{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_48155/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_48155","id":"gutenberg_48155","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48155","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 delimited by the \u2018=\u2019 character. Superscripted and subscripted\ncharacters are shown as \u2018^2\u2019 and \u2018_{2}\u2019 respectively.\n\nThis text includes the rendering of ancient Greek inscriptions, using\nthe alphabets of a number of different regions, not all of which exist\nin the unicode character set. Some are printed in reverse order (right\nto left) and some are also mirror-imaged. It is not possible to render\nthese inscriptions as text without a wholesale loss of information\nabout the variant forms. Each inscription, therefore, is simply\nrendered using modern Greek characters, including several archaic\ncharacters (koppa = \u03d8 and digamma= \u03dc) which are supported in unicode\nfonts. These inscriptions are better viewed, obviously, in the HTML or\nepub versions which 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 are\ngathered at the end of each chapter. The occasional references to them\nby the original number have been changed as well.\n\nVolume I of this text is available separately from Project Gutenberg at:\n\n https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48154\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE XLIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED HYDRIA:\n HARNESSING OF HORSES TO CHARIOT\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 II\n\n WITH 300 ILLUSTRATIONS\n INCLUDING 8 COLOURED PLATES\n\n [ILLUSTRATION]\n\n NEW YORK\n CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS\n 1905\n\n PRINTED BY\n HAZELL, WATSON\n AND VINEY, LD.,\n LONDON AND AYLESBURY,\n ENGLAND.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS OF VOLUME II\n\n\n PAGE\n\n\n CONTENTS OF VOLUME II v\n\n LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME II ix\n\n LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II xi\n\n\n\n PART III\n\n THE SUBJECTS ON GREEK VASES\n\n \u2013\n CHAPTER XII\n _INTRODUCTORY\u2014THE OLYMPIAN DEITIES_\n\n Figured vases in ancient literature\u2014Mythology and\n art\u2014Relation of subjects on vases to literature\u2014Homeric and\n dramatic themes and their treatment\u2014Interpretation and\n classification of subjects\u2014The Olympian deities\u2014The\n Gigantomachia\u2014The birth of Athena and other Olympian\n subjects\u2014Zeus and kindred subjects\u2014Hera\u2014Poseidon and marine\n deities\u2014The Eleusinian deities\u2014Apollo and\n Artemis\u2014Hephaistos, Athena, and Ares\u2014Aphrodite and\n Eros\u2014Hermes and Hestia 1\u201353\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n _DIONYSOS AND MISCELLANEOUS DEITIES_\n\n Dionysos and his associates\u2014Ariadne, Maenads, and\n Satyrs\u2014Names of Satyrs and Maenads\u2014The Nether World\u2014General\n representations and isolated subjects\u2014Charon, Erinnyes,\n Hekate, and Thanatos\u2014Cosmogonic deities\u2014Gaia and\n Pandora\u2014Prometheus and Atlas\u2014Iris and\n Hebe\u2014Personifications\u2014Sun, Moon, Stars, and\n Dawn\u2014Winds\u2014Cities and countries\u2014The Muses\u2014Victory\u2014Abstract\n ideas\u2014Descriptive names 54\u201392\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n _HEROIC LEGENDS_\n\n Kastor and Polydeukes\u2014Herakles and his twelve labours\u2014Other\n contests\u2014Relations with deities\u2014Apotheosis\u2014Theseus and his\n labours\u2014Later scenes of his life\u2014Perseus\u2014Pelops and\n Bellerophon\u2014Jason and the Argonauts\u2014Theban legends\u2014The\n Trojan cycle\u2014Peleus and Thetis\u2014The Judgment of Paris\u2014Stories\n of Telephos and Troilos\u2014Scenes from the Iliad\u2014The death of\n Achilles and the Fall of Troy\u2014The Odyssey\u2014The Oresteia\u2014Attic\n and other legends\u2014Orpheus and the\n Amazons\u2014Monsters\u2014Historical and literary subjects 93\u2013153\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n _SUBJECTS FROM ORDINARY LIFE_\n\n Religious subjects\u2014Sacrifices\u2014Funeral scenes\u2014The Drama and\n burlesques\u2014Athletics\u2014Sport and games\u2014Musical scenes\u2014Trades\n and occupations\u2014Daily life of women\u2014Wedding scenes\u2014Military\n and naval subjects\u2014Orientals and Barbarians\u2014Banquets and\n revels\u2014Miscellaneous subjects\u2014Animals 154\u2013186\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n _DETAILS OF TYPES, ARRANGEMENT, AND ORNAMENTATION_\n\n Distinctions of types\u2014Costume and attributes of individual\n deities\u2014 Personifications\u2014Heroes\u2014Monsters\u2014Personages in\n everyday life\u2014Armour and shield-devices\u2014Dress and\n ornaments\u2014Physiognomical expression on vases\u2014Landscape and\n architecture\u2014Arrangement of subjects\u2014Ornamental\n patterns\u2014Maeander, circles, and other geometrical\n patterns\u2014Floral patterns\u2014Lotos and palmettes\u2014Treatment of\n ornamentation in different fabrics 187\u2013235\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n _INSCRIPTIONS ON GREEK VASES_\n\n Importance of inscriptions on vases\u2014Incised\n inscriptions\u2014Names and prices incised underneath\n vases\u2014Owners\u2019 names and dedications\u2014Painted\n inscriptions\u2014Early Greek alphabets\u2014Painted inscriptions on\n early vases\u2014Corinthian, Ionic, Boeotian, and Chalcidian\n inscriptions\u2014Inscriptions on Athenian vases\u2014Dialect\u2014Artists\u2019\n signatures\u2014Inscriptions relating to the\n subjects\u2014Exclamations\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\u2014The Attic alphabet and\n orthography\u2014Chronology of Attic inscriptions\u2014South Italian\n vases with inscriptions 236\u2013278\n\n\n PART IV\n\n ITALIAN POTTERY\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n _ETRUSCAN AND SOUTH ITALIAN POTTERY_\n\n Early Italian civilisation\u2014Origin of Etruscans\u2014Terramare\n civilisation\u2014Villanuova period\u2014Pit-tombs\u2014Hut-urns\u2014Trench-\n tombs\u2014Relief-wares and painted vases from Cervetri\u2014Chamber-\n tombs\u2014Polledrara ware\u2014Bucchero ware\u2014Canopic jars\u2014Imitations\n of Greek vases\u2014Etruscan inscriptions\u2014Sculpture in\n terracotta\u2014Architectural decoration\u2014Sarcophagi\u2014Local pottery\n of Southern Italy\u2014Messapian and Peucetian fabrics 279\u2013329\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n _TERRACOTTA IN ROMAN ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE_\n\n Clay in Roman architecture\u2014Use of bricks\u2014Methods of\n construction\u2014Tiles\u2014Ornamental antefixae\u2014Flue-tiles\u2014Other\n uses\u2014Inscriptions on bricks and tiles\u2014Military tiles\u2014Mural\n reliefs\u2014List of subjects\u2014Roman sculpture in\n terracotta\u2014Statuettes\u2014Uses at Rome\u2014Types and\n subjects\u2014Gaulish terracottas\u2014Potters and centres of\n fabric\u2014Subjects\u2014Miscellaneous uses of terracotta\u2014Money-boxes\n \u2014Coin-moulds 330\u2013392\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n _ROMAN LAMPS_\n\n Introduction of lamps at Rome\u2014Sites where found\u2014Principal\n parts of lamps\u2014Purposes for which used\u2014Superstitious and\n other uses\u2014Chronological account of forms\u2014Technical\n processes\u2014Subjects\u2014Deities\u2014Mythological and literary\n subjects\u2014_Genre_ subjects and animals\u2014Inscriptions on\n lamps\u2014Names of potters and their distribution\u2014Centres of\n manufacture 393\u2013429\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n _ROMAN POTTERY: TECHNICAL PROCESSES, SHAPES, AND USES_\n\n Introductory\u2014Geographical and historical limits\u2014Clay and\n glaze\u2014Technical processes\u2014Stamps and moulds\u2014_Barbotine_ and\n other methods\u2014Kilns found in Britain, Gaul, and Germany\u2014Use\n of earthenware among the Romans\u2014Echea\u2014Dolia and\n Amphorae\u2014Inscriptions on amphorae\u2014Cadus, Ampulla, and Lagena\n \u2014Drinking-cups\u2014Dishes\u2014Sacrificial vases\u2014Identification of\n names 430\u2013473\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n _ROMAN POTTERY, HISTORICALLY TREATED; ARRETINE WARE_\n\n Roman Pottery mentioned by ancient writers\u2014\u201cSamian\u201d\n ware\u2014Centres of fabric\u2014The pottery of\n Arretium\u2014Characteristics\u2014Potters\u2019 stamps\u2014Shapes of Arretine\n vases\u2014Sources of inspiration for decoration\u2014\u201cItalian\n Megarian bowls\u201d\u2014Subjects\u2014Distribution of Arretine wares 474\u2013496\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n _ROMAN POTTERY (continued); PROVINCIAL FABRICS_\n\n Distribution of Roman pottery in Europe\u2014Transition from\n Arretine to provincial wares\u2014_Terra sigillata_\u2014Shapes and\n centres of fabric\u2014Subjects\u2014Potters\u2019 stamps\u2014Vases with\n _barbotine_ decoration\u2014The fabrics of Gaul\u2014St.\n R\u00e9my\u2014Graufesenque\u2014\u201cMarbled\u201d vases\u2014Vases with inscriptions\n (Banassac)\u2014Lezoux\u2014Vases with medallions (Southern\n Gaul)\u2014Fabrics of Germany\u2014_Terra sigillata_ in Britain\u2014Castor\n ware\u2014Upchurch and New Forest wares\u2014Plain\n pottery\u2014_Mortaria_\u2014Conclusion 497\u2013555\n\n\n INDEX 557\n\n LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME II\n\n (_Except where otherwise noted, the objects are in\n the British Museum_)\n\n PLATE\n\n\n XLIX. Attic black-figured hydria: Harnessing of horses\n to chariot (_colours_) _Frontispiece_\n\n\n TO FACE PAGE\n\n L. Contest of Athena and Poseidon: vase at\n Petersburg (from Baumeister) 24\n\n LI. Kotyle by Hieron: Triptolemos at Eleusis 26\n\n LII. The Under-world, from an Apulian vase at Munich\n (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 66\n\n LIII. Helios and Stars (the Blacas krater) 78\n\n LIV. The Sack of Troy: kylix by Brygos in Louvre\n (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 134\n\n LV. Scenes from funeral lekythi (Prothesis and cult\n of tomb) 158\n\n LVI. Early Etruscan red ware 300\n\n LVII. Etruscan hut-urn and Bucchero ware 302\n\n LVIII. Etruscan imitations of Greek vases 308\n\n LIX. Etruscan antefix and sarcophagus 316\n\n LX. Sarcophagus of Seianti Thanunia 322\n\n LXI. Roman mural reliefs: Zeus and Dionysos 366\n\n LXII. Roman mural reliefs: Theseus; priestesses 370\n\n LXIII. Roman lamps (1st century B.C.) 402\n\n LXIV. Roman lamps: mythological and literary subjects 412\n\n LXV. Roman lamps: miscellaneous subjects 416\n\n LXVI. Moulds and stamp of Arretine ware 492\n\n LXVII. Gaulish pottery (Graufesenque fabric) 520\n\n LXVIII. Gaulish pottery from Britain (Lezoux fabric) 526\n\n LXIX. Romano-British and Gaulish pottery 544\n\n\n\n\n LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II\n\n FIG. PAGE\n\n 111. Gigantomachia, from Ionic vase _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._\n in Louvre 13\n\n 112. Poseidon and Polybotes, from _Gerhard_\n kylix in Berlin 14\n\n 113. The birth of Athena _Brit. Mus._ 16\n\n 114. Hermes slaying Argos (vase at _Wiener Vorl._\n Vienna) 20\n\n 115. Poseidon and Amphitrite _Ant. Denkm._\n (Corinthian pinax) 23\n\n 116. Apollo, Artemis, and Leto _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ 30\n\n 117. Aphrodite and her following \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7.\n (vase at Athens) 43\n\n 118. Eros with kottabos-stand _Brit. Mus._ 48\n\n 119. Hermes with Apollo\u2019s oxen (in _Baumeister_\n the Vatican) 51\n\n 120. Dionysos with Satyrs and _Brit. Mus._\n Maenads (Pamphaios hydria) 59\n\n 121. Maenad in frenzy (cup at _Baumeister_\n Munich) 63\n\n 122. Charon\u2019s bark (lekythos at _Baumeister_\n Munich) 70\n\n 123. Thanatos and Hypnos with body _Brit. Mus._\n of warrior 71\n\n 124. Nike sacrificing bull _Brit. Mus._ 88\n\n 125. Herakles and the Nemean lion _Brit. Mus._ 96\n\n 126. Herakles bringing the boar to _Brit. Mus._\n Eurystheus 97\n\n 127. Apotheosis of Herakles (vase _Arch. Zeit._\n at Palermo) 107\n\n 128. Peleus seizing Thetis _Brit. Mus._ 121\n\n 129. Judgment of Paris (Hieron cup _Wiener Vorl._\n in Berlin) 122\n\n 130. Capture of Dolon _Brit. Mus._ 129\n\n 131. Pentheus slain by Maenads _Brit. Mus._ 142\n\n 132. Kroisos on the funeral pyre _Baumeister_\n (Louvre) 150\n\n 133. Alkaios and Sappho (Munich) _Baumeister_ 152\n\n 134. Scene from a farce _Brit. Mus._ 161\n\n 135. Athletes engaged in the _Brit. Mus._\n Pentathlon 163\n\n 136. Agricultural scenes _Baumeister_\n (Nikosthenes cup in Berlin) 170\n\n 137. Warrior arming; archers _Hoppin_\n (Euthymides amphora in Munich) 176\n\n 138. Banqueters playing kottabos _Brit. Mus._ 181\n\n 139. Maeander or embattled pattern 212\n\n 140. Maeander (Attic) 212\n\n 141. Maeander (Ionic) 212\n\n 142. Maeander and star pattern 212\n\n 143. Maeander (Attic, 5th century) 213\n\n 144. Maeander (Attic, about 480\n B.C.) 213\n\n 145. Net-pattern 215\n\n 146. Chequer-pattern 216\n\n 147. Tangent-circles 216\n\n 148. Spirals under handles\n (Exekias) 217\n\n 149. Wave-pattern (South Italy) 218\n\n 150. Scale-pattern (Daphnae) 218\n\n 151. Guilloche or plait-band\n (Euphorbos pinax) 219\n\n 152. Tongue-pattern 219\n\n 153. Egg-pattern 220\n\n 154. Leaf- or chain-pattern 221\n\n 155. Ivy-wreath (black-figure\n period) 222\n\n 156. Ivy-wreath (South Italian) 222\n\n 157. Laurel-wreath (South Italian) 223\n\n 158. _Vallisneria spiralis_\n (Mycenaean) 224\n\n 159. Lotos-flower (Cypriote) 224\n\n 160. Lotos-flowers and buds _Riegl_\n (Rhodian) 225\n\n 161. Palmette-and lotos-pattern\n (early B.F.) 225\n\n 162. Lotos-buds (Attic B.F.) 226\n\n 163. Chain of palmettes and lotos\n (early B.F.) 226\n\n 164. Palmettes and lotos under\n handles (Attic B.F.) 227\n\n 165. Palmette on neck of red-bodied\n amphorae 228\n\n 166. Enclosed palmettes (R.F.\n period) 228\n\n 167. Oblique palmettes (late R.F.) 229\n\n 168. Palmette under handles (South\n Italian) 230\n\n 169. Rosette (Rhodian) 231\n\n 170. Rosette (Apulian) 231\n\n 171. Facsimile of inscription on _Brit. Mus._\n Tataie lekythos 242\n\n 172. Facsimile of Dipylon _Ath. Mitth._\n inscription 243\n\n 173. Scheme of alphabets on Greek\n vases 248\n\n 174. Facsimile of inscription on _Roehl_\n Corinthian pinax 251\n\n 175. Facsimile of signatures on _Furtwaengler and\n Fran\u00e7ois vase Reichhold_ 257\n\n 176. Facsimile of signature of _Brit. Mus._\n Nikias 259\n\n 177. Figure with inscribed scroll\n (fragment at Oxford) 264\n\n 178. Etruscan tomb with cinerary _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._\n urn 285\n\n 179. Villanuova cinerary urns from _Notizie_\n Corneto 286\n\n 180. Painted pithos from Cervetri _Gaz. Arch._\n in Louvre 293\n\n 181. Canopic jar in bronze-plated _Mus. Ital._\n chair 305\n\n 182. Etruscan alphabet, from a vase _Dennis_ 312\n\n 183. Terracotta sarcophagus in _Dennis_\n Brit. Mus. 318\n\n 184. Painted terracotta slab in _Dennis_\n Louvre 319\n\n 185. Askos of local Apulian fabric _Brit. Mus._ 326\n\n 186. Krater of \u201cPeucetian\u201d fabric _Notizie_ 328\n\n 187. Concrete wall at Rome _Middleton_ 338\n\n 188. Concrete wall faced with brick _Middleton_ 339\n\n 189. Concrete arch faced with brick _Middleton_ 339\n\n 190. Diagram of Roman wall- _Bl\u00fcmner_\n construction 340\n\n 191. Roman terracotta antefix _Brit. Mus._ 343\n\n 192. Method of heating in Baths of _Middleton_\n Caracalla 347\n\n 193. Flue-tile with ornamental\n patterns 348\n\n 194. Stamped Roman tile _Brit. Mus._ 354\n\n 195. Inscribed tile in Guildhall\n Museum 359\n\n 196. Inscribed tile from London 363\n\n 197. Mask with name of potter _Brit. Mus._ 377\n\n 198. Gaulish figure of Aphrodite _Blanchet_ 383\n\n 199. Gaulish figure of Epona _Blanchet_ 386\n\n 200. Terracotta money-box _Jahrbuch_ 390\n\n 201. Terracotta coin-mould _Daremberg and\n Saglio_ 392\n\n 202. Lamp from the Esquiline _Ann. dell Inst._ 399\n\n 203. \u201cDelphiniform\u201d lamp 399\n\n 204. Lamp with volute-nozzle 400\n\n 205. Lamp with pointed nozzle 400\n\n 206. Lamp with grooved nozzle 401\n\n 207. Lamp with plain nozzle 401\n\n 208. Lamp with heart-shaped nozzle 402\n\n 209. Mould for lamp _Brit. Mus._ 405\n\n 210. Lamp with signature of Fortis _Brit. Mus._ 424\n\n 211. Stamps used by Roman potters 440\n\n 212. Roman kiln at Heddernheim _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 444\n\n 213. Kiln found at Castor 447\n\n 214. Plan of kiln at Heiligenberg _Daremberg and\n Saglio_ 450\n\n 215. Section of ditto _Daremberg and\n Saglio_ 450\n\n 216. Ampulla _Brit. Mus._ 466\n\n 217. Lagena from France 467\n\n 218. Arretine bowl in Boston: death _Philologus_\n of Pha\u00ebthon 484\n\n 219. Arretine krater with Seasons _Brit. Mus._ 488\n\n 220. \u201cItalian Megarian\u201d bowl _Brit. Mus._ 491\n\n 221. Gaulish bowl of Form 29 500\n\n 222. Gaulish bowl of Form 30 501\n\n 223. Gaulish bowl of Form 37 502\n\n 224. Vase of St.-R\u00e9my fabric _D\u00e9chelette_ 517\n\n 225. Vase of Aco, inscribed _D\u00e9chelette_ 518\n\n 226. Vase of Banassac fabric from _Mus. Borb._\n Pompeii 525\n\n 227. Medallion from vase of _Brit. Mus._\n Southern Gaul: scene\n from the _Cycnus_ 531\n\n 228. Medallion from vase: Atalanta _Gaz. Arch._\n and Hippomedon 532\n\n 229. Jar from Germany, inscribed _Brit. Mus._ 537\n\n 230. Roman mortarium from _Brit. Mus._\n Ribchester 551\n\n\n\n\n PART III\n THE SUBJECTS ON GREEK VASES\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII\n _INTRODUCTORY\u2014THE OLYMPIAN DEITIES_\n\n Figured vases in ancient literature\u2014Mythology and art\u2014Relation of\n subjects on vases to literature\u2014Homeric and dramatic themes and\n their treatment\u2014Interpretation and classification of\n subjects\u2014The Olympian deities\u2014The Gigantomachia\u2014The birth of\n Athena and other Olympian subjects\u2014Zeus and kindred\n subjects\u2014Hera\u2014Poseidon and marine deities\u2014The Eleusinian\n deities\u2014Apollo and Artemis\u2014Hephaistos, Athena, and\n Ares\u2014Aphrodite and Eros\u2014Hermes and Hestia.\n\n\nThe representation of subjects from Greek mythology or daily life on\nvases was not, of course, confined to fictile products. We know that\nthe artistic instincts of the Greeks led them to decorate almost every\nhousehold implement or utensil with ornamental designs of some kind, as\nwell as those specially made for votive or other non-utilitarian\npurposes. But the fictile vases, from the enormous numbers which have\nbeen preserved, the extraordinary variety of their subjects, and the\nfact that they cover such a wide period, have always formed our chief\nartistic source of information on the subject of Greek mythology and\nantiquities.\n\nAlthough (as has been pointed out in Chapter IV.) ancient literature\ncontains scarcely any allusions to the painted vases, we have many\ndescriptions of similar subjects depicted on other works of art, such\nas vases of wood and metal, from Homer downwards. The cup of Nestor\n(Vol. I. pp. 148, 172) was ornamented with figures of doves[1], and\nthere is the famous description in the first Idyll of Theocritus[2] of\nthe wooden cup (\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) which represented a fisherman casting his\nnet, and a boy guarding vines and weaving a trap for grasshoppers,\nwhile two foxes steal the grapes and the contents of his dinner-basket;\nthe whole being surrounded, like the designs on some painted vases,\nwith borders of ivy and acanthus. The so-called cup of Nestor\n(\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03c2) at Capua[3] was inscribed with Homeric verses, and the\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 or cup of Herakles with the taking of Troy[4]. Anakreon\ndescribes cups ornamented with figures of Dionysos, Aphrodite and Eros,\nand the Graces[5]; and Pliny mentions others with figures of Centaurs,\nhunts and battles, and Dionysiac subjects[6]. Or, again, mythological\nsubjects are described, such as the rape of the Palladion[7], Phrixos\non the ram[8], a Gorgon and Ganymede[9], or Orpheus[10]; and other\n\u201cstoried\u201d cups are described as being used by the later Roman emperors.\nBut the nearest parallels to the vases described in classical\nliterature are probably to be sought in the chased metal vases of the\nHellenistic and Roman periods.[11] We read of _scyphi Homerici_, or\nbeakers with Homeric scenes, used by the Emperor Nero, which were\nprobably of chased silver[12]; and we have described in Chapter XI.\nwhat are apparently clay imitations of these vases, usually known as\n\u201cMegarian bowls,\u201d many bearing scenes from Homer in relief on the\nexterior.\n\nIn attempting a review of the subjects on the painted vases, we are met\nwith certain difficulties, especially in regard to arrangement. This is\nchiefly due to the fact that each period has its group of favourite\nsubjects; some are only found in early times, others only in the later\nperiod. Yet any chronological method of treatment will be found\nimpossible, and it is hoped that it will, as far as possible, be\nobviated by the general allusions in the historical chapters of this\nwork to the subjects characteristic of each fabric and period.\n\nEmbracing as they do almost the whole field of Greek myth and legend,\nthe subjects on Greek vases are yet not invariably those most familiar\nto the classical student or, if the stories are familiar, they are not\nalways treated in accordance with literary tradition. On the other\nhand, it must be borne in mind that the popular conception of Greek\nmythology is not always a correct one, for which fact the formerly\ninvariable system of approaching Greek ideas through the Latin is\nmainly responsible. The mythology of our classical dictionaries and\nschool-books is largely based on Ovid and the later Roman compilers,\nsuch as Hyginus, and gives the stories in a complete connected form,\nregarding all classical authorities as of equal value, and ignoring the\nfact that many myths are of gradual growth and only crystallised at a\nlate period, while others belong to a relatively recent date in ancient\nhistory.[13]\n\nThe vases, on the other hand, are contemporary documents, free from\nlater euhemerism and pedantry, and presenting the myths as the Athenian\ncraftsmen knew them in the popular folk-lore and religious observances\nof their day. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that a\nvase-painter was never an illustrator of Homer or any other writer, at\nleast before the fourth century B.C. (see Vol. I. p. 499). The epic\npoems, of course, contributed largely to the popular acquaintance with\nancient legends, and offered suggestions of which the painter was glad\nto avail himself; but he did not, therefore, feel bound to adhere to\nhis text. This will be seen in the list of Homeric subjects given below\n(p. 126 ff.); and we may also refer here to the practice of giving\nfanciful names to figures, which obtains at all periods, and has before\nnow presented obstacles to the interpreter.\n\nThe relation of the subjects on vases to Greek literature is an\ninteresting theme for enquiry, though, in view of what has already been\nsaid, it is evident that it must be undertaken with great caution. The\nantiquity and wide popularity of the Homeric poems, for instance, would\nnaturally lead us to expect an extensive and general use of their\nthemes by the vase-painter. Yet this is far from being the case. The\n_Iliad_, indeed, is drawn upon more largely than the _Odyssey_; but\neven this yields in importance as a source to the epics grouped under\nthe name of the Cyclic poets. It may have been that the poems were\ninstinctively felt to be unsuited to the somewhat conventional and\nmonotonous style of the earlier vase-paintings, which required simple\nand easily depicted incidents. We are therefore the more at a loss to\nexplain the comparative rarity of subjects from the _Odyssey_, with its\nmany adventures and stirring episodes; scenes which may be from the\n_Iliad_ being less strongly characterised and less unique\u2014one\nbattle-scene, for instance, differing little from another in method of\ntreatment. But any subject from the _Odyssey_ can be at once identified\nby its individual and marked character. It may be that the _Odyssey_\nhad a less firm hold on the minds of the Greeks than the _Iliad_, which\nwas more of a national epic, whereas the _Odyssey_ was a stirring\nromance.[14] It may also be worth noting that scenes from the _Odyssey_\nusually adhere more closely to the Homeric text than those from the\n_Iliad_.\n\nAnother reason for the scarcity of Iliad-scenes may be that the Tale of\nTroy as a whole is a much more comprehensive story, of which the\n_Iliad_ only forms a comparatively small portion. Hence the large\nnumber of scenes drawn both from the Ante-Homerica and the\nPost-Homerica, such as the stories of Troilos and Memnon, or the sack\nof Troy. The writings of the Cyclic poets begin, as Horace reminds us,\n_ab ovo_,[15] from the egg of Leda, and the Kypria included the whole\nstory of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the subsequent Judgment of\nParis, and his journey to Greece after Helen, scenes from all these\nevents being extremely popular on the vases.[16] The _Patrokleia_ deals\nwith the events of the earlier years of the war, the _Aithiopis_ of\nArktinos with the stories of Penthesileia and Memnon, and the death of\nAchilles, and the _Little Iliad_ of Lesches with the events of the\ntenth year down to the fall of Troy. All provided frequent themes for\nthe vase-painter, as may be seen by a reference to a later page (119\nff.). The _Iliupersis_ of Arktinos and Lesches might almost be\nreconstructed from two or three large vases, whereon all the episodes\nof the catastrophe are collected together (see p. 134); but when we\ncome to the _Nostoi_ of Agias and the Telegonia, the vase-painters\nsuddenly fail us, the stories of Odysseus\u2019 wanderings and Orestes\u2019\nvengeance seeming to supply the deficiency.\n\nLuckenbach[17] has pointed out that the only right method of\ninvestigating the relation is to begin with vase-paintings for which\nthe sources are absolutely certain, as with scenes from the _Iliad_ and\n_Odyssey_. In this way the subjects from other epics can be rightly\nestimated and the contents of the poems restored. Further, in\ninvestigating the sources of the vase-painters, and the extent to which\nthey adhered to them or gave free play to the imagination, the three\nmain periods of vase-painting must be separately considered, though the\nresults in each case prove to be similar. By way of exemplifying these\nmethods he enters in great detail into certain vase-subjects, their\nmethod of treatment on vases of the different periods, and their\napproximation to the text. Thus, the funeral games for Patroklos (_Il._\nxxiii.) are depicted on the Fran\u00e7ois vase (see p. 11) with marked\ndeviations from Homer\u2019s narrative; and not only this, but without\ncharacterisation, so that if the performers were not named the subject\ncould hardly have been identified. To note one small point, all Homeric\nraces took place in two-horse chariots (_bigae_), but on B.F. vases\nfour-horse _quadrigae_ are almost invariably found.[18]\n\nSubjects of a more conventional character, such as battle scenes,\nfarewell scenes, or the arming of a warrior, present even more\ndifficulty. Even when names occur it is only increased. We must assume\nthat the vase-painter fixed on typical names for his personages,\nwithout caring whether he had literary authority. In some cases the\n_genre_ scenes seem to be developed from heroic originals, in others\nthe contrary appears to be the case.[19] It is not, however, unfair to\nsay that the Epos was the vase-painter\u2019s \u201csource.\u201d The only doubtful\nquestion is the _extent_ of his inspiration; and, at all events, it was\na _source_ in the sense that no other Greek literature was until we\ncome to the fourth century.\n\nTurning now to the consideration of later literature,[20] we find in\nHesiod a certain parallelism of theme to the vases, but little trace of\nactual influence. Indirectly he may have affected the vase-painter by\nhis crystallisation of Greek mythology in the Theogony, where he\nestablishes the number of the Muses (l. 77), and also the names of the\nNereids.[21] It is, however, interesting to note the Hesiodic themes\nwhich were also popular with the vase-painters: the creation of\nPandora; the fights of Herakles and Kyknos, and of Lapiths and\nCentaurs, and the pursuit of Perseus by the Gorgons; the contest of\nZeus with Typhoeus (or Typhon); and the birth of Athena.[22]\n\nThe influence of lyric poetry was even slighter. Somewhat idealised\nfigures of some of the Greek lyrists appear on R.F. vases, such as\nSappho and Anakreon (see p. 152); but this is all. In regard to Pindar\nand Bacchylides, the idealising and heroising tendencies of the age may\nbe compared with the contemporary tendency of vase-paintings, and the\nlatter may often be found useful to compare with\u2014if not exactly to\nillustrate\u2014the legends which the two poets commemorate. For instance,\nin the ode of Bacchylides in which he describes the fate of Kroisos,\nthere is a curious deviation from the familiar Herodotean version, the\nking being represented as voluntarily sacrificing himself.[23] The only\nvase-painting dealing with this subject (Fig. 132, p. 150) apparently\nreproduces this tradition.\n\nWith the influence of the stage we have already dealt elsewhere.[24]\nWith the exception of the Satyric drama, it can hardly be said to have\nmade itself felt, except in the vases of Southern Italy, in the fourth\ncentury B.C., but indications of the Satyric influence may be traced in\nmany R.F. Attic vases, no doubt owing to their connection with the\npopular Dionysiac subjects. On a vase in Naples[25] are represented\npreparations for a Satyric drama. When we reach the time of tragic and\ncomic influence, we not only find the subjects reproduced, but even\ntheir stage setting; in other words, the vases are not so much intended\nto illustrate the written as the acted play, just as it was performed.\n\nThe whole question is admirably summed up by Luckenbach[26] in the\nfollowing manner: (1) The Epos is the chief source of all\nvase-paintings from the earliest time to the decadence inclusive, and\nnext comes Tragedy, as regards the later vases only; of the influence\nof other poetry on the formation of myths in vase-paintings there is no\nestablished example. (2) _Vase-paintings are not illustrations_, either\nof the Epos or of the Drama, and there is no intention of reproducing a\nstory accurately; hence great discrepancies and rarity of close\nadherence to literary forms; but the salient features of the story are\npreserved. (3) Discrepancies in the naming of personages are partly\narbitrary, partly due to ignorance; the extension of scenes by means of\nrows of bystanders, meaningless, but thought to be appropriate, is of\ncourse a development of the artist\u2019s, conditioned by exigencies of\nspace. Anachronisms on vases are of frequent occurrence. (4) Such\nscenes as those of warriors arming or departing are always the\npainter\u2019s own invention, ordinary scenes being often \u201cheroised\u201d by the\naddition of names. But individuals are not necessarily all or always to\nbe named; and, again, the artist often gives names without\nindividualising the figures. (5) In the archaic period successive\nmovements of time are often very na\u00efvely blended (see p. 10); the\ndifference between art and literature is most marked in scenes where a\ndefinite moment is not indicated. (6) Vase-paintings often give a\ngeneral survey of a poem, the scene not being drawn from one particular\npassage or episode. The features of one poem are in art sometimes\ntransferred to another.\n\nThe attention that has been paid now for many years to collecting,\nassorting, and critically discussing the material afforded by the vases\nhas much diminished the difficulties of this most puzzling branch of\narchaeology. It has been chiefly lightened by the discovery from time\nto time of inscribed vases, though, as has just been noted, even these\nmust be treated with caution; and even now, of course, there are\nnumerous subjects the interpretation of which is either disputed or\npurely hypothetical. But we can at least pride ourselves on having\nadvanced many degrees beyond the labours of early writers on the\nsubject, down to the year 1850.\n\nWhen painted vases first began to be discovered in Southern Italy, the\nsubjects were supposed to relate universally to the Eleusinian or\nDionysiac mysteries, and this school of interpretation for a long time\nfound favour in some quarters, even in the days of Gerhard and De\nWitte. But it was obvious from the first that such interpretations did\nnot carry the investigator very far, and even in the eighteenth century\nother systems arose, such as that of Italynski, who regarded the\nsubjects as of historical import.[27] Subsequently Panofka endeavoured\nto trace a connection between the subjects and the names of artists or\nother persons recorded on the vases, or, again, between the subjects\nand shapes. The latter idea, of course, contained a measure of truth,\nas is seen in many instances[28]; but it was, of course, impossible to\nfollow out either this or the other hypothesis in any detail.\n\nThe foundations of the more scientific and rational school of\ninterpretation were laid as early as the days of Winckelmann, and he\nwas followed by Lanzi, Visconti, and Millingen, and finally Otto Jahn,\nwho, as we have seen, practically revolutionised the study of\nceramography. Of late, however, the question of the interpretation of\nsubjects has been somewhat relegated to the background, owing to the\noverwhelming interest evoked by the finds of early fabrics or by the\nefforts of German and other scholars to distinguish the various schools\nof painting in the finest period.\n\nMillingen, in the Introduction to his _Vases Grecs_, drew up a\nclassification of the subjects on vases which need not be detailed\nhere, but which, with some modifications, may be regarded as holding\ngood to the present day. He distinguishes ten classes, the first three\nmythological, the next four dealing with daily life, and the three last\nwith purely decorative ornamentation. A somewhat similar order is\nadopted by M\u00fcller in his _Handbuch_, by Gerhard in his _Auserlesene\nVasenbilder_, and by Jahn in his Introduction to the Munich Catalogue\n(p. cc ff.). In the present and following chapters the arrangement and\nclassification of the subjects adhere in the main to the system laid\ndown by these writers; and as the order is not, of course,\nchronological in regard to style, reference has been made where\nnecessary to differences of epoch and fabric.[29] It may be convenient\nto recapitulate briefly the main headings under which the subjects are\ngrouped.\n\n I. The Olympian deities and divine beings in immediate connection\n with them, such as Eros and marine deities.\n\n (_a_) In general; (_b_) individually. (Chapter XII.)\n\n II. Dionysos and his cycle, Pan, Satyrs, and Maenads. (Page 54 ff.)\n\n III. Chthonian and cosmogonic deities, personifications, and minor\n deities in general. (Page 66 ff.)\n\n IV. Heroic legends and mythology in general.\n\n (_a_) Herakles; (_b_) Theseus, Perseus, and other heroes; (_c_)\n local or obscure myths; (_d_) the Theban and Trojan stories;\n (_e_) monsters. (Chapter XIV.)\n\n V. Historical subjects. (Page 149 ff.)\n\n VI. Scenes from daily life and miscellaneous subjects (for detailed\n classification see p. 154). (Chapter XV.)\n\nThe number of subjects to be found on any one vase is of course usually\nlimited to one, two, or at most three, according to the shape. Usually\nwhen there is more than one the subjects are quite distinct from one\nanother; though attempts have been made in some cases, as in the B.F.\namphorae, to trace a connection.[30] On the other hand, the R.F.\nkylikes of the strong period often show a unity of subject running\nthrough the interior and exterior scenes, whether the theme is\nmythological or ordinary.[31] It was only in exceptional cases that an\nartist could devote his efforts to producing an entire subject, as on\nsome of the large kylikes with the labours of Theseus,[32] or the vases\nrepresenting the sack of Troy.[33] The great Fran\u00e7ois vase in Florence\nis a striking example of a mythology in miniature, containing as it\ndoes more than one subject treated in the fullest detail. And here\nreference may be made to the main principles which governed the method\nof telling a story in ancient art, and prevailed at different\nperiods.[34] The earliest and most simple is the _continuous_ method,\nwhich represents several scenes together as if taking place\nsimultaneously, although successive in point of time. This method was\noften employed in Oriental art, but is not found in Hellenic times; it\nwas, however, revived by the Romans under the Empire, and prevailed all\nthrough the early stages of Christian art. Secondly, there is the\n_complementary_ method, which aims at the complete expression of\neverything relating to the central event. The same figures are not in\nthis case necessarily repeated, but others are introduced to express\nthe action of the different subjects, all being collected in one space\nwithout regard to time, as in the continuous style. This is of Oriental\norigin, and is first seen in the description of Achilles\u2019 shield; it is\nalso well illustrated in the Fran\u00e7ois vase, in the story of Troilos.\nHere the death of Troilos is not indeed actually depicted, but the\nevents leading up to it (the water-drawing at the fountain and the\npursuit by Achilles) and those consequent on it (the announcement of\nthe murder to Priam and the setting forth of Hector to avenge it) are\nall represented without the repetition of any figures. Lastly, there is\nthe _isolating_ method, which is purely Hellenic, being developed from\nthe complementary. This is best illustrated by the Theseus kylikes,\nwith their groups of the labours, which, it should be remembered, are\nnot continuous episodes in one story, but single events separated in\ntime and space, and collected together with a sort of superficial\nresemblance to the other methods.\n\nSome description of the Fran\u00e7ois vase has been given elsewhere (Vol. I.\np. 370)[35]; but as it is unique in its comprehensiveness, and as a\ntypical presentation of the subjects most popular at the time when\nvase-painters had just begun to pay special attention to mythology, it\nmay be worth while to recapitulate its contents here. The subjects are\nno less than eleven in number, arranged in six horizontal friezes, with\nfigures also on the handles, and there are in all 115 inscriptions\nexplaining the names of the personages and even of objects (_e.g._\n\u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1, for the broken pitcher of Polyxena). Eight of these subjects\nbelong to the region of mythology:\u2014(1) On the neck: the hunt of the\nCalydonian boar, and (2) the landing of Theseus and Ariadne at Naxos,\naccompanied by dancing youths and maidens. (3) On the shoulder: chariot\nrace at the funeral games of Patroklos, and (4) combat of Centaurs and\nLapiths (with Theseus). (5) On the body: the marriage of Peleus and\nThetis, attended by the gods in procession. (6) On the body: the death\nof Troilos (see above), and (7) the return of Hephaistos to Olympos.\n(8) On each of the handles, Ajax with the body of Achilles. On the flat\ntop of the lip is represented (9) a combat of pigmies and cranes; on\neither side of the foot (10) a lion and a panther devouring a bull and\nstag, Gryphons, Sphinxes, and other animals; and on the upper part of\nthe handles (11) Gorgons and figures of the Asiatic Artemis (see p. 35)\nholding wild animals by the neck.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is, of course, impossible to indicate all the subjects on the\nthousands of painted vases in existence; and it must also be remembered\nthat many are of disputed meaning. The succeeding review must therefore\nonly be considered as a general summary which aims at omitting nothing\nof any interest and avoiding as far as possible useless repetition. In\nthe references appended under each subject the principle has been\nadopted of making them as far as possible representative of all\nperiods, and also of selecting the most typical and artistic examples,\nas well as the most accessible, publications.[36]\n\nIn dealing with the subjects depicted on Greek vases, we naturally\nregard the Olympian deities as having the preeminence. We will\ntherefore begin by considering such scenes as have reference to actions\nin which those deities were engaged, and, secondly, representations of\ngeneral groups of deities, either as spectators of terrestrial events\nor without any particular signification. It will then be convenient to\ndeal with the several deities one by one, noting the subjects with\nwhich each is individually connected. We shall in the following chapter\nproceed to consider the subordinate deities, such as those of the\nunder-world and the Dionysiac cycle, and personifications of nature and\nabstract ideas. Chapter XIV. will be devoted to the consideration of\nheroic legends, mythological beings, and historical subjects; and in\nChapter XV. will be discussed all such subjects as relate to the daily\nlife of the Greeks.\n\n THE OLYMPIAN DEITIES\n\nOne of the oldest and most continuously popular subjects is the\n=Gigantomachia=, or Battle of the Gods and Giants, which forms part of\nthe Titanic and pre-heroic cosmogony, and may therefore take precedence\nof the rest. The Aloadae (Otos and Ephialtes), strictly speaking, are\nconnected with a different event\u2014the attack on Olympos and chaining of\nAres; but the scenes in which they occur are so closely linked with the\nGigantomachy proper that it is unnecessary to differentiate them. We\nalso find as a single subject the combat of Zeus with the snake-footed\nTyphon.[37]\n\nThe _locus classicus_ of Greek art for the Gigantomachia is of course\nthe frieze of the great altar at Pergamon (197 B.C.), but several vases\nbear representations almost as complete, though it is not as a rule\npossible to identify the giants except where their names are\ninscribed.[38] Most vases give only one to three pairs of combatants.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 111. GIGANTOMACHIA, FROM IONIC VASE IN LOUVRE.]\n\nSome pairs are found almost exclusively together, _e.g._ Athena and\nEnkelados, or Ares and Mimas; Artemis and Apollo are generally opposed\nto the Aloadae Otos and Ephialtes, Zeus to Porphyrion, and Poseidon to\nPolybotes (Fig. 112) or Ephialtes. Hestia alone, the \u201cstay-at-home\u201d\ngoddess of the hearth, is never found in these scenes, but Dionysos,\nHerakles, and the Dioskuri all take their part in aiding the Olympian\ndeities. Zeus hurls his thunderbolts[39]; Poseidon is usually depicted\nwith his trident, or hurling the island of Nisyros (indicated as a rock\nwith animals painted on it) upon his adversary[40]; Hephaistos uses a\npair of tongs with a burning coal in them as his weapon[41]; and\nDionysos is in some cases aided by his panther.[42] Aeolus occurs once\nwith his bag of winds.[43]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 112. POSEIDON AND THE GIANT POLYBOTES, FROM THE\nKYLIX IN BERLIN.]\n\nThe following groups can be identified on vases by inscriptions or\ndetails of treatment:\u2014\n\n Zeus and Agasthenes, Hyperbios, and Ephialtes: Louvre E 732 (Fig. 111).\n Zeus and Porphyrion: Berlin 2531.\n Hera and Harpolykos: Louvre E 732.\n Hera and Rhoitos (miswritten Phoitos): Berlin 2531.\n Poseidon and Polybotes: Louvre E 732; Berlin 2531 = Fig. 112.\n Poseidon and Ephialtes: Reinach, ii. 188.\n Apollo and Ephialtes: Berlin 2531.\n Artemis and Otos: Reinach, ii. 164.\n Artemis and Aigaion: Berlin 2531.\n Hephaistos and Euryalos: B.M. E 47.\n Hephaistos and Klytios: Berlin 2293.\n Athena and Enkelados: B.M. B 252; Louvre E 732; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 8.\n Ares and Mimas: Berlin 2531; B.M. B 617.\n Hermes and Hippolytos: Berlin 2293.\n Hermes and Polybios (?): Louvre E 732.\n Dionysos and Eurymedon: _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xx. pl. 7.\n Athena with arm of Akratos: Berlin 2957 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 88.\n Death of Otos (supposed): Bibl. Nat. 299 = Reinach, ii. 255.\n\nAmong scenes supposed to take place in Olympos, the most important is\nthe =Birth of Athena= from the head of Zeus.[44] Usually she is\nrepresented as a diminutive figure actually emerging from his head, but\nin one or two instances she stands before him fully developed,[45] as\nwas probably the case in the centre of the east pediment of the\nParthenon. This subject is commoner on B.F. vases, and does not appear\nat all after the middle of the fifth century.[46] In most cases several\nof the Olympian deities are spectators of the scene; sometimes\nHephaistos wields his axe or runs away in terror at the result of his\noperations[47]; in others the Eileithyiae or goddesses of child-birth\nlend their assistance.[48] On a R.F. vase in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale\nAthena flies out backwards from Zeus\u2019 head.[49]\n\nIn accordance with a principle already discussed (Vol. I. p. 378), the\ncomposition or \u201ctype\u201d of this subject is sometimes adopted on B.F.\nvases for other groups of figures, where the absence of Athena shows\nclearly that the birth scene is not intended, and no particular meaning\ncan be assigned to the composition.[50]\n\nRepresentations of the =Marriage of Zeus and Hera= cannot be pointed to\nwith certainty in vase-paintings. On B.F. vases we sometimes see a\nbridal pair in a chariot accompanied by various deities, or figures\nwith the attributes of divinities[51]; but the chief figures are not in\nany way characterised as such, and it is better to regard these scenes\nas idealisations of ordinary marriage processions. On the other hand,\nthere are undoubted representations of Zeus and Hera enthroned among\nthe Olympian deities or partaking of a banquet.[52]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 113. THE BIRTH OF ATHENA (BRIT. MUS. B 244).]\n\nThe story of the enchaining of Hera in a magic chair by Hephaistos, and\nher subsequent liberation by him, is alluded to on many vases, though\none episode is more prominent than the others. Of the expulsion of\nHephaistos from heaven we find no instance, and of the release of Hera\nthere is only one doubtful example[53]; but we find a parody of the\nformer\u2019s combat with Ares, who forces him to liberate Hera.[54] The\nepisode most frequent is that of the =return of Hephaistos= in a\ndrunken condition to Olympos, conducted by Dionysos and a crowd of\nSatyrs; of this there are fine examples on vases of all periods.[55] On\nearlier vases Hephaistos rides a mule; on the later he generally\nstumbles along, leaning on Dionysos or a Satyr for support.\n\nOn the Fran\u00e7ois vase we see Zeus and Hera, with an attendant train of\ndeities, Nymphs, and Muses, going in a chariot to the nuptials of\nPeleus and Thetis; on many vases we have the reception of the deified\nHerakles among the gods of Olympos[56]; and on others groups of deities\nbanqueting or without particular signification.[57] But on the late\nApulian vases it is a frequent occurrence to find an upper row of\ndeities as spectators of some event taking place just below: thus they\nwatch battles of Greeks and Persians,[58] or such scenes as the\ncontract between Pelops and Oinomaos,[59] the madness of Lykourgos,[60]\nthe death of Hippolytos,[61] and others from heroic legend, which it is\nunnecessary to specify here; only a few typical ones can be\nmentioned.[62] They also appear as spectators of scenes in or relating\nto the nether-world.[63]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Zeus= appears less frequently than some deities, and seldom alone; but\nstill there are many myths connected with him, besides those already\ndiscussed. As a single figure he appears enthroned and attended by his\neagle on a Cyrenaic cup in the Louvre[64]; or again in his chariot,\nhurling a thunderbolt[65]; in company with his brother-gods of the\nocean and under-world, Poseidon and Hades, he is seen on a kylix by\nXenokles.[66] He is also found with Athena,[67] with Hera, Apollo,\nArtemis, Aphrodite, and Hermes[68]; and frequently with Herakles at the\nlatter\u2019s reception into heaven.[69] In one instance he settles a\ndispute between Aphrodite and Persephone.[70] He receives libations\nfrom Nike,[71] or performs the ceremony himself, attended by Hera,\nIris, and Nike,[72] and is also attended by Hebe and Ganymede as\ncupbearers.[73] His statue, especially that of \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f19\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 at Troy,\nsometimes gives local colour to a scene.[74]\n\nMost of the scenes in which he appears relate to his various love\nadventures, among which the legends of Europa, Io, and Semele are the\nmost conspicuous; but first of his numerous _amours_ should perhaps be\nmentioned his wooing of his consort Hera. He carries her off while\nasleep from her nurse in Euboea,[75] and also appears to her in the\nform of a cuckoo.[76] The rape of Ganymede by his eagle appears once or\ntwice on vases,[77] but more generally Zeus himself seizes the youth\nwhile he is engaged in bowling a hoop or otherwise at play.[78] On a\nfine late vase with Latin inscriptions Ganymede appears in Olympos,[79]\nand he is also depicted as a shepherd.[80]\n\nSemele Zeus pursues and slays with the thunderbolt[81]; the birth of\nher son Dionysos from his thigh is represented but rarely on vases, and\nis liable to confusion with other subjects. This story falls into three\nepisodes: (1) the reception of the infant by Hermes from Dirke, in\norder to be sewn into Zeus\u2019 thigh[82]; (2) the actual birth scene[83];\n(3) the handing over of the child to the Nymphs.[84] Of his visit to\nAlkmena there are no certain representations, but two comic scenes on\nSouth Italian vases[85] may possibly refer to it, and one of them at\nleast seems to be influenced by the burlesque by Rhinton, from which\nPlautus borrowed the idea of his _Amphitruo_. The apotheosis of\nAlkmena, when her husband places her on a funeral pyre after\ndiscovering her misdeed, is represented on two fine South Italian vases\nin the British Museum; in one case Zeus looks on.[86] His appearing to\nLeda in the form of a swan only seems to find one illustration on a\nvase, but in one case he is present at the scene of Leda with the\negg.[87]\n\nHe is also depicted descending in a shower of gold on Dana\u00eb[88]; or as\ncarrying off the Nymphs Aegina and Thaleia[89]; or, again, with an\nunknown Nymph, perhaps Taygeta.[90] In the form of a bull, on which\nEuropa rides, he provides a very favourite subject, of which some fine\nspecimens exist.[91] One variation of the type is found on an Apulian\nvase, where Europa advances to caress the bull sent by Zeus to fetch\nher.[92] The story of Io[93] resolves itself into several scenes, all\nof which find illustration on the vases: (1) the meeting of Io and Zeus\nwhen she rests at the shrine of Artemis after her wanderings[94]; (2)\nIo in the form of a cow, guarded by Argos[95]; (3) the appearance of\nher deliverer Hermes[96]; (4) Hermes attacks and slays Argos (Fig.\n114).[97]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_.\n\n FIG. 114. HERMES SLAYING ARGOS IN PRESENCE OF ZEUS (VASE AT VIENNA).]\n]\n\nIn addition, the presence of Zeus may be noted in various scenes from\nheroic or other legends, which are more appropriately discussed under\nother headings[98], such as the freeing of Prometheus[99], the combat\nof Herakles and Kyknos[100], or the weighing of the souls of Achilles\nand Hector[101]; at the sending of Triptolemos, the flaying of Marsyas,\nthe death of Aktaeon, and that of Archemoros[102]; at the creation of\nPandora and the Judgment of Paris[103]; the rape of the Delphic tripod\nand that of the Leukippidae, at Peleus\u2019 seizing of Thetis,[104] and\nwith Idas and Marpessa.[105] The story of the golden dog of Zeus, which\nwas stolen by Pandareos, is referred to under a later heading.[106]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Hera= apart from Zeus appears but seldom, but there are a few scenes\nin which she is found alone; of those in which she is an actor or\nspectator some have been already described, the most important being\nthe story of Hephaistos\u2019 return to heaven.[107] As her figure is not\nalways strongly characterised by means of attributes, it is not always\nto be identified with certainty. As a single figure she forms the\ninterior decoration of one fine R.F. kylix,[108] and her \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or\nprimitive cult-idol, is sometimes found as an indication of the scene\nof an action.[109] On one vase she is represented at her toilet.[110]\n\nThere is a vase-painting which represents Hera on her throne offering a\nlibation to Prometheus, an aged figure who stands before her.[111] She\nis also present at the liberation of Prometheus[112]; in a scene\nprobably intended for the punishment of Ixion[113]; at the creation of\nPandora[114]; and in scenes from the story of Io.[115] She suckles the\nchild Herakles in one instance,[116] and in another appears with him in\nthe garden of the Hesperides[117]; she is also present at his\nreconciliation with Apollo at Delphi,[118] and at his apotheosis,[119]\nreceiving him and Iolaos.[120] On an early Ionic vase she appears\ncontending with him in the presence of Athena and Poseidon, and wears a\ngoat-skin head-dress, as in the Roman type of Juno Sospita or\nLanuvina.[121]\n\nThe scene in which she appears most frequently is the Judgment of Paris\n(see below, p. 122); she is also present at the birth of Dionysos[122];\nat the stealing of Zeus\u2019 golden dog by Pandareos[123]; at the contest\nbetween Apollo and Marsyas[124]; at the slaughter of the Niobids[125];\nand with Perseus and Athena.[126]\n\nShe appears sometimes with Hebe, Iris, and Nike, from whom she receives\nlibations[127]; and in one scene, apparently from a Satyric drama, she\nand Iris are attacked by a band of Seileni and rescued by Herakles.[128]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Ant. Denkm._\n\n FIG. 115. POSEIDON AND AMPHITRITE ON A CORINTHIAN PINAX.\n]\n\n=Poseidon= is a figure somewhat rare in archaic art as a whole,\nespecially in statuary, but is more frequently seen on vases, mostly in\ngroups of deities, or as a spectator of events taking place in or under\nthe sea, his domain. Among subjects already discussed, he is present at\nthe birth of Athena,[129] at the nuptials of Zeus and Hera,[130] and in\nassemblies of the Olympian gods, generally with his consort\nAmphitrite[131]; he also takes part in the Gigantomachia and the\nreception of Herakles into Olympos.[132] He is represented in a group\nwith his brother deities of the higher and nether world, Zeus and\nHades[133]; with Apollo, Athena, Ares, and Hermes[134]; among the\nEleusinian deities at the sending forth of Triptolemos[135]; and\noccasionally in Dionysiac scenes as a companion of the wine-god.[136]\nAs a single figure he is frequently found on the series of archaic\ntablets or _pinakes_ found near Corinth, and also in company with\nAmphitrite (Fig. 115)[137]; on later vases not so frequently.[138] In\none instance he rides on a bull,[139] in others on a horse, sometimes\nwinged[140]; elsewhere he drives in a chariot with Amphitrite and other\ndeities[141]; he watches the Sun-god in his car rising out of the\nwaves[142]; and one vase has the curious subject of Poseidon, Herakles,\nand Hermes engaged in fishing.[143]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE L\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n\n ATHENA AND POSEIDON CONTENDING FOR ATTICA; VASE FROM KERTCH (AT\n PETERSBURG).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nAmong scenes in which he plays an active part the most interesting is\nthe dispute with Athena for the ownership of Attica, also represented\non the west pediment of the Parthenon[144]; his love adventures,\nespecially his pursuit of Amymone[145] and Aithra,[146] are common\nsubjects, but in many cases the object of his pursuit cannot be\nidentified.[147] He receives Theseus under the ocean,[148] and possibly\nin one case Glaukos, on his acceptance as a sea-god[149]; he is also\npresent at the former\u2019s recognition by Aigeus.[150] He is seen at the\ndeath of Talos,[151] and with Europa crossing the sea.[152] In\nconjunction with other deities, chiefly on late Italian vases, he is\npresent as a spectator of various episodes, such as the adventures of\nBellerophon, Kadmos, or Pelops, the rape of Persephone, the creation of\nPandora, the death of Hippolytos, and in one historical scene, a battle\nof Greeks and Persians.[153] He superintends several of the adventures\nof Herakles, notably those in which he is specially interested, as the\ncontests with Antaios and Triton[154]; and he supports Hera in her\ncombat with that hero.[155] He is also seen with Perseus on his way to\nslay Medusa,[156] and among the Gorgons after that event.[157]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn connection with Poseidon it may be convenient to mention here other\ndivinities and beings with marine associations\u2014such as Okeanos, Nereus,\nand Triton, and the Nereids or sea-nymphs, daughters of Nereus, with\nthe more rarely occurring Naiads. Of these the name of Okeanos occurs\nbut once, on the Fran\u00e7ois vase. The figure itself has disappeared, but\nthe marine monster on which he rides to the wedding of Peleus and\nThetis, and the inscription, remain. =Nereus= appears as a single\nfigure, with fish-tail and trident,[158] but is most frequently met\nwith in connection with the capture of his daughter Thetis by Peleus,\neither as a spectator or receiving the news from a Nereid.[159] He also\nwatches the contest of Herakles with Triton,[160] himself encountering\nthe hero in some cases.[161] On one vase Herakles has seized his\ntrident and threatens him by making havoc of his belongings.[162] He\nappears at Herakles\u2019 combat with Kyknos,[163] and at his\napotheosis,[164] and also offers a crown to Achilles.[165] In one case\nhe is found in Dionysos\u2019 company.[166] With his daughter Doris he\nwatches the pursuit of another Nereid by Poseidon.[167]\n\n=Triton= is found as a single figure,[168] and (chiefly on B.F. vases)\nengaged in a struggle with Herakles.[169] He also carries Theseus\nthrough the sea to Poseidon,[170] and watches the flight of Phrixos and\nHelle over the sea.[171] The group of deities represented by Ino and\nLeukothea, Palaimon, Melikertes, and Glaukos appear in isolated\ninstances,[172] as do Proteus[173] and Skylla[174]\u2014the latter as single\nfigures, without reference to their connection with the _Odyssey_. A\nmonstrous unidentified figure, with wings and a serpentine fish-tail,\nwhich may be a sea-deity (in one case feminine), is found on some early\nCorinthian vases[175]; possibly Palaimon is intended.\n\n=The Nereids=, who are often distinctively named, are sometimes found\nin groups,[176] especially watching the seizure of Thetis or bearing\nthe news to Nereus[177]; or, again, carrying the armour of Achilles\nover the sea and presenting it to him.[178] On one vase they mourn over\nthe dead Achilles.[179] They are also present at the reception of\nTheseus,[180] the contest of Herakles and Triton,[181] and with Europa\non the bull.[182] Kymothea offers a parting cup to Achilles[183]; the\nNaiads, who are similar beings, present to Perseus the cap, sword,\nshoes, and wallet.[184] They are also found grouped with various\ndeities,[185] and even one in the under-world.[186] Thetis appears once\nas a single figure, accompanied by dolphins[187]; for her capture by\nPeleus and relations with Achilles, see p. 120 ff.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=The Eleusinian deities= Demeter and Persephone (or Kore) are usually\nfound together, not only in scenes which have a special reference to\ntheir cult, but in general assemblies of the gods. They once appear in\nthe Gigantomachia.[188] Scenes which refer to the Eleusinian cycle are\nfound exclusively on later examples,[189] and as a rule merely\nrepresent the two chief deities grouped with others, such as Dionysos\nand Hekate, and with their attendants, Iacchos, Eumolpos, and\nEubouleus.[190] One vase represents the initiation of Herakles, Kastor,\nand Polydeukes in the Lesser Mysteries of Agra[191]; another, the birth\nof Ploutos, who is handed to Demeter in a cornucopia by Gaia, rising\nfrom the earth, in the presence of Persephone, Triptolemos, and\nIacchos[192]; and others, the birth of Dionysos or Iacchos\u2014a very\nsimilar composition.[193] Demeter and Persephone are represented\ndriving in their chariot, with attendant deities and other\nfigures,[194] or standing alone, carrying sceptre and torches\nrespectively,[195] or pouring libations at a tomb (on a sepulchral\nvase).[196] They are present at the carrying off of Basile by Echelos\n(a rare Attic legend),[197] and Demeter alone is seen, once at the\nbirth of Athena,[198] once at the slaughter of the dragon by\nKadmos,[199] once enthroned,[200] and once with Dionysos as\nThesmophoros, holding an open roll with the laws (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03af) of her\ncult.[201]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LI\n\n[Illustration: KOTYLE BY HIERON: TRIPTOLEMOS AT ELEUSIS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nClosely connected with Eleusis is the subject of the sending forth of\n_Triptolemos_ as a teacher of agriculture in his winged car. This is\nfound on vases of all periods,[202] but is best exemplified on the\nbeautiful kotyle of Hieron in the British Museum (Plate LI.), where,\nbesides Olympian and Chthonian deities, the personification of Eleusis\nis present. Besides the other Eleusinian personages, Keleos and\nHippothoon are also seen.[203] Triptolemos is generally seated in his\ncar, but in one or two cases he stands beside it[204]; in another he is\njust mounting it.[205] On the latter vase Persephone holds his plough.\nOn a vase in Berlin Triptolemos appears without his car, holding a\nploughshare; Demeter presents him with ears of corn, and Persephone\nholds torches.[206]\n\n=Persephone= is also seen with Iacchos,[207] who, according to various\naccounts, was her son or brother. She appears with Aphrodite and\nAdonis,[208] and one vase is supposed to represent the dispute between\nher and Aphrodite over the latter, which was appeased by Zeus.[209]\n\nThe story of the rape of Persephone by Hades, her sojourn in the\nunder-world, and her return to earth is also chiefly confined to the\nlater vases, especially the incident of the rape.[210] In the elaborate\nrepresentations of the under-world on late Apulian vases she generally\nstands or sits with Hades in a building in the centre.[211] She is\noften depicted in scenes representing the carrying off of Kerberos by\nHerakles,[212] or banqueting with Hades.[213] On both early and late\nvases Hermes, in his character of Psychopompos, is seen preparing to\nconduct her back from the nether world (see Plate XLV.),[214] or\nactually on his way.[215] In another semi-mystical version of the\nreturn of Persephone, signifying the return of spring and vegetation,\nher head or part of her body emerges from the earth,[216] in one case\naccompanied by the head of Dionysos, whereat Satyrs and Maenads flee\naffrighted.[217] The interpretation of some of these scenes, however,\nhas been much questioned.[218]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe number of vases with subjects representing the three Delphic\ndeities\u2014=Apollo=, =Artemis=, and =Leto=\u2014is considerable. The\nappearances of Apollo, at any rate, are probably only exceeded in\nnumber by those of Athena, Dionysos, and Herakles. It is, in fact,\nimpossible to make a complete enumeration of the groups in which Apollo\noccurs, and a general outline alone can be given.[219]\n\nApollo as a single figure is often found both on B.F. and R.F. vases,\nusually as Kitharoidos, playing his lyre; sometimes also he is\ndistinguished by his bow.[220] As Kitharoidos he is usually represented\nstanding,[221] but in some cases is seated.[222] He is sometimes\naccompanied by a hind[223] or a bull (Apollo Nomios?).[224] He is\nrepresented at Delphi seated on the Pythoness\u2019 tripod,[225] or is\nseated at an altar,[226] or pours a libation.[227] He rides on a\nswan[228] or on a Gryphon,[229] and also crosses the sea on a\ntripod.[230] In some scenes he is characterised as Daphnephoros,[231]\nholding a branch of laurel, or is represented in the attitude\nassociated with Apollo Lykeios, resting with one hand above his\nhead.[232] In one scene the type of Apollo Kitharoidos closely\nresembles that associated with the sculptor Skopas.[233]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ ix.\n FIG. 116. APOLLO, ARTEMIS, AND LETO.\n]\n\nWhen he is grouped with Artemis, the latter deity usually carries a bow\nand quiver,[234] or they pour libations to one another;[235] but more\ncommonly they stand together, without engaging in any action. They are\nalso depicted in a chariot.[236] More numerous are the scenes in which\nLeto is also included (as Fig. 116), though she is not always to be\nidentified with certainty.[237] In this connection may be noted certain\nscenes relating to Apollo\u2019s childhood: his birth is once\nrepresented,[238] and on certain B.F. vases a woman is seen nursing two\nchildren (one painted black, the other white), which may denote Leto\nwith her infants, though it is more probably a symbolic representation\nof Earth the Nursing-mother (Gaia Kourotrophos; see p. 73).[239]\nTischbein published a vase of doubtful authenticity, which represents\nLeto with the twins fleeing from the serpent Python at Delos[240]; but\nin two instances Apollo certainly appears in Leto\u2019s arms, in one case\nshooting the Python with his bow.[241]\n\nWith these three is sometimes joined Hermes\u2014in one instance at Delphi,\nas indicated by the presence of the _omphalos_[242]; or, again, Hermes\nappears with Apollo alone, or with Apollo and Artemis.[243] Poseidon is\nseen with Apollo, generally accompanied by Artemis and Hermes, also by\nLeto and other indeterminate female figures.[244] In conjunction with\nAthena, Apollo is found grouped with Hermes, Dionysos, Nike, and other\nfemale figures; also with Herakles.[245] With Aphrodite he is seen in\ntoilet scenes, sometimes anointed by Eros.[246] In one case they are\naccompanied by Artemis and Hermes,[247] and on one vase Apollo is\ngrouped with Zeus and with Aphrodite on her swan.[248] He accompanies\nthe chariots of various deities, such as Poseidon, Demeter, and\nAthena,[249] especially when the latter conducts Herakles to\nheaven.[250]\n\nApollo, in one case, is associated with the local Nymph Kyrene on a\nfragment of a vase probably made in that colony.[251] He frequently\nreceives libations from Nike,[252] and in one case is crowned by\nher.[253] With Nymphs and female figures of indeterminate character he\noccurs on many (chiefly B.F.) vases, sometimes as receiving a\nlibation.[254] On several red-figured vases he is accompanied by some\nor all of the nine Muses, one representing their contest with Thamyris\nand Sappho.[255] He and Artemis are specially associated with marriage\nprocessions, whether of Zeus and Hera or of ordinary bridal\ncouples.[256] Apollo also appears in a chariot drawn by a boar and a\nlion at the marriage of Kadmos and Harmonia.[257]\n\nIn Dionysiac scenes he is a frequent spectator[258]; he greets Dionysos\namong his thiasos,[259] joins him in a banquet,[260] or accompanies\nAriadne\u2019s chariot[261] or the returning Hephaistos[262]; listens to the\nSatyr Molkos playing the flutes,[263] or is grouped with Satyrs and\nMaenads at Nysa.[264] More important and of greater interest are the\nscenes which depict the legend of Marsyas, and they may fitly find a\nplace here. The story is told in eight different episodes on the vases,\nwhich may be thus systematised:\n\n 1. Marsyas picks up the flutes dropped by Athena: Berlin 2418 =\n Baumeister, ii. p. 1001, fig. 1209: cf. Reinach, i. 342 (in\n Boston).\n\n 2. First meeting of Apollo and Marsyas: Millin-Reinach, i. 6.\n\n 3. The challenge: Berlin 2638.\n\n 4. Marsyas performing: B.M. E 490; Reinach, i. 452 (Berlin 2950), i.\n 511 (Athens 1921), ii. 312; Jatta 1093 = Reinach, i. 175 =\n Baumeister, ii. p. 891, fig. 965.\n\n 5. Apollo performing: Jatta 1364 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 63; _Wiener Vorl._\n vi. 11.\n\n 6. Apollo victorious: Reinach, ii. 310; Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i.\n 14 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 5.\n\n 7. Condemnation of Marsyas: Naples 3231 = Reinach, i. 405; Reinach,\n ii. 324.\n\n 8. Flaying of Marsyas: Naples 2991 = Reinach, i. 406 (a vase with\n reliefs); Roscher, ii. 2455 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 64.\n\nAmong other scenes in which Apollo (generally accompanied by Artemis)\nplays a personal part, the following may be mentioned: the slaying of\nthe Niobids by the two deities[265]; the slaying of Tityos by\nApollo[266] (in one case Tityos is represented carrying off Leto, who\nis rescued by Apollo)[267]; and various love adventures in which Apollo\nis concerned.[268] The name of the Nymph pursued by him in the latter\nscenes cannot, as a rule, be identified; one vase appears to represent\nhim contending with Idas for the possession of Marpessa.[269] He also\nheals the Centaur Cheiron (this appears in burlesque form),[270] and\nprotects Creusa from the wrath of Ion.[271] He is seen seeking for the\ncattle stolen from him by Hermes, and contending with that god over the\nlyre.[272] He frequently appears in Birth of Athena scenes as\nKitharoidos,[273] and also at the sending forth of Triptolemos[274] or\nin the under-world.[275] In one case he appears (with Athena, Artemis,\nand Herakles) as protecting deity of Attica, watching a combat of\nGreeks and Amazons.[276] On one vase there is a possible reference to\nApollo Smintheus, with whom the mouse was especially associated.[277]\n\nLike other deities, Apollo and Artemis are frequently found on Apulian\nvases as spectators of the deeds of heroes, or other events in which\nthey are more or less interested; some of these subjects have already\nbeen specified (see above, p. 17). Apollo especially is often seen in\nconnection with the story of Herakles, or the Theban and Trojan\nlegends. One burlesque scene represents his carrying off the bow of\nHerakles to the roof of the Delphic temple,[278] and the subject of the\ncapture of the tripod, with the subsequent reconciliation, is of very\nfrequent occurrence.[279] As Apollo Ismenios, the patron of Thebes, he\nis a spectator of the scene of the infant Herakles strangling the\nsnakes[280]; in one case he is represented disputing with Herakles over\na stag,[281] which may be another version of the story of the Keryneian\nstag, a scene in which he also occurs.[282] He is seen with Herakles\nand Kyknos,[283] Herakles and Kerberos,[284] and is very frequently\npresent at the apotheosis of the hero.[285]\n\nApollo and Artemis watch Kadmos slaying the dragon,[286] and one or\nother of them is present at the liberating of Prometheus[287]; Apollo\nalone is seen with Oedipus and Teiresias,[288] and watches the slaying\nof the Sphinx by the former.[289] Among Trojan scenes he is sometimes\npresent at the Judgment of Paris,[290] also at the sacrifice of\nIphigeneia, the pursuit of Troilos, the combats of Achilles and Ajax\nwith Hector, and the recognition of Aithra by her sons.[291] He is, of\ncourse, frequently seen in subjects from the Oresteia, both in Tauris\nand at Delphi,[292] and at the death of Neoptolemos before the latter\ntemple.[293] The pair are also seen at the carrying off of Basile by\nEchelos (see p. 140).[294]\n\nThe \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or primitive cult-statue, of Apollo is sometimes\nrepresented; in one case Kassandra takes refuge from Ajax before it,\ninstead of the usual statue of Athena.[295]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe appearances of =Artemis=, as distinct from Apollo, need not detain\nus long; she is sometimes found in mythological scenes, but frequently\nas a single figure, of which there are some fine examples.[296] A\nwinged goddess grasping the neck or paws of an animal or bird with\neither hand frequently occurs on early vases, and is usually\ninterpreted as Artemis in her character of \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd or mistress of\nthe brute creation, sometimes called the Asiatic or Persian\nArtemis.[297] On an early Boeotian vase (with reliefs) at Athens is a\ncurious representation of Artemis Diktynna, a quasi-marine form of the\ngoddess, originally Cretan (?); on the front of her body is represented\na fish, and on the either side of her is a lion.[298] As a single\nfigure she appears either with bow or quiver, or with lyre, sometimes\naccompanied by a stag or hind, or dogs[299]; she also rides on a\ndeer[300] or shoots at a stag.[301] Or, again, she is attended by a\ncort\u00e8ge of Nymphs[302] or rides in a chariot.[303] Like that of Apollo,\nher \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd is sometimes introduced into a scene as local colouring.[304]\n\nThe myth with which she is chiefly associated is that of Aktaeon, which\nmay find a place here, though in most cases Aktaeon alone is\nrepresented, being devoured by his hounds.[305] A curious subject on a\nvase at Athens appears to be the burial of Aktaeon, Artemis being\npresent.[306] She is also represented at the sacrifice of Iphigeneia,\nfor whom a stag was substituted by her agency,[307] and in connection\nwith the same story at her shrine in Tauris.[308] She is especially\nassociated with Apollo in such scenes as the contest with and flaying\nof Marsyas,[309] the rape of the Delphic tripod by Herakles[310] and\nthe subsequent reconciliation,[311] or the appearance of Orestes at\nDelphi.[312] The two deities sometimes accompany nuptial processions in\nchariots, Artemis as _pronuba_ holding a torch, but it is not easy to\nsay whether these scenes refer to the nuptials of Zeus and Hera or are\nof ordinary significance.[313] A scene in which she pursues a woman and\na child with bow and arrow may have reference to the slaughter of the\nNiobids.[314]\n\nOther scenes in which she is found are the Gigantomachia[315] and the\nBirth of Athena[316]; or she is seen accompanying the chariots of\nDemeter[317] and Athena,[318] and with Aphrodite and Adonis.[319] She\ndisputes with Herakles over the Keryneian stag[320]; and is also\npresent when he strangles the snakes,[321] and at his apotheosis in\nAthena\u2019s chariot.[322] She attends the combat of Paris and\nMenelaos,[323] and as protecting deity of Attica she watches a combat\nof Greeks and Amazons.[324] A vase in Berlin, on which are depicted six\nfigures carrying chairs (Diphrophori, as on the Parthenon frieze) and a\nboy with game, may perhaps represent a procession in honour of\nArtemis.[325]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Hephaistos= is a figure who appears but seldom, and never as\nprotagonist, except in the case of his return to Olympos,[326] a\nsubject already discussed (p. 17), as has been his appearance in the\nGigantomachia[327] and at the birth of Athena.[328] In conjunction with\nthe last-named goddess he completes the creation and adornment of\nPandora on two fine vases in the British Museum[329]; he is also\npresent at the birth of Erichthonios.[330] His sojourn below the ocean\nwith Thetis and the making of Achilles\u2019 armour also occur.[331]\nRepresentations of a forge on some B.F. vases may have reference to the\nLemnian forge of Hephaistos and his Cyclopean workmen.[332] He is also\nseen with Athena,[333] at the punishment of Ixion,[334] and taking part\nin a banquet with Dionysos.[335]\n\n * * * * *\n\nMore important than any of the other Olympian deities, for the part she\nplays in vase-paintings, is =Athena=, the great goddess of the Ionic\nrace, and especially of Athens. Of her birth from the head of Zeus we\nhave already spoken, as also of the part she plays in the Gigantomachia\n(p. 15). The separate episode of her combat with Enkelados (her\ninvariable opponent) is frequently depicted on B.F. vases[336]; but in\none instance she tears off the arm of another giant, Akratos.[337] We\nhave also seen her assisting at the creation of Pandora,[338] and\ncontending with Poseidon for Attica.[339] She receives the infant\nDionysos at the time of his birth,[340] and is also generally present\nat that of Erichthonios,[341] and once with Leto at that of Apollo and\nArtemis.[342] She is, of course, an invariable actor in Judgment of\nParis scenes, in one of which she is represented washing her hands at a\nfountain in preparation for the competition.[343]\n\nFrom assemblies of the gods she is rarely absent, and she is also\nassociated with smaller groups of divinities, such as Apollo and\nArtemis (p. 31), with Ares or Hephaistos,[344] or with Hermes,[345] or\nin Eleusinian[346] or Dionysiac scenes.[347] Thus she assists at the\nslaying of the Niobids,[348] and on one vase is confronted with\nMarsyas, before whom she has just dropped the flutes.[349] Scenes in\nwhich she appears receiving a libation from Nike are extremely\ncommon[350]; and she is also found with Iris and Hebe.[351] In one\ninstance she herself pours a libation to Zeus.[352]\n\nGenerally the companion of princes and patroness of heroes, she\nprotects especially Herakles, whom she aids in his exploits and conveys\nfinally in her chariot to Olympos, where he is introduced by her to\nZeus.[353] Some scenes represent the two simply standing together[354];\nin others she welcomes and refreshes him after his labours,[355] and in\none case he is supposed to be represented pursuing her.[356] It is\nunnecessary to particularise here the various scenes in which she\nattends Herakles (see p. 95 ff.); but one may be mentioned as peculiar,\nwhere she carries him off in her chariot with the Delphic tripod which\nhe has just stolen.[357] Another rare scene connected with the Herakles\nmyths is one in which, after the fight with Kyknos (see p. 101), Zeus\nprotects her from the wrath of Ares.[358] Another of her favourite\nheroes is Theseus,[359] and she is even more frequently associated with\nPerseus, whom she assists to overcome and escape from the Gorgons.[360]\nShe gives Kadmos the stone with which to slay the dragon,[361] and is\nalso seen with Bellerophon,[362] Jason and the Argonauts,[363] and\nOedipus.[364] She is present at the rape of Oreithyia by Boreas,[365]\nat the punishment of Ixion,[366] and at the setting out of\nAmphiaraos[367]; at the stealing of Zeus\u2019 golden dog by Pandareos[368];\nalso at the rape of the Leukippidae by the Dioskuri,[369] and of Basile\nby Echelos (see p. 140),[370] and in a scene from the tragedy of\nMerope.[371]\n\nThe scenes where she is assisting the Greek heroes in the Trojan War\nare almost too numerous to specify, her favourite being of course\nAchilles; her meeting with Iris (_Il._ viii. 409) is once\ndepicted,[372] and she also appears in connection with the dispute over\nAchilles\u2019 arms.[373] She is not so frequently seen with her other\nfavourite, Odysseus, but in one instance she is present when he meets\nwith Nausikaa,[374] and also when he blinds Polyphemos.[375] On the\nnumerous vases representing Ajax and Achilles (or other heroes) playing\nat draughts, the figure or image of the goddess is generally present in\nthe background.[376] The same type on B.F. vases is adopted for the\nsubject of two heroes casting lots before her statue[377]; lastly, she\nappears as the friend and patron of Orestes when expiating the slaying\nof his mother.[378]\n\nAs a single figure Athena is represented under many types and with\nvarious attributes, seated with her owl[379] or in meditation,[380]\nwriting on tablets[381] or holding the \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of a ship[382];\nplaying on a lyre[383] or flutes,[384] or listening to a player on the\nflute or lyre[385]; with a man making a helmet,[386] or herself making\nthe figure of a horse,[387] and in a potter\u2019s workshop.[388] On an\nearly vase she appears between two lions[389]; or she is accompanied by\na hind (here grouped with other goddesses).[390] She is depicted\nrunning,[391] and occasionally is winged[392]; or she appears mounting\na chariot, accompanied by various divinities.[393] As the protecting\ngoddess of Attica she watches a combat of Greeks and Amazons[394]; she\nalso attends the departure or watches combats of ordinary\nwarriors,[395] or receives a victorious one.[396] In one instance she\ncarries a dead warrior home.[397]\n\nThere are many representations of her image, either as a \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd or\ncultus-statue, or recalling some well-known type of later art. Among\nthe former may be mentioned her statue at Troy, whereat Kassandra takes\nrefuge from Ajax,[398] and the Palladion carried off by Odysseus and\nDiomede.[399] Among the latter, three can be traced to or connected\nwith creations of Pheidias: viz. the chryselephantine Parthenos\nstatue[400]; the Lemnian type, holding her helmet in her hand (Plate\nXXXVI.)[401]; and the Promachos, in defensive attitude, with shield and\nspear.[402] The last-named type (earlier, of course, than the famous\nstatue on the Acropolis) is that universally adopted for the figure of\nAthena on the obverse of the Panathenaic amphorae, on which she is\ndepicted in this attitude between two Doric columns surmounted by cocks\n(on the later examples by figures of Nike or Triptolemos).[403] Her\nstatue is also represented as standing in a shrine or hero\u00f6n[404]; or\nas the recipient of a sacrifice or offering.[405] Her head or bust\nalone appears on several vases.[406]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Ares=, in the few instances in which he appears on vases, is generally\nin a subordinate position; he is a spectator at the birth of\nAthena[407]; and appears twice on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, at the wedding of\nPeleus and Thetis, and again in an attitude of shame and humility, to\nindicate the part he played in the story of Hephaistos and Hera; of his\ncombat with the former god mention has already been made (p. 16). In\nthe Gigantomachia his opponent is Mimas, with whom he also appears in\nsingle combat[408]; and he aids his son Kyknos against Herakles and\nAthena.[409] He is seen in several of the large groups of Olympian\ndeities,[410] or in smaller groups, _e.g._ with Poseidon and\nHermes,[411] with Apollo, Artemis, and Leto,[412] or with Athena[413]\nor his spouse Aphrodite[414]; also with Dionysos, Ariadne, and\nNereus.[415] He also receives a libation from Hebe.[416] He is seen at\nthe birth of Pandora,[417] the punishment of Ixion,[418] the slaying of\nthe Niobids,[419] the apotheosis of Herakles,[420] and the contest of\nthat hero with the Nemean lion.[421] In some cases his type is not to\nbe distinguished from that of an ordinary warrior or hero, as in one\ncase where he or a warrior is seen between two women.[422]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Aphrodite= seldom appears as a protagonist on vases, and in fact plays\na small personal part in mythology. Apart from scenes of a fanciful\nnature she is usually a mere spectator of events; but as she is not\noften characterised by any distinctive attribute, there is in many\ncases considerable difficulty in identifying her personality. This is\nespecially the case on B.F. vases, on which her appearances are\ncomparatively rare. One vase represents her at the moment of her birth\nfrom the sea in the presence of Eros and Peitho[423]; she also appears\n(on late vases only) with Adonis,[424] embracing him, and in two\ninstances mourning for him after his death[425]; but caution must be\nexercised in most cases in identifying this subject, which is but\nlittle differentiated from ordinary love scenes. One scene apparently\nrepresents Zeus deciding a dispute between her and Persephone over\nAdonis.[426]\n\nMore commonly she is seen riding over the sea on a goose or swan,[427]\nof which there is one exceedingly beautiful example in the British\nMuseum; here she is to be recognised as the Heavenly Aphrodite\n(Ourania), whereas in her character of Pandemos (profane or unlicensed\nlove) she rides on a goat.[428] In other instances the swan draws her\nchariot over the sea,[429] or she is borne by a pair of Erotes,[430] or\nsails in a shell, as in the story of her birth and appearance in the\nisland of Kythera[431]; in others, again, her chariot is drawn (on\nland) by the Erotes,[432] or by a lion, wolf, and pair of boars.[433]\nShe is also represented at her toilet[434] or bathing,[435] in the\nlatter case in the attitude of the _V\u00e9nus accroupie_ of sculpture; in\nthese instances again there is often difficulty in distinguishing from\nscenes of ordinary life. Again, she is represented spinning,[436]\nplaying with a swan,[437] or caressing a hare,[438] or in company with\na young hunter,[439] possibly meant for Adonis.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1897.\n FIG. 117. APHRODITE AND HER FOLLOWING (VASE AT ATHENS).\n]\n\nIn many scenes she is grouped with a cort\u00e8ge of attendant Nymphs and\npersonified figures, often with names attached.[440] Besides Eros, the\nfollowing are found on these vases: Pothos (Longing) and Himeros\n(Charm), Hygieia (Health), Peitho (Persuasion), Paidia (Play),\nPandaisia (Good Cheer), Eunomia (Orderliness), Euthymia (Cheerfulness),\nEudaimonia (Happiness), Hedylogos (Winning Speech), and Kleopatra (a\nfancy name). Eros himself she embraces[441] and suckles,[442] and in\nsome cases he assists in her toilet, perfuming her hair from an unguent\nflask,[443] or adjusting her sandals[444]; he is seldom absent from her\nside on the later vases. In one instance Aphrodite and two Erotes make\na basket of golden twigs.[445] Their heads or busts are also found on\nlate vases, as is that of Aphrodite alone.[446]\n\nIn relation to other mythological subjects she is frequently found in\nassemblies of the gods, especially in the spectator groups on Apulian\nvases[447]; also at the birth of Athena (rarely),[448] at the marriage\nof Zeus and Hera,[449] and in the Gigantomachia (very rare).[450] She\nis seen among the Eleusinian deities,[451] and in scenes from the\nnether world[452]; and she accompanies the chariots of Athena and\nDemeter.[453] She also accompanies Poseidon in his wooing of\nAmymone,[454] and is present at the slaying of Argos by Hermes,[455]\nthe punishment of Aktaeon[456] and the contest of Apollo and\nMarsyas,[457] and the wooing of Europa by Zeus.[458] She is also\ngrouped with Apollo and the Muses listening to Thamyris and Sappho.[459]\n\nShe is seldom seen with Herakles, but is present at his\napotheosis,[460] and also with him in the Garden of the\nHesperides[461]; she is once seen with Theseus,[462] and is present at\nthe rape of the Leukippidae by the Dioskuri.[463] Other heroes with\nwhom she is connected (chiefly as a spectator on the Apulian vases) are\nKadmos, Meleager, Perseus, and Pelops.[464] In the tale of Troy,\nhowever, she plays a more important part. The Judgment of Paris is, of\ncourse, the scene with which she is chiefly connected[465]; in one\ninstance she appears alone with Paris, unless Anchises be here\nmeant.[466] She is present at the first meeting and wedding of Peleus\nand Thetis[467]; at the toilet of Helen, and at her carrying off by\nParis[468]; she assists her son Aeneas in his combat with Diomede,[469]\nand is present at the rape of Kassandra.[470] Helen takes refuge from\nMenelaos with her in her temple[471]; and finally she assists Aeneas to\nescape with the aged Anchises from Troy.[472]\n\n * * * * *\n\nBesides the scenes in which he appears with Aphrodite, =Eros= is a\nsufficiently important personage on vases to demand a section to\nhimself. On the black-figured vases he never appears, nor on the\nearlier red-figured ones is it possible to find many instances, but\ntowards the end of the fifth century his popularity is firmly\nestablished, while on the Italian vases, especially the the later\nApulian, his presence is almost invariable, not only in mythological\nscenes, but in subjects from daily life. As a single figure he occurs\nagain and again, generally holding a wreath, mirror, box, fan, or some\nobject which may be regarded as signifying a lover\u2019s present.\n\nConcurrently with his increasing popularity we note the change that\ncomes over the conception of his personality. Beginning as a full-grown\nyouth of fair proportions, his form gradually attenuates and becomes\nmore juvenile, or even in some cases infantile, as in Hellenistic art;\nwhile on the Apulian vases it assumes an androgynous, altogether\neffeminate character. His hair is arranged in feminine fashion, and his\nperson is adorned with earrings, bracelets, anklets, and chains,\nremaining otherwise entirely nude, except that he sometimes wears soft\nshoes of a feminine kind (see Plate XLIV. and Fig. 118).\n\nOn the red-figured vases he generally appears as a single figure,\nthough on those of the \u201cfine\u201d style he is often in attendance on\nAphrodite; roughly speaking, it may be said that he figures in all\nscenes that deal with the passion of Love, such as the Judgment of\nParis,[473] the story of Adonis,[474] the marriage of Dionysos and\nAriadne,[475] or the love-affairs of Zeus, Poseidon, and other\ngods.[476]\n\nIn other legends in which Love plays a part, such as the stories of\nJason and Medeia,[477] Phaidra and Hippolytos,[478] Peleus and Thetis\n(or Theseus and Ariadne),[479] Pelops and Hippodameia,[480] Paris and\nHelen,[481] he is also to be seen; as also at the carrying off of\nPersephone.[482] Moreover, he occurs in several scenes where the reason\nis not so apparent, as at the birth of Erichthonios,[483] in the Garden\nof the Hesperides,[484] at the suckling of Herakles by Hera,[485] with\nHerakles and a Centaur,[486] and in the nether world[487]; also with\ndeities such as Zeus, Athena, Nike, Helios and Selene, and\nDionysos[488]; anointing the head of Apollo.[489] The cosmogonic\nconception of Eros and his connection with Gaia is referred to in the\nnext chapter under the latter heading (p. 73). Two Erotes draw the\nchariot of Demeter and Persephone[490]; and he is also seen in company\nwith the Nereids.[491] His presence in Dionysiac scenes, especially on\nthe later vases, is often to be noted, though without any special\nmeaning to be attached to it[492]; in one instance he is carried on the\nback of a Seilenos.[493] In many of these scenes he merely accompanies\nAphrodite, and they do not therefore require enumeration. Lastly, he is\nseen in company with Sappho,[494] the great poetess of Love.\n\nIn non-mythological scenes he is found almost as frequently, especially\nin toilet scenes,[495] or what we may regard as \u201cscenes of courting\u201d;\nbut on the later vases these exhibit little or no action, and are not\nworth considering in detail, with a few exceptions. Thus we see Eros in\nmarriage processions,[496] in musical scenes,[497] and at\nbanquets[498]; at a sacrifice to a term[499]; watching girls play the\ngame of _morra_[500] (\u201cHow many fingers do I hold up?\u201d); swinging them,\nor being danced on their feet[501]; in scenes of fruit- and\nincense-gathering[502]; or pouring wine into a krater.[503] He appears\nwith Agon (see p. 89) training in the palaestra.[504] He pursues a\nyouth or a girl,[505] embraces a girl,[506] or is carried by her\npick-a-back[507]; offers a hare to a youth,[508] or drives a youth with\na whip from an altar[509]; and in one instance is about to chastise\nwith a slipper two youths who are playing with a top and hoop[510];\nthese two latter scenes may be regarded as implying the power of Eros\nover youth. He is also seen shooting an arrow at a woman,[511] an idea\ncharacteristic of Anacreontic and Alexandrine poetry. Another scene\nwhich recalls the wall-paintings of the Hellenistic Age is on a vase in\nthe British Museum, representing two Erotes being weighed in\nscales.[512]\n\nAs a single figure he pursues a hare or kills a snake[513]; crouches\nbefore a plant[514]; is represented armed with shield and spear[515];\nor places a sash or wreath on a tripod.[516] He is borne in a chariot\nby horses or swans,[517] or rides on a horse, deer, dog, or swan.[518]\nHe is also seen playing various games, such as the _kottabos_ or\n_morra_,[519] see-sawing or playing knucklebones,[520] or with a ball\nor hoop or toy-boat.[521] Or he plays the flute or lyre[522]; or plays\nwith animals, such as a deer, dove, swan[523]; or finally (on Apulian\nvases) with a toy which resembles a wheel, and was probably used for\nmagic purposes, as several passages of literature indicate.[524]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 118. EROS WITH KOTTABOS-STAND (BRIT. MUS.).]\n\nLastly, we must give a survey of the frequent representations of Eros\nflying through the air carrying some attribute, which are so universal\non the Italian vases, though some of the earliest types also represent\nhim in this manner. Thus he carries a hare, or dove or other bird[525];\nfruit (such as grapes or pomegranates), flowers, and branches[526];\nwreaths, dishes of fruit, baskets, vases of various forms, and a spit\nof meat[527]; thyrsi, tambourines, lyres, torches, incense-burners,\nstrigils, and ladders[528]; fans, parasols, mirrors, toilet-boxes,\nstrings of beads, and sashes, or balls.[529]\n\n * * * * *\n\nAmong the other associates of Aphrodite the chief are Peitho, Pothos,\nand Himeros, of whom mention has already been made. =Peitho=, except\nwhere her name is given, is not always easy to identify; the other two\nare not differentiated from Eros in form, and are, in fact, only\nvariations of the conception of Love, as are the more rarely occurring\nPhthonos (_Amor invidiosus_)[530] and Talas (_Amor infelix_), the\nlatter of whom is associated with Sappho.[531] Peitho is found with\nHimeros in one instance,[532] and in another with Eukleia[533]; she\nalso accompanies Aphrodite in Eleusinian and other scenes,[534] at the\ndeliverance of Andromeda,[535] in the Garden of the Hesperides,[536]\nand at the rape of Helen[537] and the Leukippidae,[538] and at the\nrecovery of Helen by Menelaos[539]; she consoles her when mourning for\nAdonis[540]; and is present at the moment of her birth.[541] Like Eros,\nshe is seen in company with Sappho,[542] and she also appears with\nMeleager and Atalante.[543]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Pothos= and =Himeros= are seen floating over the sea with Eros on a\nfine R.F. vase in the British Museum,[544] and at the Judgment of\nParis[545]; and grouped together generally as Erotes, they may be\ndistinguished on some late vases. Pothos attends at the toilet of\nHelen,[546] and plays the flutes in a Dionysiac scene.[547] Himeros is\nseen swinging Paidia (another of Aphrodite\u2019s following)[548]; at the\nmarriage of Herakles and Hebe[549]; presenting a crown to\nDionysos,[550] or removing his shoes,[551] and accompanying him in a\nscene of preparation for the Satyric drama.[552]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Hermes=, the messenger of the gods, is a common figure on vases of all\nperiods, but chiefly as a subordinate agent, though he plays a leading\npart in some scenes, and frequently occurs as a single figure.[553]\nSome small vases are decorated merely with his head, wearing the winged\npetasos.[554] He is represented passing over the sea with a lyre,[555]\ncarrying a ram,[556] riding on a ram or goat,[557] or reclining on the\nlatter animal[558]; also as making a libation[559] or sacrificing a\ngoat.[560] He presides over the palaestra,[561] and is also seen\nstanding between Sphinxes,[562] or again (apparently as a statue)\nstanding by a fountain.[563] In one scene he leads a dog disguised as a\npig,[564] and he is also represented tending a flock of sheep,[565] or\nfishing.[566]\n\nThe story so vividly recounted in the Homeric hymn of his infantile\ntheft of Apollo\u2019s oxen is given in several scenes, including his taking\nrefuge in his cradle (Fig. 119)[567]; he is also represented with his\nmother Maia,[568] and disputing with Apollo over the lyre which he\ninvented.[569] The only other myth in which he plays a chief part is\nhis pursuit of the Nymph Herse in the presence of her father Kekrops\nand her sister Aglauros.[570] He appears in the Gigantomachia (in one\ninstance as Zeus\u2019 charioteer),[571] frequently at the birth of\nAthena,[572] and with the bridal _cort\u00e8ge_ of Zeus and Hera[573]; also\nin numerous assemblies of the Olympian deities, especially on the\nApulian vases.[574] He is present at the seizing of Ganymede,[575] and\ndefends Hera against an attack of Seileni.[576] His slaying of Argos\nand deliverance of Io has already been mentioned[577]; and he assists\nin recovering the golden dog of Zeus which was stolen by Pandareos.[578]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n\n FIG. 119. HERMES WITH APOLLO\u2019S OXEN.\n]\n\nHe is present at the return of Hephaistos,[579] at Poseidon\u2019s capture\nof Amymone,[580] with Aphrodite mourning for Adonis,[581] and with\nApollo slaying Tityos and the Niobids and contending with Marsyas,[582]\nalso at his reconciliation with Herakles.[583] He accompanies the\nchariots of Poseidon, Apollo, and Athena,[584] and also those of\nmortals, especially in wedding processions[585]; and he is also seen\nwith Eos and Selene,[586] Kastor and Polydeukes,[587] Prometheus,[588]\nLeda at the finding of the egg,[589] and at the birth of Pandora.[590]\nHe is specially associated with Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and\nDionysos,[591] and also appears with Aphrodite Pandemos[592]; he is not\ninfrequently found in Dionysiac scenes[593]; and to him is entrusted\nthe newly born Dionysos to be handed over to the Nymphs of Nysa.[594]\nOn B.F. vases he is frequently seen leading a procession of Nymphs.[595]\n\nAs a Chthonian deity he is present in many scenes relating to the\nnether world, especially on the large Apulian vases,[596] and in\nconnection with the Eleusinian myths, such as the carrying off of\nPersephone.[597] As Psychagogos or Psychopompos he is seen in Hades\nwaiting to conduct Persephone to earth, or actually _en route_ with\nher.[598] He frequently performs the same office for mortals,\nconducting them to Charon\u2019s bark.[599] He is also found in company with\nThanatos,[600] and with Herakles bringing back Alkestis.[601] A unique\nscene with Hermes in his Chthonian capacity is on a vase where he is\nrepresented chaining up Kerberos[602]; and another, yet more curious,\ndepicts him standing by a jar (\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2) from which a number of small\nwinged figures (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1 or ghosts) are flying out, with a supposed\nreference to the Athenian festival of the \u03a0\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1.[603]\n\nIn the stories of Herakles he plays an important part, as also in those\nof Theseus and other heroes, and he is frequently visible in scenes\nfrom the Trojan legends. He conveys the infant Herakles to Cheiron for\ninstruction,[604] and conducts the hero to Hades to fetch\nKerberos[605]; he is also seen feasting or bathing with him,[606] and\nin company with him and Athena,[607] and most frequently in connection\nwith his apotheosis.[608] With Theseus he is found more rarely[609];\nbut he frequently accompanies Perseus in his flight from the\nGorgons.[610] In other heroic scenes he is often one of the spectator\ndeities on Apulian vases. In one instance he is seen banqueting with an\nunidentified hero.[611]\n\nIn the Trojan legends his chief appearance is as conductor of the\ngoddesses to the Judgment of Paris[612]; and in one case he accompanies\nPeleus when bringing the infant Achilles to Cheiron.[613] He also\nassists Zeus in weighing the souls of Achilles and Hector,[614]\nconducts Priam to Achilles,[615] and is present in many other scenes\nwhich need not be recounted in detail. A scene difficult of explanation\nrepresents him accompanying Odysseus in a chariot.[616]\n\nA Herm or terminal figure of Hermes is a not uncommon feature on vases,\nespecially of the R.F. period,[617] and generally as the object of a\nsacrifice made to it.[618]\n\nLast of the Olympian deities comes =Hestia=, who is usually coupled\nwith Hermes; she, however, only appears on a few vases in gatherings of\nthe Olympian deities,[619] as on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, where she attends\nthe nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, and at the marriage of Herakles and\nHebe.[620]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n _Il._ xi. 635: cf. Athen, xi. 489 F.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n i. 27 ff.: cf. Vol. I. p. 180.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n Athenaeus, xi. p. 489 B.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 782 B.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n _Od._ 5.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n _H.N._ xxxiii. 155.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n _Ibid._ 156.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Mart. viii. 51: cf. Juv. i. 76.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Stat. _Theb._ i. 543.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n Virg. _Ecl._ iii. 46.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Schreiber, _Alexandr. Toreutik, passim_; Robert in _50^{tes}\n Winckelmannsfestprogr._ 1890.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Suet. _Ner._ 47: see Vol. I. pp. 134, 185, 499.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n Cf. Miss Harrison, _Mythol. and Monum. of Athens_, p. ii; and see\n Vol. I. p. 13.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n See on this subject _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 83.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n _Art. Poet._ 147.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n See Luckenbach in _Jahrb. f\u00fcr Class. Phil._ Suppl.-Bd. xi. (1880), p.\n 575 ff.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 493 ff.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n The only exceptions are in the Panathenaic contests, which are of\n course not epic: cf. B.M. B 130\u201331.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n See on this subject _Comm. in hon. T. Mommseni_, p. 163 ff.; _Arch.\n Zeit._ 1876, p. 116; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 366, and, _J.H.S._ x. p.\n 13 ff.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n Luckenbach, _op. cit._ p. 560 ff.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n There is only one vase (Naples 2296 = Reinach, _R\u00e9pertoire_, i. 476)\n on which the names of the Nereids are derived from Homer.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n _Op. et Di._ 60 ff.; _Scut._ 345 ff., 178, 216; _Theog._ 820, 924 ff.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 267.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n Vol. I. p. 472: see also below, p. 159. On the subject generally see\n Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._; Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in\n Vase-paintings_; Engelmann, _Arch. Studien zu den Tragikern_.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n Reinach, i. p. 114.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 636.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n See for further details of early theories Vol. I. p. 21.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n _E.g._ the B.F. hydriae with water-drawing scenes; the funeral\n lekythi; and the R.F. cups with their subjects relating to banquets\n and revels.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n See also Chapters VI.\u2013XI. throughout.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n Morgenthau, _Zusammenhang d. Bilder auf gr. Vasen_.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n Cf. for instance E 39, 45, 47, 48, in B.M.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n See below, p. 108.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n See p. 134.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n This subject has been admirably treated by Wickhoff in his _Roman\n Art_ (Eng. edn.), p. 13 ff.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n The publication of this vase by Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr.\n Vasenmalerei_, pls. 1\u20133, 11\u201313, with full discussion of subjects and\n technical details, has now superseded all previous illustrations. The\n only other complete ones were in _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ iv. 54\u20138\n (Reinach, i. p. 134\u201336) and _Wiener Vorl._ ii. pls. 1\u20135. The general\n view given in Plate XXVIII. is reproduced from the first-named work.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n For the abbreviations used in the following notes see the\n Bibliography (Vol. I.).\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n Munich 125 = Reinach, ii. 120 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32;\n B.M. F 237: cf. also B.M. B 62.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n The best and most complete examples are as follows:\u2014B.F.: B.M. B 208;\n Reinach, i. 162 = Louvre E 732. R.F.: B.M. E 47, 469; Berlin 2293,\n 2531 (both in _Wiener Vorl._ i. pls. 8 and 5; the latter very good);\n Bibl. Nat. 573 = Reinach, ii. 256. Best of all (late R.F.), a grand\n vase found in Melos (_Monum. Grecs_, 1875, pt. 4, pls. 1\u20132 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ viii. 7), on which no less than eighteen deities are engaged,\n but none of the giants are named. Hera, Hephaistos, and Amphitrite\n are absent. Figs. 111 and 112 give two of these\u2014E 732 in Louvre, and\n the interior of Berlin 2531.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 8.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n Reinach, ii. 188 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 5.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n B.M. E 47; Berlin 2293.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n B.M. B 253, E 443 (and see p. 56).\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xx. (1896), pl. 7: cf. the archaic frieze of\n the Siphnian treasury at Delphi.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 147 (a very fine early example, but much restored), 244\n (Fig. 113), 424; Berlin 1704 (also good). R.F.: B.M. E 15, E 410\n (fine); Reinach, ii. 207.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Reinach, i. 171.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Reinach in _Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_, 1901, p. 127, traces the\n subject to a Megarian origin.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n _B.M. Vases_, ii. p. 11.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n B.M. B 147, 218, 244.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n _Cat._ 444.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n See B.M. B 157, B 341; also Berlin 1899 (= _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 22) and\n Reinach, ii. 21, 2.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 197 (a fine vase, by Amasis?) and B 298: see on the\n subject Foerster, _Hochzeit des Zeus und Hera_.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n B.M. E 82; Wernicke, _Ant. Denkm._ pl. 1, 7 = Reinach, ii. 266.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i. 14 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 5 (also\n interpreted as a sculptor finishing off a statue of Hera).\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n B.M. F 269 (gods nicknamed respectively Daidalos and Enyalios).\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n B.F.: Fran\u00e7ois vase; B.M. B 42 (Plate XXI.), 264; Vienna 218; Athens\n 628 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, pl. 8. R.F.: Bibl. Nat. 539 = Reinach, ii.\n 261; Reinach, ii. 3 = Millin-Reinach, i. 9; Reinach, ii. 311; Munich\n 776 = Baumeister, i. p. 644, fig. 714 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,\n pl. 29; Munich 780 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._: i. pl. 46 A = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 9, 3.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n See below, p. 107; the best examples are Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._\n i. 9 (Sosias); B.M. B 379; Reinach, ii. 76 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n B.M. B 345; E 67, 444; Berlin 2060; Reinach, i. 157, 1, 2 and 203 =\n Baumeister, iii. pl. 93, fig. 2400 (by Oltos and Euxitheos, a very\n fine example); a late instance, Petersburg 419 = Reinach, i. 161.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Reinach, i. 98; 194 (Dareios in council).\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n B.M. F 278; Reinach, i. 379.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n B.M. F 271.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n B.M. F 279.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Numerous examples will be found in the pages of Reinach\u2019s\n _R\u00e9pertoire_.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Rape of Persephone: Reinach, i. 99; other scenes, _ibid._ i. 355;\n B.M. F 270.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n E 668 = Reinach, i. 435; and cf. Jatta 1405 = Reinach, i. 483; Bibl.\n Nat. 489.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n Reinach, ii. 287.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 82 (also i. 22?), and Vienna 329.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 30 (may be Poseidon); Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 37, 3; B.M.\n E 432 (Artemis); Naples S.A. 702 = Reinach, i. 499 and Reinach, ii.\n 183 (Aphrodite); Bibl. Nat. 229 (Zeus with Hera, Athena, Ares, and\n Hermes); _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189, and _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1899, No. 15 (with Hermes).\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n B.M. B 166, B 379, B 424, E 262; Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 20;\n Berlin 1857 (H. plays lyre); Petersburg 1775 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 9,\n 1 = Reinach, i. 302 (parody): and see below, p. 107.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n Reinach, i. 156, 1.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 14 (now in B.M.); Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 38 (fine polychrome pyxis in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n B.M. E 381; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 20.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n B.M. F 278; Roscher, iii. p. 969.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 68 (in Louvre): cf. Eusebius, _Prep.\n evang._ iii. 84_b_.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 29A (doubtful).\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Reinach, i. 335, 2.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 18 (= Helbig, ii. p. 310, No. 104); Bibl. Nat. 416 =\n Reinach, i. 472; Berlin 2032 = Reinach, i. 334.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 10.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n B.M. F 542.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n B.M. E 313; Reinach, i. 408.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1: see Robert, _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, pl. 2,\n p. 179 ff.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3; Bibl. Nat. 219 = _Mon. Ant. di\n Barone_, pl. 1; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1895, No. 27: see also for the\n first Robert, _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, pl. 3, p. 189.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n B.M. E 182; Bibl. Nat. 440 = Reinach, ii. 260; and see p. 55, note\n 644.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n B.M. F 150; _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 276 (see Vol. I. p. 473).\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n B.M. F 149 (signed by Python) = _J.H.S._ xi. pl. 6; B.M. F 193.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n B.M. F 286; Reinach, i. 278.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n B.M. E 711; Petersburg 1723 = Baumeister, i. p. 406, fig. 447 (both\n R.F.).\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n Aegina: Helbig, ii. p. 311, No. 113 = Wernicke, _Ant. Denkm._ 6, 4;\n Berlin 3239 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 17; _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1895, No. 39\n (a sister brings the news to her father Asopos). Thaleia: Reinach,\n ii. 285 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 16 = Wernicke, 6, 3.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n Reinach, ii. 144: see below, p. 82.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n B.F.: Louvre E 696 = Reinach, i. 162; Athens 853 = Reinach, i. 507;\n _id._ ii. 49. R.F.: B.M. E 231; Munich 208 = Jahn, _Entf\u00fchrung d.\n Europa_, pl. 7 (polychrome on white); Petersburg 1637 = Reinach, i.\n 24, and 1915 = Reinach, i. 22 (Europa brought to Zeus). Late: B.M. F\n 184; Naples 3218 = Jahn, _op. cit._ pl. 1 (Eros on bull).\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n Helbig, ii. p. 312, No. 118 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 6,\n fig. 13.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n See generally _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 62, and _Jahrbuch_,\n 1903, p. 37; also _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 12.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n Berlin 3164, and Reinach, ii. 16 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n Reinach, i. 407.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 111, 1 = Berlin 2651 (R.F.), and 111, 2 = Munich 573 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 12, 1 (B.F.); _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900,\n No. 21.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n B.M. B 164; Bibl. Nat. 302 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 97; Reinach, i. 363;\n Vienna 338 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 11, 1 = Fig. 114; _ibid._ i.\n 111, 4 = Jatta 1498 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 12, 2.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n See generally Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ ii. p. 27 ff., 181 ff.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n Reinach, i. 388.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n See p. 101; Zeus defending Athena against Ares after the combat,\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (Boston vase).\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n See p. 130.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n B.M. E 140; Reinach, i. 342, 405, 452; _ibid._ i. 229; i. 235.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n B.M. E 467 and _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n B.M. B 316; E 224; Naples 2638 = Reinach, i. 78.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n Munich 745 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 16.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n See p. 141.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n See above, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n Munich 336 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 9, 19; head only,\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 29; also perhaps in Naples 2900 = Baumeister, iii. p.\n 1653, fig. 1714; but more probably Aphrodite is intended.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n Overbeck, _op. cit._ iii. p. 18; Reinach, i. 231, ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 34.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 542 = Reinach, i. 141.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n Reinach, i. 388.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n B.M. E 155.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n B.M. E 467.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n B.M. B 164; Berlin 3164; Reinach, i. 111, 4.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n B.M. F 107.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n Naples 2873 = Millin-Reinach, i. 3: cf. B.M. F 148 and Reinach, i.\n 301.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n Reinach, ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n B.M. B 379; Berlin 2278; Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 20.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i. 399.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n B.M. B 57: cf. the Hera \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 at Sparta (Paus. iii. 15, 9).\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1; Bibl. Nat. 219.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n Jatta 1093 = Reinach, i. 175.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Reinach, i. 463.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pls. 45\u201346.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n Reinach, ii. 9, 321 and _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 30 (Hebe); Reinach, ii. 325\n (Iris).\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n B.M. B 147, E 410.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n B.M. B 197.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n B.M. E 82; Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n See above, p. 13 (esp. Berlin 2531 (Fig. 112), Reinach, ii. 188 =\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 5, _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 41, and Helbig, ii.\n p. 304, No. 81 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. pl. 56, 1); B.M. B 166; Berlin\n 2278; Reinach, ii. 76; Louvre F 30 = _Rev. Arch._ xiii. (1889), pl. 4\n (by Amasis).\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n B.M. B 212, B 262, and Reinach, ii. 23, 30 = Munich 145 (Apollo);\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1896, No. 1, and Athens 750 (Hermes); Athens\n 838, _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 30(?), iii. 13, 36 A (Athena and Hermes); B.M. B\n 191 (Ares and Hermes), B 228 (Athena, Ares, Herakles); _Bourguignon\n Sale Cat._ 41 (Apollo, Eros, Nereids, Papposilenos).\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n B.M. E 140.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n Reinach, ii. 35; and see B.M. E 445.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n Berlin 347\u2013473 (alone), 474\u2013537 (with A.): see also 787\u2013833;\n specimens published in _Ant. Denkm._ i. pls. 7\u20138 (_e.g._ Fig. 115 =\n Berlin 495).\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n B.M. E 322; Berlin 2164; Bibl. Nat. 363 = Reinach, ii. 257, 4;\n _ibid._ ii. 22, 8; Petersburg 1531, 2164. With Amphitrite pouring a\n libation: _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 2 (Duris in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n Reinach, ii. 35.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n Athens 880; Bibl. Nat. 314.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n Berlin 1869; Athens 836; Reinach, ii. 22; B.M. B 254 (\u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\n inscribed by error for \u1f08\u03bc\u03c6\u03b9\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7).\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n Plate L.: cf. Bibl. Nat. 222 = Reinach, ii. 251 = Rayet and\n Collignon, p. 121.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n Reinach, i. 124, 465, ii. 22 (Jatta 1346), 181; Athens 1171 =\n Heydemann, _Gr. Vas._ pl. 2, 1. Amymone alone may be intended on\n Bibl. Nat. 359.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n B.M. E 174; Reinach, ii. 23 = Helbig, ii. p. 309, No. 102.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 432 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 20; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 20\u201325; Bibl.\n Nat. 370; Reinach, i. 286 = _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 2, by Brygos\n (perhaps the Nymph Salamis: cf. _J.H.S._ ix. p. 56; the scenes on the\n exterior of this cup may refer to Kychreus, the son of Poseidon and\n Salamis, and the snake slain by him). Athens 1551 = Heydemann, _Gr.\n Vas._ pl. 1, fig. 2, seems to represent Poseidon pursuing a Nereid.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n _J.H.S._ xviii. pp. 277\u201379, and cf. pl. 14 (Louvre G 104, by\n Euphronios), where Theseus is received by Amphitrite.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 418 = _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 278.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n B.M. E 264.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n Reinach, i. 361.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n _E.g._ i. 36.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Reinach, i. 108, 195; Berlin 2634; Reinach, i. 379; i. 99; B.M. E\n 467; B.M. F 279; Reinach, i. 98.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n B.M. B 196, Munich 114 = Reinach, i. 422; Reinach, ii. 61; and see\n B.M. B 228; Reinach, i. 301; ii. 66 (Kyknos).\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n B.M. B 57.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, pl. 10 (with the Graiae); _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl.\n 2 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n B.M. B 428 = Roscher, iii. 247.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n B.M. E 9, 73; Reinach, i. 64, i. 78 (= Naples 2638), ii. 278; _Wiener\n Vorl._ vii. 2 (Duris in Louvre); Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, 24 (Hieron): all R.F. See also p. 120.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n B.M. B 201; Reinach, i. 346, 6\u20137.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n B.M. B 225, E 162; Bibl. Nat. 255 = Reinach, ii. 61. See p. 101.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n Reinach, i. 339.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66 (inscribed \u1f0d\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n Reinach, ii. 76.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Naples 3352 = Reinach, i. 485.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n B.M. B 551.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Athens 1551.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n B.M. E 109; Berlin 1676 = Reinach, ii. 22; Louvre F 148.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n B.M. B 223, 311; Reinach, i. 227, ii. 61, 1. See p. 101.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 277.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n Naples 3412 = Reinach, i. 498.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n B.M. B 166 (Palaimon?), E 156 (Leukothea: see p. 136); Reinach, i.\n 319 (Ino?): for possible instances of Melikertes see Berlin 779, 780,\n 914, and Roscher, ii. p. 2635.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n Naples 1767 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Homer_, _Od._ pl. iv. 22;\n B.M. B 201.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n B.M. F 218.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n Berlin 1007, 1008; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 31 and 32 B (fem.); see Vol. I. p.\n 314.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (Branteghem Coll. 85); B.M. E 774 (names given to\n fancy scene): see also Munich 331; Naples 2638 = Reinach, i. 78, 2;\n and Kretschmer, _Gr. Vaseninschr._ p. 200.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n See p. 25, note 159; also Reinach, p. 231.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n B.M. F 69; Jatta 1496 = Reinach, i. 112; Reinach, i. 300; Roscher,\n iii. 221\u201324: see generally Heydemann\u2019s _Nereiden mit Waffen_.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Louvre E 643 = Reinach, i. 311.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n Reinach, i. 83, 232.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 61.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n Berlin 3241 = Roscher, iii. 218; Petersburg 1915 = Reinach, i. 21.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n Reinach, i. 286.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n B.M. B 155.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41; and in assemblies of the gods, Reinach,\n ii. 76.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n Naples 3222 = Reinach, i. 167.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n Vase in Boston (1900 Report, No. 4): cf. for a Nereid(?) with\n dolphins, Louvre G 3.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pt. 4, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n The best example is a votive plaque found at Eleusis in 1895 (Athens\n 1968 = \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1901, pl. 1): see also Petersburg 1792 and 525 =\n Reinach, i. 1 and 11 = Baumeister, i. pp. 474\u201375.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n For other deities in Eleusinian scenes, see under Aphrodite, Hermes,\n Dionysos, Hekate.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n B.M. F 68.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n Petersburg 1792\u201393 = Reinach, i. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n Reinach, ii. 32; B.M. F 90.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n Reinach, ii. 321; Athens 1844 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1881, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n Athens 1626 = Dumont-Pottier, pl. 37.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin): cf. \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1893, pl. 9, and\n see p. 140 below.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n Berlin 1704 = Reinach, i. 197.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n Berlin 2634.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n Athens 1120 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n Reinach, ii. 329 (very dubious): cf. a terracotta from Cyprus in B.M.\n (A 326).\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n B.F.: Reinach, ii. 32\u201333. R.F.: B.M. E 140 (Plate LI.); E 183, E 281,\n E 469; Petersburg 1207 = Reinach, i. 10; _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 7, 4.\n Late: Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12; Helbig, 127 = Millin-Reinach,\n ii. 31, and 152 = Reinach, ii. 34; _Wiener Vorl._ i. 6.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 62; a newly acquired R.F. amphora in B.M.: see also\n Roscher, _E.g._ Keleos, p. 1028; Reinach, i. 286 (?); Munich 336.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n B.M. E 274 and Munich 299: see Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iii. p. 535.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 424 = Reinach, i. 463.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n Reinach, i. 124.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 156, 1: see Apollod. iii. 14, 4, and Hygin. _Astron._ ii.\n 7.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 310. R.F.: Reinach, i. 99, 156, 2; B.M. F 277;\n Baumeister, i. pl. 7, fig. 462: and see Helbig, 144 = Overbeck,\n _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, 18, 12.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n See below, p. 67; also Berlin 1844 and _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1, for\n earlier examples.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n Reinach, i. 389 and 401 (= Naples S.A. 11); _ibid._ ii. 70.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n B.M. E 82, F 68.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 261; Munich 728 = Reinach, ii. 48. Late: B.M. F 332 =\n Plate XLV.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n Reinach, i. 522, 1 = Roscher, ii. p. 1378; Baumeister, i. p. 423,\n fig. 463 (inscribed).\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n Reinach, i. 228 (Berlin 2646) and 348 (Boston); _Arch. Anzeiger_,\n 1895, p. 37 (Berlin); Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 277\n (vase in Dresden; Satyrs astonished; Hermes present).\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n Reinach, i. 144 = Louvre F 311 = Baumeister, i. p. 445, fig. 493.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n Robert, _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, p. 198 ff.: see _J.H.S._ xix. p. 232, xx. p.\n 106 ff., and _Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 113; also below, under\n Ge-Pandora (p. 73), and Harrison, _Prolegom. to Gk. Religion_, p. 277\n ff.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n For a more complete tabulation see Overbeck, _Kunstmythologie_, vol.\n iv., especially pp. 42 ff., 322 ff.; also the plates of vol. ii. of\n the _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._, and the Atlas to Overbeck, pls. 19 to end.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 367 = Reinach, ii. 257.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n B.M. B 260, 681.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n B.M. B 592; Berlin 1868.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 3; ii. 6A = Petersburg 411.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n B.M. B 195, F 145(?); Berlin 1867; Reinach, ii. 29.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n Reinach, ii. 286.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n B.M. E 80.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n B.M. E 516; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n B.M. E 232; Reinach, ii. 157, 296; _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 2.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n B.M. E 543; Reinach, ii. 228; Berlin 2641 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 44.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Helbig, 97 = Reinach, i. 79 = Baumeister, i. p. 102, fig. 108.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 46; Petersburg 411 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 6A.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n B.M. F 311; Naples 2902 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 97A.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Reinach, ii. 310 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 65.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n B.M. B 260, 548, E 274, 383, 514; Brygos vase in Louvre = Reinach. i.\n 246; Naples R.C. 169 = Reinach, i. 313 (Artemis with torch; localised\n at Delphi by a crow on the omphalos).\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 10 (Berlin 2206) and 32; Vienna 331; Reinach, ii. 27;\n B.M. E 579; _Forman Sale Cat._ 356.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n B.M. E 262; Reinach ii. 26 (= Louvre F 297), 284 (?); on Melian\n amphora (Athens 475 = Rayet and \u00c7ollignon, pl. 3), Apollo in chariot,\n before which stands Artemis with stag.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n B.M. B 680, E 256; Reinach, ii. 27\u20138, 45 (Naples S.A. 192); Athens\n 1342.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n Athens 1962 (Leto about to bring forth, assisted by Eileithyia).\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n B.M. B 168, 213; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 39, 1 a; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 2. Nyx\n (Night) was similarly represented on the Kypselos chest (Paus. v. 18,\n 1).\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n Reinach, ii. 310.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n Berlin 2212 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p. 378; Bibl. Nat. 306 =\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 1 A.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n Berlin 2645 = Reinach, i. 397 (Apollo on omphalos, with hind);\n Reinach, ii. 26 (Louvre F 297), 28 (Bibl. Nat. 443), i. 184 (Fig.\n 116); B.M. E 502 (omphalos); Athens 1362 (by Mys, a fine example).\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n Reinach, ii. 29; B.M. B 215, 245; Petersburg 9 = Reinach, ii. 24\n (Apollo crowned by woman); _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 39; Bibl. Nat. 428; Munich\n 157.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n B.M. B 212, 262; Reinach, ii. 23, 323; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 30 (?), 36 C:\n and cf. _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n B.M. B 238; Reinach, ii. 24 (Munich 47), 25, 30; Naples 1891 = _\u00c9l.\n C\u00e9r._ ii. 35; Munich 609 = Reinach, ii. 42.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n B.M. F 311, 399.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n B.M. E 785.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Reinach, ii. 183.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 25 (?), 32, 72\u201373; B.M. B 203, and _Wiener Vorl._ 1889,\n pl. 6, 1; and see generally Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p. 51.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n B.M. B 199\u2013201, 211, etc.; Reinach, ii. 72; Berlin 1827 (all B.F.).\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n B.M. B 6; see Vol. I. p. 344.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n Reinach, i. 253; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 47\u201348 (also Iris).\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n Naples 1762 = Millingen-Reinach, 29.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n B.M. B 259, 261; E 323, 415; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 13 (= Reinach, ii. 27).\n In some of these Artemis may be intended.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Berlin 2388; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 79, 80, 83, 86 (a fine example); Jatta\n 1538 = Reinach, i. 526; Helbig, 133 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 15, 2; and cf.\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 54 (A. as a neat-herd?).\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n B.M. B 197, 298; B.M. B 257, Reinach, ii. 154, and Millingen-Reinach,\n 44.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 3 = Roscher, ii. 842.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n B.M. B 195, 255\u201356, 258; F 77; Reinach, ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 8 = Baumeister, i. p. 104, fig. 110.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n Munich 62 = Reinach, ii. 75.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n B.M. B 179.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Reinach, ii. 31.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n Reinach, ii. 287 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 62 (inscribed \u0391\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3: see below, p.\n 78).\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 54.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n B.F.: _Ant. Denkm._ i. 22. R.F.: B.M. E 81; Reinach, i. 227 = Vol. I.\n p. 442. Late: Jatta 424 = Reinach, i. 463; Naples 3246 = Roscher,\n iii. 407 (Niobe at grave of children).\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n B.F.: Reinach, i. 244 (= Louvre E 864), 245; Bibl. Nat. 171 = _ibid._\n ii. 252. R.F.: B.M. E 278.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n Louvre G 42 = Reinach, ii. 26.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n B.M. E 64 (= Reinach, i. 111), E 170 (= _E.g._ i. 185); _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n ii. 21; and see Millin-Reinach, i. 71.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n Munich 745 = Reinach, i. 67 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 16: see\n also Bibl. Nat. 171 = Reinach, ii. 253.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n B.M. F 151.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Reinach, i. 375.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Helbig 227 = Reinach, i. 357; _E.g._ ii. 259 = Bibl. Nat. 820 (?).\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n B.M. B 147.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Naples 690, 3245.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n Reinach, i. 355.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n Reinach, ii. 297.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n Petersburg 1777 = Reinach, i. 153.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n See below, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n B.M. F 479.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n Reinach, ii. 56, 3: see p. 97.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 233.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n Reinach, ii. 69.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n See p. 106, note 1219, for B.F. scenes; for R.F. (in Olympos),\n Reinach, i. 222 and ii. 76.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n Berlin 2634.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n Reinach, i. 388.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 2, 11 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 6.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n B.M. E 696.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n Berlin 2633; Reinach, ii. 87 (?); _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_,\n 1894, p. 252.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n B.M. F 159; Fran\u00e7ois vase; Helbig 106 = Reinach, ii. 101; _Wiener\n Vorl._ vi. 7 (Duris in Louvre); B.M. E 468, Helbig 232 = Reinach, ii.\n 59; Reinach, i. 218.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n Reinach i. 105 (Naples 3223) and i. 504; B.M. F 166, Berlin 3256,\n Naples 1984 = Reinach, i. 390, 2, and _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 90\n (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Reinach, i. 321.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n B.M. E 336: cf. Reinach, i. 218 and Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p.\n 15.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 1; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 67, 2; _E.g._\n p. 602 ff. (cultus-statue of the moon-goddess, Artemis Munychia); and\n see note 299.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Vol. I. p. 289; Berlin 301 = Reinach, i. 380; Naples 304 = Reinach,\n i. 380; Baumeister, i. p. 132, fig. 139; Fran\u00e7ois vase; _Arch.\n Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 2 (Karlsruhe).\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n Athens 462 = Reinach, i. 517: see $1$2 1892, p. 219 ff.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 7 (with hind and lyre); Bibl. Nat. 365 = Reinach, ii.\n 257 (drawing arrow from quiver); Bibl. Nat. 491 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1885,\n pl. 32; Reinach, i. 494 (with two dogs); Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de\n France_, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 8, 43; Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194; B.M. F 274;\n Reinach, ii. 228.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n B.M. E 432.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 77.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n B.M. E 262 = Reinach, ii. 45; and see _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 9 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379; Berlin 3164; Reinach, ii. 16 (?).\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n B.F.: Athens 882 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vas._ pl. 8, 3; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 103\n C. Late: B.M. F 176, F 480 (Etruscan); Berlin 3239 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii.\n 103 B; Reinach, i. 229 and 250 (the former of these now at Boston).\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n Athens 835 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n B.M. F 159.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n Reinach, i. 104, 133, 158, 504.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n Athens 1921 = Reinach, i. 511.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n B.M. B 195, B 316, E 255; Bibl. Nat. 251 = Reinach, ii. 252.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n Reinach, ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 132.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n B.M. B 197, B 298; Reinach, ii. 154: cf. B.M. B 257.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 90.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n See above, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n B.M. E 410.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n Reinach, ii. 32.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n B.M. B 203.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n Reinach, i. 499.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n B.M. B 231; Reinach, i. 233.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n B.M. F 479.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n B.M. B 320; Reinach, ii. 72; in Olympos, B.M. B 379, Berlin 2278, and\n Reinach, ii. 76.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 = Duris kylix in Louvre.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 36.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n See note 326 on p. 17.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n B.M. E 47; Berlin 2293.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n B.M. B 147, B 244; B.M. E 410; Bibl. Nat. 444.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n E 467 and D 4.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208; _ibid._ i. 66 (Munich 345), 113.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n Berlin 2294; and see below, p. 130.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n B.M. B 507; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 51: cf. p. 171.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach, ii. 259 (?).\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Reinach, i. 330.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n B.M. B 302, and cf. F 68.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n B.M. B 252: see _Arch. Journ._ ii. p. 67.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n Berlin 2957 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 88 (Etruscan).\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n B.M. D 4; E 467.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n Plate L.; and see p. 24.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n B.M. E 182; Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n Berlin 2537; B.M. E 372; Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66; _Wiener Vorl._\n iii. 2 = Reinach, i. 113.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n Athens 1962.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n Reinach, i. 126: for other examples see p. 122.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 216 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 96 (Ares); Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach,\n ii. 259 (Hephaistos).\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n B.M. E 268; Bibl. Nat. 220 (= Reinach, ii. 211) and 229; and see\n under Hermes, p. 52, note 591.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n Reinach, i. 11.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n B.M. B 552; Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 38,\n 2_E.g._ (with Poseidon and Dionysos).\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n Reinach, i. 463.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n Berlin 2418 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1001, fig. 1209: cf. B.M. E 490 and\n Reinach, i. 342 (in Boston); Reinach, i. 175, 510, 511 (Athens 1921).\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 68, 76 A; with N. sacrificing, _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1898, No. 51.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n B.M. E 324 (Hebe?); Reinach, ii. 323 (Hebe?); _ibid._ 324 (Iris).\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n Vienna 329: cf. _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 82 (A. with Z., but not pouring\n libation).\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n See p. 106 for these scenes, in which she is almost invariably\n present.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n B.M. B 198, B 498; Helbig 93 = _$1_ ii. 54, 2.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n B.M. D 14; Berlin 2626 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 67; Millin-Reinach,\n ii. 41.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n Reinach, ii. 75 (doubtful).\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n B.M. E 48; Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1900, No. 25; Reinach, i. 55, 6 (Petersburg 116), 91, 421 (Petersburg\n 2012), ii. 271; and see _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 2.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n B.M. B 155, 248, 380, E 181, 493, F 83; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i.\n 290; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n B.M. E 81; Petersburg 2189 = Reinach, i. 5(?).\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n Reinach, i. 108, 195, 331.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 102, 226.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n B.M. E 696.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n Reinach, i. 184.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n B.M. E 155.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n Reinach, i. 480.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n Reinach, i. 231.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n Reinach, i. 363.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 296: see pp. 77, 128.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n At meeting of Paris and Helen, Athens 1942 = Reinach, i. 402; at\n combat of Ajax and Hector, _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 (Duris in Louvre); at\n dispute over the arms, B.M. E 69; and see for other instances,\n Reinach, i. 3, 82, 138, 174, 218; ii. 59, 266.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n Reinach, ii. 110.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n Vase in Boston: see 1899 Report, No. 16.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n See below, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n B.M. B 541, E 160.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n Reinach, i. 5 (?), 158, 390; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 90 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n Berlin 2313 = Reinach, i. 416 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 4, 3.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n B.M. E 316 = Plate XXXVI.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n Reinach, ii. 123 (= Munich 1185), 262 (= Bibl. Nat. 369).\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n B.M. E 299.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n Berlin 1846 = Reinach, ii. 30 (before Dionysos).\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n Reinach, i. 342.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 166; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1896, No. 1.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 83.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n Berlin 2415 = Reinach, i. 343 (the Trojan horse?).\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n Vol. I. p. 223, Fig. 72.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n Reinach, i. 501.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 44.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n B.M. E 515, 519.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 12; Bibl. Nat. 260; Louvre F 380.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n B.M. B 203; Reinach, ii. 73; with Poseidon, Athens 836; with Hermes,\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 4, 1.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n Reinach, ii. 125, 130; Bibl. Nat. 232, 256 = Rein. ii. 254.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 44.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 260.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n B.M. B 242, 379, 541, E 160, 470, F 160, 209, 278; Munich 65 =\n Reinach, i. 76; Naples 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 34.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n See below, p. 133.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n B.M. E 494, E 696; E 716 (moulded vase); and cf. B 611 (Nikephoros).\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n B.M. B 222, E 305 (Pl. XXXVI.), E 324, E 515; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 82; Bibl.\n Nat. 219; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n For a fine example of Athena Promachos see Athens 1169 = Benndorf,\n _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 31, 2.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 389, and Plates XXXIII., XXXIV.; also the B.M.\n examples B 130\u201346, 602\u201312.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 67.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n B.M. B 80; Berlin 1686 = Rayet-Collignon, pl. 7; Reinach, ii. 122;\n Athens 1858 = Reinach, i. 396 (identified as Athena Nike or Onka);\n for the trophy-like form of the figure on the last-named cf. the\n coins of Pergamon inscribed \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c2 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd: see also for a curious\n subject Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 31, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n B.M. D 22; Bibl. Nat. 472 = Reinach, i. 131, 4.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n B.M. B 147; Reinach, i. 156.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n B.M. B 617; Berlin 2531; Bibl. Nat. 573 = Reinach, ii. 256; Athens\n 1259 = Reinach, i. 506.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n See p. 101; for his subsequent attack on Athena, _Arch. Anzeiger_,\n 1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n B.M. E 67, E 82; Reinach, i. 203.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n B.M. B 191, B 228.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 6, fig. 4.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 216 (= _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 96) and 229.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 94\u201395; B.M. E 82, and Berlin 2278 (in assemblies of\n gods); _Gaz. Arch._ 1876, pl. 34.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n B.M. B 551; and see Athens 903.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 98.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n B.M. E 467.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n B.M. E 155.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n Reinach, i. 463.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n B.M. B 379; Berlin 1961 (= Reinach, ii. 43) and 2278; Bibl. Nat. 254.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n Reinach, ii. 91.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 99.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mittheil._ 1899, pl. 7: cf. Paus. vii. 8.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n B.M. F 108, 373 (?); Millingen-Reinach, 26; Reinach, i. 119, 265,\n 325, 479 (?); _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 66 (?).\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Reinach, i. 499 = Naples S.A. 702; also Naples 2900 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 41 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1653, fig. 1714.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n Reinach, i. 156.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n B.M. D 2; _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 13; _Jahrb._ 1886, pl. 11, 2; Berlin 2636\n (_\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 5) and 2688 (= Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 37,\n 3); Reinach, ii. 7, 183. Late: B.M. F 240, 556.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n Berlin 2635 = _Jahrbuch_, 1889, p. 208 = Roscher, iii. 1514.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n Berlin 2660.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_. 1898, p. 137 (Dresden vase): cf. Paul, _E.g._ Fest.\n iii. _E.g._ Cytherea and the B.M. terracottas D 89\u201391.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n B.M. E 712, 775; Athens 1944; Reinach, i. 124, ii. 323; Inghirami,\n _Vasi Fitt._ 324.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n Reinach, i. 353.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n B.M. E 230, F 311; Athens 1588 = Roscher, iii. p. 2119 (Fig. 117);\n Reinach, i. 39, ii. (290; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1903), p.\n 108, No. 46.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n Reinach, ii. 301, 320; Berlin 2707 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, pl. 62, 2.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n Petersburg 1983 = Reinach, i. 15.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pl. 13, 4.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n Berlin 4126 = Reinach, i. 128.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n B.M. E 699 = _J.H.S._ xi. pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n B.M. E 224, 697, 698, 775; Berlin 3257 (with Eunomia and Euthymia at\n marriage of Herakles and Hebe); Naples S.A. 316 = Reinach, i. 477\n (with Eukleia, Klymene, and Pannychis); _Mon. Grecs_, 1889\u201390, pls.\n 9\u201310 (without names); Fig. 117 = Athens 1588 = Roscher, iii. p. 2119\n (with Kore, Hebe, Eudaimon, Harmonia, and others).\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n Reinach, ii. 315; Millin-Reinach, i. 65.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n Reinach, i. 198.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n B.M. E 230, E 289, and cf. F 311; Baumeister, i. p. 618, fig. 687 (?\n see p. 57, note 710).\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 38.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 30: cf. B.M. E 697.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n Reinach, i. 129; B.M. F 258; Bibl. Nat. 1005, 1133 (head of A.\n adorned by two Erotes).\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n See above, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n B.M. E 15; Reinach, i. 156(B.F.).\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n B.M. B 197.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n Petersburg 350, 525 = Reinach, i. 11\u201312; _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900),\n p. 93.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n B.M. F 270, 332; Reinach, i. 355\u201356, 479.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n B.M. B 203; F 90.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n Reinach, i. 124, 465; ii. 181.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n Berlin 3164; Reinach, i. 111, 4 and 416.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Berlin 3239.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Reinach, i. 405, 452 (Berlin 2950); ii. 197.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n Helbig 118 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, 6, 13.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n Reinach, i. 526.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n Reinach, i. 481; Berlin 2278; Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 20; at marriage\n with Hebe, Berlin 3257.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n Reinach, i. 91.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n Naples 3226 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 7 (Kadmos); B.M. F 271 (Pelops);\n Reinach, i. 188, and _Jahrbuch_, 1896, pl. 2 (Perseus); Naples S.A.\n 11 = Reinach, i. 401 (Meleager).\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n See below, p. 122.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 43: cf. Berlin 3244 for another possible Anchises.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n B.M. E 424; Fran\u00e7ois vase.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n Reinach, i. 437.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n B.M. E 73; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 18 (now in Boston).\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n B.M. F 209.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n Reinach, i. 222, and cf. i. 437 and B.M. F 278 (statue of A.); Noel\n des Vergers, _\u00c9trurie_, iii. pl. 39.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n B.M. B 173, 280; Reinach, ii. 116.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n B.M. E 289; Reinach, i. 7, 15, 126; _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 3.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n B.M. F 108 (anointing Adonis\u2019 hair).\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n B.M. E 129.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n Zeus and Dana\u00eb: B.M. E 711; Europa: B.M. E 231, F 184, Naples 3218\n (Eros on bull); Reinach, i. 22, 24.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n Reinach, i. 449.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n B.M. F 272, 279; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n B.M. E 424; Plate XXXIX. fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n B.M. F 271, 331; Reinach, i. 235.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n Reinach, i. 9, 402 (Athens 1942), 437.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n Reinach, i. 156, ii. 309.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 66.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n B.M. E 227.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n B.M. F 107.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n Reinach, i. 22.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n B.M. F 270; Reinach, i. 355, 455 (with Orpheus).\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n Reinach, i. 66; _E.g._ i. 100, 167; B.M. F 152, 194; Gerhard, _Akad.\n Abhandl._ pl. 7, fig. 1 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 394 (with Helios\n and Selene ?see p. 79, note 954); B.M. F 74 and F 102 (Herakles).\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n B.M. F 311: cf. F 399.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n B.M. F 90.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n B.M. F 69: cf. _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n B.M. E 228, 428, 435, 703; F 58, 60, 72, 382; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16\n (offers wreath to D.).\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 20.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n Reinach, i. 525, 526.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n B.M. E 225, 229, 705; F 138, 308, 310, 332.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n Reinach, i. 206.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n B.M. E 126, 189, 191.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n B.M. F 48.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Athens 1946 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 21, 5.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n B.M. E 205 (?); Reinach, i. 412.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n B.M. F 123 (cf. p. 50, note 547); Reinach, ii. 315 = Baumeister, ii.\n p. 780, fig. 834.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n B.M. E 704; E 721.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n Reinach, i. 232.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1899, p. 158 = _Burlington Club Cat._ 1903, p.\n 97, No. 11.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n B.M. E 397, Reinach, ii. 142; B.M. E 217, 360, 702, Reinach, ii. 315.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n Reinach, ii. 317; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 22, fig. 1 (? see p. 80,\n note 970).\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n Reinach, ii. 191.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n Naples 2961.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n B.M. E 297.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 27, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Petersburg 1181 = Reinach, ii. 318: cf. Reinach, i. 250, and _Arch.\n Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (see p. 46, note 478).\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n F 220.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n B.M. E 293; Reinach, i. 465.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n B.M. E 652.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 366 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 51.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n B.M. E 526, 528.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n Reinach, i. 479; _Ibid._ i. 57.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n Reinach, i. 55, Millin-Reinach, ii. 59; Reinach, ii. 324, _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n iv. 53; Reinach, i. 347; _E.g._ ii. 248, B.M. F 555.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n B.M. F 579 = Fig. 118; Reinach, i. 277.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1573, fig. 1633; B.M. E 501.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n B.M. E 706, Naples 2872 = Reinach, ii. 169; B.M. E 296, _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n iv. 49; B.M. F 221.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n B.M. E 241, Reinach, i. 229, ii. 302; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 50.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n B.M. E 213; Reinach, i. 36; B.M. F 68, F 441.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n B.M. F 223, 279, 373: cf. Theocr. ii. 30 (\u1fe5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2); Hor. _Epod._ xvii.\n 7 (_turbo_).\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n B.M. E 118, 571; F 219, 257, Reinach, i. 312 (dove), _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv.\n 49 (cock).\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n B.M. E 13; F 294, 340, 378; Reinach, i. 528, B.M. F 17, 308, 409.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n B.M. F 132, 225, 278, 280, 258 (two Erotes holding wreath); F 165,\n 176, 329, 389; F 310; F 234, 257, 306, 414, 440; E 518.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n B.M. F 349; E 242, F 391; Baumeister, i. p. 498, fig. 540; B.M. F\n 387, 481; F 294, 382, Millin-Reinach, i. 20 (torch and bow); B.M. F\n 443; E 239; F 308, 414 (Plate XLIV.).\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n B.M. F 420, 434; F 456; F 13, 219, 292, 325; F 31, 280, 317, 323; F\n 37; E 293, 388; F 31, 63, 234, 278; F 280, 315, 337, 373.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401 (at death of Meleager).\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n _Abhandl. d. k. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ viii. pl. 1, fig. 1 (with Sappho).\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n B.M. E 222; also at the toilet of Aphrodite (Fig. 117 above).\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. In\u00e9d._ 8.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12; _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93;\n Reinach, i. 124.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n Reinach, i. 188.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n Reinach, i. 437.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n Noel des Vergers, _\u00c9trurie_, iii. pl. 39.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n Naples 2900 = Millingen-Reinach, 41.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n Reinach, i. 526.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n Roscher, iii. p. 1811.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n B.M. E 440.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n Berlin 2633.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n B.M. E 226.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n Reinach, ii. 302: see also _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 11, and\n Jatta 1093 = Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_, pl. 1 (holding\n grapes).\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n Munich 234 = Reinach, i. 298 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1571, fig. 1632.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n Berlin 3257.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n Reinach, ii. 200.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n Jatta 1093.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n B.M. B 32; Louvre G 10; Reinach, ii. 276.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n Berlin 4003 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 50.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n B.M. E 58.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n Louvre F 159; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 87.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n Berlin 2727 and Reinach, i. 159; Berlin 1881.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n B.M. B 549.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 73 (Hermaios), 76.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 51.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Reinach, ii. 276.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n B.M. B 32; Athens 592 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n B.M. B 332.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n Vienna 321 (cf. Ar. _Ach._ 729 ff.).\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n Reinach, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 14 and 75.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n Louvre E 702 = Reinach, i. 354; Helbig, 227 = Reinach, i. 357 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 680, fig. 741 (Fig. 119).\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n Reinach, ii. 25; De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach, ii. 259.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 93; Millin-Reinach, i. 70; Reinach, ii. 330.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n B.M. F 237, and see above, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n Berlin 1702 (Hermes Kyllenios), and see p. 15.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n B.M. B 197; Reinach, ii. 266.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n See above, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n Reinach, i. 472.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n B.M. E 65.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n See p. 20.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n Louvre A 478 (_Hermes_, 1898, p. 638); _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898,\n p. 586.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n Reinach, i. 234.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 124.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 499.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 244; i. 463; i. 175.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n B.M. B 203 (Athena); Reinach, ii. 22, 26, 73; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.\n Vasenb._ 4, 1.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n B.M. B 340; E 44, 459; Reinach, ii. 125, 152, 275.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n Athens 1345 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 10; Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos\n in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 44.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n Reinach, i. 388.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 380.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n B.M. E 467; _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n See generally under those deities; for H. and Athena: B.M. B 144,\n Reinach, i. 257, ii. 42 (Panathenaic); B.M. E 268, Reinach, i. 520\n (Athens 477), ii. 25, 211 (Bibl. Nat. 220).\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n Berlin 2635 = _Jahrbuch_, 1889, p. 208.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n B.M. B 257, 259, 267, 302 (banqueting); Berlin 2160 (with the Satyr\n Oreimachos); Reinach, i. 129 (playing lyre).\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n B.M. B 424, E 492; Petersburg 1792, 1793 (= Reinach, i. 1 and 3);\n Helbig, 103 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 223; Reinach, i. 93, ii. 310;\n and see _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1, p. 1 ff, and p. 55, note 642.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n B.M. B 230; Oxford 222; Reinach, ii. 29.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n See p. 69.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n B.M. F 277; Reinach, i. 99: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n See p. 28; also Naples 1989 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 91, and Reinach, i. 522.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n Reinach, i. 456; Berlin 2455; Munich 209 = Fig. 122, p. 70.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n Athens 1093 = Roscher, ii. p. 2678; Berlin 2991.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n Louvre F 60.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 269.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101: cf. the story of Pandora\u2019s \u201cbox,\u201d and see Vol.\n I. p. 152 and p. 75 below.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n Munich 611 = Reinach, i. 419.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n Reinach, i. 389, ii. 32, 70.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n B.M. B 167, B 301; B 229.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n Reinach, i. 297, 323, ii. 70, 74\u201375.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n B.M. B 166, 318, 379; Louvre F 116\u2013117; Reinach, i. 222, 368, ii. 76.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 172; Reinach, i. 91, ii. 271.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n B.M. B 248, B 280, E 493; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290; _E.g._\n ii. 48; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2 (represents an earlier episode).\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 224.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n See p. 122.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n Athens 966.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n Reinach, i. 89, 144.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 138, ii. 99.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, 10 (Louvre).\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 78\u201381; Bibl. Nat. 839: see Roscher, i. p. 2393.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n B.M. B 362, 627, E 585; Berlin 1928, 2172; Schreiber-Anderson, 16, 8,\n and 14, 3.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n B.M. B 345, E 444; Berlin 2278; Reinach, i. 203; _Ath. Mitth._ 1889,\n pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n _Forman Sale Cat._ 364.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII\n _DIONYSOS AND MISCELLANEOUS DEITIES_\n\n Dionysos and his associates\u2014Ariadne, Maenads, and Satyrs\u2014Names of\n Satyrs and Maenads\u2014The Nether World\u2014General representations and\n isolated subjects\u2014Charon, Erinnyes, Hekate, and\n Thanatos\u2014Cosmogonic deities\u2014Gaia and Pandora\u2014Prometheus and\n Atlas\u2014Iris and Hebe\u2014Personifications\u2014Sun, Moon, Stars, and\n Dawn\u2014Winds\u2014Cities and countries\u2014The Muses\u2014Victory\u2014Abstract\n ideas\u2014Descriptive names.\n\n \u00a7 1. DIONYSOS AND HIS ASSOCIATES\n\nThe most important deity in Greek mythology outside the Olympian circle\nis undoubtedly =Dionysos=; but the part that is played by him and his\nattendant train in Greek art is out of all proportion even to this, at\nleast in the vase-paintings. Apart from what we may regard as strictly\nmythological subjects, such as the Birth of Dionysos and scenes in\nwhich other gods or heroes are introduced, the number and variety of\nthe themes are so great that an exhaustive enumeration is quite\nimpossible; nor indeed would it repay the trouble to give a complete\nlist of what may for convenience be termed Dionysiac scenes. Suffice it\nto say that they occur with equal frequency on the vases of all periods\nfrom the middle of the sixth century onwards.\n\nThe personages with whom we have to deal in this section are, besides\nDionysos himself, his spouse Ariadne, Pan, with his \u201cdouble\u201d Aegipan,\nand the motley rout of Satyrs, Seileni, and Maenads, who appear either\nin the wine-god\u2019s company or by themselves. Dionysos is generally\naccompanied by one or more Maenads or Seileni, whether engaged in some\ndefinite action, such as pouring wine or playing flutes, or no; but he\nis also not infrequently seen as a single figure.[621] On the earlier\nvases he is elderly and bearded, but on the later youthful and\nbeardless. He is occasionally represented with horns,[622] or in the\nform of a man-headed bull.[623] He is depicted sacrificing at an\naltar,[624] pouring a libation,[625] or slaying a fawn[626] or goat\n\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2[627]; banqueting,[628] or playing on the lyre.[629] He\nrides on a bull,[630] goat,[631] mule,[632] or panther,[633] or in a\nwinged chariot[634]\u2014in one case drawn by Gryphons, in another by a\nGryphon, bull, and panther[635]\u2014or in a chariot shaped like a\nship[636]; or is carried by a Seilenos.[637] On a beautiful cup by\nExekias[638] he sails over the ocean in a boat, the mast of which grows\ninto a vine. We are reminded in this scene of the Homeric hymn (xix.)\nand the story of the Tyrrhenian pirates, a subject which, according to\none interpretation, is represented on a vase at Athens.[639]\n\nHis birth is not often represented, and chiefly on R.F. vases[640]; it\nhas been referred to already in detail, in reference to Zeus. When\nhanded over to Hermes,[641] the newly born infant is conveyed by that\ngod to Nysa, where he is finally delivered to a Seilenos, to be nursed\nby the Nymphs of that place.[642] Or he is handed directly to a Nymph\nby Zeus,[643] or, by a curious error or confusion on the artist\u2019s part,\nto Ariadne, his future bride.[644] There is a possible representation\nof the Indian Dionysos or Bassareus,[645] India being the land whence\nhe was fabled to come; and other vases represent various events\nconnected with his first manifestation of himself in Greece: such as\nthe madness he brought on Lykourgos, who refused to receive him,[646]\nand his subsequent sacrifice after his triumph[647]; the death of the\nsimilarly contumelious Pentheus (the story on which the plot of the\n_Bacchae_ turns)[648]; or his supposed visit to the Athenian\nIkarios.[649] He sometimes appears with his mother Semele, whom he\nbrings back from Hades[650]; in one or two instances their heads are\nseen rising from the ground to indicate their return from the nether\nworld.[651] They are then solemnly introduced into Olympos.[652]\n\nDionysos is frequently grouped with various deities, such as Apollo,\nAthena, and Hermes[653]; or they are seen in his company at a\nbanquet.[654] He sometimes appears at the birth of Athena,[655] the\napotheosis of Herakles,[656] and his marriage with Hebe[657]; or in\nheroic scenes, such as the Judgment of Paris,[658] or the combat of\nHerakles and Kyknos.[659] He appears with the Seileni who attack Hera\nand Iris,[660] and brings back Hephaistos to Olympos.[661] He\nfrequently takes part in the Gigantomachia, usually in single\ncombat,[662] being aided by his panther, and sometimes by Seileni and\nMaenads.[663] Sometimes he is seen preparing for this event, wearing a\ncuirass, while Satyrs or Maenads hold the rest of his armour.[664] He\nis also grouped with Gaia \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2,[665] and with Poseidon and\nNike[666]; or accompanies the chariot of Athena[667]; and is seen in\nmore than one assembly of the Olympian deities.[668]\n\nHis wooing and consoling of the deserted Ariadne[669] is an attractive\nand popular subject, and several vases seem to represent the nuptial\nceremonies between the pair,[670] or the preparations for the same,\nwith Eros assisting at the bride\u2019s toilet.[671] Numerous are the\ninstances in which he is seen grouped with Ariadne, often in loving\nembrace,[672] and generally surrounded by his cort\u00e8ge,[673] but also\nalone. Or, again, he and Ariadne drive in a chariot drawn by\nlions,[674] panthers,[675] stags,[676] or goats[677]; in two cases\nAriadne drives her own chariot alone,[678] in another Dionysos is seen\nalone in a four-horse chariot.[679] They are also seen reclining\ntogether at a banquet,[680] sometimes accompanied by Herakles and other\ndeities.[681] On a vase of quasi-Etruscan style[682] we see the\nsleeping Ariadne surrounded by Dionysos, Satyrs, and Maenads. This\npresumably refers to the scene in Naxos.\n\nThe numerous vases on which Dionysos appears, with or without\nAriadne, accompanied by a throng of Satyrs and Maenads, sometimes\nin high revelry, sometimes in more peaceful circumstances, may next\nbe mentioned, though it is not necessary to cite more than a few\ntypical examples[683]; equally numerous are smaller groups, where\nonly one or two followers appear, but only a few of these need be\nparticularised.[684] Thus we see him in peaceful converse with\nMaenads or Nymphs[685]; seizing them with amorous intent[686];\nlistening to a Satyr playing the lyre or flute[687]; or going to a\nbanquet, accompanied by Satyrs with torches[688]; or feeding a\nbird.[689] In banquet scenes he receives drink from a Satyr,[690]\nor plays at the kottabos (see p. 182)[691]; or Seileni steal his\nfood and drink.[692] He watches a Lydian woman dancing in\narmour,[693] or dances himself to the flutes played by an\nactor.[694] In one instance he is seen leaving his chariot to join\nin the revels of his followers[695]; in another he takes part in\nthe orgies of the Scythian Agathyrsi,[696] and he is seen in a\ndrunken condition, supported by one of his followers.[697] He is\nnot infrequently grouped with Eros, from whom he receives drink or\na wreath[698]; also with Pan,[699] or with semi-personified figures\nsuch as Komos (Revelry)[700] or Oinopion (Wine-drinker).[701]\n\n=Pan= only makes his appearance on late vases, usually in Dionysiac\ngroups,[702] or as a single figure on the smaller Apulian wares; when\nhe is depicted with goat\u2019s legs and squat proportions, he is usually\ncalled Aegipan[703]; or, again, Paniskos, when he has the form of a\nbeardless youth.[704] He surprises a Nymph asleep,[705] and is\nsometimes associated with the Nymph Echo.[706]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 120. DIONYSOS WITH SATYRS AND MAENADS (HYDRIA BY\nPAMPHAIOS IN BRIT. MUS.).]\n\nDionysos\u2019 connection with the Attic drama is more specially indicated\nby scenes in which he appears as the inventor or patron of tragedy,\npresenting a tragic mask to a young actor[707]; he also appears in an\nelaborate scene representing the preparations for a Satyric drama.[708]\nAs the object of worship he is sometimes seen in a form which implies a\nreference to some primitive cult, as an aniconic pillar-image (\u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\nor \u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2)[709]; or, again, in the form of a tree (Dionysos\nDendrites), and homage is paid to him by Maenads.[710] Besides\nsacrifices to his image, we see sacrificial dances performed,[711] or\nchoragic tripods consecrated to him.[712] His statue is once seen at a\nfountain.[713]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe must now treat of the scenes in which Seileni and Satyrs, Maenads\nand Nymphs, appear independently of Dionysos, or in particular actions\nwithout relation to him. They are, indeed, often, if not invariably,\npresent in all scenes in which he takes part, whether mythological or\nof a less definite character; as, for instance, the return of\nHephaistos to Olympos,[714] in which the gods are usually accompanied\nby a more or less riotous escort of Satyrs, and others as already\nmentioned. The attack of the Satyrs on Iris and Hera has been alluded\nto in connection with the latter[715]; and they seldom elsewhere appear\nin relation to the Olympian deities or other myths, except in those\nscenes which depict the rising of Persephone or Ge-Pandora from the\nearth.[716] But Satyrs and Maenads are sometimes represented as\nperforming sacrifices, not only to Dionysos,[717] but also to\nHerakles,[718] or to a terminal figure of Hermes.[719] We turn next to\nscenes of more general character.\n\nThere are numerous vases, especially of the R.F. period, on which\ngroups of Satyrs and Maenads are represented in revels of a more or\nless wild and unrestrained character, or else in more peaceful\nassociation. Those in which Dionysos himself is present have already\nbeen enumerated, but the general types may be now considered. It may,\nperhaps, be possible to distinguish two, or even three, classes of this\nsubject: the inactive groups of Satyrs and Maenads[720]; those in which\nthey rush along in frenzy and unrestrained licence, brandishing their\nthyrsi, or with tambourines (_tympana_) and other musical\ninstruments[721]; and, lastly, scenes of convivial revelry (\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9), in\nwhich they are engaged in drinking from all sorts of vessels.[722]\nSometimes these revels are strictly confined to Satyrs, and then they\nbecome absolutely licentious in character[723]; or, again, a group of\nMaenads unattended tear along with torches, thyrsi, and musical\ninstruments[724]; or, lastly, both join in dances hand-in-hand, a\nsubject which on early vases is often adopted for a long frieze\nencircling a vase.[725]\n\nAs a pendant to these, many subjects and single figures must here be\nmentioned which seem to be excerpts from the larger compositions, as\nwell as independent motives presenting special features found in the\nmore elaborate scenes. We begin with subjects in which both Satyrs and\nMaenads take part, among which we find a favourite subject to be the\ngathering of fruit,[726] especially grapes, and the processes of the\nvintage.[727] Satyrs offer drink to Maenads,[728] or play the flutes\nfor them to dance to[729]; and there is a favourite series of subjects\nof an amorous character, in which the Satyrs pursue the objects of\ntheir passion,[730] or surprise them asleep,[731] seize them and\novercome their struggles to escape,[732] and finally enfold them in\nembraces,[733] or carry them on their shoulders.[734] Satyrs are also\nseen surprising women while bathing[735]; and a group of them appear\nastonished at the sunrise.[736]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may next dismiss briefly the scenes which depict =Maenads= alone,\nusually as single figures. They sometimes appear in a state of frenzy\n(Fig. 121),[737] dancing with snakes twisted round their arms,[738] or\nplaying castanets,[739] or tearing a kid to pieces (\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2).[740]\nIn quieter fashion they ride on a mule[741] or bull,[742] or are seen\naccompanied by hinds, goats, and panthers,[743] or playing with a cat\nand bird.[744]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n\n FIG. 121. MAENAD IN FRENZY (CUP AT MUNICH).\n]\n\n=Satyrs= in independent scenes often appear in burlesque guise, attired\nand acting as athletes,[745] or as warriors,[746] with the Amazonian\n_pelta_,[747] or even enacting the part of Herakles in the Garden of\nthe Hesperides[748]; and are present in other scenes of a burlesque\nnature, which may often be derived from the Satyric drama, such as one\nin which they carry ghosts (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1) with torches.[749] There is also a\nlong list of scenes of miscellaneous character: a Seilenos\nwashing,[750] or piling up bedding(?)[751]; fishing[752]; as potter,\npoking a furnace[753]; acting as footman to a girl and carrying a\nparasol[754]; flogging a youth,[755] or holding a boy Satyr on his\nhand[756]; caressing a hare[757]; and so on. Satyrs fight with\ntorches[758]; sport with deer and other animals[759]; ride on goats,\nasses, and mules,[760] or lead them along[761]; and in one instance a\nSatyr has fallen off his mule, and a companion runs to help him[762];\nin another, two Satyrs draw a third in a cart.[763] They are seen\ncarrying chairs[764] and vessels of various kinds, such as amphorae,\nsitulae, kraters, rhyta,[765] or wine-skins[766]; also seated on\nwine-skins or wine-jars,[767] playing games with jugs and\nwine-jars,[768] balancing drinking-cups on their backs,[769] pouring\nwine into a jar[770] or drawing it out from the mixing-bowl,[771] or\nplaying games, such as see-saw or ball.[772] Many of these scenes are\nfrom the interiors of R.F. cups, to which they were well adapted, the\nvaried attitudes giving so much scope for the ingenuity of the daring\nartists of the period. Scenes in which Satyrs play the lyre or flute\nare, very numerous.[773]\n\nA feature of the numerous Dionysiac subjects on vases is the tendency\nto individualise Satyrs and Maenads by means of names, sometimes\nmeaningless, sometimes names otherwise known in mythology, and\nfrequently personifications of abstract conceptions, such as we shall\nsee later to be very common on vases of all periods; in these cases\nthey usually have some relation to the character or occupation of the\npersonages to whom they are attached. The Satyrs Marsyas and Olympos\nsometimes appear in the larger compositions[774]; the former has been\nalready mentioned in another connection. There is also a curious\nrepresentation of Akratos,[775] the deity of unmixed wine (a liquid\nwhich to the Greeks implied an extravagance of revelry, owing to the\nintoxicating nature of the undiluted beverage). A type of Seilenos\ncovered from head to foot with shaggy skin, and known as Papposeilenos,\nis often found on the later vases.[776] It is difficult to distinguish\nin all cases between Seileni and Satyrs on the vases, and the exact\ndifferences between the various types have not yet been properly\nelucidated, so that the terms are of necessity somewhat\nconventional.[777] The equine type of Satyr, with horse\u2019s hoofs as well\nas tail, which is so frequently found on the sixth-century Ionic vases,\nhas been noted elsewhere.[778] The young beardless Satyr is mostly\nfound in the later period.\n\nThe number of vases on which Satyrs and Maenads are distinguished by\nname is very large, but only a few of the more important need be\nmentioned, along with some of the more curious names from the isolated\ninstances.[779] On a vase in Berlin[780] no less than ten Maenads are\nnamed\u2014Anthe (Flower), Choro (Dance), Chrysis (Gold), Kale (Beauty),\nKisso (Ivy), Makaria (Blessed), Naia, Nymphe, Phanope, and Periklymene\n(Renowned); on one at Leyden[781] six\u2014Dorkis, Io, Klyto, Molpe (Song),\nMyro, and Xantho (Fair-hair). On the former vase a Seilenos is\nexpressly so named, and on the latter are four Satyrs with names; on a\nkylix by Brygos in the British Museum[782] the Seileni attacking Iris\nare styled Babacchos, Dromis, Echon, Terpon, etc.[783]\n\nOther Satyr-names are Briacchos,[784] Dithyrambos,[785] Demon,[786]\nHedyoinos (Sweet Wine),[787] Hybris (Insolence),[788] Hedymeles (Sweet\nSong),[789] Komos (Revelry),[790] Kissos (Ivy),[791] Molkos,[792]\nOinos,[793] Oreimachos,[794] Simos (Snub-nose),[795] Tyrbas (Rout).[796]\n\nThe Maenads\u2019 names are if anything more numerous: Bacche,[797] Choiros\n(Pig!),[798] Doro,[799] Eudia (Calm),[800] Eudaimonia (Happiness),[801]\nEuthymia (Good Cheer),[802] Erophyllis,[803] Galene (Calm),[804] Hebe\n(Youth),[805] Komodia (Comedy) and Tragoedia (Tragedy),[806] Kalyke\n(Bud),[807] Lilaia,[808] Mainas,[809] Nymphaia,[810] Opora (Harvest)\nand Oreias (Mountain-Nymph),[811] Oinanthe,[812] Pannychis (All-night\nRevel),[813] Polyerate (Well-beloved),[814] Philomela,[815] Sime\n(Snub-nose),[816] Terpsikome,[817] Thaleia,[818] Rodo (Rose),[819]\nPaidia,[820] and Kraipale,[821] a name which is not easy to render in\nclassical English, but which denotes the results following on a night\u2019s\ndebauch.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.\n\n THE UNDER-WORLD, FROM AN APULIAN VASE AT MUNICH.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n \u00a7 2. THE NETHER WORLD\n\nThe Chthonian character of Dionysos brings us by a natural transition\nto the =deities of the under-world=, and in connection therewith it\nwill be convenient to treat of Death-deities of all kinds, as well as\nscenes representing the life of the nether regions.\n\nOf Demeter and Persephone, the Chthonian goddesses _par excellence_, we\nhave already spoken (p. 27), and of the myths connected with them, such\nas the rape of the latter by =Hades= or Pluto, the king of the realms\nnamed after him. It is owing to this connection with Persephone that\nHades is found in such scenes as the sending forth of Triptolemos,[822]\nor at her return to the upper world,[823] as well as at the rape of his\nconsort. He is frequently seen in company with her, as the rulers of\nthe nether world,[824] especially on the large Italian \u201cunder-world\nvases\u201d referred to below, and sometimes they are represented banqueting\ntogether.[825] As king of the nether world he is appropriately grouped\nwith his brothers Zeus and Poseidon, the rulers of the air and\nocean.[826] He is occasionally carried by Herakles on his\nshoulders,[827] but the meaning of this subject is uncertain. He also\nappears as a single figure, with sceptre and cornucopia.[828]\n\nThe only general representations of the under-world are to be found on\nthe large Apulian vases made for sepulchral purposes (Vol. I. p. 476),\nof which some half-dozen are conspicuous for the number of subjects and\nfigures they contain. All these are collected together in the _Wiener\nVorlegebl\u00e4tter_, Series E., the list being as follows:\u2014\n\n (1) Munich 849 = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 1 = Reinach, i. 258\n (2) Naples 3222 = \u201d pl. 2 = \u201d i. 167\n (3) Karlsruhe 388 = \u201d pl. 3, 1 = \u201d i. 108\n (4) Naples S.A. 709 = \u201d pl. 3, 2 = \u201d i. 455\n (5) Petersburg 424 = \u201d pls. 4 and\n 5, 1 = \u201d i. 355\n (6) Petersburg 426 = \u201d pl. 6, 2 = \u201d i. 479\n\nNo. (1) is reproduced in Plate LII. On a smaller scale, or fragmentary,\nare the following:\u2014\n\n (7) Petersburg 498 = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 5, 2\n (8) B.M. F 270 = \u201d pl. 6, 1 = Reinach, i. 356\n (9) Karlsruhe 256 = \u201d pl. 6, 3 = \u201d i. 455\n (10) Jatta Coll. 1094 = \u201d pl. 6, 4 = \u201d i. 356\n (11) Naples S.A. 11 = \u201d pl. 6, 5 = \u201d i. 401\n\nThere are also three B.F. vases having reference to the under-world,\nthough in the first two cases it is probable that the scene relates to\nthe return of Persephone (see p. 28), the accompanying figure of\nSisyphos only being introduced to mark the locality:\u2014\n\n (12) B.M. B 261 (Hades, Persephone, Hermes, Sisyphos).\n\n(13) Munich 728 = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 6, 6 = Reinach, ii. 48 (similar\n scene).\n\n(14) Berlin 1844 (Persephone and Sisyphos only).\n\nOn the Apulian vases there is usually in the centre a pillared building\nrepresenting the palace of Hades, in which he and his spouse stand or\nsit; round this are grouped various figures and episodes connected with\nthe nether regions: Herakles carrying off Kerberos[829]; Orpheus with\nhis lyre, sometimes accompanied by Eurydike[830]; persons undergoing\npunishment, such as Sisyphos with his rock[831]; Tantalos threatened\nwith a rock, not as in the usual legend suffering from thirst[832]; the\nDanaids with their hydriae[833]; and Theseus and Peiritho\u00f6s sitting\nwith their hands bound behind them.[834] In one instance a Fury, at the\ninstance of Hades and Hekate, is binding one, the other having already\nentered on his punishment[835]; in another we see Theseus liberated and\nabout to depart from his friend (see below, p. 111).[836]\n\nAmong the administrators of these penalties are Aiakos, Minos, and\nRhadamanthos, the judges of the souls[837]; the Erinnyes or\nFuries[838]; and allegorical personages, such as Dike (Justice),[839]\nAnanke (Necessity),[840] or Poinae (Punishments).[841] Of the Chthonian\ndeities, Hermes,[842] Hekate,[843] Triptolemos,[844] and Iacchos[845]\nare present. Olympian deities are also sometimes introduced as\nspectators.