the wedding of peleus and thetis - dinos by sophilos
basic facts
date - c580-570 bce
style - early black figure
original location - ever so sorry but i have no clue we just know it was made in attica
function - dinos - mixing water and wine
size - 28.8cm tall, 42cm wide/deep
context
similar to perseus and the gorgons ! we're in attica, moving away from the corinthian tradition of decorating using rows of animal processions and floral patterns, and starting to prioritise the attic preferences of narratives - this pot shows the wedding of peleus and thetis! if these guys seem familiar, they should - thetis was a goddess of the sea and the mother of achilles ! it's also good to remember that this wedding is where eris brought the golden apple to start some divine infighting (and also the trojan war).
we know that this pot was painted by sophilos, because he signed the pot - this is the earliest attic potter that we can actually name! he signed "sophilos painted me" between the columns of peleus' house (not in english though !! ancient greeks did not speak modern english).
content
friezes of processing animals - again, we have some corinthian influence with the filling of space done by repeating figures of processing animals. these are less carefully done - the shapes are not quite as regular
floral pattern and animals - he's just not serving as much cunt as the gorgon painter - his floral pattern is less intricate than the one on the perseus+gorgons dinos
narrative frieze - LONG ASS PROCESSION - this shit is SO LONG it goes on forever and ever and ages. lots of gods and godly figures, some chariots.
then we have a cute lil repeating band at the top ! just to finish off the pot - this is also done a little bit haphazardly and there are a few inconsistencies with the incision
list of names to try to remember (as per the british museum):
peleus
dionysos, hebe, cheiron
zeus + hera
poseidon + amphitrite
hermes + apollo
ares + aphrodite
fates + graces + muses
athene + artemis
oceanus + tethys
eileithyia
hephaistos
stylistic features
the procession of gods
there are so many labels - this guy could write and wanted EVERYONE to know
as well as the labels, there is some use of item symbolism to demonstrate which person is which - peleus has a kantharos in his hand, dionysos is carrying a vine rod, etc. however, i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the easiest to recognise is cheiron because he has four whole legs (i HATE THEM why does he have two human legs and two horse legs)
hebe is SERVING. she's got the cutest dress ever which is a microcosm of the whole pot with its bands
we do have a little bit of attempt to show 3d concepts - some of the figures overlap, whereas others are in isolation. this adds a bit of variation to the very long line created by the procession
black-figure technique/era - specific points
incision has been used to create patterns and details, like the items that various characters are holding. but, as per early black figure, the lines are jerky and it makes telling what people are holding very difficult.
we have some painting ! there is purple paint on the robes of cheiron and dionysos, white paint on the flesh of hebe (it is important to note that white paint flakes off due to a chemical reaction with the clay !)
again, these guys have no clue what people look like under their clothes - hebe's stripy dress looks like it's still on the hanger because there is absolutely no indication that she is not flat as a board underneath it. similarly, cheiron's robe also looks very very flat. archaic artists just don't really understand how people look under their clothes (see: the sounion kouros - if i had three ribs per side and shoulderblades that were just concave lines i think i would be dead)
it's black-figure, we're going to be complaining about the anatomy. we still have the profile head with the full frontal eye, but we also have very long digits - those fingers and toes are LONG and i don't want them anywhere near me.
composition
decorative friezes
there is some symmetry here - if we take the floral design in the middle as our centre point, there is symmetry in that band, but again, we have a weird disjointed feeling looking down the pot. two rows below this design, the animals have a similar line of symmetry, but the frieze between breaks this vertical line
lots of emphasis on the horizontals - there are a few straight horizonal lines painted, maybe as a guide for the designs, maybe as a conscious decision - the one below the narrative frieze does act as a floor, so that one gets a pass from me
narrative frieze
the use of a procession is so good for a dinos bc it's a long ass space to fill, so what better to fill it in with than a long ass line ?
another time to remind you of hebe's dress - a mini version of the whole pot
lots of repeating shapes due to the monotony of the procession - you might be able to argue that the inverted "v" shape of the legs acts as a jagged-tooth pattern to draw the eye to the labels and heads.
scholarly references
"for the first time we see a long multifigure frieze ... devoted to a single major theme" - boardman
sophilos "liked the written word and made abundant use of it" - woodford
"conventionally and rather carelessly" - woodford
"ambitious, lively, but rarely precise" - boardman
final thoughts !!
i do not love this pot - i think it's clear that his intention was to portray the scene instead of decorating the pot for the sake of aesthetics. i would make a snarky comment about how he had to label the gods because he wasn't good enough at depicting them to make them identifiable but that is not the point of this - instead i will place more emphasis on the fact that it's cool we have written words on this pot.