation. The one, CorinthMF 1527, is missing from just below the knees, but the left leg looks slightly relaxed.There has been a serious attempt to show the curliness of the beard. The eyes are largeand protuberant, the pupils indented. It gives a very lively, almost interactive expression.The phallos is small, suggesting that the piece is from fairly late in the Middle Comedysequence.

This figurine has no direct counterpart in Attic but it has very close links with a piecefrom the Cave of Pan at Chania in Crete and another that matches it from Butera inSicily50. These two follow a somewhat earlier fashion, with large, looped and very obviousphalloi, but the type is the same. The distribution is interesting. There is another from avery worn mould in Naples but so far as I know without provenience, and yet another in

47 ARV2 613, 4, e.g. Wünsche 2003, 90 fig. 10.57.48 Compare also Tagalidou 1993.49 Corinth inv. MF 1527, from Corinth, MMC3

AT 56 pl. Xc (where not recognised as Her-acles); Richardson 1898, 219 fig. 31; Co-rinth XII no. 337 pl. 30. Corinth inv. 5264,from Corinth. MMC3 CT 11a; Corinth XIIno. 340 pl. 30. The latter was apparently foundwith a fragmentary female figurine, Corinth

inv. 5265 (Corinth XII no. 346 pl. 31) that isprobably not dramatic.

50 Chania: ADelt 22, 1967 B2, 497 pl. 370;MMC3 AT 27b. Gela inv. 6348, from Butera,Fontana Calda, club and feet missing, pres. ht9 cm. Adamesteanu 1958, 643 no. 30 fig. 266;MMC3 AT 27d; Bernabò Brea 2002, 72 fig. 57;Todisco 2002, pl. 34, 1; Comella – Mele 2005,719 pl. 3c (Todisco); Portale 2008, 34 fig. 32.




Compiègne, again without provenience51. This kind of distribution in the past promptedone to think of an Attic archetype, but the lack of Attic examples and their existence inCorinth may now suggest that we look to Corinth.

Such a suggestion is strengthened when we look at examples of the type in Lipari,where it was popular enough to have developed sub-types. A key piece is Lipari inv. 3148(fig. 13.23)52. The treatment of the mask is extremely close to Corinthian, so much so thatone would suspect the mould was taken from a Corinthian original: compare for examplethe handling of the beard or the protuberant eyes with their central indentation. The treat-ment of the phallos falls between that of the pair from Chania and Butera and the one inCorinth.

51 Naples, MAN inv. 20820. MMC3 AT 27c.Compiègne, Musée Vivenel inv. V 795. MMC3

AT 27a. Photographs of both in the DramaticArchive of the Institute of Classical Studies,London.

52 Lipari inv. 3148, from Trench XXII. Most ofthe legs and the right arm and the club missing;pres. ht 7.7 cm. Bernabò Brea 1958, 137pl. 51, 12; Meligunìs-Lipàra II 302 B 110a

pl. CLV 3; Bernabò Brea 1981, 73 E 1a fig. 71;Bernabò Brea 2001, 104 fig. 107b (colour),MMC3 ST 10a. (Some of these publicationshave the object in mirror-image: it is in fact theright arm that is missing.) Note also the headLipari inv. 3149, from Trench XXIII, III: Meli-gunìs-Lipàra II 303 B 110b pl. CLXV 4; Ber-nabò Brea 1981, 73 E 1b; Bernabò Brea 2001,104 fig. 107a (colour); MMC3 ST 10b.

Fig. 13.21. Corinth, Mus. inv. MF 1527:Corinthian figurine of Heracles,club in right hand, legs straight,from Corinth. Pres. ht 8.8 cm.

Fig. 13.22. Corinth, Mus. inv. 5264:Corinthian figurine of Heracles,

club in right hand, legs straight, head to left,from Corinth. Ht 7.1 cm.




Lipari inv. 3141 is a worn and battered example, its head and feet missing53. On theother hand it is clearly from the same series. Lipari inv. 3150 and its affiliates are poor, lateversions, and as such smaller than the others54. Although worn and from worn moulds,they preserve enough to show the continuing influence of the Corinthian style, and theytestify to the continuing popularity of the type. It is hard to believe we would see such acontinuity if Corinthian influence itself had not continued.

Corinth inv. 5264 is also from late in the sequence, and the handling is much more de-veloped (fig. 13.22)55. There is something of a turn to the body, swinging to the left, theright leg relaxed, and the movement is emphasised by a strong turn to the head which isalso tilted upwards. The detail of the mask is good. The curliness of the beard is conveyedby indentations in a typically Corinthian way – and one that is important for another piecewe shall look at below. The eyes are treated in the same way as those of its companion fig-ure. And then one sees the nose of the lionhead and the row of upper teeth. The impliedmovement and the turn of the figure leads me to suspect, in fact, that the piece was madeabout the turn of the century or even a little later, implying a degree of provincial delay orelse a continued liking of rudeness with the inclusion of the phallos56. We should also notethat its base is circular, not square.

53 Lipari inv. 3141, from Trench XXIII, III F. Pres.ht 5.1 cm. Meligunìs-Lipàra II 303 B 112 pl.CLXV 2; MMC3 ST 11; Bernabò Brea 1981,74, E 3a fig. 73 left. Bernabò Brea 1981 lists afurther example of the type.

54 Lipari, inv. 3150, from Trench XVII. Ht 6.9 m.Meligunìs-Lipàra II 303 B 111a pl. CLXV 7;MMC3 ST 12a; Bernabò Brea 1981, 74 E 2afig. 72; Bernabò Brea 2001, 105 fig. 108 (col-

our); Pugliese Carratelli 1996, 715 no. 239VIII (ill.). Bernabò Brea 1981 and 2001 listsother examples of the type.

