¹ I refer to these creatures as silens, or silenoi, because that is how they are labelled on the François vase (Plate I (a)), Florence 4209, volute-krater, , Kleitias, and Ergotimos, , ABV 76,1Google Scholar, Simon, E. and Hirmer, M., Die griechischen Vasen [Munich 1976] pls. 51–57)Google Scholar, the only known vase with an inscription identifying these creatures as a group. The name satyr is used for the same type of creature in classical literature, and it seems likely that the names silen and satyr were synonymous in the Archaic period. But since the name silen is attested on Athenian vases and the name satyr is not, it seems best to use the former when referring to these creatures as they appear on these vases. For the use of the two names see Reisch, E., ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der attischen Tragödie’, in Festschrift Theodor Gomperz (Vienna 1902) 451–473, esp. 460–464.Google Scholar

² The bibliography on the iconography of these female figures is extensive. The best short study remains Edwards, M.W., ‘Representation of maenads on Archaic red-figure vases’, JHS lxxx (1960) 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For the iconographical problems see also A. Rapp, ‘Mainaden’, in Roscher, W.H. et al. , Ausführliche Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie (Leipzig 1894–97) ii, 2243–2283, esp. 2266–2267Google Scholar; Lawler, L.B., ‘The Maenads: a contribution to the study of the dance in ancient Greece’, MAAR vi (1927) 69–112Google Scholar; Simon, E., ‘Menadi’, EAA iv (1961) 1002–1013, esp. 1003–1007Google Scholar; McNally, S., ‘The maenad in early Greek art’, Arethusa xi (1978) 101–135Google Scholar; Keuls, E.C., ‘Male-female interaction in fifth-century Dionysiac ritual as shown in Attic vase painting’, ZPE lv (1984) 287–297Google Scholar; Keuls, E.C., The reign of the phallus (New York 1985) 357–379Google Scholar; Carpenter, T.H., Dionysian imagery in Archaic Greek art (Oxford 1986) 79–86Google Scholar; Bron, C., ‘Porteurs de thyrse ou bacchants’, in C. Bérard et al. ed. Images et société en Grèce ancienne (Lausanne 1987) 145–153Google Scholar; Schöne, A., Der Thiasos (Göteborg 1987)Google Scholar; Henrichs, A., ‘Myth visualized: Dionysos and his circle in sixth-century Attic vase-painting’, in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his world (Malibu 1987) 92–124, esp. 100–106.Google Scholar

³ For the François vase, see n. 1 above.

⁴ The inscription is best viewed in fig. 244 of M. Cristofani et al., Materiali per servire alla storia del vaso François (BdA serie speciale 1, Rome 1981). The nymphs do not differ from other female figures on the vase except that one plays a small pair of cymbals, perhaps part of the musical program that must have been featured at the drinking party at which Hephaistos was made drunk.

⁵ HHymnAphr 256–263. Trans. after Evelyn-White, H.G., Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica (Cambridge, MA 1982 repr.).Google Scholar

⁶ New York 31.11.11, column-krater, Lydos, ABV 108,5, MMS iv (1932–1933) pl. 1. The fawn-skin is worn by women in several later representations of the Return, such as New York 17.230.5, band-cup, Para 78,1, Oakeshott Painter, CVA New York 2, pl. 19; Boston 95.62, hydria, ABV 249,9, Elbows Out, CVA Boston 2, pl. 72,1; Munich 1526, neck-amphora, ABV 282,6, Group of Toronto 305, CVA Munich 8, pl. 420; Paris, Louvre F3, amphora type B, ABV 297,12, Painter of Berlin 1686, CVA Louvre 3, pl. 10,3 and 6; London B427, cup type A, c. 525–500 BC, CVA British Museum 2, pl. 20,2; Fiesole, Constantini, column-krater, recalls Leagros Group, CVA Fiesole 1, pl. 29; Tarquinia 1553, neck-amphora, c. 525–500 BC, CVA Tarquinia 2, pl. 34,2–3.

⁷ E.g., Louvre G162, calyx-krater, Kleophrades Painter, ARV ² 186,47, CVA Louvre 2, pls. 12,8 and 13,2, 5 and 8.

⁸ E.g., London 1908.1–1.1, cup type A, 525–500 BC, CVA British Museum 2, pl. 19,2; New Milton, Hattatt, neck-amphora, Hattatt Painter, OJA i (1982) 140–143, figs. 1–6.

⁹ With the panther-skin: Agrigento C1535, column-krater, Leagros Group, CVA Agrigento 1, pl. 6,1; Leipzig T59, lekythos (compare the Kleophrades Painter), CVA Leipzig 2, pl. 39, 3–5; Louvre G162, cited above, n. 7; Louvre G135, cup, Colmar Painter, ARV ² 355,45, Pottier, E., Vases antiques du Louvre (Paris 1897–1922) iii 172.Google Scholar With the thyrsus: Indianapolis 31.299, stamnos, Group of London E445, ARV ² 217,3, Studies presented to David Moore Robinson ii (St. Louis 1953) pl. 51,a–b. Cf. also Frankfurt, VF β286, neck-amphora, Para 176, manner of the Kleophrades Painter, CVA Frankfurt 1, pls. 30 and 33; New York 41.162.175, neck-amphora, ABL 240,150, Diosphos Painter, CVA Hoppin and Gallatin, pl. 7,7 and 9: on both of the vases, Hephaistos is shown on one side of the vase (with a silen or Dionysos), a female figure with panther-skin and thyrsus on the other (with a silen or Dionysos), in what appears to be a continuation of the representation of the Return.

¹⁰ E.g., Indianapolis 47.34, hydria, Agrigento Painter, ARV ² 579,83, Brommer, F., Hephaistos: Der Schmiedegott in der antiken Kunst (Mainz am Rhein 1978) pl. 4,2Google Scholar; Louvre G135, listed in n. 9.

¹¹ The best discussion of the literary sources for the myth remains Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, ‘Hephaistos’, NGG 1895, 217–245Google Scholar (rpt. in Kleiner Schriften ii [Berlin 1971] 5–35). See also Carpenter (above n. 2) 13–15.

¹² For the name mainades see also A. Henrichs, ‘Changing Dionysiac identities’, in B.F. Meyer and E.P. Sanders ed. Jewish and Christian self-definition iii: Self-definition in the Greco-Roman world (Philadelphia 1982) 146, n. 89; Rapp (above n. 2) 2243. Translations from the Bakchai are after G.S. Kirk (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1970).

¹³ The word mainades is used of the Theban women in the following lines of the play: 829, 956, 981, 984, 1023, 1052, 1060, 1062, 1075, 1107, 1143, 1191, 1226. The term is used generically, for women other than the Theban women, only three times: 103, 570, and 601 (on the last, see below). It is noteworthy that the word is concentrated in the latter part of the play, where the consequences of the madness of the Theban women, the murder of Pentheus, are of greatest concern. On the use of the term bakchai for the female followers of Dionysos, see below.

