Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:38:24.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Taste of A Boeotian Pig

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

B. A. Sparkes
B. A. Sparkes
Affiliation:
The University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Already by Pindar's day the term ‘Boeotian pig’ was an old reproach, and indeed Boeotia was ‘a slow canton, as the nimble Attics would say, a glorious climate for eels, but a bad air for brains.’ My choice of title does not, however, stop there. Anyone brought up in Scotland or in the north of England will know the word ‘pig’ in another meaning than the usual, will know it as a pot, a jar, a crock, and the use of this meaning in the phrase ‘Pig and Whistle’ is perhaps more widely known. Porcelain also establishes a connexion between pigs and pottery.

Boeotian pottery is the Cinderella of the local schools, offering few of the usual attractive groups and classes of work which distinguish most other centres, and much of the potting and painting done in Boeotia is indeed poor or mediocre. It has, however, an interest of its own which makes it worth looking at—the interest one can take in seeing first-rate work copied and adapted for local use and in noting the influence of more brilliant craftsmen on their less well-endowed neighbours. Part of the trouble with looking at Boeotia is that we see Greek pottery through the eyes of Athens; we have come to judge Greek work by the standard of Athens and to consider that a different approach means necessarily an incompetent attempt at mimicking Athenian work. In many cases this is so, for the influence of Attic work on the less original centres was widespread and rarely good. Occasionally a Boeotian artist produced work which rivals Attic, but this is uncommon, and it is more likely that such an artist was an immigrant Athenian. We may also run into the danger of regarding ‘Boeotian’ as having the same range in meaning as ‘Athenian’, whereas we are really dealing with different local centres, e.g. Thebes, Tanagra, Coroneia, Thespiai. Thus we must not expect a continuous tradition of development along a single line, and this makes dating hazardous. Boeotian artists did produce local work which is distinctive, and they used the basic techniques of black-figure and red-figure in ways and combinations different from their neighbours; they also had their own variations with added white and purple. For shapes too they preferred a slightly different range and their own local variations.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 87 , November 1967 , pp. 116 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article was first given as a lecture to the Triennial Meeting at Cambridge in August 1965. The British Academy provided a generous grant which enabled me to visit European museums and collect photographs of Boeotian material, and the University of Southampton very kindly contributed to the cost of the plates. I take great pleasure in thanking Miss Alison Frantz for her photographs of vases in the National Museum, Athens, and a special debt is owed to the photographers in Heidelberg and Berlin, as vases in those collections make up the bulk of the pictures. I would also like to thank the authorities of the following museums for permission to publish and many other kindnesses: Athens (National Museum); Berlin (Staatliche Museen); Copenhagen (National Museum); Heidelberg (University); London (British Museum); Paris (Louvre); Toronto (Royal Ontario Museum). Individuals to whom I owe debts of gratitude are: Mrs Semni Karouzou, Dr Norbert Kunisch and Professor C. M. Robertson, and most important Mrs A. D. Ure to whom the lecture was given as a tribute.

I have added an appendix on the Rhitsona graves as these still constitute our most accurate and continuous series of graves for chronological purposes.

1 Pindar, Ol. vi 89–90Google Scholar; cf.fr. iv 9.

2 Gildersleeve, B. L., Pindar: the Olympian and Pythian Odes viii.Google Scholar

3 Sillar, F. C., and Meyler, R. M., The Symbolic Pig (1961) passim, esp. 12–13 and 132–133.Google Scholar

4 Some reached the west, e.g. the rf. skyphos and krater from Spina, : Arch. Class. xiv (1962) pls. 16, 1, 17, 1–2, 18, 1 and 19, 1Google Scholar; and the geometricising skyphos from Gela, : JHS xlix (1929) 171.Google Scholar For a more extended reference, see Arch. Class. xiv (1962) 30 (Pelagatti).

5 For Rhitsona, see the Appendix 128–130; for the Cabeirion, see Wolters, P., and Bruns, G., Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben i (1940)Google Scholar and more recently AA 1964, 231–265 (Bruns).

6 Berlin inv. 3124. The same pattern is to be seen on Berlin inv. 3310 (Hampe FgS pl. 20, V 34) and Boston 287 (Hampe FgS pl. 20, V 33).

