Originalveröffentlichung in: Lin Foxhall; Hans-Joachim Gehrke; Nino Luraghi (Hg.), Intentional History – Spinning
Time in Ancient Greece, Stuttgart 2010, S. 161-188
8. MEDIA FOR THESEUS, OR: THE DIFFERENT IMAGES OF
THE ATHENIAN POLIS-HERO*
Ralf von den Hoff
Greek heroes like Herakles, Achilleus and Theseus were integral parts of what the
Greeks regarded as their past. As such, even though not historical figures in the
modern sense of the word, they were constituent elements of Greece's "inten­
tional" and imagined history and cultural memory. 1 What was 'known' about
these heroes was expressed in myths, in traditional stories told about them that
took place in the remote past. But these stories did not constitute a set corpus of
tales. Rather, the memory expressed in these myths was substantially negotiated
through the reshaping of the heroic stories themselves. Greek myths were open to
changes and adaptations according to the changing interests of their audiences and
of those social agents in charge of retelling these myths. In this sense narrating
myths was 'intentional,' even though not every change was intentional in the strict
sense of the word. 2 Greek myths were narrated in oral, written and visual form. In
the oral culture of archaic and classical Greece, visual representations of myths ­
permanent as well as performative ones ­ played an important role in transmitting
and shaping these myths. Thus, constructed, visual images of Greek myths pro­
vide a highly important body of evidence from which to understand changes in
and negotiations of myth as part of an imagined history.
In modern scholarship visual records of archaic and classical Greek mythol­
ogy are very often taken as a homogeneous corpus of testimonia following identi­
cal ­ that is, visually and artistically defined ­ rules of iconography based on nar­
* Many thanks go to Lin Foxhall and Hans­Joachim Gehrke for inviting me to the conference,
and for giving me the opportunity to present the following ideas on this occasion, as well as
to Alexander Heinemann for open and fruitful discussions about 'vases' and images. The
chapter is related to another article on Theseus and the Athenian treasury in the forthcoming
volume Structure, Image, Ornament. Architectural Sculpture of the Greek World, edited by
Peter Schultz and me.
1 GEHRKE 1994, 2001 and 2 0 0 3 ("intentionale Geschichte"); ASSMANN 1999 ("kulturelles Geddchtnis"). H e r o e s a n d h e r o i n e s : BREI.ICH 1 9 5 8 ; K E A R N S 1 9 8 9 ; L Y O N S 1 9 9 7 ; M I L L E R 2 0 0 0 ;
PIRENNE ­ DELFORGE 2 0 0 0 . A c h i l l e s : KOSSATZ ­ DEISSMANN 1 9 8 1 ; KING 1 9 8 7 ; LATACZ
1 9 9 5 . H e r a k l e s : B O A R D M A N 1 9 9 0 ; PADILLA 1 9 9 8 . T h e s e u s : NEILS 1 9 9 4 ; W O O D F O R D 1 9 9 4 ;
CALAME 1 9 9 6 ; s e e b e l o w . H e r o cults: FARNELL 1 9 2 1 ; LARSON 1 9 9 5 ; DEOUDI 1 9 9 9 ; HAGG
1 9 9 9 ; BOEHRINGER 2 0 0 1 .
2 Myth: KlRK 1970 and 1974; BURKERT 1979, 1­5 (definition of myths as traditional tales);
G R A F 1 9 8 5 , 7 ­ 1 4 ; ELLINGER 1 9 8 7 ; V E R N A N T 1 9 8 7 ; V E Y N E 1 9 8 7 ; D O W D E N 1 9 9 2 ; S A I D
1 9 9 3 ; B U X T O N 1 9 9 4 ; H O L S C H E R 1 9 9 9 ; G R A F 2 0 0 0 . A n c i e n t t e r m mythos: M E Y E R 1 9 9 9 .
C h a n g i n g a n d r e s h a p i n g m y t h s : KING 1 9 8 7 ; V E R N A N T 1 9 8 7 , 2 4 0 ­ 1 ; MEIER 1 9 8 8 ; C A L A M E
1 9 9 6 ; SCHF.ER 1 9 9 3 ; L A T A C Z 1 9 9 5 ; P A D I L L A 1 9 9 8 .
162
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
ratives established by written texts. Nevertheless, not only did our written testimonia have different functions, agents and audiences - which produced different
narratives - but images also appeared on pottery, as well as in architectural sculp­
ture and statues, votive reliefs, paintings and terracottas. These images had differ­
ent functions, addressed different audiences and were initiated by different pat­
rons and artists of varied skill. Most of the images on Attic vases, for instance,
even though very often exported to Italy, 4 were produced for viewing in Athens
during symposia, while others were used during funerals or as votives dedicated
in sanctuaries. 5 On the other hand, the same myths that are displayed on these
vases appear in Athenian architectural sculpture, though with completely different
functions, in different material and with different modes of reception. 6 Hence, ma­
terial, technique, iconography, style, visibility, function, audience and reception
together define different groups of visual images as what we can call visual me­
dia. These media regulated visual communication by their specific sets of quali­
ties. It is under these conditions that visual representations of myths were read by
and produced meaning for ancient viewers. 7
If we take architectural sculpture ­ that is, reliefs and sculptures in the round
adorning temples or other public buildings ­ as one example of such a visual me­
dium, another crucial point becomes obvious. 8 The design of figural architectural
sculpture was the result of conventions and of deliberate decisions made by the
3 C f . S C H E F O L D 1 9 7 8 ; S C H E F O L D - JUNG 1 9 8 8 ; S C H E F O L D 1 9 9 3 ; SHAPIRO 1 9 9 4 ; W O O D F O R D
2 0 0 3 , and the conception of the Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (with re­
view GIULIANI 1997). GIULIANI 2 0 0 3 focuses upon techniques of narration, JUNKER 2005
provides an introductory overview.
4 Cf. REUSSER 1995; FLESS 1999; OSBORNE 2002; STEINER 2 0 0 7 , 2 3 4 ­ 6 . For the relation be­
tween export interests and images, and for exceptional cases of the designing of images with
regard for the wishes of foreign purchasers: SHAPIRO 2000; SCHMIDT 2 0 0 5 , 24. Cf. for
'Etruscan' readings of vase­paintings, ISLER­KERENYI 1997 and the discussion between
MARCONI 2 0 0 4 and OSBORNE 2 0 0 4 . A possibly too optimistic view of Attic specified in
vase­painting is proposed by WEBSTER 1972, but cf. also KRON 1988, for 'deeply' Attic­
themes.
5 The different functions of Attic vases have not been studied comprehensively, cf. only:
SCHEIBLER 1 9 8 3 . 1 1 ­ 5 8 ; S P A R K E S 1 9 9 6 , 1 5 5 ­ 6 7 ; KREUZER 1 9 9 8 , 3 2 ­ 4 1 ; B O A R D M A N 2 0 0 1 ;
MANNACK 2 0 0 2 , 3 7 ­ 5 2 ; JUNKER 2002; RATHJE 2002; SCHMIDT 2 0 0 5 , 2 2 ­ 7 . For the sympo­
sium use of Attic vases: LlSSARRAOUB 1987, VlERNEISEL 1990 and recently NEER 2 0 0 2 , 9 ­
26 and STEINER 2 0 0 7 , 2 3 1 ­ 6 4 . The vases from the Athenian agora (cf. MOORE 1986; Ro­
TROFF ­ OAKLEY 1992; MOORE 1997) and from the Athenian acropolis (GRAEF ­ LANGLOTZ
1 9 2 5 ­ 3 3 ) provide a good insight into the choice of themes in Athens hersejf.
6 For broader surveys of architectural sculpture and/or it elements cf. DEMANGEL 1933;
L A P A L U S 1 9 4 7 ; KAHLER 1 9 4 9 ; DELIVORR1AS 1 9 7 4 ; FELTEN 1 9 8 4 ; K N E L L 1 9 9 0 ; C A S T R I O T A
1992; BUITRON­OL1VER 1997; RIDGWAY 1999; CLEMENTE 2 0 0 7 . A volume on "Structure,
Image. Ornament. Architectural Sculpture in the Greek World," proceedings of a conference
at Athens in 2 0 0 4 , organised by P. Schultz and me, is in preparation for print, see BAR­
RINGER forthcoming, and VON DEN HOFF forthcoming b. More specific questions are ad­
dressed by OSBORNE 1994 and 2000.
7 VON HESBERG 2003a, 9 ­ 1 2 .
8 For architectural sculpture as a medium of visual communication see VON HESBERG et al.
2003.
MEDIA FOR THF.SEUS
163
buildings' patrons and sculptors. 9 On the other hand, besides the guiding interests
of patrons and sculptors, which are almost always unknown to us, individual read­
ings of such sculptures by their viewers must have been another relevant factor.
The Athenian women in Euripides' Ion (vv. 184­218) are a telling witness of
this. 10 They enter Apollo's sanctuary at Delphi and admire the reliefs and pedi­
ments of the god's temple. While doing so, they start talking about the different
heroic deeds of Herakles and Perseus depicted high on the temple walls. It is in
the middle of this process of viewing that they turn to another image: a giganto­
machy. Here, they suddenly focus upon a single figure. They recognise what they
call "our goddess," that is, Athena. Thus, the process of viewing and understand­
ing architectural sculpture, as imagined by Euripides, includes a situation in which
the beholders, Athenian women in Delphi, while looking at images of myth adorn­
ing a temple, express their cultural identity and personal interests. What is obvious
here is that a personal identification with the figures depicted in architectural
sculpture must have been another important factor in their reception ­ though not
necessarily a guiding principle for the choice of themes by the temple's builders.
This will be true as well for vase­painting or other media. Hence, even within a
single visual medium the discourse of (changing/different) meanings and readings
of heroic images is a complex field. It depended not only on the character of the
medium, the patrons' and sculptors' original 'intentions,' the sculptors' skill, the
setting and conventions, but also on the viewers' cultural disposition, their inter­
ests in reception and many other factors, often rather opaque to us.
This chapter provides a contribution to understanding this complex discourse.
Its purpose is to explore to what extent the design and themes of mythological im­
ages in architectural sculpture and vase­painting were distinct from each other,
and how their particular character as visual media was related to the function, re­
ception and use of these images ­ that is, to the interests of the people who were
addressed by these images and of those who were addressing others by commis­
sioning works of art that made use of mythological scenes. Did these media em­
ploy specific forms of narrating, of creating visual history and 'spinning time'?
And were the ways in which they represented myths related to the identity of pat­
rons and the contexts in which the images were used and seen during the same pe­
riod of time and within the same historical framework? 1 In a limited case study, I
will only try to outline the specific iconographic and thematic character of Athe­
nian public architectural sculpture and vase­painting that features one mythologi­
cal figure, Theseus, in the late sixth through the middle of the fifth century.
Theseus became Athens' polis­hero during the sixth century. He is often present
in Athenian architectural sculpture of the period under discussion, and his omni­
9 KNELL 1 9 9 0 , xi; BUITRON­OLIVER 1 9 9 7 , 9 ; RlDGWAY 1 9 9 9 , 1 4 3 ­ 2 1 9 .
10 KOSTER 1 9 7 6 ; ZEITLIN 1 9 9 4 ; VOGT 1 9 9 8 ; RlDGWAY 1 9 9 9 , 9 with n. 2 4 ; STANSBURYO'DONNELL 1 9 9 9 , 6 3 ­ 5 ; cf. also STEINER 2 0 0 1 , 4 4 ­ 5 0 ; VON HESBERG 2 0 0 3 , 1 1 2 ­ 1 3 for
further e x a m p l e s .