55 MMC3 CT 11, ht 7.1 cm; Corinth XII no. 340pl. 30.

56 Gladys Davidson Weinberg in the Corinthpublication had already commented on the dif-ference in approach.

Fig. 13.23. Lipari, Museo Archeologico Luigi Bernabò Brea inv. 3148:figurine from Trench XXII. Pres. ht 7.7 cm.




There is a good Corinthian copy of the type of AT 26 in Tampa, Florida (fig. 13.24;pl. 14.1), probably taken from a somewhat worn original or mould and therefore missingthe fine detail of the Attic versions (very obviously in the club which has been left smooth),but the face of the mask had been worked up a little and (typically) the hair above the browwith its luxuriant curls57.

Later versions are developments of the type AT 26. They have him with a more ex-treme lean towards his club. A Boeotian version in Bonn still keeps the bow in his lefthand, but it is missing from the others58. We have two Corinthian examples, a completefigure in Munich (fig. 13.25; pl. 14.2), and a head in Corinth59.

There is of course a considerable body of local copies of Attic types from Corinth, asthere is from other sites. Three examples must suffice60.

57 Zewadski 2008, 53 right (colour ill.).58 Bonn inv. D 14, bought in Athens. Ht 13.5 cm.

Gabelmann et al. 1971, no. 82 fig. 55 (q. v. forcolour: traces of pink on mask and lionskin,blue on club, red on base); MMC3 AT 124c.

59 Munich inv. 5393. MMC3 AT 106, pl. 1d;Hamdorf 1996, 154 fig. 182 (colour); Wünsche2003, 420 no. 218. The height is given as11.2 cm and the date, not unreasonably, as 340–320. It is said to be from Athens: dealer’s prov-enience? The head from Corinth, MMC3 CT11c.

60 We may also note that Corinth inv. 3394 seemsto be a later version, in mirror image, of thetype of MMC3 AT 19: inv. CT 5, pres. ht5.7 cm. Standing man with protruding belly;right hand holding phallos. The upper bodyand legs missing. Corinth XII no. 341 pl. 31.Gladys Davidson Weinberg observed that it ismade of “very fine soft red clay” which shetook as “probably Attic”.

Fig. 13.24. Tampa (FL), Museum of Art inv. 1988.34.2:Corinthian figurine of Heracles after the type of Fig. 13.20.




The hetaira type seen in fig. 13.26 becomes popular over much of the Greek world andit is known in over 19 copies61. In the Athenian versions such as this she is fairly solidlybuilt, at least by modern standards; she stands firmly and confidently (one leg is relaxed).The positioning of the left arm, with hand on hip, connotes a certain aggression or at leastthat she is ready to stand up to all comers62. In this copy as well as in others in which thecolours are better preserved, she of course has her face plastered white63. We have seen thetype already in Boeotia. The Corinthian versions are smaller and slimmer, but the pattern-ing of her clothing makes it clear that the type is the same: note the twisted roll of draperyaround the waist, the v-shaped arrangement over the chest, the semicircles over the bellybefore coming down in a triangle at the knee. The example in the British Museum(fig. 13.27) is a good one64. Corinth inv. KT 5–20 (fig. 13.28) is further away, from a wornmould, and the treatment is rather mechanical, but if one follows the series through, it is

61 Athens, National Archaeological Museum inv.6070 (1198; P 304). MMC3 AT 113a.

62 On the body-language of comic hetairai, seeGreen 2002. On them more generally, see re-cently Rodríguez 2005.

63 These include a fairly early version found ingrave 379 in the excavations of the Kerameikosmetro station: Parlama – Stambolides 2000, 375no. 420 (colour ill.). She has red-brown hair.

There is another with just the same colouringfrom the Bellon sale: Jack-Philippe Ruellan,Maison des Ventes aux Enchères, Vannes, SaleCat., Les antiques de Louis-Gabriel Bellon(1819–1899), 4 April 2009, no. 341 (colour ill.).

64 London, BM inv. 1951.7–31.1. Higgins 1954,no. 1530 pl. 206; MMC3 AT 113d. The claypronounced Corinthian by Higgins.

Fig. 13.25. Munich, Staatliche Antiken-sammlungen und Glyptothek inv. 5393: Corinthian

figurine of Heracles following the typeof Fig. 13.20. Ht 11.2 cm.




Fig. 13.26. Athens, National ArchaeologicalMuseum inv. 6070 (1198; P 304): Attic figurine

of hetaira standing, left hand on hip,right raising veil, right leg forward. Ht 10 cm.

Fig. 13.27. London, BM inv. 1951.7–31.1:Corinthian copy of the type of Fig. 12.26.

Ht 8 cm.

Fig. 13.28. Corinth, Mus. inv. KT 5–20:Corinthian copy of the type of Fig. 12.26,

from Corinth. Ht 6.8 cm.




evident that the type is again the same65. But they expose a problem. At least three of themcome from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore66, and it seems to me reasonable to ask ifthe donor still thought of them as hetairai from comedy or as something more in keepingwith those goddesses. It is a difficult question that we might like to come back to. And thenwe find the same type dedicated in the Artemision in Thasos, where again they are madelocally in very worn moulds67.

