{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_65461/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_65461","id":"gutenberg_65461","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65461","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Art","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Greek drama (Tragedy)","Vase-painting, Greek"],"text":"GREEK TRAGEDY\n\n                                   IN\n\n                      THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS\n\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  (_Size, about 1 \u2236 9_)\n\n  MEDEIA AMPHORA IN THE OLD PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH\n\n  (_Vid. p. 145 ff._)\n]\n\n\n\n\n                             GREEK TRAGEDY\n                                   IN\n                      THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                           JOHN H. HUDDILSTON\n                      B.A. (HARV.), PH.D. (MUNICH)\n\n FORMERLY INSTRUCTOR IN GREEK IN THE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AUTHOR OF\n \u2018THE ESSENTIALS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK\u2019 AND \u2018THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREEK\n                         TRAGEDIANS TOWARD ART\u2019\n\n\n                                 London\n                       MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n                    NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n                                  1898\n\n\n\n\n                                 Oxford\n                 HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n\n                 PROFESSOR CARL RIEMENSCHNEIDER, PH.D.\n\n                         GERMAN WALLACE COLLEGE\n\n                              BEREA, OHIO\n\n                    WHOSE RARE CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP\n\n                        IS ALL TOO LITTLE KNOWN\n\n                              THIS VOLUME\n\n                      BY ONE OF HIS FORMER PUPILS\n\n                           IS AFFECTIONATELY\n\n                               DEDICATED\n\n  \u03a0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n  \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f03\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b6\u03c9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03c2\n  \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03bd\u03cd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n  \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n                                     PLUTARCH, _De Gloria Athen._, c. 3.\n\n  Nec mirum, si ista, quae tamen in aliquo posita sunt motu, tantum in\n  animis valent, cum pictura, tacens opus et habitus semper eiusdem, sic\n  in intimos penetrat adfectus, ut ipsam vim dicendi nonnumquam superare\n  videatur.\n\n                                   QUINTILIAN, _Inst. Orat._, xi. 3. 67.\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE\n\n\nAlthough the archaeologists and mythologists constitute for the most\npart the number of those seriously concerned with Greek vases, there\nstill remain many engaged in the study of Greek literature for whom the\nvases are bound to possess an abiding value, since they often relate the\nstories that Homer, Pindar, Aischylos, and Euripides tell. One may find\non vases of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries B.C. illustrations\nfor not a few of the famous pieces in Greek poetry. The paintings may\nhave been an outgrowth of the common stock of legendary tales, having\ntheir origin in the folk-lore, and in such cases they are independent of\nthe written literature and go along, so to speak, parallel with the work\nof the poets, who drew from the same source. These paintings are\nvaluable as illustrations of the myths, quite apart from any literary\nversion of the same. Another class still more interesting, perhaps, owe\ntheir origin to some particular poem or play, and are to be taken as\ndirect products of the poets\u2019 work. Such are of prime importance for one\nwho would understand the poet thoroughly.\n\nThe first class of paintings of the latter sort are based on Homer and\nthe Cyclic poets. After the epic literature, the tragic drama became the\nchief formative force in Greek legend and its representation in art. Yet\nhere again, as in the case of the Cyclic poets, one is compelled to\ninterpret paintings inspired by works that have come down to us either\nas mere names or in a few wretched fragments. The relation of these\nmonuments to the lost literature is of paramount importance, but the\ninvestigation is beset with many obstacles and will continue to be\nlargely a field for the specialist. _Extant_ tragedy and vase paintings,\nhowever, come together at so many points, and the former is so illumined\nby the latter, that every student of the classics should become\nacquainted with at least this part of Greek ceramics.\n\nThe present work represents an attempt to bring this material together\nin a convenient and accessible form. The first chapter, which deals with\nthe influence of tragedy on other classes of monuments, is meant to be\nsuggestive, not exhaustive; if I shall have succeeded here in setting\nthe student to think along some new lines that in the end will place him\nin more direct touch with antiquity, and help him to a better\nunderstanding of Greek tragic poetry and the part it played in the\nartistic life of the Greeks and Romans, my aim will have been achieved.\nThe foot-notes all the way through are intended to contain somewhat full\nreferences to the literature of the different topics, and to be a sort\nof guide to one who desires to prosecute this study further.\n\nIn dealing with even the subject of vase paintings and extant tragedy,\nit was not possible to omit saying a word regarding the general question\nof the earliest influence of the drama upon the vase painters; this has\nbeen done, however, very briefly, and is no more than a sketch. Some may\nthink that the subject is disposed of too quickly; many pages, indeed,\nmight have been written to advantage on this much mooted point, but this\nwould have required going far aside from the task which I set myself;\nand, further, it did not seem wise to encumber the work with a\ndiscussion necessarily of a nature to appeal to the archaeologist rather\nthan to the student of Aischylos and Euripides. It is the latter\u2019s needs\nthat have been uppermost in my mind, and it will be found that I have\nwritten for him first and for the archaeologist second.\n\nMy aim has been to collect and publish all paintings that can with a\nhigh degree of probability be said to be inspired by any of the extant\ntragedies, and to unfold the relation of the two to each other in such a\nway as to throw the greatest possible light upon the interpretation of\nthe literature. Many of the publications where one can find these\npaintings are so expensive and inaccessible that but a comparatively\nsmall number of classical students can make any use of the original\nworks; the result is that this important class of monuments has been\nvery little used by philologists. Wherever it seemed necessary, synopses\nof the plays have been given, and these will place the student in\npossession of everything required for a full appreciation of the\nreproductions. Reference has been made to other monuments representing\nscenes based on the plays, so that there is in fact a sort of\narchaeological commentary for those who care to go further and examine\nthe general influence of the poet over the artist. It should be borne in\nmind, however, that I have not been concerned with the myths involved\nexcept in so far as they were _the_ forms invented or followed by the\ntragedians. To be sure, opinions will not be unanimous regarding the\ninterpretation of some of the paintings, but wherever I have not felt\nsure of the debt of the artist to a given play I have preferred not to\npublish the work; some such are mentioned in a separate chapter, where\nreference is also made to the literature. My endeavour has been to keep\nas far as possible aloof from conjectures and reckless theories into\nwhich one is apt to be drawn in dealing with questions in archaeology;\nsins of omission should be less reprehended in a work of this character\nthan sins of commission, and although I shall no doubt be judged guilty\nof both, I hope to have erred rather on the side of the former.\n\nIt will be of special interest to archaeologists to have the painting on\nthe Medeia amphora, in Munich, correctly published; fig. 23 gives for\nthe first time the correct reading of the inscriptions, and for this\nreason I could have wished that space had permitted a much larger\nreproduction. The frontispiece, presenting a general view of the whole\nvase, will, it is hoped, be of some help in affording those who have not\nhad an opportunity of seeing the originals, some notion of the size and\nmagnificent workmanship of this class of vases, called so appropriately\nby the Germans _Prachtamphoren_. Another painting, fig. 3, is published\nfor the first time, and fig. 6, taken from a photograph, displaces the\ndrawing in Jahn\u2019s _Vasenbilder_. Further than this, the illustrations\nare the same as those that have already appeared elsewhere; it has been\npossible for me to add new information regarding the whereabouts of some\nfew vases.\n\nOn the spelling of Greek names it need only be said that I have nearly\nalways preferred the Greek forms to the Latin equivalents; yet I have\nnot gone so far as to write _Hiketides_ for _Supplices_, or _Hepta_ for\n_Septem_; neither did it seem advisable to disturb a word so common in\nEnglish as is _Oedipus_ by writing it _Oidipous_, or much less\n_Oidipus_.\n\nMy thanks are due to Professor Otto Kern for help and encouragement\nwhile he was still at the University of Berlin. Professor Carl Robert\nhas lent me valuable assistance, and I scarcely know whether I am more\nindebted to his suggestive replies to my numerous inquiries or to his\nwritings, which latter have been a constant inspiration to me. Professor\nA. Furtw\u00e4ngler, whose profound knowledge in the field of Greek ceramics,\nas well as in every department of classical archaeology, is well known,\nhas aided me by his counsel and has spared some of his valuable time to\ngo over all the manuscript. I wish to express my indebtedness to all\nthese eminent scholars as well as to Mr. Charles B. Newcomer, M.A., who\nhas been kind enough to read the proof, and has favoured me with many\nvaluable suggestions. Mrs. Huddilston, who more than any one else has\nfollowed all the work, deserves special mention; there is scarcely a\npage that does not bear evidence of her sound judgement.\n\nI indulge the hope that this little book may, with all its defects (and\nI am well aware they are many), present much that is helpful in a field\nin which there is little addressed to the student of classical\nliterature; and this brings me to remark that I have long wondered why\nthe editions of the Greek tragedies are not enlivened more with\nreproductions of works of art pertaining to the myth involved. There is\nno reason why the student who is set to read the _Choephoroi_,\n_Eumenides_, _Medeia_, or _Iphigeneia in Tauris_, not to mention other\nplays, should look only at the literary and philological sides of the\nauthor. Is it considered unscholarly to illustrate books of this sort,\nor are the scholars who edit them ignorant of the archaeological\napparatus? The time is coming, I firmly believe, when these two\ndepartments of classical studies will not be so divorced as they are at\npresent, and when the monuments based upon a myth will be included in\nour text-books and examined quite as closely as is the text of the poet.\nWhen Greek art is thus made to supplement the study of the poetry, the\nlatter will be invested with a still greater charm than it now\npossesses. More of the spirit is required and less of the letter, and\nthis is bound to be brought about when Greek art is introduced more\nextensively into the instruction in Greek studies. I trust that these\npages will be considered a contribution towards this manner of studying\nGreek tragedy, and that the plays which come in question will be read\nwith renewed interest by all students, and reviewed with pleasure and\nprofit by those who are instructors in classics; and again by those who\nin the various walks of life still have time and inclination to turn\noccasionally to the masterpieces of Greek letters\u2014works that will always\nremain substantial parts of the world\u2019s literary ballast.\n\n                                                       J. H. HUDDILSTON.\n\n  LONDON, _March, 1898_.\n\n\n\n\n                                CONTENTS\n\n\n                                CHAPTER I\n\n  THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY UPON ANCIENT ART OUTSIDE OF THE VASES\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n   \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTORY                                                   1\n\n   \u00a7 2. TRAGIC INFLUENCES IN SCULPTURE                                 4\n\n        1. Greek Sculpture                                             4\n\n        2. The Etruscan Ash-Urns                                      10\n\n        3. The Roman Sarcophagi                                       15\n\n   \u00a7 3. THE INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON PAINTING                          20\n\n        1. On Greek Painting                                          21\n\n        2. The Wall Paintings of Pompeii                              24\n\n   \u00a7 4. TRAGIC ELEMENTS ON THE ETRUSCAN MIRRORS                       26\n\n   \u00a7 5. GREEK TRAGEDY AND THE \u2018MEGARIAN BOWLS\u2019                        27\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n\n           THE EARLIEST INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON VASE PAINTING\n\n   \u00a7 1. THEORIES ADVANCED FOR THE EARLIEST TRACES                     31\n\n   \u00a7 2. EARLIEST EVIDENCE                                             32\n\n   \u00a7 3. THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C.                                        33\n\n   \u00a7 4. THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C. AND THE CONDITIONS IN LOWER ITALY     37\n\n\n                               CHAPTER III\n\n                       AISCHYLOS AND VASE PAINTING\n\n   \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTION                                                  42\n\n   \u00a7 2. _CHOEPHOROI_                                                  43\n\n   \u00a7 3. _EUMENIDES_                                                   55\n\n   \u00a7 4. THE LOST PLAYS                                                73\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n\n                SOPHOKLES AND HIS RELATION TO VASE PAINTING           75\n\n\n                                CHAPTER V\n\n                       EURIPIDES AND VASE PAINTING\n\n   \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTION                                                  78\n\n   \u00a7 2. _ANDROMACHE_                                                  83\n\n   \u00a7 3. _BAKCHAI_                                                     88\n\n   \u00a7 4. _HEKABE_                                                      94\n\n   \u00a7 5. _HIPPOLYTOS_                                                 101\n\n   \u00a7 6. _IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS_                                        112\n\n   \u00a7 7. _IPHIGENEIA AMONG THE TAURIANS_                              121\n\n   \u00a7 8. _KYKLOPS_                                                    139\n\n   \u00a7 9. _MEDEIA_                                                     144\n\n  \u00a7 10. _PHOINISSAI_                                                 171\n\n  \u00a7 11. SUPPLEMENTARY                                                178\n\n        A List of Vase Paintings sometimes referred to Extant Plays  178\n\n        A List of Vase Paintings referred to Lost Plays              179\n\n        INDEX                                                        182\n\n\n\n\n               THE COMMON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES\n\n\n_Annali d. Inst._ = _Annali dell\u2019 Instituto di Corrispondenza\narcheologica_ (Rome).\n\n_Arch. Anz._ = _Arch\u00e4ologischer Anzeiger, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des\nArch\u00e4ologischen Instituts_ (Berlin).\n\n_Arch. Ztg._ = _Arch\u00e4ologische Zeitung_ (Berlin).\n\n_Athen. Mitth._ = _Mittheilungen des K. deutschen Arch\u00e4ologischen\nInstituts in Athen._\n\nBaumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_ = Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler des Klassischen\nAltertums_.\n\n_B. C. H._ = _Bulletin de Correspondence Hell\u00e9nique_ (Athens).\n\n_Compte Rendu_ = _Compte Rendu de la Commission imp\u00e9riale arch\u00e9ologique_\n(St. Petersburg).\n\n_C. I. A._ = _Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum._\n\n_\u00c9lite C\u00e9ram._ = _\u00c9lite des monuments c\u00e9ramographiques_, Lenormant et De\nWitte.\n\nF.-W. = Friederichs-Wolters, _Die Gipsabg\u00fcsse antiker Bildwerke_.\n\nFurtw\u00e4ngler, _Masterpieces_ = Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Masterpieces of Greek\nSculpture_.\n\nGerhard, _Auserl. Vasen._ = Gerhard, _Auserlesen griechische\nVasenbilder_.\n\nHelbig, _Wandgem\u00e4lde_ = Helbig, _Wandgem\u00e4lde der vom Vesuv versch\u00fctteten\nSt\u00e4dte Campaniens_.\n\nInghirami, _Vasi fitt._ = Inghirami, _Pitture di vasi fittili_.\n\n_Jahrbuch_ = _Jahrbuch des K. deutschen Arch\u00e4ologischen Instituts_\n(Berlin).\n\n_J. H. S._ = _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (London).\n\n_Mon. d. Inst._ = _Monumenti inediti pubblicati dall\u2019 Instituto di\nCorrispondenza archeologica_ (Rome).\n\nNauck, _Fragmenta_ = Nauck, _Fragmenta tragicorum graecorum._ 2 ed.\n\nOverbeck, _Bildwerke_ = Overbeck, _Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und\ntroischen Heldenkreis_.\n\nOverbeck, _Schriftquellen_ = Overbeck, _Die antiken Schriftquellen zur\nGeschichte der bildenden K\u00fcnste bei den Griechen_.\n\n Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_         = Reinach, _Peintures de Vases\n Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_        antiques recueillies par Millin\n                                       (1808) et Millingen (1813)._\n\nVogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ = Vogel, _Scenen euripideischer Trag\u00f6dien in\ngriechischen Vasengem\u00e4lden_.\n\n\n\n\n              GREEK TRAGEDY IN THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I\n  THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY UPON ANCIENT ART OUTSIDE OF THE VASES\n\n\n                           \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTORY.\n\nPainting as a fine art has never been developed to any great degree of\nperfection independent of literature. The two are, in a sense,\nhandmaids, each inspiring the other and assisting it to solve new\nproblems. A great literature is, furthermore, a necessary precursor of\ngreat achievements in art, since the latter is the more dependent of the\ntwo, and seeks its inspiration from the poet. This may not be clear to\none who looks about at painting in this age of eclecticism, and\nendeavours to satisfy himself that literature and art are thus related,\nand that the former is required to give the initial impetus to the\nlatter. The principle can, however, be made plain by going back nearer\nthe fountain spring of modern literary and artistic development. One\nshould turn to the Italian Renaissance of the fourteenth and fifteenth\ncenturies\u2014to the period when Dante became the teacher and guide of\nartistic notions\u2014in order to observe the full meaning and force of the\nsupremacy of literature. There, where for the first time in the modern\nworld a great genius fashioned the thought of more than a century, one\ncan study easily the power of the poet over the artist. The influence of\nDante upon artistic notions from Giotto down to the present has, indeed,\nbeen incalculably great. No painter of the _quattrocento_, at least,\nworked in any other than the Dantesque spirit; whether consciously or\nunconsciously, he was under the spell of the father of Italian letters.\nDante\u2019s Hell and Paradise became the Hell and Paradise of Signorelli and\nMichel Angelo. Botticelli, Flaxman, Dor\u00e9, and many others left their\ncanvasses and frescoes to interpret the hidden secrets of the _Divina\nCommedia_. The great Christian Epic which Cornelius developed through\nmany years of study and contemplation of Dante, and which he considered\nthe crowning work of his life, is told in the altar fresco of the\nLudwig\u2019s Church in Munich. Yet this is but one of the many monumental\nworks of this century which owes its existence to this poet. Delacroix\u2019s\n\u2018Barque of Dante,\u2019 exhibited in the Paris _Salon_ of 1822, has been\ncalled the first real painting of the century. When one turns to England\nthere is Rossetti, with \u2018Beatrice and Dante,\u2019 \u2018Dante\u2019s Dream,\u2019 and\nseveral other famous paintings that witness again to the influence of\nthe Italian poet. But one may remark that Dante\u2019s position in the\nhistory of human progress is unique. This is true. The world has not\nknown another whose authority was so absolute or whose philosophy\nappeared so final. The influence of poets of less power has been\ncorrespondingly smaller. The principle, however, remains true. The poet\nventures where the boldest artist has not gone and prepares, as it were,\nthe way for him.\n\nThe closest parallel to Dante\u2019s influence upon the trend of artistic\nnotions must be looked for in ancient Greece; Homer must be named with\nDante. The Homeric poetry has exercised a power which the _Divina\nCommedia_ has scarcely surpassed; the thousand and more streams of\ninfluence which rose in the Greek epic literature went out in every\ndirection to water the fields of art and letters in Greece and Rome, and\nflowed on again after Petrarch\u2019s time, and are to-day mighty forces.\nEvents and incidents of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ have taken so\npermanent a place in modern art that one hardly stops to think that this\nor that is from Homer. But this company of persons which the world calls\nHomer was not the only vital force that shaped men\u2019s thoughts and\nfurnished the artist with fresh inspiration. The tragic poets are to be\nnamed with Homer. Had Aischylean, Sophoklean, and Euripidean elements\nnot entered into ancient and modern works of art the world would never\nhave known some of its most beautiful monuments. This is not, however,\nthe place to linger over the influence of the Greek epic and tragic\nliterature in modern times, interesting though this would be. It is in\nancient times, when there was still among the people a peculiar interest\nin the mythic legends, that the contact of poet and artist is most\napparent; it is with the three Greek tragedians that we have to do at\npresent, and some traces of their work may be pointed out in the various\nclasses of monuments before the vase paintings are examined.\n\n\n                  \u00a7 2. TRAGIC INFLUENCES IN SCULPTURE.\n\n\n                         1. _Greek Sculpture._\n\nOne does not expect the sculptor\u2019s notions to be largely shaped by a\ndefinite situation in literature, as he has little to do with\nillustration; his art is too severe and confined to reproduce the\ndramatic and pathetic with great success. There is accordingly little\ndirect influence of the Greek tragic literature over ancient sculpture\nexcept on the sarcophagi. Of the monuments belonging to the fifth\ncentury B.C., which owe their existence indirectly to the drama, three\nreliefs occupy the foremost place. These are the well-known Orpheus[1],\nPeliades[2], and Peiritho\u00f6s[3] reliefs, all of which belong close to the\ntime of the Parthenon frieze. Reisch has made it clear that these works\nwere conceived and carried out in the spirit of the tragic drama[4].\nThey are claimed, indeed, as dedicatory offerings in memory of\nparticular tragic exhibitions, but no attempt is made to name any poet\nor tragedy with which they were connected. Whether one is correct in\nholding these reliefs as \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b8\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, certain it is that in every\nparticular they breathe forth the spirit of tragedy. The triple group in\neach has been pointed out as corresponding to the three actors. This,\nhowever, is an outer sign that might serve to indicate their origin. The\nrelation of the figures to each other\u2014the conflict of soul which one may\nobserve\u2014the pathos that pervades the groups\u2014these are so unlike anything\nthat occurs on the earlier monuments that a person involuntarily asks\nhimself whence the artists received their motives. Tragedy provides the\nanswer. The parting scene between Alkestis and Admetos which Euripides\ndescribes so beautifully belongs to the same decade as does the Orpheus\nrelief. This touching episode may well have been the incentive to some\nsuch work as the parting between Orpheus and Eurydike. In all three\ninstances the sculptor was at any rate occupied with the problems which\nconcerned the tragic poet, and he reproduced true echoes of dramatic\nsituations.\n\nRelated to these reliefs is another class of monuments which grew out of\nthe tragic performances. From the middle of the fifth century B.C.[5]\ntill at least the close of the third century B.C.[6] it was customary\nfor the successful choregos to dedicate the tripod that the state had\ngiven him as a prize. The magnificence and elaborateness accompanying\nthis ceremony can be learned from the still extant Lysikrates monument\nupon which the tripod once stood and on the intercolumniations of which\ntripods in relief are represented. A street in Athens was given over to\nthe exposition of these prizes. Pausanias states that they were of\nbronze and stood on temples[7]. More important still for us in this\nconnexion is the fact that together with the tripod, probably under the\nkettle, it was the custom to set up a figure of a satyr or Dionysos or\nNike[8]. This practice does not appear to have been older than the time\nof Praxiteles. So it is that one learns of his famous satyr which\nPausanias mentions in connexion with one of the tripods[9]. The Greek of\nthis passage does not admit of a satisfactory interpretation, and it is\nnot possible therefore to determine what the attitude of the figure was.\nIt is probable that the statue which was thus intimately associated with\nthe Dionysiac performances was the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03cc\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 satyr of Praxiteles,\nexisting in so many copies and known throughout English literature as\nthe \u2018Marble Faun.\u2019 One can easily understand that this class of choregic\nmonuments was alone of great importance, and that through this channel\nthe tragic performances worked a wide influence over sculpture. There\nwas a vast number of statues in bronze and marble that thus arose from\nthe exigencies of the theatre. Along with these works may be classed the\nnumerous pieces of sculpture that were put up as decorations for the\ntheatre. Such were the \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 mentioned by Pausanias as being in the\nDionysiac theatre at Athens. The periegete names the statues of\nAischylos, Sophokles, Euripides, and Menander[10].\n\nA large number of reliefs that represent Dionysos receiving the worship\nof mortals, or advancing in a train of satyrs before a man lying on a\ncouch, makes up another class of sculpture, which probably owed its\norigin to the drama. On the Peiraieus[11] relief three persons carrying\ntragic masks advance before the god who reclines upon a _kline_. The\nwork may possibly be dated as early as the close of the fifth century\nB.C.[12] It is at any rate an early example of the influence of the\ntragic muse upon sculpture. The so-called Ikarios reliefs illustrating\nDionysos\u2019 first appearance in Attica, and the consequent origin of\ntragedy, may not refer to Ikarios at all, but are nevertheless to be\nlinked to tragedy in some way, as the masks clearly show[13]. They may\nhave been purely decorative work, or were perhaps offerings of actors.\n\nIt remains to speak of a few monuments which seem to have been more\ndirectly under the influence of particular tragedies. One hears, for\nexample, that the sculptor Seilanion made a \u2018Dying Iokaste.\u2019[14] This\nnotion would appear to have been borrowed from some play. One may think\nof the _Oedipus Tyrannus_ of Sophokles or the _Phoinissai_ of Euripides.\nOf far greater importance is the relief on one of the columns from\nEphesos which is known to every one[15]. The most satisfactory\ninterpretation of this work so far offered explains the scene as\nAlkestis being delivered from Death. The heroine, rescued from Thanatos\nby Hermes, is being conducted to the upper world again. Unfortunately\nthere is no agreement among archaeologists on this explanation[16].\nUntil a better one is brought forward, however, this important monument\nmay be held as evidence for the influence exerted by Euripides\u2019 handling\nof this popular myth. The _Alkestis_ is known to have been exceptionally\nwell received.\n\nIf tragic influences are only possibly at hand in the fragment from\nEphesos, the excavations at Pergamon have brought to light extensive\nremains of reliefs that were inspired by Attic tragedy. The Telephos\nfrieze, now in Berlin, is directly associated with the drama. The mythic\nfounder of Pergamon had a long and varied career, which was told in\ndramatic form by both Sophokles and Euripides. The suggestions for the\nreliefs in question came from the _Auge_ and _Telephos_ of the latter,\nand the _Mysoi_ of the former[17]. In these fragments one can see\ndistinctly the high esteem in which the Attic drama was held at the\ncourt of the Attalidai. I know of no Greek sculpture which comes so near\nbeing an illustration of tragedy as does this frieze.\n\nAnother work of monumental greatness belonging to about the same period\nand exhibiting unmistakable signs of tragic influence is the Farnese\nBull in the National Museum in Naples[18]. This colossal group, which\nrepresents Dirke being tied to a rampant bull by Amphion and Zethos, the\nsons of Antiope, is characterized by a passion and violence that are\nlate products in Greek sculpture. Such motives made their appearance\nfirst in the fourth century B.C. Niobe and her children are the earliest\nrepresentation on a grand scale of these elements that are so akin to\nthe drama. Such compositions were first possible with Praxiteles and\nSkopas who broke away from the traditions of the Pheidian age. The\ngeneration that saw a new type of Dionysos and of Aphrodite, and could\nappreciate the frenzied maenad of Skopas, had been prepared for these\nnew motives very largely through the theatre. The drama had not a little\nto do with impressing the artist and his public with the importance of\ndelineating the human feelings. In the case of the Niobe group one would\nnot attempt to point out any special influence of the _Niobe_ of\nAischylos or Sophokles, and still there is little doubt in my own mind\nthat the sculptor was more or less influenced by the tragic literature.\nMay not Praxiteles or Skopas, each of whom shares the credit of the\nNiobe group, have been led to the pathetic look upon the mother\u2019s face\nby the lines of one of these lost plays? This new tendency in sculpture\nreached its highest expression in the Laoko\u00f6n and the Farnese Bull. The\nlatter can be traced to the influence of Euripides\u2019 _Antiope_, which\nappears to have been the source of all Dirke monuments in ancient art;\nthere is no dissenting voice as to Euripides\u2019 right to occupy the\nhonourable position thus assigned[19] him. Reference has already been\nmade to the Laoko\u00f6n[20] as representing the culmination of tragedy in\nmarble. The view held by Lessing and many others that Virgil was the\nsculptors\u2019 authority has been abandoned long since. The Pergamon altar\nfrieze has enabled us to fix the date of the Laoko\u00f6n with approximate\ncorrectness. It is surely some centuries older than the _Aeneid_ and\nstands therefore in a possible relation to the _Laoko\u00f6n_ of Sophokles.\nYet here again opinions vary widely. Sophokles\u2019 play is lost, and the\nfew remaining fragments are not enough to enable one to make a\nsatisfactory reconstruction. The story came down from the epic\nliterature, and, like so many incidents in the fall of Troy, needed no\nfurther popularization in order to appeal to the artist. That Sophokles\u2019\ntragedy, however, was wholly without any influence on the Rhodian\nsculptors who so tragically and realistically represented Apollo\u2019s\nvengeance on his priest seems to me highly improbable. Such a conception\nas found expression in this masterpiece of sculpture may well have\nsprung from the masterpiece in poetry which was at hand in Sophokles\u2019\n_Laoko\u00f6n_[21].\n\n\n                      2. _The Etruscan Ash-urns._\n\nThe reliefs on the Etruscan and Roman sarcophagi carry us to Italian\nsoil and furnish us with a much larger field for pursuing our subject\nthan could be found in Greek sculpture. Of all the Italian races with\nwhom the Greeks came into contact, the Etrurians were by far the most\nadvanced in civilization; and during the centuries of active commercial\nrelations between the two peoples this nation, whose origin is the\npuzzle of historians, and whose language is the _crux_ of philologists,\ncame more under the influence of Greek literature and art than any of\nthe Latin races that remained unhellenized. They have left abundant\nevidence of these hellenizing influences. In various classes of\nmonuments which may still be studied\u2014urns, mirrors, cistae,\ntomb-paintings, and vases\u2014one discovers Greek mythology and poetry. The\nnational mythology of the Etruscans is so much of an exception in their\nart, and the Greek is so universally adopted, that one is at a loss to\naccount for the strange fact. On hundreds of Etruscan monuments one sees\nthe workings of Greek poetry, which found its way into Etruria before\nLivius Andronicus produced the first tragedy in Rome 240 B.C. That the\nGreek drama was introduced for the most part directly and not through\nthe medium of the early Latin tragedians, is shown by the fact that the\nlatter flourished in the second and first centuries B.C., while the urns\nexhibiting tragic subjects are, for the most part, from the third\ncentury B.C. Some may, indeed, date from the fourth century. Roman\ntragedy can not be said to have really become at all a matter of general\ninterest before Ennius went to Rome in 204 B.C. He died 169 B.C., and\none should not think that the influence of these Latin adaptations and\ntranslations of Greek plays took an immediate hold upon the neighbouring\nEtruscans. Such elements percolate gradually into the various strata of\nnational life, to say nothing of the time required to reach a foreign\npeople whose language and customs are so different. But the _summus\nepicus poeta_[22] was not the most popular or most prolific pilferer of\nGreek plays. His tragedies numbered only about twenty. _In Accio\ncircaque eum Romana tragoedia est_[23]; and the probable truth of this\nstatement is well attested by the list of fifty plays that have come\ndown to us under Accius\u2019 name. This poet, however, was born 170 B.C. and\nfirst exhibited tragedies in 140 B.C. It is therefore very doubtful\nwhether one can rightly speak of the influence of Latin tragedy upon the\nEtruscan artists. One dare not, at any rate, bring the ash-urns too far\ninto the second century B.C., as Brunn and those immediately under his\nteaching formerly did. More recent investigations have proved the\nchronological impossibility of interpreting these reliefs with the help\nof Ennius, Accius, and Pacuvius.\n\nWithout taking time and space to review the arguments on which the\ninterpretations of the reliefs are based it will be enough for my\npurpose to simply add a list of the scenes which one may reasonably\nrefer to Greek tragedy. Examining the first volume of Brunn\u2019s _I rilievi\ndelle urne etrusche_, which is devoted to urns with scenes from the\nTrojan Cycle, one learns that those presenting a version of the stories\nascribable to the tragic poets exceed those that are based on the\n_Iliad_, _Odyssey_, and other epics. The representation of Paris\u2019 return\nto his Trojan home is, with one exception[24], the most frequent. The\nthirty-four reliefs were referred, even in the time of the former late\ndating, to Euripides\u2019 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[25]. The fate of Telephos was,\naccording to Aristotle, a common subject for a tragedy[26]. We have\nalready met the story on the Pergamon frieze, and it is very frequent on\nthe Etruscan urns. Telephos grasps the young Orestes and threatens his\nlife on the altar after the manner of the drama. It may be the influence\nof Aischylos or Euripides, but if one judges from the comparative\npopularity of these poets in this period he would be inclined to assign\nthe first place to the latter[27]. The offering of Iphigeneia occurs on\ntwenty-six urns, nearly all of which were found in the vicinity of\nPerugia[28]. It was again unquestionably Greek tragedy that was the\nincentive for these scenes. Aischylos, Sophokles, and Euripides may all\nshare the credit of having furnished the literary source. A smaller\nseries of urns representing Odysseus\u2019 adventure in taking Philoktetes\nfrom Lemnos is also to be placed under the influence of the fifth\ncentury tragedy[29]. The \u03b4\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f48\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2 is seen playing his part as\ncleverly as he does in the extant play of Sophokles. The attitude of\nPhiloktetes standing before Neoptolemos, having in two cases the arrow\nin his hand, corresponds well to the character drawn by this poet. The\ninjured chieftain displays his courage and scoffs at the thought of\nbeing carried away by the detested Odysseus. The murder of Aigisthos and\nKlytaimestra represented on seventeen urns has been shown by Schlie to\nbe essentially Euripidean[30]. The arrival of Orestes and Pylades at the\nprecinct of the Tauric Artemis is possibly the subject of three\nreliefs[31]. This would also take one directly to Euripides[32]. The\nfollowing are published in the second volume of the _Urne etrusche_ by\nK\u00f6rte. Medeia escapes on her dragon-chariot, driving over the bodies of\nher children[33]\u2014an echo of the great tragedy that exercised so wide an\ninfluence in other fields of art[34]. The punishment of Dirke on four\nreliefs is based without question on the _Antiope_ of Euripides[35]. The\nblinding of Oedipus at the hands of Laios\u2019 sons seems to have been an\ninvention of the same poet and is recognized in another relief[36]. The\nTheban fratricide and the assault on the city were both much-prized\nsubjects[37]. K\u00f6rte points out many features common to the numerous\nreliefs and the _Phoinissai_ of Euripides[38]. The death of Alkmene is\nrepresented on five urns which one would associate with the _Alkmene_ of\nthe same poet[39]. Euripides\u2019 \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 is traceable on seven reliefs,\nshowing the legend of Daidalos and Pasipha\u00eb[40]. Theseus\u2019 fight with the\nMinotaur occurs four times and reminds us of Euripides\u2019 _Theseus_[41].\nThe death of Hippolytos on eight reliefs does not present any essential\nvariation from the extant Greek tragedy[42]. Perseus and Andromeda are\nmet with likewise and emphasize the wide popularity of Euripides\u2019\nplay[43]. The famous legend of Oinomaos\u2019 death and Pelops\u2019 triumph\noccurs on thirty-one urns[44]. It can be shown that these were inspired\nby one or more of the lost tragedies that dealt with the subject[45].\nThe \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 of Euripides appears to have been the source of at least\nthree of the many reliefs representing the Kalydonian Hunt[46]. To this\nlong list of urns based on Euripidean tragedies one must still add seven\nthat were probably inspired by this poet\u2019s \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c8\u03ae and three\nmore that follow his \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2[47].\n\nMore than two-thirds of the more than four hundred Etruscan urns\nexamined are decorated with sculpture based on Greek tragedy, and in\nnearly all instances the drama was Euripidean. Such are the instructive\nfacts regarding this important class of monuments.