[846] Other figures introduced are Megara with the two\nchildren of Herakles[847]; Pelops with Myrtilos and Hippodameia[848]; a\ngroup of the Blessed Shades[849]; and (but not on this class of vase)\nOknos with his ass, a subject depicted by Polygnotos in his great\nfresco at Delphi.[850] The subject of Ixion on the wheel is usually\nfound by itself, but occurs on the neck of one of the Apulian\nvases.[851]\n\nAnother subject which may be associated with the above scenes is that\nof _Charon_ and his bark; on the vases, however, its significance is\npurely sepulchral, as it is confined to the Attic white lekythi (Vol.\nI. p. 459), on some of which the dead man is represented entering the\nferry-boat.[852] Some vases of Etruscan fabric also represent groups of\nChthonian deities, especially Charon, who in the mythology of that\npeople is no longer \u201cthe grim ferryman that poets write of,\u201d but\n_Charun_, a hideous demon wielding a huge hammer.[853] In one instance\nhe separates Alkestis from Admetos[854]; in another he watches Ajax\nstabbing a captive Trojan.[855]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n\n FIG. 122. CHARON\u2019S BARK (LEKYTHOS AT MUNICH).\n]\n\nThe _Erinnyes_ or Furies play an important part in the nether-world\nscenes,[856] and one is also represented at the punishment of\nIxion.[857] They pursue Orestes after the slaughter of his mother and\nAigisthos to Delphi and Tauris,[858] and even when with Pylades he\ncomes to make himself known to Electra.[859] Among other mythological\nscenes they are found at the combat of Herakles and Kyknos[860]; with\nPelops,[861] and with Medeia and Jason[862]; and threatening with\npunishment the hero Agrios, who is seized and bound upon an altar by\nOineus and Diomedes.[863] _Kerberos_ is once seen without Herakles in\nthe under-world vases[864]; and there is a very curious representation\nof his being chained up by Hermes.[865]\n\n_Hekate_ as a Chthonian deity frequently appears on the under-world\nvases[866]; she is also connected with Eleusinian scenes and\nlegends,[867] such as the sending of Triptolemos,[868] the birth of\nDionysos or Iacchos,[869] or with the rape and return of\nPersephone.[870] She appears also as a single figure.[871] Allusion has\nalready been made to the Chthonian associations of Hermes, Triptolemos,\nand Iacchos (pp. 27, 52).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 123. THANATOS AND HYPNOS WITH BODY OF WARRIOR (FROM\nBRIT. MUS. D 58).]\n\n_Thanatos_, the personification of Death, appears on vases[872] almost\nexclusively in one aspect, as the bearer of souls in conjunction with\nHypnos (Sleep); they convey the body of Memnon from Troy to his home in\nEgypt,[873] and this type is borrowed for other scenes (_e.g._ on the\nfuneral lekythi) in which an ordinary warrior is borne \u201cto his long\nhome.\u201d[874] In one instance Thanatos is seen urging Ajax on to commit\nsuicide[875]; he also appears on another vase where the subject may\nrelate to the story of Ixion.[876] Representations of Death-demons or\nHarpies,[877] and of \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, or small winged figures boding or\nsignifying death,[878] are by no means uncommon. It has been held by\nsome writers that the personifications of Thanatos above referred to\nare more properly to be regarded as \u039a\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf.[879] These small\nwinged figures are also employed to represent a soul escaping from a\ndeceased person[880]; or, again, to indicate the souls of Achilles and\nHector (or Memnon) when weighed by Zeus (see below, pp. 130, 132).[881]\nWe also find actual representations on B.F. vases of the ghost of a\nhero, especially in Trojan scenes; he floats through the air fully\narmed, with large wings.[882]\n\n \u00a7 3. COSMOGONIC AND OTHER DEITIES\n\nIn the next instance it will be found appropriate to discuss sundry\nrepresentations which are connected with the earlier or Titanic\ncosmogony, although, with the exception of the Gigantomachia, already\ndiscussed, allusions thereto are comparatively rare on vases.\n\nChief among these personages is =Ge= or =Gaia=, the Earth-mother, half\nTitanic, half Chthonian, who is usually represented as a figure rising\nhalf out of the ground, with flowing hair. She thus appears in several\nGigantomachia scenes (as the mother of the giants, who were \u0393\u03b7\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2,\nearth-born),[883] and at the birth of Dionysos and Erichthonios, where\nshe hands the child to Athena.[884] As a full-length figure she appears\nprotecting her sons Tityos and Antaios against Apollo and Herakles\nrespectively[885]; also in certain doubtful scenes on B.F. vases as the\nNursing-mother (\u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2), with two children in her arms,[886]\nthough we have already seen (p. 30) that these are susceptible of\nanother interpretation. Finally, the series of scenes in which men are\nrepresented hammering on the head of a female figure rising from the\nearth[887] may be regarded as referring to Gaia, with allusion to the\ncustom of smiting on the earth to raise spirits. In this connection\nGaia is undoubtedly to be identified with Pandora (see below).[888] A\ncognate subject is that of a similar female head or bust in company\nwith Eros, sometimes found on late Italian vases.[889] If Gaia is here\nintended, her connection with Eros finds some support in the poetic\ncosmogonies[890]; otherwise it may be Aphrodite.\n\nThe story of _Kronos_, who swallowed the stone given to him by his wife\nRhea in place of his children, is possibly depicted on one vase,[891]\nthough the genuineness thereof is open to doubt. The stone is enveloped\nin drapery to prevent discovery. A bust of Kronos has also been\nidentified on a vase.[892] The story of Zagreus and his destruction by\nthe Titans, which belongs to the same cycle, also finds one or two\nrepresentations. One vase appears to represent them devouring him\npiecemeal.[893]\n\nAnother personage who may perhaps be regarded as of pre-Olympian origin\nis _Themis_, who comes between Gaia and Apollo in the occupation of the\nprophetic stool at Delphi (Aesch. _Eum._ 2). Aigeus, the father of\nTheseus, is represented as consulting her seated on her tripod,[894]\nand one vase has been supposed to depict her conversing with Zeus\nbefore the birth of Dionysos.[895] She also appears at the Judgment of\nParis.[896]\n\n_Kybele_, the mother of the gods, only occurs in one or two doubtful\ninstances, with the lion which is usually associated with her.[897]\n\nAmong the primitive and recondite Greek cults which go back to a remote\norigin, that of =the Kabeiri= may perhaps be mentioned here. Previous\nto the discovery, in 1887\u201388, of their sanctuary near Thebes, little\nwas known, either from literary or monumental sources, of these\nmysterious deities; but the excavations on this site yielded large\nquantities of pottery with scenes relating to their cult, mostly of a\nburlesque character.[898] Among these was one very interesting fragment\nrepresenting (with names inscribed) the Kabeiros and his son (Pais)\nbanqueting, and attended by two deities known as Mitos and\nPratoleia.[899] Lenormant noticed that the spectator-deities on an\nunder-world vase in the British Museum correspond exactly to the four\nCabeiric deities as described by certain ancient authorities.[900]\n\nTurning next to myths which treat of the semi-divine personages of the\nearliest cosmogony, we have the legends given by Hesiod of Prometheus\nand the creation of =Pandora=; and we may include with them the Titan\nAtlas. Pandora, it has been already noted, is only a variation of\nGaia,[901] and this is borne out by the name given to her on a\nbeautiful polychrome cup in the British Museum representing her\ncreation, completed by Hephaistos and Athena.[902] She is there named\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1, \u201cShe who sends up gifts,\u201d _E.g._ from the earth. The subject\nis not so popular as might have been expected, but appears on two other\nvases in the Museum, in each case with Olympian deities as spectators\nof the event, and on a beautiful vase now at Oxford.[903] The story of\nthe opening of the \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 has not found its way into art, but its\nconnection with the Athenian feast of the \u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1 is curiously\nillustrated in one instance.[904]\n\n=Prometheus= too is seldom seen, and chiefly on B.F. vases. In one case\nhe receives a libation from Hera,[905] and there are two or three\nrepresentations of his liberation by Herakles.[906] On a Cyrenaic cup\nhe is grouped with Atlas, the vulture pecking at his breast, while the\nother groans under the burthen of the heavens.[907] =Atlas= is found\nalmost exclusively with Herakles in connection with his visit to the\nGarden of the Hesperides. Either he is actually present in the\nGarden[908] or is confronted with the hero, who in some cases bears his\nburden for him while he obtains the apples.[909] He is also seen in\ncompany with a Sphinx.[910]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe now come to discuss a few subordinate deities or semi-divine\npersonages who do not fall into any of the preceding categories.\n\n=Asklepios=, chiefly a figure of later art, is exceedingly rare on\nvases. There is, in fact, only one on which he can certainly be\nidentified. This is a late R.F. vase at Athens, on which he is seen\nreclining on a couch feeding a serpent and accompanied by Hygieia.[911]\nNor does the latter occur elsewhere, though her name, as already noted\n(p. 43), is sometimes given to one of the personified figures attending\non Aphrodite.[912] =Eileithyia=, the goddess of childbirth, generally\nappears, in duplicated form, assisting Zeus at the birth of\nAthena,[913] or Leto at that of Apollo and Artemis.[914] She is closely\nrelated to Artemis, and a representation of a goddess who has been\nidentified as Artemis-Eileithyia may be seen on an early Boeotian vase\nwith reliefs at Athens.[915]\n\n=Iris=, the messenger of the gods, is usually distinguished from Nike\nby her caduceus or herald\u2019s staff, and from Hebe by her wings. She is\noften depicted as a single figure,[916] or pouring a libation to Hera,\nAthena, or other deities.[917] She is associated more especially with\nHera, as Hermes is with Zeus, and attends on the former in several\nscenes of assemblages of the gods.[918] In company with Hera she is\nattacked by a troop of Seileni and defended by Herakles,[919] and on\nanother vase she is similarly surprised by a troop of Centaurs.[920]\nShe assists at the creation of Pandora,[921] at the Judgment of\nParis,[922] and at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis,[923] and also\nappears in the Garden of the Hesperides.[924] She is also seen with\nParis carrying off Helen[925]; and with Menelaos fetching her\nback[926]; and in another scene, apparently drawn from a Homeric source\n(_Il._ viii. 397 ff.), where she dissuades Athena and Hera from taking\nsides in the war, at the behest of Zeus.[927] She conveys the infant\nHerakles to the Centaur Cheiron,[928] and is also seen in company with\na warrior.[929]\n\n=Hebe= in Olympos performs somewhat similar functions to Iris, more\nparticularly that of pouring out wine for the gods.[930] She is also\nspecially associated with Herakles at and after his apotheosis,[931]\nappearing as his bride in several instances.[932] Besides these, she\nfrequently appears in assemblies of the gods,[933] or at the punishment\nof Marsyas,[934] or the Judgment of Paris.[935]\n\n \u00a7 4. PERSONIFICATIONS\n\nThe next group of deities with which we have to deal is that of the\nvarious personifications which are to be found in great numbers on\nvases of all periods, especially the later. These naturally fall under\nseveral headings, which, following the lines of the classification\nadopted by M. Pottier in a valuable article on the subject,[936] we may\ndistribute as follows:\u2014\n\n 1. Physical (Sun, Moon, Dawn, Winds, etc.). 2. Geographical\n (Cities, Rivers, Mountains, etc.). 3. Products of earth\n (Wine, Harvest, etc.). 4. Groups of various kinds (Muses,\n Nymphs, etc.). 5. Physical conditions (Health, Old Age,\n etc.). 6. Social advantages (Wealth, Peace, Victory, etc.).\n 7. Ethical ideas (Justice, Envy, Strife, etc.). 8.\n Metaphysical ideas (Necessity, Law, etc.). 9. Social\n enjoyments (Comedy, Tragedy, Revelry, etc.). 10. Descriptive\n names.\n\nOf some of these, indeed, we have already treated\u2014such as the beings\nincluded in the following of Aphrodite and Dionysos, Ge-Pandora, Hebe\n(Youth), and the deities of the nether world. The rest we now proceed\nto consider in order, beginning with natural phenomena, and firstly\nthose of an astronomical character.\n\nI. =Helios=, the Sun, who in some senses, especially in the mythology\nof the Roman poets, is identical with Phoebus Apollo, is only once so\nidentified on vases.[937] He is usually depicted in his four-horse\nchariot rising out of the sea (as on the eastern pediment of the\nParthenon), either as a single figure or in connection with some myth,\nindicating that the action takes place at sunrise. As a single figure\nhe appears both on early and late vases, on the latter, usually, as an\nupper decoration on the large Apulian kraters.[938] He is also\naccompanied by Eos (Dawn) and Selene (Moon), by Hemera (Day), or by\nEros[939]; but in most cases he and Selene appear together, the latter\ndescending as he rises (as on the Parthenon pediment). Thus on R.F.\nvases they denote the time of the action, as when Theseus descends\nbelow the sea to visit Poseidon,[940] or as on the Blacas krater in the\nBritish Museum, when Eos pursues Kephalos.[941] On the latter vase four\nstars are also depicted diving into the sea, to indicate their setting.\nOn Apulian vases he is present at the seizure of Persephone,[942] at\nthe flight of Pelops from Oinomaos,[943] at the madness of\nLykourgos,[944] at the Judgment of Paris,[945] and in the Garden of the\nHesperides.[946] In one instance a group of Satyrs start back\naffrighted at his appearance.[947] There are two instances of his\nencounter with Herakles, who endeavoured to stay his progress with his\nbow.[948]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LIII\n\n[Illustration: HELIOS AND STARS, FROM THE BLACAS KRATER IN THE BRITISH\nMUSEUM.]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n=Selene=, the Moon, appears in many of the scenes already described\nunder Helios, as on the Blacas krater. She is depicted under two types,\neither on horseback[949] or driving a chariot like Helios,[950] both as\na single figure and in other scenes; and she is sometimes characterised\nby the lunar disc or crescent. Besides the scenes already referred to,\nshe appears on horseback at the birth of Dionysos[951] and at the\npursuit of Medeia by Jason.[952] The magic arts used by Thessalian\nwitches to draw down the moon from heaven are also the subject of a\nvase-painting,[953] where two women essay to perform this feat by means\nof a rope, addressing her, \u201cO Lady Moon!\u201d\n\n=Stars= are occasionally represented with an astronomical reference, as\non the Blacas krater, where they appear in the form of youths, or\ngrouped with Helios, Selene, and Eos.[954] Phosphoros, the Morning\nStar, may be identified in this connection, represented as a youth\nrunning[955]; but in other cases they are not personified, as on a vase\nwhich represents the moon and stars with the constellation Pegasos.[956]\n\n=Hemera=, the Day, we have already once noted; but in art she is hardly\nto be distinguished from Eos (Dawn). Nor can Nyx (Night) be identified\nwith certainty on vases.[957] =Eos= is not an uncommon figure,\nespecially on R.F. vases, and she also plays a part in certain myths.\nAs a single figure she appears rising from the sea in, or driving, a\nfour-horse chariot like Helios,[958] her steeds in one case being named\nPhlegethon and Lampon. She is also represented flying with two hydriae,\nfrom which she pours out dew upon the earth.[959] She is frequently\nseen pursuing or carrying Kephalos[960] or Tithonos,[961] and is\npresent at the apotheosis of Alkmena.[962] At the combat of her son\nMemnon with Achilles she and the other mother, Thetis, are generally\npresent.[963] She also pleads with Zeus for her son\u2019s safety,[964] and\nbears away his body after the fatal issue of the fight.[965]\n\nNext we have to deal with =the Winds=, as personified by the figures of\nBoreas, Zephyros, etc. As single figures they seldom appear, though we\nhave possible instances of _Boreas_, with the unusual type of a\nserpent\u2019s tail,[966] or simply as a winged male figure.[967] A wind-god\nis seen in an episode from the Gigantomachia opposing the chariot of\nZeus,[968] and another in an assemblage of deities round Apollo\nKitharoidos.[969] _Zephyros_ is seen pursuing Hyakinthos,[970] and he\nand Boreas together bear the body of a warrior to the tomb in the same\nmanner as Hypnos and Thanatos.[971] But the most important subject\nconnected with Boreas is his pursuit of the Athenian maiden Oreithyia,\na frequent scene on the later R.F. vases,[972] some being very fine\nexamples. Erechtheus, Kekrops, and the Nymphs Aglauros, Herse, and\nPandrosos, are usually present, and the latter in one case announce the\nnews to Kekrops or Erechtheus.[973] Boreas is also depicted in the act\nof punishing Phineus by blinding him, and attacked by the latter\u2019s\nfriend Parebios.[974]\n\nOn some early B.F. vases we find winged beings which may be styled\n_Boreades_, in conjunction with Harpies, apparently representing the\ninfluences of good and evil winds respectively.[975] Zetes and Kalais,\nthe sons of Boreas, will be treated of in the story of the\nArgonautika.[976] The _Aurae_ or breezes have been identified on a\nwell-known vase in the British Museum,[977] and on an Apulian vase in\nthe same collection is a head undoubtedly intended for Aura.[978] The\n_Hyades_ or rain-goddesses in two instances extinguish the flames of a\nfuneral pyre at the bidding of Zeus, at the apotheosis of Alkmena[979]\nand of Herakles[980]; in one of the latter instances they are named\nArethusa and Premnusia. They also receive the infant Dionysos.[981]\n_Echo_ belongs perhaps rather to the Dionysiac cycle, appearing as the\nbeloved of Pan.[982]\n\n * * * * *\n\nII. We may next consider the personifications of =cities and\ncountries=, which are, indeed, in some cases more than merely\nsymbolical figures, being actual goddesses with a definite cult, such\nas the Nymph Kyrene, who often appears on works of art.[983] On the\ngreat Naples vase representing Dareios in a council of war,\npersonifications of _Hellas_ and _Asia_ are placed among the\nspectator-deities,[984] and the former seems also to be indicated on a\nsimilar vase with a battle of Greeks and Persians.[985] On one of the\nlate vases with the subject of Pelops and Oinomaos, a personification\nof the locality _Olympia_ appears to be similarly present,[986] just as\non the Hieron kotyle the personification of Eleusis is included among\nthe Eleusinian and other deities at the sending forth of\nTriptolemos.[987] The city of _Thebes_ is personified in several\ninstances, especially as a spectator of Kadmos slaying the dragon[988];\nalso on a \u201cMegarian\u201d bowl with reliefs in the British Museum, the\nsubjects on which are taken from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides.[989]\n_Nemea_, the scene of Herakles\u2019 victory over the lion, and of the death\nof Archermos, is similarly personified as a Nymph in the\nrepresentations of both subjects,[990] and the town of _Krommyon_ as a\nNymph protests against the slaying of the sow by Theseus.[991] The\nNymph _Sparta_ occurs once, dismounting from her horse.[992] Two cups\nof the early B.F. class usually known (from their subjects) as\nCyrenaic, bear representations of the Nymph _Kyrene_ (see above)\u2014in one\ncase with Apollo, in the other holding a branch of silphium (the local\nproduct) and surrounded by Boreads and Harpies (see above).[993]\n\nAmong the Greek islands, _Aegina_ and _Salamis_ were supposed to have\nderived their names from Nymphs beloved of Zeus and Poseidon, who are\nrepresented pursuing these quasi-personified figures[994]; we may also\nregard Europa as coming under that category.[995] Zeus also pursues\n_Taygeta_, who is connected with the mountain in Laconia.[996] On one\nvase we find the names of the islands _Delos_, _Euboea_, and\n_Lemnos_,[997] given, presumably in pure fancy, to two Maenads and a\nSatyr in a Dionysiac scene where all the figures are named. A more\ngenuine instance is that of the Nymph _Krete_ on the Talos vase,\nindicating the locality.[998]\n\nTurning to other geographical features, we have Mount _Olympos_\ntransformed into a lyre-playing companion of Satyrs[999]; or, again,\nriver-gods such as _Achelo\u00f6s_, who as a combination of man and bull, or\nwith a fish-body like Triton, wrestles with Herakles.[1000] The river\n_Nile_ appears once, but not personified\u2014only as an indication of\nlandscape.[1001] In connection with the city of Thebes we find\npersonifications of the local river _Ismenos_ and the local\nfountain-Nymphs _Dirke_ and _Krenaia_.[1002]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIII. Natural products, such as Oinos (Wine) and Opora (Harvest), are\nonly found personified among the Dionysiac conceptions with which we\nhave already dealt (p. 65); to these two names we may add those of\nHedyoinos (Sweet Wine), Kissos (Ivy), Kalyke (Bud), and Rodo (Rose),\nthe three latter coming more under the heading of pet-names than of\nstrict personifications.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIV. Our next class includes certain groups of personages (all feminine)\nwhich for the most part hold their own throughout all periods of art\nand literature, and are, so to speak, more crystallised into definite\nmythological personages, associated with the gods and human beings of\nthe legendary ages. These are the Muses, the Charites or Graces, the\nHorae or Seasons, the Moirae or Fates, and the Erinnyes or Furies.\n\n=The Muses= do not appear so frequently in vase-paintings as in\nsculpture, and mostly on later vases. Two fine R.F. examples of the\nwhole nine (with their appropriate attributes) call for mention[1003];\nother vases give a more limited number, or even single figures[1004];\nbut it must be remembered that in such cases identification is\ndifficult, as characterisation by means of a lyre or scenic mask does\nnot necessarily connote the presence of a Muse. On one vase Terpsichore\nis seen with two figures inscribed as Mousaios and Melousa[1005]; but\nthese may be no more than fancy names for an ordinary group of\nmusicians. Five of them are seen in a group with Apollo, Thamyris, and\nSappho,[1006] and elsewhere they accompany Apollo.[1007]\n\nThe _Graces_ can nowhere be identified on Greek vases, though they form\na well-known type in sculpture; but there is an Etruscan kylix in the\nBritish Museum (probably copied from a Greek original), which appears\nto represent them as an interior group.[1008] The _Horae_ or Seasons\nappear (without distinctive names) on the Fran\u00e7ois vase at the nuptials\nof Peleus and Thetis, and on the Sosias cup[1009] in an Olympian\nassemblage (three in each case); also two of them at the sending forth\nof Triptolemos.[1010] The three _Moirae_ (Fates) appear on the Fran\u00e7ois\nvase (as above), and once also at the birth of Athena[1011]; the Furies\nhave already been discussed.[1012]\n\n * * * * *\n\nV. The personifications having reference to physical conditions (as\ndistinguished from ethical ideas) are comparatively few in number. They\ninclude _Hebe_ (Youth), who by virtue of her divine attributes has\nalready been discussed in another section (p. 77); _Hygieia_ (Health),\nwho is also a fully developed goddess, but only once occurs on a vase,\nexcept among the somewhat vague personifications surrounding Aphrodite\n(see pp. 43, 76]); and three others, regarded as of masculine sex.\nThese are Geras (Old Age), Hypnos (Sleep), and Thanatos (Death).\n_Geras_ is seen in combat with Herakles[1013]; Thanatos has already\nbeen discussed (p. 71). _Hypnos_ as a winged youth hovers over\nAlkyoneus, whom Herakles overcame while asleep[1014]; causes Ariadne to\nsleep while Theseus escapes[1015]; and with Thanatos carries the body\nof Memnon,[1016] or an ordinary mortal,[1017] to the tomb.\n\n * * * * *\n\nVI. Social advantages as apart from ethical qualities are perhaps\ndifficult to determine exactly; but we may fairly rank under this\nheading such ideas as are suggested by Chrysos (Gold) and Ploutos\n(Wealth); Eirene (Peace); Nike (Victory); and the numerous attendants\nof Aphrodite and Dionysos, such as Eunomia, Eudaimonia, and others\nalready named (pp. 43, 65). _Chrysos_ and _Ploutos_ as boys accompany\nNike in her chariot[1018]; _Eirene\u2019s_ appearance on vases is doubtful,\nbut she may appear in one instance carrying the infant Ploutos.[1019]\nThe birth of Ploutos seems to be represented in one instance.[1020]\n\nBut by far the most important personage in this class is =Nike\n(Victory)=, whose appearance as a winged female figure is so often\nattested by inscriptions on R.F. vases that she can generally be\nidentified with certainty. She is especially popular as a single figure\non the Nolan amphorae and lekythi of the \u201csevere\u201d and \u201cstrong\u201d periods,\nsome of which are conspicuously beautiful examples.[1021] Altogether\nher appearances rival those of Eros in number, though on the Italian\nvases they are far fewer. Whether Nike ever occurs on B.F. vases is a\nvery doubtful point, and has been denied by many scholars, but some\nfigures are not easy to explain in any other way.[1022] On other works\nof art she does not appear before 480 B.C., unless the \u201cNike\u201d of\nArchermos is to be so identified; it seems probable that she was an\noffshoot from Athena, whom we know to have been worshipped under the\nname of Nike, as in her temple on the Athenian Acropolis.\n\nShe is frequently associated with the gods, either in scenes from\nmythology or in groups apart from action[1023]; usually she pours\nlibations to them, or crowns them in reference to some achievement.\nThus we find her with Zeus,[1024] with Hera,[1025] with Athena,[1026]\nwith Poseidon and Dionysos,[1027] with Apollo (especially at his\nvictory over Marsyas),[1028] with Artemis Elaphebolos,[1029] and with\nAphrodite.[1030] She frequently crowns or pours libations to Herakles,\nor attends him at his apotheosis[1031]; on the later vases she takes\nAthena\u2019s place in conveying him in a chariot to Olympos.[1032]\n\nAmong the numerous mythological events in which Nike plays a more or\nless symbolical part may be mentioned the Gigantomachia, in which she\ndrives Zeus\u2019 chariot,[1033] the birth of Athena,[1034] the sending of\nTriptolemos,[1035] the Judgment of Paris,[1036] the birth of\nDionysos[1037] and that of Erichthonios,[1038] and the punishment of\nIxion.[1039] Among Trojan scenes she appears with Achilles\narming,[1040] at his (supposed) fight with Telephos and possibly also\nat that with Memnon,[1041] and at the carrying off of the\nPalladion.[1042] She is also seen with Herakles in the Garden of the\nHesperides,[1043] with the Dioskuri,[1044] with Perseus and\nBellerophon,[1045] with Orestes at Delphi[1046]; crowning Hellas as the\nvictor over the Persians[1047]; and in many scenes with Dionysos.[1048]\n\nMore numerous and characteristic, however, are the scenes in which she\nappears as a single figure, or associated with mortals, usually\nvictorious warriors or athletes. As a single figure she most commonly\npours a libation over an altar,[1049] or flies towards the altar\nbearing a torch, incense-burner, lyre, tripod, sash, or other\nattribute[1050]; in one case (unless Iris is intended) a jug and\ncaduceus.[1051] Especially characterised as the goddess of Victory, she\noften holds a palm-branch.[1052] She frequently takes part in religious\nand sacrificial ceremonies, such as the decoration or dedication of a\nchoragic tripod,[1053] or burns incense,[1054] or herself sacrifices a\nram or bull.[1055] The last-named subject is, however, commoner on gems\nand a certain class of terracotta reliefs.[1056] On one vase she gives\ndrink to a bull[1057]; or, again, she rides on a sacrificial\nbull[1058]; or places a hydria on a fountain or altar.[1059] She\npursues a hare, doe, or bird,[1060] or offers a bird to a youth.[1061]\nOn the later Panathenaic amphorae and elsewhere she holds the\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd or stern-ornament of a ship[1062]; and sometimes she erects\na trophy.[1063]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 124. NIKE SACRIFICING BULL (BRITISH MUSEUM F 66).]\n\nShe appears in a chariot drawn by female Centaurs,[1064] or accompanied\nby Chrysos and Ploutos (see above),[1065] and she also conducts a\nvictorious warrior in this manner.[1066] In other instances she pours a\nlibation to a warrior,[1067] who is sometimes inscribed with a fanciful\nname[1068]; or, again, as anticipating his victory, she brings him his\nhelmet.[1069] She is, however, more frequently seen in athletic scenes,\ncrowning a victorious athlete,[1070] rider,[1071] or charioteer,[1072]\nor superintending the games in the palaestra,[1073] torch-races,[1074]\nor the taking of an oath by an athlete.[1075] In musical contests she\nperforms the same functions, crowning or pouring libations to a\nsuccessful performer.[1076] She crowns a successful potter in his\nworkshop,[1077] and also a poet (?).[1078] A being of similar\ncharacter, who may perhaps be recognised in the figure of a winged\nyouth on some B.F. and early R.F. vases, is Agon, the personification\nof athletic contests.[1079]\n\nOn the later R.F. vases the figure of Nike is often duplicated,\nprobably more to produce a balanced composition than for any other\nreason.[1080]\n\n * * * * *\n\nVII. The next class of personifications is that of abstract ethical\nideas. Even on the earlier vases there are found a considerable number\nof these, such as Eris (Strife); but on the later, unlimited play is\ngiven to the tendency of the age (seen also in sculpture and painting)\nto invest every abstract idea with a personality, apart from any idea\nof deification or mythological import.\n\nAmong these, by far the most numerous examples are, of course, those\nrelating to the passion of Love. We have already traced the development\nof the type and conception of Eros in vase-paintings, and in the same\nplace we have had occasion to speak of the associated ideas which\nbecame personified as subsidiary conceptions to that of Love, such as\nPeitho (Persuasion), Pothos (Yearning), and Himeros (Charm), Phthonos\n(Envy or _Amor invidiosus_), and Talas (Unfortunate or Unrequited\nLove).[1081] Of a similar type are the feminine conceptions associated\nwith Aphrodite-Eudaimonia (Happiness), Euthymia (Cheerfulness), and the\nlike.[1082]\n\nAmong other abstract ideas are those of _Arete_ (Virtue) and _Hedone_\n(Pleasure), which have been suggested as represented on one vase.[1083]\nOn a R.F. vase in Vienna, _Dike_ (Justice) is seen overcoming _Adikia_\n(Injustice)[1084]; _Apate_ (Deceit) on the vase with Dareios in council\nbeguiles the goddess Asia with bad advice,[1085] and also leads Tereus\nastray[1086]; _Phobos_ (Fear) drives the chariot of Ares when he\nassists Kyknos against Herakles[1087]; he is specially associated with\nthe god of war, the idea being that of inducing panic among enemies;\nand in many cases his head appears, like that of the Gorgon, as a\ndevice on shields.[1088] In one instance he appears as a lion-headed\nmonster.[1089] Artemis, in the capacity of _Aidos_ (Shame), hinders\nTityos from carrying off Leto.[1090] _Eris_ (Strife) appears on B.F.\nvases as a winged female figure running, in scenes of combat,\nchariot-races, etc., or as a single figure.[1091] But the\nidentification is not always certain; in some combat scenes it is\npossible that Ate or a Ker is meant, and in those of an agonistic\ncharacter we may see Agon, the personification of athletics (see above,\np. 89).[1092]\n\n * * * * *\n\nVIII. The metaphysical ideas next to be discussed are almost\nexclusively punitive agencies, either connected with scenes in the\nunder-world (Ananke, Poinae, and the Furies), or bringing down\npenalties and disasters on the heads of wrong-doers, such as the\npersonifications of madness which occur in many of the tragic subjects\non Apulian vases.\n\nIn the first group we reckon _Ananke_ (Necessity) and the _Poinae_\n(Punishments), who appear with the Furies in a scene from the\nunder-world,[1093] _Ate_ or _Ker_ (Destiny), a winged figure seen at\nthe death of Hector[1094] and at the madness of Lykourgos[1095]; and\n_Nemesis_ (Vengeance) in the scene between Atreus and Thyestes,[1096]\nwith reference to its fate-fraught character. In less tragic\ncircumstances the latter is present in a bridal scene, with attributes\nof a flower and an apple.[1097] The Moirae or Fates have already been\nmentioned (p. 83), as has Themis or Divine Ordinance (p. 74).\n\nThe second group includes _Lyssa_ (Frenzy), who drives Aktaeon,\nHippolytos, and Lykourgos to madness or destruction[1098]; _Mania_\n(Madness), who similarly drives Herakles to slay his children[1099];\nand _Oistros_ (_E.g._ a Gad-fly), who performs similar functions when\nMedeia is about to slay hers.[1100]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIX. Personifications relating to social enjoyments, such as games, the\ndrama, or banquets, are closely analogous to many of those described\nunder headings III. and VI., and occur in the same connection. Thus in\nDionysiac scenes we find Choro (Dance), Molpe (Song), Dithyrambos,\nHedymeles (Sweet Song), Komos (Revelry), Komodia and Tragoedia (Comedy\nand Tragedy), and Pannychis and Kraipale, typifying all-night revels\nand their consequences.[1101]\n\n * * * * *\n\nX. Finally, there are what M. Pottier has described as personifications\nof individualities, under which heading fall many conceptions which do\nnot find a place in any of the classes already discussed. Among these\nare many of the names given to Maenads and Satyrs (p. 65), which are\nintermediate between personal names and embodiments of abstract or\nphysical ideas, some inclining more to one side, some to the other. Of\nthese it is only necessary to mention as illustrative of the present\nsubject the Mainas[1102] and the Nymphe[1103] found as names of\nindividuals on several vases, and the Oinopion or \u201cWine-drinker\u201d on\nvases by Exekias.[1104]\n\nTo the same class belong the names given to Nymphs of various kinds,\nsuch as the Nereids (see p. 26) or the Hesperides. The latter are named\non one vase[1105] as Asterope, Chrysothemis, Hygieia, and Lipara; on\nanother[1106] as Aiopis, Antheia, Donakis, Kalypso, Mermesa, Nelisa,\nand Tara.\n\nOf more general signification, and sometimes perhaps to be regarded as\ndescriptive titles rather than names, are such as Archenautes\n(Ship-captain),[1107] Komarchos (Master of Revels),[1108] or Paidagogos\n(Tutor).[1109] On the other hand, Neanias, Komos, Paian (given to boys\nat play),[1110] and Eutychia (on the tomb of a woman)[1111] may be\nmerely fanciful personal names.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n B.M. B 589, B 693; B 180 (between vine-poles); Bibl. Nat. 176;\n Hartwig, pl. 30, fig. 2 (Hieron); Branteghem Coll. No. 28 (Hermaios);\n Athens 1583 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 291; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._\n 1900, pl. 1, p. 185 (Duris in Boston).\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n Petersburg 880 = Reinach, i. 13.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n B.M. F 194.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n B.M. E 257.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 7, fig. 2 (Nikosthenes in Boston).\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n B.M. E 439.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n B.M. E 362.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n Athens 1583 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 291.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 576 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 33, 1.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n Reinach, ii. 35.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 159.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n B.M. B 225, B 378, B 426, E 102; Louvre F 133; Petersburg 855 =\n Reinach, i. 18.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n B.M. E 429; Millin-Reinach, i. 60, ii. 17; Reinach, i. 168, ii. 302.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n Reinach, ii. 32 (cf. Triptolemos).\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 57; _Mon. Grecs_, 1879, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n B.M. B 79.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n _Mus. Greg._ ii. 3, 3_E.g._.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n Munich 339 = Reinach, ii. 36 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 7, 1.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n _Cat._ 969 = Reinach, i. 415: see p. 178.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n B.M. E 182; Bibl. Nat. 219 = _Mon. di Barone_, pl. 1; Reinach, i. 1\n and 3 = Petersburg 1792 and 1793; and see p. 19.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n B.M. E 492; Reinach, i. 93, 122; Helbig 103 = Rayet and Collignon, p.\n 223.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n Petersburg 2007 = Reinach, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 440 = Reinach, ii. 260.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n Reinach, i. 93.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n Baumeister, i. p. 434, fig. 483: cf. B.M. E 695 (doubtful).\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n B.M. F 271; Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125 and 3237 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 1 = Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n Naples 3237 = Millingen-Reinach, 2 = Baumeister, ii. p. 835, fig. 919.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n B.M. E 775 = Fig. 131; Munich 807 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1204, fig.\n 1396; _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 5, p. 154 (Dionysos not present);\n and see below, p. 142.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n B.M. B 149, B 153, E 166.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n B.M. F 194 (D. with bull\u2019s head).\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n Naples S.A. 172 = Reinach, i. 498: cf. Louvre F 136 and F 311\n (Reinach, i. 144).\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n Berlin 1904.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n B.M. B 347 (Hermes and Apollo); Bibl. Nat. 231; Athens 903 (Ares,\n Hermes, Herakles); Munich 157; Reinach, i. 8 (Petersburg 1807), 203,\n ii. 24, 42, and 75 (Munich 47, 609, 62), 30, 35, 74.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n B.M. B 302; E 66 (Herakles).\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n B.M. E 410.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n B.M. B 200, B 201, B 318\u201321; Berlin 1961, 2278.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n Berlin 3257.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n Munich 773; and see Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 210.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n B.M. E 65.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n See p. 17.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n B.M. B 253, E 8, E 303, E 443; Bibl. Nat. 230; and see p. 14.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 14 (Maenads); Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de\n France_, pl. 6 (Seileni).\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n Petersburg 1600 = Reinach, i. 25; Bibl. Nat. 391 = Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es\n de France_, pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n B.M. B 168 (?): see Reinach, ii. 38 and p. 30.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n B.M. E 445.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n B.M. B 203.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n B.M. E 444; Reinach, i. 203: see note 653, p. 56.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n B.M. F 171 (crowned by Nike); Athens 667; _Forman Sale Cat._ 356.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 43 (doubtful); Baumeister, i. p. 618, fig. 687.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n B.M. B 198, B 256\u201359, E 129, E 279, F 307; Reinach, i. 161 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 441, fig. 491; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16, 49 A (D.\n throws himself into arms of A.).\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n B.M. B 204, 206, 208, F 1, 69.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n W\u00fcrzburg, Phineus cup = Reinach, i. 201 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,\n pl. 41 (lions and stags).\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n B.M. E 546; Jatta 1092 = Reinach, i. 482.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n Petersburg 1427 = Reinach, i. 18.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n Reinach, ii. 37, 6.\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n B.M. B 179; Micali, _Storia_, 86.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n B.M. B 206.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n B.M. B 302, B 476, B 556; Bibl. Nat. 433 = Millin-Reinach, i. 38;\n Cambridge 48.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 37.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n Reinach, i. 215.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 206, B 300 = Fig. 120, B 427; Reinach, ii. 141 and i.\n 203 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 1, 3 (D. in chariot). R.F.: B.M. E 16, 55,\n 75, 228, 362, 462; Berlin 2471 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 55; Bibl. Nat.\n 357 = _Monuments Piot_, vii. pl. 2; Roscher, iii. p. 2118. Late: B.M.\n F 1, 77, 179, 303\u20134; Reinach, ii. 200. See also p. 61.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n See _B.M. Cat._ and Reinach, _E.g._; B.M. B 148, E 110, 253, 503, F\n 149; Berlin 2174; Bibl. Nat. 222 = Reinach, ii. 251; Louvre F 3, F 5,\n F 101, F 124, F 204, G 43.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n B.M. E 350 (receiving wine from Nymph).\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n B.M. E 184.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n Berlin 2402 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 57; Berlin 2290 = Baumeister, i.\n p. 555, fig. 592 (Hieron); Reinach, ii. 155 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 4,\n 5 (Taleides), and ii. 289, 6.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n B.M. E 465, F 153.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n Reinach, ii. 301.\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n B.M. E 511, F 56.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n B.M. F 37, 275; in F 273 Ariadne similarly occupied.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n B.M. E 66, E 786.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 278: cf. B.M. F 188.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 6 = Louvre G 34.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 38\u201339, 1, and see p. 181.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n Athens 1282\u201383 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 98.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n B.M. E 703, F 152; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16 and ii. 40.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n B.M. F 114; Millin-Reinach, ii. 21.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n Reinach, ii. 38.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n B.M. B 210; _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 18 (both Exekias).\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n B.M. E 228, 241, 435, F 163, 270; Reinach, ii. 301;\n Millingen-Reinach, 2.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n B.M. E 228, F 203, F 253.\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n B.M. F 437.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n Petersburg 2161.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n B.M. F 83, 381.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n B.M. F 163; Munich 848 = Reinach, i. 383.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114 = Baumeister, i. pl. 5, fig. 422.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n Minervini, _Mon. du Barone_, pl. 7.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n B.M. E 451\u201352, 471; Berlin 1930, 2290 (= _Wiener Vorl._ A. 4); Naples\n 2419 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 36\u20137 (see Vol. I. p. 141);\n Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 14, 8.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n Berlin 2029; Naples 2411 = Reinach, i. 154.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n Bologna 286.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n B.M. B 332.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n See p. 17; and cf. B.M. B 42 (Plate XXI.).\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n See pp 22, 76; also Berlin 2591.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pl. 21 and p. 69 ff.; Reinach, i. 144,\n 228; Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 277; and see pp. 29,\n 73.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n See p. 60, note 710.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n B.M. E 505.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n Reinach, i. 472, ii. 198.\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n B.M. B 203\u20134, 206, 427, F 58, 77, 80\u20131, 156.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n B.M. F 75\u20136, 276; Louvre F 120, F 124 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, 5, 3),\n G 33, G 57; Naples 3113, 3241 (= Reinach, i. 384); Munich 184 =\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 46 (Hieron); _Gaz. Arch._ 1887, 15\n (Hieron in Brussels); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 6, 31\u20132.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 1; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 79,\n 2_E.g._; B.M. B 297 (Plate XXX.); Satyr as single figure, Louvre G 24.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n B.M. E 35, E 768; Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 45 (Hieron); Cambridge 48.\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n B.M. F 133; Naples 2419 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 37; _Forman\n Sale Cat._ 352.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n B.M. B 296; Reinach, ii. 75 (Munich 62), 141; Karlsruhe 259 =\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pp.\n 188\u2013189; Vienna 231.\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n Louvre F 334.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n B.M. B 426; Bibl. Nat. 320; Petersburg 9 = Reinach, ii. 24; _J.H.S._\n 1899, pl. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 3, 2 (Nikosthenes).\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n B.M. E 510.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n B.M. E 437, E 439, F 49, F 227.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n B.M. E 319; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 72, 2_E.g._; Munich 408 = Furtwaengler\n and Reichhold, pls. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n B.M. E 555; Berlin 2241; Naples S.A. 313; Reinach, i. 340, ii. 261\n (Bibl. Nat. 852).\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n B.M. B 265, E 368; Bibl. Nat. 539 = Reinach, ii. 261; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i.\n 45; Louvre F 161, F 381, G 34 (= Hartwig, pl. 6), G 46.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n B.M. F 192; Munich 184 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, pl. 46 (Hieron);\n Reinach, i. 223 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 5; and cf. Adamek, _Vasen des\n Amasis_, pl. 2 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n _Sale Cal. H\u00f4tel Drouot_, 11 May, 1903, No. 62.\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n Reinach, i. 201.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n Roscher, i. 1998.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n Munich 332 = Baumeister, ii. p. 847, fig. 928.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n B.M. E 253, and cf. E 510; Bibl. Nat. 357 = _Monuments Piot_, vii.\n pl. 3; Munich 372 = Reinach, ii. 117; and cf. _J.H.S._ xix. p. 220.\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n B.M. E 357; Karlsruhe 242; Reinach, i. 281 (?); Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ p. 32.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n Athens 1353 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 95; Bibl. Nat. 357 =\n _Monuments Piot_, vii. pl. 2; Munich 807 = Millingen-Reinach, pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n Louvre F 311 = Reinach, i. 144.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n B.M. B 284 (?), B 486 (?); Reinach, ii. 77; Millin-Reinach, ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n B.M. B 515, E 567.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 49 A.\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n Munich 542; Stackelberg, 24; _Forman Sale Cat._ 331 (as racing\n charioteers, driving Maenads).\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n B.M. E 377; Louvre G 73 (trumpeting); Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_,\n pl. 6; and see p. 56, note 663.\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n B.M. E 3 (with pelta and trumpet); Louvre G 89.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n B.M. E 539.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 20.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n Inghirami, _Mus. Chius._ 208.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n B.M. E 487.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n B.M. E 108.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 216, Fig. 68.\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n Berlin 2589 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1684, fig. 1766.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n Helbig, 186 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 80, 1_E.g._.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n Berlin 2550.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n B.M. B 148.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n Berlin 2578.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n B.M. B 168; Reinach, ii. 98; with a mouse, Reinach, i. 500.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n B.M. E 102; B 168.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n B.M. E 139, E 338.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 59.\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 14.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 199.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n Berlin 2240; B.M. F 363; _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 1; Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ pl. 45, p. 28; _Forman Sale Cat._ 331.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n B.M. E 24, E 261; Hartwig, _E.g._\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n Munich 139; Reinach, i. 460; Hartwig, pls. 7 and 44, 1.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n B.M. E 35, E 530, E 768.\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n Berlin 2267 = Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 2, 1.\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n Reinach, ii. 303.\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n _Bourguignon Cat._ 57; Louvre G 91.\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n B.M. E 387, E 467.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n B.M. B 560, E 583; Berlin 2243; Louvre F 204 = _Amer. Journ. of\n Arch._ 1896, p. 14; Baumeister, i. p. 555, fig. 592.\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n Naples 3235 = Reinach, i. 103 = Roscher, iii. 861.\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n _J.H.S._ vii. pl. 62, p. 54.\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n B.M. F 273; Reinach, ii. 201, 235; Naples 2846; _Bourguignon Cat._\n 41, 57.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n See Loeschcke in _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 521.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n Vol. I. pp. 353, 355, and p. 208 below.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n See generally Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n _Cat._ 2471.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n Reinach, ii. 268.\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n E 65.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n See also Jatta Coll. 1093; B.M. E 253; Naples 2369; Roscher, iii. p.\n 2118; De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pls. 13, 27. For Terpon\n see also Reinach, i. 203, and Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n B.M. E 253.\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n Reinach, i. 249; Roscher, iii. p. 2115.\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, 27.\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n Reinach, ii. 200.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130 (see Heydemann, _E.g._ pp. 25, 36: cf.\n Hydris, B.M. E 65).\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_, p. 29 (_E.g._).\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n B.M. E 82; Berlin 2471, 2532; Naples 2369; Reinach, i. 426, ii. 6,\n 38, 200.\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n Berlin 2532.\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n Reinach, ii. 287 (name also read as Molpos).\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 302.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n Berlin 2160.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n Munich 780; Naples 2369, 3235; Jatta 1093; Reinach, ii. 268.\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n Naples 3235.\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n Bologna 286.\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n Naples 2369.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n Heydemann, _E.g._ p. 28 (x).\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n Jatta 1093; Reinach, ii. 302.\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n Jatta 1093.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n Berlin 3257.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n B.M. E 253.\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n Reinach, ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n Jatta 1093.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n Reinach, ii. 3 = Millin-Reinach, i. 9; Reinach, ii. 38.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n Heydemann, _E.g._ p. 29 (\u03b2).\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n _Ibid._ (\u03b1).\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n B.M. E 492; Naples 2419; Karlsruhe 208; De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel\n Lambert_, 13.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n B.M. E 350: cf. Nymphe on Berlin 2471.\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n Jatta 1093.\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n B.M. E 182; Heydemann, p. 20 (X) = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ 22.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n Naples S.A. 316; Heydemann, p. 19 (U).\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n Heydemann. p. 19 (U).\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 59.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n Naples S.A. 172 = Reinach, i. 498.\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n _Pourtal\u00e8s Cat._ 29, 2.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n Naples 3235, 2419.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n Heydemann, p. 29 (z).\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n Naples 2883.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 111 = _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 20.\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n B.M. E 183.\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n B.M. B 261, B 425, F 332 (Plate XLV.).\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n Munich 728; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1; and see Nos. 1\u20137 in the list\n given below.\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n B.M. E 82, F 68.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 10; _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1855, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n Roscher, i. p. 1802.\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n See below, p. 99, and _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296 (Hades is frequently\n present).\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n See Nos. 1\u20134, 7, 8, 11; for Eurydike, Nos. 7\u20139.\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n See Nos. 1\u20133 and 12\u201314; also Munich 153, and Louvre F 382.\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n See No. 1; for the rock version of the legend, cf. Pind. _Ol._ i. 90.\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6; B.M. F 210; Munich 153 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1924,\n fig. 2040; Reinach, i. 408 (parody).\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n Nos. 3, 4, 9 (P. only), and 11.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n No. 10.\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n No. 1.\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9.\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n Nos. 1\u20136, 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n Nos. 1, 4, 10.\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n No. 2 (see Baumeister, iii. p. 1928).\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n No. 3.\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n Nos. 1\u20135, 8.\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n Nos. 3, 6, 10.\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n Nos. 2, 3, 9.\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n No. 11.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n See Nos. 5 and 8.\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n Nos. 1\u20133: cf. _Od._ xi. 269, and Paus. x. 29, 7.\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n No. 2.\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n No. 1.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n Reinach, i. 408 (parody): cf. Paus. x. 29, 1.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n B.M. E 155; Berlin 3023 = Reinach, i. 330 = Baumeister, i. p. 767,\n fig. 821; and No. 5 above.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n B.M. D 61; Berlin 2455, 2680, 2681 (= Reinach, i, 457); Munich 209 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 378, fig. 414 (Fig. 122); Athens 1660\u201362 (= _Ant.\n Denkm._ i. 23); _ibid._ 1663, 1665 (= _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ i. pls.\n 1\u20132).\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n B.M. F 486; Vienna 448 = Reinach, i. 343; Reinach, i. 220; Helbig,\n 121 = Reinach, ii. 121 is doubtful.\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 918 = Reinach, i. 395 = Dennis, _Etruria_, ii.\n frontispiece.\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 920 = Reinach, i. 88.\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n See above, p. 69, note 838.\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n See No. 5 above.\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n See below, p. 138.\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 38.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n Reinach, i. 475.\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 204, 290 (Berlin 3072).\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n Naples 3221 = _Ibid._ i. 402.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n B.M. F 155: see below, p. 141.\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n No. 8 above.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 269.\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n See above, p. 69, note 843.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n B.M. F 68; Petersburg 525 = Reinach, i. 11.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n B.M. E 183; Reinach, ii. 324.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p.\n 93.\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n B.M. F 277; Reinach, i. 99 (and see i. 155); _E.g._ i. 522, 1, and\n Baumeister, i. p. 423, fig. 463.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 37 A.\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n See Ubell, _Thanatos_, p. 22 ff. He doubts the possibility of the\n identification of Thanatos on Greek vases.\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n Athens 1093 = Roscher, ii. 2678; Reinach, i. 149 = Baumeister, i. p.\n 727, fig. 781: cf. Louvre F 388 (where Pottier identifies the warrior\n as Sarpedon).\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n B.M. D 58 (= Fig. 123), E 12 (= _Wiener Vorl._ D. pl. 3, figs. 1\u20132);\n Athens 1654 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 29; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893, p.\n 86 (in Berlin); with body of woman, Athens 1653 = Dumont-Pottier, i.\n pls. 27\u201328, and _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2. All but two of these are\n funeral lekythi.\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n Reinach, i. 278.\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n B.M. E 155.\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n Berlin 2157 = _Jahrbuch_, i. p. 211; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 37\n (see under Herakles, p. 103, note 1172).\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xii. p. 340 (Ker seizing soul of fallen warrior); also\n for a Ker in combats, Reinach, ii. 63, 126 (Munich 781), 97 (in the\n latter case protecting Aeneas against Diomede); also i. 113 (Berlin\n 1713, 1714), 223, where they represent demons of good or evil\n according to the will of the gods.\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n See Robert, _Thanatos_, and _J.H.S._ xii. p. 345. The Ker hovering\n over Alkyoneus (see below, p. 100) in Reinach, i. 255, 451, may be a\n Hypnos (see Koepp in _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, p. 42 ff.).\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n B.M. D 54; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pls. 14, 33; Athens 688 =\n Reinach, i. 165 = Roscher, ii. 1147; Stackelberg, pl. 48: and cf.\n Reinach, i. 347 (= _Bourguignon Cat._ 19) and Benndorf, _E.g._ pl.\n 42, 2; in the former the soul is armed; in the latter the winged\n figure may be the \u039a\u03ae\u03c1. There often seems to be a confusion between\n the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd or ghost and the \u039a\u03ae\u03c1 or \u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd, both in its functions and\n its art-form. Thus, on the vase given in _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101 (see p.\n 52), small winged figures like souls are seen flying out of the jar,\n which are here intended to represent evil spirits or maleficent\n ghosts, like the evils let out of the jar by Pandora.\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n B.M. B 639; Reinach, i. 89; Millin-Reinach, i. 19.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n B.M. B 240, B 543; Berlin 1921.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n Fig. 112, p. 14; Naples 2883 = Reinach, i. 181: cf. the beautiful\n conception on the Pergamene frieze.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n B.M. E 182 and Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1; Reinach, i. 66, 113,\n 208.\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n B.M. E 278, Reinach, i. 244 (Louvre E 864), 245, 249; B.M. B 196.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n B.M. B 168, B 213; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 298 = Reinach, i. 249, 4 = _J.H.S._ xx. p. 106, fig. 2\n (and cf. _ibid._ xix. p. 235); Naples 3355 = Reinach, i. 248; _\u00c9l.\n C\u00e9r._ i. 53 = Reinach, i. 249, 6: cf. also B.M. F 147; Froehner,\n _Mus\u00e9es de France_, p. 69; Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_,\n p. 277; and see above, p. 29.\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n As on the vase _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1, p. 5: cf. Schol. in Ar. _Av._\n 971, and Sophocles\u2019 drama of _Pandora or the Hammerers_ (\u03a3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9):\n see also _Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 113 ff., and for another\n explanation, Robert, _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, p. 194 ff. A vase in Berlin\n (_Cat._ 2646 = Reinach, i. 229 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 232) represents the\n \u1f0c\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 of Ge-Pandora, with Satyrs astonished at the sight.\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n Munich 558; Naples S.A. 287; Reinach, i. 129.\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n Hes. _Theog._ 116; Ar. _Av._ 696 ff.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1875, pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n Roscher, ii. p. 1550.\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n B.M. E 246: see _J.H.S._ xi. p. 343.\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162.\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3; but see below, p. 125.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n B.M. B 49 = Reinach, ii. 122; Millin-Reinach, i. 50.\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n See _Ath. Mitth._ xiii. (1888), p. 412 ff. and _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 77\n ff.; also Vol. I. p. 391.\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n B.M. F 270: see Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _E.g._ Cabeiri.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n See above, p. 73, note 888, for representations of Ge-Pandora rising\n from the earth, which may be considered in connection with the\n creation of Pandora.\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n D 4.\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n E 467, 789; _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1 (here P. rises out of the ground,\n assisted by Epimetheus with his hammer; Zeus and Hermes are present).\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101: see above, p. 52.\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 542 = Reinach, i. 141.\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n Berlin 1722 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 9, 8, and another B.F. vase in\n Reinach, i. 388; _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pls. 5\u20136, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n Helbig, 275 = Reinach, ii. 48 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1411, fig. 1567.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n B.M. F 148; Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 236.\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n Berlin 3245 = Gerhard, _Ges. Akad. Abhandl._ pl. 19; Athens 957 =\n _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 3 (H. bears the heavens).\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n Reinach, i. 471.\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n Athens 1926 = Reinach, i. 515. Possibly also on a Berlin vase (_Arch.\n Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89) with a similar subject, which may, however,\n denote a \u201csepulchral banquet.\u201d See Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk.\n Religion_, p. 349.\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n B.M. E 224, E 698.\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n B.M. B 218, 244 (Fig. 113), E 410; Louvre E 861 and Berlin 1704 =\n Reinach, i. 156, 198.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n Athens 1962.\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n _Ibid._ 466 = Plate XLVII.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n B.M. E 720; Munich 351 = Reinach, ii. 46; Berlin 2248 = Benndorf,\n _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 27, 2; Bibl. Nat. 841 = Millin-Reinach, i. 62;\n Roscher, ii. p. 350 (with tablets; B.F. in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n Reinach, ii. 324; _ibid._ 325 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 32 (may be Nike).\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n B.M. E 67; Bibl. Nat. 444; Reinach, i. 99, 339, 463: and see _Arch.\n Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 38 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193; Berlin 2591: cf. Bibl. Nat. 840 =\n Reinach, ii. 260.\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n _J.H.S._ i. pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n B.M. E 467.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n Berlin 1895.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase.\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n Reinach, i. 301.\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n B.M. R.F. amphora (uncatalogued).\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n Reinach, ii. 34.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 296: see p. 39.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 47.\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 279.\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n B.M. E 381(?); _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 20, 31 (= Reinach, ii. 9), 33 (= _E.g._\n ii. 321).\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n B.F. (H. in chariot): B.M. B 201, 317; Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i.\n 399; Reinach, ii. 76, 161. In Olympos: B.F.: B.M. B 379. R.F.:\n Reinach, ii. 186.\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n Berlin 3257 = Baumeister, i. p. 630, fig. 700; _Forman Sale Cat._\n 364; Reinach, ii. 8: see p. 108.\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9; Reinach, i. 157, 203; Roscher, iii.\n p. 2119 (with Aphrodite).\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n Jatta 1093; Reinach, i. 175.\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1889\u201390, p. 5 ff.: see also on the subject generally\n the article _Personifikationen_ in Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_.\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 62 = Reinach, ii. 287: see above, p. 32.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n B.F.: Berlin 1983; Bibl. Nat. 220 and Reinach, ii. 211 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n ii. 115\u2013116 (in the former case the solar disc is on his head). Late:\n B.M. F 305; Reinach, i. 258 (Karlsruhe 388), 368; Millin-Reinach, i.\n 16, ii. 49.\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n Reinach, i. 99, 100, 312 (Naples 3222), 291 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 114\n (Hemera); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 394 (?see p. 79, note 954). In the\n last but one they step out of a boat.\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n Reinach, i. 232.\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n B.M. E 466 = Plate LIII. A general view in colours, _Art Journal_,\n Sept. 1904.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n Reinach, i. 99.\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 100.\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 125.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 252.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n Reinach, i. 236.\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 109.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n Cambridge 100 = Stackelberg, pl. 15; Athens 900 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n B.M. E 252, 466, 776; Berlin 2519 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 63;\n Reinach, i. 312 (Naples 3222), 451.\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n Berlin 2293 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 268 (a fine R.F. kylix); Athens 1345 =\n _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 10. The figure in the chariot may be perhaps\n identified as Nyx; see Berlin 2519, where Selene rides a horse and\n another goddess drives a chariot; also B.M. E 776. See _Art Journal_,\n Sept. 1904, p. 290.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3.\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n Reinach, i. 402.\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 319 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 118.\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n B.M. E 466 (Plate LIII.); Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 100 (here as\n stars).\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n B.M. E 466; Reinach, i. 236, 291 (?), 339; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._\n iv. 394 (?).\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 449 = Reinach, i. 129: cf. B.M. F 573, E 658, E 659, and\n _Art Journal_, Sept. 1904, p. 289.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n But see above, note 950; p. 30, note 239.\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n R.F.: B.M. E 449, E 776 (? Nyx; see above); Helbig, 132 = Reinach,\n ii. 46. Late: Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (with Hermes; vase by Lasimos in\n Louvre).\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 6 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 108 A = Roscher,\n i. 1257; De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n B.F.: Louvre E 702 = Reinach, i. 354. R.F.: B.M. E 72, 466; Reinach,\n i. 463 (= Bibl. Nat. 423), and ii. 81 (= Helbig, 80); Reinach, i. 107\n = Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pls. 39\u201340 (by Hieron; may be either K. or\n T.); Bibl. Nat. 374 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 34. Late: Millin-Reinach,\n i. 48. Eos carrying K.: Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n Oxford 275 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 137; Bibl. Nat. 846.\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n B.M. F 149.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n Reinach, ii. 105; B.M. E 468: see Reinach, i. 144, ii. 254 (Bibl.\n Nat. 207).\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n Reinach, i. 156, 1.\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n Reinach, i. 347 = _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 19; Millingen, _Anc. Uned.\n Mon._ i. pl. 5; Roscher, i. 1265 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n B.M. B 104 = Vol. I. p. 351; and cf. _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 31 ff.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n B.M. B 431, B 445; _Forman Sale Cat._ 318.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n B.M. F 237.\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n B.M. B 212.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n B.M. F 39; Berlin 2305 = Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pl. 72, 1; _ibid._\n pl. 22, 1 (see p. 47, note 50612); and cf. Reinach, ii. 248;\n _Philologus_, 1893, p. 211.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n B.M. D 59.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n B.M. E 480, E 512; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 6; Berlin 2165 = Reinach, i.\n 352; Munich 376 = Reinach, i. 240 = Baumeister, i. p. 352, fig. 373;\n Reinach, i. 305; Helbig, 101 = Reinach, ii. 78 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii.\n 9; Rayet and Collignon, p. 299 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n Berlin 2165 = Reinach, i. 352.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n Reinach, i. 346: cf. Serv. _ad Aen._ iii. 209; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._\n 1882, p. 90 ff.; Roscher, iii. p. 1566.\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n B.M. B 4, B 104: see Studniczka, _Kyrene_, p. 26, and _J.H.S._ xiii.\n p. 109 ff.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n See below pagelink?], pp. 115, 116.\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n B.M. E 804 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 135.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n B.M. F 277.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n B.M. F 149.\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130; Reinach, i. 481.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 11: cf. Reinach, i. 1.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n B.M. E 228 (see note in _Cat._); F 381.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n See especially Studniczka, _Kyrene_, and on the subject generally,\n _J.H.S._ ix. p. 47 ff.\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194.\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 98.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n B.M. F 271.\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n B.M. E 140 = Plate LI.\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl. 27; Millin-Reinach,\n ii. 7 (in Louvre); Berlin 2634 = Roscher, ii. 837.\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n G 104.\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n B.M. B 319; Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235; _ibid._ i. 466 (Petersburg\n 523), ii. 51.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n B.M. E 48, 74, 84; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 1: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p.\n 116, and Loeschcke in _Dorpater Programm_ for 1887.\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 63.\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n B.M. B 4, B 6. See Vol. I. p. 341 ff.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n See above, pp. 19, 24.\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n See above, p. 19.\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n Reinach, ii. 144: see Paus. iii. 1, 2, and 18, 10; Apollod. iii. 10,\n 3, 1; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 491, note.\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 28.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n Jatta 1501 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 38.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n Naples 3235 = Reinach, i. 103 = Roscher, iii. 861.\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n B.M. E 437 (fish-body); and see p. 101.\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12.\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl. 27 (Ismenos and\n Krenaia): cf. Millin-Reinach, ii. 7. The nymph Dirke is, according to\n Robert, represented in the figure rising from the ground to receive\n the child Dionysos at his birth on the vase Petersburg 1792 = Reinach\n i. 1 (otherwise Gaia): see his _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, p. 185.\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 86; Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 391 (see _ibid._ p. 277)\n = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase (at Peleus and Thetis\u2019 nuptials); B.M. E 805; Berlin\n 2391, 2401 (Klio and Terpsichore): cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895,\n p. 102 (in Louvre; three figures named Ourania, Kalliope, and\n Melpomene).\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n B.M. E 271.\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n Reinach, i. 526 = Jatta 1538.\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n See p. 32.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n F 478; and see Jatta 654 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 19, for a possible\n instance.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12.\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n Louvre E 861 = Reinach, i. 156.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n See p. 70; and also p. 137, under Orestes.\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n B.M. E 290.\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n Reinach, i. 255, 451 (but see note 879 on p. 72).\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n Reinach, i. 222 = Plate XXXIX.; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 25.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n B.M. E 12; Reinach, i. 149 = Baumeister, i. p. 727, fig. 781.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n B.M. D 58 = Fig. 123; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2; Dumont-Pottier, i.\n pls. 27\u20138.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n Berlin 2661 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 257. For Ploutos see also\n Reinach, i. 1 (at birth of Dionysos), and the following notes.\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n Munich 291 = Reinach, ii. 47 (more probably Iris).\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n See _e.g._ B.M. E 287, E 574 (Plate XXXVI.), E 643; Oxford 312\u2013314.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n Studniczka, _Siegesg\u00f6ttin_ (1898), and in Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, iii.\n p. 318: see also Sikes, _Nike of Archermos_ (Cambridge, 1890), and\n _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 111 ff. Studniczka regards the following as certain\n B.F. instances: B.M. B 1, B 106_{3}, B 125_{2}, B 334; _Jahrbuch_,\n 1889, pls. 5\u20136, figs. 2, 2a; Jahn, _Entf\u00fchrung d. Europa_, pl. 5. The\n instances on late careless B.F. vases, such as B 356, B 357, B 652 in\n B.M., are not to the point, as these belong to the fifth century.\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n B.M. E 444; Reinach, i. 157, 1; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1; Berlin 2278 =\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 14 (in B.M.); Reinach, i. 66, 194, 417, ii. 266 (N.\n crowning Z.); Berlin 2167 (Z. and Poseidon).\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 32 and iii. 38 (= Berlin 2317); Petersburg 355 =\n Reinach, i. 14.\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n Naples 3373; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 76 A: cf. Reinach, i. 1, 3, 5, 37, 158;\n B.M. B 608, 610, E 523; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 68.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n B.M. E 445.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n Reinach, i. 14, 253 (Bibl. Nat. 392), 406, 511, ii. 310; Naples 1891\n = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 35; _ibid._ ii. 48.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n B.M. E 432.\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n Reinach, ii. 290.\n\nFootnote 1031:\n\n B.M. E 262; Reinach, i. 22, 251; B.M. F 178, Athens 1346 =\n Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 15, _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 69 (N. crowning H.).\n\nFootnote 1032:\n\n See p. 107, note 1222.\n\nFootnote 1033:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1\u20132; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 467.\n\nFootnote 1034:\n\n B.M. E 410.\n\nFootnote 1035:\n\n Reinach, i. 286 (?), 398 (Berlin 2521).\n\nFootnote 1036:\n\n B.M. F 109; Reinach, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 1037:\n\n B.M. E 182; Reinach, i. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 1038:\n\n Reinach, i. 113; and cf. BM. E 788.\n\nFootnote 1039:\n\n Berlin 3023 = Reinach, i. 330.\n\nFootnote 1040:\n\n Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 18, 7.\n\nFootnote 1041:\n\n Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 22; Reinach, i. 358 (unwinged figure;\n may be Eris).\n\nFootnote 1042:\n\n Naples 3231 = Reinach, i. 299.\n\nFootnote 1043:\n\n Reinach, i. 236.\n\nFootnote 1044:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 361 (crowning them); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 187.\n\nFootnote 1045:\n\n Reinach, ii. 49; i. 108, 195.\n\nFootnote 1046:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 390.\n\nFootnote 1047:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 98.\n\nFootnote 1048:\n\n B.M. F 163; Reinach, i. 197, 8, ii. 198, 287.\n\nFootnote 1049:\n\n B.M. E 574 = Plate XXXVI.; B.M. E 287, E 643; Reinach, ii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1050:\n\n Reinach, i. 254 (Bibl. Nat. 392), 340, Athens 1018 = Benndorf, _Gr.\n u. Sic. Vasenb._ 19, 3 (torch); B.M. E 251, E 513, Roscher, iii. 329,\n Benndorf, _op. cit._ 47, 2 (incense-burner); B.M. E 574 (lamp);\n Oxford 274, Athens 1362, Reinach, ii. 235, 310, De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0\n l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 4, Benndorf, _op. cit._ 47, 1 (lyre); Athens\n 1362, Reinach, i. 410 (tripod); Benndorf, _op. cit._ 48, 1 (wreath).\n On Oxford 312 she plays on a lyre. On her costume and attributes\n generally see Roscher, iii. p. 330.\n\nFootnote 1051:\n\n Munich 351 = Reinach, ii. 46: see above, p. 76, note 1048.\n\nFootnote 1052:\n\n Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i. 14; B.M. F 109; Jatta 1050.\n\nFootnote 1053:\n\n B.M. E 455\u201356; Reinach, i. 195, ii. 180; _ibid._ i. 403, 428;\n Roscher, iii. 330; _Cab. Pourtal\u00e8s_, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 1054:\n\n Reinach, i. 492.\n\nFootnote 1055:\n\n B.M. F 66 = Fig. 124; Naples 2684 = Reinach, i. 474; Reinach, ii.\n 206; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 51.\n\nFootnote 1056:\n\n _J.H.S._ vii. p. 275 ff.\n\nFootnote 1057:\n\n Munich 386 = Reinach, ii. 46 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 19.\n\nFootnote 1058:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 361.\n\nFootnote 1059:\n\n Athens 1026 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 23, 2.\n\nFootnote 1060:\n\n Oxford 265; B.M. E 538; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 100.\n\nFootnote 1061:\n\n Reinach, ii. 216.\n\nFootnote 1062:\n\n B.M. B 608; Berlin 2211 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 96.\n\nFootnote 1063:\n\n B.M. E 700; Reinach, ii. 326 = Roscher, iii. 326 (here she is putting\n on the inscription).\n\nFootnote 1064:\n\n B.M. F 550.\n\nFootnote 1065:\n\n Berlin 2661 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 257.\n\nFootnote 1066:\n\n Reinach, ii. 4; Millin-Reinach, i. 24; Jatta 1050.\n\nFootnote 1067:\n\n B.M. E 264, 275, 476, 576.\n\nFootnote 1068:\n\n B.M. E 379.\n\nFootnote 1069:\n\n B.M. E 128; Reinach, i. 268.\n\nFootnote 1070:\n\n B.M. F 170; Reinach, i. 45, 378, 2, ii. 187, 230, 292.\n\nFootnote 1071:\n\n Reinach, ii. 262 (Bibl. Nat. 364), 291; and see 298.\n\nFootnote 1072:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 72.\n\nFootnote 1073:\n\n B.M. B 607; Stackelberg, pl. 25 (Hegias); Oxford 288 (_Cat._ pl. 15);\n Louvre F 109 (? Agon).\n\nFootnote 1074:\n\n Reinach, ii. 320; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35 (now in B.M.);\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 363.\n\nFootnote 1075:\n\n Reinach, i. 322.\n\nFootnote 1076:\n\n B.M. E 460, 469; Reinach, i. 49, 378, ii. 274.\n\nFootnote 1077:\n\n Vol. I. p. 223.\n\nFootnote 1078:\n\n Reinach, i. 63.\n\nFootnote 1079:\n\n B.M. B 1 (?); Petersburg 183 = Micali, _Storia_, pl. 87; Reinach, ii.\n 126 (?); Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. s.v._ Agon, fig. 180; Louvre F\n 109: see also _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ (1903), pp. 92, 97.\n\nFootnote 1080:\n\n B.M. F 20; Berlin 3023; Millingen-Reinach, 36; Helbig, 90 = _Mus.\n Greg._ ii. 60, 3; and see Knapp, _Nike_, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 1081:\n\n See above, p. 49.\n\nFootnote 1082:\n\n See p. 43.\n\nFootnote 1083:\n\n _Jahreshefte_, 1899, p. 16 = Reinach, i. 279; but more probably the\n scene refers to Orestes and Pylades in Tauris.\n\nFootnote 1084:\n\n Vienna 319 = Reinach, i. 353: for Dike in under-world see p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1085:\n\n Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194.\n\nFootnote 1086:\n\n Naples 3233 = Reinach, i. 239.\n\nFootnote 1087:\n\n Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66; B.M. B 364, B 365: see Reinach, i. 223.\n\nFootnote 1088:\n\n See Roscher, iii. p. 2934.\n\nFootnote 1089:\n\n Louvre E 723: see _Ath. Mitth._ 1902, p. 255.\n\nFootnote 1090:\n\n Reinach, ii. 26, 4 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1091:\n\n B.M. B 334; Berlin 1775; Karlsruhe 259; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i.\n 7 (at Judgment of Paris); Reinach, i. 100 (with Pelops), ii. 26, 1,\n 161; Baumeister, i. p. 18, fig. 20.\n\nFootnote 1092:\n\n For unidentified winged deities see Louvre F 54 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1888, pl. 5, fig. 2 (Exekias); _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 3, fig. 2\n (Nikosthenes).\n\nFootnote 1093:\n\n Naples 3222 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1927, fig. 2042 A: see p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1094:\n\n Reinach, ii. 100 (now in B.M.: see _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 468).\n\nFootnote 1095:\n\n Naples 3237 = Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918 (?): see below, p. 91,\n note 1098, for other interpretations.\n\nFootnote 1096:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 23.\n\nFootnote 1097:\n\n Reinach, i. 173.\n\nFootnote 1098:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 229 (in Boston); B.M. F 279; B.M. F 271 and Naples 3237 =\n Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918: cf. Reinach, i. 331, 1. The name of\n Typhlosis (Blindness) has also been suggested for the figure on the\n Naples vase.\n\nFootnote 1099:\n\n Vol. I. p. 480 (Assteas vase in Madrid).\n\nFootnote 1100:\n\n Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363.\n\nFootnote 1101:\n\n See above, p. 65, for instances.\n\nFootnote 1102:\n\n B.M. E 492; Naples 2419; Karlsruhe 208.\n\nFootnote 1103:\n\n Berlin 2471.\n\nFootnote 1104:\n\n B.M. B 210: see p. 58, note 701.\n\nFootnote 1105:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 1106:\n\n Naples 2873 (Assteas).\n\nFootnote 1107:\n\n B.M. E 455.\n\nFootnote 1108:\n\n Munich 378.\n\nFootnote 1109:\n\n Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235.\n\nFootnote 1110:\n\n Berlin 2658 = Reinach, i. 375.\n\nFootnote 1111:\n\n B.M. F 111.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV\n _HEROIC LEGENDS_\n\n Kastor and Polydeukes\u2014Herakles and his twelve labours\u2014Other\n contests\u2014Relations with deities\u2014Apotheosis\u2014Theseus and his\n labours\u2014Later scenes of his life\u2014Perseus\u2014Pelops and\n Bellerophon\u2014Jason and the Argonauts\u2014Theban legends\u2014The Trojan\n cycle\u2014Peleus and Thetis\u2014The Judgment of Paris\u2014Stories of Telephos\n and Troilos\u2014Scenes from the Iliad\u2014The death of Achilles and the\n Fall of Troy\u2014The Odyssey\u2014The Oresteia\u2014Attic and other\n legends\u2014Orpheus and the Amazons\u2014Monsters\u2014Historical and literary\n subjects.\n\n\nIn treating of the subject of heroic legends, we propose to deal first\nwith the more prominent heroes, such as Kastor and Polydeukes,\nHerakles, Theseus, and Perseus, and with the tales of Thebes and Troy;\nnext with the series of myths connected specially with Attica or other\nlocalities; then with semi-mythical personages, such as Orpheus and\nThamyris, which lead us on to the next division of the subject\u2014scenes\nconnected with Greek history.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Kastor and Polydeukes= do not play a very extensive part on vases; and\nas they are not further characterised than by the petasos and two\nspears, which are the ordinary equipment of young horsemen, they are\nnot always to be identified with certainty, except in mythological\nscenes. Among these they appear in the Gigantomachia,[1112] or in\ncompany with Herakles are initiated into the lesser mysteries at\nAgra[1113]; they are also seen at the apotheosis of Herakles.[1114]\nThey are present when Leda discovers the egg laid by Nemesis,[1115] and\non two B.F. vases appear with Leda and Tyndareus in a family\ngroup[1116]; they are also seen in company with Hermes,[1117] with\nParis and Helen,[1118] with Danaos taking refuge in Attica,[1119] in a\nscene from the _Merope_ of Euripides,[1120] and at the slaying of the\nSphinx by Oedipus.[1121] They take part in the hunt of the Calydonian\nboar,[1122] and in many scenes from the Argonautika, such as the death\nof Talos,[1123] the punishment of Amykos,[1124] and others of doubtful\nmeaning.[1125] There is more than one representation of their carrying\noff the Leukippidae,[1126] the best being the beautiful Meidias vase in\nthe British Museum (Plate XLI.), where all the figures are named.[1127]\nThey appear as hunters,[1128] as deified beings present at a Theoxenia\n(_lectisternium_), or feast of the gods,[1129] and are crowned by Nike\n(with stars over their heads).[1130]\n\n HERAKLES\n\nOf all the heroic legends the most numerous and the most important are\nthose of the Herakleid. They appear on vases of all periods, though in\nthe largest proportion on the black-figured varieties, and include\nevery event in his life, from his birth to his deified life in Olympos.\nOf the visit of Zeus to his mother Alkmena we have already spoken, as\nalso of her apotheosis.[1131] As an infant we see Herakles engaged in\nstrangling\n\nthe serpents sent by Hera, while his brother Iphikles recoils in\nterror[1132]; later on Hera appears to be reconciled to his existence,\nfor she is actually seen suckling him at her breast.[1133] Next he is\ncarried off by Hermes to Cheiron the Centaur for his education,[1134]\nand we see him undergoing instruction on the lyre from Linos,[1135] or\non his way, accompanied by an old woman carrying his lyre.[1136] By the\ntime when his series of labours begins he is usually represented as a\nfull-grown bearded man, especially on the archaic vases; but he appears\nin a few instances as a quite youthful beardless figure.\n\nOf all the achievements of Herakles the most famous are the Twelve\nLabours, to which he was subjected by Hera at the hands of Eurystheus.\nWe find them all represented on vases, with the exception of the\ncleansing of the Augean stables, which may be presumed to have offered\ntoo many difficulties to the painter; it only occurs once in the whole\nhistory of Greek art, on a metope at Olympia. The horses of Diomede\nonly occur once, the Keryneian stag thrice, and the Stymphalian birds\nfive times; but the rest may be described as common. In all these\nscenes Herakles is usually accompanied by Athena; also, but less\nfrequently, by Iolaos and Hermes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI. _The Nemean Lion._\n\nOf this subject we find two \u201cnormal\u201d types on B.F. vases,[1137] with\none or two abnormal versions; on R.F. vases the treatment is less\nstereotyped.\n\n B.F. (1) Standing type:\u2014Herakles plunges sword into lion\u2019s neck (both\n upright): B.M. B 160, B 232, B 621 (Plate XXX.). H. strangles\n lion: Berlin 1720 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 6, 3 (Exekias);\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 6, 3 (Charitaios).\n\n (2) Crouching type:\u2014Herakles stoops and strangles lion: B.M. B\n 159, B 199, B 318 (Fig. 125); Petersburg 68 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1889, 4, 6 (Taleides).\n\n (3) Abnormal:\u2014Lion on its back; Herakles slays it with club:\n Reinach, ii. 52. Herakles pursues lion: Louvre F 108 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 1, 5 (Nikosthenes).\n\n R.F. (1) Herakles with lion over shoulder about to hurl it on\n Eurystheus (type borrowed from Erymanthian Boar, see below):\n B.M. B 193 = Plate XXXII. (Andokides).\n\n (2) Crouching type: Munich 415 = Reinach, i. 150 = Baumeister, i.\n p. 656, fig. 723; B.M. E 168; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v. (1890), pl. 12\n = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, 7, 2 (Nikosthenes, in Boston). See\n also B.M. E 104 (abnormal).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 125. HERAKLES AND THE NEMEAN LION (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nWe may also note here a curious B.F. vase, on which Herakles is seen in\nthe forests of Nemea preparing the lion\u2019s skin for his own wear.[1138]\n\nII. _The Cretan Bull._\n\n Type: Herakles seizes the bull from the front and ties its legs\n with a cord.\n\n B.F. B.M. B 309; Berlin 1886, 1898; Helbig, 31; Reinach, ii.\n 55, 5 = Baumeister, i. p. 660, fig. 727.\n\n R.F. B.M. E 104; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 7, 2 (Nikosthenes,\n in Boston) = _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v. (1890), p. 324.\n\n Late. Berlin 3145 = Millingen-Reinach, 11; Athens 1931.\n\n See also a very remarkable vase in _Forman Sale Cat._ No. 305\n (now at Boston), where the same subject appears each side,\n one B.F., the other R.F. (by Andokides).[1139]\n\nIII. _The Erymanthian Boar_ (see Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 87).\n\n (1) The capture:\n\n B.M. B 462; Louvre F 236; Berlin 1981, 2034; Naples 2705 and\n S.A. 150; Athens 858, 860 (all B.F.).\n\n (2) The bringing back of the boar (Eurystheus absent; Athena usually\n receives the hero):\n\n B.M. B 447, 492; Cambridge 57; Munich 694; Athens 1097 (all\n B.F.).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 126. HERAKLES BRINGING THE BOAR TO EURYSTHEUS\n(BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n (3) Herakles hurls the boar upon Eurystheus, who hides himself\n in a large sunk jar (\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2):\n\n B.F. B.M. B 161 (Fig. 126); Reinach, ii. 55, 1; Helbig, 37;\n Louvre F 59, 202.\n\n R.F. B.M. E 44 (Euphronios) = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl.\n 23; Louvre G 17 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, pl. 10.\n\nIV. _The Keryneian Stag._\n\n B.F. B.M. B 169, B 231.\n\n R.F. Reinach, i. 233.\n\nA dispute between Apollo and Herakles over a stag (Rein. ii. 56, 3: see\np. 34) may perhaps be referred to this subject, as the myth is not\notherwise known, but it is more usually Artemis who endeavours to\nthwart Herakles\u2019 capture.\n\n\nV. _The Stymphalian Birds._\n\nFound only on four B.F. vases (B.M. B 163; Louvre F 387; _Arch.\nAnzeiger_, 1892, p. 172; and Munich 1111 = Reinach, ii. 58) and one\nlate example (Reinach, ii. 297). Herakles shoots the birds with bow and\narrow.\n\n\nVI. _The Lernaean Hydra._\n\nThis subject, occurring only on archaic vases, has no very fixed type;\nthe Hydra has seven or nine heads, and the body of a serpent or of a\ncuttle-fish. Iolaos sometimes assists Herakles, and in two cases the\ncrab sent by Hera is also visible.\n\n B.F. Early: Reinach, i. 389; _Jahrbuch_, 1898, pl. 12; Reinach, i.\n 118 (6) = Louvre E 851.\n\n Later: Reinach, i. 118 (1) = Berlin 1854 (crab); _ibid._ 118\n (3); 118 (5) = Louvre F 386 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 75 (Athena\n slays crab); Reinach, ii. 53 = Baumeister, i. p. 657, fig.\n 724; Berlin 1801 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 7, 3: see also Athens\n 792 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 4, 1, where two successive\n scenes are given.\n\n R.F. Reinach, ii. 76. Hydra has cuttle-fish body and ten or eleven\n heads.\n\n\nVII. _The Horses of Diomede._\n\nNaples 2506; Reinach, ii. 297 (?).\n\n\nVIII. _The Augean Stables._\n\nNot found on vases.\n\nIX. _The Combat with Geryon and Capture of his Cattle._\n\nA very favourite subject on B.F. and early vases, including some of the\nfinest specimens. Geryon is at first winged and only three-headed, then\ntriple-bodied, represented as three armed warriors united,[1140] one or\ntwo of whom generally fall wounded. Herakles attacks with bow.\n\n Early B.F. \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d: B.M. A 487 = _J.H.S._ v. p. 176.\n Chalcidian: B.M. B 155; Bibl. Nat. 202 = Reinach, ii. 58 and\n 253 = Plate XXII.\n\n Late B.F. B.M. B 156, B 194; Louvre F 53 = Reinach, ii. 59 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 662, fig. 729 (Exekias); _J.H.S._ xviii. p.\n 299, and Bibl. Nat. 223 (abnormal types).\n\n R.F. Munich 337 (Plate XXXVIII.) = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,\n 22 (Euphronios); Noel des Vergers, _\u00c9trurie_, pl. 38.\n\n Late. Berlin 3258; Naples 1924 = Millingen-Reinach, 27.\n\nThe driving off of the cattle by Herakles is also represented:\n\n B.M. E 104; Reinach, ii. 58, 5; and see Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 61.\n\n\nX. _The Girdle of Hippolyta._\n\n B.F. B.M. B 533.\n\n Late. Naples 3241 = Reinach, i. 384.\n\nBesides the scenes in which Herakles is evidently capturing the girdle,\nthere are many vases on which he is seen in combat with Hippolyte and\nother Amazons, such as Andromache or Alkaia, assisted himself by Iolaos\nor Telamon.\n\n B.F. B.M. B 154, B 426; Louvre E 875; Cambridge 44; _Bourguignon\n Sale Cat._ 18 (Exekias); Berlin 3988 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl.\n 49.\n\n R.F. B.M. E 45; Reinach, i. 166; Bibl. Nat. 535 = Reinach, ii. 265;\n Bologna 322; Reinach, i. 353 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 4, 1 (Duris).\n\n Late. Jatta 423 = Reinach, i. 206.\n\n\nXI. _Fetching Kerberos from Hades._\n\nThe various types and methods of representing this subject have been\ncollected in _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296; as typical examples may be given:\n\n Early B.F. Louvre E 701 = Reinach, i. 153; Reinach, i. 389, ii. 32.\n\n Late B.F. _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 295 (in B.M.); Reinach, ii. 69.\n\n R.F. _Jahrbuch_ viii. (1893), pl. 2 (in Berlin) and p. 160 (in\n Boston).\n\n Late. On several of the \u201cunder-world\u201d vases, see p. 68, Nos. 1\u20134,\n 11.\n\n\nXII. _Fetching the Golden Apples from the Garden of the Hesperides._\n\nThere are two versions of this myth. In one, which seems to be the\nearlier, Atlas fetches the apples, while Herakles supports the universe\nfor him (see above, p. 75). The vases representing Herakles in the\nGarden surrounded by the Nymphs (for whom see p. 92) are almost all of\nthe later period:\n\n B.F. Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 42, 1.\n\n R.F. B.M. E 224 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 8\u20139 (Plate XLI.).\n\n Late. B.M. F 148; Naples 2873 = Millin-Reinach, i. 3 = _Wiener Vorl._\n viii. 12, 3 (Assteas); and Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 236 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 686, fig. 745.\n\n Parody. Athens 1894 = Reinach, i. 506 (?).\n\nBesides the somewhat insignificant part that he plays in the\nGigantomachia,[1141] Herakles had several independent combats of his\nown with gigantic monsters and such-like beings. Of these the most\npopular subjects are Antaios and Alkyoneus. The legend of Herakles\u2019\nwrestling with the former is familiar from Pindar[1142]; on the vases\nAntaios is not characterised as a giant in size or otherwise, but his\nmother Gaia is generally present.[1143]\n\nAlkyoneus, on the other hand, is represented as a being of gigantic\nsize, lying asleep in a cave[1144]; a small winged figure which\nsometimes hovers over him has been interpreted by some as Hypnos\n(Sleep), but might also be a \u039a\u1f74\u03c1 \u0398\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, or harbinger of death.[1145]\nHerakles generally attacks him with club or bow and arrow, but on one\nvase is depicted gouging out his eye[1146]; on another he is assisted\nby Telamon with a stone.[1147] Another giant with whom we find the hero\ncontending is Cacus, whose oxen he carried off. This is a purely Roman\nmyth, and belongs rather to the legends of the Roman Hercules, but\ncuriously enough it finds a place on one Greek vase of Sicilian origin,\nwhich represents Cacus in a hut with the oxen and Herakles playing a\nlyre in triumph.[1148]\n\nOne of the commonest subjects connected with Herakles is his combat\nwith Kyknos, the son of Ares, described at length in the Hesiodic\n_Scutum Herculis_. It is mostly found on B.F. vases, the usual \u201ctype\u201d\nshowing the two combatants supported by Athena and Ares respectively in\ntheir chariots, while Zeus appears in the midst to interrupt\nthem.[1149] One late R.F. vase seems to show the preparations for the\ncombat, in the presence of an Amazon, a Fury, and other\npersonages[1150]; another vase, the subsequent attack made on Athena by\nAres.[1151]\n\nWe find him in combat with Achelo\u00f6s, the river-god, represented as a\nbull with the face of a bearded man,[1152] or occasionally, by\nconfusion with a sea-deity, with the body and tail of a fish.[1153]\nThis latter form is assumed by Triton, with whom also the hero\ncontends,[1154] though the myth is unknown in literature. Of similar\nimport is his combat with Nereus, the old man of the sea (\u1f09\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u0393\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd),\nwho appears in human form as an aged man[1155]; the \u201ctype\u201d employed on\nB.F. vases is similar to that of Peleus wrestling with Thetis (see\nbelow, p. 120), with similar indications of the sea-god\u2019s\ntransformation into animals. In one case an air of humour is imparted\nto the scene, and Herakles is represented smashing the furniture in\nNereus\u2019 house.[1156]\n\nAnother important group of subjects is concerned with Herakles\u2019\nadventures with the Centaurs, which fall under several headings.\nAllusion has already been made to his early education by Cheiron, and\nagain we see him paying a visit of a peaceful nature to the aged\nPholos, who entertains him by opening a jar of wine.[1157] The smell\ntherefrom attracted the other Centaurs and led to a combat, which we\nsee vividly depicted on many early B.F. vases, on which it was a\nfavourite subject, as also on later ones.[1158] We also find him in\ncombat with particular Centaurs, from whom he rescues a woman carried\noff by them. Thus we see Hippolyta delivered from Eurytion,[1159] and\nDeianeira from Nessos[1160] or Dexamenos[1161] (the latter appears on\nlater vases only, and there seems to be no distinction between them in\nthe myth).\n\nOther adventures in which he engages include the freeing of Prometheus\nfrom the vulture, which he slays with his bow[1162]; the bringing back\nof Alkestis from Hades[1163]; the seizure of the Kerkopes, a pair of\nbrigands, whom he carries off head downwards over his shoulders[1164];\nand his capture by Busiris in Egypt,[1165] with his escape after\nslaying the king\u2019s negro attendants.[1166] Among rarer myths may be\nmentioned the destruction of the vines of Syleus[1167]; a possible\nrepresentation of his contest in drawing water with Lepreos[1168]; and\nhis combat with Erginos, the king of Orchomenos, and the capture of his\nheralds.[1169] A vase in Athens, on which he is depicted dragging two\nSatyrs in a leash,[1170] depicts an unknown myth; as do those which\nrepresent him contending with Geras, a personification of Old\nAge,[1171] and beating a winged Ker with his club.[1172] In company\nwith Athena he attacks an unknown man,[1173] and he is also seen\nleading a Sphinx.[1174]\n\nNext we turn to the relations between the hero and the Olympian or\nother deities, which often take the form of disputes or combats. Of\nthese the most famous and important is his capture of the Delphic\ntripod, for which he fights with Apollo, generally in the presence of\nAthena and Artemis[1175]; in one instance Herakles is seen in Athena\u2019s\nchariot, carrying the tripod off with him[1176]; other vases represent\nthe final reconciliation with Apollo.[1177] There is a curious\nrepresentation of a combat between Herakles and Hera (depicted as the\nRoman Juno Sospita, wearing a goatskin on her head), with Athena and\nPoseidon assisting on either side.[1178] Another rare and interesting\nsubject is that of his attack on Helios, whom he interrupts at sunrise\nto prevent his journey after Geryon\u2019s cattle from becoming known.\nHerakles is shown waiting for the chariot of the sun-god as it rises\nfrom the waves, and preparing to discharge his arrows.[1179] A later\nstage of the story is illustrated by a fine R.F. vase, where he voyages\nover the sea in the golden bowl given him by Helios.[1180] Lastly, he\ndefends Hera and Iris against the attacks of a troop of Seileni.[1181]\nIn other scenes where he is associated with the gods, it is in his\ndivine capacity after his apotheosis.\n\nHis relations with women are not so frequently depicted but we have at\nleast one representation of his visit to Omphale[1182]; or, again, of\nhis entertainment by Eurytos,[1183] the carrying off of his daughter\nIole,[1184] and the subsequent fight with Eurytos.[1185] His rescue of\nDeianeira from the Centaur has already been alluded to, and there may\nalso be a reference to his carrying her off from her father\nOineus.[1186] Hesione is not found with him on vases, but he is seen\ncarrying off Auge[1187]; he is also associated with a Nymph, who may be\nNemea.[1188] On one vase he pursues, with amorous intention, a woman,\nwho may possibly be intended for Athena.[1189]\n\nA remarkable vase-painting by Assteas of Paestum depicts Herakles in a\nfit of madness destroying his children by hurling them on a fire, on\nwhich he has already thrown the household furniture; his mother and\nothers look on, expressing various emotions.[1190] In more peaceful\nmood he is seen grouped with his wife Deianeira and their son\nHyllos,[1191] or with Oineus, his father-in-law.[1192]\n\nWe now proceed to note a few subjects which do not admit of more exact\nclassification. Herakles is initiated into the lesser mysteries at\nAgra, together with Kastor and Polydeukes,[1193] and is conducted by\nHermes to the revels of the Scythian Agathyrsi (cf. p. 179).[1194] He\nis also sometimes seen carrying Hades on his back, the latter bearing a\nlarge cornucopia[1195]; but the signification of this subject is\nunknown. He accompanies the Argonauts on their wanderings,[1196] and\nappears as a single figure shooting from a bow.[1197] He is often\nrepresented performing an act of sacrifice, either as a single\nfigure[1198] or in groups, sacrificing a ram or other animal.[1199]\nSome of these scenes, where he sacrifices to the _xoanon_ of\nChryse,[1200] a local Lemnian goddess, must refer to the story of\nPhiloktetes, with which he was connected. Or, again, conversely, we see\na statue of Herakles made the subject of offerings from others.[1201] A\nscene from the story of Antigone (see below, p. 119) is represented as\ntaking place before a shrine, in which stands the deified hero\ninterceding with Kreon for her life.[1202] He also appears as\nprotecting god of Attica,[1203] and also of the palaestra, with\nreference to his traditional founding of the Olympian games.[1204]\nFinally, there is a series of subjects which (as in the case with most\nof the preceding section) may be concerned with Herakles either before\nor after his apotheosis.\n\nAmong these are the numerous vases (especially B.F.) where he is\nrepresented as being greeted by Athena or conversing with her,[1205]\nor receiving a libation from her.[1206] These may either refer to his\nreceiving visits of encouragement from her in the intervals between\nhis labours, or to his reception by her in Olympos (see below). Many\nvases represent him banqueting, usually in company with Dionysos and\nother deities.[1207] With Hermes and Iolaos he takes part in a\nprocession accompanied by music[1208]; and he is also represented\novercome with wine and forming a subject for mockery,[1209] while\nSatyrs steal his weapons[1210] (this subject being probably taken\nfrom a Satyric drama). Or he is represented bathing at a\nfountain[1211]; and in one case fishing with Hermes and\nPoseidon.[1212] He also takes part in the Gigantomachia,[1213] and is\npresent at the birth of Athena,[1214] in both cases by a curious\nanticipation of his deified character. Exceedingly common are his\nappearances with a lyre, as Kitharoidos.[1215]\n\nThe last scenes of Herakles\u2019 earthly life are his last sacrifice on\nMount Kenaion,[1216] the wearing of the poisoned robe which led to his\ndeath,[1217] and the subsequent burning of his body on the funeral\npyre. The last scene is occasionally combined with his apotheosis; the\nHyades quench the flames among which his body is consuming, while the\ndeified hero ascends in the chariot of Athena or Nike to Olympos.[1218]\n\nThe vases relating exclusively to his apotheosis fall into two main\nclasses, which admit of more than one sub-division: (1) his ascent into\nheaven in the chariot of Athena or Nike; (2) his reception in Olympos.\nThe ascent in the chariot of Athena is almost confined to B.F. vases;\non those of the R.F. period it rarely occurs; and on the Italian vases\nher place is usually taken by Nike, who is also represented crowning\nhim with a wreath. On the B.F. vases the \u201ctype\u201d is almost invariable\n(see Plate XXIX.): Herakles mounts the four-horse chariot in which the\ngoddess stands ready; on the farther side of it stand various deities,\nthe commonest being Apollo, Dionysos, and Hebe, with Hermes at the\nhorses\u2019 heads; more rarely Zeus, Hera, and Artemis are seen.[1219] In\none or two cases Iolaos acts as charioteer, Athena standing at the\nside[1220]; or, again, Hebe performs the same office.[1221] On the late\nred-figured vases the attendant deities are almost limited to Hermes\nand Eros; the chariot is here usually represented as on its way.[1222]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Arch. Zeit._\n FIG. 127. RECEPTION OF THE DEIFIED HERAKLES BY ZEUS, FROM A VASE AT\n PALERMO.\n]\n\nThe first stage of the hero\u2019s introduction into Olympos is his\nintroduction to Zeus by Athena, a scene common on both B.F. and R.F.\nvases (Fig. 127). The attendant deities vary very greatly: Hermes,\nApollo, Hebe, and Artemis are most often seen; also Hera, Poseidon,\nAres, and Dionysos.[1223] Besides these there are numerous scenes in\nwhich he is grouped with various deities, usually Athena and Hermes,\nbut also Poseidon, Ares, Dionysos, and Hebe, apparently in the\nenjoyment of his new life among the welcoming gods[1224]; and to this\ngroup may be added the scenes in which he is crowned by Nike.[1225] The\ncompletion of his bliss is the marriage with Hebe, found on two or\nthree fine R.F. vases,[1226] with a numerous company of attendant\ndeities.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe adventures of =Theseus=, the peculiarly Attic hero, are portrayed\non vases of all dates; they are rare on the later kinds, but are most\npopular on the R.F. vases of the \u201cstrong\u201d and \u201cfine\u201d periods, as would\nnaturally be expected at a time when his cult was coming into special\nprominence in Athens (see Vol. I. p. 418). Of his seven labours the\nonly one commonly found on the B.F. vases is the combat with the\nMinotaur, but some of the finest R.F. kylikes give a complete series.\nThey are given in the order of his progress from his birthplace Troezen\nthrough the Isthmus to Athens. It should be noted that the Cretan\nlegends, which alone are common on the early vases, are clearly older\nthan the more purely Attic.\n\nThe first subject to be mentioned in connection with the story of\nTheseus is that of his father Aigeus consulting the oracle of\nThemis.[1227] His finding of Aigeus\u2019 sword and sandals beneath the\nstone (cf. Plate LXII.) is not depicted on vases, but we have a\npossible representation of his recognition by Aigeus,[1228] and an\nunintelligible scene where he pursues or attacks his mother Aithra,\napparently wielding the newly found sword.[1229]\n\nThere are only two R.F. kylikes which give the complete series of\nadventures, including that in Crete; the Duris kylix in the British\nMuseum (Vol. I., frontisp.) omits two (the bull and Prokrustes), and\nothers give a varying number of scenes, omitting sometimes one,\nsometimes another. The adventure with Periphetes appears to be confined\nto literature. We give the list as follows, with the vases on which\nthey may be seen[1230]:\n\n(1) The pine-bender Sinis.\n\n B.F.: Athens 879. R.F.: Reinach, i. 313 (= Naples R.C. 180) and ii.\n 280.\n\n(2) The sow of Krommyon, sometimes accompanied by a Nymph or old woman,\nthe personification of the locality.\n\n Reinach, i. 459; Noel des Vergers, _\u00c9trurie_, pl. 14.\n\n(3) The brigand Skiron (in Megara); this scene is usually to be\nidentified by the foot-pan and the tortoise.\n\n Reinach, i. 119.\n\n(4) The wrestling with Kerkyon (at Eleusis).\n\n Reinach, i. 324.\n\n(5) Prokrustes and his bed (near Athens).\n\n B.F.: Athens 879. R.F.: B.M. E 441\u201342; Athens 1166 = _J.H.S._ 1889,\n pl. 1; Millingen-Reinach, 9\u201310.\n\n(6) The Marathonian bull.\n\n B.F.: Bibl. Nat. 174. R.F.: B.M. E 442; Naples 2865 = Inghirami,\n _Vasi Fitt._ 54; Millin-Reinach, i. 43: Noel des Vergers,\n _\u00c9trurie_, pl. 35 (in Brussels).\n\n(7) The slaying of the Minotaur.\n\n A very early representation (about 610 B.C.) on the Polledrara\n hydria in the British Museum (_J.H.S._ xiv. pl. 7: see Chapter\n XVIII.).\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 148, B 205; Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ 1889, 2, 2, and 1155 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 7, 2; Berlin\n 1698 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 7, 1; Millin-Reinach, ii. 61\n (Taleides).\n\n R.F.: B.M. E 441; Helbig, 80 = Reinach, ii. 81 = Baumeister, iii. p.\n 1790, fig. 1874.\n\nThe complete set of seven is to be found on the following:\n\n B.M. E 84, where the scenes are duplicated on the exterior and\n interior of the kylix; here the Minotaur forms the central scene\n of the interior.\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 1 (kylix by Aeson).\n\nThe following are more or less complete:\n\n B.M. E 48 = Frontispiece, Vol. I. (by Duris; five scenes).\n\n Louvre G 104 (Euphronios).\n\n Reinach, i. 528\u201332.\n\nAfter the labours on his journey comes the purification of Theseus on\nreaching Athens.[1231] To this time may perhaps be referred a scene in\nwhich he receives a palm-branch from Athena.[1232] There is a subject\nwhich cannot be placed in literary tradition, but probably comes in\npoint of time immediately before or after the labours; this is the\nvisit to Poseidon and Amphitrite under the sea, whither he is borne by\nTriton. It occurs on the beautiful Euphronios kylix in the Louvre (G\n104) and elsewhere.[1233]\n\nNext in point of time we have to deal with the story of Theseus\u2019 voyage\nto Crete and his marriage with and desertion of Ariadne. It begins with\na scene in which he bids farewell to Aigeus[1234]; then on his arrival\nin Crete he slays the Minotaur, as already described. We next see the\nmeeting with Ariadne,[1235] followed by the nuptial ceremonies; the\nlatter scene, together with the subsequent arrival at Delos, and a\ndance of boys and maidens liberated by Theseus, is vividly depicted on\nthe Fran\u00e7ois vase. His desertion of the sleeping Ariadne in Naxos and\nthe appearance of Dionysos as her consoler form the subjects of two\nvery beautiful R.F. vases[1236]; but the return to Athens and the death\nof Aigeus are not depicted.\n\nThe reign of Theseus at Athens is signalised by his combats with the\nAmazons and Centaurs. In the former story he carries off their leader\nHippolyta as his queen, assisted by his friend Peiritho\u00f6s[1237]; and in\nanother version it is Antiope whom he overcomes,[1238] or the subject\nis treated in a more general fashion.[1239] This scene is supposed to\ntake place in Attica; but the story of the Centaurs belongs to\nThessaly, the home of Peiritho\u00f6s. The Centaurs are represented\ninterrupting a banquet, throwing everything into confusion, and\ncarrying off Laodameia and other female victims. It occurs on the\nFran\u00e7ois vase, and is treated in a vivid pictorial fashion on several\nvases of a later period.[1240] The episode of the death of Kaineus (see\np. 145) belongs to this group of subjects. To the same period belongs a\nvase representing the rape of a girl named Korone by Theseus and his\nfriend.[1241] In the story as told by Plutarch (_Thes._ 31) it was\nHelene[1242] whom Theseus carried off; curiously enough, a figure thus\ninscribed is also present on this vase,[1243] as well as Antiope (see\nabove). The rape (as described by Plutarch) was followed by their\ndescent into Hades to seize Persephone. For this they were doomed to\npunishment, to sit for ever with hands bound behind them[1244]; but in\none version Theseus is allowed to depart after a time, as is seen on\none of the Apulian under-world vases.[1245] A vase signed by Xenotimos\nrepresents Peiritho\u00f6s seated in a chair holding two spears[1246]; but\nits mythological significance is open to question.\n\nClosely linked with the story of Theseus is that of the love of Phaidra\nfor Hippolytos and the death of the latter, confined to late Italian\nvases; but Phaidra has not been certainly identified in any case.[1247]\nThere is, however, an undoubted representation of the appearance of the\nbull which overthrew Hippolytos\u2019 chariot.[1248]\n\n * * * * *\n\nNext in importance as a hero of Greek legend comes =Perseus=, born from\nthe golden shower in which Zeus visited Danae (see p. 19). We find\nrepresentations of the scene so touchingly sung of by Simonides, the\nplacing of Danae and her child in the wooden chest and sending them\nadrift[1249]; and next we find Perseus as a full-grown youth, about to\nset forth on his mission of slaying the Gorgon, and receiving from the\nNaiads the cap, sandals, and wallet, which were to aid him in his\nquest.[1250] On later vases he receives from Athena the sickle\n(_harpe_) with which he slays the monster.[1251] On his way he seizes\nthe eye and tooth of the Graiae, a subject rarely depicted in\nart.[1252] The actual slaying of the Gorgon[1253] is not so often\nrepresented as the subsequent flight of Perseus, generally accompanied\nby Athena and Hermes[1254]; in one or two instances we see Perseus\napproaching his victim unobserved.[1255] Other vases depict the\nheadless corpse of Medusa, from which springs the young Chrysaor or\nPegasos, and the other two Gorgons, Stheno and Euryale, either pursuing\nPerseus or remaining with the corpse[1256]; in one instance they appeal\nto Poseidon for help.[1257]\n\nWe next see Perseus arriving at the court of Kepheus to deliver\nAndromeda[1258]; she is generally represented chained to a column in\nthe palace itself. On other vases he is depicted in the act of slaying\nthe monster, but this is a somewhat rare subject.[1259] Finally, we\nhave the return to Seriphos and the petrifaction of the king Polydektes\nby showing him the Gorgon\u2019s head.[1260] Perseus is also represented\nshowing the head to Satyrs,[1261] or placing it in the wallet\n(\u03ba\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2),[1262] or in combat with Maenads[1263]; or, again, he is\naccompanied by Athena, who holds the Gorgon\u2019s head while he looks at\nthe reflection.[1264] Lastly, on some small R.F. vases, a bust of\nPerseus is depicted wearing his winged cap.[1265]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe story of =Pelops= is chiefly connected with Olympia, and his visit\nto Oinomaos; but the subjects are almost exclusively confined to the\nlater Apulian vases. On one B.F. (Cyrenaic) kylix Pelops is depicted\nwith the winged horses given him by Poseidon,[1266] but this is\nexceptional. The Olympia scenes include five episodes: (1) the arrival\nof Pelops at Olympia[1267]; (2) the sacrifice or compact with\nOinomaos[1268]; (3) the race[1269]; (4) the death of Myrtilos[1270];\n(5) the carrying off of Hippodameia.[1271] Pelops also occurs with\nMyrtilos and Hippodameia in the under-world.[1272]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe adventures of =Bellerophon= are not so popular as those of other\nheroes, especially in the R.F. period. The story told in the sixth\n_Iliad_ appears in several scenes, beginning with Bellerophon\u2019s taking\nleave of Proitos[1273]; next we see him delivering the letter with its\n\u03c3\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac to Iobates, the king of Lycia,[1274] and then, mounted on\nPegasos, slaying the Chimaera.[1275] Subsequent events represented on\nvases are the death of the perfidious Stheneboia, who falls from the\nback of Pegasos,[1276] and the marriage of Bellerophon with\nPhilono\u00eb.[1277]\n\n * * * * *\n\nNor need the story of =Meleager= detain us long. Scenes from his life\nare practically confined to the Calydonian boar-hunt, a subject popular\nat all periods, especially on early vases.[1278] Kastor and Polydeukes,\nPeleus, and other heroes, together with Atalante, are represented as\ntaking part, as well as Meleager. There is also a vase on which\nMeleager is represented with the boar\u2019s hide, accompanied by Atalante,\nPeitho, and Eros.[1279] Other scenes where a boar-hunt is represented,\nbut no names given, or only names of a fanciful kind, may or may not be\nidentified in this way.[1280] There is one vase which appears to\nrepresent the death of Meleager.[1281]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe next of the Greek heroes with whom we have to deal is =Jason=, with\nwhom we must include the whole cycle of subjects relating to the\nArgonautika\u2014such as the stories of Helle, Phineus, and Talos. The\nlegend of the golden fleece which gave rise to the famous quest of\nJason is first illustrated by scenes representing Helle or Phrixos in\nflight on the ram,[1282] or the former grouped with her mother Nephele\nand her brother Phrixos,[1283] who accompanied her on her flight. The\npursuit of Phrixos and the ram by Ino is also represented.[1284]\nLastly, there is a vase which may represent the setting out of\nJason.[1285]\n\nIn the earlier history of the Argonautic expedition the most\ninteresting subject found on the vases is the story of Phineus, who had\nbeen blinded for impiety by Boreas,[1286] and was subsequently deprived\nof his food by the Harpies until he was delivered by the sons of\nBoreas, Zetes, and Kalais.[1287] Another event is the chastisement of\nAmykos by Kastor and Polydeukes,[1288] and a fine vase of \u201cPolygnotan\u201d\nstyle in the Louvre represents a group of Argonauts apparently without\nany special signification.[1289] In all these scenes Kastor and\nPolydeukes and the Boreades are present together with Jason. There is\nalso a scene which has been interpreted as belonging to the\nArgonautika: Herakles is represented sacrificing to a statue of Chryse\non the island of Lemnos.[1290]\n\nThen we have the arrival of Jason and his companions in Kolchis,[1291]\nand the subsequent feats performed by the hero\u2014his slaying the\ndragon[1292] (in one version he enters into its mouth[1293]), his\ncontest with the bull,[1294] and finally the capture of the\nfleece,[1295] which he is also represented as bringing to Pelias on his\nreturn.[1296] The only important event relating to the homeward journey\nis the death of Talos.[1297]\n\nAmong the events of his later life are the boiling of the ram by\nMedeia,[1298] and the subsequent destruction of the aged Pelias[1299];\nthe renewal of Jason\u2019s own youth[1300]; the death of his wife Glauke by\nMedeia\u2019s agency[1301]; and the latter\u2019s slaughter of her\nchildren,[1302] with her pursuit by Jason.[1303] Medeia also appears in\nanother connection at Theseus\u2019 leave-taking of his father Aigeus,[1304]\nand among the Athenian tribal heroes on the vase by Meidias.[1305]\nThough not necessarily connected with Jason, the funeral games held\nafter the death of Pelias[1306] must also find mention here. Scenes\ntherefrom are represented on more than one vase\u2014such as the\nchariot-race conducted by Kastor and others in the presence of three\njudges (Pheres, Akastos, and Argeos), and the wrestling of Peleus and\nHippalkimos.[1307] On another Zetes is victorious over Kalais in the\nfoot-race.[1308]\n\n THE THEBAN LEGEND\n\nThe \u201ctale of Thebes\u201d falls into various episodes, more or less\nconnected, especially those which relate to the story of Oedipus and\nhis line.[1309] Conspicuous as founder of the city is the Phoenician\n_Kadmos_, whose encounter with the dragon is depicted on vases of\nvarious periods. On some he receives from Athena the stone with which\nhe is to slay the monster[1310]; on others he is seen approaching the\nfountain of Ares, where he was to meet it[1311]; and, lastly, we have\nthe actual slaying of the dragon,[1312] sometimes in the presence of\nHarmonia and various deities and personified figures, including Thebes.\nAfter the slaying of the dragon Kadmos sacrifices to Athena Onka.[1313]\nThe completion of the story is seen in his marriage with\nHarmonia.[1314] A rarer subject is the punishment of Dirke by her\nbrothers Amphion and Zethos, who tied her to a wild bull[1315]; while a\nlater episode of the story is the pursuit of her sister Antiope by her\nlover Phokos.[1316]\n\nThe story of the Oidipodia is introduced by the subject of Laios (the\nfather) carrying off the young Chrysippos.[1317] Then we have the\nexposure of the infant Oedipus and his discovery by the shepherd\nEuphorbos.[1318] Of later events in the life of _Oedipus_, the only one\nthat attained to any popularity is the slaying of the Sphinx. The\nactual deed only occurs once,[1319] and the usual \u201ctype\u201d is that of\nOedipus (usually a young man) standing before the Sphinx, which is\nseated on a rock or column.[1320] It is not always to be identified\nwith certainty.[1321] In one instance Oedipus is represented with\nTeiresias[1322]; in another with persons named Sikon and Kalliope\u2014a\nsubject hitherto unexplained.[1323] We need only make passing reference\nhere to a vase supposed to represent the tomb of Oedipus, inscribed\nwith a couplet of verses, at which stand two youths.[1324]\n\nBefore continuing the story of the house of Oedipus, we must digress to\nthat of _Amphiaraos_, the warrior-seer, whose departure from his wife\nEriphyle to the Theban War is a favourite subject on vases.[1325] It\nbecomes, in fact, a \u201ctype\u201d adopted in ordinary scenes.[1326] We also\nfind on the reverse of one of the vases with this subject the departure\nof another warrior, perhaps intended for the hero\u2019s son Alkmaion, or\nfor Adrastos.[1327] On an early vase Amphiaraos is seen bringing home\nEriphyle in his chariot. The names of his horses, Thoas and Dion, are\ngiven.[1328] A curious subject is that of the hero in the bosom of his\nfamily, with his wife Eriphyle suckling her son Alkmaion, and a maiden\nspinning.[1329] His death is represented on one B.F. vase[1330]; on\nanother his slaying of Eriphyle.[1331] Another event is the death of\nthe child Archemoros, caused by a serpent.[1332] A fine late vase in\nNaples depicts the _prothesis_ or laying out of his body by his mother\nEurydike and others.[1333] The subsequent fight of Tydeus and\nLykourgos, interrupted by Adrastos, also occurs,[1334] and the\nreception of the fugitive Tydeus by Adrastos.[1335] Tydeus appears once\nmore as the slayer of Ismene[1336]; but according to another version\nshe and her sister Antigone are attacked by Laodamas when the Epigoni\nreturn to Thebes many years later.[1337] We can only point to one\npossible representation of the combat of Eteokles and Polyneikes on\nvases,[1338] though it is common enough, _e.g._ in Etruscan art; but\nthere is at least one representation of Antigone being brought before\nKreon after the burial of her brother,[1339] which also forms a\nburlesque subject on the comic stage.[1340]\n\n THE TROJAN CYCLE\n\nWe now come to the story of the Trojan War, linked with which are the\nevents which led up to it and those which immediately followed upon\nit\u2014such as the Judgment of Paris on the one hand, and the stories of\nOdysseus and Orestes on the other. These events are so numerous that\nthey require careful classification. They may be divided into three\nmain sections: (1) Ante-Homerica, including the events that led to the\nwar and those that took place during the first nine years of it; (2)\nHomerica, or the events of the _Iliad_; (3) Post-Homerica, or the\nstories of the death of Achilles, the fall of Troy, the _Odyssey_ and\nother \u039d\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, and the Oresteia. The literary authorities for these\nevents, on the lines of which our classification follows, are discussed\nelsewhere (p. 4 ff.).\n\nIn spite of the warning of Horace that in writing of the story of Troy\nit is not necessary to begin _ab ovo_, it is impossible here to avoid\nreference to the earliest event which bears at all on the\nsubject\u2014namely, the birth of Helen from the egg, which was the result\nof Zeus\u2019 _amour_ with Nemesis. The subject is referred to on several\nvases, the moment chosen being that when the egg is found by\nLeda.[1341] Her husband Tyndareus and her other offspring,\nKlytaemnestra and the Twin Brethren, are usually present. There is one\nundoubted instance of the nuptials of Helen and Menelaos.[1342]\n\nThe first event, however, which can be regarded as having a direct\neffect on the outbreak of the war is the marriage of Peleus and Thetis,\nat which the apple of discord was flung by Eris among the goddesses,\nand which brought about the birth of the hero of the war, Achilles. In\nancient art, especially on vases,[1343] Peleus is depicted forcibly\ncapturing Thetis from the company of her sister Nereids, while she\ntries to elude him by assuming various shapes, all conventionally\nindicated in the vase-paintings. Some vases represent the approach of\nPeleus and his pursuit of Thetis,[1344] the majority the actual\nstruggle (Fig. 128),[1345] and one or two the announcement of the issue\nto Nereus and the company of Nereids (who are named).[1346]\n\nThe next stage is the introduction of Thetis to the Centaur Cheiron by\nPeleus.[1347] Then we have the celebration of their nuptials, with the\nassembling of the gods, as described by Catullus, and vividly, if\nquaintly, depicted on the Fran\u00e7ois vase,[1348] followed in due course\nby Peleus bringing the young Achilles to be educated by Cheiron,[1349]\nand his subsequent sojourn in Skyros.[1350] There is one possible\nrepresentation of the seething of Achilles in the caldron to secure his\nimmortality.[1351]\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 128. PELEUS SEIZING THETIS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nThe next event is the =Judgment of Paris=, perhaps of all the scenes\nfrom the story of the Trojan War the most popular with the\nvase-painters of all periods. The story of the forsaken Oenone, in the\ntelling of which Tennyson has familiarised us with the scene of the\nJudgment, did not appeal to the unromantic Greeks in the same way. We\nonly find one vase on which she is possibly represented.[1352]\nCuriously enough, the vase-paintings seldom show the central act of the\nstory\u2014the award of the golden apple. In fact, in the earlier examples\nParis is omitted altogether, and we only see the three goddesses led in\nprocession by Hermes. One vase, again, represents the preparations of\nthe goddesses for the trial, Athena washing at a fountain and Aphrodite\nperforming her toilet with the assistance of Eros.[1353] The rest may\nbe classified as follows (the order adopted showing a rough\nchronological development of the type[1354]):\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_\n FIG. 129. THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS (CUP BY HIERON IN BERLIN).\n]\n\n (1) Hermes leads the three goddesses, Athena alone being\n characterised; Paris absent. Only on B.F. vases.[1355]\n\n (2) Procession-type preserved, but Paris is present, standing. Type\n modified on R.F. vases.[1356]\n\n (3) Procession-type; Paris seated; landscape introduced (see Fig.\n 129).[1357]\n\n (4) Procession-type abandoned; goddesses picturesquely grouped,\n with attendant figures. Only on R.F. and later vases.[1358] In\n one instance two stages seem to be represented: first, the\n goddesses grouped for the Judgment, accompanied by Apollo,\n Helios, and Selene; secondly, the victorious Aphrodite crowned by\n Eros.[1359]\n\nParodied renderings of the subject also occur.[1360]\n\nThe reward of Paris for his judgment was, as we know, \u201cthe fairest wife\nin Greece.\u201d Accordingly we next find him arrived at Sparta and carrying\noff the fair Helen as his bride. The vases (all of the R.F. and late\nperiods) depict him on his arrival at Menelaos\u2019 palace introduced to\nHelen,[1361] or else we see Helen at her toilet making preparations for\nher new consort[1362]; next, Paris leads away Helen or carries her off\nin his chariot,[1363] and finally introduces her to his father Priam on\nhis return home.[1364]\n\nThe war having now broken out, we are introduced to the two chief\nheroes on the Greek side, Achilles and Ajax, as they bid farewell to\ntheir family and friends and set out in full equipment. Achilles,\naccompanied by Patroklos, Menoitios, and other heroes, bids farewell to\nhis parents Peleus and Thetis[1365]; he also pays a farewell visit to\nhis grandfather Nereus, who presents him with a crown,[1366] and\nreceives a valedictory libation from a Nereid.[1367] Again, we see\nAchilles and Patroklos taking leave of Nestor, accompanied by\nAntilochos.[1368] Ajax is represented taking leave of Lykos,[1369] and\nalso of his father Telamon[1370]; but as in one of the latter cases the\nnames are wrongly applied on the vase, it may only represent an\nidealised departure of an ordinary warrior. There is also a vase which\nrepresents Nestor arming (putting on a greave) in presence of\nEuaichme.[1371]\n\nWe next find the warriors gathered in Aulis, waiting for the favouring\nbreeze, and whiling away the time (as Euripides describes[1372]) in the\ngame of \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03af or draughts, which is played by Ajax and Achilles (names\nusually given) seated at a raised board in full armour, with the statue\nof Athena behind them.[1373] There is another variety of the type, in\nwhich the presence of Athena seems to have more meaning. Here the two\nheroes cast lots with dice before the statue, and there may be some\nreference to the dispute of Ajax and Odysseus for the arms of Achilles,\nwhich was settled by Athena.[1374] The story of the sacrifice of\nIphigeneia, though popular with poets and painters, for some reason\nnever found its way on to the vases until the influence of great\npictures and plays was beginning to make itself felt; and then only\nappears in one instance, where the transformation into a deer is\nindicated.[1375] The only other incident of the voyage which concerns\nus is the halt at Lemnos and the sacrifice to the local goddess Chryse,\nwhere Philoktetes is bitten by the serpent and has to be left behind on\naccount of his wound.[1376] This island was also the scene of the\ncarrying off by Achilles of Chryseis, the daughter of Chryses, the\npriest of the local goddess, of which there is one possible\nrepresentation.[1377]\n\nTwo doubtful references to opening scenes of the war are to be found in\na supposed consultation of Zeus with Themis among the Olympian\ndeities,[1378] and a representation of the Greeks formally demanding\nback Helen,[1379] a demand which of course was not granted. The story\nof Telephos also belongs to an early stage, and three incidents\ntherefrom are found. In one case he is represented as wounded by the\nspear of Achilles[1380]; again, entering the Greek camp disguised as a\nbeggar, in order to apply to Agamemnon for aid[1381]; and, lastly, he\nis seen seizing the infant Orestes, whom he threatens to destroy if his\nrequest is not granted.[1382] A R.F. kylix in Boston represents in the\ninterior Odysseus persuading Achilles to heal Telephos\u2019 wound; on the\nexterior the wounded hero comes, not to Agamemnon\u2019s tent, but to his\npalace at Mycenae.[1383]\n\nAt a much later stage of the war comes the incident of Troilos, a\nsubject which attained to great popularity, especially with the B.F.\nvase-painters. It falls into five distinct scenes: (1) the departure of\nTroilos, with his two horses[1384]; (2) the ambuscade of Achilles\nbehind the fountain to which Polyxena comes to draw water[1385]; (3)\nthe flight of Troilos and Polyxena, and pursuit by Achilles[1386]; (4)\nthe death of Troilos[1387]; and (5) the fight over his body.[1388] Of\nthese, the ambuscade and the pursuit are the most commonly represented.\n\nA few incidents which are not to be traced in literature probably\nbelong to the Ante-Homeric period. They are (1) Achilles bandaging the\nwounded Patroklos, on the well-known Sosias cup[1389]; (2) the wounded\nAchilles tended by Patroklos and Briseis[1390]; (3) a combat of Hector\nand Achilles attended by Sarpedon and Phoinix (in one case Phoinix\ninterrupts)[1391]; (4) a general combat of Greeks and Trojans.[1392]\n\nIt will be most convenient to deal with the various scenes which can be\ntraced to the Homeric poems (or to co-ordinate traditions) in tabular\nform, noting where possible the actual passages which they appear to\nillustrate. But it must be borne in mind that the vase-painter was\nnever an illustrator; he rather looked to literature for suggestions,\nwhich he worked out on his own lines, and consequently coincidences\nwith or divergencies from the Homeric text must not be too closely\ninsisted upon.\n\nBook I. 187 ff. The dispute of Agamemnon and Achilles.\n\n Possibly to be identified in such scenes as on B.M. B 327, 397, and\n E 13; but very doubtful: see below, p. 133, and Robert, _Bild u.\n Lied_, p. 213.\n\n 320 ff. Agamemnon and Briseis.\n\n Reinach, i. 148 = Baumeister, i. p. 721, fig. 776 (Hieron in\n Louvre); and see B.M. E 76. Achilles and Brise\u00efs are found\n grouped together on two R.F. vases, but without any particular\n allusion: see B.M. E 258 and Helbig, 84 = _J.H.S._ i. pl. 6 =\n Reinach, ii. 91.\n\n 430 ff. Chryses propitiating Apollo.\n\n Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Iliad_, iii. 12.\n\nBook II. 50 ff. Agamemnon in council.\n\n B.M. B 149.\n\n 212 ff. Thersites insulting Agamemnon.\n\n B.M. E 196.\n\nBook III. 259 ff. Priam setting out in his chariot.\n\n _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pl. 10.\n\n 340 ff. Combat of Menelaos and Paris.\n\n B.M. E 20; Duris kylix in Louvre (_Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 =\n Engelmann-Anderson, vi. 23).\n\nBook V. 95\u2013296. Combat of Diomedes and Pandaros (a reminiscence of).\n\n Berlin 764 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 7, fig. 15; and see _Hermes_,\n 1901, p. 388; actually here Diomedes and Aeneas fight over the\n body of Pandaros.\n\n 312 ff. Combat of Diomedes and Aeneas, the latter protected by\n Aphrodite.\n\n B.M. E 73; Tyszkiewicz Coll. pl. 18 (very fine R.F. vase, now in\n Boston); Reinach, i. 120 = ii. 97 (B.F.).\n\nBook VI. 215 ff. Diomedes and Glaukos exchanging arms.\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 11, 1.\n\n 258 ff. (1) Hector arming.\n\n Munich 378 = Reinach, ii. 94 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 14.\n\n (2) Hector bidding farewell to Priam and Hecuba.\n\n Helbig, 134 = Reinach, ii. 94 = Engelmann-Anderson, iii. 38.\n\n (3) Hector bidding farewell to Andromache and Astyanax.[1393]\n\n _J.H.S._ ix. pl. 3 = B.M. E 282; Reinach, ii. 255 = Bibl. Nat. 207.\n\n (4) Departure of Hector.\n\n B.M. B 76, B 235 (?); Louvre E 638 (= Reinach, i. 243), E 642;\n Reinach, ii. 160; _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), p. 260.\n\n 321 ff. Hector conducting Paris to battle.\n\n Bibl. Nat. 207 = Reinach, ii. 255.\n\nBook VII. 162 ff. Combat of Ajax and Hector.\n\n Munich 53; Helbig, 6 = Reinach, i. 104 (see under xiv. 402 ff.);\n Baumeister, i. pl. 13, figs. 779\u201380; B.M. E 438 (Smikros); and\n see Duris kylix in Louvre (_Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 =\n Engelmann-Anderson, vii. 42).\n\nBook VIII. 89 ff. Combat of Hector and Diomedes.\n\n Reinach, ii. 96.\n\n 261 ff. Teukros and Ajax son of Telamon.\n\n Robert, in _Hermes_, 1901, p. 390, mentions a fragment of a\n Corinthian pinax in Berlin with these two figures, which may\n either belong to the above passage, or to xii. 370 ff., or to xv.\n 415 ff.\n\n 397 ff. Iris interrupting Athena (see pp. 39, 77).\n\n Reinach, ii. 296.\n\nBook IX. Achilles lying sick (apparently a _contaminatio_ or confusion\n of ix. 168 ff. and xviii. 35 ff.).[1394]\n\n _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 1.\n\n 173 ff. Embassy of Odysseus and Phoinix to Achilles (R.F. vases\n only).\n\n B.M. E 56 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 3, 3; Berlin 2176 (= Reinach, i.\n 282), 2326 (= Reinach, i. 431 = Roscher, iii. 658);\n Millin-Reinach, i. 14; Reinach, i. 148 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 6\n (Hieron) and 149.\n\nBook X. 330\u2013461. Episode of Dolon; his capture by Odysseus.\n\n Oxford 226; Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, v. (1890), p. 143; Bibl. Nat.\n 526 = Reinach, i. 89 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 5 (Euphronios); Reinach,\n i. 334 = Petersburg 879; B.M. F 157 = Fig. 130. Dolon as single\n figure: Reinach, i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1.\n\n 469\u2013525. Rhesos and his horses.\n\n B.M. B 234\u201335; Naples 2910 = Baumeister, i. p. 728, fig. 782\n (Odysseus and Diomedes with the horses); _Wiener Vorl._ C. 3, 2.\n\n 566 ff. The horses of Rhesos brought to the tent of Diomedes.\n\n Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, v. (1890), p. 146 (a slave waters the\n horses; another brings drink to Diomedes).\n\nBook XI. The fight at the ships.\n\n Munich 890 = Reinach, ii. 99 = Baumeister, i. p. 729, fig. 783.\n\nBook XIV. Combat of Ajax and Aeneas (? l. 402 ff.).\n\n Reinach, i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1; _id._ i. 104 = Helbig, No.\n 6 (? see above, under vii. 162 ff.).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 130. CAPTURE OF DOLON (LUCANIAN KRATER IN BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nBook XVI. 666 ff. Sarpedon carried off by Hypnos and Thanatos.\n\n See Louvre F 388; but this scene is hardly to be distinguished from\n those with Memnon (see below, p. 132).\n\nBook XVII. 60 ff. Combat of Menelaos and Euphorbos, and fight over his\n body.\n\n B.M. A 749 = Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig. 784[1395]; and see E 20.\n\n 123 ff. Combat over body of Patroklos.\n\n Exekias kylix (Munich 339 = Reinach, ii. 36); Reinach, ii. 95;\n Millin-Reinach, i. 49; Berlin 2264 (Oltos and Euxitheos) =\n _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 1 = Engelmann-Anderson, xiv. 76.\n\nBook XVIII. 367 ff. (1) Thetis in the smithy of Hephaistos.\n\n Berlin 2294 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 18, 6.\n\n (2) Hephaistos polishing Achilles\u2019 shield.\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ ii. (1887), p. 242.\n\nBook XIX. 1\u201318. Thetis and the Nereids bringing the armour to Achilles.\n\n (_a_) Riding on sea-monsters over the waves (all late vases).\n\n B.M. F 69; Jatta 1496 = Reinach, i. 112; Roscher, iii. 221\u201324; and\n see Heydemann, _Nereiden mit Waffen_.\n\n (_b_) Presenting the weapons to Achilles.\n\n B.M. E 363; Millin-Reinach, i. 14.\n\n 364 ff. Achilles arming.\n\n Athens 671 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 6; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ xviii.\n 4, 7; vase by Amasis at Boston (_Report_ for 1901, No. 5).\n\nBook XXI. 114 ff. Combat of Achilles and Lykaon.\n\n B.M. F 173.\n\nBook XXII. 188 ff. Achilles pursuing Hector round the walls of Troy.\n\n Reinach, ii. 102 (now in Boston: see _Museum Report_ for 1898, No.\n 42).\n\n 209 ff. Zeus weighing the heroes\u2019 souls in his scales.[1396]\n\n B.M. B 639; Bibl. Nat. 385 = Reinach, i. 89; Millin-Reinach, i. 19\n = Baumeister, ii. p. 921, fig. 994.\n\n 306 ff. Death of Hector.\n\n B.M. E 468; Munich 421; Reinach, ii. 101 = Helbig, 106; _Boston\n Mus. Report_ for 1899, p. 79, No. 31 (parody). Cf. Millingen,\n _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 4 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Odyss._ iii. 15.\n\n 437 ff. Andromache suckling Astyanax (_compare only_).\n\n B.M. E 509.\n\nBook XXIII. 157 ff. Funeral games for Patroklos.\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase (chariot-race, etc.).\n\n 175 ff. Sacrifice of Trojan captives on the pyre of Patroklos.\n\n Naples 3254 = Reinach, i. 187.\n\nBook XXIV. 16 ff. Achilles dragging Hector\u2019s body past the\n tomb of Patroklos.\n\n B.M. B 543 and _Forman Sale Cat._ 306 = Reinach, ii. 100 (now in\n B.M.)[1397]; Berlin 1867 = Reinach, ii. 99; Naples 2746.\n\n 141 ff. Achilles offering his hair to the river Spercheios.\n\n B.M. E 555 (?).\n\n 448 ff. Priam begging Achilles for the body of Hector; the\n Achaean princes deliberating over the ransom.\n\n Munich 404 (= Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 20, 3), and 890 (=\n Reinach, ii. 99); Petersburg 422 = Reinach, i. 138 = Baumeister,\n i. p. 739, fig. 792; Reinach, i. 172 = Vienna 328; Athens 889 =\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 4 (B.F., but poor).\n\n 580 ff. Hector\u2019s body carried out to prepare for burial.\n\n Petersburg 422 (as above).\n\nAmong the events of the war between the death of Hector and the final\nfall of Troy, those which relate to the final exploits of Achilles are\nmost prominent, and especially the encounters with Memnon, and with\nPenthesileia, his death and the events arising out of it. The story of\nAchilles\u2019 fight with Penthesileia, and the death of the Amazon queen,\nis less frequently depicted, but there are some very fine examples\nremaining.[1398] Other representations of Amazons arming, setting out,\nor in combat may be placed here, but except where Penthesileia is\nspecially indicated it is better to regard them as having no definite\nreference to the Trojan story.[1399] A remarkable painting on an\nApulian amphora depicts the slaying of Thersites by Achilles in the\npresence of Phoinix and Diomedes. Thersites had insulted Achilles after\nhis slaying of Penthesileia.[1400]\n\nThe story of Memnon is related on the vases in several scenes,\nbeginning with his equipment and departure for the fray.[1401] Next we\nsee the great fight of Achilles and Memnon over the body of\nAntilochos,[1402] at which the respective mothers of the heroes, Thetis\nand Eos, are usually present as spectators.[1403] The result of the\nfight was fatal to Memnon, whose body we see carried off by Thanatos\nand Hypnos,[1404] or by Eos herself,[1405] for burial in his native\nland. Eos is also represented mourning over him.[1406] The\nPsychostasia, or weighing of souls by Zeus (see p. 130), has also been\nreferred to this event. The body of Antilochos is finally rescued and\ncarried off by Nestor.[1407]\n\nLastly, we find a few possible representations of the death of\nAchilles,[1408] and others, more certainly to be identified, of the\nbattle raging round his body, in which Diomedes is wounded[1409]; also\nof Ajax carrying the body off out of the battle,[1410] and the\nsubsequent mourning of the Nereids over it.[1411] A representation of\nthe ghost of a warrior, winged and fully armed, flying over a\nship,[1412] is to be regarded as that of Achilles, though to what event\nit alludes is not clear. The dispute over the hero\u2019s armour and the\nsuicide of the disappointed Ajax are introduced by a scene representing\nthe fetching of Neoptolemos, his son, from Skyros, where he bids\nfarewell to Lykomedes and Deidameia[1413]; of the quarrel between Ajax\nand Odysseus there are also several representations.[1414] It was\ndecided finally by Athena, who is represented presiding over the Greek\nchiefs as they vote[1415]; or, according to another version, they cast\nlots before her statue.[1416] The armour is then awarded to\nNeoptolemos,[1417] who, according to an oracle, was indispensable for\nthe capture of Troy. Ajax goes mad with disappointment, and finally\ncommits suicide by falling on his sword[1418]; the episode of his\nslaying the sheep is not, however, represented.\n\nThe \u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, or =sack of Troy=, which is so vividly represented on\nmany of the vases of advanced and late style, may be said to begin with\nthe episode of the seizure of the Palladion by Odysseus and\nDiomede.[1419] It is rapidly followed by the construction of the wooden\nhorse and its entry into the city.[1420] There is, however, only one\ncertain representation of the death of Laoko\u00f6n to be traced,[1421] and\nnone of the traitorous Sinon.\n\nSeveral vases, especially of the later epoch, collect the chief\nepisodes in a frieze or in a series of groups, including the rape of\nKassandra by Ajax, son of Oileus, the death of Priam and Astyanax, the\nrecapture of Helen by Menelaos, and the flight of Aeneas; other scenes\nrepresented are the leading back of Aithra by Akamas and Demophon, and\nthe sacrifice of Polyxena and subsequent blinding of Polymestor by\nHecuba.\n\nI. General.\n\n Berlin 1685 (= Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 26, 1) and 2281; Plate\n LIV. = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 25 (Brygos in Louvre);\n Naples 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 34 = Baumeister, i.\n pl. 14, fig. 795; B.M. F 160, F 278.\n\nII. (_a_) Ajax seizing Kassandra at the altar of Athena.\n\n B.F. B.M. B 242, 379; Berlin 1698; Roscher, ii. p. 979.\n\n R.F. B.M. E 336, E 470; Reinach, i. 221, 338 = Roscher, ii. pp. 985,\n 981; _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 33.\n\n Late. B.M. F 209; Roscher, ii. p. 983.\n\n(_b_) Death of Priam and Astyanax.[1422]\n\n (1) Priam only.\n\n B.M. B 241; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ iii. (1888), pp. 108\u20139; Reinach, ii. 109;\n Berlin 3996. [Priam dead in all except second.]\n\n (2) Priam usually seated on altar; Neoptolemos swings body or head\n of Astyanax.\n\n B.M. B 205; Berlin 2175, 3988; Reinach, i. 221, ii. 109; _J.H.S._\n xiv. pl. 9. [See also under I.]\n\n (3) Andromache or Hecuba with body of Astyanax.\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos in Louvre; also identified as\n Archemoros: see p. 118).\n\n(_c_) Menelaos and Helen.\n\n B.M. E 161, 263; Reinach, i. 437, 3 (Hieron), ii. 34; Helbig, 43 (=\n _Mus. Greg._ ii. 49, 2), and ii. p. 325 (= Baumeister, i. p. 746,\n fig. 798); Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 32; Louvre G 3\n (Pamphaios); Reinach, i. 222 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 8, 1; Noel des\n Vergers, _\u00c9trurie_, iii. pl. 39.\n\n(_d_) Akamas and Demophon with Aithra.\n\n B.M. B 244 (?), E 458; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 26, 13.\n\n(_e_) Flight of Aeneas with family.\n\n B.M. B 173, B 280; Reinach, ii. 110 (= Munich 903), 116, 273;\n Baumeister, i. p. 31, fig. 32; Helbig, 201 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 85,\n 2; Naples 2481; Bibl. Nat. 261; Louvre F 122 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1890\u201391, pl. 5, 1.\n\n(_f_) Sacrifice of Polyxena.\n\n Plate XXIII. = _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 15 (B.M.); Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._\n pl. 27, 19.\n\n(_g_) Polymestor blinded.\n\n Reinach, i. 91 = Hill, _Illustrations of School Classics_, p. 170\n (now in B.M.).\n\n(_h_) Ajax stabbing a captive (?).\n\n Reinach, i. 88.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LIV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.\n\n THE SACK OF TROY; KYLIX BY BRYGOS IN LOUVRE.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nAmong the various adventures described by the Cyclic poets in the\n\u039d\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, few seem to have found their way into the vase-paintings except\nthe fate of Agamemnon, the interview of Menelaos with Proteus (told in\nthe _Odyssey_), and, of course, the adventures of Odysseus.\n\nThe house of Atreus and its story will be dealt with later under the\nheading of the Oresteia: we turn now to the =Odyssey=, scenes from\nwhich are surprisingly few in Greek art, and appear to have attracted\nthe painter less than the more stirring events of the _Iliad_. The\nfollowing, however, have been identified:\n\nBook II. 94 ff. Penelope at her loom.\n\n Reinach, i. 191.\n\nBook III. 12 ff. Arrival of Telemachos at Nestor\u2019s house in Pylos.\n\n Berlin 3289 = Roscher, iii. 298 = Engelmann-Anderson, iii. 13.\n\nBook IV. 349 ff. The story of Menelaos\u2019 interview with Proteus.\n\n Naples 1767 = _Mus. Borb._ xiii. 58 = Engelmann-Anderson, iv. 22.\n\nBook V. 228 ff. Odysseus navigating the sea on a raft.\n\n Oxford 262, _Cat._ pl. 26 (burlesque). See also B.M. E 156\n (Odysseus and Leukothea).\n\nBook VI. 126 ff. Nausikaa washing clothes.\n\n Munich 420 = Reinach, ii. 110 = Roscher, _s.v._\n\n Alkino\u00f6s and Nausikaa (parody).\n\n Reinach, i. 153.\n\nBook IX. 345 ff. Odysseus offering wine to Polyphemos.\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 60.\n\n 371 ff. Odysseus putting out the eye of Polyphemos.\n\n Plate XVI. = Helbig, i. p. 435, No. 641 (Aristono\u00f6s); Bibl. Nat.\n 190 = Reinach, i. 64; B.M. B 154; Louvre F 342 = _Gaz. Arch._\n 1887, pl. 1; Berlin 2123; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 35;\n _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 6: see Bolte, _Monum. ad Odyss. pert._ p. 2.\n\n 420 ff. Odysseus escaping under the ram.\n\n B.M. B 407, 502, 687; Karlsruhe 167 = _J.H.S._ iv. p. 249; Louvre A\n 482; Reinach, i. 64: see also _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8 (a very\n early instance); generally, _J.H.S._ iv. p. 248 ff., and _Rev.\n Arch._ xxxi. (1897), p. 28 ff.\n\nBook X. 210 ff. Odysseus and Kirke (see _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 82).\n\n (_a_) Arrival of Odysseus.\n\n Reinach, i. 142 = Roscher, ii. 1195.\n\n (_b_) Transformations of comrades.\n\n Reinach i. 396; Berlin 2342 = _ibid._ i. 418; _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1899, pp. 59, 61 (both early B.F.).\n\n (_c_) Odysseus and Kirke.\n\n _J.H.S._ xiii. pls. 2 (Athens 956), 4 (in B.M.), p. 81 (Oxford\n 262); and see Reinach, i. 142.\n\nBook XI. 23 ff. Odysseus sacrificing before his visit to Hades.\n\n Bibl. Nat. 422 = Reinach, i. 126 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1040, fig.\n 1254.\n\nBook XII. 164\u2013200. Odysseus passing the Sirens.\n\n Athens 958 = _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 1; B.M. E 440; and see _J.H.S._ vi.\n pl. 49, p. 20 (= Louvre F 123); Corinthian aryballos in Boston\n (_Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31).\n\nScenes from the last twelve books are even rarer:\n\nBook XVIII. 35 ff. Odysseus and Iros.\n\n Reinach, ii. 357.\n\nBook XIX. 385 ff. Odysseus recognised by Eurykleia.\n\n Reinach, i. 191.\n\n 394 ff. The story of Autolykos.\n\n In connection herewith see Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 277 for a\n possible representation of the betrothal of Laertes and Antikleia\n (_Hermes_, 1898, p. 641; Robert, _Homer_. _Becher_, p. 90 ff.;\n Hyginus, _Fab._ 201).\n\nBook XXI. 393\u2014XXII. 5 ff. The slaying of the suitors.\n\n Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217.\n\nThe scenes from the =Oresteia= cover roughly the same ground as the\ngreat trilogy of Aeschylos, together with the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_\nand the _Andromache_ of Euripides. We have first the murder of\nAgamemnon by Klytaemnestra with her axe.[1423] Next, Elektra making her\nofferings at the tomb of Agamemnon, sometimes accompanied by her sister\nChrysothemis.[1424] It must be borne in mind that the \u201ctype\u201d of this\nscene does not differ in any respect from ordinary scenes of \u201coffering\nat a _stele_,\u201d and therefore, where the names are not given or are\nobviously modern additions, this interpretation is at best a doubtful\none. The same applies to the next series of vases, on which Orestes\nmeets Elektra at the tomb[1425]; but there seems to be one undoubted\ninstance of Orestes and Pylades with the urn containing the supposed\nashes of the former (cf. Soph. _Electra_, 1098 ff.).[1426] The next\ngroup to be dealt with shows us Orestes slaying Aegisthos,[1427] while\nKlytaemnestra is held back by Talthybios[1428]; and, finally, the death\nof Klytaemnestra herself.[1429]\n\nOrestes is then pursued by the Furies,[1430] and seeks refuge at\nDelphi, where he is purified by Apollo at the Omphalos[1431]; and he is\nalso seen at Athens, where he afterwards sought the protection of\nAthena.[1432] Other vases, nearly all of late date, and therefore under\nthe influence of the Euripidean tragedy, represent Orestes accompanied\nby Pylades, arrived at the temple of the Tauric Artemis, where\nIphigeneia presents Pylades with the letter.[1433] Lastly, we have the\ndeath of Neoptolemos at the hand of Orestes at Delphi.[1434]\n\n ATTIC LEGENDS\n\nIt will now be necessary to deal with sundry isolated subjects, which\ndo not admit of being grouped together round the name of any one great\nhero or any particular legend. There are, however, a certain number\nwhich may perhaps be regarded as having a special connection with\nAthens, and with these we will begin.[1435] Some of the specially\nAthenian myths have already been discussed in other connections,\nnotably the story of Theseus (p. 108), the dispute of Athena and\nPoseidon (p. 24), the sending of Triptolemos (p. 27), and the rape of\nKephalos by Eos[1436] and of Oreithyia by Boreas (p. 80). There remain\nthen the following:\n\n (1) The birth of Erichthonios, who is represented as received by\n Athena from Gaia emerging out of the earth, in the presence of\n Kekrops and his daughters. It only occurs on the later R.F. vases;\n the type closely resembles that of the birth of Dionysos (p. 19).\n\n B.M. E 372; Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 12;\n Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66; and Reinach, i. 113 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ iii. 2. Also a scene from the childhood of Erichthonios:\n B.M. E 788.\n\n (2) The reception of Dionysos in Attica (by Ikarios or Amphiktion).\n\n B 149, B 153, and E 166 in the British Museum appear to refer to\n this, but not certainly. See above, p. 56.\n\n (3) The story of Tereus and his daughters, Prokne and Philomela.[1437]\n\n (_a_) Tereus meeting Apate (Deceit); Prokne and Philomela in\n chariots.\n\n Naples 3233 = Reinach, i. 240.\n\n (_b_) Prokne and the dumb Philomela:\n\n Reinach, i. 308 (in Louvre).\n\n (_c_) Aedonaia slaying Itys.\n\n _J.H.S._ viii. p. 440 (= Munich 799_a_).\n\n (4) The three sons of Pandion, Lykos, Nisos, and Pallas,[1438] with\n Orneus the son of Erechtheus.\n\n Reinach, i. 510 = Roscher, ii. 2187.\n\n (5) The death of Prokris by the agency of Kephalos.\n\n B.M. E 477 (with Siren as soul of Prokris or death-deity).\n\n (6) Kreousa defended by Apollo from the attack of Ion.\n\n Reinach, i. 375: cf. Eur. _Ion._ 1250 ff.\n\n (7) Danaos taking refuge in Attica (?).\n\n Reinach, i. 244 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 4, 2 (in Louvre).\n\n (8) Echelos carrying off Basile.[1439]\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39: see p. 27.\n\n (9) The story of Diomos, the eponymous deme-hero (?).\n\n B.M. B 178 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 116.\n\n (10) Kodros, the last king of Athens.\n\n Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1998, fig. 2148 = _Jahrbuch_,\n 1898, pl. 4.\n\nThe Kodros cup (completely published in _Wiener Vorl._ i. 4) is\ndecorated with groups of figures intended to illustrate the legendary\nhistory of the great Attic families, in accordance with the\ngenealogising tendencies of the period (about 450 B.C.). The outer\nscenes represent Theseus taking leave of Aigeus, and Ajax taking leave\nof Lykos; and Aigeus and Ajax (Aias) are eponymous heroes of two Attic\ntribes. On the Meidias vase in the British Museum[1440] we see a group\nof Athenian tribal heroes, such as Akamas, Antiochos, Demophon, and\nHippothon, together with Medeia, who is also connected with Athens in\nthe Theseus scene of the Kodros cup.\n\n * * * * *\n\nOther isolated myths which occasionally appear on vases, but defy more\nexact classification, may be briefly recorded here:\n\n (1) Admetos and Alkestis.\n\n Bibl. Nat. 918 = Reinach, i. 395 = Dennis, _Etruria_^2, ii.\n frontispiece. See also p. 69.\n\n (2) Agamedes and Trophonios as prisoners fed by Augias.\n\n Louvre E 632 = Reinach, i. 349 (see Paus. ix. 37, 5; _Ann. dell\u2019\n Inst._ 1885, p. 130).\n\n (3) Agrios seized by Oineus and bound on the altar.\n\n B.M. F 155: see Anton. Liber. 37 and Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._\n p. 125.\n\n (4) Atalante offering a cup to her antagonist Hippomenes.\n\n R.F. kotyle in B.M.\n\n (5) Atreus and Thyestes (the latter as suppliant in the former\u2019s\n palace?).\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 23 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 1.\n\n (6) Daidalos and Ikaros, flight of.\n\n Naples 1767 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1884, pls. 1\u20132.\n\n (7) Glaukos in the tomb brought to life by the seer Polyeidos.\n\n B.M. D 5 = Plate XL.: see Apollod. iii. 3, 1.\n\n (8) Kanake\u2019s suicide.\n\n Reinach, i. 448.\n\n (9) Laios, Keleos, Kerberos, and Aigolios stung by bees when stealing\n the honey on which the infant Zeus was fed.\n\n B.M. B 177: cf. Anton. Liber. 19 and Roscher, i. p. 154.\n\n (10) Lykourgos destroying his children in a frenzy.\n\n B.M. F 271; Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125, and 3237 = Baumeister,\n ii. pp. 834\u201335. See also Reinach, i. 333: Lykourgos slaying\n Thoas; and p. 56.\n\n (11) Melampus healing the daughters of Proitos from their madness at\n the altar of Artemis Lusia, in the presence of Dionysos.\n\n Naples 1760 = Millingen-Reinach, 52 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 3.\n\n (12) Merope (a scene from the tragedy of that name).\n\n Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363: see Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._ p.\n 118.\n\n (13) Pandareos with the golden dog of Zeus, which he stole.\n\n Louvre A 478 = _Hermes_ 1898, p. 638; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._\n 1898, p. 586.\n\n (14) Peleus wrestling with Atalante.\n\n Munich 125 (= Reinach, ii. 120 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl.\n 31), and 584 = Reinach, ii. 88; Bibl. Nat. 818 = _Gaz. Arch._\n 1880, pl. 14; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 41.\n\n (15) Peleus hunting a stag.\n\n Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162: cf. Apollod. iii. 13, 3.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 131. PENTHEUS SLAIN BY MAENADS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n (16) Pentheus torn to pieces by his mother Agave and the frenzied\n Maenads.\n\n B.M. E 775 = Fig. 131; Munich 807 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1204, fig.\n 1396; Jatta 1617 = M\u00fcller-Wieseler, _Denkmaeler_, ii. 37, 436;\n _Jahrbuch_, 1892, pl. 5 (and see p. 154); _Gaz. Arch._ 1879,\n pls. 4\u20135 (?).\n\n (17) Phaon with Chryse and Philomele.\n\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 59 (vase in Palermo, formerly\n interpreted as Dionysos and Ariadne: see text, p. 296, for the\n correct interpretation).\n\n (18) Phineus invoking the gods.\n\n B.M. E 291 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 8, 1. For other Phineus scenes,\n see pp. 81, 115.\n\n (19) The madness of Salmoneus.\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1899, pl. 4 (interpreted as Athamas): cf.\n _Class. Review_, 1903, p. 276 and Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk.\n Religion_, p. 61.\n\n (20) Thoas placed in the chest by Hypsipyle.\n\n Berlin 2300 = Reinach, i. 273: see Ap. Rhod. i. 622, and Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ p. 374.\n\n (21) Aktor and Astyoche (uncertain reference).\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1902, pl. 2 (in Boston): see _ibid._ p. 68, _Il._ ii.\n 513 and 658; _Schol. in_ Pind. _Ol._ vii. 42.\n\n (22) The foundation of Boiae in Laconia by the appearance of a hare.\n\n Reinach, ii. 333 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 120 (this is\n exceedingly doubtful).\n\n (23) Two boys delivered to a Nymph (unknown myth).\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 3.\n\nThe story of =Orpheus= often finds a place on vases of the R.F.\nperiod,[1441] but is chiefly confined to two episodes, his playing the\nlyre among a group of Thracians[1442] (the men recognisable by their\ncostume, see p. 179), and his pursuit by the Thracian women[1443] and\nsubsequent death at their hands.[1444] In one scene his head after his\ndeath is made use of as an oracle.[1445] He is often present in\nunder-world scenes (see p. 68), but not always in connection with the\nfetching back of Eurydike.[1446]\n\n_Thamyris_, a quasi-legendary figure, appears contending with the Muses\nfor pre-eminence with the lyre[1447]; on one fine R.F. vase he is\naccompanied by Sappho,[1448] who, though strictly an historical\npersonage, appears among the Muses in quasi-mythical guise; he also\nplays the lyre among Amazons.[1449] Other semi-historical persons\nenveloped in a cloud of fable are: _Taras_, the founder of\nTarentum[1450]; _Midas_, who is generally represented with asses\u2019 ears,\nand is depicted judging the Seilenos who was caught in his rose-garden\nand is led before him with hands tied[1451]; and _Minos_, who appears\nat the slaying of the Minotaur by Theseus,[1452] and in the under-world\nas one of the judges of souls.[1453]\n\n * * * * *\n\nNor must we omit to mention the =Amazons=, who play such a large part\non Greek vases; besides their connection with various legendary events,\nthey are often employed purely as decorative figures. Mention has\nalready been made of their combats with Herakles and Theseus, and of\nthe part played by their queen Penthesileia in the Trojan War[1454];\nand we also find them in such scenes as the Judgment of Paris[1455] and\nHerakles\u2019 fight with Kyknos.[1456] They also contend with\nGryphons[1457]; and many battle scenes in which they are opposed to\nGreek warriors may also be here alluded to as not admitting of more\ndefinite identification.[1458] They are further represented arming and\npreparing for the fray,[1459] or setting out on horseback,[1460] or\ndefending a besieged city[1461]; and as decorative figures we see them\ncharging,[1462] stringing bows[1463] and discharging arrows,[1464]\nblowing a trumpet,[1465] running by the side of a horse or checking a\nrestive animal,[1466] or fastening a shoe[1467]; or in peaceful\nconverse with a Greek warrior,[1468] or else without any distinguishing\naction.[1469] Nearly all these subjects belong to the R.F. and later\nperiods.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe may conclude this section with an account of the monstrous\nsemi-human, semi-bestial creatures, which play a large part in the\ndecoration of Greek vases, and appear in connection with many legends.\nSuch are the Centaurs, half man, half horse; the Gorgons, winged women\nwith snaky locks; the Harpies, also found on early vases in the form of\nwinged women; and mythical creatures like Pegasos, the Chimaera, or the\nMinotaur.\n\n=The Centaurs=, who probably symbolise mountain torrents or other\nforces of nature, appear (mostly on early vases) in combat with\nHerakles, either in troops or in single combat, as in the stories of\nNessos, Dexamenos, and Eurytion[1470]; or, again, in the scenes so\noften celebrated in the sculptured friezes and metopes of Greek\ntemples, where they contend with Theseus and Peiritho\u00f6s,[1471] or with\nthe Thessalian Lapiths.[1472] Among the latter a common episode is the\ndeath of Kaineus, whom the Centaurs buried in the earth, showering\nrocks upon him.[1473] In a more peaceful aspect appear the aged\nCentaurs, Pholos and Cheiron, especially in the stories of Herakles and\nAchilles,[1474] both of whom are brought to the latter for their\nyouthful education.[1475] As the friend of Peleus Cheiron often assists\nat his capture of Thetis.[1476] Centaurs, especially Pholos, are\nsometimes represented returning from the chase,[1477] or as single\ndecorative figures[1478]; in one case they fight with cocks.[1479] Nike\nin one or two instances is drawn in her chariot by male or female\nCentaurs[1480]; and, finally, representations of youthful Centaurs are\nfound, though usually they are middle-aged.[1481]\n\n=The Gorgons= appear almost exclusively in connection with the Perseus\nlegend,[1482] but are besides frequently found as decorative figures,\nespecially on B.F. vases,[1483] in the running attitude characteristic\nof archaic art, in one case between two Sphinxes.[1484] Besides these,\nthe head or mask of the Gorgon Medusa, familiar at all periods as a\ndecorative motive of Greek art\u2014first with an ugly and grotesque face,\nafterwards refined and beautiful\u2014is often found by itself on Greek\nvases, especially as an interior central ornament of B.F. kylikes.[1485]\n\n=Harpies=, conventionally associated through the medium of the Roman\npoets[1486] with the human-headed bird-form which really denotes the\nSiren, are found invariably on vases in the form of winged women.[1487]\nThey are, as has been elsewhere noted (p. 81), associated with the\nBoreades[1488] as symbolical of evil and good influences of winds, and\nprobably should be regarded as personifications of the _southern_\nbreezes (the malevolent influence of which is seen in the sirocco).\nTraditionally they were supposed to guard the Garden of the Hesperides\nin Africa, whence the hot baleful winds come. The story of Phineus is\nprobably to be explained on these lines.[1489] A Harpy appears at the\nrecovery of Zeus\u2019 golden dog from Pandareos.[1490]\n\nThat the human-headed bird represents a =Siren= in Greek art is amply\nattested by the representations of Odysseus\u2019 adventure with the vocal\nenchantresses.[1491] Their appearance on the so-called Harpy monument\nof Xanthos, however, shows them in another aspect, that of\ndeath-deities[1492]\u2014not necessarily of a violent and rapacious\ncharacter, as on a vase in Berlin,[1493] but gentle and kindly. So,\nagain, a Siren is represented in connection with a tomb[1494]; and in a\nscene representing a banquet in Elysium they are depicted crowning the\ndead.[1495] On some vases we find a Siren playing a flute or a lyre\n(probably merely fanciful subjects)[1496]; or, again, two Sirens\nkissing each other.[1497] As mere decorative motives their appearances\nare countless, and many early vases are modelled in the form of\nSirens[1498]; sometimes they have human arms[1499]; in one case a\nbird\u2019s wings and a fish-tail[1500]; or, again, more anomalously,\nbearded masculine heads.[1501] More rarely they are seen flying.[1502]\n\n=The Sphinx= is familiar in the first place as the monster, half woman,\nhalf dog, which vexed the city of Thebes till slain by Oedipus; this\nstory is often alluded to on vases,[1503] but many groups of a man and\na Sphinx have probably no special meaning.[1504] The Sphinx has\nsometimes a sepulchral reference,[1505] and is grouped with other\nfigures, such as Atlas[1506] or a Seilenos[1507] (the latter probably a\nscene from a Satyric drama). Like the Siren, she is exceedingly common\nas a decorative figure,[1508] especially in the friezes of animals and\nmonsters so dear to the early vase-painters. Her invariable form is\nthat of a winged lion or dog with a woman\u2019s bust.\n\n=The Gryphon=, a kind of dragon composed of an eagle\u2019s head and lion\u2019s\nbody and legs (occasionally a bird\u2019s), is almost exclusively\ndecorative[1509]; but on the later vases we find the fabulous combat of\nthe Oriental Arimaspi with the Gryphons who guarded the mountain of\ngold in the Far East (cf. Plate XLII.)[1510]; or, again, they contend\nwith the Amazons,[1511] with Scythians,[1512] or with ordinary Greek\nwarriors.[1513] In one instance an Arimasp woman is seen shooting at a\nGryphon of curious type.[1514] Further, they draw the chariots of\ndeities, such as Persephone,[1515] and Dionysos[1516]; and we have\nalready seen Apollo coming on a Gryphon from the Hyperborean\nregions.[1517]\n\n_Pegasos_, the winged steed of Bellerophon, and the monster _Chimaera_\nwhich he slew, also appear as decorative figures[1518]; and the former\ndraws the chariots of Apollo and of a woman,[1519] and also appears as\na constellation with the moon and stars.[1520] A human-headed monster\nattacked by a hero seems to have been suggested by the Chimaera on a\ncompanion vase.[1521] The _Minotaur_ is generally seen in connection\nwith Theseus, but also appears as a single or decorative figure,[1522]\nand one vase appears to represent the youthful monster in his mother\u2019s\nlap.[1523] Other monsters found occasionally on vases are _Skylla_, who\nappears, not in connection with the story of Odysseus, but with those\nof Perseus and Andromeda,[1524] and Phrixos and Helle,[1525] or as a\nsingle figure[1526]; and _Lamia_, a vampire or ogress in the form of a\nhideous old woman, who is seen undergoing torture from Satyrs,[1527]\nand in another unexplained scene.[1528] Another type of monster, the\nserpent-footed giant _Typhon_, has already been mentioned.[1529] Yet\nanother and a unique type is that of the Nymphs with serpent bodies\nwhich protect vines from the attacks of goats.[1530]\n\nLastly, another creation of fancy, though not strictly mythological, is\nthe \u1f30\u03c0\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd or \u201ccock-horse,\u201d a bird with horse\u2019s head, which\nappears on some B.F. vases ridden by a youth.[1531] This may also be a\nconvenient place for mentioning the common decorative subject of\nPygmies fighting with cranes.[1532]\n\n HISTORICAL SUBJECTS\n\nThe number of vases on which undoubted historical subjects have been\ndiscovered is very limited, though the old systems of interpretation\nexerted much ingenuity in eliciting an historical meaning from many\nscenes of daily life, with or without names inscribed over the figures.\nIn the instances given below, the names are given in most cases,\nobviating all doubts. It is worth noting that the subjects chosen are\nnot as a rule those that would most obviously suggest themselves. They\nfall into two classes, one relating to historical events and persons,\nthe other to literary celebrities:\n\nI. (1) The weighing of silphium by Arkesilas, one of the descendants of\n Battos, who ruled at Kyrene\u2014probably the second of the name (B.C.\n 580\u2013550). This scene occurs on a Cyrenaic cup in the Biblioth\u00e8que\n at Paris (_Cat._ 189: see Vol. I., p. 342, Fig. 92), which is\n probably a contemporary production.\n\n (2) Kroisos, the king of Lydia, on the funeral pyre (B.C. 545). See\n above, p. 6.\n\n Fig. 132 = Reinach, i. 85 = Baumeister, ii. p. 796, fig. 860 (in\n Louvre).\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 132. KROISOS ON THE FUNERAL PYRE (VASE IN LOUVRE).\n]\n\n (3) Harmodios and Aristogeiton slaying the tyrant Hipparchos (B.C.\n 510).\n\n B.F.: _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr._ iii. (1879), pl. 6. R.F.;\n Reinach, i. 449; and see a late Panath. amph. in B.M. (B 605).\n\n (4) Diitrephes shot to death with arrows, B.C. 479 (?). See Paus. i.\n 23, 3, and Frazer\u2019s note.\n\n Bibl. Nat. 299 = _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 185 (but see Reinach, ii. p.\n 255, and p. 15 under Gigantomachia).\n\n (5) The Persian king and queen.\n\n Helbig, p. 281 = Reinach, i. 275 (see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 525).\n\n (6) The Persian king hunting.\n\n Petersburg, 1790 = Reinach, i. 23 (Xenophantos): cf. Naples 2992.\n\n (7) Dareios in council, with various deities and personifications as\n spectators.\n\n Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194 = Baumeister, i. pl. 6, fig. 449.\n\n (8) Battle of Greeks and Persians (with spectator-deities, etc.).\n\n Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 98: see also p. 179; Reinach, ii. 84;\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 55\u201356 and p. 518.\n\n (9) Battle of Greeks and Messapians.\n\n Berlin 3264 = Reinach, i. 270.\n\nII. (1) Sappho.\n\n (_a_) As single figure.\n\n De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 3.\n\n (_b_) With Alkaios.\n\n Fig. 133 = Munich 753 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1543, fig. 1607.\n\n (_c_) Reading her poems.\n\n Athens 1241 = Dumont-Pottier, pl. 6 = Reinach, i. 526.\n\n (_d_) In rivalry with Muses.\n\n Jatta 1538 = Reinach, i. 526.\n\n (_e_) With Eros (named Talas).\n\n _Abhandl. d. k. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ viii. (1861), pl. 1, fig. 1: see p.\n 49.\n\n (2) Aesop.\n\n Helbig, 154 = Jahn, _Arch. Beitr._ pl. 12, fig. 2.\n\n (3) Anakreon.\n\n B.M. E 18: cf. E 266\u201367, 314\u201315; and see generally Jahn, _Gr. Dichter\n auf Vasenb._ in _Abhandl. d. k. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ viii. (1861), p.\n 699 ff.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 133. ALKAIOS AND SAPPHO (VASE IN MUNICH).\n]\n\n (4) Kydias of Hermione (a lyric poet: cf. Schol. _in_ Ar. _Nub._ 967)\n and Nikarchos (a contemporary flute-player) are to be seen,\n according to Jahn (_op. cit._ p. 740) on a psykter in the British\n Museum (E 767), on which these names are inscribed over two\n revellers; but the identification is exceedingly doubtful. See also\n Munich 1096 = Jahn, _op. cit._ pl. 4, fig. 1.\n\nIII. Mention should also here be made of the names of historical renown\nwhich often appear on R.F. vases with the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 (see Vol. I. p.\n403, and below, p. 267), such as Alkibiades, Glaukon, Hipparchos,\nKleinias, Leagros, Megakles, and Miltiades. The question is dealt with\nelsewhere, and it has been shown that only in one or two cases\u2014_e.g._\nLeagros, Glaukon, and Kleinias (the father of Alkibiades)\u2014can an\nidentification with the historical personages be certainly maintained;\nit is, however, of sufficient interest for reference in this chapter,\nbecause the inscribed names may in some cases possibly refer to the\nfigures depicted on the vases.[1533]\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV\n _SUBJECTS FROM ORDINARY LIFE_\n\n Religious subjects\u2014Sacrifices\u2014Funeral scenes\u2014The Drama and\n burlesques\u2014Athletics\u2014Sport and games\u2014Musical scenes\u2014Trades and\n occupations\u2014Daily life of women\u2014Wedding scenes\u2014Military and\n naval subjects\u2014Orientals and Barbarians\u2014Banquets and\n revels\u2014Miscellaneous subjects\u2014Animals.\n\n\nIt is hardly possible to give within brief limits all the illustrations\nthat the vases afford, either directly or indirectly, of the religious\nand secular life of the Greeks. It is, however, feasible to classify\nthese subjects under several headings, and to give a list of the most\ntypical and popular in each case. Thus we have:\n\n 1. Religious ceremonies and sacrifices.\n 2. Funeral scenes and offerings at tombs.\n 3. Subjects connected with the drama.\n 4. Athletic contests, games and sport, and musical scenes.\n 5. Trades and occupations.\n 6. Scenes from daily life of women and children.\n 7. Military and naval subjects.\n 8. Oriental and barbarian figures.\n 9. Miscellaneous subjects and compositions of no particular import.\n 10. Animals (mostly only decorative).\n\n 1. RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS\n\nThese mostly appear in the form of sacrifices, either before a simple\naltar, or before the statue of some deity, a cult-image, or terminal\nfigure. Thus we have representations of the offering of a bull to\nAthena,[1534] sacrifices to a primitive image of Dionysos[1535] or to a\nterminal figure of Hermes,[1536] or a sacrifice or libation to\nPersephone, Apollo, or other deities.[1537] A procession of six maidens\ncarrying chairs and a boy with game is probably in honour of\nArtemis[1538]; and in another scene we have the Dioskuri coming to the\nTheoxenia or feast prepared in their honour.[1539] Many other examples\nmay be found under the heading of the various Olympian deities. In\nother instances we see the preparations for a sacrifice,[1540] or a\nprocession of figures with victims and sacrificial implements[1541];\nthe victims are either rams,[1542] bulls,[1543] goats,[1544] or\npigs.[1545] Other scenes of sacrifice represent the roasting of a piece\nof meat held on a spit over a blazing altar[1546]; or two men stand\nover a large krater on a stand, accompanied by a flute-player.[1547] In\nmany cases the sacrifice is doubtless intended to celebrate a dramatic,\nagonistic, or other victory.[1548]\n\nAmong other religious scenes we have the dedication of a tripod,[1549]\nreligious festival dances,[1550] praying figures,[1551] men or women\nburning incense over an altar or incense-burner[1552]; or scenes of\nlibation,[1553] a Metragyrtes or mendicant priest praying before\ndevotees,[1554] and a priest examining the entrails of a ram.[1555] An\nephebos is initiated and purified by the \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd[1556]; oaths are\ntaken over a tomb,[1557] or omens from birds on a tumulus[1558]; and\nhere perhaps may be mentioned a man making a gesture against the evil\neye.[1559] There is also a scene illustrative of the \u03a0\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, an\nAthenian feast[1560]; and a possible representation of the feast of\nAdonis, and the \u201cgardens\u201d or pots of flowers exhibited on that\noccasion.[1561] Lastly, there are scenes relating to votive offerings,\nsuch as a figure of a child on a column offered to Athena,[1562] a\nyouth carrying a votive tablet,[1563] and others in which similar\nvotive tablets occur.[1564] The number of scenes which can be shown to\nrelate to Athenian festivals, or bear on Greek religious belief and\nritual, might be greatly expanded and multiplied, but at present little\nhas been done in this direction.[1565]\n\n 2. FUNERAL SCENES\n\nClosely connected with these religious subjects are those which played\nso large a part in the life of the Greeks, and found such a strong\nreflection in their decorative art\u2014namely, those which relate to the\nburial and cult of the dead. The relation of Greek vases to the tomb\nhas been discussed elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 141 ff.), and it is sufficient\nhere to repeat that there are only three or four classes of vases which\nyield undoubted evidence that they were expressly made for funeral\npurposes, each belonging to a different period of the art.\n\nIn the earliest period we have the great Dipylon vases (Vol. I. p.\n285), many of which represent funeral processions and rows of mourning\nwomen[1566]; these were made for standing outside the tomb. In the B.F.\nperiod there are the prothesis-amphorae, made likewise for placing\nfirst round the bier and then on the tomb, as plainly shown in one\ninstance[1567]; and in the R.F. period the Athenian white lekythi are\ndecorated almost exclusively with sepulchral scenes. Among the vases of\nthe decadence a whole series of Lucanian and Campanian hydriae and\nApulian kraters and amphorae, as well as some late Athenian vases, the\nApulian examples being usually of enormous size, equally betray the\nspecial purpose for which they were made.\n\nOn the B.F. vases the commonest subject is the _prothesis_ or\n_conclamatio_, where the body is exposed on the bier and the mourners\nstand round in attitudes of grief,[1568] a subject also occasionally\nfound on the lekythi.[1569] Elsewhere we have the carrying of the bier\nto the tomb,[1570] accompanied by warriors, and the _depositio_ or\nplacing of the body therein.[1571] On the vases of this period the tomb\ninvariably assumes the form of a mound (\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 or tumulus),[1572] as it\nappears in some mythical scenes already described.[1573] On the\nlekythi, on the other hand, the tomb is in the form of a tall plain\n_stele_, on a stepped base, crowned with an ornament of acanthus-leaves\nor a palmette, and wreathed with coloured sashes, while vases and\nbaskets of flowers are sometimes placed on the steps.[1574] On the\nvases of Southern Italy it is developed either into a tall column with\naltar-like base,[1575] or into a large shrine or _hero\u00f6n_, with columns\nin front and gabled roof, within which stands the figure of the\ndeceased,[1576] or sometimes an acanthus-plant[1577] or several\nvases.[1578]\n\nThe subjects on the white lekythi and later vases almost invariably\ntake the form of mourners,[1579] or men and women making offerings to\nthe dead, or placing sashes, wreaths, and vases on the tomb.[1580] Or,\nagain, we may note interesting parallels with the Athenian sepulchral\nreliefs of the fourth century, which are mostly contemporaneous with\nthe vases.[1581] Thus we have \u201cfarewell scenes\u201d between a man and\nwoman,[1582] or between two women[1583]; or the equestrian figure of a\nwarrior, as on the famous _stele_ of Dexileos,[1584] or a warrior\ncharging with his spear[1585]; or, again, a hare-hunt at a tomb,\nperhaps with reference to the occupations of the deceased.[1586]\nSometimes the tomb of a warrior is indicated by his armour.[1587] The\ninterior of a tomb is occasionally shown, with a dead boy in it,[1588]\nor a series of vases,[1589] or as in the story of Polyeidos.[1590] In\none instance a group of figures is placed on the top of the tomb.[1591]\nMythological figures are sometimes introduced, as Charon ferrying the\ndead in his bark,[1592] or Hermes Psychopompos[1593]; or the type of\nThanatos and Hypnos (or that of Boreas and Zephyros) with Memnon is\nborrowed for that of a warrior, a youth, or a woman whom they place in\nthe tomb.[1594] Occasionally we see the soul of the deceased as a small\nflitting winged figure.[1595] On the Italian vases the figure of the\ndeceased usually appears inside the _hero\u00f6n_, painted white, as if to\nindicate a sculptured marble figure: a warrior with armour,[1596] or a\nyouth with his horse or dog,[1597] or pouring a libation from a\nkantharos.[1598] These _heroa_ are always surrounded by figures of\nwomen bearing baskets of offerings, unguent-vases, and wreaths, and by\nyouths as mourners.[1599]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LV\n\n[Illustration:\n\n SCENES FROM FUNERAL LEKYTHI (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n 1, PROTHESIS; 2, CULT OF TOMB.\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nApart from the under-world scenes already described,[1600] the future\nlife is not illustrated by the vases, except in a curious scene on a\nB.F. Cyrenaic cup, representing a banquet of the blessed, attended by\nSirens.[1601] There is also one single representation of the subject so\ncommon on later Greek reliefs\u2014the sepulchral banquet.[1602]\n\n 3. THE DRAMA\n\nThe relation of vase-paintings to the drama has already been discussed\nin Chapter XI., in which it has been shown how the tragedies of\nEuripides and the farces of Rhinthon influenced the artists of Southern\nItaly. It may, however, be worth while to recapitulate here the actual\nrepresentations of actors or of scenes taking place on a stage,\ntogether with some account of the numerous burlesques of mythical\nsubjects.\n\nOn one curious B.F. vase (probably late and imitative) we see a rude\nrepresentation of a tragic and a comic chorus,[1603] and occasionally\non vases of this period we find figures of actors dressed up as birds,\nor otherwise in comic fashion.[1604] More important in this connection\nare the fifth-century vases found on the site of the Cabeiric temple at\nThebes, several of which have parodies of well-known subjects, such as\nOdysseus and Kirke, or Peleus bringing the young Achilles to\nCheiron.[1605] It seems probable that these scenes are actual\nreproductions of burlesque performances connected with the worship of\nthe Kabeiri.\n\nWe look in vain for representations of scenes from Aristophanes and the\nOld Comedy, though there are one or two vases which recall (if nothing\nmore) episodes in the _Acharnians_[1606] and _Frogs_.