The Judgment of Animals in Classical Greece: Animal Sculpture and ...

could see it, she’d certainly run shrieking off, thinking it was the son she brought
up: so like me is this fellow.
Ho there! Look upon the house of the Lord of the Sea, the Shaker of Earth! And
let each fasten up the likeness of his handsome face, a truthful messenger, a
voiceless herald to keep off travelers; he’ll halt strangers on their way by his
terrifying look. Hail, King, hail Poseidon…protector….
(Theori or Isthmiastae, P. Oxy., vol. 18. no 2162, Radt, fr. 78a) [9]
In this scene, satyrs thank someone for images of themselves, which they proceed to nail
up upon the temple of Poseidon, while stating that they will serve to frighten away
strangers. One of them is astounded by his own image, in particular, how strongly it
resembles him. He suspects that the image will have an equally powerful, albeit
frightening, effect on his mother; it could make her think that this was her son. 105
Coming from the satyr’s own mother, this reaction implies that the image had received a
certain accuracy which was very true to its living prototype; it was thus so lifelike that it
could easily deceive a person with intimate knowledge of the satyr’s appearance as being
the satyr himself. This lifelike impression is further strengthened by the remark that the
image lacks only voice, which implies that the image was also very close to conveying
the sense of being alive. 106 In addition, the fact that it is called “a truthful messenger”
105 M. Stieber, “Aeschylus’ Theoroi and Realism in Greek Art,” TAPA 124 (1994) 89-90 argues that the
suggestion of a mother being scared by her own child is comic and rests on the contradiction that the satyr
calls the image of himself beautiful, whereas in the audience’s mind a satyr was an ugly creature. H.
Lloyd-Jones, ed., tr., “Theori or Isthmiastae,” in H. W. Smith, ed., tr., Aeschylus II. Agamemnon. Libation-
Bearers. Eumenides. Fragments (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1923, repr. 1983) 543 suggests that “the
fright which the portraits are likely to give to the satyr’s mother or to any strangers makes it likely that such
portraits, and probably the art of portraiture itself, are thought of as being unusual or even new at the time
in question.” He also notes (543) the suggestion (by Eduard Fraenkel) that these portraits may be antefixes,
since the latter were customarily shaped like masks, and satyr-masks were sometimes used as antefixes.
This scene therefore may be suggestive of this practice. Lloyd-Jones argues that the satyrs’ portraits cannot
be antefixes, since “antefixes cannot be nailed up or taken down at will,” which is partially the case in this
scene. G. Ferrari, “Eye-Cup,” RA (1986) 19-20, suggests that the image (eidolon) to which the passage
refers should be understood to mean “mask.” According to her, “the image of the satyr must look just like
a satyr’s mask, and it is the mask that protects the performer, as well as the reveler, from the consequences
of his words and actions.”
106 J.-P. Vernant, Myth and Thought among the Greeks (London and Boston, 1983) 311-312 maintains that,
in ancient Greek thought, the presence of voice was an indication of life: “in contrast to the word of sound
60