\n\n\n                         3. _Roman Sarcophagi._\n\nUnder the expression \u2018Roman sarcophagi\u2019 one understands those of the\nfirst and second centuries A.D. unless the expression is further\nqualified. Sarcophagi from the time of the Republic are very rare and\nthey are withal modest in their workmanship. The florid decorations of\nthe time of the Empire, and especially of the period just noted, are\noften of secondary interest, but the reliefs on the sarcophagi are for\nthe most part of prime importance, as furnishing reminiscences of lost\ntragedies and ancient paintings of great renown. The majority are copies\nof very ordinary merit, while now and then a sarcophagus relief is not\nunworthy a Greek artist of the fourth century B.C.\n\nIt is a commonly known fact that long before the Laoko\u00f6n, or the Farnese\nBull, or the Apollo Belvidere was unearthed in the sixteenth and\nfifteenth centuries\u2014long before the classical antiquities of Rome,\nFlorence, and Naples had attracted students and lovers of art\u2014the\nsculptures of these sarcophagi, scattered about in cathedrals and\npalaces, had begun to teach the Italian artist what the human figure\nreally is, and what composition and decoration should be. The\nRenaissance artist first learned the charm and simplicity of the ancient\ncostume from these marbles and perceived how vastly superior this was to\nthe heavy, conventional church-dress that concealed the outlines of the\nform and rendered grace and beauty impossible. The study of the antique,\nwe have reason to believe, was in the early Renaissance largely a study\nof these Roman sarcophagi.\n\nThere is no need of going into detail. It will be enough to hint at the\nmost important monuments of this class that stand under the influence of\nGreek tragedy. Whether they are a direct product of the Greek plays or\nare founded on the Latin translations, or whether they represent copies\nof Greek paintings based on Greek tragedy\u2014this is for the present\npurpose all one and the same. It is not necessary to determine whence\nthe incentive came. The important fact for one to grasp first is, that a\nsurprisingly large number of the reliefs owe their existence to the\ntragic drama, and that these sculptures should be brought into one\u2019s\nstudy of the tragic poets[48].\n\nThe series of reliefs illustrating Euripides\u2019 _Alkestis_ is of prime\nimportance for one who wishes to see in art a scene worthy of the\npoet[49]. The touching farewell of Alkestis as she reclines upon her\ndeath-bed is in each instance the centre of the groups on the long side.\nAround her gathers the whole family. The children draw up close to their\nmother\u2019s side. Her parents are also present, and this lends more\ninterest to the sight, for they could scarcely be absent although the\npoet does not mention them in this connexion. The last words of\nAlkestis, and Admetos\u2019 reply, form the real charm of the play. All else\nfalls far behind these speeches, and following one of the gems in Greek\nliterature the artist could afford to assign his illustration the first\nplace on the reliefs. Arranged on either side are the other incidents of\nthe drama, following the poet with considerable faithfulness. In this\nconnexion should be mentioned the relief in Florence, also based upon\nthe same source[50].\n\nThe Hippolytos sarcophagi are, so far as I know, the most numerous of\nthose that are dependent upon tragedy. If we possess more than a score,\neither entire or in fragments, after the destructive elements have been\nat work on them since antiquity, there is reason to believe that many\ntimes this number were once in existence. Copies were made in large\nnumbers, and many a Roman was laid to rest behind the tragedy in marble\nwhich in the _Hippolytos_ of Euripides has continued with some\ninterruptions to move the sympathies of the civilized world for more\nthan two thousand years. The reliefs are in the main faithful\nillustrations of Euripides. One or two situations are foreign to him,\nand these would suggest the influence of a Roman poet. It is unnecessary\nto do more here than to refer to the following chapter, where the whole\nquestion finds a further discussion[51].\n\n\u2018The Orestes myth appears upon the sarcophagi exclusively in the form\ngiven to it by the Attic drama. The first part\u2014the slaying of Aigisthos\nand Klytaimestra\u2014follows the _Oresteia_ of Aischylos. The second\npart\u2014the meeting of Iphigeneia and Orestes and the rape of the Tauric\nidol\u2014is based upon the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_ of Euripides.\u2019[52] One\nexception only is noted and this appears to represent the influence of a\nlater play which handled the subject of the _Oresteia_[53]. The scenes\non the other sarcophagi are indeed illustrations of Aischylos. In each\ncase the final moment of the _Choephoroi_, when the Furies rush in upon\nthe murderer, guilty of a mother\u2019s blood, is chosen for the middle\ngroup. Right and left from this the succeeding events are arranged. The\nright end scene invariably represents Orestes as he is about to escape\nfrom the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and go to Athens. He picks his\nway with circumspection over the sleeping Furies, and one is led up to\nthe triumphal verdict of the _Eumenides_[54]. Robert has shown very\nclearly the relation of these sculptures to Aischylos\u2019 words, and it is\nenough to refer to his discussion.\n\nThe Iphigeneia-Orestes sarcophagi breathe from first to last the spirit\nof Euripides. A study of them is scarcely less instructive than a\nreading of the play. Step by step the story is unfolded. Orestes and\nPylades are taken captives and stand before the priestess, whose\ndreadful office is made more horrible by the remains of human sacrifices\nthat are fastened up around the sanctuary; the recognition scene with\nthe letter follows. Then Iphigeneia appears with the idol in her arms,\nand asks Thoas\u2019 permission to go and purify it in the sea. The two\nGreeks stand bound, ready to follow her, and last of all comes the\n_m\u00eal\u00e9e_ at the ship. One after another of the barbarians is laid low by\nthe strong arms of Orestes and Pylades. Iphigeneia is placed safely\naboard with the image, and one sees the beginning of the homeward\njourney that closed the history of the house of Atreus[55].\n\nThe Euripidean _Medeia_ is discussed at length in another place, and I\nhave pointed out there the part that the sarcophagi occupy in art\nrepresentations of the tragedy[56]. The two extremes of touching\ntenderness and violent passion, which no one ever combined more\nsuccessfully in one character than did Euripides in his Medeia, come\nprominently to the foreground in these reliefs. I know of no monuments\nof ancient art that grasp the spirit of a Greek tragedy more effectually\nthan the Medeia sarcophagi. The strange and secret power of the\nsorceress hovers over and pervades the whole. The dreadful vengeance\nexacted by the slighted queen is shown in the most graphic manner.\nStanding before the Berlin replica, which is the best preserved and most\nbeautiful of all the sculptures, one cannot but feel that he is face to\nface with a marvellous illustration of the great tragedy. The marble all\nbut breathes; the dragons of Medeia\u2019s chariot may be heard to hiss.\n\nA small number of other monuments of this class belongs to the \u2018Seven\nagainst Thebes,\u2019 and, as in the case of the Etruscan urns, the\n_Phoinissai_ of Euripides is the main source of the illustrations.\nPerhaps Seneca\u2019s _Phoenissae_ also entered into the work. Robert\nconjectures that Euripides\u2019 _Oedipus_ may have furnished suggestions for\nparts of the scenes[57].\n\nThe _Philoktetes_ of Sophokles is illustrated on one relief very much in\nthe manner of the Etruscan urns already referred to. The wounded\nPhiloktetes stands at the mouth of the cave and speaks to Neoptolemos on\nthe right. Odysseus keeps safely out of sight on the left[58].\n\nThe story of Pasipha\u00eb\u2019s unholy love is told on a fragment of a\nsarcophagus in the Louvre[59]; Daidalos and his cunning work play the\nleading part. The ultimate literary authority was Euripides\u2019 \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. The\nlatter may not have been used directly, as the myth enjoyed after this\nplay a continuous popularity. The relief on one end represents a fruit\noffering, and as this would agree with the vegetarian vow of the chorus,\nRobert prefers to recognize a direct connexion with Euripides[60].\n\nMention may be made lastly of the Meleager sarcophagi, which, like the\nEtruscan urns, have much in common with Euripides\u2019 \u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[61].\n\n\n               \u00a7 3. THE INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON PAINTING.\n\nOur knowledge of Greek painting is entirely literary. No vestige of this\nart has survived that one may study the real monuments. The wall\npaintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum are, however, a sort of recompense\nfor this loss, and with these and the assistance of Pliny and a few\nother writers one can get some notion of certain masterpieces of ancient\npainting. But the records are at the most very scant, and the student\nhas, after all, to allow his imagination to fill in many gaps.\n\n\n                        1. _On Greek Painting._\n\nThe first probable point of contact between tragedy and painting is in\nthe time of Polygnotos. The series of paintings mentioned by Pausanias\nas being in the Propylaia _may_ be brought under the name of the great\npainter, since it is expressly stated that two of the ten were from his\nhand[62]. Among the subjects were Odysseus fetching Philoktetes from\nLemnos; Orestes slaying Aigisthos; Polyxena on the point of being\nsacrificed at Achilles\u2019 tomb. The question arises, have these works any\nconnexion with the drama? If Polygnotos was the author of all the\npaintings, the period of his activity excludes both Sophoklean and\nEuripidean influence in the Philoktetes scene. The _Philoktetes_ of\nSophokles is known to have been produced in 409 B.C., and the same play\nby Euripides appeared in the trilogy with the _Medeia_ in 431 B.C. This\nleaves Aischylos\u2019 tragedy, which could have served Polygnotos\u2019 purpose.\nOrestes killing Aigisthos seems also a possible product of the\n_Oresteia_, but Pylades engaging the sons of Nauplios who came to the\nusurper\u2019s assistance renders the Aischylean source improbable.\nPolyxena\u2019s sacrifice is described by Euripides in the _Hekabe_[63], and\nwas the subject of Sophokles\u2019 _Polyxene_[64]. Nothing, however, can be\nmade out of the few fragments belonging to the latter. The character of\nthis picture, in which \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 excluded \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, led Robert to assign it to\nthe fourth century and base it upon Euripides[65]. All these subjects\nare from the Trojan Cycle, and agree well with what is known of\nPolygnotos\u2019 taste in selecting his legends. One has but to recall the\npainting in the Lesche of the Knidians at Delphi\u2014\u03c4\u1f78 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f10\u03bd\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb7 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f3c\u03bb\u03b9\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ad \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f11\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03ba\u03c5\u1fd6\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd[66]\u2014to\nlearn that the drama was not essential to inspire Polygnotos. On the\nother hand, a closer examination of the Philoktetes-Orestes legend\nreveals the fact that the crafty Ithacan\u2019s part in bringing Philoktetes\nfrom Lemnos was an invention of the Attic drama[67]. The tragedians\nplaced Odysseus in the room occupied by Diomede in the Trojan Cycle. It\nis absolutely necessary therefore to place this painting under the\ninfluence of tragedy, whether it was by Polygnotos and inspired by\nAischylos or by a later artist and inspired by one or more of the three\ntragedies. If the Polygnotos authorship be rejected (and as it is based\non pure conjecture there is nothing to forbid placing it aside), one is\nat liberty to point out a relation between these works and later tragic\nliterature, as has already been done in the case of the Polyxena scene.\n\nIn the latter half of the fifth century B.C. painting appears to have\nreflected pronounced tendencies of the drama. The legends of the heroic\ntime when tried in the crucible of the dramatic poet appealed more\nstrongly to the imagination of the artist who had been accustomed to\nepic severeness and calmness. The conventionality and regulation types\ngave way, and the tragic drama remained thereafter the vital force in\nshaping the character of paintings occupied with heroic legends. At this\ntime we learn of a Telephos by Parrhasios, which one naturally\nassociates with Euripides or Aischylos[68]. The Iphigeneia of Timanthes\nwas a work that was scarcely possible but for the fresh interest\nawakened in the story by the three tragedians[69]. It is highly probable\nagain that Euripides was the inspiration for the Andromeda of Nikias[70]\nand the Medeia of Timomachus[71]. These were both works of great renown.\nApollodoros\u2019 painting representing the Herakleidai can with some\ncertainty be referred to Euripides\u2019 tragedy[72]. Theorus, a Samian,\npainted Orestes slaying Aigisthos and Klytaimestra, and could hardly\nhave worked independent of Aischylos[73]. The fate of Pentheus and\nLykurgos was painted in the younger of the two temples in the Dionysiac\nprecinct south of the Acropolis[74]. The date of this temple has been\nfixed at approximately 400 B.C.[75] The punishment of Pentheus was\nparticularly popular with the tragedians, and the dependence of this\npainting on the play of Aischylos or Euripides is all but certain. The\nformer\u2019s _Lykurgeia_ was the source of the numerous vase paintings of\nLower Italy representing the madness of the Thracian king[76], and one\nmay infer that this painting mentioned by Pausanias was essentially the\nAischylean Lykurgos. In the same place were two other scenes from the\ncareer of Dionysos. Ariadne was represented as being forsaken by Theseus\nand rescued by the god, and in another place Dionysos was conducting\nHephaistos to Olympos. Euripides\u2019 _Theseus_ handled the love episode in\nthe first of the two latter, and this play was probably not without its\neffect upon the popularity of the story which was of frequent\noccurrence, particularly in Pompeii[77]. This poet\u2019s power in dealing\nwith love exploits and depicting the sad case of unrequited love and the\nattending calamities, was a new force in literature and a never-failing\nspring from which the painter could draw. These compositions are one and\nall connected with Dionysos, while three of them are parallel with\nsubjects handled in tragedy. Such scenes were possible only after the\ndrama had popularized the subjects and prepared the way, so to speak,\nfor the reception of the same in art. Even though one does not go so far\nas to contend that these paintings were an outgrowth of tragedy, they\nmust be accepted as signs of the increasing interest in Dionysos and his\nworship\u2014and this was primarily the Greater Dionysia, where the first\neditions of Greek tragedies were published. This was the period of\nZeuxis and Parrhasios\u2014the time when Euripidean \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 was shaping\nartistic conceptions.\n\n\n          2. _The Wall Paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum._\n\nThe Pompeian wall paintings, representing scenes from tragedy, are\nlargely reminiscences of earlier paintings, and many famous works that\nhave already been referred to are doubtless preserved in more or less\nexact copies in these invaluable monuments. Besides the Medeia and\nAndromeda, which have been noticed above, there is a series of paintings\nbased on the Hippolytos-Phaidra casualty[78], and another representing\nthe sacrifice of Iphigeneia[79]. The latter exhibit a marked similarity\nto the work of Timanthes and the final scene in Euripides\u2019 _Iphigeneia\nat Aulis_. Several important paintings represent the meeting of Orestes\nand Iphigeneia in the Tauric sanctuary, and there can be no question\nregarding the decided dramatic colouring here[80]. Two pictures are\nbased on the Telephos legend, and remind one again of the Pergamon\nfrieze and the relation of this to Euripides and Sophokles[81]. Daidalos\nwith his wooden cow before Pasipha\u00eb was another favourite Euripidean\nstory told at Pompeii[82]. The excavations in 1895 brought to light an\nunusual number of priceless treasures in the _casa dei Vettii_. Among\nthe paintings was one showing the death of Pentheus[83]. The maenads are\nhurling stones at him and thrusting him through with their thyrsoi; the\nwildness of the locality and the tone of the whole work make it highly\nprobable that Euripides\u2019 _Bakchai_ was the artist\u2019s inspiration. Mention\nmay be made lastly of the punishment of Dirke, told in several\npaintings[84]. After what has been said touching the Farnese Bull, it is\nnot necessary to point out again the part played in the Dirke monuments\nby Euripides\u2019 _Antiope_.\n\nA glance at this brief sketch of ancient paintings on tragic subjects\ncannot but impress one with the permanent and far-reaching influence of\nthe tragic poet over the painter. The striking fact that stands out\nprominently before all others is the firm hold exercised by Euripides.\nNote the following subjects\u2014Andromeda, Dirke, Hippolytos, Iphigeneia at\nAulis, Medeia. Each of these characters has stamped upon it the form\ngiven by this poet. Others after him adapted and translated his work,\nbut the ultimate authority remains none the less the Greek tragedian,\nand neither the ancient nor the modern world accepts any other than the\nEuripidean Andromeda, Hippolytos, or Medeia[85].\n\n\n             \u00a7 4. TRAGIC ELEMENTS ON THE ETRUSCAN MIRRORS.\n\nThe engravers of the mirrors were less inventive than were the sculptors\nof the ash-urns, and they moved in a much narrower sphere. Their work is\nfor the most part that of the ordinary mechanic whose hand is none too\nsure. The compositions taken from tragedy are common with those already\nmet with on the Etruscan sarcophagi. There are Orestes and Pylades at\nthe temple of the Tauric Artemis[86]; the Kalydonian Hunt, following the\n\u039c\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[87]; Daidalos constructing the wooden cow[88]; Polyxena taking\nher farewell of Hekabe[89]; three scenes from the Telephos legend[90];\nthe parting scene between Alkestis and Admetos[91]; and Prometheus\nchained to the Caucasus[92]. These instances at least may be adduced to\nemphasize the fact of the wide-spread familiarity of the Etruscans with\ntragedy. There is no doubt whatever that in these common everyday\narticles, as well as on their sarcophagi, the Etruscans had\nillustrations of the tragic poetry that may have been brought to them by\ntroops of \u2018Dionysiac artists\u2019[93].\n\n\n              \u00a7 5. GREEK TRAGEDY AND THE \u2018MEGARIAN BOWLS.\u2019\n\nIntermediate between sculpture and vase paintings appears a remarkably\ninteresting class of vases, or rather cups, which are decorated with a\nband of relief. Certain of these are so intimately connected with the\ndrama, and with Euripides in particular, that at least a brief reference\nshould be made to them here. Examples of this ware are to be seen in\nnearly every large museum, and I have seen fit to include reproductions\nof three in the present work, as well as a small fragment of a\nfourth[94]. The inscriptions and general style of the vases lead one to\ndate them in the second or third century B.C. They are surely not later\nthan this, and not much earlier. They owe their origin to a wide-spread\ninterest in the older Greek poets. The majority of the reliefs represent\nscenes from the Trojan and Theban Cycles, and illustrate some poetical\nwork. We have to do at this time with those that are related to tragedy.\nIt is plain from a casual glance at the nature of the compositions taken\nfrom tragic literature that it was not the words of the poet that\nsuggested the figures to the artist so much as the theatrical\nperformances themselves. The posings, gestures, groupings\u2014in short, the\ngeneral attempt at effect, take one past the written work to the\nHellenistic stage. The motives are borrowed from Euripides, as played in\nthe second- and third-century theatre. The humble artist who conceived\nthese designs had visited the exhibitions of the _Iphigeneia at Aulis_\nor of the _Phoinissai_, and received fresh ideas for his work. It is\nnecessary to emphasize the fact that these little monuments date from\nthe time when the dominating force in art was the tragic drama. The\ninfluence of the theatre was felt among all classes of people. The\nguilds of Dionysiac actors travelled around from one village to another,\nand from one city to another, producing their _r\u00e9pertoire_ from the\nthree great tragedians, and, even when there was no permanent stage,\ndelivered from an improvised platform bad and indifferent versions of\nthe well-known plays[95]. The result was that tragedy was the one\npopular form of literature in the Hellenistic period, and this meant\npractically that the people were feasted on Euripides. The \u2018Megarian\nBowls\u2019 are priceless treasures from this period when the drama had\npermeated all classes of society. The unpretentious reliefs are replete\nwith the spirit that one may discover at the same time in Italy, Asia\nMinor, Athens, and Alexandria. They are direct witnesses of the fact\nthat Euripides was the people\u2019s poet, and re-enforce the impression\ngained from the study of all other classes of monuments.\n\nFor my own part I prefer to think of these cups as answering the place\nof text illustrations and corresponding to our illustrated editions of\npoetical works. One cannot imagine the papyri texts of the ancient poets\nillumined with illustrations, but these \u2018Megarian Bowls\u2019 meet every\nrequirement of this kind of art. In order to keep the reader from going\nastray in the interpretation the scenes are often accompanied by\ninscriptions that render any misunderstanding impossible. The several\ngroups showing the successive stages of the play serve in fact every end\nthat is demanded of illustrations. Whether the vases were used by\nschoolmasters in drilling their boys in classical poetry, or whether\nthey were ornaments for the home, the poet was sure to appeal to his\nadmirers in a new manner. He could be easily remembered by this means if\nartificial aid was at all necessary. They had, moreover, the great merit\nof being cheap; any number of copies could be made from the mould, and\nsuch cups are really in existence[96]. If three replicas of one and the\nsame work have accidentally survived the centuries and can to-day be\nstudied as text illustrations of Euripides, how extensive must have been\nthe production and use of this sort of art in ancient times![97]\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER II\n            THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY ON VASE PAINTING.\n\n\n       \u00a7 1. THEORIES ADVANCED FOR THE EARLIEST POINT OF CONTACT.\n\nThe question as to when the tragic drama first began to influence the\nvase painters has been in late years a much mooted one. When our\nknowledge of vase chronology was far more fragmentary than it is now,\nand the black figured fabric was dated as largely a fifth-century B.C.\nproduct, the attempt was made to point out the dependence on the drama\nof certain paintings of this style[98]. Later, when the improbability of\nthis theory became more and more plain, and an earlier date was fixed\nfor the black figured vases, other scholars endeavoured to show that the\npainters of Euphronios\u2019 set\u2014the masters of the severe red figured\nkylikes\u2014stood under the influence of the three tragedians[99]. No one\nwould venture, however, to speak now of the influence of any of the\ndramatists upon the vase painters of this style that flourished at the\nend of the sixth and beginning of the fifth century. More nearly correct\nwas the principle laid down by Robert, in his famous book _Bild und\nLied_, that no vase painting of the fifth century B.C. shows the\ninfluence of heroic legends as recast by the tragedians and produced in\nthe theatre. Before the year 400 B.C. one should not expect to find\nscenes upon the vases that are the direct outcome of the tragic drama.\nThis, however, is going too far to the other extreme. There is a mean\nthat may be struck, and this is, as will appear, more in accord with the\npresent knowledge of Greek ceramics.\n\n\n                        \u00a7 2. EARLIEST EVIDENCE.\n\nThere is one point on which there seems to be little difference of\nopinion, and that is, that the lusty choruses of satyrs that abound on\nthe early red figured vases were largely popularized through the\nDionysiac trains. These groups of dancing, springing satyrs along with\nDionysos are direct reflexions of the scenes that actually took place,\nand as these celebrations were the simple beginnings of the tragic drama\nthere is in this class of pictures a remote echo of the theatre. Yet one\nmust not understand that the artists were conscious of following any\nparticular performance[100]. These scenes border more on what we should\nimagine a satyric drama to have been. It was a long way from this\ncomical, kick-about dance of the satyrs around Dionysos and his altar to\nthe time when the actual performance of the theatre, such as is seen on\nthe Andromeda krater, occurs on the vases. Still these were beginnings.\nAnother exceedingly instructive bit of evidence for the development of\ntragic influences (or rather it is better to speak still of Dionysiac\ninfluences) is found on a black figured vase in Bologna[101]. The\npainting represents the epiphany of the god who rides in a ship borne on\nwheels and drawn by two satyrs before whom march two others leading a\nsteer. The god who sits enthroned upon the ship is being entertained by\nflute music furnished by two satyrs riding with him. Such sights we have\nreason to believe were not uncommon in Attica, and it may have been in\nsuch a _carrus navalis_ that Thespis travelled the country and\nestablished the beginnings of the later drama. These \u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03af and the\nsatyr-trains appear therefore to be a very significant inheritance which\nthe earlier vase painters have left us for the disentangling of the all\ntoo bare literary records touching the origin of the tragic drama.\n\n\n                          \u00a7 3. FIFTH CENTURY.\n\nLong before one can distinguish definite plays reflected in the vase\npaintings, certain marks of interest in tragedy may be detected. There\nare, for example, representations of the ceremony connected with the\ndedication of the tripod-prize. The painters of _cir._ 460 B.C. have\nalready taken up this part of the dramatic performances and have\nindicated thereby the growing interest in the theatrical\nexhibitions[102]. About the same time also the personification of\ntragedy and comedy makes its appearance on the vases[103]. These are not\nin themselves points of so great weight, but they help to clear the way\nfor understanding the tremendous influence which the drama had upon\nartists of the succeeding generations.\n\nDown to the middle of the fifth century the predominating force in the\nlegendary scenes on the vases was Homer and the other epic writers. At\nthis point the latter began to share their popularity with the\ntragedians, and gradually but surely passed into the second place. That\nRobert\u2019s position is not a correct one seems to me highly probable, and\nnevertheless one finds his words so often quoted that there is need of\nplacing the evidence together and inquiring anew into the question. For\nmy own part I am unable to understand why the theatre did not exert an\ninfluence upon the smaller art of vase industry as well as it did upon\nthe more important art of painting. When one notes in the fifth century\nthat great artists like Timanthes and Parrhasios were drawn under the\nspell of tragedy it is but natural to suppose that the same was true\nalso in the case of the less famous vase painters. Why should the\ninfluence have been more pronounced in one instance than in the other?\nIf Aischylos and Euripides were popular enough to warrant the support of\nthe illustrious artists, one may correctly assume that the vase painter\ngrasped this point likewise. The latter was primarily concerned in\nproducing something saleable, and the pictures that were popular and\nsaleable for the first class were no less so for the second class. This\nso far has, however, no further weight than one\u2019s personal opinion. Let\nus turn to the monuments and see what there is to bear out this view.\n\nThe Berlin Andromeda krater may be referred to first[104]. This is one\nof the most brilliant examples ascribable to tragedy. The profusely\ndecorated costumes induce one to believe that the artist really\nreproduced the dress of the actors in Euripides\u2019 play. The theatrical\nair about the work is quite unmistakable, and its Attic origin leads one\nto connect it directly with the immense success won by the _Andromeda_\nin 412 B.C. The Kyklops vase, published and discussed below, also dates\nfrom the last quarter of the fifth century[105]. A vase in Naples\nrepresenting Diomedes\u2019 rape of the Palladium has been referred to\nSophokles\u2019 \u039b\u03ac\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and its date is _cir._ 420 B.C.[106] The painting\non the Lower Italy vase published below is also from about this same\ntime and follows the _Eumenides_[107]. I refer lastly to the celebrated\nsatyr-play vase in Naples as belonging to this period, and furnishing at\nthe same time the most palpable evidence of theatrical influence upon\nthe artist[108]. The picture shows a recital of a satyr chorus in the\npresence of Dionysos and Ariadne, and is, as it were, a snap-shot of\nthis peculiar institution. The painting has long been the keystone of\nthe ancient testimony concerning the nature of the satyric drama. The\nrichness of the costume worn by Dionysos and Ariadne gives an invaluable\nillustration of the actors\u2019 dress. In this regard the work is in direct\naccord with Pollux\u2019s \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b8\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd ... \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b8\u03cd\u03c1\u03c3\u1ff3[109].\n\nThese are the most important examples that can be brought forward to\nshow the influence of the drama on fifth-century vase painting, and\nalthough not to be compared with the vast number of paintings of a later\nperiod that indicate the development of tragic tendencies, they seem\nnevertheless to constitute a considerable array of evidence for the\noccurrence of definite tragic scenes borrowed from the drama. The vase\npaintings therefore of the last quarter of this century do furnish\nundoubted traces of the forms of the myths seen in the theatre[110].\n\n\n       \u00a7 4. THE FOURTH CENTURY AND THE CONDITIONS IN LOWER ITALY.\n\nTill the close of the fifth century, or at least till the time of the\nPeloponnesian War, the export of vases from Athens, Corinth, and other\ncentres in Greece was a lively and paying industry. This traffic had\nbeen carried on with all the Mediterranean and Black Sea ports, but\nespecially with the cities of Italy. By far the largest number of sixth-\nand fifth-century Attic vases now in the European museums and private\ncollections have come from excavations in Etruria. This article of trade\nmust have been highly prized by the Etruscans, and it is to their\nfondness for Greek vases that we owe a very large part of our knowledge\nin this important field of classical archaeology. With the founding of\nGreek colonies in Italy the Greek industries were likewise established,\nand it was but a question of time till Thurii (founded 445 B.C.),\nTarentum, Herakleia, and other cities supplied the western demand for\nvases, and so destroyed the Attic trade. As a matter of fact, few Attic\nvases belonging to the fourth century have been discovered in Lower\nItaly, and this means that from about 400 B.C. the demand had fallen\noff, and the manufacture in Athens had become gradually less and less\nimportant.\n\nIt was to favourable soil that this industry was transplanted. The\ncities of Magna Graecia and Sicily were as Greek as were Athens and\nCorinth, and they were, besides, far more prosperous. The fourth century\nwas one of great luxury in these western capitals and Athenian art and\nletters found a hearty welcome here. It is instructive to observe the\nclear traces of Athenian art that are at hand on the coins of these\nregions. The legends on the coins of Thurii, Herakleia, Terina, and\nSyracuse, dating from the latter half of the fifth century b.c., are as\ndistinctly Pheidian in style as are those of the corresponding time at\nAthens[111], and this shows clearly the intimate intercourse that\nexisted between the East and the West, and how rapidly the colonists\ntook up and appropriated the artistic notions of Athens. Many other\nthings point to the thoroughly Greek landscape of Southern Italy. Greek\nnames of cities abounded everywhere, and the ancestral hero of most of\nthe Apulian towns was Diomede\u2014the Aeneas of the South[112]. Each town\nhad its own mint and struck its own coin with, of course, a Greek legend\nand a Greek inscription. Tarentum soon became the largest and most\ninfluential city of Magna Graecia. The city founded by Taras was\ndestined to be the Athens of the West for some time to come. Here was\nthe centre from which Attic influences penetrated inland. The literature\nand art of Hellas were received here and handed on to the neighbouring\ncities. It is but natural that this flourishing capital should have\nbecome the seat of the vase industry for this part of Italy. The\nmanufacture was not, however, confined to the limits of the city. We\nknow that other towns in Apulia contributed to the vast number of vases\nthat we know as \u2018Tarentine\u2019 fabric. There is every reason to believe\nthat this thoroughly Greek industry continued without any interruption\ntill the capture of Tarentum, 272 B.C.; but at this point the interest\nin vase manufacture no doubt began to abate somewhat. When the\ncommercial independence and rank of Tarentum were gone the period of\ndecline began, and the vases that belong to the third century B.C. are\nneither numerous nor of great worth artistically. The mysteries of Lower\nItaly vase chronology are, however, too great to be settled for some\ntime to come, and it is best not to be rash in assigning hard and fast\ndates to a class of monuments, the investigation concerning which is\nquite in its infancy.\n\nBut what can be said about the drama at Tarentum? The remarks already\nmade hardly render it necessary to emphasize the high esteem in which\nthe Attic tragedy was held. That it was patronized extensively and that\nit was _the_ literature of the time was true in any Greek city of the\nfourth century, and here where a new Athens flourished it must have been\ndoubly true. It is interesting, however, to learn something definite in\nthis regard concerning the Tarentines. We learn from Plato that the\npeople were inveterate theatre-goers, and that they did not stop short\nof drunkenness at the Dionysiac feast[113]. In another place one is told\nthat when the Roman general Valerius sailed into the harbour in 282 B.C.\nthe Tarentines were celebrating the Dionysia and paid no heed to the\npractical Roman[114]. Worse than this, Pyrrhus found it necessary to\norder the theatres to be closed that he might succeed in getting the men\nout for military service[115]. Such was the favourable soil in which the\nAttic drama took root in Lower Italy, and in this centre the influence\nof tragedy on the vase decorators was perhaps more far-reaching than in\nany ancient city.\n\nThe extent of the influence may be seen by an examination of the\npaintings on the Lower Italy vases. It has long since been noticed that\nmany of the Apulian, Campanian, and Lucanian vase paintings have a\nmarked theatrical composition. The costumes, posings, and gestures are\noften notoriously stage-like. In many cases one can observe the\nreminiscence of the stage setting; the scene often represents a temple\nor palace in or before which the action occurs[116], and even where one\nis not able to determine upon the literary source of the picture the\ndramatic handling is plain, and one is convinced that some tragedy\nfurnished the suggestion for the work. The paintings are not to be\nconsidered by any means reliable copies of any particular scene in a\ntheatre. They were abridged, extended or modified at the notion of the\nartist. When he took his ideas from the tragedian, he might turn the\ncharacters round to please his own fancy, putting in or omitting others.\nHe never illustrated. The value of these paintings in helping one to\nreconstruct the lost plays is very considerable. They are generally\ncertain to provide more valuable information regarding the lost\nliterature than the few fragments that may have come down to us[117]. As\nthe three tragedians of the fifth century B.C. were practically the only\nones that were read and heard with pleasure in the fourth century, their\nwork is the source of nearly all of the paintings based on tragedy. We\nmay pass on therefore to our study of Aischylos, Sophokles, and\nEuripides in their influence upon the vase painters.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III\n                    AISCHYLOS AND THE VASE PAINTINGS\n\n\n                           \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTION.\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that the oldest of the tragedians was the least\nread in the fourth century B.C., he easily rivals Sophokles in his\ninfluence on art. This was not due to his being more admired, and can\nonly be accounted for by the bold situations that he invented-situations\nnew and striking. There are certain of his plays that left a lasting\nimpression on Greek and Roman art. Such are the _Choephoroi_, the\n_Eumenides_, and the _Lykurgeia_. Further than these, Aischylean plays\ndid not appeal to the artist to any great extent. It is the peculiarly\npopular inventions distinguishable in these tragedies, their uniqueness,\nso to speak, that set them apart by themselves, a mark for the artist.\nThe character of the plays is easily denoted. They ring with cries of\nmurder and resound with the storming fury of avenging deities; we are\nstruck by the perils of the situations and remain all but breathless to\nlearn the issue. These features attracted the painter and sculptor, and\nthis is what meets one on all the monuments that may be called\nAischylean. The deep religious vein that pulsates in every line of the\nmighty tragedian is reflected to some degree on the vases and the\nsarcophagi. This force in art was rather epic; it was, in a way,\nPolygnotean, and the ethical nature of it all but condemned it for the\nartists who sought the \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of Euripides. This very fact explains why\nAischylos and Sophokles did not address themselves more to the\nsucceeding generations of artists. The ethical was more difficult to\nexpress than was the pathetic, and it was not so attractive. The spirit\nof the times, moreover, demanded the latter as it demanded Euripides,\nand consequently one should not expect to meet a large number of vase\npaintings that were made under the influence of either Aischylos or\nSophokles. Those that can be associated with the extant tragedies of the\nformer are given in the following pages. It will be observed that\ncertain scenes from Aischylos were greatly in favour in Lower Italy. All\nof the nine paintings published are from Italian ware. Not one Attic\nvase that shows an Aischylean scene has, so far as I know, been\ndiscovered. In the West, however, where he was quite as much at home as\nin his own Athens and where he was destined to end his days, the vase\ndecorators were largely influenced by him.\n\n\n                            \u00a7 2. CHOEPHOROI.