The Boy Strangling the Goose: Genre Figure or Mythological Symbol?

Kunze has suggested that Hellenistic sculpture depicting themes of everyday activities that are traditionally classified as genre subjects may carry very different meanings. This note argues that, in Graeco-Roman terms, the chubby personage in depictions of the Boy Strangling the Goose is not simply a child but the personification of Dionysos/Harpokrates; the goose is not a household pet but an evil spirit over which the Divine Child triumphs. The manner of the representation is Greek and can be read at a superficial level; the deeper content is Egyptian and contains a symbolic message of rebirth and victory.* In an important article published in 1999, Christian Kunze argued against our traditional understanding of Hellenistic sculptures depicting themes of everyday activities by the lower classes or by representatives of the extremes in age the so-called old destitutes and the children. Generally classified as unprecedented genre subjects, many of these portrayals, he suggested, did not in fact constitute a break with earlier iconography and, when seen in their proper light, could carry a very different meaning. Stressing the difference, for instance, between Hellenistic and Roman statues of fishermen, he pointed out that the former unlike the latter were never shown engaged in the performance of their trade but rather carrying the products of their labors. They were, therefore, no different from the various offering-bearers of Archaic and Classical times and should be considered votive gifts to be set up in sanctuaries. The sociological implications with which such figures have been endowed are a commentary on our own times and not a true reflection of ancient readings of those visual "texts."1 Kunze has now expanded on his basic theme in an extensively documented book that includes many more monuments and stylistic analyses.2 Considered from a different angle, this same emphasis on the appropriateness of a subject for a Greek or Roman context may lead to a revision of some attributions based solely on style and not on actual date of manufacture. I have long advocated a similar position with regard to the so-called Roman copies works known only in versions datable no earlier than the incipient Imperial period.3 Specifically, it would be advisable to use comparable criteria in our analysis of all the alleged genre sculptures, keeping an open mind, as results may vary from case to case; some may even confirm the correctness of a Hellenistic dating once the defining label has been discounted. In particular, given the international character of the period, this scrutiny should be applied to some monuments in obvious Greek style, which could, however, be more meaningful from a non-Greek point of view. This is a query I wish to raise for a well-known topos, the Boy Strangling the Goose, for which I would suggest a lectio Aegyptiaca not only for the individual com* I wish to thank Maria Teresa Marabini Moevs for the loan of her photographs, and Dyfri Williams of the British Museum for giving me permission to publish them. 1 Kunze (1999) argued his position on the strength of three selected examples: the so-called Fanciulla d'Anzio, the Old Fisherman of the Seneca type, and the Old Drunken Woman. Although I fully agree in principle with Kunze 's theory, I wonder why the Drunken Woman and especially the Seneca Fisherman would have been copied more or less exactly in Roman times. If the original Hellenistic monuments represented private or even civic dedications within their respective sanctuaries, they might not have attracted the attention of the Roman clientele and, perhaps, not been available for direct copying. If, however, a specific mythological meaning accrued to them within the embodiment of their generic type, their precise reproduction would have been significant even in Imperial times. For lengthier discussion of these basic types, see Kunze 2002. 2 Kunze 2002. 3 My position is most explicitly stated in Ridgway (1988, 33) : "Perhaps the most important questions to be asked of the material have in fact become: Why was it made? Where was it set up? If a work traditionally assigned to the Hellenistic period but known only through Roman copies could be conclusively shown to be out of place both in function and meaning in a proper Greek context, the time is perhaps right for revising our notions and asking whether the piece in question could rather be a Roman creation in Hellenistic style." Comparable thoughts are also expressed throughout Ridgway 1990, 2000, 2002. American Journal of Archaeology 110 (2006) 643-48 643 644 BRUNILDE S. RIDGWAY [AJA 110 ponents, as others have advocated, but also for the very action involved, which has contributed to the genre classification. The concept of Hellenistic genre has long been entrenched in archaeological literature. A typical and early (1885) explanation of its application to the Hellenistic period, for instance, by Ernest Gardner, states that "people cooped up in large towns and surrounded by the artificiality of city life felt a craving for nature and simplicity" that led them to extol bucolic environments and images of childhood in both their poetry and their visual arts.4 A slightly different connotation, with emphasis on the decorative character, is implicit in the term "rococo," first applied to Hellenistic art by Wilhelm Klein and then codified by Margarete Bieber in her influential monograph on the sculpture of the period. Even Jerome Pollitt adopted the term, although expressing some reservations as to its applicability to ancient times.5 One theme accepted by all authors under these various terms is that of a child holding a bird generically definable as aquatic although often specifically called a goose. The main reason for the scholarly attention this subject has attracted is a passage in Pliny attributing to Boethos of Chalkedon the (bronze?) image of a boy strangling a goose.6 The original Plinian text is corrupt, and the restoration of the word " amplexando" (while embracing [the bird]) is conjectural. Other possible readings could have stated that the boy was six years old or that the work was excellent, and the sentence, as extant, is ungrammatical. What is certain, however, is the "unfriendly" connection of a child and a bird, by a certain sculptor who was actually renowned