Miller, 'Silens in Attic Black-figure Painting. Myth and Performance', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9501
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9501-miller-silens

@@@@95.1.4, Hedreen, Silens in Attic Black-Figure Painting

Guy Michael Hedreen, <i>Silens in Attic Black-figure
Painting. Myth and Performance</i>. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press, 1992. Pp. x + 219, pl. 1-46. ISBN
0-472-10295-8.
     Margaret C. Miller -- Center for Hellenic Studies,
                    University of Toronto

     The study of the history of Attic drama has inspired
many a close look at Archaic and Classical vase-painting. Far
greater in scope than its title suggests, this stimulating work
discusses a large proportion of early Dionysiac imagery,
non-Attic as well as Attic, in its attempt to illumine one
aspect. 

     The book highlights a general issue of iconography: the
difficulty of reading sub-text under the constant condition of a
lacunose text. In response we try a range of strategies, from
the pragmatic (bottom up) to the theoretical (top down). In
<i>Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art</i> (1986)
Carpenter provided an excellent example of pragmatic
analysis, using many of the same works as H., in attempting
to articulate the character and developments of the early
iconography of Dionysos. Carpenter's expressed purpose was
to consider only what is certainly visible on and deducible
from the pots themselves, in conjunction with contemporary
literary evidence. The conclusions of such a carefully
conducted, entirely pragmatic approach are reliable, rational
and long-standing. The results must contribute to a holistic
understanding of Dionysiac religion, but could not be
expected to suffice to provide one. We know that more
necessarily existed, that the religious and the social outside
and informing the painting were much more complex than
any "picture" will allow.

     Another strategy is to specify and use a theoretical
approach as a guiding principle. The reasoning is sound:
divorced as we are by time and space from the world in
which the vases were originally produced, we cannot
understand them in and of themselves and must build models
to guide our progress. But while models can aid by offering a
structure, there are dangers: models can be too simplistic,
given the complexity of reality; and models can encourage
both excessive rigidity and illogical modes of thought.[[1]] In
<i>Silens</i> H. builds his case from the principle that
archaic Greek art is narrative, and so privileges sequential
narrative logic over other possible interpretative approaches.
For example the fact that Aphrodite shares no myth with
Dionysos provides one argument against her identification as
the female portrayed with Dionysos (p.35; see the exclusion of
"Dasein" or metaphorical interpretations [p.39], and p.49 on
Semele and Ariadne). Much of H.'s argumentation is based
on scraps of evidence coupled with (acknowledged) conjecture
derived from plausibility within the framework of assumption
of narrative. 

     H. lays out the problem in his introduction: the
iconography of silens in Attic BF painting is conspicuous for
its "restrictive range, repetitive nature, and lack of obvious
narrative content" (p.3) but nevertheless silens were among
the most popular subjects in BF.  His solution: behind the
seemingly meaningless scenes of revelry lies allusion to a
narrative, localised on Naxos, and linking silens with
Dionysos. The prevalence of the narrative (i.e., silens) in
pot-painting arises from the popularity of festivals to Dionysos
in Athens; the associated festival activities included
performance which can be characterised as proto-satyrplay.
Thanks to Aristotle the existence of a "proto-satyrplay" has
never been in doubt. The challenge set by H. is: do / how do
Attic BF depictions of silens reflect proto-satyrplay? The very
fact that he raises the question betrays his readiness to find a
positive answer; while arguing that artistic silens were
originally inspired by the image of men-dressed-up-as-silens in
performance, H. downplays the more bestial appearance of
silens over their first generation in Attic art.

     The first step (Ch. 1-3) is to establish the existence of a
coherent narrative in the scenes with silens in Attic BF; the
second (Ch. 4-6) to argue that performance provided the
model or source of the narrative. The fullest and earliest
extant treatment of the "Return of Hephaistos" (Ch. 1) is the
Francois Vase, where silens appear to be necessary indications
of revelry; H. suggests that they were similarly an essential
ingredient to the (mainly conjectural)[[2]] poetic versions of
the tale and that subsequent scenes of a thiasos simply
abbreviate the Return. The recurrence of some features in 6th c.
BF suggests to H. a visual prototype for "the participants, the
order of the procession, and the attributes or actions of one or
more silens" (p.18). Dionysos' lonely state in the Francois
Vase's "Wedding" procession indicates that silens are
tale-specific. H. argues further that the banquet prior to the
Return took place on Naxos and that the grape-vine functions
as a locative attribute of the alsos or temenos of Dionysos
there; thus, scenes of Ariadne and Dionysos reclining together
in the presence of a grape-vine are to be viewed as taking
place on Naxos. Indeed, H. points out that a grape-vine is to
be found on one RF cup of Ariadne abandoned.