[1607] But for the\nrest, these comic scenes are almost confined to the vases of Southern\nItaly, especially those made at Paestum, with their presentations of\nthe \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 or fourth-century farces. A fairly exhaustive list of these\nwas made some years ago by Heydemann,[1608] and probably requires\nlittle emendation as yet; we repeat below a number of the more\ninteresting subjects, and others may be collected from the foregoing\npages in which myths are burlesqued (the Judgment of Paris, the\napotheosis of Herakles, Oedipus and the Sphinx, etc.).[1609]\n\n (1) Zeus visiting Alkmena: Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 8 = Heydemann,\n _loc. cit._ p. 276: cf. B.M. F 150.\n\n (2) Apollo healing the Centaur Cheiron: B.M. F 151.\n\n (3) Herakles at Delphi; Apollo takes refuge on the roof of the\n temple: Reinach, i. 153, 2 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 318.\n\n (4) Combat of Hephaistos (Daidalos) and Ares (Enyalios): B.M. F 269.\n\n (5) Herakles with the Kerkopes: Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 2 =\n Heydemann p. 281.\n\n (6) Herakles seizing Auge: Fig. 105, Vol. I. p. 474 = Reinach, i.\n 123 = Heydemann, p. 279.\n\n (7) Burlesque of the story of Antigone: Reinach, i. 273.\n\n (8) Rape of the Palladion: B.M. F 366.\n\n (9) Death of Priam: Berlin 3045 = Reinach, i. 370, 8.\n\n (10) Odysseus and Kirke: Jatta 901 = Heydemann, p. 271.\n\n (11) Odysseus in Phaeacia: Reinach, i. 153, 1.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 134. SCENE FROM A FARCE (BRITISH MUSEUM, F 189).]\n\nOther scenes represent single figures, such as Herakles,[1610] or Taras\non the dolphin[1611]; or subjects from farces of daily life, such as an\nactor with a table of cakes[1612] or the drunken return from a\nrevel.[1613] Many scenes, again, have some reference to the Satyric\ndrama, as on the fine vase in Naples, where Dionysos and other figures\nattend the preparations for a performance of that kind[1614]; or such\nscenes as that of Hera and Iris attacked by Seileni,[1615] or those\nrelating to adventures of Herakles and Perseus with Satyrs.[1616] Other\nsubjects have no particular significance, such as an actor attired as a\nSeilenos playing on the flute, or dancing, or with a Sphinx,[1617]\ngroups of actors[1618] (in one case dressing[1619]), a comic actor\namong Satyrs and Maenads,[1620] and single figures.[1621] Some, which\nare apparently mythological, defy explanation.[1622]\n\nThe influence of Tragedy on vase-paintings is an indirect one, and\nentirely confined to the vases of Southern Italy on the one hand, and\nto the plays of Euripides on the other. The subject has been discussed\nat length elsewhere in this work,[1623] and it is unnecessary here to\ngive a list of the subjects on South Italian vases which can be traced\nto the influence of Euripides. It has also been pointed out that this\ninfluence made itself felt, not only in the actual choice of subjects,\nbut generally in their treatment and arrangement, in the\nquasi-architectural setting of many scenes, and in the elaborate\ncostumes of the figures.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 135. ATHLETES ENGAGED IN THE PENTATHLON (BRITISH\nMUSEUM, B 134).]\n\n 4. ATHLETICS AND SPORT\n\nFrom the theatre we naturally turn to the palaestra and gymnasium,\nwhich played so important a part in the public and private life of the\nGreeks, and, like the former, may be said to be vested with a religious\nsignificance, as exemplified in the Olympic and other great games.\nHardly any class of subject is found so frequently and consistently on\nthe vases. The series of Panathenaic amphorae alone supply instances of\nevery form of athletic exercise in which the Greeks indulged.[1624]\nMany vases, especially the R.F. kylikes, represent groups of athletes\nin the palaestra engaged in various exercises, such as boxing,\nwrestling, running, and leaping[1625]; in other cases we have single\ngroups of boxers[1626] or wrestlers,[1627] or of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, a\nsomewhat brutal combination of the two.[1628] A boxer is sometimes seen\nputting on his caestus.[1629] The \u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, which played so important\na part in the national games, is not infrequently found, though often\nonly three or four out of the five contests appear.[1630] Here, again,\nwe also find single figures of diskos-throwers[1631] or\njavelin-throwers,[1632] representations of the long-jump,[1633] and men\nmarking the ground with a pick-axe or poles.[1634] An athlete is seen\nbinding round his javelin the cord or \u1f00\u03b3\u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7 by which it was\nthrown,[1635] and the pick-axe afore-mentioned also appears in such a\nway as to indicate its general use by athletes\u2014viz. for digging up the\nground over which jumps were made, by way of exercising the\nlimbs.[1636] A variation of the javelin contest was one in which the\ncompetitors were mounted, and aimed at a shield set up as a target as\nthey rode past.[1637] Other important contests are the foot-race[1638];\nthe horse-race, generally taken part in by boys (\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2)[1639]; the\nchariot-race[1640]; the torch-race (\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1)[1641]; and the race\nof armed warriors (\u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1).[1642] In the latter contest various\ntypes may be distinguished: the arming for the race[1643]; the\nstart[1644]; the race itself, with runners turning at the end of the\nstadion[1645]; the finish[1646]; and a variation in which the runner\ncarried his armour.[1647] On the earlier vases this race is run in full\narmour; on the later, only with helmets and shields. Frequently the\nvictorious athlete, horseman, or hoplite is seen proclaimed as\nwinner,[1648] and receiving his prize[1649]; also receiving a crown\nfrom Nike.[1650]\n\nAmong more miscellaneous scenes may be mentioned athletes anointing\nthemselves[1651] and using the strigil[1652]; the \u03ba\u03c9\u03c1\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03b1 or\nquintain[1653]; an athlete expiring[1654]; a girl-runner wounded in the\nfoot[1655]; men rolling discs[1656]; acrobats[1657] and female tumblers\nperforming contortions over swords, or lifting objects with their\nfeet.[1658] To the list of palaestra scenes may be added those where\nNike or another deity appears as patron of the palaestra watching the\nathletes,[1659] and scenes of ephebi washing or bathing in preparation\nfor or after their contests.[1660] The athletes are often accompanied\nby trainers, who use a forked stick to direct their movements.[1661] On\nthe later R.F. and the Italian vases it is a regular thing to find on\nthe reverse a roughly painted group of two or three athletes or ephebi,\nusually wrapped in himatia and conversing together[1662]; in such cases\nthe palaestra is indicated by a pair of jumping-weights or a ball\nsuspended.\n\nSubjects coming under the heading of what we call =Sport= are not so\ncommon, and are practically limited to hunting scenes. They include\nhare-hunts,[1663] stag-hunts,[1664] wolf-hunts and fox-hunts,[1665]\nlion-hunts,[1666] and boar-hunts[1667]; in the latter on early B.F.\nvases the figures often have fancy names, with a reference in some\ncases to the hunt of the Calydonian boar, which created the type. Some,\nespecially B.F. vases, depict the departure of a hunter for the\nchase,[1668] or his return loaded with game[1669]; or we see a party of\nhunters resting (all with fancy names).[1670] A group of youths\ncapturing and taming a bull may also be mentioned here,[1671] and\nhorse-taming is similarly depicted.[1672] We see horses being\nunharnessed, groomed, and watered,[1673] or exercised,[1674] and a man\nwith a backing horse[1675]; and we may also perhaps include among these\nsubjects scenes representing riding-lessons, a school for ephebi,[1676]\nor a boy learning to mount a horse.[1677] A favourite subject for the\ninteriors of R.F. cups is that of a young Athenian on horseback,[1678]\noften in Oriental or Thracian costume (see p. 179).[1679] On the B.F.\nvases a horseman or a chariot is sometimes depicted in front view, a\nnotable exception to the preference of the time,[1680] and sometimes a\nthree-horse chariot takes the place of the quadriga.[1681] Among\nmiscellaneous chariot-scenes may be mentioned a goddess (?) and a hero\nmounting chariots,[1682] a girl in a chariot drawn by hinds[1683]; and\npeople travelling in a country cart.[1684]\n\nAmong the various =Games= popular with Greek youths the favourite\nis, perhaps, that of ball, which was often played by men mounted on\neach other\u2019s shoulders in two parties, this being known as\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2[1685]; a rougher variant, in which the ball was omitted\nand victory was probably gained by overthrowing the opponent pair,\nwas known as \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7.[1686] Women and children also play at ball,\nas does Eros.[1687] Equally popular was cock-fighting[1688]; and we\nalso see a group of boys shooting with bow and arrows at a popinjay\nor figure of a bird.[1689] Of indoor amusements the favourite is\nthe \u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, a popular relaxation after a banquet, often seen on\nkylikes and other R.F. vases.[1690] Other games, more suitable to\nyounger boys, are top-spinning[1691] and bowling a hoop[1692];\nothers, again, in which boys and girls join, or even occasionally\nEros and Satyrs, are the games of _morra_ (_micare digitis_, or\n\u201cHow many fingers do I hold up?\u201d),[1693] and its variant, the\n\u1f64\u03bc\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, played with knucklebones[1694]; swinging[1695] and\nsee-sawing[1696]; and flying a kite.[1697] A game of similar\ncharacter to the _morra_ is played by a winged girl, who places her\nhands over the eyes of a boy in a chair.[1698] The so-called magic\nwheel, which was twirled on a string, is almost exclusively used by\nEros on the vases of Southern Italy.[1699] Children with their\ntoys, such as go-carts, vases of various shapes, etc., are often\ndepicted on the smaller R.F. vases of the fine style, some of which\nwere perhaps actually made for playthings[1700]; and we often see\nthem accompanied by pet dogs, tortoises, and other animals.[1701]\nSimilarly there are representations of birds and beasts kept in\ncages,[1702] and of grown-up people playing with pets: a youth and\ngirl with a mouse or jerboa,[1703] or a man with a Maltese\ndog.[1704]\n\nEqual in importance in the eyes of the Greeks was the other great\ndivision of their education, \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae; the wider sense in which they\nused the word, the culture of the mind as opposed to that of the body\n(\u03b3\u03c5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b7), admits of including under this heading school scenes as\nwell as musical performances. Among the former is the well-known kylix\nof Duris in Berlin (Plate XXXIX.),[1705] where a teacher is seen\nunrolling a manuscript on which appears an epic hexameter (see Chapter\nXVII.); a pupil is about to write on tablets; and others undergo\ninstruction on the flute and lyre. Elsewhere we see a youth writing on\na tablet,[1706] or on his way to school[1707]; a man reading from a\nroll[1708]; and a vivid representation of a schoolmaster giving a\nwriting lesson.[1709]\n\nLessons in music,[1710] singing,[1711] and dancing[1712] are by no\nmeans infrequently represented, especially on R.F. vases; we have\nalready seen the young Herakles and Iphikles receiving instruction of\nthis kind,[1713] and on the vases both boys and girls take part in the\nlessons. Dancing scenes include dances of maidens (very common on early\nB.F. vases), or single figures of dancers[1714]; a girl dancing to the\nflute or with castanets,[1715] or a youth to the music of a girl[1716];\na woman dancing the Pyrrhic dance in the attire of a warrior,[1717] and\na sacred Lydian dancer with her wicker head-dress.[1718] The grotesque\ndancers on some early B.F. vases appear to be performing the\n_kordax_.[1719]\n\nGroups of musicians with no particular signification are often found,\ngenerally playing the lyre and flute,[1720] or single figures, such as\na lyre-player in female costume,[1721] or in the distinctive\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd of the musician.[1722] Other scenes relate to agonistic and\nmusical competitions, which often formed part of the great games; thus\nwe have on some Panathenaic vases and elsewhere contests for victory\nwith the lyre[1723] or flute.[1724] Sometimes the victorious musician\nappears receiving the prize[1725] or a crown from Nike[1726]; he\nusually stands on a _bema_ or raised platform. On one vase a poet\nrecites an epic to the sound of the flute; the opening words appear\nproceeding from his mouth.[1727] On another a man is seen tuning his\nlyre.[1728] Singing was a common recreation of banqueters or revellers,\nespecially as seen on R.F. vases.[1729]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Baumeister_.\n FIG. 136. AGRICULTURAL SCENES (CUP BY NIKOSTHENES IN BERLIN).\n]\n\n 5. TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS\n\nThe trades and occupations represented on vases are very varied,\nranging from mining to shoemaking. The representations of miners in\ncaves which appear on some of the early Corinthian _pinakes_[1730] most\nprobably refer to the digging out of the clay for the potteries rather\nthan to mining for metals. This seems the more probable when it is\ntaken into consideration that potters\u2019 workshops and furnaces are so\nfrequently depicted in the same series.[1731] Besides these we find\nlater instances of potters turning vases on the wheel,[1732] painting\nthem, or finishing them off,[1733] as already described in a previous\nchapter: one vase represents the interior of a potter\u2019s workshop with\nvases in various stages[1734]; another, a man painting the design with\na sort of quill.[1735] Young men and girls are depicted negotiating the\npurchase of completed vases in the shop.[1736] Another of the\nCorinthian _pinakes_[1737] represents the exportation of vases in a\nship. Metal-work is represented by a well-known R.F. kylix in\nBerlin,[1738] showing a bronze foundry, with statues in various stages\nof completion; there are also representations of a smithy,[1739] in\nsome of which writers have seen an allusion to Hephaistos and the\nKyklopes (see p. 37). A man is depicted finishing off a bronze\nhelmet,[1740] or carrying a completed terminal figure[1741]; and of\nsimilar import is the subject of Athena modelling a horse.[1742]\n\nAgriculture is represented by vases in Berlin and the Louvre with\nscenes of men ploughing with oxen (Fig. 136) or hoeing, sowers, and\nmules carrying sacks of grain[1743]; and certain vase-paintings have\nbeen interpreted as referring to the digging of a well.[1744] A man is\nseen cutting down a tree,[1745] and another birds\u2019-nesting.[1746]\nShepherds with flocks of sheep and goats are seen on two early Boeotian\nvases,[1747] and also fishermen,[1748] and men crushing grapes in a\nwine-press.[1749] The various stages of oil-making include the\ngathering of the olives from a tree,[1750] the pressing in an\noil-press,[1751] and lastly the merchant measuring out and selling his\noil.[1752] A butcher is represented cutting up meat,[1753] and also the\npreparing and cutting up of a tunny-fish,[1754] and the baking of\nbread[1755]; on a B.F. vase two men weigh goods in a balance[1756]; and\nthe export of the silphium (?) on the Arkesilas vase may also be\nmentioned here.[1757] Lastly, we have a shoemaker in his shop,[1758] a\ncarpenter working with an adze,[1759] and a boy going to market with\ntwo baskets carried on a pole.[1760]\n\n 6. DAILY LIFE OF WOMEN\n\nScenes from the daily life of women form our next heading, and we\ninclude therewith those relating to marriage or preparations for\nnuptials, which play so important a part in woman\u2019s life. The \u201ctype\u201d of\na marriage procession on B.F. vases is, as we have seen (p. 16, and\nVol. I. p. 378), liable to be confused with the subject of the marriage\nof Zeus and Hera; the bride and bridegroom appear in a four-horse\nchariot, accompanied by persons who, if not deities, at any rate bear\nsimilar attributes, such as the caduceus of Hermes or the torches of\nArtemis (as _pronuba_).[1761] In scenes of simpler character the\nwedding party walk in procession or drive in a cart.[1762] On later\nvases the bride is generally led by the hand by her husband,\naccompanied as before in appropriate fashion.[1763] We also find scenes\nrepresenting the bridal pair on their marital couch (_lectus\ngenialis_),[1764] and the return of the bride after the\nceremonies.[1765] Other scenes may possibly represent a\nbetrothal,[1766] a bridal toilet,[1767] or a nuptial sacrifice,[1768]\nand, finally, the arrival of the bridal pair at their house, with a\nservant preparing the marriage-bed.[1769]\n\nMore common, especially on R.F. vases of the fine style, are scenes\ntaken from the life of the women\u2019s apartments (\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2),[1770]\nsuch as women at their toilet,[1771] spinning wool,[1772] or bleaching\nlinen,[1773] or embroidering.[1774] Under the heading of toilet scenes\nare included single figures of women arranging their hair,[1775]\npainting their faces,[1776] fastening on their girdles[1777] or\nshoes,[1778] or putting clothes in a wardrobe.[1779] They also play\nwith cats or dogs[1780] or pet birds,[1781] and there is a subject\nidentified as a \u201cconsolation\u201d scene.[1782] Again, we see women bathing\nboth in private and public baths,[1783] or even swimming[1784]; but in\nsome of these scenes the bath merely forms part of the toilet. Many of\nthese toilet scenes may perhaps be idealised and regarded as groups of\nAphrodite, the Graces, etc.[1785]\n\nA favourite subject, but almost confined to the B.F. hydriae, is that\nof maidens with pitchers on their heads fetching water from a fountain,\nwhich is usually in the form of a building with columns and lion\u2019s-head\nspouts of water; the maidens, five or six in number, carry the empty\nhydriae flat on their heads, the full ones upright.[1786] Women are\nsometimes seen in gardens or orchards, gathering fruit[1787] or (on\nlate R.F. vases) frankincense.[1788] Other miscellaneous scenes which\ncannot be classified are: a woman in bed,[1789] woman with\nfoot-pan,[1790] at a meal,[1791] reading from a scroll,[1792] burning\nincense,[1793] spinning a top,[1794] balancing a stick,[1795] riding in\na mule-car[1796]; two or more women wrapped in one large cloak[1797];\nand an accouchement scene.[1798] Those in which children appear include\na nurse and child[1799]; a child learning to walk[1800]; a mother, and\na child in a high chair[1801]; and a woman beating a child with a\nslipper[1802]; subjects of children playing with toys, etc., have\nalready been discussed (p. 167). Finally, there are the scenes in which\nwomen appear as jugglers[1803] or performing dances in armour,[1804] of\nwhich mention has been made; these were probably amusements associated\nwith banquets (see p. 182; also _ibid._ for banquets in which women,\n_i.e._ courtesans, take part).\n\nA very common decoration of vases, especially the inferior ones of\nApulia, is that of a woman\u2019s head, either as the main subject or in\nsome subsidiary part of the decoration; these, however, are so common\nthat they hardly call for detailed description.[1805]\n\n 7. MILITARY AND NAVAL SUBJECTS\n\nSubjects of a military character on vases are chiefly confined to\nthree\u2014the arming of warriors,[1806] their setting out in chariots, on\nhorseback, or on foot,[1807] and combats of two or more figures.[1808]\nIn all these cases we are confronted with the often-recurring\ndifficulty as to when such subjects have a mythological significance.\nEspecially on B.F. vases, familiar types\u2014such as the departure of\nHector or the combat of Achilles and Memnon, to be identified in other\ncases by inscriptions\u2014occur again and again in the same form, only\ndiversified by the varying number of bystanders, which is generally\nregulated by the space at the painter\u2019s disposal. Even when names are\nadded they are often of a fanciful kind; and thus, for instance, we\nfind combats between Homeric heroes which have no counterpart in\nliterary record.[1809]\n\nIn the scenes of warriors arming we may note certain motives as\nrecurring with more or less frequency\u2014such as that of a warrior putting\non his greaves,[1810] helmet,[1811] or cuirass (Fig. 137),[1812] or\nlacing up his helmet.[1813] Kindred subjects are that of a warrior\ntaking his shield out of his case,[1814] or an archer drawing an arrow\nfrom his quiver,[1815] testing an arrow,[1816] or stringing his\nbow.[1817] We may also note the rarer occurrence of such scenes as the\nharnessing of a chariot (Frontispiece)[1818] or the equipping of a\nwar-horse.[1819] In the departure scenes the usual type on B.F. vases\nis that of a four-horse chariot to the right, which the warrior is\nmounting or has mounted; a woman sometimes give him drink, and an old\nman stands at the horses\u2019 heads. This \u201ctype\u201d is used for the departure\nof Amphiaraos (cf. Berlin 1655), Hector, or other heroes.[1820] It is\nsometimes varied by placing the quadriga to the front.[1821] Or, again,\nthe warrior is seen on horseback, accompanied by his groom,[1822] or a\ncompany on foot set out in marching array.[1823] On later vases the\nmore usual version is that of a warrior receiving a libation or\n\u201cstirrup-cup\u201d from a woman before his departure, but the same scenes\nmight be interpreted as referring to his successful return.[1824]\nUnmistakable instances of the return are those scenes where he receives\na crown,[1825] or is brought back as a corpse by his comrades.[1826]\nThere are scenes representing warriors taking oaths or omens at a tomb,\nor omens by the inspection of the liver of a victim, all before\ndeparture for battle[1827]; and single figures are countless,\nespecially inside R.F. kylikes.[1828]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Hoppin_.\n FIG. 137. WARRIOR ARMING; SCYTHIAN ARCHERS (AMPHORA BY EUTHYMIDES\n IN MUNICH).\n]\n\nAmong the various scenes incident to warfare may be mentioned an\nambuscade,[1829] a wounded warrior dragged out of battle,[1830] a\nwarrior protecting himself from darts,[1831] the capture of a\nprisoner,[1832] warriors carrying dead bodies,[1833] or human heads as\ntrophies of victory.[1834] Besides single figures of warriors,\nheralds,[1835] trumpeters,[1836] slingers,[1837] and archers[1838]\noften appear; or representations of the armour of a warrior[1839]; or\nof the \u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 or parade of Athenian knights.[1840] Of a somewhat\nburlesque character is a scene depicting warriors riding on ostriches\nand dolphins.[1841]\n\n * * * * *\n\nNaval scenes are very rare, but we find occasional early\nrepresentations of sea-fights,[1842] as on the Dipylon vases, the\nvessels on which appear to be biremes.[1843] On the B.F. and R.F. vases\nwe find war-galleys[1844] or merchant-vessels,[1845] usually in places\nsuitable for a row of ships\u2014such as the outer edge of a kylix[1846] or\nthe broad rim of a _deinos_ or large bowl.[1847] These are specially\ncommon on vases of \u201cmixed\u201d technique. The subject of \u201ckeel-hauling,\u201d\nthe punishment administered to refractory sailors, must also find a\nplace here.[1848]\n\n 8. ORIENTALS AND BARBARIANS\n\nOriental figures which can neither be classified as mythological,\nhistorical, or _genre_ subjects sometimes appear on vases. We have\nalready made mention of such quasi-mythological subjects as combats of\nGryphons with Arimaspi or other figures in Oriental attire.[1849]\nPhrygian warriors, too, may be seen in some Trojan scenes\u2014such as the\nsack of Troy or the flight of Aeneas[1850]\u2014but their presence in scenes\nof departure or combat does not necessarily make the subject\nmythological.[1851] It is not always easy to identify the nationality\nof these barbarians, and the names usually given to them\u2014Persian,\nPhrygian, or Scythian\u2014must in many cases be regarded as somewhat\nconventional, except where details of costume are unmistakable.[1852]\n\nArchers in Oriental costumes, wearing peaked caps with long lappets,\nand close-fitting costume of jerkin and trousers (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2), stippled\nover to indicate skin, are seen shooting arrows, on foot or on\nhorseback,[1853] or accompanying the chariots of Greek warriors,[1854]\nor taking part in general combats[1855]; as also warriors blowing\ntrumpets.[1856] Persian warriors in combat with Greeks appear on R.F.\nvases of the strong period,[1857] and may have some reference to the\nhistorical events of the time. It is even suggested that one is copied\nfrom the famous painting by Mikon of the battle of Marathon.[1858] One\nvase represents a sort of triumphal procession, perhaps of a Persian\nking, riding on a camel[1859]; and others depict Persians riding.[1860]\nThose of undoubted historical signification have already been\nmentioned.[1861] Scythians appear as mounted or unmounted\narchers,[1862] a Scythian horseman is attacked by a lion,[1863] a\nScythian pursues two courtesans,[1864] and there is a curious scene\ndepicting the revels of the Scythian Agathyrsi.[1865] Thracians, in the\ntypical local costume of \u03b6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 (a thick cloak) and \u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u1fc6 (a fox-skin\ncap), appear by themselves or with Orpheus and Boreas[1866]; Thracian\nhorsemen are represented setting out[1867]; and after the conquests of\nMiltiades the local costume appears to have become fashionable among\nthe Athenian youth, as they are depicted wearing it on some\ncontemporary vases.[1868] The Thracian custom of tattooing is suggested\nin some of the Orpheus scenes.[1869]\n\nFigures of negroes are not very common on vases, though many of\nfifth-century date and later are modelled in the form of negroes\u2019\nheads; but there is a small class of B.F. alabastra on which they are\nrepresented in the traditional barbarian costume of trousers, etc., and\nare armed with the Oriental battle-axe.[1870] In one case a negro\naccompanies a camel.[1871] Ethiopians are seen conveying the body of\nMemnon or an ordinary warrior to his grave,[1872] and one vase\nrepresents an Ethiopian with a jug.[1873] A pair of Egyptian combatants\ncan be identified on a fragmentary vase from Daphnae (Defenneh).[1874]\nLastly, many of the vases of Southern Italy, especially those of\nCampania, represent combats or leave-takings of native Osco-Samnite\nwarriors, in their typical costume of triangular cuirass, gaily plumed\nhelmet, and scanty tunic.[1875]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 138. BANQUETERS PLAYING KOTTABOS (BRITISH MUSEUM, E\n70).]\n\n 9. BANQUETS AND REVELS\n\nA group of subjects which play an important part on vases of all\nperiods, especially the height of the R.F. style, but which do not\nexactly fall under any of the headings so far enumerated, is that of\nscenes connected with banquets and revels, especially of Athenian\nephebi. In the ordinary \u201ctype\u201d of banquets at all periods (as in other\nbranches of art) the participants recline on couches on their left\nelbows, the right arm being free to use, and that hand often holding a\ndrinking-cup or other appropriate attribute.[1876] In this fashion the\ngods\u2014such as Dionysos, Hermes, or Herakles after his apotheosis\u2014indulge\nin the pleasures of the banquet and the wine-cup.[1877] There are\nscenes which represent the preparations for a banquet,[1878] or young\nmen on their way thither[1879]; and in those depicting the feast itself\na table is often placed before the couch, on which viands of various\nkinds are seen[1880]; or the krater (mixing-bowl) stands by, ready for\nthe drinkers to replenish their cups.[1881] Vases are also filled by\nmeans of a funnel.[1882] The results of over-indulgence are sometimes\nrealistically indicated on the R.F. cups.[1883] After the\ndrinking-bouts come amusements of various kinds, notably the game of\nthe kottabos.[1884] No instances of this occur before the middle of the\nR.F. period, and on the cups of that time it is usually only indicated\nby the manner in which the banqueters twirl their kylikes with a finger\ncrooked in the handle,[1885] preparatory to throwing the remaining\ndrops of liquid at the little figure on the top of the kottabos-stand,\nthe hitting of which caused part of the apparatus to fall with a\nringing noise.[1886] On the latest Athenian and many Apulian vases the\nstand is often represented as well,[1887] not only in position for the\ngame, but borne along by revellers.[1888] It is also carried by\nSeileni, Maenads, or Eros, and used by Dionysos at his banquets.[1889]\n\nOther amusements take the form of music and dancing. The banqueters\nthemselves play the lyre or flute,[1890] or listen to male and female\nperformers on those instruments,[1891] or a young girl dances for their\namusement.[1892] The women jugglers, tumblers, and acrobatic\nsword-dancers who often appear on late vases[1893] no doubt often\ncontributed to the entertainment of the \u201cgilded youth\u201d of their day.\nSometimes a banqueter is represented reclining on his couch and\nsinging, the words in one or two cases being inscribed as proceeding\nout of his mouth.[1894] Not only men but women are represented\nbanqueting, as on the psykter by Euphronios at Petersburg, which has a\ngroup of courtesans.[1895] This character also appears on the R.F.\nvases at the men\u2019s banquets.[1896]\n\nThe \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or revel is equally popular with the banquet. It usually\ntakes the form of a procession of young and elderly men in various\nunrestrained attitudes,[1897] dancing,[1898] singing,[1899] playing the\nlyre, flute, or other instruments,[1900] carrying drinking-cups and\nother vessels,[1901] or balancing them in sportive manner.[1902]\nFrequently these \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 scenes are of a Dionysiac character, the god\nhimself, Seileni, Satyrs, and Maenads taking part,[1903] and sometimes\nhuman beings are mingled with them. On a vase of the series connected\nwith the comic stage (Fig. 134, p. 161) a father is seen dragging a\ndrunken youth home from a banquet; but these scenes of rioting are not\nalways necessarily conceived as taking place before or after social\nfestivities. On a red-figured cup at Petersburg the subject of the\nreturn from the feast of the Brauronian Dionysos is depicted in most\nrealistic fashion, the revellers indulging in all sorts of buffoonery\nand fantastic actions, which suggest an Athenian counterpart of modern\nBank Holiday amusements[1904]!\n\nTo turn to a subject of a quieter character, what may be termed \u201clove\nscenes\u201d are not uncommon on vases, especially of the later period. On\nthe Apulian vases indeed such subjects are innumerable. The usual type,\noccasionally found on earlier vases,[1905] is that of a youth and a\nseated girl exchanging presents, such as mirrors, wreaths, baskets of\nfruit or jewel-boxes, Eros being frequently present.[1906] Scenes of\nthis kind were originally interpreted somewhat fantastically, as having\nsome reference to the Eleusinian or other mysteries,[1907] an idea\nwhich no one would now seriously hold. Similar scenes which have no\nparticular import, such as groups of women, often with Eros, occur on\nmany R.F. vases of the later fine style, especially the pyxides and\nlekythi.[1908] They are all clearly fanciful, and belong to an age when\ntastes resembled those of the eighteenth century in their\nartificiality. There are also some instances, especially on the R.F.\nvases, where the sentiment is more definitely expressed, and couples\nare seen embracing or caressing one another in amorous fashion.[1909]\nIt is not necessary to make more than passing allusion to the many\nvases on which this harmless sentiment is replaced by coarseness and\nopen indecency of treatment, some of which, however, belong to the very\nfinest stage of red-figure painting.\n\nFinally, we may mention here a few subjects of a _genre_ character\nwhich seem to defy classification, and yet are sufficiently definite to\nrequire separate mention. Such are the scenes so common on the\ninteriors of R.F. kylikes, which represent ephebi in all kinds of\nattitudes, or carrying all sorts of objects, the great aim of the\nartist being to find the most suitable design to fill in the circular\nspace.[1910] Thus we have such subjects as a youth putting on a greave\nor sandals,[1911] carrying a wine-amphora[1912] or a lyre,[1913]\nplaying with castanets,[1914] or pursuing a hare[1915]; reclining at a\nbanquet[1916]; armed with a club or a large stone[1917]; a man leading\na leopard,[1918] and a man who seems from his gestures to be treading\nunawares on a snake[1919]; and others of an athletic or military\ncharacter, of which mention has already been made. There are also many\nsubjects which appear to have a meaning, yet are not mythological, and\ncannot be satisfactorily explained; such instances it would, however,\nhardly be profitable to describe in detail.\n\n 10. ANIMALS\n\nThe last class of subjects with which this section has to deal is that\nof animals, as considered apart from human beings, or objects of what\nmodern painters term \u201cstill life.\u201d In the historical chapters of this\nwork it has been shown what a large part the animal world played in the\ndecoration of vases down to the sixth century B.C., and also which were\nthe animals most frequently selected for the friezes and other\ndecorations of early vases. Most noteworthy in this respect are the\nMycenaean vases (Vol. I. p. 273), with their representations of\ncuttle-fish (Plate XV.), the nautilus or argonaut,[1920] and other\nmarine subjects. But to these early vases in the present case no\nfurther allusion need be made; as _subjects_ they have not as a rule\nsufficient interest. On the Attic vases of the B.F. and R.F. periods\nanimals rarely form a principal subject on vases, though they still\nsometimes appear in small friezes on the less important parts of the\nvase; it may, therefore, be of interest to note a few typical instances\nin which this feature retains its prominence. Sometimes we have\nsubjects with action: as, for instance, one in which a panther tears a\nstag, and is attacked by an archer and an armed warrior[1921]; or a\nlion attacks a panther, a bull, or a deer.[1922] Again, the interior of\na B.F. kylix is sometimes filled with an animal subject, such as a\nwounded stag,[1923] or a deer scratching itself or grazing,[1924] or\nother animals[1925]; and in a similar position on one R.F. kylix we\nhave an ass with its pack.[1926] Other animal subjects worth mentioning\nare a sea-serpent,[1927] goats browsing on vines,[1928] a fox caught in\na trap,[1929] cats and mice,[1930] the appearance of the swallow.[1931]\n\nThere is a class of ware made in Southern Italy which takes the form of\nflat plates or dishes, decorated with representations of fish and\nmolluscs, such as the pike or mullet, the cuttle-fish and various\nshell-fish; these were clearly used for eating fish off, and they have\nin the centre a hollow to receive the sauce.[1932] Friezes of fish are\nnot infrequently found on the vases of Apulia. Animals, especially\nbirds, sometimes appear in friezes on the early Ionic vases, such as\ngeese, quails, or guinea-fowl[1933]; cocks and hens confronted are more\ncommon, especially in the B.F. period,[1934] and one late Italian vase\nhas an amusing group of a cock and goose greeting one another with the\nwords, \u201cAh, the goose!\u201d \u201cOh, the cock!\u201d[1935]\n\nLastly, of subjects from still life, distinct from their appearance in\nfigure subjects, we find the armour of a warrior,[1936] a\nwashing-basin,[1937] a flute-case,[1938] a lyre,[1939] a table with\nbread upon it,[1940] and a collection of objects for the toilet.[1941]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1112:\n\n Athens 1259 = Reinach, i. 506; _Mon. Grecs_, 1876, pls. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 1113:\n\n B. M. F 68.\n\nFootnote 1114:\n\n Reinach, ii. 186.\n\nFootnote 1115:\n\n Petersburg 2188 = Reinach, i. 8; Reinach, i. 279 (= Baumeister, i. p.\n 635, fig. 706) and 380. In _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (now at Boston) and in\n Berlin 2430 they do not appear in this connection.\n\nFootnote 1116:\n\n B.M. B 170; Helbig, 78 = Reinach, i. 96 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6,\n 1 (Exekias).\n\nFootnote 1117:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 44 (doubtful; perhaps Zethos and Amphion).\n\nFootnote 1118:\n\n Petersburg 1924 and 1929 = Reinach, i. 9.\n\nFootnote 1119:\n\n Reinach, i. 244.\n\nFootnote 1120:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 363.\n\nFootnote 1121:\n\n B.M. E 696.\n\nFootnote 1122:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase; Reinach, i. 230, ii. 119.\n\nFootnote 1123:\n\n Reinach, i. 361 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 38\u201339.\n\nFootnote 1124:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 442 = Reinach, ii. 79 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 12, 5.\n\nFootnote 1125:\n\n Jatta 1095 = Reinach, i. 119 (Phineus scene); Reinach, i. 226 (in\n Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1126:\n\n Reinach, i. 231, 507 (= Athens 853), ii. 1: see generally Roscher\u2019s\n _Lexikon_, _s.v._ Leukippiden.\n\nFootnote 1127:\n\n B.M. E 224 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 8\u20139; probably\n influenced by the painting by Polygnotos of this subject (see Vol. I.\n p. 443).\n\nFootnote 1128:\n\n Reinach, i. 484: cf. Bibl. Nat. 388.\n\nFootnote 1129:\n\n B.M. B 633 = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 9, 3.\n\nFootnote 1130:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 187: cf. Reinach, i. 361 (rev. of vase).\n\nFootnote 1131:\n\n See p. 19.\n\nFootnote 1132:\n\n B.M. F 479; Reinach, i. 229; _Gaz. Arch._ 1875, pl. 14 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1133:\n\n B.M. F 107.\n\nFootnote 1134:\n\n Munich 611 and 291 = Reinach, i. 419, ii. 47.\n\nFootnote 1135:\n\n Munich 371 = _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 10, 1, p. 145. He\n is represented as attacking Linos, who had found fault with his\n playing.\n\nFootnote 1136:\n\n Reinach, i. 326 (Iphikles here with Linos).\n\nFootnote 1137:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 13.\n\nFootnote 1138:\n\n Reinach, ii. 70.\n\nFootnote 1139:\n\n Furtwaengler, however, thinks the subject is Herakles sacrificing a\n bull (_Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 16: see below, p. 106).\n\nFootnote 1140:\n\n Cf. Paus. v. 19, 1: \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 1141:\n\n See p. 106.\n\nFootnote 1142:\n\n _Isthm._ iii. 90.\n\nFootnote 1143:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 196, B 322; Munich 3 = Reinach, ii. 62; an early\n Athenian example in _J.H.S._ xxii. pl. 2. R.F.: Reinach, i. 242 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ v. 4 = Louvre G 103 (Euphronios); Athens 1166. See\n also Vienna 322 = Reinach, i. 339 and Munich 605 = _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs.\n Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 8, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 1144:\n\n B.M. B 314; Berlin 2057; Louvre F 208 = Reinach, i. 452; Munich 1180\n = Reinach, i. 255, 2, and Helbig, 228 = _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._\n 1853, pls. 5, fig. 2, and 8, fig. 2; Reinach, i. 255, 1 = Baumeister,\n i. p. 49, fig. 56; Reinach, i. 451. The only R.F. examples published\n are Munich 401 (= Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32) and 605 (=\n _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 7, fig. 1).\n\nFootnote 1145:\n\n See above, p. 72.\n\nFootnote 1146:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 322.\n\nFootnote 1147:\n\n Cambridge 43: cf. Pind. _Nem._ iv. 46.\n\nFootnote 1148:\n\n _J.H.S._ xiii. pp. 71\u20132.\n\nFootnote 1149:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 197, B 364 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 6, 1,\n Nikosthenes); Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 1,\n 2 (Kolchos). R.F.: B.M. E 73; Reinach, ii. 47, 68, 1 (?), and i. 223\n = _Wiener Vorl._ D. pl. 5 (Pamphaios).\n\nFootnote 1150:\n\n Jatta 1088 = Reinach, i. 475 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 4: see _R\u00f6m.\n Mitth._ 1894, p. 285.\n\nFootnote 1151:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1152:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 228, B 313; Berlin 1851\u201352. R.F.: Munich 251 = Reinach,\n i. 259.\n\nFootnote 1153:\n\n B.M. E 437 = Reinach, ii. 62 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 6, 2.\n\nFootnote 1154:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 223, B 311; Berlin 1906; Louvre F 38 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1889, pl. 5, fig. 3 (Timagoras); Reinach, i. 227. No good R.F.\n examples (see Reinach, i. 346).\n\nFootnote 1155:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 225; Bibl. Nat. 255 = Reinach, ii. 61. R.F.: B.M. E 162;\n Athens 1202 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 32, 4.\n\nFootnote 1156:\n\n Reinach, i. 339 (R.F.).\n\nFootnote 1157:\n\n B.M. B 226; Helbig, 27; Reinach, ii. 64 (one = Bologna 195). R.F.:\n Reinach, i. 221 and i. 41 (= Petersburg 1272, curious).\n\nFootnote 1158:\n\n B.F.: _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 6 (Proto-Corinthian);\n _J.H.S._ i. pl. 1; Berlin 336 (= Reinach, i. 448), 1670 (= _ibid._\n ii. 64, 1), 1737. R.F.: Reinach, i. 221. Late: B.M. F 43;\n Millin-Reinach, i. 68.\n\nFootnote 1159:\n\n Petersburg 1787 = Reinach, i. 40.\n\nFootnote 1160:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 30; Berlin 1702; Helbig, 5; Athens 657 = _Ant. Denkm._\n i. 57; Louvre E 852 = Reinach, i. 156. R.F.: B.M. E 42, E 176;\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1900, p. 49, No. 17 (Aristophanes and\n Erginos).\n\nFootnote 1161:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 3 (in B.M.); Naples 3089 = _ibid._ p. 10 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 33.\n\nFootnote 1162:\n\n Berlin 1722; Reinach, i. 388.\n\nFootnote 1163:\n\n Louvre F 60.\n\nFootnote 1164:\n\n Oxford 249; Berlin 766\u201367; Munich 783; Reinach, ii. 59, 10. Late\n R.F.: Berlin 2359. Parody: Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 5, 2 = _Jahrbuch_,\n i. p. 280.\n\nFootnote 1165:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 393 = Reinach, i. 397.\n\nFootnote 1166:\n\n B.F.: Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 169 (Caeretan hydria). R.F.: B.M. E\n 38; Athens 1175 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 18; Berlin 2534. See\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 53, note 1.\n\nFootnote 1167:\n\n B.M. E 364; Reinach, i. 229, 338, 392.\n\nFootnote 1168:\n\n Berlin 4027 = Reinach, i. 338: cf. Aelian, _Var. Hist._ i. 24.\n\nFootnote 1169:\n\n Reinach, i. 384, and see i. 475 and ii. p. 423; Louvre E 633 (capture\n of heralds): see for the myth, Paus. ix. 17, 2, ix. 25, 4; Diod. Sic.\n iv. 10; Apollod. ii. 4, 11.\n\nFootnote 1170:\n\n Athens 970.\n\nFootnote 1171:\n\n Berlin 1927 (?); B.M. E 290.\n\nFootnote 1172:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 37 (R.F. in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1173:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 174.\n\nFootnote 1174:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 33.\n\nFootnote 1175:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 195, B 316; Bibl. Nat. 251 = Reinach, ii. 252. R.F.:\n B.M. E 255 (= Hoppin, _Euthymides_, pl. 5); E 318, E 458; Berlin 2159\n = Wernicke-Graef, _Ant. Denkm._ pl. 27, fig. 3; Munich 401 =\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32 (Phintias); Reinach, i. 224. Late:\n Naples 1762 = Millingen-Reinach, 30.\n\nFootnote 1176:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 1177:\n\n Munich 1294 = Reinach, i. 403; _ibid._ ii. 4 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1178:\n\n B.M. B 57.\n\nFootnote 1179:\n\n Cambridge 100; and see _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 1180:\n\n Helbig, 232 = Reinach, ii. 59; a B.F. example in _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1902,\n pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 1181:\n\n B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193.\n\nFootnote 1182:\n\n B.M. F 494; Berlin 3291; heads of Herakles and Omphale, Bibl. Nat.\n 866.\n\nFootnote 1183:\n\n Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151 = Rayet and Collignon, pl. 6; _Mon.\n Grecs_, 21\u20132 (1893\u201394), pl. 14 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1184:\n\n B.M. B 165; Athens 477 = Reinach, i. 519 (Melian vase): see note 1186\n below.\n\nFootnote 1185:\n\n _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 19; _Jahreshefte_, 1900, p. 64. The slaying of\n Iphitos is represented on a white-ground cup in the Louvre,\n _Monuments Piot_, ii. p. 53.\n\nFootnote 1186:\n\n Athens 477, according to Pottier in _Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques_,\n 1895, p. 389.\n\nFootnote 1187:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 119 (in Berlin); a burlesque of the subject is\n given in Fig. 105, Vol. I. p. 474.\n\nFootnote 1188:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 71.\n\nFootnote 1189:\n\n Reinach, ii. 75.\n\nFootnote 1190:\n\n Fig. 107, Vol. I. p. 480.\n\nFootnote 1191:\n\n Oxford 322; Reinach, ii. 62 = Roscher, iii. p. 762.\n\nFootnote 1192:\n\n Naples 3359 = Reinach, i. 400; and see note 1186.\n\nFootnote 1193:\n\n B.M. F 68.\n\nFootnote 1194:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 38, p. 422.\n\nFootnote 1195:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 822 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 10; _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._\n 1855, pls. 1\u20132. See above, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 1196:\n\n Reinach, i. 226.\n\nFootnote 1197:\n\n Berlin 2164: cf. Athens 1119 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pp. 146, 149.\n\nFootnote 1198:\n\n B.M. B 473; Berlin 1856, 1919.\n\nFootnote 1199:\n\n Berlin 3256 (Argonautic?).\n\nFootnote 1200:\n\n B.M. E 494 (? see p. 106, note 1216); Reinach, ii. 180 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 51. On Chryse see _Class. Review_, 1888, p. 123;\n the same figure occurs on the B.M. vase E 224 in connection with the\n rape of the Leukippidae.\n\nFootnote 1201:\n\n B.M. E 505: cf. for statue B.M. F 233.\n\nFootnote 1202:\n\n Jatta 423 = Reinach, i. 205.\n\nFootnote 1203:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 1204:\n\n Reinach; i. 257; and cf. B.M. F 211, F 278 for H. at Olympia; also\n Stackelberg, pl. 42.\n\nFootnote 1205:\n\n B.M. B 198, B 498; Reinach, ii. 74\u20135; Louvre F 116\u2013117 = Reinach, i.\n 297 (Nikosthenes); Helbig, 93 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 54, 2.\n\nFootnote 1206:\n\n B.M. D 14; Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 24 (Duris);\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 42, 4; Reinach, ii. 298.\n\nFootnote 1207:\n\n B.M. B 301, B 497, E 66; Berlin 1961 = Reinach, ii. 43; Berlin 2534\n (with Seilenos); Munich 388 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 4 (B.F.\n and R.F. \u201cbilingual\u201d); Reinach. ii. 39; Millin-Reinach, i. 37; Athens\n 764 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 3, 1.\n\nFootnote 1208:\n\n B.M. B 167.\n\nFootnote 1209:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 44 (in Petersburg).\n\nFootnote 1210:\n\n Reinach, ii. 318; Helbig, ii. p. 327 = Millingen-Reinach, 35;\n _Philologus_, 1868, pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 1211:\n\n B.M. B 229: cf. Berlin 4027 and B.M. E 814.\n\nFootnote 1212:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1213:\n\n Berlin 2293, 3988; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 467; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. 1;\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1214:\n\n B.M. B 147; Reinach, ii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1215:\n\n B.M. B 228; Berlin 1857; Helbig, 25; Reinach, ii. 43: cf. Athens 791\n = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 3, 2.\n\nFootnote 1216:\n\n See B.M. E 494; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 275; Roscher, _Lexikon_, i. p.\n 2235; Bacchylides, _Od._ 16; also p. 96, note 1211.\n\nFootnote 1217:\n\n B.M. E 370.\n\nFootnote 1218:\n\n Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130 = Baumeister, i. p. 307, fig. 322;\n Reinach, i. 481.\n\nFootnote 1219:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 199\u2013201, 211 (Pl. XXIX.), 230, 317\u201321; Reinach, ii. 72;\n Oxford 212 (no deities). R.F.: Helbig, 230 (A. about to mount\n chariot).\n\nFootnote 1220:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i. 399 and 254.\n\nFootnote 1221:\n\n Berlin 1827 = Reinach, ii. 74; Reinach, ii. 161.\n\nFootnote 1222:\n\n With Athena: B.M. F 238; Millingen-Reinach, 36. With Nike: B.M. F 64,\n F 102; Reinach, i. 368, 481, and ii. 204; _Wiener Vorl._ E. pls. 7,\n 8, fig. 3 = _Mon. Grecs_, 1876, pl. 3 (in Louvre; parody; chariot\n drawn by Centaurs).\n\nFootnote 1223:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 166, B 379, B 424; Berlin 1691, 1857; Reinach, i. 359,\n 1, ii. 76 (in Berlin). R.F.: B.M. E 262 = Reinach, ii. 75; Berlin\n 2278 = Reinach, i. 70 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9 (Sosias); Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, pl. 20; Reinach, i. 222, 408 (Fig. 127). Late: Naples 2408\n = Reinach, i. 323; Petersburg 1775 = Reinach, i. 302 (parody).\n\nFootnote 1224:\n\n B.F.: Louvre F 30 = _Rev. Arch._ xiii. (1889), pl. 4 (Amasis); F\n 116\u2013117 = Reinach, i. 297 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 4, figs. 1\u20132\n (Nikosthenes); Bibl. Nat. 254; Berlin 1961 = Reinach, ii. 43. R.F.:\n Berlin 2626; Reinach, ii. 76, 186.\n\nFootnote 1225:\n\n B.M. E 262; Bonn 720 = _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 69; Athens 1346 =\n Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 15; B.M. F 178; Reinach, i. 251 (all R.F. or\n late).\n\nFootnote 1226:\n\n B.M. E 244; Berlin 3257; _Forman Sale Cat._ 364: see p. 77.\n\nFootnote 1227:\n\n Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162.\n\nFootnote 1228:\n\n B.M. E 264 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, 8, 1; a similar vase in _R\u00f6m.\n Mitth._ 1894, pl. 8, has been otherwise interpreted (see below, p.\n 110, note 1233).\n\nFootnote 1229:\n\n Petersburg 830 = Reinach, i. 150 = _Wiener Vorl._ A. 8 (Hieron).\n\nFootnote 1230:\n\n See on the subject generally _Museo Ital._ iii. p. 235.\n\nFootnote 1231:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1884, pls. 44\u20136.\n\nFootnote 1232:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 2.\n\nFootnote 1233:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14, and pp. 277\u201379 for three other instances;\n the last, however, is susceptible of other interpretations.\n\nFootnote 1234:\n\n Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1999, fig. 2149. The B.M. vase E\n 264 (see p. 108, note 1228) _may_ have the same meaning, in which\n case the woman holding the clue is a sort of \u201cshort-hand\u201d allusion to\n the adventure awaiting him. See also Reinach, ii. 81 (Theseus\n receiving libation from Aithra).\n\nFootnote 1235:\n\n B.M. E 41 = Reinach, i. 532 (Chachrylion).\n\nFootnote 1236:\n\n Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; Reinach, i. 222 = Plate XXXIX.\n (also interpreted as Peleus and Thetis, see p. 120); Harrison and\n Verrall, p. cxxxi (in Vienna): see also _Boston Mus. Report_ for\n 1900, p. 67, No. 25.\n\nFootnote 1237:\n\n Reinach, i. 91; ii. 264 (= Bibl. Nat. 421).\n\nFootnote 1238:\n\n Munich 7; B.M. E 41; Reinach, i. 87.\n\nFootnote 1239:\n\n B.M. E 157, 272, 450; Reinach, ii. 163 (now in B.M.; a complete and\n magnificent example); Millin-Reinach, i. 10; Naples 2421, 3253, and\n R.C. 239 = Reinach, ii. 278, i. 330, i. 482 (the first of these given\n by Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 26\u20138).\n\nFootnote 1240:\n\n B.M. F 272; Munich 368 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 59, 60, and 805\n = Reinach, i. 391; Reinach, ii. 181\u201382; _Boston Mus. Report_ for\n 1900, p. 50, No. 17 (Erginos and Aristophanes); and see under\n Centaurs, p. 145.\n\nFootnote 1241:\n\n Munich 410 = Reinach, ii. 86 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 33.\n\nFootnote 1242:\n\n Berlin 1731 = Roscher, iii. p. 1782, has been interpreted as the rape\n of Helene.\n\nFootnote 1243:\n\n See Furtwaengler, _op. cit._ p. 177; and cf. Bibl. Nat. 256 =\n Reinach, ii. 254. Berlin 3143 = Reinach, i. 373, may also represent a\n rape by Theseus.\n\nFootnote 1244:\n\n Jatta 1094 = Reinach, i. 356: see also Reinach, i. 108, 455, and\n above, p. 68.\n\nFootnote 1245:\n\n Munich 849 = Reinach, i. 258.\n\nFootnote 1246:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1247:\n\n See B.M. F 123 and F 272; also a vase in Berlin (_Arch. Anzeiger_,\n 1890, p. 89), where Eros shoots with his bow at Phaidra; Hippolytos\n is present. Cf. also Naples 2900 = Millingen-Reinach, 41.\n\nFootnote 1248:\n\n B.M. F 279.\n\nFootnote 1249:\n\n Petersburg 1357 = Reinach, i. 244, and 1723 = Baumeister, i. p. 406,\n fig. 448; Naples 3140 = _Mus. Borb._ ii. 30, 4; _Monuments Piot_, x.\n pl. 8 (in Boston); and cf. Berlin 2300 = Reinach, i. 273.\n\nFootnote 1250:\n\n B.M. B 155, F 490 (?).\n\nFootnote 1251:\n\n B.M. F 83.\n\nFootnote 1252:\n\n Athens 1956 = _Ath. Mitth._ xi. (1886), pl. 10.\n\nFootnote 1253:\n\n B.M. B 471 = Fig. 97, Vol. I. p. 382; Berlin 3022 = Reinach, i. 172;\n Munich 1187 = Reinach, ii. 109: cf. Bibl. Nat. 456.\n\nFootnote 1254:\n\n B.M. B 248, B 380; E 181, E 399; F 500; Berlin 1682 = Reinach, i.\n 441; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290; Munich 619 = Reinach, ii. 48.\n\nFootnote 1255:\n\n B.M. E 493; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2 (a fine example in the Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1256:\n\n Munich 619, 910 = Reinach, ii. 48\u20139; _Ant. Denkm._ i. 57. For\n Chrysaor see Reinach, i. 172 (Louvre E 857), ii. 49, and Stackelberg,\n 39.\n\nFootnote 1257:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1258:\n\n B.M. E 169 = _J.H.S._ xxiv. pl. 5, and F 185; Engelmann, _Arch.\n Studien_, p. 6; and cf. Naples 3225; Millin-Reinach, ii. 3;\n _Jahrbuch_, xi. (1896), pl. 2 (in Berlin). For the correct\n explanation of the first-named vase see Petersen in _op. cit._ p. 104\n ff.\n\nFootnote 1259:\n\n Berlin 1652 = Reinach, i. 217; Roscher, iii. p. 2053 (in Berlin; a\n fine instance); Naples 3225, S.A. 24, S.A. 708 = Reinach, i. 188.\n\nFootnote 1260:\n\n Reinach, i. 344; _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), p. 38: cf. _Philologus_,\n 1868, pl. 1, fig. 1, and pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 1261:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 3: see _Philologus_, 1868, pl. 1, figs. 2\u20133, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 1262:\n\n Berlin 2377 = Reinach, i. 289.\n\nFootnote 1263:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 1264:\n\n Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 46; Reinach, i. 284.\n\nFootnote 1265:\n\n B.M. E 610, E 715 (Plate XLVI., fig. 4).\n\nFootnote 1266:\n\n B.M. B 2: cf. Bibl. Nat. 977 for a similar figure inaccurately (?)\n inscribed Oinomaos.\n\nFootnote 1267:\n\n B.M. F 331; Naples 1982 = Reinach, i. 292 (very doubtful; Oinomaos\n absent: see p. 123, note 1361).\n\nFootnote 1268:\n\n B.M. F 271, 278; Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379; Athens 968 =\n _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 34 (B.F.); Reinach, i. 290 = _Wiener Vorl._ i.\n pl. 10, 2; Naples 2858 = _ibid._ pl. 10, 1 (subject doubtful).\n\nFootnote 1269:\n\n Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235; Reinach, i. 163 = Baumeister, ii. p.\n 1203, fig. 1395; Naples S.A. 697.\n\nFootnote 1270:\n\n Berlin 3072 = Reinach, i. 204.\n\nFootnote 1271:\n\n Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379.\n\nFootnote 1272:\n\n Naples 3222 = Reinach, i. 167.\n\nFootnote 1273:\n\n Jatta 1499 = Reinach, i. 127 = _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 8; _Boston Mus.\n Report_, 1900, p. 68, No. 25.\n\nFootnote 1274:\n\n Naples 2418 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 69; _Wiener Vorl._\n viii. 9, 1 = Roscher, ii. 282; Reinach, i. 287, ii. 318.\n\nFootnote 1275:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 4; Louvre A 478; Reinach, i. 108\n (Karlsruhe 388), 517 (Athens 1589), 331 (four late examples), and ii.\n 279; and see B.M. B 105, B 162; Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 195; Berlin\n 3258.\n\nFootnote 1276:\n\n Petersburg 427 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 3 (see Vol. I. p. 478 and\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1874, p. 35).\n\nFootnote 1277:\n\n Baumeister, i. p. 303, fig. 319; and see Reinach, i. 331, and Munich\n 805 = _ibid._ i. 277 (the latter so interpreted by Flasch, _Angebl.\n Argonautenbilder_, p. 30 ff.).\n\nFootnote 1278:\n\n B.F.: Fran\u00e7ois vase; Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1889, 2, 2; Berlin 1705; Helbig, 34 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 90; Reinach,\n i. 230. R.F.: Reinach, ii. 162, 210.\n\nFootnote 1279:\n\n Roscher, iii. p. 1811.\n\nFootnote 1280:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 37 (Plate XXI.), F 154; Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 170.\n See also p. 166.\n\nFootnote 1281:\n\n Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401.\n\nFootnote 1282:\n\n Naples 3412 = Reinach, i. 498 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 2, 1 (Assteas;\n Phrixos also on ram); Reinach, ii. 309. For Phrixos on ram see Berlin\n 3345, and _Festschr. f\u00fcr Overbeck_, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 1283:\n\n _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 12 (the antiquity of this vase is very\n questionable).\n\nFootnote 1284:\n\n Naples S.A. 270 = Reinach, i. 319.\n\nFootnote 1285:\n\n Reinach, i. 226, 1\u20133: see _Festschrift f\u00fcr O. Benndorf_, p. 67 and p.\n 133, note 5.\n\nFootnote 1286:\n\n See p. 81.\n\nFootnote 1287:\n\n Ionic cup in W\u00fcrzburg, Reinach, i. 201 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,\n pl. 41; B.M. E 302; Jatta 1095 = Reinach, i. 119; Stackelberg, pl. 38\n = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 15; and see Berlin 1682.\n\nFootnote 1288:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 442 = Reinach, ii. 79 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 12, 5.\n\nFootnote 1289:\n\n _J.H.S._ x. p. 118 = Reinach, i. 226.\n\nFootnote 1290:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 51 = Reinach, ii. 180: see above, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 1291:\n\n Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 277 = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 3; but see Flasch,\n _Angebl. Argonautenb._ p. 30 ff., and p. 137 (Laertes and Antikleia).\n\nFootnote 1292:\n\n Petersburg 422 = Reinach, i. 139; Baumeister, i. p. 123, fig. 128;\n Millingen-Reinach, 6.\n\nFootnote 1293:\n\n Helbig, ii. p. 328 = Reinach, i. 102 = Baumeister, i. p. 124, fig.\n 129; Reinach, i. 137; but see Flasch, _Angebl. Argonautenb._ p. 24 ff.\n\nFootnote 1294:\n\n Naples 2413 = Roscher, ii. 81, and 3252 = Reinach, i. 449.\n\nFootnote 1295:\n\n Naples 3248 = Roscher, ii. 83.\n\nFootnote 1296:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 7 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1297:\n\n Jatta 1501 = Reinach, i. 361 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 38\u201339.\n\nFootnote 1298:\n\n Helbig, 179 = Reinach, i. 359 (ram led to caldron). B.M. B 221, B\n 328; Berlin 2188; Reinach, ii. 81 (ram placed in caldron; daughters\n of Pelias usually present).\n\nFootnote 1299:\n\n Reinach, i. 336; _ibid._ 359 = Helbig 179 (P. led to slaughter by\n daughters; M. waiting with knife).\n\nFootnote 1300:\n\n B.M. E 163 (J. as old man; ram in caldron).\n\nFootnote 1301:\n\n Naples S.A. 526.\n\nFootnote 1302:\n\n Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363 = Baumeister, ii. p. 903, fig. 980;\n Reinach, i. 402.\n\nFootnote 1303:\n\n Naples 3221 = Reinach, i. 402.\n\nFootnote 1304:\n\n Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. 1999, fig. 2149.\n\nFootnote 1305:\n\n B.M. E 224.\n\nFootnote 1306:\n\n Cf. the poem by Stesichoros, \u1f0cthla \u1f10p\u1f76 Pel\u03afa\n\nFootnote 1307:\n\n Berlin 1655 = Reinach, i. 199: see Vol. I. p. 319.\n\nFootnote 1308:\n\n _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xxiii. p. 158; but see _Burlington Fine Arts\n Club Cat._ (1903), p. 92, for another explanation; also p. 47.\n\nFootnote 1309:\n\n The only literary source for these stories (before Roman times) is in\n the tragic poets. But subjects from the _Septem_ of Aeschylus are not\n found on vases; and it is not until the Hellenistic period that any\n real references to the Sophoclean and Euripidean plays occur. On some\n of the Megarian bowls (Vol. I. p. 500) the subjects adhere very\n closely to the text.\n\nFootnote 1310:\n\n B.M. E 81; Petersburg 2189 = Reinach, i. 5.\n\nFootnote 1311:\n\n B.M. B 505\u20136.\n\nFootnote 1312:\n\n Louvre E 669 = Reinach, i. 435, 1; Berlin 2634 = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 7\n = Roscher, ii. 837; Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl.\n 27 (Assteas); Millin-Reinach, ii. 7 (in Louvre); _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v.\n (1890), p. 343.\n\nFootnote 1313:\n\n Athens 1858 = Reinach, i. 396: see p. 155, note 1548, for another\n interpretation; also _Arch. Zeit._ 1865, p. 68, and Frazer,\n _Pausanias_, v. p. 49.\n\nFootnote 1314:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 3 = Roscher, ii. 842.\n\nFootnote 1315:\n\n Berlin 3296 = Reinach, i. 421 = Baumeister, i. p. 456, fig. 502. The\n vase given in Millin-Reinach, ii. 44, may represent Zethos and\n Amphion with Antiope.\n\nFootnote 1316:\n\n Reinach, i. 379.\n\nFootnote 1317:\n\n Berlin 3239; Naples 1769; _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 11 = Roscher, i. p. 903.\n\nFootnote 1318:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 372 = Reinach, i. 92 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1049, fig. 1266.\n\nFootnote 1319:\n\n B.M. E 696 = _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 81.\n\nFootnote 1320:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 539; Stackelberg, pl. 16. R.F.: B.M. E 156; Vienna 336 =\n Reinach, i. 177; _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 314 (Oxford); Helbig, 186 =\n Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pl. 73. See also parodies in _Philologus_,\n 1897, pl. 1 (in Boston), and _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 119 (Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1321:\n\n See p. 147; _q.v._ also for Sphinx seizing Theban youth.\n\nFootnote 1322:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 6.\n\nFootnote 1323:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 8, 8 = Reinach, i. 376: see Roscher, iii. p. 736.\n\nFootnote 1324:\n\n Naples 2868 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 10. See also Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1325:\n\n B.F.: Berlin 1655 = Reinach, i. 199 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 10;\n Kopenhagen 112 = Millingen-Reinach, 20; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 16 (?);\n Roscher, i. p. 295. R.F.: Munich 151 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ iii. 5;\n Petersburg 1650 = Reinach, i. 120, and 406 = _ibid._ i. 480.\n\nFootnote 1326:\n\n B.M. B 247; Berlin 1712.\n\nFootnote 1327:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 20.\n\nFootnote 1328:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1899, p. 361.\n\nFootnote 1329:\n\n Berlin 2395 = Reinach, i. 461: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 258.\n\nFootnote 1330:\n\n Athens 960 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11, 8.\n\nFootnote 1331:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, viii. (1893), pl. 1: see Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,\n p. 56.\n\nFootnote 1332:\n\n B.M. D 7; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 466 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11,\n 1.\n\nFootnote 1333:\n\n Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235 = Baumeister, i. p. 114, fig. 120;\n perhaps also Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1334:\n\n Munich 144: cf. Naples 1766 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 4, 4; and\n see Reinach, ii. 284, Roscher, i. p. 296, and Stat. _Theb._ v. 699 ff.\n\nFootnote 1335:\n\n Kopenhagen 64 = Reinach, i. 259 = Baumeister, i. p. 17, fig. 19.\n\nFootnote 1336:\n\n Louvre E 640 = Reinach, i. 147 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11, 4;\n Millingen-Reinach, 22 (?).\n\nFootnote 1337:\n\n Petersburg 452 = Reinach, i. 161 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1338:\n\n _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 17, 1 (?).\n\nFootnote 1339:\n\n Jatta 423 and Berlin 3240 = Reinach, i. 205, 409 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1889, pl. 9, figs. 14, 12; B.M. F 175 (?): see also Jatta 414 =\n Reinach, i. 467 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 2.\n\nFootnote 1340:\n\n Reinach, i. 273.\n\nFootnote 1341:\n\n Petersburg 2188 = Reinach, i. 8; Berlin 2430 = _ibid._ i. 287 (Helen\n coming forth); Reinach, i. 279 (= Baumeister, i. p. 635, fig. 706)\n and 380; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 38; _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (in Boston).\n For the various versions of the myth see Roscher, _s.v._ Helena.\n\nFootnote 1342:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1900, p. 70, No. 27; and cf. Reinach, i. 173.\n\nFootnote 1343:\n\n For a collected list of all vase-paintings connected with this story\n see _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 201 ff.\n\nFootnote 1344:\n\n B.M. E 647; Munich 807 = Millingen-Reinach, 4; Louvre E 639 =\n _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pl. 10, 1; Reinach, ii. 91; and see _ibid._ i. 222\n = Plate XXXIX. (otherwise interpreted, p. 111).\n\nFootnote 1345:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 215 (Fig. 128); Munich 380 = Reinach, ii. 115 =\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1799, fig. 1882. R.F.: B.M. E 424; Berlin 2279 =\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1797, fig. 1881 (Peithinos); Athens 1202 =\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 32, 4; Athens 1588 = $1$2 1897, pl.\n 9; Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 24 (Duris); Overbeck,\n _Her. Bildw._ pl. 7, fig. 8 (in Vatican).\n\nFootnote 1346:\n\n B.M. E 9, E 73; and see above, pp. 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 1347:\n\n Palermo 1503 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 8, fig. 6: see also for\n Cheiron p. 146.\n\nFootnote 1348:\n\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1349:\n\n B.M. B 620; Berlin 4220; De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 1;\n Athens 966 (with Athena and Hermes); Louvre G 3 (Pamphaios); Micali,\n _Storia_, pl. 87; B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98 (parody).\n\nFootnote 1350:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 538 = Reinach, i. 90 (doubtful); Jahn. _Arch. Beitr._ pl.\n 11 (?), and see p. 352 ff.\n\nFootnote 1351:\n\n Reinach, ii. 43.\n\nFootnote 1352:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 1047 = Reinach, i. 87.\n\nFootnote 1353:\n\n Reinach, i. 126 = Bibl. Nat. 422.\n\nFootnote 1354:\n\n See _J.H.S._ vii. p. 196 ff., whence this classification is taken.\n\nFootnote 1355:\n\n B.M. B 236\u201338; early Ionic vase in Munich, 123 = Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, pl. 21; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 9, fig. 2 (Xenokles);\n _J.H.S._ vii. pl. 70, p. 198.\n\nFootnote 1356:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 312. R.F.: B.M. E 445; Berlin 2536 = Roscher, iii. p.\n 1615.\n\nFootnote 1357:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 171; Munich 1269 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ 9, 6. R.F.:\n Berlin 2291 = Fig. 129 (Hieron); Reinach, i. 246 = Roscher, iii. p.\n 1610 (Brygos, in Louvre); Roscher, iii. p. 1617 (fine pyxis in\n Kopenhagen; the goddesses in chariots).\n\nFootnote 1358:\n\n Berlin 2633; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7; B.M. F 109, F 167;\n Berlin 3240; Karlsruhe 259 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30;\n _Ath. Mitth._ xxiv. (1899), p. 67 (R.F. kotyle in Berlin, Hermes\n omitted).\n\nFootnote 1359:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_, ix. (1894), p. 252.\n\nFootnote 1360:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 30, and 1901, p. 35 (both from the\n Kabeirion, Thebes).\n\nFootnote 1361:\n\n B.M. F 175; Athens 1942 = Reinach, i. 402; Petersburg 1924 = Reinach,\n i. 9 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 1, 3; Naples 1982 = Reinach, i. 292 (? See\n p. 113, note 1267); Reinach, i. 375.\n\nFootnote 1362:\n\n B.M. E 226; Jatta 1619 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 72 = Roscher, i. 1961.\n\nFootnote 1363:\n\n B.M. E 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 2; Berlin 2291 = Reinach, i. 437, 1 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 637, fig. 709 (Hieron); Petersburg 1929 = Reinach,\n i. 9; Reinach, i. 437, 2 (Hieron and Makron): see also _Rev. Arch._\n xxxiii. (1898), p. 399.\n\nFootnote 1364:\n\n B.M. F 175 (?).\n\nFootnote 1365:\n\n Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 21 (fine R.F. vase in Louvre); _R\u00f6m. Mitth._\n ii. (1887), pls. 11\u201312, 4; Berlin 1737 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 9, 4.\n\nFootnote 1366:\n\n Naples 3352 = Reinach, i. 485; and see Bibl. Nat. 418 = Reinach, i.\n 83; also Roscher, _s.v._ Nereus.\n\nFootnote 1367:\n\n Reinach, i. 286 = Bibl. Nat. 851 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 9, 2 (Epigenes).\n\nFootnote 1368:\n\n Berlin 2264 (Oltos and Euxitheos) = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 1; Bibl.\n Nat. 851 = Reinach, i. 287 = Roscher, iii. 295: see also Roscher,\n iii. 1697\u201399 (setting out of Patroklos). As Nestor himself went to\n the war, it is possible that this scene is to be regarded as taking\n place during and not before it.\n\nFootnote 1369:\n\n Bologna 273 = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 4.\n\nFootnote 1370:\n\n B.M. E 16; Baumeister, i. p. 683, fig. 743; and see Overbeck, _Her.\n Bildw._ pl. 13, 7, p. 276.\n\nFootnote 1371:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1902, pl. 2 (in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1372:\n\n _Iph. in Aul._ 192 ff.\n\nFootnote 1373:\n\n B.M. B 193 (Plate XXXI.), B 211, E 10; Helbig, 78 = Reinach, i. 96 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 6, 1 (Exekias). A \u201cbilingual\u201d example in Boston\n (by Andokides? B.F. and R.F.): see _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp.\n 40\u201341, figs. 15\u201316. The latest example seems to be _Arch. Anzeiger_,\n 1892, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 1374:\n\n B.M. B 541, E 160: see below, p. 133, and _B.M. Cat._ iii. p 36.\n\nFootnote 1375:\n\n B.M. F 159 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 9, 3.\n\nFootnote 1376:\n\n Reinach, i. 358 = Millingen-Reinach, 50; _ibid._ i. 145 = Baumeister,\n iii. p. 1326, fig. 1479; Milani, _Mito di Filottete_, frontispiece.\n\nFootnote 1377:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 256 = Reinach, ii. 254: see p. 111, note 1243.\n\nFootnote 1378:\n\n Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3: for a more probable interpretation\n (birth of Dionysos) see p. 19.\n\nFootnote 1379:\n\n Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 63; Engelmann, _Arch. Stud. zu den\n Trag._ p. 17; and see Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1380:\n\n Petersburg 1275 = Reinach, i. 152: cf. Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._\n i. pl. 22 (Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 296).\n\nFootnote 1381:\n\n Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 13, 9.\n\nFootnote 1382:\n\n B.M. E 382; Naples 2293 and R.C. 141 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1725, fig.\n 1807.\n\nFootnote 1383:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 40 (signed by Hieron).\n\nFootnote 1384:\n\n B.M. B 153.\n\nFootnote 1385:\n\n B.M. B 324, 542; _Forman Sale Cat._ 282 (= Reinach, i. 285, 1) and\n 308 (both in B.M.); Athens 620 = Reinach, i. 394 = _Wiener Vorl._\n 1888, 1, 1 (Timonidas); B.M. F 493 (caricature).\n\nFootnote 1386:\n\n Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92 (early Ionic); B.M. B 307; Fran\u00e7ois\n vase; Berlin 1685; Helbig, 130 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 22, 1; B.M. E 10, E\n 13, and _Forman Sale Cat._ 339.\n\nFootnote 1387:\n\n Reinach, ii. 114\u201315 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1901, fig. 2000\n (Euphronios); Reinach, i. 285, 3; Louvre G 18 = Reinach, i. 203, 3;\n Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92; B.M. B 326.\n\nFootnote 1388:\n\n Munich 124 = Reinach, ii. 113.\n\nFootnote 1389:\n\n Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm_. i. 10; and see Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p.\n 297.\n\nFootnote 1390:\n\n Reinach, ii. 198.\n\nFootnote 1391:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1 (the names may be fanciful);\n _ibid._ i. 77 (cf. Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 333).\n\nFootnote 1392:\n\n Louvre E 609 = Reinach, i. 395 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 1, 3 (Chares\n pyxis).\n\nFootnote 1393:\n\n Like others of the Homeric scenes on B.F. vases, this type is\n sometimes used for an ordinary warrior taking leave of his family,\n and unless names are given it is difficult to distinguish.\n\nFootnote 1394:\n\n Robert, in _Hermes_, 1901, p. 391, connects this scene with Book xix.\n 320 ff.\n\nFootnote 1395:\n\n The text is not exactly followed here. Menelaos kills Euphorbos in\n the _Iliad_, but does not fight over his body with Hector as he does\n on the vase. Possibly there is a confusion with the Patroklos episode\n below.\n\nFootnote 1396:\n\n The \u201cPsychostasia\u201d is also referred to the combat of Achilles and\n Memnon (p. 132).\n\nFootnote 1397:\n\n See, for a revised drawing of this vase, Hill, _Illustrations of\n School Classics_, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 1398:\n\n B.M. B 209\u201310 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6, 2, 1889, pl. 3, 3 =\n Reinach, ii. 105), B 323 (?), E 280; Munich 478 = Reinach, ii. 105,\n and 370 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 6.\n\nFootnote 1399:\n\n See below, p. 144.\n\nFootnote 1400:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1903, No. 70: cf. Quint. Smyrn. i. 741 ff.\n\nFootnote 1401:\n\n Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 21, 16 = Roscher, ii. 2674; and see B.M. B\n 209 = Reinach, ii. 105.\n\nFootnote 1402:\n\n Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 4 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Od._ iii. 15\n (? see above, under _Il._ xxii. 306 ff.); Reinach, ii. 105, 2.\n\nFootnote 1403:\n\n B.F.: Berlin 1147; Helbig, 8, 31 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 28, 1, and 38,\n 1; Bibl. Nat. 207 = Reinach, ii. 254. R.F.: B.M. E 468;\n Millingen-Reinach, 49 = Reinach, i. 358; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 17\n (now in Boston). In the last-named the subject is slightly varied.\n\nFootnote 1404:\n\n B.M. E 12 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 3, 1; Reinach, i. 149; Louvre F 388\n (?): see p. 71.\n\nFootnote 1405:\n\n Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 = Roscher, i. p. 1265\n (in Louvre); Reinach, i. 347 = _Bourguignon Cat._ 19: cf. also Athens\n 1093 = Roscher, ii. 2678 (Eos, together with Thanatos and Hypnos, two\n Keres).\n\nFootnote 1406:\n\n Helbig, 43 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 49, 2.\n\nFootnote 1407:\n\n Reinach, ii. 106.\n\nFootnote 1408:\n\n B.M. E 808 (?).\n\nFootnote 1409:\n\n Reinach, i. 82.\n\nFootnote 1410:\n\n B.M. B 172; Munich 380 = Reinach, ii. 115; Helbig, 77 = _ibid._ ii.\n 107 (see below, p. 177); Bibl. Nat. 537 = Reinach, i. 90; _Boston\n Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 28 = _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51.\n (Thetis present)\n\nFootnote 1411:\n\n Louvre E 643 = Reinach, i. 311; _ibid._ ii. 107 (?).\n\nFootnote 1412:\n\n B.M. B 240 = Reinach, ii. 99.\n\nFootnote 1413:\n\n Reinach, i. 304 (and i. 226, 1\u20133 (?), see p. 115); Engelmann, _Arch.\n Stud. zu d. Trag._ p. 37: cf. _Sale Cat. H\u00f4tel Drouot_, 11 May, 1903,\n No. 100.\n\nFootnote 1414:\n\n Athens 475 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1955, fig. 2086 (Melian vase); B.M.\n B 327, B 397, E 13; _Forman Sale Cat._ 298; Berlin 2000 = Robert,\n _Bild u. Lied_, p. 217; Baumeister, i. p. 29, fig. 30; _Wiener Vorl._\n 1889, 5, 2 (in Louvre); Naples 3358 = Reinach, i. 313 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ C. 8, 2. The type is derived from that of Herakles and Kyknos\n (p. 101).\n\nFootnote 1415:\n\n B.M. E 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 2; Millin-Reinach, i. 66.\n\nFootnote 1416:\n\n B.M. B 541, E 160: see above, p. 124.\n\nFootnote 1417:\n\n Vienna 325 = Reinach, i. 174 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 1.\n\nFootnote 1418:\n\n Two Corinthian vases, _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116, and _Boston\n Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 12; Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151 = Rayet\n and Collignon, p. 69; B.M. F 480 = Plate LVIII.; Reinach, i. 278.\n\nFootnote 1419:\n\n Petersburg 830 = Reinach, i. 150 = _Wiener Vorl._ A. 8; Naples 3231,\n 3235 = Reinach, i. 299, 102; parody, B.M. F 366.\n\nFootnote 1420:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 186 = _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 2; Munich 400 =\n Reinach, ii. 116; Roscher, i. 1279.\n\nFootnote 1421:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 15: see _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 4, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 1422:\n\n See for the various types _J.H.S_, xiv. p. 171.\n\nFootnote 1423:\n\n Berlin 2301 = Reinach, i. 381; Petersburg 812 = Reinach, i. 381 =\n Millin-Reinach, i. 58 (doubtful).\n\nFootnote 1424:\n\n Reinach, ii. 16; Naples 2858 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 28, 5;\n _ibid._ 1755 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1848, fig. 1939; _ibid._ 1761 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 16.\n\nFootnote 1425:\n\n B.M. D 33, F 57.\n\nFootnote 1426:\n\n Reinach, ii. 175: cf. _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 38.\n\nFootnote 1427:\n\n Vienna 333 = Reinach, i. 169; Berlin 2184 = Reinach, i. 296 =\n Baumeister, ii. p. 1113, fig. 1310; Reinach, i. 143; Roscher, iii.\n 969 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1428:\n\n Vienna 333 = Reinach, i. 169 = Roscher, iii. 971; Reinach i. 381;\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 24.\n\nFootnote 1429:\n\n B.M. E 446.\n\nFootnote 1430:\n\n Petersburg 349 = Reinach, i. 19; _ibid._ ii. 9, 316; Naples 1984 =\n Baumeister, ii. p. 1116, fig. 1313.\n\nFootnote 1431:\n\n B.M. F 166; Reinach, i. 132 (in Louvre); Millin-Reinach, ii. 68;\n Naples 1984; Helbig, 117 = Reinach, i. 390; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890,\n p. 90 (Berlin); and cf. B.M. B 641 (possibly Orestes and Pylades at\n Omphalos?).\n\nFootnote 1432:\n\n Petersburg 2189 (according to Roscher, iii. p. 993); but see Reinach,\n i. 5, and above under Kadmos.\n\nFootnote 1433:\n\n Reinach, i. 105 = Naples 3223; _ibid._ 133 = Baumeister, i. p. 757,\n fig. 808; _ibid._ i. 158 = Petersburg 420; Naples S.A. 24; and see\n B.M. F 155, and Reinach, i. 279.\n\nFootnote 1434:\n\n Reinach, i. 321 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1009, fig. 1215 (Jatta Coll.).\n\nFootnote 1435:\n\n See generally on Athenian cults, as illustrated by vase-paintings,\n Harrison, _Mythol. and Mon. of Athens_, Introd. p. xxi ff.\n\nFootnote 1436:\n\n On one of these vases the scene (in the interior of a cup) is watched\n by a group of Athenians at the foot of a hill, round the outside of\n the cup (Reinach, i. 107 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 39\u201340).\n\nFootnote 1437:\n\n See Harrison, _op. cit._ p. lxxxiv ff.\n\nFootnote 1438:\n\n Cf. Strabo, ix. \u00a7 392, and see for Lykos in another connection p. 124\n above. In the vase here given they witness the exploits of their\n kinsman Theseus (on the obverse).\n\nFootnote 1439:\n\n Cf. $1$2 1893, pl. 9, p. 130 ff., and Frazer\u2019s _Pausanias_, ii. p.\n 203.\n\nFootnote 1440:\n\n E 224 = Plate XLI. = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 8\u20139.\n\nFootnote 1441:\n\n Furtwaengler (_50^{tes} Winckelmannsfestprogr._ p. 163) refers the\n Orpheus scenes to the Aeschylean tetralogy of the Lykourgeia.\n\nFootnote 1442:\n\n B.M. E 390; Naples 1978, 2889, 3143 (see Reinach, i. 176); Reinach,\n i. 403 = Roscher, iii. p. 1181; Roscher, iii. p. 1179 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1443:\n\n Munich 383; Reinach, i. 63; ii. 80.\n\nFootnote 1444:\n\n B.M. E 301; Naples 3114; Reinach, i. 186, 327 (= Roscher, iii. p.\n 1185\u201386); Roscher, iii. p. 1184: see also _J.H.S._ ix. p. 143.\n\nFootnote 1445:\n\n Reinach, i. 493 = Roscher, iii. p. 1178.\n\nFootnote 1446:\n\n She occurs on B.M. F 270, Petersburg 498, and Karlsruhe 256.\n\nFootnote 1447:\n\n Reinach, i. 96 = Helbig, 99; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 9; and see\n Naples 3143 = Reinach, i. 176.\n\nFootnote 1448:\n\n Jatta 1538 = Reinach, i. 526.\n\nFootnote 1449:\n\n Athens 1344 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 1450:\n\n Schreiber-Anderson, _Atlas_, pl. 5, 10 = Reinach, ii. 333, 5\n (burlesque scene with actor as Taras on dolphin: see p. 160).\n\nFootnote 1451:\n\n B.M. E 447; Louvre F 166; Helbig, 189 = Reinach, i. 268; Reinach, i.\n 122; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 53, 2; Naples 1851 = _Jahrbuch_,\n 1887, p. 113; _Ath. Mitth._ xxii. (1897), pl. 13: see for the myth,\n Hdt. viii. 138 and Roscher, _s.v._\n\nFootnote 1452:\n\n Reinach, i. 147, 509; ii. 81, 271.\n\nFootnote 1453:\n\n Munich 849 = Reinach, i. 258.\n\nFootnote 1454:\n\n See pp. 99, 111, 132.\n\nFootnote 1455:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 3.\n\nFootnote 1456:\n\n _Ibid._ iii. 4: see _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1894, p. 285.\n\nFootnote 1457:\n\n B.M. F 6, 85, 230; Reinach, i. 492, ii. 295.\n\nFootnote 1458:\n\n B.M. F 158, 278; Naples R.C. 239 (= Reinach, i. 482), 3253 (=\n Reinach, i. 330 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 6b, 1), and 2421 (= Reinach,\n ii. 278 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 26\u20138); Millin-Reinach, i.\n 56 (= Bibl. Nat. 427) and 61; Millingen-Reinach, 37.\n\nFootnote 1459:\n\n B.M. E 12; Naples 2613; Louvre F 203; Munich 4 = Reinach, ii. 57;\n Reinach, ii. 56.\n\nFootnote 1460:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 6, 2; B.M. B 158, 566; Micali, _Storia_, 91.\n\nFootnote 1461:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 304 = Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amph._ p. 64.\n\nFootnote 1462:\n\n B.M. E 40; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 2, fig. 2 (Louvre G 35);\n _ibid._ pl. 22, 2; Reinach, i. 166.\n\nFootnote 1463:\n\n Engelmann-Anderson, _Iliad_, v. 24, vi. 25.\n\nFootnote 1464:\n\n B.M. E 19; Vienna 231 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, 1, 6.\n\nFootnote 1465:\n\n B.M. B 591; Berlin 2264 = Reinach, i. 508, 4.\n\nFootnote 1466:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 22: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p.\n 119, note 1.\n\nFootnote 1467:\n\n Louvre A 256 = _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11.\n\nFootnote 1468:\n\n B.M. E 253, E 295.\n\nFootnote 1469:\n\n B.M. E 573.\n\nFootnote 1470:\n\n See above, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 1471:\n\n See above, p. 111.\n\nFootnote 1472:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase; B.M. B 176, F 162, F 277; Reinach, i. 154 (= Naples\n 2411), 309 (Louvre E 700), 391 (Munich 805); Furtwaengler and\n Reichhold, pl. 15 (a fine R.F. example).\n\nFootnote 1473:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase; B.M. E 473; _J.H.S._ xvii. pl. 6; Munich 846 =\n Millingen-Reinach, 8; _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 2; Reinach, i. 22, 474,\n ii. 272.\n\nFootnote 1474:\n\n For Herakles and Pholos see p. 102.\n\nFootnote 1475:\n\n B.M. B 620 (Achilles); Munich 611 = Reinach, i. 419 (Herakles);\n Reinach, ii. 91 (Achilles); B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98 (parody).\n\nFootnote 1476:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pp. 202\u20134, Nos. 51\u20139, 94.\n\nFootnote 1477:\n\n Reinach, ii. 209, 289; Athens 1246: cf. B.M. B 226.\n\nFootnote 1478:\n\n Reinach, i. 58, 452; Helbig, 237 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 82, 2_b_;\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 8, 2.\n\nFootnote 1479:\n\n _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 2.\n\nFootnote 1480:\n\n B.M. F 550; _Wiener Vorl._ E. pls. 7\u20138, fig. 3 (cf. p. 88).\n\nFootnote 1481:\n\n B.M. F 370.\n\nFootnote 1482:\n\n See above, p. 112.\n\nFootnote 1483:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase; Athens 644; Reinach, i. 332, 429.\n\nFootnote 1484:\n\n Reinach, i. 259.\n\nFootnote 1485:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 427, 428, 430, 436, 679, 680: cf. E 180.\n\nFootnote 1486:\n\n Cf. Virgil, _Aen._ iii. 216 (_virgineae vultus_) and 241 (_obscenae\n volucres_).\n\nFootnote 1487:\n\n See, _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 103 ff.\n\nFootnote 1488:\n\n B.M. B 4, B 16 (?): see Vol. I. p. 344.\n\nFootnote 1489:\n\n See p. 115; B.M. E 302; Reinach, i. 119, 201; and for two Harpies,\n with name inscribed, in connection with this story, Berlin 1682 =\n Reinach, i. 441.\n\nFootnote 1490:\n\n Louvre A 478.\n\nFootnote 1491:\n\n B.M. E 440; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 1; _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31.\n\nFootnote 1492:\n\n On Sirens generally, and especially as death-deities, see Weicker,\n _Der Seelenvogel_ (1902).\n\nFootnote 1493:\n\n Berlin 2157 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 211; on B.M. E 477 a Siren of the\n ordinary decorative type appears with allusion to the death of\n Prokris, perhaps as indicating her departing soul.\n\nFootnote 1494:\n\n B.M. B 651.\n\nFootnote 1495:\n\n Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.\n\nFootnote 1496:\n\n B.M. B 510: cf. Weicker, p. 48.\n\nFootnote 1497:\n\n Weicker, p. 120, fig. 46.\n\nFootnote 1498:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. A 1135; _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 291, 292, 479.\n\nFootnote 1499:\n\n Louvre E 667, 723; Vienna 318; Munich 1077.\n\nFootnote 1500:\n\n Munich 1050.\n\nFootnote 1501:\n\n B.M. B 215; Louvre A 441, E 858; Berlin 1727: cf. Athens 531 and\n Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, pl. 3, fig. 38.\n\nFootnote 1502:\n\n B.M. B 429.\n\nFootnote 1503:\n\n See above, p. 117; and cf. Bibl. Nat. 278 and Athens 1480 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ 1889, 9, 8.\n\nFootnote 1504:\n\n B.M. B 125, B 539, etc.\n\nFootnote 1505:\n\n B.M. B 650; Reinach, i. 319; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 235.\n\nFootnote 1506:\n\n Reinach, i. 471.\n\nFootnote 1507:\n\n Naples 2846 = _Festsehr. f\u00fcr Overbeck_, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 1508:\n\n B.M. B 32 and Athens 592 (with Hermes); Naples 3254 = Reinach, i. 327\n = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 7.\n\nFootnote 1509:\n\n Reinach, i. 54, 258, 480, ii. 236.\n\nFootnote 1510:\n\n B.M. E 434; Reinach, i. 23, 53.\n\nFootnote 1511:\n\n See above, p. 144.\n\nFootnote 1512:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 11.\n\nFootnote 1513:\n\n Reinach, ii. 319.\n\nFootnote 1514:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 64, No. 21 (B.F.).\n\nFootnote 1515:\n\n Reinach, i. 220; and see ii. 314.\n\nFootnote 1516:\n\n _Bourguignon Cat._ 57.\n\nFootnote 1517:\n\n See p. 29 above.\n\nFootnote 1518:\n\n B.M. B 45, B 65, E 11, E 35, Bibl. Nat. 177, Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.\n Vasenb._ 8, 1 (Pegasos); B.M. B 105, B 417, and Louvre A 307\n (Chimaera).\n\nFootnote 1519:\n\n B.M. E 170; Reinach, ii. 309.\n\nFootnote 1520:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 449 = Reinach, i. 129.\n\nFootnote 1521:\n\n _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 5 (cf. pl. 4).\n\nFootnote 1522:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 12, 2; B.M. B 308 (three Minotaurs).\n\nFootnote 1523:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 1066 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, pl. 3: see, _J.H.S._ xi. p. 349.\n\nFootnote 1524:\n\n Reinach, i. 188.\n\nFootnote 1525:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 498.\n\nFootnote 1526:\n\n B.M. F 218.\n\nFootnote 1527:\n\n Athens 961 = _Ath. Mitth._ xvi. pl. 9 (probably taken from a Satyric\n drama).\n\nFootnote 1528:\n\n Reinach, i. 459.\n\nFootnote 1529:\n\n See above, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 1530:\n\n Munich 468 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 217 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1531:\n\n B.M. B 433; Berlin 1770; Athens 713 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 8,\n 4; Louvre F 100, 104 (between Sirens): cf. Ar. _Av._ 800.\n\nFootnote 1532:\n\n Fran\u00e7ois vase; Reinach, i. 27, 54, 61, 470, ii. 295; B.M. B 77;\n Millin-Reinach, i. 63; _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 5, 2; and cf. B.M. G 178\n and Jahn, _Arch. Beitr._ pl. 12, 1.\n\nFootnote 1533:\n\n Cf. Naples 2609 (Hipparchos); B.M. E 46, Athens 1162, and Louvre G\n 103 (Leagros); Athens 1020 = _Jahrbuch_, ii. p. 163 (Glaukon); B.M. E\n 300 and Oxford 309 (Kleinias); Reinach, i. 513, 6 (Megakles).\n\nFootnote 1534:\n\n B.M. B 80; Berlin 1686 = Rayet and Collignon, pl. 7, and 1882 =\n Reinach, ii. 122.\n\nFootnote 1535:\n\n See p. 60.\n\nFootnote 1536:\n\n See p. 53; also Reinach, i. 472 and ii. 198, 4 (both Dionysiac).\n\nFootnote 1537:\n\n Oxford 292 (Persephone); Reinach, ii. 321, 4; _ibid._ 122, 2 (=\n Berlin 2129): see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 48, note; also _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n ii. 108, and Reinach, ii. 286.\n\nFootnote 1538:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 36 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1539:\n\n B.M. B 633.\n\nFootnote 1540:\n\n B.M. E 284 = _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1541:\n\n B.M. B 80, B 585, B 648.\n\nFootnote 1542:\n\n Naples 2858; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_.\n\nFootnote 1543:\n\n B.M. B 79; Louvre F 10; Reinach, i. 428; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_;\n Munich 386 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 19; and see under Nike,\n p. 87.\n\nFootnote 1544:\n\n Bologna 275; B.M. B 362.\n\nFootnote 1545:\n\n Berlin 1727 = Reinach, i. 429; Athens 1428 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._\n pl. 11, 3 (sacrifice to Hekate?); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 3, fig.\n 2.\n\nFootnote 1546:\n\n B.M. E 455, 456, 494; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 105, 108; Millin-Reinach, i. 8;\n Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 2; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 100\n (Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1547:\n\n B.M. B 3.\n\nFootnote 1548:\n\n B.M. E 455; Athens 1858 = Baumeister, i. p. 211, fig. 165 = Reinach,\n i. 396.\n\nFootnote 1549:\n\n B.M. E 284; Bologna 286; Reinach, i. 403 = Schreiber-Anderson, 25, 8\n (referred to the Thargelia by Reisch, _Gr. Weihgeschenke_, p. 80).\n\nFootnote 1550:\n\n Berlin 1727, 2010.\n\nFootnote 1551:\n\n B.M. E 114, E 291; Bibl. Nat. 94; Reinach, ii. 135.\n\nFootnote 1552:\n\n B.M. E 88; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 78, 2 _b_; and see Stackelberg, pl. 35.\n\nFootnote 1553:\n\n Reinach, ii. 286; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 7, 2 = _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ v.\n (1890), p. 324; _Mus. Greg._ 71, 1 _b_.\n\nFootnote 1554:\n\n Naples 3358 = Reinach, i. 313 = Schreiber-Anderson, 20, 3: see Miss\n Harrison\u2019s _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 157.\n\nFootnote 1555:\n\n De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0 l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 29.\n\nFootnote 1556:\n\n De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 22.\n\nFootnote 1557:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. p. 228 (in Naples).\n\nFootnote 1558:\n\n Naples 2458 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 227: cf. B.M. B 641.\n\nFootnote 1559:\n\n Athens 695.\n\nFootnote 1560:\n\n _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101.\n\nFootnote 1561:\n\n Karlsruhe 278 = Reinach, i. 271.\n\nFootnote 1562:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 31, 1.\n\nFootnote 1563:\n\n Fig. 17, Vol. I. p. 140 = Munich 51.\n\nFootnote 1564:\n\n B.M. E 494, E 585; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 103; Berlin 2213;\n Naples 1760 (= Millingen-Reinach, 52), and S.A. 647 (= _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv.\n 19); Gerhard, _Akad. Abhandl._ pl. 63, figs. 1, 4, 5; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii.\n pls. 79, 80. They appear to be especially associated with terminal\n figures.\n\nFootnote 1565:\n\n Miss Harrison\u2019s comprehensive _Prolegomena to Greek Religion_\n (Cambridge Press, 1903) appeared too recently for the writer to be\n able to make detailed use of it in this section. It must, of course,\n be borne in mind that many of the interpretations in that work are\n only conjectural.\n\nFootnote 1566:\n\n Athens 199, 200 = _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 201; _ibid._ 214 = Reinach, i.\n 190 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1943, fig. 2071.\n\nFootnote 1567:\n\n Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 165.\n\nFootnote 1568:\n\n B.M. B 63 = Plate LVIII.; _Forman Sale Cat._ 279 (now in B.M.);\n Baumeister, i. p. 238, fig. 217 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl.\n 1; Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 164.\n\nFootnote 1569:\n\n B.M. D 62 = Plate LV. fig. 1; Athens 1651 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl.\n 32; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 33. A fine R.F. example in\n _Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5\u20136 (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1570:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 353; Micali, _Storia_, pl. 96, figs. 1\u20132.\n\nFootnote 1571:\n\n Athens 688 = Baumeister, i. p. 306, fig. 321 = Reinach, i. 164;\n _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 86 (Berlin). Cf. Fig. 123, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 1572:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 4; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 228; Athens 688.\n\nFootnote 1573:\n\n B.M. B 543, D 5 = Plate XL.\n\nFootnote 1574:\n\n B.M. D 65 ff. and Athens 1672\u20131836 _passim_: cf. B.M. F 93. Plate LV.\n fig. 2 = B.M. D 70.\n\nFootnote 1575:\n\n B.M. F 93 (Fig. 20, Vol. I. p. 144), 212.\n\nFootnote 1576:\n\n B.M. F 276, 279\u201385, 352 (Fig. 106, Vol. I. p. 477).\n\nFootnote 1577:\n\n B.M. F 353.\n\nFootnote 1578:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 29.\n\nFootnote 1579:\n\n B.M. D 39, 41, 43\u201345, 56, 70, F 93\u201396; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.\n Vasenb._ pl. 34. See Plate LV. fig. 2 and Fig. 19, Vol. I. p. 143.\n\nFootnote 1580:\n\n B.M. D 54, 65, 67\u201386; F 212\u201313, 336; Athens 1692 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl.\n 2, and 1694 = Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 18, 1; _ibid._ pl. 19, 2.\n\nFootnote 1581:\n\n A unique instance of a sculptured _stele_ copied on a white lekythos\n is _Burlington F.A.C. Cat._ (1903), p. 104, No. 25.\n\nFootnote 1582:\n\n B.M. D 51.\n\nFootnote 1583:\n\n B.M. F 352 = Fig. 106.\n\nFootnote 1584:\n\n B.M. (uncatalogued).\n\nFootnote 1585:\n\n B.M. D 21.\n\nFootnote 1586:\n\n B.M. D 60.\n\nFootnote 1587:\n\n B.M. D 58.\n\nFootnote 1588:\n\n B.M. D 35; Engelmann-Anderson, _Odyssey_, iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1589:\n\n B.M. D 56 = Fig. 19.\n\nFootnote 1590:\n\n B.M. D 5 = Plate XL.\n\nFootnote 1591:\n\n Athens 1689 = Reinach, i. 512.\n\nFootnote 1592:\n\n See above, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 1593:\n\n See p. 52; also B.M. (uncatalogued).\n\nFootnote 1594:\n\n B.M. D 58\u20139; Athens 1093 (= Roscher, ii. 2678), 1653\u201354 (=\n Dumont-Pottier, i. pls. 27\u20139); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2. Cf. Fig. 123,\n p. 71.\n\nFootnote 1595:\n\n B.M. D 54; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. V._ pls. 14 and 33. See above, p.\n 72.\n\nFootnote 1596:\n\n B.M. F 279, 280, 282.\n\nFootnote 1597:\n\n B.M. F 276, 284; Millin-Reinach, ii. 32\u201333.\n\nFootnote 1598:\n\n B.M. F 281.\n\nFootnote 1599:\n\n B.M. F 276, 279\u201384, 352 (Fig. 106); Millin-Reinach, ii. 38.\n\nFootnote 1600:\n\n See p. 68.\n\nFootnote 1601:\n\n Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.\n\nFootnote 1602:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (Berlin); but see p. 76, under Asklepios.\n\nFootnote 1603:\n\n B.M. B 80: see for other parodies of processions or sacrifices Athens\n 1132, 1136, 1138.\n\nFootnote 1604:\n\n B.M. B 509; Berlin 1830 = _J.H.S._ ii. pl. 14, and 1697 (as horses).\n\nFootnote 1605:\n\n _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, and p. 81; B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98: see generally\n _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 77 ff. and Vol. I. p. 391.\n\nFootnote 1606:\n\n Vienna 321 (cf. Ar. _Ach._ 729 ff.), Hermes with dog got up as a pig.\n\nFootnote 1607:\n\n B.M. F 99; Berlin 3046 = Baumeister, ii. p. 821, fig. 904 (see\n _Jahrbuch_, i. p. 283).\n\nFootnote 1608:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 260 ff.\n\nFootnote 1609:\n\n See for instance pp. 107, 118, 123.\n\nFootnote 1610:\n\n B.M. F 233: cf. Reinach, i. 114.\n\nFootnote 1611:\n\n Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 10 = Heydemann, p. 307 = Reinach, ii. 332, 5.\n\nFootnote 1612:\n\n B.M. F 543.\n\nFootnote 1613:\n\n B.M. F 189 = Fig. 134.\n\nFootnote 1614:\n\n Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114 = Baumeister, i. pl. 5, fig. 422.\n\nFootnote 1615:\n\n B.M. E 65.\n\nFootnote 1616:\n\n See _Philologus_, 1868, pls. 1\u20134, p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 1617:\n\n Jatta 1528 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 273; B.M. E 790; Naples 2846 =\n _Festschr. f\u00fcr Overbeck_, p. 103.\n\nFootnote 1618:\n\n B.M. E 467 (Satyric chorus); Reinach, ii. 324, 5; ii. 288.\n\nFootnote 1619:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 50.\n\nFootnote 1620:\n\n Jatta 1402 = Reinach, i. 413.\n\nFootnote 1621:\n\n B.M. F 233, F 289.\n\nFootnote 1622:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ B. 3, 5 _c_; Millin-Reinach, i. 20.\n\nFootnote 1623:\n\n Vol. I. p. 472: see also _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 10; Vogel,\n _Scenen Eurip. Trag\u00f6dien_ (where an exhaustive list is given), and\n Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in the Light of Vase-paintings_, where the\n subject is also treated in detail.\n\nFootnote 1624:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 389, and Plates XXXIII.-IV.; for a complete series of\n illustrations, _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. pls. 47\u20138 = Reinach, i. 210\u201315.\n\nFootnote 1625:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 48, B 64; Berlin 1655, 1805; Bibl. Nat. 252, 354;\n Reinach, ii. 129. R.F.: Reinach, i. 223 (= _Wiener Vorl._ D. 5), 424\n (Berlin 2180), 454, ii. 134 (Berlin 2262), 137 (men with dogs);\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 15\u20136 = Bibl. Nat. 523.\n\nFootnote 1626:\n\n B.M. B 271, B 295, B 607; E 39, 63 (parade of boxers before judges);\n Athens 1169 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 31, 2 _a_; Reinach, ii.\n 292.\n\nFootnote 1627:\n\n B.M. B 191, B 295, B 603; E 94, 95; Bibl. Nat. 522 = Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ pl. 15, 2; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 16, 2 _a_; Vienna 332 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, 1, 4.\n\nFootnote 1628:\n\n B.M. E 78 (very realistic), B 604, B 610; Louvre F 276, 278, 314;\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 64.\n\nFootnote 1629:\n\n _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr._ 1881, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1630:\n\n B.M. B 48, B 134 (= Fig. 135), B 326; Munich 795 = Reinach, i. 422 =\n Baumeister, i. p. 613, fig. 672; Reinach, i. 433, 1 = Baumeister, i.\n p. 573, fig. 611; Reinach, i. 272, ii. 128. See on the subject\n generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 54 ff.\n\nFootnote 1631:\n\n B.M. B 136, E 164; Louvre F 126; Athens 1188 = Reinach, i. 511;\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 21 (Duris, in Boston); De Witte, _Coll. \u00e0\n l\u2019H\u00f4tel Lambert_, pl. 23; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 43, 2 _b_.\n\nFootnote 1632:\n\n B.M. B 380; Louvre F 126, G 37; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 69, 4 _c_, 70, 2\n _a_; De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 24.\n\nFootnote 1633:\n\n B.M. B 48; Reinach, ii. 145, 175, 330; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 70, 1 _a_, 2\n _b_; 73, 1 _b_. Athlete exercising with halteres: Louvre G 15;\n _Forman Sale Cat._ 332.\n\nFootnote 1634:\n\n B.M. B 361. See _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 70.\n\nFootnote 1635:\n\n B.M. E 164.\n\nFootnote 1636:\n\n B.M. E 63, 113, 164; _Forman Sale Cat._ 358; and see _Bull. de Corr.\n Hell._ xxiii. p. 164.\n\nFootnote 1637:\n\n Athens 1478; Millin-Reinach, i. 45; Panathenaic amphora in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1638:\n\n B.M. B 137, B 609; Munich 498 = Reinach, i. 215; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 42,\n 2 _b_; 43, 1 _a_. Starter in foot-race: B.M. E 6, E 101; Reinach, i.\n 433, 2; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 45, fig. 6; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp.\n 185\u201388; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff.\n\nFootnote 1639:\n\n B.M. B 133, B 144; Berlin 1655, 1722, 2282; Munich 805; Athens 1546;\n Reinach, i. 12, 100, 199, ii. 61, 253; and see Hartwig, _Meistersch._\n p. 491, note 2.\n\nFootnote 1640:\n\n B.M. B 130\u201332, B 677; Berlin 1655; Louvre F 216, F 283; Reinach, ii.\n 68, 70, 125, 133; Fran\u00e7ois vase.\n\nFootnote 1641:\n\n B.M. E 389, F 59; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35; Reinach, ii. 298, 320;\n Baumeister, i. p. 522.\n\nFootnote 1642:\n\n B.M. B 143; E 6, E 22; B 608; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4\n _b_; Reinach, ii. 128, 129 (= Berlin 2307); Munich 476 = _ibid._ ii.\n 127, and 803 = _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 196; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 62,\n 1. Runner with trainer: _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 31. See on the\n subject generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff., and _Jahrbuch_, 1895,\n p. 182 ff.\n\nFootnote 1643:\n\n Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 1 and pl. 16 (= Bibl. Nat. 523); B.M. E 22;\n _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ (1903), p. 100, No. 17.\n\nFootnote 1644:\n\n Berlin 2307 (one fig.); Reinach, i. 494 (Louvre); _Jahrbuch_, 1887,\n p. 99: cf. B.M. B 628.\n\nFootnote 1645:\n\n _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 49; Berlin 2307 = Reinach, ii. 129; Hartwig,\n _op. cit._ pl. 16 (Bibl. Nat. 523); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 190;\n _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 278.\n\nFootnote 1646:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 285 (runners with helmet in hand).\n\nFootnote 1647:\n\n _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 4 _b_; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 191; Munich 803 and\n 1240; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 12. See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 1648:\n\n B.M. B 144; Reinach, ii. 262, 291, 298, 320 (horsemen): cf. B.M. B\n 628.\n\nFootnote 1649:\n\n Reinach, i. 346 = _Bourguignon Cat._ 17; Louvre G 17, G 36.\n\nFootnote 1650:\n\n See under Nike, p. 88, note 1070.\n\nFootnote 1651:\n\n Berlin 2180 = Reinach, i. 424, and 2314; Karlsruhe 242 (Psiax and\n Hilinos).\n\nFootnote 1652:\n\n Berlin 2178; Louvre G 38 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 25;\n _Arch.-epigr. Mitth._ 1881, pl. 4; Reinach, i. 324.\n\nFootnote 1653:\n\n Petersburg 1611 = Baumeister, i. p. 247, fig. 226.\n\nFootnote 1654:\n\n Munich 895 = Reinach, ii. 106.\n\nFootnote 1655:\n\n Millin-Reinach, i. 47: cf. the athlete extracting a thorn on Berlin\n 2180 = Reinach, i. 424.\n\nFootnote 1656:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 283 (unexplained subject).\n\nFootnote 1657:\n\n Salzmann, _N\u00e9cropole de Camiros_, pl. 57, 2 = Schreiber-Anderson, 24,\n 2.\n\nFootnote 1658:\n\n B.M. F 232; Naples 2854; Reinach, i. 473; Baumeister, i. p. 585.\n\nFootnote 1659:\n\n Oxford 288; B.M. B 607; Louvre F 109 (with judges): and see p. 88.\n\nFootnote 1660:\n\n B.M. E 83; Louvre G 36; Athens 1156 = Reinach, i. 514; _ibid._ ii.\n 292 = Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 219 (basin inscribed \u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u0391);\n Schreiber-Anderson, 21, 9 = Reinach, ii. 275; Hartwig, _Meistersch._\n pl. 67, 1, p. 206 (using sponge); Reinach, ii. 134, 275. Youth with\n bath utensils: Berlin 2314.\n\nFootnote 1661:\n\n B.M. B 271; E 78, 94, 164; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pp. 416\u201317; _Wiener\n Vorl._ vi. 9; _B.C.H._ xxiii. p. 158 (trainer marking goal).\n\nFootnote 1662:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1663:\n\n Three types:\u2014(1) Hare seized by birds: Louvre E 701 = Reinach, i.\n 153; Naples 2458; Athens 618. (2) Hare pursued by dogs: B.M. B 119;\n Berlin 340, 1753, 1799; Karlsruhe 170; Petersburg 310, 386; Reinach,\n i. 34; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 227. (3) Dogs accompanied by\n hunters: B.M. B 678, D 60; Berlin 306, and 1727 = Reinach, i. 431;\n Oxford 189 (Oikopheles); Bibl. Nat. 187; Naples S.A. 200; B.M. A 1050\n = Plate XIX. fig. 3; Reinach, ii. 333; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 1664:\n\n B.M. B 147 (cover); Helbig, 7; Munich 411 (Amasis); Reinach, ii. 275;\n Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 23; _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40.\n\nFootnote 1665:\n\n B.M. B 7; Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.\n\nFootnote 1666:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44\u20135.\n\nFootnote 1667:\n\n B.M. B 37 (= Plate XXI.), F 154; Louvre E 696 = Reinach, i. 162;\n Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 170; Munich 211 = Fig. 90, Vol. I. p. 316:\n cf. _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1903, p. 115, No. 62, for B.F.\n jug with man hiding in tree and attacked by boar and lion.\n\nFootnote 1668:\n\n Reinach, ii. 144, 223.\n\nFootnote 1669:\n\n B.M. B 52 = _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1891), p. 367; Louvre F 26 = _ibid._\n p. 369; Millin-Reinach, i. 18.\n\nFootnote 1670:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1671:\n\n Berlin 1900; Reinach, ii. 293.\n\nFootnote 1672:\n\n Louvre F 223.\n\nFootnote 1673:\n\n Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 146 (see p. 129); _Forman Sale\n Cat._ 285.\n\nFootnote 1674:\n\n _M\u00e9langes Perrot_, p. 252 (in B.M.).\n\nFootnote 1675:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 22; _Mon. Grecs_, 14\u201316 (1885\u201388), p.\n 10.\n\nFootnote 1676:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 53; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290.\n\nFootnote 1677:\n\n B.M. E 485; Berlin 2357 = Reinach, i. 423; _ibid._ ii. 179.\n\nFootnote 1678:\n\n B.M. E 3 (Hischylos), E 60; Munich 111; _Forman Sale Cat._ 336;\n Reinach, i. 454, 4 (Pamphaios): see p. 177.\n\nFootnote 1679:\n\n Munich 337 = Reinach, i. 238 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 22\n (Euphronios); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 53\u20134; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, pl.\n 4 (Onesimos); _Mon. Grecs_, 14\u201316 (1885\u201388), pl. 5, and see p. 1 ff.;\n _Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5\u20136 (in Louvre). Cf. also Louvre G 26.\n\nFootnote 1680:\n\n See under Warriors, p. 176.\n\nFootnote 1681:\n\n B.M. F 70, F 306; Berlin 2154: cf. Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._\n pl. 32, 5.\n\nFootnote 1682:\n\n B.M. B 127; Reinach, ii. 125.\n\nFootnote 1683:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 32, fig. 5.\n\nFootnote 1684:\n\n B.M. B 17; Munich 903: see _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 139, 142.\n\nFootnote 1685:\n\n B.M. B 182; Berlin 2417 = Reinach, i. 425 = Baumeister, ii. p. 781,\n fig. 836; Reinach, ii. 191; Oxford 250.\n\nFootnote 1686:\n\n Reinach, i. 81.\n\nFootnote 1687:\n\n B.M. E 467 (Satyrs); E 339, F 197, F 245; Berlin 2710 = Reinach, i.\n 425 (Eros); Naples 2872 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 12 =\n Reinach, ii. 169 (Eros); Louvre G 36 (ephebos).\n\nFootnote 1688:\n\n Louvre F 90 and F 368 = _Rev. Arch._ xxi. (1893), pl. 5; Helbig, p.\n 327 = Baumeister, i. p. 622, fig. 695; Reinach, i. 310, 423 (Berlin\n 2030).\n\nFootnote 1689:\n\n Naples 922 = Schreiber-Anderson, 80, 7.\n\nFootnote 1690:\n\n B.M. E 70, 453\u201354, 495, F 37, 273, 275; Berlin 2416 and Jatta 1291 =\n Reinach, i. 337, 178; Baumeister, ii. p. 793, fig. 857;\n _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; Louvre G 30. See also below, p. 181.\n\nFootnote 1691:\n\n _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 167 (here a woman); Hartwig, _Meistersch._\n pls. 27, 72, 2.\n\nFootnote 1692:\n\n Louvre G 81; Reinach, i. 420; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 27, 2.\n\nFootnote 1693:\n\n Berlin 2177; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 130.\n\nFootnote 1694:\n\n B.M. E 205 (?).\n\nFootnote 1695:\n\n B.M. F 123; Louvre F 60; Berlin 2589 (= Harrison, _Mythol. and Monum.\n of Athens_, p. xliv) and 2394; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 30;\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 27.\n\nFootnote 1696:\n\n B.M. E 387 (Seileni); Baumeister, iii. p. 1573, fig. 1633 (Eros);\n Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 53.\n\nFootnote 1697:\n\n Naples 3151 = Reinach, i. 400.\n\nFootnote 1698:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 1699:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 110 (F 223, etc.), and Jahn in _Ber.\n d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 256.\n\nFootnote 1700:\n\n B.M. E 527, 534\u201337, 548\u201353 (see Plate XLII.); Baumeister, ii. p. 779;\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 89; _Gaz. Arch._ 1878, pl. 7; Stackelberg, pl. 17;\n Reinach, i. 425: see generally Jahn in _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs Gesellsch._\n 1854, p. 243 ff., pl. 12.\n\nFootnote 1701:\n\n B.M. F 101 = Fig. 15, Vol. I. p. 137; Reinach, i. 294.\n\nFootnote 1702:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 361 = Reinach, ii. 262; _Bourguignon Cat._ 52 (in B.M.);\n Reinach, i. 207 (hare).\n\nFootnote 1703:\n\n Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 387.\n\nFootnote 1704:\n\n Reinach, i. 294: cf. ii. 137 = Baumeister, i. p. 705, fig. 765, and\n for women with pets see below, p. 173.\n\nFootnote 1705:\n\n Berlin 2285 = Reinach, i. 196: cf. B.M. E 525 and _Brit. School\n Annual_, 1898\u201399, p. 65 (Fig. 177).\n\nFootnote 1706:\n\n Naples 2004 = Reinach, i. 323.\n\nFootnote 1707:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 333.\n\nFootnote 1708:\n\n Berlin 2322 = Micali, _Storia_, 103, 1.\n\nFootnote 1709:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 46.\n\nFootnote 1710:\n\n B.M. E 171\u201372; Oxford 266; Baumeister, i. p. 554, fig. 591 (flute):\n cf. _ibid._ iii. p. 1993, fig. 2138 (Iphikles taught the lyre by\n Linos) and the Duris kylix (Plate XXXIX.).\n\nFootnote 1711:\n\n Reinach, i. 248.\n\nFootnote 1712:\n\n B.M. E 185; Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 66.\n\nFootnote 1713:\n\n See p. 95.\n\nFootnote 1714:\n\n Athens 467 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 10; B.M. E 467, E 804;\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 17\u20138. Single figure: B.M. F 343.\n\nFootnote 1715:\n\n B.M. E 61; Louvre G 18 (castanets).\n\nFootnote 1716:\n\n _Forman Sale Cat._ 361 (in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1717:\n\n Stackelberg, pl. 22; Reinach, i. 61, 372, 469 (Naples 3010); _Rev.\n Arch._ xxvi. (1895), p. 221.\n\nFootnote 1718:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40: cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, p. 412.\n\nFootnote 1719:\n\n B.M. B 42, 44; Berlin 1662; and see _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287.\n\nFootnote 1720:\n\n B.M. E 271; Berlin 1686; Bologna 271 = Reinach, ii. 150; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._\n ii. 16; Athens 1019 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, pl. 10, 2; _Anzeiger_,\n 1892, p. 172. Girls playing lyre: _Monuments Piot_, ii. pls. 5\u20136 (in\n Louvre).\n\nFootnote 1721:\n\n B.M. E 308; and see Reinach, ii. 187, 3.\n\nFootnote 1722:\n\n B.M. E 270, E 469; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65\u20136.\n\nFootnote 1723:\n\n B.M. B 139, B 141; Louvre G 1 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 9;\n Petersburg 1603 = Schreiber-Anderson, 7, 14; Vienna 234.\n\nFootnote 1724:\n\n B.M. B 188, E 354; Reinach, ii. 274; Louvre G 103 = _Atlas_, pl. 101\n (Euphronios).\n\nFootnote 1725:\n\n B.M. E 460; Bologna 286; Athens 1260 = Dumont-Pottier, i. 16; Helbig,\n 90 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 60, 3; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4\n _a_.\n\nFootnote 1726:\n\n _Mus. Greg._ ii. 22, 2 _a_.\n\nFootnote 1727:\n\n B.M. E 270.\n\nFootnote 1728:\n\n B.M. E 132.\n\nFootnote 1729:\n\n B.M. B 192, B 299, E 37; Athens 1158 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1984, fig.\n 2127; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 16: see also Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 255, note\n 2.\n\nFootnote 1730:\n\n Berlin 639, 871, 885 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 7, 14, 23.\n\nFootnote 1731:\n\n Berlin 608 ff.; 800 93: cf. _op. cit._ pl. 8, Nos. 14 _b_, 17, 18 (=\n 885, 869, 868); also Nos. 1, 4, 12, 19 _b_, 22, 26 (= Berlin 608,\n 802, 616, 893, 827, 611). See also Chapter V., Figs. 65, 69.\n\nFootnote 1732:\n\n B.M. B 432; Munich 731 = Fig. 67, Vol. I. p. 213; _Gaz. Arch._ 1880,\n p. 106.\n\nFootnote 1733:\n\n Figs. 67, 71, Vol. I. pp. 213, 223.\n\nFootnote 1734:\n\n Fig. 70, Vol. I. p. 218.\n\nFootnote 1735:\n\n Fig. 74, Vol. I. p. 228.\n\nFootnote 1736:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 17, 1, and see _ibid._ p. 174; Kopenhagen\n 125; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 37.\n\nFootnote 1737:\n\n Berlin 831 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, fig. 3 _a_. See on the subject\n _Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 45 ff.\n\nFootnote 1738:\n\n Berlin 2294 = Baumeister, i. p. 506, fig. 547.\n\nFootnote 1739:\n\n B. M. B 507; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1582, fig. 1639\n (in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1740:\n\n _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 305; _Branteghem Cat._ 44. See also _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i.\n 83.\n\nFootnote 1741:\n\n Kopenhagen 119 = Schreiber-Anderson, 73, 7.\n\nFootnote 1742:\n\n See p. 40: cf. also for a sculptor, p. 16, note 53.\n\nFootnote 1743:\n\n Berlin 1806 = Fig. 136 (Nikosthenes); Louvre F 77 = _ibid._ fig. 13;\n Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pl. 13, 1 (sowing).\n\nFootnote 1744:\n\n B.M. F 147: see p. 73, and Robert, _Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, pl. 5, p. 198 ff.\n\nFootnote 1745:\n\n Berlin 2274 = _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 74.\n\nFootnote 1746:\n\n Louvre F 68.\n\nFootnote 1747:\n\n Louvre F 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 9\u201310; _ibid._ pl. 1,\n figs. 2, 7.\n\nFootnote 1748:\n\n Vienna 335 = Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 64, figs. 1, 3; _ibid._ pl. 64,\n fig. 6 (in Naples); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 5; and see under\n Hermes and Seilenos.\n\nFootnote 1749:\n\n Reinach, ii. 90.\n\nFootnote 1750:\n\n B.M. B 226; Berlin 1855 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, fig. 1259.\n\nFootnote 1751:\n\n _Forman Sale Cat._ 323 (now in Boston): cf. _B.M. Cat. of\n Terracotta_, D 550.\n\nFootnote 1752:\n\n Helbig, 70 = Reinach, i. 106 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, figs.\n 1260\u20131261; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 69, No. 24.\n\nFootnote 1753:\n\n Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 70,\n No. 25.\n\nFootnote 1754:\n\n Berlin 1915 = Reinach, ii. 155.\n\nFootnote 1755:\n\n Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pl. 13, 2; _Eranos Vindobonensis_, p.\n 381 (woman kneading dough).\n\nFootnote 1756:\n\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 61.\n\nFootnote 1757:\n\n Vol. I. p. 342: see also p. 149.\n\nFootnote 1758:\n\n B.M. E 86; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1587, fig. 1649 (in\n Boston).\n\nFootnote 1759:\n\n B.M. E 23.\n\nFootnote 1760:\n\n Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 3.\n\nFootnote 1761:\n\n B.M. B 339; Louvre F 10, F 56.\n\nFootnote 1762:\n\n B.M. B 160, B 174, B 257; B 485; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 133, 137, 142.\n\nFootnote 1763:\n\n B.M. E 810, D 11 (Plate XLIII.); Berlin 2372 (= _Coll. Sabouroff_, i.\n pl. 58), 2373 (= Reinach, i. 440); Athens 1224 and 1225 = Heydemann,\n _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 10, 1, and Reinach, i. 206; Athens 1588 = $1$2\n 1897, pl. 10, 2 (preparations for marriage, with fancy names): see\n generally _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 8.\n\nFootnote 1764:\n\n Baumeister, i. p. 313, fig. 328.\n\nFootnote 1765:\n\n Millingen-Reinach, 44 (in Louvre); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 314.\n\nFootnote 1766:\n\n Berlin 2374 = Reinach, i. 128.\n\nFootnote 1767:\n\n Reinach, i. 173; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 133.\n\nFootnote 1768:\n\n Athens 693.\n\nFootnote 1769:\n\n Petersburg 151 = Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amph._ pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 1770:\n\n Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44 (B.F.); Athens 1552 = Heydemann, _Gr.\n Vasenb._ pl. 8, 5; Berlin 2261 = Reinach, i. 440, and 2720 = _Coll.\n Sabouroff_, i. pl. 64; Reinach, i. 2 (Petersburg 1791), 472 (= Jatta\n 1526), 477 (= Naples S.A. 316, with fancy names).\n\nFootnote 1771:\n\n B.M. E 225, 773\u201374, F 308, 310; Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 4.\n\nFootnote 1772:\n\n B.M. B 598, E 87, E 193, E 215, D 13; Athens 1550, 1552, and 1589 =\n Reinach, i. 517 (note the use of the \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd); Louvre F 224 = _\u00c9l.\n C\u00e9r._ iii. 36 B; Stackelberg, 34; Reinach, i. 420, ii. 7, 4: see\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 340.\n\nFootnote 1773:\n\n Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 8 = Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 4.\n\nFootnote 1774:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1711, fig. 1796.\n\nFootnote 1775:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 41, No. 10.\n\nFootnote 1776:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1583, fig. 1641.\n\nFootnote 1777:\n\n _Ibid._ i. p. 609, fig. 668.\n\nFootnote 1778:\n\n B.M. E 18; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2272 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 89;\n Reinach, ii. 146, 7.\n\nFootnote 1779:\n\n Baumeister, iii. p. 1919, fig. 2034 = Reinach, ii. 148.\n\nFootnote 1780:\n\n Louvre F 114 = Plate XXX.; B.M. F 101, 207.\n\nFootnote 1781:\n\n Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 12; B.M. F 139, 207, 342.\n\nFootnote 1782:\n\n Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 14.\n\nFootnote 1783:\n\n Berlin 1843 (= Baumeister, i. p. 243, fig. 221), and 2707 (= _Coll.\n Sabouroff_, i. 62, 2); Jatta 654 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 19;\n Millin-Reinach, ii. 9 (frontispiece); Reinach, ii. 146, 328, 1;\n Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 220; B.M. D 29, E 90, 201\u20132; and see\n generally Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 599.\n\nFootnote 1784:\n\n Louvre F 197 and F 203 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 3 =\n Schreiber-Anderson, 57, 5.\n\nFootnote 1785:\n\n B.M. F 311; and see _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iv. 10\u201322.\n\nFootnote 1786:\n\n B.M. B 329\u201338; Louvre F 296; Reinach, ii. 151: cf. B.M. E 159 and\n Athens 1429 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 2.\n\nFootnote 1787:\n\n B.M. D 6; Munich 142: cf. Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44.\n\nFootnote 1788:\n\n B.M. E 241, E 721; _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 98\u20139.\n\nFootnote 1789:\n\n Athens 1550 = Heydemann, _op. cit._ pl. 9, 5.\n\nFootnote 1790:\n\n B.M. E 34.\n\nFootnote 1791:\n\n B.M. E 769.\n\nFootnote 1792:\n\n B.M. E 190.\n\nFootnote 1793:\n\n B.M. E 88.\n\nFootnote 1794:\n\n _Branteghem Cat._ 167.\n\nFootnote 1795:\n\n Naples R.C. 117 = Reinach, i. 490, 22.\n\nFootnote 1796:\n\n Munich 903 = Reinach, ii. 110.\n\nFootnote 1797:\n\n B.M. B 53, B 163, B 409; Berlin 3993 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 51.\n\nFootnote 1798:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 94; Athens 466 = Plate XLVII.\n\nFootnote 1799:\n\n Oxford 320.\n\nFootnote 1800:\n\n B.M. E 396.\n\nFootnote 1801:\n\n _Branteghem Cat._ 163.\n\nFootnote 1802:\n\n Petersburg 875 = Reinach, i. 39: cf. Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 27.\n\nFootnote 1803:\n\n B.M. F 232; Athens 1031 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 3; Reinach,\n i. 473; _Mus. Borb._ vii. 58; _Mon. Barone_, pls. 3, 9; and see pp.\n 165, 182.\n\nFootnote 1804:\n\n See p. 169.\n\nFootnote 1805:\n\n See on the subject Winter in _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 187 ff.; and\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, p. 25 ff.\n\nFootnote 1806:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 165, B 657; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 172 and\n 203 = Reinach, ii. 95. R.F.: Louvre G 47\u20138; Bologna 274; Helbig, 167\n and 174 (= Reinach, ii. 133); Reinach, ii. 114; Vienna 324 = _Wiener\n Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).\n\nFootnote 1807:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 147, B 309, B 360; Louvre F 12, F 39, F 53, F 150;\n Reinach, ii. 124, 131. R.F.: B.M. E 254, E 276, E 448; Louvre G 44;\n Baumeister, iii. p. 2034, fig. 2207 (Duris). Late: B.M. F 158, F 174;\n Munich 382 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 35.\n\nFootnote 1808:\n\n B.F.: _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44\u20135 (Proto-Cor.); B.M. B 75, B 199, B 212, B\n 400; Athens 623; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14. R.F.: B.M. E 7, E 33, E 43, E\n 808; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1890, p. 332. Late: B.M. F 175, F 215. Horseman\n and foot-soldier: two uncatalogued in B.M.\n\nFootnote 1809:\n\n See pp. 3, 7, 126.\n\nFootnote 1810:\n\n B.M. B 224, B 243; Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 87;\n Reinach, ii. 129, 131, 4, 133.\n\nFootnote 1811:\n\n _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 203 = Reinach, ii. 95.\n\nFootnote 1812:\n\n Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Millin-Reinach, i. 39; and see under Hector,\n p. 127.\n\nFootnote 1813:\n\n B.M. E 405.\n\nFootnote 1814:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 165: cf. Reinach, ii. 133 and Ar. _Ach._ 574.\n\nFootnote 1815:\n\n Louvre G 5: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 122, note.\n\nFootnote 1816:\n\n B.M. E 33; Munich 1229; _Forman Sale Cat._ 337 (in Boston); Hartwig,\n _op. cit._ pl. 14, 1: cf. Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428, and B.M. E\n 598.\n\nFootnote 1817:\n\n See note 1815; also _Festschrift f\u00fcr O. Benndorf_, p. 66.\n\nFootnote 1818:\n\n B.M. B 303\u201305; Berlin 1897 = Reinach, ii. 124; _Jahrbuch_, iv.\n (1889), pl. 10; Louvre F 285, F 345.\n\nFootnote 1819:\n\n Reinach, ii. 198.\n\nFootnote 1820:\n\n See pp. 118, 127.\n\nFootnote 1821:\n\n B.M. B 15, B 206, B 523; Louvre F 9; Reinach, i. 462, 1; ii. 255 =\n Bibl. Nat. 227; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108 =\n 1903, No. 21, p. 102 (Andokides).\n\nFootnote 1822:\n\n Athens 618 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1963, fig. 2098.\n\nFootnote 1823:\n\n Reinach, ii. 128; B.M. B 24; Louvre E 609 = Reinach, i. 395 (Chares);\n and Fig. 88, Vol. I. p. 297.\n\nFootnote 1824:\n\n B.M. E 476: Louvre G 54 = Reinach, ii. 7; Petersburg 1692, 1711 =\n Reinach, i. 43\u20134: see B.M. E 65, Louvre F 19, F 70, and Vienna 324 =\n _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).\n\nFootnote 1825:\n\n B.M. B 51: see under Nike, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 1826:\n\n Berlin 1718 = Reinach, i. 393; Helbig, ii. p. 301, No. 77 = Reinach,\n ii. 107 (may be Ajax with body of Achilles).\n\nFootnote 1827:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. pp. 227\u201328; and cf. B.M. B 171 (inspection of liver), B\n 641; Bibl. Nat. 400; Reinach, ii. 131, 1 (hoplite taking oath);\n Louvre G 46.\n\nFootnote 1828:\n\n Reinach, i. 203 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 2\u20133; B.M. B 380; Louvre F 127,\n G 5: bust of warrior, Louvre F 137.\n\nFootnote 1829:\n\n B.M. B 470, B 618; Louvre F 292, G 25; Engelmann-Anderson, _Od._\n xiii. 71: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 9, p. 106, note.\n\nFootnote 1830:\n\n Berlin 1879.\n\nFootnote 1831:\n\n Berlin 2304.\n\nFootnote 1832:\n\n Reinach, i. 372.\n\nFootnote 1833:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 1834:\n\n B.M. B 658.\n\nFootnote 1835:\n\n B.M. B 149, B 360.\n\nFootnote 1836:\n\n B.M. B 590\u201391; Louvre G 70; Helbig, 292; Munich 4 = Reinach, ii. 57;\n _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pl. 4. As shield-device: Vienna 332 (a\n negro); Reinach, i. 77; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 46, 1.\n\nFootnote 1837:\n\n B.M. E 285; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 18, 1, and see p. 185.\n\nFootnote 1838:\n\n See p. 179, note 1853; also Plate XXXVII. fig. 2, and _Jahrbuch_,\n 1889, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1839:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759; Hartwig, p. 368, note: cf. p.\n 186.\n\nFootnote 1840:\n\n B.M. B 426; Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428; Helbig, 54; _Mon. Grecs_,\n 1885\u201388, p. 11: see also Helbig, _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos_,\n and _Les \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 Ath\u00e9niens_, p. 71 ff.\n\nFootnote 1841:\n\n Reinach, i. 486 = _Boston Cat._ p. 137.\n\nFootnote 1842:\n\n B.M. B 60; Louvre A 526; Plate XVI. (Aristono\u00f6s krater); Reinach, i.\n 190, 4, 328, 6, and 459 (Dipylon).\n\nFootnote 1843:\n\n _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8; Louvre A 525\u2013532; _Mon. Grecs_, ii. (1882\u201384),\n pl. 4, pp. 44\u201357; and see Chapter VII.\n\nFootnote 1844:\n\n B.M. B 436; Berlin 836; Louvre E 735 and F 123 (= _J.H.S._ 1885, pl.\n 49); _Forman Sale Cat._ 322; Reinach, ii. 19 = Baumeister, iii. p.\n 1599, fig. 1662.\n\nFootnote 1845:\n\n B.M. B 436; Berlin 646 ff., 831; Louvre F 145 (?).\n\nFootnote 1846:\n\n B.M. B 679, E 2 (Plate XXXVII.); Bibl. Nat. 322; _Bourguignon Sale\n Cat._ 14; Louvre F 123, F 145.\n\nFootnote 1847:\n\n Louvre F 62; Vienna 235; Naples R.C. 246; Munich 781 = Reinach, ii.\n 126; Petersburg 10 and 86; W\u00fcrzburg 337 = Reinach, ii. 141; _Rev.\n Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 323; _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, 3.\n\nFootnote 1848:\n\n Athens 969 = Reinach, i. 415.\n\nFootnote 1849:\n\n See above, p. 148.\n\nFootnote 1850:\n\n B.M. B 173, B 280, B 323; F 278.\n\nFootnote 1851:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 184, 207, 243, 246, etc.\n\nFootnote 1852:\n\n See generally Zahn, _Die Barbaren_, and Hartwig, _Meistersch._\n _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1853:\n\n B.M. E 6; Louvre F 126, F 388, G 45; _Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4; and see\n above, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 1854:\n\n B.M. B 184, B 207, B 426; Reinach, i. 376 (?).\n\nFootnote 1855:\n\n _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 5; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14.\n\nFootnote 1856:\n\n B.M. B 590\u201391.\n\nFootnote 1857:\n\n B.M. E 233; Berlin 2295; Reinach, ii. 84; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.\n 55\u201356.\n\nFootnote 1858:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 5.\n\nFootnote 1859:\n\n B.M. E 695.\n\nFootnote 1860:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 1; Oxford 310 = Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2\n p. 87.\n\nFootnote 1861:\n\n See p. 151.\n\nFootnote 1862:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ ii. (1887), pl. 9, p. 172; Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Plate\n XXXVII. fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 1863:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 473 = Reinach, i. 131.\n\nFootnote 1864:\n\n _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 72.\n\nFootnote 1865:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 38\u20139; and see _ibid._ p. 422.\n\nFootnote 1866:\n\n B.M. E 481\u201382; and see pp. 80, 143.\n\nFootnote 1867:\n\n Louvre G 26: cf. _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, pl. 6, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 1868:\n\n Munich 337 = Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 82; _Mon. Grecs_, 1885\u201388, pl.\n 5; and see pp. 166, 177.\n\nFootnote 1869:\n\n B.M. E 301; _J.H.S._ ix. pl. 6; Reinach, i. 63.\n\nFootnote 1870:\n\n B.M. B 673\u201374; Athens 1088; _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 45: cf. Louvre G\n 93; another unarmed, G 100. On Vienna 332 a negro trumpeter occurs as\n a shield-device.\n\nFootnote 1871:\n\n Petersburg 1603.\n\nFootnote 1872:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 42.\n\nFootnote 1873:\n\n Louvre G 100.\n\nFootnote 1874:\n\n B.M. B 106_1.\n\nFootnote 1875:\n\n B.M. F 197, 241\u201342 (see Plate XLIV.), 297, 301, 525; Reinach, i.\n 292\u201393.\n\nFootnote 1876:\n\n B.F.: B.M. B 46, B 382, B 679; Louvre F 2, F 216, F 314; _Gaz. Arch._\n 1887, pl. 14, 1. R.F.: B.M. E 38, 49, 68, 70; Munich 272 = Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ pl. 15, 1; Helbig, 225 and 227; Reinach, ii. 4. Late:\n B.M. E 495, F 303; Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl.\n 45, and R.C. 144 = Schreiber-Anderson, 76, 2; _ibid._ pl. 76, 4 =\n Millingen-Reinach, pl. 8; Millin-Reinach, ii. 58.\n\nFootnote 1877:\n\n See pp. 57, 105.\n\nFootnote 1878:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 94.\n\nFootnote 1879:\n\n B.M. E 351, E 474.\n\nFootnote 1880:\n\n B.M. B 46, 301\u20132, 382, 679, E 66, E 454.\n\nFootnote 1881:\n\n Louvre G 98; Athens 691 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pls. 13\u20134 (Xenokles and\n Kleisophos); _Cab. Pourtal\u00e8s_, 34; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _a_.\n\nFootnote 1882:\n\n Reinach, ii. 247: see _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 180.\n\nFootnote 1883:\n\n Louvre G 25; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _b_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.\n 14, 2, 48, and p. 332; _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1884:\n\n See Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 115, for a collected list of examples;\n also the following notes.\n\nFootnote 1885:\n\n Louvre G 30; B.M. E 70 = Fig. 138, E 161, E 454, E 795; Berlin 4221;\n Naples 822, 965, 972, 2415, S.A. 281.\n\nFootnote 1886:\n\n It is worth noting that on the best R.F. vases mortals play the game;\n on the later ones gods and Satyrs. It must have disappeared from\n social life about the end of the fifth century.\n\nFootnote 1887:\n\n B.M. F 37; Naples 903, S.A. 302, R.C. 144, 145, 2308; Berlin 2416 =\n Reinach, i. 337; _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; and see Vol. I. p. 452\n for a curious variant.\n\nFootnote 1888:\n\n B.M. F 50, 175\u201377; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 197.\n\nFootnote 1889:\n\n B.M. F 161, F 273, F 275, F 304, F 425; F 579 = Fig. 118 (Eros).\n\nFootnote 1890:\n\n Louvre G 30; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 83, 1_b_, and 85, 2_b_.\n\nFootnote 1891:\n\n Louvre F 216; Reinach, ii. 329, 5: see also _ibid._ ii. 6, 304, 5;\n _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1_a_; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ pls. 273, 356.\n\nFootnote 1892:\n\n B.M. E 14, 38, 61, 68; Reinach, ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1893:\n\n See pp. 165, 174.\n\nFootnote 1894:\n\n Athens 1158; and see p. 169.\n\nFootnote 1895:\n\n Petersburg 1670 = Reinach, i. 32 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 2; Reinach, ii.\n 290, 2 (\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 of women).\n\nFootnote 1896:\n\n B.M. E 61 (Hieron).\n\nFootnote 1897:\n\n B.M. E 71, 474, 484, 489, 506, 767; Reinach, ii. 94, 7; _Mus. Greg._\n ii. 84, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 11 and p. 41; _Wiener\n Vorl._ viii. 5 (Brygos in W\u00fcrzburg).\n\nFootnote 1898:\n\n B.M. E 33, 46, 53, 508; _Forman Sale Cat._ 317; Reinach, ii. 120.\n\nFootnote 1899:\n\n B.M. B 299; and see above, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 1900:\n\n B.M. E 137, E 488; Reinach, ii. 68, 290, 301, 313; _Mus. Greg._ ii.\n 54, 1 _a_, 2 _a_; 78, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 36, pp. 333,\n 335; Inghirami, _Vasi. Fitt._ 198.\n\nFootnote 1901:\n\n B.M. E 54; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 11, 20.\n\nFootnote 1902:\n\n B.M. E 37; Louvre F 129, G 73; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 8, 11; and\n see Berlin 2265, and _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 5, fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 1903:\n\n See above, p. 57 ff.\n\nFootnote 1904:\n\n Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 49.\n\nFootnote 1905:\n\n B.M. B 41; Berlin 2171; Froehner, _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pl. 40, 2.\n\nFootnote 1906:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_; Bibl. Nat. 905 is a good typical\n example.\n\nFootnote 1907:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 21: cf. Christie, _Disquisitions_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1908:\n\n B.M. E 648, 705\u20139, 778\u201383 (see Plate XLII.); Athens 1941 = Jahn,\n _Vasen mit Goldschmuck_, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1909:\n\n B.M. E 61; Munich 819 = Millingen-Reinach, 26; Berlin 2279 = Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ pl. 25 (very fine); Reinach, i. 207; Helbig, 218 =\n _ibid._ ii. 146; and see Hartwig, p. 238.\n\nFootnote 1910:\n\n See Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 26, and Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_,\n _passim_; also Vol. I. p. 426.\n\nFootnote 1911:\n\n Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 27 (from\n exterior of kylix).\n\nFootnote 1912:\n\n B.M. E 2: cf. E 16, E 27; Louvre F 129 (youth balancing amphora).\n\nFootnote 1913:\n\n Athens 1162 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 19, 2 (in\n Louvre), and p. 178; Louvre G 17 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, pl. 10.\n\nFootnote 1914:\n\n Cambridge 71 = Hartwig, pl. 2, fig. 3.\n\nFootnote 1915:\n\n B.M. E 46; Hartwig, p. 86; and see _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 8.\n\nFootnote 1916:\n\n Louvre G 40.\n\nFootnote 1917:\n\n Louvre G 70, 96.\n\nFootnote 1918:\n\n B.M. E 57.\n\nFootnote 1919:\n\n Hartwig, pl. 70, 1: cf. _Il._ iii. 33.\n\nFootnote 1920:\n\n _J.H.S._ xvii. p. 75 = Fig. 82; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1890, pl. 22,\n p. 437 ff.; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 9 (vase in Marseilles).\n\nFootnote 1921:\n\n Berlin 2324 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890\u201391, pl. 7, 1.\n\nFootnote 1922:\n\n B.M. E 1; Bibl. Nat. 128; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 21; _Mus.\n Greg._ ii. 31, 2; Reinach, ii. 225 (lion and panther fighting).\n\nFootnote 1923:\n\n Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 9 (in Boston).\n\nFootnote 1924:\n\n B.M. B 382, E 4; Louvre F 84 and F 54 = Fig. 96, Vol. I. p. 381.\n\nFootnote 1925:\n\n Louvre F 125 (ram); Berlin 4042 (bull) and 2266 (horse); Munich 1171\n and _Mus. Greg._ ii. 64, 3 _a_ (cock). Also on exterior of B.F.\n kylikes: cocks and hens, B.M. B 391\u201392; Louvre F 92, F 380; Bibl.\n Nat. 317; Reinach, ii. 171. Lion and bull, Louvre F 313. Apes, _Sale\n Cat. H\u00f4tel Drouot_, May 1903, No. 71. See generally Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ p. 565.\n\nFootnote 1926:\n\n Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 63, 1.\n\nFootnote 1927:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 175\u201376.\n\nFootnote 1928:\n\n Munich 468 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 1929:\n\n Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.\n\nFootnote 1930:\n\n Berlin 2517 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 65.\n\nFootnote 1931:\n\n Reinach, i. 96 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1985, fig. 2128. For the\n inscription on this vase, see Chapter XVII.\n\nFootnote 1932:\n\n See Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 63, 6; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 19, F\n 254\u201368, and references there given; also Vol. I. pp. 194, 487, Plate\n XLIV.\n\nFootnote 1933:\n\n B.M. B 57, B 58; Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92; Bibl. Nat. 172.\n\nFootnote 1934:\n\n B.M. B 28, B 31; and see p. 185, note 1925.\n\nFootnote 1935:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 330 = Reinach, i. 503: see p. 273.\n\nFootnote 1936:\n\n R.F. kalpis in Louvre; _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759: see for\n this and the following subjects Hartwig, _Meistersch._, p. 368, note;\n also p. 177 above.\n\nFootnote 1937:\n\n Louvre F 127 (Pamphaios).\n\nFootnote 1938:\n\n Munich 1170.\n\nFootnote 1939:\n\n Munich 1223.\n\nFootnote 1940:\n\n B.M. E 771.\n\nFootnote 1941:\n\n In South Kensington Museum.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVI\n _DETAILS OF TYPES, ARRANGEMENT, AND ORNAMENTATION_\n\n Distinctions of types\u2014Costume and attributes of individual\n deities\u2014Personifications\u2014Heroes\u2014Monsters\u2014Personages in\n every-day life\u2014Armour and shield-devices\u2014Dress and\n ornaments\u2014Physiognomical expression on vases\u2014Landscape and\n architecture\u2014Arrangement of subjects\u2014Ornamental\n patterns\u2014Maeander, circles, and other geometrical\n patterns\u2014Floral patterns\u2014Lotos and palmettes\u2014Treatment of\n ornamentation in different fabrics.\n\n\nIt may be profitable to supplement the foregoing account with a few\ngeneral considerations, such as the attributes, emblems, and costume by\nwhich the different figures may be distinguished, the general treatment\nof the subjects at different periods, and the use of ornamental motives\nin the various stages of Greek vase-painting.\n\n \u00a7 1. DISTINCTIONS OF TYPES\n\nIn the earlier vase-paintings deities are often not only\nindistinguishable from one another, but even from kings and other\nmortal personages, attributes and subtle distinctions of costume being\nignored; and in the period of decline a similar tendency may be noted,\ndue in this case not so much to confusion of ideas as to a general\ncarelessness of execution and indifference to the meaning of the\nsubject. In the former vases it was, doubtless, largely the result of\nconventionality and limitation in the free expression of forms; but it\nis a peculiarity not confined to painting, and may be observed not only\nin the minor arts, in terracotta and bronze figurines, but even in\nsculpture of a more exalted kind\u2014as, for instance, in the female\nstatues from the Athenian Acropolis. Thus, all the deities are draped,\nand their costume differs in no respect from that worn by mortals; all\nalike wear the chiton, himation, or chlamys, and ornamentation of the\ndrapery with embroidered patterns is no mark of distinction. It is only\nas the art advances in the B.F. period that the necessity for\ndifferentiation makes itself felt, and each deity becomes\nindividualised by some peculiarity of costume or special attribute\nwhich makes it possible to recognise them without difficulty. To give a\nbrief survey of these characteristic marks will be the object of the\nfollowing pages.[1942]\n\nAmong the Olympian deities, _Zeus_ is generally bearded, and fully\ndraped in long chiton and mantle; on R.F. vases he wears a\nlaurel-wreath. He fights the giants from his chariot, but otherwise\nis standing, or seated on a throne, which is often carved and\nornamented with figures.[1943] He usually holds a thunderbolt, or a\nsceptre, surmounted by an eagle or otherwise ornamented; in one or\ntwo cases the termination is in the form of a lotos-bud, curiously\nconventionalised.[1944] _Hera_ is distinguished by the _stephane_ or\nbroad diadem, often ornamented, and covered with the bridal veil, the\nedge of which she draws forward with one hand in the attitude\nconsidered typical of brides. Her sceptre is sometimes surmounted by\nher emblem\u2014the cuckoo.\n\n_Poseidon_, on the Corinthian and Attic B.F. vases\u2014on which he is but a\nrare figure\u2014is often hardly to be distinguished from Zeus, the\napproximation of the types extending even to their emblems. Where he\nholds in addition a dolphin or tunny-fish, there is, of course, no\ndoubt as to his presence; nor, again, in the Gigantomachia, where he\nwields a rock (see p. 13, and Fig. 112); but his trident, which\nsubsequently becomes the unmistakable evidence of his identity, often\nassumes (as on the Corinthian pinakes) the form of a sceptre ending in\na lotos-bud,[1945] which is typical of Zeus, and, indeed, of Olympian\ndeities generally. The other sea-deities are, however, of a more\nclearly defined type. The essential feature of _Triton_ is the\nfish-tail in which his body terminates. _Nereus_, on the other hand, is\nrepresented as an old man, bald and grey-bearded. In this form he\ncontends with Herakles (see p. 101), and it may be that the\ndifferentiation was necessary to avoid confusion with the Triton type.\nAs attributes he often holds a dolphin or tunny-fish, and a trident or\nsceptre. The winged deity with a long sinuous fish-tail seen on early\nCorinthian vases is probably _Palaemon_ (see p. 26); but in one case\nthis deity is feminine.[1946] _Amphitrite_, as the feminine consort of\nPoseidon, holds a sceptre or tunny-fish, and _Thetis_ and the _Nereids_\nappear in ordinary female form. The former, however, in her struggles\nwith Peleus, is accompanied by lions, serpents, and other animals,\nwhich indicate the transformations she was supposed to assume. _Skylla_\nappears as described in Homer, with fish-tail and the fore-parts of\ndogs issuing from her waist, which is encircled by a fringe of scales\nor feathers.\n\n_Demeter_ and _Persephone_ are not always distinguishable from one\nanother, both having the same attributes\u2014a torch or ears of corn (cf.\nPlate LI.). Their identification depends rather on the nature of their\nrespective actions in the scenes where they appear. _Triptolemos_ is\nalways seen in his winged two-wheeled car (sometimes drawn by\nserpents), and usually holds ears of corn or a libation-bowl; on B.F.\nvases he is bearded. The other Eleusinian deities, on the late R.F.\nvases where they occur, are marked by the large torches which they hold.\n\n_Apollo_ on the B.F. vases almost invariably occurs in his character of\nKitharoidos,[1947] the lyre which he holds being of the form known as\n_kithara_ (on later vases it is a _chelys_); he is therefore, like all\nmusicians, fully draped in long chiton, and his hair falls in curls on\nhis shoulders, or is gathered in a \u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. Unlike most gods, he is at\nall times youthful and beardless.[1948] He is also represented holding\na laurel-branch, shooting an arrow from his bow, or riding on a swan or\nGryphon, or accompanied by a hind or other animal. His sister _Artemis_\nis draped in long chiton and mantle, and often wears a high cap on B.F.\nvases; it is not until the later R.F. period that she appears in\nhunting costume, with knotted-up hair, short chiton, and high laced-up\nhunting-boots or _endromides_; sometimes also a fawn-skin. She is\nusually distinguished by her bow and arrows, and is accompanied by a\nhound, deer, goat, or other animal.[1949]\n\n_Hephaistos_ is usually bearded,[1950] and often appears in the\nworkman\u2019s dress of the _exomis_ or short chiton covering one shoulder,\nand high conical cap; his craft is further symbolised by a hammer or\ntongs, or by the axe with which he brings Athena forth from the head of\nZeus. In the Gigantomachia he uses his tongs with savage violence\nagainst an unfortunate opponent (see p. 14). _Ares_ is the typical\nGreek fully-armed warrior, bearded, with helmet, short chiton, cuirass,\nand greaves, sword, spear, and shield; but is not otherwise to be\ndistinguished. _Hermes_, as the messenger of the gods, appears in\nappropriate costume of chlamys and _petasos_ (the Greek\ntravelling-hat), and carrying the caduceus or herald\u2019s staff; he\nusually wears high boots, and on the earlier vases a short chiton in\naddition. He is occasionally winged, but it is more usual to find the\nwings attached to his petasos or boots. On B.F. vases he is always\nbearded, but not after the sixth century. _Hestia_, who but rarely\noccurs on vases, forms a pair to Hermes in assemblies of the gods, but\nis not distinguished further than by the Olympian lotos-sceptre.\n\n_Athena_ on the earlier B.F. vases is not always distinguished from an\nordinary woman; later, the helmet, spear, shield, and aegis become\ninseparable adjuncts of her costume, the shield being always circular\nin form. The spear, which is sometimes her only characteristic, is\nusually brandished or couched in her right hand, and sometimes she\nholds her helmet in her hand (see Plate XXXVI. and p. 40). Her costume\nconsists of a long girt chiton, over which the _peplos_ or small mantle\nis thrown, and the aegis round her chest. The latter is covered with\nscales and has a fringe of rearing serpents, and sometimes, on later\nvases, the Gorgon\u2019s head in the centre of the front. On the Panathenaic\namphorae she is always represented in the Promachos attitude, at first\nto left, but later to right, brandishing her spear. At either side of\nher are columns surmounted by an owl, a cock, or other emblems. On the\nlater specimens her figure is greatly elongated, and her drapery is\noften elaborately embroidered with patterns in purple and white. Her\nstatue when represented is usually a mere reproduction of the living\ntype; but on some later vases there seems to be a reminiscence of the\nParthenos or other statues (see p. 40).\n\n_Aphrodite_ is less individualised than any other deity, at any rate on\nthe earlier vases, on which she is invariably draped in the ordinary\nmanner. She sometimes carries a lotos-headed sceptre (as in Judgment of\nParis scenes). Occasionally she is represented armed. On the later\nvases the influence of fourth-century sculpture becomes apparent in the\ntreatment of this, as of other deities. She now first appears nude\n(when bathing or washing), scantily clad or half draped, and in\ntransparent Coan draperies, through which the outlines of her form are\nvisible. She has no characteristic attribute, but is frequently\nrepresented with a dove or other bird. The types of _Eros_ have already\nbeen fully discussed (p. 45); briefly it may be said that on the Attic\nR.F. vases he is a full-grown nude youth with wings; on those of\nSouthern Italy the type is more boyish, though never the child or\n_putto_ of the Hellenistic Age, and in Apulia the androgynous type,\nwith hair arranged in feminine fashion and jewellery profusely adorning\nhis person\u2014earrings, necklace, chains, and anklets\u2014is invariable.\n\n_Dionysos_ is distinguished primarily by the ivy-wreath which crowns\nhis head; he generally wears a long chiton and mantle, but on the\nlatest vases is frequently nude. On all B.F. vases, and often on those\nof the R.F. period, he is bearded, and it is only on those of Southern\nItaly that he appears as a somewhat effeminate youth, half draped like\nApollo, with rounded and graceful limbs. His attributes are the rhyton\nor keras (only on B.F. vases), the kantharos, a form of drinking-cup\nspecially associated with him, a vine-branch, and the thyrsos; he is\naccompanied by panthers and other animals, or swings the limbs of a kid\n(\u03c7\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). Usually he maintains a calm and unmoved attitude amid\nthe wild revelries of his followers. _Ariadne_ is undistinguished\nexcept by her association with him. _Pan_, who only occurs on later\nvases, is almost invariably represented as a beardless youthful figure,\nwith goat\u2019s horns, but human legs; when, however, he has goat\u2019s legs or\nfeet, he is usually called Aegipan, and in this aspect he assumes a\nsomewhat dwarfish and more bestial aspect.[1951]\n\n_Satyrs_ are either elderly and bearded, or youthful; in all cases with\npointed ears and horses\u2019 tails, and undraped except for the fawn-skins\nwhich they frequently wear. They carry a thyrsos, drinking-cups, or\nmusical instruments, according to the circumstances in which they are\ndepicted. In Ionic art (Vol. I. p. 353 ff.) the Satyrs invariably have\nhorses\u2019 feet as well as tails, and are usually of repulsive appearance.\nThe _Seileni_ are really aged Satyrs, depicted as bald or white-haired,\nbut not otherwise differentiated, except in the case of\n_Papposeilenos_, who is covered with shaggy skin.[1952] The _Maenads_\nare often represented (especially on B.F. vases) as ordinary draped\nwomen, or only with the addition of a fawn-skin or panther-skin over\ntheir chiton; they carry the _thyrsos_, or frequently on later vases a\nlarge tambourine (_tympanon_).\n\nOf the personages associated with the under-world, _Hades_ is usually\nan elderly bearded deity of the Zeus type. He carries a sceptre, often\nwith ornamented top, and sometimes from his Chthonian association with\nDionysos holds a kantharos, vine-branch, or cornucopia. _Kerberos_ has\nthree heads only on two Cacretan hydriae and the Apulian under-world\nvases; his usual number is two, but once or twice he has only\none.[1953] _Hekate_ has torches for her customary attribute, and the\n_Furies_, who only occur on South Italian vases, wear short chitons\nwith cross-belts and have rough hair, in which and round their arms\nserpents are intertwined. _Charon_ the ferryman is represented as an\nelderly man in short chiton and conical cap (cf. Fig. 122), but the\ngrim Etruscan _Charun_ is a repulsive and savage hook-nosed demon,\nwielding a hammer. _Thanatos_ and _Hypnos_, the two Death-deities, are\nboth winged men, but only the former is bearded (cf. Fig. 123); there\nis usually nothing forbidding in his appearance. The question of the\nrepresentation of ghosts or souls (\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1) has been fully discussed (p.\n72); most commonly they are diminutive winged figures, and in other\ncases they appear as in ordinary life,[1954] but possibly they\nsometimes appear in the form of birds.[1955]\n\n_Gaia_ is represented half rising out of the earth, a beautiful but not\nyoung woman, with long hair (Fig. 112); or, as Pandora, her head alone\nis seen (see p. 73). _Kybele_ occasionally appears, with her attendant\nlion, and an even rarer figure is _Asklepios_, with his serpent. The\n_Eileithyiae_, who attend at the birth of Athena, are ordinary women,\ndistinguished by the appropriate gestures of their hands (Fig. 113).\n_Iris_, the female messenger of the gods, appears winged, with short\nchiton to allow of rapid movement, and carrying the caduceus or\nherald\u2019s staff; _Hebe_, on the other hand, is an ordinary woman. _Nike_\nis usually to be distinguished from Iris by her long flowing draperies,\neven when in flight; the various attributes usually associated with her\nhave already been dealt with in detail (p. 87).[1956]\n\nAmong personifications, _Helios_ is a youthful figure in a chariot,\nusually with rays round his head (as on Plate LIII.); in one or two\ncases his head is surmounted by a white disc; _Selene_ appears on\nhorseback, and is sometimes indicated by a crescent moon; where Helios\nis accompanied by a goddess in a chariot, it is probable that _Nyx_\n(Night) is intended (see p. 79). The _Stars_ are represented as nude\nyouths. The _Aurae_ or breezes appear as girls floating through the\nair; the _Hyades_ or rain-Nymphs are identified by their\nwater-pitchers. A group of winged gods and goddesses is formed by Eos,\nAgon (the masculine counterpart of Nike), Eris, Lyssa (Frenzy),[1957]\nand the various wind-gods, such as Boreas and Zephyros. These are found\nat all periods, but the types vary. _Eris_, who is only found on B.F.\nvases, resembles the Gorgons (see below), a somewhat grotesque figure\nwith wings, rough hair, and short girt chiton; _Lyssa_ only occurs on\nApulian vases, and is akin in type to the Furies\u2014in two instances her\nfigure is enclosed in a circle of rays of light, perhaps to express the\nblinding effect of her action, and she holds a goad.[1958] _Oistros_, a\nkindred figure, rides in a car drawn by serpents, and carries torches.\nThe type of Agon is assimilated to that of Eros on R.F. vases; on those\nof earlier date (if this is the correct interpretation) he wears a\nshort girt chiton and holds a wreath. The _Wind-gods_ on B.F. vases\nwear the petasos and high boots, and short girt chiton; _Zephyros_ is\nrepresented as a youth; and _Boreas_, who only occurs on R.F. vases,\nwears Thracian costume; he is bearded, and his hair is often rough and\nshaggy. But these winged deities cannot always be identified with\ncertainty. Among other personifications, _Geras_ is a somewhat ugly old\nman; the _Muses_ are distinguished by their various musical\ninstruments; and _Cities and Countries_ are occasionally\nindividualised. For instance, Thebes, on a vase by Assteas, wears a\nturreted crown; Sparta appears as a Nymph on horseback; and, generally\nspeaking, their presence is usually indicated not only by inscriptions,\nbut by their relation to the scene depicted.[1959] _River-gods_, such\nas Achelo\u00f6s, appear as human-headed bulls, with horns, but the\nlast-named on a stamnos by Pamphaios (E 437 in B.M.) has a fish-tail.\n\n_Kastor_ and _Polydeukes_ usually appear on horseback and in hunting\ncostume, with petasos, chlamys, and spears; on later vases they\nsometimes wear the pileus, a conical cap which often appears as their\nemblem on coins. _Herakles_ on earlier vases is always bearded, and\nwears the lion\u2019s skin fastened round his waist with a belt, the\nforepaws knotted round his throat[1960]; the head covers his head like\na cap, leaving his face only exposed, and under it he wears a short\ngirt chiton; he is armed with his club, or bow and quiver, and\nsometimes with a sword. On R.F. vases he is often nude, or only wears\nthe skin in chlamys fashion. On the earlier vases he is often less\ncharacterised, and the same applies to the later R.F. vases, on which\nhe is frequently beardless; in many cases he is only to be identified\nby his club. _Theseus_ always appears as a youth, and on the R.F. cups\nusually wears a short loose chiton of crinkly material (cf. Vol. I.,\nFrontisp.); his arms are a sword, or sometimes a club. _Perseus_ wears\nthe winged petasos or cap of darkness and high boots (the shoes of\nswiftness), sometimes winged; he carries the wallet or \u03ba\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, and\nsometimes the \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b7 or curved sword with which he slew Medusa. _Pelops_\non the Apulian vases is usually characterised as an Oriental, with\nrichly embroidered costume and a tiara or embroidered cap. The Homeric\nheroes are only to be identified by inscriptions, or by the actions in\nwhich they take part, but _Paris_ is usually in Oriental costume; in\nJudgment scenes he holds a lyre, but when he takes part in combats he\nis attired as an archer, with bow and quiver, Phrygian cap, jerkin, and\ntrousers. _Kekrops_, the mythical king of Athens, usually ends in a\nserpent\u2019s tail, to denote his autochthonous origin; _Midas_ has ass\u2019s\nears; _Orpheus_ is recognised by his lyre, and sometimes wears, as a\nmusician, feminine costume (see below, p. 197).[1961]\n\nOf other mythological types the _Amazons_ are, of course, always armed,\nfrequently in the Oriental fashion, with Phrygian cap or _kidaris_ and\ntrousers; their weapons are the crescent-shaped shield or _pelta_, and\na peculiar type of battle-axe, the _sagaris_. The _Giants_ on B.F.\nvases are ordinary armed warriors, not even of exceptional size, but in\nlater times they often end in serpents, as on the Pergamene frieze.\n_Typhon_ appears in this form on a Chalcidian vase.[1962] _Geryon_ is\nrepresented in the manner described by Pausanias (vi. 19, 1), as \u201cthree\nmen joined together,\u201d with distinctive arms and legs; on Chalcidian\nvases he has four wings, and is only triple from the waist upwards. The\n_Centaurs_ on the more archaic vases, as on those of Ionia, appear as\nmen with the body and hind legs of a horse attached behind; by the\nmiddle of the sixth century they appear in the familiar form of a human\nbust conjoined with a horse\u2019s body. The _Gorgons_ are always rendered\nin grotesque fashion, with grinning faces and dishevelled hair\nintertwined with serpents; they wear short girt chitons and high winged\nboots, and have four wings, the upper pair recurved; usually on B.F.\nvases they appear in what is known as \u201cthe archaic running attitude,\u201d\nor, as the Germans more expressively phrase it, \u201cKnielaufschema,\u201d the\nfigures being represented as if kneeling on one knee. The same\ngrotesque type of face,[1963] with the protruding tongue and teeth,\nappertains to the Medusa\u2019s head or Gorgoneion, which is at all periods\nsuch a favourite decorative motive on vases, either as the interior\ndesign of a B.F. kylix, or as a medallion in relief on late vases. The\nmore beautiful type of Medusa head is a creation of later date than\nmost of the painted vases, but in the medallions on Italian vases much\nof the grotesqueness has disappeared.\n\nMuch confusion at one time existed between the conceptions of the\n_Harpy_ and the _Siren_, both names being indiscriminately applied to\nthe female-headed bird so common on vases of all periods. But there is\nample evidence for the representation of the Harpy more in the style of\nthe Gorgons, as a purely feminine type, with the short chiton suited\nfor rapid movement, high boots, and wings, and often in the\nconventional running attitude.[1964] In this form they appear in one\ninstance as feminine counterparts of the male Boreades.[1965] The Siren\ntypes vary at different times, the earlier Sirens frequently having\nhuman arms.[1966] The _Sphinx_ is always a woman-headed winged\nfour-footed beast; sometimes on Corinthian and Ionic vases she wears a\nhigh head-dress. The _Gryphon_[1967] is a winged lion with eagle\u2019s\nbeak, and often with erect ears; the winged _Pegasos_ and the\nbull-headed _Minotaur_ require no description.\n\n * * * * *\n\nTurning now to personages concerned in events of every-day life, we\nfind great variety of costume and equipment, especially at different\nperiods and under different circumstances. The vases, in fact, may be\nsaid to supply the most instructive _locus classicus_ for Greek dress\nand ornament, as well as for minor details\u2014such as weapons, implements,\nand furniture\u2014of which they provide contemporary illustrations.\n\n_Kings_ are usually distinguished by dignified flowing robes, by the\nwearing of a wreath or head-dress, or by the sceptre which they\nhold.[1968] Oriental potentates wear the costume of their country, with\nlofty ornamented tiaras, or the Persian _kidaris_ or _kyrbasia_\u2014a\npeaked cap decorated with fringes and lappets. Their dress is often\nvery elaborate on the later vases. _Actors_ and _musicians_ both wear\nappropriate costumes. The former, who hardly occur except on the\nItalian vases, wear the dress of the Old Comedy, with grotesque mask,\npadded stomach, loose jerkin, and trousers.[1969] Tragic actors are\nseldom represented; but it has already been pointed out[1970] that in\nthe setting of the mythological scenes on the vases of Southern Italy\nthere is an unmistakable reflection of the tragic stage, especially in\nthe elaborate and somewhat exaggerated details of costume. Musicians\ninvariably wear a long chiton, over which on R.F. vases they sometimes\nwear a short loose garment called the \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, embroidered with\npatterns.[1971] There are also a few instances of male performers\n(recognisable by their beards) in distinctively feminine costume.[1972]\n\n_Athletes_ are invariably nude when performing their exercises, except\nin the case of the armed foot-race (see p. 164); in the torch-race they\nseem to have worn high crowns; on the reverse of late R.F. vases they\nappear inactive, wrapped in mantles and conversing in groups. _Hunters_\nwear a distinctive costume of petasos and chlamys, and usually carry\ntwo spears. Boys on horseback are usually represented nude, and on\nIonic vases have their hair tied in a tuft behind.[1973] _Charioteers_\nare always attired in a long girt chiton reaching to the feet, which on\nAttic B.F. vases is painted white. They usually hold a goad in the\nright hand, the reins in the left. _Heralds_ wear the attributes of\nHermes\u2014the petasos, caduceus, and high boots, with a chlamys or short\ngirt chiton. _Warriors_ on the early and B.F. vases are equipped in a\nfashion which tallies to some extent with the descriptions of\nHomer.[1974] Their armour usually consists of a crested Corinthian\nhelmet, a metal cuirass, under which is a short chiton, and greaves, to\nwhich are sometimes added the thigh-coverings known as _parameridia_.\nSome peculiarities may also be noted\u2014such as the hooked projection on\nthe front of helmets on the Ionic vases of Daphnae and the Clazomenae\nsarcophagi,[1975] the linen cuirasses (indicated by white paint)\nsometimes worn on Attic B.F. vases,[1976] or the heavy helmets with\nlarge cheek-pieces seen on the Caeretan hydriae (Plate XXVI.). The R.F.\nvases often represent the fully armed Athenian hoplite equipped in the\nsame fashion as the B.F.; but in these, and more especially in the\nItalian vases, there is a tendency to omit much of the defensive\narmour. Cuirasses on R.F. vases are often decorated with patterns of\nscales or panelling.[1977] Helmets on Italian vases often assume a\nlocal character, with conical crowns and two or three lofty\nplumes.[1978]\n\nOf offensive armour, the full equipment consists of sword, spear, and\nshield. The two former call for no comment, but the shields, which are\nof two forms, the circular Argive or the indented oval Boeotian,\npresent one feature of great interest\u2014the devices with which they are\nadorned.[1979] Investigations have failed to discern in these any\nsymbolical or heraldic significance; they are not appropriated to\nparticular personages, and all that can be noted about them is that\nthey usually seem to suggest rapid movement. Thus we find an eagle or\nother flying bird, wheels, balls, chariots, a bent leg, a serpent,\nPegasos, and so on. The passage in the _Septem_ of Aeschylus (387 ff.),\nin which the shield-devices of the combatants are described, is of\ncourse familiar, and similar allusions are not wanting in Greek\nwriters.[1980] They are universal on B.F. vases, being painted in white\non black ground, and are often found on the earlier R.F. vases in black\non red; but they seem to disappear at an early stage of the R.F.\nperiod. Sometimes they consist only of letters of the alphabet, as on a\nPanathenaic amphora, where Athena\u2019s shield has the letters \u0391 to \u0398; on a\nB.F. vase in the British Museum are the letters \u0391\u0398\u0395.[1981] Other\npeculiar subjects are a winged boar, two rams butting, a figure of\nArtemis, a white-bordered square, and a ladder.[1982] Some of those on\nR.F. vases are somewhat elaborate\u2014a Seilenos,[1983] a fox eating\ngrapes,[1984] an armed runner,[1985] or a warrior blowing a\ntrumpet.[1986] A variation is when the device takes the form of an\nobject in relief\u2014a Satyr-mask,[1987] Gorgoneion,[1988] mask of Phobos\n(Panic),[1989] or a Gryphon,[1990] or a rearing serpent[1991]; or when\na shield is surrounded by a fringe of serpents.[1992] Shields\nfrequently have a piece of fringed and embroidered stuff suspended from\nthem, which seems to have served as a protection to the legs.[1993]\n\n_Archers_ are depicted in Oriental costume, wearing peaked caps with\nlong lappets and a close-fitting dress of leather, consisting of jerkin\nand trousers, usually embroidered with various patterns. The different\nbarbarian types which appear on vases\u2014Persians, Scythians, Arimaspi,\nand Thracians\u2014are more or less individualised, especially on the R.F.\nvases. Such subjects, indeed, were not really popular until the Persian\nwars. The details of Oriental costume have already been noted.\nThracians on R.F. vases wear a long loose cloak known as the _zeira_\nand a cap of foxskin (_alopeke_) with long flaps, which dress is also\nworn by Boreas (see above). In the first half of the fifth century\nOriental costumes seem to have had a period of popularity among the\nfashionable young men of Athens, especially the knights; and they are\noften depicted riding in the _zeira_ or striped and embroidered dresses\nof outlandish style (see pp. 166, 179). Egyptians are often\nrealistically rendered, with shaven heads,[1994] as are negroes and\nAethiopians. The latter, like all barbarians on vases, usually wear\ntrousers. On the vases of Southern Italy details of local (Osco-Samnite\nor Messapian) costumes often appear (see p. 180, and Vol. I. p. 483),\nespecially in the case of helmets and breastplates worn by warriors on\nCampanian vases.\n\nOn the earlier vases, down to the end of the B.F. period, there is\nfrequently no distinction between the dress of men and women, and to\nthis fact may have been due the practice of painting the latter white\nto differentiate them. Both wear the long Doric chiton, with a mantle\nor himation thrown over it; but men often wear the smaller chlamys over\nthe shoulders in place of the himation. Women, again, on the earlier\nB.F. vases, often appear without the himation, and wear a long chiton\ntightly girt at the waist, with a short _apoptygma_ or fold falling\nover the breast. On R.F. vases the Doric chiton is sometimes worn by\nwomen, open down one side (known as the \u03c7\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2). Men in the\n\u201cstrong\u201d R.F. period wear a short loose chiton of fine crinkly linen.\nGenerally in the R.F. period there is greater freedom of costume and\nvariety of material and arrangement. The Ionic chiton is introduced\nabout 500 B.C., but its vogue does not seem to have lasted long at\nAthens. In place of the _apoptygma_ women sometimes wear a loose\nover-garment, known as the _diplois_. On the earliest vases men are\noften nude, with the exception of a loin-cloth or pair of tight-fitting\n\u201cbathing-drawers.\u201d Women are practically never nude on vases, except\nwhen occupied in bathing or washing, or in the case of _hetairae_ and\njugglers.\n\nThe draperies, especially the chitons, are often richly embroidered\nwith patterns, represented by incising and purple and white colours on\nthe B.F. vases, by black paint on the R.F. On the former the women\u2019s\nchiton is often covered with a sort of diaper pattern of squares,\nfilled in with circles and stars, or the dresses (both of men and\nwomen) are covered with groups of dots and flowers in white and purple.\nIn the late fine R.F. period and on the vases of Lucania and Apulia the\npatterns become exceedingly rich and varied[1995]: chequers,\nwave-pattern, palmettes, stars, egg-pattern, maeander, and all kinds of\nborders are introduced. A further extension of the principle is seen in\nthe introduction of borders of figures, the most notable instances of\nwhich are on the Fran\u00e7ois vase and the Hieron kotyle.[1996] On the\nformer the technique is remarkable as a kind of anticipation of red\nfigures on black. Aristotle speaks of a garment made for Alkimenes of\nSybaris on which deities were represented between borders decorated\nwith Oriental figures, the subjects being the sacred animals of the\nMedes and Persians.[1997] We may also cite the remarkable statue of\nDemeter found at Lykosura in Arcadia, the drapery of which is decorated\nwith inlaid borders of figures,[1998] and the mantle of Jason described\nby Apollonius Rhodius.[1999]\n\nThe hair of women on B.F. vases, and frequently also that of men,\nusually falls loose or in tight curls on the shoulders, with a fringe\nover the forehead. On the early R.F. vases men often wear their hair\nlooped up behind in the fashion known as the \u03ba\u03c1\u03ce\u03b2\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2,[2000] which, as\nwe know from Thucydides, went out about 480 B.C. Women, on the other\nhand, have theirs knotted up and confined under a cap. On later R.F.\nvases and on those of Apulia their hair is usually gathered up in the\n_opisthosphendone_, or in a broad coif or fillets, and arranged in\nbunches of curls in front and behind. On late R.F. vases a radiated\ndiadem, painted white, is often seen. Men are seldom represented with\nlong hair after 480 B.C., but they usually wear a wreath or plain\nfillet. Head-coverings are rarely worn by ordinary persons, with the\nexception of the traveller\u2019s and huntsman\u2019s _petasos_; but Oriental\npersonages usually wear a high cap of some kind (see above, under\nBarbarians). Jewellery\u2014such as necklaces, earrings, armlets, or\nanklets\u2014is comparatively rare on B.F. vases, but becomes more and more\ncommon, until it reaches profusion on those of Apulia. Bracelets and\nanklets are often in the form of serpents. Various forms of sandals or\nshoes are seen on later vases, but on the black-figured the only kind\nof footgear is the high boot or _endromis_, with a curved tag in front.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe extent to which physiognomical expressions are rendered on vases\nvaries at different periods[2001]; but it is not true, as has sometimes\nbeen thought, that the artists altogether ignored such expressions in\ntheir figures; it was only in the earlier phases that this was the\ncase, and even during the fifth century the advance was timid and slow,\nmuch more so than in sculpture. As a rule, in the same vase all the\nfaces are alike, and no physiognomical distinction can be drawn between\ngods and heroes, or even between men and women, except (on the Attic\nvases) in the treatment of the eye. On the B.F. vases the ordinary type\nof face has a long nose, with a tendency to turn up, a pointed chin,\ndeep rounded jaw, and large eyes, while the limbs are sinewy, angular,\nand tapering. Beards of some length are invariable for grown or elderly\nmen; otherwise distinctions of age are hardly observed until the R.F.\nperiod. And as in sculpture of the archaic period all figures have the\nsame conventional smile, so on the B.F. vases gods, heroes, and mortals\nalike all pursue the actions in which they are engaged with the same\nunvarying expression. The contrast of violent action and calm unmoved\nphysiognomy is often quaint, and almost grotesque.\n\nIndications of expression or sentiment are, in fact, rather implicit\nthan explicit. They are given in a sort of shorthand fashion, just as\nPolygnotos in his great paintings, by some subtle touch\u2014by a change of\nattitude or the action of a hand\u2014indicated the emotion he wished to\nconvey. In the different treatment of the male and female eye there is,\nno doubt, an attempt to give to the man a more lively expression by\nmeans of the round pupil, while the oval form of the woman\u2019s eye gives\nher a softer and less intense look. The neglect of this principle on\nIonian vases, where the male eye is oval, seems to be a reflection of\nthe effeminate tendencies of the Ionian races.[2002] At an early date\nwe may observe a special treatment of the eye to represent it as\nclosed, in the case of a blind or dying person. Thus the Phineus of the\nW\u00fcrzburg cup has merely an angular mark in place of an eye,\nrepresenting the fall of the upper eyelid over the lower, or the eye is\nrepresented as a vacant space without pupil.[2003] The mouth is\nsometimes open to express pain or anger, as in the Nessos of the\nProto-Attic vase,[2004] or the quarrelling heroes on a vase in the\nLouvre (F 340). It is also used to express the agony of a dying or\ninjured person, as on a vase with the outraged Polyphemos,[2005] with\nwhich we may compare the dying warrior of the Aegina pediment. But all\nthese are rather exceptions than the rule on B.F. vases.\n\nAfter the time of Polygnotos the influence of painting makes itself\nfelt, and we may recall that he perfected the advances of Kimon in this\nrespect. Not only did the vase-painters learn from him how to dispose\nfigures _en face_ or in three-quarter view, but they also learned how\nto mark different expressions. It has also been observed that the\ninfluence of tragedy must have been strong at this time. The krater\nfrom Orvieto in the Louvre (Vol. I. p. 442) is a good instance of the\nprogress made in the fifth century in this direction. On one side of\nthe vase (see Fig. 103, _ibid._) we have a dying Niobid and a youth\nwith face to the front and eyes closing; on the other, in the\nArgonautic scene, a warrior holding his knees, with lower lip fallen,\ngiving him a melancholy expression, and Herakles with a face of\nsadness, marked by wrinkles. Other figures show exactly in what\ndirection they are looking (compare Kimon\u2019s figures \u201clooking down or\nupwards\u201d).[2006] In the later developments of the Apulian vases, with\ntheir scenes drawn from tragic themes and represented in such dramatic\nfashion, there is plenty of ability to represent emotion, and in\nseveral cases it is accurately expressed, as in some of the scenes from\nthe sack of Troy. But in other cases, as on the Assteas vase in Madrid\n(Fig. 107), much of the old quaintness and grotesqueness is apparent.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is also necessary to treat of the methods adopted by the artist for\nindicating locality or landscape in his pictures, a thing which is\noften done in the briefest and most cursory manner. The germs of this\nprinciple are perhaps to be observed (as noted elsewhere, Vol. I. p.\n312) in the floral ground-ornaments of the Corinthian and other early\nvases. In the more developed vase-paintings a sort of shorthand system\nis customary, a system which in some degree probably prevailed on the\nGreek stage, as on that of the Elizabethan drama. Thus a temple or a\nhouse is represented by a column, or two columns supporting a pediment,\na wood or grove by a single tree, water by two dolphins swimming in the\nlower part of the design, and so on. A notable exception is in the\npalace depicted on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, in which Thetis awaits the\narrival of the bridegroom Peleus. So much of the building is given in\ndetail that it is even possible to attempt a restoration.[2007] On the\nsame vase the walls of Troy are depicted, with a double door studded\nwith nails. In the Hydrophoria scenes (p. 173) considerable attention\nis paid to the architectural details of the well-house, which was\nprobably in the form of a small temple, perhaps circular, surrounded by\na colonnade. The water issues from spouts in the form of lions\u2019 heads,\nand statues are often depicted in different parts of the building. The\nFran\u00e7ois vase also gives an illustration of a well-house, with portico\nsupported by columns. The architecture is almost invariably Doric. In\noutdoor scenes rocks occasionally appear, but only where they are\nnecessary to the subject, as in the ambuscade of Achilles for Troilos.\nThe branches of trees which frequently cover all the vacant spaces of\nthe design on later B.F. vases, especially in Dionysiac scenes, may be\nmainly intended for decorative effect.\n\nIn the R.F. period more and more attention is paid to landscape and\narchitectural detail as the style develops, but there is still a strong\ntendency to adhere to the shorthand system\u2014a tendency which increases\nrather than disappears, especially on the white-ground vases. The\nartist\u2019s object was always to make his figures stand out, as far as\npossible, clear against the background, and he therefore deliberately\navoided anything likely to interfere with the desired effect. Landscape\nproper, with indications of ground-lines, rocks, and trees, was only\nintroduced when the Polygnotan influence became strong, and the Orvieto\nkrater in the Louvre may be once more cited as a good and early\ninstance of a new development. Scenes in architectural settings are\nrare, but an exception may be noted in the case of some of the late\nR.F. vases with scenes in women\u2019s apartments, where careful attention\nis paid to the details of the door-ways, even to the locks and\nkey-holes.[2008] For the rest, it usually sufficed to indicate the\npalaestra by a strigil or oil-flask suspended, or a pair of\njumping-weights; musical gatherings by a lyre or a flute in a case;\nbanqueting-rooms by cups and other vases hung up, or by rows of boots.\nSimilarly, women\u2019s apartments are represented by a window, door, or\ncolumn, or by sashes, hoods, mirrors, wreaths, and wool-baskets\nscattered about.[2009]\n\nIn the vases of Southern Italy this principle is carried almost to\nexcess. Not only is the old idea of rosettes and flowers scattered\nabout the scene revived, but the whole surface of the design is often\ncovered with miscellaneous objects, such as balls, sashes, and mirrors.\nOn the Apulian vases the use of a double line of white dots to indicate\nthe ground is invariable, and loose stones are scattered about where it\nis intended to be rocky. Flowers grow about in rich profusion. In the\nmythological scenes an elaborate architectural background is frequent,\nand altars, tripods, and columns serve the same end; the _heroa_ or\nshrines and other forms of tomb in the sepulchral scenes have already\nbeen described. In athletic scenes, especially on the reverse of the\nkraters, a ball, a stylus and tablets, or a pair of jumping-weights are\nsuspended in the air to indicate the palaestra; and on Lucanian vases\nsubjects of a military nature are suggested by a suspended shield only\npartly visible. The \u201ccourting-scenes\u201d on Apulian vases usually have a\nrepresentation of a window in a corner of the design.\n\n \u00a7 2. ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECTS\n\nThe next point to be considered is the method of arrangement and\ncomposition of the figures in general on Greek vases. As regards the\nMycenaean, Geometrical, and other early wares, they may be left out of\nconsideration,\u2014firstly, because their ornamentation is mainly composed\nof decorative motives or single figures of animals; secondly, because\neven where compositions of figure subjects are found, as on the great\nDipylon vases, the method of arrangement is still tentative and without\nsystem. The figures are arranged in haphazard groups and bands, and all\nthe remaining spaces are filled in with ornament.\n\nThe first attempt at an organised method of decoration is seen in the\nvases of Corinth and Ionia, and is exemplified principally in the\narrangement of the friezes of animals. Roughly speaking, there are two\nmain tendencies, one characteristic of each line of development\u2014the\nprocession and the heraldic group. Both are essentially Oriental\n(_i.e._ Assyrian) in origin, the prototype of the latter being the\nfamiliar motive of the two animals and the sacred tree, which is so\nfrequently found on Mycenaean gems, and is best exemplified in the\nfamous Lion Gate of Mycenae.[2010] Yet this typically Mycenaean and\nOriental motive was not the one adopted by its natural inheritors, the\nIonians, and it is in Dorian Corinth that we find its reflection on the\npainted vases. On one Corinthian vase[2011] it actually occurs in the\nform of a conventional palmette and lotos-pattern (representing the\ntree), on either side of which two lions are confronted in true\nMycenaean fashion. Later, it becomes a common device on the necks of\nvases, the ornament taking the form of a decorative combination of\npalmettes (see below, p. 226). Even when on Corinthian vases a whole\nfrieze of animals is found, there is always a central \u201cheraldic\u201d group\nof two, towards which the whole seems to lead up, or else the frieze is\nbroken up into several isolated heraldic groups.[2012] But on the Ionic\nvases, as on those of Rhodes and Naukratis, we have over and over again\nregular processions of animals all facing the same way, or, as at\nDaphnae, solemn dances of women, similarly placed and joining\nhand-in-hand (see Plate XXV.).\n\nIn the developed B.F. vases the same principles are observed to some\nextent, especially where friezes of animals are introduced; but there\nis much greater freedom of treatment within the limits of the field\navailable. Generally speaking, however, all designs on B.F. vases may\nbe regarded as following one of the three methods of architectural\ncomposition\u2014the frieze, the pediment, or the metope. The frieze style,\nwhich is seen on the shoulders of hydriae, the exteriors of kylikes,\nand sometimes on the bodies of amphorae, oinochoae, or lekythi, implies\na series of figures, all turned in the same direction, but without any\ncentral point for the action, as in processions of warriors, dances of\nSatyrs and Maenads, and so on. In the pediment style of composition the\nessential feature is a centre-point, in which the interest of the\nsubject is concentrated, as in such scenes as the Birth of Athena[2013]\nor Theseus killing the Minotaur.[2014] The central group is then\nflanked by figures immediately interested in the action (Eileithyia and\nHephaistos, or Ariadne, in the instances quoted; Athena and Iolaos at\nthe labours of Herakles); and the ends of the pediment, so to speak,\nare occupied by groups of bystanders, often nameless and\nuncharacterised, who are in fact only included to fill up the space\nrequired.\n\nThe metope style, which only admits of three, or at most four, figures,\nwas found convenient for all the vases with subjects on panels, where\nspace was restricted, and also on the kylikes of the \u201cminor artist\u201d\nclass, on which a limited use of figures was preferred, and on those of\nlater date where the space was mainly taken up by the large eyes. But\nin all these cases\u2014friezes, pediments, or metopes\u2014one thing was held to\nbe essential: the correspondence of the two halves of the design\n(except in friezes), producing perfect symmetry in the composition.\n\nLastly, there are a limited number of cases where a single figure was\nfound sufficient, as in the interior of kylikes, on the circular\npinakes,[2015] and sometimes on the vases where the large eyes take up\nmost of the space.[2016]\n\nSubordinate designs, bordering the main design of an amphora above or\nbelow, or decorating the cover, are usually in the form of animals or\nchariot-races, in the frieze style of composition. Similar friezes are\nsometimes also found (in the old B.F. method) on R.F. vases, and even\non the kraters of Southern Italy.\n\nThe earlier R.F. vases preserve the principles of the preceding period;\nand, in regard to the kylikes, the system of decoration has been\ndiscussed in detail elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 427). In all of them we see\nparticular attention paid to arrangement, and the variations in the\nprinciples of composition form one of our guides in determining the\ndevelopment of the style. In the amphorae and hydriae of the transition\nfrom the severe to the strong period the number of figures employed in\none scene was diminished, while they became larger in their proportions\nand were treated with more care; the usual number on the Nolan amphora\nis one or two each side. On the smaller vases, such as the oinocho\u00eb,\nthe number of the figures never exceeds three. Sometimes the hydriae\nhave an elongated composition on the shoulder, containing a frieze of\nseveral figures[2017]; but usually the design runs into both shoulder\nand body. Designs in framed panels are rare, except on the earlier\namphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters. The latter are\nunique in preserving the older methods of decoration right through the\nR.F. period down to the fourth-century specimens from Southern Italy.\n\nThe influence of Polygnotos and his contemporaries brought about, as we\nhave seen, a great change in the arrangement of the compositions, by\nthe introduction of landscape and perspective, and the depicting of\nfigures at different levels. This new development was subsequently\nexemplified in the large vases of Kertch and Apulia, but in the late\nfine period at Athens small vases with single friezes or simple\nsubjects were the rule. In the pyxides and other vases with frieze\nsubjects the figures are often crowded together and of dwarfish\nproportions (Plate XLII. fig. 3). A return to the old system of several\nfriezes is seen where the figures are arranged in two or more rows\ndivided by bands of ornaments, as in the Meidias hydria, or the early\nApulian and some of the Lucanian vases.[2018]\n\nThe earlier vases of Southern Italy, especially those of Lucania,\npreserve in some measure the spirit of the best R.F. vases, in the\narrangement of the figures, and at all times the composition is one of\nthe best features of these vases; but in the later examples the purely\ndecorative element obtrudes itself; single figures of little more than\nornamental character abound, and the old preference for mere ornament\nasserts itself, the patterns encroaching all over the scenes.\n\n \u00a7 3. ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS\n\nAlthough by far subordinate to the subjects in point of artistic or\narchaeological interest, the ornamental patterns which are employed on\nthe vases are by no means without their value in both respects.[2019]\nThey are, indeed, intimately interwoven with the subjects themselves,\nwhich they frame in, relieve, or embellish. Numerous vases are\ndecorated with ornaments only, even in the advanced stages of the art;\nand this is, of course, an extremely common occurrence in the earlier\nfabrics, such as the Geometrical and Rhodian. Others, again, are only\nornamented in the simplest fashion, with plain bands of red left to\nshow through the black varnish round the body or foot. That the artist\ntook a pride even in this form of ornamentation is shown by the fact\nthat some potters, such as Nikosthenes and the \u201cminor artists,\u201d have\nleft their names on vases only decorated with simple patterns.\n\nFrom the very beginning of Greek vase-painting there may be observed an\nendeavour to dispose the ornamental patterns in accordance with some\nsystem; and even though in some cases, as in the Cypriote Geometrical\nvases, there is an offence against the canons of art, yet at all\nperiods the prevailing effect is one of symmetry and taste. It may be\nthought that in some respects there is a poverty in the variety of\nornaments employed\u2014as compared, for instance, with mediaeval art; but\nit should be remembered that\u2014as their architecture shows\u2014the Greek\nprinciple was to achieve the highest results within a limited sphere.\nTheir system was conventional, but its conventions are forgotten in the\nartistic effect that it produces.\n\nIt is on the earliest vases that the greatest variety and richness of\nornament occurs; as the art is developed the ornamentation becomes more\nand more subsidiary, until on the vases of the finest R.F. period it\nhas almost disappeared. But in the later phases it again comes to the\nfore, tending more and more to obscure and finally to supersede the\nsubjects. To set forth as briefly as possible the growth and\ndevelopment of Greek ornament, both as a whole and in the case of\nindividual motives, will be the object of the succeeding summary. It\nwill be found advisable to treat the subject in a twofold\naspect,\u2014firstly, dealing with individual forms and their development;\nand, secondly, in their relation to the decoration of the vases and\ntheir subjects, as exemplified in the different periods and fabrics.\n\nVarious theories have been propounded as to the origin of the ornaments\nfound on Greek vases. Some have seen in the patterns architectural\nadaptations, suggested by the ornamentation of the different members of\na temple, such as the maeander, egg-and-tongue pattern, or the\nastragalus, just as the disposition of the subject is often a\nreminiscence of the frieze or metopes. But this is no real explanation.\nIn the first place, the patterns are found on vases at a period when\nthey were hardly as yet used in architecture; and, secondly, their use\non vases and in architecture must undoubtedly be traced to a common\nsource. Others, again, have regarded them as conventional symbols, the\nkymation or wave-pattern representing water, a flower or rosette the\nground on which the figures stand, and so on. Or, again, it has been\nthought that they were originally derived from textile patterns, being\nproduced mechanically by the ways in which the threads ran in the loom,\nwhence they were applied with deliberate artistic intention to the\nsurface of a vase.