\n\nThere is no proof at hand that epic literature knew aught of Elektra or\nthe part which she played in avenging her father\u2019s murder. The fragments\nfrom the lyric poet Stesichoros furnish the oldest literary source for\nthe _Oresteia_ which became later so popular under the hands of the\nfifth-century tragedians. The trilogy of Aischylos which has happily\ncome down to us is, therefore, the oldest extant authority. When one\nturns to works of art one discovers a series of vase paintings\nrepresenting the death of Aigisthos; yet these are but a little older\nthan Aischylos\u2019 work[118]. Events concerned with Orestes\u2019 return are\neven less common in early art. The Melan terra cotta _plaque_ in the\nLouvre, which represents a scene somewhat similar to the opening of the\n_Choephoroi_, is the oldest of the _Oresteia_ monuments, but still must\nbe dated within the fifth century B.C.[119] It may be considered as\nfairly well established that Elektra and Orestes first appeared in art\nbut a few years before the production of Aischylos\u2019 trilogy in 458 B.C.\nNor is it possible, so far as I know, to discover any influence of the\n_Agamemnon_ or _Choephoroi_ upon artistic productions in the last half\nof the century. A small group of vase paintings from Lower Italy\nbelonging to the fourth century B.C. do, however, present situations\nwhich one may well believe to have been suggested by the early part of\nthe _Choephoroi_.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\n]\n\nThe painting shown in fig. 1[120] represents a tomb, the base of which\nis decorated with triglyphs. Surmounting this is a stele, crowned with a\nCorinthian helm, and bearing the name \u0391\u0393\u0391\u039c\u0395[\u039c]\u039d\u03a9\u039d. Sitting with her back\nto the stele on the left is Elektra, \u0395\u039b\u0395\u039a\u03a4\u03a1[\u0391, wearing a chiton and\nmantle and clasping her left knee in a meditative mood; beside her is\nanother female figure similarly dressed and holding a toilet box in the\nleft arm, an unusually common article on the vases of Lower Italy.\nPerhaps the box is meant to recall the offerings which were brought in\nit to the grave. This person is not necessarily Chrysothemis, although\nher dress would be more appropriate for Elektra\u2019s sister than for her\nattendant. It is, however, the work of the latter to carry such a box of\nofferings for Elektra. The figure may therefore be left unnamed. Her\nface is turned towards Orestes, \u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a3, who stands on the right and\nappears to be speaking to Elektra, who pays no attention to his words or\nhis gesture. He is in travelling costume, chlamys, petasos, and carries\na spear and sword, but curiously enough wears no boots. Below him to the\nright in a similar attitude stands Pylades. He has simply a chlamys and\na spear. Another youth sits above on a _terrain_. He serves to round out\nthe picture, and indicates at the same time the attendants of Orestes.\nIn the background are a sword and shield; on the grave is an amphora, as\nan offering, exactly the shape of the vase on which the painting occurs.\nThere are numerous restorations in the work, but the main part seems to\nbe antique. Heydemann states that the inscription on the stele is\ngenuine, and also \u0395\u039b\u0395\u039a\u03a4\u03a1[\u0391. Doubt is expressed concerning \u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a3.\n\nWe have before us the grave of Agamemnon, at which the first 585 verses\nof the _Choephoroi_ were played. There is no trace of palace or royal\nbuilding. Orestes, accompanied by Pylades, enters the orchestra and lays\nhis tribute upon his father\u2019s tomb, \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f44\u03c7\u03b8\u1ff3 (v. 4), but\nsuddenly withdraws to avoid the company of women which approaches with\nceremonial step. The chorus and Elektra proceed to perform their\nservices when the latter discovers the lock of hair, \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 (v.\n200), and the footprints\u2014two proofs that Orestes must be near. While she\nis still examining the tracks the latter comes up and proves beyond a\ndoubt, by pointing to the garment that Elektra had once woven, who he is\n(vs. 212\u2013232). Perhaps one may think of Elektra as sitting upon the\ngrave at some point between v. 84 and v. 212, but when she had\ndiscovered the traces of Orestes\u2019 presence, she must have been actively\nscanning the surroundings. It pleased the artist, however, to represent\nher as ignoring the appeal of her brother, or at least manifesting no\nsigns of recognizing him. But for the presence of the \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 one would\nbe inclined to see the influence of Sophokles\u2019 _Elektra_, where Orestes\u2019\nwords gain credence very slowly, and where Elektra hesitates long,\nbefore believing his assertions that he is living and standing before\nher (v. 1219 ff.). But the Sophoklean tragedy is played before the\npalace. The pedagogue and Orestes leave the orchestra to pour their\nlibations on the grave (v. 82 ff.) when Elektra comes out of the house.\nThe fact that the recognition scene is represented as taking place at\nthe grave gives us therefore ample reason for accepting our painting as\nunder the influence of the _Choephoroi_. This painting is strikingly\nfree in its conception; no words of the poet can be cited as fitting the\nsituation. The suggestion, the setting, are Aischylean; all else is the\nartist\u2019s. The work is far removed from the character of an illustration.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 2 (_vid. p. 47 ff._).\n]\n\nThe second painting is on a Lucanian hydria[121]. The central scene is\nagain the \u03c4\u03cd\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 of Agamemnon, built up with several steps and\nsurmounted by a stele with Ionic capital and bound by a fillet. Elektra\nsits upon the upper step in veil and chiton. She holds the former with\nher right hand and looks away into space. On other steps below her are a\nlekythos and other small vases, also a pomegranate and a fillet. The\nofferings are much more abundant here than in fig. 1. Unnoticed by his\nsister, Orestes approaches the stele on the left, dressed as in fig. 1,\nwith the addition of boots. He is about to pour a libation from a kylix\nin his left hand. The male figure sitting next to him is doubtless\nPylades. He turns his head towards the main scene. The remaining figure\nhere is but remotely associated with the action. The persons on the\nright are more interesting. The youth standing on the step of the grave\nabout to lay a wreath upon the stele is denoted by his kerykeion as\nHermes. He wears a travelling costume without the usual boots. An\nelderly, bearded, male figure stands behind him. He is not characterized\nexcept by a mantle and a long staff, but has been interpreted as\nOrestes\u2019 pedagogue. The only objection to this is his dress[122], but\nthis may be due to the carelessness of the artist. Behind him is another\nbearded male figure sitting upon a sort of bag, or pack. His short\nchiton, shoes, and staff all point him out as a traveller. The peculiar,\nclose-fitting cap denotes him as a foreigner. The female figure on the\nextreme right in Doric peplos carries an aryballos in her left hand, and\ngazes at the group before her. Perhaps she belongs to Elektra.\n\nThe discussion of fig. 1 above applies equally well to Orestes and\nElektra here. We have practically a repetition of the group. The former\nfigure is, however, thought of at an earlier moment. By removing Elektra\none may think of Orestes at the opening of the play. He holds the vase\nin his hand rather than the lock of hair. The first words of the\nprologue are suggestive\u2014\n\n    \u1f19\u03c1\u03bc\u1fc6 \u03c7\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff7\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7,\n    \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03be\u03cd\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3.\n\nChthonian Hermes, who guards the ancestral rights, has really manifested\nhimself in the painting, and has appeared as a particular ally. The act\nof crowning the stele declares Hermes\u2019 friendliness toward the family\nand his interest in Agamemnon\u2019s shade. Elektra addresses him also and\nbeseeches him to hear her supplications and pity her and her dear\nOrestes (v. 124 ff.). We may note, therefore, a special fitness in the\nartist\u2019s expressing this double relation of Hermes to the children.\nInvoked by both of them as a protecting god he introduces nothing that\nis not in harmony with the spirit of Aischylos. The addition of this\nfigure is, moreover, a good instance of the liberty which the vase\npainters took with their authors, and shows well the difference between\nillustration and independent work. It cannot be denied that with the\nassistance of this monument one is led to see between the lines of the\n_Choephoroi_. The pedagogue who does not appear in Aischylos is\nnevertheless a natural extension of the group. It will be remembered\nthat he speaks the prologue in the _Elektra_ of Sophokles and occupies\nthe place which Pylades usually fills. In Euripides\u2019 _Elektra_ (v. 16),\nAutourgos says that Orestes had been given into the charge of a \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2.\nThe person resting on the pack appears at first sight a gratuitous\naddition of the artist, but on closer examination the suggestion for him\nis found in the poet. When Orestes explains to the chorus that he and\nPylades will attempt to gain an entrance to the palace, he states that\nthey will disguise themselves as foreigners by speaking the Phokean\ndialect (v. 563 f.). To Klytaimestra\u2019s interrogations (v. 668 ff.) he\nreplies\u2014\n\n    \u03be\u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03bc\u03b9 \u0394\u03b1\u03c5\u03bb\u03b9\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f72\u03ba \u03a6\u03c9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7\n    \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u1fb3 \u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u1fc7\n    \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 ...\n\nIn other words, he is a stranger from Phokis who has to carry his own\npack. It is upon this \u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ae that the figure is resting. The artist has\ncharacterized him as a foreigner by the peculiar cap. No Greek ever wore\nsuch a head-dress. The make-up hints at the appearance of Orestes\nseeking admittance to the palace, while, of course, the person is to be\nunderstood merely as one of the latter\u2019s servants. Whatever he may have\nsaid about carrying his own pack, no artist would have thus represented\nhim. On the oldest of the Orestes-Elektra monuments, the Melan\nrelief[123], there is such a figure standing behind Orestes with his\nluggage strapped to his shoulders. It seems to me that the painter has\nna\u00efvely caught up the spirit of the text and brought in a figure which\ngoes far towards adding a charm and interest to the scene.\n\nAnother Lucanian hydria representing the same scene is published here\nfor the first time, in fig. 3[124]. It will be more instructive to point\nout the few points in which the two paintings differ from each other\nthan to describe this one entire. The column in 3 has a Doric capital,\nwith maeander and checker-board ornament; in 2 the capital is Ionic. In\n3 Hermes stands on the ground; in 2 he stands on the step to the grave.\nElektra reaches out her left hand in 3 as though to receive the\nlibation; in 2 she is unmindful of Orestes. The latter holds a kylix in\n2, and in 3 a pitcher. His hat is a pilos in 3, and he wears it; in 2\nthe petasos hangs on the back of his neck. The Phokean attendant sitting\nupon the luggage is in 3 upon the left, and in 2 upon the right. There\nis an extraordinary likeness between the two. There is the same crooked\nnose, short chiton, and odd cap, but the latter has no tassel in 3. The\nservant wears, besides, a chlamys and rests his stick over his leg.\nBehind him is the nude youth, as in 2, upon the left, holding an\nointment vase in a sort of carrier. The two male figures of 2 adjoining\nthe main scene are wanting in 3. In their stead is a female figure\nsitting upon a stool and holding a large toilet box. She is dressed in a\nDoric peplos with an _apoptygma_. She is evidently an attendant of\nElektra, and reminds one strongly of the figure in fig. 1. Behind her is\nthe charming girl, exactly as in 2, except that she carries the\naryballos in her right, and in the left hand a small box.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 3 (_vid. p. 51 ff._).\n]\n\nThe painting is, it would seem, more beautiful than that of fig. 2,\nalthough the publication of the latter is an old one, and may be more or\nless inaccurate. I have not seen the vase myself. The scene is\nabbreviated by one figure; Pylades would be expected.\n\nStill another painting is given in fig. 4[125], showing a further step\nof simplification. Only the middle group, with the female attendant\ncarrying the aryballos, occurs. Hermes\u2019 position is the same as in fig.\n2, but the artist has forgotten to draw the wreath in his right. His\nchlamys, too, is buttoned properly instead of being wrapped around his\narm. The latter, however, has the same stumpy appearance seen in 2 and\n3. As the scene is simpler, so the offerings on the tomb are fewer.\nOrestes\u2019 libation is here in a kantharos. The painting is a careless\npiece of work, and cannot be ranked with the other two. It is, however,\nvery interesting as giving another link to the chain of evidence.\n\nThere can be little doubt that these vases all belong to the same artist\nor that they come from the same locality. The marvellous agreement that\nruns through them is something quite extraordinary. I know of no other\nsimilar cases in vase paintings of the red figured ware. The popularity\nof this scene, and therefore of Aischylos\u2019 _Choephoroi_, is attested by\nsuch a series of paintings as one cannot find in the case of any other\nwork in Greek literature.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 4.\n]\n\nSince writing the above I have discovered in the Louvre another Lucanian\nvase that represents a further simplification of this scene[126]. The\npainting is practically identical with the middle group in fig. 3.\nPeculiar to the Louvre painting are the tomb with five steps and the\nrather tall column, Doric order, surmounted by a krater; an aryballos\nand strigil, in addition to the taenia, are fastened to the column.\nThere is a further slight variation in Elektra\u2019s position, for on her\nright is a krater. On her left is a lekythos; below are the two\npomegranates, taenia, and black lekythos, just as in fig. 3. The only\ndifference in the other persons is that Orestes holds out a kylix and\nnot a pitcher.\n\nThe painting is evidently a product of the same studio as are those in\nfigs. 2, 3 and 4. It forms another member of this remarkable class of\npictures that stands alone, unique in Greek ceramics, and bears witness\nto the enormous popularity of this scene from Aischylos. In the face of\nthis important chain of evidence one is safe, it seems to me, in\nclaiming that Aischylos was acted in the fourth century B.C. and that\nconsiderably. What kept this scene before the public and induced the\nartist and his pupils to turn out so many copies of the same work? To\nhave been thus so saleable the picture must have been popular, and this\ncould have come about best through the acted drama. These vases and\nthose following, based on the _Eumenides_, must impress the impartial\nstudent with the fact that Euripides and Sophokles did not by any means\noust Aischylos completely in Lower Italy.\n\n\n                            \u00a7 3. EUMENIDES.\n\nThe various stories which may have been popularly told in regard to\nOrestes\u2019 purification, and his reconciliation with the Furies, prior to\nMarch 458 B.C. were swept for ever into oblivion by the last member of\nAischylos\u2019 trilogy. The stamp of his genius has ever remained upon the\nmyth, and no one ever attempted to repeat his work[127]. All the\nelements of the persecution were cast by him into their final mould. The\nimmense influence of this work is attested in no way more forcibly than\nby the monuments of art to which one can point. There is a long line of\nvase paintings, dating from the fifth century, that bear witness to the\nwide popularity of the _Eumenides_, and that give the most direct and\nauthoritative testimony of the influence of the play upon the masses of\nthe people. A sharp distinction must be made, however, between paintings\nthat illustrate the general myth and those that exhibit unmistakable\nAischylean features. Orestes\u2019 pursuit and expiation were universally\nknown, and the tale was so popular that it often found its way into art\nwhere the artist had in mind no poetic version of the story. So it is\nthat there is a number of paintings representing Orestes either pursued\nby the Furies or already having reached the omphalos, which do not\nrepresent any situation or combination of situations that can be traced\nto Aischylos[128]. Of the number whose subject is Orestes at Delphi, at\nleast four, it seems to me, are to be explained as substantially under\nthe influence of the _Eumenides_ and representing the first scene of the\ntragedy in more or less modified form.\n\nI discuss first the scene on the St. Petersburg krater[129], fig. 5. The\npainting belongs to the latest period of ceramic art, and is in nearly\nevery detail a hasty and careless piece of work. In an Ionic temple on\nfour columns, all painted white, Orestes, flesh dark red, sits _en face_\nwith his left arm around the omphalos which is covered with a white net.\nHe holds the sword in the right and the sheath in the left, and wears\nboots and chlamys. On the steps of the temple lie five sleeping Furies.\nThey are painted, flesh black, only in rough outline. Their dress is a\nshort chiton. On the right, hastening from the temple, is the Pythia in\nlong chiton and veil. She carries the big key\u2014emblem of her office as\n\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2[130]. Her flesh is white.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 5.\n]\n\nThe addition of the temple strikes one at once as being in harmony with\nthe poet. To be sure, this need not mean a particularly close relation\nwith the actual production of the play in a Greek theatre. Our temple is\nmerely one of the numerous buildings of this class found upon the vases\nof Lower Italy, some of which were intended evidently as suggestions of\nthe stage setting. In the present instance the coincidence is a happy\none. The _Agamemnon_ and the _Choephoroi_, which had just been produced,\nwere both played before the palace at Argos, and this scenery was\nchanged to represent the Apollo temple at Delphi for the third play.\nThere can be no question as to this \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae for the _Oresteia_, at least,\neven though one does not allow an extensive background for the earlier\nplays. The painting is well adapted, therefore, for placing the opening\nscene vividly before us. It brings one closer to the meaning of the text\nthan is apparent at first sight. In v. 1048 ff. of the _Choephoroi_\nOrestes saw the Furies. They wore bright chitons, and had snakes in\ntheir hair. He calls them hounds from whose eyes oozed ugly drops of\nblood. The chorus evidently did not see them, for Orestes cries, \u2018You do\nnot behold them here, but I do\u2019.[131] At these words he is away to\nDelphi to seek Apollo\u2019s protection. During the intermission which\nfollowed between the two plays the necessary alterations were made in\nthe \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae and the costumes were changed. The chorus in particular, which\nhad represented Argive maidens, underwent considerable transformation in\norder to appear again as Furies. The _Eumenides_ is opened by the\nPythia, who comes from the temple. She recounts the nature of her\nduties, and mentions various gods in her address until v. 30, at which\npoint she turns from the orchestra to re-enter the temple and attend to\nthe delivery of responses. In a moment she reappears in great fright,\nand begins to relate the cause of her alarm. The sight described is\nexactly that which the painter had in mind. One is able, however, to get\nbehind the scenes with the aid of the picture, for the front of the\ntemple is removed so that the interior is plainly in view. To compare\nthe words of Aischylos and the painting more closely\u2014the Pythia says\nthat a terrible sight drove her \u1f10\u03ba \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039b\u03bf\u03be\u03af\u03bf\u03c5[132]. The artist has\nexpressed this with some action, for she is actually represented as\nleaving \u2018the house of Loxias.\u2019 She adds further\u2014\n\n    \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u1fc6\n    \u1f15\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\n    \u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2\n    \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 ...\n\nThe picture shows the man upon the omphalos, and in his hand the drawn\nsword. One may imagine that the suppliant\u2019s hands are stained with\nblood, when but a short time before he had fled from the scene of the\nmurder in Argos. Even greater explicitness characterizes the next words\nof the priestess:\u2014\n\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n    \u03b5\u1f55\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f25\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nSurely a \u2018marvellous troop of women\u2019 fits the group which we see before\nus. In this particular the work is practically an illustration of the\ntext. The distinction is at once made that the figures are not women nor\nGorgons nor Harpies[133]. They are \u1f04\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 and \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, and snore with\nunapproachable blasts. It should be noted that the figures in the\npainting are also black, as though in direct agreement with\nAischylos[134]. They are further wingless, while the unpleasant details\nadded are conceivable from the appearance of the ugly creatures. The\nnumber five is of course a mere accident. They lie here in an\nunconscious stupour till the ghost of Klytaimestra arouses them again.\nThe _Eumenides_ is, as is well known, the only extant Greek tragedy in\nwhich the chorus is not visible from the beginning of their part. In the\n_Persai_ and _Supplices_ of Aischylos and the _Bakchai_ and _Supplices_\nof Euripides the chorus is, however, in the orchestra when the play\nopens.\n\nThere are still two other vase paintings to be considered in this\nconnexion. They present minor variations from the one just discussed,\nbut on the whole the three betray a common source. In fig. 6[135] one\nsees also the interior of the temple represented by three Ionic columns.\nVarious dedicatory articles hang from the wall and ceiling. Further\nindications of the sanctuary are the two tripods, the laurel tree, and\nthe omphalos. Orestes, characterized as usual by the drawn sword and\nflying chlamys, has fled to the latter and embraces it. His erect hair\nshows his fright. Apollo with bow and arrows hastens behind him and\ngestures with his right hand to drive back a Fury who is swooping down\nupon Orestes. She is but half in sight, and wears a short Doric peplos,\nand her flesh is black. The Pythia, with dishevelled gray hair and\nfrightened mien, quits the sanctuary on the left. Her key, indistinctly\ndrawn in Jahn\u2019s publication, owing probably to the copyist\u2019s ignorance\nof what the article really was, has just fallen from her hands. Artemis\nin her huntress-costume, carrying two spears, stands on tiptoe on the\nright of the omphalos and shades her eyes with her right hand as she\npeers at the disturbance. Two dogs are with her.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 6\n]\n\nThe time of the Pythia\u2019s exit from the temple, as in fig. 5, and the\nlater moment when Apollo orders the Erinyes from the sanctuary, are well\ncombined in this painting:\u2014\n\n    \u1f14\u03be\u03c9, \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\n    \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u2019, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03c7\u1ff6\u03bd,\n    \u03bc\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03c6\u03b9\u03bd,\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03ce\u03bc\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd,\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u1fc7\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f04\u03bb\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\n                                        vs. 179 ff.\n\nApollo\u2019s authoritative bearing and absolute power in his own precinct\nare very well brought out by the artist. One can all but hear the \u1f14\u03be\u03c9,\n\u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9 of Aischylos, and the arrows that the god holds in his left hand\nseem to show that Apollo is quite ready to carry out his threat. The\nwhole is, moreover, dramatically told, and in this respect the stage\ninfluence is easily traceable in the painting. That the Fury is black\naccords again with the poet\u2019s \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 (v. 52). The presence of Artemis\nlends a certain charm that one can attribute to the artist\u2019s desire to\nappear original[136].\n\nThe following work falls still further away from the scenery of the\nplay. Fig. 7 shows a painting on the neck of a large Apulian amphora in\nBerlin[137]. The limited space, and the secondary position likewise,\nhave perhaps curtailed the scope of the work. No architectural details\nare given. The sanctuary is denoted by the omphalos and the tripod.\nOrestes has sought protection at the former, as in the preceding scenes,\nand looks back at a Fury, with short dress and huge wings, who runs\ntoward him with a dagger in her right and a burning torch in the left\nhand. Apollo, who sits upon the tripod, a laurel bough in his hand and\nwreath in his hair, extends his right hand to repel the Fury as in fig.\n6. On the right the Pythia, dressed as in fig. 5, leaves the shrine in\nfright, gesturing at the unexpected visitors. The painter has forgotten\nto give her the key. Beside her is an attendant carrying a sort of kylix\nin the left hand and looking back at the sanctuary.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 7.\n]\n\nIt does not appear necessary to take up the details here after the\nexamination which has been given to the preceding paintings. The\nartist\u2019s debt to Aischylos was quite as direct as in the case of the two\nother works. The greatest modification occurs in the figure of the Fury,\nwhich is a being far removed from the Aischylean type.\n\nA painting on a bell-shaped krater in the Louvre is less hampered by the\nscene given in Aischylos, and is accordingly more artistic[138]. The\ninventiveness and individuality of the artist come prominently to view,\nand the result is an intensely interesting composition. The combination\nof events and the manner in which all is told bring one a great deal\nnearer to the deeper meaning of _Eumenides_ than any other monument with\nwhich I am acquainted.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 8.\n]\n\nThe shrine of Apollo, the \u03bc\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03c2 of vs. 39 and 170, is denoted by a\nplatform on two steps, above which are the laurel tree and the omphalos.\nThe god stands to the left in large, embroidered chiton or chlamys,\ngrasping the tree with his left hand and extending his right, in which\nis a young pig, over the head of Orestes, who sits with his back to the\nomphalos. The latter holds his sword in his right hand, which is raised\nmeditatively to his chin. Artemis stands behind the platform on the\nright, characterized by her costume and the spears. In the left-hand\nupper corner the shade of Klytaimestra, veiled, is engaged in arousing\ntwo Furies who sit fast asleep. She points toward Apollo with her right\nhand. Below is the half-figure of another Fury apparently rising out of\nthe ground wide-awake. The Erinyes are all dressed like Artemis, in\nshort costume and high boots.\n\nThe artist has combined with the first scene a moment earlier than the\naction of the play. Orestes\u2019 expiation preceded the prologue of the\nPythia. The purificatory rite had been performed immediately on his\narrival at Delphi, for, when he first appears in the _Eumenides_, he is\nundefiled. This is plainly declared to Athena in vs. 237 ff., and to the\nChorus and Athena in vs. 280 ff. While the purification is represented\nin various ways upon the other vase paintings[139], this ceremony is the\nonly one that reminds us of Aischylos. The latter hints at the manner of\nthe rite, and this passage has unquestionably suggested the group which\nwe have before us:\u2014\n\n    \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f42\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6\n    \u03a6\u03bf\u03af\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f20\u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c7\u03bf\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.  vs. 282 f.\n\n\u2018While the blood was fresh it was cleansed at the shrine of the god\nPhoibos by purification with the blood of pigs.\u2019 The ceremony is\nreferred to again in\n\n    \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ac\u03be\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03b8\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.  v. 450.\n\nThere is, therefore, in the painting a representation of this service\nwith pig\u2019s blood. The freshness and beauty of the scene are peculiar to\nworks of art in the Pheidian age, and the painting must be considered as\na valuable witness of Aischylos\u2019 influence. The fact that the work is\nApulian and not Attic supplies an interesting bit of evidence for the\nextension of Athenian literature in Lower Italy during the fifth century\nB.C. Tarentum, which was scarcely less Athenian than Athens, received an\nedition of the plays brought out at the Greater Dionysia soon after\ntheir appearance in Athens. It is further to be remembered that\nAischylos\u2019 long connexion with Syracuse had probably made him more\nwidely known in the West than was either Sophokles or Euripides during\nthe fifth century. Our vase belongs to the last decades of the century,\nperhaps as early as 420 B.C., and in this period Euripides had scarcely\ngained a large following in Magna Graecia.\n\nApollo\u2019s speech follows directly upon that of the Pythia\u2019s. How the god\nappeared in the orchestra is a question on which scholars are not\nagreed. The most widely accepted view is that the ekkyklema was brought\ninto use, and that on it the whole company was in some manner rolled or\npushed out from the temple to the orchestra. This means that the chorus\nof twelve or fifteen, together with Orestes, Apollo, and Hermes, was\nmoved bodily forward from the \u03c3\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\u03ae, far enough at least to give the\naudience a glimpse of what had been the interior of the temple with all\nits surroundings. Apollo seems to speak of the Furies and Orestes as\nthough he himself saw them and as though the audience could see\nthem[140]. They are in fact in plain view if one insists upon the\nliteral meaning of his words. It is argued on the other hand that such a\nponderous weight could not have been moved by any machinery at\nAischylos\u2019 command. In other words, the ekkyklema, in the interpretation\nusually given the term, is not to be counted apart of the Aischylean\nscenic apparatus[141]. If Apollo stood in the doorway of the temple\nwhere he could look in upon the Furies and Orestes, and at the same time\nbe seen by the audience, one has really no need of any machinery. The\nshade of Klytaimestra must also be thought of as appearing in the same\nplace. She glances in upon the Furies who continue to give forth their\ngrunts till v. 140, when they for the first time appear in the\norchestra. There is much in favour of this explanation of the\narrangements for the scene. Fortunately for our purpose it makes little\ndifference which of the two opinions one follows. Conclusive evidence is\nhardly to be reached either one way or the other, yet the notion that\nAischylos did not employ such extensive machinery as the ekkyklema must\nhave been certainly does not harmonize either with the extant plays or\nwith the tradition in regard to Aischylos\u2019 inventions. My conviction is\nthat from v. 64 the interior of the temple was in some way visible, and\nthat the whole audience could see Orestes at the omphalos, surrounded by\nthe slumbering Furies. The god reassures the suppliant of his support,\nand bids him leave for Athens and embrace the sacred image of Athena. He\nturns to Hermes, who is at hand for the occasion, and bids him accompany\nOrestes. At this point, v. 93, the two quit the orchestra, Orestes\npassing over the bodies of the Furies[142].\n\nOur painting follows the development in vs. 94\u2013140, where the shade of\nKlytaimestra appears and chides the Erinyes for neglecting their duty\nand forgetting her and her rights. The artist has grasped the spirit of\nthe poet, and has given a graphic account of the scene such as one is\nnot likely to forget. The dread figure of the veiled ghost, who glances\nsearchingly at the sleeping instruments of her vengeance and endeavours\nto rouse them into consciousness, is a creation but little inferior to\nthat in Aischylos[143]. Her position on the extreme limits of the\nsanctuary serves to express the uncleanliness of the spirit and the\nincongruity of its appearing within the sacred ground. The gesture\ntowards the main group connects the two scenes and lends a unity to the\nwhole. This is real art and no illustration. One must remember that\nOrestes is at this time on his way to Athens, and that the shade did not\nappear in his presence. The very fact that the painter chose to unite\nthe two moments adds greatly to the general effect. The tragedy is\nplayed in part before us. The number of Furies representing the chorus\nis the same that one meets first in Euripides[144], and that is\nparticularly emphasized also by Aischylos in\n\n    \u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u2019, \u1f14\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd\u03b4\u2019, \u1f10\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b4\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5.  v. 140.\n\nTheir dress is that of the later type of Erinyes\u2014the huntress-costume of\nArtemis. This facilitated their motion. Perhaps the half-figure of the\nawakened Fury may be rising from the earth to continue the pursuit, but\nit seems to me more probable that the half-figure is such from choice.\nAfter the appearance of the Erinyes in the _Choephoroi_ they are\ncertainly above ground till conducted to their new home under the\nAreopagos.\n\nWhile the story of Agamemnon\u2019s murder and the succeeding terrible\nrevenge wrought by Orestes, as well as the latter\u2019s atonement at Delphi,\nwere all a part of the legendary inheritance from a very early period\nand had played for some centuries, at least, before Aischylos an\nimportant r\u00f4le in the epic[145] and lyric[146] literature, it remained\nfor the great tragedian to break new ground for the last chapter of the\n_Oresteia_. Orestes\u2019 acquittal and deliverance were, prior to Aischylos,\ndistinctly Delphic in setting; in his hands all became decidedly\nAthenian. Apollo had once been the sole divinity to absolve the\nmurderer; Athena became the new arbiter and director of the case. The\ntemple at Delphi gave way to the \u2018Old Temple\u2019 of Athena upon the\nAcropolis. Keeping these facts in mind, one has to look about for vase\npaintings which show traces of this Attic turn. So far, only the early\nscene at Delphi has claimed our attention, and here it has been possible\nto point out several compositions that demand the _Eumenides_ to the\nexclusion of popular tradition.\n\nFrom v. 235 the scene is transferred from Delphi to Athens, and remains\nthroughout the rest of the play the \u2018Old Temple\u2019 on the Acropolis[147].\nAthena becomes the centre. Everything moves about her. The one\nimpressive figure in this part of the tragedy is the goddess. Orestes is\nsimply a poor helpless mortal\u2014the apparent subject of the action. He and\nthe Erinyes sink into insignificance when compared with the majestic\nfigure of Athena. Substantial traces of the influence of Aischylos\u2019\ninvention have reached us on the vases. A small number of paintings\nclaim the right to be considered under this head. The composition of all\n(I know three such) is so similar that it seemed necessary to reproduce\nonly one.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 9 (_vid. p. 70 ff._)\n]\n\nThe painting shown in fig. 9[148] represents the sanctuary at Delphi\nwith the tripod and the omphalos; kneeling upon the latter is Orestes,\nin the same costume as that noticed in the preceding monuments, holding\ntwo spears in addition to the \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03be\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2. He glances up to the\nright, where Athena looks down upon him. Her right foot rests on a sort\nof plinth; she carries a double-pointed spear in her left hand and wears\na Corinthian helm with peculiar crest[149]. Her dress is an embroidered\nIonic chiton and large aigis. The latter is not uncommon on the\nfourth-century vases, and is characteristic of the exaggeration of types\nin this period. Apollo stands on the left of the omphalos, with a laurel\nbranch on which are hung fillets and \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1[150]. He looks to the left\nat a winged Fury with a very elaborate costume, a huge serpent about her\nbody and one in her hair; above the tripod is the bust of another Fury\non whom are four snakes. In the left-hand upper corner a bust of a youth\nwith chlamys, pilos, and a spear is most likely meant for Pylades.\nCorresponding to this on the other side are the head and shoulders of a\nwoman, interpreted as Klytaimestra.\n\nThe two other vase paintings are, in the main, close counterparts of\nthis and need not be described here. The Vatican amphora[151] is\nparticularly interesting as representing Athena with aigis extended over\nOrestes to protect him from the Furies. The Capua hydria in Berlin[152]\ntakes precedence over the other two in age, and furnishes us with the\nnearest approach to Aischylos\u2019 time. It falls within the fifth century,\nwhile the others are to be placed in the last half of the fourth\ncentury.\n\nThe introduction of Athena is the unmistakable sign. She intervenes at\nDelphi simply because Aischylos introduced her in Athens. The artist\ntransferred her to Delphi and combined the two scenes of the tragedy. If\none considers only Orestes and Athena in fig. 9, and reads the interview\nbetween them in the _Eumenides_, he will appreciate at once how well the\npainter has managed his task. The whole make-up of the figures is that\nof stage characters. This is especially noticeable in the dresses of the\nFury and Athena. This elegance and finery on vases of the fourth century\nwere widely regulated by dramatic performances.\n\nThe set of paintings which thus associates Athena with Orestes\u2019 delivery\nmay be counted as the direct product of the _Eumenides_, and therefore\nimportant witnesses for the influence of Aischylos upon the succeeding\ncentury of Greek art.\n\n\n                          \u00a7 4. THE LOST PLAYS.\n\nOne might carry on a long and fruitless discussion concerning certain of\nthe lost plays, and paintings that present subjects common to them. It\nmust be all but \u2018fruitless,\u2019 since we know next to nothing about the\ncharacter of some of these tragedies, as, for example, the _Pentheus_.\nBut this whole question lies outside the province of the present work,\nand I shall not go further than to append a list of the vase paintings\nthat do in all probability owe much to Aischylos.\n\n\n                               LYKURGEIA.\n\n  1. Apulian amphora, Munich, no. 853. Pub. Millin, _Tombeaux de\n       Canose_, pl. 13.\n\n  2. Apulian krater, Naples, no. 2874. Pub. M\u00fcller-Wieseler, _Denkm\u00e4ler\n       der Alten Kunst_, ii. pl. 37, 440. Cf. Welcker\u2019s _Aeschyleische\n       Trilogie_, p. 327.\n\n  3. Amphora from Ruvo, Naples, no. 3219 (p. 500 of Heydemann). Pub.\n       _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 16, B.\n\n  4. Krater from Anzi in the Basilicata, no. 3237 in Naples. Pub.\n       Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 1 = M\u00fcller-Wieseler, _op.\n       cit._ ii. pl. 38, 442 = Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p. 834.\n\n  5. Krater in Ruvo-Jatta coll. Pub. _Catalogo Jatta_, pl. 2. 