     The discussion about "Ariadne" (Ch. 2) suggests a
narrative context for a range of scenes that are traditionally
ascribed to a Dasein type; and to situate them on Naxos. The
principle that "scenes of myth in BF vase-painting generally
focus on an event; they are narrative rather than timeless"
(p.50) drives the logic. Ariadne's mythological link with Naxos
is clear. H. argues that the quiet scenes with Dionysos facing
a woman represent the moment when he first met Ariadne
(39); her raised veil represents a telescoping of the narrative
rather than a gestural attribute.  Scenes in which a woman
walks beside Dionysos are identified as their wedding
procession (43-44) and when Dionysos dines in company with
a woman, it is their nuptial feast (44-48); both wedding events
should be located on Naxos. Other scene-types are less readily
placeable in a narrative context: Ariadne and Dionysos seated
together and Ariadne in a chariot. Where are silens in all
this?  They frequently cavort, with or without nymphs,
around the principal figures; Ovid and Roman art are cited as
evidence for a tradition that silens and nymphs found Ariadne
(48-49).

     The "Naxos" theme that links the first two chapters
reaches its culmination in the reconstruction of a myth of
"The Silens of Naxos" (Ch. 3). The task is hampered by
shortage of evidence: a possible reference in a fragment of
Kallimachos, the opaque testimony of numismatic sources,
and the subtleties of silenic iconography. H. derives a
narrative syntax from: the presence of silens in all identifiable
Dionysos stories located on Naxos; the absence of silens in the
non-Naxos myths; the existence elsewhere of silens with their
own tales independent of Dionysos. Why should Naxos' silens
be so prominent in Attic 6th c. iconography?  The link is
found in the Anthesteria festival and the small group of
associated scenes of Dionysos on a ship-float attended by
satyrs. At the Anthesteria, the sacred marriage of the
Basilinna paralleled that of Ariadne on Naxos; and the
newly-vinted wine (introduced from Naxos?) was first drunk.
The scenes of the ship-float possibly reenact Dionysos' victory
over the pirates or the introduction of the vine. H. associates
the scenes of satyrs vintaging for Dionysos (in his Naxian
vineyard?) with the Oschophoria. 

     As a control for the study of the possible relationship
between vase-painting and performance, H. turns to "Some
Fifth-Century Satyr-Play Vases" (Ch. 4) among which some
RF works, e.g. the Pronomos Vase, provide clear indication
that performance rather than myth lies behind the image. 
Tell-tale clues include the phallos-shorts, masks, the presence
of an auletes, or a "regimentation" of stance reflective of
choreography. But the inconsistency with which the clues are
given even on works where they do occur shows that to a
vase-painter they were not high priority. H. concludes that
their absence is no proof of a lack of performance background
for any image, a conclusion which has significant implications
for BF representations of silens. 

     Having stressed the general ambiguity of visual clues for
satyr-plays in RF, H. turns to consider the possibility of
"Performances of Silens on Black-Figure Vases" (Ch. 5).
Students of drama history know well the range of material
addressed here: lithobolic megalophallic "hairies", who twice
in Lakonian iconography must be silens; Corinthian padded
dancers who occasionally entertain at banquets; Boeotian
phallic dancers accompanied by an auletes; and padded
dancers and "hairies" in the midst of mythological
narrative--all material variously adduced for early versions of
different dramatic forms. H. argues for early 6th c. satyric
performances from the few early Attic BF images that possibly
show a man wearing a hairy silen "body-stocking" and from
the interchangeability or collocation of silens and padded
dancers which suggests that sometimes the latter performed as
silens. He posits satyric performance behind later 6th c. scenes
of silens carrying nymphs and silens in "regimented" step
serving Dionysos and Ariadne. Two conclusions are drawn:
the BF vases show that the subject of performances of men
dressed up as silens were the "traditional pursuits of the
silens--sex, dancing, and serving Dionysos..." (125); and
further, that "the point of departure for the representations"
(142) on BF vases was performances of men dressed as silens.