\n\nIt is, in fact, impossible to put forward any one theory which will\naccount for the whole system of decorative ornament. As has been\npointed out in our introductory chapter, many of these patterns are not\nonly spontaneous, but universal in their origin among primitive\npeoples; every nation has begun with its circles, triangles, spirals,\nor chevrons. We are also, in regard to the Greeks, met with the\nremarkable fact that in its earliest form their painted pottery\npresents a very elaborate and highly developed system of\nornamentation\u2014purely geometrical, it is true, yet none the less of an\nadvanced character. It is a composite system, formed partly from\nMycenaean and pre-Mycenaean local elements, and partly from the\ndecorative ideas introduced by the Dorians from Central Europe;\nsubsequently the range of Greek vase-ornament was yet further enlarged\nby the introduction of vegetable patterns, the palmette, the\nlotos-flower, and the rosette, which are due to the growth of Oriental\ninfluences, both from Egypt and from Assyria.\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 139. MAEANDER OR EMBATTLED PATTERN.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 140. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (ATTIC).]\n\nIn order to deal with the various ornaments and patterns in detail, it\nmay be found convenient to divide them under three heads\u2014rectilinear,\ncurvilinear, and vegetable or floral. Of the first class the most\nconsistently popular is the typically Greek pattern known as the\n_maeander_, key, or fret pattern. It first appears with the Geometrical\nstyle, in which it plays an important part, often covering a large\nproportion of the surface of a vase, arranged in broad friezes. Three\nvarieties are found\u2014a simple battlement pattern (Fig. 139), and the\nslightly more elaborate forms, Fig. 140, and the pattern given in Vol.\nI. p. 283, Fig. 83. In the Boeotian Geometrical, Phaleron, and\nProto-Corinthian fabrics it is seldom found, or only in a debased form,\nas [maeander] but one or two forms occur in the \u201cRhodian\u201d and \u201cSamian\u201d\nfabrics of Ionia; one of these is given in Fig. 141, and another\nconsists of squares of the same alternating with crosses or stars in\npanels. We meet with a most interesting development of the latter\nvariety in the vases of the so-called Pontic class and on the\nClazomenae sarcophagi, where an elaborate maeander pattern, usually in\ntwo rows, is interspersed with stars or rosettes (Fig. 142). It thus\nbecomes almost a distinguishing characteristic of the later Ionian\nfabrics.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 141. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (IONIC).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 142. MAEANDER AND STAR PATTERN (LATER IONIC).]\n\nIn the Attic B.F. vases there is a return to simplicity. Here we find\nit for the most part in the form Fig. 140 above, and its usual position\nis below the designs on the red-bodied amphorae; but it is sometimes\nfound on other vases, as above the panels on the bodies of hydriae or\noinochoae. In the R.F. period its development is most important for\ndetermining the succession of the kylikes, on which it almost becomes a\ndate-mark, so regular is its evolution. This has, however, been already\ndealt with in the chapter on the history of the style (Vol. I. p. 416).\nAfter the severe period it is of frequent appearance on all forms of\nvases, the kylix, amphora, krater, and pelike in particular; the usual\narrangement is a group of three to five maeanders, either of the simple\nFig. 140 type, or of a more complicated form (Fig. 143), divided by\nrectangular panels or squares composed of chequers, or of crosses\n(diagonal and vertical) with dots or strokes between the arms.[2020] A\ncurious variety of the maeander is used by Duris; it consists of a\ndouble intersecting maeander interspersed with squares[2021] (Fig. 144).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 143. MAEANDER (ATTIC, 5TH CENTURY).]\n\nThe invariable place for this ornament is below the design on the large\nvases, and it is usually continued the whole way round (except on the\nearlier Nolan amphorae); it is also found on the R.F. and white lekythi\nalong the top of the design. It is always painted in black on the clay\nground.[2022]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 144. MAEANDER (ATTIC, ABOUT 480 B.C.).]\n\nA similar form of maeander prevails on the vases of Southern Italy\n(except in Campania); it is found on the krater, amphora, lebes,\nkotyle, etc., and is almost invariable. But there is one unique variety\nwhich is occasionally found on the great Apulian kraters, as on F 278\nin the British Museum; the type is that of the pattern in Fig. 144, but\nthe maeander is represented _in perspective_, being painted in white on\nthe black, the shaded edges left in the colour of the clay.\n\nOf patterns akin to the maeander, the so-called _swastika_ or\nhook-armed cross, 16[21]swastika occurs in panels on the Geometrical\nvases, but subsequently it is only found as a ground-ornament in the\nfield, as frequently at Naukratis, in Rhodes, and elsewhere. It is,\nstrictly speaking, to be regarded as a fragmentary piece of maeander,\nwithout any of the symbolical meaning which it bears in the art of\nnorthern nations, with whom it was the emblem of the Scandinavian god\nThor. Another pattern, 16[63]maeander or 16[90]maeander which may be\ncalled a variety of the maeander, is frequently found as a continuous\nborder on early vases, such as the Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian wares,\nand occasionally in the B.F. period.\n\nNext there is the _chevron_, zigzag, or herring-bone pattern,\nconsisting of systems of V-shaped patterns, arranged in two ways,\neither 20[15]chevron or 16[64]zigzag these patterns are practically\nonly found on the earlier fabrics of Greece and Cyprus, or on the\nnative wares of Apulia. On the incised vases of the early Bronze Age\nfound at Hissarlik and in Cyprus this is the prevailing motive, the\nlines of zigzag being either single, or arranged in groups of four or\nfive parallel:\n\n[Illustration]\n\nOn the Geometrical vases such patterns are of very frequent occurrence,\nand panels or bands of chevrons arranged vertically, 20[15]chevron or\n20[22]zigzag occur in many instances (Fig. 83). These groups of\nchevrons or zigzags are also a distinguishing mark of the Boeotian\nGeometrical fabrics (cf. Fig. 85); they occur to a lesser extent on the\nMelian, Proto-Corinthian, and Early Corinthian vases, and even in the\nChalcidian fabrics. They are either employed as ground-ornaments to\nfill in spaces, or as panels forming part of the subsidiary decoration.\nA variation, or rather development, of the chevron, sometimes employed\nas a ground-ornament on early Ionic vases, is composed of a cross,\n22[21]cross with sets of chevrons between the arms.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 145. NET-PATTERN.]\n\nDiagonally or directly _intersecting lines_ form another universal\nelement of early decoration, varying from a simple arrangement of cross\nlines 22[54]mesh to an elaborate diaper-pattern, and in such forms\nfound even in later times. Beginning with the simple intersecting\nlines, or bands filled in with hatching, of the primitive incised\nvases, further developed in the white slip ware of Cyprus (Vol. I. p.\n243), we next come to their use on the vases of the Geometrical period,\nboth in Greece and in Cyprus. The variety of these patterns is so great\nthat they can hardly be described in any detail; the usual method of\ntreatment is in a band or panel of lozenges, squares, or triangles,\nfilled in with a reticular pattern formed by the short intersecting\nlines. Sometimes dots are inserted in the spaces to enrich the general\neffect. Some very good examples of these patterns are to be seen in the\nGeometrical vases of Apulia (p. 327). In the B.F. period plain bands or\npanels of intersecting lines are not infrequent; sometimes small\namphorae or lekythi are decorated entirely in this fashion.[2023] A\nvariation of the motive is the border of network which often surrounds\nthe panels on hydriae or oinochoae, in which the points of intersection\nare ornamented with studs, resembling the knots of a net (Fig. 145). It\nis also frequently found on the later Corinthian vases.\n_Chequer-patterns_ are often used with great effect, at all periods\nfrom the Geometrical vases down to the fourth century, their usual\nposition being on the neck of a vase (Fig. 146).[2024]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 146. CHEQUER-PATTERN.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 147. PROTOTYPE OF GEOMETRICAL TANGENT-CIRCLES.]\n\nThe _circle_ as an ornament occurs comparatively rarely, but there are\ntwo exceptions. In the Geometrical vases we find a use both of\nconcentric circles and of rows of single circles joined by straight\nlines forming tangents, a motive which is obviously derived from the\nMycenaean spirals (Fig. 147). Secondly, in the Graeco-Phoenician\npottery of Cyprus, especially in its later phases and in the smaller\nvases, such as the jugs and lekythi, the decoration is practically\nconfined to systems of concentric circles, of a character quite\npeculiar to this fabric.[2025] The chief feature of these systems is\nthat the ordinary principles of vase-decoration are entirely ignored,\nand the circles, arranged in series of five or six, forming a band\nabout three-quarters of an inch in width, are placed not only at right\nangles to the axis of the vase, but parallel to it. The illustrations\nin Plate XIII. and Fig. 75 (Vol. I. p. 251) will give a better idea of\nthe arrangement than any description; it is clear that the circles were\neasily produced by applying a fine brush to the vase while turning on\nthe wheel, first in its natural position and then on its side.\nArtistically, of course, the principle is a wrong one, and this is most\nglaringly conspicuous in the barrel-shaped lekythi, in which the axis\nof the vase is regarded as horizontal rather than vertical. Groups of\nsmall concentric circles are also arranged vertically or otherwise on\nthe bodies and necks of vases.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 148. SPIRALS UNDER HANDLES (EXEKIAS).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 149. WAVE-PATTERN (SOUTH ITALY).]\n\nThe _spiral_, which forms such a conspicuous element in Mycenaean\ndecorative art, appears again prominently in a class which, as we have\nseen (Vol. I. p. 302), owes much to that source\u2014the Melian amphorae.\nSystems of spirals are arranged to fill the spaces at the sides of the\ndesign,[2026] especially in combination with floral ornaments and\nreticulated lozenges; and the same feature may also be observed in the\nProto-Attic vases. It occurs similarly, combined with a flower, on the\nSamian or Fikellura vases (Vol. I. p. 337). In later times the spiral\npasses from the sphere of inorganic to that of organic ornament, being\ncombined in various ways with vegetable patterns, and merging in the\ntendril or volute. But it occasionally reverts to its old form, notably\nin the red-bodied amphorae of Exekias,[2027] who, in place of the usual\npalmette-and-lotos ornament under the handles, contrives an elaborate\nsystem of large spirals to fill the space between the designs (Fig.\n148). A variation of this is the figure-of-eight ornament,\n15[34]figure-eight sometimes continuous, 15[61]continuous figure-eight\nwhich is found on vases of the Proto-Attic class, such as the Burgon\nlebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 150. SCALE-PATTERN (DAPHNAE).]\n\nThe _wave-pattern_ or kymation moulding, shown in Fig. 149, is one\nwhich constantly occurs in Greek architectural decoration, but on the\nvases at any rate seems to be found only at a late period. On the\nCampanian vases it is the regular border below the design; it is also\nfound on those of Lucania and Apulia. The _crescent_ is only found on\nearly Ionic vases, including those which have been attributed to a\nSamian origin (Vol. I. p. 336 ff.), and some of the Daphnae and\nNaukratis fragments, which probably borrowed it from Samos; it is\narranged in bands alternating in colour, black or purple and white.\nAnother typically Ionic ornament is the _scale-pattern_, which occurs\non many of the so-called Rhodian vases, and also on those from Daphnae\n(Fig. 150). In the former it is produced by means of incising on the\nblack varnish, the alternate scales being often coloured purple; but in\nthe latter it is painted in outline. Curiously enough, it also occurs\nin the incised form on an early group of Corinthian vases (Plate XIX.\nfig. 3). Like other patterns, it can be traced to a Mycenaean origin,\nbeing very common in that style. Subsequently it occurs but rarely, but\nis sometimes employed on the neck or shoulder of a vase.[2028] It\ndiffers from most other patterns in that it does not lend itself to the\npanel or frieze, but covers a surface of indefinite extent. It is also\nknown as the \u201cimbricated\u201d pattern, from its likeness to overlapping\ntiles (_imbrices_).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 151. GUILLOCHE OR PLAIT-BAND (IONIC), FROM THE\nEUPHORBOS PINAX.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 152. TONGUE-PATTERN (B.F. PERIOD).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 153. EGG-PATTERN (R.F. PERIOD).]\n\nThe _guilloche_ or plait-band (Fig. 151) is characteristic of early\nfabrics, such as those of Naukratis and Samos, the Clazomenae\nsarcophagi (Plate XXVII.), and the small Proto-Corinthian lekythi, but\nis not often found in later times.[2029] It is typically Ionic, and\nseems to be derived from Mycenae (cf. A 209 in B.M.). Lastly, there is\nthe so-called _tongue-pattern_, which is exclusively used as an upper\nborder to designs. On its first appearance in the Geometrical vases it\nis rectilinear in form, 15[63]tongue-pattern and formed of alternating\nbars; but from the beginning of the sixth century onwards it assumes a\ncurvilinear form, all the tongues pointing downwards, broader, and\nclose together, as in Fig. 152. In the Daphnae vases and the later\nCorinthian wares it is treated in polychrome fashion, black, purple,\nand white alternately. On the lip and shoulders of Caeretan hydriae it\nappears in an exaggerated form, painted red, with black edges, as on\nPlate XXVI. In the Attic B.F. vases it forms the invariable upper\nborder of the designs, below the necks of the amphorae and hydriae, and\nis also used as a border to the interior designs of the kylikes; here,\ntoo, purple is often applied to the alternate tongues. Occasionally the\nrectilinear form reappears. In the R.F. period it changes its character\nagain, and the tongues become short and semi-oval in form, with black\ncentre and narrow outlined edge; in this form it is usually described\nas an _egg-pattern_ (Fig. 153). It is found in the smaller hydriae, and\nin many other shapes above or below the designs; also round the lip of\nthe vase. The same form and arrangement obtain in the South Italian\nvases, especially in Apulia and Lucania, except that a dot is often\nplaced between each pair of tongues. In some cases it approximates\nclosely to the egg-and-dart, as on F 179 in the British Museum. Both\ntongue and egg-patterns are often ranged round the base of the handles.\nThe egg-and-tongue, with its variants, is a typically Ionic\narchitectural pattern; hence its non-appearance in Attic vases before\nthe fifth century. In later Roman pottery (Chap. XXIII.) it becomes\nvery common. The variety known as the Lesbian kymation is found in a\nfew late instances.[2030]\n\n * * * * *\n\nHaving surveyed the various types of inorganic patterns, whether\nrectilinear or curvilinear, we now come to the consideration of those\nwhich are not only derived from vegetable ornament, but still preserve,\nin greater or less degree, a naturalistic character. To begin with the\nsimple leaf-ornament, which is of too conventional a type to associate\nwith any particular plant, this occurs most frequently in the form of\nof a _calyx_, placed round the lower part of the body, immediately\nabove the foot, so that the leaves radiate from the foot, pointing\nupwards.[2031] This ornament begins at a very early period, and is\nfound in most fabrics, continuing down to the latest stages. It is,\nhowever, specially associated with the B.F. period, in which it is\ninvariable on the large vases with a more or less marked stem, the\namphorae, hydriae, and kraters. On the smaller ones, however, it does\nnot occur. In the \u201caffected\u201d B.F. amphorae (Vol. I. p. 388) the calyx\nis double, with two tiers of rays.[2032]\n\nAn arrangement of four leaves saltire-wise in a panel sometimes occurs\non the Geometrical vases, a remarkable instance of vegetable ornament\nin this style (cf. Vol. I. p. 282); an analogous pattern is also found\non many early Corinthian aryballi (Vol. I. p. 314; B.M. A 1086 ff.),\nthe leaves not being united at the base, and usually interspersed with\nreticulated or other motives.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 154. LEAF- OR CHAIN-PATTERN.]\n\nAnother form of leaf-pattern is of rare occurrence, and is found now\nand then on Attic vases; in this small leaves are joined together in a\nsort of ribbon or chain-pattern[2033] (Fig. 154). The peculiarity of\nthis ornament is that even in the B.F. period it is red-figured in\ntechnique, being left in the colour of the clay with a background of\nblack.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 155. IVY-WREATH (B.F. PERIOD).]\n\nThe _ivy-leaf_ was not adopted as a decorative pattern before the\nmiddle of the sixth century; it seems to be Ionic in origin.[2034]\nSingle large leaves occur on the necks of B.F. lekythi, on late Ionic\nB.F. vases, and to a considerable extent on the imitations made in\nEtruria.[2035] These are usually treated in a very naturalistic manner.\nDouble rows of smaller leaves, forming a straight wreath, constantly\noccur as borders to the panels on B.F. hydriae, kraters, and oinochoae\n(Fig. 155); and similar ivy-wreaths are found along the flat edges of\nthe flange-shaped handles on the larger panel-amphorae, as well as on\nthe volute-handles of kraters.[2036] These patterns preserve their\nvogue in the R.F. amphorae of the earlier period, and in the kraters of\nLucania, and it should be noted that they are always painted in the\nB.F. method (black leaves on red ground) except in the vases of Apulia\nand Paestum. But as a rule on the South Italian vases the ivy-leaf is\ntreated in a naturalistic manner, with tendrils and berries, occupying\na large panel on the necks of the column-handled kraters, or forming a\nborder on the lip of the vase (Fig. 156).[2037] The vine as an ornament\nis very rare, but there is a good instance on a late _phiale_ in the\nBritish Museum (F 503), where it is treated in a very naturalistic\nmanner, forming the sole decoration of the interior; it is also of\nfrequent occurrence on the vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes (Vol. I.\np. 391). The pomegranate occurs only on the Cyrenaic cups (Fig. 93),\nwhere it forms a continuous frieze of buds round the exterior, united\nby interlacing lines. The acanthus is only introduced quite late\n(except where it appears as an ornament on the top of a _stele_), and\nis found on the necks of kraters and other large Apulian vases, forming\na rich and luxuriant mass of foliage, often with a flower in the\ncentre, on which rests a female head. Myrtle or olive-wreaths occur at\nall times, especially on the flat rim of the mouth of a vase; the\nmyrtle seems to be a typically Ionic motive, and is found at Daphnae,\nSamos, Rhodes, and on the Caeretan hydriae.[2038] In the Rhodian vases\nit is either roughly painted in black on red, or else in red and white\non a black ground. It was also adopted at Athens\u2014_e.g._ by Nikosthenes.\nLaurel-wreaths form the regular decoration of the neck in the\nbell-shaped kraters and wide-bellied amphorae of the late R.F. period\nand the decadence (Fig. 157). These wreath-patterns on the late vases,\nit should be noted, are either treated in R.F. technique or painted in\nopaque white on the black varnish. They are often drawn with great care\nand accuracy.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 156. IVY-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 157. LAUREL-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).]\n\nThe history of the development of the _palmette_ (or honeysuckle), the\n_lotos-flower and bud_, and of continuous foliated patterns in general,\nhas been skilfully treated by Riegl.[2039] To write a complete account\nof this class of ornamentation would be impossible within the limits of\nthe present work; only a few main features can be noted, to show the\nform the patterns assume at different periods, so universal is their\nappearance on vases of all shapes and dates. The lotos-flower or bud\nis, of course, a motive of purely Oriental origin, which found its way\ninto Greece probably through the medium of Phoenicia; the palmette, on\nthe other hand, is purely Greek, although it may possibly be derived\nfrom a Mycenaean prototype, the _Vallisneria spiralis plant_, which is\nso frequently found on Mycenaean vases (Fig. 158).[2040] They are found\nnot only as single motives, isolated or repeated, but also combined\ntogether, or forming part of elaborate systems of floral ornament, with\nstems and tendrils often conventionalised, which link them together,\neither in continuous bands or in groups occupying a limited space, on\nthe neck or under the handle.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 158. VALLISNERIA SPIRALIS (MYCENAEAN).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 159. LOTOS-FLOWER ON CYPRIOTE VASE.]\n\nIn the Graeco-Phoenician pottery of Cyprus the lotos-flower often\nappears in a purely Egyptian form (Fig. 159, from C 165 in B.M.), but\nit is more often combined with and almost merged in some elaborate\nsystem of patterns too complicated to describe or define by any\nname.[2041] But in Greek vase-paintings, in which it first makes its\nappearance in the seventh century, it is always more or less\nconventional. It is thus found on the Melian amphorae in combination\nwith systems of spirals[2042]; though on the shoulder of the example\ngiven by Riegl there occurs a band of lotos-flowers alternately upright\nand inverted, linked together by scrolls, where the form is almost that\nof Egyptian art, except that the cup of the flower is rounder, the\npetals shorter and blunter. It is obviously as yet in the transitional\nstage. Next we meet with it in the vases of Ionia, especially in those\nof the so-called Rhodian and earlier Naukratite styles, which have\nfriezes of lotos-flowers alternating with closed buds or with\npalmettes, connected by tendrils (Fig. 160). A similar pattern, on an\nexceptionally large scale and treated in polychrome (white and purple),\nsurrounds the lower portion of the body on several of the later\nCaeretan hydriae (cf. Plate XXVI.). But in most of the fabrics of the\nsixth century the bud seems to have been preferred to the open flower\nof the ornament.[2043] Rows of lotos-buds linked by tendrils, upright\nor inverted, are found on the Cyrenaic cups, on the vases of the\nChalcidian type, and on the later Ionic fabrics, such as the Rhodian\nkylikes in the British Museum (B 379\u201381). Sometimes, too, a single bud\nappears in the design itself, overhanging the scene or rising from the\nground. On the so-called Pontic vases the buds are isolated, and placed\nalternately upright and pendent. In the Corinthian and early Attic\nfabrics the lotos-flower is found, combined in various ways with\npalmettes and tendrils, as a neck-ornament, or above a panel, or under\nthe handles, and also as a centre in heraldic compositions (Fig. 161);\nbut subsequently the buds resume their sway, and are found bordering\nthe panels of black-bodied amphorae (as in Fig. 162), forming a lower\nborder to the designs on the red-bodied, and also on the shoulder of\nlekythi. These motives linger on in the earlier R.F. amphorae and\nhydriae, and in the column-handled kraters; rows of buds of a\ndegenerate elongated form, on the lip, neck, or shoulder, are continued\nwell into the period of the South Italian fabrics.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 160. LOTOS-FLOWERS AND BUDS (RHODIAN).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 161. PALMETTE- AND LOTOS-PATTERN]\n\n(EARLY B.F.).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 162. LOTOS-BUDS (ATTIC B.F.).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 163. CHAIN OF PALMETTES AND LOTOS (EARLY B.F.).]]\n\nThe palmette or honeysuckle ornament is not usually found as an\nindependent ornament before the middle of the sixth century.[2044] Its\ndevelopment in this direction really belongs to the R.F. period. But in\ncombination it is found, as we have seen, in Corinthian and Attic B.F.\nvases, and also in Chalcidian. Before the Athenian unification of\nstyles it usually appears linked with lotos-flowers in a sort of double\nchain, each pattern being alternately upright and reversed, as in Fig.\n163; in this form it is usually found on the neck, or as an upper\nborder to the design. This type of ornament is favoured in the\nProto-Attic, Corinthian, and Corintho-Attic vases, and the earlier\npanel-amphorae; the palmette is here regarded as the foliage of the\nlotos-flower, which at first always predominates. Subsequently the\npalmette gains the upper hand, as on the necks of the red amphorae (see\nFig. 165), and the lotos-flower is gradually ousted altogether. It,\nhowever, returns occasionally on R.F. hydriae and amphorae.[2045]\nAnother variety, which may be described as a metope-like treatment,\ncompared with the frieze-like treatment above, consists of an\ninterlacing arrangement filling the space of a square, with two\npalmettes and two lotos-flowers respectively opposed, or a symmetrical\narrangement of palmettes and lotos-flowers, connected by tendrils, as\nin Fig. 164. This is found under the handle, or on the neck, or in the\nmiddle of a frieze of the Corinthian \u201cheraldic\u201d type.[2046] On the\nred-bodied B.F. amphorae the universal neck-ornament is a band of large\npalmettes vertically opposed, linked by a continuous chain passing\nbetween them and separated by elongated lotos-flowers (Fig. 165); this\nis also found on the Panathenaic vases and the earlier R.F. amphorae.\nTowards the end of the sixth century, however, there is a tendency to\ndrop these composite ornaments, and attention is devoted to the\npalmette alone. The method of its application to the kylikes as a\nhandle-ornament, linked thereto by a scroll, has already been treated\nin detail (Vol. I. p. 413); it first appears on the Cyrenaic cups, and\nis usually employed by the \u201cminor artists\u201d of the B.F. period. The\nchief feature of the new advance is that the palmette is no longer a\nstiff upright design with straight unenclosed petals, the form to which\nit adheres down to the end of the sixth century; but now assumes a more\nflexible and graceful form, being encircled and linked to its fellows\nby means of slender scrolls or tendrils, which thus form a series of\nelliptical or oval forms capable of great variety of arrangement and\nposition (Fig. 166). This framed palmette is first found in the\nFikellura or Samian ware. It occurs in the form of a frieze, with\nlinking scrolls, on the later B.F. hydriae.[2047] The number of leaves\nor petals of which the palmette is composed is usually limited to\nseven. Another important and very effective improvement is achieved by\nplacing opposed pairs of palmettes no longer vertically, but obliquely,\nforming an upper or lower border to the design (Fig. 167). These are\nfrequently found on the krater and hydria, and appear constantly on the\nvases of Apulia and Lucania, especially on the lip. Great attention is\npaid to the effective grouping of the framed palmettes in the spaces\nunder the handles, the object aimed at being more and more naturalism\nrather than symmetry.[2048]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 164. PALMETTES AND LOTOS UNDER HANDLES (ATTIC\nB.F.).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 165. PALMETTE PATTERN ON NECK OF RED-BODIED\nAMPHORAE.]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 166. ENCLOSED PALMETTES (R.F. PERIOD).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 167. OBLIQUE PALMETTES (LATE R.F.).]\n\nIn the later R.F. period, on the other hand, there is a certain\nreaction in the direction of conventional ornament, combined with\nexaggeration and lack of refinement. The palmette under the handle\nreturns to the old erect unframed type, and increases enormously in\nsize, so that one or at most two vertically opposed suffice to fill the\nspace. In this form it appears on the bell-shaped kraters and hydriae\nof Southern Italy, and especially those of Campania, surrounded by\nelaborate scrolls and tendrils. In the latter fabric the palmette,\nwhich has become almost gross and ugly, is usually flanked by two large\nconvolvulus or other flowers rising from the ground, and drawn in\nprofile (Fig. 168). In the Apulian and Lucanian vases there is no rule\nas to the number of the palmettes, and sometimes the effect is\nexceedingly rich and elaborate. Speaking generally, there is no\nornament which prevails so universally and in such varied forms and\nsystems on Greek vases, but to give an exhaustive account of all its\nuses would be far beyond the limits of this work.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 168. PALMETTE UNDER HANDLES (SOUTH ITALIAN VASE).]\n\nThere remains only to be discussed the _rosette_, which, in spite of\nits often purely formal character, may be reckoned as in its origin a\nfloral motive, even if it is not obvious that it is derived from any\nparticular plant. It may be said to have two distinct forms, the star\nand the disc,[2049] the former consisting of an indefinite number of\nradiating arms or leaves, the latter of a simple disc surrounded by a\nrow of dots. In both forms it is found at all periods, not so much as a\nformal pattern in bands or groups, but as a decorative adjunct to\nsurfaces within or without the field of the design, especially as a\nground ornament on Ionic, Corinthian, and other early fabrics, or as an\nembellishment of the draperies worn by the figures on the vases.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 169. ROSETTE (RHODIAN).]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 170. ROSETTE (APULIAN).]\n\nIn the Mycenaean period it is found usually in the dotted disc form, as\na ground ornament, but the star form is by no means rare.[2050] In\nlater Cypriote pottery the star-shaped rosette sometimes occurs in a\nband of ornament, left in the colour of the clay on a black\nbackground[2051]; but the other type is more common in conjunction with\nthe concentric circles. In Hellenic pottery the rosette at first\nappears exclusively as a ground-ornament, and this function it fulfils\nboth in Corinthian and early Ionic pottery to a large extent, as well\nas in some of the smaller groups. In the Rhodian and Naucratite wares\nit assumes very varied forms (_e.g._ Fig. 169, from the Euphorbos\npinax), intermingled with hook-armed crosses and bits of maeander; in\nthe early Corinthian wares it takes the shape of an approximately\ncircular flower of six petals, which covers every available vacant\nspace over the area of the design[2052]; these are often rendered with\ngreat carelessness, the artist\u2019s only object being apparently to insert\na patch of colour where it would fill in a space. Subsequently the\nrosettes become both more symmetrical and at the same time fewer in\nnumber, and by the beginning of the Attic B.F. style have altogether\ndisappeared. Occasionally they are employed for a band of ornament on\nthe lip, neck, or handles of a B.F. vase.[2053] Lost sight of for a\nperiod of some two hundred years, the rosette springs again to life in\nthe vases of Apulia, resuming its old functions as a ground-ornament,\nand also being employed in bands on the neck or elsewhere. It usually\nappears in the form of a star-shaped flower of six or eight petals, in\nred edged with white on the black ground (Fig. 170).\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt may also be found convenient to treat the ornamentation of Greek\nvases from a different point of view, in order to give an outline of\nthe decorative system adopted in each of the principal styles, and as\nconsidered appropriate to the various forms.\n\nIn the vases of the prehistoric period, from the primitive incised\nwares down to the end of the Mycenaean style, there is an entire\nabsence of anything like rule or formalism. The principle observed in\nthe very early classes, such as the Cypriote relief and white slip\nwares (Vol. I. p. 241 ff.), is the imitation of other substances, of\nmetal or leather. The object of the artist was to cover the surface of\nthe vase as far as possible with decorative designs; and if, as was\ngenerally the case, his artistic capacity restricted him to linear or\nsimple vegetable patterns, the utmost he could achieve was to adapt\nthese to the whole of the space at his disposal\u2014_i.e._ the whole body\nof the vase. Mycenaean vases, however, are usually only decorated on\nthe upper part, as far as the middle of the body, which was encircled\nwith one or more plain bands of black. Thus there remained a sort of\npanel between the handles, of varying extent.\n\nIn the Geometrical period, however, a great change takes place, which\nfrom the artistic point of view is a reaction in the direction of\nformalism, but nevertheless forms the basis of the decorative systems\nof later times. Here we see for the first time a regular partition of\nthe surface of the vase by means of bands and panels of ornaments,\nwithout indeed any restriction of particular patterns to any part of\nthe vase, but yet a deliberate endeavour to establish a decorative\nsystem.[2054] With the increase of animal and human subjects the\nornament becomes more subsidiary, merely a framework to the design, but\neven in the succeeding Proto-Attic and Melian classes it plays a very\nimportant part. In the Melian vases the system is Geometrical, but the\nornamentation is curvilinear and Mycenaean. The ground-ornaments,\nhowever, are derived from the former source as well (hook-cross and\nzigzags in conjunction with rosettes). In both these classes the space\nunder the handles is selected for the display of a grouping of\nornamental motives, such as spirals or palmettes, or the two combined\nin a series of heart-shaped motives or panel-compositions; similar\npatterns cover the neck and the lower part of the body. The\nornamentation of Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian vases is an echo of the\nGeometrical system. The ground-ornaments are the hook-cross, rosettes\nof dots, and bits of maeander; the bands of pattern consist of zigzags,\nchequers, double rows of dots, and toothed patterns. The early Ionic\nvase-painters treat the subsidiary ornamentation as they do their\nprincipal subjects, adopting the frieze principle in most cases; the\nonly exception is in the Rhodian pinakes, where it is usually confined\nto simple patterns round the rim, with a sort of fan-pattern in the\nexergue below the central design.[2055] The ground-ornaments are really\nthe chief feature of Rhodian ornamentation, as in Corinthian vases. The\ndecoration of the Fikellura or Samian ware is very characteristic, and\ndemands separate mention. The patterns are highly developed, and\nsuggest a late date\u2014as, for instance, the scroll, the ivy-leaf, and the\nframed palmette. In later Ionic vases the ornamentation is not very\nprominent, except in the Caeretan hydriae, in which the broad bands of\npalmette-and-lotos ornament, and the exaggerated tongue-pattern on the\nlip and shoulder, occupy a proportion of the surface unusual at this\nperiod. Besides the typical ground-ornaments (rosette and hook-crosses)\nof the earlier vases, the favourite Ionian patterns are the maeander,\nthe guilloche, and wreaths of ivy and myrtle. At Corinth, as we have\nseen, for a long time ornament is confined to the ground-filling\nrosettes, with some simple motives, such as zigzag lines or\ntongue-pattern, on the mouth and shoulder, or bordering the design;\neven in the later examples, when the rosettes have disappeared, it is\npractically confined to the interlacing palmette-and-lotos pattern on\nthe neck, above the design, or inserted in the subordinate friezes of\nanimals.[2056] The same principle applies in the Corintho-Attic and\nChalcidian fabrics.[2057]\n\nIn Athenian B.F. vases we at last find a stereotyped system of ornament\nfor each kind of vase, from which there is little or no variation.\nGenerally the system is as follows:\u2014On the panel-amphorae, an\ninterlaced palmette-and-lotos pattern or a row of inverted lotos-buds\nabove the panel, and a calyx of leaves round the foot, those with\nflanged handles having also ornaments thereon, ivy-leaves or rosettes.\nOn the red-bodied, a chain of double palmettes round the neck,\ntongue-pattern on the shoulder, a grouping of palmettes, tendrils, and\nlotos-flowers under the handle, and a row of three or four narrow bands\nof ornament below the design (lotos-buds upright or inverted, maeander,\nzigzags), terminating with the calyx round the foot. The Panathenaic\namphorae have the same neck-ornament as the red-bodied, with tongues\nabove the panel, and thick rays round the foot; the fourth-century\nexamples have palmettes on the neck, with elongated tongue-pattern\nimmediately below. On the hydriae, tongue-pattern above the\nshoulder-design, borders to the panels (maeander above, ivy or network\ndown the sides, lotos-buds or framed palmettes below), and calyx round\nthe foot. On the oinochoae, panel-borders like those of the hydriae,\nbut on the _olpae_ (Vol. I. p. 178) only two or three rows of chequer,\nmaeander, etc., on the neck above; on the lekythi, lotos-buds,\nivy-leaves, and palmettes on the shoulder, and a double row of dots\nabove the design. The kylix-ornament is practically limited to the\nhandle-palmettes of the \u201cminor artist\u201d class, and a circle of\nstraight-edged rays, alternately black and outlined, round the stem on\nthe later varieties (together with the large eyes).\n\nIn the R.F. period the same system of appropriate patterns for each\nform of vase is in the main adhered to, but with greater freedom; there\nis also a wide difference between the earlier amphorae and hydriae,\nwhich cling to the old panel-system with its ornamental borders, and\nthe vases of the fine period, in which there is an absence of all\nrestraint on the one hand, and a tendency to dispense with ornament\nalmost entirely on the other (as in the Nolan amphorae). On the kylix,\nthe ornament is throughout confined to the palmettes under the handles\nand the maeander encircling the interior design, which have been dealt\nwith already (Vol. I. p. 413 ff.). The earlier amphorae and hydriae, as\nwe have seen, have panels with borders as in the B.F. period, usually\nin the older technique; those of the fine style (including the\nwide-bellied amphorae) have a short noncontinuous border, such as\negg-pattern or maeander, above and below the figures, with similar\npatterns on the lip and round the bases of the handles. The stamnos has\negg-patterns round the lip and handles, tongue-pattern round the\nshoulder, and a system of palmettes between the designs. The red\nlekythi have egg-pattern or palmettes on the shoulder, and\nmaeander-pattern (with crosses) above or below the design; the white\nhave black rays on red ground or black and red palmettes on white on\nthe shoulder, and maeander above the designs. The bell-krater and\nwide-bellied amphora of the late R.F. period, as also those of Southern\nItaly, have a band of oblique palmettes or a laurel-wreath round the\ntop, maeander with crosses below the design, palmettes grouped under\nthe handles, and egg-pattern round their bases. The column-handled\nkrater, on the other hand, adheres throughout to the B.F. system of\nornamentation, with ivy-wreaths and elongated lotos-buds on the rim,\nsimilar lotos-buds on the neck, panels bordered with tongue-pattern and\ndebased ivy-wreaths, and the calyx round the foot. The wide-bellied\nlekythi have palmettes or egg-pattern above the design, and maeander\nbelow.\n\nIn the vases of Southern Italy there is, as a rule, no system observed\nin the ornamentation; in the large vases of Lucania and Apulia it is\nused with great profusion and variety, chiefly in bands on the neck. In\nthe smaller Apulian vases and in those of Campania it is often confined\nto a wave-pattern below the designs; the Campanian hydriae usually have\nin addition a wreath of myrtle or laurel round the shoulder. Generally\nspeaking, the large vases, such as the bell-krater, the hydria, and the\nwide-bellied amphora, continue the principles adopted in the R.F.\nperiod. The systems of palmette-patterns under the handles have already\nbeen discussed, and for other details the reader is also referred to\nwhat has already been said in discussing the individual patterns.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1942:\n\n To give detailed references throughout may be considered superfluous,\n the order of subjects followed being that of the preceding chapters,\n to which reference may in all cases be made without difficulty by the\n reader.\n\nFootnote 1943:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 147; for other representations of Zeus, Figs. 111, 113,\n 114; Plate LI.\n\nFootnote 1944:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 19.\n\nFootnote 1945:\n\n See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 1946:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ iii. pl. 32 B.\n\nFootnote 1947:\n\n Cf. the type created by Skopas in the fourth century.\n\nFootnote 1948:\n\n An exception is _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. pl. 62, where he is bearded (on a B.F.\n vase).\n\nFootnote 1949:\n\n See for these two, Fig. 116.\n\nFootnote 1950:\n\n Exceptions are B.M. D 4; _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ i. pls. 46 A, 47, 63.\n\nFootnote 1951:\n\n Cf. for the two together on a vase, B.M. E 228.\n\nFootnote 1952:\n\n For an attempted distinction of the various Satyr-types, see\n Loeschcke in _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 521 ff.\n\nFootnote 1953:\n\n See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296.\n\nFootnote 1954:\n\n Cf. the Greek heroes on B.F. vases (B.M. B 240, B 543).\n\nFootnote 1955:\n\n See B.M. E 477 and Weicker, _Seelenvogel_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1956:\n\n See also Roscher, iii. p. 330.\n\nFootnote 1957:\n\n Only on B.M. F 271 and Naples 3237; elsewhere unwinged.\n\nFootnote 1958:\n\n See p. 91.\n\nFootnote 1959:\n\n See _J.H.S._ ix. p. 47 ff.\n\nFootnote 1960:\n\n Note that the vase-painters are careful never to represent him\n wearing the skin when contending with the lion.\n\nFootnote 1961:\n\n _E.g._ Reinach, ii. 80.\n\nFootnote 1962:\n\n Munich 125.\n\nFootnote 1963:\n\n See Six, _De Gorgone_.\n\nFootnote 1964:\n\n See above, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 1965:\n\n B.M. B 4.\n\nFootnote 1966:\n\n See Weicker\u2019s _Seelenvogel_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 1967:\n\n See the article _Gryps_ in Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, vol. i.\n\nFootnote 1968:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 198.\n\nFootnote 1969:\n\n See K\u00f6rte in _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 61 ff.; also Figs. 105, 134.\n\nFootnote 1970:\n\n Vol. I. p. 472.\n\nFootnote 1971:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 270; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65\u20136.\n\nFootnote 1972:\n\n _\u00c9l. C\u00e9r._ ii. 16 and iv. 90\u201393; B.M. E 308.\n\nFootnote 1973:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 59, B 103_{14}.\n\nFootnote 1974:\n\n See Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, pp. 284 ff., 342.\n\nFootnote 1975:\n\n Vol. I. p. 353.\n\nFootnote 1976:\n\n As on the Exekias amphora, B.M. B 209: see _J.H.S._ iv. p. 82.\n\nFootnote 1977:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 263, E 469.\n\nFootnote 1978:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 2823\u201324.\n\nFootnote 1979:\n\n On this subject generally see T. Ely in _Archaeologia_, li. p. 477 ff.\n\nFootnote 1980:\n\n Xen. _Hell._ iv. 4, 10, vii. 5, 20; Paus. iv. 28, 5; Plut. _Apophth.\n Lacon._ 234 D; _Vit. Demosth._ 20; Bacchyl. frag. 41 (Bergk).\n\nFootnote 1981:\n\n B.M. B 574: cf. B 608 and Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 1982:\n\n Berlin 1698, 1852; Munich 1121; Reinach, i. 453; Inghirami, _Vasi\n Fitt._ pl. 109, 2.\n\nFootnote 1983:\n\n B.M. E 575.\n\nFootnote 1984:\n\n Cambridge 70.\n\nFootnote 1985:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp. 191, 198.\n\nFootnote 1986:\n\n Reinach, i. 77; Vienna 332.\n\nFootnote 1987:\n\n Reinach, i. 508, 6; ii. 94, 270.\n\nFootnote 1988:\n\n _Ibid._ i. 126, 181.\n\nFootnote 1989:\n\n See above, p. 90, and Roscher, iii. p. 2389 ff.\n\nFootnote 1990:\n\n Reinach, i. 181; Berlin 1701.\n\nFootnote 1991:\n\n Berlin 3988, 3992; B.M. B 364; Reinach, ii. 63.\n\nFootnote 1992:\n\n Reinach, i. 513; Louvre E 732 = Fig. 111.\n\nFootnote 1993:\n\n Cf. B.M. E 167\u201368, 295, etc.\n\nFootnote 1994:\n\n Cf. B.M. B 106_{1}, and the Busiris vases (p. 102).\n\nFootnote 1995:\n\n See especially the Meidias vase and the Python krater (B.M. E 224, F\n 149).\n\nFootnote 1996:\n\n See Plate LI.; also Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 3; $1$2 1883, pl.\n 3; 1885, pl. 5, fig. 3; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1890, pl. 11 (on head-band).\n\nFootnote 1997:\n\n _Auscult. Mirab._ 96.\n\nFootnote 1998:\n\n Kavvadias, _Fouilles de Lycosura_, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 1999:\n\n _Argonautica_, i. 729 ff.\n\nFootnote 2000:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 248 ff.\n\nFootnote 2001:\n\n See on this subject throughout _Mon. Grecs_, 1895\u201397, p. 7 ff.\n\nFootnote 2002:\n\n Cf. a funerary plaque in the Louvre, where the male mourners, no\n doubt intentionally, have the oval form of eye; also Louvre F 256\n (figure of Aeneas).\n\nFootnote 2003:\n\n For other instances M. Girard (_Mon. Grecs_, _loc. cit._) refers to\n Louvre E 753, 754; E 643, 808; _Jahrbuch_, 1893, pl. 1; see also B.M.\n E 440 (R.F. period).\n\nFootnote 2004:\n\n _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.\n\nFootnote 2005:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 35, fig. 9: cf. Louvre E 612 _bis_, and _Ant.\n Denkm._ ii. 24, 15.\n\nFootnote 2006:\n\n See also _Mon. Grecs_, 1895\u201397, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 2007:\n\n Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 8.\n\nFootnote 2008:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 773, 774, 779, 780.\n\nFootnote 2009:\n\n See on the subject P. Gardner in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 254.\n\nFootnote 2010:\n\n See on this motive and other heraldic groups, _Jahrbuch_, 1904, p. 27\n ff.\n\nFootnote 2011:\n\n B 18 in B.M.: cf. also the fragment from Naukratis, B 103_{17}.\n\nFootnote 2012:\n\n This principle in its most developed form may be observed on the\n Chalcidian and Tyrrhenian amphorae: see Vol. I. p. 321 ff.\n\nFootnote 2013:\n\n B.M. B 147.\n\nFootnote 2014:\n\n _Ibid._ B 313.\n\nFootnote 2015:\n\n B.M. B 589\u201391.\n\nFootnote 2016:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 264, B 428, etc.\n\nFootnote 2017:\n\n Cf. B.M. E 164 ff.\n\nFootnote 2018:\n\n See Winter, _J\u00fcngere Attische Vasen_, p. 69; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p.\n 102; also Plate XLV.\n\nFootnote 2019:\n\n This subject has hitherto received little or no general scientific\n treatment from archaeologists. Riegl\u2019s _Stilfragen_ (1893) contains\n an interesting study of vegetable ornament on Greek vases; but the\n plates of Brunn and Lau\u2019s _Gr. Vasen_, though intended to illustrate\n the system of ornamentation, are not very instructive.\n\nFootnote 2020:\n\n For the various types of these patterns see Vol. I. p. 416, Fig. 102.\n\nFootnote 2021:\n\n This is also found on a B.F. vase in the British Museum (B 330): see\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 220; also B.M. E 84; Thiersch, _Hell.\n Vasen_, pl. 5; _Arch. Zeit._ 1873, pl. 9.\n\nFootnote 2022:\n\n The Pamphaios hydria in the British Museum (B 300) has bits of\n _red-on-black_ maeander down the sides of the design on the shoulder.\n\nFootnote 2023:\n\n See examples from Cyprus and Rhodes in Cases 24, 25, 28, Second Vase\n Room, B.M.\n\nFootnote 2024:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 205, 474, 476, 620, D 15, E 151, F 178.\n\nFootnote 2025:\n\n It appears, however, to be of Mycenaean origin: cf. the B.M. vases A\n 253, 323, 324, and _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 6, fig. 6, from\n Ialysos and Cyprus, decorated in this fashion with vertical\n concentric circles.\n\nFootnote 2026:\n\n Riegl, p. 155.\n\nFootnote 2027:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 209, B 210.\n\nFootnote 2028:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 564.\n\nFootnote 2029:\n\n For its use on a B.F. kylix see B.M. B 382 (probably Ionic work).\n\nFootnote 2030:\n\n Munich 810, 849 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_, pls. 35\u20136: cf. B.M. F 278.\n\nFootnote 2031:\n\n Examples may be seen in Plates XXIII., XXVIII.-XXXIII.\n\nFootnote 2032:\n\n B.M. B 148\u201349, 151, 153; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 163.\n\nFootnote 2033:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 212, B 593, B 677, B 679: see also _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p.\n 161.\n\nFootnote 2034:\n\n See _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 298.\n\nFootnote 2035:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 63 (Plate LVIII.).\n\nFootnote 2036:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 364.\n\nFootnote 2037:\n\n As on the Python krater, B.M. F 149.\n\nFootnote 2038:\n\n See _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 44, note 15.\n\nFootnote 2039:\n\n _Stilfragen_, _passim_, especially p. 48 ff. and p. 178.\n\nFootnote 2040:\n\n See Riegl, p. 115 ff., and Houssay in _Rev. Arch._ xxx. (1897), p. 91\n ff.\n\nFootnote 2041:\n\n For the Egyptian types of lotos-flower and bud see Riegl, p. 48 ff.\n\nFootnote 2042:\n\n Riegl, p. 155: see also an early Boeotian example in the B.M. (A 564\n = Riegl, p. 173).\n\nFootnote 2043:\n\n Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 70, points out that the form of\n lotos-flower with two large points is Peloponnesian (Corinthian,\n etc.) and Ionic; the form found in Attic, Boeotian, and\n Proto-Corinthian fabrics has three principal points.\n\nFootnote 2044:\n\n See generally Riegl, p. 155 ff.\n\nFootnote 2045:\n\n _E.g_. B.M. E 169.\n\nFootnote 2046:\n\n The varieties of this pattern should be carefully distinguished.\n Corinthian vases have a composition of lotos-flowers only;\n Chalcidian, palmettes only (cf. Vienna 219; B.M. B 34). In the\n \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d amphorae, and subsequently in Attic red-bodied amphorae,\n the two principles are seen to be united, and palmettes alternate\n with lotos-flowers. See also Fig. 161.\n\nFootnote 2047:\n\n Cf. also an elegant oinocho\u00eb with white ground in the British Museum\n (B 631). On a similar jug at Munich (334 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_,\n pl. 22) the palmettes are enclosed in heart-shaped borders. For other\n vases which, like these, have palmettes for their sole decoration,\n see British Museum, Second Vase Room, Case 28, and Laborde, _Vases de\n Lamberg_, ii. pl. 41.\n\nFootnote 2048:\n\n Cf. Riegl, pp. 201\u20133, and Vol. I. p. 415.\n\nFootnote 2049:\n\n They are distinguished by German writers as \u201cBlattrosette\u201d and\n \u201cPunktrosette.\u201d\n\nFootnote 2050:\n\n Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 4, 25, 28, 37,\n 38; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pl. 5 (Crete).\n\nFootnote 2051:\n\n _E.g._ C 244 in B.M., and Fig. 76 (Vol. I. p. 254).\n\nFootnote 2052:\n\n See Riegl, _op. cit._ p. 197. He points out that the rosette,\n although Assyrian in origin, is not here used in a strictly Assyrian\n fashion.\n\nFootnote 2053:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 51, B 197 ff.: cf. also the Proto-Attic vase, _Ant.\n Denkm._ i. 57.\n\nFootnote 2054:\n\n See what has already been said on this subject in Vol. I. Chapter\n VII. p. 282: cf. also Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vii. p. 165.\n\nFootnote 2055:\n\n Cf. a similar pattern on the Daphnae situlae (B.M. B 105\u20136).\n\nFootnote 2056:\n\n See generally Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 41 ff., for\n Corinthian ornamentation.\n\nFootnote 2057:\n\n See on the ornamentation of the former Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,\n p. 69 ff.; on the latter Riegl, p. 187.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVII\n _INSCRIPTIONS ON GREEK VASES_\n\n Importance of inscriptions on vases\u2014Incised inscriptions\u2014Names and\n prices incised underneath vases\u2014Owners\u2019 names and\n dedications\u2014Painted inscriptions\u2014Early Greek alphabets\u2014Painted\n inscriptions on early vases\u2014Corinthian, Ionic, Boeotian, and\n Chalcidian inscriptions\u2014Inscriptions on Athenian\n vases\u2014Dialect\u2014Artists\u2019 signatures\u2014Inscriptions relating to the\n subjects\u2014Exclamations\u2014\u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names\u2014The Attic alphabet and\n orthography\u2014Chronology of Attic inscriptions\u2014South Italian vases\n with inscriptions.\n\n\nThe practice of inscribing works of art with the names of persons and\nobjects represented was one of some antiquity in Greece. The earliest\ninstance of which we have historical record is the chest of Kypselos,\nwhich dated from the beginning of the sixth century B.C., and\nconcerning which Pausanias[2058] tells us that \u201cthe majority of the\nfigures on the chest have inscriptions written in the archaic\ncharacters; and some of them read straight, but other letters have the\nappearance called by the Greeks \u2018backwards-and-forwards\u2019\n(\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd), which is like this: at the end of the verse the second\nline turns round again like a runner half through his course. And any\nway the inscriptions on the chest are written in a tortuous and hardly\ndecipherable fashion.\u201d There is, however, no mention of inscribed vases\nuntil a much later date; Athenaeus speaks of a cup with the name of\nZeus Soter upon it, also of \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, or cups with letters\non them.[2059]\n\nInscriptions on Greek vases are found in comparatively early times,\neven prior to the date to which the chest of Kypselos is attributed.\nThis question will receive more attention subsequently; meanwhile, we\nmay point out some of the ways in which they have proved important in\nthe study of archaeology. In the first place, they were originally\namong the principal, perhaps the strongest, arguments in the hands of\nWinckelmann, Sir W. Hamilton, and the other upholders of the true\norigin of Greek vases against Gori and the other \u201cEtruscans\u201d (see Vol.\nI. p. 19). They are, in fact, if such were required, an incontestable\nproof of Greek manufacture. Secondly, in more modern times, they have\nbeen of inestimable value in enabling scholars to classify the early\nvases according to their different fabrics. The alphabets of the\ndifferent cities and states being established by inscriptions obtained\nfrom trustworthy sources or found _in situ_, it was an easy matter to\napply this knowledge to the vases. In Chapters VII.-VIII. numerous\ninstances have been given of the value of this evidence (see also\nbelow, p. 247 ff.), perhaps the best being that of the Chalcidian\nclass, for which the inscriptions have been a more important criterion\neven than style. Thirdly, the inscriptions are sometimes of\nconsiderable philological value. Those on Attic vases may fairly be\nsaid to represent the vernacular of the day; and thus we learn that the\nGreeks of the Peisistratid age spoke of \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, not \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, and of\n\u0398\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c5\u03c2, not \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; that they used such forms as \u03c5\u1f31\u03cd\u03c2 for \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2,[2060]\nand \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 for \u03c0\u03af\u03b5 (see below, p. 255). Traces of foreign influence in\nthe inscriptions, as in the frequently occurring Doric forms, imply\nthat many of the vase-painters were foreigners, probably of the metic\nclass. We shall also see that one class of inscriptions gives some\ninteresting information on the subject of the names and prices of vases\nin antiquity.\n\nThe whole subject has been treated exhaustively\u2014especially from a\nphilological point of view\u2014in a valuable treatise by P.\nKretschmer,[2061] to which we shall have occasion to make constant\nreference in the following pages. He classifies them under two main\nheadings: (_a_) inscriptions incised with a sharp tool in the hard\nclay; (_b_) inscriptions painted with the brush after the final baking.\nThey are also found in very rare instances impressed in the soft clay\nand varnished over.[2062] In later times inscriptions in relief are\nactually found, sometimes painted with thick white pigment, sometimes\ngilded.[2063] On the so-called Megarian bowls and on the Arretine and\nother wares of the Roman period they are stamped from the moulds.\nLastly, there are the stamps imprinted on the handles of wine-amphorae,\nwhich have been discussed in Chapter IV.\n\nThe =incised inscriptions= are of three kinds: (1) those executed by\nthe maker of the vase; (2) those scratched under the foot; (3) those\nincised by the owner. As these represent a much smaller class than the\npainted ones, they shall be dealt with first.\n\n(1) Inscriptions incised by the maker before the final baking. These\nare found on the handles and feet, round the edge of a design, or\ninterspersed therewith like the painted inscriptions. Generally they\nrepresent the signature of the potter, as in the case of the early\nBoeotian vase signed by Gamedes,[2064] the vases of the fifth-century\nartist Hieron,[2065] and those of Assteas, Python, and Lasimos in\nSouthern Italy.[2066] On the vases of the latter class explanatory\ninscriptions seldom occur, but when they do (as on the vases of\nAssteas) they are always incised. Of their palaeographical\npeculiarities we will speak later. On a vase in the South Kensington\nMuseum[2067] the words \u0392\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 are incised and painted red, and on\nthe pottery found on the site of the Kabeirion at Thebes the same\nprocess is often adopted, except that the paint used is white.[2068]\n\n(2) Of inscriptions scratched under the foot a considerable number\nremain, especially on B.F. vases. They are often difficult to decipher,\nbeing in the form of monograms, and frequently appear to be\nmeaningless. In many cases they may have been private marks of the\npotter or his workmen; others, again, are evidently private memoranda\nmade by the workman, relating to the number of forms of vases in his\nbatch, or by the merchant respecting the price to be paid. Commonly\nthey take the form of names of vases,[2069] such as [\u0397V\u0394\u03a1\u0399] for \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n(_hydria_), [\u039b\u0397\u039a] or [\u039b\u0397\u039aV] for \u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (_lekythos_), [\u03a3\u039aV] for \u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n(_skyphos_),[2070] and so on. Many of the inscriptions give the words\nin full, with numbers and prices, and we may obtain from them some\ncurious information.\n\nAmong the more elaborate examples given by Sch\u00f6ne in his valuable\nmonograph is one from a krater in the Louvre[2071]:\n\n [\u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395\u03a3 : \u03a0I] \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be\n\n [\u03a4\u0399\u039c\u0395 : \u0370\u0370\u0370\u0370 \u039f\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0395\u03a3 : [\u03a0]\u0399\u0399\u0399] \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03be\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f40\u03ba\u03c4\u03ce\n\n [\u0392\u0391\u0398\u0395\u0391 : \u0394\u0394\u0370\u0399] \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9 (at 1 _dr._ 1\n _ob._)\n\nThat is, six kraters, value four drachmae; eight _oxides_; twenty\n_bathea_ (an unknown form), one drachma one obol. The _bathea_ were\nprobably deep cups or ladles; the _oxides_ (_lit._ vinegar-cups) were\nsmall vessels, probably answering to our wine-glasses.\n\nAnother instance given by Sch\u00f6ne[2072] is:\n\n [\u039b\u0397\u039a\u03a5\u0398\u0399\u0391 \u0394] \u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\n [\u039f\u0399\u039d\u039f\u03a7\u039f\u0391\u0399 \u0399\u0399] \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf\n\nor ten lekythi and two oinochoae.\n\nAnother good example is on a krater in the British Museum (E 504):\n\n [\u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395 [\u03a0]\u0399 : \u0370\u0370\u0370\u0370] \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5(\u03c2) \u1f11\u03be \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2\n\n [\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u039b\u0399\u039d\u0399\u0391 : \u0394\u0399\u0399 : \u0399\u0399\u0399] \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1[2073] \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\n [\u039f\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0395\u03a3 : \u0394\u0394 : \u0399\u0399\u0399] \u1f40\u03be\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2\n\n [\u039f\u039e\u03a5\u0392\u0391\u03a6\u0391 : \u0394\u0394\u0370I] \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9 (at 1 _dr._ 1\n _ob._)\n\n_i.e._ six kraters at four drachmae, twelve cups at three obols, twenty\n_oxides_ at three obols, twenty _oxybapha_ at one drachma one obol.\n\nAnother in Vienna[2074]:\n\n [\u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0395[\u03a3] : [\u03a0]\u0399 : \u03a4\u0399\u039c\u0395 : \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f11\u03be \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 (4 _dr._)\n \u0370\u0370\u0370\u0370]\n\n [\u0392\u0391\u0398\u0395\u0391 : \u0394\u0394 : \u03a4\u0399\u039c\u0395 : \u0370\u0399] \u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 \u0370\u0399 (1 _dr._ 1\n _ob._)\n\n ..[\u039f\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0395[\u03a3] : \u0394] \u1f40\u03be\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1\n\nis to the same effect as the two preceding. On a hydria at\nPetersburg[2075] we find:\n\n [\u03a5\u0394\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u0394\u03a1\u0391\u03a7\u03a0\u039f\u0399 \u0391\u039d]\n\n \u1f51\u03b4(\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03b9) \u03c4\u03c1(\u03b5)\u1fd6(\u03c2) \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7(\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd) \u03c0(\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5) \u1f40(\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5) \u1f11\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2\n\nor three hydriae worth five drachmae one obol. The last example that\nneed be mentioned is from a vase at Berlin[2076]:\n\n [\u0391] \u00b7 \u039b\u03a5\u0394\u0399\u0391 \u039c\u0395\u0399\u03a9 : \u0399 : \u0395 : \u039b\u0395\u03a0\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u0399\u0394\u0395\u03a3 : \u039a : \u0399\n\n \u1f60\u03ac(?)\u00b7 \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5(\u03af)\u03be\u03c9 \u03b9\u03ad \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03be\u2019\n\nHere the letters probably stand for numerals of the ordinary kind,\ndenoting the numbers of the batch (\u03b9\u03b5\u2019 = 15, \u03ba\u03be\u2019 = 27).\n\nThe form of the letters in all these cases is that of the fifth\ncentury. In the case of the second, third, and fourth examples given,\nit will be noted that the shape of the vase itself corresponds with the\nfirst item. Jahn and Letronne originally held the view that these marks\nwere made by the potter on the feet of the vases _before_ they were\nattached to their respective bodies.[2077] Sch\u00f6ne, in the light of the\nexamples already quoted, makes the ingenious suggestion that each list\nrepresents a different \u201cset\u201d of so many vases of different forms, and\nused for different purposes, sold together in a batch, like a modern\n\u201cdinner-set\u201d or \u201ctoilet-set\u201d of china. Thus we have in our fourth\nexample a set of six mixing-bowls at four drachmae (3_s._) apiece, ten\nwine-glasses at (probably) three obols or 4\u00bd_d._ apiece, and twenty\ncups or ladles at about 10\u00bd_d._ apiece.\n\nSome of the shorter inscriptions also throw light on the prices at\nwhich different vases were sold. For instance, 15[123]\u039b\u0397\u039aV : \u039b\u0394 : \u039b\u0397\nwould denote thirty-four lekythi for thirty-seven obols, or roughly\n1\u00bd_d._ apiece; 15[121]\u039b\u0397\u039aV : \u0399\u0393 : \u0399\u0391 thirteen lekythi for eleven obols,\nat a slightly lower price.[2078] Aristophanes[2079] tells us that one\nobol would purchase quite a fine lekythos, just as elsewhere[2080] he\nmentions three drachmae as the cost of a \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or cask. This latter\nstatement is borne out by the inscription on a vase, [[\u03a0]\u00b7\u039a\u0391\u0394\u0399\u0391\u00b7\u0394\u0399\u0399],\nor five \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 value twelve drachmae, _i.e._ at about 2\u00bd _dr._\napiece.[2081] An inscription quoted below shows that the owner of a cup\nvalued it at one drachma. Other examples of the same kind are collected\nby Sch\u00f6ne. The cup from Cerigo in the British Museum, on which is\nincised [[\u0370]\u0395\u039c\u0399\u039a\u039f\u03a4V\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d] (\u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd)[2082] does not strictly come\ninto this category, but may be mentioned as having an inscription of\nthe same class.\n\n(3) Inscriptions incised by the owner, and subsequently to the\ncompletion of the vase. These usually take the form of the word [\u0395\u0399\u039c\u0399]\n([\u0395\u039c\u0399]), with the owner\u2019s name in the genitive, as [\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u03a5\u039f\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0391 \u0397\u039c\u0399] (\u201cI\nam Idamenes\u2019\u201d), or [\u0391\u03a3\u03a4\u03a5\u039f\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0391 \u0397\u039c\u0399] (\u201cI am Astyochidas\u2019\u201d), on two B.F.\ncups from Rhodes.[2083] Sometimes this appears in an extended and\nmetrical form, as on another B.F. kylix from the same site:\n\n [\u03a6\u0399\u039b\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\u0397\u039c\u0399\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u039a\u0391\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u0391\u039a\u03a5\u039b\u0399\u039e\u03a3\u0391\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u039a\u0399\u039b\u0391]\n\n \u03a6\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bc\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f01 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be \u1f01 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03b1\n\n \u201cI am the painted cup of the fair Philto.\u201d[2084]\n\nAnother metrical inscription runs:\n\n \u039a\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03be\u00b7 \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03b4\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b7 \u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u039e\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf....\n\n \u201cI am the cup of Kephisophon; if any one breaks me, let him pay\n a drachma; the gift of Xeno(krates).\u201d[2085]\n\nA yet more remarkable example is on an early lekythos from Cumae in the\nBritish Museum,[2086] which, in the manner favoured by modern\nschoolboys, invokes an imprecation on the head of a thief:\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 171.]\n\n \u03a4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ae\u03d9\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03c6\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\n \u201cI am Tataie\u2019s oil-flask, and he shall be struck blind who steals me.\u201d\n\nOthers, again, record the gift of the vase, as: \u201cEpainetos gave me to\nCharopos\u201d[2087]; [\u03a4\u0395\u039d\u0394\u0399[\u03a3]\u039f\u0399 \u0398\u039f\u0394\u0395\u039c\u039f[\u03a3] \u0394\u0399\u0394\u039f[\u03a3]\u0399[:]] \u201cLo, this Thoudemos\ngives to thee.\u201d[2088] A boat-shaped vase (_kymbion_) in the British\nMuseum has incised on it the exhortation [[\u03a0]\u03a1\u039f]\u03a0]\u0399\u039d\u0395 \u039c\u0397 \u039a\u0391\u03a4\u0398\u0397\u03a3],\n\u201cDrink, do not lay me down.\u201d[2089] The owner\u2019s name is found in the\nnominative on a vase from Carthage at Naples: [\u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u039c\u0399\u039d\u039f\u03a3] [\u0398\u0395\u039f\u03a6\u0391\u039c\u0399\u0394\u0391]\n[\u039a\u03a9\u0399\u039f\u03a3], \u201cCharminos, son of Theophamidas, a Coan\u201d[2090]; similarly in\nthe genitive with the omission of \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af: [\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03f9\u03a4\u0391\u03a1\u03a7\u039f] [\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u03a9\u039d\u039f\u03f9],\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f08\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2; [\u0391\u039b\u0395\u039e\u0399\u0394\u0391\u039c\u03a9] \u1f08\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5.[2091]\n\nUnder the same heading comes the class of votive or dedicatory\ninscriptions, found in such large numbers on the pottery of certain\ntemple-sites, such as that of Aphrodite at Naukratis,[2092] and that of\nthe Kabeiri at Thebes.[2093] The usual formula at Naukratis is \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 (or \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9)[2094]; but sometimes we find the\nformula \u1f08\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03af, where the god as the recipient of the gift is\nregarded as the owner.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 172.]\n\nOne of the most interesting, and certainly the most ancient, of all\nincised inscriptions on Greek vases is that engraved on a jug of\n\u201cDipylon\u201d ware found at Athens in 1880.[2095] It runs: \u1f43\u03c2 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f40\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u1fe6\u03c5 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5.... \u201cHe who now sports most\ndelicately of all the dancers,\u201d etc. Though probably not contemporary\nwith this eighth-century vase, it is still of great antiquity, and the\nearliest Athenian inscription known.\n\nIn studying these _graffiti_, it must always be borne in mind that they\nlend themselves easily to forgery, and that many are open to grave\nsuspicion. Instances of these doubtful inscriptions are the Kleomenes\nvase in the Louvre[2096] and a late vase signed by Statios in the\nBritish Museum (F 594).\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe =painted inscriptions= are practically limited to a period\nextending over two centuries, from the time at which the primitive\nmethods of painting were slowly emerging into the black-figured style,\ndown to the finest stage of red-figure vases. Rare at first, they\nrapidly spring into popularity, being constantly found on the\nsixth-century fabrics; but throughout the red-figure period they\ngradually become rarer and rarer, until they drop out almost entirely.\nIn the vases of the Decadence they have for the most part fallen into\ndisuse; at any rate, they are comparatively scarce. Some of the latest\ninscriptions are in the Oscan and Latin languages, showing the\nincreasing influence of the Romans over Southern Italy, and especially\nCampania. The inscriptions always follow the laws of palaeography of\nthe region and period to which they belong.\n\nGenerally speaking, it may be said that they have some reference to the\ndesign painted on the vase; at least, the majority are explanatory of\nthe subject represented. Sometimes not only is every figure accompanied\nby its name, but even animals and inanimate objects, instances of which\nare given below. On the Fran\u00e7ois vase there are no less than 115 such\ninscriptions. In almost all cases we can be certain that they are\noriginal, and contemporaneous with the vase itself.\n\nThe explanatory inscriptions are generally small in size, the letters\naveraging one-eighth of an inch in height. On B.F. vases they are\npainted in black; on R.F. vases of the \u201csevere\u201d style, in purple on the\nblack ground, or in black on the red portions; on later R.F. vases, in\nwhite. There is no rule for their position, or indeed for their\npresence; but, as a general rule, it may be said that they are oftener\nfound on the finer and larger vases, and that they are placed in close\njuxtaposition to the figures to which they refer. The direction in\nwhich they are written may be either from left to right or right to\nleft (as generally on Corinthian or Chalcidian vases); on the\nPanathenaic amphorae are the only known examples of \u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\ninscriptions, in which the letters are placed vertically in relation to\neach other. They are occasionally found on the objects depicted, as on\nstelae or lavers (see pp. 260, 272), on shields,[2097] or even on the\nfigures themselves.[2098] Signatures of artists are occasionally found\non the handle or foot of a vase.[2099]\n\nKretschmer (p. 5) illustrates the practice of employing inscriptions on\nvases from the art of the Semitic nations. He instances clay vases from\nCyprus with painted Phoenician inscriptions,[2100] for which the same\npigment is used as for the decoration of the vases themselves. But none\nof these are likely to be earlier than the first Greek inscriptions,\nand it is more than probable that the Cypriote Phoenicians borrowed the\npractice from the Greeks. In order, therefore, to obtain information as\nto the date of these painted inscriptions, we are entirely dependent\nupon internal evidence.\n\nThe importance of these inscriptions may, perhaps, be best realised\nwhen it is pointed out that they are one of the chief guides to the age\nof the vases, and have contributed more than any other feature to the\nestablishment of a scientific classification of the earlier fabrics, as\nwill be fully indicated in the succeeding account.\n\nThe Greek alphabet, as is well known, is derived from the Phoenician,\nand this is attested not only by tradition, but by the known existing\nforms of the latter, the signs being twenty-two in number. The\ninvention of the two double letters, and of the long \u03b7 and \u03c9, which are\npurely Greek, was attributed by popular tradition to various personages\nwithout any authority. With the question of the introduction of writing\ninto Greece this is not the place to deal. Recent discoveries,\nespecially in Crete, have greatly modified all preconceived notions on\nthe subject, and for the present we are only immediately concerned with\nthe earliest use of the Greek alphabet, as we know it.\n\nThis can be traced as far back as the seventh century B.C. on various\ngrounds, and in all probability the traditional view which placed its\nintroduction into Greece at about 660 B.C. is fairly correct. The\nearliest inscriptions on the vases are certainly not later, perhaps\nearlier than this (see below, p. 254). At Abou-Simbel in Egypt, Greek\ninscriptions have been found in which the name of Psammetichos occurs,\nand this king is generally supposed to be the second of that name\n(594\u2013589).[2101] In Thera and other Aegean islands, and on the coast of\nAsia Minor, inscriptions are known which, for various reasons, have\nbeen placed even earlier than this, and the vase with Arkesilaos, the\ninscriptions on which are discussed below, is hardly later, as it can\nbe shown to date between 580 and 550 B.C.\n\nBefore proceeding to discuss the early inscriptions, it may be as well\nto note, for the benefit of those to whom Greek Epigraphy is an\nunfamiliar subject, the chief peculiarities of the earlier\nalphabets.[2102] They fall into two principal groups, the Eastern and\nWestern, each of which has many subdivisions. Certain forms, such as\n[\u03a7] for \u03a7, are characteristic of one or the other division; but the\ndistinction is not so clearly marked on the vases, on which many\nalphabets, such as the Ionic and Island varieties, are scarcely\nrepresented. The vase-inscriptions fall mainly under three heads:\nCorinthian and Athenian in the Eastern group, Chalcidian in the\nWestern. During the fifth century (or even earlier) there is a rapid\ntendency to unification in the Greek alphabet, which is chiefly brought\nabout by the growing supremacy of Athens. This acted in two ways:\nfirstly, by the fact that Attic became the literary and therefore the\nparamount language in Greece; secondly, by the fact of her artistic\npre-eminence, which crushed out the other local fabrics. Finally, by\nthe time of the archonship of Eukleides in 403 B.C., the alphabet, if\nnot the language, had become entirely unified, and the Ionic forms\nuniversally adopted for public and official purposes. For private use\nthey had, of course, long been known at Athens; but the official\nenactment of that year only set the seal to a long recognised practice.\nThroughout the fifth century the old Attic and the Ionic forms are\nfound side by side on R.F. vases.[2103]\n\nIn the later archaic period the coins come in as an important source of\nevidence.[2104] None of the inscribed ones appear to be earlier than\nthe sixth century, the oldest being perhaps the electrum stater usually\nattributed to Halikarnassos, with the name of Phanes(?). The only\ncharacteristic letter (the alphabet belonging to the Ionic group) is\nthe sign [heta] in place of \u0397 to denote _eta_, which has not been found\non any vase with the Ionic alphabet, and therefore betokens a very\nearly date. Next comes an Attic stater of about 560 B.C., with the\nlegend [(\u0391)\u2609\u0395], which may be fitly compared with the oldest Panathenaic\namphora,[2105] on which the dotted [\u2609] is also found. The earliest\ncoins of Haliartos in Boeotia have the curious form 15[8]curious asper\nfor the _spiritus asper_ or \u0397, dating apparently before 550 B.C.; the\nsuccession can thence be traced through 14[10]asper2 14[9]asper3 and\n[heta], down to about 480 B.C., when it is dropped entirely. At Himera\nin Sicily [heta] occurs in the fifth century for the _spiritus asper_,\nand is followed by the HH form, which in the West is employed down to\nabout 400 B.C. On the early coins of Poseidonia (Paestum) the [M] form\nof \u03a3 is found (550\u2013480 B.C.), being also characteristic of Corinthian\nvases of the sixth century; it also lingers on in Crete, but in Sicily\nand elsewhere the [\u03a3] form of Attic and other alphabets is more usual,\nuntil replaced in the fifth century by \u03a3. Of the specially Ionic\nletters, \u0397 (= _eta_) is found generally at an early date, as at Teos\n(540\u2013400 B.C.), and also \u03a9. At Corinth the _koppa_ \u03d8 for \u039a is in use\nfrom the earliest times down to the days of the Achaean League, and\ndoes not therefore afford evidence of date by itself, but only of a\nlocal peculiarity, being equally universal on vases. The digamma is\nonly found on coins of Elis and Crete, whereas it often occurs on early\nGreek vases.[2106]\n\nIt may also be of interest to note that the [heta] form for the rough\nbreathing occurs on the helmet of Hiero in the British Museum,[2107]\nwhich can be dated 480\u2013470 B.C., and that the use of \u0397 for _eta_ and of\nthe four-lined [\u03a3] at Athens previous to the archonship of Eukleides\ncan be deduced from the well-known fragment of Euripides[2108] in which\nthe letters forming the name [\u0398\u0397\u03a3\u0395\u03a5\u03a3] are carefully described.\n\nIn the following pages illustrations of the points above noted will be\nfully detailed where occurring on the vases. The annexed scheme of\nalphabets used on vases (Fig. 173) will serve to give a general idea of\nthe variations of form in different fabrics.\n\nThe painted inscriptions on vases first appear, as already noted,\nabout the beginning of the seventh century B.C. The earlier\nfabrics\u2014Mycenaean, Cretan, and Cycladic\u2014generally belong to an epoch\nwhen writing, if not unknown, was at any rate little practised[2109];\nnor have any inscriptions been found on the Dipylon or Geometrical\nvases, except the incised one which we have already discussed. The\noldest known painted inscriptions are found on a Proto-Corinthian\nlekythos (see p. 254), the Euphorbos pinax from Kameiros (B.M. A\n749), and the krater signed by Aristono\u00f6s, which is perhaps of Ionic\norigin, strongly influenced by Mycenaean art.\n\n SCHEME OF ALPHABETS USED ON GREEK VASES\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 173.]\n\nWith the great impulse given to vase-painting at the beginning of the\nsixth century by the development of the art in Corinth, Chalkis, and\nAthens (especially in Corinth), the number of inscribed vases rapidly\nincreases. Among the earliest examples are those remarkable painted\npinakes found at Corinth (Vol. I. p. 316), nearly all of which have\ndedicatory inscriptions, while in most cases the names are given of the\ndeities, Poseidon and Amphitrite, to whom they were dedicated, and\nwhose figures appear on them. They may be dated 600\u2013550 B.C. The custom\nof inscribing names on works of art is illustrated by other products of\nthis period, as we have already noted in the case of the chest of\nKypselos; and they occur on the early bronze reliefs from\nOlympia,[2110] the Samothrace relief in the Louvre,[2111] the archaic\nreliefs at Delphi, and the newly found painted metopes at\nThermon,[2112] as well as later on the paintings of Polygnotos.\n\nOn the Euphorbos pinax already mentioned[2113] appear the names of\nMenelaos ([\u039c\u0395\u039d\u0395\u039b\u0391\u03a3]), Hector ([\u03a1\u039f\u03a4\u039a\u0395]), and Euphorbos ([\u0399\u03a5\u03a6\u039f\u03a1\u0392\u039f\u03a3]).\nAlthough found in Rhodes, it is proved to be of Argive origin by the\ncharacteristic form [\u039b] of the \u039b in Menelaos.[2114] Although its date\ncannot be exactly ascertained, it is probably about 620\u2013600 B.C. It is\na vase important in more than one respect, as it may be said to\nforeshadow the beginnings of the black-figure style.\n\nThe vase of Aristono\u00f6s[2115] was found at Cervetri, and bears the\nartist\u2019s signature,\n\n [\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u03a0\u0395\u03a3\u039f\u03a6\u039f\u039d\u039f\u03a4\u03a3\u0399\u03a1\u0391], \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf<\u03c6>\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af[\u03b7]\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd,\n\nin an alphabet from which, unfortunately, all characteristic letters\nare wanting, so that its origin is uncertain. It is, however, as we\nhave said, probably a seventh-century product of an Ionian fabric, on\nthe coast of Asia Minor. The 14[13]halved circle has been taken by\nseveral scholars[2116] to denote [F] as in the Phrygian alphabet, but\nKretschmer (p. 11) prefers to read it as \u03d1 14[13]halved circle =\n14[13]quartered circle We have, however, already seen that it is most\nprobably a superfluous letter.\n\nEarly in the sixth century must be placed another remarkable vase, the\nArkesilaos cup of Cyrenaean fabric.[2117] The inscribed names on this\nvase are as remarkable as its subject; there are nine in all, two only\nfragmentary. The only proper name is that of Arkesilas ([\u0391\u03a1\u039a\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0391\u03a3]),\nwho was king of Kyrene 580\u2013550 B.C.; the others seem to be titles, such\nas [\u0399\u039f\u03a6\u039f\u03a1\u03a4\u039f\u03a3], \u1f38\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03a3\u03ce\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cKeeper of the burdens\u201d;\n[\u03a3\u039b\u0399\u03a6\u039f\u039c\u0391\u03a7\u039f\u03a3], \u03a3\u03bb\u03b9\u03c6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, a word having some reference to silphium, the\nsubject of the vase; [\u03a6\u03a5\u039b\u0391\u039a\u039f\u03a3], \u201cGuardian\u201d; [\u0399\u03a1\u039c\u039f\u03a6\u039f\u03a1\u039f\u03a3], and [\u039f\u039e\u03a5\u03a1\u039f],\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03c5\u03be\u03cc[\u03c2. One word, [\u03a3\u039f\u039c\u0398\u0391], \u03c3\u03c4]\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, refers to an inanimate object (a\nbalance). The dialect is Doric, Kyrene having been colonised by that\nrace.\n\nNext we have to deal with a very important class of inscriptions\u2014those\nfound on Corinthian vases.[2118] They are too numerous to be dealt with\nin detail; Kretschmer mentions nearly fifty inscribed vases, exclusive\nof the pinakes. Wilisch attributes the earliest to the latter half of\nthe seventh century, the latest to the middle of the sixth century; but\nthey certainly do not become common before the sixth.[2119] They\ninclude several artists\u2019 signatures\u2014viz. Chares, Milonidas, and\nTimonidas (Vol. I. p. 315). One of the most famous of the inscribed\nvases is the Dodwell pyxis at Munich,[2120] representing a boar-hunt.\nThe figures are inscribed with fanciful names, such as [\u0391\u0393\u0391\u039c\u0395\u039c\u039d\u039f\u039d]\n(Agamemnon), [\u0394\u039f\u03a1\u0399\u039c\u0391\u03a7\u039f\u03a3] (Dorimachos, or \u201cspearman\u201d), [\u03a0\u0391\u03d8\u039f\u039d] (Pakon),\nand so on. A krater in the British Museum (Plate XXI.) represents a\nsimilar scene, also with fancy names, such as Polydas and Antiphatas.\nAnother famous vase is the Amphiaraos krater in Berlin,[2121]\nrepresenting the setting out of Amphiaraos and the funeral games of\nPelias; no less than twenty names are inscribed. Of these, [\u0392\u0391\u03a4\u039f\u039d]\n(Baton) and [\u1f39\u03a0\u03a0\u0391\u039b\u03d8\u039c\u039f\u03a3] (Hippalk(i)mos) illustrate other palaeo\ngraphical peculiarities. Other good examples are the vase by\nChares,[2122] another in the British Museum with the name of the owner\n([\u0391\u03a3\u039d\u0392\u03a4\u0391 \u0392\u039c\u03a3], \u0391\u1f30\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bc\u03af\u1f10),[2123] and that by Timonidas representing\nAchilles lying in wait for Troilos.[2124] A study of the pinakes in\nBerlin is also instructive in this respect. One is signed by Timonidas,\nanother by Milonidas, while others bear interesting inscriptions, such\nas Fig. 174:\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 174.]\n\n \u03a0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f35\u03ba\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u201cWe have come from Peiraeus\u201d[2125];\n [\u03a4\u03a5\u0394\u0395\u0394\u039f\u03a3\u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u0395\u03a3\u0391\u039d \u0391\u03a6\u039f\u03a1\u039c\u0391\u039d]\n \u03c4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b5\u03c2(\u03c2)\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ac\u03bd,\n \u201cAnd do thou make a graceful repayment\u201d[2126];\n\nand so on. The majority have only the names of Poseidon and Amphitrite,\nor (\u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1) \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\n\nIn view of the palaeographical importance of these inscriptions, it may\nbe worth while to dwell briefly on their peculiarities. The dialect is\nof course Doric, and consequently the names often differ widely from\nthe forms to which we are accustomed; and this is increased by\ndivergencies of spelling, which produce many anomalous results. For\ninstance, ([\u039a\u0395\u03a3\u0391\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u0391]) (\u039a\u03b5\u03c3\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1) appears for Kassandra on a vase in\nthe Louvre.[2127] \u0391\u0395 is used for \u0391\u0399, as in [\u0391\u0395\u0398\u039f\u039d] (\u1f08\u03ad\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd = \u0391\u1f34\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd) on\nthe Chares pyxis, and in [\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u0395\u039f\u0398\u0395\u039d] (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b5\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd for \u03a0\u03b5(\u03b9)\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd) on\nthe pinax already quoted. A nasal is dropped before a consonant, as in\nthe names of Amphiaraos ([\u0391\u03a6\u0399\u0391\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u03a3]) and Amphitrite ([\u0391\u03a6\u0395\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u03a4\u0391]) The\ndigamma lingers as a medial (more rarely as initial) in many words,\nsuch as \u03dd\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2, \u0394\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03dd\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, \u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03dd\u03c9\u03bd, and \u0394\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03dd\u03c9\u03bd; its written form\nis 15[9]\u03dc or 15[9]\u03dd The use of [heta] for the rough breathing is\ninvariable.[2128]\n\nOne or two vases have been recognised as of Sicyonian fabric by the use\nin inscriptions of the unique 15[16]E for \u0395, peculiar to that place\n(Vol. I. p. 321). The only certain example, however, is a krater in\nBerlin (_Cat._ 1147), with the names of Achilles ([\u03a3\u03a5\u0395\u039b\u0399\u039e\u0391]) and Memnon\n([\u039c[\u0395]\u039c\u039d\u039f\u039d]). It may also be noted that an Athenian sixth-century vase,\nsigned by Exekias, has a Sicyonian inscription _incised_ upon it by its\nowner[2129]:\n\n [\u0395\u03a0\u0391\u0399\u039d\u0395\u03a4\u039f\u03a3 \u039c \u0395\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0395\u039d \u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u039f\u0399]\n\n \u1f18\u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9.\n\nBoeotian vases never attained to the importance of the Corinthian\nfabrics, though, on the other hand, the manufacture lasted longer; but\nthere are several instances of early signed vases from this district.\nTwo, of which one is in the British Museum, are by Gamedes, the others\nby Theozotos, Gryton, Iphitadas, Mnasalkes, and Menaidas.[2130] They\nare recognised as Boeotian by the use of typical letters, as well as by\norigin, style, and dialect; such are the [Boeotian A] for A, [Boeotian\n\u03a7] for \u03a7, and so on. There is also a fifth-century vase with the\nBoeotian alphabet.[2131] The Kabeirion vases have inscriptions in the\nlocal alphabet, with a few exceptions, which are Ionic.[2132]\n\nA unique vase, from the epigraphical point of view, is E 732 in the\nLouvre, found at Cervetri, to which allusion has been made elsewhere\n(Vol. I. p. 357, and see Fig. 111). It bears eleven names (of gods and\ngiants) in an alphabet which has been recognised as Ionian, and is\naccording to Kretschmer most probably that of the island of Keos. The\ngreat uncertainty as to the \u0395 sounds presented by this vase finds\nparallels in the stone inscriptions found on that island, while in the\nuse of \u0392 for \u03f9 (the older form of that letter), the four-stroke\n[Fourline \u03a3] and [\u2609], with a central dot, this attribution finds\nfurther support. The only other islands that would fit the conditions\nare Naxos and Amorgos. As instances of the confused use of \u0395, we have\n[\u0396\u0397\u03a5\u03a3] for \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, but [\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u0392\u039f\u03a4\u0395] for \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7[\u03c2, while again \u1f18\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\nappears as [\u0395\u0399\u03a0\u0399\u0391\u039b\u03a4\u0395\u03a3]! But this confusion does not occur in Naxos or\nAmorgos.\n\nOther vases are undoubtedly of Ionic origin, but their actual home is\nuncertain; they are usually assigned to the coast of Asia Minor. For\nsome reason, however, it is very rare for these vases to bear\ninscriptions; in all the numerous instances now collected, only some\nhalf-dozen with inscriptions can be found.[2133] One of these is the\nwell-known W\u00fcrzburg kylix with Phineus and the Harpies (see Vol. I. p.\n357); another is a vase from Vulci, published by Gerhard,[2134] which\nhas since disappeared. On both of these we find the characteristic\nIonic letters \u03a9 for \u03c9, \u0397 for \u03b7, \u03a7 for \u03c7, \u039b for \u03bb, and [\u03a3] with four\nstrokes. Both vases are of the sixth century, and other details attest\ntheir Ionic origin.\n\nWe now come to a very important but somewhat puzzling class of\ninscriptions, those in the Chalcidian alphabet.[2135] The number of\nthese is hardly more than a dozen, but such as they are they have\nenabled archaeologists to establish a Chalcidian school of painting by\ncomparisons with other uninscribed vases. In all cases the inscriptions\nrelate exclusively to the figures in the designs. Among the\ncharacteristic Chalcidian letters are the \u03d8 for \u039a, as in [\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u03a4\u03a5\u039b\u03d8]\n(\u039a\u03bb\u03cd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2); the curved \u03f9 for \u0393, as in [\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03dc\u03a5\u03a1\u0391\u03f9] (\u0393\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03dd\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2=\u0393\u03b7\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2);\n[\u039e] for \u039b and [\u039e] for \u03a7, as in [\u0391\u03a7\u0399\u039b\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3]; (\u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2); [\u039e] for [\u039e], as\nin [\u03a3\u039f\u0398\u039d\u0391\u039e] (\u039e\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2); and the abnormal form of the digamma [\u03dc], as in\n[\u03a3\u03a5\u03a7\u0391\u03dc] (\u03dc\u03b1\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2). [\u03a8] is represented by [\u03a6\u03a3] in one instance ([\u039c\u03a0\u039f\u03a6\u03a3\u039f\u03a3]\n= \u039c<\u03c0>\u03cc\u03c8\u03bf\u03c2).\n\nKretschmer has compiled a list of twelve vases with inscriptions in\nthis alphabet, to which one or two may be added, but for a fuller\ntreatment of the questions involved in studying this group the reader\nis referred to Chapter VII. This, however, may be a more suitable place\nfor a few remarks relating to the inscriptions alone.\n\nIn one or two instances the dialect alone is peculiarly Chalcidian, as\nthe characteristic letters happen to be wanting. In some instances, as\nKretschmer points out, the Aeolic fondness for the vowel \u03c5 is to be\ntraced, as in [\u03a3\u03a5\u039d\u03d8\u03a5\u03d8], for \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, which finds parallels in the\nChalcidian colony of Cumae, and probably influenced the Latin language\nthrough that means. Hence, too, the preference for the Q sound of the\n\u03d8, as in English and other languages when \u03c5 is preceded by a guttural.\nOn the British Museum Geryon vase (B 155) there is a curious mixture of\ndialect in the forms \u0393\u03b1\u03c1\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u039d\u03b7\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nIt must be borne in mind, in speaking of the Chalcidian alphabet, that\nit really extended over a wide area, including not only Chalkis in\nEuboea, but Chalkidike in Northern Greece, and the colonies on the\ncoast of Italy, such as Cumae, and this may partly account for the\nmixed character of the dialect on some of these Chalcidian vases. But\nalthough an attempt has been made to connect them with Cumae, it cannot\nbe said at present that any certainty has been attained as to the place\nof their manufacture.\n\nThough not belonging to the Chalcidian group, there is a vase which\nmust be mentioned here, on account of its inscription, which is partly\nin the alphabet of the Chalcidian colonies. The vase is of the\n\u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d class (see Vol. I. p. 308), and dates about 700\u2013650\nB.C.; it bears the name of the maker, Pyrrhos[2136]:\n\n [\u03a0\u03a5\u03a1\u039f\u03a3\u039c\u0395\u03a0\u039f\u0399\u0395\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u0391\u0393\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u03dc]\n \u03a0\u03c5\u03c1(\u03c1)\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u0391\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03dd\u03bf\u03c5\n\nand is therefore one of the oldest existing signatures.\n\n ATHENIAN VASES\n\nUnder this heading are included all remaining vase-inscriptions, except\na few from Italy. Their value to us, as Kretschmer points out, is not\nto be measured only by the mythological information they provide, or by\nthe list of Athenian craftsmen and popular favourites which can be\ndrawn up from them, but it is also largely philological. In other\nwords, they illustrate for us the vernacular of Athens in the sixth and\nfifth centuries, just as the Egyptian papyri have thrown light on the\nHellenistic vernacular of the second. In countless small details the\nlanguage of the vase-painters varies from the official language of\nstate documents and the literary standard of Thucydides, Sophocles, and\neven Aristophanes. The reason is, of course, a simple one\u2014namely, that\nthe vase-artists occupied a subordinate position in the Athenian state;\nthey were mere craftsmen, of little education, and in all probability\ntheir spelling was purely phonetic.[2137] Hence we constantly find such\nforms as \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 for \u03c0\u03af\u03b5, \u03c5\u1f31\u03cd\u03c2 for \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, or \u0398\u1fc6\u03c3\u03c5\u03c2 for \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 (see above,\np. 237); and even the rich potter Hyperbolos is ridiculed by the comic\npoet Plato[2138] for saying \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03bd (_sc. oliyon_) for \u1f40\u03bb\u03af\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, and\n\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd for \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc3\u03c4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nAnother interesting point is that many of the artists who have signed\ntheir vases were obviously not Athenians by birth. Thus we find such\nnames as Phintias, Amasis, Brygos, Cholkos, Sikanos, Thrax,[2139] and\neven such signatures as \u1f41 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 (or \u1f41 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2) \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd. It is, then,\nevident that many of them were \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 or resident aliens, and\nconsequently occupied but a humble rank in the social order of the\ncity.[2140] One name, indeed, that of Epiktetos, is actually a slave\u2019s\nname (\u1f18\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 = \u201cacquired\u201d).\n\nWe need not, then, be surprised at meeting with many un-Attic forms or\nspellings in the vase-inscriptions, which sometimes give a clue to the\norigin of the artist, and of which it may be interesting to give some\nspecimens. Kretschmer notes that these variations are always Doric,\nnever Ionic.\n\nThe commonest Doricism on Attic vases is the use of \u0391 for H, of which\nthere are many instances, such as [\u0394\u0391\u0399\u0391\u039d\u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0391], \u0394\u03b1\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1 for\n\u0394\u03b7\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b1[2141]; [\u0397\u0399\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0391] for \u1f39\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b7 (B.M. E 440); [\u039f\u0399\u0394\u0399\u03a0\u039f\u0394\u0391\u03a3] for\nthe Attic \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.[2142] Such forms as \u1f48\u03bb\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 and \u03a6\u03b5\u03c1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1 are\nalso clearly un-Attic. On the other hand, the names Menelaos and\nIolaos always appear in their Attic form \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f38\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2. The above\ninstances are all from proper names; but there are other remarkable\ninstances, such as the use of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac for \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae in [\u03a0\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u039f\u039e\u0395\u039d\u0391] [\u039a\u0391\u039b\u0391]\n[\u039a\u039f\u03a1\u0399\u039d\u0398\u03a9\u0399].[2143] On one of his signed vases Exekias uses the\nun-Attic form [\u03a4\u0395\u03a3\u0391\u03a1\u0391], \u03c4\u03ad\u03c3(\u03c3)\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1, but, as Kretschmer notes, he also\nuses \u1f38\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2 for \u1f38\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2, and was probably not an Athenian. On a B.F.\namphora in Rome (see below, p. 263) occurs the form \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nPerhaps the most remarkable use of non-Attic Greek on a vase is in the\ncase of the artist Brygos, who, as we have already pointed out, was of\nforeign origin. On a kylix in his style (B.M. E 69) we find the forms\n\u0394\u03af\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03bb\u03b7, \u03a0\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, and \u03a0\u03af\u03bb\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. These were at one time referred\nto a Macedonian origin,[2144] but Kretschmer points out that that\npeople used \u0392, not \u03a0, for \u03a6. He aptly quotes the Scythian in the\n_Thesmophoriasusae_,[2145] with his \u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, and \u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae, as\ngiving a likely clue to the home of this dropping of the aspirate.[2146]\n\nThe painted inscriptions on the Attic vases may be divided into three\nclasses: (1) those relating to the whole vase and its purpose, such as\nartists\u2019 signatures; (2) those relating to the designs on the vase,\n_i.e._ explanatory inscriptions, and those found on Panathenaic\namphorae; (3) those which stand in no direct relation to the vase, such\nas the so-called \u201clove-names\u201d or \u201cpet-names,\u201d and interjections such as\n\u201chail,\u201d \u201cdrink deep,\u201d etc. The incised inscriptions have already been\ndiscussed.\n\nThe artists\u2019 signatures first call for consideration. In relation to\ntheir works they are fully discussed elsewhere (Chapters IX., X.), but\nthe present may be regarded as a convenient opportunity for some\ngeneral outline of the style and palaeography of these inscriptions.\n\nKlein in his _Meistersignaturen_ (2nd edn.) reckons a total of\nninety-five signatures, a number which has probably been largely\nincreased since he wrote in 1887. These names he finds distributed over\nsome 424 vases, one name, that of Nikosthenes, occurring on no fewer\nthan seventy-seven; he divides them into four classes, as follows: (1)\nmasters in the B.F. method; (2) masters combining the two methods; (3)\nmasters in the R.F. method (including S. Italy vases); (4) masters\nwhose names appear on vases without subjects. These four classes are\nnot mutually exclusive, as names in (1) and (3) appear again in (2) and\n(4).\n\nThe form which the signature takes is usually (1)\u2014\n\n \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd (of the potter);\n\nor (2)\u2014\n\n \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd (of the painter);\n\nor (3), the two combined, either under one name, as\u2014\n\n \u1f18\u03be\u03b7\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03ad \u03bc\u03b5;\n\nor (4), with separate names, as on the Fran\u00e7ois vase\u2014\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 175.]\n\n \u039a\u03bb\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f18\u03c1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe form (3) may possibly indicate the priority of the artist, but it\nis more probable that it was adopted as forming an iambic trimeter.\nWhen \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd only occurs on a painted vase, it is generally to be\nassumed that the potter is also the painter.\n\nThe older artists avoided, as a rule, the imperfect \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5 or \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9,\nbut its use came into fashion for a short time among the early R.F.\nartists, such as Andokides, Chelis, and Psiax, who use \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 (Vol. I.\np. 430); it was again adopted by the Paestum and Apulian schools, as a\nmodest affectation that their work was as yet unfinished.[2147] But the\nmajority preferred the more decided aorist, indicating completeness.\nThe word \u03bc\u03b5 or \u1f10\u03bc\u03ad is usually added by the earlier artists, as in the\ninstance already quoted from Exekias. Generally speaking, \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\nrarely occurs on B.F. vases, \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd being the rule. A rare form of\ninscription is the formula \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1), as in the doubtful\nsignature of Statios[2148]; and even more unique is the use of the word\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd by the early Attic potter Oikopheles,[2149] as a synonym for\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Other peculiarities of signature are to be seen on the works of\nLykinos (\u1f20\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf), Paseas (\u03a0\u03b1\u03c3\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd), and Therinos\n(\u0398\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1).[2150]\n\nThe potter sometimes added the name of his father, either as being that\nof a well-known man, or to distinguish himself from others of the same\nname. Thus Timonidas of Corinth signs [\u03a4\u0399\u039c\u039f\u039d\u0399\u0394\u0391\u03a3 \u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a8\u0399\u0391] \u03a4\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 \u0392\u03af\u03b1 (_sc._ son of Bias); Tleson, \u03a4\u03bb\u03ae\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41 \u039d\u03b5\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5; Eucheiros,\n\u1f49\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u03af\u03c5\u03c2 (the son of Ergotimos); Euthymides, [\u1f49\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a5], \u1f41 \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.\nThe latter in one instance not only gives his patronymic, but\nchallenges comparison with his great rival Euphronios, in the following\nterms: [\u1f49\u03a3 \u039f\u03a5\u0394\u0395 \u03a0\u039f\u03a4 \u0395\u03a5\u03a6\u03a1\u039f\u039d\u0399\u039f\u03a3], \u1f41\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4(\u03b5) \u0395\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, _i.e._,\n\u201cEuphronios never made anything like this.\u201d[2151] Other peculiarities\nare: the omission of the verb, as was sometimes done by R.F. artists\n(_e.g._ Psiax); or, on the contrary, the simple \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd, without a\nname, sometimes found on R.F. kylikes of the Epictetan school[2152]; or\nthe addition by the artist of his tribe or nationality. Among the\nlatter we have Kleomenes, Teisias, and Xenophantos, who style\nthemselves \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, and Nikias, who not only gives his father\u2019s name,\nbut also his deme in Attica:\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 176.]\n\n \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f19[\u03c1]\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f08\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nTwo other artists call themselves \u1f41 \u039b\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2 (the Lydian) and \u1f41 \u03a3\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2\n(the Scythian). Smikros signs one of his vases in the Louvre[2153]\n\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0395\u0399\u03a3\u039c\u0399\u039a\u03a1\u03a9\u0395\u0399\u039d\u0391\u0399, \u201cIt seems to be Smikros\u2019 work.\u201d There are also\nfrequent vagaries of spelling, as in \u03a6\u03b9\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 for \u03a6\u03b9\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 or\n\u03a0\u03ac\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for \u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and \u1f39\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd for \u1f39\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. Sakonides once spells his\nname \u0396\u03b1\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2, and Nikosthenes once uses the koppa \u03d8 for \u039a. Fuller\ninformation in regard to this subject may be found in Klein\u2019s admirable\nwork; there is also much of interest relating to the R.F. cup-painters\nin Hartwig\u2019s exhaustive treatise. A complete list of all known artists\u2019\nnames is given at the end of this chapter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe now come to the inscriptions which have relation to the subjects\ndepicted on the vases. These are seldom of a general kind, having\nreference to the whole composition; but on a Panathenaic amphora in\nNaples a boxing scene is entitled [\u03a0\u0391\u039d\u039a\u03a1\u0391\u03a4\u0399\u039f\u039d], \u201cgeneral maul,\u201d[2154]\nand on another in Munich over a foot-race is written, [\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u0394\u0399\u039f \u0391\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u039f\u039d\n\u039d\u0399\u039a\u0395], \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b7,[2155] while B.F. lekythos in the same\ncollection with Dionysos and dancing Maenads is inscribed\n[\u0394\u0399\u039f\u039d\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u0391(\u039a)\u0391].[2156] On a vase with a Homeric subject is [\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u039a\u039b\u0399\u0391],\nand on one with a scene from Theban legend [\u039a\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u0391].[2157]\nLocalities are sometimes hinted at by the use of such words as [\u039a\u03a1\u0395\u039d\u0395]\n(\u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7) on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, where Polyxena goes to the fountain, or\nby the [\u039a\u0391\u039b\u0399\u03a1\u0395\u039a\u03a1\u0395\u039d\u0395] \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c1\u03c1(\u03cc)\u03b7 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7 on the British Museum hydria (B\n331) with girls drawing water at the fountain of Kallirrho\u00eb. More often\nnames are given to inanimate objects like the \u03b8\u1fb6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 (seat) and \u1f51\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\n(pitcher) on the Fran\u00e7ois vase, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 on the Arkesilas cup, the \u03b2\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n(altar) on a vase in Munich (_Cat._ 124), \u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1 (lyre) on a cup in\nMunich (333), and \u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2 (throne) on an amphora in the Louvre.[2158] On\na washing-basin on a R.F. vase published by Tischbein appears the word\n[\u0394\u0397\u039c\u039f\u03a3\u0399\u0391], _i.e._ \u201cpublic baths.\u201d[2159] The word \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd sometimes\nappears on a _stele_ on later vases.[2160] Animals are also\noccasionally named, such as the \u1f57\u03c2 on the Munich vase already quoted\n(333).[2161]\n\nBut the greater majority of these inscriptions refer to the names of\npersons, deities, and mythological figures, the name being usually in\nthe nominative, but occasionally in the genitive, with \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\nunderstood.[2162] Sometimes generic names or nicknames are given to\nordinary figures in _genre_ scenes, as \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u201cthe ship\u2019s\ncaptain\u201d; \u039a\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cleader of the revels\u201d; or, again, \u03a0\u03bb\u03ae\u03be\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 for a\nhorseman, \u03a4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 and \u039a\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 for a Scythian bowman.[2163] Names of\nreal contemporary persons are occasionally introduced, as on a hydria\nby Phintias, on which his comrade Euthymides and the \u201cminor artist\u201d\nTlenpolemos are represented, with names inscribed[2164]; and on a\nstamnos by Smikros at Brussels the artist introduces himself and the\npotter Pheidiades at a banquet.[2165] Although proper names usually\nstand alone, they are sometimes accompanied by some interjection, as\n\u1f41\u03b4\u1f76 \u039c\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u201cHere is Menestheus,\u201d[2166] \u03a3\u03c6\u03af\u03b3\u03be \u1f25\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5, \u201cThis is\nthe Sphinx; hail!\u201d[2167] or in the form of a phrase, as \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u1f76\n\u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.[2168] So also we find [\u0397\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u0393\u0395\u03a1\u03a9\u039d] \u1f0d\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cthe old\nman of the sea,\u201d for Nereus[2169]; [\u039d\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a1 \u03a0\u03a5\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3] \u201cNestor of\nPylos\u201d[2170]; [\u0394\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u03a6\u039f\u03a3] \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2, for Dionysos[2171]; [\u0394\u0399\u039f\u03a3 \u03a0\u0391\u0399\u03a3],\n\u201cthe son of Zeus,\u201d for Herakles[2172]; \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c2, \u201cthe grazing\nbull,\u201d for the metamorphosed Zeus (a doubtful instance).[2173]\n\nBesides the names of figures and objects, words and exclamations are\nsometimes represented as proceeding from the mouths of the figures\nthemselves, in the same manner as on the labels affixed to the figures\nof saints in the Middle Ages. They vary in length and purport, but in\nsome cases they appear to be extracts from poems or songs, or\nexpressions familiar at the time, but now unintelligible or lost in the\nwreck of Hellenic literature. They are found on both B.F. and R.F.\nvases, but more commonly on the former, and generally read according to\nthe direction of the figure, as if issuing from the mouth.\n\nThus a boy pouring wine out of an amphora cries, [\u0395\u039d\u03a7\u0395 \u0397\u0394 . . \u039f\u0399\u039d\u039f\u039d],\n\u1f14(\u03b3)\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f21\u03b4[\u1f7a\u03bd] \u03bf\u1f36\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u201cPour in sweet wine\u201d[2174]; over the first of\nthree runners in a race appears \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fb7\u03c2, \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u201cPolymenon, you\nwin\u201d[2175]; again, Amphiaraos is exhorted to mount his chariot with the\nword \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1,[2176] or one personage says to another, \u03c7\u03b1\u1f36\u03c1\u03b5 or \u03c0\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03c3\u03cd.[2177] Sometimes the words are evidently those of a song, as on a\nR.F. kylix at Athens, where a man lying on a couch sings an elegy of\nTheognis beginning \u1f66 \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5, \u201cFairest of boys!\u201d[2178] Another\nsings [\u039c\u0391\u039c\u0395\u039a\u0391\u0399\u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395\u039f], which has been recognised as an inaccurate\nversion of an Aeolic line, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.[2179] On a red-figured\nvase in the British Museum (E 270) a man accompanied by a flute-player\nhas an inscription proceeding from his open mouth, which runs,\n[\u0395\u039f\u03a0\u039f\u0394\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a4\u0395\u039d\u03a4\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u039d\u0398\u0399], \u1f61\u03b4\u03ad \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03a4\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9; evidently the beginning of a\nsong, \u201cHere once in Tiryns....\u201d On a stamnos in the British Museum (E\n439) the letters \u039d\u039f\u039d appear before the mouth of a Seilenos, and\nevidently represent notes of music.[2180]\n\nOn a psykter by Euphronios[2181] a courtesan playing at kottabos casts\nthe drops out of a cup with the words [\u00b7\u03a1\u0393\u0391\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3\u03a3\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u039b\u0395\u0394\u039d\u0391\u03a4\u039d\u0399\u03a4], \u03c4\u1f76\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9 \u039b\u03ad\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1(\u03b5), \u201cTo thee, Leagros, I dash these drops.\u201d Another\nkylix (Munich 371) represents a surfeited drinker on a couch, saying,\n\u03bf\u1f50 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u2019 \u03bf\u1f54, \u201cI can no more!\u201d\n\nTo turn to another class of these expressions, we have a Panathenaic\namphora in the British Museum (B 144), on which a herald proclaims a\nvictor in the horse-race as follows: [\u0394\u03a5\u039d\u0395\u0399\u039a\u0395\u03a4\u03a5 : \u0397\u0399\u03a0\u039f\u03a3 : \u039d\u0399\u039a\u0391\u0399],\n\u0394\u03c5(\u03c3)\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1fb7, \u201cThe horse of Dysneiketos[2182] wins.\u201d On\nanother of the same class[2183] is an acrobat on horseback before\njudges, of whom one cries, [\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u0399\u039a\u03a5\u0392\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u0399], \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u1fc7[2184] \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cBravo, then, to the acrobat.\u201d A boy walking with\nhis dog calls to it, [\u039c\u0395\u039b\u0399\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u0395], \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b5 (_i.e._ \u201cMaltese (?)\ndog\u201d).[2185] A charioteer calls to his horses, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1, \u1f14\u03bb\u03b1, \u201cGee\nup!\u201d[2186] Women weeping over a corpse cry, \u03bf\u1f34\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u201cWoe is me!\u201d[2187]\nIn a representation of Oedipus and the Sphinx on a R.F. vase in Rome\nthe words [\u039a\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u03a1\u0399[\u03a0\u039f\u03a5\u039d]], \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, occur, evidently with reference\nto the well-known riddle.[2188]\n\nAn interesting bit of dialogue appears on a B.F. vase,[2189] which\nrepresents boys and men watching a swallow, evidently the first of the\nreturning spring; one boy says, \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03c7\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd, \u201cSee, the swallow\u201d; to\nwhich a man replies, \u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1, \u201cYes, by Herakles!\u201d Another boy\njoins in with \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03b7\u03af, \u201cThere she is,\u201d and \u1f14\u03b1\u03c1 \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7, \u201cIt is already\nspring.\u201d Another good instance is on a B.F. vase in the Vatican.[2190]\nOn one side we see the proprietor of an olive garden extracting oil\nfrom the olives, with the prayer, [\u039f\u0396\u0395\u03a5\u03a0\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u0399\u0398\u0395\u03a0\u039b\u039f\u03a5\u03a3\u0399\u039f\u03a3\u0393\u0395\u039d] \u1f66 \u0396\u03b5\u1fe6\n\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u03b1\u1f34\u03b8\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd[\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd, \u201cO Father Zeus, may I be rich!\u201d while\non the other he sits over a full vessel, and cries to the purchaser,\n[\u0395\u0394\u0395\u039c\u0395\u039d\u0395\u0394\u0395 \u03a0\u039b\u0395\u039f\u0399 \u03a0\u0391\u03a1\u0392\u0395\u0392\u0391\u039a\u0395\u039d], \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd, \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf(\u03bd) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd,\n\u201cAlready, already it has gone far beyond my needs.\u201d[2191]\n\nTo conclude with a few miscellaneous and unique inscriptions, we have\nfirstly, on a vase in the British Museum (E 298), a tripod, on the base\nof which are the words \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae, showing that it is\nintended for a monument in honour of a choragic victory, with the name\nof the victorious tribe. On a sepulchral stele on a B.F. funeral\namphora at Athens[2192] are the words (now nearly obliterated) \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0[\u03bf\u03c6\u03b8\u03b9\u03bc]\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf \u1fe5\u03ac\u03ba[\u03bf\u03c2] \u03ba\u03b1[\u03ba]\u1f78\u03bd [\u1f10\u03bd]\u03b8\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bc\u03b1[\u03b9, \u201cHere lie I, a vile\nrag of a dead man.\u201d Similarly, on a sepulchral plaque at Athens are the\nwords, [S\u00caMATODESTIN : AREIOU], \u201cThis is the grave of Areios.\u201d[2193] In\na representation of Sappho reading from her poems, she holds an open\nroll, on which are visible the words \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03af, \u1f20\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f10\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb[\u03c9\u03bd]\n... \u1f14\u03c0\u03b5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1[2194]; and in the well-known school-scene on the\nDuris vase in Berlin[2195] a teacher holds a roll, on which are the\nwords (in Aeolic dialect, and combined from the openings of two\ndistinct hymns):\n\n [\u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a3\u0391\u039c\u039f\u0399] \u039c\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03ac \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\n [\u0391\u03a6\u0399\u03a3\u039a\u0391\u039c\u0391\u039d\u0394\u03a1\u039f\u039d] \u1f00(\u03bc)\u03c6\u1f76 \u03a3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n [\u0395\u03a5\u03a1\u03a9\u039d\u0391\u03a1\u03a7\u039f\u039c\u0391\u0399] \u1f10\u03cd\u03c1(\u03c1)\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\n [\u0391\u0395\u0399\u039d\u0394\u0395\u039d] \u1f00\u03b5\u03af<\u03bd>\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.[2196]\n\nA small fragment of a red-figure kylix (?) of fine style, found at\nNaukratis in 1899 (and now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford),[2197]\nhas a similar scene of a dictation lesson. A seated figure unrolls an\ninscribed scroll, on which is the _boustrophedon_ legend, \u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n\u1f55\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9, while another figure, of which the right hand alone\nremains, is writing on a tablet (Fig. 177).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 177. FIGURE WITH INSCRIBED SCROLL.]\n\nIn a very puzzling scene on a R.F. vase of fine style, generally\nsupposed to have some reference to the Argonautic expedition, one\nfigure holds up an object inscribed with the name [\u03a3\u0399\u03a3\u03a5\u03a6\u039f\u03a3].[2198] This\nobject has generally been interpreted as a _tessera hospitalis_, or\n\u201cletter of introduction,\u201d as we should say.\n\nLastly, there is the class of Panathenaic vases with their\ninscriptions.[2199] They fall into two groups: (1) the words [\u03a4\u039f\u039d\n\u0391\u0398\u0395\u039d\u0395\u0398\u0395\u039d \u0391\u0398\u039b\u039f\u039d], to which [\u0395\u039c\u0399] is sometimes added, \u201c(I am) from the\ngames at Athens\u201d; (2) the names of archons, which only occur on the\nfourth-century examples. They form a unique instance of inscriptions\nwhich give direct information as to the date of a vase, and range from\n367 to 313 B.C. (see Vol. I. p. 390).\n\nSometimes vases (especially in the B.F. period) are covered with\nmeaningless collocations of letters, either separate or in the form of\nwords. Some ingenious explanations of these have been propounded, but\nnone are very satisfactory. They are often found on the class known as\n\u201cCorintho-Attic\u201d or \u201cTyrrhenian amphorae,\u201d and it is just possible that\nin this case they are attempts by an Athenian workman to copy the\nunfamiliar Corinthian alphabet.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe third class of inscriptions on Attic vases is composed of those\nwhich have no direct relation to the vase itself. They include\ninvocations to deities such as were used in making libations, _e.g._\n\u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u201cTo Zeus the Saviour\u201d[2200]; or, again, the exhortations\nso frequently found on B.F. kylikes of the \u201cMinor Artists\u2019\u201d school, of\nwhich the commonest is \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b5\u1f56, \u201cHail, and drink deep!\u201d[2201]\nor \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5, \u201cHail, and drink this!\u201d[2202] On a number of\nR.F. kylikes appears the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u201cI salute you.\u201d[2203]\n\nBut the most numerous and important inscriptions of this class are\nthose conveniently named by German archaeologists \u201cLieblingsnamen,\u201d or\n\u201cLieblingsinschriften,\u201d for which we have no satisfactory equivalent in\nEnglish, though \u201cpet-name\u201d and \u201clove-name\u201d have been suggested, and\nlatterly \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-name.\u201d The latter title has been adopted from the fact\nthat the usual form which these inscriptions take is that of a proper\nname in the nominative case, generally masculine, with the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2\nattached. Sometimes, but not so frequently, the name is feminine, with\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ae[2204]; the superlative form \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is also found.[2205] In\nother cases \u1f41 or \u1f11 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 appears in place of the proper name, or the\nword \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6 is added, and sometimes also \u03bd\u03b1\u03af or \u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c7\u03af, emphasising the\nstatement. The most remarkable instance is a B.F. jug at Munich, round\nthe shoulder of which is the inscription \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u039d\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1 \u0394\u03c9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03ba\u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fc6, \u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u00b7 \u03c7\u1f04\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2, \u039c\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2.[2206]\nIt is not quite certain how far the word \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2 should be interpreted in\na physical sense as \u201chandsome\u201d or \u201cfair,\u201d or in an ethical sense as\n\u201cgood\u201d or \u201cnoble\u201d; but having regard to the manners and customs of\nfifth-century Athens,[2207] it is more likely that the physical meaning\nof the word is to be inferred.\n\nThese inscriptions are often found on B.F. vases, but far more\nfrequently in the succeeding period, and generally in more or less\ndirect connection with artists\u2019 signatures, from which fact interesting\nresults have been obtained. Special attention has been drawn to them of\nlate years, from the fact that many of the names are those borne by\nhistorical personages, such as Miltiades, Megakles, Glaukon, and so on,\nand attempts have been made to connect them with those characters (see\nVol. I. p. 403).\n\nKlein, the chief writer on this subject, has collected in the second\nedition of his valuable work no less than 558 instances of these\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03c2-inscriptions,[2208] as against 424 signatures of artists; and\nthere are besides these the numerous instances in which no proper name\nis given.\n\nThe chief question which calls for consideration in regard to these\ninscriptions is their purport, and the reason why they occur\nexclusively on vases, and of these exclusively on Attic vases covering\na period of not more than one hundred years. The custom was not, of\ncourse, an unfamiliar one at Athens, as two references in Aristophanes\nindicate. In the _Acharnians_[2209] he describes the Thracian Sitalkes\nas being such a \u201clover\u201d of the Athenians that he wrote on the walls,\n\u201cThe Athenians are fair\u201d; and, again, the slave Xanthias, in the\n_Wasps_, speaking of his master\u2019s litigious proclivities, says that if\never he saw \u0394\u1fc6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 written on a door he promptly wrote by the side\n\u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2.[2210] But the most interesting and apposite instance\nrecorded is that of Pheidias, who scratched on the finger of his statue\nof the Olympian Zeus, \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2.[2211] Generally speaking, the\nword was no doubt intended to refer to the personal beauty of boys (as\nindicated by the use of \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2), or at any rate of young athletes, and\nwas applied to popular favourites of the day,[2212] whose occupations\nin the gymnasium, at the banquet, and elsewhere were matters of\nevery-day talk.\n\nThese names may have been placed on the vases with the view of\nattracting the public to purchase them, or may even have been the\nsubject of special orders from customers. Some light seems to be thrown\non the matter by a cup signed by the painter Phintias,[2213] which\nrepresents a young man, purse in hand, making purchases of vases in a\npotter\u2019s workshop. This vase has the inscription \u03a7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, but\nwhether it is intended as a representation of Chairias or his admirer\nit is impossible to say. The names, however, are not always those of\nevery-day life. They may have relation to the figures on the vase, as\n[\u0397\u0395\u039a\u03a4\u039f\u03a1 \u039a\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a3].[2214]\n\nWe have already noted that historical names frequently occur in this\nseries, and it is obvious that if they can be identified with the\nactual historical owners of such names much valuable information in\nregard to the chronology of Greek vases will be gained. The question\nhas already been discussed in a previous chapter (Vol. I. p. 403), and\nthe principles there laid down need not be repeated. It is sufficient\nto say that so far only two or three names have been identified with\nthose of historical personages, though more results may yet be\nobtained. Of these one is Stesileos, occurring on two vases in Berlin,\nand identified with a _strategos_ who fell at Marathon in 490.[2215] On\ntwo lekythi (one late B.F., the other R.F.) the name of Glaukon son of\nLeagros[2216] appears, and these two names have also been identified\nwith Athenian _strategi_, Leagros having fallen in battle against the\nEdones in 467, while Glaukon commanded at Kerkyra in 433\u2013432 B.C. It\nmay be roughly inferred that Leagros was a boy (\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) about 510 B.C.,\nand his son Glaukon about 470 B.C., which gives an approximate date\n(within ten years or so) for these two groups of vases. It is, however,\nobvious that much at present only rests on hypothesis.\n\nIt is curious to note that nearly all these names have an aristocratic\nsound: thus we have Alcibiades, Alkmaeon, Hipparchos, and Megakles,\nbesides those already quoted. Miltiades \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 occurs on a R.F. plate at\nOxford,[2217] but there seems hardly sufficient evidence for referring\nit to the youth of the conqueror of Marathon (cf. Vol. I. p. 403). The\ntable at the end of this chapter may be found useful as giving a\n_conspectus_ of the principal names and their relation to the artists.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is now necessary to discuss some of the principal peculiarities of\nthe Attic vase-inscriptions, in regard to palaeography, orthography,\nand grammar.[2218] The variety in the forms and uses of the letters is\nsomewhat surprising at first sight, but it must be remembered that\nnon-Attic influences were always strong, as has indeed already been\npointed out.\n\n\u0391 usually appears either in that form or as [Corinthian \u0391], [Sicyonian\n\u0391]; but such variations as 15[14]RF Attic alpha 15[14]RF Attic alpha\n15[13]RF Attic alpha are found on R.F. vases, while at a later period\neven 15[13]RF Attic alpha occurs. \u0394 on the vases of Duris generally\nappears as 15[13]RF Attic alpha [Attic lambda2] is found for [Attic\nlambda], the Attic form of \u039b. \u03a3 varies between [sigma] and [fourline\nsigma], while such abnormal forms as 15[11]rounded S (Oikopheles), and\n15[11]E-shaped sigma are not unknown. The minor artist Xenokles uses a\nsort of cursive handwriting for his signature. \u0397 is used for \u1f11 and \u1f21,\nas in [H\u03a1\u039c\u0395\u03a3] for [\u0397\u0395\u03a1\u039c\u0395\u03a3], [\u0397\u03a1\u0391\u039a\u039b\u0395\u03a3] for [\u0397\u0395\u03a1\u0391K\u039b\u0395\u03a3], which seems to be\na confusion of ideas resulting from its use for _eta_ in Ionic, and for\n_h_ in Chalcidian (_i.e._ Western) alphabets.[2219] The sign for the\naspirate occurs first as [heta], afterwards as \u0397, and is sometimes\nintroduced without apparent reason, as in [\u0397\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0399\u0398\u0399\u0391] for \u0395\u1f30\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03c5\u03b9\u03b1, and\n[H\u0391\u03a6\u03a1\u039f\u0394\u0399\u03a4\u0395] for \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7. The digamma is unknown on Attic vases, but\nthe Fran\u00e7ois vase and the allied 'Tyrrhenian' group give some\ninteresting examples of the use of \u03d8 for \u039a. Thus we find [\u03d8ORA\u039e\u03a3] for\n\u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03be, [\u0395\u03a4\u0395\u039f\u03d8\u039b\u039f\u03a3] for \u1f18\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, [\u03a7ARI\u03d8\u039bO] for \u03a7\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bb\u03ce. On the\nCorintho-Attic vase in Berlin (1704) are two curious instances of\ndittography, due no doubt to Corinthian influence, \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 being\nwritten [\u039a\u03d8Y\u0395NIO\u03a3] (\u039a\u03d9\u03c5\u03b5\u03bb\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) and \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 as [\u0394\u0392\u0395Y\u03a3], where the\nCorinthian and Attic forms of \u039a and \u0395 stand side by side. So on a vase\nin the Louvre (E 852) we have [\u0396DEY\u03a3] = \u0396\u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.[2220]\n\nAs a result no doubt of the unsettled state of the alphabet in the\nfifth century, a confusion in the use of \u03b5 and \u03b7, and \u03bf and \u03c9\nrespectively, often arises, and we find \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 for \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03af\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, [\u039a\u03a5\u039c\u039f\u0394\u03a9\u039a\u0395] for \u039a\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b7, [\u0398\u0397\u03a4\u0399\u03a3] for \u0398\u03ad\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, and similar\nforms.[2221] The diphthong \u03b5\u03b9 is sometimes rendered by \u0395\u0399, sometimes by\n\u0395, as in [\u039a\u0391\u039b\u0395\u0394\u039f\u039a\u0395\u03a3] for \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u03b4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2; \u03b1\u03b9 and \u03b5\u03b9 are also rendered by \u0395,\nas in the name [\u0391\u039b\u039a\u039c\u0395\u039f\u039d] for \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd and [\u03a0\u0395\u039d\u0398\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u0391] for \u03a0\u03b5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1,\nor \u03b1\u03b9 by \u0391, as in [\u0391\u0398\u0395\u039d\u0391\u0391] for \u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03b1. In a few words, such as [\u03a7\u0399\u03a1\u039f\u039d]\n(\u03a7\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd) and [\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3] (\u03a3\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2), the diphthong \u03b5\u03b9 is represented by\nits other member \u0399. On the other hand, we find [\u0395\u0399\u039f\u039b\u0395\u039f\u03a3] for \u1f38\u03bf\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2\n(B.M. B 301). The general vagueness of the Attic craftsmen\u2019s\northography is well illustrated by Kretschmer in the word \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2,\nwhich is not only invariably spelled with a \u039b, reminding us of the\nLatin form _Ulixes_, but occurs in the following different\nforms[2222]:\u2014 15[86]\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 15[79]\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a5 15[99]\u039f\u039b\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 15[103]\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a3\n15[73]\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a3 15[81]\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a3\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 15[91]\u03a9\u039b\u03a5\u03a3\u03a3\u0395\u03a5\u03a3 this order being roughly\nchronological. The ordinary \u03b4-form is, however, found.[2223]\n\nA tendency to assimilation of aspirated consonants, always avoided in\nliterary Greek, is seen in such forms as [\u0398\u0391\u039b\u0398\u03a5\u0392\u0399\u039f\u03a3] for \u03a4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b8\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,\n[\u03a7\u0391\u03a7\u03a1\u03a5\u039b\u0399\u039f\u039d] for \u039a\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, and [\u03a6\u0391\u039d\u03a6\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a3] for \u03a0\u03ac\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2. The reverse\ntendency is curiously illustrated in [\u039a\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u0398\u0391\u0399\u039f\u03a3] for \u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2.\nUnassimilated forms occur, as in the case of [\u0391\u039d\u03a7\u0399\u03a0\u039f\u03a3] for\n\u1f0c\u03b3\u03c7\u03b9\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.[2224] Another peculiarity is the omission of nasals before\nconsonants, as in [\u0391\u03a4\u0391\u039b\u0391\u03a4\u0395] for \u1f08\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac(\u03bd)\u03c4\u03b7, [\u03a4\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u03a3] for\n\u03a4\u03c5(\u03bd)\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2,[2225] [\u0399\u0391\u03a6\u03a5\u0399] for \u039d\u03cd(\u03bc)\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9, [\u039b\u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039d] for \u039b\u03ac(\u03bc)\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd, and\n[\u0395\u039a\u0395\u039b\u0391\u0394\u039f\u03a3] for \u1f18(\u03b3)\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. There is also a tendency to avoid double\nconsonants, as in [\u039c\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0391] for \u039c\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, [\u0391\u03a1\u0399\u0391\u039d\u0395] for \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03bd\u03b7,\n[\u039a\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u039c\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u0391] for \u039a\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, [\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a6\u0391\u03a4\u0391] for \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03ad\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1[2226]; this\nis especially common in the case of double \u039b or double \u03a3, as in\n[\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0395\u03a5\u03a3] and [\u039c\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0391] just quoted. On the other hand, on later vases\nconsonants are often doubled without reason, as in [\u039a\u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a1] for\n\u039a\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1,[2227] [\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u03a0\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0395\u039c\u039f\u03a3] for \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, [\u039c\u0395\u039c\u039c\u039d\u039f\u039d] for \u039c\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\nthis being commonest with [fourline \u03a3] and [\u03a0]. [\u03a7] and [Chalcidian \u03a7],\noriginally absent from the Attic alphabet, are represented usually by\n[\u039e\u03a3] and [\u0398\u03a3], exceptionally by [\u039a\u03a3] and [\u03a0\u03a3], as in [\u03a7\u0391\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u03a3],\n[\u039a\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u039f\u039a\u039b\u0395\u03a3][2228]; also occasionally by metathesis, as [\u0395\u039b\u03a1\u0391\u03a3\u03a6\u0395\u039d],\n[\u03a3\u03a7\u0391\u039d\u0398\u039f\u03a3], [\u03a0\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u039f\u03a3\u03a7\u0395\u039d\u039f\u03a3].[2229] Attic contractions, such as [\u03a7\u0391\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a3]\nfor \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and [\u039a\u0391\u039c\u039f\u0399] for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af, are also found.[2230]\n\nAmong peculiarities of inflection (some of which may of course be mere\nmisspellings) may be mentioned [\u0397\u03a5\u0399\u03a5\u03a3] = \u03c5\u1f31\u03cd\u03c2 for \u03c5\u1f31\u03cc\u03c2, [\u03a0\u0391\u03a5\u03a3] for\npa\u1fd6s, [\u0398\u0395\u03a3\u03a5\u03a3] for \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, and [\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u03a3\u0395\u03a3] for \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2; also the open form\n-\u03b5\u03b5\u03c2 for -h\u03c2, as in [\u0397\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u039a\u039b\u0395\u0395\u03a3], [\u03a7\u03a3\u0395\u039d\u039f\u039a\u039b\u0395\u0395\u03a3], and the form \u03c0\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 for\n\u03c0\u03af\u03b5; to some of these allusion has already been made.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom this mass of detail it is possible to deduce certain chronological\nresults,[2231] which are not without their value for the dating of the\nvarious Athenian fabrics. Excluding the doubtful Dipylon vase, the\ninscriptions extend from the seventh century[2232] down to the time of\nXenophantos and the late Panathenaic amphorae, a period of over three\nhundred years.\n\nIn the Fran\u00e7ois vase we meet with the closed [asper] for the aspirate,\nthe \u03d8 and \u039a together, and the two forms [\u0398] and [\u0398] of \u0398; as the [\u0398]\nform dropped out of private use earlier than out of official documents,\nand is found in the latter down to 520 B.C., we can date the Fran\u00e7ois\nvase about the middle of the sixth century (not later, as the closed\n[asper] shows); the same date will also apply to the earliest\nPanathenaic amphora (B.M. B 130), and the cup of Oikopheles. The fact\nthat Eucheiros, a \u201cminor artist,\u201d calls himself the son of Ergotimos,\nwho made the Fran\u00e7ois vase, permits us to place him some thirty years\nlater, about 520 B.C., and this point may be regarded as the zenith of\nthe B.F. period. In the later B.F. vases the H and \u03a9 for \u0395 and \u039f begin\nto make their appearance[2233]; but the conservative Panathenaic\namphorae, like the coins, adhere to the original spelling right down to\nthe end.\n\nThe existence of the R.F. style for some time previous to 480 B.C. has\nnow been established by the discoveries on the Athenian Acropolis. This\nis also borne out by the appearance on vases by Euthymides of the [\u0398]\nform for [\u0398], and the complete absence in the earlier vases of the H\nand \u03a9 forms, which are not found among the Acropolis fragments. The\nhydria of Meidias (B.M. B 224), which marks the zenith of the \u201cfine\u201d\nperiod, has a purely Ionic alphabet. The Ionic forms seem to have come\nin with the \u201cfine\u201d R.F. style after 480 B.C., and for some time we find\na mixed alphabet on the vases.[2234] It is also interesting to note the\nappearance in some cases of the Thasian alphabet, with its use of \u03a9 for\n\u039f (as in \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03c2, B.M. E 318), which has been traced to the\ninfluence of Polygnotos.[2235]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe conclude our account of inscriptions on Greek vases with a brief\nsurvey of those found on the vases of Southern Italy[2236]; it will be\nseen that they are neither numerous nor specially interesting.\n\nThe inscriptions are for the most part in the Doric dialect and Ionic\nalphabet, with the addition of the Doric sign [doric asper] for the\naspirate. Generally speaking, these Doric forms are found on the\nApulian vases, whereas on the products of Paestum they are mainly\nIonic, with admixtures of Doric. Attic forms also occur. It seems\nprobable that the Doric tendencies of the Apulian inscriptions are due\nto the influence of the great Laconian colony of Tarentum (although the\nvases were not made there), while Paestum was influenced, on the other\nhand, by the neighbouring Ionic colonies, such as Cumae.\n\nThe latter, being for the most part of earlier date, will first occupy\nour attention. They include two artists\u2019 signatures, which appear in\nthe form [\u0391\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u0391\u03a3] [\u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a6\u0395] and [\u03a0\u03a5\u0398\u03a9\u039d] [\u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a6\u0395]. We have already\nremarked on the use of the imperfect tense (p. 258); there are five\nvases by Assteas and one by Python, on all of which the figures also\nhave their names inscribed.[2237] The Ionic forms appear in [\u039c\u0395\u0393\u0391\u03a1\u0397],\n\u039c\u03b5\u03b3\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7, [\u0391\u039b\u039a\u039c\u0397\u039d\u0397], \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7, and so on; on the other hand, Python uses\nthe Doric form [\u0391\u03a9\u03a3], \u1f08\u03ce\u03c2 = \u1f28\u03ce\u03c2, and Assteas the Doric [Doric heta] in\n[\u1f19\u03a3\u03a3\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u0399\u0391\u03a3] = \u1f19<\u03c3>\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03c2. Ionic forms are also found on a few Apulian\nvases, as for instance Berlin 3257 (from Ceglie), which has [\u0395]\u03a5\u0398\u03a5\u039c\u0399\u0397]\nand [\u0395\u03a5\u039d\u039f\u039c\u0399\u0397] for \u0395\u1f50\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 and \u0395\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, or Naples 2296 with [\u039d\u0397\u03a3\u0391\u0399\u0397] for\n\u039d\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03b1.\n\nSome of the inscribed Apulian vases are not without interest, as for\ninstance that in the Louvre, which bears the signature of Lasimos:\n[\u039b\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039c\u039f\u03a3 \u0395\u0393\u03a1\u0391\u03a8\u0395], \u039b\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5.[2238] He was probably not a Greek,\nbut of Messapian origin. On the great Dareios vase in Naples (No. 3253)\nseveral names are inscribed, such as [\u1f19\u039b\u039b\u0391\u03a3] for\u1f1d\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, [\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u0391],\n[\u0394\u0391\u03a1\u0395\u0399\u039f\u03a3], and the general title of the scene, [\u03a0\u0395\u03a1\u03a3\u0391\u0399]. On a\nwell-known burlesque scene in the British Museum (F 269) the characters\nare inscribed [\u0397\u0395\u03a1\u0391] (\u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1), [\u0394\u0391\u0399\u0394\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a3] (\u0394\u03b1\u03af\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 = Hephaistos), and\n[\u0395\u039d\u0395\u03a5\u0391\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3] (\u1f18\u03bd<\u03b5>\u03c5\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 = Ares); and on the fine amphora F 331,\nrepresenting Pelops at Olympia, are numerous incised inscriptions:\n[\u03a0\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a8], \u03a0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c8; [\u039f\u0399\u039d\u039f\u039c\u0391\u039f\u03a3], \u039f\u1f30\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03bf\u03c2; [\u1f39\u03a0\u03a0\u039f\u0394\u0391\u039c\u0395\u0399\u0391], \u1f39\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, etc. On\nthe altar is painted [\u0394\u0399\u039f\u03a3], \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2, _sc._ \u201cthe altar of Zeus.\u201d\n\nA curious inscription is that on a krater in Naples (No. 2872), which\nrepresents Eros and a woman playing at ball; the latter leans on a\nstele on which is inscribed [\u1f39\u0397\u03a3\u0391\u039d\u039c\u039f\u0399\u03a4\u0391\u039d\u03a3\u03a6\u0399\u03a1\u0391\u039d] which was interpreted\nby Cavedoni, probably correctly, as \u1f35\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70\u03bd \u03c3\u03c6(\u03b1)\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u201cYou\nmight send me the ball.\u201d The [Sicyonian \u03a7] is an error for [Doric\nheta], the [heta reversed] for \u0397. This inscription, be it noted, is\npainted, contrary to the general rule in these vases, as they are\ngenerally incised; but an exception seems to be made in favour of\ninscriptions on _stelae_ and similar objects, which are not uncommon,\nthough many are open to suspicion. In the British Museum there are\nseveral examples,[2239] but by far the most curious is on an amphora in\nNaples (No. 2868), where a _stele_ is inscribed:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n \u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9 [\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd] \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03ac\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c6\u03cc\u03b4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03b4\u2019 \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd \u039b\u03b1\u03af\u03bf(\u03c5) \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\n\n \u201cOn my back I bear mallow and many-rooted asphodel, but\n in my bosom Oedipus, Laios\u2019 son.\u201d[2240]\n]\n\nA curious and unique inscription is found engraved on a kotyle from\nChiusi: \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1fb6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03c6\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd, \u201cThis fellow said that the people\nwere a depraved lot.\u201d[2241] The \u03b7 of \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd was first written \u0395, and\nthen corrected into \u0391, the Doric form. It may be supposed that the\ninscription is due to a workman who did not approve of the democracy\nunder which he lived.\n\nOn an amphora from Gnatia (Fasano), with a goose and a cock, in white\non the black ground, is the quaint dialogue:\n\n [\u0391\u039d\u0397\u03a7\u039d\u039f\u03a4\u0399\u0391, \u039f\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u0395\u039b\u0395\u03a4\u03a1\u03a5\u0393\u039f\u039d\u0391]\n \u03b1\u1f34 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1, \u1f66 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1, or, \u201cWhat, the goose?\u201d\n \u201cOh, the cock!\u201d[2242]\n\nEtruscan inscriptions do not come within the scope of this chapter, but\nan Oscan inscription should be mentioned here, which is incised on a\nvase in the British Museum (F 233), over an actor: [\u0391\u0399\u03a4\u039d\u0391\u03a3] = _Santia_,\nthe Oscan form of \u039e\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, which was a common name for the slave of\ncomedy.\n\n LIST OF ARTISTS\u2019 SIGNATURES FOUND ON GREEK VASES\n\n I. EARLY FABRICS (CHAPTER VII.)\n\n Aristono\u00f6s \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Uncertain fabric See Vol. I. p. 297\n\n Pyrrhos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Proto-Corinthian _Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902),\n p. 41\n\n Chares \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Corinthian Klein, _Meistersig._ p.\n 29\n\n Milonidas \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 do. _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl.\n 1, fig. 4\n\n Timonidas \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 do. Klein, p. 28\n\n Gamedes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Boeotian _Ibid._ p. 31\n\n Gryton \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 do. _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1898, p. 54\n\n Iphitadas \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Boeotian _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p.\n 105\n\n Menaidas \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 do. _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl.\n 1, fig. 1\n\n Mnasalkes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 do. _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1899, p. 56\n\n Theozotos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 do. Louvre F 69\n\n\n II. ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED VASES (Vol. I. p. 379).\n\n Amasis \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Amphorae and Klein, p. 43; Vol. I. p.\n oinochoae 383\n\n Anakles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5[2243] Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 75\n\n Antidoros \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 Minor artist _Notizie degli Scavi_,\n 1897, p. 231\n\n Archikles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist Klein, p. 76\n\n Charitaios \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Hydria and kylix _Ibid._ p. 51\n\n Cheiron \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79\n\n Epitimos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 84\n\n Ergoteles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist Berlin 1758\n\n Ergotimos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter of Fran\u00e7ois Klein, p. 37\n vase; kylix\n\n Eucheiros \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 72\n\n Euphiletos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Pinax _Ibid._ p. 49\n\n Exekias {\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 } Amphorae and kylikes _Ibid._ p. 38\n\n {\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5}\n\n Glaukytes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist (with _Ibid._ p. 77\n Archikles)\n\n Hermogenes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 82\n\n Kaulos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Sakonides _Notizie degli Scavi_,\n 1903, p. 35\n\n Kittos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Panathen. amph. (4th B.M. B 604\n cent.)\n\n Kleisophos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Oinocho\u00eb (Xenokles Athens 691\n as potter)\n\n Klitias \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Fran\u00e7ois vase Klein, p. 32; B.M. B\n (painter) 601_{4\u20135}\n\n Kolchos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Oinocho\u00eb Berlin 1732\n\n Mnesikleides \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Aryballos Athens 669\n\n Myspios \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist Klein, p. 84\n\n Neandros \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79\n\n Nearchos \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1. \u03ba. \u1f10\u03c0. Situla _Ibid._ p. 38\n\n Nikosthenes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 About eighty vases _Ibid._ p. 51\n\n Oikopheles \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5 Kylix Oxford 189\n\n Paseas \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 Pinax Klein, p. 49\n\n Phrynos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist B.M. B 424 and Boston\n\n Priapos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Doubtful B.M. B 395\n\n Psoieas \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5(?) Minor artist B.M. B 600_{40}\n\n Sakonides \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Minor artist Klein, p. 85\n\n Sikelos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Panathen. amphora _Ibid._ p. 86\n\n Skythes \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Pinax _Ibid._ p. 48\n\n Sokles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79\n\n Sondros \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist B.M. B 601_{6}\n\n Sophilos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Fragment _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1\n\n Taleides \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Various shapes Klein, p. 46\n\n Thrax \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Notizie degli Scavi_,\n 1903, p. 36\n\n Timagoras \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Hydriae Klein, p. 50\n\n Tlenpolemos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist; potter _Ibid._ p. 84\n for Sakonides\n\n Tleson \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 73\n\n Tychios \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Hydria _Ibid._ p. 50\n\n Xenokles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Minor artist; potter _Ibid._ p. 80\n for Kleisophos\n\n\n III. TRANSITIONAL OR \u201cMIXED TECHNIQUE\u201d\n\n Andokides { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 } Amphorae, etc. See Vol. I. p. 386\n\n { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 }\n\n Chelis See below\n\n Epiktetos See below\n\n Epilykos See below\n\n Hischylos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Klein, p. 97\n Epiktetos,\n Sakonides,\n Pheidippos\n\n Nikosthenes See above; two\n mixed; three\n R.F.[2244]\n\n Pamphaios \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Various shapes _Ibid._ p. 87\n\n Pasiades \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 White-ground B.M. B 668\n\n Thypheithide \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Doubtful See B.M. E 4\n s\n\n\n IV. ATTIC RED-FIGURED VASES (see Vol. I. p. 420 ff.)\n\n Aeson \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylix _Ant. Denkm._ ii. pl. 1\n\n Amasis II (\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5) Kylix Bibl. Nat. 535; Hartwig,\n _Meistersch._ chap. xvi.\n\n Apollodoros \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes _Ibid._ chap. xxii.\n\n Aristophanes \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes Berlin 2531; _Boston Mus.\n Report_, 1900, p. 49 ff.\n\n Brygos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes Hartwig, chap. xiii.\n\n Chachrylion \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes _Ibid._ chap iv.\n\n Chelis { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5} Kylikes (one Klein, _Meistersig._ p.\n \u201cmixed\u201d) 116\n\n { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 }\n\n Deiniades \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Phintias\n\n Duris \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Various shapes Hartwig, chaps. x., xxi.\n\n Epigenes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kantharos Klein, p. 186\n\n Epiktetos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes and plates _Ibid._ p. 100\n\n Epilykos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes _Ibid._ p. 114: see\n _Monuments Piot_, ix. p.\n 135 ff.\n\n Erginos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for\n Aristophanes\n\n Euergides \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes Klein, p. 99\n\n Euphronios { \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 } Various shapes Hartwig, chaps. vii.,\n xviii.\n\n {\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 }\n\n Euthymides \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Various shapes Hoppin, _Euthymides_\n\n Euxitheos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Amphora; potter for Klein, p. 135\n Oltos\n\n Hegesiboulos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 White-ground cup _Branteghem Cat._, No.\n 167\n\n Hegias \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylix Klein, p. 186\n\n Hermaios \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes See Vol. I. p. 424\n\n Hermonax \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Stamni and \u201cpelikae\u201d Klein, p. 200\n\n Hieron \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes and kotylae; Hartwig, chap. xii.\n potter for Makron\n\n Hilinos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Psiax\n\n Hischylos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 See above\n\n Hypsis \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Hydria Klein, p. 198\n\n Kalliades \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Duris:\n see Table V.\n\n Kleophrades \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Duris and\n Amasis II.\n\n Makron \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 (With Hieron)\n\n Maurion \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 Pyxis B.M. E 770; _Class. Rev._\n 1894, p. 419\n\n Megakles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Pyxis Klein, p. 205\n\n Meidias \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Hydria B.M. E 224 = Plate XLI.\n\n Mys \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Lekythos Athens 1362\n\n Nikias \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Krater in B.M See p. 259 above\n\n Oltos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes Hartwig, chap. v.\n\n Onesimos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes (Euphronios _Ibid._ chap. xix.\n as potter)\n\n Peithinos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylikes _Ibid._ chap. xi.\n\n Pheidippos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylix B.M. E 6\n\n Phintias \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Various shapes Hartwig, chap. ix.\n\n Pistoxenos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kotylae; potter for _Ibid._ chap. xiv.\n Euphronios\n\n Polygnotos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Amphorae; stamni _Mon. Antichi_, ix. p. 1\n ff.\n\n Praxias \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 (Non-Athenian?) Klein, p. 31\n\n Psiax \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kylix and alabastron _Amer. Journ. of Arch._\n 1895, p. 485\n\n Python I. \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Potter for Epiktetos\n and Duris\n\n Sikanos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Plate Klein, p. 116\n\n Smikros \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5[2245] Stamni _Monuments Piot_, ix. p.\n 15 ff.\n\n Sosias \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylix Berlin 2278; Klein, p.\n 147\n\n Sotades { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 } White-ground vases { _Branteghem Cat._\n 159\u2013166\n\n { \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9 } { Klein, p. 187\n\n Syriskos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Astragalos vase Hartwig, chap. xxiv.\n\n Xenophantos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Lekythos Petersburg 1790\n\n Xenotimos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Kylikes _Branteghem Cat._ 84\u201385\n\n\n V. UNFIGURED AND MODELLED VASES\n\n Charinos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Modelled vases Klein, p. 215; _R\u00f6m.\n Mitth._ 1890, p. 316\n\n Kalliades \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Modelled vases; Klein, p. 216\n potter for Duris\n\n Kleomenes \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Modelled vase in _Mon. Grecs_, 1897, pls.\n Louvre 16\u201317\n\n Kriton \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Jug; no subject Klein, p. 213\n\n Lydos \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Fragment; painter\u2019s _Ibid._ p. 217\n name lost\n\n Lykinos \u1f20\u03c1\u03b3\u03ac\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf Pyxis _Ibid._ p. 213\n\n Lysias \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Jug; no subject _Ibid._ p. 213\n\n Myson \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1. \u03ba. \u1f10\u03c0. Fragment _Ibid._ p. 217\n\n Prokles \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Modelled lekythos Berlin 2202\n\n Teisias \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 Vases without Klein, p. 212\n subject\n\n Therinos \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 Chytra _Ibid._ p. 214\n\n\n VI. SOUTH ITALIAN (see Vol. I. p. 478)\n\n Assteas \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Kraters, etc. See Vol. I. p. 478\n\n Lasimos \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5 Krater Klein, p. 210\n\n Python \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5 Krater B.M. F 149\n\n Statios \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd Doubtful See B.M. F 594\n\n LIST OF \u039a\u0391\u039b\u039f\u03a3-NAMES ON GREEK VASES\n\n _Names in parentheses denote the artists with whom they are associated_\n\n I. BLACK-FIGURED VASES\n\n Aischis Myia\n\n Andokides (Timagoras) Mys\n\n Anthylle Neokleides (Taleides)\n\n Automenes Onetor\n\n Chairaia? (Nikosthenes) Onetorides (Exekias)\n\n Chares Pyles\n\n Dorotheos (Charinos? also Pythokles I.\n R.F.)\n\n Eresilla Rhodon\n\n Euphiletos Rhodopis\n\n Hippokrates (also R.F.) Sibon (Kabeirion vase: see\n Vol. I. p. 218)\n\n Hippokritos (Glaukytes) Sime\n\n Hippon I. Sostratos\n\n Kallias I. (Taleides) Stesias (Exekias)\n\n Kallippe Stesileos\n\n Klitarchos (Taleides) Stroibos\n\n Leagros (Exekias; also R.F.) Timotheos\n\n Lysippides Xenodoke (Charinos)\n\n Mnesilla\n\n\n II. RED-FIGURED VASES\n\n Aisimides Antimachos\n\n Akestor Antiphon\n\n Akestorides Aphrodisia\n\n Alexomenos Archinos II.\n\n Alkides Aristagoras (Duris)\n\n Alkimachos Aristarchos\n\n Antias Aristeides\n\n\n Athenodotos (Peithinos; with Lichas\n Leagros)\n\n Brachas Lyandros\n\n Chairestratos Lykopis\n\n Chairias (Phintias) Lykos (Euphronios, Duris,\n Onesimos)\n\n Chairippos Lysis (Hartwig, chap. xxiii.)\n\n Charmides Megakles I. (Phintias,\n Euthymides)\n\n Damas Megakles II.\n\n Diogenes (see Hartwig, chap. Memnon (Chelis, Chachrylion)\n xv.)\n\n Diokles Midas\n\n Dion Mikion II.\n\n Dionokles Miltiades\n\n Diphilos Naukleia (Hieron)\n\n Dorotheos (also B.F.) Nikodemos\n\n Dromippos Nikon\n\n Elpinikos Nikophile\n\n Epidromos (Chachrylion?) Nikostratos II. (Hartwig,\n chap. xx.)\n\n Epileios Oinanthe\n\n Epimedes Olympiodoros (also one B.F.)\n\n Erosantheo Panaitios (Euphronios, Duris)\n\n Erothemis (Euphronios and Pedieus\n Onesimos)\n\n Euaion Perses\n\n Eurymachos Phayllos\n\n Euryptolemos (Apollodoros) Pheidiades\n\n Glaukon (Euphronios) Pheidon\n\n Heras Philon\n\n Hermogenes (Duris) Praxiteles\n\n Hiketes Sekline (Euphronios)\n\n Hipparchos (Epiktetos) Sikinnos\n\n Hippodamas (Duris and Hieron) Simiades\n\n Hippon II. Smikythos (Euthymides)\n\n Hygiainon Sokrates\n\n Kallias II. Solon\n\n Kallides Sophanes\n\n Kallikles Sostratos\n\n Kallisto (Hieron) Thaleia\n\n Karton Theodoros\n\n Kephisios Thero (Oltos)\n\n Kephisophon Timarchos\n\n Kleinias Timokrates\n\n Kleophon (with Megakles I.) Timoxenos or Timaxenos\n\n Krates Tleson\n\n Laches (see Hartwig, chap. Xenon\n xx.)\n\n Leagros (Chachrylion, Xenophon.\n Euphronios, Euxitheos)\n\n [The foregoing list is not exhaustive, but only gives the more\n frequently occurring names; reference should be made\n throughout to Klein\u2019s _Lieblingsinschriften_, 1898 edition.]\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 2058:\n\n v. 17, 6.\n\nFootnote 2059:\n\n xi. 466 D-E.\n\nFootnote 2060:\n\n Hence the oblique cases \u03c5\u1f31\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c5\u1f31\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2, etc., of classical usage.\n\nFootnote 2061:\n\n _Die griechischen Vaseninschriften_, G\u00fctersloh, 1894.\n\nFootnote 2062:\n\n See Berlin 2891; _Arch. Zeit._ 1879, p. 96.\n\nFootnote 2063:\n\n Cf. Berlin 2866 and the vase of Xenophantos (Reinach, i. 23).\n\nFootnote 2064:\n\n B.M. A 189* = Plate XVII. fig. 6.\n\nFootnote 2065:\n\n Vol. I. p. 436; Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 162 ff.\n\nFootnote 2066:\n\n Vol. I. p. 478; Klein, _ibid._ p. 206 ff.\n\nFootnote 2067:\n\n Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 118.\n\nFootnote 2068:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 396.\n\nFootnote 2069:\n\n For the explanation of these names see Chapter IV.\n\nFootnote 2070:\n\n B.M. E 497; Sch\u00f6ne in _Comm. Phil. in hon. Mommseni_, p. 658, Nos.\n 29\u201332.\n\nFootnote 2071:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 651, No. 5. In this and the other examples it will be\n understood that [\u0394] denotes 10 (\u03b4\u03ad\u03ba\u03b1), [\u03a0] 5 (\u03c0\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5), and so on; [\u0370]\n being the sign for a drachma.\n\nFootnote 2072:\n\n _Op. cit._ No. 17.\n\nFootnote 2073:\n\n A diminutive of \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, a large deep cup or bowl (see Vol. I. p. 186).\n\nFootnote 2074:\n\n Sch\u00f6ne, _op. cit._ p. 650, No. 3.\n\nFootnote 2075:\n\n _Ibid._ No. 7 = _Cat._ 1206.\n\nFootnote 2076:\n\n _Cat._ 2188; Sch\u00f6ne\u2019s No. 8. The meaning of \u039b\u03cd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b6\u03c9 is uncertain.\n\nFootnote 2077:\n\n _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 36.\n\nFootnote 2078:\n\n B.M. B 310; Munich 693. See Jahn in _Ber. d. S\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1854,\n p. 37.\n\nFootnote 2079:\n\n _Ran._ 1236.\n\nFootnote 2080:\n\n _Pac._ 1202.\n\nFootnote 2081:\n\n Sch\u00f6ne, _op. cit._ p. 655, No. 13.\n\nFootnote 2082:\n\n F 595: see Vol. I. p. 135.\n\nFootnote 2083:\n\n B.M. B 451; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 374 ff.\n\nFootnote 2084:\n\n B.M. B 450 = _J.H.S._ vi. p. 372.\n\nFootnote 2085:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 545.\n\nFootnote 2086:\n\n A 1054 = Roehl, _I.G.A._ 524, p. 151. See also Kretschmer, pp. 3\u20134.\n\nFootnote 2087:\n\n _I.G.A._ 22: see below, p. 252.\n\nFootnote 2088:\n\n _Ibid._ 2 = B.M. A 1512.\n\nFootnote 2089:\n\n B.M. F 596: see Vol. I. p. 186.\n\nFootnote 2090:\n\n Heydemann\u2019s _Cat._ 1212.\n\nFootnote 2091:\n\n B.M. F 605\u20136.\n\nFootnote 2092:\n\n _Naukratis I._, pls. 32\u20134, p. 54 ff.; _Naukratis II._, pl. 21, p. 62\n ff.; _Brit. Sch. Annual_, 1898\u201399, p. 53.\n\nFootnote 2093:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ xv. p. 395 ff.\n\nFootnote 2094:\n\n See Vol. I. pp. 139, 345.\n\nFootnote 2095:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 107; 1893, p. 225; Kretschmer, p. 110; also\n Vol. I. p. 291.\n\nFootnote 2096:\n\n _Mon. Grecs_, 1897, pls. 16\u20137, p. 55; and see Vol. I. p. 493.\n\nFootnote 2097:\n\n B.M. B 134; Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 2098:\n\n Berlin 2314.\n\nFootnote 2099:\n\n Examples in the B.M. are E 12 and E 457 (Pamphaios), E 61 (Hieron), E\n 65 (Brygos), E 258 (Euxitheos); and cf. Fig. 129.\n\nFootnote 2100:\n\n Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, iii. p. 670. They have been found at\n Larnaka, Paphos, Dali, and Amathus.\n\nFootnote 2101:\n\n Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 154.\n\nFootnote 2102:\n\n On the subject generally see Roberts, _Greek Epigraphy_, vol. i.\n (Cambridge Press).\n\nFootnote 2103:\n\n See the table given by Kretschmer, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 2104:\n\n See Hill, _Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins_, p. 208 ff.\n\nFootnote 2105:\n\n B.M. B 130.\n\nFootnote 2106:\n\n See for other details of coin-inscriptions Hill, _op. cit._\n\nFootnote 2107:\n\n _Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 250.\n\nFootnote 2108:\n\n No. 385 (Didot).\n\nFootnote 2109:\n\n It should be borne in mind that Mycenaean vases have been found in\n Argolis, Cyprus, and elsewhere, with characters _incised_ on the\n handles, of contemporaneous execution, and forming parallels to the\n Cretan script and the later Cypriote syllabary.\n\nFootnote 2110:\n\n _Olympia_, iv. pl. 39, p. 102.\n\nFootnote 2111:\n\n Roehl, _I.G.A._ 377.\n\nFootnote 2112:\n\n $1$2 1903, pls. 2\u20136: see Vol. I. p. 92.\n\nFootnote 2113:\n\n See also Vol. I. p. 335.\n\nFootnote 2114:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263; Kretschmer, p. 7.\n\nFootnote 2115:\n\n Vol. I. p. 297 and Plate XVI.; for the latest interpretation of the\n name, as here adopted, see _Class. Review_, 1900, p. 264.\n\nFootnote 2116:\n\n _E.g._ Ramsay in _J.H.S._ x. p. 187.\n\nFootnote 2117:\n\n Studniczka, _Kyrene_, p. 11 ff.; Vol. I. p. 342.\n\nFootnote 2118:\n\n Collected by Blass, _Dialektinschr._ iii. 3120 ff., and Wilisch,\n _Altkorinthische Thonindustrie_, p. 156.\n\nFootnote 2119:\n\n Roberts (_Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 134) distinguishes three periods in\n the Corinthian alphabet from 700 to 400 B.C., but the vases seem to\n belong almost entirely to the first, down to 550 B.C.\n\nFootnote 2120:\n\n Vol. I. p. 316, Fig. 90.\n\nFootnote 2121:\n\n _Cat._ 1655: see Vol. I. p. 319.\n\nFootnote 2122:\n\n Louvre E 600 = Reinach, i. 395.\n\nFootnote 2123:\n\n B.M. A 1080 = Reinach, i. 306.\n\nFootnote 2124:\n\n Athens 620 = Reinach, i. 394.\n\nFootnote 2125:\n\n Roehl, _I.G.A._ 20, 5.\n\nFootnote 2126:\n\n _Ibid._ 20, 63.\n\nFootnote 2127:\n\n E 638 = _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1855, pl. 20. It has been suggested that\n the name is originally a corruption of _Alexandra_ = Xandra = Ksandra\n = Kesandra (Kretschmer, p. 28).\n\nFootnote 2128:\n\n The general peculiarities of the Corinthian alphabet are not touched\n on here, as examples have been given of all characteristic letters.\n See Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 134.\n\nFootnote 2129:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 51; Roehl, _I.G.A._ p. 14, No. 22.\n\nFootnote 2130:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 300; Klein, _Meisters._ p. 30; _Boston Mus. Report_,\n 1898, p. 54, 1899, p. 56; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 2131:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 6, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 2132:\n\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 411.\n\nFootnote 2133:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 357; Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 156; _Ath. Mitth._ 1900,\n p. 93, note.\n\nFootnote 2134:\n\n _Auserl. Vasenb._ 205, 3, 4: see Vol. I. p. 357.\n\nFootnote 2135:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 322 and Kretschmer, p. 62.\n\nFootnote 2136:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902), p. 41.\n\nFootnote 2137:\n\n As is often the case with English seventeenth-century inscriptions.\n\nFootnote 2138:\n\n _Frag. Com. Gr._ (_Script. Gr. Bibl._, xlii.), p. 248.\n\nFootnote 2139:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34.\n\nFootnote 2140:\n\n For the language spoken by the \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9 cf. Kretschmer, p. 76, and\n Philostratus, _Vit. Soph._ ii. 1, 14; also Plat. Lys. 223_a_,\n \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03bf\u03af.\n\nFootnote 2141:\n\n Naples 3089 = Millingen-Reinach, 33\u20134.\n\nFootnote 2142:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 372 = Reinach, i. 92.\n\nFootnote 2143:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 846 = Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 129.\n\nFootnote 2144:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 320; D\u00fcmmler in _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1888,\n p. 20; Kretschmer, p. 81.\n\nFootnote 2145:\n\n Ar. _Thesm._ 1084\u20131225.\n\nFootnote 2146:\n\n Kretschmer also hints that it seems to indicate the pronunciation of\n \u03a6 by the Athenians as PH in \u201chap-hazard,\u201d not as F.\n\nFootnote 2147:\n\n There are also isolated instances of \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5; Timonidas of Corinth,\n Pheidippos, Euthymides, and Aristophanes. See Klein, _Meisters._ p.\n 13.\n\nFootnote 2148:\n\n B.M. F 594.\n\nFootnote 2149:\n\n Gardner, _Ashmolean Vases_, No. 189, pl. 26: \u0395\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f72\n \u039f\u1f30\u03ba\u03c5\u03c6\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2. We are reminded of the jest about Chairestratos made by\n the comic poet Phrynichos, who speaks of \u201cChairestratos soberly\n pottering (\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd) at home\u201d (Athen. xi. 474 B).\n\nFootnote 2150:\n\n See list at end of chapter, and Klein, _op. cit._ pp. 49, 213, 214.\n\nFootnote 2151:\n\n Munich 378 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 14. See Vol. I. p. 428.\n\nFootnote 2152:\n\n Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 111.\n\nFootnote 2153:\n\n G 107: see _Monuments Piot_, ix. p. 33.\n\nFootnote 2154:\n\n Naples 3415.\n\nFootnote 2155:\n\n Munich 498 = Reinach, i. 215.\n\nFootnote 2156:\n\n _Cat._ 1152.\n\nFootnote 2157:\n\n Munich 380, 810 = Reinach, ii. 115, i. 363.\n\nFootnote 2158:\n\n Louvre E 852 = Reinach, i. 156.\n\nFootnote 2159:\n\n Reinach, ii. 292.\n\nFootnote 2160:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 62.\n\nFootnote 2161:\n\n See also Kretschmer, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 2162:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 164, B 254; Louvre F 297 = Reinach, ii. 26.\n\nFootnote 2163:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 85: see p 92.\n\nFootnote 2164:\n\n Munich 6: see Vol. I. p. 428, and Hoppin, _Euthymides_, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 2165:\n\n _Monuments Piot_, ix. pl. 2.\n\nFootnote 2166:\n\n Berlin 1737.\n\nFootnote 2167:\n\n Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119.\n\nFootnote 2168:\n\n Berlin 1704 = Reinach, i. 198; Vol. I. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 2169:\n\n Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.\n\nFootnote 2170:\n\n Plate XXIII.: see Vol. I. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 2171:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 219.\n\nFootnote 2172:\n\n Louvre F 385 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 38.\n\nFootnote 2173:\n\n Reinach, ii. 49.\n\nFootnote 2174:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 86.\n\nFootnote 2175:\n\n Reinach, ii. 128.\n\nFootnote 2176:\n\n Kretschmer, pp. 86, 197.\n\nFootnote 2177:\n\n See Kretschmer, p. 86.\n\nFootnote 2178:\n\n _Cat._ 1158 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1884, pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 2179:\n\n Kretschmer, _loc. cit._: cf. Bergk, _Poet. lyr. Gr._ iii.^4 p. 97,\n frag. 23.\n\nFootnote 2180:\n\n See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 255.\n\nFootnote 2181:\n\n Petersburg 1670. The Doric dialect is explained by Kretschmer as due\n to the Sicilian origin of the game.\n\nFootnote 2182:\n\n _Sc._ \u201chard to beat.\u201d\n\nFootnote 2183:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 2184:\n\n _I.e._ \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 2185:\n\n Reinach, i. 294. Probably, as Kretschmer points out, a dog of Melita\n off Illyricum, not of Malta.\n\nFootnote 2186:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 2187:\n\n Benndorf, _Gr. u. sic. Vasenb._ pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 2188:\n\n Helbig, 186 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 8, 6.\n\nFootnote 2189:\n\n Reinach, i. 96.\n\nFootnote 2190:\n\n Reinach, i. 106.\n\nFootnote 2191:\n\n This translation is somewhat doubtful: see Reinach, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2192:\n\n _Cat._ 688 = Reinach, i. 164.\n\nFootnote 2193:\n\n Reinach, i. 513.\n\nFootnote 2194:\n\n Athens 1241 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 2195:\n\n Plate XXXIX.\n\nFootnote 2196:\n\n On the form of the \u0394 see below, p. 268.\n\nFootnote 2197:\n\n _Brit. Sch. Annual_, 1898\u201399, p. 65.\n\nFootnote 2198:\n\n Reinach, i. 277: see on the subject, _Hermes_, 1898, p. 640; _Notizie\n degli Scavi_, 1895, 86 ff.; and above, pp. 115, 137.\n\nFootnote 2199:\n\n See on this subject, Urlichs, _Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 33 ff., and Vol. I. p.\n 389.\n\nFootnote 2200:\n\n Athen. xi. 466 D; not found on Attic vases, but cf. B.M. F 548.\n\nFootnote 2201:\n\n B.M. B 415, 422; Berlin 1775\u201376.\n\nFootnote 2202:\n\n Berlin 1764; Munich 37. For variations see Kretschmer, p. 195.\n\nFootnote 2203:\n\n See Klein, _Meisters._ p. 110; Kretschmer, p. 82.\n\nFootnote 2204:\n\n Instances are B.M. B 330, B 339, B 631, E 182, E 718.\n\nFootnote 2205:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. B 400.\n\nFootnote 2206:\n\n _Cat._ 334 = Reinach, i. 79. The vase is probably by Charinos.\n\nFootnote 2207:\n\n Cf. the story of Pericles and Sophocles told by Cicero, _De Offic._\n i. 40, 144.\n\nFootnote 2208:\n\n _Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften_, 2nd edn., 1898. Of these, 528 are\n masculine names, and only 30 feminine.\n\nFootnote 2209:\n\n 143 ff. There is, of course, a play here on the word \u1f10\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 2210:\n\n 97 ff. Demos is here a proper name; \u03ba\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 means the ballot-box, in\n which the juries recorded their votes.\n\nFootnote 2211:\n\n Cf. Frazer\u2019s note on Paus. vi. 10, 6 (vol. iv. p. 37).\n\nFootnote 2212:\n\n Such as the Laches \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 on Berlin 2314, a name which recalls the\n Platonic dialogue with that title.\n\nFootnote 2213:\n\n Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 17, 1.\n\nFootnote 2214:\n\n Reinach, ii. 94.\n\nFootnote 2215:\n\n Hartwig in _M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch._ 1894, p. 10 note.\n\nFootnote 2216:\n\n The name of Leagros occurs on many vases by Euphronios and other\n artists: see Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 70 ff.\n\nFootnote 2217:\n\n Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 87 = _Ashmolean Vases_, No. 310.\n\nFootnote 2218:\n\n See for this section, Kretschmer, p. 94 ff.\n\nFootnote 2219:\n\n See Kretschmer, p. 98.\n\nFootnote 2220:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 2221:\n\n But see p. 271 for the probable explanation of this use of \u03c9.\n\nFootnote 2222:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 2223:\n\n Naples 2899; B.M. E 156.\n\nFootnote 2224:\n\n Louvre F 53 = Reinach, ii. 59 (Exekias).\n\nFootnote 2225:\n\n Berlin 2291.\n\nFootnote 2226:\n\n Munich 340 = _C.I.G._ 7433.\n\nFootnote 2227:\n\n B.M. E 224; Karlsruhe 209: cf. Berlin 2184 ([\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0395\u03a3]) and 1906\n ([\u03a4\u03a1\u0399\u03a4\u039f\u039d\u039d\u039f\u03a3]).\n\nFootnote 2228:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 179.\n\nFootnote 2229:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 180.\n\nFootnote 2230:\n\n Munich 334.\n\nFootnote 2231:\n\n See generally Kretschmer, p. 110 ff.\n\nFootnote 2232:\n\n The two Proto-Attic inscribed vases (Berlin 1682 and _Art. Denkm._ i.\n 57: see Vol. I. p. 293).\n\nFootnote 2233:\n\n Berlin 2008; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1886, p. 21.\n\nFootnote 2234:\n\n See the table given by Kretschmer, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 2235:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 443, and D\u00fcmmler\u2019s article in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 168\n ff.\n\nFootnote 2236:\n\n See Kretschmer, p. 211 ff.\n\nFootnote 2237:\n\n For the proof that Assteas and Python worked at Paestum, see Vol. I.\n p. 479.\n\nFootnote 2238:\n\n The name is perhaps a by-form of Dasimos (see Vol. I. p. 478). The\n correspondence of D and L is not uncommon, as in \u03b4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c2 = _lacrima_.\n\nFootnote 2239:\n\n F 62, [\u03a4\u0395\u03a1\u039c\u03a9\u039d]; F 92, [\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3]. See also Millingen-Reinach, pls.\n 14, 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 2240:\n\n Cf. the version given by Eustathius _ad Odyss._ p. 1698, 25.\n\nFootnote 2241:\n\n Kretschmer, p. 218; _Rev. Arch._ xii. (1888), p. 344.\n\nFootnote 2242:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 330 (in Louvre): see above, p. 186; also Vol.\n I. p. 488.\n\nFootnote 2243:\n\n One kylix in partnership with Nikosthenes.\n\nFootnote 2244:\n\n In one case as potter for Epiktetos.\n\nFootnote 2245:\n\n See also Vol. I. p. 440.\n\n\n\n\n PART IV\n ITALIAN POTTERY\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XVIII\n _ETRUSCAN AND SOUTH ITALIAN POTTERY_\n\n Early Italian civilisation\u2014Origin of Etruscans\u2014Terramare\n civilisation\u2014Villanuova\n period\u2014Pit-tombs\u2014Hut-urns\u2014Trench-tombs\u2014Relief-wares and painted\n vases from Cervetri\u2014Chamber-tombs\u2014Polledrara ware\u2014Bucchero\n ware\u2014Canopic jars\u2014Imitations of Greek vases\u2014Etruscan\n inscriptions\u2014Sculpture in terracotta\u2014Architectural\n decoration\u2014Sarcophagi\u2014Local pottery of Southern Italy\u2014Messapian\n and Peucetian fabrics.\n\n\nIn the succeeding section of this work we propose, by a natural\ntransition, to deal with Italian pottery, that is, Etruscan and Roman,\nas distinct from Greek. The subject naturally falls under three\nheads\u2014the first two dealing with the pottery of the period previous to\nthe Roman domination of Italy, and therefore contemporaneous with the\nGreek pottery; the third with Roman pottery from the second century\nB.C. onwards, and of necessity including also remains of similar\npottery from Gaul, Britain, and other countries over which that\ncivilisation extended.\n\nIn the present chapter the first two branches of the subject\u2014namely,\nEtruscan pottery, and the local fabrics of Southern Italy\u2014will be\ndiscussed; the period of time which they cover is, as has been said,\ncoincident with that covered by the history of Greek pottery, extending\nfrom the Bronze Age down to the end of the third century B.C.\n\n \u00a7 1. ETRUSCAN POTTERY\n\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1884, p.\n 108 ff., 1885, p. 5 ff.; Karo, _Cenni sulla cronologia\n preclassica_, Parma, 1898; Von Duhn in _Bonner Studien_, p. 21\n ff., and in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125 ff.; Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_,\n _passim_; Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, 2nd edn.\n (good for topography; archaeology out of date); _J.H.S._ xiv. p.\n 206 ff. (C. Smith on Polledrara ware); Gsell, _Fouilles de\n Vulci_; Pottier, _Cat. des vases ant. du Louvre_, ii. p. 285 ff.\n (the best general survey); _Notizie degli Scavi_, _passim_, for\n excavations; _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xliv ff.\n\n (1) EARLY ITALIAN CIVILISATION\n\nAs regards Etruria, it will be seen that the art of the people was\nlargely imitative, being derived mainly from Greece, but in some\nmeasure also from the East. Few remains of their productions have\nreached the present day, with the exception of large numbers of vases,\nbronzes, and jewellery; these, however, afford a very clear notion of\nthe characteristics of Etruscan art. It is hardly possible to treat the\nsubject of working in clay in Etruria with such fulness as can be done\nin the case of Greece and Rome, owing to the greater dearth of\nliterature; but in our previous chapter (III.) on this subject much has\nalready been said with reference to what is known on this head. In\nregard to the pottery, careful scientific excavations, such as those\nundertaken by M. Gsell at Vulci (Vol. I. p. 77), have done much to\nincrease our knowledge of all periods, and to place chronological\ncertainty within the reach of the inquirer.\n\nIn dealing with the history of art in Italy, we are naturally first met\nwith two questions: (1) Who were the earliest inhabitants of the\ncountry, particularly in the region afterwards known as Etruria, in\nwhich the first signs of artistic development appear? (2) At what\nperiod and from what quarter did the Etruscans occupy this region, or\nare they aboriginal? It will therefore be necessary to devote a few\npreliminary paragraphs to these much-debated questions,[2246] in order\nto gain a better understanding of the subsequent history.\n\nThe question of the origin of the Etruscans, to take the second first,\nis as old as Herodotos.[2247] As is well known, the Father of History\nheld to the view that they originally came from Lydia, a view which\nfound general support in antiquity, and is referred to by Horace,[2248]\nand many other writers. His fellow-townsman Dionysios was, however, of\nthe opinion that they were autochthonous.[2249] However much of truth\nthere may be in either of these theories, the fact remains that with\ncertain modifications each of the two alternatives has found supporters\neven down to the present day, though to Niebuhr first is due the\nsuggestion that the immigration of the Etruscans was by land and not by\nsea, and that they came from Central Europe by way of the Rhaetian\nAlps. He has been followed by most writers since\u2014above all by Mommsen,\nwho was the first to point out the absurdity of identifying the Lydian\n\u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03af or \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03af with the Italian _Tusci_ or _Etrusci_. It follows\nfrom this that the whole of the civilisation of Northern and Central\nItaly is due to this race, which would obviously have left its impress\non each district as it passed through it; and, secondly, that it was\nthis same race that was afterwards known by the name of Etruscan.\n\nThe chief objection to the theory of an autochthonous origin is that,\nas we shall presently see, a break in the civilisation of Northern\nItaly which can be traced about the beginning of the ninth century B.C.\nis of such a marked and rapid character that it cannot be regarded as\ndue to any cause but the irruption of a new race. Moreover, there is\nprobably, as M. Pottier points out,[2250] more truth in the words of\nHerodotos than appears at first sight. It is true that there are no\ngrounds for accepting the Lydian theory absolutely; but apart from\nthis, it is to be noted that Herodotos nowhere states that the\nTyrrhenians landed on the west coast of Italy\u2014_i.e._ in Etruria. What\nhe does say is that, \u201cafter having visited (or coasted along) many\nnations, they arrived at the Umbrians, where they founded cities and\ninhabit them to this day; and instead of Lydians, their name was\nchanged to that of Tyrrhenians.