{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48154/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48154","id":"gutenberg_48154","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48154","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Art","Category: History - Ancient","Mythology, Classical, in art","Pottery, Ancient","Pottery, Etruscan","Pottery, Greek","Pottery, Roman"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical\neffects. Italics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_. Bold\nfont is shown delimited by the \u2018=\u2019 character. Super- and subscripted\ncharacters are shown as '^2' and '_{2}' respectively.\n\nThis text includes the rendering of ancient Greek inscriptions, using\nthe alphabets in a number of different regions, not all of which exist\nin the unicode character set. It is not possible to render these\ninscriptions in text without a wholesale loss of information about the\nvariant forms. Each inscription, therefore, is simply rendered using\nmodern Greek characters, including several archaic characters (koppa =\n\u03d8 and digamma= \u03dc) which are supported in unicode fonts. These\ninscriptions are better viewed, obviously, in the HTML or epub versions\nwhich can be found at Project Gutenberg.\n\nMinor errors and inconsistency in punctuation and formatting have been\nsilently corrected. Please see the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of\nthis text for details regarding the handling of any other textual\nissues encountered during its preparation.\n\nFootnotes appeared in the printed text numbered sequentially on each\npage. They have been renumbered to be unique across the text, and\ngathered at the end of each chapter. The occasional references to them\nby the original number have been changed.\n\nVolume II of this text is available separately from Project Gutenberg\nat:\n\n https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48155\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE I\n\n[Illustration:\n\n KYLIX BY DURIS.\n THE LABOURS OF THESEUS.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY\n GREEK, ETRUSCAN, AND ROMAN\n\n BY H. B. WALTERS, M.A., F.S.A.\n BASED ON THE WORK OF\n SAMUEL BIRCH\n\n IN TWO VOLUMES\n VOLUME I\n\n WITH 300 ILLUSTRATIONS\n INCLUDING 8 COLOURED PLATES\n\n [ILLUSTRATION]\n\n LONDON\n JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.\n 1905\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n PRINTED BY\n HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LD.,\n LONDON AND AYLESBURY.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nIn 1857 Dr. Samuel Birch issued his well-known work on ancient pottery,\nat that time almost the first attempt at dealing with the whole subject\nin a comprehensive manner. Sixteen years later, in 1873, he brought out\na second edition, in some respects condensed, in others enlarged and\nbrought up to date. But it is curious to reflect that the succeeding\nsixteen years should not only have doubled or even trebled the material\navailable for a study of this subject, but should even have\nrevolutionised that study. The year 1889 also saw the completion of the\nexcavations of the Acropolis at Athens, which did much to settle the\nquestion of the chronology of Attic vases. Yet another sixteen years,\nand if the increase in actual bulk of material is relatively not so\ngreat, yet the advance in the study of pottery, especially that of the\nprimitive periods, has been astounding; and while in 1857, and even in\n1873, it was impossible to do much more than collect and co-ordinate\nmaterial, in 1905 Greek ceramics have become one of the most advanced\nand firmly based branches of classical archaeology.\n\nIt therefore implies no slur on the reputation of Samuel Birch\u2019s work\nthat it has become out of date. Up till now it has remained the only\ncomprehensive treatise, and therefore the standard work, on the\nsubject; but of late years there has been a crying need, especially in\nEngland, of a book which should place before students a condensed and\nup-to-date account of Greek vases and of the present state of knowledge\nof the subject. The present volumes, while following in the main the\nplan adopted by Dr. Birch, necessarily deviate therefrom in some\nimportant particulars. It has been decided to omit entirely the section\nrelating to Oriental pottery, partly from considerations of space,\npartly from the impossibility of doing justice to the subject except in\na separate treatise; for the same reason the pottery of the Celts and\nof Northern Europe has been ignored. Part I. of the present work,\ndealing chiefly with the technical aspect of the subject, remains in\nits main outlines much as it was thirty years ago; but the other\nsections have been entirely re-written. For the historical account of\nvase-painting in Birch\u2019s second edition one chapter of forty pages\nsufficed; it now extends to six chapters, or one quarter of the work.\nThe subjects on the vases, again, occupy four chapters instead of two;\nand modern researches have made it possible to treat the subjects of\nEtruscan and Roman pottery with almost the same scientific knowledge as\nthat of Greece.\n\nA certain amount of repetition in the various sections will, it is\nhoped, be pardoned on the ground that it was desirable to make each\nsection as far as possible complete in itself; and another detail which\nmay provoke unfavourable criticism is the old difficulty of the\nspelling of Greek names and words. In regard to the latter the author\nadmits that consistency has not been attained, but his aim has been\nrather to avoid unnecessary Latinising on the one hand and pedantry on\nthe other.\n\nFinally, the author desires to express his warmest acknowledgments to\nall who have been of assistance to him in his work, by their writings\nor otherwise, especially to a friend, desiring to be nameless, who has\nkindly read through the proofs and made many useful suggestions; to the\ninvaluable works of many foreign scholars, more particularly those of\nM. Pottier, M. Salomon Reinach, and M. D\u00e9chelette, he owes a debt which\neven a constant acknowledgment in the text hardly repays. Thanks are\nalso due to the Trustees of the British Museum for kind permission to\nreproduce their blocks for Figs. 75, 109, 118, 125, 128, 131, 138, 185,\n191, and 197, to M. D\u00e9chelette for permission to reproduce from his\nwork the vases given in Figs. 224, 226, and to the Committee of the\nBritish School at Athens for similar facilities in regard to Plate XIV.\n(pottery from Crete). Lastly, but by no means least, the author desires\nto express to Mr. Hallam Murray his deep sense of obligation for the\nwarm interest he has shown in the work throughout and for the pains he\nhas taken to ensure the success of its outward appearance.\n\n H. B. W.\n\nLONDON, _January 1905_.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS OF VOLUME I\n\n\n PAGE\n\n\n PREFACE v\n\n CONTENTS OF VOLUME I ix\n\n LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I xiii\n\n LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I xv\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY xix\n\n NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK xxxvi\n\n\n PART I\n\n GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL\n\n CHAPTER I\n _INTRODUCTORY_\n\n Importance of study of ancient monuments\u2014Value of pottery as\n evidence of early civilisation\u2014Invention of the art\u2014Use of\n brick in Babylonia\u2014The potter\u2019s wheel\u2014Enamel and\n glazes\u2014Earliest Greek pottery\u2014Use of study of\n vases\u2014Ethnological, historical, mythological, and artistic\n aspects\u2014Earliest writings on the subject\u2014The \u201cEtruscan\u201d\n theory\u2014History of the study of Greek vases\u2014Artistic,\n epexegetic, and historical methods\u2014The vase-collections of\n Europe and their history\u2014List of existing collections 1\u201330\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n\n _SITES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCOVERY OF GREEK VASES_\n\n Historical and geographical limits of subject\u2014Description of\n Greek tombs\u2014Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily,\n Italy\u2014Condition of vases when found\u2014Subsequent\n restorations\u2014Imitations and forgeries\u2014Prices of vases\u2014Sites\n on which painted vases have been found: Athens, Corinth,\n Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia Minor, Cyprus, North\n Africa, Italy, Etruria\u2014Vulci discoveries\u2014Southern Italy,\n Sicily 31\u201388\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n\n _THE USES OF CLAY_\n\n Technical terms\u2014Sun-dried clay and unburnt bricks\u2014Use of\n these in Greece\u2014Methods of manufacture\u2014Roof-tiles and\n architectural decorations in terracotta\u2014Antefixal\n ornaments\u2014Sicilian and Italian systems\u2014Inscribed\n tiles\u2014Sarcophagi\u2014Braziers\u2014Moulds\u2014Greek lamps\u2014Sculpture in\n terracotta\u2014Origin of art\u2014Large statues in\n terracotta\u2014Statuettes\u2014Processes of\n manufacture\u2014Moulding\u2014Colouring\u2014Vases with plastic\n decoration\u2014Reliefs\u2014Toys\u2014Types and uses of\n statuettes\u2014Porcelain and enamelled wares\u2014Hellenistic and\n Roman enamelled fabrics 89\u2013130\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n\n _USES AND SHAPES OF GREEK VASES_\n\n Mention of painted vases in literature\u2014Civil and domestic\n use of pottery\u2014Measures of capacity\u2014Use in daily\n life\u2014Decorative use\u2014Religious and votive uses\u2014Use in funeral\n ceremonies\u2014Shapes and their names\u2014Ancient and modern\n classifications\u2014Vases for storage\u2014Pithos\u2014Wine-\n amphora\u2014Amphora\u2014Stamnos\u2014Hydria\u2014Vases for\n mixing\u2014Krater\u2014Deinos or Lebes\u2014Cooking-vessels\u2014Vases for\n pouring wine\u2014Oinocho\u00eb and variants\u2014Ladles\u2014Drinking-\n cups\u2014Names recorded by\n Athenaeus\u2014Kotyle\u2014Skyphos\u2014Kantharos\u2014Kylix\u2014Phiale\u2014\n Rhyton\u2014Dishes\u2014Oil-\n vases\u2014Lekythos\u2014Alabastron\u2014Pyxis\u2014Askos\u2014Moulded vases 131\u2013201\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n\n _TECHNICAL PROCESSES_\n\n Nature of clay\u2014Places whence obtained\u2014Hand-made\n vases\u2014Invention of potter\u2019s wheel\u2014Methods of\n modelling\u2014Moulded vases and relief-\n decoration\u2014Baking\u2014Potteries and furnaces\u2014Painted vases and\n their classification\u2014Black varnish\u2014Methods of\n painting\u2014Instruments and colours employed\u2014Status of potters\n in antiquity 202\u2013233\n\n\n PART II\n\n HISTORY OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING\n\n CHAPTER VI\n\n _PRIMITIVE FABRICS_\n\n Introductory\u2014Cypriote Bronze-Age\n pottery\u2014Classification\u2014Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus\u2014Graeco-\n Phoenician fabrics\u2014Shapes and decoration\u2014Hellenic and later\n vases\u2014Primitive pottery in Greece\u2014Troy\u2014Thera and\n Cyclades\u2014Crete\u2014Recent discoveries\u2014Mycenaean\n pottery\u2014Classification and distribution\u2014Centres of\n fabric\u2014Ethnography and chronology 234\u2013276\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n\n _RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_\n\n Geometrical decoration\u2014Its origin\u2014Distribution of\n pottery\u2014Shapes and ornamentation of vases\u2014Subjects\u2014Dipylon\n vases\u2014Boeotian Geometrical wares\u2014Chronology\u2014Proto-Attic\n fabrics\u2014Phaleron ware\u2014Later Boeotian vases\u2014Melian\n amphorae\u2014Corinth and its pottery\u2014\u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d\n vases\u2014Vases with imbrications and floral decoration\u2014Incised\n lines and ground-ornaments\u2014Introduction of figure-\n subjects\u2014Chalcidian vases\u2014\u201cTyrrhenian Amphorae\u201d 277\u2013327\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n\n _VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_\n\n General characteristics\u2014Classification\u2014Mycenaean\n influence\u2014Rhodian pottery\u2014\u201cFikellura\u201d ware\u2014Asia Minor\n fabrics\u2014Cyrenaic vases\u2014Naukratis and its pottery\u2014Daphnae\n ware\u2014Caeretan hydriae\u2014Other Ionic fabrics\u2014\u201cPontic\u201d\n vases\u2014Early painting in Ionia\u2014Clazomenae sarcophagi 328\u2013367\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n\n _ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_\n\n Definition of \u201cblack-figured\u201d\u2014The Fran\u00e7ois vase\u2014Technical\n and stylistic details\u2014Shapes\u2014Decorative patterns\u2014Subjects\n and types\u2014Artists\u2019 signatures\u2014Exekias and Amasis\u2014Minor\n Artists\u2014Nikosthenes\u2014Andokides\u2014\u201cAffected\u201d vases\u2014Panathenaic\n amphorae\u2014Vases from the Kabeirion\u2014Opaque painting on black\n ground\u2014Vase-painting and literary tradition\u2014Early Greek\n painting and its subsequent development 368\u2013399\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n\n _RED-FIGURED VASES_\n\n Origin of red-figure style\u2014Date of introduction\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\n and historical personages\u2014Technical characteristics\u2014Draughts\n manship\u2014Shapes\u2014Ornamentation\u2014Subjects and types\u2014Subdivisions\n of style\u2014Severe period and artists\u2014Strong\n period\u2014Euphronios\u2014Duris, Hieron, and Brygos\u2014Fine\n period\u2014Influence of Polygnotos\u2014Later fine period\u2014Boeotian\n local fabric 400\u2013453\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n\n _WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_\n\n Origin and character of white-ground painting\u2014Outline\n drawing and polychromy\u2014Funeral lekythi\u2014Subjects and\n types\u2014Decadence of Greek vase-painting\u2014Rise of new\n centres\u2014Kertch, Cyrenaica, and Southern\n Italy\u2014Characteristics of the latter\n fabrics\u2014Shapes\u2014Draughtsmanship\u2014Influence of Tragedy and\n Comedy\u2014Subjects\u2014Paestum fabric\u2014Lucanian, Campanian, and\n Apulian fabrics\u2014Gnathia vases\u2014Vases modelled in form of\n figures\u2014Imitations of metal\u2014Vases with reliefs\u2014\u201cMegarian\u201d\n bowls\u2014Bolsena ware and Calene phialae 454\u2013504\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I\n\n (_Except where otherwise noted the objects are in the British Museum_)\n\n\n PLATE\n\n\n I. Kylix signed by Duris: Labours of Theseus\n (_colours_) Frontispiece\n\n TO FACE PAGE\n\n II. Archaic terracotta antefixes 98\n\n III. Restoration of temple at Civita Lavinia 100\n\n IV. Greek lamps and \u201cbrazier-handles\u201d 106\n\n V. Moulds for terracotta figures 114\n\n VI. Terracotta vases from Southern Italy 118\n\n VII. \u201cMelian\u201d reliefs 120\n\n VIII. Archaic terracotta figures 122\n\n IX. Terracotta figures of fine style 124\n\n X. Porcelain and enamelled wares 128\n\n XI. Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery 242\n\n XII. Mycenaean vases found in Cyprus 246\n\n XIII. Cypriote \u201cGraeco-Phoenician\u201d pottery 252\n\n XIV. Example of Kamaraes ware from Palaiokastro,\n Crete (from _Brit. School Annual_) 266\n\n XV. Mycenaean vases (_colours_) 272\n\n XVI. Subjects from the Aristono\u00f6s krater in the\n Vatican (from _Wiener Vorl._) 296\n\n XVII. Phaleron, Boeotian, and Photo-Corinthian vases 300\n\n XVIII. Melian amphora in Athens (from Conze) 302\n\n XIX. Proto-Corinthian and Early Corinthian vases 308\n\n XX. Corinthian pyxis and Rhodian oinocho\u00eb\n (_colours_) 312\n\n XXI. Later Corinthian vases with figure subjects 316\n\n XXII. Chalcidian vase in Bibl. Nat., Paris: Herakles\n and Geryon; chariot 320\n\n XXIII. \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d Amphora: The death of Polyxena 324\n\n XXIV. Rhodian and Naucratite wares 336\n\n XXV. Situla from Daphnae; later Ionic vase in South\n Kensington 352\n\n XXVI. Caeretan hydria (_colours_) 354\n\n XXVII. Painted sarcophagus from Clazomenae 364\n\n XXVIII. The Fran\u00e7ois vase in Florence, general view\n (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._) 370\n\n XXIX. Attic black-figured amphorae 380\n\n XXX. Vases by Nikosthenes 384\n\n XXXI. Obverse of vase by Andokides: Warriors playing\n draughts (B.F.) 386\n\n XXXII. Reverse of vase by Andokides: Herakles and the\n Nemean lion (R.F.) 386\n\n XXXIII. Panathenaic amphora, earlier style 388\n\n XXXIV. Panathenaic amphora, later style 390\n\n XXXV. Vases with opaque figures on black ground (Brit.\n Mus. and Louvre) 394\n\n XXXVI. Red-figured \u201cNolan\u201d amphorae and lekythos 412\n\n XXXVII. Cups of Epictetan style 422\n\n XXXVIII. Kylix at Munich signed by Euphronios: Herakles\n and Geryon (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 432\n\n XXXIX. Kylikes by Duris at Berlin and in the style of\n Brygos at Corneto (from Baumeister) 436\n\n XL. Vases signed by Sotades (Brit. Mus. and Boston) 444\n\n XLI. Hydria signed by Meidias 446\n\n XLII. Vases of \u201clate fine\u201d style (_colours_) 448\n\n XLIII. Polychrome white-ground vases (_colours_) 456\n\n XLIV. Campanian and Apulian vases 484\n\n XLV. Apulian sepulchral vase (colours) 486\n\n XLVI. Vases modelled in various forms 492\n\n XLVII. Archaic vase in Athens with reliefs (from\n \u1f18\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae) 496\n\n XLVIII. Vases of black ware with reliefs (Hellenistic\n period) 500\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN\n VOLUME I\n\n FIG. PAGE\n\n\n 1. Coffin containing vases, from _Stackelberg_\n Athens 34\n\n 2. Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus _Ath. Mitth._ 35\n\n 3. Tomb at Gela (Sicily) with _Ashmol. Vases_\n vases 37\n\n 4. Campana tomb at Veii _Campana_ 39\n\n 5. Map of Greece 47\n\n 6. Map of Asia Minor and the\n Archipelago 63\n\n 7. Map of Cyprus 66\n\n 8. Map of Italy 70\n\n 9. Diagram of roof-tiling, _Durm_\n Heraion, Olympia 93\n\n 10. Antefix from Marathon _Brit. Mus._ 99\n\n 11. Inscribed tiles from Acarnania _Brit. Mus._\n and Corfu 102\n\n 12. Ostrakon of Megakles _Benndorf_ 103\n\n 13. Ostrakon of Xanthippos _Jahrbuch_ 103\n\n 14. Hemikotylion from Kythera _Brit. Mus._ 135\n\n 15. Child playing with jug _Brit. Mus._ 137\n\n 16. Dedication to Apollo _Brit. Mus._\n (Naukratis) 139\n\n 17. Youth with votive tablet _Benndorf_ 140\n\n 18. Vases used in sacrifice _Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold_ 141\n\n 19. Funeral lekythos with vases _Brit. Mus._\n inside tomb 143\n\n 20. Vases placed on tomb (Lucanian _Brit. Mus._\n hydria) 144\n\n 21. Pithos from Knossos 152\n\n 22. Greek wine-jars _Brit. Mus._ 154\n\n 23. Amphora-stamps from Rhodes _Dumont._ 156\n\n 24. Amphora-stamps from Thasos _Dumont._ 158\n\n 25. \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d amphora 160\n\n 26. Panathenaic amphora 160\n\n 27. Panel-amphora 161\n\n 28. Red-bodied amphora 161\n\n 29. \u201cNolan\u201d amphora 162\n\n 30. Apulian amphora 162\n\n 31. \u201cPelike\u201d 163\n\n 32. Stamnos 164\n\n 33. \u201cLekane\u201d 164\n\n 34. Hydria 166\n\n 35. Kalpis 166\n\n 36. Krater with column-handles 169\n\n 37. Volute-handled krater 170\n\n 38. Calyx-krater 170\n\n 39. Bell-krater 170\n\n 40. Lucanian krater 172\n\n 41. Psykter 173\n\n 42. Deinos or lebes 173\n\n 43. Oinocho\u00eb (7th century) 177\n\n 44. Oinocho\u00eb (5th century) 177\n\n 45. Procho\u00f6s 178\n\n 46. Olpe 178\n\n 47. Epichysis 179\n\n 48. Kyathos 179\n\n 49. Kotyle 184\n\n 50. Kantharos 188\n\n 51. Kylix (earlier form) 190\n\n 52. Kylix (later form) 191\n\n 53. Phiale 191\n\n 54. Rhyton 193\n\n 55. Pinax 194\n\n 56. Lekythos 196\n\n 57. Lekythos (later form) 196\n\n 58. Alabastron 197\n\n 59. Aryballos 197\n\n 60. Pyxis 198\n\n 61. Epinetron or Onos 199\n\n 62. Askos 200\n\n 63. Apulian askos 200\n\n 64. Guttus 200\n\n 65. Potter\u2019s wheel, from _Ant. Denkm._\n Corinthian pinakes 207\n\n 66. Potter\u2019s wheel (vase of about _Ath. Mitth._\n 500 B.C.) 208\n\n 67. Boy polishing vase; interior _Bl\u00fcmner_\n of pottery 213\n\n 68. Seilenos as potter 216\n\n 69. Interior of furnace _Ant. Denkm._\n (Corinthian pinax) 217\n\n 70. Interior of pottery _Ath. Mitth._ 218\n\n 71. Red-figured fragment,\n incomplete 222\n\n 72. Studio of vase-painter _Bl\u00fcmner_ 223\n\n 73. Vase-painter varnishing cup _Jahrbuch_ 227\n\n 74. Vase-painter using feather- _Jahrbuch_\n brush 228\n\n 75. Cypriote jug with concentric _Brit. Mus._\n circles 251\n\n 76. Cypriote vase from Ormidhia _Baumeister_ 254\n\n 77. \u201cOwl-vase\u201d from Troy _Schliemann_ 258\n\n 78. Deep cup from Troy _Schliemann_ 259\n\n 79. Vase in form of pig from Troy _Schliemann_ 259\n\n 80. Double-necked vase from Troy _Schliemann_ 259\n\n 81. Vases from Thera _Baumeister_ 261\n\n 82. Mycenaean vases with marine _Brit. Mus._\n subjects 273\n\n 83. Ornamentation on Geometrical _Perrot_\n vases 283\n\n 84. Geometrical vase with panels _Brit. Mus._ 284\n\n 85. Boeotian Geometrical vases _Jahrbuch_ 288\n\n 86. Coffer from Thebes (Boeotian _Jahrbuch_\n Geometrical) 289\n\n 87. Burgon lebes _Brit. Mus._ 296\n\n 88. Warrior vase from Mycenae _Schliemann_ 297\n\n 89. Proto-Attic vase from Vourva _Ath. Mitth._ 299\n\n 90. The Dodwell pyxis (cover) _Baumeister_ 316\n\n 91. Vases of Samian or \u201cFikellura\u201d _Brit. Mus._\n style 337\n\n 92. The Arkesilaos cup (Bibl. _Baumeister_\n Nat.) 342\n\n 93. Cyrenaic cup with Kyrene _Brit. Mus._ 344\n\n 94. Naukratis fragment with \u201cmixed _Brit. Mus._\n technique\u201d 346\n\n 95. \u201cEgyptian situla\u201d from Daphnae _Brit. Mus._ 351\n\n 96. Kylix by Exekias _Wiener Vorl._ 381\n\n 97. Vase by Amasis: Perseus _Brit. Mus._\n slaying Medusa 382\n\n 98. Vase from Temple of Kabeiri _Brit. Mus._ 392\n\n 99. Diagram of rendering of eye on _Brit. Mus. Cat._\n Attic vase 408\n\n 100. Palmettes under handles (early _Jahrbuch_\n R.F.) 414\n\n 101. Palmettes under handles (later _Riegl_\n R.F.) 415\n\n 102. Development of maeander and _Brit. Mus. Cat._\n cross pattern 416\n\n 103. Krater of Polygnotan style: _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._\n Slaying of Niobids (Louvre) 442\n\n 104. Boeotian kylix _Brit. Mus._ 452\n\n 105. Burlesque scene: Herakles and _Jahrbuch_\n Auge 474\n\n 106. Apulian sepulchral vase _Brit. Mus._ 477\n\n 107. Vase by Assteas in Madrid _Baumeister_ 480\n\n 108. Lucanian krater: Departure of _Brit. Mus._\n warrior 482\n\n 109. Hydria with opaque painting on _Brit. Mus._\n black ground 489\n\n 110. Phiale with Latin inscription _Brit. Mus._ 490\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY\n\n PART I\n\n PERIODICALS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT\n\n_American Journal of Archaeology._ Baltimore and Boston, 1885, etc. In\n progress. (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._)\n\n_Annali dell\u2019 Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome, 1829\u201385.\n (_Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in\n _R\u00e9pertoire des Vases_, vol. i. (1899).\n\n_Annual of the British School at Athens._ London, 1894, etc. In\n progress. (_Brit. School Annual._)\n\n_Antike Denkm\u00e4ler_, herausgegeben vom kaiserl. deutschen Institut.\n Berlin, 1887, etc. In progress. A supplementary atlas to the\n _Jahrbuch_. (_Ant. Denkm._)\n\n_Archaeologia_, or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity. London,\n 1770, etc. Issued by the Society of Antiquaries. In progress.\n\n_Archaeological Journal_, issued by the Royal Archaeological Institute.\n London, 1845, etc. In progress. Numerous articles on Roman pottery,\n etc. in Britain. (_Arch. Journ._)\n\n_Archaeologische Zeitung._ Berlin, 1843\u201385. Vols. vii.\u2013xxv. have the\n secondary title _Denkm\u00e4ler, Forschungen und Berichte_. (_Arch.\n Zeit._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_,\n vol. i. (1899).\n\n_Archaeologischer Anzeiger._ Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress; a\n supplement bound up with the _Jahrbuch_ (new acquisitions of\n museums, reports of meetings, etc.). (_Arch. Anzeiger._)\n\n_Archaeologische-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn._\n Vienna, 1877\u201397. Now superseded by _Jahreshefte_. (_Arch.-epigr.\n Mitth. aus Oesterr._)\n\n_Athenische Mittheilungen._ Athens, 1876, etc. In progress. Organ of\n the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. (_Ath. Mitth._)\n\n_Berichte der s\u00e4chsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften._ Leipzig,\n 1846, etc. In progress. Important articles by O. Jahn, 1853\u201367.\n (_Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._)\n\n_Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher. Jahrb\u00fccher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im\n Rheinlande._ Bonn, 1842, etc. In progress. Important for notices of\n pottery, etc., found in Germany, and for recent articles by\n Dragendorff and others on Roman pottery (Arretine and provincial\n wares, vols. xcvi., ci., cii., ciii.). (_Bonner Jahrb._)\n\n_Bulletin de Correspondance Hell\u00e9nique._ Athens and Paris, 1877, etc.\n In progress. (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._)\n\n_Bullettino archeologico Napolitano._ Naples, 1842\u201362. Ser. i. 1842\u201348.\n New ser. 1853\u201362. Re-edited by S. Reinach, 1899. (_Bull. Arch.\n Nap._)\n\n_Bullettino dell\u2019 Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,\n 1829\u201385. Chiefly records of discoveries in Italy and elsewhere.\n (_Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._)\n\n_Classical Review._ London, 1887, etc. In progress. Reviews of\n archaeological books and records of discoveries.\n\n_Comptes-Rendus de la Commission imp\u00e9riale arch\u00e9ologique._ Petersburg,\n 1859\u201388. Edited by L. Stephani. With folio atlas, re-edited by S.\n Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. i. (1899). (Stephani,\n _Comptes-Rendus_.)\n\n\u1f18\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. Athens, 1883, etc. (new series). In progress.\n Plates of vases, 1883\u201394, re-edited by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_,\n vol. i. (1899). (\u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7.)\n\n_Gazette arch\u00e9ologique._ Paris, 1875\u201389. (_Gaz. Arch._)\n\n_Hermes._ Zeitschrift f\u00fcr classische Philologie. Berlin, 1866, etc. In\n progress.\n\n_Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts._\n Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress. With _Arch. Anzeiger (q.v.)_ as\n supplement and _Antike Denkm\u00e4ler (q.v.)_ as atlas. (_Jahrbuch._)\n\n_Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes._\n Vienna, 1898, etc. In progress. (_Jahreshefte._)\n\n_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ London, 1880, etc. In progress. With\n atlas in 4to of plates to vols. i.\u2013viii., and supplementary papers\n (No. 4 on Phylakopi). (_J.H.S._)\n\n_Journal of the British Archaeological Association._ London, 1845, etc.\n In progress. A few articles on Roman pottery in Britain. (_Journ.\n Brit. Arch. Assoc._)\n\n_Monumenti antichi_, pubblicati per cura della R. Accad. dei Lincei.\n Milan, 1890, etc. In progress. (_Mon. antichi._)\n\n_Monumenti inediti dell\u2019 Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._\n Rome, 1829\u201385 (with supplementary volume, 1891). Re-edited (the\n plates of vases) by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. i. (1899).\n (_Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._)\n\n_Monuments Grecs_, publi\u00e9s par l\u2019Association pour l\u2019encouragement des\n \u00c9tudes grecques. Paris, 1872\u201398. (_Mon. Grecs._)\n\n_Monuments Piot._ Fondation Eug\u00e8ne Piot. Monuments et m\u00e9moires publi\u00e9s\n par l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions. Paris, 1894, etc. In progress.\n\n_Museo italiano di antichit\u00e0 classica._ 3 vols. Florence, 1885\u201390.\n Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. i.\n (1899). (_Ath. Mitth._)\n\n_Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit\u00e0_, communicate alla R. Accademia dei\n Lincei. Rome and Milan, 1876, etc. In progress. Important as a\n record of recent discoveries in Italy and Sicily. (_Notizie degli\n Scavi._)\n\n_Philologus._ Zeitschrift f\u00fcr das klassische Alterthum. G\u00f6ttingen,\n 1846, etc. In progress. With occasional supplementary volumes.\n\n_Revue arch\u00e9ologique._ Paris, 1844, etc. In progress (four series, each\n numbered separately). (_Rev. Arch._)\n\n_R\u00f6mische Mittheilungen._ Rome, 1886, etc. In progress. Organ of German\n Institute at Rome. (_R\u00f6m. Mitth._)\n\n PART II\n\n WORKS ON GREEK VASES\n\nADAMEK (L.). _Unsignierte Vasen des Amasis._ Prague, 1895 (Prager\n Studien, Heft v.).\n\nAMELUNG (W.). _Personnificierung des Lebens in der Natur in den\n Vasenbildern der hellenistischen Zeit._ Munich, 1888. See also\n Florence.\n\nANDERSON (W. F. C.). See Engelmann and Schreiber.\n\n_Antiquit\u00e9s du Bosphore cimm\u00e9rien._ 3 vols. Petersburg, 1854, fol.\n Vases, etc., found in the Crimea. (Re-edited in 8vo by S. Reinach,\n 1892.)\n\nARNDT (P.). _Studien zur Vasenkunde._ Leipzig, 1887. Adopts Brunn\u2019s\n theory of the late Italian origin of black-figured vases.\n\n_Athens_ (National Museum). _Catalogue des Vases peints_, by M.\n COLLIGNON and L. COUVE. Paris, 1902. With atlas of photographic\n plates. The fragments from the Acropolis form the subject of a\n separate catalogue (in preparation).\n\n_Aus der Anomia._ Collected articles, some relating to vases. Berlin,\n 1890.\n\n\nBAUMEISTER (A.). _Denkm\u00e4ler des klassischen Alterthums._ 3 vols.\n Munich, 1884\u201388. Excellent illustrations of numerous vases\n accompanying the articles, which are arranged alphabetically in\n dictionary-form. The article _Vasenkunde_, by Von Rohden, is\n useful, but now somewhat out of date. (Baumeister.)\n\nBEGER (L.). _Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus._ 3 vols. K\u00f6ln, 1696,\n fol. Publishes vases belonging to the Elector of Brandenburg (see\n Vol. I. p. 16).\n\nBENNDORF (O.). _Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder._ Berlin,\n 1869\u201383, fol. Chiefly funerary vases and later fabrics. (Benndorf,\n _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._) See also _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_.\n\n_Berlin._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium_, by A.\n FURTWAENGLER. Berlin, 1885. 2 vols. With plates of shapes.\n\nBLOCH (L.). _Die zuschauenden G\u00f6tter in den rothfig. Vasengem\u00e4lden._\n Leipzig, 1888.\n\nBL\u00dcMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und K\u00fcnste._ 4\n vols. Leipzig, 1875\u201386. (Vol. ii. _Arbeit in Thon_, for pottery and\n terracottas; vol. iii. for building construction.) Out of date in\n some particulars, but still exceedingly useful, and fairly well\n illustrated. (Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_.)\n\nBOECKH (A.) and others. _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum._ 4 vols.\n Berlin, 1828\u201377, fol. Vol. iv. contains many vase-inscriptions.\n (Boeckh, _C.I.G._)\n\nB\u00d6HLAU (J.). _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen._ Leipzig, 1898,\n 4to. Indispensable for the study of Ionic vase-fabrics. (B\u00f6hlau,\n _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._)\n\n_Bologna_ (Museo Civico). _Catalogo dei vasi_, by G. PELLEGRINI.\n Bologna, 1900. (Plates and cuts.)\n\nBOLTE (J.). _De monumentis ad Odysseam pertinentibus capita selecta._\n Berlin, 1882, 8vo.\n\n_Bonn._ _Das akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn_, by R. KEKUL\u00c9. Bonn, 1872.\n\n_Bonner Studien._ Aufs\u00e4tze aus der Alterthumswissenschaft R. Kekul\u00e9\n gewidmet. Berlin, 1890. Collected papers, including several on\n Greek vases.\n\n_Boston._ _Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman vases in the Museum\n of Fine Arts._ Boston, 1893. By E. ROBINSON. Now withdrawn, owing\n to re-numbering and extensive subsequent accessions, for which see\n _Boston Museum Reports_ (below).\n\n_Boston Museum Reports_, 1895, etc. In progress from 1896. Issued\n annually, with full details of new acquisitions, describing many\n unique specimens. (_Boston Mus. Report._)\n\nB\u00d6TTIGER (C. A.). _Griechische Vasengem\u00e4lde._ Weimar and Magdeburg,\n 1797\u20131800.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Kleine Schriften._ 3 vols. Dresden, 1837\u201339.\n\n_Bourguignon Collection._ _Sale Catalogue_, 18 March 1901. Paris, 1901.\n (Best vases not included.)\n\nBRANTEGHEM (A. VAN). See Froehner.\n\n_British Museum._ _Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases._ Vol. i.,\n by C. Smith, in preparation. Vol. ii., Black-figured vases, by H.\n B. Walters (1893). Vol. iii., Red-figured vases, by C. Smith\n (1896). Vol. iv., Vases of the later period, by H. B. Walters\n (1896). (Referred to as _B. M. Cat. of Vases_, or B.M. with number\n of vase.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Designs on Greek Vases_, by A. S. Murray and C. Smith. 1894, fol.\n (Plates of interiors of R.F. kylikes.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _White Athenian Vases_, by A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. 1896, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. 1898, fol. (The sarcophagi\n from Clazomenae, Kameiros, and Cervetri; see Chapters VIII. and\n XVIII.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Excavations in Cyprus_ (Enkomi, Curium, Amathus). 1900. By A. S.\n Murray, H. B. Walters, and A. H. Smith.\n\nBR\u00d6NDSTED (P. O.). _A brief description of 32 ancient Greek painted\n vases, lately found at Vulci by M. Campanari._ London, 1832, 8vo.\n\nBRONGNIART (A.). _Trait\u00e9 des Arts C\u00e9ramiques_, ou des Poteries\n consider\u00e9es dans leur Histoire, leur Pratique, et leur Th\u00e9orie. 3rd\n edn., 1877. 2 vols., with Atlas. (Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_.) See also\n S\u00e8vres.\n\nBRUNN (H.). _Geschichte der griechischen K\u00fcnstler._ 2 vols. Stuttgart,\n 1859. The second volume has some account of the vase-painters then\n known.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1871, 4to.\n Theory of Italian origin of B.F. vases.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Neue Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1886.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Griechische Kunstgeschichte._ 2 vols. (incomplete). Munich,\n 1893\u201397. Deals with some of the earlier fabrics.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Kleine Schriften._ Vol. i. Leipzig, 1898. In progress. See also Lau.\n\nBULLE (H.). _Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst._ Munich, 1893.\n\n_Burlington Fine Arts Club._ _Catalogue of objects of Greek Ceramic\n Art_ (exhibited in 1888), by W. Froehner. (Mostly vases from\n Branteghem Collection.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Catalogue of Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art_, 1903, by E. Strong\n and others. A revised _\u00e9dition de luxe_ (1904) with plates.\n\n\n_Cambridge_ (Fitzwilliam Museum). _A Catalogue of the Greek vases in\n the Fitzwilliam Museum_, by E. A. GARDNER. Cambridge, 1897. With\n plates.\n\nCANESSA (C. and E.). _Collection d\u2019Antiquit\u00e9s_, \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Drouot, 11\n May 1903, 4to. Paris, 1903. A sale catalogue of an anonymous\n collection containing several interesting vases.\n\nCANINO (Prince Lucien Bonaparte of). _Mus\u00e9um \u00c9trusque de L. Bonaparte,\n prince de Canino._ Fouilles de 1828 \u00e0 1829. Vases peints avec\n inscriptions. Viterbo, 1829, 4to. With atlas of plates, of which\n only one part was published.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Catalogo di scelte Antichit\u00e0 Etrusche trovate negli Scavi del Pr.\n di Canino_, 1828\u201329. Viterbo, 1829, 4to.\n\nCAYLUS (A. C. P. de). _Recueil d\u2019antiquit\u00e9s \u00e9gyptiennes, \u00e9trusques,\n grecques et romaines._ 7 vols. Paris, 1752\u201367, 4to. (Vases given in\n vols. i. and ii.)\n\nCESNOLA (L. P. di). _Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs, and temples._\n (With a chapter on the pottery, by A. S. Murray.) London, 1877, 8vo.\n\nCHRISTIE (J.). _Disquisitions upon the Painted Vases_, and their\n connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries. London, 1825, 4to. (See\n Vol. I. p. 21.)\n\nCOLLIGNON (M.). See Athens, Rayet.\n\n_Commentationes philologae in honorem T. Mommseni._ Berlin, 1877, 4to.\n Several useful papers on vases.\n\nCONZE (A.). _Melische Thongef\u00e4sse._ Leipzig, 1862. Folio plates.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Zur Geschichte der Anf\u00e4nge griechischer Kunst._ Vienna, 1870, 8vo.\n See also _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_.\n\nCOREY (A. D.). _De Amazonum antiquissimis figuris._ Berlin, 1891, 8vo.\n\nCOUVE (L.). See Athens.\n\n\nDAREMBERG (C.) and SAGLIO (E.), and subsequently E. POTTIER.\n _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines._ Paris, 1873,\n etc. In progress (to M in 1904). (Daremberg and Saglio.) Special\n reference should be made to the articles Figlinum, Forma, Lucerna,\n and those on vase-shapes. The bibliographies are very exhaustive.\n\nDENNIS (G.). _The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria._ 2 vols. London,\n 1878 (2nd edn.), 8vo. Introductory matter on vases antiquated;\n useful as record of discoveries, etc. (Dennis, _Etruria_.)\n\nDES VERGERS (N.). _\u00c9trurie et les \u00c9trusques._ 2 vols. and atlas. Paris,\n 1862\u201364. Some fine vases published.\n\nDISNEY (J.). _Museum Disneianum_, being a description of a collection\n of various ancient fictile vases in the possession of J. D. (now at\n Cambridge). London, 1846, 4to.\n\nDUBOIS-MAISONNEUVE (A.). _Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des vases antiques\n d\u2019argile peints._ Paris, 1817, fol. (Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._)\n\nDUMONT (A.). _Inscriptions c\u00e9ramiques de Gr\u00e8ce._ Paris, 1872, 8vo.\n (Inscriptions on handles of wine-amphorae.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Vases peints de la Gr\u00e8ce propre._ Paris, 1873. (Reprinted from the\n _Gazette des Beaux Arts_.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Les C\u00e9ramiques de la Gr\u00e8ce propre_; histoire de la peinture des\n vases grecs depuis les origines jusqu'au V. si\u00e8cle avant\n J\u00e9sus-Christ. Illustrations by J. Chaplain. Revised by E. Pottier.\n 2 vols. Paris, 1888\u201390. Vol. i., on earlier vase fabrics (now\n becoming out of date); plates mostly of later vases. Vol. ii.,\n miscellaneous papers (vases, terracottas, etc.). (Dumont-Pottier.)\n\n\nENDT (J.). _Beitr\u00e4ge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei._ Prague, 1899, 8vo.\n (Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._)\n\nENGELMANN (R.). _Bilder-Atlas zum Homer._ Leipzig, 1889. Translated by\n W. F. C. Anderson: _Pictorial Atlas to Homer\u2019s Iliad and Odyssey_,\n London, 1892. (Engelmann-Anderson.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Archaeologische Studien zu den Tragikern._ Berlin, 1900. _Eranos\n Vindobonensis_ (collected papers). Vienna, 1893, 8vo.\n\n\nFEA (C.). _Storia dei vasi fittili dipinti_ che si trovano nell\u2019 antica\n Etruria. Rome, 1832. (Dealing with \u201cEtruscan\u201d theory.)\n\n_Festschrift f\u00fcr Johannes Overbeck_ (collected papers). Leipzig, 1893,\n 4to.\n\n_Festschrift f\u00fcr Otto Benndorf zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet_\n (collected papers). Vienna, 1898, 4to.\n\nFIORELLI (G.). _Notizia dei vasi dipinti rinvenuti a Cuma nel 1856._\n Naples, 1857. Plates reproduced in _Bull. Arch. Nap._ (_q.v._).\n\nFLASCH (A.). _Angebliche Argonautenbilder._ Munich, 1870.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die Polychromie der griechischen Vasenbilder._ W\u00fcrzburg, 1875.\n\n_Florence._ _F\u00fchrer durch die Antiken in Florenz_, by W. AMELUNG.\n Munich, 1897.\n\nF\u00d6RSTER (P. R.). _Hochzeit des Zeus und der Hera_, Relief der\n Schaubert\u2019schen Sammlung in .... Breslau. Breslau, 1867, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Der Raub und die R\u00fcckkehr der Persephone._ Stuttgart, 1873.\n\nFROEHNER (W.). _Choix de vases grecs in\u00e9dits de la collection du Prince\n Napol\u00e9on._ Paris, 1867, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Deux peintures de vases grecs de la n\u00e9cropole de Kameiros._ Paris,\n 1871, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Mus\u00e9es de France._ Recueil de monuments antiques. Paris, 1873, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Collection de M. Albert B_(_arre_). Paris, 1878, 4to. (Sale\n catalogue.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Collection Eug\u00e8ne Piot_, Antiquit\u00e9s. Paris, 1890. (Sale catalogue.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Collection van Branteghem._ Brussels, 1892, fol., with plates.\n (Sale catalogue.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Collection d\u2019antiquit\u00e9s du Comte Michael Tyszkiewicz._ Paris, 1898.\n (Sale catalogue.)\n\n And see Burlington Fine Arts Club, Marseilles Mus.\n\nFURTWAENGLER (A.). _Eros in der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1875, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Collection Sabouroff._ 2 vols. (the first giving vases). Berlin,\n 1883\u201387, 4to. (Also a German edition; the vases now in Berlin.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Orpheus, Attische Vase aus Gela_ (in _50tes\n Winckelmannsfestprogr._, 1890).\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Neuere F\u00e4lschungen von Antiken._ Munich, 1899, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 and LOESCHCKE (G.). _Mykenische Thongef\u00e4sse._ Berlin, 1879, obl. fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 _Mykenische Vasen_: Vorhellenische Thongef\u00e4sse aus dem Gebiete\n des Mittelmeeres. Berlin, 1886, 4to, with atlas in fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 and REICHHOLD (C.). _Die griechische Vasenmalerei_, Auswahl\n hervorragender Vasenbilder. Munich, 1900, etc. Text by A. F. and C.\n R.; plates (separate) by C. R. And see Berlin, Genick.\n\n\nGARDNER (E. A.). See Cambridge, Naukratis.\n\nGARDNER (P.). See Oxford.\n\nGARGIULO (R.). _Cenni sulla maniera di rinvenire i vasi fittili\n Italo-Greci._ Naples, 1831; 2nd edn., 1843.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Raccolta de Monumenti pi\u00f9 interessanti del Real Mus. Borb._ Naples,\n 1825\u20133-. 2 vols. of plates.\n\nGENICK (A.) and FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Griechische Keramik._ 4to. Tafeln\n ausgew\u00e4hlt und aufgenommen von A. G., mit Einleitung und\n Beschreibung von A. F. 2nd edn. Berlin, 1883, 4to.\n\nGERHARD (E.). _Antike Bildwerke._ Munich, 1828\u201344. Text in 8vo and\n plates in fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Berlins antike Bildwerke._ Berlin, 1836, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Griechische und etruskische Trinkschalen_ des k\u00f6nigl. Museums zu\n Berlin. Berlin, 1840, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder._ 4 vols. Berlin, 1840\u201358.\n (Gerhard, _A. V._) Re-edited by S. Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. ii.\n (1900).\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Etruskische und campanische Vasenbilder_ des k\u00f6nigl. Museums zu\n Berlin. Berlin, 1843, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Apulische Vasenbilder_ des k\u00f6nigl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1845,\n fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Trinkschalen und Gef\u00e4sse_ des k\u00f6nigl. Museums zu Berlin und anderer\n Sammlungen. Berlin, 1848\u201350, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Gesammelte akademische Abhandlungen und kleine Schriften._ 2 vols.\n in 8vo and atlas in 4to. Berlin, 1866\u201368. (Chiefly papers on\n mythology, illustrated by vases.)\n\nGIRARD (P.). _La Peinture antique._ Paris, 1892. Vases as illustrative\n of Greek painting.\n\nGORI (A. F.). _Museum Etruscum._ 3 vols. Florence, 1737\u201343, fol.\n\nGSELL (S.). _Fouilles dans la n\u00e9cropole de Vulci_, ex\u00e9cut\u00e9es et\n publi\u00e9es aux frais de Prince Torlonia. Paris, 1891, 4to.\n\n\nHANCARVILLE (P. F. HUGUES, _pseud._ D\u2019). _Antiquit\u00e9s \u00e9trusques,\n grecques, et romaines_, tir\u00e9es du cabinet de M. Hamilton. 4 vols.\n folio, 1766\u201367.\n\nHARRISON (JANE E.). _Myths of the Odyssey in art and literature._\n London, 1882, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_ (with translation from\n Pausanias, by M. de G. Verrall). London, 1890. Introduction\n important for vases relating to Attic cults.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Prolegomena to Greek Religion._ Cambridge, 1903. Numerous vases\n interpreted with reference to mythology and religion.\n\n\u2014\u2014 and MACCOLL (D. S.). _Greek Vase-paintings._ London, 1894.\n\n_Harrow School Museum._ Catalogue of the classical antiquities from the\n collection of the late Sir G. Wilkinson, by CECIL TORR. Harrow,\n 1887, 8vo.\n\nHARTWIG (P.). _Die griechischen Meisterschalen des strengen\n rothfigurigen Stils._ Stuttgart, 1893, 4to, with atlas in fol.\n Invaluable for a study of cups of R.F. period.\n\nHELBIG (W.). _Das homerische Epos, aus den Denkm\u00e4lern erlautert._ 2nd\n edn. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. (Vases used to illustrate civilisation of\n Homeric poems.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Les vases du Dipylon et les naucraries._ Paris, 1898, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer\n schwarzfigurigen Schale._ Munich, 1898, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Les_ \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 _Ath\u00e9niens_. Paris, 1902, 4to. And see Rome.\n\nHERMANN (P.). _Das Gr\u00e4berfeld von Marion auf Cypern._ Berlin, 1888,\n 4to. An account of the finds by O. Richter and others at Poli,\n Cyprus. (_48tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)\n\nHEYDEMANN (H.). _Iliupersis auf einer Trinkschale des Brygos._ Berlin,\n 1866, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Humoristische Vasenbilder aus Unteritalien._ Berlin, 1870. (_30tes\n Winckelmannsfestprogr._)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Griechische Vasenbilder._ Berlin, 1870, fol. (Chiefly vases at\n Athens.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Nereiden mit den Waffen des Achill._ Halle, 1879, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Satyr und Bakchennamen._ Halle, 1880. (5tes hallische\n Festprogr.). Numerous other monographs, chiefly Hallische or\n Winckelmannsfestprogramme. And see Naples.\n\nHIRSCHFELD (G.). _Athena und Marsyas._ Berlin, 1872.\n\nHOPPIN (J. C.). _Euthymides_; a study in Attic vase-painting. Leipzig,\n 1896.\n\nHUDDILSTON (J. H.). _Greek Tragedy in the light of vase-paintings._\n London and New York, 1892.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Lessons from Greek Pottery._ London and New York, 1902. With\n bibliography.\n\n\nINGHIRAMI (F.). _Monimenti etruschi o di etrusco nome._ Ser. 5. Vasi\n fittili. Fiesole, 1824, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Galeria Omerica._ 3 vols. Fiesole, 1831\u201336.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Etrusco Museo Chiusino._ 2 vols. Fiesole, 1832\u201334, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Pitture di vasi fittili._ 4 vols. Fiesole, 1833\u201337.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Pitture di vase etruschi._ 4 vols. Florence, 1852\u201356. (A second\n edition of the preceding work.)\n\n\nJAHN (O.). _Telephos und Troilos._ Kiel, 1841, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Ueber Darstellungen griechischer Dichter auf Vasenbildern._\n Leipzig, 1861. (From _Abhandl. des s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ viii.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Archaeologische Aufs\u00e4tze._ Greifswald, 1845, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Archaeologische Beitr\u00e4ge._Berlin, 1847, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung K\u00f6nigs Ludwigs in der Pinakothek zu\n M\u00fcnchen._ Munich, 1854, 8vo. (_Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen._) The\n _Einleitung_ (Introduction) gives a r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of the whole subject.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Ueber bemalte Vasen mit Goldschmuck._ Leipzig, 1865, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die Entf\u00fchrung der Europa_ auf antiken Kunstwerken. Vienna, 1870,\n 4to.\n\nJATTA (G.). _Catalogo del Museo Jatta_ (at Ruvo). Naples, 1869, 8vo.\n\n\n_Karlsruhe. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung der grossherzoglichen\n vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe_, by H. WINNEFELD. 1887, 8vo.\n\nKARO (G.). _De arte vascularia antiquissima quaestiones._ Bonn, 1896,\n 8vo.\n\nKEKUL\u00c9 (R. VON, now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). See Bonn.\n\nKIRCHHOFF (A.). _Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets._\n 4th edn. G\u00fctersloh, 1887.\n\nKLEIN (W.). _Euphronios_; eine Studie zur Geschichte der griechischen\n Malerei. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1886, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen._ 2nd edn. Vienna,\n 1887, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften._ 2nd edn. Vienna,\n 1898.\n\nKNAPP (P.). _Nike in der Vasenmalerei._ T\u00fcbingen, 1876, 8vo.\n\n _Kopenhagen. De malede Vaser i Antikkabinettet i Kj\u00f6benhavn_.\n Kopenhagen, 1862. Catalogue of the vases, by S. Birket Smith.\n (Referred to as Kopenhagen, with number of vase.)\n\nKRAMER (G.). _Ueber den Styl und die Herkunft der bemalten griechischen\n Thongef\u00e4sse._ Berlin, 1837.\n\nKRAUSE (J. H.). _Angeiologie._ Halle, 1854, 8vo. (Study of vase-shapes\n and their names.)\n\nKRETSCHMER (P.). _Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach\n untersucht._ G\u00fctersloh, 1894.\n\n\nLA BORDE (A. DE). _Collection des vases grecs de M. le Comte de\n Lambert._ 2 vols. Paris, 1813\u201328, fol. The vases are now at Vienna.\n Re-edited by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. ii. (1900).\n\nLA CHAUSSE (M. A. de = Caussius). _Romanum Museum._ Rome, 1690; 3rd\n edn., 1746.\n\nLANZI (L.). _Dei vasi antichi dipinti volgarmente chiamati Etruschi._\n Florence, 1806.\n\nLAU (TH.), BRUNN (H.), and KRELL (P.). _Die griechischen Vasen, ihre\n Formen und Decorationssystem._ Plates and text. From originals at\n Munich. Leipzig, 1877. (Brunn-Lau, Gr. Vasen.)\n\nLENORMANT (C.) and DE WITTE (J.). _\u00c9lite des monuments\n c\u00e9ramographiques._ 4 vols. Paris, 1837\u201361, 4to. (_\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._)\n\nLETRONNE (J. A.). _Observations sur les noms de vases grecs._ Paris,\n 1833.\n\n_London._ See British Museum.\n\nLONGP\u00c9RIER (H. A. PR\u00c9VOST DE). _Mus\u00e9e Napol\u00e9on III._ Choix de monuments\n antiques ... Texte explicatif par A. de L. Paris, unfinished,\n 1868\u201374, 4to.\n\n_Louvre._ See Paris.\n\nL\u00dcTZOW (C. VON). _Zur Geschichte des Ornaments an den bemalten\n griechischen Thongef\u00e4ssen._ Munich, 1858.\n\nLUYNES (H. D\u2019A. DE). _Description de quelques vases peints_, \u00e9trusques,\n italiotes, siciliens et grecs. Paris, 1840, fol. The vases are now\n in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale. Re-edited by S. Reinach,\n _R\u00e9pertoire_, ii, (1900).\n\n\nMACCOLL (D. S.). See Harrison.\n\nMACPHERSON (D.). _Antiquities of Kertch_, and researches in the\n Cimmerian Bosphorus, etc. London, 1857, 4to. (Discoveries in the\n Crimea.)\n\n_Madrid_ (Museo arquelogico nacional). _Catalogo del Museo_, by A. G.\n Gutierrez and J. de D. de la Rada y Delgado. Part i. Madrid, 1883,\n 8vo.\n\n_Marseilles._ _Catalogue des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines du Mus\u00e9e_,\n by W. FROEHNER. 1897.\n\nMARTHA (J.). _L'Art \u00c9trusque._ Paris, 1889, 4to.\n\nMASNER (K.). See Vienna.\n\nMAYER (M.). _Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst._\n Berlin, 1886.\n\n_M\u00e9langes Perrot._ Paris, 1902, 4to. (Collected papers in honour of\n Perrot.) (Recueil de m\u00e9moires concernant l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie classique,\n la litt\u00e9rature, et l\u2019histoire anciennes, dedi\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Perrot.)\n\nMICALI (G.). _Storia degli antichi popoli Italiani._ 3 tom. Firenze,\n 1832, 8vo. With atlas entitled _Monumenti per servire alla storia_,\n etc. Fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 _Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia degli antichi\n popoli italiani._ Florence, 1844, 8vo, plates in fol. Vases found\n in Etruria. (Micali, _Mon. Ined._)\n\nMILCHHOEFER (A.). _Die Anf\u00e4nge der Kunst in Griechenland._ Leipzig,\n 1883, 8vo.\n\nMILLIET (P.). _\u00c9tudes sur les premi\u00e8res p\u00e9riodes de la c\u00e9ramique\n grecque._ Paris, 1891.\n\nMILLIN (A. L.). _Peintures des vases antiques._ 2 vols. Paris, 1808\u201310,\n fol. The _Introduction_ of Dubois-Maisonneuve (_q.v._) was\n published uniform with this. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to, Paris,\n 1891. (Millin-Reinach.)\n\nMILLINGEN (F.). _Ancient Unedited Monuments_ of Grecian Art. 2 vols. in\n one. London, 1822\u201326. (Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Monum._)\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 _Peintures antiques de vases grecs, tir\u00e9es de diverses\n collections._ Rome, 1813, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to,\n Paris, 1891. (Millingen-Reinach.)\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 _Peintures antiques de vases grecs de la collection de Sir J.\n Coghill._ Rome, 1817, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in _R\u00e9pertoire_,\n ii. (1900).\n\nMORGENTHAU (J. C.). _Ueber den Zusammenhang der Bilder auf griechischen\n Vasen._ I. Die schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Leipzig, 1886. 8vo.\n\nMOSES (H.). _A collection of antique vases, etc._, from various museums\n and collections. London, 1814.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 _Vases from the collection of Sir Henry Englefield._ London, 1848.\n\nMUELLER (E.). _Drei griechische Vasenbilder._ Zurich, 1887. 4to.\n\nM\u00dcLLER (K. O.). _Denkm\u00e4ler der Alten Kunst._ 1832\u201369, obl. fol. 2 vols.\n (2nd re-edited by F. Wiestler).\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 Theil ii. 3rd edn., 1877. Text 4to; plates, 1881, obl. fol.\n\n_Munich._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung K\u00f6nig Ludwigs in der\n Pinakothek_, by O. JAHN. Munich, 1855. With admirable introduction.\n See also the guide (_F\u00fchrer_) published in 1895. A new catalogue by\n Furtwaengler said to be in progress.\n\nMURRAY (A. S.). _Handbook of Greek Archaeology._ London, 1892. (Chaps.\n i. and ii. deal with vases.) And see British Museum.\n\n_Museo Borbonico._ Naples, 1824\u201357. 16 vols., 4to. Illustrations of the\n collections in the Naples Museum (Real Museo Borbonico). See also\n Gargiulo.\n\n_Museo Gregoriano._ Museo Etrusci ... in Aedibus Vaticanis ...\n Monumenta. 2 vols. (vases in 2nd). Rome, 1842, fol. (_Mus. Greg._)\n\nMYRES, J. L. See Nicosia.\n\n\n_Naples._ _Die Vasensammlungen des Museo Nazionale zu Neapel_, by H.\n HEYDEMANN. Berlin, 1872. See also Gargiulo, Museo Borbonico.\n\n_Naukratis, I._ and _II._ Third and Sixth Memoirs of the Egypt\n Exploration Fund, by W. M. Flinders Petrie, E. A. Gardner, etc.\n London, 1886\u201388. Plates of pottery found at Naukratis, discussed in\n text by C. Smith and E. A. Gardner.\n\n_Nicosia_ (Cyprus Museum). _A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum_, by J. L.\n MYRES and M. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER. Oxford, 1899.\n\n\nOHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.). _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer._ 2 vols., text\n and plates. Berlin, 1893. Also a German edition. Useful for\n collected examples of Cypriote pottery and terracottas. See also\n Nicosia.\n\nOVERBECK (J.). _Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und troischen\n Heldenkreis._ 2 vols., text and atlas. Brunswick and Stuttgart,\n 1853\u201357. Lists of vases illustrating Theban and Trojan legends.\n (Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Griechische Kunstmythologie._ Vols. ii.\u2013iv. only published (Zeus,\n Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Apollo, and myths connected with them).\n Leipzig, 1871\u201389. With atlas in fol. (Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._)\n\n_Oxford_ (Ashmolean Museum). _Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the\n Ashmolean Museum_, by P. Gardner. Oxford, 1893. With coloured\n plates.\n\n\nPANOFKA (T.). _Vasi di premio illustrati._ Florence, 1826.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Mus\u00e9e Blacas._ Paris, 1829, fol. Vases mostly in B.M.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Recherches sur les v\u00e9ritables noms des vases grecs._ Paris, 1829.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Antiques du cabinet du comte Pourtal\u00e8s-Gorgier._ Paris, 1834, 4to.\n (Panofka, _Cab. Pourtal\u00e8s_.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Bilder antiken Lebens._ Berlin, 1843, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Griechinnen und Griechen nach Antiken skizzirt._ Berlin, 1844, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Der Vasenbilder Panphaios._ Berlin, 1848.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Von den Namen der Vasenbildner in Beziehung zu ihren bildlichen\n Darstellungen._ Berlin, 1849, 4to.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die griechischen Eigennamen mit_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 in Zusammenhang mit dem\n Bilderschmuck auf bemalten Gef\u00e4ssen. Berlin, 1850.\n\n (And many other pamphlets with publication of vases, chiefly from\n the mythological point of view, but now out of date.)\n\n_Paris_ (Louvre). _Catalogue des vases antiques de terre cuite_, by E.\n POTTIER. Paris, 1896, etc. In progress (two volumes issued, dealing\n with earlier fabrics). With accompanying atlas of photographic\n plates (2 vols., down to Euphronios).\n\n_Paris_ (Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale). _Catalogue des vases dans le Cabinet\n des M\u00e9dailles_, by A. DE RIDDER. Paris, 1901\u201302. 2 vols. With\n plates.\n\nPASSERI (J. B.). _Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis._ 3 vols. Rome,\n 1767\u201375, fol.\n\nPATRONI (G.). _Ceramica antica nell\u2019 Italia meridionale._ Naples, 1897.\n A useful study of Greek and local fabrics of Southern Italy.\n\nPELLEGRINI (G.). See Bologna.\n\nPERROT (G.) and CHIPIEZ (C.). _Histoire de l\u2019art dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9._\n (Text by Perrot, plates by Chipiez.) In progress: 8 vols, published\n in 1882\u20131904. Vol. iii., Cypriote pottery; vol. vi., Mycenaean;\n vol. vii., Dipylon. (Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art._)\n\n_Petersburg._ _Vasensammlung der kaiserlichen Ermitage_, by L.\n STEPHANI. Petersburg, 1869. 2 vols.\n\nPOLLAK (L.). _Zwei Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierons._ Leipzig, 1900.\n\nPOTTIER (E.). _\u00c9tude sur les l\u00e9cythes blancs attiques \u00e0 repr\u00e9sentations\n fun\u00e9raires._ Paris, 1883, 8vo. (Biblioth\u00e8que des \u00c9coles fran\u00e7aises,\n No. 30.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _La peinture industrielle chez les Grecs._ Paris, 1898, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 and REINACH (S.). _La N\u00e9cropole de Myrina._ 2 vols. Paris, 1887.\n\n See also Daremberg, Dumont, Paris.\n\n\nRAOUL-ROCHETTE. _Monumens in\u00e9dits d\u2019antiquit\u00e9 figur\u00e9e._ Paris, 1833,\n fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Peintures antiques in\u00e9dites._ Paris, 1836, 4to.\n\nRAVESTEIN (E. DE M. DE). _Mus\u00e9e de Ravestein_; Catalogue descriptif. 2\n vols. Li\u00e8ge, 1871\u201372, 8vo.\n\nRAYET (O.) and COLLIGNON (M.). _Histoire de la c\u00e9ramique grecque._\n Paris, 1888. (More or less popular, and becoming out of date; well\n illustrated.) (Rayet and Collignon.)\n\nREINACH (S.). _Chroniques d\u2019Orient._ Paris, 1891\u201396. 2 vols. Reprinted\n from the _Revue Arch\u00e9ol._ (1883\u201395). Notes of discoveries, etc.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _R\u00e9pertoire des Vases Peints._ Paris, 1899\u20131900. 2 vols. An\n invaluable re-editing, with outline reductions of the plates, of\n many publications of vases, with bibliographical notes and\n explanations appended. See Laborde, de Luynes, Tischbein, etc., and\n list of periodicals. (Referred to as _Reinach_, with number of\n volume and page. In Chapters XII.-XV. the references are all to\n this publication in preference to the original works.)\n\n See also Millin, Millingen, _Ant. du Bosph. Cimm._, and Pottier.\n\nREISCH (E.). See Rome.\n\nRIDDER (A. DE). See Paris.\n\nRIEGL (A.). _Stilfragen._ Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der\n Ornamentik. Berlin, 1893, 8vo. A valuable study of early vegetable\n ornament on vases.\n\nROBERT (C.). _Thanatos._ Berlin, 1879, 4to. (_39tes\n Winckelmannsfestprogr._)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Bild und Lied._ Berlin, 1881, 8vo. On the relation of\n vase-paintings to the Homeric poems.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Archaeologische M\u00e4rchen_ aus alter und neuer Zeit. Berlin, 1886,\n 8vo. Papers on various subjects, more or less controversial.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Homerische Becher._ (_50tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1890.\n\nROBERT (C). _Scenen der Ilias und Aithiopis_ auf einer Vase der\n Sammlung des Grafen M. Tyszkiewicz. Halle, 1891, fol. (_15tes Hall.\n Winckelmannsprogr._)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die Nekyiades Polygnot._ Halle, 1892. (_16tes Hallisches\n Festprog._; a restoration of the painting on the basis of vases.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die Iliupersis des Polygnot._ Halle, 1893. (_17tes Hallisches\n Festprogr._; dealing similarly with that painting.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile_ und weiteres \u00fcber Polygnot.\n (_18tes Hallisches Festprogr._) Halle, 1895.\n\nROBERTS (E. S.). _An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy._ Part i. The\n archaic inscriptions and the Greek alphabet. Cambridge, 1887, 8vo.\n\nROBINSON (E.). See Boston.\n\nROEHL (H.). _Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae_ praeter Atticas in\n Attica repertas. Berlin, 1882, fol. (Roehl, _I.G.A._)\n\nROHDEN (H. VON). See Baumeister.\n\n_Rome_ (Vatican, Museo Gregoriano). _F\u00fchrer durch die \u00f6ffentlichen\n Sammlungen in Rom_, by W. HELBIG and E. REISCH. 2nd edn., 1899. 2\n vols. In vol. ii. is given a full description of the best vases\n (about 250) in this collection; they are quoted as Helbig 1, 2, 3,\n etc., according to the numbers of the book. See also _Museo\n Gregoriano_.\n\nROSCHER (W. H.). _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon der griechischen und r\u00f6mischen\n Mythologie._ Leipzig, 1884, etc. In progress (down to P in 1904).\n Many vases published in the later parts.\n\nROSS (L.). _Reisen auf die griechischen Inseln des \u00e4g\u00e4ischen Meeres._\n Halle, 1840\u201352, 4 vols., 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Archaeologische Aufs\u00e4tze._ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1855\u201361. With plates in\n fol.\n\nROULEZ (J.). _Choix de vases peints du Mus\u00e9e d\u2019antiquit\u00e9s de Leyde._\n Gand, 1854. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. ii., 1900.\n\n_Ruvo_ (Museo Jatta). See Jatta.\n\n\nSALZMANN (A). _N\u00e9cropole de Camiros_. Paris, 1866\u201375, fol. Plates only.\n\nSCHLIEMANN (H.). See Vol. I. p. 269.\n\nSCHNEIDER (A.). _Der troische Sagenkreis in der \u00e4lteren griechischen\n Kunst._ Leipzig, 1886.\n\nSCHNEIDER (F. J.). _Die zw\u00f6lf K\u00e4mpfe des Herakles in der \u00e4lteren\n griechischen Kunst._ Leipzig, 1888.\n\nSCHNEIDER (R.). _Die Geburt der Athena._ Vienna, 1880, 8vo.\n\nSCH\u00d6NE (R.). _Le antichit\u00e0 del Museo Bocchi di Adria._ Rome, 1878, 4to.\n\nSCHREIBER (TH.) and ANDERSON (W. C. F.). _Atlas of Classical\n Antiquities._ London, 1895, obl. 8vo. (Schreiber-Anderson.)\n\nSCHULZ (H. W.). _Die Amazonenvase von Ruvo_, erkl\u00e4rt und in\n Kunsthistorischer Beziehung betrachtet. Leipzig, 1851, fol. See\n Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. ii.\n\n_S\u00e8vres Museum._ _Description m\u00e9thodique du Mus\u00e9e C\u00e9ramique de S\u00e8vres_,\n by A. BRONGNIART and D. RIOCREUX. Paris, 1845. 2 vols., with atlas\n of plates.\n\nSITTL (K.). _Die Phineusschale und \u00e4hnliche Vasen mit bemalten\n Flachreliefs._ W\u00fcrzburg, 1892.\n\nSMITH (A. H.). See British Museum.\n\nSMITH (CECIL). _Catalogue of the Forman Collection of Antiquities_\n (illustrated). London, 1899. And see British Museum.\n\nSMITH (S. B.). See Kopenhagen.\n\nSTACKELBERG (O. M. VON). _Die Gr\u00e4ber der Hellenen._ Berlin, 1836, fol.\n\nSTEPHANI (L.). See Petersburg and _Compte-Rendu._\n\n_Strena Helbigiana._ (Collected papers in honour of W. Helbig.)\n Leipzig, 1900, 8vo.\n\nSTUDNICZKA (F.). _Kyrene, eine altgriechische G\u00f6ttin._ Leipzig, 1890.\n\n\n_Tanis II._ Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (Tell-Nebesheh\n and Defenneh). London, 1887. By W. M. F. PETRIE and F. L. GRIFFITH,\n with notes on the Daphnae pottery by A. S. Murray.\n\nTHIERSCH (F.). _Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen_, mit besonderer\n R\u00fccksicht auf die Sammlung des K\u00f6nigs Ludwigs von Bayern. Munich,\n 1849. From _Abhandl. d. k. bayer. Akad., Philosoph.-philol.\n Classe_, vol iv.\n\nTHIERSCH (H.). _Tyrrhenische Amphoren._ Eine Studie zur Geschichte der\n altattischen Vasenmalerei. Leipzig, 1899.\n\nTISCHBEIN (W.). _Collection of engravings from ancient vases_ (the\n second Hamilton Collection; see Vol. I. p. 17). 4 vols. Naples,\n 1791\u201395, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, vol. ii.,\n 1900. About 100 plates were engraved for a fifth volume, never\n published.\n\nTREU (W.). _Griechische Thongef\u00e4sse in Statuetten- und B\u00fcstenformen._\n Berlin, 1875, 4to. (_35tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)\n\nTYSZKIEWICZ (COUNT M.). See Froehner.\n\n\nURLICHS (C. L. VON). _Der Vasenmaler Brygos und die ruland\u2019sche\n M\u00fcnzsammlung._ W\u00fcrzburg, 1875, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kunstgeschichte._ Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. See also\n W\u00fcrzburg.\n\nUSSING (J.). _De nominibus vasorum graecorum disputatio._ Copenhagen,\n 1844.\n\n\n_Vienna._ _Die Sammlung antiker Vasen und Terracotten im k. k.\n Oesterreichischen Museum f\u00fcr Kunst und Industrie_, by K. MASNER.\n Vienna, 1892. With plates.\n\nVOGEL (K. J.). _Scenen euripideischer Trag\u00f6dien in griechischen\n Vasengem\u00e4lden._ Leipzig, 1886.\n\n_Vorlegebl\u00e4tter f\u00fcr arch\u00e4ologische \u00dcbungen._ Vienna, 1869\u201391, fol.\n Plates without text. Series i.\u2013viii. 1869\u201375, _ed._ A. Conze\n (chiefly R.F. kylikes, by Euphronios, Hieron, Duris). Series A-E,\n 1879\u201386, _ed._ O. Benndorf (chiefly R.F. kylikes). Third series,\n 1888\u201391 (3 vols.), _ed._ Benndorf and others (chiefly signed B.F.\n vases). (_Wiener Vorl._)\n\n\nWALLIS (H.). _Pictures from Greek Vases. The White Athenian lekythi._\n London, 1896.\n\nWALTERS (H. B.). See British Museum.\n\nWATZINGER (C). _De vasculis pictis tarentinis capita selecta._\n Darmstadt, 1899, 8vo.\n\nWELCKER (F. G.). _Alte Denkm\u00e4ler._ 5 vols, and atlas. G\u00f6ttingen,\n 1849\u201364.\n\nWERNICKE (K.). _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsnamen._ Berlin,\n 1890.\n\n\u2014\u2014 and GRAEF (B.). _Denkm\u00e4ler der antiken Kunst._ Leipzig, 1899, etc.\n In progress. A new edition of M\u00fcller and Wieseler\u2019s well-known\n work. Text and atlas.\n\nWESTROPP (H. M.). _Epochs of painted vases, an introduction to their\n study._ London, 1856.\n\nWILISCH (E. G.). _Die altkorinthische Thonindustrie._ Leipzig, 1892.\n\nWINKLER (A.). _De inferorum in vasis Italiae inferioris\n repraesentationibus._ Breslau, 1888, 8vo.\n\nWINNEFELD (H.). See Karlsruhe.\n\nWINTER (F.). _Die j\u00fcngeren attischen Vasen_ und ihr Verhaltniss zur\n grossen Kunst. Berlin, 1885.\n\nWITTE (J. J. A. M. DE, BARON). _Description des antiquit\u00e9s et objects\n d\u2019art qui composent le cabinet de feu M. E. Durand._ Paris, 1836,\n 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Description d\u2019une collection de vases peints et bronzes antiques_\n provenant des fouilles de l\u2019\u00c9trurie. Paris, 1837, 8vo. [Another\n edition, 1857.]\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Noms des fabricants et dessinateurs de vases peints._ Paris, 1848,\n 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _\u00c9tudes sur les vases peints._ Paris, 1865, 8vo. (Extract from the\n _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_.)\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Description des collections d\u2019antiquit\u00e9s conserv\u00e9es \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel\n Lambert_ (the Czartoryski collection). Paris, 1886, 4to. (_Coll. \u00e0\n l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert._) See also Lenormant.\n\n_W\u00fcrzburg._ _Verzeichniss der Antikensammlung der Universit\u00e4t\n W\u00fcrzburg_, by C. L. VON URLICHS. 1865\u201372, 8vo.\n\n\nZANNONI (A.). _Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna._ 2 vols., text and\n plates. Bologna, 1876, fol. (An account of excavations at Bologna;\n many illustrations of tombs and Greek vases.)\n\n\n PART III\n TERRACOTTAS\n\n_Athens._ See Martha.\n\n_Berlin Museum._ _Ausgew\u00e4hlte griechische Terrakotten_ im Antiquarium\n des k\u00f6nigliches Museum zu Berlin, herausgegeben von der\n Generalverwaltung. Berlin, 1903. See also Panofka.\n\nBL\u00dcMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie._ See above, p.xxi. Vol.\n ii. deals with method of working in clay (Thonplastik, p. 113 ff.).\n\nBORRMANN (R.). _Die Keramik in der Baukunst._ Durm\u2019s _Handbuch der\n Architektur_, part i. vol. 4. Stuttgart, 1897. On the use of\n terracotta in classical architecture. See also D\u00f6rpfeld.\n\n_British Museum._ _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. London,\n 1898. See above, p. xxii.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum_, by H. B.\n Walters. London, 1903. See also Combe.\n\nCAMPANA (G. P.). _Antiche opere in plastica._ Rome, 1842\u201352, fol. Text\n incomplete; plates of architectural terracottas of the Roman period.\n\nCOMBE (TAYLOR). _A description of the collection of ancient Terracottas\n in the British Museum._ London, 1810. Describes the Towneley\n figures and mural reliefs.\n\n\nDAREMBERG (C.), SAGLIO (E.), and POTTIER (E.). _Dictionnaire des\n Antiquit\u00e9s._ See above, p. xxiii. The article _Figlinum_ in vol.\n ii. will be found useful.\n\nD\u00d6RPFELD (W.), GRAEBER (F.), BORRMANN (R.), and SIEBOLD (K.). _\u00dcber die\n Verwendung von Terrakotten_ am Geison und Dache in griechischen\n Bauwerke, (_41tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1881. (On\n terracotta in architecture.)\n\nFURTWAENGLER (A.). _Collection Sabouroff._ See above, p. xxiv. Vol. ii.\n contains plates of Tanagra figures, with useful text to each.\n\nHEUZEY (L.). _Les Figurines antiques de terre cuite du Mus\u00e9e du\n Louvre._ Paris, 1883, 4to. Plates, with brief text.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du Mus\u00e9e du\n Louvre._ Vol. i. Paris, 1891. Deals with archaic terracottas\n (Rhodes and Cyprus). No more published.\n\nHUISH (M. B.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes_, their origin, evolution,\n and uses. London, 1900. (The plates include some doubtful\n specimens.)\n\nHUTTON (MISS C.A.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes._ (_Portfolio_\n monograph, No. 49.) London, 1899. An excellent _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\n subject, with good illustrations.\n\nKEKUL\u00c9 (R., now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). _Griechische Thonfiguren aus\n Tanagra._ Stuttgart, 1878, fol.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Die antiken Terracotten_, im Auftrag des arch\u00e4ologischen Institutes\n des deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben von R. K. Stuttgart, 1880,\n etc., fol. In progress.\n\n Vol. i. _Terracotten von Pompeii_, by A. VON ROHDEN. 1880. Chiefly\n architectural.\n\n Vol. ii. _Terracotten von Sicilien_, by R. KEKUL\u00c9. 1884.\n\n Vol. iii. _Typen der griechischen Terrakotten_, by F. WINTER. 1903.\n In two parts. A _Corpus_ of all known types of terracotta\n statuettes, with numerous illustrations and other useful\n information.\n\nMARTHA (J.). _Catalogue des Figurines en terre cuite du Mus\u00e9e de la\n Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Arch\u00e9ologique d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes._ Paris, 1880, 8vo. (Biblioth\u00e8que\n des \u00c9coles fran\u00e7aises, Fasc. 16.)\n\nMINERVINI (G.). _Terre cotte del Museo Campano._ Vol. i. Naples, 1880.\n Illustrations of architectural terracottas.\n\nPANOFKA (T.). _Terracotten des k\u00f6niglichen Museums zu Berlin._ Berlin,\n 1842, 4to.\n\nPARIS (P.). _\u00c9lat\u00e9e_, la ville, le Temple d\u2019Ath\u00e9na Cranaia. Paris,\n 1892. (Biblioth\u00e8que des \u00c9coles fran\u00e7aises, Fasc. 60.) Contains some\n useful information on the subject.\n\nPOTTIER (E.). _Les Statuettes de Terre Cuite dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9._ Paris,\n 1890. (Biblioth\u00e8que des Merveilles.)\n\nPOTTIER (E.) and REINACH (S.). _La N\u00e9cropole de Myrina._ 2 vols., text\n and plates. Paris, 1887.\n\nROHDEN (H. VON). See Kekul\u00e9.\n\nSCH\u00d6NE (R.). _Griechische Reliefs aus athenischen Sammlungen_,\n herausgegeben von R. S. Leipzig, 1872, fol. Illustration and\n discussion of the \u201cMelian\u201d reliefs (see pls. 30\u201334).\n\nWINTER (F.). See Kekul\u00e9.\n\n\n PART IV\n\n ROMAN POTTERY\n\nARTIS (E. T.). _The Durobrivae of Antoninus_ identified and\n illustrated. London, 1828, fol. Plates only; for accompanying text\n (by C. Roach-Smith) see _Journ. of Brit. Arch. Assoc._ i. p. 1 ff.\n Deals with pottery and kilns of Castor and neighbourhood.\n\nBLANCHET (A.). _M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch\u00e9ologie gallo-romaine_, ii. Paris, 1902,\n 8vo. (Lists of potteries in Gaul on p. 90 ff.)\n\nBL\u00dcMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie_, etc. See above, p. xxi.\n\nBRONGNIART (A.). _Trait\u00e9 de la C\u00e9ramique._ See above, p. xxii.\n\nBUCKMAN (J.) and NEWMARCH (C. H.). _Illustrations of the remains of\n Roman Art in Cirencester, the ancient Corinium._ London and\n Cirencester, 1850, 4to. (Now somewhat out of date.)\n\nCAUMONT (A. DE). _Cours d\u2019antiquit\u00e9s monumentales_; histoire de l\u2019art\n dans l\u2019Ouest de la France. 6 vols. Paris and Caen, 1830\u201341, 8vo,\n with atlas in oblong 4to.\n\nCHOISY (A.). _L'Art de B\u00e2tir chez les Romains._ Paris, 1873, 4to. (For\n the use of bricks and tiles.)\n\n_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum._ Berlin, 1863, etc., fol. In progress.\n The portions of the published volumes giving the inscriptions on\n vases, tiles, and lamps, under the heading _Instrumentum\n Domesticum_, are invaluable, especially vol. xv. (by H. Dressel)\n relating to Rome. (_C.I.L._)\n\nD\u00c9CHELETTE (J.). _Les Vases c\u00e9ramiques orn\u00e9s de la Gaule romaine_\n (Narbonnaise, Aquitaine, et Lyonnaise). 2 vols. Paris, 1904, 4to.\n An invaluable survey of the pottery of Central and Southern Gaul,\n with much new material. (D\u00e9chelette.)\n\nFABRONI (A.). _Storia degli antichi vasi fittili aretini._ Arezzo,\n 1841, 8vo. (On the Arretine wares.)\n\n_Guildhall Museum._ See London.\n\nH\u00d6LDER (O.). _Formen der r\u00f6mische Thongef\u00e4sse, diesseits und jenseits\n der Alpen._ Stuttgart, 1897, 8vo.\n\nKOENEN (K.). _Gef\u00e4sskunde der vorr\u00f6mischen, r\u00f6mischen, und frankischen\n Zeit in den Rheinlanden._ Bonn, 1895, 8vo.\n\n_London_ (Guildhall Museum). _Catalogue of the Collection of London\n Antiquities_ in the Guildhall Museum. London, 1903, 8vo.\n\n\u2014\u2014 (Museum of Practical Geology). _Handbook to the collection of\n British Pottery and Porcelain_ in the Museum. London, 1893, 8vo.\n\nMARINI (G.). _Iscrizioni antiche doliari_, edited by G. B. de Rossi and\n H. Dressel. Rome, 1884, 4to.\n\nMARQUARDT (J.). _Handbuch der r\u00f6mischen Alterth\u00fcmer_ (with T. MOMMSEN).\n Bd. vii., Privatalterth\u00fcmer. Leipzig, 1879\u201382, 8vo. See p. 616 ff.\n for Roman pottery.\n\nMAZARD (H. A.). _De la connaissance par les anciens des gla\u00e7ures\n plombif\u00e8res._ Paris, 1879, 8vo. (On the enamelled Roman wares\n described in Vol. I. p. 129.)\n\nMIDDLETON (J. H.). _The Remains of Ancient Rome._ 2 vols. London, 1892,\n 8vo. (On the use of bricks and tiles at Rome.)\n\nPLICQUE (A. E.). _\u00c9tude de C\u00e9ramique arverno-romaine._ Caen, 1887, 8vo.\n (On the potteries of Lezoux.)\n\nROACH-SMITH (C). _Collectanea Antiqua_; etchings and notices of ancient\n remains, etc. 7 vols. London, 1848\u201380, 8vo. Useful for records of\n discoveries of Roman remains in Gaul and Britain.\n\n\u2014\u2014 _Illustrations of Roman London._ London, 1859, 4to.\n\nSTEINER (J. W. C). _Codex Inscriptionum Romanarum Danubii et Rheni._ 4\n vols. Darmstadt, etc., 1851\u201361, 8vo. Contains many inscriptions on\n pottery and tiles not as yet published in the C.I.L.\n\n_Victoria County History of England_, ed. by W. PAGE, etc. In progress.\n London, 1900, etc. Articles in the first volume of each separate\n county history, by F. HAVERFIELD, dealing with all known Roman\n remains. Those of Northants and Hampshire are especially useful and\n complete.\n\nWRIGHT (T.). _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon._ Fourth edn., 1885.\n Still useful as a summary of Roman Britain, though out of date and\n inaccurate in many particulars.\n\n ----------\n\nReference should also be made to the _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_ (see above, p.\n xix), especially to the treatise by Dragendorff in vol. xcvi., and\n for German pottery to Von Hefner\u2019s article in _Oberbayrische Archiv\n f\u00fcr vaterlandische Geschichte_, xxii. (1863), p. 1 ff.\n\nFor Bibliography of Roman Lamps, see heading to Chapter XX.\n\n ----------\n\n NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK\n\nB.F. = Black-figured vases.\n\nR.F. = Red-figured vases.\n\nB.M. = British Museum.\n\nReinach = Reinach\u2019s _R\u00e9pertoire des Vases_ (see Bibliography).\n\nIn the cases where particular vases are cited, as in Chapters XII.-XV.,\nthe name of the museum is given with the catalogue number attached, as\nB.M. B 1; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2000, etc. The vases in the Vatican Museum\nat Rome are quoted as Helbig, 1, 2, 3, etc. (see Bibliography, under\n_Rome_).\n\nAll other abbreviations will be found in the Bibliography.\n\n\n\n\n PART I\n GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I\n _INTRODUCTORY_\n\n Importance of study of ancient monuments\u2014Value of pottery as\n evidence of early civilisation\u2014Invention of the art\u2014Use of brick\n in Babylonia\u2014The potter\u2019s wheel\u2014Enamel and glazes\u2014Earliest Greek\n pottery\u2014Use of study of vases\u2014Ethnological, historical,\n mythological, and artistic aspects\u2014Earliest writings on the\n subject\u2014The \u201cEtruscan\u201d theory\u2014History of the study of Greek\n vases\u2014Artistic, epexegetic, and historical methods\u2014The\n vase-collections of Europe and their history\u2014List of existing\n collections.\n\n\nThe present age is above all an age of Discovery. The thirst for\nknowledge manifests itself in all directions\u2014theological, scientific,\ngeographical, historical, and antiquarian. The handiwork of Nature and\nof Man alike are called upon to yield up their secrets to satisfy the\nuniversal demand which has arisen from the spread of education and the\never-increasing desire for culture which is one of the characteristics\nof the present day. And though, perhaps, the science of Archaeology\ndoes not command as many adherents as other branches of learning, there\nis still a very general desire to enquire into the records of the past,\nto learn what we can of the methods of our forefathers, and to trace\nthe influence of their writings or other evidences of their existence\non succeeding ages.\n\nTo many of us what is known as a classical education seems perhaps in\nthese utilitarian times somewhat antiquated and unnecessary, but at the\nsame time \u201cthe glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome\u201d\nhave not lost their interest for us, and can awaken responsive chords\nin most of our hearts. Nor can we ever be quite forgetful of the debt\nthat we owe to those nations in almost every branch of human learning\nand industry. To take the most patent instance of all, that of our\nlanguage, it is not too much to say that nearly every word is either\ndirectly derived from a classical source or can be shown to have\netymological affinities with either of the two ancient tongues. Nor is\nit necessary to pursue illustrations further. We need only point to the\nevidences of classical influence on modern literature, modern\nphilosophy, and modern political and social institutions, to indicate\nhow our civilisation is permeated and saturated with the results of\nancient ideas and thoughts. The man of science has recourse to Greek or\nLatin for his nomenclature; the scholar employs Latin as the most\nappropriate vehicle for criticism; and modern architecture was for a\nlong time only a revival (whether successful or not) of the principles\nand achievements of the classical genius.\n\nNow, those who would pursue the study of a nation\u2019s history cannot be\ncontent with the mere perusal of such literary records as it may have\nleft behind. It needs brief consideration to realise that this leaves\nus equipped with very little real knowledge of an ancient race,\ninasmuch as the range of literature is necessarily limited, and deals\nwith only a few sides of the national character: its military history,\nits political constitution, or its intellectual and philosophical\nbent\u2014in short, its external and public life alone. He who would\nthoroughly investigate the history of a nation instinctively desires\nsomething more; he will seek to gain a comprehensive acquaintance with\nits social life, its religious beliefs, its artistic and intellectual\nattainments, and generally to estimate the extent of its culture and\ncivilisation. But to do this it is necessary not only to be thoroughly\nconversant with its literary and historical records, but to turn\nattention also to its _monuments_. It need hardly be said that the word\n\u201cmonument\u201d is here used in the quasi-technical sense current among\narchaeologists (witness the German use of the word _Denkm\u00e4ler_), and\nthat it must bear here a much wider signification than is generally\naccorded to it nowadays. It may, in fact, be applied to any object\nwhich has come down to us as a memorial and evidence of a nation\u2019s\nproductive capacity or as an illustration of its social or political\nlife. The student of antiquity can adopt no better motto than the\nfamiliar line of Terence:\n\n Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.\n\nFor the very humblest product of the human brain or hand, a potsherd or\na few letters scratched on a stone, may throw the most instructive\nlight on the history of a race.\n\nIn no instance is this better seen than in the case of Assyria, where\nalmost all that we know of that great and wonderful people is derived\nfrom the cuneiform inscriptions scratched on tablets of baked clay. Or,\nagain, we may cite the stone and bronze implements of the primitive\npeoples of Europe as another instance where \u201cthe weak and base things\nof the world and the things that are despised\u201d have thrown floods of\nlight on the condition of things in a period about which we should have\nbeen completely in the dark so long as we looked only to literary\nrecords for our information. Nothing is so common that it may be\noverlooked, and we may learn more from a humble implement in daily use\nthan from the finest product of a poetic or artistic intellect, if we\nare really desirous of obtaining an intimate acquaintance with the\ndomestic life of a people.\n\nAmong the simplest yet most necessary adjuncts of a developing\ncivilisation Pottery may be recognised as one of the most universal.\nThe very earliest and rudest remains of any people generally take the\nform of coarse and common pots, in which they cooked their food or\nconsumed their beverages. And the fact that such vast quantities of\npottery from all ancient civilisations have been preserved to us is due\npartly to its comparatively imperishable nature, partly to the absence\nof any intrinsic value which saved it from falling a prey to the\nravages of fire, human greed, or other causes which have destroyed more\nprecious monuments, such as gold ornaments, paintings, and statues of\nmarble or bronze. Moreover, it is always in the pottery that we\nperceive the first indications of whatever artistic instinct a race\npossesses, clay being a material so easy to decorate and so readily\nlending itself to plastic treatment for the creation of new forms or\ndevelopment from simple to elaborate shapes.\n\nTo trace the history of the art of working in clay, from its rise\namongst the oldest nations of antiquity to the period of the decline of\nthe Roman Empire, is the object of the present work. The subject\nresolves itself into two great divisions, which have engaged the\nattention of two distinct classes of enquirers: namely, the technical\nor practical part, comprising all the details of material,\nmanipulation, and processes; and, secondly, the historical portion,\nwhich embraces not only the history of the art itself, and the\napplication of ancient literature to its elucidation, but also an\naccount of the light thrown by monuments in clay on the history of\nmankind. Such an investigation is therefore neither trifling in\ncharacter nor deficient in valuable results.\n\nIt is impossible to determine when the manufacture of pottery was\ninvented. Clay is a material so generally diffused, and its plastic\nnature is so easily discovered, that the art of working it does not\nexceed the intelligence of the rudest savage. Even the most primitive\ngraves of Europe and Western Asia contain specimens of pottery, rude\nand elementary indeed, but in sufficient quantities to show that it was\nat all times reckoned among the indispensable adjuncts of daily life.\n\nIt is said that the very earliest specimens of pottery, hand-made and\nalmost shapeless, have been discovered in the cave-dwellings of\nPalaeolithic Man, such as the H\u00f6hlefels cave near Ulm, and that of\nNabrigas, near Toulouse; and pottery has also been found in the\n\u201ckitchen-middens\u201d of Denmark, which belong to this period. Such relics\nare, however, so rude and fragmentary, and so much doubt has been cast\non the circumstances of their discovery, that it is better to be\ncontent with the evidence afforded by the Neolithic Age, of which\nperhaps the best authenticated is the predynastic pottery of Egypt.[1]\n\nAbundant specimens of pottery have been found in long barrows in all\nparts of Western Europe; these are supposed to be the burial-places of\nthe early dolichocephalic races, now represented by the Finns and\nLapps, which preceded the Aryan immigration. The chief characteristic\nof this pottery is the almost entire absence of ornamentation.\nNeolithic man appears to have been far less endowed with the artistic\ninstinct than his palaeolithic predecessor. Where ornament does occur,\nit appears to have a quite fortuitous origin: for instance, a kind of\nrope-pattern that appears on the earliest pottery of Britain and\nGermany, and also in America, owes its origin to the practice of\nmoulding the clay in a kind of basket of bark or thread. It is also\npossible that cords of some kind were used for carrying the pots; and\nthis reminds us of another characteristic of the earliest pottery,\nwhich, indeed, lasts down to the Bronze Age\u2014namely, the absence of\nhandles.\n\nThe baking of clay, so as to produce an indestructible and tenacious\nsubstance, was probably also the result of accident rather than design.\nThis was pointed out as long ago as the middle of the eighteenth\ncentury by M. Goguet. In most countries the condition of the atmosphere\nprecludes the survival of sun-dried clay for any length of time;\nmoreover, such a material was more suitable for architecture (as we\nshall see later) than for vessels destined to hold liquids. Thus it is\nthat Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia alone have transmitted to posterity\nthe early efforts of workers in sun-dried clay.\n\nTo return to the new invention. The savage conceivably found that the\ncalabash or gourd in which he boiled the water for his simple culinary\nneeds was liable to be damaged by the action of fire; and it required\nno very advanced mental process to smear the exterior of the vessel\nwith some such substance as clay in order to protect it. As he found\nthat the surface of the clay was thereby rendered hard and impervious,\nhis next step would naturally be to dispense with the calabash and\nmould the clay into a similar form. These two simple qualities of clay,\nits plastic nature and its susceptibility to the action of fire, are\nthe two elements which form the basis of the whole development of the\npotter\u2019s art.\n\nFrom the necessity for symmetrical buildings arose the invention of the\nbrick, which must have superseded the rude plastering of the hut with\nclay, to protect it against the sun or storm. In the history of the\nSemitic nations the brick appears among the earliest inventions, and\nits use can be traced with various modifications, from the building of\nthe Tower of Babel to the present day. It is essential that bricks\nshould be symmetrical, and their form is generally rectangular. Their\ngeometrical shape affords us a clue to ancient units of measurement,\nand the various inscriptions with which they have been stamped have\nelevated them to the dignity of historical monuments. Thus the bricks\nof Egypt not only afford testimony, by their composition of straw and\nclay, that the writer of Exodus was acquainted with that country, but\nalso, by the hieroglyphs impressed upon them, transmit the names of a\nseries of kings, and testify to the existence of edifices, all\nknowledge of which, except for these relics, would have utterly\nperished. Those of Assyria and Babylon, in addition to the same\ninformation, have, by their cuneiform inscriptions, which mention the\nlocality of the edifices for which they were made, afforded the means\nof tracing the sites of ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria with an\naccuracy unattainable by any other means. The Roman bricks have also\nborne their testimony to history. A large number of them present a\nseries of the names of consuls of imperial Rome; while others show that\nthe proud nobility of the eternal city partly derived their revenues\nfrom the kilns of their Campanian and Sabine estates.\n\nFrom the next step in the progress of the manufacture\u2014namely, that of\nmodelling in clay the forms of the physical world\u2014arose the plastic\nart. Delicate as is the touch of the finger, which the clay seems to\nobey, almost as if comprehending the intention of the potter\u2019s mind,\nyet certain forms and ornaments which require a finer point than the\nnail gave rise to the use of pieces of horn, wood, and metal, and thus\ncontributed to the invention of tools. But modelling in clay was soon\nsuperseded by sculpture in stone and metal, and at length only answered\ntwo subordinate ends: that of enabling the sculptor to elaborate his\nfirst conceptions in a material which could be modified at will; and\nthat of readily producing works of a small and inexpensive form, for\nsome transitory purpose. The invention of the mould carried this last\napplication to perfection, and the terracottas of antiquity were as\nnumerous and as cheap as the plaster casts now sold by itinerants.\n\nThe materials used for writing have varied in different ages and\nnations. Stone and bronze, linen and papyrus, wax and parchment, have\nall been used. But the Assyrians and Babylonians employed for their\npublic archives, their astronomical computations, their religious\ndedications, their historical annals, and even for title-deeds and\nbills of exchange, tablets, cylinders, and hexagonal prisms of\nterracotta. Some of these cylinders, still extant, contain the history\nof the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser and Assurbanipal, and the\ncampaign of Sennacherib against the kingdom of Judah; and others,\nexcavated from the Birs Nimrud, give a detailed account of the\ndedication of the great temple by Nebuchadnezzar to the seven planets.\nTo this indestructible material, and to the happy idea of employing it\nin this manner, the present age is indebted for a detailed history of\nthe Assyrian monarchy; whilst the decades of Livy, the plays of\nMenander, and the lays of Anakreon, confided to a more perishable\nmaterial, have either wholly or partly disappeared.\n\nThe application of clay to the making of vases was made effective by\nthe invention of the potter\u2019s wheel. Before the introduction of the\nwheel only vessels fashioned by the hand, and of rude unsymmetrical\nshape, could have been made. But the application of a circular table or\nlathe, laid horizontally and revolving on a central pivot, on which the\nclay was placed, and to which it adhered, was in its day a truly\nwonderful advance. As the wheel spun round, all combinations of oval,\nspherical, and cylindrical forms could be produced, and the vases not\nonly became symmetrical in their proportions, but truthfully reproduced\nthe potter\u2019s conception. The invention of the wheel has been ascribed\nto all the great nations of antiquity. It is represented in full\nactivity in the Egyptian sculptures; it is mentioned in the Scriptures,\nand was certainly in use at an early period in Assyria. The Greeks and\nRomans attributed it to a Scythian philosopher, and to the states of\nAthens, Corinth, and Sikyon, the first two of which were great rivals\nin the ceramic art. But, as will be explained hereafter, it was\nintroduced at a very early stage in the history of civilisation upon\nGreek soil (see p. 206).\n\nAlthough none of the very ancient kilns have survived the destructive\ninfluence of time, yet among all the great nations baked earthenware is\nof the highest antiquity. In Egypt, in the tombs of the first\ndynasties, vases and other remains of baked earthenware are abundantly\nfound; and in Assyria and Babylon even the oldest bricks and tablets\nhave passed through the furnace. The oldest remains of Hellenic pottery\nin all cases owe their preservation to their having been subjected to\nthe action of fire. To this process, as to the consummation of the art,\nthe other processes of preparing, levigating, kneading, drying, and\nmoulding the clay were necessarily ancillary.\n\nThe desire of rendering terracotta less porous, and of producing vases\ncapable of retaining liquids, gave rise to the covering of it with a\nvitreous enamel or glaze. The invention of glass was attributed by the\nancients to the Phoenicians; but opaque glass or enamels, as old as the\nEighteenth Dynasty, and enamelled objects as early as the Fourth, have\nbeen found in Egypt. The employment of copper to produce a brilliant\nblue-coloured enamel was very early both in Babylonia and Assyria; but\nthe use of tin for a white enamel, as discovered in the enamelled\nbricks and vases of Babylonia and Assyria, anticipated by many\ncenturies the rediscovery of that process in Europe in the fifteenth\ncentury, and shows the early application of metallic oxides. This\ninvention apparently remained for many centuries a secret among the\nEastern nations only, enamelled terracotta and glass forming articles\nof commercial export from Egypt and Phoenicia to every part of the\nMediterranean. Among the Egyptians and Assyrians enamelling was used\nmore frequently than glazing; hence they used a kind of faience\nconsisting of a loose frit or body, to which an enamel adheres after\nonly a slight fusion. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the art of\nenamelling terracotta disappeared except amongst the Arab and Moorish\nraces, who had retained a traditionary knowledge of the process. The\napplication of a transparent vitreous coating, or glaze, to the entire\nsurface, like the varnish of a picture, is also to be referred to a\nhigh antiquity. Originally intended to improve the utility of the vase,\nit was used by Greeks and Romans with a keen sense of the decorative\neffects that could be derived from its use.\n\nIn Greece, although nearly all traces of the Stone Age are wanting, and\nlittle pottery has been found which can be referred to that period,[2]\nyet the earliest existing remains of civilisation are, as we shall see\nlater, in the form of pottery; and Greece is no exception to the\ngeneral rule. But the important difference between the pottery of Asia\nand Egypt and that of Greece is that only in the latter was there any\ndevelopment due to artistic feeling. Of the Greek it may be said, as of\nthe medieval craftsman, _nihil tetigit quod non ornavit_. In the\ncommonest vessel or implement in every-day use we see almost from the\nfirst the workings of this artistic instinct, tending to exalt any and\nevery object above the mere level of utilitarianism, and to make it, in\naddition to its primary purpose of usefulness, \u201ca thing of beauty and a\njoy for ever.\u201d Feeble and rude it may be at first, and hampered by\nimperfect knowledge of technique or capacity for expression\u2014but still\nthe instinct is there.\n\nThere is indeed at first but little in Greek pottery to differentiate\nit from that of other nations possessing any decorative instincts. As\nM. Pottier[3] has pointed out, there is a universal law which manifests\nitself in nascent art all over the world: \u201cMore than once men have\nremarked the extraordinary resemblance which the linear decoration of\nPeruvian, Mexican, and Kabyle vases bears to the ornamentation of the\nmost ancient Greek pottery. There is no possibility of contact between\nthese different peoples, separated by enormous distances of time and\nspace. If they have this common resemblance at the outset of their\nartistic evolution, it is because all must pass through a certain\nphase, resulting in some measure from the structure of the human brain.\nEven so at the present day there are savages in Polynesia who, by means\nof a point applied to the soft clay, produce patterns exactly similar\nto those found on Greek or Cypriote pottery of fifteen or twenty\ncenturies before our era.\u201d Or to take a later stage of development, the\ncompositions of vase-paintings of the sixth century B.C. are governed\nby the same immutable laws of convention and principles of symmetry as\nthe carvings of the Middle Ages. Instances might be multiplied _ad\ninfinitum_; but the principle is universal.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA question that may be well asked by any visitor to a great museum is,\nWhat is the use of the study of Greek vases? The answer is, that no\nremains of Greek art have come down to us in such large quantities,\nexcept perhaps coins, and certainly none cover so long a period.\nPortraying as they do both the objective and subjective side of Greek\nlife, they form perhaps the best introduction to the study of Greek\narchaeology in general. In no other class of monuments are the daily\nlife and religious beliefs of the Greeks so vividly presented as in the\npainted vases. Their value to the modern student may be treated under\nfour separate heads: (1) Ethnological; (2) Historical; (3)\nMythological; (4) Artistic.\n\n(1) =Ethnological.=\u2014On this subject we have already touched in this\nchapter, pointing out that pottery has an exceptional importance, not\nonly as one of the most universal and instructive illustrations of the\nearly developments of a single nation, but for purposes of comparison\nof one nation with another. Sculpture, painting, architecture, and\nother arts have a more limited range, and tell us nothing of domestic\nlife or social progress; but the common utensils of daily life, like\nflint implements or bronze weapons, are of incalculable value for the\nlight that they throw on the subject, and the evidence which, in the\nabsence of historical data, they afford. We have also called attention\nto the prevalence of universal laws acting on the development of the\nearly art of all nations.\n\nThus in dealing with the early history of Greece, before historical\nrecords are available, we are enabled by the pottery-finds to trace the\nextent of the Mycenaean civilisation, from Egypt to the Western\nMediterranean; we may see Homeric customs reflected in the vases of the\nGeometrical period from Athens; and in the decorative patterns of the\nsucceeding period we may see signs of close intercourse with Assyria\nand a knowledge of Oriental textile fabrics. The finds in Rhodes,\nCyprus, and the islands off Asia Minor also testify to a continued and\nextensive intercourse between the mainland of Greece and the Eastern\nAegean.\n\n(2) =Historical.=\u2014The historical value of Greek vases rests partly on\nthe external, partly on the internal evidence that they afford. In the\nformer aspect those of historic times, like those of the primitive age,\nconfirm, if they do not actually supplement, literary records of Greek\nhistory. Thus the numerous importations of vases from Corinth to Sicily\nand Italy in the seventh century B.C. show the maritime importance of\nthat city and the extent of her commercial relations; while in the\nsucceeding century the commercial rivalry between her and Athens is\nindicated by the appearance of large numbers of Attic fabrics in the\ntombs of Italy along with the Corinthian; the final supremacy of Athens\nby the gradual disappearance of the Corinthian wares, and the\nconsequent monopoly enjoyed by the rival state. The fact that after the\nmiddle of the fifth century the red-figured Attic vases are seldom\nfound in Sicilian or Italian tombs shows clearly the blow dealt at\nAthenian commerce by the Peloponnesian War, and the enforced cessation\nof exports to the west, owing to the hostility of Sicily and the\ncrippling of Athenian navies; and the gradual growth of local fabrics\nshows that the colonists of Magna Graecia at that time began themselves\nto supply local demands. Instances might be multiplied.\n\nBut the internal evidence of the vases is of even greater value, not\nonly for the political, but still more for the social history of\nGreece. By the application of painting to vases the Greeks made them\nsomething more than mere articles of commercial value or daily use.\nBesides the light they throw on the Greek schools of painting, they\nhave become an inexhaustible source for illustrating the manners,\ncustoms, and literature of Greece. A Greek vase-painting\u2014to quote M.\nPottier\u2014 is not only a work of art, but also an historical document.\nEven when all artistic qualities are lacking, and the vase at first\nsight is liable to be regarded as a worthless and uninteresting\nproduction, a closer inspection will often reveal some small point\nwhich throws light on a question of mythology, or of costume or armour.\nOr, again, an inscription painted or even scratched on a vase may be of\nsurpassing philological or palaeographical importance. For instance,\nthe earliest inscription known in the Attic alphabet is a _graffito_ on\na vase of the seventh century B.C. (see Chapter XVII.), which of itself\nwould command no consideration; but this inscription is valuable not\nonly as evidence for early forms of lettering, but from its\nsubject-matter. It is true that it need not necessarily be contemporary\nwith the vase itself, as it may have been scratched in after it was\nmade, but this cannot detract from its importance or affect its\nchronological value.\n\nOr, again, a fragment of a painted vase found at Athens bears the name\nof Xanthippos rudely scratched upon it; on the foot of another is that\nof Megakles (see below, p. 103). Both of these are undoubted instances\nof \u1f44\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1, which were used for the banishment of these historical\npersonages. They therefore provide a striking illustration of the\ninstitution of Ostracism, and bear out what we have said as to the\nimportance of archaeological discoveries for the study of History.\nHistorical or quasi-historical subjects are sometimes actually depicted\non the vases, but this question must be reserved for fuller treatment\nin Part III., which deals with the subjects on vases in detail. In that\nsection of the work we shall also deal with the relations of\nvase-paintings to ancient literature; and in the list of subjects taken\nfrom daily life (Chapter XV.) it will be seen what ample information is\nafforded on such points as the vocations and pastimes of men, the life\nof women, war and athletics, sport and education.\n\n(3) =Mythological.=\u2014On this head reference must again be made to the\nchapters on Subjects, as affording ample evidence of the importance of\nthe vases not only for the elucidation of Greek mythology and legend,\nbut also for religious cults and beliefs. One other point, however, is\nworth noting here. Our knowledge of Greek mythology, if only derived\nfrom literary records, rests largely on the compilations of Roman or\nlate writers, such as Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodoros. It has been aptly\npointed out by a recent writer[4] that in these authors we have\nmythology in a crystallised form, modified and systematised, and\nperhaps confused with Latin elements, and that our popular modern\nnotions are mainly derived from these sources as they have been\nfiltered down to us through the medium of Lempri\u00e8re\u2019s Dictionary and\nsimilar works. But vase-paintings are more or less original and\ncontemporary documents. Granted that it is possible to run to the\nopposite extreme and accept art traditions to the utter neglect of the\nliterary tradition as derived from Homer and the Tragedians, the fact\nstill remains that for _suggestions_, and for raising problems that\ncould never have arisen through a literary medium, the evidence of\nvases is of inestimable value.\n\nIn regard to Greek religious beliefs, it should be borne in mind that\nwith the Greeks art was the language by which they expressed their\nideas of the gods. It was thus largely due to their religion that they\nattained supremacy in the plastic art, and their absolute freedom of\ntreatment of their religious beliefs almost eliminated the hieratic and\nconventional character of Oriental art from their own, with its\ninfinite variety of conceptions. The vase-paintings, almost more than\nany other class of monuments, reveal the universal religious sentiment\nwhich pervaded their life\u2014the \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 which prevailed even in\nRomanised Athens. Thus the vases constitute a pictorial commentary on\nall aspects of Greek life and thought.[5]\n\n(4) =Artistic.=\u2014(_a_) _Form._ In the grace of their artistic forms the\nGreeks have excelled all nations, either past or present. The beauty\nand simplicity of the shapes of their vases have caused them to be\ntaken as models; but as every civilised people has received from other\nsources forms sanctioned by time, and as many of the Greek forms cannot\nbe adapted to the requirements of modern use, they have not been\nextensively imitated. Yet to every eye familiar with works of art of\nthe higher order their beauty is fully apparent.\n\n(_b_) _Decoration._ It is at first difficult to realise how little we\nactually know of Greek painting. Our modern museums are so full of\nspecimens of Greek sculpture, either originals or ancient copies of\nmasterpieces, that we feel it possible to obtain an adequate idea of\nthe genius of Pheidias or Praxiteles at first-hand, so to speak. But\nancient literature clearly shows that painting was held by the Greeks\nin equally high estimation with sculpture, if not even higher. Consult\nthe writings of the elder Pliny on ancient art. A considerable space is\nthere devoted to the account of the great painters Zeuxis, Apelles, and\nParrhasios, while Pheidias is barely mentioned, and the account of\nPraxiteles\u2019 works is far from complete. Yet we look in vain through\nmost modern collections for any specimen of Greek painting on fresco or\npanel.\n\nThis is, of course, due to the perishable character of pictures and the\ndestruction of the buildings on the walls of which the great frescoes\nwere preserved. But the fact remains that we have to look in other\ndirections for the evidence we require to find. We have here and there\na painted Greek tombstone, a Pompeian fresco, or the decoration of an\nEtruscan sepulchre to give us a hint; but while the first-named are far\ntoo inconsiderable in number to give us any idea of the art of their\ntime, the two latter are merely products of an imitative art, giving\nbut a faint echo of the originals.\n\nNow, in the vases we have, as noted in regard to mythology,\ncontemporary evidence. It must never be forgotten that vase-painting is\nessentially a decorative art; but, as we shall see later in tracing its\nhistorical development, there is always a tendency to ignore the\nessential subserviency of design to use, and to give the decoration a\nmore pictorial character. Many of the late vases are, in fact, pictures\non terracotta. Again, there is a class of fifth-century vases with\npolychrome paintings on white ground which actually recall the method\nwe know to have been employed by the great master of that century,\nPolygnotos. And with regard to the late vases we shall hope to show in\na future chapter that, like the Pompeian paintings, they often reflect\nthe spirit, if not the exact likeness, of some well-known painting of\nwhich we have record.\n\nMany instances might be given of vase-paintings which reflect, or\nassist our knowledge of, the products of the higher arts. Even as early\nas the end of the sixth century the group of the Tyrant-slayers, the\ncreation of Antenor and of Kritios and Nesiotes, is found repeated on a\nblack-figured vase[6]; and the early _poros_ pediments from the\nAthenian Acropolis find an interesting parallel in an early Attic vase\nof about the same date.[7] So again in Ionia, the style of the\nsculptures of the archaic temple at Ephesos finds its reflection in\nsome of the local sixth-century vase-fabrics.[8] Coming to the fifth\ncentury, the heads in Euphronios\u2019 paintings may be compared with some\nof the Attic heads in marble, like that of the ephebos from the\nAcropolis.[9] Combats of Greeks with Amazons and Centaurs on later R.F.\nvases often seem to suggest a comparison with the friezes of Phigaleia\nand Olympia; a figure from the balustrade of the Nike temple is almost\nreproduced on a R.F. vase,[10] and the riding youths of the Parthenon\nfrieze on some of the white Athenian lekythi; and the Kertch vase with\nthe contest of Athena and Poseidon (Plate L.) is of special interest as\nan almost contemporary reproduction of the Parthenon west pediment. In\npainting, again, the later R.F. vases in many instances reflect what we\nknow of the style and composition of Polygnotos\u2019 paintings, and there\nare many instances on the vases of the subjects treated by him and\nMikon.[11]\n\nIt is not necessary here to say more of the importance of a study of\nGreek vases on the several lines that we have pointed out. It is\nsufficient to say that specialists in all these branches of Archaeology\ninstinctively turn to vases for the main source of their information.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe earliest date at which public attention was directed to the painted\nvases was the end of the seventeenth century. In those days, it need\nhardly be said, systematic excavation was a thing quite unknown, while\narchaeology as a science was non-existent. Beyond a few sculptures\nwhich had been handed down at Rome or elsewhere through many\nvicissitudes, cabinets of gems which had been preserved by cardinals\nand other dignitaries who employed them for signet-rings, chiefly for\necclesiastical purposes, and some collections of coins of the\nRenaissance period, there were no specimens of ancient art preserved.\nDuring the seventeenth century, however, the fashion arose of making\nvoyages to Italy or Greece, and bringing back any spoils that might\nattract the notice of the traveller. In this way the collection of\nArundel Marbles at Oxford was made, and the nucleus of many of the\nfamous private collections of England formed. But the painted vases,\nwhich for the most part lay buried in tombs, escaped notice almost\nentirely\u2014and, perhaps even where specimens were preserved, they\nattracted little notice\u2014until with Winckelmann arose a gradual\nhankering after the possession of artistic treasures and the formation\nof collections of antiques.\n\nThe earliest allusion to be found to painted vases is in the works of\nLa Chausse (Caussius),[12] and in the _Thesaurus_ of Graevius,[13]\nwhile the oldest existing catalogue is that of the collection of the\nElector of Brandenburg, compiled by L. Beger in 1696\u20131701.[14] Some few\nare illustrated in these works, while others were given later by\nMontfaucon,[15] Dempster,[16] Gori,[17] and Caylus.[18] Winckelmann\npublished several vases in his _Histoire de l\u2019Art_ (1764) and\n_Monumenti Antichi_ (1769), and the industrious Passeri in 1767\u201375\npublished, besides a supplement to Dempster, three volumes containing\ncoloured engravings of vases in various collections.\n\nSir William Hamilton, who was for some time English Ambassador at\nNaples, formed there a considerable collection of Greek and Roman\nantiquities, mostly painted vases, which had been discovered in various\ntombs in Southern Italy and Etruria. All these he brought with him to\nEngland and sold to the newly instituted British Museum in 1767. A\nFrenchman named Hugues or D'Hancarville compiled a magnificent work in\nfour volumes[19] illustrating the vases in this collection, with\nelaborate diagrams of the shapes; but the representations of the\nsubjects are often marred by the imaginary ornamental borders in which\nthey are framed, while the whole work, like others of the same period,\nis marked by a tendency to ignore all but the artistic interest, and\ninstead of an accurate reproduction to aim merely at giving a pretty\npicture.\n\nA second collection of vases belonging to Hamilton was mostly lost at\nsea, but a record of it has been preserved in Tischbein\u2019s work, _Vases\nd\u2019Hamilton_[20] in four volumes, which is more accurate and useful than\nthat of D'Hancarville. It is believed that many of these vases are now\nin the Hope collection at Deepdene, which is unfortunately inaccessible\nto archaeologists.\n\nThe Hamilton collection formed, as we have said, the nucleus of the\nmagnificent array of vases in the British Museum. Most of them, it is\ntrue, belong to the later period or decadence of vase-painting, and\nwere not only found, but had also been manufactured, in Italy. Although\nthe time for a scientific study and classification was not yet to be\nfor some sixty years, the interest in the subject was decidedly on the\nincrease, and many English noblemen and gentlemen were forming\ncollections, as well as such foreigners as the Duc de Blacas, the Duc\nde Luynes, and M. Millin. It became the fashion to produce large folio\nworks embodying the contents of these collections in series of coloured\nillustrations, and thus we have, besides those already mentioned, the\nimposing publications of Millin,[21] Millingen[22], Laborde[23], and\nothers. On the same lines, but mostly of later date, are the\npublications of De Rossi[24], Christie[25], Moses[26], Inghirami[27],\nLanzi[28], B\u00f6ttiger[29], Micali[30], Raoul-Rochette[31],\nStackelberg[32], and the Duc de Luynes[33], who published either their\nown vases, as De Luynes, or some well-known collection like that of the\nDuc de Blacas, or some particular class of vases: _e.g._ Micali, those\nfound in Etruria; Raoul-Rochette and Inghirami, those illustrating\nHomer; and Stackelberg, those found in tombs in Greece Proper. Few of\nthese, it will be seen, were published in England, where neither public\npatronage nor private enterprise were found prepared to rival the\nachievements of the Continent.\n\nIn most of these works the vases are styled \u201cEtruscan\u201d as a matter of\ncourse. Even nowadays it is a very common experience to hear vases\nspoken of as \u201cEtruscan\u201d or even as \u201cEtruscan urns,\u201d as if every vase\nwas used as a receptacle for the ashes of the dead. This error has\nlasted, with all the perseverance of a popular fallacy, for over a\ncentury, and cannot now be too strongly denounced. But at the beginning\nof the last century the Etruscan origin of painted vases was most\nstrongly maintained by erudite scholars, chiefly Italians who desired\nto champion the credit of their own country, and the controversy raged\nwith varying force till Greece was able to substantiate her own case by\nthe numbers of vases that came forth from her tombs to proclaim their\nHellenic origin.\n\nThe \u201cEtruscan\u201d theory was first promulgated by Montfaucon, Gori,\nCaylus, and Passeri, between 1719 and 1752; their arguments being based\non the plausible ground that up till that time the vases had been found\nalmost exclusively in Etruria. So the term \u201cEtruscan vase\u201d passed into\nthe languages of Europe, and has survived in spite of a century of\nrefutation. But in 1763 Winckelmann, the father of scientific\narchaeology, conceived the idea that the spirit and character of the\nvase-paintings were wholly Greek; and he proposed to call them\nItalo-Greek or Graeco-Sicilian, indicating Magna Graecia as the true\nplace of their manufacture. This was a step in the right direction, and\nhe was supported later by Lanzi, Millin, Millingen, and others\n(1791\u20131813). A further attempt was made to define the particular places\nof their fabric, and Nola, Locri, and Agrigentum were suggested as the\nmost important centres. Meanwhile, the discoveries of vases in Attica,\nat Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece, and subsequently the publication\nof Stackelberg\u2019s work, helped to confirm the position of Winckelmann\u2019s\nfollowers.\n\nIn 1828 came what M. Pottier terms \u201can objectionable revival of\nEtruscomania,\u201d with the extensive and marvellously fruitful excavations\nat Vulci under the direction of the Prince of Canino, Lucien Bonaparte,\non whose estates most of the tombs were found. Several thousand vases\nwere the yield of this site, mostly of the best periods of Greek art.\nThis was a great epoch in the history of the study of Greek vases. A\nflood of fresh light was thrown on the subject by the mass of new\nmaterial, and a whole new literature arose in consequence. Hitherto\nvases of the archaic and fine periods had only been known in isolated\ninstances, and the bulk of the existing collections was formed of the\nflorid vases of the Decadence; but now it became possible to fill up\nthe gaps and trace the whole development of the art from the simplest\nspecimens with decorative patterns or figures of animals down to the\nvery last stages of painting.\n\nThese discoveries prompted Prince Lucien Bonaparte to revive the theory\nof Etruscan origin, in which he was supported by D'Amatis and De Fea.\nIt is probable that all three were animated more by patriotic motives\nthan by intellectual conviction. At any rate their arguments appealed\nbut little to scholars, although not a few inclined to take a middle\ncourse, and maintained that there existed, not only in Etruria but also\nin Southern Italy, various local centres of manufacture under Greek\nsuperintendence and in close connection with Athens and her influences.\nThese ideas were upheld by Gerhard, Welcker, the Duc de Luynes, and Ch.\nLenormant. But the preponderating arguments were to be found on the\nother side, from Kramer (1837), who attributed all vases but those of\nthe Decadence to an Attic origin, O. M\u00fcller, who limited this to the\nfiner examples from Vulci, and Raoul-Rochette, who pinned his faith to\nSicily, to Otto Jahn[34], who may be said to have founded the modern\ncomparative study of Greek ceramics on its present basis (1854).\n\nJahn pronounced decisively for the Greek origin of all but the later\nfabrics, and his principles have been adopted by all succeeding\narchaeologists, with the exception of Brunn, and one or two of the\nlatter\u2019s disciples, who have swung back to the Italian theory in some\nrespects. Up to his time all had been in chaos, and each writer worked\non his own particular line without regard to others, both as regards\nthe origin of the vases and the subjects depicted thereon; but Jahn, in\nhis epoch-making catalogue of the vases at Munich, was the first to\nmake a serious and scientific attempt to reduce the chaos to order, not\nonly by adopting a rational system of interpretation, but by\nsystematising and reducing to one common denominator all previous\ncontributions to knowledge.\n\nWe may say that the study of Greek vases has passed through three main\nstages: (1) Artistic; (2) Epexegetic; (3) Historical.\n\n(1) =Artistic= (1690\u20141770).\u2014In the first stage, as we have seen, the\nartistic merit of the vases and the aim of producing a pretty picture\nwere alone regarded. Hence, too, arose the fashion of making copies of\nGreek vases, and many specimens were produced by Wedgwood[35], bearing,\nhowever, no more than a superficial likeness to the originals.\n\n(2) =Epexegetic= (1770\u20141854).\u2014In the second stage it seems to have been\nsuddenly discovered that the figures on the vases were not mere\nmeaningless groups, like the Watteau shepherds and shepherdesses on\nDresden china, and many strange theories were at first promulgated as\nto the purposes for which the vases were made and the subjects thereon\ndepicted. Three main lines of interpretation seem to have been adopted\nby the writers of this period:\u2014\n\n(_a_) Passeri, Millin, Lanzi, and Visconti supposed that allusions were\nmade to the life of the deceased person in whose tomb they were found;\nallegorical representations were given of his childish games, his\nyouthful pastimes, or the religious and social ceremonies in which he\ntook part.\n\n(_b_) Italynski, in his preface to Tischbein\u2019s work, enunciates the\nstrange notion that they allude to events of Greek and Roman history:\nfor instance, three draped men represent the three chief archons of\nAthens, or three women conversing, Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus,\nwith her daughter and daughter-in-law, considering whether she should\nappear as a suppliant before her son. The utterly fantastic and\nunscientific nature of these explanations was self-evident; the writers\nof the first group at any rate had a sounder basis for their theories,\nand on the analogy of the sculptured Greek tombstones might well have\nbeen near the truth.\n\n(_c_) Another theory, which attained great popularity, and was even\nadhered to partially for some years afterwards by Panofka, Gerhard, and\nLenormant, was that the subjects bore allusion to the Mysteries, more\nparticularly the Eleusinian. The vases were regarded as presents given\nto the initiated, and the reason why their interpretation was so\ndifficult was that they related to the secrets unfolded in those\nceremonies. Many attempts were made to unlock those secrets and to show\nthe mystic moral purport of the pictures; but all is the merest\nguesswork. The height of fantastic explanation is perhaps reached by\nChristie, whose work is quite worth perusal as a literary curiosity.\nPanofka, on the other hand, turned his attention to the inscriptions on\nthe vases,[36] and discerned a symbolical meaning in these, reading\ninto the names of artists rebuses on the subjects over which they were\ninscribed, _e.g._ Douris is indicated by Athena with a spear (\u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5) or\nHermaios by a figure of Hermes.\n\n(3) =Historical.=\u2014The historical or scientific method of studying Greek\nvases consists mainly in classifying them according to different\nperiods, and within that period to different schools. To these main\nconsiderations the artistic merits of the vases and the explanation of\nthe subjects are subordinated. The reason for this is obvious. The\nartistic and mythological interest of the vases is soon exhausted, and\nreceives no new impetus from new discoveries. Now, with the comparative\nstudy of vases this is not the case. Any day may bring forth a new\ndiscovery which will completely revolutionise all preconceived\ntheories; hence there is the constant necessity for being \u201cup-to-date,\u201d\nand for the adjustment of old beliefs to new.\n\nBut the historical method is not entirely of modern growth. As long ago\nas 1767 the first attempt was made by D'Hancarville[37] to classify\nvases according to their age. Taking such scanty data as were\navailable, he divided Italian vases into five classes, ranging from\n\u201csome centuries before the foundation of Rome\u201d down to the reigns of\nTrajan, the Antonines, and Septimius Severus, which \u201cannounc\u2019d the\ntotal decadency of the Art.\u201d The earlier vases he sought to fix more\nprecisely by reference to the history of painting as told by Pliny.\n\nThe Duc de Luynes, writing in 1832,[38] hesitates to define the exact\nage of the various styles, though he arranges them generally in six\nclasses, ranging from the \u201cDoric\u201d or \u201cPhoenician\u201d vases down to\nbarbaric imitations by the natives of Italy. According to him the\nred-figured vases lasted from the time of Perikles down to that of\nPyrrhos. Millingen was content with three periods only, his\ndivision[39] being: (1) ancient style, 700\u2013450 B.C.; (2) fine style,\n450\u2013228 B.C.; (3) late style, 228 to Social War. Kramer distinguishes\nfive epochs: (A) Egyptian style, 580\u2013500 B.C.; (B) older style, 500\u2013460\nB.C.; (C) severe style, 460\u2014420 B.C.; (D) fine style, 420\u2013380 B.C.; (E)\nrich style, 380\u2013200 B.C.[40] Gerhard[41] surmised that the earliest\nvases might date from the ninth or tenth century B.C., the fine style\nextending over the fifth and fourth, while the decadence culminated in\nthe second, and in the first century fictile vases were entirely\nsupplanted by those of metal.\n\nDe Witte made a more detailed classification, extending to nine groups,\nand based rather on technical differences, as several of the groups are\ncontemporaneous; but his classification is essentially a practical one,\nand may be regarded as forming a sound basis for all succeeding\ncatalogues and treatises, as also for the arrangement of museums.\n\nJahn in his Introduction is content with four main headings, which for\na general classification of a large collection is convenient enough,\nand has, in fact, been adopted in the Vase Rooms of the British Museum.\nUnder this system the four divisions are: (1) Primitive; (2)\nBlack-figured; (3) Red-figured; (4) Vases of the Decadence. In the\nLouvre, on the other hand, the arrangement is mainly geographical,\naccording to the sites from which the vases have come.\n\nIt is recognised by modern archaeologists,[42] working on the lines\nlaid down by Jahn in the three main divisions of his Introduction, that\nin dating and classifying a vase or series of vases three points must\nbe taken into consideration: (1) circumstances of discovery; (2)\ntechnique and style; (3) inscriptions (when present). The various\nquestions with which the modern study of vase-paintings has mainly to\ndeal will be fully investigated in subsequent chapters, and it is not\nnecessary to say more on this head. But we trust that sufficient\nattention has been drawn to the many-sided interests presented by\u2014it is\nnot necessary to say a collection of vases, but\u2014a single vase[43].\n\nIt may be worth while here to turn aside for a moment and study the\nrise and growth of the various great vase-collections of Europe. We may\nwith pardonable pride regard the British Museum as standing at the head\nof these collections, possessing as it does the most representative\ncollection of any, if not the largest. Hardly any known fabric is\nunrepresented, nor the work of any known artist; though here and there\nanother museum may have the advantage\u2014as, for instance, the Louvre in\nearly black-figured fabrics, Naples in vases of Southern Italy\n(especially the large specimens), or Athens in various fabrics peculiar\nto Greece, such as the early vases of Thera and Melos, or the\nmarvellous specimens of \u201ctransitional\u201d handiwork found on the Acropolis\nof Athens.\n\nThe nucleus of the British Museum collection was, as has been\nindicated, formed by the vases obtained from Sir W. Hamilton in 1767,\nsupplemented by those of Towneley and Payne Knight (1805\u201324): these are\nnearly all vases of the late period from Southern Italy. Between the\nyears 1837 and 1845 a large quantity of fine black-figured and\nred-figured vases was acquired from the Canino collection, having been\nfound on that estate at Vulci, and in 1836 acquisitions from M.\nDurand\u2019s sale had helped to swell the number of vases representing that\nsite, including some very fine examples. In 1842 came the Burgon\ncollection, mostly of small vases from Athens and the Greek islands; in\n1856 the bequest by Sir William Temple of his collection, formed at\nNaples, added greatly to the value of the collection of later vases. In\n1860\u201364 large numbers of vases of all periods from 700 B.C. to 400 B.C.\nwere excavated by Salzmann and Biliotti at Kameiros in Rhodes; and from\nIalysos in the same island came a number of Mycenaean vases by the\ngenerosity of Prof. Ruskin in 1870. Meanwhile, the Blacas collection,\npurchased in 1867, had added a large number, chiefly of red-figured and\nItalian vases, and in 1873 many more fine specimens from Capua, Nola,\nand elsewhere were acquired from M. Castellani. Of late years the chief\nadditions have been from Cyprus, beginning with a few vases from\nCesnola in 1876 down to the Turner Bequest excavations in 1894\u201396, and\nfrom the Egypt Exploration Fund\u2019s excavations at Naukratis and Daphnae\n(1884\u201386). Other acquisitions have been mostly in the form of isolated\npurchases, especially of the white lekythi and similar classes; some\nhave come from important collections, such as those of Forman,\nTyszkiewicz, and Van Branteghem.\n\nIn 1870, when the old Catalogue was completed, the collection must have\nnumbered over 2,000 painted vases, besides 1,000 undecorated; at the\npresent day the total cannot be computed at less than 5,000, of which\nabout 4,000 may be described as painted vases.\n\nThe Louvre collection in Paris[44] started life about a century ago\nunder the first Napoleon, who established a ceramic section about 1797.\nOther vases were added from the Vatican and Naples; and meanwhile the\nRoyal collection went to form the present Cabinet of Antiquities in the\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale. In 1818 the very limited collection was\naugmented by 564 vases from M. Tochon, and in 1825 came a magnificent\nacquisition of about 2,000 vases (mostly painted) from M. Durand. From\nthis time till 1863 the growth was very slow, and the Louvre does not\nseem to have profited like other museums by the excavations at Vulci.\nIn the latter year, however, another splendid collection of 2,000\npainted and 1,400 unpainted vases was acquired from Count Campana,\nwhich necessitated the building of new galleries. The early B.F.\nfabrics, in which the Louvre is so pre-eminently rich, were all in this\ncollection. During the last thirty years the only acquisitions of\nimportance have been representative specimens from Greece and Cyprus;\nbut the total number is now reckoned at 6,000.\n\nThe growth of the Berlin collection has been much more slow and\nconsistent.[45] Its nucleus was derived from the collection of the\nElector of Brandenburg described by Beger in 1701. Up to 1830 most of\nthe vases acquired were from Southern Italy and Campania, including\n1,348 from the Koller collection in 1828. In 1831, 442 vases and 179\nspecimens of Etruscan plain ware were acquired from the Dorow\ncollection, and from 1833 to 1867 the activity of Gerhard procured fine\nspecimens from time to time, while 174 were bequeathed by him at his\ndeath. When Levezow\u2019s Catalogue was published in 1834, it included\n1,579 specimens; the next one by Furtwaengler in 1885 describes more\nthan 4,000. Of late years many valuable specimens have been derived\nfrom various parts of Greece.\n\nThese three may be regarded as the typical representative collections\nof Europe; those of Athens, Munich, Naples, and Petersburg are all of\ngreat merit and value, but chiefly strong in one particular\ndepartment\u2014Athens in early vases and Attic lekythi, Petersburg in late\nred-figured vases, and Naples in the fabrics of Southern Italy. Many of\nthe finest specimens, however, are to be found in the smaller\ncollections in the Paris Biblioth\u00e8que, at Florence, Vienna, Madrid, and\nin Rome. Of late years Europe has found a formidable rival in America,\nespecially in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, which, backed by\nalmost inexhaustible private benefactions, is gradually acquiring a\nlarge proportion of the signed vases and other _chefs-d\u2019\u0153uvre_ which\nfrom time to time find their way into the market. The Metropolitan\nMuseum at New York, on the other hand, rests its claim to distinction\non the possession of General Cesnola\u2019s enormous collections of Cypriote\npottery of all periods.\n\nThe gradual centralising of vases into public museums is a noteworthy\nfeature at the present day. The private collections formed by so many\namateurs at the beginning of the century have nearly all been long\nsince dispersed and incorporated with the various national\ncollections[46]; and those formed more recently are rapidly sharing the\nsame fate. Hardly a year passes now without seeing the dispersion of\nsome notable collection like those of M. Sabouroff, M. van Branteghem,\nColonel Brown (Forman collection), or M. Bourguignon; and almost the\nonly important one that still remains intact is that of Sig. Jatta at\nRuvo (consisting almost entirely of South Italian vases). Now that the\ndays are past when it was the custom for rich collectors to publish\nmagnificently illustrated atlases of their possessions, this tendency\nto centralisation can only be welcomed both by artists and students.\nFor the latter now it only remains to be desired that a scientific and\nwell-illustrated catalogue of every public museum should be available.\n\nWe append here a list of the principal museums and collections in\nEurope, which may form a supplement to that given by Jahn in 1854. The\nmore important ones are printed in heavier type.\n\n I. GREAT BRITAIN.\n\n 1. =London. British Museum= (see p. 24). Catalogue by C. Smith and\n Walters.\n\n South Kensington Museum (a few isolated specimens; also some\n from the Museum of Practical Geology Jermyn Street).\n\n Soane Museum (the Cawdor Vase).\n\n 2. =Oxford. Ashmolean Museum.= Catalogue by P. Gardner (1893).\n\n 3.= Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum.= Catalogue by E. A. Gardner\n (1896).\n\n 4. Deepdene (Dorking). Hope Collection. Inaccessible to students.\n Consists entirely of late vases from Southern Italy.\n\n 5. Numerous private collections, among the more important being\u2014\n\n Richmond. The late Sir F. Cook.\n\n Castle Ashby. Marquis of Northampton.\n\n 6. Harrow School Museum (a fine \u201cTheseus\u201d Kylix and Krater with\n Centaurs). Catalogue by C. Torr (1887).\n\n 7. Edinburgh.\n\n II. FRANCE.\n\n 1. =Paris. The Louvre= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Pottier (in\n progress).\n\n =Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale.= Catalogue by A. de Ridder (1902).\n\n Dzialynski Collection. See De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel\n Lambert_.\n\n 2. Marseilles Museum. Catalogue by Froehner (1897).\n\n 3. Rouen Museum.\n\n 4. Boulogne Museum.\n\n 5. Compi\u00e8gne Museum.\n\n 6. S\u00e8vres Museum.\n\n III. BELGIUM AND HOLLAND.\n\n 1. Brussels.[47] See Cat. of Mus\u00e9e de Ravestein. Somz\u00e9e Collection\n (now dispersed).\n\n 2. Amsterdam. Six Collection.\n\n 3. Leyden Museum. See Roulez, _Vases de Leyde_.\n\n IV. GERMANY.\n\n 1. =Berlin. Antiquarium= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Furtwaengler\n (1885).\n\n 2. Altenburg.\n\n 3. Bonn.\n\n 4. Breslau.\n\n 5. Brunswick.\n\n 6. Dresden.\n\n 7. Frankfurt. Museum St\u00e4del.\n\n 8. Gotha.\n\n 9. Heidelberg.\n\n 10. =Karlsruhe.= Catalogue by Winnefeld (1887).\n\n 11. Leipzig.\n\n 12. =Munich.= Catalogue by Jahn (1854).\n\n 13. Schwerin.\n\n 14. =W\u00fcrzburg.= Antikenkabinet. Coll. Bank\u00f3.\n\n V. DENMARK AND SWEDEN.\n\n 1. Kopenhagen. Catalogue by Smith (1862).\n\n 2. Stockholm.\n\n VI. RUSSIA.\n\n 1. =Petersburg. Hermitage.= Catalogue by Stephani (1869).\n\n Stroganoff Coll.\n\n Pisareff Coll.\n\n 2. Dorpat (University).\n\n VII. AUSTRIA.\n\n 1. =Vienna. Oesterreichisches Museum.= Catalogue by Masner (1891).\n K. K. Kabinet. University.\n\n 2. Cracow. Czartoryski Coll.\n\n 3. Prague. Pollak Coll.\n\n 4. Trieste. Museum.\n\n VIII. SWITZERLAND.\n\n 1. Berne }\n 2. Geneva } All unimportant for Greek Vases.\n 3. Z\u00fcrich.}\n\n IX. SPAIN.\n\n Madrid.\n\n X. ITALY AND SICILY.\n\n 1. Acerra. Spinelli Coll.\n\n 2. Adria. Museo Bocchi. Publication by Sch\u00f6ne.\n\n 3. Arezzo. Chiefly Roman Arretine ware.\n\n 4. =Bologna. Museo Civico.= Catalogue by Pellegrini (1900).\n Universit\u00e0.\n\n 5. Capua. Campana Coll.\n\n 6. Cervetri. Ruspoli Coll.\n\n 7. Chiusi. Museum. Casucchini Coll. (but see p. 73).\n\n 8. Corneto. Museum. Bruschi Coll.\n\n 9. Florence. Museum.\n\n 10. =Naples. Museo Nazionale.= Catalogue by Heydemann (1872).\n\n 11. Orvieto. Museum. Faina Coll.\n\n 12. Palermo. Museum.\n\n 13. Parma.\n\n 14. Perugia. Museum.\n\n 15. =Ruvo. Jatta Coll.= Catalogue by Sig. G. Jatta (1869).\n\n 16. Taranto. Museum.\n\n 17. Terranuova (Gela). Private collections.\n\n 18. =Rome. Vatican= (=Mus. Gregoriano=). Guide by Helbig. Museo\n Capitolino. Museo Papa Giulio. Numerous private\n collections: Hartwig, Torlonia, Castellani, etc., and\n Deutsches Arch. Inst.\n\n XI. GREECE.\n\n 1. =Athens. National Museum.= Catalogue by Couve and Collignon\n (1902). Do. (Acropolis Collection). Catalogue in\n progress. Trikoupis Coll. Other private collections.\n\n 2. Eleusis. Museum (local finds).\n\n 3. Candia (Crete).\n\n XII. ASIA MINOR.\n\n Smyrna. Various private collections.\n\n XIII. CYPRUS.\n\n Nicosia. Cyprus Museum. Catalogue by Myres and Richter (1899).\n\n Private collections at Larnaka, Nicosia, and Limassol.\n\n XIV. EGYPT.\n\n Cairo. Ghizeh Museum.\n\n XV. AMERICA.\n\n 1. =Boston.= Catalogue by Robinson.\n\n 2. New York. Metropolitan Museum. Atlas of Cesnola Collection from\n Cyprus published.\n\n 3. Baltimore.\n\n 4. Chicago.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n _B.M. Guide to First and Second Egyptian Rooms_ (1904), p. 22; for\n early Neolithic pottery from Ireland see _Guide to Antiqs. of Stone\n Age_, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n Remains of Neolithic pottery have recently been found in Crete\n (_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 158) and in the Cyclades.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n _Cat. des Vases Antiques du Louvre_ i. p. 18.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n Miss Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, preface, p. ii.\n The Introduction to this work contains some excellent examples of the\n modern method of using vase-paintings to elucidate mythology.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n For the use of vase-paintings in illustration of Greek religious\n beliefs and customs, reference may be made to Miss Harrison\u2019s\n _Prolegomena to Greek Religion_ (Cambridge Press, 1903), containing\n many interesting interpretations of scenes on the vases which may\n bear on the subject.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n See Chapter XIV., _ad fin._\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. 57.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Cf. for instance Berlin 2154 (Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 29).\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Collignon, _Hist. de la Sculpt. Grecque_, i. p. 362.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ 81.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n As, for instance, the subjects of Odysseus and Philoktetes; Orestes\n slaying Aegisthos; the death of Polyxena; Theseus fetching the ring\n from Amphitrite. Cf. Huddilston, _Lessons from Greek Pottery_, p. 28.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n _Museum Romanum_, Rome, 1690, fol.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n _Thesaur. Antiq. Rom._ xii. 955.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n _Thesaur. regii Brandenb._ vol. iii.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n _Ant. Expliq._ iii. pls. 71\u201377 (1719).\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n _Etr. Regal._ 1723, fol.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n _Mus. Etr._ 1737\u201343.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n _Recueil_, 1752\u201367 (especially vols. i.\u2013ii.).\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n _Antiqs. \u00c9tr. Gr. et Rom., tir\u00e9es du Cabinet de M. H._, fol. 1766\u201367.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n 1791\u20131803. Plates for a fifth volume were prepared, but never\n regularly published (see Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire des Vases Peints_, ii.\n p. 334).\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n _Peintures des Vases Antiques_, edited by M. Dubois-Maisonneuve, in\n two volumes, with Introduction (1808\u201310); now re-edited by S. Reinach\n (1891).\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n _Vases Grecs_, Rome, 1813; _Vases de Coghill_, Rome, 1817; _Ancient\n Uned. Monuments_, London, 1822; the two former now re-edited by S.\n Reinach, 1891 and 1900.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n _Vases de Lamberg_, Paris, 1813\u201325; re-edited by S. Reinach, 1900.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n _Vasi de Blacas._ This was never actually published: see Reinach,\n _R\u00e9pertoire_, ii. p. 383.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n _Disquisitions on the Painted Vases_, 1806.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n _Coll. of Antique Vases_, London, 1814.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n _Vasi Fittili_, 4 vols. 1833; _Mon. Etruschi_ (1824), vol. v.; _Gal.\n Omerica_, 3 vols. 1831\u201336, etc.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n _De\u2019 vasi antichi dipinti_, 1806.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n _Gr. Vasengem\u00e4lde_, 1797\u20131800.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n _Monumenti per servire alla storia degli ant. pop. ital._ 2nd edn.\n 1833; _Monumenti inediti_, 1844.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n _Mon. In\u00e9d._ 1828.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n _Gr\u00e4ber der Hellenen_, Berlin, 1837.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n _Descr. de quelques vases peints_, 1840.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n _Die Vasensammlung zu M\u00fcnchen_, Introduction.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n He gave the name of Etruria to the place in Staffordshire where he\n set up his pottery, after the supposed origin of the ancient vases.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n _Namen der Vasenbilder_, 1849.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n Vol. ii. p. 108.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1832, p. 145 ff.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n _Peintures_, p. viii.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n _Der Stil u. Herkunft der gr. Vasen_, p. 46 ff.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n _Rapporto Volcente_, in _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1831, p. 98 ff.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n The names of the chief modern writers on the subject are given in the\n Bibliography, and in the notes to the Historical Chapters (VI.-XI.),\n where also brief bibliographies are given.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n The writer is indebted to the Introduction to M. Pottier\u2019s admirable\n little Catalogue of the Vases in the Louvre for many ideas worked up\n in the foregoing pages.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n See Pottier\u2019s Catalogue, i. p. 59.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n See the Introduction to Furtwaengler\u2019s Catalogue.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Cf. the lists given by Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, pp. xi, xiv, with\n (for instance) the notes appended to the pages of Reinach\u2019s\n _R\u00e9pertoire_.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n The collection made by Baron Hirsch in Paris is now incorporated with\n this Museum.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II\n _SITES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCOVERY OF GREEK VASES_\n\n Historical and geographical limits of subject\u2014Description of Greek\n tombs\u2014Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily, Italy\u2014Condition of\n vases when found\u2014Subsequent restorations\u2014Imitations and\n forgeries\u2014Prices of vases\u2014Sites on which painted vases have been\n found: Athens, Corinth, Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia\n Minor, Cyprus, North Africa, Italy, Etruria\u2014Vulci\n discoveries\u2014Southern Italy, Sicily.\n\n\nBefore dealing with Greek vases in further detail, it may be as well to\nsay something of the circumstances under which, and the localities in\nwhich, they have been discovered. And further, we must clearly define\nthe limits of our subject, both historically and geographically.\n\n(1) =Historical.=\u2014It may seem somewhat paradoxical to doubt whether the\nprimitive pottery found on Greek soil ought, strictly speaking, to be\ncalled Greek. In a succeeding chapter we shall have occasion to touch\nupon the question of the ethnological origin of this pottery, which, in\nthe opinion of some authorities, is not the product of Greeks as we\nunderstand the term, but of some Oriental nation, such as the\nPhoenicians. It is, however, enough for our present purpose that it has\nbeen found on Greek soil, and that it forms a stage which we cannot\nomit from a study of the development of Greek pottery, seeing that its\ninfluence can be plainly traced on later fabrics.\n\nTurning to the other limit of the subject, we find that nearly all the\nlatest vases, belonging to the period of the Decadence, were\nmanufactured in Southern Italy or Etruria. But nearly all bear so\nunmistakably the stamp of Greek influence, however degenerate and\nobscured, that we can only regard them as made by Greek artists settled\nin the colonies of Magna Graecia, or at any rate by native workers in\ndirect imitation of the Greeks.\n\nWe may roughly define our historical limits as from 2500 B.C., the\napproximate age of the early pottery of Crete, Cyprus, and Hissarlik,\ndown to 200 B.C., when the manufacture of painted vases came to an end\nunder the growing dominion of Rome. It was formerly supposed that the\nsenatorial edict of 186 B.C., forbidding the performance of\nBacchanalian ceremonies in Italy, was the means of putting an end to\nthis industry, but this is hardly borne out by facts; it rather died a\nnatural death owing to the growing popularity of relief-work both in\nterracotta and in metal (see Chapters XI. and XXII.).\n\n(2) =Geographical.=\u2014Having defined our historical limits, it remains to\nconsider the extent of Greek civilisation during that period, as\nattested by archaeological or other evidence. Besides the mainland of\nGreece and the islands of the Aegean Sea, the whole of Asia Minor may\nbe regarded as in a measure Greek, although practically speaking only a\nstrip of territory along the western coast became really Hellenised,\nand we shall not be concerned with pottery-finds in any other part of\nthe country.[48] To the north-east, Greek colonisation penetrated as\nfar as Kertch and other places in the Crimea, known to the ancients as\nPanticapaeum and the Bosphoros respectively. In the Eastern\nMediterranean the island of Cyprus will demand a large share of our\nattention. Egypt, again, has yielded large numbers of vases, mostly\nfrom the two Greek settlements of Naukratis and Daphnae; and farther to\nthe west along the north coast of Africa was the Greek colony of\nKyrene, also a fruitful site for excavators.\n\nThe rest of the ground is covered by the island of Sicily and the\npeninsular portion of Italy from Bologna southwards. Greek vases have\noccasionally turned up in Spain, Gaul (_i.e._ France and North Italy),\nas at Marseilles (Massilia), where primitive Greek pottery has been\nfound, and also in Sardinia; but the Western Mediterranean sites are\nchiefly confined to Southern Italy and Etruria. In fact, till recent\nyears these regions were almost our only source of information on Greek\npottery, as has already been pointed out.\n\nGenerally speaking, it may be said that all Greek vases have been found\nin tombs, but the circumstances under which they have been found differ\naccording to locality. We propose in the succeeding section to say\nsomething of the nature of the ancient tombs, and the differences\nbetween those of Greece, Cyprus, Italy, and other sites.\n\nOf finds on the sites of temples and sanctuaries it is not necessary to\nsay much here; the explanation of such discoveries will receive some\nattention in Chapter IV., and the individual sites will also be noted\nin the next section of this chapter. It is a rare occurrence to find\ncomplete vases under these circumstances, as they generally owe their\npreservation to the fact that they have been broken in pieces and cast\naway as rubbish into holes and pits. The most notable instance is the\nremarkable series of fragments discovered on the Acropolis at Athens.\n\nGreek tombs are not usually very remarkable in character,[49] being for\nthe most part small and designed for single corpses; this may possibly\naccount for the comparatively small size of the vases discovered on\nmost Hellenic sites. In the earlier tombs at Athens and Corinth the\npottery was found at a very great depth below the soil. The six\nshaft-graves in the circle at Mycenae are of great size, and contained\nlarge quantities of painted pottery; an exact reproduction of the\nsixth, found by M. Stamatakis in 1878, with its contents, is in the\nNational Museum at Athens. Here also are reproductions of two typical\nfifth-century Greek tombs containing sepulchral lekythi,[50] and\nshowing how the vases were arranged round the corpse.[51]\n\nRock-graves are seldom found in Greece, the normal form of tomb being a\nhole or trench dug in the earth, either filled in with earth or covered\nwith tiles (as at Tanagra). The rock-grave is almost exclusively\nAsiatic, but some fine specimens were found at Kertch in the\nCrimea.[52] Some large ones have also been found in Rhodes,[53] but the\nmost typical form of tomb there is a square chamber cut out of the hard\nclayey earth, approached by a square vertical shaft and a door. They\ngenerally contained single bodies, round which were ranged vases and\nterracotta figures. Sir A. Biliotti, in his diary of the excavations at\nKameiros (1864), also records the finding of tombs cut in the clay in\nthe form of longitudinal trenches, covered with flat stones forming a\nvaulted roof. Others were merely troughs cut in the surface of the rock\nand covered with stones and earth. In the shafts of the first type of\ntomb large jars or \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 were often found containing the bones of\nchildren (see page 152). Nearly all these tombs have yielded Greek\nvases of all dates. In the island of Karpathos[54] Mr. J. T. Bent found\ntombs containing early pottery, consisting of two or three chambers\nwith stone benches round the sides.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1. INTERIOR OF COFFIN FOUND AT ATHENS, SHOWING\nARRANGEMENT OF VASES.]\n\nThe tombs of Cyprus are especially interesting for two reasons:\nfirstly, that they exhibit types not found elsewhere; and, secondly,\nthat they vary in size and character at different periods of the\nisland\u2019s history. In the earliest tombs of the Bronze Age period (down\nto about 800 B.C.) we find a very simple type, consisting of a mere\noven-like hole a few feet below the surface of the ground, with a short\nsloping \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 leading to it (Fig. 2). These tombs have very rarely\nbeen found intact, and in most cases are full of fallen earth, so that\nexact details of their original arrangement can seldom be obtained.\nEach tomb generally contained a few exported Mycenaean vases and a\nlarge number of local fabric, usually hand-made and rude in character.\nThe rich cemetery of Enkomi is, however, an exception, for here we find\nlarge _built_ tombs, with roofs and walls of stone. Sometimes the\nBronze Age tombs were in the form of a deep well.[55]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Ath. Mitth._\n\n FIG. 2. DIAGRAM OF BRONZE AGE TOMBS, AGIA PARASKEVI, CYPRUS.\n]\n\nIn the Graeco-Phoenician period (about 700\u2013300 B.C.) the \u201coven\u201d type of\ntomb is preserved, but on a larger scale and at a greater depth, and\noften reached by a long flight of stone steps. These tombs usually\ncontain large quantities of the local geometrical pottery, as many as\neighty or a hundred vases being sometimes found in one tomb. At Curium\nand elsewhere, where the tombs contain Greek painted vases, they are\nsometimes in the form of narrow ramifying passages.\n\nThe tombs of the Hellenistic period are of a very elaborate character,\nespecially those of Roman date, with long narrow \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 leading to a\nchamber some ten by twenty feet or more, round the walls of which are\nsarcophagi and niches; but these tombs seldom contain any but plain and\ninferior pottery, the manufacture of painted vases in the island having\ncome to an end, as in the rest of Greece.\n\nFrequently a tomb was found to contain pottery of widely different\nperiods, especially in cemeteries such as Amathus and Curium, where the\nfinds are of all dates, showing that the tombs were used again and\nagain for burials.[56]\n\nThe tombs in the Cyrenaica, which were explored by Mr. Dennis and\ncontained many Greek vases, he describes as follows[57]: \u201cThe great\nmajority of the tombs were sunk in the rock, in the form of pits, from\n6 to 7 feet long, from 3\u00bd to 4\u00bd feet wide, and from 5 to 6 feet\ndeep.... Vases were sometimes placed in all four corners of the\nsepulchre, but this was rare; they were generally confined to two\ncorners, often to one. The most usual place was the corner to the right\nof the head, and this was the place of honour; for here a Panathenaic\nvase in the tomb of a victor, a ribbed amphora of glazed black ware, or\nmore commonly an ordinary wine-_diota_, would be deposited upright,\nwith a number of smaller vases within it, or at its foot, either\nfigured or of black or plain ware, according to the circumstances of\nthe deceased. Occasionally small vases, or sometimes terracotta\nfigures, were placed along the sides of the tomb, between the head and\nfeet of the corpse; but I do not remember ever to have found vases\ndeposited on the breast, or under the arms of the deceased, as was\noften the case in the Greek tombs of Sicily.\u201d\n\nMr. Arthur Evans has given an interesting account of the tombs at Gela\n(Terranuova) in Sicily, from which he has excavated many fine vases for\nthe Ashmolean Museum.[58] Chronologically the limits of their date can\nbe ascertained, between the foundation of Gela in 589 B.C. and its\ndepopulation by the Carthaginians in 409 B.C., but a few tombs belong\nto the subsequent period down to 284 B.C., when it was finally\ndestroyed by the Mamertines. In the early graves containing B.F. vases\nskeletons were found; these tombs were in the form of terracotta cists\nwith gabled covers and tiled floors. The next stage, containing R.F.\nvases, has vaulted roofs made of two pieces of stone. During this\nperiod cremation-pits containing ashes and bones are sometimes found;\nthe burnt bones were placed in kraters and covered with shallow\nvessels. In these were found white lekythi, in some respects rivalling\nthose of Athens; but the subjects are domestic rather than sepulchral,\nand they are probably, like many of the B.F. and R.F. vases, local\nfabrics. Some of the tombs with B.F. vases are in the form of chambers\nwith vaulted cement roofs. In the earlier tombs the disposition was\nusually as follows: a kylix on the left side of the head, an alabastron\nunder the right arm, and a lekythos under the left (Fig. 3.). The tombs\nof Selinus, which are all of early date, have been described by a local\nexplorer.[59]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Ashmolean Vases_.\n\n FIG. 3. DISPOSITION OF VASES IN TOMB AT\n GELA, SICILY.\n]\n\nWe next review the types of tombs in Italy from which vases have been\nobtained. Those at Vulci, and in the Etruscan territory generally, from\nwhich the finest and largest vases have been extracted, are chambers\nhewn in the rocks. The early tombs of Civita Vecchia and Cervetri are\ntunnelled in the earth; in Southern Italy, especially in Campania, they\nare large chambers, about two feet under the surface. In\nD'Hancarville\u2019s work (see p. 17) an illustration is given[60] of a tomb\nin Southern Italy, which is constructed of large blocks of stone,\narranged in squared masses, called the Etruscan style of masonry, in\ncontradistinction to the Cyclopean. The walls are painted with\nsubjects, the body is laid upon the stone floor, and the larger vases,\nsuch as the kraters, are placed round it. The jugs are hung upon nails\nround the walls. Fig. 4. gives an example of a tomb of this kind from\nVeii. A full account, with illustrations, of the tombs excavated in the\nCertosa at Bologna about thirty years ago, has been given by Signor\nZannoni.[61] The tombs of Southern and Central Italy were made upon the\nsame plan, and the same description applies to both sites.[62]\n\nThe most ordinary tombs were constructed of rude stones or tiles, of a\ndimension sufficient to contain the body and five or six vases; a small\none near the head and others between the legs, and on each side, more\noften on the right than on the left side. An oinochoe and phiale were\nusually found in every tomb; but the number, size, and quality of the\nvases varied, probably according to the rank or wealth of the person\nfor whom the tomb was made. The better sort of tombs were of larger\nsize, and constructed with large hewn stones, generally without, but\nsometimes completed with, cement; the walls were stuccoed, and\nsometimes ornamented with painted patterns.\n\nIn these tombs, which were like small chambers, the body lay face\nupwards on the floor, with the vases placed round it; sometimes vases\nhave been found hanging upon nails of iron or bronze, attached to the\nside walls. The vases in the larger tombs were always more numerous, of\na larger size, and of a superior quality in every respect to those of\nthe ordinary tombs, which had little to recommend them except their\nform.\n\nMany of the larger and more important Etruscan tombs have also been\ndescribed and illustrated by Dennis in his work on Etruria, especially\nthose of Vulci and Corneto, which are famous both for their contents\nand for the paintings which adorn their walls.[63] In the basement of\nthe British Museum may be seen large models of Etruscan tombs in which\nthe arrangement is carefully reproduced.\n\nThe vases, as we have already mentioned, are often ranged round the\ndead, being hung upon or placed near the walls, or piled up in the\ncorners. Some hold the ashes of the deceased; others, small objects\nused during life. They are seldom perfect, having generally either been\ncrushed into fragments by the weight of the superincumbent earth, or\nelse broken into sherds, and thrown into corners. Some exhibit marks of\nburning, probably from having accompanied the deceased to the funeral\npyre. Sometimes they are dug up in a complete state of preservation,\nand still full of the ashes of the dead.[64] These are sometimes found\ninside a large and coarser vase of unglazed clay, which forms a case to\nprotect them from the earth.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 4. THE CAMPANA TOMB AT VEII, AS IT APPEARED WHEN\nOPENED.