11 C f . OSBORNE 2 0 0 0 ; VON HESBERG et al. 2 0 0 3 .
164
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
presence in Athenian vase-painting of this period is well known. 1 2 Hence, the im­
ages of Theseus provide a useful body of evidence with which to compare archi­
tectural sculpture and vase­painting, two of the most prominent visual media in
archaic and classical Athens, and to clarify differences between these media and
their aesthetic conventions. 1 3
The Theseus theme emerges in Athens' visual culture and specifically in Attic
vase­painting in the time of Solon, around 570. From this time on, the slaying of
monsters like the Minotaur and the centaurs and (only rarely) the collective rescue
of the Athenian children on Crete were the Theseus stories told in images on Attic­
vases. 14 Around 520/10 a new cycle of adventures found its way into Athenian
vase­painting: Theseus' deeds along the road from Troizen to Athens, his slaying
of brutal villains like Sinis, Kerkyon, Skiron and Prokrustes (figs. 1­2 and 6), as
well as the rape of the Amazon queen Antiope. The introduction of these images ­
fights against pitiless human robbers and the seizure of a woman as a luxurious
and prestigious object ­ signifies that Theseus, the archaic polis­hero, became a
figure within a new construction of identity long before the Persian Wars and not
as a result of Athens' success at Marathon. 1 5 This trend had its heyday in the de­
cade around 500, just after the reforms of Kleisthenes. At this time, we do not find
new stories about Theseus, but rather new modes of telling these stories: multiple
new and old deeds of Theseus were first arranged together on a single vase as a
set of heroic events with the hero appearing up to five times on the same vessel
(so­called 'cycle­vases,' fig. 2). Both power in fighting human injustice and
overwhelming, constant activity, the polypragmosyne of Athens' most important
hero, were now crucial elements of Theseus' image, and thus of Athenian self­
definition in this period. 16
It was also in the years after Kleisthenes that Theseus first appeared in Athe­
nian architectural sculpture, namely in the metopes of the Athenian treasury in the
panhellenic sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. It is still unclear when exactly between
510 and 490/80 the treasury was built as a collective Athenian dedication to
Apollo. 17 By now, more and more scholars prefer a date shortly after the battle of
12 WALKER 1 9 9 5 ; C A L A M E 1 9 9 6 ; MILLS 1 9 9 7 ; LUCE 1 9 9 8 . S u r v e y s o f T h e s e u s i m a g e s : NEILS
1 9 8 7 ; SHAPIRO 1 9 8 9 , 1 4 5 - 6 ; NEILS 1 9 9 4 ; W O O D F O R D 1 9 9 4 ; FLASHAR 2 0 0 3 ; SERVADEI
2005.
13 This will g o beyond the usual comparisons of visual records in order to reconstruct missing
parts of sculptured images or to recover references made by the artists, cf. only HOFFELNER
1988; SCHWAB 1989.
14 First Attic Theseus images in the sixth century: SHAPIRO 1989, 1 4 3 - 9 ; KREUZER 2003;
MUTH 2004; KREUZER 2005; HOMME-WERY 2006; TORELLI 2007; VON DEN HOFF forth­
c o m i n g a; see also SHAPIRO 1991. MUTH 2008 was published too late to be considered here
15 N e w deeds: NEILS 1987; NEILS 1994; VON DEN HOFF 2003; KREUZER 2003; see further bibli­
ography above n. 12.
16 NEER 2 0 0 2 , 1 5 4 ­ 6 4 ; VON DEN HOFF 2002; VON DEN HOFF 2 0 0 3 ; for cycle­vases see also be­
low n. 36.
1 7 F o r t h e A t h e n i a n T r e a s u r y : A U D I AT 1 9 3 3 ; DE LA C O S T E ­ M E S S E L I E R E 1 9 5 7 ; G A U E R 1 9 6 8 ,
4 5 ­ 6 5 ; BOARDMAN 1982, 2 ­ 4 and 9 ­ 1 5 ; FLOREN 1987, 2 4 7 ­ 5 0 (with further bibliography);
K N E L L 1 9 9 0 , 5 2 ­ 6 3 ; S T E W A R T 1 9 9 0 , 1 3 2 figs. 2 1 1 ­ 1 7 ; B U S I N G 1 9 9 2 ; B A N K E L 1 9 9 3 , 1 6 9 ­
M E D I A FOR THESEUS
M a r a t h o n in 4 9 0 , w h e n a v i c t o r y m o n u m e n t f o r M a r a t h o n w a s set u p in f r o n t of
t h e t r e a s u r y . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e r e a r e r e l i a b l e r e a s o n s t o s e p a r a t e t h e b u i l d i n g of t h e
Fig. 1: Theseus and Prokrustes. Attic stamnos (around 490/80 BCE). London, British Museum E
441 (photograph courtesy of the British Museum, London).
t r e a s u r y f r o m t h e e r e c t i o n o f t h e M a r a t h o n b a s e , a n d to d a t e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e
w o r k s f o r t h e t r e a s u r y in t h e t i m e b e f o r e 4 9 0 , a s art h i s t o r i a n s h a v e a r g u e d
e a r l i e r . 1 8 T h e M a r a t h o n b a s e s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n a d d e d a f t e r 4 9 0 in f r o n t o f t h e
70; BOMMEI.AER 1993. 133-8 (also for the Marathon monument); R l D G W A Y 1993, 343-6;
A M A N D R Y 1998 (also for the Marathon monument); JACQUEM1N 1999, 315-16 no. 077
(Marathon monument) and no. 086 (with further bibliography); R A U S C H 1999, 92-106 and
129-132; RlDGWAY 1999, 88-9; PATRIDA 2000, 48-70; NEER 2004 (with further bibliogra­
phy); VON DEN HOFF forthcoming b.
18 ALSCHER 1961, 234­6 n. 117; KLEINE 1973, 94­7; see also DlNSMOOR 1946 (ornamental
decoration before 490), BANKEL 1993, 169­70 (architecture before 490). For the different
suggestions regarding the date cf. bibliography in the previous n. and, to take only the Ger­
man positions: GAUER 1968, 51­65 (after 490); GAUER 1980, 128 (started after 499);
BROMMER 1982. 68 with n. 8 (510/00); FLOREN 1987, 247 (around/shortly before 500);
MARTINI 1990. 249­50 (shortly before 500); BUSING 1992 (after 490; painted decoration fin­
165
166
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
building's south side in order to change the 'message' of the treasury and to make
it, indeed, a victory monument for Marathon. 1 9 If this is true, the Athenians started
to erect their splendid marble treasury at Delphi in the decade after their revolu­
tionary political reforms under Kleisthenes and after the first great victory of their
newly organised hoplite forces in 507/6, 2 0 at a time when they also started to re­
build their Athena temples on the late archaic acropolis at Athens." 1
eg
w
78?
Fig. 2: T h e s e u s and Skiron, T h e s e u s and K e r k y o n . Attic ' c y c l e ' ­ c u p with d e e d s of T h e s e u s
(around 4 9 0 / 8 0 BCE), London, British M u s e u m E 4 8 ( p h o t o g r a p h a f t e r Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Great Britain 17, The British Museum 9, London 1993, pi. 27 b).
Such a date is highly relevant to understanding the sculpture of the treasury,
namely its metopes, which focus on Theseus (figs. 3­5) and Herakles. 22 As Rich­
ished even later); BANKEL 1993, 1 6 9 ­ 7 0 (started b e f o r e 4 9 0 , finished a f t e r w a r d s ) ; RAUSCH
1999, 1 2 9 ­ 3 2 (around 500); BRlNKMANN 2 0 0 2 , 3 5 4 (after 4 9 0 ) ; FlTTSCHEN 2 0 0 3 (before
4 9 0 ) ; VON DEN H o i l f o r t h c o m i n g b (before 4 9 0 ) . AMANDRY 1998; BRlNKMANN 2 0 0 2 ; and
NEER 2 0 0 4 f a v o r a date a f t e r 4 9 0 also d u e to a ledge of stones below the t r e a s u r y ' s south
wall, on w h i c h the M a r a t h o n base is situated (AMANDRY 1998, 87 fig. 7; AUDIAT 1930. pis.
1 5 ­ 6 ; AUDI AT 1933, pis. 1 and 5 ["coupe y­5"]; HANSEN 1975, pi. 6). As FlTTSCHEN 2 0 0 3 ,
1 3 ­ 1 4 , has o b s e r v e d , this ledge can be f o u n d also b e l o w the other walls of the treasury and
thus cannot be taken as decisive a r g u m e n t for the c o n t e m p o r a r y building of both, cf. VON
DEN H O F F f o r t h c o m i n g b .
19
T h u s . Pausanias by saying that the treasury w a s set up " f r o m those spoils taken f r o m the
army that landed with Datis at M a r a t h o n " (10.11.5) e m b r a c e d w h a t the A t h e n i a n s tried to
achieve by setting up the M a r a t h o n base in front of their older treasury.
20
In addition to the a r g u m e n t s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , c f . n. 18, the quality of the t r e a s u r y ' s m e t o p e s
m a k e s it quite i m p r o b a b l e to a s s u m e that sculptors of such skill have w o r k e d in such a late­
archaic style b e t w e e n 4 9 0 and 4 8 0 .
21
For building activities o n the A c r o p o l i s see: KORRES 1993; KORRES 1997, 2 1 8 ^ 1 3 ; c f . HUR
WIT 1998, 1 2 1 ­ 3 6 ; HOLTZMANN 2 0 0 3 , 8 2 ­ 7 .
22
F o r t h e m e t o p e s s e e : DE LA C O S T E - M E S S E L I E R E 1 9 5 7 ; R l D G W A Y 1 9 7 7 , 2 3 6 ­ 8 ; B O A R D M A N
1 9 7 8 , 1 5 9 ­ 6 0 f i g . 2 1 3 ; SCHEFOLD 1 9 7 8 , 1 6 5 ­ 8 ; GAUER 1 9 8 0 ; BROMMER 1 9 8 2 , 6 8 ­ 9 p i s . l ^ t
a ; D E M A R G N E 1 9 8 4 , 1 0 1 2 n o . 5 9 6 p i . 7 6 2 ; HOFFELNER 1 9 8 8 ; B O A R D M A N e t a l . 1 9 9 0 . 7 n o .
1 7 0 3 ; KNELL 1 9 9 0 , 5 2 ­ 6 3 ; STEWART 1 9 9 0 , 132 f i g s . 2 1 1 ­ 1 7 ; M A R C A D E - CROISSANT 1 9 9 1 ,
5 7 ­ 6 0 ; FRONlNG 1 9 9 2 , 1 3 5 ­ 8 figs. 6 ­ 8 ; WOODFORD 1 9 9 2 , 5 7 6 n o . 2 6 pi. 3 2 0 ; MAAS 1 9 9 3 ,
167
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
ard Neer has recently underlined, the Athenian and the panhellenic hero were jux­
taposed at Delphi to highlight Athens' claim of special relationships to both. But
if both appear, what were their different roles and how were these roles divided?
Four sets of metopes belonging to the Athenian treasury, each with a different
mythological theme, are preserved. Herakles and Geryoneus belong to the western
rear of the building. The communis opinio arranges Herakles' other deeds above
the north side, Theseus' deeds (fig. 3) above the south side and both heroes' (or
only Theseus') amazonomachy above the building's east side, the side of the
treasury's entrance. Every visitor will see the south side first as he approaches the
Nr
/
Metope «und l : rjtt.Nr.ji
pJ^y
Wet opt 1
*
fc.-- - 1 ~ 1
M « o p * , c Frff.Nr.77 M r t o p c ) M«i>p« i
Mnopr 6
ri
m
Fig. 3: D e e d s o f T h e s e u s . S o u t h m e t o p e s o f the A t h e n i a n treasury at D e l p h i ( d r a w i n g after H o f f e l n e r 1 9 8 8 ,
Bcilage 5).
treasury from the sanctuary's entrance. It is here that Athena, Athens' polis­
goddess, appears in the metopes, and this is also the side featuring Theseus'
deeds. 23 As far as the arrangement of the other metopes is concerned, in contrast
to the communis opinio Klaus Hoffelner has argued that the Herakles metopes be­
long to the treasury's east side, while the amazonomachy adorned the north side
of the building. This is indeed the most convincing solution given the themes,
number and shapes of the metopes. 24 This new arrangement is of great relevance:
The amazonomachy in the north was only rarely seen by any visitor. Rather it is
Herakles, who appears above the building's entrance (below Athena in the pedi­
ment), who is the most prominent part of the treasury, while Theseus is first seen
on the south side by visitors approaching from the sanctuary's entrance. This
achieves a more or less fair distribution between the two heroes.
The Athenian interest in Theseus, as manifest by his appearance in the treas­
1 6 8 - 7 5 ; NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 2 8 n o . 5 4 p i s . 6 3 3 - 4 ; S T A N S B U R Y - O ' D O N N E L L 1 9 9 9 , 1 4 6 - 9 ; NEER
2004.
2 3 C f . HOFFELNER 1 9 8 8 , 1 0 2 - 8 .
2 4 HOFFELNER 1 9 8 8 ; VON DEN H O F F f o r t h c o m i n g b ; c f . a l s o R I D G W A Y 1 9 9 9 , 8 8 - 9 . T h u s , t h e
(Attic?) amazonomachy is no longer positioned in the middle between Herakles' and
T h e s e u s ' d e e d s , HOFFELNER 1 9 8 8 . 1 0 8 - 1 7 .