7 For Geometric, Boeotian, see now ‘Böotische Vasen aus dem 8 und 7 Jahrhundert’, JDAI lxxx (1965) 18–75Google Scholar (Canciani) and CVA Heidelberg 3 (27).

8 Paris, Louvre inv. CA 639, from Thebes: Pottier, Vases du Louvre pl. 21Google Scholar, above and to right; Pfuhl figs. 16 and 17; AM liii (1928) Beil. 9, 17; Hampe FgS 28, V 48; JDAI lxxx (1965) 31, no. 4.

9 Athens NM 11795: Hampe FgS pl. 21, V 11; JDAI lxxx (1965) 40, no. 5.

10 Attic bowl, London BM 1899.2–19.1: JHS lxxviii (1958) pl. 139; Matz GgK pl. 14; BSA xliv (1949) 114–16, no. 40. Corinthian bowl, Toronto 919.5.18: Robinson, Harcum and Iliffe no. 113; Lane GP pl. 10b; JHS lxxviii (1958) pl. 14a; Matz GgK pl. 18; BSA xliv (1949) 113–14, no. 38; Demargne, AA 294Google Scholar, fig. 383.

11 JHS lxxviii (1958) 124 (R. T. Williams) where other ship scenes from Boeotia are quoted.

12 Payne, Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei 10.Google Scholar

13 Athens NM 5893, from near Thebes, : JHS lxxxi (1961) pl. 5, 1–2Google Scholar; Arias, Hirmer, Shefton pl. 11; JDAI lxxx (1965) 22, no. 23 (with full bibliography).

14 On the shape, see BSA xlvii (1952) 13–39 (Boardman), Cook, , GPP 100 and 107–8Google Scholar, JDAI lxxx (1965) 19–25.

15 London BM 89.4–18.1, from Thebes: Payne, NC pl. 1, 7Google Scholar; Payne, Protok. pl. 22, 1–2, 5Google Scholar; Lane, GP pl. 23cGoogle Scholar; Hafner, GgK 89Google Scholar, fig. 89; Richter, HGA 290Google Scholar, fig. 409; Boardman, Greek Art 49Google Scholar, fig. 37; Demargne, AA 341Google Scholar, figs. 439.

16 Heidelberg G 27: CVA 1 (10) pl. 23 (457) 6.

17 For studies of this ware, see JDAI iii (1888) 325–64 (Böhlau, ), Mon. Piot. i (1894) 29Google Scholar(Holleaux, ), BCH 1895, 179–81Google Scholar(Ridder, de), BSA xiv (1907–1908) 308–18 and 227Google Scholar, n. 1 (Ure, P.N.), JHS xxx (1910) 336–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar(Ure, P. N.), Arch. Eph. 1912, 110–13Google Scholar(Ure, P. N.), Class. Cér. Ant. xii 6–10Google Scholar(Ure, P. N.), Sixth and Fifth 12–20Google Scholar, AA 1933, 2–6 (Ure, P. N.), Studies Robinson 48Google Scholar(Ure, P. N.), CVA Reading i text to pl. 15Google Scholar, Cook, GPP 101.Google Scholar

18 Ure, in Studies Robinson 48Google Scholar says that the style ‘must go back some way before its first appearance in our Rhitsona graves’.

19 On the alabastra of this group, see Payne, NC 202–3 341Google Scholar, AA 1933, 8–13 (Ure, ), Hesperia xiii (1944) 45Google Scholar(Beazley, ), CVA California 1 (5) text to pl. 11, 2 ff.Google Scholar, ABV 22–23 and 680.

20 Heidelberg inv. 161, from Boeotia: Payne, NC 202, 10Google Scholar; CVA 1 (10) pl. 22 (456) 2–3; ABV 680.

21 ABV 21–22, the painter of the Dresden lekanis.

22 E.g. the lekanis from Thebes, London BM 1905.7–11.4: JHS xxxi (1911) 2 and 4, fig. 3; CVA 2 (2) pl. 7 (65) 3; ABV 24, 3, the Komast Group.