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAlmost all the vases in the museums of Europe have been mended, and the\nmost skilful workmen at Naples and Rome were employed to restore them\nto their pristine perfection. Their defective parts were scraped,\nfiled, rejoined, and supplied with pieces from other vases, or else\ncompleted in plaster of Paris, over which coating the restored portions\nwere painted in appropriate colours, and varnished, so as to deceive\nthe inexperienced eye. But either through carelessness, or else owing\nto the difference of process, the restorations had one glaring\ntechnical defect: the inner lines are not of the glossy hue of the\ngenuine vases, and there is no indication of the thick raised line\nwhich follows the original outline in the old paintings. Sometimes the\nrestorer pared away the ancient incrustation, and cut down to the\ndull-coloured paste of the body of the vase. Sometimes he even went so\nfar as to paint figures in a light red or orange oil paint on the black\nground, or in black paint of the same kind on orange ground. But in all\nthese frauds the dull tone of colour, the inferior style of art, and\nthe wide difference between modern and ancient drawing and treatment of\nsubjects, disclose the deception. The calcareous incrustation deposited\non the vases by the infiltration into the tombs of water, containing\nlime in solution, can be removed by soaking the vases in a solution of\nhydrochloric acid.[65]\n\nIn other cases vases with subjects have been counterfeited by taking an\nancient vase covered entirely with black glaze, tracing upon it the\nsubject and inscription intended to be fabricated, and cutting away all\nthe black portions surrounding these tracings, so as to expose the\nnatural colour of the clay for the fictitious ground. When red figures\nwere intended to be counterfeited, the contrary course was adopted, the\npart for the figures only being scraped away, and the rest left\nuntouched. Vases, indeed, in which the ground or figures are below the\nsurface should always be regarded with suspicion, and their genuineness\ncan only be determined by the general composition and style of the\nfigures, and by the peculiarities of the inscriptions. The latter also\nare often fictitious, being painted in with colours imitating the true\nones, and often incised; indeed, nearly all inscriptions incised after\nthe vase has been baked are liable to give rise to suspicion. The\ndifference of style in the composition of groups, and especially small\npoints in the drawing, such as the over-careful drawing of details, the\nindication of nails, and various other minute particulars, are also\ncriteria for detecting false or imitated vases. Water, alcohol, and\nacids will remove false inscriptions, but leave the true ones intact.\n\nGreek vases are not so easy to imitate as terracotta figures, the main\ndifficulty being the black varnish, which can never be successfully\nreproduced. Acids or alcohol will always remove modern counterfeits,\nbut cannot touch the original substance. Since the discovery in Greece\nof white-ground vases forgers have had a better chance, and they have\noften ingeniously availed themselves of genuine ancient vases on which\nto place modern paintings. But the antique drawing is exceedingly\ndifficult to imitate. In former times Pietro Fondi established\nmanufactories at Venice and Corfu, and the Vasari family at Venice, for\nfictitious vases,[66] and many such imitations have been made at Naples\nfor the purpose of modern decoration.\n\nThe first to make such an attempt in England was the famous potter\nWedgwood, whose copy of the Portland Vase is well known. His paste is,\nhowever, too heavy, and his drawings far inferior to the antique in\nfreedom and spirit. At Naples, chiefly through the researches and under\nthe direction of Gargiulo, vases were produced, which in their paste\nand glaze resembled the antique, although the drawings were vastly\ninferior, and the imitation could be at once detected by a practised\neye. They were, indeed, far inferior in all essential respects to the\nancient vases. Even soon after the acquisition of the Hamilton\ncollection by the public, the taste created for these novelties caused\nvarious imitations to be produced. Some of the simplest kind were made\nof wood, covered with painted paper, the subjects being traced from the\nvases themselves, and this was the most obvious mode of making them.\nBattam also made very excellent facsimiles of these vases, but they\nwere produced in a manner very different from that of the ancient\npotters, the black colour for the grounds or figures not being laid on\nwith a glaze, but merely with a cold pigment which had not been fired,\nand their lustre was produced by a polish. In technical details they\ndid not equal the imitations made at Naples, some of the best of which\ndeceived both archaeologists and collectors.\n\nSometimes illustrations of vases which never had any real existence\nhave appeared in publications. One of the most remarkable of these\nfabricated engravings was issued by Br\u00f6ndsted and Stackelberg in a fit\nof archaeological jealousy. A modern archaeologist is seen running\nafter a draped woman called [PH\u00caM\u00ca], or \u201cFame,\u201d who flies from him\nexclaiming, [\u0395\u039a\u0391\u03a3 \u03a0\u0391\u0399 \u039a\u0391\u039b\u0395], \u201cA long way off, my fine fellow!\u201d This\nvase, which never existed except upon paper, deceived the credulous\nInghirami, who too late endeavoured to cancel it from his work. Other\nvases, evidently false, have also been published.[67]\n\nM. Tyszkiewicz, the great collector, in his entertaining\n_Souvenirs_,[68] gives some interesting illustrations of the methods of\nItalian forgers of vases, of which he had frequent experience. \u201cThe\nNeapolitans,\u201d he says, \u201cexcel above all others in this industry; and it\nis in ancient Capua, now Sta. Maria di Capua Vetere, that the best\n_ateliers_ for the manufacture of painted vases are situated.\u201d But\n\u201ceven the famous connoisseur Raimondi, who was considered the master of\nhis art at Sta. Maria\u2014even he could never invent altogether the\ndecoration of a vase so as to make it pass for an antique. Only if this\ntalented artist could get just a few fragments of a fine vase, he was\nclever enough to be able, by the aid of illustrations of vases in\nmuseums or in private collections, to reconstruct the whole subject. He\nreplaced the missing parts, and threw such an air of uniformity over\nthe vase that it was almost impossible to tell what was modern. But if\nyou tried to wash a vase faked up in this manner, in pure alcohol\nchemically rectified, you would find that the modern portions would\nvanish, while the ancient paintings would remain. Neither Raimondi nor\nany one else could ever manage to discover the secret of the ancient\npotters\u2014how to obtain the background of a brilliant black colour,\nimproperly known as the _varnish of Nola_. To disguise their failure in\nthis respect, the forgers are obliged, when the vase is entirely\nreconstructed and repainted, to cover it all over with a varnish of\ntheir own invention; but the surface of this varnish, although\nbrilliant, lacks the freshness and brightness of that used by the\nancients. Relatively this surface appears dull, and vanishes the moment\nit is washed with alcohol.\u201d\n\nAt Athens also, says M. Tyszkiewicz, laboratories have been established\nfor making vases, of which he was acquainted with three. These forgers\nexcel in turning out the white-ground vases, which, even when antique,\ncannot resist the action of alcohol. For the same reason they apply\ngilding to their black-and-red vases, because this also yields to its\naction. The large prices fetched by the white vases (see below) have\nstimulated their activity in this direction, and their efforts have not\nbeen without artistic merit, though failing in technique.[69]\n\nOn the subject of forgeries in relation to Greek vases the literature\nis very scanty; but reference may be made to Prof. Furtwaengler\u2019s\n_Neuere F\u00e4lschungen von Antiken_, which raises some very interesting\nquestions in regard to forgeries, though his conclusions may sometimes\nbe thought rather arbitrary.\n\nOf the prices paid for painted vases in ancient times, no positive\nmention occurs in classical authorities, yet it is most probable that\nvases of the best class, the products of eminent painters, obtained\nconsiderable prices. For works of inferior merit only small sums were\npaid, as will be seen by referring to the account of the inscriptions\nwhich were incised underneath their feet, and gave their contemporary\nvalue (Chapter XVII.). In modern times we have no information about the\nprices paid for these works of art till about seventy years ago, when\nthey began to realise considerable sums. In this country the\ncollections of Mr. Towneley, Sir W. Hamilton, Lord Elgin, and Mr. Payne\nKnight all contained painted vases; but as they included other objects,\nit is difficult to determine the value placed on the vases. The sum of\n\u00a38,400 was paid for the vases of the Hamilton collection, one of the\nmost remarkable of the time, and consisting of many beautiful specimens\nfrom Southern Italy. The great discoveries of the Prince of Canino in\n1827, and the subsequent sale of numerous vases, gave them, however, a\ndefinite market value, to which the sale of the collection of Baron\nDurand, which consisted almost entirely of vases, affords some clue.\nHis collection sold in 1836 for 313,160 francs, or about \u00a312,524. The\nmost valuable specimen in the collection was the vase representing the\ndeath of Kroisos (Fig. 132), which was purchased for the Louvre at the\nprice of 6,600 francs, or \u00a3264. The cup with the subject of Arkesilaos\n(p. 342) brought 1,050 francs, or \u00a342. Another magnificent vase, now in\nthe Louvre, with the subject of the youthful Herakles strangling the\nserpents,[70] was only secured for France after reaching the price of\n6,000 francs, or \u00a3240; another, with the subject of Herakles,\nDeianeira, and Hyllos,[71] was purchased for the sum of 3,550 francs,\nor \u00a3142. A krater, with the subject of Akamas and Demophon bringing\nback Aithra, was obtained by Magnoncourt for 4,250 francs, or \u00a3170.[72]\nAn amphora of the maker Exekias (B 210) was bought by the British\nMuseum for \u00a3142. The inferior vases of course realised much smaller\nsums, varying from a few francs to a few pounds; but high prices\ncontinued to be obtained, and the sale by the Prince of Canino in 1837\nof some of his finest vases contributed to enrich the museums of\nEurope, although, as many of the vases were bought in, it does not\nafford a good criterion as to price. An oinocho\u00eb with Apollo and the\nMuses, and a hydria, with the same subject, were bought in for 2,000\nfrancs, or \u00a380 each. A kylix, with a love scene, and another with Priam\nredeeming Hektor\u2019s corpse,[73] brought 6,600 francs, or \u00a3264. An\namphora with the subject of Dionysos, and the Euphronios cup with\nHerakles and Geryon (Plate XXXVIII.), sold for 8,000 francs, or \u00a3320\neach. A vase with the subject of Theseus seizing Korone (Chap. XIV.),\nanother by Euthymides with the arming of Paris, and a third with Peleus\nand Thetis, sold for 6,000 francs, or \u00a3240. The collector Steuart was\noffered 7,500 francs, or \u00a3300, for a large krater, found in Southern\nItaly, ornamented with the subject of Kadmos and the dragon; \u00a3120 was\npaid by the British Museum for a fine krater ornamented with the\nexploits of Achilles[74]; \u00a3100 for an amphora of Apulian style, with\nthe subject of Pelops and Oinomaos at the altar of the Olympian\nZeus.[75] For another vase, with the name of Mousaios, \u00a3120 was paid,\nand \u00a3100 for the well-known Athenian prize vase excavated by\nBurgon.[76] At Mr. Beckford\u2019s sale the Duke of Hamilton gave \u00a3200 for a\nlekythos representing a procession of Persians, which is now in the\nBritish Museum (E 695). At Naples the passion for possessing fine vases\noutstripped these prices; 2,400 ducats, or \u00a3500, was given for a vase\nwith gilded figures discovered at Capua. Still more incredible, early\nin the nineteenth century, 8,000 ducats, or \u00a31,500, was paid to\nVivenzio for the vase now in the Naples Museum representing the sack of\nTroy; 6,000 ducats, or \u00a31,000, for one with a Dionysiac feast; and\n4,000 ducats, or \u00a3800, for the grand vase with the battle of the\nAmazons, published by Schulz.[77] Another vase, for which the sum of\n\u00a31,000 was paid, was the so-called Capo di Monte Vase, purchased by Mr.\nEdwards, at Naples.[78] For the large colossal vases of Southern Italy\nfrom \u00a3300 to \u00a3500 has been given, according to their condition and\nstyle. But such sums will not be hereafter realised, now that their\nplace in the estimation of the connoisseur has been rightly taken by\nthe fine red-figured or white ground vases, which, owing to the\nstringency of modern laws, seldom now find their way into the market.\nThe vases with white grounds and polychrome figures have also been\nalways much sought after, and have realised large prices, the\nbest-preserved examples fetching as much as \u00a370 or \u00a3100.[79] Generally\nthe highest prices have been paid for artistic merit, but these have\nbeen surpassed in the case of some vases of high literary or historical\nvalue. As a general rule vases with inscriptions have always been most\nsought after, especially when the inscriptions are the signatures of\nthe names of potters or artists, or names of historical interest. The\ninferior kinds have fetched prices much more moderate, the kylikes\naveraging from \u00a35 to \u00a310, the amphorae from \u00a310 to \u00a320, the hydriae\nabout the same; the kraters from \u00a35 to \u00a320, according to their general\nexcellence, the oinochoae about \u00a35, and other shapes from a few\nshillings to a few pounds. The charming glaze and shapes of the vases\ndiscovered at Nola have often obtained good prices from amateurs. Those\nof Greece Proper have also fetched higher prices than those of Italy,\non account of the interest attached to the place of their discovery.[80]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe propose now to give a survey of the principal localities in which\nthe fictile products of the Greeks have been discovered, and the\nexcavations which have taken place on these sites. It need hardly be\nsaid, however, that it is quite impossible to detail all the places\nwhere specimens of common pottery have been found.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 5. MAP OF GREECE.]\n\n I. GREECE\n\nWe naturally begin with Greece, following the geographical order\nobserved by Jahn,[81] as the mainland and centre of Hellenic\ncivilisation; and since Athens was not only the principal, for many\nyears the only, centre of the manufacture of Greek vases, but has also\nbeen the most prolific source of recent discoveries, it is to Athens\nthat we first turn our attention.\n\n=Athens= was duly celebrated in ancient times as the chief home of the\nceramic industry.[82] The clay of Cape Kolias is eulogised by Suidas\nfor its excellent qualities, and the extent of the \u039a\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, or\npotters\u2019 quarter, is still visible beyond the Dipylon gate. One of the\nearliest painted vases found on Attic soil was the famous Panathenaic\namphora discovered by Burgon in 1813 outside the Acharnian gate, and\nnow in the British Museum.[83] The tomb in which it was found also\ncontained remains of burnt bones, a lekythos, and other small vases.\nThe subjects are: on one side Athena brandishing a spear, with the\ninscription [\u03a4\u039f\u039d] [\u0391\u0398\u0395\u039d\u0395\u0398\u0395\u039d] [\u0391\u0398\u039b\u039f\u039d] [\u0395\u039c\u0399], \u201cI am a prize from the\ngames at Athens\u201d; on the other, a man driving a _biga_, or two-horse\nchariot. The date is usually considered to be about 560 B.C. It was\nrightly identified by the early writers as one of the prize-vases\ndescribed by Pindar in the passage we have quoted elsewhere (p. 132),\nand was the means of identifying many other vases similarly painted and\ninscribed, but found on other sites, as belonging to the same class. A\nconsiderable number of vases found on Greek soil, mostly at Athens,\nwere published by Stackelberg in 1837,[84] but little was done for many\nyears in the way of systematic excavation. The National Museum was\nopened shortly after the declaration of Greek independence, and\nassisted by royal benefactions. The law forbidding the export of\nantiquities has now been in force for many years, but unfortunately has\nhad a bad as well as a good effect, in that the vendors of\nsurreptitious finds are wont to give imaginary accounts of the\ncircumstances of their discoveries, in order to screen themselves.\n\nTo give anything like a description of the vases found at Athens would\nbe useless here, where so many classes are illustrated by the finds; it\nmay, however, be worth while to note a few of the most typically\nAthenian groups of pottery. (1) Earliest in date are the Dipylon vases,\nwhich were found outside the gate of that name, and have from their\nconspicuous character given a name to a whole class. They are, however,\nfully treated of in Chapter VII. (2) The numerous fragments of vases\nfound on the Acropolis, which can all be dated anterior to 480 B.C.,\ninclude many exceedingly beautiful and unique specimens of the\ntransitional period of vase-painting, some having black, some red\nfigures.[85] Although in few cases anything more than fragments have\nbeen preserved, yet these fragments are enough to show that the\noriginals were masterpieces surpassing even the finest examples from\nthe Italian cemeteries. They will, it is to be hoped, shortly be made\nknown to the world by means of an exhaustive catalogue. (3) The white\nlekythi, discussed at length elsewhere (Chapter XI.), besides forming a\nclass by themselves, are specially remarkable as being almost peculiar\nto Athens. It is not, however, certain that they were not made also at\nEretria, where many fine ones have been found of late years; but\notherwise none have been found outside Attica, with the exception of a\nfew importations to Cyprus, Locri in Italy, or Sicily. (4) A group of\nlate R.F. vases of the \u201cfine\u201d style, mostly of small size and sometimes\nwith polychrome decoration. The drawing is free and graceful, but tends\nto carelessness; the subjects are drawn chiefly from the life of women\nand children. Some of the smaller specimens were no doubt actually\nchildren\u2019s playthings.\n\nElsewhere in Attica vases have not been numerous. _Eleusis_ has yielded\nsome interesting fragments,[86] including a plaque of about 400 B.C.,\nwith an interesting representation of the local deities, found in 1895;\nat _Marathon_ the grave of the fallen warriors has been recently\nexplored, and was found to contain both B.F. and R.F. vases, but none\nof particular merit.[87] The find was, however, important, as\nillustrating Greek methods of burial. The tombs of _Phaleron_ are\nimportant, as having yielded a special class of early vases which are\nknown by the name of the site.[88] These Phaleron vases combine in an\ninteresting manner the characteristics of the Geometrical and Rhodian\nor Oriental styles, being akin to the so-called Proto-Corinthian. The\nbeehive tombs at _Menidi_ and _Spata_ and other tombs at _Haliki_, near\nMarathon, have yielded Mycenaean pottery of the usual types, and an\ninstructive find of early Geometrical pottery has been made at\n_Aphidna_.[89] There are vases in the museums of Athens and Berlin of\nvarious dates, to which the following provenances are assigned: Alike,\nAlopeke, Hymettos,[90] Kephissia, Cape Kolias,[91] Pikrodaphni,[92]\nPeiraeus,[93] Sunium,[94] Thorikos,[95] Trakhones,[96] Vari,[97]\nVelanideza, and Vourva, the two latter near Marathon.[98] _Megara_[99]\nhas produced little beyond specimens of a class of late bowls with\ndesigns in relief, sometimes known as \u201cMegarian bowls,\u201d but more\nprobably of Boeotian origin (see p. 53).\n\n=Corinth=, as a centre of the manufacture of vases, occupied in early\ntimes a position in Greece only second to Athens. Down to the first\nhalf of the sixth century it actually seems to have held the\npre-eminence; but after the rise of Athens it sank altogether into\nobscurity, and ceased to produce any pottery at all after about 520\nB.C. But we know from Strabo[100] that the fame of Corinthian wares\nstill existed in Roman times, for in the days of Julius Caesar the\ntombs of the new Colonia Julia were ransacked for the vases which were\nthe admiration of the rich nobles of Rome. The expression used by\nStrabo, \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, seems to imply that these were probably\nspecimens of the later relief-ware which did not become popular in\nGreece before the fourth century, but then gradually ousted the painted\nfabrics.\n\nCorinth, like Athens, claimed the invention of pottery and of the\nwheel; it was also one of the supposed centres of the origin of\npainting in Greece. We read, moreover, that when Demaratos fled thence\nto Italy he took with him two artists named Eucheir and Eugrammos, who\ndoubtless helped to develop the art of vase-making in Etruria. The\nvases found here are nearly all of the early archaic and B.F. periods,\nfrom the so-called Proto-Corinthian wares down to ordinary B.F.\nfabrics. The Mycenaean and Geometrical styles are practically\nunrepresented, but occasional finds have been made of Attic B.F. and\nR.F. vases. With these exceptions all were actually made at Corinth, as\nis shown in many cases by the inscriptions in the local alphabet\npainted upon the vases.\n\nThe earliest discovery, and in some respects one of the most\nremarkable, was the vase known as the Dodwell pyxis (see p. 315), which\nwas acquired by that traveller in 1805, and is now at Munich. In 1835 a\nlarge number of vases were found by peasants at Chiliomodi, the ancient\n_Tenea_,[101] one of which represented Herakles and the Centaur Nessos;\nmost of these are now at Athens. In 1843 Ross[102] records the\ndiscovery of over a thousand at various sites, on the Isthmus and at or\nnear Tenea, and ever since that time tomb-digging has been carried on\nwithout intermission. The best collections of Corinthian vases are\nthose at Athens, Berlin, and the British Museum. But the most\nnoteworthy find at Corinth has been that of the series of plaques\n(\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) or votive tablets discovered at Penteskouphia in 1879, most\nof which are now at Berlin. They are all of votive character, and come\nfrom the rubbish-heap of a temple of Poseidon; most of them are painted\nwith figures of and inscribed with dedications to that deity, and they\nbelong to the late seventh or early sixth century B.C.[103] The British\nMuseum possesses a R.F. \u201cpelike\u201d from _Solygea_, near Corinth, and\nisolated finds are also recorded from _Sikyon_.[104]\n\nTurning to the adjoining state of Argolis, we find three sites of\nspecial importance in early times\u2014Mycenae, Tiryns, and Argos. Of these\nthe two former had ceased to have any importance in historic times, but\nthis is amply compensated for by the wonderful discoveries of the\nMycenaean period.[105] At _Mycenae_ large quantities of painted pottery\nwere found in the six shaft-tombs in the Agora, five of which were\nexcavated by Dr. Schliemann; outside the Acropolis, and possibly\nbelonging to a later period, was found the remarkable vase with figures\nof warriors marching.[106] The finds at _Tiryns_ were chiefly\nfragmentary, but at _Nauplia_, where considerable quantities were\nfound, there were some fragments with painted designs of chariots like\nthe vases from Cyprus (p. 246).[107] Mycenaean pottery has also been\nfound at _Asine_,[108] and the site of the Heraion at _Argos_, recently\nexcavated by the American School, has yielded an exhaustive series of\nfragments of pottery, representative of nearly every known fabric from\nMycenaean times down to the best Greek period. They have not as yet\nbeen published, but may be expected to yield important results. Other\noccasional finds are reported from Argos, including a curious archaic\nvase with a representation of Herakles and Kerberos.[109] At _Kleonae_,\non the northern frontier of the state, was found a Corinthian vase\nsigned by Timonidas, and there are vases from _Hermione_ in the museum\nat Athens.[110]\n\nIn the rest of the Peloponnese finds of painted vases have been\nexceedingly rare. The Berlin Museum possesses a B.F. vase found at\n_Megalopolis_,[111] and isolated finds are also recorded from _Magoula_\nin Laconia and _Amyklae_ near Sparta.[112] At _Olympia_ painted vases\nwere very rare, but several different fabrics from the Proto-Corinthian\ndownwards are represented by fragments.[113]\n\nIn Central and Northern Greece the only fruitful region has been\n=Boeotia=, particularly its capital, _Thebes_. This city, like Corinth,\nhas principally yielded early vases. As has been shown elsewhere (pp.\n286, 300), Boeotia was the home of more than one indigenous fabric,\nnotably the local variety of Geometrical ware, partly parallel with\nthat of Athens and other sites, partly a degenerate variety with local\npeculiarities, forming a transition to the Phaleron and\nProto-Corinthian fabrics. The last-named have frequently been found at\nThebes, notably the Macmillan lekythos in the British Museum. Signed\nvases of local fabric, with the names of Gamedes, Menaidas, and\nTheozotos, are in the British Museum and in the Louvre. On the site of\nthe Temple of the Kabeiri, near Thebes, a remarkable series of late\nB.F. pottery came to light, evidently a local fabric, with dedicatory\ninscriptions and subjects of a grotesque or caricatured nature.[114]\nThey are quite peculiar to the site, and seem to have had a close\nconnection with its religious rites. Besides many examples of the\nGeometrical and Corinthian fabrics, there have been found at Thebes\nseveral specimens of the so-called Megarian bowls with reliefs, of the\nsecond century B.C.; the proportion to other sites is such that Thebes\nhas been thought to be the centre of the fabric. Another local fabric\nis that produced by _Tanagra_ about the end of the fifth century B.C.,\nconsisting of small cups, toilet-boxes, etc., with somewhat na\u00efve\noutlined designs.[115] The vase-finds here have served as evidence for\nthe dating of the terracotta statuettes, with which no painted fabrics\nwere found, but only ribbed or moulded black-glaze wares,\ncharacteristic of the fourth and third centuries B.C.[116] Where\npainted vases have been found, the accompanying statuettes were all of\nan archaic or even primitive type.[117]\n\nIn excavations at _Orchomenos_ in 1893[118] the French School unearthed\nlarge numbers of fragments, Mycenaean, Boeotian Geometrical,\nProto-Corinthian, Corinthian, and Attic black-figured; Mycenaean vases\nhave been found at _Lebadea_, and Thespiae, Thisbe, and Akraiphiae are\nalso mentioned as sites where painted vases have been found.[119] Very\nfew sites in Northern Greece have yielded finds of pottery, but the\nAthens Museum contains R.F. vases from _Lokris_, _Phokis_, and\n_Lamia_[120] on the Malian Gulf, and finds are also recorded from\nAnthedon,[121] Atalante,[122] Exarchos, and Galaxidi in Lokris, from\nElateia,[123] Abae,[124] and Daulis in Phokis, and from Thessaly.\nFragments of painted pottery were seen by early travellers at\n_Delphi_.[125] At _Daulis_ the pottery was of Mycenaean character,[126]\nas also that from the beehive-tombs of Volo in Thessaly and its\nneighbourhood. A recent excavation at _Dimini_ is reported to have\nyielded very early painted vases of a quite new, probably local ware,\nwith affinities to the Cycladic types of Thera and elsewhere.[127]\n\nTurning now to the Greek islands, we find somewhat more extensive and\ninteresting results. Little indeed has been found in the Ionian Islands\nof the western coast,[128] even in _Corfu_, which as a rule has been\nfruitful in works of art. The only vases worth mentioning from that\nisland are those found in the cemetery of Kastrades, in the tomb of\nMenekrates.[129] The contents of this tomb, which are all of an early\nand somewhat mixed character, are now in the British Museum; they can\nbe dated from the inscription on the tomb about 600 B.C. Travelling\nround by the south of the Peloponnese, we come to _Kythera_, which has\nyielded a cup (now in the British Museum) remarkable for its\ninscription, \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; it is illustrated below, p. 135.\n_Salamis_[130] again has produced little, but some interesting pottery\nof a transitional character from Mycenaean to Geometrical has been\nfound.[131]\n\n=Aegina= appears to have been a pottery centre in early times, and\nrecent discoveries are adding to our knowledge of its fabrics. Among\nthe older finds from this island are a fine early oinochoe in the\nBritish Museum (from the Castellani collection), formerly supposed to\nbe from Thera,[132] and several very fine red-figured and white-ground\nvases, notably the elegant R.F. astragalos or knucklebone-shaped vase\nin the British Museum, with its figures of dancers; a white Athenian\nlekythos, with the subject of Charon,[133] and two beautiful vases now\nin the Munich Museum (208, 209), with polychrome designs on a white\nground.[134] In 1892\u201393 the British Museum acquired a series of\nMycenaean, Corinthian, and Attic vases from a find on this island,[135]\nand other examples of Corinthian and Attic vases are recorded.[136] In\n1894 excavations were made on the site of the so-called temple of\nAphrodite, and yielded a number of early vases chiefly Mycenaean,\nGeometrical of the Athenian type, and a large series of\nProto-Corinthian wares, some of unusual size.[137] Some of this pottery\nmay possibly be of local fabric. More recently the excavations on the\nsite of the great Doric temple (now shown to be dedicated to the\ngoddess Aphaia) have yielded an extensive series of fragments of\ndifferent dates.[138] Aegina was always celebrated in antiquity for its\nartistic achievements, and that it was a centre for pottery is\nindicated by an anonymous comic writer, who addresses the island as\n\u201crocky echo, vendor of pots\u201d (\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2).[139]\n\n=Euboea= possessed two important art-centres in Chalkis and Eretria. It\nis true that no vases have actually been found at Chalkis, but the\nexistence of early B.F. vases with inscriptions in the local dialect\namply testifies to the existence of potteries there (see p. 321).\n_Eretria_, on the other hand, has been carefully excavated in recent\nyears, and has yielded many antiquities both of the early and of the\nfinest period. Among the former are vases of a type akin to the earlier\nAttic fabrics, but distinguished by the use of a \u201cpot-hook\u201d decorative\nornament, and others more akin to the Attic B.F. vases, but clearly of\nlocal make[140]; among the latter are so many fine white-ground lekythi\n(as well as other forms) that it has been supposed that they must have\nbeen specially manufactured here as well as at Athens. The British\nMuseum has lately acquired several white-ground and late R.F. vases of\nconsiderable beauty from this site. Many years ago an inscribed\nCorinthian vase was found at Karystos.[141]\n\n=The Cyclades.=\u2014In these islands we find traces of absolutely the\nearliest fabrics known in the history of Greek pottery, but later finds\nof painted vases are comparatively rare. Mycenaean pottery has been\nfound in the islands of Amorgos,[142] Delos and Rheneia, Kythnos,\nSeriphos, Sikinos, Syros, Thera, and Melos.[143] Other finds recorded\nare from Paros and Antiparos (early fabrics), Keos, Kimolos,[144]\nKythnos,[145] Siphnos, and Syros[146]; a remarkable Ionic vase in the\nLouvre, found in Etruria, has also been attributed to an island fabric,\nthat of Keos,[147] and another at W\u00fcrzburg to that of Naxos.[148] The\nchief finds of \u201cCycladic\u201d or pre-Mycenaean pottery are those from the\nvolcanic deposits of the island of _Thera_ (see p. 260), which, from\nthe circumstances of their discovery and the geological history of the\nisland, are supposed to date back beyond 2000 B.C. They are painted\nwith vegetable patterns in brown on a white ground, and have chiefly\nbeen excavated by the French School during the years 1867\u201374; a few are\nin Athens, but the majority are in the Louvre or the S\u00e8vres Museum. In\nthe superincumbent layers Mycenaean and Geometrical pottery came to\nlight,[149] and a fragment of a large Melian amphora with the so-called\nAsiatic Artemis, now in the Berlin Museum (No. 301), is stated by Ross\nto have come from this island. The same traveller saw here large \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\nwith painted subjects of early character and similar smaller vases,\nalso some with black figures, in a private collection.[150] More\nrecently (in 1900) excavations made in the Acropolis cemetery by German\narchaeologists yielded a large quantity of pottery, chiefly Geometrical\nin character, extending from the eighth to the middle of the sixth\ncentury B.C.[151]\n\nThe vases found in _Melos_ amount to a considerable number, of\ndifferent ages and styles.[152] Recent excavations by the British\nSchool on the site of Phylakopi brought to light large quantities, not\nonly of Mycenaean, but of pre-Mycenaean remains, including\npottery.[153] Mr. Thomas Burgon\u2019s collection included many B.F. and\nlater vases from Melos, now in the British Museum; they are mostly\nsmall and unimportant. Ross also saw painted vases in Melos.[154] The\nisland is, however, chiefly celebrated for a class of early vases, few\nin number, but of exceptional merit, which have mostly been found in\nthe island, and so are known as \u201cMelian\u201d amphorae (see below, p. 301).\nRecently, however, large numbers of fragments of similar pottery have\nbeen found at Rheneia, opposite Delos, and it is possible that Delos\nwas the centre of the fabric, not Melos, as hitherto supposed.[155]\nThey date from the seventh century B.C. Among the finds of later date\nfrom Melos, by far the most noteworthy is the Louvre Gigantomachia\nkrater (see Chapter XII.).[156]\n\nTurning now to the eastern group of Aegean Islands, known as the\n_Sporades_, we begin with _Lesbos_, where many fragments of B.F. and\nR.F. vases were found by Mr. Newton during his Vice-Consulate. From\nepigraphical evidence it seems probable that many of the early B.F.\nfragments found at Naukratis (see below) should be attributed to a\nLesbian fabric, but this has not so far been established. Vases have\nalso been found in Tenedos and Chios.[157]\n\nNext we come to _Samos_, an island always renowned in antiquity for its\nfictile ware. The Homeric hymn to the potters is addressed to Samians.\nIt was, however, in Roman times that its renown was especially great,\nand its connection with a certain class of red glazed wares has caused\nthe name of \u201cSamian Ware\u201d to be applied indiscriminately but falsely to\nall Roman pottery of that kind.[158] Finds of pottery have, however,\nbeen few and far between. The British Museum possesses a lekythos of\nthe B.F. period in the form of a sandalled foot (Plate XLVI.), which\nMr. Finlay obtained here. More recently Dr. B\u00f6hlau excavated some early\ncemeteries, and found a considerable quantity of pottery of the \u201cIonic\u201d\ntype, which enabled him to establish a Samian origin for certain wares\nof the sixth century.[159] _Kalymnos_ was explored by Mr. Newton in\n1856, but has yielded little beyond plain glazed ware,[160] and the\nsame may be said of Kos, although the latter was famed in antiquity for\nits amphorae and culinary vessels. The small islands of _Telos_,[161]\n_Nisyros_, _Chiliodromia_,[162] and _Karpathos_ have been explored at\ndifferent times by Ross, Theodore Bent, and others, and have yielded\nvases of a late R.F. period, corresponding to the later Athenian\nfabrics, several of which are in the British Museum. Messrs. Bent and\nPaton have also found pottery of the Mycenaean period in Kalymnos and\nKarpathos[163]; and similar remains are reported from _Kos_.[164]\n\nBut all other discoveries in the islands are far exceeded both in\nextent and importance by those of =Rhodes=.[165] They are principally\ndue to the labours of Messrs. Salzmann and Biliotti, who diligently\nexplored the island during the \u2019sixties, and the results as far as\npottery is concerned, extend from Mycenaean times down to the\ndestruction of Kameiros in 404 B.C. The earliest finds were on the site\nof _Ialysos_, and these are exclusively of \u201cMycenaean\u201d type. The tombs\ncontaining Mycenaean vases were cut in the rock in quadrangular form,\nwith vaulted \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and steps. This site was explored by the\nabove-named gentlemen about the years 1867\u201370, and the results of the\nexcavation, by the liberality of Prof. Ruskin, found their way into the\nBritish Museum. Their archaeological value was not recognised for some\nyears; but when the discoveries of Mycenae became known, it was at once\nseen that the Ialysos pottery must fall into line with them.\n\n_Kameiros_ is first heard of as a Dorian colony of the eleventh\ncentury, and its history extends down to 408 B.C. It was fully and\nsystematically excavated between 1859 and 1864. Far more abundant and\ncomprehensive than the Ialysos results, the Kameiros finds illustrate\nthe history of Greek pottery from the Geometrical period[166] down to\nthe time of its decline, and include many fine specimens of the B.F.\nand R.F. periods, as well as numerous examples of the Rhodian,\nCorinthian, and other early classes, from the eighth to the sixth\ncentury B.C. The most interesting discovery was perhaps that of the\n_pinax_, with the fight over the body of Euphorbos, which is described\nelsewhere (p. 335). Among the finer specimens of the later period is\nthe polychrome _pelike_ with Peleus wooing Thetis. The majority of\nthese finds are now in the British Museum, together with porcelain,\nbronze, and other objects illustrating the early pottery; part also\nwent to the Louvre and to Berlin. The latest vases are of the free and\ncareless type of late R.F. Athenian fabrics, and since they are known\nto be not later than the fifth century they supply valuable evidence\nfor the dating of R.F. vases.\n\n=Crete= in all probability will, before many years are over, supply a\ngreat mass of material for the history of early Greek pottery. Until\nrecent years it has received little attention from travellers or\nexplorers, and few vases of any period have come therefrom into our\nMuseums.[167] But Crete has always been looked to by archaeologists for\nthe solution of the Mycenaean problem, and the systematic excavations\nnow at length set on foot are even richer in their yield of Mycenaean\nand primitive pottery than those of Rhodes, Melos, and Cyprus. Mr. J.\nL. Myres found at _Kamarais_ in 1894 a series of fragments of painted\npottery with designs in opaque colours on a black ground, which he\nregarded as pre-Mycenaean.[168] This theory was subsequently borne out\nby the discoveries of Messrs. Arthur Evans and D. G. Hogarth at\n_Knossos_ and elsewhere, which have been very rich in pottery of a\nsimilar kind, and also in vases with remarkably naturalistic patterns\nin relief.[169] Other finds have been made in the Dictaean Cave,[170]\nat Zakro[171] and Palaeokastro,[172] at Phaestos,[173] Praesos, Erganos\nand Kourtes, and Kavousi.[174]\n\nBefore we turn our attention to the continent of Asia we must hark back\nto the European mainland, working round by the northern coasts of the\nAegaean and Euxine Seas. Macedonia and Thrace have yielded scarcely\nanything,[175] but when we come to the northern shore of the Black Sea\nwe find at _Kertch_, in the Crimea (the ancient Panticapaeum), a\nremarkable centre of Greek artistic production. The finds here are\npractically limited to one period, covering little more than a hundred\nyears, and mainly illustrate the art of the fourth century B.C. There\nare, however, many magnificent vases, which in style, if not in shape\nor composition of subjects, must belong to an earlier time\u2014namely, that\nof the fine red-figured period.[176] The excavations have mostly been\nundertaken by the Russian Government, in whose museum at the Hermitage\nthe collections are now to be seen, but much was done unsystematically\nby Englishmen and others at the time of the Crimean War. It cannot be\nsaid that more than about one-quarter of the total find of 400 vases\nhave any merit; they are chiefly small, with red figures, and of the\nlater fine period; some are polychrome and ornamented with\ngilding.[177] The most remarkable by far is the vase signed by the\nAthenian Xenophantos (p. 447); but that with the contest of Athena and\nPoseidon (Plate L.) is also an exceptionally fine specimen; and others\nhave interesting subjects relating to the Eleusinian mysteries. At\n_Phanagoria_ an early B.F. vase of Ionic style came to light.[178]\nVases have also been found at Olbia on the neighbouring mainland, at\nKief, at Temir Gora in Circassia, and on the modern sites of Blisnitza,\nIouz Oba, Melek Chesme and Pavlovski-Kourgane in the Crimea.[179]\n\n II. ASIA MINOR\n\n_The Troad_ first claims our attention. Here on the site of the second\ncity of Troy, at Hissarlik, Dr. Schliemann found the earliest pottery\nat present known from Greek soil (see Chapter VI.). This has been\ngenerally dated about 2500\u20132000 B.C. In subsequent excavations Dr.\nD\u00f6rpfeld proved the sixth city to be the Homeric Troy, the remains from\nwhich, including pottery, are all of Mycenaean character. Later finds\nof pottery from the Troad are of no great importance[180]; some are of\nAeolic or Ionian origin, and others seem to be from an inferior local\nfabric, consisting of flat bowls with looped side-handles, carelessly\npainted in matt-black silhouette with figures of ducks and other\nanimals. Some of these were found in 1855\u201356 by Mr. Brunton on the\nsites of New Ilium and Dardanus; others by Mr. Calvert in 1875\u201376, and\nby D\u00f6rpfeld and Brueckner in 1893. The finds of the two first-named are\nin the British Museum, together with some poor R.F. vases of late\nstyle. From _Sigeion_ two polychrome lekythi have been reported,\nresembling the Attic white-ground fabric[181]; Jahn also records finds\nof painted vases from _Lampsakos_ and Parion,[182] and a fine gilded\nvase with figures in relief has recently been found on the former\nsite.[183]\n\nIn _Aeolis_ and _Mysia_ the finds have not been considerable, but some\nare of importance as throwing light on the existence of local fabrics.\nIn a private collection at Smyrna there is or was a late B.F. vase from\nAssos, with careless silhouette figures.[184] At _Pitane_ a very\ncurious Mycenaean false amphora has been found, with figures of marine\nand other animals[185]; and at _Larisa_ Dr. B\u00f6hlau has found fragments\nof early painted vases, probably a local fabric imitating that of\nRhodes.[186] MM. Pottier and Reinach, in the course of their\nexcavations at Myrina (1884\u201385), found pottery of various dates and\nstyles: Mycenaean, Ionian, Corinthian, Attic B.F. and R.F., late R.F.,\nand vases of the so-called Gnatia style (see p. 488) or with\nreliefs.[187] Among those which can be traced to an Ionic or local\nfabric there is a very remarkable one with a head of a bearded man.\nPergamon does not seem to have yielded any vases, but _Kyme_ may have\nbeen a centre of Ionic vase-manufacture (see Chapter VIII.). Some\nfragments of an early B.F. krater have been found there which presents\nsimilar characteristics to those of the Ionian fabrics mentioned\nbelow.[188]\n\nComing lower down the coast of Ionia we meet with the home of an\nimportant school of painting in the sixth century, which seems to have\ncentred in the flourishing cities of Phocaea, Clazomenae and elsewhere\nround the Gulf of Smyrna. The actual finds of such vases in the\nneighbourhood is not great, but is compensated for by the remarkable\nseries of painted terracotta sarcophagi discovered at Clazomenae, the\nfinest of which is now in the British Museum. These, which obviously\nrepresent the characteristics of the Ionian school of painting, show\nsuch a close relation with a series of vases found at Naukratis and\nDaphnae in Egypt, and at Cervetri and elsewhere in Italy,\n\n[Illustration:\n\n MAP OF ASIA MINOR & THE ARCHIPELAGO\n Showing sites on which painted vases have been found.\n FIG. 6.\n]\n\nthat the latter classes can only be regarded as of Ionian origin, or,\nif not imported, local Italian imitations of the Ionic wares. Such are\nthe Caeretan hydriae which were directly imitated by the Etruscans.[189]\n\nA vase obtained at _Phocaea_ by Mr. W. M. Ramsay in 1880 (p. 254)\nappears to be an imported Cypriote fabric of late date, though archaic\nin appearance. At Smyrna little has been found, but there are some\nvases attributed thereto in the Leyden Museum. At _Clazomenae_ some\nfragments of painted vases in the style of the Caeretan hydriae have\nrecently been found, which help to establish the theories above\nmentioned.[190] _Teos_ is associated with a particular kind of cup\n(\u03a4\u03ae\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) mentioned by the poet Alcaeus,[191] but nothing has\nbeen found there, nor yet at Kolophon, Ephesos, or Miletos. In the\ninterior regions of Asia primitive painted pottery is recorded from\n_Mount Sipylos_,[192] and also from _Sardis_ on the sites of the tombs\nof the Lydian kings. From the tumulus known as Bin Tepe on the latter\nsite the British Museum has obtained (through the agency of Mr. Dennis)\nsome early pottery, which is decorated apparently in direct imitation\nof Phoenician glass wares. Fragments of Mycenaean and other primitive\nfabrics are reported from Cappadocia and from Gordion in Galatia,[193]\nand have been recently picked up by Prof. W. M. Ramsay at Derbe in\nLycaonia.\n\nIn _Caria_ early local fabrics seem to be indicated by finds at Mylasa\nand Stratonikeia (Idrias).[194] At _Assarlik_ Mr. W. R. Paton found\npottery of a transitional character from Mycenaean to Geometrical.\nTralles and Knidos were famous in antiquity for pottery,[195] but have\nleft virtually nothing, nor has Halicarnassos. A Mycenaean false\namphora is reported from Telmessos in Lycia, and fragments of B.F. and\nR.F. vases from Xanthos.[196]\n\nFrom the distant site of _Susa_ in Persia an interesting find has been\nrecently reported,[197] of part of a R.F. rhyton in the form of a\nhorse\u2019s head, on which is painted the figure of a Persian in polychrome\non a white ground. It belongs to the period 500\u2013480 B.C., and may have\nbeen carried off by the Persians when they sacked the Athenian\nAcropolis.\n\n=Cyprus.=\u2014This island is of special interest to us as being now the\nonly classical land in our own possession. Although we have not perhaps\nutilised to the full extent the opportunities thereby afforded us for\nexcavations, yet of late years much has been done, especially by the\nBritish Museum, to remedy this defect, and the collection of Cypriote\nantiquities in the national museum is now fully worthy of that\ninstitution and as representative as could be wished. Previous to the\nEnglish occupation the island remained undisturbed, with a few\nexceptions, the first being the excavations of Mr. R. Lang at Dali\n(Idalion) in 1867. The finds here were chiefly of terracottas and\nsculpture, and are now in the British Museum, but, owing to the\nmisconception of Cypriote history that formerly prevailed, have been\nsomewhat incongruously placed in the Oriental Department. Meanwhile,\nanother consul, General L. Cesnola, was not slow to make use of his\nopportunities, seeing in the obvious richness of the field, the chances\nof gaining great distinction as an explorer. Of his energy and\nliberality in the cause there can be little doubt; but he was not an\narchaeologist, and did not realise the value of scientific evidence,\nnegative or positive. Hence, although he deserves a meed of praise as\nthe pioneer of Cypriote exploration, his statements are not always\nsufficiently explicit to be used without hesitation. His extensive\ncollections are now in the Metropolitan Museum at New York; the British\nMuseum has a few of the vases, but lost the opportunity of acquiring\nthe whole. Another English consul, Mr. Sandwith, also made a collection\nof Cypriote pottery, and, with an acuteness in advance of his time,\nmade a successful attempt to classify it according to periods and\nstyles. Lastly, a brother of General Cesnola\u2019s, A. P. di Cesnola, who\nlived for some time in the island, made large collections in the same\nmanner as his brother, but with the same lack of scientific accuracy.\n\nThe record of discoveries since 1878 has been carefully systematised by\nMr. J. L. Myres, who has given an excellent summary of results.[198]\nThe cemeteries in which the island is so extraordinarily rich may be\ndivided into two classes: Bronze Age tombs, including Mycenaean and\nearlier remains; and Graeco-Phoenician, with tombs of Hellenistic and\nRoman date. On some sites, such as Curium and Salamis, tombs of all\nperiods are found.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 7. MAP OF CYPRUS.]\n\nMr. Myres notes about thirty sites on which Bronze Age pottery has been\ndiscovered, mostly in the centre and east of the island, _i.e._ in the\nmore level and cultivated districts. The most important sites are\nEnkomi (Salamis), Curium, Alambra, Agia Paraskevi (Nicosia), Maroni,\nand Larnaka (several sites), at all of which Mycenaean pottery has been\nfound, Enkomi being especially rich in this respect; others only\ncontained local varieties, either of the earliest incised wares or of\nthe hand-made pottery which seems to have been a later development.\n\nGraeco-Phoenician pottery (700\u2013300 B.C.) has been found in great\nquantities in all parts of the island, chiefly at Amathus, Dali,\nLarnaka (Kition), Curium, Poli (Marion), Paphos (Kouklia), Salamis, and\nTamassos. In conjunction therewith Hellenic vases have appeared at\nAmathus, Curium, Salamis, and especially at Poli, where some really\nfine R.F. vases have been found, some with artists\u2019 names.[199]\nHellenistic pottery has appeared on most of the above sites, Poli and\nCurium supplying the best examples. The different varieties of Cypriote\npottery are described in detail in Chapter VI.\n\n III. AFRICA\n\nGreek settlements in Africa were far fewer than in Asia, and in fact\nonly two appear to have had any importance, these being the Ionic\ncolony in the Egyptian Delta and the Dorian colony from Thera in the\nCyrenaica. Mycenaean vases have, however, appeared spasmodically in\nEgyptian tombs of the eighteenth to twenty-first dynasties, the\nevidence for the date of those at Tell-el-Amarna (c. 1400 B.C.) being\napparently well established. It should also be noted that pre-Mycenaean\nwares corresponding to the second city pottery at Hissarlik and the\nKamaraes (Crete) pottery have been found at Kahun and elsewhere in the\n_Fay\u00fbm_, in tombs of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties (2500\u20132000\nB.C.).[200]\n\nPainted and other pottery of the Hellenistic age has not infrequently\nbeen found in Egypt; the British Museum acquired a specimen from\n_Alexandria_ in 1898 with a boy riding on a fish painted in opaque pink\nand blue on a red unglazed ground. Other examples come from\nNaukratis,[201] and from the Fay\u00fbm.[202] At Alexandria, where for\nobvious reasons no vases earlier than the third century could have come\nto light, a hydria was found in the catacombs with a myrtle-wreath\npainted on a light ground; this when discovered was filled with\nbones.[203] Other vases of the same type are said to be in the Louvre.\nIn Mons. G. Feuardent\u2019s collection in New York, the late Prof. Merriam\nsaw a group of seventy-five vases from rock-cut tombs at Alexandria,\nsome with inscriptions.[204] They include hydriae of a dark red clay,\ncovered with a white slip on which are polychrome designs (Gorgoneia,\narmour, etc.); others of unglazed salmon-coloured clay, painted with\nwreaths, monsters, etc.; two-handled vases of black ware with ribbed\nbody and twisted handles, decorated with medallions in relief and\nwreaths in white, like the vases of Gnatia (p. 488). The inscriptions\nare laid on in ink with a reed, or incised, the former being in MS.\ntype; the method of dating is difficult to interpret, but they seem to\nbelong to the middle of the third century.\n\nThe Ionian settlements of _Naukratis_ and _Daphnae_ (Defenneh) in the\nDelta have yielded very important results for the history of Greek\npottery, though differing in extent. The finds of pottery at Daphnae\nmay from the circumstances of discovery be dated entirely between 600\nand 550 B.C.; and though only fragmentary, they are interesting not\nonly as showing the results of Egyptian influences, but for the points\nof comparison they afford with the pottery of Ionic origin and the\nClazomenae sarcophagi. At Naukratis, on the other hand, the finds form\na complete series extending from the foundation of the city by\nMilesians about 650 B.C., down to the end of the fifth century, at\nwhich point importations of Greek pottery ceased. The earlier fabrics\nare by far the most important, being almost entirely of local character\nand distinguished by the white ground on which the Naucratite artist\npainted his designs or figures in various colours. Among the fragments\nof B.F. pottery were many with names of artists. These finds were all\nmade among the rubbish-heaps of temple-sites by the Egypt Exploration\nFund in 1884\u201386, with the exception of some subsequent work by the\nBritish School in 1898\u201399. Most of the results are in the British\nMuseum: see also p. 345 ff.\n\nIn the second season (1885\u201386) at Naukratis were found several\ninteresting fragments of a B.F. white-ground ware, which from the\nnature of the designs has been connected with _Kyrene_ (see Chapter\nVIII., p. 341). But so far no specimens of this ware have been found in\nthe latter place, nor indeed anything earlier than the end of the fifth\ncentury. It is to be hoped that the earlier cemeteries are yet to be\ndiscovered. Mr. George Dennis and others, however, explored a\nconsiderable tract of country in the Cyrenaica between 1856 and\n1868,[205] and found many vases of late R.F. style, some of\nconsiderable merit; also several Panathenaic amphorae of the fourth\ncentury on which the old B.F. method of painting is preserved. These\nwere found on the site of _Teucheira_, but most of the vases came from\n_Benghazi_, the ancient Euesperitis, more to the south-west, the\nancient name of which, Berenike, came from the queen of Ptolemy\nEuergetes. Nearly all the vases found here are of the late fine R.F.\nperiod, corresponding to those of the Crimea; they are, however, mostly\nsmaller and inferior in merit. The Panathenaic amphorae can be dated by\nthe names of Athenian archons which appear upon them: Nikokrates, 333\nB.C.; Hegesias, 324 B.C.; Kephisodoros, 323 B.C.; Archippos, 321 B.C.;\nand Theophrastos, 313 B.C. (see p. 390). They are of course\nimportations from Athens. Among the R.F. vases is one representing a\nPersian king attacked by a lion; some have polychrome designs, in one\ncase combined with reliefs (B.M. G 12). Most of the Cyrenaica vases are\nnow in the British Museum and the Louvre.\n\n IV. ITALY\n\nWith the mainland of Italy we include in our review the two islands of\nSicily and Sardinia. The remaining area in which Greek pottery has been\nfound on classical sites thus corresponds with the modern kingdom of\nItaly. Beyond its borders there is only one site, that of _Massilia_\n(Marseilles), which has produced Greek pottery. Vases of the primitive\nThera style (see p. 261) were found here,[206] betokening a system of\ncommerce between East and West in those times.\n\nThe vases found in Greece may be regarded as on the whole small in size\nand few in number, when compared with those discovered in the ancient\ncemeteries and on the sites of the old cities of Italy. These are\nindeed so numerous that (within certain limits) they might in\nthemselves almost serve as a basis for the history of Greek\nvase-painting. Roughly speaking, the vases found in Italy fall into two\ngeographical divisions.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 8. MAP OF ITALY.]\n\nThe first division comprises the vases discovered in Etruria, which are\nfound in every Etruscan city of importance, from Atria or Hadria at the\nmouth of the Po to the very gates of Rome itself. In particular, the\ntombs of Caere, Tarquinii, and above all Vulci, have yielded an immense\nnumber of vases.\n\nThe second is formed by the vases found in the southern half of the\npeninsula, including the territories of Campania, Lucania, and Apulia,\nand the cities of Magna Graecia, such as Cumae, Locri and Tarentum. The\nestablishment of the potter\u2019s art in these maritime cities at an early\nstage of Greek history helped to infuse a certain degree of\ncivilisation into the regions of the interior, and its influence is to\nbe seen in the pottery of the semi-barbarous populations, such as the\nOsco-Samnites and Iapygians. The chief sites for the discovery of vases\nare: in Apulia and Calabria, Ruvo, Canosa, and Tarentum; in Lucania,\nAnzi; in Campania, Capua and Nola.\n\nWe now proceed to describe in detail these sites and the discoveries of\nwhich they have been the scene. It is obvious that it will be found\nimpossible to enumerate every spot in Italy where painted vases have\nbeen found, but it is hoped that no place or site of interest has been\nomitted. The order followed in describing these sites is a geographical\none from north to south, which on the whole will be found the most\nconvenient.\n\nWe accordingly begin with the northernmost spot to which the\nexportation of Greek vases seems to have reached\u2014namely, Atria or\n_Hadria_, at the mouth of the Po. This place down to the time of\nPliny[207] continued to manufacture drinking-cups of fine quality,\ncelebrated for their durability, and painted vases have also been found\nin its tombs. They were first excavated as early as the sixteenth\ncentury; and in later excavations undertaken by the Austrian Government\nfragments of Greek pottery were found at some depth below remains of\nthe Roman period.[208]\n\nThe cities of _Asti_, _Modena_ (Mutina), and _Pollenza_ (Pollentia)\nwere also celebrated in Pliny\u2019s time for their cups, which he groups\nwith those of Arretium under the heading of \u201cSamian\u201d ware[209];\nspecimens of this ware have been found in the two latter places.[210]\nNear Mantua a vase was discovered with the subject of Perseus and\nAndromeda[211]; and others at Gavolda on the Mincio.[212] At Genoa a\nfine R.F. krater was found in 1898.[213]\n\n_Bologna_ has been the scene of discoveries sufficiently important to\ndemand a separate paragraph. These were made by Signor Zannoni, in\n1869\u201376, in the cloister of the Certosa convent, and a fully\nillustrated description was published by him at the conclusion of his\nlabours.[214] The finds include, besides remarkable bronzes of the\nVillanova period of Italian civilisation (800\u2013500 B.C.), a large number\nof B.F. and R.F. vases covering the whole period of exportations from\nAthens to Etruria (550\u2013400 B.C.), and also some local imitations of\nB.F. fabrics. All these are now in the Museo Civico at Bologna.\n\nTurning now to the important district of ETRURIA, which has been so\nprolific in discoveries of ancient vases, we come first to _Pisa_,\nwhere, in the beginning of the last century, a potter\u2019s establishment\nwas discovered. Since that time red-figured vases both of the severe\nand fine styles have been found, including a hydria figured by\nInghirami.[215]\n\nAt _Volterra_ (Volaterrae) Jahn states that many painted vases have\nbeen found[216]; but the contents of the local museum are limited to\ninferior Etruscan pottery of the later period with yellow figures on\nblack ground or staring heads painted in silhouette. On the other hand\nsome of the plain black ware is remarkably good.[217]\n\n_Arezzo_ (Arretium) enjoyed in Pliny\u2019s time an even wider reputation\nthan the places already mentioned, for its pottery of all kinds, not\nonly cups[218]; its ware is also referred to by Martial and other\nauthors. These allusions have been fully borne out by the extensive\ndiscoveries of potteries that have been made; the red glazed ware,\nstamped with the potter\u2019s name and with designs in relief, has been\nfound in large quantities, and fully justified the substitution of the\nname Arretine for the old \u201cSamian\u201d in relation to the whole class. It\nis more fully dealt with in the section on Roman pottery (Chapter\nXXII.). Few Greek vases have been found here; but _Lucignano_ in the\nneighbourhood is mentioned as a site where they have been\ndiscovered.[219]\n\n_Perugia_ was another important town of ancient Etruria, but does not\nappear to have been a centre either for the manufacture or importation\nof pottery. The museum, however, contains several good Greek vases with\nmythological subjects, and some Etruscan imitations of R.F. vases have\nalso been found here.[220]\n\nAt _Chiusi_ (Clusium), on the other hand, some very important\ndiscoveries have been made, including the magnificent krater of the\nFlorence Museum, known as the \u201cFran\u00e7ois Vase,\u201d after its\ndiscoverer.[221] It was found in a tomb which had been already\npillaged, and was broken to pieces, but entire. Many vases of the B.F.\nand R.F. periods have been found, some signed with artists\u2019 names,\nincluding those of Pamphaios and Anakles. On the whole, this site has\nyielded more fine vases than any in Etruria, except Cervetri, and of\ncourse Vulci; it is also noteworthy for the early Etruscan black wares,\nof which there are many remarkable specimens in the Museum.[222] The\nCasuccini collection, which was very representative of Chiusi finds,\nhas now been disposed of _en bloc_ to the Museum at Palermo.[223]\n\nIn the immediate neighbourhood is _Sarteano_, also remarkable for the\nspecimens of early black ware which it has yielded, but almost entirely\ndeficient in painted vases. At _Roselle_ (Rusellae) and _Orbetello_ in\nthe Maremma the finds of pottery have been of a comparatively\ninsignificant character, the vases of Orbetello being nearly all late\nEtruscan fabrics, of rude forms, with coarse ill-drawn subjects. The\nsame remark applies to _Toscanella_, near Vulci, where Greek vases are\nseldom found.\n\n_Bolsena_ (Volsinii) is specially distinguished by a curious class of\nlate vases of coarse red ware with designs in relief, which show\nevident signs of having been coated with a solution producing the\neffect of silver.[224] They seem to be peculiar to this locality,\nthough Athenaeus[225] tells us that a similar practice was in vogue at\nNaukratis. No other kinds of pottery have been found.\n\nAt _Orvieto_ excavations were first made in 1830, but without very\ngreat results; the site was then neglected until the \u2019seventies, during\nwhich years Signor Mancini\u2019s excavations were so successful that a\nlocal Museum has been established, which now contains many good\nspecimens of Greek vases, as well as Etruscan black wares.[226] At\n_Viterbo_ various Greek vases, mostly black-figured, were found in the\nearly \u2019twenties, and later on a kylix by the master Euphronios came to\nlight.[227] _Bomarzo_ has yielded some good Greek vases, including\nsigned examples by Euphronios and Hieron.[228]\n\n_Corneto_ is more famous for the splendid wall-paintings of its tombs\nand for its coloured sarcophagi than for painted vases, but has\nnevertheless yielded some vases of considerable interest, notably a\nfine R.F. kylix with representation of the Olympian deities, signed by\nOltos and Euxitheos, the beautiful kylix representing the desertion of\nAriadne by Theseus,[229] and some specimens of Corinthian wares. Under\nits ancient name of Tarquinii it was of course famous as the spot to\nwhich Demaratos and his artist-companions were said to have fled from\nCorinth. Excavations were first begun in 1825\u201327. Besides the\ncollection now in the public Museum,[230] there is a large one made by\nCount Bruschi from excavations on his own lands, the majority of the\nvases being of the B.F. period.[231] Not far distant are _Civita\nVecchia_, represented only by some remarkable early vases in the\nBritish Museum,[232] Italian imitations of the Greek Dipylon ware, and\nLa Tolfa, where Etruscan, Corinthian, and Ionic B.F. vases have been\nfound.[233]\n\nFew finds, at least of Greek pottery, have been made at _Civita\nCastellana_, the ancient Falerii; but this town appears to have had a\nspecial manufacture of its own in the fourth or third century B.C.,\nlike all other Etruscan fabrics an imitation of Greek vases, but with\ncertain strongly marked peculiarities of drawing and colouring. There\nis a fine specimen in the British Museum.[234] These vases have only\nbeen found in recent years. The British Museum also (among others)\npossesses an interesting collection of local early black and red wares\nfrom this site, including two large caldrons on open-work stands, with\nGryphons\u2019 heads projecting. _Isola Farnese_, the ancient Veii, again,\nis more celebrated for its local fabrics than for Greek importations.\nPainted vases were found in 1838\u201339,[235] and in 1843 Campana\ndiscovered a remarkable tomb containing vases of early character\nwithout human figures, and early Italian wares. The archaic paintings\nof this tomb are of special interest for comparison with the vases of\nthe period.[236]\n\nNext to Vulci, which we have reserved for the last, by far the most\nimportant discoveries in Etruria are those made in the tombs of\n=Cervetri= (Caere), mostly of early fabrics. In 1836 the famous\nRegulini-Galassi tomb came to light, a passage-like structure sixty\nfeet in length, with doorway of slabs sloping forward to form an arch;\nbut it contained few vases. In the same year was found a remarkable\nvase of plain black ware, on which was engraved an early Greek\nalphabet, with a sort of syllabic primer.[237] Another tomb contained a\nseries of slabs painted with archaic Etruscan figures in the style of\nearly B.F. vases, which are now in the British Museum. Others of\nsimilar character are in the Louvre.[238] But though these large tombs\nyielded little painted pottery, yet Cervetri has been the site of many\nnotable discoveries, chiefly of early B.F. vases illustrating various\ndevelopments of vase-painting. The most important is formed by the\nseries of hydriae named \u201cCaeretan,\u201d after the site, which are fully\ndiscussed in Chapter VIII.; and among other finds we may note the\nAmphiaraos krater at Berlin,[239] of Corinthian style. Excavations went\non for many years from 1831 onwards, and yielded also some interesting\nlater vases, including examples with the signatures of Nikosthenes,\nXenokles, Pamphaios, Euphronios,[240] and Charitaios, and the famous\nvase representing the oil-merchant.[241] Jahn[242] gives a list of the\nmost important red-figured vases found here. At _Selva la Rocca_, near\nMonteroni in the same neighbourhood, the Duchessa di Sermoneta\nexcavated a series of Greek painted vases of all periods. Other sites\nin Etruria on which vases have been found are Doganella,[243] Ferento\nnear Viterbo,[244] Capannori,[245] Montepulciano,[246] Pitigliano,[247]\nPoggia Sommavilla on the border of the Sabine territory,[248] S.\nFilippo dei Neri, Tragliatella.[249]\n\nBut the discoveries made on all the other Etruscan sites combined are\nsurpassed, both in number and interest, by those of =Vulci=, a name\nwhich eighty years since was scarcely known, but now represents to us\none of the most important cities of antiquity. The site is represented\nby the modern Ponte della Badia, a district of about five miles in\ncircumference round the bridge over the stream Fiora, between the\nestates of Canino and Montalto. The former estate lay on the left bank,\ndistinguished by a hill named Cucumella.\n\nThe discovery of painted vases here was brought about purely by\naccident, about the year 1828. Some oxen in ploughing broke through\ninto an Etruscan tomb containing two broken vases, and thus the local\nlandlord, the Prince of Canino, was led to further researches. In the\ncourse of four months he discovered about 2,000 objects in tombs on one\nsmall plot of ground, and subsequently other explorers joined in\nemulating his good fortune. The number of painted vases alone\ndiscovered during the year 1829 is reckoned at over 3,000, according to\nthe elaborate report published by Gerhard in the _Annali_,[250]\ndescribing and classifying the results. It would not be too much to\nassert that nine-tenths of the painted vases that have been brought to\nlight in Etruria are from this site. Most of those now in the British\nMuseum are from Camposcala, on the Montalto estate; but many are from\nthe collections formed by Lucien Bonaparte, the Prince of Canino, who\ncontinued to excavate intermittently for many years, though the numbers\nof the finds materially diminished after the first great discovery.\n\nIn recent years the only important excavations on this site have been\nthose conducted by M. Gsell on the estate of Musignano, at the expense\nof the proprietor, Prince Torlonia. The object was to exhaust the site\nby sporadic diggings over the three principal areas of Ponte della\nBadia, Polledrara, and Cucumella. In all 136 tombs were opened, ranging\nfrom the period of \u201cwell-tombs\u201d (about the ninth or eighth century\nB.C.) down to the chamber-tombs of the early fifth century.[251]\nBesides local pottery of all kinds they contained imported Greek\nfabrics from the Geometrical ware down to the red-figure period. The\nlater included Corinthian vases of various kinds, a good \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d\namphora, and one of the \u201caffected\u201d B.F. style, a cup signed by Tleson\nand one in the style of Epiktetos, and Etruscan imitations of B.F.\nfabrics.\n\nM. Tyszkiewicz, the great collector, in his entertaining\n_Souvenirs_,[252] tells a curious story of the fate of one of the vases\nfound in M. Gsell\u2019s excavations:\u2014\n\n \u201cOne day I received a visit from a country fellow, who said he had\n come from the neighbourhood of Canino, and brought with him a vase\n painted in the early Corinthian manner, the names of the figures\n being indicated by Greek inscriptions. The man declared he had\n discovered it in a tomb which had fallen in after heavy rains. The\n price asked was very reasonable, and the bargain was soon concluded.\n At that time M. van Branteghem ... was one of the most eager buyers\n of Greek vases, and he was so envious of my acquisition that I had\n real pleasure in giving it up to him. A little while after this,\n there called on me at my house a member of the French School in Rome,\n M. Gsell.... He began by asking me if I had not lately purchased a\n vase, which he closely described, and which proved to be the very one\n I had bought from the native of Canino. Now M. Gsell inspected so\n attentively the excavations under his care that it was impossible, he\n assured me, for the workmen to have stolen anything. All objects\n found were registered as soon as they were taken out of the tombs,\n and were locked up every evening in a warehouse. However, one day M.\n Gsell perceived that one had disappeared. He sent for the supposed\n thief (one of his superintendents), and by means of threats extracted\n a confession of the theft, and the name of the amateur to whom the\n vase had been sold. In conclusion, M. Gsell entreated me to let him\n have the vase.... Having parted with the vase, I felt the situation\n very embarrassing, but I told my interlocutor what had happened, and\n why I had handed the vase over to M. van Branteghem. The distress of\n M. Gsell on hearing this news touched me to such a degree that I\n ended by telling him that, knowing M. van Branteghem to be a\n gentleman, I would inform him he had become the owner of stolen\n goods, and throw myself on his mercy. The same day I wrote to the\n Belgian amateur and made a clean breast of the matter, and the vase\n was returned as quickly as possible. The vase was replaced in the\n museum of the Prince Torlonia at the Lungara.\n\n \u201cYears passed away, when one morning I was told that a peasant, who\n was waiting in the hall, desired to show me an antique work of art.\n This was an event of daily occurrence\u2014indeed, it happened several\n times every day, and usually I found that the object for whose sake I\n had been disturbed was either quite uninteresting or else a fraud.\n But this time\u2014astonishing fact!\u2014I was shown the very vase that I had\n restored to the French School, and had afterwards seen at the Lungara\n Museum. Once again it had been stolen!\u201d\n\nThe tombs in which the vases were found were mostly small grottoes\nhollowed in the tufa, and with a few exceptions only a few feet\nunderground. There was nothing remarkable in them except the vases, for\nthey were neither spacious nor decorated, nor finished with splendid\nornaments like the tombs of Corneto and of Magna Graecia. Some had\nseats for holding the objects deposited with the dead; others pegs for\nhanging the vases on the walls. The wonder was to find such fine\nspecimens of art in tombs so homely. These vases were of all styles and\nepochs from early Corinthian of about the seventh century to the\nDecadence. Besides these, an immense number of vases painted black\nonly, without any subject, and others of the black _bucchero_ ware,\nwere discovered in the various tombs, along with bronzes, ivories, and\nother objects peculiarly Etruscan.[253]\n\nThis vast discovery naturally attracted the attention of Europe.\nNotwithstanding the obvious fact of their possessing Greek\ninscriptions, and the light thrown upon them by the researches of\nWinckelmann, Lanzi, and other enlightened scholars, the Italian\nantiquaries, fired with a mistaken patriotism, insisted on claiming all\nthe vases as Etruscan fabrics. The history of this error, long since\ndiscredited, is briefly summarised in the Introductory chapter.[254]\n\n * * * * *\n\nTurning now to Southern Italy, _Latium_ need not detain us long. It is\ntrue that Greek vases have from time to time been found at Rome, or at\nany rate fragments, as in the recent excavations in the Forum[255]; but\nfew of these are of importance except as historical data. When Rome is\ngiven as the provenance of a vase, it probably implies nothing more\nthan that it has been acquired from some dealer in that city. At Civita\nLavinia Lord Savile found some fragments of painted pottery of\ndifferent periods. Alba Longa is famous as the site whence the\nhut-urns, elsewhere discussed, have been obtained; but on the whole\nRome and the cities of Latium seem to be quite barren in regard to\nfinds of pottery. With the three main divisions of the southern half of\nItaly the case is quite different. It is true that there has been no\nVulci in these districts, and indeed that no scientific excavations\nhave taken place compared with those in Etruria; yet the yield of vases\nfrom these parts is extraordinarily large. In the eighteenth century\nthe neighbourhood of Naples, Paestum, etc., was a favourite\nhunting-ground with dilettanti, such as Sir William Hamilton, who\nappear to have acquired their large collections chiefly from Campanian\ntombs; but unfortunately they have left no record of the sites on which\nthese vases were found. In the Samnite district and north of the\nApennines pottery-finds are almost unknown; while the barbaric regions\nof Bruttii and Calabria are only represented by a few late painted\nvases of the rudest local fabrics.\n\nIt may be noted that as a general rule the Greek colonies on the coast,\nwhich maintained from the earliest times a constant intercourse with\nGreece, have yielded from their tombs a fair proportion of the older\nGreek fabrics, whereas the inland cities are more remarkable for their\nremains of the later Athenian and local wares, being of more recent\norigin.\n\nBeginning with Campania, we take first the famous colony of _Cumae_,\nthe most ancient in Magna Graecia, which was founded by the Chalcidians\nof Kyme in Aeolis at an unknown date, but not later than the eighth\ncentury. Vases of all periods have been found here, though not in great\nnumbers. The earliest belong to the infancy of the colony, and include\nthe famous lekythos of Tataie found in 1843, and now in the British\nMuseum.[256] It bears an inscription in the Chalcidian alphabet. But\nthe majority of the finds belong to the period when there appears to\nhave been a flourishing local fabric, about the third century B.C. They\nare the most typical representatives of the Campanian style, and may be\nstudied to best advantage in the Raccolta Cumana of the Naples Museum,\nwhere they are collected together.[257] Many of these were found in\n1842. Cumae was famous for its pottery even in Roman times,[258] and\nspecimens of Roman ware with reliefs have been found here, as also at\nthe neighbouring Puteoli (Chapter XXII.)\n\nNext in importance for the history of local fabrics are the vases found\nat _S. Agata dei Goti_, the ancient Saticula, which can also claim a\nmanufacture of its own.[259] They are for the most part bell-shaped\nkraters, and were chiefly excavated at the end of the eighteenth\ncentury. Signed vases by the Paestum masters Assteas and Python (see\nbelow) came from this site. The vases of _Abella_ form another class of\nCampanian ware, but of a degenerate and late type, mostly hydriae of\nvery pale clay. Other sites which have yielded Campanian vases are:\nNaples (Neapolis), Telese, Teano, Acerra, Sessa, and Nuceria Alfaterna\n(Nocera).[260]\n\n_Capua_, on the other hand, does not appear to have had any special\nfabric of its own, although the finds of all periods are as numerous as\nfrom any site in Southern Italy except Ruvo and Nola. Among the earlier\nspecimens may be mentioned the inscribed Corinthian krater in the\nBritish Museum (B 37) from the Hamilton collection (Plate XXI.). The\nred-figured vases include cups signed by Euergides, Epiktetos, and\nPistoxenos. The vases of the Decadence have, as indicated, no\ndistinctive features of their own. Most of the late red-figured vases\nof fancy shapes (such as rhyta) in the British Museum are from this\nsite, whence they passed into the hands of Castellani. The black vases\nwith gilded ornamentation, of which the British Museum possesses some\nfine specimens, are also characteristic of Capua. A large number of the\nvases obtained by Sir William Temple are from this site, as is also one\nof the later Panathenaic amphorae.[261]\n\nAt _Calvi_ (Cales) Greek painted vases are almost unrepresented,[262]\nbut this site is distinguished as the origin of two late varieties of\nfictile ware. One is formed by the Calene phialae (p. 502), or bowls of\nblack ware with interior designs in relief, sometimes signed with the\nnames of local potters; the other consists of large vases highly\nornamented with terracotta figurines attached in different places, or\nelse modelled in the form of female figures or heads. Strictly\nspeaking, the latter must be classed under the heading of terracottas\n(see p. 119).\n\nLastly, we have to speak of _Nola_, which, like Capua, was always a\ncity of considerable importance, and is represented by a large series\nof vases of all periods.[263] Here again we can detect no signs of a\nspecial local fabric, though for a long time the so-called \u201cNolan\u201d\namphorae of the red-figured period were thought to have been made on\nthe spot, so frequently have they been found. The name is still\nretained as convenient for describing this particular form of amphora\n(see p. 162), with its exquisite black varnish, graceful outlines, and\nsimple yet effective decoration; but it is, of course, quite\nconventional. The vases are purely Attic (some are signed by Athenian\nartists), and it can only be supposed that they found especial favour\nin the Nolan market. Corinthian and Attic black-figured vases occur in\nlarge numbers, and both here and at Capua there seems to have been a\ntendency to imitate the exported Athenian wares. Thus we find not only\nvases with black figures on buff ground on which the drawing is\nobviously free and developed, but also imitations of the \u201cNolan\u201d\namphorae, both classes dating from about the fourth century B.C.\n\nAt _Sorrento_ and the neighbouring Vico Equense a few vases of\ndifferent periods have been found, including a fine R.F. krater signed\nby Polygnotos, which was discovered in 1893, and is now in the British\nMuseum.[264] Salerno is also mentioned as a site where Greek vases have\ncome to light.\n\nThe famous city of _Paestum_ lay actually within the borders of\nLucania, but all its relations were with Campania, and it may\npractically be regarded as a Campanian city. Little has been found here\nexcept local fourth- and third-century fabrics, but these are for the\nmost part so remarkable that they have established the existence of a\nschool of vase-painting at Paestum quite distinct from and earlier than\nthe fabrics of the three districts of Southern Italy.[265] Nearly all\nthe vases found here (including three signed by the master Assteas)\nhave the distinguishing characteristics of this class. They are mostly\nto be seen in the Naples Museum; a fuller account of them is given in\nChapter XI.\n\nAmong the sites in Lucania on which vases have been found,[266] the\nmost important is _Anzi_, the ancient Anxia, which appears to have been\nthe chief centre for the manufacture of the Lucanian vases. Earlier\nexamples of Greek red-figured vases have also come from this site, but\nthe majority are of the Lucanian class.[267] Provenances in this\ndistrict are, however, always doubtful, and in many cases nothing more\ndefinite than \u201cBasilicata\u201d can be ascertained. But discoveries on the\nfollowing sites seem to be well attested: Armento,[268] Eboli,[269]\nMissanello, Grumento, Potenza,[270] Pomarico, and Pisticci.[271] The\nBritish Museum collection includes a fine B.F. krater (B 360) from\nArmento, the famous vase with the Doloneia (F 157 = Fig. 130.) from\nPisticci, several from Anzi, and a few from Pomarico. In the Naples\nMuseum are vases from Pomarico, Pisticci, and elsewhere (chiefly in the\nSantangelo collection), while the Koller collection, now in the Berlin\nMuseum, contains many from Castelluccio, S. Arcangelo, and other sites.\nBut none of these finds compare in any sense with those of Apulia and\nCampania. There were no ancient cities of special importance in this\nregion, and hence no large cemeteries, while the local fabric was\nprobably not of long duration.\n\nIn Apulia the site above all others important is that of _Ruvo_, which\nwas no doubt the chief centre of the local pottery-manufactures, and\nhas yielded a great majority of the vases known as \u201cApulian,\u201d as well\nas many of earlier style. Excavations began here in the eighteenth\ncentury, but it was not until 1828 that they were undertaken on any\nlarge scale. Vases are still found from time to time at the present\nday, and one of the largest private collections still existing, that of\nSignor Jatta, is extraordinarily rich in the vases of Apulian style\ncollected by this gentleman and preserved on the spot. It is curious\nthat Ruvo (Rubi) had no special importance in antiquity; it may,\nhowever, be worth noting that remains of a pottery with furnaces, etc.,\nhave come to light.[272] The Apulian vases from Ruvo have no special\ncharacteristics which distinguish them from the other Apulian fabrics.\n\nIt would be futile to attempt a detailed description of the finds at\nRuvo,[273] which include such a large proportion of the magnificent\nApulian vases covered with paintings of an elaborate nature. Of earlier\nspecimens, an isolated Corinthian vase, two Panathenaic amphorae, and\nsundry other B.F. vases are known, as also occasional R.F. vases, but\nthese are almost exceptions. Among the most famous Apulian vases are\nthose representing the Death of Talos, the Death of Archemoros,\npreparations for a Satyric Drama, and so on.[274]\n\nMore important in antiquity, though less productive in vases, is\n_Canosa_, the ancient Canusium, where a set of fine vases was first\ndiscovered in 1813 and published by Millin. Among the best of these is\nthe great Dareios vase at Naples (see Chapter XIV. _ad fin._). Nearly\nall are of the Apulian class, with preferences for certain forms and\ndetails (such as the use of purple) not appearing at Ruvo, and a\ntypical local product is a kind of _procho\u00f6s_ or tall jug.[275] Canosa\nwas also a centre for the large terracotta vases which have been also\nfound at Calvi (see p. 119).\n\nAt _Bari_ vases have been found from time to time, and there is a fair\ncollection in the local museum[276]; they include the famous\nPoniatowski vase with Triptolemos\u2019 setting-out, now in the Vatican, and\nthe krater in the British Museum (F 269) with the burlesque combat of\nAres and Hephaistos over Hera. _Ceglie_ has chiefly supplied the Berlin\nMuseum with its Apulian specimens (from the Koller collection), others\npassing into a private collection at Naples. They are mostly of the\nlater over-elaborated style.\n\n_Altemura_ has supplied a few, but chiefly fine, vases, including the\nR.F. krater with the birth of Pandora (Brit. Mus. E 467) and the\nmagnificent vase representing the Under-world found in 1847 and now in\nNaples. Other finds have been made at _Polignano_, _Putignano_, and\n_Fasano_ (Gnatia), which last site is interesting as the probable\ncentre of a late fabric. Most of the vases found here have figures or\npatterns painted in opaque white and purple on the black glaze, and\nrepresent the latest stage of vase-painting in Southern Italy.[277]\nThey are found almost exclusively on this site. It is also represented\nby some late R.F. vases with polychrome decoration.\n\nIn the region covered by the \u201cheel\u201d of Italy the most important site,\nas also the most important city in ancient times, is _Taranto_ or\nTarentum. Chiefly on the authority of M. Lenormant,[278] this city was\nfor a long time regarded as the centre of many South Italian fabrics,\nincluding the vases with burlesque scenes (\u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2), those of Paestum,\nthe Fasano ware, and, in fact, all Apulian fabrics. But the extensive\nexcavations that have taken place at Tarentum of late years have shown\nthat Lenormant and those who followed him were quite misled. Few\nApulian vases have come to light, the Paestum fabric is unrepresented,\nand although the \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 of Tarentum were no doubt specially famous in\nantiquity, there is no authority for connecting this class of vases\nwith them to the exclusion of other sites. Vases, in fact, are\nextremely rare at Tarentum, which made a much greater speciality of\nterracottas, especially of a votive kind; a few B.F. and R.F. specimens\nare known,[279] including the remarkable fragment of a R.F. krater in\nthe British Museum (E 494), and a fine krater with an Amazonomachia\n(Bibl. Nat. 421).\n\nVases from _Metapontum_ also are few and far between; the British\nMuseum possesses a specimen with figures in relief on black ground; and\nfinds are also reported from _Lecce_, _Brindisi_, and _Oria_.[280] Many\nexamples of local fabrics, described in Chapter XVIII., have been found\nin this district, and specimens are preserved in the museums at Bari,\nLecce, and elsewhere. Lastly we have to speak of the finds made at\n_Locri_ on the east side of the \u201ctoe\u201d of Italy, the only important site\nin that district which has yielded Greek vases. Many of these are white\nlekythi with figures in outline and polychrome, resembling the\nwell-known Athenian fabrics. They were originally (like those of Gela)\nthought to be local products, but it is more likely that they were made\nat Athens and imported, the Locrians having a particular preference for\nthese vases, as the people of Nola had for the slim amphorae. Some of\nthe B.F. and R.F. vases found here are of a very fair order of\nmerit.[281]\n\n=Sicily=, so celebrated for its magnificent works of art, has yielded a\nconsiderable number of painted vases of all periods. The cities of the\nsouthern coast have produced the greatest number, especially Syracuse,\nGela (Terranuova), and Agrigentum (Girgenti). Many have also come from\nthe cemeteries of Acrae, Leontini, and Megara Hyblaea. Palermo,\nMessina, and Catania have produced isolated examples. The richest finds\nhave been in the recently excavated cemeteries of _Syracuse_. The\ndiscoveries of early vases and fragments made here by Dr. Orsi are of\nthe utmost importance, and include quantities of specimens of Mycenaean\nand \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d wares.[282]\n\nAt _Terranuova_ or Gela, one of the earliest settlements of the island,\nvases with black and with red figures were found as long ago as the\neighteenth century,[283] and in 1792 a pottery with furnaces and vases\nwas discovered in the neighbourhood.[284] Of late years vases with\nblack and red figures, some of the latter being of the finest style,\nhave been discovered in large numbers, as well as white lekythi,\nprobably imported from Athens. Of these finds we have already given\nsome description (p. 37). In 1862 Mr. George Dennis found a series of\nfine R.F. lekythi of the \u201csevere\u201d period, together with B.F. vases and\narchaic terracottas, now in the British Museum; and these have been\nfully rivalled by Mr. Arthur Evans\u2019 discoveries in later years. The\nsite has also yielded vases of a primitive character, imitating early\nGreek wares. Gela was always noted for its potteries, as the ceramic\ndecorations of the Geloan Treasury at Olympia show (p. 100); many of\nthe vases have characteristic Sicilian subjects, and there was\nundoubtedly a considerable local fabric.\n\nOf the vases found at _Girgenti_ (Agrigentum) the most noteworthy is\nthe beautiful lebes now in the British Museum,[285] of the finest R.F.\nstyle, described as \u201cone of the finest specimens of Greek ceramography\nthat has come down to us, absolutely unsurpassed in its combination of\nartistic merit and mythological interest.\u201d It was found in 1830, and\nbelonged to the poet Samuel Rogers; the subject is the combat of\nTheseus with the Amazons. Other B.F. and R.F. vases of fine style have\ncome from this site,[286] as well as a series of moulds for vases with\nreliefs, of the Hellenistic period.[287] Fine vases are said to have\nbeen found at _Kamarina_,[288] a few with red figures at _Himera_, and\nsome archaic lekythi at _Selinus_.[289] From _Lentini_ Jahn records\npolychrome and R.F. vases, the latter of the \u201cstrong\u201d and later\nperiods.[290] At _Palazzolo_ (Acrae) B.F. and R.F. vases have been\nfound, including a B.F. kotyle in the British Museum (B 79),\nrepresenting Dionysos in a car formed like a ship. At _Centorbi_\n(Centuripae) almost the only find of note was a conical cover of a\nlarge bowl ornamented with encaustic paintings, the colours having been\nprepared with wax; parts of two bowls were also found decorated with\ndesigns in relief and gilt, of scrolls, small Cupids, and heads of\nMedusa.[291] Other sites that may be mentioned are: Hybla Heraea\n(Ragusa),[292] Catania, Alicata,[293] Aderno[294] at the foot of Etna,\nand Monte Saraceno.[295]\n\nAt Tharros, in _Sardinia_, extensive excavations were made in 1856, and\na long series of tombs found containing Phoenician objects in\nporcelain, engraved scarabs, terracotta figures, and other objects, but\nlittle painted Greek pottery of any importance.[296] An interesting\nkrater of late date, with the head of the Satyr Akratos, from the\nisland of _Lipari_ is now in the collection of Mr. J. Stevenson at\nGlasgow[297]; and in _Ischia_ was found a krater with the subject of\nthe infant Dionysos confided to the Nymphs.[298] In the public museum\nof _Malta_ some Greek vases are to be seen,[299] but it is not known\nwhether they were actually found there.\n\nWe have now completed the circuit of the ancient world, so far as finds\nof Greek pottery are concerned, as with the exception of Marseilles,\nalready alluded to none can be traced in Spain or Central Europe.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n Curiously enough, the relative proportions of Greek and Oriental\n civilisation in Asia Minor are almost exactly the same at the present\n day as in the sixth century B.C. The Greeks are mostly to be found in\n towns like Smyrna, and the adjoining islands, while the central part\n of the country is almost entirely Turkish.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n See for references to descriptions of tombs Hermann, _Lehrbuch d.\n Antiq._ iv. (1882), p. 377.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n Room K, Cases 69\u201372.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n For specimens of typical Athenian tombs see Stackelberg, _Gr\u00e4ber der\n Hellenen_, pl. 7. Fig. 1. gives a reproduction of a cist full of\n vases from _ibid._ pl. 8. For an admirable description of the tombs\n of the Dipylon, see _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, p. 74 ff.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n _Compte-Rendu_, Atlas, 1859, pls. 5\u20136; Macpherson, _Antiqs. of\n Kertch_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1850, p. 209, pl. 19.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n _Journ. Hell. Stud._ vi. p. 237.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n See for illustrations of tombs at Agia Paraskevi, near Nicosia, _Ath.\n Mitth._ 1886, xi. p. 209 ff., and Suppl. pl. 2, from which Fig. 2. is\n taken.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n For specimens of Cypriote tombs of all periods the reader is referred\n to Cesnola\u2019s _Cyprus; Brit. Mus. Excavations in Cyprus_, 1893\u201396;\n _Journ. Hell. Stud._ ix. p. 264 (Paphos) and xi. p.19 ff. (Poli).\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. ix. (1870), p. 162.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Gardner, _Cat. of Vases in Ashmol. Mus._ p. vii.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n Cavallari in _Bull. della Comm. di Antich. in Sicil._ 1872, v. p. 10,\n pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n Vol. ii. p. 57, vignette. Models of this tomb exist in cork, and\n specimens may be seen in the Winchester College Museum and Eton\n School Library.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n _Scavi di Certosa_, 1875, text and plates.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n For tombs at Ruvo see Jatta, _Cat. del Museo_, p. 53 ff.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Reference may also be made to Martha, _L'Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 183 ff.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n For an example in the B.M. see E 811 in the Fourth Vase Room, Cases\n 6\u20137. A plain jar of late date, from Halikarnassos, full of calcined\n bones, is in the Terracotta Room of the B.M., Case 20.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n See also Rathgen, _Konservirung von Altertumsfunden_, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Westropp, _Epochs of Painted Vases_, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fittili_, i. pl. 13; a false vase is also published\n in Passeri, 300, and others in D'Hancarville, ii. 71, 84. The worst\n specimen is perhaps that engraved by Millin, _Peintures_, ii, pls.\n 54\u20135 (reproduced in Reinach\u2019s edition), which yet for a long time\n found general acceptance. As a curiosity and a warning it deserves\n perpetuation.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Eng. transl. p. 180 ff.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n Curiously enough there was in M. Tyszkiewicz\u2019s own collection a\n white-ground cup with the subject of Phrixos (_Sale Cat._ pl. 35),\n which is certainly open to suspicion\u00b7\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1875, pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Reinach, ii. 62 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n B.M. E 458.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n Munich 404.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n B.M. E 468.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n B.M. F 331.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n B.M. B 130.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n See Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, ii. p. 277.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. pl. 49; now at Deepdene (?).\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n This has been especially the case of late years, as in the sale of M.\n van Branteghem\u2019s collection in 1892, when a small kylix signed by\n Sotades cost as much as \u00a3400, and two others slightly less.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n Some account of the prices paid for vases will be found in De Witte\u2019s\n _Description des Antiquit\u00e9s et Objets d\u2019Art qui composent le cabinet\n de feu M. le Chev. E. Durand_, Paris, 1836; and in the same author\u2019s\n _Description d\u2019une collection de vases peints et bronzes antiques\n provenant des fouilles de l\u2019\u00c9trurie_, Paris, 1837.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n His Introduction to the Munich Vase Catalogue gives a good account of\n finds of vases in Greece up to that time (1854); see p. xxi. ff.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n Cf. Athenaeus, i. 28 C; xi. 484 F, and 480 C.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n B 130. See _Cat._ vol. ii. for list of publications of this vase.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n _Gr\u00e4ber der Hellenen._ He also gives some description of the tombs in\n which they were found, and the nature of their contents (see above,\n p. 33).\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Good summaries of these discoveries will be found in the _Arch.\n Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 13 ff., and _Berliner Philol. Wochenschr._ 1895,\n p. 59.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n _E.g._ Bibl. Nat. 865 _bis_; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1885, pls. 8\u20139; 1888, pl. 12;\n 1898, pls. 2\u20135; 1901, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, p. 46 ff.: see also Bibl. Nat. 496 _bis_, 506.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 417 is from the neighbouring Munychia.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 385 ff.; and see below, p. 278.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n Berlin 56 = _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n A fine R.F. and polychrome kylix = _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. 37 _a_ =\n Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. p. 207; also Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 164.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n Berlin 2030; Athens 1167.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n Berlin 2493, 2690; _Arch. Zeit._ 1880, pl. 16 = Reinach, i. p. 428.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n Berlin 2373.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1895, pl. 11 (Mycenaean).\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n Berlin 1887\u201389.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n Athens 1241; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1903, p. 320.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n See for the Vourva vases Athens 592 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 318\n ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.; and p. 299 below.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n See Dodwell, _Tour_, ii. p. 180. Stephanus of Byzantium speaks of the\n pottery of Megara (_s.v._) See also Athens 1858; Petersburg 1563 _a_.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n viii. p. 381: cf. p. 134.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n Ross, _Arch. Aufs._ ii. p. 344; Bibl. Nat. 101: see also Jahn\u2019s\n _Einleitung_, p. xxv.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n _Ibid._ i. p. 57.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n See p. 316.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n _E.g._ Bibl. Nat. 94, 313, 1179.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n See generally Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 50; for\n notices of Mycenaean fragments by early travellers, Dodwell, _Tour_,\n ii. p. 237, and Burgon in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. ii.\n (1847), p. 258 ff., with plate opposite p. 296.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n Fig. 88, p. 297.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 15, 21, p. 45; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1895, pl. 11.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1859, pl. 125 = Reinach, i. 389: see also _Bull. dell\u2019\n Inst._ 1832, p. 62; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1847, p. 250.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n _Cat._ 1615, 1901, 1931\u201332: see also _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 94.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n _Cat._ 1974.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 166; _Class. Review_, 1891, p. 73; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1892, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n See _Ergebnisse_, iv. p. 198 ff.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n See p. 391.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n See p. 451.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n See Kekul\u00e9, _Thonfiguren aus Tanagra_, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n Isolated vase-finds from Tanagra are the early B.F. tripod, Berlin\n 1727, and the fine R.F. krater, Athens 1259.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xix. p. 177.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n Cf. Athens 678, 809, 1156, 1158.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Vases from Lamia are Nos. 1621 and 1984; from Lokris, 1354, 1434;\n from Phokis, 1177, 1181.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n _Branteghem Sale Cat._ No. 96.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n _Ibid._ No. 43; Berlin 2938.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n B.M. E 719, an alabastron formerly in the Branteghem collection.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 151: see below, p. 217. A late B.F. vase of\n \u201cKabeirion\u201d style.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Fragments from Delphi are recorded in _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1841, p. 10;\n Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. xxv; _Morgenblatt_, 1835, p. 698.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 43.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, p. 237.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n For Kephallenia see _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 126.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1847, p. 247, note 5; Mustoxidi, _Delle cose\n Corciresi_, i. p. 271; B.M. A 1670.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n A beautiful polychrome lekythos in the B.M. (D 70 = Plate LV.) is\n from this island, on the authority of Raoul-Rochette (_Peint. Antiq._\n p. 415); but see Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ p. 42, where it is\n attributed to Aegina.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. pp. 51, 208.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 48; _Magazin Encycl._ 1811, ii. p. 140; and see note\n 130.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n See also Brongniart, _Mus. C\u00e9ram._ pl. 13, 11, and _Trait\u00e9_, i. p.\n 576; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1829, p. 113, 1830, p. 129; _Ann. dell\u2019\n Inst._ 1837, p. 135, 1842, p. 103, 1847, p. 250; and numerous vases\n in the Bibl. Nat. (see p. 689 of Catalogue).\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n _J.H.S._ xvii. p. 77; xviii. p. 281 ff.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n B.M. B 8; Berlin 1682 = Reinach, i. 441; Reinach, i. 118, 2; B.M. E\n 508; Gerhard, _A.V.B._ iii. 238 = Reinach, ii. 120 (in Berlin),\n signed by Ergotimos.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n Pallat in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 265.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1901, pp. 1001, 1436.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n See Hesychius, _s.v._ \u1f28\u03c7\u03ce; he adds, \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u0391\u1f34\u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u1f74 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u1f44\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1901, pls. 9\u201312, p. 173 ff.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n Athens 618 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1963, fig. 2098.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n Ross, _Reisen_, iii. p. 25.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n Athens 1861.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 468.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n E 732: see p. 357 and Fig. III.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 220.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 21. For Geometrical, see Brongniart\n and Riocreux, _Mus. de S\u00e8vres_, pl. 13, figs. 4, 13, 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n _Reisen_, i. p. 66; iii. p. 27. See also Berlin 3901, 4088;\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 577; Bibl. Nat. 19, 21, 22. The S\u00e8vres\n vases mentioned by Brongniart were found about thirty feet below the\n volcanic deposits.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.; H. von Gaertringen, _Thera_, vol.\n ii.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n See Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. xxvi; Berlin 1886; _Rhein. Mus._\n 1843, p. 435; Boettiger, _Vasengem._ i. p. 29.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n These are fully described and illustrated in a volume issued by the\n Hellenic Society (1904).\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n _Op. cit._ iii. p. 15 ff.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 46 ff.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n _Rhein. Mus._ 1843. p. 435; Bibl. Nat. 873 (Chios); for Tenedos as a\n pottery centre see Dio Chrys. _Orat._ 42, 5; Plutarch, _Vit. aer.\n alien._ 2.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n For ancient references to Samian ware see Chapter XXII., where the\n subject is discussed in detail.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ (1898); he also found Cyrenaic,\n Corinthian, and Attic pottery (p. 125 ff.). See below, p. 336.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n See also _Arch. Zeit._ 1848, p. 280.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n See Ross, _Reisen_, iv. p. 44.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 581 (plain wares only).\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n _J.H.S._ viii. p. 446. pl. 83.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 130 ff.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n See on the Geometrical pottery Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 136. It is\n probably imported, although D\u00fcmmler (_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 268) thinks\n otherwise.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n There is at least one late R.F. vase from Crete in the National\n Museum at Athens (_Cat._ 1851, 1860, 1921). See for other instances\n of earlier finds, below, p. 269; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 22;\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 176.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xv. (1895), p. 351 ff.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 157 ff. for an estimate of the Knossos\n pottery; also p. 265 below.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n _British School Annual_, 1899\u20131900, p. 94 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n _Ibid._ 1900\u201301, p. 121 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 248 ff.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n _Ibid._ 1901\u20132, p. 289 ff.; 1902\u20133, p. 297.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n _Rendiconti dell\u2019 Accad. dei Lincei_, 1900, p. 631.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n _American Journ. of Arch._ 1901, p. 371 ff., 302, 128; _British\n School Annual_, 1901\u201302, p. 235 (Praesos).\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n Nos. 98 and 99 in the collection of M. van Branteghem were two fine\n R.F. \u201caryballi\u201d from Apollonia in Thrace.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n The reader who wishes to gain a comprehensive idea of these vases is\n referred to the plates of the Atlas to Stephani\u2019s _Compte-Rendu de la\n Comm. imp. arch. de St.-P\u00e9tersbourg_ (1861\u201383) = Reinach,\n _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n See also Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. xxvii.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n _Compte-Rendu_, 1870\u201371, pl. 4 = Reinach, i. 34.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n See an interesting article in _Anzeiger_, 1900, p. 151, on the\n relations of the Black Sea colonies to Greece, especially in regard\n to pottery.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n See D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304 ff.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n So Jahn, _Vasens_. p. xxvii, but from the illustration given in\n Choiseul-Gouffier\u2019s _Voyage pittoresque_, pt. 2, pl. 30, this seems\n doubtful.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n Jahn, _Vasens_. p. xxvii.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n _Monuments Piot_, x. pls. 6\u20137.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n The style resembled that of B 80 in the Brit. Mus.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n See Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi. pp. 929, 931. The British Museum\n possesses a similar one from Kalymnos (p. 273).\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ pp. 86\u20137.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 274; Pottier and Reinach, _N\u00e9cropole de Myrina_,\n pp. 221, 499; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, p. 509; _Ath. Mitth._\n 1887, p. 228.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 6; now in Brit. Mus.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n See generally Chapter VIII.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 6, p. 38 ff.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n Athen. xi. 481 A. See also _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 94.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. ii. (1847), p. 258, and plate, fig.\n D.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n Chantre, _Recherches arch\u00e9ol._ pls. 8\u201314; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 37 ff.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ xii. (1887), pp. 226, 376.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 161; Athenaeus, i. 28 D; Lucian, _Lexiph._ 7.\n For pottery from Datcha, near Knidos, see _Rev. Arch._ xxv. (1894),\n p. 27.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n Jahn, p. xxvii.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n _Comptes-Rendus de l\u2019Acad. des Inscr._ Aug. 1902, p. 428 ff.; 1903,\n p. 216.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n _Catalogue of Cyprus Museum_, Oxford, 1899.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n See Hermann, _Gr\u00e4berfeld von Marion_ (1888); _J.H.S._ xi. p. 41 ff.,\n xii. p. 315; _Branteghem Sale Cat._ Nos. 14\u201318, 28\u201330.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n _J.H.S._ xi. p. 273.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. F 510\u201312.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n Petrie, _Hawara_, pl. 16, figs. 1\u20134.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n It was presented to the British Museum by Sir E. Codrington in 1830.\n Similar painted vases were found in Roman tombs at Curium, Cyprus\n (_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 78).\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1885, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n See _Trans. Roy. Soc. of Lit._ 2nd Ser. ix. p. 165 ff., and _Arch.\n Zeit._ 1846, p. 216; also p. 36 above.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, pl. 13; Froehner, _Ant. du Mus. de\n Marseilles_, 1928\u201330.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 161.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n See Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. lxxxiv; _Arch. Zeit._ 1850, pl. 18\n = Reinach, i. 372; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 45, p. 279; and Sch\u00f6ne,\n _Mus. Bocchi_, 1878.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 160.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n See Chapter XXII., and Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 583.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1848, p. 62.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n _Ibid._ 1847, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 329; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n _Scavi della Certosa di Bologna_, text and plates, 1876: see also\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1872, pp. 12 ff., 76 ff., 108 ff.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n See _Vasi Fitt._ iv. pl. 355, p. 82; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1849, p. 23.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n P. lxxxiii.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, ii. p. 189; Micali, _Mon.\n Ined._ p. 216.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 160: Retinet hanc nobilitatem (_sc._ of Samian ware) et\n Arretium in Italia.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n Jahn, _Vasens._ p. lxxxii; Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 163, 332; and\n see 166.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 431; Jahn, p. lxxxii; Reinach,\n _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 137, 161, 251, 384.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n See Plate XXVIII. and p. 370.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n See Dennis, ii. p. 307 ff.; Jahn, p. lxxix.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n Dennis, _ibid._\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 25, Nos. G 179\u201394: cf. _Class.\n Review_, 1897, p. 276, and _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1871, p. 5 ff.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n xi. 480 E.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 46. _Class. Review_, 1894, p. 277, gives\n some more recent finds.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 47, p. 466: cf. _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1830,\n p. 233.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n See Jahn, p. lxxviii.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n Reinach, i. 203, 222 (Plate XXXIX).\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n See also _Class. Review_, 1893, pp. 84, 381; 1894, p. 277.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n Dennis, i. p. 405; Jahn, p. lxviii.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n B.M. A 469, 1537, 1540.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1889, pls. 5\u20136, p. 218.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n F 479; also Reinach, i. 215. For a late R.F. vase with a Latin\n inscription from this site see _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 10, p. 231.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n Jahn, p. lxv.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n For an account of this tomb see Dennis, i. p. 33 ff., and above, p.\n 39.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n See Chapter XVIII., and Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 17.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n See for these Chapter XVIII.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n _Cat._ 1655=Reinach, i. 199: see p. 319.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n The Antaios krater and the Petersburg psykter: see p. 431.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. p. 106.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n P. lxvi. ff.: see also generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 355 ff.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n B.M. E 41.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1902, p. 84 ff.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n _Class. Review_, 1894, p. 277.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n Reinach, i. 320.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n _Class. Review_, 1897, p. 226.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Jahn, p. lxiv; Reinach, i. 109, 368; _Class. Review_, 1897, p. 276.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n Reinach, i. 345.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n 1831; see also _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1831, p. 161. A view of the site\n is given in _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ i. pl. 41.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n See generally Chapter XVIII. The finds are described in a work edited\n by Gsell, entitled _Fouilles de Vulci_ (1891).\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n Eng. transl. p. 112.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n Besides the already cited _Rapporto Volcente_ of Gerhard in the\n _Annali_ for 1831, an account of these discoveries will be found in\n the _Mus\u00e9um \u00c9trusque_ of the Prince of Canino; _Trans. Royal Soc. of\n Lit._ ii. (1834), p. 76 ff. (Millingen); _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1829, p.\n 188 ff.; Jahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, p. lxviii; and an excellent description\n in Dennis\u2019s _Etruria_, 2nd edn. i. p. 448 ff.: see also Chapter\n XVIII. Above all, reference should be made to the recent summary by\n Gsell (see above).\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n Those who are curious in such matters may be grateful for a\n bibliography of the controversy: Lanzi, _Dei Vasi antichi dipinti_;\n Winckelmann, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, i. p. 188 ff.; Canino, _Mus. \u00c9tr._\n (1829), and _Cat. di scelte ant. \u00c9tr._; _Annali_, 1831, p. 105 ff.,\n 1834, p. 285; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1829, pp. 60, 113 ff., 1831, p. 161\n ff., 1832, p. 74 ff., 1833, p. 73 ff.; Gerhard, _Berl. ant. Bildw._\n p. 143; _Journal de Savans_, 1830, pp. 115 ff., 177 ff.; Kramer,\n _Styl und Herkunft_, p. 146; Thiersch, _Hell. bemalte Vasen_, etc.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Finds of \u201cProto-Corinthian,\u201d B.F., and R.F. fragments have been\n recently made in the precincts of the temple of Vesta (_Class.\n Review_, 1901, p. 93).\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n A 1054 = _Bull. Arch. Nap._ ii. pl. 1, 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n See p. 483, and Patroni, _Ceramica Antica_, p. 79 ff.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n Mart. _Ep._ xiv. 114; Stat. _Silv._ iv. 9, 43.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n See Patroni, _op. cit._ p. 93, also Jahn, _op. cit._ p. lxii, for\n B.F. and other vases found here. Some of the vases are direct\n imitations of Athenian fabrics.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n Naples 3352\u201355.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n B.M. B 610.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n See Jahn, p. lxiii; Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 317.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n See Jahn, p. lii. Those in the British Museum from Nola came chiefly\n from the Blacas collection.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n See also Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 228, 348; _Branteghem Sale Cat._\n Nos. 84\u20135; and Jahn, p. li.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n Walters, _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 16; Patroni, _Ceram. Ant._ pp.\n 37, 76.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n See Jahn, p. xlvi ff.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n _E.g._ Petersburg 355, and others in B.M.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n Petersburg 1187, 1427; Naples 2991, S.A. 11, 708\u20139.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n See Jahn, p. l, for examples from this site, mostly of inferior\n merit; also Reinach, i. 250.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n Berlin 2694; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1830, p. 21.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n B.M. F 157; Bibl. Nat. 422.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Lenormant, _Grande Gr\u00e8ce_, i. p. 94.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n See Jahn, p. xl.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n For recent excavations see _Class. Review_, 1893, p. 381; 1894, p.\n 129 (vases with subjects of Kanake and Theseus with the ring).\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n Patroni, _Ceram. Ant._ p. 142; B.M. F 237\u201338.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n Cf. also Petersburg 778, 895.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n See p. 488, and B.M. F 543 ff.; for earlier vases, Reinach, i. pp.\n 471\u201377.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n _La Grande Gr\u00e8ce_, i. p. 92 ff.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n See _Class. Review_, 1898, p. 185, for mention of two B.F. kylikes\n signed by Antidoros; also _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34 ff., 205\n ff., for other interesting B.F. vases, including signatures of\n Tleson, Sakonides, and Thrax. The two latter were found at Leporano,\n about ten miles S.W. of Tarentum.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n Mycenaean vases from this site are in the Louvre (Furtwaengler and\n Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 48).\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n As for instance Munich 781 = Reinach, ii. 126.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n These discoveries are summarised in the _Class. Review_, 1894, p.\n 278; 1896, p. 173; 1898, p. 428. Fuller details are given in the\n _Notizie degli Scavi_ for those years. See also Furtwaengler and\n Loeschcke, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n Jahn, p. xxxi.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n _Arch.-Intell. Blatt_, 1836, No. 34, p. 283.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ 329\u201330; _Forman Sale Cat._ No. 357.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 61\u20132 (Taleides); _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ i. pl. 52;\n B.M. B 295 (Nikosthenes); B.M. E 474, E 478: cf. Jahn, p. xxxii, and\n the index to Reinach\u2019s _R\u00e9pertoire_, _s.v._ Agrigente.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 261 ff.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Jahn, p. xxxi.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n _Arch.-Intell. Blatt_, 1834, No. 56, p. 457 ff.: see also _Bull.\n della Comm. di Antich. in Sicilia_, 1872, p. 13 ff. pls. 4\u20135.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n P. xxxi. One of the late vases with burlesque scenes (_Mon. dell\u2019\n Inst._ iv. pl. 12) was also found here.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 1\u20132; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n _Class. Review_, 1893, p. 231.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Jahn, p. xxxii.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n _Ibid._ p. xxx.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n Reinach, i. 408.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n A B.F. vase in the Cagliari Museum is published in _Bull. Arch. Nap._\n N.S. iv. pl. 13.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n _J.H.S._ vii. pl. 62, p. 55.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1842, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n Jahn, p. xxix.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III\n _THE USES OF CLAY_\n\n Technical terms\u2014Sun-dried clay and unburnt bricks\u2014Use of these in\n Greece\u2014Methods of manufacture\u2014Roof-tiles and architectural\n decorations in terracotta\u2014Antefixal ornaments\u2014Sicilian and\n Italian systems\u2014Inscribed tiles\u2014Sarcophagi\u2014Braziers\u2014Moulds\u2014Greek\n lamps\u2014Sculpture in terracotta\u2014Origin of art\u2014Large statues in\n terracotta\u2014Statuettes\u2014Processes of\n manufacture\u2014Moulding\u2014Colouring\u2014Vases with plastic\n decoration\u2014Reliefs\u2014Toys\u2014Types and uses of statuettes\u2014Porcelain\n and enamelled wares\u2014Hellenistic and Roman enamelled fabrics.\n\n\nWe now proceed to treat the subject of the fictile art among the Greeks\nin its technical aspects, prefacing our study with a section dealing\nwith the uses of clay in general.\n\nThe term employed by the Greeks for pottery is \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, or for the\nmaterial \u03b3\u1fc6 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae. The word for clay in a general sense is \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2,\nwhile \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 has the more restricted sense of clay as material for\nfictile objects; the latter word is supposed to be connected with\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9, to mix. They likewise applied to pottery the term \u1f44\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd,\nmeaning literally an oyster-shell, and \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1[300] is also\nan expression found for works in terracotta. Nor must we omit to\nmention that \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 too comes to bear a restricted sense, when it is\napplied to the unburnt or sun-dried bricks freely employed in early\narchitecture. Keramos was regarded by the Greeks as a legendary hero,\nfrom whom the name of the district in Athens known as the Kerameikos,\nor potter\u2019s quarter, was derived.[301] The word \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 soon became\ngeneric, and as early as Homer\u2019s time we find such an expression as\n\u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 for a bronze vessel[302]; similarly it came to be used\nfor tiles, even when they were of marble (see below, p. 100). The art\nof working in clay may be considered among the Greeks, as among all\nother nations, under three heads, according to the nature of the\nprocesses employed: (1) Sun-dried clay (Gk. \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 or \u1f60\u03bc\u03ac, Lat.\n_cruda_); (2) baked clay without a glaze, or terracotta (Gk. \u03b3\u1fc6 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae);\n(3) baked clay with the addition of a glaze, corresponding to the\nmodern porcelain. It is then possible to treat of the uses of clay\nunder these three heads. The first, from its limited use, will occupy\nour attention but very briefly; the second, the manufacture of building\nmaterials and terracotta figures, only technically comes under the\nheading of pottery, and will therefore also receive comparatively brief\nmention. It remains, then, that in the succeeding chapters, as in the\npreceding, it will be almost exclusively with the third heading that we\nare concerned. Before, however, dealing with this third heading, or\npottery, we may review briefly the purposes for which clay was worked,\nunder the other two headings of brick and terracotta.\n\nThe uses of clay among the Greeks were very varied and extensive.\nSun-dried clay was used for building material, and we have already seen\nwhat an important part was played by pottery in their domestic and\nreligious life. The uses of terracotta are almost more manifold than\nthose of pottery. It supplied the most important parts both of public\nand private buildings, such as bricks, roof-tiles, drain-tiles, and\nvarious architectural adornments; and was frequently used in the\nconstruction and decoration of tombs and coffins. Among its adaptations\nfor religious purposes may be noted its use as a substitute for more\nexpensive materials in the statues of deities, as well as the countless\nfigurines or statuettes in this material, many of which have been found\non the sites of temples or in private shrines; and besides the\nstatuettes and other figures, of which such quantities have been found\nin tombs, it was used for imitations of jewellery or metal vases made\nsolely for a sepulchral purpose. It also supplied many of the wants of\nevery-day life, in the form of spindle-whorls, theatre-tickets, lamps\nand braziers, and culinary and domestic utensils of all kinds, taking\nthe place of the earthenware of modern times. It supplied the potter\nwith moulds for his figures and the sculptor with models for his work\nin marble or bronze, and placed works of art within the reach of those\nwho found marble and the precious metals beyond their means.\n\nOne of the most elementary uses of clay is for the manufacture of\nbuilding material, for which it plays an important part, as we have\nalready seen, in the history of the Semitic races. Both burnt and\nunburnt bricks were employed in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and their use\nhas already been referred to in the Introduction. Vitruvius[303] speaks\nof the use of brick in the palace of Kroisos at Sardis, and we also\nread of the walls of Babylon and Larissa (on the site of Nineveh) as\nbeing of brick.[304] Generally speaking, sun-dried bricks belong to an\nearlier period of development than baked bricks; at any rate, this is\nthe case in the buildings of Greece and Rome.\n\nIn Greece itself the antiquity of brick is implied by the words of\nPliny,[305] who tells us that Hyperbius and Euryalus of Athens \u201cwere\nthe first to\u201d construct brick-kilns (_laterarias_) and houses; before\ntheir time men lived in caves. He further goes on to say that Gellius\nregarded one Toxius as the inventor of buildings of sun-dried clay,\ninspired by the construction of swallows\u2019 nests. The reference is\nobviously to the employment by swallows of straw and twigs to make the\nclay for their nests cohere; this may well have suggested, in the first\ninstance, the principle of mixing straw with sun-dried clay bricks, as\nwas done by the Israelites in their bondage in Egypt. The method is one\nstill practised in the East, where in such countries as Palestine and\nCyprus whole villages built in this fashion may be seen.\n\nThere is no doubt, however, that in Greece, with its stores of marble\nand stone for building, brick never became general, though it was\nprobably more used in sun-dried form in earlier buildings before the\nGreeks had begun to realise the possibilities of stone buildings.\nPausanias[306] speaks of temples of Demeter at Lepreon in Arcadia and\nStiris in Phokis, of a shrine of Asklepios at Panopeus in Phokis, and\nof the Stoa of Kotys at Epidauros (restored by Antoninus Pius) as being\nof unburnt brick (\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2). Of the same material was the cella of a\ntemple at Patrae[307]; but the walls of various cities, such as\nMantinea, were of burnt brick.[308]\n\nNor was the use of sun-dried clay confined to building material. It\nseems also to have been employed for modelling decorations of public\nbuildings. Thus Pausanias mentions \u201cimages of clay,\u201d representing\nDionysos feasting in the house of Amphiktyon, adorning a chamber in the\ntemenos of that god in the Kerameikos,[309] and it seems highly\nprobable that these are to be identified with the _cruda opera_ of one\nChalcosthenes or Caicosthenes mentioned by Pliny,[310] where the word\n_cruda_ can only be used in a technical sense (Greek \u1f60\u03bc\u03ac). He also\nmentions at Tritaea in Achaia[311] statues of the \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 in\nclay, and at Megara an image of Zeus by Theokosmos,[312] of which the\nface was gold and ivory, the rest clay and gypsum.\n\nOur knowledge of the use of brick (both burnt and unburnt) and\nterracotta in Greek architecture has been largely increased, not to say\nrevolutionised, by recent discoveries in all parts of the Greek world,\nand going back to a very remote period.\n\nRecent excavations have yielded walls of unburnt brick at Eleusis,\nMycenae, Olympia, Tegea, and Tiryns.[313] The Heraion at Olympia, which\ndates from the tenth century B.C., is a peripteral temple with stone\nstylobate, pillars and _antae_ of wood, and cella-wall of unburnt\nbrick. In this respect it resembles the temple of Zeus and Herakles at\nPatrae (see above). It also possesses the oldest known example of a\nterracotta roof (Fig. 9.). A recently discovered temple at Thermon in\nAcarnania is constructed of wood and terracotta, with painted\nterracotta slabs in wooden frames for metopes; the style of the\npaintings appears to be Corinthian, and they form a valuable\ncontribution to the history of early Greek painting.[314]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Durm\u2019s Handbuch_.\n\n FIG. 9. DIAGRAM OF ROOF-TILING, HERAION, OLYMPIA.\n]\n\nThe stone stylobate at the Heraion was a necessity because of the\ndestructive effect of the moist earth on terracotta; it consisted of a\nrow of vertical slabs on which the bricks were placed in regular\ncourses. We may see in this method of construction the forerunner of\nthe system, universal since that time, of building walls on a plinth,\nwhich survives even to the present day. In the same way door-jambs and\nlintels, which were of necessity made of wood, not of brick, continued\nto be constructed in that material even after the introduction of\nstone.[315] It has been assumed by some authorities that the Doric\nstyle of architecture is derived from a wooden prototype; this, however\ntrue of the Ionic style, is not altogether true of Doric. The\nproportions of the latter are too heavy. A more probable explanation is\nthat it is the combination of wood with sun-dried tiles or bricks which\nwe see in the Heraion that developed with the introduction of stone\ninto the Doric system.[316]\n\nIt is then clear that although in Greece bricks were by no means\nindispensable for building temples, houses, and walls, and though stone\nand marble undoubtedly had the preference, especially in later times,\nyet their use is more general than was hitherto supposed. But when they\nare mentioned by classical authors it is generally when speaking of\nforeign or barbarian edifices, such as the palace of Kroisos at Sardis\nor the monument of Hephaestion at Babylon,[317] and in a manner which\nshows that they were not much employed in Greece at the time when they\nwrote. The older temple of Apollo at Megara is described by\nPausanias[318] as having been of brick (\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2), but we are left in\ndoubt as to whether this was baked or sun-dried; while the excavations\nat Olympia have distinctly contradicted his statement[319] that the\nPhilippeion was of brick, as it is proved to have been built of stone\nashlar.[320] In 333\u2013329 B.C. the Long Walls of Athens were constructed,\npartly in brick, under Habron, son of Lykourgos, with Laconian tiles\nfor the roofs.[321] Other recorded buildings are all of late date and\nunder Roman influence, and we must leave an account of Roman\nbrick-building to be dealt with in a later chapter (XIX.).\n\nThere is an interesting passage in the _Birds_ of Aristophanes, in\nwhich he is describing the building of the city of Nephelokokkygia, the\nwalls of which are apparently conceived as being of sun-dried brick. He\nthere speaks of \u201cEgyptian brick-bearers,\u201d[322] implying that the use of\nbrick was a characteristic distinction of that nation. The passage\n(1133\u201351) is worth quoting in full, as showing the process employed in\nthe making of sun-dried bricks.\n\n _Mess._ Birds and none else; no bricklayer of Egypt,\n No stone-hewer was there, no carpenter:\n With their own hands they did it, to my marvel.\n There came from Libya thirty thousand cranes,\n All having swallowed down foundation-stones,\n Which with their beaks the rails still aptly shaped:\n Another party of ten thousand storks\n Were brick-makers: and water from below\n The plovers and the other wading birds\n Were raising up into the higher air.\n _Peisth._ And who conveyed the mortar[323] for them?\n _Mess._ Herons,\n In hods (\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd).\n _Peisth._ And how did they get in the mortar?\n _Mess._ That was the cleverest device of all, sir.\n The geese with their webbed feet, as though with spades\n (\u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2),\n Dipp\u2019d down, and laid it neatly on the hods.\n _Peisth._ What feat indeed may not be wrought with feet?\n _Mess._ Aye, and the ducks, by Jove, all tightly girt,\n Kept carrying bricks, and other birds were flying,\n With trowel on their head, to lay the bricks;\n And then, like children sucking lollipops,\n The swallows minced the mortar in their mouths.\n\n (Kennedy\u2019s Trans.)\n\nSun-dried bricks were known as \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f60\u03bc\u03b1\u03af (_lateres crudi_); baked\nbricks as \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f60\u03c0\u03c4\u03b1\u03af (_lateres cocti_ or _coctiles_). The Romans\nalso used the word _testa_ for baked brick, corresponding to the Greek\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Vitruvius[324] distinguishes three varieties of unburnt\nbricks, as used by the Greeks. One, known as \u201cLydian,\u201d was also used by\nthe Romans, who named the bricks from their length _sesquipedales_;\ntheir size was 1\u00bd by 1 ft. The other two, exclusively Greek, were known\nas \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, the word \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd signifying a \u201cpalm\u201d or\nthree inches; in other words, they were respectively fifteen inches and\none foot square. The former was used for public buildings, the latter\nfor private houses, and they were arranged in the walls in courses of\nalternate whole and half bricks, as is frequently done at the present\nday. Vitruvius also speaks of bricks made at Pitane in Mysia, and in\nSpain, which were so light that they would float in water.[325] He\nadvises that bricks should not be made of sandy or pebbly clay, which\nmakes them heavy and prevents the straw from cohering, so that they\nfall to pieces after wet. Many other directions are given by him,[326]\nbut are too lengthy to quote here. Bricks were made in a mould called\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a rectangular framework of boards[327]; and the sun-dried\nbricks were, as we learn from the passage quoted above, made by\ncollecting the clay with shovels (\u1f04\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9) into troughs (\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9) and\nworking it with the feet.[328] It is probable that we have some\nallusion to the use of moulds in certain passages from the Latin\nwriters.[329] The final proceeding was the drying in the sun.\n\nAn important branch of the subject is the use of terracotta for\nroof-tiles and other architectural decorations of temples and other\nbuildings. On this point our knowledge has during the last\nfive-and-twenty years been marvellously increased, the extent of its\nuse in architecture having been hitherto but little suspected.[330] The\ngeneric term for a roof-tile is in Greek \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2; they are generally\ndivided into flat tiles (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 or \u03c3\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, _tegulae_) and\ncovering-tiles (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, _imbrices_). Besides the ordinary roof-tiles\nthere must also be taken into consideration four varieties of\nornamental tiles which found their place on a classical building. They\nare: (1) the covering-slabs arranged in a row along the \u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, or\nraking cornice of the pediment; (2) the \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or cornice above the\n\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd; (3) the cornice along the sides of the building, with spouts in\nthe form of lions' heads, to carry off rain-water; (4) the row of\nantefixal ornaments or \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 surmounting the side-tiles.[331]\n\nThe flat roof-tiles or \u03c3\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2, as in the Heraion of Olympia and other\nearly buildings, are square and slightly concave, so that the raised\nedges placed side by side may catch under the semi-cylindrical\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, and so be held in their place. The latter are of plain\nsemi-cylindrical form, except the row at the lower edge of the roof,\nwhich have attached to them the vertical semi-elliptical slabs known as\n\u201cantefixae,\u201d of which more later.\n\nThe \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 were painted with elaborate patterns of\nlotos-and-honeysuckle, or maeanders, in red, blue, brown, and yellow,\nthe principle being preserved (as always in Greek architectural\ndecoration) of employing curvilinear patterns only on curved surfaces,\nrectilinear only on flat surfaces.[332] At the back was the gutter for\ncollecting rain-water, which ran off through the holes pierced at\nintervals in the cornice, passing through the mouths of lions\u2019 heads,\nmoulded in very salient relief. These correspond to the gurgoyles of\nGothic architecture. Many specimens have been found at Olympia,\nElateia, and elsewhere in Greece; one of the finest, from a temple of\nApollo at Metapontum, is now in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris. It\nis very finely modelled, and the whole, with the background, richly\ncoloured in red, yellow, and black.[333] Spouts were sometimes modelled\nin other forms, such as a Satyric mask, or the fore-part of a lion; of\nthe latter there are some examples in the British Museum.[334] In the\naccounts for the erection of the arsenal at the Peiraeus there is an\ninteresting entry relating to these lions\u2019 head spouts, in which they\nare described as \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b3\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cprincipal tiles\nwith lions' heads.\u201d[335]\n\nThe invention of antefixae is attributed by Pliny[336] to Butades of\nSikyon, who is also credited with the invention of modelling in clay,\nin a well-known story; \u201che was,\u201d says Pliny, \u201cthe first to place masks\non the extremities of the roof-tiles, which were at first called\nbas-reliefs (_protypa_), but afterwards alto-reliefs (_ectypa_).\u201d[337]\nIt is possible that the \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 seen by Pausanias in the\nStoa Basileios at Athens[338] were \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 or antefixal ornaments at\nthe angles of the cornice, but they are more likely to have been\nmodelled free and in the round than in relief on a background.[339]\nSuch sculptured groups were not uncommon in Greek architecture; thus\nthe cornice of the pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia was\nadorned with a series of figures of Victory. The groups above mentioned\nrepresented Theseus slaying Skiron and Eos carrying off Kephalos; and\nit is interesting to note that a terracotta group with the latter\nsubject found at Cervetri[340] also undoubtedly came from the cornice\nof a building.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE II\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ARCHAIC ANTEFIXAE OF GRAECO-ITALIAN STYLE (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1. SATYR AND MAENAD, FROM CIVITA LAVINIA; 2. FEMALE HEAD, FROM CAPUA.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe manner in which the antefixae were treated by the Greeks and\nEtruscans for purposes of decoration is well illustrated in the British\nMuseum collection. In Cases 64\u201371 of the Terracotta Room may be seen a\nseries from Capua of archaic style, the front part being\nsemi-elliptical in form, having within an ornamental border a female\nbust, Gorgon\u2019s head, or other design in relief, all being richly\ncoloured (Plate II.). The back projects in a semi-cylindrical\ntermination, forming the covering-tile, with an arched support to the\nupright piece. Similar antefixae were found by Lord Savile at Civita\nLavinia (see below), and some have elaborate subjects, such as Artemis\nwith two lions, or a Satyr and Maenad with a panther (Plate II.).[341]\nMany have also been found at Cervetri, from which site came some\ninteresting friezes of terracotta now in the British Museum (B 626) and\nat Berlin. These works of art, with which we must rank for their style\nthe reliefs on the archaic terracotta sarcophagus in the British Museum\n(see Chapter XVIII.), show throughout a strong influence of Ionic art;\nthough all of local manufacture, their style is purely Greek, as is the\ncase with many of the contemporary works in bronze found in Italy.[342]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 10. TERRACOTTA ANTEFIX FROM MARATHON (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nAntefixes from Hellenic sites are not so common, nor do they present\nthe same variety of subject or richness of colour. In many cases, as in\nthe fourth-century British Museum specimens from Asia Minor,[343] the\ndecoration is confined to scrolls and floral patterns in low relief,\nthe palmette being regarded as the most appropriate decorative motive\nfor this form of tile. An example of this type in the British Museum (C\n902 = Fig. 10.), found on the field of Marathon, is inscribed with the\nname Athenaios. Many later antefixes with remains of colouring have\nbeen found at Tarentum, the subjects being chiefly heads of women or\nmythological personages.\n\nRoof-tiles proper have been discovered in large numbers both in Greece\nand Italy. Olympia has proved the richest site in this respect, and\nthere are many specimens in the Museums of Athens and Palermo.[344]\nMany of them have coloured decoration, and these terracotta remains are\nalmost the only evidence we now have of the extensive system of\ncolouring applied by the Greeks to their temples.[345]\n\nAt Olympia all the buildings have terracotta roofs except the temple of\nZeus and two others, the dates varying from the seventh century B.C.\ndown to Roman times. We know from Pausanias[346] that the temple of\nZeus was roofed with marble tiles in imitation of terracotta, an\ninvention traditionally attributed to Byzes of Naxos. The\ncovering-tiles of the Heraion roof (see Fig. 9.) end in semicircular\ndiscs painted with ornamental patterns; the flat roof-tiles are of the\nconcave type described above. The normal sixth-century type of roof is\nseen in the Treasury of the Megarians, which has smooth flat tiles and\ncovering-tiles ending in antefixes with palmette-and-lotos ornament,\nand a kymation cornice with lion\u2019s head spouts.\n\nA greater variety of tiles is to be seen in the Treasury of Gela.\nHere for the first time we note the introduction of a new system,\nwhich consists in nailing slabs of terracotta over the surface of\nthe stonework, or, to use the convenient German term,\n\u201cBekleidungstechnik.\u201d[347] It is obvious at the first glance that\nthe origin of this practice dates from the time when buildings were\nlargely or wholly of wood, which required protection from the\nweather. When the wood was replaced by stone, the fashion held its\nground for a time; but with the more extensive use of marble, which\ncould not well be covered in this manner, it disappeared altogether\nin Greece.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE III\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PART OF ARCHAIC TEMPLE WITH TERRACOTTA ROOF, CIVITA LAVINIA, AS\n RESTORED\n IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nBut the Treasury of Gela is by a Sicilian architect, and it seems\nhighly probable that the method of decoration employed was not one\nusually practised in Greece, but was introduced from the Western\nMediterranean. Though rare in Greece, it is exceedingly common in\nSicily and Southern Italy. The middle temple (known as C) on the\nacropolis of Selinus, and buildings at Gela and Syracuse, may be cited\nas examples. The principle is also well illustrated in the terracotta\nremains of the temple at Civita Lavinia, excavated by Lord Savile in\n1890\u201394, which are now in the British Museum. They have, as far as\npossible, been incorporated in a conjectural restoration in the\nEtruscan Saloon (Plate III.).[348] It will be noted that most of the\nslabs are pierced with holes, by means of which they were attached to\nthe walls or surface of the entablature; they are mostly decorated with\nlotos-and-honeysuckle and other patterns, in relief and coloured, the\nsame being repeated in colour only on the back of the overhanging edges\nof the cornice. These remains belong to two periods, the end of the\nsixth century and the fourth century B.C.; they may be easily\ndistinguished by the differences in the treatment of the ornamental\npatterns, while there is a marked absence of colouring in the later\nremains. Similar architectural remains in terracotta have been found in\nEtruria, and are described in Chapter XVIII. It should be noted that\nthe Civita Lavinia slabs are flat, whereas those used at Olympia, and\nmany others in Southern Italy and Sicily, are three-sided.\n\nSpecimens of ordinary Greek tiles have been found in many parts of the\nancient world, besides those for special architectural purposes already\ndiscussed. Avolio[349] mentions many examples from Acrae and elsewhere\nin Sicily, stamped with emblems or names of officials and of makers. At\nOlbia, in Southern Russia, tiles were found stamped with names of Greek\naediles (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), like the amphora-handles described below (p.\n158),[350] and in Corfu tiles and bricks with names of magistrates\n(\u03c0\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2), indicating in each case the existence of public\nregulations concerning the potteries.[351] At Kertch (Panticapaeum) Dr.\nMacpherson discovered large numbers of tiles with labels on which was\nstamped the word [\u0392\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0399\u039a\u0397], \u201cRoyal,\u201d together with other\ninscriptions.[352] These tiles showed the manner of their attachment\none upon the other, and their dimensions answered to the Lydian variety\nmentioned above. Other tiles discovered by Mr. Burgon at Athens, by Sir\nCharles Newton in Kalymnos, and by Mr. Colnaghi at Kandyla (Alyzia) in\nAcarnania, bore labels with inscriptions and designs in relief.[353] On\none of the latter series in the British Museum is the inscription\n[ALYZEI\u00d4N], \u201cof the people of Alyzia\u201d (Fig. 11); on another was\ninscribed in the manner of the Athenian vases (see Chapters X. and\nXVII.) [\u0399\u03a0\u03a0\u0395\u039f\u03a3] [\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a3] [\u0391\u03a1\u0399[\u03a3]\u03a4\u039f\u039c\u0395\u0394\u0395\u0399] [\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0395\u0399], \u201cHippeus seems\nhandsome to Aristomedes.\u201d[354]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 11. INSCRIBED TILES FROM ACARNANIA AND CORFU\n(BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nInscribed tiles from Greece proper are somewhat rare, and the\nbest-known examples, to the number of sixteen, have been collected by\nM. Paris[355]; they are usually inscribed with the word [\u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u0391] or\n[\u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u03a3], as a sort of Government stamp. Others have magistrates\u2019\nnames, as [\u03a6\u03a1\u039f\u0394F\u0399\u03a3], \u1f08]\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4(\u03b5)\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, on a tile at Corinth, or the\nmaker\u2019s name, [F\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a5\u039a\u03a1\u0399\u03a4], F\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c4[\u03bf\u03c5, on one from Thisbe in\nBoeotia.[356] Those found by M. Paris at Elateia have either the word\n[\u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u03a3] or [\u0395[\u03a0]\u0399] with the name of the magistrate; though all are\nfragmentary, it is possible to restore the full formula as \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u1f08\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1, \u201cgovernment bricks, in the year of Apelleas\u2019\noffice.\u201d[357] A remarkable tile or _stele_, found near Capua and now in\nthe British Museum, has an inscription in Oscan, and two stamps of a\nboar and a head of Athena, resembling types on Italian coins of the\nearly part of the third century.[358]\n\n [Illustration] [Illustration]\n From _Benndorf_ From _Jahrbuch d. arch. Inst._\n FIG. 12. CALYX-KRATER FIG. 13. OSTRAKON OF XANTHIPPOS.\n\nWe may recall the fact that it was with a tile that Pyrrhus met his\ndeath when besieging Argos. Nor is this the only occasion on which\nthese humble objects have played a part in history. In the\nwell-known Athenian institution of Ostracism the act of voting was\nperformed by writing on fragments of tiles or potsherds the names\nof those whom it was desired to banish. Recent excavations have\nyielded more than one actual specimen of these \u1f44\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1 or\nsherds,\u2014one bearing the name of Megakles (Fig. 12.); another, part\nof a painted vase from the pre-Persian d\u00e9bris on the Athenian\nAcropolis, the name of Xanthippos, the father of Perikles (Fig.\n13); and a third, that of Themistokles.[359]\n\nIt is also probable that in Greece, as among the Romans, the hollow\nfloors of the hypocausts, as well as the flue-tiles of the hot baths,\nwere made of terracotta. The same material was also used for the pipes,\nby means of which water was conveyed from aqueducts or drained from the\nsoil. A drain-pipe from Ephesos in the Museum at S\u00e8vres is noted by\nBrongniart and Riocreux,[360] and others have been found at Athens[361]\nand in the Troad.[362]\n\nTiles were also employed for constructing graves, as has already been\nnoted in Chapter II. (see p. 34). In some tombs the floor was paved\nwith flat tiles, and the roof was constructed of arched tiles forming a\nvault. The flat and square tiles were not used for tombs until a\ncomparatively late period. Some graves had a second layer of tiles to\nprotect the body from the superincumbent earth.[363] We shall have\noccasion to make further allusion to the use of painted terracotta\nslabs in Etruscan tombs (Chapter XVIII.).\n\nThe sarcophagi which played so important a part in the tomb were also\nfrequently made of terracotta, this material being most commonly\nemployed in Etruria. We have already mentioned (p. 62) the series of\narchaic painted sarcophagi, which have all come from Clazomenae, near\nSmyrna, and furnish us with much valuable information on the art of\npainting in Ionia in the sixth century B.C. They will receive some\nattention from this point of view in Chapter VIII. The British Museum\ncontains two very remarkable examples of Etruscan terracotta\nsarcophagi, which are described in Chapter XVIII., as well as a series\nof smaller examples, which are mere cinerary urns. Among other examples\nof terracotta as used in tombs may be mentioned here a series of small\nreliefs found in tombs at Capua and elsewhere in Southern Italy. They\nconsist of masks of Satyrs, river-gods, and Gorgons, and are often\nhighly coloured in red and blue. They are of late archaic work, about\n480 B.C., but the exact way in which they were used to decorate the\ntombs is uncertain. The British Museum collection contains many\nspecimens of these objects.[364]\n\nThere is a curious class of objects which hardly come under the heading\nof any other category, but may be conveniently discussed here. Complete\nspecimens are very rare, but there is one in the Museum at Geneva which\nhas been identified as a brazier (\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03c3\u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1), and more\nrecently as a baking-oven (\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).[365] The form is that of a large\nbasin on a high stand, hollow underneath, with three square solid\nhandles projecting upwards from the rim. These handles, of which over a\nthousand examples are to be found in various collections, are usually\nthe only part remaining, sometimes with part of the rim attached. They\nare decorated with heads and other devices, usually in relief on square\npanels, and the majority of these heads are of a Satyric or grotesque\ncharacter, wearing conical caps or adorned with ivy-wreaths. They\nprobably represent demons of some kind, and are placed there with\nsuperstitious intent, to avert evil influences from whatever was baked\nor cooked in the vessel. Similar masks are usually seen attached to\nrepresentations of forges and ovens on the painted vases,[366] and\nremind us of the pseudo-Homeric invocation of evil deities against the\npotters of Samos (see also p. 213 below). Professor Furtwaengler has\nidentified the heads as those of the Kyklopes, the attendant workmen of\nHephaistos.[367]\n\nThese objects are found all over the Mediterranean, especially at\nHalikarnassos, Naukratis, and Delos, and the last-named place has been\nregarded as the centre of their manufacture. They are all of the same\nbrick-like, coarse, red clay. Some bear the name of their maker,\nHekataios or Nikolaos. Besides the heads already mentioned, heads of\ngoats or oxen, or of Sirius, thunderbolts and rosettes are used by way\nof devices. They have been collected together, and illustrations of all\nthe different types given by Conze in the _Jahrbuch_ for 1890, p. 118\nff.: two specimens are given on Plate IV. They belong to the\nHellenistic Age.\n\nOther objects that exemplify the use of clay or terracotta in Greek\ndaily life are: moulds for vases and terracotta figures, lamps,\nweights, and stamps for various purposes. Many flat discs of terracotta\nhave been found at Tarsus, Gela in Sicily, Tarentum, and other places,\npierced with two holes and about three inches in diameter.[368] They\nare stamped with various devices and inscriptions, but their use is\nunknown. Other discs of convex form found at Halikarnassos and stamped\nwith heads in relief are supposed to have been weights ([\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03b9) to hold\ndown the threads of the loom (\u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2),[369] such as are used by the\nGreeks at the present day; others again may be the weights used for\nkeeping the ends of the folds of a himation in position. Small pierced\ncones of terracotta often found in the fields of Greece have been\nsupposed to have been suspended round the necks of cattle, but are\nprobably weights of some kind.[370] Lastly, terracotta egg-shaped\nobjects have been found in Sicily inscribed with various names, and are\nsupposed to have been voting-tickets used for the ballots of the\ntribes.[371]\n\nMany examples have been found of terracotta impressions from coins,\nwhich may have been the trial-pieces of die-sinkers or forgers, since\npersons of that class, as among the Romans, seem to have employed this\nmaterial for their nefarious practices. They are more fully discussed\nin Chapter XIX. The British Museum contains a large collection of these\nfound in the Fay\u00fbm in Egypt, all of Roman date; also a copy of a coin\nof Larissa from Acarnania. Terracotta medallions with impressions of\ngems or seals are not uncommon, especially in Asia Minor and at\nNaukratis, and among the latter are many lumps of clay actually used as\nseals, with the pattern of the substance in which they were impressed\nadhering to the back of them, while on the front is a design from a\nsignet-ring.[372]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe subject of =Lamps= is one that is more conveniently and\nappropriately treated in the Roman section of this work (see Chapter\nXX.), almost all existing examples in terracotta being of that period;\nit may not, however, be out of place to include here a few general\nremarks on the subject, pointing out the distinctive features of those\nof purely Greek origin.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE IV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n GREEK LAMPS AND \u201cBRAZIER-HANDLES.\u201d\n 1, 3, 4, 6, LAMPS FROM GREEK SITES; 2, 5 BRAZIERS FROM HALIKARNASSOS\n AND CYPRUS (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe invention of lamps was ascribed by Clement of Alexandria to the\nEgyptians; and they were certainly in common use among the Greeks.\nHerodotos[373] describes those which he saw in Egypt as simple saucers\nfilled with oil in which the wick floated, and this statement is partly\nsupported by the form of the lamps found in the earlier tombs of Cyprus\nand on sites under Phoenician influence.[374] He also uses the phrase\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f01\u03c6\u03ac\u03c2, \u201cabout the time of lighting lamps,\u201d to denote the\nevening.[375] The Greek comic writers allude to the use of lamps of\nterracotta or metal,[376] and they played a part in religious\nceremonies.\n\nThe regular Greek name for a lamp was \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (not \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c2, which means a\ntorch), and a lampstand was called \u03bb\u03c5\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2; the spout or nozzle in\nwhich the wick was placed was known as \u03bc\u03cd\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03bc\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, the wick itself\nas \u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.