5 =\n       _Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. R.; cf. _ibid._ p. 194 ff.\n\n  6. Krater, also from Ruvo, in Brit. Mus.; cat. iv. F 271. Pub. _Mon.\n       d. Inst._ v. pl. 23. Cf. Brunn in _Annali d. Inst._ 1850, p. 336\n       ff.\n\n  7. Fragment of an Apulian amphora in Dresden museum. Pub. _Arch. Anz._\n       1891, p. 24; cf. p. 23 f.\n\n  8. Marble relief-vases. Pub. Welcker, _Alte Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. pl. 3. 8;\n       cf. _ibid._, p. 94 ff.; _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 45.\n\n     Cf. further for a discussion of most of these monuments, Michaelis,\n       _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 248 ff.\n\n\n                               PHRYGIANS.\n\n  1. Tarentine amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ v. pl. 11; cf. _Annali d.\n       Inst._ 1866, p. 249 ff., and _Arch. Ztg._ 1879, p. 16, and\n       G. Haupt. _Commentationes archaeologicae in Aeschylum,\n       Dissertationes Hallenses_, xiii. 1895, p. 13 ff. Vid. also this\n       work for the whole subject of Aischylos and the monuments.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER IV\n              SOPHOKLES AND HIS RELATION TO VASE PAINTING\n\n\nSophokles appears to have enjoyed together with Euripides a large share\nof popularity in the fourth and third centuries, and it is well known\nthat with the Roman tragedians he was a very important factor. It must\nbe held as passing strange that we can point to but few monuments\ninspired by him. One feels that there is abundant material in the\n_Antigone_, for example, to have aroused both painters and sculptors,\nand yet there is, so far as I know, no trace in Greek art of any\nAntigone scene that owes its existence to Sophokles. It is, however,\ntrue that tragedies which were known in ancient times as among the most\ncelebrated, and which are to-day counted the masterpieces of Greek\ntragedy, were often particularly neglected by the artists. How meagre is\nthe record of monuments based on the _Prometheus_, the _Ion_, or the\n_Oedipus Rex_! The reputation of a play cannot be taken as any guaranty,\ntherefore, that the artist found in it the required motives. The gentle\nand calm Sophokles, who \u2018made men as they ought to be and not as they\nare,\u2019 wrote in a grand and dignified manner that charmed the people of\nhis own time and won the praise and admiration of all posterity. How\nthen is one to account for the small part that he played in ancient art?\nIt seems to me that it rests on the fact that Sophokles was not a\ncreative power. Say what we may of the elegance and grace of his style\nand the perfection of his diction, a glance at his extant work convinces\nus that he seldom allowed his imagination to carry him beyond the bounds\nof the accepted form of a myth. He preserved the mythological fabric\nwith religious fervour and altered little. He was neither an iconoclast\nnor an innovator. The gods and heroes in their old-time relations to\neach other and to humanity served him fully, and he showed an\nunwillingness either to shatter the popular faith or to disturb it with\nnew doctrines. So long, therefore, as nothing new mythologically was\nintroduced, the value of the Sophoklean plays, from an artist\u2019s point of\nview, was far below the fresh and dashing manner of Euripides, who left\nthe old and beaten paths and added new chapters to the lives of the\nheroes and the exploits of the gods. It has already been observed that\nwhere Aischylos broke new ground he was followed by the painter and\nsculptor. The novelty of the _Eumenides_ appealed to the artist even\nmore strongly than to the public; here was something absolutely new,\nunheard of before. So it was with the _Choephoroi_, and we have already\nseen that of the extant plays these two are the only ones that\ninfluenced vase painting. Had Sophokles grafted new branches on the old\ntrees of myths he would likewise have had a far larger following among\nancient artists. As it is, it does not seem possible to point to a\nsingle vase painting that is indisputably a Sophoklean product, and one\nmust be perplexed by the strange problem. To be sure conjectures have\nnot been wanting, and here and there a painting has been named in\nconnexion with Sophokles. But this is by no means a frequent occurrence,\nand there has never been any consensus of opinion among archaeologists\nthat this or that picture _must_ be the outgrowth of one of his extant\ntragedies. I have accordingly not published any painting under this\nhead. It seemed best merely to point out the few instances where\nSophoklean influences have been seen by some, and leave the student free\nto determine each case for himself[153].\n\n  _Antigone._ A Lucanian amphora in the Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 175. A.\n        2. Pub. Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 54; cf. Hirzel in\n        _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, p. 70, who bases the scene on vs. 376 ff. It\n        may be remarked that the oriental cap of the king does not at\n        all fit the position of the Theban Kreon.\n\n  _Oed. Rex._ Painting pub. Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iii. pl. 248 =\n        Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 2. 11; cf. _ibid._ p. 62 ff., where\n        vs. 316 ff. are thought of. A much more satisfactory\n        interpretation is that kindly sent me by Professor Carl Robert.\n        The scene represents Chryses before Agamemnon and is based on\n        _Il._ 1.\n\n  _Trachiniai._ Herakles wrestles with the river god Achelo\u00f6s in the\n        presence of Deianeira. Reinach-Millingen, _op. cit._ pl. 10. B.\n        11. Robert in _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. 262, refers the painting to\n        vs. 9\u201324 of the prologue, and calls my attention in a letter to\n        another similar painting, unpublished, in the Jatta-Ruvo coll.\n        no. 1092.\n\nTwo of the lost plays that have been held by some to be represented on\nvase paintings have already been referred to above[154].\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V\n                      EURIPIDES AND VASE PAINTING\n\n\n                           \u00a7 1. INTRODUCTION.\n\nIt has already been made clear that Euripides enjoyed an enormous\npopularity among Greek and Italian artists, and that he was the chief\ninspiration for works of art based on tragedy. This latter feature\nassumes a new interest when studied with the Greek vases. The great\nmajority of these paintings, as has been pointed out, is to be placed\nwithin the fourth cent. B.C., and through them one approaches very near\nto the poet\u2019s own time. They are to be valued, therefore, as most direct\nand reliable testimony concerning Greek tragedy and the place it\noccupied in the life of Lower Italy. Not a few of the paintings\npublished in the following pages may have been seen by people who had\nknown the Athenian society in which Euripides himself had moved. This\nproximity of the vases to the poet\u2019s own day is an important point, and\nshould be thoroughly comprehended in order to bring the true value of\nthe paintings before one. The text of a classical Greek author, exposed\nto the emendatory zeal of the ancient grammarians and the ignorance and\ncarelessness of scribes, had a precarious sort of existence before it\nwas microscopically dissected and violently revised by modern\nphilologists. Our oldest manuscript hardly goes back more than one-third\nof the way to the original. Between 1000 A.D. and 340 B.C., when the\narchetype of the three tragedians was ordered by Lykurgos, how long was\nthe line of copies! It is vastly different with the edition of the\n_Medeia_, for example, on the amphora, p. 145. The vase relates the\ntragedy at first hand, and furnishes the student with an exhibition of\nthe play that is more than twenty-two hundred years old. The original\nwork and no copy carries one into the century succeeding the first\nproduction of the play. Such facts impress one with the importance of\nthis class of monuments.\n\nBefore taking up the discussion of the vase paintings that are under the\ninfluence of Euripides, it may be well to examine for a moment the\nancient testimony touching the poet. It is well known that he did not\nfollow the orthodox form of tragic composition established by Aischylos\nand adhered to by Sophokles. He was less religious than either of the\nother two and, in the same degree, more a man of the world. He was\ninterested in politics, rhetoric, and philosophy, and these elements\naccordingly found room in his plays. For introducing the common,\nordinary affairs of daily life he was stoutly condemned by Aristophanes.\nHis policy continued the same in spite of the virulent attacks of his\nenemies, and the individual appealed to him more strongly than the body\npolitic; where the former poets had preached \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and directed their\nmessages to the world \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, Euripides disclosed for the first time\nthe power of \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, and that of itself was specific and applied to the\ncommunity \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. Herein lay Aristotle\u2019s unfavourable criticism.\nThe philosopher admired Homer, Aischylos, and Sophokles more than\nEuripides simply because he considered \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 to be a more potent factor\nthan \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, and so he complains that none of the younger poets have the\nformer[155]. By \u03bd\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9 he evidently meant post-Euripidean writers, and yet\nthere is no trace of the Aristotelian conception of \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 in Euripides.\nWe may imagine that the great thinker looked for something more stable\nthan \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. But this was all cold, calculating criticism, and Aristotle\nappears, for the most part, alone in placing Euripides below Aischylos\nand Sophokles. The Alexandrian grammarians were his chief followers.\nPlato found in Euripides an authority of great pre-eminence[156]. The\nimmediate success that he enjoyed in his own time is well illustrated by\nthe anecdote related in Plutarch\u2019s _Life of Nikias_[157]. The fugitives\nfrom the Athenian army in the Sicilian expedition are said to have\nmaintained themselves by reciting from Euripides\u2019 works, and captives\nwere able to gain their freedom by teaching their masters new selections\nfrom the Euripidean plays. The element of truth in this remarkable story\nenables one to understand something of the place held by this poet in\nthe West. It is related of Alexander that he was particularly fond of\nEuripides, and that he performed the feat of reciting a whole scene from\nthe _Andromeda_ at his fatal banquet[158]. A certain Axionikos wrote a\ncomedy called the \u2018Lover of Euripides,\u2019 in which he represented the\npeople as suffering from the Euripides-fad to such an extent that they\ncounted all other poetry worthless[159]. A fitting _finale_ to all this\nis reached in the story told in the _vita_ of Euripides to the effect\nthat Philemon would have been willing to hang himself if thereby he\nmight have seen Euripides. That he was always in men\u2019s mouths is\nattested by the large number of fragments from the lost plays. It is\ninstructive to see that he was quoted in the Hellenistic period to the\nexclusion of Aischylos and Sophokles. Wisdom and state-craft were found\nin Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Euripides[160]. One is not surprised,\ntherefore, to learn that his tragedies were the only ones produced at\ncertain Dionysia[161]. This was the period in which most of the vase\npaintings in the following pages belong, and it is only these numerous\ntraditions of the unparalleled popularity of this poet, east and west,\nnorth and south, that makes it possible to appreciate his wide-spread\ninfluence over art. The vases have to be studied in this light, and only\nthen does their importance as a Euripidean commentary become\nsufficiently clear.\n\nA glance at the conditions in Magna Graecia is necessary before leaving\nthis topic. The theatre-going propensities of the Tarentines has been\nmentioned above, and one has now to ask himself who their favourite poet\nwas. There can be but one answer. Here, as in Africa, Asia Minor, and\nSicily, the public was sure to find the greatest satisfaction in a\nEuripidean _r\u00e9pertoire_. The travelling troops of actors performed in\nall the towns of Apulia, Campania, and Lucania, and the tragic forms of\nthe myths were widely published. Euripides was, in short, more than ever\nthe people\u2019s poet, and he became later, with the rise of Latin tragedy,\nthe poet of the Republic. Roman tragedy was Greek in everything but the\nlanguage. The 166 years between the death of Euripides and the\nproduction of Livius Andronicus\u2019 first play in Rome were a seed-time for\nthe works of the Greek poet. The titles of Livius\u2019 ten tragedies include\ntwo from Euripides\u2014the _Andromeda_ and the _Dana\u00eb_\u2014and the father of\nLatin poetry was a native of Tarentum. Ennius, born in Rudiae, which\nStrabo calls a \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03af\u03c2[162], was educated at Tarentum, and became\nthe first national poet of the Romans. Among his twenty-two plays the\nfollowing are either translations of Euripides or adaptations from him:\n_Alexandrus_, _Andromacha_, _Andromeda_, _Erechtheus_, _Medea_, _Medea\nexul_, _Melanippa_, _Phoenix_, _Telephus_, and perhaps _Alcumena_.\nPacuvius, a nephew of Ennius, and the third one of the Latin tragedians,\nalso followed Euripides more than Aischylos or Sophokles. He was born in\nBrundusium 268 B.C. and died in Tarentum 140 B.C. These three poets who\ncome first in the history of Latin literature are peculiarly indebted to\nEuripides and likewise have a special relation to Magna Graecia and\nTarentum. More than half of the whole number of works produced by them\nwould appear to have been Euripidean. Whether it was the rhetorical or\npathetic element that appealed to the Romans more strongly, the fact\nthat Euripides was the primary force in Latin tragedy is very important.\n\nIn this attempt to indicate the wider influence of the Attic drama upon\nthe Latins I have been carried beyond the time of the vase industry, but\nthe Latin literature of the third and second century B.C. was the\nlegitimate product of the conditions that had prevailed in the preceding\nperiod. The Greek literary and artistic genius blossomed into an Italian\nflower and flourished in the soil that had been fertilized by centuries\nof Hellenic influences. It is to a small section of this wonderful life\nin Magna Graecia that the present work is devoted. The vase paintings\nthat follow can best tell their own story of the wide-spread\nHellenization of Lower Italy in the fourth century and of the place held\nby Euripides in the onward march of Hellenism.\n\n\n                            \u00a7 2. ANDROMACHE.\n\nIt does not appear that in the pre-Euripidean literature Orestes played\nany part in the death of Neoptolemos. Pindar at least did not know\nanything of the Menelaos-Orestes conspiracy against the son of\nAchilles[163] but Menelaos\u2019 relation to Sparta afforded a rare\nopportunity for a political polemic. The latter could be painted as a\nmuch more despicable character, as could also the Lakedaimonians in\ngeneral, provided Orestes were involved in the unholy murder. The\nanti-Spartan feeling in Athens was sufficient to guarantee a hearty\nreception to any drama depicting the crookedness and treachery of the\nSpartan character. Such a play was certain to meet the demands of a\ncampaign document.\n\nThe _Andromache_ has, however, little of the merit which one can usually\ndiscover in Euripides; it was classed even by the ancients among his\nsecond-rate works[164]. There is but one effective situation in the\nwhole tragedy, and that is the speech of the messenger, vs. 1085\u20131165,\nwhich gives the account of Neoptolemos\u2019 murder at Delphi. The beginning\nis remarkably simple and unaffected, but when once the poet gets under\nway the action increases rapidly in violence, becoming at every step\nmore and more intense until at last the whole temple of Apollo resounds\nwith the roar of the unholy tumult. Orestes\u2019 party is, of course,\nvictorious over the single-handed descendant of Peleus. This man\u0153uvring\ninside the temple is unique, and intensely dramatic and picturesque. The\npictorial importance of the scene is attested by a painting on a large\namphora found in Ruvo[165].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 10.\n]\n\nIn the centre is the sanctuary of Apollo denoted by two tripods, the\nlaurel tree, the omphalos covered with a netting, and the altar. To the\nlatter, already dashed with blood, Neoptolemos, \u039d\u0395\u039f\u03a0\u03a4\u039f\u039b\u0395\u039c\u039f\u03a3, has fled.\nHe holds a drawn sword in his right hand and whirls his chlamys about\nhis left. He wears a petasos and has a sword-cut in his left side from\nwhich blood is oozing. His face is turned towards the omphalos behind\nwhich Orestes, \u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3, appears to be dodging. He has a chlamys and a\npilos; in his left hand the sheath of a sword, the latter being in his\nright. On the left, behind the altar, is another youth, nude except the\nchlamys on the left arm. He holds a spear in the right hand as though\nabout to cast it at Neoptolemos. The centre of the upper section is\nfilled out with an Ionic temple, the doors of which are open. On the\nleft, the half-figure of a woman, recognizable by the key as the temple\npriestess (\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2)[166], appears in great alarm. Apollo, \u0391\u03a0\u039f\u039b\u039b\u03a9\u039d,\nwith his bow, occupies a seat on the right of the temple[167].\n\nIn order to understand the painting it is necessary to bear in mind what\npreceded the speech of the messenger. Andromache, the wife of Hektor,\nhad fallen to the lot of Neoptolemos on the division of the Trojan\nspoils and had been taken by him to Phthia. As his captive she had\nraised him a son, Molossos, while his lawful wife Hermione, daughter of\nMenelaos and cousin of Orestes, continued barren. Hermione, being\nsuspicious that it was through some drugs of Andromache that she had\nbeen rendered thus unhappy, determined upon the latter\u2019s death, and\nwhile Neoptolemos was absent at Delphi to atone for certain family\nwrongs the desperate Hermione proceeded to carry out her resolve to\ndestroy both the mother and the young Molossos. This spiteful work of\nthe injured wife occupies the first part of the tragedy. The two are\nfinally saved by the intervention of the aged Peleus, and Hermione\nthereupon resolves to kill herself. At this point, Orestes, who is on\nhis way to consult the oracle at Dodona, enters. On learning of the\ninsults and injuries that had been heaped upon Hermione, once promised\nhim for a bride, he at once undertakes to relieve her of any reason for\ndreading the return of Neoptolemos and the attendant disclosure of her\nwicked plans.\n\nHe leaves accordingly for Delphi. The messenger comes in after a song by\nthe chorus and relates what has taken place. Orestes had gone round\nputting the Delphians on their guard against this Neoptolemos whose plan\nwas to sack the temple. Credence was at once given to the fabrication,\nand the inhabitants determined upon a bold step. When Neoptolemos was at\nthe altar addressing the god, the band of armed Delphians who were lying\nin wait for him behind the sacred laurel tree sprang out and fell upon\nhim.\n\nThis furnishes the setting for our painting, and we may turn for a\nlittle to a closer examination of the account given by the poet. It will\nbe noticed that the artist, while in some respects keeping close to the\nlatter, has in the main done his work rather independently. Common to\nboth are the \u03b4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bd\u03b7 (v. 1115) and the \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 (vs. 1123 and 1138). The\nattacking party in the painting includes Orestes, thus emphasizing the\npoint which Euripides really had in mind. In this particular the artist\nhas gone ahead of the poet. It appears, indeed, as though Orestes had\njust made the slash in Neoptolemos\u2019 side. The moment represented is,\ntherefore, that when the fight was on. The Delphians appear to have but\none representative, who is certainly creating far less annoyance for\nNeoptolemos than does the company in Euripides, where they hurl rocks\nand fill the air with dust and din. The setting of the scene in the\npainting is magnificent. Everything points to the great shrine; both the\nexterior and interior of the temple are visible. As for the Ionic order\nit should be remembered that this has nought to do with the historic\nfacts in the case. An examination of the buildings on the vases of Lower\nItaly reveals a decided preference on the part of the artists for this\norder of architecture[168]. The painting is an excellent example of the\ninfluence of the poet over the artist. This is, however, no mere\nillustration, a fact to be remembered in dealing with all the paintings\nof this class; the spirit and not the letter is what one can trace most\nreadily in works of art based upon the tragedians. The agreement between\nthe literary source and the picture is more apparent here than in most\ninstances, and this is largely due to the fact that the _Andromache_ is\nparticularly Euripidean. This turn does not occur in any other author. A\nparallel case will be observed in the chapter dealing with _Iphigeneia\namong the Taurians_. It is this alteration and extension of old myths\nwhich characterizes Euripides\u2019 work. These new features were popular and\nattracted the public, and here one gets the key to the unparalleled\ninfluence which this poet exercised upon artists.\n\n\n                             \u00a7 3. BAKCHAI.\n\nEuripides\u2019 _Bakchai_ is our chief authority concerning the fate of\nPentheus[169], yet this writer did not by any means establish the\ndetails of the story. This was done long before Thespis may have assayed\nto dramatize the tragic episode[170] and before Aischylos wrote his\n_Pentheus_[171]. It is not probable that Euripides materially altered\nthe accepted form of the myth, and there may be in his play a mixture of\nthe traditional and Aischylean versions. Pentheus\u2019 death, like the\nmadness of the Thracian king Lykurgos, was inseparably connected with\nthe advent of the Dionysiac worship. The series of victories won by the\norgiastic god from the wild North was not bloodless; his coming was\nattended with opposition. In the end, however, his foes were annihilated\nor ruined, and the new joy brought in by the foreign god captivated a\nnation and made it his devout worshipper. Euripides could say little or\nnothing new touching the triumph of Dionysos over the king of Thebes,\nyet this tragedy, one of the most brilliant pieces of Greek literature,\npaints in glorious colours the history of the victory.\n\nThe events, as told by Euripides, are briefly as follows. Dionysos has\narrived in Thebes from Lydia and the East, where he had already\nestablished his choirs of Bacchanals. Thebes was the first city to which\nhe came, and here, where he least expected opposition, scepticism met\nhim. The sisters of his mother Semele circulated the report that he was\nno god but an impostor. He forthwith drove the Kadmeian women maddened\nfrom their homes to wander in the mountains attired in the Dionysiac\ndress; the Bacchic craze spread further, and seized even the seer\nTeiresias and Kadmos, who with thyrsoi and fawn-skins joined the orgies.\nPentheus, on hearing of these strange doings, appears and chides them\nboth, and threatens to hunt the women from the mountains and punish the\nstranger who has made his family drunk with frenzy. At v. 434 Dionysos,\nbewitchingly beautiful, is led a prisoner before Pentheus, who orders\nhim to be bound and cast into the royal stable. Soon afterward the walls\nare heard to crash in and flames burst forth in every direction (v. 593\nff.). The god, to be sure, is safe, and Pentheus is mocked and wild with\nanger, while the former bids him be quiet and subdue his anger. At this\npoint a messenger arrives to recount the strange sights that had met his\neyes on the mountains. Three bands of women, led by Autono\u00eb, Agave, and\nIno, had rushed upon his herd of cattle and torn them limb from limb,\nand afterward they washed the blood from their hands in a fountain made\nto flow by the god. In the face of these wonders he urges Pentheus to\nhonour the latter, but the king will not brook this Bacchic insolence\nand threatens to sacrifice a hekatomb of women on Kithairon rather than\npropitiate the unwelcome visitor. Dionysos advises him not to kick\nagainst the pricks (v. 795); in a moment Pentheus\u2019 attitude is seen to\nchange; the secret power of the god is working on him; he will see the\nstrange actions himself, and would rather forfeit a thousand-weight in\ngold than forgo the opportunity (v. 812). The linen chiton is at once\nprovided, and Dionysos, who is to lead the way, directs the arrangement\nof the dress so that Pentheus shall not be mistaken for a man. After\nsome scruples as to the figure he may make before his citizens he is\nanxious to be off. Once in the mountains giddiness comes upon him. He\nsees two suns, and a double Thebes, and twice seven gates; he declares\nthat the god himself has taken on a bull\u2019s form with horns (v. 918 ff.).\nImmediately thereafter he obtains the first glimpse of the women. There\nare Ino and his mother Agave. Then he worries lest he may not hold his\nthyrsos correctly. This shows his sad predicament too plainly. Dionysos\nhas done his work; his vengeance on the recalcitrant Pentheus is at\nhand. At first the latter feels himself able to overturn the whole\nmountain and asks the advice of the god as to the best means of\nannihilating the troop. When violence is not recommended he suggests\nthat he had best hide in a pine-tree to view the sight (v. 954). Nothing\nfurther is ever heard from the king\u2019s own lips except in his death-cry\nreported by the messenger who had accompanied him. When they had reached\nthe band in the glen, shadowed by pines (\u03c0\u03b5\u03cd\u03ba\u03b7, v. 1052), the thicket\nwas so dense that Pentheus requested that he might be allowed to ascend\nthe bank or climb a tree (v. 1061) in order to command the field.\nDionysos bent a tree to the ground, placed the king upon the boughs and\nallowed it to rise again, and, turning to his devotees, pointed to their\nprey. Stones and darts are directed at Pentheus, and finally the tree is\npulled up by main force and he falls an easy victim to the maddened\nwomen. Agave, heeding none of his cries, tears out a shoulder; Ino,\nAutono\u00eb, and the rest help in dismembering the king. His mother fixed\nhis head upon a thyrsos and led the troop on a wild dance over\nKithairon, finally coming to the palace. Gradually freed from the\ninsanity, she realized the enormity of her crime. Dionysos\u2019 godhead was,\nhowever, established, and the house of Kadmos remained a terrible\nwitness of his power. These are the harrowing details of the murder, and\none cannot wonder that there are numerous vase paintings based on the\ntragedy.\n\nThere is a long list of vases that can for the most part be passed over\nwith a mere reference. They are all, with perhaps one exception, later\nthan 500 B.C. This means that the impetus for the tragedy in art was\ngiven largely by the tragic drama. The oldest painting is older than the\n_Pentheus_ of Aischylos and cannot, therefore, be connected with his\nplay. There may have been an earlier dramatization, such as that\nrecorded of Thespis, which figured in this monument[172]. All the\nremaining paintings belong to the latter part of the fifth century B.C.\nand the fourth century B.C., and are, with one exception, of too general\na character to be used as evidence for one of the tragedies[173]. On the\nMunich hydria it seems to me there are clear traces of the _Bakchai_,\nand this widely-known work is given here in fig. 11[174].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 11.\n]\n\nPentheus, wearing chlamys, pilos, and boots, crouches, with a drawn\nsword in his right hand, in a thicket denoted by two trees. A maenad who\nappears to have just discovered him rushes into the hiding-place with a\ntorch in her right hand[175]; she is dressed in a plain, Doric peplos.\nAnother maenad, similarly dressed but having a fawn-skin over the left\nhand and a sword in the right, does not seem to have sighted Pentheus. A\nthird, dressed like the first one, holding a tympanon in the left hand\nand a thyrsos in the right, approaches wholly unconcerned with the\ndiscovery of her companions. On the right is another group of three\nmaenads all dressed alike and all in rapid motion. The first holds in\neither hand the quarters of a kid or roe. The second shoulders the\nthyrsos with her left hand and makes an ecstatic gesture with her right.\nThe third one, in even more violent motion, swings her veil about her\nand rushes on towards the left.\n\nIt should be noted, to begin with, that the vase is a Lower Italy fabric\nof the fourth century B.C., and that there is therefore no chronological\ndifficulty in placing it under the influence of the _Bakchai_. The troop\nof maenads is arranged symmetrically, an equal number being on each side\nof the central scene, and this suggests the chorus in the play. The\nstriking feature is the introduction of the landscape; there is no doubt\nas to where the catastrophe occurs. The artist did not allow himself the\nlicence of placing Pentheus in the tree, for this had been too grotesque\na sight for the fourth-century painter. The frequent references to the\nthicket[176] and the protection it was or the inconvenience it caused,\nis happily brought out in the picture, but the poet has not been\nfollowed in details. Pentheus does not appear with the thyrsos, talaric\nchiton, and dishevelled hair, for the simple reason that he would have\nbeen indistinguishable from the maenads. As he appears in the painting\nthe contrast is striking and the eye at once grasps the situation. The\ntorch held by the foremost maenad lights the way to the retreat of\nPentheus, suggesting the words\u2014\n\n                        \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 \u03c6\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2. v. 1082 f.\n\nThat one is armed with a sword while the others have no weapon finds\nalso a parallel in Euripides, who says one time that they used nought\nbut their hands\u2014\n\n    \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1. v. 736.\n\nand again that the sword shall do its work\u2014\n\n    \u1f34\u03c4\u03c9 \u03be\u03b9\u03c6\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. vs. 992, 1012.\n\nThe wild revelry of the whole is instructive when studied with the poet.\nThe Bacchanal who flaunts the quarters of her victim reminds one at once\nof the words\u2014\n\n    \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c9\u03bd | \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f60\u03bc\u03bf\u03c6\u03ac\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd. v. 138 f.\n\nIn conclusion, reference should be made again to the newly discovered\nwall painting in Pompeii. It is so remarkably preserved and so\nthoroughly in the spirit of Euripides that there can be little doubt as\nto the influence of the _Bakchai_[177]. The only Pentheus painting\nrecorded in classical literature was that in the Dionysos temple in\nAthens, which may also have been inspired by Euripides[178]. Is the\nPompeian painting an echo of the celebrated one in Athens?\n\n\n                              \u00a7 4. HEKABE.\n\nThe _Hekabe_ is one of those plays which, like the _Andromache_,\nembraces a series of events loosely associated. There are in fact two\ndistinct parts to this tragedy, having no other connexion than one would\nobserve between two separate works where the same heroine appeared. Two\nheavy blows which the Fates dealt Hekabe after the fall of Troy\nconstitute the subject of the action.\n\nThe first of these new calamities was the death of Polyxena. The Greeks\nare encamped on the Chersonesos side of the Hellespont. Among the\ncaptives are the former queen of Troy and her daughter. Achilles, who is\namong the shades, demands of the Greeks that Polyxena be sacrificed to\nhim. The request cannot be ignored, and Odysseus and others are\ncommissioned to secure her from her mother. The parting scene between\nHekabe and the daughter is heartrending, but the courage and\nself-control exhibited by the latter are remarkable. Talthybios, the\nfaithful herald of Agamemnon, afterwards reports to Hekabe the details\nof the sacrifice, and this description of the fair and innocent Polyxena\nis one of the gems of Greek literature. The lines in particular which\ndescribe her actions immediately before the fatal moment are famous for\ntheir beauty.\n\nAlthough the offering of Polyxena was known in Greek art and letters\nbefore Euripides\u2019 time[179], the subject must have been far more popular\nafter the production of this tragedy. It appears to me a mere accident\nthat no vase painting representing the scene has so far come to light.\nThere is, however, on a so-called \u2018Megarian Bowl\u2019 a relief decoration,\nprobably dating from the third century B.C., which doubtless owes its\nexistence to Euripides[180]. It has seemed to me desirable to include\nthis here, even though it carries us beyond the limits prescribed to the\npresent work. The cup, found in Thebes, is in the Berlin\nAntiquarium[181]. The middle of the composition represents the tumulus\nof Achilles, above which is raised a stele with akroteria and a fillet.\nOn the left, Polyxena, with exposed bosom and flowing hair, kneels with\nextended arms. Approaching her is Neoptolemos wearing a chlamys and\nholding his sword ready for the fatal stroke; behind the latter is a\nfigure in a short undergarment, mantle and pilos. The cap distinguishes\nthe person as Odysseus. Agamemnon sits with back to the beholder upon\nthe extreme left, and lifts his left hand (not his right hand as Robert\nsays), evidently astonished at the remarkable composure of the victim.\nOn the right of the tomb are three warriors, who are more or less\nclosely connected with the others. The first one appears to raise his\nhand in wonder at the fortitude of Polyxena; the second, who does not\nseem to be armed, has the appearance of one weeping; the third is\napparently little interested in the tragedy. It is not necessary to name\nthese three persons, evidently representatives of the Achaeans. The\nfirst one may perhaps be Talthybios, since he says he was present (v.\n524). The dolphins upon the vase are meant no doubt to characterize the\nsea-shore where the sacrifice took place.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 12.\n]\n\nThe essential part of the composition is, however, the tumulus and the\nfigures on the left. Everything here illustrates Euripides. One reads in\nv. 221 of\n\n    ... \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u1f78\u03bd \u03c7\u1ff6\u03bc\u2019 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nThe attitude of Polyxena is based upon the beautiful verses in the\nmessenger\u2019s speech:\u2014\n\n    \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03c9\u03bc\u03af\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2\n    \u1f14\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03be\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u1f40\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd,\n    \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n\n    \u03ba\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c5\n    \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b5 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n    \u2018\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f66 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1,\n    \u03c0\u03b1\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c7\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc4\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f45\u03b4\u03b5.\u2019\n    \u1f41 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03ad\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2,\n    \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ae\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u1fe5\u03bf\u03ac\u03c2. vs. 558\u2013567.\n\nEven the hesitation of Neoptolemos, expressed in the last two verses,\nfinds its place in the relief. Odysseus, who was intimately identified\nwith the proceedings from first to last (vs. 218\u2013437), could not be\nwanting in an illustration of the final scene. Agamemnon too is\nfittingly present, for, according to Euripides, he had given the order\nto carry out the sacrifice,\n\n                \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\n    \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. vs. 553 f.\n\nand had dismissed Talthybios to Hekabe (v. 504).\n\nThe second part of the play begins with v. 658, where the servant of\nHekabe enters with the body of the latter\u2019s young son Polydoros. Priam\nhad intrusted the boy to Polymestor, king of Thrace, when the Greeks\nattacked Ilion. A considerable sum of gold accompanied the child to\nensure his maintenance if the city should be captured. As long as the\nTrojans held out, Polymestor was true to his charge, but no sooner had\nthe news of the downfall of Priam\u2019s house reached the ears of the good\nThracian than he put the child to death for the money and cast his body\nout unburied. This is related in the prologue by the ghost of Polydoros,\nwho also prophesies the death of Polyxena on that day. His body was\naccordingly discovered by the attendant, who happened upon it by mere\nchance, and immediately after receiving the terrible message from\nTalthybios, Hekabe was made to bow beneath another sorrow. She at once\nsummons her courage and determines to have revenge upon the unrighteous\nPolymestor. She first relates to Agamemnon the story of the boy\u2019s death,\nand the king, deeply incensed at the \u1f00\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of the Thracian, agrees to\nher plan for avenging herself on the latter. She sends for Polymestor\nunder the pretence of disclosing to him some weighty matter. He comes,\nand at her request dismisses his bodyguard, not mistrusting in the least\nthat his crime had been discovered. To questions as to the welfare of\nPolydoros and the safety of the gold he replies that all is well and\nthat the child would gladly have come to visit his mother. Hekabe then\nproceeds to tell him of some treasures which she wishes to commit to his\nkeeping. These are in the tent, and he shall go inside and examine them\nfor himself. \u2018No Achaean is within; we are quite alone,\u2019 she says, and\nwith this assurance Polymestor leaves the light of day for ever. Once\ninside, his cries of agony soon announce that Hekabe has done her work\nwith swift and certain hand.\n\nThe scene representing the reappearance of the blinded Polymestor has\nbeen recognized on a Lucanian vase[182]. In the middle stands the\nhelpless king, his arms extended in a distressed manner. He is dressed\nin a short, embroidered chiton and a mantle, and wears a tall head-gear\nthat indicates his barbarian nationality. Agamemnon is on the left, with\nsceptre and himation; he appears to be addressing the former. Following\nis a doryphoros. On the right are Hekabe and an attendant, both dressed\nin chiton and mantle. The latter places her arm over Hekabe\u2019s shoulder\nand seems to be comforting her, as she shrinks away from the figure in\nthe centre. The cane is suggestive of the queen\u2019s age and of the\nwandering life upon which she is entering. A sword rests upon the\nground, pointing probably to the weapon which was used to blind\nPolymestor. It is not necessary to cite any particular verses from\nEuripides which the artist may have had in mind. He simply told the\nstory as it recurred to him. Especially suggestive of the king\u2019s\nstaggering step are the verses beginning\n\n    \u1f64\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ce, \u03c0\u1fb7 \u03b2\u1ff6,\n    \u03c0\u1fb7 \u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6, \u03c0\u1fb7 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bb\u03c3\u03c9; vs. 1056 ff.,\n\nspoken when Polymestor first appeared before the tent of Hekabe after\nthe latter had put out his eyes. The chorus, Agamemnon, and Hekabe are\nthen present, and with alternating parts fill out the rest of the play\n(vs. 1109 ff.).