168
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
ury's metopes (fig. 3), is more precisely defined by the iconography which was
chosen for each of his deeds, and by these iconographies' relationships to other
contemporary images of Theseus, namely in Attic vase-painting. Metope 1 depicts
Theseus' fight against Sinis. Theseus is holding the villain's tree, which he will
soon use to hurl the brutal robber through the air. The same typology is common
on Attic vases since the late sixth century. 25 In addition, metope 3, the wrestling
match with Kerkyon, metope 6, the fight with the Marathonian bull, and metope
7, the slaying of the Minotaur, all adopt vase-painting typology of the years
around 500. 26 In this regard, the metopes follow conventional patterns of repre­
sentation in both visual media. On the other hand, metope 5 shows Athena in front
of Theseus, who raises his right hand in a gesture of prayer. This was an innova­
tive choice, because this scene was as yet unknown on Attic vases. It first appears
on the red­figure cup by the Briseis painter (around 480). 2 7 But the calm scene of
a meeting of goddess and hero was adopted from Herakles in Attic vase­paintings
of the sixth century. For Theseus, the metope of the Athenian treasury is the first
example. 2 8 The identities of Theseus' opponents in metopes 2 and 4 can only be
fixed by context and typology. They must be Periphetes and Prokrustes, because
the fight against Skiron follows completely different typologies in the years
around 500 (cf. fig. 2). Metope 2 (fig. 4) very much resembles a lekythos in
Athens that depicts Theseus and Prokrustes (fig. 6 ) 2 9 Consequently, metope 4
(fig. 5) can only show the last remaining scene in which Theseus slays a villain:
25 Metope 1 (Sinis): HOFFELNER 1988, 78 fig. 1; cf. only NEILS 1 9 9 4 . 9 2 6 no. 33 pi. 623; no. 36
pi. 625; 9 2 7 no. 4 4 pi. 627; 9 2 7 - 8 no. 4 6 pi. 629; 9 2 9 nos. 64, 6 7 , 72 pis. 6 3 8 - 9 ; SERVADEI
2005,36-8.
26 Metope 3 (Kerkyon): HOFFELNER 1988, 80 fig. 3; cf. NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 2 3 no. 33 pi. 623; 9 2 6 no.
36 pi. 625; no. 39 pi. 626; 927 no. 41 pi. 626; no. 4 4 pi. 627; 9 2 7 - 8 no. 4 6 pi. 629; 9 3 2 no.
109 pi. 644; SERVADEI 2 0 0 5 , 42^1. Metope 6 (bull): HOFFELNER 1988, 84 fig. 6; cf. NEILS
1994, 9 2 6 no. 34 pi. 624; no. 36 pi. 625; 9 3 7 no. 198-91 pis. 6 5 5 - 7 ; SERVADEI 2 0 0 5 , 7 3 - 5 .
M e t o p e 7 ( M i n o t a u r ) : HOFFELNER 1 9 8 8 , 8 4 - 6 f i g . 7 ; c f . Y O U N G 1 9 7 2 ; W O O D F O R D 1 9 9 2 ,
5 4 7 - 8 1 ; WOODFORD 1994, 941 no. 2 3 8 pi. 661; SZUFNAR 1995; SERVADEI 2 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 - 1 0 ;
MUTH 2004.
27 Metope 5 (Athena): HOFFELNER 1988, 83 fig. 5. Athena possibly held a helmet in her left
hand (KASPER-BUTZ 1990, 178; VON DEN HOFF forthcoming b) as often in vase-paintings of
this period, cf. NEILS 1994 nos. 190 and 311; KUN1SCH 1974. Rf. cup by the Briseis painter.
N e w York, Metropolitan Mus. 53.11.4; 1970.46: A R V 2 406.7; NEILS 1987, 9 6 - 7 ; 161 no. 59
f i g . 4 8 ; SCHEFOLD - JUNG 1 9 8 8 , 2 4 2 - 3 f i g . 2 9 3 ; NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 4 7 n o . 3 0 9 pi. 6 6 6 ; SERVADEI
2 0 0 5 . 1 7 6 - 8 fig. 75.
28 BROMMER 1982, 69. For Herakles and Athena: BECKEL 1961, 4 1 - 6 6 ; MOMMSEN 1989;
BOARDMAN et al. 1990, 1 4 3 - 5 4 ; KUNISCH 1990. The only similar Theseus scene of this pe­
riod: NEILS 1 9 8 7 , 7 4 a n d l 5 7 no. 29; NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 4 7 no. 3 0 8 .
29 Metope 2 (Prokrustes): HOFFELNER 1988, 7 8 ­ 8 0 with n. 10 (further bibliography) fig. 2,
comparing the lekythos Athens, National Mus. 515 (here fig. 6): A B V 518; HOFFELNER
1988, 103 fig. 32; NEILS 1994, 9 2 9 no. 63; 9 3 3 no. 123; cf. also below n. 33; VON DEN HOFF
2 0 0 1 , 83. Usually, at this time, Theseus, fighting Prokrustes, holds the hammer behind his
back and grasps the villain's head, cf. here fig. 1 and NEILS 1994, 9 2 6 no. 33 pi. 623; no. 36
pi. 6 2 5 ; 9 3 3 n o s . 1 2 6 ­ 8 pi. 6 4 6 ; n o . 1 3 3 pi. 6 4 7 ; n o s . 1 3 4 , 1 3 6 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 0 pi. 6 4 8 ; SERVADEI
2005,44­6.
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
169
the death of Periphetes. This is again astonishing, because Periphetes almost never
appears in vase-painting cycles of Theseus' adventures, and never before around
470/60. 3 0 The reason for this choice seems obvious. According to the myth, it was
only against Periphetes that Theseus used a club. The club was best known as
Herakles' weapon. 31 Depicting Theseus and Periphetes made the Athenian hero
similar to Herakles, his pendant in the treasury's metopes, as did metope 5 with
Theseus and Athena.
Fig. 4 : T h e s e u s and Prokrustes. M e t o p e 2 o f the
F i g . 5: T h e s e u s and P e r i p h e t e s . M e t o p e 4 o f the
A t h e n i a n treasury at D e l p h i ( d r a w i n g after H o f f ­
A t h e n i a n treasury at D e l p h i ( d r a w i n g after H o f f ­
elner 1988, fig. 4).
elner 1988, fig. 2).
Metopes 2 and 4 are unusual in another sense. Even though much is lost of the
depicted figures, Theseus' motion (metope 4) and his preserved shoulder (metope
2) strongly suggest that he was holding his weapon above his head and/or execut­
ing a final stroke. Such an attack is only possible if the attacker is fearless of any
counter­strike, because the whole right side of his body is defenceless. What we
could call a 'final stroke posture' is always a risk and, by the same token, a sign of
high self­confidence ­ a signum of the attacker's invincible tolma, as Andrew
Stewart also has argued. It was later adopted for the statue of Harmodios, the ty­
rant­slayer, in the Athenian agora (fig. 11).32 Around 500 (and even around 490),
to depict Theseus in this manner was unusual, though not unknown. The above­
mentioned lekythos (fig. 6), another lekythos with Theseus and Skiron, and an
early red­figure cup are the only examples among more than 20 other images. 3 3
3 0 Metope 4 (Periphetes?): HOFFELNER 1988. 8 2 - 3 fig. 4 (also with further bibliography).
T h e s e u s and P e r i p h e t e s in o t h e r i m a g e s : NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 2 7 n o . 4 5 ; 9 2 8 no. 5 5 ; 9 2 9 n o . 6 1 .
31 COHEN 1 9 9 4 .
3 2 S T E W A R T 1 9 8 5 , 6 3 ; S T E W A R T 1 9 9 7 , 7 5 ; VON DEN H O F F 2 0 0 1 ; c f . T A Y L O R 1 9 9 1 , f o r t h e m o t i f
a l s o SHEFTON 1 9 6 0 ; S U T E R 1 9 7 5 ; FEHR 1 9 8 4 , 2 2 ; ERMINI 1 9 9 7 .
33 Theseus using a weapon raised above his head in the latest sixth century: lekythos, Berlin.
S t a a t l i c h e M u s e e n 1 9 8 4 . 6 1 (WF.HCARTNER 1 9 9 1 . 1 9 - 2 0 p i . 6 ; N E I L S 1 9 9 4 , 9 3 1 n o . 1 0 0 ) .
170
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
K
Fig. 6: Theseus and Prokrustes, Attic lekythos (around 5 0 0 / 4 9 0 BCE). Athens, National Museum
Inv. 515 (photograph after Hoffelner 1988, fig. 32)
Hence, although this iconography was known in vase-painting in the years around
500, in this medium it did not have any success. Rather, late archaic and early
classical vase-painting favoured other, more archaic qualities of Theseus (figs. I 2): not his invincible tolma, but his agonistic qualities in competitive, equal fights,
even though his future victory is always made clear. 34 Compared to this represen­
tation of Theseus in the late sixth century, the way in which Theseus was depicted
on metopes 2 and 4 of the Athenian treasury underlined much more strongly his
self­confident, bold power ­ that is, his superiority. Thus, around 500, not only
was Theseus' image in the treasury's metopes at Delphi designed decisively to es­
tablish a firm relationship with Herakles, but the set of sculpture on public display
also aimed at depicting a still traditional (as most metopes show), but in some
scenes more superior Theseus than owners of Athenian vases were used to seeing.
In Delphi, in the years after 507, to express Athenian superiority must have been a
priority for the dedicants of the treasury, the Athenian polis itself. 35
Another point of difference between the public images of the treasury at Del­
phi and Attic vase­painting of the same time is important. Theseus cycles ­ that is,
the depiction of multiple deeds of the hero continuously on one vase ­ were estab­
lished in Attic vase­painting around 510/500 (fig. 2). In architectural sculpture.
Lekythos, Athens, National Mus. 515 (above n. 29). Cup, Paris, Louvre G 71 (NEILS 1994,
9 3 3 no. 132). See below n. 49.
34 VON DEN HOFF 2 0 0 1 , 8 2 - 3 ; cf. MUTH 2 0 0 4 for late archaic images of Theseus slaying the
Minotaur and their character, though with different focus, cf. also MUTH 2008.
35 The bold, superior engagement characterises Theseus in another public monument of late
sixth-century Athenian public sculpture, in a sculpture group with Theseus slaying Prokrustes
(?) from the acropolis: NEILS 1987, 4 5 - 6 , 177 no. S 1 figs. 1 6 - 1 7 ; NEILS 1994, 9 3 4 no. 155;
HURWIT 1999, 126 fig. 104. Here, Theseus also fights with a weapon raised above his head.
M B D I A FOR T H E S E U S
171
the Athenian treasury is an early example of a comparable technique of narrative
(fig. 3). But while it was also used for both Herakles and Theseus in Attic archi­
tectural sculpture afterwards (witness the Hephaistion metopes disc­ussed below)
and for Theseus on Athenian symposium vases (more than 20 examples, mostly
cups), there are almost no examples of Herakles cycles in Attic vase­painting
(only two kraters, and both by the Kleophrades painter). 36 On their symposium
vessels, the Athenians seem to have focused more on the multiple activities of
their polis­hero than on Herakles' best­known cycle of deeds. Thus, the Athenian
treasury's metopes, though innovative in certain elements of iconography, at the
same time respected Herakles' traditional panhellenic importance. Furthermore,
they presented Herakles in a cycle of deeds, as the Athenians only rarely did on
their symposium vessels. The differences of media are obvious.
I have mentioned (and argued elsewhere) that in Attic vase­painting Theseus'
final stroke with a weapon high above his head became dominant shortly before
the middle of the fifth century, despite a few forerunners around 500. As of
around 450. some of Theseus' deeds have changed typology almost completely,
like his victory over Skiron or Prokrustes (fig. 7). Theseus is now able to defeat
these villains by confidently using their possessions as weapons in a final blow ­
and no longer in a truly competitive, equal physical fight like before. 3 7 Hence, the
idea of Theseus as an invincible, self­confident victor, cautiously presented in the
jO.
SSsil
t*
'48
Fig. 7: Theseus and Prokrustes, Theseus and Skiron. Attic 'cycle'-cup with deeds of Theseus
(around 4 4 0 / 3 0 BCE). London, British Museum E 84 (photo, courtesy of the British Museum
London).
Athenian treasury half a century before, became dominant in Athenian sympo­
sium imagery not before the age of Perikles. It is unclear if this happened as a
36 Theseus cycles on Attic vases: BROMMKR 1 9 8 2 , 6 5 - 8 ; NKILS 1987, 1 4 3 - 8 ; SCHEFOLD - JUNG
1988, 2 3 6 - 5 1 ; TAYLOR 1991;FRONINO 1992 (also for other cycles); NEILS 1994, 9 2 6 - 8 nos.
3 2 - 5 3 pis. 6 2 3 - 3 2 ; STANSBURY-O'DONNELL 1999, 1 4 9 - 5 5 ; VON DEN HOFF 2 0 0 2 ; VON DEN
HOFF 2003; WOODFORD 2 0 0 3 , 2 3 - 4 ; SERVADEI 2 0 0 5 , 4 8 - 5 2 . Herakles c y c l e s on Attic vases:
FRONING 1992, 1 3 1 - 5 4 figs. 1 0 - 1 5 (rf. crater Malibu, J. P. Getty Museum 84.AE.974); 1 6 19 (if. crater Malibu, J. P.Getty Museum 77.AE.11); BOARDMAN et al. 1 9 9 0 , 7 no. 1702 pi. 9
(ibid. 6 mentions an earlier Corinthian example).