Nicholls had already supposed that a Corinthian mould and a figurine made from it(fig. 13.29)68 derived from an Attic type, and he was of course right69. An example now inthe Classics Department’s collection at the Australian National University, Canberra, is cer-tainly Attic (fig. 13.30; pl. 14.3)70. It is worth looking at the differences: the folds on the chi-ton of the Corinthian version, the loss of the detail of the beard with its central parting, andof course the dots on the chiton. There is a weak, derivative version in Geneva that is said tohave been found in Boeotia71. There is also a more distant version from the area of Livadhia,

65 Corinth inv. KT 5–20, from Corinth. CorinthXV 2, pl. 24 XVII 20; MMC3 AT 113c.

66 Corinth XVIII 4, 244 nos. H 357–359 pl. 53.67 Muller 1996, 430. Compare more recently

Muller 2009, especially 90 and his fig. 1 S5-P5.One needs to consider if he is right.

68 MMC3 AT 45b–c, Corinth inv. KH 47 (themould, Corinth XV 1 no. 49) and Corinth inv.KT 22–2 (Corinth XV 2, Group XIX 11), bothof which are from the terracotta factory at Co-

rinth and are smaller local copies of the Attictype.

69 R. V. Nicholls, JHS 78, 1958, 174: review ofA. N. Stillwell, Corinth XV 2. The Potter’sQuarter: The Terracottas.

70 Canberra inv. 75.19. MMC3 AT 45a pl. 1a;Green 1981, 84 (ill.); Green et al. 2003, 51no. 18 (colour ill.).

71 Courtois 1991, no. 4 (ill.).

Fig. 13.29. Corinth, Mus. inv. KH 47. KT 22–2:Corinthian mould and figurine of man wearing pilos, both hands under chin,

legs together. Pres. ht of figurine 5.1 cm.




with bigger cloak, a turned head, and a smaller phallos72. It is later and in some respects typi-cal of Boeotian. Another, variant example is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge73.

Important if only because of their wide connections is the series of figurines of a manwith his right hand to his brow. There can be no doubt that the original type is Attic. It be-longs early in the sequence of comic figurines, and it is important to realise that it is inde-pendent of the New York Group stylistically. There is a good if rather worn example fromthe Coroplast’s Dump in the Athenian Agora, as well as a mould from a pit in the Agoraand another fragment from the Pnyx, but the best surviving example is Amsterdam 881(fig. 13.31)74. The figure is relatively slim, with long legs, a slight bend in the knees, andexpressive hunched shoulders; his left hand seems to hang onto his cloak which comesround his body to bunch at the (high) waist. The beard is depicted as long and somewhatpointed, in fine strands, with an emphasis of a pair of parallel curls down the centre. Aninteresting minor detail is a small mark at the area of the navel. In these versions the righthand does not seem to be flat against the forehead but shading the eyes, the aposkopeuonpose75.

72 Karlsruhe inv. B 3037, bought in Livadhia.Helbing (Munich), Cat. 30–31 May 1905, 24no. 324 (ex Margaritis); Schürmann 1989,44–45 no. 97 pl. 21.

73 MMC3 AT 45d (Cambridge). Chiton notdotted. Light red clay, brown paint on belly,and moustache and beard painted brown, notmodelled.

74 Amsterdam inv. 881, MMC3 AT 5f pl. 12c;Griekse, Etruskische en Romeinse Kunst 2(Am-sterdam 1984) 86 fig. 70 right. Those fromAthens are listed as AT 5a–c. AT 5a has sub-sequently appeared in Ober – Hedrick 1993,130 no. 21.2 (colour ill.).

75 So in MMC3 under AT 5, with reference toJucker 1956.

Fig. 13.30. Canberra, Australian National University, Classics Dept inv. 75.19:Original Attic version of the same type as the last. Ht 9.5 cm.




The Corinthian versions are a remodelling (fig. 13.32)76: the legs have less bend inthem, and they are set slightly wider apart so that they give more support to the body77.The body is more thick-set, but there is still something of a bend in the knees. The beard isfuller and more curly but one could argue that the mask-type is the same, the change an el-ement of Corinthian style. The folds of the drapery are the same on shoulder and waist,though the mark on the navel is missing. The right arm is now more comfortably modelledand so gains more emphasis. The hand is flatter against the brow and it may now be betterto read the gesture as one of distress: if so it would be an interesting case of the type beingtaken up but with a different meaning.

Very close to the Corinthian version and even exhibiting elements of Corinthian style,especially in the facial hair and beard, is an example of the type in Syracuse that has beenknown for many years (fig. 13.33; pl. 14.4)78. This is a very clear case of the type beingtransmitted from Corinth rather than Athens.

76 Corinth inv. MF-71–53, MMC3 AT 5g, andCorinth inv. MF-75–54, MMC3 AT 5h. Fromthe same mould.

77 Compare, however, MMC3 AT 49 and 50. I donot know the present whereabouts of theformer and I have no notes on the latter(Athens, National Archaeological Museum

inv. 4423 [P 1692]) which could be Attic al-though Webster took it as Corinthian.

78 Syracuse inv. 1527, probably from Syracuse orAkrai. Ht 6.7 cm. Kekulé 1884, 80 pl. 51, 8;MMC3 AT 5i; Bernabò Brea 2002, 54f. fig. 20;Bacci – Spigo 2002, 47 middle (Sardella). Sofar as I could tell when I was able to examine

Fig. 13.31. Amsterdam, Allard PiersonMus. inv. 881:

Figurine of old man with right hand tohead (aposkopeuon?). Ht 9.6 cm.

Fig. 13.32. Corinth, Mus. inv. MF-71–53. MF-75–54:Corinthian adaptations of Fig. 13.31, from Corinth. Ht of each

7.3 cm.