\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 13.\n]\n\n\n                            \u00a7 5. HIPPOLYTOS.\n\nIn the _Phaidra_ of Sophokles and the first _Hippolytos_ of Euripides it\nwas Phaidra herself who acknowledged to Hippolytos her love for him. The\nvotary of Artemis, at once enraged at this effrontery, cast her aside.\nShe then defamed the youth to Theseus, who, believing her statement,\nprayed to Poseidon to destroy his son. The god accordingly sent a\nsea-monster to frighten the horses of Hippolytos, and the latter was\nsoon dragged to his death. On receiving the news of this, Phaidra hung\nherself[183]. Sophokles\u2019 play does not appear to have ever made any\nimpression upon the world and must have been soon forgotten, and\nEuripides\u2019 tragedy met with great disapproval. Such a Phaidra was more\nthan the Greeks would tolerate. The poet grasped the situation and wrote\nanother _Hippolytos_, which set him right with his public. It was no\nlonger Phaidra in and of herself who became the instrument of the\nyouth\u2019s death; Aphrodite, angered at Hippolytos\u2019 serving Artemis instead\nof herself, starts the gentle flame within Phaidra\u2019s bosom and visits\nher with a love-sickness that drives the unfortunate woman into a\nconfession of her illness to her attendant. On the latter\u2019s placing the\nmatter before Hippolytos, all to no avail, Phaidra takes her own life,\nnot forgetting, however, to leave behind a letter containing delicate\ncharges against her step-son. Theseus returns, finds his wife a corpse,\nand reads the letter. The curse and death of his son follow, as in the\nearlier _Hippolytos_. This ruin was brought on him not so much by\nPhaidra as by Aphrodite.\n\nThe tragedy was counted among the best of Euripides\u2019, and has always\nretained its popularity. The subject was dramatized again in Greek[184],\nand there is extant the Latin version of Seneca[185]. The theme was one\nwhich was sure to appeal to modern authors, and among the French alone\none hears of no less than seven tragedies on the love of Phaidra,\nwritten between the years 1573 and 1786. Four of these, the most famous\nof which is Racine\u2019s _Ph\u00e8dre_, belong to the seventeenth century. They\nare, however, more directly indebted to Seneca and Ovid[186] than to\nEuripides. Mention should be made also of the two operas by Pellegrin,\n1733, and Lemoine, 1786. But after all has been said on versions of the\nstory either in classical or modern times, one turns to the masterpiece\nof Euripides as the great work. According to the author of the\nHypothesis, the play is among the best of this poet and was given the\nfirst prize. In reflecting that Hippolytos has stood forth since March,\n428 B.C., as the _beau id\u00e9al_ of innocent, unsullied, young manhood, one\nis inclined to credit the judges with possessing good sense.\n\nThere was hardly a more attractive legend than this which the artists\nmight have been tempted to make their own, yet one discovers a\nsurprising dearth of Greek monuments that can be referred to the myth.\nFrom these I select two vase paintings that appear to be based upon\nEuripides.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 14 (_vid. p. 102 ff._).\n]\n\nFig. 14 represents a painting on a krater in the British Museum[187].\nThe upper section alone concerns us here, and this shows the interior of\na gynaikonitis with _kline_. On the left is a group of two females. One\nsits on a stool to the right, wears chiton and veil, diadem, bracelets,\nand necklace, and leans forward, with head dropped to one side, clasping\nher right knee thrown over the other. Her left foot rests on a\nfoot-stool. Behind her a white-haired servant in the usual costume holds\nher right hand to her chin, and with troubled air gestures with the left\nhand as she speaks to her mistress. A large Eros with immense wings\nflies down towards the latter with a taenia in his hands. There are,\nfurther, two other groups of two each. The one before the _kline_ is two\nfemales again. An attendant, distinguished by her hood, who holds a fan\nin her right hand, talks and gestures earnestly before the other, who\nwears the simple Doric peplos, ungirdled, and stands with her back to\nthe _kline_ in a disturbed and troubled sort of mood. The remaining\ngroup of two, a pedagogue in the customary dress and a female figure\nsimilar to the one on the extreme left, is also concerned over some\nimportant matter which the pedagogue is telling. Certain articles hang\non the wall.\n\nThe picture has been interpreted as representing Phaidra in the presence\nof the chorus, and depending upon _Hippolytos_ vs. 267 ff. The\nright-hand group would then be very loosely connected with the rest. In\nso far as the love-sickness of Phaidra is concerned this appears to me a\ncorrect interpretation, but that the chorus is in any way represented by\nthe other figures is entirely out of the question. The whole affair is\nsupposed to be in Phaidra\u2019s apartments, to which at no time the\nTroizenian women had access. What would they be doing by the\n_kline_[188]? The pedagogue is added on one side, as though to indicate\nhow the news is spreading among the domestics[189].\n\nBut let me turn for a moment to another class of monuments that help to\na better understanding of the scene. There are no less than seventeen\nreliefs on the long side of Roman sarcophagi which are practically\nintact and furnish from two to three scenes of the tragedy. Less\nfrequently the ends contain one or two other groups supplementing the\nfront side[190]. There are four moments that are distinctly traceable.\n(1) The love-sick Phaidra sits on a chair in her apartments surrounded\nby the old nurse and other servants, who attempt to comfort her. She\nwears a veil as on the vase painting, and on two reliefs one of the\nattendants is removing this[191]. The diadem is also distinguishable.\n(2) The nurse makes her declaration to Hippolytos, who turns away from\nher. (3) Hippolytos with his followers is about to start upon, or is\nalready engaged in, the hunt. (4) The horses run away and bring him to\nhis death. All four scenes occur on the famous sarcophagus in\nGirgenti[192], and on another in St. Petersburg[193]. It will be\nobserved that in three of the four groups Hippolytos himself is present,\nand one naturally looks for him in scenes taken from the tragedy where\nhe is the main figure. The earliest scene in Euripides which develops\nthe hopeless state of affairs with Phaidra is, however, of prime\nimportance next to the death of Hippolytos.\n\nBut a brief comparison of the left-hand group of our painting and the\nPhaidra scene on these reliefs is necessary, in order to reveal a\nstriking resemblance in the compositions. The one difference rests in\nthe size of the groups; the painter has confined himself to fewer\nfigures. This fact, however, is of little importance. A closer\nexamination of the two discloses much that points to a common source. On\nnearly all the reliefs Phaidra\u2019s chair has, as in the painting, no back\nor arms; Eros, who flies towards Phaidra in fig. 14, invariably stands\nbeside her on the sarcophagi, looking up into her sad face, or, what is\nstill worse, aims an arrow at her[194]. The queen wears in all cases the\nveil, and often on the reliefs the diadem likewise[195]. The nurse never\nfails in her ministry.\n\nIt is time now to look more closely at the tragedy. After the prologue\nby Aphrodite, Hippolytos and his followers enter and pay their homage to\nArtemis. The hero lays a wreath upon her statue, which adorned one side\nof the entrance to Pittheus\u2019 palace. The attendants are ordered inside\nand he then withdraws. His servant remains long enough to address a\nprayer to Aphrodite\u2019s image on the other side of the stage. Following is\nthe parodos in which the chorus relates what had been learned concerning\nthe illness of Phaidra. Among other things they hear that she sits\n\n    ... \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c6\u03ac\u03c1\u03b7\n    \u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u1f70\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f70\u03bd \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd. v. 133 f.\n\nThis, it will be observed, corresponds to her position in the painting\nand in the reliefs. It is just this time of abstinence and mourning,\nspent in the palace surrounded by the faithful old nurse and other\nservants, which suggested the scene on the reliefs and on the vase. The\nvisitations of Eros serve well to bring into objectivity the real cause\nof Phaidra\u2019s illness, and to render the poet more plain. To be sure this\nall took place in her apartments, \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd (v. 132), and could\ntherefore be worked out according to the artist\u2019s fancy. A long and\nanimated scene ensues, in which Phaidra utters strange expressions that\nbetray the sadness of her condition. The trophos finally coaxes the\nsecret from her, and the chorus dips in from time to time as a sort of\nsecond to the nurse. The interview which the latter has with Hippolytos,\nvs. 601\u2013668, is overheard by Phaidra. Her unrequited love bears her down\nand she leaves the stage determined to die (v. 731), and in a few\nmoments is announced as dead[196].\n\nThe scenes on the sarcophagi representing Hippolytos\u2019 hunt, the\ncounterpart of Phaidra\u2019s illness, and the trophos\u2019 proposal[197] to the\nhero do not appear on vases.\n\nHippolytos\u2019 ride to death, the terrible _finale_ of the tragedy, appears\non an Apulian krater also in the British Museum[198]. The painting falls\ninto an upper and lower section. In the latter, Hippolytos dashes along\nin his chariot; the four horses are not in any apparent disorder\nalthough the next moment must be fatal, for just before them the\nsea-monster rises into view, and a Fury with a flaming torch and\nserpents wound about her arms runs into their course. A pedagogue\nhurries along from the rear, extending his left hand, warning Hippolytos\nof his danger. The scene is viewed by five divinities. Their positions\nare the stereotyped ones of the Apulian vases, and their connexion with\nthe tragedy before them need not be intimate[199]. Athena in the middle,\na great favourite in these groups, leans on her shield and carries a\nlance and in her right hand the helmet. Apollo, distinguished by bow,\nlaurel bough, and wreath in the hair, sits on her right, facing Pan who\nstands half reversed to the beholder with the syrinx in the right hand,\nand resting his left elbow on a rock. On Athena\u2019s left sits Aphrodite,\nattended by a large Eros, who extends a kylix to Poseidon sitting on the\nright, holding the trident. There is certainly ample reason for the\npresence of the last two gods at the death of Hippolytos; they are, in\nfact, very instrumental in bringing about the catastrophe. I am not able\nto assign any satisfactory reason for the appearance of Athena, Apollo,\nand Pan. Mere speculation concerning the choice of these deities cannot\nbe of much value. Artemis is surely indispensable in a group of gods\nconcerned with Hippolytos\u2019 death. Any one who knows these groups on the\nvases of Lower Italy is aware that Athena is a great favourite and often\nappears, as here, merely because she was so admired. Perhaps Apollo is\nintended to represent Artemis, but it is not likely that the artist\nthought so far[200].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 15 (_vid. p. 108 ff._).\n]\n\nIn regard to the lower section it may be observed first that the\ndistrict is not denoted in any way as being the sea-shore where\nEuripides sends the youth for a drive[201]. There is no water indicated,\nout of which the \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2[202] is issuing. The mounted\ncompanions of Hippolytos are represented only by the pedagogue. The time\nis that just preceding the breaking away of the horses described by the\nmessenger, vs. 1218 ff. The Fury, a gratuitous addition of the artist,\nserves to intensify the violence of the death awaiting Hippolytos.\n\nThe deplorable end of the hero has never failed to awaken one\u2019s\nsympathy. The innocent youth dragged to his death through the workings\nof a hasty and unjust curse presents one of the most pathetic pictures\nin Greek literature. It is well depicted by Philostratos in the\n_Imagines_[203]. \u2018You see,\u2019 he says, \u2018how the horses no longer obey the\nreins but rush madly along the plain, covered with foam. This one makes\nfor the wild beast, the second rebounds, another rushes for the sea, and\nthe fourth glances fearfully at the ground.\u2019 The breaking and crashing\nof the chariot are pointed out. Then the companions gallop up and try to\nmanage the horses. The hills near by, sentinels of the disaster, in the\nform of women, tear their cheeks for grief; the meadows, in the form of\nboys, allow their flowers to wilt and the nymphs from the springs rend\ntheir hair, while water spouts from their breasts. Hippolytos\u2019 limbs are\ntorn and shattered, and his eyes are gouged from their sockets. Pliny\ntells of a painting by Antiphilus of Alexandria which represented\n_Hippolytus tauro emisso expavescens_[204], but nothing further is known\nof Antiphilus or when he lived. The sarcophagi reliefs representing the\ncatastrophe are numerous, compared with those showing any other\nmoment[205]. Not less interesting is the list of Etruscan urns decorated\nwith reliefs showing the bull, the runaway horses, and the _expavescens_\nyouth[206]. In all of these a female figure, doubtless a Fury, is\nfrightening the horses[207]. In two cases she is winged, and every one\ncarries a torch likewise, as on the vase painting.\n\n\n                       \u00a7 6. IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS.\n\nThe story of Iphigeneia\u2019s sacrifice appears to have been told first in\nthe _Kypria_, and yet only occasional references are made to it by\nwriters before the fifth century. It was the drama that infused new life\ninto the myth and launched it as one of the most popular ones in the\nTrojan Cycle. Each of the three great tragedians tried his hand at the\ncatastrophe in Aulis. Euripides\u2019 work, the only one surviving, is at\nleast two generations younger than the play of Aischylos, so that the\nwide popularity of the tragedy in this period is well attested. Among\nthe Roman poets we know that Ennius, at least, wrote a version of the\ntragedy. Although it is known that this poet had a special predilection\nfor Euripides, and for the most part translated or adapted the latter\u2019s\nplays, attempts have been made to show that in his _Iphigenia_ Ennius\nwas largely indebted to Sophokles[208]. The few fragments remaining from\nthese three _Iphigeneias_ are, however, inconsiderable, and a clear\nnotion of their relation to each other cannot be reached. The extant\nwork of Euripides is accordingly of great value to us.\n\nIn art, likewise, this subject was rarely treated. I know of no\nIphigeneia monument earlier than the fifth century. There is a reference\nin the _Agamemnon_ to the sacrifice as though Aischylos may have seen\nthe scene represented in a painting[209], and granted that the poet\nreally had such a work in mind this becomes the earliest date for\nIphigeneia in art. The earliest monument of which we possess any\nauthentic record is the famous painting of Timanthes, who was a\ncontemporary of Zeuxis and Parrhasios[210]. This date, however, does not\ncarry one beyond the last years of the fifth century B.C.\u2014an altogether\nlate date for an art representation of a myth, which, from Aischylos\u2019\ntime at least, was widely known. We have reason to believe that\nTimanthes\u2019 work was suggested by Euripides\u2019 tragedy. The latter was\nfirst produced in Athens after the poet\u2019s death, not earlier than 405\nB.C., and this requires that the painting be placed near the end of the\ncentury, which many are unwilling to admit; it is, however, more a\nmatter of opinion than proof. Traces of this celebrated picture are very\nprobably at hand in the well-known Pompeian wall painting[211], and the\nUffizi altar[212]. The composition of the latter has much in common with\nsuch fifth-century products as the Orpheus and Peliades reliefs[213].\nThe Etruscan urns on the other hand furnish a wealth of reliefs\nrepresenting the sacrifice, rarely surpassed in this class of monuments.\nNumbers have come to light in the neighbourhood of Perugia\nespecially[214]. Two groups are easily distinguishable, (1) Iphigeneia,\nas a little girl, is held over the altar by Odysseus, while Agamemnon\ngoes through the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af. (2) The first group is extended by (_a_)\nKlytaimestra on the side of Agamemnon, and (_b_) Achilles on the side of\nOdysseus, each begging for mercy and the life of Iphigeneia. This is all\nnon-Euripidean, and Schlie has attempted to point out that the reliefs\nowe their origin to Ennius\u2019 play which combined Sophoklean and\nEuripidean elements[215].\n\nThere is no vase painting which can be claimed for this scene in its\nEuripidean character, but the whole play is the basis of a relief on a\n\u2018Megarian\u2019 cup, and the illustration is so valuable for the proper\nappreciation of the tragedy that I do not hesitate to include this\nlittle monument. The cup furnishes inscriptional evidence not only for\nthe _dramatis personae_ but for the literary source as well, and is,\ntherefore, a _unicum_ among the monuments that are based upon Euripides.\nThe cut given in fig. 16 is of the vase in Berlin[216]. It should be\nobserved, however, that there are two other copies of this same work,\nand that they tell exactly the same story from the _Iphigeneia_[217]. A\nword is necessary in order to prepare us for the first scene given.\nAgamemnon had sent a message to Argos summoning Iphigeneia, and, in\nspite of his attempt to countermand this by a secret letter to\nKlytaimestra, he was forced to face the results of his earlier resolve.\nHis daughter came, and accompanying her were her mother and her young\nbrother Orestes. The nuptials were to be celebrated with the son of\nPeleus, and the Argive party in gayest, happiest mood halted before the\ntent of Agamemnon. The Chalkian women, who through curiosity had crossed\nthe Euripos to see the gathered hosts of the Greeks, are ready at hand\nto assist Iphigeneia in alighting from the chariot. The lad Orestes, who\nappears to have gone to sleep during the journey, is awakened and lifted\ndown by one of the kindly strangers. With her mother\u2019s permission,\nIphigeneia hastens inside to meet her father[218]\u2014she, innocently happy\nover the arrival of her wedding day\u2014he, overcome with grief at her\nimpending death, and smitten with remorse at the enormity of his crime.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 16.\n]\n\nThis much renders plain the group on the right. Agamemnon, \u0391\u0393\u0391\u039c\u0395\u039c\u039d\u03a9\u039d,\nsits upon his \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 with one foot on a foot-rest; his right hand is\nplaced to his temple as though to shut out the gaze of Iphigeneia,\n\u0399\u03a6\u0399\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0395\u0399\u0391, who approaches him in a beseeching manner with extended arms.\nThe group is based upon vs. 644 ff.\u2014\n\n    Iph. \u1f14\u03b1\u00b7\n         \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f15\u03ba\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f04\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd.\n\n    Aga. \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n           \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7\n\n    Iph. \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u1f40\u03c6\u03c1\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n           \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7       \u00b7\n\n         \u03ba\u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd;\n\nSuch is the situation described by the poet, and surely the artist has\nsucceeded to a considerable degree in grasping the meaning of the scene.\nKlytaimestra, \u039a\u039b\u03a5\u03a4\u0391\u0399\u039c\u0397\u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u0391[219], appears on the left with Orestes,\n\u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0397\u03a3, and would seem to have had the boy in charge after he was\nhelped from the chariot (vs. 621 f.). Following is the inscription,\n\u0395\u03a5\u03a1[\u0399\u03a0\u0399\u0394\u039f\u03a5] \u0399\u03a6\u0399\u0393\u0395\u039d\u0395\u0399\u0391\u03a3. The genitive case in the last word may depend\nupon some such word as \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9. To avoid a possible misunderstanding of\nthe scenes, even with the characters named each time, the artist\nconsidered it advisable to add the literary source. This is the\n_Iphigeneia of Euripides_ and not of any other poet.\n\nAfter Iphigeneia leaves her father he endeavours to persuade\nKlytaimestra to return to Argos and leave the final arrangements for the\nnuptials in his charge. Naturally enough she refuses, and retires to\nappear at v. 819, where she meets Achilles and enthusiastically brings\nup the subject of the marriage. Achilles, amazed at the disclosure,\nassures the queen that he has neither wooed Iphigeneia nor heard aught\nfrom the Atreidai concerning any such an alliance. This scene is\nrepresented in the next group. Achilles, \u0391\u03a7\u0399\u039b\u039b\u0395\u03a5\u03a3, bends toward\nKlytaimestra and gestures emphatically. The latter holds her hand to her\nchin and is evidently dumbfounded by the declarations. The last words\nexchanged before the two separate are suggestive\u2014\n\n    Ach. \u1f34\u03c3\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03ba\u1f00\u03bc\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2,\n         \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1fb3 \u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03cd\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5.\n\n    Kly. \u03c7\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c1\u2019\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd \u03c2\u2019 \u1f14\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03bf\u03c1\u1ff6,\n         \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03be\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n    Ach. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6\u00b7 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd\n         \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9. vs. 849\u2013854.\n\nImmediately after these words the faithful old servant of Agamemnon\ncomes out and relates to Klytaimestra that Iphigeneia is to be slain by\nher father; he goes further and tells the cause of it all, and how he\nhad failed to get away to Argos with the letter. This meeting of the\nservant, \u03a0\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a3\u0392\u03a5\u03a3, and the queen, is dramatically told in the third\ngroup. The former wears the costume of a pedagogue, with\npeculiar-looking boots. The latter has laid aside the veil which she\nwears in all the other scenes.\n\nThe following groups on the relief reverse the order of the text, so it\nis best to consider first that on the extreme left. Agamemnon,\nKlytaimestra, and Iphigeneia are all named. The young Orestes pulls at\nhis father\u2019s chiton; the latter has a mantle over his head, and shields\nhis face with his left hand. The mother has turned aside and is consumed\nwith her deep sorrow. She had won the sympathy of Achilles after the\ntalk with the old servant, vs. 896\u20131035, and following the choral song\nappears again to seek Agamemnon whom neither she nor Iphigeneia had seen\nsince the terrible truth of the marriage was disclosed. She calls her\ndaughter from the house, v. 1117, and bids her\n\n    \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2019 \u1f48\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c3\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nAll of these figures occur on the cup, so that in a certain sense the\nwhole scene from v. 1122 to v. 1275 is illustrated. The position of\nKlytaimestra and Iphigeneia would, however, lead one to think that the\nlatter\u2019s long appeal was particularly in the mind of the artist. She\nrecounts in words, as eloquent as they are pathetic, the promises her\nfather had once made to her as a child, and goes over all the ambitions\nthat had filled her girlish heart in the happy Argive home.\n\n    \u03b2\u03bb\u03ad\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2, \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03b5,\n    \u1f35\u03bd\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2019 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n    \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\n    \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03ad, \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c3\u03cd \u03b3\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n    \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f31\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n    \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c3\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\n    \u03ba\u1f00\u03bd \u03bd\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03af\u03b3\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n    \u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a \u03c3\u03b9\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03af\u03c3\u03c3\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03af \u03c2\u2019 \u1f45\u03b4\u2019, \u1f66 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1.\n    \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b1\u1f34\u03b4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n    \u03bd\u03b1\u03af, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c2\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u00b7\n    \u1f41 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03c3\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f21 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b7\u1f50\u03be\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7. vs. 1238\u20131248.\n\nThere is certainly inspiration enough in these verses for a more\npretentious group than the simple terra cotta cup presents, but lacking\nall other Greek monuments bearing upon this scene one may prize this\nwitness as a valuable inheritance from the Hellenistic period. Agamemnon\nspeaks; he loves his child and realizes full well the meaning of the\nsacrifice, but he must obey the clamourings of the Greeks.\n\nIphigeneia and her mother remain alone with the chorus and bewail the\nbitterness of their sorrow, vs. 1276\u20131345, when a company of men is\nobserved approaching. Among them is Achilles. His attempt to intercede\nin behalf of the doomed Iphigeneia had been of no avail. The Achaeans\nwere inexorable; her blood must be spilt. Nevertheless he promises them\nhis assistance, and encourages Klytaimestra to resist Odysseus and the\nothers who come to drag her daughter away to the altar, vs. 1338\u20131433.\nThe early part of this scene is recognizable in the remaining group.\n\n    Iph. \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u1fb6\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1, \u03b4\u03bc\u1ff6\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03c8\u03c9 \u03b4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n    Kly. \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03ad, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2;\n\n    Iph.                        \u1f08\u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u2019 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n    Kly. \u1f41\u03c2 \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03ad;\n\n    Iph.                  \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03ad\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u1ff6 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9.\n\n    Kly. \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f10\u03bd \u1f01\u03b2\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1.\n         \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03af\u03bc\u03bd\u2019\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f22\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1.\n\n    Ach. \u1f66 \u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1, \u039b\u03ae\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1. vs. 1340\u20131345.\n\nAchilles stands with staff in hand, either about to address the mother\nor perhaps having uttered the last verse above. Iphigeneia turns with\nbowed head to avoid his presence; her mother evidently tries to detain\nher. Inscriptions again indicate who the persons are. We have then\nprecisely the situation in the lines quoted.\n\nThe sacrifice which followed, was attended by the marvellous wonder, and\nit was to be expected that if any _one_ incident of the tragedy was told\nin art it would be the scene at the altar. Our little monument curiously\nenough stops where _all_ the others begin. We are taken step by step up\nto the final act and there we are left. The works enumerated above[220]\nare, without exception, confined to the moment of the sacrifice. The\nfamous wall painting and the Florence altar have much in common with the\nrenowned painting of Timanthes, and all three are conceived in the\nspirit of Euripides as far as the actions of Agamemnon are concerned.\n\n    ... \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03bd \u1f08\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b1\u03be\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd,\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5, \u03ba\u1f04\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\n    \u03b4\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1fc6\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f40\u03bc\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03c2. vs. 1547 ff.\n\nAnd so he stands completely wrapped in his mantle, exposing no part of\nhis face. In this invention lay the unsurpassed success which Timanthes\nenjoyed with his painting. The dates for this artist allow us to place\nthe work subsequent to the production of the _Iphigeneia_ in 405 B.C.,\nand credit Euripides with influencing Timanthes. This is at least\npossible, but does not admit of proof. It appears to me very likely that\nall three of these works are more or less closely connected with each\nother and with Euripides. The Etruscan ash-urns on the other hand, as\nwell as the vase painting in the British Museum[221], follow a totally\ndifferent version of the story. In these cases Agamemnon himself takes\nthe part of the priest in the ceremony, and performs the \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af. So far\nfrom being the tender-hearted father who cannot even stand and watch the\noffering, he draws the fatal knife or pours the sacrificial liquid upon\nthe victim\u2019s head. Traces of this turn are found early in tragedy[222],\nbut this is an Agamemnon with a far different heart from the one we\nfollow in the _Iphigeneia_ of Euripides. Even though the part from v.\n1532 till the close of the play be thrown out as an interpolation, the\ncharacter of Agamemnon in the first 1500 verses could not have changed\nso suddenly at the end that he would have taken the place of Kalchas at\nthe altar. This set of monuments does not, therefore, give us the\nEuripidean spirit.\n\n\n                  \u00a7 7. IPHIGENEIA AMONG THE TAURIANS.\n\nEuripides in all probability created in the life of Iphigeneia the\nchapter concerning her return to Greece with Orestes. There is at any\nrate no trace of this turn in preceding authors. Homer does not appear\nto have known any such a daughter of Agamemnon, unless one is to seek to\nidentify Iphigeneia with Iphianassa. The \u2018king of men\u2019 speaks of\n\n    \u03a7\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03cc\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03b1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u0399\u03c6\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1. _Il._ 9. 145.\n\nas his three daughters. We know, however, from Sophokles[223] that\nIphianassa was distinguished from Iphigeneia. Since Homer has not even\nher name there is no allusion to the catastrophe at Aulis. It is first\nin the _Kypria_[224], a work usually accredited to Stasinos in the early\npart of the eighth century B.C., that reference is made to the gathered\nhosts at Aulis, the calm, the sacrifice. It was not Iphigeneia, however,\nwho was the victim, for Artemis had suddenly intervened and, having\ntaken her away to the Black Sea country, had blessed her with\nimmortality. From this date then the myth may have been widely spread\namong the Greeks. Hesiod related in his \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd that\nIphigeneia had received the gift of immortality from Artemis, thus\nfollowing closely the author of the _Kypria_[225]. Herodotos also\nrepeats the same story[226]. One looks in vain for any trace of her\ndelivery from this wild people, until the latter part of Euripides\u2019\nlife. Then it is that new light breaks in upon the old orthodox form of\nthe myth: the mortal side of Iphigeneia is made to assume a new interest\nfor the world, and she, who had been long lost amidst a wild, barbarous\npeople, is suddenly restored to her only hope, Orestes. This is the work\nof \u2018Euripides, the human, with his droppings of warm tears.\u2019 With this\ntragedy the poet created at once a definite chapter in dramatic\nliterature and furnished another impetus for ancient art.\n\nThere are traces of two other Greek tragedies dealing with this same\nsubject; yet the play of Timestheos is a mere name[227], while that of\nPolyeidos is but little more. Aristotle, however, has given a certain\nprominence to the latter work by making two references to it in his\n_Poetics_[228]. This differed from the play of Euripides particularly in\nthe recognition scene. The \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 was brought about by Orestes\nusing the words \u2018and shall I too be sacrificed?\u2019 Who but Orestes was\nlikely to know aught of the attempt once made to sacrifice her at Aulis?\nIt is worthy of note that the _libretto_ of Gl\u00fcck\u2019s opera also follows\nthis manner of the _d\u00e9nouement_. Among the Latin dramatists we hear that\nNaevius wrote a play called _Iphigenia_. One verse only is\npreserved[229]. It goes without saying that the tragedy was taken from\nthe Greek, but from what author it is worthless to conjecture. The\n_Dolorestes_ of Pacuvius was long thought to deal with the same subject,\nbut this has been shown to be of an entirely different character. It is\naltogether improbable that these Latin versions worked any radical\nchange in the Euripidean form of the myth. It is true that the story was\nremodelled in some particulars; Hyginus, e.g. in _fabula_ 261, relates\nthat the bones of Orestes had been brought from Aricia to Rome and had\nbeen interred before the temple of Saturn! Such a violent contortion of\nthe myth may be laid to the credit of a poet[230], but I would prefer to\nrecognize in the words of Hyginus the influence of the mythological\nhandbooks which were written up in a manner well calculated to pamper\nthe national pride of the Romans.\n\nIn no work written subsequent to Euripides is it possible to detect the\nsources for the representations of the myth in art; in all cases the\npoet of the fifth century B.C. can be shown to have wielded his absolute\npower. We shall see in the discussion of the vase paintings based upon\nthe play that this class of monuments is not the only one in which the\nnew Iphigeneia found her place. The Etruscan urns and mirrors, the wall\npaintings of Pompeii and of Herculaneum, the Roman sarcophagi, as well\nas pastes and gems, all furnish an extensive field in which parallel\nscenes may be traced.\n\nThis introduces the consideration of the vases and their relation to the\ntragedy. They fall readily into three classes corresponding to three\nwell-defined stages in the play: 1. Orestes and Pylades alone upon the\nTaurian coast are surprised, and led by the shepherds to the king and\nIphigeneia (vs. 67\u2013466). 2. The scene following, in which it is\ndetermined that not both shall be killed, but that one, and he Pylades,\nshall be allowed to return to Mykenai, bearing a message from Iphigeneia\n(vs. 467\u2013724). 3. The handing over of the letter and the accompanying\nexplanation, whereby Orestes and his sister recognize each other (vs.\n725\u20131088). There follow two other well-defined scenes which are not\ntraceable on vases[231]. 4. The escape with the Artemis idol (vs.\n1152\u20131233), and 5. the messenger\u2019s speech which relates the manner of\nthe escape.\n\nThere is but one vase painting that can be assigned to the first step in\nthe play. The painting is a thoroughly ugly and, from an artistic\nstandpoint, worthless specimen that represents the very decadence of\nceramic art[232]. The vase is a slender amphora with three zones of\npictures; ours is the middle one. On the left a woman in chiton and\nmantle sits with head turned to the right, her left hand resting on a\nsceptre or staff and her right on her knee. She wears a necklace and on\none arm a bracelet. Standing before her with outstretched right hand is\na bearded male figure in short chiton and mantle, and a spear in his\nleft; he has just arrived, as one may conclude from the position of his\nfeet. Immediately following are two youths entirely naked, hands\npinioned behind their backs. The ends of the ropes seem to be held by\nthe group of three youths following, who are dressed as the first male\nfigure except that two of them wear boots. Their attention, like that of\nall, is directed towards the female figure.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 17.\n]\n\nThe arrest of Orestes and Pylades is given here, and more definitely\ntheir appearance before Iphigeneia. To be sure the manner is entirely\ndifferent from that on other monuments. One expects Iphigeneia to be in\nor near the temple of Artemis and to be represented in a more concerned\nand active attitude; and furthermore, one looks for the altar (v. 72),\nand some indication of the fate which awaits the captives. All these\nfeatures are wanting. That the artist endeavoured to represent the\nmeeting of the priestess and the two Greeks can, however, admit of no\ndoubt; that the necessary setting of the scene was omitted need be no\nmore a matter of surprise to one than the helpless workmanship of the\nwhole. The monument is valuable as being the only vase painting showing\nthe first scene, which is never wanting on the sarcophagi[233]. This\nmoment occurs likewise on certain other monuments[234]. The shepherd\nrelates (vs. 260\u2013339) how the discovery and capture were made; how they\nlearned that one of the two was named Pylades; and further that the\nprisoners had been conducted first to the king, who after glancing at\nthem (\u1f10\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03ce\u03bd) sent them to Artemis and her priestess. Iphigeneia says to\nthe boukolos in v. 342, \u03c3\u1f7a \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03ce\u03bd, and in v. 467,\nafter her soliloquy and the song of the chorus, she appears again on the\nstage where she meets the captives. This is the moment, very largely\nmodified, which the painting represents. Iphigeneia\u2019s first words are\u2014\n\n                      \u03bc\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2,\n    \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03c4\u2019 \u1f66\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03ad\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9.\n\nAt this the guards are commanded to enter the temple and make ready for\nthe offering. Our picture follows in one respect the traditional manner\nof representing the scene. Orestes and Pylades are invariably nude, or\nso lightly clad with the chlamys that they are practically naked. There\nis the closest analogy between them as they appear here and as they\noccur on the sarcophagi.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 18.