37 VON DEN HOFF 2001; cf. further bibliography above n. 32. S o m e of the relevant images are
listed below in n. 49.
172
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
slow adoption of the public imagery by the vase-painters. But if so, why was this
adoption so late? The fact that we know of some rare earlier examples of this ico­
nography on vases (fig. 6) does not support the idea of a slow and late adoption. 3 8
Rather it appears that, in Attic vase­painting around 500, such a self­confident
image of Theseus was only one of many experimental solutions for describing the
qualities of Athens' polis­hero in vase­painting, but it was an unsuccessful one.
Such an image seems not to have been what the Athenians wanted to look at on
vases. Hence, the reason for the failure of this iconography in late sixth­century
vase­painting, and for its success in contemporary architectural sculpture may also
have been the different character of these visual media.
What were the reasons for this variability in talking about Theseus in different
visual media? One important difference between vase­painting and architectural
sculpture lies in their specific practical function. Most of the Theseus cycles ap­
pear on cups and kraters ­ that is, on symposium vases, which were used (and,
due to their size, were only understandable as narratives) in smaller circles of
users. Images of architectural (and other public) sculpture were visible abroad in
panhellenic sanctuaries, and at Athens to many visitors. 39 They not only addressed
a much wider Greek and foreign audience but were also designed for public and
official commissions. This stands in contrast to the production of vases, which
were shaped by individual potters', painters' and buyers' interests. Hence, Attic
vases, though often exported to Etruria, are representatives of a visual discourse
internal to the polis. It appears that, around 500, this inner­polis discourse in­
cluded a greater variety of images of Theseus and, as a whole, was more focused
on Theseus as a traditional, agonistic fighter, while in public sculpture the Athe­
nians presented a more far­reaching image of their hero's superiority. Later,
around the middle of the fifth century, the inner­polis discourse became domi­
nated by the new idea of Theseus as invincible superhero. On the other hand, the
public character of the Athenian treasury could also have led to a different image
of Theseus within the panhellenic context that resulted from the setting of the
treasury in Delphi. Possibly, this gave reason to focus on Herakles as well, and to
introduce and construct Theseus, who was less known to the audience at Delphi,
as a hero comparable to the well­known panhellenic Herakles and his highly re­
nowned cycle of deeds.
Another Athenian set of metopes featuring Theseus helps to clarify this idea:
the metopes of the Hephaisteion on the Kolonos Agoraios, high above the western
side of Athens' political centre, the agora (figs. 8­10). 4 0 It was around 460/50 that
38 See above n. 35.
39 It would be interesting to ask if the conventions of narration also differed in vase-painting
and architectural sculpture, cf. for the vases GIULIANI 2003.
4 0 For the Hephaisteion and its metopes: SAUER 1899, 1 5 5 - 7 9 pis. 4 - 5 ; DINSMOOR 1941;
KAHLER 1949; LlPPOLD 1950, 158; KOCH 1955 1 2 1 - 5 pis. 2 4 - 7 ; MORGAN 1962; 1963;
RlDGWAY 1981, 2 6 - 3 0 figs. 7 - 1 0 ; BROMMER 1982, 6 9 - 7 0 pis. 4b-7; DOR1G 1985, 7 4 - 9 ;
BOARDMAN 1991, 146 fig. I l l ; NEILS 1987, 1 2 6 - 8 ; 177 S 3 figs. 7 0 - 5 ; HOFFELNER 1988.
11 1 - 1 2 fig. 39; SCHEFOLD ­ JUNG 1988, 2 4 6 - 5 0 figs. 2 9 9 - 3 0 0 ; BOARDMAN et al. 1 9 9 0 , 7 no.
1706 pis. 1 2 - 1 3 ; KNELL 1990, 1 2 7 - 3 9 ; WOODFORD 1992. 575 no. 11 p|. 3 1 7 (Minotaur)-
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
the Athenians decided to depict both Theseus and Herakles in the metopes of this
prominent public building. Sculptural style and mason marks on the temple's
marble tiles indicate that the roof as well as the earliest metopes were carved dur­
ing this first phase of construction around 450, although the building was not
completed before the later fifth century. 41 In Athens after Ephialtes' reforms, the
decision of how to decorate the Hephaisteion as a public temple must have gone
through the usual political process, that is, it must have been officially sanctioned
by demos and boule and followed by the architects and sculptors, who had to
make official reports about their plans and activities. 42 Thus, the choice of themes
and iconographies in the metopes must reflect majority ideas of this time, even
though we do not know if political factions or leaders played a role in this pro­
cess. 43 As on the Athenian treasury, the Athenians claim both the panhellenic hero
Herakles and the polis­hero Theseus as their primary heroic examples. What we
know about the Marathon painting in the Stoa Poikile, painted only some years
before, points in the same direction. Here, Theseus and Herakles appeared to­
gether with Athena as heroic supporters of the Athenians 44 The panhellenic con­
nection, so vividly played out in Delphi much earlier, received new interest in
fifth­century Athens itself.
m
\
Fig. 8: Deeds of Heracles. East metopes 1 - 10 o f the Hephaisteion at Athens. Athens, Hephaistei­
on (drawing after Knell 1990, fig. 198).
D E L I V O R R I A S 1 9 9 3 ; N E I L S 1 9 9 4 , 9 2 8 n o . 5 5 p i s . 6 3 5 ­ 6 ; C R U C I A N I ­ FlORINl 1 9 9 8 , 7 9 ­ 1 4 2
p i s . 7 ­ 1 1 ; REBER 1 9 9 8 ; Y E R O U L A N O U 1 9 9 8 ; s e e n o w a l s o B A R R I N G E R f o r t h c o m i n g .
4 1 F o r t h e d a t e c f . D l N S M O O R 1 9 4 1 , 1 5 2 ­ 3 ; W Y A T T ­ E D M O N D S O N 1 9 8 4 ; KOTS1DOU 1 9 9 5 , 9 3 ;
REBER 1 9 9 8 , 3 2 . Y E R O U L A N O U 1 9 9 8 , 4 0 4 ­ 7 h a s o b s e r v e d n o c h a n g e s o f p l a n n i n g b e t w e e n
design of the metopes and architecture of the temple. The exact date 4 4 9 for the beginning
(DINSMOOR 1941) is dubious; the frieze was carved during the second half of the fifth cen­
tury.
4 2 C f . BURFORD 1 9 6 9 ; LAUTER 1 9 7 4 ; HlMMELMANN 1 9 7 9 ; RIDGWAY 1 9 9 9 , 1 8 6 ­ 2 1 9 .
4 3 The Hephaisteion has often been related to Kimon (see only BOERSMA 1964; CRUCIANI ­
FlORINl 1 9 9 8 , 1 0 9 ­ 3 1 ) , r a r e l y t o P e r i k l e s ( M O R G A N 1 9 6 3 , 1 0 2 ­ 8 ) , b u t n e i t h e r c a n b e p r o v e d
with any certainty.
4 4 Paus. 1.15.3 (Theseus emerging from the Attic soil, thus demonstrating his direct relationship
to Attica). C f . n o w STANSBURY­O'DONNELL 2 0 0 5 .
173
174
R A L F V O N DEN H O F F
If we compare the cycle of metopes from the Delphi treasury and the Athe­
nian Hephaisteion it appears that, also in Athens, Herakles occupies the most
prominent position above the entrance of the building in the east (fig. 8). But now
Herakles has Athena as his companion (metope east 10), and Herakles appears
more often (ten metopes, versus eight with Theseus). Metope east 2 provides a
further new feature: Herakles and Iolaos together fight the Lernean hydra. This
joint action in itself is nothing new, but the protagonists' parallel motion with at
least one of them holding a weapon above his head is unusual ­ though, of course,
well known, since this is the guise of the tyrant­slayers' statues (fig. 11), which
were set up a quarter of a century before the Hephaisteion was built and could be
seen opposite the temple's front, down on the agora. 45 In this particular visual con­
text, two heroes, moving and acting like Harmodios and Aristogeiton must have
appeared as paradigmatic fighters for democracy. Aristophanes' Lysistrata (vv.
6 3 1 ­ 2 ) is a telling witness of this idea. Here, fighting side by side with Aristogei­
ton's statue on the agora (i.e., in the guise of Harmodios) is a definite sign of
democratic habit. 46 It is interesting that Herakles and Iolaos were depicted in this
posture at a time when, in Attic vase­painting, it was Theseus who more often
acted as the superior victor in the typical posture of Harmodios (fig. 7). But
Theseus usually acts alone. Only in centauromachies and amazonomachies is he a
'team­player.' Thus, in his fights against villains, like those depicted on the
Hephaisteion metopes, he is less similar to the tyrant­slayers than the 'democratic'
pair of Herakles and Iolaos 47 Hence, the Hephaisteion metopes demonstrate that,
in the middle of the fifth century, in Athenian architectural sculpture Herakles is
still the more prominent figure, as he had been in architectural sculpture half a
century before. But now, and in Athens, he is related visually and by context to
the monument of Athens' democratic origins. He, if anyone, is constructed as a
'democratic' hero.
S K f
fx \ ^
Fig. 9: Deeds o f Theseus. North metopes 4
on (drawing after Knell 1990, fig. 201).
1 o f the Hephaisteion at Athens. Athens, Hephaistei-
On the Hephaisteion, Theseus appears only in the eight easternmost metopes
on the north (fig. 9) and south side (fig. 10), thus framing his panhellenic compan­
ion. All deeds depicted in the Delphi metopes were set on stage again, except for
4 5 F o r t h e t y r a n n i c i d e s c f . F E H R 1 9 8 4 ; S T E W A R T 1 9 9 0 , 1 3 5 - 6 figs. 2 2 7 - 3 1 ; S T E W A R T 1 9 9 7 . 6 9 7 5 ; KRUMEICH 2 0 0 2 , 2 2 1 - 2 a n d 2 3 7 ^ K ) ( w i t h further b i b l i o g r a p h y ) ; OENBRINK 2 0 0 4 .
4 6 C f . OBER 2 0 0 3 .
47 It is problematic to argue that every single Harmodios posture was meant to define the
'democratic' character of the actor (TAYLOR 1991, 3 6 - 7 0 ) .
MEDIA FOR THESEUS
175
the calm scene with Athena, which Herakles has 'taken over' (east 10). Most met­
opes follow well­known traditional patterns of depicting Theseus, which were
also typical for the Delphi metopes (fig. 3). Indeed, some images seem to have
been modelled with regard to these earlier reliefs, like the Minotaur (south 4, fig.
10), the Periphetes (south L, fig. 10) or the Prokrustes (north 4, fig. 9) scenes.
Only sometimes is Theseus' superiority made more obvious than in late archaic
images; witness Kerkyon (north 3, fig. 9), whom he is about to defeat immediately
by throwing him to the ground. This is never shown on Attic vases in a compa­
rable manner. 4 8 But altogether Theseus is not the self­confident, invincible winner
Q
4t
Fig. 10: D e e d s o f Theseus. South metopes 1 - 4 o f the Hephaisteion at Athens. Athens, Hephaisteion (drawing after Knell 1990, fig. 2 0 4 ) .
fighting in the above­described new 'final­blow­posture' (except for the scene
with the sow from Krommyon in metope north 1), which the contemporary vases
(fig. 7) and some Delphi metopes (fig. 3) presented. Rather he resembles the
sixth­century agonistic fighter (figs. 1­2). The immediate physical contact with
his adversaries is a guiding principle of the images. Thus, Theseus' visual role in
architectural sculpture was different in 500 and 450. On the Hephaisteion, the
Prokrustes (north 4, fig. 9) and the Periphetes (south 1, fig. 9) scenes are further
witness of this. In both cases, the hero does not appear high above his fallen op­
ponent like at Delphi, but acts in rather unusual postures in front of and in direct
contact with him. It is certain that his strikes will cause the villain's defeat, but
still the hero appears less 'invincible' than in the Harmodios guise. The Skiron
(north 2, fig. 9) and the Sinis scene (south 2, fig. 10) provide further evidence.
Neither the vase­painting typology of Theseus wielding Skiron's basin over his
head (fig. 7) was adopted nor the aggressive sword­attack against Sinis, both of
which were new on Attic vases of this time. 4 9 Instead, Theseus is acting purely by
physical force, using his hands to be successful. Rather than his victorious charac­
ter, his physical power and his skilful agonistic knowledge in fighting are high­
lighted ­ like in late archaic vase­painting and very much like Herakles, who also
uses physical power in the Hephaisteion scenes.
It appears that in the Hephaisteion metopes, Theseus is depicted as a victori­
ous and skilful, but traditionally fighting agonistic hero comparable to Herakles.
The idea of his 'natural' superiority, as expressed in the 'final­blow­posture' in
4 8 C f . NEILS 1 9 9 4 . 9 2 6 - 8 and 9 3 2 - 3 .