23 Berlin F 1727: ABV 29, 1, the group of the Boeotian Dancers; Brommer, Vasenlisten 213Google Scholar, C 1; RIA n.s. A. ix (1960) 177, fig. 65.

24 See most recently on this and allied shapes, BMMA xxi (1962–63) 31–36 (Cook, ), JDAI lxxix (1964) 72–108Google Scholar (Scheibler).

25 I owe this observation to Professor Martin Robertson.

26 Quoted in Sillar and Meyler (see note 3) 1.

27 Berlin inv. 3391: Maximova pl. 24, 173, ABV 31, top, Tuchelt, Tiergefässe pl. 23, 1–2.Google Scholar

28 For the group, see Payne, NC 199Google Scholar and CVA Oxford 2, 57; Maximova 194–7; Tuchelt, Tiergefässe 94–97Google Scholar; Boardman, Cretan Collection 105Google Scholar, note 5.

29 Paris, Louvre CA 1898–1900 (bull, pig, ram): TEL iii pl. 59C, A and B.

30 Berlin 3364: JDAI xiv (1899) 64, fig. 4; and see AA 1933, 38 (Ure, ) and JDAI lxxix (1964) 96Google Scholar (Scheibler). Also Fränkel, Satyr- etc. 19–20.Google Scholar

30a See BICS v (1958) 8 (Boardman).

31 Copenhagen NM inv. 4984: CVA 3 (3) pl. 98 (100) 4, and see Caskey, and Beazley, Boston Vases iii 52–3.Google Scholar

32 On the different kantharos shapes, see especially Ure, BGP 4–19.Google Scholar

33 Athens NM 432 (CC 626): de la Coste-Messeliére, Au Musée de Delphes pl. 7Google Scholar; Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pl. 35, 4–5Google Scholar; BMFA xlvi (1948) 47, figs. 5–6; Brommer, Vasenlisten 237, C 1.Google Scholar

34 On the myth, see BMFA xlvi (1948) 42–48 (Bothmer) and the lists in Brommer, Vasenlisten 235–239.Google Scholar

35 Berlin 3178: RPAA xix (1942–3) 379, fig. 4; Brommer, Vasenlhten 266Google Scholar, C 13.

36 On the myth, see Brommer, 's lists in Vasenlisten 264–Google Scholar9 and most recently AA 1965, 394–401 (Kunisch).

37 On the group, see Pfuhl, MuZ 207Google Scholar, Ure, , Sixth and Fifth 21 ff.Google Scholar, 32 and 57, JHS xlix (1929) 160–171 (A. D. Ure), lv (1935) 225–8 (A. D. Ure) and lxxxii (1962) 126 (Sparkes).

38 London BM B 80: JHS i (1880) pl. 7; Pfuhl MuZ fig. 169; CVA 2 (2) pl. 7 (65) 4a–b.

39 On the group, see MMStud. iv (1932–1933) 18–38 (Ure, A. D.).Google Scholar

40 Heidelberg inv. 179: MMStud. iv (1932–3) 26, no 7, figs. 10–11; CVA 1 (10) pl. 27 (461) 4–5.

41 Berlin F 1651: BCH 1897, 448, fig. 3; Festschrift Eugen v. Merklin (1964) pl. 17, 12 and pl. 20, 1–2.

42 On this workshop, see now Elgnowski, Rosmarie, ‘Eine Gattung böotischer Kannen’ in Festschrift Eugen v. Merklin (1964) 32–40Google Scholar and further Hesperia xxxv (1966) 155 (Raubitschek, I. K.).Google Scholar To Elgnowski's list of 12, add at least two more whole examples, Athens NM 12576: Hesperia xxxi (1962) pl. 113, and one in Schulman, JacquesList of Egyptian, Greek and Roman Antiquities, exhibited at the 13th Antique Dealers Fair, Delft, August 18–September 9, 1961, no. 38.Google Scholar

43 See for instance Grace, Archaic Sculpture in Boeotia 23 and 26Google Scholar, and for the earlier period, Ure, Aryballoi 53–54.Google Scholar