[377] A lamp with more than one nozzle was known as\n\u03b4\u03af\u03bc\u03c5\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bc\u03c5\u03be\u03bf\u03c2.[378] The simple form was that derived from the\nPhoenician lamp, an open saucer with a bent-up lip in which the wick\nwas placed; but commonly the Greek lamp had a circular or oval body\n(the receiver) with flat covered top, in the centre of which was the\nfilling-hole. To this was sometimes attached a handle permitting the\ninsertion of a finger, and the nozzle was usually very small and quite\nplain. An epithet applied by Aristophanes[379] to a lamp is \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cmade on the wheel\u201d; but evidence points to their being always made in\nmoulds.\n\nThe majority of the lamps which have been found on Greek sites are of\nRoman date, and they frequently bear Latin inscriptions; those of the\nHellenic period are seldom ornamented, and are usually covered with a\nthin black glaze. Others are modelled in the form of human figures,\nanimals, heads, or sandalled feet; the British Museum possesses a good\nexample of grey ware from Knidos in the form of a figure of Artemis\n(_Cat._ C 421), with the oil-receptacle on the top of her head; another\nfrom Naukratis represents Eros (see for these Plate IV.). One from\nAthens was inscribed [\u039c\u0397 \u0391\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u03a5], \u201cDo not touch,\u201d[380] an inscription of\nsimilar import to those on the Roman lamps from the Esquiline described\nin Chapter XX.\n\nLittle has at present been done in the way of a scientific\ninvestigation of Roman lamps, but the results of a rough classification\naccording to shapes show that certain forms are more specially\nassociated with Greek sites, and moreover frequently bear names of\nmakers in Greek letters. This is particularly the case with one form,\nwhich appears to be confined to Athens, Corfu, the coast of Asia Minor,\nand Cyprus. These lamps, of a pale yellow clay, have a circular body\nwith flat top, round the edge of which runs a border of impressed\negg-pattern, interrupted on either side by a small plain raised\npanel.[381] The handle is small and pierced with a hole, the nozzle\nalso small, with straight sides. These lamps bear the makers\u2019 names (in\nthe genitive), Primus ([\u03a0\u03a1\u0395\u0399\u039c\u039f\u03a5]), Abaskantos ([\u0391\u0392\u0391C\u039a\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u03a5]), etc., the\nformer being especially common; all are in Greek letters. Some again\nonly have a single letter or monogram engraved underneath. They are\noften very carefully executed, with sharply cut details, and the\nsubjects are usually mythological (see Plate IV. fig. 1); they appear\nto be of very late date, not earlier than the third century after\nChrist.\n\nAnother form which appears to be specially characteristic of Greek\nsites is that with a plain or heart-shaped nozzle, sometimes with a\ngroove incised at the base, but without a handle. They are usually\nquite small, with circular bodies. Large numbers of these were found by\nMr. Newton at Knidos in 1859,[382] and by Mr. Barker at Tarsos in\n1845.[383] The subjects are mostly poor and devoid of interest,\nincluding animals, rosettes, and various floral patterns. Many of these\nlamps bear the signature ROMAINE(N)SIS, the form of the word indicating\nthat they were made by a Roman residing abroad (_i.e._ at Knidos), not\nin Rome.[384] A third form, approximating to the Christian type, has a\nsmall solid handle and plain nozzle, and is confined to sites on or\nnear the coast of Asia Minor. These, with the remaining types of lamps,\nwill be more fully dealt with in the Roman section of this work. It\nmay, however, be worth while mentioning here that Mr. Newton found at\nKnidos several lamps of a coarse black ware, covered with thin glaze,\nwhich are mostly of large size. They are circular, and convex above,\nand are supplied with two or more long nozzles with blunt terminations\nradiating round them (see Plate IV. fig. 6). Between the nozzles are\nroughly stamped devices of Satyrs\u2019 heads, flowers, etc., in relief.\nThese may fairly be regarded as a Greek type.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe subject of Greek =sculpture in terracotta= is so wide as to demand\na volume to itself; but a discussion of the uses to which clay was put\nby the Greeks would not be complete without some mention of their\nachievements in this direction. We propose therefore briefly to review\nthe main features of Greek terracotta statuettes and reliefs, by way of\nillustrating the purely artistic use which they made of this material.\n\nThe subject may be divided under four heads: (1) Large statues; (2)\nStatuettes or figurines; (3) Reliefs; (4) Moulds. Large or life-size\nstatues belong more particularly to the earlier phases of Greek art,\nbut appear again in its later developments, under Italian influences.\nStatues of terracotta were also a common feature of Italian art, being,\nin fact, the usual material employed by Etruscan statuaries, as well as\nfor the decoration of temples (see Chapter XVIII.). Greek terracotta\nstatues are practically non-existent; and although there are some\nfemale figures nearly life-size and a male torso of almost colossal\nproportions in the British Museum, also a Hermes in the Vatican, these\nwere found at Rome, belong to the Roman period, and, though Greek in\nstyle, are really following an Etruscan fashion.\n\nIt is characteristic of the Hellenic race that from its earliest\nbeginnings it did not employ clay for utilitarian purposes exclusively,\nbut, influenced partly by the natural imitative instincts of man,\npartly by the anthropomorphic tendencies of the Greek religion, soon\nlearned the value of this easily worked material for producing images\nof deities, animals, and other objects. Although an equally high\nantiquity may be claimed for images of wood, and the word \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd used\nfor a primitive cult-statue argues for the frequent use of this\nmaterial, yet the history of the word \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd tells equally in the\nother direction. Originally used of moulding wet clay, it came by\ndegrees to denote modelling in general, and finally its derivative\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae became the authorised classical word for sculpture.\n\nLactantius[385] speaks of Prometheus as the inventor of fictile images\nfor religious purposes, and of figures in bronze and marble as a later\ndevelopment; the Latin poets[386] bear similar witness to the primitive\nuse of clay for sculptured images, and Pliny marvels at its\nlong-continued employment in Italy.[387] Among early Greek legends the\nmost noteworthy is that of Butades, the potter of Sikyon, to whom the\ninvention of modelling clay in relief was ascribed by Pliny[388] and\nAthenagoras. The story as told by the former was that, in order to\npreserve the likeness of his daughter\u2019s lover, he moulded in terracotta\nthe shadow of his profile which the girl drew on the wall. This\naccount, however, is not very intelligible, and the clue is perhaps to\nbe found in the words of Athenagoras,[389] who says that he hollowed\nout the lines of the face in the wall, filled in the grooves with clay,\nand so obtained his relief as from a mould. This primitive work of art\nwas said to have been exhibited in the Nymphaeum at Corinth.\n\nBut this same invention was also claimed by the Samian sculptors,\nTheodoros and Rhoikos, who flourished about the end of the seventh\ncentury. They were pre-eminently artists in bronze, and were associated\nwith the introduction of hollow-casting in that material into Greece;\nit may therefore be supposed that they actually were among the first to\nuse clay models for statues, this being an essential preliminary to the\nhollow-casting process. This would not be incompatible with the\ninvention of moulding reliefs by Butades, admitting the truth of his\nstory. The latter was also credited with the invention of antefixal\nornaments (see above, p. 98) and the introduction of a mixture of red\nochre or ruddle with clay in order to give it a warmer tone.\n\nThe clay models used by sculptors as the basis of their work, which\nwere known as \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, were probably made on the same lines as the\nlarge works of art in clay. We read that Lysistratos of Sikyon, the\nbrother of Lysippos, was the first to make casts of statues by means of\nterracotta moulds,[390] implying that it was about this time that the\npractice arose of multiplying the principal statues in the same manner\nas is now done by means of plaster casts. Some of the latter artists\ncombined the plastic art with that of painting, and Zeuxis is said to\nhave previously modelled in terracotta the subjects which he afterwards\npainted. Pasiteles, an artist who lived at Rome in the first century\nB.C., always first modelled his statues in terracotta, and spoke of the\nplastic art as the mother of statuary.[391] But it must not be supposed\nthat as a general rule the Greek sculptors worked their marble statues\nfrom models; rather, the contrary was the case, and Pasiteles seems to\nhave been peculiar in this respect.\n\nThe statue of Zeus, which has already been mentioned as made by\nTheokosmos for Megara (p. 92), appears to have been made from a clay\nmodel. It was intended to be of gold and ivory, but the breaking out of\nthe Peloponnesian War prevented the artist from carrying out his\nintention, and only the head was completed, the other portions being of\ngypsum and terracotta. At a later period gypsum was sometimes used for\nsculpture, as in the case of an Apollo mentioned by Prudentius,[392]\nand some fragmentary remains from Cyprus in the British Museum.\n\nThe clay models were sometimes made entirely by hand, but more usually\non a wooden core known as \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2,[393] which we may conjecture to have\nbeen formed of two rods in the form of a cross, from the use of the\nLatin word _crux_ in this connection.[394] It was certainly a\nframework, not a solid core, and must be carefully distinguished from\n\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, a lay-figure. Aristotle, in an interesting passage, uses the\nword in speaking of skeletons drawn on a wall.[395] The modelling of\ndetails was done partly with tools, partly with the finger. The use of\nthe finger-nail for this purpose became proverbial, as in the saying\nattributed to Polykleitos: \u201cWhen the clay has reached the finger-nail\nstage, then the real difficulty begins.\u201d[396]\n\nThe chief attention of inferior artists was directed to the production\nof small terracotta figures, which the Greeks used as ornaments or\nhousehold gods, buried in their tombs, or dedicated in their temples.\nThey follow the same lines of development as the larger sculptures,\nbeginning with the columnar (\u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1) and board-like (\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2) types\nfound in the primitive tombs of the Mycenaean and early Hellenic\ncivilisation. Originally they seem to have been manufactured purely for\nreligious purposes, but in course of time, with the gradual\nrationalising of religious beliefs and consequent secularisation of\nart-types, they lost this significance, and, while the _types_ were\npreserved, they were converted into _genre_ figures from daily life.\n\nThese statuettes have been found on nearly all the famous sites of\nantiquity from Babylonia to Carthage and Kertch; the most fruitful have\nbeen Tanagra in Boeotia, Rhodes, the Cyrenaica, Capua and Canosa in\nItaly, and various sites in Sicily. In Cyprus, Sardinia, and to a great\nextent also in Rhodes, Phoenician influences seem to have been\ndominant, and the earlier types bear a markedly Oriental character. For\nbeauty and charm the palm has by general consent been given to the\nTanagra statuettes of the fourth and third centuries, which were known\nin antiquity as \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 or \u201cmaidens,\u201d from the prevalence of the seated\nor standing types of girls in various attitudes.\n\nThe makers of these charming figures, known as \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 or\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, were, like the vase-painters, quite in a subordinate\nposition in the artistic world, and are spoken of with some contempt by\nIsokrates, as if it would be absurd to compare them with a Pheidias or\na Zeuxis.[397] A fable of Aesop\u2019s[398] represents Hermes being offered\na statue of Zeus for a drachma and one of himself for a mere song; the\nlow price seems to suggest that they were of terracotta, but the vendor\nis called an \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, not a \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. Demosthenes[399] condemns\nthe Athenians for voting for figure-head generals like makers of toys\nfor the market; and in further illustration of the uses to which they\nwere put, we may cite the definition of Suidas, of \u201cthose who fashion\nlittle images out of clay of all kinds of creatures, with which to\ntrick children\u201d; and the remark of Dio Chrysostom, who speaks of those\nwho buy the \u201cmaiden\u201d figures for their children. A pretty epigram in\nthe _Anthology_[400] tells how Timareta, when about to marry, dedicated\nto Artemis the playthings of her childhood, including her terracotta\ndolls (\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2). Lastly, Plato speaks of \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 and images hung up in\nshrines.[401]\n\nThe processes employed in the manufacture of terracotta statuettes were\nfive in number: (1) the preparation of the clay; (2) moulding; (3)\nretouching; (4) baking; and (5) colouring and gilding. It does not\nfollow that all five were employed in the production of any one object;\non the other hand, all processes necessary to the completion of any one\nobject fall under one or other of these heads.\n\nThere were many varieties of clay in use among the Greeks, some being\nconsidered more suitable for one purpose, some for another. These clays\nvary in their characteristics in different parts of the Greek world,\nand this may often be an important criterion for distinguishing fabrics\nand detecting instances of importation. The clay of Cyprus differs much\nfrom that of Rhodes, and that of Naukratis again from either, being of\na dark, coarse, and brick-like consistency. M. Pottier noted nine\nvarieties of clay in use at Myrina in Asia Minor, and M. Martha\ndistinguishes five in the terracottas of Athens. But these differences\nmay be explained by variations in the length or temperature of the\nfiring rather than in the clay.\n\nGenerally speaking, the clay of the terracottas is softer and more\nporous than that of the vases. It is easily scratched or marked, and\ndoes not ring a clear sound when struck; nor does it when submitted to\na high temperature become so hard as the pottery.[402] Its colour\nranges from deep red to a pale buff colour, and its texture and density\nvary greatly in different localities. It was prepared by being washed\nfree of all granular substances, and then kneaded with the aid of\nwater. So, as we read in Hesiod\u2019s account of the creation of\nPandora,[403] the god directed the mixing of clay and water, in order\nto form his new creation.\n\nThe modelling of the figures was done by hand in the case of the\nearlier fabrics, and of small objects such as the toys and dolls; the\nclay was worked up into a solid mass with the fingers, and the marks of\nthese, left while it was wet, may still be often seen. Subsequently the\nuse of moulds became universal, the final touches being given to the\nfigure either with the finger or with a graving-tool, traces of which\nare often visible on the faces and hair of the Tanagra figures. These\nwere invariably moulded, and the finer ones show traces of having been\nmost carefully touched up.\n\nThere is a pretty epigram in the Anthology,[404] which seems to imply\nthat the wheel was sometimes brought into use for modelling figures,\nperhaps for the first rough outlining. A statuette of Hermes is\nsupposed to say:\n\n The rolling circle of the potter\u2019s wheel\n Me, Hermes, formed, of clay from head to heel.\n Mud-made, I lie not: the poor potter\u2019s art,\n Stranger! was ever pleasant to my heart.\n (MACGREGOR.)\n\nThe process of moulding gave scope for reducing the \u201cwalls\u201d of the\nfigure to the smallest possible thickness, thereby avoiding the danger\nof shrinkage in the baking; it also rendered them extremely light, and\nallowed of great accuracy in detail. A model (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) was made in\nterracotta with modelling-tools, from which the mould (\u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2) was\ntaken, also in terracotta,\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE V\n\n[Illustration:\n\n MOULDS FOR TERRACOTTA FIGURES, WITH CASTS FROM THE MOULDS.\n 2, 3. ARCHAIC, FROM RHODES; 1, 4. ARCHAISTIC, FROM TARENTUM (BRITISH\n MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nusually in two pieces, which were then baked to a considerable\nhardness. From this mould the figure was made by smearing it with\nlayers of clay until a sufficient thickness was reached, leaving the\nfigure hollow. The back was made separately, either from a mould or by\nhand, and then fitted carefully on to the front, the join being\nconcealed by a layer of wet clay. The base was usually left open, and a\nvent-hole was left at the back which may have served a double\npurpose\u2014first to allow the clay to contract without cracking, and\nsubsequently in some cases for the suspension of the completed figure.\n\nThe heads and arms were usually moulded separately and attached\nafterwards, and altogether the average number of moulds employed\u2014say\nfor a Tanagra figure\u2014was four or five. M. Pottier[405] quotes an\ninstance of an Eros from Myrina which is made up of no less than\nfourteen; yet it is not a specially complicated figure.\n\nGreek moulds, either for statuettes or reliefs, are somewhat rare; but\nthe British Museum contains a fair number from Tarentum of all kinds\n(see Plate V.).[406] Those that we possess are mostly for small\nobjects, such as figures of animals; but in the Museum collection there\nare several moulds for reliefs, as well as for vases of the later class\nwith reliefs (see Chapters XI., XXII.), such as the Calenian phialae\nwith embossed designs.[407] Moulds employed for making stamps of\nvarious kinds are also in existence; at Naukratis Mr. Petrie found\nseveral circular \u201ccake-stamps\u201d with various designs. Of the moulds used\nby forgers or others for copying coins we have already spoken (p.\n106).[408]\n\nThe shrinkage of the clay as it dried afterwards permitted the figure\nto be withdrawn easily from the mould, and it was then ready for the\nnecessary retouching. It is obvious from a glance at any collection of\nterracottas that there is a great similarity between the various\nrepresentatives of any one type, and that actual or virtual repetitions\nare by no means uncommon. This was, of course, due to the fact that\nonly a limited number of moulds were used, corresponding to the\ndifferent types. At the same time there are in almost all cases minute\ndifferences which redeem them from a charge of monotony, and these were\nobtained in various ways: by varying the pose of the head or attaching\nthe arms in different positions; by retouching before the baking; or by\nthe addition of attributes and colouring. As it has been neatly put by\nM. Pottier,[409] \u201cAll the Tanagra figures are sisters, but few of them\nare twins.\u201d But retouching is not invariable, and is, in fact, confined\nto the finer specimens, such as those of Tanagra. In the statuettes\nfrom the Cyrenaica and Southern Italy it is the exception. The\ndifference which it effected may be well observed by comparing two\nstatuettes of Eros in the British Museum from Myrina (C 535\u201336), which\nare from the same mould. They are identical in style and type, yet one\nis far superior to the other in artistic merit, just because of the\ngreater finish of detail.\n\nThe process of baking required great care and attention; for if no\nallowance was made for the evaporation of moisture, or if too great a\ndegree of temperature was reached, the result was bound to be\ndisastrous. It does not appear that a very high temperature was\nreached, especially as compared with the pottery. The clay was further\ninsured against too rapid drying by preliminary exposure to the air. A\nstory told by Plutarch[410] of the fate which befell the chariot cast\nfor the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol illustrates the possibility of\ndisasters either from accident or carelessness. The clay swelled up to\nsuch a size and hardness that it could only be extracted by pulling the\nkiln to pieces.\n\nThe colouring of statuettes may be considered a fairly universal\npractice, although not always suggested by their present appearance.\nThe earlier archaic specimens were not always, or only roughly,\ncoloured, and those of the Roman period seem to have been often left\nplain; but otherwise it is the general rule. The surface on which the\ncolours were applied was formed by a white slip or _engobe_ of a creamy\ncolour and consistency, with which the whole figure (except the back)\nwas coated. This when dry becomes very flaky, and is liable to drop\noff, carrying the colours with it; most statuettes retain at least\ntraces of this coating.\n\nThe method of painting is that known as _in tempera_, the pigments\nbeing opaque, mixed with some stiffening medium. The colouring was as a\nrule conventional, aiming at giving the figure a pleasing appearance,\nwithout any particular regard to nature. It was applied after the\nfiring, as in that process the colours would have been liable to\ninjury. The tints are what are known as body-colours, without any\nattempts at shading, and those usually employed are red, blue, yellow,\nand black, the white slip forming a ground throughout, and left\nuntouched over the nude parts and often over the drapery; of these the\nfavourites, especially for drapery, were blue and red, as also we learn\nfrom Lucian.[411] Pollux says it was a speciality of the \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 to\ncolour their figures yellow, or with a golden tint.[412] The reds range\nin shade from scarlet to rose-colour and purple. At all times there was\na tendency to treat the drapery in masses of colour, and this we see\nespecially in the Tanagra figures, in which the chiton is almost\ninvariably blue, the himation rose-pink. At a later date it became more\ncustomary to leave the drapery white, with borders and stripes only of\ncolour. Black was only used for details of features, such as the eyes;\ngreen is very rare; and yellow was employed (in a deep brownish shade)\nfor the hair, and also for jewellery, etc. The use of gilding is at all\ntimes rare in the statuettes; but some good examples are known\u2014as, for\ninstance, two archaic statuettes from the Polledrara tomb, and a head\nof Zeus, all in the British Museum.[413] Imitation jewellery in\nterracotta gilt is not at all uncommon. On many of the earlier figures\nfrom Cyprus the drapery is indicated by stripes of red and yellow laid\ndirectly on the clay, while animals are usually decorated with stripes\nof red and black; the method employed is the same as on the\ncontemporary vases (p. 253). Similarly, in the terracottas of the\nMycenaean and Geometrical periods, such as those from Boeotia, the\ntechnique of the painted vases is closely followed, and the same\ndecorative patterns are employed.\n\nThe use of an enamelled glaze first appears at Athens in the fourth\ncentury, and it is also occasionally found at Tanagra. The colour is\nuniformly a dull ashen-grey. A few examples are also known from the\nCyrenaica, but it was in Sicily that the practice found most favour.\nThere we find attempts to reproduce the colouring of the flesh by an\nenamel coating varying in hue from rose-pink to orange, and also grey\nand purple tints.\n\nIt is probable that the colours employed for painting terracottas were\nmade from the same earths, though of a coarser kind, as the ware\nitself. Some information on the subject may be derived from\nTheophrastos, Vitruvius, and Dioskorides.[414] For white the artist\nused a white earth, such as Melos produces, and white lead; it is also\nsaid to have been produced from the burnt lees of wine, and from ivory.\nThe reds were composed of a red earth, probably ochre from Sinope, and\nvermilion or _minium_. Yellow was obtained from Skyros and Lydia; and a\nyellow ochre was obtained by burning a red earth.[415] The Egyptian\n_smalto_ or cobalt served for blue, and a copper solution prepared with\nalkali and silica was also employed. Copper green was obtained from\nmany places, and mixed with white or black.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThis may be a convenient point at which to speak of a class of vases\nwhich come rather under the heading of terracottas than that of painted\npottery. They are found at Calvi, Canosa, Cumae, and other places in\nSouthern Italy, and belong to the Hellenistic period, forming a\nparallel development to the glazed wares with reliefs of which we shall\nspeak later (p. 497 ff.). They combine in a marked degree the\ncharacteristics of the vase and the statuette, some being vases with\nmoulded reliefs or small figures in the round attached in different\nplaces, others again actual figures or colossal heads modelled in vase\nform by the addition of mouth, handle, and base (see Plate VI.). They\nare usually of considerable\u2014sometimes gigantic\u2014size, and do not appear\nto have served any practical purpose; some, indeed, are only imitation\nvases with false bottoms. It is reasonable to suppose that they were\nmanufactured for sepulchral purposes only, like the large painted\nkraters and amphorae of Apulia (p. 476).\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE VI\n\n[Illustration: TERRACOTTA VASES FROM SOUTHERN ITALY (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nLike the statuettes, they are covered throughout with a white slip laid\ndirectly on the unglazed clay, and this is often richly coloured _in\ntempera_. Some of the heads have the hair covered with intersecting\npink lines to imitate a net, and the figures attached to them are\nusually coloured in the manner of the statuettes, with blue and pink\ndraperies. There are some, however, in which the encaustic or a similar\nprocess seems to have been employed[416]; one example, in the British\nMuseum (D 185, shown on Plate VI.), has a Hippocamp painted on either\nside in white and colours outlined with black, the wings being\nelaborately rendered in blue, brown, yellow, and pink. The same process\nis employed for a large cover of a vase in the British Museum from\nSicily (D 1), but the figures are now nearly obliterated.\n\nThe prevailing shape of these vases is that conventionally known as the\n_askos_, with spherical body, over which passes a flat handle and three\nmouths on the top; the latter are often covered in and figures placed\nupon them. On the front and back of these vases _appliqu\u00e9_ masks of\nMedusa or figures in relief are usually placed, flanked by the\nfore-parts of galloping horses. Others take the form of a large jug or\nbowl with _appliqu\u00e9_ ornaments.\n\nIt now remains to consider the small but interesting class of\nterracotta reliefs, which are nearly all of the late archaic period,\ndating from the beginning of the fifth century. Later reliefs are\nnearly all architectural in character, and have already been described,\nas have those which were made for the decoration of tombs and\nsarcophagi. But the purpose for which the reliefs were made, of which\nwe are about to speak, is not so certain. One group appears from the\ncharacter of the subjects to be votive, and they may possibly have been\nlet into the walls of temples or shrines; but the others are mostly\nknown to have been found in tombs. The former group are found at Athens\nand at Locri in Southern Italy; the latter at Melos and other sites\nround the Aegean Sea, being usually known as \u201cMelian\u201d reliefs.\n\nThe character of the work of these Melian reliefs (see Plate VII.) is\nexceedingly delicate and refined; the subjects are mainly mythological,\nand include the slaying of Medusa by Perseus and of the Chimaera by\nBellerophon, Helle on the ram, Peleus seizing Thetis, Eos carrying off\nKephalos, and the death of Aktaeon. Three classes have been\ndistinguished,[417] of which the peculiarly Melian type has the figures\ncut out, without background; in the second only the outer contours are\ncut round, and the third consists of rectangular plaques.\n\nBrunn[418] considers that they served a definite architectural purpose,\nbeing intended to cover a field enclosed by borders, and that the holes\nwith which they are pierced show that they were used either for\nsuspension or attachment. But his reasons for regarding them as an\narchaistic survival have not been generally accepted.\n\nThe Locrian type of relief takes the form of a square plaque.[419] They\nare easily recognised by the rough micaceous character of the clay, and\nby their subjects, which mostly relate to the myth and cult of\nPersephone. They were probably dedicated in one of her shrines, as were\nthose found on the Acropolis at Athens to Athena. All these reliefs\nseem to have been impressed in moulds, not modelled by hand, as many of\nthem exist in duplicate. Those from Greece are sometimes coloured.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE VII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n TERRACOTTA \u201cMELIAN\u201d RELIEFS, ARCHAIC PERIOD (BRIT. MUS.).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nMany little figures in the shape of animals and other objects, such as\ngoats, pigs, pigeons, tortoises, chariots or boats, boys or apes riding\non animals, women making bread, and similar subjects, together with\njointed dolls or \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, were evidently used as children\u2019s toys.\nThey have been found deposited with the bodies of children in the tombs\nof Melos, Rhodes, and Athens. In Mr. Biliotti\u2019s excavations at Kameiros\nin Rhodes in 1863, one child\u2019s tomb was found containing two of the\n\u201cMelian\u201d reliefs, small vases of glass and black-glazed ware, a\nterracotta basket of fruit, and a sea-shell; in another were a bird,\ntwo dolls, a child in a cradle, two grotesque figures, a woman playing\na tambourine, and two other terracotta figures.\n\nThe terracotta dolls were cast in a mould like the ordinary figures,\nbut the bodies, legs, and arms are formed of separate pieces pierced\nwith holes, so that they might be joined and moved with strings, like\nthe modern marionettes; hence their name of \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, \u201cdrawn by\nwires.\u201d They all represent girls, and sometimes dancers with castanets\nin their hands; they are coloured in the usual manner, and date from\nvarious periods between 500 and 200 B.C. Allusion is sometimes made to\nthese figures in the Greek writers\u2014as, for instance, by Xenophon, who\nin his _Symposium_[420] introduces Socrates inquiring of an exhibitor\nof these puppets what he chiefly relies on in the world. \u201cA great\nnumber of fools,\u201d he replies, \u201cfor such are those who support me by the\npleasure they take in my performances.\u201d Aristotle[421] mentions dolls\nthat moved their limbs and winked their eyes like marionettes, but this\ncan hardly refer to terracotta figures.[422]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt would require too much space to enumerate all the =subjects=\nrepresented in the terracotta statuettes. But it may be found\nconvenient to give an outline of the subjects and principal types\nadopted at different periods.[423] Roughly speaking, the range of\nsubjects may be divided into seven groups: (1) figures of deities; (2)\nmythological subjects; (3) scenes from daily life; (4) imitations of\nworks of art; (5) caricatures; (6) masks; (7) animals. Among the\nfigures of the Olympian deities we find most commonly Demeter,\nAphrodite, and Artemis; Hephaistos, Ares, and Hestia are seldom if ever\nrepresented; Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, and even Athena are also very rare.\nOf the inferior deities, Dionysos, Persephone, Eros, and Nike (Victory)\nare most frequently found, as well as Satyrs and similar personages.\nNor is it always easy to ascertain definitely whether a figure is or is\nnot intended to be mythological in significance.\n\nThis question is, in fact, closely bound up with that of the Uses for\nwhich the statuettes were made, as on such a purpose their\ninterpretation in a mythological or human sense may largely depend. The\nuncertainty of identification arises from the practice which obtained\nof adhering closely to certain recognised _types_, which occur\nrepeatedly at all periods. There is a strong probability that a clear\ndistinction was not recognised by the Greek \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, but that the\nsame type of figure might be used either for a votive offering to a\ndeity, or as a mere ornament or article of tomb-furniture. And we are\nfurther met with the fact that a type which was mythological at one\nperiod ceases to be so at another, or at any rate is transformed by\nsome slight alteration of details or omission of an attribute. Thus the\nseated figure of an Earth-goddess or Nursing-mother of a Rhodian or\nCypriote tomb becomes the nurse and child of the fourth century at\nTanagra, while the archaic standing type of a Persephone holding a\nflower requires little but the omission of her special head-dress to\ntransform her into the girl-type of the Hellenistic age.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE VIII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ARCHAIC GREEK TERRACOTTAS (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1. MAN WITH RAM (RHODES); 2. PERSEPHONE (SICILY); 3. RHODES; 4. DOLL\n (ATHENS).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe earliest beginnings of the statuette proper show, as might be\nexpected in primitive Greek art, a very limited range of ideas. As in\nmarble, bronze, and wood, so also in clay, the type of the female deity\nreigns supreme. The primitive Hellenic type of goddess adopts two\nforms, both derived from an original in wood, the board-form or \u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c2,\nand the column-form (\u03ba\u03af\u03c9\u03bd or \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd), each of which finds parallels in\nsculpture. The limbs are either completely wanting or of the most\nrudimentary description, the figure terminating below in a spreading\nbase. Both these types are found in Rhodes, but on the mainland of\nGreece the columnar form is confined to the Mycenaean period. In the\nsucceeding \u201cGeometrical\u201d age the board-like types rose into popularity\nat Athens and Tegea, and above all in Boeotia. Two varieties are found,\na standing and a sitting type, and they are usually painted in the\nmanner of the local vases (see p. 290). The later examples show a great\nadvance in modelling, especially in the heads. The columnar form\nexhibits its development best in the terracottas of the\nGraeco-Phoenician period from Cyprus.\n\nThe standing and sitting goddess (Plate VIII.) are the two principal\ntypes in archaic Greek art, and are remarkable for their wide\ndistribution and universal popularity. The name of the goddess may vary\nwith the locality, but the types remain almost identical, and the\nattributes show little variation.\n\nAnother interesting archaic type is the so-called funeral mask or bust\n(Plate VIII.), of which the best examples have come from Rhodes. Being\nalmost exclusively feminine, we must suppose that they ceased to\nrepresent the image of the dead person, as in Egypt and primitive\nGreece, and became images of the Chthonian goddess, Demeter or\nPersephone, represented under the form of a bust rising out of the\nearth.[424] Thus they played in the tombs the r\u00f4le of protection\nagainst evil influences, like the mask of Demeter Kidaria, worn by the\npriest at Pheneus in Arcadia on certain occasions.[425] Male masks are\noccasionally found, representing the Chthonian Dionysos. They are very\nrare after the fifth century.\n\nThe purely divine and mythological types in the archaic period are very\nfew in number. Of the Olympian deities few are represented, except in\nthe conventional hieratic types, hardly to be differentiated one from\nanother. But on certain sites are found representations of\nnature-goddesses, such as the Earth-mother with a child in her lap\n(Gaia Kourotrophos), or a nude goddess within a shrine, who may be a\ncombination of Astarte and Aphrodite. These types are of Oriental\norigin, and are found in Cyprus, Rhodes, Naukratis, and Sardinia. They\nmay represent offerings made after child-birth. Among the\nindividualised deities we may point to figures of Hermes Kriophoros\n(from Rhodes and Sicily),[426] of Herakles,[427] or of the local nymph\nKyrene, who appears holding the silphium-plant in a terracotta from\nCarthage.[428]\n\nAmong miscellaneous feminine types are the _hydrophoros_ or\nwater-carrier, the woman riding on a mule, horse, or other animal, the\nmusician, and the mother nursing a child. Some of these have their\nmythological counterparts, as in the Aphrodite riding on a goose, or\nthe Earth-mother, already mentioned. Male types are curiously rare, the\nathletic influences, which are so strongly manifest in early Greek\nsculpture, not affecting terracottas. The most popular is that of the\nhorseman, particularly in Cyprus. These figures are usually of a rude\nand primitive kind, especially in Cyprus and at Halikarnassos. The\nexamples from Greece Proper show a more developed archaism, and are\nfound at Athens and in Boeotia. Sometimes instead of a horse the man\nrides on a swan, mule, or tortoise.\n\nReclining male figures are sometimes characterised as Herakles or a\nSatyr; but this type is most fully developed at Tarentum, in numerous\nterracottas representing the well-known subject of the Sepulchral\nBanquet, associated with a cult of the Chthonian deities.[429] There\nare also various types of grotesque figures, usually in a squatting or\ncrouching attitude; some assume the form of a Satyr, and others are\nobviously derived from the Egyptian figures of Ptah-Socharis, with bent\nknees and protruding stomach.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE IX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n GREEK TERRACOTTAS OF HELLENISTIC PERIOD (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1, 4, TANAGRA; 2, 3, SOUTHERN ITALY.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn the fine and later periods, from the end of the fifth century\nonwards, the standing or seated feminine figures are still by far the\nmost prominent. The change, however, which has taken place, from\nmythological to _genre_, has been described as an evolution rather than\na revolution, brought about by artistic, not religious, considerations.\nThe possible varieties of the feminine standing types may be best\nstudied in the Tanagra figures (Plate IX.), which include women or\ngirls in every variety of pose or attitude. In most cases the arms are\nmore or less concealed by the himation, which is drawn closely across\nthe figure; in others a fan, mirror, wreath, or mask is held in one\nhand, the other drawing the edges of the drapery together. Some lean on\na column or are seated on a rock; others play with a bird or perform\ntheir toilet. Imitations of the Tanagra figures, but vastly inferior in\nmerit, subsequently became popular all over the Greek world; they are\nfound at Myrina in Asia Minor, in Cyprus, the Cyrenaica, and many parts\nof Southern Italy.\n\nAmong miscellaneous types of the Hellenistic period, many of the\narchaic ones already mentioned retain their popularity. Others appear\nfor the first time, and are more in accordance with the spirit of the\nage, such as girls dancing, playing with knucklebones, or carrying\none another pick-a-back. There is a beautiful group of two\nknucklebone-players from Capua in the British Museum (D 161). The\ndancing type is found widely distributed.\n\nFigures of goddesses and mythological subjects are very rare at\nTanagra, but fairly common on other sites, as at Myrina and Naukratis.\nArchaistic imitations of the archaic seated and standing goddesses are\noften found in the Cyrenaica and Southern Italy; but the Chthonian\ndeities appear but rarely among the types of more advanced style. As in\nsculpture and vase-paintings, Aphrodite now becomes the most prominent\namong the feminine deities, and some of the later statuettes appear to\nbe reproductions of well-known works of art, the Cnidian Aphrodite, the\nAnadyomene, or the crouching type of Aphrodite at the bath. Artemis and\nAthena are occasionally found, but Nike (Victory) is really the most\npopular figure after Aphrodite. She, however, plays little more than\nthe part of a female Eros, a counterpart to whom the Hellenic artist\nfelt to be a necessity. Formerly these winged female types were styled\nPsyche, but this was a conception of post-Hellenistic origin.\n\nAmong the male deities the conditions remain much as before. Zeus\nappears for the first time, and was especially popular at Smyrna, and\nSarapis and Asklepios are also occasionally found. In Naukratis the\ninfluence of the Egyptian religion made itself felt in the production\nof numerous figures of Bes, Harpocrates, and the like. Hermes is not\nfound so often as might have been expected, though there is a notable\ninstance in the British Museum (C 406) of a caricature of the famous\nstatue by Praxiteles, where a Satyr takes his place. Dionysos is only\nmet with occasionally, as are Satyrs and Maenads; but masks of a\nBacchic character are very common in Italy.\n\nThe one deity who really seems to have caught the popular taste is\nEros, although at the time when most of the Tanagra statuettes were\nproduced this popularity was hardly assured. The types of Eros\nstanding, seated, flying, or riding on animals are innumerable and\nfound all over the Greek world. The best examples come from Eretria in\nEuboea, but Myrina and Sicily have also produced large numbers. They\nvary from almost Praxitelean conceptions, like the Flying Eros from\nEretria in the British Museum (C 199), to the veritable Pompeian\n_amoretti_ from the same site and from Myrina. The riding types of Eros\n(on a horse, dog, swan, or dolphin) are chiefly found in the Cyrenaica\nor Southern Italy. In many cases the Eros types are used for ordinary\nunwinged boys.\n\nAmong the human male types a new feature is the introduction of the\nathlete, as he appears in many boyish figures from Tanagra, and later\nas a boxer among the somewhat coarse conceptions of the Roman period.\nSome years ago a remarkable copy of the Diadumenos of Polykleitos in\nterracotta was found in Asia Minor.[430]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the tombs of the Aegean Islands, Italy, and elsewhere, a class of\nware has sometimes been found quite distinct from the ordinary fictile\npottery and resembling the porcelain or enamelled ware of the Egyptians\nand Babylonians, such as the _ushabtiu_, found in the tombs of the\nformer, and the enamelled bricks of the latter. For the most part they\nmust be regarded as importations, of foreign manufacture, the medium of\ncommerce being the Phoenicians, who not only introduced Egyptian\nobjects of art, but themselves endeavoured to imitate them. Hence we\nmust distinguish some as of Egyptian origin, others as made by the\nPhoenicians. As might be expected, they are most often found where\nPhoenician influence was strong, as in Rhodes and Sardinia. Egyptian\nperfume-vases have been found in the Polledrara tomb at Vulci (see\nChapter XVIII.) and may be dated by the accompanying scarabs of\nPsammetichus I. as belonging to the end of the sixth century.\n\nBut these are by no means the earliest examples. In the Bronze Age\ntombs of Cyprus occasional finds have been made of plates of blue\nporcelain or fa\u00efence, with Egyptian designs going back to the\neighteenth dynasty[431]; and for several centuries other Egyptian\nobjects in porcelain, or with enamelled glaze, continue to be found in\nthe tombs of Cyprus, Rhodes, and Greece. And there is also a\nconsiderable quantity of such wares which is not Egyptian in character,\nalthough it may be to some extent imitative, and therefore demands\nnotice. Of this the most remarkable examples are the _rhyta_, or\ndrinking-horns, found at Enkomi in Cyprus, in 1896, and now in the\nBritish Museum.[432] The two finest specimens are in the form of a\nfemale head surmounted by a cup (Plate X.) and a ram\u2019s head\nrespectively. Although found in tombs with Mycenaean objects, and\ntherefore presumably of early date, the style and modelling are so far\nadvanced\u2014so purely Hellenic\u2014that they may be compared with archaic work\nof the sixth century B.C. or even later.\n\nIn the tombs of Kameiros in Rhodes,[433] along with Egyptian porcelain\nobjects, were found many vases of this ware, of apparently Greek\nworkmanship. This is further implied by the presence in one tomb of a\nfigure of a dolphin with a Greek [[\u03a0]\u03a5[\u0398]\u0395\u03a9 [\u0395]\u039c\u0399], \u201cI belong to\nPythes.\u201d[434] It is quite conceivable that the Greeks of Rhodes (as of\nNaukratis: see below) knew and practised Egyptian methods. The finds\ninclude small _alabastra_ with friezes of men and animals in relief,\nand flasks of a compressed globular shape similarly ornamented; also\n_aryballi_ of various moulded forms, such as animals or helmeted heads\n(Plate X. fig. 3). The vase in the form of a head seems to be an early\nPhoenician idea; and this particular type of the helmeted head seems to\nhave been adopted subsequently by Ionian artists in the Clazomenae\nsarcophagi.[435] Similar vases and figures have been discovered in the\ntombs of Melos, Corinth, Cervetri, and Vulci, and also in Syria and at\nNaukratis in Egypt.[436] Others again from the tombs of Kameiros and\nVulci take the form of jars of opaque glass ornamented with zigzag\npatterns in white and dull crimson on a greenish ground.[437] A\nspecimen of somewhat similar ware was found in a Bronze Age tomb at\nCurium, Cyprus, in 1895,[438] consisting of a tall funnel-shaped beaker\nof blue and yellow glazed ware with an edging of dark brown (Plate X.).\nThe technique is superior to that of the later examples, and more on a\nlevel with that of the porcelain _rhyta_ from Enkomi.\n\nIn Greece Proper there are altogether few traces of this enamelled\nware, and after the sixth century B.C. it quite disappeared. But some\nvery fine specimens have been found in the tombs of Southern Italy. A\njug with delicate ornamentation in blue and white came from Naples, and\na similar vase from the same site, but shaped like a _kalathos_ and of\na pale green colour, is now in the British Museum. Objects of this ware\nhave also been found on the site of the ancient Tharros in Sardinia.\nTheir glaze was a pale green, like that of the twenty-sixth dynasty\nwares, and with them was found a scarab of Psammetichus I, which shows\nthem to be contemporaneous with the objects found in the Polledrara\ntomb. But the strong Phoenician element in Sardinia is sufficient to\nindicate that these fabrics are all of Egyptian importation.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE X\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PORCELAIN AND ENAMEL-GLAZED WARES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n\n 4, 6, CYPRIOTE BRONZE AGE; 3, ARCHAIC GREEK (RHODES); 1, 2, 5,\n GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn the Hellenistic period, when vase-painting had reached its latest\nstages, the fashion of glazed enamelled ware was revived; its chief\ncentre was Alexandria, which would naturally have carried on the\ntraditions of Egyptian porcelain or fa\u00efence. Specimens of glazed ware\nwith reliefs or modelled in various forms have been found at Naukratis\nand in the Fay\u00fbm, including a fine blue porcelain head of a Ptolemaic\nqueen (Plate X.). In a tomb at Tanagra were found a beautiful _askos_\nin the form of a duck on which Eros rides, and another porcelain\nvase,[439] evidently imported from Alexandria, or some other industrial\ncentre of Hellenised Egypt. Porcelain jugs, inscribed with the names of\nArsinoe, Berenike, and one of the Ptolemies, have been found at\nBenghazi in North Africa, at Alexandria, and at Canosa in Southern\nItaly.[440] They are of blue ware, with reliefs of Greek style\nattached. Fragments of the same kind dating from the first century B.C.\nwere found at Tarsos in Cilicia,[441] and in the Louvre there are\nglazed wares covered with yellow or green enamel from Smyrna and Kyme.\nThe British Museum possesses similar vases from Kos and elsewhere, with\nwreaths and similar patterns in relief (Plate X.), but these are not\nearlier than the Roman period. Enamelled wares of early Roman date have\nalso been found on the Esquiline, and the ware is common at\nPompeii.[442]\n\nIt does not appear that the manufacture of these enamelled wares was\nconfined to one spot; they are found all over Asia Minor, Italy, and\nGaul, and in other countries bordering on the Mediterranean. It seems\nprobable, however, that there were three principal centres of the\nfabric, at least in the Roman period. The first of these was in Asia\nMinor, or the islands along its coasts, whence came the specimens found\nat Tarsos, in Ionia, and in the islands such as Kos. These are mostly\nsmall vases, of metallic form, especially in the treatment of the\nhandles (cf. Plate X., fig. 5), the colour being usually a bluish\ngreen, though some examples are more polychromatic. These seem to have\nbeen exported to Italy, and _vi\u00e2_ Marseilles to Gaul. Next, there are\nthe wares made at Alexandria, of which the vases described above are\nexamples. And, thirdly, there was a Gaulish fabric, which must probably\nbe located at Lezoux in the Auvergne (see Chapter XXIII.), examples\nfrom which are found at Vichy, in the Rhone Valley, and at Trier and\nAndernach in Germany.[443] Fragments of this ware are even reported to\nhave been found in England\u2014as, for instance, at Ewell in Surrey, at\nColchester and Weymouth.[444] These are of grey clay with yellow,\ngreen, or brown glaze, with ornaments of leaves, vine-branches, or\nscrolls, stamped in moulds; the shapes are jugs, flasks, or two-handled\ncups. A later variety is of white clay with a malachite-green glaze,\nthe forms being again of a metallic type, and towards the end of the\nperiod imitations of glass with _barbotine_ decoration (see Chapter\nXXIII.) appear. These two groups cover the first century after Christ.\n\nSometimes the ornamentation of the later glazed wares from Italy takes\nthe form of small reliefs (_emblemata_), made separately and attached\nbefore the glaze was applied, and there are two or three specimens of\nthis class in the British Museum. It was also not infrequently used for\nlamps, which, apart from the glaze, have all the characteristics of the\nordinary kinds, and even for figures of gladiators, boats, and other\nobjects. The glaze is of a thick vitreous character, and was not\nimprobably produced by lead; at all events a French writer[445]\nmaintains, in opposition to the views of Brongniart and Bl\u00fcmner, that\nby a study of this ware he has established a knowledge of lead-glaze\namong the ancients.[446]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n Strabo, viii. p. 381 (the expression should probably be confined to\n vases with reliefs).\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n Paus. i. 3, 1; Harpokration, _s.v._ \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n _Il._ v. 387.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n ii. 8, 10.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n Hdt. i. 179; Xen. _Anab._ iii. 4, 7. Cf. Ovid, _Mel._ iv. 57:\n\n \u201cubi dicitur altam\n Coctilibus muris cinxisse Semiramis urbem.\u201d\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n _H.N._ vii. 194.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n v. 5, 4; x. 35, 5 and 4, 3; ii. 27, 7 (\u1f60\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5: see Frazer\u2019s\n note ad loc.); Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n Vitr. ii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n Xen. _Hell._ v. 2, 5; Paus. viii. 8, 5.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6, i. 2, 5.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n xxxv. 155; see Milchhoefer in _Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebr._ p. 50.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n vii. 22, 6.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n i. 40, 4.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n See on the subject generally D\u00f6rpfeld and others, _Die Verwendung von\n Terrakotten_, Berlin, 1881.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ xxiv. (1899), p. 350; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1903, pls. 2\u20136, p. 71\n ff. Cf. the painted terracotta panels in wooden frames at Sparta,\n mentioned by Vitruvius (ii. 8, 9).\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n See a passage in Xenophon (_Mem._ iii. 1, 7) bearing on the different\n materials used in Greek domestic architecture.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n See D\u00f6rpfeld, _Die antike Ziegelbau u. sein Einfluss auf d. dor.\n Styl_, in _Hist. u. Phil. Aufs\u00e4tze E. Curtius gewidmet_, p. 139 ff.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n Diod. Sic. xvii. 115.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n i. 42, 5.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n v. 20, 5.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 11; _Olympia_ (_Ergebnisse_), ii. p.\n 129 ff.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ (_Atticae_), ii. 167.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 (l. 1133).\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n An obviously incorrect rendering of \u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2; Tr. p\u00ealos the process of\n making sun-dried bricks is certainly here referred to, as the\n allusion to \u0391\u1f30\u03b3\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 implies.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n ii. 3, 3.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n ii. 2, 4.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n ii. 2, 1, 2. For further details see Chapter XIX.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n Ar. _Ran._ 800, quoted by Pollux, x. 148: cf. Plut. _Vit. Sol._ 25.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n For representations of this process in Egyptian wall-paintings see\n Rosellini, _Mon. Civili_, ii. p. 255, pl. 49, 1, and Wilkinson,\n _Manners and Customs_, i. p. 344.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Isid. _Orig._ xix. 10, 16: _lateres ... inde nominati sunt quod lati\n ligneis formis efficiuntur_. Cf. _ibid._ xv. 8, 16.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n See on the subject generally, D\u00f6rpfeld, _Die Verwendung von\n Terrakotten_, 1881, and Borrmann\u2019s excellent treatise in Durm\u2019s\n _Handbuch d. Architektur, Die Keramik in d. Baukunst_ (1. Theil, Bd.\n 4), p. 28 ff.; also Wiegand, _Puteol. Bauinschr._ pp. 719, 756 ff.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n On the origin of \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 see Benndorf in _Jahreshefte_, 1899, p. 1\n ff.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, C 904.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, pl. 16.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 707\u20138.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n Boeckh, _Urkunde \u00fcber Scewesen_ (_Staatshaushaltung_, iii.), p. 406.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 151.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 152.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n i. 3, 1.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n The use of the word \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 also seems to point to this conclusion.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 315. See generally, Minervini, _Terrecotte del\n Museo Campano_.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n See Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, C 910 ff.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n A good example of a painted tile from Aegion in Achaia is in the\n British Museum (_Cat. of Terracottas_, C 908).\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n Cf. also the tiles from the temple at Elateia in Boeotia, described\n by M. Paris, _\u00c9lat\u00e9e_, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n v. 10, 3. It is noteworthy that Pausanias here uses the word \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n although the tiles are not of terracotta, indicating that it had\n become by long usage the generic word for tiles of all kinds. Cf. St.\n Luke v. 19.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n See D\u00f6rpfeld, etc., _Verwendung von Terrakotten_, pls. 1\u20134;\n _Olympia_, ii. p. 193 ff.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n See _Builder_, 4 March 1899, p. 219.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, pp. 27, 31.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Becker in _M\u00e9langes Gr\u00e9co-Romaines_, i. (1854), p. 482 ff.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ ix. p. 164.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n _Antiqs. of Kertch_, pp. 72, 75, pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 131 ff., E 186.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 541.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n _\u00c9lat\u00e9e_, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n See also _Ath. Mitth._ 1877, p. 441, for a long inscription from\n Sparta.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n Others with \u1f10\u03c0\u03af and a magistrate\u2019s name are in the British Museum\n (_Cat. of Terracottas_, E 131\u201333, 186 ff.): see also _Inscr. Gr._ ix.\n 735 ff.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 130.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n See Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ p. 50, pl. 29, fig. 10; _Jahrbuch\n d. arch. Inst._ ii. (1887), p. 161; _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 345; Hicks\n and Hill, _Gk. Hist. Inscrs._ p. 16.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n _Mus\u00e9e de S\u00e8vres_, p. 19.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ ii. (1877), pl. 8, p. 119; Daremberg and Saglio,\n _Dict._ i. p. 1260, fig. 1673.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 338, fig. 399.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n Cf. Stackelberg, _Gr\u00e4ber der Hellenen_, pl. 7; Dodwell, _Tour_, i. p.\n 452.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 494 ff.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n Benndorf in _Eranos Vindobonensis_, p. 384.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n Fig. 67.. Cf. also Berlin 2294, and see Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._\n Caminus.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 110.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 156 ff.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 80.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n Cf. Macpherson, _Antiqs. of Kertch_, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ iii. 5686.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n For examples of these see _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 93 ff.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n ii. 62.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, _art._ Lucerna, _init._; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._\n p. 80.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n vii. 215.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n Ar. _Eccl._ 1; Axionikos, quoted by Pollux, x. 122.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n The words \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03b8\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c2 seem to denote the _material_ of which\n the wick was made (cf. Pollux, x. 115).\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n Pollux, vi. 103; x. 115.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n _Loc. cit. supr._\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1868, p. 59.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n Probably an imitation of the projections on bronze lamps, to which\n chains for suspension were attached. See on this type _Amer. Journ.\n of Arch._ 1903, p. 338 ff.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n Newton, _Travels and Discoveries_, ii. p. 184=_Discoveries_, ii. pt.\n 2, p. 395.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n Barker and Ainsworth, _Lares and Penates_, p. 201.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n See _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. No. 7310.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n _Div. Inst._ ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n Juvenal, xi. 116; Propertius, v. 1, 5; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 202.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n _H.N._ xxxiv. 34.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 151.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n _Leg. pro Christ._ 17, 293, _ed._ Migne; see Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_,\n ii. p. 129, note 2.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 153.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n _Ibid._ 156.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n _Apotheosis_, 458. See generally Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 140 ff.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n Pollux, x. 189; Hesych., _s.v._; _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p.\n 42; Bl\u00fcmner, ii. pp. 42, 117; and cf. p. 153 below.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Tertull. _Apol._ 12; _ad Nat._ i. 12.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n _Anim. Gener._ ii. 6; _Hist. Anim._ iii. 5.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n Plut. _De profect. in virt._ 17, p. 86 A; _Quaest. conviv._ ii. 3, 2,\n p. 636 C.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n _De permut._ 2.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n _Fab._ 137 (Teubner).\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n _Phil._ i. 9, \u00a7 47.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n _Anth. P._ vi. 280.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n _Phaedr._ 230 B.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 305.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n _Op. et Di._ 60: \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 ... \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n _Anth. P._ xvi. 191.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n _Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p. 251.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n See also for some interesting moulds from Girgenti, _R\u00f6m. Mitth._\n xii. (1897), p. 253 ff. Similar specimens have been found at Kertch\n and Smyrna.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n See also on the subject C. C. Edgar, _Greek Moulds_ (_Cat. du Mus\u00e9e\n du Caire_, viii. 1903), pls. 23\u20138, 33, p. xiv ff. These moulds are\n nearly all made of plaster; but the account there given of the\n technical processes would hold good of terracotta moulds.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 254.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n _Poplic._ 13: see Chapter XVIII.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n _Lexiph._ 22.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n vii. 163.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n _Cat._ B 458\u201359, D 392.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, iv. p. 464 ff.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n Hirt, _Gesch. d. bild. Kunst_, p. 165.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n Pliny (_H.N._ xxxvi. 189) mentions one Agrippa who painted in\n encaustic on terracotta: see Chapter XIX. for possible examples of\n this process.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n Sch\u00f6ne, _Gr. Reliefs_, p. 62.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n _Sitzungber. d. k. bayer. Akad. Phil. Cl._ 1883, p. 299 ff.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n See for those from Athens _J.H.S._ xvii. p. 306 ff.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n iv. 55.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n _De Mundo_, 6, 398.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n See on the subject Hermann, _Lehrbuch d. gr. Altert._ iv. (1882), p.\n 295; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 123; Baumeister, _Denkm._ ii. p. 778.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n A _Corpus_ of all the known types of terracotta statuettes has\n recently been published by the German Archaeological Institute,\n edited by Dr. F. Winter (_Typen der fig\u00fcrlichen Terrakotten_, 2 vols.\n 1903).\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n Cf. the types on painted vases, Vol. II. Chapter XII. (Eleusinian\n deities).\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Paus. viii. 15, 3.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n B.M. B 258, 410.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n B.M. B 256, 286, 335.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n B.M. B 359: cf. p. 344.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n _J.H.S._ vii. p. 9 ff.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n _J.H.S._ vi. pl. 61.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 102; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 35, fig.\n 63.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n _B.M. Excavations_, p. 22, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 150; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 193;\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 192.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n Cf. _J.H.S._ iv. p. 11. Heuzey, however, thinks that the Phoenicians\n imitated the Greek painted examples of this time (such as A 1117 ff.\n in B.M.). Cf. _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 159.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n Good examples are given in Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. p. 676;\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 28 (in Louvre, from Corinth); _Ath. Mitth._\n 1879, pl. 19: cf. also Berlin 1288\u201391, and many examples in B.M.\n (First Vase Room). On one from Kos was found the name of Apries\n (599\u2013569 B.C.). See also _Naukratis I_. pl. 2, figs. 6\u201318.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art._ iii. pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n _B.M. Excavations_, p. 69, fig. 99.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n Furtwaengler, _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 70, fig. 3 (with text); Rayet\n and Collignon, p. 374.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n See _Journ. des Savans_, March 1862, p. 163; _Rev. Arch._ vii.\n (1863), p. 259 (name of Ptolemy wrongly read as Kleopatra); _Arch.\n Zeit._ 1869, p. 35; Rayet and Collignon, p. 372.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, Nov. 1876, p. 385 ff.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p. 29.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n Hettner in _Festschr. f\u00fcr J. Overbeck_, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xxxii. p. 452 (Ewell); British Museum, Romano-British\n Room, Case H.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n Mazard, _De la connaissance par les anciens des gla\u00e7ures\n plombif\u00e8res_; cf. Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 89.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n On the subject generally see Dumont-Pottier, i. chap. xiii.; Rayet\n and Collignon, p. 365 ff.; Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Figlinum, p.\n 1131; and for the Graeco-Roman enamelled wares, _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_,\n xcvi. p. 117, and Mazard, _op. cit._, where a full description and\n list of examples is given.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV\n _USES AND SHAPES OF GREEK VASES_\n\n Mention of painted vases in literature\u2014Civil and domestic use of\n pottery\u2014Measures of capacity\u2014Use in daily life\u2014Decorative\n use\u2014Religious and votive uses\u2014Use in funeral ceremonies\u2014Shapes\n and their names\u2014Ancient and modern classifications\u2014Vases for\n storage\u2014Pithos\u2014Wine-amphora\u2014Amphora\u2014Stamnos\u2014Hydria\u2014Vases for\n mixing\u2014Krater\u2014Deinos or Lebes\u2014Cooking-vessels\u2014Vases for pouring\n wine\u2014Oinochoe and variants\u2014Ladles\u2014Drinking-cups\u2014Names recorded by\n Athenaeus\u2014Kotyle\u2014Skyphos\u2014Kantharos\u2014Kylix\u2014Phiale\u2014Rhyton\u2014\n Dishes\u2014Oil-vases\u2014Lekythos\u2014Alabastron\u2014Pyxis\u2014Askos\u2014Moulded vases.\n\n\nThose who are acquainted with the enormous number of painted vases now\ngathered together in our Museums, showing the important part they must\nhave played in the daily life of the Greeks and the high estimation in\nwhich they were clearly held, as evidenced by the great care bestowed\non their decoration and the pride exhibited by artists in their signed\nproductions, may feel some surprise that so few allusions to them can\nbe traced in classical literature. Such passages as can be interpreted\nas referring to them may actually be counted on the fingers of one\nhand, and even these are but passing allusions; while any full\ndescriptions of vases, such as that in Theocritus' first Idyll or some\nof those in Athenaeus\u2019 Book XI., almost invariably refer to metal vases\nwith chased designs. Nor can we trace any reference to known potters or\nartists in literature or documents, save in a few inscriptions recently\nfound at Athens, which are, of course, of secondary importance for\nliterary history.\n\nMore general allusions to pottery and its use in daily life are common\nenough, and it would hardly be profitable to quote all such passages in\ndetail; many indeed, such as the early allusion to the potter\u2019s wheel\nin the _Iliad_ (see p. 207), have found a place elsewhere in this work.\nThe passage of Homer at all events supplies proof, if such were needed,\nthat the use of the wheel was known in early times in Greece.\n\nOf undoubted references to painted vases there are but two, though both\nof them are particularly interesting, as they refer to well-known\nspecial classes of Attic vases. The earlier of the two is in Pindar\u2019s\ntenth Nemean Ode,[447] in which he celebrates the victory of Thiaios of\nArgos, who had twice been successful in the Panathenaic games at\nAthens. He says:\n\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f14\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bd \u1f2c\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b1\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.[448]\n\nThese prize-vases are also mentioned by Simonides of Keos:\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03ad\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f11\u03be\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.[449]\n\nThe other passage, from the _Ecclesiazusae_ of Aristophanes (l. 996),\nis equally well known. One speaker, in somewhat contemptuous terms,\nalludes to \u201cthe fellow who paints the lekythi for the dead\u201d:\n\n \u1f43\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.[450]\n\nThese lekythi may with certainty be identified with the white Athenian\nvariety decorated with appropriate subjects and made specially for\nfunerals (see Chapter XI.). The best examples of this class belong to\nthe very period at which the _Ecclesiazusae_ was written (392 B.C.),\nbut most of them show signs of being hastily executed or made to be\nsold at a low price. It is probably for this reason that the speaker\nimplies his contempt for the painter, although at the same time it\nseems likely that vase-painters, like all craftsmen, were looked down\nupon by the Athenians of that day, in spite of the real beauty and\nartistic merit of their productions.\n\nOne or two doubtful allusions must next be considered. The lyric poet\nAlcaeus, who flourished 610\u2013580 B.C., seems to allude to painted vases,\nbut the reading is very doubtful. The passage is read by Bergk as\nfollows (_Poet. Lyr. Graec._ iii. p. 165, frag. 41):\n\n \u03ba\u1f00\u03b4 \u03b4' \u1f04\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2, \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c4\u03b9, \u039f\u1f36\u03ba\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2\u00b7\n ... \u1f14\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b5 \u03ba\u03af\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u1f70\u03ba \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f01 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be\n \u1f60\u03b8\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9.[451]\n\nAhrens[452] read \u03b1\u1f36\u03c8\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9 for \u03b1\u1f34\u03c4\u2019 \u1f44\u03c4\u03b9, \u039f\u1f36\u03ba\u03b9, \u03bb\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, and other\nversions have been suggested. Bergk\u2019s reading is very uncouth, and it\ncertainly seems as if \u03c0\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 was intended, whatever the preceding\nword. If it is allowed to stand, it obviously implies _painted_ vases,\nas in the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 of Pindar.\n\nIn the speech of Demosthenes _De Falsa Legatione_ (p. 415) occurs a\npassage which is generally taken as having reference to painted vases:\n\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03cd, \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03c3\u1f72 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1,\n\u201cAnd you, Philochares, who paint the alabastos-stands and the\npediments.\u201d The word \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 is commonly supposed to describe a\nstand with holders for pots of perfume (also called \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, see below,\np. 195), although most painted examples of this vase found in Greece\nare of very early date. The \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 are more easy of explanation, being\nthe triangular pediments of temples, which, like the metopes of the\nso-called Theseion at Athens and those at Thermon (p. 92), were no\ndoubt often adorned with paintings in place of sculpture.\n\nOther passages, if they do not actually refer to painted or even to\nfictile vases, are at least of value as giving information as to the\ncurrent names for those in every-day use, or as to various purposes for\nwhich they were used. Reference will be made to many of these in the\ncourse of the chapter.\n\nSuetonius in his Life of Caesar (\u00a7 81) describes how the colonists who\nwere sent out under the _Lex Julia_ to build new houses were destroying\nancient tombs for the purpose when they came upon remains of ancient\npottery (_aliquantum vasculorum operis antiqui_), the discovery of\nwhich caused them to redouble their efforts in the work of destruction.\nSimilarly Strabo[453] tells us that when Julius Caesar sent colonists\nto rebuild Corinth they came upon tombs containing large quantities of\n\u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, which they nicknamed \u201cNecrocorinthia.\u201d The meaning\nof this expression is somewhat doubtful, but the word \u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 seems\nto imply chased or relief work, and it is probable that these were not\npainted vases, but Hellenistic ware with reliefs, like the so-called\nMegarian bowls.[454] The latter can be identified, by means of their\nsubjects, with the _scyphi Homerici_ of which Nero was so fond;\nSuetonius tells us that they were so named _a caelatura carminum\nHomeri_, from the subjects from Homer\u2019s poems carved in relief upon\nthem.[455] The _scyphi_ were doubtless of metal, the use of which was\nconfined to the wealthy and luxurious, while the so-called Megarian\nbowls and similar ware were copied from them in the cheaper material\nfor the use of the humbler classes.\n\nWe see, then, that classical literature throws but little light on the\nuses made of painted vases as such by the Greeks. But we are by no\nmeans ill supplied with information as to the uses of pottery in\ngeneral, about which evidence may be obtained both from the vases\nthemselves and from innumerable passages in ancient writers or the\ncommentaries of the scholiasts and lexicographers. This question is\nmore or less bound up with that of the different shapes and names of\nvases, of which some 150 have been handed down by Athenaeus, Pollux,\nand other writers, and these will be considered in detail subsequently.\nFor the present it may suffice to say a few words on what is known of\nthe use of pottery in general and of painted vases in particular.\n\nAs most of the vases hitherto known have been discovered in tombs, it\nwould at first sight appear that they were exclusively destined for\nsepulchral purposes; but this seems to have been in many cases only a\nsubsequent use of them, and they doubtless also found a place among the\nwants of daily life. That this is true of the plain unglazed or\nunpainted pottery goes indeed without saying; in regard to the painted\nvases the question is, in view of the scanty literary evidence, more\ndifficult to decide.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 14. HEMIKOTYLION (VASE USED AS MEASURE).\n BRITISH MUSEUM.\n]\n\nAs the civil and domestic use of pottery is the most important, it is\nnecessary to consider it first. For ordinary purposes earthenware\nlargely took the place of bronze and the precious metals, just as it\ndoes at the present day. One instance of this we have already quoted in\nspeaking of the \u201cHomeric bowls,\u201d and others might be cited, in\nparticular its use for measures, for which metal would naturally be\nemployed as a general rule. This usage is established by the occasional\ndiscovery of vases inscribed with the names of measures and the like.\nThe British Museum possesses a small one-handled cup of black glazed\nware (F 595 = Fig. 14) found in the island of Cerigo (Kythera), on\nwhich is incised in fifth-century lettering the word [\u0397\u0395\u039c\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a4\u03a5\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d],\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or \u201chalf-kotyle.\u201d The word \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 is interesting as\ndenoting not only a shape of a drinking-cup (see below, p. 184), but a\nGreek measure, equivalent to about half a pint. Again, in 1867, a\ncylindrical vase of red ware was found at Athens inscribed [\u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u039d],\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or \u201cpublic (measure).\u201d[456] It was stamped with the figure of\nan owl and an olive-branch, the official seal of Athens, and has been\nsupposed to represent the \u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be or quart, its capacity having been\nestimated at 0\u00b796 litres, or 1\u00be pints, while the \u03c7\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b9\u03be is generally\nreckoned as equivalent to 1 litre.[457]\n\nMany of the names in common use for shapes of vases are also found\napplied to measures of capacity either for liquid or dry stuffs; and it\nis possible that herein lies the explanation of the somewhat puzzling\n_graffiti_ inscriptions found under the feet of Attic vases (see\nChapter XVII.), where the words used seem to have no relation to the\nvase itself. Thus in liquid measure the amphora (\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2) or \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2,\nalso known as \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, was equivalent to about 7\u00bd gallons, and was\ndivided into 12 \u03c7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2, the \u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 into 12 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9, which, as we have seen,\nanswer to our \u00bd-pints. The \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf was one-fourth of a \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7, the\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 one-sixth.[458] All these words were in common use to express\nvarious forms of vases, as will be seen later on. Further, the word\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, which, like the Latin _testa_, is used generally for pottery,\nhas a more restricted sense of a cask or vessel used for transporting\nwine, and is even used as a term of measure, presumably equivalent to\nthe amphora.[459]\n\nEarthenware was also used generally for the purpose of storing liquids\nor various kinds of food, for the preparation of food and liquids, and\nfor the uses of the table or toilet. The painted ware, however, was not\nemployed for the commoner purposes, nor to contain large quantities of\nliquids, for which it would have been far too expensive. But we know\nthat it was largely used at banquets and drinking-bouts, and on other\noccasions, from the evidence of the vases themselves. Thus, in the\nwell-known vase with the Harpies robbing the blind Phineus of his food\n(p. 357), a kotyle painted with black figures is seen in the king\u2019s\nhands; and in a scene representing the reception of Paris by\nHelen,[460] the former is offered wine drawn from a large four-handled\nvase on which figures are painted.[461] Vases with subjects represented\non them are also seen placed on columns forming the background of\nscenes, as if forming part of the furniture of a hall or chamber. But\nas a general rule the vases represented in banquet scenes and elsewhere\nare left plain or only decorated with patterns.\n\nTo the use of vases in connection with athletic games we have already\nalluded in discussing Pindar\u2019s mention of the Panathenaic amphorae; it\nis, of course, likely that other forms of vases were also given as\nprizes or presented to young men on special occasions, such as entering\nthe ranks of the \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03b9 or being married, but we have no evidence of\nsuch customs.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 15. CHILD PLAYING WITH JUG (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nVases were also used as toys, as is proved by the discovery of many\nlittle vases, chiefly jugs, in the tombs of children at Athens, on\nwhich are depicted children playing at various games.[462] They are too\nsmall to have served any other purpose, and as similarly shaped jugs\nappear among the toys used by the children in these scenes, it is\nreasonable to suppose that they were playthings. No doubt some of the\nmore unusual shapes were made with the same end, such as vases in the\nshape of animals or fruit, or the aski (p. 200), which contained little\nballs and were used as rattles.\n\nWe have already hinted at the purely decorative use of vases as\ndomestic ornaments, in which capacity they were often placed on\ncolumns; there is, however, no hint of this in ancient authors. But\nthat it was customary in Greece and Italy, at all events in the later\nperiod (_i.e._ after the Persian Wars), seems to be indicated by the\npractice which obtains with the larger vases of executing only one side\nwith care, while the other exhibits an unimportant and badly painted\ndesign (generally three boys or men wrapped in mantles). It is natural\nto suppose that the carelessly executed side was not supposed to be\nseen, owing to the fact that the vase was intended to be placed against\na wall. Some of the large round dishes of Apulian fabric seem to have\nbeen intended for hanging up against a wall, on the same principle.[463]\n\nThe question which next arises is that of the extent to which vases\nwere used for religious and votive purposes. Here, however, with one\nexception noted below, we derive little aid from a study of the painted\nvases themselves, in spite of the frequency of mythological subjects.\nBut inasmuch as many instances are known of offerings of metal vases in\nthe temples of the gods, it can hardly be doubted that painted vases\nserved the same purpose for those who could only afford the humbler\nmaterial. It was at one time supposed that the large vases painted for\na front view only, of which we have just spoken, were destined for this\npurpose; but as they are mostly found in tombs, this can hardly be the\ncase.\n\nOf late years, however, much light has been thrown upon this question\nby means of scientific excavations. On many temple-sites which have\nbeen systematically explored, such as the Acropolis of Athens or\nNaukratis in the Egyptian Delta, enormous numbers of fragments of\npainted vases have been found which are clearly the remains of votive\nofferings. It was a well-known Greek custom to clear out the temples\nfrom time to time and form rubbish-heaps of the disused vases and\nstatuettes, sometimes by digging pits for them; and thus these broken\nfragments, rejected from their apparent uselessness, have from these\nvery circumstances been preserved to the present day to cast a flood of\nlight on many points of archaeology. At Naukratis many of the fragments\nbear incised inscriptions in the form of dedications to Apollo (Fig.\n16.) or Aphrodite, according to the site on which they were found. At\nPenteskouphia near Corinth a large series of early painted tablets,\nwith representations of Poseidon and inscribed dedications, were found\nin 1879 (p. 316), and illustrate the practice of making offerings in\nthis form, mentioned by Aeschylos.[464] Tablets painted with figures\nand hung on trees or walls are not infrequently depicted on red-figured\nvases, the subject generally implying their votive character.[465] Fig.\n17. represents a youth carrying a tablet of this kind.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 16. RIM OF VASE FROM NAUKRATIS WITH DEDICATION TO\nAPOLLO (BRIT. MUS.).]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._\n FIG. 17. YOUTH WITH VOTIVE TABLET.\n]\n\nThere is no doubt that vases (though not, perhaps, painted ones) must\nhave played a considerable part in the religious ceremonies of the\nGreeks. In the Athenian festival of the Anthesteria, the second day was\ndevoted to the holding of \u1f00\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, or \u201cpot-contests,\u201d vessels\nfull of corn being dedicated to Hermes Chthonios.[466] At the festival\nof the Gardens of Adonis flower-pots of earthenware containing flowers\nwere cast into the sea, as a type of the premature death of\nAdonis.[467] These flower-pots were also placed on the tops of houses,\nand in this same festival, which was chiefly celebrated by hetairae,\nlittle terracotta figures (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1) were introduced.[468] The use of\nflower-pots placed in windows to form artificial gardens is mentioned\nby Martial and Pliny[469]; and they were also employed to protect\ntender plants, as hinted by Theophrastos,[470] who speaks of the\nnecessity of propagating southernwood by slips in pots.\n\nIt is, perhaps, hardly necessary to speak of the constant use of the\njug and bowl (_phiale_) in sacrifices and libation scenes, as seen on\ninnumerable vases of the R.F. and later periods (see pp. 178, 191).\nFig. 18 shows the use of vases on the occasion of a sacrifice to\nDionysos. There is also a type of vase which, according to a recent\nwriter,[471] was used for burning incense. It is a form which hitherto\nhad been conventionally named the \u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, on account of its recurved lip\n(see below, p. 187); but it is pointed out that it had three feet (the\nform being clearly derived from the tripod), and therefore stood, and\nwas not carried about; also that it varies much in size, and is found\nat an early date, and chiefly in women\u2019s graves.[472] There is also\nevidence that it was meant to stand fire or hold coals. From these\ndetails the conclusion is deduced that it represents the earlier form\nof incense-burner (down to about 500 B.C.), those of later date being\nof a different form, as often seen on R.F. vases.[473]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.\n FIG. 18. VASES USED IN SACRIFICE (FROM VASE AT NAPLES).\n]\n\nThe most important use, however, for which vases were employed, and\nthat to which their preservation is mainly due, was for purposes\nconnected with funeral ceremonies. These were of a varied nature,\nincluding the use of vases at the burial, the placing of them on the\ntomb to hold offerings, and the depositing of them in the tomb, either\nto hold the ashes of the dead or as \u201ctomb-furniture,\u201d in accordance\nwith the religious beliefs of the Greeks on the life after death. The\nprincipal methods in which they have been found deposited in the tombs\nhave already been described in Chapter II.\n\nVases were employed in the burial rites in various ways, as we learn\nfrom the subjects depicted upon them. In the celebrated vase\nrepresenting the death and funeral of Archemoros,[474] two persons are\nseen carrying tables laden with vases to the tomb, while an oinocho\u00eb is\nplaced under the bier on which the corpse is laid. It is also probable\nthat they were often burnt on the funeral pile with the corpse, and if\nthis is the case it may account for the discoloured condition of many\nfine vases in which the red glaze has turned to an ashen grey under the\naction of fire.[475] In any case vases were often broken before being\nplaced in the tomb, the idea being that they must participate in the\ndeath of the person to whom they were consecrated. There is a special\nclass of B.F. amphorae found at Athens, which are commonly known as\n\u201cprothesis-amphorae,\u201d the subjects relating exclusively to the \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nor laying-out, and other funeral rites. They were, therefore, probably\nplaced round the bier during this ceremony.\n\nVases were also used for holding milk, oil, unguents, and other liquids\nwhich were poured upon the corpse, or for the lustral water placed at\nthe entrance of the tomb. It was the regular practice of the Athenians\nto place vases on the outside of the tombs, the commonest forms being\nthat of the lekythos, or a larger vase known as the \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2,\nmentioned by Demosthenes.[476] These were, however, generally of stone,\nand are sometimes sculptured in relief, or bear inscriptions like the\nAttic stelae[477] and modern tombstones.\n\nThe custom of placing lekythi on tombs is also alluded to once or twice\nby Aristophanes in the _Ecclesiazusae_\u2014_e.g._ line 538:\n\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd,\n\nand again, line 1032:\n\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03af\u03c9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.[478]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 19. FUNERAL LEKYTHOS, WITH VASES INSIDE TOMB (BRIT.\nMUS.).]\n\nThe manner of employing vases as adjuncts to the tomb is nowhere better\nillustrated than on the Athenian white lekythi, which are almost all\npainted with funeral subjects, and, from the hasty way in which many\nare executed, show that they were often made to order at short notice\n(see above, p. 132). In particular, one example in the British Museum\n(D 56 = Fig. 19) shows the interior of a conical tomb or tumulus,\nwithin which vases of various shapes are seen. In other examples they\nare ranged along the steps of a stele, or are represented as being\nbrought to the tomb in baskets by mourning women.[479] The larger vases\nof Southern Italy, which similarly show by their subjects that they\nwere only made for funeral purposes, bear a close relation to the white\nlekythi, and also to the Attic funeral stelae with reliefs. The\ntreatment of the subject varies in the different fabrics, but two main\ntypes prevail. In the one, of Lucanian origin, the tomb takes the form\nof a stele or column, round which vases are ranged on steps[480]; in\nthe other, on the large Apulian kraters and amphorae, the tomb is in\nthe shape of a \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd or small temple, within which is seen the figure\nof the deceased, while on either side approach women bearing offerings\n(Fig. 106); but vases do not play an important part in these latter\nscenes.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 20. VASES PLACED ON TOMB (LUCANIAN HYDRIA IN BRIT.\nMUS.).]\n\nThirdly, we have to deal with the use of painted vases in the tomb\nitself. As regards their use as cinerary urns, to contain the ashes of\nthe dead, it appears to have been somewhat restricted.\n\nIn the Mycenaean period we know that inhumation, not cremation, was the\npractice, contrary to that of the heroic or Homeric age, in which an\nentirely different state of things is represented. But when we do read\nin Homer or the tragic poets, of the methods of dealing with the ashes\nof the dead, there is no mention of any but metal urns. Thus the ashes\nof Patroklos were collected in a \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ad\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7[481] (the word is\nprobably used loosely), while those of Achilles were stored in a golden\namphora.[482] Again, Sophokles, in the fictitious account of Orestes\u2019\ndeath given in his _Electra_, uses the expression (l. 758)[483]:\n\n \u1f10\u03bd \u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\n \u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u1ff7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6,\n\nshowing that metal vases were generally employed for this purpose.\n\nNo instances occurred among the early tombs in the Dipylon cemetery at\nAthens or elsewhere in Greece before the sixth century, nor was the\npractice usually favoured by the Etruscans, who employed painted vases\nin their tombs exclusively as furniture. In Mycenaean times in Crete\ncoffers (\u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2) of terracotta, painted like the vases, were used as\n_ossuaria_[484]; and similarly in Etruria at all periods the remains of\nthe deceased were placed in rectangular chests or sarcophagi of\nterracotta or stone. But in the earliest tombs of Etruria and Central\nItaly urns and hut-shaped receptacles for the ashes were invariably\nemployed (see Chapter XVIII.).\n\nIt is, however, probable that in course of time there was a partial\nadoption of the practice in Greece. As early as the middle of the sixth\ncentury there is an instance in the well-known Burgon Panathenaic\namphora, now in the British Museum,[485] found by Mr. Burgon in 1813;\nit contained remains of burnt bones and several small plain vases. This\nwould seem to indicate that the Panathenaic amphorae in particular were\nconsidered appropriate for this purpose, namely, that the cherished\nprize won by the living should be used for the most sacred purpose in\nconnection with the dead.\n\nAmong the red-figured vases of the fifth century which have been found\nto contain ashes, may be mentioned the famous Vivenzio vase at\nNaples,[486] which was found carefully deposited within another vase at\nNola, and a vase of the shape known as \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2, now in the British\nMuseum, found near the Peiraeus.[487] There is also a covered vase in\nthe British Museum,[488] which was employed for a similar purpose. It\nis not, strictly speaking, a painted vase, being covered with a white\nslip and coloured like the terracottas, while the heads of monsters\nproject from its sides; the shape is that known as \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 (\u201ctureen\u201d),\nand it dates from the fourth century. It contained human bones, among\nwhich were found a small terracotta figure of a Siren and other\nobjects; the jaw-bone, which was preserved, had still fixed in it the\n_obolos_, or small silver coin which was placed there as Charon\u2019s fare\nfor ferrying the soul over the Styx. Of later date is a vase found at\nAlexandria, in the catacombs, similarly decorated, and also filled with\nbones; it was presented to the British Museum in 1830 by Sir E.\nCodrington.\n\nThe class of large terracotta vases found in tombs at Canosa, Cumae,\nCapua and Calvi (Cales), of which fine specimens may be seen in the\nTerracotta Room of the British Museum (see above, p. 119), seems to\nhave been made for sepulchral purposes, as in many cases they are not\nadapted for practical use. On the other hand, they may have been\nornaments for houses. They are decorated with figures in high relief,\nor attached to different parts of the vase, and many of them,\nespecially those in the form of female heads, are strictly speaking not\nvases at all, having no proper bottom.\n\nThe majority of painted vases found in the tombs must be regarded\npurely as tomb-furniture, placed there with the idea that the deceased\nwould require in his future life all that had been associated with his\nformer existence. Sometimes they were placed round the corpse, with\nfood or liquids in them for the use of the \u201cghost,\u201d and instances are\nknown of eggs and other objects having been preserved in this\nmanner.[489] Toy-vases are found buried with children in tombs at\nAthens and elsewhere, and toilet-boxes or unguent-vases in women\u2019s\ngraves. Nevertheless, it is probably not wide of the mark to say that\nin the sixth and fifth centuries the custom had lost much of its\noriginal meaning; the habit of placing painted vases in tombs survived,\nbut the original idea of the practice had become obscured, and the\nreligious significance was restricted to certain classes of vases, the\nprothesis-amphorae, white lekythi, and others, which were not used\nduring life but only made specially for this purpose.\n\nGreat value seems to have been set upon the painted vases by their\npossessors. When broken, they were repaired by the pieces being\nskilfully fitted and drilled, with a rivet of lead or bronze neatly\nattached to the sides. Several mended vases exist in the European\ncollections.[490] Occasionally they were repaired by inserting pieces\nof other vases. Thus a vase with two handles, found at Vulci, of the\nshape called \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, is repaired with a part of a kylix representing\nquite a different subject, and thus presents a discordant effect.[491]\nA R.F. vase in the Louvre has actually been mended with part of a B.F.\nvase.[492] A B.F. kylix in the British Museum (B 398) has a piece\ninserted with the name of Priapos; similarly the two handles of the\nR.F. kylix E 4, with the signature of Thypheithides, do not belong to\nthe vase; but these may both be modern restorations. The large casks of\ncoarse and unglazed ware (\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9) were also repaired with leaden cramps.\n\u201cThe casks of the ill-clad Cynic,\u201d says the Roman satirist, \u201cdo not\nburn; should you break one of them, another house will be made by\nto-morrow, or the same will continue to serve when repaired with\nlead.\u201d[493] Aristophanes puts into the mouth of his old litigant turned\n_rou\u00e9_ a popular story of Sybaris which alludes to the use of bronze\nrivets. A woman of that city broke an earthen pot, which was\nrepresented as screaming out, and calling for witnesses to prove how\nbadly it had been treated. \u201cBy Persephone!\u201d exclaims the dame, \u201cwere\nyou to leave off bawling for witnesses, and make haste to buy a copper\nclamp (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd) to rivet yourself with, you would show more\nsense.\u201d[494]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAfter noting the chief uses of Greek vases it is necessary to give some\naccount of the different shapes, and to identify the recorded names as\nfar as possible with the various kinds actually found.\n\nThe subject is, however, one of great difficulty, and it is impossible\nto attain to scientific accuracy, owing to the differences of time\nbetween the authors by whom they are mentioned, the difficulty of\nexplaining types by verbal descriptions, and the ambiguity often caused\nby the ancient practice of describing a vase of one shape by the name\nof another.\n\nA study of any collection of Greek vases will make it apparent that\nthere is a great variety in the forms of the different periods. This is\nespecially marked in the earliest ages of Greece, in which the variety\nis almost endless, and the adoption and development of certain\nrecognised forms practically unknown. It must therefore be evident that\nthe statements of ancient writers must always be used with caution, and\nthat a shape described by an early writer must not be taken as\nrepresenting the same in a later period, even if the same word be used,\nor _vice versa_. For instance, the \u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Homer, which\nfinds a curious parallel in the gold cup with the doves discovered by\nSchliemann at Mycenae, is, whatever view we may take of the Homeric\ncivilisation, only an example of a passing fashion. Or again, many of\nthe drinking-cups described by Athenaeus in his eleventh book are\ndoubtless only instances of new experiments in pottery or metal-work\ncharacteristic of the Hellenistic age, with its tendency to strive\nafter novelties. Many of his names are little more than nicknames for\nfamiliar shapes, which enjoyed a temporary popularity.\n\nSome information may be derived from the vases themselves by means of\ninscriptions, specimens of which are given in Chapter XVII. Thus on the\nFran\u00e7ois vase the three-handled pitcher used by Polyxena is inscribed\n[\u03a5\u0394\u03a1\u0399\u0391], or \u201cwater-pot,\u201d and enables us to apply the name hydria with\ncertainty to a three-handled vase, of which many black- and red-figured\nspecimens exist.[495] Then we have the _lekythos_ of Tataie, and the\n_kylikes_ of Philto and Kephisophon,[496] which testify by inscriptions\nto the name by which they were known. The names incised in _graffito_\non the feet of vases[497] are a more doubtful source of evidence,\ninasmuch as they may refer either to mixed batches of vases or to the\nnames of measures of capacity.\n\nExamples of cursory mention of names in the ancient writers, such as\nAristophanes, are innumerable, but seldom explicit, and the scholia on\nthese writers are hardly more useful, inasmuch as the grammarians\nprobably knew little more about obsolete shapes than we do ourselves,\nand their commentaries have little critical weight. The _loci classici_\non the subject are the book of Athenaeus already referred to,[498] in\nwhich he gives a list of over one hundred names, with more or less full\nexplanation and commentary, most of the forms being apparently\nvarieties of drinking-cups, and the _Onomasticon_ of Pollux.[499]\nNotices of vases are also to be found in the lexicographers, such as\nHesychius and Suidas, and the _Etymologicum Magnum_.\n\nIn the early days of modern archaeology the first to propose an\nidentification of the shapes of vases was Panofka,[500] whose fanciful\nand uncritical lucubrations were shortly afterwards combated by\nLetronne[501] and Gerhard,[502] the latter of whom introduced a more\nscientific method of criticism and classification, though his results\ncannot be considered as final. Other writers were M\u00fcller,[503]\nThiersch,[504] Ussing,[505] Krause,[506] and Jahn,[507] of whom Ussing\nfollowed practically on Gerhard\u2019s lines but with more success; Krause,\nthough exhaustive, is on the whole uncritical; and Jahn has treated the\nsubject with his wonted conciseness and sobriety. Of late years little\nattention has been paid to it, principally, no doubt, for the reason\nthat so many conventional names have been generally accepted for the\nordinary shapes by archaeologists, who have recognised the fact that it\nwill never be possible to treat the subject with scientific\naccuracy.[508]\n\nThe classification of the shapes of vases has usually been undertaken\non the lines of distinguishing their main uses, such as (1) those in\nwhich food or liquids were preserved; (2) those in which liquids were\nmixed or cooked; (3) those by means of which liquids were poured out or\nfood distributed; (4) drinking-cups; (5) other vases for the use of the\ntable or toilet. Thus we have the pithos and amphora for storing wine,\nthe krater for mixing it, the psykter for cooling it, the kyathos for\nladling it out, and the oinocho\u00eb or prochoos for pouring it out; the\nhydria was used for fetching water from the well. Of smaller vases, the\nnames for drinking-cups are innumerable, but the phiale, for instance,\nwas employed chiefly for pouring libations; while dishes and plates are\nrepresented by the lekane, tryblion, pinax, and so on. The pyxis was\nused by women at their toilet, and the lekythos, alabastron, and askos\nfor holding oil and unguents. There is an interesting passage in\nAthenaeus (iv. 142 D)[509] which gives a list of the vases required for\nuse at a banquet: \u201cAnd on the tripod was placed a bronze wine-cooler\n(\u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) and a \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (bucket) and a silver \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03bf\u03bd holding two kotylae\n(one pint), and a ladle (\u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2); and the wine-jug (\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) was of\nbronze, but nobody was offered drink unless he asked for it; and one\nladleful was given out before the meal.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nFor the purposes of this work it is hoped that the usual method of\nclassification indicated above will be found sufficient, supplemented\nby the descriptions of Athenaeus and other writers, where any details\ncan be obtained; but it is obvious that a really critical treatment of\nthe subject should be chronological, with endeavours to trace the first\nappearance and development of each type. In the present state of our\nknowledge, however, it would seem impossible to do so with success.\n\nWe begin our description of the vases of the Greeks with an account of\nthe large vases of rough manufacture calculated to hold great\nquantities of wine, water, or food. The chief vase of this class is the\n=Pithos= or cask (Lat. _dolium_), a vase of gigantic size, found both\nin Italy and Greece.[510] They are shaped like enormous barrels, with\nbulging bodies and wide mouths, and answer to the modern hogshead or\npipe. When full, the casks were closed with a circular stone, or with a\ncover of clay. They were used to hold honey, wine, and figs, and were\nusually kept half-buried in the earth.[511] They were sufficiently\ncapacious to hold a man, and the famous \u201ctub\u201d of Diogenes was of this\nform. On a lamp in the British Museum and other monuments[512] he is\nrepresented appearing from one, presumably on the occasion of his\ninterview with Alexander. In the vase-paintings Eurystheus takes refuge\nin a pithos from Herakles when he brings the Erymanthian boar,[513] and\nthe same shape of vase is represented as holding the wine of the\nCentaurs and the water drawn by the Danaids.[514] The \u201cbox\u201d of Pandora\nwas in reality a large jar of this kind, as we learn from Hesiod.[515]\nIt required great skill to make these vases, whence a Greek proverb\ncharacterised an ambitious but inexperienced man as \u201cone who began with\na cask\u201d (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd).[516] They were not made on\nthe wheel but by a peculiar process, which is described as plastering\nthe clay round a framework of wood, called \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2[517]; it appears to\nhave been made of vertical boards ranged in a circle, like a tub.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 21. PITHOS FROM KNOSSOS.]\n\nThe British Museum possesses two or three \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 of exceptional size,\nornamented with bands of geometrical patterns in relief, which were\nobtained from Mr. (now Sir A.) Biliotti\u2019s excavations at Ialysos in\nRhodes, and belong to the Mycenaean period. In 1900 Mr. Arthur Evans,\namong the remains of the Minoan palace at Knossos in Crete, came upon a\ncourtyard round which stood a number of similar \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, with decorations\nof a Mycenaean character (see Fig. 21).[518] These may be considered to\nbelong to the middle of the second millennium B.C., and it is therefore\nevident that the \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 may claim an antiquity second to none among\nforms of Greek vases.\n\nAmong examples of later date may be mentioned the large series recently\nfound in Thera by German explorers, some plain, others with painted\ngeometrical decoration; they are partly of native make, partly\nimportations from Crete, and date from the seventh century B.C.[519]\nDr. D\u00f6rpfeld found examples of \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 in the remains of the earlier\ncities at Hissarlik, from the second to the seventh layers. These were\nused for keeping all sorts of liquids and solids, and also apparently\nformed part of the cooking apparatus.[520] Others were found in the\nexcavations of Mr. J. Brunton on the site of Dardanus in the Troad;\nthey were of pale red clay, with a stone cover. In excavating between\nBalaclava and Sevastopol Colonel Munroe discovered no less than\nsixteen, about 4 ft. 4 in. in height, within a circular building,\napparently a storehouse; they were also of pale red ware. One had\nincised upon its lip [\u0394\u0394\u03a0\u03a0 \u03a0\u0399\u0399\u0399], apparently indicating its price.\nSimilar \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 have been found in Athens, some having fractures joined\nby leaden rivets. Large \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 with archaic reliefs have been found in\nCrete, Rhodes, Sicily, and Etruria (at Cervetri); they are imitated\nfrom metal vases, with designs of Oriental character.[521]\n\nPerhaps of all the ancient vases the best known is the =Amphora=\n(\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 or \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2), which was used for a variety of domestic and\ncommercial purposes. So numerous are the vases of this form, found all\nover the Greek world, that they merit a lengthy description. They were\nprincipally used for wine, but also for corn, honey, oil, and other\nsubstances,[522] and to the use of the word as a measure of capacity we\nhave already alluded. It should be borne in mind that the conventional\nuse of the word _amphora_ in speaking of the painted Greek vases\nimplies a quite different form from the plain wine-amphorae, which were\nneither painted nor varnished; the type of vase is the same, but the\npainted examples are smaller and stouter, with a proper foot. For the\npresent we confine our description to the unadorned amphora of commerce.\n\nBesides the two handles from which the word derives its name,[523] the\nwine-amphora (Fig. 22.) is distinguished by its long egg-shaped body,\nnarrow cylindrical neck, and pointed base; this form is often known as\n_diota_ (the Latin equivalent). The base is sometimes supplied with a\nring to stand on, but is more usually pointed, in order to be easily\nfixed in the earth in cellars. The mouth was sealed by means of a\nconical cover terminating in a boss.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 22. GREEK WINE-JARS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nRemains of these amphorae have been discovered not only in Greece\nitself, but also wherever the Greek commerce and settlements extended,\nas in Alexandria, Kertch (Panticapaeum), Corfu, Rhodes, Sicily, and\nAsia Minor. They appear to have been used at a very early period, plain\nspecimens of red ware being found not only in the early Greek tombs,\nlike that of Menekrates in Corfu (p. 54), but even in tombs of the\nBronze Age period, as in Cyprus. The typical long shape, however, did\nnot come into fashion until about 300 B.C., when the island of Rhodes\nwas a great trading centre, carrying on an active commerce all over the\nMediterranean. Amphorae of this form are represented on the coins of\nChios and Thasos with reference to their trade in wine, and on the\nAthenian silver tetradrachms which belong to the period subsequent to\nabout 220 B.C.; they are shown on the reverse, lying horizontally, with\nan owl above. In this case the reference may be either to the large\nAttic trade in oil or to the use of the amphora for voting at the\nelection of magistrates (see p. 167).\n\nThe most interesting feature of the wine-amphorae is the device or\nimpression stamped on the handles either in a circular medallion or an\noblong depression. This was done by means of a stone or bronze stamp,\nwhile the clay was still moist. They are found in all parts of the\nancient world, but the greater number can be traced to a few places of\norigin, of which the most important are: Rhodes, Knidos, Thasos, Paros,\nand Olbia in Southern Russia. As regards the stamps, the usage differs\nat each centre; but apart from them the handles can be distinguished by\ntheir shapes and material, as will be seen in the subsequent\ndescription.\n\nThe Rhodian amphorae, of which large numbers have been found at\nAlexandria as well as in the island itself, were of a very pure and\ntenacious clay, with a fracture as sharp as that of delf. The colour is\npale, deepening to a salmon hue. The numerous separate handles which\nhave also been found have all belonged to the same form of amphora,\nwith long square-shouldered handles, as on the Athenian and Chian\ncoins. An entire vase, but without a stamp,[524] which was brought from\nRhodes, was 40 in. in height, and the height of the handles alone was\n10 in., the upper part attached to the top of the mouth being 3 in.\nlong. This is a typical instance for the shape. The seal when found is\nimpressed on the upper part of the handle, the size of the label being\ngenerally about 1\u00bd in. or 1\u00be in. long, by \u215d in. wide, except when they\nare oval or circular. At Alexandria eight distinct varieties of handles\nwere found, broken from amphorae of different countries, but only one\ninscribed; the base also assumed various forms.\n\nIn the Rhodian amphorae two stamps are in use, a principal and an\naccessory one (Fig. 23._a_).[525] The former has a device of the head\nof Helios, the Sun-God, or the emblematic rose, both of which types\noccur on the coins; it is accompanied by an inscription, in the form\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, sometimes explicitly described as \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, _i.e._ in the\nyear of the eponymous priest of the Sun. This is followed by the name\nof a Rhodian month. The accessory stamp contains the name of a person,\nusually in the genitive. The months belong to the Doric calendar, and\nare as follows: Thesmophorios, Theudaisios, Pedageitnyos, Diosthyos,\nBadromios, Sminthios, Artamitios, Agrianios, Hyakinthios, Panamos,\nDalios, Karneios, and the second Panamos, an intercalary month.[526]\nThe object of the stamps is involved in obscurity, but they were\nprobably intended to certify that the amphora (which was also a\nmeasure) held the proper quantity. It is clear that they could not have\nbeen intended to attest the age of the wine, as the vessel might be\nused for any sort, and the stamps bear the name of every month in the\nyear.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Dumont_.\n FIG. 23. AMPHORA-STAMPS FROM RHODES.\n]\n\nOther handles of Rhodian amphorae, stamped with an oblong cartouche or\nlabel, may be divided into two classes: (1) Those inscribed with the\nname of a magistrate and an emblem. The latter resembled the \u201cadjuncts\u201d\nfound on the coins of some Greek cities, but it is uncertain whether\nthey were selected on any fixed principle, or merely adopted from\ncaprice. They may perhaps allude to the deity whom the magistrate\nparticularly honoured as the patron god of his tribe or village. The\nsame symbol was, however, often used by many individuals, and on the\nwhole the number known is not large. (2) Those bearing the name of a\nmagistrate, accompanied by that of a month of the Doric calendar, but\nwithout any emblem (Fig. 23._b_).\n\nMany handles of amphorae from Knidos have been found on different\nsites. Their clay is coarser than the Rhodian, its colour darker and\nduller, and the amphorae differ also somewhat in form, nor are they of\nso early a date, being mostly as late as the Roman Empire. The stamps\non the Cnidian amphorae, like those of Rhodes, are inscribed with the\nname of the eponymous magistrate, and also with that of the wine-grower\nor exporter of the produce, which is always marked as Cnidian. The\nstamps show a great variety in the matter of emblems. Remains of\nCnidian amphorae have been found in Sicily, at Athens, Alexandria, and\nOlbia. The palaeography of the inscriptions covers a period of two\ncenturies, from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius, or even later.\n\nNumerous examples have been found of handles of amphorae, in which the\ncelebrated wine of Thasos was exported to places such as Thasos and\nOlbia. The stamps are nearly square, with a device in the middle, the\ninscription [\u0398\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u03a9\u039d], and the name of an official. The names are\nusually in the nominative, but in one instance at least the genitive is\nused. The symbols include an amphora, kneeling archer, cornucopia,\ndolphin, etc. (Fig. 24).[527] The known stamps of Paros are few in\nnumber; they are simply inscribed [\u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a9\u039d], which in one instance is\nwritten retrograde.[528]\n\nHandles inscribed with the name of an aedile (\u1f00\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) and of another\nperson, probably a magistrate, have been found on various sites in the\nCrimea and Southern Russia, principally at Olbia. At Panticapaeum\n(Kertch) two amphorae were found with stamps across the neck, thus:\n\n EUARCHO EPI KALLIA\n ARISTON EOPAMONOS\n\nthe upper name being that of the magistrate.[529] These vases appear to\nhave been made on the spot.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Dumont_.\n FIG. 24. AMPHORA-STAMPS FROM THASOS.\n]\n\nStoddart also mentions amphora-handles as having come from\nCorinth,[530] with names which can be traced to the time of the Roman\ndominion. Falkner found at Pompeii an amphora with a Greek inscription\nof three lines painted in red and black, with the name of Menodotos and\nthe letters KOR. OPT., which _may_ mean \u201cthe best Corcyraean\nbrand.\u201d[531] A bibliography of the subject is appended below.[532]\n\nAmong painted vases the amphora holds a high place, especially in the\nblack-figure period, during which it was most prominent. It is\ndistinguished from the plain type, as already pointed out, by the\nproportions of the body, as well as by the graceful curve of the\nhandles and the flat circular foot. The variations in its form at\ndifferent places and periods are so marked that they have led to the\nadoption of qualifying adjectives for each kind. Although these names\ncannot now be accepted in a strict sense, they are sometimes useful as\nconventional expressions. We proceed to describe these in detail.\n\n(1) The origin of the Greek amphora is clearly to be sought in the\npithos of primitive times, as may be seen in the vases of the Melian\nand Proto-Attic classes, and in the early vases with reliefs from\nBoeotia, Crete, Thera, and elsewhere. It is not found in the Mycenaean\nstyle, the large vases of which come under the heading of the krater\n(see below); and its appearance in Greece dates from the developed\nstage of the Geometrical period. The earliest specimens among the\npainted vases are virtually small pithoi, characterised by a long\ncylindrical neck, and large elaborate handles obviously imitating metal\n(see p. 495). Of this type are several of the Boeotian Geometrical and\nProto-Attic vases discussed in Chapter VII.,[533] and the Boeotian\nvases with reliefs.[534] Among the Proto-Attic vases found at Vourva a\ndevelopment occurs, in which the neck is greatly elongated, and the\nbody becomes exceedingly slim, while the handles are simplified into\nplain flat bands united to the neck by bars of clay (see Fig. 89, p.\n299). This form is found still further developed in the\nprothesis-amphorae of the B.F. period[535]; but these are comparatively\nrare, and the more normal evolution of the amphora with cylindrical\nneck is to be traced in the varieties (2) and (6) described below.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 25. \u201cTYRRHENIAN\u201d AMPHORA.]\n\n(2) The early amphorae preceding the ordinary B.F. Athenian types were\ndivided by Gerhard into two classes, \u201cEgyptian\u201d and \u201cTyrrhenian.\u201d[536]\nHe describes the former as a vase with tolerably pronounced curve of\nbody, entirely covered with horizontal bands of figures; the latter as\nof similar form, but with decoration confined to a panel on either\nside. As regards shape, therefore, the two are actually one, and may be\nregarded as such for our present purpose; but it is curious to note\nthat the particular class called \u201cEgyptian\u201d by Gerhard has since his\ntime been generally known as \u201cTyrrhenian,\u201d while his \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d class\nhas now received, from the peculiar mannerisms of the paintings, the\nname of \u201caffected\u201d vases.[537] At all events the word is convenient to\nadhere to for the description of this particular shape (Fig. 25), with\nits long, egg-shaped body, the vertical section of which is almost an\nellipse, a shape common to all early B.F. fabrics\u2014Athenian, Rhodian,\nIonic, and Corinthian\u2014but best illustrated by the \u201cCorintho-Attic\u201d\nclass described by Thiersch.[538] It is seldom found in purely Attic\nexamples, and disappears after the middle of the sixth century.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 26. PANATHENAIC AMPHORA.]\n\n(3) Gerhard\u2019s next class is that of the Panathenaic amphorae, which\nhave a long body shaped something like a top, and tapering sharply\ndownwards; the mouth, handles, and neck are small, as is also the foot\n(Fig. 26). It is so called as being the characteristic form of the\nearlier (sixth-century) Panathenaic prize-vases, but is also\noccasionally found in the ordinary fabrics. This type, together with\nthe two following examples, not mentioned explicitly by Gerhard or the\nother early writers, form the class of \u201cblack-bodied\u201d amphorae, as they\nmay conveniently be termed, in order to distinguish those with\npanel-decoration from those in which the body is entirely covered with\nred glaze (see below).\n\n(4) The second variety of \u201cblack-bodied\u201d amphora (Fig. 27.) is closely\nakin to the Panathenaic, but the body is better proportioned. It is\ncharacterised by the wide mouth in the form of a thick ring, the\ncylindrical handles, and the concave curve of the shoulder. From the\nstyle of the paintings it is probable that this variety must be placed\nearly in the black-figure period.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 27. PANEL-AMPHORA.]\n\n(5) This type, on the other hand, is later in the period, being\ndeveloped out of the last, from which it is marked off only by the form\nof the handles, which are broad and flanged, and often decorated with\npatterns. These vases are mostly of large size, and are transitional,\nsome R.F. varieties being known. The paintings on them are in the style\nof Exekias, Andokides, and Euthymides (see for an example Plates XXXI.,\nXXXII.).\n\n(6) The shape of the \u201cred-bodied\u201d amphora (Fig. 28) is peculiar to the\nblack-figure period.[539] Its characteristic features are the straight,\ncylindrical neck, with its chain of lotos-and-honeysuckle, the width of\nthe shoulder, and the ribbed handles, formed from moulds in two or\nthree parallel pieces. Artistically it is far superior to the\nblack-bodied, and includes some of the finest specimens of B.F.\npainting (as in the vases of Exekias), while the decorative element\nreaches the perfection of beauty and symmetry.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 28. RED-BODIED AMPHORA.]\n\n(7) The red-bodied amphora seems to have been the prototype of what is\nthe most characteristic form of the red-figure period\u2014the so-called\n\u201cNolan\u201d amphora (Fig. 29).[540] These have been largely, but not\nexclusively, found at Nola, whither they seem to have been imported in\nlarge numbers from Greece. The whole vase is covered with black, and\nthe decoration confined to one or two figures each side, while the\nelegant and beautiful outline, the lustre of the varnish, and the\nrestraint of the designs combine to render these perhaps the most\nbeautiful products of Athenian ceramic art. The handles are sometimes\nfour-sided, more often ribbed, and sometimes formed of two twisted\nstrands, produced by rolling up the soft paste; the general outline is\nthat of the last class, but the proportions are far more slender and\ngraceful.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 29. \u201cNOLAN\u201d AMPHORA.]\n\n(8) The Apulian amphora (Fig. 30) illustrates the form which, though\ngenerally adopted in Apulia, may have had its origin at Athens, as it\nis adopted for the fourth-century Panathenaic amphorae.[541] It is\ndistinguished by its great size and egg-shaped body; the mouth is thick\nand high, spreading out like an inverted cone, and the neck is not\ncylindrical, but merges into the shoulder. A variety of the Apulian\namphora, hardly common enough to form a separate class, was formerly\nknown as the \u201ccandelabrum-amphora,\u201d from its resemblance to an\nincense-burner (an object wrongly interpreted formerly as a\n_candelabrum_, or lamp-stand). Its peculiarities are the cylindrical\nbody, tall neck, and elaborate handles in the form of double\nscrolls.[542]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 30. APULIAN AMPHORA.]\n\n(9) The Campanian amphora is derived directly from the \u201cNolan,\u201d and is\nin fact a local adaptation, but it was chiefly manufactured at\nCumae.[543] It generally has twisted handles, and is painted in\npolychrome; the proportions are somewhat more elongated than those of\nthe \u201cNolan\u201d class.\n\n(10) A rare variety of the amphora is sometimes found in the red-figure\nperiod, with large spheroidal body and pointed base, intended to be\nplaced in a separate stand. The conventional name of _diota_ is\nsometimes given to this form, from its imitation of the pointed base of\nthe wine-amphora.[544]\n\n(11) The last variety of the amphora which calls for consideration is\nthe wide-bellied type, usually called (on very slight authority) a\n_pelike_, \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03afk\u03b7 (Fig. 31).[545] The name was invented by Gerhard, and\nhas been generally adopted since, but is only to be regarded as a\nconventional term. This form, which swells out towards the base, and\nhas no stem or neck, is very rarely found before the fifth\ncentury,[546] but is common in the R.F. period, and in the Apulian\nstyle, in which its proportions are usually more slender.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 31. SO-CALLED \u201cPELIKE.\u201d]\n\nThe amphora when complete usually had a cover of clay, either coated\nwith a plain black varnish or decorated with bands and patterns; it was\nlifted by means of a central knob. An amphora in the Berlin Museum\n(_Cat._ 1860) has a double cover, the inner one being of alabaster.\n\nOf the other names which seem to denote vases adapted for containing\nand storing wine or other commodities, the most important is the\n=Stamnos= (\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), used for holding wine and oil. It is mentioned by\nPollux[547] in his list of wine-jars, and he quotes a line from\nAristophanes about \u201ca stamnos of Chian wine arriving.\u201d The diminutives\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd and \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd are also found, and Aristophanes speaks of a\n\u201csmall Thasian stamnos of wine.\u201d[548] The amphora is defined in the\n_Etymologicum Magnum_ as \u201ca two-eared \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d It has been generally\nidentified with a form well known in the R.F. period, but only found in\nthat style: a spherical jar with short thick neck and small\nside-handles, of which some very beautiful specimens exist (Fig. 32).\nThe word is still in use in modern Greek.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 32. STAMNOS.]\n\nThe \u03b2\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 is described by Hesychios as a \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 with ears, and by\nEustathius as a vessel holding wine[549]; it was also used for figs and\nsalted food.[550] It is probably only another name for the\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, but it seems to be inaccurately described by\nAthenaeus[551] as \u201ca saucer-shaped drinking-cup\u201d (\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd).\nIt was apparently identical with the \u1f55\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7,[552] a word used by\nAristophanes,[553] but more commonly by Roman writers in its Latin form\n_orca_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 33. SO-CALLED \u201cLEKANE.\u201d]\n\nThe names of Apulian stamnos or \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7 have at different times been\ngiven to a late form of painted vase found in Southern Italy, with high\nor low stem, upright handles, and cover, which latter often takes an\nelaborate form, being surmounted by one or more small vases, also with\nhandles (Fig. 33.). The word \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7,[554] however, seems to indicate a\nlarge bowl rather than a covered jar, and no satisfactory name has as\nyet been found. A similar but flatter form of vase, like a covered bowl\nor dish, has been named \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, or covered pyxis, but no name\nis satisfactory.\n\nThe \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c2 seems to have been a narrow-necked jar of\nconsiderable size. Athenaeus[555] says the word represented a Greek\nmeasure, equivalent to twelve Attic \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9, or six pints, and that it\nwas in use at Patrae. The word is used by Plutarch for the jar in which\nthe stork offered entertainment to the fox[556]; it frequently appears\nin the Latin form _lagena_ (see Chapter XXI.). A wicker-covered \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nwas known as a \u03c0\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u03b7.[557]\n\nAnother form of the same class is the \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bfs, with its diminutive\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, which is represented by the Latin _situla_, or bucket, the\nlatter word being the one usually employed by archaeologists. It is a\nform easily to be recognised in Greek art, but is more usually found in\nmetal-work, _e.g._ in Etruscan and Italian bronzes, than in\npottery.[558] The painted situlae, of which a few late examples from\nItalian tombs exist, are obviously direct imitations of the metal\nbuckets, and in some cases actually have movable bronze handles\nattached. The situla appears to have been used not only for keeping\nwine in the cellar, but for serving it up at banquets[559]; the word is\nalso used by Aristophanes for a voting-urn and a well-bucket.[560] In\nLatin the uses were probably distinguished, _cadus_ denoting a\nwine-jar, _situla_ a water-bucket. Athenaeus obviously goes astray in\nregarding it as a drinking-cup.\n\nA vase which was used almost exclusively for carrying water was the\n=Hydria=, as is implied by its name (\u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, from \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1). Its most\nessential characteristic is the possession of three handles, a large\none at the back for carrying when empty, and two small horizontal\nhandles at the sides for carrying when full. The shape of the body\nvaries at different periods; in the B.F. period the shoulder is flat\nand marked off by a sharp angle from the body (Fig. 34); but about the\nbeginning of the fifth century this is replaced by a form with more\nrounded outline and smaller handle at the back, generally known for the\nsake of distinction as a _kalpis_ (Fig. 35). In the earlier variety (of\nwhich some R.F. examples are known) there are always two subjects, one\nforming a frieze on the shoulder, the other treated more in the manner\nof a metope on the body; they are invariably enclosed in frames or\npanels, as on the \u201cblack-bodied\u201d amphorae. Sometimes a third subject in\nthe form of a frieze of animals is added below. In the earlier stages\nof the B.F. period this form is seldom found, except in a class known\nas the \u201cCaeretan hydriae,\u201d distinguished (as far as concerns their\nshape) by their round, plump body, as also by the florid character of\ntheir ornament and curious treatment of subjects (p. 353). These vases\nwere closely copied by the Etruscans. The _kalpis_ form sometimes\noccurs with black figures, but only in small late specimens, chiefly\nfound in Rhodes. In the vases of Southern Italy the _kalpis_ is fairly\npopular, but the body is more cylindrical and the foot higher.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 34. HYDRIA.]\n\nAny doubt that might have existed as to the identification of the \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\nis solved by the appearance of the word inscribed over the pitcher\nwhich Polyxena dropped in her flight from Achilles, on the Fran\u00e7ois\nvase. In a scene very common on B.F. hydriae, which represents women\ndrawing water at a fountain, this form of vase is invariably depicted.\nThe word seldom occurs in Greek literature, but Kallimachos speaks of\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 placed on the roof of the Parthenon (?) at Athens, not, he\nsays, by way of ornament, but as prizes of wrestlers.[561] Hence the\nidea was conceived by Panofka that Panathenaic prize-vases were of this\nform.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 35. KALPIS.]\n\nPollux (x. 74) thinks that the hydria was also a wine-vase, and\nsuggests its identity with the \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7, a vase with broad base used in\nthe Mysteries; but Athenaeus[562] implies that this was used for\npouring, and it must therefore have been some kind of jug. The \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2\nis actually identified with the \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 by Aristophanes, as may be seen\nby a comparison of two lines in the _Lysistrata_.[563] From a passage\nin Isocrates[564] it would appear that the hydria was used as a\nvoting-urn or ballot-box, but the \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 was more generally used for\nthis purpose. That the amphora was also so used we know from Athenian\ncoins.\n\nThe next class to be considered is that of vases employed for mixing\nwine and water for drinking, for which the generic name is that of\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 (from \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9, \u201cI mix\u201d). Before discussing this form, however,\nallusion must be made to a vessel which is variously described as a\n_hydria_ or a _krater_, and is therefore a link between the two\nvarieties; it was at any rate pre-eminently a water-jar, and was known\nas a \u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2 (connected with Fr. _cruche_ = Eng. \u201ccrock\u201d). We have no\nindications of its form except that it had two handles[565]; Pollux\n(viii. 66) ranks it with the \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 and \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2 as a water-vessel.[566]\nIt was also used for holding ashes,[567] and Plutarch enumerates it\namong the vessels in the bath of Darius.[568] Of the same character was\nperhaps the \u1f00\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f00\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, described as a water-pot.[569]\nAthenaeus also mentions a \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, or wooden vessel of the krater type,\nas used in Attica.[570]\n\nThe =Krater= is distinguished from the amphora by its larger body,\nwider mouth, and smaller handles. It was often placed on a stand,\ncalled \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,[571] which was either of\npottery or metal such as bronze. This either took the form of a hollow\ncylindrical base, painted with subjects, or of an elaborately moulded\nstem with egg-and-tongue and other patterns.[572] It is constantly\nmentioned in Homer, but the kraters standing in the halls of the great\npalaces, as in that of Odysseus, were made of gold or silver. It is on\nthe average the largest of all Greek vases (except the pithos), some of\nthe later Apulian specimens (of which F 278 in the B.M. is one)\nreaching a height of about four feet; the ordinary examples have a\ncapacity of three or four gallons. The names Argolic, Lesbian,\nLaconian, Corinthian, and Thericleian are applied to it by various\nancient authors.[573]\n\nIn the different fabrics of Greek pottery it takes several distinct\nforms, to which convenient descriptive names have been given by Italian\ndealers, and some attempt has been made to identify names given by\nclassical authors as forms of the krater, but without any success. The\nItalian names, however, which will be mentioned in due course, are\nsomewhat cumbersome for English use.\n\nAmong Mycenaean vases there is a variety almost confined to Cyprus, to\nwhich the name of krater may fairly be given.[574] Its chief\ncharacteristics are a wide spheroidal body, hardly contracted at the\nneck (which in some varieties is non-existent), flat vertical\nside-handles, and a high stem. We hardly meet with this form again\nuntil the end of the Corinthian style, when it suddenly leaps into\npopularity.[575] The form in which it appears recalls, though it can\nhardly be imitated from, the Mycenaean krater, but the stem disappears,\nand the body is in section about two-thirds of a circle.[576] It is\nclearly a local invention, and on the evidence of finds at Syracuse,\nits first appearance may be traced to the first half of the seventh\ncentury. Its distinguishing feature, however, is in the handles, each\nof which is composed of two short vertical bars, sometimes meeting in\nan arch, supporting a flat square piece formed by a projection from the\nflat broad rim, which is generally decorated. From the columnar\nappearance of these handles, the type has received the name of _vaso a\ncolonnette_, which at all events is a more accurate description than\nthe name \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7 which, first proposed by Gerhard, has been generally\nemployed by archaeologists, on what grounds it is not clear. This word,\nas described by Athenaeus, is clearly intended to imply a\n_drinking-cup_ of some kind[577]; he quotes from Anakreon (_frag._ 63,\nBergk), who speaks of drinking its contents at one draught (\u1f04\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd).\nOn the other hand he quotes the authority of Pamphilos for identifying\nit with the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, or \u201cwater-heater,\u201d a kind of kettle. The\nprobability is that it was a general and loosely-employed word.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 36. KRATER WITH COLUMN-HANDLES.]\n\nThe column-handled krater is also found in the Naukratis wares of the\nsixth century, as well as in the imitations of Corinthian fabrics in\nwhich the Campana collection of the Louvre is so rich; the clay, style,\nand inscriptions of the latter clearly show their Corinthian origin,\napart from the form. This krater is often decorated with friezes of\nfigures (as in the famous Amphiaraos krater, p. 319). In the few\nexisting Attic examples with black figures the subjects are in framed\npanels. This form, after dying out before the end of the sixth century,\nis revived towards the middle of the fifth in the later R.F. fabrics,\nbut in a much altered form, which gives greater prominence to the\ncolumnar character of the handles. The neck is higher and narrower, and\nthe handles consequently lengthened, the square tops being much\ndiminished, and the body also takes a narrower and straighter form. In\nthe fabrics of Southern Italy this development is even more strongly\nmarked, and the elongated neck is adorned with an ivy-wreath in a\npanel; this type enjoyed some popularity both in Apulia and Lucania.\nThe system of panel-decoration is employed throughout in all these\ncases.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 37. VOLUTE-HANDLED KRATER.]\n\nThe only other form of krater found in the B.F. period\u2014and that but\nrarely\u2014is that known as _volute-handled_ (_a rotelle_), from the large\nhandles reaching above the lip and curved round in a scroll (Fig. 37).\nIt has an egg-shaped body and large neck. The best and earliest example\nis the Fran\u00e7ois vase (p. 370), from which it may be clearly seen that\nthe form is derived from the columnar-handled krater. The British\nMuseum also possesses a fine example signed by Nikosthenes, with a\ndesign in a frieze on the neck (B 364). The same shape and method of\ndecoration appear in some fine examples of the severe R.F. style (cf.\nB.M. E 468, 469). During the R.F. period, two entirely new forms of\nkrater suddenly appear, known respectively as the _vaso a calice_ and\nthe _vaso a campana_, or \u201ccalyx-krater\u201d and \u201cbell-krater\u201d; the former\nis first used by Euphronios.[578] These names give a very accurate\ndescription of the forms, the one being like the opening calyx of a\nflower, the other like an inverted bell (Figs. 38, 39). In each the lip\nprojects above the body, the neck having entirely disappeared, while\nthe handles of the calyx-krater drop to the lower part of the vase, and\nthose of the bell-krater are attached horizontally to the sides. Both\ntypes of handle are evidently adapted to carrying full vessels, like\nthe side-handles of the hydria. The name of \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd was given by\nGerhard[579] to the bell-krater, again without any real authority, and\nprobably owing to an error, from finding the name scratched underneath\none example. Comparison, however, with similar inscriptions (see\nChapter XVII.) shows clearly that the \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd was a small measure,\nless even than a \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, or ladleful. Athenaeus (xi. 494 B) is very\nexplicit on this point. He derives the name from \u1f40\u03be\u03cc\u03c2, vinegar, which\nliquid the vessel was used to contain, and describes it as \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2. It was therefore a small cup of some kind (see p. 194).\n\n [Illustration] [Illustration]\n FIG. 38. CALYX-KRATER FIG. 39. BELL-KRATER\n\nIn Southern Italy the krater holds the same position as the amphora of\nthe B.F. period.[580] The calyx- and bell-kraters are the two forms\nchiefly affected in the transition period when Athenian artists were\nworking in Italy, or Italian artists directly under the influence of\nAthenian (see p. 465), but they are also found among the purely local\nfabrics, especially those of Cumae and Paestum (_ibid._). The\ncalyx-krater seems to have been reserved for the better and more\ncarefully-executed specimens,[581] and the Italian bell-kraters often\nhave a top-heavy effect from the greater height of their stems.\n\nIn Apulia (and occasionally also in Lucania\u2014the Campanian potters did\nnot affect large vases) the volute-handled krater once more appears, in\ngreat magnificence. Not only is the total size and bulk increased, but\nthe neck is lengthened and the handles are often treated with great\nelaboration of detail, ending below in swans\u2019 necks spreading over the\nvase. In Apulia the volutes are generally replaced by medallions\n(whence the Italian name _vaso con maniche a mascheroni_) decorated\nwith Gorgons\u2019 heads or figures, in relief, painted white, yellow, and\nred. These vases are sometimes, but incorrectly, called amphorae; they\nrange from two to three or four feet in height. They are generally\npainted from head to foot with subjects, often of a sepulchral nature,\nand were no doubt largely made for use at funeral ceremonies. They are\nmore fully described in Chapter XI.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 40. LUCANIAN KRATER.]\n\nThe last variety of krater (Fig. 40) is formed by a peculiar type of\nvase, apparently devised by the Iapygian aborigines of Southern\nItaly,[582] which has a wide mouth and sloping shoulder, and sometimes\na high neck. Its peculiarity is that it has four handles, two upright\nand two horizontal, to the sides of which large discs are attached,\nwhence its Italian name is _vaso con maniche a rotelle_, from the wheel\nor rosette patterns painted on the discs. This feature caused Panofka\nto give it the name of \u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, with reference to the famous\nfour-handled cup of Nestor (_Il._ xi. 632). It need hardly be pointed\nout that there can be little in common between this form and the\ndrinking-cup used by the Homeric hero, in spite of the fact that the\nlatter was too heavy for an ordinary man to lift. We need not suppose\nthat Nestor\u2019s cup (concerning which see below, p. 181) was larger than\nan ordinary \u201cloving-cup,\u201d and the poet was probably guilty of a\npardonable exaggeration. As a painted vase, this four-handled krater is\npeculiar to Lucania, and it is interesting to note that it sometimes\nappears depicted on Lucanian vases as used in daily life.[583]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 41. PSYKTER.]\n\nClosely related to the krater is the \u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 or \u03c8\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, a wine-cooler\n(from \u03c8\u03cd\u03c7\u03c9, \u201ccool\u201d), which was used for cooling wine by means of snow\nor cold water.[584] The extant specimens are but few in number and vary\nin form. The British Museum possesses a very remarkable specimen in the\nform of a B.F. panel amphora (B 148),[585] with double walls and\nbottom, and a large spout on one side, through which the snow or cold\nwater was introduced into the outer space; it was afterwards withdrawn\nthrough an aperture in the bottom.[586] Similar vases in the\n\u201cChalcidian\u201d style are also known. After the beginning of the R.F.\nperiod a new type was introduced in the shape of a vessel with a short\nneck, the body of which bulges out towards its base, and is supported\non a high stem; it generally has two small eared handles (Fig. 41).\nSeveral R.F. examples are known, of which two are in the British\nMuseum,[587] and three or four in the Louvre; the British Museum also\npossesses a late B.F. specimen (B 299). The designs are painted in a\nfrieze round the vase.\n\nThe \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, or vessel for holding unmixed wine, seems to have been\nanother name for the \u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1; Pollux (vi. 90) says the difference was\nthat it was supported on small knobs (_lit._ small knucklebones)\ninstead of a stem.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 42. DEINOS OR LEBES.]\n\nAnother name identified in antiquity with the \u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 is that of the\n\u03b4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (sometimes spelled \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2); but the identity was more probably\none of usage than of form.[588] As to the latter, there is considerable\ndiscrepancy in the accounts of the grammarians[589]; one calls it a\ndeep cup tapering down to a point; another, probably more correctly,\nsince it was certainly not a drinking-vessel, a clay vessel for wine\nwithout a base, but rounded underneath. In virtue of this description\nthe name has usually been applied to a class of vase, commoner in the\nearlier periods than the later, and more often found on Greek sites\nthan on Italian, which has a rounded base without foot, and no handles\n(Fig. 42). These vases are found as early as the seventh century in\nGreece, and were very common at Naukratis, appearing also in most of\nthe B.F. fabrics. That they were used to contain the ashes of the dead\nis shown by the B.M. example already referred to (p. 146), which\nbelongs to the end of the R.F. period.[590] In Southern Italy this form\nof vase is generally placed on a separate high moulded stem, and has a\ncover with an ornamental knob. A variety with hemispherical cover\nnearly equal in size to the vase itself has been identified with the\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (\u201ccut in half\u201d), a form mentioned by Athenaeus.[591]\n\nThis type of vase has more usually been described by the name of \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2,\ndenoting a kettle or caldron; but though the form of the \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 was\npractically the same (as we may gather from the fact of its always\nbeing placed on a tripod), the purpose for which it was used (_i.e._\nfor boiling water) and the fact that it was always of metal, suggest\nthat it is not such an appropriate name as \u03b4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 for this form of\npainted vase. The \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 is constantly mentioned in Homer, both as a\ncooking-vessel and as a washing-basin.[592] Herodotos[593] says that\nthe Scythians used a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 for cooking flesh, which resembled the\nLesbian krater, but was much larger. It was also the vessel in which\nthe ram, and subsequently Pelias, were boiled by Medeia; and may be\nseen depicted in several B.F. representations of that story.[594] A\ngolden lebes was placed at each angle of the temple of Zeus at\nOlympia.[595] It is also the name of the vessel used by the Boeotians\nin their ingenious contrivance at the siege of Delion.[596] To its use\nas a cinerary urn in the tragic poets we have already alluded.\n\nThe ordinary name for a cooking-vessel of earthenware in Greece was\n\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, answering to our \u201cpot\u201d: it was used both for water and for\nsolids, as well as for other domestic purposes. Children were exposed\nin \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9[597]; and a boy\u2019s game called \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1 is described by\nPollux[598]; it was apparently played in two ways, either by a boy\nrepresenting a \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, who was pulled about by the other players until\nhe caught one, or by a boy carrying a pot, with some obscure reference\nto the story of Midas. There were several proverbial expressions\nconnected with the \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, such as \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u201cto paint pots,\u201d\nexpressive of useless labour, owing to the roughness of the ware; and\ntogether with the \u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, a vessel only known as a measure (12 kotylae or\n5\u00be pints), it played a part in the festival of the Anthesteria, one day\nof which was known as \u03a7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a7\u03cc\u03b5\u03c2, or \u201cPot-and-Pan Day.\u201d[599] The\nword \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, used by Hesiod[600] and Aristophanes,[601] seems merely\nto denote a cooking-pot with feet. The \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 or \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 large clay\nvessels used either as brasiers or for baking purposes, have been\nalready described in Chapter III.\n\nA few other general words for cooking-vessels and domestic utensils may\nalso be mentioned here. The \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 mentioned by Pollux[602] is\npresumably identical with the \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03b1 of Athenaeus (475\nD, 783 F), the former, as its name implies, being a vessel in which hot\ndrinks were prepared. It seems to have been exclusively made of metal,\nand may, indeed, only be another name for the \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2. It has, as we have\nseen, been identified with the \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7. Pollux gives a list of vessels\nused for warming water.[603]\n\nThe \u1f21\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, or strainer,[604] answers to the modern colander, and is\nrepresented by a flat round vessel with long handle, of which some late\nfictile examples exist.[605] It is mentioned among the vessels in the\nSigeian inscription,[606] but is there spelled \u1f21\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. Most of the\nexisting specimens are of bronze. The \u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd mentioned by\nAthenaeus[607] appears to have been a bowl used for washing cups. The\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7 (\u201cboat\u201d) is a general term used in the classics for vessels of\nvaried import: basins, troughs, washing-tubs, bowls, etc.[608] It is\nthe name used in inscriptions relating to the Panathenaic festival to\ndescribe the flat dishes or trays borne by the maidens who were called\nSkaphephori in the procession, as represented on the Parthenon\nfrieze.[609] The diminutive form \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd also occurs, and\nis identified with \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03bd. The \u1f45\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, generally used to denote a\nmortar,[610] also signified a bowl,[611] and had the special\nsignification of the hollow bowl in which the priestess of Apollo sat\nwhen delivering oracles from the Delphic tripod. It may here be noted\nthat the word \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 appears to be used in ancient writers[612] not\nonly for the stand which supported the \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 and other vessels, but for\na vessel itself when thus supported on three feet. Most of the existing\ntripods are made of bronze,[613] but one or two fictile examples are\nknown, including a very remarkable one in Berlin,[614] found at\nTanagra, and covered with archaic paintings in the B.F. method.\n\nOn bathing and washing vessels our best authority is Pollux (x. 63); it\nis not, however, likely that they were often of earthenware. The\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 at all events was of metal; it is often seen on R.F. vases\nwith the subject of Theseus killing Procrustes.[615] Large vessels,\nresembling modern baths, were known by the names of \u03c0\u03cd\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2: and\n\u1f00\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2[616]; the \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, or laver, on a high stem, is frequently\nrepresented on South Italian vases,[617] but is a purely decorative\nadjunct. It is there painted white to indicate marble.\n\nThe \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7[618] should also perhaps be included here, as according to\nthe literary accounts it was a basin used for washing feet or clothes,\nor for vomiting. It also served the purpose of a mortar, and was used\nin the game of kottabos. A method of divination sometimes practised was\nknown as \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 and consisted in placing waxen images in a\nlekane full of water, which became as it were animated and sank, thus\nsignifying the destruction of an enemy. In Pseudo-Callisthenes we read\nhow Nectanebos, the supposed father of Alexander, made use of this\nprocedure.[619]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 43. OINOCHO\u00cb (7TH CENTURY).]\n\nThe next series with which we have to deal is that of vases used for\npouring out wine and serving it at the table. They fall into two\nclasses: the wine-jug for pouring, and the ladle for filling it out of\nthe mixing-bowl. We begin with the series of wine-jugs, as being the\nmore important.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 44. OINOCHO\u00cb (5TH CENTURY).]\n\nOf these the most conspicuous is the =Oinocho\u00eb= (\u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7, from \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cwine,\u201d and \u03c7\u03ad\u03c9, \u201cpour\u201d), one of the most beautiful shapes among Greek\nvases. It appears in several forms, but the name is generally\nrestricted to one, which corresponds most closely to the modern\nbeer-jug. It is found at all periods, and the form never varies to any\nmarked extent, except that the later examples are rather more graceful\nthan the earlier, and some of the fine R.F. specimens reach the\nperfection of elegance in form and decoration (Fig. 44). Its chief\ncharacteristic is the trefoil-shaped mouth, but this is not invariable,\nmany specimens having a plain circular lip. It is very commonly found\nin the Rhodian wares of the seventh century, with designs in a\ncontinuous frieze (Fig. 43); and a peculiar form appears in an Ionic\nfabric (see page 359), with egg-shaped body and coarse designs. In the\nB.F. period the subjects are nearly always in framed panels. Among the\nR.F. vases of the fine style, many diminutive oinochoae occur, nearly\nall of which were found at Athens, the subjects being those of children\nplaying with go-carts and other toys, and sometimes with jugs of the\nsame shape. As these appear to have been found in children\u2019s tombs, it\nis evident that these painted specimens were actually used as\nplaythings.[620]\n\nThe oinocho\u00eb is frequently represented in vase-paintings, chiefly in\nscenes of libation, in which ceremony it was invariably used for\npouring wine into the phiale or _patera_, from which the libation was\nmade. It occurs on the Parthenon frieze. In conjunction with the\nkrater, or mixing-bowl, it is seen on a \u201cCyrenaic\u201d kylix in the B.M. (B\n3), in a scene representing a sacrifice. In reference to this may be\nquoted a curious injunction given by Hesiod (_Op. et Di._ 744),\n\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f54\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n\nwhich seems to imply that it was considered an unlucky thing to put the\njug back in its place on the edge of the krater during a banquet.[621]\nThucydides[622] speaks of silver oinochoae in the temple at Eryx, in\nconjunction with libation-bowls and incense-burners, and Athenaeus[623]\nmentions similar offerings at Metapontum.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 45. PROCHO\u00d6S.]\n\nA variety of the oinocho\u00eb, which is not found before the middle of the\nR.F. period, but becomes very popular in Apulia, has a very high curved\nhandle and tall stem, the body tapering straighter downwards (Fig. 45).\nThis is usually known as the \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2, and corresponds in form to our\nclaret-decanter. The \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 served the same purpose as the \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7,\nand is frequently mentioned in Homer. It was used not only for pouring\nwine, but for water to wash the hands of guests.[624]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 46. OLPE.]\n\nA third form, usually known as the \u1f44\u03bb\u03c0\u03b7 (Fig. 46), is almost\ncylindrical in shape, with plain or trefoil lip and no marked neck; it\nis more usually found in the B.F. period. In early B.F. wares the\nsubjects on the olpae are usually painted on the _side_, adjoining the\nhandle on the right[625]; they are always in panels. The word is\nmentioned by Sappho and Ion of Chios.[626]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 47. EPICHYSIS.]