4 9 Skiron: NEILS 1994, 9 2 6 - 3 2 nos. 3 3 , 3 6 , 4 4 , 9 7 , 101, 102, 104, 106. Sinis: NEILS 1 9 9 4 , 9 2 9 9 3 nos. 7 3 , 7 4 , 7 7 , 7 8 , 79 (sword above his head), 8 0 . C f . a l s o the new Prokrustes scenes:
VON DEN HOPE 2 0 0 1 , 83 with n. 4 1 .
176
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
contemporary vase-painting is ignored almost completely. Not only did the
Theseus image change from Delphi to Athens and from 500 to 450, but the
Theseus images also differ in different media of the same date. In the Hephaisteion metopes, the choice could have been partly due to the interest in making
Theseus resemble Herakles, who regularly proves his power by his physical en­
gagement. It is in favour of this interpretation that Theseus was very probably
using the club against Periphetes in metope 1 of the Hephaisteion's south side
(fig. 10). 50 This is similar to the treasury at Delphi. But while the Athenian treas­
ury was innovative insofar as Theseus' image was at least partly designed in a
new, self­confident manner, the Hephaisteion tells another story. Here, his image
is retrospective and more cautious. A conventional, agonistic Theseus who fights
in the regular manner is set on stage. And while vase­paintings of the same time
are featuring an invincible, extremely self­confident Theseus, in the years around
450, the public images of the Hephaisteion present a hero who is working hard for
his success.
VM
i
l
Fig. 11: Harmodios and Aristogeiton. Attic oinochoe (late fifth century BCE). Boston, Museum of
fine Arts 98.936 (photograph after Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 85, 1970,
105 fig. 7).
As far as Herakles, the dominating figure of these metopes, is concerned, an­
other iconographic trend is obvious. In contrast to his image in Attic vase­
painting, he always lacks his lion­skin (fig. 8). It is not before the end of his
deeds, that is, in the last metope (east 10) in front of Athena, that he has this dis­
tinctive attribute. 51 His almost naked appearance in the other metopes can also be
5 0 See above n. 4 0 .
51 For the lion skin cf. COHEN 1998.
177
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
observed in the earlier fifth-century Olympia metopes. " But when directly set be­
side Theseus in Athens, this also makes him very similar to the young Athenian
hero, who is always naked in the metopes of the Hephaisteion. Thus, in the Athe­
nian context, not only does Theseus resemble Herakles, but Herakles is also mod­
elled in the manner of a young Theseus. In the Hephaisteion metopes, both heroes
seem to be adjusted to each other.
To sum up: It appears that there are, indeed, deep differences between the im­
ages of Theseus and Herakles in different visual media and in different periods of
Athenian history. In the public realm (figs. 3 ­ 5 and 8­10), from the late sixth
through the fifth century, the Athenians were consistently interested in keeping
alive the panhellenic connection, which Herakles as a topic of architectural sculp­
ture guaranteed. Here, Theseus was introduced as and always remained a sort of
'new Herakles.' 5 3 This is different from what Attic vase­paintings of the late sixth
and fifth century demonstrate. Here, Herakles is slowly losing importance com­
pared to Theseus. This is not to say that the preserved number of images featuring
the Attic polis­hero ever reached the quantity of Herakles images. Even here.
Herakles remained a central paradigm. 3 4 But in Attic vase­painting, new tech­
niques of narration ('cycle­vases') were especially created for Theseus in order to
express his constant activity (figs. 2 and 7). This way of talking about the hero
was almost never used for Herakles. Juxtapositions of Theseus and Herakles on a
single vase are quite rare. Furthermore, on Attic vases Theseus, even though the
club could be his attribute, is only rarely fashioned explicitly as a second Herak­
les, as demonstrated by the lack of vase­paintings showing his club­fight against
Periphetes ­ which, on the other hand, is included in both architectural sculpture
complexes discussed here. In Attic vase­painting, the image of Theseus develops
almost independently from Herakles. Here, Theseus is an agent of change as an
element of a visual debate about Athens' specific myths and relevant values.
Apart from this, chronological differences have become clear. Starting with
architectural sculpture, around 500, the Athenian Theseus was presented to a pan­
hellenic audience at Delphi (fig. 3) as a self­confident hero ­ in contrast to what
the majority of contemporary images on Attic vases show (figs. 1­2), where he
acts in the role of an agonistic fighter, working hard for his success. In public im­
ages of the middle of the fifth century (figs. 9­10), on the other hand ­ at least in
Athens ­ the Athenians no longer overestimated Theseus' superiority, as the ra­
ther 'archaic' Hephaisteion metopes show, even though the idea of depicting
Herakles and Theseus as professional victors is more obvious than in late archaic
images. In Attic vase­painting of the Periklean period it is almost completely dif­
ferent: Theseus appears as a 'naturally' superior hero (fig. 7).
52
Cf. the metopes from Olympia:
BOARDMAN 1990,7
no.
1705; KNELL 1990, 8 0 - 4
figs.
115-
21.
53 The comparisons between Theseus and Herakles remain a literary topos: Plut. Thes. 6 . 8 - 9
and
54
Cf.
8.
BOARDMAN 1975, 1-2;
1987,89.
cf.
BA2ANT 1990.
figs. 4 and
8.
Only for amphorae cf.
SCHEIBLER
178
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
If we question the historic and social relevance of these differences, both the
agents who used the different visual media under discussion and the functions and
contexts of each medium's use - historically and practically - must be taken into
account. In public sculpture commissioned by the polis of the Athenians, a Herakles-like Theseus was opportune. By using Herakles and Theseus to decorate pub­
lic Athenian buildings, Athens maintained her status as a deeply (pan)hellenic
polis and elevated Theseus to a status equal to Herakles. 55 Athens' prestige was
raised. This was one aim of architectural sculpture. But this seems to have been of
no specific interest for the Athenian symposium audience, where Theseus himself
is a central figure of interest and innovation. Either the agents or the functions of
these images must have been different.
The treasury at Delphi is a dedication by the Athenian polis. Its self­confident
public image of Theseus could have been due to the implicit or explicit interest of
the polis in demonstrating Athens' growing self­confidence after the reforms of
Kleisthenes to a broader, panhellenic audience. One could speculate as to whether
the shift to a less 'naturally' superior ­ and to a more professionally successful ­
Theseus 60 years later in architectural sculpture at Athens (but not in vase­
painting) also happened with regard to a specific audience, for example out of
consideration for foreign visitors in Athens. The tragedies of the later fifth cen­
tury, another Athenian public medium of storytelling, could provide another facet
of this trend, as Sophie Mills has demonstrated. 5 6 It is astonishing that in these
tragedies, almost contemporary with or slightly later than the Hephaisteion met­
opes, Theseus plays the role of a helpful, human king. The fact that this figure is
of no interest in vase­painting or public sculpture is certainly due not only to the
necessities of tragedy as a genre, but also to the broad audience in the theatre of
Dionysos, a group of people who would take the Theseus figure on the stage as a
representative of Athens itself even more than his image in architectural sculp­
ture. 57 What is clear is that the design of architectural sculpture did not only de­
pend on the actual mentality of its patrons ­ that is, the polis as a whole ­ but also
on decisive interests in self­representation within specific visual contexts and ac­
cording to the audience of these public images.
In Attic vase­painting, it appears that, at the turn of the century, the new ico­
nography of Theseus, obvious in the Delphi metopes, did not have much success.
Images of a self­confident, superior Theseus remained rare (fig. 6) and unsuccess­
ful. The vases were used by a local Athenian audience, even though its social
range is unclear. But in the time around 500, the traditionally aristocratic interests
of this audience seem to be obvious, because the viewers were still interested in
traditional heroic patterns of Theseus' agonistic behaviour (figs. 1­2). This audi­
ence seems to have been more influential for vase­paintings in Athens than for the
5 5 SHAPIRO 1 9 8 9 , 1 4 9 .
5 6 MILLS 1 9 9 7 .
57 Cf. the recent discussion about the 'social function' of Athenian drama: WINKLER - ZEITLIN
1 9 9 0 ; GRIFFITH 1 9 9 5 a n d 1 9 9 8 ; GRIFFIN 1 9 9 8 ; GOLDHILL 2 0 0 0 ; S E A F O R D 2 0 0 0 ; R H O D E S
2003.
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
179
sculptural adornment of the Athenian treasury, which adopted other, innovative
ideas. Around the middle of the fifth century, on the other hand, the vase-painters
broadly adopted the image of Theseus' self-confident tolma and superior power
(fig. 7). Now, the inner-polis discourse, as reflected in vase-painting, focuses
more on heroic self-confidence and less on traditional agonistic values of equal
fighting, as on sixth-century vases. It remains an open question as to whether this
was due to a broadened, less aristocratic audience than in the late archaic period or
to a changed Athenian self-perception. But it happened, while the public sculpture
maintained the idea of Theseus as a traditional hero of the Herakles type.
It will be clear by now that what one could call the visual discourse about the
polis-hero is complex and controversial in Athens. Myth as represented (and ne­
gotiated) in visual media did not tell a single "intentional history," but "intentional
histories." The Athenian polis was the commissioner of public sculpture for a
broad audience, the Athenian symposium circles were the patrons and audiences
of Attic vase­painting with Theseus and Herakles. Architectural sculpture as pub­
lic sculpture aimed at presenting widely acceptable images of the hero, under­
standable to and appreciated by a broad, panhellenic audience and fitting the self­
image of the polis as dedicant of these images. Its aim was a message, often
within a panhellenic discourse. Vase images, on the other hand, were not designed
as broadly public, let alone political or ideological messages. Rather Attic vase­
painting was a medium of debate within the polis and can be used as evidence to
understand this debate and its conflicting positions. 58 Considering these differ­
ences, it would be superficial to talk about the heroic imagery of the sixth and
fifth century as a homogeneous corpus of images representing Athens' memory as
reflected in myths. Rather, as we have seen, we have to ask in what sense differ­
ences between visual media resulted in different iconographies and modes of nar­
ration and vice versa. Theseus and Herakles were different figures when they were
looked at on Attic vases by smaller groups of Athenians during symposia and
when they were presented by the polis on the public or panhellenic stage in archi­
tectural sculpture. If this distinction could be confirmed by further studies, our
modes of dealing with visual media as records of Greek 'intentional history'
would have to be adjusted. Telling stories, or 'spinning time,' is different in trag­
edies and historiography, on vases, in statues and in reliefs, in a sanctuary and
high above temple columns. It will only be the entire corpus of these records in all
its diversity which provides answers to the question of what members of different
Greek poleis considered to be their imagined mythic history and how they remo­
delled this memory. The rich corpus of images produced in archaic and classical
Athens is a revealing record of these diverse remodellings, even though it only
rarely provides any clues to clarify which specific social groups and protagonists
were engaged in this process.
5 8 VON DEN H O F F . 2 0 0 1 , 8 4 — 5 .
R A L F V O N DEN H O F F
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALSCHER,L.
1961: G r i e c h i s c h e P l a s t i k 2 , B e r l i n .
AMANDRY.P.
1998: N o t e s d e t o p o g r a p h i e et d ' a r c h i t e c t u r e d e l p h i q u e s X . L e " s o c l e m a r a t h o n i e n " et le
tresor des Atheniens, B C H 1 2 2 , 7 5 - 9 0 .
ASSMANN, J.
1999: D a s k u l t u r e l l e G e d a c h t n i s . S c h r i f t , E r i n n e r u n g u n d p o l i t i s c h e Identitat in f r i i h e n H o c h kulturen, Munich.
AUDI AT, J .
1930: L a d e d i c a c e d u t r e s o r d e s A t h e n i e n s a D e l p h e s , B C H 5 4 , 2 9 6 - 3 2 1 .
1933: L e t r e s o r d e s A t h e n i e n s , F o u i l l e s de D e l p h e s , P a r i s .
BANKEL.H.
1993: D e r s p a t a r c h a i s c h e T e m p e l d e r A p h a i a auf A g i n a , D e n k m a l e r a n t i k e r A r c h i t e k t u r 19,
Berlin.
B A R R I N G E R , J.
2 0 0 9 : A n e w a p p r o a c h to the H e p h a i s t e i o n , in P. S c h u l t z a n d R . v o n d e n H o f f ( e d s . ) S t r u c ­
t u r e , I m a g e , O r n a m e n t . A r c h i t e c t u r a l S c u l p t u r e of the G r e e k W o r l d , O x f o r d , 1 0 5 ­ 2 0 .
BA2ANT,J.
1990: T h e c a s e f o r a c o m p l e x a p p r o a c h to A t h e n i a n v a s e p a i n t i n g . M e t i s 5 , 9 3 ­ 1 1 2 .
BECKEL,G.
1961: G o t t e r b e i s t a n d in d e r B i l d i i b e r l i e f e r u n g g r i e c h i s c h e r H e l d e n s a g e n , W a l d s a s s e n .
