Greek Vase-Painting and the Origins of Visual Humour by Alexandre G. Mitchell

426 PHOENIX Thevolume caters to thenon-specialist in thatallGreek andLatinis translated (although theinclusion oftheoriginal Greek text is inconsistent) andtechnical terms areexplained, butitwillserve more than justthenon-specialist. Reference is made throughout torelevant scholarly literature ina variety oflanguages other than English, which will beofusetoadvanced students andclassicists looking tofamiliarize themselves with thecurrent state ofscholarship onGreek lyric poetry. And, even asthey survey the state ofscholarship, many ofthecontributors donothesitate toaskprobing questions. Ultimately, as theeditor intends (xv),thiscompanion should attract "anybody with a serious interest inGreek lyric." University ofWaterloo Andrew Faulkner GreekVase-Painting and the Originsof Visual Humour.ByAlexandreG. Mitchell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009.Pp.xxiv, 371. This handsome booktreats animportant subject few havebroached.1 After a theoretical introduction, Chapters Twothrough Five(Part I) dealwith Attic vase-painting under four headings: realmen, women, andanimals; godsandheroes; thecountryside, especially satyrs; dwarves, theobese, andthose caricatured byabnormally large heads; Chapter Five(Part II) looks attheCabirion vases, again divided into real life andmyth. Chapter Sixuseseleven statistical tables todraw several conclusions, i.e.,that red-figure outnumbers black incomic scenes, that most comic vases were produced for symposia, that regional variation isconfined tostyle rather than technique orsubject-matter, and that humour invase-painting functions asa form ofsocial control. A glossary, bibliography , andindexes ofvases andsubjects round outthe work. Mitchell writes that "for the sakeofscholarship, onecannot afford tocrack jokesina study ofhumour" (xviii), and except for onereference togoing "potty" (xxi), heistrue tohisword. A nicerefinement isthat, inciting painters, Mitchell specifies whether their name isknown from signature orinferred bystylistic comparison. A major theme istheneedtorescue vase-paintings from philologists whowould co-opt them toillustrate lost works, satyr-plays especially. "Images refer toother images" (217)wellsums upMitchell's critical credo.Mitchell confines himself tovase-painting (2),which certainly gives ample material, butthere are funny sculptures, especially ofHeracles andtheCercopes (which arementioned butnot illustrated, 124).Unpainted vases canalsobefunny (cf. "Nestor's cup" inLaccoAmeno, Ischia), butthose tooliebeyond Mitchell's purview.2 Mitchell isanart-historian, nota philologist, asisobvious throughout (howfew ofus,like J.D. Beazley, areboth).Still, for a student ofGreek humour tothink thelossofAristotle Poetics Book2 "probably a goodriddance" (xvii) beggars belief. Oneofthebook's great strengths isthat itshows, through theprism ofvisual jokes, . what people really thought andexperienced, which isoften concealed inmore elevated forms ofdiscourse. Thiswindow opens almost exclusively onto Athens, for, apart from ^or example, W.R.Agard, "Greek Humor inVase Paintings," CJ19(1923) 97-105, and H.Büsing, "DasAttische Saltz: Humor auf Vasenbildern," Antike Welt 24(1993) 335-346. 2G.Buchner and С. Gialanella, Museo Archeologico diPithecusae, Isola ďlschia (Rome 1994) 67, fig. 33;for the inscription, see P.A.Hansen, Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculorum VIII-V a.Chr. n* (Berlin 1983) 252-253, n.454. BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS 427 the vases oftheTheban Cabirion, only Athenians cared (ordared?) toreveal themselves sointimately, andthevast corpora ofCorinthian andSpartan vases have yielded nogrist for Mitchell's mill.EveninAthens, as wemight expect, some visual humorists were more successful than others. Aswellasrevealing their thoughts andfeelings, Athenian vasesalsoinadvertently showsnippets ofdaily lifethatno onewouldhavebothered deliberately torecord. Forexample, noGreek would have explained for thebenefit ofa hypothetical twenty-first-century viewer that everyone putmeat onlamp-stands tokeep itoutofthereach ofdogsandcats(query: why somany cats onGreek vases andsofew inGreek literature?), butseveral painters revel inthe humour that results when dogs and catstry toclimb ortopple them togetthegoodies stashed ontop(figs. 11,13). We alsoseeducks bathing inperirranteria (fig. 18),horses drinking (wine?) outofpunchbowls (fig. 19),andhusbands coming homeafter dark, drunk andpounding ontheir owndoors tobeletin(fig. 20)- all,weareleft toinfer, normal irritations ofday-to-day life. Inthe absence ofconventional mass-media, vases were numerous andcheap enough to provide widedissemination ofimplied values, both upheld andmocked (thelatter often through theantics ofsatyrs), andinthis sense they arethecounterpart toAristophanes' theatre. And,make nomistake, Greek visual humour iseminently social.Anexample ofsocial commentary isthegesture ofholding thenose, apparently indisgust, usedby a mandefecating (fig. 3),bya respectable housewife haggling with anoil-merchant (fig. 17),orbya slave "commenting" ona manual labourer's body-odour (fig. 23). Mitchell gives special attention totheparodie depiction ofmyth, although here the theatrical counterpart isnot Aristophanes, but the satyr-play (Mitchell rightly emphasizes that notevery vasewith a satyr onitdepicts a satyr-play). Sometimes thehumour here is pointed satire (Heracles making a souvlaki bigger thanhimself, fig.57), at other times pure whimsy (a little owlarmed likeAthena, fig.60). Amusing, ifsomewhat strangely classified as mythological humour...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.