I am not sure if a version of the type in Lipari (fig. 13.34) derives directly from the Co-rinthian or comes via the Syracusan79. I would suspect the latter, partly on grounds of geo-graphical proximity but also because the cloak, as it comes over the left arm, has its foldsat an angle (as in the Syracusan) rather than near-vertical like the Corinthian. The hair hasa higher peak in the centre, and the beard comes down in four heavy curls to a square-cutbottom like a number of others in the Lipari series, but, perhaps more importantly in termsof chronology, like Mask 3 in New Comedy80.

Lipari also has another, more typically local version81. These examples have beenfound in contexts of the last third of the fourth century. The modelling is simple, with anemphasis on key elements such as the frown-marks on the brow, the band of draperyround the waist, the large curling phallos, and so on. The legs are done in relief against a

this piece, the clay is Sicilian rather than Corin-thian – i. e. it is a copy rather than a direct im-port. The back is not modelled.

79 Lipari inv. 9725, from Lipari, trench XXX.Bernabò Brea 1981, 75 fig. 76 type E 5; Ber-nabò Brea 2001, 110 fig. 122. Lower legs andfeet missing; pres. ht 6.4 cm. One may alsocompare an example in Locri although it lacksthe right arm and lower legs.

80 Compare for example MNC3 1 ST 1.

81 MMC3 ST 38a–d, with refs., and note that Ber-nabò Brea, in Meligunìs-Lipara II 304, men-tioned other examples. MMC3 ST 38a is alsopublished in Bernabò Brea 1981, 85f. E 42apl. XIV 2c (colour); Bernabò Brea 2001, 89fig. 85d; MMC3 ST 38b in Bernabò Brea 1981,85f. E 42b fig. 111 pl. XIII 2 (colour); BernabòBrea 2001, 90 fig. 87b (colour, mirror image);Todisco 2002, pl. 33, 2. Compare the style ofMMC3 ST 39 which must be from the sameworkshop.

Fig. 13.34. Lipari, Museo ArcheologicoLuigi Bernabò Brea inv. 9725:

Version of Fig. 13.31, from Lipari,trench XXX. Pres. ht 6.4 cm.Fig. 13.33. Syracuse, Museo Archeologico

Regionale Paolo Orsi inv. 1527: Sicilian version ofFig. 13.31, from Syracuse, contr. Fusco. Ht 6.7 cm.




supporting ground. The fingers of the left hand, for example, are not distinguished. Theemphasis on the phallos is surprising at this date and in such a derivative version; it maywell be an indication that it was by now seen as an amusing, traditional figure-type thathad little direct relation to a performance seen on stage.

A further example of Corinthian is a figurine of a man tied to a structure82. Stylisticallyit is close to the Corinthian versions of the series of man with hand to head, and one mightguess that it should derive from Attic even though no Attic version survives. The specificityof the motif must relate to a particular scene in a particular play, and the derivation fromAttic must also have been true of the play that it reflects. It is too specific to have been ageneral borrowing of an attractive character.

There are two other figurines whose importance has not been widely appreciated(figs. 13.35–36)83. They must belong fairly late in the fourth century, let us say at the tran-sition to New Comedy in Athens, yet they have a totally independent and in fact Corin-thian style. One (fig. 13.36) is certainly playing the part of a soldier, with a shield againstthe upper part of his left arm, and the other (fig. 13.35) may well have been a cavalryman,

82 Corinth inv. MF 9658, MMC3 CT 7. 83 MMC3 CT 8 (Corinth inv. T1062) and MMC3

CT 9 (Corinth inv. T1055), Corinth XIII 96 pl.82 × 113 and pl. 82 × 114.

Fig. 13.35. Corinth, Mus. inv. T 1062:Figurine of young man with left arm raised

(cavalryman with spear?),from Corinth. Ht 9.5 cm.

Fig. 13.36. Corinth, Mus. inv. T 1055:Figurine of soldier with shield,

right hand holding spear,from Corinth. Pres. ht 8.2 cm.




supporting a spear with his left hand84. They suggest that Corinth even at this date had atradition of comedy that was somewhat independent of that of Athens – even if there are ofcourse plenty of young soldiers as we enter Athenian New Comedy – and that its relatedcoroplastic tradition was still very much alive. Hazel Palmer in Corinth XIII took them asbelonging to the third century, but inv. T 1062 (fig. 13.35) seems to have a phallos andtherefore a date just within the fourth century should be preferable, even if comic costumein Corinth was changing more slowly than that in Athens.

It may be relevant that some have seen connections in the architecture of the theatresof Corinth and Syracuse, but the relevant phases in Corinth are badly preserved and theabsolute chronology debatable. It would take us beyond our brief to examine the issuesadequately here85.

The part played by Corinth in fourth-century comic performance and its influence inthe west needs fresh, unbiassed examination86.

Cyprus

No one apart from Mrs Nicolaou has ever looked at the evidence for comic figurines fromCyprus at all seriously, although the recent treatment of Cypriot figurines in the Louvre isof itself important87.

The first we know about theatre in the island from ancient written sources comes inPlutarch’s Life of Alexander [29] in the context of the dramatic festival that he put on forhis troops in Tyre in May or June of 331. We are told that for this occasion the kings ofCyprus offered, or were persuaded, to be the principal sponsors – as it were the choregoi.The costs of gathering what was apparently an all-star cast cannot have been negligible,and one should add the need to construct some form of temporary theatre and all thenecessary props. The troupes of actors presumably brought their own costumes and masksappropriate to the roles to be played; those costs must have been built in to their travel-and appearance-fees.