\n\nLastly, we have a curious form, only found in Apulia, and belonging to\nthe extreme decadence of vase-painting (Fig. 47), which has a flat\ncylindrical body like a round toilet-box (see Pyxis, p. 198) with\nmoulded edges. This is surmounted by a long narrow neck and beak-like\nsemi-cylindrical mouth[627]; and the whole effect is awkward and\ninartistic. The name \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c7\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, derived from the list given by\nPollux,[628] is generally given to this form.\n\nFor the ladle used for drawing wine out of the krater to fill the\noinocho\u00eb the ordinary name was \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (Lat. _simpulum_). This word also\ncommonly denoted a measure of about one gill. Among the painted vases\nit is represented by a rare but particularly graceful shape, the body\nfashioned like a straight-sided bowl, with a high looped handle (Fig.\n48). In the early B.F. examples a high stem is added. This shape is not\nfound in the later R.F. period or in Southern Italy. The long handle is\nobviously for convenience in dipping.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 48. KYATHOS.]\n\nA series of names, all of which are derivatives from the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9,\n\u201cdraw\u201d (used only of drawing water), appear to represent ladles of\nvarious forms and uses. Herodotos[629] mentions the word \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, and\nthe forms \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c2, are also found.[630] The\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 appears to have been a bronze ladle, used in the baths for\ncollecting oil, and for filling lamps.[631] The \u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c2\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, on the other\nhand, was a wine-ladle, also known as an \u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2; it appears to have\nbeen used in voting in the law-courts.[632] Another word used by\nAristophanes is \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2[633]; two parallels to which are the\n\u1f10\u03c4\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u03b6\u03c9\u03bc\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of the same author[634] and other comic\nwriters, both words meaning \u201csoup-ladle.\u201d It is doubtful if any of\nthese words were in use for fictile utensils.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next branch of the subject is concerned with the various forms of\n=Drinking-cups= in use among the Greeks. In these the potters may\nperhaps be said to have attained their highest excellence, not only in\nregard to beauty and grace of form, but also, so far as concerns one\nvariety at any rate\u2014the R.F. Athenian kylix\u2014in regard to the\ndecoration. The _locus classicus_ on the subject is the eleventh book\nof Athenaeus, to which frequent reference has already been made[635];\nbut there are of course frequent references to these cups in Homer and\nother poets. Athenaeus devotes a discourse by one of his \u201cDoctors at\nDinner\u201d entirely to this subject, the different names being discussed\nin alphabetical order. Many of them are, as will be seen, only\nalternatives names or nicknames for well-known shapes, while others\nincluded in his description are certainly not drinking-cups at all. It\nmust also be borne in mind that many of the names are purely generic,\nlike the Latin _poculum_, and are not intended to connote any special\nform; this is particularly the case in the descriptions of Homer,\nwhere, indeed, we should not look for scientific accuracy.\n\nThe ordinary word for a drinking-cup was \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f14\u03ba\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, but\nneither is known to Homer[636]; the terms he uses are \u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f04\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd,\nand \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, the first being further defined as \u1f00\u03b1\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd. The\nword \u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd[637] may be once for all briefly dismissed; it was so\ncalled from \u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2 (ivy), probably as being ornamented with ivy-foliage\nin relief, and was made of wood. It is seldom that Homer\u2019s descriptions\ngive any details as to form, and where they do they are difficult to\ninterpret aright. Athenaeus devotes a lengthy section of his discourse\nto the explanation of the famous cup (\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2) of Nestor,[638] which he\nnames \u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c2 (cf. p. 172), but arrives at no definite conclusion. It\nhas already been pointed out that a hint at its form seems to be given\nby the gold and silver cups found in Mycenaean tombs, at Mycenae, and\nEnkomi in Cyprus, although it need not be assumed that these are the\nproducts of the civilisation which Homer describes; he may, however, be\nspeaking of traditional forms. Another instance of the \u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 in legend,\nis in the story of Herakles crossing the ocean in the golden \u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 of\nthe Sun.[639]\n\nAmong the names of drinking-cups given by Athenaeus, the following may\nbe taken as used in a purely general sense, without any idea of a\nparticular form.\n\n\u1f0c\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\u2014A cup from which it is possible to drink at one draught (cf.\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7, p. 169).\n\n\u0391\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\u2014A two-handled cup (see under Skyphos, p. 186).\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03cd\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2.\u2014A cup named after King Antigonos.\n\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c2.\u2014A cup of metal (not necessarily silver). Pollux also gives the\nword \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c2.\n\n\u1f0c\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014A Cypriote name for a cup (\u201cwithout handles,\u201d from \u03b1 and \u03bf\u1f54\u03c2).\n\n\u0392\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c2.\u2014An Alexandrine variety, of glass or clay.\n\n\u0392\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1.\u2014Also an Alexandrine form, widening out below.\n\n\u0393\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2.\u2014A Megarian name (the form of the word is Doric).\n\n\u0394\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014An uncertain form, variously explained.\n\n\u0394\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014A bye-form of \u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, in use at Kleitor in Arcadia.\n\n\u1f18\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014Also known as \u1f08\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. See under Rhyton (p. 193).\n\n\u1f1c\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\u2014The significance of these names is not obvious,\nbut see p. 179 for the former.\n\n\u1f29\u03b4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03c2.\u2014A Rhodian name (cf. Pollux, vi. 96). Said to have been made\nby the Rhodians in competition with the Athenian \u0398\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 (see below,\np. 189). They were of light make, and not, like the Thericleian cups,\nfor the exclusive use of the rich.\n\n\u1f28\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014Apparently an Egyptian name.\n\n\u1f29\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014An Athenian cup, probably hemispherical (but see above, p.\n174).\n\n\u1f3c\u03c3\u03b8\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014A Cypriote term.\n\n\u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7.\u2014See under Krater (p. 169).\n\n\u039a\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5.\u2014An Asiatic name. Menander describes it as holding ten kotylae,\nor about five pints.\n\n\u039a\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014Polemon mentions silver specimens in the temple\nof Hera and treasury of the Byzantines at Olympia.\n\n\u039a\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014It is doubtful if this word denotes a cup, as it is\ncatalogued with the \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u039b\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1.\u2014A Persian cup, named from \u201cgreedy\u201d drinking (\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd).\n\n\u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1.\u2014A cup made of Laconian clay.\n\n\u039b\u03ad\u03c3\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u039c\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\u2014A cup or bowl placed on the top of the kottabos-stand, and used\nin the game of kottabos to receive the drops of wine thrown from the\nkylix (_q.v._)\n\n\u039c\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7.\n\n\u1f4c\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1.\u2014A name given to the wine-cup dedicated to Herakles by the\nephebi at the time of entry into that rank.\n\n\u1f4c\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03be.\u2014A wooden cup.\n\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014Probably a variety of the Skyphos (_q.v._).\n\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b7.\u2014See under Amphora (p. 163). A generally disputed form.\n\n\u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014A wide flat cup (from \u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9, \u201cspread\u201d).\n\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\u2014Named from the king of Bithynia.\n\n\u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2.\u2014Called a cup by Athenaeus, but more probably to be identified\nwith the \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2 (p. 178).\n\n\u1fec\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd or \u1fec\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\u2014Probably a variant of \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd. It is described as taking\nthe form of a Gryphon or Pegasos, both of which occur in rhyta (p. 193).\n\n\u03a3\u03b1\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03b1.\u2014A Persian cup.\n\n\u03a3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03af\u03c2.\u2014A cup named after King Seleukos.\n\n\u03a4\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.\u2014A wooden cup.\n\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014Probably a kind of rhyton (p. 193).\n\n\u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03cd\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2.\u2014See p. 186, under \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\u1f59\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\n\n\u03a7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014Probably named from the Thracian Chalkidike.\n\n\u03a7\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014A bronze cup (perhaps a kind of kylix).\n\n\u1fa8\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2.\u2014A cup associated with the singing of \u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n\u1fa8\u03cc\u03bd.\u2014An egg-shaped cup.\n\n\u1fa8\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014A double cup, apparently like an egg standing in an egg-cup.\n\nPollux also mentions the names \u0392\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd and \u039a\u03b1\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd; and Athenaeus\ndescribes a \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, or cup ornamented with letters (in\nrelief), probably a late Hellenistic type.\n\nWe now come to the names which can be identified with existing vases,\nor are described with some indication of their form.\n\nA name which constantly occurs in two forms is the \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 or \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\nThe distinction appears to be that the former had no handles, but the\nlatter one,[640] but otherwise the form was probably much the same,\nbeing that of a deep cup; it is also probable that it was sometimes\nused like the \u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, as a ladle for drawing out wine, as well as for\ndrinking. The word \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 is found as early as Homer,[641] used\nmetaphorically for the hollow where the thigh-bone joins the hip; in\nits proper meaning as a cup, it occurs in the familiar proverb[642]\nwhich has been adopted into our language:\n\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u1f7a \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u201cThere\u2019s many a slip \u2019twixt the cup and the lip.\u201d\n\nAs a measure it was equivalent to six kyathi, or roughly half a pint,\nas already shown (p. 135). The \u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd there discussed is, however,\na one-handled cup, and therefore to be called a \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 rather than a\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7. The latter is a word constantly found in Greek literature from\nHomer downwards, as in the passage where Andromache describes the\nimpending fate of her orphan child, to whom a pitying patron will hold\nout a cup, merely to taste, not to drain.[643]\n\nFrom Athenaeus we learn that the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 was like a deep\nwashing-basin (\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd), and that it was associated with Dionysos.\nEratosthenes[644] calls it the most beautiful and the best for\ndrinking of all cups. The diminutive form \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 occurs in\nconnection with the \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2], discussed below (p. 195), which had many\nof these little cups attached to it. It has been customary to apply\nthe name \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 to a class of vase found at all periods, with flat\nbase, slightly curved sides, and two flat handles level with the rim\n(Fig. 49); it sometimes attains a considerable size for a\ndrinking-cup, and is usually decorated with one or two figures each\nside. A notable exception is the beautiful vase in the British Museum\n(Plate LI.), signed by Hieron, with its frieze of figures all round.\nThis identification is of course at variance with Athenaeus'\nstatement that the kotyle has no handle; but no other satisfactory\nname has been found for the form.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 49. KOTYLE.]\n\nClosely connected, it would seem, with the \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 is the cup known as\nthe \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, to which there are frequent references in the\npoets and elsewhere but not in Aristophanes. Homer[645] describes it as\na rustic sort of bowl, which held milk; Simonides applies to it the\nepithet \u03bf\u1f50\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, or \u201chandled.\u201d Athenaeus connects the word with\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03c2, a round wooden vessel which held milk or whey, and this seems\nto accord with the mention of it in Homer. It was always specially\nassociated with Herakles,[646] who was said to have used it on his\nexpeditions; hence certain varieties were known as \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af,\nbut it is more probable that this word refers to Heraklea Trachinia in\nNorthern Greece. Besides the Herakleotic, Athenaeus mentions specially\nBoeotian, Rhodian, and Syracusan skyphi. The ordinary shape of the vase\nmay be inferred from the form of that which Herakles is often depicted\nholding on the monuments[647]; it is of the same type as the \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7,\nbut the body tapers below and has a higher foot, while the handles are\nplaced lower down and bent upwards. Among the late black-glazed wares\nwith opaque paintings (p. 488) some examples occur of cups with handles\ntwisted in a kind of knot, and it has been suggested that these\nrepresent the \u201cHeraklean knot\u201d described by Athenaeus[648] as to be\nseen on the handles of these: \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af.\n\nThe word is also frequently used by Roman authors, and there is a\nparticularly interesting passage in Suetonius (cf. p. 134) alluding to\nthe _Homerici scyphi_ adorned with chased designs from the Homeric\npoems[649] which Nero possessed; these were, of course, metal bowls\nwith reliefs,[650] but they have their fictile counterparts in the\nso-called Megarian bowls (p. 499).\n\nAthenaeus[651] quotes from the philosopher Poseidonios a passage\nreferring to drinking-cups called \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac, which may be supposed to\nhave some connection with the Panathenaic festival, and attempts have\nbeen made to identify them with a class of skyphi or kotylae of the\nR.F. period, the invariable subject on which is an owl between two\nolive-branches (p. 410).[652] There is no doubt some reference to the\nAthenian goddess, but it is more likely that they represent some kind\nof official measure (see above, p. 135).\n\nIt will be noted that the \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 appears to have been originally a\nwooden vessel used as a milking-pail, and it is further identified in\nTheocritus with the wooden \u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, to which we have already alluded.\nTwo other words are given by Athenaeus to denote large wooden bowls of\nthe type of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, namely the \u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 and the \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1[653] both used\nas milking-pails. They were not strictly speaking drinking-cups. Among\nexisting Greek vases this form, viz. a deep straight-sided bowl, such\nas a carved wooden vessel would naturally take, seems to be best\nrepresented by the examples discovered on the site of the Cabeiric\ntemple at Thebes, which are of this shape and of considerable size (see\nFig. 98, p. 392).[654]\n\nThe \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 is described by Athenaeus[655] as a cup resembling the\ntaller skyphi, and the \u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd[656] (whence the ecclesiastical Latin\n_ciborium_[657]) was also a kind of skyphos. The name \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 should\nalso be included here, from the likeness of the cup to the skyphos. Its\ncharacteristic is that it has no foot but only a small knob, and\ntherefore exactly resembles a woman\u2019s breast with the nipple, whence\nits name. In Greek pottery the only known painted examples are of the\nB.F. period,[658] and these are usually modelled and painted with great\ncare and delicacy. The so-called Megarian bowls (see p. 499) should\nalso be included under this heading, in reference to which it has been\npointed out that \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af of metal were dedicated in temples at Oropos in\nBoeotia and at Paphos.[659]\n\nAnother form of cup, of which Athenaeus has much to say, is the\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd[660] (other forms being \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b7 and \u03ba\u03cd\u03b2\u03b2\u03b1), which was supposed to\nrepresent the \u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Homer. He describes it as small and deep,\nwithout foot or handles. On the other hand, the word also means \u201ca\nboat,\u201d and we further find the words \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 cited by\nAthenaeus[661] as names of cups, the former being expressly called \u201ca\nboat-shaped cup.\u201d This has the support of the author Didymos (quoted by\nAthenaeus, 481 F) who says the \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd was a long narrow cup like a\nship.[662] A possible instance of it is a long askos-shaped vessel in\nthe British Museum,[663] on which is incised [\u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0399\u039d\u0395 \u039c\u0397 \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0398\u0397\u03a3],\n\u201cDrink, do not lay me down\u201d; but it is not of a form adapted for\ndrinking. The question must therefore remain undecided. Ussing thinks\nthat \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd was originally a cup-name, and that the other meaning is\nderived from it; but, on the other hand, \u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 are merely\nnicknames as applied to cups.\n\nThe \u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd is a cup which cannot now be identified, but is often\nreferred to by ancient authors.[664] It seems to have been a Spartan\nname for a soldier\u2019s cup, used for drinking-water, and was adapted by\nits recurved mouth for straining off mud.[665] It has been conjectured\nto have been the name for the shape we have above described as a\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7, but on no good grounds; Pollux (vii. 162) wrongly classifies it\nwith the \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and amphora, but it was undoubtedly a cup, as indeed he\nimplies elsewhere (vi. 97). Usually of clay, it is sometimes described\nas of bronze,[666] and Aristophanes applies to it the epithet\n\u03c6\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2,[667] which suggests a bright metallic surface. Hesychius and\nSuidas describe it as having one handle. From the \u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd was derived the\nword \u03ba\u03c9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u201cto drink hard.\u201d[668]\n\nThe \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 was a cup so called because of a fancied resemblance to an\ninverted beetle.[669] It was specially associated with Dionysos,[670]\nand from this fact its form has been identified with certainty from the\ntwo-handled drinking-cup which he is so often depicted holding,\nespecially on B.F. vases. It is a very beautiful though for some reason\nnever a very popular shape in pottery, and is found at all\nperiods.[671] In form it may be described as a deep straight-sided cup\non a high stem, with loop-shaped handles starting from the rim each\nside and coming down to the lower edge of the body (Fig. 50). Probably\nit was considered a difficult shape to produce in pottery, and was\ncommoner in metal examples.\n\nAt all events the \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a similar kind of cup, seems to have been\nconsistently made of metal. Athenaeus[672] describes it with more than\nusual detail as tall, moderately contracted in the middle, with handles\nreaching to the bottom (_i.e._ of the bowl). The form is to be\nrecognised on the monuments (if not in actual examples[673]) as a\nvariation of the \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 in which the body has a sort of \u201cwaist,\u201d\nbulging out again below. Virgil mentions _carchesia_,[674] and silver\nspecimens were among the dedications in the Parthenon at Athens.[675]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 50. KANTHAROS.]\n\nOf all the ancient forms of drinking-cup, the most celebrated and in\nsome respects also the most beautiful, was the =Kylix= \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be, Lat.\n_calix_),[676] a two-handled cup of varying size, with large bowl on a\nhigh stem. The shape of this vase shows a continuous development, as\ndoes also its decorative treatment, from the most primitive times down\nto the end of Greek vase-painting. It was moreover the form which the\ngreat artists of the early part of the fifth century selected as the\nmedium of their finest efforts. The kylix played an important part at\nthe banquet, being not only one of the commonest forms of drinking-cup\nin use, but as being also used in the game of kottabos (see Chapter\nXV.). In the banqueting-scenes which are so popular a subject on the\nR.F. kylikes of the best period, the guests are often represented\ntwirling vases of this shape on one finger crooked through the handle;\nthis being the manner in which they discharged the drops of wine at the\nmark. Hence the kylix was also known as \u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 or \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03c2. When not in\nuse the kylix was hung on a peg on the wall, as it is sometimes\ndepicted on R.F. vases.[677]\n\nAthenaeus[678] cites the Athenian and Argive kylikes as being of\nspecial repute; the latter are described by Simonides as \u03c6\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, a\nword of doubtful meaning.[679] In the former\u2019s own city of Naukratis a\nspecial kind of kylix[680] was made by hand (not on the wheel), with\nfour handles and a very flat base, and this was dipped in a solution of\nsilver to give it a metallic appearance.[681] Lacedaemonian, Chian, and\nTeian kylikes are also mentioned (the last-named by Alcaeus: see p.\n64). But the most famous variety was the Thericleian, so named from\nTherikles, a Corinthian potter contemporary with Aristophanes. These\ncups were chiefly made at Athens; they are frequently mentioned by\nMiddle and New Comedy writers, and are described by Athenaeus[682] as\ndepressed round the sides, deep, with short handles. They were imitated\nin wood or glass, and gilded, and Athenaeus mentions that the Rhodians\nmade \u1f21\u03b4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 (see above) in emulation of them.[683]\n\nBesides the various diminutive forms of \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be, such as \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 (see\nabove, p. 133), \u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b7, etc.,[684] there is a long list of synonyms\nfor this form, about most of which, however, there is nothing to say\nexcept that they are probably mere nicknames. Athenaeus gives the\nfollowing: \u039a\u03bf\u03bd\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03c2; also \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, from its use after\nthe washing of the hands, _i.e._ at the end of the meal; \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2,\nnamed from a king of Bithynia; and \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, corresponding to our\n\u201cloving-cup.\u201d[685]\n\nIn the history of Greek vase-painting the kylix is a shape known and\npopular at all periods, from the Mycenaean Age down to the end of the\nfifth century; in the fabrics of Southern Italy it but seldom occurs.\nThe Mycenaean form is peculiarly graceful, with its tall stem and\nswelling bowl; it is generally decorated with a cuttle-fish, a motive\nwell suited to its outlines (see Plate XV.).\n\nDuring the archaic period of Greek vases a steady development can be\ntraced, both in form and methods of decoration, until the outburst of\nthe R.F. style. The early Corinthian specimens (cf. p. 313) are\nsomewhat cumbrous, with very low stem, shallow bowl with heavy\noverhanging lip and small handles; in strong contrast thereto are the\nCyrenaic cups (p. 341 ff.), which are in execution quite in advance of\ntheir time (first half of sixth century); their graceful, delicate\nforms are evidently imitated from metal. These early cups are as a rule\ncovered with a cream-coloured or buff slip and decorated all over, and\nthe interior designs, which cover the whole or almost the whole of the\ninside, are a marked feature of these types.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 51. KYLIX (EARLIER FORM).]\n\nTurning to the Attic fabrics we find that in the beginning of the sixth\ncentury the prevalent form (evolved from the Corinthian type) has a\nhigh stem and deep bowl with off-set lip, the decoration being confined\nto the upper band of the exterior, in the form of a frieze (Fig. 51).\nThis type is also illustrated by a small Rhodian group in the British\nMuseum,[686] which, however, has elaborate interior designs. In the\nnext stage, represented by the Minor Artists (see p. 379 ff.), the form\nremains the same, but the manner of decoration is different, interior\ndesigns again appearing; often the design is confined to a narrow band,\nthe rest of the exterior being coloured black. Lastly, towards the end\nof the fifth century, an entirely new form is introduced, in which the\nbreak in the outline disappears and the bowl becomes flatter, with a\ngracefully-curved convex outline, while the stem is shortened (Fig.\n52). This form is the one adopted throughout the R.F. period, with few\nexceptions, and it is possible that it was actually invented by the\nearliest R.F. artists, such as Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, though it is\nalso employed by Exekias.[687] The methods of decoration cannot however\nbe treated of here.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 52. KYLIX (LATER FORM).]\n\nAn extremely delicate form of kylix is used by the potter Sotades\n(Chapter X.), with handles in imitation of a bird\u2019s merrythought.\nTowards the end of the fifth century the shape changes somewhat, the\nstem disappearing and the bowl becoming deeper. In Southern Italy the\nkylix-form is only represented by gigantic shallow bowls, with small\nstout handles attached to the rim, probably intended for hanging\nagainst the wall. The Naucratite kylikes mentioned above seem to have\nbeen made somewhat after this pattern; it was at any rate typical of\nHellenistic taste.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 53. PHIALE.]\n\nThe word \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7[688] (Lat. _patera_) bore in Greek a very different\nmeaning from that suggested by the modern word _phial_. It was in fact\na shallow bowl shaped like a saucer, and had no handle, but in place of\none a boss (\u1f44\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) in the centre, which was hollowed out underneath\nin order to admit of the insertion of a thumb or finger (Fig. 53).\nHence it was generally styled \u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 or \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2.[689] As a\nvase-form it is not of frequent occurrence, and was probably more\nfrequently made in metal, especially in the Hellenistic period. Those\ndepicted on painted vases are usually indicated as having ribbed or\nfluted exteriors, which can only denote metal (cf. Vol. II. Fig. 132).\nAbout the third or second century B.C. imitations of metal phialae in\nterracotta, with moulded interior designs, are of common occurrence.\nBeing signed by potters residing at Cales, they are usually known as\n\u201cCalene phialae.\u201d There are two in the British Museum,[690] which are\nan exact reproduction of silver specimens in the same collection.\n\nHomer uses the word in two senses: (1) as equivalent to a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2, as if\nused for boiling water[691]; (2) as a cinerary urn.[692] Obviously in\nboth these cases the significance of this particular word must not be\npressed. Later, however, we find very frequent mention of the phiale in\nclassical authors, such as Herodotos, Pindar, and Plato, in all cases\nwith the same restricted significance, that of a vessel used in making\nlibations. On the R.F. vases it appears in countless examples, used in\nthis manner, especially by Nike. Aristotle, by way of illustrating the\ninversion of a simile, says \u201cYou may call the shield the phiale of\nAres, or the phiale the shield of Dionysos,\u201d no doubt with reference to\nits buckler-like shape.[693] Athenaeus (xi. 462 D) quotes a passage\nfrom Xenophanes which implies its use for holding perfumes at banquets.\n\nMany words occur as synonyms of \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7, such as the \u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f04\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03c2, \u03b2\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7.[694] The last-named\nword has been suggested above (p. 165) for a kind of large covered dish\nor bowl, but we can only ascertain that it was a drinking-vessel of\nsome kind, resembling a large kylix.[695]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 54. Rhyton.]\n\nThe \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, or drinking-horn (from \u1fe5\u03ad\u03c9, \u201cflow\u201d), is a familiar shape in\nthe R.F. and later styles, but as a vase-form does not occur before the\nmiddle of the fifth century.[696] Its peculiarities were: firstly, that\nit could not be set down without drinking the contents; secondly, that\nthe narrow end was almost always modelled in the form of the head of\nsome animal, or of a woman or Satyr. Some examples are known in the\nform of two heads back to back, usually a Satyr and a Maenad, but these\nhaving a flat circular base are an exception to the first rule noted\nabove, and partake more of the nature of a cup than of a drinking-horn.\nAlthough no archaic examples have been preserved, the rhyton, or\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,[697] as it is also called, frequently appears on B.F. vases,\nbeing generally held by Satyrs or revellers, or by Dionysos.[698]\nAthenaeus says it was a form reserved for the use of heroes, and that\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 was the older name for it.[699] Among the South Italian vases, it\nis found almost exclusively in Apulia, and these belong to the\ndecadence of the Apulian style, the paintings being limited to a figure\nof Eros, or a woman, and little more. These rhyta have one handle, and\nthe cup-part is generally cylindrical in form, tapering slightly\ntowards the lower part, where the head is attached (Fig. 54.). In some\ninstances the form is narrower and more elongated, with fluted body.\nThe animals\u2019 heads are usually left unvarnished, and coloured in detail\nlike the terracotta figures; the mouth often forms a spout from which\nthe liquid could be allowed to run out.[700] The heads, which occur in\ngreat variety, include the panther, fox, wolf, horse, goat, mule, deer,\nand dog[701]; also Gryphons and Pegasi (see below). Athenaeus mentions\na vase called the \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2,[702] which was doubtless a rhyton ending\nin two heads, a goat and a deer conjoined, like some known specimens;\nhe also quotes a description of another called \u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c2, explained as a\nrhyton with two spouts (\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).[703] Further, under the heading\n\u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, which is doubtless a synonym for \u1fe5\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, he mentions one in the\nform of a Gryphon, another in the form of a Pegasos.[704] The name is\nmentioned by Demosthenes, together with \u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03b1 and \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9.[705] It is\nworthy of mention that among the Mycenaean objects discovered at Enkomi\nin Cyprus, in 1896, and now in the British Museum, there are two or\nthree rhyta in porcelain, corresponding in form to those of the R.F.\nperiod, and of very advanced style[706]; they are in fact quite unique.\n\nA few comparatively unimportant names of vessels for holding food and\nliquids at the table may next be discussed.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 55. PINAX.]\n\nThe names given for dishes are \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03c2, and \u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, the\nlatter of which frequently occurs in Aristophanes, but \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03c2 seems to\nbe of late introduction, and more used by the Romans (see Chapter\nXXI.).[707] For a plate the usual name was \u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03be (also \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2), a form which is interesting as often occurring among\npainted vases (Fig. 55). It is found at all periods, from the fabrics\nof Rhodes and Naukratis down to the Apulian and Campanian\n\u201cfish-plates,\u201d which have a sinking in the centre, and are painted with\nfish, shell-fish, etc. They were no doubt used for eating fish, the\nsinking being for the sauce.[708] A famous early instance of the pinax\nis the \u201cEuphorbos-plate\u201d in the British Museum (see p. 335). The name\nis also given to the square plaques or tablets, such as those found at\nCorinth, on the Athenian Acropolis, and elsewhere, which were generally\nof a votive character. They are often depicted on the vases themselves,\nindicating the locality of a shrine.[709]\n\nVessels for holding vinegar or sauces were known by the names of\n\u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f40\u03be\u03af\u03c2, or \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.[710] The shapes are not exactly known, but\nthey were apparently small cups or dishes; the incorrect identification\nof the first-named with the \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1 we have already discussed (p. 171).\nThe words \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 and \u03ba\u03c5\u03c8\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03c2 are given by Pollux[711] as vases for\nholding sweets, and the \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd or \u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 was, as the name\nimplies, a box or receptacle for spices.[712] The last-named has been\nidentified with the \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, described by Athenaeus as \u201ca round vessel,\nhaving attached several little kotylae (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2).\u201d[713] Two\nexisting forms correspond in some degree to this description: one found\nin Cyprus and at Corinth, and consisting of a hollow ring, to which\nsmall cups or jars are attached at intervals; the other found chiefly\nin Melos, and consisting of a central stand, round which are grouped a\nvarying number of alabastron-like vases, evidently designed for holding\nsmall quantities of unguents or perfumes, or perhaps flowers, eggs, or\nother objects. They are all of very early date, and decorated in\nprimitive fashion.[714] A better form of the word seems to be \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\nMany have been found at Eleusis,[715] and it is supposed that they were\nused in the Mysteries for carrying the first-fruits.[716]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 56. LEKYTHOS.]\n\nSeveral kinds of vases were used for holding oil, the characteristic of\nall these shapes being the narrow neck and small mouth, which were\nbetter adapted for pouring the liquid drop by drop. The ordinary Greek\nword for an oil-flask is \u03bb\u03cd\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, frequently found in Aristophanes and\nelsewhere. We have already referred (pp. 132, 143) to the passages in\nthe _Ecclesiazusae_ where the practice of placing lekythi on tombs, and\ngenerally of using them for funeral purposes, finds allusion. From\nthese passages it has been possible to identify the class of\nwhite-ground Athenian vases on which funeral subjects are painted, with\nabsolute certainty as =Lekythi=. But the shape is not confined to this\none class. In the early B.F. period (especially in Corinthian wares) it\nassumes a less elegant form, with cup-shaped mouth, short thick neck,\nand quasi-cylindrical body tapering slightly upwards (cf. the\nalabastron below). The later form, which prevails from the middle of\nthe B.F. period down to the end of the fourth century at Athens, with\nvery little variation of form, is one of the most beautiful types of\nGreek vases (Fig. 56). It has a long neck, to which the handle is\nattached, flat or almost concave shoulder, and cylindrical body,\nsemi-oval at the base. The B.F. examples are seldom found in Italy, and\nalmost all come from Athens and other Hellenic sites, or from Sicily, a\ncountry in which the form seems to have been exceptionally popular. The\nsame may be said of the ordinary R.F. examples, which have no\nsepulchral reference, and are found in large numbers at Gela\n(Terranuova) in Sicily, but seldom elsewhere. The white lekythi have\nbeen found in Eretria, and at Gela, and Locri in Southern Italy,\nbesides Athens. The lekythos seldom attains to any great size, except\nin the marble examples used as tombstones. They were probably used at\nthe bath and in the gymnasium, and may also have served other purposes,\n_e.g._ for pigments. In illustration of this reference may be made to\nthe well-known passage in Aristophanes\u2019 _Frogs_ (1200 ff.), where the\njeer of Aeschylos at Euripides\u2019 stereotyped beginnings of his plays,\n\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ce\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, seems to imply \u201che is hard up for something new to\nsay,\u201d _i.e._ \u201che has lost his paint-pot; his lines need embellishment.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 57. LEKYTHOS (LATER FORM).\n]\n\nTowards the end of the fifth century the lekythos takes a new departure\n(Fig. 57), and appears with a squat, almost spherical body, without\nfoot (except for the base-ring). This form is sometimes known as\n_aryballos_ (see below), but is perhaps more accurately described as a\n\u201cwide-bodied\u201d (Germ. _bauchige_) lekythos. It is very popular at Athens\nin the late fine or polychrome vases,[717] and was adopted exclusively\nin Southern Italy, where it is the only form of lekythos found. This\ntype of vase is often found in the period of the Decadence with a\nsubject moulded in relief attached to the front, sometimes of a comic\nnature.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 58. ALABASTRON.]\n\nThe _alabastron_ (\u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, both forms being found in\nClassical Greek) is a shape closely allied to the lekythos. It\npreserves the same form throughout the period of Greek vase-painting\n(Fig. 58.), but is not often found after the middle of the sixth\ncentury. In the early Corinthian wares it is very common. The name is\nderived from the material of which it was originally made, and many\nexamples of alabaster vases of this shape have been found in\nexcavations. It was chiefly used for holding oil, unguents, and\ncosmetics, and is often represented in scenes of ladies\u2019 toilet as in\nuse for these purposes. Its characteristics are a flat round top with\nsmall orifice, short neck, and more or less cylindrical body with\nrounded-off base, intended for placing in a stand (\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7).[718]\nIt is generally without handles, but when they occur they are in the\nform of two small ears, through which a cord was passed for carrying or\nsuspending it. The \u201calabaster box\u201d of the Gospels was a vessel of this\nform (cf. the original Greek), and it was broken by knocking off the\ntop, in order that the contents might flow out quickly. The name \u03b2\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\nis also given as a synonym of the \u1f00\u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.[719]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 59. ARYBALLOS.]\n\nAnother vase of the same type is that known as the \u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. The\nderivation of the word is unknown, but the first half connects it with\nthe \u201cladle\u201d class of vases (\u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, etc.), of which we have already\nspoken. It can, however, hardly be a vase of that type, and the\nconnection seems to be its use in the bath,[720] _i.e._ as an\noil-flask. It is generally described as resembling a purse;\nAthenaeus[721] says it is broader below than above, like a purse tied\nat the neck with a string. The name, however, is usually applied to a\nform of vase akin to the alabastron, but with small globular body,\nhandle, and very short neck (Fig. 59.). This type is almost confined to\nthe Corinthian and other early fabrics, and frequently occurs in glazed\nor enamelled ware (see p. 127). Its connection with the bath is\nundoubted, and it was generally carried on a string, together with a\nstrigil or flesh-scraper. As this form died out in the sixth century,\nthe name has been used, as noted above, for a later variety of the\nlekythos, in which the body approaches a globular form.\n\nTransitional between the alabastron and the aryballos is a type of\nwhich some examples occur among early Corinthian wares, with egg-shaped\nbody, flat round top, and small ear-like handle, the base being rounded\noff. To this the name \u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 has been tentatively given, on the\nauthority of Antisthenes, who defines the word as meaning a kind of\nlekythos with narrow neck.[722] In the same passage of Athenaeus[723]\nit is contrasted with the quickly-emptied \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 or bowl; those who\ndrink from it must do so drop by drop (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2). The name\nmay denote a cocoon, the shape of which this vase resembles, or may be\nimitative, from the gurgling sound made by a liquid poured therefrom.\nThe \u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd was also probably a kind of oil-flask.[724]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 60. PYXIS.]\n\nA few forms of vases were exclusively devoted to feminine use. These\ninclude the \u03c0\u03c5\u03be\u03af\u03c2, a cylindrical box with cover, in which jewellery or\nother objects such as hair-pins, cosmetics, etc., might be kept for use\nin the toilet (Fig. 60.). The painted examples of this form, which\nnearly all belong to the later R.F. period, are usually decorated with\nappropriate subjects, women at their toilet, preparations for weddings,\netc. The \u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7, or soap-box, served similar purposes.[725] It\nseems to be represented by a form of vase of which the British Museum\npossesses a specimen (without figure decoration), with cover and high\nstem, but no handle except the knob on the cover. It is intermediate in\nform between the pyxis and the so-called \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae (p. 165), and\nsometimes appears in toilet and other scenes.[726] A rare form, found\nalmost exclusively in the R.F. period,[727] consisting of a globular\nvase with vertical looped handles on a high stem, has been variously\nnamed, but the latest theory is that it represents a \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.[728] It contained lustral water, and is usually decorated with\nbridal scenes. One is depicted in a toilet scene on a pyxis in the\nBritish Museum.[729]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 61. EPINETRON OR ONOS.]\n\nLastly, a peculiar semi-cylindrical vessel, closed at one end and open\ndown the side (Fig. 61.), was for a long time a puzzle to\narchaeologists, but its use was finally determined by its appearance in\na vase-painting.[730] It is there held by a seated woman, fitted over\nher knee and thigh, and was used while spinning to pass the thread\nover. The name of these objects is given by Pollux (vii. 32) as\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd or \u1f44\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 (\u201cthe donkey\u201d). Several of them are painted with\nspinning scenes, and the vase-painting alluded to above is curiously\nenough on a vase of this form.\n\nThere is a type of vase, of which two or three varieties occur, which,\nfrom its general likeness to a wine-skin, is usually styled =Askos=. It\ndoes not, however, appear that there is any direct authority for this,\nat least in literary records; where the word does occur, it always\ndenotes a leather skin, such as is sometimes depicted on the vases,\ncarried by a Seilenos or Satyr. It is, however, a convenient\nexpression, and there is no other recorded term which can on any\ngrounds be associated with this type.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 62. ASKOS.]\n\nThe earliest examples, which date from the middle of the R.F. period,\nhave a flat round body with convex top, and a projecting spout (Fig.\n62); the handle is sometimes arched over the back to meet the spout, or\nelse takes a separate ring-like form.[731] They are usually decorated\nwith two small figures, one on each side. In the vases of Southern\nItaly a new form appears (Fig. 63), chiefly found in Apulia, in which\nthe resemblance to a wine-skin is much more apparent, the tied-up pairs\nof legs being represented by the spout or a projection. The handle is\nusually arched over the back, and the pouch-shaped body sometimes\nassumes an almost birdlike form.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 63. APULIAN ASKOS.]\n\nA variety which is also common in Southern Italy is made of plain black\nware, and is not painted but has a subject in relief in a medallion on\nthe top[732]; the handle is ring-shaped[733] and the form generally\nresembles the variety first described, except that the body is flat on\nthe top, and convex below, with a base-ring (Fig. 64). It seems\nprobable that these vases were used for holding oil for feeding lamps,\nand consequently they are generally known by the Latin name of\n_guttus_, or \u201clamp-feeder\u201d (see pp. 211, 503). Whether the painted aski\nwere used for the same purpose is doubtful; those, however, with the\nlarge body seem to have been intended for other purposes, especially as\nthey often have a strainer inserted in them. Some indeed appear to have\nbeen used as rattles, and still contain small balls or pebbles, placed\nwithin them for that purpose. On the whole, however, it seems more\nconvenient to reckon the \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03af with the oil-vases.[734]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 64. SO-CALLED \u201cGUTTUS.\u201d]\n\nAmong vases which do not exactly fall under the heading of any\nparticular shape may be noted certain types of moulded vases, and those\nwith reliefs modelled on them or attached. Many of these almost fall\nunder the category of terracotta figures, but still must be reckoned as\nvases, even when painted in the methods of terracottas rather than\npottery. Such are the large aski described on page 119, and the\ncontemporary ornamental vases modelled in the form of female heads, of\nMaenads, or of Athena (as B.M. G 1). Other types we have described\nelsewhere,[735] such as the rhyta ending in animals\u2019 heads, the\nkanthari and rhyta of the R.F. period in the form of human or Dionysiac\nheads, and the analogous vases of the archaic period. Again, there are\nsuch forms as the flasks with flat circular bodies, and the large\npyxides which are often found in Southern Italy.[736] They usually bear\na subject in relief, covered with a white slip and painted in pink and\nblue, like the Canosa vases; a specimen from Pompeii, with rich remains\nof colouring, has lately been acquired by the British Museum. The\ncurious type of vase sometimes found in Sicily, with a tall conical\ncover, the ornamentation being partly in encaustic, partly in gilded\nrelief, has been already mentioned.[737] There is also a late variety\nof the so-called kernos (p. 195), consisting of four cups united on an\nelaborate fluted stand, of which the British Museum possesses two good\nexamples.[738]\n\nIt should be borne in mind that all these exceptional shapes are\nprobably imitations of metal-work, perhaps made for the benefit of\nthose who could not afford the more expensive material, just as\nimitation jewellery was sometimes made in gilt terracotta. Throughout\nthe Hellenistic period (to which the classes we are discussing chiefly\nbelong), the universal tendency is to substitute metal vases for\npottery, and moulded or relief-wares for painted decoration, and the\npotter, finding the painted vases were no longer appreciated, was\nforced to confine himself to imitating metal, and thus keep abreast\nwith the new fashion. The whole subject of the plastic decoration of\nvases has been more fully dealt with elsewhere (Chapter XI.).\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n L. 64.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n \u201cAnd in earthenware baked in the fire, within the closure of figured\n urns, there came among the goodly folk of Hera the prize of the\n olive-fruit\u201d (Myers).\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n \u201cAnd he won five garlands in succession at the Panathenaic games,\n amphorae full of oil\u201d (Frag. 155, _ed._ Bergk = _Anth. P._ xiii. 19).\n See also Schol. _in_ Ar. _Nub._ 1005, and _Inscr. Gr._ (_Atticae_),\n ii. 965_b_.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n Cf. Schol. _in_ Plat. _Hipp. Min._ 368 C: \u039b\u03ae\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\n \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f08\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c9\u03bd \u1fa1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f15\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n \u201cAnd raise the great goblets, or if, Oikis, thou desirest aught else\n ... pour in and mix one and two full up to the brim, and let the one\n goblet oust the other.\u201d\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n _Graec. Ling. Dialect_, i. p. 247.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n viii. 381: see also p. 50.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n See p. 499.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n Suet. _Ner._ 47: see Robert, _Homer. Becher_, and _Class. Review_,\n 1894, p. 325. The British Museum possesses a silver phiale, with\n terracotta replicas (G 117, 118), one of which is shown on Plate\n XLVIII. See also p. 500.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Cf. the use of the word \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd on bronze and lead weights.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Egger in _Revue Arch\u00e9ol._ xvi. (1867), p. 292.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n See Hultsch, _Metrologie_, p. 99 ff.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n Arist. _Categ._ 12; also Polybius, iv. 56, \u1f21\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\n \u03bc\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n B.M. F 175.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n Other instances are: Millingen-Reinach, 2; Munich 423; Reinach, i.\n 291\u201392.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n Cf. B.M. E 534\u201337, 548\u201353; also Stackelberg, _Gr\u00e4ber der Hellenen_,\n pl. 17. Fig. 15 is from the vase F 101 in the British Museum.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n Cf. B.M. F 457\u201366.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n _Suppl._ 463.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 494. See also Chapter XV.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n See Schol. _in_ Ar. _Ran._ 218, and _J.H.S._ xx. p. 110 ff.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n For explanation and parallels see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. p. 119\n ff.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n Raoul-Rochette in _Revue Arch\u00e9ol._ viii. (1851), p. 112: see also\n Theocr. xv. 113 ff.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n _Revue Arch\u00e9ol. l.c._ p. 118; Mart. xi. 19; Pliny, _H.N._ xix. 59.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n _Hist. Plant._ vi. 7.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n Pernice in _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 60 ff. He would also regard the\n so-called \u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7 (see p. 198) as a vase of this class; but this\n seems much more doubtful. See also p. 167, under \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n Cf. B\u00f6hlau, _Ion. u. Ital. Nekrop._ p. 39; Berlin 1108.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n Pernice\u2019s arguments have been directly impugned by Kouroniotes in \u1f18\u03c6.\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1899, p. 233, and by Robinson in _Boston Mus. Report_, p. 73;\n and it certainly seems more probable that metal vessels would have\n been used for this purpose; moreover, the form of the \u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is\n well known. But he has personally assured the present writer that the\n clay \u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 show traces internally of the use of fire.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n Reinach, i. 235 = Naples 3255.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n See p. 214.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n _Adv. Leoch._ 1086, 1089.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Sculpture_, i. p. 297.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n See note on p. 132 above. The custom seems to have been specially in\n favour in the fourth century B.C.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. D 65, 70\u20131; _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 2. On the subject\n generally, see _ibid._ p. 169 ff.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n Fig. 20 = F 93, a Lucanian hydria in the British Museum, is a very\n fine instance, several of the vases being represented with painted\n subjects. Among them is a Panathenaic amphora (see above, p. 132), on\n which is depicted a chariot-race.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n _Il._ xxiii. 253.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n Q. Smyrn. iii. 737.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n It no doubt suggested Tennyson\u2019s \u201cTwo handfuls of white dust, shut in\n an urn of brass.\u201d Cf. l. 1142 (\u03ba\u03ae\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9).\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n _Brit. School Annual_, 1901\u20132, pls. 18\u201319, p. 298; _Mon. Antichi_, i.\n p. 201, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n B 130: see also p. 46.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n No. 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 34.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n E 811: see for other instances, Jahn, _Vasensamml. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p.\n lxxxv, note 600, and p. 39 above.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, C 12.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n Mr. J. L. Myres, on opening a tomb at Amathus, in Cyprus, in 1894,\n found jugs, bowls, and other kinds of vases ranged round the body,\n like a dinner-service set out on a table.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n A good instance is the Python krater in the British Museum (F 149),\n one of the handles of which has been repaired with lead. See also\n Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. ci, note 731; B.M. B 607, B 608, E\n 106; Berlin 1768.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ ii. 145 = Reinach, ii. 75.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 50.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n Juvenal, xiv. 308.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n _Vespae_, 1437.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n The use of this form of vase is further illustrated by the\n _hydrophoria_-scenes on B.F. vases, in which it constantly occurs.\n See below, p. 166.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n B.M. A 1054, B 450; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 545.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n See Chapter XVII., where examples are given.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n Cf. also Bk. v. 198 ff.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n x. 62 ff.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n _Recherches sur les v\u00e9ritables Noms des Vases Grecs_, Paris, 1829.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n _Observations sur les Noms des Vases Grecs_, etc., Paris, 1833, and\n _Suppl\u00e9ment_, 1837\u201338.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n _Rapporto Volcente_ in _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1831, p. 221 ff.; and in\n criticism of Letronne, _Berlins ant. Bildwerke_, i. p. 342 ff., and\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1836, p. 147 ff.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n _Handbuch d. Arch\u00e4ol._ \u00a7 298\u2013301.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n _Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen_, Munich, 1844.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n _De Nominibus Vasorum Graecorum_, Kopenhagen, 1844. This work is very\n useful for its exhaustive references to classical literature. It is\n also critically up to the mark.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n _Angeiologie_, Halle, 1854.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n _Vasensamml. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. lxxxvi ff. (1854).\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n There are some very useful articles in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s\n _Dictionnaire_ under the respective headings, so far as the work has\n appeared (down to M in 1904).\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n Cf. also xi. 462 D.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n Pliny (_H.N._ iii. 82) states that the island of Pithecusa (the\n modern Ischia) was so called not from \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, an ape, but from \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2\n (_a figulinis doliorum_), implying that wine-casks were made here in\n antiquity, as they are at the present day.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Athen. xi. 465 A, and cf. 495 B; _Il._ xxiv. 527; see Ussing, p. 33,\n and Suidas, _s.v._ The comic poets also speak of a \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03ac\u03ba\u03bd\u03b7, or small\n \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, used for holding wine at festivals.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n See Chapter XX., and a relief in the Villa Albani, Helbig,\n _F\u00fchrer_^2, ii. p. 56, No. 853; cf. also Hesychius, \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3, and Ar.\n _Eq._ 792.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n See Chapter XIV. (Fig. 126).\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n B.M. B 464, F 210.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n _Op. et Di._ 98; the word has been confused with \u03c0\u03c5\u03be\u03af\u03c2, meaning a\n box. See _J.H.S._ xx. p. 99.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n Hesych. _s.v._; Pollux, vii. 163.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n This must be distinguished from \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 (see p. 111), a skeleton\n frame on which statues were modelled. See _Geoponica_, vi. 3, p. 4;\n Pollux, vii. 164; Jahn in _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 42;\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 42.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n _Brit. School Annual_, 1899\u20131900, p. 22; cf. _Amer. Journ. of Arch._\n 1901, p. 404.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, pp. 96 ff., 140 ff., Beilagen 1\u20135.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 315.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 381 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, pl. 4;\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ xii. (1897), p. 256; _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 44 ff.;\n Kekul\u00e9, _Terracotten von Sicilien_, pls. 55\u20137, 60; and p. 496.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n Hom. _Il._ xxiii. 170; _Od._ ii. 290, ix. 164; _Inscr. Gr._\n (_Atticae_), ii. 965 _b_ (oil); and see Chap. XXI., _s.v._ See also\n Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. xcii, and cf. the amphora in Rome with\n the oil-selling scene (Helbig, 70 = Reinach, i. p. 106).\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, from \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03af, \u201con either side,\u201d and \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9, \u201cI carry.\u201d\n Athenaeus (xi. 501 A) explains it as \u1f41 \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f67\u03c4\u03b1\n \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. iii. (1850), p. 7.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n Dumont, _Inscrs. C\u00e9ramiques_, pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n The order here given is that suggested by H. von Gaertringen in\n _Inscr. Gr._ xii. pt. 1, p. 8.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n Dumont, _Inscrs. C\u00e9ramiques_, pl. 6; see also _Revue Arch\u00e9ol._ N.S.\n iii. (1861), pls. 9, 10, p. 283.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n _Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr Philol._ Suppl. xvii. (1890), p. 281.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 2121.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ iii. (1850), p. 84.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n _C.I.L._ iv. 2584; other examples from Pompeii are given in Chapter\n XXI.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n Stoddart in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. iii. (1850), p. 1 ff.,\n iv. (1853), p. 1 ff.; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ iii. Nos. 5375\u20135392,\n 5555\u20135566, 5751 (Sicily); _Philologus_, 1851, p. 278 ff. (Sicily);\n _Jahrb. f\u00fcr Philol._ Suppl.-Bd. xviii. p. 520 ff.; _Abh. d.\n phil.-phil. Kl. d. k. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ ii. (1837), p. 781 ff.;\n _M\u00e9langes Gr\u00e9co-Romaines_, i. p. 416 ff. (Olbia); Dumont, _Inscrs.\n C\u00e9ramiques de Gr\u00e8ce_, Paris, 1872; _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 127 ff.;\n _Jahrb. f\u00fcr Philol._ Suppl.-Bd. iv. p. 453, v. p. 447, x. pp. 1, 207\n (Olbia); _Inscr. Gr._ (_Ins. Maris Aegaei_), xii. pp. 175\u2013203, Nos.\n 1065\u20131441 (amphora-handles from Rhodes); and other references already\n given.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n _E.g._ Athens 657.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, pls. 4, 6; Plate XLVII.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n _E.g._ Baumeister, iii. p. 1975, fig. 2114; Athens 688, 690.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n _Berlins ant. Bildw._ p. 346; see also Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,\n p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n See below, p. 388, and Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 147 ff.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n See note 536 above; also p. 324.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n A \u201ctransitional\u201d example has recently been published by Hartwig in\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1901, pl. 5, p. 117.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n See also Plate XXXV.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n Cf. B 603\u2013609 with F 331, 332 in the Fourth Vase Room of the Brit.\n Mus. But it appears in Southern Italy at an earlier period than the\n fourth century; see Patroni, _Ceram. Antica_, p. 138, and below, p.\n 485.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n See for examples F 339, 340 in Brit. Mus., and Patroni, _Ceramica\n Antica_, p. 142.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n See Patroni, _Ceramica Antica_, p. 79.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n Instances in B.M., E 350, and Brussels Museum (Noel des Vergers,\n _\u00c9trurie_, pls. 32\u201336); also a plain wine-amphora of this form,\n dredged up from the sea, in the Terracotta Room, British Museum, Case\n 51.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n See Pollux, x. 78; Athen. xi. 495 A. The former gives \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 as an\n Aeolic synonym of \u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n B.F. \u201cpelikae\u201d in B.M., B 190\u2013192.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n x. 72. Cf. also Plat. Com. _apud_ Athen. xi. 783 D.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n _Lys._ 196. See also Demosth. _Lacr._ 933, where eighty stamni of\n sour wine are mentioned.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, _ad Il._ xviii. 1163, 23. Cf. also Herodotos, i.\n 194; Xen. _Anab._ i. 9, 25.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n Lucian, _Meretr. dial._ 14; Athen, iii. 116 F.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n xi. 784 D.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n Pollux, vi. 14.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n _Vesp._ 676, and Schol. _ad loc._\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n See below for an account of this word (p. 176).\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n xi. 499 B, _q.v._ for several quotations illustrative of this word;\n also _Anth. P._ vi. 248 (\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n _Quaest. Conviv._ i. 1, 5, p. 614 E (\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03af\u03c2): cf. Phaedr. i. 26, 8.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n Hesych. _s.v._ \u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n See for a fine instance, _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, 650.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n Cf. Hdt. iii. 20; Athen. xi. 483 D; Hor. _Od._ iv. 11, 2; 12, 17.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n _Av._ 1032; _Eccl._ 1002.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Ussing, p. 45. Cf. Pind. _Ol._ vi. 68; also Schol. _in Nem._ x. 64.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n xi. 496 A. See _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 73.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n Cf. 327 with 539. See for other mentions of the word, Ussing, p. 44.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n _Trapezitae_, 33; cf. Lucian, _Hermot._ 40, 57 (\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2), and Chap.\n XXI.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n Soph. _O.C._ 473, \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. He is here speaking of a \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1,\n but in l. 478 he calls the same vase a \u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n Cf. also Aesch. _Fr._ 91, and Eur. _Cycl._ 89; _Ion_, 1173; Theocr.\n xiii. 46.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n Mosch. iv. 34; _Anth. P._ vii. 710.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n _Alex._ 20.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n Hesych. _s.v._; Pollux, viii. 66.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n xi. 495 A.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n Cf. Hdt. i. 25 and the Sigean inscription (Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_,\n i. p. 78).\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n Examples of such painted stands in the B.M. are A 383\u201385, 464\n (Geometrical); A 1349; B 167 (does not belong to the amphora below\n which it is placed). A 741 is unpainted; F 279 is placed on an\n ornamental open stand of bronze.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n See Hdt. iv. 61, 152; Athen. xi. 472 A and v. 198 D, 199 B, 199 E.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n See p. 246 and Plate XII.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n The Aristono\u00f6s krater (see p. 297) is almost of the Mycenaean form,\n and represents the transition to the Corinthian. Cf. also _Notizie\n degli Scavi_, 1895, p. 185, for one found at Syracuse.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n For specimens found at Corinth, see _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1898, p.\n 196; the form is also depicted on the Corinthian pinakes (_Ant.\n Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 12, 18).\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n xi. 475 D. But Couve, in his valuable article in Daremberg and\n Saglio\u2019s _Dictionnaire_ (_s.v._ Kelebe), is equally confident that\n the passage implies a kind of krater.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n The Antaios krater in the Louvre, G 103.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n See _Berlins Ant. Bildw._ p. 358, No. 18.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 6.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n Cf. F 37, 269\u201373 in B.M.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n See Chap. XVIII; Patroni, _Ceramica Antica_, p. 25; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._\n 1897, p. 201 ff.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n _E.g._ Fig. 108, p. 482.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n Cf. Plat. _Symp._ 214 A, where it is described as holding more than\n eight kotylae.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 6, p. 141; cf. _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 91;\n Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 821, fig. 1026.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n A vase of the same type, but probably used as a \u201cpuzzle-jug,\u201d is\n published in the _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xix. pls. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n E 767, 768, the latter signed by Duris; see also _J.H.S._ _l.c._\n Another good example is the Euphronios psykter in Petersburg (p. 431).\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n Cf. Athen. xi. 503 C and 467 D. In \u00a7 467 F he identifies the \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n with the \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1; this use would be parallel to the Homeric use of\n the \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 for washing (see below).\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n Cf. Schol. _in Ar. Nub._ 280, 1472 ff.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n Cf. the use of the word \u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03c2 for a cinerary urn by Aeschylus and\n Sophokles (_Ag._ 444; _Cho._ 686; _El._ 1401).\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n xi. 470 D. An example in the B.M. is F 306.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n _E.g._ _Il._ xxi. 362; _Od._ xix. 386.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n iv. 61.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 221, B 328.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n Paus. v. 10, 4.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n Thuc. iv. 100.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n Hence the word \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2. Cf. the episode in Ar. _Thesm._ 505 ff.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n ix. 113\u201314.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n Cf. Ar. _Ach._ 1076.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n _Op. et Di._ 748.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n _Ran._ 505.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n vi. 89 and x. 66.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n x. 66.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n Eur. _Fr._ 373; Pherekr. \u0394\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b4. 4 (_apud_ Athen. xi. 480 B).\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n _B.M. Vases_, iv. G 194.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 78.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n v. 195 C, 199 E: see also Pollux, vi. 100; Plut. _Alex._ 20.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n Ussing, p. 116; Poll. x. 77.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpture_, i. p. 166, No. 325_{11}.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n Hdt. i. 200.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n Athen. xi. 494 A (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd). See also Liddell and Scott, _s.v._\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n See Liddell and Scott, _s.v._\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n Cf. B.M. Nos. 587, 588, etc.; also _Olympia_, iv. pl. 34.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n _Cat._ 1727.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n See Chapter XIV.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n Cf. Hom. _Od._ iii. 468, iv. 128, x. 361; _Il._ x. 576; also _J.H.S._\n Suppl. iv. p. 139.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n _E.g._ F 332 in B.M. (Plate XLV.). An early specimen is given by\n Wolters in _Jahrbuch_, 1898, p. 26; 1899, p. 126.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n See Pollux, x. 76\u201378; Ar. _Av._ 840, 1143, _Vesp._ 600; Schol. _in\n Pac._ 1244; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 3071; and generally, Ussing, p. 118.\n The name has been conventionally given to a kind of jar; see above,\n p. 164.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n Budge, _Life and Exploits of Alexander_, p. 4 ff.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n See p. 137, and B.M. E 533 ff., 548 ff.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n Cf. the modern superstition against crossing a knife and fork on a\n plate.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n vi. 46.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n xi. 479 F; cf. Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 150, line 30 = B.M. _Inscrs._ 29.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n _Od._ i. 136; xviii. 398.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 1532, B 33, B 52.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n Athen. x. 425 D (in form \u1f44\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2); xi. 495 B.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n German _Schnabelkanne_. This type of mouth is often seen in the\n primitive pottery of Cyprus.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n vi. 103; x. 92.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n ii. 168.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n Athen. x. 424 B; xi. 783 F.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n Ar. _Eq._ 1091; Pollux, x. 63; Theophr. _Char._ 9.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n Hesych. _s.v._; Pollux, vi. 19; Athen. x. 424 C; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii.\n 2139; Schol. _in_ Ar. _Vesp._ 855.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n _Ach._ 245 and Schol.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n _Ach._ 1067 and Schol.; Athen. iv. 169 B; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 161, 3.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n See also Pollux, x. 66.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n It should be noted that the cups he describes are always of metal.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n _Od._ ix. 346, xiv. 78; cf. the description in Theocr. i. 26 ff., and\n see below, p. 185; also Ussing, p. 126.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n xi. 488 ff.; cf. _Il._ xi. 632. It is described by Homer as \u201cstudded\n with golden nails; and four handles there were; and about each rested\n two golden doves; and beneath there were two bottoms.\u201d\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n See Chapter XIII.; and below, p. 186.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n Poll. vi. 96; Athen. xi. 478 B, F.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n _Il._ v. 306.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n Athen. xi. 478 E.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n _Il._ xxii. 494. See for other instances of its use, _Od._ xv. 312,\n xvii. 12 (\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd, \u201cbite and sup\u201d); Schol. _ad_ Ar.\n _Plut._ 1054; and Athen. xi. 478\u201379.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n _Apud_ Athen. 482 B.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n _Od._ xiv. 112. See Athenaeus, xi. 498 for quotations; also Eur.\n _Cycl._ 256, 390, 556, and Liddell and Scott, _s.v._\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n Athen. xi. 500 A; Macrob. v. 21, 16.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n _E.g._ _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 1244, 1272, 1309\u201314; Stephani,\n _Ausruhende Herakles_, pp. 151 ff., 195 ff.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n \u1f29\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 (500 A).\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n The sculptor Mys made a \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 with the sack of Troy\n chased upon it (Athen. xi. 782 B).\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n In _C.I.G._ ii. 2852 silver \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 chased with figures of animals are\n recorded among the offerings in the temple of Apollo at Branchidae.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n xi. 495 A.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 152, and see _Cat._ iii. p. 14. The owl and\n olive-branch seem to have been official marks; they appear on coins\n and dicasts\u2019 tickets.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n xi. 783 D; 495 C; cf. Theocr. i. 25.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 77, 78; _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 78.\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n xi. 784 D.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n See _id._ xi. 477 E.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n The word also occurs in Horace (_Od._ ii. 7, 22) for a large wine-cup.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 370, 371, 681.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n Robert, _Homerische Becker_, p. 3.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n xi. 481 D.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n xi. 782 F, 500 F.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n Cf. Macrob. v. 21: _pocula procera ac navibus similia_. In\n illustration of the resemblance of a bowl to a ship we may cite the\n story of the wise men of Gotham, also the golden bowl of the Sun (p.\n 181), and the form of the Welsh coracle.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n F 596.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n Athen. xi. 483 B.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n Cf. Ar. _Eq._ 600, and see the account of this cup given by Plutarch,\n _Lycurg._ 9. The word for the inner rim or lip is \u1f04\u03bc\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd (Pollux, vi.\n 97; Critias _apud_ Athen. xi. 483 B; see _ibid._ viii. p. 347 B). The\n shape formerly regarded as a \u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd on account of its recurved lip has\n been thought by Pernice to have been used for incense (_Jahrbuch_,\n 1899, p. 60); but see above, p. 140.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 161.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n _Pac._ 1094.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n Athen. xi. 483 F.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n _Ibid._ 473 D.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n Macrob. v. 21.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 288. For typical examples see Athens 612 and\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 450 (Boeotian); also Berlin 1737,\n 2116\u201320, 2876, 2877, 4019; _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n xi. 474 E; cf. v. 198 B, C.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n _E.g._ Visconti, _Mus. Pio-Clem._ iv. pl. 35; _B.M. Cat. of\n Terracottas_, B 490.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n _Georg._ iv. 380.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 140, 141, 150 = _B.M. Inscrs._ 27\u201329.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n So called from being turned (\u03ba\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9) on the wheel (Athen. xi. 480\n B). The word constantly occurs in literature: Phokyl. 11; Sappho, 5;\n Hdt. iv. 70, etc.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 49, 50. Cf. Hermippus _apud_ Athen. xi. 480 E, and the\n Ficoroni cista (Roscher, i. p. 527).\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n xi. 480 C (quoting Pindar).\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n See p. 215.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n Athen. xi. 480 E.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n This was also done in the case of some late Italian fabrics; see\n _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 25 and below, p. 501.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n xi. 470 E, 471 D; cf. v. 199 B.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n xi. 469 B. In \u00a7 464 C he speaks of \u03a1\u1f41\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, which lessened\n the tendency to inebriety, and in \u00a7 496 F he describes a cup called\n \u03a1\u1f41\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n Pollux, vi. 95\u201398; x. 66.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n Ar. _Lys._ 203.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n B 379\u201382.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n A recent writer (B\u00f6hlau, in _Athen. Mitth._ for 1900, p. 40 ff.)\n attributes this shape to an Ionic origin.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n See generally Athen. xi. 501 ff. Isidorus (_Etym._ xx. 5) says:\n \u201cPhyalae dictae quod ex vitro fiant\u201d (_sc._ \u1f54\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n The words \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae, \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae also seem to be\n descriptive of this type. Phialae (\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03af) dedicated to Agathe\n Tyche, Themis, Leto, and Hekate, were among the possessions of the\n temple of Apollo at Branchidae (Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 2852).\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n G 117, 118: see Plate XLVIII.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n _Il._ xxiii. 270, where it is described as \u1f00\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, implying that it\n was used over a fire.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n _Ibid._ l. 243.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n _Rhet._ iii. 4: cf. Athen. x. 433 C.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n See Athen. xi. _s.vv._; also Pollux, vi. 98.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n Schol. _in_ Ar. _Pac._ 916.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n Cf. B.M. E 784\u2013803.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n See for a discussion of this word, Athen. xi. 476 A.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 42, 46, 181, 204, etc.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n xi. 461 B, 497 B.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, Athen. xi. 497 E.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n Exx. in B.M. F 417\u201336.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n xi. 500 E. In the temple of Apollo at Branchidae there were\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, with dedicatory inscriptions to\n Apollo and Artemis; evidently _rhyta_ of this kind (Boeckh, _C.I.G._\n ii. 2852). An example in the B.M. (F 431) ends in the heads of a boar\n and dog conjoined.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n xi. 468 F; cf. 497 A.\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n xi. 496 E; other names for the rhyton are \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 (Pollux, vi. 97),\n \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f44\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, and \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2: see note 702.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n _In Meid._ 565 fin.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n See p. 127 and Plate X.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n Pollux, vi. 84\u20135; x. 86; Ar. _passim_; Lucian, _Somn._ 14, p. 723\n (\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd); see Ussing, _De nom. vas. graec._ p. 160 ff.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n Sch\u00f6ne in _Comm. phil. in hon. Mommseni_, p. 653, mentions a plate\n with \u0399\u03a7\u0398\u03a5\u0391\u0399 inscribed underneath. Cf. also Plate XLIV. and p. 487.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n See p. 139.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n Pollux, vi. 85; x. 86; Ar. _Ran._ 1440, _Plut._ 812, _Av._ 361;\n Athen. ii. 67 D, xi. 494 C. Cf. for these words Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n x. 92. Liddell and Scott state that \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 is a _vox nihili_.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n Pollux, x. 93.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n xi. 476 E.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n See _Brit. School Annual_, iii. (1896\u201397) p. 58; _Ath. Mitth._ 1898,\n p. 271; Couve in Daremberg and Saglio\u2019s _Dict. s.v._ Kernos.\n Athenaeus cannot have known this type.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pls. 13, 14; _Ephem. Arch._ 1885, pl. 9, 1897, p.\n 163 ff.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ _loc. cit._ p. 295.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 57 ff.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n Cf. Dem. _Fals. Leg._ p. 415, and p. 133 above.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n Athen. xi. 784 B.\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n See Pollux, vii. 166; x. 63.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n xi. 783 F; he derives the -\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 from \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (_sic_). He also\n says it is like the \u03b1\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, and that \u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c2 = \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n See Athen. xi. 784 D; Pollux, vi. 98; Hippokrates, 494, 55.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n He somewhat vaguely identifies it with the Thericleian and Rhodian\n kylikes. Pollux (vi. 98) also implies it to be a cup.\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n See Ussing, p. 117; Pollux, vi. 106, x. 121; Ar. _Ach._ 1063.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n Hesych. _s.v._ \u1fe5\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1. Also called \u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03af\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. 208, 225, 376, 386, 794, 810, D 65. But see on this shape\n Pernice in _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 68, and Robinson in _Boston Mus.\n Report_, 1899, p. 73. The latter rejects Pernice\u2019s incense-burner\n theory (see above, p. 140), and suggests their use for perfume or\n scented water.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n The B.M. has a late B.F. example, B 298.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n _Jahrbuch___, 1899, p. 129.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n E 774; E 810 in the B.M. is a good example of this form.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n It was formerly thought to be a kind of roof-tile. See Robert in \u1f18\u03c6.\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1892, p. 247; B.M. B 597, 598; Athens 1588\u201392.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 17.\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n See _op. cit._ iv. p. 8, fig. 18.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n In the examples from Greek sites, such as the Cyrenaica, the handle\n is arched over the back, as in Fig. 62.\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n For the Mycenaean \u201cfalse amphora,\u201d a variation of the askos, see p.\n 271 and Plate XV.\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n See Chapter XI. for a general discussion of the subject, and Chapter\n V. for its technical aspect.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 204 ff.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n See p. 88; also _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 1\u20132; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._\n 1897, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 209\u201310.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V\n _TECHNICAL PROCESSES_\n\n Nature of clay\u2014Places whence obtained\u2014Hand-made vases\u2014Invention\n of potter\u2019s wheel\u2014Methods of modelling\u2014Moulded vases and\n relief-decoration\u2014Baking\u2014Potteries and furnaces\u2014Painted vases\n and their classification\u2014Black varnish\u2014Methods of\n painting\u2014Instruments and colours employed\u2014Status of potters in\n antiquity.\n\n\nIn this chapter we propose to deal with the various technical processes\nrequired for the manufacture of painted vases, that being of all the\nmethods of working in clay employed by the Greeks the most important,\nand thus, as already implied, forming the main branch of our subject.\nThese vases show, in fact, the highest point of perfection to which the\nceramic art attained.\n\nIn the making of Greek vases we can distinguish four separate stages:\n(1) Preparation of the clay; (2) Modelling (_a_) on the wheel, (_b_) by\nhand, or (_c_) from a mould; (3) Baking; (4) Painting, glazing, and\nother decoration. The last-named is not absolutely essential, _i.e._ a\nvase, especially one for ordinary daily use, may be considered complete\nwithout it. Further, the three first stages are practically the same at\nall periods of Greek art, whereas the systems of painting and\ndecoration are subject to local variations and chronological\ndevelopment. For the purposes of the present chapter it is sufficient\nto consider only those vases which have undergone the complete process\nof manufacture, or what are known for the purposes of study as \u201cPainted\nGreek Vases.\u201d\n\n 1. PREPARATION OF THE CLAY\n\nThe paste of these vases is similar to terracotta in its general\ncharacteristics, such as the constitution of the mixture of which it is\ncomposed; it is in general very delicate, but deeper in tone and finer\nin texture than that of the terracottas. Brongniart has described it as\n\u201ctender, easily scratched or cut with a knife, remarkably fine and\nhomogeneous, but of loose texture\u201d[739]; but it would be more accurate\nto say that it varies in one respect, being sometimes so hard that\ncutting or scratching has no effect upon it. When broken it exhibits a\ndull opaque colour, varying from red to yellow and yellow to grey. On\nbeing struck it gives forth a dull metallic sound; it is exceedingly\nporous, and easily allows water to ooze through.\n\nThe surface was protected by a fine, thin alkaline glaze, which is\nsemi-transparent, enhancing the colours with which the vase was\npainted, like the varnish of a picture. It is this glaze which forms\nthe special distinction of the Greek painted vases and renders them, in\ncontradistinction to common pottery or earthenware, the counterpart of\nthe medieval fa\u00efences or majolicas, or the finer porcelain of the\npresent day.\n\nAs to the chemical composition of the paste, it would seem that\nhitherto investigations have been confined to vases of Italian origin,\nbut probably those found on Greek soil would yield similar results. The\nprincipal ingredients are clay, silicic acid, and iron oxide, with\nslight admixtures of carbonate of lime and magnesia. The principal\nresults of previous investigations have been tabulated by Bl\u00fcmner,[740]\nand yield the following average result (chiefly from analyses of vases\nfrom Southern Italy):\u2014\n\n Silicic acid 52 to 60 parts.\n Clay earth 13 to 19 parts.\n Chalk 5 to 10 parts.\n Magnesia 1 to 3 parts.\n Iron oxide 12 to 19 parts.\n\nThe largest proportion of clay found in any one vase was 27 parts;\nthere was also one instance given of 24 parts of iron oxide.\n\nThe variations in tone of the clay of Greek vases are very marked. The\nusual colour is an ochre varying from yellowish-white to brownish-red,\nthe mean being a sort of orange. These variations were apparently\nregulated by the amount of iron oxide employed. It has been noted by\nJahn[741] that vases were sometimes moulded \u201cdouble,\u201d _i.e._ turned on\nthe wheel in two different thicknesses of clay, the finer and ruddier\nforming the exterior surface for decoration.\n\nThe earliest and most primitive Greek vases (including those of the\nMycenaean period) in most cases exhibit the natural quality of the\nclay, ranging from yellow to grey in colour; it is usually coarse and\ninsufficiently baked, and protected by no lustrous glaze. In the early\narchaic vases, such as those of Melos, Athens, and Rhodes, we observe a\npale yellow tone, which is apparently not a glaze, but inherent in the\nclay.[742] Thenceforward the clay becomes appreciably redder and warmer\nin tone until the lustrous glaze reaches its perfection in the Attic\nvases of the fifth century. In the later Italian fabrics again there is\na great degeneration, the clay rapidly reverting to a paler hue,\nespecially in the vases of Campania; while in the Etruscan imitations\nof the third century it is a dull coarse yellow, apparently due to a\npreponderance of lime. Generally speaking, it may be said that the\ncolour depends on the proportion in which the constituent parts are\nmixed, a larger proportion of iron oxide producing a redder, a larger\nproportion of lime a paler hue.\n\nThe clay is permeable, allowing water to exude when not glazed, and\nwhen moistened emits a strong earthy smell. It is not known how this\npaste was prepared, for the Greeks have left few or no details of their\nprocesses, but it has been conjectured that the clay was fined by\npouring it into a series of vats, and constantly decanting the water,\nso that the last vat held only the finest particles in suspension. The\nclay was worked up to the right consistency with the hands, and is\nsupposed to have been ground in a mill or trodden out with the feet.\nEither red or white clay, or a mixture of the two, was preferred by the\nancients, according to the nature of the pottery required to be made,\nas we learn from an interesting passage in the _Geoponica_:\u2014\u201cAll kinds\nof earth are not suited for pottery, but some prefer the reddish\nvariety, others the white; others again blend the two ... but the\npotter ought personally to assist in the operations and see that the\nclay is well levigated and not placed on the wheel until he has\nobtained a clear idea of the probable appearance of the jar after the\nbaking\u201d (vi. 3).\n\nCertain sites enjoyed in antiquity great reputation for their clays.\nOne of the most celebrated was that procured from a mine near the\npromontory of Cape Kolias,[743] close to Phaleron, from which was\nproduced the paste which gave so much renown to the products of the\nAthenian Kerameikos. The vases made of it became so fashionable, that\nPlutarch[744] relates an anecdote of a person who, having swallowed\npoison, refused to drink the antidote except out of a vessel made of\nthis clay. It seems to have been of a fine quality, but not remarkably\nwarm in tone when submitted to the furnace; ruddle, or red ochre\n(_rubrica_), being employed to impart to it that rich deep orange glow\nwhich distinguishes the finest vases of the best period.[745]\nCorinth,[746] Knidos, Samos, and various other places famous for their\npotteries, were provided with fine clays. At Koptos, in Egypt, and in\nRhodes, vases were manufactured of an aromatic earth.[747] The extreme\nlightness of the paste of these vases was remarked by the ancients, and\nits tenuity is mentioned by Plutarch.[748] That it was an object of\nambition to excel in this respect, appears from the two amphorae\nmentioned by Pliny as preserved in the temple of Erythrae,[749] of\nextreme lightness and thinness, made by a potter and his pupil when\ncontending which could produce the lightest vase. The thinnest vases\nwhich have come down to us are scarcely thicker than pieces of stout\npaper. Great difference is to be observed in the pastes of vases from\nwidely-separated localities, due either to the composition or to the\nbaking, as has been noted in the case of the terracottas (p. 113).\n\n 2. MANUFACTURE OF VASES\n\nThe earliest glazed vases were made with the hand, but the wheel was an\ninvention of very remote antiquity, as has been noted in our\nIntroductory Chapter. It is generally supposed that its origin is to be\nattributed to Egypt. Its introduction into Greece may easily be traced\nby a study of primitive pottery from any site such as Crete, Cyprus, or\nTroy, where the distinction between hand-made and wheel-made vessels is\nclear. Thus in the tombs of Cyprus which belong to the Bronze Age, the\nearlier finds, dating from about 2500\u20131500 B.C., are exclusively of\nhand-made pottery.[750] The latter part of the Bronze Age may be\nregarded as a transitional period, in which the tombs contain hand-made\nunglazed painted vases, together with pottery of a much more developed\ncharacter, with a lustrous yellow glaze, bearing unmistakable evidence\nof having been turned on a wheel. This pottery appears to be largely\nimported, as opposed to the local wares, which are still hand-made, and\nits widespread distribution over the whole of the \u201cAegean\u201d area marks\nan important epoch in the history of early ceramics (see Chapter VI.).\nIt covers the period from 1500 to about 900 B.C., and it is to this\ntime that we may attribute the general use of the potter\u2019s wheel in\nGreece, although it was known even earlier, as some isolated specimens\nprove.\n\nAmong the Greeks there were many contending claims for the honour of\nhaving invented the potter\u2019s wheel. Tradition attributed it to various\npersonages, such as Daedalos,[751] or his nephew and rival Talos[752];\nHyperbios of Corinth[753]; Koroibos of Athens; and Anacharsis the\nScythian.[754] Kritias, the comic poet, claimed the invention for\nAthens\u2014\u201cthat city which ... invented pottery, the famous offspring of\nthe wheel, of earth, and of fire.\u201d[755] There is also a familiar\nallusion to it in Homer,[756] which is a fair testimony to its\nantiquity:\u2014\n\n \u201cFull lightly, as when some potter sitteth and maketh assay\n Of the wheel to his hands well-fitted, to know if it runneth true.\u201d\n\nAs regards the traditions, even Strabo[757] realised their absurdity,\nwhen he asked, \u201cHow could the wheel be the invention of Anacharsis,\nwhen his predecessor Homer knew of it?\u201d On the other hand, Poseidonios\nadheres to the tradition, maintaining that the passage in Homer is an\ninterpolation.[758] Other allusions to the wheel are in the writings of\nPlato[759] and the comic poet Antiphanes.[760]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 65. POTTER\u2019S WHEEL (FROM A PAINTING OF ABOUT 600\nB.C.).]\n\nAmong the Egyptians and Greeks the wheel took the form of a low\ncircular table, turned with the hand, not as nowadays with the\nfoot.[761] The assumption that the wheel was turned with the foot is\nonly supported by one passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus[762]; the\nevidence of Plutarch[763] and Hippokrates[764] tells decidedly against\nit. In 1840 some discs of terracotta, strengthened with spokes and a\nleaden tire, came to light on the site of the ancient potteries at\nArezzo, and these had evidently been used as potter\u2019s wheels.[765] The\nprocess is also represented on two or three vases, as on a Corinthian\npainted tablet of about 600 B.C. (Fig. 65),[766] on a kylix in the\nBritish Museum (B 433), on a B.F. hydria in Munich (Fig. 67 _b_,\nbelow), and on a R.F. fragment from the Acropolis of Athens (Fig.\n66),[767] which shows a man modelling the foot of a large krater, while\na boy or slave turns the wheel, as on the Munich vase. On the British\nMuseum cup the potter is seated on a low stool, apparently modelling a\nvase which he has just turned into shape on the wheel.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 66. POTTER\u2019S WHEEL (FROM A VASE OF ABOUT 500 B.C.).]\n\nIn making the vases the wheel was used in the following manner:\u2014A piece\nof paste of the required size was placed upon it vertically in the\ncentre, and while it revolved was formed with the finger and thumb, the\npotter paying regard not only to the production of the right shape, but\nto the necessary thickness of the walls. This process sufficed for the\nsmaller pieces, such as cups or jugs; the larger amphorae and hydriae\nrequired the introduction of the arm. The feet, necks, mouths, and\nhandles were separately turned on moulds, and fixed on while the clay\nwas moist. They are often modelled with great beauty and precision,\nespecially the feet, which are admirably finished off, to effect which\nthe vase must have been inverted. The modelling and separate attachment\nof the handle is represented in more than one ancient work of art (see\nFig. 66). In many cases the joining of the handles is so excellent that\nit is easier to break than to detach them. Great technical skill was\ndisplayed in turning certain peculiar forms of vases, and generally\nspeaking the Greeks with their simple wheel effected wonders, producing\nshapes still unrivalled for beauty.\n\nIn the case of the earlier vases, which are made by hand, after the\nclay was properly kneaded the potter took up a mass of the paste, and\nhollowing it into the shape of walls with one hand, placed the other\ninside it and pressed it out into the required form. In this way also\nthe thickness of the walls could be regulated. When raised or incised\nornaments were required, he used modeller\u2019s tools, such as wooden or\nbronze chisels. The largest and coarsest vases of the Greeks were made\nwith the hand, and the large \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, or casks, such as have been\nrecently found in such numbers in Crete and Thera (p. 152), were\nmodelled by the aid of a kind of hooped mould (\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2): see _ibid._).\nThe smaller and finer vases, however, were invariably turned on the\nwheel. On a Graeco-Roman lamp from Pozzuoli, in the British\nMuseum,[768] a potter is seen standing and modelling a vase before his\nfurnace, in the manner no doubt employed at all periods.\n\nCertain parts of the ancient painted vases were modelled by the potter\nfrom the earliest times\u2014_e.g._ on those of the Geometrical period\nhorses are occasionally found on the covers of the flat dishes moulded\nin full relief, and in other examples the handle is enriched with the\nmoulded figure of a serpent twining round it. This kind of ornament is\nmore suitable to works in metal than in clay, and suggests the idea\nthat such vases were, in fact, imitations of metallic ones. On vases of\nall periods moulded bosses and heads, like the reliefs on metal vases,\nare sometimes found; even in black-figured vases the insertions of the\nhandles of hydriae and oinochoae are occasionally thus enriched. In the\nlater styles modelling was more profusely employed; small projecting\nheads were affixed to the handles of jugs[769] at their tops and bases,\nand on the large kraters found in Apulia the discs in which the handles\nterminated (see above, p. 171) were ornamented with heads of the Gorgon\nMedusa, or with such subjects as Satyrs and Maenads. These portions\nwere sometimes covered with the black varnish used for the body of the\nvase, but frequently they were painted with white and red colours of\nthe opaque kind.\n\nA peculiar kind of modelling was used for the gilded portions of\nreliefs, introduced over the black varnish. When the vase was baked a\nfine clay was applied to the parts intended for gilding and delicately\nmodelled, either with a small tool or a brush, a process similar to\nthat adopted in the Roman red ware (_en barbotine_, see Chapter XXI.).\nIt may indeed have been squeezed in a fluid state through a tube upon\nthe vase, and then modelled. As the gilded-portions are generally\nsmall, this process was not difficult or important. A vase discovered\nat Cumae[770] has two friezes executed in this style, the upper round\nthe neck, representing the Eleusinian deities, delicately modelled,\ncoloured, and with the flesh completely gilded; the lower one consists\nof a band of animals and arabesque ornaments. Several vases from the\nsame locality, from Capua and from the Cyrenaica, have wreaths of corn,\nivy, or myrtle, and necklaces round the neck, modelled in the same\nstyle, while the rest is plain.\n\nBut the art of modelling was soon extensively superseded by that of\n_moulding_, or producing several impressions from a mould, generally\nitself of terracotta. The subject was in the first place modelled in\nrelief with considerable care; and from this model a cast in clay was\ntaken and then baked. The potter availed himself of moulds for various\npurposes. From them he produced entire parts of his vase in full\nrelief, such as the handles, and possibly in some instances the feet.\nHe also stamped out certain ornaments in relief, much in the same\nmanner as the ornaments of cakes are prepared, and fixed them while\nmoist to the still damp body of the vase. Such ornaments were\nprincipally placed upon the lips or at the base of the handles, and in\nthe interior of the _kylikes_ or cups of a late style. A late bowl of\nblack glazed ware in the British Museum (see Plate XLVIII.) contains an\nimpression from one of the later Syracusan decadrachms having for its\nsubject the head of Persephone surrounded by dolphins: it was struck\nabout 370 B.C. by Euainetos.[771]\n\nThe last method to be described is that of producing the entire vase\nfrom a mould by stamping it out, a process extensively adopted in Roman\npottery. During the best period of the fictile art, while painting\nflourished, such vases were very rare; but on the introduction of a\ntaste for magnificent vases of chased metal, the potters endeavoured to\nmeet the public taste by imitating the reliefs of metal ware.\n\nThe most remarkable of these moulded vases are the _rhyta_ or\ndrinking-horns, the bodies of which terminate in the heads of animals,\nproduced from a mould (see above, p. 192). By the same process were\nalso made vases in the form of jugs or lekythi, the bodies of which are\nmoulded in the shape of human heads, and sometimes glazed, while the\nnecks were fashioned on the lathe, and the handles added. These were\ncoloured and ornamented on the same principle as the rhyta, the\nvase-portion being generally covered with a black glaze, but sometimes\nwith a white slip, after the manner of the terracottas. Besides the\nrhyta, _phialae_, or saucers, were also moulded; fine examples of which\nprocess may be seen on the flat bossed saucers, or _phialae\nmesomphaloi_, discussed in Chapter XI., p. 502.\n\nAmphorae and other vases of late black ware, the bodies of which are\nreeded, were also evidently produced from moulds, and could not be made\nby the expensive process of modelling. Of smaller dimensions, but also\nmade by moulding, were the vases known as _gutti_, or \u201clamp-feeders\u201d\n(see above, p. 200). They have reeded bodies, long-necked mouths, and\ncircular handles; and on their upper surface a small circular medallion\nin bas-relief, with a mythological subject. Such vases are principally\nfound in Southern Italy and in Sicily, and belong to the second century\nB.C. (Chapter XI., p. 502). After being moulded they were entirely\ncovered with a black glaze. Other vases again are entirely moulded in\nhuman or animal forms, with a small mouth or spout. These are found at\nall periods, but chiefly in the archaic Rhodian and Corinthian fabrics,\nand again reviving in the later stages of vase-fabrics in Southern\nItaly. Examples may be seen in the First Vase Room (Cases 33\u201334 and F)\nand Fourth Vase Room (Case B) of the British Museum: see also Plate\nXLVI. Others again retain the form of the jug or _lekythos_, with a\nfigure or relief attached to the front of the body and coloured or\ncovered with a white slip, while the back is varnished black. The whole\nsubject is treated in fuller detail in Chapter XI.\n\nMany vases of the fourth century and later are entirely covered with a\ncoating of black glaze, while rows of small stamped ornaments,\napparently made with a metal punch, have been impressed on the wet clay\nbefore the glaze was applied. These decorations are unimportant in\ntheir subjects, which are generally small Gorgons\u2019 heads, tendrils, or\npalmettes, and hatched bands, arranged round the axis of the vase. This\nlatter ornament was probably produced by rolling the edge of a disc\nnotched for the purpose round the vase, in the same manner as a\nbookbinder uses his brass punch. When these vases came into use the\npotter\u2019s trade had ceased to be artistic, and was essentially\nmechanical. They are found on almost all sites from Cyprus to\nItaly.[772]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAfter the vases had been made on the wheel they were duly dried in the\nsun[773] and lightly baked, after which they were ready for varnishing\nand painting; it is evident that they could not be painted while wet\nand soft. Moreover the glaze ran best on a surface already baked. It is\nalso probable that the glaze was brought out by a process of polishing,\nthe surface of the clay being smoothed by means of a small piece of\nwood or hard leather. At all events this seems the most satisfactory\ninterpretation of a vase-painting in Berlin (Fig. 67_a_),[774] where a\nboy is seen applying a tool of some kind to the outer surface of a\ncompleted vase (_kotyle_); that the vase is not yet varnished is shown\nby its being left in a red colour, while two others, varnished black\nall over, stand on the steps of an oven close by, probably to dry after\nthe application of the varnish.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 67. (_a_) CUP IN BERLIN WITH BOY POLISHING VASE;\n(_b_) HYDRIA IN MUNICH: INTERIOR OF POTTERY.]\n\nMany vases, whether decorated with designs or not, are varnished black\nthroughout the exterior, except the feet and lips, and we cannot be\ncertain whether or not any glaze had been previously applied to the\nsurface; but in respect of the red-figured vases, it is clear from the\nmethod employed (see p. 221) that they were originally glazed\nthroughout.\n\nThis lustrous glaze is, like the black varnish, now quite a lost art.\nSeen under a microscope it has evidently been fused by baking; it\nyields neither to acids nor the blow-pipe. It is remarkably fine and\nthin, insomuch that it can only be analysed with great difficulty. No\nlead entered into its composition. It is however far inferior to modern\nglazes, being permeable by water; but it is not decomposed by the same\nchemical agents. On the later R.F. vases it is of decidedly inferior\nquality, and often scales away, carrying the superimposed colours with\nit.[775]\n\n 3. THE BAKING OF VASES\n\nThe process of baking (\u1f40\u03c0\u03c4\u1fb6\u03bd, _coquere_) was regarded as one of the\nmost critical in the potter\u2019s art. It was not indeed universal, as\nPlato[776] distinguishes between vases which have or have not been\nexposed to the action of fire (\u1f14\u03bc\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1 and \u1f04\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1), and Pliny[777] speaks\nof _fictile crudum_ (\u1f60\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd) used for medicinal purposes. But all the\nvases that have come down to us have certainly been baked. The\nnecessary amount of heat required was regulated by the character of the\nware, and in the case of most Greek fabrics it appears to have been\nhigh. Many examples exist of discoloured vases which have been\nsubjected to too much or too little heat, and in which the varnish has\nacquired a greenish or reddish hue. On the other hand, in some of those\nthat have been subjected to subsequent burning, the red glaze has\nturned to an ashen-grey colour,[778] the black remaining unimpaired;\nbut there are also instances of the varnish peeling off, the red colour\nalone preserving the outline of the figures.\n\nOther accidents were liable to befall them in the baking, such as the\ncracking of the vase under too great heat; this produced an effect\nexpressed by the term \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2 or \u03c6\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03c2, words which seem to have\nsome reference to the _sound_ of a cracked pot.[779] Or the shape of a\nvase might be damaged while it was yet soft, one knocking against\nanother and denting its side, or crushing the lip through being\ncarelessly superimposed. On a R.F. amphora in the British Museum (E\n295) a dent has been caused by the pressure of another vase, which has\nleft traces of a band of maeanders. This probably happened when the\nvases were in the kiln for the second firing. The quality of the baking\nwas tested by tapping the walls of the vase.[780]\n\nThese misfortunes were attributed to the action of malicious demons,\nwhose influence had to be counteracted in various ways; thus, for\ninstance, a Satyric or grotesque head was placed in front of the\nfurnace and was supposed to have an apotropaeic effect against the evil\neye.[781] The pseudo-Homeric hymn addressed to the potters of Samos\ninvokes the protection of Athena for the vases in the furnace, and\nmentions the evil spirits which are ready to injure them in the case of\nbad faith on the potter\u2019s part. Among the names given are: \u1f0c\u03c3\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cthe Unquenchable\u201d; \u03a3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe Crasher\u201d; \u03a3\u03cd\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c8, \u201cthe Smasher\u201d;\n\u1f68\u03bc\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cthe Savage Conqueror.\u201d\n\nThe form of the oven probably differed little from those in use at the\npresent day. No furnaces have been found in Greece, and our only\nevidence is derived from the painted vases; but they have been found at\nRuvo[782] and elsewhere in Italy, and also in France, Germany, and\nEngland. Those of Roman date are indeed by no means uncommon, but are\ndiscussed in fuller detail in the corresponding section of the work\n(Chapter XXI.).\n\nAs depicted on vases and elsewhere, the ancient furnaces seem to have\nbeen of simple construction, tall conical ovens fed by fires from\nbeneath, into which the vases were placed with a long shovel resembling\na baker\u2019s peel. The kilns were heated with charcoal or wood fuel, and\nin some of the representations of them we see men holding long\ninstruments with which they are about to poke or rake the fires (Fig.\n68). They had two doors, one for the insertion of the vases and one for\nthe potter to watch the progress of the baking. For vases of great\nsize, like the huge \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, special ovens must have been necessary; and\nwe have a representation on a Corinthian pinax[783] of such an oven,\nthe roof of which resembles the upper part of a large _pithos_\nsurrounded by flames.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 68. SEILENOS AS POTTER.]\n\nOn the lamp from Pozzuoli in the British Museum, referred to on p. 209,\nthere is a curious subject in relief, representing a potter about to\nplace a vase in an oven with a tall chimney; and on a hydria at\nMunich[784] (Fig. 67 _b_) a man is about to place an amphora in a kiln,\nwhile other jars (painted white) stand ready to be baked. But for our\npurposes the Corinthian pinakes are even more valuable for the\ninformation they afford. There are several representing the exterior of\nthe conical furnace, with men standing by watching the fires and\ntending them with rakes[785]; in another we have a bird\u2019s-eye view in\nhorizontal section of the interior of an oven, filled with jugs of\nvarious forms (Fig. 69). Flames are usually indicated rising from\nunderneath the ovens.[786]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 69. INTERIOR OF FURNACE (FROM CORINTHIAN PINAX)]\n\nThe Munich hydria (Fig. 67_b_) reproduces the interior of a potter\u2019s\nworkshop with such detail that a full description of the scene may be\npermissible.[787] On the left of the picture a seated man seems to be\nexamining an amphora, which has just been finished (it is painted\nblack) and is brought up for his approval. Next is seen an amphora on\nthe potter\u2019s wheel, painted white to indicate its imperfect state; one\nman places his arm inside to shape the interior, while another turns\nthe wheel for him. On their right another white amphora is being\ncarried out, just fresh from the wheel, but without handles or mouth,\nto be dried in the open or at the furnace; next is another standing on\nthe ground to dry. On the right of the scene stands the foreman or\nmaster of the pottery, before whom a nude man carries what has been\nthought to be a sack of coals for the furnace, which is seen on the\nextreme right.\n\nEven more vivid and instructive, in spite of its careless execution, is\nthe painting on a kotyle found at Exarchos or Abae in Lokris, and now\nin the Athens Museum (Fig. 70).[788] The style is that of the imitation\nB.F. vases found in the temple of the Kabeiri at Thebes, late in the\nfifth century. We see represented the interior of a potter\u2019s workshop,\nin which the master of the business sits holding up a kylix in one\nhand, while with the other he threatens a slave, who runs off with\nthree kotylae ready for the furnace; three similar kotylae stand by the\nmaster\u2019s feet, and behind him are two more vases on a shelf. On the\nright of the scene a workman sits at a table on which is a pot full of\npaint, with a brush in it; he holds up a newly-painted kotyle, admiring\nhis workmanship. The picture is completed by a realistic representation\nof an unfortunate slave suspended by cords to the ceiling as a\npunishment for some offence, while another belabours him with a leather\nthong.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 70. INTERIOR OF POTTERY.]\n\nIt would appear that the vases after the baking were often placed on\nthe exterior of the furnace, either to prevent the too rapid cooling of\nthe clay, or (as indicated on the Berlin cup) for the pigments to dry.\nJahn and others have published a gem[789] on which a small two-handled\nvase is placed on the top of an oven, and a youth is applying two\nsticks to it, perhaps in order to take it down without injury by the\ncontact of the hand. A companion gem,[790] on which an artist is\npainting a similar jar, shows a jug and a kylix standing on a kiln.\n\nWhen the vases were returned from the furnace, the potter appears to\nhave made good as far as possible the defects of those not absolutely\nspoiled; and if naturally or by accident any parts remained too pale\nafter the baking, the defect was remedied by rubbing them over with a\ndeep red ochre, which supplied the necessary tone.\n\n 4. PAINTING\n\nWe may distinguish three principal classes of painted pottery, of which\none at least admits of several subdivisions:\u2014\n\n(1) Primitive Greek vases, with simple painted ornaments, chiefly\nlinear and geometrical, laid directly on the ground of the clay with\nthe brush. The colour employed is usually a yellowish or brownish red,\npassing into black. The execution varies, but is often extremely coarse.\n\n(2) Greek vases (and Italian imitations) painted with figures. These\nmay be subdivided as follows:\u2014\n\n (_a_) Vases with figures in black varnish on red glazed ground (see\n Frontispiece, Vol. II.);\n\n (_b_) Vases with figures left in the red glaze on a ground of black\n varnish (see Frontispiece, Vol. I.).\n\n(3) (_a_) Vases of various dates with outline or polychrome decoration\n on white ground (see Plate XLIII.);\n\n (_b_) Vases (also of various dates) with designs in opaque colour on\n black ground.\n\nOf these, the second group is by far the largest and most important,\nand the complicated and technical processes which it involved will\ndemand by far the greater share of our attention in the following\naccount of the methods of painting. In both the classes (_a_) and (_b_)\nthe colouring is almost confined to a contrasting of the red glazed\nground of the clay with a black varnish-like pigment, a contrast which\nperhaps more than anything else furnishes the great charm of a Greek\nvase.\n\nThis black varnish is particularly lustrous and deep, but varies under\ndifferent circumstances. Great difference of opinion has always existed\nas to its nature, and the method by which it was brought to such\nperfection by the Greeks. The variations in its appearance are due\npartly to differences of locality and fabric, partly to accidents of\nproduction. It is seen in its greatest perfection in the so-called\nNolan amphorae of the severe red-figure period; and at its worst in the\nEtruscan and Italiote imitations of Greek fabrics. On the vases found\nat Vulci it shows a tendency to assume a greenish hue, as opposed to\nthe blue-black of the Nolan vases, while variations in the direction of\nred, brown, and (on late South Italy fabrics) grey are of frequent\noccurrence. It is probable that these gradations of quality are mainly\ndue to the action of fire, according as a higher or lower temperature\nwas employed. On the other hand, the ashen-grey hue which vases of all\nperiods sometimes assume[791] seems to be due to the direct action of\nfire in contact with them, and this may perhaps be explained by\nsupposing that they had been burnt on a funeral pyre. This varnish also\nvaries in the thickness with which it was laid on, as can be easily\ndetected with the finger.\n\nAlthough the chemical action of the earth sometimes causes the black\nvarnish to disappear entirely, leaving only the figures faintly\nindicated on the red-clay ground, there has never yet been found any\nacid which has any effect upon it.[792] Various opinions have been\npromulgated, from Caylus downwards, as to the elements of which it is\ncomposed.[793] Brongniart[794] has analysed it with the following\nresults:\u2014\n\n Silicic acid 46\u00b730 50\u00b700\n Clay earth 11\u00b790\n Iron oxide 16\u00b770 17\u00b700\n Chalk 5\u00b770\n Magnesia 2\u00b730\n Soda 17\u00b710\n Copper traces.\n\nIt is unnecessary here to enter in detail into the numerous other\ntheories of its composition, but so far it cannot be said that any\ncertainty has been attained.\n\nTurning now to the methods by which the black varnish was applied, we\nfind it necessary to distinguish between the two classes of\nblack-figured and red-figured vases; some vases, of course, are\ncompletely covered with it, having no painted design, but these do not\nenter into the question.\n\nIn the black-figured vases the figures are painted in black silhouette\non the red ground of the vase, the outlines being first roughly\nindicated by a pointed instrument making a faint line.[795] The surface\nwithin these outlines was then filled in with the black pigment by\nmeans of a brush, the details of anatomy, drapery, armour, etc., being\nsubsequently brought out in part by further incising of lines with a\npointed tool. In some of the finest vases, such as those of Amasis and\nExekias (p. 381), the delicacy and minuteness of these lines is brought\nto an extraordinary pitch of perfection. After a second baking had\ntaken place, the designs were further enriched by the application of\nopaque purple and white pigments, usually following certain\nconventional principles, the flesh of women and devices on shields, for\ninstance, being always white, folds of drapery always purple. A third\nbaking at a much lower heat was necessary to fix these colours, and the\nvase was then complete.\n\nIt should here be noted that there are really two subdivisions of these\nblack-figured vases, which may be termed for convenience \u201cred-bodied\u201d\nand \u201cblack-bodied.\u201d[796] In the former the whole vase stands out in the\nnatural red colour of the clay; whereas in the latter the treatment\napproaches more nearly to the red-figure method which we shall\npresently discuss. The whole body of the vase is in these examples\ncovered with the black varnish, with the exception of a framed panel of\nred, on which the figures are painted. This distinction may be well\nobserved in the Second Vase Room of the British Museum, where most of\nthe vases on the east side of the room belong to the former or\n\u201cred-bodied\u201d class, while all those on the west side are\n\u201cblack-bodied,\u201d with designs in panels.\n\nIn the red-figured vases the black varnish is used as the background,\nand covers the whole vase, as in the \u201cblack-bodied\u201d B.F. fabrics, the\nfigures not being actually painted, but _left red_ in the colour of the\nclay. The process was as follows:\u2014Before the varnish was applied the\noutlines of the figures were indicated, not by incised lines but by\ndrawing a thick line of black with a brush round their contours. It is\nprobable that a fine brush was used at first, especially for more\ndelicate work, and then a broader brush producing a line about an\neighth of an inch in thickness. The process, be it noted, is more akin\nto _drawing_ than painting; and it was as draughtsmen _par excellence_\nthat the red-figure artists excelled. The next stage was to mark the\ninner details by means of very fine black lines (corresponding to the\nincised lines of B.F. vases), or by masses of black for surfaces such\nas the hair; white and purple were also employed, but far more\nsparingly than on the earlier vases. In the late Athenian and South\nItalian vases a tendency to polychromy sprang up, but the main process\nalways remained the same to the final decadence of the art. The figures\nbeing completed and protected from accidents by their broad black\nborders, the varnishing of the whole exterior surface was then\nproceeded with. This was of course a purely mechanical business. A\nfragment of a red-figured vase in the S\u00e8vres Museum forms an excellent\nillustration of the method employed, as, although the figures are\nfinished, the ground has never been filled in, and the original black\nborder is plainly visible (Fig. 71).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 71. FRAGMENT OF UNFINISHED RED-FIGURED VASE.]\n\nThe result of the second baking was to fix the varnish and cause it to\npermeate the surface of the clay in such a way as to become practically\ninseparable from it. The subsidiary colours, on the other hand, which\nwere laid on over the black, are always liable to disappear or fade.\n\nA very interesting representation of painters at work on their vases is\nto be seen on a hydria from Ruvo (Fig. 72).[797] Three painters are\nseated at work with their brushes, of whom two are being crowned by\nVictories, while the third is about to receive a wreath from Athena,\nthe protecting goddess of the industry. Their paint-pots are to be seen\nby their side. At one end of the scene a woman is similarly occupied.\n\nFrom _Bl\u00fcmner_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 72. STUDIO OF VASE-PAINTER.]\n\nIn class 3 (_a_), or vases with figures on white ground, we have to\ndeal with the process of covering the naturally pale clay with a white\nslip of more or less thick and creamy consistency, on which the designs\nwere painted. In the archaic period this process is fairly common,\nespecially in the earliest vases of Corinth and of Ionia, and at Kyrene\nand Naukratis. It was revived at Athens about the end of the sixth\ncentury (see pp. 385, 455). But when once the white slip was laid on,\nthe technical process differed little from that in use on ordinary\nred-ground vases, except for the general avoidance of white as an\naccessory; it merely results that instead of a contrast of black and\nred, one of black and cream is obtained. The method was one also\nlargely practised in early painting, as we see in the Corinthian\npinakes and the sarcophagi of Clazomenae (pp. 316, 362).\n\nBut there is another class of white-ground vases to which we must\ndevote more special attention, namely, those on which the figures are\npainted either in outline or with polychrome washes on the same white\nslip. The earliest instance of such a method is in the series of\nfragments found at Naukratis, dating from the beginning of the sixth\ncentury (see p. 348), which technically and artistically are of\nremarkably advanced character, and combine the two methods of painting\nin outline and in washes of colour. In the fifth century the practice\nwas revived at Athens as a means of obtaining effective results with\nsmall vases, and became especially characteristic of one class, the\nfuneral lekythi, which are elsewhere described (Chapter XI.). This,\nhowever, must serve as the most convenient place for a few remarks on\ntheir technique.\n\nThe vases, after they had left the wheel and were fitted with handle,\netc., were covered with a coating of white flaky pigment, in\nconsistency resembling liquid plaster of Paris, or, when dry, pipeclay.\nThey received this coat of white while still on the wheel, and then a\nsecond coating, of the usual black varnish, was applied to such parts\nas were not required for decoration. Usually the white covered the\ncylindrical part of the body, and the shoulder up to the neck; black\nwas applied to the mouth, neck, handle, base of body, and stem. The\nclay, it should be noted, is of the ordinary kind, but two varieties\nhave been distinguished, one of pale red, for light thin vases, the\nother of a blackish-grey, for thicker and heavier ware. The natural\ncolour appears on the inside of the lip and foot. Before being removed\nfrom the wheel the vases were finely polished, which gave to the white\ncoating a sort of lustrous sheen; they were then fired at a low\ntemperature.\n\nThe method of decoration[798] was usually as follows:\u2014A preliminary\nsketch was made with fine grey lines, ignoring draperies (hence the\nlines of figures are usually visible _through_ the draperies), but not\nalways necessarily followed when the colours were laid on. This was\ndone as soon as the first lines were dry, the colour being applied with\na fine brush and in monochrome\u2014black, yellow, or red\u2014following the\nlines of the sketch more or less closely. In the later examples red was\nused exclusively, and at all periods at Athens; but in the vases\nattributed to Locri and Sicily, a black turning to yellow is used. This\ncombination of black and yellow is also used on the best Attic vases\nfor various details, such as eyes and hair. The outlines also served to\nindicate the folds of the draperies. For the surfaces of drapery and\nother details, polychrome washes were employed, the colour being spread\nuniformly by means of a large brush. All varieties of red from rose to\nbrown are found, also violet, light and brownish yellow, blue, black,\nand green. Hair is sometimes treated in outline, sometimes by means of\nwashes. It is noteworthy that in the later examples the wash-colours\nwere often painted right over the red lines. On the bodies of the\nfigures these washes are rare, but in some cases shades of brown are\nused for flesh colour, as on the figure of Hypnos on a lekythos in the\nBritish Museum (D 58).\n\nAt Athens this polychrome decoration was not indeed limited to the\nlekythi, but was extended to the kylix, the pyxis, and other forms, of\nwhich some beautiful examples exist in the British Museum and at\nAthens.[799] In these, as in the best of the lekythi, the drawing of\nGreek artists seems almost to have reached perfection, and arouses our\nwonder yet more when we reflect that everything was done merely by\nfreehand strokes of the brush. This technique is practically limited to\nthe period 480\u2013350 B.C.\n\nThe subsidiary ornamentation of the lekythi was put on either after the\nmain design or before, this being immaterial. The lines above the\ndesign can be seen to have been painted on the wheel, as they go all\nround the vase; but the palmettes on the shoulder and maeander patterns\nabove the design do not extend beyond it. After the colouring the vases\nappear to have been fired again, and in some cases the white slip was\nprobably varnished. The details of their manufacture show that the\nlekythi were not intended for daily use; the shape is awkward for\nhandling\u2014the handles, for instance, are obviously not intended for\npractical use\u2014and the delicate, lightly baked slip made them too porous\nfor liquids. Everything tends in the direction of elegance and delicacy.\n\nOur next sub-division consists of vases, chiefly of late date, in which\nthe decoration is by means of opaque colours laid on the surface of a\nvase altogether coated with black varnish or glaze. The process is not\nindeed one absolutely unknown in earlier times, for there is the\nprimitive Kamaraes ware of Crete (p. 266), and also a small series of\narchaic vases belonging to the early part of the fifth century (p. 393)\nin which this principle is adhered to, the designs being painted in\nopaque red or white on the black varnish. The latter seem to show a\ndevelopment from the black-figure period, to the end of which they\nbelong, and may have been intended to rival the new red-figure method,\nbut failed to attain popularity.\n\nWe next meet with the process in Southern Italy, where it again appears\nas the last effort of a worn-out fashion to flicker into life with\nrenewed popularity. The centre of this revival, which follows on after\nthe Apulian vases of the third century, was Gnatia (Fasano), on the\ncoast of that district. The vases are partly modelled in relief, or\nhave ornaments in relief attached; the decoration, in white and purple,\nis confined to one side only, and is very feeble and limited in its\nscope. An apparently local variety, perhaps made in Campania by native\ncraftsmen, has the figures in opaque red, with details marked by rudely\nincised lines.\n\nThe Gnatia style was adopted by the Romans in the second century for a\nsmall series of vases inscribed with names of Italian deities, such as\nJuno and Vesta (p. 490), and it appears in the method of decoration\nknown as _en barbotine_ on the pottery of the Empire (see Chapters\nXXI., XXIII.).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 73. VASE-PAINTER VARNISHING CUP ON WHEEL.]\n\nThe instruments which were employed for the painting of the vases were\nnot, as formerly supposed, limited to a metal or reed pen, and a\ncamel\u2019s-hair brush. It has been recently pointed out in a most\nilluminating article by Dr. Hartwig[800] that the lines of black\nbordering the figures on red-figured vases are usually double, the\nspace in between being filled in with varnish thus: [ornament].\nPractical experiments have shown that this can be obtained with a\n_feather brush_ or pen, drawing the lines separately, not concurrently,\nas might be done with a metal pen.[801] The feathers of the snipe were\nspecially suitable for this purpose, as were also those of the swallow.\nIt is probable that we see the use of the ordinary brush on the Ruvo\nvase-painting already mentioned, but this was no doubt used for filling\nin the ground and all parts where the colour was laid on in large\nmasses. Again, on a fragment from the Athenian Acropolis (Fig. 73)[802]\na man is seen covering the inside of a B.F. kylix with black varnish\nwhile he turns it on the wheel; this is also done with an ordinary\nbrush. But there is a R.F. kylix,[803] on the interior of which we see\nthe undoubted use of the feather-brush or pen (Fig. 74). In his left\nhand the painter seems to hold the sharp tool for engraving the\noutlines of the figures, and with his right he manipulates the\nfeather-pen which is seen to consist of a small feather inserted in a\nwooden holder.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 74. VASE-PAINTER USING FEATHER-BRUSH.]\n\nIt is not likely that this instrument was generally used before the\nintroduction of the R.F. style; it would hardly have been required\neither for the silhouette figures of the B.F. vases or the outlines on\nthe white ground. According to Hartwig, Andokides, one of the earliest\nR.F. artists (about 520 B.C.) was making experiments in the use of the\nfeather-pen, and in the course of twenty years, in the vases of\nEpiktetos and his school, its use had become general. It is not indeed\nunknown on B.F. vases, and can be traced in the ornamentation where\nfine lines were required, as on the Amasis vase in the Biblioth\u00e8que\nNationale.[804] It was probably first used in the more developed Ionic\npottery, but as we have seen had no chance of becoming generally used\nuntil the essentially linear R.F. style came into vogue. The artists\nwho reached the height of skill in its use were Meidias and the\npainters of the delicate little vases of the latter half of the fifth\ncentury, this instrument being also admirably adapted for making the\nfine inner lines in which the painters of that period achieved such\nsuccess.\n\nBesides the painting-brush and the feather-pen, the other instruments\nused in the decoration of vases include the pointed graving-tools\nemployed for incised lines, modelling-tools for the parts in relief, a\nstick for steadying the hand while at work, and a pair of compasses.\nThe latter were employed for marking circles, as may be clearly seen on\nshields on the B.F. vases, where the mark left by the central point of\nthe compasses is often visible.\n\nThe difficulties in the painting of Greek vases must have been\nnumerous. In the first place, it was necessary for the artist to finish\nhis sketch with great rapidity, since the clay rapidly absorbed the\ncolouring matter, and the outlines were required to be bold and\ncontinuous, any joins producing a bad effect. Again, the vases were\noften painted while in an upright position, and the artist was obliged\nto stoop, rise, and execute his work in these difficult attitudes; nor\ncould he remove the pencil from any figure which he had once begun. The\neye must have been his only guide. Then, as he was obliged to draw his\noutline upon a damp surface, the black colour which he used was\ninstantly confounded with the tint of the clay. The lines grew broad at\nfirst, and afterwards contracted themselves, leaving but a light trace,\nso that the artist could with difficulty discern what he had been\ndoing. Moreover, the lines, once begun, could not be left off except\nwhere they met other lines which cut or terminated them. Thus, for\nexample, the profile of a head must have been executed with a single\ncontinuous line, which could not be interrupted till it met the neck;\nand in drawing a thigh or leg, the whole outline must have been\nfinished without taking off the pencil: proceeding from the top\ndownwards, making use of the point to mark the horizontal lines, and\nafterwards rising upwards to finish the opposite side. The drawing was\ndone entirely by the hand and no pattern used.\n\nThe outlines round the figures on R.F. vases were drawn strongly, in\nthe manner described above, to prevent the background encroaching on\nthe figure. That this was done while the clay was moist appears by the\noutlines uniting, which could not have taken place if the clay had been\ndry. It was so difficult to fill in the outlines without alteration,\nthat they were frequently changed, and sometimes the ground was not\nreached, while at others it exceeded the line.\n\nThe ancient artists, notwithstanding these difficulties, observed all\nthe laws of balance and proportion, especially \u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, or the law of\nequal height of all figures; conveyed expression by means of attitude;\nand, by the use of profile, and the introduction of accessories, or\nsmall objects, into the background, contrived to compensate for the\nwant of perspective.\n\nThis latter deficiency was due to the use of flat colours, which did\nnot allow of shades, and the figures were consequently not seen in\nmasses distinguished by light and shade, but isolated in the air.\nHence, in order to make the figures distinct, and to express by\nattitude all the actions and sentiments required, the artist was\ncompelled to use profile. The black colour, the choice of which may at\nfirst appear singular, is, after all, the most harmonious, and the best\nsuited for showing the elegance and purity of the outline; whilst by\nits aptness to reveal any defects of shape, it compelled the artist to\nbe very careful in his drawing.\n\nThe colours employed[805] were, as we have seen, remarkably few in\nnumber. Of the black varnish which plays such an important part, and of\nits composition we have already spoken. Of the opaque accessory\ncolours, the white is said by Brongniart[806] to be a carbonate of lime\nor fine clay. It is evidently an earth of some kind, and gives no trace\nof lead under analysis. The creamy slip of the white-ground vases is of\nsimilar character, and appears to be a kind of pipeclay. It was\nprobably of the same character as the earth of Melos used by\nPolygnotos.[807] The deep purple or crimson, so largely employed on the\nCorinthian and early Attic B.F. vases, is known to be an oxide of iron,\nan element which entered largely into the red glaze. The yellow found\non the white vases and those of Apulia as an accessory to white is of\nan ochrous nature. The red used for outlines on the white lekythi is\nprobably not vermilion (_minium_), but red ochre (\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _rubrica_).\nBlue and green, which are rarely found, and only on vases of the later\nstyles, were produced from a basis of copper. On vases from the time of\nEuphronios and Brygos (about 480 B.C.) onwards, gilding was\noccasionally employed, the process being one which we have already\ndescribed (see above, p. 210). Good instances of this process are to be\nseen in the fourth-century vases from Capua, which are glazed black\nthroughout and ornamented solely with gilding.[808] But the gold leaf\nhas often perished. Besides Capua, these vases are found chiefly in\nAthens and the Cyrenaica.\n\n 5. STATUS OF POTTERS\n\nIt now remains to say something respecting the makers of Greek\nvases\u2014the potters of antiquity. Unfortunately, however, little is known\nof their condition, except that they formed a guild, or fraternity, and\nthat they amassed considerable fortunes by exporting their products to\nthe principal emporia of the ancient world. The existence of two\n_Kerameikoi_, or pottery districts, at Athens shows the great\ncommercial importance of the manufacture. In later times there seems to\nhave been a considerable tendency to division of labour among the\npotters, and each man \u201cspecialised\u201d in some particular shape; hence we\nfind them characterised as \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 and \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2,[809]\n\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2,[810] \u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2,[811] or \u03ba\u03c9\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2.[812] It is assumed\nthat the word \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, \u201cmade,\u201d when found on a vase, indicates the\npotter, and not the artist, although it is reasonable to suppose that\nwhen no artist\u2019s name accompanies the formula the potter was at the\nsame time the painter. On one vase the names of two potters, Glaukytes\nand Archikles, are found[813]; one has been supposed to be the\nartist\u2019s, but it is more probable they were partners.\n\nBy the Athenians, potters were called _Prometheans_,[814] from the\nTitan Prometheus, who made man out of clay\u2014which, according to one\nmyth, was the blood of the Titans, or Giants\u2014and was thus the founder\nof the fictile art. It was not, however, much esteemed, although\nwithout doubt the pursuit of it was a lucrative one, and many of the\ntrade realised large fortunes; in proof of which may be cited the\nwell-known anecdote of Agathokles,[815] who, at a time when the rich\nused plate, was in the habit of mixing earthenware with it at his\ntable, telling his officers that he formerly made such ware, but that\nnow, owing to his prudence and valour, he was served in gold\u2014an\nanecdote which also suggests that the profession was not highly\nesteemed. The guild at Athens was called \u1f10\u03ba \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cof the\npotters,\u201d[816] and we also hear of a college of \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 at\nThyateira.[817] However, the competition in the trade was so warm as to\npass into a proverb, and the animosity of some of the rival potters is\neven recorded upon the vases.[818] To this spirit are also probably to\nbe referred many of the tricks of the trade, such as imitations of the\nnames of makers, and the numerous illegible inscriptions. When the\npotter\u2019s establishment\u2014called an _ergasterion_\u2014was large, he employed\nunder him a number of persons, some of whom were probably free but poor\ncitizens, whilst others were slaves belonging to him.[819] How the\nlabour was subdivided there are no means of accurately determining, but\nthe following hands were probably employed:\u2014(1) A potter, to make the\nvase on the wheel; (2) an artist, to trace with a point in outline the\nsubject of the vase; (3) a painter, who executed the whole subject in\noutline, and who probably returned it to No. 2, when incised lines were\nrequired; (4) a modeller, who added such parts of the vase as were\nmoulded; (5) a fireman, who took the vase to the furnace and brought it\nback; (6) a fireman for the furnace; (7) packers, to prepare the vases\nfor exportation. Hence it may readily be conceived that a large\nestablishment employed a considerable number of hands, and exhibited an\nanimated scene of industrial activity.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 548.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n _Technologie_, ii. p. 56.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n _Die Malerei_, p. 176.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n See Jahn, _Vasens. zu M\u00fcnchen_, p. cxliv; and Brunn-Lau, _Griech.\n Vasen_, p. 6.\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n Suidas, _s.v._; Athenaeus, xi. 482 B; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 36.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n _De recta audiendi rat._ 9, \u00a7 42 D.\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n Suidas, _s.v._ \u039a\u03c9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03b5\u03c2; cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 152.\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n For representations of quarrying for clay at Corinth see the pinakes\n at Berlin, _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 7, 23.\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n Athen. xi. 464 B. C.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n _Reg. et Imp. Apophth._ 174 E.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 161.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n Myres in _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 16.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n Diod. Sic. iv. 76.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n See Frazer, _Pausanias_, note to i. 21, 4.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ vii. 198; Schol. _ad_ Pind. _Ol._ xiii. 27.\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n Diog. Laert. i. 105; Suidas, _s.v._ \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n Athen. i. 28 C.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n _Il._ xviii. 600.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n vii. 303.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n Seneca, _Ep._ 90, 31.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n _Rep._ 420 E.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n _Apud_ Athenaeum, x. 449 B.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 38, note 3.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n xxxviii. 29: \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n _De gen. Socr._ 20, p. 588 F.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n i. 645 K, quoted by Bl\u00fcmner.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 39; Jahn in _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch_. 1854, p. 40,\n note. See also Chapters XXI.-XXII.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, figs. 17, 18; cf. _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ xiv. (1889), p. 157.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 51.\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n As on the vases of Nikosthenes (see below, p. 385; B.M. B 619, 620;\n Louvre F 116, 117).\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 11 = Petersburg 525.\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n Evans, in _Num. Chron._ 3rd Ser. xi. p. 319 = _B.M. Cat._ iv. G 121,\n 122.\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n See for examples _B. M. Cat._ iv. G 87\u201395.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n Cf. Aesop, _Fab._ 166 _a_, _b_.\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n _Cat._ 2542 = Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 50.\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 552.\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n _Legg._ iii. 679 A.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n _H.N._ xxix. 34.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 426, E 459.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n Cf. Ar. _Ach._ 933: \u03c8\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03bb\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2. See also Suid.\n _s.v._ \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c2; Pollux, vii. 164; _Etym. Magn._ p. 798, 17; and\n Schol. _in_ Hom. _Il._ ii. 219. I cannot but think that in the term\n \u03c6\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03c2, as applied to Thersites' head, there is some correspondence to\n our phrase \u201ccrack-brained.\u201d Simonides (_apud_ Athen. xi. 480 D)\n speaks of a \u03c6\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03af\u03b7 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be, a term of disputed meaning; but\n a cup of which the brim (\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) would suggest the shape of a peaked\n head is hardly conceivable; and here again there must surely be some\n notion of sound.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _op. cit._ ii. p. 46.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n See Fig. 67 _b_; Berlin 2294; Furtwaengler, in _Jahrbuch_, vi.\n (1891), p. 110, points out that these heads probably represent the\n Kyklopes or demon-attendants of the fire-god Hephaistos. See above,\n p. 105, under \u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9; also Daremberg and Saglio, _art._ Caminus.\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n Lenormant, _La Grande Gr\u00e8ce_, i. p. 94.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n Berlin 802 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 8, 4.\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n _Cat._ 731 = Jahn in _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854, pl. 1, fig. 1,\n p. 27.\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n A Seilenos in this act appears on a vase in _Sale Cat. H\u00f4tel Drouot_,\n May 11th, 1903, No. 131 (reproduced in Fig. 68).\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n Examples are: _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, figs. 12, 19_b_, 22 (in\n Berlin); _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pp. 105, 106 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n A better drawing has recently been given in Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 159; but the reproduction in Fig. 67 is\n accurate in all essentials.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n _Cat._ 1114 = _Ath. Mitth._ xiv. (1889), p. 151.\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 52.\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n See above, p. 214.\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner (ii. p. 75) gives an account of various chemical experiments\n made upon it.\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 76 ff.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 550.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n This process is well illustrated on certain vases (_e.g._ B 158 in\n Brit. Mus.), where the artist has subsequently altered his design,\n and the lines still remain visible.\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n See for a fuller consideration of this point p. 368.\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1992, fig. 2137 = Reinach, i. 336.\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n See Pottier, _Lecythes blancs_, p. 99 ff.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n See Chapter XI., and Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_, p. 499.\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 147 ff.\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 376.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 154.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1899, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n _Cat._ 222.\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n See Durand-Gr\u00e9ville in _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1891), p. 99 ff., xix.\n (1892), p. 363 ff.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 81.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n See for the four colours used by him, Plut. _de defect. orac._ 47,\n 436 C; Cic. _Brut._ 18, 70; and cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 50.\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n On vases with gilding, see Jahn, _Vasen mit Goldschmuck_ (1865).\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n Plat. _Theaet._ 147 A, _Rep._ iv. 421 D; Pollux, vii. 163.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n Strabo, xv. 717; Pollux, vii. 182.\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n Schol. _in_ Ar. _Pac._ 1202.\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n Pollux, vii. 160.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n B.M. B 400.\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n Lucian, _Prom. in Verbis_, 2; cf. Lactantius, _Div. Inst._ ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n Plutarch, _Apophth. Reg. et Imp._ 176 E.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. 599; Ross-Meier, _Demen von Attika_, p.\n 122, No. 67. The persons here mentioned were not necessarily potters.\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 3485.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n Hes. _Op. et Di._ 25: \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9; quoted by\n Aristotle, _Rhet._ ii. 4, 21, and Plat. _Lys._ 215 C. Euthymides on\n one of his vases places the boast, \u201cEuphronios never did anything\n like this.\u201d See for these two artists, Chapter X.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n Cf. the vase at Athens described above (p. 218), and the others with\n representations of potteries.\n\n\n\n\n PART II\n HISTORY OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI\n _PRIMITIVE FABRICS_\n\n Introductory\u2014Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery\u2014Classification\u2014Mycenaean\n pottery in Cyprus\u2014Graeco-Phoenician fabrics\u2014Shapes and\n decoration\u2014Hellenic and later vases\u2014Primitive pottery in\n Greece\u2014Troy\u2014Thera and Cyclades\u2014Crete\u2014Recent discoveries\u2014Mycenaean\n pottery\u2014Classification and distribution\u2014Centres of\n fabric\u2014Ethnography and chronology.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters we have given a general _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the\nsubject of Greek pottery; we have discussed the sites on which Greek\nvases have been found, the methods employed in their manufacture, the\nshapes which they assume, and the uses to which they were put both on\nearth and in the tombs; and we have now reached perhaps the most\nimportant part of the subject, at any rate in the eyes of\narchaeologists, namely, the history of the rise, development and\ndecadence of painting on Greek vases.\n\nIt has already been noted (in Chapter I.) that this branch of the study\nof Greek vases is one that has only been called into existence in\ncomparatively recent times, and that up to the year 1854 or thereabouts\nall attempts at dating the vases (chiefly of course owing to the\npoverty of material) were purely empirical and tentative. They were\nmoreover largely combined with fantastic interpretations of the painted\ndesigns.\n\nDuring the last forty years, and especially during the last twenty, the\nsteady growth of archaeological study and increased attention to\nexcavations have enormously increased both the material at command and\nthe power of utilising it with scientific method. The extensive finds\nof pottery in Greece, Asia Minor, Northern Africa, Italy, and\nelsewhere, including more especially products of the earlier periods,\nhave enabled the students of the subject to trace the sequence of\nfabrics from the rude wares of Troy and the Greek Islands up to the\ngraceful and finished products of the Athenian _ateliers_, and onward\nto the overgrown luxuriousness of the gigantic Apulian wares. The\nsubjects of the paintings, once of all-absorbing, are now only of\nsubordinate interest, except so far as they illustrate certain phases\nof development, and the chief interest of the vases is the question of\ntheir origin, their maker, or their place in relation to others.