¹ Shefton, B. B., ‘Herakles and Theseus on a Red-Figured Louterion’, Hesp. xxxi (1962) pp. 330–68 esp. 338–44, 353–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Barron, J. P., ‘New Light on Old Walls: The Murals of the Theseion’, JHS xcii (1972) pp. 20–45 esp. 20–33, 44–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Barron, op. cit. pp. 27–8.

⁴ Barron, op. cit. p. 33.

⁵ Berlin F 2403, ARV ² 599.9. Robert, C., Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile und weiteres über Polygnot, 18 Hall. Winckelmannsprogr. (Halle 1895) pp. 48–9Google Scholar. Robert, repeated this suggestion in Kentaurenkampf und Tragödienscene, 22 Hall. Winckelmannsprogr. (Halle 1898) p. 10Google Scholar.

⁶ Paus. i. 17.2 (Loeb ed. trans. W. H. S. Jones).

⁷ The west pediment at Olympia apparently equalises die two heroes, but there the intention was not to celebrate Theseus, as it manifestly was in the Theseion.

⁸ Shefton, op. cit. pp. 341 ff. and 353 ff.

⁹ Shefton, op. cit. pp. 360 ff.

¹⁰ Barron, op. cit. p. 29 and note 79.

¹¹ Despite Barron's suggestion (op. cit. p. 24) that accuracy in the copying of an anatomical detail may prove accuracy in the copying of the whole composition, I doubt that this is so. Even in such obviously intentionally correct renditions as the copies of the shield of the Athena Parthenos, many liberties are taken and there is a great deal of variation (see Harrison, E. B., ‘The Composition of the Amazonomachy on the Shield of Athena Parthenos’, Hesp. xxxv (1966) pp. 109–33)Google Scholar. In these instances a sculptural model is being reproduced in sculpture, albeit greatly reduced; the adjustments that are necessary are very slight when compared to what is required in the way of modification when one medium is translated into another, that is, when a wall painting is used as the inspiration for a vase painting or for a sculptural group. Here adaptation is unavoidable, for what is suitable in one context is not in another.

¹² Barron, op. cit. pp. 26 ff., Webster, T. B. L., Der Niobidmaler (Leipzig 1935) p. 17Google Scholar, Löwy, E., Polygnot (Vienna 1929) pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar (I am grateful to Sir Ernst Gombrich for reminding me of Löwy's stimulating little book.)

¹³ Paus. v. 10.8 seems to preserve some legacy of this confusion when he identifies the central figure (now generally considered to be Apollo) as Peirithoos, which is certainly wrong. We have no way of knowing whether he was right in identifying Theseus, in this context, as the axe-swinger since when he looked at the pediment he was wholly dependent on what his guide told him. His identification of Theseus in the Theseion is, however, quite another matter. There he could read the inscription by the figure himself.

¹⁴ Munich 2640, ARV ² 402.22. The Lapith stands with one foot on his vanquished foe in the traditional pose of the big game hunter—Heracles in the lion metope at Olympia places his foot on his quarry in the same way, but here it is possible that die Lapith is using his foot to give himself leverage as he withdraws his spear from the dead centaur.

¹⁶ Harrison, op. cit. (supra n. 11) p. 127. Benndorf, O. and Niemann, G., Das Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Vienna 1889) p. 186Google Scholar observed that the arrangement of subjects on the Munich cup (with ‘Theseus who has already killed a centaur’ on the inside and ‘elsewhere the battle is undecided’ on the outside) corresponds to the distinction between Theseus and all the others that is drawn in Pausanias' description of the centauromachy in the Theseion.

¹⁶ Barron, op. cit. (supra n. 2) pp. 25–8.

¹⁷ See Richter, G. M. A., Attic Red-Figured Vasts: A Survey (New Haven 1958) p. 87Google Scholar, for a discussion of the Foundry Painter's work in the context of the vase painters of the first quarter of the fifth century.

¹⁸ Thompson, H. A., ‘The Sculptural Adornment of the Hephaisteion’ AJA lxvi (1962) pp. 345–7Google Scholar and Morgan, C. H., ‘The Sculptures of the Hephaisteion II: The Friezes’; Hesp. xxxi (1962) p. 226Google Scholar and see plates 78b, 81a, and esp. 82 for a comparison between the two images of Theseus on the two friezes and the Tyrannicides.

¹⁹ Thompson, op. cit. (supra n. 18) p. 347.

²⁰ If the prototype of the Foundry Painter's cup was a wall painting, it was probably destroyed in the Persian sacks of 480 and 479. This does not mean that the memory of such a powerful image might not have survived. (In a culture where pictorial images are scarcer than in ours, they are remembered better.) We know that the statues of the Tyrannicides carried off by the Persians were replaced in 477/6 by the bronzes by Kritios and Nesiotes, and some similar idea of ‘reconstruction’ of a treasured image might have suggested the modified re-use of the Foundry Painter's prototype in the Centauromachy in the Theseion. See below, p. 164 (discussion of figure I in Plate XV) and note 45.

²¹ Barron, op. cit. p. 25. Though new in art, the centauromachy at the feast seems to have long been known to literature, cf. Hom., Odyss. xxi 295 ff.Google Scholar

²² Phaedrus 246 and 254. The behaviour of the two horses as described by Plato in Phaedrus 254 is remarkably suggestive of the motives behind the behaviour of the men and the centaurs at the wedding feast: ‘The right-hand horse is upright and cleanly made;… he is a lover of honour and modesty and temperance, and the follower of true glory…. The other is a crooked lumbering animal … the mate of insolence and pride…. Now when the charioteer beholds the vision of love… the obedient steed, then as always under the government of shame, refrains from leaping on the beloved; but the other, heedless of the pricks and the blows of the whip, plunges and runs away …’ (trans. B. Jowett).