What on present evidence we cannot know is why the kings or regional lords of Cyprusundertook this burden. Was it that they were each of them passionate about theatre? Orwas it rather, as one might see it after our experience of the pressure exerted on so-calledallies to join the invasion of Iraq, that they were persuaded by Alexander to put up fundingin exchange for his not invading Cyprus? Whatever one may hypothesise of the politicalpressures brought to bear in the particular circumstances, it is nonetheless worth examin-ing the cultural background to this sponsorship. The kings are hardly likely to have made ajoint decision along these lines for an event of a totally unfamiliar nature. We have noother evidence for theatre performance at this time in Cyprus preserved in ancient litera-ture, and as a result, any discussion has to rely entirely on the material evidence88.

No actual theatre in Cyprus is known to go back to this date: the one in Nea Paphosseems on present evidence to have been the earliest and to have been constructed near the

84 Note that there is no visible phallos. The maskis remarkably like those of the Cypriot figures,below.

85 For a summary, see Gebhard 1973, 17 n. 19.86 For a suggestion that E. Tr. was intended for

performance in Corinth (and elsewhere), seeEasterling 1994.

87 Nicolaou 1989; Caubet 1998.88 We may note, however, that Easterling (1994,

80 n. 24) has suggested that E. Ba. may havehad an intended performance in Cyprus.




end of the fourth century – even if the fact that it was constructed then as an element of thenew city may suggest a predisposition89. We may note, however, that there is little or noevidence for or against the theatre that must have existed in Kition: the evidence for onethere rests in a reference in a much later inscription90.

The earliest of the theatre-related pieces to consider is the black-figure olpe from Ma-rion probably dating to the first decade of the fifth century91. The decorative panel on thefront has an unusually dressed male facing left. He has a long beard and wears a himationtogether with a helmet, and he raises the himation before his face. The folds of the hi-mation are alternately red, and black with a pattern of white dots in groups of four. This isunusual costume, and Beazley had already pointed out the similarity of this man to thoseon the oinochoe in Würzburg and the small amphora in Brooklyn92. The oinochoe inWürzburg has three such men, wearing the same costume, and the amphora in Brooklyntwo pairs on one side and one pair on the other. In an article published some twenty yearsago, I argued that these scenes represented chorusmen of an early Attic comedy93. Sincethen a contemporary black-figure skyphos bearing two sets of four similar figures has beenpublished94. It is in a private collection in Pulsano (prov. Taranto) and was found locally,but its importance for us is that in this case the men carry castanets and dance before apiper. There can be no doubt that they represent a chorus. What we cannot know iswhether the purchaser of the olpe took it back to Marion as a souvenir of a performanceseen in Athens, bought the vase in Marion because it had a scene from a famous play(whether or not also staged in Cyprus, though at this date it seems on the face of it un-likely), or whether it was bought simply as an attractive and useful Athenian wine-vasewithout particular reference to the scene it carried.

Some of the same questions can be raised about another vase from Marion, an Atticred-figure lekythos attributed to the Bowdoin Painter and datable to ca. 480–46095. Thedecoration is of a bearded male dancing between a tree (which Beazley described as an ivy-bush) and a thyrsos. Beazley felt sure that the figure is Dionysus, and, if so, we may guessfrom his costume that the vase was intended to remind the viewer of one of the satyr playsapparently popular at that period whose subject-matter parodied the participation of thegod and his companions in the Battle of Gods and Giants96. The style of dance, with botharms akimbo and fingers at the waist, is one employed by satyrs, and we may usefully

89 For a brief overview and recent bibliography,see Green 2008, 75f.

90 Yon 2004, 264f. no. 2044. She seems to acceptMitford’s suggested date of the late first cen-tury A. D. See also Nicolaou 1976, 138–140,for his views on where in Kition it was located.

91 Nicosia inv. C 428, from Marion. Ht 20.7 cm.Dikaios 1934, 19 pl. 9, 2; Beazley 1948, 37f.[not illustrated]; Beazley 1989, 30f. no. VIIIpl. 8, 3. Beazley noted that the folds of the hi-mation are alternately red, and black with apattern of white dots in groups of four (not in-dicated in Dikaios’ drawing in RDAC). It is un-usual to have such a figure moving left.

92 Würzburg inv. L 344. ABV 434, 3 (Painter ofVilla Giulia M. 482); Beazley, Para 295; Beaz-ley Addenda2 111; Langlotz 1932, no. 344pl. 103; Brommer 1942, 74 fig. 10; Green 1985,

101 no. 10 fig. 13. Brooklyn inv. 09.35; said tobe from Thebes. Sotheby, Sale Cat. 19–20 July1895, lot 55; Fifth Avenue Art Galleries SaleCat. 16 January 1909, lot 104; Green 1985,101 no. 9 fig. 12a–b.

93 Green 1985.94 Pulsano, coll. Guarini, from between Pulsano

and Lizzano (Taranto). Fedele et al. 1984, 45f.no. 14 pl. 43.

95 Nicosia inv. C 739, from Marion. Ht 24.8 cm.ARV2 683, 122; Beazley Addenda2 279; Beaz-ley 1948, pl. 5, 3; Beazley 1989, 30f. no. VIIIpl. 15, 1. For a recent study of Attic imports inMarion together with further references, seePadgett 2009.

96 See Krumeich in Krumeich et al. 1999, 58, withrefs., although this vase is not mentioned there.




compare the dancing, masked satyr-player on the well-known cup in Munich decoratedby Makron, or of course the young chorusman on the Tarporley Painter’s bell-krater inSydney97.

We seem to have no other theatre objects of the fifth century, but the picture changesrapidly when we enter the fourth.

