by
Laura Fitton
(Paper submitted to Images of Women in the Ancient World: Issues of Interpretation and Identity, Spring 1998)
The detail focuses on who are assumed to be the Greek warrior Ajax of Locris, or Little Ajax, and Cassandra the cursed prophetess. Cassandra is kneeling next to a statue of what is believed to be Athena. There are no distinguishing characteristics of the Greek warrior to confindently label him as Ajax, particularly since his shield is missing, but analysts piece together the fact that since the warrior is attacking a young woman clasping an image of Athena, the woman must be Cassandra and the warrior must be Ajax.
Cassandra is depicted as naked, with a cape tied around her shoulders. Her legs are spread; one is braced on the ground, and she is kneeling on the other one. One arm is grasping the statue of Athena, and the other is stretched out toward Ajax. Ajax has one hand in her hair, and one hand grasping his outstretched sword. The image of Athena is facing towards Ajax, her shield and sword drawn.
It can be interpreted that Athena has her weapons drawn and facing Ajax as if she were attacking or challenging him. Ajax's sword is sticking horizontally toward Cassandra in almost a phallic stance. Cassandra is in a very erotic position, with her legs spread wide open and her breasts naked and emphasized by the knot of her cape. Her hand is stretched in either supplication or perhaps in beckoning. While the arm is outstretched and the palm is facing up, it is difficult to determine whether or not this gesture is one of acceptance toward Ajax, or one of fear and beseeching. It is interesting to note that her hand is extended directly over Ajax's groin area.
Is this really a painting of the rape of Cassandra? There is no actual sign that she is going to be raped in this painting. Ajax looks as if he is going to drag her off or capture her, but there is no hint that he is going to rape her, aside from the fact that she is in an extremely submissive sexual position, and he is in a dominant position with his sword extended. There are certainly phallic symbols in this painting, but there is no explicit reference to Ajax having an erection or preparing to ravish her. All of the artwork depicting the rape of Cassandra show her naked and kneeling in front of Ajax, sometimes with her hair unbound and flowing loose, so there is obviously a connection between Cassandra's nakedness and Ajax's violation of her, but not even Greek texts have agreed as to whether or not she was actually raped by Ajax [see The Rape of Cassandra].
Burkert discusses why people might think that paintings such as this one are interpreted so strongly. He believes that it is the purposeful ambivalence between the warrior and the virgin that makes these stories and pictures so exciting to others. He goes into a complex argument that male aggression and male sexuality are linked and aroused at the same time, so an image of a warrior conquering people and laying his hands on a naked young woman is synonymous with a sexual act. (Burkert p59-60) This is a fascinating idea in relation to the question of Cassandra's rape, but I do not find it to be necessarily true. People may think of this when they see or hear about Ajax attacking Cassandra, but there is no logical or even historical basis for the argument that Ajax did, indeed, defile and ruin poor Cassandra, who was doomed to have a miserable life anyway.