¹⁴ Apollod, ii 2.2 (citing Hesiod as one source for the story); iii 5.2; Virg. Ecl. 6.48. See Radke, G., ‘Proitides’, RE xxiii (1957) 117–125Google Scholar for other sources. The many variations of the tale of the Proitides are analyzed by Dowden, K., Death and the maiden: Girls' initiation rites in Greek mythology (London 1989) 71–95.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ovid, Met iv 1–415. See Eitrem, S., ‘Minyaden’, RE xv (1932) 2010–2014Google Scholar for other references. The resistence myths, as they are called, are discussed at length by Guthrie, W.K.C., The Greeks and their gods (London 1950) 165–174.Google Scholar

¹⁶ HHymnDion (26) 3–10. Cf. Hom. II. vi 130–135, where Dionysos is accompanied by ‘nurses’ on Nysa, presumably nymphs; Tyrtaios fr. 20.1 West for the ‘nurse’ of Dionysos; Soph. OC 678–680, where Dionysos leads the revels of the goddesses who were his nurses. Female figures labelled Nysai appear on fragments of an early sixth-century vase by Sophilos (Athens Acr. 587, dinos frags., ABV 39,15, Graef, B. and Langlotz, E., Die antiken Vasen von der Acropolis zu Athen [Berlin 1925–1933] i, pl. 26).Google Scholar Carpenter (above n. 2, p. 9) argues that the inscription is simply a misspelling of Mosai, Muses, but one cannot rule out the possibility that Sophilos meant what he wrote.

¹⁷ Cf. Pratinas fr. 1: ‘to cry aloud, running in the hills with the naiads’. The speakers are probably silens, and the context is the proper way to honor Dionysos.

¹⁸ Cf. Kirk, G.S., The Iliad: A commentary ii (Cambridge 1990) 174 on II. vi 132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. Guthrie (above n. 15) 161; Rapp (above n.2) 2244–2245; Simon (above n. 2) 1003–1007; Henrichs, A., ‘Greek Maenadism from Olympias to Messalina’, HSCP lxxxii (1978) 121–160, esp. 141, n. 61.Google Scholar

²⁰ Eur. Bak. 1280–1296, esp. 1296: ‘Dionysus destroyed us, now I realize it!’ The daughters of Proitos were cured by Melampus, but the daughters of Minyas underwent a more radical transformation, being turned into birds.

²¹ Cf. Segal, C., Dionysiac poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton 1982) 242Google Scholar: ‘[the chorus] embodies the very antithesis of everything for which the Greek polis stands’.

²² See Rapp (above n. 2) 2255; Henrichs (above n. 12) 146; J.-P. Vernant, ‘The masked Dionysus of Euripides’ Bacchae' , in Vernant, J.-P. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Myth and tragedy in ancient Greece (New York 1988) 381–412, esp. 405.Google Scholar The name maenads is used only once for the chorus-members, when they are mad with fear after Dionysos has shaken the palace of Thebes (line 601). In lines 51–52 Dionysos speaks of his army of maenads: one assumes that he is referring to the chorus-members, but as the play unfolds it becomes clear that the ones who do his bidding, who fight his battle against Pentheus, are the Theban women and not the chorus-members. For the term bakchē in literature postdating Euripides, see Villanueva-Puig, M.-Chr., ‘A propos du nom de “bacchante”’, REA lxxxii (1980) 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Henrichs (above n. 19, p. 135–136) and McNally (above n. 2, p. 105) also call attention to the absence of the silens from the story of the Bakchai.

²⁴ Beazley, J.D., The development of Attic black-figure ([1951] Berkeley 1986Google Scholar) 41 uses both nymph and maenad to refer to these women. Simon (above n. 2, p. 1005) suggests that they are the first maenads in Athenian vase-painting. Edwards (above n. 2, p. 81) calls them maenads; so too Schöne (above n. 2, pp. 28–29), Henrichs (above n. 2, p. 102 n. 49). Only Carpenter (above n. 2, p. 84) prefers to call these women nymphs. Some scholars use the word maenads as a matter of convenience, to refer to female figures in Dionysiac contexts generally. McNally uses the word virtually throughout her study of Archaic Athenian imagery of the followers of Dionysos because the word nymph ‘is too general a term’ (McNally, above n. 2, p. 104). But this approach to nomenclature tends to obscure rather than clarify the imagery, because it creates a distinction where none may be intended. For example, McNally writes elsewhere: ‘unlike the François vase, where satyrs are followed by nymphs, the later vases show them alternating with the maenads’ (McNally 110). The intended distinction is between two different compositional schemes, but the nomenclature inevitably suggests that certain companions of the silens were distinct and different from others.

²⁵ Edwards (above n. 2) 80 n. 11.

²⁶ Edwards (above n. 2) 80–81.

²⁷ Henrichs (above n. 2) 101.

²⁸ Edwards (above n. 2) 81; Carpenter (above n. 2) 83–84.

²⁹ Edwards (above n. 2, p. 81) acknowledged that the female figures on Lydos' krater, whom he calls maenads, behave no differently with respect to the silens than the nymphs.

³⁰ The importance of context in the interpretation of the meaning of attributes in visual images has been stressed in several recent studies: see esp. C. Bérard, ‘Iconographie—iconologie—iconologique’, in Bérard, C. ed. Essais sémiotiques (Lausanne 1983) 5–37Google Scholar; Bérard, C. and Durand, J.-L., ‘Entering the imagery’, in A city of images (trans. Lyons, D., Princeton 1989) 23–37Google Scholar; Morgan, L., ‘Idea, idiom and iconography’, in L'iconographie minoenne (BCH suppl. xi (1985)) 5–19Google Scholar; Sourvinou-Inwood, C., ‘Myth in images: Theseus and Medea as a case study’, in Edmunds, L., ed. Approaches to Greek myth (Baltimore 1990) 395–445.Google Scholar

³¹ I do not believe that it is prudent to speak of Dionysiac scenes as if they had no narrative context (as, e.g., Carpenter, above n. 2, p. 30). Our inability to recognize the mythological background to a particular scene on a vase should not be transferred to the ancient viewer. Cf. von Bothmer, D., The Amasis Painter and his world (Malibu 1985) 45.Google Scholar

³² Berlin inv. 3210, type A amphora, ABV 151,21, Karouzou, S., The Amasis Painter (Oxford 1956) pl. 27.Google Scholar

³³ Henrichs (above n. 2) 102.

³⁴ Cf. Munich inv. 8763, type B amphora, Para 65, and Geneva 14, type B amphora, ABV 150,8, both illustrated in Bothmer (above n. 31) nos. 4 and 15. There is reason to think that these youths may be the mythical sons of Dionysos: see Bothmer 45.

³⁵ Hunting: London B52, olpe, ABV 153,31, Bothmer (above n. 31) no. 26; courtship: Louvre A479, cupskyphos, ABV 156, 80, Bothmer (above n. 31) no. 54.