In looking at terracottas, I have so far been concentrating on issues of style, and thesame will be true here, but what strikes one first when looking at those from Cyprus re-flecting Middle Comedy is the high proportion of figures playing the roles of travellers.They immediately raise the question of whether they indicate a high proportion of playsthat included travellers – as one might be persuaded could have been the case given the is-land’s location – and/or if travellers were favourite characters with the audience, ratherlike Heracles in the communities of Greece proper. If there were local varieties of comedy,they could have provided good subject-matter for stupid behaviour on the part of strangersnot knowing the dialect or local customs.

In general the pattern of costume is Athenian but the style of many of the figurines islocal. Among the earlier examples there is regularly something one might call a deliberatecrudeness of features, especially in the face or mask: a very broad, partly open mouth, anemphasis on the eyes, and often a rather rough and unkempt beard. A fragment of a figu-rine of a traveller carrying his pack is Louvre inv. AM 260, from Kition (fig. 13.37)98. Ithas typically vigorous facial features. It is from the same mould as a figurine in the Cabinetdes Médailles where one can see that the folds of the short chiton he wears are done infairly naturalistic fashion and that it has a curved, tied-up phallos that should place itsomewhere in the middle years of the fourth century99.

A rather cruder piece but of much the same period is a figurine of a man carryinga cista on his head, a flask strung from his left shoulder and a chytra by his right hip

97 Munich inv. 2657, ARV2 475, 267; e.g. De-noyelle 1991, 18 fig. 13; Winkler – Zeitlin1989, 230 pl. 7 (Lissarrague); Vierneisel –Kaeser 1992, 414 fig. 74, 9; Kunisch 1997,pl. 163, 507; Krumeich – Pechstein – Seiden-sticker 1999, pl. 2a; about 480–470. Sydneyinv. 47.05, formerly in the Hamilton collec-tion. Green et al. 2003, 40f. no. 12 (colour

ills.), with earlier refs.; CVA Sydney (1) pl. 2.See also recently Seidensticker 2010 and Biles –Thorn with n. 89 in this volume.

98 Pres. ht 4.9 cm. Pottier 1879, 88 no. 35; Cau-bet 1998, 638 no. 1086 (ill.).

99 Paris, Cab. des Méd. inv. 158, from Cyprus.MMC3 KT 2 (with earlier refs.), Biers – Green1998, pl. 17, 3.

Fig. 13.37. Paris, Louvre inv. AM 260:Figurine of traveller with bedroll on his shoulders,

Cypriot, from Kition. Pres. ht 4.9 cm.




(fig. 13.38)100. Some features, such as the style of the legs and their arrangement, have el-ements of the grotesque, but his exomis is treated naturalistically. The face of the mask is infact not all that far in its handling from that of the fragment in the Louvre (fig. 13.37).

Well known is another piece from Kition (fig. 13.39; pl. 15.1)101. This too has elementsof the grotesque, not least in the way that the right leg is raised and the drapery pulled upto reveal the phallos. The treatment of the mouth and eyes is closely comparable with thatof the last two. On the other hand there is a convincing attempt to imply movement andliveliness, and the pose puts an emphasis on the yoke he carries over his left shoulder withthe bedroll and pot behind.

We see something of the same style in a group of a man and what may be his wife(fig. 13.40; pl. 15.2)102. The theme is one which tends to occur in South Italian comic vasesabout the middle of the century and into the third quarter: one might compare in particu-lar the Apulian red-figure oinochoe Taranto inv. 54724 with its scene of a man in discus-

100 Larnaka, coll. Pierides, ht 11 cm. MMC3 KT 9pl. 13d; Nicolaou 1989, no. 10 fig. 10; Kar-ageorghis 1985, 242 no. 242 (ill.).

101 Paris, Louvre inv. AM 33, ht 19.5 cm. MMC3

KT 10; Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. CCVIII 8;Winter 1903, 415/10; Bieber 1961, fig. 175;Mollard-Besques 1971, 60. 66 pl. 14, 1; Cau-

bet 1998, 636f. no. 1084 (ill.). It is curious thatCaubet accepts Bieber’s idea that this is Cadmus.

102 Paris, Louvre inv. AM 39, from Larnaka.MMC3 KT 8 (with earlier refs); Bernabò Brea1981, 12 fig. 6; Caubet 1998, 640f. no. 1092(ill.).

Fig. 13.38. Larnaka, Pierides Coll. –Laiki Bank Museum: Traveller loaded with

equipment, Cypriot, from Cyprus. Ht 0.11 cm.

Fig. 13.39. Paris, Louvre inv. AM 33:Traveller with yoke carrying bedroll and pot,

Cypriot, from Kition. Ht 19.5 cm.




sion with what can only be his wife103. He has a short stick in his right hand; in Athens thatwould indicate that he is not well-to-do.

When we look at local versions of Attic figurines, the series of a man clasping his headoccurs in Cyprus in a quite well-preserved example in the Pierides collection (fig. 13.41)104.With this (and by contrast with the Corinthian and western versions) we are closer to theAttic originals, and we might guess at a date in the first half of the fourth century. Hereagain we see some naturalism in the drapery, and an emphasis on the eyes. The left hand iswithin the himation but does not hang onto its edge. What is curious is that the coroplastappears to have misunderstood the beard – as one can see he might have from the Agorafigurine – and substituted a tongue. It is a local interpretation of an imported type. At thesame time we may observe that in this case the man’s himation is shown as having a fringe,an indicator that he was conceived as being a distinguished gentleman.

103 Taranto inv. 54724, from Taranto, via Ducadegli Abruzzi t. 50, PhV2 64 no. 121; Lo Porto1964, 18 fig. 7; Touchefeu-Meynier 1968, 234n.20 pl. 36; Alessio et al. 1990, pl. 6b (colour);Andreae – Presicce 1996, 440 no. 6.12 (colourill.); Hoffmann 2002, 236 grave 252 no. 1pl. 31, 2; D’Amicis 2004, 36 upper left.