\n\nIt will therefore be the object of this and of the succeeding chapters\nto trace with all possible detail, as far as space permits, the history\nof Greek vase-manufacture and vase-painting in all their aspects. We\nhave already indicated (p. 31) the limits within which the subject\nfalls, and the convenient rough division into four main classes of\nwhich it permits (p. 23). This introductory chapter, therefore, deals\nwith the primitive fabrics, leading up, through the two following, to\nthe period of black-figured vases in Chapter IX. The lines of\ndemarcation are, indeed, difficult if not impossible to draw, but they\nmust not in any case be taken as rigid ones, being largely\nconventional, and only adopted in order to obtain a point of division\nfor the chapters.\n\nPerhaps the leading feature of the early history of Greek vases is the\ngradual coalescence of the numerous local fabrics first into two or\nthree main streams, and finally into the one great and all-absorbing\ncurrent of Athenian art. In the sixth century this was really brought\nabout more by historical causes than anything else, as a result of the\ngradually increasing supremacy of Athens in art and culture from the\ntime of the Peisistratidae down to that of Perikles.\n\nOne region, and one only, pursues its artistic course without regard to\nthe contemporaneous tendencies prevailing in the Greek world, and that\nis the island of =Cyprus=. Here again the causes are largely political,\nas we shall see; largely also ethnographical and geographical, from the\ncharacter of the inhabitants and the position of the island, a\nmeeting-place and bone of contention between the great nations of the\nEastern Mediterranean. For this reason we propose to deal first with\nthe pottery of Cyprus, which has little in common with that of the rest\nof Greece, and always retains something of its primitive character,\nthough it is always as much influenced from Greece on the one hand as\nfrom the East on the other. It is in Cyprus also that we meet with some\nof the earliest remains of pottery yet found on Greek soil.\n\n \u00a7 1. CYPRIOTE POTTERY\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Cesnola, _Cyprus_; O.-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_;\n Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. p. 648 ff.; _Cyprus\n Mus. Cat._ (Myres and O.-Richter); _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_\n (Turner Bequest), 1894\u20136; D\u00fcmmler in _Ath. Mitth._ xi. (1886), p.\n 209 ff.; _Archaeologia_, xlv. p. 127 ff.; Pottier, _Cat. des\n Vases ant. du Louvre_, i. p. 82 ff., and other references there\n given.\n\n\nIn order to understand aright the history of Cypriote art, it is indeed\nnecessary to know something of its ethnography and political history,\nand the various influences to which it has been subjected. But space\nforbids us to do more than make very brief allusions to the more\nimportant of these features. Speaking generally, Cyprus may be regarded\nas a centre wherein have met all the currents of ancient civilisation,\nforming an amalgamation of artistic elements. Thus Cypriote art, though\nit loses in originality, gains in interest; and yet though often\nslavishly imitative, it has at bottom great individuality, more\nespecially in its pottery. Hence it will be seen that it is essentially\nnecessary to consider the pottery of Cyprus as a thing apart.\n\nAs regards chronology, except for a certain determinable sequence of\nartistic phases, even more caution than in dealing with Hellenic art is\nrequired. The remarkable conservatism and persistence of types\nexhibited by Cypriote art has more than once proved a pitfall, and has\ngiven rise to considerable controversy at one time or another. Dates\ncan only be used in the vaguest manner.\n\nThe pottery of Cyprus falls under three headings, which for\nconvenience, though not perhaps with the strictest accuracy, are\nusually defined as follows:\u2014\n\n 1. _Bronze Age_, from about 2500 B.C. to 800 B.C.\n\n 2. _Graeco-Phoenician period_, from 800 B.C. to 400 B.C., overlapping\n with\n\n 3. _Hellenic period_, from 550 B.C. to 200 B.C., representing the\n time during which imported Greek vases are found in the tombs,\n native pottery gradually dying out except in the form of plain\n vessels.\n\nThe pottery of the Bronze-Age period again falls into two distinct\nperiods: (1) Copper Age or pre-Mycenaean period (2500\u20131500 B.C.),\nduring which few bronze implements are found in the tombs, and all the\npottery is purely indigenous, the work of the original inhabitants of\nthe island, without any admixture of importations. (2) The Mycenaean\nperiod (1500\u2013800 B.C.), during which the local pottery (including both\nunpainted and painted vases) is reinforced by large quantities of\nimported Mycenaean pottery, together with elaborately decorated vases\nof Mycenaean technique, either made locally or specially made for\nCyprus and imported.\n\nThe sites on which Bronze-Age remains are found (see above, p. 66) are\nchiefly confined to the central and southern parts of the island, the\nmost important sites being near the modern towns of Nicosia, Larnaka,\nand Famagusta. The discovery in these tombs of such objects as\nmilking-bowls and querns is an additional proof of the conclusion\nnaturally to be drawn\u2014that the early inhabitants of Cyprus were a race\nof pastoral lowlanders.[820] The tombs (see p. 35) are mostly pit-tombs\nof moderate depth, recalling in type the Egyptian _mastaba_, and burial\nis universal.\n\nThere is no doubt that the art of pottery was introduced into Cyprus\ncoincidently with the beginning of the Copper Age, which may be placed\nat about the year 2000 B.C. Although no bronze is found in the earliest\ntombs, on the other hand stone implements are absent, and the types of\nthe pottery are identical with those of the later Bronze Age. It will\nbe seen that it presents throughout very striking parallels with the\npottery of Hissarlik, which will form the subject of the next section.\nThe forms are largely similar and the technique is the same, but the\nHissarlik pottery is ruder and of inferior clay. Stone implements are\nfound at Hissarlik, but no copper, from which the inference may be\ndrawn that that metal, being indigenous to Cyprus, supplanted stone\nthere at an earlier date than in the Troad, whither it had to find its\nway by means of commerce. It was no doubt largely due to the existence\nof its copper ores that Cyprus so early shows an advance in its\ncivilisation.\n\nThe shapes of the earliest Cypriote pottery are purely indigenous and\nvery characteristic, but the technique may very likely have been\nlearned from elsewhere; in regard to which it should be noted that as\nit is invariably hand-made, an Egyptian origin is altogether precluded,\nowing to the early use of the wheel for pottery in that country (see\npp. 7, 206). For the most part the forms are characterised by a\ntendency to fantastic and unsymmetrical modelling, with a preference\nfor complicated forms, such as two or three vases joined together.\nOthers again imitate gourds or vessels of straw and basket-work, such\nas are used in Cyprus at the present day. They have no foot or\n\u201cbase-ring\u201d to stand upon; and another characteristic is the frequent\nabsence of handles, the place of which is supplied by small ears, by\nmeans of which the vase was hung up or carried by cords.[821] Sometimes\nthese ears cover the whole outline of the vase. The plastic principle\nis always popular in the Bronze-Age pottery, and manifests itself in\nmore than one direction. From the first it is exhibited in the\ntendency, so common in early art, to combine the vase and the\nstatuette,[822] a tendency which is even stronger in the pottery of\nHissarlik. It also takes the form of designs in relief covering the\nsurface of, or moulded to, the vase.\n\nIn one point Cyprus is manifestly in advance of the rest of the ancient\nworld, and that is, in the decoration of the pottery. Here, in fact, we\nmeet with the first attempts at painted vases, combined with the\nemployment of a fine bright red or polished black slip to cover the\nsurface. In the earlier varieties the designs, when they occur, are\nconfined to simple rectilinear geometrical patterns incised through the\nslip before baking; but these are soon supplemented by the employment,\nfirst of a matt-white pigment, secondly of a brown-black paint obtained\nfrom the native umber. The only other locality in which painted vases\noccur at so early a period is the island of Thera (see below, p. 260).\n\nWe pass now to the consideration of the later Bronze-Age\npottery\u2014namely, that which is found in tombs together with vases of\nMycenaean style. In this we see various modifications of the indigenous\nart, and witness its eventual transformation by the introduction of new\nprocesses and ideas from various sources. The main streams of influence\nare three in number, coming from the east, south, and west\nrespectively. Of these the first represents the Asiatic civilisations\nof Babylonia and the Hittites, to whom in the first place are due the\nengraved cylinders frequently found in these tombs, and at a\ncomparatively late date such objects as the ivory draught-box from\nEnkomi in the British Museum, which affords points of comparison with\nthe reliefs of Kouyounjik. Egyptian influences date from the invasion\nof Cyprus by Thothmes III. (eighteenth dynasty), about 1450 B.C., as\nexemplified by the frequent occurrence of scarabs and porcelain\nobjects. A counter-influence of Cyprus on Egypt is seen in the presence\nof exported Cypriote pottery in tombs at Kahun, Saqqara, and\nelsewhere.[823] Lastly, there is the far more extensive influence of\nthe Mycenaean civilisation, covering several hundred years, and\neventually absorbing the indigenous fabrics until the foundations of a\nnew phase of decorative art were laid on a combination of the two. The\nMycenaean vases belong to the later styles exclusively (see below, p.\n271), and show a strong preference for certain forms such as the\nfalse-necked amphora and the large richly-decorated krater peculiar to\nCyprus; but these we must discuss later in fuller detail. Briefly, they\nrepresent the first entry of Greece proper into the Cypriote world.\n\nThe ethnological affinities of the early inhabitants of Cyprus cannot\nbe positively ascertained. In M. Heuzey\u2019s opinion they were Asiatics,\nSyrian rather than Phoenician, and he suggests that the names of Kition\n(Chittim) and Amathus (Hamath) imply Hittite and Hamathite colonists.\nD\u00fcmmler regarded them as closely akin to the race which inhabited the\nsecond city at Hissarlik,[824] an idea to which the similarity of the\npottery might be thought to lend support. At all events in Greek legend\nthis people was personified by the mythical king Kinyras, the father of\nAdonis, who came from the neighbouring Asiatic coast. The Hellenic, or\nrather Achaean, invasion is crystallised into the legends of Teucer\u2019s\ncolonisation of Salamis after the fall of Troy,[825] of an Arcadian\nsettlement at Kerynia and elsewhere, and of the founding of Curium by\nArgives (? Mycenaeans).[826]\n\nThe first attempt to classify the pottery of Cyprus, and to distinguish\nbetween the Bronze-Age wares and what are now known as the\nGraeco-Phoenician fabrics, was made by the late Mr. T. B. Sandwith in\n1876.[827] Considering the comparative poverty of material at his\ncommand, and the state of archaeological knowledge at the time, his\nbrief but illuminating monograph is a wonderfully accurate and\nscientific contribution, and, so far as it goes, his classification can\nstill be accepted in the main. But the extensive series of excavations\nin the island since the British occupation, and the investigation of\nsuch fruitful sites as Salamis, Curium, and Kition, have resulted in a\ngreat advance of our knowledge of the subject. The elaborate\nclassification made by Messrs. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter of the\nrepresentative collections of the Cyprus Museum must for the present be\nregarded as final, and of necessity forms the basis of the succeeding\ndescription.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe pottery of the Bronze Age may be classified under two main\nheadings: Painted and Unpainted Pottery. Of these the former is\npractically confined to the later tombs, and we naturally turn first to\nthe unpainted pottery as taking precedence in chronology and\ndevelopment.\n\nAlmost the commonest, and probably the earliest, variety is the =red\npolished ware=, sometimes plain, but generally ornamented with incised\npatterns or reliefs (see Plate XI., Nos. 3, 4, 7).[828] The polished\nsurface, which seems to betoken a great advance in technique, was\ndoubtless produced by means of a burnisher. In some varieties the\nsurface is black, a result due to the action of smoke in firing. The\ncommonest forms are a globular bottle with long neck and handle, a\nplain bowl, a cooking-pot on feet, and a two-handled globular amphora;\nbesides composite and abnormal forms. None of these vases have any kind\nof base except the cooking-pots.\n\nThe incised patterns, when they occur, are scratched in deeply before\nfiring, and often filled in with white; the patterns, which tend to\nbecome more and more elaborate, consist of zigzags, wavy lines,\nchequers and lozenges, network patterns, and concentric circles.\nOrnament in relief is applied in the form of strips of clay, often\nworked into the shape of rude figures of trees, snakes, animals, or\nsimple patterns. Many tombs and even cemeteries, as at Alambra, Agia\nParaskevi, and elsewhere, contain no other form of pottery; but though\nthese are undoubtedly earlier than the mixed tombs, the red ware in a\ndegenerate form continues long afterwards.\n\nThere is also a small class of =black-slip ware=, covered with a thin\ndark lustreless slip which flakes off easily. The ornamentation, which\nis seldom absent, is generally in the form of a straight or wavy line\nwith a row of dots alternately on either side, either incised or in\nrelief. The forms are much the same as in the red ware, but often seem\nto suggest metal or leather prototypes.\n\nAn interesting class is formed by the =black punctured ware=, in which\nthe clay is black throughout, without a slip, but partly polished. Most\nof these vases are small jugs with a narrow neck, swelling body, and\nsmall foot, and they are ornamented with punctured dots, usually in\ntriangular patches, but sometimes irregularly distributed. In Cyprus\nthey are mostly found in the early necropolis at Kalopsida, but they\nalso occur in the late Mycenaean tombs at Enkomi. The special interest\nof this ware is that it is found in Egypt, under such circumstances\nthat it can fairly be dated; notably at Khata'anah in conjunction with\nscarabs and flint chips of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties\n(2500\u20132000 B.C.). It is also found in the Fay\u00fbm, where Prof. Petrie\nobtained some good specimens.[829]\n\nAllied to this is the Cypriote _bucchero_ ware, of plain black clay\nwithout slip, ornamented with ribs or flutings. It is only found in the\nlater tombs, and can be traced through the subsequent transitional\nperiod.[830]\n\nOf the remaining fabrics the most conspicuous is that termed by Mr.\nMyres the =base-ring ware=, which is marked off from other Bronze-Age\ntypes by its flat-ringed base in all cases. The clay is dark and of\nfine texture, with thinly-glazed surface. The ornament is either in\nrelief or painted in matt-white, the patterns being exclusively of a\nbasket or network type (Plate XI., figs. 1, 2). The reliefs, when they\noccur, consist of scrolls or raised seams curving over the body,\nobviously in imitation of the seams of a leather bottle; they sometimes\nend in a leaf-ornament,[831] and at other times take the form of a\nsnake. This fabric is very commonly found in the later tombs with\nMycenaean vases, and hardly earlier. It has been found in Egypt and at\nLachish.[832]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n EARLY CYPRIOTE POTTERY (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1, 2, \u201cBASE-RING\u201d BLACK WARE; 3, 4, 7, INCISED RED AND BLACK WARES;\n 5, 6, \u201cWHITE-SLIP\u201d WARES.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nAmong the rarer varieties of unpainted wares Mr. Myres includes white\nbase-ring ware (plates and bowls), imitations of straw-plait or\nwicker-work, and plain _wheel-made wares_ with red or black slip, of\npeculiar form.[833]\n\nAmong the Painted Pottery by far the most widely-spread local fabric is\nthat styled by Mr. Myres the =white-slip ware=, which appears in the\ntombs of the later Bronze Age, and is more than any other associated\nwith Mycenaean vases. In cemeteries such as Enkomi, Curium, and\nMaroni[834] it has been found in large quantities in almost every tomb,\nand its range is not limited to Cyprus. The characteristics of this\nware are a black gritty clay, worked very thin, and a thick white\ncreamy slip with which it is covered both inside and out; it is\nexceedingly brittle, and perfect specimens are comparatively uncommon.\nThe ornament is laid on in a black pigment, often turning to red by the\naction of fire; the most common form is that of a hemispherical bowl\nwith a flat triangular handle, notched at the apex. Almost the only\nother forms are a long-necked flask or bottle of the lekythos type and\na large jug with cylindrical body (like an _olpe_) and a flat\nthumb-piece above the handle.\n\nMr. Myres[835] points out that the scheme of decoration seems intended\nto imitate the binding and seams of a leather bowl; it usually consists\nof a band of various patterns (lattice-work, zigzags, lozenges, or\nlines of dots) round the rim, from which similar bands descend\nvertically, but do not meet at the bottom. Similarly the handle seems\nintended to represent two pieces of flexible wood bound together. In\nthe case of the jugs the patterns follow a similar principle, giving\nthe effect of a decoration in panels to the upper part. Specimens of\nthis ware are given in Plate XI., Nos. 5, 6.\n\nBeyond the confines of Cyprus isolated specimens of this ware have been\nfound at Athens, Hissarlik, Thera, Lachish in Palestine, and at Saqqara\nand Tell-el-Amarna in Egypt, in the last-named instance along with\nMycenaean vases.[836] The resemblance of some white-slip wares to the\nDipylon vases is not a little curious.[837] But it can hardly be\nthought that the one influenced the other.\n\nThe other local painted wares are by no means so common. They are, in\nfact, almost limited to specimens of an unpolished _white ware_, with\nfine cream-coloured clay, on which patterns such as groups of straight\nor wavy lines, chevrons, chequers, and triangles filled with hatched\nlines are painted with a pigment varying from dull black to dull red.\nThe commonest forms are one-handled bowls and small bottles, either\nglobular or sausage-shaped. The latter are distinguished by often\nhaving long tube-like spouts attached and by the numerous perforated\nprojections for the attachment of strings, handles being generally\nabsent at first, but when they are introduced the projections remain as\nan ornamental survival. In a few isolated specimens the surface is\ncovered with a polished slip. Others again are covered with a _black\nglaze_,[838] on which are painted in dull red groups of short parallel\nlines, which (as Mr. Myres points out) seem to have been executed at a\nsingle stroke with a cluster of brushes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe =Mycenaean pottery= which has been found on not a few sites in\nCyprus, and of late years in such surprising quantities at Enkomi and\nin the neighbourhood of Larnaka and Limassol (Maroni, Curium, etc.),\nbelongs properly to another section of this chapter, and would not call\nfor discussion in this connection, but for the fact that in Cyprus it\npresents certain features which seem to be almost exclusively local. At\nall events it is advisable to consider how far Mycenaean pottery in\nCyprus differs from that found in Rhodes, Crete, or Mycenae.\n\nTwo points claim our attention in the first instance: (1) that in point\nof technique the Cypriote finds fall absolutely into line with those in\nother parts of the Mycenaean world; (2) that the range of subjects\ndepicted on the vases found in Cyprus is wider and in a measure more\ndeveloped than elsewhere. To what extent we may be permitted, bearing\nboth facts in mind, to predicate a local fabric of Mycenaean pottery in\nCyprus, must for the present remain an open question; at the same time\nit seems extremely probable that the larger vases, which it will be\nnecessary to discuss in detail, are, if not of local manufacture, at\nall events a fabric made specially for exportation to Cyprus, as we\nshall see was the case with a later variety of black-figured Attic ware.\n\nThe peculiarity of the Cypriote-Mycenaean pottery is that whereas on\nother sites the decoration is confined to linear ornaments, and animal\nor vegetable subjects drawn almost exclusively from the aquatic world\n(such as cuttle-fish, shell-fish, or seaweed), in Cyprus we find\nrepresented not only animals, such as bulls, deer, goats, and dogs, but\neven human figures, both male and female, and monsters such as Sphinxes\nand Gryphons. Having regard to what M. Pottier[839] calls the law of\nthe _hierarchie des genres_, it does not seem impossible that this may\nimply a _late survival_ of Mycenaean art in Cyprus, and although this\nview has been hitherto strongly contested in certain quarters, it finds\nsupport from other evidence obtained in recent excavations. The whole\nchronology of Cypriote pottery is still in a very unsettled state, and\nuntil it can be definitely shown that the Cypriote Geometrical style\nbegan concurrently with the appearance of Geometrical pottery in\nGreece, it is still admissible to urge that Mycenaean art prevailed\nhere for some time subsequent to its disappearance from the greater\npart of the Hellenic world. For this the accepted date is the end of\nthe tenth century B.C., but it is not necessary to extend its influence\nin Cyprus more than two centuries longer, _i.e._ beyond the eighth\ncentury, at the latest.\n\nIf we accept the view generally held that the Mycenaean civilisation\nwas Achaean, and that after the Dorian invasion its representatives\nwere driven in an easterly direction and settled on the coast of Asia\nMinor; and if again we regard this as an historical version of the\nGreek traditions of the Trojan war and the subsequent migrations of the\nAchaean heroes[840]; we may then consider that the stories of Teucer\u2019s\nfoundation of a new Salamis and of an Argive colonisation of Curium\nfind their verification in the Mycenaean settlements recently\ndiscovered on those two Cypriote sites. The extent and richness of the\nold Salamis at Enkomi at any rate seems to suggest that it may have\nflourished as a Mycenaean settlement for some centuries.\n\nBut to return to the pottery. Two forms are eminently characteristic of\nthe Cypriote varieties. Of these, one\u2014the \u201cfalse amphora\u201d (p. 271)\u2014is\nnot peculiar to the island, but is found wherever Mycenaean pottery has\npenetrated; though especially common in Cyprus, it is in fact the most\npopular of all Mycenaean shapes. The other is a large krater, found in\ntwo varieties, either a straight-sided deep bowl with wide mouth and no\nneck, or a spheroidal vessel on a high stem, with a low straight neck\nof less diameter than the body. It is this latter class which appears\nto be of local manufacture and presents such a variety of painted\ndecoration.\n\nUp to the year 1895 only some half-dozen of these kraters were known,\none of which was found by General Cesnola in the rich necropolis at\nAgia Paraskevi near Nicosia[841]; another he alleged to have come from\nAmathus, but it was no doubt found at Maroni, not so far distant, where\nfor many years a Bronze-Age cemetery has been known. In the above-named\nyear two more came to light at Curium,[842] one of the same type as\nGeneral Cesnola\u2019s, with figures driving two-horse chariots; the other\nhaving in addition the unique subject of a series of women, each figure\nin a separate panel, represented as waving their arms or holding\nflowers.[843] These were speedily followed by the rich and valuable\nseries from Enkomi now in the British Museum, since which time other\ninteresting specimens have been obtained for the Museum in various\nexcavations or have found their way into the hands of local collectors\n(see Plate XII.).\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XII\n\n[Illustration: MYCENAEAN VASES FROM CYPRUS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nNative imitations of the Mycenaean vases, which have been described as\n\u201csub-Mycenaean wares,\u201d have been found in considerable numbers on most\nof the sites where the genuine Mycenaean ware exists. They fall\ntechnically under the heading of painted white ware (p. 251),[844] the\ndifference being that the decoration is in _matt_ colour (varying from\nblack to red) on an unpolished drab ground. The patterns mostly follow\nMycenaean models, but some are new. They are well represented on the\nMycenaean site at Curium,[845] especially in one or two tombs of\ntransitional character, and in some cases the decoration is of a\ndistinctly Geometrical type, illustrating the development of the\nsucceeding style. In any case it is not difficult to distinguish them\nfrom the genuine Mycenaean fabrics.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn these so-called sub-Mycenaean vases we can trace the best evidence\nof the transition from the Bronze Age to the succeeding or\nGraeco-Phoenician period. But on the whole the line of demarcation is\nclearly defined, as for instance by the forms and position of the\ntombs, which become larger and lie deeper; by the appearance of iron\nimplements and bronze fibulae; and by the fact that all the native\npottery is now made on the wheel. Relations with continental Greece are\nevidenced by the occasional importation of Geometrical pottery of the\nDipylon type (as in the great vase found at Curium), dating from the\nninth and eighth centuries B.C. As we have already seen, the first\nHellenic settlements in Cyprus seem to have followed on more or less\nimmediately after the Dorian invasion, in the sites of Salamis, Curium,\nKerynia, Paphos, and others which afterwards became the capitals of\nsmall Hellenic kingdoms.\n\nOn the other hand, the Phoenician thalassocracy, which began about the\nninth century B.C., never had much foothold in Cyprus, less at any rate\nthan was formerly supposed. Politically at all events the Phoenician\ninfluence was comparatively small, even in their settlements at Kition\nand Amathus[846]; we read of expeditions of the kings of Tyre in the\ntenth and eighth centuries, the object of which was to force the former\ntown to pay tribute; but subsequently they were compelled by the\nAssyrian domination under Sargon to retreat westwards. In the seventh\ncentury a new power arose in the shape of Egypt, and in the sixth\nCyprus became a tributary of Amasis.[847] Throughout, however,\nrelations with Greece were maintained, and we read that in 501 B.C. the\nCypriote princes joined the Ionians in their revolt against Persia, a\nfact which shows the strength of the Hellenic element.\n\nNevertheless the term \u201cGraeco-Phoenician,\u201d which has been adopted to\ndescribe the art of this period, is convenient, and can hardly be\nimproved upon, if we bear in mind that the term \u201cPhoenician\u201d really\nrepresents the combination of Egyptian and Assyrian elements of art\nwhich filtered through that race into Cyprus, and in which sometimes\nthe one, sometimes the other has the predominance. This is seen perhaps\nmore clearly in the sculpture, metal-work, and terracottas, as for\ninstance in the incised bronze and silver bowls,[848] than in the\npottery. Painted pottery was never a feature of Oriental art, and the\nPhoenician influence in the pottery is confined to borrowed motives of\nOriental character, like foreign words in a language. Another proof\nthat Cyprus resisted the Phoenician domination is afforded by the\ncurious fact that though the Greeks of the mainland adopted the\nPhoenician alphabet entirely, in Cyprus, on the other hand\u2014where, above\nall, we should have expected to find it\u2014its place is taken by a\nsyllabary, the forms of which appear to bear some relation to the\nLycian, Carian, and Pamphylian alphabets. That this syllabary, which is\nuniversally employed for inscriptions down to the fourth century, is of\na very high antiquity is shown by its close affinities with the\nnewly-discovered Cretan script, and by the fact that single characters\nof a similar type are often found engraved on the handles of Mycenaean\nvases in Cyprus. Each character represents a syllable, not a letter\n(except in the case of vowels), and the dialect is thought to be\nlargely influenced by Aeolic.\n\nMycenaean influence, as might be expected, was slow to die out in\nCyprus, and the pottery is no exception. It is seen not only in the\npatterns, such as the concentric circles\u2014an invention of the\nCypriote-Mycenaean pottery, which forms a favourite and almost\nuniversal motive at a later date\u2014but in the subjects and technique. The\npractice of painting figures in outline, not in silhouette, as in the\nbirds and beasts of the Enkomi kraters, the use of dull red and black\npigments on an unglazed light-coloured surface, and many other details\nare an heritage from the Bronze Age, extending over many a succeeding\ncentury. With these are combined the influences of the early Attic\npottery,[849] in the panels of Geometrical patterns, and the later\nrosette and conventionalised lotos-flower, which, with the concentric\ncircles, form the stock-in-trade of the \u201cGraeco-Phoenician\u201d potter. The\nBritish Museum collection includes one or two remarkable isolated\nspecimens which illustrate this principle. It is for instance\ninstructive to compare the Sphinxes on a krater from Enkomi[850] with\nthose on a large amphora lately acquired from the Karpas,[851] or the\noinochoe from General Cesnola\u2019s collection with a chariot-scene (Plate\nXIII.),[852] with those from Mycenaean sites similarly decorated. On\nthe other hand, the extraordinary large vase from Tamassos,[853] with\nits crudely and childishly drawn figures, combines a curious admixture\nof Greek and Oriental motives, and early as it must be, is not\nMycenaean in conception or technique.\n\nOriental influence is not, however, altogether wanting in the pottery.\nThe lotos-flowers and rosettes, of which we have already spoken, are\nderived respectively from Egypt and Assyria, and the conventionalised\npalm-trees, which also appear, are of course purely Oriental. So too,\nagain, the typically Oriental subject of the sacred tree between two\nanimals appears in various forms. But here again we are met with the\nsurprising fact that the Oriental element is far stronger in Greece\nthan in Cyprus, as will be seen later in the account of the early\nHellenic fabrics; and no doubt it is due to this cause that the\nGeometric style was not driven out from Cyprus as it was from Greece,\nbut continued for many centuries.\n\nIn attempting a detailed description of the Graeco-Phoenician pottery,\nit will be seen that any chronological system is impossible. The\nconservative tendency of Cypriote art caused the same methods of\ndecoration to be employed with extraordinary persistency during a\nperiod of time which saw the whole development of Hellenic\nvase-painting from its earliest beginnings to its decline, and though\nthere is a certain amount of variety, there is no development properly\nspeaking, and the latest fabrics are, artistically speaking, on the\nsame level as the earliest. It might be thought that the evidence of\nexcavations would compensate for this absence of artistic criteria; but\nsuch is not the case. As a general rule in tombs containing imported\nGreek vases, the dates of which can be fixed within reasonable limits,\nnative pottery is conspicuous by its absence, as may be seen from the\nresults obtained at Curium. In any case, in the tombs richest in\nHellenic pottery, as at Poli, the local wares are largely of a\ndefinitely late character, and so far distinct from the Geometrical and\nOrientalising fabrics as to form a class by themselves. Another\ndifficulty which has to be taken into account, is that caused by the\nfrequency of re-burials in Cypriote tombs. Of this there were countless\ninstances at Amathus and Poli, so much so that explorers of the latter\nsite were actually led to believe that the Geometrical pottery was\ncontemporaneous with remains of the Hellenistic age with which it was\nfrequently found.[854] But where trustworthy evidence can be obtained,\nit entirely militates against this possibility.\n\nThe principal sites[855] on which \u201cGraeco-Phoenician\u201d pottery has been\nfound are: Amathus, Curium, Dali (Idalion), Kition, Lapathos, Poli\n(Marion-Arsinoe), Paphos, Salamis, Soli, and Tamassos. Other sites are\nnot at present identified, but the finds were made in the neighbourhood\nof the modern Achna, Ormidhia, and other villages, and in the Karpas.\nOf these sites the richest are Amathus, Dali, Curium, and Poli; but in\nthe finest collection of vases of this class, that of General Cesnola\nat New York, the alleged sites are not always to be accepted with\ncertainty.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 75. JUG WITH CONCENTRIC CIRCLES: GRAECO-PHOENICIAN\nPERIOD (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nGraeco-Phoenician pottery is, as has been said, exclusively wheel-made,\nand almost always supplied with a \u201cbase-ring.\u201d Reliefs and incised\nornaments are never found, but instances of moulded wares, combining\nthe vase with the statuette, are not wanting, especially among the\nlater varieties. The designs are usually painted in a non-lustrous\nblack pigment, varied with the use of opaque purple and white,\ncorresponding to the pigments employed by Hellenic potters. The ground\nis either white, without any polish or slip\u2014as in the painted white\nware of the Bronze Age and sub-Mycenaean fabrics\u2014or else covered with a\nmore or less lustrous red slip, varying from a bright orange or deep\nred to a dark brown (the latter usually with unpolished surface).\nPurple is employed only on the white wares, white only on the red. The\ntypical decoration of the white wares consists of lotos-patterns,\ntree-ornaments, and water-fowl. Generally speaking, these are earlier\nthan the red. On the lustrous red wares the decoration is usually\nconfined to simple patterns of concentric circles, vertical and\nhorizontal, maeander crosses, lozenges and triangles. Fig. 75, from\nCurium, is a typical specimen of the more elaborate types, and another\nis shown in Plate XIII.\n\nThe forms are at first very varied, but gradually crystallise into some\nhalf-dozen main types: dishes, bowls on stems, lekythi with one or two\nhandles, jugs with globular bodies, and large amphorae with vertical\nside-handles. Of these the jug is by far the commonest. Among the\npeculiar forms in the earlier tombs (eighth to sixth centuries) may be\nmentioned _aski_ in the form of birds or oxen (the latter a Mycenaean\nsurvival), and a kind of flask with barrel-shaped body, on which the\ndecoration of concentric circles, etc., does not follow the usual\nhorizontal system of classical pottery, but is disposed vertically, in\ncontradiction to all artistic feeling (see Plate XIII.). The circles\nare often very fine and close, and were produced by holding a brush\nfull of paint close to the surface of the vase as it was turned on the\nwheel. The drawing of the circles in different planes, without regard\nto the lines of the vase, was easily effected by placing it in\ndifferent positions. In the period of Hellenic importations the\nprincipal form is the jug with ovoid body and modelled spout, and flat\ndishes are also common.\n\n * * * * *\n\nUnpainted pottery is almost as common as painted in the\nGraeco-Phoenician period, and calls for a few words of separate\ntreatment. For the most part it comes under the heading of Domestic\nWare, or earthenware vessels similar to those in ordinary use at the\npresent day. They are made of plain, unrefined, usually reddish, clay,\nwithout any slip or polish, and include various forms of jugs, bowls,\nand plates, as well as the large wine-amphorae with pointed bases\nuniversally found at all periods. Many lamps and small \u201ccup-and-saucer\u201d\ndouble bowls occur in this category. In the earlier tombs of the\nTransitional period, pottery of a black-slip ware, with reeded body, is\nfrequently found, chiefly in the form of jugs and kraters. Plain black\nwares, like the Italian _bucchero_, are also rarely found; as are\nvessels covered with a fine red slip and polished.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn most of the painted pottery of the Graeco-Phoenician period,\nespecially in its earlier phases, the technical methods are those which\nwe have already described in speaking not only of the \u201csub-Mycenaean\u201d\nor Transitional fabrics, but also of the painted white ware of the\nBronze-Age tombs. That is to say, that the decoration is in dull colour\non a lustreless and (usually) unpolished white or drab ground. The\ncolour, however, is usually not red, as in the earlier stages, but\nblack, red being used chiefly as an accessory or for picked-out\ndetails. The latter varies from a pale brick-red to deep purple. The\nsystem of decoration is often extremely elaborate, although the range\nof subjects is limited. Apart from geometrical or conventional\npatterns, such as the stylised palmette, lotos-flower, stars, or trees,\nwe only find water-fowl, fish, a few quadrupeds such as bulls or\ndeer,[856] and finally human figures. But the last are exceedingly\nrare, and confined to the white wares, the best example being perhaps\nthe very Oriental design of two warriors driving in a chariot,[857] or\nthe worshippers rendering homage to seated deities on the fine vase\nfrom Ormidhia (Fig. 76).[858]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XIII\n\n[Illustration: CYPRIOTE POTTERY: GRAECO-PHOENICIAN PERIOD (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe system of geometrical decoration on some of the earlier vases,\nespecially the large jars, is often extremely elaborate, covering every\navailable inch of the surface[859]; the patterns consist of rosettes,\npanels of lozenge-pattern or chequers, triangles of hatched lines,\ndotted circles, etc., all combined in parallel bands or friezes, much\nin the same way as on the Dipylon wares. The disappearance of this\nelaborate style, together with human figures and figures of animals, is\nperhaps to be accounted for by the importations of Hellenic wares which\nbegan in the sixth century, and relegated the local fabrics to a\nsubordinate position, just as in Greece the early Geometrical fabrics\nwere obscured by the Mycenaean pottery (see below, p. 279).\n\nSome interesting specimens, forming a late survival of these earlier\nGeometrical wares, were found at Amathus in 1894.[860] They include one\nwhich has a parallel in a vase found at Phocaea by Prof. Ramsay,[861]\nand originally thought to be Ionic in origin; the decoration consists\nof a head of Hathor the Egyptian goddess in a panel, with debased\ngeometrical patterns. There can be no doubt now that the fabric is\nCypriote, probably of the fifth century, and not without traces of\nIonic influence. Another shows a remarkable development in the\ndirection of naturalism, and the subject is unique in Cypriote pottery:\nmen banqueting under a palm-tree.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 76. CYPRIOTE VASE FROM ORMIDHIA.\n]\n\nThese probably date from the fifth century, the period which seems to\nbe represented by the later Geometrical red wares with concentric\ncircles, now slowly dying out under the influence of Hellenic\nimportations, and exceedingly rare in tombs where Greek vases are\nfound. At the same time a great transformation comes over the contents\nof the tombs, which themselves begin to increase in size, with a\nshorter \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, to which a flight of steps leads down. Other tombs\u2014and\nthis is often the case where Greek importations are found, as at\nCurium\u2014are merely in the form of ramifying passages cut in the earth,\nwithout any structural remains. Sixth century and earlier Greek\nfabrics, such as the Geometrical, Corinthian, or Ionian wares, are very\nrare; but the imported Dipylon vase found by General Cesnola at\nCurium[862] is a notable instance. Black-figured vases when found are\nalmost invariably of a late and careless type, characteristic of the\nlast efforts of that style in the fifth century. There is, however, a\nremarkable exception in the case of a small class of jugs, which are in\nshape an exact imitation of the globular Cypriote jugs with\nconcentric-circle decoration[863]; the long narrow neck and trefoil\nmouth, with its incised eyes, are retained, but the decoration is\npurely Attic, in the style of B.F. vases of 520\u2013500 B.C. These are\nfound at Poli and Amathus, and appear to have been made specially at\nAthens for importation to Cyprus. Poli (Marion) was for some reason a\ngreat centre for Athenian imports in general, and has yielded many fine\nspecimens of Hellenic pottery (see p. 67). Red-figured vases signed by\nChachrylion, Hermaios, etc., have been found here,[864] and at Curium a\nfine R.F. krater with the name of Megakles (\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2)[865]; also some fine\nwhite-ground specimens at Poli.[866]\n\nBy the fourth century, if not earlier, the Geometrical and Hellenic\nvases are almost entirely replaced by a new class of wares, which may\nbe termed \u201cGraeco-Cypriote,\u201d in contradistinction to the\nGraeco-Phoenician. The same red clay, covered with a more or less\npolished red slip, still obtains, but the painted decoration is\nconfined to olive-wreaths in brown or plain bands of colour. We also\nwitness the revival of an old practice, in a partial return to the\ntaste for plastic decoration on vases. In many of the fourth-century\ntombs are found large pitchers, with a spout modelled in the form of a\nwoman holding a jug, out of which the liquid was intended to pour\n(Plate XIII.).[867] These are sometimes richly decorated in polychrome,\nred, blue, green, black, pink, and white; but the colouring is apt to\nflake off and disappear. The imported wares of the fourth century are\nconfined to plain cups and bowls of glazed black ware with stamped\npatterns, such as are often found in Greece and Italy. In the\nHellenistic period (300\u2013146 B.C.) painted vases are practically\nunknown, though a few rare specimens have turned up at Curium[868]; and\nit is not long before they are entirely replaced by the glass vessels\nand common wine-amphorae of the large and elaborate Roman tombs.\n\n\n \u00a7 2. PRIMITIVE POTTERY IN GREECE\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n TROY: Schliemann, _Ilios_; D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja 1893_, and _Troja und\n Ilion_ (1902), i. p. 243 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _C\u00e9ramiques_, i. p.\n 3 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 74 ff.\n\n THERA: Fouqu\u00e9, _Santorin_; Dumont-Pottier, _C\u00e9ramiques_, i. p. 19\n ff.; Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi. p. 135 ff.; Furtwaengler and\n Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 18; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.\n 119 ff.; Hiller von Gaertringen, _Thera_, vol. ii. (1903), p. 127\n ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ xxviii. (1903), p. 1 ff.\n\n MELOS: Excavations of British School at Phylakopi (_J.H.S._\n Suppl. Vol. iv. 1904). See also D\u00fcmmler in _Ath. Mitth._ xi.\n (1886), p. 15 ff.\n\nThe earliest remains of pottery on Hellenic soil are to be sought\nchiefly in the Cyclades and on the site of ancient Troy. We have\nalready had occasion to allude to the latter in speaking of the\nearliest Cypriote fabrics, and it is therefore fitting that we should\nnow give it our first attention.\n\nThe site of =Troy=, now known as Hissarlik, was, as is well known,\nfirst explored by Dr. Schliemann in his laudable endeavours to prove\nthe truth of the early Greek legends of the Trojan War. Although\ndoubtless there are visible links between the Homeric poems and the\ndiscoveries at Hissarlik, and although it is not necessary to deny all\ncredence to the historical truth of the \u201cBible of the Greeks,\u201d yet it\nis now generally recognised that Dr. Schliemann\u2019s pardonable enthusiasm\nsometimes led him to hasty conclusions. For instance, Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld in\nhis more recent investigations proved that if any remains are to be\nconnected with the tale of Troy, it is those of the sixth, not of the\nsecond or burnt city.[869] Nine layers in all have been traced, of\nwhich the five lowest may be termed prehistoric, the third, fourth, and\nfifth being mere villages on the ruins of the first two. In the lowest\nand earliest of all, which may be roughly dated 3000\u20132500 B.C., flint\nimplements were found, together with rude black pottery: hand-made\nutensils baked in the open, with rings for suspension in place of\nhandles.\n\nThe second city belongs to the period 2500\u20132000 B.C., and it is this\nwhich has yielded pottery analogous to the earliest examples from\nCyprus (p. 238). It is of the same rough hand-polished black ware, with\ndecoration either of a plastic character or engraved in the clay while\nwet and filled in with white paint. Apart from this there are no traces\nof painted decoration, or of any slip; but the colour of the surface\nvaries with the firing. The patterns consist of zigzags, circles, and\nother rudimentary geometrical ornaments. A few wheel-made specimens\nwere found, but the majority are made by hand. What artistic sense was\nevinced by these primitive potters was shown exclusively in the forms,\nand in the tendency which is especially conspicuous in primitive times,\nthough it lingered on through the history of Greek art, and again broke\nout in the period of the decadence, to combine the ceramic and the\nplastic idea, and to give to the vase the rude resemblance of the human\nform.[870] That this was no far-fetched idea is shown by the universal\nnomenclature which permits us to speak of the mouth, neck, shoulder,\nbody, and foot of a vase\u2014a principle which has been extended by general\nconsent to countless inanimate objects. Thus we find the Hissarlik\npotter incising eyes on the upper part of the vase, or affixing lumps\nof clay to give a rude suggestion of ears, nose or breasts, or bands to\ndenote necklaces. The handles often seem intended for rudimentary arms,\nand we are tempted to see in the hat-shaped covers of the vases the\nidea of a head-covering. Schliemann even went so far as to regard them\nas actual idols, and was led by the superficial resemblance of some to\nthe form of an owl into identifying them with figures of the \u201cowl-eyed\u201d\n(\u03b3\u03bb\u03b1\u03c5\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2) Pallas Athena (cf. Fig. 77). But this interpretation has\nnot found favour for many reasons, and the accidental combination of\nforms is obviously only an artistic phase. There are also many similar\nshapes, such as plain jars and jugs, and deep funnel-shaped cups with\ntwo graceful handles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 77. \u201cOWL-VASE\u201d FROM TROY.]\n\nM. Dumont[871] classifies the fabrics as follows: (1) ordinary vessels,\nplates, etc.; (2) large jars or amphorae; (3) primitive kraters, deep\ncups, etc.; (4) spherical vases with base-ring [?] and long neck[872];\n(5) long two-handled cups; (6) vases reproducing the human form; (7)\nvases in the form of pigs and other animals; (8) exceptional forms,\nsuch as double vases; (9) vases with incised patterns, on one of which\na Sphinx is engraved. Figs. 78\u201380 give examples of classes (5), (7),\nand (8); Fig. 77 a specimen of class (6).[873]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 78. FUNNEL-VASE FROM TROY.]\n\nThe Hissarlik pottery may be regarded as a local development, partly\nparallel with that of Cyprus,[874] partly derivative therefrom; of\nOriental influence there are no traces, but the connection with Thera\nand Cyprus is indisputable.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 79. VASE IN FORM OF PIG, FROM TROY.]\n\nPassing over the unimportant traces of the three succeeding\nsettlements, we find in the sixth city a great advance. The plastic\nforms disappear, and generally speaking the shapes become more\nclassical. Besides plain pottery with matt-black polished surface we\nmeet with painted vases with curvilinear and vegetable patterns. The\nremains of genuine Mycenaean pottery, the fortifications and buildings,\nwith great halls in the style of Mycenae and Tiryns, bear out Dr.\nD\u00f6rpfeld\u2019s contention that this is the Troy of Homer. Two points among\nthe pottery finds of this period are worth noting; firstly that they\nincluded a fragment of Cypriote \u201cwhite-slip\u201d ware, secondly that\nGeometrical patterns mingle with the Mycenaean in the upper layers.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 80. VASE WITH TWO NECKS (TROY).]\n\nThe three remaining layers cover respectively the archaic period, the\ndeveloped Hellenic and Hellenistic periods, and the age in which the\ncity of Ilium was refounded by the Romans. Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld found some\ninteresting local fabrics dating from the fifth century, examples of\nwhich had previously been obtained by Mr. Calvert for the British\nMuseum.[875]\n\n * * * * *\n\nOf almost equal antiquity with the remains at Hissarlik is some of the\npottery discovered in the Cyclades, and especially at =Thera=. Here,\nindeed, we meet with the earliest known examples of Greek _painted_\npottery (Crete excepted), and that, as we shall see, of a remarkably\ndeveloped type.\n\nThe island of Thera may be described as a sort of prehistoric Pompeii\nburied under volcanic deposits, which have completely transformed the\nconfiguration of the island. The results of preliminary excavations by\nthe French in 1866 showed that the cataclysm which overwhelmed the\nisland must (on geological grounds) have taken place about the\ntwentieth century B.C., and that the remains of pottery must be\nanterior to this event.[876] Herodotos[877] states that Kadmos founded\na settlement in the fourteenth century, and the Minyae again about the\ntwelfth, and the island must have been uninhabitable for a long time\npreviously.\n\nThe houses and other remains of civilisation discovered below the\nvolcanic deposits show an advance on Hissarlik (second city) and the\nearliest Cypriote culture, and the pottery is no exception. The vases\nare wheel-made, fired at a moderate heat in closed furnaces (sometimes\nbaked in the sun), and plastic forms are almost wanting.[878] Many are\npierced with holes in the bottom, for what purpose is not known. They\nwere often found _in situ_, mixed with stone implements, and with\nevidence of having contained grain. The forms are very regular, a\ncylindrical shape being specially affected, and they are made of a\nbadly levigated clay, covered with a greyish slip, on which the\npatterns are laid in _matt_ colours\u2014white, black, or red\u2014without any\nincised markings.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 81. VASES FROM THERA.\n]\n\nM. Dumont distinguishes four varieties of ornament: simple patterns,\nsuch as bands, hatchings, and dots; volutes, wave-patterns, and\nintersecting circles; vegetable motives, such as long narrow leaves or\nflowers; and animals, including deer, and ducks or swans. Generally\nthere is a strong predilection for vegetable motives, and in this\nnaturalistic tendency we may see the prelude to the Mycenaean period.\nAmong those now at the French School at Athens, which has the best\ncollection, are several interesting examples illustrated in Fig.\n81.[879] One is a trefoil-mouthed jug with running quadrupeds in black,\nand red bands, on a grey ground; another jug is painted with birds in\nblack, the details in red and white. A sort of cream-jug is decorated\nwith water-plant patterns; a cylindrical jar with oblique wreaths; and\na dish with seaweed. A funnel-shaped vase and a beak-mouthed jug are\nobvious prototypes of Mycenaean forms.\n\nThe chief differences from the Hissarlik vases are in the forms and\nmethods of decoration, but resemblances may be noted in the long narrow\nnecks, and the rings for suspension, as in the plastic forms when they\ndo occur. That the fabric is a local one hardly admits of doubt, but it\nis interesting to note the occurrence of a bowl of white-slip ware from\nCyprus in Thera,[880] and conversely the appearance of a vase of Thera\nfabric at Mycenae.[881] Thus we have evidence of extensive commercial\nrelations. Some tombs of the Hellenic period seem to have been dug\nright down into the volcanic deposit, for they contained pottery with\nGeometrical decoration.[882]\n\nThe discovery of primitive stone idols in Thera shows that it belonged\nto the Cycladic civilisation, which extended from 2500 to 1600 B.C.,\nfilling up the gap between Hissarlik and Mycenae. It has been suggested\nthat these Cycladic peoples were Carians,[883] subsequently driven to\nthe Asiatic mainland by Minos, who typifies the rising power of Crete\nand the Mycenaean world.[884] This Cycladic civilisation is also\nexemplified in the earliest finds from other islands, such as Amorgos,\nSyra, Paros, and Antiparos, and in other instances noted early in the\ncentury by the observant traveller Ross.[885] The pottery from these\nsites is, however, less advanced than that of Thera, but varies in\ncharacter. Painted patterns were found on vases from Amorgos and Syra,\nthe latter in the form of brown foliage on yellow ground.\n\nIt would not be right to conclude this section without some notice of\nthe remarkably interesting pottery excavated at Phylakopi in =Melos= by\nthe British School in 1896\u201399, which is important as forming a\nconnecting link between the Cycladic wares and the fully-developed\nMycenaean style. Space forbids more than a brief abstract of the\nresults obtained, which have just been given to the world in an\nadmirable publication.[886] Mr. C. C. Edgar, to whom the task of\nstudying the pottery was allotted, distinguishes four main groups:\n\n 1. (_a_) Primitive pottery of the cist-tomb type, corresponding to\n that of Hissarlik; (_b_) more advanced ware of the same kind.\n\n 2. Painted Geometrical wares.\n\n 3. Local pottery in Mycenaean style with spiral and naturalistic\n designs, falling into two divisions, earlier and later.\n\n 4. Imported Mycenaean pottery of the third and fourth styles (see\n below, p. 271).\n\nGenerally speaking the pottery is of local make, and Phylakopi seems to\nhave been an important centre in the early Mycenaean period, having\nconsiderable intercourse with Crete. The earliest wares (class 1)\ninclude plain pottery, hand-made, with burnished brown surface or\nsimple incised patterns; those of class 2 are painted in lustrous or\nmatt black on a white slip, or in white on lustrous black or red, with\nsimple patterns; they appear to be hand-made. The Mycenaean pottery is\nmore or less akin to that found elsewhere in the Aegean.\n\n\n \u00a7 3. Crete\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 64 (finds in 1878 at Knossos); Milchhoefer,\n _Anf\u00e4nge der Kunst_; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_,\n p. 22; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 173; _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p.\n 333 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff., xxiii. p. 157 ff.; _British\n School Annual_, vi. p. 85 ff., vii. p. 51, and ix. p. 297 ff.;\n _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xv. (1894), p. 351 ff.\n\nIn turning our attention next to the island of Crete, we are confronted\nwith a new element in Greek archaeology; namely, the results of the\nrecent discoveries, which as yet have hardly become material ripe for\nuse in a general handbook. On the other hand, their singular importance\ndeserves full recognition. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that\nmuch in the succeeding section is merely the embodiment of previous\nresearches, and that the new evidence can only be briefly summarised.\n\nAllusion has just been made to the thalassocracy of Minos and its\nbearing on the history of early Greek civilisations, and the recent\ndiscoveries have done much to show that the prince who built the great\npalace at Knossos in the early days of Mycenaean civilisation, if he is\nnot actually the Minos of Greek legend, yet represents the rising power\nwhich extended its dominion over the Aegean and drove the Carian people\nto the mainland. This supremacy of Crete from the fifteenth to the\neleventh century was artistic as well as political. The Crete of Minos\nwas, moreover, the point of contact between the Aegean peoples and the\nOriental races; and in the story of the Minotaur we may perhaps see a\nreflection of the human sacrifices offered to the Phoenician Moloch or\nMelkarth. The familiar passage in Homer[887] which deals with the\nethnography of Crete speaks of four component elements, which may be\nexplained as (1) the Eteokretes, or aborigines of the island, to whom\nthe early civilisation exemplified in their ceramic and glyptic\nproducts is mainly due; (2) the Kydonii or Leleges, brought by Minos\nfrom the islands[888]; (3) the Achaeans or mainland Greeks of the\nperiod of the Trojan War; (4) the Dorians, whose connection with the\nisland dates from the eleventh century onwards.\n\nEven before the recent excavations pottery had been found in Crete\nwhich dated from the dawn of the Mycenaean period, and from the\nisland\u2019s early connection with Egypt was thought to be contemporaneous\nwith that of Hissarlik and Thera. From the circumstances of its first\nappearance in any quantity at Kamaraes, in the plain of Ida, it has\nusually been named after that place. Dr. Orsi discovered two fragments\nof Hissarlik type at Phaestos,[889] also a vase of island type, one of\nThera type,[890] and some early Cypriote wares.[891] Large numbers of\nfragments of this ware in the Museum at Candia were first noted by Dr.\nOrsi and Mr. J. L. Myres about 1894.[892] The extensive discoveries\nmade by Messrs. Hogarth and Welch for the British School at Athens in\n1899\u20131900 (see p. 60) have added still further to our knowledge of the\nware; and these, taken in conjunction with Mr. Arthur Evans\u2019s extensive\nfinds at Knossos (1899\u20131902), have enabled a recent writer to draw up a\ntentative classification of all the prehistoric pottery of Crete.[893]\n\nIn his paper Mr. Mackenzie divides the pottery into three main classes,\nwhich he distinguishes as Neolithic, Early and Middle Minoan, and Late\nMinoan. The first-named extends down to about 3000 B.C.; the second\ncovers the period 3000\u20132000 B.C.; and the third (including Mycenaean\npottery of the usual types) lasts down to 1500 B.C., about which time\nthe Cretan supremacy came to an end, and the Mycenaean centre of\ngravity was shifted to the mainland of Greece.\n\n(1) Pottery of the Neolithic period is quite exceptional in Aegean\nlocalities; yet the evidence from the excavations is so unmistakable\nthat there can be no question of its great antiquity. It consists of\ncommon household vessels of grey clay, hand-made and burnished; at\nfirst devoid of decoration, but subsequently fragments appear with\nincised patterns filled in with white. These, it may be noted, may help\nto date the analogous wares from Troy and Egypt. The black surface\nbecomes more and more lustrous, and in some cases a sort of rippling\neffect is produced in the soft clay with a blunt instrument[894];\nfinally an age of decline manifests itself, but at the same time an\nadvance is made from filling in hollows with white to painting in\ncolours on the flat surface.\n\n(2) The pottery in this stage is still hand-made; but the clay, which\nis of a brick or terracotta colour, is greatly improved, and shows that\na potter\u2019s oven must have been employed. The most remarkable feature is\nthat, along with the white or polychrome patterns on dark ground, the\norigin of which has been noted, there appear vases with patterns in\nlustrous dark colour on buff ground, like the Mycenaean wares. Hitherto\nit had been supposed that the latter process was much later than the\nother[895]; but the Cretan evidence admits of no doubt as to their\nsynchronism, even at this early stage of painted pottery in any form.\nThe pre-Mycenaean character of the Early Minoan deposits is, for\ninstance, proved by the entire absence of plain pottery of Mycenaean\ntypes. It is then clear that Crete developed both independently of, and\nwith far greater rapidity than, the rest of the Aegean at this period.\nThe painted patterns are usually of a Geometrical character.[896]\n\nThe middle deposits of the third millennium, found above the floors of\nthe first palace, are, like the preceding, both polychrome and\nmonochrome in their decoration. The former include most of the types\nformerly known as Kamaraes ware, the patterns being mainly but not\nexclusively Geometrical; the curvilinear are rather later in date. The\ncommonest shape is one resembling a tea-cup.[897] In the next stage\nrelief-work is introduced to enhance the polychrome effect, probably in\nimitation of metal. In the latest deposits a great decline is manifest,\nand the monochrome vases tend to assert themselves to the exclusion of\nthe others.\n\nThat the period under discussion must have been one of great length is\nshown by the depth of the \u201cMinoan\u201d deposits; they are, moreover, so\nextensive at Knossos, and so scanty and isolated are examples from\nother sites, that it cannot be doubted that here we have the centre of\nthe fabric. As regards their date we have good evidence from early\nAegean deposits in Egypt. By means of Professor Petrie\u2019s finds at Kahun\nin the Fay\u00fbm, which include specimens of the best Minoan ware,[898] we\nare able to place the height of the period about 2500 B.C.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XIV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Brit. School Annual_, ix.\n STAND FOR VASE; KAMARAES WARE.\n FROM PALAIOKASTRO, CRETE.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe appearance of the so-called Kamaraes ware is unmistakable, with its\nbright, almost gay, aspect, and the contrast of the colours with the\nlustrous black ground. The pigments employed are four in number\u2014milky\nwhite, yellow ochre, brick-red, and purple-red. These vases are mostly\nmade on the wheel, and the buff-coloured clay is fairly well levigated,\nas is the slip, on which the pigments are directly laid; its lustre\noften almost rivals that of the best Hellenic pottery. Mr. Evans found\nsome specimens in 1902 of an extremely delicate character, almost as\nthin as an egg-shell. The colours are, however, sometimes dull and\npowdery, and apt to flake away except when fired. The forms are of a\nCycladic type, the favourite being a two-handled globular vase with\nspout, and a pear-shaped one-handled vase, also with a spout[899] (see\nalso Plate XIV.[900]).\n\nThe decoration is, as has been indicated, plastic as well as pictorial;\nthe relief ornaments are often of an elaborate type, as may be seen in\nsome of Mr. Hogarth\u2019s finds.[901] Some vases are merely covered with\nknobs, or with a sort of honeycombing in relief[902]; in others toothed\nor bossed bands are employed, either simply or combined into complex\npatterns. In any case this plastic element is quite a new departure.\nThe pictorial designs include geometrical and linear patterns, zigzags,\nnetwork, concentric circles, spirals, and swastikas; leaves, rosettes,\nand other vegetable forms; fishes, and even in one case a human\nfigure.[903] The chief field of decoration is the shoulder of the vase.\n\nAlthough varying in the extent of their naturalism, the patterns\nexhibit considerable boldness and power of drawing; they seem to be\ndrawn chiefly from floral or textile sources, and are closely parallel\nto the Thera vases, but more advanced. Some motives are of Mycenaean\ncharacter, such as the use of rows of white dots[904]; on the other\nhand, the style of the fishes and human figure is more like that of the\nGeometrical vases.\n\nMr. Hogarth notes that metal types of Kamaraes cups appear in the hands\nof Kefti tributaries in the paintings of the tomb of Rekhmara (about\n1550 B.C.), and he even found their Neolithic prototypes at Kephala,\nnear Knossos.[905] He also traces a connection with the early Aegean\npottery of Phylakopi in Melos. The Kamaraes pottery can be shown not to\nhave survived the incoming of the new Mycenaean influences, but the\npatterns rapidly became conventionalised, and are replaced by the new\nmotives of the Mycenaean wares. It may further be noted that fragments\nof Kamaraes ware have turned up not only in Egypt, as at Kahun (already\nmentioned), but at Tiryns, in the fifth and sixth Acropolis graves at\nMycenae, and at Curium in Cyprus.\n\n(3) The pottery of the \u201cLate Minoan\u201d period from the palace of Knossos\nfalls into two groups\u2014the \u201cpalace\u201d style, and the ordinary Mycenaean\nfabrics. The former class of vases has been found in considerable\nnumbers in the second palace, and also at Zakro and other sites. The\nvases are painted in a lustrous brown-to-black glaze on a buff\nhand-polished slip, with fine and elaborate naturalistic designs,\nincluding vegetable patterns, birds, and fishes; others, again, are\nmore architectonic in character.[906] We also find adaptations of the\nKamaraes style, with bands of white paint laid on the black varnish,\nthe usual forms being a flat bowl and a small cup with flat handles\nlike the Vaphio cups.[907]\n\nIn their decoration the most highly developed varieties of the \u201cpalace\u201d\nstyle show a parallelism with the wall-paintings, the patterns\nconsisting of rosettes, spirals, and conventional flowers; in some very\nnaturalistic examples this is strongly marked, the designs of olive and\nmyrtle wreaths and bulbous plants showing an almost Japanese fidelity\nto nature. Others, again, have marine subjects\u2014seaweed, shells, and\nrocks. Lastly, there are the representations of the double axe, which\nMr. Evans has shown to be a religious symbol.[908]\n\nThe whole of this pottery belongs to the third or highest period of\nMycenaean pottery, a time when decadence was actually beginning to set\nin, concurrent with the end of the eighteenth dynasty. At this time all\nover the Aegean area, in Melos, Egypt, and elsewhere, the styles of\npottery were perfectly uniform, and had clearly been imported from one\ncentre. In the light of recent discoveries we can no longer doubt that\nthis centre was Crete, and the previous history of its pottery and the\nearly development of its technical processes, as well as its\ngeographical position, point in the same direction. About the year 1500\nB.C. the site appears to have been invaded and abandoned, with the\nconsequent result that Mycenaean civilisation now spread all over the\nAegean, centring chiefly in Greece, where it lasted several centuries\nlonger. Of its influence on Cyprus we have already spoken.\n\nMycenaean vases had turned up in Crete for some time previous to 1899\nin a sporadic fashion[909]; but these, being for the most part of the\nordinary type, do not call for separate consideration. There is,\nhowever, one class that appears to be peculiar to the island. It\nconsists of large \u201cfalse amphorae\u201d and other vases, made of a rough\ncoarse-grained clay, and decorated in the \u201cthird Mycenaean\u201d style with\nlarge cuttle-fish; at Knossos this was found only outside the palace,\nand was probably a coarse household ware. A good specimen has also been\nfound at Curium in Cyprus.[910]\n\n \u00a7 4. MYCENAEAN POTTERY\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Mykenische Thongef\u00e4sse_ (1879), and\n _Mykenische Vasen_ (1886); Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 47 ff.; Perrot,\n _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi. p. 893 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.\n 181 ff. General reference should also be made to Schuchhardt,\n _Schliemann\u2019s Excavations_ (transl. E. Sellers); Schliemann\u2019s own\n works; Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_; Tsountas and\n Manatt, _The Mycenaean Age_; and other works.\n\nWe have already had occasion to deal to some extent with Mycenaean\npottery in connection with Cyprus and Crete, but it is now necessary to\nreview it as a whole in the light of the present state of our knowledge\nof this wonderful civilisation and its products. To enter here upon the\nwide and much-debated questions to which the discoveries of the last\nthirty years have given rise is of course beyond our province; but the\npottery of the people to whom the name Mycenaean has been somewhat\nloosely given is of so homogeneous a character, although found in all\nparts of the Mediterranean, that it may be treated as a phase of Greek\nceramics, independently of considerations of ethnography and\nchronology. First found in any quantity at Ialysos in the island of\nRhodes, its exact position in the history of early art was not then\nrecognised; but when the marvellous discoveries of Heinrich Schliemann\nat Mycenae became known to the world, including large numbers of\nsimilar vases, Sir Charles Newton readily recognised that the Ialysos\nvases in the British Museum belonged to the same class. It was not long\nbefore the whole number of vases of this type, now christened\nMycenaean, was collected in a \u201cCorpus\u201d by two German scholars, with\nnumerous illustrations; but since that time the excavations of\n\u201cMycenaean\u201d sites in Cyprus and Crete must have doubled or even trebled\nthe material available.\n\nThe pottery at Mycenae was found in four different positions, implying\nconsecutive chronological stages, ranging roughly from the fifteenth to\nthe tenth or even ninth century. On these grounds Furtwaengler and\nLoeschcke[911] distinguished four main classes; but it will be seen\nthat these are capable of even more subdivision. There are, in fact,\ntwo main classes, distinguished by the use of _matt_ and lustrous\ncolour respectively; and of the first of these two, of the second four,\nsubdivisions are possible.\n\nClass (1) is indeed comparatively rare,[912] and only found at Thera\nand in the oldest tombs on the Mycenaean Acropolis; it represents the\ntransition from the pottery of Troy and Thera to that of Mycenae. The\nsubdivision is a purely technical one: (_a_) vases of pale coarse clay,\nwith patterns in a brown colour, some hand-made[913]; (_b_) wheel-made\nvases of a reddish and finer clay, the designs in black and pale red,\noccasionally white.[914] The decoration generally resembles that of the\nThera vases, and animals occasionally appear.\n\n(2) The vases with lustrous painting may be classified as follows:\n\n (_a_) Badly levigated clay; floral motives in matt-white or\n red-brown on black ground.[915] A fine example of this class was\n recently excavated at Maroni in Cyprus, a large krater with a\n figure of a bird outlined in white on either side (Plate XII.).\n\n (_b_) Similar clay, but coated with a white or yellow slip on which\n geometrical or floral patterns are painted in lustrous black.[916]\n\n (_c_) Fine clay with polished yellow surface; designs in black\n turning to red or yellow, with occasional details in white;\n chiefly marine plants and animals, but occasionally (especially in\n Cyprus) human figures.[917] This class is by far the most numerous\n of all, but is not found in Thera. It corresponds with the period\n 1400\u20131000 B.C.\n\n (_d_) Clay grey or reddish, less brilliant, as is also the black;\n large figures of quadrupeds and human figures.[918] The vases are\n sometimes painted _inside_, which is a sign of late date.\n\nThe structure of these vases is very varied, and no less than 122\ndifferent forms may be distinguished in the illustrations to the\n_Mykenische Vasen_. Most characteristic and popular is the \u201cfalse\namphora,\u201d as it is generally termed (German, _B\u00fcgelkanne_), a vase with\nspheroidal body, of varying size, with the peculiarity that the\nordinary neck and mouth on the top are closed by a flat handle arching\nover the vase, and the only aperture is a spout on one side (see Plate\nXV. and Fig. 82). These are very widely distributed, but their\ndecoration is as a rule very simple; they appear depicted on the\npaintings of Egyptian tombs of the eighteenth dynasty, and this has\noften been used as an argument for the dating of Mycenaean vases. But\nthey must have remained in favour for a considerable period. Other\nfavourite shapes are: a funnel-shaped vase with handle at the top,\ndoubtless a reminiscence of a Hissarlik type (p. 258); a tall graceful\ntwo-handled goblet or kylix, almost invariably decorated with\ncuttle-fish (see Plate XV.), as the funnel-vases are with murex (purple\ndye) shells; a beaked jug (German _Schnabelkanne_), derived from Thera;\na squat jar or pyxis, with three small handles (cf. Fig. 82); and a\ntall pear-shaped vase with three handles on a high stem, which is\nperhaps the prototype of the hydria. The large kraters are, as we have\nseen, peculiar to Cyprus. Rarer forms are a sort of mug, and a\ncombination of the false amphora and pyxis. Mention should also be made\nof the painted \u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 or _ossuaria_ found in Crete by Mr. J. H.\nMarshall (p. 268 above) and by Dr. Orsi.[919]\n\nThe technique presents several entirely new features, such as the use\nof a slip as a basis for the colours; the polished, brilliant, and even\nsurface; and above all the lustrous black varnish, which was the\npeculiar pride of Greek potters, and is now a lost art. The comparative\nmonotony of the colouring is probably due to a purely technical reason,\nnamely, the difficulty of resisting the action of fire; otherwise such\nan artistic people would doubtless have exhibited the same richness of\ncolouring in their pottery that we find in their frescoes.\n\nThe Mycenaean pottery is deservedly held in high estimation for its\npicturesque and naturalistic style, which in its reproduction of animal\nand vegetable forms often rivals Japanese art. Although its scope is\nremarkably wide, yet there is a strong preference for marine\nsubjects\u2014the cuttle-fish, the murex shell, the nautilus, and various\nkinds of seaweed or such plants as the _Vallisneria spiralis_ (Chapter\nXVI.). In Fig. 82 two good examples in the British Museum are\nillustrated\u2014one from Egypt, the other from Kalymnos.[920] Altogether\nthere is an originality and poetry of ideas such as never appears again\nin Greek art; but that is not a peculiar possession of the potters, as\nthe metal-work, gem-engraving, and fresco-paintings testify\u2014above all,\nsuch masterpieces as the Vaphio gold cups, or some of the\nwall-paintings recently discovered in Crete.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n MYCENAEAN POTTERY\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n _To face page 273._\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nReligious ideas, on the other hand, are strangely conspicuous by their\nabsence. Mycenaean mythology is so far almost nonexistent in the art;\nand although attempts have at times been made to detect traces of early\ncults, as in the figures of men dressed as animals,[921] or the\nrepresentations of the double axe,[922] they have not as yet met with\nuniversal acceptance. More improbable is the curious idea recently\nmooted,[923] that the subjects of the vase-paintings indicate an\nacquaintance with such theories as those of biological evolution.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 82. MYCENAEAN VASES WITH MARINE SUBJECTS (BRIT.\nMUS.).]\n\nMycenaean pottery has been found on a very large number of sites\nthroughout the Mediterranean. The most productive have been Mycenae,\nCrete, and Cyprus, especially the cemetery at Enkomi in the latter\nisland. Other Cypriote centres are Curium, Agia Paraskevi near Nicosia,\nMaroni, and the neighbourhood of Dali and Larnaka (see p. 66). In\nAttica the Acropolis of Athens and the beehive tombs of Spata and\nMenidi have been most fruitful, and finds have been made at Haliki and\nelsewhere. In the Peloponnese the chief site is Tiryns, and many\nfragments have also been found at Nauplia; in Central Greece several\nsites in Boeotia, such as Orchomenos, may be mentioned. Of the Aegean\nislands, Rhodes and Melos are most conspicuous, especially the sites of\nIalysos in the former island, Phylakopi in the latter. In Asia Minor,\nMycenaean remains are rare, except at Troy, but in Egypt there is ample\nevidence of a close commercial relation, as in the finds at\nTell-el-Amarna, in the Fay\u00fbm, and elsewhere. In the Western\nMediterranean, Syracuse has yielded numerous fragments, and occasional\nfinds have been made in Italy.[924]\n\nHaving reviewed the extent of Mycenaean influence, the next question we\nmust consider is which, if any, was the centre whence this pottery was\nexported. It had been for some time observed that the early varieties\nof Thera, and those of Crete and Cyprus (_v. supra_), showed strong\nindications of local origin; but on the whole the Mycenaean pottery\nproper is remarkably uniform and homogeneous. It is perhaps possible to\ndetect technical differences between the pottery, _e.g._, of Athens and\nRhodes, but they may be only differences of date rather than fabric.\nFurtwaengler and Loeschcke regarded Argolis as the centre of\nmanufacture, at least for the later lustrous varieties[925]; Pottier,\non the other hand, writing before the recent discoveries, thought that\nCrete was, after Thera, the original centre, and Argolis only\nsubsequently, the pottery of Rhodes lying midway between. In the light\nof the Cretan discoveries it is now possible largely to disregard\nprevious theories. We have seen that Mycenaean pottery found in Crete\nhas a pedigree which no other region can claim, and that it can only\nhave a local origin. We have also seen that the Cretan supremacy came\nto an end about 1500 B.C., and that, though the pottery may have\ncontinued to be made in the island, it ceased to be an exclusive\ncentre, and for the remainder of the Mycenaean Age the art, learned in\nCrete, spread to other Aegean centres\u2014Mycenae, Rhodes, and Cyprus.\n\nA far more difficult question to decide is the ethnographical one,\ntogether with the consideration of the relation of the Mycenaean\ncivilisation to others in which the same decoration appears (as in the\ncase of the spiral). One point seems to be abundantly clear, viz. that\nMycenaean decoration owes nothing to Oriental influences. That there\nwas a close relation with the East has already been indicated, and is\nmuch more apparent in other forms of Mycenaean art; but no student of\nthis art in general can doubt that it is, as has been pointed out,\npurely spontaneous and unique, the art of a people of genuine artistic\ngenius. Among the art of ancient races it stands alone in this respect,\nthat of Egypt and Assyria, its only prominent rivals, being always\nessentially conventional; and herein lies its special distinction.\n\nThat the Mycenaeans were a maritime people admits of no doubt. It is\nshown by the position of their chief centres, by the evidence of their\nextensive commercial relations, and, as far as concerns their pottery,\npre-eminently by the subjects which form the staple decoration. Hence\nof late years an attempt has been made to substitute for \u201cMycenaean\u201d\nthe more comprehensive term \u201cAegean,\u201d and there is much to be said in\nits favour. As regards the actual ethnographical position of the race,\n_Quot homines, tot sententiae_, may almost be said. They have been\nidentified with the Achaeans, the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the\nCarians, and as combinations of Phrygians with Cretans, of Phoenicians\nwith Greeks of Asia Minor.[926] But few of these terms have real\nhistorical value, and such identifications do not really advance the\nsolution of the question.\n\nA more real ground of battle is that afforded by the question of date,\nthough on this point scholars now show a greater tendency to fall into\nline, and a period culminating in the years 1400 to 1100 or 1000 B.C.\nis now very generally accepted.[927] The question necessarily turns\nlargely on the evidence afforded by Crete and Egypt, and so far as this\nis trustworthy it all points in the same direction. But it would be\nbeyond the scope of a work of this kind to do more than briefly\nsummarise the general results of archaeological criticism.\n\nAn interesting study of Mycenaean ornamentation has been made by Dr.\nRiegl,[928] who deals generally with the principles underlying its\nvegetable motives, and points out that here we first meet with scrolls\nor continuous bands of foliage applied to a decorative purpose. These\nmotives are peculiar to Greek art, and in Mycenaean design their origin\nis to be sought. In this way we may regard it as the immediate\nforerunner of Hellenic art, although its development was temporarily\narrested by the Dorian invasion, just as the people who produced it\nformed the basis of the Hellenic race. The naturalism of Mycenaean\nornament, which is seen both in continuous and in isolated patterns, is\nin marked contrast to the convention of Egypt, where the same motives\nmay be in use. It is not, in short, the motive, but its treatment,\nwhich shows the independence of Mycenaean art. There are, again, other\npatterns, such as the spiral, which cannot be traced in Oriental art,\nand seem to be purely original, at least as far as concerns the Eastern\nMediterranean.\n\nAnother recent writer, Dr. S. Wide, has noticed that where Mycenaean\ninfluence was originally strongest, as in Crete and Rhodes, there its\ncharacteristics were most strongly impressed upon the art of the\nsucceeding period, and he is inclined to place the centre of the fabric\nin these islands or on the coast of the adjoining continent of Asia. At\nall events the Mycenaean influence shows itself more in the pottery of\nthe islands than it does in Attica; and, in Crete and Rhodes in\nparticular, instances have been found of undoubted survivals of typical\nMycenaean ornaments in later pottery.[929]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n See _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 14.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. figs. 487\u201393.\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n Cf. Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 498\u2013503.\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n See Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_, p. 72.\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. p. 249 ff., and Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi.\n p. 648. A fragment of late Bronze-Age Cypriote pottery was found at\n Hissarlik (D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 286, fig. 182).\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n See Meursius, _Cyprus_, i. chap. 20; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du\n Louvre_, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n Strabo, xiv. 6, p. 683.\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xlv. p. 127 ff.\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n Similar red polished wares were found in the New-Race tombs of Egypt\n (seventh to tenth dynasty), but in spite of the likeness it cannot be\n said that one is borrowed from the other (_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 16).\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n See Hall, _Oldest Greek Civilisation_, p. 69; _Journ. Hell. Stud._\n xi. pl. 14; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 38.\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n The resemblance to Italian bucchero ware is probably only accidental.\n See Chapter XVIII.\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n _E.g._ A 66 in B.M.\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n Hall, _Oldest Civilisation_, pp. 72, 98.\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 67\u20138.\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n Cf. _Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 34 ff., 72.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 39.\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n Myres, _ibid._\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n Cf. for instance the jug given in Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 408, fig. 29.\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 134: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 401\u20132.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n _Cat. des Vases du Louvre_, i. p. 250: see below, pp. 284, 315.\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n The Trojan legends were familiar in Cyprus, as the \u039a\u03c5\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac of the\n local Cyclic poet Stasinos shows.\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n Cf. Perrot, _Hist, de l\u2019Art_, iii. pp. 714\u201315, figs. 525\u201326.\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73.\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n Recent discoveries by Mr. Arthur Evans at Knossos (_Brit. Sch.\n Annual_, 1901\u20132, p. 15) seem to suggest that these panels may be\n meant for windows or storeys of houses. Cf. also the bronze from\n Enkomi (_Excavations_, p. 10).\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 59.\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 74.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. (1886), p. 248; cf. also Meursius, _Cyprus_,\n i. chap. 10; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du Louvre_, pp. 116\u201317.\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n Cypriote pottery with concentric circles has been found at Nebesheh\n in the Delta. It was brought by the Cypriote mercenaries, enrolled by\n Psammetichus, in the seventh century (_Eg. Expl. Fund_, 4th Mem. pl.\n 3, p. 20).\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. p. 769 ff.\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n M. Pottier (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 92) thinks that Greek influence may\n explain all the stages of Cypriote pottery from the Mycenaean period\n onwards. See also on this subject D\u00fcmmler, in _Ath. Mitth._ xi. p.\n 284.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 8, fig. 14.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n B.M. C 244.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n B.M. C 121 = Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. pp. 716\u201317, figs. 527\u20138.\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n B.M. C 120 = _Rev. Arch._ ix. (1887), p. 77 ff.\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 26.\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 21.\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n See Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. figs. 510\u201313; _ibid._ figs. 520\u201323\n (human figures); Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 55, pls. 44\u20136; _Excavations in\n Cyprus_, pp. 75, 104 ff.; _J.H.S._ v. p. 103.\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n See above, p. 249. Cf. Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, pl. 10 =\n Nimroud Gallery of B.M., slab 4_a_.\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. p. 711, fig. 523.\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n _E.g._ Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 507, 523, pp. 699, 711;\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 104\u20135, figs. 151\u201352.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 105, fig. 152.\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n B.M. C 268 = _J.H.S._ ii. p. 304.\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n _Cyprus_, pl. 29.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n See O.-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_, p. 497, and\n frontispiece to text volume; also _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p.\n 105, fig. 152.\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n B.M. E 34; _Branteghem Cat._ 30; Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 221.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n Louvre A 258.\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n _E.g._ _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 14; _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n See Hermann, _Gr\u00e4berfeld von Marion_, p. 46 ff.; _B.M. Excavations in\n Cyprus_, pp. 78, 109.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 78, Fig. 110.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n _Troja 1893_, p. 86; _Troja u. Ilion_, i. p. 18. On the pottery\n generally see the latter, p. 243 ff.\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n Its evolution is well illustrated by the Canopic vases described in\n Chapter XVIII.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n _C\u00e9ramiques_, i. p. 6: see for examples _ibid._ pp. 7, 11.\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n A jug with beak-shaped mouth, called by the Germans a\n _Schnabelkanne_. The base-ring to which he alludes is not apparent.\n Cf. for the type Fig. 81 below, from Thera.\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n See Schliemann, _Ilios_, pp. 340, 372, 375, 384.\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n Cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 18.\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n _ibid._, p. 118; _ibid._, i. p. 310; B.M. B 83 ff.; and see p. 339.\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n See Fouqu\u00e9, _Santorin_, _passim_; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 28; Hiller\n von Gaertringen, _Thera_, i. p. 36 ff.\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n iv. 147\u201348.\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n One is given by Dumont-Pottier, pl. 2, fig. 13.\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n See Dumont-Pottier, p. 21, figs. 32\u20133, pls. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pl. 12, No. 80.\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n Fouqu\u00e9, _op. cit._ p. 127, note.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n On the later pottery from Thera see generally Hiller von Gaertringen,\n _Thera_, ii. p. 127 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n D\u00fcmmler (Ath. Mitth. 1886, p. 45) calls them \u201cLeleges\u201d; but he places\n Minos in the Geometrical period.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n Cf. Hdt. i. 171, and Thuc. i. 4\u20138.\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, p. 15; Ross, _Reisen durch die Inseln_, _passim_;\n Athens Mus. Nos. 23\u20139, 136, 142\u201343; _J.H.S._ v. p. 53 ff.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n _J.H.S._ _Suppl. Papers_, vol. iv. (1904).\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n _Od._ xix. 172 ff.\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n Hdt. i. 171.\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 342, pl. 12, figs. 50, 52.\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 11, figs. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 10, fig. 23; pl. 12, figs. 57, 59.\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 333 ff., pls. 9\u201311; _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd\n Ser. xv. p. 351 ff.\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 157 ff.\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 4, figs. 6\u201314.\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n See, for instance, Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. vi.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 97, fig. 31, will serve as an example.\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n _Ibid._ xxiii. p. 171.\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n _Ibid._ xi. pl. 14, figs. 5\u201310, p. 275.\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n Cf. _Mon. Antichi_, vi. pl. 9, fig. 8; pl. 10, fig. 14.\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n From _Brit. School Annual_, ix. p. 308.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxi. pls. 6, 7, p. 84 ff.\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, vi. pl. 9, figs. 2, 6; pl. 10, fig. 14.\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 9, fig. 10.\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 339.\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n _Brit. School Annual_, vi. p. 85. On the Kefti, see _ibid._ viii. p.\n 157 ff.\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n See for examples_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 192 ff.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n _Brit. School Annual_, vi. p. 88.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 99 ff. See the _larnax_ published by Mr. Bosanquet\n in _Brit. School Annual_, viii. pls. 18\u20139: cf. _ibid._ vii. p. 52.\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n See Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 13\u20134; _Ath.\n Mitth._ 1886, pl. 3 and pl. 4 (a large pithos with reliefs, for which\n compare p. 152 above); _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1880, p. 125, 1892, p.\n 295; Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi. p. 451 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._\n i. p. 176.\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 74, fig. 128. cf. Furtwaengler and\n Loeschcke, _op. cit._ pl. 14, No. 88; _Brit. School Annual_, vi. p.\n 91.\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n _Myken. Vasen_, p. vi. ff. The evidence from Crete, however, appears\n to upset this chronology, the vases with lustrous painting being\n there found on a level with the matt paintings on dark ground.\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n For examples see Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Thongef._ pls.\n 1; 4, 13; 5, 20; 7, 40; 11, 52.\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n _Myken. Thongef._ pl. 1, fig. 6; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 23\u20134.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n _Myken. Thongef._ pl. 8; pl. 11, 52; _Myken. Vasen_, pl. 23.\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n _Myken. Thongef._ pl. 6, 32, 34.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n _Myken. Thongef._ pl. 12; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 7, 25.\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. 22, p. 99, fig. 20; _Myken. Thongef._ pls.\n 2, 4; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 26\u201334, 39\u201341.\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 37\u201341.\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 201 ff., pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xvii. pp. 75, 76.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n Cook in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 81 ff.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n Evans in _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 99 ff. Recent discoveries seem to leave\n little room for doubt as to the correctness of Mr. Evans' theories.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxvi. (1895), p. 1 ff.; xxx. (1897), p. 81 ff.: cf.\n _ibid._ xxviii. (1896), p. 24 ff.\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 125.\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n _Myken. Vasen_, p. ix. ff.\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n See for a summary of the theories, Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 200\n ff.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n See Hall, _Oldest Civilisation_, chap. iii.; Pottier, _op. cit._ i.\n p. 209; and _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 11 ff.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n _Stilfragen, p. 112 ff._\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n See Wide, in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 233; and for some general\n considerations on Mycenaean pottery and its achievements, Pottier,\n _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 247.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII\n _RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_\n\n Geometrical decoration\u2014Its origin\u2014Distribution of pottery\u2014Shapes\n and ornamentation of vases\u2014Subjects\u2014Dipylon vases\u2014Boeotian\n Geometrical wares\u2014Chronology\u2014Proto-Attic fabrics\u2014Phaleron\n ware\u2014Later Boeotian vases\u2014Melian amphorae\u2014Corinth and its\n pottery\u2014\u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d vases\u2014Vases with imbrications and\n floral decoration\u2014Incised lines and ground-ornaments\u2014Introduction\n of figure-subjects\u2014Chalcidian vases\u2014\u201cTyrrhenian Amphorae.\u201d\n\n\n \u00a7 1. THE GEOMETRICAL PERIOD\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. p. 154 ff.; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1872,\n p. 138 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 94 ff.; 1899, pp. 26, 78, 188;\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 106; 1892, p. 285; 1893, p. 73 ff.; 1896,\n p. 385 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 212 ff. For Boeotian\n Geometrical pottery, B\u00f6hlau in _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.; for\n early Argive wares, Waldstein, _Argive Heraeum_, i. p. 49 ff.\n\nThe Dorian invasion of Greece, which is generally supposed to have\ntaken place in the twelfth century\u2014the traditional date is about 1100\nB.C.\u2014was, like the contemporaneous Etruscan immigration (Chapter\nXVIII.), only an episode in the general displacement taking place\nthroughout Europe. In Greece it caused a dispersion of the Achaean\nrace, chiefly in the direction of Asia Minor, which, as we have already\nseen, probably gave rise to the stories of the Trojan War and\nsubsequent adventures of the Achaean leaders. In other words, the\nMycenaean civilisation was driven to seek a new home elsewhere, and to\nlay the foundations of a new artistic development in the cities of\nAeolis and Ionia. But its disappearance from Greece was not complete,\nand Hellenic Greece was from the beginning an amalgam of the old and\nnew elements, the Achaean (or Ionian) and the Dorian, in which one or\nthe other had at different times or in different places the\npre-eminence. The Ionian element represents the civilisation of the\nMediterranean, succeeding to that of the Mycenaean world; the Dorian,\nthe influence of Central Europe.[930]\n\nIt has hitherto been a truism of archaeology that the Dorians brought\nwith them from Central Europe a new form of art, of which the chief\ncharacteristic is that of _rectilinear and geometrical decoration_,\nforming, it is obvious, a marked contrast to the curvilinear and\nnaturalistic Mycenaean designs. This new principle was thought to be\nmost conspicuously illustrated by the pottery which now replaces the\nMycenaean. But certain recent discoveries have given occasion for some\nscepticism in regard to the acceptance of this idea as conveying the\nwhole truth; and even if they do not radically alter preconceived\nideas, they are at least worthy of consideration.\n\nAt Aphidna in Attica a find has been made of very rude pottery, without\nglaze or varnish, but with decoration of a Geometrical character,\nsometimes painted.[931] Although earlier than any other pottery in\nAttica, it need not be pre-Mycenaean in date; it seems more likely to\nbe a _contemporary survival_. Early wares have also been found in the\nislands, as in Aegina, with Geometrical ornament in _matt_-colour; nor\nmust we forget that the Geometrical principle was known in Cyprus and\nthe Cyclades, as also at Hissarlik, at a very remote age. From these\ndata Dr. Wide has ingeniously drawn the conclusion that the Geometrical\nstyle was always indigenous in Greece,[932] pointing out that it was\nmore likely and more in accordance with historical precedent that the\nDorians, like Rome in later days, accepted the art of the people they\nconquered[933] than that they introduced their own and forced it upon\nthe subjugated race. This theory has the additional merit of disposing\nof a difficulty which had always been felt. If the Geometrical pottery\nwas Dorian, how do we account for its reaching its height in Attica,\nwhich was never at any time Doric, or influenced by Doric\ncharacteristics? But if it can be shown to be indigenous in Attica, the\ndifficulty disappears.\n\nAgain, it is necessary to explain the varying character of Geometrical\npottery in different parts of Greece, as compared with the homogeneity\nof the Mycenaean wares. If, as was supposed, the Geometrical style came\nfull-grown into Greece, why should this be? Dr. Wide therefore\nmaintains that there were in Greece _concurrently_ a _Bauernstil_ or\ndomestic art, aboriginal and industrial, which produced the rude\ngeometrical fabrics, and a _Herrenstil_ or _art de luxe_, exotic and\nornamental, which we know as Mycenaean. With the upheaval and\ndispersion of the Achaean aristocracy this art practically died out,\nbut the humbler industry held its ground, and gradually forged its way\nto comparative excellence, perhaps learning much from Mycenaean\ntechnique.\n\nThe real novelty of the developed Geometrical pottery which now\nmanifests itself in Greece consists in its evolution _as a style_, and\nthe combination of the patterns into an artistic system, with a\ncontinuous progress towards symmetry and rhythm. Geometrical patterns\nare indeed the property of all primitive peoples, and are no less\nspontaneous and universal in their origin than the folk-lore stories\nwhich we find adopting the same or similar forms in all parts of the\nworld. In Greece, no doubt, the cultured traditions of Mycenaean art\nhad in course of time their due effect, and both in technique and in\nornament left their impress on the inferior fabrics,[934] as we have\nseen to have been the case, especially in the Greek islands. It is an\ninfluence which is not confined to the pottery, but made itself felt,\nfor instance, in architecture. It can hardly be doubted that in the\nLion Gate of Mycenae we find the prototype of the Doric column; and the\nparallel with the Geometrical pottery can be further followed up when\nwe consider that Doric architecture also became the common property of\nContinental Greece, and also realised its highest perfection at Athens.\n\nThe Geometrical pottery has been found in great numbers in Attica and\nBoeotia, in the islands of Aegina, Melos, Thera, Rhodes, and\nCrete,[935] in Argolis and Laconia, in Sicily and Etruria, and also\nisolated specimens in Cyprus and the Troad.[936] That found in Italy\nand Cyprus is certainly exported from the mainland. It has been\nobserved that each region has its own peculiar variety of the style,\nand this is especially conspicuous in the examples from Attica and\nBoeotia.[937] The first writer who attempted to deal with it\nscientifically was Conze,[938] but owing to its clearly-defined\ncharacteristics it has always been more or less correctly treated by\nthe older schools of archaeologists. But with a more extended outlook\nover the fabrics of early Hellas, many problems have arisen in\nconnection with it which have called for more recent discussion, and\nthe writings of Kroker, B\u00f6hlau, and Wide in particular should be\nstudied.[939]\n\nAt Mycenae fragments of Geometrical pottery were found both on the\nsurface and in the palace, among the d\u00e9bris of the huts built on its\nsite; while in the island of Salamis there is a cemetery of distinctly\ntransitional character, containing false amphorae with linear\ndecoration and combinations of the spiral with the maeander.[940] It\nmay be noted that a similar transitional cemetery was found by Mr.\nPaton at Assarlik in Caria,[941] and that the \u201csub-Mycenaean\u201d pottery\nof Cyprus (p. 246) has been shown to exhibit the same combination of\nfeatures. These facts fall into line with what has already been said as\nto the survival of Mycenaean art in these fabrics.\n\nFrom the fact that large quantities of this ware have been obtained\nfrom the tombs of the Kerameikos near the Dipylon Gate of Athens,\nchiefly between 1870 and 1891, it has frequently been styled _Dipylon\nware_; but it is questionable whether this title should not be reserved\nfor varieties peculiar to this site. These Dipylon tombs were in the\nform of deep quadrangular trenches, and the bodies had been sometimes\ninhumed, sometimes cremated, the bones being placed in vessels of\nbronze or clay, containing smaller objects. Above the trenches was a\nlayer of earth mixed with burnt offerings, on the top of which,\n_outside the tombs_, were placed the large painted vases (representing\nthe tombstones or stone sepulchral vases of later times) which now form\na prominent part of the collections at Athens and in the Louvre.[942]\n\n * * * * *\n\nTurning to treat of their general characteristics, we note that the\nvases are all wheel-made, of a carefully-prepared red clay covered with\na lustrous and impermeable yellow slip, on which the designs are\npainted in the same lustrous black as the Mycenaean wares. Later, but\nrarely, white is introduced as an accessory. As regards the shapes,\nthere is less variety than in Mycenaean pottery. They include the\ntypical forms of Dipylon vases, a large wide-mouthed _krater_ on a high\nstem, and an _amphora_ with cylindrical neck and side-handles; also the\n_lebes_, the cylindrical jug or _olpe_, the wide bowl or _skyphos_, and\nthe _pyxis_ or covered jar. Open-work stands for vases are often found\nin the Cyclades.[943] On the covers of the _pyxides_ a group of two or\nthree rudely-modelled horses sometimes forms the handle. In considering\nthe forms generally, it is permissible to say that the potter of the\nday was in advance of his Mycenaean predecessor, although the painter\nwas not.\n\nThe decoration follows a development which permits of the division of\nGeometrical vases into three periods, in which we follow Kroker[944]:\n(1) for a long time it is exclusively limited to Geometrical patterns,\nand (2) even when quadrupeds and birds are introduced they are still\nonly decorative (as in Boeotia); (3) finally, while the animals take a\nsubsidiary place, human figures and large compositions spring into\nprominence. But this final development is chiefly characteristic of\nAthens. Wide distinguishes four varieties of the Dipylon ware: (_a_)\namphorae, with black varnished bodies and designs only on the neck;\n(_b_) \u201cblack Dipylon ware,\u201d mainly varnished, but more decorated than\n(_a_); (_c_) large vases, with linear decoration or figures all over in\nhorizontal friezes (the tomb-amphorae); (_d_) as the last, but with\nvertical panels, divided like metopes. His view is that these represent\na continuous development, but that the style did not last long in\nAttica. Returning to Kroker\u2019s classification, it must be borne in mind\nthat the three classes are not successive in point of _time_, only in\nartistic development; the plain linear decoration survived throughout,\nand is often found in tombs contemporaneously with the figure subjects.\n\nThe patterns are mainly, though not exclusively, rectilinear, and\nsometimes extremely elaborate. The favourite are a large bold maeander,\nchevrons, chequers, and arrangements of hatched lines; also squares,\nwith diagonals and much ground-ornament. Among the simpler motives are\nlines of dots, triangles, lozenges, and various forms of crosses; but\nconcentric and \u201ctangent\u201d circles occur not infrequently, the latter\nbeing clearly derived from the Mycenaean spiral, and one vegetable\nmotive appears in the form of a conventionalised leaf, later developed\ninto a rosette. M. Perrot[945] gives a very instructive diagram of the\ntypical scheme of ornamentation on the neck and body of a vase,\nincluding most of the principal varieties. It should also be noted that\nthese patterns occur frequently on the field of the designs as\nground-ornaments, to cover the vacant spaces.\n\nIn the arrangement of the patterns an architectural instinct is clearly\nat work, the influence of the Doric metope being especially prominent.\nThey are usually arranged, as the diagram (Fig. 83) shows, in\nhorizontal bands round the neck and body, like the bands of painted\nornament on the entablature of a temple. The metopes and triglyphs are\nrepresented by large square patterns of ornament, separated by narrow\nvertical strips of simpler motives (cf. Fig. 84). The introduction of\nthe frieze principle proper is a later development. Generally speaking,\nthere is an invariable tendency towards symmetry and refinement in the\narrangement. When figure subjects begin to be introduced, it betokens a\ngreat advance in decorative art, especially over the Cypriote and other\nvarieties of the style. In the tendency to a _horror vacui_, the style\nis inferior to Mycenaean, as also in the figure-drawing, of which more\nanon. The absence of any plant-ornament is most characteristic, as\nshowing the great change from the Mycenaean spirit; but it was not long\nbefore this element was destined to reappear and virtually usurp the\nfield of decoration.[946]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Perrot\u2019s Hist. de l\u2019Art_.\n FIG. 83. SCHEME OF ORNAMENTATION ON GEOMETRICAL VASES.\n]\n\nIn regard to its ornamentation the Geometrical style may be said to\nhave attained success. It is not so, however, with its representations\nof living form, least of all those of human beings. But this is only in\naccordance with the principle which M. Pottier styles the _hierarchie\ndes genres_, a principle which is universal in all early development of\nGreek art, and to which we have already referred (p. 245: see also p.\n315). Briefly it is this: first, the predominance of pure _ornament_\nand the perfecting of the same; secondly, the employment of _animal_\nforms and the relegation of ornament to a subsidiary place; thirdly and\nlastly, the rise and development of _human_ forms, the other animals\nceasing to form the main theme of decoration, and sinking to the level\nof mere decorative adjuncts.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 84. GEOMETRICAL VASE WITH PANELS (BRIT. MUS.).]\n\nHence we find that figures of animals when first introduced on\nGeometrical vases are of a conventional and ill-drawn character, but\nshow a gradual progress and development. Human forms again, which now\nappear for the first time, are only seen in a very rude and undeveloped\nstage, from which there is continuous development throughout the\narchaic period till perfection is reached in the fifth century. Their\noriginal extreme conventionality may be the result of a training in\nEgyptian canons of art.\n\nThe favourite animal motives are the horse, the deer, and water-fowl.\nThe first also appears in a plastic form, surmounting the covers of\nvases and forming a sort of handle. Usually a single animal is seen in\na metope-like panel (cf. Fig. 84), and the frieze system is seldom\nfound at this period. A curious conception is that of a lion or wolf\ndevouring a man, whose legs are seen protruding from its mouth, and\nthis appears to have been adopted by the Etruscans, on whose archaic\nbronze-work and bucchero vases it sometimes occurs.[947] The lions on\nthe Geometrical vases, it may be noted in passing, are obviously drawn\nwithout knowledge, and borrowed from Asiatic art; the same conventional\ntype obtains at a later date, as in the Burgon lebes (below, p. 296).\n\nHuman figures are almost confined to the large vases from the Dipylon\ncemetery, which are evidently a purely local product; almost the only\nexceptions are two from Boeotia (see below, p. 288), and one from\nRhodes in the British Museum (A 439). The infantile and barbarous style\nof the figures recalls in a measure the primitive marble idols from the\nCyclades; there is seldom any actual distinction of sex, the narrow\nwaist, wide hips, and tapering limbs being apparently common to both.\nThe figures being painted in plain silhouette, there is no attempt at\nrendering features. Where it is intended to represent a warrior, the\nbody is completely hidden behind a shield of the Boeotian type\n[Boeotian shield], a ready resource of the artist for avoiding\nanatomical difficulties, which was also adopted later by his\nseventh-century Corinthian successors, except that in the latter case\nthe shield is circular.\n\nThe subjects include battles and naval scenes, dances of women hand in\nhand, and funeral processions. From the combination of ships with\nfuneral scenes, it would seem that they were sometimes used for\ncarrying the dead. A remarkable lebes recently acquired by the British\nMuseum[948] is decorated with a large ship-of-war with two banks of\nrowers (bireme), and appears to represent a warrior landing therefrom\non shore.[949] The funeral scenes on the great Dipylon vases are\nexceedingly elaborate, and exhibit a corpse drawn on a bier,\naccompanied by chariots and bands of mourning women beating their\nheads.[950] By a conventional attempt at perspective the figures are\noften placed above the central group when they are supposed to be on\nits farther side, just as, in the fresco from Tiryns, and an\n\u201cIsland-gem\u201d of the Mycenaean period, a man leading a bull is\nrepresented over its back.[951]\n\nTwo very interesting specimens of Geometrical fabrics are in the\nmuseum at Kopenhagen,[952] late indeed and almost transitional in\ncharacter, but still typical. One is a deep two-handled cup or bowl\nwith long panels on either side, in two tiers; the upper ones are\nfilled with ornaments and animals, and in the lower are several\nsubjects\u2014combatants, lyre-players, a dance of armed men with shield\nand spear, two lions devouring a man (see above), and men with jugs\nand lustral branches preparing for some religious rite. The other is\na jug, with very little ornamentation except on the background of the\ndesigns, which also include several subjects. On the neck is a man\nholding horses; on the shoulder, dogs pursuing a hare; and on the\nbody, combats on land and sea.\n\nIn the range of subjects a general correspondence with epic poetry is\nto be noted,[953] as in the funerals and combats; but there are some\nimportant discrepancies, such as the _quadriga_ in place of the Homeric\n_biga_, the types of the ships, and in the appearance of horsemen,\nwhich are of course unknown to Homer.[954]\n\nThe Geometrical vases found in Boeotia form an important and distinct\nlocal variety, which calls for separate treatment. The existence of\nthis local style was first suspected by Furtwaengler in 1878 on seeing\nthe first finds made at Thebes, and it has since been studied with\ngreat care and detail by B\u00f6hlau.[955] Among these finds were, in\naddition to the recognised local pottery, ordinary (imported) Dipylon\nvases, and later Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian wares, as well as\nbronze fibulae and terracotta figures, to which subsequent reference\nmust be made. Similar pottery was also found in large numbers on the\nsite of the temple of Apollo at Mount Pto\u00f6s in 1885\u201391, and other\nexamples have turned up at Tanagra. It has been suggested, though on\nsomewhat slight grounds, that Aulis was the centre of the local fabric;\nand, further, it was supposed by B\u00f6hlau, who is supported by\nPerrot,[956] that the Boeotian wares represent a primitive phase of the\nGeometrical pottery, anterior to the Dipylon, and consequently that\nBoeotia is the original home of the style as a whole. But in view of\nwhat has been said above, and generally of the relation of the Boeotian\npottery to the Dipylon, and to the later Proto-Corinthian, it seems\ndoubtful if this view can be maintained. Moreover, it has been pointed\nout by M. Holleaux,[957] in discussing the Pto\u00f6s finds, that the pure\nGeometrical vases were found at a lower level than the typical local\nwares, and were never found either with them or with the analogous\nterracotta figures. This certainly points to the later origin of the\nBoeotian pottery.\n\nThe local clay differs from that of Athens both in nature and\nappearance, being less well levigated and of a reddish-yellow colour,\nas compared with the warm brown of the Dipylon. Further, the designs\nare not laid directly on the clay, as in the latter, but on a thin\ncreamy-yellow slip, as in Mycenaean and Ionian pottery. The technique\nis, generally speaking, inferior, as is also the black pigment used;\nthe work is rough and hasty, the drawing careless and inaccurate.\n\nThe vases are mostly small, at least compared with those of the\nDipylon, and the favourite shape is the _kylix_, with or without a\nstem. Out of seventy-two examples given by B\u00f6hlau, no less than\nfifty-five take this form. He traces its development from a deep bowl\nwith \u201cbase-ring,\u201d which seems to be related to the Cypriote white-slip\none-handled bowls; but the Boeotian type has at first two small\nfinger-pieces in place of handles, afterwards replaced by a single\nhandle for hanging up. The majority, however, have no less than four\nhandles, and that they were still intended for suspension is shown by\nthe method of decoration which can only be properly seen in this\nposition (cf. Fig. 85).\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Jahrbuch_.\n FIG. 85. BOEOTIAN GEOMETRICAL VASES (BERLIN MUSEUM).\n]\n\nThere is a wearisome uniformity in the patterns, and indeed in the\ndecoration generally. Only two examples are known from Boeotia with\nhuman figures,[958] and the rest belong to the intermediate class, with\nits combination of animals and decorative patterns. On the exterior is\nusually a broad frieze, divided by bands of ornament into four or five\nfields, in which are birds or palmette patterns; these panels are not\nnecessarily arranged with reference to the position of the handles. The\npatterns comprise rows of vertical zigzags, dotted lozenges, chevrons,\nlatticed triangles, rosettes, and scrolls, the first-named being\nspecially characteristic of Boeotia. It is to be noted that the typical\nAthenian motives, the maeander and the ornamented square, do not occur;\nin fact, these bowls have no analogies in the Dipylon ware. But it is\nalso interesting to observe the appearance of a new vegetable element\nin the form of friezes of palmettes and lotos-flowers.[959] The\nimportance of this feature is due to the extensive part it was destined\nto play in the ornamentation of Greek vases all through the sixth\ncentury. Some of the palmettes are remarkably advanced, and the whole\npattern is even emancipated from the confinement of the frieze, and\ntreated freely without regard to space.[960] B\u00f6hlau, in his analysis of\nthe ornament as a whole, notes its independence of the Athenian vases,\nthough remaining a parallel and closely-related development.\n\nIndividual vases do not call for much comment, but there is a curious\ncoffer of terracotta from Thebes in Berlin (Fig. 86),[961] painted with\nfigures in this style. The subjects include the Asiatic Artemis, a\nhare-hunt, a woman leading a horse, a horse tied up, and two serpents\nerect, confronted. The ground is filled in with rosettes, crosses, and\nother ornaments, such as the so-called _swastika_.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Jahrbuch_.\n FIG. 86. COFFER FROM THEBES: BOEOTIAN GEOMETRICAL STYLE\n (BERLIN MUSEUM).\n]\n\nWhile on the subject of the Boeotian vases it is worth while to call\nattention to the remarkable parallels presented by two other classes of\nobjects also found in that region: bronze fibulae and terracotta\nstatuettes. The former may be regarded as important chronological\nevidence, inasmuch as their development can be clearly traced from\ntheir first appearance at the end of the Mycenaean period (about the\ntenth century), and similar types have been found in Rhodes, at\nOlympia, and elsewhere. The characteristic of the Boeotian fibulae is\nthe flat plate which forms the foot (in some cases the central part or\nbow), and is generally of a quadrangular form, decorated with an\nengraved subject, usually animals or birds of a similar type to those\npainted in the panels on the vases. More rarely ships or human figures\nare found.[962]\n\nThe terracotta figures (p. 123), on the other hand, bear a different\nrelation to the pottery. They are flat board-like figures (\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2),\nknown to the modern Greek digger as \u201cPappades,\u201d the high head-dress\nwhich they wear suggesting to him the well-known hat of the orthodox\n\u201cPapas\u201d or priest. The flat surface of the body gives scope for\nornamentation representing embroidered robes,[963] and the patterns\nemployed are just those which are seen on the vases; and, moreover, the\nmethod of painting is the same, the figures being covered with a buff\nslip, the patterns in black with purple details. It should be remarked\nthat some of these figures are comparatively developed in style,[964]\nand that they are practically _later imitations_ of the decoration of\nthe vases.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn considering the Geometrical vases as a whole, we are struck with the\nlaudable aspirations of the artist, who, though unable to execute his\nnew ambitions with complete success, yet shows in his work the same\npromise of the future that is latent in all early Greek art. His best\nachievement is in the ornamentation. Oriental influences as yet count\nfor very little, though they are perhaps to be discerned in the human\nfigures, as already noted; Kroker also thinks that the nude female\nfigures on the larger vases are due to Oriental art.[965] In any case\nthey are not to be traced until late in the period, and first, as might\nbe expected for geographical reasons, in the fabrics found at Kameiros\nin Rhodes.\n\nThe question of chronology must next be considered. That the developed\nGeometrical style succeeds to the Mycenaean, and forms a link between\nit and the early Attic attempts at black-figured ware, of which we\nshall subsequently treat, is sufficiently clear. It may also be laid\ndown that the Dipylon ware represents the last stage of Geometrical\ndecoration, being in point of fact too far advanced to be regarded as a\npurely typical Geometrical ware. Such data as the finding of iron in\nthe tombs, or the evidence of finds at Troy,[966] also tend to place\nthe beginning of the style at least as early as the tenth century. It\nhas also been noted that the figures correspond closely with the\nbronzes of Olympia which are dated about the ninth century, and this,\nif accepted, necessitates placing the simpler linear decoration back as\nfar as the tenth. The lower limits of the style may be roughly fixed by\nthe evidence from the tombs of Etruria, discussed in Chapter XVIII., at\nabout 700 B.C.\n\nNext, there is the evidence afforded by the ships,[967] which it should\nbe noted are all of the bireme or \u03b4\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 form, with two banks of oars.\nThe invention of the trireme, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 13, 5),\nwas due to Ameinokles, about the year 704 B.C. Hence Kroker\u2019s dating of\nthe Dipylon vases about the year 700 can hardly be accepted. But the\neighth century may be taken as representing the latest period of the\nGeometrical pottery, both in Attica and Boeotia. The curious\ninscription engraved on a Dipylon vase from Athens is dealt with\nelsewhere (Chapter XVII.); undoubtedly the earliest known Attic\ninscription, its value as evidence is limited to that of a _terminus\nante quem_, from the fact that it was probably engraved at a subsequent\ntime to the manufacture of the vase.\n\nThe question of centres of manufacture is one that has already been the\nsubject of some discussion,[968] the result of which has been to show\nthat there is no complete homogeneity in the wares from different\nsites, and consequently no one central fabric. The colossal funerary\nvases, which, it may be remarked in passing, stand at the head of a\nlong line of funerary fabrics and show the Athenian fondness for this\nclass of vase,[969] were not, and could not have been, generally\nexported, in spite of the notable exception at Curium. The ordinary\nwares might have been made in some one place (probably a Dorian centre,\nnot Attica or Boeotia); but we have seen that most finds, as in Rhodes,\npresent local peculiarities.[970] Athens at this period was not\nsufficiently advanced to become the centre of large potteries, and did\nnot become so, as we shall see, before the age of the Peisistratidae;\nsuch vases as were made were strictly confined to special purposes. It\nis a curious fact that very little Geometrical ware was found on the\nAcropolis.\n\nThe Geometrical pottery of Cyprus has already been discussed in its\nrelation to that of Greece (pp. 249, 253)[971]; but there is yet\nanother region which passed through a Geometrical period similar to\nthat of Greece, and that is Etruria (see Chapter XVIII.). It is,\nhowever, better illustrated by the metal products of the Villanova\nperiod, such as the bronze discs and large cinerary urns, than by the\nlocal pottery, which never reached the same level as in Greece; in the\nformer the same combinations of elaborate ornament with rude animals\nand yet ruder human figures may be witnessed, and it is possible that\nimportations from Greece may have had a share in influencing these\nproducts. They cover the period from the tenth to the eighth century\nB.C.\n\n \u00a7 2. ATTICA, BOEOTIA, AND MELOS\n\nFollowing on to the Geometrical vases both in chronological and\nartistic sequence is a small class of Athenian vases, which, more for\nconvenience than with regard to strict accuracy, have been styled\n=Proto-Attic=. The term has this much of truth in it, that the group\nmay be said to stand at the head of, and in direct relation to, the\nlong series of painted vases produced in the Athenian potteries for\nsome two centuries afterwards. It is only of late years that a\nsufficient number of these vases has become known for them to be\nstudied as a separate class, and even when B\u00f6hlau first drew attention\nto them, in 1887, only two or three were known. The list up to date is\nas follows (the order being roughly chronological):\u2014\n\n 1. Athens 467\n\n (_Couve\u2019s Amphora Kerameikos _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl.\n Cat._) 10.\n\n 2. Berlin 56 Amphora Hymettos _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 5.\n\n 3. Athens 468 Hydria Analatos _ibid._ pls. 3, 4.\n (Phaleron)\n\n 4. Athens 464 Lebes Thebes _ibid._ pl. 4.\n\n 5. Athens 469 Amphora Pikrodaphni _Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n 1893, pls. 2, 3.\n\n 6. Athens Mus. Amphora Kynosarges _J.H.S._ xxii. pls. 2\u20134.\n\n 7. Athens 650 Fragment Aegina Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic._\n _Vasenb._ pl. 54.\n\n 8. Athens 657 Amphora Kerameikos _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.\n\n 9. Athens 651 Amphora Peiraeus \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1897, pl. 5.\n\n 10. Berlin 1682 Lebes Aegina _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pls.\n 9, 10.\n\n 11. B.M. A 535 Lebes Athens Rayet and Collignon, p.\n 43 = Fig. 87.\n\n We may also add to this list Athens 652\u2013664, a vase from Aegina\n (_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8), B.M. A 1531 (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n 1898, p. 285), and another at Athens (_ibid._ p. 283).\n\nIt will be noticed that the majority are of the amphora form, and that\nall without exception have been found in or near Athens, which leaves\nlittle room for doubt as to their origin.\n\nA close connection with the Dipylon vases may be observed in the first\nthree, not only in shape and technique, but in decoration. In No. 2,\nwhich we may take as typical of the oldest form of the Attic amphora, a\ncombination of Geometrical and Mycenaean ornament is to be observed,\nbut the figures of the warriors are purely Hellenic, like those of the\nEuphorbos pinax (p. 335). The shape of No. 3 is typical of the\nGeometrical vases, with its long neck and slim body, and it is perhaps\nmore accurately called a three-handled jug than a hydria, though at the\nsame time it is clearly the prototype of the later Attic hydria. The\npanel on the neck of the vase (also seen in No. 6) is also a\nGeometrical feature, and the figures therein are quite in the Dipylon\nstyle. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the designs in\ncontinuous friezes without vertical divisions we trace the incoming\ninfluence of a foreign style\u2014the Rhodian or Ionian. Other motives\nagain, such as the birds and the vegetable ornaments, have nothing of\nthe Geometrical or Ionian about them, and may perhaps be directly\nderived from Mycenaean vases. But the typically Geometrical lozenges,\nzigzags, etc., still hold their own. In No. 6 Mr. Cecil Smith notes\nthat the ornamentation covering the field of the design is partly\nrectilinear and geometrical, partly floral and of Mycenaean origin. The\nspiral pattern which here closes the design, and is also seen on No. 1,\nis again an instance of Mycenaean influence, and is a motive which\nbecame exceedingly popular. In another seventh-century class, the\nso-called Melian vases, it is absolutely overdone, but the more\nrestrained Attic tradition is preserved for many years as an\nappropriate decoration for the division of the designs under the\nhandles, especially in the red-bodied amphorae of the developed B.F.\nstyle. This vase has some other unusual features, such as incised\nlines, which are also found on some early Attic fragments from the\nAcropolis,[972] but seem to appear equally early at Corinth, so that it\nis impossible to say certainly if the process is an Attic invention. At\nall events it is not Ionian, as its place is taken on the east of the\nAegean by lines of white paint (_e.g._ in the Clazomenae sarcophagi).\nCuriously enough, in this same vase (No. 6) may be noted attempts at\nthis very process, here, no doubt, as on the Ionian vases, due to\nMycenaean influence (see p. 331); but it is unique in early Attic\nwork.[973] The peculiar treatment of the eye and hair is also worthy of\nattention.\n\nTo sum up the characteristics of the Proto-Attic vases, it may be said\nthat they represent the transformation of the Attico-Dorian element\ninto the Attico-Ionian, just as we shall see in the next stage a\nfurther transformation under new influences into Attico-Corinthian (p.\n324). The Ionian influence brings with it into Attica not only a\nrevival of Mycenaean elements, but also traces of Orientalism.[974] The\ngeneral appearance of the decoration links it with the Geometrical, but\ncloser examination shows the admixture of spirals, rosettes, and\nlotos-flowers with the lozenges and zigzags, while the Geometrical\nanimal-types are combined with new ones from Ionia, such as the lion,\nand the funeral scenes and combats are supplanted by Centaurs and\nwinged genii of Assyrian character.[975] Further, there is a distinct\ntendency to get rid of the old silhouette and to draw in outline, a\npractice typical of Ionia and a direct heritage from Mycenaean\nvase-paintings. As in the Rhodian vases, the bodies are rendered in\nfull colour, the heads in outline; while the practice of covering the\nfield with ground-ornaments is also a peculiarly Rhodian\ncharacteristic. These latter, however, gradually disappear, as do the\nGeometrical conventions in the drawing of the figures.\n\nThe amphora-type develops steadily onwards from the Berlin Hymettos\namphora, which, as has been pointed out, is the oldest Attic variety.\nIn some of the forms, as in No. 5, there are traces of a metallic\norigin, shown by the open-work handles and other details.[976]\nGenerally speaking, there is a tendency towards the colossal, and\ntowards emphasising the figure-decoration, not only by increasing the\nsize of the figures, but by confining the subject to one side. M.\nPottier thinks that this is due to architectural influences, and\nsuggests a comparison with a temple-fa\u00e7ade. But the local traditions\nare still strong, and in spite of the influence of the lively and\noriginal Ionic style, the vases remain \u201ccontinental\u201d at bottom, the\ndrawing always soberer and more powerful throughout. In many respects\nthere is, as we shall see, a close parallelism with the so-called\nMelian fabrics.\n\nNo. 11, the large Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87), is one\nof the latest representatives of the Proto-Attic class; its\nIonic-looking lions and \u201cRhodian\u201d wealth of ground-ornaments seem to\nsuggest Asiatic influences, the presence of which has been accounted\nfor above. Moreover, the loop-pattern on the reverse is distinctly\nProto-Attic, and finds its parallels on vases found at Eretria,[977] as\nwell as on others of the class under consideration.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 87. BURGON LEBES (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nAnother interesting point in connection with the Proto-Attic vases is\nthe introduction of mythological subjects, as on No. 6 (Herakles and\nAntaios), No. 8 (Herakles and the Centaur Nessos), No. 10 (Perseus and\nAthena, and a Harpy[978]). The only parallel to this early appearance\nof myths on vases is to be found in the Melian class (see below, p.\n301), the Aristono\u00f6s krater (see below) and the Euphorbos pinax (p.\n335), which, however, is of later date. It will be seen that they only\noccur in the later group of the Attic vases.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XVI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Wiener Vorl._\n THE ARISTONO\u00d6S KRATER (IN THE VATICAN).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nOn two of these it is to be noted that inscriptions occur, identifying\nthe figures (Nos. 8 and 10). These are the oldest painted inscriptions\non Attic vases, but henceforward they increase in number, at least in\nthe Athenian and Corinthian fabrics; they are always more\ncharacteristic of the mainland than of Asia Minor.[979] There are two\nearly signed vases which may possibly represent the work of Athenian\nartists prior to the time of the Fran\u00e7ois vase, the cup by Oikopheles\nat Oxford,[980] and the famous vase of Aristonophos,[981] Ariston of\nKos (\u1f41 \u039a\u1ff7\u03bf\u03c2), Aristonothos, or Aristono\u00f6s as various scholars interpret\nthe name.[982] The former, however, is somewhat archaistic in\ncharacter, with careless rather than incompetent drawing, and hardly\nearlier than the sixth century; and the latter has been claimed with\nmuch probability as Ionian work, on account of the treatment of certain\ndetails, as well as on the ground of the name Ariston of Kos (if this\ninterpretation be accepted). The inscription is not conclusive either\nway, and it may also be here remarked that the krater has several\npoints of resemblance with the well-known \u201cWarrior\u201d vase of Mycenae\n(Fig. 88),[983] which is probably later in date than the rest of the\npottery from that site, being found outside the Acropolis. The\nAristono\u00f6s vase (Plate XVI.) is usually dated in the seventh century,\nand is interesting for its subjects as well as for its artistic\nposition. On one side is a sea-fight, a subject only common on Greek\nvases in the Geometrical period, and therefore obviously derived from\nthat source; on the other, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus, a\nsubject popular in archaic vase-painting (see Chapter XIV.), and found\nin Cyrenaic and other early examples. At first sight this vase would\ncertainly seem to be of the Proto-Attic class, showing the transition\nfrom Geometrical to developed Attic style; but the Mycenaean and Ionian\nelements must not be left out of consideration. As regards the Warrior\nvase, M. Pottier has given good grounds for showing that it also is to\nbe reckoned as Proto-Attic. But we must not leave out of sight the view\nurged by Furtwaengler,[984] that the Aristono\u00f6s vase is of an Argive\nfabric. When the Heraion finds are published, they may afford more\nevidence on this point. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that the\ncircumstances of the finding of the Warrior vase may support this view.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 88. VASE FROM MYCENAE, WITH WARRIORS.]\n\nClosely connected with these early Attic fabrics is a very interesting\nseries of small vases which, from the place of their discovery, are\nusually known as =Phaleron ware=. They are nearly all small jugs, and\nnumber some fifty, mostly at Athens, but there is a representative\nseries in the British Museum. More conspicuously, perhaps, than the\nProto-Attic, they illustrate the growing tendency to combine\nGeometrical and Oriental influences. In form and technique they are\nGeometrical, but in the ornamentation there is a large admixture of\nOriental elements. It has been said that \u201cthe whole character of these\nvases seems to reflect an influence of the style of Oriental vases on\npainters accustomed to the Dipylon style,\u201d[985] and it is largely in\nthe arrangement of the decoration that the former is apparent, as well\nas in the introduction of new motives and patterns.[986] See for\nexamples Plate XVII. figs. 2, 4, 5.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Ath. Mitth._ 1890.\n\n FIG. 89. VASE OF PROTO-ATTIC\n TYPE FROM VOURVA.\n]\n\nThe usual scheme consists of a panel with figures on the neck, a band\nof ornament round the shoulder, and below that parallel bands of lines\nor other ornaments, with zigzags or rays round the foot. A typical\nexample is A 471 in the British Museum, with a cock on the neck, and\nbelow, dogs pursuing a hare.[987] On a cup of Geometrical form, with\nconventionalised plants and ground-ornaments of Geometrical character,\nare two deer fleeing from a lion, and there is also a pyxis with\nchariot-scenes obviously derived from Mycenaean vases. But most curious\nand interesting is a jug with two bearded heads and a woman with very\nsmall body, apparently playing flutes.[988] The general effect is quite\nunique, but the drawing is rude and childish to a degree; the middle\nhead is almost Semitic in type. It would seem that here again we have a\nMycenaean influence at work, and in general the appearance and style of\nthese vases undoubtedly recall the figured vases from Cyprus.[989]\n\nAnother series of vases in close relation to the Proto-Attic fabrics is\nthat found at Vourva, near Marathon[990]; they are important as forming\na connecting link with the next development of Attic vase-painting, the\nTyrrhenian amphorae described at the conclusion of this chapter. They\nhave been studied by B\u00f6hlau,[991] and more recently by Nilsson,[992]\nand these writers have shown how they represent the influence of Ionic\nideas, derived through Euboea. On the other hand the friezes of\nanimals, which are so characteristic of this class, are clearly derived\nfrom Corinthian sources, but are distinguished from those on Corinthian\nvases by the absence of accessory colours. Fig. 89[993] may be taken as\na typical example. They appear to be contemporary with the later\nProto-Attic vases, such as the Burgon lebes, on which also traces of\nIonic influence have been noted.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom the Geometrical period onwards the manufacture of painted vases\nseems to have been continued intermittently in =Boeotia= down to the\nfourth century. It would be taking too great a liberty with chronology\nto deal with all Boeotian fabrics here, and the later must fall into\ntheir place with the contemporary Attic fabrics. But there is a small\nclass which seems to take its origin directly or indirectly from the\nGeometrical pottery; and as it belongs to a period anterior to the\nperfected B.F. style, it may be treated here as analogous in\ndevelopment to the Proto-Attic vases.\n\nA favourite shape among the Boeotian Geometrical wares was that of a\njug with long cylindrical neck and somewhat flat body, of a form\nclearly imitated from metal.[994] This shape, which is also often found\nin Proto-Corinthian fabrics (see below, p. 308), was utilised by a\npotter named Gamedes, whose signature is found on a vase from Tanagra\nin the Louvre,[995] in the Boeotian alphabet of about 600 B.C. It is\ndecorated with the figure of a herdsman driving before him a bull and a\nflock of sheep, the figures being in black silhouette, with details\nindicated by white markings within incised lines. This is quite a local\npeculiarity,[996] and seems to be due to a combination of Corinthian\nand Ionian influences. Gamedes has also signed his name on an unpainted\naryballos of the typical early Corinthian globular form (see p. 197) in\nthe British Museum (Plate XVII. fig. 6), and a similar vase in the\nLouvre is signed by Menaidas.[997] Yet another Boeotian potter,\nTheozotos, has a signed vase with a similar subject to the Gamedes jug,\nbut the style is more advanced.[998]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XVII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n EARLY POTTERY FROM GREECE (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n\n 1, 3, \u201cPROTO-CORINTHIAN\u201d; 2, 4, 5, \u201cPHALERON\u201d WARE; 6, BOEOTIAN,\n SIGNED BY GAMEDES.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nAnother typically Boeotian form found in the same period is a\nkantharos,[999] also obviously imitated from metal and decorated with\nfigures of animals or palmette-and-lotos patterns of a peculiarly local\ntype. The style of the animals is, like that of the Gamedes vase, also\npeculiar and local; but both in decoration and technique these vases\nseem to reflect Corinthian influence.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA small but remarkable class of vases, which seem to stand almost by\nthemselves, is that known as the =Melian amphorae=. Four vases of this\ntype now in the Athens Museum[1000] were found in Melos many years ago,\nand were recognised as a separate class and described as \u201cMelian vases\u201d\nas long ago as 1862 by Conze.[1001] Since that time a splendid example\nhas been added to the list, found in the same island in 1893[1002]; and\nto this must be added several fragments recognised at different times,\nincluding one from Naukratis in the British Museum.[1003] All the\ncomplete vases are large amphorae, about three feet high, but of\nelegant proportions, with two handles branching out low down on the\nbody. The figures are painted in brown on a pale yellow ground, and\nenhanced with dull red and purple accessories, some of the details also\nbeing incised. In two cases the subjects are mythological, one\nrepresenting Apollo with his lyre in a chariot accompanied by Artemis\nand two Muses[1004]; another the Asiatic Artemis (see Chapter\nXII.)[1005]; another, the one found in 1893, has the subjects of Hermes\nand Athena, and Herakles carrying off Iole. Deities in chariots are a\ntypical Melian subject. The figures are of quite original design, in no\nway imitative, and the costumes seem to indicate a period between Homer\nand the sixth century. They may be roughly dated about the middle of\nthe seventh.\n\nThey exhibit a combination of highly-developed Geometrical ornament\nwith vegetable motives from the East and Mycenaean details, such as the\nspiral, which, as has already been noted (p. 294), attains almost to a\nrank growth over the vacant spaces of the vases. The human forms are\nconceived with a remarkable degree of freedom. In general appearance\nthey are not unlike the large Proto-Attic amphorae, but much richer and\nfreer in style; they may be also said to approach the finer Naukratite\nor Rhodian vases, such as the Euphorbos pinax with its quasi-Homeric\nsubject and lavish use of ornament.[1006]\n\nThe decoration is more advanced than that of the Proto-Attic class, the\npalmettes, for instance, being more freely treated. Riegl[1007] notes\nthat the palmettes and lotos-flowers are derived from Egypt, but\ntransformed and Hellenised, and that the spirals are not Geometrical,\nbut are naturalised into plants. The characteristic arrangement of the\nornament in long vertical stripes he traces from Egypt through\nMycenaean art; it develops later into the plait-band of the Clazomenae\nsarcophagi (Plate XXVII.). In brief, the ornament of the Melian vases\nforms a direct link between Mycenaean and Hellenic ornament.\n\nAn altogether new light has been thrown on this group by a large series\nof fragments of painted pottery found in 1898 in the island of Rheneia,\nwhich undoubtedly form part of the contents of graves brought over from\nDelos in 426\u201325 B.C., as recorded by Thucydides (iii. 104). They have\nbeen recently made the subject of careful study by Mr. J. H.\nHopkinson,[1008] who recognised them as belonging to the Melian class,\nand identified parts of at least ten distinct vases. The scanty\npreservation of fragments of complete vases is, in his opinion, due to\nthe fact that they had been originally placed outside the tombs like\nthe Dipylon vases. Like the complete examples, they are characterised\nby their fine slip and brilliant polychrome technique, the system of\nfrieze-decoration with Geometric ornaments and spirals, the free and\nspirited drawing, and their purely plastic forms, showing no signs of\nimitation of metal. They also bear out the isolated character of this\nfabric, in which all the vases seem to be on the same level of\nexcellence, without any signs of transition at either end.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XVIII\n\n[Illustration: MELIAN AMPHORA (ATHENS MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nMr. Hopkinson draws the conclusion, in which he may prove to be\njustified, that this pottery is of Delian manufacture, but if so, that\nthe clay must have been imported, as the local clay is, and always has\nbeen, too poor in character. At all events, the Cycladic origin of the\nfabric can hardly be a matter of doubt, and it is clear that the\nintermediate position of these islands would account for a combination\nof Geometrical and Ionian elements, so far as such exists. But the\nstrongly individualistic character of the vases compels us to seek some\nother influence for their real origin, and it seems on the whole\nprobable that they represent a separate and independent descent from\nMycenaean pottery, starting with the spiral as the basis of\nornamentation. Some evidence of this descent may be traced in the\nnative pottery of Phylakopi, to which allusion has been made in the\nprevious chapter (p. 263).[1009]\n\n \u00a7 3. CORINTH\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Wilisch, _Altkorinthische Thonindustrie_ (1892); Pottier, _Louvre\n Cat._ ii. p. 417 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _C\u00e9ramiques_, i. chaps. xi.\n and xvi.; Rayet and Collignon, p. 39 ff. For \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d\n pottery see references given in text.\n\nAs a commercial and artistic centre, no one city during the early\narchaic period entered into serious rivalry with Corinth, which was at\na very remote date in relations with the East, and was one of the first\nof the Greek states to extend the system of colonisation in the\nMediterranean, by the foundation of Corcyra, Syracuse, and other\nimportant outposts. The epoch of this supremacy and of its commercial\nprosperity extends from the eighth to the sixth century B.C., being\ncoincident with the rule of the great tyrants, Periander, Kypselos,\netc. In the course of the sixth century, when the Athenian tyranny rose\nto such a great height under Peisistratos, Corinth, with equal\nrapidity, sank to a subordinate position, and her artistic supremacy\npassed to the growing power of Athens. Hence it is fitting that Corinth\nand its famous potteries should be the subject of our next section.\n\nTwo causes contributed to the importance of Corinth as a centre of\nceramic industry\u2014the excellence of its clay (see p. 205), and its\nposition as a commercial port at the junction of the Peloponnese and\nCentral Greece. Pollux[1010] selects Corinthian clay for commendation,\nand other writers speak of different varieties of pottery as\nCorinthian. Hence it is not surprising that large quantities of pottery\nshould have been found here, the local origin of which is established\nby the inscriptions in the Corinthian alphabet which are frequently\npainted upon them; and not only that, but similar pottery has been\nfound almost all over the Mediterranean, being more widely distributed\nthan any other fabric except the Athenian B.F. and R.F. vases. The list\nof sites as given by Wilisch is as follows: Athens, Eleusis, Aegina,\nArgos, Kleonae, Tiryns, Mycenae, Thebes, and Tanagra in Greece; Euboea\n(Karystos), Melos, Corfu, Crete, Rhodes,[1011] Samos, and Cyprus among\nthe islands; Hissarlik, Smyrna, Pontus, and the Crimea; Alexandria,\nNaukratis, and Carthage; Syracuse and Selinus in Sicily, and Sardinia;\nand many places in Italy, such as Bari, Nola, Capua, Cumae, Beneventum,\nCervetri, Vulci, Orvieto, Corneto, and Viterbo. M. Pottier thinks that\nthis wide distribution is due, not to the merit of the vases\nthemselves, which are often of poor style, but to the merchandise which\nthey contained. This might, at any rate, account for the great\npreponderance of small oil-flasks, a form which took the place of the\nMycenaean \u201cfalse amphora.\u201d\n\nThe Corinthian vases are not, however, strictly homogeneous, and,\nin fact, fall into certain distinct categories. The earliest class\nfound at Corinth stands quite by itself, and has been termed\n\u201cProto-Corinthian,\u201d though the justice of this title has been\nstrongly combated by some scholars. On many of the Sicilian and\nItalian sites a class of small vases[1012] is found which differs\nfrom the authentic Corinthian examples of the same forms, and may\nnot impossibly denote local fabrics. If this is so, they would\nstand in the same relation to the genuine Corinthian as the\nBoeotian Geometrical vases to those of the Dipylon, forming a sort\nof supplementary fabric. At all events, such imitations of a\npopular ware might reasonably be expected.\n\nM. Pottier maintains that five distinct varieties of clay may be\nobserved, which partially serve as a basis for classification, apart\nfrom questions of style and ornamentation. They are as follows: (1)\nsmall vases of a greenish-yellow clay found in Greece, especially at\nCorinth, but rare in Italy; (2) vases of cream-coloured clay from\nBoeotia, and large kraters from Cervetri; (3) vases of reddish clay\nfrom Boeotia, Euboea, and Etruria; (4) vases of white and grey clay,\nvery numerous in Italy; (5) vases of yellow clay, chiefly found in\nItaly. Some of the \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d wares belong to Class (1), but as\na rule they are marked off from the rest by technique as well as\ndecoration. This first class is without doubt exclusively local, and\nrepresents the \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 of Pollux; the same clay is even used\nat Corinth at the present day. On one of the Penteskuphia pinakes (see\np. 316), the clay of which differs from the rest, a potter is\nrepresented making an aryballos of \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d form[1013]; but\nthe majority belong to the second class, which is also local, and\nincludes the large kraters of advanced style with Corinthian\ninscriptions. In colour and porosity the clay resembles that of\nBoeotia. The red clay of Class (3) suggests a connection with Chalkis,\na question which needs future consideration (see below, p. 321); (4)\nand (5) present analogies to the native clays of Italy, and include all\nthe local imitative fabrics. The older varieties with merely linear\ndecoration are most largely found at Corinth and Syracuse, and the\nlater with incised lines and figures of animals or men are\ncomparatively rare. But as far as the present state of our knowledge\npermits, it is certainly possible to claim as Corinthian, at least in a\nsense, all the varieties of fabrics which have been hitherto mentioned,\nexcept probably the \u201cProto-Corinthian.\u201d\n\nIn describing these fabrics in detail, it will be found more convenient\nto ignore the technical differences, and adopt the more chronologically\naccurate system of classification which follows the development of the\ndecoration. We thus obtain five distinct classes,[1014] which may be\nsummarised as follows:\u2014\n\n 1. \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d wares (called by M. Pottier the Corinthian\n Geometric style). 750\u2013650 B.C., and later.\n\n 2. Corinthian vases with incised scale-patterns or imbrications.\n\n 3. Corinthian vases with floral decoration, ground-ornaments, and\n figures not incised.\n\n 4. Similar vases, but with figures incised. [Classes 2 to 4 roughly\n cover the seventh century.]\n\n 5. Corinthian vases without ground-ornaments, and with large friezes\n of animals or human figures; incised details. 600\u2013550 B.C.\n\n1. Although the priority of the so-called =Proto-Corinthian= or\nCorinthian Geometrical pottery is certain, the term is, strictly\nspeaking, applied to vases of different dates, which are only connected\nby form with the original fabrics.[1015] The distinction lies in the\nfact that the earlier vases have linear decoration without purple\naccessories or incised lines, both of which occur in the more developed\nexamples as the result of the revolution effected by the Corinthian\npainters.[1016] They therefore fall into two main classes, of which the\nearlier includes the larger vases with purely Geometrical decoration of\na simple type, doubtless reflecting the original local Geometrical\npottery, and sometimes with zones of animals. The figures are merely in\nblack silhouette. In the later class the vases are small, sometimes\ndiminutive, but of developed style, with zones of animals of the later\nCorinthian type, and with purple accessories and incised lines. The\nearlier class date from the eighth to the seventh century B.C.; the\nlater cannot be older than the sixth. For the dating of the earlier\ngroup some evidence may be derived from the results of excavations at\nSyracuse, founded from Corinth in 735 B.C. In its earliest cemeteries,\nas also at Megara Hyblaea, numerous Proto-Corinthian vases of the\nearlier class have been found.[1017] In Italy Proto-Corinthian wares\nwere found in trench-tombs of about 750\u2013650 B.C., and in the earlier\nchamber-tombs (see Chapter XVIII.). The older class disappears by the\nend of the seventh century, when the typical Corinthian _aryballos_\n(see p. 197) takes its place.\n\nBesides Corinth and Syracuse, Proto-Corinthian vases have been found in\nconsiderable numbers at the Argive Heraion, at Thebes, and in the\nisland of Aegina, and more rarely at Tiryns, Athens, Eleusis, Tanagra,\nSmyrna, and Hissarlik. Out of thirty in the Berlin Museum, eight\ncertainly came from Corinth. Taking this into consideration, and also\nthe Corinthian origin of Syracuse, it is evident that there is, apart\nfrom their style, a strong presumption in favour of their Corinthian\norigin.[1018] As long ago, however, as 1877 Helbig cast doubts on this\nand proposed to locate them at the rival commercial centre of\nChalkis.[1019] He was followed by D\u00fcmmler, Klein, and others,[1020] but\nrecently Aegina[1021] and Boeotia[1022] have also been suggested, the\nlatter at least for the earlier class. Yet more recently the pendulum\nhas swung in another direction, that of Argos,[1023] chiefly in view of\nthe extensive finds at the Heraion (not yet published). Two specimens\nhave recently been made known which bear inscriptions, but neither\nyields very definite evidence. One is a signed vase (with the name of\nPyrrhos[1024]), in which the alphabet is mixed, but mainly Chalcidian\nin character; in the other[1025] the inscriptions are fragmentary, but\nthough the letter \u03a3 appears in Argive, not Corinthian, form, the \u039b is\nnot of the peculiar Argive [Argive \u03a3] type, but [Sicyonian \u039b]. The\nPyrrhos inscription cannot be much later than 700 B.C., and thus ranks\nas the earliest known \u201csignature.\u201d Mr. Hoppin,[1026] arguing from the\nHeraion finds, regards the Proto-Corinthian fabrics as a direct\noffshoot of Mycenaean pottery, not as forming a link between the\nGeometrical and the Corinthian. The term, however, may be preserved, as\nimplying priority in point of time, and it cannot be said as yet that\nthe Corinthian theory is absolutely disproved.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n \u201cPROTO-CORINTHIAN\u201d AND EARLY CORINTHIAN VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1\u20133, 5, EARLY CORINTHIAN; 4, 6, \u201cPROTO-CORINTHIAN.\u201d\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe dominating form is that of the _alabastron_ or lekythos, a\npear-shaped vase with flat round lip and flat handle. The aryballos\nform is also known, as are the skyphos, pyxis, and a small krater. A\ncharacteristic shape is the jug with flat base rising in pyramidal form\nto a long cylindrical neck, with trefoil lip and handle.[1027] The\nearlier group, although of \u201cCorinthian\u201d technique, usually have only\n\u201cGeometrical\u201d ornament, such as water-birds or simple patterns; hence\nthey have been held, for instance, by M. Pottier, to represent the true\ntype of Corinthian Geometrical pottery. But it does not seem that the\nGeometrical style was ever popular at Corinth, and there are many signs\nthat the Proto-Corinthian fabrics were to a great extent influenced\ndirectly by Mycenaean wares. The patterns, which are in black\nmonochrome, are on the smaller vases limited to bands, rows of dots, or\na kind of \u201ctongue\u201d-pattern of stylised leaves. The Proto-Corinthian\nvases found in Aegina[1028] form in some respects a class by\nthemselves, being often of considerable size; they also include some\nunusual varieties, such as cups, and even amphorae.[1029] They usually\nhave Geometrical decoration in the form of zigzags, maeander, chevrons,\ntriangles, or parallel rays; on the larger ones are found friezes of\nanimals, such as dogs pursuing deer, bulls, or water-fowl.\n\n [Examples of this class are: B.M. A 487, 1050 ff. (see Plate XVII.\n figs. 4 and 6, XIX. fig. 1); Louvre E 13, 18, 32, 309, 375, 390, 396\n (_Atlas_, pls. 39, 40); Berlin, 316\u201335; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1877, pls.\n C, D, U, V; _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 7 (B.M. A 1530, of Aegina type).]\n\nThe second class is one of considerable interest. It consists of a\nseries of miniature vases, of which some twenty in all are known, of\nthe pear-shaped lekythos form, with minute but skilfully-executed\nfigures in a very advanced style. At their head for beauty and delicacy\nof execution stands the exquisite little Macmillan lekythos in the\nBritish Museum,[1030] a masterpiece of its kind. There is also a fine\nspecimen in Berlin (No. 336), others in the Louvre[1031] and the\nSyracuse Museum (the latter from the local excavations), and three very\nfine ones have recently been acquired by the Boston Museum.[1032] But\nfor size and richness, if not for beauty, all these are surpassed by a\nmarvellous vase in the Chigi collection at Florence.[1033] This is a\njug or oinocho\u00eb, decorated with no less than four friezes, two of which\nare broad, with numerous figures, the two alternate forming narrow\nborders to these, with hunting scenes. The colouring is most\nremarkable, the figures being painted in black, yellow ochre, and\nbright crimson on a cream ground, with a lavish use of incised lines,\nand on the upper narrow frieze the animals are actually painted in pale\nbuff on a black ground. The upper large frieze represents a combat,\nwith serried ranks of warriors and horsemen advancing to meet each\nother, those on the right all having elaborate emblems on their shields\n(birds, ox-heads, Gorgon-heads, etc.). On the lower friezes the figures\nfall into groups: a four-horse chariot and a row of boys on horseback;\na Sphinx; hunters slaying a lion; and lastly a fragmentary group,\nclearly representing the Judgment of Paris (see Chapter XIV.). It is\nthe figures of this group which bear the inscriptions alluded to above.\nAs an instance of the extreme richness and delicacy of the painting,\nattention should be called to the chariot-horses in the lower frieze,\nwhich are drawn slightly in advance of each other, and painted\nrespectively yellow, black, red, and yellow.\n\nThe Macmillan lekythos, in spite of its diminutive size, is decorated\nwith no less than three friezes of human figures and animals, as well\nas other ornaments; the main design represents a combat of warriors;\nthe next, a race of boys on horseback; the lowest, dogs pursuing a\nhare, and a crouching ape. The total height of the vase is barely 2\u00be\ninches, and yet every detail in these friezes is marked with surprising\ncare and accuracy, the shield-devices of the warriors, for instance,\nbeing drawn with wonderful minuteness. The three Boston vases are\ninteresting for their subjects: on one is Bellerophon slaying the\nChimaera; on the next, a hero attacking a lion with a human head on its\nback (a monster no doubt _suggested by_ the Chimaera); the third has\nthe favourite early subject of Herakles\u2019 combat with the Centaurs. In\nall these vases the use of a red colour on the human figures should be\nnoted, a technical device which we have already noted in the figures on\nthe Melian amphorae (see above, p. 301).