²³ Shefton, op. cit. pp. 353 ff.

²⁴ Herodotus v 18.

²⁶ Aeschylus' Persians, produced in 472 b.c., shows a similar breadth of vision, for the poet invites the same sort of sympathy for the Persians that the painter fo the centauromachy probably invited for the centaurs. On the nature of centaurs, see also Kirk, G. S., Myth— Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Cambridge 1970) pp. 151 ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Athenaeus viii 347e (trans. C. B. Guliek, Loeb ed.).

²⁷ Barron, op. cit. pp. 28 and 33.

²⁸ Krater, Florence 3997, Painter, Florence, ARV ²541.1Google Scholar.

²⁹ Pfuhl, E., Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting (New York 1955) p. 61Google Scholar.

³⁰ Krater fragment, New York 06.1021.140. Painter of the New York Centauromachy, ARV ² 1408.2.

³¹ Krater fragments, Berlin F 2403, Niobid Painter, ARV ² 599.9.

³² Krater, New York 07.286.84, Painter of the Woolly Satyrs, , ARV ²613.1Google Scholar and cf. Robertson, M., Greek Painting (Geneva 1959) p. 131Google Scholar.

³³ Cf. Shefton, op. cit. pp. 341–2.

³¹ Shefton, op. cit. p. 359 points out that ‘As host Peirithoos no doubt was more likely than anyone else to have had quick access to a regular weapon, whereas his guests, both Lapiths and centaurs, having reclined unarmed at the banquet were obliged to make do with what came easily to hand, lampstands, logs of firewood, spits, wine-vessels, sacrificial knives, tables and other implements.’ Many vase painters, however, seem not to have felt constrained to adhere to this principle, for on a krater in Vienna (Kunsthistor. Museum 1026, Nekyia Painter, ARV ² 1087.2) two heroes appear equipped with swords, while on the New York fragment (see above, note 30) a youth in the lower register, who certainly is not Peirithoos, wields a sword. See also Shefton, op. cit. p. 259, n. 116.

³⁵ I am using the letters of Treu's reconstruction, a drawing of which can be found in Lullies, R. and Hirmer, M., Greek Sculpture (London 1957) p. 52Google Scholar.

³⁶ I believe the Agora Louterion (Fragment, Athens Agora P 12641, Curti Painter, ARV ² 1043.1) could also be restored in this manner, though Shefton, op. cit. pp. 338–9, n. 38 and pp. 358–60 prefers to follow the scheme of the New York fragment (see above, n. 30).

³⁷ He appears as Treu's figure M on the west pediment of the Temple of Zeus facing to the right and again on the Painter of the Woolly Satyrs' krater (see above, n. 32) facing in the same direction. He is shown facing in die opposite direction in the Berlin fragment (see above, n. 31). Clearly the artists who drew on the centauromachy in the Theseion for their inspiration felt free either to use figures as they appeared in the mural or to reverse them with respect to left and right. The axeswinger, in compositions where the Theseion Theseus has been omitted, may be intended to represent Theseus (cf. Shefton, op. cit. pp. 360 ff. and Robert Kentaurenkampf op. cit. p. 10 and Robert Marathonschlacht op. cit. p. 49); it is with this hero that Pausanias identifies him on the Olympia pediment (v, 10.8).

³⁸ Krater, Geneva MF 238, Geneva Painter, ARV ² 615.1.

³⁹ Louterion fragment, Athens, Agora P 12641, Curti Painter, ARV ² 1043.1.

⁴⁰ See above, n. 30.

⁴¹ See above, n. 31.

⁴² I have introduced two groups of figures fighting back to back for two reasons; first, die pairs of figures and their opponents as reflected in vases are not always the same, and second, the motif is a useful one for binding groups of combatants togemer and does not look repetitious when the actions and theb adversaries of the heroes are varied. The master of the Olympia pediment (to mention only one example from sculpture) made similar use of balancing groups.

⁴³ Psykter, Villa Giulia 3577, FR I, pl. 15.

⁴⁴ As in the krater, Florence 3997, Florence painter, ARV ² 541.1; the krater, Vienna Kunsthistor. Museum 1026, Nekyia Painter, ARV ² 1087.2; and on the frieze at Bassae (slab XXVII, British Museum).

⁴⁵ I have suggested (p. 160) that there was a late archaic wall painting of the outdoor centauromachy from which the Theseion painter drew some of his inspiration. I have also suggested that the group of a Lapith with a dead centaur that the Foundry Painter uses for his tondo on the Munich cup was derived from such a painting. The leaping centaur who first appears in the context of an outdoor centauromachy and then becomes a frequent participant in centauromachies at the feast also seems to have originated in a late archaic wall painting and this strengthens the proposition that such a painting really did exist. It seems likely to me that the Theseion painter used these two motifs from an earlier wall painting in his new work. He may also have drawn other motifs from earlier sources. Certainly the image of the paired heroes fighting back to back which occurs very frequendy in representations of the centauromachy at the feast (see p. 163) is as old as Euphronios' Amazonomachy krater in the Museo Pubblico in Arezzo (see Pfuhl, op. cit. (supra n. 29) fig. 47).

⁴⁶ See n. 44.

¹⁷ See M. Robertson, op. cit. (supra n. 32) pp. 128–9.

⁴⁸ Barron, op. cit. (supra n. 2) pp. 32–3.

⁴⁹ See Shefton, op. cit. (supra n. 1) p. 363.

⁵⁰ National Gallery, London.

⁵¹ Ovid Met. XII, 210–535.