\n]\n\nThe second moment, as I have marked it out above, is also represented on\none vase only[235]. In the centre Orestes, \u039f\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u03a4\u0391\u03a3, sits to the right\nupon a large altar, chlamys about his hips, sword on his left side,\nhands supported upon his stick towards which his head is sunk. The whole\nattitude betokens sorrow. On the right is Iphigeneia wearing long,\nsleeved chiton, and mantle, necklace, and bracelets. In her left hand\nclose by her side (incorrectly published as a knife) is the temple key\nwhich is emblematic of her office as \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2[236]. Her right is\nextended towards Orestes, with whom she is speaking. She is accompanied\nby a temple servant who, entirely wrapped in chiton and mantle, carries\nin her right an oinocho\u00eb and upon her head a dish in which are articles\nfor the sacrifice, including the branches for sprinkling. Behind Orestes\nis a laurel tree and on his right Pylades, \u03a0\u03a5\u039b\u0391\u0394\u0397\u03a3, standing with one\nfoot thrown over the other, his right hand placed sorrowfully to his\nhead. The left rests upon his staff. On his left side is a sword. He is\ndeeply concerned in the conversation. Above on the right behind a\n_terrain_ is the temple of Artemis, Ionic order, and akroteria. Beside\nit on the left, Artemis, distinguished by her huntress-mantle, two\nspears, and hair-dress, sits with face to the left towards Apollo who is\nthe remaining figure on the vase. He wears a garment around his waist,\nand rests his right upon a cane and turns his face towards Artemis.\n\nThe vase is especially interesting as being the only one on which any of\nthe characters is accompanied by an inscription, and secondly, because\nOrestes sits here upon the altar. He cannot be thought of as a victim,\nand I do not believe he has fled to the altar for refuge, as has been\nsuggested. That would comport but poorly with the spirit which he\nexhibits throughout the interview. Where does Orestes sit passively upon\nan altar at the attack of the Furies? He invariably has his sword drawn\nin a very emphatic manner, and while he crouches upon or clings to the\naltar he never gives any appearance of being an easy victim to his\npursuers[237]. Just this point it is necessary to emphasize, for had the\nartist felt that the meaning of Orestes\u2019 position indicated his pursuit\neither by seen or unseen Furies, he never would have committed the\negregious error of placing him in a calm attitude quite unconscious that\nhe has a _sword ready at his side_. Furthermore there is no trace in\nEuripides or the painting to allow us to assume that Orestes is again\npursued at this point. He is not, therefore, in any sense a suppliant.\nThe vase painter has simply allowed himself a great liberty in seating\nhis figure where we should least expect to find him. An altar is not by\nany means a usual seat, and much less for the victim[238]. This same\nfreedom in disposing of details led the decorator still further from the\nestablished usage, for neither of the captives should be allowed their\nswords. They are already \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03af (v. 469) and should be represented\naccordingly. In these particulars we must acknowledge that the painter\nidealized the scene (vs. 472 ff.).\n\nIf it were necessary to determine upon any one moment which the artist\nhad in mind, one would discover a close parallel between vs. 625 ff. and\nthe present scene. It has been agreed that Pylades shall be the\nmessenger; Orestes is to die in his stead. The latter proceeds to ask\nwho shall perform the sacrificial act, and whether a tomb shall receive\nhim when all is over. To this Iphigeneia replies\u2014\n\n    \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nand Orestes\u2014\n\n    \u03c6\u03b5\u1fe6\u00b7\n    \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b5\u1f76\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd;\n\nto which Iphigeneia remarks,\n\n    \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u1f66 \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f45\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36,\n    \u03b7\u1f54\u03be\u03c9.\n\nI can conceive of no more pitiable and hopeless condition than that of\nthe unfortunate Orestes which the poet depicts. At this point his course\nseemed all in vain; Apollo\u2019s promise appeared to be a farce, and Heaven\nand Earth seemed wrought into one violent confusion (cf. vs. 572 f. and\n711). Perhaps it was at this juncture that he most impressed the\npainter, and we may see the wretched Orestes prostrate upon the altar in\nthis moment of extreme despair.\n\nArtemis and Apollo take no part in the action, but there is a greater\nfitness in their position as spectators than is often the case with the\ngods on the vases of Lower Italy. The former is a natural figure in her\nown precinct, by her own temple, while Apollo, as her brother, properly\nbalances the scene. The latter, moreover, stands in so close a relation\nto Orestes\u2019 trial and delivery that he is a most appropriate beholder of\nthe progress of this his own enterprise (cf. v. 977).\n\nMention should be made here of the sarcophagi, on which essentially the\nsame scene is found. The agreement with our vase is striking[239].\nOrestes sits with his head wrapped in his mantle and drooping on his\nlap, while Pylades stands before him, always in the same attitude, one\nleg thrown over the other, one hand clutching his hair and the other\nresting on his stick. This is a striking coincidence, indeed, in these\ntwo classes of monuments, separated by at least four hundred years.\n\nIn the third step of the tragedy we are more fortunate and possess among\nvase paintings at least three that represent the transmission of the\nletter to Pylades, and the accompanying recognition between Orestes and\nhis sister. It is not surprising that the supreme moment in the action\nshould have attracted the artists, and that on the sarcophagi[240] also\nthis unique point in Greek tragedy should have been represented[241].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 19.\n]\n\n1. The best known of the vases is an amphora formerly in the possession\nof the Duke of Buckingham[242]. In front of the temple of Artemis, Doric\norder, stands Iphigeneia, _en face_, in richly embroidered chiton, and\nhigh head-dress from which falls a sort of veil reaching to the knees.\nShe wears necklace, bracelets, earrings, and sandals; her costume\nbespeaks in every respect that of the theatre. She carries again the\ntoken of her office in the left, and hands the letter to Pylades with\nthe right, who stands ready for the journey, wearing chlamys, pilos,\nboots, and carrying two spears. Further, on the left, leaning against\nthe \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd is Orestes, _en face_, but with laurel-wreathed head\nturned towards Pylades; his right leg is thrown over the left. He wears\na chlamys, and carries two spears and a sword. Beside Iphigeneia is her\nservant, as in fig. 18, but with a simple girdled chiton, and in her\nright the dish with articles for the altar which is represented in poor\nperspective behind Iphigeneia. Above, on the right, before the temple\ndoors, is Artemis in short, huntress-costume and high Thracian boots;\ntwo spears in her left, and a burning torch in her right. She wears the\nThracian cap. On the left of the temple behind a _terrain_ is a young\nsatyr, no doubt thrown in to fill up the space.\n\n2. The largest painting representing this scene is that on an amphora in\nSt. Petersburg[243]. The centre of the picture is taken up by the\ntemple, four Ionic columns. Inside on the right is the Artemis statue,\ncostumed like Artemis in fig. 19; a burning torch in the right, around\nwhich is bound a sort of decoration. It is on a large pedestal, and has\nin the left a spear. On the left, about to leave the temple, is\nIphigeneia with an elegant chiton, mantle, a diadem in hair, and the\npeculiar key in her left; beside her, and leaning against the wall, is a\nkylix with long handle. She makes a gesture towards Pylades with her\nright in which there is no letter. He stands on the left by the temple,\nleaning against his knotty stick; has petasos on the back of the neck,\nand wears high boots and an escaping chlamys. On the left, lower down,\nOrestes leans on the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, as in fig. 19, but he is evidently\nmore dejected here. The rest of the painting, which consists of five\ngroups of two figures each, has so little to do with the central scene\nthat we may omit any description of it. In the upper zone on the right\nare Hermes and Artemis, on the left Athena and Nike. Athena will observe\nthe final part of the affair in which she was so deeply interested in\nAthens. The two groups, a female and an armed Thracian, represent the\ncommon \u2018love-scenes\u2019 on this class of vases. For the third group on the\nright, the artist preferred to draw a young deer instead of the female\nfigure. Stephani[244] is correct in calling these \u2018love-scenes,\u2019 and so\nseparating them permanently from any part in the action. Countless such\ngroups are thrown upon vases of this style as meaningless, decorative\nfigures. The parasol, wreaths, and vessels serve to enrich the setting\nand add charm to the coquetry.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 20 (_vid. p. 133 ff._).\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 21.\n]\n\n3. A vase, formerly in the possession of the art dealer Barone in\nNaples, shows an abridgement of the scene[245]. In an Ionic temple, four\ncolumns, and akroteria, Iphigeneia, _en face_, long chiton, mantle, hair\ndone in a knot behind, leans with her left elbow upon the \u03b2\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2. In her\nleft is the temple attribute, and in the right the letter which she\nextends to Pylades, in chlamys and petasos. He leans against his stick,\nand has a sword in the left, while he points with the right towards the\nletter. On the right are Apollo and Artemis. The former, nude except for\na mantle and high boots, grasps the laurel tree with his left, and rests\nhis right upon Artemis\u2019 shoulder, who sits to the left upon the altar\nand looks up to Apollo. She is dressed as usual with short chiton and\nhigh boots. She has two spears in the left.\n\nIn setting these three paintings over against each other and comparing\nthe elements in them, the uniformity is very striking. Perhaps the\ndetails may be clearer if placed in a sort of scheme.\n\n\n_a._ Elements common to all three vases.\n\n1. Temple of Artemis. 2. Iphigeneia in elaborate dress, indicated as the\n\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2. 3. A youth in travelling costume, with whom she is talking.\n4. Artemis on the _right_ of the temple.\n\n_b._ Elements common to two of the three vases.\n\n1. In figs. 19 and 20 a youth leans against the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, resting\non one leg over which the other is thrown. 2. In figs. 19 and 21\nIphigeneia hands the letter to the youth. 3. The Artemis \u1f04\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 is in\nthe temple in figs. 20 and 21; so also is Iphigeneia.\n\n\nWe thus observe that the remarkable agreement, even in the details,\nshows that they must all be copies more or less exact of one and the\nsame original. That Iphigeneia in fig. 20 does not hold the letter in\nher hand may be accredited to the carelessness of the artist who merely\nforgot to paint it. The same may be said with regard to the abridged\nform of the scene in fig. 21, where Orestes has been left out. The two\ncentral figures appeared to the artist to be the important part of the\noriginal, and accordingly he omitted all else.\n\nImmediately following the scene represented in fig. 18, Iphigeneia\nentered the temple to get the letter\u2014\n\n    \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bc\u03b9, \u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba \u03b8\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u03bf\u1f34\u03c3\u03c9. v. 636 f.\n\nand ordered the guards to watch the two without binding them. Thereafter\nensues the touching scene between Orestes and Pylades (vs. 657\u2013724). The\npriestess then reappears, and commanding the attendants to go inside,\ncontinues\u2014\n\n    \u03b4\u03ad\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03b1\u1f35\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03af,\n    \u03be\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f03 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9,\n    \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u2019.\n\nOrestes speaks first after these lines and asks her what she wishes. It\nshall be an oath for the safe delivery of the letter. At this he demands\na counter-oath from her for the safe withdrawal of Pylades from the\ncountry. We may imagine that during the delivery of these verses, which\nwere probably spoken while Iphigeneia was still in the temple doorway,\nPylades had approached her to receive the letter, while Orestes stepped\nto one side as he appears in figs. 19 and 20. In vs. 769\u2013787 the\ncontents of the letter are related to ensure safe transfer of the\nmessage, even though the written words be lost in a shipwreck. This is\nthe time represented on our vases. The hopelessness of Orestes requires,\nmoreover, the earlier part of the scene, since from v. 772 he begins to\nbe aroused and to prove his brotherhood to Iphigeneia. The \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2\nis complete at the close of v. 826, and there follow the fourth and\nfifth stages which were noticed above[246]. Neither of these movements\nis, so far as I am aware, shown on any vase painting, although they are\nan important part of the reliefs on the Roman sarcophagi[247].\n\nIn conclusion, mention should be made of the wall paintings which\nrepresent the departure of the three with the statue to purify it in the\nsea. The first and most important of these is the fine _casa del\ncitarista_ painting[248]. Robert first correctly recognized the right\nmeaning of this beautiful monument and based it upon the poet[249],\nthereby bringing it into harmony with the sarcophagi. That he was\nhappily correct in reading the time in the painting _after the\nrecognition_, contrary to Helbig\u2019s interpretation[250], is nicely borne\nout by the painting recently discovered in the _casa dei Vettii_[251],\nwhich is another copy of the same original[252]. The variations are,\nhowever, enough to render any misunderstanding of it impossible. Here\nthere is no temple, and Iphigeneia occupies the centre between Orestes\nand Pylades on the left, and Thoas on the right. She carries plainly the\ntemple \u03b2\u03c1\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 on the left shoulder. Furthermore, the unconcerned\nattitude of the two prisoners in their _t\u00eate-\u00e0-t\u00eate_ points clearly to\nthe proper significance of the scene. Curiously enough Orestes appears\nto sit on the altar here as on the vase painting, fig. 18.\n\n\n                             \u00a7 8. KYKLOPS.\n\nThe satyr dance, the earliest form of the Greek drama and the simple\nbeginning from which the immense superstructure of tragedy took its\nstart, continued, in the satyr composition which followed the regular\ntrilogy, to remind the public of the original plan and tendency of the\nperformances in honour of Dionysos[253]. Till late in the fourth century\nB.C., at least, this echo of the original Dionysiac festival remained in\nvogue. The _Kyklops_ of Euripides is the only example of this sort of\ncomposition which has reached us, and although the present work is\nconcerned with tragedy and vase paintings I cannot refrain from\nincluding here a painting that is under the influence of this unique\nrelic of Greek literature. The connexion between the satyr-play and\ntragedy is certainly intimate enough to warrant the introduction of the\npresent chapter.\n\nEvery one is acquainted with the story of Odysseus\u2019 adventure with the\nKyklops Polyphemos. Since the author of the _Odyssey_ threw a charm\naround the story, this event in the wanderings of the hero has remained\none of the most popular. In early Greek art there are numerous monuments\nbased upon the myth. The black figured vases represent two critical\nmoments. 1. The blinding of Polyphemos. 2. The escape of Odysseus and\nhis companion from the cave. A long list of paintings tells this story\nover and over again, with little variation[254]. The artists evidently\nbecame tired of the monotony of the subject, for it is practically dead\nat the beginning of the fifth century. There was nothing new in the\ntale; it was distinctly epic, and for this very reason had its day and\ngave way to new motives in the dramatic literature. At the end of the\ncentury there was a revival of the myth. It gained a new lease of life\nthrough the _Kyklops_ of Euripides, and once again all eyes were turned\ntowards the old Homeric fiction. When the poet introduces Seilenos and\nhis company of satyrs as slaves to Polyphemos, and turns the fortunes of\nOdysseus, on his arrival at the cave, by the intervention of this new\nelement, the artist had certainly a new incentive. The rollicking, lusty\nantics of the tribe of satyrs had ever been the red figured vase\npainter\u2019s delight, and when Euripides connected them with the adventures\nof Odysseus and the Kyklops the old story was ingrafted with a vigorous\nshoot[255]. Timanthes, whom we have already met[256], very likely owed\nit to Euripides that he associated Polyphemos with satyrs[257]. An\ninteresting vase painting, which may be dated _cir._ 410 B.C., bears\nstrong testimony to the influence of the _Kyklops_ in Lower Italy[258].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 22.\n]\n\nThe picture appears in fig. 22. In the foreground Polyphemos lies\nstretched out in his drunken stupour[259]; beside him is a stump on\nwhich hangs an empty wineskin, and on the ground a bowl. In the centre\nthree youths, the middle one wearing a pilos, are busy tugging at a log.\nTwo others on the left bring fire-wood to kindle the large stick[260];\nanother youth, probably Odysseus, in pilos and chlamys, directs the work\nfrom the opposite side. Two bearded satyrs, with the usual horse-tails,\ncaper around on the right[261].\n\nThe whole painting breathes with the spirit running through the\n_Kyklops_. The impression gained by reading the play is remarkably well\nsupported by a study of the former. There is no detailed agreement\nbetween the two which strikes one, for the situations in Euripides are\nnot closely followed. There is, however, the same stamp of originality\nand newness characterizing both. The painting is a revelation to one who\nhas seen only the earlier Homeric monuments.\n\nIt may first be noticed that Polyphemos is represented outside of his\ncave, and that the attack upon his big eye is about to take place. This\nis quite opposed to Homer and Euripides, yet more than half the charm of\nthe scene lies in the _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ with which the artist disposes of the\ngiant. A glance at the words of the poet will make this clearer.\nOdysseus and his chorus of satyrs have fixed upon the means for\novercoming the Kyklops. They beg Odysseus for permission to take a hand\nin preparing the fatal pole;\n\n    \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, \u1f43\u03bd \u03be\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd. v. 472.\n\nsays the son of Laertes, but when he came to the point where he really\nneeded their help they made every manner of excuse; some were suddenly\nseized with lameness; others had dust in their eyes. But he knew that it\nwould turn out so, and he relies on his own companions,\n\n    ... \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03af \u03bc\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7. vs. 650 f.\n\nThis is well brought out, whether intentionally or not I do not say, for\nit is Greeks who are lifting the \u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2, and as for its size every one\nwill agree that it is \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2. The two satyrs, representing the chorus,\ndance around lustily the while, having smelt the contents of the\nwineskin (v. 153 f.). As soon as the plan has been decided upon,\nPolyphemos appears again, having already sated his appetite on two of\nthe Greeks, and having had at least a taste of the wine. What could\nprepare one better for the appreciation of the figure on the vase than\nhis own words?\n\n    \u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6, \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5,\n    \u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f25\u03b2\u1fc3\n    \u03c3\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bb\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2\n    \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ad\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n    \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u2019 \u1f41 \u03c7\u03cc\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f54\u03c6\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f26\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f65\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2,\n    \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u039a\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2.\n    \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03be\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5, \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9. vs. 503 ff.\n\nHis proposal to go and share his good fortune with the brother Kyklopes\ndoes not meet the approval of Odysseus, who bids him keep his good\nthings to himself and enjoy them. Seilenos goes even further and says\u2014\n\n    \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03af \u03bd\u03cd\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2. v. 543.\n\nand Polyphemos takes up the suggestion at once, for we hear him ask\n\n    \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u2019 \u1f44\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2; v. 545.\n\nThere can be little doubt that these verses particularly interested the\nartist. Well satisfied with the newly discovered drink, the Kyklops has\ndropped down upon his side as Seilenos recommended. The \u1f00\u03c3\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, which he\nordered extra, hangs beside him and upon the ground is a bowl[262]. Both\nof these have evidently been drained. The inhuman monster sleeps on,\nquite in the manner of Euripides, in the presence of the active\npreparations for his own ruin.\n\n\n                              \u00a7 9. MEDEIA.\n\nThe heroine of this tragedy of Euripides is one of the most imposing and\nterrible figures that has come down to us from ancient Greek literature.\nIt is not, however, the magician of strange power, who assisted Jason in\nwinning the Golden Fleece and in performing his other Kolchian\nadventures, that overawes one; neither is it the sorceress who worked\nher wonders on Pelias, but rather the Medeia who avenged her slighted\nhonour through the destruction of Jason\u2019s newly won bride and his two\nsons; it is the Medeia _at Corinth_ that we know best, the Medeia of\nEuripides. This chapter in the barbarian\u2019s career assumed under his hand\na prominence which far exceeded anything that had gone before.\nEuripides\u2019 Medeia has remained ever since _the_ Medeia of art and\nletters.\n\nIn early Greek art Medeia is not a common figure, and when she does\noccur it is invariably as the sorceress[263]. In this r\u00f4le one meets her\non both black and red figured vases[264], and on the famous relief in\nthe Lateran[265]. After the beginning of the fourth century B.C. the\nCorinthian Medeia predominates. As such one finds her on vases from\nLower Italy, Apulia and Campania especially, on Pompeian wall\npaintings[266], on terra cottas[267], gems[268], and the Roman\nsarcophagi[269].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 23 (_vid. p. 145 ff._)\n]\n\nThe most famous vase upon which we find Medeia is the great amphora in\nMunich[270], found in Canosa, the ancient Canusium, in Apulia, Oct. 16,\n1813. The painting consists of three sections of figures parallel with\nthe perimeter of the vase. The two upper ones are divided in the middle\nby a building with six Ionic columns. On the inside hang two round\nshields\u2014a common decoration in this sort of picture. On the right,\ninside of the house, is a chair or \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, over the arm-rest of which a\nrichly dressed female figure has fallen; above on the frieze the\ninscription \u039a\u03a1\u0395\u039f\u039d\u03a4\u0395\u0399\u0391 (sc. \u03a0\u0391\u0399\u03a3) shows the person to be Kreusa, or\nGlauke[271], the daughter of Kreon. Rushing rapidly towards her from the\nright is a youth in petasos and chlamys. He has already reached the\nupper step of the palace and is attempting to remove Kreusa\u2019s\nhead-dress. Incised in the vase is the name \u0399\u03a0\u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0397\u03a3[272]. On the left an\nelderly male figure, bearded, wearing long, richly embroidered chiton,\nhurries to Kreusa. One hand is placed behind her as though to support\nthe body; the other, from which the sceptre has just fallen, clutches\nhis hair. He gazes to one side in a dazed sort of manner. On the frieze\nabove is \u03a9\u039d, evidently the last letters of \u039a\u03a1\u0395\u03a9\u039d[273]. To the left\noutside of the palace, and somewhat lower, an elderly woman in long\nchiton and mantle runs toward the scene of the tragedy, extending her\nleft hand and holding her right to her head in the usual attitude of\nfright. She is designated by the inscription, incised, as\n\u039c\u0395\u03a1\u039f\u03a0\u0397[274]\u2014most likely the wife of Kreon. Further on the left is a\ngroup of two, a pedagogue in the usual costume, and a female attendant.\nThe former is hurrying towards the palace, while the latter attempts to\ndivert him from his onward rush.\n\nTo the right from Hippotes is another female figure, _en face_, who\nappears to be leaving the palace. Her dress, especially the veil, and\nher bearing point her out as a nurse or servant of Kreusa. Just in front\nof the latter upon the ground is the open box in which the baneful\npresents were brought.\n\nThe lower section is divided into two parts by Medeia\u2019s dragon-chariot,\nheld in readiness by the charioteer with a burning torch in either hand.\nThe upper part of the latter\u2019s body is nude. There can be little doubt\nthat the figure is female. The inscription \u039f\u0399\u03a3\u03a4\u03a1\u039f\u03a3 shows it to be\n\u039f\u1f34\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, the personification of Medeia\u2019s rage. On the left, Medeia,\n\u039c\u0397\u0394\u0395\u0399\u0391[275], with richly decorated oriental costume and Phrygian cap,\nadvances to the right with drawn sword to kill one son whom she grasps\nby the hair with the left hand. It is not easy to say whether the boy\nhas taken refuge on the altar, or whether his mother has lifted him upon\nit. More probably the latter is true. The lad is nude, with the\nexception of a garment over his left shoulder. He wears bracelets and on\nthe left leg an anklet. Immediately behind Medeia a doryphoros, dressed\nas Hippotes, but with two spears instead of a sword, hurries to the left\nwith the second boy, dressed as is the other. On the right of the\nchariot and hastening impetuously to rescue his son is Jason, \u0399\u0391\u03a3\u03a9\u039d. He\nis bearded and has a sword and long spear. His chlamys is thrown over\nhis left arm. Beside him, but moving at slackened speed, another\ndoryphoros extends the right hand towards the chariot as though to warn\nJason of the futility of his intervention. Above this group on the right\nis a bearded male figure, pointing towards the events transpiring below.\nHe wears a long royal dress and Phrygian cap, and carries a sceptre in\nhis left. \u0395\u0399\u0394\u03a9\u039b\u039f\u039d \u0391\u0397\u03a4\u039f\u03a5, incised, indicates him as the ghost of Aetes,\nMedeia\u2019s father.\n\nThe upper section is bounded on either side by a Corinthian column\nsurmounted by a tripod. Herakles, with club, bow and quiver, and lion\u2019s\nskin, stands on the left facing Athene, who sits upon a _terrain_. She\nhas her helmet in her right hand and leans against her shield. The spear\nis not wanting. On the right are two male figures, one sitting, the\nother standing. The oil-cruses and strigils, as well as the two stars\nand the pilos, near the one who sits, designate them as the Dioskouroi.\n\nWe turn now to a closer consideration of our vase to see if it is under\nthe influence of Euripides. Starting with the scene which the vase\npainter has given us in Kreon\u2019s palace, one cannot but be struck with\nthe agreement between the picture and the scene described by the poet\nthrough the mouth of the messenger in the celebrated speech, vs.\n1136\u20131230. This wonderful passage is the triumph of Euripidean rhetoric\nin the _Medeia_. The two boys, together with their father, had entered\nKreusa\u2019s apartment conveying the box with the rich vestment and golden\ncrown, and she, who had refused to listen to words and be softened, was,\nwoman-like, melted by these unexpected gifts. She accepts them, and\nfather and sons retire. She then arrays herself before the mirror,\nadmires her beauty, retreats across the room with proud, exulting step,\nall too captivated by her gracious figure, when the terrible moment\ncomes\u2014\n\n    \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd\n    \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u1ff6\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\n    \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. vs. 1168\u20131170.\n\nThere is a remarkable harmony between these words and the picture upon\nthe vase, where Kreusa lies a helpless mass across the arms of the\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Her attitude suggests to one\u2019s mind exactly the idea in\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd. Rarely has a vase painter come\nnearer to _illustration_ than here. It had, indeed, been far easier to\npaint Kreusa in her fallen position upon the floor, \u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f56\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\n(v. 1195), where the chair and the form of the body would have presented\nno such difficulties in drawing as they do in the present position[276].\nWhy was this not done? Simply, as I am convinced, because the painter\nchose to present the most tragic moments, and shape them into the\ngreatest possible dramatic effect. He seized the crisis in Kreusa\u2019s\ndread struggle, when, doomed by the poison and flames, she _dropped_\nacross the chair. Here, as in the scene below, the vase painter has\ngiven evidence of dramatic power of a high degree, and I venture to\nthink that had he not been an artist he would have been a tragedian.\n\nKreon, who, of course, could not be represented as falling upon the body\nof Kreusa as he entered the room, \u1f04\u03c6\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03c4\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff7\n(v. 1205), while she was still resting on the chair[277], is painted in\nthe first moment of reaching the unfortunate one. He places his left\nhand under her body, and, overcome by the horror of the sight, lets fall\nhis sceptre from his right hand as he gazes for a moment in transfixed\nagony from his daughter\u2019s situation. The position of the arms is exactly\nthat of the same figure on the sarcophagi reliefs[278], and no doubt\nwould be traceable through the five intervening centuries if the\nmonuments were at hand. Our vase would appear to represent here a\ntradition that was always closely followed in representing Kreon in an\nupright position.\n\nMerope, the mother, who is mentioned in Corinthian legends only as the\nwife of Sisyphos[279] and of Polybos[280], does not appear at all in\nEuripides. The painter\u2019s principle was to name all the chief figures on\nthe vase, and it is not necessary to point out here another source than\nthe _Medeia_ of Euripides. A name thus known as belonging to Corinthian\nroyal families would be a natural invention for the wife of Kreon if\nthere was no legend to provide further information about her. I hold\nthis painting, however, as adequate evidence that there was a _third_\nMerope known in Corinth[281]. That the mother as well as the father\nshould be represented here is further witness of the spirit which the\npoet breathed into his work. Medeia\u2019s fixed determination to ruin all\nher enemies at one blow and to root out the whole royal house in a day\n(vs. 373 f.) is expressed in the extended scene here given, in a manner\nwell calculated to inspire the beholder with much that lies between the\nlines in Euripides. There is absolutely no reason for claiming this\nscene as an extension of that given in the poet, and therefore based\nupon a post-Euripidean tragedy. One who denies the vase painter the\nright to introduce figures foreign to the poet fails utterly in\ncomprehending the spirit of the fourth and third century vase painting.\nThe artists followed the number of characters in the poetical version no\nmore slavishly than they did the disposition and movement of the same.\nStarting with what the poet gave them and holding this in mind as a\nguide and inspiration in certain details, the painters proceeded to\ncreate, as _independent_ artists, a similar scene, transfused, however,\nwith their own alterations. It is to be expected that in the over-filled\nvase paintings of Apulia and Campania one will find figures that show a\nwide liberty on the part of the painters, and that illustrate well how\nmuch the severe methods of the Athenian vase painters had been altered\nin Magna Graecia.\n\nAnother instance of this same independence of the painter is seen in the\nintroduction of Hippotes, to whom there is not the slightest reference\nin Euripides. In vs. 1168\u20131203, where Kreusa\u2019s fate is described, no one\nis referred to as present except the female attendants, who were\npossessed with terror and lent no aid to their mistress. Kreon\nunexpectedly entered, \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, and soon succumbed, a victim\ntogether with his daughter. Why does Hippotes appear on the vase as the\none who is trying to liberate Kreusa? With Vogel[282] again the answer\n_liegt auf der Hand: weil Euripides nicht die Quelle der Darstellung\nist_. Because the painter enlarged the scene of the poet, and was more\ntragic and more dramatic than Euripides, a later or at least another\nversion of the myth is claimed as his authority. This appears to me\naltogether _improbable_ and _unnecessary_. It is _improbable_ because,\nas we have abundant reason to believe, Euripides\u2019 version of the myth\nwas, both in Greek and Roman times, the most popular[283]. Other\n_Medeias_ are mere names. Furthermore our vase cannot be dated later\nthan the second half of the fourth century B.C., i. e. not much more\nthan a century after the first appearance of the _Medeia_ in 431 B.C.\nThis is an important fact which seems to have been mostly overlooked.\nEuripides, it must be remembered, ruled the fourth century B.C. as the\nprophet of the time, and was hailed by the Greeks of the colonies and\nthe motherland with universal admiration. It is safe to say that no\nGreek poet was more upon the lips of the people or more in their hearts.\nTardy as was the recognition of his genius during his lifetime, the\nextent of his posthumous fame was unparalleled and his name rang through\nAlexandrian and Hellenistic times as that of one of the immortals. Are\nwe to suppose then that a vase painter of Magna Graecia, who might have\nlived with those who had seen Euripides, was, in dealing with the Medeia\nmyth, under the influence of some poet of a day? Was an artist who lived\nin this proximity to Euripides\u2019 own time likely to follow the guidance\nof any other than the great master who created the Medeia character and\nstarted her down the centuries in that unexampled rage and fury? We\ndare, moreover, go further and claim with Robert that _die Vasen stehen\nder Auff\u00fchrungszeit der Medeia so nahe, dass sie den Werth directer\nZeugnisse beanspruchen d\u00fcrfen_[284].\n\nThis explanation is _unnecessary_, for, as we have already pointed out,\nthe vase painters gave less heed to the subject-matter and the details\nof the traditional types than to the general effect and dramatic\narrangement. It was possible to double the dramatic effect here through\nthe introduction of the bride\u2019s brother, and the painter did not\nhesitate to place him on the vase, although the poet did not refer to\nhim. The onward rush of this finely drawn figure, with his chlamys\nfluttering in the wind, has altogether a dramatic air and brings one to\nfeel that the theatrical element, so much in the background in the fifth\ncentury B.C., had taken possession of the fourth century work[285]. It\nis surprising to find with what persistency certain scholars refuse such\nadditions as incompatible with the dependence of the work on a given\nliterary source. If the artist has done more than _illustrate_, all\nrelationship between him and the poet is denied. But let us turn to a\nfamous work where illustration pure and simple is meant, and we shall\ndiscover that if one follows even there this mode of criticism, the poet\nand the drawing which is meant to illustrate him will have to be\ndivorced. I refer to Botticelli\u2019s drawings for Dante\u2019s _Divina\nCommedia_[286]. Each drawing is intended to bring out the events of the\n_canto_ to which it is devoted, and so one expects only the incidents of\none _canto_ to appear in one drawing. The illustration for the\n_Inferno_, _canto_ ii, represents Beatrice swinging upward in the air,\nto whom Virgil is pointing and calling Dante\u2019s attention. This is all a\npure invention of the artist as Beatrice is simply mentioned in the\ntext, and not at all thought of as present or appearing to the two\npilgrims. Had Botticelli then some other story in mind, and was there\nanother version of Dante than that which we have? Certainly not. The\nartist, although in this place engaged as a mere illustrator, read his\nown notions into Dante and put them into his drawing. Again, even on the\nsame plate, the entrance to the _Inferno_ is shown with the words _per\nme_ over the door. This scene belongs to _canto_ iii, where in fact\nBotticelli again introduces it. If, therefore, the third _canto_ and the\ndrawing that belongs to it had never reached us but we did possess\n_canto_ ii and its illustration, how would the critics who read the\nGreek vases as we have indicated, dispose of Botticelli and his\nfaithfulness to Dante? They would all declare that the famous painter\nmust have had another text which he followed. And so one may go on\nmultiplying instances in this one work to show that an artist, even when\nhe set out to follow the poet, was not able to do so[287].\n\nThere are also among the Pompeian wall paintings[288] some that are mere\nillustrations and are in the spirit of this sort of work, and yet they\nshow various peculiar changes and additions contrary to the epigrams on\nwhich they are based. One is to remember therefore that in the vase\npaintings, where a more independent form of art is found than in\nillustrations, a liberty in adding or omitting figures, that may often\ndisturb the form of the myth, is to be allowed. To select one example\nfrom many: Euphronios[289] on the Eurystheus kylix represents Sthenelos\nand his wife as present when Herakles brings the boar and is about to\ndrop it into the cistern where Eurystheus has taken refuge. That the\nlatter was king and had imposed the labours on Herakles, was proof\nenough that Sthenelos was already dead. How then did Euphronios dare to\nplace him on the vase? Evidently because he took little heed of the\nexactitude for which modern scholars would call him and others of his\ntrade to account.\n\nThe old nurse who observed the first signs of her mistress\u2019 precarious\ncondition\u2014\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd ... \u1f00\u03bd\u03c9\u03bb\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03be\u03b5 (vs. 1171\u201373)\u2014or one of\nthe numerous attendants present (v. 1176) may be recognized in the\nfigure to the right from Hippotes. Perhaps this is more correctly the\none who broke away to convey the sad news to Jason\u2014\u1f11 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, | \u03c6\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bd\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac\u03c2 (vs. 1178 f.). This person with the\nmatronly air always occurs on the sarcophagi, but in the scene where the\ntwo boys are handing over the gifts to Kreusa[290].