BOARDMAN, J.
1975: H e r a k l e s , P e i s i s t r a t o s a n d E l e u s i s . J H S 4 5 , 1 ­ 1 2 .
1978: G r e e k S c u l p t u r e . T h e A r c h a i c P e r i o d , L o n d o n .
1982: H e r a k l e s , T h e s e u s a n d A m a z o n s , in D . K u r t z et al. ( e d s . ) T h e E y e o f G r e e c e . S t u d i e s in
t h e A r t of A t h e n s , C a m b r i d g e , 1 ­ 2 8 .
1990: H e r a k l e s , in L e x i c o n I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e C l a s s i c a e 5 , Z u r i c h , 1 ­ 1 9 2 .
1991: G r e e k S c u l p t u r e . T h e C l a s s i c a l P e r i o d , L o n d o n .
2001: T h e History of Greek Vases. Potters, Painters and Pictures, L o n d o n .
BOEHRINGER, D .
2 0 0 1 : H e r o e n k u l t c in G r i e c h e n l a n d v o n d e r g e o m e t r i s c h e n bis z u r k l a s s i s c h e n Z e i t . A t t i k a ,
A r g o l i s , M e s s e n i e n , K l i o S u p p l . 3, B e r l i n .
BOERSMA.J.S.
1964: O n the political b a c k g r o u n d of t h e H e p h a i s t e i o n , B V A B 3 9 , 1 0 1 ­ 6 .
BOMMELAER, J . ­ F .
1993: G u i d e d e D e l p h e s . L e site, P a r i s .
BRELICH, A .
1958: G l i e r o i g r e c i . U n p r o b l e m a s t o r i c o ­ r e l i g i o s o , P u b b l i c a z i o n i d e l l a s c u o l a di studi stori­
co­religioso 4, Rome.
BRINKMANN, V .
2 0 0 2 : A r c h a i s c h e F o r m e l e m e n t e in d e r Z e i t d e r f r i i h e n K l a s s i k , in P . Bol ( e d . ) G e s c h i c h t e d e r
a n t i k e n B i l d h a u e r k u n s t 1, M a i n z , 2 7 1 ­ 8 0 .
BROMMER,F.
1982: T h e s e u s , D a r m s t a d t .
BLIITRON­OLIVER, D .
1997: ( e d . ) T h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of A r c h i t e c t u r a l S c u l p t u r e in G r e e c e a n d R o m e , S t u d i e s in t h e
H i s t o r y o f Art 4 9 . W a s h i n g t o n , D C .
BURFORD,A.
1969: G r e e k T e m p l e Builders at E p i d a u r o s , L i v e r p o o l .
MEDIA FOR THESEUS
BURKERT. W .
1979: S t r u c t u r e a n d H i s t o r y in G r e e k M y t h o l o g y a n d R i t u a l , S a t h e r C l a s s i c a l L e c t u r e s 4 7 ,
Berkeley.
BUSING, H .
1992: D a s A t h e n e r S c h a t z h a u s in D e l p h i . N e u e U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r A r c h i t e k t u r u n d B e m a lung, Marburger W i n c k e l m a n n s p r o g r a m m , Marburg.
BUXTON, R .
1994: I m a g i n a r y G r e e c e . T h e C o n t e x t s of G r e e k M y t h o l o g y , C a m b r i d g e .
CALAME.C.
1 9 9 6 : T h e s e e et l ' i m a g i n a i r e a t h e n i e n , 2" d e d i t i o n , L a u s a n n e .
CASTRIOTA.D.
1992: M y t h , E t h o s a n d A c t u a l i t y . O f f i c i a l A r t in F i f t h - C e n t u r y B . C . A t h e n s , M a d i s o n , W I .
COHEN, B.
1994: F r o m b o w m a n to c l u b m a n . H e r a k l e s a n d O l y m p i a , A B u l l 7 6 , 6 9 5 - 7 1 5 .
1998: T h e N e m e a n l i o n ' s skin in A t h e n i a n a r t , in C . B o n n e t ( e d . ) L e B e s t i a i r e d ' H e r a k l e s . IIIeme Rencontre Herakleenne, Kernos Suppl. 7, Liege, 127^40.
CRUCIANI, C . - FlORINI, L .
1998: I m o d e l l i del m o d e r a t o . L a S t o a p o i k i l e e l ' H e p h a i s t e i o n di A t e n e nel p r o g r a m m o edilizio cimoniano, Naples.
DE LA COSTE-MESSELIERE, P
1957: S c u l p t u r e s d u t r e s o r d e s A t h e n i e n s , F o u i l l e s d e D e l p h e s , P a r i s .
DELIVORRIAS, A .
1974: D i e a t t i s c h e n G i e b e l s k u l p t u r e n u n d A k r o t e r e d e s f i i n f t e n J a h r h u n d e r t s , T u b i n g e n .
DEMANGEL.R.
1933: L a f r i s e i o n i q u e , B i b l i o t h e q u e d e s e c o l e s f r a n c a i s e s d ' A t h e n e s et d e R o m e 136, P a r i s .
DEMARGNE.P.
1984: A t h e n a , in L e x i c o n I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e C l a s s i c a e 2, Z u r i c h , 9 5 5 - 1 0 4 4 .
DELIVORRIAS, A .
1993: T h e s c u l p t e d d e c o r a t i o n o f t h e s o - c a l l e d T h e s e i o n : o l d a n s w e r s , n e w q u e s t i o n s , in
Buitron-Oliver 1 9 9 3 , 8 3 - 1 0 7 .
DEOUDI.M.
1999: H e r o e n k u l t e in h o m e r i s c h e r Z e i t , B A R 8 0 6 , O x f o r d .
DINSMOOR, W . B.
1941: O b s e r v a t i o n s on the H e p h a i s t e i o n , H e s p e r i a S u p p l . 5 , A t h e n s .
1946: T h e A t h e n i a n t r e a s u r y a s d a t e d by its o r n a m e n t s , A J A 5 0 , 8 6 - 1 2 1 .
D6RIG.J.
1985 : L e f r i s e est d e l ' H e p h a i s t e i o n , M a y e n c e - s u r - R h i n .
DOWDEN, K .
1992: T h e U s e s of G r e e k M y t h o l o g y , L o n d o n .
ELLINGER.F.
1 9 8 7 : II m i t o . riscritture e riusi, in S . Settis ( e d . ) I G r e c i 2 , 2 , T o r i n o , 8 3 9 - 6 6 .
ERMINI, A .
1997: II p a s s o di A r m o d i o e il p a s s o di A r i s t o g i t o n e , B A 101/2, 1 - 2 4 .
FARNKLL.L.R.
1921: G r e e k H e r o C u l t s a n d I d e a s o f I m m o r t a l i t y , O x f o r d .
FEHR.B.
1984: D i e T y r a n n e n t o t e r , F r a n k f u r t .
FELTEN.F.
1984: G r i e c h i s c h e t e k t o n i s c h e F r i e s e a r c h a i s c h e r u n d k l a s s i s c h e r Z e i t , S c h r i f t e n a u s d e m
Athenaion der Klassischen Archaologie Salzburg 4, Waldsassen.
FlTTSCHEN, K .
2 0 0 3 : R e v i e w o f : P . C . Bol ( e d . ) G e s c h i c h t e d e r a n t i k e n B i l d h a u e r k u n s t 1, G G A 2 2 5 , 1 - 2 5 .
181
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
FLASHAR, M . et al.
2003: Theseus. Der Held der Athener, exhibition catalogue, Freiburg, Munich.
FLESS.F.
2 0 0 2 : R o t f i g u r i g e K e r a m i k als H a n d e l s w a r e . E r w e r b und G e b r a u c h a t t i s c h e r V a s e n im m e d i t e r r a n e n und p o n t i s c h e n R a u m w a h r e n d d e s 4 . J h s . v. C h r . , I n t e r n a t i o n a l e A r c h a o l o g i e 7 1 ,
Rahden.
FLOREN, J.
1987: D i e g e o m e t r i s c h e und a r c h a i s c h e P l a s t i k , H a n d b u c h d e r A r c h a o l o g i e , M u n i c h .
FRONING.H.
1992: La f o r m a r a p p r e s e n t a t i v a c i c l i c a n e l l ' a r t e c l a s s i c a , in R . O l m o s ( e d . ) C o l o q u i o s o b r e
T e s e o y la c o p a d e A i s o n , M a d r i d , 1 3 1 - 5 4 .
GAUER.W.
1968: W e i h g e s c h e n k e a u s d e n P e r s e r k r i e g e n , I s t a n b u l e r M i t t e i l u n g e n S u p p l . 2 , 1968.
1980: D a s A t h e n e r s c h a t z h a u s und die m a r a t h o n i s c h e n A k r o t h i n i a in D e l p h i , in F. K r i n z i n g e r
(ed.) F o r s c h u n g e n und F u n d e . F e s t s c h r i f t f u r B . N e u t s c h , I n n s b r u c k , 1 2 7 - 3 6 .
GEHRKE,H.-J.
1994: M y t h o s , G e s c h i c h t e , Politik. Antik und m o d e r n , S a e c u l u m 4 5 , 2 3 9 - 6 4 .
2 0 0 1 : M y t h , history a n d c o l l e c t i v e identity. U s e s of the past in a n c i e n t G r e e c e a n d b e y o n d , in
N . L u r a g h i (ed.) T h e H i s t o r i a n ' s C r a f t in the A g e of H e r o d o t u s , O x f o r d , 2 8 6 - 3 1 3 .
2 0 0 3 : W a s heiBt und zu w e l c h e m E n d e studiert m a n i n t e n t i o n a l e G e s c h i c h t e ? M a r a t h o n und
T r o j a als f u n d i e r e n d e M y t h e n , in G . M e l v i l l e - K . - S . R e h b e r g (eds.) G r i i n d u n g s m y t h e n , G e n e a l o g i e n , M e m o r i a l z e i c h e n . B e i t r a g e z u r institutionellen K o n s t r u k t i o n von K o n t i n u i t a t ,
Koln, 21-36.
GIULIANI, L .
1997: Z u r V o l l e n d u n g d e s L e x i c o n I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e C l a s s i c a e , H e p h a i s t o s 15,
241-6.
2 0 0 3 : Bild u n d M y t h o s . G e s c h i c h t e d e r B i l d e r z a h l u n g in d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n K u n s t , M u n i c h .
GOLDHILL, S.
2 0 0 0 : C i v i c i d e o l o g y a n d the p r o b l e m of d i f f e r e n c e . T h e politics of A e s c h y l e a n t r a g e d y , o n c e
a g a i n , JHS 1 2 0 , 3 4 - 5 7 .
GRAEF, B. - LANGLOTZ, E .
1 9 2 5 - 3 3 : D i e a n t i k e n V a s e n v o n d e r A k r o p o l i s zu A t h e n , 2 vols., B e r l i n .
GRAF,F.
1985: G r i e c h i s c h e M y t h o l o g i e , M u n i c h .
2 0 0 0 : M y t h o s : V . G r i e c h e n l a n d , in D e r N e u e P a u l y 8 , S t u t t g a r t , 6 4 0 - 6 .
GRIFFIN,J.
1998: T h e social f u n c t i o n of Attic t r a g e d y , C Q 4 8 , 3 9 - 6 1 .
GRIFFITH, M .
1995: Brilliant d y n a s t s : p o w e r a n d politics in the Oresteia, C l A n t 1 4 , 6 2 - 1 2 9 .
1998: T h e k i n g a n d e y e : the rule of the f a t h e r in G r e e k t r a g e d y , P C P h S 4 4 , 2 0 - 8 4 .
HAGG.R.
1999: A n c i e n t G r e e k H e r o C u l t , S t o c k h o l m .
HANSEN, E.
1975: A t l a s , F o u i l l e s d e D e l p h e s , Paris.
HlMMELMANN, N .
1979: Z u r E n t l o h u n g kiinstlerischer T a t i g k e i t in k l a s s i s c h e n B a u i n s c h r i f t e n , J D A 1 9 4 , 1 2 7 42.
HOFFELNER.K.
1988: D i e M e t o p e n d e s A t h e n e r - S c h a t z h a u s e s . Ein n e u e r R e k o n s t r u k t i o n s v e r s u c h , M D A I ( A )
103,77-117.
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
HOLSCHER, T .
1999: I m m a g i n i m i t o l o g i c h e e valori s o c i a l i nella G r e c i a a r c a i c a , in F . d e A n g e l i s et al. ( e d s . )
Im S p i e g e l d e s M y t h o s . B i l d e r w e l t u n d L e b e n s w e l t , W i e s b a d e n , 1 1 - 3 0 .
HOLTZMANN.B.
2003: L'acropole d ' A t h e n e s , Paris.
L'HOMME-WERY.L.-M.