44 Athens NM 2239. For Teisias, see BSA xiv (1907–1908) 305, n. 2 (Ure, P. N.)Google Scholar, JHS xxix (1909) 348, Ure, BGP 9–10Google Scholar, Arch. Eph. 1912, 104 ff., Hoppin, HGBV 347–9Google Scholar, Ure, Sixth and Fifth 34Google Scholar, Robinson, , Harcum, and Iliffe, Toronto Vases 150–1Google Scholar, AA 1938, 68–77 (Crome), Hesperia xxxi (1962) 371 (A. D. Ure). Much work has still to be done on Boeotian black vases, of which there is a good deal in Nauplia museum (from private collections), soon to be published by Madame Ghali-Kahil.

45 Athens NM 2238.

46 Toronto C 319: Robinson, , Harcum, and Iliffe, Toronto Vases pl. 52, 347.Google Scholar

47 Toronto 919.5.134: Robinson, , Harcum, and Iliffe, Toronto Vases pl. 52, 346Google Scholar; Graham, Black-figure and Red-figure Greek Pottery (1950) pl. 1 A.Google Scholar

48 There is an Attic Teisias, see ABV 177, but the relationship is uncertain.

49 JHS lxxv (1955) 90–103 (A. D. Ure).

50 Berlin 3283: AA 1895, 34, no. 22, fig. 9; Neugebauer, Führer 75Google Scholar; Brommer, Vasenlisten 314, C 1.Google Scholar

51 That the Cyclopes may originally have had two eyes (see Masouri ) has no bearing here.

52 Adolphseck, Schloss Fasanerie 120: Neugebauer, Antiken in deutschem Privatbesitz (1938) pl. 68, no. 161Google Scholar; Brommer, Antike Kleinkunst in Schloss Fasanerie, Adolphseck (1955) 6, fig. 11Google Scholar; CVA 2 (16) pl. 63 (752) and pl. 64 (753) 1–2; Zschietzschmann, Hellas and Rome (1959) 192Google Scholar, above.

53 Munich 2347: AM lxv (1940) pls. 1 and 2, 1; Rumpf, MuZ pl. 23, 7.Google Scholar

54 E.g. the Erlangen pelike, inv. 486: AM lxv (1940) pl. 2, 2; Rumpf, MuZ pl. 23, 6Google Scholar; ARV 2 250, 21 and addendum 1639, the Syleus sequence.

55 On Boeotian red-figure, see AM lxv (1940) 1–27 (Lullies), Cook, GPP 189–90.Google Scholar Mrs Ure has done most of the spade work in this field and has succeeded in sorting out a good number of painters.

56 In preparing this material, I accepted the usual attribution of London BM 95.10–27.2 (Jacobsthal, Göttinger Vasen pl. 22Google Scholar, figs. 81–83; AM lxv [1940] pl. 3, 1–2) as Boeotian, but I have since been persuaded by Professor Martin Robertson to accept it as Attic. The drawing is bad, but the shape, glaze and details of potting point to Attica.

57 Thebes, from Rhitsona, : BSA xiv (1907–1908) pl. 14Google Scholar (Grave 22.8); ARV 2 381, 177, the Brygos painter.

58 Boston MFA 95.36: ARV 2 381–2, 182, the Brygos painter.

59 Negro alabastra found in Boeotia, : ARV 2267Google Scholar, 1 and 268, 9, 10, 30. Compare also the head-kantharos, Boston 98.928: ARV 2 265, 78, the Syriskos painter, which was found at Tanagra.

60 JHS lxxi (1951) 194–7 (Ure, A. D.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar There are other classes of overpainted vases in Boeotian which merit study.

61 Boston 95.45, 95.43, 95.44, from Thebes, : ARV 2640, 74–6Google Scholar, the Providence painter.

62 Thebes, from Thespiai, : AM lxv (1940) pls. 4–6Google Scholar; ARV 2 1010, 1–3. Only a small part of the material from the Thespian polyandrion at Delium has been published. Apart from the three lekythoi already mentioned, there is a rf. Boeotian, bell-krater: AM lxv (1940) pl. 7Google Scholar; two black stemless kantharoi with ring handles: Wolters, and Bruns, Kob. pl. 50, 3–4Google Scholar; and three Cabeiric kantharoi, with black figures or pattern: ibid. pls. 51, 1–2, 56 and 59, 9.