\n\nIt is abundantly clear that such work could not have been produced in\nthe eighth, or even the seventh, century; the style is virtually that\nof the subsequent black-figured vases, and we are therefore forced to\nthe conclusion that these miniature vases were made under the more or\nless direct influence of the later Corinthian wares proper, at a time\nwhen that style was developing into the black-figured.\n\nWith the Proto-Corinthian ware may be linked a series of vases in the\nform of animals, human heads, etc., which imitate Oriental porcelain\nvases and show an early development of the plastic art which is\nremarkable for its advanced style (see pp. 127, 492). The decoration of\nthese vases is usually of a simple Geometrical character. They are\nfound in Rhodes and on many other sites, such as Eretria, Vulci, and\nNola.\n\n2. =Vases with incised imbrications.=\u2014The importance of this class is\nbetokened by the appearance of the incised line, which as a matter of\npure technique is of course only a revival from the primitive fabrics,\nbut as an adjunct to figure-decoration in order to express details is\nan entirely new feature (see above, p. 306, and below, p. 313). It was\nprobably derived from metal-work, in which it had long been familiar,\nas the Boeotian Geometrical fibulae and the early Corinthian or\nChalcidian bronze reliefs testify. Although destined largely to\nrevolutionise design, it was at first used with restraint. In the vases\nunder consideration it is confined to the imbrications[1034] or\nscale-patterns with which the body is largely covered (Plate XIX. fig.\n3). They were produced by means of a compass in which the graving-tool\nwas fixed, the edge of each scale forming an arc of a circle, the\ncentre points of which are usually visible. This scale-pattern is not a\nnew feature in the decoration of vases; it appears in a painted form on\nmany Mycenaean specimens,[1035] and was also adopted by the Ionian\npainters of Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta (see p. 352). But as a more\nsatisfactory result was obtained by incising, the Corinthian variety\nsoon became exceedingly popular. The effect is often enhanced by the\nuse of red colour.[1036] In some cases this ornament is combined with\npainted friezes of animals (as in the Louvre vase E 421). The shapes\nemployed are various, but a new and conspicuous variety is the large\njug or _olpe_, with circular lip and large discs attached on either\nside to the tops of the handles. Attempts have been made to dissociate\nthis fabric from Corinth, by attributing it to Rhodes, Ionia, and\nSicily[1037]; but although it is certainly true that large numbers were\nfound in Rhodes and in Sicily, the claims of neither prevail over those\nof Corinth, and the most that can be said with any certainty is that\nsome are local imitations. It is, moreover, possible to discover their\nprototypes in the Proto-Corinthian wares.\n\n3. =Vases with floral decoration=, but no incised lines (about 700\u2013650\nB.C.).\u2014Towards the end of the eighth century may be observed an influx\nof Oriental motives, transforming the Corinthian style, just as at\nAthens it transformed the local style, producing the Phaleron ware. Its\neffect can also be observed in Etruria (Chapter XVIII.). It is largely\ndue to historical causes, such as the development of Greek commerce and\ncolonial expansion, and generally to the fusion of Dorian and Ionian\nelements. Hence the prominent characteristic which distinguishes the\nnew variety from the Proto-Corinthian; namely, the employment of\nvegetable ornament, not from direct observation of nature, but\nconventionalised. These patterns seem to be largely drawn from Oriental\ntextile embroideries, and mainly take the form of rosettes, leaves, and\nflowers strewn all over the field; according to some writers, this is\nthe explanation of the phrase _spargentes lineas intus_,[1038] used in\nconnection with the Corinthian painters Aridikes and Telephanes.\n_Ground_-ornaments are almost unknown in Oriental art; but their\nadoption from the embroideries would only exemplify the principle,\nuniversal in early art, of imitating in one material the salient\nfeatures of another. It has been suggested that these flowers and\nleaves are intended to represent the ground on which the animals are\nwalking. If this is so, the effect is due to a principle already\nexisting in Mycenaean art\u2014the conventional rendering of perspective by\nplacing objects whose real position is beyond the principal subjects in\nthe same vertical plane with them. Another favourite pattern, either as\na ground-ornament or as part of the subordinate decoration, is a\ncombination of the palmette and lotos-flower, picked out with purple\naccessories[1039]; this pattern is purely conventional, and often\nassumes colossal dimensions in relation to the size of the vase. The\npurple accessories, which now become very common, may possibly be\nconnected with another traditional Corinthian invention, that of\nEkphantos, who used a red pigment made from pounded earth (see p.\n395).[1040]\n\nAs regards shapes, the alabastron and aryballos[1041] are preeminently\npopular; the flat-bottomed jug, the pyxis or covered jar, and the\nskyphos or kotyle, are also found (see Plate XIX. figs. 1, 2, 5). There\narises now a tendency in the larger vases to divide the body into zones\nor friezes, which henceforth become a characteristic feature. The\nsubjects are strictly limited to animals such as the lion, or various\ntypes of birds; and friezes of running dogs and other quadrupeds now\nbecome the typical Corinthian motive.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XX\n\n_To face page 312_\n\n[Illustration:\n\n 1. COVERED JAR OF CORINTHIAN FABRIC.\n 2. \u201cRHODIAN\u201d OINOCHOE.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n4. =Vases with floral decoration and figures with incised lines= (about\n650\u2013600 B.C.).\u2014In this next stage, the date of which corresponds with\nthe later trench-tombs and older chamber-tombs of Etruria (see Chapter\nXVIII.), there is a marked tendency of the vases to increase in size,\nand several new forms are either introduced for the first time or\nincrease in popularity. Besides the ever-popular aryballos and\nalabastron, there are various forms of covered jars, the cylindrical\npyxis, and the so-called _lekane_, a sort of tureen; also various\ndrinking-cups, the kotyle, the so-called _kothon_, and the kylix, the\nlast a new type. Its prototype is perhaps to be sought in the shallow\nfour-handled bowls of the Boeotian Geometrical ware, and it is marked\nby its bent-over rim and low foot.[1042]\n\nThe decoration loses all restraint, and the prevailing idea with the\nartist is the _horror vacui_ which impels him to fill up every vacant\npart of the surface, at the expense of utterly conventionalising his\nfigures and ornaments and distorting their forms (cf. Plate XIX. figs.\n1, 5, and XX. fig. 1). The vases contrast unfavourably with their\nIonian contemporaries, in which, however profuse the ground-ornaments,\nthe importance of the figures is never lost sight of, and they never\nfail to strike the eye. Incised lines and purple accessories are\nemployed freely, and even the rosettes are always marked by cross-wise\nincisions.\n\nIncision as a method of ornamenting vases was of course always known\nfrom the earliest times, but it was not until now employed within and\nround painted designs. Hitherto the only alternatives were plain\nsilhouettes (as in Geometrical vases) or half-opaque, half-outlined\nfigures (as in Mycenaean and some early Ionian vases). The former,\nhowever, were too conventional, the latter too elaborate, and the new\nmethod of painting _plus_ engraving reconciled the two, being at once\nmore realistic and more rapid. It is generally supposed that this\nmethod was a Corinthian invention (compare its use in the imbricated\nvases, p. 311), but it is not unknown in early Attic vases, and B\u00f6hlau\nattributes its origin to an early Ionian tendency to imitate metal\nware.[1043] But this was an anomaly, and the Ionians never took to the\nincising method, preferring outline designs or inner lines of white\npaint (see p. 331). In any case the Corinthians were the first to adopt\nit and popularise it.\n\nThe subjects, which now begin to present greater interest, include all\nkinds of animals and monsters, arranged in friezes, and by degrees\nhuman figures, and even scenes from mythology, make their appearance.\nSome vases have only decorative ornament, such as a flower of four\nlong, pointed petals, which is frequently found on the aryballi.[1044]\nThe animals include the lion, panther, boar, bull, ram, deer, goat,\nswan, and eagle; the monsters are Gryphons, Sphinxes, or Sirens, and a\nsea-deity of which the upper part is human (both male and female), the\nlower is in the form of a sinuous fish-tail, and the figure is often\nwinged in addition.[1045] It is possible that in these figures we may\nsee the local sea-deities Palaemon and Ino-Leukothea. The human figures\nare either single, ranged in friezes, or in groups; the favourite types\nare combats of two warriors and Bacchanalian dances; hunting scenes;\nand warriors setting out in chariots. The mythological scenes include\nthe combat of Herakles with the Centaurs,[1046] and scenes from the\nTrojan War, such as the combat of Ajax and Aeneas, or the episode of\nDolon.[1047]\n\nSo far, then, in the three groups of Corinthian fabrics proper, we are\nable to trace the working of M. Pottier\u2019s law of the _hi\u00e9rarchie des\ngenres_,[1048] the law which was made by M. Dumont the basis of his\nwork _Les C\u00e9ramiques de Gr\u00e8ce propre_ (vol. i., dealing with the\nearlier fabrics). According to this law, the decoration of vases\nadvances by a logical process from linear patterns to floral ornament,\nand then from animals to human, and finally mythological, figures.\nAnother feature in this group is that inscriptions now appear for the\nfirst time. They became exceedingly popular at Corinth, and on most of\nthe vases with figure-subjects they may be found, each person bearing a\nname, whether the scene is mythological or not.[1049] The fashion seems\nto have received an impetus from the chest of Kypselos, which was\nlargely a Corinthian work, and often shows close parallel with the\nvases (see below). We have a signed vase with figures in this style by\nChares (Louvre E 609), and others by Timonidas (Athens 620), and\nMilonidas (a pinax in Louvre).[1050] The abundance of these\ninscriptions has done much to increase our knowledge of the somewhat\npeculiar Corinthian alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).\n\nAmong the vases of this period one of the most remarkable is the\nso-called Dodwell vase in Munich (Fig. 90),[1051] found at Mertese,\nnear Corinth, about the year 1800, and purchased by the explorer\nDodwell. It is a cylindrical jar or box (_pyxis_), with cover,\ndecorated round the sides and on the top. Round the body are two\nfriezes of animals, with numerous flowers as ground-ornaments; on the\ntop of the cover is a frieze representing a boar-hunt, in which eight\nfancifully-named personages take more or less active part. Of these\nPhilon lies dead under the boar\u2019s feet; Thersandros attacks it with a\nsword in front, and Pakon discharges an arrow at it from behind. Behind\nhim Andrytas hurls a spear, and he is followed by four inactive\nfigures, all draped and unarmed\u2014Dorimachos, Sakis, Alka ... and\nAgamemnon. The scene is closed by a heraldic group of two Sphinxes. It\nwill be observed that here, as in other contemporary scenes with human\nfigures, the ground-ornaments are already showing a tendency to die\nout; perhaps under the influence of Ionia, where it was soon discovered\nthat they interfered with the effect of figures in action. The alphabet\nof the inscriptions enables us to date this vase about 650\u2013620 B.C.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 90. THE DODWELL PYXIS (COVER).]\n\nThe _pinakes_, or votive tablets, from Penteskuphia, of which mention\nhas been made elsewhere (p. 51), form an important feature in this\ngroup, both from their subjects, their inscriptions, and the method of\npainting. They appear to range in date from 650 to 550 B.C., and fall\ninto three classes in point of style. The earliest have designs in rude\nsilhouette without incised lines; in the second only the contours of\nthe figures are incised; the third are like the vases, with incised\nlines and purple details. In a few cases the clay is red, not\ndrab-coloured. Some are decorated on both sides, but the majority on\none only, and they were clearly intended for hanging up in a temple.\nTwo of them are signed by artists, Timonidas and Milonidas,[1052] and\nthere are other interesting inscriptions, besides the ordinary\ndedications to Poseidon and Amphitrite (see Chapter XVII.). The\nsubjects are partly the same as on the vases, but the majority fall\nunder two heads: (_a_) Poseidon and Amphitrite, standing or in a\nchariot (Fig. 115); (_b_) _genre_ scenes from Corinthian industries,\nsuch as miners digging out clay, potters and painters at work, and\nvessels exporting pottery over the sea (cf. pp. 207, 216, and Chapter\nXV. \u00a7 5). Of the subjects common to the vases, Oriental animal-types\nand horses occur most frequently; also rosettes and floral\nground-ornaments.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXI\n\n[Illustration: 1. IMITATION CORINTHIAN KRATER, RETURN OF HEPHAISTOS; 2,\nCORINTHIAN KRATER WITH BOAR-HUNT (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n5. The vases of the fifth class (600\u2013550 B.C.) are characterised by the\nprevalence of =human and mythological subjects=, with large friezes of\nanimals, a general use of incised lines, and an absence of\nground-ornaments. They are mostly of considerable size, but small vases\nstill continued to be made during the sixth century, as is seen in the\n\u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d lekythi. The amphora and hydria now first make their\nappearance; the later lekythi approach more to the Attic form.[1053]\nOne or two other typical shapes may also be noticed, such as the\ncolumn-handled krater (Plate XXI.) and the trefoil-mouthed jug with a\npanel on one side of the vase only; the prototype of the former we have\nseen in the krater of Aristono\u00f6s. Another important feature is the\ngeneral use of a red ground in the place of the old creamy white; and\nyet another, the use of white accessories, especially for the flesh of\nfemale figures. It should be noted that this white is always applied\ndirectly on the clay, as in Ionian fabrics, not as in the Attic, upon\nthe black varnish. We may bear in mind that it was about this time that\nthe Athenian Eumaros _marem a femina discrevit_, according to Pliny;\nbut his date is uncertain, and the bearing of this invention on the\nvase-paintings is not to be accepted without hesitation. For the faces\nof male figures purple is often used, and, generally speaking, the\nvases tend to present a polychrome appearance. This again is an Ionian\ncharacteristic.\n\nThe subjects now take a much wider range, and include almost every\nvariety known in the earlier part of the sixth century. Friezes of\nanimals seldom form the main motive of decoration, but are placed in\nsubordination either on the shoulder or low down on the body. Some of\nthe older types still linger, such as the monsters and fish-tailed\nsea-deities, and also that of a heraldic group of two animals with a\npalmette and lotos pattern between, suggesting the old Assyrian motive\nof two animals guarding the sacred tree. Generally, there is a great\nadvance in composition; but two traditional principles are still\nobserved\u2014the juxtaposition of figures turned in the same direction, as\nin Oriental compositions, and a symmetrical disposition of the two\nsides converging to a centre, a \u201cContinental\u201d principle already seen in\nthe Dipylon vases. The subjects taken from daily life include combats,\nbanquets, Bacchic or grotesque dances, hunting-scenes, warriors setting\nout for battle, and processions. Some appear now for the first time,\nas, for instance, the banquets. Among the mythological scenes, Herakles\nand his adventures find most favour; scenes from the Trojan cycle are\nfar from uncommon; and other myths of more isolated character are those\nof Amphiaraos, Perseus, and the Theban cycle (Tydeus killing Ismene).\nMany of the mythological scenes are really only _genre_ scenes with\nnames added; for instance, the krater in the Louvre with Herakles\u2019\nreception by Eurytos (E 635), is only an ordinary banquet-scene in\ncomposition, but for the inscriptions; and so with many others, as we\nhave also observed in the preceding class.\n\nIt may suffice to describe one vase in detail as typical of the later\nCorinthian wares. This is the so-called Amphiaraos krater in\nBerlin,[1054] a column-handled krater of considerable size and very\nrichly decorated. It belongs to a series exceptionally well represented\nin the Louvre (E 613\u201339; all found, like this, at Cervetri), and\nillustrating the absolutely latest development of Corinthian pictorial\nart. Its special interest is that it affords a close comparison in\nseveral points with the chest of Kypselos. The subjects are disposed in\ntwo rows all round the vase, of which the upper is the more important,\ncontaining two mythological subjects. These, which are unequally\ndivided, one occupying more of the circumference than the other, are\nthe Departure of Amphiaraos and the Funeral Games for Pelias,[1055] the\n\u1f00\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a0\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 of Pausanias.[1056] On the lower frieze are seven boys\ntaking part in a horse-race, seven groups of combatants, and two\nmarching hoplites. It will be noted that there is no frieze of animals.\n\nThe Amphiaraos scene depicts that hero in the act of ascending his\nwar-chariot, in which the driver Baton stands; he turns to look at his\nfamily behind, consisting of two daughters, a son, and an infant in the\nnurse\u2019s arms, and last of all his wife Eriphyle, who stands in the rear\nwith the pearl necklace, the price of her treachery. Her children seem\nto be supplicating for her. In the background Amphiaraos\u2019 house is\nindicated by a Doric building. The correspondence of this scene with\nthe description of the Kypselos chest[1057] is extraordinary; the\nlatter might almost be a description of the vase. An interesting\nfeature of this painting is formed by the animals which are scattered\nover the scene: a hare, a hedgehog, an owl and another bird, a serpent,\na scorpion, and a lizard or salamander.[1058]\n\nThe funeral games for Pelias adjoined the Amphiaraos scene on the\nchest, just as they do here, except that the scene on the vase is only\nan excerpt from the contest of the Pentathlon, which is there complete.\nWe have here only the wrestling (by Peleus and Hippalkimos), and in\nplace of the other scenes a chariot-race, with the judges waiting to\ndecide the result; as on the chest, tripods are standing ready as\nprizes for the victor. It must not, of course, be supposed that these\nscenes are directly copied from the chest\u2014the discrepancies are too\ngreat, although the parallels are very interesting; but the only object\nof such comparisons is to assist us to an idea of the appearance of\nthese great contemporary works of art.[1059]\n\nOne of the chief features of this class is the almost total\ndisappearance of the ground-ornaments. Sometimes indeed a frieze of\nanimals with the old profusion of rosettes is combined on the same vase\nwith a design of figures on a clear field; but, generally speaking,\nrosettes are not found with the figure subjects. Their place is almost\nsupplied by the inscriptions, which become more and more extensively\nemployed, even for animals. Accessory colours are used in a purely\nconventional fashion, not to reproduce nature, but\u2014probably\u2014to\nreproduce metal-work. Thus we may surmise that white is intended to\ngive the effect of silver (or ivory) and red that of copper (or gold),\njust as such substances were used on the chest of Kypselos in order to\ngive variety and picturesqueness to the surface. The black then\nrepresents the ground of bronze or wood.\n\nThe sixth-century Corinthian vase-paintings have a special importance\nat the present day, because they are almost the only remnant left to us\nof the artistic products of the city at that time.[1060] Though not of\ncourse to be reckoned as examples of the higher art, they yet reflect\nit in some measure, and help us to reconstruct such works as the chest\nof Kypselos, almost every subject on which finds a parallel in the\nCorinthian vases. And it is possible that they are important in another\nrespect. We know from Pliny that there was a very influential school of\npainting centred at Corinth in this century, which is represented by\nthe names of Kleanthes and Aridikes, Ekphantos, Aregon, and perhaps\nalso Kimon of Kleonae. Although Professor Robert[1061] has endeavoured\nto show that the traditions are untrustworthy, and places Kimon in the\nseventh century, Kleanthes later, the probability is that they may\nfairly be upheld, and Pliny\u2019s dates accepted. Allusion has already been\nmade to the inventions traditionally associated with Aridikes and\nEkphantos; but Kimon belongs to a later development of painting\naltogether, and must be reserved for a later chapter. Of Kleanthes it\nis only stated that he \u201cinvented linear drawing,\u201d whatever that may\nmean; Pliny, our informant, was perhaps hardly aware himself, and is no\nmore definite as to the period at which he lived. We can only,\ntherefore, assume that he marks the epoch of some new departure or\nadvance in contour or outline drawing.[1062]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXII\n\n[Illustration: CHALCIDIAN VASE: HERAKLES AND GERYON; QUADRIGA\n(BIBLIOTH\u00c8QUE NATIONALE).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThere are a few vases which, on account of various peculiarities, can\nonly be described as \u201cimitation Corinthian.\u201d Among these may be\nmentioned one with an inscription in the Sicyonian alphabet (Berlin\n1147), and a krater in the British Museum (B 42 on Plate XXI.) with\ndesigns on a white ground, which from the similarity of its style to\nthe Berlin vase may be linked therewith.[1063] The late F. D\u00fcmmler was\nof opinion that these two vases were made at Sikyon. There is also the\ngroup of vases from Caere in the Campana collection of the Louvre,\nwhich have usually been regarded as imitations of Corinthian ware made\nin Italy; but M. Pottier in his catalogue makes no distinction between\nthese and the genuine Corinthian fabrics.\n\n \u00a7 4. CHALCIDIAN VASES\n\nA very puzzling class of vases, about which little is at present known,\nis that formed by the so-called Chalcidian group. They are so named\nfrom the fact of their bearing inscriptions which may undoubtedly be\nreferred to the alphabet of Chalkis in Eretria; but there is no\nevidence that they were actually made there. We know, however, that\nChalkis was a great art-centre and rival of Corinth in the seventh and\nsixth centuries, and was especially famous for work in metal. As,\ntherefore, more than one of these vases bears evident indications, in\nthe shape of the handles, the ornamentation, and other details, of an\nimitation of metallic originals, there may be some ground for the\nattribution. Only a dozen or so of these vases with Chalcidian\ninscriptions are known, and several of them are in character almost to\nbe ranked with the developed B.F. Attic wares; their date cannot\ntherefore be earlier than the middle of the sixth century, probably\nabout 560\u2013540 B.C. On the other hand, they often present a close\nparallel, especially in the ornamental patterns, to the later\nCorinthian wares,[1064] whence it seems probable that they form, like\nthe so-called Tyrrhenian amphorae (see below), a connecting-link\nbetween Corinth and Athens. While as yet it is impossible to obtain a\ndefinite idea of the characteristics of \u201cChalcidian\u201d vases, the attempt\nto classify other uninscribed vases with them can only be very\ntentative, although there is more than one in the British Museum, in\nthe Louvre, and elsewhere, which presents some feature especially\ntypical of the inscribed examples.[1065]\n\nThe prevailing shape is the amphora, all but one of the inscribed group\ncoming under this heading, in which the outline of the body approaches\nnearer to a pure ellipse than is usual in this form; the typical\nornaments are rows of oblique zigzags and a peculiar variety of the\nlotos-pattern. An occasional rosette in the field preserves a trace of\nCorinthian influence. The subjects are mainly mythological, such as the\ncombat of Herakles and Geryon, battle-scenes from the Trojan legends,\netc.; and two points are worth noting as apparently characteristic of\nthe group: (1) the tendency to represent fallen figures in full face,\nwhich is very rare in archaic vase-painting; (2) the type of Geryon,\nwho is winged, and not, as in the Attic vases, \u201cthree men joined\ntogether,\u201d as Pausanias describes the figure on the chest of Kypselos,\nbut a triple-headed, six-armed monster.\n\nThe most typical example of the class is the amphora in the Hope\ncollection at Deepdene,[1066] with scenes from the Trojan War. Ajax\nstands over the body of Achilles, defending it from the attacks of\nGlaukos, whom he has wounded, and of Paris, who has just discharged his\nbow; behind the latter advance Aeneas and two other Trojans with\nspears, while a fourth falls back wounded. Achilles and the two wounded\nmen are all shown in full face.[1067] The combat is watched by a stiff\narchaic figure of Athena, with serpent-fringed aegis, and behind her,\nstanding apart, is Diomede, having his wounded hand bound up by\nSthenelos. The drawing on the whole is accurate, and the style more\nvigorous and less conventional than that of the Attic vases.\n\nTwo of the group represent Herakles encountering Geryon: an amphora in\nthe British Museum (B 155) and one in the Biblioth\u00e8que at Paris (202).\nIn the latter the figure of Athena is almost exactly repeated from the\nDeepdene vase, and behind her is a group of cattle. The reverse of this\nvase represents a quadriga seen from the front (a typical Chalcidian\nsubject). Both sides of the vase are illustrated in Plate XXII.\n\nUntil the whole series of Chalcidian vases is properly studied and\nestimated,[1068] it is difficult to give an adequate account of this\nimportant group; we append, however, a list of those bearing\ninscriptions in the alphabet, and a few others for various reasons\nassociated with them.[1069]\n\n \u00a75. \u201cTYRRHENIAN AMPHORAE\u201d\n\nThere is a large and important class of vases, not differing in\ntechnique from the Attic B.F. vases proper, yet clearly of earlier\ndate, and while not exclusively Attic in all their characteristics, yet\nsufficiently so to suggest that they are closely connected therewith.\nThe problem which these vases have for a long time presented is whether\nthey merely represent an early stage of the Attic B.F. fabrics, linking\nthem to the \u201cProto-Attic,\u201d or whether they owe their origin to foreign,\n_e.g._ Corinthian, sources.\n\nAbout eighty vases, nearly all amphorae, have been recognised as\npresenting the characteristics of this class, and all have been found\nin Italy, chiefly at Cervetri and Vulci; hence they have been known for\nmany years. As long ago as 1830 the name \u201cTyrrhenian amphorae\u201d was\napplied to them by Gerhard, meaning thereby a sort of cross between\nGreek vases proper and those of obviously Italian origin. The name has\nadhered to them, and was also used generally to describe the\ncharacteristic form of amphora, with its cylindrical neck and\negg-shaped body[1070]; but it was not long before it began to be\nrealised that the vases bore inscriptions in the Attic dialect, and,\nfurther, that the subjects on them had much in common with the later\nCorinthian fabrics. Thereupon sprang up the idea, fostered by\nLoeschcke,[1071] that the vases were made by Athenian potters, but that\nthey were largely indebted to Corinthian\u2014or, as Loeschcke called them,\nPeloponnesian\u2014prototypes.[1072] For the last ten years or so they have\nbeen generally known as \u201cCorintho-Attic,\u201d but Thiersch, the most recent\nwriter on the subject,[1073] reverts to the old name of Tyrrhenian,\nusing it of course in a purely conventional sense. His conclusion is\nthat the class is to be regarded as \u201cold Attic,\u201d rather than imitative\nof Corinthian, and he shows clearly that it must be regarded as a\ndevelopment of the Vourva vases (p. 299), as will be seen from an\nexamination of the vase given in Fig. 89, p. 299; but that it is\nentirely free from Corinthian influence can hardly be maintained. We\nhave seen that the Vourva class borrowed from Corinth the friezes of\nanimals which are also characteristic of this group, and it is possible\nthat this influence continued to make itself felt. At all events, this\nware belongs to the first half of the sixth century B.C., and stands in\nclose relation to the Fran\u00e7ois vase, and others which represent the\nearliest school of Attic B.F. artists. Its specially Attic\ncharacteristic are, according to Holwerda, (1) the inscriptions, (2)\nthe clay, (3) the types of the lotos and other ornaments, (4) the\nimportance given to one subject, (5) the thin proportions of the\nfigures.[1074]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXIII\n\n[Illustration: \u201cTYRRHENIAN\u201d AMPHORA: DEATH OF POLYXENA (BRIT. MUS.).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe vases are for the most part decorated in the same manner, with an\nelaborate lotos-and-honeysuckle pattern on either side of the neck, and\nseveral friezes of figures, usually three, covering the body, of which\nall but the principal one are composed of animals or monsters. The\nprincipal frieze is always the upper one, covering the body from the\nneck to the middle. The friezes are more numerous on the earlier\nexamples; they become fewer as Corinthian characteristics give way to\nAttic. Altogether, these vases are remarkably homogeneous, both in\nstyle, in shape, and in technique, and it has even been suggested that\nthe whole series is the work of one man; nor is this an impossibility.\n\nAn interesting feature is formed by the inscriptions,[1075] which are\nof frequent occurrence. They tend, however, to degenerate into\nmeaningless collocations of letters, which some have thought to\nrepresent Corinthian inscriptions misunderstood; but the alphabet is\npure Attic throughout, except for the double forms on the Berlin\namphora (see below), and a Chalcidian [Chalcidian \u0393] for \u0393 on a vase in\nthe British Museum. The artist is fond of giving his figures surnames,\nand thus we find Hermes styled \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cof Kyllene,\u201d Nestor \u03a0\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n\u201cof Pylos,\u201d and Ajax [\u1f48]\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, \u201cson of Oileus,\u201d a feature which\nhardly occurs on any other class of vases. The meaningless inscriptions\nare not easy to account for; certain groups of letters are repeated\nover and over again, and it has been suggested by Thiersch that they\nare analogous to the friezes of animals, with their repetitions and\ncombinations. They also seem to serve a decorative purpose by filling\nup spaces.\n\nThe subjects are mainly mythological, with many features of interest.\nFor several the artist seems to have had a decided preference, such as\nthe combats of Herakles with Amazons and with the Centaur Nessos, that\nof the Lapiths with the Centaurs, the adventure of Troilos and Polyxena\nfrom the Trojan legends. Bacchic scenes are altogether wanting, but on\nmany examples a Corinthian type is adopted in their place, representing\ngrotesque dancing figures in various attitudes.[1076] Of scenes from\ndaily life, combats of armed warriors and young riders galloping\nprevail above all others; the latter are, as on the Caeretan hydriae\n(p. 355), little more than decorative. Generally speaking, it is\ndoubtful if Loeschcke\u2019s idea of types borrowed from the Peloponnese can\nbe maintained; it is true that some scenes which occur on the chest of\nKypselos may be found, but the treatment is not quite the same; and\nsome subjects seem to be rather from an Ionic source. The animals or\nmonsters which form the subordinate friezes include the Sphinx and\nSiren; the lion, panther, goat, and deer; the eagle, swan, and\ncock.[1077]\n\nSome of the vases call for more than passing mention, especially the\nremarkable Berlin vase (_Cat._ 1704) with the Birth of Athena, and the\nrichly decorated specimen recently acquired by the British Museum, with\nthe Death of Polyxena. The former seems to be the earliest example of\nits subject, and in the number and arrangement of the figures it\nresembles the fine early Attic amphora in the British Museum (B 147).\nIts chief interest is epigraphical, in the use of the double forms\n(Corinthian and Attic) in the same word of the letters E ([Corinthian\nE]) and \u039a (\u03d8).[1078] Over the figure of Hermes is written \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76\n\u039a\u03d9\u03c5\u03ad\u03bb\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (sc. \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), as already noted above. This vase may be\nregarded as having established the \u201ctype\u201d for the subject so long\npopular on Attic vases, until Pheidias created a new and more ideal\nversion.[1079] The Museum vase (Plate XXIII.) has a very remarkable\nrepresentation of a subject rare in Greek art, with several unique\nfeatures.[1080] The body of Polyxena is carried in a rigid horizontal\nposition by Ajax Iliades (_sc._ son of O\u00efleus) and two others, to the\ntomb of Achilles, over which Neoptolemos stands to perform the fatal\ndeed. Phoenix, Diomede, and Nestor \u201cof Pylos\u201d are spectators of the act.\n\nThe style of the vases as a whole is coarse and clumsy, though it often\nrises to a greater standard of merit; the lines are often mechanically\ndrawn and lifeless, which may be to some extent the result of\nimitation. Details of drapery are seldom shown, except that the dresses\nare often richly decorated with incised patterns, but the folds are\nnever indicated.[1081]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 222\u20133.\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n Wide, in _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 385 ff.; see also _ibid._ 1893, p.\n 138.\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n Cf. the results from the Argive Heraion (Waldstein, i. p. 49 ff.).\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n Cf. Horace, _Ep._ ii. 1, 156: _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et\n artes intulit agresti Latio_.\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n M. Pottier notes the unexpected repetition of curvilinear elements in\n Geometrical pottery (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 223).\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n For Melos, see _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 112; for Thera, H. von\n Gaertringen, _Thera_, ii. p. 127 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.;\n for Crete, _Brit. School Annual_, 1899\u20131900, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 103, fig.\n 150; D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304.\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n See Wide\u2019s study of the pottery in the Athens Museum, _Jahrbuch_,\n xiv. (1899), pp. 26, 78, 188; xv. (1900), p. 49.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n _Zur Geschichte d. Anf\u00e4nge d. Kunst_, p. 1 ff. (_Sitzungsber. d. k.\n Akad. d. Wiss._ Wien, 1870, lxiv. p. 505 ff.).\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n See Bibliography.\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n Perrot and Chipiez, vii. pp. 51, 208.\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n _J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.; cf. _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223 ff.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n See p. 35, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, p. 73 ff.\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 383, 384; Louvre, A 490, 491; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1872,\n pl. K, fig. 12.\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 95.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. p. 165, reproduced in Fig 83. The part\n bracketed denotes the ornamentation of the neck.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 150 ff.\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n _E.g._ _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 600.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n For other instances of ships on Dipylon vases, see Chapter XV. \u00a7 7;\n also _Mon. Grecs_, xi.\u2013xiii. (1882\u20134), p. 40 ff.; _Rev. Arch._ xxv.\n (1894), p. 14 ff.\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. p. 57.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. 13; _J.H.S._ xvii. pl. 3, p. 70.\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 119.\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n The most important of the Dipylon vases have been published in the\n _Monumenti_, vol. ix. pl. 39, and _Annali_, 1872, pl. 1, besides the\n others already mentioned. See also Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _Louvre\n Cat._ A 516\u201319, 526, 575; _Athens Cat._ 196\u2013214, 350, etc.\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. p. 212.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n _Monuments Piot_, i. p. 35 ff.\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n A 575 in the Louvre, with funeral scenes; Fig. 86 below.\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 173.\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n Riegl, fig. 81.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n _Cat._ 306; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 357.\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n On these fibulae see _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xxxix, and Nos.\n 119\u201321, 3204\u20135.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n This would seem to suggest a textile origin for Geometrical patterns,\n at least on Boeotian vases.\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n _E.g._ B 57\u20138 in Brit. Mus.\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 99 ff.: see also, for relations with Egypt,\n p. 114.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304 ff.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 232, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, p. 285.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 106; Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 229.\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n In the B.F. period, pinakes and prothesis-amphorae (Athens 688\u2013690,\n 845\u2013847; Berlin 1811\u201326, 1887\u201389); in the R.F. period, the white\n lekythi.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n See Pottier, _op. cit._ i. p. 135 ff.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n See also _Ath. Mitth._ xiii. (1888), p. 280.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1895, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 35.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n Ionian influence in the early part of the sixth century is also\n indicated by the finds of Rhodian and Naucratite pottery on the\n Acropolis at Athens; and in another way by the style of the vases\n found at Vourva and others from Eretria: see B\u00f6hlau, _Aus ion. u.\n ital. Nekrop._, p. 116; Nilsson in _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n Cf. Athens 464, 469; _Jahrbuch_, 1897, pl. 7; _Notizie degli Scavi_,\n 1895, p. 186, as examples of the transition.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n Cf. the large Boeotian \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, (Plate XLVII., and _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ 1898, p. 497 ff.).\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n Athens 665\u201366: cf. 469.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n See Chapter XIV.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n See Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n _Ashmolean Vases_, No. 189.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n In the Vatican (Helbig, i. p. 435, No. 641). Reinach, i. 179 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 1, 8.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n For the interpretation of the inscription see _J.H.S._ x. p. 187\n (Ramsay); _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr.-Ungarn_, 1888, p. 85\n (D\u00fcmmler); _Class. Review_, 1900, p. 264 (Richards). The last\n explanation (Aristono\u00f6s) seems the most natural. See Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n Schliemann, _Mycenae_, p. 133: cf. Pottier in _Revue Arch._ xxviii.\n (1896), p. 19. The technique of the vase is not strictly Mycenaean,\n as the use of yellow colour for details implies.\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 58.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n That they are an immediate development of the Dipylon style is\n indicated by various features of the later Attic Geometrical vases\n (_Jahrbuch_, 1886, pp. 98, 120).\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 48, fig. 8 = Plate XVII. No. 5.\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 46.\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n See p. 246; and cf. for example _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73, figs.\n 126\u201327. For a later Ionic vase of similar type see _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ 1884, pl. 7 (below, p. 339).\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, pls. 10\u201312; 1893, pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 115 ff.\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 446, and Plate XIX. fig. 5\n (Corinthian).\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 2 and 7: cf. Berlin 1651 = _Bull.\n de Cor. Hell._ 1897, p. 448.\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n It also occurs at Daphnae: see below, p. 352.\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 1, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n Louvre F 69. For other signatures see Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 450: cf. Athens 612 and a Berlin vase\n = _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116. On this shape see above, p. 187.\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n _Cat._ 473\u201376. Plate XVIII. gives No. 474.\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n _Melische Thongef\u00e4sse._ See also Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 213;\n _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 211.\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n Athens 477 = Mylonas in \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1894, pls. 12\u20134, p. 226 (admirably\n reproduced in colours).\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n Cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 212.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n Athens 475.\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n Berlin 301 = Reinach, i. 380, 4.\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n Cf. also _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79 and B.M. A 762\u201364, 790.\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n _Stilfragen_, p. 154.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 46 ff.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n Cf. _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 66.\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n x. 182.\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n On the relations of Corinthian and Rhodian pottery, see Wilisch,\n _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 127. The Corinthian vases found in Rhodes\n are roughly contemporaneous with the so-called Rhodian fabric.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n _E.g._ Louvre E 460, 467; Berlin 1156 ff. Furtwaengler, D\u00fcmmler, and\n Wilisch call these Italo-Corinthian, but B\u00f6hlau regards them as\n Aeolic, Orsi and Gsell as Sicilian. See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.\n 422.\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 106.\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 6 ff., limits these classes to\n three: Proto-Corinthian, Yellow-ground, and Red-ground; he arrives at\n this by combining Classes 2, 3, and 4 in one.\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n Cf. Couve in _Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 214.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16, of Aridikes and Telephanes, _spargentes\n linear intus_. But it is not certain that this passage refers to the\n use of _incised_ lines.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1877, pls. C, D; _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 780.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n _J.H.S._ xi. p. 173; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 481.\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1877, p. 406; _Italiker in der Po-ebene_, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 18; Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 68; Wilisch, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pp. 262, 265 ff.; and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 228.\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 262; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; _Amer.\n Journ. of Arch._ 1900, p. 441.\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902), p. 41.\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n _Amer. Journ._ loc. cit.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n It is interesting to note that this form quite disappears, and is not\n revived until the glass vessels of the Roman period. Cf. _J.H.S._ xi.\n p. 175: see also p. 300; and for this and the other shapes, Plates\n XVII., XIX.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 265 ff.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n In some specimens Ionian influence seems to manifest itself: cf. for\n instance the Ionic palmette in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 279. Studniczka\n notes that the purely monochrome outline drawing of the Aegina vases\n is like that ascribed by Pliny to the early Corinthian painters\n (_Ath. Mitth._ 1899, p. 376).\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n Plate XVII. fig. 3 = A 1050 = _J.H.S._ xi. pls. 1, 2: cf. also\n _ibid._ p. 179.\n\nFootnote 1031:\n\n _M\u00e9langes Perrot_, pl. 4, p. 269, and see p. 271, note 2; _Rev.\n Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 213.\n\nFootnote 1032:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pls. 4\u20136, p. 441.\n\nFootnote 1033:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 1034:\n\n So called from the imitation of overlapping roof-tiles (_imbrices_).\n\nFootnote 1035:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 193, 223; Louvre A 275.\n\nFootnote 1036:\n\n _E.g._ Louvre, _Atlas_, pl. 40, E 347.\n\nFootnote 1037:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, iv. p. 271 ff.; B\u00f6hlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 91.\n\nFootnote 1038:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16. See p. 306, note 1016.\n\nFootnote 1039:\n\n Cf. Louvre E 350 ff.\n\nFootnote 1040:\n\n Studniczka (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 151) connects Ekphantos with Melos\n (cf. the inscription in Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 32). On the\n connection of Corinth with Melos, see Wilisch, p. 123 ff.\n\nFootnote 1041:\n\n The aryballos is also found in early Boeotian fabrics (subsequent to\n the Geometrical period): cf. the Gamedes vase in the B.M. (p. 300.),\n and that of Menaidas in the Louvre.\n\nFootnote 1042:\n\n See Wilisch, p. 24; examples in Athens Mus., Nos. 621, 622, 640 ff.\n\nFootnote 1043:\n\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 437 ff.; but see _Ath. Mitth._ 1895, p.\n 125, and B\u00f6hlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 98.\n\nFootnote 1044:\n\n _E.g._ Athens Mus. 502 and 507; Berlin 1034 ff.; _J.H.S._ xii. p. 312\n (from Cyprus); and cf. Wilisch, p. 41.\n\nFootnote 1045:\n\n See _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 31\u201332 B, etc., and Chapter XII.\n\nFootnote 1046:\n\n _J.H.S._ i. pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1047:\n\n Louvre E 600; Wilisch, figs. 47\u20139. In some of these the inscribed\n names may be purely fanciful. The Corinthian potters were\n particularly fond of idealising ordinary scenes in this way. Cf. for\n Trojan scenes Chapter XIV. and _Hermes_, 1901, p. 388.\n\nFootnote 1048:\n\n See above, pp. 245, 284.\n\nFootnote 1049:\n\n Cf. the Dodwell pyxis described below.\n\nFootnote 1050:\n\n Cf. also the aryballos of Ainetas, B.M. A 1080 = _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._\n 1862, pl. A, and the series of pinakes described below.\n\nFootnote 1051:\n\n _Cat._ 211; Dodwell, _Tour_, ii. p. 197; Baumeister, iii. pl. 88,\n fig. 2046.\n\nFootnote 1052:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1053:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 30 and B 586.\n\nFootnote 1054:\n\n _Cat._ 1655 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 10 = Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i.\n p. 199.\n\nFootnote 1055:\n\n See Chapter XIV.\n\nFootnote 1056:\n\n v. 17, 9.\n\nFootnote 1057:\n\n Paus. v. 17\u201319.\n\nFootnote 1058:\n\n Cf. the Arkesilas vase described below, p. 342.\n\nFootnote 1059:\n\n See on this subject H. S. Jones in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 30 ff.\n\nFootnote 1060:\n\n Cf. the Thermon metopes (p. 92).\n\nFootnote 1061:\n\n _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, p. 121: see p. 395 ff.\n\nFootnote 1062:\n\n See on the achievements of the early Greek painters as described by\n Pliny, Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny\u2019s Chapters on Greek Art_, p.\n xxviii.\n\nFootnote 1063:\n\n But see _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 510, and _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287, note.\n The other vases classified in the Museum Catalogue as imitations (B\n 43\u20136, 49\u201353) are more probably of Ionic or quasi-Ionic fabric. Athens\n 655 is in style not unlike B.M. B 42.\n\nFootnote 1064:\n\n See Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 133 ff.\n\nFootnote 1065:\n\n Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenm_. p. 161, points out that the Chalcidian\n fabrics are not like those of Corinth and Athens, exhibiting growth\n and development, but a small group coming from one workshop.\n\nFootnote 1066:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ i. 51 = Reinach, i. 82.\n\nFootnote 1067:\n\n It is curious that the Chalcidian artists only attempted this novelty\n in the case of helmeted warriors.\n\nFootnote 1068:\n\n A publication by Loeschcke is in preparation (1904). See also\n Furtwaengler\u2019s remarks on this group (to which he adds some examples)\n in _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 161. For the inscriptions see Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1069:\n\n The list in Klein\u2019s _Euphronios_, p. 65, is as follows:\u2014\n\n (1) _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ i. 51 (Deepdene): Combat over body of Achilles.\n\n (2) Gerhard, _A.V._ 105\u20136 = Reinach, ii. 58, 253 (Bibl. Nat. 202):\n Geryon; quadriga (Plate XXII.).\n\n (3) B.M. B 155: Geryon; Perseus and Nymphs.\n\n (4) Gerhard, _A.V._ 190\u201391 = Reinach, ii. 95 (Bibl. Nat. 203):\n Warriors arming.\n\n (5) _Ibid._ 322 = Reinach, ii. 160 (Wurzburg 315): Departure of\n Hector.\n\n (6) _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1839, plate P = Reinach, i. 259 (Kopenhagen\n 64). Skyphos: Tydeus and Adrastos.\n\n (7) Leiden 1626 (Reinach, ii. 268): Sileni and Maenads.\n\n (8) Durand Coll. 145.\n\n (9) Gerhard, _A.V._ 237 = Reinach, ii. 120 (Munich 125). Hydria: Zeus\n and Typhon; Peleus and Atalanta.\n\n (10) _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1870, p. 187, No. 32 (in Florence).\n\n (11) Gerhard, _A.V._ 95\u20136 = Reinach, ii. 53: Contests of Herakles\n with hydra and Amazons.\n\n To these may be added (12, 13) B.M. B 75 and B 76 (both inscribed);\n (14) Munich 1108; (15) Vienna 219; (16) _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p.\n 154, note 82; (17) B.M. B 154 (inscriptions Attic, but style\n resembling No. 1); (18) Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3\u20134 = Reinach, ii. 105,\n 2 (inscriptions Ionic, but style Chalcidian); (19) Kopenhagen 115 =\n Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 821, fig. 1026; (20) _Arch. Anzeiger_,\n 1889, p. 91 (in Berlin); also Louvre E 793\u2013813 (according to\n Pottier). See on the subject generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.\n 551, and for the inscriptions, Kretschmer, _Gr. Vaseninschr._ p. 62.\n\nFootnote 1070:\n\n For a description of the shape of this particular kind of amphora,\n see p. 160.\n\nFootnote 1071:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108.\n\nFootnote 1072:\n\n On the relation of Attic vases to Corinthian, see Wilisch, _Altkor.\n Thonindustrie_, p. 137.\n\nFootnote 1073:\n\n _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_ (1898).\n\nFootnote 1074:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564.\n\nFootnote 1075:\n\n See Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1076:\n\n See, _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287. The dance is that known as the \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b4\u03b1\u03be.\n\nFootnote 1077:\n\n On the ornamental patterns typical of this group, see Thiersch,\n _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 69 ff.\n\nFootnote 1078:\n\n Cf. the [\u0396\u0394\u0395\u03a5\u03a3] (\u0396\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2) on E 852 in the Louvre; and see Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1079:\n\n M. Reinach, in a recent article (_Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_, 1901,\n p. 127 ff.), maintains that the vases with this subject are of\n Megarian origin. See also _Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108 ff.\n\nFootnote 1080:\n\n See for fuller discussion _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 15, p. 282.\n\nFootnote 1081:\n\n See on the subject of these vases generally, Dumont-Pottier, i. p.\n 329 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 283;\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564; and above all, Thiersch, _Tyrrhen.\n Amphoren_ (1898).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII\n _VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_\n\n General characteristics\u2014Classification\u2014Mycenaean influence\u2014Rhodian\n pottery\u2014\u201cFikellura\u201d ware\u2014Asia Minor fabrics\u2014Cyrenaic\n vases\u2014Naukratis and its pottery\u2014Daphnae ware\u2014Caeretan\n hydriae\u2014Other Ionic fabrics\u2014\u201cPontic\u201d vases\u2014Early painting in\n Ionia\u2014Clazomenae sarcophagi.\n\n\nHaving traced the history of vase-painting in Greece Proper down to the\nmiddle of the sixth century B.C., the point at which a tendency towards\nunification of style becomes perceptible, we must now turn our\nattention to the remains of the art on the other side of the Aegean,\namong the representatives of the Ionian race and in the centres of\nIonian influence. To a certain extent it is difficult to treat the\nsubject at all in a handbook, as, owing chiefly to want of material,\nthe existence of an Ionian school of vase-painting has only been\nrealised of late years, and it is as yet too early to sift proofs from\ntheories, or to give a succinct and systematised account of the\ndevelopment and achievements of this school. The most that can be\nattempted is to present the reader with a review of the accumulated\nmaterials, and to point out what groups of vases may be regarded as\nexhibiting \u201cIonian\u201d characteristics, or at all events such as permit of\ntheir being connected together.[1082] It must be borne in mind that\nsome of these fabrics, such, for instance, as the Rhodian wares, have\nnot actually been found in Ionic settlements; in other words, the name\nIonian is to be applied to certain styles or schools, in the main\nassociated with that race, apart from considerations of ethnography.\n\nOn one point scholars are in general agreement\u2014namely, that Ionic art\nis a direct survival of Mycenaean. This was recognised as long ago as\n1879 by Furtwaengler[1083] and by Lenormant,[1084] who pointed out that\nthe silver cauldron dedicated by King Alyattes at Delphi must have been\nquite Mycenaean in character, although not earlier than the seventh\ncentury. It was decorated with aquatic animals and plants. There was in\nIonia no disturbing element, such as the Dorian invasion introduced\ninto Europe, between Mycenaean culture and the spread of Oriental\ninfluences. The Greek cities in Ionia owe their origin to that\nupheaval, but their culture was not affected by it; and their founders\nbrought their Mycenaean civilisation with them fresh from Greece to\ntheir new homes in Miletos, Ephesos, Phocaea, Chios, and Samos. This\nwas in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C., and the Panionion, or\nunion of Ionian cities, lasted down to the sixth century (when it was\nbroken up by the Persian invasion), besides stretching out its feelers\nover the Mediterranean, to the Egyptian Delta and elsewhere. The actual\ncentres of pottery-manufacture are not, however, easy to determine, and\nmuch may depend on the results of future excavations. That there was\nmore than one is fairly obvious, and it will probably appear that\nClazomenae, Miletos, and perhaps Phocaea, played the most important\nparts.\n\nAs regards the characteristics of the Ionian wares, a rough division\nmay be made into two classes, corresponding to the buff-clay and\nred-clay Corinthian wares respectively. In the earlier, the vases are\nalways covered with a creamy-white or drab-coloured slip, on which the\nfigures stand out in lustrous black paint.[1085] The most typical\nfabric is that of the Rhodian wares, found in such large quantities in\nthat island, but not necessarily made there. In the later group the\nplace of the white slip is taken by a red coating or glaze similar to\nthat of the Attic and later Corinthian wares, but somewhat brighter.\n\nThe principal subdivisions may be classified as follows (the\narrangement is M. Pottier\u2019s, with one or two small differences):\u2014\n\n I. 1. Rhodian wares.[1086]\n 2. Samian and \u201cFikellura\u201d wares.[1087]\n 3. Asia Minor fabrics:\n (_a_) Caria.[1088]\n (_b_) Knidos.[1089]\n (_c_) Larissa.[1090]\n (_d_) Myrina.[1091]\n (_e_) Pitane.[1092]\n (_f_) Phocaea.[1093]\n (_g_) Troad.[1094]\n 4. Vases found in the Crimea.[1095]\n 5. Naukratis wares.[1096]\n 6. Clazomenae sarcophagi.[1097]\n\n II. 1. Cyrenaic wares.\n 2. Daphnae wares.\n 3. Caeretan hydriae.\n 4. So-called \u201cPontic\u201d vases.\n 5. Developed B.F. Ionian fabrics from Clazomenae, Kyme,\n Naukratis, Rhodes, etc.\n 6. Italo-Ionic vases of the decadence and Etruscan\n imitations.[1098]\n\nThe subdivision between the earlier and later fabrics is, roughly\nspeaking, between those with white and red ground, and between those in\nwhich ground-ornaments are used or not. Generally speaking, all the\nsecond class have more in common with the Attic B.F. vases than with\n\u201cprimitive\u201d fabrics.\n\nBefore proceeding to the consideration of these fabrics in detail, it\nmay be as well to note some of the general characteristics of Ionian\npottery. In the use of incised lines and accessory pigments we may note\ntwo points: firstly, the absence for some time of any attempt at\nincised lines, their place being taken partly by contours drawn in\noutline on the clay; secondly, the use of white lines or patches for\ndetails. The incised lines, when they do appear, seem to be derived\nfrom Corinth. We may, perhaps, detect their arrival in the vases with\nimbrications (see p. 311), which were imported thence to Rhodes; but\nanother theory is that they were derived from engraved work in metal.\nPractically their place had been, and to some extent continued to be,\ntaken by the white paint, which, be it noted, is obviously a Mycenaean\nsurvival or revival.[1099] It frequently occurs on the pottery of\nIalysos and Enkomi, in precisely the same manner as we see it used in\nRhodes or on the sarcophagi of Clazomenae. Sometimes both the incised\nlines and the white-paint details are found on the same vase, as is\nseen in some of the Rhodian jugs, or on a pinax from Naukratis.[1100]\nThe white pigments are usually laid directly on the clay, not on the\nblack, as at Athens. They are used for flesh tints, but not to\ndistinguish sex (cf. the Caeretan hydriae, p. 355, where men are\npainted white, as on the Melian vases they are yellow).\n\nAs regards the ornamentation, the persistence of Mycenaean motives is\nexceedingly remarkable.[1101] It is seen especially in the fabrics of\nRhodes and Naukratis, with their wealth of ground-ornaments, and is\nfound not only in the more conventional motives such as spirals, or\nscale-pattern, but also in the vegetable patterns. There is generally\nin the floral decoration of the vases a tendency towards the naturalism\nof Mycenaean pottery. Animals, when decoratively treated, are usually\narranged in long friezes, contrasting with the Corinthian method of\ngrouping them heraldically in pairs.[1102] In the human figures\nOriental influence is frequently prominent, as in the hybrid beings\nwhich so often adorn the vases, or in such types as the \u201cAsiatic\nArtemis\u201d; or, again, in small details, the conical caps and shoes with\nturned-up toes, which recall the figures on the monuments of Lydia and\nPhrygia. Oriental costumes generally are reproduced with great\nfidelity. As a rule the proportions are gross and heavy, as compared\nwith the slimness of figures on Attic vases, wherein a curious contrast\nmay be observed with the characteristics of Ionian and Continental\narchitecture and sculpture, in which these features are reversed. There\nis, moreover, a conspicuous absence of stiffness in the Ionian\ncompositions\u2014rather, a remarkable freshness, vigour, and originality\nquite in advance of their time. Another point of contrast with the\nAttic vases is the absence of any differentiation of the sexes in the\nshape of the eye, which is always oval (cf. p. 408).\n\nIn the choice of subjects the same law may be observed to prevail as in\nthe Corinthian wares\u2014that of the _hi\u00e9rarchie des genres_. Mythological\nsubjects appear first about the middle of the seventh century, in the\nEuphorbos pinax. Later we find actually scenes of a quasi-historical\ncharacter, as in the battle-scenes on the Clazomenae sarcophagi and the\nCyrenaic Arkesilaos vase. Throughout there is a remarkable absence of\ninscriptions, which are only found at the most on some half-dozen\nvases. The height of the Ionian style may be said to have been reached\nin the seventh century, lasting up to about the middle of the sixth;\nthence there is a rapid downfall, due mainly to historical causes, and\nthe traces of its influence are only to be sought in Italian imitations\nof an inferior kind, and in some of the Attic black-figured vases, such\nas those of Amasis and Nikosthenes.\n\nBut the influence that was exercised during all this period by Ionian\nart in general on Greece is not easy to estimate; it is not confined to\nthe pottery, but is found in sculpture and architecture as well as the\nminor arts. There are numerous passages in ancient writers bearing on\nthe activity of early Ionian artists, such as Theodoros and Rhoikos of\nSamos, and their works, which often took the form of offerings of\nAsiatic princes to the Greek temples. The Ionic school of sculpture,\nillustrated by the early temple at Ephesos, the \u201cHarpy\u201d Monument, and\nother notable works, as well as the great Amyclaean throne, which\nBathykles of Magnesia was commissioned to erect, established the fame\nof early Greek sculpture in no small degree; and Ionic architecture,\nthough slower to win its way to favour in Greece Proper, reached a high\ndegree of excellence at an early period on the eastern shore of the\nAegean. Of painting in Ionia, apart from the vases, we propose to speak\nlater. In literature and in civilisation generally Ionia was, up to the\nmiddle of the sixth century, far more advanced than any part of the\nGreek mainland.\n\n \u00a7 1. RHODES AND ASIA MINOR\n\nThe distinctive pottery of Rhodes,[1103] which, whether of local\nmanufacture or not, is found almost exclusively in that island,[1104]\nrepresents the union of Mycenaean elements with a new feature, that of\nOriental influence. Although primarily due to the dispersion of the\nPhoenicians by Assyria in the eighth century, this Orientalising of\nIonia is purely artistic and industrial, not political, and is due to\nthe commercial activity of the Phoenicians. The pottery represents a\nsort of transition between Assyrian and Greek decorative art, the\nessentially Greek elements in which are a survival of Mycenaean\nornaments and a Mycenaean faculty of observation of nature, especially\nin the animal world. From the East were derived such features as hybrid\nmonsters (the Sphinx, Siren, etc.), animals such as the lion, isolated\nmotives like the lotos-flower and the rosette, and generally a tendency\nto imitate textile fabrics with long bands of decoration, in which the\nground is strewn with these rosettes and other ornaments. We have\nalready seen that these features also made their mark on the Corinthian\nstyle, but they are more especially characteristic of Rhodes. Human\nfigures are exceedingly rare.\n\nIn regard to the shapes a great advance is made towards the classical\ntypes; the parts of the vase are more clearly distinguished, and the\nforms are few and consistent. The special Rhodian shape is the\noinocho\u00eb, a large jug with trefoil lip and spherical body, decorated\nwith two or three friezes of animals (see Plate XX. and p. 177); next\nin popularity is the circular plate or _pinax_. The ornamentation is\nalways in lustrous black paint on the characteristic white or\ndrab-coloured slip, with a free use of purple for details. White is\nlittle used as an accessory\u2014there seems to have been a prejudice\nagainst its use when the ground of the vase was also white\u2014but incised\nlines occur more freely. On the other hand, the heads of animals are\nalmost always outlined in black on the clay ground, a feature derived\nfrom Mycenaean pottery, and interior details are also frequently left\nin the ground of the clay, as in the Geometrical style. We have already\nmentioned instances in which the two methods are found on the same vase.\n\nThe typical Rhodian oinochoae, like the contemporary Corinthian vases,\nowe much to the imitation of the textile embroideries of Assyria, of\nwhich we have already spoken under the other head (p. 312). These had\nbecome familiar in Rhodes through the agency of the Phoenicians, but it\nis also possible that the Ionians were themselves proficient in this\nindustry. The bands of lotos-ornament and friezes of animals also\nappear on the porcelain vases found in large numbers at Kameiros (p.\n127), which are sometimes most elaborately ornamented, and are clearly\nof Phoenician origin; the seventh century was, in fact, the time when\nthe Greek world was most dominated by Oriental influences.\n\nThe ornamental patterns on the vases of this class fall under two\nheads\u2014the smaller independent ground-ornaments, and the more elaborated\nbands of vegetable ornament. The former are best illustrated by the\nEuphorbos pinax, presently to be described; in contrast to the\nunvarying Corinthian rosette, they show a considerable variety of\ntreatment, and are partly variations on the rosette theme, partly\ngeometrical, like the fragments of maeander, or crosses with hooked\narms, which recall in form the ubiquitous _swastika_. The band of\nlotos-flowers and buds actually occurs at a much earlier date in\nBoeotia, as we have seen, but it is at Rhodes that it first assumes the\ncharacteristic Greek form. On the pinakes a development of this motive,\nforming a fan-shaped combination of radiating leaves, is usually\nemployed to fill in the \u201cexergue\u201d below the designs; a similar ornament\nis found on the black wares with incised patterns, and it is the\nforerunner of the pear-shaped radiations painted on the small bowls of\na more recent date.[1105]\n\nA typically Ionian motive is the plait-band, found at Naukratis and on\nthe Clazomenae sarcophagi, and introduced from Assyria. The Mycenaean\nspiral, so prominent in Attica and Melos, retires into the background,\nor loses its geometrical significance, and becomes a mere vegetable\nmotive, an adjunct to the floral combinations of bud and flower. The\nRhodian vases are, in fact, the first in which spiral motives were\nfreely used for calyx-ornaments, as, generally speaking, they were the\nfirst in post-Mycenaean times to raise floral motives from mere\nground-ornaments to independent decoration.[1106]\n\nThe series of pinakes yield the most interesting examples of Rhodian\nvase-painting; they are usually decorated with a figure of a ram or\nother animal on a large scale (Plate XXIV.), the exergue or lower\nportion of the field being filled in with a suitable pattern, such as a\nsort of fan-pattern of spreading rays or fronds (see above), or a free\nvariation of the Egyptian lotos-flower. But one is of surpassing\ninterest and importance, the famous Euphorbos pinax as it is generally\ncalled, which was found at Kameiros, and is now in the British Museum.\nThe subject is the combat of Menelaos and Hector over the body of\nEuphorbos,[1107] a scene from the _Iliad_, but not reproduced in\naccurate detail, as, indeed, is seldom the case in archaic art. The\nfigures are drawn partly in outline, with a lavish use of purple for\ndetails, and the whole of the ground is filled in with various\nornaments, rosettes, etc., one at the top of the scene taking the form\nof a pair of eyes, with a conventionalised floral pattern between.\nAdditional interest is given to the design by the fact that the figures\nare named, the words being in the Argive alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).\n\nThis inscription does not necessarily affect the question of the place\nof fabric of the pinax, as it has been shown that the Argive alphabet\nwas used in Rhodes in the seventh century[1108]; but it enables us to\nfix its date about B.C. 650, and the whole of the Rhodian ware may be\nregarded as belonging to the seventh century. It has, indeed, been\nsuggested that the subject is copied from an Argive metal relief, and\nthis might account for the unexpected presence of an inscription.\n\nAs to the place of fabric of Rhodian ware generally, it has been more\nthan once suggested that it is to be sought, not in Rhodes, but in the\nneighbouring Ionian city of Miletos.[1109] D\u00fcmmler\u2019s theory of an\nArgive origin, resting as it does almost exclusively on the Euphorbos\ninscriptions, is practically negatived by the absence of any similar\npottery in the extensive finds at the Argive Heraion. Miletos, however,\nwas in close connection with Rhodes, and in favour of the argument is\nthe remarkable parallelism of the pottery of Naukratis, which was\nundoubtedly in close association with Miletos; it was, in fact, first\ncolonised by Milesian Greeks, and the Milesian Apollo was worshipped\nthere. But further evidence is needed before this view can be regarded\nas other than a mere hypothesis. At all events, no convincing argument\nhas as yet been urged against the pottery being of local manufacture.\nIn date, as has been said, it covers the seventh century, being thus\ncontemporaneous with the Melian and earlier Corinthian fabrics.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXIV\n\n[Illustration: 1. PINAX FROM RHODES; 2. BOWL FROM NAUKRATIS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn one of the extensive cemeteries of Kameiros, known as Fikellura,\nthere were found quantities of a class of pottery which has since been\ngenerally known by that name, but is probably not a local fabric. It\nhas also been found in large numbers in the island of Samos,[1110]\nwhere Rhodian vases are comparatively rare, and owing to this more\nrecent evidence the ware has been regarded as probably of Samian\norigin. Several specimens were also found on another Ionian site, that\nof Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta, but are quite distinct from the local\nfabric of that place. The date of the tombs in Samos is the second half\nof the sixth century, and it is noteworthy that from the ornamentation\nof these vases all Oriental influence has disappeared. On the other\nhand, they seem to represent the last lingering vestiges of Mycenaean\ninfluence. The majority are in the form of amphorae, but other forms,\nsuch as jugs and lekythi, are known. The technique is that of the\nOrientalising vases, with the typical Ionian creamy-white slip; the\nblack has a tendency to become brown, or even red, and purple\naccessories are employed. Incised lines do not appear, but details are\nmarked by spaces left in the ground of the clay. The subjects are\nsimple in character and arrangement, usually one or two animals (or\nsometimes human figures) on either side of the body, the spaces being\nfilled in with palmettes, spirals, or other ornaments. The\nornamentation is strikingly characteristic, especially the network\npatterns on the necks of the vases, the scale-patterns, and the bands\nof crescents which we also find in use in Lesbos and at Daphnae.[1111]\nThey form altogether a clearly-distinguished group, but sometimes show\nsigns of late date, if they are not actually to be regarded as\narchaistic. Examples are given in Fig. 91.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 91. VASES OF SAMIAN OR \u201cFIKELLURA\u201d STYLE (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nThe system of decoration is curiously reminiscent of the Mycenaean\nvases,[1112] as exemplified in the great prominence given to the\nornament as the main decoration, the scrolls and palmettes recalling\nthe seaweed and other vegetable patterns on the former. This prominence\nof ornament is always an Ionian characteristic, retained as late as the\nCaeretan hydriae (p. 354), with their bold bands of palmettes and\nlotos-flowers round the very centre of the body. The scale-patterns,\nanother Mycenaean legacy, we shall meet with again at Daphnae, where\nsimilarly they cover the most prominent part of the vases. The most\nrepresentative series of Fikellura vases is that in the British Museum,\nfrom Rhodes, Naukratis, and Daphnae; there are also some in the Louvre\n(A 321\u201334).[1113]\n\nDr. B\u00f6hlau, in his treatise on Ionian pottery,[1114] discusses as a\nclass certain vases which, in accordance with his theory, he terms\n\u201cLater Milesian.\u201d At all events, they demand attention from the\nremarkable way in which they combine Ionian and Corinthian\ncharacteristics, sometimes, as we have seen, on the same vase. They\nhave been found in Rhodes, Naukratis, and Italy, but the place of their\nmanufacture is variously assigned to Corinth, Naukratis, and\nMiletos.[1115] An oinochoe found in Rhodes, with the incised lines in\none animal-frieze and the details left in the colour of the clay or\nshown in black outline in the other, seems to incline to an Asiatic\norigin, at least as regards its shape[1116]; on the other hand, the\nfine krater in the Louvre[1117] is of a form more usually associated\nwith Corinth. The upper half of the latter is Corinthian in style, the\nlower Rhodian, and thus there is not much to choose. But on the\nevidence adduced by Dr. B\u00f6hlau[1118] it would seem to be more probably\nof Ionian fabric. It may be that further evidence will enable us to\nassign these vases of mixed style to Naukratis, always a meeting-place\nof styles or fabrics; but it has not as yet been definitely ascertained\nto what extent the earlier fabrics of that place are local in origin.\nMeanwhile, the group is one that fully deserves separate consideration.\nDr. B\u00f6hlau points out that it is characterised by the half-palmettes at\nthe handles of the vases, by the Mycenaean-like spirals, and the\ninferior careless ground-ornaments, and generally by its deviations\nfrom the normal Rhodian types.\n\nThe black ware with patterns in purple and white and incised lines\nwhich has been mentioned as found in Rhodes is regarded by B\u00f6hlau[1119]\nas Aeolic. It is, as we shall see, paralleled at Naukratis by wares\nwhich there is good reason for regarding as of Lesbian origin. The\ntypical form of decoration, the fan-shaped palmette, also occurs at\nDaphnae. In any case there is clearly an attempt at the imitation of\nmetal vases, the polychrome colouring being intended to reproduce the\neffect of bronze inlaid with gold and silver. But before it can be\nestablished as an Aeolic fabric more results must be obtained by\nexcavation in that part of Asia Minor.\n\nIn various places on the mainland of Asia Minor (see p. 62) vases of\nearly fabric have been found, about which at present little is known,\nexcept that they usually show some points of comparison with the\nrecognised Ionian fabrics, and may therefore be regarded as of local\nmanufacture, or at least from some place on the coast of Asia. An\nattempt has indeed been made by B\u00f6hlau to recognise in these also an\nAeolic fabric, centring in the neighbourhood of Kyme and Myrina. An\nexample is to be seen in the remarkable vase found at Myrina,[1120]\nwith the bust of a man painted in outline, which resembles in shape the\nFikellura vases, and is probably intermediate between the Rhodian and\nthis fabric. Similar pottery finds have been made at Larisa, at Pitane,\nand in the Troad. At Larisa and Myrina B\u00f6hlau notes vases of the\nearlier Rhodian style, and at Larisa others which show a distinct\nindependent derivation from Mycenaean pottery, especially in the\nground-ornaments. On the site of Troy Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld found fragments of\npottery of a Rhodian type with ornaments of pear-shaped leaves, such as\noccur on late sixth- century bowls from Kameiros[1121]; also a vase\nwith a female head resembling that from Myrina, and another of\nNaucratite character. There appears to have been a local fabric in the\nsixth century\u2014or perhaps even later\u2014of flat bowls with bracket-handles,\non which are painted figures of birds, etc., in coarse black pigment\nwithout any incised lines or accessories; a series of these is in the\nBritish Museum, and others were found by Dr. D\u00f6rpfeld (see above, pp.\n61, 259).\n\nIn Caria the Ionian style is represented by finds at Stratonikeia and\nMylasa,[1122] with ornamentation of Mycenaean character, which appears\nto have reached a similar stage of development to the earlier\nGraeco-Phoenician vases from Cyprus; many analogies may be noted. That\nthe Mycenaean influence was strong in Caria is also shown by the\npottery of transitional character found by Mr. Paton at Hissarlik.[1123]\n\nAt Temir-Gora (Phanagoria) in the Crimea a vase was found in 1870 with\npaintings in brown on buff ground, representing a hare-hunt, panthers,\nand other animals.[1124] The style has evident affinities to that of\nthe \u201cRhodian\u201d vases, and Phanagoria being a Milesian colony, this is\nonly natural. But it seems to be a local product, not an importation;\nthe panther, for instance, is unknown on Rhodian vases proper.\n\n \u00a7 2. AFRICA\n\nThe fabrics of the Ionian school are not confined to Asia Minor as\nregards their place of origin. In the Greek colonies which were founded\nin Africa in the seventh and sixth centuries we find evidences of great\nindustrial activity, and in some cases extensive remains of painted\npottery, which exhibit a close connection with the fabrics more closely\nassociated with Asia Minor. There is, however, one group of vases which\nseems to stand by itself, and which, though it may be ranked with the\nIonian fabrics from its use of the white slip and from the original\nnaturalistic treatment of the subjects, yet shows a marked independence\nboth in technique and in decoration.\n\nThe vases grouped under this head have been found chiefly in Etruria,\nbut more recently several examples have come to light in the Ionian\ncolony of Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta and in Samos.[1125] As long\nago as 1881 it was proposed by Puchstein to connect them with the\nTheraean colony of Kyrene on the north coast of Africa, on the ground\nof the subject depicted on the finest and most remarkable of them\u2014the\nArkesilaos cup of the Cabinet des M\u00e9dailles at Paris. When, however,\nthe Naucratite specimens turned up, it was thought that they might\nafter all be a local fabric of that colony, especially as that place\nwas known to have had a close connection with Kyrene, whence about 570\nB.C. came the queen of Amasis, who was a great benefactor to Naukratis.\nBut to urge only one of the opposing arguments, there seems to have\nbeen little or no export of pottery _from_ Naukratis, although imported\nspecimens have been found there of almost every early fabric known. It\nwas reserved for the ingenuity of Dr. Studniczka[1126] to identify a\nscene on a fragmentary cup found there with the figure of the nymph\nKyrene, the patron goddess of that city, and thereby to establish\ndefinitely the origin of this class. Curiously enough, no remains of\nthe early colony of Kyrene have ever been discovered; but when, if\never, they are brought to light, it may be confidently hoped that\nfurther evidence will be obtained.\n\nThe =Cyrenaic= vases, as they are now generally styled, are for the\nmost part _kylikes_ of a slender and graceful form, owing much\napparently to metal originals, as indicated by the use of palmettes at\nthe ends of the handles, and by their form and ornamentation in\ngeneral. The designs are painted in black on a slip varying in tint\nfrom deep buff to a pale cream-colour, with firmly-drawn incised lines\nand a plentiful use of purple for details. The drawing is remarkably\nspirited, and the subjects mostly marked by _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ and freshness.\nThe popularity of mythological scenes is remarkable; we find\nrepresentations of Zeus, Atlas and Prometheus, Kadmos, Pelops, and\nother heroic figures, besides the remarkable vases which deal with\nlocal legend and history.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 92. ARKESILAOS OF KYRENE SUPERINTENDING HIS COMMERCE\n (FROM A KYLIX IN THE BIBL. NAT.).\n]\n\nThe Arkesilaos vase[1127] (Fig. 92) demands something more than a\npassing description. It represents the king of Kyrene superintending\nthe weighing of the silphium-plant, which was a valuable source of his\nrevenue. Although there were four sovereigns of that name, the choice\nis practically limited to one, the second of the name, who reigned\nabout 580\u2013550 B.C. The scene takes place on a ship ready to sail, of\nwhich the yard-arm and part of the sails are visible; from the yard\nhangs a large balance, inscribed with the word \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, in each pan of\nwhich is a large mass of some substance, which has generally been\ninterpreted as representing the silphium. But as a matter of fact it is\nopen to doubt whether it is not really wool, or some similar article of\nmerchandise. On the left of the scene, on a folding-chair, sits the\nking, with flowing locks and large hat, before whom a man named\nSophortos stands, with a gesture implying that he is making a statement\nrelating to the transaction. On the right are four men variously\noccupied, two carrying bags of the stuff tied at the neck; one of these\nis named \u03a3\u03bb\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2,[1128] a word of uncertain meaning, but apparently\nhaving some reference to the silphium. A horizontal line is drawn below\nthe scene, and in the lower part of the circle we see perhaps the\nstoring of the merchandise in the hold, under the superintendence of an\nofficial named \u03a6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (guardian); two men are carrying bags to add to\na heap of three already stored away. In the upper part of the design\nand behind Arkesilaos are depicted various birds, a monkey, a lizard,\nand a panther, perhaps to give local colouring to the scene.[1129] The\nwhole is conceived with wonderful _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ and freshness, so much so\nthat early writers regarded it as a parody or burlesque of a serious\nsubject; but this can hardly be the case.\n\nSeveral other scenes on the Cyrenaic vases merit description, did space\npermit; but it must suffice to refer to the list of subjects already\ngiven. The majority of the specimens are in the Louvre, which possesses\nno less than ten cups, besides three larger vases, decorated with\nanimals and ornaments only. There are also four in the Cabinet des\nM\u00e9dailles, of which, besides the Arkesilaos cup, one representing\nPolyphemos devouring the companions of Odysseus and the subsequent\nblinding (all in one scene) is of conspicuous interest. The British\nMuseum possesses two or three cups and several fragments from\nNaukratis, including the important one restored by Studniczka as\nrepresenting the local nymph holding branches of silphium and\npomegranate, and surrounded by flying daemons, male and female, or\nBoreads and Harpies (Fig. 93).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 93. CYRENAIC CUP WITH FIGURE OF KYRENE (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nOf this series the Arkesilaos cup is the only one with inscriptions.\nThey are without doubt in an alphabet of Peloponnesian, not Ionian,\ncharacter, as is shown, for instance, by the [\u03c8] for \u03a7 in \u03a3\u03bb\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2.\nBut this may be explained by reference to the history of the city,\nwhich in the seventh and sixth centuries received a considerable influx\nof the Dorian element, especially from Sparta, whose alphabet may have\nbeen adopted for general use.\n\nThe total number of specimens in existence is about forty; some of\nwhich, however, are merely fragmentary examples.[1130]\n\nAllusion has already been made to the extensive finds of pottery at\n=Naukratis=, among the most remarkable of recent years, which have done\nmuch to increase our knowledge of Ionian industrial art. As has been\nsaid, almost every other early fabric is represented there, from the\nMelian and Corinthian wares to those of Rhodes and other Asiatic sites,\nincluding a large series of Athenian vases or fragments down to the\nlatest times. But with these were present in overwhelming numbers\nspecimens of an entirely new fabric which could only be regarded as\nlocal in its origin. Of the pottery with figure subjects three stages\ncan be traced, all characterised by the Ionian cream-coloured slip, of\nwhich the earliest is remarkably like the Rhodian wares, the next is\ndistinguished by its polychrome decoration on a white ground, and the\nthird represents a sort of transition from the quasi-Rhodian style of\ndecoration to the regular black-figured ware, and is parallel in many\nrespects to the sister-fabric of Daphnae (see below).\n\nAll this pottery was discovered in _favissae_ or rubbish-heaps attached\nto the sanctuaries of Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera, and the Dioskuri,\nespecially the two former. As the vases had been rejected as useless or\ncrowded out by new ones, they are almost all broken and fragmentary.\nBut it is interesting to note that on numbers of the earlier potsherds\nfrom the Apollo temple the words \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03af, \u201cI am Apollo\u2019s,\u201d have\nbeen roughly scratched, as if the priests had wished to mark them as\nsacred and preserve them from profane uses, although no longer\nrequired. Even more frequent on all the sites are dedications to the\nrespective deities, with the formula \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9, or \u03c4\u1fc7\n\u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u1fc3, in the Ionic alphabet (cf. Fig. 16, p. 139). On\npalaeographical grounds the inscriptions may be dated as ranging from\nabout 600 to 520 B.C., but there are some difficulties with regard to\nthe date of the foundation of the settlement.\n\nStrabo (xvii. 1, p. 801) assigns the foundation to Greeks of Miletos,\nabout 620 B.C., but the words of Herodotos (ii. 178) are to the effect\nthat Amasis (564\u2013526 B.C.), \u201cwho was a phil-Hellene ... gave those who\narrived in Egypt the city of Naukratis to inhabit.\u201d If this means that\nno Greeks had lived there before his time, we cannot place any of the\npottery earlier than 570; but it does not seem unreasonable to take the\nwords to mean that the city already existed, and that Amasis merely\nrecognised the right of Greeks to reside there. Herodotos also tells us\nthat by permission of Amasis the Milesians independently founded the\ntemenos of Apollo. From the evidence of the excavations Messrs. Petrie\nand Ernest Gardner felt themselves justified in placing the foundation\nof the city about the middle of the seventh century, a date which\ncertainly seems to be required by the character of the earliest\npottery. The disappearance of the local fabrics and their replacement\nby Attic importations would then fall about 520 B.C.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 94. FRAGMENT FROM NAUKRATIS, ILLUSTRATING \u201cMIXED\nTECHNIQUE.\u201d]\n\nIn the earliest class a distinction, as in Rhodes, is to be noted\nbetween figures without incised lines, but with faces in outline, and\nfigures with incised lines, the two being sometimes combined on one\nvase, as in Fig. 94. It has already been shown that the former must be\nearlier in origin than the latter. On the other hand, in the polychrome\nwhite ware (see below) the incised lines again disappear; but the more\nadvanced style of the drawing and choice of subjects testifies to its\nbeing a later variety. There can, however, be no doubt that the\ninfluence of Rhodes (or whatever was the fabric-centre of \u201cRhodian\u201d\npottery) was very strong at Naukratis, and if we adopt B\u00f6hlau\u2019s theory\nof a Milesian origin for the Rhodian wares, this is fully accounted for\nby the history of the place. Consequently the two fabrics are very\ndifficult to distinguish, and, in fact, the difference is mainly in\npoint of style.\n\nThere is, however, a class of wares found at Naukratis which does not\nseem to be of local origin. This is the so-called Polledrara fabric, or\nblack ware resembling that found in Etruria, and especially in the tomb\nof that name at Vulci (see Chapter XVIII.). It has also been found in\nRhodes, where black wares are by no means uncommon, some closely\nresembling the Italian bucchero in character. It is hardly likely that\nthis ware is Naucratite in origin, although the Polledrara tomb\ncontains objects undoubtedly exported from Egypt. Professor E. A.\nGardner[1131] has pointed out that one of the black-ware vases bears an\ninscription showing that it was dedicated by a Mytilenaean, and others\nhave inscriptions in Aeolic dialect. Hence he deduces the theory that\nthis black ware was made in Lesbos, and exported thence both to Rhodes\nand to Naukratis. He also points out that it is really distinct from\nthe Italian variety both in style and technique, as, for instance, in\nthe Italian use of blue.\n\nBut there is a class of pottery, unfortunately only represented by\nfragments, which appears to be developed partly from the \u201cLesbian\u201d\nware, partly from the early Naucratite fabric, and must certainly be of\nlocal origin. It has never been found elsewhere,[1132] and the\ncombination of \u201cLesbian\u201d and Rhodian elements also points to this\nconclusion. The vases, which seem to have been large bowls, are covered\non the inside with a black varnish, on which patterns of purely\ndecorative character (palmettes, pear-shaped rays of Rhodian or Aeolic\nform, etc.) are painted in white and red. The outside, on the contrary,\nis covered with a white slip, the designs being painted, partly in\noutline, in various tints, such as flesh-colour, dark brown, purple,\ndark red, yellow, and even opaque white. In spite of the retention of\nthe Rhodian system of outlines and absence of incised lines, the style\nis remarkably advanced, and the treatment of details often most careful\nand elaborate; moreover, the subjects are almost exclusively human\nfigures, although the fragmentary nature of the remains renders the\ninterpretation in many cases almost impossible. They seem to stand on\nthe same level as the Daphnae pottery (see below), both in style and\nrange of subject.[1133]\n\nTo return to the vases of \u201cRhodian\u201d type, a few typical characteristics\nmay be noted, showing their development. The earliest specimens are\ndecorated exclusively with animals, painted in the Rhodian fashion,\nwith heads and other parts in outline and details only indicated by\nleaving them in the colour of the clay. The typical ground-ornaments\nare the cross with hooked arms, the spiral, and a pattern of diagonals\nwith chevrons between.[1134] Later, a preference is shown for large\nvases, usually bowls or kraters, sometimes also large plates, with\nfriezes of animals and Sphinxes on a corresponding scale. The Rhodian\nstyle still obtains, with the addition of purple accessories. The\nfavourite animals are the lion, bull, boar, and Cretan goat; a broad\nplait-band or guilloche as border is of frequent occurrence; and in\naddition to the ground-ornaments already mentioned, various forms of\nrosettes and borders of maeander are found. On a large bowl dedicated\nto Aphrodite by one Sostratos (Plate XXIV.), besides lions, Sphinxes,\nand water-fowl, two dogs are seen attacking a boar; the drawing is more\nadvanced than in most examples.[1135]\n\nThe next stage in which the incised lines begin to appear is best\nillustrated by the fine plate with a seated Sphinx,[1136] where they\nare combined with outlined contours (in the head), and details rendered\nby white laid on the black, as also are the patterns round the rim.\nAnother large plate (A 986) has a dance of men and a frieze of animals\nwith incised lines and purple accessories, but the surrounding patterns\n(lotos-flowers and palmettes, tongue-pattern, etc.) are in plain black.\n\nLastly, there is the stage which forms a transition from the earlier or\n\u201cRhodian\u201d style to the black-figured, in which for a time the influence\nof Corinth seems to make itself felt. The figures are painted in black,\nwhich often turns to red through faulty firing, on a warm buff ground,\nsometimes with purple accessories. The favourite shapes are the _lebes_\nor _deinos_ with flat rim, and the column-handled krater so popular at\nCorinth in the sixth century, with flat-topped handles, on which human\nheads or animals are painted. Corinthian influence is sometimes also\nseen in the designs, as in the Sphinxes of B 100; or in other ways, as\nin the olpe A 1534, with a ram in a panel on one side of the handle.\nAnother curious example is the column-handled krater A 1533, with two\nfriezes of animals, of which the lower is more Ionic in type. The\nBritish Museum collection also contains numerous fragments (B 102\u20133) in\nthis local style, together with a few of other fabrics,[1137] among\nwhich an interesting representation of Odysseus passing the Sirens may\nbe noted; also a series of chariot-scenes and horsemen, which in style\nrecall the Caeretan hydriae (see p. 355). The merging of the local\nstyle in the fully-developed black-figure Athenian style is clearly\nvisible in these fragments, which are interesting from their\nparallelism, though not their resemblance, to those of Daphnae.\n\nAmong the later Ionic fabrics, of practically fully-developed\nblack-figure style (_i.e._ with buff ground, incised lines, and\naccessory colours), not the least interesting is the group of vases and\nfragments from =Daphnae= in the Egyptian Delta, now in the British\nMuseum.[1138] Like the pottery of Naukratis, they illustrate the\nrelations between Ionia and Africa in the sixth century, but even in a\nmore marked degree, inasmuch as they were more directly influenced by\nlocal circumstances.\n\nThis pottery was discovered by Mr. Flinders Petrie in 1886, on a site\nknown as Tell Defenneh, representing the Tahpanhes of the Hebrew\nprophets and the Daphnae of Herodotos,[1139] from whom we learn that a\nfort was found here by Psammetichos I. at the beginning of the sixth\ncentury. As Naukratis guarded the west of the Delta, so did Daphnae the\neast, with the highway to Syria. Herodotos[1140] also speaks of camps\ngarrisoned by Ionian and Carian troops; and if we might identify these\nwith Daphnae, we should have a _terminus post quem_ for the pottery, as\nthe camps were desolated by Amasis about 560 B.C. On the other hand,\nthe pottery is hardly to be dated so early from its style, and it is\nimportant to notice that it is practically unrepresented at Naukratis,\nthat meeting-place of all early fabrics.\n\nThe chief problem with which we are confronted in regard to the Daphnae\npottery is whether it is a local fabric or imported. Opinions of\nscholars are somewhat divided, D\u00fcmmler and Endt declaring for the local\nfabric,[1141] Zahn for importations from Clazomenae.[1142] The close\nconnection with the fabrics of Asia Minor, such as the Caeretan hydriae\nand the Clazomenae sarcophagi, cannot be denied, and there are many\nsmall details which are peculiar to Ionic vases; but, on the other\nhand, there is much that is peculiar to this group and tells in favour\nof a local origin. It is also important to bear in mind that the\nDaphnae pottery has little in common with that of Naukratis, in spite\nof the relation of both to Ionia.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 95. \u201cEGYPTIAN SITULA,\u201d FROM DAPHNAE\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\nIt will perhaps be convenient to take the groups of Daphnae fragments\none by one, noting the general characteristics and individual\npeculiarities of each. First we have a group of tall cylindrical\nvases[1143] (one or two of which are completely preserved), of an\nobviously Egyptian form, which has been called a _situla_ or pail (Fig.\n95). The clay is of a drab colour, brittle, and badly levigated, and\ncovered with a dark brown varnish laid on a coating of glaze. Owing to\nchemical causes this varnish has in almost all cases disappeared,\ncarrying with it most of the designs, which can only be distinguished\nby the incised lines. The figure subjects are confined to panels on\neither side of the neck, and usually consist of heraldic groups of\nanimals or winged monsters. Round the body are patterns of\nlotos-flowers and fan-shaped half-rosettes of Rhodian type. The\ntechnique, however, and other points recall the Geometrical vases, and\nthis is especially marked in one case (B.M. B 104 = Fig. 95), where the\npanels are bordered and filled in with ornamental patterns of\nGeometrical style.[1144] The whole appearance of this vase, in which\nthe varnish is preserved, is that of the Geometrical style; the method\nmay have been learned through Rhodes. On the other hand, some subjects\nare of Egyptian type, such as the hawks (B 106_{2}), and the pair of\ncombatants with their nude bodies and shaven crowns (B 106_{1}).\n\nSecondly, there is a group of tall slim amphorae, of purely Greek\nstyle,[1145] with a characteristic scheme of decoration, consisting of\npanels on the neck, usually containing a Sphinx or Siren, and two\nfriezes round the body, divided by a band of dots; the neck is always\ndivided from the body by a moulded ring, below which is a polychrome\ntongue-pattern in black, white, and purple alternately. An example is\ngiven in Plate XXV. It is important to note here that the white\ncolouring, of which lavish use is made, is laid directly on the clay,\nas in other Ionic vases; incised lines are only employed for inner\ndetails, not for contours. This group is obviously of later date than\nthe _situlae_, and the points of correspondence between it and the\nCaeretan hydriae and sarcophagi of Clazomenae (see below) are very\nmarked. Sometimes the place of the main design is taken by a panel of\nscale-pattern,[1146] rendered in colour only, curiously reminiscent of\nMycenaean vases. Two other points are worth citing here as presenting\nthe same feature: the two-handled cup with tall stem on B 115_{2}, which\nis clearly the Mycenaean type of kylix, and the borders of white dots\nlaid on the black which sometimes occur on the draperies. The clay is\nof a warm yellow colour, well levigated and polished, and the general\nappearance of the vases is bright and pleasing. The lower frieze on the\nbody usually takes the form of a row of animals, especially of geese\nfeeding; but where the main design is replaced by a scale-pattern,\ndancing figures are usually found.\n\nThirdly, there is a squat form of amphora, with cylindrical neck and\nwide body, which has been distinguished by the name of _stamnos_.[1147]\nMost of the vases of this form found at Daphnae are of the \u201cFikellura\u201d\ntype described above (p. 337), and are obviously importations, whether\nfrom Samos or Rhodes; but others (nearly all fragmentary) are of the\nsame type as the amphorae. On both shapes a motive is sometimes\nintroduced which is clearly learned from the Fikellura vases, that of a\nrow of crescents, which, instead of being merely painted in black, are\ntreated, like the tongue-pattern, in polychrome.[1148] The only other\nshape found is the hydria, of a type differing greatly from the\nCaeretan (see below) with its flat shoulder at right angles to the\nbody; but the same typical wreath of pointed leaves occurs on both (cf.\nB 126\u201327). The list is completed by a few fragments of imported B.F.\nvases from Athens.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n IONIAN VASES.\n\n 1. SITULA FROM DAPHNAE (BRITISH MUSEUM); 2. DEINOS IN SOUTH\n KENSINGTON MUSEUM.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe subjects comprise several interesting mythological themes: Odysseus\nand Kirke,[1149] the Calydonian boar-hunt, Boreas and one of his sons,\nBellerophon and the Chimaera. There is a curious series of nude figures\non horseback, painted white throughout, accompanied by warriors and\ndogs; they have usually been interpreted as feminine, but are not so\nnecessarily, as Ionian painters used white indiscriminately for either\nsex.[1150] Dionysiac scenes are popular, but monotonous, and often very\ncoarse; the Satyrs are of the Ionic type, with horses\u2019 hoofs, and very\nbestial in appearance; their place is often taken by grotesque dancers,\nas on the Corinthian vases. Among small details the Oriental\nembroidered saddle-cloths[1151] should be mentioned, as also the\ncurious hook (\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2) in front of the warrior\u2019s helmet on B 11; both are\nfound on the Clazomenae sarcophagi, and the latter is typical of Ionic\nart.[1152]\n\n \u00a7 3. LATER IONIC FABRICS\n\nWhat is in many ways the most remarkable group of Ionian vases is\nformed by the =Caeretan hydriae=, so called because they have been\nfound almost exclusively at Caere (Cervetri) in Etruria. They form a\nvery homogeneous group, and their typical features are unmistakable.\nOriginally they were thought to be of local, _i.e._ Etruscan,\nmanufacture, or even imitations of Corinthian vases. But since the\nsarcophagi of Clazomenae and the pottery of Naukratis and Daphnae have\nbeen made known and studied, it has been established beyond doubt that\nthey stand in close relation to these undoubtedly Ionian fabrics.[1153]\nIf further proof were wanted, it is to be found in a class of Etruscan\nvases which are clearly imitated from them (see Chapter XVIII.).\n\nThey were first collectively discussed in 1888 by D\u00fcmmler, who gave a\nlist of fourteen, assigning them to Phocaea; a more complete list of\ntwenty has since been drawn up by Endt, who to some extent endorses\nD\u00fcmmler\u2019s views, but is inclined to attribute them to Clazomenae, on\nthe opposite side of the Gulf of Smyrna, thus bringing them into closer\nrelation with the sarcophagi. Whichever be the correct view, there is\nno doubt that they come from this region, and the existence of a\nceramic fabric at Clazomenae, as attested by the sarcophagi and a few\npainted fragments of pottery, is in favour of Endt\u2019s attribution. We\nhave also to set by the side of this the absence (so far) of any\npottery at Phocaea. In any case the place must have formed part of the\nNaucratite confederation, and it was perhaps influenced much by\nRhodes.[1154] That the vases have all been found at Cervetri need\nexcite no surprise, as there is abundant evidence that certain fabrics\nwere specially favoured by different places, and apparently made for\nexclusive importation.\n\nFrom the circumstances of discovery of some of them they may be dated\nabout the middle of the sixth century B.C.; the style is remarkably\nadvanced, and shows the rapid development of Ionian art as compared\nwith that of Continental Greece. As regards the form of the hydria, it\nis characterised by the egg-shaped body, the division of neck from\nshoulder by a moulded ring, the low flat-ribbed handle at the back, and\nthe high concave foot. Even more marked is the system of ornamentation.\nThe main design runs in a broad frieze round the body, broken at the\nback by a palmette pattern under the handle, on either side of which\nare usually grouped two similar or opposed figures, distinct from the\nprincipal subject. The rest of the surface is given over to floral\npatterns, which assume great prominence on these vases. The normal\narrangement is as follows: inside the mouth a large tongue-pattern in\nred, bordered with black; on the neck, palmette-and-lotos pattern; on\nthe shoulder, ivy-wreaths or other plants, treated in a naturalistic\nmanner; round the lower part of the body, a broad band of large\npalmettes and lotos-flowers alternating, forming a very effective\npattern and enhanced with white and purple details. An illustration in\ncolours of a typical specimen is given on Plate XXVI.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXVI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n _To face page 354._\n CAERETAN HYDRIA.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM.)\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe range of subjects is wide and original, both in choice and method\nof treatment. We find among mythological scenes the return of\nHephaistos to heaven, the rape of Europa, the contest of Herakles with\nBusiris, and the hunt of the Calydonian boar.[1155] Other subjects,\nsuch as combatants or horsemen, are more in the manner of the\nClazomenae sarcophagi. A curious feature of the group is the entire\nabsence of friezes of animals. The realistic treatment of the Egyptians\non the Busiris vase, and the introduction of apes and other African\nanimals into some of the scenes, clearly indicate a relation with that\npart of the world, obviously through the medium of one of the Greek\ncolonies of Egypt. Naukratis, as we have seen, was largely colonised\nfrom Phocaea, and some of the later fragments from this site[1156] show\na parallelism with the hydriae.\n\nAmong the smaller details which are typically Ionian may be\nmentioned the horse-hoofed type of Seilenos (as at Daphnae); the\nfour-winged deities and winged boars[1157]; the favourite types of\nstag-hunts,[1158] horsemen, and combats, all appearing on the\nsarcophagi; the running dogs and the owls on horses\u2019 backs; the\nhigh-peaked cap of women and shoes with turned-up toes. All these\nare generally, but not invariably, characteristic of the Ionian\nfabrics, as is the peculiar treatment of boys\u2019 hair, which is tied\nin a tuft at the back.\n\nIn regard to technique the chief point is the extensive use of\naccessories, which give a bright and varied appearance to the vases.\nAnd we must also note the general use of white for flesh, of men as\nwell as of women, the white being laid on the black varnish in the\nAttic fashion, and not on the clay, as usual in Ionia. The clay, too,\nis not covered with the characteristic creamy slip, but with a red\nglaze approaching more nearly to the \u201ccontinental\u201d fabrics. Incised\nlines are used with great care, and folds of drapery are always\nindicated; the male eye is always oval, and undistinguished from the\nfemale.\n\nTwo groups of fragments from sites in Asia Minor, though differing in\nsome degree from the Caeretan hydriae, yet obviously stand in close\nrelation. Of these, one set, forming a large krater of the Corinthian\ntype, was found at Kyme in Aeolis[1159]; they appear to be later than\nthe hydriae, _i.e._ about 500 B.C., but the style and technique are not\ndissimilar, except that the white is here laid on the clay ground and\nthe drawing tends to freedom and carelessness.[1160] Folds of drapery\nare not indicated; the typical Ionic motive of a large bud in the field\nis found.[1161] They may be described as a local differentiation from\nthe hydriae, representing the transition from the sarcophagi[1162] to\nB.F. fabrics, or rather, perhaps, forming a link between the Caeretan\ngroup and that next to be discussed. The other set was found at\nClazomenae,[1163] and appears to stand midway between the Daphnae\npottery and the hydriae; it is probably of local origin, and also\nexhibits points of comparison with the sarcophagi. The influence of\nthis fabric has been traced in some Attic B.F. vases which represent a\nsimilar scene\u2014the harnessing of a chariot.[1164]\n\nThere are also various groups of vases (mostly amphorae) of advanced\nB.F. technique, but thoroughly Ionian characteristics,[1165] which seem\nto trace their descent mainly from the Caeretan hydriae, although the\nscheme of ornamentation is widely different. In the majority the most\nstriking feature is the adoption of the panel-design, the rest of the\nvase being covered with black. This is clearly non-Ionic, and probably\ndue to the growing influence of Attic vase-painting, in which it early\nbecame a marked feature; but it is usually combined with a distinct\nneck, on which is a smaller design, and this, on the other hand, is a\nnon-Attic idea. These vases were all most probably made in the\nClazomenae region; they are, however, rather to be regarded as forming\nlinks between the Ionian fabrics proper and the Attic B.F. vases, and\nare the predecessors of a group of vases of fully-developed B.F.\ntechnique which are yet more Ionic than Attic in feeling and treatment\n(see below, p. 387).\n\nAmong these may be mentioned two groups of kylikes, one found in Rhodes\nand richly decorated with figures within and without, the form\nsuggesting a metallic original.[1166] The other consists of a series of\nkylikes decorated on the outside with large eyes (formerly thought to\nbe of symbolical import), at the head of which stands the well-known\nW\u00fcrzburg cup, with the subject of Phineus attacked by the\nHarpies.[1167] This vase bears remains of inscriptions in the Ionic\nalphabet; the cup is of a form afterward introduced at Athens by\nExekias, in which the off-set rim and high foot of the other group are\nreplaced by a wide-spreading bowl of plain convex section, with a low\nfoot. Once adopted at Athens, this type remained firmly in favour\nthroughout the R.F. period.\n\nIt has often been remarked that inscribed vases are remarkably rare\namong Ionian fabrics; there are not more than six at the outside,\nincluding the Euphorbos pinax, the alphabet of which we have seen to be\nArgive.[1168] But there are two vases the alphabet of which apparently\nbelongs to the island of Keos, being one of the Ionic or Eastern group,\nand of these one[1169] may well be associated with the later Ionic\nfabrics. The other, however, is in a style which is usually associated\nwith the Chalcidian group[1170]; there is the typical feature of the\nfallen warrior with face turned to the front. If the two can both be\nassumed to have been actually made in Keos, the geographical position\nof that island would account for the combination of these Eastern and\nWestern elements.[1171]\n\nA complete and detailed list of the Caeretan hydriae and of the allied\ntypes may be found in Endt\u2019s book (pp. 1, 21, 29, etc.); but a brief\nsummary may also be found useful:\u2014\n\n 1. _Caeretan hydriae_: B.M. B 59 (Plate XXVI.); Louvre E 696\u2013702;\n Vienna 217\u201318; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 28 (in Berlin); _Mus. Greg._ ii.\n 16, 2_a_; Jahn, _Entf\u00fchrung der Europa_, pl. 5_a_; Endt, figs.\n 1\u20132, 5\u20138; four others unpublished. See also generally D\u00fcmmler in\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, p. 166 ff., and Pottier in _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ 1892, p. 253 ff., and _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 534.\n\n 2. _Later Ionic B.F. fabrics_, chiefly amphorae, kraters, hydriae,\n and deinoi, from the region of the Gulf of Smyrna: Louvre E 736, E\n 737, E 739; Vienna 215; Munich 573, 583, 685; Berlin 1674, 1885,\n 2154; W\u00fcrzburg, iii. 328 (= Reinach, ii. 97) and 331; Reinach, ii.\n 156; _J.H.S._ vi. pp. 181, 185, and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 83 (in\n Berlin); Louvre E 754\u201381; Berlin 1676 = Reinach, ii. 22, 3\u20135; and\n the fragments from Kyme and Clazomenae already discussed. See\n besides Endt, Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 423 ff.;\n Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 38 ff.; Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p.\n 146 ff.\n\n 3. _Kylikes of Attic-Ionic style_: (_a_) Rhodian: B.M. B 379-B 382:\n see _J.H.S._ v. p. 220 ff.; (_b_) later type, with eyes (see p.\n 374); W\u00fcrzburg, iii. 354 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 41\n (Phineus cup) and 349; Berlin 1803, 2054, 2056; Munich 428, 468,\n 630, 553, 711, 1239, 1316, 1027, 1239; and others given by B\u00f6hlau;\n to which may be added the British Museum cups with eyes, B 427\n ff., and the amphora B.M. B 215.\n\n 4. _Keos fabric_ (?): Louvre E 732 = Reinach, i. 162; Gerhard, _A.V._\n 205, 3\u20134.\n\nThere are also numerous vases scattered about our museums which are of\na debased and inferior B.F. type, and on good grounds have been thought\nto be of Italian manufacture, whether Etruscan or South Italian. The\nformer usually display unmistakable local characteristics, and there is\na class so sharply defined that its Etruscan origin is undoubted, in\nspite of its affinities to the Caeretan hydriae. A full description\nwill be found in the chapter on Etruscan pottery (XVIII.). Others again\nhave more in common with the class next to be discussed; and, generally\nspeaking, they may all be found to show Ionian affinities. But the line\nis not easy to draw: debased B.F. vases may have been produced in\nIonia, as they undoubtedly were at Kameiros[1172]; but, on the other\nhand, the extensive export of Ionic wares to Cumae, Cervetri, and other\nplaces may have incited the Italian potters, as in the case of the\nEtruscan class just mentioned, to unsuccessful attempts at imitation.\n\nThere remains yet one class of Ionic vases to be discussed, a class\nwhich can be clearly defined, but for which as yet no satisfactory name\nhas been found. Like the Caeretan hydriae, they were first discussed by\nthe late F. D\u00fcmmler; but his grounds for assigning them to the region\nof Pontus\u2014whence they have been provisionally styled \u201cPontic\u201d\u2014have not\nfound general acceptance.[1173] They were also originally, like the\nCaeretan group, thought to be Etruscan, a view which at first sight\nmight seem justified by their rough execution; but style and other\nreasons preclude such a possibility. On the other hand, it is quite\npossible that some of them are imitative fabrics made in Southern\nItaly. All at present known have been found in Etruria.\n\nThe group is formed by a series of about twenty amphorae and sixteen\noinochoae, to which Endt appends a list of twenty or so which may\neither be of this fabric or Italian imitations. Another example in the\nVictoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, is illustrated on Plate\nXXV. The list might doubtless be extended. That they date from the\nfirst half of the sixth century seems indicated by the discovery of one\nat Orvieto, together with an early Corinthian cup. Like so many of the\nIonic fabrics, they exhibit a fondness for bright colouring, with an\nextensive use of accessory colours. In some cases Corinthian influence\nseems to have been at work, especially in the technique. Incised lines\nare sparingly and carelessly employed, and seldom for contours. Among\nthe subjects mythological scenes are rare, but one of the British\nMuseum examples (B 57) has a curious subject\u2014the contest of Herakles\nand the Lacinian Hera (the Roman Juno Sospita), assisted respectively\nby Athena and Poseidon. Winged male figures are not uncommon, and the\ntypically Corinthian subject of grotesque figures dancing is\noccasionally found. But the specially characteristic feature of the\ngroup is formed by the friezes of animals. Of these there are usually\ntwo on each vase, more rarely one; sometimes they are interspersed with\nfigures of men, not representing any definite subject, but as an\nimitation of stamped metal vases (as on the Bucchero vases of Etruria,\nChapter XVIII.). The animals are so characteristic as in themselves to\nmark off this class as distinct; sometimes they are naturalistic,\nsometimes conventional, and repetitions in one frieze are very rare.\n\nThe favourite quadruped is a deer; Gryphons of a peculiar type and\nSphinxes are frequently found, and on some specimens a subordinate\nfrieze of quails.[1174] On the necks of the amphorae heraldic groups of\npanthers or other animals confronted are sometimes seen, varied by\npalmette and lotos patterns. The latter form the chief decorative\nmotive; but a combination of maeanders and stars (see Chapter XVI.) is\noften found on the oinochoae, and this, it is interesting to note, also\nappears on the Clazomenae sarcophagi. On one of the vases published by\nD\u00fcmmler there is represented a combat of Greeks and mounted Barbarians;\nthe latter he identified as Scythians, and mainly on this ground\nattributed the group to the northern coast of Asia Minor. But they are\nmore likely to be from Phocaea, or Kyme, or one of the neighbouring\ncities. The oinochoae appear, from the absence of human figures, to be\nearlier than the amphorae, and the number of friezes often exceeds two;\nthere are also a few minor distinctions.[1175]\n\n \u00a7 4. EARLY PAINTING IN IONIA\n\nIt is now time to turn, by way of supplementing our account of Ionic\npottery, to the history of the art of painting in general among these\npeoples, so far as it is illustrated by literary records and by\nexisting monuments other than the vases. That the latter do afford us\nconsiderable information on the subject of painting in Ionia is amply\nshown in the foregoing pages; but there is yet another group of\nmonuments which the material of which they are made would alone entitle\nto inclusion in this work, apart from the valuable illustration they\nafford of certain aspects of Ionic pottery.\n\nIn the light of modern researches, we are prepared to find in Ionia a\ngreat centre for the art of painting in the archaic period. That this\nregion inherited the characteristics of Mycenaean art has already been\nso abundantly shown that we need not hesitate to believe that, among\nother branches of art, that of fresco-painting was firmly established\nin the Asiatic colonies. The art of which Crete, Mycenae, and Tiryns\nhave furnished such remarkable examples is hardly likely to have died\nout. Hence it need excite no surprise when we read that as early as\nabout 700 B.C. Kandaules, the king of Lydia, purchased for its weight\nin gold a picture painted by Bularchos representing a battle of the\nMagnetes.[1176] That such an elaborate subject should have been treated\nat this early date, when the vase-painter had not emerged from his\nearliest limitations, is, if we may accept Pliny\u2019s account, a most\nremarkable proof of advanced art. Saurias of Samos is also mentioned as\nan early painter,[1177] who \u201cinvented silhouette drawing,\u201d and\nPhilokles the Egyptian, who \u201cinvented linear drawing,\u201d was probably a\nNaucratite, and his \u201cinventions\u201d may be reflected in the outlined\npaintings on white ground which have been described above. Lastly, we\nread that about 515 B.C. Mandrokles of Samos painted a picture which\nrepresented Dareios watching his army crossing the Bosphoros,[1178] and\nKalliphon of Samos, probably a contemporary, painted scenes from the\nstory of Troy.[1179]\n\nCombining these traditions with what we also know of Ionic painting\nfrom the pottery, we should expect to find that its characteristic form\nwas that of figures in black silhouette or outline on a ground covered\nwith white slip; and, further, that the subjects treated were by no\nmeans of an elementary character, but comprised elaborate battle-scenes\nor groups of warriors, and even historical themes. Now, these\nconditions are exactly fulfilled in the group of terracotta sarcophagi\nexcavated during the last twenty years at or in the neighbourhood of\nClazomenae, on the Gulf of Smyrna. It is practically certain that all\nhave come from this district,[1180] and no attempt has ever been made\nto connect them with any other site. Further, we have already seen that\nthere are reasons for attributing some of the vase-fabrics to this\nplace, or at least for connecting them closely with the sarcophagi; and\nthus there are good grounds for regarding Clazomenae as one of the\nprincipal centres of Ionian art.\n\nThe sarcophagi which have come to light up to the present number over\ntwenty, inclusive of fragments, but very few are anything like\ncomplete. There are fine specimens at Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and\nConstantinople, with paintings round the flat rims; but all are\novershadowed by the magnificent example recently acquired by the\nBritish Museum,[1181] which is absolutely complete, with a massive\ngabled cover, and decorated over almost every inch of its surface with\nsubjects or ornamental patterns. Its dimensions are: body, 7 ft. 6 in.\nby 3 ft. 9 in. by 2 ft. 9 in.; cover, 8 ft. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. The only\nundecorated portions are the central panels on the sides of the coffin\nand the bottom, but in some other parts the designs are largely worn\naway. It is made of a coarse brick-like clay of very hard consistency,\nwhich is completely covered, except on the bottom, with a thick white\nslip to receive the paintings. The figures are painted throughout in\nblack silhouette, without any method of reproducing inner details\nexcept by _traits r\u00e9serv\u00e9s_, _i.e._ by leaving them unpainted on the\nwhite ground; but the greater part has been imperfectly fired, so that\nthe black has become bright red.\n\nOn the long sides of the interior are representations of funeral games,\nsuch as contests with spears and a chariot-race; the shorter sides have\ngroups of warriors on horseback and on foot. The chariot-races are also\nrepeated along the flat rim of the coffin, the exterior and the space\nabove the interior designs being ornamented with bands of egg-and-dart\nmoulding and the typical Ionic pattern of maeander interspersed with\nstars, which we have already met with in the pottery (p. 360). The main\ndesigns on the cover are in two rows, those on one side having almost\nentirely disappeared; on the complete side the upper band represents an\nepisode from the story of Dolon, the lower an ordinary scene of\ncombat.[1182] The gable-ends have groups of Centaurs and horsemen, and\nalong the lower edges of the cover, underneath, are further scenes from\nthe Doloneia, groups of Sphinxes and Sirens, and bands of ornamental\npattern (rosettes, maeander, etc.). Of the many minor details of\ninterest in these paintings this is not the place to speak; but they\nhave been fully discussed by Murray (_op. cit._), especially\npeculiarities of armour and costume.\n\nIt is possible that the battle-scenes on this and other sarcophagi may,\nas Murray and S. Reinach[1183] have suggested, have some bearing on the\nquestion of the painting by Bularchos already mentioned. It would, at\nall events, help to explain the selling of the painting for its weight\nin gold, if we may regard it as painted on terracotta; but it is not\nsafe to say more than that the sarcophagi confirm the story to the\nextent of showing the popularity of such subjects in early Ionian art.\n\nMany of the motives on the British Museum sarcophagus are found\nrepeated again and again throughout the series, especially the\nbattle-scenes; groups \u201cheraldically\u201d composed, such as a warrior\nbetween two chariots or horsemen, or pairs of Sphinxes (Plate XXVII.),\nor animals confronted, are of constant occurrence. There are also\nvarious minor motives constantly repeated, such as helmeted heads of\nwarriors (Plate XXVII.),[1184] pairs of horses, one looking up, the\nother down (this being a convenient position for silhouettes), or dogs\nrunning under the horses.\n\nM. Joubin,[1185] considering the group of sarcophagi as a whole,\nrecognises a triple development in form, technique, and decoration,\nenabling him to divide them into three classes. In regard to technique\nwe observe throughout a remarkable combination of two methods, the\ndetails of figures being expressed either by outlining or by leaving in\nthe colour of the clay, as in the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite vases\n(see p. 331 ff.), or by lines of white paint _laid on the black_. The\nlatter method, which is not unknown on the vases (see p. 347), was no\ndoubt used in place of incising, which would have been a difficult\nmatter in the hard clay.[1186]\n\nIn the oldest group, then, the usual method is that of outlining or\n\u201creserving\u201d on the clay; the second group may be regarded as\ntransitional[1187]; and in the third group, which in style answers to\nthe Caeretan hydriae and later Ionic fabrics, the use of white for\ndetails, and even of purple, is general. But it is noteworthy that, for\nthe groups of animals at the bases of the sarcophagi or elsewhere, the\nold \u201cRhodian\u201d method of the earlier examples is retained. This, it may\nbe remarked, is in accordance with a principle by which an older\ntechnique tends to survive in subordinate decoration, just as on R.F.\nvases friezes of animals or ornamental patterns are frequently painted\nin the old black-on-red method.[1188]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXVII\n\n[Illustration: SARCOPHAGUS FROM CLAZOMENAE (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn the decoration the development is in the direction of scenes with\nhuman figures, in preference to friezes of animals and floral patterns;\nthe compositions advance from single figures to large groups, and\naccessory figures are introduced, like the dogs under the horses.\nFinally, we have the long friezes of figures which are so\ncharacteristic, for instance, of the British Museum sarcophagus.\nMythological scenes, except the Doloneia, are conspicuously absent;\nbattles, chariot-races, and hunting-scenes have the preference, as well\nas the heraldic groups of animals.\n\nNor is the development confined to the main decoration; it may be\ntraced both in the form of the sarcophagi and in the subordinate\nornamentation.[1189] The older examples approach more to the human\nform, with a shouldered opening at the top indicating the place for the\nhead; but towards the end of the series the rectangular form\npredominates\u2014the opening enlarges, and the upper edge projects over the\nlower. The British Museum example and one in Constantinople[1190] are\nvery elaborate, with mouldings and carefully-considered architectural\nproportions. The origin of the form is doubtless to be traced to the\nEgyptian mummy-cases, or perhaps to Chaldaean sarcophagi; but the\nCretan cinerary urns (p. 145) are also on the same plan, and may have\nformed an intermediary link.\n\nIn point of date the sarcophagi seem to extend over the greater part of\nthe sixth century. We have seen that some present the same\ncharacteristics of painting as the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite\nfabrics; others fall more into line with the Caeretan hydriae and Ionic\nB.F. pottery. In any case the sarcophagi form our best standard for\ndetermining the sequence and relation of the Ionic fabrics, and at the\nsame time furnish an argument for regarding Clazomenae as one of the\nprincipal centres of Ionic pottery. M. Reinach is of opinion that none\nare later than about 540 B.C., at which time the people of Clazomenae,\nmenaced by the invading power of Persia, migrated to the neighbouring\nislands. But one or two instances of advanced technique seem to point\nto a later date.\n\nThe list of Clazomenae sarcophagi as at present known is as\nfollows[1191]:\u2014\n\n Reinach\u2019s Joubin\u2019s\n List. List.\n\n 1. Brit. Mus. (1895) \u2014 \u2014 _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls.\n 1\u20137.\n\n 2. Brit. Mus. (1900) \u2014 \u2014 \u2014\n\n 3. Brit. Mus. (1902) \u2014 \u2014 Plate XXVII. of this work.\n\n 4. Brit. Mus. 7 12 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 46, 4 =\n _J.H.S._ iv. pl. 31.\n\n 5. Brit. Mus. 8 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv.\n p. 20, fig. 15.\n\n 6. Brit. Mus. 9 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv.\n p. 19, fig. 14.\n\n 7. Louvre 10 11 _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1890,\n pl. 6.\n\n 8. Louvre 11 3 _Ibid._, 1892, p. 240.\n\n 9. Louvre 12 1 _Ibid._, 1895, pls. 1\u20132, p.\n 71.\n\n 10. Louvre 13 2 _Ibid._, 1895, p. 80.\n\n 11. Berlin 1 8 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 44.\n\n 12. Berlin 2 9 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 2.\n\n 13. Vienna 15 10 _Ibid._ pl. 45.\n\n 14. Smyrna 14 14 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 1.\n\n 15. Constantinople 3 7 _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ xi. pl. 53\n = _J.H.S._ iv. p. 8 ff.\n\n 16. Constantinople 4 4, 5 _Ibid._ pl. 54 = _J.H.S._ iv.\n p. 2 ff.\n\n 17. Constantinople 5 \u2014 _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, p. 163.\n\n 18. Constantinople 6 6 _Revue des \u00c9tudes Gr._ 1895,\n p. 161.\n\n 19. ? 16 \u2014 _J.H.S._ iv. p. 15.\n\n 20. ? 17 \u2014 _J.H.S._ iv. p. 20.\n\n 21\u20133. In the market 18\u201320 \u2014 See _Revue des \u00c9tudes Gr._\n _i.e._\n\nTo which may be added:\u2014\n\n 24. Brit. Mus., from \u2014 \u2014 _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl.\n Kameiros 8.\n\nWe have seen in the course of this chapter the gradual evolution of\nIonic vase-painting, from the time of lingering Mycenaean influences\ndown to the period when it ceased to have any existence as a separate\nstyle, and having reached the same point of development as Attic\nvase-painting, was soon merged in the latter. It is probable, however,\nthat this was largely due to political circumstances, which put an end\nto Ionic art and industry generally about the close of the sixth\ncentury. The conquest of Ionia by Harpagos in 545 B.C. was the event\nwhich led to this result, and consequently to the dispersion of Ionic\nartists, partly into Greece, partly into Italy. The migration of the\nPhocaeans in particular caused an influx of Ionian culture into the\nsemi-barbarous regions of Italy, and contributed to the production of\nthe imitative vase-fabrics to which allusion has been made.\n\nM. Pottier, in summing up the r\u00f4le played by Ionian Greece in the\nhistory of art, regards it as the principal agent of transmission of\nculture between the East and Europe, and thus the true civiliser of\nEurope, influencing both Doric Greece and Etruscan Italy. Thus we may\nsee in Ionia the parent of modern civilisation.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1082:\n\n See M. Pottier\u2019s excellent _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ in his _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 486\n ff.\n\nFootnote 1083:\n\n _Bronzefunde von Olympia_, p. 45: cf. _Olympia_, iv. p. 109.\n\nFootnote 1084:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 208: cf. Athenaeus, v. 210 B, and Pottier,\n _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 487.\n\nFootnote 1085:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1890, p. 378. The painting on a white slip\n marks an important development, and a rupture with all previous\n styles (_ibid._).\n\nFootnote 1086:\n\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff.; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1883, p.\n 179; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 161 ff.; B\u00f6hlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._\n p. 73 ff.\n\nFootnote 1087:\n\n B\u00f6hlau, p. 52 ff.\n\nFootnote 1088:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 226.\n\nFootnote 1089:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxv. (1894), p. 26.\n\nFootnote 1090:\n\n B\u00f6hlau, p. 86 ff.\n\nFootnote 1091:\n\n Pottier, ii. p. 277.\n\nFootnote 1092:\n\n B\u00f6hlau, _i.e._; Pottier and Reinach, _N\u00e9cropole de Myrina_, p. 505.\n\nFootnote 1093:\n\n See above, p. 254; probably a Cypriote fabric.\n\nFootnote 1094:\n\n D\u00f6rpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 310.\n\nFootnote 1095:\n\n Stephani, _Comptes-Rendus_, 1870\u201371, pl. 4 = Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_,\n i. p. 34.\n\nFootnote 1096:\n\n _Naukratis I., II._; _J.H.S._ x. p. 126 ff.\n\nFootnote 1097:\n\n See below, p. 362.\n\nFootnote 1098:\n\n For bibliographies of Class II. see below, pp. 344, 349, 358 ff.\n\nFootnote 1099:\n\n See _Monuments Piot_, i. p. 45.\n\nFootnote 1100:\n\n Cf. Fig. 94 below; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, viii. pl. 79; and _Monuments\n Piot_, i. pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1101:\n\n See Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 503.\n\nFootnote 1102:\n\n See _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, p. 180.\n\nFootnote 1103:\n\n See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff. A list of Rhodian\n vases is given in _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1883, p. 179.\n\nFootnote 1104:\n\n For fragments found in Cyprus see _J.H.S._ xii. p. 142; _B.M.\n Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 104, fig. 151.\n\nFootnote 1105:\n\n Cf. examples in Cases 43\u20134 in the First Vase Room, Brit. Mus.\n\nFootnote 1106:\n\n See generally Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 160.\n\nFootnote 1107:\n\n _Il._ xvii. 60 ff.: see Chapter XIV. The vase is published by\n Salzmann, _N\u00e9cropole de Camiros_, pl. 53; Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig.\n 784.\n\nFootnote 1108:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 118: cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263, and _Berl.\n Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.\n\nFootnote 1109:\n\n The latest supporter of this view is B\u00f6hlau (_Aus ion. u. ital.\n Nekrop._ p. 73 ff.).\n\nFootnote 1110:\n\n B\u00f6hlau, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.\n\nFootnote 1111:\n\n B\u00f6hlau regards this pattern as \u201cMycenaean,\u201d on the ground that it\n does not follow the lines of the vase.\n\nFootnote 1112:\n\n Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, pl. 21, fig. 188, and _Mon. Antichi_,\n vi. pl. 11, figs. 30, 34.\n\nFootnote 1113:\n\n See B\u00f6hlau\u2019s list, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.\n\nFootnote 1114:\n\n _i.e._ p. 79.\n\nFootnote 1115:\n\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 524; _Naukratis I._ p. 50; B\u00f6hlau,\n _i.e._\n\nFootnote 1116:\n\n _J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, fig. 3 (now in Berlin). Cf. Fig. 94 on p. 346.\n\nFootnote 1117:\n\n E 659 = _Monuments Piot_, i. pl. 4, p. 43.\n\nFootnote 1118:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 85.\n\nFootnote 1119:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 89 ff.\n\nFootnote 1120:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, pl. 7; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 274.\n\nFootnote 1121:\n\n See examples in B.M. (Second Vase Room, Cases 24\u20135). The B.M. also\n possesses similar vases found in the Troad.\n\nFootnote 1122:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223.\n\nFootnote 1123:\n\n _J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.\n\nFootnote 1124:\n\n Stephani, _Compte-Rendu_, 1870\u201371, pl. 4, p. 178; Reinach, i. 34.\n\nFootnote 1125:\n\n B\u00f6hlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125.\n\nFootnote 1126:\n\n _Kyrene_ (1890), p. 17 ff.\n\nFootnote 1127:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1664, fig. 1728; Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. p. 81;\n and see bibliography in De Ridder\u2019s _Catalogue_, i. p. 98. It is a\n matter for much regret that no satisfactory publication of this vase\n has as yet been made. The best is in Babelon\u2019s _Cab. des Antiques de\n la Bibl. Nat._ pl. 12.\n\nFootnote 1128:\n\n _I.e._ \u03a3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03c6\u03b9\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 1129:\n\n Cf. the Amphiaraos krater (p. 319).\n\nFootnote 1130:\n\n The list is as follows: B.M. B 1\u20137; Bibl. Nat. 189\u201392; Louvre E\n 660\u201372; Petersburg 183; Munich 737 and 1164; Vienna 140; two each in\n the Vatican, Florence, and W\u00fcrzburg (Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 26 in\n Dumont\u2019s list); one in Brussels (_Gaz. Arch._ 1887, pl. 14);\n _Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189 (Berlin); Dumont-Pottier, i. pp. 301, 305,\n Nos. 17 and 32; Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238;\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3, p. 189, and see _ibid._ pp. 191, 193;\n B\u00f6hlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125 ff.; and a doubtful\n example in B.M. B 58. For an exhaustive bibliography of the subject,\n see Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 226.\n\nFootnote 1131:\n\n _J.H.S._ x. p. 126.\n\nFootnote 1132:\n\n Other examples of Naucratite wares have been found in Rhodes\n (_J.H.S._ _loc. cit._), Cyprus (_J.H.S._ xii. p. 142), and at Athens\n on the Acropolis (_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 341).\n\nFootnote 1133:\n\n These fragments will be fully illustrated in colour in the\n forthcoming vol. i. of the _B.M. Catalogue of Vases_.\n\nFootnote 1134:\n\n Cf. A 763 in B.M. = _Naukratis II._ pl. 5, 1.\n\nFootnote 1135:\n\n A 762. Other good examples are A 764, 790, 792.\n\nFootnote 1136:\n\n A 985 = _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79.\n\nFootnote 1137:\n\n One Melian; B 102_{5} and 102_{29} (with Corinthian inscriptions); B\n 102_{13}, 102_{27}, 102_{32} (Daphniote), etc.\n\nFootnote 1138:\n\n See generally _Tanis II._ (_Fourth Mem. Egypt Expl. Fund_), pp. 48\n ff., 61 ff., pls. 25\u201331; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff. and _Ant.\n Denkm._ ii. pl. 21; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 41; Endt, _Ion.\n Vasenm._ p. 18.\n\nFootnote 1139:\n\n ii. 30, 107.\n\nFootnote 1140:\n\n ii. 154.\n\nFootnote 1141:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff.; Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 18.\n\nFootnote 1142:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 51: and cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p.\n 256.\n\nFootnote 1143:\n\n B.M. B 104\u20136.\n\nFootnote 1144:\n\n Cf. for the crosses in the field the Boeotian example given in Fig.\n 86, p. 287.\n\nFootnote 1145:\n\n B.M. B 107\u201315.\n\nFootnote 1146:\n\n See B\u00f6hlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 65. He derives this\n pattern through the medium of the \u201cFikellura\u201d vases.\n\nFootnote 1147:\n\n B.M. B 116\u201325.\n\nFootnote 1148:\n\n This is also occasionally found at Naukratis, and appears on a\n fragment from Mytilene in the British Museum (B 99) of Daphniote\n style.\n\nFootnote 1149:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 55.\n\nFootnote 1150:\n\n See Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 50.\n\nFootnote 1151:\n\n Cf. the Xanthos reliefs, _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. No. 86.\n\nFootnote 1152:\n\n See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 17, and cf. coins of Methymna.\n\nFootnote 1153:\n\n Cf. Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ pp. 5, 13 ff., who points out the similarity\n in subject and decoration, as also in details of colouring, armour,\n etc., with the other groups.\n\nFootnote 1154:\n\n _Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_, 1895, p. 182.\n\nFootnote 1155:\n\n Vienna 217\u201318; Louvre E 696. For list of subjects see _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ 1892, p. 254.\n\nFootnote 1156:\n\n B.M. B 103_{14} for instance.\n\nFootnote 1157:\n\n Cf. Louvre E 739. Also found at Daphnae as a shield-device (B.M. B\n 115_{2}), and on coins of Clazomenae (see Endt, p. 24).\n\nFootnote 1158:\n\n Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 259.\n\nFootnote 1159:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ iii. (1888), p. 159 ff.; now in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1160:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 172.\n\nFootnote 1161:\n\n It is found also on the sarcophagi (cf. _Terracotta Sarcophagi in\n B.M._ pls. 1, 2), on the quasi-Ionic vase, Gerhard, _A. V._ 205, and\n on B.M. B 379 (see below).\n\nFootnote 1162:\n\n Cf. for instance _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ xi. 53\u20134.\n\nFootnote 1163:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 6, p. 38 ff.\n\nFootnote 1164:\n\n Vol. II. Frontisp.; Reinach, ii. 124.\n\nFootnote 1165:\n\n Cf. especially Berlin 2154 (Endt, _op. cit._ pl. 1, figs. 11\u201313) and\n Gerhard, _A. V._ 194 = Reinach, ii. 97. They have been discussed by\n Endt (_op. cit._ pp. 21, 29), by Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n 1893, p. 424 ff., and by Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 146 ff.\n\nFootnote 1166:\n\n B.M. B 379\u201382; _J.H.S._ v. pls. 40\u20133.\n\nFootnote 1167:\n\n These have been recently collected and discussed by B\u00f6hlau (_Ath.\n Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff.), who notes a total of seventeen. His list is\n certainly incomplete, as some examples in the British Museum might\n have been added. See also Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 220,\n who attributes the Phineus cup to Naxos.\n\nFootnote 1168:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 1169:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ vi.\u2013vii. pl. 78: see Fig. 111 and Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1170:\n\n Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3\u20134 = Reinach, ii. 105: see p. 323.\n\nFootnote 1171:\n\n See on Ionian inscribed vases, Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 38; B\u00f6hlau,\n _loc. cit._ p. 93.\n\nFootnote 1172:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 348\u201358, 439\u201350.\n\nFootnote 1173:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, p. 171 ff. Furtwaengler regards the whole class\n as South Italian (_Antike Gemmen_, iii. p. 88); Pottier (_Louvre\n Cat._ ii. p. 538) wavers between Kyme and Italy.\n\nFootnote 1174:\n\n B.M. B 57; Gerhard, _A.V._ 185: cf. B.M. B 58, which is difficult to\n classify.\n\nFootnote 1175:\n\n A complete list of this group is given by Endt (p. 39 ff.), and may\n be briefly recapitulated:\u2014(1) Amphorae: B.M. B 57; Cambridge 43;\n Bibl. Nat. 171\u201373; Berlin 1673, 1675; Munich 123, 155; Vienna 216 and\n Kaiserhaus 278; W\u00fcrzburg, iii. 79\u201380, 84; four in Rome (see _R\u00f6m.\n Mitth._ 1887, pls. 8\u20139); others in Brussels, Karlsruhe, and Orvieto.\n (2) Jugs: B.M. B 54\u20136; Bibl. Nat. 178; Munich 173, 176, 1047, 1291;\n W\u00fcrzburg, iii. 36 and 40; others in Karlsruhe, Florence, and\n Boulogne. (3) Ionic or Italian allied fabrics: Berlin 1677\u201379 and\n numerous others in Munich and W\u00fcrzburg, enumerated and illustrated by\n Endt, p. 55 ff. figs. 27\u201340: cf. also Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92\n = Endt, p. 65. To his list must be added the vase on Plate XXV.\n\nFootnote 1176:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 55.\n\nFootnote 1177:\n\n Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293.\n\nFootnote 1178:\n\n Hdt. iv. 88.\n\nFootnote 1179:\n\n Paus. v. 19, 1, x. 26, 6.\n\nFootnote 1180:\n\n The British Museum possesses a sarcophagus of the same type from\n Kameiros in Rhodes (Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl. 8).\n\nFootnote 1181:\n\n Published by A. S. Murray in _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._\n pls. 1\u20137, and in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.\n\nFootnote 1182:\n\n See Murray\u2019s description and commentary, _op. cit._ p. 7 ff., and in\n _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 40.\n\nFootnote 1183:\n\n _Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_, 1895, p. 161 ff.\n\nFootnote 1184:\n\n Cf. the archaic Rhodian vases in the form of helmeted heads (_e.g._\n B.M. A 1117, 1118, 1121; Pl. XLVI. fig. 1).\n\nFootnote 1185:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 89.\n\nFootnote 1186:\n\n Cf. _J.H.S._ vi. p. 185.\n\nFootnote 1187:\n\n Examples of the earliest are Nos. 9\u201312, 16\u201318 in list below; of the\n second, Nos. 8, 13, 15 in list below.\n\nFootnote 1188:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 240 ff.\n\nFootnote 1189:\n\n The principal decorative patterns are the guilloche or plait-band;\n maeander, often combined with stars, as on the \u201cPontic\u201d vases;\n palmettes; a bold egg-and-dart pattern of Ionic type. For an Egyptian\n prototype of the maeander-and-star pattern, cf. Perrot, _Hist. de\n l\u2019Art_, i. fig. 541.\n\nFootnote 1190:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ xi. 53 = No. 15 below.\n\nFootnote 1191:\n\n The following bibliography may be useful: _J.H.S._ iv. p. 1 ff.;\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1892, p. 240 ff., 1895, p. 69 ff.; Murray,\n _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._ p. 1 ff., and _id._ in\n _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.; _Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_, 1895,\n p. 161 ff.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX\n _ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_\n\n Definition of \u201cblack-figured\u201d\u2014The Fran\u00e7ois vase\u2014Technical and\n stylistic details\u2014Shapes\u2014Decorative patterns\u2014Subjects and\n types\u2014Artists' signatures\u2014Exekias and Amasis\u2014Minor\n Artists\u2014Nikosthenes\u2014Andokides\u2014\u201cAffected\u201d vases\u2014Panathenaic\n amphorae\u2014Vases from the Kabeirion\u2014Opaque painting on black\n ground\u2014Vase-painting and literary tradition\u2014Early Greek painting\n and its subsequent development.\n\n\nThe term \u201cblack-figured\u201d is generally applied to the Athenian fabrics\nof a certain well-defined character and a comparatively restricted\nperiod, but in point of fact is strictly applicable to several of the\nclasses already discussed, such as the Chalcidian and the later\nCorinthian and Ionian wares. It is, indeed, in some respects inadequate\nas a definition. We must remember that it was originally introduced at\na time when the Greek vases in public museums consisted mainly of two\nclasses\u2014the one with figures painted in black silhouette on red ground,\nthe other with figures drawn in outline and surrounded with black, so\nthat they stand out in red. Between these two classes the terms\n\u201cblack-figured\u201d and \u201cred-figured\u201d offered an obvious and useful\ndistinction. By way of illustration, it may be advantageous to make a\ncomparison between the two main varieties of black-figured Attic\namphorae (see pp. 161, 221), as, for instance, they are grouped on the\ntwo sides of the Second Vase Room of the British Museum, and those with\nred figures in the Third Room. In the one class of black-figured\namphorae the whole vase stands out in the natural red colour of the\nclay, whereas the red-figured amphorae are covered with black colour,\nso as to conceal the whole of the red of the clay except where it is\nleft to fill in the contours of the figures. In other words, the one\nclass, which we may term \u201cred-bodied\u201d amphorae, are red all but the\nfigures; the other class are black all but the figures. There is,\nhowever, an intermediate class, which no doubt suggested the\narrangement of decoration on the red-figured amphorae (see below, p.\n411), and which we may call \u201cblack-bodied\u201d amphorae. Here the whole\nbody of the vase is covered with _black_ colour, except a framed panel,\nwhich is left in the red to receive the black figures. It is clear,\nthen, that this second class of black-figured amphorae approaches more\nnearly in aspect to the red-figured, although it does not follow that\nthey were necessarily a late or transitional development.\n\nBut in regard to our definition, it is necessary to reckon with the\nfact that there are not only vases of an earlier stage of art which\nhave black figures painted on a (more or less) red ground, but that\nthere are others in which the figures are painted not on red, but on a\nwhite slip. In particular we may instance the Cyrenaic vases and some\nof the Naucratite wares. We thus lose the sense of an exact contrast\nbetween black figures on red ground and red figures on black; and,\nmoreover, the term acquires almost too wide a connotation to be of any\nvalue for a system of classification. The term \u201cblack-figured\u201d must\ntherefore be used to some extent conventionally, to denote a certain\nclass of vases made at Athens during a certain period and with certain\ncharacteristics. The latter may be summarised as follows: (1) black\nvarnish entirely filling in the contours of the figures; (2) red glaze\n(or white slip) employed as background; (3) details indicated by\naccessory pigments of white and purple, and incised lines; (4) subjects\nalmost exclusively human and mythological figures.\n\nThe history of vase-painting in the middle of the sixth century B.C. is\nlargely the history of a gradual centralising of that art in one place\nfrom a number of scattered local fabrics. This was mainly brought about\nby one cause\u2014namely, the extraordinary advance in art and culture at\nAthens under the beneficent rule of the tyrant Peisistratos and his\nsuccessors (565\u2013510 B.C.). Previous to this time Athenian art was very\nlimited in its scope, and in the domain of painting had so far produced\nnothing except the great Dipylon funeral vases, their immediate\nsuccessors (the \u201cProto-Attic\u201d wares), and the \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d vases,\nwhich, as we have seen, were largely under the influence of Corinth.\nAttic importations into Italy cannot be traced until the black-figure\nstyle is well developed.\n\nThe immediate result of this advance was to attract artists from all\nparts of Greece\u2014not only from Corinth, whose power was now on the wane,\nbut also from Ionia, whose artists were driven to seek refuge elsewhere\nby the encroaching conquests of the Persian monarchs. Thus we shall see\nthat certain artists, like Amasis and Nikosthenes, infused a large\namount of Ionic element into their productions, just as in others we\nsee the influence, more or less marked, of Corinth. But one marked\ncharacteristic of the Attic sixth-century vases is the entire\ndisappearance of Oriental influence.\n\nAt the head of the new development stands the famous Fran\u00e7ois vase in\nFlorence (Plate XXVIII.), to which allusion has been made already (p.\n73). Its date can hardly be later than the middle of the sixth century,\nprobably somewhat earlier, and the two artists Klitias and Ergotimos,\nwho were responsible for its production, are among the earliest of whom\nwe have any record at Athens. The alphabet of the inscriptions leaves\nno doubt that it is a purely Athenian work, and the technique is also\npurely Attic, as are some of the subjects; but there are not a few\nsmall points which betray the influence of a Corinthian artist, such as\nthe arrangement in several friezes. The winged goddesses, Sphinxes, and\nanimals are non-Attic, but not necessarily Corinthian. It is, however,\nchiefly interesting for its wealth of subjects, which are mentioned in\nanother chapter (Chapter XII.); with these every available space is\ndecorated. The style has been described as \u201cdry, precise, and careful,\u201d\nthe artist as \u201cexact and well instructed.\u201d Closely related to this vase\nis one in the British Museum representing the Birth of Athena (B 147).\nAlthough the subjects (exclusive of those on the cover) are only two in\nnumber, the minuteness of treatment in detail and the richness of the\ncomposition show that it belongs to the same school.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXVIII\n\n[Illustration]\n\nFrom _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_. THE FRAN\u00c7OIS VASE IN FLORENCE.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn regard to technique, two points distinguish Athenian vases at all\nperiods above other fabrics. Firstly, the admirable clay, traditionally\nobtained from Cape Kolias in Attica, and mingled with red ochre\n(_rubrica_) in order to produce its ruddy hue; this clay was eminently\nsuited for taking a glaze, which was of course an essential preliminary\nfor painting the surface. Next, the black varnish, with its exquisitely\nlustrous sheen, which was brought to a pitch of perfection in the\nsubsequent period, and always affords such an admirable counterfoil to\nthe red of the clay, though it has not been altogether popular with the\nmodern photographer, owing to its reflecting qualities.\n\nAs regards the figures, they were seldom left entirely black, though\nblack is at all times their prevalent aspect. The accessory whites and\npurples are used in varying degrees at different times, and it may be\nlaid down as a general rule that purple is more affected on the earlier\nvases, white on the later. A like principle obtains with the\naccessories on red-figured vases. In the later examples, moreover, they\nare much more sparingly used, perhaps owing to the influence of the new\ntechnique, and by the end of the sixth century they disappear\naltogether. The more careful artists pay greater attention to the use\nof incised lines, and prefer to produce effects of richness and\ndelicacy by elaboration of details and patterns in this manner.\n\nAt first there is a tendency to use purple in large masses, and even\nfor the flesh of men; but it is generally employed for folds or\nportions of drapery, and for throwing up different parts of animals\u2019\nfigures, or of the decorative patterns, such as palmettes and\nlotos-buds. White is employed for the hair of old men, for rocks and\ndetails of buildings, for the long garment worn by charioteers, and\nabove all for the flesh of women. The latter we have already seen (p.\n317) to be an invention traditionally attributed to Eumaros, who\nprobably lived about the middle of this century; but whether it was\nfirst introduced at Athens or Corinth is uncertain.\n\nThroughout the period there is a steady advance in drawing, but more in\nthe direction of carefulness and refinement than in accuracy and\ntruthfulness to nature; that is to say, that it always remains\nconventional. We shall see later that, even after the red-figured style\ncame in, a certain archaic stiffness still prevailed for a time, both\nin the old and new methods. On the other hand, there is a degenerate\nclass of black-figured vases, found chiefly on Greek sites, in which\nthe drawing is free almost to carelessness, and it is clear that these\nillustrate the last efforts of the black-figured method in Greece in\nthe fifth century; but the vases are all rough and hasty productions,\naltogether devoid of merit or interest.\n\nThe treatment of drapery may generally be regarded as a fair indication\nof date. The chiton is at first straight, with rigid stripes or casual\npatches of purple; then patterns are incised or painted in white; the\nwaist is usually very small, and often bound tightly with a broad\ngirdle.[1192] By degrees the lines indicating the folds of the skirt\ntake an oblique direction, as if to indicate motion, while the himation\nor mantle\u2014which is adopted in addition by the women to wear over the\nchiton\u2014is made to fall in long formal folds with diagonal edges, known\nas \u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03b5\u03c2. It is curious that the more advanced style of drapery is\nusually found on the red-bodied amphorae, the older types on the\nblack-bodied. In the hydriae, which preserve the panel form of\ndecoration throughout, a progress is visible from the most rigid\nseverity to comparative freedom.\n\nThe =shapes= most frequently employed by Athenian potters are very\nlimited in number\u2014as, for instance, when compared with the Corinthian\nand other earlier fabrics. The really popular forms are limited to\nfive: the amphora, hydria, kylix, oinochoe, and lekythos. Besides these\nwe find the krater (usually with columnar handles), the deinos, the\nskyphos or kotyle (with its variant the mastos), the kyathos, the\npyxis, and the pinax, and occasionally also the alabastron; but these\nare practically all. Some of these remain constant throughout, but\nothers in their form and system of decoration present interesting\nvarieties of development. In all cases there is an evident aim at\nimproving upon the somewhat inartistic Corinthian forms, in the\ndirection of grace, lightness, and architectonic symmetry.\n\nThe different types of Attic amphora have been described elsewhere (p.\n160), but may be briefly recapitulated here.\n\n(1) The so-called Tyrrhenian amphora, found in the Corintho-Attic and\n\u201caffected\u201d varieties, with elliptical body (Plates XXIII., XXIX.).\n\n(2) The panel-amphora, with cylindrical handles.\n\n(3) The panel-amphora, with broad grooved handles (probably a later\ndevelopment) (Plates XXXI-II.).\n\n(4) The red-bodied amphora, distinguished by its straight neck sharply\nmarked off from the shoulder (Plate XXIX.).\n\n(5) The Panathenaic amphora, with small mouth and foot and widely\nswelling body (Plates XXXIII-IV.).\n\n(6) The _prothesis_-amphora, a tall, elongated type, used in connection\nwith funeral ceremonies (see above, p. 159).\n\n(7) The Nikosthenes type (Plate XXX.).\n\nThe hydria, oinochoe, and krater almost universally adhere to the panel\nform of decoration, but the lekythos is red-bodied. In none of these is\nthere much change visible, except in the later hydriae, some of which\nassume the curvilinear form of the R.F. \u201ckalpis\u201d (see p. 166). The\nevolution of the kylix is, however, of considerable interest,\nespecially in view of its subsequent importance.\n\nBefore the sixth century this form was unknown at Athens, its nearest\nequivalent being the skyphos, or deep two-handled bowl with low base.\nBut in course of time two forms of the kylix make their appearance, one\napparently earlier than the other, and probably derived from a\nCorinthian prototype. At Corinth the kylix took the form of a large\nshallow bowl, with bulging outline and flat lip, on a very low foot.\nThis type was also known in Ionia, as at Samos and Naukratis. It was\nusually decorated with friezes, internal or external, sometimes with a\nGorgon\u2019s head in the centre. The Athenians adopted this form, but\nraised it on a high stem, proportionately reducing its diameter (p.\n190). At the same time they greatly reduced the surface available for\ndecoration, either covering the whole with black varnish, except a\nnarrow red band on the exterior, or else leaving the whole of the\nexterior red, but confining the figures strictly to the upper part.\nThis became a very favourite fashion, and in course of time a school of\npainters arose whose practice was either to paint a row of diminutive\nfigures (or even a single figure, as Fig. 96) on the upper band and\nsign their names below, or else to leave the cup quite plain except for\nthe signature on one side and a motto on the other, such as \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f56, \u201cHail, and drink deep!\u201d\n\nThese artists are known as the minor or miniature painters, and among\nthem are found the names of Archikles and Glaukytes, Eucheiros,\nHermogenes, Tleson, and Xenokles. At first they preferred not to\ndecorate the interior, but then a small medallion with a figure of an\nanimal or monster, such as a Sphinx, is introduced. Interior designs,\nhowever, were not at any time popular in this style.