2 0 0 6 : L ' A t h e n e s de S o l o n s u r le v a s e F r a n c o i s , K e r n o s 19, 2 6 7 - 9 0 .
HURWIT.J. M .
1998: T h e A t h e n i a n A c r o p o l i s , C a m b r i d g e .
ISEER-KERENYl.C.
1997: D e r F r a n c o i s - K r a t e r z w i s c h e n A t h e n u n d C h i u s i , in J . O a k l e y ( e d . ) A t h e n i a n P o t t e r s
and Painters. T h e Conference Proceedings, O x f o r d , 5 2 3 - 3 9 .
JACQUEM1N, A .
1999: O f f r a n d e s m o n u m e n t a l e s a D e l p h e s . P a r i s .
JUNKER, K .
2002: Symposiongeschirr oder Totengefasse? Uberlegungen zur Funktion attischer Vasen des
6. u n d 5 . J a h r h u n d e r t s v . C h r . , A K 4 5 , 3 - 2 5 .
2 0 0 5 : G r i e c h i s c h e M y t h e n b i l d e r . E i n f i i h r u n g in ihre I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , S t u t t g a r t .
KAHLER.H.
1949: D a s g r i e c h i s c h e M e t o p e n b i l d , M u n i c h .
KASPER-BUTZ,I.
1990: D i e G o t t i n A t h e n a im k l a s s i s c h e n A t h e n , F r a n k f u r t a m M a i n .
KEARNS.E.
1989: T h e H e r o e s of A t t i c a . B I C S S u p p l . 5 7 , L o n d o n .
KlNG.K.C.
1987: A c h i l l e s . P a r a d i g m s of the W a r H e r o f r o m H o m e r to t h e M i d d l e A g e s , B e r k e l e y .
KIRK.G.S.
1970: M y t h . Its M e a n i n g a n d F u n c t i o n in A n c i e n t a n d O t h e r C u l t u r e s , C a m b r i d g e .
1974: T h e N a t u r e of G r e e k M y t h s , H a r m o n d s w o r t h .
KLE1NE.J.
1973: U n t e r s u c h u n g e n z u r C h r o n o l o g i e d e r a t t i s c h e n K u n s t von P e i s i s t r a t o s bis T h e m i s t o k l e s ,
I s t a n b u l e r M i t t e i l u n g e n S u p p l . 8, T u b i n g e n .
KNELL, H .
1990: M y t h o s u n d P o l i s . B i l d p r o g r a m m e g r i e c h i s c h e r B a u s k u l p t u r , D a r m s t a d t .
KOCH.H.
1955: S t u d i e n z u m T h e s e u s t e m p e l in A t h e n . B e r l i n .
KORRES.M.
1993: W i l h e l m D o r p f e l d s F o r s c h u n g e n z u m V o r p a r t h e n o n u n d P a r t h e n o n , M D A I ( A ) 108,
59-78.
KORRES, H .
1997: D e r A t h e n a - T e m p e l a u f d e r A k r o p o l i s , in W . H o e p f n e r ( e d . ) K u l t u n d K u l t b a u t e n a u f
der Akropolis, Berlin, 2 1 8 - 4 3 .
KOSSATZ-DEISSMANN, A .
1981: A c h i l l e u s . i n L e x i c o n I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e C l a s s i c a e 1, Z u r i c h , 3 7 - 2 0 0 .
KOSTER.W.J.
1976: Le t e m p l e d ' A p o l l o n a D e l p h e s et l ' " l o n " d ' E u r i p i d e , in F e s t o e n o p g e d r a g e n a a n A . N .
Z a d o k s - J o s e p h u s Jitta b i j h a a r z e v e n t i g s t e v e r j a a r d a g , G r o n i n g e n , 3 7 3 - 8 2 .
KOTSIDOU.H.
1995: Z u m b a u g e s c h i c h t l i c h e n H i n t e r g r u n d d e s H e p h a i s t o s t e m p e l s a u f d e r A t h e n e r A g o r a ,
Hephaistos 1 3 , 9 3 - 1 0 8 .
KREUZER.B.
1998: D i e attisch s c h w a r z f i g u r i g e K e r a m i k a u s d e m H e r a i o n v o n S a m o s , S a m o s 2 2 .
183
RALF VON DEN HOFF
184
2 0 0 3 : D e r H e l d als V o r b i l d , in F l a s h a r et al. 2 0 0 3 , 1 5 - 1 6 .
2 0 0 5 : Zuriick in die Z u k u n f t ? „ H o m e r i s c h e " W e r t e u n d „ s o l o n i s c h e P r o g r a m m a t i k " auf d e m
K r i t i a s k r a t e r in F l o r e n z , J O A I 7 4 , 1 7 5 ­ 2 2 4 .
KRON.U.
1988: Z u r S c h a l e d e s K o d r o s ­ M a l e r s in B a s e l . E i n e Interpretatio A t t i c a , in M . S c h m i d t (ed.)
K a n o n . F e s t s c h r i f t Ernst B e r g e r z u m 6 0 . G e b u r t s t a g a m 2 6 . F e b r u a r 1988 g e w i d m e t , A K
Suppl. 1 5 , 2 9 1 ­ 3 0 4 .
KRUMEICH.R.
2 0 0 2 : Portrats und H i s t o r i e n b i l d e r d e r k l a s s i s c h e n Z e i t , in F . Z i m m e r et al. (eds.) D i e g r i e c h i ­
s c h e K l a s s i k . Idee u n d W i r k l i c h k e i t , e x h i b i t i o n c a t a l o g u e B e r l i n , M a i n z , 2 0 9 ­ 4 0 .
KUN1SCH,N.
1974: Z u r h e l m h a l t e n d e n A t h e n a , M D A I ( A ) 8 9 , 8 5 ­ 1 0 4 .
1990: A t h e n a und H e r a k l e s . E n t w i c k l u n g bildlicher M y t h e n im 5 . J h . v . C h r . , in G . B i n d e r
(ed.) M y t h o s . E r z a h l e n d e W e l t d e u t u n g im S p a n n u n g s f e l d v o n R i t u a l , G e s c h i c h t e und R a t i o ­
nalitat. T r i e r , 7 5 ­ 8 9 .
LAPALUS.E.
1947: L e f r o n t o n s c u l p t e en G r e c e d e s o r i g i n e s a la fin d u IV siecle. E t u d e sur les o r i g i n e s ,
r e v o l u t i o n , la t e c h n i q u e et les t h e m e s du d e c o r t y m p a n a l , B i b l i o t h e q u e d e s e c o l e s f r a n c a i s e s
d ' A t h e n e s et d e R o m e 165, Paris.
LARSON, J.
1995: G r e e k H e r o i n e C u l t s , M a d i s o n , W I .
LATACZ.J.
1995: A c h i l l e u s . W a n d l u n g e n e i n e s e u r o p a i s c h e n H e l d e n b i l d e s , L e c t i o T e u b n e r i a n a 3, Stutt­
gart.
LAUTER.H.
1974: Z u r g e s e l l s c h a f t l i c h e n S t a l l u n g d e s b i l d e n d e n K u n s t l e r s inb d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n K l a s s i k ,
Erlangen.
LlPPOLD.G.
1950: D i e g r i e c h i s c h e P l a s t i k , M u n i c h .
LlSSARRAGUE, F .
1987: Un flot d ' i m a g e s . U n e e s t e t i q u e d u b a n q u e t g r e c , P a r i s .
LUCE,J.­M.
1998: T h e s e e , le s y o e c i s m e et 1'Agora d ' A t h e n e s , R A 3, 3 ­ 3 1 .
LYONS, D .
1997: G e n d e r a n d i m m o r t a l i t y . H e r o i n e s in A n c i e n t G r e e k M y t h and C u l t , P r i n c e t o n .
MAAS.M.
1993: D a s antike D e l p h i , D a r m s t a d t .
MANNACK.T.
2002: Griechische Vasenmalerei, Stuttgart.
M ARCADE, J. ­ CROISSANT, F.
1991: L a s c u l p t u r e en p i e r r e , in G u i d e d e D e l p h e s . L e m u s e e , P a r i s , 2 9 ­ 1 3 8 .
MARCONI,C.
2 0 0 4 : I m a g e s f o r a w a r r i o r , in C . M a r c o n i (ed.) G r e e k V a s e s . I m a g e s , C o n t e x t s a n d C o n t r o ­
v e r s i e s . P r o c e e d i n g s of the c o n f e r e n c e s p o n s o r e d by the C e n t e r f o r the A n c i e n t M e d i t e r r a n e a n
at C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 2 3 ­ 2 4 M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , L e i d e n , 2 7 ^ 1 0 .
2 0 0 7 : T e m p l e D e c o r a t i o n a n d C u l t u r a l Identity in the A r c h a i c G r e e k W o r l d , C a m b r i d g e .
MARTINI. W .
1990: D i e a r c h a i s c h e Plastik d e r G r i e c h e n , D a r m s t a d t .
MEIER,C.
1988: D i e p o l i t i s c h e K u n s t d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n T r a g o d i e , M u n i c h .
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
MEYER, M . F.
1999: Z u r B e d e u t u n g s g e n e s e d e r B e g r i f f e . M y t h o s ' u n d . L o g o s ' in d e r g r i e c h i s c h e n A n t i k e ,
ABG 41, 35-63.
MILLER, D. A .
2000: The Epic Hero, Baltimore.
MILLS, S.
1997: T h e s e u s , T r a g e d y a n d the A t h e n i a n E m p i r e , O x f o r d .
MOMMSEN, H.
1989: Z w e i s c h w a r z f i g u r i g e A m p h o r e n a u s A t h e n , A K 3 2 , 1 1 8 ^ - 6 .
MOORE, M . B.
1997: A t t i c R e d - f i g u r e d P o t t e r y , T h e A t h e n i a n A g o r a 3 0 , P r i n c e t o n .
MOORE, M . B . e t al.
1986: Attic B l a c k - f i g u r e d P o t t e r y , T h e A t h e n i a n A g o r a 2 3 , P r i n c e t o n .
MORGAN, C . H .
1962: T h e S c u l p t u r e s of the H e p h a i s t e i o n II, H e s p e r i a 3 1 , 2 1 1 - 1 9 .
1963: T h e S c u l p t u r e s of t h e H e p h a i s t e i o n III, H e s p e r i a 3 2 , 9 1 - 1 0 8 .
MUTH.S.
2 0 0 4 : D a s G r a u s e n d e s M i n o t a u r u s . E i n e G r a t w a n d e r u n g d e r M o n s t e r - I k o n o g r a p h i e in d e r
klassischen Bildkunst Athens, Miinchner Jahrbucher fur Bildende Kunst 5 5 , 7 - 3 1 .
NEER.R.
2 0 0 2 : S t y l e a n d Politics in A t h e n i a n V a s e - p a i n t i n g , C a m b r i d g e .
2 0 0 4 : T h e A t h e n i a n T r e a s u r y at D e l p h i a n d the M a t e r i a l of P o l i t i c s , C l A n t 6 3 , 6 3 - 9 3 .
NEILS, J.
1987: T h e Y o u t h f u l D e e d s of T h e s e u s , R o m e .
1994: T h e s e u s , in L e x i c o n I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e C l a s s i c a e 7 , Z u r i c h , 9 2 2 - 5 1 .
OBERj.
2 0 0 3 : T y r a n t - k i l l i n g s a s t h e r a p e u t i c s t a s i s . A political d e b a t e in i m a g e s a n d t e x t s , in K . M o r ­
g a n ( e d . ) P o p u l a r T y r a n n y . S o v e r e i g n t y a n d Its D i s c o n t e n t s in A n c i e n t G r e e c e , A u s t i n , T X ,
215­50.
OENBRINK.W.
2 0 0 4 : D i e T y r a n n e n m o r d e r , in J. G e b a u e r (ed.) B i l d e r g e s c h i c h t e . F e s t s c h r i f t f u r K l a u s S t a h ­
ler.Munster, 373­400.
OSBORNE, R.
1994: F r a m i n g the c e n t a u r . R e a d i n g fifth­century a r c h i t e c t u r a l s c u l p t u r e , in S . G o l d h i l l et al.
( e d s . ) A r t a n d T e x t in A n c i e n t G r e e k C u l t u r e , C a m b r i d g e , 5 2 ­ 8 4 .
2 0 0 0 : A r c h a i c a n d c l a s s i c a l G r e e k t e m p l e s c u l p t u r e a n d t h e v i e w e r , in N . H . R u t t e r ( e d . )
W o r d a n d I m a g e in A n c i e n t G r e e c e , E d i n b u r g h , 2 2 8 ­ 4 6 .
2 0 0 0 : W h y did A t h e n i a n p o t s a p p e a l to the E t r u s c a n s ? , W o r l d A r c h a e o l o g y 3 3 , 2 7 7 ­ 9 5 .