³⁶ Only one vase by the Amasis Painter that includes a hare seems likely to show maenads, the well-known neck-amphora, Paris, Cab. Méd. 222, ABV 152,25, Arias, P.E. and Hirmer, M., A history of 1000 years of Greek vase painting (trans. and rev. by Shefton, B.B., London 1962) pls. XV and 57.Google Scholar On this vase Dionysos is approached by two female figures arm in arm. One carries a hare, the other carries a little stag not very lovingly and wears a panther-skin. In this case a combination of elements, rather than any single attribute, suggests that the female figures may be maenads: the panther-skin and the animals carried in the hand recall the description of the maenads in the Bakchai; more significantly, the absence of male figures of any kind other than Dionysos recalls the all-female character of the maenads in myth, a point emphasized by Carpenter (above n. 2, p. 90). An earlier black-figure Dionysiac scene is also characterized by an absence of male figures other than Dionysos (Louvre E831, ABV 103,108, Tyrrhenian Group, LIMC iii, pl. 333, no. 325). In this scene, female figures wave panthers or snakes in the air and dance in a very unrestrained manner, surrounding the god Dionysos. Whether this scene and the scene on the Amasis Painter's neck-amphora are representations of the women of Thebes, the nymphs of Nysa, or some other story is difficult to say because they include no obvious indications of the underlying narrative context. But they stand apart from other Dionysiac scenes in Attic black-figure for the peculiar attributes of the women as well as for the absence of male figures such as silens. These two characteristics, together, may have been enough to call to mind myths about maenads. Cf. Edwards (above n.2) 80 n. 17; Schöne (above n. 2) 90–92.

³⁷ Fränkel, C., Satyr- und Bakchennamen auf Vasenbildern (Halle 1912) 43.Google Scholar See now Kossatz-Deissmann, A., ‘Satyr- und Mänadennamen auf Vasenbildern des Getty-Museum und der Sammlung Cahn (Basel), mit Addenda zu Charlotte Fränkel, Satyr- und Bakchennamen auf Vasenbildern (Halle 1912)’, Greek vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum v (1991) 131–199.Google Scholar

³⁸ Fränkel (above n.37) 43–44.

³⁹ Berlin 2471, squat lekythos, ARV ² 1247, 1, Painter, Eretria, Lezzi-Hafter, A., Der Eretria-Maler: Werke und Weggefährten (Mainz 1988) pls. 143–145.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Letters i, 1, p, θ, π, and possibly e in Fränkels catalog. See also Kossatz-Deissmann, A., ‘Mainas’, LIMC vi, 340–341.Google Scholar

⁴¹ London E492, ARV ² 619,16, Painter, Villa Giulia, LIMC iii, 479 no. 682Google Scholar; Fränkel (above n. 37) 60 letter i. This vase figures in Frontisi-Ducroux's, F. definition of the visual image of the maenad (‘Images du ménadisme féminin: les vases des “Lénéennes”’, in L'association dionysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes [Rome 1986] 173–174 with n. 48 and fig. 11).Google Scholar But the narrative context of the scene is not given enough consideration.

⁴² In addition to the bell-krater in London, cf. Rome, Vatican 559, calyx-krater, ARV ² 1017,54, Phiale Painter, LIMC iii, pl. 378 no. 686; New York X.313.1, hydria, ARV ² 623,69, Painter, Villa Giulia, LIMC iii, pl. 379 no. 691Google Scholar; Naples Stg. 283, calyx-krater, ARV ² 1080,3, Painter, Clio, LIMC , iii, p. 481 no. 697Google Scholar; Paris, Cab. Méd. 440, kalpis, ARV ² 252,51, Syleus Painter, LIMC iii, pl. 380 no. 701; Ferrara 2737 (T. 381), column-krater, ARV ² 589,3, Altamura Painter, LIMC iii, pl. 380 no. 702; Paris, Louvre MNB 1695, stamnos, ARV ² 508,1, Painter of the Florence Stamnoi, LIMC iii, pl. 380 no. 703.

⁴³ Edwards (above n. 2, p. 82) speaks of maenads taking over the nymphs' duties of raising the child Dionysos. But Eur. Cycl. 3–4 unambiguously speaks of nymphs: ‘when, on account of madness inflicted on you by Hera, you [Dionysos] fled the mountain nymphs, your nurses’.

⁴⁴ Carpenter (above n. 2, pp. 79–80) speaks of the replacement of ‘semi-divine’ nymphs by ‘mortal’ maenads on vases postdating the François vase. Edwards (above n. 2, p. 86) refers to a gradual change in the depiction of the female associates of Dionysos ‘from nymphs to mythical maenads to maenads with realistic traits’. Schöne (above n. 2, p. 29) states that ‘from now on [i.e., from the time of Lydos' krater on] the female part of the Dionysiac company is always made up of mortal women’.

⁴⁵ Cf. Bulle, H., Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst der Griechen (Munich 1893) 62: ‘red-figure scenes show the beginning of awareness of the reality of Dionysiac worship in the appearance of new attributes: thyrsus, torches, snakes, tympana’; Lawler (above n. 2) 78–79Google Scholar; Edwards (above n. 2) 86; Henrichs (above n. 19) 144; McNally (above n. 2) 130, with reservations; Carpenter (above n. 2) 80. Cf. esp. Dodds, E.R., Euripides: Bacchae² (Oxford 1960) xxxv: ‘what does … emerge from a study of fifth-century paintings of Dionysiac subjects is that some at least of the painters had seen women in religious ecstasy’.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For the psychology of ekstasis, see Rohde, E., Psyche (tr. Hillis, W.B., repr. Chicago 1987) 253–334, esp. 259–266.Google Scholar For the influence of Rohde's account on later scholarship, see Henrichs, A., ‘Loss of self, suffering, violence: the modern view of Dionysos from Nietzsche to Girard’, HSCP lxxxviii (1984) 205–240, esp. 224–226.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ This was first established by Rapp, A., ‘Die Mänade im griechischen Cultus, in der Kunst und Poesie’, RhM xxvii (1872) 1–22 and 562–611.Google ScholarCf. McNally (above n. 2) 130; Kraemer, R.S., ‘Ecstasy and possession: the attraction of women to the cult of Dionysus’, HThR lxxii (1979) 55–80, esp. 60–61Google Scholar; Keuls, (Phallus, above n. 2) 359 and 367.Google Scholar In his article of 1978 (above n. 19, pp. 121–160: see esp. 121), Henrichs stated that inscriptions discovered since 1872 tended to invalidate Rapp's firm distinction between maenads of myth and maenads of cult. But a review of the article as a whole reveals no fundamental incompatibility between Rapp's main points and Henrichs' views. Indeed, Henrichs himself seems less inclined to assume that mythical maenads have some basis in real Dionysiac ritual in his more recent studies: cf. ‘Changing Dionysiac identites' (above n. 12) 143 and esp. n. 53.

⁴⁸ Henrichs (above n. 19) 121–160.

⁴⁹ Henrichs (above n. 12) 146. Jan Bremmer's argument that the women experienced an altered state of consciousness, presented in ‘Greek maenadism reconsidered’, ZPE lv (1984) 267–286, is undermined by his own insightful assessment in the same article of the problem of differentiating fiction from reality within the maenadic myths.

⁵⁰ A point that is acknowledged even by Dodds (above n. 45, xxii). In Roman times, a group of women, the so-called Thyiades, left Athens every two years and went to Mt. Parnassos in order to practice maenadic rites, as if rituals of this kind were foreign to Athenian worship of Dionysos. Cf. Henrichs (above n. 19) 154–155; Detienne, M., Dionysos at large (trans. Goldhammer, A., Cambridge, MA, and London 1989) 40.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the irrational (Berkeley 1951) 273.Google Scholar Dodds singled out the use of flute and tambourine, the tossing back of the head during dancing, and the handling of snakes as some of the characteristics in the artistic representation of maenads that probably derived from real ritual. See also the studies of Kraemer (above n. 47) and Keuls (‘Male-female interaction’, above n. 2). Some reservations about this comparative approach may be found in Bremmer (above n. 49).