\n\nThe second type of kylix is purely Ionic in origin (see above, p. 357).\nIt is distinguished from the others by the absence of a lip, by its\nlow, thick foot, and by the greater width and shallowness of the bowl\n(p. 191). With a very slight modification it obtains throughout the\nred-figure period. Its form is clearly derived from the libation-bowl,\nor _phiale_, with the addition of foot and handles; and it appears\nfirst in Ionia in the large cups ornamented with eyes, the best of\nwhich is the Phineus cup in W\u00fcrzburg (see p. 357). The Cyrenaic cup\n(see p. 341) seems to be half-way between the two types, having a high\nstem and a very slight marking off of the lip.\n\nThe introduction of this form into Attica was apparently due to\nExekias, who belongs to the middle of the B.F. period, and has left a\nvery fine specimen, decorated with the Ionic eyes and a beautiful\ninterior design of Dionysos sailing over the sea (see p. 381). They are\ninvariably red-bodied externally, and, in contradistinction to the\nother form, decorated all over, inside and out. Some of the larger\nvarieties have an inner frieze surrounding the medallion[1193]; but in\nmany of the smaller examples the practice is to paint a Gorgon\u2019s face\nin the interior, leaving the rest black. On the exterior, not only are\nthe Ionic eyes generally to be seen, but also the whole scene is filled\nin with a background of interlacing branches or foliage\u2014a common\ncharacteristic of later B.F. vases, and supposed to be also Ionic in\nits origin.\n\nFrom the shapes we pass to the decorative patterns on Athenian vases,\nwhich form a link with the important question of subjects. As the\nmethods of disposing the main designs became fixed, so did the scheme\nof subsidiary decoration, until it almost became stereotyped. Thus on\nthe neck of an amphora there is always a pattern of double palmettes\nand lotos-buds (see Chapter XVI.), round the foot always rays or\npointed leaves shooting upwards. The former seems to have been a\nCorinthian, or perhaps Chalcidian, invention; the latter is Ionic, and\nis found as early as the Rhodian vases. On the shoulder of the\nred-bodied amphorae is a \u201ctongue\u201d-pattern bordering the field of design\nabove, and below the field are rows of maeander-pattern and lotos-buds,\nsometimes repeated. The characteristic ornament of this class is,\nhowever, the arrangement of palmettes and lotos-buds under the handles,\nwhich is often very delicate and artistically conceived. A variation is\nfound in the works of Exekias, who replaces it by an elaborate system\nof spirals\u2014a pattern which, as we have seen, descended from Mycenaean\nart, by way of the Melian amphorae, to Athens. In the panel-amphorae\nthe only ornaments besides those of the neck and foot are those\nbordering the panels, usually along the top only, and, in the case of\nthose with large flanged handles, on that part of the vase also. In the\nformer case a band of lotos-buds, sometimes alternating with palmettes,\nis most commonly found; in the latter, rows of ivy-leaves or rosettes\noccur on the sides of the handles, and a palmette at the point of\njunction with the vase.[1194]\n\nIn the hydriae the ornamentation consists of rays round the foot, with\ntongue-pattern on the top of the shoulder and round the handles; to\nthis are added bands of ornament down the sides and along the bottom of\nthe panel on the body. For the sides the favourite pattern is an\nivy-wreath; but network is also used, and, on the inferior varieties,\nplain dots. Along the bottom the favourite device is a scroll of\npalmettes, often very artistic in character, the place of which is\nsometimes taken by a frieze of animals.\n\nThe same decorative principles are seen in the other shapes, but in a\nmore limited degree. The ornament on a kylix is almost confined to\npalmettes springing from each side of the handles; but the interior\ndesigns are sometimes surrounded with tongue-pattern. The panels on the\noinochoae are often bordered with ivy, network, or dots, as on the\nhydriae; on the lekythos the ornament is confined to a row of\nlotos-buds or palmettes on the shoulder.\n\nMany vases of the B.F. period are decorated solely with these patterns;\nbut these are usually small and insignificant specimens, with a band of\npalmettes or other pattern carelessly painted, perhaps used for the\ntomb by those who could not afford more elaborate specimens. In the\ntombs of Rhodes and Cyprus small amphorae and lekythi are often found,\nthe bodies of which are covered with a plain network pattern in black\non a red or white ground.[1195] Others, again, seem to have been\nexecuted with great care, and there is a beautiful example from Vulci\nin the British Museum\u2014a jug with a frieze of palmettes and scrolls on a\nwhite ground (B 632).\n\nTo treat of the =subjects= depicted on Athenian black-figured vases\nwithin a reasonable compass is not only well-nigh impossible, but\nunnecessary, since it would practically be to traverse the ground\ncovered in another part of this work. There are, however, some general\nconsiderations which must not be passed over. While we bear in mind\nthat they are as comprehensive in their character as those on any other\nclass of Greek vases, it may not be amiss to point out in what respects\nthey vary, for instance, from the red-figured Athenian vases or from\nthose of the decadence.\n\nThe main point of difference is that in B.F. vases the mythological\nelement on the whole predominates, whereas in the later periods it is\nfully counterbalanced, if not outweighed, by the preponderance of\nsubjects from daily life. The Attic ephebos has not yet attained to the\nheight of popularity which he reaches on the red-figure kylikes of\nEuphronios and Duris, and the softer side of Greek life, the life of\nthe women\u2019s quarters, or the sentimental scenes of courting which begin\nto prevail towards the end of the fifth century, are the products of a\nlater development of social conditions. Religion, it is true, does not\nmaintain on the vases the overwhelming importance that it does in other\nbranches of art, except in a few classes relating to certain cults; nor\nhas the cult of the dead as yet found general expression. To what,\nthen, do we owe the preference for scenes from heroic legend, and the\nmyths relating to the gods? It is, perhaps, largely due to the extreme\nconventionality of Greek art in the sixth century, which embodies its\nconceptions in a series of fixed _types_, which the artist repeats\nagain and again from sheer inability to strike out a new line for\nhimself. But with the general and rapid advance of artistic conception\nand technical power at the beginning of the fifth century, the change\nat once becomes apparent,\u2014not, be it noted, with the beginning of the\nred-figure style, which for a time preserves most of the\ncharacteristics of its predecessor; but with the ripening of the powers\nof a Euphronios and a Brygos, who paved the way for the greater freedom\nand variety of conception exhibited in the highest products of\nfifth-century vase-painting. At the same time an ethical change is to\nbe observed, especially in the position now occupied by two deities who\nare entirely absent from the B.F. vases\u2014the god of love (Eros), and the\ngoddess of victory (Nike). To the popularising of these two conceptions\nis mainly due the preponderance of the sentimental and athletic\nelements of the subsequent age.\n\nTo return to the black-figured vases, we must now devote a few words to\nthe consideration of the feature to which allusion has just been made,\nnamely, the conventionalised types and schemes of composition in which\nthe various myths and other themes are portrayed. Roughly speaking,\nthey fall into three classes: (1) subjects represented by one single\nand constant type[1196]; (2) subjects represented by two or more\ndistinct types[1197]; (3) subjects which fall into two or more\nepisodes, each represented by a different type.[1198]\n\nThe question of the _origin_ of these types is a difficult one to\nanswer. They appear to have sprung, like the fully-armed Athena from\nthe head of Zeus, in a matured form from the brain of the Athenian\nartist. It is, however, possible that the genius of some school of\nartists, such as those who conceived the decoration of the chest of\nKypselos or the throne at Amyklae, may have influenced the\nvase-painters to a great extent. We have already seen how closely the\nscenes on some later Corinthian vases adhere to the description of\nKypselos' chest. It is also a curious fact that the simpler form of a\ntype is not necessarily the older. Some early types are of a quite\ncomplicated or elaborate nature; and the only variation apparent in a\nparticular type is that of the number of bystanders watching the event.\nThis, again, is due to an accidental cause\u2014namely, the surface\navailable for the painter, who, perhaps unconsciously, took the\narchitectural sculptures of a temple for his model, and where his space\nresembled that of a metope (as in the panel-vases) reduced the number\nof his figures to a minimum, or where it took the form of a frieze\nfilled in the space with a convenient number of spectators, the\noriginal \u201ctype\u201d being preserved as a constant quantity in either case.\n\nA question which has always presented great difficulties to students of\nvase-paintings is one that to a certain degree arises at all periods,\nbut more especially in the one under discussion\u2014namely, the difficulty\nof deciding whether certain subjects have a mythological meaning or\nnot. The difficulty is, of course, in the first instance, due to the\ntype-system. If the artist wished to depict a marriage procession in\ndaily life, he instinctively had recourse to a familiar scheme for the\npurpose\u2014namely, the \u201cchariot-procession\u201d type consecrated to the\nmarriage of Zeus and Hera and similar Olympian triumphs. Or, again,\nscenes of warriors departing to battle or engaged in the fray would\nnaturally be copied from such familiar types as that of Hector parting\nfrom his wife and child, or the fight of Achilles and Memnon over the\nbody of Antilochos. Even inscriptions do not lend the aid that might be\nexpected, as in some cases they are wrongly applied, or the names\nconvey no meaning (as on the Corinthian vases, see pp. 315, 318); and\nit is probable that in many cases the intention was just to produce a\nsort of parable or idealised picture of events of ordinary life, in\norder to give more interest to a theme.[1199]\n\nMuch of the interest of Athenian vases is derived from the inscriptions\nfound upon them. These, which will be more fully dealt with elsewhere\n(Chapter XVII.), fall into three main classes\u2014artists\u2019 signatures,\nnames with \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, and descriptive names referring to the designs. On\nthe last-named head no more need now be said; the second is more\nappropriately dealt with in the next chapter[1200]\u2014although not a few\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names are found on B.F. vases; and it only remains therefore to\ntreat of the artists whose signatures have come down to us.[1201]\n\nWe have already met with a few signed vases, among those of Corinth and\nBoeotia, of which the earliest go back to the beginning of the seventh\ncentury. Those of undoubtedly Attic origin fall into three or four main\ngroups, the representative names in which may here be given.[1202]\n\n(1) Early artists:\n\n Klitias and Ergotimos, Taleides, Sophilos, Oikopheles.\n\n(2) Middle period:\n\n Amasis, Exekias, Kolchos, Nearchos, Timagoras, Tychios.\n\n(3) Minor artists, who painted kylikes almost exclusively:\n\n Archikles, Eucheiros, Glaukytes, Hermogenes, Phrynos, Tleson,\n Xenokles, Sakonides.\n\n(4) Later artists, combining B.F. and R.F. methods, or painting in\ntransitional style:\n\n Andokides, Charinos, Nikosthenes, Pamphaios, Hischylos and Epiktetos,\n Pasiades.\n\nKittos, who painted in black figures a Panathenaic amphora of the later\nclass (see p. 391), belongs to the middle of the fourth century.\n\nMost of these artists use the formula \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5,[1203] implying that the\nsame man both made and painted the vase; but Exekias in two cases (see\nbelow) says \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5. The Fran\u00e7ois vase, as we have seen,\nrecords the names both of painter and artist. Some of these painters\ngive the name of their father, and thus we learn that Eucheiros (Class\n3) was the son of Ergotimos (Class 1), Tleson (Class 3) the son of\nNearchos (Class 2). The names Andokides and Nearchos are found among\nthe dedications on the Athenian Acropolis. We now proceed to speak of\nthese artists in detail.\n\nIn Class 1 Sophilos appears as the maker of a vase of which fragments\nwere found on the Athenian Acropolis.[1204] In style it closely\nresembles the Fran\u00e7ois vase, and its subject also appears to have been\nakin\u2014the marriage of Peleus and Thetis\u2014to judge from the figures of\nHorae still visible. Taleides, whose work is of early character,\npainted an amphora representing Theseus slaying the Minotaur and two\nmen weighing goods in a balance.[1205] Ergotimos, besides the Fran\u00e7ois\nvase, signed a kylix found in Aegina, and now in Berlin,[1206] with\ninterior and exterior subjects.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED AMPHORAE (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n\n 1. IN STYLE OF EXEKIAS; 2. IN \u201cAFFECTED\u201d STYLE.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn the next group are two very interesting names, those of Amasis and\nExekias, and both demand special attention, the latter for the\nexcellence of his work, the former as connected with a special branch\nof Attic B.F. vases, which must be treated by themselves. The vases of\n=Exekias= include four amphorae, four cups (see Fig. 96), and two\nfragments, together with a few unsigned vases which for various reasons\nmay be attributed to him.[1207] The finest of his works is an amphora\nin the Vatican,[1208] on one side of which are Ajax and Achilles\nplaying draughts, the one calling out [\u03a4\u0395\u03a3\u0391\u03a1\u0391] \u201cfour!\u201d the other [\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u0391]\n\u201cthree!\u201d[1209] On the reverse are the Dioskuri, with Tyndareus and\nLeda. Besides the signature in iambic form\n\n 29[400]\u0395\u039e\u03a3\u0395\u039a\u0399\u0391\u03a3 \u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a6\u03a3\u0395 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u03a0\u039f\u0399\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u039c\u0395\n \u1f18\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u2019\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5,\n\nthe vase is inscribed with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name Onetorides. The others are in\nthe British Museum (B 210), the Louvre (F 53), and Berlin (1720)\nrespectively, and are all painted with mythological subjects. A\nfragment of a _deinos_[1210] is interesting, as having, besides the\nsignature, an iambic line in the alphabet of Sikyon (see Chapter\nXVII.). Among the four cups, one in Munich (339) is a masterpiece of\nits kind. It is of the later form of B.F. kylix (see p. 374), and\nrepresents on the inside Dionysos in a ship which takes the form of a\nfish, the mast and yard overgrown with the vine; on the exterior are\nlarge eyes and groups of warriors. The other three are of the earlier\n\u201cKleinmeister\u201d type, and two are merely signed, without subject.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 96. KYLIX BY EXEKIAS: \u201cMINOR ARTIST\u201d TYPE.]\n\nExekias may be regarded as one of the most typical B.F. artists. His\nsubjects are mostly from the usual stock-in-trade of the time, but\ndistinguished above other examples by the care and accuracy displayed\nin every detail, especially in the extraordinary delicacy and\nminuteness of the incising and the judicious but sparing use of\naccessory colour, as also by the careful naming of the figures in\nalmost all cases. He stands midway between Klitias of the Fran\u00e7ois vase\nand the transitional work of Andokides and Pamphaios, and helps to\ncarry on the tradition of minuteness and accuracy in detail\ncharacteristic of all these artists.\n\n=Amasis= is an artist of similar calibre and temperament. His style is\nmore individual than that of any B.F. artist, and hence it is possible\nto attribute to him many vases which he has not signed. It is marked,\nlike that of Exekias, by accuracy of drawing and careful and delicate\nwork in details[1211]; but his subjects are more monotonous and his\nfigures much more rigid and conventional. There is much in his vases\nwhich suggests a connection with Ionia, especially with the later\nfabrics discussed above (p. 356); and this point has been well brought\nout by Karo.[1212] We have seven signed vases from his hand, of which\nno less than four are jugs of a characteristic form\u2014a form not unknown\nin Ionic fabrics,[1213] but usually found among the later Corinthian\nwares. It is of the form known as _olpe_, with the design in a panel,\non the right side of the handle only. An example of his work is given\nin Fig. 97.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 97. PERSEUS SLAYING MEDUSA: FROM AN OLPE BY AMASIS\n(BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nIt has been thought by more than one writer that he must have been a\nforeigner. The name, of course, suggests Egypt, and his Ionic\naffinities would further suggest Naukratis or Daphnae as his home; but\nhe may well have come from Asia Minor.[1214] His best-known work is the\nfine amphora in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale at Paris (222), with a\nrepresentation of Athena and Poseidon, and among the _olpae_, one in\nthe British Museum (B 471), with Perseus slaying Medusa (Fig. 97), and\none in the Louvre (F 30), with Herakles\u2019 reception by the Olympian\ndeities.[1215]\n\nOf the other artists in this group, Nearchos is only represented by a\nfragmentary vase from the Athenian Acropolis[1216]; Timagoras was the\nartist of two fine hydriae in the Louvre (F 38\u20139), one representing\nHerakles wrestling with the fish-bodied Triton; Tychios has also signed\na hydria; Kolchos is only known from one vase, but that a very fine jug\nwith the combat of Herakles and Kyknos (Berlin 1732). The design on the\nlast-named is not, as usual, confined to a panel, but is continued all\nround the body.\n\nThe list of \u201cKleinmeister,\u201d or minor artists, is a long one,[1217] but\nfew individual names are of importance. The most prolific is _Tleson_,\nwhose name appears on no fewer than forty cups, fourteen of which have\nno design, but only the signature on either side. Others have a design\nin the interior only, such as a Sphinx or Siren; others, again, a\nfigure of an animal\u2014a cock, hen, or ram\u2014on either side above the\nsignature. Seventeen are ascribed to _Hermogenes_, nine with signature\nonly, and thirteen to _Xenokles_, of which eight have no design. But\nthat Xenokles sometimes had larger aims is shown by two of the cups in\nthe British Museum and the Deepdene collection, as well as by an\noinochoe which he made for the painter Kleisophos to decorate. The\nMuseum cup (B 425) has on one side the three cosmic deities Zeus,\nPoseidon, and Hades; on the other a subject of four figures which may\nbe interpreted as the return of Persephone from Hades. The Deepdene\ncup[1218] has in the interior the procession of the goddesses to the\nJudgment of Paris, and on the exterior Herakles with Kerberos and\nAchilles\u2019 pursuit of Troilos. _Phrynos_, an artist of similar style,\nhas one cup (B.M. B 424) with the Birth of Athena and the reception of\nHerakles in Olympos, the figures being very diminutive, as are those on\nthe British Museum Xenokles cup. _Eucheiros_ and _Sakonides_[1219] show\na preference for a female bust painted in outline on either side of the\ncup, as does also Hermogenes.[1220] _Archikles_ and _Glaukytes_ are\nassociated on a fine cup in Munich (333), which is remarkable for the\nnumber of figures each side, the style being very minute and detailed.\nOn one side is Theseus slaying the Minotaur, on the other the hunt of\nthe Calydonian boar, appropriate figures being added each side to fill\nin the spaces at the ends of the friezes. There are seventeen figures\nin the first scene, and, exclusive of animals, nine in the latter. A\nsimilar cup in the British Museum (B 400), with continuous frieze,\nrepresenting a battle (twenty fighters, three chariots), is signed by\nGlaukytes alone. Other names are Anakles, Charitaios, Ergoteles,\nEpitimos, Myspios, Neandros, Psoieas, Sokles, Sondros, Thrax, and\nTlenpolemos.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n VASES BY NIKOSTHENES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn the fourth class we are introduced to a very interesting\npersonality, that of =Nikosthenes=, the most prolific of all Greek\nvase-painters known to us, and of the B.F. artists by far the most\noriginal.[1221] He was, however, a potter rather than a painter, and on\nmany of his vases the designs are little more than decorative motives.\nHe favoured vases of metallic form,[1222] such as the _phiale_\n_mesomphalos_, and invented a peculiar type of amphora, also derived\nfrom a metallic origin, with broad, flat handles and slim body, with\nmoulded rings dividing the subjects (see Plate XXX.). Altogether,\nseventy-eight examples with his signature are known, of which\nforty-eight, or nearly two-thirds, are amphorae, nineteen are cups,\nfour jugs, and one a krater. To these must be added two cups in mixed\nB.F. and R.F. technique, one made for Epiktetos, and three kanthari in\nthe R.F. method, of which he was probably only the potter. That he had\naffinities with the \u201cminor artists\u201d is shown by his making a cup with\nAnakles, as also by the style of some of his paintings[1223]; while\nsome of his cups have only the signature.\n\nThe amphorae are all very much alike, with subjects of a simple\ncharacter\u2014Sphinxes and Sirens, combats of warriors or boxers, Satyrs\nand Maenads dancing, and Herakles with the Nemean lion, a subject of\nwhich he seems to have been especially fond. The large krater in the\nBritish Museum (B 364) is interesting as an early example of the form\nwith volute handles, and for the manner of its decoration, with a\nnarrow band of minute figures on the neck only. In the Louvre there are\ntwo elegant jugs representing the reception of Herakles in Olympos (F\n116\u201317), the figures being painted on a white slip in the Ionic\nmanner.[1224] This point is important, because it has been held by many\nwriters that Nikosthenes was of Ionian origin, and introduced the\nwhite-slip method at Athens. Attempts have even been made to connect\nhim with Naukratis. The jug figured on Plate XXX. is similar to those\nin the Louvre, and is probably also Nikosthenes\u2019 handiwork.[1225]\n\nWhether this view can be maintained or not, there is no doubt that\ntowards the end of the sixth century the practice of using a white slip\ndoes appear at Athens for vases with black figures, and it is quite\nreasonable to associate its introduction with a versatile and original\nartist like Nikosthenes. But the consideration of this style of\npainting must be reserved for a later page (p. 455).\n\nPamphaios and Epiktetos, with their associates Hischylos, Pheidippos,\nand Chelis, must, on the whole, be regarded as belonging to the R.F.\nperiod, the majority of their works being purely in that style; they\nwill therefore be considered under a subsequent heading. But the case\nof the remaining name in our fourth class, that of =Andokides=, is\nsomewhat different. Among the signed examples we have from his hand\nonly one is purely B.F., three are in mixed style, and two are purely\nR.F. It is clear, then, that he represents, better than any other\nartist, the intermediate stage between the two styles, more especially\nas a whole series of amphorae can be attributed to him in which the two\nare combined, sometimes in what has been called \u201cbilingual\u201d\nfashion\u2014that is to say, that the design on both sides of the vase is\nidentical, except for the variation of technique.[1226]\n\nThere are, then, six vases signed by Andokides, of which one is a\nkylix, the rest amphorae with designs in panels and broad grooved\nhandles. The B.F. amphora represents a chariot seen from the front, in\nvery minute, careful style.[1227] One of the \u201cmixed\u201d amphorae (Louvre F\n203) has three Amazons preparing for battle (B.F.), and women in the\nbath, one of whom is swimming, another diving (R.F.) [1228]; the other,\na Dionysiac B.F. scene, and Apollo, Artemis, Leto, and Ares on the R.F.\nside. The \u201cmixed\u201d kylix[1229] is a remarkable example of the\ncounterchanging principle, the two halves of the exterior being exactly\nreversed in technique, the dividing-line passing under the\nhandles.[1230] Of the two R.F. amphorae, one in Berlin represents the\ncontest for the tripod and a pair of wrestlers; the other, in the\nLouvre, a combat and a musical contest.[1231]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n OBV.: HEROES PLAYING DRAUGHTS.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n REV.: HERAKLES WITH NEMEAN LION.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe characteristics of Andokides\u2019 work are freedom of composition,\ndelicacy of drawing,[1232] and wealth of detail; but he is always bound\nby conventionalities, and his power of observation is stronger than his\npower of correct delineation. Furtwaengler thinks his combinations of\nB.F. and R.F. were deliberately chosen to show the superiority of the\nlatter.[1233] His date may be placed about 525 B.C., and it is probable\nthat his name appears on a marble base found on the Acropolis of\nAthens. He seems to have learnt his art either from Exekias or Amasis,\nprobably the latter.\n\nScholars are generally agreed in attributing to him the series of\n\u201cbilingual\u201d amphorae already mentioned, of which the most notable\nexamples are one in Munich (388) representing Herakles banqueting, and\none in Boston with Herakles and a bull.[1234] Even more probable is the\nattribution to his hand of some half-dozen amphorae of the type which\nhe employed, with _different_ designs on either side, but B.F. and R.F.\nrespectively. The most interesting of these is an amphora in the\nBritish Museum (B 193 = Plates XXXI.-II.), with the typical B.F.\nrepresentation of warriors playing with _pessi_ on one side, quite in\nthe manner of Exekias (see above), and on the other Herakles with the\nNemean lion, in which scene the painter has attempted a new departure.\nThe lion is already subdued, and the hero carries it in triumph on his\nshoulder, no doubt with a reminiscence of the Erymanthian boar types\n(see Chapter XIV.).[1235]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA curious group of B.F. vases found exclusively in Italy, and belonging\napparently to the middle of the sixth century, is marked by the\nextremes to which the mannerisms of the artists Exekias and Amasis are\ncarried. They are without exception amphorae, and so similar in style\nthat they must all have been produced by one workshop, if not one hand.\nIn spite of the excellence of technique and careful drawing which they\nexhibit, showing a really advanced stage of B.F. vase-painting, they\nare lifeless and monotonous almost to grotesqueness. Karo, in\npublishing the series,[1236] reckons forty-four in all, and points out\nthe various Ionian peculiarities they present, which mark them either\nas an offshoot of the school of Amasis or a parallel development.\nOriginally known as \u201cTyrrhenian,\u201d from the form of the amphora (cf. p.\n160), they are now generally spoken of as \u201caffected amphorae,\u201d in\nallusion to their peculiar and mannered style. An example is given on\nPlate XXIX.\n\nThe subjects are all dull repetitions of certain \u201ctypes,\u201d often without\nany apparent meaning, the personages being usually warriors, horsemen,\nor ordinary draped figures, young and old. Women are rarely seen;\nsubjects of a Dionysiac character are occasionally found, but\nmythological scenes never, except that the \u201ctype\u201d of the \u201cBirth of\nAthena\u201d is borrowed, copied, and divested of all meaning by omitting\nthe figure of the goddess and depriving the others of their\nattributes.[1237] In addition to this, Karo notes six prevailing\nmotives: (1) two men in animated discourse, occurring about forty\ntimes; (2) a warrior arming, putting on a greave; (3) a warrior\nconversing with another man, with spectators; (4) two warriors in\ncombat; (5) a young rider with second horse (Troilos?); (6) a reception\nof a guest, sometimes, but rather doubtfully, identified as Ikarios\nreceiving Dionysos (see Chapter XIV.).\n\nThe complete absence of inscriptions is an Ionic feature as are the\nornamental patterns, such as the tongue-pattern round the handles; the\nfondness for winged figures also points in this direction. The\ncombination of good technique with feeble compositions points to a late\nand imitative stage, and is contrary to the Attic tendency to prefer\nnew ideas and new subjects to a high standard of technique. Among other\ncharacteristic details we may note the tendency to give the human\nfigures tapering extremities, common to all archaic art, but here\ngreatly exaggerated; also the elaborate ornamentation of the draperies\nwith purple and white flowers or rosettes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe =Panathenaic amphorae=, of which some mention has already been made\nelsewhere (pp. 48, 132), form one of the most interesting groups of\nblack-figured vases.[1238] The Panathenaic games, which were celebrated\nin the third year of each Olympiad, were traditionally attributed to\nTheseus, but at any rate were reconstituted by Peisistratos about 566\nB.C., when rhapsodic contests were introduced. To these musical\ncontests with flute and lyre were added in 456 by Pericles. The prizes\nwere, as we know from Pindar, painted amphorae containing olive oil,\nand there is an interesting inscription[1239] which gives the number\nassigned as prizes for each contest. Thus, for the pentathlon, the\nfirst prize was 40 amphorae, the second 8; for the chariot-race, the\nfirst 104, the second 40; for the foot-race, the first 50 to 60, the\nsecond 10 to 12.[1240] That these vases were greatly valued and buried\nin tombs we know from the number found under such circumstances. About\n130 in all are in existence.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXIII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n EARLIER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe shape of the sixth-century amphora is peculiar, but not exclusively\nused for this class[1241]; in height they vary from twenty-five inches\nto about eight inches. Towards the end of the century, and during the\nfifth, other forms were sometimes employed, that of the red-bodied\namphora and even the \u201cNolan\u201d being found. In the fourth century a great\nchange took place, the height being greatly increased and the body\nbecoming proportionately slim; the form exactly resembles that of the\ncontemporary Apulian sepulchral amphorae (Fig. 30, p. 162), with the\naddition of a conical cover. After the end of the fourth century they\nappear to have been made only of metal, but that they continued to be\nmade we know both from literature and monuments, such as the Athenian\ncoins.\n\nThe designs are always in panels, the obverse representing the goddess\nto whom the games were sacred, in her character of Athena Promachos;\nthe reverse, the contest in which the prize was won (see Plates\nXXXIII.-IV.). Athena is represented standing to the left, with crested\nhelmet, spear raised aloft in right hand, and shield on left arm,\nadorned with an emblematic device; her drapery is usually much\nornamented. Except in the earliest examples there is a Doric column on\neither side of her, surmounted by a cock, as the bird sacred to Agon,\nthe god of athletic contests; sometimes in place of it a Sphinx, Siren,\npanther, or vase. In the fourth century we sometimes find a figure of\nNike or Triptolemos in his car surmounting the columns. Down the side\nof the left-hand column is usually placed the inscription (always\npreserving an archaic form): [\u03a4\u039f\u039d \u0391[\u0398]\u0395\u039d\u0395[\u0398]\u0395\u039d \u0391[\u0398]\u039b\u039f\u039d], \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fc6\u1f04\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n\u1f04\u03b8\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u201c(a prize) from the games at Athens.\u201d On the earliest known, the\nBurgon amphora (B.M. B 130), the word [\u0395\u039c\u0399] is added. In the fourth\ncentury the inscription still reads down the side of the column, but\nthe letters are placed parallel to it, not at right angles. Further, in\nthis period it often becomes customary to add on the right-hand side\nthe name of the archon in whose year of office the games were held,\nthus enabling us to date the vase exactly.[1242] Of these, some ten\nexamples are known, ranging from 367 to 313 B.C., the list being as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n Polyzelos 367 B.C. B.M. B 603 Found at Teucheira,\n Cyrenaica\n Themistokles 347 \u201d Athens Mus. \u201d Athens\n Pythodelos 336 \u201d B.M. B 607 and 608 \u201d Cervetri\n Nikokrates 333 \u201d B.M. B 609 \u201d Benghazi\n Niketes 332 \u201d B.M. B 610 \u201d Capua\n Euthykritos 328 \u201d B.M. B 611 \u201d Teucheira\n Hegesias 324 \u201d Louvre \u201d Benghazi\n Kephisodoros 323 \u201d Louvre \u201d Benghazi\n Archippos 321 \u201d Louvre \u201d Benghazi\n Theophrastos 313 \u201d Louvre \u201d Benghazi\n\nThe contests represented include the pentathlon, chariot-race,\nfoot-race, armed foot-race, torch-race, tilting on horseback, the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, and musical contests (see Chapter XV., \u00a7 4).\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXIV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n LATER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe black-figure method is preserved throughout, in spite of the\ndevelopment in drawing, that of the fourth-century vases being\nperfectly free. In the latter there is a lavish use of white and purple\nfor details, especially on the figure of Athena; and Nike, when present\nat the contests, is usually painted white; but the tendency of later\nvases to neglect the reverse at the expense of the obverse in the\nmatter of decoration is strongly manifested. The figure of Athena\nbecomes greatly elongated, until her head is actually painted on the\nneck of the vase, and in all the vases after 336 B.C. she is turned to\nthe right instead of the left. Two signatures of artists are\nfound\u2014Sikelos in the fifth century, Kittos in the fourth. There also\nexist some miniature fourth-century examples of these vases, the\npurpose of which is not obvious; on the reverse of one in the British\nMuseum is represented a runner in the torch-race.[1243]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA peculiar local development of the black-figure style is to be seen in\nthe vases found on the site of the temple of the Kabeiri, near Thebes,\nin Boeotia. From the style of the painting, which is free and careless,\nthey can hardly be earlier than the fifth century, and may be later,\nthe old style being preserved, as in the Panathenaic amphorae, for\nreligious reasons. The site was excavated in 1887\u201388, and yielded a\nlarge number of vases and fragments, together with Attic R.F. and plain\nblack glazed wares. Of the local fabrics the majority are of a\nDionysiac character, or have reference, more or less direct, to the\ncult of the Kabeiri; many bear dedicatory inscriptions to the presiding\ndeities, such as \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3 or \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u039a\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03c1\u1ff3, etc.\n\nThe material is a reddish-yellow clay of good quality, on which the\ndesigns are painted in a pigment varying from yellow-brown to the\ndeep lustrous black of the best Attic vases. Occasionally details in\nwhite or purple are added; incised lines are used only for inner\nmarkings as a rule. The shapes are confined almost entirely to one, a\nlarge deep bowl with two small ring-handles, to which are attached\nprojections for the support of the fingers; it comes nearest to the\n_pella_ described by Athenaeus (see p. 186). The decorative motives\nare simple\u2014vine-wreaths, ivy-wreaths, myrtle and olive, and the\nwave-pattern; sometimes the reverse is only ornamented with a pattern\nof this kind.[1244]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 98. VASE FROM TEMPLE OF KABEIRI: PARODY OF ACHILLES AND CHEIRON\n (BRIT. MUS. B 77).\n]\n\nThe subjects are interesting from the fact that they are an early\ninstance (in vase-paintings) of intentional caricatures or grotesques;\nthis is shown not only in the manner of treating the themes selected,\nbut in the rude character of the drawing. Among those drawn from myth\nand legend may be mentioned Odysseus with Kirke (two instances) and\ntraversing the sea on a raft; Peleus bringing the young Achilles to\nCheiron (Fig. 98); Kephalos hunting a fox; and Bellerophon slaying the\nChimaera. A favourite subject is that of Pigmies in combat with cranes.\nBut the most interesting is one which represents the deity Kabeiros\n(answering to Dionysos) with his son (Pais, _i.e._ Iacchos) at a\nbanquet, accompanied by three symbolical figures\u2014Mitos, Pratolaos, and\nKrateia. Another fragment shows a train of worshippers approaching the\nKabeiros, in the manner of the Asklepios reliefs.[1245]\n\nThe transitional stage from black to red figures is illustrated by more\nthan one class of vases. Those in which the two methods are united on\none vase have been discussed elsewhere, in considering the\ncharacteristics of the artists who used both. But there is another\nclass corresponding to neither method, and yet partaking of the\ncharacter of both, in which the figures are painted in opaque red or\nwhite pigment laid directly on the surface of the vase, which is\ncovered throughout with black varnish (Plate XXXV.). Inasmuch as the\nmethod of painting in colours is more suggestive of the B.F. vases,\nthey are classed therewith in some collections, as in the British and\nAthens Museums; but since their appearance and style link them more\nclosely with the R.F. period, they are found in others, as at Berlin,\nranged with the latter class. In any case they form a distinct group,\nin which the earlier examples correspond more with the B.F., the later\nwith the R.F., vases. They are undoubtedly of Athenian origin, but to\nwhat extent they affected the change from black to red figures is\ndoubtful.\n\nThe practice of laying colours on the black varnish is, of course, one\nthat was quite familiar to B.F. artists; the analogous procedure in the\nR.F. period was the laying of black pigment on the red glaze, as was\nnecessarily done for details such as devices on shields. The transition\nwas therefore easy in the case of a vase covered with black varnish, to\npainting the figures only in the opaque colours upon it, thereby\nenlarging the scope of the process. The incised lines in which the\nfigure was necessarily sketched out before painting (and which\nfrequently occur in this class) led the way to the process by which the\nR.F. artist engraved his design on the red clay _before_ covering the\nrest of the vase with varnish. In the case of female figures it is\nobvious that this method was already practised, especially in scenes in\nwhich they appeared entirely nude, and the whole figure was painted\nwhite over the black silhouette, the black becoming the real accessory\nwhere it was required for the hair, etc.[1246]\n\nDr. Six, who has studied this class, gives a list of about seventy\nexamples,[1247] including one signed by Nikosthenes (Plate XXXV., fig.\n2 = F 114 in the Louvre) which has a figure of a woman painted in white\neach side, the style, be it noted, being purely black-figured. In later\nspecimens the object seems to have been to imitate the appearance of\nthe R.F. vases, and to paint the figures in a similar but opaque red\ncolour instead of white.[1248] Other examples again have figures only\nincised on the black, without any addition of colour.[1249] In some of\nthe earlier ones the use of black as an accessory[1250] shows that the\npainter, so to speak, \u201cthought\u201d in the B.F. style, but used white for\nblack and _vice versa_.\n\nMost of the earlier examples have been found in Greece or Magna\nGraecia; they are usually of the lekythos form, which is always rare in\nEtruria. The later group chiefly consists of small bowls (_phialae_) of\nvery negligent style, but some are of the typical R.F. forms, such as\nthe \u201cNolan\u201d amphora and the stamnos. A considerable number of fragments\nwere found on the Acropolis of Athens, showing that even these late\nimitative specimens, in spite of their rude, careless execution, cannot\nbe placed later than 480 B.C.\n\nOne of the most interesting examples is a fragment found on the\nAcropolis of Athens,[1251] with an owl within an olive-wreath; it had\nbeen dedicated to Athena by a potter whose name is now lost. There is\nalso a good series in the British Museum (B 681\u2013700), including a\nlekythos with Odysseus carried under the ram, painted in polychrome.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBefore embarking upon the history of the red-figured vases it may be\nwell to endeavour to see what light the vase-paintings up to this point\nthrow on the literary traditions preserved for us, chiefly by Pliny, in\nregard to early painting. There is, perhaps, no subject which that\nwriter has treated with greater vagueness; and we are forced to the\nconclusion that he really knew nothing about it, and did not comprehend\nthe meaning of the earlier writers from whom he borrowed.[1252] Still,\nit may fairly be supposed that the names he mentions are those of real\npersons, even if his account of their achievements is vague or\nimaginary. There are also a few stray items of information given by\nAristotle, Aelian, Strabo, and Athenagoras.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n VASES WITH OPAQUE DESIGNS ON BLACK GROUND.\n 1. BRIT. MUS.; 2. BY NIKOSTHENES, IN LOUVRE.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nPliny[1253] begins by attributing to Corinth or Sikyon the discovery of\nthe possibility of producing figures by outlining shadows, as in the\nstory of Butades (p. 110). The next stage, he says, was to fill in the\noutlines with single colours, or monochrome. He next states that\nPhilokles, an Egyptian,[1254] and Kleanthes of Corinth \u201cinvented linear\npainting,\u201d and that they were followed by Aridikes of Corinth and\nTelephanes of Sikyon, who, still without using any colours, introduced\ninner markings and details,[1255] and inscribed names over their\nfigures. Ekphantos of Corinth introduced the use of a red wash,\nemploying a pigment made from pounded pottery (_testa trita_),[1256]\nwhich may represent the purple so lavishly employed on Corinthian\nvases. A later development was that of monochrome painting\u2014_i.e._ the\nuse of a single flat body-colour\u2014introduced by Hygiainon, Deinias, and\nCharmadas.\n\nAristotle, on the other hand, speaks of Eucheiros of Corinth as the\n\u201cinventor of painting.\u201d The name reminds us of the tradition of\nDemaratos, who took with him from Corinth to Etruria a craftsman of\nthat name. It is also interesting to note that the name is borne by an\nAthenian kylix-painter (see above, p. 384), the son of Ergotimos, who\nmade the Fran\u00e7ois vase. Possibly he may have been the grandson of the\nCorinthian artist.\n\nStrabo (viii. 343) and Athenaeus (viii. 346 C) mention a picture by\nKleanthes (see above) which represented the Birth of Athena,[1257] and\ncan hardly have been later than the seventh century\u2014a period to which\nsuch evidence as we have would allot the series of artists already\nnamed.\n\nIt must be borne in mind that the names of these early artists are\nthose of draughtsmen, not of painters. Even in the time of Polygnotos\ndrawing was the chief aim of all artists\u2014as the red-figured vases amply\ntestify\u2014and painting, as we regard the art, only came into existence\nafter the middle of the fifth century. The development from _liniarem_,\nor \u201coutline-drawing,\u201d to monochrome at first sight presents a\ndifficulty, as it seems to be opposed to the evolution of\nvase-painting, which is from silhouette (as in the Dipylon ware) to\noutlines (as in the Ionic vases). But even if it is not always\nintelligible, we can still observe a distinct continuity in Pliny\u2019s\naccount.[1258]\n\nAfter Ekphantos had introduced the filling-in of outlines with red\nwashes, and Hygiainon and his _confr\u00e8res_ had continued painting with a\nsingle colour,[1259] a step further was made by Eumaros of Athens, who\ndistinguished the sexes and \u201cintroduced all kinds of new subjects.\u201d\nHere we may clearly discern the introduction of white in the later\nCorinthian and early Attic wares for female figures, and the growth of\nmythological and genre subjects on the vases of the time.[1260] His\ninnovations of technique and subject may therefore be fairly regarded\nas coincident with the great advance in vase-painting made at Athens\nunder Peisistratos and reacting upon Corinth. It is interesting to note\nthat the name of Eumaros occurs on a marble base found on the Acropolis\nat Athens; and if this can be the painter, his date would be fixed\nabout 590\u2013570 B.C.[1261]\n\nIn any case one thing is certain\u2014that painting had not yet developed\ninto anything like a high art. It was still purely decorative, and the\nfew early paintings of which we hear, such as those of Bularchos (p.\n361) and Kleanthes, were not beyond the level of the Clazomenae\nsarcophagi or the Fran\u00e7ois vase in merit. We probably gain the best\nidea of painting which was not merely decorative from the Corinthian\npinakes (p. 316) and the Acropolis warrior-tablet,[1262] especially as\nthey are painted on the white slip or \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, which we know to have\nbeen favoured by early Greek painters.[1263]\n\nThe relation of Pliny\u2019s next artist, Kimon of Kleonae, and of his\nimprovements to the work of the vase-painters, has been much discussed\nby writers on the red-figured vases; and they have not been by any\nmeans unanimous in their conclusions, either as to the nature of his\n\u201cinventions\u201d or as to the time at which their influence made itself\nfelt. They are described by Pliny in the following words: \u201cCimon of\nCleonae improved upon the inventions of Eumarus. He invented\n_catagrapha_\u2014that is, oblique images\u2014and varied positions of the\nfeatures, looking back or up or down. He distinguished limbs from\njoints, emphasised the veins, and further reproduced folds and hollows\nin the drapery.\u201d[1264]\n\nThe _crux_ of this passage is of course the word _catagrapha_, with\nPliny\u2019s Latin equivalent, _obliquas imagines_. At first sight it would\nseem that the Latin rendering of the word connected it with the\nrendering of the face in a new way, _i.e._ in three-quarter aspect\ninstead of the old profile of the silhouettes. But this was not\nintroduced into vase-painting until quite a late period[1265]; it is\nfound, for instance, on the Meidias vase about 440 B.C., and is\ncertainly not earlier than the time of Euphronios, whereas Kimon\nappears to have lived about 540\u2013490 B.C.[1266] Moreover, there seems to\nbe some antithesis between the _imagines_ and _voltus_\u2014i.e. _varios\nformare voltus_ is not an explanation of the _imagines_\u2014and, on the\nwhole, it seems more natural to take the first word as a general term\nfor figures. _Obliquas imagines_, then, would obviously imply some kind\nof perspective, which, when applied to the human figure, indicates\nforeshortening.\n\nNow, this advance in drawing is first found in the earlier work of\nEuphronios, _i.e._ about 500\u2013490 B.C., though traces of it are to be\nseen in the later work of the Epictetan cycle. It will be noted in the\nnext chapter that Epiktetos and his contemporaries are still in the\ntrammels of the old method. Many of these vases even exhibit traces of\na _decadent_ style, with rough and carelessly drawn figures. As Hartwig\nhas well pointed out, the real division of _style_ comes, not before\nEpiktetos, but between him and Euphronios. The Epictetan cycle is\ntransitional, and a time of preparation, firstly in the change of\ntechnique, secondly in the evolution of cup-decoration, thirdly in the\ndiscovery of new motives and extending the scope of subjects. The new\nbirth is seen in the form of increased naturalism, and is parallel to\nthe development of sculpture under Pythagoras and Myron, who, like\nKimon, \u201cgave prominence to sinews and veins.\u201d We may therefore sum up\nwith Studniczka and Hartwig by saying that the reforms of Kimon, which\nfirst manifest themselves in Euphronios and his contemporaries about\n500 B.C., imply a new theoretical knowledge of linear perspective,\nwhich in practice displays itself in a correct rendering of\nforeshortening.[1267] In minor details the same advance is at this time\napparent, in the treatment of the eye, which now begins to be rendered\nwith some approach to truth, and in the accurate and detailed rendering\nof muscles and anatomy, and of folds of drapery. These are precisely\nthe points in which Pliny regards Kimon as having so greatly advanced\nhis art, which, as Aelian tells us, he \u201chelped out of\nleading-strings.\u201d[1268]\n\nThe first painter in polychrome was Panaenos, who also introduced\nportraiture, but must still be regarded as a draughtsman only; and,\nfinally, Polygnotos, by such innovations as giving expression to faces,\nand rendering transparent draperies, gave the first real advance to the\nart. So far Pliny on the beginnings of Greek painting; but its further\ndevelopments, and more particularly the relation of Polygnotos to the\nfifth-century vase-paintings, must be more fully dealt with in a\nsucceeding section.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1192:\n\n _E.g._ B 130 in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1193:\n\n B.M. B 426.\n\nFootnote 1194:\n\n _E.g._ B 193\u2013205 in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1195:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 76, fig. 139.\n\nFootnote 1196:\n\n As the Birth of Athena, _B.M. Vases_, ii. p. 11, and Fig. 113\n (Chapter XII.).\n\nFootnote 1197:\n\n Herakles and the Nemean Lion, _ibid._ p. 13; Fig. 125 (Chapter XIV.)\n and Plate XXXII.\n\nFootnote 1198:\n\n Herakles and the Erymanthian Boar: see Fig. 126 (Chapter XIV.).\n\nFootnote 1199:\n\n See also on this subject Chapter XII. _init._\n\nFootnote 1200:\n\n General reference may here be made to Klein\u2019s _Lieblingsinschriften_,\n 2nd edn.\n\nFootnote 1201:\n\n See _id._, _Meistersignaturen_, 2nd edn., for full details.\n\nFootnote 1202:\n\n See also table at end of Chapter XVII., and Klein, _Meistersig._^2\n p. 32 ff. The principal examples of signed vases are illustrated in\n the _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1888\u201391.\n\nFootnote 1203:\n\n A unique exception is the early Attic potter Oikopheles, who uses the\n word \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 (Oxford 189 = _Ashmolean Vases_, pl. 26).\n\nFootnote 1204:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1205:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 5, 1.\n\nFootnote 1206:\n\n Reinach, ii. 120.\n\nFootnote 1207:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 211 (Plate XXIX.).\n\nFootnote 1208:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 1209:\n\n Cf. Ar. _Ran._ 1400: \u0392\u03ad\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03cd\u03b2\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 1210:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, fig. 3.\n\nFootnote 1211:\n\n Adamek _Unsignierte Vasen des A._, p. 13 ff.) notes the use of\n fringed draperies as especially characteristic of Amasis. By this\n means he is enabled to trace several other vases to his hand.\n\nFootnote 1212:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.\n\nFootnote 1213:\n\n Cf. A 1532 from Naukratis in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1214:\n\n Loeschcke and Karo connect him with Samos, _J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.\n\nFootnote 1215:\n\n See on Amasis, Klein, _Meisters_. p. 43; Adamek, _Unsignierte Vasen\n d. A._ (_Prager Studien_, Heft v.); Karo, in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 135\n ff.; Loeschcke in Pauly-Wissowa\u2019s _Lexikon_, _s.v._ Other vases\n signed by Amasis are: Reinach, i. 359, 1 and 453, 3; _Boston Mus.\n Report_, 1903, No. 45 (fragment of cup with eyes); W\u00fcrzburg, iii.\n 384; and one mentioned in _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 178, note 1. Unsigned\n vases attributed to him by Adamek, Karo, and other writers are B.M. B\n 53, B 151, B 197; Louvre F 25, F 26, F 28, F 36; Berlin 1688\u201392,\n 1731; Munich 75 and 81; Adamek, _op. cit._ pls. 1, 2 (Berlin); _Mus.\n Greg._ ii. 3; _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 5 (W\u00fcrzburg); Reinach, i. 513, 1\u20135\n (Athens); and two others mentioned _J.H.S._ xix. p. 139, Nos. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 1216:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 4, fig. 2. But see also _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ 1896, pls. 6\u20137, p. 372.\n\nFootnote 1217:\n\n Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 72 ff., reckons seventeen, to which number\n two or three must be added.\n\nFootnote 1218:\n\n Klein, _op. cit._ p. 81, No. 13.\n\nFootnote 1219:\n\n For a recently-discovered kylix painted by Sakonides, with Kaulos (?)\n as potter, see _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34.\n\nFootnote 1220:\n\n See _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 189\u00b7\n\nFootnote 1221:\n\n Most of his vases are illustrated in the _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_ for\n 1890\u201391.\n\nFootnote 1222:\n\n See Loeschcke in _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 35. He may have imitated\n Etruscan bronze jugs, which were now being imported. The Berlin vase\n (Fig. 136, Chapter XV.) seems to be an imitation of the early\n Cyprio-Phoenician metal bowls (_ibid._).\n\nFootnote 1223:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 364.\n\nFootnote 1224:\n\n Loeschcke (_Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 36) has pointed out that these are\n the most archaic examples of the Attic white-ground vases.\n\nFootnote 1225:\n\n Fig. 2 on Plate XXXV. is also his work.\n\nFootnote 1226:\n\n Perhaps the nearest analogy is the \u201ccounterchanging\u201d of heraldry.\n\nFootnote 1227:\n\n _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108; 1903, No. 21, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 1228:\n\n See on the curious technique of this design _Ath. Mitth._ 1879, p.\n 290, note 4.\n\nFootnote 1229:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1230:\n\n Note especially the treatment of the large eyes in either case.\n\nFootnote 1231:\n\n See on all these vases _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 1 ff.; also\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 15 ff., and\n _Jahreshefte_, 1900, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1232:\n\n On his technique see _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 157, and Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, _op. cit._ p. 19 ff.\n\nFootnote 1233:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 17.\n\nFootnote 1234:\n\n A third example is given in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 40\u201341\n (with warriors playing dice).\n\nFootnote 1235:\n\n The other examples are Munich 373, 375; Louvre F 204; a vase in\n Bologna (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 18, 19); and one in\n W\u00fcrzburg.\n\nFootnote 1236:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. p. 147 ff. See also B.M. B 149\u201353; Gsell, _Fouilles de\n Vulci_, pls. 7\u20138, p. 502.\n\nFootnote 1237:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 149, 157.\n\nFootnote 1238:\n\n See generally C. Smith in _Brit. School Annual_, 1896\u201397, p. 187 ff.;\n and for a bibliography, Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 1239:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ ii. (_Atticae_) pt. 2, No. 965.\n\nFootnote 1240:\n\n It is not likely that all of those given as prizes were painted. On\n the other hand, the number of the amphorae may denote the number of\n measures of oil given, the painted vases being, like modern silver\n cups, symbolical and honorific (C. Smith, _loc. cit._).\n\nFootnote 1241:\n\n See p. 160 for a description.\n\nFootnote 1242:\n\n A fourth-century fragment at Athens has the name of the agonothetes\n instead of the archon: \u1f00\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf]\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6(\u03bd)\u03c4\u03bf[\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. See _Brit.\n School Annual_, 1896\u201397, pl. 16 (_b_).\n\nFootnote 1243:\n\n _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 300.\n\nFootnote 1244:\n\n Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 176, notes the absence of all the usual B.F.\n patterns. The ivy-wreaths represent an old Boeotian tradition.\n\nFootnote 1245:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ 1888, pls. 9\u201312; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, p. 77 ff.;\n B.M. B 77\u20138.\n\nFootnote 1246:\n\n Six (see next note) quotes the Berlin vase, 1843 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 18,\n in illustration of this.\n\nFootnote 1247:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1888, pp. 193 ff., 281 ff.\n\nFootnote 1248:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 691, 700.\n\nFootnote 1249:\n\n Cf. _Mus. Ital._ ii. pl. 3 = De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl.\n 3.\n\nFootnote 1250:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 693.\n\nFootnote 1251:\n\n Six, _op. cit._ pl. 29, fig. 9.\n\nFootnote 1252:\n\n His chief source was Xenokrates of Sikyon, about 280 B.C.: see\n Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny\u2019s Chapters on Greek Art_, p. xxviii;\n M\u00fcnzer in _Hermes_, xxx. (1895), p. 499 ff.; _id._, _Beitr. zur\n Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius_ (1897).\n\nFootnote 1253:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 15: see _ibid._ 56.\n\nFootnote 1254:\n\n Probably an inhabitant of Naukratis, and connected with the Ionian\n school of painting. See Smith, _Dict. Antiqs._^3 ii. p. 401;\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 582.\n\nFootnote 1255:\n\n As opposed to mere silhouettes, _e.g._ of the Dipylon vases. Some\n writers take the words (_spargentes lineas intus_) to refer to\n ground-ornaments (see above, p. 312).\n\nFootnote 1256:\n\n On the possible connection of Ekphantos with Melos, see above, p.\n 312. Studniczka\u2019s argument rests partly on the early use of red on\n the Melian vases. In reference to the use of the word \u03b3\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd in the\n Melian inscription, he thinks that the column supported a votive\n painted pinax or vase. For _testa trita_ see Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_,\n iv. p. 478 ff.\n\nFootnote 1257:\n\n The earliest vase-painting with this subject is one from Athens (\u1f18\u03c6.\n \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7.) 1886, pl. 8, fig. 1). See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 153.\n\nFootnote 1258:\n\n See Jex-Blake and Sellers, _op. cit._ p. xxix.\n\nFootnote 1259:\n\n These artists represent the Dorian and Continental school, as opposed\n to the polychrome Ionian (see Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 584).\n\nFootnote 1260:\n\n It has, however, been suggested (Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 101) that\n _figuras_, the word used by Pliny, denotes \u201cpositions\u201d rather than\n \u201csubjects.\u201d But this would seem more appropriate to Kimon (see below).\n\nFootnote 1261:\n\n As Studniczka maintains (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 152): see also Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ p. 154.\n\nFootnote 1262:\n\n \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1887, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 1263:\n\n Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293 (ed. Migne).\n\nFootnote 1264:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 56.\n\nFootnote 1265:\n\n Even full face is exceptional on the earlier R.F. vases. Cf. B.M. E\n 67, 74, and Hartwig, pl. 59, fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 1266:\n\n He is perhaps mentioned by Simonides of Keos (Overbeck,\n _Schriftquellen_, 379).\n\nFootnote 1267:\n\n Studniczka says that _catagrapha_ is a scientific term = \u201cprojection\n of a figure.\u201d Cf. Stephanus, _Thesaurus_, _s.v._, and Jahn in _Ber.\n d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1850, p. 138.\n\nFootnote 1268:\n\n _Lit._ \u201creleased from milk and swaddling-clothes\u201d (_Var. Hist._ viii.\n 8).\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X\n _RED-FIGURED VASES_\n\n Origin of red-figure style\u2014Date of introduction\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\n and historical personages\u2014Technical\n characteristics\u2014Draughtsmanship\u2014Shapes\u2014Ornamentation\u2014Subjects\n and types\u2014Subdivisions of style\u2014Severe period and\n artists\u2014Strong period\u2014Euphronios\u2014Duris, Hieron, and\n Brygos\u2014Fine period\u2014Influence of Polygnotos\u2014Later fine\n period\u2014Boeotian local fabric.\n\n\nAt first sight the sudden reversal of technical method involved in the\nchange from black figures on red ground to red figures on black ground\nis not easy to explain. That it was a new invention, not a development\nfrom the old style, is obvious, seeing that no intermediate stage is\npossible. The theory has been promulgated by a German writer[1269] that\nthe idea arose from the effect of the Gorgoneion painted on the inside\nof many late B.F. kylikes. Undoubtedly the effect is that of the R.F.\nstyle, the face itself being left red, surrounded by black hair, beyond\nwhich the black is continued over the whole surface of the\ninterior.[1270] But this theory has not really much to support it; the\nGorgoneion _is in the R.F. technique_, and did not therefore suggest\nit; and the earliest R.F. kylikes usually have B.F. interiors, not R.F.\nIt is exceedingly doubtful that the kylikes had anything to do with\nbringing about the change.\n\nMuch more probable is the suggestion that the class of vases with\nopaque figures on black ground (p. 393) represents the transition, if\ntransition it can be called.[1271] We have seen that some of these\ncorrespond more to the B.F. vases, others to the R.F., and that in many\ncases their _appearance_ is that of R.F. vases. It may easily be\nconceived that it occurred to the painter that it was more effective to\nlet the red clay of the background appear through the black wherever he\nwould place a figure than to paint the red on to the black. But these\nvases are few in number; and as the R.F. vases sprang at once into\ngreat popularity, the new invention must have become too general at the\nvery first to have been adopted from such a comparatively rare method.\nThere is also a greater tendency to naturalism in that class than in\nthe earlier R.F. vases. The fact is that there had been going on\nthroughout the course of early art a tendency (to which B.F.\nvase-painting forms an exception) in favour of drawing figures on a\nlight ground against a dark background. And even in the B.F. vases this\ntendency is not altogether absent, as seen in the attempts at\nlightening the figures by making them polychrome, _i.e._ with purple\nand white, and also by the practice of covering the rest of the vase\nentirely with black.\n\nNow, we have already seen that Andokides was a painter who liked to\ncombine the two methods on one vase, and also that he was one who\ninvariably adopted the completely black variety of amphora, for B.F.\npainting as well as R.F. His Louvre vase with the women swimming is\nclearly one of the earliest R.F. examples in existence. It is therefore\nmuch more likely that he represents for us the author of the new method\nthan Epiktetos or the other artists who painted \u201cmixed\u201d kylikes or who\nused both styles. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it\nwas really in the kylikes that the new style rose into popularity.[1272]\n\nNext to the question of how the new style was brought about comes that\nof when it arose, and the length of its duration at Athens. The\nchronology of R.F. vases rests on two considerations\u2014the inscriptions\non the vases themselves, and the evidence of history and excavations.\nUntil within the last twenty years it had been customary to regard the\nyear 480 B.C. as the line of demarcation between the two methods, and\nthe earliest date for R.F. vases. Yet as long ago as 1834 Ludwig Ross,\nfinding a fragment of R.F. pottery among the _debris_ of the Persian\nsack of the Acropolis, acutely deduced therefrom that this style must\nnecessarily have been in existence before the date of the sack, _i.e._\nbefore 480 B.C. His views, however, fell on deaf ears, and it was not\nuntil the scientific exploration of the Acropolis in 1885\u201389 that his\ndeduction was seen to be justified. The result of these excavations was\nto show that among the mass of pottery found in the pre-Persian stratum\na considerable quantity belonged to a comparatively advanced stage of\nR.F. painting, including signatures of artists of the archaic and\nsevere style down to Euphronios. Some writers have thought that these\nfragments may belong to the period between 480 and 460, when the\nrebuilding of the site was begun; but so many show traces of burning\nthat it is far more probable that the earlier date is correct.[1273]\nAllowing, then, for the necessary stages of development up to the time\nof Euphronios, the beginning of the style may be placed about 525\u2013520\nB.C., the date at which, as we have seen, Andokides may be placed.\nBesides his name (see above, p. 387) that of Euphronios \u201cthe potter\u201d\nwas also found on a base in the Acropolis excavations.[1274] The other\nlimit of date will be more conveniently discussed in a subsequent\nconnection, and it may suffice to say here that the gradual pushing\nback of the _terminus post quem_ points now to a much earlier _terminus\nante quem_ than was formerly supposed. Reasons will subsequently appear\nfor placing the termination of the red-figure fabrics at Athens in the\nclosing years of the Peloponnesian War (410\u2013400 B.C.).\n\nThe evidence afforded by inscriptions is necessarily affected in some\ndegree by that of excavations, and chiefly important for the _relative_\ndates of the vases. It is not palaeographical, but is afforded mainly\nby one class of inscriptions, that of the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, so far as they\nhave an historical significance. These names will be the subject of\ndiscussion elsewhere,[1275] and are only alluded to here for their\nconnection with the question of chronology. It is a well-known feature\nof these \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names that many are those of famous historical\npersonages, such as Alkibiades, Megakles, Miltiades, and\nHipparchos.[1276] But, on the other hand, any attempts to connect the\nvases with the historical bearers of the names have met with little\nsuccess; there is also the danger of arguing in a circle\u2014_e.g._ of\nsaying that because Miltiades\u2019 name appears on a vase, it is therefore\nto be dated in his youth, and because the vase belongs to the date when\nMiltiades was young, therefore it bears the name of that individual.\n\nWhere the importance of these names really comes in is in their\nrelation to particular artists or groups of artists. In this way, as\nKlein and Hartwig have shown, connecting-links between the artists can\nbe traced and their chronological sequence assured. This, taken in\nconjunction with questions of style and our fixed dates obtained from\nother sources, enables us to extract a fair working chronology from all\nthe data. The subject must, however, be dealt with in greater detail\nwhen considering the work of individual artists, and only a few general\nstatements can be laid down here.\n\nMany of the historical \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, such as Hipparchos or Glaukon, were\nprobably very common at Athens,[1277] and we have therefore no grounds\nfor attaching importance to their appearance. But in regard to the\ngreat painter Euphronios, whose date is fairly certain, it is important\nto note that two different names are connected with vases in his\nearlier and later manner respectively, viz. Leagros[1278] and Glaukon.\nEuphronios began his career about 500\u2013490 B.C., and it probably covered\nsome forty years, from about 495 to 455. Hence we may place the time of\nLeagros\u2019 youth about 495\u2013490, that of Glaukon about 465\u2013460, and it is\nremarkable that the latter appears as \u201cson of Leagros\u201d in one or two\ncases.[1279] Now, we know that there was an Athenian general Leagros\nwho was \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03b3\u03cc\u03c2 in 467, and fell in battle against the Edones in that\nyear. Also that he had a son, Glaukon, who commanded at Kerkyra in\n433\u2013432. In this case the historical data fit in so exactly with the\nevidence of the vases and of the Acropolis excavations[1280] that we\nneed hardly hesitate to accept the identity of these two names.\n\nIt has been assumed\u2014and the assumption has hardly been questioned\u2014that\nthe \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names are necessarily always those of youths, _i.e._ of about\nseventeen to twenty years of age; this view is supported both by the\ngeneral character of the subjects on the vases where they appear, and\nby the frequent use of the analogous formula \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2. Dr. Hartwig\nhas laid down certain conclusions in regard to these names which have\nmet with general acceptance, and may be briefly restated here by way of\nsummarising the subject.\n\n(1) All vases with the same \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name are limited to a period of ten\nyears, and consequently all those which are by one artist belong to a\ndefinite circumscribed period of his life.\n\n(2) All vases by different artists, but with the same \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name, are\napproximately contemporaneous, _i.e._ within ten years.\n\n(3) The appearance of two or more \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names on the same vase\nindicates the approximate similarity of age of the persons named, the\ngreatest possible difference being ten years.\n\n(4) All vases with the same \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name, whether by one artist or more,\ncan always be linked together by their style; the same name does not\nappear on a man\u2019s earliest and latest vases.\n\nHe further impresses the caution that the identity and position of the\n\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03af (_i.e._ whether or no they belonged to the aristocratic\nclass) is a secondary question compared with that of the development of\npainting which they help to elucidate.\n\nThe question of fabric is one that hardly needs discussion, the\nevidence pointing so unanimously to Athens in all cases. The apparent\nexceptions suggested by classes of vases found almost exclusively on\none site, like the \u201cNolan\u201d amphorae or the Gela lekythi, can easily be\nshown to be no real exceptions. We have already met more than once with\ninstances of particular fabrics being favoured by particular places;\nand just as Ionian vases were imported to Caere or Vulci, and a special\nclass of Attic B.F. vases made for Cyprus, so we may suppose that\ncertain Athenian makers had a monopoly of export to Nola, to Gela, or\nelsewhere. Otherwise similarity of style, of technique, of subject, of\nthe alphabet of inscriptions, and all other details point to a purely\nhomogeneous fabric, and that this was located in Athens itself is not a\nmatter to be seriously disputed. To this complete monopoly which Athens\nenjoyed in the fifth century only one exception can be traced, that of\nBoeotia, where local fabrics continued to be made at Thebes and\nTanagra. Of these one class has already been discussed (p. 391); the\nother will be treated of subsequently (p. 451).\n\nWe must next consider briefly the technical characteristics and the\nforms of the Attic R.F. vases. As regards the former, the method\npursued during the period under consideration may be summarised as\nfollows. The artist sketches his design on the red clay with a\nfine-pointed tool; he then surrounds this outline with black varnish,\nlaid on with a pen or brush,[1281] to the extent of about an eighth of\nan inch all round, this being done to prevent the varnish, when laid on\nover the rest of the ground, from running over into any part of the\ndesign. Finally, details such as features or folds of drapery are added\nwith a brush in black lines on the red, this process representing the\nincised lines of the old style; and further details are often expressed\neither in a thinned black pigment which becomes brown and is sometimes\nonly perceptible in a strong light, or by application of white and\npurple as in the last period. In the severe style purple is generally\nused; but at a later stage this colour was dropped, and finally\nreplaced by white. The accessory colours were chiefly used for fillets\nin the hair, liquids, flowers, and other small details, as well as for\ninscriptions. Thus we see that the technical process of the preceding\nmethod is exactly reversed and that the figures now stand out in the\nnatural colour of the clay against the black ground.\n\nThe advantages of the new method were obvious. As long as the\nvase-painters continued content with stiff and hieratic forms and mere\nsilhouettes the black figures were sufficient. The careful mapping-out\nof the hair and muscles, the decorations, and all the details of shadow\nin painting and of unequal surface in sculpture could be easily\nexpressed by the new method. But it is evident that these stiff lines\nwere quite inadequate to express those softer contours, which melted,\nas it were, into one another, and marked the more refined grace and\nfreedom of the rapidly advancing schools of sculpture and painting. By\nthe change of colour of the figures to the lucid red or orange of the\nbackground, the artist was enabled to draw lines of a tone or tint\nscarcely darker than the clay itself, but still sufficient to express\nall the finer anatomical details; while the more important outlines\nstill continued to be marked with fine black lines. At first the style\nis essentially the same, the forms precise, the eyes in profile, the\nattitudes rigid, and the draperies rectilinear. The backgrounds may\nhave been painted in by an ordinary workman, and some specimens exist\nin which it has never been laid on (cf. p. 222). The artists seem to\nhave worked from slight sketches, and according to their individual\nfeelings and ideas, and as duplicate designs are quite unknown, there\nwas clearly no system of copying.\n\nThe correspondence of _style_ in the figures on the earlier R.F. vases\nto those of B.F. technique shows that the two methods must have\ncoexisted for a time, and this is further borne out by the mixed vases\nof Andokides, Hischylos, and others, and by the work of artists who\nemployed either style, like Pamphaios. The latter, for instance, seems\nto have adhered to the old style by preference for hydriae and large\nvases, but preferred to follow the new fashion in the kylix.\n\nTo quote a recent writer: \u201cThe new method opened up a path for the\nfreer exercise of the imagination,\u201d and we can see in the red-figure\nvases a gradual development of artistic conception and power of\nexpression, together with the shaking off of all restrictions until the\nperfection of drawing is reached, and \u201cthe red figures stand out\nagainst the black, unencumbered with anything that might distract from\nharmony of colouring or purity of outline.\u201d[1282] It is the essential\ncharacteristic of the new style that it is drawing rather than\npainting, and it stands out as the final attainment of what the\nvase-painters had really been striving after from the days of the\nMelian and early Ionic wares\u2014namely, the perfection of linear design.\nThe same principle is at work in the vases with white ground which\npassed through parallel phases of development.\n\nAmong minor details of drawing in which an advance is conspicuous is\nthe treatment of hair, eyes, and drapery. In the B.F. style the hair\nwas indicated as a black mass, standing out against the light\nbackground; but now that the background had become black, a separation\nwas necessary. At first this was done by adhering to the old engraved\nline method, for which came to be substituted a narrow unpainted line.\nNext, an advance was made in the treatment of the hair itself, with a\nview to more accuracy in detail, and the contours are undulated or\nseparate locks shown on the forehead. Sometimes a kind of stippling\nprocess is adopted, by means of which the hair is indicated by rows or\nclusters of raised dots, representing close curls, such as are seen in\nAttic sculpture of the late archaic period.\n\nThe general contours of the forms are slender; the foreheads are low,\nthe noses prominent, the eyes long, the chins sharp, the legs short and\nthick, and the folds of the garments stiff and rectilinear. Women are\nnot distinguished in this style either by their colour or by the shape\nof their eyes, in which respects they are drawn just like the men, but\nexclusively by their costume and form. The white hair of old men is\nindicated by white markings on the black ground, and curly hair, as\nnoted, by little raised knobs of black paint (\u03b2\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9). The figures\nare generally small, but some of grandiose proportions occur even in\nthe earlier stages, though more characteristic of the succeeding\n\u201cstrong\u201d style. The principal outlines are usually finished with\nwonderful spirit and truth, but sometimes, as in the extremities, great\ncarelessness is visible. The general effect is much enhanced by the\nfineness of the clay, which in the earlier R.F. vases is of a bright\norange-red, as also by the brilliancy of the black varnish.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _B.M. Cat._ iii.\n FIG. 99. DIAGRAM SHOWING DEVELOPMENT IN RENDERING OF EYE.\n]\n\nThe development of the form of the eye is most important, as an aid to\nchronology (see Fig. 99). In the B.F. period it was invariably treated\nin two ways,\u2014that of a man as a complete circle, in front view, between\nthe lids, of which the upper is more arched than the lower; that of a\nwoman is almond-shaped. In the R.F. vases the eye in front view is\nstill maintained with figures in profile, but the sexes are not\ndistinguished; the pupil is painted black, and the lids drawn at first\nlike the B.F. male eye, then almond-shaped. The next stage is to shift\nthe pupil (which now becomes a ring with central dot) into the inner\ncorner. Lastly, this corner is opened out till it assumes the correct\nprofile appearance, and then, about the middle of the fifth century,\nthe pupil also attains the correct form. About midway in this\ndevelopment, as we have already seen, the power is acquired of moving\nthe position of the pupil to express looking upwards, downwards, or\nsideways; the importance of this point as bearing on the new\ndevelopments of Kimon of Kleonae we have already discussed. The\neyelashes are not rendered until the correct profile is attained,\nexcept in a few instances, such as the Berlin cup of Euphronios (2282),\nwhere the lids are fringed with short, vertical strokes.[1283]\n\nIn regard to the treatment of drapery, the earlier vases, such as those\nof the Epiktetos cycle, retain the B.F. method of rendering folds only\nin the skirts of the chiton, these taking the form of parallel lines.\nGradually the folds follow the motion of the body; and finally, under\nEuphronios, comes a marked advance, whereby contrasts of material are\nindicated.[1284] He uses fine brown crinkly lines to represent the soft\ntransparent Athenian fabric which we also see worn by the archaic\nfemale figures of the Acropolis.\n\nAmong the many improvements in drawing effected during the R.F. period,\na notable one is that of the introduction of true perspective and more\nthan conventional landscape. We know from the shield of the Athena\nParthenos that this began to be understood at Athens by the middle of\nthe fifth century, as also from the paintings of Polygnotos, and hence\nwe are not surprised to find it appearing in the vases of the period\nwhen that artist\u2019s influence began to be felt. A fine example is the\nkrater from Orvieto in the Louvre, with an Argonautic scene (see p.\n442); and even more beautiful is the Blacas krater in the British\nMuseum, which shows Selene disappearing over the top of a hill, and the\nstars setting in the sea (see Plate LIII.). These two vases also\nillustrate the introduction of the new principle of placing figures at\ndifferent levels which was elaborated in the Meidias hydria, the vases\nof Kertch, and to a still greater degree in those of Southern Italy.\nAll these details indicate the growing tendency towards a pictorial\nstyle, which in the first instance was due to Polygnotos.\n\nThe =shapes= of the R.F. period are to a great extent the same as in\nthe last, but most of them are modified to some degree, and some new\nones are introduced. Moreover, the relative popularity of certain\nshapes varies, the amphora and hydria of the B.F. period being now\nsurpassed in favour by the kylix, the krater and lekythos receiving\nmore attention, and certain new forms, such as the askos and stamnos,\nappearing at different stages.\n\nFor the first half of the period, from 520 to 460 B.C., the kylix is\npre-eminent, not only in point of numbers, but for the attention\ndevoted to its decoration. It is, as we have seen, doubtful whether it\nwas actually in the kylikes that the new style came into being, but in\nany case they form the material for the study of its earlier phases.\nThe form is that of the later B.F. varieties (see p. 191), as used by\nExekias and the painters who used the large eyes in its decoration,\ntracing its origin probably to an Ionic source.[1285] At first the\ndecoration is often confined to the interior, or the exterior designs\nare little more than conventional, consisting of the eyes and a simple\nmotive or figure between.[1286] In the strong period there is usually a\nconnection between the interior and exterior designs, the whole often\nforming successive episodes of a story[1287]; but subsequently the old\nprinciple asserts itself, and the interior subject becomes the\nimportant one. Slight variations of form occur,[1288] as in the cups of\nBrygos, with their off-set lip, or the delicate products of Sotades,\nthe handles of which are shaped like a chicken\u2019s merrythought. In the\nlatest specimens the stem is often replaced by a flat broad foot, or\nthe bowl becomes flat and ugly, losing all the beauty of the earlier\ngraceful curves.\n\nAmong other drinking-cups the kotyle, kantharos, and rhyton are most\noften found. The former was favoured by Epiktetos and Hieron, and a\nkantharos is signed by Epigenes, others by Nikosthenes and Duris. The\nkantharos, though a very beautiful form, is never common in the painted\nvases, being perhaps oftener made in metal. Among the kotylae we may\nmention here a series painted with an owl and olive-wreath,[1289] which\nobviously have some reference to the cult of Athena. They have been\nidentified, but on slight authority, with the \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03ac mentioned by\nAthenaeus[1290]; but their real meaning has not yet found a\nsatisfactory explanation. The _rhyton_ strictly belongs to the series\nof plastic vases (see pp. 201, 211), the lower portion being always\nmodelled in the form of a head, human or animal, or two conjoined. Some\nof these are signed by artists, such as Charinos and Kaliades.[1291]\n\nOf the amphora three main varieties are found. The earlier type, which\nreproduces the \u201cblack-bodied\u201d or panel-amphora of the B.F. period, did\nnot long remain in favour, and was mainly used by Andokides and\nEuthymides and their associates. The panel system of decoration is\nstill retained, the framework being formed of ornamental patterns as in\nthe old style. Secondly, there is the \u201cNolan\u201d amphora, which came in\nabout 500\u2013480 B.C., and was obviously an improvement on the old\n\u201cred-bodied\u201d B.F. type. It is a very graceful, slender form, with long\nneck, distinguished by the surpassing excellence of its black varnish,\nand the impression of taste and restraint given by its simple\ndecoration of one or two figures each side (see Plate XXXVI.). The\nthird variety is the so-called _pelike_ (see p. 163), a not very\nsuccessful variation of the amphora, but for some reason very popular\nin the later stages. With its flat foot and bulbous body it stands in\nthe same relation to the amphora as does the so-called aryballos (see\nbelow) to the lekythos.\n\nTwo forms that may be connected with the amphora are the stamnos and\nthe psykter (see pp. 163, 172). The former is peculiar to the R.F.\nperiod in its earlier stages; the first known example is signed by\nPamphaios, a \u201ctransitional\u201d artist. Most of the known specimens attain\na high average of excellence. The psykter or wine-cooler is very rare,\nbut there are two fine examples signed by Euphronios and Duris.\n\nThe hydria in this period at first retains the B.F. form, as seen in an\nexample of about 500 B.C. signed by Phintias (B.M. E 159), but the\ntendency to prefer a curvilinear outline is soon manifested. The new\ndevelopment is conventionally known as a _kalpis_. The shoulder having\nceased to be distinct from the body, the design becomes single, or else\nis confined to the upper part of the field.\n\nOf the krater we have at least four varieties, all belonging to the\nmore developed stages of the period. The earliest example is the\nAntaios-krater of Euphronios in the Louvre, about 500 B.C., which is of\nthe form known as _vaso a calice_ (p. 170); but this and the other\nvarieties never become really common till the final stages are reached.\nThe bell-krater, or _vaso a campana_, is only found in the late fine\nperiod, and is then almost the only kind of large vase made; the\nvolute-handled krater, which was developed from the old column-handled\ntype, is seen in some fine specimens. At first the design (as in the\nB.F. example by Nikosthenes, B.M. B 364) is confined to the neck. The\ntreatment of the column-handled type is interesting as a survival of\narchaism both in design and arrangement, with the bordered panels and\noccasional B.F. friezes of animals.[1292]\n\nAmong the smaller vases, the oinocho\u00eb and lekythos with their\nvarieties, the askos and the pyxis, are the most important. With the\nexception of the ordinary form of lekythos these belong chiefly to the\nlater stages, when the preference was for a sort of miniature style.\nVery few of these bear artists' signatures. The oinocho\u00eb differs little\nfrom the B.F. examples; the pyxis is practically a revival of an old\nform favoured in the Corinthian and other early fabrics. The latter are\nusually decorated with domestic or marriage subjects, in reference to\ntheir use by women for toilet purposes (see Plates XLII., XLIII.).\n\nThe lekythos was, as we shall see, the form exclusively employed for\nthe funeral vases, and largely also for others with polychrome\ndecoration on white ground. Those painted with red figures belong\nmainly to the strong period (500\u2013460), and have been mostly found in\nSicily, whither they were imported by preference, like the amphorae\nmade for Nola; a fine specimen is given on Plate XXXVI. When this form\ncame to be adopted for the funeral vases, a new type arose with bulbous\nor spherical body, conventionally known as an _aryballos_. In the late\nfine style we have many examples of this form, with rich polychrome\ndecoration and gilding (Plate XLII.).[1293]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXVI\n\n[Illustration: RED-FIGURED \u201cNOLAN\u201d AMPHORAE AND LEKYTHOS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe =ornamental patterns= on R.F. vases do not, generally speaking,\ncall for so much attention as those of earlier style; they are on the\nwhole used with great restraint and little variety, and are more\nsubordinate to the designs than at any other period of vase-painting.\nThe principal motives are the palmette, maeander, and egg-pattern; all\nothers are comparatively rare. It is interesting to note, on the early\namphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters down to quite a\nlate date, the survival of the old panel system with its borders of\nornament. Strictly speaking, now that the background was black\nthroughout, there was no necessity for enclosing the space on which the\nfigures were depicted; but the conservative instincts prevailed,\nespecially while the old shapes were retained.[1294] Gradually,\nhowever, as these vases assumed new forms, the borders were almost\nunconsciously dropped\u2014first the sides, then the top, and lastly the\nlower border, which maintained its ground longer than the others. The\nsame tendency, from a formal framework to absolute freedom, is in fact\nto be observed in all the vases; and in the later stages we note a new\ndevelopment, that of an elaborate pattern of palmettes under the\nhandles, which assumes more and more prominence.\n\nThe evolution of the palmette on R.F. vases has been skilfully traced\nby Dr. Winter[1295] in reference to the kylikes; but it is no less\ninteresting in the amphorae and similar forms. In both cases it arose\nfrom the tendency to make the handles terminate in stylised palmettes,\nwhich on the B.F. kylikes of the minor artists are often a prominent\nelement in the decoration. Similarly, on the B.F. red-bodied amphorae\nwe have the symmetrical compositions of palmettes under the handles\nradiating from a common centre. These were at first reduced to a modest\nsingle palmette or a pair, but soon spread out again, preserving at\nfirst the symmetrical grouping; subsequently, with an increasing\ntendency to naturalism, the palmettes, enclosed within graceful\ntendrils, form _unsymmetrical_ but highly pleasing compositions without\nany definite centre.[1296] This development of ornament under the\nhandles\u2014to which part of the vase it was almost restricted\u2014can be\ntraced during the first half of the fifth century, till it reaches its\nheight about the middle. Where a band of ornament was required round\nthe base of the design, as on the large calyx-kraters, it takes the\nform of a row of palmettes enclosed in tendrils, in the style of modern\narabesques; or the palmettes are arranged in pairs, set obliquely, and\neach pair divided by a scroll ending in volutes. Or, again, a row of\nsomewhat squat palmettes, similarly enclosed, alternates with\nlotos-flowers in the old style, as on B.M. E 169.[1297]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 100. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (EARLY R.F. PERIOD).]\n\nIn the kylikes the development of the handle-ornament first begins with\nEpiktetos, who (as on E 3 in B.M.) first draws a free palmette with\nseparated leaves on either side.[1298] As the tendency to cover the\nwhole of the exterior space with the design increased, the intervening\nspace under the handle came to be filled in also, by extending the\ntendrils of the palmettes and terminating them with buds (Fig.\n100).[1299] Next, a tendency to symmetrical composition each side is\nseen, the palmettes being doubled in number[1300]; or, again, an\nattempt is made at uniting the two isolated palmette-systems in one\nharmonious whole, and at the same time to fill the intervening space,\nby means of interlacing tendrils.[1301] The palmettes are further\nincreased to three or four each side, and in the arrangement is seen\nthe tendency to freedom even at the cost of symmetry already noted, as\nin Fig. 101.[1302] Thus is reached the point at which the severe passes\ninto the strong style. In the latter the palmettes are often omitted\naltogether,[1303] especially where the two exterior scenes are\nconnected; or their place is taken by some figure under the handle, as\non vases by Hieron or Brygos. Where the patterns do occur, they are\noften stereotyped, as in the vases of Duris, who on nine examples with\nhandle-patterns repeats the same device in each case. In the fine\nstyle, after 460 B.C., the symmetrical arrangement recurs, the usual\ntype consisting of a double palmette between two large ones, with\nconnecting and enclosing tendrils.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 101. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (LATER STAGE).]\n\nAnother method of tracing the chronological sequence of the R.F. cups\nis by means of the maeander patterns which surround the interior design\nand extend below the outside scenes (Fig. 102).[1304] A parallel\ndevelopment of this pattern may also be traced on the amphorae and\nother vases, where it is used as a border below the figures. In the\nsevere style, as in the cups of Epiktetos, this pattern has not yet\nmade its appearance, and its place is taken by a simple line of red;\nand in the vases of Euphronios, on which it is first found, a simple\nmaeander is employed. The first to vary this was Duris, who alternates\nit with squares, the centre of which is \u201cvoided\u201d in the form of a red\ncross, and this practice subsequently became invariable. The square\nitself shows a development of form, the cross being first filled in\nwith a black centre, then made diagonal; next, the black background is\nlargely diminished, until it disappears, except for dots between the\narms of the black cross; finally, it changes into the form of a\nchequered square, black and red, of which the red squares are sometimes\ndotted.\n\nThe =subjects= on red-figured vases may not perhaps be so varied or so\nfull of mythological interest as those on the black-figured, but yet\npresent many features worthy of attention. At the very outset we see\nthe tendency towards scenes from real life in preference to those from\nmythology; and on the whole throughout the period the ratio of one\nclass to the other is exactly the reverse of the preceding period. Nor\nare the stock subjects in either class the same. In regard to mythology\nthe cosmogonic themes of B.F. vases, such as the Gigantomachia and the\nBirth of Athena, are replaced by such subjects as Eleusinian and Attic\nlocal cults, the sending forth of Triptolemos or the birth of\nErichthonios. In the heroic cycles Herakles is no longer the popular\nfavourite, but is supplanted, for reasons presently to be detailed, by\nTheseus. The Argonautika frequently provides subjects for vases of the\nmore developed style, in which the influence of Polygnotos is felt; and\nthe _Odyssey_ begins to rival the _Iliad_ as a source of epic themes.\nThe influence of the stage is as yet hardly felt, though here and there\nscenes may be traced to the influence of some Satyric drama.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _B.M. Cat._ iii.\n FIG. 102. DEVELOPMENT OF MAEANDER-AND-CROSS PATTERN.\n]\n\nIn subjects relating to Dionysos and his attendant Satyrs and Maenads a\nconsiderable change is to be noted, in the direction of a preference\nfor violent action. The Bacchic revellers of the B.F. vases, even at\ntheir highest pitch of excitement, are generally stiff wooden figures,\nwith mechanical and restrained pose or action. But the exteriors of\nmany cups of the best R.F. period, such as those of Hieron or Brygos,\nare enlivened by throngs of frenzied Maenads and wild drunken Satyrs,\ngiven up to the most unrestrained and licentious merriment (see Chapter\nXIII.).\n\nTurning to the subjects of daily life again, it may be observed that on\nthe B.F. vases the preference is for battle-scenes, warriors setting\nout for battle, or scenes of the chase; even athletic subjects are in a\ngreat minority, except on the Panathenaic amphorae. In the R.F. period\nthe preference is for athletic scenes, banquets, and the life of women\nand children; we also find frequent illustrations of religious cults,\nand scenes of sacrifice and libations. The R.F. vases of the severe\nstage in the main follow on the lines of the later B.F. period, except\nin the interiors of the kylikes of the Epictetan cycle. In these we\nfind very few instances of mythological subjects, unless it be single\nfigures of Satyrs. The main object of the painter was to fill in the\ncircular space as best he might, and this space only admitted of a\nsingle figure, the rule being observed that exterior and interior\nfigures should be of similar proportions. Hence the easiest solution\nwas obviously to choose a simple figure, such as that of a nude young\nman, and depict him in various simple attitudes, running, leaping,\ncarrying a vase or musical instrument, or otherwise engaged in such a\nway as to fill the space with his limbs or the objects he carried (see\np. 426).\n\nIn the \u201cstrong\u201d style we observe a new principle at work, which may\nbe described in a single phrase as \u201cthe glorification of the Attic\nephebos or young athlete.\u201d A new impetus had been given to athletics\nat Athens by the Peisistratidae, who encouraged a more extensive\ncelebration of festivals, and thus we find a growing fondness for the\nintroduction of scenes from the palaestra and stadium, often rendered\nwith considerable spirit and unconventionality, as in a group of\nboxers quarrelling,[1305] or on another vase depicting the humorous\nside of the armed foot-race.[1306]\n\nThe introduction of scenes from the story of Theseus, which now begin\nto be frequent, especially on the kylikes, is no doubt due partly to\nthis cause, though partly also to religious and patriotic reasons.\nTheseus seems to have been regarded as the typical Attic ephebos and\nathlete, and his contests as analogous to success in the palaestra.\nHence the grouping of scenes from his labours after the manner of\ngroups of athletes variously engaged. It was formerly thought that the\npopularity of the Theseus legends was due to the bringing back of his\nbones from Skyros by Kimon, and their solemn burial in the Theseion,\nwhich gave rise to a regular cult of the national hero. But this took\nplace in 469 B.C., and recent investigations have shown that many of\nthe Theseus vases must be placed at an earlier date. He was, however,\nsupposed to have appeared at the battle of Marathon in aid of the\nAthenians, and this event may have been quite sufficient to bring his\ncult into prominence.\n\nTowards the middle of the fifth century several new types are\nintroduced\u2014such as the youth as distinguished from the ephebos, the\ngirl as distinguished from the matured woman,[1307] and the infant\nplaying with toys. Juvenile games, such as the top, hoop, and\nknucklebones, now become generally popular. The evolution of the types\nof Eros and Nike virtually dates from this time[1308]; hitherto Eros\n(as, for instance, on the kylikes) has seldom appeared, and Nike is\nalso hardly found before the \u201cstrong\u201d style. Meaningless groups of\nfigures, conversing or without particular action, are common on the\nexterior of cups by Hieron and his contemporaries; and similar groups,\nthough, in accordance with the spirit of the times, more freely and\npictorially composed, become the recognised method of decorating the\nsmall elegant vases of the late fine style. In some of these an ancient\npractice is revived of attempting to give interest to the scenes by\nadding mythological names to the figures. But these are chosen quite at\nhaphazard, sometimes as vague personifications (see Chapter XII., under\nAphrodite), sometimes in such anomalous collocations as Thetis and\nHippolyte, or Danae, Helen, and Iphigeneia.[1309]\n\nIn the treatment of mythological scenes it is curious to note how,\nalmost from the first, the well-worn conventional types of the B.F.\nstyle are discarded, the painter, with his new-born capacities for\ndrawing and free composition, instinctively forming his own idea of his\nsubject, and departing from the lines on which his predecessors had\nworked. Some subjects are almost entirely ignored, such as the chariot\nprocession (of Herakles or deities), the contests of Herakles with\nTriton and the Cretan bull, warriors playing draughts, and Odysseus and\nPolyphemos. The labours of Herakles are largely replaced by those of\nTheseus. In other cases the subjects are still popular, but the \u201ctype\u201d\nis no longer preserved, as in the case of the Judgment of Paris or some\nof the labours of Herakles.\n\nBut it must not be supposed that the principle of recognised \u201ctypes\u201d is\naltogether absent from the R.F. vases. There are, in fact, certain\nmotives which occur over and over again, only with this difference\u2014that\nthey are not always employed with the same signification. Thus the\n\u201cpursuing\u201d type, which is as common as any on R.F. vases, may be either\nmythological or ordinary. In the former case Eos pursues Kephalos, or\nMenelaos Helen; in the latter a Seilenos pursues a Maenad, or a warrior\nor hunter a woman. This type becomes almost conventional, and the\nfigures can only be identified when inscribed. Theseus, Ajax, Orestes,\nIon, Alkmaion, and Neoptolemos all pursue women in the same manner.\nAgain, the B.F. type of Peleus seizing Thetis, sometimes found on R.F.\nvases,[1310] is used for that of a Seilenos seizing a Maenad, even the\nsnakes into which Thetis transforms herself becoming the ordinary\nattribute of the Bacchanal.\n\nA different class of subjects, in which the subject remains the same\nbut the type varies, is also found on R.F. vases. In such cases the\nvarious artists seem to have drawn their inspiration from the same\nmodel; it might be a famous sixth-century painting or sculptured group,\nbut each has treated it according to his own individuality. A good\ninstance is the subject of the sack of Troy, the principal episodes of\nwhich we find depicted by the masters Euphronios and Brygos (Plate\nLIV.), and on a hydria of somewhat later date.[1311]\n\nAnother characteristic of R.F. vases is the individualising of\nbarbarian types, a new feature in Greek art. It is possible that this\nis largely the effect of the Persian wars, which rendered the Greeks\nfamiliar with barbarian costumes.[1312] In any case the fashion of\nwearing Thracian cloaks and other outlandish garments seems to have\nbeen adopted by the young men of Athens at the beginning of the fifth\ncentury, and many of the cups of that period represent young horsemen\napparelled in this fashion (see Chapter XV.). There was also in the\nfifth century a fondness for vases modelled in the form of heads of\nnegroes or Persians. Such subjects as those relating to Orpheus, the\nrape of Oreithyia, Herakles and Busiris, or combats of Greeks with\nAmazons or Persians, also illustrate the popularity of these new ideas.\n\nThe only other class of subjects to which reference need be made is\nthat dealing with religious cults,[1313] such as libations or\nsacrifices to deities or terminal figures, particular ceremonies and\nfestivals, or quasi-religious competitions of an athletic or musical\nkind.[1314]\n\nIn regard to style, the Attic red-figured vases fall into four\nprincipal groups, which are usually classified as follows (though each\ngroup is sometimes subdivided):\u2014\n\n(1) =The archaic or severe period= (about 520\u2013500 B.C.), in which there\nis little advance in the drawing, which is stiff and lacks technical\nfreedom. Apart from the new experiments in technique, it is marked by\nits wide and novel choice of subjects, with great attention paid to\ndetails. The principal artists whose signatures are found in this group\nare: (_a_) cup-painters\u2014Epiktetos, Hischylos, Pheidippos, Pamphaios,\nChelis, Chachrylion, Euergides, Epilykos, Hermaios, Sikanos; (_b_)\nother painters\u2014Andokides, Euthymides, Phintias (amphora and hydria),\nHypsis (hydria), Psiax and Hilinos.\n\n(2) =The strong style= (about 500\u2013460 B.C.), characterised by a great\nand sudden advance in drawing and power of expression, which leads the\npainter to attempt difficult subjects with success. The difficulties of\nfront-view or three-quarter drawing, as opposed to the old\nprofile-figures, are also largely overcome. In the amphorae and other\nforms the compositions are restrained and dignified, being often\nlimited to one or two figures in large style. The principal artists\nare: (_a_) cup-painters\u2014Euphronios, Oltos, Sosias, Phintias, Peithinos,\nDuris, Hieron, Brygos, Amasis, Onesimos; (_b_) other artists\u2014Euxitheos,\nSmikros.\n\n(3) =The fine style= (about 460\u2013440 B.C.) exhibits the culmination of\ntechnique and composition, with great breadth and largeness of\nconception in the larger vases, delicacy and refinement in the smaller.\nCup-painting has passed its zenith, and yields comparatively few\nartists\u2019 names. In this period the influence of Polygnotos and the\ngreat painters begins to make itself felt, in a tendency to more\npictorial composition; landscape is indicated, and figures are placed\nat different levels. The influence of sculpture may also be traced. The\nchief artists' names are: Aeson, Aristophanes and Erginos, Epigenes,\nHegias, Hermonax, Megakles, Polygnotos, Sotades, and Xenotimos; Meidias\nand Nikias; Xenophantos.\n\n(4) =The late fine style= (about 440\u2013400 B.C.) is marked by a great\nfalling-off in every respect. The extraordinarily rapid advance, both\nin artistic conception and in power of execution, during the preceding\nfifty years, fostered by the concurrent advance in sculpture and\npainting, hastened the vase-painter to his ruin. With the attainment of\nperfection in drawing, dexterity and grace are his sole aim, and in\nplace of vigour and originality we meet with over-refinement and\nmannerisms, and florid pictorial compositions executed in a careless\nmanner.\n\nWe now propose to speak in detail of the principal artists of this\nperiod, a study of whose works will be sufficient to give a clear idea\nof the achievements of the new style, at all events down to the middle\nof the century.[1315] After that time the signatures become so rare\nthat the later vases are best treated as a whole.\n\nIt is important to note, by way of preliminary, the various methods of\nsignature which the artists adopt (see also Chapter XVII.).[1316] The\nordinary signatures fall under four headings: (1) \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; (2)\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd; (3) _A_. \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, _B_. \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd (4) _A_. \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd.\nIn the archaic period \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd covers the work of the potter and\npainter, except in the case where the latter is specially mentioned. In\nthe best period we usually find \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd on the kylikes, \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd on the\namphorae. Euphronios and Phintias use either (1) or (2). The vase E 12\nin the British Museum has only the inscription, \u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; but,\nas will be seen later, there is good reason for supposing that the\nexterior was not painted by him. Different formulae, it has been\nsuggested, may represent different periods in a man\u2019s career, as in the\ncase of Euphronios, who was at first a painter in Chachrylion\u2019s\nworkshop, then worked independently, and finally adopted Onesimos as a\npartner (see p. 434). The use of the imperfect \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 in some cases is\ncharacteristic of the transitional period (see below, p. 430).\n\nIn the archaic or severe period the typical name is that of\n=Epiktetos=, who, as we have seen, is thought by some authorities to\nhave been actually the inventor of the red-figure style. However this\nmay be, he is the principal representative of the development of\ncup-painting during this period\u2014a development which has been carefully\ntraced by Klein.[1317] We have no B.F. kylikes signed by him, although\nthere are four examples of \u201cmixed\u201d cups with B.F. interiors, three of\nwhich were made by Hischylos, the fourth by Nikosthenes, while\nEpiktetos was presumably responsible for the whole of the decoration.\nHe invariably signs with the formula \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd, from which we know that\nall his signed vases are actually the work of his brush. Besides those\nalready mentioned, he painted two cups which bear Pamphaios\u2019 name as\npotter, and two more with those of Hischylos and Python as potters\u2014all\nR.F. throughout, one of the Pamphaios cups retaining the old fashion of\ndecoration with eyes on the exterior. The vase made by Python[1318] is\ninteresting from its subject\u2014the slaying of Busiris by Herakles.[1319]\nIt belongs to an advanced stage of his career, when the exterior\ndesigns were assuming more importance and developing from decorative\ncompositions to regular friezes. Thirteen kylikes and ten plates with\ndesigns like those on the interiors of the cups (Plate XXXVII.), a\nkotyle with Pistoxenos\u2019 name as potter, and two amphorae, make up the\ntotal of Epiktetos\u2019 performances.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXVII\n\n[Illustration: INTERIOR OF KYLIX OF TRANSITIONAL STYLE; 2, PLATE BY\nEPIKTETOS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nMurray thus describes the chief characteristics of Epiktetos'\nwork[1320]: \u201cNo painter is so uniform and at the same time so peculiar\nin his manner as Epiktetos. His drawing is always characterised by\nprecision and fastidiousness. He loves slim, youthful forms.... He\nprefers to draw his figures on a small scale, where his minute touches\nproduce at times a startling vividness. He appears to have been\ninfluenced in a measure by the older miniature vase-painters [the\n\u2018minor artists\u2019] ... his manner is singularly precise and fastidious\n... but his precision never fails him.... He uses skilfully faint\nyellow lines for the inner markings of muscle and bone.\u201d Hartwig points\nout that he continues the development of a refined archaism from Amasis\n(p. 382). The period of his activity may be placed between 530 and 500\nB.C.\n\n=Pamphaios=, although the majority of his vases are in the R.F.\ntechnique, really excelled in the old method. We have from his hand two\nB.F. hydriae, four B.F. kylikes, two mixed kylikes, fifteen R.F.\nkylikes (five with interior designs only), two amphorae and a stamnos,\nand he also made two cups for Epiktetos. He signs consistently\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd. In the B.F. hydria in the British Museum (B 300 = Fig. 120),\nhe, as Murray says, has indulged to excess his sense of refinement and\ngrace, in which he was unsurpassed. When he turned to red figures, the\nnew technique seems to have perplexed him, and he found himself unable\nto use his faculty for minute detail. But though comparatively coarse\nand decadent, there is a freshness and vigour in his new conceptions,\nespecially in the Museum stamnos (E 437) with Herakles and Acheloos,\nwhich atones for other deficiencies.\n\nMost remarkable of all his signed works is the British Museum kylix (E\n12), with its exquisite exterior designs, of which Murray says, \u201cSurely\nin the whole realm of Greek vase-painting there is hardly to be met\nwith a finer conception\u201d than the figures of the two wind-gods or\ndeath-deities carrying off the body of the dead warrior. Nor are the\nfigures of Amazons arming on the other side of inferior merit. So\nmarked, indeed, is the superiority of these designs to Pamphaios'\nordinary work, that most authorities are agreed in attributing them to\nanother artist belonging to a more advanced school\u2014namely, Euphronios.\nWe have after all no certain proof that the _painting_ of the cup is\nPamphaios\u2019 handiwork, and we can only say that, if it is, it betokens a\nmost surprising outbreak of artistic power.\n\nOf the other artists in this cycle _Hischylos_ appears chiefly as a\npotter for other artists; for Sakonides he made a (B.F.) kylix, for\nEpiktetos four, and for Pheidippos one. A B.F. plate, two \u201cmixed\u201d cups,\nand one R.F. cup bear his name alone. He always signs with \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\nbut it is not improbable that he was responsible for the interior B.F.\ndesigns on three of the cups made for Epiktetos. _Pheidippos_ is only\nknown from the one cup already mentioned. _Euergides_ made three cups,\n_Epilykos_ three,[1321] _Hermaios_ five[1322] (one of which bears a\nfigure of Hermes, perhaps by way of a sort of canting heraldry), and\n_Sikanos_ one plate. The cups by _Chelis_ number five, of which one has\na B.F. interior.\n\n=Chachrylion=, who stands on the verge of the next period, calls for\nmore detailed treatment, especially since the exhaustive discussion of\nhis work by Hartwig.[1323] Sixteen cups signed by him are known, two\nhaving been discovered since Klein made his list; he also acted as\npotter for Euphronios on one occasion. He always signs \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, but we\nmay assume that this includes the decoration of the vases. With him we\nenter upon the period in which the use of \u201cfavourite names\u201d by\nvase-painters becomes regular, those employed by Chachrylion being\nLeagros and Memnon. The former name is also used by Oltos, Euthymides,\nand Euphronios, and the names of Epidromos and Athenodotos belong to\nthis period, if not to this cycle. A number of vases with the name\nMemnon have no signature, and these have usually been attributed _en\nbloc_ to Chachrylion. But it has been pointed out by Hartwig that some\nof them must belong to an earlier stage, standing in much closer\nrelation to the B.F. vases. Besides the sixteen signed vases, Hartwig\nassigns to him seven with the name of Epidromos, and two others with\nthat of Leagros in addition, and another without name. A remarkable\nnumber of these cups have no exterior decoration.\n\nChachrylion\u2019s work is in character essentially transitional. Some of\nhis cups[1324] are in the style of the archaic decadence, before the\nnew influence of Euphronios, but he never freed himself from the\ntrammels of the severe style. He drops the Epictetan method of\ndecorating the exterior with large eyes and animals bounding the scene,\nand uses large palmettes under the handles; but his interior scenes are\nstill bordered with a plain ring, instead of the later maeander. He is\nnever altogether happy in his exterior designs; hence his preference\nfor interiors, in which, it may be noted, he is almost the first to\nintroduce more than one figure.[1325] His figures, like those of\nEpiktetos, have slim proportions and small heads, the bodily forms\nbetter rendered than the limbs. He seems to strike a medium between the\nvigour of Pamphaios and the refinement of Epiktetos, combining\nrobustness and grace with a tendency to largeness of style,[1326] which\nshows that he is preparing the way for Euphronios.\n\nIn summing up the characteristics of the cups of severe style, we note\nthat they exhibit throughout a development in technique and decoration\nrather than in style and drawing. The earliest are little removed from\nthe later B.F. kylikes with interior designs and large eyes on the\nexterior, many having in fact B.F. interiors. With the eyes occupying\nso much space, it is rare at first to find anything like a composition\non the exterior; but gradually the eyes disappear, the palmette\nornaments (see p. 414) decrease in size, and the figures extend\nthemselves into friezes, with definite action. We have scenes of combat\nwith a marked centre, like a sculptured pediment, group of athletes or\nrevellers, and mythological or heroic subjects from the stories of\nHerakles, Theseus, and Troy.\n\nIn the interiors the development is somewhat different. Beginning with\na simple design of a simple figure within a plain circle\u2014at first an\nenforced necessity, but subsequently due to choice\u2014the tendency is to\nfill in the space more and more as the power of drawing develops, and\nthe painter casts about for new ideas. Hence, as Klein[1327] says,\n\u201cHere we have carrying, lifting, hurrying, running, stooping, dancing,\nspringing ... and all for the sole purpose of obtaining those movements\nof the human body which the space of the vase demanded.\u201d We also note\nthe almost entire absence of mythological scenes in the interiors;\nrepose or simple action is all that is aimed at, whereas on the\nexteriors scenes of activity or even violence are admitted.\n\nMurray[1328] has pointed out some interesting parallels between the\nkylix-interiors and contemporary coins and gems, which show the\nvase-painter to have been in full accord with the spirit of the times.\nThus, to take the coins first, the Sphinx of Chios is repeated on the\nB.M. vase E 10, the armed warrior of Aspendos on E 11, the Diskobolos\nof Kos on E 78, and the squatting Satyr of Naxos on a vase formerly in\nthe Bourguignon collection.[1329] Among fifth-century gems we find such\nsubjects as a youth kneeling and holding a jug, a woman at a\nwashing-basin, a Satyr with wine-skin, a youth fastening his sandal,\nand an archer[1330]\u2014all of which occur on the interior of R.F. kylikes.\nThe beautiful subject of the body of Memnon borne by two genii (see\nabove), although an exterior subject, may also be mentioned here as\nparalleled in a fine gem.[1331]\n\nIn Klein\u2019s valuable monograph on early R.F. cup-painting there is a\nuseful table[1332] setting forth the development of the Epictetan cycle\nof cups, both in subject and arrangement. His first class includes the\npurely B.F. cups of Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, with the Gorgoneion in\nthe interior and large eyes on the exterior, which form the prelude to\nthe R.F. series. In the next stage a B.F. subject, such as a warrior,\nhorseman, or deer, takes the place of the Gorgoneion; the exteriors are\nR.F., but the eyes are retained, allowing only of a single figure each\nside. Three of these are painted by Epiktetos, others by Pamphaios and\nChelis. The third stage has only R.F. interiors, the exterior\npreserving the same character; instances may be found among the works\nof Chelis and Pheidippos. Finally, there is a long series of nearly\neighty cups and plates, many of the former with interior designs only,\nin which the eyes are finally dropped, and the exterior subjects are\ndeveloped into regular friezes, being often mythological. These include\nthe majority of the works of Epiktetos, Pamphaios, and Chachrylion, the\nlatter of whom marks the transition to the next stage.\n\nTurning now to the works of other artists in this period, and passing\nover Andokides, whom we have already discussed (p. 386), we find that\n=Euthymides= is the most conspicuous name after those of the\ncup-painters.[1333] Strictly speaking, he does not belong exclusively\nto the severe period, at least in point of date, though his style is\ncomparatively behindhand; as we shall see, he was partly contemporary\nwith Euphronios. His style is curiously similar to that of Phintias, as\nis shown by the fact that the same unsigned vases have been attributed\nto both by different authorities. Five vases bear his signature (in two\ncases \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5, in the others \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03b7), and he gives the additional\ninformation that he was the son of Polios. He uses three \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\u2014\nMegakles, Smikythos, and Phayllos, the first-named being also employed\nby Phintias. Two of his vases (in Munich; see Fig. 137) are amphorae,\none a hydria, one a _psykter_, and one a circular dish or plate like\nthose of Epiktetos.\n\nThe similarity of his work to that of Phintias suggests that they were\npartners. A vase with the inscription \u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5, \u0395\u1f50\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u201cThis [vase\nI dedicate] to thee, Euthymides,\u201d has been attributed by Hartwig to\nPhintias, and may be an interesting instance of the friendship existing\nbetween the two artists. On the other hand, Euthymides seems to have\nviewed with apprehension and jealousy the growing success of his\njunior, Euphronios. On one of the Munich amphorae he places the\nboast\u2014by no means with justification\u2014\u201cEuphronios never made the like\u201d\n(\u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2).\n\nThe height of his activity may be placed about 500\u2013490 B.C., a date\nwhich suits the use of the name Megakles. This probably denotes the\ngrandfather of Alkibiades and uncle of Perikles, who was ostracised in\n487 B.C. The same name, as is well known, occurs on the warrior-tablet\nfound on the Acropolis[1334], and on the strength of this Hoppin\nattributes the tablet to Euthymides.[1335] There is, however, no proof\nthat such tablets, which belong rather to the higher branch of painting\nat that time, were made by vase-painters.\n\nThe style of Euthymides and his preference for the amphora seem to\nindicate that he was much under the influence of Andokides. He still\nclings to the old style in his methods of decoration, as in the borders\nof the designs. His individuality, says Hoppin, is best shown in his\ndraperies, the details of which are faintly indicated in red, and he\nshows some skill in foreshortening, but his heads are too large. He\nalso exhibits a strong preference for mythological subjects, such as\nthe arming of Hector, but usually balances these subjects with a\ngenre-scene from the gymnasium or symposium.\n\nHis partner =Phintias=[1336] is distinguished from him in one\nrespect\u2014namely, that he painted cups as well as other shapes. But his\ncups have nothing in common with his Epictetan cycle, and seem rather\nto have been under the influence of Euphronios. We may therefore regard\nhim as another connecting-link between the severe and strong periods.\nEight vases are actually signed by him,[1337] though one of these has\nno subject, being merely modelled in the form of a head (see below, p.\n493); but from his use of Megakles and Chairias as \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, and\nother indications, Hartwig has been enabled to add to the number no\nless than twelve cups and eleven other vases[1338].\n\nThe cups are mostly small, with interior designs only, and those single\nfigures; his composition is not a strong point, but the single figures\nare good, especially the nude forms; his draperies are stiff, but\neffective, and his heads are influenced by Euphronios, as Hartwig notes.\n\nA pair of painters that may be linked together are =Oltos= and\n=Euxitheos=, the former the painter, the latter the potter, of a kylix\nin Berlin (2264). We also have a magnificent kylix at Corneto, with the\nname of Euxitheos as potter, probably painted by Oltos; on one side of\nthe exterior is an assemblage of the gods, on the other a Dionysiac\nscene.[1339] In the British Museum is an amphora, also made by\nEuxitheos (E 258; signed on handles), with a single figure each side\n(Achilles and Briseis), and a krater in the Louvre with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name\nLeagros seems to be by the same hand.[1340] Hartwig, who regards Oltos\nas the painter in each case, shows his connection on the one side with\nAndokides and Euthymides, on the other with Hieron. He displays a\npreference for large figures and for Dionysiac subjects.\n\nThe one vase of _Hypsis_, a hydria,[1341] must be of early date; the\nshape, ornamentation, and arrangement of the designs are purely B.F. in\ncharacter. We have two vases of the _alabastron_ form[1342]\u2014an unusual\none for signatures\u2014made by _Hilinos_ and painted by _Psiax_, and a\nkylix of Epictetan style in Munich signed by the latter.[1343] The two\nformer are each decorated with two figures in a simple, severe, yet\neffective style; the latter has a B.F. interior (figure of Seilenos),\nand R.F. exterior with the large eyes, and a warrior on one side only.\nIn the latter case the signature is simply [\u03a6\u03a3\u0399\u0391\u039e\u03a3], without a verb; on\nthe Odessa vase the imperfect tense \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 is used, the casual use of\nwhich is a characteristic of the transitional period.[1344] Mr. Hoppin\nhas given several reasons for attributing an early date to those two\nartists (about 520\u2013500), not the least convincing of which is the use\nof a B.F. technique and of the large eyes.\n\nWe now find ourselves at the point where =Euphronios= forces his way to\nthe front as the great master in the new school of painting in which\nthe influence of Kimon of Kleonae can be traced.[1345] Hartwig compares\nthis new departure of art to the Italian schools of painting in the\nfifteenth century, in which also naturalism and a knowledge of\nperspective become the characteristics in which they differ most\nmarkedly from their predecessors. The early work of the school of\nEuphronios, which we may place about 500\u2013480 B.C., is best illustrated\nby the series of cups with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name Leagros, which must belong to\nthis time. This name is found on two of the vases signed by Euphronios,\nthe Antaios krater in the Louvre and the Geryon kylix in Munich, of\nwhich Chachrylion was the potter. The fact that it is found also on\nsome B.F. vases[1346] seems to argue, not for its appearance previous\nto this date, but rather for the view that at the beginning of the\nfifth century there was still a preference for the old method for\ncertain shapes\u2014the amphora, hydria, and lekythos. It may also be\ninferred that Euphronios had already appeared on the scene while\nChachrylion, Pamphaios, and Oltos were still painting more in the\nmanner of Epiktetos, and hence we are justified in regarding those\nartists as belonging to the severe style, even though they overlap with\nthe succeeding period.\n\nThe labours of Hartwig and other scholars have now made it possible to\nassociate an extensive series of vases with the school of Euphronios,\nbut there are only ten in existence which actually bear his\nsignature.[1347] They are as follows (the order being roughly\nchronological):\u2014\n\n (1) Krater in Louvre, G 103: Herakles and Antaios; musical\n performance. Pottier, _Louvre Atlas_, pls. 100, 101.\n\n (2) Psykter in Petersburg, 1670: Banquet of Hetairae.\n\n (3) Kylix in Munich, 337: Herakles and Geryon. Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, pl. 22 = Plate XXXVIII.\n\n (4) Kylix in Louvre, G 104: Theseus\u2019 adventures. Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, pl. 5; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14.\n\n (5) Kylix in Bibl. Nat., 526: Scene from Doloneia (fragmentary).\n Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 137.\n\n (6) Kylix in Brit. Mus., E 44: Herakles and Eurystheus. Furtwaengler\n and Reichhold, pl. 23.\n\n (7) Kylix in Perugia: Achilles and Troilos scenes. Hartwig, pls. 58\u20139.\n\n (8) Kylix in Berlin, 2281: Sack of Troy (fragmentary).\n\n (9) Kylix in Boston: Banquet scenes. Hartwig, pls. 47\u20138.\n\n (10) Kylix in Berlin, 2282 (polychrome): Achilles and Diomede.\n Hartwig, pls. 51\u20132.\n\nIn the first three instances he signs \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd, in the rest \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe Louvre krater shows Euphronios in his early manner, when, as Murray\nsays, \u201che was in the mood of drawing massive limbs and colossal\nproportions.\u201d The \u201ctype\u201d of the Herakles and Antaios is interesting as\na reminiscence of the B.F. wrestling-scheme adopted for Herakles and\nthe Nemean lion (see Chapter XIV.). The chief variation is that the\nfigures are posed in a sort of elongated isosceles triangle, no doubt\nwith the intention of showing Herakles\u2019 efforts to raise the giant from\nthe earth to which he so strenuously clings. In the form of Antaios we\nalready observe the capacity for rendering a body accurately in\ndifferent planes which was one of the chief distinctions of the new\nschool. On the other hand, the agitated female figures in the\nbackground are depicted in the old quasi-Egyptian attitudes, with\nbodies in front view and heads in profile; yet in the treatment of\ntheir draperies there is a great advance.\n\nThe Geryon cup (Plate XXXVIII.) is a wonderful combination of\npicturesque and effective grouping with elaboration of detail, and is\nso far the most naturalistic piece of work that any vase-painter has\nproduced. Here again the old B.F. \u201ctype\u201d is retained, at least for the\nGeryon, who appears as the \u201cthree men joined together\u201d of the Kypselos\nchest,[1348] one of whom falls backward wounded. But the whole scene is\nvivid and instinct with life; even Athena and Iolaos, instead of calmly\nwatching the contest, join in animated comment thereon, and the former\nseems to be hastening forward to join in the fray. Not the least\neffective part of the design is formed by the group of Geryon\u2019s cows on\nthe reverse, which show that Euphronios was a keen observer of nature\nand anatomy, and the varied poses and skilful grouping of the herd are\nstriking instances of his art in composition.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXVIII\n\n[Illustration: KYLIX BY EUPHRONIOS (IN MUNICH): HERAKLES SLAYING\nGERYON.]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nAs typical of his later manner (about 480\u2013460 B.C.) we may take the\nBritish Museum kylix and that in the museum at Perugia. They bear\nrespectively the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names Panaitios and Lykos, while the\ncontemporary Berlin cup (2282) has the name of Glaukon. These clearly\nform a new group, distinct from the Leagros series, and, if the\nhistorical identification of Glaukon (see p. 404 above, and Chapter\nXVII.) is correct, enable us to place them about 470\u2013460 B.C. The\ninterior group of the British Museum cup shows us two figures, a woman\nstanding by the side of a man, who is seated to the front and drawn in\na very boldly foreshortened attitude. Their physiognomy, in particular\nthe large prominent nose, is especially characteristic of Euphronios\u2019\nriper style, and in the treatment of the drapery we distinguish a great\nadvance even on his earlier vases. Not only is it executed with perfect\nfreedom and naturalness, but even different qualities of material are\nindicated, _e.g._ by the use of fine crinkly lines. The Theseus kylix\nin the Louvre, which Hartwig regards as the highest point of the R.F.\nstyle, a study in idealism rather than naturalism, is also conspicuous\nfor its excellence in this respect.\n\nThe Troilos kylix in Perugia, which as far as can be ascertained is the\nlatest of Euphronios\u2019 works, is interesting, apart from its artistic\ntreatment, as an instance of the current tendency to combine interior\nand exterior scenes in one whole, representing distinct or successive\nepisodes of a single subject. On one side of the exterior, Achilles,\nhaving emerged from his ambush, drags the unfortunate boy by his hair\nto the altar at which the tragedy is to be consummated; his horses\nbetake themselves off with flying reins. Meanwhile, on the other side,\nTroilos\u2019 Trojan comrades, as on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, hastily arm\nthemselves in order to come to his rescue. But the interior scene shows\nus that their efforts are in vain; the boy, in whose countenance fear\nand agony are admirably depicted, is about to fall a victim to the\nsword of his relentless foe, who in a vigorous yet even graceful\nattitude raises his arm to deal the death-blow. Of the vase as a whole\nMurray says, \u201cThere is no mistaking in it the presence of all the best\nand strongest qualities of Euphronios, though in a more subdued and\nmore poetic form. His draperies...are full of refinement and beauty.\u201d\n\nIt remains to say a word on Euphronios in another aspect\u2014as a painter\nin polychrome on white ground. The Berlin cup No. 2282, sadly\nfragmentary as it is, bears not only the signature of Euphronios, but\nthe \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name Glaukon, to which we have already referred. The method\nof painting, to which we have referred on a subsequent page (p. 457),\nwas one just at its height in the middle of the fifth century. The two\nheads, which are the best-preserved parts of the cup, are remarkable\nfor their breadth and largeness of style, and for their idealising\ntendency, which recalls the coins of a slightly later period and such\nworks of sculpture as the ephebos-head from the Athenian Acropolis, to\nsay nothing of the sculptures of Olympia.\n\nWe must not, however, omit to notice here the views of some recent\nwriters, who are inclined to doubt whether the paintings on some of\nthese later vases are actually from Euphronios' hand.[1349] It is\ncertainly noteworthy that he has ceased to sign \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5; but to maintain\nthat the \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, where no other painter\u2019s name occurs, does not\ninclude the painting of the vase, is to rest on somewhat negative\nevidence, and would also lead to the refusal to recognise Chachrylion\nand other noted artists as the painters of their signed vases. If,\nhowever, this view is to be accepted, it would entail the attribution\nof the scenes on the Troilos cup to _Onesimos_, who painted a cup of\nsimilar style in the Louvre,[1350] of which Euphronios was the potter.\nHartwig thinks that the Berlin cup is not by Euphronios, but would\nattribute to him a similar fragmentary cup in the British Museum (D 1).\nThe beautiful Aphrodite cup in the same collection (D 2) bears the\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name of Glaukon, but in view of what has been said any attempt to\nattribute it to Euphronios would be dangerous.[1351]\n\nWe now have to deal with a trio of his contemporaries, men of marked\nindividuality and capacity, who display the same instincts for\nnaturalism and freedom of style, though no one of them rises quite to\nthe height of Euphronios\u2019 genius.\n\nOf these =Duris= has left a total of twenty-three signed vases, of\nwhich no less than twenty-one are kylikes, the other two being a\nkantharos and a psykter. He signs almost consistently \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5, but\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd in addition on the kantharos; he employs three potters at\ndifferent times\u2014Python (who worked for Epiktetos), Kleophrades (who\nworked for Amasis II.), and Kalliades. Of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names he uses no less\nthan five, the first two of which go together in his earlier\nperiod\u2014Chairestratos and Panaitios. The latter name, as we have seen,\nwas used by Euphronios. On the vases in his later manner the names of\nAristagoras, Hermogenes, and Hippodamas appear. He seems to have been\nabout ten years the junior of Euphronios, but to what extent he was\ninfluenced by him is uncertain. Murray traces the influence of the\nother in his later manner, when he forsakes his old love of figures in\nrepose for subjects entailing violent action. Hartwig, on the other\nhand, attributes this change to the influence of Brygos; and in any\ncase, it is certain that he never attained to the vitality and freedom\nof Euphronios.\n\nHis style is so marked that it is possible\u2014apart from the evidence of\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\u2014to attribute to him many vases not actually signed by him,\nas may be gathered from the study of his work by Hartwig.[1352] In his\nearlier vases he shows a strong preference for scenes from the\npalaestra, and only two are mythological. According to Hartwig it is\nthese vases that show the closest parallelism with Euphronios, both in\nchoice of subject and in treatment. The later works show a great and\nsurprising falling off, and are frequently dull and comparatively\ncareless. They show, in fact, a change from the perfecting of\nnaturalism to mere mannerism, and this in spite of the change in\nsubjects from repose to violent action. It is probable that he fell\naway from the influence of Euphronios to that of Hieron and Brygos,\nlacking entirely, as he did, the genius of the older artist. On the\nother hand, his choice of subjects becomes much more varied, many being\nheroic or mythological, and among these scenes from the labours of\nTheseus take the place of the older athletic types (cf. p. 418). He is\nalso fond of banquet-scenes at all times, and found in them scope for\nbold foreshortening as applied to figures in repose.[1353]\n\nThe best-known vase by Duris is a kylix in Berlin (2285 = Plate\nXXXIX.), on the exterior of which are painted scenes from a school. On\none side a boy receives instruction in the lyre, while another stands\nbefore his teacher reading from a roll on which is inscribed the first\nline of an epic poem: \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u1f10\u03cd\u03c1\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b5\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\n(see Chapter XVII.). On the other side, the five figures on which\nexactly balance those on the first, we have a lesson on the flute and\nin drawing or writing; the seated figure in the middle holds a pen and\nan open tablet. The fifth figure in each case is a bearded man, seated\non a stool watching the proceedings. In the field are suspended lyres,\nwriting-tables, and rolls of manuscript. There is also a beautiful cup\nin the Louvre, the interior of which represents Eos with the body of\nMemnon; the exterior, Homeric combats.[1354] Of the three examples of\nhis work in the British Museum, one is occupied with the labours of\nTheseus (Frontispiece); another (E 49) shows his love of slim nude\nfigures, contrasted with careful and formal drapery. The peculiar shape\nof the heads should be noticed; also the treatment of the eye, as a\ncircle with a dot in the centre. Like Epiktetos, a slave of precision,\nhe in nearly all these cases avoids violence of action, and seeks after\na quiet gracefulness. His peculiarly fine technical skill appears to\nhave been much appreciated in his day.[1355]\n\n=Hieron= has signed twenty-eight vases, all being kylikes except three,\nwhich are kotylae. His invariable formula is \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, and the\nsignature is generally incised on the handle of the vase. Hartwig is\ninclined to attribute one or two cups with this signature to another\nmaster, who had a preference for introducing bald-headed figures[1356];\nand, in regard to others, there is fairly certain evidence that they\nwere not painted by him. For instance, a very fine kylix with the\ncarrying off of Helen bears the name of _Makron_ as painter,[1357] and\nit is possible that others are actually painted by that artist, who in\nany case must have been a partner of his. His work is regarded by\nHartwig as full of individuality and excellence. Hieron, on the other\nhand, is inclined to the repetition of certain types, little\nindividualised. He seems to have been trained in the school of Oltos\nrather than that of Euphronios,[1358] except that he learned from the\nlatter the use of foreshortening. His only \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name is that of\nHippodamas, also used by Duris.\n\nHis subjects comprise scenes from myth and legend, musical and\nconversational groups, and Dionysiac scenes. He is fond of decorating\nhis exteriors with rows of men and women of a somewhat sentimental\ntype, smelling flowers, or in amorous converse. But he rises to higher\nflights in the Berlin cup (2290), with Maenads sacrificing to Dionysos\nDendrites, and still more in the splendid kotyle in the British Museum\n(E 140 = Plate LI.), with the gathering of the Eleusinian deities at\nthe sending forth of Triptolemos (see Chapter XII.).\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XXXIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n 1, KYLIX BY DURIS (IN BERLIN): SCHOOL SCENE.\n 2, KYLIX IN STYLE OF BRYGOS (CORNETO): THESEUS DESERTING ARIADNE.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nHis figures exhibit a strongly marked type of head, large and simple,\nperhaps developed from those of Duris. But it is in the treatment of\ndrapery that he chiefly excels, especially in the British Museum kotyle\nand the Berlin cup. Particular mention should be made of the elaborate\ngarment worn by Demeter on the former, with its rich figured\nembroideries (see Chapter XVI.); and the robes of Persephone, though\nsimpler in decoration, show an even greater richness of treatment in\nthe delicate lines of the chiton and the graceful fall of the mantle.\nOn a cup in Berlin with the Judgment of Paris (Fig. 129) he makes a\nnotable attempt at landscape, showing Paris seated on a rock,\nsurrounded by a flock of goats.\n\n=Brygos= has only left eight cups, but they are on the whole of a high\norder of merit. The Acropolis excavations yielded a fragment of his\nwork, showing that the beginning of his career must be placed before\n480 B.C. But although he retains some archaisms from his early\ntraining, he stands, as Murray has pointed out, on the threshold of the\nfine style, and in some of his compositions there is a distinctly\npictorial tendency. His use of gilding (as on E 65 in B.M.) is also, as\nwith Euphronios in his polychrome cup, an evidence of advanced work. He\nshows in his work more directness and actuality, as compared with the\nstateliness and grace of Hieron and Makron, and the infusion of\nearnestness and animation into his figures is a typical\ncharacteristic.[1359] He pays more attention to his compositions than\nto his single figures, but lacks the rhythm of Euphronios.\n\nHis subjects are very varied, and cover almost all the vase-painters'\nground except the palaestra. Hartwig on this account connects him with\nthe school of Oltos, Hieron, and Peithinos, who preferred erotic and\nDionysiac to athletic subjects, and points out that his use of bold\nforeshortening effects need not connote the direct influence of\nEuphronios, inasmuch as \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 were by this time the common property\nof vase- painters. It is interesting to note that he uses no\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name, and both he and Hieron seem to belong to a time when this\nfashion was dying out; by the end of the \u201cstrong\u201d period it had\npractically disappeared.\n\nTo speak of his vases in detail, the British Museum cup has been\npraised for the composition and drawing of its exterior designs and its\nclever foreshortening. The exterior subject is interesting as being\nderived from a Satyric drama. The difference of scale between the\nfigures of deities and those of the Satyrs reminds us (though there is\nof course no question of influence) of the similar treatment of the\neast frieze of the Parthenon. It has been suggested by several writers\nthat the name Brygos implies a Macedonian origin for this painter, and\non these grounds a kylix in the British Museum (E 68) has been\nattributed to him which bears inscriptions in the Macedonian or some\nkindred dialect\u2014Pilon for Philon, Pilipos for Philippos (see Chapter\nXVII.). This cup is interesting for the introduction of a new type,\nthat of the young dancing girl.[1360] The beautiful cup on Plate XXXIX.\n(fig. 2) has also been referred to him. Among other interesting\nsubjects are the Triptolemos cup in Frankfurt, the cup with the\nJudgment of Paris (which may be compared with that of Hieron), and the\nSack of Troy cup in the Louvre (Plate LIV.). This latter subject we\nhave already seen treated as a whole by Euphronios, though previously\nit had only appeared in the form of isolated episodes; but the growing\ntendency to pictorial treatment of such subjects is well illustrated by\nthe cup of Brygos and the later Vivenzio hydria in Naples.\n\n=Peithinos= is a master who has been largely rediscovered by Hartwig.\nOnly one cup with his signature is known, a fine example in Berlin\n(2279) with the Euphronian \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name Athenodotos, and the interior\nsubject of Peleus seizing Thetis, treated with great decorative effect.\nHartwig traces his style in eight more cups, chiefly with erotic and\nbanqueting subjects, and points out among the former an early instance\nof sentimentality in vase-painting in the figure of a love-sick man. He\ncharacterises his style as \u201cover-ripe archaism,\u201d with a slight\nreversion to the mannerisms of Exekias, and great attention to detail\nin general. He sees in Peithinos the first instance of the pictorial\ntendency of which we have spoken, contrasting him with Euphronios and\nother painters who were always in the first instance draughtsmen.\n\nIn the Berlin Museum there is a magnificent cup (2278)[1361] purporting\nto be made by _Sosias_, a name which does not otherwise occur.[1362] In\nthe absence of indications of the painter, Hartwig and Furtwaengler are\ninclined to think that the decoration may be the work of Peithinos; but\nthis can hardly amount to more than a matter of individual opinion. It\nis one of the most sumptuously decorated cups of this period that we\npossess, but the exterior is unfortunately greatly damaged. In the\ninterior Achilles is represented binding up the wounded arm of his\ncomrade Patroklos. The expressions of the figures and the remarkable\nforeshortening of Patroklos\u2019 right leg are indications of the admirable\nskill of the painter, whoever he may have been. On the exterior is an\nassemblage of gods and goddesses to receive Herakles on his entry into\nOlympos, including seventeen figures in all, distinguished by\ninscriptions.\n\nIn the later chapters of his great work Hartwig has disentangled the\nstyles of several masters of this period, though not in every case is\nhe able to give their names; but some vases can be grouped together by\nmeans of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names or by special peculiarities, such as the use of a\nconventional foliage-ornament. They are, however, for the most part of\ninferior merit to those of the painters hitherto discussed. Among the\npainters\u2019 names are those of Amasis II., Apollodoros, and Onesimos; the\nlatter has already been mentioned in connection with Euphronios.\n\nGenerally speaking, the chief characteristic of the cups of this period\nis the tendency to treat the interior and exterior as representing\nsuccessive episodes of one theme,[1363] as in the Troilos cup of\nEuphronios, or at least as having some connection, more or less\ndefinite, as in the Theseus cup of the same master.\n\nBoth in exterior and interior designs the development of composition is\nvery strongly marked, and there is a notable tendency to enhance the\neffect of interior scenes by rich decorative borders. Even in the work\nof individual painters a great development is to be observed, showing\nhow rapid the growth of artistic power was at this time; and thus we\nare able to distinguish in Euphronios and Duris an earlier and a later\nmanner. As Hartwig has said (p. 95), the period of progress associated\nwith the names of Euphronios and Brygos is characterised by an\nindividuality and freedom which were partly the cause and partly the\neffect of a closer study of nature and an increased capacity for\nrendering it.\n\nAmong other artists of the time, almost the only conspicuous name is\nthat of _Smikros_, the painter of two stamni, in the British Museum (E\n438) and Brussels,[1364] and also most probably of a \u201cNolan\u201d amphora in\nthe Louvre (G 107), which is inscribed [\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0395\u0399 \u03a3\u039c\u0399\u039a\u03a1\u03a9\u0399 \u0395\u0399\u039d\u0391\u0399], \u201cThis is\nevidently Smikros\u2019 work.\u201d He signs in both the former cases with\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd. He appears, says M. Gaspar, as a rival of Euphronios and\nDuris, but fails in the attempt to equal their achievements in\nvividness, originality, and faithful reproduction of the human figure.\nThe Brussels stamnos is interesting as representing inscribed persons\nfrom ordinary life, just as Phintias (see p. 429) introduces on a vase\nfigures of the artists Tlenpolemos and Euthymides. Klein also\nattributes to him a krater at Arezzo[1365] with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name\nPheidiades, which occurs on the signed vases. It is remarkable for the\ntreatment of the subject (Herakles and the Amazons) in the style of the\nB.F. vases.\n\nThe next development of R.F. vase-painting, which presents all the\ncharacteristics of the best period of Greek art and of the highest\npoint to which that art attained, is that called the =fine style=. In\nthis the influence of painting first really begins to manifest itself,\nespecially that of the Polygnotan school, which covers the years\n470\u2013440 B.C. It is shown alike in composition and in drawing, and to a\nlesser degree in the colouring; but the general use of colours and\ngilding on vases really belongs to the succeeding stage. As regards the\ndrawing, the figures have lost the hardness which at first\ncharacterised them; the eyes are no longer represented obliquely, but\nin profile; the extremities are finished with greater care, the chin\nand nose are more rounded, and have lost the extreme elongation of the\nearlier schools. The limbs are fuller and thicker, the faces noble, the\nhair of the head and beard treated with greater breadth and mass, just\nas subsequently the painter Zeuxis gave more flesh to his figures in\norder to make them appear of greater breadth and grandeur, like Homer,\nwho represented even his women of larger proportions.[1366]\n\nThe great charm of these designs is the beauty of the composition, and\nthe more perfect proportion of the figures. The head is an oval,\nthree-quarters of which forms the distance from the chin to the ear;\nthe disproportionate length of limbs has entirely disappeared, and the\ncountenance assumes a natural form and expression. The folds of the\ndrapery, too, are freer, and the attitudes have lost their old\nrigidity. It is the outgrowth of the life and freedom of an ideal\nproportion, united with careful composition. Before the introduction of\nthe Polygnotan style of composition, the figures are generally large,\nand arranged in groups of two or three on each side, occupying about\ntwo-thirds of the height of the vase; but the pictorial influence is\nmore in the direction of smaller figures, grouped at different levels.\nFigures in full face are now much less uncommon. In some of the larger\nvases with figures on both sides, such as the kraters, the reverse side\nis not finished with the same care as the obverse, being intended to\nstand against a wall, or at least to be less prominently seen.\n\nThe career of Polygnotos extends from 478 B.C. to 447 B.C., as far as\ncan be gathered from the various works on which we know him to have\nbeen engaged. In 478 he painted frescoes for the temple of Athena Areia\nat Plataea, in 474 he decorated the Theseion and Anakeion at Athens, in\n460 he worked with Mikon on the Stoa Poikile, and from 458 to 447 he\nwas engaged on his great paintings of the \u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u039d\u03ad\u03ba\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1 for\nthe Lesche at Delphi.[1367] As all these paintings are described more\nor less in detail by Pausanias, their subjects form a valuable clue to\nthe investigation of his influence on the vases.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 103. KRATER OF POLYGNOTAN STYLE IN LOUVRE:\n THE SLAYING OF THE NIOBIDS.\n]\n\nAt first, indeed, this is limited to single figures or motives[1368];\nit is not until about 470 that his method of composition, with its\nrough perspective and variety of level, finds its way on to the vases.\nThe oldest vase on which these new features appear is the krater from\nOrvieto in the Louvre,[1369] which has usually been placed about 470,\nthough at first sight it appears to be later; but certain small details\nof an archaic character point the other way. The main subject is a\ngroup of Argonauts, which has been variously interpreted, but Robert\nsuggests that the scene represents their preparations for departure,\nand is thus able to associate it with a painting by Mikon in the\nAnakeion, on which that subject was employed. The various vases which\ndepict the story of Theseus\u2019 visit to Amphitrite[1370] are referred\nalso by Robert to an original by Mikon in the Theseion (about 470\nB.C.). The cup of Euphronios (p. 431) and the Girgenti krater represent\na stage of the subject contemporary with that painter; on the Bologna\nkrater we have a reduced version of his work; and on the Tricase vase\nfrom Ruvo, which belongs to the school of Hermonax (see below) a\nsimpler form of the myth occurs, contemporary with the preceding.\n\nThe technique and colouring of Polygnotos\u2019 works find their reflection\nprincipally in the polychrome vases (see below, p. 455). On the\nred-figured vases of this period we must look for his influence rather\nin the arrangement and poses of the figures, the methods of indicating\nlocality, and the attempts at perspective. Professor Robert\u2019s ingenious\nreproductions of his paintings[1371] may be profitably compared with\nsuch vases as the Orvieto krater, the Blacas krater in the British\nMuseum (E 466 = Plate LIII.), or the somewhat later hydria of Meidias\n(see below). The principle adopted was that of arranging the figures,\nnot in even rows or in proper perspective, but at different levels,\nthose in the background being sometimes half hidden by rising ground.\nIt is a principle which we shall find even more fully developed in the\nSouth Italy vases of the succeeding century; but it was at the time of\nits appearance quite sudden and unexpected, contradicting at first\nsight the decorative principles of vase-painting. Polygnotos was also\nfond of indicating characteristics of his personages or allusions to\ntheir history by means of subtle touches or actions. Thus Phaedra was\nrepresented in a swing, Eriphyle with her hand on her neck (with\nreference to the necklace), Theseus and Peirithoos in sitting postures,\nand so on. This is quite in the manner of the fifth-century\nvase-painter. Finally, the late F. D\u00fcmmler has pointed out that his\ninfluence is possibly to be traced in another manner on certain vases,\nviz. in the use of the dialect of Paros and Thasos for the inscriptions\ninstead of Attic forms.[1372] It should be borne in mind that he was a\nnative of Thasos, and would naturally have used his native dialect for\nthe inscriptions over his figures.\n\nThe following is a list of vases showing Polygnotan influence:\n\n(1) In types and motives only (470\u2013460 B.C.)[1373]:\n\n B.M. E 170, 450, 469; Berlin 2403 = Reinach, i. 450; Naples 2421\n = Reinach, ii. 278 and 3089 = Millingen- Reinach, 33;\n Reinach, i. 184 (two vases), 218, 221; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pl.\n 10, fig. 2; Millingen-Reinach, 49\u201350; Furtwaengler, _50^{tes}\n Winckelmannsfestprogr._ pl. 2[1374]; Louvre A 256 =\n _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11 (D\u00fcmmler).\n\n(2) In method of composition (460\u2013440 B.C.)[1375]:\n\n B.M. E 224, E 466, E 492; Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217 and 2471 =\n _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 55; Naples R.C. 239 = Reinach, i. 482;\n Jatta 1093, 1095, 1498 = Reinach, i. 175, 119, 111; Petersburg\n 1792, 1807 = Reinach, i. 1, 7; Reinach, i. 522, 5 (in Bologna);\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. 36 (_ibid._); Reinach, i. 191; and reflecting\n the style of Polygnotos or of Mikon: Reinach, i. 226\u201327 =\n _J.H.S._ x. p. 118 (Louvre); Reinach, i. 232 = _J.H.S._ xviii. p.\n 277.\n\nTo these may perhaps be added:\n\n Naples 2889 = Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. In\u00e9d._ pls. 13\u20134; Athens 1921 =\n Reinach, i. 511; Berlin 2326 (see _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 172).\n\nIn this stage, as has been noted, artists\u2019 signatures are far more rare\nthan in either of the two preceding, and cup-painters in particular are\nfew and far between. The \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, too, have almost entirely come to\nan end. Of the cup-painters the only known names are those of Aeson,\nErginos and Aristophanes, Hegias, Hegesiboulos, Sotades, and Xenotimos,\nand of these four (Aeson, Hegesiboulos, Hegias,[1376] and\nXenotimos[1377]) are only represented by single specimens. Two very\nfine cups, made by _Erginos_ and painted by _Aristophanes_, are in the\nmuseums of Berlin and Boston respectively,\u2014the former decorated with\nscenes from the Gigantomachia within and without (Fig. 112); the latter\nhas in the interior Herakles rescuing Deianeira from Nessos, on the\nexterior a battle of Centaurs and Lapiths. An unsigned duplicate of\nthis vase was acquired by the Boston Museum at the same time.[1378] The\nvase by _Aeson_ is decorated with scenes from the labours of\nTheseus.[1379]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XL\n\n[Illustration:\n\n CUPS BY SOTADES.\n 1, IN BOSTON; 2, BRIT. MUS.: POLYEIDOS IN THE TOMB OF GLAUKOS.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n_Sotades_ stands apart from his contemporaries as an artist of much\nindividuality, with a tendency to great refinement and delicacy in his\nwork. He has left one R.F. kantharos and some half-dozen vases of the\nwhite-ground type, two with very interesting subjects (see also p.\n457); all but the first were formerly in M. van Branteghem\u2019s\ncollection, and these are now divided between the British and Boston\nMuseums. He is remarkable for his extremely delicate cups, with handles\nin the form of a chicken\u2019s merrythought, and he also made two phialae\nwith white interior and moulded exterior painted in rings of red,\nwhite, and black; on the interior of one of these a cicala (\u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c4\u03b9\u03be) is\ningeniously modelled so as to appear resting there (Plate XL.).\n_Hegesiboulos_, one of whose vases was also in the Van Branteghem\ncollection,[1380] seems to have been an artist of similar tendencies.\n\nOf the rest, _Epigenes'_ name appears on a small kantharos in the\nBiblioth\u00e8que Nationale, and those of _Megakles_ and _Maurion_ on\npyxides. Among the painters who exercised their skill on larger vases\nthe most noteworthy is _Polygnotos_, who has left an amphora and two\nstamni. The similarity of his name to that of the great contemporary\npainter has naturally led to conjectures as to a possible connection of\nthe two, which has been discussed by Professor Robert in publishing two\nof the vases with his signature.[1381] His conclusion is that they\nbelong to the period 460\u2013450 B.C., in which the influence of the\npainter is beginning to make itself felt, but only in isolated figures\nand motives, not, as in a class of which we shall presently speak, in\nthe composition of scenes. The earliest of the three is the stamnos in\nBrussels, with the subject of Kaineus overwhelmed by the\nCentaurs[1382]; next comes the stamnos with the combat of Herakles and\nthe Centaur Dexamenos[1383]; and lastly the British Museum\namphora,[1384] which retains an archaic form, but in its style and\ndrawing presents no traces of archaism.[1385] In the reverses of his\nvases, with their tendency to meaningless and carelessly drawn figures,\nwe seem to trace the beginnings of the decadence. _Hermonax_, who\npainted four stamni and a \u201cpelike,\u201d seems to be closely associated in\nstyle with Polygnotos.[1386] Professor Robert would also attribute to a\npupil of Polygnotos three fine R.F. cups of about 445 B.C.\u2014the Kodros\ncup in Bologna (Chapter XIV.) and two in Berlin (2537\u201338), with the\nsubjects of the birth of Erichthonios, and Aegeus consulting the oracle\nof Themis.\n\n_Nikias_, of whom we have only one example, a bell-shaped krater in the\nBritish Museum (formerly in the Tyszkiewicz collection),[1387] is\nevidently, from the form of the vase and the style of the paintings, an\nartist of the latest stage of R.F. vase-painting at Athens. He is,\nhowever, remarkable in one respect, namely the form of his\nsignature,[1388] which gives not only his parentage but\u2014a unique\ninstance among vase-painters\u2014his deme:\n\n \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f18\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe subject of the vase is the torch-race, one often found on late\nAthenian kraters, and seldom at an earlier date.