     Consideration of the literary evidence for the origins of
the satyr-play in "Vase-Painting and Satyric Performance at
Athens in the Sixth Century" (Ch. 6) finds it not incompatible
with the early-6th c. date suggested by the iconographic
evidence (if the latter is interpreted fluidly, following the
model of later RF). Vase-painting suggests that the Return of
Hephaistos was a popular topic for performance, as was the
banquet of Dionysos and Ariadne; but H. suspects that not all
scenes with silens were taken directly from performance.
Other pots and the painter's imagination could play an
intermediary role. The ancient tradition about Pratinas of
Phleious need not mean that satyr-play started in Athens in
the late 6th c.; it could refer to a modification or codification
of existing practice. The complex persona of silens
encompasses comic obscenity and sober attentiveness to
Dionysiac ritual;and so they fit Aristotle's reference to
tragedy's prior satyric state. 

     In general, H. has succeeded where many have failed:
after creation of an exhaustive catalogue of a very large
corpus as the basis of his research, he has written an engaging
account of the material informed by the cataloguing exercise
but in no way dominated by the cataloguing mentality. This is
an impressive and praiseworthy achievement. Any lack of
wholehearted approval on my part for the process of
argumentation or the results should not diminish the respect
owed the author for proposing a bold and interesting thesis.
The following is a summary of my criticisms.

     There is need of clearer delineation of method and
articulation of terminology. For example, H. gives the
impression of using RF iconography (or not) as is convenient.
Though the difference between BF and RF iconography of
silens is recognized (p.2-3), frequently appeal is made to RF to
bolster arguments (e.g. pp. 39, 44, 46-47, 48; 82; 157;
contrast 70), even in cases where parallels in BF narrative or
iconographic idiom may exist.  It is not clear how H. defines
"performance" and whether he distinguishes between
men-dressed-as-satyrs accompanying a cart with an image of
Dionysos in a procession and a narrative choral dance in an
orchestra. Material is drawn from many different regions of
Greece--vase-painting, literary texts, and reported festival
practice--without any discussion of their interrelationships and
distinct features. Lack of precision about such details creates
the impression of circular argument. Literary evidence is used
somewhat cavalierly and with little regard for chronology.

     There is a tendency in argumentation to move from
possibility to certainty. The suggestion that a grape-vine on a
vase connoted a setting on Naxos turns into the use of a vine
as evidence for a setting on Naxos. The possibility that an
image had to a contemporary viewer a narrative content not
visible to the modern viewer becomes assumption of narrative
and a concomitant attempt to reconstruct it. The hypothesis
that "the 'initial impetus' for the representation of these
creatures was the custom of silen masquerades" (p.157) is
interesting, and maybe even likely, but it does not follow that
many 6th-c. pots with silens reflect in a closer fashion specific
performances. Some iconographic arguments do not compel,
e.g. the clues adduced for silenic independence of Dionysos
(p.76); the use of a frontal face to identify one silen as an
actor (p.139); the application of the principle that
"regimentation" of stance indicates choral dance to cases
where it may well result from the poor quality of the painting.

     On the mechanical side, the book could have been
made more "user-friendly" with respect to citations (such as
consistent listing of LIMC references) and illustrations of
vases. The latter is particularly true of Chapter 5, which
addresses issues that have been hotly debated for a century.
Owing to lack of illustration, several important twists to the
argument cannot now be followed without ready access to an
archaeological library (and knowledge of how to use one).
This is unfortunate in view of the considerable interest of the
subject matter to Classicists at large.  

     I agree with the principle that the vase-painters'
experience of silens (i.e., men-dressed-up-as-silens in festival
contexts) must have informed their image-making to some
extent; but in view of the problems in argumentation noted
above, H.'s arguments are not sufficiently compelling to force
me to look anew at all Attic BF depictions of silens as
evidence for details about what men-dressed-up-as-silens did
in archaic Athens. Any argument in the matter is inevitably
circular thanks to the limited character of the material
available for study. In other words, while I am happy to
accept that some of this material supports the existence of
"proto-satyrplay," I feel no closer to a good understanding of
what that comprised owing to uncertainty of the extent to
which the BF evidence can be pressed beyond clear images of
ship-carts. 

     Caveats aside, H. is to be praised for his smooth
manipulation of a large corpus of material and for the success
of his efforts to demonstrate the potential value of the
iconographic evidence for a major problem of "literary"
history; and in the process for raising interesting questions of,
and offering useful insights into, a significant body of Archaic
vase-painting.[[3]]


NOTES

[[1]]  See the comments of Davies, in <i>Metis</i> 5 (1990),
esp. n.1.

[[2]]  But see R. Merkelbach on POxy. 670, <i>ZPE</i> 12
(1973) 212-215; my thanks to D. Olson for this reference.

[[3]]  The only confusing typos are: n.1 on p.24, the
<i>Kleine Schriften</i> reference is 5.2:5-35; "pl. 17" for
"pl. 18" at the bottom of p.47.