⁵² E.g., Rohde (above n. 46) 282–283; von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Der Glaube der Hellenen ii (Berlin 1932) 66.Google Scholar

⁵³ Otto, W.F., Dionysus: myth and cult (trans. Palmer, R.B., repr. Dallas 1981) 75–76.Google ScholarCf. Guthrie (above n. 15) 172.

⁵⁴ See esp. Eur. Bak. 1202–1215, where Agaue boasts of her hunting skills in comparison to those of the Theban men.

⁵⁵ Eur. Bak. 452–459, 810–861, and 912–977.

⁵⁶ Cf. Vernant (above n. 22) 398. The imagery of the Bakchai highlights another conceptual distinction, that between human and animal life. Many aspects of the characterization of the maenads—their natural habitat, animal skins, and leafy crowns and branches, their ability to kill with their bare hands, and the implication (at lines 136–139) of eating raw flesh—point to Dionysos as the god who effaces the distinction between the realms of humans and animals. Note that Dionysos himself takes the form of both man and animal in the play (e.g., 921–923).

⁵⁷ The word bakchē is sometimes used as a synonym in these contexts. The use of the maenad in Greek poetry as a metaphor was the subject of two papers presented at a conference, ‘Masks of Dionysus’, held at Virginia Tech on Oct. 11–13, 1990: R. Seaford, ‘Dionysus as destroyer of the household: Homer, tragedy and the polis’; R. Schlesier, ‘Maenads as tragic models’. The papers have been published in Carpenter, T.H. and Faraone, C.A., ed. The Masks of Dionysus (Ithaca, NY 1993).Google Scholar See also Rapp (above n. 47) 18–19.

⁵⁸ Hom. II. xxii 460.

⁵⁹ Euadne's song of grief in Eur. Hik. 1001 contains a similar comparison: Euadne runs from her home, ‘maddened like a bakchē’, to the funeral pyre of her husband. In Eur. Phoin. 1489 Antigone refers to herself as a ‘bakchē of corpses’, an ironical allusion to the funerary ritual as well as to her grief-stricken state of mind. In these passages the distinctions between maenad and bakchē maintained in the Bakchai are blurred.

⁶⁰ HHymnDem 386.

⁶¹ In Soph. Trach. 205–224, the exuberant chorus also likens its dance for joy to a bacchic dance.

⁶² Eur. El. 103; Eur. Hek. 121; Eur. Tro. 170, 306, 341, and 349.

⁶³ See Eur. Tro. 42. Cf. the statement of Teiresias (Eur. Bak. 298–299): ‘he [i.e., Dionysos] is a prophet, too, this deity; since that which is bacchic and that which is manic possesses great mantic powers’.

⁶⁴ Cf. Eur. Bak. 144–146. In this passage of the Troades, Kassandra is referred to as a maenad no less than three times.

⁶⁵ The Dionysiac imagery of the play also bears close comparison to the story of Lykourgos in the Iliad, as shown by Schlesier, R., ‘Die Bakchen des Hades: Dionysische Aspekte von Euripides’ Hekabe' Métis iii (1988) 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Eur. Or. 338: the blood of his mother whips Orestes up into a bakchic frenzy (anabakcheuei).

⁶⁷ Aisch. Eum. 500. Perhaps the metaphor is appropriate to the Erinyes in this passage also because of their threat to engage in random killing.

⁶⁸ Maenads may have been popular in tragic poetry also as symbols of the experience of viewing or participating in drama. Nietzsche may have had this idea in mind when he wrote: ‘the form of the Greek theater recalls a lonely valley in the mountains: the architecture of the scene[-building] appears like a luminous cloud formation that the Bacchants swarming over the mountains behold from a height’ (Nietzsche, F., The Birth of Tragedy [trans. Kaufmann, W., New York 1967] Section 8, p. 63).Google Scholar On the occasion of the City Dionysia, the Athenians, actors as well as spectators, find themselves in a situation comparable to that of the Theban women at the beginning of Euripides' Bakchai: Dionysos has arrived and intends to make his awesome powers known through the use of costumes and role-playing. The self-referential qualities of the Bakchai, its concern with the nature of drama, have been discussed at length by Foley, H., ‘The Masque of Dionysos’, TAPA cx (1980) 107–133, and Segal (above n. 21) 215–271.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Keuls (Phallus, above n. 2) 367.

⁷⁰ Although the precise interpretation of the frieze is still disputed. See Stewart, A., Greek sculpture: an examination (New Haven and London 1990) 155–157 and 344 with further bibliography.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Warsaw 142465, ARV ² 1019,82, Phiale Painter, CVA Goluchow pl. 26.

⁷² The basic publication is Frickenhaus, A., Lenäenvasen (BWPr no. 72, Berlin 1912).Google Scholar See also Nilsson, M.P., ‘Die Prozessionstypen im griechischen Kult’, JdI xxxi (1916) 309–339, esp. 328–332Google Scholar; Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Rpt. of the 1932 ed., Berlin 1956) 127–132Google Scholar; Ferté, E. Coche de la, ‘Les ménades et le contenu réel des représentations de scènes bachiques autour de l'idole de Dionysos’, RA 1951, 12–23Google Scholar; Simon, E., Festivals of Attica (Madison 1983) 100–101Google Scholar; and, most recently, Frontisi-Ducroux, F., Le Dieu-masque: une figure du Dionysos d'Athènes (Paris and Rome 1991).Google Scholar

⁷³ As Stewart, A. put it (‘Narrative, genre, and realism’, in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his world ([Malibu 1987] 33)Google Scholar, ‘the painter pursues an ever more powerful and evocative naturalism in order to seduce the viewer with the illusion of reality, and so to enhance the truth-value of his image’.

⁷⁴ Bron (above n. 2) 145–153.

⁷⁵ Bron (above n. 2) 146.

⁷⁶ As Bron admits (above n. 2, p. 145), Dionysiac religious associations, in which men and women associated in thiasoi, ‘are relatively well attested in the Hellenistic period, but very obscure in the Classical period’.

⁷⁷ The changing relations between silens and nymphs were plotted by McNally (above n. 2) 101–135. I have avoided unnecessary repetition of her perceptive analysis.

⁷⁸ Samos K898, type A amphora frag., ABV 151,18, Karouzou (above n. 32) pl. 30; Berlin inv. 3210, type A amphora, ABV 151,21, Karouzou pl. 27 (Plate I (c)); Basle Kä 420, type B amphora, Para 65, AntK i (1958) pl. 19. These vases by the Amasis Painter date to the third quarter of the sixth century BC.