\u201d Additional evidence is given by\nHellanikos,[2251] who explicitly states that they landed at the mouth\nof the Po; and as the Umbrians probably occupied a larger territory in\nprehistoric than in classical times,[2252] we may fairly place here the\ncity of Tyrsenia or Tyrrhenia, which Herodotos gives as the name of\ntheir first new home. Thus the Umbrians will represent the early\naborigines whose civilisation, known as the Terramare, we shall\npresently describe, and it was this civilisation, transformed and\ndeveloped, which was carried by the invaders over the Apennines into\nthe region now to be known as Etruria. It will be noted that this\ntheory at least satisfactorily combines the land and sea migrations of\nthe Etruscans into Etruria, though it does not profess to dogmatise as\nto the region whence they first started. The idea that they first\nlanded on the west coast is entirely due to Roman ideas, fostered by\npoets like Virgil; and though it is in one passage accepted by\nDionysios of Halicarnassos, he expressly contradicts himself in\nanother.[2253]\n\nThe two chief characteristics of this new Etrusco-Umbrian civilisation\nare the development of geometrical decoration and the predominance of a\nmetallurgic element, both of which are obviously derived from Eastern\nsources, whether Hellenic or Oriental. It will suffice here to point\nout that the \u201cTyrrhenians\u201d during their previous voyages (see above)\nmight well have come in contact with the other civilisations of the\nEastern Mediterranean, such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Mycenae, and the\nGreek islands, and that their natural acquisitiveness and capacity for\nimitation, which we shall find illustrated throughout their history,\nenabled them to pick up and use artistic ideas from all these quarters.\nEven their earliest art yields many points of comparison with that of\nthe Eastern Mediterranean.\n\nThe earliest civilisation of which traces have survived in Italy is, as\nwe have already seen, that of the Terramare, so called from the remains\ndiscovered in that district, covering the basin of the Eridanus or Po,\nbut chiefly between Piacenza and Bologna. We have further seen that the\naboriginal people to whom these remains belong are probably to be\nidentified with the Umbrians, but it is perhaps safer to style them\nItaliotes. They were lake-dwellers, living in wooden houses built on\npiles in the water or in the marshy lagoons of the district which they\ninhabited, and their civilisation was of the rudest description.\n\nWe find among their remains, besides rude objects in bronze and other\nsubstances, pottery of the very simplest kinds, hand-made and roughly\nbaked. This is not found in tombs, but mingled with the d\u00e9bris of the\ndwellings. The shapes comprise cups and pots, and there are few\nattempts at decoration beyond rows of knobs or bosses. A\ncrescent-shaped or lunulated handle is attached to many of the vases,\nserving as a support for the thumb; but this is a feature also found in\nother parts of Italy and in Sicily. Iron, glass, and silver are quite\nunknown, and gold only represented by a doubtful specimen; on the other\nhand, along with the finds of bronze, which include weapons, tools, and\nobjects of toilet, are survivals of the Neolithic Age in the shape of\naxes, spear-heads, and tools of stone. In several of the settlements\nactual moulds for bronze-casting were found.\n\nThe Neolithic remains are sufficient to indicate the early date of this\ncivilisation, and it is probably contemporary in point of development\n(if not of date) with the earliest remains from Hissarlik and Cyprus.\nIt may thus be traced back as far as 1500 B.C. at least, and seems to\nextend down to about the end of the tenth century B.C. The analogous\npottery found at Thapsus in Sicily is mixed with Mycenaean vases, and\nmay therefore be more precisely dated; but it is altogether more\nadvanced than that of the Terramare. The influence of the latter no\ndoubt spread gradually downwards during these thousand years through\nCentral and Southern Italy.[2254]\n\n (2) THE VILLANUOVA PERIOD (TOMBS _A POZZO_)\n\nThe next stage in the development of civilisation in Italy, probably\nseparated from the preceding by a period of transition, is what is\nknown as the Villanuova period, from a site of that name at Bologna. It\nbegins with the ninth century B.C., and lasts for some two hundred\nyears; its traces are much more widely spread than those of the\nTerramare people, being found not only to the north of the Apennines,\nbut all over Etruria. It is interesting to note that the chief finds\nhave been made in what afterwards became the principal centres of\nEtruscan civilisation, such as Bologna, Corneto, Vetulonia, etc. In\nalmost every respect it shows a marked development on the preceding\nstage. Iron is already known, and the working of bronze better\nunderstood, the processes of hammering plates (\u03c3\u03c6\u03c5\u03c1\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd) and working\nin _repouss\u00e9_ being introduced to supplement that of casting.[2255]\n\nWe now for the first time meet with tombs, the characteristic form of\nwhich is that of a well or pit, ending in a small circular chamber, in\nwhich the remains are deposited. Italian archaeologists have given to\nthese tombs the name of _a pozzo_. The method of burial practised was\nalmost exclusively that of incineration, but it appears certain that\nthe inhabitants of Etruria never showed a special preference either for\none method or the other, and the alternative method of inhumation\nalready appears at Corneto before the next stage is reached with the\neighth century.\n\nIt has been sometimes objected that the introduction of inhumation must\nconnote the first arrival of the Etruscan people in these regions, on\nthe ground that they did not practise incineration; but this idea rests\non no sound basis. The introduction of the new system, which never\nentirely ousted incineration, can easily be explained as due to\nexternal influences; not indeed to the Phoenicians (although it was a\nuniversal Oriental custom), for their influence in Italy has been much\nexaggerated; but rather to the Greeks, who colonised Cumae in the\nmiddle of the eighth century, from which time onwards Hellenic\ninfluence gradually becomes more and more apparent.\n\nWe have seen, then, that the Villanuova civilisation may be fairly\nregarded as Etruscan. It was not, however, by any means confined to\nEtruria, for it is spread all over the country to the north of the\nApennines, and two of its most important centres were at Bologna and\nEste. The whole of this region shows traces of having been for a long\ntime under the early Etruscan domination. It is, in fact, in close\ndependence on the Terramare civilisation which here preceded it, the\ndifference, as we have indicated, being brought about by commerce and\nforeign influences.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._\n FIG. 178. TOMB _A POZZO_\n WITH CINERARY URN.\n]\n\nThe _pozzo_ tombs usually contain a large cinerary urn or _ossuarium_,\nin which the ashes were placed after being burnt (Fig. 178).[2256]\nThese urns are fashioned by hand from a badly levigated volcanic clay,\ngenerally known as _impasto Italico_. It is to be distinguished from\nthe later _bucchero nero_ (see p. 301) by its quality, and by the fact\nthat vases of the latter clay are always wheel-made. The clay is\nirregularly baked over an open fire, and the colour of the surface\nvaries from red-brown to greyish black. It is covered with a polished\nslip, and there is no doubt that it was the intention of the potter to\ngive the vases a metallic appearance as well as form.\n\nAs regards their shape, they are of a peculiar but uniform type, with a\nsmall handle at the widest part, and cover in the form of an inverted\nbowl or saucer with handle (Fig. 179: see also Fig. 178).[2257] The\nornamentation consists of geometrical ornaments incised or stamped in\nbands round the neck and body\u2014such as maeanders, chevrons, stars, and\ndots\u2014the incisions being made while the clay was moist. In rare cases\nwe meet with painted ornaments in white applied directly to the\nsurface. Besides the urns, which often almost fill the chamber,\naccessory objects in the form of common pottery, fibulae, and other\nbronze objects, spindle-whorls and amber objects, are found in the\ntombs.\n\nThe common pottery does not in its character exhibit much advance on\nthat of the Terramare. The difference, indeed, consists not so much in\ndevelopment of technique as in a greater variety of decoration. It has\npoints of resemblance with the far earlier pottery of Hissarlik and the\nearly Bronze Age tombs of Cyprus (see Chapter VI.), and there are not\nwanting evidences of commercial intercourse with and importation from\nthe Eastern Mediterranean. But two salient features of the Italian\nwares are the employment of handles and the unique form of the hut-urn\n(see below).\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Notizie degli Scavi_.\n FIG. 179. CINERARY URNS FROM TOMBS OF VILLANUOVA PERIOD AT CORNETO.\n]\n\nThe clay is mostly of the same kind as that of the urns, and the smoked\nand irregularly fired surface shows that furnaces were not yet in use,\nbut that an open fire sufficed for the purpose. The technique is\nexceedingly primitive, and the forms are simple but heavy. In the\nlatter respect the striking difference in the inherent artistic\ncapacity of the Greeks and Italians is already apparent. The latter\nnever at any time displayed that unfailing eye for form which\ndistinguishes the Greeks in all their products. The shapes include\nsaucers like the urn-covers, bowls with a flat vertical or high-looped\nhandle, flasks with long beak-like necks like the early Cypriote vases,\nbowls with small feet, jars with one or two handles, _aski_, and\n_kerni_, or groups of vases united on one stem.\n\nMany of these are quite plain, but the majority are decorated with\ngeometrical patterns, like the _ossuaria_ or urns already described.\nSome of the patterns show quite a mechanical regularity, as if produced\nfrom a stamp. These take the form of circular sinkings and other\npatterns formed by circles, an early instance of a motive which\nafterwards became common in Etruria. There are even some instances of\ndesigns in colour, a sort of cream pigment being used. A peculiarity of\nthis class is the fondness for protuberances in the form of horns on\nthe handles (_ansae lunulatae_), which are also found in the Terramare,\nas already mentioned; or knobs round the body of the vase, in order to\nhold cords for suspension, which afterwards served a merely decorative\npurpose, like the bosses on cups described by Homer.[2258] Sometimes\nare to be seen rude attempts at modelling horses or heads of oxen, or\nat giving the whole vase the form of a bird, as is seen in some of the\n_aski_.[2259]\n\nThe absence of accessory vases in Villanuova tombs, as is sometimes the\ncase at Vulci,[2260] seems to show either very great antiquity or else\na long survival of an older type. On the whole, however, a\nchronological classification is hardly possible. Generally speaking,\nthe pit-tombs were still in use throughout Etruria at the end of the\neighth century, and no tombs of the next stage can be dated earlier\nthan 700 B.C. The line of demarcation for the latter end of the period\nis therefore the seventh century, coincident with the first undoubtedly\nGreek importations found in the tombs.\n\nThe real interest of the Villanuova period is, however, centred in\nremains which do not come within our province\u2014namely, the objects in\nbronze which have been found in such enormous numbers at Bologna,\nVetulonia, and elsewhere.[2261] They fall into line with the earliest\nremains on Hellenic sites\u2014such as Olympia, Rhodes, and Crete\u2014and a\nconnection can often be traced, as in the fibulae, with the Hallstatt\ncivilisation.[2262] On the other hand, they are entirely free from any\nOriental influence.\n\nSometimes the cinerary urns in the tombs of this period take the form\nof huts (_tuguria_), though these are more often found in the\nneighbourhood of Rome, as at Alba Longa. They represent, in fact, the\ncivilisation of the Italiote people on their first arrival in Latium,\nwhich they probably colonised by moving southward through Umbria and\nPicenum, leaving Tuscany to the Etruscans. One of the best examples of\nthese hut-urns is that from the Hamilton collection in the British\nMuseum (Plate LVII. fig. 4), which still contains ashes. The ashes were\ninserted through a little door, which was secured by a cord passing\nthrough two rings at its side and tied round the vase. The\nornamentation suggests the rude carpentry which was applied to the\nconstruction of the dwellings of this primitive people, the cover or\nroof being vaulted, with raised ridges intended to represent the beams\nof a house or cottage. These urns have no glaze on their surface, but a\npolish was produced by friction. They are occasionally painted with\npatterns in white, inlaid in grooves. On the Museum example are\nfragments of maeander. They are usually found inside large vases, which\nprotected them from falling earth and other accidents. The fact that\nthey were found under beds of lava originally led to an exaggerated\nopinion of their antiquity, but in any case the nature of their\ncontents confirms their very primitive use.[2263]\n\nAn interesting account of the early settlements in the southern\nextremity of Etruria is given by Von Duhn,[2264] as the result of\nexploration by local archaeologists on the sites of Falerii (Civita\nCastellana) and Narce.[2265] The most interesting feature of these\nresults is the gradual migration of the peoples from the hill-tops to\nthe valleys as they became more civilised. Thus many modern cities,\nsuch as Florence, are direct descendants of the early hill-settlements\nof primitive Italy. In Etruria it was usually the reclaiming of the\nmarshes for cultivation that enabled the population to settle in the\nlower and more accessible situations.\n\nThe Faliscan region well illustrates this principle, as does Narce. In\nthe earliest graves on the hill-tops cremation is the rule, and the\nurns are of the Villanuova type. Nothing of later date than the eighth\ncentury is found, and no importations. The hut-dwellings at Narce seem\nto have been of the hut-urn type. The common pottery is of the\nprimitive hand-made greyish black clay; but after the eighth century\nthe position of the settlement was shifted lower down, and in these\nlater tombs a remarkable series of red-glazed wares is found (see\nbelow, p. 301), and Greek and Oriental importations soon make their\nappearance. Narce soon fell under Etruscan sway, but Falerii retained\nits individuality for some time longer.\n\n (3) THIRD PERIOD: TOMBS _A FOSSA_; FIRST GREEK INFLUENCES\n\nThe next stage in the development of Etruscan civilisation is marked by\na change in the form of the tomb. The pit is now replaced by a trench;\nin other words, the vertical form is exchanged for a horizontal one.\nConcurrently with this change the practice of inhumation becomes fairly\ngeneral. This period may be regarded as extending from the eighth\ncentury B.C. to the beginning of the sixth, and is marked by the first\nsigns of importations from Greece in the shape of Geometric pottery and\nbronzes. In general character it is not strongly marked off from the\npreceding. The great advance is in the development of art in the\nobjects found in the tombs. Not only do we witness the first beginnings\nof what is destined to become the typical species of Etruscan\npottery\u2014namely, the _bucchero nero_\u2014but towards the end of the period\nthe Greek influence, as evidenced by finds of wheel-made vases with\nGeometrical decoration, or even of the so-called Proto-Corinthian type,\nbecomes widely felt. It was no doubt largely due to the foundation of\ncolonies in the south of Italy, such as Cumae. Altogether it is a most\nimportant period for the history of Etruscan pottery. Of Oriental\ninfluence there are at present hardly any signs, and all wheel-made\nvases found in these tombs are probably of Greek origin, as it does not\nappear that the wheel was in regular use before the middle of the sixth\ncentury.[2266]\n\nIt is now necessary to turn our attention to the local hand-made\nvarieties. And, in the first place, it is worthy of note that pottery\nof the Villanuova type actually survives the transition from the\npit-tombs to the trenches, as is seen at Corneto, Vetulonia, and\nelsewhere. Probably it indicates the pottery in common use, the\nimported objects being only regarded as _de luxe_; or else, as Prof.\nHelbig suggests,[2267] the former types were preserved for religious\nreasons connected with burial rites, as was often the case in Roman\nreligion.\n\nIn the earlier types of pottery from the _fossa_ tombs, such as are\ncommon at Vulci, the hand-made pottery of _impasto Italico_ still\ncontinues, preserving the same shapes and the same simple linear\ndecoration; but it is better baked, and the surface is somewhat better\npolished. Red wares are also found, and yellow wares with Geometrical\nornaments painted in red, which are evidently local imitations of the\nGreek Geometrical fabrics (see below).\n\nLater, while the technique remains unaltered, a difference is seen in\nthe forms, which become lighter, more varied, and more symmetrical.\nSuch shapes as the stamnos, kantharos, and trefoil-mouthed oinocho\u00eb now\nfor the first time appear. The methods of ornamentation are also\nmodified; new varieties of incised patterns are seen, and the bodies of\nthe vases are sometimes fluted or ribbed; while such motives as friezes\nof ducks, which are also found on the contemporary bronzes,[2268] now\nfirst find a place. M. Gsell, describing in detail the various fabrics\nfound in the Vulci tombs of this period,[2269] speaks of pottery of a\ngrey clay baked to red, perhaps in a furnace, forming urns and jars of\na considerable size. He thinks that some primitive kind of wheel (see\nabove) must have been used to produce these. In some of the _impasto_\nwares there is a decided advance in technique, the clay being better\nlevigated and the walls of the vases thinner. Some black wares seem to\nhave been _fumigated_ like the later _bucchero_. Generally speaking,\nboth incineration and inhumation are still practised.\n\nThe ornaments are incised, stamped, or painted, and the decoration\nalmost exclusively linear, the stamped patterns being usually in the\nform of stars. This pottery is, in fact, merely a continuation of that\nof the pit-tombs, except that the imitation of metal-work is much more\nstrongly in evidence.\n\nYet another variety preserves the methods and forms of the Villanuova\nclass, but introduces a new kind of clay, altogether black, as\ndistinguished from the earlier reds and browns. A remarkable specimen\nof this early black ware found at Orvieto has incised upon it the\nsubject of Bellerophon and the Chimaera, the style being, as we should\nexpect, childish to the verge of the ludicrous.[2270] Later, the black\nwares acquire a very fair glazed surface, and are ornamented with\nincised linear patterns of zigzags, chevrons, etc.; these are mostly\nsmall vases. It is in these two particularly that we see the\nforerunners of the highly developed _bucchero_ ware.\n\nBesides these local fabrics, there are found Greek imported wares with\nGeometrical decoration of pale yellow clay, with ornaments in brown\nturning to red; the commonest form is the oinocho\u00eb, and the patterns\ninclude circles, zigzags, wavy lines, embattled patterns, etc. These\nare all wheel-made, and are, in fact, the same types as are found in\nthe Dipylon cemetery at Athens and in Boeotia (Chapter VII.); the\nearliest instances belong to the end of the eighth century, in some\nlate pit-tombs at Caere, in which also \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d pottery was\nfound. They coincide with the great impetus given to Greek colonisation\nin Sicily and Southern Italy, and probably came by that way into\nEtruria. It should be borne in mind that these vases were imported not\nfor their own merit, but for the value of their contents. It has\nalready been mentioned that local imitations of them are found in the\ntrench-tombs.\n\nTo the seventh century belong also two classes of pottery which are\nmore or less connected, and are chiefly associated with Caere.[2271]\nThe first class consists of a series of vases of red ware, mostly large\njars and \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9, ornamented with designs in relief, the lower part of\nthe body being usually ribbed. The designs take the form of bands of\nfigures stamped round the upper part of the vase, either in groups on\nthe principle of the metope or in extended friezes. In the former case\nthe design was produced from a single stamp for each group; in the\nlatter, it was rolled out from a cylinder resembling those in use in\nAssyria for sealing documents. Besides the jars, plates of this ware\nare not uncommon; they may have formed either covers like those of the\nVillanuova _ossuaria_, or stands for the jars, in order to hold\ndrippings of liquid, etc. The use of the \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 in tombs is not quite\nclear, though they were doubtless in daily use for holding grain or\nliquids.[2272]\n\nThe subjects are always of an Orientalising character, similar to those\nfound on Greek vases under Oriental influence, and comprising animals,\nmonsters, hunting scenes, combats, and banquets. The origin of these\nvases is doubtful; they may be either indigenous or imported, as\nsimilar examples have been found in Rhodes, Boeotia, Sicily, and\nelsewhere; but they are rare outside Etruria. The suggestion of a\nSicilian origin[2273] has found some favour, but it is more likely that\nthey are native productions after Greek models (see Vol. I. p. 496);\nsome are undoubtedly of local make,[2274] and they were probably made\nat Caere or in the neighbourhood. Their prototypes go back almost to\nthe Mycenaean period, but were hardly imported before 700 B.C., after\nwhich time the local imitations begin, being one more instance of the\ninvariable rule that all Etruscan pottery is more or less imitative.\nSimilar vases in metal were manufactured on the coast of Asia Minor,\nand the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 of the Lydian kings at Delphi[2275] were probably\nexamples of this class.[2276]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Gaz. Arch._\n FIG. 180. PAINTED ETRUSCAN PITHOS FROM CERVETRI (IN LOUVRE): BIRTH\n OF ATHENA; BOAR-HUNT.\n]\n\nThe second class shows some affinities to the other in regard to the\nshape and the nature of the clay; but the important difference is that\nthe vases are decorated with _painted_ subjects instead of reliefs. The\nsubjects are painted in white outline on a brick-red glazed ground, the\nprocess being as follows: The clay, which resembles the _impasto\nItalico_, is first hardened by baking, and then a mixture of wax and\nresin and iron oxide is applied to it, and a lustre given to the\nsurface by polishing. The pigment, a mixture of chalk and lime, is then\nlaid on. The process can hardly be said to be Greek, and yet the\nsubjects are purely Greek, being borrowed in part from the Greek\nGeometrical vases, such as sea-fights, and in part from later (Ionian)\nsources[2277]; we actually find representations of the Birth of Athena\nand the Hunt of the Calydonian Boar (Fig. 180).[2278] The shapes of the\nvases again are certainly local, as are the animal forms, which\nresemble those incised on the _bucchero_ wares. The drawing is usually\ncrude in the extreme. It is interesting to note that on the vase from\nwhich Fig. 180 is taken the potter has painted in white an Etruscan\ninscription (not shown in the cut). Another vase of the same class was\nfound in the Polledrara tomb (see Plate LVI. and p. 300 below). The\nmethod of painting in opaque pigment on a red or black ground is, it\nwould seem, an Ionian characteristic, being found at Naukratis in the\nseventh century (Vol. I. p. 347), and also, as we shall see on other\nquasi-Ionic fabrics in Etruria.\n\nGenerally speaking, the tombs _a fossa_ are not later than the middle\nof the seventh century; evidence of this is given by the absence of\n_bucchero_ proper and of Corinthian fabrics. There are, however, traces\nof their lingering on even down into the sixth century, as at Vulci,\nwhere Helbig mentions a tomb found in 1884 containing Corinthian vases\nof that date.[2279] At Corneto the latest belong to the end of the\nseventh century.\n\n (4) FOURTH PERIOD: CHAMBER TOMBS; ORIENTAL INFLUENCE\n\nOur fourth period, which in many respects shows a close continuity with\nthat of the tombs _a fossa_, is nevertheless clearly defined by two\ncircumstances: firstly, the adoption of a new type of tomb, doubtless\ndeveloped out of the _fossa_, which takes the form of a large chamber,\nand is therefore known as _a camera_; secondly, the influence of\nOriental art, concurrently with an increased influx of importations\nfrom Greece. The period covers about a century of time, from 650 to 550\nB.C., and includes several of the largest and most important tombs that\nhave been found in Etruria, which will demand more or less detailed\ntreatment. In none, however, were any great finds of pottery made; but\none of these tombs, the Grotta d\u2019 Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci,\ncontained several specimens of exceptional interest.\n\nThe simplest form of chamber-tomb consists of a narrow corridor or\n\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 leading into a larger chamber; next, the \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 opens into a\nsquare or rectangular vestibule, round which various side-chambers are\nattached; finally, the tomb assumes the form of a vast subterranean\nedifice composed of several wings, and used for more than one corpse\u2014in\nfact, a \u201cfamily vault.\u201d\n\nWhile on the one hand the ceramic types of the Villanuova period still\nlinger on, as in the retention of _ossuaria_ for the receipt of ashes,\non the other the painted Greek vases and the local _bucchero_ wares\nincrease more and more, and altogether there is a great advance in the\ndirection of variety and richness. This period saw not only the general\nintroduction of the wheel into Etruria, but also the introduction of\nthe alphabet of Western Greece, through Cumae. A vase of _bucchero_\nware found at Vetulonia bears an Etruscan inscription, which can hardly\nbe much later than 700 B.C.,[2280] and we have already seen an instance\non a vase from Caere.\n\nIn the earlier chamber-tombs no _bucchero_ is found, and the pottery is\nof the same types as in the trench-tombs; but with the enlarged\narrangement of the tomb come the Corinthian vases of Orientalising\nstyle, to be followed later by the Ionian and later Corinthian fabrics,\nand finally by the Athenian wares. The vestibule disappears after the\nsixth century, and all later tombs have the simple \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. The typical\ncontents of a chamber-tomb are, as regards local pottery, in the\nearlier tombs _impasto Italico_ wares, in the later _bucchero_. The\nformer is hand-made, the shapes similar to those found in the\ntrench-tombs\u2014_i.e._ pots incised with zigzags, circles, and other\npatterns, or painted in white. The latest varieties are wheel-made, of\n_bucchero_ forms. The latter wares, which are much more numerous, are\nevolved from the _impasto_: (1) by the use of the wheel; (2) by the\nintroduction of the furnace; (3) by extensive imitation of Greek\nceramic and metal forms. The earliest _bucchero_ vases at Vulci and\nCorneto synchronise with Corinthian pottery of the middle style, about\n630-600 B.C., and they last down to the end of the fifth century.\n\nThe appearance of the alphabet seems to point to a marked incursion of\nGreek influence in the early part of the seventh century. The story of\nthe arrival of Demaratos of Corinth, about 665 B.C., with the three\nartists whom he brought in his train, Diopos, Eucheir, and\nEugrammos,[2281] is no doubt an echo of this. The progress of Hellenism\nwas, however, momentarily arrested by the growing power of Carthage,\nwhich may partly account for the temporary Orientalising of Etruscan\ncivilisation. It is certainly to the Carthaginian influence in Italy\nthat the Phoenician objects found in the seventh century tombs, such as\nthe silver bowls of Praeneste, are due. Oriental influence is also seen\nin the large tombs at Vulci, Caere, and Vetulonia, but it is hardly so\nstrong as was at one time supposed; and of late years scholars have\ngenerally recognised that Ionian art and commerce played a much larger\npart throughout in the civilisation of Etruria[2282]; and, further,\nthat Oriental art found its way mainly through these channels. At all\nevents there was throughout the seventh and sixth centuries a keen\nstruggle for supremacy in the Western Mediterranean, in which the\nEtruscans, the Phoenicians of Carthage, and the Ionian and Continental\nGreeks alike shared; and hence the diverse influences at work in\nEtruria.\n\nBut it was not long before Greece, with its rising colonies of Cumae,\nSybaris, and Syracuse, made its predominance to be felt in the Western\nMediterranean, and this was consummated by the final victory of Hiero\nover the combined fleets of Carthage and Etruria off Cumae in 474 B.C.\nA monument of this exists to the present day in the bronze helmet\ndedicated by that king at Olympia, now in the British Museum.\n\nWe may further define as the second great period of Greek importations,\nthat extending over the sixth and fifth centuries, a period which saw\nthe development not only of the local _bucchero_ fabrics, but also of\nthe Greek black- and red-figured vases, which, heralded by the\nCorinthian wares, now pour in a continuous stream into Etruria. To this\nsame period belong the paintings of the Etruscan tombs.\n\nThe earliest influences from Greece came, as has been hinted, through\ncolonies like Chalcidian Cumae, which were the chief agents in the\nHellenisation of Etruria; but at Cervetri, at any rate, the prevailing\ninfluence was Corinthian, as testified by the remarkable series of\nCorinthian and quasi-Corinthian vases in the Campana collection at the\nLouvre. Later in the sixth century came the connection with Athens, the\nchief results of which are to be seen in the contents of the tombs of\nVulci (Vol. I. p. 76). It extends from the time of the Peisistratidae\n(540-520 B.C.) down to about 450 B.C., being probably brought to an end\nby the Peloponnesian War and the destruction of the Athenian maritime\nsupremacy; but isolated instances of importations occur down to the\ntime of Alexander the Great, in the Panathenaic amphorae of which dated\nexamples of 336 B.C. have been found at Cervetri (Vol. I. p. 390).\n\nIn sketching this outline of Hellenic influence in Etruria we have\noverstepped the limits of chronological sequence, and must retrace our\nsteps in order to deal first with the local products of the period from\n650 B.C. onwards, and secondly with the effects of the Greek\ncivilisation on the same.\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Polledrara ware.=\u2014The Grotta d\u2019 Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci\nhas been dated, on the authority of a scarab of Psammetichos I.\n(656-611 B.C.) which it contained, towards the closing years of the\nseventh century. This dating has been generally accepted, and there\nseems no reason to doubt it, although the evidence of an isolated\nscarab is not always as trustworthy as appears at first sight.\nBesides local bronze work and objects of Egyptian or quasi-Egyptian\ncharacter, it contained one vase of unique character which calls for\nspecial consideration.[2283]\n\nThis is a hydria of somewhat peculiar, if not unique form, with a very\nwide body and rudimentary foot. In some details, especially in the\ntreatment of the handles, it exhibits obvious evidence of imitation of\nmetal-work. Although at first sight resembling _bucchero_ ware, the\nclay is seen on examination to be of a different type, not being grey\nbut reddish brown in fracture, while the lustrous black surface is\nproduced by a thin coating or slip. It is decorated with designs in\nthree colours, red, blue, and a yellowish white, which were laid on the\nblack and then fired. The red is best preserved, the blue fairly so,\nbut the white has almost entirely disappeared.[2284] The designs are\narranged in three friezes, of which the lower consists only of isolated\nbits of key-pattern. On the two upper rows are scenes from the story of\nTheseus and Ariadne, together with Centaurs, Sphinxes, and other\naccessory figures. On the upper row Theseus slays the Minotaur; on the\nlower, Theseus and Ariadne are seen, firstly in a chariot, secondly\nleading a dance of four other figures, the hero playing a lyre, while\nAriadne holds the clue.[2285] The colouring scheme is most elaborate,\nand cannot be detailed here; an occasional use of incised lines may\nalso be noted.\n\nA small two-handled cup or kylix,[2286] of a type often found at\nNaukratis decorated with eyes, was also found in this tomb, and appears\nto belong to the same class. The clay is similar to that of the hydria,\nas is the decoration, which however, owing to the flaking off of the\nblack slip, has largely disappeared. Although in its technique it\nresembles the hydria, the subjects and motives are probably derived\nfrom Naukratis. Only a few other examples of this \u201cPolledrara\u201d ware are\nknown: an oinocho\u00eb in Berlin,[2287] two vases in the Louvre,[2288] and\na vase found at Cervetri, unpublished.[2289] From the contents of the\ntomb in which the last-named was found, it may fairly be dated early in\nthe sixth century.\n\nMr. Cecil Smith regards the Polledrara hydria as the result of an\nItalian attempt to imitate the new _bucchero_ technique which was at\nthis time being perfected (see below), the form of the vase being\nborrowed from an Ionic source.[2290] Ionic influence (see above, p.\n296) is visible in more than one respect in this vase, as also in the\nreliefs decorating the bronze bust from the same tomb. Other details,\nsuch as the imitation of metal-work, are rather to be referred to a\nCorinthian source; and it is worthy of note that two Corinthian vases\nwere among the contents of the tomb.\n\nThe striving after a gaudy effect by the use of polychrome decoration,\nand especially the employment of blue, a colour otherwise unknown in\nvase-painting before the end of the fifth century, finds a parallel in\nthe sixth century poros-sculptures from the Athenian Acropolis, in\nwhich even more violent effects of colour are attained, as in the\nbright blue beard of the Triton. But in this case there seems little\ndoubt that the idea is borrowed from Egypt, with its fondness for\nbrightly decorated mummy-cases and bright blue images of fa\u00efence and\nporcelain. Other details which betray an Egyptian origin are the lions\u2019\nmasks, the all-pervading lotos-flower, and the seated dog or jackal.\nThe connecting link is no doubt the great trading centre of Naukratis,\nthrough whose agency the Egyptian scarabs, porcelain objects, and\nostrich eggs found in this tomb also came to Etruria.\n\nAs a parallel to the Polledrara finds should here be cited the painted\nterracotta panels from Caere now in the British Museum and Louvre,\nwhich are certainly local products, and give a realistic representation\nof the Etruscan people. They are described below (p. 319). These again,\nboth in subject and style, lead to a comparison with the large Etruscan\nterracotta sarcophagi, of which the most remarkable is that in the\nBritish Museum.[2291] Here, as in the Polledrara bronze bust, the rude\nnative attempts at sculpture in the round are combined with reliefs\nwhich successfully reflect the style of Ionic art. Lastly, we note\nanother parallel in the paintings of animals on the walls of a tomb at\nVeii.[2292]\n\nMr. Cecil Smith sums up: \u201cThe Polledrara ware was probably local\nItalian, made at Caere under the combined influence of Ionian and\nNaukratite imports, acting on an artistic basis principally derived\nfrom Corinth.\u201d Developed _pari passu_ with the red _impasto_ ware (of\nwhich a painted example was found in the Vulci tomb), it gradually\ngave way to the _bucchero_ ware with which we deal in our next\nsection. It only remains to note that similar ware has been found in\nRhodes,[2293] where also later wares of a genuine _bucchero_ type,\nunpainted, have come to light; and these appear to be instances of a\ncounter-importation from Etruria to Asia Minor.\n\nThe only other piece of pottery from the Polledrara tomb which calls\nfor special comment is one to which reference has just been made, a\nlarge _pithos_ of the primitive _impasto_ red ware, made on the wheel\n(Plate LVI.). It falls into line with the painted and stamped fabrics\nfrom Caere already described (p. 292 ff.), and is, like the hydria,\npainted in polychrome, but the colours are much faded. The subjects are\na frieze of animals and a ship.\n\nThree other tombs which rival the Polledrara in size and importance are\nthe Regulini-Galassi tomb at Caere,[2294] the Tomba del Duce at\nVetulonia,[2295] and the Bernardini tomb at Praeneste.[2296] Although\nthe finds of pottery herein were small, they are yet of great interest\nfor the history of Etruscan art in general, especially as they afford\nevidence for approximate dating. In the two former Etruscan\ninscriptions were found. The Caere and Praeneste tombs are probably the\nearliest, about 650 B.C., and the Del Duce and Polledrara tombs are not\nlater than the end of the seventh century.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LVI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n EARLY ETRUSCAN POTTERY.\n 1. CAULDRON AND STAND OF RED WARE FROM FALERII; 2. PAINTED AMPHORA OF\n RED WARE (POLLEDRARA TOMB)\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the Regulini-Galassi tomb the pottery takes the form of large\ncaldrons of red glazed ware, which mark a transitional stage between\nthe _impasto_ and _bucchero_. They are characterised by the large\nGryphons\u2019 heads projecting in relief round the sides, to which are\nattached chains. Sometimes they are supported on high open-work stands.\nIn 1892 the British Museum acquired a series of these and similar vases\n(Plate LVI.), including some plain specimens of _bucchero_ ware from\nearly tombs at Civita Castellana (Falerii: see Vol. I. p. 75).\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Bucchero ware.=\u2014This may be called the national pottery of Etruria.\nIts technique is not at present perfectly known, and analysis does not\nshow certainly whether the black paste is natural or artificial. Modern\nexperiments have been made which seem to indicate that this result may\nbe obtained by fumigating or smoking the clay in a closed chamber after\nthe baking, which process blackens the clay throughout.[2297] But M.\nPottier[2298] thinks that the black surface was obtained not by\nfumigation of the vase, but by applying a slip of pounded charcoal\nalready smoked, which at a moderate temperature would permeate the\nclay. The surface was then covered with wax and resin, and polished,\nlike the Polledrara hydria. A combination of analyses of the paste made\nby Brongniart[2299] gives the following result:\n\n Silica 60-70 parts.\n Clay earth 12-16 \u201d\n Carbonate of lime 2-4 \u201d\n Magnesia 1-2 \u201d\n Water 8-10 \u201d\n Carbon 1 -3 \u201d\n\nThe oldest _bucchero_ vases go back to the tombs _a fossa_ of the end\nof the seventh century. They are small and hand-made, ornamented, if at\nall, with geometric patterns, incised. The engraving was done by a sort\nof toothed wheel or a sharp tool; more rarely, hollowed out in grooves.\nObviously the process is an imitation of metal engraving. Oriental\ninfluence soon appears, first of all in the chalice-shaped cups found\nat Cervetri, the surface of which is covered with figures of lions,\ndeer, etc., in Oriental style. Both form and decoration are derived\nfrom metallic prototypes. The projecting Gryphons\u2019 heads mentioned\nabove are also typical of this class.\n\nIn tombs of 560-500 B.C., along with Corinthian vases, a different type\noccurs, the vases being wheel-made, of light and elegant forms\u2014cups,\nchalices, pyxides, amphorae, and jugs.[2300] The ornament is in the\nform of reliefs, either stamped from a cylinder on a narrow band, as in\nthe red ware from Caere (see p. 292), or composed of a series of\nmedallions separately modelled or made from moulds and stuck on. This,\nagain, is an imitation of metal. Examples of these types are given in\nPlate LVII. figs. 1-3, 5.\n\nThe subjects are not very varied. They range from animals such as stags\nand lions, or monsters such as Sphinxes and Centaurs, to winged\ndeities, suppliants with offerings before deities, and other\nmythological figures\u2014Chimaera, the Asiatic Artemis, or the Minotaur.\nEgyptian masks are also common. Episodes of hunts or banquets\noccur,[2301] and also groups of figures in meaningless juxtaposition.\nSome vases have only curvilinear patterns, such as palmettes, all of a\nvegetable rather than a geometrical type. In this group the general\ntendency is rather Hellenic than Oriental, especially towards Ionian\nart.[2302] This is only a temporary phase, and is practically confined\nto Cervetri, Veii, and Corneto\u2014_i.e._ the maritime region in which the\nCorinthian vases are found.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LVII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ETRUSCAN BLACK WARE: HUT-URN AND BUCCHERO\n\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nAt Chiusi an extraordinary development is manifested, which gradually\nobtained a monopoly. The city was far from the sea and Hellenic\ninfluences, and retained Oriental traditions. After the end of the\nsixth century all the varieties of _bucchero_ were fused into one type,\nwhich lasted down to the end of the fourth century.[2303] The shapes\ninclude amphorae, trefoil-mouthed oinochoae, various forms of cups,\nbowls with raised handles and ladles (kyathi), table-utensils, basins\nimitating metal forms, braziers, and vases in the form of birds or\nfishes. They are ornamented with reliefs from top to bottom, the\nsubjects being much the same as in the last group. The tops or covers\nare often in the form of female or cows\u2019 heads, or surmounted by birds\n(cf. Plate LVII. fig. 5). The figures and ornaments are stamped in from\nmoulds and fixed by some adhesive medium, incised designs being\ninserted to fill up the spaces. These reliefs are never found earlier\nthan the period of Attic importations.\n\nThe subjects are derived as before from Greek, Egyptian, and Assyrian\nsources, the Oriental types being so much combined that they must\nevidently have come through the Phoenicians. Among the Greek subjects\nwe find Theseus and the Minotaur, Perseus and the Gorgons, Pegasos and\nthe Chimaera, warriors, etc. The animals and the four-winged figures\nare Assyrian in type, while Egypt supplies such types as Ptah, Anubis,\nand other animal-headed deities, and the female heads on the so-called\nCanopic jars.\n\nThere are here no signs of inventive genius. The technique is purely\nnative, but all is founded on foreign models.[2304] The shapes are\nthose of Ionia and the coast of Asia or of Athens. On the other hand,\nthe development of the technique from the Villanuova pottery is\ncertainly apparent. The Greeks, indeed, tried to imitate it at times,\nand _bucchero_ ware is found at Rhodes and Naukratis. We may fairly lay\ndown that Etruscan invention is limited to the perfecting of the\ntechnique and the combination of the borrowed elements and art-forms.\nMany of the flat reliefs seem to be copied from ivories, and the\nrounded reliefs are certainly from bronze _repouss\u00e9_ work; in some\ncases we find traces of gilding, silvering, and colour, which have been\nintended to reproduce the appearance of metal. Again, in many respects\nthe _bucchero_ vases are merely the counterparts of works in bronze, as\nin the case of the braziers and the bowl with Caryatid supports given\nin Plate LVII. fig. 2.[2305] In short, they reproduce for us what is\nwanting in our knowledge of early Greek metal ware.[2306]\n\nThere seem to be some references to this early black ware in the Roman\npoets, for Juvenal[2307] mentions it as being in use in the time of\nNuma: \u201cWho dared then,\u201d he says, \u201cto ridicule the ladle (_simpuvium_)\nand black saucer of Numa?\u201d Persius[2308] styles it _Tuscum fictile_,\nand Martial[2309] imagines Porsena to have been quite content with his\ndinner-service of Etruscan earthenware.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA peculiarly Etruscan type of vase which deserves some separate\nattention is that known as the Canopic jar, resembling the so-called\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9 in which the Egyptians placed the bowels of their\nmummies.[2310] These Etruscan _canopi_ are rude representations of the\nhuman figure, the heads, which are often attired in Egyptian fashion,\nforming the covers. The eyes are sometimes inlaid, and the female heads\nhave large movable earrings and other adornments. In the tombs it was\ncustomary to place these vases on round chairs of wood, bronze, or\nterracotta. An example may be seen in the Etruscan Room of the British\nMuseum, where the chair is plated with bronze, covered with archaic\ndesigns in _repouss\u00e9_ relief,[2311] and another is shown in Fig. 181.\nSimilar chairs were discovered in the _Tomba delle Sedie_ at Cervetri;\nbut the Canopic jars are almost confined to Chiusi. The type finds a\nparallel in the so-called \u201cowl-vases\u201d from the second city at Hissarlik\n(Vol. I. p. 258), in which the same combination of the vase-form with\nthe human figure is to be observed. The lower portion of the jar was\nintended to receive the ashes of the dead, like the _ossuaria_, this\nmethod of placing the mortal remains of a person within a\nrepresentation of himself being peculiarly Egyptian.\n\nSignor Milani[2312] has traced the origin of the Canopic jars to the\nfuneral masks placed over the faces of the dead, which are sometimes\nfound in the earliest Etruscan tombs. This practice may have been\nderived from Mycenae, where Schliemann found gold masks in the\nshaft-tombs of the Agora; but in Etruria the examples are all in\nbronze, except a few of terracotta.[2313] A gradual transition can be\nobserved from the mask, at first placed on the corpse and then attached\nto the urn containing its ashes, to the head fashioned in the round and\nassimilated with the cover; while in later times a further transition\nmay be observed from the vase with human head to the complete human\nfigure. Finally, its place was taken by the reclining effigies on the\ncovers of the sarcophagi (p. 320). The earliest jars are found in the\n_pozzo_ tombs of the eighth century, the evolution of the head modelled\nin the round being accomplished by the seventh century, and the archaic\ntypes last down to about 550 B.C., when the severe perfected style\ncomes in, to be succeeded by the free style of the fifth century, after\nwhich time the Canopic jars cease to be manufactured.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Mus. di ant. class._\n FIG. 181. CANOPIC JAR IN CHAIR PLATED WITH BRONZE.\n]\n\nThe types are both male and female throughout, the latter being usually\ndistinguished by wearing earrings and necklaces. Towards the end of the\nseries the handles are gradually converted into rudimentary arms, and\nfinally into fully developed human arms, sometimes holding attributes.\nThey are probably placed on chairs as emblems of the power and\nauthority which the deceased enjoyed during his life. In the Berlin\nMuseum[2314] there is a remarkable example of the sixth century in\nwhich the jar is placed on a chair of the same clay, covered with\n_graffito_ ornamental designs and figures of animals. The jars are\nalways made of a plain red unglazed clay, and are uncoloured. In the\nBritish Museum[2315] there are two seated female figures on detached\nsquare bases, wearing bright red chitons and large circular earrings,\nwhich seem to represent the period of transition from the jar to the\nsarcophagus, the style in which they are modelled being that of the\nfifth century. Some of the later examples have strongly individualised\nfeatures, and seem to be genuine portraits; it is possible that they\nare actually from moulds taken from the faces of the dead.\n\n (5) PERIOD OF GREEK INFLUENCE; PAINTED POTTERY\n\nAlthough the Etruscans executed such admirable works in bronze,\nexercised with such skill the art of engraving gems, and produced such\nrefined specimens of filagree-work in gold, they never attained to high\nexcellence in their pottery. The vases already described belong to\nplastic rather than pictorial art, and are mostly imitations of work in\nmetal. Down to the end of the sixth century B.C. their attempts at\npainting vases have been, as we have seen, limited practically to two\nfabrics, the Polledrara ware and the Caere jars with paintings in a\nsimilar technique. These methods have, however, nothing in common with\nGreek vase-paintings of the ordinary kind on a glazed surface, a method\nwhich was never popularised in Etruria.\n\nThe total failure of the Etruscans in vase-painting finds a curious\nparallel in their sculpture; all their best work is to be sought in\ntheir engraving or figures in low relief, as in the mirrors and\n_cistae_. Yet the same mirrors and _cistae_ show clearly that it was\nfrom no lack of ability in drawing that they failed; wherefore it is\nthe less easy to understand, not only the absence of all originality in\ntheir painted vases, but also the rarity of instances of their\nimitative tendencies in this respect.\n\nApparently the red-figured vases which were imported into Etruria in\nsuch large numbers in the fifth century served as prototypes, not for\ntheir paintings, but for the engraved mirrors to which we have alluded.\nIt may have been that they shrank from the task so successfully\nachieved by Greek painters of suitably decorating the curved surfaces\nof a vase, and preferred the flat even surfaces supplied by the\ncircular mirrors and the sides of the _cistae_. Moreover, the interior\ndesigns of the kylikes, perfected by Epiktetos, Euphronios, and their\ncontemporaries, served as obvious models for disposing a design in a\ncircular space; and they had in the subjects of the vases a\nmythological repertory ready to hand.\n\nIt now remains to be seen to what extent they actually were influenced\nin their pottery by the imported Greek vases.\n\nFor considerably over a century painted pottery, at all times rare in\nEtruria, is practically unrepresented in the tombs except by Greek\nimportations, Corinthian, Ionic, and Attic; the only local attempts in\nthis direction are the Polledrara and Cervetri vases. As we have seen,\nearly Corinthian vases appear in the _fossa_ tombs, and later\nCorinthian in the chamber tombs, in which, towards the middle of the\nsixth century, the Attic B.F. fabrics begin to make their appearance.\nThe latest developments of the Corinthian wares are, indeed, almost\nunrepresented, but their place is taken by what appear to be local\nimitations of the Corinthian vases, a large series of which was found\nat Cervetri, and now forms part of the Campana collection in the\nLouvre. These are, however, for the most part certainly Greek, being\npresumably made by the Greek settlers in that town\u2014at any rate, an\nEtruscan origin cannot be proved for them.[2316]\n\nWe have also seen that the Ionian fabrics exercised a great influence\non Etruscan art, and this leads us to another series of vases found at\nCervetri, the Caeretan hydriae discussed in Chapter VIII. Some years\nago it was noticed by the late F. D\u00fcmmler[2317] that there were in many\nmuseums examples of a class of vases which stood in close relation to\nthe Caeretan hydriae, yet were obviously a different fabric. Having\ncollected and examined these vases, he was able to demonstrate\nsatisfactorily that they were direct imitations by the Etruscans of the\nCaeretan hydriae,[2318] thereby proving at the same time that the\nlatter were imported from other sources (_sc._ Ionia), and not, as had\nhitherto been supposed, themselves of Italian origin. It is not\nunlikely that the Ionic influence in Etruria is due to the Phocaean\nmigration of 544 B.C.; on reaching Italy the Ionian fugitives would\nnaturally hand on their art-traditions there.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LVIII\n\n[Illustration: ETRUSCAN IMITATIONS OF GREEK VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nThese Etruscan vases are not exclusively hydriae, some being amphorae,\nothers kyathi; but they all bear the unmistakable stamp of Etruscan art\nin the drawing of the figures and other small details, such as the\ntreatment of the incised lines. It will further be noticed that the\ndrawing is in most cases quite free from archaism, figures being often\ndrawn in full face or correct profile; and this consequently proves\nthat they belong to a considerably later date than the fabrics which\nthey imitate, although the figures are always in black on a red ground.\nThe style in some cases is not unlike that of the later Panathenaic\namphorae of the fourth century, and may also be compared with some of\nthe bronze cistae from Palestrina. Accessory pigments are rare, and the\nincised lines are sketchy and careless; great prominence is given to\nthe bands of ornament bordering the designs, this being a feature\nborrowed from the Caeretan hydriae. On a large amphora in the British\nMuseum (B 64) the characteristic Caeretan band of lotos-flowers and\npalmettes is exactly reproduced, though in black instead of\npolychrome.[2319] Other typical ornaments are the maeander and\nchevrons; ivy-leaves and sprigs shooting up from the ground;\nlotos-buds, and wreaths of all kinds. The subjects are limited in\nrange, and thoroughly Etruscan in feeling; Pegasi and beardless\nCentaurs with human forelegs, Bacchic subjects, and genre scenes, such\nas athletic contests, combats, or funeral ceremonies (Plate LVIII.),\nalmost complete the list. The turned-up shoes and the pointed _tutuli_\nworn by the women, as well as the physiognomy of the figures, with\ntheir receding foreheads, are all characteristically Etruscan, though\nthe two former details are borrowed from Ionia.[2320] The shapes of the\nvases are heavy and inartistic, and the effect altogether unpleasing. A\nlist of the principal examples is here appended.[2321]\n\nWhen at last the imitative instincts of the Etruscans did in course of\ntime impel them to turn their fancy to copying the red-figured vases,\nwe find the same characteristics reproduced. The number of such\nimitations is not large, but they are unmistakable, not only from the\nstyle, but from the pale yellow clay, dull black glaze, and bizarre\ncharacter of the ornamentation. Nevertheless, in some cases fairly good\nresults are obtained, as in the B.M. kylix F 478, which in its interior\ndesign at all events is an obvious attempt to imitate the work of the\ngreat Athenian kylix-painters. The artist seems to have learned his art\nfrom the school of Hieron and Brygos, but his Etruscan instincts are\nrevealed in the over-elaboration and stiff mannerisms of the drawing.\nThe Museum also possesses a very fine krater from Falerii (F 479),\nwhich appears to be an example of a local school,[2322] imitating the\nred-figured vases of the \u201cfine\u201d period and large style. But these\ncomparatively successful imitations are exceptional.\n\nThe other red-figured Etruscan vases are far inferior, and are executed\nin a style which none can fail to recognise. It is dry and lifeless in\nthe extreme, the drawing helpless, and the whole effect repulsive and\ndisagreeable, as is so often the case with Etruscan art. These vases\nare not earlier than the third century B.C., and may be later. In them\nwe observe, besides Greek mythological subjects, the introduction of\nlocal deities such as Charun and Ker. The British Museum possesses some\nten examples of this class, in addition to the two already described.\nThe most interesting is a krater (F 480 = Plate LVIII.), with, on one\nside, the death of Aktaeon, designated by his Etruscan name _Ataiun_;\non the other, Ajax, designated _Aifas_, throwing himself upon his\nsword, after the award of the armour of Achilles.\n\nAnother vase of this class has for its subject the farewell of Admetos\nand Alkestis,[2323] with Etruscan inscriptions accompanying the\nfigures, and a speech issuing from the mouth of one of them. Behind\nAdmetos is one of the demons of the Etruscan hell, probably intended\nfor Hades or Thanatos, wearing a short tunic and holding in each hand a\nsnake. Behind Alkestis is Charun with his mallet. On another vase found\nat Vulci[2324] Ajax is represented slaying a Trojan prisoner in the\npresence of Charun; and on the reverse the latter appears again with\nPenthesileia and two other women. On a third[2325] Leda is represented\nshowing Tyndareus the egg from which Helen and Klytaemnestra were\ndestined to be born; it is inscribed _Elinai_, the Etruscan form of\nHelen.\n\nThe latest specimens of these fabrics, which have been found at Orvieto\nand Orbetello, positively degenerate into barbarism[2326]; the figures\nare carelessly and roughly painted, and white is extensively used as an\naccessory, as in the later Apulian and Campanian vases. The subjects\nare usually borrowed from the infernal regions, and the gruesome figure\nof Charun is common.\n\nInscriptions on Etruscan vases are rare as compared with Greek, and in\nmany cases have only been scratched in after the vase was made. There\nare also instances of imported Greek vases on which Etruscan\ninscriptions have been incised in this manner, as in the case of a vase\nin the form of a lion in the British Museum (A 1137, from Veii), on\nwhich is incised [F\u0395\u039b\u0398\u03a5\u03a1] [\u1f09\u0398\u0399\u03a3\u039d\u0391\u03a3], _felthur hathisnas_. The earliest\nknown are incised on plain pots of black ware, and several of these\ntake the form of what are known as _abecedaria_, or alphabets. Strictly\nspeaking, some of these alphabets are of Hellenic origin, and do not\ngive the forms of the Etruscan letters as they are known to us; but as\nthe latter are derived from the Greek (western group), probably through\nCumae (see above, p. 295) these inscriptions would naturally represent\ntheir original forms in Etruria.\n\nIn 1882 an amphora was discovered at Formello near Veii,[2327] on which\nthis Greek alphabet is written twice from left to right, together with\na retrograde Etruscan inscription, and a \u201csyllabary\u201d or spelling\nexercise. The alphabet is as follows: \u03b1, \u03b2, \u03b3, \u03b4, \u03b5, \u03dd, \u03b6, _h_, \u03b8, \u03b9,\n\u03ba, \u03bb, \u03bc, \u03bd, [samech,], \u03bf, \u03c0, \u03fa, \u03d9, \u03c1, \u03c3, \u03c4, \u03c5, [X], \u03c6, \u03c8. This is the\nmost complete _abecedarium_ extant, containing twenty-six letters and\nillustrating the archaic Greek forms of the twenty-two Phoenician\nletters in their Semitic order. The four additional ones are \u03c5, [X] ( =\n\u03be), \u03c6, and \u03c8 ( = \u03c7). The character [X] is the representative of\n_samech_, and is not found in Greek inscriptions; \u03fa is _shin_ or _san_\n(cf. p. 247).\n\nThe Caere alphabet, on a vase now in the Museo Gregoriano, is also\ncombined with an Etruscan syllabary, consisting of such forms as _bi_,\n_ba_, _bu_, _be_, _gi_, _ga_, _gu_, _ge_, etc.[2328]; the alphabet\nresembles that from Formello, except for the omission of the \u03d9, and the\n[san], of the same type, extending as far as \u03bf, was found at Colle near\nSiena.[2329] On another small black jar also found at Caere, and now in\nthe Museo Gregoriano,[2330] is incised an Etruscan inscription in two\nlines, in which also the letters are certainly early Greek rather than\nEtruscan; these two from Caere must be of the same date as the\nRegulini-Galassi tomb, about 650-600 B.C.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 182. ETRUSCAN ALPHABET, FROM A VASE.]\n\nThe two following, however, are genuine Etruscan _abecedaria_: one from\nthe foot of a cup found at Bomarzo,[2331] on which the alphabet runs\n(retrograde): \u03b1, \u03b3, \u03b5, \u03dd, \u03b6, \u03b7, \u03b8, \u03b9, \u03bb , \u03bc, \u03bd, \u03c0, \u03fa, \u03c1, \u03c3, \u03c4, \u03c5, \u03c6, \u03c7,\n\u03c6, the other in the museum at Grosseto,[2332] in which the letters are\npractically the same, but with the addition of \u03ba and \u03d9. In the first\nnamed the form \u03b6 for Z should be noted, and in both occur the _san_ and\ntwo forms of \u03c6, which in Etruscan generally appears as [Etrusan phi].\nAmong other instances of early Etruscan inscriptions are that on the\nLouvre vase from Caere, with white paintings on red ground (D 151: see\np. 294), which dates from the seventh century; and on objects from the\nRegulini-Galassi and Del Duce tombs (pp. 295, 300). They are, however,\nvery rare on the pottery of the next two centuries, with the exception\nof those incised on the plain pottery, which bear no essential relation\nto the vase itself.[2333] These, as has been noted, are also found on\nimported Greek wares, one of the best instances being the kylix of\nOltos and Euxitheos, at Corneto,[2334] on the foot of which is an\ninscription of thirty-eight letters not divided into words.\nOccasionally also painted inscriptions are found.[2335]\n\nWhen, however, we come to the imitation Greek vases of the third and\nsecond centuries, we find a curious reversion to the old Greek practice\nof inscribing the names of the figures and even sentences on the\npaintings themselves. Some of these have already been mentioned. The\nbest example is afforded by the krater with Admetos and Alkestis, on\nwhich the names of the two principals are given as [\u0391\u03a4\u039c\u0399\u03a4\u0395], _Atmite_,\nand [\u0391\u039bC\u03a3\u03a4\u0399], _Alcsti_; while by the side of the figure of Charun is a\nlong inscription 15[46]\u0395\u0393\u0397: 15[72]\u0395\u0391\u03a3\u0393\u0395: 15[56]\u039d\u0391\u0393: 15[94]\u0391\u03a4\u0394\u039b\u039c:\n14[96]\u03a6\u039b\u0395\u0394\u039f\u0394\u0393\u0395 On the vase with Ajax and Penthesileia the names are\ngiven as [\u0391\u0399F\u0391\u03a3], [\u03a8\u0391\u0394\u03a5], [\u03a0\u0395\u039d\u03a4\u0391\u03a3\u0399\u039b\u0391], and [\u1f39\u039d\u0398\u0399\u0391\u039b] [TYRMYGAS]. On a\nvase mentioned by Gerhard, Nike inscribes on a shield the word [\u0391\u039d\u03a3\u0391\u039b],\n_Lasna_.[2336]\n\n \u00a7 2. ETRUSCAN TERRACOTTA WORK\n\nIt remains to say a few words on the other uses of clay among the\nEtruscans. This subject has indeed been discussed to some extent in\nChapter III., regarding the use of clay in general in classical times.\nBut there are some features of work in terracotta which are peculiar to\nthis people. For their extensive use of this material we are quite\nprepared by the evidence of the pottery found in their tombs, which\nshows that they understood the processes of manufacture perfectly, even\nif they failed in their attempts at decoration. As we shall see, they\nemployed it constantly, not only for finer works of art, but for\nordinary and more utilitarian purposes. This we know not only from the\nexisting remains, but from many passages of ancient writers, who speak\nof the Etruscan preference for clay and their skill in its use.\n\nPliny, in particular, speaks of the art of modelling in clay as\n\u201cbrought to perfection in Italy, and especially in Etruria.\u201d[2337] He\nattributes its introduction to the three craftsmen whom Demaratos\nbrought with him from Corinth in the seventh century B.C.\u2014Eucheir,\nEugrammos, and Diopos\u2014whom he styles _fictores_.[2338] This story of\nits origin need not, of course, be implicitly believed; nor, on the\nother hand, need the statement of Tatian,[2339] who, followed in modern\ntimes by Campana and other Italian writers, claimed for Italy a\npriority over Greece in the art of making terracotta figures. For their\nstatues the Etruscans certainly seem to have preferred clay to any\nother material. Although few of these have descended to us, there are\nmany passages in Roman literature which imply their excellence, and it\nis chiefly from these that our knowledge of Etruscan statues in\nterracotta is derived. The Romans, unable themselves to execute such\nworks, were obliged to employ Etruscan artists for the decoration of\ntheir temples, as in the notable instance of that of Jupiter on the\nCapitol. A certain Volca of Veii[2340] was employed by Tarquinius\nPriscus, about 509 B.C., to make the statue of the god, which was of\ncolossal proportions, and was painted vermilion, the colour being\nsolemnly renewed from time to time. The same artist made the famous\nchariot on the pediment of the temple, which, instead of contracting in\nthe furnace, swelled to such an extent that the roof had to be taken\noff. This circumstance was held to prognosticate the future greatness\nof Rome.[2341] Volca also made a figure of Hercules in the Forum\nBoarium, and we read that Numa consecrated a statue of Janus[2342]; but\nthe material in the latter case is not actually specified as terracotta.\n\nPliny goes on to say that such statues existed in many places even in\nhis day. He also speaks of numerous temples in Rome and other towns\nwith remarkable sculptured pediments and cornices; the existing remains\nof some of these will presently be discussed. There is no doubt that\nthe use of terracotta for the external decoration of temples was even\nmore general in Etruria than in Greece; and, whereas in Greece it\nceased in the fifth century, in Etruria it lasted down to Roman times.\nThe use of bricks in Etruria seems to have belonged entirely to the\ntime when it had lost its independence, under Roman dominion. For\ninstance, the brick walls of Arretium, which are highly spoken of by\nPliny and Vitruvius,[2343] do not belong to the Etruscan, but to the\nlater city; and although Gell alleged that he saw tufa walls with a\nsubstructure of tiling at Veii, Dennis sought for these in vain[2344];\neven a pier of a bridge resting on tiles which he found there proved to\nbe later work. For buildings and for tombs the principal material seems\nto have been tufa, but the tiles of the roofs were probably of\nterracotta, as were sometimes those used for covering tombs.[2345]\n\nEtruscan temples were also largely built of wood, with a covering of\nterracotta slabs, as the evidence of recent excavations shows. This\nmethod of decoration, which, as we saw in a previous chapter (Vol. I.\np. 100), was largely practised in Italy and Sicily, and even spread\nthence to Greece, as at Olympia, is not alluded to by Vitruvius in his\ndescription of Etruscan temples (iv. 7), although he speaks of the\nwooden construction of the roofs; but he alludes to _antepagmenta_\nfixed on the front of the temples, which may refer to the terracotta\nslabs.[2346] Earlier restorations made after his descriptions are\nimperfect in this respect, only regarding construction and not\ndecorative effect.[2347] It is at any rate clear that the roof had a\npediment on the front only, the other three sides projecting over and\nforming eaves, round which hung the pendent slabs (see below); they\nwere not required in front because of the portico. Araeostyle temples,\nthe same writer tells us, had wooden architraves and pediments,\nornamented with sculpture in terracotta. The cinerary urns often supply\nevidence as to the construction of the roofs, with their exact\nimitation of tiles.\n\nWe have now remains of at least four temples built in this method, or,\nrather, of their terracotta decoration: from Cervetri in Berlin, from\nCivita Lavinia in the British Museum (Plates II.-III.), from Alatri\n(1882), and from Falerii or Civita Castellana (1886).[2348] Other\nremains of architectural terracotta work come from Orvieto,[2349]\nPitigliano,[2350] and Luni (see below), and from Conca or\nSatricum,[2351] the latter being chiefly antefixal ornaments of the\nordinary Italian types. The Cervetri remains consist of roof-tiles,\nantefixal ornaments with figures in relief in front, and friezes with\nchariots and warriors.[2352] Portions of a similar frieze from the same\nsite are in the British Museum,[2353] as are also three antefixes in\nthe same style as one in Berlin from Cervetri (Plate LIX.).[2354] They\nbelong to the fifth century, and illustrate a later development from\nthe ordinary archaic type\u2014idealised female heads or heads of Satyrs\nwith rich polychrome decoration. Another example in Berlin appears to\nrepresent Juno Sospita.[2355] The friezes are a good example of the\nItalo-Ionic style of the end of the sixth century, the points of\ncomparison with the Chalcidian and other B.F. vases being particularly\nnoteworthy.[2356]\n\nBut for information on the form of the Etruscan temple these are too\nfragmentary to be of any use. The remains from Alatri, Civita\nCastellana, and Civita Lavinia are much more illuminating. The\nlast-named, of which some description has already been given (Vol. I.\np. 101), are partly archaic, partly of the fourth century, the two\nformer wholly of the later date; but allowing for differences of style,\nthe general arrangement was in all cases practically the same. The\nfront of the temple was in the form of a pediment supported on columns,\nwith ornamental raking cornices, and _akroteria_ in the form of figures\nor groups. Along the sides and back ran gutters, with lion-head spouts\nat intervals, faced by upright cornices, with pendent plates of\nterracotta, or \u201cbarge-boards\u201d hanging free and ornamented with patterns\nin relief. These were for protection against weather, like the edgings\nto the roofs of Swiss ch\u00e2lets and modern railway stations. The practice\nwas quite un-Greek, and peculiar to Etruria. The antefixal ornaments\nwere continued along the sides above the cornice. The architraves were\nalso ornamented with terracotta slabs, on which were palmette patterns;\nand thus the whole formed a rich and continuous system of terracotta\nplating which completely covered the woodwork of the architraves and\nroof. All the slabs were ornamented with coloured patterns in relief,\nor simply painted on a white slip, such as maeanders, tongue,\nscale-pattern, lotos-flowers, or various forms of the palmette.\n\n * * * * *\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n 1. ETRUSCAN ANTEFIX (FIFTH CENT.)\n 2. ETRUSCAN SARCOPHAGUS (THIRD CENT.)\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe existing remains of Etruscan monumental sculpture in clay are, as\nhas been indicated, not large. Some of the architectural antefixes are\nalmost important enough to be included under this head, especially\nthose in the form of figures or groups modelled almost in the round.\nThese belong mostly to the fifth century B.C., and the finest example\nis the group in the Berlin Museum from the Cervetri find already\nmentioned, representing Eos carrying off Kephalos[2357]; it is in the\nstyle of about 480 B.C. A smaller but still very effective example is\nthe antefix from Civita Lavinia in the British Museum, representing a\nSatyr and Maenad awaiting the advent of Dionysos (Plate II.).[2358]\nWith these must be reckoned the sculptured friezes from Cervetri in the\nBritish and Berlin Museums, and the reliefs on the British Museum\nsarcophagus from the same site.[2359] In all these the same prevalence\nof Ionic Greek influence may be observed, which is characteristic of so\nmuch Etruscan work of the late archaic period, both in terracotta and\nbronze, as in the reliefs of the Polledrara bust.[2360] This influence,\nwhich is due to the strong Hellenic element in the civilisation of\nCaere and the Campanian cities, we have also seen at work in the\nvase-paintings of the period.[2361]\n\nOne of the earliest instances, and perhaps the most remarkable, of\nEtruscan clay modelling in the round, for its size and execution, is\nthe group on the top of the famous sarcophagus in the British Museum\n(Fig. 183).[2362] The figures, a man and woman reclining on a couch,\nare life-size, of somewhat slender proportions, with smiling features,\nthe drapery of the woman stiff and formal. Sir Charles Newton has\ndescribed the style as \u201carchaic, the treatment throughout very\nnaturalistic, in which a curious striving after truth in anatomical\ndetails gives animation to the group, in spite of the extreme\nungainliness of form and ungraceful composition.\u201d The same difficulties\nthat beset the sculptor of the Polledrara bust, in working in the round\ninstead of relief, are visible here; and the contrast with the Hellenic\nstyle of the reliefs round the lower part is very marked. There are\nsimilar sarcophagi in the Louvre, and in the Museo Papa Giulio at\nRome.[2363] M. Martha notes in regard to the figures on the former that\nthe faces are remarkable for individuality and precision of type, but\nthe limbs are stiff and rude. This is not an infrequent feature of\nearly Greek art.[2364] Signor Savignoni claims these three monuments as\npurely Ionic Greek work, but repudiates much of the British Museum\nsarcophagus as un-antique.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 183. ARCHAIC TERRACOTTA SARCOPHAGUS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nOf later sculpture in terracotta the instances are comparatively few,\nby far the best being the pedimental sculptures from Luni in Northern\nTuscany, discovered in 1842, and now at Florence.[2365] Their date is\nabout 200 B.C., and they include figures of the Olympian deities,\nMuses, and a group of Apollo and Artemis slaying the Niobides. A few\nremains of similar figures were found at Orvieto.[2366]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 184. PAINTED TERRACOTTA SLAB FROM TOMB\n (LOUVRE).\n]\n\nIt may be convenient to speak here of a small group of monuments in\nterracotta which illustrate in an interesting manner the achievements\nof Etruscan painting in the archaic period. This is a series of\nterracotta slabs, which were inserted into the walls of small tombs at\nCervetri to receive the painted decoration which the Etruscans\nconsidered such an important feature of their sepulchral\narrangements.[2367] Two sets have been found, one of which is in the\nLouvre, the other in the British Museum; both are of similar character,\nand belong to the beginning of the sixth century, but the style varies\nin some degree. Fig. 184 gives one of the slabs in the Louvre.\n\nThe surface of the slabs was covered with the usual white slip or\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 of early Greek paintings,[2368] on which the designs were\nsketched with a point and filled in with red and black outlines or\nwashes. The white ground was left for the flesh of women and for white\ndrapery, the flesh of the men being coloured red. Of the two the Louvre\nslabs seem the more advanced, and more directly under Ionic influence,\nwhile the others are more provincial in character. The Caeretan hydriae\nseem to have left some traces on the former, and in the latter it is\ninteresting to note the use of borders of white dots for the drapery,\nsuch as we see on the Daphnae vases (Vol. I. p. 352).\n\nThese paintings may also be compared with those in the Grotta Campana\nat Veii (Vol. I. p. 39), which, in spirit at any rate, if not in date,\nare the oldest examples of Etruscan painting, while still under\nOriental influence. But not being works in terracotta, they do not\nstrictly concern us here.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAlthough the more important sarcophagi of the Etruscans were made of\nalabaster, tufa, and peperino, a considerable number, principally of\nsmall size, were of terracotta. All of these belong to a late stage of\nEtruscan art. Some few were large enough to receive a body laid at full\nlength. Two large sarcophagi, from a tomb at Vulci, now in the British\nMuseum, may be taken as typical.[2369] The lower part, which held the\nbody, is shaped like a rectangular bin or trough, about three feet high\nand as many wide. On the covers are recumbent Etruscan women, modelled\nat full length. One has both its cover and chest divided into two\nportions, probably because it was found that masses of too large a size\nfailed in the baking. The edges at the point of division are turned up,\nlike flange tiles. These have on their fronts in one case dolphins, in\nthe other branches of trees, incised with a tool in outline. Other\nsarcophagi of the same dimensions are imitations of the larger ones of\nstone. Many of the smaller sort, which held the ashes of the dead, are\nof the same shape, the body being a small rectangular chest, while the\ncover presents a figure of the deceased in a reclining posture. They\ngenerally have in front a composition in relief, freely modelled in the\nlater style of Etruscan art, the subject being often of funeral import:\nsuch as the last farewell to the dead; combats of heroes (Plate LIX.),\nespecially that of Eteokles and Polyneikes; a battle in which an\nunarmed hero is fighting with a ploughshare[2370]; the parting of\nAdmetos and Alkestis in the presence of Death and Charun; and the\nslaying of the dragon by Kadmos at the fountain of Ares.[2371] Some few\nhave a painted roof. All these were painted in _tempera_ upon a white\nground, in bright and vivid tones, producing a gaudy effect. The\ninscriptions were also traced in paint, and rarely incised. A good and\nelaborate example of the colouring of terracotta occurs in the\nrecumbent figure on a small sarcophagus in the British Museum (Plate\nLIX.).[2372] Here the flesh is red, the eyes black, the hair red, the\nwreath green, and the drapery of the figure is white, with purple and\ncrimson borders; the phiale which the figure holds is yellow (to\nimitate gilding), and the cushions on which he reclines are red and\nblue. This system of colouring is maintained to an even greater degree\nin the relief on the front of the sarcophagus, the subject of which is\na combat of five warriors. The background is coloured indigo, and every\ndetail is rendered in colour, except the nude parts, which are covered\nwith a white slip throughout. The pigments employed are red, yellow,\nblack, green, and purple, and the inscription above is painted in brown\non white, all the colours being marvellously fresh and well preserved;\nbut the general effect is gaudy, fantastic, and scarcely appropriate.\nIt may also be said in regard to the whole series that the subjects are\nmonotonous and unpleasing, and the compositions crowded to excess.\n\nBy far the finest example of these terracotta sarcophagi is one found\nat Cervetri not many years ago, now in the British Museum (Plate\nLX.).[2373] It is known from the inscription in front to be the last\nresting-place of a lady named Seianti Thanunia, whose effigy,\nlife-size, adorns the top\u2014a most realistic specimen of Etruscan\nportrait-sculpture, and in splendid preservation. Within the lower part\nher skeleton is still preserved, together with a series of silver\nutensils. A very similar specimen, that of Larthia Seianti, is in the\nMuseum at Florence,[2374] and from the coins found therewith the date\nof these two may be fixed at about 150 B.C. The figure of the lady was\ncast in two halves, the joint being below the hips; she is represented\nas a middle-aged matron, her head veiled in a mantle which she draws\naside with her right hand. In her left she holds a mirror in an open\ncase; she wears a _sphendone_ in her hair, and much jewellery. On the\nright arm are bracelets, and on the left hand six rings, the bezels of\nwhich are painted purple to imitate sard-stones; in her ears are\npendants painted to imitate amber set in gold. The nude parts are\npainted flesh-colour, and colouring is freely employed throughout, the\ncushions being painted in stripes. The dimensions of the sarcophagus\nitself are 6 ft. by 2 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in.; it has no reliefs on the\nfront, but is ornamented with pilasters, triglyphs, and quatrefoils.\n\nFor antefixal ornaments, masks, and the decoration of the smaller\nsarcophagi and other products of ordinary industry, the clay seems to\nhave been invariably made in the form of a mould; but for the larger\nsarcophagi and the Canopic figures a rough clay model was made by hand\nand itself baked. Probably both processes were employed\nconcurrently\u2014large statues, for instance, being made in several pieces;\nin these it will generally be noted that the head and torso are\nmodelled more carefully than the limbs.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LX\n\n[Illustration: SARCOPHAGUS OF SEIANTI THANUNIA (SECOND CENT. B.C.)\n(BRIT. MUS.)]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nM. Martha[2375] explains the invariable colouring of Etruscan\nterracottas on the supposition that the Etruscans did not profess to\nmake figures in this material, but looked down on it as a common\nsubstance, to be concealed wherever possible. However this may be, the\npolychromy was not only a necessary artifice, but an admirable means of\nimparting life and realism to the figures. In the archaic period there\nis much less variety, yellow, red, brown, and black being the only\ncolours employed as a rule.[2376] The dark red pigment usually applied\nfor flesh-colour on the sarcophagi may suggest the _minium_ with which\nthe statue of Jupiter Capitolinus was smeared. In later work the tints\nare lighter and much more varied, as we have seen, and this is\nespecially noticeable on the figures from the Luni pediments, in which\nrose, yellow, green, and blue are employed with the same delicate\n_nuances_ that we see in the Tanagra figures.\n\n \u00a7 3. SOUTHERN ITALY\n\nIn dealing with the indigenous non-Hellenic people of Southern Italy\nand their pottery, we are almost more at a disadvantage than in regard\nto the Etruscans. The peoples are almost unknown to us, and are vaguely\ncharacterised as \u201cIapygian,\u201d \u201cMessapian,\u201d \u201cOscan,\u201d and so on; but this\ndoes not really carry us much further. Moreover, this part of Italy has\nnever been scientifically or thoroughly excavated, like Etruria, and\neven where finds have been made they are small and poor; nothing of\nvery remote date appears to have come to light, and very few early\nGreek importations. Hence there has been until quite recently no\nattempt made at a scientific study of the pottery, or even to\ndistinguish local from imported wares; in Heydemann\u2019s catalogue of the\nNaples vases it is practically ignored. Recently, however, Herr Max\nMayer, and Signor Patroni, whose laudable investigations of the\nGraeco-Italian vases have already received attention (Chapter XI.),\nhave turned their attention to the study of the less promising\nindigenous fabrics.[2377]\n\nThe region with which the present section deals is that comprised by\nthe three districts of Apulia, Lucania, and Campania. The barbarian\nraces by which it was occupied in classical times were known by various\nnames, used with some vagueness; but roughly we may divide them into\ntwo groups: the Iapygians or Messapians and the Peucetians, occupying\nthe south-east portion of the peninsula from modern Bari to the end of\nthe \u201cheel\u201d[2378]; and the Osco-Samnites, who occupied Campania and the\nmountainous district of Samnium on its north-eastern border. In Lucania\nthe district of Sala Consilina has yielded local pottery.[2379] The\nOsco-Samnites appear to have been more amenable to the influence of\nGreek civilisation than the others, owing to the existence in their\nmidst of such centres of culture as Cumae, Capua, and Poseidonia\n(Paestum); hence we find that the pottery of that region shows a much\nmore Hellenic character than that of Apulia, and is more like that of\nEtruria in its attempts to imitate the Greek imported fabrics (see Vol.\nI. p. 484).\n\nGreek painted vases are found in Southern Italy as early as the seventh\ncentury B.C., though even in \u201cAegean\u201d times they had penetrated as far\nas Sicily, and even Marseilles (see Vol. I. pp. 69, 86).[2380] At Cumae\nin particular, and also at Nola, \u201cProto-Corinthian\u201d and Corinthian\nwares have been found; during the sixth century Ionic and Attic B.F.\nwares make their appearance, but never in large quantities, as in\nEtruria. They, however, gave rise to a class of imitative fabrics found\nchiefly in Campania: small amphorae and other forms rudely painted with\nblack silhouettes, dating from the fifth century. At Tarentum the finds\nof vases have been mainly Greek, but even these are comparatively rare.\nThe principal examples of local wares are to be seen in the museums of\nBari, Lecce, Taranto, and Naples; the British Museum, Louvre, and\nBerlin only possess isolated specimens.[2381] The general scarcity of\nimports is due, Signor Patroni thinks, to the restricted intercourse\nbetween the colonies on the coast and the interior districts peopled by\nhostile local tribes. After the fifth century, when large numbers of\nGreek artists were established in the towns of Southern Italy, the\ncircumstances became different, and we have already made in Chapter XI.\na general survey of the various fabrics produced from that time in the\nvarious centres down to the total decay of the art.\n\nAll Italiote pottery, before this direct influence of Hellenism made\nitself felt, may be called \u201carchaic\u201d; but it must at the same time be\nborne in mind that these archaic types still went on during the time of\nGreek influence. They formed, in fact, a \u201cdomestic\u201d style, as opposed\nto the \u201chigh-art\u201d style of the Graeco-Italian wares, just as the early\nGeometrical pottery of Athens is thought to have been in relation to\nthe Mycenaean vases (see Vol. I. p. 279). They must not, however, be\nregarded\u2014as has been done by some writers\u2014as deliberate archaistic\nrevivals of older fabrics. It is true that they bear a remarkable\nresemblance in many cases to Aegean, Cypriote, and Geometrical wares;\nbut this likeness is due to other causes, being the result of\ndevelopment, not of direct imitation. A learned Italian, on first\nseeing some of the local pottery excavated in Apulia, exclaimed, \u201cThis\nis the Mycenaean style of Italy.\u201d Chronologically and ethnographically\nhe was wrong, but artistically he was right; and as Signor Patroni has\npointed out, parallels to nearly all the ornamental motives of local\nApulian fabrics may be traced in Mycenaean pottery.\n\nThere is also a favourite shape, that of a large double-mouthed\n_askos_, examples of which may be seen in the British Museum (F 508 =\nFig. 185, and F 509), which is obviously derived directly from the\nMycenaean \u201cfalse-necked amphora\u201d (see Vol. I. p. 271). It is not a\nHellenic type, although it is the forerunner of a form of askos found\namong the painted vases of Apulia.[2382] Another favourite form, which\nSignor Patroni calls the _orcio appulo_, a jar with three vertical\nhandles round the nearly spherical body, and wide-spreading mouth, may\nsimilarly be derived from the Mycenaean three-handled _pyxis_ (Vol. I.\np. 272). Other forms, again, are parallel with those of Cyprus, as is\nin some cases the system of geometrical decoration, a figure or pattern\nin a panel with borders of geometrical ornament.\n\nThe writers above-mentioned distinguish two main classes of the local\npottery of Apulia (including the south-eastern extremity or \u201cheel\u201d of\nItaly). The central portion of this district was inhabited by a tribe\nknown as the Peucetii, and the extremity by Messapians, or, as they are\nalso styled, Iapygians. The vases, which appear to be the product of\nthe latter race, are found in various places\u2014such as Brindisi, Egnazia\nor Fasano, Lecce, Nardo, Ostuni, Otranto, Putignano, Rugge, Taranto,\nand Uzento\u2014and they may best be studied in the museum at Bari. The\npottery of the Peucetii, which Signor Patroni calls Apulian, covers the\nregion round Bari, including Putignano on the south, Bitonto and Ruvo\non the north, where the local civilisation seems to have been modified\nby the influence of such centres as Canosa.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 185. ASKOS OF LOCAL APULIAN FABRIC (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nThe typical form of Messapian pottery is a krater with high angular\nhandles, at the highest and lowest points of which are pairs of discs\n(_rotelle_), a spherical body, and neck sloping inwards, without lip.\nThe form is one which, as we have seen in Chapter XI., was adopted by\nthe Greek vase-painters in Lucania at a later date.[2383] Mayer states\nthat this form is only found in the \u201cheel\u201d of Italy, but Patroni seems\nto imply that it is typical of Central Apulia.[2384] It is painted in\ntwo colours\u2014purple-red and dark brown or black; but the former colour\nis not found in the earlier examples. The decoration includes simple\ngeometrical or vegetable patterns, such as wreaths, panels of\nlozenge-pattern, zigzags, and an ornament composed of two triangles\npoint to point [hourglass], which Mayer calls the \u201chour-glass\u201c\nornament. The more developed examples have figures in panels, ranging\nfrom rows of ducks to human figures. Among these are a man gathering\nfruit from a tree and two stags confronted. Lenormant published two\nvery interesting specimens in the Louvre, one of which has two cocks\nconfronted, the other a man swimming accompanied by a dolphin.[2385]\n\nThe latter, with others of the same class, styled by Lenormant\n\u201cIapygian,\u201d appear to be imitations of B.F. amphorae[2386]; but if they\nare imitations they must be almost contemporaneous with their\nprototypes, and cannot be later than the fifth century. The man with\nthe dolphin recalls the story of Taras and the coin-types of Tarentum;\nbut Lenormant pointed out that a similar legend was current relating to\nIapys, the eponymous hero of Iapygia,[2387] and he may therefore be\nintended. Some of these vases have painted inscriptions, one of which\nruns, [\u0399\u0391\u03a1]; but they are apparently nothing more than names, partly\nHellenised.\n\nAmong other shapes are a kind of askos with simple decoration, a jug or\npitcher with discs attached to the handles, also with simple patterns,\nand a unique variety of the krater with four flat-topped\ncolumn-handles. Signor Patroni[2388] calls attention to another class\nof Messapian vases from which the geometrical decorative element is\nabsent, the ornament being arranged in bands of equal width, and\nvarying between linear and natural forms. A characteristic motive is a\nsort of chain-pattern. The wave and rows of pomegranate-buds also\noccur, and animals, such as dogs and dolphins; also human heads and\nfigures. The shapes are either the double-necked askos, as given in\nFig. 185, with an arched handle between the mouths, or a kind of double\nsitula, formed of two jars on a cylindrical stand with a vertical\nhandle between.\n\nAs Mayer has pointed out, there cannot here be any question of a very\nancient class of vases, but rather of one of eclectic character. The\nGeometrical tendency appears chiefly in the north of the district,\nwhere the influence of Peucetia (see below) was felt. The vegetable\nornaments, he suggests, have affinities with those of \u201cRhodian\u201d\nvases.[2389] The date can hardly be earlier than the fifth century.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Notizie degli Scavi_.\n\n FIG. 186. KRATER OF \u201cPEUCETIAN\u201d FABRIC WITH GEOMETRICAL DECORATION.\n]\n\nThe fabrics of Central or Peucetian Apulia centre, as has been noted,\nround Bari. They are all of a strongly Geometrical type, but the system\nof ornamentation is freer and more varied than in the Messapian class.\nThey are easily recognisable by their forms and characteristic designs,\npainted only in brown or black. Here, again, the typical form is a\nkrater, in which the handles are either arched in vertical fashion or\nelse form flat bands. It has a shallow, spreading lip. The patterns are\narranged in panels and bands, and are often executed with great care.\nFig. 186 gives an example from Sala Consilina in Lucania.[2390] The\nfavourite motives are chequers, zigzags, the \u201chour-glass,\u201d hook-armed\ncrosses, and lozenges filled with reticulated pattern, neatly arranged\nin friezes or saltire-wise. Round the lower part of the vase is often\nfound what may be described as a comb-pattern, and on some vases is a\ncurious rudimentary form of the maeander, arranged in triangles or\ndiagonal crosses. Among the other shapes are a small askos with\nring-handle on the back, a sort of high stand like a fruit-dish, large\ncups and bowls, and the _orcio_ already mentioned. One of the finest\nexamples is a krater from Ruvo in the Jatta collection,[2391] with\ntwisted handles and a very elaborate system of ornamentation, chiefly\ndiaper and maeander patterns.\n\nLike the Messapian, the Peucetian or Apulian pottery seems to have\nflourished during the fifth century[2392]; but there are some vases\nwhich seem to form connecting-links with their Hellenic prototypes, and\nprobably belong to the sixth century.[2393] In any case, both fabrics\nmust be regarded as much earlier than previously supposed; they are\ncertainly not late archaistic work, and time must be allowed for their\ndisappearance when the Hellenic fabrics of Apulia begin. In placing the\nmajority of the products between 600 and 450 B.C., we shall probably\nnot be far from the truth, although M. Pottier[2394] would throw the\norigin of the fabrics as far back as the eighth century.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 2246:\n\n See especially Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 285 ff., and Gsell,\n _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 315 ff.\n\nFootnote 2247:\n\n i. 94.\n\nFootnote 2248:\n\n _Sat._ i. 6, 1.\n\nFootnote 2249:\n\n i. 30.\n\nFootnote 2250:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 297.\n\nFootnote 2251:\n\n _Frag. Hist. Graec._ ed. Didot, i. p. 45: \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03a3\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u1ff7 (the\n name of one of the mouths). He calls them here Pelasgians.\n\nFootnote 2252:\n\n Bertrand and Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les vall\u00e9es du Po et du\n Danube_, p. 73 ff.: cf. Bertrand, _Arch. celtique et gauloise_, p.\n 205.\n\nFootnote 2253:\n\n Cf. i. 27 with vii. 3.\n\nFootnote 2254:\n\n See Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_, for a full account of this\n period; also Von Duhn in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 128, whose ethnographical\n views seem to differ in many details from those of other writers\n previously cited.\n\nFootnote 2255:\n\n See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv.\n\nFootnote 2256:\n\n See _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1884, p. 111.\n\nFootnote 2257:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1881, pl. 5, Nos. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 2258:\n\n _Il._ xi. 633; _Od._ iv. 615, vi. 232. See Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 152.\n\nFootnote 2259:\n\n On the ornamentation of the Villanuova period general reference may\n be made to B\u00f6hlau\u2019s _Zur Ornamentik der Villanovaperiode_ (1895).\n\nFootnote 2260:\n\n Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 254.\n\nFootnote 2261:\n\n See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv, and references there given.\n\nFootnote 2262:\n\n The objects found at Hallstatt date from about the tenth to ninth\n centuries B.C., and are sometimes \u201csub-Mycenaean\u201d in character.\n\nFootnote 2263:\n\n See on the subject of hut-urns the bibliographies given in Gsell,\n _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 258; _Bonner Studien_, p. 24 (Von Duhn); and\n _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 127 (_id._).\n\nFootnote 2264:\n\n _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125.\n\nFootnote 2265:\n\n See also for Narce _Mon. Antichi_, iv. pt. 1, p. 105 ff.\n\nFootnote 2266:\n\n M. Pottier states that a primitive kind of wheel was used for making\n the _impasto_ in the eighth century, and Helbig and Martha are\n certainly wrong in stating that it was not introduced till the sixth\n (see _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 294).\n\nFootnote 2267:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1885, p. 118.\n\nFootnote 2268:\n\n _E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat._ Nos. 347 ff.\n\nFootnote 2269:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 345 ff.\n\nFootnote 2270:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1884, p. 186 = 338: cf. for the style a vase\n from Tamassos, Cyprus, in the British Museum (_Rev. Arch._ ix. 1887,\n p. 77).\n\nFootnote 2271:\n\n See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 363 ff.\n\nFootnote 2272:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 153, and cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, vi. p. 211,\n fig. 57, for examples from Troy.\n\nFootnote 2273:\n\n Abeken, _Mittelital._ p. 362 ff.; but see _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 41.\n\nFootnote 2274:\n\n _E.g._ _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1884, pl. C.\n\nFootnote 2275:\n\n Hdt. i. 14, 25; Paus. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 2276:\n\n For Greek examples of early vases with reliefs see Vol. I. p. 497,\n and Plate XLVII.\n\nFootnote 2277:\n\n See for specimens _Gaz. Arch._ 1881, pls. 28, 29, 32-3; Pottier,\n _Vases du Louvre_, pls. 33-4.\n\nFootnote 2278:\n\n Louvre D 151.\n\nFootnote 2279:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1884, p. 163.\n\nFootnote 2280:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1886, p. 135.\n\nFootnote 2281:\n\n See Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 152. The names are doubtless descriptive.\n\nFootnote 2282:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlvii, and references there given.\n\nFootnote 2283:\n\n Nearly all the contents of this tomb are now in the British Museum\n (Etruscan Saloon, Cases 126-35): see Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 4-8;\n Dennis, _Etruria_^2, i. p. 457 ff.; C. Smith in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 206.\n\nFootnote 2284:\n\n A most trustworthy reproduction of this vase and its decoration, made\n by Mr. F. Anderson, is given in _J.H.S._ xiv. pls. 6-7.\n\nFootnote 2285:\n\n Cf. throughout the Fran\u00e7ois vase.\n\nFootnote 2286:\n\n Micali, _op. cit._ pl. 5, fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 2287:\n\n _Cat._ 1543.\n\nFootnote 2288:\n\n _Cat._ C 617-18.\n\nFootnote 2289:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1881, p. 167, No. 26.\n\nFootnote 2290:\n\n The hydria is a form of essentially Ionic origin, the earliest\n examples being found in the \u201cCaeretan\u201d and Daphnae fabrics (see\n Chapter VIII.).\n\nFootnote 2291:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 630 = Fig. 183.\n\nFootnote 2292:\n\n Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 58; Dennis, _Etruria_, i. p. 34 ff.\n\nFootnote 2293:\n\n Cf. an oinocho\u00eb in the British Museum, A 633; and see _J.H.S._ x. p.\n 126.\n\nFootnote 2294:\n\n _Mus. Greg._ i. pl. 15 ff.; Helbig, _F\u00fchrer_, 1899, ii. p. 344 ff.\n\nFootnote 2295:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, pls. 14-18.\n\nFootnote 2296:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1876, p. 117 ff., and _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. pls.\n 31-33. The art of Praeneste, though a Latin town, was wholly\n Etruscan. Cf. the later series of bronze cistae found here.\n\nFootnote 2297:\n\n Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 462.\n\nFootnote 2298:\n\n _Louvre Cat._ ii. pp. 294, 315.\n\nFootnote 2299:\n\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 414: see Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 62. It may be\n compared with the analysis of the clay of Greek vases given in Vol.\n I. p. 203.\n\nFootnote 2300:\n\n Cf. Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 28-30.\n\nFootnote 2301:\n\n Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 28-32.\n\nFootnote 2302:\n\n Cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, pl. 8, fig. 1, and the reliefs from Sparta,\n _Ath. Mitth._ 1877, pls. 20-4.\n\nFootnote 2303:\n\n Cf. _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1877, pls. U, V; Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 27-32.\n\nFootnote 2304:\n\n See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 324 ff.\n\nFootnote 2305:\n\n Cf. B.M. A 379 with _Bronze Cat._ Nos. 385, 436-37.\n\nFootnote 2306:\n\n See also on the subject generally, _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 99 ff.;\n Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 314 ff.; Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, p.\n 462 ff.; and Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 445 ff.\n\nFootnote 2307:\n\n vi. 343: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 158-59, and Chapter XXI.\n\nFootnote 2308:\n\n ii. 60.\n\nFootnote 2309:\n\n xiv. 98: cf. p. 479.\n\nFootnote 2310:\n\n See Perrot, _Hist. de l\u2019Art_, i. p. 308.\n\nFootnote 2311:\n\n See _Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 600, and _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 215. The\n bronze plates were formerly made up into the shape of a shield, with\n many restorations; but on removing these, the true form was\n discovered. The body of the chair is modern.\n\nFootnote 2312:\n\n _Mus. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 299 ff., with many examples on pls. 9,\n 9_a_, 11-13. Fig. 181 is from pl. 9, figs. 9, 9_a_.\n\nFootnote 2313:\n\n H 148 in the British Museum is a curious terracotta example, covered\n with incised designs: see Benndorf, _Gesichtshelme und\n Sepuleralmasken_, pl. 11, p. 42.\n\nFootnote 2314:\n\n _Cat._ 3976-77.\n\nFootnote 2315:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 219-220.\n\nFootnote 2316:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 321.\n\nFootnote 2317:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1888, p. 174 ff.: see also Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 71.\n\nFootnote 2318:\n\n They also show the influence of the \u201cPontic\u201d class (Vol. I. p. 359).\n\nFootnote 2319:\n\n It may be compared with B 59 in the same case (Plate XXVI.).\n\nFootnote 2320:\n\n See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 51; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 413.\n\nFootnote 2321:\n\n B.M. B 61-74; Louvre E 754-81 (some of these do not show distinctive\n Etruscan features, although made in Italy); Naples 2522, 2717, 2757;\n W\u00fcrzburg 81-2; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 36. 1, 37, 1, and 43, 3; _id._\n _Storia_, 82, 3; Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ 34; Inghirami, _Mus.\n Chins._ 72; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 18-9; _Anzeiger_, 1893,\n p. 87. According to Endt, _loc. cit._, about 200 examples are known.\n B 63 in the B.M. is reproduced in Plate LVIII.\n\nFootnote 2322:\n\n Another is given in _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ x. pl. 51.\n\nFootnote 2323:\n\n Bibl. Nat. 918 = Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. frontispiece.\n\nFootnote 2324:\n\n Reinach, i. p. 88.\n\nFootnote 2325:\n\n Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 38.\n\nFootnote 2326:\n\n Cf. _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ xi. pls. 4-5; also Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv.\n 358.\n\nFootnote 2327:\n\n Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 16 (_q.v._ for facsimile); _Bull.\n dell\u2019 Inst._ 1882, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 2328:\n\n Roberts, p. 17: for a facsimile see Dennis, i. p. 271.\n\nFootnote 2329:\n\n Roberts, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 2330:\n\n Dennis, i. p. 273; Deecke, _Etr. Forsch. u. Stud._ iv. (1883) p. 39.\n\nFootnote 2331:\n\n Dennis, i. p. 172.\n\nFootnote 2332:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. p. 224.\n\nFootnote 2333:\n\n See for instances Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 55, 7; _ibid._ _Storia_,\n pl. 101; _Mus. Greg._ ii. pl. 99.\n\nFootnote 2334:\n\n Reinach, i. 203.\n\nFootnote 2335:\n\n _E.g._ Fabretti, _C. I. Ital._ 2606, 2609.\n\nFootnote 2336:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1831, p. 176: cf. also Fabretti, Nos. 2222, 2583.\n\nFootnote 2337:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 157.\n\nFootnote 2338:\n\n _Ibid._ 152.\n\nFootnote 2339:\n\n _Orat. ad Graec._ 1.\n\nFootnote 2340:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 157.\n\nFootnote 2341:\n\n The story is told by Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 16, and Plutarch,\n _Poplicola_, 13. See Vol. I. p. 116.\n\nFootnote 2342:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiv. 33.\n\nFootnote 2343:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 173; Vitr. ii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 2344:\n\n _Etruria_, i. p. 12.\n\nFootnote 2345:\n\n See Durm, _Handbuch d. Architektur_, 2. Theil, Bd. 2 (_Die Baukunst\n der Etrusker_), p. 5.\n\nFootnote 2346:\n\n See Wiegand, _Puteolanische Bauinschr._ (_J\u00e4hrb. f\u00fcr Philol._\n Suppl.-Bd. 20, p. 756 ff.); Borrmann in Durm\u2019s _Handbuch_, 1. Theil,\n Bd. 4, p. 40.\n\nFootnote 2347:\n\n For a recent restoration of an Etruscan temple see Anderson and\n Spiers, _Architecture of Greece and Rome_, p. 126.\n\nFootnote 2348:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, p. 92 ff.\n\nFootnote 2349:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1881, p. 48.\n\nFootnote 2350:\n\n _Notizie_, 1898, p. 429 ff.; _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 329.\n\nFootnote 2351:\n\n _Notizie_, 1896, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 2352:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ Suppl. pls. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 2353:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 626.\n\nFootnote 2354:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 621-23: cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1871, pl. 1. B 621\n is illustrated in Plate LIX.\n\nFootnote 2355:\n\n Panofka, _Terracotten des k. Mus._ pl. 10.\n\nFootnote 2356:\n\n See Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.\n\nFootnote 2357:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pl. 15: cf. also Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 324\n (in Louvre).\n\nFootnote 2358:\n\n _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 316.\n\nFootnote 2359:\n\n Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11.\n\nFootnote 2360:\n\n _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 434, and p. xlvii.\n\nFootnote 2361:\n\n See p. 308, and Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.\n\nFootnote 2362:\n\n For full description of this sarcophagus see _Cat. of Terracottas_, B\n 630; Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11, p. 21. It is\n interesting to note that the figures must be contemporaneous with the\n Capitoline statues made by Volca.\n\nFootnote 2363:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ vi. pl. 59; _Mon. Antichi_, viii. pl. 13, p. 521\n ff. (Savignoni). The latter was found in the same group of tombs as\n the painted slabs in the Louvre described below.\n\nFootnote 2364:\n\n Cf. _Mon. Antichi_, viii. p. 531.\n\nFootnote 2365:\n\n _Mus. Ital. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 89 ff., pls. 3-7.\n\nFootnote 2366:\n\n Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 48.\n\nFootnote 2367:\n\n Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, pl. 4 = _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ vi.-vii. pl. 30;\n _J.H.S._ x. pl. 7, p. 243 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 412.\n\nFootnote 2368:\n\n Cf. the Thermon metopes, $1$2 1903, pls. 2-6 (Vol. I. p. 92).\n\nFootnote 2369:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 799, 800.\n\nFootnote 2370:\n\n This subject has been interpreted as Kadmos (or Jason), contending\n with the armed men who sprang from the sown teeth of the dragon: see\n Dennis, _Etruria_^2, ii. p. 165.\n\nFootnote 2371:\n\n See generally Brunn and K\u00f6rte, _I rilievi dell\u2019 urne Etruschi_, 2\n vols.; _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 787-98.\n\nFootnote 2372:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 795.\n\nFootnote 2373:\n\n Martha, _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 351; _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 20; _Cat. of\n Terracottas_, D 786.\n\nFootnote 2374:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ xi. pl. 1.\n\nFootnote 2375:\n\n _L\u2019Art \u00c9trusque_, p. 300.\n\nFootnote 2376:\n\n Blue occurs on the B.M. sarcophagus (B 630) (as also on the\n Polledrara hydria).\n\nFootnote 2377:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 201 ff., 1899, p. 13 ff.; Patroni, _Ceramica\n Antica_, chap. i., and _id._ in _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 349 ff.: see\n also Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 371.\n\nFootnote 2378:\n\n A line drawn across from Taranto to Fasano roughly divides the two\n districts, the Peucetians being on the north, the Messapians on the\n south.\n\nFootnote 2379:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 2380:\n\n For Marseilles see also D\u00e9chelette, _Vases C\u00e9ramiques de la Gaule\n rom._ i. p. 7.\n\nFootnote 2381:\n\n See also Reinach, ii. 242-43, for those in the Imperial Museum at\n Vienna.\n\nFootnote 2382:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. F 414-16, 584-85.\n\nFootnote 2383:\n\n See also Vol. I. p. 172, Fig. 40.\n\nFootnote 2384:\n\n _Ceram. Ant._ p. 27.\n\nFootnote 2385:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1881-82, pl. 19, p. 107.\n\nFootnote 2386:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 19, 21; _Sale Cat. H\u00f4tel Drouot_, May 11, 1903, No. 20.\n\nFootnote 2387:\n\n Serv. _ad_ Virg. _Aen._ iii. 332.\n\nFootnote 2388:\n\n _Ceramica Antica_, p. 19 ff.\n\nFootnote 2389:\n\n Cf. _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 10, p. 222.\n\nFootnote 2390:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897. p. 168.\n\nFootnote 2391:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 3, fig. 32.\n\nFootnote 2392:\n\n Patroni puts the limits of date for both fabrics at 600-450 B.C.\n\nFootnote 2393:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1899, p. 46, pls. 4-5.\n\nFootnote 2394:\n\n _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 372.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIX\n _TERRACOTTA IN ROMAN ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE_\n\n Clay in Roman architecture\u2014Use of bricks\u2014Methods of\n construction\u2014Tiles\u2014Ornamental antefixae\u2014Flue-tiles\u2014Other\n uses\u2014Inscriptions on bricks and tiles\u2014Military tiles\u2014Mural\n reliefs\u2014List of subjects\u2014Roman sculpture in\n terracotta\u2014Statuettes\u2014Uses at Rome\u2014Types and subjects\u2014Gaulish\n terracottas\u2014Potters and centres of fabric\u2014Subjects\u2014Miscellaneous\n uses of terracotta\u2014Money-boxes\u2014Coin-moulds.\n\n\nThe uses of clay among the Romans were, as may be supposed, much the\nsame as among the Greeks and Etruscans, in architecture, in sculpture,\nand for household implements. The main differences are that in some\ncases\u2014as in architecture\u2014its use was more extensive at Rome, in others\nless; and that generally the products of this material in Roman\nworkshops are inferior to those of the Greeks. But the technical\nprocesses are in the main identical with those employed by the Greeks,\nand consequently much that has been said in Chap. III. of this work\nneed not be here repeated.\n\n I. ARCHITECTURE\n\n 1. BRICKS AND TILES\n\nThe Romans divided the manufacture of objects in clay into two classes:\n_opus figlinum_ or fine ware, made from _argilla_ or _creta figularis_;\nand _opus doliare_, for tiles and common earthenware.[2395] We begin,\nthen, as in the chapter on the Greek uses of clay, with the latter\ndivision, including the use of this material in Roman architecture, and\nprimarily in the making of =bricks and tiles=. It must be borne in\nmind, however, that the structural use of bricks of clay, such as we\nemploy at the present day, was unknown to the Romans; they only used\nwhat we should call tiles, and even these were only employed\nstructurally, as a facing to walls and vaults of concrete; no walls\nwere ever built of solid brick, and even in those of seven inches\nthickness the bricks are built on a core of concrete. Nor were the\nbricks allowed to appear on the outer face of the building, at least\nbefore the second century of the Empire; they were always faced with a\ncoating of marble or stucco.\n\nNevertheless, the general use of bricks or tiles was most extensive,\nand they were employed as tiles for roofing houses, as bricks for walls\nand vaults, and even for columns, as slabs for pavements, for furnaces\nand for covering graves, and in tube form for conveying water or hot\nair; they are found in temples, theatres, and baths, and are used for\ncisterns and fountains, and in aqueducts and military fortifications.\nThey were called _lateres_, because, says Isidorus, \u201cthey were broad,\nand made by placing round them four boards.\u201d[2396] The kilns were\ncalled _laterariae_, and the makers _laterarii_; to make bricks was\n_lateres ducere_, _fingere_,[2397] or (with reference to the baking\nonly) _coquere_. The word _later_ seems to be employed indiscriminately\nfor sun-dried (_crudi_) and baked bricks (_coctiles_),[2398] without\nthe qualifying epithet, but _testa_ is also used when burnt brick is\nintended.[2399] The sun-dried bricks were the earlier and simpler form,\nused for building walls and cemented together with clay or mud.[2400]\nVitruvius in his account of brick-making (ii. 3) only refers to this\nkind, and apparently never mentions baked bricks except in passing\nallusions. He describes three kinds, to which he says the Greeks gave\nthe respective names of _genus Lydium_, _pentadoron_, and _tetradoron_\n(see Vol. I. p. 95). The two latter are exclusively Greek, but the\nfirst-named, 1\u00bd by 1 foot in dimensions, answers to the Roman _tegula\nsesquipedalis_.[2401] A frequent arrangement, he says, was to employ\nhalf-bricks in alternate courses with the ordinary sizes, which served\nto bind the walls together and present an effective as well as a stable\nappearance. This information is repeated by Pliny, copying almost word\nfor word.[2402]\n\nAmong the Romans two dimensions were in general use, as may be inferred\nfrom the frequent mention in inscriptions or elsewhere of the\n_sesquipedales_ and of _bipedales_,[2403] or two-foot bricks, as we\nshall have occasion to show later. Being very flat and thin in\nproportion to their size, these bricks rather resemble tiles, as has\nbeen already noted; they are generally square, or at least rectangular.\nBut there were also _tegulae bessales_ or bricks measuring two-thirds\nof a foot square, _i.e._ about 8 inches, and triangular bricks,\nequilateral in form, with a length varying from 4 to 14 inches. The\nlatter are the kind used in all existing Roman walls of concrete with\nbrick facings. The thickness varies from 1\u00bc to 2 inches. They are not\nalways made with mechanical accuracy, the edges being rounded and the\nsides not always parallel. In military works they were often used\nalternately with flint and stone (see below, p. 337), as we see them in\nEngland, at Colchester, Dover, Verulam, and many other places.[2404] At\nVerulam the tiles are arranged in three horizontal layers at intervals\nof about 4 feet, with flint and mortar between. They were also used for\nturning the arches of doorways, and for this purpose _tegulae\nbipedales_ were cut into pieces, so as only to tail a few inches into\nthe concrete which they cover. Complete squares were introduced at\nintervals to improve the bonding.[2405]\n\nThe pillars of the floors of hypocausts were formed of _tegulae\nbessales_, and sometimes also of two semicircular bricks joined so as\nto form a circle, varying from 6 to 15 inches in diameter.[2406]\nOccasionally the upper bricks diminished in size, in order to give\ngreater solidity to the structure. The bricks or tiles forming the\nupper floors were from 18 to 20 inches square; in some cases, as at\nCirencester,[2407] these were flanged tiles (see below).\n\nThe general size of Roman bricks was, in the case of the\n_sesquipedales_, 1\u00bd by 1 Roman foot; but variations are found, such as\n15 by 14 inches. For the _bipedales_ Palladius recommends 2 feet by 1\nfoot by 4 inches. The great building at Trier known as the Palace of\nConstantine is built of burnt bricks, 15 inches square by 1\u00bc inch\nthick.[2408] Prof. Middleton notes tiles in Rome of 12, 14, and 18\ninches square,[2409] and Marquardt[2410] states that bricks found in\nFrance measure 15 by 8 to 10 inches; others (the _bessales_) 8 by 8 by\n3 inches. A complete circular brick, measuring 7\u00bd inches across by 3\u00bc\ninches thick, and impressed with the stamp of the eleventh legion, was\nfound at Dolae near Gardun, and is now in the museum at Spalato.[2411]\n\nVitruvius[2412] gives elaborate instructions about the preparation of\nthe clay for sun-dried bricks, and counsels in the first place a\ncareful choice of earth, avoiding that which was sandy or stony or full\nof loose flints, which made the bricks too heavy, and so liable to\nsplit and fall out when affected by rain; it also prevented the straw\nfrom binding properly. Clay which was either whitish or decidedly red\n(from a prevalence of ochre) was preferred, and that combined with\ncoarse sand (_sabulo masculus_) made light tiles, easily set. The\nprocess of manufacture was a very simple one. The clay was first\ncarefully cleaned of foreign bodies, and then moistened with water and\nkneaded with straw. It was then moulded by hand or in a mould or frame\nof four boards, and perhaps also pressed with the foot.[2413] The\nbricks were then dried in the sun and turned as required, the usual\nprocess also adopted in the modern brickfield. Some bricks actually\nbear the marks of the feet of animals and birds which had passed over\nthem while the clay was soft, and there is one in the Shrewsbury Museum\nwith the imprint of a goat\u2019s feet. Others at York and Wiesbaden show\nthe nails of a boy\u2019s shoes.[2414] These impressions of feet (where\nhuman) may also be referred to the practice of using the feet to knead\nthe bricks.\n\nThe bricks were then ready for use, but were kept for two years before\nbeing employed, otherwise they were liable to contract, which caused\nthe stucco to break off and the walls to collapse. At Utica, Vitruvius\ntells us, they had to be kept five years, and then could only be used\nif passed by a magistrate. Altogether, much care was taken in their\npreparation, and it was generally considered that spring and autumn\nwere the most favourable times for making them, probably because they\ndried more slowly and were less liable to crack during the operation.\nIn summer the hot sun baked the outer surface too fast, and this\nappeared dry while the interior was still moist, so that when the\ninside dried the outside contracted and split.[2415] It was also, of\ncourse, advisable to avoid seasons of rain and frost. But the bricks\ncould not be properly tested until they had undergone some exposure to\nthe weather, and for this reason Vitruvius recommends the employment of\nold roof-tiles where possible in building walls.[2416]\n\nFor baked bricks the processes must have been much the same, with, of\ncourse, the addition of the baking in the furnace. Existing Roman\nbricks are nearly always of well-tempered clay and well baked; but the\nclay exhibits a great variety of colour\u2014red, yellow, and brown. The\npaste is remarkably hard, breaking with an almost vitreous fracture,\nand sometimes shows fragments of red brick (_pozzolana_) ground up with\nit to bind it together, and prevent warping. This may be seen in the\nFlavian Palace on the Palatine, and in an archway in the Aurelian Wall\nnear the Porta Latina. As an instance of varieties of brick found in\nthe same building, Nero\u2019s Aurea Domus may be cited.[2417] The\ndurability of Roman tiles is ascribed to their careful preparation and\nseasoning, which give them a much longer life than modern tiles; hence\nthey were frequently used up again in early mediaeval buildings and in\nRomanesque churches in England, as at St. Albans, St. Mary-in-Castro,\nDover, and St. Botolph\u2019s and Holy Trinity, Colchester.[2418]\n\nDuring the period of the Republic private houses and public buildings\nalike were built of unburnt brick in Rome, as we learn from the words\nof Dio Cassius,[2419] Varro,[2420] and Cicero[2421]; Varro speaks of\n_domus latericiae_, and Cicero of \u201cthe brick (_latere_) and concrete of\nwhich the city is constructed.\u201d After the Republican period this\nmaterial was still employed outside Rome with burnt-brick\ncornices,[2422] but even this was exceptional. Pliny mentions walls of\nsun-dried bricks at Arretium and Mevania.[2423] Henceforth, then, burnt\nbrick was employed more and more as Rome grew more populous.[2424] In\nVitruvius\u2019 time (the beginning of our era) the materials used for\nbuilding were stone for substructures, burnt brick (_structura\ntestacea_) for the outer walls, concrete for the party-walls, and wood\nfor the roofs and floors. He explains the cessation of the use of\nunburnt brick as due to the legal regulations of his time, which\nprohibited party-walls of more than 1\u00bd foot in thickness, and unburnt\nbricks could only support one story above them in that size.[2425]\n\nBaths, either public or private, walls and military fortifications,\nwere built of bricks, the latter being thus better able to resist\nattacks than if they were of stone. Temples, palaces, amphitheatres,\nthe magnificent aqueducts and the cisterns with which they\ncommunicated, were also usually of this material. Of these, numerous\nremains exist in Rome and other places, such as Cumae and Pozzuoli. The\naqueduct made by Nero from the Anio to Mons Caelius is of brick, that\nof Trajan partly so; the _aqua Alexandrina_ of Severus Alexander (A.D.\n229) and that existing at Metz are wholly of brick, and so are the\n_castella_ or reservoirs made by Agrippa when he constructed the Julian\nconduit over the Marcian and Tepulan.[2426] It is true that Augustus\nboasted that he had found Rome of brick and left it marble[2427]; but\nit must be remembered, firstly, that Suetonius uses the term\n_latericiam_, which may denote unburnt brick; secondly, that the phrase\nis probably to be limited to public buildings and monuments, in which\nthere was an increased use of marble for pillars and roofs. For walls\nbrick and concrete continued to be used, as in private buildings, with\na covering of stucco in place of marble incrustation.\n\nIn the first century of the Empire brick-making was brought to\nperfection, and its use became universal for private and public\nbuildings alike; the mortar of the period is also of remarkable\nexcellence. The Romans introduced brick-making wherever they went; and\neven their legions when on foreign service used it for military\npurposes. But of pure brick architecture, as we see it, for instance,\nin the Byzantine churches of Northern Italy, there was no question\nuntil comparatively late times. It was always covered over with marble\nor stucco until the second century of the Empire. Examples of\nsepulchral buildings wholly in brick, of the time of Hadrian, may be\nseen in the tomb before the Porta San Sebastiano at Rome, known as the\ntemple of Deus Rediculus. This has Corinthian pilasters with a rich\nentablature, red bricks being used for architectural members, yellow\nfor the walls; the capitals are formed of layers of bricks. Of\nHadrian\u2019s time are also the guard-house of the seventh cohort of\nVigiles across the Tiber, of which a small part remains, and the\n_amphitheatrum castrense_ on the walls of Aurelian.[2428]\n\nOne of the most remarkable instances of Roman brick construction is the\nPile Cinq-Mars, as it is called, a tower still standing on the right\nbank of the Loire, near Tours. It is about 95 feet high and 13 feet\nsquare, expanding at the base, being built of tiles to a depth of 3\nfeet each side, with a body of concrete; the tiles are set in mortar\ncomposed of chalk, sand, and pounded tiles. On one side there are\neleven rectangular panels with tile-work of various patterns, like\nthose on the flue-tiles (see p. 348), and as also seen on the Roman\nwall at Cologne; the patterns include squares, triangles, and rosettes.\nThe history and purpose of this building are quite unknown.[2429]\n\nAt Pompeii bricks are used only for corners of buildings or doorposts,\nand sometimes for columns, as in the Basilica and the house of the\nLabyrinth.[2430] There are also late examples of brick columns with\ncapitals in tiers of bricks as in the tomb mentioned above. Brick walls\nare not found, but bricks occur as facing for rubble-work. These are\nless than an inch thick, triangular in form, with the hypotenuse (about\n6 inches long) showing in the face of the wall. Sometimes fragments of\nroof-tiles are used (cf. p. 334). The earlier bricks contain sea-sand,\nand have a granular surface; the later are smooth and even in\nappearance. Later, what is known as _opus mixtum_ (see below) is used,\nas in the entrance of the Herculaneum gate; this implies courses of\nstone and brick alternating,[2431] which, as we have seen, was common\nin military works, as in the Roman walls in Britain. In this country,\nowing to the absence of good material for concrete, the use of stones\nor brick throughout for building was general from the first; hence,\ntoo, the bricks are always flat and rectangular in form\n(_bipedales_).[2432]\n\nThe arrangement of triangular bricks (made by dividing a medium-sized\nbrick into four before baking), laid flat in regular horizontal\ncourses, is characteristic of the earliest examples of Roman methods.\nIt is found in the Rostra (44 B.C.) and in the Regia (35 B.C.), the\nearliest existing examples.[2433] The back wall of the Rostra is of\nconcrete faced with triangular bricks 1\u00bd inch thick, the sides 10\ninches long. The same arrangement may be seen in the Pantheon, in the\nThermae of Diocletian, and in some of the aqueducts (see below). The\nbrickwork in the Pantheon was formerly thought to belong to the\nbuilding of Agrippa in 27 B.C., but has been now shown to belong to the\nsecond century.[2434] At Ostia, in the temple of Honos and Virtus, the\nwalls are built of triangular bricks or with red and yellow bricks with\nmoulded cornices.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n Section of Angle.\n\n FIG. 187. CONCRETE WALL,\n Faced with (A) _opus incertum_, (B) _opus reticulatum_. C shows the\n horizontal section, similar in both.\n]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 188. CONCRETE WALL (VERTICAL SECTION), FACED WITH\nBRICK.]\n\nAbout the year 80 B.C. the method known as _opus reticulatum_ was\nintroduced, in which the bricks presented square faces (about 4 inches\neach way), and were arranged diagonally to form a network pattern (Fig.\n187). At Pompeii the _opus reticulatum_ dates from the time of\nAugustus; it is laid on concrete, and the bricks are small four-sided\npyramids with bases 3 to 4 inches square.[2435] This method lasted down\nto about A.D. 130 in Italy. It should, however, be noted that it was\ncommoner in stone than in brick, the latter material not having come\ninto general use for building at the time when it was employed.[2436]\nBut even when tufa was used for the reticulated work, bricks or tiles\nwere used for quoins at the angles, and for bonding courses through the\nwalls, as well as for arches and vaults (Fig. 188). This combination of\n_opus reticulatum_ and brickwork is well illustrated in the palace of\nCaligula.[2437] In the case of vaults, indeed, the use of brick seems\nto have been general, as in the baths of Caracalla, and many other\nbuildings (cf. Fig. 189). Vitruvius[2438] advises the use of _tegulae\nbipedales_ to protect the wooden joists over the vaults from being\nrotted by the steam from the hot bathrooms; they were to be placed over\nthe whole under-surface of the concrete vault, supported on iron\ngirders, which were suspended from the concrete by iron clamps or pins.\nOver the whole was laid a coating of cement (_opus tectorium_) in which\npounded pottery was the chief constituent, and this was stuccoed.[2439]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 189. CONCRETE ARCH; HALF WITH BRICK FACING REMOVED.]\n\nThe _opus mixtum_ (the term is not classical) prevailed regularly under\nthe later Empire, from the fourth to the sixth century; the earliest\nexample which can be dated is the circus of Maxentius. It is also used\nin work of the time of Theodoric.[2440] The method of construction is\nshown in Fig. 190.\n\nThe reason for the limited use of brick in Rome may have been the\nscarcity of wood for fuel for the kilns. But in any case the pointed\nbacks of the bricks made a good bonding with concrete, and presented a\nlarge surface with a comparatively small amount of clay. The secret of\nthe wonderful durability of Roman buildings is that each wall was one\nsolid coherent mass, owing to the excellence of the concrete. In the\nPantheon the concrete of the dome is nearly 20 feet thick, the brick\nfacing only about 5 inches. The character of the brick facing often\nindicates the date of a wall, the bricks in early work being thick and\nthe joints thin; later, the reverse is the case. But caution must be\nexercised in dating on this principle, owing to the great variety of\nmethods employed during the same reign, and even in the same\nbuilding.[2441]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Bl\u00fcmner_.\n FIG. 190. DIAGRAM SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF WALL OF OPUS MIXTUM.\n]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe word for a tile, _tegula_, is derived from _tegere_, to cover, or,\nas Isidorus says, they are so called _quod aedes tegant_[2442]; the\ncurved roof-tiles were known as _imbrices_ because they received\nrain-showers (_imbres_). The maker of roof-tiles was known as\n_tegularius_[2443] or _figulus ab imbricibus_.[2444] _Tegulae_ or flat\nroof-tiles were usually made with vertical flanges (2\u00bd inches high)\ndown the sides, and these flanges, which fitted into one another\nlongitudinally, when placed side by side served to hold the\ncovering-tiles placed over them. There were also roof-tiles known as\n_tegulae deliciares_[2445] and _colliciares_, which formed the\narrangement underneath the surface of the roof by means of which the\nwater was collected from the _tegulae_ and carried off in the front\nthrough spouts in the form of lions\u2019 heads.[2446]\n\nBesides the various rectangular forms we find triangular tiles used,\neither equilateral or right-angled; semicircular or curved tiles, used\nfor circular walls, ovens, tombs, and cornices, or other parts of\nbuildings; cylindrical tiles (_tubuli fictiles_),[2447] which were used\nfor drains and conduits; and, finally, the rectangular hollow\nflue-tiles, employed for hot air in hypocausts.[2448] Another form was\nthe _tegula mammata_, a plain square tile with four knobs or\nbreast-like projections (_mammae_), which was often used in party-walls\nwith the object of keeping out damp.[2449] The tiles were inserted by\nthe points of the projections into the concrete, thus leaving a space\nbetween in which the warm air could circulate freely.\n\nExisting examples of tiles are composed of a compact dense clay, less\nfine than that of the bricks, and of a pale salmon or light straw\ncolour when baked. They were probably made in moulds\u2014but these may only\nhave been a couple of boards placed together\u2014and after being dried in\nthe sun were baked in kilns. The flanged tiles were, of course,\nproduced by turning up the edges before drying. Besides the arrangement\ndescribed above, it is probable that roofs were sometimes tiled in the\nmanner prevalent in the present day, with flat or curved tiles\noverlapping like scales; and for this purpose the tiles seem to have\nbeen pierced with holes at one corner, and so attached to one another.\nThe same method obtained in the Roman villas in Britain, except that\nStonesfield slate was used in place of tiles. An inscription found at\nNiederbrunnen in Germany speaks of _attegia tegulicia_, or huts roofed\nwith tiles, erected in honour of Mercury.[2450]\n\nTiles with turned-up edges or flanged tiles were principally employed,\nas has been indicated, for roofing; but some were also placed in walls\nwhere required, especially where a space was required for the passage\nof air.[2451] They were also employed for the floors of bath-rooms, in\nwhich case they were laid on the _pilae_ of the hypocaust in an\ninverted position, and the cement flooring was laid upon them. The\nflanges are generally about 2\u00bc inches higher than the lower surface of\nthe tile; they are bevelled on the inner side in order to diminish the\ndiameter of the _imbrex_, but have no holes for nailing to the rafters.\nThe ends of the sides were cut away in order that the lower edge of one\ntile might rest on the upper edge of the one adjoining. Those found in\nFrance are said to be distinguished by the sand and stones found in\ntheir composition.[2452] There are flange tiles of red and yellow clay\nfrom the Roman Thermae at Saintes in the Museum of S\u00e8vres, and others\nfrom ancient potteries at Milhac de Nontron, as well as tiles of red\nclay from Palmyra.[2453] In the military _castra_ in England flange\ntiles of a red or yellow colour have been found, the latter with\nfragments of red tiles mixed in the clay. They are also often found in\nthe ruins of villas. A flange tile from Boxmoor, Herts, now in the\nBritish Museum, measures 15\u00bd by 12 inches, the flange being 2\u00bc inches\nhigh; and it will be seen that these dimensions correspond roughly with\nthe _tegulae bipedales_. Flanged tiles with holes in them appear to\nhave been used at Pompeii for lighting passages, the flanges serving to\nkeep out rain.[2454]\n\nThe _imbrices_ or covering-tiles which held the flat tiles together,\nthus rendering the roof compact, were quite plain, with the exception\nof the end ones over the gutters. These were in the form of antefixal\nornaments like the Greek examples (Vol. I. p. 98), an upright semi-oval\ntermination ornamented with a relief or painted pattern, with an arched\nsupport at the back. Many examples exist at Pompeii (see below),\nOstia,[2455] and elsewhere; but artistically they are far inferior to\nthe Greek examples, and of simpler design. Most of them have a simple\npalmette or acanthus pattern in low relief, but on or below this an\nideal head or the head of a deity is sometimes added, such as Zeus\nAmmon, Medusa, a Bacchic head, or a mask, or even a figure of Victory.\nOf the last-named there is a good specimen in the British Museum (D 690\n= Fig. 191); she carries a trophy from the battle of Actium, and stands\non a globe from which spring two Capricorns (the symbol of\nAugustus).[2456]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 191. ROMAN TERRACOTTA ANTEFIX: VICTORY WITH TROPHY\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\nNo better example of the various uses of ornamental tiles in\narchitecture can be selected than the remains found at Pompeii, which\nare exceedingly numerous. Terracotta seems to have been used here\nespecially for such parts of the decoration as were exposed to wet, as\nwell-mouths, gutters, and antefixal tiles.[2457] A characteristic\nfeature of the decoration of Pompeian houses was the trough-like gutter\nwhich surrounded and formed an ornamental cornice to the _compluvium_\nor open skylight of the atrium and peristyle, through and from which\nthe rain-water was collected in the _impluvium_ or tank sunk in the\nground below. These were adorned with spouts in the form of animals\u2019\nheads or foreparts,[2458] usually lions and dogs, with borders of\npalmettes between; the gutter behind was virtually a long tank of\nsquare section.\n\nAntefixes and gutter-cornices, where they occur, must always be\nregarded as serving ornamental rather than necessary purposes. All\nearly work in terracotta at Pompeii is of coarse clay, but good\nexecution; later, the reverse is the case. The only public building in\nwhich many remains of terracotta tiles and cornices have been preserved\nis the temple of Isis; but the Basilica may also have had terracotta\ndecoration. Many fragments also remain from private houses, some\nactually _in situ_, having been neglected by early explorers as\nunimportant. In the house of Sallust a kymation cornice from one of the\ngarden courts has scenic masks forming the spouts; this is not earlier\nthan the rebuilding of the house A.D. 63. There is also much terracotta\nwork in the house of the Faun.[2459] Comic masks were used both as\nspouts and as antefixes, the exaggerated mouth of the mask serving\nadmirably for the former purpose.[2460] These date from the reigns of\nNero and Vespasian, and all seem to be from the same fabric, although\nthere is considerable variety in the types; the use of masks for these\npurposes is not earlier than Nero\u2019s reign (cf. the house of Sallust,\nabove). Besides the ornaments above mentioned the patterns on the\ncornices include palmettes and floral scrolls, dolphins and Gryphons.\n\nThe roof-tiles were of the usual kinds, flat oblong _tegulae_ with\nflanges, measuring 24 by 19 by 20 inches,[2461] with semi-cylindrical\n_imbrices_. They were laid in lines parallel to the long ridges of the\nroofs, so that the water converged into the gutter-tiles at the angles,\nwhence it fell into the impluvium. These gutters, however, were not\nconfined to the angles of the openings, but were sometimes ranged along\nthe whole length of the sides, as we have seen; those at the angles\nonly seem to be earlier in date. They are not found on the exteriors of\nbuildings. The front of the gutter was usually in the form of a\nvertical kymation moulding, but was sometimes simply chamfered.\nAntefixal ornaments terminating the covering or ridge-tiles are not\ninvariable, but are found at different periods. The earliest examples\nare in the form of palmettes, but the later exhibit a great\nvariety[2462]: comic masks, a head in low relief on a palmette, or a\nhead surmounted by a palmette. Of the latter class thirty-eight were\nfound in 1861. In the Augustan period ideal heads of gods and demi-gods\nare sometimes found.[2463]\n\nVon Rohden, in summing up (p. 14), is of the opinion that terracotta\nroof-decoration at Pompeii was _comparatively_ rare. In the whole\nrecord of excavations only twenty-three water-spouts are mentioned,\nthough it is probable that many were never registered. In scarcely more\nthan twelve private houses have as many pieces been found as would\nsuffice for the whole of the atrium and peristyle roofs, and nearly all\nof these are of late date. The discovery of isolated pieces in a house\nseems to show that they were used up again in the restorations after\nthe earthquake of A.D. 63.\n\nThere are also some good examples of roof-tiles among those which have\nbeen found at Ostia, both in baths and private houses; some of the\nlatter came from a house of which the brickwork bore inscriptions with\nthe names of consuls of Hadrian\u2019s reign. The arrangement of the\nroof-tiles is that described on p. 341; the antefixal ornaments are\nusually in the form of palmettes or acanthus leaves, with maeander\nbelow; but heads of deities, such as Venus and Neptune,[2464] or of\nMedusa, and tragic masks were also found. Two exceptional examples had\ngroups in relief of Neptune drawn over the sea by hippocamps, and of\nthe statue of Cybele in the ship drawn by the Vestal Virgin\nClaudia.[2465]\n\n * * * * *\n\nTiles of the size known as _bipedales_ are also used for lining the\nwalls of rooms. They are found in Roman villas in Britain, and are\nornamented on one side with various incised patterns, made with a tool\nin the wet clay. On some found at Ridgewell in Essex the decoration\nconsists of lozenges, rosettes, and other ornaments,[2466] like those\non the Pile Cinq-Mars already described; they are often found covered\nwith the stucco with which the walls were plastered. At Pompeii,\nOrvieto, and elsewhere the stucco-painted walls were constructed with\n_tegulae mammatae_ placed edgewise, and connected with the main walls\nby leaden cramps, the brick lining being thus detached from the walls\nby a narrow interval which served as an air-cavity.[2467] This was a\nfrequent proceeding, and was also contrived with flanged tiles; it\ncorresponds with the system prescribed by Vitruvius for keeping damp\nfrom the painted walls of rooms.[2468] It was also largely employed in\nbaths and bathrooms, the object being both to keep the walls dry and to\nallow hot air to circulate from the hypocausts and warm the rooms. In\nthe cold climate of Britain the Romans found this a universal\nnecessity, and instances may be observed in many of their villas; but,\nas far as can be observed, the general method of warming was by an\nextensive system of pipes under the floors rather than up the\nwalls.[2469] These tiles are pierced with holes, by means of which they\nwere attached to the walls by plugs or nails of lead. In the _castrum_\nat Jublains a chamber is yet partly standing with one of its sides\ncoated with tiles of this kind.[2470]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Middleton_.\n FIG. 192. METHOD OF HEATING THE BATHS IN THE THERMAE OF CARACALLA.\n]\n\n A A Concrete wall, faced with brick,\n shown in vertical and horizontal\n sections.\n\n B Lower part of wall, with no brick\n facing.\n\n C C _Suspensura_, or upper floor of\n Hypocaust, supported by pillars.\n\n D D Another floor, with support only at\n edges.\n\n E E Marble flooring.\n\n F F Marble plinth and wall lining.\n\n G G Under floor of Hypocaust, paved\n with large tiles.\n\n H H Horizontal and vertical sections of\n flue-tiles lining wall of\n Calidarium.\n\n _a a_ Iron hold-fasts.\n\n J J Socket-jointed flue-pipe of\n Tepidarium.\n\n K Rain-water pipe (in horizontal\n section).\n\n L L Vaults of crypt, made of pumice-\n stone concrete.\n\nMore commonly, however, a peculiar kind of tile was used for warming\nthe hot rooms (_sudationes_) of baths, and in villas when required.\nThey were hollow parallelopipeds, known as _tubi_, with a hole in the\nside for the escape of the air which traversed them, the usual\ndimensions being about 16 by 6 by 5 inches.[2471] Seneca speaks of\npipes inserted in walls, which allowed the warmth to circulate and warm\nboth the upper and lower stories equally[2472]; and the younger Pliny\nmentions the air-holes (_fenestrae_) in the pipes which warmed his\nbedroom, by means of which the temperature could be regulated at\npleasure.[2473] Sometimes, as in the baths of Caracalla and the house\nof the Vestals, the whole side of a wall was composed of flue-tiles\ncovered with cement,[2474] which was made to adhere by scoring the\nsides with wavy or diagonal lines, as in the flat tiles described\nabove, and as is often done in modern building. The whole system of\nheating, which may be seen in the baths of Caracalla, is very\ninstructive (Fig. 192): the walls were of concrete with brick facing,\nthrough which a system of flues of socket-jointed tiles passes upwards\nfrom the hypocaust below, effectually warming every part.[2475]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 193. FLUE-TILE WITH ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS.]\n\nThe hollow tiles often assume a more ornamental appearance (as in Fig.\n193), the patterns scratched on them taking the form of lozenges and\ndiapers, chevrons, chequers, and rosettes, as may be seen in a Roman\nvilla at Hartlip in Kent, where other tiles are simply scored with\nsquares.[2476] This villa is remarkable for the extensive use of tiles\nthroughout; even the staircases are constructed with them. Others found\nin Essex and Surrey have dogs, stags, and initial letters among\nfoliage; one found in London had among the wavy lines of pattern the\nletters Px Tx[2477]; and another, from Plaxtol in Kent, the local\nmaker\u2019s name, CABRIABANTI.[2478] These hollow tiles, which are\ngenerally of the same clay as the roof-tiles, were also occasionally\nused as pillars of hypocausts,[2479] but for this purpose columns of\n_tegulae bessales_ were more usual, as Vitruvius implies.[2480] Many\nexamples may be seen in the Roman villas of Britain, as at Cirencester,\nChedworth, Lympne, and Wroxeter. In a villa found at Carisbrooke, Isle\nof Wight, the whole bath was constructed of tiles, the floor supported\nby _pilae_ of the same.[2481] At Bath the hollow tiles are actually\nused as _voussoirs_ for arches and vaults.[2482]\n\nThrough these chimneys\u2014for this is what they practically were\u2014the hot\nair circulated and gave an imperfect warmth to the rooms, the heat\nradiating from the walls or penetrating through the air-holes.[2483]\nThe pipes standing close to one another virtually made up the wall; but\nthe exact method by which the warming was accomplished, without great\ninconvenience to the occupiers of the rooms, is not quite clear. It is\nnot difficult to imagine that the tiles would have warmed rooms merely\nby the introduction of hot air circulating through them, even though\ncovered with stucco. On the other hand, the apertures for admitting the\nair into the rooms, if of any size, must also have admitted smoke from\nthe hypocausts, and interfered with the ventilation. It may be that\nthey were not made for this purpose at all, but only for fastening the\npipes together or to the walls. Another difficulty is the method in\nwhich the flues made their exit into the open air. It has been\nsuggested, partly on the analogy of a mosaic found in Algeria, that\nthey ended above in an arrangement like a chimney-stack. There is,\nmoreover, a terracotta roof-tile in the Museo delle Terme at Rome with\na circular pipe, 8 inches in diameter, projecting from its upper\nsurface.[2484]\n\nTerracotta pipes, or _tubuli_, of cylindrical form, were sometimes\nemployed by the Romans for conveying or distributing water, but the\nmore usual material for this purpose, especially for drinking-water,\nwas lead; the latter were called _fistulae_.[2485] The Venafrum\ninscription, an edict of the Emperor relating to the water-supply of\nthe town, mentions _canales_, _fistulae_, and _tubi_.[2486] Vitruvius\ncalls the _canales structiles_, implying that they were of\nmasonry.[2487] Pliny speaks of _tubi fictiles_ used for conduits from\nfountains,[2488] and Vitruvius recommends the use of terracotta pipes\n(_tubuli fictiles_) in aqueducts.[2489] Examples of clay piping are\npreserved in the Museo delle Terme at Rome. At Marzabotto, near\nBologna, terracotta pipes were used for carrying off the water from the\nroof of a house, by means of a straight tube through the wall fitting\ninto another which curved upwards inside.[2490] These date from the\nfifth century B.C. Other examples have been found in Rome and\nItaly,[2491] and specimens found on the Rhine were 21\u00bd inches long, of\nwhich \u00be inch was inserted into the adjoining pipe, and 3\u00bd to 4\u00bd inches\nin diameter. Terracotta was also used for cisterns, as at\nTaormina,[2492] and for aqueducts; but Lanciani has pointed out that\nits use in these ways was confined to irrigating purposes. The Campagna\nof Rome was formerly extensively drained with these tiles, and owed to\nthat circumstance much of its ancient healthfulness.\n\nOf the use of tiles in pavements there is frequent mention in Roman\nwriters.[2493] For this purpose complete tiles were seldom used, at any\nrate in Italy; but in Britain it was not at all uncommon, as in the\nvilla at Hartlip already mentioned. On the other hand, hypocausts were\nregularly paved with tiles, as in the Baths of Caracalla (Fig. 192\nabove),[2494] and in an example found at Cirencester, where the tiles\nare flanged.[2495] But in another form tiles played a considerable part\nin Roman methods of paving. Pliny and other writers[2496] speak of\n_pavimentum testaceum_ or _opus signinum_ as the usual pavement for\nrooms, especially those liable to damp, such as kitchens and\noutbuildings, or for baths and cisterns. This was made of a layer of\nfragments of tiles stamped and pounded into a firm solid mass, combined\nwith mortar. It corresponds to the _nucleus ex testis tunsis_ of\nVitruvius, which (to a depth of six inches) was laid on the _rudus_ or\ncoarser concrete. On this was laid the flooring, consisting either of\ntiles or marble slabs, or more generally of mosaic. The Baths of\nCaracalla again afford a good illustration of the process.[2497] In the\nmosaics too fragments of clay were often used, especially for producing\nred or black colour.[2498] Vitruvius and other writers allude to this\npractice,[2499] and the former also speaks of _testacea spicata_, a\nkind of false mosaic made with small bricks about 4 inches by 1 inch,\nset on edge to form a herring-bone pattern. In the Guildhall Museum is\npart of a tesselated pavement of concrete, faced with small bricks\nabout an inch square.\n\nOne of the most interesting uses of tiles by the Romans is in\nconnection with their tombs. Not only are they used in the construction\nof the more magnificent edifices (cf. p. 336), but they were also often\nemployed (as in Greece) for the humbler graves. For the latter, three,\nor sometimes six, _tegulae bipedales_ were set up in the form of a\nprism, one forming the floor, the other two the gabled covering which\nprotected the body from the superincumbent earth. Within this were laid\nthe _ollae_ or sepulchral urns which held the ashes of the dead, and\nother vases. A tomb found at Litlington in Cambridgeshire was covered\nwith a large flanged tile, which protected the pottery buried\nunderneath[2500]; and at Eastlow Hill in Suffolk a tomb was found\nroofed with twelve rows of flanged tiles, each side in rows of\nfour.[2501] In some of the tombs of Greece belonging to the Roman\nperiod semi-cylindrical tiles were used for this purpose. In the\nprovinces the tiles often have impressed upon them in large letters the\nnames of the legions which garrisoned the various cities. The tiles of\nRoman tombs at York are inscribed with the names of the sixth and ninth\nlegions which were quartered there: as LEG \u00b7 VI \u00b7 VICT \u00b7 P \u00b7 F, _legio\nsexta victrix pia fidelis_; LEG \u00b7 IX \u00b7 HISP (or VICT), _legio nona\nHispana_ (or _victrix_).[2502] At Caerleon (Isca Silurum) the bricks\nbear the name of the second or Augustan legion: LEG \u00b7 II \u00b7 AVG.[2503]\nThe stations of the twentieth legion may also be traced at Chester in\nthis manner; the tiles are inscribed LEG \u00b7 XX \u00b7 V \u00b7 V.[2504] They were\nplaced at the foot of the tomb like tombstones, in order to indicate\nwho was buried beneath, the inscriptions being written across the\nbreadth of the tile. They are of very different dates, some of those in\nBritain being apparently as late as the introduction of Christianity.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe extent to which bricks and tiles were used in Roman buildings under\nthe Empire may be gauged by the number of those with inscriptions which\nremain; a whole section of the Latin _Corpus_ (see below) is devoted to\nthose found in Rome alone, numbering some two thousand. Many of them\nhave been removed to the museums from the principal edifices, such as\nthe Pantheon, the Coliseum, the Circus Maximus, the Baths of Titus and\nCaracalla, the Basilica of Constantine, and the Praetorian Camp. Other\ninscriptions have been found on tiles removed from such buildings and\nused to repair the roofs of churches in Rome. Such places as Bologna,\nCortona, Tibur, and Ostia have also produced numerous inscribed tiles\nof this class. The use of such stamps was to guarantee the quality of\nthe clay. To the topographer, as will be seen, these stamps are often\nof great value; and had the custom of placing on them the names of the\nbuildings for which they were intended been less rare, they might often\nhave afforded valuable evidence as to doubtful sites. Besides their\ntopographical value, the tiles also help to settle the succession of\nconsuls, and throw great light on the economy of the Roman farms and\nthe possessions of the great landed proprietors. The uninterrupted\nseries, extending from the times of the Caesars to the age of Septimius\nSeverus, of names of proprietors, potters, and estates, tells much of\nthe internal condition of Italy, and of one of the sources of revenue\nto the Roman nobility.[2505]\n\nThe stamps found on bricks and tiles are of four kinds\u2014rectangular,\nsemicircular, circular, and crescent-shaped. The inscriptions are in\nraised letters in all cases, but instances are also known of incised\ninscriptions, written without frames across the tile. After the time of\nDiocletian the only forms found are square, circular, and octagonal;\nthe square stamps always have straight inscriptions. On the circular\nstamps the inscriptions are placed in a circle, in one or two lines,\nand the beginning is determined by a small cut-out circle at the edge\nof the stamp, thus 20[22]orbiculus known as the _orbiculus_; apart from\nthis its object is uncertain. In later stamps the inscription often\nreads backwards, or certain letters are reversed. The letters were cut\nstraight in a mould and lie in the plane of the surface, being of\nrectangular section, not wedge-shaped, as in inscriptions on marble.\nDuring the Republican period and the first century of the Empire a\nplain \u201cblock\u201d type is used; then the letters become smaller and more\nelegant, with bars at the ends of the _hastae_, as 20[54]E, M etc.\nFinally they show a tendency about A.D. 200 to become broader and\nshorter: 20[76]E, M, S At and after the time of Diocletian the forms\nbecome very varied. Punctuation in the best period takes the form of a\n15[17]triangle afterwards the mark becomes vague in form. Ligatured\nletters are rarely found after the time of Diocletian, but are common\nin the best period; sometimes more than two are combined.[2506] The\nstamps with which the letters were made were usually of wood or bronze,\nbut have not been preserved.\n\nIn the centre of the stamp it was customary to place an emblem or\ndevice of some kind, perhaps in view of a law which obliged brick and\ntile makers to affix distinctive marks or emblems on their bricks; but\nthe devices are not peculiar to individual workshops, and some\npotteries, such as the Terentian (see below), used several. They may be\ncompared with the countermarks or small adjuncts on the coins of the\nRepublic, and the seals and stamps on the wine-amphorae of Thasos (Vol.\nI. p. 158). Figures of gods, such as Mars, Cupid, and Victory, animals,\nand even groups of figures, occur, and after the third century\nChristian emblems are often found. It is most probable that they were\nmerely ornamental and without significance, except in certain cases of\ncanting or punning allusions. Thus M. Rutilius Lupus has a wolf;\nFlavius Aper a boar; Aquilia an eagle; C. Julius Stephanus a wreath;\nand Aelius Asclepiades a serpent, with reference to the god\nAsklepios.[2507]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 194. STAMPED TILE (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nThe most complete stamps have the date of the emperor or the\nconsulship, the name of the estates (_praedia_) which supplied the\nclay, that of the pottery where it was baked (_figlinae_ or\n_officina_), and that of the potter who prepared it; sometimes even of\nthe slave who moulded the tile, and even its very dimensions. Two\ntypical examples may be given from the British Museum collection,[2508]\nof which the first (Fig. 194) is said to have been found in the\nCatacombs at Rome. It has in the centre of the stamp a figure of\nVictory, round which is the inscription in two lines, beginning with\nthe outer band:\n\n OPVS DOL(_iare_) DE FIGVL(_inis_) PVBLINIANIS\n (_ex_) PREDIS AEMILIAES SEVERAES\n\n \u201cPottery[2509] from the Publinian works, (the clay) from the estate\n of Aemilia Severa.\u201d\n\nThe other has no device, but the last word of the inscription is in the\ncentre:\n\n IMP ANTONINO II E(_t_) BALBINO COS\n D P Q S P D O ARABI SER(_vi_)\n\n \u201cThe Emperor Antoninus for the second time and Balbinus consuls; from\n the estates (_de praediis_) of Q. Servilius Pudens, pottery\n (_doliare opus_) from the hand of the slave Arabus.\u201d\n\nThe earlier stamps exhibit more method and precision; the later betray\ncomparative carelessness. In the latter the name of the emperor\nsometimes occurs alone, and unusual expressions are introduced.\nContractions are invariable at all periods, and even the consuls are\nsometimes only mentioned by initials; but by comparison of examples it\nis possible to place them in the right order. Those found in Rome cover\nthe period from the reign of Trajan to that of Theodoric (A.D. 500),\nbut in other parts of Italy they are found dating as early as 50 B.C.\nWe are told that Theodoric, when he repaired the walls of Rome, made a\npresent of twenty-five thousand tiles for the purpose,[2510] and on the\ntiles bearing his name he is styled \u201cThe good and glorious king,\u201d with\nthe additional exclamation, \u201cHappy is Rome!\u201d[2511]\n\nThe estates on which the clay for the tiles was produced are called\n_possessiones_; _privata_ (private property); _rationes_ (shares);\n_insulae_ (blocks); or more generally, _praedia_. The latter word,\nindeed, is almost invariably used down to the third century, the\nothers being more characteristic of the time of Diocletian. The\n_praedia_ not only provided the clay, but in some cases also\ncontained the potteries. On some tiles _fundus_, which means a\ncountry farm, is found. The proprietors of these estates were\nimperial personages, persons of consular dignity or equestrian rank,\nand sometimes imperial freedmen. Many tiles give merely the name of\nthe imperial estates, without mentioning the reigning emperor; in the\nlater ones, as in the Basilica of Constantine, it is usual to find\nthe expression OFF \u00b7 AVGG ET CAES NN, _Officina Augustorum (duorum)\net Caesarum (duorum) nostrorum_.[2512] Several names of the Antonines\noccur; also Annius Verus and his wife Domitia Lucilla, the parents of\nM. Aurelius. Septimius Severus owned many _praedia_ which supplied\nbricks for his palace on the Palatine.[2513] The Empress Plotina was\nevidently a large landed proprietor, and we also find the names of\nAelius Caesar (Hadrian\u2019s adopted heir), M. Aurelius, Faustina II.,\nand Julia Procula. Among the names of inferior proprietors, unknown\nto fame, occur Q. Servilius Pudens, T. Statilius Severus, and L.\nAemilius Julianus, priest of the sun and moon.[2514] Such names as Q.\nAgathyrsus, Rutilius Successus, and Sulpicius Servandus seem to\ndenote imperial freedmen; the first-named styles himself AVG \u00b7\nLIB.[2515]\n\nA remarkable fact in connection with these inscriptions is the\nprevalence of feminine names, the quantity of tiles on which these are\nfound being enormous. The causes are various,\u2014partly the renunciation\nby emperors of their private fortunes in favour of their female\nrelations; partly the proscriptions which, from the failure of male\nheirs, caused estates to devolve upon women; partly the gradual\nextinction of great families. The important position held by freedmen\nunder the Empire is well known to the student of Roman history.\n\nThe potteries of the tile-makers were of two kinds\u2014_figlinae_ and\n_officinae_; but the former seems to be a wider and inclusive term\u2014that\nis to say, that one _figlina_ included several _officinae_ or\nworkshops. In the inscriptions, ex figlinis is usually followed by the\nname of the owner, _ex officinis_ by the name of the potter\n(_officinator_). The former expression is by far the commoner, and the\nlatter (OF or OFFIC) is more usually found on lamps and vases, although\nafter the third century it is invariable on the tiles. The _figlinae_\nare always mentioned in a subordinate manner to the _praedia_, when\nboth are mentioned, as is usually the case. The potteries were mostly\noutside the city, even at some distance. Localities are not often\nmentioned, but we have the Salarian potteries on the _Via\nSalaria_,[2516] and also mention of the _Via Nomentana_,[2517] and such\nexpressions as _Ad Aureliam_, _Ad Mercurium felicem_, or _Ad viam\ntriumphalem_. Stamps found in the walls along the Appian and Latin ways\nshow that potteries existed in the direction of the Alban and Tusculan\nhills, and in other parts of Latium, as at Praeneste and Ostia. On the\nnorth side they extended as far as Narnia and Ocriculum[2518] on the\nTiber. They are also found in Etruria and Campania. Tiles from Latium\nwere exported to Liguria, the Adriatic, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul, and\nSpain.\n\nUsually a descriptive epithet is associated with the word _figlinae_,\neither of a geographical or personal character. Examples of the former\nare Macedonianae, Rhodianae, and Oceanae. The latter give either the\nname of an emperor, as Neronianae, Domitianae; or a Gentile or family\nname, as Favorianae,[2519] Furianae, Publinianae, Terentianae, or\nVoconianae. One of the names which occurs most frequently is that of L.\nBrutidius Augustalis, a freedman; others are stamped EX FIGLINIS\nPRIMIGENI SERVI DNI NOSTRI IMP\u2014\u201cFrom the potteries of Primigenius,\nslave of our lord the Emperor.\u201d Imperial slaves owned many potteries,\nand others were owned by the emperors or other wealthy proprietors, and\nadministered by freedmen or slaves. The _officinae_ served to\ndistinguish the functions of the different _figlinae_. Thus the\nestablishment of M. Publicius Januarius, a freedman, is styled\n_doliariae officinae_; or they are distinguished by separate names, as\nClaudianae, Domitianae, and so on. The tiles from the potteries of\nAsinius Pollio bear the name of C. Cosconius as maker, as do those of\nJulia Procula\u2019s potteries, being further distinguished as _doliares_,\n_bipedales_, and _sesquipedales_.[2520] It would appear that the\npotteries of private proprietors were under the direction of freedmen,\nwhile those of the imperial estates were chiefly managed by slaves,\nfrom whose labours large revenues were obtained.\n\nThere were many private potteries in Gaul and Germany.[2521] In the\nneighbourhood of Saarbr\u00fcck many tiles have been found with the maker\u2019s\nname, L. Valerius Labeius. Others with private names have been found at\nTrier, one with the stamp of the _colonia_. Several potters with\nGaulish names are known, and probably FIDENATIS on a tile at Zulpich,\nSECVNDANVS F(_igulus_ or _fecit_) and PACATVS F from Seligenstadt,\nrefer to craftsmen of that nationality.[2522] Often the master\u2019s name\nonly occurs, of which possible instances are BELLICIANVS on a tile from\nCaerwent, and PRIMV(_s_) on another from Colchester.[2523] In the\nBritish Museum are tiles with the initials T \u00b7 P \u00b7 F \u00b7 A, T \u00b7 P \u00b7 F \u00b7\nC, T \u00b7 P \u00b7 F \u00b7 P, from Rodmarton in Gloucestershire.[2524] Tiles found\nin the provinces also have the maker\u2019s name simply, without indications\nof date or the owner of the pottery, as on those from Seligenstadt\nalready cited. The makers must in all cases have been of inferior\ncondition, as implied in the example already quoted of the slave Arabus\n(p. 354); and other names\u2014Daedalus, Peculiaris, Primigenius,\nZosimus\u2014belong to the same rank of life. Yet the occurrence of a single\nname for a private individual is everywhere very common. On the other\nhand, imperial slaves usually have two names given, and freedmen\nthree.[2525]\n\nOn the tiles of the freedmen of the Gens Domitia (dating about the\nreign of Hadrian) is frequently stamped the formula VALEAT QVI FECIT,\n\u201cMay he who made it prosper,\u201d with the name of the representative of\nthe family in the genitive.[2526] On other tiles we find such\nexpressions as VTAMVR FELICES, \u201cMay we use it and be happy\u201d[2527];\nFORTVNA COLENDA, \u201cFortune is to be worshipped\u201d (a second-century\ntile)[2528]; and on others of post-Diocletian date, VRBIS ROMAE, \u201cThe\ncity of Rome\u201d[2529]; SECVLO CONSTANTINIANO, \u201cThe age of Constantine\u201d;\nFELIX ROMA (on the tiles of Theodoric), \u201cHappy is Rome.\u201d[2530] Even on\nsepulchral tiles of late Imperial times are stamped such aspirations\nas, VTI FELIX VIVAS, \u201cMay you live happily.\u201d[2531]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 195. INSCRIBED TILE FROM LONDON (GUILDHALL MUSEUM).]\n\nAgain, memoranda are found incised on the tiles, as on one at Hooldorn\nin Holland, KAL \u00b7 IVNIS \u00b7 QVARTVS LATERCLOS N(_umero_) CCXIIII,\n\u201cQuartus (made) 214 tiles on the first of June\u201d; and on another, found\nin Hesse in 1838, STRATVRA TERTIA LATERCVLI CAPITVLARES NVM \u00b7 LEG \u00b7\nXXII, \u201cIn the third layer large tiles of the number of the\ntwenty-second legion.\u201d[2532] A tile found in Hungary had scratched upon\nit two metrical lines in cursive writing:\n\n _Senem severum semper esse condecet_\n _Bene debet esse povero_ (sc. _puero_) _qui discit bene_[2533];\n\nand on others names such as Tertius, Kandidus, Verna, were\nincised.[2534] Idle boys in the brickfields often seem to have\nscratched the alphabet or other words in the soft clay, and complete\nRoman alphabets are found at Hooldorn[2535] and Stein on the\nAnger[2536]; the letters I K L M on one at Winchester[2537]; on another\nat Silchester is ... E PVELLAM.[2538] On a tile in the Guildhall Museum\n(Fig. 195), found in Warwick Square, E.C., are the words AVSTALIS |\nDIBVS \u00b7 III | VAGATVRSIB | COTIDIM, of which no satisfactory\ntranslation has been given, but it has been usually regarded as the\ngibe of a fellow-workman at a devout individual.[2539] On another, now\nat Madrid, the first two lines of the _Aeneid_ are written in excellent\ncursive characters of the first century after Christ.[2540]\n\nThe Roman tiles, if rightly used, are found very useful for judging the\ndates of buildings. For instance, a study of those in the Pantheon\nshowed that the walls were neither the original ones nor those built by\nAgrippa in 27 B.C., but were restored in the second century or supplied\nthen with new brickwork. On the other hand, the stamps from the Flavian\namphitheatre and Thermae Antoninianae confirm the dates of those\nbuildings. Those tiles which bear the name M. Aurelius Antoninus as\nconsul[2541] seem to be the Emperor Caracalla\u2019s. In the time of\nDiocletian the dates cannot be definitely ascertained, but before his\ntime the shape of the stamp is a good criterion. Rectangular stamps are\nfound in the best period, and in the first century B.C. only one line\nof inscription is usual. Two lines denote the period 50\u2013100 A.D. or\nlater; semicircular or lunate forms came into use under Claudius, and\nlasted to the end of the first century; perfect circles belong to the\nsame period. The type with the cut-out _orbiculus_ came in about Nero\u2019s\nreign, and the size of the _orbiculus_ gradually diminishes down to\nthat of Severus, while the inscriptions gradually increase in\nlength.[2542]\n\nA considerable number of the Roman tiles are inscribed with the names\nof the consuls of the current year in which they were made, presenting\na long and interesting series, from the consulship of L. Licinius Sura\nand C. Sosius Senecio (A.D. 107) to that of Severus Alexander (A.D.\n222). Many of these consulships do not, however, appear to have been\nrecorded in the regular _fasti consulares_ or official lists, and they\nwere probably _suffecti_, whose names were not recorded after their\ntemporary elevation. It seems likely that the occurrence of consuls\u2019\nnames implies that such tiles were destined for public buildings, and\nwere so marked to prevent their being stolen with impunity. They are\nfewer in number than those which have merely the names of _praedia_ or\npotteries, but are yet sufficiently numerous to be an invaluable aid in\ntracing the succession for upwards of sixty years. Inscriptions of this\nclass are only found on _opus doliare_, and chiefly in Italy. Their\nappearance is probably due to some law passed by the Senate about the\nreign of Trajan to regulate the potteries. As an example may be given a\ntile from Hooldorn in the Netherlands, inscribed SVB \u00b7 DIDIO \u00b7 IVLIANO\n\u00b7 COSS[2543]; the date is A.D. 179, the name being that of the future\nemperor (COSS is a mistake for COS).\n\nThe following examples are taken from Dr. Dressel\u2019s scheme of the\nchronological order of the stamps,[2544] and show the style of\ninscription characteristic of the different periods:\n\nI. First century after Christ.\n\n 1. (_a_) With name of master only (either of _praedia_ or\n _figlinae_):\n\n _Asini Pollionis._\n\n (_b_) With name of _officinator_ or potter:\n\n _C. Cosconi._\n\n 2. (_a_) Master and potter (often a slave):\n\n _Felicis Domiti Afri._\n\n (_b_) Master and _conductor_ (lessee of the pottery), or potter:\n\n _Tegula C. Cosconi, figuli Asini Pollionis._\n\n 3. (_a_) Master, potter, and name of pottery:\n\n _Amoeni duorum Domitiorum Lucani et Tulli, ex figlinis\n Caninianis._\n\n (_b_) Master, lessee or potter, name of pottery:\n\n _T. Grei Ianuari ex figlinis Caninianis duorum Domitiorum._\n\nII. Second century to third century.\n\n 1. (_a_) _Ex praedis L. Memmi Rufi._\n\n (_b_) _Opus doliare L. Bruttidi Augustalis._\n\n _L. Lurius Martialis fecit._\n\n 2. (_a_) _Ex figlinis_ (vel _praedis_) _Domitiae Lucillae, opus\n doliare Terti Domitiae Lucillae_ (vel _ab Tertio servo_).\n\n (_b_) _C. Comini Proculi ex praedis Domitiae Lucillae._\n\n _Ex figlinis Q. Asini Marcelli doliare opus fecit C. Nunnidius\n Fortunatus._\n\n _Opus doliare ex praedis domini n(ostri) ex conductione\n Publiciaes Quintinae._\n\n 3. (_a_) _Ex figlinis_ (vel _praedis_) _Caepionianis Plotiae\n Isauricae, fornace Peculiaris servi._\n\n (_b_) _Opus doliare ex praedis duorum Augustorum nostrorum,\n figlinis Domitianis minoribus, Fulvi Primitivi._\n\nDuring the greater part of the third century chronological indications\nare absent, but about the time of Diocletian the practice of signatures\nis revived. The inscriptions, however, differ now from the earlier\nones, not only in the forms of the letters and of the stamp, but also\nin style; they are less regular in form, and present several\npeculiarities. The expressions _opus doliare_ and _ex figlinis_ are now\nno longer found, and in place of the latter _officina_ is invariable.\nMany of the _officinae_ are the same as in the former period, but new\nones, such as the Britannica, Claudia, Gemella, and Jobia, occur, the\nlatter with the _cognomen_ Diocletiana. _Officina_ is sometimes used\ntwice over, for the pottery and for the workshop. In place of _praedia_\nwe have such expressions as _statio_, _rationes_, or _possessiones_.\nFormulae are introduced in an abbreviated form which give the method of\nadministration or character of the estates: as R \u00b7 S \u00b7 P, _ratio summae\npatrimonii or privatae_; S \u00b7 P \u00b7 C, _stationis patrimonii Caesaris_; S\n\u00b7 R for _summae rei or stationis Romanae_; S \u00b7 P for _summae privatae_\nor _stationis patrimonii_; S \u00b7 R \u00b7 F for _sacrae rationis fisci_; or\nsimply S for _stationis_ or _summarum_.[2545] Apparently several\n_stationes_ might be united in one _officina_, or several _officinae_\nin one _administratio_; the number of the _statio_ is given in some\ninstances. The name of the _statio_ may be replaced by that of the\npotter; or merely the _administratio_ is given, as OFF \u00b7 PRIVATA.\nBesides the names of master, lessee, and potter, that of the\n_negotiator_ is sometimes mentioned. We also find the _portus_ or dep\u00f4t\nin which the _tegulae_ were stored for distribution, as PORTU\nLICINI,[2546] or the name of the building for which they were destined,\nas PORTVS AVGVSTI,[2547] CASTRIS PRAETORI(_s_) AVG(_usti_) N(_ostri_),\nHORREIS POSTVMIANIS.[2548] Some tiles dug up in Lambeth Hill, London,\non the site of the Post Office, now in the British and Guildhall\nMuseums,[2549] were impressed with the letters P \u00b7 P \u00b7 BR \u00b7 LON or PR \u00b7\nBR \u00b7 LON (Fig. 196), which have been interpreted as _publicani\nprovinciae Britanniae Londinienses_.[2550]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 196. INSCRIBED TILE FROM LONDON.]\n\nTiles made for military purposes are exceedingly common in the later\nperiod, and the stamps probably had a double use. In the first place,\nthey show that they were made by the soldiers, from which we learn that\nin the legions, as in a modern army, there were many men acquainted\nwith handicrafts. Secondly, they prevented theft or removal of the\ntiles, and served as a \u201cbroad arrow\u201d to denote public property. They\nare not, of course, found in Rome, where there was no necessity for the\nlegions to make bricks or tiles; here the camp seems to have been\nsupplied by private individuals.\n\nOf special interest are the inscriptions stamped on tiles which relate\nto the military divisions stationed throughout the provinces of the\nvast empire. These are found in soldiers\u2019 graves (see above, p. 351),\nas well as in their camps and quarters; they contain the names and\ntitles of the legions, and mark the extent of Roman conquest. Thus the\nroute of the thirty legions through Germany has been traced; and in\nBritain an examination and comparison of such tiles shows the\ndistribution of military force and the migrations of different legions\nfrom one quarter to another. The stamps are in the form of long labels\n(_tesserae_), circles, or crescents, occasionally surrounded by a\nwreath, or else in the shape of a foot, an ivy-leaf, or a vase; the\nletters are in relief, sharply impressed, as if from a metal die. The\nnames and titles of the legions are given either in initials or in\ncontractions, as LEG \u00b7 II \u00b7 P(_arthicae_), and so on (see above, p.\n351); sometimes the potter\u2019s name is added, with FIGVLVS or FECIT.[2551]\n\nThe tiles of the first legion have been found at Mainz and Nimeguen;\nthose of the second, or Parthian, at Darmstadt, Ems, Hooldorn,\nCaerleon, and the Lake of Nemi[2552]; of the third, in Scotland; of the\nfourth, at Mainz; of the fifth, in Scotland, and at Baden, Cleves,\nXanten, and Nimeguen; of the sixth, at Nimeguen, Neuss,\nAix-la-Chapelle, Darmstadt, and Windisch; the seventh, at\nAix-la-Chapelle and Xanten; the eighth, at Mainz, Baden, and elsewhere;\nthe ninth, at Baden and York; the tenth, at Nimeguen, Hooldorn, Vienna,\nand Jerusalem; the twentieth, at Chester[2553]; and so on down to the\nthirtieth.[2554] At Bonn tiles have been found of the _Legio\nCisrhenana_ on the left bank of the Rhine, and of the _Legio\nTransrhenana_ on the right bank. Cohorts have also left their names on\ntiles: the second Asturian at Acsica on the Roman Wall[2555]; the\nfourth (_Breucorum_), at Huddersfield[2556]; the fourth Vindelician, at\nFrankfurt, Mainz, and Wiesbaden[2557]; the Ulpian Pannonian at\nBuda-Pesth.[2558] The _vexillationes_, whose main body was at Nimeguen,\nare similarly recorded; a British _vexillatio_ was attached to the army\nat Hooldorn[2559] and Nismes, and another to that of Lower Germany, as\ninstanced by tiles inscribed VEX \u00b7 EX \u00b7 G \u00b7 INF (_vexillatio exercitus\nGermaniae inferioris_), found at Utrecht and Nimeguen in the\nNetherlands, and at Xanten in Germany.[2560] Tiles of the British\nfleet, CL(_assis_) BR(_itannica_), have been found at Boulogne, Lympne,\nand Dover.[2561]\n\n 2. TERRACOTTA MURAL RELIEFS\n\nTerracotta =mural decoration= was largely employed by the Romans for\nthe interior and exterior of their buildings, in the form of slabs,\nornamented with reliefs, which were placed round the impluvium or on\nthe walls. Sometimes they seem to have formed a sort of hanging\n\u201ccurtain\u201d round the lower edge of the cornice, as the open-work\npatterns along the edges seem to imply, a method of decoration which we\nhave already met with at Civita Lavinia (Vol. I. p. 101), where also\nthe hanging slabs are bordered with patterns in outline or open-work.\nBut, as also at Civita Lavinia, these slabs seem to have been\nfrequently used as _antepagmenta_,[2562] being pierced with holes,\nwhich imply that they were nailed against the walls. In the Casa dei\nCecilii at Tusculum there is evidence that they were used as\nwall-friezes,[2563] and those found at Pompeii (where they are very\nrare) also have holes for fastening to walls. It may be to the\nfirst-named variety that Festus refers when he speaks of _antefixa_ of\nfictile work which are affixed to the walls underneath the\ngutters.[2564] There is also a reference to them in Cicero, who, in\nwriting to Atticus, says, \u201cI entrust to you the bas-reliefs (_typos_)\nwhich I shall insert in the cornice of my little atrium.\u201d[2565]\n\nThe slabs are usually about 18 inches long by 9 or more high, and 1 to\n2 inches thick; they have nearly all been found at Rome, but specimens\nare also known from Civita Lavinia, Cervetri, Nemi, Pompeii, and Atri\nin Picenum.[2566] The British Museum possesses a very fine series,\nnumbering, with fragments, one hundred and sixty, nearly all of which\nwere collected by Mr. Charles Towneley at Rome[2567]; and there is an\nequally fine collection in the Louvre, which came from Signor Campana,\nwho devoted a large work to the illustration of them.[2568] Other good\nexamples, some of which were found in the Baths of Caracalla, are in\nthe various collections at Rome.[2569]\n\nThe reliefs were evidently cast in moulds, as many subjects are\nrepeated over and over again, or at least with only slight differences;\nmoreover, the relief is low, with sharp and definite outlines, such as\na mould would produce. Among the British Museum examples a group of\nEros, a Satyr, and a Maenad is repeated in three cases (D 520-522),\nwith no variations except in the colouring; another of Dionysos and\nSatyr three times (D 528-530), with only one small variation. It is\nevident that in the latter, as in some other cases, the relief had been\nretouched before baking. Reliefs entirely modelled are of much rarer\noccurrence, but exhibit considerable artistic feeling and freedom, as\nin an instance in the British Museum (D 651), which represents the\nsleeping Endymion; the hair is so fine and deeply cut that it could not\npossibly have been produced from a mould. The moulds may have been made\nof various materials\u2014wood, stone, metal, or gypsum, as well as\nterracotta. Circular holes are left in the slabs for the plugs\u2014usually\nof lead\u2014by which they were attached to the woodwork or masonry. The\nclay varies in quality and appearance, being often coarser than that of\nGreek reliefs, and mixed with coarse sand in order to make it stronger\nand more durable; in tone it varies from a pale buff to dark\nreddish-brown. Traces of colouring are often found on the slabs,[2570]\nand the background in some cases (as B.M. D 577, 623) was coloured a\nbright blue; the figures, or more often details such as hair, etc.,\nwere usually painted red, yellow, purple, or white. These colours are\nnot fired, as in the earlier terracotta reliefs, but painted in\n_tempera_, and their use is entirely conventional. The slabs are\nornamented above and below with bands or cornices in the form of\negg-and-tongue mouldings, or a system of palmettes and intersecting\narches; these are sometimes in low relief on a band, sometimes partly\nin outline or open-work.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ROMAN MURAL RELIEFS.\n\n 1. ZEUS AND THE CURETES; 2. DIONYSOS IN THE LIKNON-CRADLE (BRITISH\n MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe figures are mostly in low relief, being usually grouped with large\nflat surfaces between, in the manner of Hellenistic art; in some cases\nthe design is composed in such a way that the whole surface (except the\nprincipal figures) is occupied by patterns of scroll-work or foliage,\nmore or less conventional. The compositions are either in the form of\nnarrow friezes, usually with rows of busts or figures of Cupids, or\nsquare metope-like groups with two or three figures on a large scale.\nFor the narrower slabs the busts were preferred, owing to the scope\nthey gave for high relief, which better suited the distance from the\neye; but this rule is not invariable. The style is, in general, bold\nand vigorous, and, though essentially architectural, not devoid of\ndignity and beauty; but it is somewhat conventional, and at times even\narchaistic.[2571] Those found at Pompeii are usually of remarkably good\nstyle, especially the Nereid frieze,[2572] with its rich colouring.\nThese are earlier than the earthquake of A.D. 63, and probably belong\nto the Augustan period, to which also the majority may be assigned. On\none or two names of potters are found, such as Annia Arescusa(na) and\nM. Antonius Epaphras in the British Museum.[2573]\n\nThe subjects on these reliefs cover a very wide field, almost as wide\nas those on the painted vases, and quite as wide as those on the Roman\nlamps. In many cases they are doubtless copies of well-known works of\nart, and may even go back to prototypes of the fifth century, as in the\ncase of a figure of a girl in the British Museum (D 648), or one of\nEros, conceived as a full-grown youth, in the Campana collection.[2574]\nOthers, again, present points of comparison with the Hellenistic\nreliefs, as is the case with that representing the visit of Dionysos to\na mortal (B.M. D 531). Lastly, we find in the reliefs, as also on the\nArretine vases (below, p. 492), a series of types closely related to\nthe New Attic reliefs, in which it was sought to revive an older\nstyle[2575]; among the types borrowed from these originals are Maenads\nin frenzy or dancing in various attitudes,[2576] and the figures of the\nfour Seasons.[2577] Among those which reflect the character of their\ntime rather than the spirit of Greek art, we have representations of\nEgyptian landscapes, or Egyptian deities and emblems; scenes from the\ncircus or gladiatorial arena; and quasi-historical subjects, such as\ntriumphs over barbarian enemies. Of mythological subjects, the most\npopular are Dionysiac scenes or groups; next to these, Apollo,\nAphrodite, Eros, and Victory. Heroic legend is represented by the\nlabours of Theseus, Herakles, Perseus, and Jason, and occasional scenes\nfrom the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_. Lastly, there are a certain number\nwhich are purely decorative, with a single figure of Eros or Victory\n(treated in archaistic fashion), or an ideal head surrounded by\nelaborate and graceful scrolls or acanthus foliage; others, again, have\nconventional groups of two priestesses or canephori, with a candelabrum\nor a foliated pattern between (Plate LXII.), a mask between two Cupids,\nand so on. Even the figures in some cases tail off into conventional\npatterns.[2578]\n\nTo mention a few of the more interesting subjects in detail, it may\nsuffice to quote examples from the two best-known collections\u2014those of\nthe British Museum and Louvre. Beginning with the Olympian deities, we\nhave the infant Zeus in the cave on Mount Ida, protected by the\nCuretes, who dance above him, wielding swords and shields (Plate LXI.);\nin one instance he is in his nurse\u2019s arms.[2579] On a narrow frieze the\nbusts of Zeus, Ares, Hera, and Athena are represented[2580]; Apollo\nreceives a libation from Victory,[2581] or a warrior consults his\noracle, indicated by a bird in a cage[2582]; Aphrodite is seen riding\non a sea-horse or on a goose.[2583] Eros or Cupid appears in various\nattitudes and combinations of figures: flying, embracing Psyche, or\nbeing embraced by a Satyr; accompanying Aphrodite, Triton, and the\nNereids; a pair on either side of a mask of Triton or Medusa; or a\ngroup of three struggling under the weight of a heavy garland of fruit\nand flowers.[2584] Busts or masks of Demeter,[2585] Zeus Ammon, and\nTriton are also found; a group of Aphrodite and Peitho; and the three\nEleusinian deities, Demeter, Persephone, and Iacchos.[2586]\n\nThe Dionysiac scenes are very frequent, though often of little\ninterest, and mere groups without definite action. The best known is\nthe reception of Dionysos in the house of a mortal,[2587] a subject\nformerly interpreted as his reception by Ikarios at Athens (cf. p.\n139); this type is remarkable for its rich and elaborate composition,\nprobably derived from a Hellenistic original. A very effective\ncomposition is that of a dancing Satyr and Maenad swinging the infant\nDionysos in a \u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd (_vannus_) or winnowing-van, which serves as his\ncradle (Plate LXII.).[2588] Among other scenes may be mentioned\nDionysos giving drink to a panther; two Satyrs standing on tiptoe to\npeep into a laver; Satyrs gathering or pressing grapes (of which many\nreplicas exist), or working an oil-press; Ampelos (the personified\nvine) between two Satyrs[2589]; Bacchic processions, sacrifices, or\nceremonies[2590]; and friezes of Bacchic masks and masks of Pan.[2591]\n\nAmong other deities Victory is by far the most common. She is usually\nrepresented slaying a bull for sacrifice, a subject of which there are\ntwo principal varieties, according as she turns to right or left. The\nmotive is a well-known one, and found in fifth- and fourth-century art,\nfrom the balustrade of the Nike temple at Athens onwards.[2592] She is\nalso depicted flying with a wreath, or as a conventional archaistic\nfigure between tendrils and scrolls.[2593] Of the figures of the\nSeasons we have already spoken; they are characterised by the\nattributes they carry, as a kid for Spring, corn for Summer, fruit for\nAutumn, and a hare and boar for Winter. Masks of Medusa, Sirens, and\nSphinxes (both male and female) are found in compositions of a\ndecorative character.\n\nOf heroic legends, the rape of the Leukippidae by Castor and Pollux is\nrepeated more than once[2594]; Herakles is seen contending with the\nNemean lion, the hydra, and the Cretan bull, and with Apollo for the\nDelphic tripod[2595]; Theseus raises the rock which discloses his\nfather\u2019s weapons (Plate LXI.), contends with the Marathonian bull, or\novercomes a Centaur; Jason builds the Argo, superintended by Athena,\nand, assisted by Medeia, obtains the golden fleece; Perseus rescues\nAndromeda, and brings the Medusa\u2019s head to Athena; Aktaeon is slain by\nhis hounds.[2596] The Homeric scenes include Paris carrying off Helen\nfrom Sparta (or, as some interpret it, Pelops with Hippodameia); Nestor\nhealing the wounded Machaon with a potion[2597]; Priam bringing\nofferings to Achilles; Penelope mourning for the absent Odysseus;\nOdysseus recognised by Eurykleia; and Orestes on the Delphic\nomphalos.[2598] There are also numerous semi-mythical scenes, such as\ncombats between Amazons and Gryphons, between Amazons and Greeks, or\nbetween Arimaspi and Gryphons.[2599]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXII\n\n[Illustration: ROMAN MURAL RELIEFS.]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nWith the exception of the Roman subjects from the circus and arena, the\nremaining subjects are purely decorative, and of little interest; the\nformer, some of which have reference to the conquest of Dacia, admit of\nthe dating of the reliefs in the reign of Trajan. Others depict\ngladiators contending with lions; chariots racing in the circus, which\nis indicated by the obelisks and other adornments of the _spina_; or\ncolonnades adorned with statues of boxers and victorious\nathletes.[2600] Some of the Egyptian subjects are interesting for their\nlocal colouring, with their representations of the Nile, on which\npygmies ply a boat, among hippopotami, crocodiles, and lotos-flowers,\nand ibises[2601]; but these compositions are more curious than\nartistically effective.\n\n II. SCULPTURE\n\n 1. ROMAN STATUES AND STATUETTES\n\nIn the earlier ages of Rome the laws and institutions, based without\ndoubt on the sentiments of the people, were unfavourable to art. Numa\nwas said to have prohibited the representation of the deity in human\nform,[2602] and the statues of great men were not allowed to exceed\nthree Roman feet. To women the privilege of having statues was not\nconceded until much later. Pliny constantly compares the luxury of his\nown day with the simplicity of early times, to the disadvantage of the\nformer, dwelling fondly on the times when men could be content with\nplain terracotta images, and it was not necessary or possible to make a\ndisplay of silver and gold.\n\nMost of the ancient statues of the Romans were of terracotta, a fact to\nwhich constant allusion is made by their writers. Juvenal speaks of \u201ca\nfictile Jove, not spoiled by gold\u201d[2603] and Propertius speaks of the\nearly days of the golden temples, when their gods were only of\nclay.[2604] Similarly Pliny expresses his surprise that, since statuary\nin Italy goes back to such a remote period, statues of clay should even\nin his day still be preferred in the temples.[2605] Vitruvius alludes\nto the favourite Tuscan fashion of ornamenting pediments with _signa\nfictilia_,[2606] examples of which, he says, may be seen in the temple\nof Ceres in the Circus Maximus (see below), and the temple of Hercules\nat Pompeii. Cicero speaks of a statue of Summanus on the pediment of\nthe Capitoline temple \u201cwhich at that time was of terracotta,\u201d[2607] and\nLivy[2608] tells how in 211 B.C. a figure of Victory on the apex of the\npediment of the temple of Concord was struck by lightning and fell, but\nwas caught on the antefixal ornaments, also figures of Victory, and\nthere stuck fast. Though not stated to be of terracotta, these figures\nwould hardly be of any other material at that period. Other allusions\nmay be found in Ovid and Seneca.[2609]\n\nIn the early days of the Republic art was clearly at a very low ebb\u2014in\nfact, Roman art can hardly be said to have existed\u2014and everything was\neither borrowed from the Etruscans or imported from Greece. Hence the\nstatues of terracotta which adorned their temples are spoken of as\n_signa Tuscanica_. The most celebrated works in ancient Rome were made\nby artists of Veii or the Volscian Fregellae, such as the famous\nquadriga on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the\nstatue of the god himself, described elsewhere (p. 314), which were\nmade by Veientine artists in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. Numa, ever\nattentive to Roman arts and institutions, is said to have founded a\ncorporation or guild of potters.[2610] In 493 B.C. Gorgasos and\nDamophilos, natives of Himera in Sicily, ornamented with terracotta\nreliefs and figures the temple of Ceres at Rome (now Santa Maria in\nCosmedin).[2611] Their work, which is alluded to by Vitruvius in the\npassage referred to above, was probably Greek rather than Etruscan in\nstyle, as we have seen to be the case generally with the archaic\nterracotta relief-work of Italy (p. 317). In the reign of Augustus the\ntemple was restored, and so great was the esteem in which the works of\nthese old masters were held that they were taken out of the walls and\nframed in wood.\n\nComing down to later times, Possis, \u201cwho made fruit and bunches of\ngrapes,\u201d and Arkesilaos are cited by Pliny,[2612] on the authority of\nVarro, as modellers in clay. The latter made for Julius Caesar a statue\nof Venus, which, although unfinished, was highly prized. Pliny also\nmentions a terracotta figure of _Felicitas_ made by order of\nLucullus.[2613] It seems probable that the extensive use of terracotta\nwas mainly due to the absence of white marble in Italy, none being\ndiscovered till imperial times. The siege of Corinth, which unfolded to\nthe eyes of the Romans an entirely new school of art in the quantities\nof Greek masterpieces carried by Mummius to Rome, as also the conquest\nof Magna Graecia and other parts of Greece, caused the old fashion of\nsculpture in terracotta to fall into contempt and neglect. Henceforth\nthe temples of the gods and houses of the nobility became enriched and\nbeautified with the spoils of Greek art in all materials. Even at an\nearlier period (195 B.C.) Cato in vain protested against the invading\nflood of luxury, and especially against the new taste in sculpture.