63 Athens NM 4213 (CC 1345): JHS xix (1899) 270, fig. 3 and pl. 10; AM lxv (1940) pls. 8 and 10, 1; Arch. Class. xi (1959) pl. 31, 1 (lid only).

64 Brussels A 78: BSA xli (1940–45) pl. 7, 4; CVA 3(3) pl. 5 (114) 6.

65 For the Cabeirion, see primarily Wolters and Bruns Kab. passim and for the more recent excavations, AA 1964, 231–265, where one sees (248 and 262) that production of the distinctive Cabeiric painting continued at least to the middle of the fourth century.

66 Athens NM inv. 10426: AM xiii (1888) pl. 9; Wolters and Bruns Kab. pl. 5 and pl. 44, 1.

67 Heidelberg inv. 190: Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pls. 26, 11 and 53, 6 (M 15)Google Scholar; CVA 1 (10) pl. 30 (464) 1–2 and 7.

68 Boston 99.533: Fairbanks, Cat. pl. 69, 562Google Scholar; Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pl. 37, 2–3 (M 18).Google Scholar

69 See Brommer's, list in Vasenlislen 310Google Scholar, D 1–6.

70 Berlin 3263: Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pl. 36Google Scholar, 3–4 (M 20). The vase is not mentioned in Beazley, 's discussion of non-Attic almond amphoriskoi, BSA xli (1940–1945) 14.Google Scholar

71 I am grateful once more to Professor Robertson for this suggestion. He recalls Pausanias x 28.3 in which it is said that in Polygnotus' Underworld Kleoboia was shown in Charon's barque with Demeter's cista mystica on her knees, because she was the first to bring the Mysteries of Demeter from Paros to Thasos. He asks if there may not have been legends about people who conveyed the secrets of the Mysteries (Cabeiric, in this case) being helped miraculously on their way by sea-creatures; he adds characteristically that she might have been Jonah-ed out of the boat on the other side of the vase.

72 Paris, Louvre CA 4502: Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pl. 36, 1–2 (M 19)Google Scholar; Rumpf, MuZ 119Google Scholar; Brommer, Vasenlisten 272Google Scholar, Da 1 (but not in Athens NM).

73 The bringing of the new armour was a common subject in late fifth-century art, see Brommer, Vasenlisten 271–2Google Scholar and ARV 2 Mythological Index.

74 Heidelberg inv. 181: AJA xiii (1909) 394, fig. 4a; Wolters, and Bruns, Kab. pl. 55Google Scholar, 1 (M 23); CVA 1 (10) pl. 28 (462) 3–4.

75 See Athens NM inv. 1393 (CC 1926): Eph. Arch, x (1890) pl. 7; AM lxv (1940) pl. 26; attributed by Ure, A. D. in AA 1933, 31.Google Scholar

76 See AA 1933, 36–7 (Ure, )Google Scholar; Arch. Class. xiv (1962) 36–41 (Pelagatti, ).Google Scholar

77 Add to the references in the previous note, AJA lvii (1953) 245–9 (Ure, A. D.) and Arch. Class. xiv (1962) 33–4.Google Scholar

78 Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, on loan from Trinity: JHS lxxvii (1957) pl. 4; Brommer, Vasenlisten 272Google Scholar, Da 2.

79 Boston 00.354: Matz, Naturpersonifikationen pl. 1Google Scholar; CB iii pl. 106, 175; ARV 2 1516, near bottom.

80 E.g. New York 57.11.4 and 57.11.3: BMMA xxi (1962–3) 10, figs, 11 and 12.

81 BSA xi (1904–1905) 224 ff. (Richter, )Google Scholar; Schefold, Untersuchungen zu den Kerlscher Vasen 25.Google Scholar

82 A. D. Ure's study of fourth-century floral cups has indicated the standard of the work; see especially JHS xlvi (1926) 54–62 and Hesperia xv (1946) 27–37.

83 Athens NM 12539; mentioned AA 1933, 31 where other examples of the same shape are quoted.