⁷⁹ E.g., Boston 01.17, neck-amphora, Painter of Boston 01.17, ABV 319,2, CVA Boston l, pl. 54; Chiusi 1812, type A amphora, Chiusi Painter, ABV 368,97, BdA xxxv (1950) 333 fig. 3; Berlin 1845, neck-amphora, Painter of Wüzburg 210, ABV 370,136, CVA Berlin 5, pl.32; Paris, Cab. Méd. 343, skyphos, Krokotos Painter, Para 93,1, CVA Cab. Méd. 2, pl. 69; Montpellier 144 (SA 54), olpe, Leagros Group, A.-F. Laurens, Société archéologique de Montpellier, Catalogue des collections ii: Céramique attique et apparentée (Montpellier 1984) pl. 21; Aachen, , Ludwig, , neck-amphora, , Leagros Group, , Aachener Kunstblätter xxxvii (1968) 64Google Scholar; New Milton, , Hattatt, , neck-amphora, , Painter, Hattatt, OJA i (1982) 140–143 figs. 1–6Google Scholar; Market (Laforet), Geneva, neck-amphora, , Hattatt Painter, , OJA i (1982) 149 fig. 13;Google Scholar Tarquinia 638, neck-amphora, CVA Tarquinia 1, pl. 2,1; Coral Gables, Lowe Museum 56.001.000, neck-amphora, Shapiro, H.A., Art, myth, and culture: Greek vases from southern collections (New Orleans 1981) 44–45 no. 14.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Boston 76.40, Dayton Painter, Para 144,1, CVA Boston 1, pl. 39.

⁸¹ Würzburg 164, Langlotz, E., Griechische Vasen in Würzburg (Munich 1932) pl. 26.Google Scholar This late sixth-century black-figure cup is probably not Attic in origin, but the artist seems to have been familiar with Athenian black-figure iconography. Cf. the love-making scene on the ‘Caeretan’ hydria in Vienna (3577, Robertson, M., Greek painting [rpt. New York 1979] 74).Google Scholar

⁸² Würzburg 252, amphora type B, Painter of Würzburg 252, ABV 315,1, Langlotz (above n. 81) pl. 69.

⁸³ Leipzig T3322, ABV 96,10, CVA Leipzig 2, pl. 8,3–4; Rome, Villa Giulia (M. 453), ABV 100,73, Mingazzini, P., Vasi della Collezione Castellani (Rome 1930) pl. 55,2Google Scholar; Brussels A715, ABV 103,109, CVA Brussels l, pl. 1,2a; Leipzig T4225, frags., Para 40, CVA Leipzig 2, pl. 9; Venice market, Para 41, Auktion xxvi (Oct. 1963) pl. 29,87. I have not seen illustrations of the following, which may also be relevant: Florence 3773 and Berlin 1711, frags., ABV 95,8, described in Furtwängler, A., Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium (Berlin 1885) 253Google Scholar; Louvre C10696, Para 40, which, according to Beazley, shows silens making love to maenads; Louvre C10700, frag., Para 4, which, according to Beazley, shows silens with a naked maenad. For the motif of lifting the skirt, see McNally (above n. 2) 117, with further examples.

⁸⁴ New York 12.234.3, Painter of the Boston CA., ABV 69,3, CVA New York 2, pl. 5.

⁸⁵ A band-cup fragment by the Oakeshott Painter (Frankfort, Liebieghaus 528, CVA Frankfort 2, pl. 57,3); a fragmentary tondo of a type A cup in the Castellani collection (Studien zur Mythologie und Vasenmalerei, Böhr, E. and Martini, W., eds. [Mainz 1986] pl. 8,1)Google Scholar, and a black-figure lekythos by the Dolphin Painter (Athens, , Keramikos, , AthMitt lxxxi [1966] Beil. 66,1, left)Google Scholar, are among the earliest examples of this type of scene, probably dating before 525 BC. The motif also occurs on a few vases that should not date much later than c. 520, such as Paris, Petit Palais 303, neck-amphora, ABV 221,38, Painter N, CVA Petit Palais pl. 10,1; Tübingen D39, lip-cup, ABV 189,8, Centaur Painter, CVA Tübingen 3, pl. 27,1–4; Civitavecchia 1297, lip-cup, AA 1981, 336 fig. 9. The motif is common on later black-figure vases, e.g., Rhodes 12327, cup, ABV 213,20, Segment Class, CVA Rhodes 1, pl. 15,1; Leyden PC9 (xv i 76), type B amphora, Dot-ivy Group, ABV 448,28, CVA Leyden 1, pl. 25,2; Gela, small neck-amphora, Light-make Class, Para 299, NSc 1956, 322 fig. 6; Boston 98.885, lekythos (Six's technique), Diosphos Painter, ABL 236,81, ABL pl. 38,6.

⁸⁶ Boston 69.1052, lip-cup, CVA Boston 2, pl. 90,1. Cf. Harvard 1963.69, hydria, c. 550–530 BC, Buitron, D.M., Attic vase painting in New England collections (Cambridge, MA 1972) 32Google Scholar, on the neck of which there are four pairs of silens and nymphs. The figures are arranged according to the scheme discussed above—silen moving right, nymph moving right while looking back—but it is clear that the context is a dance and not a hostile male-female encounter.

⁸⁷ Cited above, n. 79.

⁸⁸ Compare also the scenes under the handles of Orvieto 594, neck-amphora, Affecter, ABV 242,32, Mommsen, H., Der Affecter (Mainz 1975) pl. 106.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Athens, Agora P334, connected with the Group of the Dresden Lekanis, ABV 23, Hesperia iv (1935) 431 fig. 1. See McNally (above n. 2) 107–108 with fig. 1.

⁹⁰ Cf. Buschor, E. in Furtwängler, A. and Reichhold, K., Griechische Vasenmalerei (Munich 1904–1932) i, 218Google Scholar, in reference to the scenes of silens and nymphs on the Phineus cup. There are many references in ancient literature to offspring of the union of silens and nymphs, e.g., Strabo xii 4.8; Apollod. Bibi. ii 5.4. For further references see Hedreen, , Silens in Attic black-figure vase-painting: myth and performance (Ann Arbor 1992) 71–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ This is true of red-figure vase-painting from shortly after its inception until well into the Classical period, but in this article I have confined the analysis of silen-nymph relations to the Archaic period.

⁹² Louvre G2, ARV ² 53,2, Arias and Hirmer (above n. 36) pl. 99, who date the vase to c. 520–510 BC. Schöne (above n. 2, p. 134), who dates the vase to c. 530–520 BC, believes this to be the earliest surviving example of tension between silens and female figures in red-figure.

⁹³ In addition to the vases mentioned in the text, cf. Orvieto 1049, cup, Oltos, ARV ² 64,103, CVA Umbria 1, pl. 2; Providence 25.077, cup, Epiktetos, ARV ² 73,34, CVA Providence 1, pl. 14; London E14, cup, Nikosthenes Painter, ARV ² 125,21 (according to the description of Smith). Slightly later, around 500 BC or just after: Amsterdam inv. 1313, pelike, Nikoxenos Painter, ARV ² 221,12, CVA The Hague 1, pl. 3,3. The new, less friendly female figure is not restricted to red-figure, but appears occasionally in black-figure scenes of silens postdating c. 520 BC: e.g., on an amphora by the Euphiletos Painter, Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 48.14, ABV 323,20, JWalt iii (1940) 118 fig. 9: the silen has hold of the chiton of a nymph who seems to be trying to elude him.