\n\nThe position of the pedagogue on the opposite side is not so incongruous\nas many have thought. There is really no reason for considering him a\nsort of connecting link between the middle and lower sections, as Robert\nhas done[291]. Let us follow the pedagogue and the boys through the\nplay. At vs. 46 f. of the prologue the nurse reports the latter as\nreturning from their sport\u2014\u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u2014and in vs. 89 ff. she\norders them inside the palace,\n\n    \u1f34\u03c4\u2019, \u03b5\u1f56 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1,\n\nand commands the pedagogue to keep them at a safe distance from their\nmother,\n\n    \u03c3\u1f7a \u03b4\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03b5,\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3.\n\nAt v. 105 the three disappear and nothing more is heard of them till\nMedeia, who is addressing Jason and the chorus, cries out in v. 894\u2014\n\n    \u1f66 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1, \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03b1, \u03b4\u03b5\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c2,\n    \u1f10\u03be\u03ad\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u2019.\n\nHereupon the boys appear in the orchestra, _unaccompanied_ by their\npedagogue, and remain with Medeia and Jason till vs. 969 ff., where\ntheir mother hands them the gifts and bids them go, \u1f41\u03c2 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 (v. 974),\nto Kreusa and place the same in her hands. They then depart with their\nfather and deliver the presents in the manner afterwards described by\nthe messenger (vs. 1136\u20131155), and in company with Jason leave Kreusa\u2019s\napartments. Just outside somewhere the pedagogue joins them and appears\nwith the children in the orchestra to inform Medeia that her sons have\nbeen pardoned (vs. 1002 ff.). Immediately thereafter she orders the\npedagogue to go inside,\n\n    ... \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03b2\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c9\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u2019 \u03bf\u1f36\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u1f74 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. vs. 1019 f.\n\nAs he re-enters the palace the terrible news reaches him, through, one\nof the female attendants, that Kreusa is possessed with some strange\nmalady. It is at this juncture, dramatic in the extreme, that, as it\nseems to me, the vase painter thought of the pedagogue. The latter has\nforgotten Medeia\u2019s command to arrange the boys\u2019 program for the day and\nis determined to go to the apartments whence comes the great alarm. The\nattendant, however, endeavours to dissuade him, and the artist has even\nrepresented her in the attempt to deter the sturdy old pedagogue from\ncarrying out his resolution. While all this is happening within the\npalace, Medeia gives expression to the great battle that is going on in\nher bosom. The speech is one of the finest in Euripides. Shall she now\ngo ahead and kill her children, or is the courage lacking? She finally\nbids them enter the house \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (vs. 1053 and\n1076), and soon follows them. The death-cries of vs. 1271 ff. are heard\nnot long afterwards. We have therefore no reason to infer from anything\nin Euripides that the pedagogue ever met the boys again. The fact that\nhe is so often represented in the death-scene[292] is simply due to the\nfancy of the artists. It is natural to think of him in company with the\nboys. The vase painter has in the present instance shown us the\nwhereabouts of the pedagogue when the poet had passed him by.\n\nThe lower section, which represents the events directly succeeding those\nin the one just considered, completes the dread vengeance work of\nMedeia. The artist had an opportunity here to follow largely his own\nnotions in disposing of the details, for in the last moments when horror\nfollowed close upon horror, and the royal house of Corinth was shaking\nto its foundations, Euripides hurries us on with great rapidity and\nomits many of the particulars. Medeia moves with resistless fury through\nthe last part of the bloody drama, till she at last disappears upon her\nchariot. What was the vase painter to do with all this? It is plain that\nhe felt himself compelled to combine, for greater effect, different\nmoments. Medeia enters the palace after the triumphant address in vs.\n1236\u20131250, and a moment later the cries of the boys are heard within.\nJason, aroused by the ruin wrought upon Kreusa, suddenly appears and\nasks where Medeia is, and remarks that he must save his sons from the\nfury of the populace (vs. 1293\u20131305). He at once learns the whole truth,\nand orders that the palace doors be thrown open that he may behold the\nscene of murder. Medeia appears then on her chariot, rolled out upon the\nekkyklema. She stands thus during the final dialogue with Jason (vs.\n1317\u20131404) till she disappears by the aid of the _Flugmaschine_[293].\n\nFrom these elements the vase painter selected the murder scene, which,\nnot being described by Euripides, could be represented in any manner\nthat struck his fancy. He made this the centre about which all else was\ngrouped; all eyes are turned upon Medeia and the altar. In this\ndisposition of the matter other details had to be sacrificed. The\nchariot, which could not be wanting, had to have a charioteer, and as\nMedeia was not ready to mount it herself, the personification of the\nMedeia-spirit is the natural figure that the artist would select. Jason,\nagain, to omit whom would have been unpardonable, had to be painted in\nthe act of rescuing or attempting the rescue of his sons. So we see that\nthe three moments discernible in the poet, (_a_) the murder, (_b_)\nJason\u2019s appearance to save the boys, (_c_) the chariot and the escape of\nMedeia, are all worked together by the artist into a strong complex. One\nfeels no incongruity in the picture, and is forced to agree to a large\namount of success that the artist has enjoyed here. Since the pedagogue\nappears in the scene above, the artist uses one of the ever convenient\ndoryphoroi as a companion to the boys or rather as rescuer of one of\nthem[294]. It is immaterial whether the painter intended to represent\nthe one boy as actually out of danger or not. A great many useless words\nhave been spent in trying to show that the vase painter has here\nfollowed a tradition referred to by Diodorus Siculus[295], who relates\nthat one child escaped\u2014\u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03c5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ac\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. This is not only highly improbable[296], but, more than that,\nspeaks for a superficial reading of Diodorus on the part of those who\nuse this quotation. It appears that nothing more of the chapter had been\nread than it was necessary to quote. In the first place, what can \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 above refer to if not to _more than one_, and therefore to at\nleast _two_? But where upon our vase or upon any other monument does\nMedeia appear with _three_ children[297]? It would seem, therefore,\nthat, because the vase painter drew the scene as he did, this very inapt\nquotation is brought out to bolster up an unnecessary theory.\n\nIs it necessary to conclude with numerous scholars that Oistros upon the\nchariot represents one of Pollux\u2019s \u1f14\u03ba\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03b1 (iv. 141)? Does our\npainting necessarily go back to some tragedy in which the\npersonification, Oistros, appears before the audience as Medeia\u2019s\ncharioteer? It has already been pointed out that the moment which the\nvase painter chose to represent never was visible in the theatre of\nEuripides. What happened before the palace doors were unbarred, in v.\n1314, could be painted in a hundred different ways, and still be\ninspired by the poet from v. 1271 to v. 1316. It is true that Euripides\ndoes not mention \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, much less as Medeia\u2019s charioteer. What need\nhad he to introduce any personification of her rage and fury to guide\nthe chariot, when, at the first glimpse of it in v. 1317, Medeia manages\nit herself? Any one who thoroughly works himself into the situation that\nthe painter has shown upon the vase cannot help seeing that Medeia\u2019s\ndouble, her burning and infuriated barbarian wildness, the spirit shown\nin vs. 1236\u20131250, was a natural and easy subject for embodiment under\nthe name \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. This personification is not met with in Euripides, and\nhas naturally caused much stumbling. It should, however, be compared\nwith \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1, with which it has much in common. Orestes says to Pylades,\n\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03af (i. e. the Furies) \u03bc\u2019 \u03bf\u1f34\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u1ff6\u03c2\u2019[298], and two verses\nfurther on, \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u1fc6\u03c2. Thus the use of the\n\u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 caused \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1. The step to the personification of a figure\nOistros would easily follow from some such development as this, and I\nhold both words to cover the _cause_ and _effect_ in the case mentioned.\n\nAs Lyssa was a favourite figure with Euripides, we may examine still\nanother place where the r\u00f4le that she plays is much the same as that\nwhich Oistros takes in the painting.\n\nIn _Her. Fur._ vs. 880 ff., the chorus describes Lyssa as _travelling\nupon a chariot_[299].\n\n    \u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f01 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2,\n    \u1f05\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03af\u03b4\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ce\u03b2\u1fb3\n    \u039d\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u0393\u03bf\u03c1\u03b3\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n    \u1f44\u03c6\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd \u1f30\u03b1\u03c7\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9,[300] \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1[301] \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nHere at least one has adequate evidence that the vase painter did not\npaint an unknown scene, even though he did prefer to call his figure\n\u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2[302].\n\nThe shade of Aetes[303], a pure invention of the artist, has been held\nto refer to a post-Euripidean tragedy. One finds such pedantic ingenuity\nused in explaining this figure that the would-be-learnedness borders\nupon the ridiculous. It is affirmed, for example, that somewhere it\n_must have been stated for the vase painter that Aetes had died since\nMedeia left him_[304]. How far, pray, did vase painters concern\nthemselves about such points of chronology or sequence of events? We\nhave already pointed out in regard to these artists that they introduced\nand omitted characters just as they chose; and especially is this true\nin regard to such side-figures as Aetes is here. Then again, why is any\nliterary source necessary to prove the old man\u2019s death? It was but the\nnatural course of events that the painter followed when he concluded\nthat Aetes was among the shades. It is absurd to require some proof that\nthe unlucky king had, within the long period of Medeia\u2019s absence, passed\ninto the world of spirits. It seems to me that there are two views that\ncan adequately explain this addition to the picture, and with either one\nin mind the vase painter would have needed no post-Euripidean work or\npainting but simply the _Medeia_ tragedy to inspire him.\n\nRobert[305] pointed to vs. 31 ff. of the prologue as furnishing perhaps\nthe suggestion for this figure, but that is but a small part of the\nwhole suggestion, and it is well to follow this note which recurs in\nmany places, and is, to my mind, a very important part of the Euripidean\nconception of Medeia. I give herewith the various places where this\nelement may be discovered.\n\n    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03b6\u03b7 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b8\u2019, \u03bf\u1f52\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2019 \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf. vs. 31 f.\n\n    \u1f64 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f64 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f67\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03ac\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03bd\n    \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. vs. 166 f.\n\n    \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2\u2019 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2. v. 483.\n\n                  \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2,\n    \u03bf\u1f53\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd; vs. 502 f.\n\n    \u1f21\u03bc\u03ac\u03c1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bd\u03af\u03ba\u2019 \u1f10\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n    \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2. vs. 800 f.\n\nThese repeated allusions to her father and her former home seem to me to\nexpress in a strong manner what the painter chose to develop into the\nghost-figure. Aetes appears here to behold the retribution that is\novertaking Jason; and his participation in the fearful tragedy\nemphasizes the secret power in Medeia, her sorcery, and her chariot. The\nartist read between the lines and discovered the spirit of the poet, and\nthis he has successfully reproduced. A similar instance was noted in the\nliberty assumed by Botticelli in including Beatrice in the second plate\nto the _Inferno_[306].\n\nIn the second place the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd emphasizes the barbaric element in the\nMedeia-Jason history, and impresses the beholder with the workings of\nbarbarism _versus_ Hellenism. This chord is, moreover, continuously\nstruck by Euripides[307]. The poet endeavours from first to last to keep\nup the keenest distinction between Greece and Kolchis, between Jason\u2019s\nfamily and that of Aetes.\n\nThere was, moreover, an opportunity, in introducing this oriental king,\nto add features strikingly characteristic of the Apulian vase\npaintings[308]. The elegance and display of costume peculiar to the\nPersian and Asia Minor kings were attractive for an artist, and the\nintroduction of Aetes\u2019 shade was a happy invention that went far towards\nmaking the deeper meaning of the poet plain.\n\nThe deities, who, as spectators, are an important part of the paintings\non so many Lower Italy vases, are arranged in the upper section. They\nneed not have any particular connexion with the incidents before them.\nThe Olympian sympathy with earthly affairs was a favourite theme with\nthe artists of the time, and a satisfactory number of participating\ndivinities is usually added where important events occur. Herakles and\nAthena seem to be but indifferently interested in what is happening\nbelow them, although the former was intimately associated with the\nArgonautic expedition[309], and the latter was the promoter of the\nenterprise[310]. The Dioskouroi, who likewise took a large part in the\nadventures of the voyage, are fitly represented here[311]. They are,\nhowever, giving no heed to the tragedy. It is enough if the painter has\nrecalled for us the famous voyage and shown us the prelude, as it were,\nto the drama played in the two lower sections. The panorama of Jason and\nMedeia\u2019s life together passes before us in distinct scenes. By painting\nthe participants in the expedition and also the shade of Aetes the\nartist has heightened the effect of the double tragedy which the poet\nmade famous.\n\nSuch is the painting on this celebrated amphora, which I do not hesitate\nto call Euripidean.\n\nAnother monument which also shows Kreusa\u2019s death is a vase from\nPomarico, now in Naples[312].\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 24.\n]\n\nKreusa has fallen from the \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 that occupies the middle of the scene,\nand in a half-sitting posture upon the floor endeavours to remove the\nhead-dress. Before her is the open box in which the presents were\nbrought. A mirror hangs on the wall. She is dressed in the Ionic chiton\nwith mantle; has earrings and one bracelet. She stares at Kreon, who\nhurries toward her with outstretched right hand. He has the sceptre in\nthe left hand, is bearded, bald, and wears a chiton which has slipped\ndown to his waist. To the left a female figure rushes away _en face_,\nand, watching Kreusa, makes the gestures of one terror-stricken. She is\ndressed like the latter except the earrings and necklace. Jahn called\nher a companion of Kreusa, considering that if she were Merope of the\nMunich vase she would be approaching her daughter and not leaving her. I\nprefer to see in this figure one of the attendants who in vs. 1177 ff.\nspread the news. It is true that the appearance of the figure is that of\na more important personage than a servant. The latter are not usually\nrepresented wearing jewellery and fine costumes, and yet the attendant\non the Munich vase, who is endeavouring to divert the pedagogue, is\nquite as richly dressed. In the present instance, however, the drawing\nis very careless and the workmanship is of an inferior sort. I believe,\ntherefore, that the artist either did not know the fitness of things, or\nelse took no pains to indicate that this figure was a servant or\nattendant. When he had once drawn such a miserable king as Kreon is,\nhobbling along in a ridiculous manner, he might well have slipped into\nthe other extreme of painting a nurse in a lady\u2019s garb. The scene is\nbased upon the messenger\u2019s speech, vs. 1176 ff.\n\nThe pedagogue on the right, who is hurrying away the two boys wrapped in\ncloaks, is a reminiscence of vs. 1157 ff. where the father, Jason, goes\naway with them.\n\n                          \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f76\u03bd \u1f72\u03ba \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd\n    \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd.\n\nThe winged Fury sitting in the upper right-hand corner observing the\nscene might well be expected as a spectator. The suggestion for her may\nbe found in\n\n                \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u2019 \u03bf\u1f34\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n    \u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd \u03c4\u2019 \u1f18\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f7a\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd. vs. 1259 f.\n\nThe murder of the boys inside of the palace is painted on a Nolan\namphora in the _Cabinet des M\u00e9dailles_ in Paris[313]. Medeia in Greek\ndress and Phrygian cap has slain one boy, who lies over the altar,\neither extremity touching the floor. She stands, _en face_, with the\nother child grasped fast by the hair. This hand also holds the sword. In\nher left, stretched out behind the altar, is the sheath. The artist\ndoubtless had in mind the words which the chorus heard in vs. 1271 ff.\u2014\n\n    \u03bf\u1f34\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03c9; \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c6\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2;\n    \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03bf\u1f36\u03b4\u2019, \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f72 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\u00b7 \u1f40\u03bb\u03bb\u03cd\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1 \u03b3\u03ac\u03c1.\n\nIn the upper right-hand corner the pedagogue appears, carrying an\noil-cruse in his left hand. His right is raised to his head. A wreath\nand two fillets point to the sanctuary.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 25.\n]\n\nAnother Canosa vase in Naples[314], although furnishing a free handling\nof Medeia\u2019s escape, is still an important witness for the chariot and\nits actual appearance in the production of the tragedy. In this\nparticular the painting is Euripidean.\n\nMedeia in rapid flight upon her dragon-chariot holds the reins in her\nleft hand and the corner of her mantle in the right. Her dress is the\ncustomary one for charioteers. On the ground by the wheels one boy lies\ndead; the other is said to be visible on the original, inside of the\nchariot as on the sarcophagi. The sword is also on the ground. She is\npursued by three youths, one on horseback, Jason (?), and two on foot.\nThey all carry spears, and each has a chlamys. The middle one also wears\na pilos and has a shield. In front of the chariot is Lyssa (?) with a\nsword in the right hand, and staff or \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd (?) in the left. She has\nan Artemis costume with a mantle. Galloping ahead to lead the way is\nSelene, seated as usual on her horse.\n\nThe painting is poorly preserved, but the main part is sufficiently\nplain. The artist followed the traditional manner of Medeia\u2019s flight.\n\n\n                           \u00a7 10. PHOINISSAI.\n\nThe _Phoinissai_ in common with the _Septem_ of Aischylos deals with the\nwell-known story of the attack of Polyneikes and his supporters on\nThebes. The events connected with this war can be traced all through\nGreek and Roman literature and art[315]. We have here to do with a\nrelief cup, which illustrates Euripides\u2019 version of the combat. It\npossesses, like the other \u2018Megarian Bowls\u2019 discussed in the present\nwork, a value so unique for the study of our poet that it may stand\nbeside any vase painting in assisting us in the study of the drama\u2019s\ninfluence upon art.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 26 (_vid. p. 170 f._).\n]\n\nThe cup shown in fig. 27 is of red, unglazed ware, and is said to have\nbeen found in Thebes[316]. The following figures may be discerned. On\nthe left Teiresias, \u03a4\u0395\u0399\u03a1\u0395\u03a3\u0399\u0391\u03a3, carrying a bough and led by his daughter\nManto, \u039c\u0391\u039d\u03a4\u03a9, approaches Kreon, \u039a\u03a1\u0395\u03a9\u039d, who kneels before the aged seer.\nThey are both bearded, and the latter wears a long chiton. Next follows\nPolyneikes, \u03a0\u039f\u039b\u03a5\u039d\u0395\u0399\u039a\u0397\u03a3, and Eteokles, \u0395\u03a4\u0395\u039f\u039a\u039b\u0397\u03a3, in full armour, engaged\nin their fatal fight. Thebe, \u0398\u0397\u0392\u0397, holding in her hand a sceptre, sits\nupon a rock watching the sight. The messenger, \u0391\u0393\u0393\u0395\u039b\u039f\u03a3, wearing a short\nchiton and chlamys, stands by Iokaste, \u0399\u039f\u039a ... \u03a3\u03a4\u0397, before the palace\nfrom which Antigone, \u0391\u039d\u03a4\u0399\u0393\u039f\u039d\u0397, has come. The latter raises her hand in\nastonishment. The women both wear long chitons. Lastly, on the right,\nAntigone appears before Kreon, inscriptions in each case, in a\nsupplicating attitude.\n\nThat Kreon might know definitely how matters were to terminate, he had\nsent for Teiresias. The latter makes his appearance in v. 834\u2014\n\n    \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5, \u03b8\u03cd\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03bb\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1f76\n    \u1f40\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36 \u03c3\u03cd, \u03bd\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f64\u03c2\u00b7\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 27 (_vid. p. 173 ff._).\n]\n\nand so one sees him here before Kreon. His daughter has brought him as\nhe wished, and now stands behind him, while the seer discloses the\nterrible misfortune which must visit Kreon before success can crown the\nTheban arms. The son Menoikeus, who is present in Euripides, has been\nleft out of the group. The messenger soon appears and calls for Iokaste.\n\n    \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u2019, \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd, \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1. v. 1070.\n\nShe does hear, and comes from the palace and learns everything about the\nattack thus far, and how the different heroes on each side were armed.\nTo her special inquiry regarding her two sons the messenger replies in\ndetail (vs. 1217 ff.).\n\n    \u1f24\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bb\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n    \u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b3\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03b9. vs. 1242 f.\n\n    \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce, \u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bc\u03ac \u03c4\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f20\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03be\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd,\n    \u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f31\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5. vs. 1246 f.\n\nBut this is before the battle. They were waiting for the word from the\npriests who examined the entrails of the victims. The second messenger\nbrings the account of the engagement proper, and this is what the artist\nseized upon[317].\n\n    \u1f96\u03be\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c0\u03b9\u00b7\n    \u03ba\u03ac\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd\n    \u03be\u03c5\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u1ff7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1\u03c2\u00b7\n    \u1f96\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f51\u03c6\u03af\u03b6\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n    \u1f45\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03af\u03b4\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd. vs. 1379 ff.\n\nThis is the moment which the relief represents. Their spears have\nclashed, and each is still safe behind the good circumference of his\nshield.\n\nIokaste, much disturbed at the critical situation described by the\nmessenger, determines to call Antigone and rush to the battle-field to\nreconcile the brothers,\u2014\n\n    \u1f66 \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03be\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u2019, \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7, \u03b4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2. v. 1264.\n\nshe cries, and Antigone at once appears and asks\u2014\n\n    \u03c4\u03af\u03bd\u2019, \u1f66 \u03c4\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03bc\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1, \u1f14\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03bd\u03ad\u03b1\u03bd\n    \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03cb\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; vs. 1270 f.\n\nThe situation is dramatically told on the vase. The palace doors are\nstill open, and Antigone stands astonished before her mother.\n\nNo sooner has Kreon learned the result of the battle than he passes an\nedict banishing the blind Oedipus from the land. The faithful daughter\ncomes to intercede for her father and the scene is described in vs.\n1539\u20131682. The artist has seized upon this situation, but has omitted\nOedipus. Antigone bows before the new king, who stands with his arms\nfolded listening placidly to the supplications.\n\n    \u1f00\u03c4\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c2\u2019 \u1f10\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u1ff6 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n    \u03c4\u03af \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03ce\u03c1\u1ff3 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff7; vs. 1644 f.\n\nThis is the moment which the last group represents.\n\nThe personification of Thebes occupying the central field and presiding,\nas it were, over the destinies of the capital, extends the setting of\nthe poet and adds not a little to the interest of the picture.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  Fig. 28\n]\n\nThere exists, remarkable enough, a small fragment of another cup, which\nmust have been much like the one just discussed. It is shown in fig. 28,\nand joins on well to the last scene in fig. 27, filling out the gap made\nby the omission of Oedipus[318]. We see the stooping and aged figure of\nthe former king, in long chiton, feeling his way along or being led by\nsome one. The inscription renders everything plain. \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03af\u03c0]\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\n[\u1f04\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0]\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1[\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76] \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c5\u03af\u1ff6[\u03bd.\nThe unfortunate Oedipus\u2019 doom is sealed, and he enters with Antigone\nupon his permanent banishment, but he will be led to Iokaste that he may\nembrace her once more, even though she is now a corpse;\n\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ac\u03b3\u03b1\u03b3\u03ad \u03bd\u03cd\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5, \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c8\u03b1\u03cd\u03c3\u03c9 \u03c3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. v. 1693.\n\nAt this moment the artist conceived his figure, and that one might not\nmistake its meaning he wrote above it who the person was and what the\nscene meant. Here, then, in this bit of potsherd, one can see and study\nthe workings of that awful curse which blasted the house of Labdakos and\nsent the miserable Oedipus to wander \u2018blind amidst the blaze of noon.\u2019\n\n\n                          \u00a7 11. SUPPLEMENTARY.\n\nThere remains still a number of vase paintings that have been referred\nto certain of Euripides\u2019 extant plays. It will be seen that I have not\nbeen able to convince myself of their Euripidean character, and have\ntherefore not included them in the number of published paintings. The\nfollowing list gives the most important vases of this class. No\ndiscussion accompanies them, as they seem to me to present difficulties\nthat preclude their relation to extant tragedies.\n\n\n                              _Alkestis._\n\n  1. Etruscan amphora, no. 728 in the _Cabinet des M\u00e9dailles_, Paris.\n        Pub. as frontispiece to Dennis\u2019 _Cities and Cemeteries of\n        Etruria_, vol. ii. = _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, pl. 180. 3.\n\n\n                             _Andromache._\n\n  1. Amphora, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 155. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Mon.\n        in\u00e9d._ pl. 40. 2; cf. Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ p. 141 f., and\n        _Arch. Ztg._ 1880, p. 189.\n\n\n                               _Elektra._\n\n  1. Slender Campanian amphora, Berlin. _Pub. Arch._ Anz. 1890, p. 90,\n        no. 7; cf. _loc. cit._ The interpretation given explains the\n        scene as representing Orestes slaying Aigisthos. This was done,\n        however, not at a sanctuary or in the open, as here, but _in the\n        palace_ where Aigisthos, Orestes, and Pylades were engaged in\n        the slaughtering of oxen. At v. 790 they had entered the palace.\n\n\n                           _Herakles Furens._\n\n  1. The Assteas vase in Madrid. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. B,\n        pl. 1 = _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. 10; cf. Hirzel, _Annali d. Inst._\n        1864, p. 323 ff.: K\u00f6rte, _Ueber Personificationen\n        psychologischer Affekte_, p. 18 f., and Vogel, _op. cit._ p.\n        143.\n\n\n                             _Hippolytos._\n\n  1. Amphora. Attic fabric, _cir._ 420 B.C. Berlin, vid. _Arch. Anz._\n        1890, p. 89.\n\n  2. Lekythos from Paestum, now in Naples, no. 2900. Pub.\n        Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, 41 = _\u00c9lite C\u00e9ram._ iv. 87.\n\n\n                                 _Ion._\n\n  1. Nolan vase in Cassel. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1852, pl. 37; cf.\n        Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Sammlung Sabouroff, Vasen_, Einleitung, p. 14,\n        note 12; Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 145.\n\n  2. Painting on a fourth cent. krater. Pub. _\u00c9lite C\u00e9ram._ ii. 76 a;\n        cf. Furtw\u00e4ngler, _op. cit._ p. 14.\n\n  3. An Oxybaphon in the Louvre. Pub. _\u00c9lite C\u00e9ram._ ii. 88 a =\n        Reinach-Millin. _op. cit._ i. 46 = M\u00fcller-Wieseler, _Denkm\u00e4ler\n        d. a. Kunst._ ii. 142; cf. Furtw\u00e4ngler, _loc. cit._\n\n\n                         _Iphigeneia at Aulis._\n\n  1. Lucanian krater, Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 159. Pub. Overbeck,\n        _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 9 = _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. 5, pl. 9.\n        3 = Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iii. pl. 251; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._\n        p. 116.\n\n\n                         Euripides\u2019 Lost Plays.\n\nThe following list includes most of the paintings referred to the lost\ntragedies. Where it has seemed to me doubtful about the Euripidean\ncharacter of the scenes I have preferred to omit mention of them\naltogether.\n\n\n                               _Aiolos._\n\n  1. Canosa hydria in Bari. The shoulder decoration only is pub. _Arch.\n        Ztg._ 1883, pl. 7. 1; cf. p. 51 ff. and Furtw\u00e4ngler,\n        _Masterpieces_, p. 109. The latter thinks the painting is from\n        the fifth cent. B.C. Vid. also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 28 ff.\n\n\n                               _Alkmene._\n\n  1. Bell-shaped krater, signed by Python now in the Brit. Mus., cat.\n        iv. F 149. Pub. _J. H. S._ 1890, pl. 6; cf. _ibid._ p. 225 ff.\n\n  2. Amphora from Capua. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 193. Pub. _Annali d.\n        Inst._ 1872, pl. A. Cf. _ibid._ p. 1 ff. On both paintings\n        Alkmene sitting on an altar appeals to Zeus against Amphitryon.\n        Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 34.\n\n\n                              _Andromeda._\n\n  1. Krater from Capua. Berlin, no. 3237. Cf. _Arch. Anz._ 1893, p. 91,\n        f. no. 50. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 292\n        ff. and pl. 2; cf. Bethe\u2019s _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des\n        Theaters im Altertum_, p. 320, 330, and p. 35 above.\n\n  2. Amphora from Canosa. Naples, no. 3225. Pub. Minervini, _Memorie\n        accademiche_, pl. 1\u20133; cf. Vogel, p. 39.\n\n  3. Amphora in Naples, no. 708, _Museo S. Angelo_. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._\n        ix. 38; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 108 f., and Vogel, _op.\n        cit._ p. 41.\n\n  4. Hydria from Anzi in the Basilicata. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 185; cf.\n        Vogel, p. 42. C.\n\n\n                              _Antigone._\n\n  1. Ruvo amphora. Jatta coll. no. 423. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40.\n        2, and by Heydemann, _Ueber eine nacheuripideische Trag\u00f6die_,\n        1868, pl. 1, and _Mon. d. Inst._ x. 26, 27. Polychrome view of\n        whole vase on pl. 26 = Rayet et Collignon, _Histoire de la\n        C\u00e9ramique grecque_, pl. 12, p. 300.\n\n  2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3240. Pub. Gerhard, _Apulische\n        Vasenbilder_, xi = _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40. 1. Cf. Heydemann,\n        _op. cit._ and Kl\u00fcgmann, _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 173 ff., and\n        Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 50 ff.\n\n  3. Fragment of Apulian amphora in Carlsruhe; Winnefeld\u2019s _Beschreibung\n        der Vasensammlung_, p. 62 f. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1884, pl. 19. b =\n        _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. E. 6. 3. Cf. Winckler in _Aus der\n        Onomia_, p. 149 ff.\n\n\n                               _Antiope._\n\n  1. Apulian krater found near Syracuse. Berlin, no. 3296. Pub. _Arch.\n        Ztg._ 1878, pl. 7 and 8; cf. _ibid._ p. 42 ff, and Robert, _Bild\n        und Lied_, p. 36; Vogel, p. 60 f.\n\n\n                             _Bellerophon._\n\n  1. Ruvo amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 21 = _Wiener\n        Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. viii, pl. 8. 1. Cf. _Annali d. Inst._\n        1845, p. 227.\n\n\n                             _Chrysippos._\n\n  1. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 1769. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, 1. 2.\n\n  2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3239. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1. 1.\n\n  3. An abridgement of the foregoing. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser.\n        6, II. 2 = Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, i. p. 903; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._\n        p. 137 f.\n\n\n                              _Hypsipyle._\n\n  1. Lasimos amphora in the Louvre. Pub. Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_,\n        ii. 37 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 28. 1. Cf. Vogel, p. 98 f.\n\n  2. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 3255. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 4.\n        3 = Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. p. 114; cf. Vogel, p. 99 f.\n\n  3. Ruvo amphora. St. Petersburg, no. 523. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._\n        pl. 4. 2; cf. Vogel, _loc. cit._\n\n\n                              _Meleagros._\n\n  1. Apulian amphora. Naples, _Mus. S. Angelo_, no. 11, A. Pub. _Arch.\n        Ztg._ 1867, pl. 220.\n\n\n                             _Stheneboia._\n\n  1. Krater in Naples, No. 1891. Pub. _Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. A.\n\n  2. Krater in St. Petersburg, no. 427. Pub. Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ i.\n        pl. 1\u20133; cf. Engelmann in _Annali_, 1874, p. 35 f., and Vogel,\n        _op. cit._ p. 85 f.\n\n\n                              _Telephos._\n\n  1. Hydria in Naples. Heydemann, _Raccolta Cumana_, no. 141. Pub.\n        _Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 106.\n\n  2. Tischbein, _Vases d\u2019Hamilton_, ii. 6; cf. Jahn, _Telephos und\n        Troilos_, p. 44, and Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 89 ff.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX\n\n                   N.B.\u2014All references are to pages.\n\n\n Accius, 11.\n\n Aischylos, authority of, in Magna Graecia, 55, 66, 81 f.\n   \u1f26\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of, 80.\n   statue of, 6.\n   _Agam._, 58, 112.\n   _Choe._, 17, 21, 43 ff., 58.\n   _Eumen._, 35, 55 ff., scenes of, 69 f.\n   _Iph._, 12, 23.\n   _Lykurgeia_, 23, 74.\n   _Niobe_, 8.\n   \u1f4d\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, 31, note 2.\n   _Pentheus_, 88, 91.\n   _Phrygians_, 74.\n   _Prom._, 27.\n   _Telephos_, 23.\n\n Andronicus (Livius), 11, 82.\n\n Antiope, myth of, 9.\n\n Assteas, 70, note 1, 179.\n\n\n Choregos, prize of, 5 f.\n\n Comedy, on vases, 40, note 2.\n\n\n Dante, influence of on art, 1 ff.\n   Botticelli\u2019s drawings for, 155.\n\n Dirke, monuments of, 9.\n\n Divinities, on vases, 110.\n\n\n Ekkyklema, 66 f., 160.\n\n Ennius, 11, 26, 82, 112.\n\n Etruscans, art of, 10 ff., 27, note 6.\n\n Euphronios, 31 f., 157.\n\n Euripides, Aristotle\u2019s criticism of, 79 f.\n   influence of, 26, 28 f.\n   \u03c0\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 of, 79 f.\n   _Aiolos_, 179.\n   _Alexandros_, 12.\n   _Alkestis_, 7, 16, 27, 178.\n   _Alkmene_, 14, 179.\n   _Andromache_, 83, 178.\n   _Andromeda_, 23, 35, 180.\n   _Antigone_, 180.\n   _Antiope_, 9, 13, 26, 180.\n   _Auge_, 8.\n   _Bakchai_, 25, 88 ff.\n   _Bellerophon_, 180.\n   _Chrysippos_, 180 f.\n   _Elektra_, 50, 178.\n   _Hekabe_, 21, 94 ff.\n   _Herakleidai_, 23.\n   _Herakles Fur._, 163 f., 179.\n   _Hippolytos_, 17, 25, 101 ff., 179.\n   _Hypsipyle_, 181.\n   _Ion_, 179.\n   _Iph. A._, 23, 25, 112 ff., 179.\n   _Iph. T._, 13, 17 f., 25 f., 121 ff.\n   _Kretes_, 14, 20, 27.\n   _Kyklops_, 35, 139 ff.\n   _Medeia_, 13, 19, 23, 144 ff.\n   _Melanippe_, 14.\n   _Meleagros_, 14, 20, 26, 181.\n   _Oedipus_, 13, 19.\n   _Oinomaos_, 14.\n   _Philoktetes_, 21.\n   _Phoin._, 14, 19, 171 ff.\n   _Rhesos_, 32.\n   _Stheneboia_, 181.\n   _Telephos_, 8, 12, 23, 31, 181.\n   _Theseus_, 14, 24.\n\n\n _Flugmaschine_, 160.\n\n\n Homer, 3, 34.\n\n\n Laoko\u00f6n, 9 f.\n\n Lyssa, 163, 171.\n\n\n Niobe, group, 8 f.