\n\u201cHateful, believe me,\u201d says he, \u201care the statues brought from Syracuse\ninto this city. Already do I hear too many who praise and admire the\nornaments of Corinth and Athens, and deride the terracotta antefixes of\nthe Roman gods. For my part I prefer these propitious gods, and hope\nthey will continue to be so, if we allow them to remain in their\nplaces.\u201d[2614] Yet up to the close of the Republic, and even later,\ngreat works continued to be executed in terracotta, and were much\nesteemed.[2615] The statue made for Lucullus is an instance, and\nexisting statues in this material, which we shall shortly discuss, are\nprobably of early Imperial date.\n\nFew statues of any size in this material have escaped the ravages of\ntime, but there are some specimens to be seen in our museums. In the\nVatican is a figure of Mercury about life-size,[2616] and in the\nBritish Museum a colossal torso,[2617] to which the head and limbs had\nbeen mortised separately. A head of a youth from a large statue, found\non the Esquiline, was exhibited in 1888 at the Burlington Fine Arts\nClub.[2618] A series of female figures, including a seated Athena,\nranging from two to four feet in height, was found in a well near the\nPorta Latina at Rome in 1767.[2619] They were purchased by the sculptor\nNollekens, who restored them and sold them to Mr. Towneley, from whom\nthey were acquired for the British Museum. They are made of the same\nclay as the mural reliefs already described, and are supposed to have\ndecorated a garden. Some of them have been identified, on somewhat\nslight authority, as the Muses Ourania, Calliope, and Thaleia; there\nare also two terminal busts of the bearded Indian Bacchus, which show\nsome traces of conventional archaism in their style. Other large\nfigures have been found at Nemi and Ardea in Latium, the latter being\nnow in the Louvre.[2620]\n\nAt Pompeii in 1766 three pieces of colossal sculpture in terracotta\nwere found in the temple of Aesculapius, representing a male and female\ndeity and a bust of Minerva with her shield. The two former used to be\nidentified as Aesculapius and Hygieia, but it is more probable that\nthey are Jupiter and Juno, making, with the bust, the triad of\nCapitoline deities,[2621] a subject found on lamps at Pompeii. The\nexecution is careful, and they seem to date from the latter half of the\nfirst century B.C. They formed the cult-statues of the temple. Other\nstatues appear to have been employed for adorning gardens, or for\nniches in private houses, among which are a portrait of a seated\nphysician of great originality,[2622] a nude boy, and two actors.[2623]\nA figure of Eros appears to have been attached to a wall as an\nornament[2624]; a fragment of a colossal Minerva found in a niche near\nthe Porta Marina is an excellent example of sculpture of the first\ncentury B.C. Figures were also employed as architectural members, such\nas the Atlantes supporting the entablature in the _tepidarium_ of the\nThermae in the Forum,[2625] dating from the Augustan period; the former\nseem to be copied from originals in tufa. Of later date is a Caryatid\nfigure, probably of the Neronian epoch.[2626] These sculptures are all\nof great importance for the history of art at the end of the first\ncentury B.C., and as showing the continued popularity of terracotta;\nthe fashion, however, did not outlive the reign of Nero, and all those\nin Pompeii must be anterior to the earthquake of A.D. 63.\n\nSculptors sometimes made preliminary models in clay of the statues\nwhich they intended to execute in bronze and marble. This was not a\ncommon practice with the Greeks, and the first sculptor who made use of\nit, according to Pliny,[2627] was Lysistratos, the brother of Lysippos.\nBut at Rome in the time of Augustus it became much more frequent;\nPasiteles is said by Pliny[2628] never to have made a statue except in\nthis manner. These models, known as _proplasmata_, were much sought\nafter, as exhibiting the artist\u2019s style and powers of conception in the\nmost free and unfettered manner, and those of Arkesilaos, another\nartist of the period, fetched a high price.[2629]\n\n * * * * *\n\n=Terracotta statuettes=, similar in proportions and subjects to those\nof Greece, are found in houses and tombs of the Roman period, and also\nas votive objects on sacred sites. They were known to the Romans as\n_sigilla_, and were employed as toys and presents, or placed in the\n_lararia_ or domestic shrines; the same subjects are found applied to\nall these uses. Thus in the _lararia_ were placed not only figures of\ndeities, such as Venus, Mercury, or Bacchus, but masks, busts of\nchildren, and so on.[2630] Sometimes they served to decorate the walls,\nas in the house of Julia Felix at Pompeii, where in the wall\nsurrounding the garden were eighteen niches, containing alternately\nmarble terms and terracotta figures, one of the latter representing a\nwoman feeding a prisoner with her own milk.[2631] In the Via Holconia\nforty-three terracotta figures from a workshop were found, showing that\nthere was a local manufacture at Pompeii; the types were the same as in\nthe houses.[2632] It is noteworthy that the terracottas, of which some\ntwo hundred have been found, were nearly all from the lower parts of\nthe city and the inferior houses, or in the domestic quarters of the\nlarge houses. This implies that the richer Romans preferred bronze\nstatuettes for their shrines and household decoration. Comparatively\nfew were found in tombs.\n\nA few notices relating to terracotta figures are found in Roman\nauthors. Martial speaks of a statuette of Hercules, which he calls\n_sigillum_[2633]; he also alludes to a caricature of a man which was so\nrepulsive that Prometheus could only have made it when intoxicated at\nthe Saturnalia, and to a grotesque mask of a Batavian.[2634] In another\nepigram he refers to the imitation of a well-known statue of a boy in\nterracotta.[2635] Persius speaks of clay dolls (_pupae_) dedicated by a\nmaiden to Venus,[2636] and Achilles Tatius of clay figures of Marsyas\nmade by _coroplathi_.[2637] Elagabalus, by way of a jest, used to place\nviands made of earthenware before his parasitical guests, and force\nthem to enjoy a Barmecide feast.[2638]\n\nThere is also an interesting passage in the _Satires_ of Macrobius\nrelating to the festival of the Sigillaria,[2639] at which large\nnumbers of terracotta masks and figures were in demand. This festival\ntook place on the twelfth to the tenth days before the Kalends of\nJanuary, forming the fifth to seventh days of the Saturnalia, and\ncorresponding to the 21st to 23rd of December. Ausonius says that the\nfestival was so named from the _sigilla_ or figurines,[2640] and\nMacrobius more explicitly states that it was added to the Saturnalia to\nextend the religious festival and time of public relaxation.[2641]\nSubsequently he diverges into an excursus on the origin of the feast,\nmore curious than convincing. Epicadus is quoted by him as referring it\nto the story of Hercules on his return from slaying Geryon, when he\nthrew into the river from the Pons Sublicius images of men which\nrepresented his lost travelling-companions, in order that they might be\ncarried by the sea to their native shores.[2642] His own view is that\nthey represent expiatory offerings (_piacula_) to Saturn, each man\noffering an _oscillum_ or mask on his own behalf in the chapel of that\ngod. Hence, he says, _sigilla_ were made by the potter and put on sale\nat the Saturnalia.[2643] Elsewhere he states that clay _oscilla_ were\ngiven to children as playthings at this season even before they had\nlearned to walk.[2644] The festival was indulged in by all classes of\nsociety, who vied in making presents of statuettes and figures to one\nanother[2645]; and we are told that Hadrian exchanged gifts with\nothers, and even sent them to those who did not expect to receive\nthem.[2646] Similarly, Caracalla, when a child, gave to his tutors and\nclients, as a mark of condescension, those which he had received from\nhis parents.[2647]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 197. MASK OF SATYR, WITH NAME OF Q. VELIUS PRIMUS\n (BRIT. MUS.).\n]\n\nFrom the use of this word _sigilla_ (a diminutive of _signum_), for\nterracotta figures, the makers came to be known as _sigillarii_, or\n_figuli sigillatores_,[2648] and a street in which they lived was known\nas the _Via Sigillaria_.[2649] There was also a market for the sale of\n_sigilla_ for the feast near the Pantheon.[2650] Although the names of\nmakers are constantly found on Roman lamps and pottery, as well as the\ntiles, they are very seldom found on statuettes, with the exception\nmentioned below of those found in Gaul. But the name of Q. Velius\nPrimus, in a sort of mixture of Greek and Latin, is found in raised\nletters on a mask of a Satyr in the British Museum (D 177 = Fig. 197),\nand other names are occasionally found on the moulds. The social\ncondition of the Roman potter seems to have been much lower than that\nof the Greek, who was often a person of respectable position; but this\nmay be partly due to the fact that his _client\u00e8le_ was drawn mainly\nfrom the poorer classes. He was generally a slave, sometimes a\nbarbarian, and even the masters of the potteries were only freedmen. As\nwe saw in the case of the tile-makers, the potters often worked on the\nestates of wealthy or influential people, from which their clay was\nobtained. More details of Roman potters will be found in the sections\ndealing with tiles and lamps.\n\nOn the technical aspect of Roman terracotta figures little need be\nsaid. The processes were practically the same as those described in\nChapter III. when dealing with the Greek terracottas. Large figures\nwere made from models (_proplasmata_) and built up in several pieces on\na wooden framework, known as _crux_ or _stipes_.[2651] A reference to\nthis method may be traced in a fable of Phaedrus,[2652] which describes\nPrometheus as having made human figures in clay in separate pieces,\nand, on returning from a supper with Bacchus, joined them together\nwrongly, so that the sexes became confused. The smaller figures were\nall made from moulds, by means of which they could be repeated with but\nslight alterations. Few statuettes seem to have been made after the\nsecond century of the Empire.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe range of subjects in Roman terracottas is much the same as in the\nGreek figures of the Hellenistic period. At Pompeii _genre_ figures\npredominate, including such types as gladiators, athletes in the\ncircus, slaves carrying bundles, and personages in Roman costume.[2653]\nA favourite type at Pompeii is a mask of a youth in a Phrygian\ncap.[2654] There is a decided preference shown for portraits and\ngrotesques. Von Rohden,[2655] in dealing with the question of the\nextent to which these figures represent Greek or purely Roman types,\nconsiders that although the influence of the former is still strong,\nyet they are marked by such wide differences that they must be ranked\nin the latter category. He dates them in the time of Vespasian, in\nwhich the decadence which had begun with the later Hellenistic age is\nin the Roman fabrics still more strongly accentuated. The style is\nnegligent, the proportions faulty, and the art of colouring practically\nlost. They are only redeemed from insignificance by the taste for\nportraiture and the interest which attaches to the reproduction of\nmotives borrowed from contemporary life.\n\nThe Pompeii figures may serve as typical Roman terracottas, but they\nare also found elsewhere in Italy, as well as in other parts of the\nRoman Empire; nearly all, however, are of inferior merit and execution.\nAt Praeneste in 1878, on the site of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia,\nwere found _genre_ figures and votive objects,[2656] and similar _ex\nvotos_ have come to light at Gabii.[2657] At Nemi figures have been\nfound which are obviously of Roman date, some of considerable\nsize.[2658] From time to time finds have been made in Rome, and there\nis a pretty little head in the British Museum found in the Tiber (D\n383), which, however, may be of Greek workmanship. The industry also\nextended from Rome to the provinces, and even in Britain terracotta\nfigures are sometimes found, as at Richborough[2659]; at Caistor, by\nNorwich, a terracotta head of Diana, of fairly good style, is\nrecorded.[2660] There are also in the Guildhall Museum some terracottas\nin the coarse red clay which characterises most of the British\nexamples: a Venus on a swan; a female head with turreted crown, of\narchaistic style, from Finsbury; and a large figure of Proserpina\nholding a fruit, of very fair style, from Liverpool Street.[2661] A\nfigure of a boy on horseback is or was in the Museum of Practical\nGeology.[2662]\n\n 2. GAULISH TERRACOTTAS\n\nIn Gaul there appear to have been very extensive manufactures of\nterracottas, but not anterior to the conquest by Julius Caesar in 58\nB.C. These statuettes were made for the Roman colonists, who introduced\nthe types of their own religious conceptions, but the makers were local\ncraftsmen. Potteries have been unearthed at Moulins on the banks of the\nAllier, and in Auvergne and other parts of France, and even in Germany,\nwhere one was discovered at Heiligenberg in Alsace, and others on the\nRhine (see below, p. 384). The finds on the Allier, made in 1857, give\na practically complete survey of the subjects; they are all now\ncollected in the museums of Moulins and St. Germain, and were fully\npublished at the time in a work by M. Tudot.[2663] The figures found\nhere are not from tombs, but were unearthed from the sites of the\npotteries and from ruins of buildings; they are all made in a peculiar\nwhite clay, whereas the figures of the Gironde district are grey or\nblack, and those of the Rhine Valley reddish, like those of Britain.\nThe technique resembles that of the Roman figures; there is no\nvent-hole, and they usually stand on a conical base; the modelling is\nvery heavy, and the latest specimens are absolutely barbaric.\n\nUntil recently the subject of Gaulish terracottas had been greatly\nneglected; Tudot\u2019s plates were useful, but his text unsatisfactory and\ndevoid of method, there being no proper description of the plates. M.\nPottier has given a good summary of his work, and M. H\u00e9ron de\nVillefosse has also dealt with some aspects of the subject.[2664] But\nthey had not been treated as a whole and in relation to the subject of\nancient terracottas in general until 1891, when an important memoir by\nM. Blanchet appeared, in which a complete survey of the Gaulish\nterracottas was given.[2665] This must of necessity form the basis of\nthe present account.\n\nIn dealing with the technical character of the terracottas found in\nGaul, M. Blanchet points out that the white clay of which many are made\n(_e.g._ those from the Allier valley) is not universal; some are made\nof red or grey clay, which has turned white in the baking, apparently\nby a process analogous to that used by the Chinese for porcelain,\nothers are actually covered with a white _engobe_ like the Greek\nterracottas. This appears to have been done with a view to subsequent\ncolouring, which in nearly all cases has quite disappeared; but\nstatuettes with remains of colouring, made of purely red clay, have\nrecently been found in the neighbourhood of the Moselle and in\nGermany.[2666] M. Blanchet quotes an example in the Museum at Angers,\nwith the name of the maker, P \u00b7 FABI \u00b7 NICIAE, which is coated with a\nlead glaze like the enamelled wares described in Chapter III. He\nconsiders that the moulds from which they were made were often of\nbronze, and that bronze models were used as copies; but that they were\nalso of terracotta is clear from the numerous examples given by Tudot.\nA terracotta mould for a figure of Venus Anadyomene, found at\nClermont-Ferrand, is in the British Museum, and another from Moulins is\nfor the back of the head of a similar figure, with hair elaborately\ncoiled.[2667] From the numerous moulds which have been found it may be\nseen that the figures were cast in two pieces, longitudinally, the arms\nbeing added afterwards, together with the circular plinth. The mould in\nthe British Museum may be cited as an example of one for the back part\nof a figure; probably only the upper part was modelled.\n\nPotters\u2019 names are exceedingly common, not only on the figures, but\nalso on the moulds,[2668] and form two distinct classes, those on the\n_exterior_ of the moulds, and those on the figures or _interior_ of the\nmoulds (which are obviously the same thing). The distinction is that\nthe former were merely for the identification of the moulds, while the\nlatter indicated the creator of the type and made him known to the\nworld, a feature which, as will be noted in Chapter XXIII. (p. 511),\nreappears in the pottery of Westerndorff in Germany. Tudot gives an\nexample of a mould with the name ATILANO on the exterior and IOPPILLO\non the inside.[2669] Many of the names are identical with those of the\nmakers of vases,[2670] but the types and subjects are quite distinct\nfrom those on the Gaulish _terra sigillata_. Those on the exterior of\nthe moulds are usually in a scrawling cursive type, whereas the other\nclass are in capital letters[2671]; the cursive characters resemble\nthose in use at Pompeii, but are not necessarily contemporary; they\nare, however, not later than the second century. The influence of this\ncursive character seems to have extended to the other class; for\ninstance, in the inscription given in Fig. 198 below, not only are the\nG and S of cursive form, but E appears in the form II. Otherwise the\nletters are in the ordinary Roman alphabet (with the exception of A,\nwhich is sometimes 15[14]Attic alpha the forms E and II seem to have\nbeen used indifferently in Gaul at all periods. The \u201csignature\u201d\nsometimes combines the two names, as in the form\n\n AVOT FORM\n SACRILLOS CARATRI\n\nwhich has been taken to mean _Sacrillos fecit forma Caratri_, \u201cmade by\nSacrillos from Caratrius\u2019 mould.\u201d[2672] Among the Roman names which\noccur are Attilianus, Lucanus, Pistillus, Priscus, Taurus, and\nTiberius; among the Gaulish, Abudinus, Belinus, Camulenus, and\nTritoguno.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Blanchet_.\n FIG. 198. GAULISH FIGURE OF APHRODITE FROM NORMANDY.\n]\n\nA large majority of the existing statuettes were, as we have seen, made\nin the valley of the Allier; these show more conspicuously than any\nothers, the influence of transplanted Graeco-Roman art. Curiously\nenough none have been found at Lezoux, one of the chief pottery-centres\nof Gaul, although there is abundant evidence that the vases and\nstatuettes were made in the same workshops (see above).[2673] M.\nBlanchet considers that there was a large and important manufacture in\nWestern France, which may have been inspired by the Allier workshops,\nbut mainly exhibits native characteristics; he also notes the scarcity\nof these figures in Southern Gaul (Narbonensis), which may perhaps be\nexplained by the preference there shown for bronze statuettes and vases\nwith medallions (p. 530).[2674] Other centres were Cesson, Meaux (where\nAtilanus and Sacrillos can be located), Bourbon-Lancy in\nSa\u00f4ne-et-Loire, and St. R\u00e9my-en-Rollat (see p. 516), where vases also\nwere made of the local white clay. M. D\u00e9chelette has been able to\nassign to the last-named pottery a date between A.D. 15 and 50. Another\nfabric was in the neighbourhood of Li\u00e8ge, and in Germany there were\ncentres at Salzburg, and at Cologne, where the maker Vindex can be\ndated in the reign of Postumus (A.D. 260-270).[2675] An important\nmaker, Pistillus, had a pottery at Autun; his statuettes are found all\nover Gaul,[2676] and the name appears on vases and coins, and also in\nan inscription.[2677] Julius Allusa had a workshop at Bordeaux. In West\nand North-West France statuettes are found with the name of Rextugenos;\nthey are all of peculiar and original character, with highly-ornamented\nbackgrounds to the figures, and easily distinguished. The specimen\ngiven in Fig. 198, representing Venus Genetrix, was found at\nCaudebec-les-Elbeuf in Normandy (Seine-Inf\u00e9rieure); it bears the\ninscription RIIXTVGIINOSSVLLIASAVVOT, _Rextugenos Sullias auvot_ (sc.\n_fecit_).[2678]\n\nAn interesting find of terracotta figures was made at Colchester in\n1866,[2679] consisting of thirteen figures presenting exact analogies\nto the Gallo-Roman terracottas of the second period both in type and\nstyle. One very poor specimen represents Hercules with club and\nlion-skin; another a bull, and a third a bust of a boy (perhaps a\nportrait of Nero or Britannicus); four are recumbent figures. The rest\nare more or less grotesque, including caricatured seated figures\nholding books or rolls, and a buffoon. With them were found vases in\nthe form of animals of yellow-glazed ware. Figures of suckling\ngoddesses (see below) have been found in Britain, and similar finds of\nGallo-Roman types in white clay in London, among them a Venus holding a\ntress of her hair.[2680] Votive offerings of parts of the body and\nfigures of the goddess Fecunditas were found near the source of the\nSeine, in a temple of Dea Sequana, the local river-deity.[2681] Other\nfinds have been made in Touraine, Anjou, La Vend\u00e9e, Brittany, and\nNormandy, brought by commerce from the Allier potteries; and in Germany\nat Heddernheim and on the Rhine. Part of a group of some size in purely\nGraeco-Roman style from the Department of Marne is now in the British\nMuseum (Morel Collection).\n\nTudot originally classified the Gaulish terracottas chronologically in\nthree periods according to style, and in this he has been followed by\nM. Pottier. But M. Blanchet[2682] has pointed out that the former\u2019s\nmethod was altogether unscientific, that he trusted too much to the\nevidence of coin-finds, and that he was altogether wrong in conceiving\nthe possibility of any being anterior to the Roman conquest. On the\nwhole the chronological data are exceedingly vague, and can only be\naccepted in isolated instances, as in the case of the finds at St.\nR\u00e9my-en-Rollat (A.D. 15-50) or Cologne (A.D. 260-270), or where a\nresemblance in the coiffure of the feminine figures to those of Roman\nladies can be traced. Some figures may probably be dated about A.D. 100\non the latter ground, the head-dress recalling those of Domitia and\nJulia the daughter of Titus. But it can only be laid down with\ncertainty that the manufacture of statuettes was introduced into Gaul\nwith the _terra sigillata_ or ornamented red pottery at the beginning\nof the Imperial period. Where there is a question of decadent or\nbarbaric style, as is undoubtedly often the case, it does not\nnecessarily imply a late date, but only that the inferior work is due\nto the incapacity of some local artist, and figures of varying style\nmust frequently be contemporaneous.[2683]\n\nIn dealing with the types of Gaulish terracottas, their origin and\nsignification, M. Blanchet divides the subjects into three classes, of\nwhich the first is not only the largest but the most interesting:\ndivinities, subjects from daily life, and animals. The deities are not\nthose we should expect from Caesar\u2019s statement[2684] that Mercury,\nApollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva represent the scale of popularity in\nGaul, for they are mainly variants of one type, that of Venus. Many of\nthese Venus figures reproduce types familiar in Greek and Graeco-Roman\nart, such as the Anadyomene, and the Cnidian or Pudica type; but in the\nmajority she is frankly recognised as a Nature-goddess (Aphrodite\nPandemos or Venus Genetrix), and hence we find numerous examples in\nwhich the old Oriental conception of the nude Aphrodite-Astarte with\npronounced sexual characteristics, so common in the primitive\nterracottas of Chaldaea, Phoenicia, and Cyprus,[2685] once more\nreappears, as in Fig. 198. Of almost equal frequency is the seated type\nof the Mother-Goddess or \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, suckling a child[2686]; this is\nnot peculiar to Gaul, but is found in the terracottas of Southern\nItaly.[2687] We may compare also the Fecunditas types on Roman\ncoins.[2688] Blanchet thinks that the goddess Rumina may be here\nintended, but prefers to adopt the general term of Mother-Goddess.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Blanchet_.\n\n FIG. 199. GAULISH TERRACOTTA:\n THE GODDESS EPONA.\n]\n\nAmong other mythological types the Ephesian Artemis, Pallas, Mercury,\nEpona (Fig. 199), and Abundantia occur; and among _genre_ subjects the\nmost interesting type is that of the Spinario, or boy extracting a\nthorn from his foot, familiar in Greek sculpture. Slaves, caricatures,\nand busts of ladies (see above) or children wearing the _bulla_, vases\nin the form of heads, and busts affixed to plates, also come under the\nlatter category. Many of these are exceedingly rude and barbaric;\nchildren are transformed into coarse grotesques, and animals look (says\nM. Pottier) as if they had come out of a Noah\u2019s ark.\n\nThe artistic origin of the Gaulish types has been discussed by M.\nBlanchet,[2689] who points out that although the modern tendency is to\nrestrict the r\u00f4le played by Alexandrine art of the Hellenistic period\nin influencing that of Rome,[2690] yet its effect on Gaul cannot be\naltogether ignored. That Egyptian cults found their way into Gaul is\nwell known,[2691] and in the terracottas such types as Isis and Horus\nappear, while comparisons may frequently be made with the late\nterracottas found in the Fay\u00fbm and at Naukratis. But there was also a\nstream of influence from Southern Italy, especially Campania, whence,\nas we have seen, the Mother-Goddess types were largely derived.\n\nAs regards the uses for which these terracottas were made, much that\nhas been said on that head in Chapter III. will apply equally to Gaul.\nThey have been found not only in tombs, but in wells and rivers, and on\nthe sites of sanctuaries[2692]; but they do not seem to have had any\nspecial funerary significance. The majority were probably used for\nvarious domestic purposes in the houses, the figures of animals, for\ninstance, as toys, and were then buried with their owners. Those found\nin wells or rivers may be regarded as votive offerings, as it is well\nknown that the Gauls were fond of throwing votive figures into rivers\nor springs.\n\n 3. MISCELLANEOUS USES OF TERRACOTTA\n\nIt is impossible to enumerate all the purposes to which the Romans\napplied terracotta, but a few peculiar uses deserve special notice. The\nexcavations at Pompeii have yielded several examples of its application\nto the decoration of a _puteal_, the circular structure which protected\nthe mouth of a well; the core is of tufa or other hard material, and\nround this are laid curved slabs of terracotta decorated with\nreliefs.[2693] They are all of comparatively early date; one has\ntriglyphs and bulls\u2019 heads in relief, and is stuccoed over. Instances\nare also found at Pompeii of its use for table-legs, in the form of\nfigures of kneeling Atlantes,[2694] like those supporting the\nentablature in the Thermae (p. 374), but sculptured in the round. Small\naltars, or stands for holding lamps or for burning incense, supposed to\nhave formed part of the furniture of the domestic shrines, have also\nbeen found in this material.[2695] Varro tells us that the _dolia_ or\nlarge jars made by potters were used as cages for dormice which were\nbeing fattened for the palates of Roman epicures[2696]; and Columella\ngives instructions for the use of clay tiles in making beehives.[2697]\nPorphyry implies that it was customary to hive bees in kraters or\namphorae of clay.[2698] Tickets (_tesserae_) for admission to the\ncircus or amphitheatre were also occasionally made of clay, and on them\nwere stamped letters or numbers referring to the position of the seat,\nor representations of the animals exhibited. Two from Catania in the\nBritish Museum[2699] have an elephant on the obverse and the letter A\non the reverse, showing that they were for admission to a spectacle in\nwhich those beasts were shown. There are also possible instances of\n_tesserae frumentariae_, or tickets for the supply of cheap corn in\ntime of necessity.[2700] Moulds of terracotta for making counters, with\nmasks or figures of Fortune and Isis, have also been found; there is an\nexample in the British Museum from Arezzo (E 46).[2701]\n\nHerr Graeven, in a very interesting article,[2702] has recently\ncollected all the known examples (numbering some fifty) of money-boxes\nin terracotta used by the Romans. There is no mention of such objects\nin Latin literature, but it is probable that they were known as\n_loculi_, and were made in imitation of the metal \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af used for\nkeeping money in temples. Of this there is a clear instance in a\nspecimen recently found at Priene in Asia Minor,[2703] in the form of a\nsmall shrine with a slit in the top. Graeven states that there is\nevidence of their having been placed on a cornice which ran round the\nwalls of the rooms in the houses. This box has an additional hole at\nthe back for extracting the money, but the Roman specimens have only\none opening. An example of a clay treasure-box from Western Europe is\none in the form of a chest, 12\u00bd inches high, with a bust of Apollo on\nthe top, found at Vichy, and now in the Museum at Moulins.[2704] It may\nhave been placed in a _sacellum_ or chapel for the offerings of those\nwho visited the medicinal springs.\n\nOf the Roman money-boxes proper four main types may be distinguished.\nThe first, of which examples have been found at Pompeii,[2705] is in\nthe form of a small chest or coffer (_arca_), and may have been known\nby the name _arcula_. The second type is that of a money-box in the\nform of a vase.[2706] The custom of hoarding money in jars (_ollae_, p.\n470) was universal in Roman times, as we know from the _Aulularia_ of\nPlautus, the plot of which turns on this practice,[2707] and from the\nnumerous finds of coins in jars in our own day. None of these have any\nornamentation; they have been found in Germany, and there is a small\nspecimen in the British Museum from Lincoln,[2708] of spherical form\nwith a knob at the top. Aubrey records the finding of a similar one in\nNorth Wiltshire.[2709] These appear to be of very late date.\n\nThe next two types are of much greater interest, not only from their\nornamentation, but from their form and the inscriptions which they\nbear. In the one the box takes a flat circular form, closely resembling\nthe body of a lamp (the shape is that of Fig. 207), with a design\nsimilarly placed in a medallion. One actually has a figure of Victory\nwith a shield, which reproduces the type of the New Year lamps\ndescribed on page 413 (B.M. No. 309), and has a similar\ninscription.[2710] It may be supposed that these boxes were carried\nround on New Year\u2019s Day to solicit contributions, just as is done (says\nHerr Graeven) by boys in Rome at the present time. Others have figures\nof Fortune and Hermes in a shrine,[2711] the latter deity being of\ncourse specially associated with money-making. These two examples have\ntheir respective makers\u2019 names on the back, C IVN BIT and PALLADI,\nnames which are also found on Roman lamps,[2712] another detail which\nshows the close connection between these two classes of objects.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Jahrbuch_.\n\n FIG. 200. TERRACOTTA MONEY-BOX.\n]\n\nThe last type to be described is shaped like a bee-hive, or, as in Fig.\n200, like a circular temple, forms which were found convenient for the\nthen favourite design of a deity in a shrine. Among the examples quoted\nby Graeven[2713] is one of the latter shape with Fortune (Fig. 200),\nnow in the Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale. Of the bee-hive form three may be\nmentioned as presenting interesting features. One with Hermes in a\nshrine has the maker\u2019s name, PAS AVGV, which also occurs on\nlamps[2714]; another, found on the Aventine, and now at Gotha,[2715]\nhas on the front the figure of a victorious charioteer, on the reverse\na slit for the coins, and the maker\u2019s name, AEL MAX. D\u2019Agincourt\nsuggested that this type of box was carried about by victors in the\ngames to receive donations. Lastly, there is one recorded to have been\nfound in the Baths of Titus in 1812, but now lost, which contained\ncoins of Trajan, and was inscribed FISCI IVDAICI CALUMNIA SVBLATA. The\nevidence points to the dating of these two classes in the first century\nof the Empire, or slightly later.\n\nTerracotta moulds for false or debased coins of the Imperial period\nhave frequently been discovered in different parts of the Empire.[2716]\nNone, indeed, have come to light in Italy, but they occur in Egypt,\nTunis, France, on the Rhine, in Switzerland, Lower Austria, and\nBritain. They were first noted by A. le Pois in 1579 at Fourvi\u00e8res,\nwhere moulds were found of coins of Septimius Severus and his\nsuccessors. In 1697 and 1706 more of the same period, of local clay,\nwere found at Lingwell Gate, near Wakefield,[2717] in 1704 at Lyons,\nand in 1764 at Augst, near Basle. In 1829 and 1830 further finds were\nmade at Wakefield, and again in 1869 at Duston, Northants.[2718]\nNumbers have been noted from time to time in the museums of France and\nthe Rhenish provinces, the most interesting find being that made in\n1829-30 at Damery, near \u00c9pernay, in the Department of Marne. In 1859 a\nfind of 130 moulds contained in a jug was made at Bernard; they appear\nto have been hastily placed there and left by forgers. At Bordeaux in\n1884 finds were made in the ruins of a pottery, and others more\nrecently at Autun and La Coulouche. In 1899 thirty-four moulds were\nfound at Susa in Tunis. The British Museum has a collection of moulds\nof denarii from Egypt, mostly found at Crocodilopolis (Arsinoe) in the\nFay\u00fbm; they are of a deep brick-red local clay, but a great number are\nburnt black.\n\nNearly all these moulds fall between the reigns of Septimius Severus\nand Diocletian, but some of those at Bernard go back as far as Trajan,\nand there are isolated instances of coins of Domitian at one end, of\nConstantius II. and Julia Mamaea at the other. Caracalla and Elagabalus\nare frequently represented, and those in the British Museum include\nAlbinus, Crispus, Constantine, Galerius, Licinius, and Macrinus. The\nDamery find included thirty-nine moulds, comprising types of the coins\nof Caracalla, the elder Philip, and Postumus; 2,000 pieces of base\nsilver coin, chiefly of Postumus; 3,900 bronzes of Constans I. and\nConstantius, all evidently made together; chisels and remains of other\ntools, and groups of moulds still containing the metal, and also lumps\nof metal which had overflowed from the moulds.\n\nThe way in which these moulds were used is as follows. The complete\nmould was composed of two shallow round boxes with hollow impressions\nrespectively of the obverse and reverse, obtained by impressing the\ndesigns from genuine coins into the soft clay. The depth of the hollow\nwas so calculated that when the two were placed together the space\nrepresented the required thickness. To cast the coins, a number of\nthese moulds were placed one on the other, and luted with clay to\nprevent the liquid metal from escaping between the two pieces of each\nmould; down the side of the column formed by the pile of moulds a\nhollow cutting was made, at the base of which holes were pierced\ncorresponding to the cavities where the metal was to enter. The metal\nwas then poured into the hollow, and ran in through the holes as\nrequired.[2719] Sometimes the columns were joined in groups of three\n25[29]image for which a single column served; of this there is an\nexample at Damery, where each _rouleau_ contained a dozen moulds\n(thirteen discs). In the Cabinet des M\u00e9dailles at Paris there is an\nexample of one of these _rouleaux_ of moulds, found at Lyons in 1704\n(Fig. 201),[2720] with the basin in which they were placed for the\ncasting. At Susa the moulds were fitted slantwise into a bronze tube.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 201. TERRACOTTA COIN-MOULD.]\n\nIt is not absolutely certain whether these moulds were all used for\nfraudulent purposes by forgers; the find at Damery, for instance, was\nmade on the site of Bibe, an important station on the road from Rheims\nto Beauvais, which would be too prominent a place for forgers to have\nselected. It is much more likely that in such a case they were used to\nmake coins of inferior alloy, perhaps in some instances for the issues\nof usurpers who, being at a considerable distance from the capital,\nwere unable to fill their military chests except with hastily cast\ncoins. The distant parts of the Empire in which these moulds are found\nlend some colour to this theory. It will also be remembered that they\nmostly date from the time when a debased coinage was current throughout\nthe Empire, beginning with the reign of Septimius Severus; this was put\nan end to by Diocletian in 297. We may therefore suppose that they\nrepresent, so to speak, officially recognised forgeries, emanating from\na kind of local mint for producing coins hastily for provincial use.\nHence the rapid spread of base money in the third century, which was\nnot only forced upon the State, but was also readily taken advantage of\nby forgers.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 2395:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxi. 47; Columella, _Re Rust._ iii. 11, 9.\n\nFootnote 2396:\n\n _Etym._ xv. 8, 16: cf. xix. 10, 16.\n\nFootnote 2397:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 170; Nonius, p. 445, 22.\n\nFootnote 2398:\n\n Columella, _Re Rust._ ix. 1, 2; Vitr. i. 5, 8; Varro, _Re Rust._ i.\n 14, 4.\n\nFootnote 2399:\n\n Vitr. ii. 8, 4; Varro, _Re Rust._ ii. 3, 6.\n\nFootnote 2400:\n\n Columella, _loc. cit._: _paries crudo latere ac luto constructus_.\n Cf. Caesar, _Bell. Civ._ ii. 9, of a floor, and ii. 15; also Vitr.\n ii. 1, 7; Pliny, _H.N._ xviii. 301.\n\nFootnote 2401:\n\n Vitr. ii. 3, 3.\n\nFootnote 2402:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 170 ff.\n\nFootnote 2403:\n\n Vitr. vii. 1, 7 and 4, 2; Pallad. _Agric._ i. 19, 1 and 40, 2;\n Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2793-94; Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, 942-944.\n\nFootnote 2404:\n\n Cf. Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 188.\n\nFootnote 2405:\n\n Cf. Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 59 (cut) =\n _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 1, fig. 5.\n\nFootnote 2406:\n\n Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 618.\n\nFootnote 2407:\n\n Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 64 ff.\n\nFootnote 2408:\n\n Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 618; Roach-Smith, _Collect.\n Antiq._ ii. p. 91.\n\nFootnote 2409:\n\n _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 12: see also _Archaeologia_, xlix.\n p. 427, where it is pointed out that measurements of bricks form no\n guide to their date.\n\nFootnote 2410:\n\n _Loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2411:\n\n _Jahreshefte_ (Beiblatt), i. p. 123.\n\nFootnote 2412:\n\n ii. 3, 1.\n\nFootnote 2413:\n\n This may be the origin of the foot-shaped stamp so common in Roman\n lamps and vases (see Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 18).\n\nFootnote 2414:\n\n Cf. also Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 186.\n\nFootnote 2415:\n\n Vitr. ii. 3. This passage with Pallad. _Agric._ vi. 12 and Isid.\n _Etym._ xix. 10, 16 are the _loci classici_ on the subject.\n\nFootnote 2416:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 20, points out that there are very few instances of\n this, and perhaps Vitruvius\u2019 idea was not practical.\n\nFootnote 2417:\n\n Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. pp. 12, 62.\n\nFootnote 2418:\n\n See Roach-Smith, _Illustr. Rom. London_, p. 112.\n\nFootnote 2419:\n\n xxxix. 61 (\u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd).\n\nFootnote 2420:\n\n _Apud_ Non., p. 48 (s.v. suffundatum).\n\nFootnote 2421:\n\n _De Div._ ii. 47, 99.\n\nFootnote 2422:\n\n Vitr. ii. 8, 18.\n\nFootnote 2423:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 173.\n\nFootnote 2424:\n\n Vitr. ii. 8, 17.\n\nFootnote 2425:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 2426:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Aquaeductus; Middleton, _Remains of\n Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 323.\n\nFootnote 2427:\n\n Suet. _Aug._ 28.\n\nFootnote 2428:\n\n Borrmann, _Die Keramik in der Baukunst_ (Durm\u2019s _Handbuch d.\n Architektur_), p. 51.\n\nFootnote 2429:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iv. p. 11, pls. 5-6.\n\nFootnote 2430:\n\n Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 26; Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 36.\n\nFootnote 2431:\n\n See Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 2432:\n\n _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 664.\n\nFootnote 2433:\n\n Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. pp. 254, 301; _id._ in\n _Archaeologia_, xlix. p. 426.\n\nFootnote 2434:\n\n See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 9.\n\nFootnote 2435:\n\n Mau-Kelsey, p. 38: but see Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 59.\n\nFootnote 2436:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 146, where a good illustration is\n given.\n\nFootnote 2437:\n\n _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 2, fig. 4; Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 55,\n fig. 6.\n\nFootnote 2438:\n\n v. 10, 2.\n\nFootnote 2439:\n\n See also on this subject Anderson and Spiers, _Architecture of Greece\n and Rome_, p. 137 ff.; Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 66, ii. p. 120,\n fig. 64.\n\nFootnote 2440:\n\n See Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 62; _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 2, fig. 5.\n\nFootnote 2441:\n\n Middleton, _op. cit._ i. pp. 12, 62.\n\nFootnote 2442:\n\n _Etym._ xv. 8, 15; xix. 10, 15.\n\nFootnote 2443:\n\n Henzen, _Inscr._ 6445, 7279-80.\n\nFootnote 2444:\n\n Orelli, _Inscr._ 4190.\n\nFootnote 2445:\n\n There are tiles in existence marked DOL \u00b7 DELIC, _i.e._ (_opus_)\n _doliare deliciare_ (Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 619).\n\nFootnote 2446:\n\n The arrangement is well illustrated on pl. 6 of Campana\u2019s _Ant. opere\n in plastica_ (from Ostia).\n\nFootnote 2447:\n\n Vitr. v. 9, 7; viii. 7, 1.\n\nFootnote 2448:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 374; Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p.\n 620.\n\nFootnote 2449:\n\n See Vitr. vii. 4, 2; Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 65 ff.\n\nFootnote 2450:\n\n Orelli, 1396: see _Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad. Gesellsch._ 1901, pt.\n 2, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 2451:\n\n Caumont, _Cours_, ii. p. 182.\n\nFootnote 2452:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 184.\n\nFootnote 2453:\n\n Brongniart and Riocreux, _Mus. de S\u00e8vres_, i. p. 18.\n\nFootnote 2454:\n\n _Bull. Arch. Nap._ 1853, pl. 14, p. 185.\n\nFootnote 2455:\n\n Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 2456:\n\n For references to ornamental terracotta antefixes in Latin literature\n see below, p. 371; and cf. Livy, xxvi. 23, xxxiv. 4.\n\nFootnote 2457:\n\n See for an account of these Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p.\n 5; also Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 251.\n\nFootnote 2458:\n\n Von Rohden, pl. 7, fig. 1, from the Casa dei Niobidi.\n\nFootnote 2459:\n\n _Ibid._, pls. 5, 2, and 6, 1.\n\nFootnote 2460:\n\n For examples of this type see _B.M. Terracottas_, D 66 (from\n Corneto), D 700 (from Cumae), and D 706 (from Capua).\n\nFootnote 2461:\n\n Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 36.\n\nFootnote 2462:\n\n Von Rohden, pls. 14-16; 18, fig. 1: cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D\n 699, from Pompeii.\n\nFootnote 2463:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 11-13.\n\nFootnote 2464:\n\n Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 2465:\n\n Campana, pl. 6: cf. for the story Livy, xxix. 14, and Preller-Jordan,\n _R\u00f6m. Mythol._ ii. p. 55.\n\nFootnote 2466:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xiv. pl. 13, p. 64: cf. Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p.\n 367.\n\nFootnote 2467:\n\n Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 181, ii. p. 121 ff.\n\nFootnote 2468:\n\n vii. 4, 2.\n\nFootnote 2469:\n\n See Middleton in _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 663, for a general\n discussion of the subject; also Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p.\n 122.\n\nFootnote 2470:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iii. pl. 26, p. 114; _Illustr. Rom.\n London_, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 2471:\n\n Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, vii. p. 620.\n\nFootnote 2472:\n\n _Ep._ 90, 25 (xiv. 2).\n\nFootnote 2473:\n\n _Ep._ ii. 17, 23.\n\nFootnote 2474:\n\n So also in the Roman villa at Woodchester (Wright, _Celt, Roman, and\n Saxon_^4, p. 198).\n\nFootnote 2475:\n\n Middleton, _op. cit._ ii. p. 113 ff.; _id._ in _Archaeologia_, li.\n pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 2476:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 21, pl. 8, figs. 1-2.\n\nFootnote 2477:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1250; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 114, fig. 3.\n\nFootnote 2478:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1238.\n\nFootnote 2479:\n\n _Archaeologia_, lii. pl. 20.\n\nFootnote 2480:\n\n vii. 4, 2.\n\nFootnote 2481:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 125. Cf. _Arch. Journ._ viii.\n p. 30 ff. for another example from Hadstock, Essex.\n\nFootnote 2482:\n\n _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 666.\n\nFootnote 2483:\n\n Cf. Vitr. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2484:\n\n Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 123.\n\nFootnote 2485:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._, and cf. Vitr. viii. 7, 1; Isid.\n _Etym._ xv. 8, 17; xix. 10, 29.\n\nFootnote 2486:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 4842.\n\nFootnote 2487:\n\n viii. 7, 1.\n\nFootnote 2488:\n\n _H.N._ xxxi. 57.\n\nFootnote 2489:\n\n viii. 7, 10.\n\nFootnote 2490:\n\n _Mon. Antichi_, i. pl. 6, p. 326.\n\nFootnote 2491:\n\n See Lanciani in _Atti dell\u2019 Accad. dei Lincei_, Ser. 3, iv.\n (1879-80), p. 399 ff.\n\nFootnote 2492:\n\n Avolio, _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, p. 8.\n\nFootnote 2493:\n\n See generally Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 161 ff.; Middleton,\n _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 80.\n\nFootnote 2494:\n\n _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 2495:\n\n Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 64.\n\nFootnote 2496:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 165; xxxvi. 188: cf. _Geoponica_, ii. 27, 5; Pallad. i.\n 9, 4; Cato, _Agric._ xviii. 7; Vitr. vii. 1, 4; Columella, i. 6, 13;\n viii. 15, 3, 17, 1; ix. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 2497:\n\n Middleton, _op. cit_. ii. p. 121, fig. 65.\n\nFootnote 2498:\n\n Cf. Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 49 ff.\n\nFootnote 2499:\n\n Vitr. vii. 1, 4; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxvi. 184; Stat. _Silv._ i. 3, 54.\n\nFootnote 2500:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xxvi. pl. 44, p. 370.\n\nFootnote 2501:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 113.\n\nFootnote 2502:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1223-24.\n\nFootnote 2503:\n\n _Ibid._ 1222 (in B.M.); others from Brecon and Abergavenny.\n\nFootnote 2504:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1225.\n\nFootnote 2505:\n\n The inscribed tiles found in Rome have been collected and published\n by Dressel in vol. xv. (part 1, Nos. 1-2155) of the _Corpus Inscr.\n Lat._ Others are published in the other volumes under the heading\n \u201cInstrumentum Domesticum.\u201d In the succeeding pages Dressel\u2019s account\n has been mainly followed.\n\nFootnote 2506:\n\n See H\u00fcbner, _Exempla Script. Epigr. Lat._ p. lxviii.\n\nFootnote 2507:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 19-29; 209, 1145; 709; 1212; 398.\n\nFootnote 2508:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 148-49.\n\nFootnote 2509:\n\n _Opus doliare_ is the invariable word for bricks or tiles in Roman\n inscriptions, _figlinum_ being confined to pottery of the finer kind\n (cf. p. 330).\n\nFootnote 2510:\n\n Cassiodorus, _Variar._ i. 25: cf. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 2511:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 1668-70.\n\nFootnote 2512:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 204, Nos. 1616, 1627, etc.\n\nFootnote 2513:\n\n Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 13.\n\nFootnote 2514:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiv. 4089, 7, from Ostia.\n\nFootnote 2515:\n\n _Ibid._ 4090, No. 14.\n\nFootnote 2516:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 478 ff.: cf. 683, and _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1840, p. 240.\n\nFootnote 2517:\n\n _Ibid._ 677-82.\n\nFootnote 2518:\n\n _Ibid._ 389.\n\nFootnote 2519:\n\n B.M. _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 150.\n\nFootnote 2520:\n\n _E.g._ Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscr. Lat._ 2793_a_.\n\nFootnote 2521:\n\n See Blanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 110.\n\nFootnote 2522:\n\n See Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danubii et Rheni_, i. p. 85, No. 190,\n ii. p. 187, No. 1231.\n\nFootnote 2523:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1255, 1257.\n\nFootnote 2524:\n\n _Ibid._ 1242.\n\nFootnote 2525:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 274.\n\nFootnote 2526:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 1097-1101, and see p. 275.\n\nFootnote 2527:\n\n Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, 1418.\n\nFootnote 2528:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 1539.\n\nFootnote 2529:\n\n _Ibid._ 1540, 1542.\n\nFootnote 2530:\n\n _Ibid._ 1668-70.\n\nFootnote 2531:\n\n Steiner, _op. cit._ i. p. 252, No. 541 (from Mainz); also _Bonner\n Jahrb\u00fccher_, ii. p. 92.\n\nFootnote 2532:\n\n Steiner, i. p. 75, No. 171; ii. p. 248, No. 1373.\n\nFootnote 2533:\n\n _C.I.L._ iii. p. 962; _Wiener Sitzungsberichte_, xiv. (1855), p. 133.\n\nFootnote 2534:\n\n _C.I.L._ _ibid._\n\nFootnote 2535:\n\n Steiner, ii. p. 254, No. 1391.\n\nFootnote 2536:\n\n Now in Pesth Museum (_C.I.L._ _ibid._).\n\nFootnote 2537:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1260.\n\nFootnote 2538:\n\n _Ibid._ 1259; _Victoria County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 282 (_q.v._ for\n other examples).\n\nFootnote 2539:\n\n _Cat._ p. 73, No. 56; _Ephem. Epigr._ vii. (1892), p. 344.\n\nFootnote 2540:\n\n _C.I.L._ ii. 4967, 31: cf. _Victoria County Hist. of Hants_, i. p.\n 275.\n\nFootnote 2541:\n\n _E.g._ B.M. E 149: see p. 354.\n\nFootnote 2542:\n\n See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 10.\n\nFootnote 2543:\n\n Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danub. et Rheni_, ii. p. 253, No. 1389.\n\nFootnote 2544:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. p. 5 ff. For epigraphical and grammatical peculiarities\n see _ibid._ p. 7. On p. 204 is given a list of emperors whose names\n are found on the tiles, from Trajan to Septimius Severus.\n\nFootnote 2545:\n\n See for these abbreviations and expressions _C.I.L._ xv. p. 387.\n\nFootnote 2546:\n\n B.M. E 152.\n\nFootnote 2547:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiv. 4089, 1.\n\nFootnote 2548:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 3, 4, xiv. 4089, 4.\n\nFootnote 2549:\n\n _Cat._ p. 73, Nos. 60-3.\n\nFootnote 2550:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1235; Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. p. 143: see\n also _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxix. p. 389.\n\nFootnote 2551:\n\n Numerous examples of these legionary stamps will be found in\n Steiner\u2019s _Codex Inscr. Rom. Danubii et Rheni_ (1851); they will\n presumably be republished in the forthcoming part of vol. xiii. of\n the Latin _Corpus_.\n\nFootnote 2552:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiv. 4090, 2.\n\nFootnote 2553:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1225.\n\nFootnote 2554:\n\n See generally _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 1, for Dacia, Pannonia, and the\n East; for Germany, Steiner, _op. cit. passim_, and _Bonner\n Jahrb\u00fccher_, index to vols. 1-60.\n\nFootnote 2555:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1228.\n\nFootnote 2556:\n\n _Ibid._ 1231: see Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 116.\n\nFootnote 2557:\n\n Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2804.\n\nFootnote 2558:\n\n _C.I.L._ iii. 3756.\n\nFootnote 2559:\n\n Steiner, ii. p. 250, No. 1379.\n\nFootnote 2560:\n\n Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, No. 1382; Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2805\n _b_.\n\nFootnote 2561:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1226; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 112;\n Blanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 110.\n\nFootnote 2562:\n\n Vitr. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 2563:\n\n Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, p. 31.\n\nFootnote 2564:\n\n _S.v._ Antefixa or Impluvium.\n\nFootnote 2565:\n\n _Ep. ad Att._ i. 10.\n\nFootnote 2566:\n\n B.M. D 543, 576, 594; _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1886, p. 173; _Notizie degli\n Scavi_, 1901, p. 188.\n\nFootnote 2567:\n\n _Cat._ 501-660. It has been stated, but on what authority is unknown,\n that they were found in a well near the Porta Latina, together with a\n series of statues discussed below (p. 373).\n\nFootnote 2568:\n\n A collective publication of these reliefs is being prepared by the\n German Archaeological Institute.\n\nFootnote 2569:\n\n See Helbig\u2019s _F\u00fchrer_^2, ii. pp. 272, 408 ff.\n\nFootnote 2570:\n\n Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxvi. 189: Agrippa in thermis figulinum opus\n encausto pinxit: see also Vol. I. p. 119.\n\nFootnote 2571:\n\n See _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, p. xvii.\n\nFootnote 2572:\n\n Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 20: see also pls. 21, 23.\n\nFootnote 2573:\n\n D 626-27: cf. _Jahreshefte_, 1903, p. 25.\n\nFootnote 2574:\n\n _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 2575:\n\n Hauser, _Neuattische Reliefs_, pp. 111, 128.\n\nFootnote 2576:\n\n B.M. D 520, 527; Campana, pls. 47-8.\n\nFootnote 2577:\n\n B.M. D 583-85; Campana, pls. 61, 62: cf. the Arretine krater, Fig.\n 219, p. 488.\n\nFootnote 2578:\n\n B.M. D 561; Campana, pls. 27, 41.\n\nFootnote 2579:\n\n B.M. D 501; Campana, pls. 1-2.\n\nFootnote 2580:\n\n Campana, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 2581:\n\n B.M. D 505; Campana, pl. 18.\n\nFootnote 2582:\n\n B.M. D 507; Campana, pl. 19.\n\nFootnote 2583:\n\n B.M. D 508-9; Campana, pl. 10.\n\nFootnote 2584:\n\n B.M. D 510-24; Campana, pls. 9-10, 15, 53, 88, 102-3.\n\nFootnote 2585:\n\n Helbig 1459 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 16, 8.\n\nFootnote 2586:\n\n Campana, pls. 7-8, 13, 16-7.\n\nFootnote 2587:\n\n B.M. D 531: cf. Campana, pls. 29-30.\n\nFootnote 2588:\n\n B.M. D 525; Campana, pl. 50: see _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 295.\n\nFootnote 2589:\n\n See for these B.M. D 526, 534-52.\n\nFootnote 2590:\n\n Campana, pls. 26, 31, 35-7, 43-6.\n\nFootnote 2591:\n\n B.M. D 553-60.\n\nFootnote 2592:\n\n B.M. D 569-79: cf. _J.H.S._ vii. p. 284.\n\nFootnote 2593:\n\n B.M. D 566-68; Campana, pls. 86 ff.\n\nFootnote 2594:\n\n Campana, pl. 55; Helbig, 1179.\n\nFootnote 2595:\n\n Campana, pls. 20-4; Helbig, 1180.\n\nFootnote 2596:\n\n B.M. D 592-605; Campana, pls. 56-58, 63-65, 68; Helbig, 1188.\n\nFootnote 2597:\n\n Otherwise interpreted, Helbig, _F\u00fchrer_^2, ii. p. 418.\n\nFootnote 2598:\n\n B.M. D 606-609; Campana, pls. 66-67, 71-73; Helbig, 1190, 1456.\n\nFootnote 2599:\n\n B.M. D 611-617; Campana, pls. 74-81.\n\nFootnote 2600:\n\n B.M. D 624-632; Campana, pls. 89-96; Helbig, 1466; and see\n _Jahreshefte_, 1903, p. 16 ff.\n\nFootnote 2601:\n\n B.M. D 633-638; Campana, pls. 114, 115.\n\nFootnote 2602:\n\n Plutarch, _Vit. Num._ viii. 8.\n\nFootnote 2603:\n\n _Sat._ xi. 116.\n\nFootnote 2604:\n\n iv. (v.), 1, 5.\n\nFootnote 2605:\n\n _H.N._ xxxiv. 34; and see xxxv. 158.\n\nFootnote 2606:\n\n iii. 2 (3), 5.\n\nFootnote 2607:\n\n _De Div._ i. 10, 16.\n\nFootnote 2608:\n\n xxvi. 23.\n\nFootnote 2609:\n\n Ovid, _Fast._ i. 202; Seneca, _Cons. ad Helv._ 10, 7: cf. _Ep._ 31\n (iv. 2, 11).\n\nFootnote 2610:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 159; Plut. _Vit. Num._ 17.\n\nFootnote 2611:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 154.\n\nFootnote 2612:\n\n _Ibid._ 155.\n\nFootnote 2613:\n\n _Ibid._ 156.\n\nFootnote 2614:\n\n Livy, xxxi. 4.\n\nFootnote 2615:\n\n Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 155.\n\nFootnote 2616:\n\n Helbig, _F\u00fchrer_, ii. p. 272, No. 1177.\n\nFootnote 2617:\n\n _Cat._ D 439.\n\nFootnote 2618:\n\n Froehner\u2019s _Cat._ No. 249.\n\nFootnote 2619:\n\n B.M. _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 431-437, and see _ibid._ p. xiii; also\n Smith, _Nollekens and his Times_, i. p. 10.\n\nFootnote 2620:\n\n Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuit_, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 2621:\n\n Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 29, p. 18, 21; Pottier,\n _op. cit._ p. 230.\n\nFootnote 2622:\n\n Von Rohden, pl. 32.\n\nFootnote 2623:\n\n _Ibid._ pls. 34-35.\n\nFootnote 2624:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 19, fig. 2.\n\nFootnote 2625:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 25: cf. pl. 26.\n\nFootnote 2626:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 24, 2.\n\nFootnote 2627:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 153.\n\nFootnote 2628:\n\n _Ibid._ 156.\n\nFootnote 2629:\n\n _Ibid._ 155: see also on this subject Wickhoff, _Roman Art_, English\n edn., p. 42; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 190; Gardner, _Handbook\n of Gk. Sculpture_, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 2630:\n\n Cf. Von Rohden, _op. cit._ p. 24.\n\nFootnote 2631:\n\n _Ibid._: cf. also pls. 35-36, 41, 47. For the subject of the feeding\n of the prisoner cf. _Classical Review_, 1901, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 2632:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 42, pp. 25, 53.\n\nFootnote 2633:\n\n xiv. 178.\n\nFootnote 2634:\n\n _Ibid._ 176, 182.\n\nFootnote 2635:\n\n _Ibid._ 171.\n\nFootnote 2636:\n\n ii. 70: cf. Lactant, _Div. Inst._ ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 2637:\n\n iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 2638:\n\n Lampridius, _Vit._ 25.\n\nFootnote 2639:\n\n i. 10, 23 and 11, 46: cf. Warde Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 272.\n\nFootnote 2640:\n\n _De fer. rom._ 31 (Teubner edn. p. 105); but see Marquardt,\n _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. p. 563.\n\nFootnote 2641:\n\n _Sat._ i. 10, 23.\n\nFootnote 2642:\n\n Cf. the ceremony of the Argei on the Ides of May (Preller-Jordan,\n _R\u00f6m. Mythol._ ii. p. 135).\n\nFootnote 2643:\n\n _Sat._ i. 11, 46-49: cf. Preller-Jordan, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2644:\n\n _Sat._ i. 11, 1.\n\nFootnote 2645:\n\n Cf. Seneca, _Ep._ 12 (i. 12, 3), and other references given by\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 125.\n\nFootnote 2646:\n\n Spartianus, _Vit. Hadriani_, 17.\n\nFootnote 2647:\n\n _Id. Vit. Carac._ 1.\n\nFootnote 2648:\n\n Orelli, _Inscr. Lat._ 4279, 4191.\n\nFootnote 2649:\n\n Suet. _Claud._ 16, _Nero_ 28; Gellius, ii. 3, 5, v. 4, 1.\n\nFootnote 2650:\n\n Dio Cass. lix. 6; Gell. ii. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 2651:\n\n Tert. _Apol._ 12 and _ad Nat._ i. 12; the Greek word is \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2: see\n Vol. I. p. 111.\n\nFootnote 2652:\n\n iv. 15.\n\nFootnote 2653:\n\n Von Rohden, pls. 36-45.\n\nFootnote 2654:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 21, fig. 14.\n\nFootnote 2655:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 22: see also Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p.\n 235.\n\nFootnote 2656:\n\n Fernique, _Praeneste_, pp. 166, 211 ff.\n\nFootnote 2657:\n\n Paris, _\u00c9lat\u00e9e_, p. 156.\n\nFootnote 2658:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1886, p. 176: cf. _Archaeologia_, 1. pls. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 2659:\n\n Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 281.\n\nFootnote 2660:\n\n _Victoria County Hist. of Norfolk_, p. 291.\n\nFootnote 2661:\n\n _Cat._ p. 71, Nos. 39, 46; p. 70, No. 30.\n\nFootnote 2662:\n\n _Handbook of British Pottery_, 1893, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 2663:\n\n _Figurines en Argile_ (1859): see for abstracts Roach-Smith in\n _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 48 ff., and Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre\n Cuite_, p. 236.\n\nFootnote 2664:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xi. (1888), p. 145 ff.\n\nFootnote 2665:\n\n _M\u00e9moires de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaires de France_, li. (1891), p.\n 65 ff., with a supplement in vol. lx. (1901), p. 189 ff.\n\nFootnote 2666:\n\n _Op. cit._ lx. p. 197.\n\nFootnote 2667:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 48-49: cf. Tudot, pl. 9, and Roach-Smith,\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 109.\n\nFootnote 2668:\n\n See the lists given by Tudot (p. 64) and Blanchet (p. 83).\n\nFootnote 2669:\n\n Pl. 3: other examples in pls. 4-14.\n\nFootnote 2670:\n\n See Chapter XXIII. and Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p. 241.\n\nFootnote 2671:\n\n See the tables given by Blanchet, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 2672:\n\n Blanchet, p. 89. For AVOT see also p. 384.\n\nFootnote 2673:\n\n For a complete list of Gaulish sites on which statuettes were made,\n see Blanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 90 ff.\n\nFootnote 2674:\n\n _Op. cit._ lx. p. 204.\n\nFootnote 2675:\n\n _Op. cit._ lx. pp. 206, 234.\n\nFootnote 2676:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xv. (1890), p. 423 (from Dijon); for a list, see\n Blanchet, _op. cit._ li. p. 96.\n\nFootnote 2677:\n\n Orelli, _Inscr. Lat._ 2776.\n\nFootnote 2678:\n\n Blanchet, _op. cit._ plate, fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._ xi. (1888), p. 155,\n pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 2679:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 228 ff., pls. 46-47.\n\nFootnote 2680:\n\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 71, No. 32. See also for Britain generally,\n _Cumbd. and Westmd. Ant. Soc. Trans._ xv. p. 505.\n\nFootnote 2681:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vii. p. 63; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p 109.\n\nFootnote 2682:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 106 ff.\n\nFootnote 2683:\n\n See Blanchet, p. 120 ff.\n\nFootnote 2684:\n\n _Bell. Gall._ vi. 17.\n\nFootnote 2685:\n\n Cf. Heuzey, _Figurines ant. du Louvre_, pls. 2-4.\n\nFootnote 2686:\n\n For a good example at Rouen see Blanchet, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 2687:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 229 ff.\n\nFootnote 2688:\n\n See Roscher, _s.v._ Fecunditas.\n\nFootnote 2689:\n\n _Op. cit._ lx. p. 198.\n\nFootnote 2690:\n\n See p. 489.\n\nFootnote 2691:\n\n Cf. Lafaye, _Culte des divinit\u00e9s d\u2019Alexandrie_, p. 162 ff.\n\nFootnote 2692:\n\n See Blanchet, _op. cit._ p. 143 ff.\n\nFootnote 2693:\n\n See Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 27, p. 5.\n\nFootnote 2694:\n\n _Ibid._ pl. 26.\n\nFootnote 2695:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, fig. 4607: see below, p. 396.\n\nFootnote 2696:\n\n _Re Rust._ iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 2697:\n\n ix. 6.\n\nFootnote 2698:\n\n _Antr. Nymph._ 3, 14 ff. (Teubner).\n\nFootnote 2699:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 123-124.\n\nFootnote 2700:\n\n See _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxii. p. 65.\n\nFootnote 2701:\n\n See also Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Forma, fig. 3186.\n\nFootnote 2702:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 161 ff.: see also Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._\n Loculus.\n\nFootnote 2703:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 167. Cf. also for the form the \u0398\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af at Olympia.\n\nFootnote 2704:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 166; Tudot, _Figurines_, pl. 48; Daremberg and Saglio,\n _s.v._ Loculus, fig. 4512.\n\nFootnote 2705:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 168.\n\nFootnote 2706:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 170.\n\nFootnote 2707:\n\n Cf. also Hor. _Sat._ ii. 6, 10.\n\nFootnote 2708:\n\n Jahrbuch, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2709:\n\n _Miscellanies_, p. 26.\n\nFootnote 2710:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 178 = _C.I.L._ xv. 6068.\n\nFootnote 2711:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 179; fig. 200.\n\nFootnote 2712:\n\n See below, p. 428, and _C.I.L._, xv. 6502, 6608; also B.M. Nos. 329,\n 554.\n\nFootnote 2713:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 183 ff.\n\nFootnote 2714:\n\n B.M. 488, 490; _C.I.L._ xv. 6610.\n\nFootnote 2715:\n\n _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 185; _C.I.L._ xv. 6073: cf. for the signature on\n lamps, _ibid._ 6274, and B.M. 477.\n\nFootnote 2716:\n\n See on this subject throughout Babelon, _Trait\u00e9 des monnaies grecques\n et romaines_, i. p. 955 (with full bibliography).\n\nFootnote 2717:\n\n _Numism. Journal_, ii. pp. 58, 195.\n\nFootnote 2718:\n\n Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, p. 157; _Victoria County History,\n Northants_, i. p. 198.\n\nFootnote 2719:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _s.v._ Forma, for an account of the\n process.\n\nFootnote 2720:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _loc. cit._, fig. 3187.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XX\n _ROMAN LAMPS_\n\n Introduction of lamps at Rome\u2014Sites where found\u2014Principal\n parts of lamps\u2014Purposes for which used\u2014Superstitious and\n other uses\u2014Chronological account of forms\u2014Technical\n processes\u2014Subjects\u2014Deities\u2014Mythological and literary\n subjects\u2014_Genre_ subjects and animals\u2014Inscriptions on\n lamps\u2014Names of potters and their distribution\u2014Centres of\n manufacture.\n\n BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n Bartoli, _Le antichi lucerne sepolcrali_; _Antichit\u00e0 di Ercolano_,\n vol. viii.; Kenner, _Die antiken Thonlampen des k.-k. M\u00fcnz- und\n Antiken-Cabinetes zu Wien_, 1858; Wieseler in _G\u00f6ttinger\n Nachrichten_, 1870 (Kestnersche Sammlung); La Blanch\u00e8re and\n Gauckler, _Cat. du Mus\u00e9e Alaoui_, 1897; Daremberg and Saglio,\n _Dict. des Antiqs_, iii. art. LUCERNA (an admirable r\u00e9sum\u00e9 by\n Toutain); Fink in _Sitzungsber. d. M\u00fcnchener Akad. d. Wissensch._\n 1900, p. 685 ff.; _C.I.L._, _passim_, _s.v._ Instrumentum\n Domesticum, but above all vol. xv. pt. 2, p. 782 ff. (Dressel).\n\n\nLamps (_lucernae_) were often made of terracotta, and these are in many\nways of special interest. Originally they appear to have been called\n_lychnus_, from the Greek \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, and this word is used by Ennius,\nLucilius, Lucretius, and Virgil.[2721] Varro[2722] says that the word\n_lucerna_, from _lux_, was invented when the want of a Latin word was\nfelt, and that previously _candelae_ or torches had been alone in use,\nthere being no oil known in Italy suitable for this purpose. Even in\nGreece lamps were comparatively rare all through the best period (cf.\nVol. I. p. 106). The oldest lamps found in Rome date from the third\ncentury B.C., and are thought to be of Campanian fabric; they were\nfound on the Esquiline, and are of quite different character from the\nordinary Roman types.[2723] It would appear, therefore, that originally\nthe Romans borrowed lamps from Southern Italy. By the time of the\nEmpire their use had become general, and they are found everywhere. The\nincrease in their manufacture was mainly due to growing taste in house\ndecoration, and also to use in funeral ceremonies and for public\npurposes, such as illumination. Of the latter use in imperial times\nthere is plenty of evidence (see below, p. 396).\n\nThe sites on which Roman lamps have been found are far too numerous to\ndiscuss in detail, as they embrace every part of the Roman Empire. In\nRome and the neighbourhood they are especially plentiful, as is implied\nby the fact that a large portion of the fifteenth volume of the Latin\n_Corpus Inscriptionum_ is devoted to those with potters\u2019 stamps alone.\nThey are found in all parts of Italy, in Gaul, Germany, Britain, Spain,\nNorth Africa, Sicily, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, and Asia Minor. The\nquestion of centres of manufacture is discussed elsewhere (p. 427) in\nconnection with the potters\u2019 stamps; but it may be noted that those\nfound on Greek soil are often of a distinct character from those of\nWestern Europe, and the stamps on them form a distinct group, being\nusually in Greek letters (cf. Vol. I. p. 108). Of provincial sites,\nKnidos, Ephesos, Carthage, and some of the German towns have proved\nparticularly rich in this respect. Large numbers have been found in\nLondon, mostly of the later types, some perhaps of local fabric, and\nthose in the Romano-British collection of the British Museum are nearly\nall from that city or from Colchester. Not the least remarkable fact of\ntheir wide distribution is the occurrence in the most widely separated\nregions of the same potter\u2019s stamps and the same subjects, implying in\nthe former case extensive export from one centre, in the latter\nsystematic commercial intercourse between the potters of different\ndistricts.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe principal parts of a Roman lamp[2724] are: (1) the reservoir or\nbody, which contained the oil (_infundibulum_); (2) the flat circular\ntop, known as the _discus_, sometimes with an ornamented rim (_margo_);\n(3) the nozzle, with a hole for the insertion of the wick\n(_rostrum_,[2725] _nasus_, myxus[2726]; the wick was called\n_ellychnium_); (4) the handle (_ansa_, _manubrium_), which was not\nindispensable. In the _discus_ was a filling-hole for pouring in the\noil, sometimes protected by a cover or stopper, and sometimes a second\nsmaller hole, the purpose of which has been disputed (see p. 406). The\nnumber of nozzles was not limited, though there is usually only one; a\nlamp with two is known as _bilychnis_[2727]; one with several, as\n_polymyxus_. Martial in one of his epigrams says: \u201cThough I illuminate\nwhole banquets with my flame, and have so many nozzles (_myxos_), I am\nknown as a single lamp.\u201d[2728] The wicks were made of a plant known as\n_verbascum_ \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or _thryallis_,[2729] but tow, papyrus, and sulphur\nwere also employed[2730]; the oil was a vegetable oil of some kind.\nSometimes the lamps were provided with a sort of snuffers or tweezers\nfor extracting and trimming the wick,[2731] as described in a passage\nin the _Moretum_ (10 ff.), which speaks of drawing out the wick of a\ndying lamp with a needle:\n\n Admovet his pronam submissa fronte lucernam,\n Et producit acu stuppas humore carentes\n Excitat et crebris languentem flatibus ignem.\n\nThe purposes for which lamps were used by the Romans were various, but\nfall under three main heads: (1) for purposes of illumination in\nprivate houses, in public buildings, or on occasions of rejoicing; (2)\nas offerings in temples; (3) as funerary furniture.\n\nIn small houses they were placed either in niches in the walls or on\nbrackets, or were suspended by chains, or even in some cases hung by\nthe handle from a nail. An Etruscan terracotta lamp bears evidence of\nhaving been suspended in the last-named manner,[2732] but there is no\ndoubt that this was more usual with lamps of bronze, there being few in\nterracotta which would have admitted of such a use. Sometimes the lamps\nwere made resting on a kind of support, as is the case with two in the\nBritish Museum, and others found in Africa.[2733] On the support a\nfigure of a deity was usually modelled in relief.[2734] Combinations of\na lamp and altar are not uncommon, especially at Rome and Naples.[2735]\nThere are numerous examples from Pompeii and Herculaneum illustrating\ntheir use in private life, although lamps of clay are confined to the\npoorer houses or to domestic service. For their use in the bedchamber\nat night evidence is afforded by Martial and other writers.[2736] A\nrough classification of the existing terracotta lamps might be made by\ndividing them into\u2014(1) those with knobs for hanging, (2) those with\nhandles for carrying, (3) those without handles for placing on tables\nor brackets.\n\nMany passages in Latin writers afford evidence for the use of lamps in\nprocessions or for illuminations at times of public rejoicings, such as\ntriumphs. They were thus used by Cleopatra, at the triumph of Julius\nCaesar, at the return of Nero, and so on.[2737] Caligula had theatrical\nrepresentations performed by lamp-light at night, and Domitian arranged\nhunts and gladiatoral combats _ad lychnuchos_.[2738] Severus Alexander\nlighted up the baths with oil-lamps,[2739] and Tertullian speaks of\nassisting in political triumphs by defrauding the day with the light of\nlamps.[2740] Juvenal also speaks of their use in illuminations.[2741]\nMany lamps, especially those with subjects relating to the circus or\ngames, are inscribed with the word SAECVL(_ares_), and it is possible\nthat they were used in connection with the Ludi Saeculares, at which\nilluminations took place. But lamps with this inscription are not\nexclusively ornamented with such subjects.[2742]\n\nLamps were used for burning in temples, and were also the subject of\nvotive offerings to the gods, in Greece as well as in Italy. One found\nat Oenoanda in Lycia was offered \u201cto the most high God\u201d[2743]; and\nthose which Sir Charles Newton found in such large numbers at Knidos\n(Vol. I. p. 108) were also votive offerings in the temenos of Demeter.\nVotive lamps are recorded from Selinus,[2744] and at Carthage numbers\nwere found round the altar of Saturnus Balcaranensis.[2745] To their\nuse in the worship of Isis, as referred to by Apuleius, we allude below.\n\nNearly all lamps have been found in tombs, the custom of placing them\nthere being one of Asiatic, not of Greek, origin; it became quite\ngeneral under the Roman dominion. Christian lamps are found in the\ncatacombs, but not in cemeteries, showing that the practice came to be\nregarded as pagan. At Avisford in Sussex they were found placed in open\nbowls with handles, on brackets along the side of a tomb.[2746] The\nRoman lamps found in tombs were placed there, like the Greek vases and\nthe later glass, for the use of the dead, sometimes, though not\nnecessarily, with the idea of their burning perpetually.[2747] An\ninscription on a sepulchral _cippus_ in the British Museum[2748]\ndirects the heirs of the deceased to place a lighted lamp in his tomb\non the Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, and similarly L. Granius\nPudens of the seventh cohort requests that his family should place oil\nin a lamp on his birthday.[2749] Another inscription in an elegiac\ncouplet says: \u201cWhosoever places a lighted lamp in this tomb, may golden\nearth cover his ashes.\u201d[2750] A fourth inscription directs the daily\noffering of a lamp at the public expense to the _manes_ of a deceased\nperson.[2751] In the story of the matron of Ephesus, told by Petronius,\na servant-maid is described as replenishing the lamp in a tomb as often\nas was required.[2752] Two lamps in the Athens Museum have the subject\nof a bear, and over it the inscription \u03a6\u039f\u0392\u039fC, \u201cFear\u201d; being found in\ntombs, they must have been placed there with some significance, and as,\non the evidence of a Cilician inscription, Phobos was regarded as a\nguardian of tombs who frightened off robbers and other evilly-disposed\npersons, it may be that the terrible bear was placed on the lamp as a\nsymbol of this protector of the dead.[2753]\n\nOther superstitious uses of lamps, not connected with the tomb, were\nnot uncommon. Omens were drawn from the way in which the flame\nburned,[2754] and Chrysostom describes a method of naming children by\ngiving names to lamps, which were then lighted, and the name of the\nchild was taken from that last extinguished.[2755]\n\nThere are also a few other exceptional uses of lamps, as for instance\nwhen they were given as _strenae_, or New Year\u2019s presents. Such lamps\nusually have a figure of Victory holding a shield, on which are the\nwords ANNVM NOVVM FAVSTVM FELICEM, \u201cA happy and prosperous New\nYear!\u201d[2756] In the field are heads of Janus, or cakes, wreaths, and\nother objects also probably intended for presents. These all appear to\ndate from the beginning of the first century after Christ.[2757] A lamp\nof the same class in the Guildhall Museum has on the shield FIILICTII,\n_Felic(i)t(as)_.[2758] It is interesting to note that the New Year\nlamps are found in tombs[2759]; they may, of course, have been\npreserved and buried as mementoes; but at the same time, it is not\nessential that the subject on a lamp should have any relation to its\npurpose, as we have seen in the case of those inscribed\n_Saeculares_.[2760] The Helioserapis lamp (see p. 403) and those with\nPhobos as a bear may, indeed, be instances to the contrary, but on the\nwhole it would seem that the same rule would apply as in the case of\nthe terracottas (see Vol. I. p. 122).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 202. LAMP FROM THE ESQUILINE.]\n\nThe earliest Roman lamps are of rude shape, undecorated, with a long\nprojecting nozzle and circular reservoir; they are not always provided\nwith handles, but are often covered with black glaze, like the Greek\nexamples. Lamps of this type are found on the Esquiline, in North\nAfrica, as at Carthage, and in Sicily.[2761] One of the Esquiline\nexamples, dating from the second century, has the engraved inscription\nVEVCADIA (Fig. 202).[2762] Like the Greek lamps, these are made on the\nwheel (\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9), not, as later ones, in a mould. Names in _graffito_\nseem to imply a reference to the person in whose tomb the lamp was\nfound, and such formulae as AVE, NOLI ME TANGERE, NII ATTIGAS NON SVM\nTVA M \u00b7 SVM, PONE FVR (\u201cDrop it, thief!\u201d), which occur on the Esquiline\nlamps, also clearly refer to funeral usage.[2763]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 203.\n \u201cDELPHINI-\n FORM\u201d LAMP.\n]\n\nIn the first century B.C. the lamps, still mostly of black ware, and\ndevoid of subjects, are distinguished by the straight-ended,\nconcave-sided nozzle 20[26]nozzle with a shallow groove leading to the\ncentre, small grooved ring-handle, and sometimes a lateral projection\nlike a fin, from which some varieties are known as \u201cdelphiniform\u201d (Fig.\n203).[2764] These are often found in North Africa, but are also\nimported into Italy, and some have Greek stamps. The top is sometimes\ncovered with globules, or with patterns of vine and ivy, and in the\nlater examples figure-subjects are introduced.[2765] The earlier ones\nhave large single letters or monograms underneath for potters\u2019 marks;\nthe later, the name of the potter or superintendent of the pottery.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 204. LAMP WITH VOLUTE-NOZZLE; FIRST CENTURY B.C.]\n\nWe now come to the Roman lamps of the Imperial period, of which such\nlarge numbers exist in museums all over Europe and the basin of the\nMediterranean. They have not as yet been very systematically studied\nand classified; but so far as the subject has been treated at all,\nthose who have investigated the development of the forms are fairly\nunanimous in their general conclusions.[2766] The last writer on the\nsubject, Herr Fink, of Munich, has advanced a step further, and by\ncomparison of forms with potters\u2019 signatures has arrived at some\ninteresting results, which we need not hesitate to accept in the\nmain.[2767] He adopted as the basis of his classification the form of\nthe nozzle in each case, for the obvious reason that it is more\nessential to the character of a lamp than the handle; if the latter is\nremoved, the form is in no way affected, as it would be by the absence\nof the nozzle.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 205. LAMP WITH POINTED VOLUTE-NOZZLE; FIRST CENTURY\nB.C.]\n\nFollowing, then, on the lines of Fink and the other writers, we may\nestablish\u2014apart from abnormal forms and lamps modelled in the shape of\nfigures\u2014four main classes, which are sufficient to include practically\nall the lamps with which we have to deal. They may be summarised as\nfollows:\n\n(1) Lamps with rounded nozzle or nozzles, flanked on each side by a\nkind of double volute, as in Fig. 204 and B.M. 167-352. The usual\nnumber of nozzles is one, but two are not infrequently found. These\nbelong to the first century B.C., and, being convenient forms for a\ndecorated top, are ornamented with all kinds of subjects[2768]; the\nhandle when present is often ornamented as in the cut.\n\n(2) Lamps of the same type as the last, except that the nozzle ends in\nan obtuse-angled termination, as Fig. 205 and B.M. 94-166. It is a form\nnot adapted for more than one nozzle, and usually has no handle.[2769]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 206. LAMP WITH GROOVED NOZZLE (NORTH ITALY TYPE);\nFIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST.]\n\n(3) A small but distinct class, almost devoid of figured decoration\n(Fig. 206 and B.M. 379-392), but usually with a potter\u2019s name\nunderneath; the form is elegant, and probably copied from bronze.[2770]\nThe chief feature is the sunk centre, in which is usually placed a\nBacchic or comic mask; round it runs a raised rim, through which a\nshallow groove passes to the somewhat elongated nozzle. This dates from\nthe first century of the Empire or earlier, some being found with coins\nof Augustus, others at Pompeii; these lamps are of red clay, unglazed,\nand have no handle. On the sides are projecting knobs, either\nconcealing the joins of the moulds (see p. 405), or for the attachment\nof chains. The names of the makers, Strobilus, Communis, Fortis, etc.,\nare in good raised letters, impressed in the mould (see Fig. 210). They\nare found in all parts, but rarely south of Rome; most of them are from\nGallia Cispadana,[2771] and they may have been made at Mutina.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 207. LAMP WITH SMALL PLAIN NOZZLE; SECOND CENTURY\nAFTER CHRIST.]\n\n(4) In this class (Fig. 207 and B.M. 393-567) the nozzle is small, and\nhardly projects beyond the rim of the lamp; it is semicircular or\nheart-shaped in form, and sometimes has an incised line or circles at\nthe base. Fig. 208 represents a late development with the heart-shaped\nnozzle, in which the design is always surrounded by a wreath or\nornamental pattern. Many of these lamps, especially those found in\nGreece (see Vol. I. p. 108), have no handle; there is also a somewhat\nlate variety, described on the same page, which is confined to Greece\nand marked by potters\u2019 signatures in Greek letters (B.M. 604-629).\nThese lamps date from the time of Trajan onwards; the signatures are\nusually abbreviated, and are stamped hollow, or sometimes scratched in\nthe wet clay; raised letters are rare. The subjects are very varied.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 208. THIRD-CENTURY TYPE OF LAMP.]\n\nSome of the larger lamps in the first class, especially those with more\nthan one nozzle, have a flat vertical projection attached to the top of\nthe handle, triangular in form or crescent-shaped (as in Fig. 204), and\nthis is often ornamented with figures in relief, either whole subjects\nor busts of deities, or such simple motives as a pair of dolphins, a\nleaf, or a palmette. The figure-subjects are often quasi-Egyptian, such\nas Harpocrates and Safekh on a British Museum example (No. 337 = Plate\nLXIII. fig. 3), or a _lectisternium_ of Sarapis, Isis, Helios, and\nSelene.[2772] In a few cases this projection is replaced by a bust or\neven a seated figure of Sarapis enthroned in a niche. But in most cases\nthe handle, when present, is of a simple form, either a ring with\nshallow parallel grooves or a solid projecting piece through which a\nhole is pierced.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXIII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ROMAN LAMPS OF VARIOUS FORMS (FIRST CENT. B.C.)\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nLamps of terracotta often assume, like those in bronze,[2773] a more\nornamental form, being modelled partly or wholly in the form of\nfigures, heads, animals, and so on. In some cases the upper part or\n_discus_ only is modelled, assuming the form of a mask\u2014Satyric,\ntheatrical, or grotesque.[2774] Among the entire-figures which form\nlamps occur Artemis,[2775] Eros,[2776] Victory slaying a bull,[2777]\nand various animals; more common are heads of Zeus Ammon,[2778] Pan,\nSeilenos,[2779] negroes,[2780] and animals such as oxen, birds, snails,\nfrogs, or tortoises.[2781] A favourite shape is a lamp in the form of a\nfoot or a pair of feet, shod in sandals or boots,[2782] and there are\ntwo lamps in the British Museum, one of enamelled ware, in the form of\na gladiator\u2019s helmet[2783]; others form fruit, pine-cones or\ncrescents.[2784] In the lamps which are modelled in the form of a head,\nthe chin usually forms the nozzle, and the orifice for filling is on\nthe forehead; in those in the shape of a foot the nozzle is formed by\nthe great toe. Occasionally lamps are found in the form of a ship,\nrecalling that which, according to Apuleius, was used in the worship of\nIsis: a golden boat or cup (_cymbium_, see Vol. I. p. 186), which shone\nwith a clear light and sent forth a long flame.[2785] An interesting\ncommentary on this use of lamps is formed by a remarkable example in\nthe British Museum (Plate LXIII. fig. 1),[2786] which is not only in\nthe shape of a boat, but is decorated with subjects referring to the\npseudo-Egyptian cults characteristic of Rome in the late republican and\nearly imperial period. This lamp, which is no less than twenty inches\nlong and has numerous holes for wicks along the sides, was dredged up\nfrom the sea at Pozzuoli, where it may originally have been in the\ntemple of Isis and Sarapis. On it is the inscription [\u0395\u03a5\u03a0\u039b\u039f\u0399\u0391],\nsignifying \u201ca prosperous voyage,\u201d perhaps as a prayer on behalf of the\ndonor, and underneath are the words [\u039b\u0391\u0392\u0395 \u039c\u0395 \u03a4\u039f\u039d] [\u0397\u039b\u0399\u039f\u03a3\u0395\u03a1\u0391\u03a0\u0399\u039d],\n\u201cReceive me, Helioserapis,\u201d by which the name of the vessel may be\nintended.\n\nMost lamps had only one wick, but the light which they afforded must\nhave been feeble, and consequently the number was often increased. When\nthe number is not large, or when the body is circular (as in Plate\nLXIII. fig. 4), they project beyond the rim of the lamp, as in Class I.\nalready described, but the lamps which have a large number are usually\nboat-shaped or rectangular in form (see Plate LXIII.), and the nozzles\ndo not then project, but are ranged along the sides, merely indicated\nby separate moulding underneath.[2787] Occasionally a conglomeration of\nsmall lamps was made in a row or group, but even in these cases the\nillumination given must still have been feeble. The average size of a\nlamp is from three to four inches in diameter across the body, the\nlength depending on the form of the handle and nozzle, but averaging\nabout an inch over the diameter, and they are mostly about an inch in\nheight. The top of the lamp is almost always circular in form,\noccasionally oval, and rarely rectangular,[2788] and is usually\nslightly depressed, being thus shaped to enable any overflow of oil to\nrun down through the filling-hole. Many Greek lamps, and Roman lamps\nfrom Greek sites, such as Cyprus, are convex above, with a small\nmoulded disc on the raised centre, in which is the hole. These are\neither devoid of decoration, or only have an ornamental pattern or a\nfrieze of figures on a small scale. Usually the subject is enclosed\nwithin a plain moulded rim, but in the later examples (Class IV.)\nespecially it is more contracted in extent, and surrounded with a\nborder of ornament, such as the egg-pattern or a wreath of some kind\n(see Fig. 208).\n\nChristian lamps, which hardly come within the scope of this work, vary\nvery little in form; they have ovoid instead of circular bodies, a\nplain rounded nozzle, and a small solid handle, and the design is\nalways encircled by a band of ornamental pattern or symbolical\ndevices.[2789]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe clay of which the lamps are made is usually of a red colour, due to\nthe presence of red ochre (_rubrica_), but it varies both in quality\nand tone according to localities; those from Greek sites, such as\nAthens and Corfu, are often of a pale buff colour, those from Cyprus a\nlight reddish brown, and so on. Martial refers to the red clay of\nCumae,[2790] a place where lamps are sometimes found, and those from\nNaples are usually of a dull brown or yellow colour. Lamps found in\nFrance and England are often imported from Italy, and therefore of the\nordinary red clay, but those of local manufacture are of a white or\nyellowish tone.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 209. MOULD FOR LAMP FROM CATANIA (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nThe earliest undecorated examples are made on the wheel, as are those\nfrom the Esquiline and from Carthage, in which the decoration is only\nincised; but subjects in relief required a different technique.\nOccasionally they are modelled by hand, but we find that from the first\ncentury B.C. onwards they are almost invariably made in moulds,\nmodelled from a pattern lamp, in a harder and finer clay than the\npattern.[2791] The mould was divided into two parts, adjusted by\nmortices and tenons, which, in the opinion of some writers, explains\nthe lateral projections visible on certain varieties; the lower part\nformed the body of the lamp, the upper the decorated _discus_. The two\nparts seem to have been marked by corresponding letters to avoid\nerrors, and there are two or three lower lamp-moulds in the British\nMuseum from Ephesos and elsewhere, marked with an A on the under side\nfor this purpose.[2792] Other examples of moulds have been found in\nGreece, Italy, and Africa,[2793] and there are also specimens both for\nthe upper and lower half in the Guildhall Museum.[2794] They were\neither of terracotta or plaster.\n\nThe clay was impressed into the mould with the fingers, the figured\ndecoration being applied by means of models or stamps, as with the\nArretine ware (see below, p. 439), and the ornamental patterns probably\nproduced with a kind of wheel or running instrument, as in Roman\npottery (p. 441). Signatures in relief were taken from the mould, those\nin hollow letters were impressed in the lamp itself from a stamp before\nbaking. Important potteries must have possessed a large number of\nmoulds; for instance, at Rome alone ninety-one different subjects are\nfound on the lamps of one potter (L. Caecilius Saevus), eighty-four on\nthose of C. Oppius Restitutus, fifty-one on those of Florentius, and\nthere must of course have been many more now lost. It is clear that the\nsame types were used by different potters; the models must, therefore,\nhave been handed about from one to another, each potter merely adding\nhis own name.\n\nThe two portions of the mould were joined while the clay was moist, and\npared with a tool, and the orifice for filling was then pierced. Glaze,\nwhen used, was applied before the baking, for which only a moderate\ntemperature seems to have been required; this process followed as soon\nas the clay was dry. In some lamps a small hole or slit may be\nobserved, which some have thought to be for the pin with which the wick\nwas extracted,[2795] but it is more probable that it was for a piece of\nwood which held the top and bottom of the mould together until the clay\nwas united; it was usually covered over before the baking, and may have\ntaken the place of the knobs already spoken of which occur in other\nforms. The lamps were baked in batches, placed closely together or\nsuperimposed,[2796] and it sometimes happens that a number are found\nunited together which had coalesced firmly in the furnace, as in Sir\nCharles Newton\u2019s excavations at Knidos.\n\n=Subjects= are first found on lamps in the second century B.C., though\nthese are quite of a simple character. Lamps of this date from North\nAfrica[2797] have such designs as an altar and fruit, a vase, or a\ncaduceus, a head of an ibis, or a nude incised figure of Tanit; others\nhave merely a wreath round the centre, and these apparently belong to\nthe first century B.C.[2798] The number of figures is generally small,\nit being contrary to the principles of ancient art to crowd a work with\nminute figures and details. The majority of lamps have only one figure,\nand few beyond those of exceptional size have more than three. As a\nrule the treatment is careless and the figures very indistinct, but the\nlamps with Greek signatures (see Vol. 1. p. 108) form a notable\nexception.\n\nIt may be imagined that the lamp-maker sought to gratify the taste of\nhis customers by ornamenting his ware with familiar subjects.\nPurchasers of terracotta lamps were, as has been noted, generally\npersons of inferior condition, and the subjects on the lamps are in\nmany cases a popularising of well-known myths or even of works of art,\nsuch as the Venus types (p. 410) or the Maenads of the \u201cnew-Attic\u201d\nreliefs (p. 411). The types of Victory and Fortune are reflections of\nstatues of the period, and are repeated in many bronze statuettes.\nThere are also, as we shall see, occasional references to literature.\nIn Rome the stage exerted little influence, and subjects are rarely\ntaken from the drama (masks are an exception); but the games of the\ncircus and gladiatorial contests found a ready market, and form a large\nproportion of the designs. The subjects on the lamps, in fact,\nrepresent not so much the great masterpieces of art, as do coins or\ngems, but, like the Greek vases, the popular art of the day, and may be\ncompared with the illustrations of the popular journals and magazines\nof our own time. On the whole, they are of great value to us as\nillustrating Roman life and religion, just as subsequently those on the\nChristian lamps are of inestimable importance for the light they throw\non the early ages of our own religion.\n\nAs the number of published lamps and catalogues of collections is so\nvery small, the subjects included in the following list are mostly\nconfined to the collections in the British Museum, which are quite\nsufficiently comprehensive for the purpose.[2799] A few additional\nexamples are given from the Guildhall, Vienna, and other collections,\nfrom the _Antichit\u00e0 di Ercolano_, Bartoli\u2019s _Lucernae veterum\nsepulcrales_, the _Mus\u00e9e Alaoui_, and other isolated sources.[2800]\nReferences to Passeri\u2019s work, _Lucernae fictiles Musei Passerii_, have\nbeen avoided, as it has been shown by Dr. Dressel[2801] that nearly all\nthose published by him are false.\n\nWe proceed to note the principal subjects in detail, observing\npractically the same order that was adopted in describing the subjects\non Greek vases. They may be roughly divided into eight classes:\u2014\n\n (1) Olympian deities.\n (2) Miscellaneous deities.\n (3) Heroic legends, etc.\n (4) Historical and literary subjects.\n (5) _Genre_ subjects.\n (6) Animals.\n (7) Inanimate objects.\n (8) Floral and decorative devices.\n\nThe Olympian deities are not often represented, some not at all, except\non a lamp in the Kestner collection at G\u00f6ttingen, which has busts of\nall the twelve[2802]; they are not, however, clearly distinguished by\nattributes. Zeus is represented with Hera and Athena, the three\nCapitoline deities of Rome, whom the Etruscans knew as Tinia, Thalna,\nand Menerfa, the Romans as Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.[2803] He also\nappears alone, seated on his throne,[2804] but more commonly his bust\nonly is represented (Plate LXIV. fig. 4), accompanied by his eagle,\nwhich perches on a thunderbolt, sometimes conventionally\nrendered.[2805] The eagle and the thunderbolt also appear alone,[2806]\nor the former with Ganymede.[2807] A bearded horned mask may be\nintended for Dionysos, but is more probably Zeus Ammon.[2808] Sarapis\nis sometimes enthroned, with Cerberus at his side[2809]; sometimes only\nhis bust occurs, surmounted by the usual _kalathos_[2810]; Cerberus is\nalso found alone.[2811] Hera, except in the instance mentioned, does\nnot occur. A very interesting lamp from Salamis, Cyprus, now in the\nBritish Museum, represents the contest of Athena and Poseidon for the\npossession of Attica[2812]; it is doubtless a reminiscence of the\nParthenon west pediment, though rough and indistinct in execution.\nAthena is also seen as a single figure,[2813] seated, or standing in\nthe usual Promachos attitude, or before an altar, or pursuing a\npanther[2814]; her head or bust are not uncommon.[2815] Apollo is\nusually represented seated, playing on his lyre, or with the Gryphon at\nhis side[2816]; Artemis appears as a huntress, accompanied by her\nhound, or drawing an arrow from her quiver.[2817] A lyre or a crescent\nappearing alone may be the symbols of these two deities.[2818] There\nare one or two possible instances of Hephaistos and Poseidon,[2819] and\nDemeter may be indicated by a pair of torches[2820]; the latter also\nappears in her chariot, seeking for Persephone.[2821] Ares or Mars is\nfound either as a single figure,[2822] in a chariot,[2823] or playing\nwith Eros, who steals his armour.[2824] Hermes appears as a single\nfigure, or accompanied by a sheep, goat, or cock[2825]; in one instance\nhe presents a purse to Fortune, who is accompanied by Herakles.[2826] A\ncommon subject is his bust, along with his attributes of the purse and\ncaduceus[2827]; the latter attribute, accompanied by two hands joined,\nmay also have reference to this deity.[2828] Aphrodite occurs but\nrarely; she is either represented accompanied by lions,[2829] or riding\non a goat,[2830] or at the bath or toilet,[2831] or in the Cnidian\ntype,[2832] all these types being probably reproductions of known works\nof art. She is also accompanied by Eros, who assists in arming her;\nthis type is known as Venus Victrix, and is seen in a group of\nAphrodite and Eros in the Louvre.[2833]\n\nMore common than all the Olympian deities put together is Eros or\nCupid, who appears in all sorts of attitudes and actions, besides those\nalready mentioned.[2834] He sits on a chair or reclines on a\ncouch,[2835] or is represented in motion, carrying a hare[2836] or a\nbird, a dish of fruit or a branch of vine or palm, a cup, situla, or\ntorch[2837]; or plays on the lyre, flutes, or Pan-pipes[2838]; or\nsacrifices a pig, or pours wine into a krater.[2839] He rides on a\ndonkey,[2840] a dolphin, or a crocodile,[2841] or sails in a\nboat[2842]; plays with a chained lion,[2843] or is himself tied to a\ntree.[2844] He is represented in the character of Ares, armed with\nspear and shield; or in that of Dionysos, with cup and thyrsos; or of\nHerakles, whose club he carries; also, probably in the character of\nHerakles, he shoots at a serpent.[2845] He is also associated with\nPsyche,[2846] and two Erotes sometimes appear together, in one instance\nin the character of gladiators fighting, in another of boxers.[2847]\nOne of the most remarkable lamps in the Museum collection (No. 168)\nrepresents a number of diminutive Erotes playing with the club and cup\nof Herakles; it is unfortunately fragmentary, but another example in\nDresden gives the complete design.[2848] One plunges head-foremost into\nthe cup; three others raise the club with difficulty from the ground,\none supporting it with his back, and a fifth, hovering in the air,\npulls at it with his hands. In front of the last-named are the words\nADIVATE SODALES, \u201cHelp, comrades!\u201d\n\nDionysos is another surprisingly rare figure on the lamps, though his\nfollowers, the Satyrs and Maenads, have their full share of\nrepresentation. He occurs as a single figure of youthful\nappearance,[2849] and also with his panther, to which he offers his\nkantharos to drink from[2850]; his mask or head may also be\nrecognised.[2851] Pan is occasionally found,[2852] in one case in the\nform known as Aegipan (see p. 60) in company with Echo,[2853] in\nanother as a grotesque bust.[2854] There is also an instance of Marsyas\nhung up for his punishment to the branch of a tree.[2855] A pastoral\ndeity playing flutes on the handle of a lamp in the B.M. (No. 366) may\nbe either Pan or Marsyas. Satyrs are represented seizing Maenads,[2856]\ndancing, drinking, and playing on the Pan-pipes,[2857] or carrying cups\nand wine-skins,[2858] or with a goat[2859]; both the bearded and\nbeardless types are found, and their masks or busts are also\ncommon.[2860] The shaggy-haired Papposeilenos is occasionally\nrepresented.[2861] Maenads are depicted dancing, in frenzied attitudes,\nor sacrificing kids; the type is often that of the \u201cnew-Attic\u201d reliefs,\nderived originally from Scopas, of the Maenad \u03a7\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.[2862] Their\nheads and masks also occur.[2863]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXIV.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ROMAN LAMPS WITH MYTHOLOGICAL AND LITERARY SUBJECTS\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nAmong the minor deities we find that Helios and Selene (Sol and Luna)\nare often depicted together,[2864] or Selene alone,[2865] or else their\nbusts together,[2866] or separately[2867]; in one case there is a\nsimple representation of the solar disc for Helios.[2868] A curious\nsubject in the British Museum collection is apparently a combination of\nthe Christian \u201cGood Shepherd\u201d with Helios and the crescent for\nSelene.[2869] Asklepios and Hygieia occur in rare instances,[2870] and\nthere is an example of Charon in his boat.[2871] Of marine deities and\nmonsters, Triton or Proteus, wearing the _pileus_ or mariner\u2019s\ncap,[2872] Scylla,[2873] and a Nereid riding on a sea-monster (Plate\nLXIV. fig. 1)[2874] are found. The popularity of exotic religions at\nRome is testified to by the occurrence, on the one hand, of Kybele with\nher lions,[2875] and Atys[2876]; on the other, of Egyptian deities such\nas Sarapis, already mentioned, and Harpocrates, who is found either\nalone, or with Isis, or with Isis and Anubis,[2877] or with Safekh\n(Plate LXIII. fig. 3)[2878]; Isis and Horus, and busts of Hermanubis\nand Isis are also found.[2879] On the handle of a lamp is a\n_lectisternium_ with busts of Sarapis and Isis, and of Helios and\nSelene.[2880] The busts of the two Kabeiri also occasionally\nappear.[2881] Among personifications or quasi-personifications we find\nthe three Charites or Graces[2882] and a Muse with lyre[2883]; others\nare all typically Roman, such as a bust of Africa on a lamp from\nCarthage,[2884] and such types as Abundantia[2885] (or two cornucopiae\nas her symbol[2886]), Vertumnus,[2887] Fortune with her steering-oar\nand cornucopia,[2888] and Victory.[2889] Many of these seem to be\nreflections of bronze statuettes of the Roman period.[2890] The latter\ngoddess is frequently found, bearing a wreath, a trophy, or a\nshield,[2891] sometimes reclining or in a chariot[2892]; or again\nbetween two Lares[2893]; or two Victories are grouped together.[2894]\nOf special interest are what are known as the New Year lamps, given as\n_strenae_ on January 1st (see p. 398),[2895] on which Victory is\nrepresented holding a shield, on which is inscribed an aspiration (see\np. 420) for a happy New Year, the head of Janus, cakes, coins\n(_stipes_), and other emblems filling in the rest of the design (Plate\nLXIV. fig. 5).[2896]\n\nOccasionally the inscription is varied, and appears as \u201cFor the safety\nof the state\u201d[2897] or \u201cHappiness\u201d simply.[2898] Two Lares confronted,\nholding cornucopia, etc., are also found without Victory.[2899] Of\nrepresentations of Phobos (Fear) we have spoken already (see p. 398).\nThere are also representations of terminal deities,[2900] as well as\nunidentified goddesses.[2901]\n\nComing now to the heroes and heroic legends, we find that they play on\nthe whole an inconsiderable part in the list of subjects on lamps. Leda\nis represented with the swan,[2902] and the Dioskuri sometimes appear\nas busts[2903]; also Kastor as a full figure, accompanied by his\nhorse.[2904] Of the labours of Herakles we have the Nemean lion,[2905]\nthe Erymanthian boar,[2906] the hydra,[2907] and the slaying of the\nserpent in the Garden of the Hesperides,[2908] as well as the combat\nwith a Centaur[2909] and the freeing of Prometheus.[2910] He is also\nrepresented as a single figure, holding the apples of the\nHesperides,[2911] leading kids,[2912] or with a jug or\ndrinking-cup,[2913] or his head alone (both bearded and beardless\ntypes).[2914] Theseus slays the Amazon Andromache[2915]; Perseus is\nrepresented carrying the Gorgon\u2019s head[2916]; Bellerophon is seen\nfallen from his horse Pegasos, or leading him to drink at\nPeirene[2917]; there are also possible representations of Kadmos and\nMeleager.[2918] Europa is depicted on the bull[2919]; Endymion\nasleep[2920]; Aktaeon devoured by his hounds[2921]; Telephos suckled by\nthe hind[2922]; and Eos pursuing Kephalos.[2923] Icaros in his\nattempted flight is watched by Minos from the walls of Knossos (Plate\nLXIV. fig. 2).[2924] From the Theban legend we have only Oedipus before\nthe Sphinx,[2925] a scene from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides (see p.\n415), and Amphion and Zethos seizing the bull for the punishment of\nDirke.[2926] Nor are scenes from the Trojan cycle much more common; but\nAchilles and Thetis are represented,[2927] and also Achilles dragging\nthe body of Hector round the walls of Troy[2928]; there is a curious\nscene, somewhat grotesquely treated, of Odysseus and Neoptolemos\nstealing the bow of Philoktetes, who fans his wounded foot[2929]; Ajax\nis seen grieving after his madness[2930]; and Aeneas carries off his\naged father and his son from Troy.[2931] Odysseus appears before\nKirke,[2932] passing the Sirens,[2933] and offering a cup to\nPolyphemos,[2934] but sometimes also without the Cyclops. Orestes\nappears at his trial before Athena in the presence of a Fury.[2935] A\nCentaur is seen carrying off a woman, and in combat with a\nLapith[2936]; also with a lion,[2937] carrying an amphora,[2938] or\nplaying flutes.[2939] An Amazon wounded, standing at an altar, and\naccompanied by a crane, are also among the list of subjects.[2940] A\nsingle figure of Pegasos,[2941] and the Gorgoneion or\nMedusa-head,[2942] are not infrequently found. Combats of Pygmies and\ncranes,[2943] and a Pygmy on a crocodile,[2944] may also perhaps be\nincluded under this heading.\n\nThe next group of subjects includes those of a historical or literary\ncharacter. In the British Museum there are two very interesting\nrepresentations of Diogenes in his tub or _pithos_ (see Vol. I. p.\n152), presumably addressing Alexander, as in the well-known\nstory,[2945] but the latter is not represented (Plate LXIV. fig. 6).\n\nAmong portraits are busts of Aesop,[2946] and various Roman personages,\nsuch as Hadrian, Antonia, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus,\nCommodus, Julia Domna,[2947] Lucius Verus,[2948] and others who cannot\nbe identified.[2949] A scene from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides occurs\non one lamp, with the combat of the two brothers and the death of\nJocasta; the name of the play is actually inscribed on the lamp.[2950]\nWith reference to Virgil\u2019s first Eclogue we find a representation of\nthe shepherd Tityrus on a lamp found at Pozzuoli[2951]; the shepherd,\nwhose name is given, is seated among his flocks. Several lamps\nillustrate the well-known fable of Aesop, of the Fox and Crow.[2952]\nThe fox, wearing a chlamys, stands on his hind-legs holding up a pair\nof flutes to the crow, which is perched on the top of a tree. Another\nsubject, which doubtless has reference to some fable, is that of a\nstork holding in its beak a balance, in which a mouse is weighed\nagainst an elephant.[2953] The humour of the subject lies in the fact\nthat the mouse is seen to weigh the elephant down. These two are\nillustrated on Plate LXV. figs. 3, 6. There is also a lamp in the\nBritish Museum (Plate LXIII. fig. 2) with a curious subject which may\neither be a scene from a comedy like those on the South Italian vases,\nor else a parody of \u201ca visit to Asklepios.\u201d[2954]\n\nThe subjects taken from ordinary life are eminently characteristic of\nthe social life of Rome under the Empire. An almost inordinate\nproportion relate to the now popular gladiatorial shows, and many\nothers deal with the events of the circus and arena. Of gladiatorial\nsubjects there are three principal varieties, which occur again and\nagain on lamps of all shapes and periods with little alteration.[2955]\nOne class represents a single gladiator in the characteristic armour,\nwith visored helmet, greaves, and arm-guards, sword and shield[2956];\nthe next represents a combat of two (Plate LXV. fig. 5), in which the\none is usually worsted and falls at the other\u2019s feet, his shield on the\nground beside him.[2957] An interesting example in the British Museum\n(No. 526) shows a _mirmillo_ or _secutor_ in combat with a _retiarius_,\nwho fought with net and trident. The third series has representations\nof gladiatorial armour ranged in a circle: swords, shields, arm-guards,\ngreaves, and helmets.[2958]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXV.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n ROMAN LAMPS WITH MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nFrom the circus and games we have such subjects as a naval contest in\nthe amphitheatre[2959]; a bull-fight[2960]; a _bestiarius_ contending\nwith boars[2961]; a man leaping over a bull[2962]; and boxers.[2963] A\nremarkable lamp in the British Museum (No. 164 = Plate LXV. fig. 4)\ngives a representation of a chariot-race in the circus; we have the\ncolonnade of latticed barriers (_carceres_) from which the chariots\nstarted, the _spina_ down the middle of the course, adorned with\nshrines and obelisks, and rows of seats full of spectators; four\nchariots take part in the race. Next there are scenes such as an\nathlete crowning himself, a victorious charioteer in his quadriga, or a\nvictory in the horse-race.[2964] Of more miscellaneous character are\nsuch subjects as a chariot drawn by four men, a two-horse or four-horse\nchariot by itself, or a man or boy on horseback.[2965]\n\nMilitary subjects are at all times rare, but a not infrequent subject\nis a mounted warrior charging with a spear[2966]; a soldier is also\ndepicted with a bird,[2967] at an altar, taking an oath, and saluting\nan officer who rides past.[2968] There are also representations of an\n_imperator_ on his triumphal car,[2969] of an eagle and standard,[2970]\nand of a trophy perhaps commemorating a victory over barbarians.[2971]\nA representation of a ship or galley is not uncommon, but sometimes it\nis not easy to distinguish these from the type of Odysseus and the\nSirens.[2972] Some lamps have landscapes in the style of Alexandrine\nreliefs and chased metalwork, as for instance a harbour surrounded by\nbuildings, in which two fishermen pursue their vocation (Plate LXV.\nfig. 1),[2973] or a hunter accompanied by a porter, with a town in the\nbackground.[2974] Among pastoral scenes we have also, besides the\nTityrus already mentioned, shepherds and goatherds with their dogs,\ntending sheep and goats which nibble the foliage of trees[2975];\nfishermen,[2976] and hunters, as already noted. Another interesting\ntype is that of a juggler or mountebank accompanied by a dog and a cat,\nwhich climb ladders, jump through rings, and perform other tricks\n(Plate LXV. fig. 2).[2977] Of a more miscellaneous character are such\nsubjects as a butcher slaughtering animals hung from a tree[2978]; a\nfuller at work[2979]; a slave washing a dog, and another washing a\nstatue[2980]; slaves carrying casks or _fasces_[2981]; a mule turning a\nmill.[2982] Others, again, do not admit of any exact classification;\nsuch are a man and woman embracing; a woman scraping herself after the\nbath; a youth with a mortar; the sacrifice of a pig[2983]; a man riding\non a camel or elephant,[2984] or driving a camel[2985]; a dwarf in a\nboat or playing on a flute[2986]; comic actors,[2987] and comic and\ntragic masks[2988] innumerable; and two skeletons dancing.[2989]\n\nAnimals form a large proportion of the representations on lamps,[2990]\nespecially on the late class without handle from Knidos (Vol. I. p.\n108), and include Gryphons, elephants, lions, panthers, boars, bears,\nwolves, deer, horses, oxen, sheep, goats, dogs, rabbits, eagles,\nstorks, ostriches,[2991] peacocks,[2992] parrots,[2993] cocks and hens,\nand other birds; dolphins, sea-horses, cuttle-fish and other kinds of\nfish, scorpions,[2994] frogs, shell-fish, and so on. Those mentioned so\nfar are single figures, merely decorative; in others there is more\ndefinite action. Such are a lion attacking a bull or crocodile, or\nseizing a hind or a donkey[2995]; two bears dancing[2996]; a monkey and\nvine[2997]; a dog on a couch,[2998] fighting with a goose, or attacking\na stag,[2999] hind, or boar[3000]; two monkeys in a boat[3001]; a hare\nor rabbit nibbling at a plant[3002]; a bird on a twig, sometimes eating\nfruit[3003]; an eagle seizing a hare[3004]; an ibis and a\nserpent[3005]; a hen with chickens, cocks fighting, or a cock pursuing\na hen[3006]; dolphins twisted round a trident or anchor; a crocodile\nand serpent; a lizard or sea-monster and eel; two serpents, sea-horses,\nor dolphins with an altar between[3007]; and a grasshopper eating\ngrapes.[3008]\n\nThere are also a large number of lamps, the centre of which is only\nornamented with some decorative motive, such as a _carchesium_ (Vol. I.\np. 188), situla, or krater, from which spring vine-branches, ivy, or\nother plants; an oinocho\u00eb, flask, or drinking-cup; palm-branches,\nwreaths of ivy, vine, oak, and myrtle, sprays of flowers; a cornucopia\nand caduceus,[3009] or other emblems of deities, such as two hands\njoined with a caduceus behind them (see p. 410); scallop-shells; or\npurely conventional patterns, such as large four-leaved flowers, stars,\nand rosettes. The latter are mostly found on lamps from Greek sites,\nespecially in Cyprus, and at Tarsus and Knidos. Many lamps have no\ndecoration on the _discus_, but only comic masks round the edge, or a\nborder of foliage.\n\nThe Christian lamps are as a rule easily to be distinguished from the\npagan by their form, as well as by their subjects. These subjects are\nmainly taken from the Old Testament, from the life of our Lord, and\nfrom the sphere of symbolism; the Good Shepherd, the seven-branched\ncandlestick, the cross or _labarum_, and the sacred monogram, are all\nfavourites.[3010]\n\n * * * * *\n\nA considerable number of Roman lamps have inscriptions, either\nimpressed in relief or hollow letters from a stamp, or engraved with a\npointed instrument; the stamps were probably of bronze. Potters\u2019\nsignatures and trade-marks are always underneath the lamp, and those\nfound on the top usually relate in some way to the subject. Sometimes,\nas in lamps from Pozzuoli and Naples,[3011] the inscriptions are in\nrelief on the surface, in small tablets. They may, however, be\nclassified under four headings:\u2014\n\n (1) Inscriptions referring to the circumstances under which or for\n which the lamp was made, as, for instance, with reference to\n national events or public games, or for religious dedications.\n\n (2) Inscriptions descriptive of the subjects.\n\n (3) Acclamations or formulae addressed by the potter to the public.\n\n (4) Signatures of potters or trade-marks; this class is by far the\n most numerous.\n\nTo the first class belong some of the formulae to which allusion has\nalready been made (pp. 396, 398), such as those on the New Year lamps:\nANNVM NOVVM FAVSTVM FELICEM MIHI HIC (or TIBI, or to some person whose\nname is given); occasionally this is varied by formulae such as\nFIILICTII (for FELICITAS?), \u201cHappiness (to you)!\u201d[3012] OB CIVES\nSERV(_atos_), \u201cFor the preservation of the state\u201d[3013]; G \u00b7 P \u00b7 R \u00b7 F,\n_Genio populi Romani feliciter_[3014]; EX\u00b7S\u00b7C, \u201cBy the decree of the\nsenate\u201d[3015]; FIDES PVBLICA, \u201cThe public trust,\u201d[3016] and the\nSAECVLI, SAECVLO, SAECVLARES group of inscriptions,[3017] which may in\na few cases refer to the Ludi Saeculares, but more probably are of\nsimilar import to the SAEC(_ulum_) AV(_reum_) DOM(_ini_), \u201cThe golden\nage of our lord,\u201c on a lamp from Antium.[3018] The last-named formula,\nit should be noted, is found both above and below the lamps.\nLVCER(_na_) PV(_b_)LICA probably refers to the use of the lamp in some\npublic illuminations (see p. 396).[3019] A lamp in the Trier\nMuseum[3020] has the names of the consuls for the year 235 (Severus and\nQuintianus). Among names of deities for whose sanctuaries the lamps\nwere intended are Venus (SACRVM VENERI, with a figure of the\ngoddess),[3021] and the Ephesian Artemis ([\u0391\u03a1\u03a4\u0395\u039c\u0399\u03a3 \u0395\u03a6\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u03a9\u039d]).[3022]\n\nAmong the inscriptions relating to the subjects on the lamps are\nseveral which have already been mentioned, such as DIOGENES and\nTITVRVS, and also GA(_ny_)MEDES over a figure of the same.[3023] On a\nlamp representing the flight of Aeneas from Troy are the names\nAEN(_eas_), ANC(_hises_), ASC(_anius_), and the exclamation REX PIE,\nalluding to the former.[3024] On another, which represents the fight of\nEteokles and Polyneikes and the death of Jocasta, subjects taken from\nthe _Phoenissae_ of Euripides, occur not only the letters PVL for\nPolyneikes, but also PHO(_e_)NISS(_ae_), leaving no doubt as to the\nsource whence the scenes are taken.[3025] Another in the form of Eros\nor a Genius with the club and lion-skin of Herakles, lying asleep, has\non it the curious inscription AIA STLACIA TVRA DORMIT, STERNIT SIR\n...,[3026] the import of which is not quite clear. Similar inscriptions\noften occur in scenes from the circus or amphitheatre, giving the names\nof gladiators, as Afer, Helenus, Popillius, or Sabinus,[3027] or of\ncharioteers in the circus-races, as C. Annius Lacerta and the horse\nCorax, which won him a race for the white faction at the Secular\nGames[3028]; another lamp has the name of a horse or his driver,\nINCITATVS, and a third the exhortation VIG(_i_)LA PRASINE,[3029] which\nmay allude to a driver of the green faction. Over the figure of a\nwarrior on a lamp from Carthage is PLVS FECISSES SI PLVS LICERET, \u201cYou\nwould have done more if you had had the chance.\u201d[3030] In other cases\nthere seems to be a revival of the old Greek fashion of apostrophising\nthe figures as _Kalos_\u2014_e.g._ AQVILO CALOS, AXOLMVS (_c_)ALOS.[3031]\nThere are also inscriptions put into the mouths of figures, as in the\nsubject of Cupids with the club of Herakles, one of whom cries\nADIV(_v_)ATE SODALES, \u201cHelp, comrades!\u201d[3032] or the funerary Genius\nweeping over an urn and saying, LVGEO, \u201cI mourn.\u201d[3033]\n\nTo the third class belong such expressions as HAVE, \u201cHail!\u201d[3034];\nVIVAS or VALEAS, \u201cLong life!\u201d; VTERE, \u201cUse this\u201d[3035]; AVE ET VALE,\n\u201cGreeting and farewell,\u201d on a lamp from Cologne[3036]; and on another\nfrom the same site, HAVE \u00b7 MACENA \u00b7 VILLIS \u00b7 HAVE \u00b7 LASCIBA \u00b7\nVALE,[3037] which seems to have a somewhat coarse significance. Others\nallude to the future purchaser, as EME ME, \u201cBuy me\u201d[3038]; QVI FECERIT\nVIVAT ET Q(_ui_) EMERIT, \u201cMay the potter and purchaser flourish\u201d; EMITE\nLVCERNAS AB ASSE COLATAS, \u201cBuy lamps for an ass\u201d[3039]; BONO QVI\nEME(_rit_), \u201cMay it be for his good who shall buy it.\u201d[3040] The latter\nclass are chiefly found in North Africa. Mention has already been made\nof the inscriptions on the Esquiline lamps, such as PONE FVR; these are\nnot found on lamps of imperial times, and appear to be peculiar to the\nearly fabrics. \u039c\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 has been found on a lamp at Athens.[3041] On a\nlamp from Spain is inscribed G \u00b7 IVLIVS \u00b7 ARTEMIDOR ... LVCERNAS \u00b7 II \u00b7\nD D, \u201cC. Julius Artemidorus makes a present of two lamps.\u201d[3042] A very\ncurious inscription is found written in ink on a lamp at Rome, to this\neffect: \u201cHelenus delivers his name to the nether world; he carries down\nwith him coins, a New Year\u2019s gift, and his lamp; let no one deliver him\nexcept us who have made them.\u201d[3043]\n\n * * * * *\n\nPotters\u2019 signatures are almost invariably to be found on the under side\nof the lamp, where they are arranged on the diameter at right angles to\nthe axis of the lamp; sometimes they are placed in a panel or tablet,\nor within the outline of a foot. In rare instances they are found on\nthe handle, or on the top.[3044] Greek lamps which are not of Roman\norigin are never signed, nor are those of Christian origin; the oldest\nsignatures are to be found on the Esquiline lamps, but they rarely\nappear before imperial times, when they become fairly general. Among\nthese earlier instances are PRAESE(_ntis_)[3045] and FL(_a_)BIA\n(_Flavia_), the latter found at Carthage.[3046] More frequently, lamps\nof this kind have a single letter or monogram by way of stamp[3047]; a\n\u201cdelphiniform\u201d lamp in the Mus\u00e9e Alaoui has a monogram of \u0391 and \u03a0. A\nsingle letter sometimes occurs above or below the inscription, which\nmay be regarded as a sort of trade-mark indicating the potter\n(_figulus_), the full name being that of the _officinator_ or master;\non a lamp in the British Museum from Knidos (No. 132) the name\nROMANE(_n_)SIS is accompanied by the letter X; on another, FORTIS by\nthe letter N. On the lamps signed by L \u00b7 HOS \u00b7 CRI, a Gaulish potter,\nare found the letters G, I, L, M, P, S, T, V, N, Z, and other\nsigns.[3048] These trade-marks are not confined to letters; Fortis uses\na wreath and palm-branch, as in Fig. 210; L. Caecilius Saevus a\npalm-branch or a foot-shaped stamp; L. Fabricius Masculus the letters H\nand X, a wheel, or a star.[3049] Other lamps have no name underneath,\nbut some simple pattern, such as five circles in _quincunx_ form, or\nthe favourite device of the foot-shaped stamp (cf. p. 333). These\nvarieties of marks were probably intended to distinguish different\nseries in the products of a single pottery.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 210. UNDER SIDE OF LAMP WITH SIGNATURE OF FORTIS\n(BRIT. MUS.).]\n\nThe signatures are usually abbreviated, the full form being _ex\nofficina_ (_officinatoris_), the name being consequently in the\ngenitive. On a lamp from Rome is EX \u00b7 OF \u00b7 AIACIS, _ex officina\nAiacis_.[3050] Sometimes, but rarely under the Empire, the nominative\nis used: _A.B. fecit_, or more commonly _A.B.f._ Thus we have AVGENDI,\nATIMETI, C . IVLI NICEPHORI, or ASPRENAS, FELIX, TROPHIMVS. But where a\nsingle name occurs it is rarely full enough to show the case. On a lamp\nat Dresden the potter Diomedes calls himself LVCERNARIVS.[3051] From\nthe second century down to the time of Augustus the name may be either\nin the nominative or genitive, either the _praenomen_ and _nomen_, or\nthe _nomen_ or _cognomen_ only; these signatures were all incised while\nthe clay was moist. In the period represented by the third class (see\np. 401) nearly all the signatures are _cognomina_ simply, as ATIMETI,\nCOMMVNIS, FORTLS, STROBILI, all in the genitive. In the fourth class,\nor lamps of the second century, the nominative is very rare; the names\nare usually abbreviated, and one (_cognomen_), two (_nomen_ and\n_cognomen_), or three may be found. Potteries were, as we have seen,\noften owned by women, hence female names are not uncommon.\nAbbreviations of a particular name vary considerably; for instance, L.\nCaecilius Saevus appears as L \u00b7 CAEC \u00b7 SAE, L \u00b7 CAE \u00b7 SAE, L \u00b7 CA \u00b7 SAE\n(see below, p. 428); L. Fabricius Masculus as L \u00b7 FABRIC \u00b7 MASC, L \u00b7\nFABRIC \u00b7 MAS, L \u00b7 FABR \u00b7 MASC, FABRIC \u00b7 MAS, and so on.[3052] Or the\n_praenomen_ may vary, and for C \u00b7 OPPI \u00b7 RES we find L \u00b7 OPPI \u00b7 RES;\nor, again, the _cognomen_, as in the case of C. Junius, where it may be\nAlexis, Bitus, or Draco,[3053] or of L. Munatius, found with Adjectus,\nRestitutus, Successus, Threptus, and Philemo.[3054] The variations in\nthe names may denote potteries in connection, or successive holders of\none business. In one instance the name of a workman PVLCHER occurs with\nthat of Fabricius Masculus, in another that of PRIMVS with C. Oppius\nRestitutus.[3055] Greek names, where they occur, seem to imply that the\npotters were freedmen, as in the case of Dionysius, Phoetaspus, and\nothers.\n\nThe following list gives the names most frequently found, with the\nlocalities in which they occur[3056]:\u2014\n\n _Annius Serapiodorus_ (ANNI \u00b7 SER): Rome, Ostia.\n\n _C. Atilius Vestalis_ (C \u00b7 ATILI \u00b7 VEST): Rome, Italy, Gaul, Britain.\n\n _Atimetus_: Italy, Gallia Narbonensis, Pannonia.\n\n _L. Caecilius Saevus_ (L \u00b7 CAE \u00b7 SAE): Rome, Southern Italy, Sicily,\n Sardinia, Gallia Narbonensis, Britain.\n\n _Clodius Heliodorus_ (CLO \u00b7 HEL): Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul.\n\n _C. Clodius Successus_ (C \u00b7 CLO \u00b7 SVC): Rome, Gaul, Sardinia, Africa.\n\n _Communis_: Rome, Pompeii, Gallia Cisalpina, Pannonia.\n\n _Crescens_: Gaul, Pannonia.\n\n _L. Fabricius Masculus_ (L \u00b7 FABR \u00b7 MASC): Rome, Gallia Cisalpina,\n Africa.\n\n _Florentius_ (FLORENT): Rome, Italy, Sicily, Tunis, Gaul, Germany,\n Britain.\n\n _Fortis_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia, Germany, Gaul, Britain.\n\n _Gabinia_: Italy, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul.\n\n _L. Hospidius Crispus_ (L \u00b7 HOS \u00b7 CRI): Gaul.\n\n _C. Julius Nicephorus_ (C \u00b7 IVLI \u00b7 NICEP): Italy, Gaul.\n\n _C. Junius Alexis_: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa.\n\n _C. Junius Bito_: Italy, Sicily, Gaul.\n\n _C. Junius Draco_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa, Gallia\n Narbonensis.\n\n _L. Mar. Mi._: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Spain, Gallia Cisalpina.\n\n _L. Munatius_ (with various _cognomina_): Rome, Africa.\n\n _N. Naevius Luc._ (N \u00b7 NAEV \u00b7 LVC): Italy, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul.\n\n _M. Novius Justus_ (M \u00b7 NOV \u00b7 IVST): Rome, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia,\n Africa, Gallia Narbonensis.\n\n _C. Oppius Restitutus_ (C \u00b7 OPPI \u00b7 RES): Rome, Italy, Sicily,\n Sardinia, Africa, Gallia Narbonensis, Cyprus.\n\n _Passenus Augurinus_ (PAS \u00b7 AVG): Italy, Gaul.\n\n _Phoetaspus_: Italy, Gaul, Pannonia.\n\n _Strobilus_: Rome, Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Gaul, Britain.\n\n _Vibianus_: Gaul, Pannonia.\n\n _C. Viciri Agathopus_ (C \u00b7 VICIRI \u00b7 AGAT): Italy, Sardinia, Gallia\n Cisalpina.\n\nIt will be noted that nearly all are found at Rome, but that the others\nfall into geographical groups; the same name is seldom found both in\nthe north and south of the Empire. Thus Fortis is not found in Africa,\nOppius Restitutus only rarely in Gaul. Certain names are entirely\nlocalised, as Annius Serapiodorus at Rome and Ostia, L. Hos. Cri. and\nMarcellus in Gaul, Q. Mem. Kar. and Pudens in Sardinia. The name of\nVindex, a maker of terracotta figures at Cologne (see above, p. 383),\nis found on lamps at Trier and Nimeguen.[3057]\n\nThe distribution of the Fortis lamps in particular is remarkable. They\nhave been found in several places in Gallia Cisalpina, such as\nAquileia[3058]; at Lyons, Aix, Orange, and elsewhere in France[3059];\nat Nimeguen in Holland[3060]; at Trier, Cologne, Mainz, and Louisendorf\nin Germany[3061]; in London[3062]; in Spain[3063]; and over the region\nof Dacia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia,[3064] as well as in Rome and\nItaly.[3065] The most natural conclusion to be drawn from these results\nis that the majority of the lamps seem to have been made in Italy, and\nit has been thought probable that there were three principal centres of\nfabric whence exportation went on in different directions\u2014Rome and its\nenvirons, Campania for the lamps found in Southern Italy, Africa, and\nthe Mediterranean, and Gallia Cisalpina for those found in Central\nEurope.[3066] It has also been suggested that the last-named fabric\ncentred in Mutina (Modena) and that this was the place where the lamps\nof Class III. (see p. 401) were chiefly made.[3067] Outside Italy there\nmay well have been manufactures in North Africa, where lamps are so\nplentiful, and in Gallia Narbonensis, to which region some signatures\nare peculiar. Evidence of a lamp-manufacturer in Africa seems to be\nafforded by the mention of _praedia Pullaenorum_ in an inscription from\nTunis,[3068] the lamps of Pullaenus occurring in Sardinia and Africa.\nLocal fabrics of very poor lamps were doubtless numerous.\n\nA certain number of Roman lamps have Greek signatures, not differing in\ncharacter but only in alphabet from the Latin inscriptions. The most\ncurious instance is that of [\u039a\u0395\u039b\u03a3\u0395\u0399] [\u03a0\u039f\u039c\u03a0\u0395\u0395\u0399] for _Celsi Pompeii_,\nwhich is found on lamps in Southern Italy[3069]; \u03a0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 is also\nfound at Naples, and even \u1f08\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 and \u03a0\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, which are usually\nassociated with lamps made in Greece (see Vol. I. p. 108), occur on\nsome found in Italy.[3070] In Sicily we find the signatures of\nApollophanes of Tyre ([\u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a6\u0391\u039d] [\u03a4\u03a5\u03a1\u0399\u039f]) at Himera and Proklos\nAgyrios ([\u03a0\u03a1\u039f\u039a\u039b \u0391\u0393\u03a5\u03a1]) at Gela and Catania[3071]; \u1fec\u03ae\u03b3\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 for Regulus\noccurs at Tarentum.[3072] Greek names are often found in Cyprus,[3073]\nand conversely a large number of lamps found at Knidos by Sir Charles\nNewton bore the signature ROMANE(_n_) [ROMANE(n)SIS], in Latin letters\nwith the S reversed, apparently suggesting that the lamps were made by\na Roman abroad.[3074] Greek signatures are even found in Gaul and\nGermany.[3075]\n\nMention must also be made here of the recent researches of Herr\nFink[3076] with the object of ascertaining the chronological succession\nand general distribution of the signatures on lamps of the Imperial\nperiod. Starting with the four main classes of forms which have already\nbeen laid down as the basis[3077] (the distinction resting mainly on\nthe various forms of the nozzle), he has obtained, by comparison\nchiefly of the lamps in the British Museum, Berlin, and Munich\ncollections, the following interesting results.\n\nCertain stamps appear to be peculiar, or almost peculiar, to each\nclass: thus, in Class I. only, we find P. Cessius Felix and L. Munatius\nSuccessus; in Class II. only, L. Fabricius Masculus; in Class III.\nonly, Atimetus, Fortis, Phoetaspus, and other single _cognomina_; in\nClass IV., which contains by far the larger number of stamps, Clodius\nHelvidius, C. Junius Bitus,[3078] L. Munatius Threptus, and C.\nCornelius Ursus. The lamps of the Gaulish potter L. Hospidius Crispus\nare all of one peculiar form, a transition between Fink\u2019s I. and\nIV.[3079] Cross-instances are very rare, but C. Junius Draco is found\nin Classes I. and IV., C. Oppius Restitutus in Classes II. and IV.,\nFlorentius and Celsus Pompeius in Classes III. and IV. It is also\ninteresting to note that there are lamps in Class IV. with the\nChristian monogram and the figure of the Good Shepherd. In Class I.,\ngenerally speaking, signatures are very rare; in Class III. they are\nalmost invariable, but the total number of lamps is relatively small.\nAnother curious result is that certain signatures, such as L. Caecilius\nSaevus, Bassus, Cerialis, Sextus Egnatius Aprilis, and Romanensis, are\nnot confined to one type of lamp, but in these cases it is to be noted\nthat each type has a variation of signature: thus, in Class I.,\nL\u00b7CAEC\u00b7SAE; in II., L\u00b7CAE\u00b7SAE; in III., L\u00b7CA\u00b7SAE; while in IV.,\nL\u00b7CAE\u00b7SAE occurs no less than 140 times.\n\nHis conclusions are that one workshop did not necessarily set itself to\nproduce only one form, but that the differences in form are merely due\nto changes of fashion. In Class I. Greek technical instincts are still\nstrong as regards form and choice of subjects, but in ornament the\ntaste of Southern Italy prevails; the subjects are mainly mythological.\nIn Class II. the typically Roman motives appear: gladiators, combats,\nand hunting-scenes; this form, according to Fink, is more developed\nthan Class I. Evidence which has been obtained from Regensburg shows\nthat Class III. belongs to the time from Augustus to Hadrian, and, as\nwe have seen, it is chiefly confined to the north of the Apennines.\nWhere provincial potteries can be traced, as at Westerndorf and at\nWestheim in Bavaria, the lamps are usually of this form, but it was\ndoubtless imitated in Italy. Form IV. is essentially Italian, but is\nalso found in Central Europe, and is evidently of late date.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 2721:\n\n See Macrobius, _Sat._ vi. 4, 18. Lucilius uses this word and\n _lucerna_ in the same line.\n\nFootnote 2722:\n\n _L.L._ v. 119.\n\nFootnote 2723:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 265 ff.: see below, p. 399.\n\nFootnote 2724:\n\n Cf. Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 784.\n\nFootnote 2725:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 163.\n\nFootnote 2726:\n\n The corresponding Greek word was \u03bc\u03cd\u03be\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 2727:\n\n Petronius, _Sat._ 30 (Teubner edn. p. 21); Orelli, _Inscr._ 3678.\n\nFootnote 2728:\n\n xiv. 41.\n\nFootnote 2729:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxv. 121.\n\nFootnote 2730:\n\n _Moretum_, 11; Pliny, _H.N._ xix. 17, xxviii. 168, xxxv. 175.\n\nFootnote 2731:\n\n La Blanch\u00e8re and Gauckler, _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 193, Nos. 487-88; _Ant.\n di Ercolano_, viii. pl. 52.\n\nFootnote 2732:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1335, fig. 4605.\n\nFootnote 2733:\n\n No. 393 and _Cat. of Terracottas_, C 421 (Plate IV. fig. 4); _Mus.\n Alaoui_, No. 484.\n\nFootnote 2734:\n\n B.M. Nos. 2, 393.\n\nFootnote 2735:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6609-10; Daremberg and Saglio, fig. 4607; _Ant. di\n Ercol._ viii. pl. 12: see also p. 387.\n\nFootnote 2736:\n\n _Epigr._ xiv. 39; _Moretum._ 10 ff.\n\nFootnote 2737:\n\n Plutarch, _Ant._ 26; Suetonius, _Vit. Caes._ 37; Dio Cass. 63, 4.\n\nFootnote 2738:\n\n Suet. _Calig._ 18; _Domit._ 4.\n\nFootnote 2739:\n\n Lampridius, _Vit._ 24.\n\nFootnote 2740:\n\n _Apol._ 35: cf. _ad uxorem_, ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 2741:\n\n xii. 92.\n\nFootnote 2742:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6221; and B.M. Nos. 476, 506, 507, 534, 535.\n\nFootnote 2743:\n\n \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u1f51\u03c8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, Boeckh, _C.I.Gr._ iii. p. 1169, No. 4380\n _n_^2.\n\nFootnote 2744:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 205.\n\nFootnote 2745:\n\n _M\u00e9langes de l\u2019\u00c9cole fran\u00e7. de Rome_, xii. (1892), p. 116 ff.\n\nFootnote 2746:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. pl. 44, p. 123.\n\nFootnote 2747:\n\n Cf. Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 111, and _C.I.L._ vi. pt. 4,\n No. 30102 (_semper vigilet lucerna nardo_).\n\nFootnote 2748:\n\n Ellis, _Townley Gallery_, ii. p. 250.\n\nFootnote 2749:\n\n Orelli, 4416.\n\nFootnote 2750:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 633 (from Salerno).\n\nFootnote 2751:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. 2102.\n\nFootnote 2752:\n\n _Sat._ 111 (Teubner ed. p. 77).\n\nFootnote 2753:\n\n See _Athen. Mitth._ 1902, p. 257 ff.; and cf. _Amer. Journ. of Arch._\n 1903, p. 344.\n\nFootnote 2754:\n\n Virg. _Georg._ i. 390; Apul. _Metam._ ii. 28.\n\nFootnote 2755:\n\n _Homil. in Ep. ad Cor._ i. 12 (Pusey\u2019s _Library of the Fathers_, p.\n 164).\n\nFootnote 2756:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ ii. 4969, 3; x. 8053, 5; xv. 6196-210: see also pp. 413,\n 420, and Plate LXIV. fig. 5.\n\nFootnote 2757:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. p. 785.\n\nFootnote 2758:\n\n _Cat._ p. 47, No. 26.\n\nFootnote 2759:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ ix. 6081, 1.\n\nFootnote 2760:\n\n See also the lamps from the altar of Saturnus Balcaranensis\n (Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1339).\n\nFootnote 2761:\n\n B.M. 27-30, 67, 68; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, pl. O; _Mus. Alaoui_,\n pl. 34, Nos. 6-12, pp. 147-48.\n\nFootnote 2762:\n\n See _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 275.\n\nFootnote 2763:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6631, 6900 ff.; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 315.\n\nFootnote 2764:\n\n B.M. 25-26; _C.I.L._ xv. part 2, plate, No. 2; Daremberg and Saglio,\n _s.v._ _Lucerna_, p. 1323.\n\nFootnote 2765:\n\n Cf. _Mus. Alaoui_, pl. 34, p. 149, Nos. 17-8: see also B.M. 69-82.\n\nFootnote 2766:\n\n See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 782 ff.; Toutain in Daremberg and\n Saglio, _art._ Lucerna; Fink, _Formen u. Stempel r\u00f6m. Thonlampen, in\n Sitzungsberichte d. M\u00fcnchener Akad._ 1900, p. 685 ff.\n\nFootnote 2767:\n\n On the evidence yielded by the potters\u2019 signatures see also below, p.\n 428.\n\nFootnote 2768:\n\n See the examples given on Plates LXIV.-LXV.\n\nFootnote 2769:\n\n I am inclined to agree with Dr. Dressel in placing this type earlier\n than Fink\u2019s Class I. It seems to be intermediate in form between the\n delphiniform and other types with blunt nozzles, and the type given\n in Fig. 204. Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 2770:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 2, No. 5 = Fig. 206, and Dressel, _ad loc._, p.\n 783.\n\nFootnote 2771:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ v. 8114.\n\nFootnote 2772:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ p. 1011, fig. 4381.\n\nFootnote 2773:\n\n Cf. for bronze examples, _B.M. Cat._ 2514 ff.\n\nFootnote 2774:\n\n B.M. 3, 13.\n\nFootnote 2775:\n\n Plate IV. fig. 4.\n\nFootnote 2776:\n\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6699, 5.\n\nFootnote 2777:\n\n In the Louvre.\n\nFootnote 2778:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6701.\n\nFootnote 2779:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6513; Kenner, _Ant. Thonlampen_, No. 431.\n\nFootnote 2780:\n\n B.M. 9-12: see also _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 49, No. 50, for negro\u2019s\n head combined with camel\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 2781:\n\n B.M. 18-21 (bulls\u2019 heads); 22 (eagle); _Mus. Borb._ xiv. 38; C.I.L.\n xv. 6739, 6334, 6393; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 27; Kenner, 437, 437a;\n _Mus. Alaoni_, pl. 36, No. 485.\n\nFootnote 2782:\n\n B.M. 14-17; _C.I.L._ xv. 6287; Kenner, 434-35.\n\nFootnote 2783:\n\n Greek and Roman Department, from Cologne; British and Mediaeval\n Department, from Britain; others in Guildhall Museum, and _C.I.L._\n xv. 6450.\n\nFootnote 2784:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6387, 6627; _ibid._ 6393 (artichoke); B.M. 24 (walnut);\n _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 5.\n\nFootnote 2785:\n\n _Metam._ xi. 245.\n\nFootnote 2786:\n\n No. 1 = _Cab. Durand_, 1777: cf. Lafaye, _Culte des Divinit\u00e9s\n d\u2019Alexandrie_, pp. 122, 303, No. 132; also Vol. I. pp. 209, 216.\n\nFootnote 2787:\n\n See for examples in B.M., Nos. 58-66.\n\nFootnote 2788:\n\n Cf. _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 170, and B.M. Nos. 90, 91.\n\nFootnote 2789:\n\n See Dalton, _B. M. Cat. of Early Christian Antiqs._ pl. 32, p. 148.\n\nFootnote 2790:\n\n xiv. 114.\n\nFootnote 2791:\n\n See on the subject Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1334; Bl\u00fcmner,\n _Technologie_, ii. pp. 71, 108.\n\nFootnote 2792:\n\n _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 81-83: see Fig. 209.\n\nFootnote 2793:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 253, Nos. 396-97 (Christian).\n\nFootnote 2794:\n\n _Cat._ p. 51, Nos. 117-18 (from London Wall).\n\nFootnote 2795:\n\n See also p. 395 above.\n\nFootnote 2796:\n\n Cf. Avolio, _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, p. 123.\n\nFootnote 2797:\n\n Cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 86; _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 148, No. 13.\n\nFootnote 2798:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 156, Nos. 74-81: cf. the Roman lamps of the same\n date (_C.I.L._ xv. p. 782).\n\nFootnote 2799:\n\n The numbers given in the following notes are those of the forthcoming\n Catalogue of Roman lamps in the Department of Greek and Roman\n Antiquities.\n\nFootnote 2800:\n\n See also _C.I.L._ xv. 6195-751 for mention of many interesting\n subjects.\n\nFootnote 2801:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1892, p. 144 ff.\n\nFootnote 2802:\n\n _G\u00f6ttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 174: cf.\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 111.\n\nFootnote 2803:\n\n B.M. 511; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1.\n\nFootnote 2804:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1394; B.M. 604 = Plate IV. fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 2805:\n\n B.M. 270, 315, 330, 331, 394, 472-475: cf. also Roach-Smith, _Ill.\n Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 1; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1; Bartoli, ii. 4;\n Kenner, _Antike Thonlampen_, Nos. 4-6.\n\nFootnote 2806:\n\n _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, p. 177, No. 18; Kenner, Nos. 227, 228, 425.\n\nFootnote 2807:\n\n B.M. 605; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1866, pl. G.\n\nFootnote 2808:\n\n Kenner, No. 7: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1385-86.\n\nFootnote 2809:\n\n Kenner, No. 8; B.M. 358 (handle).\n\nFootnote 2810:\n\n B.M. 395; 360-363 on handle.\n\nFootnote 2811:\n\n Kenner, No. 137.\n\nFootnote 2812:\n\n No. 679 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 93.\n\nFootnote 2813:\n\n B.M. 307, 402, 466, 573: see also p. 415, note 2935.\n\nFootnote 2814:\n\n Kenner, No. 10.\n\nFootnote 2815:\n\n B.M. 607-609, 681, 707; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1384.\n\nFootnote 2816:\n\n B.M. 271, 398, 571; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1356.\n\nFootnote 2817:\n\n Kenner, Nos. 17-22; Bartoli, ii. 32-3; B.M. 332, 512, 680.\n\nFootnote 2818:\n\n Kenner, No. 230; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 43 (from Royal\n Exchange).\n\nFootnote 2819:\n\n B.M. 572; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 151.\n\nFootnote 2820:\n\n Kenner, No. 229.\n\nFootnote 2821:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 115.\n\nFootnote 2822:\n\n B.M. 94; with Sphinx, _ibid._ 574.\n\nFootnote 2823:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 142.\n\nFootnote 2824:\n\n B.M. 69.\n\nFootnote 2825:\n\n B.M. 554, 614; Kenner, No. 28.\n\nFootnote 2826:\n\n B.M. 174.\n\nFootnote 2827:\n\n B.M. 175, 176, 333, 411-413; Kenner, No. 26; Bartoli, ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 2828:\n\n B.M. 432, 433; Kenner, Nos. 231-2; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 32.\n\nFootnote 2829:\n\n Kenner, No. 23.\n\nFootnote 2830:\n\n Masner, _Wiener Vasensamml._ No. 684: cf. _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 2831:\n\n B.M. 575; Kenner, Nos. 24-5; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 46;\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 181.\n\nFootnote 2832:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 180.\n\nFootnote 2833:\n\n B.M. 70: cf. Clarac, _Mus\u00e9e de Sculpt._ iii. 343, 1399; _B.M.\n Terracottas_, D 286.\n\nFootnote 2834:\n\n See Kenner, Nos. 37-57.\n\nFootnote 2835:\n\n B.M. 410, 477.\n\nFootnote 2836:\n\n B.M. 172; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 6 (Brit. and\n Mediaeval Dept.).\n\nFootnote 2837:\n\n B.M. 516, 610, 611, 405, 515, 364, 553.\n\nFootnote 2838:\n\n B.M. 407-409, 461, 479, 612, 654.\n\nFootnote 2839:\n\n B.M. 478, 406.\n\nFootnote 2840:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168.\n\nFootnote 2841:\n\n B.M. 308, 97.\n\nFootnote 2842:\n\n B.M. 170, 171.\n\nFootnote 2843:\n\n _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, p. 179, No. 43.\n\nFootnote 2844:\n\n _Anzeiger_, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 2845:\n\n B.M. 92, 613; 98; 95, 96, 156; 403, 404.\n\nFootnote 2846:\n\n B.M. 272; Bartoli, i. 7.\n\nFootnote 2847:\n\n B.M. 173, 89, 576; Bartoli, ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 2848:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168: cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6230.\n\nFootnote 2849:\n\n B.M. 517, 577; Bartoli, ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 2850:\n\n B.M. 78.\n\nFootnote 2851:\n\n B.M. 273, 499.\n\nFootnote 2852:\n\n B.M. 616, 709.\n\nFootnote 2853:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39 (in Berlin).\n\nFootnote 2854:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 2855:\n\n Kenner, No. 36.\n\nFootnote 2856:\n\n B.M. 481: cf. 316, 519.\n\nFootnote 2857:\n\n B.M. 102, 180, 579; 183; Kenner, No. 34.\n\nFootnote 2858:\n\n B.M. 101, 182; Kenner, No. 33.\n\nFootnote 2859:\n\n B.M. 518.\n\nFootnote 2860:\n\n B.M. 184, 274, 275, 326, 462, 500; Kenner, No. 35.\n\nFootnote 2861:\n\n B.M. 181.\n\nFootnote 2862:\n\n B.M. 58, 99, 578; 178, 179, 480, 618; _Bull. Comm. Arch._ 1887, p.\n 366, No. 8: cf. Hauser, _Neuattische Reliefs_, p. 154, Nos. 25-32.\n\nFootnote 2863:\n\n B.M. 100, 582.\n\nFootnote 2864:\n\n B.M. 476.\n\nFootnote 2865:\n\n B.M. 514.\n\nFootnote 2866:\n\n B.M. 513; Bartoli, ii. 13.\n\nFootnote 2867:\n\n B.M. 83, 334, 399, 400, 157, 606; Masner, _Wiener Vasens_. 695;\n Bartoli, ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 2868:\n\n B.M. 401.\n\nFootnote 2869:\n\n No. 535: cf. also _C.I.L._ xv. 6221, 20.\n\nFootnote 2870:\n\n B.M. 463, 482, 615; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 157.\n\nFootnote 2871:\n\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 40.\n\nFootnote 2872:\n\n B.M. 396, 397; _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 184, Nos. 103-4.\n\nFootnote 2873:\n\n B.M. 523; 191, 591 (bust); Kenner, No. 71; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 164;\n _Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 30.\n\nFootnote 2874:\n\n B.M. 167; Masner, 685; Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, pl. 8, No. 3.\n\nFootnote 2875:\n\n B.M. 465; _Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 11; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 113; _C.I.L._\n xii. 5682, 71 (K. adored by a Gallus); Kenner, No. 3, and see No. 23.\n\nFootnote 2876:\n\n Kenner, No. 77.\n\nFootnote 2877:\n\n B.M. 370, 467, 508; 190, 297, 280; Kenner, No. 1; _Ant. di Ercol_.\n viii. 2: cf. _B.M. Terracottas_, D 285.\n\nFootnote 2878:\n\n B.M. 337.\n\nFootnote 2879:\n\n B.M. 369; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 134.\n\nFootnote 2880:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1011, fig. 4381.\n\nFootnote 2881:\n\n B.M 281.\n\nFootnote 2882:\n\n B.M. 468-470; Bartoli, ii. 42.\n\nFootnote 2883:\n\n B.M. 104, 185(?).\n\nFootnote 2884:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 82.\n\nFootnote 2885:\n\n Kenner, Nos. 66-7.\n\nFootnote 2886:\n\n _Ibid._ Nos. 233-4.\n\nFootnote 2887:\n\n _Ibid._ Nos. 72-3.\n\nFootnote 2888:\n\n B.M. 276-278, 348, 484, 510, 586; Kenner, Nos. 58-9; Bartoli, ii. 46.\n\nFootnote 2889:\n\n See generally, _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 6; Bartoli, iii. 3 (with\n wreath).\n\nFootnote 2890:\n\n _E.g._ _B.M. Bronzes_, 1510 ff.\n\nFootnote 2891:\n\n B.M. 189 (see p. 420), 335, 367, 520; 336; 103, 187, 188, 483: cf.\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 2892:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.\n\nFootnote 2893:\n\n B.M. 583; Bartoli, iii. 2; _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.\n\nFootnote 2894:\n\n B.M. 186.\n\nFootnote 2895:\n\n See Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 245; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 5; ii.\n 4969, 3, and xv. 6196 ff; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 189 ff. These lamps date\n from the time of Augustus and his successors.\n\nFootnote 2896:\n\n B.M. 309, and cf. 368, 584, 585; Bartoli, iii. 5. For a similar\n subject on a money-box see above, p. 389.\n\nFootnote 2897:\n\n B.M. 189; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. pl. 6; Bartoli, iii. 4.\n\nFootnote 2898:\n\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, No. 26. See for these two p. 398 above,\n and p. 420 below.\n\nFootnote 2899:\n\n B.M. 84, 105, 485; Kenner, No. 83; Bartoli, i. 13-14.\n\nFootnote 2900:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.\n\nFootnote 2901:\n\n B.M. 710 (archaic _xoanon_).\n\nFootnote 2902:\n\n Kenner, No. 76; _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 139-40.\n\nFootnote 2903:\n\n B.M. 415.\n\nFootnote 2904:\n\n B.M. 521.\n\nFootnote 2905:\n\n B.M. 337 (Plate LXIII.), and 486.\n\nFootnote 2906:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 167; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 131.\n\nFootnote 2907:\n\n B.M. 619.\n\nFootnote 2908:\n\n B.M. 192, 587.\n\nFootnote 2909:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1358.\n\nFootnote 2910:\n\n B.M. 416.\n\nFootnote 2911:\n\n B.M. 620; 338, 339; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 4 (in the three latter\n only with club and lion\u2019s skin).\n\nFootnote 2912:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1393.\n\nFootnote 2913:\n\n B.M. 506, 566, 588.\n\nFootnote 2914:\n\n B.M. 106, 417.\n\nFootnote 2915:\n\n B.M. 487.\n\nFootnote 2916:\n\n B.M. 621.\n\nFootnote 2917:\n\n B.M. 193; Kenner, No. 81.\n\nFootnote 2918:\n\n Kenner, No. 82; B.M. 107.\n\nFootnote 2919:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 126-27; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.\n\nFootnote 2920:\n\n _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 182, No. 72.\n\nFootnote 2921:\n\n B.M. 158, 589; Bartoli, ii. 24; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 33; _Guildhall\n Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 39.\n\nFootnote 2922:\n\n B.M. 108; _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, p. 188, Nos. 235-36.\n\nFootnote 2923:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 100.\n\nFootnote 2924:\n\n B.M. 194 = _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.\n\nFootnote 2925:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 153-56.\n\nFootnote 2926:\n\n _Ibid._ No. 123.\n\nFootnote 2927:\n\n Kenner, Nos. 79, 80.\n\nFootnote 2928:\n\n B.M. 371.\n\nFootnote 2929:\n\n B.M. 590 = Roscher, _Lexikon_, iii. p. 2338.\n\nFootnote 2930:\n\n Masner, _Wiener Vasens._ No. 674: cf. _Bull. Arch. Nap._ N.S. iv. pl.\n 10, fig. 4.\n\nFootnote 2931:\n\n B.M. 555; Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p. 49: cf. _C.I.L._\n xv. 6236.\n\nFootnote 2932:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1865, pl. 194; B.M. 282: cf. 109, 195.\n\nFootnote 2933:\n\n B.M. 319-321; Bartoli, iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 2934:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 192.\n\nFootnote 2935:\n\n Masner, No. 676. Cf. a lamp with Athena voting for him, Daremberg and\n Saglio, _Dict._ iii. p. 1329, fig. 4601.\n\nFootnote 2936:\n\n B.M. 199, 623.\n\nFootnote 2937:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 194.\n\nFootnote 2938:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 110; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 41 =\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15 (from Colchester).\n\nFootnote 2939:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 111.\n\nFootnote 2940:\n\n B.M. 196-198, 522, 622.\n\nFootnote 2941:\n\n B.M. 130, 340, 418; Kenner, No. 136: cf. Masner, No. 686.\n\nFootnote 2942:\n\n B.M. 524, 525; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1351; Kenner, Nos. 68-70.\n\nFootnote 2943:\n\n B.M. 682.\n\nFootnote 2944:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.\n\nFootnote 2945:\n\n B.M. 110, 593: see Plutarch, _Vit. Alexandri_, 14.\n\nFootnote 2946:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ iii. pl. 14, fig. 3; see Bernoulli, _Gr. Ikonogr._\n i. p. 56.\n\nFootnote 2947:\n\n B.M. 128(?), 598; Kenner, Nos. 85-6, 88-90.\n\nFootnote 2948:\n\n _Arch. Zeit._ 1861, _Anzeiger_, p. 157; Kenner, No. 87.\n\nFootnote 2949:\n\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, Nos. 14-15.\n\nFootnote 2950:\n\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6699, 4.\n\nFootnote 2951:\n\n _Bull. Arch. Nap._ iv. (1856), pl. 10, fig. 3, p. 166; examples also\n in B.M. (No. 216 = Plate LXIV. fig. 3) and _C.I.L._ xv. 6240. The\n companion lamp given in the _Bull. Arch. Nap._ pl. 10, fig. 4, does\n not represent Meliboeus, as there supposed, but Ajax.\n\nFootnote 2952:\n\n B.M. 224; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, fig. 3; Jahn in\n _Mitth. d. ant. Gesellsch. zu Z\u00fcrich_, xiv. pl. 4, fig. 9; _G\u00f6ttinger\n Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 190, No. 282; and see Daremberg and Saglio,\n _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1326.\n\nFootnote 2953:\n\n B.M. 139: cf. _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1867, p. 35 = _Mitth. d. ant.\n Gesellsch. zu Z\u00fcrich_, xvii. p. 149; in the latter instance a man\n weighs an ant against an elephant.\n\nFootnote 2954:\n\n _Coll. H. Hoffmann_ (Paris, 1886), p. 39; and in B.M. (No. 59).\n\nFootnote 2955:\n\n See for example _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 7; _Rev. Arch_, xxxiii.\n (1898), p. 230; Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, ii., _s.v._ Gladiator,\n with the bibliography on p. 1600; also B.M., _passim_. Similar types\n occur on the Gaulish _terra sigillata_ (p. 507 below, and D\u00e9chelette,\n _Vases orn\u00e9s_, ii. p. 97 ff.).\n\nFootnote 2956:\n\n B.M. 111-114, 341, etc.\n\nFootnote 2957:\n\n B.M. 115-117, 201, etc.\n\nFootnote 2958:\n\n B.M. 121, 159, 160, 207, 285, 317, 342.\n\nFootnote 2959:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 222.\n\nFootnote 2960:\n\n _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 9.\n\nFootnote 2961:\n\n _C.I.L._ xii. 5682, 74.\n\nFootnote 2962:\n\n B.M. 558.\n\nFootnote 2963:\n\n B.M. 318; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 231, fig. 27.\n\nFootnote 2964:\n\n B.M. 557, and cf. 165; 208, 531; 311 and _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1364. See\n under the first-named head, _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Numism._ xxiv. p. 357, for\n an athlete placing a prize vase on his head.\n\nFootnote 2965:\n\n B.M. 507; 122, 211, 422; 209, 210; 125, 213, 214.\n\nFootnote 2966:\n\n B.M. 75, 123, 124, 154, 212, 421.\n\nFootnote 2967:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 127.\n\nFootnote 2968:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 223 = Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1327, fig.\n 4590.\n\nFootnote 2969:\n\n Kenner, No. 98; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 200.\n\nFootnote 2970:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1339.\n\nFootnote 2971:\n\n B.M. 328: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 80, No. 1365.\n\nFootnote 2972:\n\n See B.M. 423, 424, 532, 533, 701; and cf. p. 415, note 2933.\n\nFootnote 2973:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 233-34; also B.M. 79. Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_,\n No. 884.\n\nFootnote 2974:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 227; B.M. 625 (hunter only).\n\nFootnote 2975:\n\n B.M. 126, 425; Kenner, Nos. 117-122.\n\nFootnote 2976:\n\n B.M. 79 = Plate LXV. fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.\n\nFootnote 2977:\n\n B.M. 217; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 233; Urlichs, _Verzeichn.\n d. Antikens. d. Univ. W\u00fcrzburg_, p. 39, No. 37.\n\nFootnote 2978:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6718.\n\nFootnote 2979:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 2980:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), pp. 230, 231.\n\nFootnote 2981:\n\n B.M. 534, 218, 219: cf. Kenner, Nos. 123-24.\n\nFootnote 2982:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, fig. 4: cf. the well-known\n _graffito_ at Pompeii, and _Collect. Antiq._ iv. pl. 11.\n\nFootnote 2983:\n\n B.M. 27; 222; 127; 74.\n\nFootnote 2984:\n\n B.M. 215, 489; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 230.\n\nFootnote 2985:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6221, 24.\n\nFootnote 2986:\n\n _Ibid._ x. 8053, 126 and 192.\n\nFootnote 2987:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 2988:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, pl. 30, 2.\n\nFootnote 2989:\n\n _G\u00f6ttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 186, No. 182.\n\nFootnote 2990:\n\n B.M., _passim_; Kenner, No. 139 ff.\n\nFootnote 2991:\n\n _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 278.\n\nFootnote 2992:\n\n B.M. 441, 494, 501; Masner, _Wiener Vasens._ No. 694; _Cyprus Mus.\n Cat._ 1379.\n\nFootnote 2993:\n\n Kenner, No. 181.\n\nFootnote 2994:\n\n _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 23.\n\nFootnote 2995:\n\n B.M. 560, 226, 561.\n\nFootnote 2996:\n\n B.M. 562.\n\nFootnote 2997:\n\n Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, pl. 7, No. 2.\n\nFootnote 2998:\n\n B.M. 544.\n\nFootnote 2999:\n\n B.M. 135, 291, 563; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 127.\n\nFootnote 3000:\n\n B.M. 230, 493; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 49, No. 57; _Cyprus Mus.\n Cat._ 1341.\n\nFootnote 3001:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 232.\n\nFootnote 3002:\n\n B.M. 234, 293, 439, 545; Kenner, Nos. 163-166.\n\nFootnote 3003:\n\n B.M. 238-241, 296, 443, 444; Masner, No. 693.\n\nFootnote 3004:\n\n _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 5.\n\nFootnote 3005:\n\n _Rev. Arch_. xxxiii. (1898), p. 232.\n\nFootnote 3006:\n\n _Ibid._; B.M. 242, 295, 626.\n\nFootnote 3007:\n\n B.M. 76, 82; Masner, Nos. 654-59.\n\nFootnote 3008:\n\n B.M. 77: cf. 145.\n\nFootnote 3009:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 3010:\n\n See generally Dalton, _B.M. Cat. of Early Christian Antiqs._ p. 139\n ff.; Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1328; _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 497 ff.;\n _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 45-7; De Rossi, _Roma Sotterr._ ii. p. 498\n ff.; Delattre, in _Revue de l\u2019Art Chr\u00e9tien_, 1889-93, etc. (Carthage).\n\nFootnote 3011:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 36, 143, 193; B.M. 201, 310, from Pozzuoli.\n\nFootnote 3012:\n\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, No. 26.\n\nFootnote 3013:\n\n See B.M. 189 and _C.I.L._ xv. 6211-18; these all date from the time\n of Augustus: cf. his coins and those of his successors.\n\nFootnote 3014:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6195.\n\nFootnote 3015:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6219.\n\nFootnote 3016:\n\n _Ibid._ 6222.\n\nFootnote 3017:\n\n See _ibid._ 6221; B.M. 164, etc.\n\nFootnote 3018:\n\n _Ibid._ x. 8053, 4.\n\nFootnote 3019:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6223.\n\nFootnote 3020:\n\n _Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 4.\n\nFootnote 3021:\n\n _Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 2.\n\nFootnote 3022:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ xiv. 2405, 6. This and the preceding are bronze lamps.\n\nFootnote 3023:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6239 = _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1866, pl. G.\n\nFootnote 3024:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6236.\n\nFootnote 3025:\n\n _Ibid._ xi. 6699, 4.\n\nFootnote 3026:\n\n _Ibid._ 6699, 5.\n\nFootnote 3027:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6241-49.\n\nFootnote 3028:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6250: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ viii. 160.\n\nFootnote 3029:\n\n _Ibid._ 6257, 6261.\n\nFootnote 3030:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1330.\n\nFootnote 3031:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6254-55.\n\nFootnote 3032:\n\n _Ibid._ x. 8053, 8; xv. 6230: see above, p. 411.\n\nFootnote 3033:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6234.\n\nFootnote 3034:\n\n _Ibid._ x. 8053, 6.\n\nFootnote 3035:\n\n _Ibid._ xi. 6699, 8-10.\n\nFootnote 3036:\n\n _Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 14.\n\nFootnote 3037:\n\n _Ibid._ 10001, 20.\n\nFootnote 3038:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6232.\n\nFootnote 3039:\n\n _Ibid._ viii. 10478, 1; xiii. 10001, 19. The meaning of _colatas_ is\n doubtful. Mr. F. H. Marshall suggests \u201cwell-made,\u201d _lit._ \u201csifted,\u201d\n referring to the quality of the clay.\n\nFootnote 3040:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6752; xi. 6699, 7.\n\nFootnote 3041:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1868, p. 59: see Vol. I. p. 107.\n\nFootnote 3042:\n\n _C.I.L._ ii. 4969, 1.\n\nFootnote 3043:\n\n _Ibid._ xv. 6265: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1861, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 3044:\n\n _M\u00e9langes de l\u2019\u00c9cole Franc. de Rome_, xii. (1892), p. 118, Nos. 31-3,\n pl. 4, No. 5; _C.I.L._ xv. 6520; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 369; and see\n above, p. 420, for examples on Campanian lamps.\n\nFootnote 3045:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 291.\n\nFootnote 3046:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1330.\n\nFootnote 3047:\n\n _E.g._ A, B, C, H, I, R: _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 209-14; xii. 5682, 131;\n xv. 6266, 6334, 6342.\n\nFootnote 3048:\n\n _C.I.L._ xii. 5682, 57.\n\nFootnote 3049:\n\n See Fink in _M\u00fcnchener Sitzungsberichte_, 1900, p. 690, for examples.\n\nFootnote 3050:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6282.\n\nFootnote 3051:\n\n _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 170 = _C.I.L._ xv. 6263.\n\nFootnote 3052:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6350, 6433.\n\nFootnote 3053:\n\n _Ibid._ 6501-03.\n\nFootnote 3054:\n\n _Ibid._ 6560-65.\n\nFootnote 3055:\n\n _Ibid._ 6434, 6593.\n\nFootnote 3056:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1331; also the lists\n given by Fink in _Sitzungsb. d. M\u00fcnch. Akad._ 1900, pp. 689, 692 ff.,\n and the various volumes of the _Corpus_ under Instrumentum\n Domesticum, especially vol. xv.\n\nFootnote 3057:\n\n Blanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 112.\n\nFootnote 3058:\n\n _C.I.L._ v. 8114, 54.\n\nFootnote 3059:\n\n _Ibid._ xiii. 10001, 136; xii. 5682, 50; B.M. 383, 391.\n\nFootnote 3060:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiii. 10001, 136.\n\nFootnote 3061:\n\n _Ibid._: also Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danub. et Rheni_, i. p. 185,\n ii. p. 238.\n\nFootnote 3062:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1330, 15; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 112;\n _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, Nos. 27-8.\n\nFootnote 3063:\n\n _C.I.L._ ii. p. 665, No. 24.\n\nFootnote 3064:\n\n _Ibid._ iii. 3215, 7; _ibid._ Suppl. 1, 8076, 16.\n\nFootnote 3065:\n\n _C.I.L._ ix. 6081, 33; x. 8053, 83; xi. 6699, 89; xv. 6450.\n\nFootnote 3066:\n\n Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ p. 1332: cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 783.\n\nFootnote 3067:\n\n From vol. v. of the _Corpus_ it may be seen how common the signatures\n peculiar to this class are in this region; _e.g._ 8114, 11, 28, 54,\n 126, 137.\n\nFootnote 3068:\n\n Carton, _D\u00e9couvertes_, p. 254: cf. _C.I.L._ viii. 10478, 33-4.\n\nFootnote 3069:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 46; _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2405, 18. Cf. _Proc. Soc.\n Antiqs._ xx. (1904), p. 96.\n\nFootnote 3070:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 6869, 6886.\n\nFootnote 3071:\n\n Boeckh, _C.I.Gr._ iii. p. 660, No. 5685; _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 24053,\n 34; and B.M. 303.\n\nFootnote 3072:\n\n _Inscr. Gr._ xiv. 2405, 35.\n\nFootnote 3073:\n\n Cf. Cesnola, _Salaminia_, p. 284.\n\nFootnote 3074:\n\n See _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 1, 7310, and Vol. I. p. 108. He also occurs\n in Africa (_C.I.L._ viii. 10478, 37) and elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 3075:\n\n _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2574.\n\nFootnote 3076:\n\n _M\u00fcnchener Sitzungsberichte_, 1900, p. 685 ff. On p. 692 a table of\n signatures on the British Museum lamps is given.\n\nFootnote 3077:\n\n See above, p. 400.\n\nFootnote 3078:\n\n The names of this and other potters in Class IV. also occur on\n terracotta money-boxes (see above, p. 389).\n\nFootnote 3079:\n\n See _C.I.L._ xv. pt. 2, pl. 3, No. 15.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXI\n _ROMAN POTTERY: TECHNICAL PROCESSES, SHAPES, AND USES_\n\n Introductory\u2014Geographical and historical limits\u2014Clay and\n glaze\u2014Technical processes\u2014Stamps and moulds\u2014_Barbotine_ and\n other methods\u2014Kilns found in Britain, Gaul, and Germany\u2014Use\n of earthenware among the Romans\u2014Echea\u2014Dolia and\n Amphorae\u2014Inscriptions on amphorae\u2014Cadus, Ampulla, and\n Lagena\u2014Drinking-cups\u2014Dishes\u2014Sacrificial vases\u2014Identification\n of names.\n\n\n 1. INTRODUCTORY\n\nRoman vases are far inferior in nearly all respects to Greek; the\nshapes are less artistic, and the decoration, though not without merits\nof its own, bears the same relation to that of Greek vases that all\nRoman art does to Greek art. Strictly speaking, a comparison of the two\nis not possible, as in the one case we are dealing with painted vases,\nin the other with ornamentation in relief. But from the point of view\nof style they may still be regarded as commensurable. Roman vases, in a\nword, require only the skill of the potter for their completion, and\nthe processes employed are largely mechanical, whereas Greek vases\ncalled in the aid of a higher branch of industry, and one which gave\nscope for great artistic achievements\u2014namely, that of painting.\n\nIt may perhaps be advisable to attempt some definition of the subject,\nand lay down as far as possible historical and geographical limits\nwithin which Roman pottery as a distinct phase of ancient art may be\nsaid to be comprised. The line which distinguishes it from Greek\npottery is, however, one of artistic evolution rather than of\nchronology, one of political circumstances rather than of geographical\ndemarcation. In other words, it will be found that during a certain\nperiod the ceramic art had reached the same stage of evolution\nthroughout all the Mediterranean countries; in Greece and Asia Minor,\nin the Crimea and in North Africa, in Southern Italy and in Etruria, a\npoint of development had been reached at which the same kind of\npottery, of very similar artistic merit, was being made in all parts\nalike. In Greece and other regions which had up to the end of the\nfourth century, or even later, been famous for their painted pottery,\nthis art had lost its popularity and was dying or dead; in other parts,\nas in Etruria, it had never obtained a very firm foothold, and the\nlocal traditions of relief-ware imitating metal were revived. Not the\nleast remarkable feature of the art of the Hellenistic Age is the great\nimpetus given to working in metal, as has already been indicated in a\nprevious chapter (Vol. I. p. 498). The toreutic products of Alexandria\nand of the famous chasers of Asia Minor, whose names Pliny\nrecords,[3080] became renowned throughout the Greek world, and the old\npassion for painted pottery was entirely ousted by the new passion for\nchased vases of metal.\n\nBut in spite of increased habits of luxury, it is obvious that the\nreplacing of earthenware by metal could never have become universal.\nFor ordinary household purposes pottery was still essential, and\nbesides that, there were many to whom services of plate and gold or\nsilver vessels for use or ornament were a luxury unattainable. Hence it\nwas natural that there should follow a general tendency to imitate in\nthe humbler material what was beyond reach in the more precious, and\nthe practice arose, not only of adorning vessels of clay with reliefs\nin imitation of the chased vases, but even of covering them with some\npreparation to give them the appearance of metal. Instances of these\ntendencies have been given in Chapter XI., and no better example could\nbe adduced than that of the silver phialae of \u00c8ze and their terracotta\nreplicas in the British Museum (Vol. I. p. 502).\n\nIn the same chapter we saw that Southern Italy, in particular, was the\nhome of the relief and moulded wares in the Hellenistic period. This\nwas a time when there were close artistic relations between that region\nand Etruria, and we have already seen that this method of decoration\nhad long been familiar in the latter district (see p. 292 ff.). Hence\nit is not surprising that we find springing up in the Etruscan region\nof Italy an important centre of pottery manufacture which proved itself\nto be the heir of more than one line of artistic traditions. The era of\nRoman pottery is generally assumed to begin with the establishment at\nArretium, within the area of Roman domination, of a great manufactory\nin the hands of Roman masters and workmen. Evidence points to the\nsecond century B.C. as the time when Arretium sprang into importance as\na pottery-centre; and thenceforward for many years its fabrics filled\nthe markets and set the fashion to the rest of the Roman world.\n\nThe lower limit of the subject is, from lack of evidence, not much\neasier to define; but after the second century of the Empire, pottery,\nlike other branches of working in clay, sank very much into the\nbackground, and the spread of Christianity after the time of Diocletian\npractically gave the death-blow to all Pagan art. M. D\u00e9chelette, in his\naccount of the important potteries at Lezoux in Gaul, brings forward\nevidence to show that they practically came to an end about the time of\nGallienus (A.D. 260-268)[3081]; but it is probable that the manufacture\nof degenerate _sigillata_ wares went on for about a century longer in\nGermany at any rate, if not in Gaul. Much of the pottery found in\nGermany and Britain is of an exceedingly debased and barbaric character.\n\nIn discussing the geographical distribution of Roman pottery we are met\nfirst with the difficulty, which has already been hinted at, of\ndefining where Greek ends and Roman begins. But we must have regard to\nthe fact that in most if not all Greek lands pottery, painted or\nmoulded, was in a moribund condition, whereas in Italy the latter\nbranch was rejuvenescent. It seems, therefore, more satisfactory on the\nwhole to exclude the Eastern Mediterranean entirely from the present\nsurvey, and to consider that with the concluding words of Chapter XI.\nthe history of pottery in that part of the ancient world came to an\nend. That is to say, that all later fabrics found in Greece or Asia\nMinor, even though they are sometimes of Roman date, belong to the\nlingering traces of a purely Hellenic development, and have no bearing\non our present investigation.\n\nThe latter must therefore be limited to the countries of Western\nEurope, embracing\u2014besides Italy\u2014France, Germany, Britain, and Spain.\nThe pottery found in these regions during the period of the Roman\nEmpire is homogeneous in character, though greatly varying in merit,\nand so far as it can be traced to the victorious occupiers of those\ncountries rather than to purely native workmanship, represents what we\nmay call Roman pottery, as opposed to Greek or Graeco-Roman on the one\nhand and Celtic or Gaulish on the other.\n\n 2. TECHNICAL PROCESSES\n\nRoman pottery, regarded from its purely technical aspect, is in some\nways better known to us than Greek, chiefly owing to the extensive\ndiscoveries of kilns, furnaces, and potters\u2019 apparatus, such as moulds\nand tools, in various parts of Western Europe. On the other hand, its\nclassification is a much more difficult matter, although it has for so\nlong been the subject of study, for reasons which will subsequently\nappear. This is perhaps partly due to the overwhelming interest which\nthe discoveries of recent years have evoked in the study of Greek\nvases; and partly, of course, to the artistic superiority and more\nvaried interest of the latter; but the mass of material now collected\nin the Museums of Italy and Central Europe is gradually impelling\nContinental scholars to bring to bear on Roman pottery the scientific\nmethods now universally pursued in other directions. Of their work we\nshall speak more in detail in another chapter; for the present we must\nconfine ourselves to the technical aspect of the subject.\n\nThe Romans, who used metal vases to a far greater extent than the\nGreeks\u2014at least under the late Republic and Empire\u2014did not hold the art\nof pottery in very high estimation, and their vases, like their tiles\nand lamps, were produced by slaves and freedmen, whereas at Athens the\npotter usually held at least the position of a resident alien. These\nwere content to produce useful, but not as a rule fine or beautiful,\nvases, for the most part only adapted to the necessities of life. There\nwas, so far as we know, no manufacture of vases set apart for religious\npurposes, either for funerary use or as votive offerings, and for the\nadornment of the house metal had the preference. It is not, therefore,\nsurprising that we should find them making use of a less fine and\ncompact paste for the greater proportion of their vases. With the\nexception of the fine red wares with reliefs, which are now generally\nknown to archaeologists as _terra sigillata_,[3082] and which answered\nin public estimation to our porcelain, they made only common\nearthenware, and this was generally left unglazed.\n\nAll kinds of clays are used, varying with the different regions in\nwhich the pottery was made, and ranging in hue from black to grey,\ndrab, yellow, brown, and red. In quality, too, the clay varies to a\nconsiderable extent, some being of a coarse, pebbly character. The red\nclay of the Allier district in France, where most of the Gaulish\npottery was manufactured, is of a ferruginous nature; its natural\ncolour is modified by baking, though it never becomes white.[3083] The\npottery of St. R\u00e9my-en-Rollat in that neighbourhood is made of the same\nwhite clay as the terracotta figures (p. 382).[3084] In Italy, as a\nrule, careful attention seems to have been paid to the preparing and\nmixing of the clay, and in the glazed red wares it is uniformly good.\nIn fact, the remarkable similarity in technique and appearance of this\nware throughout the Roman Empire has led to the view that there can\nonly have been one centre from which it was exported. Against this,\nhowever, must be urged the undeniably provincial and almost barbarous\ncharacter of the decoration on much of the pottery found in Central and\nNorthern Europe; and therefore, without denying that exportation went\non, as it undoubtedly did, we should prefer to suppose that this red\nglaze was produced in some special artificial manner, such as by using\nred ochre or iron oxide (see below), the knowledge of which became\ncommon property. As Semper said forty years ago[3085]: \u201cNot only did\nbarbarians, Gauls, Britons, and Germans, learn to know and use Roman\ntechnique, but also Egypt, Asia, and the Greeks, already immortalised\nby their own pottery, dropped their local processes, and voluntarily\nadopted Roman forms and technique.\u201d Clay and glaze, form and technical\nmethod, are in all parts the same; it is only the decoration that\nvaries and reflects the spirit and taste of the locality.\n\nFormerly it was thought that the red glaze was obtained in the baking,\nafter careful polishing of the surface, and that special means were\nadopted to this end. In the kilns of Castor (see below) Artis thought\nthat he detected contrivances for this purpose; but it is now generally\nagreed that the glaze is artificial, not natural. In ordinary wares and\nin the lamps a red glaze is produced by a mere polishing of the\nsurface, and this varies in tone and lustre with the proportion of\noxide of iron in the paste, and the degree of heat employed in the\nbaking. But in the _terra sigillata_ the red glaze reaches a high and\nuniform state of perfection. This seems to have been produced by a kind\nof varnish, the elements of which are not absolutely certain; but it\nwould appear that the substance added to produce the effect was of an\nessentially alkaloid nature. This has been deduced by Dragendorff[3086]\nfrom a series of analyses made from fragments of different wares, both\nwithout and with the glaze; in the latter case the alkaloid\nconstituents show a marked increase in quantity, whereas the proportion\nof the iron oxide and other elements remain constant. These\ninvestigations were made by Dr. Lilienthal, of Dorpat, on five\nfragments: (1) from a vase of the Republican period found at Corneto;\n(2) from a bowl of fine _terra sigillata_ of the first century after\nChrist; (3) from a deep cup of the same style; (4) from late provincial\nware of the second or third century; (5) from a degenerate fabric with\nrough clay and inferior glaze, the results being as follows:\u2014\n\n1. Without glaze[3087]:\n\n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)\n Silica 55\u00b708 52\u00b787 52\u00b7054 54\u00b775 66\u00b770\n Clay earth 23\u00b710 23\u00b795 \u2014 18\u00b782 21\u00b701\n Iron oxide 14\u00b713 4\u00b778 13\u00b7966 14\u00b748 5\u00b789\n Carbonate of lime 5\u00b722 13\u00b780 \u2014 5\u00b730 3\u00b720\n Magnesia 0\u00b775 2\u00b735 1\u00b7850 3\u00b738 1\u00b726\n Potash 0\u00b779 0\u00b789 1\u00b7852 1\u00b755 1\u00b702\n Carbonate of sodium 0\u00b728 0\u00b745 0\u00b7523 0\u00b753 0\u00b757\n\n2. With glaze[3088]:\n\n (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)\n Silica 54\u00b718 \u2014 51\u00b7924 53\u00b770 \u2014\n Clay 21\u00b731 \u2014 \u2014 16\u00b793 \u2014\n Iron 15\u00b700 \u2014 12\u00b7168 14\u00b770 \u2014\n Carbonate of lime 6\u00b701 \u2014 \u2014 5\u00b782 \u2014\n Magnesia 1\u00b794 3\u00b712 2\u00b7201 5\u00b772 2\u00b705\n Potash 0\u00b795 1\u00b706 2\u00b7210 1\u00b782 1\u00b727\n Carbonate of sodium 0\u00b737 0\u00b749 0\u00b7921 0\u00b762 0\u00b769\n\nIt must be borne in mind that, although the final effect is due to the\nalkaloids, the red colour of the vases is produced by the iron oxide\nwhich was inherent in the composition of the clay, none being added\nwith the varnish, as the quantities show. All the fragments also showed\ntraces of manganese and sulphuric acid. Previously analyses had been\ngiven by Brongniart and Bl\u00fcmner,[3089] with results approximately\nsimilar, but not so definite. Fabroni had thought that the iron oxide\nwas combined with a vitreous paste,[3090] and Keller, by practical\nexperiments, essayed to show that borax was employed to provide the\nrequired appearance,[3091] and further maintained that the furnace at\nCastor already alluded to was used for dissolving that substance. He\nwas not far from the truth, but the results obtained by Dragendorff\nseem to militate against his conclusions.\n\nIn any case the glaze is very perfect, of so bright a red as to\nresemble coral, and serving, as Bl\u00fcmner says, to enhance the ground\ncolour where a modern glaze would only conceal its imperfect tone. It\nis so fine and so carefully laid on that it does not interfere with any\noutlines or details, in this again evincing its superiority to modern\nglaze. It seems to have been applied not with the brush, but by dipping\nthe vase into the liquid.[3092] Black glaze, such as occurs on the\nearlier Italian fabrics (p. 481), was produced from an alkaline\nsilicate.[3093]\n\nThe ordinary unglazed wares were classified by Brongniart under four\nheads[3094]: (1) pale yellow; (2) red (dark red to red-brown; first\ncentury of Empire); (3) grey or ash-coloured (down to the end of the\nWestern Empire); (4) black (mainly provincial). This distribution was\nin its general lines adopted by subsequent writers, such as\nBuckman[3095] and Birch, but was felt to be inadequate, and some slight\nmodifications were adopted. For practical purposes, however, it will be\nfound to work fairly well as a convenient method of grouping the\ncommoner wares. None of them as a rule have any decoration. They will\nbe considered in fuller detail in a subsequent chapter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the manufacture of vases the Romans used the same processes as the\nGreeks. They were made on the wheel (_rota figularis_ or\n_orbis_),[3096] to which allusion is not infrequently made by the Latin\npoets, as in the well-known line of Horace[3097]:\u2014\n\n Amphora cepit\n Institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?\n\nAnd, again, in the phrase _totus, teres, atque rotundus_[3098] he is\ndoubtless referring to a vase just turned off the wheel. Tibullus\nspeaks of \u201cslippery clay fashioned on the wheel of Cumae\u201d[3099]; and\nthere are also allusions in Plautus and other writers.[3100] The simile\nhas also been drawn upon by English poets.[3101] Specimens of potters\u2019\nwheels have been found at Arezzo and at Nancy; these are made of\nterracotta, pierced in the centre for the axis of the pivot, and\nfurnished at the circumference with small cylinders of lead, to give\npurchase for the hand and steadiness to the whirling wheel.[3102]\nAnother from Lezoux, now in the Museum at Roanne, is figured by M.\nD\u00e9chelette.[3103] Most of the common wares were made by this process,\nexcept the _dolia_, or large casks, which were built up on a frame like\nthe Greek pithos (Vol. I. p. 152).\n\nBut for the ornamented vases with reliefs an additional process was\nnecessary in order to produce the raised ornament, and they were in\nnearly all cases produced from moulds, like the lamps or terracotta\nfigures and reliefs.[3104] The vases were still fashioned on the wheel,\nbut this was done in the mould from which the reliefs were obtained.\nOccasionally the reliefs were modelled by hand or with the aid of\ntools, or even produced with a brush full of thick slip (_en\nbarbotine_), but moulding was the general rule. This method entailed\nthree distinct stages, of which the first alone required artistic\ncapacity; the other two were purely mechanical, requiring only a\ncertain technical dexterity. The first was that of making the stamps\nfrom which the designs were impressed; the second, the making of the\nmoulds; the third, impressing the clay in the mould.\n\nThe stamps were made of clay, gypsum, wood, or metal, and had a handle\nat the back for holding while pressing them into the mould; they were\nused not only for figures and ornamental designs, but also for the\npotter\u2019s signature (see below). Only clay examples, however, have been\npreserved, but some of these are admirable specimens. Frequently the\nsubjects on the Arretine vases were taken, like those on lamps and\nmural reliefs, from existing works of art, especially from the \u201cnew\nAttic\u201d reliefs to which allusion has already been made (p. 368), and\nthe stamps are directly copied from these sources. An instance of this\nis a stamp from Arezzo in the British Museum, with a beautiful figure\nof Spring (Plate LXVI. fig. 2), which finds its counterpart on a\ncomplete vase from Capua (Fig. 219), and also on a mural relief (B.M. D\n583). Another good example in the same collection represents a slave\nbending over a vessel on a fire, and shielding his face from the heat\nwith one hand. From the same site are two others representing\nrespectively a boar and a lion. A fourth stamp found at Arezzo, with a\ntragic mask, is given in Fig. 211.[3105] The stamps must have been\narticles of commerce, and handed down from one potter to another, as\nthe subjects are found repeated in different places; the majority were\nprobably made at Arezzo and other important places in Italy.\n\nAmong examples from the provinces may be mentioned one in the British\nMuseum (Romano-British collection), with the figure of a youth,\ninscribed OFFI(_cina_) LIBERTI; it is of fine terracotta, and was found\nat Mainz. A stamp with the figure of Paris or Atys is in the museum of\nthe Philosophical Society at York.[3106] Other stamps in the form of a\nhare and a lion in the S\u00e8vres Museum are inscribed with the name of\nCerialis, a well-known German potter, whose name also occurs on a mould\nfor a large bowl with a frieze of combatants in the British Museum, and\nin the former museum are six others, including one of a wolf, with the\nname of a Gaulish potter, Cobnertus.[3107] Von Hefner mentions one\nfound at Rheinzabern with a figure of a gladiator at each end,\ninscribed P \u00b7 ATTI \u00b7 CLINI \u00b7 O(_fficina_), and others from Westerndorf\nwith a lion and a horse.[3108] Dies for stamping the potters\u2019 names\nhave been found at Lezoux in Auvergne, and in Luxemburg, with the names\nof Auster (AVSTRI \u00b7 OF) and Cobnertus, and Roach-Smith possessed one\nwith the latter name[3109]; in the S\u00e8vres Museum is also a stamp for\nmaking rows of pattern (see below),[3110] and at Rheinzabern one for an\negg-and-tongue moulding was found.[3111] Specimens of these stamps are\ngiven in Fig. 211.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 211. STAMPS USED BY ROMAN POTTERS.]\n\nThe moulds were made of a somewhat lighter clay than that of the vases,\nbut it was essential that the material should be sufficiently porous to\nabsorb the moisture of the pressed-in clay of the vase; sometimes holes\nfor the water to escape through are visible. They were made on the\nwheel, and had a ridge on the exterior for convenience in handling;\nthey were made whole, not in halves, but sometimes the vase was first\nmade plain, and the figures were then attached from separate moulds, or\nrather made separately, as in the case of the \u201cMegarian\u201d bowls (Vol. I.\np. 499).[3112] Vases have been found in the Rhone valley ornamented\nwith large _appliqu\u00e9_ medallions, and the separate moulds for these\nalso exist; they seem to have been made at Vienne.[3113] The figures\nand ornaments were impressed into the moulds from the stamps while the\npaste was still soft, leaving hollow impressions to receive the clay of\nthe vases. Similarly, continuous patterns, such as rows of beads or\ndots, were traced in the mould with a roller or wheel-like instrument\non which the pattern was cut in relief.[3114] Any defects or careless\narrangement in the completed vase would of course be due to a careless\ninsertion of the stamps in the mould.\n\nThere are large numbers of moulds for Roman and provincial vases in\nexistence,[3115] and the British Museum has a fine though fragmentary\nseries from Arezzo, intended for some of the finest specimens of the\nlocal ware; of these more will be said in the following chapter. Many\nof these moulds have been found on sites of potteries in Gaul,\nespecially in the Auvergne and Bourbonnais districts, and are collected\nin the Moulins, Roanne, St. Germain, and other museums. Lezoux was an\nimportant centre in this respect, and here also were found moulds for\npatterns and ornaments.[3116] In the British Museum (Romano-British\ncollection) there is part of a mould for a shallow bowl, found at\nRheinzabern, with stamped designs of a lion, boar, and hare pursuing\none another; it is similar to the mould with Cerialis\u2019 name already\ndescribed. These _matrices_ are usually of fine bright red clay,\nunglazed; they are very porous, rapidly absorbing moisture, and easily\nallowing the potter to withdraw the vessel from the mould. The\nimportance of the discovery of moulds can hardly be overrated for the\nevidence they afford as to the site of potteries and centres of\nfabrics[3117]; it is obvious that where they are found, and only in\nsuch places, the vases must have been made; and that the discovery of a\npotter\u2019s name on any mould establishes his workshop at the place where\nit was found. Various tools for working the moulds, or touching up\ndetails or damaged parts of bronze and ivory, have been found on the\nsites of ancient potteries,[3118] as at Arezzo, but their use cannot be\naccurately determined.\n\nThe method of decoration known as _en barbotine_, which is a sort of\ncross between painting and relief, was achieved by the laying on of a\nsemi-liquid clay slip with a brush, a spatula, or a small tube. The\npattern was probably first lightly indicated, and the viscous paste was\nthen laid on in thick lines or masses, producing a sort of low relief.\nThe process was, as a rule, only employed for simple ornamentation,\nsuch as leaves, sprays, and garlands; but on the provincial black wares\nit finds a freer scope. On vases found in Britain and the adjoining\nparts of the Continent (p. 544) figures of animals are rendered in this\nmanner, and on another class peculiar to Germany (p. 537) inscriptions\nare painted in a thick white slip. The colour of the slip did not\nnecessarily correspond to the clay of the vase, and was, in fact,\nusually white. These vases are, however, technically poor, and the\nreliefs heavy and irregular. The process has been aptly compared to the\nsugar ornamentation on cakes.[3119]\n\nPainted decoration is almost unknown in Roman pottery, and is, in fact,\nconfined to the POCOLOM series described in Chapter XI. It occurs in a\nrough and primitive form on some of the provincial fabrics, such as the\nCastor and Rhenish vases (see pp. 537, 544), but its place is really\ntaken by the _barbotine_ method.\n\nEngraved or incised decoration is exceedingly rare, and practically\nconfined to provincial wares, which sometimes have incisions or\nundulations made over the surface with the fingernail in the moist\nclay.