⁹⁴ Munich 2589, cup, Chelis Painter, ARV² 112,1, Hoppin, J.C., A handbook of Attic red-figured vases by or attributed to the various masters of the sixth and fifth centuries BC (Cambridge, MA 1919) i, 185.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Florence 1 B 21, plus other fragments, ARV ² 59,55, Beazley, J.D., Campana fragments in Florence (Oxford 1933) pl. X.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Copenhagen inv. 13407, cup, Oltos, ARV ² 59,57, CVA Copenhagen 8, pl. 335,1; Ferrara 898 (T. 323), calyxkrater, Painter of Goluchow 37, ARV ² 271,1, CVA Ferrara 1, pl. 15,1: the silen has hold of the nymph's ankle and she has hold of his beard.

⁹⁷ Munich 2344, ARV ² 182,6, CVA Munich 4, pl. 201. Another silen on the amphora pursues a nymph who appears to be preparing to use her snake against him. Other images of a nymph warding off a silen with her thyrsus from the late Archaic period include: Leningrad 682, rhyton, circle of the Brygos Painter, ARV ² 391 (a), AntK Beiheft 11, pl. 10,3a; Chicago 05.345, rhyton, Douris, ARV ² 445,259, Moon, W.G. and Berge, L. ed. Greek vase-painting in Midwestern collections (Chicago 1979) 191.Google Scholar Of nymphs using snakes as defensive weapons in late Archaic red-figure: Munich 2645, (ARV ² 371,15, Brygos Painter, F.W. Hamdorf, Attische Vasenbilder der Antikensammlungen in München ii: Bilder auf Schalen (Munich 1976) 43: a silen lunges toward a female who thrusts her snake into his face and prepares to jab him with her thyrsus; Paris, Cab. Méd. 576, cup, Brygos Painter, ARV ² 371,14, Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen (Munich 1923) flg. 427Google Scholar: a silen reaches up a female's chiton and she brings her snake around perhaps to threaten him.

⁹⁸ Munich 2654, ARV ² 461,47, Boardman, J., Athenian red figure vases: the Archaic period (London 1975) fig. 313.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Paris, Cab. Méd. 539, ARV ² 438,134, Lenormant, C. and de Witte, J., Élite des monuments céramographiques (Paris 1844–1861) i, pl. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Baltimore, Johns Hopkins B10, ARV ² 463,51, CVA Robinson 2, pl. 16,1b. Other relevent cups by Makron include: Munich 2644, ARV ² 461,37, MAAR vi (1927) pl. 21,5; New York 06.1152, ARV ² 463,52, Richter, G.M.A. and Hall, L.F., Red-figured Athenian vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New Haven and London 1936) pls. 57, 59, and 60, no. 55.Google Scholar Perhaps also Rome, Villa Giulia, ARV² 464,67, and London El34.3, ARV ² 477,293, which I have not seen.

¹⁰¹ E.g., Paris, Cab. Méd. 257, hydria, Antiope Group, ABV 363,47, CVA Cab. Méd. 2, pl. 62,2; Würzburg 211, neck-amphora, Nikoxenos Painter, ABV 392,8, Langlotz (above n. 81) pl. 41; Munich 2051, type A cup, Krokotos Painter. Para 94,6, JHS lxxv (1955) pl. 11,2.

¹⁰² Louvre F289, c. 530–510 BC, CVA Louvre 6, pl. 69,5; there are restorations on the figures, but the general composition seems ancient.

¹⁰³ Bibliography cited above, n. 79.

¹⁰⁴ Boston 10.201, cup fragment, Skythes, ARV ¹ 85,22, Caskey, L.D. and Beazley, J.D., Attic vase paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Oxford 1931–1963) iii, pl. 69,120.Google ScholarCf. Ferrara, Museo Schifanoia 277, cup, Schifanoia Group, ARV ² 387,1, BdA v (1911) figs. 3–4 opp. p. 344; Louvre G144, cup, Makron, ARV ² 462,43, Hoppin (above n. 94) ii, 76: the silen has one arm around the nymph's neck and another up her chiton; the nymph has thrown one arm around the silen's neck, but, as McNally notes (above n. 2, p. 125), it is unclear whether this is a gesture of affection or one of surprise. Cf. the well-known white ground cup-tondo by the Pistoxenos Painter (Taranto, ARV ² 860,3, Simon and Hirmer [above n. 1] pl. xli) for another silen with his hand up a nymph's chiton. Cf. also Boston 00.343, cup, Douris, ARV ² 438,141, Pfuhl (above n. 97) fig. 470, where the silen has wrapped one leg all the way around the waist of a nymph, as in other Dionysiac scenes by Douris. McNally (p. 127–28, with fig. 14) suggests that the nymph in this scene is pulling the silen's ear as a means of dislodging him. Cf. also the fragmentary late sixth-century red-figure cup once in Munich, ARV ² 87, Hoppin, J.C., A handbook of Greek black-figured vases (Paris 1924) 464Google Scholar: the silen has heavy eyebrow and brow ridge, a rather large eye, and a slightly open mouth, all perhaps emphasizing his animal side; his victim expresses her alarm by raising her right hand and opening her mouth as if to cry out.

¹⁰⁵ Oxford 307, cup, Painter of Munich 2676, ARV ² 393,37, CVA Oxford 1, pl. 2,7.

¹⁰⁶ The motif of a silen carrying a nymph on his shoulders appears in Athenian black-figure vase-painting as late as the work of the Nikoxenos Painter (e.g., Athens 1037, kalpis, ABV 393,18) and the Gela Painter (e.g., Basle market, lekythos, M.M., Auktion lvi [Feb. 1980] pl. 34 no. 85)Google Scholar, but it does not appear in red-figure at all as far as I know.

¹⁰⁷ The earliest surviving example is Berlin inv. 3232, cup, Epidromos Painter, ARV ² 117,2, CVA Berlin 2, pl. 63,2. Part of the motif may be preserved on the Samos fragment by the Amasis Painter (ABV 151,18, mentioned above, n. 78), which is earlier than the Berlin cup, but only the legs of a reclining figure and one leg of a silen are preserved. For the series as a whole, see Caskey and Beazley (above n. 104) ii, 96–99.

¹⁰⁸ E.g., Warsaw, rhyton, Brygos Painter, ARV ² 382,185, Beazley, J.D., Greek vases in Poland (Oxford 1928) pl. 10.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Schöne (above n. 2) 137–138.

¹¹⁰ See Bulle (above n. 45) 62–64; Rapp (above n. 2) 2266–2267; Simon (above n. 2) 1007; Edwards (above n. 2) 82; Nilsson, M.P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion ³ (Munich 1967) 572 n. 6Google Scholar; O. J. Brendel, ‘The scope and temperament of erotic art in the Greco-Roman world’, in Bowie, T. and Christenson, C.V. ed. Studies in erotic art (New York and London 1970) 17Google Scholar; Schefold, K., Die Göttersage in der klassischen und hellenistischen Kunst (Munich 1981) 125Google Scholar; Shapiro (above n. 79) 44; Keuls (Phallus, above n. 2) 362–367; Schöne (above n. 2) 133–142.

