The device of figures framing a central mythological or non-mythological composition is a frequent phenomenon in Athenian vase painting. These spectators have been interpreted as stock characters, super-numeraries, aristocrats, or simply onlookers. In his innovative Vase Painting, Gender, and Social Identity in Archaic Athens, Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell examines the role of spectators on Athenian vases as “guides to the construction of social identity in sixth-century Athens” (11). Stansbury-O’Donnell bases his investigation on the assumption that the spectators “watch the action, not unlike a viewer of the vase” (2). He focuses not only on the identity of the spectators but also on their symbolic function as reflections of the society that produced them.

In his introductory chapter, Stansbury-O’Donnell highlights the key questions addressed in his study, namely how the depicted spectators model the experience of the Archaic viewer, and what conclusions one can draw from different viewing models. For example, the black-figure amphora in the Minneapolis Institute of Arts attributed to the Painter of Vatican 359 and dated to ca. 530 B.C.E. (Ethel Morrison Van Derlip Fund 57.1) represents a bearded man in a short mantle and a woman bidding farewell to a warrior who turns his head back to look at them. A beardless youth stands on the right, completely covered in his long mantle. Of the four figures the warrior is the only one who can be characterized as active, while the other three essentially watch him depart. According to Stansbury-O’Donnell, each of these three spectators has a different degree of involvement with the central, active figure, based on their gender, age, gestures, and proximity to him. When similar representations in Attic vase painting are studied collectively, one may extract valuable information about the stereotypical image of the Archaic viewer based on age and gender. Since the number and character of spectators change from vase to vase, Stansbury-O’Donnell reconstructs a variety of “viewing models” based upon the relation of active figures, spectators, and the viewer(s) of the vase.

Stansbury-O’Donnell outlines his methodology in a clear and thorough manner. In chapter 2, he explains his taxonomies of spectators based on their degree of engagement with the main scene (nucleus) as well as on their different reactions and moods. He divides spectators into four classes (invested, interested, detached, and pure) and three moods (inert, reactive, and mimetic). His study focuses on the detached and pure spectators, i.e., the ones that are the least engaged with the nucleus scene and have the least impact (if any) on the narrative.

Using the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum volumes, Stansbury-O’Donnell created a database of 742 vases with detached and pure spectator scenes, and confirmed his results with random test cases from the Beazley Archive and excavation reports. The evidence suggests that spectator scenes were rare in the eighth- and seventh-century B.C.E. Their numbers begin to increase in the early sixth century, reach their peak between 550 and 490 B.C.E., and start to decline after the turn of the century, until they eventually disappear after the middle of the fifth century B.C.E. Stansbury-O’Donnell concludes that Athens was the production center of spectator vases, even though they were diffused throughout Magna Graecia and Etruria. The wide dispersal of spectator vases indicates that they were not intended for a narrowly defined market.

Stansbury-O’Donnell’s taxonomies are further refined according to the gender of the spectators, and, for men, their age (hence the categories of men, youths, women); the context of a vase (when known); and its function as a sympotic, funerary, ritual, or household item. For example, he discusses the surprisingly large number of youths on Attic black-figure lekythoi produced between 575/50–560/40 B.C.E. He interprets this phenomenon as an intentional focus on the young, male population of Archaic Athens, a point to which he returns in chapter 5.

In chapter 3, Stansbury-O’Donnell presents a twofold approach in his analysis of the spectator vases based on psychoanalytical theory (Jacques Lacan and followers) and Greek theories of vision. He uses these theoretical models in order to examine how the act of looking at an image can affect the viewer, and how the combination of narrative nucleus and spectators can shape one’s identity and self-conception. This theoretical background leads to the creation of a “viewing matrix,” a set of assumptions that guide Stansbury-O’Donnell’s interpretation of the spectator scenes. He analyzes the images on the spectator vases with the help of diagrams that map out the complex directions of glances between the holder of the cup (and possibly a group of viewers around him), the spectators, and the nucleus scene. He presumes that both the spectator and the viewer of the vase look at a scene that represents an ideal. He also argues that the viewing circumstances are predominantly public rather than private (i.e., the vases were used primarily during symposia, funerals, or dedicated in sanctuaries), and that the image represented on a vase is not irrelevant to the function of the vase.

An important element of Stansbury-O’Donnell’s reading is his argument concerning the transposition of images, which occurs, he suggests, when an image is held close to the viewer, for example during a symposium. Under such circumstances, the hero of the main scene is identified with the primary viewer (i.e., holder of the vase) in the eyes of the fellow-symposiasts. For example, imagine a young symposiast holding the black-figure Siana cup by the Heidelberg Painter depicting on its exterior Bellerophon and Chimaira flanked by spectators (Paris, Musée du Louvre A478). According to Stansbury-O’Donnell’s analysis, the beholder aspires to the status of the hero and recognizes in Bellerophon’s image qualities of his own. When the symposiast brings the cup to his lips, the image of the hero overlaps with his face and the two characters are conflated in the eyes of his surrounding companions. As a result, another transposition of images occurs: the spectators on the Bellerophon cup mirror the members of the banquet party who are watching the young symposiast (and Bellerophon wanna-be) holding the cup.