[3120] In the north of England, as at York, pottery is commonly\nfound with wreaths and fan-patterns cut in _intaglio_ in the clay while\nmoist. Others have patterns of four leaves 20[19]four-leaf cut in the\nsoft clay, or continuous ornaments round the vase made with the toothed\nroller-like instrument of which we have already spoken. Some of this\nornamentation may be in imitation of contemporary glass vases. M.\nD\u00e9chelette has traced this fabric to Lezoux,[3121] and the specimens\nfound in Britain are doubtless imported. A Gaulish example from the\nMorel Collection in the British Museum is given on Plate LXIX. fig. 4.\n\nThe feet and rims of the vases were made separately, and attached after\ntheir removal from the wheel, as were also the handles when required;\nbut the rarity of handles in Roman pottery is remarkable. It is perhaps\ndue to the difficulty of packing them safely for export. The next\nprocess was the preparation of the glaze, for those vases to which it\nwas applied, followed by the baking.\n\n 3. ROMAN POTTERY-FURNACES\n\nThe remains of pottery-kilns and furnaces discovered in various parts\nof Europe have furnished a considerable amount of valuable information\non the system employed in baking the vases. On this particular point,\nindeed, we know far more in regard to Roman pottery than to Greek,\nalthough, as we have seen in Chapter V., the painted vases themselves\nsometimes yield information on the appearance and arrangement of the\nfurnaces. But remains of actual furnaces have been found in many places\nin Western Europe, notably in Germany, France, and Britain, in a more\nor less complete state, as also in Italy, at Pompeii, Modena, and\nMarzabotto.[3122] A complete list of those known in 1863 has been given\nby Von Hefner,[3123] supplemented by Blanchet\u2019s lists of furnaces found\nin France (1898 and 1902).[3124] In Gaul the best examples are at\nLezoux, near Clermont, at Ch\u00e2telet in Haute-Marne,[3125] and at\nBelle-Vue, near Agen, in the Department of Lot-et-Garonne.[3126] The\nlatter was circular in form, below the level of the soil. In Germany\nimportant remains have been found at Heiligenberg in Baden, Heddernheim\nnear Frankfort, Rheinzabern near Karlsruhe, and Westerndorf.[3127] All\nthese in general arrangement differ little from those in use at the\npresent day; the Heddernheim furnace (Fig. 212) was found in the most\nperfect preservation, but was subsequently destroyed, not, however,\nbefore satisfactory plans and drawings had been made.[3128] In Britain\nby far the most important discoveries have been made at Castor,\nChesterton, and Wansford in Northants, where the remains extend for\nsome distance along the Nene valley.[3129] They were first explored by\nArtis in 1821-27, who published a magnificent series of plates in\nillustration, entitled _Durobrivae_; these he supplemented by a full\ndescription in the _Journal_ of the British Archaeological\nAssociation.[3130] Castor and Chesterton (the latter in Hunts) are both\non the site of Roman towns, and were the centres of a special local\nware, described in a succeeding chapter. The potteries, being so\nnumerous, are probably not all of the same age.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 212. ROMAN KILN FOUND AT HEDDERNHEIM, GERMANY.]\n\nIn 1677 four Roman kilns were discovered in digging under St. Paul\u2019s\nCathedral for the foundation of Sir C. Wren\u2019s building, at a depth of\n26 feet. They were made of loam, which had been converted into brick by\nthe action of the fires, and were full of coarse pots and dishes; they\nmeasured 5 feet each way. A drawing made at the time is preserved among\nthe Sloane MSS. in the British Museum.[3131] In the kilns was found\npottery of the kind typical of London and the neighbourhood. In 1898\ntwo kilns, one of large size, with pottery bearing the name CASTVS\nFECIT, were found near Radlett in Herts,[3132] and another was\nexcavated in 1895 by Mr. C. H. Read at Shoeburyness.[3133] In Norfolk a\nkiln of somewhat curious form was found in the Roman settlement of\nCaistor by Norwich; the shape is that of a shallow concave depression\nwith partitions, and it contained vases placed ready for baking.[3134]\nAnother found between Buxton and Brampton was recorded by Sir Thomas\nBrowne,[3135] and a third at Weybourne.[3136] In the South of England\nkilns have been found in the New Forest, where there was a manufacture\nof local pottery[3137]; in Alice Holt Forest near Petersfield, Hants;\nat Shepton Mallet in Somerset; and a potter\u2019s workshop at Milton Abbas,\nDorset.[3138] The British Museum contains a model of a kiln unearthed\nat Worcester about forty years ago, on the site of the modern porcelain\nworks. Finally, discoveries of kilns and pottery were made in 1819 at\nColchester, and again in 1878, when five kilns, all of different forms,\nwith local pottery, came to light.[3139]\n\nTo describe all these different types of furnaces in detail would of\ncourse be impossible, but much may be learnt from the very full, though\nnow somewhat antiquated, descriptions of the Castor kilns given by\nArtis.[3140] It will be found more satisfactory to describe the\ngenerally-prevailing arrangements, noting the more important variations\nwhere they occur. It may further be laid down that the system was\npractically the same for terracotta figures and tiles as for pottery,\nand that in many cases both were made in the same furnace. But this was\nnot invariably the case, and at Rheinzabern, for instance, the kilns\nfor tiles were quadrangular, those for pottery circular.\n\nThe kilns were constructed partly of burnt, partly of unburnt brick,\nthe interior, floor, and outside of the roofs being covered with a\nstrong layer of cement. They consisted of two main portions, the\nfire-chamber with its adjuncts, and the vaulted chamber above, in which\nthe objects to be baked are placed. The fire-chamber was usually\ncircular, with a projection in front, the _praefurnium_[3141] which had\neither a vaulted roof, as at Castor and Heiligenberg, or a gabled roof\nformed of pairs of tiles, as at Rheinzabern. Through this the fuel was\nintroduced, consisting chiefly, as charcoal remains show, of pine-wood.\nThe fire-chamber was either divided up, as at Castor, by walls\nradiating from a central pillar which supported the roof, or by rows of\npillars in a line with the entrance, as at Rheinzabern and\nHeiligenberg. Holes were bored in the roof to allow the heat to\npenetrate through, but the arrangement varies; at Heiligenberg each\ndivision of the furnace was vaulted, making grooves along which the\nholes were bored. The oven where the pots were placed has been\ndestroyed in most cases, but we know that it consisted of a floor, a\nwall with entrances, and a vaulted dome. The pots were ranged partly on\nthe floor, partly on terracotta stands over the holes, as at\nRheinzabern and Heiligenberg[3142]; at Lezoux there are remains of\nholes in the walls for iron bars to support them. Special arrangements\nseem to have been made for baking the finer wares, in order to ensure\nthe proper spread of heat, and to guard against their being blackened\nor otherwise injured. In the Romano-British Room of the British Museum\nis a lump of bowls of red ware from Lezoux, fused together in the\nbaking and cast aside.[3143]\n\nOne of the kilns at Castor (Fig. 213) is described by Artis as a\ncircular hole 3 to 4 feet deep and 4 feet in diameter, walled round to\na height of 2 feet; the _praefurnium_ was about a foot in length. In\nthe centre of the circular hole was an oval pedestal (with one end\npointing to the furnace-mouth), on which and on the side wall the floor\nwas supported, being formed of perforated angular bricks meeting in the\ncentre. The vaulted dome was composed of bricks moulded for the\npurpose,[3144] and the sides of the kiln of curved bricks set edgeways\nin a thick slip of the same material. Brongniart[3145] compares the\nCastor kiln with that at Heiligenberg, near Strasburg, and others in\nthe Rhine valley in which \u201cSamian\u201d ware was made.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 213. KILN FOUND AT CASTOR, NORTHANTS.]\n\nAnother kiln found in 1844 Artis describes as having been \u201cused for\nfiring the common blue or slate-coloured pottery, and had been built on\npart of the site of one of the same kind, and within a yard and a half\nof one that had been constructed for firing pottery of a different\ndescription. The older exhausted kiln ... presented the appearance of\nvery early work; the bricks had evidently been modelled with the hand,\nand not moulded, and the workmanship was altogether inferior to that of\nthe others, which were also in a very mutilated state; but the\ncharacter of the work, the bricks, the mouths of the furnaces, and the\noval pedestals which supported the floors of the kilns, were still\napparent.\u201d\n\nArtis was also of opinion that \u201cthe blue and slate-coloured vessels\nfound here in such abundance were coloured by suffocating the fire of\nthe kiln, at a time when its contents had acquired a degree of heat\nsufficient to ensure uniformity of colour.\u201d Hence he denominated kilns\nin which this ware was baked, \u201csmother kilns.\u201d He further notes that\nthe bricks of this kiln \u201cwere made of clay mixed with rye in the chaff,\nwhich being consumed by the fire [_i.e._ in the baking of the bricks]\nleft cavities in the room of the grains, which might have been intended\nto modify expansion and contraction, as well as to assist the gradual\ndistribution of the colouring vapour. The mouth of the furnace and top\nof the kiln were no doubt stopped; thus every part of the kiln was\npenetrated with the colouring exhalation.\u201d From experiments made on the\nlocal clays he proved to his own satisfaction that the colour could not\nhave been produced by any metallic oxide, inherent or applied from\nwithout; and this view was supported by the appearance of the clay\nwrappers of the dome of the kiln. But in view of recent researches,\nsuch as those of Bl\u00fcmner, it is doubtful whether Artis\u2019 theories can\nnow be upheld. As Mr. Haverfield has pointed out,[3146] the dark colour\nmay be due to the chemical action of the carbonaceous vapour of the\nsmothered kiln rather than to any \u201ccolouring exhalation.\u201d\n\nThe process of packing the kiln in order to secure uniform heat in\nfiring is thus described by the same writer: \u201cThe kilns were first\ncarefully loose-packed with the articles to be fired, up to the height\nof the side walls. The circumference of the bulk was then gradually\ndiminished, and finished in the shape of a dome. As this arrangement\nprogressed, an attendant seems to have followed the packer, and thinly\ncovered a layer of pots with coarse hay or grass. He then took some\nthin clay, the size of his hand, and laid it flat on the grass upon the\nvessels; he then placed more grass on the edge of the clay just laid\non, and then more clay, and so on until he had completed the circle. By\nthis time the packer would have raised another tier of pots, the\nplasterer following as before, hanging the grass over the top edge of\nthe last layer of plaster, until he had reached the top, in which a\nsmall aperture was left, and the clay nipt round the edge; another\ncoating would be laid on as before described. Gravel or loam was then\nthrown up against the side wall where the clay wrappers were commenced,\nprobably to secure the bricks and the clay coating. In consequence of\nthe care taken to place grass between the edges of the wrappers, they\ncould be unpacked in the same-sized pieces as when laid on in a plastic\nstate, and thus the danger in breaking the coat to obtain the contents\nof the kiln could be obviated.\u201d\n\nIn the course of his excavations Artis discovered a singular\nfurnace,[3147] \u201cof which I have never before or since met with an\nexample. Over it had been placed two circular earthen fire vessels (or\ncauldrons); that next above the furnace was a third less than the\nother, which would hold about eight gallons. The fire passed partly\nunder both of them, the smoke escaping by a smoothly-plastered flue,\nfrom seven to eight inches wide. The vessels were suspended by the rims\nfitting into a circular groove or rabbet, formed for the purpose.\u201d He\nwas strongly of opinion that this furnace was used for producing glazed\nwares by means of iron oxide. Whether this is so or not, it is\ninteresting to note that in the British Museum and Museum of Geology\nthere are cakes of vitreous matter from Castor, probably used as a\nglaze, and consisting of silicates of soda and lime.[3148]\n\nThe kiln found at Caistor, in Norfolk, was apparently used for baking\nthe grey Roman ware, and differed in form from those described, which\nwere for the black, being only calculated for a slight degree of\nbaking. It was a regular oval, measuring 6 feet 4 inches in breadth.\nThe furnace holes were filled in below with burnt earth of a red\ncolour, and in the upper part with peat; the exterior was formed of\nstrong blue clay of 6 inches in thickness, and the interior lined with\npeat; the kiln was intersected by partitions of blue clay. Some of the\nvases were inverted and filled with a core of white sand.[3149]\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 214. PLAN OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]\n\nThe furnaces at Heiligenberg and Rheinzabern present the following\nfurther peculiarities.[3150] The former, which were evidently used for\nthe baking of red wares, had a flue in the form of a long channel with\narched vault, the mouth being over 8 feet from the space where the\nflames and heat were concentrated under the oven (Fig. 214). Numerous\npipes of terracotta, of varying diameter, diverged from the upper part\nor floor of the oven, to distribute the heat; in the outer wall of the\noven was a series of smaller ones, and twelve or fifteen of larger size\nopened under the floor of the oven to distribute the heat and flame\nround the pots (Fig. 215). The mouths of the pipes were sometimes\nstopped with baked clay stoppers to moderate the heat. The upper part\nor dome of the kiln is never found entire, having been generally\ndestroyed here, as elsewhere, by the superincumbent earth. Walls of\nstrong masonry separated and protected the space between the mouth of\nthe flue and the walls of the oven, and the floor of the latter was\nmade of terracotta tiles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 215. SECTION OF KILN AT HEILIGENBERG.]\n\nAt Rheinzabern, where excavations were made in 1858, fifteen furnaces\nwere found, some round and others square, but all constructed on the\nsame plan. The floor of the oven was over 3 feet below the top of the\nwalls, and was covered with tiling, the walls being formed of rough\nslabs of clay, about 28 by 16 inches in size. The floors of the ovens\nwere in some cases supported by bricks covered with a coating of clay.\nStands of baked clay in the shape of flattened cylinders supported the\npots in the oven, and these rested on pads of a peculiar form, roughly\nmodelled in clay.[3151] In all, seventy-seven pottery-kilns and\nthirty-six tile-kilns were discovered on this site.[3152]\n\nThe following list, though by no means claiming to be exhaustive, gives\nthe names of the chief potteries where actual furnaces have been\ndiscovered.\n\n 1. ITALY\n\n Arezzo See p. 479 ff.\n Marzabotto _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 282.\n Modena _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1875, p. 192.\n Oria _Ibid._ 1834, p. 56.\n Pompeii Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 386.\n Pozzuoli _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 54.\n\n 2. FRANCE\n\n Dept. Ain St.-Martin-du- Blanchet, _Melanges_, p. 107.\n of Mont\n\n Allier Champ-Lary Blanchet, p. 89.\n\n Lubi\u00e9 \u201d p. 95.\n\n St.-Bonnet \u201d p. 96.\n\n St.-Didier-en- \u201d p. 96.\n Rollat\n\n St.-R\u00e9my-en- \u201d p. 96; D\u00e9chelette, i.\n Rollat p. 41 ff.\n\n Vichy Blanchet, p. 95.\n\n Aube Nogent-sur- \u201d p. 106.\n Seine\n\n Aveyron Graufesenque \u201d p. 97; D\u00e9chelette, i.\n p. 64 ff.\n\n Dept. Bouches-du- Arles Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._\n of Rh\u00f4ne vii. p. 13.\n\n Auriol Blanchet, p. 98.\n\n Marseilles \u201d p. 98.\n\n Charente Jarnac \u201d p. 101.\n\n Chez Ferroux \u201d p. 102.\n\n Eure-et-Loire Chartres \u201d p. 104.\n\n Gard Uz\u00e8s \u201d p. 99.\n\n Haute-Garonne Vieille- \u201d p. 101.\n Toulouse\n\n Haute-Marne Ch\u00e2telet Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 439.\n\n Haute-Sa\u00f4ne Luxueil Blanchet, p. 107.\n\n Ille-et-Vilaine Redon \u201d p. 102.\n\n Indre-et-Loire Nou\u00e2tre \u201d p. 104.\n\n Loire Montverdun \u201d p. 96.\n\n Loire- Herbignac \u201d p. 102.\n Inf\u00e9rieure\n\n Loire-et-Cher Thor\u00e9 \u201d p. 104.\n\n Lot Cahors \u201d p. 100.\n\n M\u00e9lines \u201d p. 101.\n\n Lot-et-Garonne Agen \u201d p. 101; _Rev. Arch._\n xviii. (1868), pl. 23.\n\n Loz\u00e8re Banassac Blanchet, p. 97; D\u00e9chelette, i. p.\n 117.\n\n Ni\u00e8vre Chantenay Blanchet, p. 96.\n\n Gravier \u201d p. 96.\n\n Oise Bois-Ibert \u201d p. 105.\n\n Compi\u00e8gne \u201d p. 104.\n (Forest of)\n\n Mont-de-Hermes, \u201d p. 105.\n Beauvais\n\n Sampigny \u201d p. 105.\n\n Orne Chandai \u201d p. 103.\n\n Pas-de-Calais Avesnes-le- \u201d p. 106.\n Comte\n\n Puy-de-D\u00f4me Clermont- \u201d p. 95.\n Ferrand\n\n Lezoux \u201d p. 93; D\u00e9chelette, i. p.\n 141 ff.\n\n Thiers Blanchet, p. 94.\n\n Rh\u00f4ne Lyons \u201d p. 100.\n\n Sarthe Grand-Luc\u00e9 \u201d p. 103.\n\n Seine Paris \u201d p. 104.\n\n Seine- Incheville \u201d p. 103.\n Inf\u00e9rieure\n\n Somme Amiens Blanchet, p. 106.\n\n Tarn Montans \u201d p. 97.\n\n Tarn-et-Garonne Castelnau-de- \u201d p. 97.\n Montratier\n\n Muret \u201d p. 97.\n\n Vend\u00e9e Trizay \u201d p. 102.\n\n Yonne Sens \u201d p. 106.\n\n[See also Blanchet, p. 90 ff. for sites of furnaces for terracotta\nfigures.]\n\n 3. GERMANY\n\n Alttrier, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 60.\n\n Bergheim Blanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.\n\n Bonn _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxiv. p. 152; lxxxiv. p.\n 118.\n\n Cannstadt Von Hefner, p. 61.\n\n Cologne _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxix. p. 178.\n\n Commern _Ibid._ iv. p. 203.\n\n Dalheim, Luxemburg Von Hefner, p. 61.\n\n Dieburg \u201d p. 61.\n\n G\u00fcglingen _Bonner Jahrb._ i. p. 74.\n\n Heddernheim _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1882, p. 183.\n\n Heidelberg _Bonner Jahrb._ lxii. p. 7.\n\n Heiligenberg Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 427; Blanchet,\n _M\u00e9langes Gallo-rom._ ii. p. 108.\n\n Heldenbergen _Westd. Zeitschr. f\u00fcr Gesch. u. Kunst_,\n xviii. (1899), pl. 4, p. 227.\n\n Herbishofen Von Hefner, p. 61.\n\n Nassenfels \u201d p. 61.\n\n Petzel, Luxemburg \u201d p. 61.\n\n Rheinzabern \u201d p. 61; Brongniart, i. p. 429.\n\n Riegel Von Hefner, p. 61.\n\n Rottenburg _Bonner Jahrb._ iv. p. 141.\n\n Sch\u00f6nbuch, W\u00fcrtemberg Blanchet, p. 108.\n\n Trier \u201d p. 108.\n\n Waiblingen Von Hefner, p. 61.\n\n Westheim \u201d p. 62.\n\n Westerndorf \u201d p. 62.\n\n 4. ENGLAND\n\n Dorset, Milton Abbas Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi.\n p. 191.\n\n Essex, Ashdon _Arch. Journ._ x. p. 21.\n\n \u201d Colchester Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii.\n p. 38, vii. pls. 1-3, p. 1 ff.;\n _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxiii.\n p. 267.\n\n \u201d Shoeburyness _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvi.\n p. 40.\n\n Hampshire, Alice Holt Forest _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 306.\n\n \u201d New Forest _Ibid._ p. 326.\n\n Hertfordshire, Radlett _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xvii.\n p. 261.\n\n Huntingdon, Sibson and Water Newton _Vict. County Hist. Northants_, i.\n p. 175.\n\n Kent, Upchurch Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi.\n p. 178; _Archaeologia_, li. p. 467.\n\n Lancashire, Warrington _Reliquary_, 1900, p. 263.\n\n Middlesex, London (St. Paul\u2019s) Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p.\n 79.\n\n Norfolk, Brampton _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 314.\n\n \u201d Caistor-by-Norwich _Ibid._ p. 291; _Archaeologia_,\n xxxvi. p. 413.\n\n \u201d Caistor-by-Yarmouth _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._, xxxvi.\n p. 206.\n\n \u201d Weybourne _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 322.\n\n Northants, Castor, Wansford, Bedford _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 166 ff.,\n Purlieus 206 ff.\n\n Oxfordshire, Headington _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ vi. p.\n 60.\n\n \u201d Littlemore _Ibid._ liv. p. 349.\n\n Somerset, Shepton Mallet _Gentleman\u2019s Mag._ 1864, ii. p.\n 770.\n\n Suffolk, West Stow Heath _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxvii.\n p. 152.\n\n Worcester _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 207 (a\n model in Brit. Mus.).\n\n[On the subject generally reference may be made to Brongniart,\n_Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 426; De Caumont, _Cours d\u2019ant. Monum._ ii. (for\nHeiligenberg); Von Hefner, _R\u00f6mische Topferei_, in _Oberbayr. Archiv\nf\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 60 (where a complete list of\nfurnaces up to date is given); _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, lxii. 1878, p. 7\nff.; Wolff in _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Gesch. u. Kunst_, xviii.\n(1899), p. 211 ff.; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 23 ff.; Smith,\n_Dict. of Antiqs._ i. p. 845 (_art._ FICTILE); and for Gaulish sites,\nBlanchet, _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 93 ff.]\n\n 4. POTTERY IN LATIN LITERATURE; SHAPES AND USES\n\nVessels of earthenware were extensively used by the Roman people in the\nearlier days of the Republic for all purposes of domestic life,[3153]\nand later writers often contrast their use with that of the costly\nvases of precious metal then customary. \u201cGold,\u201d says Persius, \u201chas\ndriven away the vases of Numa and the brass vessels of Saturn, the urns\nof the Vestals and Etruscan earthenware\u201d[3154]; and Juvenal speaks of\nthose who laughed at \u201cNuma\u2019s black dish and bowl, and fragile saucers\nfrom the Vatican hill.\u201d[3155] Even under the Empire fictile vases\ncontinued to be used by the poorer classes, and the use of the finer\nred glazed wares must have been even more general. But Juvenal,\nsatirising the luxury of Domitian\u2019s time, says that it is considered a\nreproach to dine off earthenware.[3156] In Republican times it was the\nproud boast of a Curius to prefer his earthenware service to Samnite\ngold,[3157] and in 167 B.C. the consul Q. Aclius Tubero was found by\nthe Aetolian ambassador dining off earthenware[3158]; Seneca also tells\nhow he, at his entertainment given in the temple of Jupiter, placed\nfictile vessels before his guests.[3159] But when Masinissa entertained\nthe Romans in 148 B.C. the first course was served on silver, the\nsecond in golden baskets, which Ptolemy Euergetes describes\nrespectively as the Roman and Italian fashions.[3160] Athenaeus says\nthat up to Macedonian times dinners were served in fictile vessels, but\nthat subsequently the Romans became more luxurious, and Cleopatra spent\nfive minae a day on gold and silver wares.[3161] Subsequently\nearthenware was replaced by glass as well as metal, especially for\nunguent-bottles and drinking-cups, of which large numbers are found in\nRoman tombs, where they virtually take the place of pottery. Vases of\nimmense size were sometimes made under the Empire, and stories are told\nof the absurdities perpetrated by some of the Emperors in this respect.\nJuvenal, in describing the turbot prepared for Domitian,[3162] says no\ndish could be found of sufficient size to cook it in, and Vitellius had\na dish made which from its huge dimensions acquired the name of \u201cthe\nshield of Minerva.\u201d[3163] Elsewhere it is scoffed at as a \u201cswamp of\ndishes\u201d (_patinarum paludes_).[3164] Pliny speaks of terracotta vases\nwhich sold for even more than precious crystal or myrrhine ware,[3165]\nand were therefore presumably of great size.\n\nThe principal use of earthenware was for the transport and storage of\nwine, oil, corn, figs, honey, and other commodities, answering to the\ncasks of the present day. Martial speaks of a jar (_testa_) reddened\nwith the blood of tunnies exported from Antipolis (Antibes).[3166] Of\nthe shapes used for this purpose and their names we shall speak\npresently in detail. Vases were also used in religious rites, but metal\nwas probably more general; Plautus describes a miser who sacrificed to\nthe Lares in earthenware (_vasis Samiis_) because he was afraid that\nthey might steal silver vessels.[3167] They were also used for various\noperations in agriculture, medicine, and household economy; but above\nall for the domestic purposes of the table. Some of the peculiar uses\nhave already been referred to (p. 387), and another that may be\nmentioned is the use of jars as bell-glasses for rearing\nvine-sprouts.[3168]\n\nAlthough the custom of burying vases with the dead was not so general\namong the Romans as among the Greeks, they were yet frequently used in\ngraves in the form of cinerary urns, in the shape of a covered jar\n(_olla_ or _obrendarium_[3169]) of coarse ware and globular in form (p.\n550). Vases containing ashes have often been found in England, as at\nBartlow and Litlington in Cambridgeshire.[3170] At the latter place a\ntomb contained a sort of colander perforated with holes which formed\nthe letters INDVLCIVS.[3171] Similar finds are recorded from Arnaise in\nFrance. Pliny states that many persons expressed their desire to be\nburied in coffins of terracotta.[3172] Roman sarcophagi of terracotta\nhave been found at Saguntum in Spain, but for these stone and lead were\nthe ordinary materials. The cinerary urns were often formed from large\ndolia or amphorae, the neck being broken off so as to produce a\nglobular vessel. Examples have been found in England at Chesterford,\nEssex,[3173] at Southfleet in Kent,[3174] and in the Bedford Purlieus\nnear Kingscliffe, Northants (now at Woburn Abbey); another is in the\nCathedral Library at Lincoln.[3175] Roach-Smith also mentions specimens\nfound in Lothbury, London, and in Kent, the latter being now in the\nMaidstone Museum.[3176]\n\nVitruvius, in his chapter on _Echea_, or vases distributed around the\nancient theatres for acoustic purposes, mentions that they were often\nmade of earthenware for economical reasons[3177]; but they were usually\nof bronze. Seneca, too, alludes to this practice when he speaks of the\nvoice of a singer falling upon a jar (_dolium_).[3178] It is certain\nthat the Greeks and Romans often made use of earthenware jars in\narchitecture, but it is probable that this was more often done with the\nobject of diminishing weight than for acoustic reasons, or, as some\nhave thought, for want of better material. The _dolium_, _amphora_, and\n_olla_ seem to have been the forms most usually employed. There are\nvarious examples in walls and substructures of the Augustan period, and\nthey are also found in vaults, where their purpose is undoubtedly to\nlighten the weight.[3179] In the circus of Maxentius a number of large\namphorae were found embedded in the vaulting and upper part of the\nwalls, arranged neck downwards and with their axis inclined obliquely\nto the wall.[3180] All are now broken, but they illustrate the\ningenious method in which the upper parts of the arches supporting the\nrows of seats were lightened. In the dome of the tomb of St. Helena,\noutside the Porta Labicana, rings of pots are embedded for the same\npurpose, whence the building is usually known as Torre Pignattara (from\n_pignatte_, pots).[3181] An oven found at Pompeii had a vaulted top\nformed of _ollae_ fitted into one another, each about a foot in height,\nof ordinary red ware; the span of the arch was 5 feet 6 inches, and the\nobject here was to ensure extreme dryness as well as lightness.[3182] A\nsimilar arrangement occurs in the Stabian Thermae at Pompeii, and also\nin the church of San Stefano alla Rotonda at Rome, and the dome of San\nVitale at Ravenna, built by Justinian in the sixth century, is\nsimilarly constructed, with an elaborate system of tubes and\njars.[3183] The practice seems to have been continued during the Middle\nAges, and an example occurs in England, at Fountains Abbey, where the\npurpose was acoustic.[3184]\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe now proceed to describe in detail the principal shapes of Roman\nvases, so far as they can be identified from literary or epigraphical\nevidence or from other sources, on the same lines as in our previous\nchapter on the shapes of Greek pottery. Some of these shapes, it will\nbe seen, they had in common with the Greeks, such as the amphora, the\nkrater, and the phiale or patera, and in several instances (such as the\ncyathus and the scyphus) the Greek name is preserved.\n\nBeginning with vases used for storage, whether for liquids, as for wine\nand oil, or for solids, as for corn or fruit, which were chiefly kept\nin cellars, we take first the _dolium_, a gigantic cask corresponding\nto the Greek \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (Vol. I. p. 152), which from its general usage gave\nrise to the generic term _opus doliare_, for common work in clay. It\nwas large enough to contain a man, as we know from the story of\nDiogenes illustrated on the Roman lamp already given (Plate LXIV. fig.\n6); the vessel thereon depicted may serve to give an idea of its\nappearance. Columella[3185] speaks of _dolia sesquiculearia_, _i.e._\nholding one-and-a-half _culei_ or thirty amphorae. They were buried in\nthe earth of the cellars, and have been found thus in Italy at Anzi, in\nFrance at Apt, Vaucluse, and near Clermont, and at Tunis.[3186] They\nwere used for wine, oil, corn, and salted meat, and Juvenal tells us\nthat _dolia_ were used for new wine, being lined with wax, pitch, or\ngypsum.[3187] In 1858 a large number were found at Sarno in Campania,\nsome being stamped with the makers\u2019 names, as ONESIMVS FECIT, VITALIS\nF, L \u00b7 TITI \u00b7 T \u00b7 F \u00b7 PAP, and M \u00b7 LVCCEI \u00b7 QVARTIONIS.[3188] On one\nwas incised L \u00b7 XXXIV, or thirty-four _lagenae_ (see p. 446). One of\nthe prodigies which was supposed to predict the future fortune of the\nEmperor Antoninus Pius was the discovery above ground of some _dolia_\nwhich had been sunk in the earth in Etruria.[3189] An old name for the\n_dolium_ was _calpar_,[3190] and another smaller variety was the\n_seria_,[3191] containing only seven amphorae. A diminutive form of the\nlatter, _seriola_, is described as a wine-vessel invented in\nSyria.[3192]\n\n_Dolia_ were made in separate pieces, the base and other parts being\nsecured by leaden cramps, and they were also hooped with lead, as we\nlearn from Cato.[3193] Pliny speaks of repairing casks by fitting on\nhandles, scraping the hoops, and stopping up cracks.[3194] They are\nmade both of white and red clay, baked in a slow furnace, great care\nbeing required to moderate the heat aright. Their makers were known as\n_doliarii_. Part of a large _dolium_ bound with leaden hoops was found\nnear Modena, at Palzano; also at Spilamberto, one with the name of T.\nGavelius and the numerals XXX, XIII, another of the capacity of 36\namphorae.[3195] On the mouth of one found in the Villa Peretta at Rome\nwas the name of L. Calpurnius Eros,[3196] on another the name of T.\nCocceius Fortunatus.[3197] Two good examples of _dolia_ were at one\ntime preserved in the gardens of the Villa Albani, about 4 feet in\ndiameter and as many in height, and of a coarse gritty pale red clay.\nThis kind of vase was often used for sepulchral purposes, bodies having\nbeing found actually buried in them (see above, p. 457).\n\nNext in size and importance to the _dolium_ is the _amphora_,\nresembling in form the Greek wine-jar[3198]; it usually has a long\ncylindrical body with pointed base, a long narrow neck, and two\nstraight handles. H\u00f6lder[3199] notes several varieties: the Canopic,\nthe wide-bellied, the cylindrical, the globular, and the spheroidal,\nthe former of which is a typical early form in the provinces.[3200] It\nwas often without neck or handle, and was seldom ornamented, not being\nused for artistic purposes like its Greek prototype, but only for\nstrictly utilitarian ends, that is, for the storage and transport of\nwine. It is usually of coarse red earthenware, made on the wheel, with\na clay stopper to close the mouth, and the name of the maker in a\nrectangular label on the handle, like the _diota_ or wine-amphora of\nthe Greeks. It was in fact often known as a diota, as in a familiar\nline of Horace[3201]:\n\n Deprome quadrimum Sabina,\n O Thaliarche, merum diota.\n\nThe amphora was pitched internally to preserve the wine[3202]; the\npointed base was of course adapted for fixing it in the ground in the\ncellar, but when brought up it was placed in a tripod-stand of metal or\nwood (_incitega_).[3203] In Cicero\u2019s time the regulation size was\nequivalent to a quadrantal or two _urnae_.[3204] The use of this vase\nwas very varied and extensive among the Romans; it was employed not\nonly in cellars and granaries, but also at the table and for many other\npurposes of ordinary life, even where nowadays vessels of wood or iron\nwould be preferred.\n\nD\u2019Agincourt[3205] mentions the discovery at Rome, near the Porta del\nPopolo, of a row of amphorae in a cellar in 1789, and at Pompeii a\nhundred were found in the house of Arrius Diomedes, a hundred and fifty\nin that of the Faun; a hundred and twenty were found in a cellar near\nthe baths of Titus, and many more at Milan in 1809, and at Turin.\nNumbers have been found in London, varying in capacity from four to\ntwelve gallons, and others at Colchester and Mount Bures in\nEssex.[3206] But they are so universal all over the Roman Empire that\nto enlarge the list would be tedious. Many, however, evoke a special\ninterest by reason of their stamps and inscriptions, and a few typical\nexamples may profitably be given.[3207]\n\nThe inscriptions vary in form and character; some amphorae give the\nname of the maker in the genitive, _officina_ being understood; others\nthe consuls for the year in which they were filled; others, again, the\nname of the wine or other phrases descriptive of their contents; and\nothers complimentary inscriptions to their owners. Among names of\nmakers both single, double, and triple names are found, and among the\nformer are many of a Gaulish or barbarian character, such as Bellucus,\nDicetus, and Vacasatus, son of Brariatus; the last-named from Nimeguen,\nthe first-named from London.[3208] Among the triple names, showing that\nthe potters were Roman citizens or freedmen, are M. Aemilius Rusticus\nfrom Caerleon, and C. Antonius Quintus, also found in Britain.[3209]\nSometimes the name is in the nominative with F for _fecit_, or with the\ngenitive OF for _officina_ occurs. The stamps are in the form of oblong\nrectangular labels on the handle or neck, the letters in relief. One of\nthe most curious stamps was on an amphora found in the Pontine marshes\nnear Rome, a square one with a caduceus and other symbols arranged in\ntwelve compartments; the inscription runs M \u00b7 PETRON \u00b7 VETERAN \u00b7 LEO \u00b7\nSER \u00b7 FECIT, \u201cLeo, the slave of M. Petronius Veteranus, made it.\u201d[3210]\n\nThe names of Vespasian and Titus as consuls are found on an amphora\nfrom Pompeii: VESPASIANO III ET FILIO CS, the year being A.D. 74[3211];\nthat of M. Aurelius (but not necessarily as consul) occurs on an\namphora found at Newington in Kent[3212]; and on one in the British\nMuseum from Leptis in Africa is L \u00b7 CASSIO \u00b7 C \u00b7 MARIO \u00b7 COS, the date\nbeing A.D. 107.[3213] On the neck of a fourth amphora, found at\nPompeii, was FVNDAN \u00b7 CN \u00b7 LENTVL \u00b7 M \u00b7 ASINIO \u00b7 COSS, \u201cwine of Fundi\nin the consulship of Cn. Lentulus and M. Asinius (Agrippa),\u201d of the\nyear A.D. 26.[3214]\n\nThe character or origin of the wine or other commodity stored in the\namphorae is given by such inscriptions as BARCAE, KOR \u00b7 OPT (\u201cbest\nCorcyrean\u201d),[3215] RVBR \u00b7 VET \u00b7 [=V] \u00b7 P CII (\u201cold red wine, 102 lbs.\nweight\u201d), all from Pompeii, painted in red and black.[3216] MES \u00b7 AM \u00b7\nXVIII, also on an amphora from Pompeii, appears to mean \u201ceighteen\namphorae [not measures] of Mesogitan wine\u201d (from Mesogis in\nLydia[3217]); or, again, we find at Pompeii SVRR \u00b7 XXI, \u201ctwenty-one\namphorae of wine of Surrentum\u201d[3218]; TOSCOLA(_n_)ON (_ex_) OFFICINA\nSCAV(_ri_), \u201cTusculan wine from the manufactory of Scaurus.\u201d[3219] On\nthe other hand, LIQVAMEN OPTIMVM (\u201cbest pickle\u201d), or such expressions\nas SCOMBRI (\u201cmackerel\u201d), GARVS (\u201cbrine\u201d), etc., imply that the vessel\nhas been used for conveying pickled fish.[3220]\n\nAmong expressions of a complimentary nature are: FABRILES MARCELLAE N \u00b7\nAD FELICITATEM, \u201cthe workmen of our Marcella to wish her joy\u201d[3221];\n(_pr_)OMO(_s_) FAMELIAI DONO(_m_) V(_otum dedit_), or DONO V(_rnam\ndat_), \u201cPromus gave (an urn) as a gift and vow to his family\u201d (from\nArdea in Latium).[3222] The list may be concluded with the inscription\non an amphora found in the garden of the Villa Farnese, among the ruins\nof the Aurea Domus of Nero, which held eight _congii_; on its neck was\ntraced in ill-formed letters: L(_iquaminis_) FL(_os_) EXCEL(_lens_) L \u00b7\nPVRELLI GEMELLI M(...), \u201cFinest brand of liquor, belonging to L.\nPurellus Gemellus.\u201d[3223] An amphora was found at Pompeii with the name\nof Septimius or Stertinius Menodotus in Greek letters.[3224] There are\noccasional references in the classics to the practice of placing such\nstamps on vases, as when Plautus makes the slave say, with reference to\nthe drinking that went on in his master\u2019s house, \u201cThere you may see\nepistles written with letters in clay, sealed with pitch; the names are\nthere in letters a foot and a half long.\u201d[3225] Or, again, another\nslave, fearing to be caught with a jar in his possession, reflects,\n\u201cThis jar is lettered; it proclaims its ownership.\u201d[3226] Juvenal\nspeaks of wine whose country and brand had been obliterated by old age\nthrough long hanging in the smoke.[3227]\n\nAnother vase used much in the same way as the amphora, and particularly\nfor keeping wine, was the _cadus_, the shape of which is not exactly\nknown. It held about twelve _congii_, or seventy-two _sextarii_\n(pints), and is frequently mentioned by Horace and Martial.[3228] The\nformer in the _Odes_ refers to his jar of Alban wine nine years old,\nand in another passage to one stored in Sulpicius\u2019 cellars[3229]; the\nlatter speaks of _cadi Vaticani_, which may mean made of clay from the\nVatican hill or containing Vatican wines[3230]; elsewhere he speaks of\ntaking yellow honey from the ruddy jar (implying an earthenware\nvessel), and of the red jar which pours out home-made wine.[3231] We\nalso learn from him that the _cadus_ was hung in the chimney to give\nthe wine a mellow flavour.[3232] From other passages we learn that the\n_cadus_ was used for oil,[3233] fruit,[3234] and money,[3235] and also\nas a measure equivalent to one-and-a-half amphorae or three\nurnae.[3236] The _orca_ is described by Isidorus as a kind of amphora,\nof which the _urceus_ (see below) was a diminutive.[3237]\n\nThe Romans were presumably, like the Greeks, in the habit of mixing\ntheir wine with water, but we only find the _crater_ mentioned rarely,\nand that in a poetical manner.[3238] Moreover it was probably made in\nmetal as a rule, and the rare instances of the _crater_ which occur in\nthe Arretine ware are obvious imitations of metal prototypes; there is\na fine example in the British Museum from Capua (see Fig. 219). Ovid,\nhowever, speaks of the _rubens crater_,[3239] implying terracotta, as\nin the case of the _rubens cadus_ of Martial mentioned above. The\n_vinarium_,[3240] the _acratophorum_ (for holding unmixed wine),[3241]\nand the _oenophorum_ were probably of the same character, but the\nlatter was portable, as we know from Horace\u2019s jeer at the man who took\nhis cooking-stove and wine-jar (_oenophorum_) with him everywhere.[3242]\n\nThe _urna_, the equivalent of the Greek _hydria_, was similarly\nused for carrying water, and also for casting lots, or as a\nvoting-urn[3243]; in the latter sense Cicero actually uses the word\n_hydria_.[3244] Its size was half that of the amphora. Both the\n_urna_ and the hydria are found in connection with funerary usages,\nand appear to have held the ashes of the dead.[3245] The _situla_,\nor bucket, with its diminutive _sitella_, was also used for water\nand for lots,[3246] but was principally of metal. Isidorus says it\nis the Greek \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (Vol. I. p. 165).[3247] The _cupa_ and the\n_cumera_ seem to have been of wood rather than earthenware[3248];\nthe former was a kind of tub, the latter was used for keeping\ngrain, and also by brides for conveying their effects to their new\nhome.[3249] Another large vessel for holding liquids was the\n_sinus_, or _sinum_, used both for water and milk.[3250] The\n_nasiterna_, so called from its long spout or _nasus_, had three\nhandles, and was used as a watering-pot.[3251] The _fidelia_\nappears to have been a kind of large pail or bucket; Cicero in one\nof his letters[3252] cites the proverb, _de eadem fidelia duos\nparietes dealbare_, which answers to our \u201ckilling two birds with\none stone.\u201d It implies that it would be used for holding paint or\nwhitewash.\n\nOf smaller vases for holding liquids, such as jugs, bottles, and\nflasks, the principal were the _urceus_ (with its diminutive\n_urceolus_), the _ampulla_, and the _lagena_ or _lagona_. The _hirnea_\nis also mentioned as a jug which was filled from the jar or\ncadus.[3253] The _urceus_ seems to be a small jug, the equivalent of\nthe Greek \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03cc\u03b7, having one handle; it was also used as a\nmeasure.[3254] The _ampulla_ was used both as a wine-flask and an\noil-flask, corresponding thus to the Greek \u03bb\u03ae\u03ba\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, as is seen in its\nmetaphorical use.[3255] It was used for bringing the wine to table,\nlike a decanter,[3256] and is described by Apuleius[3257] as lenticular\nin form, being therefore like a flat round-bodied flask with two\nhandles.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 216. AMPULLA (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nAn interesting example of an _ampulla_ of this kind, of red ware with a\ncoarse reddish-brown glaze was found some years ago near the H\u00f4tel\nDieu, Paris.[3258] It bore two inscriptions round the body, one on\neither side, with letters in relief; on one side was OSPITA REPLE\nLAGONA CERVESA, \u201cMine host, fill the flask with beer\u201d; on the other,\nCOPO CNODI TV ABES EST REPLETA, \u201cInnkeeper, (?), be off, it is full.\u201d\nSimilar vases have been found in Hainault and at Trier, and are said to\nbe still made in Spain. Another of the same kind, but with only one\nhandle, recently acquired by the British Museum from the Morel\ncollection, has on it the word AMPULLA painted in white (Fig. 216). The\n_lagena_ (Greek, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) was a jug or bottle with narrow neck, wide\nmouth, and handle, and was used as a sign by wine-sellers.[3259] It was\nsealed up until required for use,[3260] and being proverbially brittle,\nwas protected, like a modern Italian wine-flask, by wicker-work.[3261]\nIt was also used as a travelling-flask, and carried by hunters and\nfishermen[3262]; the younger Pliny exhorts Tacitus, when he goes\nhunting, to take not only a \u201csandwich-box and brandy-flask\u201d (_panarium\nac lagunculam_), but also a notebook to jot down ideas.[3263] The Roman\nbarmaid carried a _lagena_ at her side when serving in the\ntavern,[3264] and it was used as a wine-jug at the table.[3265] A jar\nfound at Saintes in France has engraved on it MARTIALI SOL(_i_)DAM\nLAGONAM, \u201cA whole flask to Martialis,\u201d[3266] and gives a clue to the\nform associated with this word (see Fig. 217).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 217. LAGENA FROM FRANCE, INSCRIBED.]\n\nThe words in use for a ladle are _cyathus_, corresponding to the Greek\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 (Vol. I. p. 179),[3267] in measure equivalent to one-twelfth of\nthe sextarius or pint, and _simpulum_ or _simpuvium_. The latter were\nchiefly associated with sacrifices, and will be dealt with later (p.\n471); the _cyathus_ was regularly used at the table for measuring out\nthe wine into the drinking-cups. We learn from Martial that in drinking\na toast it was customary to use the number of cyathi that corresponded\nto the letters in the name of the recipient, as in the epigram\n\n Laevia sex cyathis, septem Justina bibatur,\n Quinque Lycas, Lyde quattuor, Ida tribus.[3268]\n\nOf drinking-cups the Romans had almost as large a variety as the\nGreeks, the majority of the ornamented vases preserved to this day\nbeing apparently for this purpose; the number of names recorded in\nliterature is, however, much less, as many of those given in the long\nlist on pp. 181-183 of Vol. I. are mere nick-names for ordinary forms.\nThe generic name for a drinking-cup was _poculum_,[3269] the Greek\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, just as _vas_ was the generic name for a larger vessel; it\noccurs constantly in the poets, who, indeed, use it somewhat loosely,\nand has already been met with in the series of small bowls with Latin\ninscriptions described in Chapter XI. (p. 490). Many forms of\ndrinking-cups used by the Romans were only made in metal, such as the\n_cantharus_,[3270] _carchesium_,[3271] and _scyphus_[3272] (see Vol. I.\npp. 184, 187). All these were forms borrowed from the Greeks, as were\nthe _calix_ (_kylix_), the _cotula_ (chiefly used as a measure =\nhalf-a-pint), and the _scaphium_[3273] and _cymbium_,[3274] which were\nboat-shaped vessels. The _ciborium_ (a rare word, but used by\nHorace[3275]) was supposed to be made in the form of the leaves or pods\nof the _colocasia_, or Egyptian bean.[3276] Its later ecclesiastical\nuse is well known. Other names of which we hear are the\n_batioca_,[3277] the _gaulus_,[3278] the _scutella_ (see below),[3279]\nand the _amystis_, or cup drained at one draught (see Vol. I. p.\n181).[3280] Like the Greek _kylix_, the _calix_ appears to have been of\nall these the one most commonly in use, and is constantly referred to\nby poets and prose writers. Those of terracotta could often be\npurchased at a very low price, and formed, it is evident, the ordinary\ndrinking-cups of the Roman citizen; they were also frequently of glass.\nJuvenal speaks of \u201cplebeian cups purchased for a few _asses_\u201d[3281];\nand Martial describes a man buying two _calices_ for an _as_ and taking\nthem home with him.[3282] We have no exact information as to its form,\nbut it must have been something like the Greek _kylix_, only probably\nwithout handles; it was also used for solid food such as herbs.[3283]\nSeneca speaks of _calices Tiburtinae_, which seem from the context to\nhave been of earthenware.[3284] Varieties of the _calix_ are probably\nrepresented by the typical Gaulish forms illustrated in Chapter XXIII.,\nFigs. 221-223.\n\nOf dishes and other utensils employed for food at the table, the\nlargest were the _lanx_ and the _patina_. The former is described by\nHorace and Juvenal as large enough to hold a whole boar,[3285] and was\nprobably of metal; the _patina_ is described as a dish for holding\nfish, crabs, or lobsters,[3286] but that it was not necessarily limited\nin size is shown by the stories already alluded to of Domitian and\nVitellius (p. 456). The latter, when dragged to his death, was insulted\nby the epithet of _patinarius_, or dish-maker.[3287] The patina was\nflat, and made of clay, and is also described as a wide and shallow\nvessel for cooking.[3288] It is contrasted with the _lagena_ in the\nwell-known fable of the fox and the stork.[3289] Smaller dishes for\nsweetmeats and other dainties were the _catinum_ and _catillum_, and\nthe _patella_.[3290] The _discus_ and _paropsis_[3291] appear to have\nbeen, like the _lanx_, principally of metal; the former was like a\nshield (whence _scutula_ and _scutella_); the latter is mentioned by\nIsidorus, who describes it as quadrangular, and by Martial, together\nwith some obscurely-named dishes[3292]:\n\n Sic implet gabatas paropsidesque\n Et leves scutulas cavasque lances.\n\nMartial speaks of the _patella_ as a dish for a turbot, and also as a\nvessel of black ware which was used to hold vegetables[3293]; the\n_catinus_ (a fictile dish) was large enough to hold a good-sized fish,\nsuch as a tunny,[3294] and the _catillus_ appears to have been a sort\nof porringer. Sauces were placed in small dishes or cups, known as\n_acetabula_ (the Greek \u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd), which were evidently of\nearthenware[3295]; the _catellus_ held pepper,[3296] and the _concha_\nor shell was used for a salt-cellar, also for unguents.[3297] The\nlatter was probably a real shell, not of earthenware. Another kind of\ndish which is only once mentioned, in Horace\u2019s account of Nasidienus\u2019\nbanquet, was the _mazonomum_, probably a kind of _lanx_, in metal,\nwhich held on that occasion a sort of _rago\u00fbt_ of game.[3298] His own\ntable, however, he boasts, was adorned only by a _cyathus_ and two\ncups, an _echinus_ or rinsing-bowl, a _guttus_, and a _patera_ or\nlibation bowl.[3299] The _guttus_ seems to have corresponded to the\nGreek _lekythos_ or _askos_, and is the general name for an oil-flask\nor cruet.[3300] It was either a small, long-necked bottle or a squat\nflask with a narrow spout, which allowed the oil to pour slowly.\nRoach-Smith published a relief dedicated by Egnatius, a physician, to\nthe Deae Matres, on which small vases of the first-named form appear,\nindicating that he consecrated his medicine bottles to these\ndivinities.[3301]\n\nOf vessels for cooking, washing, and other common domestic purposes,\nthe _olla_ was that in most general use[3302]; the word is, in fact, a\ngeneric name for a jar or pot (Gk. \u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1), as in the play of Plautus,\nthe _Aulularia_, the name of which embodies an archaic form of the\nword, _aula_, _aulula_. Here it was used for hiding a hoard of gold. It\nwas also, as has been noted, used as a funerary urn, and some inscribed\nexamples of marble _ollae_ have been found in tombs. The _pelvis_ was\nmore particularly a washing basin, but Juvenal speaks of it as scented\nwith Falernian wine.[3303] It is usually identified with the\n_mortarium_, a large, shallow, open bowl with a spout, frequently found\nin Britain and Central Europe (see below, p. 550); it is of coarse\nlight-red clay, and often has the potter\u2019s name stamped upon it. That\nit was used for pounding substances is shown by the fact that it often\nhas small pebbles embedded in the surface of the interior. The _scutra_\nis mentioned by Cato and Plautus,[3304] and appears to have been used\nonly in Republican times; its Imperial successor was the\n_cacabus_.[3305] The _trua_ or _trulla_[3306] was a saucepan with a\nflat handle; numerous examples in bronze, silver, and earthenware have\nbeen preserved, and some have elaborate designs in relief on the\nhandle.[3307]\n\nA number of obscure and archaic names of vases are recorded by the\netymologists and other writers, especially in regard to those used for\nsacrificial purposes and libations. The _capis_ or _capedo_ was\nprobably a kind of jug (from _capere_, to contain)[3308]; Cicero refers\nto the _capedunculae_ which were a legacy from Numa.[3309] The\n_praefericulum_[3310] was not, as usually supposed in popular\narchaeology, a jug, but a shallow basin of bronze without handles, like\na _patera_. The _lepasta_ or _lepesta_ (cf. Greek \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7) is recorded\nas used in Sabine temples,[3311] and the _futile_ was used in the cult\nof Vesta for holding water[3473]; the _cuturnium_[3313] is also\nmentioned. The _simpulum_[3314] and _simpuvium_[3315] represent similar\nutensils, though the words are distinct; they were small-sized ladles\nused almost exclusively in religious rites, and sometimes regarded as\nold-fashioned. With reference to the size, _fluctus in simpulo\nexcitare_[3316] became a proverbial expression for \u201ca storm in a\nteacup.\u201d They seem to have been usually of metal, but Pliny speaks of\nfictile _simpula_[3317]; the _simpuvium_ is represented on coins and\nsacrificial reliefs. The _lanx_ appears to have been used for offerings\nto Bacchus,[3318] and the _guttus_, _cymbium_, and other forms also\nappear in a sacrificial connection[3319]; conversely the _patera_,\nwhich is for the most part exclusively a libation bowl, was sometimes\nused for secular purposes[3320]; there is evidence that its use as a\ndrinking vessel is older than its use for libations. The last-named\ncorresponds to the Greek \u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7 (Vol. I. p. 191),[3321] and is\nconstantly referred to or represented; its essential feature was the\nhollow knob or _omphalos_ in the centre, and it was either made of\nmetal or earthenware. The _patella_ was also used for libations or for\noffering first-fruits to the household gods.[3322]\n\nOther obscure words referring to vases of secular use are the\n_pollubrum_ (Greek, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1)[3323] and _malluvium_ (Greek,\n\u03c7\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c8),[3324] meaning respectively basins for washing the feet and\nhands; the _aquiminarium_ for washing vessels[3325]; the _galeola_, a\nvariety of the _sinus_[3326]; the _pultarius_, a vessel used for warm\ndrinks, for must, for preserving grapes, for coals, for fumigating, and\nas a cupping-glass[3327]; and the _obba_, which Persius describes as\n_sessilis_, _i.e._ squat and flat-bottomed.[3328] The _culeus_,\n_congius_, _hemina_, and _sextarius_ appear to have been measures only,\nnot vases in general use; the _congius_ was one-eighth of an amphora,\nor six _sextarii_, about six English pints.[3329]\n\nIn the case of the majority of the names discussed in the foregoing\npages, any attempt at identification with existing forms is hopeless;\nwe have very few clues in the literature to the shapes of the vases\ndescribed, and little evidence from themselves, as is often the case\nwith Greek shapes; nor is any Roman writer except Isidorus, whose date\nis too late to be trustworthy, so explicit as Athenaeus. At present\nlittle has been done in the way of collecting the different forms of\nexisting vases, but a valuable treatise on the subject was recently\nissued by the late O. H\u00f6lder, a W\u00fcrtemberg professor, who collected all\nthe forms found in Germany and Italy,[3330] and although he did not\nattempt to identify them by Latin names, he has done much service in\ngrouping them together, classified as urns, jars, jugs, and so on, in a\nseries of twenty-three plates of outline drawings.\n\nThere is, in fact, in Roman pottery no clear line of distinction to be\ndrawn between the various forms of drinking-cups or of jugs or dishes,\nas is the case with Greek vases; different forms again are found in\ndifferent fabrics, and those typical of ornamented wares are not found\nin plain pottery, and so on. Nor must it be forgotten that in Roman\npottery the ornamented wares are the exception rather than the rule.\nWhere the Greeks used painted vases, the Romans used metal; and apart\nfrom the plain pottery, the forms are almost limited to a few varieties\nof cups, bowls, and dishes. Comparisons with the Greek equivalents\nillustrated in Chapter IV. may give a probable idea of what the Roman\nmeant when he spoke of an _urceus_ or an _olla_, but for the rest the\nmodern investigator can do little beyond attempting to point out what\ntypes of vases were peculiar to different periods or fabrics, and in\nmost cases any attempt to give specific names can only be regarded as\narbitrary.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 3080:\n\n _H.N._ xxxiii. 154 ff.: see below, p. 489.\n\nFootnote 3081:\n\n _Vases orn\u00e9s de la Gaule Romaine_, i. p. 190 ff.\n\nFootnote 3082:\n\n The term is applied to clay suited to receive stamps (_sigilla_) or\n impressions.\n\nFootnote 3083:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, _Vases orn\u00e9s de la Gaule Romaine_, ii. p. 335.\n\nFootnote 3084:\n\n _Ibid._ i. p. 41 ff.\n\nFootnote 3085:\n\n _Der Stil_, ii. p. 148.\n\nFootnote 3086:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, xcvi. p. 20.\n\nFootnote 3087:\n\n In the case of fragment No. 3 the clay and lime could not be\n differentiated.\n\nFootnote 3088:\n\n In the case of fragments 2 and 5 no definite general result was\n obtained.\n\nFootnote 3089:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 421; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 91.\n See also _Handbook to Collection of Pottery in the Museum of\n Practical Geology_, 1893, p. 65, for an analysis made on a fragment\n of glazed red ware by Dr. Percy:\n\n Silica 54\u00b745\n Alumina 22\u00b708\n Peroxide of iron 7\u00b731\n Lime 9\u00b776\n Magnesia 1\u00b767\n Potash 3\u00b722\n Soda 1\u00b776\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\n 100\u00b725\n ======\n\nFootnote 3090:\n\n _Storia degli ant. vast aretini_, p. 65.\n\nFootnote 3091:\n\n _Ueber die rothe Topferwaare_, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 3092:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 423; D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 339.\n\nFootnote 3093:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 91.\n\nFootnote 3094:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 381: cf. Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 64.\n\nFootnote 3095:\n\n _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 3096:\n\n Plaut. _Epid._ iii. 2, 35; Pliny, _H.N._ vii. 198.\n\nFootnote 3097:\n\n _Art. Poet._ 21.\n\nFootnote 3098:\n\n _Sat._ ii. 7, 86.\n\nFootnote 3099:\n\n ii. 3, 48.\n\nFootnote 3100:\n\n _Capt._ ii. 3, 9; Persius, iii. 23; Avianus, _Fab._ 41, 9.\n\nFootnote 3101:\n\n Shakespeare, 1 _Henry VI._, Act 1, scene 5, line 19.\n\nFootnote 3102:\n\n Smith, _Dict. of Antiqs._[3312] i. p. 844: see below, p. 480; also\n Vol. I. p. 207.\n\nFootnote 3103:\n\n _Vases orn\u00e9s_, ii. p. 338.\n\nFootnote 3104:\n\n See Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 423 ff.; Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p.\n 106; Von Hefner, in _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii.\n (1863), pp. 23, 35; and _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 286.\n\nFootnote 3105:\n\n See Fabroni, _Storia degli vasi aretini_, pl. 5, fig. 4.\n\nFootnote 3106:\n\n _Handbook to Mus._ (1891), p. 111.\n\nFootnote 3107:\n\n Brongniart and Riocreux, _Mus. de S\u00e8vres_, pp. 16, 128. For Cerialis\n see p. 536 and _C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 544; for Cobnertus, _ibid._ 592,\n and D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 179.\n\nFootnote 3108:\n\n _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), pp. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 3109:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 104, fig. 21; _Brit. Arch. Assoc.\n Journ._ iv. p. 19. D\u00e9chelette states that about fifty in all are\n known (_op. cit._ i. p. 337).\n\nFootnote 3110:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 424, pl. 30; _Mus. de S\u00e8vres_, p. 128,\n and pl. 9, fig. 8.\n\nFootnote 3111:\n\n _Oberbayr. Archiv_, 1863, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 3112:\n\n Examples of this technique often occur in Gaul and Britain: see\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 169 ff., and cf. Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p.\n 91, and a fine vase from Felixstowe in the British Museum. See also\n Plate LXIX. fig. 2, and p. 529.\n\nFootnote 3113:\n\n See below, p. 530, and D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 235 ff.\n\nFootnote 3114:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 112.\n\nFootnote 3115:\n\n _E.g._ Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. pp. 106, 107, figs. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 3116:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1881-82, p. 17; Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, pl. 30, figs. 2-4:\n see also D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 141 ff., and below, p. 525 ff.\n\nFootnote 3117:\n\n Cf. D\u00e9chelette in _Revue des \u00c9tudes Anciens_, v. (1903), p. 42.\n\nFootnote 3118:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 110, fig. 25: cf. Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_,\n 1863, p. 56; Fabroni, _Storia degli antichi vasi aretini_, pls. 3, 5,\n p. 63.\n\nFootnote 3119:\n\n Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 111; Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _art._ Figlinum, p.\n 1130.\n\nFootnote 3120:\n\n Cf. von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863),\n p. 55.\n\nFootnote 3121:\n\n _Vases orn\u00e9s_, ii. p. 312.\n\nFootnote 3122:\n\n Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 386; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1875. p. 192;\n _Mon. Antichi_, i. pl. 8, 7, p. 282.\n\nFootnote 3123:\n\n _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 56 ff.: see\n also Bl\u00fcmner, ii. p. 23 ff., and Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _art._\n Figlinum.\n\nFootnote 3124:\n\n _Bullet. Arch._ 1898, p. 18 ff., and _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii.\n (1902), p. 93 ff.\n\nFootnote 3125:\n\n Brongniart, i. p. 439.\n\nFootnote 3126:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1868), pl. 23, p. 297.\n\nFootnote 3127:\n\n See for a full account of the last-named Von Hefner in _op. cit._ p.\n 8 ff., p. 56, pl. 4.\n\nFootnote 3128:\n\n See _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1882, pl. U, to which the letters in the cut\n refer. Other kilns found at Heddernheim are described in\n _Westdeutsche Zeitschrift_, xviii. (1899), p. 215 ff.\n\nFootnote 3129:\n\n See Haverfield in _Victoria County Hist. of Northants_, i. pp. 167,\n 207 ff.\n\nFootnote 3130:\n\n _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ i. p. 1 ff., ii. p. 164: see also Wright,\n _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^1, p. 264 ff.; Roach-Smith, _Coll. Antiq._\n iv. p. 81, vi. p. 181 ff.\n\nFootnote 3131:\n\n No. 958, fol. 105; reproduced by Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi.\n pl. 37, fig. 4, and _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 79; _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd\n Ser. xvi. p. 42.\n\nFootnote 3132:\n\n _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xvii. 1898, p. 262.\n\nFootnote 3133:\n\n _Ibid._ xvi. (1895), p. 40.\n\nFootnote 3134:\n\n _Vict. County Hist. of Norfolk_, i. p. 291, fig. 7: see below, p. 449.\n\nFootnote 3135:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 314.\n\nFootnote 3136:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 322.\n\nFootnote 3137:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xxxv. p. 91; _Vict. County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 3138:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 191 ff.; _Vict. County Hist. of\n Hants_, i. p. 306.\n\nFootnote 3139:\n\n Roach-Smith, _op. cit._ ii. p. 38; vii. p. 1 ff., pls. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 3140:\n\n Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^1, p. 264 ff., and Haverfield in\n _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, give the most satisfactory\n epitomes of Artis\u2019 descriptions.\n\nFootnote 3141:\n\n Cato, _Agricult._ 38.\n\nFootnote 3142:\n\n Cf. Von Hefner, _op. cit._ pl. 4, 28-31: see also _Arch. Journ._ vii.\n p. 176, and an example from Switzerland in the British Museum\n (Romano-British Collection).\n\nFootnote 3143:\n\n See also D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 341.\n\nFootnote 3144:\n\n See Haverfield in _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, i. p. 207.\n\nFootnote 3145:\n\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 426.\n\nFootnote 3146:\n\n _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, i. p. 209.\n\nFootnote 3147:\n\n See Haverfield, _op. cit._ p. 210, fig. 31.\n\nFootnote 3148:\n\n Haverfield, _ibid._; _Handbook of Pottery in Mus. of Pract. Geol._\n 1893, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 3149:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xxii. pl. 36, p. 413; _Vict. County Hist._ i. p. 291.\n\nFootnote 3150:\n\n See Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 428, pl. 1; Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl.\n 27, figs. 3 and 6; Daremberg and Saglio _s.v._ Fornax, figs. 3201-02.\n\nFootnote 3151:\n\n Brongniart, i. p. 429.\n\nFootnote 3152:\n\n Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_ (1863), p. 58.\n\nFootnote 3153:\n\n Cf. Tibull. i. 1, 38:\n\n \u201cNec e puris spernere fictilibus.\n Fictilia antiquus primum sibi fecit agrestis\n Pocula de facili composuitque luto.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3154:\n\n _Sat._ ii. 60.\n\nFootnote 3155:\n\n _Sat._ vi. 342.\n\nFootnote 3156:\n\n _Sat._ iii. 168.\n\nFootnote 3157:\n\n Florus, i. 18, 22.\n\nFootnote 3158:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiii. 142.\n\nFootnote 3159:\n\n _Ep._ 95, 72.\n\nFootnote 3160:\n\n _Apud_ Athen. vi. 229 D. He uses the curious expression, \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, which, as in the use of the word \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 for marble tiles\n (Vol. I. p. 100), implies the antiquity of the use of fictile ware.\n See the next note.\n\nFootnote 3161:\n\n vi. 229 C, where the use of \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 or dinner-service is discussed.\n\nFootnote 3162:\n\n iv. 72, 131: cf. Mart. xiii. 81.\n\nFootnote 3163:\n\n Suet. _Vit. Vitell._ 13 (_clypeum Minervae_, \u03b1\u1f30\u03b3\u03af\u03b4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5).\n\nFootnote 3164:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 164.\n\nFootnote 3165:\n\n _Ibid._ 163.\n\nFootnote 3166:\n\n iv. 88.\n\nFootnote 3167:\n\n _Capt._ ii. 2, 41.\n\nFootnote 3168:\n\n Virg. _Georg._ ii. 351.\n\nFootnote 3169:\n\n Orelli, _Inser._ 4544; Gruter 607, 1; and see _C.I.L._ i. p 209.\n\nFootnote 3170:\n\n See above, p. 351; and cf. _Archaeologia_, xxv. p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 3171:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1335, 1. The vase is now at Clare College, Cambridge.\n\nFootnote 3172:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 160 (_fictilibus soliis_).\n\nFootnote 3173:\n\n _Arch. Journ._ x. (1853), p. 230.\n\nFootnote 3174:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xiv. pl. 6, p. 37 (in B.M.).\n\nFootnote 3175:\n\n _Arch. Journ._, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3176:\n\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 88, and see p. 550.\n\nFootnote 3177:\n\n v. 5, 8.\n\nFootnote 3178:\n\n _Quaest. Nat._ vi. 19: cf. Arist. _Probl._ xi. 8, and Pliny, _H.N._\n xi. 270, _doliis inanibus_.\n\nFootnote 3179:\n\n Krause, _Angeiologie_, pp. 126, 463.\n\nFootnote 3180:\n\n See Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 56.\n\nFootnote 3181:\n\n Middleton, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3182:\n\n Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 64.\n\nFootnote 3183:\n\n Nissen, _ibid._\n\nFootnote 3184:\n\n See _Yorks. Arch. Journ._ iii. p. 1 ff., xv. p. 303; _Trans. Roy.\n Inst. of Brit. Architects_, 1881-2, p. 65 ff.; _Journ. Brit. Arch.\n Assoc._ xxxv. p. 95, xxxviii. p. 218.\n\nFootnote 3185:\n\n xii. 18.\n\nFootnote 3186:\n\n Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 407 ff.\n\nFootnote 3187:\n\n ix. 58.\n\nFootnote 3188:\n\n _Bull. Arch. Nap._ N.S. vii. 1859, p. 84; _C.I.L._ x. 8047, 10, 18.\n\nFootnote 3189:\n\n Capitolinus, _Vit. Anton. Pii_, 3.\n\nFootnote 3190:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. p. 26; Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 46 (M\u00fcller).\n\nFootnote 3191:\n\n Columella, xii. 28, 1; Plaut. _Capt._ iv. 4, 9 (\u201cpreserve-jar\u201d).\n\nFootnote 3192:\n\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6.\n\nFootnote 3193:\n\n _Agricult._ 39.\n\nFootnote 3194:\n\n _H.N._ xviii. 236.\n\nFootnote 3195:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1846, p. 34.\n\nFootnote 3196:\n\n Marini, _Inscr. Ant. Doliari_, p. 406, No. 2.\n\nFootnote 3197:\n\n Marini, No. 4.\n\nFootnote 3198:\n\n See Fig. 22, Vol. I. p. 154.\n\nFootnote 3199:\n\n _Formen der r\u00f6m. Thongef._ p. 16, pls. 1-8.\n\nFootnote 3200:\n\n Cf. Koenen, _Gef\u00e4sskunde_, pls. 10-12.\n\nFootnote 3201:\n\n _Od._ i. 9, 7.\n\nFootnote 3202:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xiv. 135.\n\nFootnote 3203:\n\n Cf. Jahn, _Wandgem. d. Villa Pamph._ pl. 5, p. 42.\n\nFootnote 3204:\n\n See Hultsch, _Metrologie_, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 3205:\n\n _Recueil_, p. 46.\n\nFootnote 3206:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 87; _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 26.\n\nFootnote 3207:\n\n General reference may be made to the various volumes of the Latin\n _Corpus_, under the headings _Instrumentum Domesticum_, sub-heading\n _Vascula_, e.g. vii. 1331 for those found in Britain; for examples\n from Spain see _Arch. Journ._ lvi. p. 299.\n\nFootnote 3208:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1331, 22, xiii. 10005, 25; Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom.\n Danubii et Rheni_, ii. pp. 271, 287; and see generally _C.I.L._ xiii.\n part 3, No. 10002.\n\nFootnote 3209:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1331, 6, 13.\n\nFootnote 3210:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8056, 260.\n\nFootnote 3211:\n\n _Ibid._ iv. 2555.\n\nFootnote 3212:\n\n _Ibid._ vii. 1332, 1.\n\nFootnote 3213:\n\n _Ibid._ viii. 10477, 1.\n\nFootnote 3214:\n\n _Ibid._ iv. 2552.\n\nFootnote 3215:\n\n See Vol. I. p. 158.\n\nFootnote 3216:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8055, 11; iv. 2584, 2616: cf. Vol. I. p. 158.\n\nFootnote 3217:\n\n _C.I.L._ iv. 2603: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xiv. 75.\n\nFootnote 3218:\n\n _C.I.L._ iv. 2555.\n\nFootnote 3219:\n\n _Ibid._ 2625.\n\nFootnote 3220:\n\n _Ibid._ 2589-94, 2575 ff. On inscribed amphorae from Pompeii see also\n Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 505.\n\nFootnote 3221:\n\n Doni, p. lxxxvi. Found on the Aventine, now in the Museo Kircheriano.\n\nFootnote 3222:\n\n _Ber. d. s\u00e4chs. Gesellsch._ 1857, p. 199.\n\nFootnote 3223:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. pt. 2, No. 4719.\n\nFootnote 3224:\n\n _Ibid._ iv. 2584.\n\nFootnote 3225:\n\n _Poen._ iv. 2, 14: _literatas fictiles epistolas_; the double play on\n the words cannot be expressed in English.\n\nFootnote 3226:\n\n _Rud._ ii. 5, 21.\n\nFootnote 3227:\n\n v. 33.\n\nFootnote 3228:\n\n Cf. also Plaut. _Amph._ i. 1, 273; Virg. _Aen._ i. 195 (for the wine\n of Acestes).\n\nFootnote 3229:\n\n _Od._ iv. 11, 2; 12, 17.\n\nFootnote 3230:\n\n i. 19, 2: cf. Juv. vi. 344, and p. 477.\n\nFootnote 3231:\n\n i. 56; iv. 66.\n\nFootnote 3232:\n\n x. 36.\n\nFootnote 3233:\n\n Mart. i. 44, 8; Pliny, _H.N._ xviii. 307.\n\nFootnote 3234:\n\n _H.N._ xv. 82.\n\nFootnote 3235:\n\n Mart. vi. 27, 6.\n\nFootnote 3236:\n\n _H.N._ xiv. 96; Isid. _Etym._ xvi. 26, 13.\n\nFootnote 3237:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 4, 66; Varro, _R.R._ i. 13, 6; Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6.\n\nFootnote 3238:\n\n As often by Virgil and Ovid, usually in the form _cratera_: cf. Isid.\n _Etym._ xx. 5.\n\nFootnote 3239:\n\n _Fasti_, v. 522.\n\nFootnote 3240:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 8, 39; Cic. _in Verr._ iv. 27, 62.\n\nFootnote 3241:\n\n Cic. _de Fin._ iii. 4, 15; Varro, _R.R._ i. 8, 5.\n\nFootnote 3242:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ i. 6, 109: see also Juv. _Sat._ vi. 426; Persius, v. 140;\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6.\n\nFootnote 3243:\n\n Cic. _in Vatin._ 14, 34; Lucan, v. 394: cf. Marquardt,\n _Privataltert._ vii. p. 629, note 3.\n\nFootnote 3244:\n\n _In Verr._ ii. 51, 127: cf. Plutarch, _Vit. T. Gracch._ 11; also\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6: _Vasis genus aquatilis_.\n\nFootnote 3245:\n\n See Orelli, 4546, and for _urna_, Suet. _Calig._ 15; Lucan, vii. 819;\n Ovid, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 3246:\n\n Plaut. _Cas._ ii. 6, 11; Livy, xxv. 3. 16.\n\nFootnote 3247:\n\n _Etym._ xx. 6.\n\nFootnote 3248:\n\n Cf. Caes. _Bell. Civ._ ii. 11; Lucan, iv. 420.\n\nFootnote 3249:\n\n Paul, _ex_ Fest. _ed._ M\u00fcller, p. 63, 12.\n\nFootnote 3250:\n\n Plaut. _Curc._ i. 1, 75; _Rud._ v. 2, 32; and see Virg. _Ecl._ vii.\n 33; Varro, _L.L._ v. 123.\n\nFootnote 3251:\n\n Plaut. _Stich._ ii. 2, 28; Cato, _Agricult._ 11; Varro, _Re Rust._ i.\n 22: cf. Juv. v. 47 for _nasus_, applied to a cup.\n\nFootnote 3252:\n\n _Ad Fam._ vii. 29: cf. also Plaut. _Aulul._ iv. 2, 15; Pers. iii. 22.\n\nFootnote 3253:\n\n Plaut. _Amph._ i. 1, 273; Cato, _Agricult._ 81; Varro, _ap._ Non.\n 546, 23.\n\nFootnote 3254:\n\n Martial, xiv. 106; Juv. iii. 203 (_urceoli sex_); Varro, _R.R._ i.\n 22; Treb. Poll. _Vit. Claud._ 17; Plaut. _Merc._ v. 2, 86; _id._\n _Pers._ i. 3, 43; Cic. _Fin._ iv. 12, 30.\n\nFootnote 3255:\n\n Hor. _A.P._ 97: cf. the \u03bb\u03b7\u03ba\u03cd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd episode in the _Frogs_ (Vol. I. p.\n 196); also the word _ampullari_.\n\nFootnote 3256:\n\n Plin. _Ep._ iv. 30, 6; Mart. xiv. 110.\n\nFootnote 3257:\n\n _Florida_, ii. 9, 2: cf. the terracotta vessels with reliefs in the\n British Museum, D 204-5; also _Mus. Greg._ i. pl. 10; Micali, _Mon.\n Ined._ pl. 52. Isidorus derives the word from _ampla bulla_, in\n reference to its rotund form (_Etym._ xx. 5).\n\nFootnote 3258:\n\n _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1868), pl. 22, p. 225.\n\nFootnote 3259:\n\n Mart. vii. 61, 5.\n\nFootnote 3260:\n\n Hor. _Ep._ ii. 2, 134.\n\nFootnote 3261:\n\n Cf. the episode in Petronius, _Sat._ 22.\n\nFootnote 3262:\n\n Pliny, _H.N._ xvi. 128.\n\nFootnote 3263:\n\n Pliny, _Ep._ i. 6: cf. Juv. xii. 60.\n\nFootnote 3264:\n\n Juv. viii. 161.\n\nFootnote 3265:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 8, 41.\n\nFootnote 3266:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiii. 10008, 4.\n\nFootnote 3267:\n\n Hor. _Od._ iii. 8, 13; 19, 12.\n\nFootnote 3268:\n\n i. 71: cf. viii. 51, 21; ix. 95; xi. 37; Hor. _Od._ iii. 19, 11 ff.\n\nFootnote 3269:\n\n See Varro, _L.L._ v. 122; Isid. _Etym._ xx. 5, where the derivation\n from _potare_ is given.\n\nFootnote 3270:\n\n Virg. _Ecl._ vi. 17; Plaut. _Asin._ v. 2, 56; Hor. _Od._ i. 20, 2;\n and see Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._\n\nFootnote 3271:\n\n See Macrob. v. 21.\n\nFootnote 3272:\n\n Hor. _Od._ i. 27, 1; _Epod._ ix. 33; Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6, describes\n it as a wash-hand basin.\n\nFootnote 3273:\n\n Plaut. _Stich._ v. 4, 11; Cic. _in Verr._ iv. 17, 37 and 24, 54.\n\nFootnote 3274:\n\n Mart. viii. 6, 2; Isid. _Etym._ xx. 5.\n\nFootnote 3275:\n\n _Od._ ii. 7, 22.\n\nFootnote 3276:\n\n Porphyrion _ad_ Hor. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3277:\n\n Plaut. _Stich._ v. 4, 12.\n\nFootnote 3278:\n\n _Id. Rud._ v. 2, 32.\n\nFootnote 3279:\n\n Cic. _Tusc._ iii. 19, 46.\n\nFootnote 3280:\n\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 5.\n\nFootnote 3281:\n\n xi. 145.\n\nFootnote 3282:\n\n ix. 60, 22.\n\nFootnote 3283:\n\n Varro, _L.L._ v. 127; Ovid, _Fast._ v. 509.\n\nFootnote 3284:\n\n _Ep._ 119, 3.\n\nFootnote 3285:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 4, 41; Juv. v. 80.\n\nFootnote 3286:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ i. 3, 80; ii. 2, 95; ii. 8, 43, 55.\n\nFootnote 3287:\n\n Suet. _Vitell._ 17: cf. 13.\n\nFootnote 3288:\n\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 4: _dispansis patentibusque oris_.\n\nFootnote 3289:\n\n Phaedr. i. 26.\n\nFootnote 3290:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ i. 3, 90; ii. 4, 75; i. 6, 115; _Ep._ i. 5, 2.\n\nFootnote 3291:\n\n Juv. iii. 142; Mart. xi. 28; Alciphr. _Ep._ iii. 20; Isid. _Etym._\n xx. 4.\n\nFootnote 3292:\n\n xi. 32, 18: cf. vii. 47, 3. Isidorus, _Etym._ xx. 4, says _gabata_ =\n _cavata_.\n\nFootnote 3293:\n\n xiii. 81; v. 79, 7: see Isid. _Etym._ xx. 8.\n\nFootnote 3294:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 4, 77; Pers. v. 182; Isid. _Etym._ xx. 6. For other\n uses see Juv. xi. 108; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiii. 69. Isidorus says\n _catinum_ is a better form.\n\nFootnote 3295:\n\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 4.\n\nFootnote 3296:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 4, 75.\n\nFootnote 3297:\n\n Hor. _Od._ ii. 7, 23; _Sat._ i. 3, 14.\n\nFootnote 3298:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 8, 86.\n\nFootnote 3299:\n\n _Sat._ i. 6, 118.\n\nFootnote 3300:\n\n Juv. iii. 263; xi. 158: cf. Vol. I. pp. 200, 211, 503.\n\nFootnote 3301:\n\n _Collect. Antiq._ v. p. 8.\n\nFootnote 3302:\n\n Catull. 94, 2; Juv. xiv. 171. For examples of _ollae_, see Overbeck,\n _Pompeii_, p. 414, Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._, and Pl. LXIX. fig.\n 2; see also pp. 389, 456, 550. Isidorus expressly states that it was\n used for boiling water (_Etym._ xx. 8).\n\nFootnote 3303:\n\n vi. 430. Isidorus (_Etym._ xx. 6) derives it from _pedes_.\n\nFootnote 3304:\n\n Cato, R.R. 157; Plant. _Pers._ i. 3, 8.\n\nFootnote 3305:\n\n Isid. _Etym._ xx. 8.\n\nFootnote 3306:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. p. 19, 14.\n\nFootnote 3307:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, Nos. 2461-2465; also D\u00e9chelette, _Vases\n de la Gaule Romaine_, ii. p. 316.\n\nFootnote 3308:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. 547, 12; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxvii. 18; Livy, x. 7, 10;\n Cic. _Rep._ vi. 2, 11; _id._ _Parad._ i. 2, 11.\n\nFootnote 3309:\n\n _De Nat. Deor._ iii. 17, 43.\n\nFootnote 3310:\n\n The word is only given by Festus (p. 248, M\u00fcller).\n\nFootnote 3311:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. 547, 19.\n\nFootnote 3312:\n\n Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 89, 4, with M\u00fcller\u2019s note.\n\nFootnote 3313:\n\n Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 51, 1.\n\nFootnote 3314:\n\n Varro, _L.L._ v. 124; Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 337, 10 (non dissimile\n cyatho).\n\nFootnote 3315:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. 544, 23; Cic. _Rep._ vi. 2, 11; Juv. vi. 343.\n\nFootnote 3316:\n\n Cic. _Legg._ iii. 16, 36.\n\nFootnote 3317:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 158. An example of a bronze _simpulum_ may be seen in\n the Bronze Room of the British Museum (Case E).\n\nFootnote 3318:\n\n Virg. _Georg._ ii. 394.\n\nFootnote 3319:\n\n _Id._ _Aen._ iii. 66; Varro, _L.L._ v. 124.\n\nFootnote 3320:\n\n Varro, _L.L._ v. 122; Virg. _Aen._ i. 729.\n\nFootnote 3321:\n\n See Isid. _Etym._ xx. 5, who suggests a derivation from _patere_,\n \u201cquod patentes sunt dispansisque labris.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3322:\n\n Ov. _Fast._ ii. 634; Juv. v. 85: cf. Plaut. _Cist._ ii. 1, 46.\n\nFootnote 3323:\n\n Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 247, M\u00fcll.; Varro, 544, 19 (_ap._ Non.).\n\nFootnote 3324:\n\n Paul, _ex_ Fest. p. 160.\n\nFootnote 3325:\n\n Digest, xxxiv. 2, 19, \u00a7 12.\n\nFootnote 3326:\n\n Varro _ap._ Non. 547, 14.\n\nFootnote 3327:\n\n _H.N._ vii. 185; Petron. 42; Colum. xii. 43, 7; Pallad. _Agric._ vii.\n 7; Cels. 2, 11.\n\nFootnote 3328:\n\n V. 148: see also Tert. _Apol._ 13; Varro _ap._ Non. 146, 8; 545, 2.\n\nFootnote 3329:\n\n Cato, _R.R._ 57; Livy, xxv. 2, 8; Pliny, _H.N._ xiv. 85, 144. For a\n bronze _congius_ representing the standard measure see Hultsch,\n _Metrologie_, p. 123; also Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ On Roman\n metrology generally see Krause, _Angeiol._ p. 454, and Hultsch, _op.\n cit._ p. 112 ff.\n\nFootnote 3330:\n\n _Die Formen der r\u00f6m. Thongef\u00e4sse, diesseits und jenseits der Alpen_\n (Stuttgart, 1897). For the forms peculiar to the ornamented wares,\n reference should be made to Dragendorff\u2019s article in _Bonner Jahrb._\n xcvi. pls. 1-3, and D\u00e9chelette, _Vases de la Gaule Romaine_, _passim._\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXII\n _ROMAN POTTERY, HISTORICALLY TREATED; ARRETINE WARE_\n\n Roman pottery mentioned by ancient writers\u2014\u201cSamian\u201d ware\u2014Centres of\n fabric\u2014The pottery of Arretium\u2014Characteristics\u2014Potters\u2019\n stamps\u2014Shapes of Arretine vases\u2014Sources of inspiration for\n decoration\u2014\u201cItalian Megarian bowls\u201d\u2014Subjects\u2014Distribution of\n Arretine wares.\n\n\nIn the present chapter we propose to discuss the origin and character\nof the finer Roman pottery, or red glazed ware with designs in relief,\nwhich is usually known to modern writers under the convenient\ndesignation of _terra sigillata_, a phrase which has already been\nexplained (p. 434). Not only in clay and glaze but in decoration these\nwares are characteristically Roman; but the question as to the actual\ncentre or centres of their manufacture still admits of some discussion.\n\nRelying principally upon the testimony of Pliny, Martial, and other\nancient writers, archaeologists have been accustomed to classify the\nred ware with reliefs, on a rough system of distinction according to\nartistic merit, as Arretine, Samian, and \u201cfalse Samian.\u201d The latter\nterm \u201cSamian\u201d has indeed acquired such popularity that it has passed\ninto the language as a conventional term of almost every-day use; but\nto the scientific investigator it has long been apparent that in point\nof accuracy it almost stands on a level with that of \u201cEtruscan vase.\u201d\nThat of \u201cfalse Samian\u201d has usually been applied to a certain class of\nprovincial wares, technically inferior to the \u201cSamian.\u201d But though both\nterms may still retain currency in popular language for the sake of\nconvenience, it must not be supposed that they are impressed with the\nhall-mark of scientific terminology.\n\nBefore however we attempt to distinguish the different fabrics on the\nbasis of recent researches, it may be as well to investigate the\nstatements of the classical writers and weigh the evidence which they\nafford on the various kinds of pottery in use in Italy under the Roman\nEmpire.\n\nThe most valuable information is found in the pages of Pliny,\nsupplemented by Isidorus of Seville, who, writing in the seventh\ncentury, probably gives merely second-hand information. The\nformer[3331] says: \u201cThe majority of mankind use earthenware vessels.\nSamian ware is commended even at the present day for dinner services;\nthis reputation is also kept up by Arretium in Italy, and for\ndrinking-cups by Surrentum, Hasta, Pollentia, Saguntum in Spain, and\nPergamum in Asia. Tralles is also a centre for pottery, and Mutina in\nItaly ... and exportation from the celebrated potteries goes on all\nover the world.\u201d Isidorus, who largely quotes from Pliny, gives the\ntradition that Samos was the seat of the original invention of pottery,\n\u201cwhence too came Samian vases.\u201d[3332] He goes on to say that \u201cArretine\nvases are so called from Arretium, a town in Italy where they are made,\nfor they are red.\u201d But in regard to \u201cSamian ware\u201d he admits that there\nis another explanation of the term, namely that it is a corruption of\nSamnia. Herein he is possibly not far from the truth, for we have\nalready seen that the adjacent region of Campania was in the last few\ncenturies of the Republic famous as a centre for relief-wares, and it\nis possible that the manufacture of such pottery was carried on in the\ndistrict, as for instance at Puteoli, long afterwards. We also know\nthat Allifae in Samnium was a seat of this industry,[3333] and that a\nspecial class of pottery was made at Ocriculum and at Mevania in Umbria\nabout 200 B.C. (see below, p. 490).\n\nOn the other hand there is no doubt that Samos had a reputation for its\npottery for many centuries, as is implied by the tradition which\nIsidorus quotes and by the words of Pliny: \u201ceven at the present day it\nis commended.\u201d In a previous chapter it has been suggested that the\nso-called Megarian bowls, which undoubtedly are a prototype of the\nRoman wares, represent the Samian pottery of the Hellenistic period;\nbut whether this is so or not, the most probable conclusion is that the\nterm \u201cSamian\u201d connotes in the first instance a Greek, not a Roman,\nfabric; that this Greek ware was imported into Italy; and that it\nbecame so popular that the term really came into use for native\nproducts, just as now-a-days we are able to speak of \u201cChina\u201d which has\ntravelled no further than from Worcester, S\u00e8vres, or Dresden. It may\nthus have become a generic name for table-ware. Plautus mentions Samian\nware more than once (see above, p. 456), usually with reference to its\nbrittleness, as in the _Menaechmi_,[3334] where Menaechmus says, \u201cKnock\ngently!\u201d to which the parasite Peniculus replies: \u201cI suppose you are\nafraid the doors are Samian.\u201d Again in the _Bacchides_,[3335] with a\njesting allusion to Samos as the home of one of the two heroines: \u201cTake\ncare, please, that no one handles her carelessly; you know how easily a\nSamian vase gets broken.\u201d In another passage he speaks of a _Samiolum\npoterium_.[3336] And Tertullian, speaking of Numa\u2019s times, says that\nonly Samian vases were as yet in use.[3337]\n\nPliny also mentions Pergamum and Tralles as centres of fabrics, and\nspeaks of the _firmitas_ or toughness of that of Kos, but of these we\nknow nothing further. It has been pointed out by Dragendorff that there\nwas some manufacture of _terra sigillata_ in Asia Minor under the\nEmpire,[3338] probably an imitation of the Italian ware, as the\nexamples known present the same characteristics as the provincial wares\nof Central Europe, and the forms are also those of the Arretine vases.\nThe same writer has shown that there were also manufactures of _terra\nsigillata_ in Greece itself, in Egypt, and in Southern Russia, which\nwere of similar character.\n\nTo return to Italy and its local fabrics. It is not to be supposed that\nthere was any one principal centre, for different towns excelled in\ntheir respective wares, and these were imported from one to the other,\nand especially into Rome. This city was of course originally supplied\nwith earthenware by the Etruscans, whose mantle fell on the town of\nArretium, but it cannot be doubted that the manufacture of pottery must\nhave been carried on to some extent in Rome itself after the absorption\nof the Etruscan people. We read that even in Numa\u2019s time there was a\nGuild of Potters (see p. 372), but it never appears to have excelled in\nany of the finer wares, and is ignored by Pliny, though we have\nevidence from other sources. Thus Martial speaks of _cadi\nVaticani_,[3339] and Juvenal of fragile dishes from the Vatican\nhill.[3340] Cato says _dolia_ are best bought in Rome, tiles at\nVenafrum.[3341] And the evidence of a pottery in the third and second\ncenturies B.C. on the Esquiline which is given by the find of lamps\ndescribed in Chapter XX. is supported by Festus.[3342]\n\nPliny, as we have seen, mentions Arretium, Hasta and Pollentia, Mutina\nand Surrentum with commendation; he also couples the pottery of Hadria\nwith that of Kos for _firmitas_.[3343] He further implies that Arretium\nkept up the old pre-eminence of the Samian ware, and this is borne out,\nnot only by what we gather from Martial and other writers, but still\nmore by modern discoveries, of which we shall shortly speak in detail.\nOf the other potteries less is known, but remains have been found at\nHasta and Pollentia (Asti and Pollenza in Piedmont)[3344] and the\n_figlinae_ of Velleia in the same region were also well known in\nantiquity.[3345] At Mutina (Modena) remains of a pottery were found\n(see Vol. I. p. 71), together with vases of Arretine type, and the\npotter Fortis, whose name so often occurs on lamps (p. 426), appears to\nhave had his workshop here.[3346] His stamps are also found on tiles\nand on pottery of all kinds, even Arretine. Here, too, were found vases\nof black ware, of \u201cGraeco-Campanian\u201d style, sometimes with stamps\nimpressed from gems, and unglazed red plates stamped with small\npalmettes like the Greek black-glazed wares (Vol. I. p. 212). Livy\nmentions that in 176 B.C. a great destruction took place here of \u201call\nkinds of vases, made more for use than for ornament.\u201d[3347] In their\ngeneral results the pottery-finds are instructive as showing the\ntransition from black to red wares, which may also be observed in the\nvases of Popilius and the early Arretine fabrics (see below).[3348]\n\nCampania in general seems to have maintained the traditions of the\nCalene and Etrusco-Campanian fabrics of the third century (Chapter\nXI.), and there is evidence of manufacture and export in the first\ncentury B.C. Horace\u2019s table was supplied with _Campana supellex_.[3349]\nSurrentum ware is mentioned by Martial[3350] as well as Pliny, and, as\nindicated in the preceding chapter (p. 462), supplied amphorae of local\nwine to Pompeii.[3351] The pottery of Cumae, which place was at an\nearlier date an important centre for painted vases (Vol. I. p. 80), is\nmentioned by Martial[3352] It would also seem to have supplied clay for\nthe vases made at the neighbouring Puteoli, which had no local clay\nsuitable for the purpose, and is not mentioned by ancient writers. The\nlatter has however yielded large numbers of vases of a type closely\nresembling the Arretine, and a pottery was discovered in 1874, with\nmoulds.[3353] Some of the vases have Arretine stamps,[3354] which imply\nimportations during the first century B.C., but names of local potters\nare also known, chief of whom is Numerius Naevius Hilarus, who employed\neleven slaves. Q. Pomponius Serenus and L. Valerius Titus are also\nfound here and elsewhere in Southern Italy and at Nismes.[3355] Some\nfragments of this Puteoli ware from various sources are in the British\nMuseum.[3356]\n\nHorace speaks of pottery from Allifae in Samnium,[3357] and Pliny\nmentions the popularity of that made at Rhegium and Cumac[3358]; this\nexhausts the list of sites known to us from ancient writers. In the\nprovinces the only place which had any fame was Saguntum, alluded to by\nPliny and more than once by Martial, who speaks of cups (_pocula_ and\n_cymbia_) fashioned from Saguntine clay[3359]; also of a _synthesis\nseptenaria_ or nest of seven cups, \u201cpolished by the potter\u2019s coarse\ntool, of clay turned on the Spanish wheel.\u201d[3360] But modern researches\non the site have not thrown any light on the character of the local\nfabric (p. 540)[3361]; it is only at Tarragona that _terra sigillata_\nhas been found.\n\nThe pottery of Arretium is more than once referred to by Martial, who\nnotes that it compared unfavourably with the splendour of crystal\nvessels, but at the same time begs his hearer not to regard it\naltogether with contempt, for Porsena was well served with his Tuscan\nearthenware[3362]:\n\n Arretina nimis ne spernas vasa monemus;\n Lautus erat Tuscis Porsena fictilibus.\n\nAn epigram in the Latin Anthology (259) says:\n\n Arretine calix, mensis decor ante paternis,\n Ante manus medici quam bene sanus eras.[3363]\n\nOther allusions are less direct.[3364] Coming down to more modern\ntimes, we actually find mention of the pottery in a manuscript written\nby Sig. Ristori of Arezzo in 1282, and by C. Villani in his _History of\nthe World_, written in the fourteenth century. Subsequently Alessi, who\nlived in the time of Leo X., described the discovery of red ware about\na mile from the city, and Vasari tells us that in 1484 his grandfather\nfound in the neighbourhood three vaults of an ancient furnace. Further\nallusions are found in the writings of Gori (1734) and Rossi (1796);\nand in 1841 Fabroni published a history of Arretine ware,[3365] in\nwhich the above facts are recorded. He tells us that in 1779 potteries\nwere unearthed at Cincelli or Centum Cellae, which contained, besides\nvarious implements, part of a potter\u2019s wheel, resembling those in vogue\nat the present day. It was composed of two circular slabs placed round\none pivot at an interval from one another, their diameter not being the\nsame. The wheel actually found was of terracotta, about 11 inches in\ndiameter by 3 inches in thickness, with a groove round the edge. It was\nbound with a leaden tyre, held in place by six cylinders of the same\nmetal, and appears to have been the upper of the two slabs, the \u201ctable\u201d\non which the clay was placed.[3366]\n\nThe Arretine ware must be regarded as _the_ Roman pottery _par\nexcellence_. The term was used anciently in an extended sense for all\nvases of a certain technique without regard to the place of\nmanufacture, as a piece of evidence from Spain tends to show. Pottery\nhas been found at Tarragona with the inscription, A TITII FIGVL ARRE,\n_A. Titii figul(i) Arre(tini_),[3367] which has generally been taken to\nmean a maker of Arretine ware living on the spot, just as now-a-days\nWilton or Brussels carpets may be made at Kidderminster.\n\nThe general characteristics of the Arretine ware are: (1) the fine\nlocal red clay, carefully worked up and baked very hard to a rich\ncoral-colour, or like sealing-wax; (2) the fine red glaze, composed\nchiefly of silica, iron oxide, and an alkaline substance, which, as we\nhave seen (p. 437), was perhaps borax; (3) the great variety of forms\nemployed, which show in a marked degree the influence of metal-work;\n(4) the stamps with potter\u2019s names, which are almost invariably found.\nThe duration of this pottery seems to have been from about 150 B.C. to\nthe end of the first century of the Empire, at which time pottery in\nItaly had reached a very degenerate stage, and the height of its\nsuccess and popularity was during the first century B.C. Analyses of\nthe vases show that practically the same results as to their\ncomposition are obtained from different periods.\n\nDuring the last century these vases have been found in large numbers at\nArezzo, and there is now a considerable quantity of them collected in\nthe public museum of that city, as well as in private collections and\nthe museums of other countries. The official record of Italian\nexcavations contains an account of finds made in 1883, 1884, 1890,\n1894, and 1896 on various sites in the city and immediate\nneighbourhood,[3368] and gives the locality of the different\npotteries,[3369] as well as the names of their owners. The first\npotter\u2019s name recorded was that of Calidius Strigo by Alessi; it was\nfound in 1492 in the presence of Giovanni de\u2019 Medici, afterwards Leo X.\nOthers were given by Gori, and fuller lists (up to date) by Fabroni in\n1841, Gamurrini in 1859, and Marini in 1884.[3370] At the present day\nthe most complete information on this head may be found in the recently\npublished volume of the _Corpus_ of Latin inscriptions dealing with\nEtruria,[3371] in which the results of the most recent excavations are\nincorporated. A large number have also been found at Rome, the names\nbeing identical with those found at Arezzo, and the ware consequently\nimported.[3372] It must be distinguished from the inferior relief wares\neither of local fabric (see p. 492) or imported from Gaul, Northern\nItaly, and elsewhere. Names of Arretine potters are also found in large\nnumbers at Modena, Rimini, and other places in Northern Italy, in\nFrance, Spain, and elsewhere.\n\nThe stamps range in date from the second century B.C. down to the\nChristian era, but not beyond the first century of the Empire. The\noldest of all, it is interesting to note, are found on black-glazed\nwares similar in character to those from the Esquiline.[3373] The\nred-glazed ware probably came in about 100 B.C., and the two methods\nappear to have been for a time contemporaneous. The initials Q A \u00b7 F\nand C \u00b7 V which occur on early red Arretine wares[3374] are also found\non the Esquiline lamps. Next comes the red ware with quadrangular\nstamps repeated four or five times on the bottom, followed by single\nquadrangular stamps and those of varying form, especially some in the\nshape of a foot, which are not found in the best period at Arretium,\nand seem to belong only to the time of the Empire. This form of stamp\nis very common on lamps and plain pottery, and there are many examples\nof bronze stamps in this shape extant.[3375] Those vases which have\nstamps on the exterior in the midst of the design represent the middle\nor Augustan period. The older stamps are more deeply impressed in the\nsurface of the vase than the later. On the whole, the palaeographical\nevidence of the stamps is very slight, and we can only roughly date\nthem between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D.[3376] Dragendorff has, however,\nnoted that the slaves\u2019 names are mostly Greek, a detail which helps to\nestablish a _terminus post quem_, placing them later than 146 B.C.\n\nThe Calidius Strigo of whom we have already spoken was a potter of some\nimportance, employing twenty slaves, of whom the names of Protus and\nSynistor occur most frequently. But he only seems to have made plain\ntable wares without reliefs, examples of which are found in Rome and\nelsewhere. A potter named Domitius had a workshop on the same spot, but\nonly employed a few slaves. A more important name is that of Publius\nCornelius, first found by Ferdinando Rossi in the eighteenth century at\nCincelli, together with remains of his workshop; many additional\nexamples were found in 1883 and 1892. He employed no less than forty\nslaves, of whom the best known are Antioc(h)us, Faustus, Heraclides,\nPrimus, and Rodo. One vase by the last-named has medallions with the\nhead of Augustus and the inscription, AVGVSTVS, which gives the date of\nthe fabric.[3377] Previous to the discovery of this in 1893 Gamurrini\nhad supposed that Cornelius was one of the colonists placed at Arezzo\nby Sulla. Many of his vases are found at Rome, and also in Spain and\nSouthern Italy. The vases with CORNELI in a foot-shaped stamp are\nprobably not his. He appears to have acquired the business of two other\npotters\u2014C. Tellius and C. Cispius.\n\nAmong all the potters\u2019 stamps few are commoner than that of M.\nPerennius, and his wares certainly take the highest rank for their\nartistic merit. All his relief designs are copied from the best Greek\nmodels, as will be seen later. Few of his vases seem to have been\nexported to Rome, but they are found in Spain and Southern Gaul. The\nform of the name on the stamps varies greatly,[3378] the commonest\nbeing M. PERENNI; M. PEREN., M. PERE., and M. PER. are also found, and\neven M. PE. with the letters joined in a monogram. He employed\nseventeen slaves, of whom the best known is Tigranes. His name appears\nas TIGRAN, TIGRA, or TIGR, and always in conjunction with that of\nPerennius. These two are found on a vase with Achilles and Diomede\nfighting against Hector,[3379] and on three Arretine moulds in the\nBritish Museum, the subjects of which are a dance of Maenads, masks of\nMaenads and Satyrs, and a banquet scene (Plate LXVI. figs. 4, 6). The\nname of Tigranes appears alone on a fine vase in the Louvre with the\napotheosis of Herakles.[3380] Another slave, Cerdo, made a vase with\nthe nine Muses, their names being inscribed over them in Greek.[3381] A\nthird slave who produced vases of more than average merit was Bargates,\nwhose name is found on a fine vase in the Boston Museum (Fig.\n218),[3382] the subject of which is the fall of Pha\u00ebthon, who lies\nshattered in pieces on the ground, with Tethys coming to his rescue.\nZeus with his thunderbolt and Artemis with her bow have brought about\nhis downfall. Helios is seen collecting his terrified steeds; and the\nrest of the design is occupied with the transformation of the Heliades\ninto poplars.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Philologus_.\n FIG. 218. ARRETINE BOWL WITH DEATH OF PHA\u00cbTHON (BOSTON MUSEUM).\n]\n\nThe site of Perennius\u2019 principal workshop appears to have been in the\ncity itself, close to the church of Sta. Maria in Gradi; but he may\nalso have had a branch manufactory at Cincelli or Centum Cellae. Signor\nPasqui[3383] notes that his name occurs alone on the interior of plain\nbowls and dishes. Next to these come the copies of Greek models by\nCerdo, Pilades, Pilemo, and Nicephorus, followed by Tigranes, and then\nby Bargates, who also worked for Tigranes when he became a freedman\n(the stamps being in the form BARGATE / M \u00b7 TIGR); lastly occur the\nnames of Crescens and Saturninus.\n\nThree Annii had a pottery near the church of San Francesco, and\nemployed over twenty slaves, with both Greek and Roman names; the most\nimportant of the three is C. Annius, who made vases with reliefs, as\ndid Lucius, but Sextus only made plain wares. There are also vases\nstamped ANNI only; they probably belong to the first century B.C. Aulus\nTitius is found frequently at Arezzo and Rimini, at Lillebonne in\nFrance, and, as we have seen, in Spain; his wares also penetrated to\nAfrica and all parts of Italy. He has no names of slaves coupled with\nhis, and his signature appears in the various forms, _A. Titi_, _A.\nTiti figul._, _A. Titi figul. Arret_. He was succeeded by C. Titius\nNepos, who had fifteen slaves, and there is also a L. Titius. C. and L.\nTettius occur at Rome, but only the latter at Arezzo[3384]; the word\nSAMIA, which occurs on his stamps, is more likely to be a proper name\nthan to have any reference to Samian ware. The name of Rasinius, which\nis associated with more names of slaves than any except P. Cornelius,\nis found more often at Rome than at Arezzo[3385]; it also occurs at\nPompeii,[3386] and at Neuss in Germany, which facts point to the time\nof Augustus and A.D. 79 as the limits of date. Of the numerous slaves,\nsome were afterwards employed by C. Memmius. There appear to have been\nat least two representatives of the name, C. Rasinius in the Augustan\nperiod, and L. Rasinius Pisanus in the Flavian. The latter D\u00e9chelette\nhas shown to be a degenerate Arretine, making imitations of Gaulish\nware.[3387] L. and C. Petronius are found at Arezzo, together with\nremains of their potteries, and C. Gavius, who belongs to the\nRepublican period, at Cincelli. Numerous other potters who are probably\nArretine may be found in Ihm\u2019s lists[3388]; on the other hand, there\nare stamps found at Rome and in Etruria which cannot have originated\nfrom Arretium. Such are _Atenio circitor refi(ciendum) curavit_,[3389]\nand _Faustus Salinator Seriae_[3390]; those with OF(_ficina_), such as\nOF \u00b7 FELICIS, which are found at Rome, but are probably Gaulish[3391];\nthose with _fecit_ or _epoei_ (\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b5\u03b9),[3392] with the exception of\n_Venicius fecit hec_, from Arezzo[3393]; and _Atrane_, a name found at\nVulci, Chiusi, and many other sites in Etruria, but not at Arezzo.[3394]\n\nThe name usually given in the signatures on the stamps is that of the\nmaker only; sometimes a slave\u2019s name is added, either above or below\nthe maker\u2019s, or on a separate stamp. The maker\u2019s name usually gives the\n_nomen_ and _praenomen_, implying a freedman, and when given in full is\nseen to be in the genitive; the slave\u2019s name is usually in the\nnominative. Four typical varieties are given by the following stamps\nfrom the pottery of P. Cornelius, with the name of the slave Potus:\n\n POTVS P\u00b7CORN POTI P\u00b7CORN\n P\u00b7COR POTVS P\u00b7CORN POTI\n\nA difficulty sometimes arises in regard to these two-line stamps when\nthe slave\u2019s name occurs _below_ that of the master, on account of the\nfrequent abbreviations; for instance, it is not easy to say whether\nsuch stamps as\n\n A\u00b7VIBI or P\u00b7CORNELI\n DIOM ANTHVS\n\ndenote one name or two, for there are certain instances where the\nmaster has three names.[3395] It is always possible that the name\ndenotes a slave become a freedman, as A. Vibius Diomedes or P.\nCornelius Anthus, and in Dr. Dressel\u2019s opinion[3396] this is the most\nprobable explanation; but the alternative has much in its favour. There\nare, moreover, stamps such as\n\n P\u00b7MESEINI or P\u00b7CORNELI\n AMPLIO S(_ervus_) FIRMVS F(_ecit_)\n\nwhich, of course, leave no room for doubt. In later examples the\n_praenomen_ is often omitted, and occasionally the _praenomen_ and\n_cognomen_ are found without the gentile name[3397]; there are also a\nfew instances of female names.[3398] An exceptional form of signature\nis given by CINNA C\u00b7L\u00b7TITI(_orum_) S(_ervus_); occasionally also, as in\nthe example from Spain already quoted, FIGVL(_us_) ARRE(_tinus_), or\nsimply ARRETI(_nus_), are found. Sometimes, again, two potters seem to\nhave been in partnership, as Sura and Philologus, L. Gellius and L.\nSempronius (L\u00b7GELLI L SEMP),[3399] or two firms, as the Umbricii and\nVibieni.\n\nThe simple quadrangular form of stamp is by far the commonest, and,\nnext to this, an outline of a foot; less frequent forms, and of later\ndate, are the circular, oval, or lunate, and other varieties of marks,\nsuch as wreaths, stars, or branches. Dr. Dressel gives no less than\neighty-seven types from Rome,[3400] of which thirty-three are\nrectangular with ornamental edges. The forms of the letters are not\nalways an indication of date, but such forms as 15[14]Attic alpha\n15[15]alpha for A, 15[12]E for E, and 15[12]F for F betoken an early\ndate. Ligatured letters abound. The names are often written from right\nto left, or left to right with separate letters reversed or inverted;\nor the words are broken up as\n\n MVS for Docimus, MVS for Romanu(s),\n DOCI ROM\n\nand so on.[3401] The stamps were probably of wood, but some are taken\nfrom seal-rings.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe forms of Arretine vases are all, without exception, borrowed from\nmetal originals, and in their contours display the same tendency. But,\nas compared with the Hellenistic forms they show great simplicity, and\nalmost, as it were, a return to archaism. The vases are for the most\npart of small size, and indeed the dimensions of the furnaces at Arezzo\nseem to indicate that larger vases could not have been baked in them.\nThey are principally cups, bowls, and dishes, the former of\nhemispherical or cylindrical form and devoid of handles\u2014a\ncharacteristic which usually distinguishes Roman from Greek pottery.\nSome of the moulds for Arretine ware in the British Museum collection\nappear to have been used for a deep cup with flat base and spreading\nlip (Plate LXVI. fig. 5), of a type which finds no parallel in Greek\nshapes, but the hemispherical bowl on a low foot is the prevailing\nform. Other shapes are extremely rare, a notable exception being the\nbeautiful krater in the British Museum with figures of the Seasons\n(Fig. 219), which, although found at Capua, is certainly Arretine in\nstyle and technique. The technical methods employed we have already\ndescribed in the preceding chapter,[3402] and there do not appear to\nhave been any variations peculiar to this fabric. Fabroni (p. 37)\nstates that cinerary urns, tiles, lamps, and reliefs were also made in\nthe potteries at Arretium.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 219. ARRETINE KRATER WITH THE FOUR SEASONS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nThe prototypes of the forms we have seen to be the Hellenistic vases\nof chased metal, for which Alexandria was the principal centre. But,\napart from form, it is doubtful whether the Alexandrine toreutic work\nexercised much influence on the potters of Arretium. For the\ndecoration and subjects they undoubtedly drew their inspiration\nchiefly from the New-Attic reliefs[3403] and the art of Asia Minor,\nas has been pointed out by more than one recent writer,[3404] who\nhave urged that the influence of Alexandria on Roman art has been\ngreatly over-estimated.[3405] Dragendorff points out that all the\nfamous chasers known to us were natives of Asia Minor,[3406] and\nthinks that Rhodes was probably the centre of this art. It must also\nbe borne in mind that the second century was the era of collecting\nworks of art in Greece and Asia Minor and conveying them to Rome, so\nthat the examples which were most prominently before the eyes of\nItalian artists under the later Republic were just these products of\nGreece and Asia Minor in the Hellenistic Age. Moreover, the Rhodian\nand Pergamene schools of art were still living when that of\nAlexandria was dying out under the later Ptolemies. The mixed style\nof art of the first century B.C. is essentially Roman, produced under\nthe influence of the Greek works then collected in Rome, and does not\nextend beyond Italy.\n\nBut it is also conceivable that its predecessors in the line of ceramic\ndevelopment contributed to produce the ware of Arretium. It recalls in\nsome respects the different Greek relief-wares discussed in Chapter\nXI., the Calene phialae of the third century, and the so-called\nMegarian or Homeric bowls, in which some have seen the real \u201cSamian\u201d\nware of the Roman writers, dating from the same period. To these\nsucceeded in Hellenic lands the fabrics of Athens, Southern Russia, and\nAsia Minor, to which allusion has already been made, and which often\npresent similar characteristics to the Arretine fabrics. Nor must it be\nforgotten that the earliest Arretine pottery was covered with a black\nglaze, which may indeed represent a desire to reproduce the effect of\nmetal, but is much more likely to be a direct heritage from the late\nGreek pottery, which in this respect carried on the tradition of the\npainted wares. At all events, two main characteristics of Hellenistic\npottery have plainly left their mark on Roman fabrics: the\ndisappearance of painting under the influence of relief decoration\nimitated from metal, and the cessation of the exclusive use of a black\nvarnish.\n\nThe transition seems to be partially effected by a small group of vases\nwhich have been styled \u201cItalian Megarian bowls\u201d or \u201cVases of Popilius,\u201d\nafter the potter C. Popilius, whose name occurs on many of them.[3407]\nThey form a distinct class, dating apparently from the third century\nB.C., on the testimony of the inscriptions; the form is that of a\nhemispherical bowl without handle or foot, with very thin walls, and\ncovered with a slip of varying colour\u2014yellow, brown, or black. These\nbowls, too, are a close imitation of metal-work, especially in the\narrangement of the reliefs. The ornament usually consists of long\nleaves and scrolls radiating from a rosette on the foot and bordered\nabove by bands of wave- or tongue-pattern, scrolls, or garlands; the\nground is filled in with stars, shields, and other devices. In the\nfiner examples a frieze of figures is added, with such motives as\nErotes, masks, dolphins, and ox-skulls repeated. The bowl of Popilius\npublished by Hartwig is the only one with a definite subject: a fight\nbetween Greeks and Barbarians, which is an undoubted reminiscence of\nthe famous mosaic at Pompeii with Alexander at the Issus. Eleven bowls\nby Popilius are known, two by L. Appius (see Fig. 220), and one each by\nL. Atinius and L. Quintius. The first-named potter seems to have lived\npartly at Ocriculum, partly at Mevania in Umbria; both he and Appius\nalso made \u201cCalene\u201d ware. These potters were freedmen, as the use of the\ntwo names indicates. Their work does not show the fine glaze of the\nCalene and Arretine fabrics, but is decorative in its effect; each\nornamental motive is produced from a separate stamp, and the potter\u2019s\nmarks are put on _en barbotine_ (see p. 442).\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 220. \u201cITALIAN MEGARIAN\u201d BOWL BY L. APPIUS (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nTo sum up with Dragendorff,[3408] it is clear that a careful study of\nHellenistic pottery is necessary for a correct estimate of the Italian\nand Roman. As in the case of other arts, it proves that the Romans were\nmerely receptive, at best only developing what they received. This\ndevelopment began with the importation of Greek relief-wares with black\nvarnish, especially from Asia Minor, and their imitation at Cales.\nThen, as in Greece, so in Italy, the search for new forms, colouring,\nand decoration began and brought about a degeneration of technique.\nWhat the Calene vases are to those of Asia Minor, so are the vases of\nPopilius to the \u201cMegarian\u201d bowls. Finally, the finds in Southern Russia\nshow that even the technique of the red-glazed ware is not an Arretine\ninvention, but was already known to the Greeks, although first brought\nto perfection in Italy.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe must now return to the Arretine vases and turn our attention to\ntheir subjects and decoration, and their place in artistic development.\nDragendorff[3409] divides them into two classes, including with them\nthe vases of Puteoli, which bear Arretine stamps, and probably only\nrepresent a mere off-shoot of the latter potteries, merely differing in\nthe quality of the design and in the absence of many of the best types.\nThese were mostly discovered in 1874, and it is possible that the\nkrater from Capua (p. 488) may also be reckoned as originating from\nthis source.\n\nHis first class includes the vases of M. Perennius, which form such a\nlarge proportion of the signed Arretine wares. They are characterised\nby friezes of figures repeated, or of groups of figures all of the same\nsize, sometimes divided by pillars or terminal figures.\nGround-ornaments are rare, and the ground under the figures is not\nindicated as elsewhere. The subjects include Dionysiac scenes, such as\ndancing Maenads, sacrifices, drinking-scenes, the vintage, or Dionysos\nin a chariot; Cupids, Muses, and Seasons; Victory sacrificing a bull;\nNereids with the weapons of Achilles; Hieroduli or priestesses dancing,\nwith wicker head-dresses; banqueting, erotic, and hunting-scenes.\nExamples of the latter classes are given on Plate LXVI. The types of\nthe figures, as in the case of the dancing Maenads, are largely derived\nfrom the New-Attic reliefs (see above).\n\nIn the second class, to which belong the vases of P. Cornelius and\nthose found at Puteoli, a large use of ornament is the most conspicuous\nfeature. The figures are little more than decorative, or form motives\nof a sculpturesque character, and are not, as in the first class,\nisocephalous. Naturalistic motives, such as wreaths, are very frequent.\nAmong the types we have figures like those in the Nile-scenes on the\nterracotta mural reliefs (p. 371) and Centaurs derived from Hellenic\nprototypes.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXVI\n\n[Illustration:\n\n MOULDS AND STAMP OF ARRETINE WARE, WITH CASTS FROM THE FORMER\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nThroughout there is a remarkable variety, not only of subjects, but of\nornaments and methods of composition, features in which the Greek\nvase-painters at all periods allowed themselves little freedom. The\nornamentation, which usually borders the figures above and below, or\nstill oftener occupies the whole surface available for decoration,\nincludes such motives as conventional wreaths and festoons, scrolls of\nfoliage, and egg-and-tongue pattern; a favourite device is the use of\ncolumns with spiral shafts, often surmounted by masks, between the\nfigures. But it is often naturalistic as well as conventional, at least\nin detail, and only in the general effect is it purely ornamental\nrather than a reproduction of nature.\n\nIn the figures derived from the New-Attic reliefs and similar sources,\nsuch as metal reliefs on bases, candelabra, etc., the copyist usually\nshows a strong tendency to archaism; the attitudes of the figures are\ngraceful, but somewhat affected. They seldom represent any particular\naction or story, but even human figures are merely decorative. Groups\nof dancing figures are especially favoured, such as Satyrs and Maenads,\nor the Hieroduli or dancing priestesses, who wear a curious headdress\nof wicker-work (_calathus_)[3410]; or we see Genii and Cupids crowning\naltars and lamp-stands, or playing on musical instruments. Throughout\nthe parallelism with the Roman mural reliefs (p. 367 ff.) is most\nremarkable, whether in the archaising style, the decorative treatment\nof human figures, or in the choice of themes: the dancing Maenads and\nSatyrs, the Hieroduli, Victory sacrificing a bull, or the figures of\nSeasons. Of the last-named a fine instance is the beautiful krater from\nCapua, now in the British Museum (Fig. 219), the figures on which are\nmost delicately modelled. A stamp in the same collection from Arezzo\nhas a figure of Spring, which repeats the type of the Capua vase (Plate\nLXVI. fig. 2: see p. 439).\n\nA somewhat later development, corresponding to the second class\ndescribed above, seems to draw its inspiration rather from the\nHellenistic reliefs of naturalistic style, such as Schreiber has\npublished, dating from the third century B.C.[3411] The figures are no\nlonger stiff, but free and vigorous, and elaborate compositions are\nattempted, some being perhaps excerpts from large Hellenistic\ncompositions. Realistic landscapes in the Hellenistic style, with rocks\nand trees, are largely favoured, and the repertory of subjects includes\nDionysiac sacrifices and processions, combats of Centaurs and Lapiths,\nand hunting-scenes. A fragmentary mould in the British Museum is a good\nexample of the latter, only that here the scene is definitely\ncharacterised as Alexander the Great at a lion-hunt (Plate LXVI. figs.\n1, 3). The king is just slaying a lion, which stands over a man whom it\nhas felled, and Krateros advances to his assistance with an axe. A\nwreath which adorns the beast\u2019s neck seems to indicate that it was an\nanimal specially kept in the royal park for hunting.[3412] The mould\nbears the name of M. Perennius.\n\nDragendorff, in a valuable and illuminating estimate of the Arretine\nwares,[3413] points out that they are an example of the tendency, so\nconstantly occurring in classic art, to imitate one substance in\nanother. He is further of opinion that they largely reproduce\ncontemporary originals which illustrate the eclectic art of the\nAugustan period, instituting a reaction against Hellenistic art and\nforming in their simple shapes a contrast to the _baroque_ forms of\nlater Hellenistic pottery. The art of the Augustan Age was followed, as\nWickhoff has pointed out,[3414] by a period of impressionism or\nillusionist style derived from painting, which is, however, completely\nabsent from Arretine and all other pottery of the Roman period. It may,\ntherefore, be fairly assumed that when the impressionist style came\ninto vogue, the art of the Arretine potter had had its day. All\nsubsequent wares with reliefs are essentially provincial, and the\norigin of their style is uncertain, but it is at all events not derived\nfrom any of the contemporary phases of Roman art.\n\nThe vases of the types which we have been describing are not, as has\nbeen hinted already, found exclusively at Arezzo. In Italy they are\nfound in all parts,[3415] and the stamps of known Arretine potters\noccur in large numbers in Rome, as also at Cervetri, Chiusi, Vulci, and\nelsewhere in Etruria,[3416] and at Mutina (Modena).[3417] They are also\nfound all over Campania, at Capua, Cumae, Pompeii, and Pozzuoli. North\nof the Alps they occur but rarely, and almost exclusively in Gallia\nNarbonensis,[3418] but we have seen that they are found in Spain, and\ninstances are also recorded from Sardinia, Africa, Greece,[3419] Asia\nMinor, and Cyprus.[3420] From these details two conclusions may be\ndrawn, either that there were various centres scattered over the Empire\nfor the manufacture of what was currently known as \u201cArretine ware,\u201d or\nthat an extensive system of exportation went on from one centre, which\nwould naturally be Arretium. Certainly there is no difference either\ntechnically or artistically between the Arezzo vases and some of those\nfound in other places, such as Modena or Capua. Either view has\nsomething in its favour, and it is doubtful whether the question is yet\nripe for solution.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Arretine ware, as we have seen, steadily degenerated during the\nfirst century of the Empire, and at the close of that period had\npractically come to an end. The question then arises, What took its\nplace in Italy? For it will be seen in the following pages that in\ndiscussing the remaining examples of _terra sigillata_ which Roman\npotters have left us, we have to deal almost entirely with provincial\nwares, made in Gaul and Germany, and exported largely even into Central\nand Southern Italy. Not the least striking feature in the history of\nRoman pottery is the rapid rise of these provincial fabrics, and the\nreputation which they so speedily acquired even in the more central and\nmore civilised parts of the empire. Yet the manufacture of pottery in\nItaly cannot have died out entirely by the end of the first century.\nThe plain and unglazed wares for domestic or other ordinary uses, such\nas the _dolia_ and wine amphorae, of course continued to be made in\nItaly as elsewhere, and the list of centres given by Pliny, which we\nhave already discussed, clearly shows that in the Flavian epoch several\nplaces still preserved a reputation for the manufacture of pottery. On\nthe other hand, we have no evidence that the pottery made in these\ncentres had any other than utilitarian merit, or that it represents\nwhat we know as _terra sigillata_, and it is certainly remarkable that\nall the ornamental wares found in Italy are either of the Arretine type\nor else importations from Gaul, with very few exceptions. Lamps and\ntiles, as we have seen in previous chapters, continued to be made\nthroughout the second and third centuries, but both were essentially\nutilitarian in their purposes, and the latter, at any rate, lay no\nclaim to artistic distinction. The growing use of metal vases by all\nbut the poorer classes, was also not without its effect on the\ndisappearance of moulded wares in Italy, and a reference thereto may\nperhaps be traced in Martial\u2019s plea for the Arretine pottery (p. 479).\n\nIt therefore seems safest to assume that as in the fourth century B.C.\nthe manufacture of painted vases ceased at Athens, but entered on a new\nera of development in Southern Italy with the migration of Athenian\nartists to the Hellenic centres of that region, so in the first century\nafter Christ the manufacture of _terra sigillata_ in Italy\u2014as\ndistinguished from plain pottery and other objects such as\nlamps\u2014gradually died out, owing to the migration of artists and\ntransference of artistic traditions to the rising centres of a new\ncivilisation in the country bordering on the Rhone and the Rhine. It\nwill be our object in the succeeding pages to collect the evidence for\nthe existence and importance of the potteries in these regions, and to\nshow, in short, that they for some time supplied to the whole Roman\nworld all that its representatives were then capable of in the way of\nartistic and decorative work in pottery. In the following chapter will\nalso be more conveniently discussed the vases of Ateius, Aco, and other\npotters which represent the transition from the Arretine to the Gaulish\nfabrics.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 3331:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 160 ff.\n\nFootnote 3332:\n\n _Etym._ xx. 4, 3.\n\nFootnote 3333:\n\n Hor. _Sat._ ii. 8, 39.\n\nFootnote 3334:\n\n i. 2, 65.\n\nFootnote 3335:\n\n ii. 2, 22.\n\nFootnote 3336:\n\n _Stich._ v. 4, 12: cf. Mart. iii. 81, 3; Lucil. _ap._ Non. p. 398;\n Tibull. ii. 3, 47; Cic. _pro Murcna_, 36, 75; Cornif. Rhet. _ad\n Herenn._ iv. 51.\n\nFootnote 3337:\n\n _Apol._ 25.\n\nFootnote 3338:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, ci. (1897), p. 140: cf. _ibid._ xcvi. p. 25, and\n Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 103.\n\nFootnote 3339:\n\n i. 19; see above, p. 463.\n\nFootnote 3340:\n\n vi. 344.\n\nFootnote 3341:\n\n _Agric._ 135.\n\nFootnote 3342:\n\n Paul. _ex_ Fest. _ed._ M\u00fcller, 344_b_; \u201cin Esquilina regione figulo\n cum fornax plena vasorum coqueretur.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3343:\n\n xxxv. 161.\n\nFootnote 3344:\n\n Cf. Mart. xiv. 157; \u201csolet calices haec dare terra\u201d (of Pollentia).\n\nFootnote 3345:\n\n See _C.I.L._ xi. 1147; for recent finds, _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1837, p.\n 10 ff.\n\nFootnote 3346:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1837, _loc. cit._; 1875, p. 192.\n\nFootnote 3347:\n\n xli. 18.\n\nFootnote 3348:\n\n See generally _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 53.\n\nFootnote 3349:\n\n _Sat._ i. 6, 118: cf. _ibid._ ii. 3, 144.\n\nFootnote 3350:\n\n xiv. 102: \u201cSurrentinae leve toreuma rotae.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3351:\n\n Cf. _id._ xiii. 110: \u201cSurrentine cups are good enough for Surrentine\n wine.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3352:\n\n xiv. 114: cf. Tibull. ii. 3, 48; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1875, p. 66;\n Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 640, note 2.\n\nFootnote 3353:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 54; _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1875, p. 242.\n\nFootnote 3354:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8056, 229.\n\nFootnote 3355:\n\n _Ibid._ xii. 5686, 696.\n\nFootnote 3356:\n\n See also _C.I.L._ x. 8056.\n\nFootnote 3357:\n\n _Sat._ ii. 8, 39.\n\nFootnote 3358:\n\n _H.N._ xxxv. 164.\n\nFootnote 3359:\n\n xiv. 108; viii. 6: cf. Juv. v. 29: \u201cSaguntina Iagena.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3360:\n\n iv. 46, 15.\n\nFootnote 3361:\n\n See also _C.I.L._ ii. p. 512 and Suppl. p. 1008; D\u00e9chelette, i. pp.\n 16, 111; also _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1875, p. 250, and _C.I.L._ xv. 2632\n for an amphora found on the Monte Testaccio at Rome with the stamp\n BCM(_a_)TERNI SAGYNTO.\n\nFootnote 3362:\n\n xiv. 98.\n\nFootnote 3363:\n\n \u201cO Arretine cup, which decorated my father\u2019s table, how sound you\n were before the doctor\u2019s hand\u201d (referring to its use for taking\n medicine).\n\nFootnote 3364:\n\n Pers. i. 130: see also _C.I.L._ xi. p. 1081.\n\nFootnote 3365:\n\n _Storia degli ant. Vasi fitt. aretini_, Arezzo, 1841.\n\nFootnote 3366:\n\n See above, p. 438.\n\nFootnote 3367:\n\n _C.I.L._ ii. 4970, 519.\n\nFootnote 3368:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1883, p. 265; Nov. 1884, p. 369, pls. 8, 9;\n 1890, p. 63 ff.; 1894, p. 117 ff.; 1896, p. 453 ff.\n\nFootnote 3369:\n\n See the map in _C.I.L._ xi. pt. 2, p. 1082.\n\nFootnote 3370:\n\n _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, p. 421 ff.\n\nFootnote 3371:\n\n _C.I.L._, _loc. cit._, and No. 6700.\n\nFootnote 3372:\n\n See _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702, Nos. 4925 ff.\n\nFootnote 3373:\n\n _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 265 ff.: cf. _ibid._ 1872, p. 284 ff. for\n the Arretine examples; also _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1890, pp. 64, 68.\n\nFootnote 3374:\n\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 12, 739.\n\nFootnote 3375:\n\n Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, Nos. 3043, 3068, 3100, etc.\n\nFootnote 3376:\n\n Some may be referred to Sulla\u2019s time: see _Notizie_, 1883, p. 269\n ff.; 1890, p. 71 ff.\n\nFootnote 3377:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 49.\n\nFootnote 3378:\n\n Fifty varieties, with the different slaves\u2019 names, are given in\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 435.\n\nFootnote 3379:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 70, note 2.\n\nFootnote 3380:\n\n Rayet and Collignon, p. 357.\n\nFootnote 3381:\n\n _Inscr. Graec._ xiv. 2406, 28-46; _Notizie_, 1884, pl. 8; _Bonner\n Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 70.\n\nFootnote 3382:\n\n _Philologus_, lviii. (N.F. xii.), pl. 4, p. 482; Roscher, iii. p.\n 2195: see for this potter, _Notizie_, 1896, p. 457.\n\nFootnote 3383:\n\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1896, p. 464.\n\nFootnote 3384:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 119; also found in Spain (_C.I.L._ ii. 4970,\n 515).\n\nFootnote 3385:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 5496.\n\nFootnote 3386:\n\n _Ibid._ x. 8055, 36.\n\nFootnote 3387:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 119; D\u00e9chelette, _Vases de la Gaule\n Romaine_, i. p. 116. A potter of the same date and character is SEX \u00b7\n M \u00b7 F, found in Etruria.\n\nFootnote 3388:\n\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6700; _Bonner Jahrb._ cii. p. 125.\n\nFootnote 3389:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 5016.\n\nFootnote 3390:\n\n _Ibid._ 5572.\n\nFootnote 3391:\n\n Cf. D\u00e9chelette, i. pp. 81, 272.\n\nFootnote 3392:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 5211, 5398.\n\nFootnote 3393:\n\n _Op. cit._ xi. 6700, 752.\n\nFootnote 3394:\n\n See on this _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 2; _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 40; cii.\n p. 126.\n\nFootnote 3395:\n\n _E.g._ _C.I.L._ xv. 5323. No. 5374 _ibid._ has _cognomen_ only.\n\nFootnote 3396:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702.\n\nFootnote 3397:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. 4996, 5094.\n\nFootnote 3398:\n\n _Ibid._ 5515, 5555, 5603.\n\nFootnote 3399:\n\n _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 311.\n\nFootnote 3400:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. p. 703: see also _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1880, p. 318;\n _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1890, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 3401:\n\n _E.g._ _C.I.L._ xv. 5179, 5524.\n\nFootnote 3402:\n\n See also _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 286.\n\nFootnote 3403:\n\n See Hauser\u2019s work on the subject, _Neuattische Reliefs_, _passim_.\n\nFootnote 3404:\n\n Rizzo in _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 291 ff.; Dragendorff in _Bonner\n Jahrb\u00fccher_, ciii. (1898), p. 104.\n\nFootnote 3405:\n\n _E.g._ by Schreiber, _Alexandr. Toreutik_, p. 401 ff.\n\nFootnote 3406:\n\n Cf. _Anzeiger_, 1897, p. 127 ff.; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiii. 154 ff.\n\nFootnote 3407:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1897, p. 40 (Siebourg); 1898, p. 399 (Hartwig); _Bonner\n Jahrb\u00fccher_, xcvi. p. 37; _M\u00e9langes d\u2019Arch._ 1889, pl. 7, p. 288.\n\nFootnote 3408:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 38.\n\nFootnote 3409:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 55.\n\nFootnote 3410:\n\n Cf. _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 58: also a mould in the B.M. (Plate\n LXVI. fig. 5), and _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 646.\n\nFootnote 3411:\n\n _Hellen. Reliefbilder_, pls. 1, 9, 10, 21, etc.\n\nFootnote 3412:\n\n See on the subject, _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 73.\n\nFootnote 3413:\n\n _Ibid._ ciii. p. 103. On the same article the preceding paragraphs\n are also largely based.\n\nFootnote 3414:\n\n _Roman Art_, Eng. Trans., p. 18 ff.\n\nFootnote 3415:\n\n See _C.I.L._ xv. p. 702.\n\nFootnote 3416:\n\n _E.g_. _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 2, 308, 688, 762.\n\nFootnote 3417:\n\n _Ibid._ 6700, 29, 306, 786.\n\nFootnote 3418:\n\n A fine example has been found at Neuss on the Rhine (_Bonner Jahrb._\n ciii. p. 88).\n\nFootnote 3419:\n\n See Dumont, _Inscrs. C\u00e9ramiques_, p. 390.\n\nFootnote 3420:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 94, No. 2116, PRINCEPS TITI, from Salamis.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XXIII\n _ROMAN POTTERY (continued); PROVINCIAL FABRICS_\n\n Distribution of Roman pottery in Europe\u2014Transition from Arretine to\n provincial wares\u2014_Terra sigillata_\u2014Shapes and centres of\n fabric\u2014Subjects\u2014Potters\u2019 stamps\u2014Vases with _barbotine_\n decoration\u2014The fabrics of Gaul\u2014St. R\u00e9my\u2014Graufesenque\u2014\u201cMarbled\u201d\n vases\u2014Vases with inscriptions (Banassac)\u2014Lezoux\u2014Vases with\n medallions (Southern Gaul)\u2014Fabrics of Germany\u2014_Terra sigillata_\n in Britain\u2014Castor ware\u2014Upchurch and New Forest wares\u2014Plain\n pottery\u2014_Mortaria_\u2014Conclusion.\n\n\n 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS\n\nThe pottery with which we have now to deal is that which was known to\nan older generation as \u201cSamian ware,\u201d[3421] but may now be more\nappropriately termed _Provincial terra sigillata_. In regard to its\ngeneral characteristics, it is distinguished by a fine close-grained\nred clay, harder than the Arretine, and presenting when broken an edge\nof light red. The surface is smooth and lustrous, of a brighter yet\ndarker red colour (_i.e._ less like coral) than that of Arretine ware,\nbut the tone of the red varies with the degree of heat used. The most\nimportant feature is the fine red glaze with which it is coated,\nsimilar in composition to\u2014though not identical with\u2014that of the\nArretine (see the analysis given on p. 436); it is exceedingly thin and\ntransparent, and laid equally over the whole surface, only slightly\naugmenting the colour of the clay, which resembles that of coral or\nsealing-wax. The glaze varies in lustre and quality as well as in\ncolour, but as the analyses show, it is produced on the same principle\nat all periods and in all fabrics, Italian and provincial. The\nornamentation is invariably of a coarser nature than that of Arretine\nware, and though it draws its inspiration therefrom, is divided from it\nby a considerable interval of artistic degeneration; nor is the missing\nlink always easy to trace. This ware is found all over Central Europe,\nfrom the Balkan to the Spanish Peninsula, in the forests of Germany,\nand on the distant shores of Britain, but in greatest abundance and\neffectiveness in the valleys of the Loire and Rhine, a fact which in\nitself directs us to look to these districts for the centres of its\nmanufacture. Wherever found, it is in its main characteristics\nidentical, and readily to be distinguished from the local wares with\ntheir simple, or entire absence of, ornamentation. The vases are\nusually of small dimensions, consisting of various types of bowls,\ncups, and dishes, of which two or three forms are preferred almost to\nthe exclusion of the rest, and they usually bear the stamp of the\npotter impressed on the inside or outside. The angular and sharp\nprofiles of the various shapes indicate that in nearly all cases they\nare derived from metal prototypes.\n\nAlthough this ware is found all over the Roman world, yet by far the\ngreater proportion of the material at hand comes from the Roman sites\nof Gaul, Germany, and Britain, and evidence points to two\u2014and only\ntwo\u2014districts as the principal centres of its manufacture: the valleys\nof the Loire and the Rhine and their immediate neighbourhood. Even in\nItaly the material is exceedingly scanty, and much of the pottery found\nin Rome or Campania can be proved by the potters\u2019 stamps to have been\nimported from Gaul. In Greece the finds of _terra sigillata_, though\ncovering a wide area, are few and far between, and we are hardly in a\nposition to state whether these are local fabrics or importations.\nDragendorff notes[3422] that in the museum at Bonn there are fragments\nfrom Athens, Eleusis, Rhamnus, Oropos, Epidauros, Eretria, Argos,\nDelos, and Troy, and others in private possession at the same place\nfrom Alexandria. In the museum at Dimitzana in Arcadia there is a vase\nwith Latin stamps, and another without stamp is preserved at Chanak\nKalessi on the Dardanelles. Furtwaengler records a few fragments from\nOlympia,[3423] one with OCT \u00b7 SALVE, and fragments have also been found\nat Pergamon. There are a few cups from Cyprus in the Museum at St.\nGermain-en-Laye, and others at Nicosia.[3424] But it must not be\nforgotten that, as has already been noted (p. 476), there is evidence\nof manufacture of red relief wares in Greek lands under the Empire, and\nmuch of the above-mentioned material may not be able to lay any claim\nto a Western origin.\n\nFor the potteries of Central and Western Europe there is indeed no\nliterary evidence, for, as we have seen (p. 479), Saguntum is the only\nprovincial place of any reputation in antiquity, although modern\nexcavations have not upheld its claim. All the evidence is necessarily\nderived from excavations, and from finds of moulds and potteries; but\nby the careful and scientific researches of Von Hefner, Dragendorff,\nD\u00e9chelette, and other investigators on Gaulish and German sites results\nhave been obtained of incalculable value for establishing the\nprovincial centres which during the first century of the Empire\ninherited the traditions of Arretium. In the succeeding enquiry,\ntherefore, we shall devote our attention almost entirely to the _terra\nsigillata_, of which Gaul, Germany, and Britain have yielded such\nabundant quantities, and after a general consideration of its history\nand characteristics, shall discuss in detail the peculiarities of\nseparate fabrics.[3425]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn his invaluable treatise on _terra sigillata_[3426]\u2014the first\ncomprehensive attempt at a general scientific discussion of the subject\nwhich has been contributed\u2014Dragendorff collected a series of over fifty\nvarieties of forms (almost exclusively cups, bowls, and dishes), which\nembrace all the examples of Arretine and provincial wares with\nrelief-ornamentation. Of these he considers the first fourteen peculiar\nto the Arretine ware, but there are other vases found both in Italy and\nthe provinces which in form and colour are not distinguishable from the\nArretine, and seem to be undoubted examples of early importations. Such\nvases are found at Andernach, Neuss, and Xanten on the Lower\nRhine,[3427] bearing the stamps of Ateius, Bassus, Primus, and Xanthus,\nwho are also frequently found in Southern Italy.[3428] With regard to\nthe first-named, however, there is evidence to show that he may have\nworked in Southern Gaul, and the Italian origin of this pottery is not\nabsolutely certain.[3429] At all events, the finds in Germany to which\na date in the first century can be given seem to show the adoption of a\nnew form of dish differing from that characteristic of Arezzo[3430];\nthis new form is also common at Pompeii (probably as an importation),\nand is found on the Limes at Saalburg with the stamp BOLLVS FIC. It is\nusually quite plain, and seems to have lasted down to the end of the\nthird century. Another variety (No. 18) was found at Andernach with a\ncoin of Antonia Augusta, and at Este in Italy with a stamp SERRAE,\nwhich belongs to the time of Augustus. From it a later form (No. 31)\nwas developed.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 221. GAULISH BOWL (FORM NO. 29); FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n FIG. 222. GAULISH BOWL (FORM NO. 30);\n FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST.\n]\n\nAs a general rule these early provincial forms were unornamented, but\nthe two types of bowl or cup which Dragendorff numbers 29 and 30, and\nwhich are reproduced in Figs. 221, 222, become the normal form for the\nprovincial relief-wares of the first century. These are not found in\nthe Arretine ware, but occur all through that century, not only in\nGaul, but also, for instance, in the _castra_ on the frontier of\nGermany.[3431] The only Arretine form which seems to have prevailed to\nany extent in the provinces is the krater (Dragendorff\u2019s No. 11 = Fig.\n219).[3432] Other kinds of deep cups with expanding sides\n(Dragendorff\u2019s Nos. 22-27) are found occasionally in Italy and on\nvarious sites in Germany, and can be traced from their first appearance\nin the first century for about a hundred years.[3433] Nos. 24 and 25\nare found at Xanten (Castra Vetera) with coins of Julius Caesar and\nNero, others in the cemetery of Bibracte near Autun, which is known not\nto be later than the time of Augustus.[3434] The general conclusion\nseems to be that these wares represent a sort of transitional stage\nbetween those of Arretium and the indubitably provincial _terra\nsigillata_. Towards the end of the first century they are supplanted,\nnotably at Lezoux and in Germany, by the hemispherical bowl\n(Dragendorff\u2019s No. 37 = Fig. 223), which subsequently becomes the only\nform employed for the moulded wares.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 223. GAULISH BOWL (FORM NO. 37); A.D. 70-260.]\n\nIn pursuing his investigation of the provincial fabrics of the first\ncentury,[3435] Dragendorff begins by discussing various groups of vases\nfound in Germany which seem to represent a period of transition between\nthe Italian Roman (and the local native) pottery and the provincial\n_terra sigillata_ proper, which is not usually found before the middle\nof the century. First we have a kind of light-red ware, formerly known\nas \u201cfalse Samian,\u201d which lacks the strong lustrous sheen of the genuine\n_terra sigillata_; the tone Hettner considered to be the result of mere\npolishing, without any glaze or slip.[3436] The forms are heavier and\ncoarser, and are not confined, as in the genuine fabric, to deep cups\nor shallow bowls, but include a sort of beaker or tumbler-shaped\ncup,[3437] and a slim jar with characteristic incised ornament. They\nare found in the oldest Roman tombs at Andernach, about A.D. 60.[3438]\nContemporary with this (from Augustus to Vespasian) was a kind of black\nware with incised linear ornament, resembling that described under a\nsubsequent heading (p. 515); it bears the same potters\u2019 stamps as the\nlight-red ware, and is interesting for its close relation to the older\nLa T\u00e8ne pottery, showing its origin to be Celtic or Gaulish, not Roman.\nThe centre of fabric for these wares, which are limited in their\ndistribution to the Rhenish provinces, Normandy and Southern Gaul,\nseems to have been Trier, which place is as nearly as possible the\ncentre of all the sites on which they have been found; it is further\nevident that both the red and the black were made in the same pottery.\nDragendorff styles these fabrics \u201cBelgic,\u201d on the ground that they are\nmostly found in the province of Gallia Belgica. It is conceivable that,\nas that province became organised in the first century, potters from\nSouthern Gaul settled at Trier. A pottery of that epoch has been found\nthere, with remains of black, grey, and light-red ware, and a piece\nfound at Andernach with the stamp DVRO/CVAVO shows evidence of having\nbeen made at the former place.[3439] The potters\u2019 stamps include both\nRoman and non-Roman names. These wares are very rarely found in\nBritain.[3440]\n\nWe now come to the _terra sigillata_ fabrics proper, which extend from\nabout A.D. 30 or even earlier to 250, and exhibit a great difference\nfrom the earlier fabrics.[3441] There is no longer any question of\nItalian manufacture or of unsuccessful provincial imitations of Italian\nware, but of a provincial fabric of excellent technique and real\nartistic individuality. The material for our purpose is supplied by the\nGaulish cemeteries and pottery-sites of the Rhone and Allier valleys,\nthe Cevennes, Normandy, and Belgium, by those of the Rhine valley and\nSouthern Germany, and those of Britain. In Northern Gaul this pottery\nis found with coins ranging from Caligula to Commodus, and in the forts\non the German Limes, such as those on the Taunus range and along the\nMain, the coins extend from Vespasian to Gallienus (A.D. 260), in whose\ntime occupation ceased on the right bank of the Rhine.\n\nIn considering the probable centres of fabric we find a remarkable\ncorrespondence in the potters\u2019 stamps in the most widely-separated\nlocalities, indicating a limited number of centres which had a great\nreputation. Thus, for instance, in comparing lists of stamps found in\nLondon with those from Douai in France Roach-Smith noted that no less\nthan three-fourths of the names occurred in both places.[3442] The same\ninvestigator, now many years ago, was acute enough to deduce the\nconclusion from this and other similar evidence that in Britain there\nwas no local manufacture of _terra sigillata_[3443]; and he has been\njustified by more recent researches, based on a much more extensive\ncommand of material. The two chief authorities on this subject at the\npresent day, Dr. Dragendorff and M. D\u00e9chelette, are agreed in their\nmain conclusions that the centre of this fabric must be sought in Gaul,\nand since the appearance of the latter\u2019s treatise on the Gaulish\npotteries, there seems little doubt that it was in the first century at\nGraufesenque near Rodez in the Cevennes (Condatomagus), in the\nsucceeding period at Lezoux in Auvergne, where extensive remains of\npotteries have come to light. Dr. Dragendorff based his arguments on\nthe following facts:\n\n (1) The potters\u2019 names are largely Gaulish.\n\n (2) Names are found in other parts which are known to be from a\n Gaulish centre such as Lezoux.\n\n (3) Gallic epigraphical peculiarities, such as [dotted circle] for O,\n [cursive D] for D, and OV for U, are found in the inscriptions.\n\n (4) Even names of an undoubted Latin type, such as Julios and\n Priscos, end in the Gallic termination -_os_.\n\n (5) Cursive forms such as 15[14]Attic alpha reversed for A,\n 15[12]cursive E for E, 15[12]cursive F for F, and [cursive L] for\n L, are frequently found, as also in Gaulish inscriptions of the\n second century.\n\nThat he was working on the right lines has been now shown by M.\nD\u00e9chelette, who has employed as the basis of his researches the more\nconclusive evidence of discoveries, especially of finds of moulds and\nremains of potteries. But of this more will be said subsequently.\n\nOn the other hand there were two large potteries in Germany, at\nRheinzabern, near Speier, and at Westerndorf, in Southern Bavaria,\nwhere ornamented vases were undoubtedly made. They were apparently not\nlargely exported, but many of the stamps also occur on the plain wares\nfrom these potteries, implying that the ornamental vases must also have\nbeen made by the local men.[3444] The pottery of Westerndorf begins\nabout the middle of the second century. Dragendorff notes that of all\nthe Gaulish potters\u2019 stamps only forty-one have been found in Italy,\nand many of these only in Cisalpine Gaul, while others are very rare.\n\nIn regard to the forms, the chief fact to be noted is that new shapes\nand methods of decoration now appear with the growth of the provincial\npotteries, unknown in Italy, and the earlier bowls and dishes are not\nfound (for instance) at Rheinzabern.[3445] One form of dish (No. 32) is\nnew, but another (No. 31) is clearly developed from the Italian type\n(No. 18). An essentially Gaulish form of deep bowl or cup is No. 33;\nanother with handles (No. 34) is only found at Banassac. The _mortaria_\nwith spout and pebbles inserted for grinding (see below, p. 551) now\nfirst make their appearance, especially in the Limes forts and in\nBritain. Many of the forms clearly indicate an imitation of metal.\nD\u00e9chelette notes that of the forms given by Dragendorff (Nos. 15-55)\nabout twenty in all are found in Gaul, including the three used for\nmoulded wares (see below, and p. 501).[3446] To these he adds sixteen\nnew forms, which he numbers 56 to 71, and for the vases with\n_barbotine_ or _appliqu\u00e9_ decoration six more (72-77) must be included\nin the list.[3447]\n\nThe next feature to be considered in these vases is the decoration,\nwhich is not confined, as in the Italian wares, to reliefs obtained\nfrom moulds, but is also produced by ornaments applied to the surface\nof the vase, either in the form of separate figures or medallions\nmodelled by hand or made from moulds and then attached, or by the\nmethod known as _en barbotine_ (see below, pp. 512, 529). Sometimes the\ndecoration takes the form of impressed or incised patterns (p. 515),\nbut these are more characteristic of the commoner wares. For the\npresent we may limit the discussion to vases in which the decoration is\nproduced at the same time in the mould.[3448]\n\nVases of this type exhibit a remarkable monotony of form, being, as\nalready noted, practically confined to two varieties of the bowl or\ndeep cup, one with curved, the other with straight, sides (Forms 29 and\n30 = Figs. 221, 222), at least up to the middle of the first century.\nIn the latter half of that century these are supplemented by a third\nvariety (Form 37 = Fig. 223), and at the same time a gradual diminution\nin the sharpness of the outlines, as in the reliefs themselves, becomes\napparent. No direct connection with the Arretine ware can be traced,\neither in the forms or in the decoration. The potters\u2019 stamps are found\nat first in the interior, as on the plain wares, but subsequently on\nthe exterior, in the middle of the design.\n\nAt first there is a general absence of figure subjects, and the designs\nare purely ornamental, or else animals, such as birds or hares, are\nintroduced as mere decorative elements. An important distinction from\nthe Italian wares should be noted, viz. that in the latter the wreaths\nor scrolls which play such an important part in the decoration are\ncomposed of single detached leaves or flowers, whereas in the\nprovincial wares the whole wreath is modelled in one continuous system,\neither formed of undulating motives, as at Graufesenque, or of a\nstraight wreath or band of ornaments, as at Lezoux.[3449] On the other\nhand the figure compositions are never continuous until the \u201dfree\u201d\nstyle comes in at Lezoux with the second century, but are broken up by\nornaments into metope-like groups. The typical arrangement is that of a\nwreath between rows of beads or raised dots, with a triple band of\nhatched lines or \u201cmachine-turned\u201d ornament above, and rays or\npear-shaped ornaments below, pointing downwards. Sometimes the wreath\nis duplicated; or the frieze is broken up into metope-like groups of\nanimals bordered by ornament, as in the first-century bowls found in\nFrance and Italy, which D\u00e9chelette attributes to the potteries of\nCondatomagus (Graufesenque in the Cevennes).[3450] With the\nintroduction of the hemispherical bowls (form 37) comes a new system,\nin which the upper edge is left plain, followed by a band of\negg-and-tongue ornament; then comes the main frieze, and below this a\nsimple wreath. This form and method first appear at Lezoux about A.D.\n70, and at Rheinzabern with the beginning of the next century. The\nfinal stage is reached when the decoration consists of figures either\narranged in medallions and arcades, or freely in friezes, a system\nwhich obtains exclusively at Westerndorf, and on the bulk of the _terra\nsigillata_ found in Britain. Along with these changes in arrangement\ngoes a steady artistic degeneration.\n\nAs regards the subjects, it may be generally observed that the\nconceptions are good, but the execution is poor. In many cases they are\nobviously imitations of well-known works, and it is curious that no\nGaulish subjects occur. The types include representations of gods and\nheroes, warriors and gladiators, hunters and animals. In general they\nare of Hellenistic origin, and include all such subjects as are\ncharacteristic of the art of the period.[3451] At first, however,\npurely decorative motives hold the field, in imitation of the Arretine\nware, and it is not until after the disappearance of the latter that\nfigure decoration is found. We have imitations of sculpture, as in the\ntypes of Venus bathing or the Diana _\u00e0 la biche_, and of the\nHellenistic reliefs with genre and idyllic subjects, as in the scenes\nwith fowlers or fishermen.[3452] The \u201cnew-Attic\u201d reliefs furnish models\nfor types, as in other branches of Roman art (see pp. 368, 489), and\nEros, Herakles, and Dionysiac subjects are universally popular.\n\nAmong the mythological types Dragendorff has collected the\nfollowing[3453]: Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Hephaistos, Hermes, Aphrodite,\nArtemis, and Athena; Dionysos, Herakles, Victory, Fortune, and Cupids;\nAmazons, Giants, sea-monsters, Gryphons and Sphinxes, Pygmies and\ncranes; Bellerophon, Aktaeon, the rape of the Leukippidae, and Romulus\nand Remus suckled by the wolf. The gladiatorial subjects closely follow\nthe types of Roman art, and the favourite theme, a combat of two in\nwhich one is worsted, resembles a common type on the lamps (p.\n416).[3454] Thus, though the style of art is essentially provincial,\nthe subjects draw their inspiration exclusively from classical\nsources.[3455]\n\nA series of examples from Britain may be noted as covering in their\nsubjects the ground indicated; they are mostly from Roach-Smith\u2019s\nextensive collection, now in the British Museum.[3456] They include a\nvase with figures in separate compartments: Diana, Minerva, Hercules,\nBacchus, a man with a cup, and Satyrs and Nymphs; another with Hercules\nin the Garden of the Hesperides killing the serpent, Diana, warriors,\nand panels of ornament; a third with Bacchus and a tiger, Luna, and\nGenii with torches. Others have Apollo with Diana or pursuing Daphne;\nDiana and Actaeon; copies of statues of Venus (of the Cnidian or Medici\ntype); the labours of Hercules, Bacchanalian orgies and processions,\nand such deities as Victory, Fortune, Cupids, and Anubis, as well as\nSatyrs and Fauns, Gryphons, Sphinxes, and Tritons. On the vase of\nDivixtus illustrated in Plate LXVIII. fig. 2, the subjects are Venus at\nher toilet, Diana with a stag, and a Silenus carrying a basket of\nfruit. The subjects from daily life include hunting scenes of various\nkinds; dogs pursuing stags, boars, or hares; combats of _bestiarii_\nwith various animals; musicians, and gladiators. Ornamentation of a\npurely decorative character includes animals and trees, and\nrepresentations of fruit, flowers, and foliage, either in scrolls or\ninterspersed with other objects. Roach-Smith also gives a curious\nexample from Hartlip in Kent[3457] with two separate friezes of figures\nand the potter\u2019s stamp SABINI\u00b7M[3458]; on the upper band are Leda and\nthe swan and a seated goddess with cornucopia; on the lower, Diana with\na deer, under a canopy, and Victory crowning a warrior, the various\ngroups being several times repeated. The style is very rude, and though\nthe subjects are classical, the figures and designs are very barbaric,\nalmost mediaeval in appearance.[3459]\n\nThe _terra sigillata_ fabrics appear to have lasted on down to the end\nof the fourth century in the provinces, but are by that time not only\nrare, but exceedingly degenerate. Some found at Andernach can be\nattributed to the reign of Magnus Maximus (A.D. 388), and in others,\napart from the style, the costume of the figures resembles that of the\nfourth century[3460]; the potters\u2019 stamps by this time have entirely\nceased.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe names of potters which, as we have seen, so frequently occur on the\nprovincial wares are nearly all Gaulish in form or origin, and this, it\nhas been noted, is one of the strongest arguments for the Gaulish\norigin of the pottery. The stamps are usually quadrangular in form, but\nsometimes circular or oval, or in the form of a human foot; they are\ndepressed in the surface of the vase, but the letters are in relief.\nThere is considerable variation in the form of the letters, which are\noften cursive (see p. 504), often ligatured, and frequently single\nletters or whole words are impressed backwards. The names are either in\nthe nominative, with or without F, FEC, FECIT, or in the genitive with\nOF, OFFIC, etc., M, or MANV; the Gaulish word AVOT for FECIT is also\nfound.[3461] It is rare to find a potter with more than one name, and\nprobably few of the Gaulish potters were Roman citizens[3462]; on the\nother hand, there are few undoubted examples of slaves\u2019 names. Some\ngroups of names seem to indicate partnerships, such as VRSVS FELIX,\nPRIMI PATER(_ni_), SECVND(_i_) RVFIN(_i_); in other cases the name of\nthe father is also given, as TORNOS VOCARI F(_ilius_), VACASATVS\nBRARIATI F,[3463] but it is not impossible that the formula may mean,\n\u201cTornos the slave of Vocarius,\u201d or, \u201cVacasatus the slave of Brariatus\nmade (_fecit_).\u201d In Aquitania stamps occur with FAM(_uli_) or NEPOTIS\nadded after the name. Some groups of names are peculiar to certain\nlocalities, Amabilis, Belsus, Domitianus, Placidus, etc., being found\nonly in Germany; other potters give a hint of their origin, adding to\ntheir names ARVE or AR for Arvernus, the district of the Arverni,\ncorresponding to the modern Auvergne. Vases are found at Lezoux with\nthe stamp RVTENVS FECIT[3464]; here the name may be a deliberate\nintention of the Rutenian potter, to show that the vase was not made\nlocally. The name Disetus, which is found on the Rhine, occurs in\nGallia Belgica in the form Diseto, the variety being due either to\ndifferences in date or in the place of fabric. Among peculiarities in\nthe stamps may be mentioned an instance, given among those from\nBritain, where the potter from ignorance or caprice has impressed the\nstamp of an oculist, intended for a quack ointment, on the bottom of a\ncup (found in London, and now in the British Museum).[3465] It reads: Q\n\u00b7 IVL \u00b7 SENIS \u00b7 CR | OCOD \u00b7 AD \u00b7 ASPR (_crocodes_, an ointment made\nfrom saffron). In 1902 some interesting _graffiti_ were found on\npottery at Graufesenque (cf. those given on p. 239), being apparently\nnotes made by the potters, such as VINAR(_ia_), ACET(_abula_),\nTAR(_ichos_), and so on, as well as the names of the potters and the\nquantity of the contents in each case.[3466] But it is not possible to\nascertain the forms corresponding to the names given in _graffito_.\n\nSome peculiarities of the potters\u2019 stamps may be noted among those from\nWesterndorf and Rheinzabern, in which certain combinations occur on the\nsame vase.[3467] Thus at Westerndorf we find:\n\n COMITIALIS \u00b7 FE \u2014 CSS \u00b7 EROT\n COMITIALIS \u00b7 F \u2014 { CSS \u00b7 ER\n { CSS \u00b7 MAIANVS\u00b7F\n SEDATVS \u00b7 F \u2014 CSS \u00b7 ER\n CSS \u00b7 MAIANVS \u2014 CSS \u00b7 ER\n\nat Rheinzabern:\n\n CERIAL \u00b7 FE \u2014 CONSTANT\n COMITIALIS \u00b7 FE \u2014 { IOVENTI\n { LATINNI\n { SECVNDAIANI[3468]\n\nThe names Comitialis and Cerialis are found on stamps interspersed\namong the designs, and therefore made with the vase in the mould, but\nthose with CSS occur on the rim, and were therefore added subsequently.\nIt will be noted from the above examples that the names like\nComitialis\u2014Primitivos is another instance\u2014are common to more than one\nfabric, but those in the second series are peculiar to one; the latter,\ntherefore, refer to the actual potter (_figulus_), the former to the\ndesigner of the decoration (_sigillarius_), whose moulds were employed\nin more than one place. It is an interesting parallel to the \u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5\u03bd\nand \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u1f30\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd of the Greek vases. This conclusion receives additional\nconfirmation from the discovery of certain types of decoration both at\nRheinzabern and Westerndorf, showing that there was a system of\nexchange between the two potteries.[3469] The name CSS is only found at\nWesterndorf, and it has been supposed that it denotes C. Septimius\nSecundianus, a name which occurs in the neighbourhood. The name of\nComitialis is found on a vase from London in the British Museum,\npresumably imported from Germany.[3470]\n\nRepresentations of potters are not unknown in Gaulish art; and there\nare also allusions to them in inscriptions. Some are depicted wearing\nthe tunic only, and thereby proclaiming their servile condition; others\nwear the cloak also, as for instance one Casatus Caratius,\n_fictiliarius_, who is represented on a _stele_ at Metz holding a\nfluted vase like those made in black ware.[3471] On another, L.\nAurelius Sabinus is represented, with an _amphora_, _olla_, and\n_lagena_ in the background, and an inscription which runs, _L. Aurelius\nSabinus doliarius fecit sibi et suis_.[3472] Several inscriptions found\nin Germany speak of _negotiatores artis cretariae_, and may be assumed\nto refer to what we should call \u201ccommercial travellers\u201c or \u201cagents\u201d for\nthe sale of the finer wares. In an inscription found at Wiesbaden\nSecundus Agricola is mentioned in this capacity, and in another from\nDornburg, Secundinus Silvanus, a native of Britain.[3474] M. Messius\nFortunatus, whose name actually occurs on pottery, is described in\ninscriptions as being also _pavimentarius_ (road-maker) and\n_paenalarius_ (cloak-maker).[3475]\n\nApart from the potters\u2019 stamps, some interesting inscriptions have been\nfound on the vases from Rottenburg in Germany. There are examples with\nthe names of the consuls for A.D. 237, Didius Caelius Balbinus and M.\nClodius Pupienus Maximus (the first year of their reign).[3476] Others\nhave the names of the legions stationed in the _colonia_ of Sumlocene\nor Solicinium, which this site represents, with the dates A.D. 169\n(LOCEN \u00b7A \u00b7 V \u00b7 C \u00b7 MLVI), 248 (C \u00b7 STI \u00b7 A \u00b7 V\u00b7 C \u00b7 CDI), and 303, and\nthe names of the twenty-first and twenty-second legions.[3477] Incised\ninscriptions on Roman pottery are common throughout the provinces, as\nthe pages of the _Corpus_ indicate, but are more usually found on the\nplain wares than on the _terra sigillata_. Among the more interesting\nexamples is a vase in the Louvre, of the first century after Christ, on\nthe neck of which is incised GENIO TVRNACENSIVM, \u201cTo the Genius of\nTurnacum\u201d (Tournay)[3478]; another found at Ickleton in\nCambridgeshire[3479] had (_ex ho_)C AMICI BIBVNT, \u201cFriends are they who\ndrink from this\u201d; a third from Leicester, VERECVNDA LVDIA LVCIVS\nGLADIATOR, supposed to refer to a love-token or present from a\ngladiator to his mistress.[3480] A vase of black ware from Taplow,\nBucks, in the British Museum has a Greek inscription.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe next come to the discussion of the vases decorated in the method\nknown as _en barbotine_.[3481] This is exceedingly rare in Italy, and\nit is probable that the vases there found are importations; the process\nseems to have been invented in Gaul or Germany, and the only parallel\nthereto in earlier ceramic art is in the method employed for the gilded\nvases of the fifth and fourth centuries (see Vol. I. p. 210). At its\nfirst appearance it occurs on vases of common grey or black unglazed\nware, found at Andernach with coins of Claudius and Nero,[3482] but by\nthe end of the first century it is also employed on glazed wares, red\nor black, and even on the enamelled glazed vases of Gallic or German\norigin. The ornamentation is at first exceedingly simple, consisting of\nplain leaves, chains of rings, or raised knobs, as on the examples\nfound in Italy; but it developed rapidly, and the patterns become very\nvaried. Its chief merit is that it is essentially a free, not a\nmechanical method, and some of the specimens from the Rhine and Britain\nhave really effective compositions of animals and interwoven scrolls.\nEven human figures find a place; but towards the end of its popularity\nthe ornamentation encroaches upon and finally ousts the figure\nsubjects, and degeneration is manifested in artificiality and crowding\nof detail. In the earlier examples there is a marked preference for a\nslip presenting a contrast of colour to the clay, and we find white\nused on red and black ware, brown on buff ware (early German vases in\nthe form of human heads), and so on.[3483]\n\nIn Gaul, barbotine is limited to subsidiary decorative patterns, and is\nnever used for figures as in Germany and Britain (see below and p.\n544); it is very common in the North of France. At Lezoux it was\nemployed in the earlier period of that pottery (A.D. 50-100) for simple\nleaf-patterns, in the later (A.D. 100-260) to complete the decoration\nof vases with _appliqu\u00e9_ reliefs (p. 529).[3484]\n\nThe black glazed wares decorated _en barbotine_ are characteristic of\nthe second century, and extend down to the fourth.[3485] The clay is\nactually red, with thin walls, but is covered with a black or\ndark-brown varnish, often with a metallic lustre, which when too much\nbaked turns to red, and thus presents the appearance of _terra\nsigillata_. The barbotine is either of the same colour as the clay, the\nvarnish being subsequently added _over it_, or composed of white or\nyellow slip and applied after the varnish. The decoration usually takes\nthe form of leaves or scrolls, or of simple raised knobs; but figures\nof dogs, hares, and deer are found, and occasionally men.\n\nOn the red or _terra sigillata_ wares the barbotine process is not\nfound earlier than the middle of the first century; there is none, for\ninstance, at Andernach. It is practically unknown in Italy, and a few\nfragments from that country in the Louvre and Dresden Museums are\nprobably importations. Moreover, it is confined to forms which only\nappear with the development of the provincial potteries. The earliest\nspecimens are found with coins of the Flavian epoch at Trier and\nXanten; it occurs also in Germany and Britain, and there are examples\nat Speier from Rheinzabern, but it does not seem to have been made at\nWesterndorf. The ornamentation is very limited in its scope, and from a\nstrictly artistic point of view it was not really suited for any but\nsimple patterns of leaves (especially those of the ivy or of lanceolate\nform) or for running animals. Figures of hunters, gladiators, or\n_bestiarii_ are occasionally found. From the very nature of the process\nno fine details were possible, and all must be executed in long, thin,\nand soft lines. Sometimes, however, scrolls in barbotine were combined\nwith figures of men and animals made from moulds, as on the Lezoux ware\ndescribed below (p. 529). Potters\u2019 stamps are rare, but Dragendorff\ngives examples from Cologne, Bonn, and Speier.[3486] It has been\npointed out by the same authority that the influence of glass technique\nis strongly marked, not only in the method, which suggests the\nimitation of threads and lumps of spun glass, but also in the forms,\nwhich frequently occur in the provincial glass ware of the period, then\nrising into prominence.[3487] Examples of British barbotine ware are\ngiven on Plate LXIX.\n\nThe other method of decoration to which we have alluded, that of\nindented ornamentation, is undoubtedly an imitation of glass technique,\nand the forms (flasks and small cups or bowls without feet or handles,\nof ovoid or spherical form) are equally characteristic of that\nmaterial.[3488] The decoration consists of linear patterns and\nsharply-cut ornaments in the shape of an olive or barley-corn, often\ncombined with naturalistic foliage. This ware may be dated by coins\nbetween A.D. 100 and 250; there are no examples with potters\u2019 stamps,\nbut it seems to have been made at Lezoux, Trier, and Westerndorf, and\nexported to Britain and elsewhere.\n\nWhat may be described as a variety of this technique, but occurring in\nthe red glazed wares, is a method of decoration in rows of linear\nincised patterns, usually in small rectangular panels of hatched lines.\nThese belong to the time of the decadence of the ceramic industry,\n_i.e._ to the fourth century, and are found chiefly in North and East\nFrance and Germany, not in Central or Southern Gaul. There are examples\nfrom the Department of Marne in the British Museum (Morel Collection).\nThe patterns are made with wooden stamps, not with the usual running\nwheel. D\u00e9chelette thinks the method originated in Germany with the\nvases of the La T\u00e8ne period.[3489]\n\nIn order to elucidate further the development and characteristics of\nthe provincial Roman pottery, it may be found serviceable to turn our\nattention to the various sites which are known to have been centres of\nmanufacture, or which have yielded pottery in large quantities, and at\nthe same time to indicate the main points of difference between the\nfabrics of Gaul, Germany, and Britain.\n\n 2. THE FABRICS OF GAUL\n\nThe pottery of Gaul presenting the closest relationship, both\nartistically and chronologically, with that of Italy, it will be most\nconvenient to accord it precedence. Hitherto a general survey of the\nGaulish fabrics has hardly been possible, as the materials had not been\ncollected and studied as a whole; and such a task was obviously beyond\nthe capacity of any one who had not the advantage of a personal\nacquaintance with the mass of material now available in all parts of\nFrance. But since the indispensable and exhaustive work of M.\nD\u00e9chelette has appeared, it has rendered superfluous all the previous\nliterature on this particular subject. This scholar has earned the\ngratitude of students by his careful study of the pottery excavated on\ncertain sites in Southern France, by means of which much light has been\nthrown on the Gaulish fabrics of the first century, at the time when\nthe _sigillata_ industry was just taking root in Gaul, and had hardly\nfreed itself from Italian influences. In one section of his work he\ndeals with the finds made in 1895-1900 at Saint-R\u00e9my on the Allier,\nabout four miles from Vichy,[3490] in another with those of 1901-02 at\nGraufesenque, near Rodez, in the Cevennes region,[3491] and thirdly\nwith the important fabrics of Lezoux.[3492] With these and others of\nmore or less importance we shall deal successively in the following\npages.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt =Saint-R\u00e9my= no traces of actual furnaces were found, but fragments\nof moulds, etc., showed clearly that it was an important centre, not\nonly for pottery, but also for terracotta figures. As a rule little\nchronological evidence is to be obtained from finds in France owing to\nthe confused and unstratified condition of the remains, or from absence\nof scientific records; but in the present case we are fortunate in\npossessing a series of homogeneous types belonging to the earliest\nperiod of _sigillata_ ware in Gaul; an entire uniformity of clay,\ntechnique, form, and decoration shows that they must all belong to one\ncircumscribed epoch, in spite of the absence of coins or other definite\nevidence. At the same time it has been possible not only to connect\nthem with finds at Mont Beuvray (Bibracte), near Autun, which can be\ndated not later than 5 B.C., at Ornavasso, on Lago Maggiore (coins of\nAugustan epoch), and at Andernach (also Augustan, see pp. 502, 533),\nbut also to obtain a clue to their originals and prototypes.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _D\u00e9chelette._\n FIG. 224. VASE OF ST.-R\u00c9MY FABRIC.\n]\n\nThe forms of the vases fall under five clearly-defined heads: a\n_poculum_, or tumbler-shaped vessel, a _scyphus_ with flat-topped\nhandles, a straight-sided open bowl, flasks with or without handles,\nand of conical form or pear-shaped (see Fig. 224). All the vases are of\nwhite clay, with reliefs, but there are no potters\u2019 stamps, and the\nexecution is often imperfect; the secret of the red ware seems as yet\nunknown, but there is evidence that it was gradually substituted for\nthe white, and the typical bowl with sloping sides and continuous\nscrolls of foliage (Dragendorff\u2019s No. 29 = Fig. 221) introduced here as\nelsewhere. In the Saint-R\u00e9my fabrics this bowl only has a single row of\nornament, a tongue-pattern, scrolls, or arcading round the lower part.\nThe general conclusion reached by M. D\u00e9chelette is that down to the end\nof the first century B.C. two kinds of pottery were introduced into\nGaul: the Arretine ware, which occurs at Bibracte with the stamps of\nAnnius, Memmius, and Tettius, and a class of small goblets and flasks\nof yellowish clay which in many respects resemble the Saint-R\u00e9my type.\nThe latter sometimes bear the name of ACO ACASTVS,[3493] a potter who\nappears to have worked in the region of Savoy or Piedmont, and who was\ninspired by the Arretine technique and style of signature. His ware\nalso occurs in Lombardy at Ornavasso, and at Klagenfurt in Pannonia,\nwhere a fragment was found (Fig. 225) with his name and an inscription\nwhich runs: \u201cLife is short, hope is frail; come, (the lights) are\nkindled; let us drink, comrades, while it is light.\u201d[3494] He certainly\nbelongs to the Augustan epoch, and may be regarded as the immediate\ninspirer of the Saint-R\u00e9my fabrics. Hence about the beginning of the\nfirst century of our era it may be inferred that the potters of\nSaint-R\u00e9my and district began to \u201cexploit\u201d the Italian technique, but\nfollowing the Gallo-Italic method of Aco rather than the Arretine. The\ntypical decorative motive by which this pottery may be recognised is a\nkind of arcading, which from having floriated points gradually tends to\nassume a purely vegetable form. Some of the vases are only ornamented\nwith rows of raised points, and this feature occurs on others with the\npotters\u2019 names L. Sarius Surus and Buccio Norbanus. Figure decoration\nis found only on the pear-shaped flasks, in the form of animals (Fig.\n224) and bearded heads. To the same period belongs a series of vases\nmanufactured at Vichy and Gannat in the same district.[3495]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _D\u00e9chelette._\n FIG. 225. VASE OF ACO (FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST), WITH INSCRIPTION.\n]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe results obtained from =Graufesenque=, in the Department of Aveyron,\nhave been even more remarkable. This place represents the ancient\nCondatomagus, in the country occupied by the Ruteni, and appears to\nhave been a great centre of the _terra sigillata_ industry. Although it\nis not mentioned by Pliny, yet there must have been in his time large\nexports southwards from this part of Gaul, even as far as Campania. M.\nD\u00e9chelette has shown that it supplied not only Gaul and Italy, but even\nAfrica, Spain, and Britain, to a greater extent than any other\ncentre\u2014that, in fact, from A.D. 50 to 100 it was the seat of the most\nimportant pottery in the whole empire.[3496]\n\nRemains of pottery were first discovered in 1882 by the Abb\u00e9 C\u00e9r\u00e8s,\nincluding a series of moulds, which made it certain that this was a\ncentre of fabric. These discoveries were largely supplemented by\nfurther excavations in 1901\u201302. Among the moulds are those of certain\npotters which are only found here, and consequently afford satisfactory\nevidence that such potters can be localised in this region. The potters\nwere not itinerant, nor were the moulds transferred from one pottery to\nanother; but the important central pottery seems to have attracted a\ngroup of smaller ones to collect round it, just as we find Cincelli\nlinked to Arezzo (p. 483), and the moulds could be exchanged from one\nto another within this limited area.\n\nThe local pottery of Gaul, which in the first century B.C. had reached\na high level,[3497] was interrupted about the time of Augustus by the\ninvasion of Italian methods, by which it was very rapidly Romanised,\nand Gaul became a mere tributary of Roman industry. At first two kinds\nof technique were practised\u2014one with a white or yellow clay, as at\nSaint-R\u00e9my and Bibracte; the other in the ordinary red ware, which\nappears to have been employed exclusively at Condatomagus and Lezoux,\nat first following on the lines of the Arretine ware, but subsequently\nattempting new developments. Artistically it is inferior to the\nArretine, but it is much more varied. Besides the _terra sigillata_\nproper, or moulded ware with reliefs, which is by far the most\nnumerous, we find in Gaul several other varieties of technique:\n_appliqu\u00e9_ medallions, separately moulded and attached with barbotine,\nin imitation of the Greek metal \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; barbotine decoration; a\nclass of so-called \u201cmarbled\u201d vases; and incised decoration of simple\nlinear patterns made with a tool in the moist clay, but with bold and\nskilful execution. But practically the wares found at Graufesenque are\nlimited to the moulded class, and the others, which will be described\nsubsequently, only became general in the second century, when the\nLezoux potteries came to the front and those of Graufesenque were\nexhausted.\n\nIn the _terra sigillata_ wares three forms assume marked prominence,\nthose illustrated in Figs. 221\u2013223; they are found in fairly equal\nproportions, but the earliest form, which we may call for convenience\nNo. 29, has a slight preponderance. We shall see later that similarly\nthe latest form (No. 37) prevails at Lezoux; this form was introduced\nabout A.D. 70. The intermediate No. 30 is found at both, but more\nfrequently at Graufesenque. The only other found in the moulded wares\nis a bowl on a high stem, which closely follows the type of the\nArretine krater seen in Fig. 219; it is therefore either common to\nArretium and Condatomagus, or represents a transition from one fabric\nto the other.[3498] D\u00e9chelette quotes an instance with the stamp VOLVS,\nwhich recalls the Arretine potter Volusenus.[3499]\n\nAbout three-fourths of the vases are ornamented, the decoration falling\ninto two categories: (1) an earlier class with ornament only, occurring\non the forms 29 and 30 (see Plate LXVII.); (2) a later with figures,\nsuch as animals or gladiators, the forms being Nos. 30 and 37. Of the\nornamental motives on form 29, there are five principal types[3500]:\n(_a_) simple winding scrolls; (_b_) scrolls combined with figures in\nmedallions; (_c_) scrolls combined with panels of \u201carrow-head\u201d pattern;\n(_d_) bands of semicircles enclosing volutes which terminate in\nrosettes; (_e_) figures in metopes. In this form the decoration is\nalmost always in two friezes, a natural consequence of the shape of the\nvase; the metopes or geometrical compartments only come in with form\n37. In the latter form seven successive types of decoration may be\ndistinguished: (\u03b1) a transitional system with metopes, derived from the\nolder form[3501]; (\u03b2) metopes with wavy borders, a\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXVII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n GAULISH POTTERY OF FIRST CENTURY AFTER CHRIST (GRAUFESENQUE FABRIC)\n\n (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\ndiagonal or cruciform pattern often occupying alternate panels (cf.\nPlate LXVII. fig. 2)[3502]; (\u03b3) large medallions, often combined with\ninverted semicircles (_chiefly found at Lezoux_: cf. Plate LXVIII. fig.\n3); (\u03b4) arcading (_rare at Graufesenque_); (\u03b5) arcading and semicircles\ncombined; (\u03b6) large foliage-patterns or vine-leaves, often interspersed\nwith animals; (\u03b7) friezes of \u201cfree\u201d figures (_not found at\nGraufesenque_: cf. PlateLXVIII. fig. 1).\n\nIn regard to the figure subjects, mythological types are rare, and\ngenerally there is not so much variety as at Lezoux. D\u00e9chelette reckons\n177 different types in all, of which 112 are peculiar to the fabric,\nwhereas no less than 793 are peculiar to Lezoux.[3503] Hence, he points\nout, the origin of any Gaulish vase may be determined from the nature\nof the types alone. In artistic execution they are unequal, some being\ncopies of popular themes, others of a na\u00efve and unsophisticated\ncharacter. Gaulish elements are conspicuously absent. Although the\ndifference from the Arretine style is strongly marked, there is yet the\nsame tendency to display the influence of toreutic prototypes, and even\nof the \u201cnew Attic\u201d reliefs and the _genre_ types of the Hellenistic\nperiod.[3504] But others are original and non-classical in style, and\nthere is no homogeneity. Each pottery doubtless had its favourite\nsubjects\u2014a point which may prove of use in determining the separate\nfabrics. In any case, figure-subjects only prevailed for a short period\nat Condatomagus, whereas at Lezoux and in Germany they extend over a\nconsiderable period. For Gaul did not become Romanised before the reign\nof Titus; hence the previous absence of mythological themes. The potter\nLibertus (see below, p. 527), who worked at Lezoux about A.D. 100,\nstands out as the foremost potter and modeller in Gaul, who, brought up\non classical traditions, influenced the whole pottery of the country.\n\nThe question of the chronology of these Rutenian fabrics depends more\nupon the results of comparison with other sites than on the internal\nevidence of the finds. None of this pottery, for instance, is found at\nBibracte, which was deserted about the beginning of our era; but at\nAndernach vases with Rutenian potters\u2019 stamps are found with coins\nranging from Augustus to Nero. They are also abundant at Xanten, Neuss,\nand Vechten in Holland. Evidence may also be obtained from the German\nLimes, where form 29 disappears about A.D. 30. The exportation of\nRutenian wares, therefore, began about the reign of Tiberius. Their\nwide distribution may be traced by a study of the inscriptions in the\nthirteenth and other volumes of the Latin _Corpus_.[3505] In Britain\nthey are found in London[3506] and at Silchester. Out of thirty-four\nornamented vases from the latter site in the Reading Museum, M.\nD\u00e9chelette attributes exactly half to Condatomagus, representing the\nfirst century, and the other half to Lezoux, representing the\nsecond.[3507] In Italy this ware is found at Rome and Pompeii, and of\nthe typical Rutenian subjects some twenty have been noted among the\n_terra sigillata_ in Roman museums. The potters Bassus, Jucundus,\nMommo, and others of Rutenian origin are found at Rome, whereas the\nonly one from the Auvergne district there is Albucius[3508]; and the\nsame names occur at Pompeii, especially that of Mommo, whose stamps are\ncharacteristic.[3509] The latter group of vases, moreover, supply, as\nin other cases, important evidence for dating the Rutenian vases; they\nshow, not only that Mommo and the others were in full activity before\nA.D. 79, but that mythological subjects\u2014not found on the Pompeian\nexamples\u2014were only introduced towards the end of the pottery\u2019s activity.\n\nAnother well-known potter who appears to have worked at Condatomagus is\nVitalis, whose signature in full or in the form OF \u00b7 VITA is well known\nthere. He is also found as far afield as Carthage and on the east coast\nof Spain.[3510] This is additional testimony to the extent and quantity\nof exportations from this centre, and to its position as the most\nflourishing manufacture in the Roman empire at the time. This\npopularity it could never have acquired if the fabrics of Arretium,\nMutina, and Puteoli had not now reached their decadence; nor, if those\nof Auvergne, such as Lezoux, or of the Rhenish provinces had been\nalready in full activity, would the Rutenian wares have penetrated into\nCentral Gaul and Germany. M. D\u00e9chelette notes as an interesting fact\nthat in some collections of Roman pottery debased wares with Arretine\nstamps are to be seen, apparently not later than A.D. 80, and evidently\nimitations of Rutenian ware[3511]; these bear the names of L. Rasinius\nPisanus and Sex. M. F., of whom mention was made in the last chapter\n(p. 485). There is no evidence that this pottery was in existence after\nA.D. 100, and its rapid disappearance is certainly due to the rise of\nLezoux, where, as noted below, Rutenian potters\u2019 stamps are not\nuncommon in the first century.\n\nD\u00e9chelette has collected forty-three names of Rutenian potters, which\nare distributed over two hundred and thirty-two vases or fragments\nknown to him.[3512] On form 29 the stamps are only found in the\ninterior of the vases, and hence are not found on the moulds, but both\nwere probably made by the same potters. Vases of the other two forms\nare often unsigned. Of individuals Mommo occurs sixty-three times,\nGermanus thirty-eight. The same writer points out that the evidence\nfrom Graufesenque would overthrow any theory of itinerant potters, if\non no other grounds, from the fact that the moulds of a particular\npotter are only found on the one spot.\n\nA group of vases which must be mentioned here, though a very small one\nand not strictly belonging to the _terra sigillata_, is that of the\nyellow ware with red marbling.[3513] It consists of a small group of\nbowls and dishes with a dull yellow slip covered with veins of a red\ncolour, producing a variegated effect. Eight of these were found at\nTrier, one with the stamp of Primus, and there are a few others in\nGerman museums. In Southern Gaul, as at Arles, they are more common,\nand others have been found at Lyons and Vichy. The British Museum\npossesses one from Bordighera and three from Arles, and they are also\nknown in Sardinia and Southern Italy; there are two at Naples from\nPompeii with the stamp of Primus.[3514] The latter fact gives a\n_terminus ante quem_ for their date, and it is probable that some place\nin Southern Gaul was the centre of the fabric. Dragendorff suggested\nArles, where stamped examples have been found; but D\u00e9chelette points\nout that all the potters\u2019 names are Rutenian, and this is conclusive\nevidence in favour of Graufesenque; in any case we have here an\ninstance of exportation from Gaul into Italy. It is not certain in what\nmanner the marbling has been produced; it is probably an imitation of\nglass.\n\n * * * * *\n\nYet another example of a fabric which was imported from Gaul into Italy\nis to be seen in the pottery of =Banassac=, a class of vases with\ninscriptions of a convivial character, with letters in relief\nencircling the body.[3515] The form is that of the hemispherical bowl\nNo. 37, the appearance of which at Pompeii shows that it was developed\nbefore A.D. 79. They are found in large numbers in the south of France,\nespecially at Nismes, Orange, Vienne, Montans (Tarn), as well as\nBanassac; at the latter place fragments have been found on the site of\na pottery, showing that they were made there. The most notable example\n(Fig. 226) was found at Pompeii, and is now in the Naples Museum[3516];\nit is inscribed BIBE AMICE DE MEO, \u201cDrink, friend, from my (cup),\u201d the\nletters being separated by leaves, and is of ordinary red _terra\nsigillata_ ware. Here, again, it is possible to date the fabric in the\nfirst century, not later than the reign of Vespasian. On the local\nspecimens are found such sentiments as _Gabalibus felicit(er_), _Remis_\n(_felici)ter_, _Sequanis_ _feliciter_[3517]; _veni ad me amica_; _bonus\npuer_; _bona puella_; the two last-named recalling the seaside mugs of\nthe nineteenth century. The convivial inscriptions we shall meet with\nagain in a later fabric from the region of the Rhine (p. 538). _Terra\nsigillata_ was also made here and at Montans in the Department of Tarn;\nthe decoration is in the form of metopes, denoting the transitional\nperiod (about A.D. 70). No potters\u2019 names are found on the inscribed\nvases.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Mus. Borb._\n FIG. 226. VASE OF BANASSAC FABRIC, FOUND AT POMPEII.\n]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe pottery of =Lezoux=, in Auvergne, was first carefully studied by\nthe late M. Plicque,[3518] who excavated there on a large scale in 1879\nand succeeding years, and obtained as a result of his researches no\nless than three thousand different potters\u2019 names, as well as the\nsubstructures of about a hundred and sixty furnaces, forty of which\nwere in good preservation, comprising sixty-six distinct manufactories.\nAbout twenty-three more manufactories were traced along the principal\nroads and the banks of the Dore and Allier. He also found numerous\nremains of tools, potters\u2019 wheels, and other apparatus. In addition, he\nexcavated some two hundred tombs containing quantities of pottery,\nwhich seemed to imply a general use of it in funeral ceremonies. The\npotteries here seem to have been already in full working order in the\ntime of Vespasian, and lasted down to about A.D. 260. The earliest date\nto be obtained from the evidence of coins is about A.D. 70, but the\nearliest fabrics seem to go back to the time of Claudius; the date of\ndestruction of the site is indicated by coins of Gallienus and\nSaloninus found among the burnt ruins.\n\nA large proportion of the vases have potters\u2019 stamps, but there is no\nrule about the signatures.[3519] In the vases of form 29 the names are\nin the interior, denoting the masters of the potteries; in the later\nforms they are on the exterior, having been placed on the inside of the\nmould before baking, usually among the ornament. The ordinary formula\nis OF, M, or F, with the name in the genitive. As to the distribution\nof Lezoux vases, there was, as noted below, little exportation before\nA.D. 100, but after that time they prevail over Britain and Germany.\nD\u00e9chelette gives ninety-two examples with potters\u2019 stamps in Britain,\nincluding twenty-one names. A few specimens have been found in North\nItaly; Paternus occurs at Turin, Albucius at Rome.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXVIII\n\n[Illustration:\n\n GAULISH POTTERY FOUND IN BRITAIN; LEZOUX\n FABRIC; A.D. 70-250 (BRIT. MUS.).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nOf the moulded or _terra sigillata_ wares twelve different forms are\nfound, of which as elsewhere three prevail to the exclusion of the\nothers.[3520] The krater type (Dragendorff\u2019s No. 11) is only found in\nthe earliest period, about A.D. 40-50, and as already noted (p. 520)\nforms 29 and 30 are not so common as at Graufesenque, while form 37,\nwhich practically took the place of 29, occurs in great quantities.\nD\u00e9chelette distinguishes three chronological epochs of development,\ncovering respectively the periods A.D. 40-75, 75-100, and\n110-260.[3521] In the first period the decoration of form 29 develops\nin the same manner as at Graufesenque, but with this important\nvariation, that the running scroll is replaced by a _straight_ pattern\nof vine or oak leaves, or bands of rosettes or circles. The colour of\nthe glaze is lighter than at Graufesenque, the reliefs more delicately\nmodelled. The potters of this period, all of whom use form 29, are\nAtepomarus, Cobnertus, Danomarus, Iliomarus, and Petrecus. It will be\nnoted that these are all Gaulish names, whereas those at Graufesenque\nare all Latin.\n\nTo the second period (A.D. 75-110) belong the bowls of form 37 with\ntransitional or metope decoration, or in the \u201cfree\u201d style, which is\nemployed by Libertus, an important potter of Trajan\u2019s reign.\nExportations now first begin, and examples are found on the Limes, but\ngenerally speaking they are few in number, and while the Rutenian\npotteries existed the output must have been limited. After the reign of\nTrajan, however, large numbers were exported to Britain and Germany.\nThe cruciform ornamentation (p. 521) is found on the forms 30 and 37,\nand a peculiar type of egg- or astragalus-pattern (borrowed from\nArretium) is used by Butrio and Libertus. Figure subjects, introduced\nby Libertus, now become general, especially animals and hunting-scenes\n(see for an example Plate LXVIII. fig. 1). The typical potters of the\nperiod are Butrio, Libertus, Carantinus, Divixtus (Plate LXVIII. fig.