¹¹¹ McNally (above n. 2) 130.

¹¹² Louvre G2, n. 92 above.

¹¹³ The branch does not appear in earlier Dionysiac scenes at all. The snake appears in the company of the followers of Dionysos on three vases that predate the work of Oltos: on the column-krater by Lydos (Plate I (b)), n. 6 above; on a type A amphora by Exekias in Budapest (50.189, Para 61, BullMusHong xxxi [1968] 17–25), and on the Tyrrhenian amphora mentioned above (Louvre E831, above n. 36). The fawn-skin first appears in Dionysiac scenes around 550 BC on vases by Lydos, and appears regularly thereafter. The panther-skin, however, appears only once in Athenian black-figure vase-painting with Dionysiac subjects predating the work of the red-figure painter Oltos, on the neck-amphora by the Amasis Painter discussed earlier (Paris, Cab. Méd. 222, above n. 36). After c. 520 BC, the panther-skin becomes the dress of choice among the female followers of Dionysos, appearing in numerous red-figure and late black-figure scenes, and is also worn by some silens: see Edwards (above n. 2) 80 n. 18 and 83.

¹¹⁴ The wild animal carried by the female devotee of Dionysos is a motif that appears on the neck-amphora by the Amasis Painter and the Tyrrhenian amphora, both discussed above, n. 36.

¹¹⁵ In addition to the neck-amphora in the Louvre see: London E437, stamnos, ARV ² 54,5. CVA British Museum 3, pl. 19,1; Naples 2615, red-figure cup, ARV ² 57,43, Beazley, J.D., Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens (London 1946) pl. 6Google Scholar; London E40, red-figure cup, ARV ² 59,54, Hoppin (above n. 94) i, 154; Florence 1 B 21, plus other fragments, cited above n. 95; Tarquinia RC 6848, red-figure cup, ARV ² 60,66, Arias and Hirmer (above n. 36) pl. 100; London E16, red-figure cup, ARV ² 61,75, Bruhn, A., Oltos and early red-figure vase painting (Copenhagen 1943) fig. 40Google Scholar; Brussels R253 and Naples Astarita 306, red-figure cup, ARV ² 64,104, CVA Brussels 1, pl. 2,2. These vases date from c. 520–500 BC: see the comments of Bruhn on each piece. Cup fragments near Oltos (London E812.1, ARV ² 68,10; BSA v ( 1898–1899) 64 fig. 2) show a nymph, with panther-skin, snake and branch, tightly grasped around the waist by a silen.

¹¹⁶ In addition to the examples cited in the text, see Providence 25.077, cup, Epiktetos, ARV ² 73,34, CVA Providence 1, pl. 14; Louvre G94 ter, cup, near Epiktetos, ARV ² 80,2, CVA Louvre 19, pl. 71; Louvre G68, cup, near the Thalia Painter, ARV ² 113, Pottier (above n. 9) ii, pl. 96. A puzzling scene on a cup near the Carpenter Painter (Louvre G11, ARV ² 180, MonPiot ix [1902] pl. 15) includes nymphs with thyrsi and panther-skins, silens, Herakles, and youths.

¹¹⁷ Boston 10.201, above n. 104. Cf. Louvre S1335, signed by Skythes, ARV² 83,4: according to Beazley's description, the nymphs have branches and, one, a panther-skin.

¹¹⁸ Munich 2589, cited above n. 94.

¹¹⁹ Rome, Villa Giulia 27250, ARV ² 124,8, CVA Villa Giulia 2, pl. 24,3; London E815, ARV ² 125,15, Hoppin (above n.94) ii, 295; Melbourne 1730.4, ARV ² 125,20, Trendall, A.D., The Felton Greek vases in the National Gallery of Victoria (Canberra 1958) pl. 7Google Scholar; London E14, ARV ² 125,21, as described by Smith (one of the silens, in addition to a nymph, has a thyrsus: the nymph uses hers to repel an advancing silen); Tarquinia RC 2066, ARV ² 126,23, CVA Tarquinia 1, pl. 6,1: a silen tackles a running nymph, who prepares to use her snake against him; Tübingen E11, wider circle of the Nikosthenes Painter, ARV ² 133,8, Watzinger, C., Griechische Vasen in Tübingen (Reutlingen 1924) pl. 17.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Philadelphia 5695, ARV ² 156,47, AJA xxxviii (1934) pl. 35b and c. The new attributes appear in several scenes of silens and nymphs on red-figure vases from the period c. 520–500 BC attributed to the Pioneer Group: Louvre G33, calyx-krater, Euphronios, ARV ² 14,4, CVA Louvre 1, pl. 1,3 and 6 (much of the painting is modern); Louvre G43, stamnos, Smikros, ARV ² 20,2, Philippaki, B., The Attic stamnos (Oxford 1967) pl. 4,2Google Scholar; Tarquinia RC 6843, type A amphora, Phintias, ARV ² 23,2, Furtwängler and Reichhold (above n. 90) ii, pl. 91; St Petersburg 624, hydria, Euthymides, ARV ² 28,15, Herford, M.A.B., A handbook of Greek vase painting (Manchester 1919) pl.Google Scholar le; Naples Stg. 5, cup, Pezzino Group, ARV ² 32,4, according to the description of Heydemann; London E253, type A amphora of the type usually used by the Pioneer Group, ARV ² 35,2, Hoppin, J.C., Euthymides and his fellows (Cambridge, MA 1917) pl. 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCf. Boston 10.221, fragmentary psykter, ARV ² 16,14, Euphronios, Boardman (above n. 98) fig. 28: the dismemberment of Pentheus by the women of Thebes, one of whom holds a thyrsus; of course, no silens are present. The attributes in question also appear in a few black-figure scenes of silens and nymphs postdating 520 BC, such as Naples inv. 128333, amphora type A, Antiope Painter, ABV 367,93, Beazley, J.D., Attic black-figure: a sketch (London 1928) pl. 13.Google Scholar In red-figure Dionysiac scenes post-dating 500 BC, the motifs appear regularly.

¹²¹ In the Bakchai, Pentheus obsessively imagines that the Theban women engage in extramarital trysts in the mountains. But that is not in fact the case, as an eyewitness assures him. See Eur. Bak. 223–225, 260–262, 314–315, 354, 453–459, 487–488, 686–689, 957–958. The Theban women are hostile to any kind of contact with men: Dionysos warns Pentheus that the maenads will kill him once they spot him as a man. See Eur. Bak. 823; cf. lines 731–733.

¹²² For the ‘soldiers’ of Dionysos, see Eur. Bak. 52.

¹²³ The possibility that Athenian drama had something to do with the iconographical changes examined in this paper has been suggested before, but has not received much elaboration. Cf. Edwards (above n. 2) 86; McNally (above n. 2) 130; Simon, E., Die Götter der Griechen ³ (Munich 1985) 292Google Scholar; Schöne (above n. 2) 142.

¹²⁴ Cf. Simon, E., The ancient theatre (trans. Vafopoulou-Richardson, C.E., London and New York 1982) 2 and 15–17.Google Scholar The date of the establishment of the relationship between satyr-play and tragedy is uncertain but probably no later than c. 500 BC: see Pickard-Cambridge, A.W., Dithyramb, tragedy and comedy ² (ed. by Webster, T.B.L., Oxford 1962) 65–66.Google Scholar Silens are also referred to as satyrs in the literary remains of dramatic poetry.