Similarly, the Attic red-figure kylix attributed to the School of Makron and dated ca. 470 B.C.E. depicts a youth exercising next to his trainer while an adult male observes the scene (Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 74). These three figures encode the ideal qualities of Athenian youths and adults, which would have been recognized by both the user of the vase and the viewers around him. Assuming the vase was employed during a public event, all viewers shared the same viewing experience, thus creating a collective image of the Athenian youth and adult male. These ideal images were consequently transposed on the user of the cup and on the group associated with him. Stansbury-O’Donnell argues further that palaestra scenes such as the one represented on the Bonn cup reflect the expected social behavior of a young eromenos and an adult erastes; modesty is the ideal quality for a beautiful young Athenian, while the accomplished Athenian man claims possession of his beloved by casting his eyes on him.

The viewing matrix can produce various results by changing one of its components: the interpretation of the nucleus scene and the spectator figures is different for a female viewer and a slave, while the collective and individual viewing experience creates different results when the circumstances change, for example in the case of private use of vases and storage vessels. Thus, any observations about the spectators, the viewer, his or her self-conception, and the creation of a collective image will vary depending on: the subject of the nucleus scene; the number, gender, age, and reaction of the spectator figures; the (assumed) characteristics of the viewer and the group associated with him or her; and the function of the vase (ritual, funerary, sympotic, etc).

In the following chapter, Stansbury-O’Donnell attempts to contextualize the spectator vases in relation to ritual performances in Archaic Athens. He claims that the uniformity of the spectators framing a nucleus scene, their symmetric arrangement, and their stylized dresses and gestures mirror the qualities of a choral group. The nucleus scene provides the subject of their song. And since ritual performances, and particularly choruses, were a vital part of Athenian social and civic life, images of chorus-like spectators on vases enhance the (self-) fashioning of an identity that shared and reflected the city ideals.

Chapter 5 examines two categories of spectators, men and youths. Stansbury-O’Donnell creates a detailed chart of gestures, attributes (when applicable), and poses of men and youths in order to discuss the reactions of male spectators to the most frequently occurring mythological and other scenes. He concludes that an inert mood is the preferred behavioral response of male spectators on vases, particularly for the youths. The spears frequently borne by adult spectators reflect their civic and social status, while the mantles in which standing youths are often wrapped are meant to convey the desirable trait of aidos (modesty). As social expectations of gender behavior are encoded in the spectator types, the spectators become instructive models, preparing the Athenian viewers to assume a role in the city. On the other hand, the very strong reactions displayed by women spectators contrast starkly with both the restraint women were expected to show according to ancient literary sources and to the calm behavior of male spectators. This observation confirms the stereotypes of women as emotional and unruly, and reflects the dichotomy between genders in Archaic Athens.

In his brief conclusion, Stansbury-O’Donnell attempts to credit a painter of the so-called Siana cups (the C Painter) with the invention of spectator vases in Athens, since the earliest examples of spectator scenes are attributed to his hand and date to around 560 B.C.E. The author points out the coincidence of the date with the reorganization of the Panathenaia (the most important festival celebrated in Athens in honor of Athena), and suggests, albeit briefly, that spectator vases may have been specially commissioned for this or another comparable event.

Stansbury-O’Donnell then returns to his claim that through the transposition of spectator figures as members of the chorus, of the audience, and ultimately of the polis, both the viewer and the user of the vase recognize the ritual and civic connotations of choral performances. The chorus becomes a symbol of the city and the spectators function as models of the ideal citizen. These models were needed until the late sixth–early fifth-century B.C.E. The decline of spectator vases after this period may be due to the implementation of new democratic reforms, funerary restrictions, or even the waning of rituals no longer representative of the city and its social life. According to Stansbury-O’Donnell, the stylized spectators of the Archaic era could survive neither competition with new role models, such as Theseus and the Tyrannicides, nor the growing naturalism of fifth-century visual arts.

Overall, Stansbury-O’Donnell’s study makes a significant contribution to the scholarship on Athenian vase painting. One of the assets of his book is the detailed description of methodology, although its density may be discouraging for the non-specialist. His taxonomic terminology is accurate and successful in describing the depicted spectators’ various qualities and combinations.

Despite Stansbury-O’Donnell’’s arguments on the complex series of transpositions of images, one might still remain skeptical about whether the viewer of the vase (modern and ancient) can actually enjoy the same relation shared by the spectator figure and the nucleus scene. In addition, the viewing conditions of a vase and the characteristics of the user and those surrounding him or her can only be hypothesized, and, thus, the results of such an exercise are hard to prove.

Also open to criticism is the assumption that the ideals encoded in the spectator types were shared by members of the Greek and non-Greek communities who purchased the spectator vases. For example, how are we to reconcile the discrepancies between the expected role of women in Greece and in Etruria, where most of the extant Athenian vases were found? Did the association of spectators with choral groups occur in other Greek and non-Greek cities? Lastly, I am hesitant to accept Stansbury-O’Donnell’s association of the spectators with the chorus, especially since the author provides no treatment of more secure representations of chorus groups for comparison.¹

Vase Painting, Gender, and Social Identity in Archaic Athens offers a groundbreaking approach that contextualizes the diverse types of spectators depicted on Athenian vases of sixth-century B.C.E. Although these types are occasionally overladen with connotations of ritual and civic character, his work makes significant progress in the study of these figures.