104 MMC3 KT 1 pl. 12b; Nicolaou 1989, no. 11fig. 11; Karageorghis 1985, 242 no. 241 (ill.).Interesting that the mark at the navel, notedabove for the Attic versions, is preserved herethough not in the Corinthian and western ver-sions.

Fig. 13.40. Paris, Louvre inv. AM 39:Group of man and woman, Cypriot,

from Larnaka. Ht 10 cm.

Fig. 13.41. Larnaka, Pierides Coll. –Laiki Bank Museum: Figurine copying thetype of Fig. 13.31, Cypriot, from Cyprus.

Pres. ht 7 cm.




We see a similar handling in the figurine of a man holding a jug or hydria in his lefthand and with his right to the back of his neck105. I take as Attic or something very close toit an example formerly on the London market106. Here again it is the handling of the faceof the mask that demonstrates its local character. These are from very late in the MiddleComedy sequence. Some six examples of the type are known to me.

The seated man pondering is a popular type. There are at least 13 known examples fromacross the Greek world107. The Cypriot example is simply a copy from a worn mould, and asits small size shows (a mere 8 cm), from fairly late in a mould series108. Despite its quality, itpreserves a remarkable amount of colour: bright blue and pink on the feet and at the sides ofthe feet, blue and yellow on the seat, pink on the face and arms. Such colouring, of course,does not reflect the stage but belongs to the toy-like quality of the figurine itself109.

By the end of our period these local qualities disappear. The figurine of a traveller fromCypriot Salamis, which I published some years ago, is of a generic appearance at the tran-sition to New Comedy110. If we did not know it had come from Cyprus, its origin would behard to detect.

Our last example, from Kition, derives from the earliest phase of New Comedy or eventhe latest phase of Middle111. It is a figure from what must have been a famous scene, witha slave tugging at his cloak as he sits on an altar. We have other, somewhat later examplesof the same motif from Rome and from elsewhere in Italy112. And yet another, this time ofthe Magenta Group and in the form of a plastic vase, has appeared on the Swiss market113.The point here is that by 300, people in Kition were in fairly direct touch with the main-stream, and there is nothing local in the character of the piece114.

Conclusions

By the end of our period we are in a much more united world – as indeed we know frommany other sources. Earlier than that, Cypriot theatre figurines often had their own char-acter and preferred certain themes, not least travellers. Whether Cypriots wrote their own

105 MMC3 AT 125a; Caubet 1998, no. 1130(Louvre).

106 Charles Ede Ltd. Greek and Roman TerracottaSculpture XII (1992) no. 9 (ill.). With Ede ear-lier, in 1984. This is the same piece as MNC3

1AT 7, and the object in the left hand is clearly ahydria rather than a basket. Of the six examplesnow known, this is the only one to be complete.

107 See MMC3 AT 21a–i. Another has appeared inVierneisel-Schlörb 1998, 96 no. 287 pl. 55, 9;there are two in Cracow; a poor, late examplein the Hermitage is published in VestnikDrev-Ist 1, 2000, 209 fig. 3.

108 The Cypriot example is Paris, Louvre inv. AM1184. Caubet 1998, 638f. no. 1087 (ill.). Prov-enience uncertain but Caubet takes it as beingof Cypriot manufacture.

109 Compare the case of Bonn inv. D 14 (supran. 58).

110 MMC3 KT 3, now Columbia (MO) inv. 84.57,

ex coll. Cesnola, from Salamis, Biers – Green1998, pl. 16, 1–4.

111 Paris, Louvre inv. AM 34, from Kition, ht11 cm. Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, pl. 208, 7;Winter 1903, pl. 419, 5; Bieber 1961, fig. 407;Caubet 1998, 639f. no. 1089 (ill.); MMC3 188KT 13; MNC3 1KT 3.

112 MNC3 2RT 13; MNC3 2TT 3a–b.113 Geneva, Phoenix Ancient Art, and shown on

their website during 2008–2011; formerly(1984–1996) exhibited at the Getty Museum.It preserves many traces of polychromy and is agood example.

114 I have excluded from my Cypriot selection thebronze figurine of a comic cook in the CyprusMuseum inv. D 266 (MMC2 AB 1b pl. 1e;MMC3 AB 1c), since it and the rest of the seriesto which it belongs seem likely to reflect comictheatre in a general rather than specific fashion,even leaving aside the problems of date.




plays or modified Athenian, or both, is a question that it is difficult to be sure about fromthe evidence, but, as with Corinth and Boeotia, it is clear that that were not blindly fol-lowing the Athenian model115. It is worth considering the role of theatre in Cyprus at thisperiod, and we might ask ourselves if, as with Alexander’s theatre festival in Tyre in 331,there was an element of asserting Hellenic identity116. One thinks back over the historyof the island to the main arrival of Greeks in the diaspora of the twelfth century, when,despite their numbers, they cannot have replaced all the pre-existing population; then theconsiderable influx of Phoenicians in the eighth and seventh centuries, and, nearer in time,the period of Persian domination. There must have been a continuing consciousness, too,of their potential isolation among the peoples on all sides except the relatively distant Ae-gean. And then the mainland-Greek attitude to Euagoras of Salamis and his dealings withthe Persians early in the fourth century was not unambiguous even if the Athenians per-suaded themselves to put up a statue to him117.