¹²⁵ See the survey of literary evidence for satyr-play by Sutton, D.F., The Greek satyr play (Meisenheim am Glan 1980).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See Seaford, R., Euripides: Cyclops (Oxford 1984) 39.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ For the story of Amymone, see Apollod. Bibl ii 1.4, where the silen's desire to rape the girl is explicit. Amymone fr. 13 Radt suggests that perhaps Papposilenos tried to reason with her (unless the line is spoken by Poseidon): ‘it is your fate to be my wife, and mine to be your husband’. On the play generally, see Sutton, D.F., ‘Aeschylus’ Amymone', GRBS xv (1974) 193–202.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Lines 824–826. For the text, see Lloyd-Jones, H. in Smyth, H.W., Aeschylus ii (Cambridge, MA 1963) 531–541Google Scholar; Werre-de Haas, M., Aeschylus' Dictyulci (Leiden 1961) esp. 70.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ As Werre-de Haas put it (above n. 128, p. 73), ‘it is quite unthinkable that a Silenus should carry off Zeus' bride as his wife’; cf. Sutton (above n. 125) 20. It appears that in Sophokles' Marriage of Helen the silens attempted to rape Helen: see Seaford (above n. 126) p. 137 on lines 177–187 of Eur. Cycl.

¹³⁰ Fr. 153 Radt. For the play, see Sutton (above n. 125) 36–38.

¹³¹ See Sutton (above n. 125) 62–63.

¹³² The sexuality of the silens figures prominently in representations of these creatures in art and poetry of all periods. The many depictions of masturbating silens in black-figure vase-painting of the early and mid-sixth century BC suggest not only that the silens are oversexed but also that their female companions do not copulate with them often enough for their tastes; on these depictions, see Hedreen (above n. 90) 159 n. 24; on the sexual frustration of the silens in art generally, see Brendel (above n. 110) 16–17; Lissarrague, F., ‘De la sexualité des satyres’, Métis ii (1987) 63–79, esp. 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is only in the remains of satyr-play and in the red-figure vase-paintings examined above, however, that the image of the silens rebuffed by women is explicit.

¹³³ See Lloyd-Jones (above n. 128) 541–556; Sutton (above n. 125) 29–33.

¹³⁴ Lines 85–94. See Lloyd-Jones (above n. 128) 545.

¹³⁵ The full range of ‘maenadic’ activities familiar from the Bakchai is included in these scenes. Cf. Paris, Cab. Méd. 357, amphora, Achilles Painter, ARV ² 987,2, Bérard (City, above n. 30) fig. 204, which shows a silen together with female figures carrying parts of animals, the victims of sparagmos.

¹³⁶ See Buschor, E., Satyrtänze und frühes Drama (Munich 1943)Google Scholar; Brommer, F., Satyrspiele ² (Berlin 1959)Google Scholar; Simon, E., ‘Satyr-plays on vases in the time of Aeschylus’, in Kurtz, D. and Sparkes, B. ed. The eye of Greece (Cambridge 1982) 123–148Google Scholar, with further bibliography. I speak of plots of plays, rather than of plays themselves, since vase-painters seem to have represented the purely theatrical aspects of the plays, the precise staging and props, only exceptionally. The plots of the plays, however, the situations or stories in which the silens may be found in the narratives, appear to have been very popular with the vase-painters and presumably also their customers.

¹³⁷ Lissarrague goes too far in claiming that direct connections between scenes of silens on vases and satyr-plays exist only in the cases where these explicit, internal clues are present (Lissarrague, F., ‘Why satyrs are good to represent’, in Winkler, J.J. and Zeitlin, F.I. ed. Nothing to do with Dionysos? [Princeton 1990] 228–236).Google Scholar It is no less arbitrary to assert that vase-painters regularly invented novel imagery about silens than it is to assert that they regularly represented plots of satyr-plays. We have no independent evidence for the degree of inventiveness of Athenian vase-painters. We have only the pictures themselves, which are generally open to more than one interpretation because, most often, we do not know precisely why they were created in the first place or in what context they were intended to be viewed.

¹³⁸ E.g., Ferrara 3031 (T. 579), volute-krater, Painter of Bologna 279, ARV ² 612,1, Trendall, A.D. and Webster, T.B.L., Illustrations of Greek drama (London 1971) 34 no. 11,7.Google Scholar; Compiègne 1068, psykter, Kleophrades Painter. ARV ² 188,66, CVA Compiègne pl. 16. On the formally-dressed aulos-player, see Beazley, J.D., ‘Hydria-fragments in Corinth’, Hesperia xxiv (1955) 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I have discussed these and similar pictures in Hedreen (above n. 90) 110–112.

¹³⁹ Padula, , volute-krater, , late sixth century, ARV ² 1699, Apollo (Salerno) iii–iv (1963–1964) 3–14.Google Scholar The relationship between the picture on this vase and satyr-play is also discussed by Gallo, I., ‘Un dramma satiresco arcaico in testimonianze vascolari del territorio salernitano’, Atene e Roma xxxiv (1989) 1–13.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Salerno inv. 1371, Kleophrades Painter, ARV ² 188,67, Apollo (Salerno) iii–iv [1963–1964] 8.

¹⁴¹ There are later representations of this subject (e.g., Brussels A 1312, black-figure psykter, CVA Brussels 3, pl. 27,4a–b; Montpellier, Musée Fabre 836.4.339, lekythos, Apollo [Salerno] iii–iv [1963–1964] 9 fig. 6; Vatican, hydria, Villa Giulia Painter, ARV ² 623,72), but no earlier ones as far as I know.

¹⁴² It might seem implausible that a single play could have been responsible for the iconographical changes in the imagery of silens and nymphs examined earlier. It is virtually certain, however, that one or two satyr-plays inspired no less than twenty-four surviving late Archaic red-figure depictions of silens bearing peltas. See Hedreen (above n. 90) 109–110.

¹⁴³ Eur. Cycl. 63–72. The translation is after Way, A.S., Euripides ii (London and Cambridge, MA 1939 repr.).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ London E790, ARV ² 1550,1, Class W, Bérard (City, above n. 30) fig. 197.

¹⁴⁵ See Hedreen (above n. 90) 125–140 and 160–161.

¹⁴⁶ Seaford, R., ‘The “Hyporchema” of Pratinas’, Maia xxix–xxx (1977–1978) 81–94, esp. 85–87.Google Scholar Seaford's argument is largely based on the form and content of a fragment of Pratinas. Most scholars assume that this fragment is by the early tragic playwright named Pratinas, and that it is the earliest surviving fragment of satyr-play, dating roughly to the period of the vase-paintings considered in this study. Several scholars have recently suggested, however, that the fragment actually dates to the late fifth century BC and that it was written by another poet named Pratinas; see Zimmermann, B., ‘Überlegungen zum sogenannten Pratinasfragment’, MH xliii (1986) 145–154 with further bibliography.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Lissarrague (above n. 137) 234.

¹⁴⁸ Pliny, HN xxxv 73-74.