\n\nLastly we have a hydria from the hand of _Meidias_, in the British\nMuseum, which originally formed part of the Hamilton collection (Plate\nXLI.). Winckelmann estimated it above all other vases known to him, and\nregarded it as illustrating the highest achievement of the Greeks in\nthe way of drawing. His criticism is hardly even now out of date, in\nspite of the enormous number that now challenge comparison with it, as\nfar as concerns the beauty and richness of the drawing and of the\ncomposition. The artist, says Furtwaengler, \u201crevels in a sea of beauty\nand grace; youth and charm are idealised in his work.\u201d In point of\nstyle it belongs to the epoch of the Peloponnesian War, about 430\u2013420\nB.C., but so admirable is the work that it can hardly be placed so low\nas the contemporary vases of \u201clate fine\u201d style, with their patent\nevidences of decadence. Meidias may therefore fairly be included with\nthe foregoing.[1389]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLI\n\n[Illustration: HYDRIA BY MEIDIAS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThe subjects represented are arranged in two friezes all round the\nvase, the upper containing the rape of the Leukippidae by the\nDioskuri\u2014a subject which had been chosen by Polygnotos for his painting\nin the Anakeion.[1390] Not only this, but all the vases with the same\nsubject are doubtless largely indebted to the painting for their ideas,\nespecially in the system of composition with figures at different\nlevels.[1391] On the lower row the front view shows Herakles in the\ngarden of the Hesperides, and at the back is a group of Athenian tribal\nheroes.[1392] All the figures have their names inscribed; these,\ntogether with the artist\u2019s signature, were only first noticed by\nGerhard in 1839. Among the details of treatment are to be noted the\nexquisitely fine lines for the folds of drapery, and the elaborate\nchequers and other patterns representing embroidery, the occasional use\nof gilding, the attempts to impart expression to faces by means of\nwrinkles, and the characteristic rendering of the hair with wavy dark\nlines of thinned black on a brown wash.\n\nThe last artist of Athenian origin who remains to be mentioned is\n_Xenophantos_, a contemporary of Meidias, whose name appears on a vase\nfound at Kertch and now in the Hermitage at Petersburg.[1393] Here he\nexpressly calls himself an Athenian, and it has therefore been supposed\nthat the vase was made on the spot, otherwise it would not be obvious\nwhy he should proclaim his nationality (see below, p. 464). The chief\nfeature of the vase\u2014a lekythos of the \u201cbellied\u201d type so common at this\nstage\u2014is the use of figures moulded in relief and applied to the\nsurface, in conjunction with gilding and a lavish use of white colour.\nThe subject is the Persian king hunting.\n\nThe vases of the =late fine= style, into which the \u201cfine\u201d style merges\nabout the year 430 B.C., may be divided into two classes,\u2014that of the\nlarger vases, chiefly kraters, in which the pictorial traditions of the\nPolygnotan vases are carried on and developed, and the influence of\ncontemporary art makes itself felt; and that of the smaller types, such\nas the pyxis and the wide-bellied lekythos, in which new features and\nnew subjects are introduced (cf. Plate XLII.).\n\nThe former class is chiefly made up of the vases found in Southern\nItaly, in the Crimea, the Cyrenaica, and the Greek islands, which are\napparently of Athenian, not local, fabric; but they are comparatively\nrare at Athens and in Greece Proper, where the smaller vases have been\nfound in considerable numbers. It may be found convenient to deal first\nwith the latter, as more typically Athenian, while the larger vases\nserve as a connecting-link with the succeeding fabrics dealt with in\nthe next section.\n\nIn these vases linear drawing reaches its limits in respect of perfect\nfreedom and refinement of detail; but it is at a severe cost. The\nartist seems to have lost interest in his subject when it no longer\nrequired an effort to execute it, and is content to decorate his vase\nwith a few stock figures in conventional attitudes, uncharacterised by\naction or attribute. Frequent faults of design may be observed, such as\ncoarseness of drawing or negligence in the laying on of the black\nvarnish. The artist works by routine, and appears to be nonchalant and\nbored. Mythological scenes become exceedingly rare, and are confined to\nDionysos or Aphrodite with their attendant personifications, and the\ncompositions are fanciful or decorative in character, without any\nsuggestion of particular events or actions. The all-pervading presence\nof Eros is another feature which is new to vase-painting, but\nhenceforward his position is established. An even greater novelty is\nthe preponderance\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n VASE OF \u201cLATE FINE\u201d STYLE.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nof subjects connected with the daily life of women or children\u2014the\ntoilet, the occupations of every-day life, or nuptial ceremonies; and a\nwhole series of small jugs, themselves in all probability toys, depicts\nthe various games in which the Athenian child delighted\u2014the hoop, the\ngo-cart, and the ball, or his pet animals (cf. Plate XLII.).\n\nThe shapes most popular in this group are, as we have indicated, the\noinocho\u00eb, the wide-bellied lekythos, and the pyxis (Plate XLII.).\nMilchhoefer, in a most important article,[1394] regards the lekythi\nas more instructive than any other group for illustrating the later\ndevelopments of R.F. vase-painting. Beginning with early examples of\nthe fine style,[1395] they extend to the very end without any gaps,\nthe tradition being further continued in Apulia. They exhibit a\ndevelopment from simple to rich compositions, from \u201cstrong\u201d style to\nperfect freedom. In the latest examples, such as that by Xenophantos,\nwe see the straining after novelty which marks the decadence, in the\nintroduction of figures in relief applied to the surface of the vase,\nas well as in the increase of polychromy and gilding. Among the finer\nvases we may note a hydria at Karlsruhe (259) with the Judgment of\nParis, in which may be traced the hand of Meidias; the lekythos in\nthe British Museum from Cyprus (E 696), with Oedipus slaying the\nSphinx, in which the figure of Athena with its white coating is\nclearly reminiscent of the gold-and-ivory Parthenos statue; and two\npretty lekythi from Apollonia, in Thrace, with the subject of\nincense-gathering. There are also two pyxides in the British Museum\n(E 773\u20134), on which are groups of women, with fancy names added to\ngive interest to the scene: thus Klytaemnestra, Danae, and Iphigeneia\noccur all together, and the Nereids are engaged in the every-day\noccupations of the women\u2019s apartments.\n\nFrom a technical point of view, the principal change is in the\nincreased use of gilding and polychrome colouring. The former, employed\nexceptionally by Euphronios and Brygos, now becomes the rule, and\nconcurrently the use of white for flesh-tints, as in the figure of\nAthena just mentioned, and of red, green, and blue for draperies,\nbecomes more and more general. The gilding was applied for small\ndetails, such as wreaths, and for the hair; and the places where it was\nto be applied were marked by low relief. It was fixed in the form of\ngold-leaf by means of a yellowish gum. Jahn, who some years ago\ncollected the list of vases with gilding,[1396] reckoned fifty-one\nknown to him, chiefly from Kertch; and Heydemann and Collignon[1397]\nhave since added several to the list, chiefly from collections at\nAthens. They have been found not only in Athens and Kertch, but at\nCorinth, Megara, Hermione, Thebes, and in Acarnania and Thrace.\n\nIn the larger vases of this period the pictorial method of the\npreceding phase is, as might have been expected, greatly developed.\nAmong the vases of undoubted Attic origin we have, first of all, the\nMeidias hydria and its companion vase, the Karlsruhe hydria with the\nJudgment of Paris[1398]; and, secondly, the great Gigantomachia vase\nfrom Melos in the Louvre, which contains no less than forty-seven\nfigures.[1399] Another fine instance is the polychrome Kameiros vase in\nthe British Museum with the subject of Peleus and Thetis. Robert[1400]\nsees in the two latter a possible influence of Parrhasios, who is known\nto have paid great attention to drawing, and, in reference to the\nKameiros vase, draws attention to the plastic silhouette effect of the\nfigures. Parrhasios\u2019 art consisted in giving this effect by his linear\ndrawing.[1401] The influence of Zeuxis is less apparent, though from\nhis earlier date it might more naturally have been expected.[1402]\n\nIt is, however, still more instructive to trace in this group the\ninfluence of the Parthenon sculptures, which, where it can be observed,\nenables us to date the vases approximately as at any rate not earlier\nthan 438 B.C. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that sculptor\nand painter may often have gone back to the same original type. This\nexplains the appearance of apparently Pheidian motives on vases of an\nearlier style\u2014such as riding youths, water-carriers, etc.\u2014or the\nsimilarity of composition on one of the Parthenon metopes and a vase of\nundoubtedly earlier date.[1403] But in one or two instances there can\nbe no doubt of such influence, most notably in the Athena and Poseidon\nvase from Kertch (see below, p. 464). It cannot be without significance\nhere that the two figures are actually in relief on the vase, and the\nparallelism with the pediment (so far as we know the design) is so\nclose that a copy of it was manifestly the vase-artist\u2019s intention.\nMention has already been made of a figure of the Parthenos on a vase of\nthis period, and another instance, though not on a painted vase, may be\nnoted in the polychrome bust of the goddess in terracotta from Athens,\nnow in the British Museum.[1404] Some instances of this type on vases\nmay be earlier than the statue; it was not created by Pheidias.[1405]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt has already been mentioned that there is one exception to the\nAthenian monopoly of vase-making in the fifth century, and this is in\nthe local fabrics of Boeotia. Of the Kabeirion vases, which, though in\nthe B.F. technique, belong to this period, we have already spoken.\nThere remains a small class\u2014only five examples are at present\nknown\u2014which appears to have been made at Tanagra. All five evidently\ncame from the same workshop, and in three cases the provenance is\ncertainly known. Two are in the British Museum (E 813\u20134), and three in\nthe Museum at Athens.[1406] With the exception of E 814 in the British\nMuseum, which is a pyxis, all are small two-handled cups, with low\nfeet. The designs are outlined on a background of yellow clay in a\nblack-brown pigment, the lines being coarsely drawn. Inner details are\nindicated by means of thinned-out pigment. That they are of Boeotian\norigin is further shown by the ornamentation: the pyxis has round the\nsides rows of vertical wavy lines, such as are often seen on the\nBoeotian geometrical fabrics (p. 288), and also an ivy-leaf which\nrecalls the Kabeirion ware. The ornamentation of the hangings round the\nchair on Athens 1120 exactly resembles the patterns indicating the\ndrapery on some of the early Boeotian terracottas.[1407] The subjects,\non the other hand, seem to suggest Athenian prototypes: in the designs\nmuch archaism is to be observed\u2014such as defects in perspective, the\nrendering of the eyelashes, and the drawing of the feet in profile, but\nwith toes in front. Numerous small details point to a date late in the\nfifth century, which, in view of the conservative tendencies of\nBoeotia, is not unlikely.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 104. BOEOTIAN KYLIX (BRITISH MUSEUM): GIRL PLAYING\nKOTTABOS(?).]\n\nThe subjects are of some interest, and include two figures of Herakles,\none bearded, the other youthful; a girl playing kottabos (Fig. 104);\nand a cultus-image of an enthroned Chthonian goddess (Demeter or\nPersephone), holding a torch, ears of corn, and poppies. These vases\nhave been collected and fully discussed in an interesting article by\nDr. S. Wide.[1408]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1269:\n\n Klein, _Euphronios,^2_ p. 31 ff.\n\nFootnote 1270:\n\n See _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112.\n\nFootnote 1271:\n\n See Norton in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 1272:\n\n Furtwaengler, in _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112, in repudiating the\n idea that the new style was first introduced in the kylikes, seems to\n have misunderstood Hartwig\u2019s arguments.\n\nFootnote 1273:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p. 159 ff. The alternative view is upheld by\n Klein, _Lieblingsinschr.^2_ p. 26 ff., and he is followed by Murray,\n _Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 6. Klein compares Epictetan vases with the\n work of Mikon, and also bases his argument on the story of Kimon and\n the bones of Theseus (see p. 418).\n\nFootnote 1274:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ i. (_Atticae_), Suppl. pp. 79, 154; _Jahrbuch_, _loc.\n cit._ p. 144.\n\nFootnote 1275:\n\n Chapter XVII. See also especially Klein, _Lieblingsinschriften_ (2nd\n edn. 1898); Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_; Wernicke, _Lieblingsnamen_;\n and _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 24.\n\nFootnote 1276:\n\n On the identity of these names in particular, see Klein,\n _Lieblingsinschr_.^2 p. 27 ff.; Murray, _Designs_, p. 6; _J.H.S._\n xii. p. 380.\n\nFootnote 1277:\n\n Hartwig (p. 11) points out that vase-painters also bear well-known\n names, such as Hieron, Andokides, Aristophanes.\n\nFootnote 1278:\n\n The name of Leagros also occurs on late B.F. hydriae, _e.g._ B 325 in\n B.M. It is used by four R.F. painters in all.\n\nFootnote 1279:\n\n _E.g._ _Branteghem Cat._ 57.\n\nFootnote 1280:\n\n See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 3, and _id._ in _M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch._\n 1894, p. 10. He also cites a vase in Berlin (1906) which bears the\n name Stesileos \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2. This may refer to the S. who fell at Marathon.\n\nFootnote 1281:\n\n On the instrument employed, see above, p. 227.\n\nFootnote 1282:\n\n C. Smith in _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 1.\n\nFootnote 1283:\n\n See also B.M. E 15, E 458.\n\nFootnote 1284:\n\n Cf. Pliny\u2019s _In veste rugas et sinus inventit_, of Kimon.\n\nFootnote 1285:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff., and above, p. 357.\n\nFootnote 1286:\n\n See below, p. 427, for fuller details of the early development.\n\nFootnote 1287:\n\n Cf. the Troilos kylix of Euphronios (below, p. 433).\n\nFootnote 1288:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 11.\n\nFootnote 1289:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 14; Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 37; and\n cf. p. 135 for a mention of a vase stamped with an owl and\n olive-branch, and supposed to be an official choinix measure.\n\nFootnote 1290:\n\n xi. 495 B.\n\nFootnote 1291:\n\n See Reisch in _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v. (1890), p. 313 ff., and below, p. 493.\n\nFootnote 1292:\n\n Cf. B.M. E 471 ff.\n\nFootnote 1293:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 60.\n\nFootnote 1294:\n\n See what has been said above on the changes in the form of the\n amphora, hydria, and krater.\n\nFootnote 1295:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 105 ff.\n\nFootnote 1296:\n\n _E.g._ Vienna 234, 339 (the latter given in Fig. 101).\n\nFootnote 1297:\n\n See also some valuable notes on the subject in Riegl\u2019s _Stilfragen_,\n p. 191 ff.\n\nFootnote 1298:\n\n B.M. E 4\u20135; _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 16, fig. 3.\n\nFootnote 1299:\n\n B.M. E 17\u201319; Berlin 2263, 4220; Louvre G 18; Helbig 246 = _Mus.\n Greg._ ii. 70, 2. All these are cups with the name of Memnon \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 1300:\n\n Berlin 2262.\n\nFootnote 1301:\n\n B.M. E 22, 41; Berlin 2264\u201365; Louvre G 17.\n\nFootnote 1302:\n\n _E.g._ Munich 1160 (by Hischylos) B.M. E 37\u20138, 40.\n\nFootnote 1303:\n\n As on E 69, 78.\n\nFootnote 1304:\n\n See also Chapter XVI. \u00a7 3.]\n\nFootnote 1305:\n\n B.M. E 6, 78.\n\nFootnote 1306:\n\n B.M. E 818.\n\nFootnote 1307:\n\n See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 321; and cf. B.M. E 68, 718.\n\nFootnote 1308:\n\n See Furtwaengler, _Eros in d. Vasenm._; Knapp, _Nike in d. Vasenm._\n\nFootnote 1309:\n\n B.M. E 772\u201373.\n\nFootnote 1310:\n\n Notably on the fine kylix by Peithinos in Berlin (Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ pl. 24). Cf. B.M. E 462, 510, and Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ pls. 44\u20135 = Munich 408.\n\nFootnote 1311:\n\n Cf. also, for varied treatment of the same subject by two artists,\n B.M. E 44 (ext.) with Louvre G 17.\n\nFootnote 1312:\n\n See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 515 ff.; and for further details,\n Chapter XV.\n\nFootnote 1313:\n\n See Chapter XV. \u00a7 1.\n\nFootnote 1314:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 406 (Lampadedromia); E 298, 460, 469, 270 (musical\n contests).\n\nFootnote 1315:\n\n General reference may be made to Klein\u2019s _Meistersig._, 2nd edn.,\n supplemented by Hartwig.\n\nFootnote 1316:\n\n Cf. also C. Smith in _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 21.\n\nFootnote 1317:\n\n _Euphronios_,^2 p. 14 ff., with list of cups in Appendix.\n\nFootnote 1318:\n\n B.M. E 18.\n\nFootnote 1319:\n\n The _type_, it should be noted, is purely B.F. in character.\n\nFootnote 1320:\n\n _Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 8.\n\nFootnote 1321:\n\n The Louvre cup F 129, inscribed \u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, cannot be assigned to\n him, although Klein did so. See _Monuments Piot_, ix. pp. 157, 168 ff.\n\nFootnote 1322:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 73; B.M. E 34; _Branteghem Cat._ 28; fragment\n acquired by B.M., 1896; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1903, No. 52.\n\nFootnote 1323:\n\n _Meisterschalen_, chap. iv.\n\nFootnote 1324:\n\n Nos. 8\u201311 in Klein\u2019s list, according to Hartwig, p. 63.\n\nFootnote 1325:\n\n The earliest example seems to be Reinach, i. 223 = _Wiener Vorl._ D.\n 5 (a cup by Pamphaios).\n\nFootnote 1326:\n\n As in the Epidromos cup (B.M. E 25).\n\nFootnote 1327:\n\n _Euphronios_,^2 p. 26: cf. Plate XXXVII.\n\nFootnote 1328:\n\n _Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 4.\n\nFootnote 1329:\n\n Reinach, i. 460, 1.\n\nFootnote 1330:\n\n See Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 39, fig. 8, pl. 40, figs. 11\u201312; the Satyr\n and archer are among recent acquisitions of the British Museum.\n\nFootnote 1331:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1883, p. 213.\n\nFootnote 1332:\n\n _Euphronios_, p. 289 ff.\n\nFootnote 1333:\n\n See Hoppin\u2019s monograph on this painter, _passim_. In addition to the\n five signed vases (for which see Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 194) he\n gives the following as probably Euthymides\u2019 work: B.M. B 254\u201356, 767;\n Munich 410 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 33; Berlin 2180;\n Reinach, ii. 133.\n\nFootnote 1334:\n\n \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1887, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 1335:\n\n See also _J.H.S._ xii. p. 380.\n\nFootnote 1336:\n\n See Hartwig, chap. ix. throughout; also Jones in _J.H.S._ xii. p. 366\n ff.\n\nFootnote 1337:\n\n Klein only knew of four, but Hartwig (p. 168) has added to his list.\n\nFootnote 1338:\n\n A hydria in Munich (No. 6) is also probably his work. It represents\n his colleague Euthymides and another potter, Tlenpolemos (see p.\n 440). Cf. the vase mentioned above, dedicated by Phintias to\n Euthymides.\n\nFootnote 1339:\n\n Reinach, i. 203.\n\nFootnote 1340:\n\n See also Hartwig, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 1341:\n\n Gerhard, _A.V._ 103 = Reinach, ii. 57. The vase in _Ant. Denkm._ ii.\n pl. 8, is probably not his work, as has been suggested. The\n ornamentation of the hydria is not given accurately by Gerhard (see\n Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 198).\n\nFootnote 1342:\n\n Karlsruhe 242; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1894, p. 180 (at Odessa).\n\nFootnote 1343:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1895, p. 485.\n\nFootnote 1344:\n\n It is used by Andokides, Chelis, Euthymides, Pamphaios, and\n Nikosthenes.\n\nFootnote 1345:\n\n See Klein, _Euphronios_, _passim_; Hartwig, chaps. vii. xviii.;\n Murray, _Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 1346:\n\n _E.g._ the B.M. hydria B 325: see Klein, _Lieblingsinschr_^2. p. 70.\n\nFootnote 1347:\n\n Hartwig, p. 152, mentions another possible instance, an amphora in\n the Louvre. All the vases except (9) are published in Klein\u2019s\n _Euphronios_, and all except (8) and (9) in the _Wiener\n Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. 5, pls. 1\u20137. A few more recent publications are\n noted in the list.\n\nFootnote 1348:\n\n Paus. v. 19, 1.\n\nFootnote 1349:\n\n Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 487; Furtwaengler in _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 110\n (denies the B.M. kylix to Euphronios).\n\nFootnote 1350:\n\n Hartwig, pl. 53.\n\nFootnote 1351:\n\n As noted on p. 457, it has been attributed by Furtwaengler (with some\n probability) to Sotades. For other attributions of vases to\n Euphronios, see Hartwig, chaps. vii. and xviii.\n\nFootnote 1352:\n\n _Op. cit._ chaps. x. and xxi.\n\nFootnote 1353:\n\n A good instance of this is E 50 in the British Museum.\n\nFootnote 1354:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ vi. pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 1355:\n\n Murray, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 1356:\n\n See his chap. xvii.: \u201cDer Meister mit dem Kahlkopf.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1357:\n\n Hartwig, p. 301.\n\nFootnote 1358:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 305.\n\nFootnote 1359:\n\n Murray, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 1360:\n\n See Murray, _Designs_, p. 16; Hartwig, p. 321.\n\nFootnote 1361:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. pls. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 1362:\n\n Except in one insignificant instance: see Rayet and Collignon, p. 187.\n\nFootnote 1363:\n\n Murray (_Designs_, p. 5) notes the same characteristic in the cups\n with genre subjects, as in the B.M. examples E 33, 39, 49, 51, 54,\n 55, 61, 68, 70, 71, 78.\n\nFootnote 1364:\n\n See _Monuments Piot_, ix. pls. 2\u20133, p. 15 ff\u00b7\n\nFootnote 1365:\n\n _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 126 = Reinach, i. 166.\n\nFootnote 1366:\n\n Quint. _Inst. Or._ xii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1367:\n\n This chronology is taken from Robert\u2019s _Marathonschlacht_, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1368:\n\n Cf. _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p. 170 ff.\n\nFootnote 1369:\n\n _J.H.S._ x. p. 118. The reverse is illustrated in Fig. 103.\n\nFootnote 1370:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14, p. 276 ff.\n\nFootnote 1371:\n\n See his monographs on the _Nekyia_ and _Iliupersis_ = _Hallisches\n Festprogramm_, Nos. 16 and 17 (1892\u201393).\n\nFootnote 1372:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 492; Reinach, i. 217.\n\nFootnote 1373:\n\n See Robert in _Mon. Antichi_, ix. p. 24; _id._ _Marathonschlacht_, p.\n 55.\n\nFootnote 1374:\n\n The type of Orpheus on this vase is clearly derived from Polygnotos;\n the figure standing with one foot raised, like Antilochos in the\n _Nekyia_, is a well-known motive of his. See Furtwaengler, _op. cit._\n p. 161.\n\nFootnote 1375:\n\n See Robert, _Nekyia_, p. 43; D\u00fcmmler in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 170 ff.\n\nFootnote 1376:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 25.\n\nFootnote 1377:\n\n _Branteghem Cat._ 84 = _Ant. Denkm_, i. 59: see also _ibid._ 85.\n\nFootnote 1378:\n\n _Report for 1900_, Nos. 17\u20138.\n\nFootnote 1379:\n\n In Madrid (_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pl. 1). The vase E 84 in the British\n Museum is very similar, and the style also has affinities with that\n of Aristophanes.\n\nFootnote 1380:\n\n _Cat._ 167.\n\nFootnote 1381:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pls. 2\u20133, p. 5 ff.\n\nFootnote 1382:\n\n _Op. cit._ pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 1383:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 1384:\n\n E 284 = Reinach, ii. 123.\n\nFootnote 1385:\n\n Naples 3089 = Millingen-Reinach, 33 is probably also by Polygnotos.\n\nFootnote 1386:\n\n The British Museum pelike with the Birth of Athena (E 410) and the\n Tricase vase (_J.H.S._ xviii. p. 279) may perhaps be his work.\n\nFootnote 1387:\n\n Froehner, _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35.\n\nFootnote 1388:\n\n For facsimile see Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1389:\n\n The following vases are in the style of Meidias, though not\n necessarily from his hand: Athens 1287 = Reinach, i. 342; Naples,\n S.A. 311 = Reinach, i. 474, 7; _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 252; Karlsruhe\n 259 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30; Reinach, i. 472, 1; 476, 2;\n 477, 2; 493, 3; Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 8; Furtwaengler and Reichhold,\n pl. 59.\n\nFootnote 1390:\n\n Paus. i. 18, 1.\n\nFootnote 1391:\n\n See Robert, _Marathonschlacht_, p. 97; _Nekyia_, p. 42. On late R.F.\n vases with double friezes see Winter, _J\u00fcngere attische Vasen_, p.\n 69, and _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 102. The principle is frequently\n adopted in the vases of Apulia (_e.g._ Plate XLV.); for early Apulian\n examples see p. 485.\n\nFootnote 1392:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 119.\n\nFootnote 1393:\n\n _Cat._ 1790 = _Ant. du Bosph. Cimm._ pl. 46 (in colours) = Reinach,\n i. 23. For a curious imitation of this vase, see Naples 2992.\n\nFootnote 1394:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 57 ff.\n\nFootnote 1395:\n\n Naples 3135, according to him, is contemporaneous with the B.M.\n Aphrodite cup (D 2), about 460 B.C.\n\nFootnote 1396:\n\n _Vasen mit Goldschmuck_ (1865).\n\nFootnote 1397:\n\n _Gr. Vasenbilder_, p. 2, pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 9, fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._\n xxx. (1875), pp. 1, 73, pls. 17\u201320. See also Berlin 2661 = Rayet and\n Collignon, p. 257, and 2705 = Reinach, i. 426, 2.\n\nFootnote 1398:\n\n Of similar style are the fragment Naples 2664 = Reinach, i. 181, and\n Athens 1259 = Reinach, i. 506.\n\nFootnote 1399:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1400:\n\n _Marathonschlacht_, p. 74.\n\nFootnote 1401:\n\n Cf. Quint. xii. 10, 3, and Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 67.\n\nFootnote 1402:\n\n See Robert, _Iliupersis_, p. 35.\n\nFootnote 1403:\n\n Cf. Michaelis, _Parthenon_, pl. 4, 25, with a vase in the Vatican\n (Baumeister, i. p. 746); and see _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 177, and\n Roscher, i. p. 1355.\n\nFootnote 1404:\n\n E 716 = _J.H.S._ xv. pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 1405:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1406:\n\n Nos. 1119\u201320, and one uncatalogued.\n\nFootnote 1407:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, B 57\u20138.\n\nFootnote 1408:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, p. 143 ff., with pl. 8.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI\n _WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_\n\n Origin and character of white-ground painting\u2014Outline drawing\n and polychromy\u2014Funeral lekythi\u2014Subjects and types\u2014Decadence\n of Greek vase-painting\u2014Rise of new centres\u2014Kertch,\n Cyrenaica, and Southern Italy\u2014Characteristics of the latter\n fabrics\u2014Shapes\u2014Draughtsmanship\u2014Influence of Tragedy and\n Comedy\u2014Subjects\u2014Paestum fabric\u2014Lucanian, Campanian, and\n Apulian fabrics\u2014Gnathia vases\u2014Vases modelled in form of\n figures\u2014Imitations of metal\u2014Vases with reliefs\u2014\u201cMegarian\u201d\n bowls\u2014Bolsena ware and Calene phialae.\n\n\n \u00a7 1. WHITE-GROUND VASES\n\nThe method of painting on a white ground, which was brought to such\nperfection in the fifth century, really requires a section to itself,\nits development being parallel to, yet different from, that of the\npainting in red on black. Its genealogy can be traced almost throughout\nthe period of Greek vase-painting, beginning with the Ionian fabrics of\nRhodes and Samos, through the more developed vases of Naukratis and\nKyrene, until it was introduced at Athens in the latter part of the\nsixth century, perhaps, as we have seen (p. 385), by Nikosthenes. The\nmethod was not, of course, new then to Continental Greece. It was the\none usually employed for painting votive tablets or pictures on wood,\nthe surface of the tablet being prepared by covering it with a thick\nslip of creamy-white lustrous character, known as \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.[1409] Thus\nit is used in one of the few examples known of Attic painting, apart\nfrom the vases, the Warrior pinax from the Acropolis, which may be\ndated about 500 B.C., and stands midway between frescoes and\nwhite-ground vases (see above, p. 397). Possibly the idea of the white\nslip was to get the effect of painting on marble such as we see in the\ntombstones of Lyseas and Aineos.[1410]\n\nThis method was adhered to throughout the fifth century by all the\ngreat painters, such as Polygnotos, and hence the importance to us of\nthe white-ground vases of that time, as reflecting their methods, and\nin a miniature form the appearance of their works. In the fifth century\nthe all-important consideration in a picture was perfection of design\nand composition; colouring was relatively unimportant, and the\ntechnical processes exceedingly simple, three or four colours alone\nbeing employed. Cicero[1411] tells us that Polygnotos, Zeuxis, and\nTimanthes only used four colours\u2014black, white, red, and yellow. It is\ninteresting to note that these are just the four colours we ordinarily\nfind on the polychrome vases, the flat tints so frequently employed\nbeing no doubt suggested by the mural paintings.\n\nTo go back to the earlier Athenian vases with white ground, we observe\nthat at first the method of painting in silhouette, in the manner of\nthe ordinary B.F. vases, obtains exclusively.[1412] About the beginning\nof the fifth century this method is superseded by what we may regard as\na transitional class, in which the figures are painted partly in\nsilhouette, partly in outline, the simple black-on-white design being\npreserved, with a very occasional use of purple or yellow.[1413]\nAccording to Winter, the origin of outline drawing of this kind may be\nfound in the partly outlined female heads which are found on some of\nthe minor artists\u2019 cups, such as those of Sakonides, Eucheiros, and\nHermogenes.[1414] We need not go as far as he does in explaining the\n_catagrapha_ of Kimon (see p. 397) as the replacement of mere\nsilhouettes by outline drawing, so as to give individuality and variety\nto faces; but the vases which he publishes are remarkable for the\nhighly developed character of the heads depicted thereon.[1415] One in\nparticular is more like a head by Euphronios than one of the Epictetan\ncycle, to which it must belong in point of date. But it must be\nremembered that Epiktetos and his school were still hampered by archaic\nconventions, while the painter on a white ground was carving out the\nway to perfect freedom.\n\nThe shapes employed for the new white-ground technique are much the\nsame as those used in the previous period\u2014the kylix, the lekythos, the\noinocho\u00eb, the pyxis, and the alabastron.[1416] But of these only one\nretains its popularity for any length of time; in fact, after the\nmiddle of the fifth century it is the only one employed at all. This\nshape is the lekythos, on which, indeed, alone the whole development of\nwhite-ground painting can be traced from the B.F. types down to the\nfourth century, when it finally disappears. Although not exclusively\nthe sepulchral vase (as may be seen from the appearance of other vases\non tombs in the painted funeral scenes[1417]), yet for some reason it\ncame to be regarded as the proper shape for such purposes, and the\nfashion of making white lekythi exclusively for the tomb, and decorated\nas a general rule with funerary subjects, prevailed for about a hundred\nand fifty years. We have elsewhere (pp. 132, 143) noted instances of\nits use recorded by Aristophanes.\n\nThe introduction of polychromy is a gradual development. At first, as\nwe have seen, colour is very sparingly employed, only in the use of a\nbrownish yellow (produced by thinning out the black) for details or\nwashes, or of a purple or pinkish brown. Subsequently the outlines are\ndrawn in black or brown, and filled in with black, brown, or purple\nwashes; the occasional use of a clear, thick, white pigment, standing\nout against the cream background, is also to be noted[1418]; and next a\nwash of bright red or vermilion is employed. In the final stages of\npolychrome painting, during the fourth century, the range of colours is\ngreatly extended, and blue or green are employed\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLIII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n VASES WITH POLYCHROME DESIGNS ON WHITE GROUND.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n _To face page 456._\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nin addition to those already named. The outlines are also painted in\nthe vermilion colour already mentioned, instead of the black in\nprevious use. Up to the end of the fifth century the colouring always\npreserves a character of soberness and austerity; and such a feature as\nthe use of gilding[1419] is quite exceptional.\n\nSome of the white-ground kylikes are only partially so; the exterior is\npainted in the ordinary R.F. manner, of the \u201cstrong\u201d style, as in the\ncase of the Anesidora cup in the British Museum. On the other hand, a\nfine cup at Gotha has a red-figured interior and polychrome\nexterior.[1420] In the Munich collection there are three very beautiful\ncups of this kind.[1421] The interior subjects are respectively Europa\non the bull, a frenzied Maenad, and Hera. The cup with the Maenad is\nattributed by Furtwaengler to the style of Brygos, and may therefore be\ndated about 470\u2013460 B.C. It is rare to find a large vase decorated in\nthis method, but there is a very fine krater of the calyx type in the\nMuseo Gregoriano at Rome,[1422] which has been attributed to the middle\nof the fifth century (contemporary with Euphronios\u2019 later manner); the\nsubject is the delivery of the infant Dionysos to the nymphs of Nysa,\nand is painted throughout in polychrome on a white ground. Of late\nyears some very fine pyxides in this style have been found in\nGreece,[1423] often decorated with marriage scenes, the style of the\npainting being contemporary with Duris and Brygos. But for beauty and\ndelicacy all are surpassed by some of the smaller cups, above all the\nAphrodite cup from Kameiros in the British Museum,[1424] in which\nrefinement and grace are combined with boldness of conception and\naccuracy of drawing in a marvellous degree. Or, again, the group of\ncups and bowls by Sotades (see above, p. 445),[1425] some with\nmythological or other subjects painted in minute and graceful style,\nothers of fantastic or unusual shape and decoration, form a unique\nseries among the white-ground vases.[1426]\n\nTo sum up in the words of A. S. Murray the characteristics of these\nvases[1427]: \u201cThere was thus in the white vases an exceptional\nopportunity for purity of outline in the drawing, and it is not without\nreason that they are regarded as the best representatives we yet\npossess of the great age of Greek fresco-painting, in which also purity\nand sweep of outline on a white ground, simplicity of composition, and\na limited scale of brilliant colours, were the chief characteristics.\u201d\n\nIt remains now to speak of the funeral lekythi as a distinct class,\ntheir subjects and method of treatment.[1428] Although it was formerly\ncustomary to speak of \u201cvases of Locri\u201d or \u201cvases of Gela\u201d in speaking\nof examples found on those sites, it is almost certain that they are\nall really of Athenian origin.[1429] Apart from the fact that the great\nmajority have been found at Athens, there are no special peculiarities\nabout those from other sites which would justify any such distinction\nof fabrics. The same remarks apply to the numerous examples which have\nbeen found of late years at Eretria in Euboea, and have caused some\nrecrudescence of the theory of non-Attic origin.[1430] But Eretria was\nso near to Athens that importation must have been quite a simple\nmatter. In regard to the Locri vases, it has been noted by M.\nPottier[1431] that they seem to represent an _inferior_, though still\nAthenian fabric, in which the white is more lustrous and less flaky\nthan in the better examples, and the outlines are in black exclusively.\nBlack silhouettes are occasionally found, and the subjects are not\nnecessarily funerary.\n\nThe funerary subjects fall into four classes; they will be enumerated\nin Chapter XV., where examples of each class are given, but may be\nbriefly recapitulated here, in order to note some artistic\nconsiderations.\n\n(1) The _Prothesis_, or laying-out of the corpse (Plate LV.).\n\n(2) The _Depositio_, or laying of the body in the tomb: chiefly in the\nThanatos and Hypnos type (see Fig. 123, Chapter XIII.).\n\n(3) _The Journey to Hades_; Charon in his bark (see Fig. 122, Chapter\nXIII.).\n\n(4) _The Cult of the Tomb_, this being by far the most common of the\nfour classes (see Plate LV. and Fig. 19, p. 143).\n\nThe _Prothesis_ type is an old one, occurring not infrequently on\nblack-figured vases, especially on the slim \u201cprothesis-amphorae\u201d which\nare sometimes found at Athens. M. Pottier reckons ten examples, to\nwhich may be added a fine specimen now in the British Museum (Plate\nLV., fig. 1). The _Depositio_ type is somewhat rare; it is occasionally\nfound in B.F. vases,[1432] but is usually idealised, the body being\ncarried by winged genii, to whom the names of Thanatos and Hypnos are\nusually given. The type, as has been pointed out elsewhere, is\noriginally mythological, being derived from that of the burial of\nMemnon. Some half-dozen examples are known (see Chapters XIII., XV.).\nOf the Charon vases M. Pottier reckons twenty-one, which he classifies\nunder three heads: (1) Charon on the left in a boat, which two or three\npersons enter. (2) Charon on the right in a boat; persons ready to\nenter. (3) The deceased is seated on a stele at which women make\nofferings; Charon approaches in his boat.[1433] The conception is\nessentially a pictorial one, and it may reasonably be inferred that it\nis a reflection of Polygnotos. The same subdued pathos and the same\nstyle of composition are characteristic of his paintings. Pausanias, in\ndescribing his _Nekyia_ in the Lesche at Delphi, says: \u201cThere is water,\nwhich seems intended for a river, evidently the Acheron, and reeds\ngrowing therein ... and there is a boat on the river, and the ferryman\nat the oar.\u201d[1434]\n\nIn the vases representing the Cult of the Tomb (Plate LV. and Fig. 19),\nthe normal type is that of two or three persons bringing offerings,\nwreaths, vases, etc., to a stele[1435] ornamented with coloured sashes,\nor engaged in conversation thereat; sometimes one sits on the steps of\nthe stele. The persons with offerings are usually feminine; where men\noccur, they are either attired as warriors, or stand leaning on a spear\nor staff, conversing with the women. The correspondence of some of\nthese compositions to the \u201ctype\u201d of Orestes and Electra meeting at the\ntomb of Agamemnon has more than once been noticed, but it does not seem\nhere to be a case of borrowing the heroic \u201ctype,\u201d as in the Thanatos\nand Hypnos instance. Where such scenes can be identified on\nvases,[1436] they are all of late date and mostly of South Italian\nmanufacture; and we may rather suppose that the contrary was the case,\nand that the lekythos \u201ctype\u201d was idealised and borrowed for the Orestes\nscene. Moreover, the popularity of the latter subject is probably\nlargely due to its treatment by the tragic poets.\n\nAmong other details of interest in these scenes may be noted the\nappearance of the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1 or ghosts of the deceased, represented as tiny\nhovering winged creatures. M. Pottier has noted eighteen instances, and\nthe number has since then been greatly increased.[1437] The invariable\nyouthfulness of the figures\u2014which, it may be remarked, are always\npurely impersonal; and mere _types_ of mourners\u2014is noteworthy as a\ncharacteristic of later fifth-century art, which tended to create\nideals of youth and beauty.[1438] This, of course, is everywhere\napparent in sculpture, as in the Parthenon frieze and the works of\nPolykleitos; and reminiscences of Pheidian youthful types may be\nsuggested by some of the figures on the lekythi.[1439] In the figures\nof deities the same change was going on, as in the case of Hermes, and\neven the aged and grim figure of Charon is toned down on the funeral\nvases to a more humane conception. It has also been suggested that the\nchoice of youthful figures is due to the thought that youth is the\nperiod when bereavement produces its simplest and most natural effects.\n\nThe influence of the sepulchral stelae of the fifth and fourth\ncenturies soon begins to be apparent in the lekythi, especially in the\nscenes of tomb-offerings.[1440] Like the vases, the stelae always\nvaried in merit, some being refined and artistic compositions, others\npoor and commonplace. The choice of subjects, indeed, differs in some\ndegree, the subjects on the stelae relating chiefly to the previous\nlife of the deceased, those of the vases to the actual death and\nburial. But there are many lekythi, the subjects on which are more like\nthose of the stelae, not being strictly funerary.[1441] Thus we see the\ndeceased as a warrior charging with a spear or on horseback, like the\nDexileos of the Kerameikos; the young hunter pursuing a hare; the lady\nat her toilet with mirror or jewellery in hand, attended by her\nmaidens, like the charming Hegeso (Plate XLIII.); or the warrior\nparting from his spouse.\n\nRegarding the funeral lekythi in their artistic aspect, we note, as M.\nPottier points out, two main characteristics\u2014restraint and uniformity\nof composition. The space for the decoration being limited to about\ntwo-thirds of the whole circumference, the figures are necessarily few\nin number, varying from one to three, but very rarely more. Emotion and\npathos are produced by the simplest means. Murray instances the\nprothesis lekythos in the British Museum (Plate LV. fig. 1) as an\nexample of deep pathos expressed in a simple, yet strong and rapid\nmanner, and two others (D 70 = Plate LV. fig. 2, and D 71) as showing\nalmost tragic emotion expressed only by a few outlines. Uniformity of\ncomposition is manifested in the repetition of types, often copied from\nfamiliar models, yet with an infinite variety of detail (as, for\ninstance, in the form of the stelae) which does not affect the\nconstancy of the main idea. In this respect they may be compared with\nthe terracotta Tanagra figures, of which many are turned out from the\nsame mould; yet by varying the pose of the head or position of the arms\nthe artist was able to avoid the absolute identity of any two figures.\n\nThe lekythi can hardly be classified chronologically; we cannot say to\nwhat extent the rougher examples may be earlier, and _vice versa_; but\neven in the poorest examples skill and lightness of touch are always\ndiscernible. The classification given by M. Pottier,[1442] however, may\nserve as a general indication of chronological succession and\ndevelopment. He collects them under three heads, as follows:\n\n(1) The paste is of a light red colour, the walls thin, and the white\nslip unpolished; the main design is first sketched, then painted, the\noutlines being usually in red. The ornaments are palmettes and\nmaeander, in black and red, the subjects almost exclusively funerary.\nThe slip and colours are delicate, the style fine, and the polychromy\nrestrained.[1443]\n\n(2) The paste is grey, the walls thicker; the white is sometimes\npolished, and the outlines black or brown. The ornaments are palmettes\nand maeander, with crosses or stars, in black only. The subjects are\nfunerary or from daily life, with figures of deities; the style is\nstill fine, but the polychromy is more varied.[1444]\n\n(3) The clay is red and light, the white unpolished, the outlines\nyellow. The slip is not extended to the shoulder, on which is a\ntongue-pattern in black; the maeander is careless. The subjects are\neither funerary or from daily life, the style negligent; the designs\nare almost entirely monochrome.[1445]\n\n \u00a7 2. THE DECADENCE OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING\n\nWe have now reached the point at which the centre of ceramic industry\nis no longer to be found at Athens, but must be sought in distant\ncolonies in various parts of the Mediterranean. The extinction of\nvase-painting as a decorative art at Athens was brought about as much\nby political events as by sheer artistic decadence at the end of the\nfifth century. It had until recent years been customary to assume that\nred-figured vases continued to be made at Athens through the greater\npart of the fourth century; but the evidence of excavations on many\nsites has been too decisive for the maintenance of such a view. That\ncertain classes of ceramic products, such as the Panathenaic amphorae\nand the funeral lekythi, still continued to be made we have already\nseen; but these are only exceptions, and due entirely to their\nreligious associations.\n\nThe evidence for the revised chronology has been summarised by\nMilchhoefer in a paper already referred to,[1446] in which he pointed\nout the importance of historical considerations. Even during the\nPeloponnesian War the manufacture and export of painted vases must have\nbeen much crippled, and the absence of the later Athenian wares from\nthe tombs of Etruria clearly shows that commercial relations between\nthe two countries had ceased.[1447] Similarly intercourse with Campania\nlargely ceased after the Samnite invasion of 440 B.C., and relations\nwith Sicily must have been entirely broken off after the outbreak of\nhostilities with Syracuse in 427.\n\nAgain, in the city of Rhodes, which was founded in B.C. 408, no Attic\nvases have been found, while all those from Kameiros must be earlier\nthan that date.[1448] In Athens itself no R.F. vases of any importance\nhave been found in fourth-century tombs, although some fragments of\nfine style are reported from the tomb of Dexileos, which is not earlier\nin date than 394 B.C.[1449] Hence the conclusion is irresistible that\nno good Attic R.F. vases can be assigned to the fourth century, which\nis only represented at Athens by the funeral lekythi, the Panathenaic\namphorae, and a few isolated, generally inferior, R.F. specimens.\n\nThe new centres of vase-painting, from about 400 B.C. onwards, are\nthree in number\u2014the Crimea, the Cyrenaica in North Africa, and Southern\nItaly. Among the vases from the Crimea[1450] are some of the most\nmagnificent that we possess, which in spite of their florid style and\ncareless technique are really of considerable merit. They can, however,\nhardly be considered to rank more highly than the best of the products\nof Southern Italy, which we are now about to consider; in other words,\nthey belong to a later stage of development than the \u201clate fine\u201d style\nof Attic R.F. vases, as represented by the Rhodian \u201cpelike\u201d with Peleus\nand Thetis in the British Museum, and the Gigantomachia vase from Melos\nin the Louvre. The fine krater with the contest of Athena and Poseidon\nat Petersburg (Plate L.) is clearly a reminiscence of the Parthenon\npediment, and, allowing for the difference of style, cannot be earlier\nthan the closing years of the fifth century. Again, there is the vase\nsigned by Xenophantos,[1451] who, as we have seen, expressly calls\nhimself an Athenian, and on this ground has been regarded as a resident\nin Panticapaeum (Kertch). The reliefs with which this vase is partly\ndecorated are examples of a tendency which hardly came into existence\nbefore the fourth century; the subject also is more suggestive of local\ntaste.\n\nIt may be an open question whether these vases were imported from\nAthens, but at least the vase of Xenophantos testifies to the existence\nof a local fabric at Panticapaeum, and it is not at all unlikely that\nthe general upheaval brought about by the Peloponnesian War led to a\ndispersion of Athenian artists, and thus to the continuance of their\nart in other lands, but not in Athens itself. We shall see that this\nlargely accounts for the origin of the fabrics of Southern Italy. In\nany case Panticapaeum was a place of considerable importance in the\nfourth century, being the chief place whence the Athenians obtained\ntheir supplies of grain, as we learn from the orations of Demosthenes,\nsuch as the _Contra Phormionem_.\n\nWith the Cyrenaica circumstances were no doubt little different. But\nthe vases from this site, though similar to those of the Crimea, are\nmostly inferior, of small size, and often of very rough character. Like\nthe former they exhibit a preference for polychromy and gilding.\nSimilar fabrics are also found in the Greek islands, such as Karpathos\nand Telos, in the Troad, and elsewhere,[1452] but for the most part of\na very inferior character.\n\nIn the tombs of Southern Italy many vases are found representing the\nsame stage of development as those of the Crimea and Cyrenaica, varying\nfrom large kraters with fine if florid designs, often enhanced by a\nlavish use of white pigment, to inferior and almost worthless\nspecimens. Inasmuch as these vases are not distinguished by any\nstylising tendencies such as enable us to classify the other fabrics of\nSouthern Italy and assign them to particular districts, and on the\nother hand bear the same relation to the later R.F. vases of Athens as\ndo those of the Eastern Mediterranean, it is evident either that all\nthese fabrics were imported from Athens or that Athenian artists had\nbeen driven to settle in these respective regions. And since it is\nexceedingly unlikely that the exportation of pottery from Athens can\nhave gone on to any extent in the fourth century, it seems, on the\nwhole, most probable that the latter is the true version.\n\nWe may, then, establish a class of vases intermediate between the R.F.\nfabrics proper and the local Italian fabrics, which represents the\nmanner in which Athenian artists carried on their traditions under new\ncircumstances, and serves to explain how the new Italian schools came\ninto being.[1453]\n\nThese vases are often characterised by a refinement of drawing and\nsimplicity of conception which recall the earlier R.F. period, and in\nsuch cases accessory colours, elaborate draperies, and the filling-in\nof the field with miscellaneous objects are studiously avoided. Even\nthe decorative patterns show considerable restraint. It is probable\nthat some of these belong to the latter part of the fifth century, even\nif they are not actually imported from Athens. But there are others of\na distinctly florid kind, in which we may trace the influence of\nMeidias and his school. The compositions are crowded with figures,\noften placed at different levels (without indication of ground-lines),\nand there is a general tendency to elaborate decoration, both by means\nof white pigment and by richly embroidered draperies. As examples may\nbe cited two fine kraters in the British Museum, one with a scene from\nthe lesser Mysteries at Agra (F 68), another with Thetis and the\nNereids bearing the arms of Achilles (F 69). The bell-shaped krater is\nby far the most favourite form, although practically a new one in Greek\nceramics; contrary to the usual rule, the reverse often has a definite\nsubject, in which accessories are used, although the tendency had begun\nsome time before the end of the fifth century to neglect the decoration\nof the reverse in kraters and other large vases.\n\nIn its new home in Southern Italy this branch of Greek art had lighted\non a very favourable soil. The great colonies such as Tarentum, Capua,\nCumae, and Poseidonia, founded almost in the dawn of Greek history,\nwere not only as completely Hellenic as Athens and Corinth, but in\nluxury and splendour even surpassed them at this period. Hence, art\nflourished in such towns far more readily than in the distant and\ncomparatively barbarous regions of South Russia and North Africa. In\nthe character of their productions we shall see the nature and\ncondition of the inhabitants of Southern Italy reflected. The chief aim\nis splendour and general effect; and both the size and colouring of the\nvases indicate to some extent the luxury and magnificence in which the\npeople lived.\n\nIt must not, however, be supposed that vase-painting was a new art\nintroduced to this region by Athenians in the earlier part of the\nfourth century. In another chapter we shall speak of the early attempts\nat imitation of Greek vases on the part of the semi-barbarian natives\nof the peninsula, and reminiscences of these early attempts crop up\nfrom time to time under circumstances of greater development, as will\nbe seen. Moreover, a constant stream of importations from Athens (small\nindeed as compared with that to Etruria, but still steady) had been\nfinding its way to the Greek colonies of Southern Italy and Sicily;\nspecial fabrics were made for export to Nola, Gela, and other places;\nand thus the local artists had all along been undergoing an unconscious\ntraining which enabled them to take up the industry at the point where\nthe Athenian artists left off.[1454]\n\nThe local fabrics of Southern Italy fall into three main classes,\ncorresponding to the geographical divisions of Apulia, Lucania, and\nCampania, which three, with some modifications, include all that come\nunder discussion in the present section. Before, however, entering upon\nthe question of the criteria on which this classification is based, a\nfew general considerations may be touched upon by way of preface.\n\nThe study of South Italy fabrics is to some extent a new one. At the\nbeginning of the last century, when scarcely any vases had been found\noutside Italy, the majority of both public and private collections\nconsisted of vases of this period. Of those now exhibited in the Fourth\nVase Room of the British Museum, at least one-fifth are from the\ncollections of Sir William Hamilton, Charles Towneley, and Richard\nPayne Knight; and in such publications as those of D'Hancarville,\nTischbein, Inghirami, and Millin, a great majority of the plates are\ndevoted to them. Hence their importance was much over-estimated; but,\non the other hand, no attention was paid to questions of style or\nprovenance, and they were only regarded as pretty pictures.\nSubsequently to the discoveries at Vulci, and the gradual growth of the\nscientific study of vase-painting, the later vases suffered greatly\nfrom neglect, as yielding less interest than the early fabrics and the\nproducts of the best Athenian artists, and even at the present day it\nis rare to find them made the subject of serious study. The only\nwriter, in fact, who has attempted in recent years to apply to them the\ncritical methods of modern archaeology is Signor G. Patroni of the\nNaples Museum, who has availed himself of the opportunities afforded by\nthe extensive series under his care.[1455]\n\nThe vases from Southern Italy, which from their style may be regarded\nas undoubtedly local non-Attic fabrics, are all distinguished by\ncertain common features. In all there is seen a perpetual striving\nafter effect rather than beauty, manifested in the size and splendid\nappearance of the earlier Apulian products, in the largeness of style\nand bold drawing of Lucanian artists, especially the school of Paestum,\nand in the gaudy colouring of the Campanian vases. The later Apulian\nwares are chiefly remarkable for varied and exaggerated shapes.\n\nCommon to all vases alike is the fondness for ornamental patterns, such\nas the egg-pattern, wave-pattern, maeander, palmettes, and wreaths of\nlaurel, myrtle, or ivy; though even these are guided by certain rules,\nmuch as on the black-figured vases. On the large bell-shaped kraters\nthe decoration almost invariably consists of a laurel-wreath round the\nlip, maeander below the designs, and palmette patterns under the\nhandles; and every shape of vase has its characteristic decoration. The\nCampanian vases show the least tendency to formal ornament, and the\nLucanian run to the opposite extreme. The column-handled kraters are\nalmost alone in retaining the archaic scheme of decoration in panels\nwith borders of ornament, to which they adhere throughout the R.F.\nperiod; but the panels are occasionally employed for hydriae or\noinochoae. In most cases, however, the luxuriant palmette patterns\nunder the handles form an adequate frame for the design with the\nmaeander band below. A female head frequently occurs as a decorative\nmotive, especially in the Apulian vases; either forming the main\ndecoration, or placed under the handles, or adorning the neck,\nencircled with foliage. So too the figure of Eros is employed on the\nlater Apulian vases purely as a decorative motive.\n\nThe shapes of the vases present a very great variety, as compared with\nthe Athenian fabrics.[1456] The bell-shaped krater enjoyed a short\nvogue, and is only found in the earlier examples; but besides the\ncolumn-handled type already mentioned, the calyx-krater (_vaso a\ncalice_) and the volute-handled (_a rotelle_) form occur from time to\ntime. Among the early Apulian vases a variety of the latter, with\nmedallions (_mascherone_) in place of the volutes, frequently occurs;\nthese are often of gigantic size, decorated with several rows of\nfigures, and nearly all the finest existing specimens are of this form.\nIt is also the usual type for the sepulchral vases (see below). The\nmedallions are ornamented with Gorgons\u2019 masks and other devices,\ncoloured on a white slip. A peculiar local variety of the krater, with\nfour handles, is found in Lucania only (see p. 172).\n\nOther vases for holding liquids are the situla, lebes, amphora, and\nhydria, forms which are more or less familiar. The amphora is slender,\nwith more or less elliptical body; in Campania it is small and\nsquat-shouldered, the body almost cylindrical, but in Apulia it is\nusually very tall and elegant (cf. Plate XLV.). An occasional variant\nhas a cylindrical flat-topped body, with elaborate handles in the form\nof scrolls; the so-called _pelike_ is a more common type, but somewhat\ninelegant. The hydria is usually a degenerate version of the R.F.\n_kalpis_, but at Paestum the Attic type still obtains. A new form is\nthat known as the _lekane_, a jar for holding sweetmeats; it has\nvertical handles and a cover of elaborate form, often surmounted by a\nsmall vase. Of similar type is the so-called _lepaste_, a circular\ncovered dish on a high stem.\n\nAmong the smaller vases may be mentioned the oinocho\u00eb, of which there\nare one or two varieties, notably the graceful _prochoos_, with its\nhigh handle and foot, and the equally ungraceful _epichysis_, with its\nlong beak-like mouth and pyxis-shaped body; both of these are confined\nto Apulia. The lekythos retains the bulbous body and low foot of the\nlater R.F. period; the askos in various forms is fairly common. Two new\nvarieties are a sort of alabastron without a handle but with flat base,\nand a jar with a handle over the mouth. Of drinking-cups the kantharos\nand rhyton are popular among the later Apulian wares; the kotyle is\nrare, and the kylix has almost entirely disappeared, its place being\ntaken by a gigantic circular dish, elaborately decorated inside and\nout. These are obviously designed with a view to general effect, and\nseem to have been intended for hanging up against a wall.\n\nIn regard to the technique the general method is that of the later R.F.\nvases; but in the majority all idea of simplicity and refinement is\nlost, and the tendency to exaggeration and showiness is manifested both\nin drawing and colouring. Throughout there is a fondness for large\nmasses of white, and this pigment is used not only for the flesh of\nwomen and of Eros, but for architectural details and other objects,\nsuch as temples, shrines, and lavers. Yellow is largely employed for\ndetails, especially for features or hair, and for picking out the\nornamental patterns; purple, too, is not uncommon. Attempts at shading\nare occasionally found.[1457] Accessory colours are, however, seldom\nfound on the reverses of the vases, which are always drawn and painted\nwith the greatest carelessness.\n\nThe drawing is entirely free, and in fact errs on the other side,\nbecoming careless and faulty; the forms are soft, and the male figures\noften effeminate. An extreme facility of hand has indeed proved the\nruin of the vase-painter. The love of the far-fetched betrays itself in\nvariety of posture and elaborate foreshortening; and in the richly\nembroidered draperies and studied settings of some scenes the influence\nof the theatre is obviously to be traced. Frequent attempts are made at\nperspective, especially in buildings of which the insides are shown,\nbut the attempts are seldom successful. As a rule the artist is content\nto indicate figures in the background by placing them on a higher\nlevel, or only showing the upper half of the figure. On many vases with\nmythological subjects, especially those of Apulia, a row of deities is\nthus represented, as if seated on the \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd of the stage.\nLandscape is represented by rocks, stones, and flowers scattered about,\ntrees and buildings; but in most cases the painter prefers the old\nsystem of merely giving a clue to the scene, representing the palaestra\nby jumping-weights or oil-flasks suspended, women\u2019s apartments by\nsashes, toilet-boxes, or small windows, and so on.\n\nThe pictorial effect of the scenes on many vases naturally gives rise\nto the question to what extent the artists were indebted to the great\npainters of the fifth and fourth centuries. In some cases the paintings\nseem to be more naturally adapted for large canvases than for the\nlimited surface of a vase; but more than this, in others the subjects\nactually lead our thoughts directly back to the works of great masters\nof which we have record. The influence of Polygnotos and his school has\nindeed died out, but the emotional tendencies of the fourth-century\npainters and their fondness for new and difficult subjects found a\nready echo in the conceptions of the Apulian vase-painters. It may\nsuffice to quote a few instances from the British Museum collection.\nThus on one vase (F 479) we find a representation of the infant\nHerakles strangling the snakes, a theme selected by the great Zeuxis,\nand also to be seen in one of the paintings from the house of the\nVettii at Pompeii. Or, again, the famous sacrifice of Iphigeneia and\nthe death of Hippolytos, subjects which employed the brushes of\nTimanthes and Antiphilos respectively, are depicted in a truly\npictorial manner on two kraters (F 160, F 279). In each case we are\nable to note a correspondence with the description of the pictures\ngiven by Pliny; in the last-named, also, with a picture described by\nPhilostratos. Were more known of ancient pictures, it is possible that\nother examples would be readily found; but that some such influence was\nexerted can hardly be questioned.\n\nAgain, in the later vases with opaque designs on black grounds (see p.\n488), most of which are merely decorated with wreaths, festoons, or\nmasks, we are at once reminded of the Pompeian wall-paintings, or\nrather of their predecessors in the Hellenistic Age, since the vases\nmust be earlier than most of the pictures of Pompeii. There is a vase\nof late date in the British Museum (F 542) which, with its elaborate\ntreatment of light and shade effects and its border of arabesques, not\nonly in its subject (a young shepherd and his dog), but also in method,\nsuggests a close connection with the Pompeian frescoes.[1458]\n\nAnother influence at work on the vases of the period besides that of\nthe great painters was that of the stage, in which both tragedy and\ncomedy play their part. The influence of tragedy as represented on the\nGreek stage is seen not only in the choice of subjects, but in the\ncomposition of the scenes and the costumes of the figures. This is\nespecially the case with the large Apulian vases with mythological\nsubjects. The architectural arrangements, with a temple, altar, or\nstatue in the centre, the embroidered draperies and gorgeous tiaras\nworn by the principal personages, and the abundance of dramatic or even\npassionate action, can only be due to the influence of the stage. But\nit is only to Euripides that we can ascribe this influence. There\nappears to have been a great revival of his plays towards the end of\nthe fourth century, especially in Magna Graecia, and the extent of the\neffect of this revival on the vase-paintings has been discussed by\nseveral writers. The tendency of the age to passion and pathos, seen in\nthe Pergamene sculptures and other great works of art, as well as in\nthe paintings of a Parrhasios or a Timanthes, would naturally find an\necho in the subjects treated of by Euripides. Of the existing dramas,\nwe find scenes drawn more or less directly from the _Hecuba_, the\n_Hercules Furens_, the _Hippolytos_, the two _Iphigeneias_, the\n_Medeia_, and the _Phoenissae_. Many others can be traced to the lost\ndramas, as for instance (to quote only from examples in the British\nMuseum) the _Alkmena_, the _Oineus_, the _Antigone_, the _Andromeda_,\nthe _Oinomaos_, and the _Lykourgos_.[1459]\n\nIt has been observed that on many vases of this period on which\nmythological subjects are represented, although the theme is\nessentially tragic, yet the treatment has a somewhat grotesque, not to\nsay burlesque effect. A notable instance is the well-known vase of\nAssteas in Madrid, with Herakles destroying his children (Fig. 107).\nThis quasi-comic element, which appears to be quite unintentional, is\noften accompanied by considerable largeness of scale, exemplified in\nthe size of the figures, the expression of the features, and the\ndrawing generally. It may be that a certain element of exaggeration\nattended the revival of tragedy in Southern Italy,[1460] caused by\nunsuccessful attempts to retain the lofty manner and large style of the\nold productions. Hence too, perhaps, the fondness for burlesques of\ntragedies among the comic writers of the period, reflected in another\nclass of vases.\n\nIn the vases with comic subjects it is not necessary to have recourse\nto the Attic Comedy, New, Middle, or Old, to account for their\nintroduction; an explanation lies nearer at hand. It is true that the\ncostumes worn by the actors are closely related to those of the Old\nComedy,[1461] and that one or two subjects may possibly be traced to\nthe _Frogs_ of Aristophanes (see Chapter XV.). But it is not likely\nthat these plays were ever revived in Southern Italy, as were those of\nEuripides. They were essentially topical, and their political and\nsocial satire would have been lost on a later generation. On the other\nhand, we know that a kind of farce, known as the \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03be was especially\npopular with the people of Tarentum and other towns of Southern Italy\nin the fourth century, either dealing with subjects of daily life or\nburlesquing mythology and heroic legends. It was during the performance\nof one of these in the theatre at Tarentum that the spectators saw the\nRoman fleets entering their harbour in 302 B.C.[1462] The best-known\nwriter of _phlyakes_ was Rhinthon, whose _Amphitruo_ was the original\nof Plautus\u2019 play of that name; a scene from this may be portrayed in a\nvase in the Museo Gregoriano at Rome.[1463] His plays, to judge from\nthe titles, were mainly burlesques; but all literary remains have\nperished, and we can only form an idea of them from the vases.\n\nIn many of these scenes the actual stage is represented; in others we\nhave merely the figure of a comic actor, sometimes in a grotesque\nattitude. The figures almost invariably wear masks and padded stomachs,\ntheir dress consisting of a close-fitting leather garment with sleeves\nand tight trousers, over which is a short loose tunic (see Fig. 105);\non their feet are the traditional _socci_ or low shoes of comedy, and\nthere is one instance of an actor wearing gloves. The subjects of these\nvases have been dealt with elsewhere,[1464] and need not be\nrecapitulated here; the example given in Fig. 105, a burlesque of\nHerakles and Auge,[1465] may serve as typical. They have a peculiar\nstyle of their own, and can hardly be classed with any of the known\nfabrics, though found all over Southern Italy. One is signed by the\npainter Assteas of Paestum, but we look in vain for evidence of his\nusual style thereon. They may all be regarded as belonging to the\nfourth century.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Jahrbuch_, i.\n FIG. 105. BURLESQUE SCENE: HERAKLES AND AUGE.\n]\n\nTurning to the subjects in general on these vases, we note the\nsystematic supplanting of the old heroic myths by new subjects of a\ndramatic and emotional nature. As in the case of the gods Zeus and\nAthena are replaced by Apollo, Aphrodite, and Dionysos, so instead of\nthe labours of Herakles and Theseus we find themes drawn from the\nstories of Troy and Thebes, or the legends of Pelops, Hippolytos,\nPentheus, and Lykourgos. The taking of Troy in particular is a popular\nsubject on the large vases, as are single episodes, such as Ajax\nseizing Kassandra. Among entirely new subjects, introduced from the\ntragedies, are those relating to Alkmena, Pelops, Oedipus, and the\nlater Theban heroes.\n\nCosmogonic myths such as the Gigantomachia and the Birth of Athena\nentirely disappear, as do many of the myths connected with the gods; on\nthe other hand, such subjects as the contest of Apollo and Marsyas, the\nJudgment of Paris, Triptolemos, or Europa and the bull, retain their\npopularity. Herakles is conveyed to Olympos by Nike instead of Athena;\nbut his labours and combats are seldom represented. The typically Attic\nsubjects, Theseus, Eos and Kephalos, and the Birth of Erichthonios,\ndisappear as might have been expected, as does the wrestling of Peleus\nand Thetis. Combats of Greeks with Centaurs and Amazons are favourite\nsubjects, but often little more than decorative.\n\nDionysiac scenes are very frequent, but usually in the form of groups\nof figures without any particular meaning; Aphrodite, and even Apollo,\nsimilarly occur in the midst of Nymphs and attendants, without special\ncharacterising of the figures. A peculiar feature of the period is the\nalmost universal presence of Eros. Whether the scene be mythological,\nDionysiac, or from daily life, he is an almost invariable participant,\nand on the later Apulian vases frequently occurs as a single decorative\nfigure.\n\nScenes from daily life are, if anything, more common than mythological\nsubjects. Banquet-scenes and revels are very popular, and the kottabos\nis sometimes introduced (see Chapter XV.). A departing warrior is\nsometimes represented on Lucanian and Campanian vases (see Fig. 108 and\nPlate XLIV.), but chariot and battle scenes are comparatively rare.\nAmong the Apulian vases occur a large class of subjects formerly\ncharacterised on insufficient grounds as \u201ctoilet scenes\u201d of Aphrodite\nor Helen. Many no doubt actually represent scenes from women\u2019s daily\nlife; but the commonest type is that of a seated woman and a standing\nyouth exchanging presents of fruit, mirrors, sashes, or toilet-boxes.\nThe presence of Eros in most cases suggests scenes of courting and the\nofferings of lovers; but as a rule they are purely fanciful, like the\ndesigns on Dresden and S\u00e8vres china.\n\nAthletic scenes, in which a race or contest, is going on, are\npractically non-existent; but groups of athletes, or rather of\n_ephebi_, usually wrapped in mantles and conversing together, furnish\nthe stock decoration of the reverse of the kraters and other\ndouble-sided vases, a practice already begun in the Athenian R.F.\nvases, and now become invariable.\n\nTwo classes of subjects to which allusion has not yet been made, and\nwhich are almost confined to the large Apulian vases, have an important\nbearing on the purpose for which these vases were made\u2014namely, for use\nat funerals. The first class includes scenes from the under-world, and\nin this series are some of the most magnificent of existing vases (see\nPlate LII.). The subjects and the manner of their representation have\nbeen fully discussed elsewhere (Chapter XIII.); they are treated in the\nsame theatrical style as the mythological scenes already discussed.\n\nThe second class is confined to scenes representing offerings at the\ntombs of the departed, which may take two forms. In the simpler, which\nis characteristic of Lucania and Campania, and especially of the hydria\nform, the tomb is a stele, like those of the Athenian lekythi, at which\nthe relatives of the deceased meet to mourn or make offerings (Fig.\n20). The \u201ctype\u201d is that of Orestes and Electra at the tomb of\nAgamemnon, but only in one or two cases is it possible to suggest this\ninterpretation. On the Apulian vases, almost exclusively on the large\nkraters and amphorae, but sometimes also on the hydriae, a more\nelaborate treatment of the subject is employed. The centre of the scene\nis occupied by an Ionic distyle building representing a \u1f21\u03c1\u1ff7\u03bf\u03bd or shrine\ndevoted to the worship of an ancestor or family \u201chero.\u201d In the entrance\nof this building (which is painted white to denote marble) stands or\nsits the figure of a young man or a woman holding some attribute\u2014a cup\nor piece of armour\u2014or standing by a horse. These figures are usually\npainted white throughout like the building, which seems to imply that a\nstatue or relief is represented rather than an actual human\nfigure.[1466] On either side of the shrine figures are represented\nbringing libations. Sometimes the actual tomb of the deceased is\nrepresented with a plant growing in it; or, again, a lady is\nrepresented at her toilet with her maid, as in the Athenian sepulchral\nreliefs (Fig. 106). Each person is represented with his appropriate\ncostume or attributes\u2014the warrior with horse or armour, the hunter with\ndog, the lady with articles of toilet.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 106. APULIAN VASE WITH SEPULCHRAL SCENE (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nIn spite of the absence of \u201cbanquet\u201d or \u201cgreeting\u201d scenes, the\nparallelism with the Attic reliefs is very marked, and the sepulchral\ncharacter of these vases is indubitable. It is, further, natural to\nsuppose that there is some reference to the worship of a \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 or\ndeceased ancestor, such as is known to have been a universal custom\namong the Greeks.[1467] Reliefs have been found at Tarentum with\nsubjects which obviously have this reference. Apart from these two\nclasses, however, the majority of the vases of Southern Italy seem to\nhave been made originally for ornamental purposes, such as the\ndecoration of a house, as is implied by the distinction in the artistic\nmerit of the two sides.\n\nArtists\u2019 signatures in this period are exceedingly rare; only three, in\nfact, are known. Of these one may be briefly dismissed\u2014Lasimos,[1468]\nwho signed a fine Apulian vase in the Louvre, with sepulchral and other\nscenes; his style is hardly distinctive enough to admit of identifying\nany others as his work. But in the other two names, those of =Assteas=\nand =Python=, we find more interest. Five vases exist with the\nsignature of Assteas, and one with that of Python, and it is\ninteresting to note that they both use the form \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 (see Chapter\nXVII.). The list is as follows:\n\nASSTEAS. (1) Krater from Paestum in Madrid. Reinach, i. 168 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 665, fig. 732 = Fig. 107. Herakles\n destroying his children.\n\n (2) Krater from Paestum in Naples (3412). _Wiener Vorl._ B. 2.\n Phrixos and Helle.\n\n (3) Krater from S. Agata dei Goti in Naples (3226). Millingen,\n _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 27. Kadmos slaying the dragon.\n\n (4) Krater from S. Agata dei Goti in Berlin (3044). _Wiener\n Vorl._ B. 3, 1. Scene from farce (parody of Prokrustes?).\n\n (5) Lekythos from Paestum in Naples (2873). Millin-Reinach, i.\n pl. 3. The garden of the Hesperides.\n\nPYTHON. Krater from S. Agata dei Goti in the British Museum (F 149).\n _J.H.S._ xi. pl. 6. Alkmena on the funeral pyre.\n\nThe characteristics of Assteas\u2019 work are very marked, and, curiously\nenough, Python\u2019s differs little from it. Both are essentially pictorial\nartists, trained in Greek traditions, and inheriting from Attic\npainters like Meidias the love of elaborate and minutely rendered\ndraperies and picturesque grouping of figures at different levels. In\nthe latter detail we also seem to see signs of the influence of\nPolygnotos.\n\nThere are many other vases in our museums which present the same\nfeatures of style and treatment as these.[1469] Besides those already\nmentioned, the fondness for half-figures in the background, the large\nheads, pronounced features, and heavy masses of hair in the figures on\nthese vases connect them unmistakably with the school represented by\nthe two artists. It is not the style of Lucania or of Campania, still\nless that of Apulia; and yet it is clearly an Italian fabric. Some\nprevious writers have maintained that Assteas came from (or was\nresident at) Tarentum, arguing thus partly on epigraphical grounds,\npartly on the ground of his employment of scenes from the farces,[1470]\nwhich, as we have seen, were popular in that city. But having regard to\nthe fact that three out of five of Assteas\u2019 vases were found at\nPaestum, and that he combines certain characteristics of Lucanian and\nCampanian fabrics, we may fairly assume that he (and therefore also\nPython) resided in that city, which lay on the border of the two\ndistricts.\n\nWe are thus enabled to establish a =style of Paestum= distinct from the\nother Italian fabrics\u2014a conclusion at which the present writer and\nSignor Patroni arrived independently some years back. The latter has\npointed out that several small details also point to that city\u2014such as\nthe gaily plumed helmet worn by Herakles on the Madrid vase, which\nresembles those worn by local warriors on paintings found in that\ncity.[1471] And in the Naples Museum there are several other vases in\nthe style of Assteas from Paestum.[1472] Signor Patroni dates Assteas\nabout 350\u2013320 B.C., Python a little later.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 107. VASE BY ASSTEAS IN MADRID: HERAKLES DESTROYING HIS CHILDREN.\n]\n\nThe Madrid vase and the Python krater are in their way masterpieces,\nand form almost the finest examples we possess of South Italian\nvase-painting. Both are extraordinarily rich in colouring as well as in\ndetail. The former (Fig. 107) represents, as has been said, Herakles\ndestroying his children the subject being treated in a manner which to\nus appears almost grotesque, not to say comic. But it is probable that\nthis is due partly to the element of exaggeration which has been\nascribed to the revival of tragedy (see p. 472). The whole conception\nis obviously theatrical, with the setting of Herakles and his child,\nthe principal figures, against a background formed, after theatrical\nmodels, by the front of the palace, through openings in which appear\nthe horrified faces of Alkmena and Iolaos, and that of Mania, the\ngoddess of madness. Herakles has already set fire to a confused pile of\nhousehold furniture\u2014tables, chairs, and wool-baskets\u2014and a child clings\nto him in agony, while Megara tears her dishevelled hair; but their\npleadings have no effect. In the Python krater the action is less\nviolent and theatrical, but there is the same gaudiness of colouring\nand richness of embroidered costume. Alkmena is seated on the pyre, to\nwhich Amphitryon and Antenor are about to set light, and raises her\nhand in supplication to Zeus, whose bust is seen above. In answer to\nher prayer the Hyades or rain-nymphs pour down water from their\npitchers to extinguish the flames. It should be noted that in this\npainting we have several successive stages of time combined in one (cf.\nVol. II. p. 10); the pyre is not yet lighted, but the water is already\ndescending to extinguish it.\n\nWe now proceed to describe in detail the characteristics of the three\nprincipal fabrics, beginning with that of =Lucania=, as the earliest in\ncharacter, if not necessarily in point of time. Lucanian vases stand\nnearer to the latest Attic fabrics than do those of the other\ndistricts, and do not present the same local peculiarities; nor do they\nsink like the others into a state of decadence and barbarism, but are\nvery conservative in their style.\n\nWe note in them a much greater unity of style than in the vases of\nCampania, and everything points to one centre of fabrication. This is\nmost probably Anzi, where the largest number have been found.\nInformation as to provenance is unfortunately often vague, but few\nother places are given as sources (see p. 83), almost the only other\nnames being those of Pisticci and Pomarico. But the number of vases\nthat it is possible to attribute to Lucania is not large in any case.\n\nThe designs are usually somewhat severe and restrained, and\ncharacterised by a certain stiffness of drawing and largeness of scale.\nThe heads of figures are abnormally large, with great staring eyes and\nmasses of hair rendered without detail. The draperies are comparatively\nfree from ornamentation, only broad black borders and patterns of small\ndots being admitted. The clay is of a rich red colour, but accessory\ncolours are exceedingly rare. Hence they present a great contrast to\nthe Apulian and Campanian, with their masses of white and generally\ngaudy appearance. Another peculiarity is that fillets in the hair are\nrendered simply by leaving a narrow band across the head in the colour\nof the clay. The figures often stand in the air without the usual\ndotted ground-lines, but sometimes the ground is represented by a heap\nof loose stones. A favourite device is that of a half-shield seen in\nthe upper part of the scene, as a sort of indication of locality or\naction.[1473] Fig. 108 gives a typical example of Lucanian\nvase-painting.\n\nAmong the favourite shapes are the bell-shaped krater and the amphora,\nalso the hydria and column-handled krater. The hydria is generally\nemployed, as in Campania, for sepulchral subjects. The vases are mostly\nof large size, whence a corresponding largeness of the figures; whereas\nCampanian vases are generally small, and make up for the absence of\nimposing figures by their colouring. An entirely new shape, peculiar to\nthis style, is the four-handled krater, to which the name of _nestoris_\nhas been somewhat absurdly given[1474]; it is undoubtedly a local form,\nbeing found in the indigenous pottery of the district.[1475] There are\ntwo varieties, one with a high neck, the other with sloping shoulder\nand no neck. The handles are usually ornamented with discs painted with\nrosettes, and the designs are in panels surrounded by ornament,\nsometimes on the second variety with a lower frieze of figures.\nGenerally speaking, secondary ornamentation is largely employed on\nthese vases, especially on the last-named shape. The palmette patterns\nunder the handles are usually very luxuriant.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 108. DEPARTURE OF WARRIOR, FROM A LUCANIAN KRATER\n(BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nThe vases of =Campania= present in many ways a striking contrast to\nthose of Lucania. Their chief characteristic is, as has been noted,\nlove of picturesque effect and variety of colour, even to the extent of\nintroducing attempts at shading (see above, p. 471). The vases are\nmostly small, and none of the large kraters or amphorae belong to this\nclass. The favourite shapes are the hydria, lekythos with bulbous body,\nand amphora; the latter is clearly an imitation of the Attic \u201cNolan\u201d\namphorae, which were so largely imported into the district, but the\nbody is usually more symmetrical. The clay is usually of a buff or dull\nyellow ochre tone, and red and yellow washes are frequently used, as\nwell as large masses of white; these tints are laid on very carelessly,\nand the white is of a kind that is apt to flake off and disappear.\nYellow, purple, and white are largely used as accessories, and the\ndrawing has a tendency to become very careless. The lines of the ground\nare indicated by occasional strokes of white, or by rocks strewn with\nflowers. Ornamental patterns are not so popular as in Lucania; the\nfavourite is the wave, and the palmettes under the handles are thick\nand ugly, with angular leaves. Some decorative motives seem to be\nderived directly from nature.\n\nThe subjects are often interesting and uncommon, introducing recondite\nor unusual myths; many of the vases with comic scenes appear to belong\nto this class, and one in the British Museum has an Oscan inscription.\nLocal peculiarities of costume and armour, which Signor Patroni calls\nOsco-Samnite, are often found; for instance, warriors wear a very short\nchiton with broad girdle, a helmet with waving crest and tall\nside-plumes of Italian type,[1476] and a remarkable breast-plate formed\nof three circular plates of metal arranged in a triangle.[1477] These\nsame peculiarities are found on the wall-paintings at Paestum, and\nthere are indications that Virgil was familiar with them.[1478]\n\nSignor Patroni, by dint of an exhaustive study of the Naples\ncollection, has made a tentative classification of Campanian vases\naccording to fabric; he distinguishes those of Cumae, Saticula (Santa\nAgata dei Goti), and Abella; but those of Capua, Nola, and Neapolis\nappear to have no distinctive style. The Cumae fabric, for studying\nwhich the _Raccolta Cumana_ in Naples gives exceptional facilities, is\nrepresented by the long, straight-bodied amphorae, the hydriae with\nfemale heads under the handles, and kraters on which the design is\nframed by stylised floral patterns or heavy palmettes. Among the\ncharacteristic patterns are the wave, large flowers in profile, and\nground-ornaments generally, such as ivy-leaves, branches, and small\nwindows. The strong tendency to polychromy seems to be the result of\nusing the late Attic polychrome vases as models. In the colouring a new\nfeature is the use of a carmine red, which, according to Patroni, is\nonly found in the Cumae fabrics.[1479] Mythological subjects are\nrare,[1480] sepulchral common, and shrines are found on these alone;\nbut the majority have scenes from daily life,[1481] banquets, return of\nwarriors, etc. It is on these that the local costumes are usually found.\n\nThe Saticula fabrics are very uniform,[1482] practically all\nbell-shaped kraters with red clay; colours are sparingly used, and then\nonly white; a maeander takes the place of the wave-pattern as a border;\nground-lines are usually indicated. Of subjects Dionysiac have the\npreference. The vases of Abella are of late date, chiefly hydriae of\nvery pale clay with accessory colours; among the typical patterns are\narabesques ending in white daisies. They sometimes show reminiscences\nof the Paestum style.[1483]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLIV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n SOUTH ITALIAN VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1, 2, APULIAN VASES; 3, CAMPANIAN.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThere are a few peculiar fabrics which we may also attribute to a\nCampanian origin, including rude imitations of the B.F. style, chiefly\nsmall amphorae with single figures; imitations of Nolan amphorae,\nreproducing both their form and their scheme of decoration[1484]; and\nbell-shaped kraters imitating the Attic style, which Signor Patroni has\nassociated with Saticula. The imitations of Nolan amphorae have a slim\nbody, twisted handles, and a sharply set-off shoulder forming a right\nangle with the neck instead of a graceful curve. As in their\nprototypes, the subjects are confined to one or two figures each side.\nThe lustrous black glaze of the Attic vases is admirably reproduced.\nThere is also a class of vases with designs painted in opaque red on\nthe black ground, reproducing the method of the transitional vases\ndescribed on p. 393.[1485] They are very rude in character, with\nroughly incised details and subjects of a simple kind; the red pigment\nappears to have been made from fragments of pounded pottery (_testa\ntrita_). There is, however, one remarkable exception\u2014a small phiale in\nthe British Museum,[1486] dating from the third century, with the\nsubject of a shepherd-boy with his dog. The design is carefully painted\nin opaque red and white in the style of the Pompeian wall-paintings,\nand the effect of light and shade produced by hatched lines is both\nremarkable and unique. A krater found at Civita Castellana\n(Falerii),[1487] the paintings on which are in Campanian style, is\nunique in having Latin inscriptions over the figures, a group\nconsisting of Zeus (... SPATER, _Die_]_spater_), Ganymede, Eros\n(CVPIDO), and Athena (MENERVA). The subject is conceived rather in the\nstyle of the Etruscan mirrors than that of the painted vases, and is\nobviously under local influence. As Falerii was destroyed in 243 B.C.,\na _terminus ante quem_ may be obtained for the date of the vase, as for\nothers found on this site (see p. 75).\n\nThe vases of =Apulia= are not only more numerous, but of more merit and\ngreater interest than those of the other two classes. In them may be\nobserved two or three stages of development, beginning with a fifth- or\nearly fourth-century group of Attic type, consisting of large amphorae\nwith two friezes of figures.[1488] Both in shape and method of\ndecoration these form the prototype of the large kraters and amphorae\nwhich comprise the second class; they are distinguished from the latter\nby severity of treatment and absence of colour. The second class\nincludes the large vases with mythological and tragic subjects, the\nUnder-world vases, and those with sepulchral scenes; they are all\nrichly decorated from head to foot, with two main rows of figures,\nsmaller subjects on the neck, and ornamentation over every available\nspace. The theatrical characteristics of which we have spoken above (p.\n472) are best illustrated by some of this series.\n\nThe third class includes some large vases, such as the so-called\n_pelikae_ and the large phialae, and the smaller forms, the oinocho\u00eb\nand its varieties, and kanthari, rhyta, and other kinds of\ndrinking-cups. Some shapes are peculiar to this class. In spite of the\ngreat variety of shape, there is a remarkable poverty of conception in\nthe subjects, which show a tendency to become purely decorative, and\nare mainly confined to the vague \u201ccourting\u201d scenes or \u201ctoilet\u201d scenes,\nor to single figures of Eros and Nike. On the smallest vases the\ncommonest subject is often that of a female head covered with a cap,\nsometimes of a relatively colossal size, and this also occurs,\nsurrounded by foliage, on the necks of the large vases. The shapes, as\nin the case of the _epichysis_ (p. 179), often tend to ugliness and\nover-refinement.\n\nThe conception of Eros on the later Apulian vases is one of their chief\ncharacteristics (cf. Plate XLIV.). An almost invariable participant in\nevery scene, his form assumes an androgynous character; his hair is\narranged in feminine fashion, and his person adorned with necklaces,\nearrings, and other jewellery. Among other peculiarities we may note\nthe double line of white or yellow dots for ground-lines; the\ncharacterising of Oriental figures by tiaras and cross-belts; the\ngeneral treatment of the hair of women, at first long, thick, and\nwig-like, but later gathered up in a cap, from which the ends float out\nbehind; the thick but effeminate proportions of the men; and the small\nheads of the horses.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLV\n\n _To face page 486._\n\n[Illustration:\n\n APULIAN AMPHORA.\n PERSEPHONE IN HADES.\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nThere does not seem to be any possibility of distinguishing different\ncentres of fabric in Apulia. Nor can Tarentum have been a centre of\nvase-fabrics, although Lenormant stoutly upheld its claims, as the\nchief centre of Greek civilisation in that region. But Tarentum has\nbeen the scene of much excavation, and results do not point to that\nconclusion; most of the vases found there are purely Greek. On the\nother hand, enormous numbers have been found at Ruvo, and this was\nundoubtedly the chief centre, though without a distinguishing style of\nits own. Ruvo was famous for its red clay, and remains of furnaces and\npotteries have been found there. Other sites where vases have been\nfound are Bari, Canosa, and Ceglie. At Canosa there was a preference\nfor the tall amphora with scroll-handles, the large phiale, and the\nprocho\u00f6s,[1489] and purple accessories were largely used here. It is\nalso interesting to recall that Canosa seems to have been the centre\nfor the large ornamental vases of terracotta painted in _tempera_ (p.\n119).\n\nOn some of the column-handled kraters[1490] local costumes appear,\nprobably representing the Peucetians, and having some affinities with\nthose of Lucania; the principal features are the tall pointed cap and\nshort striped chiton worn by both sexes. Another group peculiar to\nApulia is formed by the fish-plates[1491]\u2014a peculiar form of plate,\nwith low stem, a sinking in the centre, and edge turned over, all being\npainted with fish of various kinds (Plate XLIV.). They were no doubt\nused for eating fish, the sinking being for the sauce; but they may\nalso have been hung up as votive offerings in the temple of some marine\ndeity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe last efforts of vase-painting on the soil of Magna Graecia date\nfrom the latter half of the third century B.C. By this time\nvase-painting had reached a stage of complete decadence, devoid of\nstyle or taste, and rapidly verging on barbarism, as shown in some\nspecimens, which seem to be the efforts of local craftsmen to copy the\nbetter examples, but with the same want of success as the\nEtruscans.[1492]\n\nAnother direction which vase-painting took before it finally\ndisappeared is illustrated by a group of vases mostly found at Egnazia\n(Gnathia) in Apulia, which clearly form a final stage in the evolution\nof the local fabric just discussed. Originally known from the place\nwhere the majority was found as _vasi di Egnazia_ or Gnathia vases,\nthey were in the view of Lenormant more probably made at\nTarentum.[1493] But we have seen that there is slight evidence of local\nfabric there,[1494] and their connection with the fabrics of Ruvo and\nCanosa makes it more likely that they came from that neighbourhood. It\nis therefore probable that the old name is the correct one.\n\nThe characteristics of this group are: (1) the black varnish with which\nthe _whole_ vase is covered; (2) the designs painted in opaque\ncolours\u2014white, purple, and yellow; (3) the tendency to imitate vases of\nmetal, as seen in the vertically ribbed bodies and other details of\nform. The important _r\u00f4le_ played by the black varnish is interesting,\nas showing the increasing tendency to reduce the painter\u2019s labour to a\nminimum, combined with a striving after novelty and the rejuvenation of\nthe art. The practice, no doubt, arose from the discovery of the\npainter that it was easier to paint the figures on the black in opaque\ncolour than to trace them out in the clay and work round them with the\nvarnish, especially in the case of the elaborate foliage patterns which\nplayed so important a part in Apulian vases.\n\nThe subjects are usually confined to the shoulder or neck, at least of\nthe larger vases; but figures are comparatively rare. One krater in the\nBritish Museum (F 543) which belongs to the comic series is a notable\nexception; and there is a pleasing subject on a skyphos in the\nLouvre[1495]\u2014a cock and goose confronted, and greeting one another with\nthe respective salutations, \u201cAh, the goose!\u201d \u201cOh, the cock!\u201d But in the\nmajority of cases the only designs are female heads, Erotes (Fig. 118),\nbirds, comic and tragic masks suspended from wreaths, and simple\nfoliage patterns. The reverse of the two-sided vases is often\nundecorated.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 109. HYDRIA WITH OPAQUE PAINTING ON BLACK GROUND, FROM CURIUM\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\nIt is interesting to note that specimens of this ware are sometimes\nfound on Greek sites, such as Athens, Myrina in Asia Minor, Melos, and\nCyprus. At Curium in the latter island a fine hydria in this style,\nwith figures on the shoulder (Fig. 109), was found in 1895.[1496]\nWhether these were imported from Italy or made elsewhere is quite\nuncertain.[1497]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 110. PHIALE WITH LATIN INSCRIPTION: \u201cTHE CUP OF AEQUITIA\u201d\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\nAnother interesting but much smaller class which belongs to the latter\nhalf of the third century is formed by a group of vases, mostly small\nphialae, which are distinguished by bearing painted Latin\ninscriptions.[1498] Some also have figures (Eros, a female head, etc.),\nwhich are treated in the same manner as the Gnatia vases. It is\nprobable that Rome was the place of origin of this class, in spite of\nthe fact that most of them were found in Etruria.[1499] But the Latin\nlanguage at that time was more at home in Campania than anywhere else\noutside Rome. The inscriptions take the form: AECETIAI POCOLOM,\n_Aequitiae poculum_ (B.M. F 604 = Fig. 110); IVNONENES POCOLOM,\n_Junonis poculum_; and so on,\u2014Saturn, Mercury, and other Roman deities\nbeing included in the list. Reasons have been given for dating this\nseries in the First Punic War, 260\u2013240 B.C.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFormerly it was universally supposed that the art of vase-painting was\nbrought to an end in 186 B.C. by the action of the Roman Senate when\nthey issued their edict against Bacchanalian ceremonies, which\nundoubtedly affected Southern Italy. But this was only a natural view\nto be taken by writers who associated the painted vases with the\nEleusinian mysteries and similar ideas; on other grounds it is hardly\ntenable. Especially in regard to the general putting back of the\nchronology of the art, it is impossible to suppose that painted vases\nwith mythological subjects were still made in the second century. The\ncharacter of the mid-third-century vases just described is sufficient\nto indicate that they represent the last stage to which Greek painting\ncould ever have reached.\n\n \u00a7 3. FIGURE-VASES AND VASES WITH RELIEFS\n\nWe propose to conclude this sketch of the history of Greek\nvase-painting with a few words on a principle which, while always\npresent in Greek pottery, yet at all times lay in the background, until\nthe latest stages of the art, when it entered on a phase of increased\npopularity. This is the principle of combining the ceramic with the\nplastic art\u2014in other words, the manufacture of vases in the form of\nhuman or animal figures or heads.\n\nIt has already been noted, in discussing the primitive pottery of Troy\n(p. 257), that the idea of associating the vase form and the human form\nis a very old one. At Troy it is of course seen in its most rudimentary\nstage, when correct modelling was a thing quite beyond the potter\u2019s\nscope, and he could only roughly indicate features and limbs on the\nsurface of the vase, which thus always remained a vase, and the figure\nidea never gained, as in later times, the predominance. In the\nMycenaean period the advance in modelling was great, but only reached a\nhigh level in Crete. It is only since the discoveries at Knossos that\nwe have been able to account for the astounding group of porcelain\n_rhyta_ from the Enkomi tombs in Cyprus (see Plate X., fig. 4),[1500]\nwhich at first sight seem to have been made by a sixth-century artist,\nso admirable and lifelike are they. Although the rams\u2019 heads bear the\npalm, the female heads are, for the period, a _tour de force_, so\nadvanced in type that it would be pardonable to argue\u2014apart from the\ncircumstances of their discovery\u2014that they must belong to a later stage\nof art.\n\nApart from these, however, the principle did not find its way into\nGreece before the seventh century B.C., and then its origin is\nindubitably Oriental. It is best exemplified by the discoveries in\nRhodes, especially at Kameiros,[1501] where vases of porcelain and\nterracotta are found modelled in the form of helmeted heads or heads of\nanimals (see Plate XLVI., fig. 1, and p. 127). The type adopted is that\nof the aryballos (p. 197); it was no doubt a comparatively easy matter\nto model its spherical body into the form required, applying paint\nwhere necessary to bring out the details as on the vases. In the\nWestern Mediterranean the _alabastron_ form seems to have been more\npopular.[1502] It is often adopted for the Canopic vases of Etruria\n(see Chapter XVIII.). Many of these are unpainted, or rather are\ncovered with a white slip and then painted in _tempera_ like the\nordinary terracotta figures; they are, in fact, figurines in essence,\nvases by accident; whereas in the first-named group the vase idea\nretains the predominance. But it is almost impossible to draw the line.\nA fine early instance of imitation of metal in early Greek pottery is\nthe British Museum jug from Aegina (A 457) terminating in the head of a\nGryphon.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLVI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n GREEK VASES MODELLED IN VARIOUS FORMS (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1, 6, SIXTH CENTURY; 2, 4, 5, FIFTH CENTURY; 3, FOURTH CENTURY.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nDuring the sixth century painted figurine vases are rare, though there\nare not wanting various examples of the class just described, which\nbelong to this period; but at all events hardly any examples can be\ntraced to Athenian manufacture during the age of B.F. vase-painting.\nTowards the end of the century, however, the fashion was reintroduced\nby the potter Charinos, who belongs to the transitional period (about\n525\u2013500 B.C.). A vase signed by him, which was found at Corneto, is in\nthe form of a female head surmounted by a _kalathos_.[1503] It was made\nin a mould like the terracotta figures, but the painted decoration,\nwhich is remarkably elaborate and minute, is entirely B.F. in\ncharacter. The patterns on the head-dress include maeander, stars,\nivy-leaves, lozenge and net patterns, and a minute frieze of animals,\npainted in black on the clay ground. A similar vase, but later in date,\nis in the Berlin Museum[1504]; in this example we may note the\nintroduction of R.F. ornamentation, in the palmettes and diapering\nround the top.\n\nThese two stand at the head of a series of similar vases extending\nthroughout the succeeding periods down to the end of the age of painted\nvases. They compare for style with the heads of the female statues\nfound on the Acropolis, which belong to the same period. Two other\npotters, Kaliades and Prokles, made similar vases.[1505]\n\nThe fashion started by Charinos continued throughout the fifth century,\nbut the plastic conception tended to become subordinate to the ceramic,\nand it became more and more customary to decorate the non-plastic\nportions in the manner of the vases. Of this development the most\nnoteworthy example is the beautiful rhyton in the British Museum in the\nform of a Sphinx (E 788), the upper or vase part of which is ornamented\nwith the subject of Kekrops and Erichthonios. The body of the Sphinx is\ncovered with a fine white slip, and the details are picked out with red\nand gilding. This vase dates from about the middle of the century.\nThere also exist many examples of rhyta or kanthari, formed of a head\nor two heads back to back, usually a Maenad and a Seilenos.[1506]\nAnother favourite type is that of a jug in the form of a negro\u2019s or\nAethiopian\u2019s head[1507]; and there are also rhyta which terminate in\nthe head of a lion, mule, or other animal finely modelled (Plate XLVI.,\nfigs. 2, 5).\n\nTowards the end of the fifth century there is a reversion to the purely\nplastic figure-vase, usually in the form of a lekythos with spherical\nbody, to the front of which the figure is attached (Plate XLVI., fig.\n4). The vase is usually covered with black glaze, and the figure with a\nwhite slip like the terracottas, with polychrome colouring. Examples of\nthis class are the series of lekythi representing Aphrodite Anadyomene\nin a scallop-shell, of which there are examples at Athens and\nPetersburg,[1508] and the fine vase in the British Museum (E 716) with\nthe bust of Athena Parthenos. A series of smaller lekythi, of which the\nBritish Museum possesses examples (G 2\u20137), represents Eros on a\ndolphin, the young Dionysos in a sort of canopy, Europa on the bull, a\nboy with a dog, and other subjects; the technique is similar to that of\nthe larger specimens, with pink and green colouring. They form charming\nlittle objects, and are often well executed.[1509]\n\nIn Southern Italy many of these types are continued, the most popular\nbeing that of the rhyton ending in an animal\u2019s head (p. 193), of which\nmany examples have been found in Apulia. They usually have some simple\ndesign painted on the upper part, such as a figure of Eros. There are\nalso numerous examples of vases in the form of animals or human figures\n(Plate XLVI., fig. 3), some of which are in black glazed ware with\npatterns in white like the vases of Egnazia, others being covered with\nwhite slip like the terracottas. With the decay of painted decoration\nthe plastic element gradually predominates more and more, until the\nvase form becomes, so to speak, purely accidental. Thus in the third\ncentury the fabrics of Canosa, of which we have spoken in a previous\nchapter (p. 118), entirely hold the field, and the vases pass out of\nthe sphere of the history of vase-painting.\n\nIn all or nearly all of the vases just described we observe the same\nprinciple at work\u2014namely, the tendency to imitate metal in terracotta.\nIt is one that is constantly recurring throughout the whole history of\nGreek ceramics, with more or less persistency and prominence.\nSometimes, as in the Melian, Proto-Attic, and other fabrics, the\nimitation is limited to the form of the handles, which is, strictly\nspeaking, inappropriate in terracotta, though frequently found in early\nbronze vessels.[1510] It is seldom found in Ionia, but in Western\nGreece there are many examples during the seventh and sixth centuries,\nas in some of the Proto-Corinthian and early Corinthian wares,[1511]\nThis is doubtless in a large measure due to the influence of the great\ncentres of metal-work at that time, Corinth and Chalkis. We are not,\ntherefore, surprised to find the tendency exemplified in the pottery\nfabrics of those two centres, and at Chalkis, as has already been noted\n(p. 321), it is especially conspicuous in the form and minor details of\nthe vases. At Athens examples are rare, with the exception of the vases\nof Nikosthenes, who not only copies complete vases in metal, as in his\npeculiarly-shaped amphorae and in a small _phiale mesomphalos_ in the\nBritish Museum,[1512] but is also addicted to adorning the handles of\njugs with female heads in relief, as on specimens in the Louvre and\nelsewhere.[1513] After the sixth century the tendency is far less\nconspicuous, owing to the high esteem in which vase-painting was then\nheld, and little is seen of attempts at imitating metal until the\nrevival of the plastic element in pottery in the fourth century. An\nalmost unique exception is the Berlin krater from Corinth (2882), which\nmust date from the fifth century. It is of black ware, with designs in\nrelief round the body.[1514]\n\nThe tendency also manifests itself in a marked degree in another\ndirection in early Greek art\u2014namely, in that of ornamenting vases with\nreliefs. So much evidence of this has been yielded by discoveries on\nGreek soil that it is now certain that this method of decoration had\nits origin in Greece, and not in Etruria, although the close\nresemblance between early relief-wares from Rhodes and the large \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9\nof Cervetri (see p. 153) had led archaeologists in the past to regard\nEtruria as its original home. The Etruscans always preferred modelled\nvases or relief decoration to painted ware, as their _bucchero_ fabrics\nshow; but we know that they had no inventive power, and even in this\nthey have proved to be only imitators.[1515]\n\nTurning to details of the early Greek vases with reliefs, we may note\nthat there are two varieties: firstly, those in which the reliefs are\nmade by rolling a cylinder round the vase, the design being repeated\nover again; secondly, those in which the reliefs are made from separate\nmoulds, and attached with some kind of cement.[1516] In both classes\nthe shape usually affected is that of a large \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (cf. p. 151), of a\nsomewhat coarse red clay. It is the first variety which so closely\nresemble the \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 found at Cervetri, and which are now known to be the\nprototypes, not imitations, of the Etruscan examples.[1517]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLVII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7.\n ARCHAIC PITHOS WITH RELIEFS FROM BOEOTIA (ATHENS MUS.).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn Greece fragments of the first class have been found on the Acropolis\nat Athens, the recurring design being a two-horse chariot which a\nwarrior mounts, with a scorpion in the field. The similarity in the\nclay, the shape, and the technique of the reliefs with the Cervetri\nvases is remarkable; the subject is one common on Corinthian vases.\nOther fragments have been found at Tanagra, and there is a good example\nin the Louvre with a series of figures, representing a dance of women,\nall of similar types, yet not from the same stamp, but different\nmoulds.[1518] The variations of detail in dress and hair show\nconclusively that the cylinder process is not employed here, but that\nthe figures are freely modelled from a single type. The costume is that\ntypical of the women on early B.F. vases (cf. p. 372). Some very fine\nexamples of \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 with reliefs, dating from the end of the seventh\ncentury, have been published by De Ridder.[1519] They are all from\nBoeotia, and are similar to those made in Rhodes, but with the\ncharacteristic ornamental handles of metallic form. Here again the\nfigures are freely modelled with variations of detail, and they afford\ninteresting points of comparison with the painted vases and with the\nearly bronze reliefs which are variously attributed to Corinth and\nChalkis.[1520] One in Athens (_Cat._ 462) has the interesting subject\nof Artemis Diktynna; another (_Cat._ 466 = Plate XLVII.), an\naccouchement scene. Similar finds have been made in Kythnos, Tenos,\nCrete, and Rhodes,[1521] the ornamentation being for the most part\npurely geometrical, but sometimes with Centaurs or human figures.[1522]\nIn none of these examples is there any peculiarly Etruscan feature; all\nis purely Hellenic, presenting close analogies not only with metal-work\nin relief, but also with the Oriental art to which the Greek work of\nthat age was so much indebted, as in the case of the cylinder\nprocess.[1523]\n\nA new method of decorating vases, which first makes its appearance\ntowards the end of the fifth century, is by means of _appliqu\u00e9_\nreliefs. It is doubtless due to the influence of sculpture, and perhaps\nmore especially to that of the bronze reliefs which on vases and\nmirror-cases were now becoming popular. The former influence is clearly\nat work in the great Kertch vase with the contest of Athena and\nPoseidon (Plate L.), where we may see in the two central figures, which\nare modelled in relief and applied to the surface of the vase, an\nundoubted reminiscence of the western Parthenon pediment. There are\nalso vases from Athens, Kertch, the Cyrenaica, and Southern\nItaly,[1524] in which the figures are either partially or wholly\nmodelled in relief, like the vase of Xenophantos or a fine lekythos in\nthe British Museum (G 23) representing the rape of Kassandra by Ajax.\nAnother fine specimen, found at Cumae and now at Petersburg, has a\ngroup of Eleusinian deities in relief on the shoulder.[1525] Yet\nanother example, recently found at Lampsakos, has the Calydonian\nboar-hunt as its subject; the figures are in relief on a gilded\nground.[1526]\n\nThe imitation of metal technique[1527] is even more marked in the vases\nof Southern Italy than in those from other parts. At Capua, Cumae, and\nMetapontum amphorae, hydriae, and oinochoae are found, covered with a\nvery brilliant black varnish, but without any painted decoration; the\nonly ornament is in the form of gilded wreaths and other simple\npatterns, or designs in relief. The British Museum has a fine series\nfrom Capua with garlands of foliage and ornaments in the form of\nfestoons and pendants, the whole forming, as M. Collignon says, \u201ca\nbrilliant and luxurious system of decoration which contrasts with the\nsober taste of the Attic potters.\u201d Some of the hydriae are clearly of\nlocal fabric, imitations of the Campanian hydriae of bronze.[1528] The\nforms are often very elaborate, with ornamental handles, ribbed bodies,\nand moulded stems. An oinocho\u00eb has been found with an inscription which\ngives the names of le\u1fd6a for smooth-surfaced vases, \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b2\u03b4\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac for those\nribbed or fluted. Heavy imitations of the gilt and relief wares have\noften been found at Alexandria,[1529] and isolated specimens occur in\nAttica, Rhodes, and the Cyrenaica.\n\nThe growing fashion of using only vases of chased gold and silver in\npreference to painted pottery made itself more and more felt both in\nGreece and Italy during the Alexandrine period. The same tendency which\nwe have already noted, to reproduce as far as possible the\ncharacteristics and appearance of metal, may be observed in all the\npottery of this period. Not only do the subjects moulded in relief\nreproduce the appearance of the chased and _repouss\u00e9_ designs, but the\nshapes are those of the metal vases, and even in the black glaze there\nare attempts to produce a metallic effect. It is clear that the pottery\nof this period presents throughout the effect of a striving after\noutward show on the part of those who were unable to afford the more\nprecious metal for their household utensils, and were forced to be\ncontent with imitating it to the best of their ability in the humbler\nmaterial.\n\nIn Greece this tendency is best illustrated by a series of vases known\nas Megarian or Homeric bowls, of hemispherical form,[1530] without\nhandles. The former name was given to them by Dumont[1531] and\nBenndorf,[1532] but with little authority beyond the fact that several\nwere found at Megara. But they might on equally good grounds be called\nBoeotian, others having been found at Thebes and elsewhere in the\nneighbourhood. They have also been found in Kalymnos, Crete, and\nCyprus, but the majority are from Thebes, Tanagra, and Anthedon.\nProfessor Robert thinks they may be identified with the _vasa Samia_ so\noften mentioned by ancient writers (see Chapter XXII.), and refers to\nthe \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af dedicated at Oropos and Paphos.[1533] All are of red clay,\nwith a thin metallic black glaze giving a quasi-metallic appearance;\nthe hemispherical form is only departed from in one or two\ninstances.[1534]\n\nThe other name, Homeric, has been applied to them by Professor Robert\nwith reference to the well-known passage of Suetonius, which describes\nNero as using bowls (_scyphi_) called Homeric because they were chased\nwith subjects from Homer\u2019s poems.[1535] Our clay examples would then be\nreproductions of the chased metal vases, used by those who could not\nafford originals, and corresponding in some degree to modern plaster\ncasts. It is true that only five of the examples we possess have\nsubjects from Homer; but most of the others may be so called as\nbelonging to the Epic cycle. They thus differ from most relief-vases of\nthe period, in that the designs are not purely decorative or\nrepetitions of simple motives, but are, so to speak, \u201cillustrations of\nthe classics.\u201d\n\nProfessor Robert distinguishes two classes: (1) those with figures made\nfrom separate stamps, attached to the vase after it was made, and often\nrepeated; (2) vases made wholly, figures and all, in a mould, like the\nArretine wares.[1536] In the latter case they were doubtless made from\nthe same moulds as the metal vases, and of this we have an undoubted\nexample, not indeed among the \u201cMegarian\u201d bowls, but in analogous\nspecimens from Italy. It has already been noted (p. 134) that in the\nBritish Museum there are two examples of a silver bowl with _repouss\u00e9_\ndesigns, representing round the interior four deities in chariots,\nwhich form part of a silver treasure found at \u00c8ze in the south of\nFrance; and that in the same collection there is also a clay bowl\n(_Cat._ G 118 = Plate XLVIII., fig. 5) which exactly reproduces the\nsilver vase in shape, size, and decoration.\n\nAmong the subjects we have the rape of Persephone[1537]; the sacrifice\nof Iphigeneia; Achilles and Priam[1538]; the flight to the ships (from\nthe _Iliad_), the sack of Troy and the sacrifice of Polyxena; the\ndestruction of the suitors (from the _Odyssey_). From the Theban legend\nwe have the stories of Oedipus\u2019s childhood and the Seven against\nThebes[1539]; other vases give the labours of Herakles or his rape of\nAuge (Plate XLVIII., fig. 2)[1540]; and a jug made by Dionysios has the\ninteresting subject of Autolykos and Sisyphos.[1541] The British Museum\npossesses a very interesting bowl with scenes taken directly from the\n_Phoenissae_ of Euripides,[1542] and other comparisons with that author\nmay be made in the case of the bowls with Iphigeneia and Polyxena.\nSometimes the scenes are inscribed with verses from the poems or plays\nillustrated, or with a prose description of the scene,[1543] or merely\nwith the names of the figures. The letters in all cases are raised. It\nis clear that all these bowls belong to the same period and fabric, and\nmany small details point to the third century as their date. We may\nbear in mind that this was the time of the great revival of Homeric\nstudy at Alexandria.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLVIII\n\n[Illustration: GREEK VASES OF HELLENISTIC PERIOD: BLACK WARE WITH\nRELIEFS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nIn Italy the introduction of relief wares became general as painting\nwas abandoned, but did so gradually, not suddenly. In the third century\nboth existed side by side. The principle of a purely mechanical process\nin pottery, which now first appears in the manufacture from a mould,\nwas not, strictly speaking, a new one in Italy, nor yet in Greece. It\nis first seen in the early Etruscan and Rhodian vases (see p. 496) with\nstamped and rolled-out designs repeated in long friezes. And we shall\nsee later how for several centuries moulded vases, in the form of\n_bucchero_ ware, formed the national pottery of Etruria. There was\nalways in Etruscan, as also in Greek pottery,[1544] a tendency towards\nthe imitation of metal, and this tendency about the fourth century\nseems to have spread over the rest of Italy, even to the Iapygian\nPeninsula. Thus it is that the vases of Gnatia (p. 488) are largely\nmetallic in form and treatment, with their ribbed bodies and other\ndetails. To the same cause is mainly due the series of Capua and Cumae\nvases which has already been discussed, with its brilliant varnish and\ngilding. Signor Gamurrini actually gave to the Italian black glaze\nwares the name of \u201cEtrusco-Campanian.\u201d[1545] After the disappearance of\n_bucchero_ ware similar vases came to be made at Cervetri, Chiusi,\nCorneto, and Bolsena, the principal art centres of Etruria. At Bolsena\nin particular they have been found in considerable numbers; and as this\ncity (_Volsinium novum_) was only founded in 264 B.C., a _terminus post\nquem_ for their date is afforded.\n\nA group of vases found chiefly at the last-named place[1546] does not\nappear to have been covered with black varnish, but with a metallic\npreparation of gold or silver, which has now mostly disappeared, and\nthey are left with the plain glazed clay. Some of these are not without\nmerit. In the general arrangement of the designs, usually in friezes\nround the shoulder, there is obviously a reminiscence of _bucchero_\nware. The metallic preparation with which they were covered may have\nbeen something of the kind which Athenaeus[1547] describes in speaking\nof certain drinking-cups made at Naukratis, which \u201cwere dipped [in some\npreparation] so as to appear silver.\u201d\n\nIn Italy the manufacture of vases of black ware with reliefs appears to\nhave centred at Cales in Campania during the third century.[1548] The\nprincipal type is that of a bowl, not of the hemispherical form, but\nshallow, with the designs in the interior, either in the form of a\nfrieze or of a central medallion. These are usually called Calene\nphialae, but it is not certain whether the majority were really made at\nCales. At all events, it is, like \u201cMegarian bowl,\u201d a convenient name\nfor the class. The British Museum bowl G 118, with the frieze of\nchariots (see above), is a good example of the frieze type of design.\nThe subject, which is treated in a very spirited manner, is the\napotheosis of Herakles, who is conducted by Athena, Ares, and Artemis\nto Olympos, accompanied by Victories. There is also a good specimen in\nBerlin (_Cat._ 3882) with Odysseus and the Sirens. Another with\ndecorative patterns only, bears the signature of the potter, L.\nCanoleios of Cales, in Latin letters.[1549] Examples are also given in\nPlate XLVIII., figs. 3, 5, 6.\n\nOf the type with central medallions comparatively few complete examples\nexist, but the British Museum possesses a series of fragments on which\nthe medallions have been preserved.[1550] The subjects are usually\nthose characteristic of the Alexandrine period: Aphrodite, Adonis, and\nErotes; Herakles and Hylas, and others familiar from Theocritus; or\nTrojan scenes, such as Thetis with the arms of Achilles or Paris\nattacked by Deiphobos. A unique instance is that of Romulus and Remus\nsuckled by the wolf (G 125). Two names of potters occur\u2014K. Atilius and\nG. Gabinius. The date of these phialae is probably that of the Second\nPunic War (about 230\u2013200 B.C.). The designs, being taken from\nmoulds[1551] and inserted separately, are frequently repeated. The\nfashion\u2014obviously another instance of imitation of metal[1552]\u2014of\nadorning bowls with central designs also takes other forms at this\nperiod. Simple heads of deities or Satyrs are found, and there are also\ninstances of facsimiles of Syracusan coins. Two bowls in the British\nMuseum (G 121\u201322) have in the centre copies of a decadrachm with the\nhead of Persephone (Plate XLVIII., fig. 4: cf. p. 210).[1553]\n\nAnalogous to these in character and technique are the series of small\nlamp-feeders or _gutti_, a variation of the _askos_ form, which are\nfound chiefly in Southern Italy, but also in North Africa and the\nEastern Mediterranean.[1554] In the latter case they are usually\ndistinguished by having an arched handle over the back instead of the\nusual ring-handle at the side, and the body is flatter. The Italian\ntype has a deep ribbed body, with a flat circular space on the top\ncontaining a design in relief, made separately and inserted in the vase\n(Plate XLVIII., fig. 1). The range of subjects is wide, but the\nmajority are mythological: heads or masks of a Dionysiac character or\nof Medusa form a large proportion of the whole.\n\nLarger vases of black ware with reliefs inserted or attached are\nsometimes found, but are not common. The British Museum possesses two\ngood specimens\u2014a krater (G 29) with panels inserted bearing\nmythological designs,[1555] and a large covered jar (G 28) with the\ninscription BASSVS in Roman letters, presumably the potter\u2019s name. The\nsubjects, in two friezes, represent Erotes and festoons of vine-leaves,\nand Poseidon and Victory, five times repeated.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe series of vases which we have been discussing are clearly paving\nthe way for the new development of pottery which prevailed throughout\nthe Roman period\u2014that of the ware formerly known as Samian, but now\nusually spoken of as Arretine or (a more comprehensive term) _Terra\nsigillata_. This will of course be more appropriately dealt with in a\nsubsequent chapter under the heading of Roman Pottery. In the course of\nthe second century the Roman dominion spread over most of the Greek\nlands, and Greek art as an independent entity almost ceased to exist.\nIt is, however, not a little remarkable at what a late date some forms\nof distinctively Greek pottery lingered on in Hellenic regions, such as\nAttica, Egypt, and Southern Russia. The subject has hitherto received\nbut little attention, and the materials have hardly been collected with\nsufficient completeness to admit of adequate discussion and\nclassification.[1556]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1409:\n\n See Hesych. _s.v._ \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, p. 293;\n also p. 316.\n\nFootnote 1410:\n\n See Loeschcke in _Ath. Mitth._ 1879, p. 289 ff. The revision of\n chronology since his article was written has only served to give\n additional support to his view, bringing the white vases nearer in\n date to the painted stelae.\n\nFootnote 1411:\n\n _Brut._ xviii. 70: see also Plut. _de defect. orac._ 47, 436 C;\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 50.\n\nFootnote 1412:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. B 613 ff.\n\nFootnote 1413:\n\n Winter in _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 195 ff.\n\nFootnote 1414:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 187 ff.: cf. also Hartwig in _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 160.\n\nFootnote 1415:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 12. Cf. B.M. D 22, 32; Dumont-Pottier, i. pl.\n 11; Rayet and Collignon, pl. 10, 1. The severe type of face should be\n compared with Attic coins of the fifth century.\n\nFootnote 1416:\n\n Cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 35.\n\nFootnote 1417:\n\n Cf. B.M. D 65 and Fig. 19, p. 143.\n\nFootnote 1418:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. D 21, 33.\n\nFootnote 1419:\n\n As on the Anesidora cup in the British Museum (D 4) and the\n Euphronios cup in Berlin (2282).\n\nFootnote 1420:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. 37 _a_; _Annali_, 1877, p. 287.\n\nFootnote 1421:\n\n _Cat._ 208, 332, 336; published in Jahn, _Entf\u00fchr. d. Europa_, pl. 7;\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 49 (Fig. 121); and Overbeck,\n _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 9, No. 19.\n\nFootnote 1422:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 223: see _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 69, where it is\n attributed to Sotades.\n\nFootnote 1423:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. D 11 = Plate XLIII. fig. 1; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2 (in\n Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1424:\n\n Also attributed by Furtwaengler to Sotades (_Anzeiger_, _loc. cit._).\n\nFootnote 1425:\n\n Formerly in the collection of M. van Branteghem: see his Sale Cat.\n Nos. 159\u201366, and Plate XL.\n\nFootnote 1426:\n\n A complete list of white-ground cups is given by Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ p. 499. Among signed examples are the Euphronios cup in\n Berlin (2282); those by Sotades and Hegesiboulos (p. 445), and also\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. 37_a_ (\u2014\u03bd\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 1427:\n\n _White Athenian Vases_, p. 5.\n\nFootnote 1428:\n\n See generally Pottier, _Les L\u00e9cythes Blancs_.\n\nFootnote 1429:\n\n In the B.M. collection, D 52 is from Locri, D 28, 47, 63, 87 from\n Gela.\n\nFootnote 1430:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. D 33, 54\u20137, 62; Athens 1625 ff.\n\nFootnote 1431:\n\n See Dumont-Pottier, ii. pp. 50, 53.\n\nFootnote 1432:\n\n Notably Athens 688 = Reinach, i. p. 164 (_Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ viii. pl.\n 4).\n\nFootnote 1433:\n\n For references to this subject on the lekythi see Chapter XIII., and\n for a typical example, _ibid._, Fig. 122. For the different types see\n (1) Athens 1662\u201363; (2) B.M. D 61; (3) Berlin 2680\u201381, Athens 1661.\n\nFootnote 1434:\n\n x. 28, 1.\n\nFootnote 1435:\n\n On the forms of the stele see Brueckner, _Ornament und Form der\n attischen Grabstelen_.\n\nFootnote 1436:\n\n As for instance Naples 1755 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1848, fig. 1939.\n See also Roscher, iii. p. 967; B.M. F 57.\n\nFootnote 1437:\n\n Cf. also B.M. D 54; Pottier, pls. 2, 4; and see Chapter XIII.\n\nFootnote 1438:\n\n We may recall the _dictum_ of Aristotle (_Poet._ 2) that Polygnotos\n painted men better (or more beautiful) than reality.\n\nFootnote 1439:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. D 54, D 56; and another with horsemen unpublished.\n\nFootnote 1440:\n\n It may be noted conversely that Attic tombstones were often in the\n form of lekythi (e.g. _B.M. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. Nos. 681\u201382, 687 ff.).\n\nFootnote 1441:\n\n See the list of non-funerary subjects given by Pottier, _op. cit._ p.\n 5. Cf. also B.M. D 21, 51, 57, D 19 and 24 (Nike), 31 (Iris), and 23\n (priestess of Athena).\n\nFootnote 1442:\n\n _L\u00e9cythes Blancs_, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 1443:\n\n Examples are: Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pls. 26, 33.\n\nFootnote 1444:\n\n _E.g._ Athens 1626; Benndorf, pl. 18, fig. 2, pl. 20, fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 1445:\n\n _E.g._ Benndorf, pl. 24, figs. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 1446:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, ix. (1894), p. 57 ff.\n\nFootnote 1447:\n\n Milchhoefer attributes this to Hiero\u2019s victory in 474; but the date\n seems too early compared with other evidence.\n\nFootnote 1448:\n\n The latest R.F. vase from Kameiros is the polychrome \u201cpelike\u201d E 424\n in the British Museum. Furtwaengler (_Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 205)\n gives reasons for dating it in the third century; but the\n circumstances of its discovery at Kameiros render so late a date\n improbable, apart from considerations of style.\n\nFootnote 1449:\n\n Hartwig in _M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch._ 1894, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 1450:\n\n See above, p. 60, for the sites on which they have been found; also\n the plates of the Atlas to Stephani\u2019s _Compte-Rendu_ and of the _Ant.\n du Bosph. Cimm\u00e9rien_.\n\nFootnote 1451:\n\n See above, p. 447.\n\nFootnote 1452:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 4\u20137, 23, 27\u20139.\n\nFootnote 1453:\n\n See on this group of vases some very illuminating remarks by\n Furtwaengler in his _Meisterwerke_, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 1454:\n\n See also what is said below (p. 485) on early Apulian fabrics.\n\nFootnote 1455:\n\n See his _Ceramica Antica_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1456:\n\n See generally Chapter IV., p. 162 ff.\n\nFootnote 1457:\n\n Cf. B.M. F 193, F 210, F 542.\n\nFootnote 1458:\n\n See also below, p. 485.\n\nFootnote 1459:\n\n The subject has been fully treated by Vogel, _Scenen Eurip.\n Trag\u00f6dien_; Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in Vase-paintings_; and\n Engelmann, _Arch. Studien zu den Tragikern_: see also _B.M. Cat. of\n Vases_, iv. p. 10.\n\nFootnote 1460:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xi. p. 228.\n\nFootnote 1461:\n\n See K\u00f6rte in _Jahrbuch_, viii. (1893), p. 61 ff.\n\nFootnote 1462:\n\n Dio Cassius, _frag._ 39, _ed._ Bekker.\n\nFootnote 1463:\n\n Helbig, ii. p.314, No. 121 = Schreiber-Anderson, _Atlas_, pl. 5, fig.\n 8: see also B.M. F 150.\n\nFootnote 1464:\n\n See Chapter XV. \u00a7 3. They are also fully discussed by Heydemann in\n _Jahrbuch_, i. p. 260 ff.\n\nFootnote 1465:\n\n See also Vol. II. Fig. 134.\n\nFootnote 1466:\n\n Cf. a tomb with paintings at Tritaea in Achaia described by\n Pausanias, vii. 22, 4.\n\nFootnote 1467:\n\n Cf. Roscher, _Lexikon_, i. p. 2441 ff. (_s.v._ Heros); _J.H.S._ v. p.\n 105 ff.; _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. p. 293 ff.; Furtwaengler,\n _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. p. 17 ff.\n\nFootnote 1468:\n\n Possibly a mistake for, or variation of, the name Dasimos, which\n occurs on a fourth-century bronze votive helmet from Southern Italy\n in the British Museum (_Cat._ 317).\n\nFootnote 1469:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 150\u20136; Naples 1778, 1779, 1782, 1787, 3248; and others\n given by Patroni, _Ceramica Antica_, p. 77. A vase published by\n Inghirami (_Vasi Fitt._ 1\u20133) is thought by Engelmann to be the work\n of Python (_Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1874, p. 35). But this hardly seems\n likely. The B.M. vase F 155 is much more after his style.\n\nFootnote 1470:\n\n Two of these vases in the British Museum (F 150\u201351) are in the style\n of Assteas. Furtwaengler assigns all, including that signed by A., to\n Campania. It is, however, more likely that they were mostly made at\n Paestum. The one in Rome with Zeus and Alkmena (see p. 473) may be by\n Python.\n\nFootnote 1471:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ viii. pl. 21.\n\nFootnote 1472:\n\n See note above and Patroni, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 1473:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 159, 160, 174.\n\nFootnote 1474:\n\n See above, p. 172.\n\nFootnote 1475:\n\n See Patroni, _op. cit._ p. 25, and Chapter XVIII. It appears in the\n vase-painting given in Fig. 108.\n\nFootnote 1476:\n\n Cf. that worn by Herakles on the Assteas vase, Fig. 107.\n\nFootnote 1477:\n\n See Plate XLIV. and _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 2845.\n\nFootnote 1478:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ viii. pl. 21 and _Annali_, 1865, p. 262 ff.: cf.\n Virg. _Aen._ vii. 785; ix. 365. See also _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, p. 20.\n\nFootnote 1479:\n\n Naples 856; B.M. F 213 (?).\n\nFootnote 1480:\n\n Naples 2293 and R.C. 141 = Reinach, i. 387; Berlin 3023.\n\nFootnote 1481:\n\n B.M. F 191 ff.; Naples 871, 2855, 3368.\n\nFootnote 1482:\n\n Patroni thinks that such vases as Jatta 1498 (= Reinach, i. 110, 4)\n have formed the model for these Saticula vases.\n\nFootnote 1483:\n\n _E.g._ Naples 2852.\n\nFootnote 1484:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 143\u2013148; Naples 3093, 3129: see _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893,\n p. 93.\n\nFootnote 1485:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv., F 523 ff.\n\nFootnote 1486:\n\n F 542: see above, p. 471.\n\nFootnote 1487:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 10, p. 231.\n\nFootnote 1488:\n\n _E.g._ Reinach, i. 448 = _Arch. Zeit._ 1883, pl. 7; Dubois\n Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 69; Naples 3241 = Reinach, i. 384, 1\u20133;\n Naples 2416, 2418, 2894, 2918, 3247; see Patroni, _Ceram. Antica_, p.\n 33, and Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 1489:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 237, 238 (wrongly attributed to Campania in Catalogue).\n\nFootnote 1490:\n\n See B.M. F 297, 301, and _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1852, pls. M, N, P, p.\n 316 ff.\n\nFootnote 1491:\n\n B.M. F 254\u201368; Berlin 3607\u201319; Naples 2542\u201361; Petersburg 1693\u20131710.\n Cf. _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 107, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pl.\n 2 (an example from the Acropolis at Athens); also a plate inscribed\n underneath [\u0399\u03a7\u0398V\u0391\u0399] (Sch\u00f6ne in _Comm. Phil. in hon. Mommseni_, p.\n 653). See also p. 194 and Chapter XV.\n\nFootnote 1492:\n\n See Chapter XVIII. For examples of these degenerate vases see _B.M.\n Cat._ iv. F 490 ff.\n\nFootnote 1493:\n\n In this he is followed by Rayet and Collignon (p. 328).\n\nFootnote 1494:\n\n Lenormant, however, states that they have been found at Tarentum, as\n also in the neighbourhood of Lecce and Bari (_Gaz. Arch._ 1881\u201382, p.\n 103).\n\nFootnote 1495:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, pl. 13, p. 330.\n\nFootnote 1496:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 77, fig. 140.\n\nFootnote 1497:\n\n See also B.M. F 553; _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pls. 3, 4, p. 70 ff.;\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 276.\n\nFootnote 1498:\n\n See _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1884, p. 5 ff.; Rayet and Collignon, p. 332.\n Fourteen or fifteen examples are known.\n\nFootnote 1499:\n\n One was found by Lord Savile at Civita Lavinia (Lanuvium) in recent\n years (_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1895, p. 45). They have also been found\n on the Esquiline (see _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, p. 233).\n\nFootnote 1500:\n\n _Excavations in Cyprus_, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 1501:\n\n For terracotta examples painted in _tempera_ see _B.M. Cat. of\n Terracottas_, B 281\u201391; and compare B 286 with an example from\n Cyprus, Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. p. 697. See also Berlin 1292\n ff.\n\nFootnote 1502:\n\n See for a terracotta example B 460 in B.M.; also B 203\u20134 from Rhodes.\n Cf. Dumont-Pottier, i. chap. xiii.\n\nFootnote 1503:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v. (1890), pl. 11, p. 313 ff.\n\nFootnote 1504:\n\n _Cat._ 2190: cf. _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1890, p. 316.\n\nFootnote 1505:\n\n Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 216; Berlin 2202. A vase in the Louvre\n with the \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name Epilykos is probably by Prokles (see _Monuments\n Piot_, ix. p. 142).\n\nFootnote 1506:\n\n See Rayet and Collignon, p. 261: for other examples, B.M. E 786, 792,\n 793; Berlin 4044 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, pl. 69; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 89, 1;\n and the Kleomenes vase in the Louvre (if genuine). See on this vase\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1897, pls. 16\u20137, p. 53; Furtwaengler, _Neuere\n Falschungen_, p. 21; _Rev. Arch._ xxxvii. (1900), p. 181; _Monuments\n Piot_, ix. p. 138.\n\nFootnote 1507:\n\n See Hartwig in \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1894, pl. 6, p. 121.\n\nFootnote 1508:\n\n Stephani, _Compte-Rendu_, 1870\u201371, pl. 1; _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._\n 1853, pls. 1\u20132 (with Eros, dove, and swan): cf. the B.M. terracottas,\n D 89\u201391.\n\nFootnote 1509:\n\n See Rayet and Collignon, p. 275, and for other examples Stackelberg,\n _Gr\u00e4ber der Hell._ pls. 49\u201352; Treu, _Gr. Thongef._ pl. 1; _Cab.\n Pourtal\u00e8s_, pl. 28.\n\nFootnote 1510:\n\n Cf. the Proto-Attic vases, Athens 468 and 657, with the B.M. bronze\n vase-handles, Nos. 258, 383.\n\nFootnote 1511:\n\n Cf. the Aegina jug mentioned above, B.M. A 1369 and the vase given in\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 68; also the Tanagra tripod, Berlin No. 1727,\n and Louvre A 396 from Rhodes.\n\nFootnote 1512:\n\n See B.M. B 295, 296, 382.\n\nFootnote 1513:\n\n Louvre F 116\u201317; B.M. B 620. See _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 36, and p.\n 385 above.\n\nFootnote 1514:\n\n Cf. _Coll. Sabouroff_, pl. 74, 3: see also _Ath. Mitth._ 1880, pl.\n 10; \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1885, pl. 9, 11; B.M. G 22\u20133; Berlin 2704, 2884;\n Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. In\u00e9d._ pl. 49, 3.\n\nFootnote 1515:\n\n Cf. _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 253 ff.; _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, p. 43 ff.;\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 341; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1888, p. 491.\n\nFootnote 1516:\n\n Cf. Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 186 ff.\n\nFootnote 1517:\n\n See _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1888, p. 491 (Pottier).\n\nFootnote 1518:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 497; also _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, pl. 8, p. 44: cf. the\n Etruscan _bucchero_ vases, _e.g._ Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 316\n ff.\n\nFootnote 1519:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, pp. 439, 497.\n\nFootnote 1520:\n\n De Ridder, _De ectypis aeneis_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1521:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1888, p. 500; _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, pl. 4\n (Crete).\n\nFootnote 1522:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 587, 597 ff.\n\nFootnote 1523:\n\n For a complete list of early vases with reliefs see _Mon. Grecs_,\n 1885\u201388, p. 54 ff.\n\nFootnote 1524:\n\n For examples see Rayet and Collignon, p. 266; _Jahrbuch_ 1894, p. 62.\n\nFootnote 1525:\n\n _Cat._ 525 = Reinach, i. 11.\n\nFootnote 1526:\n\n _Monuments Piot_, x. pls. 6\u20137.\n\nFootnote 1527:\n\n On the later development of imitation of metal in vases see Rizzo in\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ xii. (1897), p. 253 ff.\n\nFootnote 1528:\n\n See also on these vases _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, pl. 6, p. 38 ff., and\n Martha, _L'Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 488. They are styled by Gamurrini\n \u201cEtrusco-Campanian.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1529:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1885, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1530:\n\n To this the name \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 has been given: cf. p. 186.\n\nFootnote 1531:\n\n _C\u00e9ramiques_, i. p. 393.\n\nFootnote 1532:\n\n _Gr. u. sic. Vasenb._ p. 117.\n\nFootnote 1533:\n\n _Homerische Becher_, in _50^{tes} Winckelmannsfestprogr._ (1890).\n\nFootnote 1534:\n\n G 104 in B.M. and the jug by Dionysios (Robert, _op. cit._ p. 90).\n\nFootnote 1535:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 1 ff.: cf. Suet. _Ner._ 47.\n\nFootnote 1536:\n\n Clay moulds for these bowls have been found at Athens, suggesting\n that there was a fabric there. But they were probably not confined to\n one centre. See _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, p. 67, note.\n\nFootnote 1537:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 3.\n\nFootnote 1538:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1904, p. 191 (in Oxford).\n\nFootnote 1539:\n\n Cf. _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, p. 48.\n\nFootnote 1540:\n\n Berlin 2891, from Crete.\n\nFootnote 1541:\n\n See Robert, _op. cit._ p. 90. In the same work will be found full\n descriptions of most of the other bowls.\n\nFootnote 1542:\n\n See _Class. Review_, 1894, p. 325.\n\nFootnote 1543:\n\n _E.g._ G 105, in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1544:\n\n See above, p. 495.\n\nFootnote 1545:\n\n See above, p. 498.\n\nFootnote 1546:\n\n B.M. G 179 ff.: see _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1871, p. 5 ff.; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._\n 1897, p. 260; _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897, p. 390.\n\nFootnote 1547:\n\n xi. 480 E: see above, pp. 73, 189.\n\nFootnote 1548:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 43. Recent writers have maintained that\n \u201cCalene\u201d ware is Greek in origin, and not confined to this site. See\n Dragendorff in _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, xcvi. p. 25, and Rizzo in _R\u00f6m.\n Mitth._ 1897, p. 259: cf. Berlin 3882.\n\nFootnote 1549:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. sic. Vasenb._ pl. 56.\n\nFootnote 1550:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 57\u20138.\n\nFootnote 1551:\n\n For instances of moulds for these medallions see _B.M. Cat. of\n Terracottas_, E 72\u20134.\n\nFootnote 1552:\n\n See _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 260.\n\nFootnote 1553:\n\n See Evans, _Syracusan Medallions_, in _Num. Chron._ 3rd Ser. xi. p.\n 319; also _Rev. Arch._ xxiv. (1894). p. 173.\n\nFootnote 1554:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv., G 37 ff., and above, pp. 200, 211.\n\nFootnote 1555:\n\n A similar example is in the Athens Museum, from Crete (_Invent._ No.\n 2141).\n\nFootnote 1556:\n\n Reference may be made generally to important articles by Watzinger in\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, p. 50 ff., and Dragendorff in _Bonner\n Jahrb\u00fccher_, ci. p. 140 ff.; also (for Egypt) to _Amer. Journ. of\n Arch._ 1885, p. 18 ff., and Furtwaengler in _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 205 ff.\n See also Chapter XXII., and XXI. _init._\n\n END OF VOL. I.\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Murray\u2019s Standard Works\n\n =Berenson=, Bernhard. THE DRAWINGS OF THE FLORENTINE PAINTERS.\n Classified, Criticised, and Studied as Documents in the History\n and Appreciation of Tuscan Art. With a Copious Catalogue\n Raisonn\u00e9, and 180 Facsimile Illustrations. 2 Vols. Folio. \u00a321 net.\n\n =Borgia=, Lucretia, THE LIFE OF. According to Original Documents and\n Correspondence of her Day. By FERDINAND GREGOROVIUS. Translated\n by JOHN LESLIE GARNER. With Illustrations. Large Crown 8vo.\n 10_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n =Brown=, Prof. G. Baldwin. THE FINE ARTS. The Origin, Aims, and\n Conditions of Artistic Work as applied to Painting, Sculpture,\n and Architecture. _New and Enlarged Edition._ With Illustrations.\n Crown 8vo. 6_s._ net.\n\n \u2014\u2014 THE ARTS IN EARLY ENGLAND. With Illustrations. 3 Vols. Royal 8vo.\n 16_s._ net. each.\n\n Vol. I. THE LIFE OF SAXON ENGLAND IN ITS RELATION TO THE ARTS.\n\n Vol. II. ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND FROM THE CONVERSION\n OF THE SAXONS TO THE NORMAN CONQUEST.\n\n Vol. III. THE DECORATIVE ARTS OF THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD.\n\n =Brugsch=, Professor. EGYPT UNDER THE PHARAOHS. History derived\n entirely from the Monuments. _Third Edition._ Revised by M.\n BRODRICK. Maps, Plans, and Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 18_s._\n\n =Burton-Brown=, E. RECENT EXCAVATIONS IN THE ROMAN FORUM, 1898\u20131905.\n A Handbook. Illustrations and Plans. Fcap 8vo. 2_s._ net.\n\n =Cartwright=, Julia (Mrs. Ady). THE PAINTERS OF FLORENCE. From the\n 13th to the 16th Centuries. Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6_s._ net.\n\n =Cripps=, Wilfrid. OLD ENGLISH PLATE: Ecclesiastical, Decorative, and\n Domestic: Its Makers and Marks. _Eighth Edition._ Revised and\n Enlarged. With 123 Illustrations and 2,600 Facsimile Plate Marks.\n 8vo. 21_s._ net.\n\n \u2042 Tables of the Date-Letters and Marks sold separately. 5_s._\n\n \u2014\u2014 OLD FRENCH PLATE: Its Makers and Marks. With Tables of Makers\u2019\n Marks, in addition to the Plate Marks. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Crowe=, Sir J. A., and =Cavalcaselle=, G. B. A HISTORY OF PAINTING\n in Italy, Umbria, Florence, and Siena, from the 2nd to the 16th\n Century. A New Edition, with Editorial Notes by LANGTON DOUGLAS,\n with upwards of 200 Illustrations. Large Demy 8vo. 6 Vols. 21_s._\n net each.\n\n Vol. I. EARLY CHRISTIAN ART.\n\n Vol. II. GIOTTO AND THE GIOTTESQUES.\n\n \u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 RAPHAEL: His Life and Works. Demy 8vo. Vol. I., 15_s._\n\n =Cust=, Lionel. NOTES ON THE AUTHENTIC PORTRAITS OF MARY QUEEN OF\n SCOTS. Based on the Researches of the late Sir George Scharf,\n Director of the National Portrait Gallery\u2014Re-written in the light\n of new information. With many Illustrations. Small 4to. \u00a33 3_s._\n net.\n\n =Douglas=, Langton. SIENA, HER HISTORY AND ART. With Maps and\n numerous Illustrations. Medium 8vo. 25_s._ net.\n\n =Fanshawe=, H. C. DELHI: PAST AND PRESENT. With Maps and\n Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 15_s._ net.\n\n =Fergusson=, James. HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE IN ALL COUNTRIES FROM THE\n EARLIEST TIMES. With 1,700 Illustrations. 5 Vols. Medium 8vo. \u00a36\n 6_s._\n\n Vols. I. and II. ANCIENT AND MEDI\u00c6VAL. 63_s._\n\n Vol. III. INDIAN AND EASTERN. 31_s._ 6_d._\n\n Vols. IV. and V. MODERN. 31_s._ 6_d._\n\n [Arrangements have been made with Booksellers enabling them to offer\n special terms for the above work complete.]\n\n =Hodgson=, J. E., and =Eaton=, F. A. THE ROYAL ACADEMY AND ITS\n MEMBERS. A History from 1768 to 1830. With Portraits. Large Demy\n 8vo. 21_s._ net.\n\n =Hogarth=, D. G., Edited by. AUTHORITY AND ARCH\u00c6OLOGY, SACRED AND\n PROFANE. Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and\n Classical Literature. By VARIOUS WRITERS. _Second Edition._ Demy\n 8vo. 16_s._\n\n =Jameson=, Mrs. LIVES OF THE EARLY ITALIAN PAINTERS\u2014AND THE PROGRESS\n OF PAINTING IN ITALY\u2014CIMABUE TO BASSANO. With 50 Portraits. Post\n 8vo. 12_s._\n\n =Kugler\u2019s = HANDBOOK OF PAINTING. The Italian Schools of Painting.\n _Sixth Edition_, revised. By Sir _Henry Layard_, G.C.B. With\n nearly 250 Illustrations. 2 Vols. Demy 8vo. 30_s._\n\n \u2014\u2014 The German, Flemish, and Dutch Schools. _Third Edition_, revised.\n By Sir J. A. CROWE. With 60 Illustrations. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo.\n 24_s._\n\n =Layard=, Sir A. Henry. NINEVEH AND ITS REMAINS. With Illustrations.\n Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n \u2014\u2014 NINEVEH AND BABYLON. Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n \u2014\u2014 EARLY ADVENTURES IN PERSIA, BABYLONIA, AND SUSIANA. Portrait,\n Illustrations, and Maps. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 24_s._ _Popular\n Edition_ in 1 Vol. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n \u2014\u2014 AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND LETTERS, from his Childhood until his\n Appointment as H.M. Ambassador at Madrid. With an additional\n Chapter on his Parliamentary Career by the Right Hon. Sir ARTHUR\n OTWAY. Edited by the Hon. WILLIAM NAPIER BRUCE. With Portraits\n and Illustrations. 2 Vols. Demy 8vo. 25_s._ net.\n\n =Mariette=, Auguste. OUTLINES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY. _Second\n Edition._ Edited, with Notes, by MARY BRODRICK. Crown 8vo. With\n Map. 5_s._\n\n =Marillier=, H. C. THE LIVERPOOL SCHOOL OF PAINTERS. An Account of\n the Liverpool Academy, from 1810 to 1867. With Memoirs of the\n Leading Artists. With Illustrations. Square Demy 8vo. 10_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n =Maudslay=, A. P. and A. C. A GLIMPSE AT GUATEMALA. Some Notes on the\n Ancient Monuments of Central America. With Maps, Plans, 74\n Photogravures, and other Illustrations. 4to. \u00a34 4_s._ net.\n\n =Morelli=, Giovanni. ITALIAN PAINTERS. Critical Studies of their\n Works. With an Introductory Notice by Sir HENRY LAYARD, G.C.B.\n With numerous Illustrations. Demy 8vo. 2 Vols. 15_s._ each.\n\n Vol. I. THE BORGHESE AND DORIA PAMPHILI GALLERIES IN ROME.\n\n Vol. II. THE GALLERIES OF MUNICH AND DRESDEN.\n\n =Murray=, A. S. A HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES.\n With 130 Illustrations. 2 Vols. Medium 8vo. 36_s._\n\n \u2014\u2014 HANDBOOK OF GREEK ARCH\u00c6OLOGY. Sculpture, Vases, Bronzes, Gems,\n Terra-cottas, Architecture, Mural Paintings, etc. Many\n Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 18_s._\n\n \u2014\u2014 THE SCULPTURES OF THE PARTHENON. With Illustrations of the whole\n Remains. Medium 8vo. 21_s._ net.\n\n =Okakura=, Kakuzo. THE IDEALS OF THE EAST, with special reference to\n the Art of Japan. Crown 8vo. 5_s._ net.\n\n =Phillipps=, Evelyn March. THE FRESCOES IN THE SIXTINE CHAPEL IN\n ROME. With 24 Illustrations and a Photogravure Frontispiece.\n Crown 8vo. 6_s._ net.\n\n =Smith=, Sir Wm., =Dictionaries=:\u2014\n\n DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; Comprising its Antiquities, Biography,\n Geography, and Natural History. By VARIOUS WRITERS. With\n Illustrations. 3 Vols. _Enlarged and Revised Edition._ Medium\n 8vo. \u00a34 4_s._\n\n [Complete sets of the above work may be purchased through any\n Bookseller at reduced rates.]\n\n CONCISE DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. Medium 8vo. 21_s._\n\n SMALLER DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. The History, Institutions,\n and Antiquities of the Christian Church. Edited by Sir W.\n SMITH, D.C.L., and Archdeacon CHEETHAM, D.D. With\n Illustrations. 2 Vols. Medium 8vo. \u00a33 13_s._ 6_d._ each.\n\n DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY, LITERATURE, SECTS, AND\n DOCTRINES. Edited by Sir WM. SMITH, D.C.L., and HENRY WACE,\n D.D. 4 Vols. Medium 8vo. \u00a36 16_s._ 6_d._\n\n DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES. Including the Laws,\n Institutions, Domestic Usages, Painting, Sculpture, Music, the\n Drama,\u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 etc. Edited by Sir WM. SMITH, WILLIAM WAYTE,\n M.A., G. E. MARINDIN, M.A. _Third Revised and Enlarged\n Edition._ With 900 Illustrations, 2 Vols. Medium 8vo. 31s.\n 6_d._ each.\n\n CONCISE DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES. Edited by F.\n WARRE CORNISH, M.A. With over 1,100 Illustrations taken from\n the best examples of Ancient Art. Medium 8vo. 21_s._\n\n SMALLER DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES. With 200\n Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN BIOGRAPHY AND MYTHOLOGY.\n Illustrated by 564 Engravings on Wood. In 3 Vols. Medium 8vo.\n \u00a34 4_s._\n\n CLASSICAL DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY, MYTHOLOGY, AND GEOGRAPHY.\n _Thoroughly Revised Edition._ By G. E. MARINDIN, M.A. With over\n 800 Woodcuts. 8vo. 18_s._\n\n SMALLER CLASSICAL DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY, MYTHOLOGY, AND\n GEOGRAPHY. With 200 Woodcuts. In great part re-written by G. E.\n MARINDIN, M. A. Crown 8vo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN GEOGRAPHY. Illustrated by 534\n Engravings on Wood. 2 Vols. Medium 8vo. 56_s._\n\n COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. With Tables of the Roman\n Calendar, Measures, Weights, Money, and a Dictionary of Proper\n Names. Medium 8vo. 16_s._\n\n SMALLER LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. By Sir WM. SMITH and T. D.\n HALL, M.A. Square 12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n COPIOUS AND CRITICAL ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY. By Sir WM. SMITH,\n D.C.L., and T. D. HALL, M.A. Medium 8vo. 16_s._\n\n SMALLER ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY. By Sir WM. SMITH and T. D.\n HALL, M.A. Square 12mo. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Van Millingen=, A. THE WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE. Studies of the\n Topography of the Byzantine City and adjacent objects of\n interest. Plans and Illustrations. 4to. 21_s._ net.\n\n =Wakeman\u2019s= HANDBOOK OF IRISH ANTIQUITIES. Edited by JOHN COOKE, M.A.\n With numerous Illustrations. _Third Edition._ Crown 8vo. 10_s._\n 6_d._ net.\n\n =Ward=, John. THE SACRED BEETLE. Egyptian Scarabs in Art and History.\n Illustrated. Demy 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._ net.\n\n \u2014\u2014 GREEK COINS AND THEIR PARENT CITIES. With 22 Autotype Plates and\n upwards of 500 Illustrations. Crown 4to. 25_s._ net.\n\n \u2014\u2014 OUR SOUDAN: ITS PYRAMIDS AND ITS PROGRESS. Dedicated by request to\n Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. Crown 4to. 400 Pages, 720\n Illustrations. 21_s._ net. Including Maps and many Portraits.\n\n =Watt=, Sir George. INDIAN ART AT DELHI, 1903. Being the Official\n Catalogue of the Delhi Exhibition, 1902\u20133. The Illustrative part\n by PERCY BROWN, A.R.C.A., Assistant-Director. Medium 8vo. 12_s._\n net.\n\n =Welbeck Catalogue.= A CATALOGUE OF LETTERS AND OTHER HISTORICAL\n DOCUMENTS IN THE LIBRARY AT WELBECK. Compiled by S. ARTHUR\n STRONG. With Portraits and numerous Facsimiles of Manuscripts in\n the possession of the Duke of Portland. 4to. \u00a32 2_s._ net.\n\n =Wilkinson=, Sir J. G. THE MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF THE ANCIENT\n EGYPTIANS. With numerous Illustrations. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. \u00a34 4_s._\n\n \u2014\u2014 POPULAR ACCOUNT OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. Abridged from the above\n work. With 500 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 12_s._\n\n London: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nErrors which can be attributed to printer\u2019s mistakes have been\ncorrected, as noted below. Lapses in punctuation are corrected with no\nfurther mention.\n\nIn Volume II, the author has included as Fig. 173 a table of alphabets\nused on Greek vases.\n\nInscriptions are presented in archaic Greek script, which more or less\nfollows that table. For instance, the character for pi (\u03a0) resembles\nthe modern gamma (\u0393). All inscriptions are given using modern Greek\ncharacters. References to individual characters may appear with very\nbrief descriptions, derived where possible from that table. The\ncharacter upsilon (\u03a5) frequently appears as a modern Roman V. On\noccasion, sigma appears in the form of a modern C (the lunate sigma \u03f9).\n\nFootnotes, which were numbered sequentially on each page, have been\nresequenced to be unique across the text. Cross-references to those\nnumbers in the text have been changed to reflect this. The notes\nthemselves have been moved to the end of each chapter.\n\nEach plate was followed by a blank page on its verso, which have been\nremoved here. The position of each plate, as well as that of all other\nfigures, has been adjusted slightly to avoid falling in mid-paragraph.\nThe pages devoted to plates were not counted in pagination.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe following anomalies regarding footnotes were observed:\n\nOn p. 153, the reference to the third footnote (521), referring the\nreader to \u201cPottier _Louvre Cat._, p. 381 ff.\u201d does not appear in the\ntext. The section discusses \u201cLes vases \u00e0 reliefs de style archaique en\nItalie et en Sicile\u201d. The reference has been added following the\nparagraph ending with \u201cdesigns of Oriental character\u201d.\n\nOn p. 158, the reference to footnote (531) is missing from the text.\nThe reference has been added at the end of the sentence beginning\n\u201cFalkner found at Pompeii...\u201d.\n\nOn p. 210, the sole footnote is missing its number, which is added here\nas 770.\n\nOn p. 214, the reference to the first footnote (775), referring the\nreader to Alexandre Brongniart\u2019s _Trait\u00e9 des arts c\u00e9ramiques: ou des\npoteries_, i., p 552, does not appear in the text. The passage\ndiscusses the analysis of the glaze, and it seems appropriate to add\nthe reference at the end of the paragraph beginning \u201cThis lustrous\nglaze...\u201d.\n\nOn p. 427, footnote 1314 refers to a series of items, the last of which\n(\u2018270\u2019) seems either out of order, or a misprint for \u2018470\u2019.\n\nThe following table contains those textual issues which are readily\nattributed to printer\u2019s errors:\n\n p. 96 which[,] were so light Removed\n p. 204 It has been noted by J[o/a]hn Corrected.","title":"History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":192483}