2 0 0 4 : I m a g e s o f a w a r r i o r , in C . M a r c o n i (ed.) G r e e k V a s e s . I m a g e s , C o n t e x t s a n d C o n t r o ­
v e r s i e s . P r o c e e d i n g s of the c o n f e r e n c e s p o n s o r e d by the C e n t e r f o r the A n c i e n t M e d i t e r r a n e a n
at C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 2 3 ­ 2 4 M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , L e i d e n , 4 1 ­ 5 4 .
PADILLA.M. W.
1998: T h e M y t h s of H e r a k l e s in A n c i e n t G r e e c e , L a n h a m .
PATRIDA,E.C.
2 0 0 0 : T h e T r e a s u r i e s at D e l p h i . A n A r c h i t e c t u r a l S t u d y , J o n s e r e d .
PIRENNE­DELFORGE, V .
2 0 0 0 : H e r o s et h e r o i n e s d a n s les m y t h e s et les c u l t e s g r e c s , L i e g e .
RATHJE, A .
2 0 0 2 : P o t s f o r t h e L i v i n g , P o t s f o r the D e a d . C o p e n h a g e n .
RAUSCH.M.
1999: I s o n o m i e in A t h e n . V e r a n d e r u n g e n d e s o f f e n t l i c h e n L e b e n s v o m S t u r z d e r T y r a n n i s bis
zur zweiten Perserabwehr. Frankfurt am Main.
185
186
R A L F VON DEN H O F F
REBER,K.
1998: D a s H e p h a i s t e i o n in A t h e n . Ein M o n u m e n t f u r d i e D e m o k r a t i e , J D A I 113, 3 1 ^ 8 .
REUSSER.C.
2 0 0 2 : V a s e n ftir E t r u r i e n . V e r b r e i t u n g u n d F u n k t i o n e n a t t i s c h e r K e r a m i k im E t r u r i e n d e s 6 .
u n d 5. J a h r h u n d e r t s v . C h r . , K i l c h b e r g .
RHODES, P. J.
2 0 0 3 : N o t h i n g t o d o w i t h d e m o c r a c y . A t h e n i a n d r a m a a n d t h e p o l i s , J H S 123, 1 0 4 - 1 9 .
RlDGWAY, B . S.
1977: T h e A r c h a i c S t y l e in G r e e k S c u l p t u r e . P r i n c e t o n .
1981: F i f t h C e n t u r y S t y l e s in G r e e k S c u l p t u r e , P r i n c e t o n .
1993: T h e A r c h a i c S t y l e in G r e e k S c u l p t u r e . 2"'1 e d i t i o n , C h i c a g o .
1999: P r a y e r s in S t o n e . G r e e k A r c h i t e c t u r a l S c u l p t u r e ( c a . 6 0 0 - 1 0 0 B . C . ) , B e r k e l e y .
ROTTROFF, S. - OAKLEY , J.
1992: D e b r i s f r o m a P u b l i c D i n i n g P l a c e in the A t h e n i a n A g o r a , H e s p e r i a S u p p l . 2 5 ,
Princeton.
SAID,S.
1993: A p p r o c h e s d e la m y t h o l o g i e g r e c q u e , P a r i s .
SAUER,B.S.
1899: D a s s o g e n a n n t e T h e s e i o n , L e i p z i g .
SCHEER,T.S.
1993: M y t h i s c h e V o r v a t e r . Z u r B e d e u t u n g g r i e c h i s c h e r H e r o e n m y t h e n im S e l b s t v e r s t a n d n i s
kleinasiatischer Stadte, Munich.
SCHEFOLD.K.
1978: G o t t e r - u n d H e l d e n s a g e n d e r G r i e c h e n in d e r s p a t a r c h a i s c h e n K u n s t , M u n i c h .
1993: G o t t e r - u n d H e l d e n s a g e n d e r G r i e c h e n in d e r friih- u n d h o c h a r c h a i s c h e n K u n s t , M u ­
nich.
SCHEFOLD, K ­ JUNG, F
1988 D i e U r k o n i g e : P e r s e u s , B e l l e r o p h o n , H e r a k l e s u n d T h e s e u s in d e r k l a s s i s c h e n u n d hel­
lenistischen Kunst, Munich.
S C H E I B L E R , [,
1983: G r i e c h i s c h e T o p f e r k u n s t . H e r s t e l l u n g , H a n d e l u n d G e b r a u c h d e r a n t i k e n T o n g e f a s s e ,
Munich.
1987: Bild u n d G e f a B . Z u r i k o n o g r a p h i s c h e n u n d f u n k t i o n a l e n B e d e u t u n g d e r a t t i s c h e n Bild­
feldamphoren, JDAI 102,57­118.
SCHMIDT, S.
2 0 0 5 : R h e t o r i s c h e B i l d e r a u f a t t i s c h e n V a s e n . V i s u e l l e K o m m u n i k a t i o n i m 5. J a h r h u n d e r t v.
Chr., Berlin.
SCHWAB, K . A .
1988: T h e P a r t h e n o n M e t o p e s a n d G r e e k V a s e P a i n t i n g . A S t u d y o f C o m p a r i s o n a n d I n f l u e n ­
ces, Ann Arbor.
SEAFORD.R.
2 0 0 0 : T h e social f u n c t i o n of Attic t r a g e d y : A r e s p o n s e t o J a s p e r G r i f f i n , C Q 5 0 , 3 0 ­ 4 4 .
SERVADEI.C.
2 0 0 5 : L a f i g u r a di T h e s e u s n e l l a c e r a m i c a a t t i c a , B o l o g n a .
SHAPIRO, H . A .
1989: A r t a n d C u l t u n d e r t h e T y r a n t s in A t h e n s , M a i n z .
1991: T h e s e u s : A s p e c t s o f t h e h e r o in a r c h a i c G r e e c e , in D . B u i t r o n ­ O l i v e r ( e d . ) N e w P e r ­
s p e c t i v e s in E a r l y G r e e k A r t , S t u d i e s in the H i s t o r y of A r t 3 2 , W a s h i n g t o n , D C , 1 2 3 ­ 3 9 .
1994: M y t h i n t o A r t . P o e t a n d P a i n t e r in C l a s s i c a l G r e e c e , L o n d o n .
2 0 0 0 : M o d e s t a t h l e t e s a n d l i b e r a t e d w o m e n . E t r u s c a n s o n Attic b l a c k ­ f i g u r e v a s e s , in B .
C o h e n ( e d . ) N o t t h e C l a s s i c a l I d e a l . A t h e n s a n d t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n of the O t h e r in G r e e k A r t ,
Leiden, 315­37.
M E D I A FOR T H E S E U S
SHEFTON, B. B.
I 9 6 0 : S o m e iconographic r e m a r k s on the t y r a n n i c i d e s , A J A 6 4 , 1 7 3 - 9 .
SPARKES, B . A .
1996: T h e Red and the Black. Studies in Greek Pottery, L o n d o n .
STANSBURY-O'DONNELL.M. D.
1999: Pictorial Narrative in Ancient Greek Art, C a m b r i d g e .
2005: T h e painting p r o g r a m in the Stoa Poikile, in J. Barringer (ed.) Periklean A t h e n s and its
L e g a c y . P r o b l e m s and Perspectives, Austin, T X , 7 3 - 8 7 .
STEIN ER, D .
I m a g e s in M i n d . Statues in Archaic and Classical Greek Literature and T h o u g h t , Princeton.
STKINER, A .
2007: R e a d i n g Greek V a s e s , C a m b r i d g e .
STEWART, A .
1985: History, m y t h , and allegory in the p r o g r a m of the temple of A t h e n a Nike at A t h e n s , in
H . L . Kessler et al. (eds.) Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the M i d d l e A g e s . Studies in the
History of Art 16, W a s h i n g t o n , D C , 5 3 - 7 4 .
1990: G r e e k Sculpture. An Exploration, N e w H a v e n .
1997: Art, Desire and the B o d y in Ancient G r e e c e , C a m b r i d g e .
SUTER.P.
1975: Das H a r m o d i o s m o t i v , Basel.
SZUFNAR, E . A .
1995: T h e s e u s and M i n o t a u r . A Question of Iconography in G r e e k V a s e - p a i n t i n g , A n n A r b o r .
TAYLOR, M . W .
1991: T h e T y r a n t Slayers. T h e Heroic I m a g e in Fifth C e n t u r y B . C . A t h e n i a n Art and Politics.
2 nd e d n . , S a l e m .
TORELLI.M.
2007: Le strategie di Kleitias. C o m p o s i z i o n e e p r o g r a m m a figurativo del vaso F r a n c o i s , Mi­
lan.
VERNANT,J.­P.
1987: M y t h o s und G e s e l l s c h a f t im alten G r i e c h e n l a n d , F a n k f u r t .
VEYNE.P.
1987: G l a u b t e n die G r i e c h e n an ihre M y t h e n , F r a n k f u r t .
VlERNElSEL, K. et al.
1990: (eds.) Kunst der S c h a l e ­ K u n s t des T r i n k e n s , exhibition catalogue M u n i c h , M u n i c h .
VOGT,S.
1998: Delphi in der attischen T r a g o d i e , A & A 4 4 , 3 0 ^ 4 9 .
VON DEN HOFF.R.
2 0 0 1 : Die Posen d e s Siegers. Die Konstruktion von Uberlegenheit in attischen T h e s e u s b i l ­
dern des 5. Jhs. v. C h r . , in R . von den Hoff et al. (eds.) Konstruktionen von W i r k l i c h k e i t . Bil­
der im G r i e c h e n l a n d des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. C h r . , Stuttgart, 7 3 ­ 8 8 .
2002: Die Pracht der Schalen und die T a t k r a f t d e s H e r o s . T h e s e u s z y k l e n auf S y m p o s i o n g e ­
schirr in A t h e n , in F. Z i m m e r et al. (eds.) Die griechische Klassik. Idee o d e r W i r k l i c h k e i t ? ,
exhibition catalogue Berlin, M a i n z , 3 3 1 ­ 7 .
2 0 0 3 : Der T a t e n z y k l u s , in F l a s h a r e t al. 2 0 0 3 , 1 7 ­ 2 1 .
f o r t h c o m i n g a: T h e s e u s , the Francois vase and Solonian A t h e n s , in H. A. Shapiro (ed.) T h e
F r a n c o i s V a s e . N e w Perspectives, Baltimore.
2 0 0 9 : T h e s e u s and the Athenian Treasury in D e l p h i , in P. Schultz and R . von den H o f f (eds.)
S t r u c t u r e , I m a g e , O r n a m e n t . Architectural Sculpture of the G r e e k W o r l d , O x f o r d , 9 6 ­ 1 0 4 .
VON HESBERG.H.
2 0 0 3 : Das griechische Relief als M e d i u m , in von H e s b e r g et al. 2 0 0 3 , 9 3 ­ 1 2 1 .
187
188
R A L F V O N DEN H O F F
VON H E S B E R G , H . e t a l .
2003: (eds.) M e d i e n in der Antike. K o m m u n i k a t i v e Qualitat und n o r m a t i v e W i r k u n g , Z A K M I R A , Koln.
WALKER, H . J .
1995: T h e s e u s and A t h e n s , O x f o r d .
WEBSTER,T. B . L .
1972: Potter and Patron in Classical A t h e n s , L o n d o n .
WEHGARTNER,I.
1991: C o r p u s V a s o r u m A n t i q u o r u m Deutschland 6 2 , Berlin A n t i k e n m u s e u m 8, M u n i c h .
W I N K L E R , J. J . — ZEITLIN, F . I.
1990: (eds.) N o t h i n g to D o with D i o n y s o s ? Athenian D r a m a in its Social C o n t e x t , Princeton.
WOODFORD, S.
1992: M i n o t a u r o s , in Lexicon I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e Classicae 6, Z u r i c h , 5 7 4 - 8 1 .
1994: T h e s e u s VIII. T h e s e u s and M i n o t a u r o s , in Lexicon I c o n o g r a p h i c u m M y t h o l o g i a e
Classicae 7, Z u r i c h , 9 4 0 - 3 .
2003: I m a g e s of M y t h s in Classical Antiquity, C a m b r i d g e .
WYATT,W.F.-EDMONDSON,C.N.
1984: T h e ceiling of the H e p h a i s t e i o n , A J A 8 8 , 1 3 5 - 6 7 .
YEROL)LANOU,M.
1998: M e t o p e s and architecture. T h e Hephaisteion and the P a r t h e n o n , A B S A 9 3 , 4 0 1 - 2 5 .
YOUNG,E.
1972: T h e Slaying of the M i n o t a u r , A n n A r b o r .
ZEITLIN, F . I.
1994: T h e artful eye: vision, ekphrasis, and spectacle in Euripidean d r a m a , in S. Goldhill and
R . O s b o r n e (eds.) Art and Text in Ancient G r e e k C u l t u r e , C a m b r i d g e , 1 3 8 - 9 6 .