\n2), Juliccus, Laxtucissa, and Putrius.\n\nThe third period (110-260) is represented almost exclusively by the\nform 37 with decoration in \u201cfree\u201d style or large medallions and\nwreaths; a few examples of form 30 and the _olla_ (D\u00e9chelette\u2019s No. 68:\ncf. p. 529) are found. The chief potters\u2019 names are Advocatus, Banuus,\nCatussa, Cinnamus (Plate LXVIII. fig. 3), Doeccus, Lastuca, Paternus,\nand Servus. Of these, Paternus belongs to the period of the Antonines,\nand he and Cinnamus, says M. D\u00e9chelette, represent the apogee of the\nprosperity of Lezoux, and of its export commerce. The period of\ndegeneration is marked by the appearance of barbotine decoration and\nimitations of metal (see below). It is difficult to say exactly when\nthe potteries came to an end, but there is no evidence that _terra\nsigillata_ was manufactured after the third century, and Plicque is\nprobably right in attributing their destruction to the German invaders\nin the reign of Gallienus.\n\nThe wares characteristic of the earlier period include _dolia_ of\ncoarse clay and other plain fabrics, as well as the various types of\n_terra sigillata_. Among the latter are examples of importations from\nthe Graufesenque and Banassac potteries and other places in the Aveyron\ndistrict, but the majority are of local manufacture. These include,\nbesides the moulded red wares with figured decoration and potters\u2019\nstamps, orange-red wares, yellow polished wares (often micaceous), and\nblack ware with barbotine ornamentation, on which potters\u2019 stamps are\nnot found. Lezoux was also a centre for the enamelled glazed wares\nwhich have been described in Chapter III. In the later period the red\nwares are ornamented with figures from moulds, or with barbotine, or\nhave lion\u2019s-head spouts (see below). The marbled vases (p. 523) are\nalso found, and in the third century the vases with _appliqu\u00e9_ reliefs,\nwith incised or hollowed-out ornamentation, or bronzed in imitation of\nmetal, are the prevailing types.[3522]\n\nThe salient points of difference between the earlier and later fabrics,\nsays Plicque, are these. The clay of the earlier is only baked to a\nsmall degree of heat and is not vitreous, but is exceedingly porous. It\nis also frequently full of micaceous particles. Subsequently it becomes\nmore vitreous but less porous; it is more compact and sonorous, free\nfrom mica, and more brilliant and lustrous. In the earlier, the forms\nare artistic and symmetrical, the ornament sober and elegant,\nremarkable for its taste and simplicity. The figures are enclosed in\nmedallions, and the ornaments consist of rays or rounded leaves, rows\nof beads, and guilloche-patterns. In the later, the art degenerates,\nthe ornamentation becoming heavy and overcrowded, and the figures are\nbroken up and badly arranged; the forms of the vases, too, become\nheavier. The principal decorative pattern is the egg-and-tongue round\nthe rim. In the potters\u2019 stamps of the two first periods the letters\nhave frequent ligatures and abbreviations; the names are often in the\nnominative or with OFFICINA _preceding_ the name. Later, the letters\nare coarser and ligatures are rare; the names are usually in the\ngenitive, _followed_ by M (_manu_) or OF(_ficina_). The characteristic\n15[12]U for V found in the middle of the second century should be noted.\n\nAmong the subsidiary fabrics of Lezoux the most remarkable is that of\nthe vases with _appliqu\u00e9_ reliefs.[3523] They are formed entirely on\nthe wheel, and the decoration is made separately from moulds (p. 440),\nand attached with barbotine, either in the form of a medallion or with\nan irregular outline, varying with the figure. Barbotine in many cases\nis also employed for foliage patterns filling in the background. The\nusual form is that of a spherical or ovoid vase (Plate LXIX. fig. 2),\nwhich may perhaps be termed an _olla_,[3524] with short neck and no\nhandles. It may be noted in passing that such shapes could not\nconveniently be moulded, hence the variation of form when we pass from\n_terra sigillata_ to other methods of decoration. In the third century\nthis combined process largely supplanted the moulded wares at Lezoux.\nThe paste and glaze, however, are identical with the _terra sigillata_.\nNo potters\u2019 signatures have been found on these vases, but they occur\nall over Gaul, including Belgium and Switzerland, and also in Britain.\nIn the British Museum (Romano-British Room) there are two very fine\nspecimens found at Felixstowe in Suffolk, one of which is that given on\nPlate LXIX. Roach-Smith mentions others from London, York, and\nRichborough,[3525] and they are also known at \u00c9vreux in France. A good\nbut imperfect example from Gaul is in the Morel Collection, now in the\nBritish Museum, and has figures of Herakles and Maenads. The modelling\nin some cases is admirable, especially in the Felixstowe vases, and in\nthe London specimens published by Roach-Smith, with masks and figures\nof Cupid. These vases represent the latest stage of the ceramic\nindustry of Lezoux.\n\nAnother class of vases made at this centre which may be mentioned here\nincludes a series of _paterae_, _oinochoae_, and _trullae_ (p. 470)\nwith ornamented handles, all obviously made in imitation of\nmetal.[3526] Of the _paterae_ there is a good example in the British\nMuseum from the Towneley Collection, ornamented with athletic contests\nand cock-fights round the edge. M. D\u00e9chelette (ii. p. 319) thinks some\nof the oinochoae made at Vichy may be imitations of the bronze jugs\nwhich are found at Pompeii, but many seem to be of a later date.\n\nDuring the period A.D. 100-400, and especially in the third century, a\nclass of red wares appears at Lezoux in the form of large bowls with\nspouts in the shape of lions\u2019 heads.[3527] These were wrongly\nidentified by Plicque with the _acratophorus_ (p. 464), but they are\nclearly mortars (_pelves_, _mortaria_), in which food was ground or\ncooked, the spout serving the purpose of straining off liquid. The\nlions\u2019 heads are made from moulds and attached with barbotine. Some of\nthese have potters\u2019 names. As a class they must be distinguished from\nthe plain _mortaria_ of grey or yellow ware described below (p. 551).\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith the South of France it is necessary to connect a series of\nmedallions with reliefs, intended for attachment to vases of _terra\nsigillata_ ware.[3528] In one or two cases the vases themselves have\nbeen preserved, but usually the medallions alone remain; there are also\nexamples of the moulds in which they were made.[3529] Nearly all of\nthese have been found in the valley of the Rhone, at Orange or\nVienne,[3530] the rest in other parts of France, such as Lezoux, along\nthe Rhine, or at Rome (two examples). They were probably made at\nVienne; but there was also a fabric in Germany, examples of which occur\nat Cologne, Trier, and Xanten. The subjects of the reliefs are very\nvaried, ranging from figures of deities to gladiators or even animals;\nthey frequently bear inscriptions, and their date is the third century\nafter Christ.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 227. MEDALLION FROM VASE OF SOUTHERN GAUL: SCENE\nFROM THE _CYCNUS_ (BRITISH MUSEUM).]\n\nAs long ago as 1873 Froehner published a series from Orange,[3531] with\nsuch subjects as Apollo, Venus Victrix, Mars and Ilia, a figure of\nLugdunum personified, the freeing of Prometheus and the death of\nHerakles, Dionysos and Ariadne, a bust of Hermes, a gladiator, a cock\nand hens, and a bust of the Emperor Geta, the last-named serving as an\nindication of date for the whole series. Several were inscribed, that\nwith Venus Victrix having CERA FELICIS, which probably refers to the\nwax in which the figures were first modelled, though some have thought\nthat it represents the Greek \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1(\u03bc\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2). Another trio from Orange[3532]\nrepresent respectively:\u2014(1) a chariot race in the circus, with the\ninscriptions FELICITER, LOGISMUS (a horse\u2019s name), and PRASIN(_a_)\nF(_actio_), \u201cthe green party\u201d; (2) Fig. 227, a scene from a play,\nprobably the _Cycnus_, in which Herakles is saying to Ares, the\nwould-be avenger of his son, \u201c(Invicta) virtus nusquam terreri potest,\u201d\nthe god proclaiming \u201cAdesse ultorem nati me credas mei\u201d; in the\nbackground, on a raised stage or \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, are deities; (3) an actor\nin female costume. There are also three in the Hermitage Museum at\nPetersburg, of which two represent Poseidon, the third Hermes.[3533]\nCaylus also gives a representation of a vase with three such\nmedallions, with busts of Pluto and Persephone, Mars and Ilia, and two\ngladiators.[3534] Where gladiators with names appear it may be assumed\nthat they are portraits of real people, and D\u00e9chelette argues from this\nthat the vases were made specially in connection with gladiatorial (or\ntheatrical) performances.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n From _Gaz. Arch._\n FIG. 228. MEDALLION FROM VASE OF SOUTHERN GAUL: ATALANTA AND\n HIPPOMEDON.\n]\n\nAn interesting group found at Vienne and Vichy[3535] have subjects\ntaken from the Thirteenth Iliad, such as Deiphobos and the Locrian\nAjax, or Hector fighting the Achaeans. Among the remaining examples\nknown the most interesting are three from Orange, one of which\nrepresents a festival in honour of Isis, the other two, the victory of\nHippomedon over Atalanta (Fig. 228), with an inscription of three lines:\n\n Respicit ad malum pernicibus ignea plantis,\n Quae pro dote parat mortem quicumque fugaci\n Velox in cursu cessasset virgine visa.[3536]\n\nReference has already been made to a paper by M. Blanchet, in which he\ngives a list of the sites in Gaul on which pottery appears to have been\nmade (see p. 443). But in the majority of these cases plain wares must\nhave been the only output. Moulded wares, as D\u00e9chelette points out,\nrequired skill and resource to produce.[3537] In any case, very few\ntypes are found on moulded wares which cannot be also associated with\nGraufesenque or Lezoux, and any made on other sites must have followed\nthe same methods of decoration.[3538] The places given in Blanchet\u2019s\nlist cover practically the whole extent of France, though the principal\ncentres of activity were always the Aveyron and Allier districts and\nthe Rhone valley. In the neighbourhood of Lezoux, for instance, vases\nwere made at Clermont-Ferrand, Lubi\u00e9, St.-Bonnet, and Thiers. At\nNou\u00e2tre, Indre-et-Loire, was an important pottery, not yet fully\ninvestigated; and others were at Rozier (Loz\u00e8re), Auch (Gers),\nMontauban, Luxueil (Haute-Sa\u00f4ne), St.-Nicholas near Nancy, and Aoste\n(Is\u00e8re), where vases of characteristic originality were made.[3539] But\nit is not likely that any future investigations will displace\nGraufesenque and Lezoux as the chief centres for Gaulish _terra\nsigillata_.\n\n 3. THE FABRICS OF GERMANY\n\nIn Germany the oldest and one of the most important sites for pottery\nis Andernach,[3540] between Bonn and Coblenz, where however, it must be\nborne in mind, there was no local manufacture; its importance is mainly\nas a site yielding valuable chronological evidence. The finds extend\nfrom the beginning of the first century down to about A.D. 250, the\nearlier objects finding parallels in cemeteries at Trier and Regensburg\nwhich can be similarly dated. Generally speaking, it has been observed\nthat Roman remains begin on the left bank of the Rhine a century\nearlier than those in the border forts on the Limes, which cover the\nperiod from A.D. 100 to 250.\n\n_Terra sigillata_ with reliefs is comparatively rare, though, as we\nhave seen, it was at an early period exported from Gaul, and the\npottery consists chiefly of ordinary wares, red, grey, and black,\nusually of good and careful execution, with thin walls. Much of this\ncommon pottery may be assumed to be of local manufacture. The\ncharacteristic types of the first century are simple jugs of plain ware\nwithout slip for funerary or domestic use; vases with white slip (also\nfound at Regensburg); black ware bowls and dishes, sometimes with\npotters\u2019 stamps; black and grey cinerary urns. These forms include\nsmall urns and the usual cups and bowls with straight or sloping sides,\nreplaced after A.D. 100 by spherical-bodied jars with narrow necks. The\ndecoration comprises all the varieties we have included in the\nforegoing survey: barbotine, incised linear patterns, impressed\npatterns made with the thumb, and raised ornaments such as plain knobs\nor leaves worked with the hand. In the third century painted decoration\nis introduced, as in the black ware drinking-vessels with inscriptions\ndescribed below (p. 537).\n\nAt Xanten (Castra Vetera), lower down the Rhine, large quantities of\n_terra sigillata_ have been found, which can be dated by means of\ncoin-finds from the beginning of the first century down to the third.\nDuring this period a steady degeneration in the pottery may be\nobserved, although glass fabrics correspondingly improve; in the time\nof the Antonines the clay is coarse and often artificially coloured\nwith red lead or other ingredients, producing what was formerly known\nas \u201cfalse Samian\u201d ware.[3541]\n\nAn exceptionally interesting centre, and in some respects the most\nimportant in Germany, is that at =Westerndorf= on the Inn, between\nAugsburg and Salzburg, where the coins range from about A.D. 160 to\n330. It was first explored in 1807 and as long ago as 1862 the results\nwere carefully investigated and summarised by Von Hefner in a still\nvaluable treatise.[3542] The pottery includes _terra sigillata_ of the\nlater types, and plain red, yellow, and grey wares, sometimes covered\nwith a non-lustrous grey or reddish slip, or with black varnish, the\nlatter have very thin walls and are baked very hard. The decoration of\nthe _terra sigillata_ comprises all the usual types,[3543] the forms\nbeing also those prevalent elsewhere, with the addition of a covered\njar or _pyxis_, but the figures are confined to the cylindrical or\nhemispherical bowls (Nos. 30 and 37).[3544] The plain wares include\ncinerary urns, deep bowls or jars, with simple ornament, open bowls\nwith impressed patterns, and _mortaria_.\n\nOf some peculiarities of the potters\u2019 stamps we have already spoken (p.\n510); they are found in the form of oblongs or human feet, and more\nrarely in circles, half-moons, or spirals, the letters being both in\nrelief and incised. Trade marks were sometimes used, the potter Sentis,\nfor instance, using a thorn-twig by way of a play on his name. Names\nare both in the nominative and genitive, with some abbreviated form in\nthe one case of FECIT, in the other of MANVS or OFFICINA.[3545] Local\nnames are clearly to be seen in those of Belatullus, Iassus, and\nVologesus.\n\nAnother important centre of fabric in Germany is =Rheinzabern=\n(Tabernae Rhenanae) near Speier, which probably shared with Westerndorf\na monopoly of the moulded wares.[3546] The pottery found here is mostly\nin the Speier Museum; it is almost all of form 37, with its typical\ndecoration, and the fabric does not seem to have been established\nbefore the second century. The chief potters\u2019 names are Belsus,\nCerialis, Cobnertus, Comitialis, Julius, Juvenis, Mammillianus,\nPrimitivus, and Reginus. The British Museum possesses moulds for large\nbowls with free friezes of animals, one with the stamp of\nCerialis[3547]; there was little export to Gaul, but a considerable\namount to Britain. M. D\u00e9chelette notes the similarity of the types to\nthose of Lezoux, and suggests that Rheinzabern is an offshoot from the\nlatter pottery. This site has also produced barbotine wares,[3548]\nwhich bear a remarkable superficial resemblance to that of Castor (see\nbelow, p. 544), and have been wrongly identified therewith[3549]; but\nthey are not found at Castor, and in point of fact differ widely in\nartistic merit, being far superior to the British fabric, as has been\npointed out by Mr. Haverfield.[3550] The ornamentation is a formal and\nconventional imitation of classical models, whereas the Castor ware is\nonly classical in its elements, and is otherwise barbaric yet\nunconventional.\n\nIt is possible that Trier, and in fact all places mentioned in a\npreceding chapter (p. 453) as sites of kilns may be regarded as centres\nof manufacture, though in only a few cases was anything made beyond the\nordinary plain wares. Of the latter a useful summary has been made by\nKoenen,[3551] chiefly from the technical point of view, which it may be\nworth while to recapitulate. He divides the pottery of the Rhine\ndistrict (which may be taken as typical) into three main classes: the\nfirst transitional from the La T\u00e8ne period[3552] to Roman times; the\nsecond, native half-baked cinerary urns; the third, Roman pottery,\nousting the other two. The first two classes cover the local hand-made\nwares of grey, brown, or black clay, which are clearly of native make,\nand like the similar wares of Britain and Gaul hardly come under the\nheading of Roman pottery, though subsequently they felt its influence.\nThe Roman pottery proper (which can be well studied in the museums of\nBonn, Trier, and elsewhere on the Rhine) is divided by Koenen into\nthree periods: Early, Middle, and Late Empire. Roman wares first appear\nwith coins of Augustus, and at this period exercise much influence on\nthe La T\u00e8ne types, producing a sort of mixed style, usually of greyish\nor black clay with impressed or incised ornament, subsequently replaced\nby barbotine. The _terra sigillata_ is either of the superior deep red\nvariety with sharp outlines and details, which we have seen to emanate\nfrom Gaul, or else plain ware of a light red hue (\u201cfalse Samian\u201d),\nwithout ornament.[3553] But as H\u00f6lder has pointed out,[3554] the\nsettlement of the chronology of German pottery (apart from the\n_sigillata_) is particularly difficult, because we are dealing with a\npurely utilitarian fabric, which consequently preserved its forms\nunaltered through a considerable period; moreover, there must have been\nmany local fabrics and little exportation, which makes comparison\ndifficult.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 229. GERMAN JAR WITH CONVIVIAL INSCRIPTION (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nTo the German fabrics belong a group of vases with painted inscriptions\nfound on the Lower Rhine, and less frequently in North and East\nFrance.[3555] They occur in the second century at the Saalburg, and\nlast down to the fourth; large numbers have also been found at Trier,\nand other examples at Mesnil and \u00c9taples (Gessoriacum) in France.[3556]\nThe usual form is that of a round-bellied cup or jar (Fig. 229), with a\nmore or less high stem and plain moulded mouth. Their ornamentation is\nconfined to berries, vine-tendrils, and scrolls, at first naturalistic,\nafterwards becoming conventionalised; but their chief interest lies in\nthe inscriptions, which, like those of the Banassac type described\nabove (p. 524), are of a convivial character. They are painted in bold\nwell-formed capitals, in the same white pigment which is used for the\nornamentation; the following examples will serve as specimens:\n\n AMAS ME, AMO, AMO TE CONDITE.[3557]\n AVE, AVE COPO, AVETE.[3558]\n BELLVS SVA(_deo?_).[3559]\n BIBE, BIBATIS, BIBAMVS PIE, BIBE VIVAS, BIBE VIVAS\n MVLTIS ANNIS.[3560]\n DA BIBERE, DA MERVM, DA MI, DA VINVM.[3561]\n DE ET DO, DOS (= \u03b4\u03cc\u03c2).[3562]\n EME.[3563]\n FAVENTIBVS.[3564]\n FELIX.[3565]\n FE(r)O VINVM TIBI DVLCIS.[3566]\n GAVDIO.[3567]\n IMPLE.[3568]\n LVDE.[3569]\n MISCE, MISCE MI, MISCE VIVAS.[3570]\n MITTE MERVM.[3571]\n PETE.[3572]\n REPLE, REPLE ME COPO MERI.[3573]\n SESES = ZESES = \u03b6\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.[3574]\n SITIO, SITIS.[3575]\n VALE, VALIAMVS.[3576]\n VINVM, VINVM TIBI DVLCIS.[3577]\n VITA.[3578]\n VIVE, VIVAS, VIVAMVS, VIVAS FELIX, VIVE BIBE MVLTIS.[3579]\n\nTo this list must be added a remarkable vase of the same class found at\nMainz in 1888,[3580] with the inscription ACCIPE M(_esi_)TIE(_n_)S ET\nTRADE SODALI, \u201cTake me when you are thirsty and pass me on to your\ncomrade.\u201d Above the inscription are seven busts of deities, Sol, Luna,\nMars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, representing the seven days\nof the week; both the design and the inscription, however, are incised,\nnot painted.\n\n 4. ROMAN POTTERY IN THE NETHERLANDS, SPAIN, AND BRITAIN\n\nIn =Holland and Belgium= finds of _terra sigillata_ and potters\u2019 stamps\nare recorded from various sites, such as Arentsburg, Rossem, Rousse,\nnear Oudenarde, Voorburg, between Utrecht and Leyden, and\nWyk-by-Durstede, and also at Utrecht.[3581] At Vechten near Utrecht,\nthe ancient Fictio on the road from Lugdunum (Leiden) to Noviomagus\n(Nimeguen) finds were made in 1868 which confirm the activity of the\nRutenian potters in the first century.[3582] These discoveries included\ncoins extending from the Republican period down to Trajan, and _terra\nsigillata_ of the Graufesenque type, with many names of potters\nbelonging to that region.\n\nIn =Spain= finds have been made on various sites, and there are\nnumerous examples in the museum at Tarragona[3583]; at Murviedro, the\nsite of the ancient Saguntum, which, as we have seen, is mentioned by\nPliny and Martial as an important centre, various kinds of Roman ware\nhave come to light, some with potters\u2019 stamps, but no evidence remains\nof potteries or of any local manufacture.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn =Britain=\u2014at least in England\u2014finds of Roman pottery have been so\nplentiful and so universal that it is difficult to select typical\ncentres for discussion. It must also be borne in mind that, with the\nexception of the plain wares and a few other fabrics, such as the\nCastor ware, we have not to deal with local manufactures. A certain\nquantity of _terra sigillata_ may have been imported from Germany\n(_e.g._ from Westerndorf),[3584] but by far the greater proportion is\nfrom Gaul, as is shown by the potters\u2019 names.\n\nWe propose in the first place to review briefly the types of _terra\nsigillata_ which occur in Britain.[3585] The bowls of forms 29 and 30,\nwhich are found in Germany in the first century, do not occur on the\nRoman Wall, and we have already seen that they are not later than\nHadrian\u2019s time; but they are common in the South of Britain, as at\nLondon and Colchester. Roach-Smith[3586] and other earlier writers have\npublished specimens of these older forms decorated with figures which\nhave been found in London, Bath, York, Caerleon,[3587] and elsewhere.\nThe earliest dateable examples of form 37 have been found with coins of\nNerva at Churchover in Warwickshire[3588]; this type is indeed common\nall over Britain, and is one of the few varieties of _terra sigillata_\noccurring in the North. It is found at South Shields, along the Roman\nWall, and in Scotland at Birrens in Dumfriesshire.[3589] Pottery of the\nsecond century is represented by a variety of the same form, with a\nmoulded ridge breaking the outline in the middle[3590]; this would seem\nto be a type which also occurs in Germany during the second and third\ncenturies. Mr. Haverfield states that this form is found at South\nShields and in Yorkshire, and is imitated at Silchester. Of the\nprincipal subjects on these we have already given some description (p.\n508). Finally, there is the wide shallow type, approximating to the\nmortar or _pelvis_, the upper part of which forms externally a flat,\nvertical band, projecting beyond and forming a tangent with the general\ncurve of the bowl; this is usually ornamented with lions\u2019 heads in\nrelief. This variety is not earlier than the second century, and is\nalso found in the third; we have already seen that it was made at\nLezoux.[3591]\n\nIt is important to note that all the places mentioned as yielding bowls\nof forms 29 and 30 were occupied at least as early as A.D. 85, perhaps\nas early as A.D. 50. But the style of these bowls may have lasted\nlonger; at all events, the varieties are so numerous as to show a\ndevelopment for which some time is required. There is also a distinct\ndevelopment in the plain band round the upper edge of the bowl, which,\nat first a mere beading, becomes broader and more vertical by degrees.\nIt may, however, be assumed that, as none are found north of York, it\ndisappeared from Britain, as from Gaul and Germany, before A.D. 100.\n\nThe ware formerly known as \u201cfalse Samian\u201d (Dragendorff\u2019s\n_hellroth_)[3592] appears in several varieties. The light red or orange\ncolour is produced by a kind of slip of pounded pottery laid over the\nsurface. Vases of this type, glazed within and without with a thin\nreddish-brown and somewhat lustrous glaze, occur in London, and a good\nspecimen was found many years ago at Oundle in Northants, but has since\ndisappeared.[3593] It was a fine vase, of light-red clay with red-brown\nglaze, resembling the Gaulish _terra sigillata_, and had some claim to\nartistic merit. The subject was Pan holding up a mask, and three draped\nfigures, and it bore the stamp of the Gaulish potter Libertus (OF \u00b7\nLIBERTI), who, as we have seen, worked at Lezoux.[3594] This ware is\noften coarse, and ornamented externally with rude white scrolls painted\nin opaque colour,[3595] and there is a variety found at Castor, of red\nglazed ware with a metalloid lustre, the clay itself varying from white\nto yellowish-brown or orange.[3596] Both shapes and ornaments resemble\nthose of the Castor black ware (see below), and it seems likely that\nthis is actually a local fabric, the difference in colouring being due\nto the degree of heat employed in the firing.\n\nThe number of potters\u2019 names found on these wares in Britain is very\nlarge, those in the seventh volume of the Latin _Corpus_ amounting to\nabout 1,500.[3597] This list, published in 1873, of course superseded\nall those previously drawn up by the Hon. R. C. Neville, by\nRoach-Smith, and by Thomas Wright.[3598] Roach-Smith, however,\nperformed a useful service in tabulating the list of names found in\nLondon along with those from Douai and other sites in France,[3599]\nwhich went far to prove the Gaulish origin of the British _terra\nsigillata_. It is not, therefore, necessary to discuss the potters\u2019\nnames found in Britain in further detail.[3600] Besides the potters\u2019\nstamps, incised inscriptions sometimes occur on the pottery, giving the\nowner\u2019s name or other items of information (see above, p. 512).\n\nTo give a detailed account of all the sites in Britain on which Roman\npottery has been found would be a task entailing more labour and\noccupying more space than the results would justify. Not only do the\nsites cover almost the whole of the country from the Roman Wall to the\nIsle of Wight, and from Exeter to Norfolk, but the disinterring of the\nmaterial from miscellaneous and often unscientific records, or from\nscattered and uncatalogued collections, would be a truly gigantic\nachievement. It should, however, be achieved; but this will only be by\nco-operation, each county performing its share of the work, as has been\ndone in a few cases. The Society of Antiquaries has issued\narchaeological surveys of certain counties,[3601] which without\nentering into details tabulate the sites of Roman remains; and it is to\nbe hoped that forthcoming volumes of the _Victoria County History_ will\ndo for other counties what those already published have done for\nHampshire, Norfolk, Northants, etc. The most representative collections\nare those of the British Museum and the Guildhall in London, and of the\nprovincial museums at Colchester, Reading, York, and elsewhere.\n\nWe now turn to the consideration of the local products of\nRomano-British potters. Exclusive of the plain unornamented wares which\nwere made in many places, as the numerous remains of kilns show (cf. p.\n454), there are only three distinct fabrics to be mentioned. In all of\nthese the ware is black, with or without a glaze, but the style of\nornamentation varies.\n\nBy far the most important centre, not only for the quantity of pottery\nit has yielded and the extent of its furnaces, but also for the\nartistic merit of its products, is that of =Castor=, in\nNorthamptonshire. Of the numerous traces of furnaces and workshops\ndiscovered here, in the neighbouring villages of Wansford, Sibson,\nChesterton, and in the Bedford Purlieus, we have already spoken in a\nprevious chapter (p. 444 ff.); it now only remains to discuss the\ntechnical and artistic aspects of the pottery.\n\nArtis has recorded that the pieces of pottery found in or near the\nkilns show great variety of form and style, including the red\nimitations of _terra sigillata_, pieces ornamented with\n\u201cmachine-turned\u201d patterns,[3602] and dark-coloured ware with reliefs or\nornament in white paint. But the characteristic and commonest Castor\nware has a white paste coloured by means of a slip with a dark\nslate-coloured surface; the usual form is that of a small jar on a stem\nwith plain cylindrical mouth. Some are merely marked with indentations\nmade by the potter\u2019s thumb,[3603] or with rude patterns laid on the\nintervening ridges; but others have designs laid on _en barbotine_ in a\nslip of the same colour as the vase, and others of rarer occurrence are\ndecorated in white paint with conventional foliated patterns,[3604]\nsomewhat resembling the Rhenish wares described on p. 537. Haverfield\nreproduces a fragment of a vase on which are painted in white and\nyellow a man\u2019s head in peaked cap, and an arm holding an axe.[3605] The\nbarbotine variety is the most typical, and is by no means confined to\nthis site. It is often found in Central and Eastern England, and even\nin the Netherlands. One of the finest specimens was found at Colchester\nin 1853,[3606] containing calcined bones, and ornamented with figures\nover which inscriptions are incised. The subjects, arranged in friezes,\ninclude two stags, a hare, and a dog, interspersed with foliations; two\nmen training a dancing-bear, one of whom holds a whip and is protected\nby armour; and a combat of two gladiators (_murmillo_ and _Thrax_) of a\ntype familiar to us from Roman lamps (see p. 416). Over the heads of\nthe men with the bear is inscribed, SECVNDVS MARIO; over the\ngladiators, MEMN(_o_)N SAC \u00b7 VIIII and VALENTINV \u00b7 LEGIONIS \u00b7 XXX,\nrespectively. The meaning of the inscriptions is not quite clear, but\nthe last one certainly seems to allude to games taking place at the\npost of the thirtieth legion\u2014_i.e._ the Lower Rhine. For this and other\nreasons Mr. Haverfield is of opinion that the vase may have been made\nin that district and not at Castor, and it is not, of course,\nimpossible that such ware was not confined to Britain.[3607] This\nwould, at any rate, explain its presence in the Netherlands. Mr. Arthur\nEvans has noted the presence of an unfinished piece of Castor ware in a\nkiln at Littlemore, near Oxford.[3608]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n PLATE LXIX\n\n[Illustration:\n\n TYPES OF ROMANO-BRITISH POTTERY: CASTOR WARE, ETC.\n\n THE VASE WITH INCISED PATTERNS IS FROM GAUL (BRITISH MUSEUM).\n]\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\nHunting-scenes are also very popular, especially a huntsman spearing a\nboar, or a hare or deer chased by stags, as on a fine vase found at\nWater Newton, Hunts, in 1827.[3609] A specimen in the British Museum\nwith a race of four-horse chariots is illustrated on Plate LXIX.\nRoach-Smith gives a remarkable specimen with a mythological subject,\nthat of Herakles and Hesione[3610]; the subject is curiously treated,\nHesione being chained down with heavy weights. Another interesting but\nfragmentary vase from Chesterford in Essex has figures of Jupiter,\nMars, Mercury, and Venus, and it may be assumed that the complete\nsubject was that of the seven deities represented by the days of the\nweek.[3611] Otherwise the potter is content with animals, such as\ndolphins or fishes, or mere foliations, ivy-wreaths, engrailed lines,\nand other ornamental patterns.[3612]\n\nIn regard to the technique of these wares, Artis notes that the\nindented patterns were made while the vase was \u201cas pliable as it could\nbe taken from the lathe\u201d; for the barbotine the thumb or a rounded\ninstrument was employed. Figures of animals were executed with a kind\nof skewer on which the slip was placed, a thicker variety being used\nfor certain parts to heighten the relief, and a more delicate\ninstrument for features and other details. No subsequent retouching was\npossible. The vases were glazed subsequently to the application of the\nbarbotine; on the other hand, the decoration in white paint was made\nafter glazing. The glaze was, as we have seen in Chapter XXI., p. 448,\nproduced by a deposit of carbon, by the process known as \u201csmothering\u201d;\nit varies in quality, being either dark without any metallic lustre, or\nwith a metalloid polish resembling that produced with black-lead.\n\nThe date of the Castor ware is difficult to ascertain, but it must\nbegin fairly early in the Roman period, on account of its affinities\nwith late Celtic pottery. D\u00e9chelette (ii. p. 310) would date the ware\ntowards the end of the third century. As has already been pointed out\n(p. 536), it is only the elements of the decoration that are classical;\nthey are treated in a rude, debased manner, with the free\nunconventional handling characteristic of barbaric art. \u201cThey are not\nan imitation, but a recasting\u201d according to the traditions of late\nCeltic or Gaulish art,[3613] such as is displayed, for instance, in the\nancient British and Gallic coinage. The fantastic animals, the\ntreatment of the scrolls, and the dividing ornaments of beading, etc.,\nbetween the subjects are essentially unclassical. Potters\u2019 stamps on\nthis ware are exceedingly rare, an almost isolated instance being\nCAMARO \u00b7 F on a vase found at Lincoln.[3614]\n\nTwo other local varieties of black ware peculiar to Britain are those\nknown respectively as Upchurch and New Forest ware. Although no remains\nof kilns have been found in the former district, the pottery is\nobviously local, and its manufacture appears to have extended along the\nbanks of the Medway from Rainham to Iwade, over what are now marshes,\nbut was then firm ground. The remains consist of a thin finely-moulded\nbluish-black fabric, with graceful and varied forms, ornamented with\ngroups of small knobs in bands, squares, circles, wavy, intersecting,\nor zigzag lines, or a characteristic pattern of concentric semi-circles\nresting on bands of parallel vertical lines (Plate LXIX. fig. 6). This\nware has also been found on the Continent, and may either have been\nexported or else made in other places besides Upchurch; it is probably\nof quite late date.[3615]\n\nThe clay is soft and easily scratched, and is covered with a polish or\nlustre produced by friction; the composition is fine, and the walls\nthin and well turned. It varies in tone from greyish, like that of\nLondon clay, to a dull black. The vases are mostly small (cups,\nbottles, jugs, small jars, and occasional _mortaria_), and some have\nribbed sides; the ornamentation is always either in the form of\nimpressed lines or raised patterns made by applying pieces of clay\nbefore the vase was baked. No potters\u2019 stamps have come to light, nor\nis this ware found with coins or other Roman remains. Rough earthenware\nwas also made in the Medway district, of a red, yellow, or stone colour.\n\nThe New Forest ware is found in the north-west part of the Forest,\nbetween Fordingbridge and Bramshaw.[3616] It is sometimes spoken of as\n\u201cCrockhill ware,\u201d from the local name of the site of the furnaces, of\nwhich traces were found in 1852. The pottery consists of two varieties,\none of thin, hard, slate-coloured ware, with patterns of leaves or\ngrass painted in white (Plate LXIX. fig. 5); these are small jars,\naveraging six inches in height, sometimes moulded by the potter\u2019s thumb\ninto an undulating circumference. There are points of resemblance with\nthe Castor ware. The other variety consists of a thicker ware, with a\ndull white-yellowish ground and coarse foliated patterns painted in red\nor brown, usually platters or dishes. It is a rude and inartistic\nfabric, of obviously native origin and resembling Celtic rather than\nany Roman or Italian pottery. It is found on other sites in Hampshire,\nsuch as Bitterne (Clausentum), and even as far north as Oxford.[3617]\nThe date is probably the third century of our era. With the kilns there\nwere found heaps of potsherds which had been spoiled in the baking and\nrejected; they were vitrified so as to resemble stoneware, and when\nagain submitted to the action of fire, cracked and split. The glaze\nwith which the local blue clay had been covered was of a dark-red\ncolour and alkaline nature, but had probably been affected by imperfect\nfiring.\n\n 5. PLAIN ROMAN WARES\n\nThe plain unornamented and unglazed Roman pottery which answered to the\nmodern earthenware has usually been considered by writers on the\nsubject in a different category from the glazed and ornamented wares.\nAlthough from the very simplicity of its character it defies scientific\nclassification, yet it must be remembered that this common ware was not\nlikely to have been exported very far from the place of its origin, and\ntherefore where any differences can be observed in the nature or\nappearance of the clay, in peculiarities of form or of technique, it is\nnot impossible to establish the existence of a local fabric. But up to\nthe present little has been done except in isolated instances. Certain\nlocal wares have been recognised in Britain, as will be noted below,\nbesides the Castor, Upchurch, and New Forest wares, some of which\nalmost come under this heading; and others, again, in Gaul. Similarly\nin Germany, attempts have been made by Koenen and other writers to\nclassify the plain pottery whether according to form or on other\nprinciples (see above, p. 536).\n\nMany years ago a rough but in some respects convenient classification\nwas made by Brongniart[3618] on the basis of the colour of the clay\nemployed, which he distinguished under four heads: (1) pale yellow or\nwhite wares; (2) red wares, varying to reddish-brown; (3) grey or\nash-coloured wares; (4) black wares. In the first division he included\nthe large, often coarse, vases, such as the _dolia_ and _amphorae_;\nunder the second head Roman ware of the first century, and under the\nthird that of subsequent date; while the fourth class comprised\nGallo-Roman and other provincial wares. A somewhat similar system, in\nsome respects even less chronological, was attempted by Buckman,[3619]\nwho distinguished brown ware as a separate fabric. The obvious defect\nof these systems is that they are neither chronological nor according\nto fabrics, and that their basis is in many respects a purely\naccidental one; but at the same time they have proved convenient for\ndiscussing plain ware which does not admit of much consideration apart\nfrom its forms and the general appearance of its composition. And at\nall events they enable us to discuss examples of certain shapes under\none head, inasmuch as the _amphorae_ and _dolia_ are nearly all of the\nfirst class, the _mortaria_ or _pelves_ of the third, cups, dishes, and\nflasks of the second and fourth, and so on.\n\nThe yellow ware[3620] is distinguished by its coarse clay, of a\ngreyish-white or yellow colour, varying to dirty white, grey, or red.\nIt is to this division that all the larger vases belong, such as those\nused for storing wine and other commodities or for funerary purposes,\nand the innumerable fragments of _dolia_ and _amphorae_ which compose\nthe Monte Testaccio at Rome.[3621] Some of these vases were made on the\nwheel, but others were modelled by hand and turned from within. Those\nused in burial were usually of a globular form, or even _dolia_ with\nthe necks and handles broken off, and contained cinerary urns and glass\nvessels. We also find _lagenae_, _trullae_ (saucepans), and _mortaria_\nmade in this ware. Another remarkable variety may be described as a\nkind of _olla_; its peculiarity is that it is modelled in the form of a\nhuman head, much in the same style as the primitive vases of Troy (Vol.\nI. p. 258). A vase of this type found at Bootham, near Lincoln, had\npainted on the foot D(_e_)O MIIRCVRIO, \u201cTo the god Mercury,\u201c in brown\nletters.[3622] The clay is light yellow, with a slip of the same colour.\n\nA finer variety of this clay, often of a rosy tint, or white and\nmicaceous, was used for making the smaller vases, which are thin and\nlight, and all turned on the wheel.[3623] They are sometimes ornamented\nwith bands, lines, hatching, or leaves, slightly indicated in dull\nochre, laid on and fired with the vase. Some specimens are covered with\na flat white slip, of a more uniform character than that employed on\nthe Athenian vases. In others the clay is largely mixed with grains of\nquartz. In Britain little jars of a very white clay have sometimes been\nfound, as well as small bottles and dishes, painted inside with\npatterns in a dull red or brown. They seem to have formed a kind of\nfiner ware for ornamental purposes, as well as for the table.\n\nThe second class, that of the red wares, forms by far the largest\ndivision of Roman plain pottery, and comprises most of the kinds used\nfor domestic purposes; it is found in all forms and sizes, all over\nEurope, often covered with a coating or slip, white, black, or red.\nThis class may be considered to include all varieties of red and\nreddish-brown ware, but as a rule the clay varies in colour from pale\nrose to deep coral, and in quality from a coarse gritty composition to\na fine compact and homogeneous paste. It is usually without a glaze,\nand sometimes the clay is largely micaceous. To enumerate all the\nshapes which illustrate this ware is unnecessary, but the\nRomano-British and Morel Collections in the British Museum\u2014and in fact\nany representative collection of Roman pottery\u2014exhibit all the\nprincipal varieties, from the cinerary urn to the so-called\n\u201ctear-bottle\u201d or unguent vase. The principal shapes are also\nillustrated in the treatises of H\u00f6lder and Koenen.\n\nAmong sepulchral vases of this ware were the _ollae_ in which the ashes\nof slaves were placed in the _columbaria_ at Rome, tall jars with\nmoulded rims and flat saucer-shaped covers.[3624] In Roman tombs in\nGaul and Britain these _ollae_ are usually placed inside large _dolia_\nor amphorae, to protect them from the weight of the superincumbent\nearth.[3625] In Britain they have been found at Lincoln, on the sites\nof Roman settlements along the Dover Road, at Colchester, and in other\nplaces, and as many as twenty thousand are recorded as having been\nfound at Bordeaux.[3626] After the introduction of Christianity this\npractice seems to have been abandoned, but vases of smaller size\ncontinued to be placed round the bones of the dead.\n\nThe grey wares were usually made of fine clay, of which there were two\nvarieties: a sandy loam like that of which bricks are made on the\nborders of the chalk formations in England, and a heavy stone-coloured\npaste, sonorous when struck, which has been compared to the clay of\nmodern Staffordshire ware. The colour of the first-named is light and\nits texture brittle, and it was chiefly used for _mortaria_, or for\ncooking-vessels which were exposed to the heat of the fire. The\n_mortaria_ resemble modern milk-pans, being flat, with overlapping\nedges and a grooved spout opening in front. They appear to have been\nused both for cooking, many bearing traces of the action of fire, and\nfor grinding food or other commodities, the latter purpose probably\nexplaining the presence, in the interior of many examples, of small\npebbles, or a hard coating of pounded tile, to counteract the effects\nof trituration. They are usually of a hard coarse texture, but compact\nand heavy, and their colour varies from pale red to bright yellow or\ncreamy white.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 230. ROMAN MORTARIUM FROM RIBCHESTER (BRITISH\nMUSEUM).]\n\nThey are frequently stamped with the name of the potter, placed in a\nsquare or rectangular panel on the rim and often arranged in two lines.\nThe names are either single, denoting the work of slaves, as Albinus,\nBrixsa, Catulus, Sollus, and Marinus, or double and occasionally even\ntriple, for the work of freedmen, as Q. Valerius, Sex. Valerius, Q.\nAverus Veranius, and so on.[3627] The example given in Fig. 230 is from\nRibchester in Lancashire, and bears the stamp BORIED(_us_) F(_ecit_). A\n_mortarium_ recently dug up in Bow Lane, London, now in the Guildhall\nMuseum, has the name of Averus Veranius with O \u00b7 GARR \u00b7 FAC in smaller\ntype between the words, apparently referring to the place of\nmanufacture.[3628] One of the commonest names is that of Ripanus\nTiberinus, who gives the name of the place where he worked: RIPANVS \u00b7\nTIBER \u00b7 F \u00b7 | LVGVDV FACT, _Ripanus Tiber(inus) f(ecit); Lugudu(ni)\nfact(um)_.[3629] The potters\u2019 names are usually accompanied by the\nletters OF or F. The mortaria vary from seven to twenty-three inches in\ndiameter, and are found in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland.\nOf the second or heavier variety a curious vase in the form of a human\nhead was found at Castor[3630]; much of the New Forest ware also comes\nunder the same heading,[3631] including the small cups with pinched-in\nsides, some being covered with a slip of micaceous consistency.\n\nOf black ware many varieties have been found in Gaul and Britain,\nbesides the special local wares which have already been described. Some\nwere employed as funerary urns, but the majority are of small size, and\nin quality they vary from the extremest coarseness to a fine polished\nclay, producing an effect almost equal to the Greek or Etruscan black\nwares. The finest specimens of plain black ware are to be seen in the\nvases with a highly polished surface, presenting a metallic appearance\nand an olive hue which almost approximates to that of bronze. Examples\nof this ware are found in Gaul at Lezoux, in Britain at Castor, and\nelsewhere.[3632]\n\nIn the first century after Christ a superior kind of black ware seems\nto have been made in Northern Gaul and Germany, described by\nDragendorff as \u201cBelgic black ware.\u201d[3633] The clay is bluish-grey, with\nblack polished surface produced like that of the bucchero ware by\nsmoke, not like the black glaze of later Roman ware. A similar variety\nof grey ware exists, but without glaze or polish. The forms of the\nvases vary very much from the Roman, including a typical high, slim urn\nand other more squat forms, closely imitating metal; they bear some\nrelation to those of the La T\u00e8ne period, and are Celtic or Gaulish\nrather than German.[3634] Such ornamentation as they bear is\nexclusively linear, and never in relief. There is, however, a Roman\nform of plate which often occurs, and, generally speaking, the fabric\nmay be described as a continuation of pre-Roman pottery influenced by\nItaly. It is well represented at Xanten and Andernach, but is not found\non the Limes, and is rare in Britain; it does not seem to have been\nmade after the beginning of the Flavian epoch, when it was largely\nsuperseded by the ordinary Roman black glazed wares.\n\nA special kind of black ware seems to have been made in the valley of\nthe Rhone, consisting of pots of a coarse, gritty paste with micaceous\nparticles, breaking with a coarse fracture of a dark red colour. They\nhave been mostly found at Vienne, where they seem to have been made.\nThe bottom of the vase is usually impressed with a circular stamp with\nthe potter\u2019s name in late letters, as L \u00b7 CASSI \u00b7 O, F(_ir_)MINVS \u00b7 F,\nSEVVO \u00b7 F, SIMILIS \u00b7 F (from Aix).[3635] The well-known name of Fortis\nhas also been found on black ware from Aix.\n\nIn Britain black ware is, as elsewhere, exceedingly common, and a\ntypical group of the smaller varieties is afforded by a series of five\nfound in a sarcophagus at Binsted in Hampshire, now in the British\nMuseum,[3636] consisting of two _calices_, a jar (_olla_), an\n_acetabulum_, and a kind of candlestick. The Upchurch ware largely\nbelongs to this category, and much of the same kind has been found at\nWeymouth.\n\nBrown ware of a very coarse style is often found with other Roman\nremains, consisting of amphorae and other vessels for domestic use.\nExamples of amphorae and jugs with female heads modelled on the necks\nhave been found at Richborough and elsewhere.[3637]\n\nAt Wroxeter the excavations yielded two new classes of pottery, one\nconsisting of narrow-necked jugs and _mortaria_,[3638] very beautifully\nmade from a white local clay, which has been identified with that found\nat Broseley in the neighbourhood, nowadays supplying material for the\nmanufacture of tobacco-pipes. The surface is decorated with red and\nyellow stripes. The other kind is a variety of red ware which has been\nstyled \u201cRomano-Salopian,\u201d made from clay obtained in the Severn valley,\nand differing from the common Roman ware.[3639] It is, however,\nexceedingly doubtful whether these types should be classed under the\nheading Roman.\n\nIn conclusion, it may be noted that although all provincial museums\ncontain more or less complete collections of the ordinary plain\nfabrics, they are for the most part of strictly local origin, and not\nin themselves sufficient for general study. But since the acquisition\nof the Morel Collection by the British Museum the student has ample\nfacilities for investigating there not only the fabrics of Britain, but\nalso those of Gaul, of which an exhaustive series is now incorporated\nin our national collection.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith this review of the ceramic industries of the Roman Empire, we\nconclude our survey of the pottery of the classical world. We have\nfollowed its rise from the rough, almost shapeless products of the\nNeolithic and earliest Bronze Age, when the potter\u2019s wheel was as yet\nunknown (on classical soil), and decoration was not attempted, or was\nconfined to the rudest kinds of incised patterns. We have traced the\ndevelopment of painted decoration from monochrome to polychrome, from\nsimple patterns to elaborate pictorial compositions, and so to its\ngradual decay and disappearance under the luxurious and artificial\ntendencies of the Hellenistic Age, when men were ever seeking for new\nartistic departures, and a new system of technique arose which finally\nsubstituted various forms of decoration in relief for painting. And\nlastly, we have seen how this new system established itself firmly in\nthe domain of Roman art, until with the gradual decay of artistic taste\nand under the encroachments of barbarism, it sank into neglect and\noblivion. We observe, too, with a melancholy interest, that while other\narts, such as architecture, painting, and metal-work, have left some\nsort of heritage to the later European civilisations, and like the\nrunners in the Greek torch-race\n\n vitai lampada tradunt,\n\nthis is not so in the case of pottery. This art had, it would seem,\ncompletely worn itself out, and had, in fact, returned to the level of\nits earliest beginnings. The decorative element disappears, and pottery\nbecomes, as in its earliest days, a mere utilitarian industry, the\nsecrets of its former technical achievements irrevocably lost, its\nornamentation reduced to the simplest and roughest kinds of decoration,\nand its status among the products of human industry once more limited\nto the mere supplying of one of the humblest of men\u2019s needs.\n\nBut this was inevitable, and we must perforce be content; for have we\nnot seen, in the course of its rise and fall, a reflection of the whole\nhistory of Greek art, from the humble beginnings in which Pausanias\ndescried the touch of something divine which presaged its future\ngreatness? It is unnecessary to recapitulate the manner in which the\nsuccessive stages of Greek art are mirrored in the pottery, from the\nfirst efforts of the Athenian potter down to the eclecticism of the\nArretine ware. Let it suffice to say that the object of this work has\nbeen twofold: firstly, to show the many-sided interests of the\nhistorical study of ancient pottery; secondly, to point out its value\nto the student of ancient art and mythology: and that it is the modest\nhope of the writer that this object has been in some measure fulfilled.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 3421:\n\n See a correspondence in the _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine_, 1844-45,\n reprinted in the _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine Library, Romano-British\n Remains_, ii. p. 547 ff.\n\nFootnote 3422:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, xcvi. p. 82.\n\nFootnote 3423:\n\n _Ergebnisse von Olympia_, iv. p. 206: cf. _ibid._ v. p. 783.\n\nFootnote 3424:\n\n _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 93, and index, _s.v._ Samian.\n\nFootnote 3425:\n\n M. D\u00e9chelette\u2019s epoch-making work on Roman pottery in Gaul only\n appeared after this chapter was in type. To make proper use of it\n would have necessitated practically re-writing the chapter; but I\n have remodelled it where absolutely essential, and given frequent\n references to his work in foot-notes, which it is hoped may suffice\n in some measure. Moreover for some of the fabrics I have had the\n advantage of his articles previously published in the _Revue\n Arch\u00e9ol._ xxxviii. (1901) and the _Revue des \u00c9tudes Anciens_, v.\n (1903), which he has since incorporated in his book.\n\nFootnote 3426:\n\n _Terra Sigillata_, in _Bonner Jahrb\u00fccher_, xcvi. (1895), p. 18 ff.\n\nFootnote 3427:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. p. 152 ff.; Koenen, _Gef\u00e4sskunde_, p. 88.\n\nFootnote 3428:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8055, 4-9; 8056, 5, 46-52, 280 ff.; _ibid._ v. 8115, 97.\n\nFootnote 3429:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 16; _Bonner Jahrb._ ci. p. 22.\n\nFootnote 3430:\n\n Cf. Dragendorff\u2019s Nos. 15-17 (plates 1-2) with Nos. 1-3 (plate 1).\n\nFootnote 3431:\n\n For examples from Andernach, see _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. pl. 6, 16,\n pl. 7, 18.\n\nFootnote 3432:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 66, and below, p. 520.\n\nFootnote 3433:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 86.\n\nFootnote 3434:\n\n It was deserted about 5 B.C. See D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 93.\n\nFootnote 3435:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 87 ff.\n\nFootnote 3436:\n\n _Festschr. f\u00fcr Joh. Overbeck_, p. 168; cf. _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. p.\n 155.\n\nFootnote 3437:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. pl. 5, 21, pl. 6, 4, 9-10: cf. Dragendorff\u2019s\n Nos. 19-20.\n\nFootnote 3438:\n\n _Op. cit._ xcvi. p. 87.\n\nFootnote 3439:\n\n For other typical stamps see Dragendorff in _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p.\n 95; _ibid._ lxxxvi. p. 164 ff., lxxxix. p. 51 ff.\n\nFootnote 3440:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1336, 790 is an isolated example of the black ware\n found in London.\n\nFootnote 3441:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 103 ff.; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 64 ff.\n\nFootnote 3442:\n\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 98.\n\nFootnote 3443:\n\n _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 70; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3444:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 105.\n\nFootnote 3445:\n\n See _ibid._ p. 110, pls. 2-3, figs. 31-55, for later provincial forms.\n\nFootnote 3446:\n\n See his vol. i. p. 29, with plates 2-5.\n\nFootnote 3447:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. pls. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 3448:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 126 ff.\n\nFootnote 3449:\n\n Cf. the vases given in Plate LXVII. figs. 1, 2, and D\u00e9chelette, i.\n pp. 70, 180, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 3450:\n\n See below, p. 520\n\nFootnote 3451:\n\n See generally D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 219.\n\nFootnote 3452:\n\n _Ibid._ ii. p. 91 ff.\n\nFootnote 3453:\n\n An exhaustive list of types, figures, and ornaments of all kinds, as\n found in the Graufesenque and Lezoux fabrics, is given by D\u00e9chelette\n in his second volume, p. 5 ff.\n\nFootnote 3454:\n\n See Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 95.\n\nFootnote 3455:\n\n See also the useful list given by Von Hefner in _Oberbayr. Archiv_,\n xxii. (1863), p. 28 ff., giving the chief types on German wares from\n Westerndorf and elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 3456:\n\n See _Cat. of London Antiqs._ Nos. 158 ff. pl. 8; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p.\n 89 ff.; _Collect. Antiq._ _passim_; also Plate LXVIII.\n\nFootnote 3457:\n\n _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 13.\n\nFootnote 3458:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 1682.\n\nFootnote 3459:\n\n Hence Roach-Smith was inclined to date the vase as late as the fifth\n century; but recent researches show that this is impossible. Even in\n the first century vases of this debased style are found. There were\n two potters of the name of Sabinus in the first century in Gaul\n (D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 297).\n\nFootnote 3460:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 139: cf. Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii.\n p. 15.\n\nFootnote 3461:\n\n See _C.I.L._ xiii. part 3, p. 121.\n\nFootnote 3462:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 120. An example from Britain is L. Cosconius Virilis\n (_C.I.L._ vii. 1336, 346: cf. Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. p.\n 155).\n\nFootnote 3463:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiii. 10006, 95, on a _mortarium_.\n\nFootnote 3464:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiii. 10010, 1670.\n\nFootnote 3465:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1314: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxiv. (1894), p. 57.\n\nFootnote 3466:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 86, pl. 13; _Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 75 ff. The\n names of vessels include the interesting word _pannae_, whence our\n \u201cpan.\u201d\n\nFootnote 3467:\n\n See _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl. Gesch._ xxii. (1863), p. 38, pl. 4,\n fig. 1; _C.I.L._ iii. 6010, 68; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 3468:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 136.\n\nFootnote 3469:\n\n _Oberbayr. Archiv_, xxii. (1863), p. 43.\n\nFootnote 3470:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1337, 22.\n\nFootnote 3471:\n\n Orelli, 4189; Blanchet in _Bullet. Arch\u00e9ol._ 1898, p. 29, and _id._,\n _M\u00e9langes Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 109.\n\nFootnote 3472:\n\n See Marquardt, _Privatleben der R\u00f6mer_, p. 648, note 7.\n\nFootnote 3473:\n\n Henzen, 7258; Blanchet, _loc. cit._: cf. _C.I.L._ iii. 5833.\n\nFootnote 3474:\n\n Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Danub. et Rheni_, ii. p. 305; Orelli, 2029.\n\nFootnote 3475:\n\n Orelli, 4302; Henzen, 7259; Blanchet, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3476:\n\n Steiner, _op. cit._ i. p. 58, No. 130. Other names of consuls from\n 199 to 228 are given in _Bonner Jahrb._ xv. p. 61 (these are in\n _graffito_).\n\nFootnote 3477:\n\n Steiner, ii. p. 349 ff., Nos. 1649-51, 1653, 1661; _Bonner Jahrb._\n xv. p. 53 ff.\n\nFootnote 3478:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1877, p. 180; Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iii. pl.\n 31, p. 193.\n\nFootnote 3479:\n\n _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc_, iv. p. 364.\n\nFootnote 3480:\n\n _C.I.L._ vii. 1335, 4.\n\nFootnote 3481:\n\n For the technique of this process see above, p. 442, and Brongniart,\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 425.\n\nFootnote 3482:\n\n There is an example of this ware from Cologne in the British Museum\n (Greek and Roman Department), and others at Turin and Trier.\n D\u00e9chelette (ii. p. 309) states that it is found in the first century\n B.C.\n\nFootnote 3483:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 111 ff.; H\u00f6lder, _Formen der r\u00f6m.\n Thongef._ p. 8.\n\nFootnote 3484:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 309.\n\nFootnote 3485:\n\n Koenen, _Gef\u00e4sskunde_, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 3486:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 120.\n\nFootnote 3487:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 121: cf. _Mus. Borb._ v. 13.\n\nFootnote 3488:\n\n See for examples D\u00e9chelette, ii. pl. 5; _Bonner Jahrb_. lxxxiv. pl.\n 2, figs. 2-5, p. 109; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 93;\n _Oberbayr. Archiv._, 1863, pl. 4, fig. 11; and Plate LXIX. fig. 4.\n\nFootnote 3489:\n\n Vol. ii. p. 325.\n\nFootnote 3490:\n\n i. p. 41 ff.\n\nFootnote 3491:\n\n i. p. 64 ff.\n\nFootnote 3492:\n\n i. p. 138 ff.\n\nFootnote 3493:\n\n _C.I.L._ xiii. 10009, 3; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 31 ff.\n\nFootnote 3494:\n\n _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 12013, 3; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 34.\n\nFootnote 3495:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 60.\n\nFootnote 3496:\n\n See also Jullian in _Revue des \u00c9tudes Anciens_, i. (1899), p. 152.\n\nFootnote 3497:\n\n Painted vases with Geometrical decoration were widely exported, even\n to Bohemia: see _Rev. Arch._ xxvi. (1895), pls. 5, 6, p. 196 ff.;\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1881-2, pls. 3-4, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 3498:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 66; it is the form numbered 11 by Dragendorff.\n\nFootnote 3499:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 68: cf. _C.I.L._ xi. 6700, 821.\n\nFootnote 3500:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. pls. 6, 7, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 3501:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. pl. 8, p. 74.\n\nFootnote 3502:\n\n See also _op. cit._ pl. 9, p. 73.\n\nFootnote 3503:\n\n See his vol. i. p. 75 for further details.\n\nFootnote 3504:\n\n A figure of Artemis is derived from the type given by Hauser,\n _Neuattische Reliefs_, pl. 1, fig. 9: for a _genre_ type, cf. the\n fishermen figured by D\u00e9chelette, _Rev. des \u00c9tudes Anciens_, v. p. 55\n (= _Vases de la Gaule_, ii. p. 91, type No. 556).\n\nFootnote 3505:\n\n The list of names given by D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 81, will render it\n possible to trace Rutenian potters on these sites in _C.I.L._ xiii.\n part 3, fasc. 1: see also vols. vii. (Britain), x. (Campania), xv.\n (Rome), etc., and D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 105 ff.\n\nFootnote 3506:\n\n Examples in British and Guildhall Museums.\n\nFootnote 3507:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 112.\n\nFootnote 3508:\n\n Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 5059, 5273, 5355; 4945.\n\nFootnote 3509:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8055, 27: cf. D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 96 ff.\n\nFootnote 3510:\n\n _C.I.L._ ii. 4970, 559 from Tarraco, and the vase published in _Rev.\n Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 100, fig. 11, from Carthage.\n\nFootnote 3511:\n\n Vol. i. p. 113.\n\nFootnote 3512:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 79.\n\nFootnote 3513:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 97 (\u201cMarmorirung\u201d): see also D\u00e9chelette, i.\n p. 67.\n\nFootnote 3514:\n\n _C.I.L._ x. 8056, 283.\n\nFootnote 3515:\n\n See _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 101; _Gaz. Arch._ 1877, pl. 28, p. 172\n ff.; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 120 ff.\n\nFootnote 3516:\n\n _Mus. Borb._ vii. pl. 29; _C.I.L._ x. 8056, 4; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 121.\n\nFootnote 3517:\n\n D\u00e9chelette (i. p. 125) notes in these names a direct proof of\n exportation; they were carried about by the _negotiatores_ or agents\n (p. 511) to the different regions named.\n\nFootnote 3518:\n\n _\u00c9tude de la C\u00e9ramique Arverno-romaine_ (1887). M. D\u00e9chelette has\n embodied most of Plicque\u2019s researches in his own account of the\n potteries (i. p. 138 ff.).\n\nFootnote 3519:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. pp. 155, 194 ff. for lists of names, with types\n used by each and places where found.\n\nFootnote 3520:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. pls. 4, 5, Nos. 63-71, and p. 149.\n\nFootnote 3521:\n\n _Op. cit._ p. 178 ff.\n\nFootnote 3522:\n\n See Plicque\u2019s summary in his _\u00c9tude de la C\u00e9ramique Arverno-rom_. p.\n 10 ff.\n\nFootnote 3523:\n\n See generally D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 167 ff.; also _Rev. Arch._ ii.\n (1903), pl. 17, p. 387.\n\nFootnote 3524:\n\n Cf. the Greek _stamnos_ (Vol. I. p. 164).\n\nFootnote 3525:\n\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pp. 86, 97, pl. 29; _Cat. of London Antiqs._ pl. 7,\n fig. 2; _Richborough_, p. 74.\n\nFootnote 3526:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 316.\n\nFootnote 3527:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 321.\n\nFootnote 3528:\n\n On the technical aspect of these, see above, p. 441; for all other\n information reference should be made to D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 235 ff.\n\nFootnote 3529:\n\n Froehner, _Coll. Gr\u00e9au_, No. 1353.\n\nFootnote 3530:\n\n D\u00e9chelette states that seventy-nine have been found at Vienne,\n thirty-three at Lyons, and twenty-nine at Orange.\n\nFootnote 3531:\n\n _Mus\u00e9es de France_, pls. 14-16, p. 52 ff.\n\nFootnote 3532:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1877, pl. 12, p. 66. The second of these has passed into\n the British Museum (in the Morel Collection). See Fig. 227, and\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 290.\n\nFootnote 3533:\n\n Stephani, _Vasens._ 1353; _id._, _Compte-Rendu_, 1873, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 3534:\n\n _Recueil_, vi. 107: see D\u00e9chelette, ii. pp. 236, 250, 253, 294.\n\nFootnote 3535:\n\n _Gaz. Arch._ 1889, p. 50, pl. 15.\n\nFootnote 3536:\n\n See also _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 30, p. 178 for examples from Nismes;\n Froehner, _Coll. Gr\u00e9au_, 1351, 1352; _Rev. Arch._ xix. (1892), pl.\n 11, p. 313; Daremberg and Saglio, iii. _art._ Forma, figs. 3184,\n 3185; _C.I.L._ xii. 5687. All previous literature is now superseded\n by D\u00e9chelette\u2019s work (vol. ii. p. 235 ff.).\n\nFootnote 3537:\n\n _Op. cit._ i. p. 27.\n\nFootnote 3538:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 204.\n\nFootnote 3539:\n\n _Ibid._ The form employed is his No. 69.\n\nFootnote 3540:\n\n See Hettner in _Festschrift f\u00fcr J. Overbeck_, p. 165 ff.; Koenen in\n _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxxvi. p. 152 ff.\n\nFootnote 3541:\n\n See Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, p. 40; _Bonner Jahrb._ v. p. 422, pls.\n 13-4; and for stamps, Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Danub. et Rheni_, ii. p.\n 225, No. 1317.\n\nFootnote 3542:\n\n _Oberbayr. Archiv f\u00fcr vaterl\u00e4ndische Geschichte_, xxii. (1863), p. 1\n ff.\n\nFootnote 3543:\n\n A useful summary is given by Von Hefner, p. 28.\n\nFootnote 3544:\n\n Cf. _ibid._ pl. 4, figs. 1-7.\n\nFootnote 3545:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 42.\n\nFootnote 3546:\n\n See Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 99; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 3547:\n\n In the Greek and Roman Department, found at Mainz.\n\nFootnote 3548:\n\n D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 319.\n\nFootnote 3549:\n\n _Archaeologia_, lvii. p. 104.\n\nFootnote 3550:\n\n _Victoria County Hist. of Northants_, p. 211.\n\nFootnote 3551:\n\n _Gef\u00e4sskunde in den Rheinlanden_, p. 65 ff. For various finds of\n pottery in Germany see also _Bonner Jahrb._ lxxiv. p. 147; lxxxiv. p.\n 108 ff.; lxxxix. p. 1 ff.\n\nFootnote 3552:\n\n See _Rev. Arch._ xxxix. (1901), p. 51 ff.\n\nFootnote 3553:\n\n See also generally Von Hefner, _op. cit._; _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p.\n 87 ff., and index to vols. 1-60; Wolff in _Westdeutsche Zeitschr. f\u00fcr\n Gesch. u. Kunst_, xviii. (1899), p. 213.\n\nFootnote 3554:\n\n _Formen der r\u00f6m. Thongef\u00e4sse_, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 3555:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xiii. p. 106 ff., xxxv. p. 46, lxxxvii. p. 61 ff.,\n xcvi. p. 101; D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 311, p. 312, note 3.\n\nFootnote 3556:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. pl. 4, p. 3.\n\nFootnote 3557:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xiii. p. 112; lxxxvii. p. 62; Steiner, _Cod. Inscr.\n Danub. et Rhen._ ii. p. 195, No. 1252 (from Neuss): cf. Virg. _Ecl._\n iii. 47.\n\nFootnote 3558:\n\n Steiner, _op. cit._ p. 100; Gerhard, _Berlins ant. Bildw._ No. 1687;\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. pl. 4, p. 3; _Bonner Jahrb._\n lxxxvii. p. 63.\n\nFootnote 3559:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xiii. p. 113.\n\nFootnote 3560:\n\n _Ibid._ xiii. pp. 109, 113, lxxxvii. p. 64; Steiner, _op. cit._ p.\n 155; and in B.M. (BIBE).\n\nFootnote 3561:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xiii. pp. 107, 108, xxxv. p. 47, lxxxvii. p. 65; B.M.\n (Fig. 229).\n\nFootnote 3562:\n\n _Op. cit._ xxxv. p. 49.\n\nFootnote 3563:\n\n _Op. cit._ xxxv. p. 48, lxxxvii. p. 66.\n\nFootnote 3564:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 113.\n\nFootnote 3565:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 111, lxxxvii. p. 66; B.M.\n\nFootnote 3566:\n\n _Op. cit._ xxxv. p. 49.\n\nFootnote 3567:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 111, lxxxvii. p. 67.\n\nFootnote 3568:\n\n _Op. cit._ lxxxvii. p. 67; _Collect. Antiq._ i. p. 3.\n\nFootnote 3569:\n\n Levezow, _Berliner Verzeichniss,_ p. 366, No. 1470; _Bonner Jahrb._\n lxxxvii. p. 68\n\nFootnote 3570:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xiii. p. 107, lxxxvii. p. 69.\n\nFootnote 3571:\n\n _Ibid._\n\nFootnote 3572:\n\n _Op. cit._ xxxv. p. 49, lxxxvii. p. 70.\n\nFootnote 3573:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 106, xxxv. p. 48, lxxxvii. p. 78: cf. B.M. (REPLE\n COPO DA).\n\nFootnote 3574:\n\n _Op. cit._ xxxv. p. 48, lxxxvii. p. 77.\n\nFootnote 3575:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 106, xxxv. p. 47, lxxxvii. p. 71; Levezow, _op.\n cit._ No. 1469.\n\nFootnote 3576:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 110; Levezow, No. 1471.\n\nFootnote 3577:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 107, xxxv. p. 49, lxxxvii. p. 72.\n\nFootnote 3578:\n\n _Op. cit._ lxxxvii. p. 72; B.M.\n\nFootnote 3579:\n\n _Op. cit._ xiii. p. 110, xxxv. p. 48, lxxxvii. p. 73; B.M. (VIVAS).\n\nFootnote 3580:\n\n _Zeitschr. des Vereins zur Erforsch. d. rhein. Gesch. u. Altert._ iv.\n (1900), p. 266.\n\nFootnote 3581:\n\n For stamps found here and at Voorburg, see Steiner, _Cod. Inscr.\n Danub. et Rhen._ ii. p. 276, No. 1449, p. 293, No. 1484.\n\nFootnote 3582:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xlvi. p. 115; D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 103. They are now in\n the Leiden Museum.\n\nFootnote 3583:\n\n See _C.I.L._ ii. 4970, and p. 512; Brongniart, _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 453;\n D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 16; and above, pp. 479, 499.\n\nFootnote 3584:\n\n See above, p. 536.\n\nFootnote 3585:\n\n See Haverfield in _Cumberland and Westm. Arch. Soc. Trans._ xv. p.\n 191.\n\nFootnote 3586:\n\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pls. 24-8, p. 89 ff.; _Richborough_, pl. 3.\n\nFootnote 3587:\n\n Wellbeloved, _Eburacum_, pl. 16; Scarth, _Aquae Solis_, pl. 43; Lee,\n _Isca Silurum_, pls. II, 12.\n\nFootnote 3588:\n\n _Vict. County Hist. of Warwickshire_, i. p. 230.\n\nFootnote 3589:\n\n _Arch. Aeliana_, x. p. 268; _Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot._ xxx. (1896), p.\n 179 ff.; Haverfield, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 3590:\n\n Haverfield\u2019s fig. 8 (_loc. cit._).\n\nFootnote 3591:\n\n Haverfield, _op. cit._, pl. 7, fig. 7, p. 193; and see p. 528 above.\n\nFootnote 3592:\n\n Cf. Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 35, and see above, p. 502.\n\nFootnote 3593:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iv. pl. 17, p. 63; _Victoria County\n Hist. of Northants_, p. 219.\n\nFootnote 3594:\n\n See D\u00e9chelette, i. p. 282, ii. p. 71, No. 425.\n\nFootnote 3595:\n\n Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl. 30, figs. 1, 4.\n\nFootnote 3596:\n\n _Handbook to British Pottery in Mus. of Pract. Geol._ 1893, p. 72.\n\nFootnote 3597:\n\n vii. 1334-36. Supplementary lists are given in _Arch. Journal_, xxxv.\n p. 289.\n\nFootnote 3598:\n\n See _C.I.L._ vii. p. 238 for bibliography.\n\nFootnote 3599:\n\n _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pp. 102, 107.\n\nFootnote 3600:\n\n General reference may also be made to the archaeological journals of\n the London and provincial societies, and to the volume of the\n _Gentleman\u2019s Magazine Library_ on _Romano-British Remains_; also for\n Norfolk, Northants, Hampshire, and other counties, to the respective\n volumes of the _Victoria County History_.\n\nFootnote 3601:\n\n Cumberland and Westmoreland, Hereford, Hertford, Kent, and Lancashire.\n\nFootnote 3602:\n\n See Haverfield, in _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, p. 208, fig. 29.\n\nFootnote 3603:\n\n Cf. Haverfield, figs. 32, 33.\n\nFootnote 3604:\n\n _Ibid._ fig. 33.\n\nFootnote 3605:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 209.\n\nFootnote 3606:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iv. pl. 21, p. 82; _Vict. County Hist.\n of Northants_, p. 211; _C.I.L._ vii. 1335, 3.\n\nFootnote 3607:\n\n But see above, p. 536, and D\u00e9chelette, ii. p. 311.\n\nFootnote 3608:\n\n _Arch. Journ._ liv. p. 349.\n\nFootnote 3609:\n\n Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl. 28; _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, p.\n 211, fig. 34: cf. _ibid._ p. 190 = fig. 18, p. 192 (from Bedford\n Purlieus).\n\nFootnote 3610:\n\n _Collect. Antiq._ iv. pl. 24.\n\nFootnote 3611:\n\n _Ibid._ iv. p. 91: cf. the vase mentioned on p. 539.\n\nFootnote 3612:\n\n _Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ._ i. p. 5 ff.\n\nFootnote 3613:\n\n Haverfield, in _Vict. County Hist. of Northants_, p. 212.\n\nFootnote 3614:\n\n _Arch. Journ._, xiii. p. 173: cf. _C.I.L._ vii. 1336, 220.\n\nFootnote 3615:\n\n See on this ware Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 178, pl. 36,\n and _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 82; Wright, _Uriconium_, p. 247 ff., and\n _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 260.\n\nFootnote 3616:\n\n Haverfield, in _Vict. County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 3617:\n\n _Archaeologia_, xxxv. p. 91; _Arch. Journ._ liv. p. 348; x. p. 8;\n xxx. p. 319; _Proc. Soc. Antiq._ 1st Ser. ii. p. 285, iv. p. 167.\n\nFootnote 3618:\n\n _Trait\u00e9_, i. p. 381.\n\nFootnote 3619:\n\n _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 3620:\n\n See Bl\u00fcmner, _Technol._ ii. p. 65.\n\nFootnote 3621:\n\n _C.I.L._ xv. p. 560; _Ann. dell\u2019 Inst._ 1878, p. 119 ff.\n\nFootnote 3622:\n\n _Proc. Soc. Ant._ 2nd Ser. iii. (1867), p. 440 (now in B.M.): cf.\n Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl. 49.\n\nFootnote 3623:\n\n Brongniart, i. p. 435.\n\nFootnote 3624:\n\n See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Olla.\n\nFootnote 3625:\n\n Cf. Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 359 ff.; _Archaeologia_,\n xii. pl. 14, p. 108; _Brit. Arch. Assoc. Journ._ i. p. 239; and see\n above, p. 457.\n\nFootnote 3626:\n\n Brongniart, i. p. 437.\n\nFootnote 3627:\n\n See generally _C.I.L._ vii. 1334.\n\nFootnote 3628:\n\n _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xlvi. (1890), p. 156; other examples at\n Colchester and Exeter and Guildhall (_Cat._ p. 104, No. 641, Q \u00b7 ERIV\n \u00b7 GERMANVS): see also _C.I.L._ vii. 1334, 63.\n\nFootnote 3629:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 89; _C.I.L._ vii. 1334, 43.\n\nFootnote 3630:\n\n Artis, _Durobrivae_, pl. 49, fig. 1.\n\nFootnote 3631:\n\n See _Vict. Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 326.\n\nFootnote 3632:\n\n Cf. Plicque, _C\u00e9ramique Arverno-romaine_, pp. 16, 30.\n\nFootnote 3633:\n\n _Bonner Jahrb._ xcvi. p. 88.\n\nFootnote 3634:\n\n _Ibid._ p. 89; Hettner in _Festschr. f\u00fcr Joh. Overbeck_, p. 170.\n\nFootnote 3635:\n\n _C.I.L._ xii. 5685, 195, 362, 831, 845; _B. M. Cat. of Terracottas_,\n E 145-47 (wrongly included in that volume among tile-stamps).\n\nFootnote 3636:\n\n _Arch. Journ._ ix. p. 12.\n\nFootnote 3637:\n\n Roach-Smith, _Richborough_, p. 74; Wright, _Celt, Roman, and\n Saxon^4_, p. 281; others in B.M.\n\nFootnote 3638:\n\n Wright, _Uriconium_, p. 251. Examples may be seen in the Shrewsbury\n Museum.\n\nFootnote 3639:\n\n Wright, _ibid._ p. 252, and _Celt, Roman, and Saxon^4_, p. 278.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n\n NOTE.\u2014_Names of artists and \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names not included in this list will\n be found in those given in Vol. II. p. 273 ff._\n\n\n\nAbaskantos, lamp-maker, i. 108\n\n_Abecedaria_, ii. 311, and see Alphabet\n\nAbella, vases from, i. 81;\n fabric of, i. 484\n\nAcanthus-patterns, ii. 223\n\n_Acetabulum_, ii. 469\n\nAchaeans in Cyprus, i. 245, and see 275\n\nAchelo\u00f6s, ii. 83, 101\n\nAchilles on vases, ii. 120 ff.;\n fight over body of, i. 323\n\nAcids used for cleaning vases, i. 40, 41\n\nAco Acastus, potter, ii. 517\n\n_Acratophorum_, ii. 464\n\nAcrobats, ii. 165, 182\n\nActors on vases, i. 473, ii. 160 ff., 197\n\n_Adjuvate, sodales_, inscription on lamp, ii. 411, 422\n\nAdmetos and Alkestis, ii. 102, 140, 310, 312\n\nAdonis, ii. 42\n\nAdrastos, ii. 119\n\n_Aecetiae pocolom_, i. 490\n\nAegean pottery, i. 262 ff., 275\n\n\u2014\u2014 Islands, vase-finds in the, i. 54 ff.\n\nAegina, personified, ii. 19, 82;\n vases from, i. 54, 308, 492\n\nAegisthos, death of, ii. 138\n\nAeneas on vases, ii. 129, 135;\n on lamps, ii. 414, 421\n\nAeolis, finds in, i. 62;\n pottery of, i. 339, 347, 356\n\nAeolus, ii. 14\n\nAeson, vase-painter, i. 444\n\nAesop on vase, ii. 151;\n on lamp, ii. 415;\n fables of, on lamps, ii. 416\n\n\u201cAffected\u201d amphorae, i. 387\n\nAfrica, types of tombs in, i. 36;\n vases from, i. 67;\n Ionic pottery of, i. 340 ff.;\n relations with Ionia, i. 355;\n lamps from, ii. 399, 406, 427;\n bust of, on lamp, ii. 412\n\n\u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1, i. 98\n\nAgamedes and Trophonios, ii. 140\n\nAgamemnon on vases, ii. 126, 137\n\nAgia Paraskevi (Cyprus), i. 35, 66, 246\n\nAgon, ii. 89, 194\n\nAgra, mysteries of, ii. 27, 104\n\nAgriculture on vases, ii. 171\n\nAgrigentum, see Girgenti\n\nAgrios, myth of, ii. 141\n\nAgrippa, painter on terracotta, i. 119, ii. 366\n\nAigeus, ii. 108\n\nAithra, ii. 24\n\nAjax, son of O\u00efleus, ii. 134, 135\n\n\u2014\u2014 son of Telamon, ii. 124, 128, 129;\n death of, ii. 133, 310\n\nAkamas and Demophon, ii. 135\n\n\u1f04\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 186\n\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, i. 173\n\nAkratos, i. 88, ii. 64\n\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, i. 97 ff.\n\nAktaeon on vases, ii. 35, 310;\n on lamps, ii. 414;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 508\n\nAktor and Astyoche, ii. 143\n\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7, i. 133\n\nAlabastron, i. 196, 308, 312, 492\n\nAlba Longa, i. 79;\n hut-urns from, ii. 288\n\nAlcaeus quoted, i. 133;\n on vases, ii. 151\n\nAlexander the Great on Arretine vase, ii. 494\n\n\nAlexandria, vases from, i. 67, 146;\n porcelain ware of, i. 129;\n wine-amphorae from, i. 154 ff.\n\nAlexandrine subjects on vases, i. 502;\n in Gaulish terracottas, ii. 386;\n on Roman lamps, ii. 418;\n on Arretine vases, ii. 489\n\nAlkestis, see Admetos\n\nAlkmena, i. 480, ii. 19\n\nAlkyoneus, ii. 100\n\nAllegory on vases, i. 21\n\nAllier, valley of, as centre for Gaulish terracottas, ii. 380 ff.;\n for pottery, ii. 533;\n clay of, ii. 434\n\nAllifae, pottery of, ii. 475, 478\n\n\u1f00\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b5\u03ba\u1fc6, ii. 179, 200\n\nAlphabet, introduction into Greece and early varieties, ii. 245 ff.;\n scheme of early varieties, ii. 248;\n Attic, i. 12, ii. 246, 268;\n early Etruscan, ii. 296, 311\n\nAltemura, vases from, i. 85\n\nAlyzia, inscribed tile from, i. 102\n\nAmasis, king of Egypt, i. 345\n\n\u2014\u2014 potter, i. 381 ff., 387\n\n\u2014\u2014 vase-painter, i. 439\n\nAmathus, pottery from, i. 36, 66, 147, 250, 253\n\nAmazons on vases, ii. 99, 111, 132, 144, 195;\n on lamps, ii. 415\n\nAmerica, museums of, i. 26, 30\n\nAmorgos, pottery from, i. 56, 262\n\nAmphiaraos, i. 76, 318, ii. 118\n\nAmphion, ii. 117\n\nAmphitrite, ii. 23, 189\n\n_Amphitruo_ of Rhinthon, see i. 473\n\nAmphorae, forms of Greek, i. 153 ff.;\n Apulian, i. 162, 469;\n Attic, i. 295, 368, 372, 411;\n Chalcidian, i. 322;\n Melian, i. 57, 301;\n Nicosthenic, i. 385;\n Panathenaic, i. 46, 69, 84, 132, 145, 388 ff.;\n \u201cTyrrhenian,\u201d i. 160, 324;\n \u201caffected,\u201d i. 387;\n \u201cfalse-necked,\u201d i. 246, 271;\n ornamentation of, i. 375, ii. 234;\n prices paid for, i. 44 ff.;\n ancient examples at Erythrae, i. 205;\n used as wine-jars, i. 154 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 460 ff.\n\n\u1f04\u03bc\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, i. 186\n\n_Ampulla_, ii. 465\n\nAmyklae, pottery from, i. 52\n\nAmykos, ii. 115\n\nAmymone, ii. 24\n\nAnakles, potter, i. 384\n\nAnakreon on vases, ii. 152\n\nAnalyses of pottery, i. 203, ii. 301, 435\n\nAnanke, ii. 69, 90\n\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, ii. 178\n\nAndernach, Roman pottery from, ii. 500, 502, 509, 522, 533\n\nAndokides, potter, i. 386, 401, ii. 258\n\nAndromache and Astyanax, ii. 131\n\nAndromeda, ii. 113\n\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1, ii. 75\n\nAnimals on early vases, see Chapters VI.\u2013VIII. _passim_;\n as subjects on vases, ii. 184 ff.;\n on lamps, ii. 418;\n as pets, ii. 168, 173\n\nAnnia Arescusana, potter, ii. 367\n\n_Annum novum faustum felicem_, inscription on lamps, ii. 398, 420\n\n_Ansae lunulatae_, ii. 287\n\nAntaios, i. 431, ii. 100\n\nAntefixal ornaments, Greek, i. 97 ff.;\n Etruscan, ii. 317;\n Roman, ii. 343 ff., and see 365, 371\n\n_Ante-Homerica_, subjects from, ii. 4, 119 ff.\n\n_Antepagmentum_, ii. 315, 365\n\nAnthedon, vases from, i. 53\n\nAntonius Epaphras, M., potter, ii. 367\n\nAnzi, vases found at, i. 83, 481\n\nApate, ii. 90\n\nApes on vases, i. 355, ii. 185\n\nAphidna, early pottery from, i. 49, 278\n\nAphrodite, in terracottas, i. 123 ff.;\n dedications to, at Naukratis, i. 345;\n representations of, on vases, ii. 42 ff., 191;\n on cup in B. M., i. 434, 457;\n with Persephone, ii. 28, 42;\n at Judgment of Paris, ii. 122;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 368;\n in Gaulish terracottas, ii. 385;\n on lamps, ii. 410;\n and see Venus\n\nApollo, dedications to, i. 139, 345;\n representations of, on vases, ii. 29 ff., 189;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 13, 15;\n with Herakles, ii. 33, 97, 103;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 368;\n on lamps, ii. 409;\n and see Helios\n\nApollodoros, vase-painter, i. 439\n\nApollonia, vases from, i. 60\n\nAppius, L., potter, ii. 490\n\n_Appliqu\u00e9_ reliefs, i. 119, 497;\n at Lezoux, ii. 529;\n and see \u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n\nApuleius quoted, ii. 403\n\nApulia, vases from, i. 83 ff.;\n local pottery of, ii. 323 ff.;\n painted pottery of, i. 468 ff., 485, 486;\n shapes, i. 144, 171, 178, 179, 469;\n ornamentation, i. 468, ii. 235;\n arrangement of subjects on, ii. 209;\n inscriptions on, ii. 271 ff.;\n sepulchral subjects on, i. 144, 476, ii. 157;\n scenes from Under-world on, ii. 67 ff.\n\nAqueducts, use of brick in, ii. 336\n\nArchemoros, ii. 118\n\n\u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, ii. 92\n\nArchers, ii. 177, 178, 199\n\nArchikles, potter, i. 374, 384\n\nArchitecture, terracotta used in, i. 91 ff.;\n in Etruria, ii. 314 ff.;\n at Rome and Pompeii, ii. 330 ff.;\n use of bricks and tiles in, i. 91 ff., ii. 336 ff., 343;\n use of vases in, ii. 457;\n treatment of, in vase-paintings, ii. 205 ff.;\n imitations of, in arrangement of designs, i. 378, ii. 207;\n in patterns, ii. 211\n\nArchons, names of, on vases, i. 69, 390\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03b4\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 167\n\nAres on vases, ii. 41, 190;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 13, 15;\n on lamps, ii. 409\n\nArezzo, pottery found at, i. 29, 72, ii. 479, 481;\n potters\u2019 tools and stamps from, i. 207, ii. 438, 439, 493;\n and see Arretium\n\nArgolis, pottery from, i. 51;\n as centre of fabric, i. 274, 298, 307, 336;\n inscriptions in alphabet of, i. 308, 335, 357, ii. 249\n\nArgonauts on vases, i. 442, ii. 115, and see ii. 104\n\nArgos, vases from, i. 52\n\n\u2014\u2014 guardian of Io, ii. 20\n\nAriadne on vases, ii. 57, 110, 298\n\nAridikes and Telephanes, painters, i. 312, 320, 395\n\nArimaspi, ii. 148\n\nAristono\u00f6s, vase of, i. 168, 297, ii. 249\n\nAristophanes quoted or referred to, i. 132, 143, ii. 266\n\n\u2014\u2014 vase painter, i. 444\n\nArkesilaos of Kyrene, i. 341 ff., ii. 149;\n cup with subject of, i. 44, 341 ff., ii. 149, 250\n\n\u2014\u2014 sculptor and modeller, ii. 372\n\nArles, pottery from, ii. 524\n\nArmed foot-race, ii. 164\n\nArmento, vases from, i. 83\n\nArming of warriors, ii. 175\n\nArmour, how represented, ii. 198\n\nArrangement of subjects on vases, ii. 206 ff.\n\nArretine vases, ii. 479 ff.;\n connection of, with Gaulish ware, ii. 500, 517 ff.\n\nArretium as centre of fabric, ii. 432, 475, 477;\n and see Arezzo\n\nArtemis, on lamps, i. 107, ii. 409;\n on vases, ii. 30 ff., 35, 190;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 13, 15;\n as Aidos, ii. 90;\n Asiatic, i. 56, 289, 301, ii. 35;\n Diktynna, i. 497, ii. 35\n\nArtis on kilns at Castor, ii. 435, 447 ff.\n\nArtistic aspects of study of vases, i. 13, and see i. 20\n\nArtists\u2019 signatures, ii. 244, 257 ff., 272;\n list of, ii. 273 ff.;\n Athenian, i. 379 ff., 420 ff., ii. 257 ff.\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03cd\u03c1, \u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, i. 179\n\n\u1f00\u03c1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, i. 179\n\nAryballos, i. 127, 197, 300;\n Corinthian, i. 312;\n later type, i. 412, 492\n\nAshmolean Museum, see Oxford\n\nAsia personified, ii. 81\n\nAsia Minor, vase-collections in, i. 30;\n tombs of, i. 34;\n vase-finds in, i. 61, 330, 356;\n lamps from, i. 108;\n porcelain ware from, i. 129\n\nAsiatic art, influence of, on Arretine ware, ii. 489;\n and see Ionic\n\nAsine, pottery from, i. 52\n\nAsklepios, ii. 76;\n on lamp (?), ii. 416\n\nAskos, i. 119, 129, 199;\n local Apulian, ii. 325, 326\n\nAssariik, pottery from, i. 64, 280, 340\n\nAssos, pottery from, i. 62\n\nAssteas, vase-painter, i. 81, 83, 472, 474, 478 ff., ii. 104, 271\n\nAssyrian bricks and cylinders, i. 6, 7;\n enamels, i. 8;\n textile fabrics, i. 312, 333, 334;\n influence on Greek pottery, i. 295, 333;\n and see Oriental\n\nAsti, see Hasta\n\n\n\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 on tiles, i. 101\n\nAstyanax, ii. 131, 134\n\nAtalante, ii. 141, 142;\n on Gaulish vase, ii. 532\n\n\u2014\u2014 in Lokris, vases found at, i. 53\n\nAte, ii. 90\n\nAteius, Cn., potter, ii. 500\n\nAthamas (?), see Salmoneus\n\nAthena, on vases, i. 323, ii. 37 ff.;\n types of, ii. 190;\n statues of, ii. 40, 134, and see Palladion;\n Parthenos on vases, i. 449, 451;\n Promachos, i. 389;\n with Poseidon on vase, i. 464, 497, ii. 24;\n on lamp, ii. 409;\n birth of, i. 370, 396, ii. 15, 294;\n birth-type used for other scenes, i. 388;\n with Herakles, ii. 38, 105;\n in Trojan scenes, ii. 39, 133;\n at Judgment of Paris, ii. 122\n\nAthenaeus on shapes of vases, i. 148 ff.;\n on drinking-cups, i. 180 ff.\n\n\u1f08\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 on tile from Marathon, i. 99\n\nAthenian artists or potters, i. 379 ff., 421 ff., ii. 255 ff.;\n migration of, to other parts, i. 464, 465;\n festivals, ii. 156;\n horsemen or knights, ii. 166, 177, 179;\n sepulchral reliefs, i. 477, ii. 158;\n tribal heroes, ii. 140;\n vases made for Cyprus, i. 255;\n exported to other parts, i. 11, 405, 458, 464;\n influenced by Ionian, i. 294, 295, 388;\n contrasted with Ionian, i. 332, 356;\n chronology of, i. 401 ff., 463, ii. 270;\n and see generally Dipylon, Proto-Attic, Black-figured, Red-figured;\n white lekythi, i. 48, 54, 86, 132, 142, 196, 454 ff., ii. 157\n\nAthens, history of, in connection with vases, i. 11, 369, 418, 463;\n finds of vases at, i. 12, 33, 46 ff.;\n of lamps, i. 108;\n museum of, i. 26, 30, 48;\n Acropolis, finds on, i. 33, 48, 138, 402;\n tombs at, i. 33, 47, 142, 147;\n modern forgers at, i. 43;\n potters\u2019 quarter at, i. 89, 231;\n public measure at, i. 135;\n early artistic position of, i. 235, 292, 369;\n art of painting at, i. 396 ff., 409, 441 ff., 454;\n pottery of, see Chapters VI., VII., IX.-XI. _passim_;\n its native origin, i. 20, 278;\n inscriptions on vases, ii. 255 ff., and see Attic;\n termination of vase-painting at, i. 463 ff.\n\nAthletes on vases, i. 417, 476, ii. 162 ff.;\n attire of, ii. 197\n\nAtilius, K., potter, i. 502\n\nAtlantes of terracotta at Pompeii, ii. 374\n\nAtlas, ii. 75\n\nAtreus and Thyestes, ii. 141\n\n_Attegia tegulicia_, ii. 342\n\nAttic alphabet, i. 12, ii. 246, 268;\n dialect, ii. 237, 255;\n inscriptions, i. 291, 296, 325, 370, 379, ii. 255 ff.;\n palaeography of, ii. 268 ff.;\n comedy reflected on vases, i. 473, 483, 484;\n legends on vases, ii. 138 ff.\n\nAttica, finds of pottery in, i. 49, 278 ff.;\n and see Athens\n\nAuge, i. 474, ii. 104\n\nAulis, scenes at, ii. 124\n\nAurae, ii. 81, 193\n\nAuster, stamp of, ii. 440\n\n_Australis_ on Roman tile, ii. 359\n\nAustria, vase-collections of, i. 28\n\nAuvergne, potteries in, ii. 504;\n and see Lezoux\n\n_Avot_ for _fecit_, ii. 382, 509\n\n\nBabylonia, bricks of, i. 6, 8, 91, 94;\n cylinders and tablets, i. 7;\n enamels, i. 8\n\nBacchic scenes, see Dionysiac\n\nBacchylides and vase-paintings, ii. 6\n\nBaking, of terracottas, i. 116;\n of vases, i. 214 ff.;\n ovens for, i. 105;\n and see Kilns\n\nBall-games, ii. 167\n\nBanassac, fabric of, ii. 524\n\nBanquet-scenes, ii. 180 ff.;\n use of kylix in, i. 188\n\nBarbarians on vases, i. 420, ii. 178 ff.\n\nBarbotine decoration, i. 130, 210, ii. 438, 442, 505, 512;\n in Germany, ii. 513, 536;\n at Lezoux, ii. 528, 529;\n at Castor, ii. 544\n\nBargates, potter, ii. 483\n\nBari, vases from, i. 84, 86;\n local pottery of, ii. 326\n\n\u201cBase-ring\u201d ware (Cypriote), i. 242\n\nBasile and Echelos, ii. 27, 140\n\nBathing-scenes, ii. 165, 173\n\nBaths, use of tiles in, i. 103, ii. 342, 346;\n use of bricks in, ii. 331, 335, 339;\n vessels used for, i. 176\n\n\u2014\u2014 of Caracalla, arrangements of, ii. 347\n\nBears on lamps, ii. 398\n\n\u201cBelgic\u201d black ware, ii. 552\n\nBellerophon on vases, ii. 114;\n on lamps, ii. 414\n\nBenghazi, vases from, i. 68;\n porcelain ware from, i. 129;\n and see Cyrenaica\n\nBerlin Museum, i. 25, 28\n\n_Bibe, amice, de meo_ on Gaulish vase, ii. 524\n\n\u03b2\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, i. 164\n\n\u201cBilingual\u201d vases, i. 387\n\nBiremes on Geometrica vases, i. 291, ii. 178\n\nBlacas krater, i. 409, 443, ii. 78, 79\n\nBlack punctured ware (Cypriote), i. 242\n\n\u2014\u2014 slip ware (Cypriote), i. 241\n\n\u2014\u2014 varnish, i. 210, 219 ff., 371, 405\n\n\u2014\u2014 wares (Etruscan), ii. 291;\n mentioned in Latin literature, ii. 304;\n plain Roman, ii. 552;\n and see Etruria, Naukratis, etc.\n\nBlack-bodied amphorae, i. 151;\n other vases, i. 221\n\nBlack-figured vases, i. 219, 368;\n from Cyprus, i. 255;\n from Ionia, i. 330, 356 ff.;\n technique of, i. 219, 370;\n shapes, i. 372 ff.;\n ornamentation, i. 375 ff., ii. 234;\n subjects, i. 376 ff.;\n artists of, i. 379 ff., ii. 274;\n arrangement of subjects on, ii. 207;\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names on, ii. 277;\n transition to R.F., i. 386, 393, 400;\n treatment of eye on, compared with R.F., i. 408;\n subjects compared with R.F., i. 416 ff.;\n varieties of amphora in, i. 159\n\nBlanchet on Gaulish terracottas, ii. 380 ff.;\n on kilns in France, ii. 443, 451;\n on Gaulish pottery-centres, ii. 533\n\nBoar-hunts on vases, i. 315, ii. 166;\n and see Calydonian\n\nBoat-shaped vases, i. 186;\n lamps, ii. 403\n\nB\u00f6hlau on Geometrical pottery, i. 286 ff.;\n on Proto-Attic, i. 292;\n on Phaleron ware, i. 298;\n on Ionic pottery, i. 336 ff.\n\nBoeotia, pottery from, i. 52;\n tiles from, i. 102;\n terracottas from, i. 118, 123, 290;\n Mycenaean pottery from, i. 274;\n Geometrical, i. 52, 159, 286;\n bronze fibulae of, i. 290;\n Proto-Corinthian vases, i. 307;\n later local fabrics, i. 300, 391, 451;\n vases with reliefs, i. 497;\n alphabet of, ii. 252;\n artists\u2019 signatures, ii. 252, 273\n\nBoiae, foundation of (?), ii. 143\n\nBologna, vases from, i. 72;\n Villanuova civilisation at, ii. 285\n\nBolsena, vases from, i. 73, 501\n\nBomarzo, vases from, i. 74\n\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03bc\u03b2\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, i. 198\n\nBorax, use of, for red glaze, ii. 437\n\nBoreades, ii. 81, 115, 116\n\nBoreas, ii. 80, 115, 194\n\nBoriedus, potter, ii. 551\n\nBoston Museum, i. 26, 30;\n vase in, ii. 483\n\nBowls, Megarian or Homeric, i. 50, 53, 134, 185, 499;\n for libations, i. 140, 192, ii. 471;\n \u201cItalian Megarian,\u201d ii. 490;\n forms of Gaulish, ii. 501, 520 ff.;\n and see _Calix_, _Patera_, Phiale\n\nBoxers, ii. 163\n\nBraziers, i. 105\n\nBricks, use of, in Babylonia, i. 6, 91;\n in Greece, i. 89 ff.;\n in Etruria, ii. 314;\n at Rome, ii. 331, 336, 340, 352;\n at Pompeii, ii. 337;\n sun-dried, i. 91 ff., ii. 331, 335;\n baked, i. 95, ii. 334 ff.;\n sizes of Roman, ii. 332;\n methods of construction in, ii. 337 ff.;\n stamps and inscriptions on, ii. 352 ff.;\n and see Tiles\n\nBridal scenes, see Marriage\n\nBritain, vase-collections in, i. 27;\n use of brick in, ii. 332, 337, and see 335;\n tiles from, ii. 346, 348, 358, 359, 363;\n terracotta statuettes from, ii. 379, 384;\n kilns found in, ii. 444, 445, 454;\n wine-amphorae, ii. 461;\n Roman pottery found in, ii. 540 ff.;\n imported wares, ii. 504, 540;\n subjects, 508;\n types and chronological sequence, ii. 540;\n barbotine wares in, ii. 513, 544;\n Rutenian, ii. 522;\n Lezoux ware, ii. 529;\n \u201cfalse Samian\u201d ware, ii. 541;\n potters\u2019 names from, ii. 542;\n local fabrics, ii. 543 ff.;\n plain wares, ii. 549 ff.;\n and see Castor, New Forest, Upchurch\n\nBritish Museum, i. 17, 24, 27;\n prices paid by, for vases, i. 43 ff.\n\n\u2014\u2014 School at Athens, excavations of, i. 57, 262, 265\n\n\u0392\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, i. 186\n\nBrongniart on Greek vases, i. 203;\n on _bucchero_, ii. 301;\n on plain Roman wares, ii. 437, 548\n\nBronze, workers in, ii. 171;\n imitations of, in _bucchero_ ware, ii. 303;\n in Roman pottery, ii. 528, 552\n\n\u2014\u2014 Age in Cyprus, i. 35, 66, 206, 237 ff.;\n in Italy, ii. 283 ff.;\n porcelain ware of, i. 127\n\nBrunn on Melian reliefs, i. 120\n\nBrushes used for painting vases, i. 227\n\nBrygos, potter, i. 421, 437, ii. 256\n\n_Bucchero_ ware in Cyprus, i. 242;\n in Etruria, ii. 289, 295, 301 ff.\n\nBucket, see \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, Situla\n\nBularchos, painter, i. 361, 363\n\nBurgon vases, i. 45, 47, 57, 145, 285, 295\n\nBurial scenes, and use of vases in, see Funeral\n\nBurlesques, ii. 159;\n and see Caricatures, Comedy\n\nBusiris, ii. 102\n\nBusts of terracotta (funereal), i. 123\n\nButades, i. 98, 110\n\nButrio, potter, ii. 527\n\n\nCacus, ii. 100\n\n_Cadus_, ii. 463;\n and see \u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n\nCaecilius Saevus, L., lamp-maker, ii. 406, 423, 425, 428\n\nCaere, see Cervetri\n\nCaeretan hydriae, i. 166, 353 ff., ii. 308;\n allied fabrics, i. 356 ff.\n\nCaesar, C. Julius, his finds of vases at Corinth, i. 134\n\nCaistor-by-Norwich, kiln at, ii. 445, 449\n\nCalene phialae, i. 502, and see ii. 490\n\nCalidius Strigo, potter, ii. 482\n\n_Calix_, ii. 468;\n and see Bowl, Kylix\n\nCalvi (Cales), vases from, i. 81, 119, 146, 191, 502\n\nCalydonian boar-hunt, ii. 114, 294\n\nCalyx-patterns, ii. 221\n\nCambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, i. 27\n\nCambridgeshire, Roman tombs in, ii. 351, 456\n\nCampania, vases found in, i. 80, 146;\n amphorae of, i. 162, 469, 484;\n fabrics of, i. 467 ff., 482 ff.;\n local, i. 227, 484;\n Roman pottery in, ii. 475, 478\n\nCandelabrum-amphorae, i. 162\n\nCanino, i. 44, 76;\n and see Vulci\n\nCanoleius, L., potter, i. 502\n\nCanopic jars (Etruscan), ii. 304\n\nCanosa, vases from, i. 84, 118, 146, 487\n\n_Capedo, capis_, ii. 471\n\nCapitoline Jupiter, temple of, ii. 314, 371, and see i. 116;\n statue of, ii. 314, 372\n\nCapua, vases from, i. 81, ii. 488, 493;\n tiles from, i. 98, 103;\n vases with gilding from, i. 210, 231, 498;\n forgeries made at, i. 42\n\nCaria, pottery from, i. 64, 330, 340\n\nCaricatures on vases, i. 392\n\nCarthage, lamps from, ii. 397, 399, 405, 422;\n Gaulish vase at, ii. 523\n\nCasks, see Dolium, Pithos\n\nCastor, kilns of, ii. 435, 437, 444, 446 ff.;\n ware of, ii. 543, and see 442, 536\n\n_Catagrapha_, i. 397, 455\n\nCatalogues of vases, i. 26 ff.;\n and see Bibliography in Vol. I.\n\n_Catinus_ and _catillus_, ii. 469\n\nCato on terracotta sculpture at Rome, ii. 373\n\nCaudebec, terracotta figure from, ii. 384\n\nCave-dwellings, pottery from, i. 4\n\nCeglie, vases from, i. 84\n\nCentaurs, ii. 102, 111, 145, 195\n\nCentorbi, vases from, i. 87\n\nCerialis, potter, ii. 439, 511, 536\n\nCerigo, see Kythera\n\nCervetri (Caere), vases from, i. 75, ii. 292 ff., 297, 307, 308;\n architectural terracottas from, i. 98, ii. 315, 317;\n vases with reliefs from, i. 496, ii. 292;\n painted slabs from, ii. 299, 319;\n Regulini-Galassi tomb at, ii. 300;\n _abecedaria_ from, ii. 311;\n sarcophagi from, ii. 317, 321\n\nCesnola, i. 65\n\nChachrylion, potter, i. 420, 424, 427, 430\n\ncha\u1fd6re ka\u1f76 p\u03afei e\u1f56, i. 373, ii. 265\n\nChalcidian vases, i. 321 ff.;\n alphabet and inscriptions, ii. 253\n\nChalcosthenes or Caicosthenes, i. 92\n\nChalkis as pottery centre, i. 55, 307, 321 ff., 495\n\nChamber-tombs (Etruscan), ii. 294 ff.\n\nChares, vase-painter, i. 315\n\nCharinos, potter, i. 411, 492\n\nChariot-scenes on vases, ii. 164, 166, 176;\n on lamps, ii. 417, 422\n\nCharioteer, dress of, ii. 198\n\nCharon, i. 459, ii. 69, 193\n\nCharun, ii. 69, 193, 310\n\nCheiron, ii. 95, 120, 145\n\nChelis, potter, i. 420, 424, 427\n\nChequer-patterns, ii. 215\n\nChest of Kypselos, see Kypselos\n\nChevron-patterns, ii. 214\n\nChigi vase, i. 309\n\nChildren, vases used by, i. 137;\n subjects relating to, ii. 167, 174\n\nChimaera, ii. 114, 148\n\nChiton, treatment of, on vases, i. 372, ii. 200\n\nChiusi, vases from, i. 73;\n as centre for Etruscan pottery, ii. 302, 304\n\nChristian lamps, ii. 404, 420\n\nChronology of Cypriote pottery, i. 245 ff.;\n of Cretan, i. 265;\n of R.F. vases, i. 401 ff., 463, ii. 271;\n of Gaulish terracottas, ii. 385;\n of Roman lamps, ii. 399 ff.;\n of Gaulish pottery, ii. 501 ff., 516 ff.\n\nChrysaor, ii. 112\n\nChryse, ii. 105, 115, 124\n\nChrysos, ii. 85, 88\n\nChthonian deities, in terracottas, i. 123 ff.;\n on vases, ii. 67 ff.\n\n\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1, i. 174\n\n\u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03c7\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, i. 232\n\nCiborium, i. 186, ii. 468\n\nCicero quoted, ii. 365, 371\n\nCincelli, potteries at, ii. 480, 483\n\nCinerary urns, i. 144 ff.;\n Etruscan, ii. 285, 288;\n Roman, ii. 456, and see 550;\n and see _Ossuaria_\n\nCinnamus, potter, ii. 527\n\nCircle-patterns, ii. 216\n\nCircus, scenes from, on mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n on lamps, ii. 417, 422\n\nCistae, Etruscan, compared with vases, ii. 307\n\nCities personified, ii. 81, 82, 194\n\nCivil use of pottery, see Measures\n\nCivita Castellana, see Falerii\n\n\u2014\u2014 Lavinia, terracottas from, i. 98, 101, ii. 316, 317\n\n\u2014\u2014 Vecchia, vases from, i. 74\n\nClassical literature, see Literature\n\nClay, earliest working in, i. 5 ff.;\n uses of, i. 89 ff.;\n varieties of, i. 113, 204;\n used for bricks and tiles, i. 90 ff., ii. 333 ff.;\n for sarcophagi, i. 104;\n for models, i. 111, ii. 375;\n for porcelain objects, i. 127;\n in sculpture, i. 109 ff., ii. 314, 317, 371 ff.;\n nature of, for terracotta figures, i. 113, ii. 380;\n for mural reliefs, ii. 366;\n for lamps, ii. 404;\n for Roman pottery, ii. 434 ff., 548;\n preparation of, for vases, i. 202 ff.;\n representations of digging for, ii. 170\n\nClazomenae, vases from, i. 62, 64, 330, 354, 356;\n as centre of Ionic fabric, i. 350, 354;\n sarcophagi of, i. 62, 362 ff.;\n compared with vases, i. 350 ff.\n\nCobnertus, potter, ii. 440\n\nCoins, terracotta moulds for, i. 106, ii. 390 ff.;\n compared with R.F. vases, i. 426;\n evidence of, for Greek alphabets, ii. 246\n\nColchester, terracottas from, ii. 384;\n kilns at, ii. 445;\n vase from, ii. 544\n\nCollections of vases, early, i. 16 ff.;\n list of existing, i. 27 ff.\n\nColours used for terracottas, i. 116;\n for vases, i. 230;\n in Etruscan art, ii. 299, 321 ff.;\n for mural reliefs, ii. 366\n\nCombats, ii. 175 ff.;\n and see Gladiators\n\nComedy, scenes from, on vases, i. 473, ii. 160\n\nComitialis, potter, ii. 511\n\n\u201cComplementary\u201d method of representation, ii. 10\n\nConcentric circles, Cypriote, i. 251, ii. 216\n\n_Conclamatio_, ii. 157\n\nConcrete, use of, in Roman buildings, ii. 335 ff.\n\nCondatomagus, see Graufesenque\n\n_Congius_, ii. 472\n\nConsuls, names of, on tiles, ii. 360;\n on vases, ii. 462, 512\n\n\u201cContinuous\u201d method of representation, ii. 10\n\nConvivial inscriptions, ii. 265, 524, 538\n\nCooking-vessels, i. 174, ii. 470\n\nCorfu, vases from, i. 54; tiles from, i. 101\n\nCorinth, its early commercial and artistic importance, i. 11, 303;\n finds of pottery at, i. 50, 139, 304, 305, 307;\n amphora-handles from, i. 158;\n clay of, i. 304, 305;\n industries of, represented on vases, i. 207, 216, 305, 317, ii. 170\n\nCorinthian krater, i. 168;\n kylix, i. 190;\n painters, i. 312, 320, 395;\n pinakes, i. 51, 139, 207, 216, 224, 305, 316, ii. 23, 170, 249, 251;\n vases generally, i. 304 ff.;\n sites where found, i. 304;\n classification, i. 305 ff.;\n shapes, i. 311 ff., 317;\n ornamentation, i. 311 ff., 320, ii. 233;\n subjects, i. 314, 318;\n inscriptions, i. 315, 326, ii. 249 ff.;\n potters\u2019 names, i. 315, ii. 250, 273;\n imitations of, i. 321;\n types from, on \u201cTyrrhenian\u201d amphorae, i. 326;\n points of contact with Ionia, i. 329 ff.;\n found in Etruria, i. 77, 318, ii. 294 ff., 307\n\nCorintho-Attic vases, see Tyrrhenian\n\nCornelius, P., potter, ii. 482\n\nCorneto, vases from, i. 74, ii. 284\n\nCornices of terracotta, i. 97, ii. 344\n\nCosmogonic deities, ii. 73 ff.\n\nCostume on Greek vases, ii. 200 ff.\n\nCountries personified, ii. 81, 82, 194\n\n\u201cCourting\u201d-scenes, i. 475, ii. 183\n\n_Crater_, see Krater\n\nCrescent patterns, ii. 218\n\nCretan bull, ii. 96\n\nCrete, finds in, i. 59, 152, 263 ff.;\n _ossuaria_ in, i. 145, 272;\n ethnography of, i. 264;\n early pottery of, i. 265 ff.;\n as Mycenaean centre, i. 269, 274;\n influence on later pottery, i. 276;\n the island personified, ii. 82\n\nCrimea, vases from, i. 60, 330, 340, 447, 448, 464;\n wine-amphorae from, i. 158\n\nCroesus, see Kroisos\n\n_Crudus_, used of bricks, i. 90, 92;\n of vases, i. 214\n\n\u201cCult of Tomb\u201d on lekythi, i. 143, 459, 460, ii. 158;\n on Apulian vases, i. 144, 476, ii. 158\n\nCumae, vases from, i. 80, 210;\n fabrics of, i. 483, ii. 478\n\nCupid, see Eros\n\nCups, see Drinking-cup, Kylix, etc.\n\nCuretes and infant Zeus, ii. 368\n\nCurium, tombs at, i. 36, 255, and see 66, 67;\n vases from, i. 128, 243 ff., 488\n\nCyathus, ii. 467;\n and see Kyathos\n\nCyclades, finds in, i. 56;\n early pottery of, i. 9, 56, 260 ff., 303\n\nCyclic poets and vase-subjects, ii. 4, 119 ff.\n\n_Cycnus_, scene from drama of, ii. 531\n\nCylinders, Assyrian, i. 7\n\nCyprus, vase-collections in, i. 30;\n tombs in, i. 34 ff.;\n finds of pottery, i. 65, 237, 240, 250, 273, 280;\n terracottas, i. 112, 123 ff.;\n general character of pottery, i. 236;\n shapes of vases,. i. 238, 252;\n Bronze-Age pottery, i. 66, 206, 237 ff.;\n Mycenaean pottery, i. 239, 244;\n Graeco-Phoenician, i. 247 ff.;\n Hellenic, i. 255;\n Roman, ii. 495, 499;\n ethnology of inhabitants, i. 240, 248;\n chronology of pottery, i. 250\n\nCyrenaica, tombs in, i. 36;\n vases from, i. 69, 465;\n terracottas, i. 125, 126;\n and see Kyrene\n\nCyrene, see Kyrene\n\n\nDaidalos, see Ikaros\n\nDaily life, scenes from, on vases, i. 417, 449, 475, ii. 154 ff.;\n on lamps, ii. 416 ff.;\n of women and children, ii. 172 ff.\n\nDali, pottery of, i. 250, 273\n\nDana\u00eb, ii. 19, 112\n\nDanaids, ii. 68\n\nDanaos (?), ii. 140\n\nDancing scenes on Greek vases, ii. 168, 182;\n on Arretine vases, see Hieroduli\n\nDaphnae, pottery from, i. 68, 349 ff.;\n Fikellura style at, i. 338, 352;\n scale-pattern used at, i. 311, 337, 352, ii. 218\n\nDardanus, see Troad\n\nDareios in council, ii. 151\n\nDaulis, vases from, i. 53\n\nDawn, see Eos\n\nDeath-deities, ii. 72;\n and see Thanatos\n\nD\u00e9chelette on Gaulish pottery, ii. 432, 504 ff., 516 ff.\n\nDecoration of vases, artistic value of, i. 14;\n see Ornamentation, Subjects\n\nDecorative patterns, see Ornamental\n\nDedicatory inscriptions on Greek vases, i. 139, ii. 242;\n on lamps, ii. 421\n\nDeepdene, collection of vases at, i. 17, 27, 323\n\nDeianeira, ii. 102, 104\n\nDeinos (vase-shape), i. 173\n\nDeities, terracotta statuettes of, i. 122;\n Gaulish, ii. 384 ff.;\n representations of, on vases, see Chaps. XII., XIII.;\n on lamps, ii. 408 ff.;\n Etruscan, ii. 310\n\nDelos as centre of vase-fabric (?), i. 57, 302;\n braziers made at, i. 105\n\nDelphi, pottery from, i. 53\n\nDelphic scenes on vases, ii. 29 ff., 103, 138\n\nDelphiniform lamps, ii. 399\n\nDemeter, ii. 26 ff., 189;\n bust of, in terracotta, i. 123\n\nDemons, on braziers, i. 105;\n and see Death-deities\n\n\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 on tiles, i. 102;\n on a washing-basin, ii. 260\n\n\u0394\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd on a measure, i. 135\n\nDemosthenes, allusions to vases in, i. 133, 142\n\nDennis, explorations of, in the Cyrenaica, i. 36;\n in Etruria, i. 38;\n in Sicily, i. 87\n\nDeparture-scenes on vases, ii. 176\n\n\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2, i. 148, 181\n\n_Depositio_-scenes, i. 459, ii. 157\n\nDescriptive names, ii. 91, 260\n\nDevices on shields, ii. 198\n\nDiadumenos, terracotta figure of, i. 126\n\nDiana on Gaulish pottery, ii. 507, 508;\n and see Artemis\n\nDiitrephes (?), ii. 151\n\nDike, ii. 69, 89\n\nDimini, pottery from, i. 54\n\n\u03b4\u03af\u03bc\u03c5\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 (of lamps), i. 107\n\nDiocletian, tile-stamps in reign of, ii. 353, 362\n\nDiogenes on lamp, ii. 415, 421;\n tub of, i. 151\n\nDiomedes, horses of, ii. 98\n\n\u2014\u2014 in Trojan scenes, ii. 127, 128, 133\n\nDiomos (tribal hero) ?, ii. 140\n\nDionysiac personifications, ii. 64 ff., 91;\n scenes on vases, ii. 32, 54, 57 ff.;\n on R.F. vases, i. 416;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 369;\n on lamps, ii. 411;\n on Arretine vases, ii. 492, 493\n\nDionysos on vases, ii. 55 ff., 191;\n in ship, i. 381;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 14, 56;\n birth of, ii. 19, 55;\n in Attica, ii. 139;\n sacrifices to, i. 140, ii. 60\n\nDioskuri on vases, ii. 93, 115, 194;\n on lamps, ii. 413\n\nDiota, i. 154, 163, ii. 460\n\nDipylon, cemetery of, i. 9, 48, 280;\n vases from, i. 48, 247, 253, 255, 280 ff.;\n ornamentation, i. 282, ii. 232;\n subjects, i. 285, ii. 157, 178;\n chronology, i. 291;\n influence on later vases, i. 293, 298;\n early inscribed vase from, ii. 243\n\nDiscovery of vases, circumstances of, i. 33 ff.\n\nDiscs of terracotta of unknown use, i. 105, 106\n\n_Discus_ (\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2), name of vase, i. 194, ii. 469;\n part of lamp, ii. 395\n\nDishes, Greek, i. 194;\n Roman, ii. 468\n\nDiskos, throwing of, ii. 163\n\nDivixtus, potter, ii. 527\n\nDodwell pyxis, i. 50, 315, ii. 250\n\nD\u00f6rpfeld, discoveries of, at Troy, i. 61, 153, 257, 259\n\n\u0394\u03bf\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 of Athenian knights, ii. 177\n\n_Doliarius_, ii. 457, 511\n\n_Dolium_, ii. 438, 457 ff.;\n and see Pithos\n\nDolls of terracotta, i. 113, 114, 120\n\nDolon, story of, i. 363, ii. 128\n\nDomestic use of vases, i. 136, 138, and see 252;\n Roman, ii. 431, 455 ff., 549 ff.\n\n_Domitia gens_, tiles of, ii. 357, 358\n\nDorian invasion, i. 245, 277\n\nDoric architecture, use of tiles in, i. 94;\n dialect used at Athens, ii. 256\n\nDouai, potters\u2019 stamps from, ii. 503\n\nDragendorff on Roman pottery in Greece, ii. 476, 498;\n on Arretine ware, ii. 482,\n489 ff.;\n on provincial ware, ii. 499 ff.;\n on Roman red glaze, ii. 435\n\nDrain-pipes, see Pipes\n\nDrama, subjects from, on late vases, i. 471 ff., ii. 7, 159 ff.\n\nDrapery, treatment of, on B.F. vases, i. 372;\n on R.F., i. 408;\n and see ii. 201\n\nDrawing on Greek vases, technique of, i. 222 ff.;\n on B.F. vases, i. 371;\n on R.F., i. 406 ff.;\n on white-ground vases, i. 457;\n on South Italian, i. 470;\n and see i. 396\n\nDress on vases, see Costume, Drapery\n\nDressel on tile-stamps, ii. 352 ff.;\n on Arretine stamps, ii. 486, 487\n\nDrinking-cups, i. 148 ff., 180 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 467, and see 475\n\nD\u00fcmmler on Cypriote pottery, i. 240;\n on Rhodian, i. 336;\n on Daphnae pottery, i. 350;\n on Caeretan vases, i. 354;\n on \u201cPontic,\u201d i. 359;\n on Etruscan imitations of Caeretan, ii. 308\n\nDuris, vase-painter, i. 21, 421, 434 ff., 440, ii. 263, 268\n\n\nEarth-Mother, see Gaia, \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n\n_Echea_, ii. 457\n\nEchelos, see Basile\n\nEcho, ii. 81;\n and see Pan\n\nEgg-pattern, ii. 220\n\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b7, ii. 167\n\nEgnazia, see Gnatia\n\n\u1f14\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c8\u03b5, form of signature, i. 379, 422, ii. 257 ff., 273 ff.\n\nEgypt, pre-dynastic pottery of, i. 4;\n brick used in, i. 6, 94;\n use of wheel in, i. 7;\n enamels of, i. 8;\n pottery found in, i. 67;\n lamps in, i. 107;\n porcelain ware, i. 126 ff.;\n influence of, on Cypriote pottery, i. 239, 247 ff.;\n Cypriote pottery in, i. 239, 242, 243;\n evidence from, for Cretan and Mycenaean pottery, i. 266, 267, 271;\n influence of, in Etruria, ii. 299, 303, 304\n\nEgyptian situla at Daphnae, i. 350;\n subjects on Caeretan vases, i. 355;\n in Roman mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n in Gaulish terracottas, ii. 386;\n on lamps, ii. 402, 403, 412\n\nEgyptians on vases, ii. 180\n\n\u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1, i. 460, ii. 72, 193\n\nEileithyia, ii. 15, 76\n\nEirene, ii. 85\n\n\u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b5, form of signature, i. 379, ii. 258\n\nEkphantos, painter, i. 312, 320, 395\n\nElateia, tiles from, i. 102\n\nElektra, ii. 137\n\nEleusinian mysteries, supposed references to, i. 21;\n scenes relating to, ii. 27;\n and see Demeter, Persephone\n\nEleusis, finds of vases at, i. 49;\n personified, ii. 82\n\n\u1f10\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 107\n\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03ac\u03c6\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 124\n\n\u1f10\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, i. 130;\n and see _Appliqu\u00e9_ reliefs\n\nEmperors\u2019 names on tiles, ii. 354 ff.;\n on pottery, ii. 462\n\nEnamelling, i. 8, 126 ff.\n\nEndt on Ionic vases, i. 350, 354 ff.\n\nEngland, see Britain\n\nEnkelados, ii. 13\n\nEnkomi, vases from, i. 66, 127, 242 ff.\n\nEos, ii. 79;\n with Kephalos, i. 98, ii. 80;\n with Memnon, ii. 132\n\nEpexegetic system of interpretation, i. 20\n\nEphebi on R.F. vases, i. 417\n\n\u1f14\u03c6\u03b7\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, i. 179\n\n\u1f10\u03c6\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, ii. 167\n\nEphialtes, ii. 13\n\nEpic poetry and vases, ii. 3 ff.\n\nEpichysis, i. 179, 469\n\nEpidromos \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 425\n\nEpigenes, potter, i. 445\n\nEpiktetos, vase-painter, i. 379, 398, 420, 422, 425;\n cups from school of, i. 417, 425 ff.\n\nEpilykos, vase-painter, i. 424\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, i. 199\n\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5, form of signature, i. 379, 422, ii. 257 ff., 273 ff.\n\nEpona, ii. 386\n\nEretria, vases from, i. 55, 458\n\n\u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, i. 194\n\n_Ergasterion_, i. 233\n\nErginos, potter, i. 444\n\n\u2014\u2014 and heralds, ii. 102\n\nErgotimos, potter, i. 370, 379, 380, ii. 257\n\nErichthonios, birth of, ii. 139\n\nErinnyes, see Furies\n\nEriphyle, ii. 118\n\nEris, ii. 90, 194\n\nEros in terracottas, i. 126;\n on vases, i. 377, 418, 475, 486, ii. 45 ff., and see ii. 89;\n types of, i. 486, ii. 45, 48, 191;\n with Aphrodite, ii. 42 ff.;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 369;\n on lamps, ii. 410\n\nErymanthian boar, ii. 97\n\nErythrae, amphorae in temple at, i. 205\n\nEsquiline, lamps from, ii. 393, 399, and see 481;\n pottery from, ii. 477\n\nEthical ideas on vases, ii. 89\n\nEthiopians, ii. 180\n\n\u1f26\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 175\n\nEthnography of Crete, i. 264;\n of Mycenaeans, i. 275\n\nEthnological value of study of vases, i. 10\n\n\u1f10\u03c4\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 180\n\nEtruria, discoveries in, i. 19, 72 ff.;\n tombs of, i. 37, 78, 104, 145, ii. 284 ff.;\n architecture of, in terracotta, i. 101, ii. 313 ff.;\n terracotta sarcophagi, i. 104, ii. 299, 317, 320 ff.;\n sculpture in terracotta, i. 109, ii. 313, 317;\n relations with Greece in Geometrical period, i. 292, ii. 289 ff.;\n vase-painting in, i. 358, ii. 307 ff.;\n relief wares of, i. 496, 501, ii. 292 ff.;\n paintings on terracotta, ii. 299, 319;\n earliest civilisation of, ii. 282 ff.;\n earliest pottery, ii. 285;\n wheel-made, ii. 290;\n Villanuova period in, ii. 290 ff.;\n early Greek influence in, ii. 291, 293, 296 ff., 303;\n early Oriental influence, ii. 292, 296 ff.;\n character of art of, ii. 309, 322;\n Roman pottery in, ii. 486, and see Arretine ware\n\nEtruscan alphabet, ii. 311;\n artists at Rome, ii. 372;\n inscriptions on vases, ii. 310;\n pottery, see _Bucchero_, Cervetri, Polledrara\n\n\u201cEtruscan\u201d theory of origin of Greek vases, i. 18, 79\n\nEtruscans, origin of, ii. 281\n\nEuboea personified, ii. 82;\n vases found in, i. 55;\n and see Chalkis, Eretria\n\nEucheiros, painter, i. 395\n\nEucheiros, potter, i. 374, 379, 384\n\nEuergides, potter, i. 424\n\nEumaros, painter, i. 317, 371, 396\n\nEuphorbos-plate or pinax, i. 334, 335, ii. 129, 249\n\nEuphronios, potter and painter, i. 398, 402, 403, 421 ff., 428, 430\n ff., 440\n\nEuripides, subjects from, on vases, i. 472, 500, ii. 162;\n on lamp, ii. 415, 421\n\nEuropa, ii. 19\n\nEurystheus, i. 151, ii. 97\n\nEuthymides, vase-painter, i. 421, 427, ii. 258\n\nEuxitheos, potter, i. 421, 429\n\nEvans, Dr. A. J., discoveries of, i. 59, 152, 265 ff.\n\n\u1f10\u03be\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, i. 198\n\nExarchos (Abae), vase from, i. 217\n\nExcavations, vases found in, i. 138;\n and see Chapter II. _passim_\n\nExclamatory inscriptions on vases, ii. 261 ff.;\n on lamps, ii. 422\n\nExekias, potter and painter, i. 161, 374, 375, 379, 380 ff., ii. 218,\n 257\n\nExplanatory inscriptions on vases, ii. 259 ff.\n\nExpression of figures, i. 398, 408, ii. 202 ff.\n\nEye, treatment of, on vases, ii. 203;\n on Ionic, i. 356;\n on Attic, i. 408\n\nEyes on vases, i. 257, 357, 410, 426, 427\n\n\nFables on Roman lamps, ii. 416\n\nFabricius Masculus, L., lamp-maker, ii. 424, 425\n\nFabroni on Roman pottery, ii. 437, 479\n\nFalerii (Civita Castellana), vases found or made at, i. 75, 485, ii.\n 301, 309;\n early settlements at, ii. 289\n\nFalse amphora (Mycenaean), i. 271\n\n\u201cFalse Samian\u201d ware, ii. 474, 502, 541\n\nFarces, scenes from, on vases, i. 473, ii. 159 ff.\n\nFasano, vases found at, i. 85;\n and see Gnatia\n\nFates on vases, ii. 84\n\n_Favissae_ (rubbish-heaps of temples), i. 345;\n and see i. 138\n\nFay\u00fbm, pottery from, i. 67;\n terracotta coin-moulds from, i. 106, ii. 391\n\nFeather-brush or pen, use of, in vase-painting, i. 227 ff.\n\nFecunditas, ii. 384, 386\n\n_Felicitas_ on lamps, ii. 398, 413\n\nFelixstowe, vases from, ii. 440, 529\n\nFibulae, Boeotian, compared with vases, i. 289\n\n_Fictiliarius_, ii. 511\n\n_Fidelia_, ii. 465\n\n_Figlinae_ of tile-makers, ii. 356\n\nFigure-subjects, introduced on Greek vases, i. 281 ff., 314 ff.;\n in Etruria, ii. 291 ff.;\n on Arretine ware, ii. 492;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 506, 507, 514, 521, 527;\n at Castor, 544\n\n\u201cFikellura\u201d or Samian ware, i. 336 ff.;\n at Daphnae, i. 338, 352\n\n\u201cFine\u201d style of R.F. vases, i. 421, 440 ff.\n\nFink on Roman lamps, ii. 400, 428\n\nFish-plates, i. 194, 487, ii. 186\n\nFlange-tiles, ii. 341, 342\n\nFloral patterns on Corinthian vases, i. 312;\n and see Lotos, Palmette, Rosette\n\nFlue-tiles, ii. 346 ff.\n\nFlute-players on vases, ii. 169\n\nForeshortening, i. 398\n\nForgeries of vases, i. 40 ff.\n\nForms of vases, see Shapes\n\nFortis, potter, ii. 423 ff., 477\n\nFortune on money-boxes, ii. 390;\n on lamps, ii. 413\n\n_Fossa_-tombs in Etruria, ii. 289 ff.\n\nFox and Crow, fable of, ii. 416\n\nFrance, vase-collections of, i. 27;\n pottery-finds in, Chapter XXIII. _passim_;\n terracottas from, ii. 379 ff.;\n coin-moulds from, ii. 390 ff.;\n clay of, ii. 434;\n kilns in, ii. 443, 451 ff.;\n potters\u2019 stamps in, ii. 503;\n and see Gaul\n\nFran\u00e7ois vase, i. 73, 149, 370, ii. 10, 11;\n inscriptions on, ii. 257, 270\n\n\u201cFree\u201d style at Lezoux, ii. 506, 521, 527\n\nFriezes of animals on Corinthian vases, i. 313 ff., ii. 207;\n on Ionian, i. 331;\n general treatment of, ii. 207 ff.\n\nFuneral lekythi, i. 142, 458 ff., ii. 157; masks, i. 123;\n imitated in Etruria, ii. 305;\n scenes on Apulian vases, i. 476, ii. 158;\n on Dipylon, i. 285, ii. 157;\n in general, ii. 156 ff.;\n uses of vases, i. 141 ff.;\n of lamps, ii. 397;\n of Roman pottery, ii. 456, 550\n\nFuries, ii. 69, 138, 192\n\nFurnaces, see Kilns\n\nFurtwaengler on forgeries, i. 43;\n on Mycenaean vases, i. 270;\n on Boeotian, i. 286;\n on the Aristono\u00f6s vase, i. 298\n\n\nGaia, \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 30, 73;\n type of, in terracotta figures, i. 122 ff.;\n rising from earth, ii. 73, and see 193;\n see also Pandora\n\nGamedes, potter, i. 300\n\nGames on vases, ii. 167;\n of children, i. 137, 418, 449, ii. 167\n\nGanymede, ii. 18\n\nGaul, enamelled ware from, i. 129;\n terracottas from, ii. 379 ff.;\n as centre of lamp-fabric, ii. 427;\n moulds and stamps from, ii. 439 ff.;\n kilns in, ii. 443, 451 ff.;\n as centre for provincial pottery, ii. 498, 503, 515 ff.;\n subjects on pottery of, ii. 507;\n use of barbotine in, ii. 513, 529;\n doubtful pottery-centres in, ii. 533;\n pottery from, in Britain, ii. 522, 540, 542;\n plain wares of, ii. 548 ff.;\n duration of potteries in, ii. 432, 503, 526;\n and see France\n\nGaulish inscriptions on pottery, ii. 504;\n potters represented in art, ii. 511;\n potters\u2019 names and stamps, ii. 461, 504, 509, 522, 527\n\n\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, i. 96\n\nGela, tombs at, i. 37;\n vases from, i. 86, 196;\n treasury of, at Olympia, i. 100\n\nGems compared with R.F. vases, i. 426\n\n_Genre_ subjects in terracotta, i. 124;\n miscellaneous on vases, ii. 184;\n transformed into mythological, i. 318, cf. ii. 5\n\nGeographical distribution of Greek vases, i. 32;\n of Roman, ii. 432, 495, 498;\n personifications, ii. 81 ff.\n\nGeometrical pottery in Greece, i. 277 ff.;\n description of, i. 281 ff.;\n in Thera, i. 56;\n in Cyprus, i. 239, 247, 253 ff.;\n in Boeotia, i. 286 ff.;\n influence of, at Athens, i. 294, 298;\n in Boeotia, i. 300;\n in Melos, i. 302;\n at Corinth, i. 306, 308;\n at Daphnae, i. 351;\n in Etruria, ii. 289 ff.;\n in Southern Italy, ii. 325, 327, 328;\n ornamentation of, ii. 202 ff., 232;\n and see Dipylon\n\nGeras, ii. 84\n\nGerhard on chronology of vases, i. 23;\n on varieties of amphorae, i. 160\n\nGermany, vase-collections in, i. 28;\n inscribed tiles from, ii. 357, 364;\n terracottas from, ii. 383;\n duration of Roman pottery in, ii. 432;\n moulds and stamps from, ii. 439 ff.;\n kilns in, ii. 444, 453;\n early Roman pottery in, ii. 501 ff.;\n description of fabrics and pottery-centres, ii. 504, 533 ff.;\n classification, ii. 536;\n potters\u2019 names, ii. 509 ff., 535;\n barbotine decoration, ii. 513, 514, 536;\n inscribed pottery, ii. 537;\n plain black wares, ii. 552\n\nGeryon, i. 322, 432, ii. 98, 195\n\nGiants, types of, ii. 195\n\nGiganlomachia, ii. 12 ff.\n\nGilding of terracottas, i. 117;\n of vases, i. 201, 210, 231, 449, 498\n\nGirgenti (Agrigentum), vases from, i. 86, 87;\n moulds from. i. 115\n\nGladiators on lamps, ii. 416, 421;\n on Roman pottery, ii. 507, 532, 544\n\nGlass, enamels, i. 8, cf. 127 ff.;\n imitations of, in pottery, i. 64, 130, ii. 443, 514, 524\n\nGlaukon \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 403, 432, ii. 153, 267\n\nGlaukos and Polyeidos, ii. 141\n\nGlaukytes, potter, i. 232, 374, 379, 384\n\nGlaze on terracottas, i. 8, 118, 128 ff.;\n on Greek vases, i. 203 ff.;\n on Roman pottery, ii. 435 ff.;\n analyses of, ii. 436;\n on provincial wares, ii. 497;\n on Castor ware, ii. 545\n\nGnatia or Gnathia (Egnazia, Fasano), vases of, i. 85, 226, 487, 488\n\nGordion, pottery from, i. 64\n\nGorgasos and Damophilos, ii. 372\n\nGorgoneion in interior of kylikes, i. 374, 400, 427\n\nGorgons, ii. 112, 146, 196\n\nGraces (Charites), ii. 84\n\nGraeco-Phoenician tombs in Cyprus, i. 35;\n pottery, i. 66, 247 ff., 251 ff.;\n sites where found, i. 250\n\nGraeven on Roman money-boxes, ii. 388 ff.\n\n_Graffiti_ on vases at Graufesenque, ii. 510;\n and see Inscriptions\n\nGraufesenque potteries, ii. 504, 515 ff.;\n ornamentation, ii. 506, 520;\n _graffiti_ on, ii. 510;\n forms and decoration, ii. 519;\n potters, ii. 522\n\nGreece, introduction of potter\u2019s wheel in, i. 7, 206;\n earliest pottery of, i. 9, 10, 277 ff.;\n collections of vases in, i. 30;\n tombs in, i. 33;\n finds of pottery in, i. 46 ff.;\n _terra sigillata_ in, ii. 476, 498\n\nGreek colonies, i. 60, 80;\n islands, finds in, i. 54 ff.;\n early pottery of, i. 9, 262 ff.;\n religion, i. 13, 138 ff., ii. 154 ff.;\n and see Pottery, Vases\n\nGreeks and Persians, combats of, ii. 151, 179\n\nGrey Roman wares, ii. 550\n\nGround-ornaments on Corinthian vases, i. 312, 320, ii. 231, 233;\n on Ionic, i. 334, ii. 233\n\nGryphons, ii. 148, 196;\n heads of, on Etruscan pottery, ii. 300\n\nGsell, excavations of, at Vulci, i. 77, ii. 280, 291\n\nGuildhall Museum, ii. 359, 379\n\n_Guilloche_ pattern, ii. 219\n\n\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, scenes in, ii. 173\n\nGutter-tiles, i. 97, ii. 341;\n at Pompeii, ii. 343 ff.\n\n_Guttus_, i. 200, 211, 503, ii. 469\n\nGypsum, figures of, i. 111\n\n\nHades, ii. 28, 67, 190;\n and see Underworld\n\nHadria, vases from, i. 71;\n and see ii. 477\n\nHair, treatment of, on vases, i. 407, ii. 201\n\nHalikarnassos, finds at, i. 105, 106\n\nHamilton, Sir W., i. 17, 43\n\nHampshire, pottery from, see New Forest\n\nHancarville (D\u2019), i. 17, 22\n\nHandles of vases, i. 208, ii. 443;\n of wine-amphorae, stamped, i. 155 ff.\n\nHare-hunts, ii. 165\n\nHarmodios and Aristogeiton, ii. 150\n\nHarpies, ii. 72, 146, 196\n\nHartlip, use of tiles in villa at, ii. 348;\n vase from, ii. 508\n\nHartwig on the feather-pen, i. 227;\n on R.F. cup-painting, i. 398, 424 ff.;\n on \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, i. 404\n\nHasta (Asti) as pottery-centre, i. 71, ii. 477\n\nHathor, i. 254\n\nHaverfield on Castor kilns, ii. 448;\n on Roman pottery, ii. 536, 541, 544, 546\n\nHebe, ii. 77, 84, 193\n\nHector, ii. 126 ff.\n\nHeddernheim, kilns at, ii. 444\n\nHegesiboulos, potter, i. 445\n\nHegias, vase-painter, i. 421, 444\n\nHeiligenberg, kilns at, ii. 444, 446, 449\n\nHekate, ii. 71, 190\n\nHelen, ii. 119, 123, 135\n\nHelios on vases, ii. 78, 103, 193, 483;\n on lamps, ii. 412;\n as Rhodian amphora-stamp, i. 156\n\nHelioserapis lamp, ii. 403;\n and see i. 209, 216\n\nHellas personified, ii. 81\n\nHellenic pottery, of Cyprus, i. 237, 250, 253, 255;\n influence of Mycenaean on, i. 276\n\nHellenistic art, influence of, on Arretine ware, ii. 489, 494;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 507;\n on Gaulish terracottas, ii. 386;\n porcelain vases, i. 128;\n pottery of Cyprus, i. 256;\n terracottas, i. 125\n\nHemera, ii. 78, 79\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 135, 183, ii. 241\n\n\u1f21\u03bc\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 174\n\nHephaistos on vases, ii. 36, 190;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 14, 15;\n at birth of Athena, ii. 15;\n return of, to Olympos, ii. 17;\n smithy of, ii. 37, 130, 171\n\nHera on vases, ii. 16, 21, 188;\n and see Juno Lanuvina\n\nHeraion at Argos, i. 52, 278, 298, 307;\n at Olympia, i. 92 ff., 97, 100\n\nHerakles on vases, generally, ii. 94 ff.;\n how represented, ii. 194;\n on Corinthian vases, i. 314, 318;\n on Chalcidian, i. 322;\n on Assteas vase, i. 479;\n with Apollo, ii. 33;\n with Athena, ii. 38, 105;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n on lamps, ii. 413;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 508, 531, 545;\n skyphos of, i. 185;\n Erotes with club of, ii. 411\n\nHeraldic groups on vases, i. 318, ii. 207\n\nHeralds, ii. 177, 198\n\nHermaios, potter, i. 420, 424\n\nHermes in terracottas, i. 114, 126;\n on vases, ii. 50 ff., 190;\n \u039a\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, i. 325, 326, ii. 260;\n on lamps, ii. 409\n\nHermione, vases from, i. 52\n\nHermogenes, potter, i. 374, 379, 383\n\nHermonax, vase-painter, i. 421, 446\n\nHerodotos on origin of Etruscans, ii. 281\n\nHeroic subjects on mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n on lamps, ii. 414\n\nHero\u00f6n, i. 476, ii. 158, 159\n\n\u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, worship of, i. 477\n\nHesiod and vase-paintings, ii. 6\n\nHesperides, ii. 92;\n garden of, ii. 75, 99\n\nHestia on vases, ii. 53, 190\n\n_Hi\u00e9rarchie des genres_, law of, i. 245, 284, 315, 332\n\nHieroduli, ii. 492, 493\n\nHieron, potter, i. 421, 436, ii. 238, 259\n\nHilinos, potter, i. 421, 429\n\nHimera, vases from, i. 87\n\nHimeros, ii. 49\n\nHippalektryon, ii. 149\n\nHipparchos \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 403\n\nHippolyta, ii. 99, 111\n\nHippolytos, ii. 112\n\nHischylos, potter, i. 379, 420, 422, 424\n\nHissarlik, see Troy\n\nHistorical methods of study, i. 22, 235;\n limits of subject, i. 31, ii. 430 ff.;\n subjects and personages on vases, i. 403, ii. 149 ff., 266, 267;\n on lamps, ii. 415\n\nHistory illustrated by vases, i. 11;\n in connection with R.F. vases, i. 402 ff., 463\n\nH\u00f6lder on Roman pottery, ii. 460, 472, 537\n\nHogarth on Cretan pottery, i. 267\n\n\u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, i. 175\n\nHolland, collections in, i. 28;\n pottery from, ii. 522, 539;\n inscribed tiles from, ii. 358, 361, 365\n\n\u1f45\u03bb\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 176\n\nHomer, references to vases in, i. 89, 132, 145, 148, 168, 172, 174,\n 180, 192;\n to potter\u2019s wheel in, i. 207;\n on Cretan ethnography, i. 264;\n subjects from, on vases, i. 335, 499, ii. 3 ff., 126 ff.\n\nHomeric bowls, i. 134, 185, 499, ii. 2\n\nHopkinson on Melian vases, i. 302\n\n\u1f41\u03c0\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, ii. 164\n\nHoppin on Euthymides, i. 428\n\nHorace quoted, ii. 460, 463, 464, 469\n\nHorae, ii. 84;\n and see Seasons\n\n_Horror vacui_, i. 283, 313\n\nHorse-race, ii. 164\n\n\u2014\u2014 taming, ii. 166\n\nHorsemen, ii. 166\n\nHuman figures, introduction of, on Greek vases, i. 281 ff., 314 ff.\n\nHungary, inscribed tiles from, ii. 359\n\nHunters on vases, ii. 165, 197;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 507, 527;\n on Castor ware, ii. 544\n\nHut-urns in Italy, ii. 288\n\nHyades, ii. 81, 193\n\nHybla Heraea, vases from, i. 88\n\nHydra, ii. 98\n\nHydria, i. 165 ff., 372 ff., 411\n\nHydrophoria, ii. 173\n\nHygiainon, painter, i. 396\n\nHygieia, ii. 76, 84\n\nHypnos, ii. 71, 84, 193, and see 158\n\nHypocausts, i. 103, ii. 332, 342, 346 ff.\n\nHypsis, vase-painter, i. 421, 429.\n\n\nIacchos, ii. 27\n\nIalysos, vases from, i. 58, 152, 270\n\nIapygians, i. 172, ii. 323, 325;\n pottery of, ii. 323 ff.\n\nIapys, eponymous hero, ii. 327\n\nIkarios (?), ii. 139, and see 369\n\nIkaros on lamp, ii. 414;\n with Daidalos on vase, ii. 141\n\n_Iliad_ and vases, ii. 4;\n scenes from, ii. 126 ff.\n\n\u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, ii. 5, 133 ff.\n\nIlluminations, use of lamps in, ii. 396\n\n_Imbrex_, i. 96, ii. 341 ff.\n\nImbrications, i. 311, 331, ii. 219\n\nImitations of vases (modern), i. 40 ff.\n\n_Impasto Italico_, ii. 285, 290, 295, 300\n\nIncense-burner, i. 140\n\nIncised lines, i. 311, 313, 314, 331;\n inscriptions, ii. 237 ff., 271 ff., 359, and see Graffiti,\n Inscriptions;\n decoration on provincial wares, ii. 505, 515\n\nIndented patterns on provincial wares, ii. 514, 544\n\nIndividualities personified, ii. 91\n\n_Infundibulum_ of lamp, ii. 394\n\nInghirami, i. 18, 42\n\nInhumation, i. 145, ii. 284\n\nInscriptions on tiles, i. 101, ii. 348, 351 ff., 357, 358;\n chronology of, ii. 360 ff.;\n on lamps, i. 107, 108, ii. 420 ff.;\n on vases, i. 149, ii. 236 ff.;\n incised, ii. 237 ff.;\n painted, ii. 243 ff.;\n palaeography of, ii. 246 ff., 268 ff.;\n Corinthian, i. 315 ff., ii. 250 ff.;\n \u201cCorintho-Attic,\u201d i. 325;\n Ionic, i. 336, 357, ii. 252;\n Cyrenaic, i. 344, ii. 250;\n Naucratite, i. 345;\n Attic, i. 378, 402, 418, 422, ii. 255 ff.;\n Boeotian, ii. 252;\n Chalcidian, ii. 253;\n South Italian, ii. 271 ff.;\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, i. 403, ii. 265 ff.;\n artists\u2019 signatures, ii. 257 ff.;\n explanatory on Attic vases, ii. 259 ff.;\n exclamatory, ii. 261 ff.;\n convivial, ii. 265, 524, 538;\n under feet of vases (names and prices), ii. 239 ff.;\n on Etruscan vases, ii. 310 ff.;\n on terracotta moulds, ii. 382;\n on Arretine vases, ii. 480 ff.;\n on Gaulish pottery, ii. 504, 512, 517, 531;\n and see Graffiti, Signatures, Stamps\n\nInterpretation of subjects on vases, i. 21, ii. 8\n\nIonia, art of, i. 329, 332, 361;\n pottery of, i. 62, 224, 328 ff.;\n various fabrics of, i. 330;\n influence of Mycenaean civilisation on, i. 277, 329 ff.;\n of Oriental art, i. 331 ff.;\n influence of, on Attic vases, i. 294, 295, 300, 370, 374, 382, 385,\n 388;\n on Etruria, ii. 296, 299, 308, 317, 320;\n use of incised lines in, i. 314;\n B.F. fabrics in, i. 353 ff.;\n arrangement of subjects on vases, ii. 206;\n ornamentation, ii. 212 ff., 233;\n early painting of, i. 361 ff.\n\nIonian islands, pottery from, i. 54;\n and see Corfu\n\nIonic alphabet, ii. 246, 253, 271;\n inscriptions, i. 357, ii. 252;\n pottery in Egypt, i. 68, 345 ff.;\n type of kylix, i. 357, 374\n\nIphigeneia, ii. 35, 124, 138\n\nIris, ii. 76, 128, 193\n\nIschia, vases from, i. 88\n\nIsidorus on Roman pottery, ii. 464, 469, 475\n\nIsis on lamps, ii. 412;\n lamps used in worship of, ii. 403\n\nIsola Farnese, see Veii\n\n\u201cIsolating\u201d method of representation on vases, ii. 10.\n\n\u201cItalian Megarian \u201d bowls, ii. 490\n\nItaly, vases found in, i. 22, 69 ff.;\n collections in, i. 29;\n tombs, i. 37, ii. 284 ff.;\n porcelain and enamelled wares from, i. 128, 129;\n Corinthian vases in, i. 305 ff., 318, ii. 294 ff.;\n imitations of Ionic pottery in, i. 358, ii. 308;\n modelled vases in, i. 494;\n relief-wares in, i. 496, 498, 501 ff., and see Etruscan, Roman;\n early civilisation of, ii. 280 ff., and see Etruria;\n terracotta architecture in, i. 98, 101, ii. 315 ff.;\n sculpture, ii. 313, 371 ff.;\n centres of lamp-manufacture in, ii. 427;\n pottery-kilns, ii. 443, 451;\n centres for Roman pottery, ii. 475 ff.;\n end of _terra sigillata_ in, ii. 495;\n transition to provincial fabrics in, ii. 500, 515 ff.;\n Gaulish pottery found in, ii. 498, 522, 524, 526\n\n\u2014\u2014 Southern, tombs in, i. 37;\n vases found in, i. 79 ff.;\n R.F. vase-painting in, i. 465 ff.;\n fabrics of, i. 479 ff.;\n end of vase-painting in, i. 487 ff.;\n plastic and moulded vases in, i. 494, 498, 502;\n local pottery of, ii. 323 ff.\n\nItalynski, i. 21\n\nIvy-leaf patterns, ii. 221\n\nIxion, ii. 69\n\n\nJahn on vases, i. 20, 23, 150\n\nJars used in architecture, ii. 457\n\nJason, ii. 115\n\nJatta collection, i. 26, 29\n\nJavelin-throwing, ii. 163\n\nJewellery on vases, ii. 202\n\nJoubin on Clazomenae sarcophagi, i. 364\n\nJudgment of Paris, ii. 121 ff.\n\nJuggler on lamps, ii. 418\n\nJugs, see Oinocho\u00eb, Olpe\n\nJumping on vases, ii. 163\n\nJuno Lanuvina, ii. 22, 103\n\nJupiter, Capitoline, i. 116, ii. 314, 371, 372;\n and see Zeus\n\nJuvenal quoted on Roman pottery, ii. 455 ff.\n\n\nKabeiri, ii. 74;\n vases from temple of, i. 52, 391, ii. 159\n\nKadmos, ii. 117\n\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 165;\n and see _Cadus_\n\nKaineus, ii. 145\n\nKalais, see Boreades\n\nKalliades, potter, i. 411, 434, 493\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, i. 379, 402 ff., ii. 265 ff.;\n list of, ii. 277\n\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03c2, i. 166\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 96\n\nKalymnos, vases from, i. 58\n\nKamaraes, vases from, i. 59;\n fabric so called, i. 264 ff.\n\nKamarina, vases from, i. 87\n\nKameiros, tombs at, i. 34.;\n vases from i. 59, 127;\n terracottas from, see Rhodes\n\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 i. 111, 209\n\nKanake, ii. 141\n\n\u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, i. 152\n\nKantharos, i. 187, 410\n\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 188\n\nKarlsruhe, vase-collection at, i. 28\n\nKaro on \u201caffected\u201d vases, i. 387\n\nKarpathos, tombs in, i. 34;\n pottery from, i. 58\n\nKarystos, vase from, i. 55\n\nKassandra, ii. 134\n\nKastor, see Dioskuri\n\nKeel-hauling, ii. 178\n\nKekrops, ii. 139\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7, i. 169\n\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, ii. 164\n\nKeos, fabric of, i. 56, 357, ii. 253\n\nKephalos, ii. 80, 140\n\n\u03ba\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, ii. 72, 100\n\nKerameikos, i. 46, 89, 92, 231, 280\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9, i. 97\n\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 136\n\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, i. 89, 100, ii. 455\n\nKerberos, ii. 70, 99\n\nKerkyon, ii. 109\n\n\u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03ba\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 195, 201\n\nKertch, vases from, i. 32, 60, 447, 451, 464, 497;\n tiles from, i. 101;\n wine-amphorae from, i. 158\n\nKeryneian stag, ii. 97\n\n\u03ba\u03b9\u03b2\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, see Ciborium\n\nKilns for Roman pottery, existing remains of, ii. 443 ff.;\n detailed list of, ii. 451 ff.;\n representations of, see i. 215 ff.\n\nKimon, painter, i. 320, 397, 398, 408, 430, 455\n\n\u2014\u2014 statesman, i. 418\n\nKings, how represented on vases, ii. 97\n\nKirke, ii. 136\n\n\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cd\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 180\n\nKitharoidos, see Apollo\n\nKittos, potter, i. 379, 391\n\nKlagenfurt, vase from, ii. 517\n\nKleanthes, painter, i. 320, 395, 396\n\nKlein on R. F. cup-painting, i. 424 ff.;\n on signatures of artists, ii. 257;\n on \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2-names, ii. 266\n\nKleisophos, vase-painter, i. 384\n\nKleonae, vases from, i. 52\n\n\u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b2\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 105\n\nKlitias, vase-painter, i. 370, 379, ii. 257\n\nKlytaemnestra, ii. 137, 138\n\nKnidos, pottery from, i. 64, 330;\n lamps from, i. 108, ii. 397, 418, 423, 427;\n amphora-handles from, i. 157\n\nKnossos, excavations at, i. 60, 152, 265 ff.\n\nKnuckle-bone players, i. 125\n\nKodros, ii. 140\n\nKoenen on German pottery, ii. 536\n\nKolchos, potter, i. 379\n\nKolias, Cape, i. 46, 49, 205, 370\n\n\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 182\n\nKopenhagen, vases at, i. 28, 286\n\n\u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9, i. 112 ff.\n\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1, i. 139\n\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 or \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03af, i. 112\n\nKos, pottery from, i. 58, 129;\n and see ii. 476\n\n\u03ba\u03ce\u03b8\u03c9\u03bd, i. 140, 187\n\nKottabos, i. 188, ii. 167, 181\n\n\u03ba\u03bf\u03c4\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, i. 184, 195\n\nKotyle, i. 135, 183, 212, 217\n\n\u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 types in terracottas, i. 123, ii. 386;\n on vases, ii. 30, 73;\n and see Gaia\n\nKramer\u2019s classification of vases, i. 22\n\nKrater, i. 167 ff., 411, 468, 482;\n local South Italian, ii. 326;\n Arretine, ii. 488, 501, 520;\n and see ii. 464\n\nKrause on shapes of vases, i. 150\n\nKreon, ii. 119\n\nKreousa and Ion, ii. 140\n\nKrete, see Crete\n\nKretschmer on vase-inscriptions, ii. 237 ff.\n\nKroisos, brick used by, i. 91, 94;\n represented on vase, ii. 6, 150\n\nKroker on Geometrical vases, i. 281\n\nKrommyon, ii. 82, 109\n\nKronos, ii. 73\n\n\u03ba\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2, i. 167\n\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 186\n\n\u03ba\u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, i. 194\n\n\u03ba\u03cd\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, i. 180\n\nKyathos, i. 179\n\nKybele, ii. 74\n\nKyklopes, i. 105, ii. 37, 171;\n and see Polyphemos\n\nKyknos, ii. 101\n\nKylix, i. 188 ff.;\n early types, i. 272, 287, 313, 341;\n Athenian, i. 373, 400, 409, 422 ff., 457;\n compared with _calix_, ii. 468\n\nKymation, i. 97;\n as pattern on vases, ii. 218\n\nKyme, vases from, i. 62, 356\n\nKypselos, chest of, i. 315, 319, 320, 378, ii. 236\n\nKyrene, goddess, i. 124, 343, ii. 31, 81, 82;\n and see Cyrenaica\n\nKythera, vases from, i. 54, 315\n\n\nLaconia, vases from, i. 52\n\nLaertes and Antikleia (?), ii. 137\n\nLagena, ii. 466\n\n\u03bb\u03ac\u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 165\n\nLamia, ii. 149\n\n\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1, ii. 164\n\nLamps, Greek, i. 106 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 393 ff.;\n uses, 395 ff.;\n forms, 399 ff.;\n subjects, 406 ff.;\n inscriptions, 420 ff.\n\nLandscape on vases, i. 409, 470, ii. 204, 205;\n in scenes on lamps, ii. 418\n\n_Lanx_, ii. 468\n\nLaoko\u00f6n, ii. 134\n\n_Lararia_, ii. 375\n\nLares on lamps, ii. 413\n\nLarisa in Asia Minor, pottery from, i. 62, 339\n\nLarnaka, vases from, i. 66\n\n\u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1\u03be, see _Ossuaria_\n\nLasimos, vase-painter, i. 478, ii. 272\n\n\u201cLate fine\u201d style, i. 421, 448 ff.\n\n_Laterariae_, i. 91, ii. 331\n\n_Lateres_, ii. 331, 335\n\nLatin inscriptions on vases, i. 485, 490;\n literature, references to, see Literature\n\nLatium, vases from, i. 79\n\nLaurel-wreaths, ii. 223\n\nLead used for glaze, i. 130;\n vases repaired with, i. 147\n\nLeaf-patterns on vases, ii. 221 ff.\n\nLeagros \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 403, 425, 430, ii. 152, 267\n\nLeather, imitations of, i. 242, 243\n\nLebes, i. 146, 174;\n \u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, i. 199;\n and see Burgon\n\nLecce, vases from, i. 86\n\nLeda, ii. 19, 120, 508\n\nLegions, stamps of, on tiles, ii. 351, 363\n\nLekane, i. 146, 164, 176, 469\n\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, i. 177\n\nLekythos, i. 195;\n B.F., i. 376;\n R.F., i. 412;\n white-ground, i. 48, 132, 143, 224, 456 ff., ii. 157\n\nLemnos personified, ii. 82\n\nLenormant on Iapygian pottery, ii. 327\n\nLentini, vases from, i. 86\n\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae, i. 165, 469;\n and see ii. 471\n\nLesbos, vases from, i. 57;\n fabrics of, i. 339, 347\n\nLeto, ii. 30, 31\n\n\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1, i. 397, 454, ii. 320\n\nLezoux, potteries of, ii. 504, 525 ff.;\n kilns at, ii. 525;\n potter\u2019s wheel from, ii. 438;\n stamps from, ii. 440;\n moulds from, ii. 441;\n forms of vases at, ii. 501, 526;\n ornamentation, ii. 506, 527;\n enamelled ware from, i. 130;\n incised vases, ii. 443, 515;\n barbotine decoration, ii. 513;\n other fabrics, ii. 528 ff.;\n termination of potteries, ii. 432, 526\n\nLibation-bowls, i. 140, 192, ii. 471;\n see Patera, Phiale\n\nLibation-scenes, i. 140, ii. 18, 31, 86 ff., 155\n\nLibertus, potter, ii. 439, 521, 527, 542\n\nLincoln, vases from, ii. 546, 549\n\n_Liniare_, i. 396\n\nLion\u2019s head spouts, vases with, ii. 530, 541\n\nLipari Islands, vases from, i. 88\n\nLiquids, vases used for, i. 150 ff.\n\nLiterature, classical, and vases, i. 13, 132, ii. 1 ff.;\n Roman pottery in, ii. 455, 475 ff.;\n names of vases in, i. 148 ff., ii. 458 ff.;\n lamps in, i. 107, ii. 395 ff.;\n terracottas in, i. 110, ii. 371 ff.;\n subjects from, on lamps, ii. 415\n\nLitlington, vases in tombs at, ii. 351, 456\n\nLocri, vases from, i. 86;\n terracotta reliefs from, i. 120;\n white lekythi from, i. 458\n\n_Loculi_, ii. 388\n\nLoeschcke on \u201cCorintho-Attic\u201d vases, i. 324\n\nLokris, vases from, i. 53\n\nLondon, tiles found in, ii. 348, 359, 363;\n kilns found in, ii. 444;\n pottery from, ii. 503, 529, 540;\n and see British Museum\n\nLotos-ornament in Cyprus, i. 249, ii. 224;\n in Boeotia, i. 288;\n general history of, ii. 223 ff.\n\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 176\n\n\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, i. 142\n\nLouvre Museum, i. 25, 27\n\nLove-scenes on vases, ii. 183\n\nLucania, vases from, i. 83, 144, 172;\n style of, i. 481;\n local pottery of, ii. 324, 328\n\n\u03bb\u03cd\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 107\n\nLuckenbach on connection of vases and literature, ii. 5 ff.\n\nLuni, terracotta sculpture from, ii. 318\n\nLuynes, Duc de, i. 18, 22\n\nLycia, pottery from, i. 64\n\nLydian origin of Etruscans, ii. 281\n\nLykaon, ii. 130\n\nLykourgos, ii. 56, 141\n\nLyre-players, ii. 169\n\nLyric poetry and vases, ii. 6\n\nLyssa, ii. 91, 194\n\n\nMackenzie on Cretan pottery, i. 265 ff.\n\nMacmillan lekythos, i. 309\n\nMacrobius on the _Sigillaria_, ii. 376\n\nMaeander-pattern, ii. 212 ff.;\n on R.F. vases, i. 415\n\nMaenads on vases, ii. 55 ff., 192;\n names of, ii. 65;\n on lamps, ii. 411;\n on Arretine vases, ii. 492, 493\n\nMainz, inscribed vase from, ii. 539\n\nMakron, vase-painter, i. 436\n\nMalta, pottery from, i. 88\n\nMandrokles, painter, i. 361\n\nMania, ii. 91\n\nMarathon, vases from, i. 49;\n tile from, i. 99;\n bull of, ii. 109\n\n\u201cMarbled\u201d vases, ii. 523\n\nMarine subjects (Mycenaean), i. 272, ii. 185;\n and see Sea-Deities\n\nMarion, see Poli\n\nMarne, Department of, incised pottery from, ii. 515\n\nMarriage-scenes on vases, ii. 16, 36, 172\n\nMarseilles, pottery found at, i. 69\n\nMarsyas, ii. 32\n\nMartha on Etruscan art, ii. 322\n\nMartial quoted, ii. 376, 395, 463, 469, 478, 479\n\nMarzabotto, terracotta pipes from, ii. 350\n\nMasks of terracotta, i. 104, 105, 123, ii. 377;\n imitation of, in Canopic jars, ii. 305;\n use of, for gutter-tiles, ii. 344\n\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2, i. 186\n\n_Matt_ colour, i. 246\n\nMaurion, potter, i. 445\n\nMayer on local Apulian pottery, ii. 323 ff.\n\n_Mazonomum_, ii. 469\n\nMeasures, vases used as, i. 135, ii. 460, 463, 472\n\nMedallions on Gaulish vases, ii. 441, 530 ff.\n\nMedeia, ii. 116\n\nMedusa, see Gorgon\n\nMegakles \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 428\n\n\u2014\u2014 potter, i. 445\n\n\u2014\u2014 statesman, i. 12, 103\n\nMegalopolis, pottery from, i. 52\n\nMegara, vases from, i. 53;\n statue of Zeus at, i. 92, 111;\n temple at, i. 94\n\nMegarian bowls, i. 53, 134, 185, 499, ii. 2;\n as prototypes of Roman pottery, ii. 475, 489;\n treasury at Olympia, i. 100\n\nMeidias, potter, i. 446\n\nMelampus and Proitos, ii. 141\n\nMeleager, ii. 114\n\nMelian reliefs, i. 120;\n amphorae, i. 301;\n their ornamentation, ii. 232\n\nMelos, vases from, i. 57, 262;\n and see Melian\n\nMemnon, ii. 132\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 425\n\nMenaidas, potter, i. 52, 301\n\nMending of vases, i. 39, 147\n\nMenekrates, tomb of, i. 54\n\nMenelaos, ii. 129, 135\n\nMenidi, pottery from, i. 49, 273\n\nMerope, ii. 141\n\nMessapians on vases, ii. 151;\n pottery of, ii. 323 ff.\n\nMetal vases, i. 131 ff., 201, ii. 2;\n use of, in Etruria, ii. 307;\n at Rome, ii. 433;\n imitations of, in Greece, i. 385, 495 ff.;\n in Etruria, ii. 303, 307;\n in Italy and Gaul, ii. 489, 528, 529, 552\n\nMetaphysical ideas personified, ii. 90\n\nMetapontum, vases from, i. 85;\n tile from, i. 97\n\nMetope style of decoration, i. 282, 378, ii. 208\n\nMetopes of terracotta painted, i. 92\n\nMevania as pottery-centre, ii. 475, 490\n\nMidas, ii. 144\n\nMikon, painter, i. 442\n\nMilani on Canopic jars, ii. 304\n\nMiletos as pottery-centre, i. 329, 336, 338\n\nMilitary subjects on vases, ii. 175 ff.;\n on lamps, ii. 417;\n uses of bricks and tiles, ii. 332, 336, 363 ff.\n\nMillin, i. 17\n\nMillingen, i. 22, ii. 9\n\nMilonidas, vase-painter, i. 315, 317\n\nMiltiades \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 403, ii. 267\n\n\u03bc\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, i. 231;\n and see _Minium_, _Rubrica_\n\nMining, representations of, ii. 170\n\n_Minium_, i. 118, 231;\n and see ii. 314\n\nMinoan pottery, see Crete\n\nMinor Artists, i. 374, 379, 383\n\nMinos, ii. 144;\n thalassocracy of, i. 264\n\nMinotaur, ii. 109, 148\n\nMirrors, Etruscan, compared with vases, ii. 307\n\n\u201cMixed\u201d technique, Ionic, i. 331, 334, 346;\n B.F. and R.F., i. 379, 386, 401\n\nModelling, of vases, i. 208 ff., 492 ff.;\n in clay, i. 6, 110, 114, ii. 372, 375, 378\n\nModena, see Mutina\n\nMoirae, ii. 84\n\nMommo, potter, ii. 522\n\nMoney-boxes, ii. 388 ff.\n\nMonochrome painting, i. 395\n\nMontans, pottery of, ii. 525\n\n_Moretum_ quoted, ii. 395\n\n_Morra_, game of, ii. 167\n\n_Mortarium_, ii. 470, 550;\n and see 530, 541\n\nMother-Goddess, ii. 386; and see \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n\nMoulds, i. 105, 111, ii. 388;\n for coins, i. 106, ii. 390 ff.;\n for terracottas, i. 114, ii. 381;\n for bricks, ii. 333;\n for lamps, ii. 405;\n Arretine, ii. 488, 494;\n use of, in Roman pottery, ii. 438, 440\n\nMoulins, manufacture of terracottas at, ii. 379 ff.\n\nMourners, i. 285, 460, 476, ii. 157, 158\n\nMunich, collection at, i. 26, 28\n\nMural reliefs (Roman), ii. 365 ff.;\n compared with Arretine ware, ii. 439, 493\n\nMurray on Clazomenae sarcophagus, i. 363;\n on R.F. painters, i. 423 ff.;\n on white-ground vases, i. 458, 461\n\nMuses, ii. 83\n\nMuseums, i. 23 ff.;\n list of, i. 27 ff.\n\nMusicians, ii. 168, 182, 197\n\nMutina (Modena), vases found at, i. 71, ii. 495;\n as centre for lamps, ii. 401, 427;\n for vases, ii. 477\n\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03be\u03cc\u03c2 (_myxus_), i. 107, ii. 395\n\nMycenae, tombs at, i. 33;\n pottery from, i. 51\n\nMycenaean pottery, i. 269 ff.;\n shapes, i. 168, 181, 190, 271;\n subjects and ornamentation, i. 272, 276, ii. 185, 206, 232;\n in Rhodes, i. 58;\n in Crete, i. 59, 265 ff.;\n in Cyprus, i. 237, 239, 244 ff.;\n imitations of, i. 246, 280;\n influence of, on later pottery:\n Geometrical, i. 277 ff.;\n Proto-Attic, i. 294;\n Phaleron ware, i., 299;\n Melian, i. 302;\n Ionian, i. 329 ff., 338, 352;\n in Southern Italy, ii. 324, 325\n\nMylasa, pottery from, i. 64, 340\n\nMyres on Cypriote pottery, i. 240 ff.\n\nMyrina, pottery from, i. 62, 339;\n terracottas, i. 125, 126\n\nMyrtle-wreaths, ii. 223\n\nMysteries, see Eleusinian\n\nMythological subjects, introduced at Athens, i. 296;\n at Corinth, i. 314, 317 ff.;\n on R.F. vases, i. 416;\n on South Italian, i. 474;\n types in terracottas, i. 123 ff.;\n on B.F. vases, i. 376 ff.;\n on R.F., i. 419\n\nMythology on vases, i. 12, 13, ii. 3\n\n\nNaples, Museum of, i. 24, 26, 29, 80, 483, and see i. 45;\n vases found at, i. 80;\n imitations made at, i. 41, 42\n\nNarce, early settlement at, ii. 289\n\n_Nasiterna_, ii. 465\n\nNatural products personified, ii. 82\n\nNaukratis, finds at, i. 68, 138, 338;\n local pottery of, i. 224, 345 ff.;\n other pottery at, i. 338, 341;\n connection with Etruria, ii. 298, 299\n\nNauplia, pottery from, i. 51\n\nNausikaa, ii. 136\n\nNautilus on vases, i. 272, ii. 185\n\nNaval subjects, i. 285, 291, ii. 178\n\nNearchos, potter, i. 379, 383\n\nNegroes on vases, ii. 179\n\nNemea personified, ii. 82\n\nNemean lion, ii. 95\n\nNemesis, ii. 91\n\nNeolithic Age, i. 4, 5;\n pottery of, in Crete, i. 265, 267;\n remains in Etruria, ii. 283\n\nNeoptolemos, ii. 133, 138\n\nNeptune on Roman roof-tiles, ii. 345;\n and see Poseidon\n\nNereids, ii. 26, 130, 133\n\nNereus, ii. 25, 101, 189\n\nNestor, ii. 124;\n cup of, i. 148, 172, ii. 2\n\nNether World, see Under-world\n\nNetherlands, Roman pottery from, ii. 539\n\nNetwork patterns, ii. 215\n\n\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac, i. 121\n\n\u201cNew Attic\u201d reliefs, ii. 368, 407, 411, 439, 492, 493, 507\n\nNew Forest ware, ii. 547\n\n\u2014\u2014 Year lamps, ii. 398, 412, 420\n\n\u2014\u2014 York Museum, i. 26, 65\n\nNewton, Sir Charles, i. 57, 58, 108\n\nNike (Victory) in terracottas, i. 125;\n on vases, i. 418, ii. 85 ff., 193;\n with Herakles, ii. 106;\n on Roman antefix, ii. 343;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 368, 369;\n on lamps, ii. 413\n\nNikias, potter, i. 446, ii. 259\n\nNikosthenes, potter, i. 170, 384, 393\n\nNile on vases, ii. 83;\n scenes on, in mural reliefs, ii. 371\n\nNiobids, ii. 33\n\nNisyros, vases from, i. 58;\n as weapon of Poseidon, ii. 13\n\nNola, vases from, i. 82;\n varnish of, i. 42, 46\n\n\u201cNolan\u201d amphorae, i. 82, 162, 219, 405;\n imitations of, i. 484\n\nNorfolk, kilns found in, ii. 445, 449\n\nNormandy, terracottas from, ii. 384\n\nNorthamptonshire, kilns found in, ii. 444, 543;\n and see Castor\n\n\u039d\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03af, ii. 5, 135\n\nNozzles of lamps, ii. 395;\n as basis of classification, ii. 399 ff.\n\nNuma, pottery in use under, ii. 304, 455, 476, 477\n\nNursing-Mother type, see \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n\nNymphs, ii. 19, 31, 55, 82, 92, 143, 149\n\nNyx, ii. 79, 193\n\n\n_Obba_, ii. 472\n\n_Obrendarium_, ii. 456\n\nOccupations represented on vases, ii. 169 ff.\n\nOcriculum as pottery-centre, ii. 475, 490\n\nOculist\u2019s stamp on a vase, ii. 510\n\nOdysseus on vases, ii. 128, 133, 136, 137;\n on lamps, ii. 414\n\n_Odyssey_, subjects from, ii. 4, 135 ff.\n\nOedipus, ii. 117, 118\n\n_Oenophorum_, ii. 464\n\n_Officina_, meaning of, on tile-stamps, ii. 356, 362;\n use of, in Roman potters\u2019 stamps, ii. 461, 486, 509, 528, 535\n\nOikopheles, potter, i. 297, 379, ii. 258\n\nOil, amphorae used for, i. 153 ff.;\n other vases used for, i. 195 ff.;\n making and selling of, on vases, ii. 171, 262\n\n\u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 180\n\nOinocho\u00eb, i. 177, 334, 412, 469\n\nOinomaos, ii. 113\n\nOinopion, ii. 58, 91\n\nOistros, ii. 91, 194\n\nOkeanos, ii. 25\n\nOlbia, vases from, i. 61;\n tiles from, i. 101;\n wine-amphorae from, i. 157, 158\n\n_Olla_, ii. 389, 456, 457, 470, 529, 550\n\nOlpe or olpis, i. 178;\n Corinthian, i. 311;\n used by Amasis, i. 382\n\nOltos, painter, i. 421, 429\n\nOlympia, pottery found at, i. 52;\n terracotta architecture of, i. 92 ff.;\n personified, ii. 81;\n scenes at, on vases, ii. 113\n\nOlympian deities on vases, Chap. XII. _passim_;\n on lamps, ii. 414\n\nOlympos, scenes in, ii. 15 ff., 107\n\n\u2014\u2014 Mount, personified as Satyr, ii. 64, 83\n\nOnesimos, vase-painter, i. 421, 422, 434\n\n\u1f45\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 199\n\nOpaque painting on black ground, i. 226, 393, 485, 488 ff.\n\nOppius Restitutus, C., lamp maker, ii. 406, 425, 426\n\n_Opus doliare_, ii. 330, 354, 361, 458\n\n\u2014\u2014 _mixtum_, ii. 337, 339\n\n\u2014\u2014 _reticulatum_, ii. 338\n\nOrange, Gaulish medallions from, ii. 530 ff.\n\nOrbetello, pottery from, i. 73\n\n_Orbiculus_ on tile-stamps, ii. 353, 360\n\nOrchomenos, pottery from, i. 53\n\n_Orcio appulo_, ii. 325\n\nOrestes and his story, ii. 137\n\nOria, vases from, i. 86\n\nOriental influence in Cyprus, i. 239, 247 ff.;\n in Attica, i. 295, 298;\n at Corinth, i. 311, 318;\n in Ionia, i. 331, 333, 334;\n in Etruria, ii. 292, 296, 299, 303, 304;\n motives on vases, ii. 206\n\nOrientals on vases, ii. 178, 195, 199, 200\n\nOrmidhia, vase from, i. 253\n\nOrnamental patterns, origin of, ii. 210;\n rectilinear, ii. 211 ff.;\n curvilinear, ii. 216 ff.;\n vegetable and floral, ii. 220 ff.;\n treatment of, in different fabrics, ii. 232 ff.;\n Mycenaean, i. 276;\n Geometrical, i. 282;\n Boeotian, i. 288;\n Melian, i. 302;\n Corinthian, i. 312 ff.;\n Rhodian, i. 334;\n Naucratite, i. 348;\n Caeretan, i. 354;\n black-figured, i. 375;\n red-figured, i. 412;\n South Italian, i. 468;\n on Clazomenae sarcophagi, i. 365\n\nOrnamentation of Roman pottery, how produced, ii. 438;\n of Gaulish wares, ii. 520, 521, 526;\n of barbotine wares, ii. 514, 544;\n incised or indented, ii. 514, 546\n\nOrpheus, ii. 68, 143, 195\n\nOrsi, discoveries of, in Crete, i. 264 ff., 272\n\nOrthography of Attic vases, ii. 268 ff.\n\n\u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ii. 169, 197\n\nOrvieto, vases from, i. 74;\n krater from, in Louvre, i. 409, 442, ii. 203;\n terracotta sculpture at, ii. 319\n\nOscan inscriptions, i. 103, 483, ii. 273\n\n_Oscilla_, ii. 377\n\nOsco-Samnites, i. 483, ii. 180, 200, 324\n\n_Ossuaria_, i. 145, 272, ii. 285;\n and see Cinerary urn\n\nOstia, roof-tile from, ii. 345\n\nOstracism, i. 12, 103\n\n\u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f40\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, i. 89\n\nOundle, vase from, ii. 541\n\nOutline-drawing, i. 224, 320, 331, 334, 395, 455\n\nOwl-vases from Troy, i. 258\n\nOwners\u2019 names on vases, ii. 241\n\nOxford, Ashmolean Museum, i. 27\n\n\u1f40\u03be\u03af\u03c2, i. 194, ii. 239\n\n\u1f40\u03be\u03cd\u03b2\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, i. 136, 171, 194, ii. 239\n\n\nPaestum, vases from, i. 82;\n fabric of, i. 479;\n inscriptions on vases of, ii. 272\n\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, ii. 163\n\nPainted vases, special uses of, i. 142 ff.;\n manufacture of, i. 202 ff.;\n classification, i. 219 ff.;\n earliest examples in Greece, i. 239, 243, 260, 265;\n in Etruria, ii. 293, 306 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 442;\n termination of, in Greece and Italy, i. 487 ff., ii. 310, 431;\n and see Vase-paintings, Vases\n\nPainters of vases represented, i. 223, 227, 228\n\nPainting, Greek, i. 14, 320, 394 ff., 440 ff., 450;\n Ionic, i. 361;\n influence of, on vases, i. 14, 320, 394 ff., 440 ff., 450, 455, 471,\n ii. 203;\n on terracotta, i. 92, 397, 454;\n Etruscan, on terracotta, ii. 299, 319\n\nPalaeography of vase-inscriptions, ii. 245;\n of Attic inscriptions, ii. 268 ff.\n\nPalaestra, scenes in, ii. 162 ff.\n\nPalaimon, i. 314, ii. 26, 189\n\nPalazzolo (Acrae), vases from, i. 87\n\nPalladion, rape of, ii. 133\n\nPalmette-pattern, ii. 224 ff.;\n on Boeotian Geometrical vases, i. 288;\n on B.F., i. 375;\n on R.F., i. 413 ff.\n\nPamphaios, potter, i. 379, 420, 422 ff., 427, ii. 259\n\nPan, ii. 58, 192\n\nPanathenaic amphorae, i. 46, 69, 132, 145, 160, 389;\n inscriptions on, ii. 264, 270\n\n\u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03ca\u03ba\u03ac, i. 185, 410;\n and see Kotyle\n\nPandareos, ii. 141\n\nPandion, sons of, ii. 139\n\nPandora, ii. 75;\n \u201cbox\u201d of, i. 152\n\nPanels on vases, i. 160, 169, 221, 356, 369, 373, 375, ii. 208\n\nPanofka, theories of, i. 21, 149\n\nPantheon at Rome, date of brickwork, ii. 338, 360\n\nPanticapaeum, see Kertch\n\nPapposeilenos, ii. 65, 192\n\nParis, son of Priam, ii. 121 ff., 127, 195;\n Judgment of, ii. 122\n\nParis, see Louvre\n\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c8\u03af\u03c2, i. 194, ii. 469\n\nParos, stamped amphora-handles from, i. 157;\n primitive pottery from, i. 262\n\nParrhasios, i. 450\n\nParthenon sculptures, and vase-paintings, i. 15, 450, 460, 464, 497;\n and lamps, ii. 409\n\nPasiades, potter, i. 379\n\nPasiteles, use of clay models by, i. 111, ii. 375\n\nPasseri, theories of, i. 21;\n collection of lamps, ii. 408\n\nPastoral scenes on lamps, ii. 418;\n and see Tityrus\n\n_Patella_, ii. 469\n\n_Patera_, ii. 471;\n imitating metal, ii. 529;\n and see Phiale\n\nPaternus, potter, ii. 527\n\n_Patina_, ii. 456, 468\n\nPatroklos, ii. 123, 126, 130;\n games for, ii. 131;\n tomb of, ii. 131\n\nPatroni on Italian vases, i. 467, 479, 483, ii. 323 ff.\n\nPatterns, see Ornamental\n\nPausanias on use of brick and terracotta in Greece, i. 92, 98, 100;\n on the chest of Kypselos, ii. 236\n\nPavements, tiles used in, ii. 350\n\nPediment-style of composition, ii. 207\n\nPegasos, ii. 79, 114, 148\n\nPeiritho\u00f6s, ii. 111\n\nPeisistratos, i. 304, 369\n\nPeithinos, vase-painter, i. 421, 438\n\nPeitho, ii. 42, 49\n\nPeleus, ii. 120, 142\n\nPelias, funeral games for, i. 319, ii. 116\n\n\u201cPelike,\u201d i. 163, 411\n\n\u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, i. 186, 391;\n and cf. ii. 239\n\nPelops, ii. 113, 195\n\n\u03c0\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, i. 89\n\n_Pelvis_, ii. 469\n\nPenelope, ii. 135\n\nPentathlon, ii. 163\n\nPenteskouphia, pinakes from, i. 51, 139, 316\n\nPenthesileia, ii. 132\n\nPentheus, ii. 56, 142\n\nPerennius, M., potter, ii. 483, 492, 494\n\nPersephone, ii. 26 ff., 67, 189\n\nPerseus, ii. 112, 195\n\nPersia, vases from, i. 64\n\nPersians on vases, i. 420, ii. 151, 179\n\nPersonal names on vases, ii. 92, 260\n\nPersonifications on vases, ii. 77 ff.\n\nPerspective, conventional, i. 286, 312;\n on R.F. vases, i. 398;\n on South Italian, i. 470\n\nPerugia, vases from, i. 73\n\nPeucetians on vases, i. 487;\n pottery of, ii. 323 ff.\n\nPhaestos, pottery from, i. 60, 264\n\nPha\u00ebthon on Arretine vase, ii. 483\n\nPhaidra, ii. 112\n\nPhaleron ware, i. 49, 298\n\nPhanagoria, vases from, i. 61, 340\n\nPhaon, ii. 142\n\nPheidias, see Parthenon\n\nPheidippos, vase-painter, i. 424\n\nPhiale, i. 140, 191, 490, 502;\n and see _Patera_\n\nPhiloktetes, ii. 124\n\nPhilomela, ii. 139\n\nPhineus, i. 136, ii. 81, 115, 143;\n cup with subject of, i. 357, ii. 203\n\nPhintias, vase-painter, i. 421, 428, ii. 259\n\n\u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2, i. 85, 473, ii. 160\n\nPhobos on vases, ii. 90, 199;\n on lamps, ii. 398\n\nPhocaea, vases from, i. 62, 64, 254;\n as centre of fabric, i. 354, 360\n\nPhoenicians, in Cyprus, i. 247 ff.;\n influence of, on Etruria, ii. 296, 303\n\n_Phoenissae_ of Euripides, scenes from, i. 500, ii. 414, 415, 421\n\nPhoinix, ii. 126, 128\n\nPhokis, pottery from, i. 53\n\nPholos, ii. 102, 146\n\nPhosphoros, ii. 79\n\n\u03c6\u03bf\u03be\u03cc\u03c2, meaning of, i. 215\n\nPhrynos, potter, i. 379, 384\n\nPhthonos, ii. 49\n\nPhylakopi, pottery of, i. 57, 262\n\nPhysical conceptions personified, ii. 77 ff., 84\n\nPhysiognomy, treatment of, on vases, ii. 202 ff.\n\nPictorial style on vases, i. 409, 440 ff., 450, 470\n\nPile Cinq-Mars, ii. 337\n\nPinakes, Corinthian, i. 51, 207, 216, 217 316, ii. 170, 249;\n Rhodian, i. 335\n\nPinax, i. 194;\n votive, i. 139, 454, and see Pinakes;\n with subject of Euphorbos, i. 335, ii. 249\n\nPindar quoted, i. 132;\n comparison of, with vase-subjects, ii. 6\n\nPipes of terracotta, i. 109, ii. 347 ff.\n\nPisa, vases from, i. 72\n\nPisticci, vases from, i. 83\n\nPistillus, potter, ii. 383\n\nPistoxenos, potter, i. 423\n\nPitane, vases from, i. 62, 339\n\nPitcher, see Hydria, Kalpis\n\n\u03a0\u03b9\u03b8\u03bf\u03af\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1, ii. 156\n\nPithos, i. 57, 147, 151 ff., 209, 216;\n with reliefs, i. 496, ii. 292;\n Etruscan, ii. 292, 300\n\nPit-tombs of Etruria, ii. 284 ff.\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 96\n\nPlastic art, i. 6, 110;\n nature of clay, i. 5;\n principle in pottery, i. 238, 256, 257, 267, 310, 491 ff.;\n and see Modelling of vases\n\nPlautus quoted, ii. 456, 463, 476\n\nPlicque on Lezoux pottery, ii. 525 ff.\n\n\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, i. 94, 95\n\nPliny, traditions recorded by, i. 91, 92, 98, 110;\n on early Greek painting, i. 320, 394 ff.;\n on terracotta in Italy, ii. 313, 314, 371, 372;\n on Roman pottery, ii. 475\n\nPloutos, ii. 85\n\n_Poculum_, i. 180, ii. 467\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03c0\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 176\n\nPoinae, ii. 69, 90\n\nPoli (Marion), vases from, i. 67, 250, 255\n\nPolledrara ware, ii. 297 ff.;\n at Naukratis, i. 347\n\nPollentia, pottery of, i. 71, ii. 477\n\nPollux on names of vases, i. 149 ff.\n\nPolychrome painting, i. 224, 256, 449, 456;\n at Naukratis, i. 348;\n in Southern Italy, i. 484;\n in Etruria, ii. 299\n\nPolydeukes, see Dioskuri\n\nPolygnotos, painter, i. 15, 409, 421, 441 ff., 459, ii. 202, 209;\n vases in style of, i. 443\n\n\u2014\u2014 vase-painter, i. 421, 445\n\nPolykleitos, i. 112\n\nPolymestor, ii. 135\n\nPolyphemos, ii. 136\n\nPolyxena, i. 326, ii. 125, 135\nPomarico, vases from, i. 83\nPomegranate-patterns, ii. 222\nPompeii, wine-amphorae from, i. 158, ii. 462;\n paintings of, relation to vases, i. 471, 485;\n bricks used at, ii. 337;\n tiles used at, ii. 342 ff.;\n mural reliefs from, ii. 367;\n terracotta statues from, ii. 374;\n statuettes, ii. 375, 378;\n miscellaneous terracotta objects, ii. 387;\n _echea_, ii. 458;\n Gaulish pottery at, ii. 522, 524\n\n\u201cPontic\u201d vases, i. 359\n\nPopilius, C., potter, ii. 490\n\nPorcelain vases, i. 126 ff.\n\nPortraits on lamps, ii. 415\n\n_Portus_ on tile-stamps, ii. 363\n\nPoseidon on vases, ii. 22 ff., 188;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 13 ff.;\n on Corinthian pinakes, i. 317, ii. 23;\n on lamps, ii. 409\n\n_Post-Homerica_, scenes from, ii. 119 ff.\n\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 180\n\nPothos, ii. 49\n\nPotteries, Greek, i. 89, 233;\n scenes in, on vases, i. 208, 213, 216 ff., ii. 170;\n of tile-makers, ii. 356;\n at Arezzo, ii. 480 ff.;\n in Gaul, ii. 504, 533;\n importance of fixing sites of, ii. 441;\n and see Kerameikos\n\nPotters represented on vases, i. 208, 209, 213, 216 ff., 422, ii. 260;\n in sculpture, ii. 511;\n list of Greek, ii. 273 ff.;\n names or stamps of, on terracottas, ii. 379 ff.;\n on lamps, ii. 406, 423 ff.;\n on Arretine ware, ii. 480 ff.;\n Gaulish, ii. 504, 509 ff., 522, 526;\n in Germany, ii. 510, 535;\n in Britain, ii. 542;\n on mortars, ii. 551;\n wheel used by, i. 7, 206\n\nPottery, invention of, i. 3 ff.;\n Palaeolithic and Neolithic, i. 4;\n characteristics of Greek, i. 9;\n primitive Greek, i. 64, 206, 237 ff., 256 ff.;\n Greek terms for, i. 89;\n use of, in daily life, i. 135 ff.;\n shapes, i. 148 ff., ii. 458 ff.;\n imitations of metal in, i. 201, 488, 492, 495 ff.,\n and see Metal;\n manufacture, 202 ff.;\n unpainted domestic, i. 252, ii. 548 ff.\n\nPottier on Greek vases, i. 9, 298, 305, 308, 330, 367;\n on Etruscan, ii. 281, 301\n\n_Pozzo_-tombs in Etruria, ii. 284 ff.\n\nPozzuoli, see Puteoli\n\n_Praedia_ on tile-stamps, ii. 355\n\n_Praefericulum_, ii. 471\n\n_Praefurnium_, ii. 466\n\nPreimos, lamp-maker, i. 108\n\nPre-Mycenaean pottery in Greece, i. 256 ff.\n\nPriam, ii. 127, 131, 134\n\nPriapos, potter, i. 147\n\nPrices of vases, i. 43 ff.;\n scratched under the foot, ii. 238 ff.\n\nPrimitive pottery in Cyprus, i. 236 ff.;\n in Greece, 256 ff.;\n in Etruria, ii. 284 ff.\n\nPrize-vases, see Panathenaic\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, i. 167\n\nProcessions, ii. 155;\n and see Judgment of Paris\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03bf\u03c2, i. 178\n\nProkles, potter, i. 493\n\nProkne, ii. 139\n\nProkrustes, ii. 109\n\nPrometheus, ii. 75;\n as potter, ii. 378\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, i. 111, ii. 375, 378\n\nProteus, ii. 26, 136\n\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, i. 142, 459, ii. 157\n\nProthesis-amphorae, i. 142, 159, ii. 157\n\nProto-Attic vases, i. 159, 292 ff.\n\nProto-Corinthian vases, i. 305 ff., ii. 254\n\nProvincial Roman wares, ii. 497 ff.;\n as illustrating Roman art, ii. 508, 521\n\nPsiax, vase-painter, i. 421, 429\n\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 150, 172, 411\n\nPsychostasia, ii. 130, 132\n\nPtolemies, representations of, i. 129\n\nPtolemy Euergetes quoted, ii. 455\n\nPto\u00f6s, finds at Mount, i. 287\n\n_Pultarius_, ii. 472\n\nPunctured patterns, i. 242\n\n\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 105\n\n\u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae\u03c2, i. 215\n\nPurple, use of, for details, i. 221, 231, 312, 371\n\n\u201cPursuing\u201d type on R.F. vases, i. 419\n\nPuteals, terracotta used for, ii. 387\n\nPuteoli as vase-centre, ii. 478, 492\n\nPygmies and cranes, ii. 149\n\nPyrrhos, potter, i. 308, ii. 254\n\nPython, potter, i. 423, 434\n\n\u2014\u2014 vase-painter, i. 147, 478 ff., ii. 272\n\nPyxis, i. 198, 201, 412, 449;\n and see Dodwell\n\n\nRaimondi, restorer of vases, i. 42\n\nRasinius Pisanus, L., potter, ii. 485, 523\n\nRattles, vases used as, i. 137\n\nReclining figures in terracotta, i. 124;\n on Etruscan sarcophagi, ii. 317, 321\n\nRed glaze, Roman, ii. 435 ff., 497;\n on Greek sites, ii. 476, 498;\n and see Glaze\n\nRed wares, Cypriote, i. 241, 251;\n Roman, plain, ii. 549\n\nRed-bodied amphorae, i. 161, 221, 369\n\nRed-figured vases, technique of, i. 221;\n found in Cyprus, i. 255;\n chronology of, i. 401;\n drawing, i. 406;\n shapes, i. 409 ff.;\n ornamentation, i. 412 ff., ii. 234;\n subjects, i. 416 ff.;\n arrangement of subjects on, ii. 208;\n relation to B.F., i. 368, 386, 393, 400;\n Etruscan imitations of, ii. 309\n\nRegulini-Galassi tomb at Cervetri, ii. 300\n\nReliefs, architectural, i. 98, ii. 315 ff., 343, 345;\n terracotta, i. 119;\n Roman mural, ii. 365 ff.;\n Greek vases with, i. 496 ff.;\n Etruscan vases with, ii. 292, and see _Bucchero_;\n method of producing, in Roman pottery, ii. 438 ff., 505;\n _appliqu\u00e9_, at Lezoux, ii. 529;\n and see _Terra sigillata_\n\nReligion of Greeks, i. 13, 138 ff., ii. 155;\n of Mycenaeans, i. 273\n\nReligious uses of vases, i. 138;\n subjects on vases, ii. 154 ff.\n\n\u1fe5\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, i. 193\n\nRestoration of vases, i. 40, 147\n\nRevels on vases, ii. 182\n\nRextugenos, potter, ii. 384\n\nRheinzabern, stamps from, ii. 440;\n mould from, ii. 441;\n kilns at, ii. 446, 450;\n potteries of, ii. 504, 535;\n potters\u2019 names at, ii. 510\n\nRheneia, vases from, i. 57, 302\n\nRhesos, ii. 128\n\nRhineland, terracottas from, ii. 380, 383;\n pottery of, ii. 498, 500 ff., 534 ff.\n\nRhodes, tombs of, i. 34, 121;\n vases found in, i. 58;\n terracottas from, i. 112, 121;\n \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 from, i. 152;\n wine-amphorae and stamps from, i. 155;\n typical oinocho\u00eb of, i. 177;\n Mycenaean vases from, i. 274, 276;\n Corinthian, i. 311;\n B.F. kylikes, i. 357;\n vases with reliefs, i. 497\n\nRhodian pottery, i. 333 ff.;\n ornamentation, i. 334, ii. 225, 231, 233;\n \u201cmixed\u201d technique of, i. 338;\n found at Troy, i. 339;\n compared with Naukratis, i. 345 ff.;\n influence on Proto-Attic, i. 294, 295\n\nRhoikos, i. 110\n\nRhone valley as pottery-centre, ii. 440, 498, 503, 530, 533\n\nRhyton, i. 127, 192, 201, 211, 410, 493, 494\n\nRiegl on ornamentation of vases, ii. 223 ff.;\n on Mycenaean, i. 276\n\nRipanus Tiberinus, potter, ii. 551\n\nRiver-gods, ii. 83, 194;\n and see Achelo\u00f6s, Nile\n\nRivets for mending vases, i. 147\n\nRoach-Smith on Roman pottery, ii. 503, 508, 529, 540, 542\n\nRobert on Polygnotos, i. 442, 445;\n on Megarian bowls, i. 499\n\nRoman art, illustrated in pottery, ii. 489, 494, 507, 508, 521, 544 ff.;\n porcelain ware, i. 129;\n subjects on mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n on lamps, ii. 407, 412, 416;\n villas in Britain, use of tiles in, ii. 346, 348;\n Wall, pottery from, ii. 540\n\n\u2014\u2014 pottery, uses of, ii. 387, 455 ff.;\n compared with Greek, ii. 430, 472;\n limits of subject, ii. 430 ff.;\n extent of use of, ii. 431, 433, 455, 473, 496;\n development of, from earlier, ii. 431, 432, 489 ff.;\n termination of, ii. 432, 495;\n technical processes, ii. 433 ff.;\n plain wares, ii. 437, 496, 547 ff.;\n kilns for, ii. 443 ff.;\n shapes and names, ii. 458 ff.;\n centres of manufacture, ii. 474 ff.;\n transition to provincial wares, ii. 496, 500 ff.;\n in Germany, ii. 504, 510, 536, 552;\n in Britain, ii. 540 ff.;\n and see Arretine, Gaul, Provincial wares\n\nRomanensis, lamp-maker, i. 108, ii. 423, 427\n\nRomano-British pottery, ii. 543 ff.;\n from Wroxeter, ii. 553\n\nRome, collections at, i. 29;\n pottery found at, i. 79, ii. 456, 461;\n use of terracotta at, for sculpture, ii. 314, 372;\n use of bricks and tiles at, ii. 331 ff.;\n stamped tiles from, ii. 352 ff.;\n evidence for dating buildings at, ii. 360;\n mural reliefs from, ii. 365;\n statuettes of terracotta in use at, ii. 376 ff.;\n use of lamps at, ii. 393, 396;\n as centre of lamp-fabric, ii. 427;\n _echea_ found at, ii. 457;\n as centre for pottery, ii. 477;\n Arretine stamps at, ii. 481 ff.;\n provincial wares at, ii. 498, 522\n\nRoofs and roof-tiles of terracotta, i. 96 ff., ii. 315, 344, 345\n\nRosettes on vases, i. 312, 334, ii. 230\n\nRottenburg, inscribed vases from, ii. 512\n\n_Rubrica_, i. 205, ii. 404\n\nRussia, collections in, i. 28;\n vases from, i. 60;\n tiles from, i. 101;\n stamped wine amphorae from, i. 158;\n and see Kertch, Olbia\n\nRutenian pottery and potters, see Graufesenque\n\nRutenus, potter (?), ii. 510\n\nRuvo, vases found at, i. 83;\n furnace at, i. 215;\n as centre for Apulian vases, i. 486\n\n\nSabinus, potter, ii. 508\n\nSacrifices, vases used in, i. 140;\n representations of, ii. 155\n\n_Saeculares_ on lamps, ii. 396, 398, 421\n\nSaguntum as pottery-centre, ii. 479, 499, 540\n\nSt.-R\u00e9my-en-Rollat, potteries of, ii. 382, 385, 516;\n clay of, ii. 434\n\nSakonides, vase-painter, i. 379, 384\n\nSala Consilina, local pottery from, ii. 324, 328\n\nSalamis (Attica), personified, ii. 82;\n vases from, i. 54\n\n\u2014\u2014 (Cyprus), vases from, i. 66, 245;\n lamp from, ii. 409\n\nSalmoneus, ii. 143\n\n\u201cSamian\u201d ware, i. 57, 71, ii. 474 ff., 497\n\nSamnium as pottery-centre, ii. 475\n\nSamos, pottery of, i. 57, 336 ff., and see ii. 475\n\nSandwith on Cypriote pottery, i. 65, 240\n\n\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c2, i. 112, 122\n\nSanta Agata dei Goti (Saticula), vases from, i. 81, 484\n\nSappho, ii. 144, 151\n\nSarapis on lamps, ii. 402, 409, 412\n\nSarcophagi of terracotta, i. 104, ii. 457;\n from Clazomenae, i. 62, 104, 362 ff.;\n Etruscan, ii. 317, 320 ff.\n\nSardinia, vases from, i. 88;\n and see Tharros\n\nSardis, pottery from, i. 64\n\nSarpedon, ii. 129\n\nSarteano, vases from, i. 73\n\nSaticula, fabric of, i. 81, 484\n\nSaturnalia, statuettes in connection with, ii. 376\n\nSaturnus Balcaranensis, lamps from altar of, ii. 397\n\nSatyric drama, subjects from, ii. 7, 161;\n mask of terracotta, i. 104, ii. 377\n\nSatyrs, ii. 54 ff., 192;\n names of, ii. 65;\n Ionic, i. 353, 355;\n on R.F. vases, i. 416, 417;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 369;\n on lamps, ii. 411\n\nSaurias of Samos, painter, i. 361\n\nScale-patterns, ii. 218;\n Corinthian, i. 311;\n Ionic, i. 338, 352\n\nSchliemann\u2019s excavations, i. 256\n\nSchool-scenes on vases, i. 435, ii. 168, 263\n\nSculpture, in clay, i. 6, 110;\n Etruscan, ii. 313 ff.;\n at Rome, ii. 371;\n use of clay models in, ii. 375;\n in relation to vase-paintings, i. 15, 450\n\n_Scutra_, ii. 470\n\n_Scyphi Homerici_, i. 134, 185, 499, ii. 2\n\nScythians, on vases, ii. 179;\n dialect of (?), ii. 256\n\nSea-deities, ii. 25, 189;\n on Corinthian vases, i. 314, ii. 26, 189\n\nSeasons on mural reliefs, ii. 368, 370;\n on Arretine vases, ii. 488, 493;\n and see Spring, Horae\n\nSeianti Thanunia, sarcophagus of, ii. 322\n\nSeileni, ii. 54 ff., 65, 161;\n and see Satyrs\n\nSelene, ii. 78, 79, 193;\n on lamps, ii. 412\n\nSelinus, tombs of, i. 37;\n vases from, i. 87\n\nSelva la Rocca, vases from, i. 76\n\nSemele, ii. 18, 56\n\nSemitic nations, use of brick among, i. 6, 91;\n and see Assyrian, Oriental\n\nSeptimius Secundanus, C., potter, ii. 511\n\nSepulchral stelae compared with vases, i. 461, 477, ii. 158;\n and see Funeral, Tomb\n\n\u201cSevere\u201d style of R.F. vases, i. 420, 422 ff.\n\nSexes, distinction of, on early vases, i. 317, 331;\n and see ii. 200\n\nShapes of vases, i. 13, 148 ff.;\n at Troy, i. 258;\n at Thera, i. 261;\n Mycenaean, i. 271;\n Geometrical, i. 281, 287;\n Proto-Attic, i. 293;\n Proto-Corinthian, i. 308;\n Corinthian, i. 313, 317;\n Rhodian. i. 334;\n Attic B.F., i. 372 ff.;\n R.F., i. 409 ff.;\n White-ground vases, i. 456;\n South Italian, i. 468, 481, 483, 485;\n Etruscan, ii. 285 ff., 302;\n local Italian, ii. 325 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 458 ff.;\n Arretine, ii. 488;\n provincial, ii. 500 ff., 505, 520, 526\n\nShields, devices on, ii. 198\n\nShips, ii. 178;\n on Dipylon vases, i. 285, 291;\n on lamps, ii. 417\n\n\u201cShort-hand\u201d system of indicating landscape, etc., ii. 204 ff.\n\nSicily, history of, in relation to vases, i. 11;\n tombs in, i. 37;\n vases from, i. 86, 307, 311;\n terracotta architecture of, i. 100\n\nSigeion, vases from, i. 61\n\n_Sigilla_, ii. 375 ff.\n\n_Sigillaria_, ii. 376\n\n_Sigillarius_, ii. 511\n\nSignatures, forms of, i. 379, 422 ff., ii. 257 ff.;\n of Gaulish potters, ii. 381, 509;\n of German potters, ii. 510;\n of lamp-makers, ii. 423 ff., 427\n\nSikanos, potter, i. 420, 424\n\nSikelos, vase-painter, i. 391\n\nSikyon, vases from, i. 51;\n alphabet of, i. 321, 381, ii. 252;\n painters of school of, i. 395\n\nSilchester, pottery from, ii. 522\n\nSilhouette paintings on vases, i. 220, 285, 396, 455;\n on Clazomenae sarcophagi, i. 362\n\nSilphium at Kyrene, i. 342\n\nSilver, vases coated with, i. 74, 189, 501\n\nSimonides quoted, i. 132\n\n_Simpulum_, _simpuvium_, ii. 471\n\nSinging on vases, ii. 169, 182;\n inscriptions denoting, ii. 261\n\nSinis, ii. 109\n\n_Sinus_, ii. 465\n\nSipylos, pottery from, i. 64\n\nSirens, ii. 147, 196\n\nSisyphos, ii. 68;\n and cf. ii. 264\n\nSitula, i. 165, ii. 464;\n from Daphnae, i. 350\n\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03b7, i. 175\n\nSkiron, ii. 109\n\n\u03c3\u03ba\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, i. 184\n\nSkylla, ii. 26, 148, 189\n\n\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03ba\u03b7, i. 198\n\nSmikros, vase-painter, i. 421, 440, ii. 259\n\nSmith (Cecil) on Proto-Attic vases, i. 294;\n on R.F. vases, i. 407;\n on Polledrara ware, ii. 300\n\nSmithy of Hephaistos, ii. 37, 171\n\nSocial advantages, etc., personified, ii. 85, 91\n\n\u03c3\u03c9\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, i. 96\n\nSolygea, vase from, i. 51\n\nSophilos, vase-painter, i. 379, 380\n\nSorrento, vases from, i. 82\n\nSosias, potter, i. 421, 439\n\nSotades, potter, i. 191, 410, 421, 445, 457\n\nSouthern Italy, see Apulia, Campania, Lucania, Italy\n\nSpain, Roman pottery in, ii. 479, 480, 540\n\nSparta personified, ii. 82\n\nSpata, pottery from, i. 49\n\nSphinx, i. 249, ii. 147, 196;\n Theban, ii. 117\n\nSpiral patterns, i. 292, 302, 375, ii. 217\n\nSporades, pottery from, i. 57\n\nSport on vases, ii. 165\n\nSpring, stamp with figure of, ii. 439, 493;\n and see Seasons\n\nStackelberg, i. 18, 42, 48\n\nStage, subjects from, see Drama\n\nStag-hunts, ii. 165\n\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, i. 163, 411;\n from Daphnae, i. 352\n\nStamped patterns on Greek vases, i. 212\n\nStamps on bricks and tiles, ii. 352 ff.;\n in the provinces, ii. 357;\n military, ii. 363 ff.;\n on _dolia_, ii. 459;\n on wine-amphorae, i. 155 ff., ii. 461 ff.;\n for figures in Roman pottery, ii. 438;\n and see Inscriptions, Signatures\n\nStars, ii. 79\n\n_Stationes_ on tile-stamps, ii. 362\n\nStatues of terracotta, i. 109, ii. 371 ff.\n\nStatuettes of terracotta, Greek, i. 110 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 375 ff.;\n Gaulish, ii. 379 ff.\n\n\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, i. 96\n\n_Stelae_ with inscriptions on vases, ii. 272;\n and see Sepulchral\n\n\u201cStill-life\u201d subjects, ii. 185\n\nStone Age, pottery of, i. 4, 9;\n and see Neolithic\n\nStrabo quoted, i. 50, 134\n\n_Strenae_, ii. 398\n\n\u201cStrong\u201d period of R.F. vases, i. 417, 421\n\nStudniczka on Cyrenaic vases, i. 341\n\nStudy of Greek vases, its uses, i. 10 ff.;\n its history, i. 16 ff.\n\nStymphalian birds, ii. 98\n\nSubjects on vases, i. 12 ff.;\n interpretation of, i. 21, ii. 8;\n relation to literature, ii. 1 ff.;\n arrangement of, ii. 206 ff.;\n Mycenaean, i. 272;\n Dipylon, i. 286;\n Proto-Attic, i. 296;\n Melian, i. 301;\n Proto-Corinthian, i. 309;\n Corinthian, i. 314 ff.;\n Black-figured, i. 376 ff.;\n Red-figured, i. 416 ff.;\n White-ground, i. 457;\n South Italian, i. 474 ff.;\n Campanian, i. 483;\n Etruscan, ii. 292, 302, 309;\n Arretine, ii. 492 ff.;\n provincial, ii. 507, 521, 544;\n on lamps, ii. 408 ff.;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 368 ff.\n\nSub-Mycenaean pottery, i. 246\n\nSuetonius quoted, i. 134, ii. 336\n\nSumlocene, vases from colony of, ii. 512\n\nSun-dried bricks, i. 89 ff., ii. 331, 333\n\nSusa (Persia), vase from, i. 64\n\nSwallow-scene, ii. 185, 262\n\nSwimming-scenes, ii. 173\n\nSyra, pottery from, i. 262\n\nSyracuse, vases from, i. 86, 307\n\n\nTaleides, potter, i. 379, 380\n\nTalos, ii. 116\n\nTamassos, vase from, i. 249\n\nTanagra, vases from, i. 53, 451;\n terracottas from, i. 112, 116, 124.\n\nTantalos, ii. 68\n\nTaras, ii. 144, 160\n\nTarentum, vases from, i. 85;\n moulds from, i. 115;\n \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 at, i. 473;\n as centre of pottery (?), i. 486, 488, ii. 324\n\nTarragona, Roman pottery from, ii. 479, 480, 540\n\nTarsus, lamps from, i. 108;\n enamelled wares from, i. 129\n\nTataie lekythos, i. 80, ii. 242\n\nTaygeta, ii. 19, 82\n\nTechnical processes, for terracottas, i. 113 ff.;\n for Greek vases, i. 202 ff.;\n for lamps, ii. 405;\n for Roman pottery, ii. 433 ff.;\n for Romano-British, ii. 545;\n miscellaneous details, B.F., i. 370;\n R.F., i. 405, 449;\n White-ground, i. 455;\n South Italian, i. 470\n\n_Tegulae_, i. 96, ii. 340;\n _bessales_, ii. 332, 348;\n _bipedales_, ii. 332, 337, 339, 346, 351;\n _colliciares_, _deliciares_, ii. 341;\n _mammatae_, ii. 341, 346;\n _sesquipedales_, ii. 332;\n and see Tiles\n\nTelemachos, ii. 136\n\nTelephos, ii. 125\n\nTell-el-Amarna, pottery from, i. 67\n\n_Tempera_ painting, i. 117, 119, ii. 321, 367\n\nTemples, use of terracotta for, in Greece, i. 92 ff.;\n in Italy, i. 98, 101, ii. 314;\n lamps used in, ii. 397\n\nTenea, vases from, i. 51\n\nTeos, pottery of, i. 64\n\nTereus, ii. 139\n\n_Terra sigillata_, term explained, ii. 434; and see i. 503, ii. 474,\n 496;\n in Greece, ii. 476, 498;\n provincial, ii. 497 ff.;\n centres of fabric of, ii. 503;\n Rutenian, ii. 520;\n at Banassac, ii. 525;\n at Lezoux, ii. 526;\n in Germany, ii. 534;\n in Britain, ii. 540;\n combined with barbotine, ii. 529;\n termination of, in Italy, ii. 495;\n in the provinces, ii. 508, 526\n\nTerracotta, use of, for bricks, i. 7, ii. 334 ff.;\n for tiles, i. 96 ff., ii. 341 ff.;\n in architecture, Greek, i. 92 ff.;\n Etruscan, ii. 314 ff.;\n at Rome and Pompeii, ii. 343 ff.;\n for pipes, i. 103, ii. 349;\n in tombs, i. 104, ii. 351;\n for sarcophagi, i. 104, 362 ff., ii. 317, 320 ff., 457;\n for coin-moulds, i. 106, ii. 390 ff.;\n for impressions for seals, i. 106;\n for models for statues, i. 111, ii. 375;\n miscellaneous uses, i. 90, 105, ii. 387 ff.;\n Greek terms for, i. 89;\n invention of modelling and moulding, i. 110;\n vases of, i. 118, 146, 201;\n reliefs, i. 119, ii. 365 ff.;\n antefixal ornaments, i. 97 ff., ii. 315, 317, 343;\n architectural sculpture in Etruria, ii. 317, 318;\n statues, i. 109, ii. 371 ff.;\n statuettes, i. 112 ff., ii. 375 ff.;\n Boeotian, i. 290;\n Etruscan, ii. 313 ff.;\n Gaulish, ii. 379 ff.;\n Roman, ii. 373 ff.;\n types, i. 121 ff.;\n methods of manufacture, i. 113 ff., ii. 378;\n use of colour for, i. 116. ii. 321, 322;\n painted panels, i. 92, ii. 299, 319;\n use of, as substitute for metal, i. 495 ff., ii. 431, 455\n\nTerramare civilisation, ii. 283\n\nTerranuova, see Gela\n\n_Testa_, ii. 331, cf. 350\n\nTeucheira, vases from, i. 69\n\nTextiles, influence of, i. 312, 333, ii. 211\n\nThaleia, ii. 19\n\nThamyris, ii. 144\n\nThanatos, ii. 71, 84, 193\n\nTharros, vases from, i. 88;\n porcelain ware from, i. 128\n\nThasos, amphora-stamps from, i. 157;\n alphabet of, i. 443, ii. 271\n\nTheatrical treatment of subjects, i. 470;\n subjects on vases, see Drama\n\nThebes, vases from, i. 52, 286, 390;\n personified, ii. 82, and see 83;\n legends of, ii. 116 ff.\n\nThemis, ii. 74\n\nTheocritus quoted, ii. 2\n\nTheodoric, tiles of, ii. 355\n\nTheokosmos, i. 92, 111\n\nTheozotos, potter, i. 52, 301\n\nThera, finds in, i. 56;\n \u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03bf\u03b9 from, i. 153;\n early pottery of, i. 260 ff.;\n connection with Crete, i. 264;\n Mycenaean vases from, i. 270\n\nThericleian kylikes, i. 189\n\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1, i. 175\n\nThermon metopes, i. 92\n\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2, i. 169, 175\n\nThersites, ii. 126, 132; and see i. 215\n\nTheseus, on R.F. vases, i. 417, 432, 442;\n with Minotaur, ii. 109, 298;\n labours of, ii. 108 ff.;\n in Hades, ii. 68, 111;\n in Crete, ii. 110;\n at Athens, ii. 111\n\nThessaly, pottery from, i. 54\n\nThetis, ii. 120, 130\n\nThiersch on Tyrrhenian amphorae, i. 324 ff.\n\nThoas, ii. 143\n\nThracians, ii. 143, 179, 200;\n and see ii. 166\n\nThypheithides, potter, i. 147\n\nTickets of terracotta, ii. 388\n\nTigranes, potter, ii. 483\n\nTiles, Greek, i. 96 ff.;\n inscribed, i. 101, 102;\n used for tombs, i. 104\n\n\u2014\u2014 Roman, used as bricks, ii. 331;\n for other purposes, ii. 341;\n in Roman walls in Britain, ii. 332;\n later use of, ii. 335;\n varieties of, ii. 332, 341;\n flanged, ii. 341, 342;\n for roofs, ii. 342 ff.;\n ornamental, ii. 343;\n used for warming, ii. 346 ff.;\n for pavements, ii. 350;\n for tombs, ii. 351;\n potteries for, ii. 356;\n inscriptions on, ii. 351 ff., 357 ff., 363 ff.;\n military, ii. 351, 363;\n from Central Europe, ii. 357 ff.;\n from Britain, ii. 342, 346, 348, 350, 359, 363;\n chronological evidence of, ii. 360 ff.\n\nTimagoras, potter, i. 379, 383\n\nTimonidas, vase-painter, i. 315, 317, ii. 251\n\nTiryns, finds at, i. 51\n\nTischbein, i. 17\n\nTitius, A., Arretine potter, ii. 480, 485\n\nTityrus on lamps, ii. 416\n\nTleson, potter, i. 379, 383\n\nToilet-scenes on vases, i. 475, ii. 172, 173;\n and see Aphrodite, Helen\n\nTomb, cult of, on vases, i. 143 ff., 459 ff., 477, ii. 158\n\nTombs, Greek, i. 33 ff.;\n Cypriote, i. 35, 237, 250, 255, 256;\n in Cyrenaica, i. 36;\n in Sicily, i. 37;\n in Italy, i. 37 ff.;\n in Dipylon at Athens, i. 280;\n in Etruria, ii. 284 ff.;\n _a pozzo_, ii. 284;\n _a fossa_, ii. 289;\n _a camera_, ii. 294;\n of large size, ii. 300;\n arrangement of vases in, i. 38;\n vases used in, i. 143 ff., ii. 456, 550;\n tiles used for, ii. 351;\n lamps used in, ii. 397;\n forms of, as depicted on vases, ii. 157, 158\n\nTongue-pattern, i. 375, ii. 219\n\nTools used in painting vases, i. 227 ff.;\n by Roman potters, ii. 437 ff.\n\nTorch-race, ii. 164\n\nToreutic work, influence of, on Arretine ware, ii. 489\n\nTowneley, terracottas collected by, ii. 366, 373\n\nToys, of terracotta, i. 120;\n vases used as, i. 137;\n representations of, on vases, ii. 167\n\nTrades on vases, ii. 169 ff.\n\nTradition, literary and artistic, compared, i. 13, ii. 3 ff.\n\nTragedy and vase-paintings, i. 471, ii. 7, 162\n\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, i. 193\n\n_Traits reserv\u00e9s_, i. 362\n\nTreasury of Gela at Olympia, terracotta used in, i. 100\n\nTrench-tombs in Etruria, ii. 289\n\nTrier as pottery-centre, ii. 502, 534, 536\n\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ae\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2, i. 186\n\nTriptolemos, ii. 27, 189\n\nTriton, ii. 25, 101, 189\n\nTriumphs, lamps used in, ii. 396\n\nTroad, pottery from, i. 61, 153, 330, 339;\n and see Troy\n\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, of lamps, i. 107\n\nTroilos, i. 433, ii. 125\n\nTrojan subjects on vases, i. 322, 335, ii. 4, 119 ff.;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 370;\n on lamps, ii. 414\n\nTroy, finds at, i. 61, 256, 339;\n early pottery of, i. 257 ff., and see 491;\n compared with Cypriote, i. 238, 240, 243;\n Sack of, on vases, ii. 133\n\n_Trua_, _trulla_, ii. 470\n\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, i. 194\n\nTudot on Gaulish terracottas, ii. 380 ff.\n\n_Tuguria_, ii. 288\n\nTychios, potter, i. 379, 383\n\nTydeus, ii. 118\n\nTypes on B.F. vases, i. 377, 388;\n on R.F., i. 418 ff.;\n distinctions of, ii. 187 ff.\n\nTyphon, ii. 12, 149\n\nTyrrhenian amphorae, i. 160, 324 ff.\n\nTyrrhenians, ii. 281\n\nTyszkiewicz on forgeries, i. 42;\n on vase from Vulci, i. 77\n\n\nUmbrian civilisation, ii. 282\n\nUnder-world on vases, i. 476, ii. 66 ff., 159;\n types of persons in, ii. 192;\n and see Hades\n\nUpchurch ware, ii. 546\n\n_Urceus_, ii. 465\n\n_Urna_, ii. 464\n\nUssing on vase-shapes, i. 150 ff.\n\n\n_Vallisneria spiralis_, i. 272, ii. 224\n\nVarnish, black, i. 219 ff., 369, 371, 405 ff.\n\nVase-painters, i. 219 ff., 379 ff., 405 ff., 421 ff.\n\nVase-paintings, early interpretations of, i. 21;\n technical aspects of, i. 219 ff.;\n later study of, i. 235;\n earliest Greek, i. 239, 260, 265 ff.;\n decadence of, i. 462 ff., 487 ff.;\n relations of, to the drama, ii. 159 ff.;\n to literature in general, ii. 1 ff.;\n to Greek mythology, i. 13;\n to painting, i. 14, 320, 395 ff., 440 ff., 471;\n to sculpture, i. 15, 450\n\nVases, Greek painted, value of study of, i. 10 ff.;\n exportations of, to Italy, i. 11, 467;\n early publications of, i. 16 ff.;\n collections of, i. 17, 23 ff.;\n alleged Etruscan origin of, i. 18 ff., 79;\n classification, i. 22, 219 ff.;\n discovery of, and arrangement in tombs, i. 33 ff.;\n restorations and imitations, i. 39 ff.;\n prices paid for, i. 43 ff.;\n found in Italy, i. 71 ff.;\n mention of, in literature, i. 132 ff.;\n uses of, i. 135 ff.;\n repair of, in antiquity, i. 147;\n shapes of, i. 148 ff.;\n manufacture, i. 202 ff.;\n primitive, i. 256 ff.;\n influence of, in Etruria, ii. 289 ff., 296 ff., 307 ff., 320;\n compared with Roman, ii. 430, 472\n\nVaults, use of jars for, ii. 457\n\nVechten, pottery found at, ii. 522, 539\n\nVegetable ornament on vases, i. 312, ii. 221 ff.\n\nVeii (Isola Farnese), Campana tomb at, i. 38, ii. 320;\n vases from, i. 75;\n sculptors in terracotta from, ii. 372\n\nVelius Primus, Q., potter, ii. 377\n\nVelleia as pottery-centre, ii. 477\n\nVenice, forgeries made at, i. 41\n\nVenus, Gaulish, ii. 385;\n on provincial wares, ii. 507, 508;\n and see Aphrodite\n\nVetulonia, early remains at, ii. 284;\n _Tomba del Duce_ at, ii. 300\n\nVictors in contests, ii. 164, 169, 417\n\nVictory, see Nike\n\nVienna, collections at, i. 28\n\nVienne as pottery-centre, ii. 441, 530\n\nVillanuova civilisation in Etruria, i. 292, ii. 284 ff.\n\nVindex, potter, ii. 383, 426\n\nVitalis, potter, ii. 522\n\nVitellius, story of, ii. 456\n\nViterbo, vases from, i. 74\n\nVitruvius quoted, on bricks and tiles, ii. 331, 333, 335, 339;\n on terracotta sculpture, ii. 371, 372;\n on _echea_, ii. 457\n\nVivenzio vase, i. 45, 146, 438, ii. 134\n\nVolca of Veii, ii. 314\n\nVolterra, vases from, i. 72\n\nVolutes on nozzles of lamps, ii. 400\n\nVotive lamps, ii. 397;\n offerings, ii. 156;\n tablets, i. 51, 139, 316, 454, ii. 156, and see Pinax;\n vases, i. 138, ii. 242\n\nVourva vases, i. 50, 295, 299, 324\n\nVulci, excavations at, i. 19, 76 ff.;\n tombs at, i. 37, 78, ii. 287, 291, 294;\n and see Polledrara\n\n\nWarrior, tomb of, ii. 158;\n on painted pinax, i. 397, 454\n\nWarrior-vase (Mycenaean ?), i. 297\n\nWarriors, on vases, i. 285, 475, 483, ii. 175 ff., 198;\n Italian, i. 475, 483, ii. 180;\n Oriental, ii. 178, 179;\n race of, armed, ii. 164;\n on lamps, ii. 417\n\nWave-pattern, ii. 218\n\nWeddings, see Marriage\n\nWedgwood, i. 20, 41\n\nWesterndorf, pottery of, ii. 504, 507, 535;\n potters\u2019 stamps at, ii. 520\n\nWheel, for cutting patterns, ii. 441;\n potter\u2019s, i. 7, 206, ii. 437;\n earliest vases made on, in Greece, i. 260, 266;\n in Etruria, ii. 290\n\nWhite paint used for details, i. 294, 331, 355, 371, 407, 470\n\nWhite slip, use of, for painting, i. 397;\n and see \u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\n\nWhite wares, Cypriote, i. 243, 244, 246, 251;\n Romano-British, ii. 553\n\nWhite-ground vases, i. 224, 454 ff.\n\nWicks of lamps, i. 107, ii. 395, 403\n\nWide on Mycenaean pottery, i. 276;\n on Geometrical, i. 278 ff.\n\nWilisch on Corinthian vases, i. 304 ff.\n\nWinckelmann, i. 16, 19, 79\n\nWinds, ii. 80, 194\n\nWine-amphorae, i. 154 ff., ii. 460 ff.\n\nWinged figures, i. 460, ii. 72, 90, 193, 194\n\nWitte (J. de), i. 23\n\nWomen, games of, ii. 167;\n as dancers, ii. 169;\n as jugglers, ii. 174, 182;\n life of, on vases, ii. 172 ff.;\n dress of, ii. 200 ff.\n\nWrestlers, ii. 163\n\nWriting materials, use of clay for, i. 7\n\nWroxeter, Romano-British pottery from, ii. 553\n\n\nXanten (Castra Vetera), pottery from, ii. 500, 501, 522, 534\n\nXanthippos on _ostrakon_, i. 12, 103\n\nXenokles, potter, i. 374, 379, 383\n\nXenophantos, potter, i. 61, 421, 447, 464\n\nXenotimos, potter, i. 421, 444\n\n\u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd in terracotta, i. 110, 122;\n of Hera, ii. 21;\n of Apollo, ii. 34;\n of Artemis, ii. 35;\n of Athena, ii. 40;\n of Dionysos, ii. 60\n\n\nYellow wares, plain Roman, ii. 548\n\nYork, stamp from, ii. 439;\n pottery from, ii. 443, 540\n\n\nZagreus, ii. 74\n\nZakro, pottery from, i. 60, 268\n\n\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac, ii. 179, 200\n\nZephyros, ii. 80\n\nZetes, see Boreades\n\nZethos, ii. 117\n\nZeus on vases, ii. 17 ff., 188;\n in Gigantomachia, ii. 13, 14;\n at birth of Athena, ii. 15;\n \u1f18\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2, ii. 18;\n weighing souls of heroes, ii. 130, 132;\n on mural reliefs, ii. 369;\n on lamps, ii. 408\n\nZeuxis, i. 441, 471\n\nZigzag patterns, see Chevrons\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\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\nThe author has included as Fig. 173 a table of alphabets used on Greek\nvases.\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. 31, note 108, the reference to Overbeck\u2019s _Kunstmythologie Atlas_\nfailed to italicize \u201cAtlas\u201d.\n\nOn p. 72, the reference to footnote (882) is missing from the text. The\nreference has been added at the end of the paragraph ending with \u201che\nfloats through the air fully armed, with large wings.\u201d The description\nof item B 240, referred to in the note, from a contemporary edition of\n_A Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum_\nagrees with this characterization.\n\nOn p. 458, the footnote number for 3184 was missing and has been\nreplaced.\n\nThe following table contains those textual issues which are readily\nattributed to printer\u2019s errors:\n\n p. 138 n. 1421 Pylades at [o/O]mphalos Corrected.\n\n p. 345 [r]idge-tiles Missing \u2018r\u2019. Possibly\n \u2018edge\u2019","title":"History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 2 (of 2)","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":224693}