The case of Cyprus was an individual one, and so in different way was that of Boeotia.Here there was no need to assert a Greek identity. Instead one may detect an effort to pre-serve local traditions in the face of influence from their Athenian neighbours, an influencethat in the end proved overwhelming. The Athenian style of comedy had the advantage ofa fully scripted performance with all that that must have involved in terms of dramaticsubtlety and the development of interacting characters, and we see it reflected in the rangeof figurines representing sub-types of standard characters. Boeotians must also have seenhow Athenian comedy was becoming popular in other regional centres, even without ourtaking on board, for the later part of the fourth century, the role of the Macedonians in re-inforcing the popularity of the Athenian version in the years following Chaironeia, ironicas that may seem.

And as for Corinth, it seems to me fair to believe that Corinth was not only influenced byAthenian comedy but was contributing both to the general picture and to the distribution ofthe medium. Despite their various military encounters, Corinth maintained cultural linkswith Athens over considerable periods of time, as one sees, for example, in the manufactureof white-ground lekythoi, or the phenomenon of the Suessula Painter near the end of the fifthcentury who seems to have worked in both centres118. The case of the figurine of a womanwith skyphos, which seems very likely to derive from the key scene from Thesmophoria-zusae, raises the question of how that scene may have been transmitted to South Italy as wehave it on the little vase in Würzburg, whether as an image or as a performed scene on stage,and what Corinth’s role may have been in the process, especially given the delays involved.

The manufacture of vases with comic scenes in both Corinth and the West can hardlybe coincidental. What remains to be seen in this case is the direction of travel. There arehints in the admittedly limited range of evidence that the idea, or the will to pursue it, mayhave come from the West to Corinth, particularly given the lack of comic scenes fromAthens at the time. If this should eventually prove to be the case, it could represent fasci-

115 Compare the assessment of terracottas of thisperiod in general in Vandenabeele 2007. Shenotes (224) that the most important centreswith Greek replicas or Greek-inspired figurinesare Marion and Kition. We should bear inmind, however, that inhabitants of the Paphosregion do not seem to have enjoyed clay figu-rines, and so one cannot draw sweeping con-clusions about levels of hellenisation.

116 Cf. Moloney’s observations on theatre inMacedon in this volume. Earlier, note Rever-mann 1999 and Bosworth 1996b.

117 See Rhodes – Osborne 2003, 50–55 on theirdocument 11 of 394/3. For an earlier periodthey rightly refer to Reyes 1994, 11–13 on Cy-prus as a foreign place.

118 For an excellent survey of the links exemplifiedin pottery, see Pemberton 2003.




nating possibilities in terms of the acting profession or even international, non-Athenianplaywrights already by the middle years of the fourth century.

Since preparing this paper I have noticed J. K. Papadopoulos’ suggestion that thewidely-distributed Agrinion Group of vases from the Adriatic coast, for which McPheeconsidered Apulian links, has Corinthian origins119. They too belong to the earlier half ofthe fourth century. Re-assessment of the role of Corinth is beginning.

To come back to the larger body of evidence, the comic figurines, the more one looks,the more one sees how many of those in the West, and especially in Sicily and Lipari, aretaken directly from Corinthian models or developed from Corinthian archetypes, whetheror not they in turn were derived from Athenian. Their quantity and the apparently system-atic nature of the copying make it clear that this was more than a casual or intermittent ac-tivity. Corinth’s traditional role in transmitting materials and ideas to the west was main-tained in what for us has been an unexpected area. The bulk of them belong to the secondhalf of the fourth century, and especially the last third. In terms of connections at thisperiod, it is not irrelevant to bear in mind the Syracusans’ well-known call to Corinth forhelp in their hour of need, the intervention of Timoleon of Corinth in 344, and his encour-agement of Corinthian settlers in the years immediately following120. The mere fact thatthey called on Corinth is of itself significant inasmuch as it emphasises that the Syracusansstill felt the connection to be important and viable. The old man’s intervention provedmore successful than anyone seems to have imagined at the time (he died in 336), and it ledto a general renewal in Sicily after the terrible years of the earlier part of the fourth centuryfollowing the Carthaginian destructions of 405. This renewal has been well demonstratedarchaeologically, not least through the work of Orlandini and then Adamesteanu121. Thedevelopment of Gela alone was a staggering achievement.

Timoleon is said to have encouraged the immigration of some sixty-thousand colon-ists, and although they cannot all have been Corinthians – there is indeed some evidence inGnathia vase-painting for some Tarentine input – Corinthians must have been the domi-nant element if only for political reasons. On the basis of our evidence it is difficult not tobelieve that there must have been coroplasts among this number. While the activity of thevase-painters of the Manfria Group may be seen as a symptom of the general increase inthe prosperity of the Sicilian cities, not least Gela, and of their interest in theatrical subjectsas part of that same process, the specificity of Corinthian as distinct from direct Attic in-fluence in the style of the figurines surely argues for the presence of manufacturers trainedin Corinth. This acceptance in Sicily of Corinth as a prime source for the style of comic per-formance in the later period of Middle Comedy and then Menander is in this context notunnatural, and it is time we built it into our picture of the distribution of Greek theatre. Atthe same time it should not obscure the fact that Corinth was a key player from well beforeTimoleon.

119 Papadopoulos 2009; McPhee 1979.120 See more recently Sordi 1961, Talbert 1975,

Smarczyk 2001. Dagasso 2006 is useful on theCorinthian end of the equation.

121 See amid much else, the excellent survey in Or-landini 1958 and now the more recent obser-vations in Congiu et al. 2011.



“Regional Theatre in the Fourth Century. The Evidence of Comic Figurines of Boeotia, Corinth and...

Documents

Transcript of “Regional Theatre in the Fourth Century. The Evidence of Comic Figurines of Boeotia, Corinth and...