\n\n\n Oedipus, banishment of, 177.\n\n Oistros, 162 ff.\n\n Orpheus, relief of, 4 f.\n\n\n Paeuvius, 12, 82.\n\n Parrhasios, 23 f., 34.\n\n Peiritho\u00f6s, relief, 4.\n\n Peliades, relief, 4.\n\n Pergamon, frieze, 7.\n\n Polygnotos, 21 f., 95, 110.\n\n Polyxena, 21, 95.\n\n Praxiteles, 6, 9.\n\n Python, 70, note 1.\n\n\n Seilanion, \u2018Iokaste\u2019 of, 7.\n\n Skopas, 9.\n\n Sophokles, influence of, on art, 75 ff.\n   statue of, 6.\n   _Antigone_, 75, 77.\n   _Elektra_, 50.\n   _Iphigeneia_, 12, 23.\n   _Lakainai_, 35.\n   _Laoko\u00f6n_, 10.\n   _Mysoi_, 8.\n   _Niobe_, 8.\n   _Niptra_, 36, note 3.\n   _Oed. Rex_, 77.\n   _Oinomaos_, 14.\n   _Phaidra_, 101.\n   _Philoktetes_, 13, 19, 21.\n   _Polyxene_, 21.\n   _Trachiniai_, 77.\n   _Troilos_, 32.\n\n\n Tarentum, 37 ff., 66, 82.\n\n Timanthes, 23, 25, 34, 113, 140.\n\n Timomachus, 23, 138.\n\n Tragedy, Roman and Greek, 11, 82.\n\n\n Zeuxis, 24.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  F.-W. no. 1198; pub. in Brunn\u2019s _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, no. 18, and\n  Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p. 1121.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Benndorf und Sch\u00f6ne, _Die Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums_. no.\n  92 = F.-W. no. 1200; pub. in Brunn\u2019s _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, no. 17.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  F.-W. no. 1201; pub. in _Museo Torlonia_, pl. 93, no. 377. This is the\n  youngest of the three, but the original still belongs to the period\n  just after the completion of the Parthenon.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Cf. _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p. 130 ff.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Cf. Isaeus v. 41, and Xen. _Hieron_, ix. 4.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  _Athen. Mitth._ 1878, p. 233; \u1f08\u03b8\u03ae\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd B. vii. p. 93.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  1. 20. 1.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Cf. _C. I. A._ ii. 3, 1298, and _Anth. Pal._ vi. 239.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  _Loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  1. 21. 1 and 2.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Pub. _Athen. Mitth._ 1882, pl. 14; cf. F.-W. no. 1135.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Sammlung Sabouroff_, p. 31.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Cf. F.-W. no. 1843, 1844, and Jahn\u2019s _Arch\u00e4ologische Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 198\n  ff.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Cf. Overbeck\u2019s _Schriftquellen_, no. 1128.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  F.-W. no. 1242.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  I follow Robert. Cf. _Thanatos_, p. 37 ff.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Cf. Robert in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 244 ff.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  F.-W. 1402. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 34.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  One may distinguish two distinct moments in works of art based upon\n  the Antiope myth. (1) The two sons of Antiope have the unfortunate\n  Dirke all but fastened to the bull, which is being held only with the\n  utmost exertion. (2) The catastrophe ensues. The wild animal is\n  dragging his victim over the ground. It need not be said that the most\n  celebrated representation of (1) is the _toro farnese_. For (2), cf. a\n  wall painting, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1878, pl. 9, _a_ and _b_. The myth\n  was wonderfully popular and appears on coins, gems, reliefs, &c., all\n  of which belong to the period when tragic influence predominated in\n  art. Cf. Dilthey, _Arch. Ztg._ 1878, p. 43 ff. and Jahn, _ibid._,\n  1853, p. 65\u2013105.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  F.-W. no. 1422. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 37.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Robert, _Bild und Lied_, p. 192 ff., contends against the influence of\n  Sophokles.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Cic. _de opt. gen. orat._ 1. 1.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Velleius, 1. 17. 1.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  The favourite subject was the murder of Tro\u00eflos.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Brunn, _op. cit._ pl. 1\u201316; cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des\n  troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 13 ff.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Poet._ 1453^a. 21.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pl. 26\u201334, gives eighteen reliefs.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Cf. p. 113 f.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Brunn, _op. cit._ pl. 69\u201372; cf. especially nos. 1, 2 and 3. The\n  remaining four are not Sophoklean and betray an admixture of different\n  elements. Odysseus bathes the afflicted foot of Philoktetes on nos. 6\n  and 7.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  _Op. cit._ p. 155; cf. pl. 74\u201383.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _Op. cit._ pl. 84\u201385. The attitude of \u2018Iphigeneia\u2019 causes some\n  difficulty in this interpretation. Cf. her part on the other\n  monuments.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Cf. p. 124 ff. below.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  K\u00f6rte, _op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 1. 2.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Cf. p. 144 ff.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  _Op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 4. 1, 2 and 3. and pl. 5. 4.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Cf. schol. Eur. _Phoin._ v. 61, and Nauck\u2019s _Fragmenta_, Eur. no. 541,\n  and _op. cit._ ii. pl. 7. 1.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  There are twenty-eight in all representing the fratricide, and nine\n  showing the attack; K\u00f6rte, _I rilievi d. urne etrusche_, ii. pl. 8 24.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  _Op. cit._ ii. p. 32 ff.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Pl. 26\u201327.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Pl. 28\u201330.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Pl. 31\u201332.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Cf. p. 105 f. below.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Pl. 39\u201340. Three in all.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Pl. 41\u201356.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  One may think of Soph. _Oinom._, called also _Hippodameia_, and of\n  Eur. _Oinom._ The latter seems to have been followed by Accius.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Pl. 62; cf. also _op. cit._ ii. p. 150 ff.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Pl. 100\u2013104.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  The monumental publication, which is now appearing under the direction\n  of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute, will, when completed,\n  place within one\u2019s reach all this immense material. The projected plan\n  embraces six volumes of which the second has so far appeared: _Die\n  Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. 1890, edited by Carl Robert. The third\n  part is to embrace three vols., so that we have in the _Antiken\n  Sarkophag-Reliefs_, iii. 1897, Carl Robert, only the first vol.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ iii. part i, pl. 6\u20137. Nos. 22, 23, 24, 26 are all\n  practically intact and agree closely with each other. Nos. 27\u201330 are\n  larger or smaller fragments.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 9 = Robert, _op. cit._ iii. part i, pl. 7.\n  32 = Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. p. 46.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  P. 101 ff.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ ii. p. 165.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Robert, _Die antiken Sark.-Reliefs_, ii. pl. 54, no. 154.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Cf. _op. cit._ ii. pl. 54\u201356, nos 155\u2013166; vid. also p. 67 below.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 57\u201359, nos. 167\u2013180, and p. 124 ff. below.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  P. 145 ff.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 60, nos. 183, 184, and p. 191 ff.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 51, no. 139.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Pub. by Robert, _Die Pasipha\u00eb-Sarkophag_, 1890, pl. i.; also _op.\n  cit._ iii. part i, pi. 10. 35, 35^a, 35^b.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Cf. Nauck\u2019s _Fragmenta_, no. 472.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Cf. Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p. 917, where the Louvre fragment is\n  published = Clarac, _Mus\u00e9e de Sculpture_, pl. 201, no. 208. A similar\n  scene is shown in no. 256.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Paus. 1. 22. 6.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Cf. p. 94 ff.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Cf. schol. Eur. _Hek._ v. 3, and Nauck\u2019s _Fragmenta_, p. 245 ff.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  _Homerische Becher_, p. 75; but on p. 25 f. of the _Iliupersis des\n  Polygnot in der Poikile_, Robert refers the picture to Polykleitos on\n  the strength of the epigram (_Anth. Plan._ 3. 30) by Pollianos. The\n  question turns on the reading \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, which has generally been\n  held to be a corruption of \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03bd\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf. But this does not convince me\n  that Polygnotos might not have painted the work in the Propylaia. It\n  is by no means necessary to consider the two paintings identical even\n  if \u03a0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf must remain.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Paus. 10. 25. 2.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  This was shown by Schneidewin in _Philologus_, 1849, p. 645 ff.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35. 71.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Cf. Overbeck, _Schriftquellen_, 1735\u20131739, and p. 112 f. below.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35, 132, and Helbig, _Wandgem\u00e4lde_, 1183\u20131203.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Pliny, _op. cit._ 35, 136, and Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1189,\n  1262\u20131264. The latter is from Herculaneum. Cf. Overbeck,\n  _Schriftquellen_, 2126\u20132135, for various epigrams touching this\n  painting of Timomachus.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1642. Cf. Reisch, _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p.\n  127.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Pliny, _op. cit._ 35, 144; cf. a Pompeian wall painting, pub. _Arch.\n  Ztg._ 1883, pl. 9. 1.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Paus. 1. 20. 3.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  Vid. D\u00f6rpfeld and Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 21.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Cf. p. 74 below.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Cf. Helbig, _op. cit._ Three groups are distinguishable. (1) Nos.\n  1216\u20131240, Ariadne forsaken by Theseus. (2) 1222\u20131232, she mourns in\n  her solitude. (3) 1233\u20131240, Dionysos comes to her rescue.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1242\u20131247; cf. p. 108, note 1.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Cf. Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1304, 1305.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Cf. p. 138 below.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1142, 1143.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Especially fine is the painting discovered in the _casa dei Vettii_,\n  photo. Alinari, no. 12133; cf. _R\u00f6m. Mitth_. 1896, p. 50 f.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Cf. _R\u00f6m. Mitth_. 1896, p. 45 f., and _Arch. Anz_. 1895, p. 121,\n  photo. Alinari, no. 12134. Pub. _J. H. S._ 1896, p. 151.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1151\u20131153. The excavations in 1895 added still\n  another to those already known. Vid. _R\u00f6m. Mitth_. 1896, p. 46, photo.\n  Alinari, no. 12135. Cf. also _Arch. Ztg_. 1878, pl. 9. _a_ and _b_ for\n  two others.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Accius, each wrote an _Andromeda_.\n  Ennius translated the _Medeia_, and chose over half his pieces from\n  Euripides.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Gerhard\u2019s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 239, and v. pl. 117.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  _Op. cit._ iv. pl. 354. 2.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Gerhard, _op. cit._ iv. 367. 2. Cf. Euripides\u2019 \u039a\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  _Op. cit._ iv. pl. 401.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  _Op. cit._ ii. pl. 229 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 1; iv. pl.\n  390. 2; v. pl. 108.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  _Op. cit._ v. p. 217.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. D. pl. 10. 4 and 5 = _op. cit._ ii. pl.\n  138. 139. Aischylos was the first to chain Prometheus, and all the\n  monuments representing the giant thus fastened on the cliff are\n  dependent on the _Prometheus_. Cf. Milchhoefer, in _Berliner\n  Winckelmannsprogramm_ for 1882.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  The question as to where and how the Etruscans came to have so wide a\n  knowledge of Greek poetry will long remain a perplexing one. One thing\n  seems clear, viz., that the Romans did not serve as any connecting\n  link between Greece and Etruria. Greek art as well as Greek letters\n  reached this people direct. It hardly seems probable that translations\n  of the Greek poets were so extensively made by this practical people,\n  that the artists could in this manner have had access to so much that\n  is Euripidean. There is, moreover, a great deal in some of the reliefs\n  that bespeaks a familiarity with the scenes as actually given in the\n  theatre. This leads me to think that the wandering troops of actors\n  had penetrated Etruria also, and introduced the plays of which the\n  Etruscans made so much in their art.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Figs. 12, 16, 27, 28; cf. also note 2, p. 95 f.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Vid. L\u00fcders, _Die dionysischen K\u00fcnstler_, Berlin, 1873.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Cf. p. 114 ff.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  The \u2018Megarian Bowls\u2019 have much in common with such later monuments as\n  the _tabula iliaca_. Cf. Jahn\u2019s _Bilderchroniken_, and Baumeister,\n  _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. no. 775.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  Jahn, _Telephos und Troilos_, 1841, p. 46 ff., believed that Exekias\n  was indebted to Euripides\u2019 _Telephos_ for the idea of his\n  dice-players; cf. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 4, and _Wiener\n  Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1888, pl. 6. 1^a. We know now that Exekias must have\n  lived nearly 100 years before the date of the _Telephos_.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  Klein in his _Euphronios_, 1886, p. 236 ff., saw in the Iliupersis\n  kylix, pub. Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. no. 795, the workings of\n  Aischylos\u2019 \u1f4d\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; in the Euphronios kylix, _Wiener\n  Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. v. pl. 6, representing the death of Tro\u00eflos, a\n  connexion was pointed out with Sophokles\u2019 _Troilos_; and the Dolon\n  kylix, also by Euphronios, cf. _op. cit._ p. 136 f., might be brought\n  under the _Rhesos_ of Euripides.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Note especially the Brygos kylix, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 65; pub.\n  _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 46, and _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. viii. 6.\n  Dionysos stands by his altar over which a satyr springs to grasp Iris.\n  Others of the tribe make merry. Cf. also Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 768;\n  pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl._ ser. vii. 4, in the style of Euthymides.\n  Seilenos in herald\u2019s dress is in the midst of a long train of satyrs.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  The main scene is published and discussed by D\u00fcmmler in _Rheinisches\n  Museum_, 1888, p. 355 ff.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Cf. the Peiraieus frag. pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1880, pl. 16. Other examples\n  of later styles are included by Reisch, _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 68\n  ff. Vid. further the list in _Arch. Ztg._ 1880, p. 182 f.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Gerhard, _Auser. Vasen_, pl. 56, and Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_, i.\n  9.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Berlin, inv. no. 3237. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, _Jahrbuch_, 1896,\n  p. 292 ff. and pl. 2; cf. Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Arch. Anz._ 1893, p. 91 f.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  P. 141 ff.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  No. 3235, A. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 36; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_,\n  pl. 24. 19; cf. Furtw\u00e4ngler, _Masterpieces_, p. 152 f.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  Fig. 8, and p. 63 f.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  Heydemann\u2019s cat. no. 3240. Pub. M\u00fcller-Wieseler, _Theater-geb\u00e4ude_,\n  pl. 6. 2; Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. fig. 422.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  iv. 115\u2013117. Cf. also Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters\n  im Altertum_, p. 42.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  The Penelope vase, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. pl. 42 = Baumeister\u2019s\n  _Denkm\u00e4ler_, iii. no. 2332, has lately been explained by Robert as\n  being based on Soph. \u039d\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1. Cf. _Die Marathonschlacht in der\n  Poikile_, p. 78 ff. If I could accept this view my position would be\n  very materially strengthened. The \u039d\u03af\u03c0\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1 must be set _cir._ 428 B.C.,\n  and this means that the painting is later than this date. Much as I\n  should like to bring this important monument into connexion with the\n  drama, I cannot think of a later date for the vase than 440 B.C.,\n  which to be sure renders its relation to Sophokles impossible. If,\n  however, Professor Robert be correct, it shows that there is at least\n  one vase painting of the fifth century that represents a form of a\n  myth which belonged to the theatre, and this was not granted in _Bild\n  und Lied_.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Cf. Gardner\u2019s _Types of Greek Coins_, pl. v. nos. 17\u201320, and\n  Furtw\u00e4ngler\u2019s _Masterpieces_, p. 105 ff., with the very instructive\n  collection of Italian and Sicilian coins which shows the Attic\n  influence in this period.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Cf. Mommsen, _Unteritalische Dialekte_, p. 89 ff.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  _De leg._ 1. 637^c.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  Dio Cassius, 39. 3. 6.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Zonaris, viii. 2. 370, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03ad\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Cf. figs. 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  The large class of Lower Italy vases that illustrate scenes from\n  comedy are priceless treasures. They are based on the \u2018farce-plays,\u2019\n  \u03c6\u03bb\u03cd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af\u2014the invention of Rhinthon (vid. _Rhinthonis\n  Fragmenta_, Halle, dissertation by E. V\u00f6lker, 1887); cf. especially\n  Heydemann, _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 260 ff., where all the examples then\n  known are discussed. Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters\n  im Altertum_, p. 278\u2013292, handles particularly the interesting\n  question of the stage represented in the scenes.\n\n  Mention should be made also of K\u00f6rte\u2019s excellent article in the\n  _Jahrbuch_ for 1893, p. 61\u201393, on _Archaeologische Studien zur alten\n  Kom\u00f6die_.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Robert\u2019s conclusion in regard to the literary source of all the\n  monuments (_Bild und Lied_, p. 149 ff.) is that they go back to the\n  _Oresteia_ of Stesichoros. This view has been generally accepted by\n  archaeologists, and met with no opposition till Wilamowitz showed\n  reason for believing in the existence of a Delphic epic dealing with\n  this subject. The whole question needs another careful investigation.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 57. 1 = Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, i. p. 1238.\n  Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ p. 167 ff.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Naples, no. 1755, pub. Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, iii. 1939 =\n  Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 14.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  Fig. 2. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Monuments in\u00e9dits_, pl. 34. Cf. _ibid._\n  p. 159 ff.; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 28. 5; cf. text _ibid._, p. 688\n  ff.; Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ ii. pl. 151.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Cf. figs. 14, 15, 23, 24 for the regulation dress of the pedagogue.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Cf. note 2, p. 44.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Munich coll. Jahn\u2019s cat. no. 814. The figure of Elektra alone together\n  with the view of the tomb is published by Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ ii.\n  pl. 154.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Pub. Inghirami, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 153.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  An amphora, no. 544. The painting has not been published so far as I\n  know, but the similarity it bears to figs. 3 and 4 appeared to me to\n  render a publication of it here unnecessary.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Cf. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21 \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03af\u03b1 of the Hypothesis.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Cf. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29, and Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. in\u00e9d._\n  pl. 35\u201338.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  Cat. no. 349; pub. _Compte Rendu_, 1864, pl. 6. 5; cf. Stephani,\n  _ibid._ p. 252 ff.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Cf. a similar figure with the key in figs. 6, 18, 20. In the latter\n  cases Iphigeneia is the priestess.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  v. 1061.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  v. 35.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Vid my _Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art_, p. 12 ff., for a\n  discussion of this passage.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  So Eur. _Orest._ v. 321; _Elekt._ v. 1345.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Naples, no. 3249, photo, Alinari, 11296, from which fig. 6 is taken.\n  The painting was published by Jahn, _Vasenbilder_, 1839, pl. 1. 1,\n  from a drawing. Jahn himself had not seen the vase. The drawing does\n  the fine picture so little justice that I could not think of\n  reproducing it. The work on the vase is wonderfully clear and strong.\n  Every figure is in itself a beautiful work of art. The picture\n  presents an unusual variety of situations that are artistically of\n  great interest.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Cf. also fig. 8.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  No. 3256. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 4; general view of the\n  whole vase, Gerhard\u2019s _Apulische Vasen_. pl. A. 6. Another painting, a\n  late work and wretchedly done, somewhat similar, is published in\n  _Arch. Ztg._ 1877, pl. 4. 11.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Fig. 8. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 7; _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. pl.\n  48; _Arch. Ztg._ 1860, pl. 138. 2; Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p.\n  1117; Rayet et Collignon, _Histoire de la c\u00e9ramique grecque_, p. 297.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Vid. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 11, and 12.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Cf. vs. 67, 84, 91.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  This view is maintained by D\u00f6rpfeld and Reisch, _Das griechische\n  Theater_, p. 243 ff. In reply to this vid. Robert in _Hermes_, vol.\n  32, p. 439 ff. Vid. also Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des\n  Theaters im Altertum_, pp. 112\u2013116, where this point in the production\n  of the _Eumenides_ is ably discussed.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Cf. this scene on the Sarcophagi reliefs. Robert, _Die antiken\n  Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. pl. 54\u201356, nos. 155\u2013161, the right end scene;\n  also no. 157^1, p. 173.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Cf. the ghosts of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra on the end reliefs of the\n  Sarcophagus, no. 155, _op. cit._\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  _Orest._ 408, 1650; _Tro._ 457; cf. also the relief found near Argos,\n  pub. _Athen. Mitth._ 1879, pl. 9 = Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, i. p. 1330.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Wilamowitz, _Aischylos Orestie, Zweites St\u00fcck_, 1896, p. 246 ff., has\n  shown the plausibility of believing in such an epic. The author was a\n  Delphian.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  A few fragments remain from the _Oresteia_ of Stesichoros. Cf.\n  Bergk-Schaefer, _Poetae lyrici graeci_, iii. p. 219 ff.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Opinions vary on this point. Three different views are held. (1) The\n  temple of Athena remains the scene throughout the rest of the play;\n  the Areiopagos (v. 685) becomes then merely a part of the stage\n  decorations given by the periaktoi. (2) Between v. 235 and v. 685 the\n  scene was changed from the Acropolis to the Areiopagos. (3) There is\n  no scene from v. 235 other than the Areiopagos. The latter seems to me\n  absolutely untenable. Repeated allusion is made to the temple and to\n  Orestes clinging to the old image in the \u03b4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 (v. 242 ff.). Regarding\n  the first and second, it makes little difference whether the scene was\n  in fact shifted or whether it was represented on the wings. The\n  practical working was the same in either case.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  The present whereabouts of the vase is not known. Pub. Baumeister,\n  _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p. 1118; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 9;\n  Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, ii. 68; also as frontispiece to the\n  4th ed. of Paley\u2019s _Aeschylus_. He disposes of it in a line or two,\n  and, with the usual accuracy which characterizes philologists when\n  dealing with matters of archaeology, says the vase is \u2018probably nearly\n  contemporaneous\u2019 with the _Eumenides_ (p. 584). The composition is\n  remarkably like the Assteas painting, _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. i.\n  pl. 7. The figures of Apollo and Kadmos, as well as the two Athenas,\n  have much in common. There is the same roundness and plumpness in the\n  figures. Furthermore, Assteas was partial to bust figures and never\n  lost an opportunity to introduce them. The border on the veil of the\n  female bust of our vase is Campanian, as are also certain other\n  details. All this brings me to the opinion that Assteas, who was very\n  likely from Paestum and may have been in touch with Campanian styles\n  as well, was the painter of our vase. It is at least from the school\n  of Assteas. A painting by Python (_J. H. S._ 1890, pl. 6), one of the\n  set of Assteas, exhibits the same treatment of hair and decoration\n  that is found on the painting, fig. 9.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  These feathers, for that is what these projections are, can be counted\n  on dozens of helms belonging to this period. Athena and warriors wear\n  them alike. Their occurrence before the latter part of the fourth\n  century B.C. is unknown to me.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Cf. Aisch. _Supp._ v. 463.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1860, pl. 137. 4 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 8.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Vid. _Arch. Anz._ 1890, p. 90.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  It is worth noting that, when viewed both from the artistic in his\n  plays and the art that was an outgrowth of his plays, Sophokles\n  occupies the same position as regards Aischylos and Euripides. Cf. my\n  _Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art_, p. 32 ff.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  P. 35, note 3, and p. 36, note 3.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  _Poet._ 1450^a. 25.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  _Rep._ 8. 568^a.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  C. 29.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Athen. p. 537; cf. Plut. _Alex._ c. 10 and 53.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Athen. p. 175.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  This fact comes out particularly in Polybios; cf. Susemihl,\n  _Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexanderzeit_, ii. p. 119.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  _C. I. A._ ii. 973 is the authority for this occurrence in the years\n  341\u201339 B.C.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  6. 3. 5.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Cf. _Nem._ 7. v. 49 ff.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Vid. Hypothesis: \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Fig. 10; no. 239 in the Jatta catalogue. Pub. _Annali d. Inst._ 1868,\n  pl. E = Engelmann\u2019s _Atlas zum Homer_, ii. _Odyssee_, pl. 4. 18; cf.\n  Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 36 ff.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Cf. similar figures in figs. 6, 18, 20.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  The composition is strikingly like that in fig. 18. The two temples\n  are exact counterparts of each other. The altars likewise and the\n  Apollo figures have much in common. Most important of all is the fact\n  that in both pictures the chief persons are denoted by inscriptions.\n  It should be observed further that both vases are of the same style,\n  amphoras with volute handles, and both were found in Ruvo. These facts\n  lead me to believe that one and the same artist may have been the\n  painter of both works.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  Cf. figs. 6, 7, 18, 20, 21, 23.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  The 26th idyll of Theokritos should also be counted with the\n  _Bakchai_.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Suidas s. v. Thespis.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  But one verse remains, Nauck\u2019s _Fragmenta_, no. 183.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  A psykter in the Bourguignon coll., Naples; pub. _Jahrbuch_, 1892, pl.\n  5. The vase belongs to the Epiktetos set, and may be dated _cir._ 500\n  B.C.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  The following, given by Hartwig, _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 154 ff., may be\n  mentioned as supplementing the list in Jahn\u2019s well-known essay,\n  _Pentheus und die Mainaden_, Kiel, 1841.\n\n  (1) Attic pyxis, Louvre; pub. _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 156; date 420\u2013400\n  B.C.\n\n  (2) Kylix in _Museo di Papa Giulio_, Rome, described by Hartwig, _op.\n  cit._ p. 163, who thinks it may have well been influenced by\n  Euripides, but he sets the date of the _Bakchai_ at 410 B.C.! I have\n  not seen the vase nor any publication of it, but should infer from\n  Hartwig\u2019s description that it is older than the tragedy.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Lucanian fabric, no. 807 in Jahn\u2019s cat., pub. Jahn\u2019s _Pentheus und die\n  Mainaden_, pl. ii. a; Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 5 =\n  Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. no. 1396.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  The original shows no trace of the fire that is so prominent in the\n  publications. There can, however, be no doubt that a _burning_ torch\n  was meant, if not so painted originally.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  vs. 954 ff., 1052, 1061 ff.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  P. 25 above. It should be noted that this is the first example of a\n  Pentheus scene discovered in Pompeii or Herculaneum.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  P. 23 above.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  The episode seems to have been first told in the \u1f38\u03bb\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 of\n  Arktinos. Polyxena being led by Neoptolemos to the tomb of Achilles\n  appears on an Attic bl. fig. vase of _cir._ 550 B.C., vid. Berlin cat.\n  1902; pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 27. 17. Two gems of the severe\n  style in the Berlin Antiquarium (nos. 489, 490), pub. Overbeck, _op.\n  cit._ pl. 27. 13 and 14, also represent the sacrifice. The painting in\n  the Pinakotheke of the Propylaia may have been by Polygnotos (cf. p.\n  21 above), and if it was, Euripides no doubt had often seen it. This\n  showed her about to be sacrificed; Paus. 1. 22. 6.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  \u2018Megarian Bowls\u2019 is a name applied to a class of small cups decorated\n  with a band of relief. The ware is red or black, and appears both in\n  glazed and unglazed form. The largest number of the vases has been\n  found in Megara, hence the name \u2018Megarian.\u2019 As many have been\n  discovered also in Boeotia and other places, the present terminology\n  is somewhat misleading. Examples of this ware are to be found in every\n  large museum in Europe. The British Museum possesses no less than nine\n  such cups, and fragments from fourteen others (vid. cat. iv. pp.\n  251\u2013256). The reliefs illustrate mostly scenes from the Theban and\n  Trojan Cycles. Whether the terra cotta presented a cheap way of\n  reproducing silver and gold cups, which were highly prized, and served\n  therefore the place of our casts, or whether the bowls were made from\n  special moulds and are to be considered independent works of art, is\n  quite uncertain. The fact that there are in existence three copies of\n  the same work, each agreeing in every detail with the others, would\n  seem to point to the former supposition. Robert, who has handled this\n  set of monuments most thoroughly, distinguishes two classes: (1) the\n  whole vase is cast from one mould; (2) the reliefs having been made\n  separately are stamped on the ready bowl. Vid. especially Robert\u2019s\n  _Homerische Becher_ for the whole question; cf. also p. 27 ff. above.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  Fig. 12, pub. by Robert, _op. cit._ p. 73 ff.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  Fig. 13: pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 12; Welcker, _Alte Denkm\u00e4ler_,\n  iii. pl. 23. 2; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 28. 2.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  The first play belonged to the trilogy containing the _Aigeus_ and\n  _Theseus_, which made up a set of purely Attic interest. It is well\n  known that Euripides deepened and widened the belief in the Athenian\n  heroic period.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Suidas names an _Hippolytos_ of Lykophron\u2014a poet of Alexandria.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  The _Phaedra_ seems to have followed the first _Hippolytos_ of\n  Euripides.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Cf. _Met._ 15, vs. 497 ff., and _Heroid._ 4.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Cat. iv. F 272, pub. by Braun, _Mon. ed Annali_, 1854, pl. 16;\n  Engelmann\u2019s _Atlas zum Homer_, ii, _Odyssee_, pl. 15. 93. First\n  correctly interpreted by Heydemann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, p. 158 ff.; cf.\n  also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 66 f., and Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p.\n  62 ff. The vase is Apulian ware. The lower zone represents the\n  violence of the Centaurs at the marriage of Peiritho\u00f6s\u2019 daughter,\n  Laodameia. Theseus and the father are seen rushing to the help of the\n  bride.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  The fact that no succession of events, where one person appears more\n  than once, can be found in Hellenic art, forbids us interpreting this\n  group as again Phaidra and an attendant. I cannot, however, rid myself\n  of the feeling that the figure leaning on the _kline_ is not a\n  servant, but is more in rank with Phaidra. Her r\u00f4le is more than that\n  of the other attendants. This is shown by her attitude and dress. Her\n  appearance is exactly that required for Phaidra after she had ordered\n  her attendants to lift her up, remove her veil, and allow her hair to\n  drop over her shoulders (vs. 198\u2013202).\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  Cf. the part of the pedagogue on the Medeia vase, fig. 23, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  There are, besides, fragments of several other reliefs. For the\n  literature vid. Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. 65 ff., and Jahn,\n  _Arch. Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 300 ff.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  Cf. vs. 201 ff.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 5 and 6.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 1, 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  So on the Constantinople relief, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 100 =\n  Brunn\u2019s _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, pl. 9. 3; and on the Girgenti sarcophagi;\n  cf. note 1 above.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Clarac, _Mus\u00e9e de Sculpture_, pl. 213, no. 228, and _Mon. d. Inst._\n  viii. pl. 38. 1 = _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser. 5, pl. 12, and\n  Gerhard, _Antike Bildwerke_, pl. 26.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  A number of vase paintings interpreted as Phaidra are not included\n  here since they all admit of a variety of interpretations. Vid. p. 179\n  below.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  The remarkable feature in these reliefs that shows non-Euripidean\n  influence is the letter which the old nurse hands to Hippolytos. This\n  points to another handling of the myth, where the former confined\n  herself to a written statement rather than a word of mouth proposal.\n  Strikingly in harmony with Euripides, however, is the position of the\n  trophos. She grasps Hippolytos\u2019 elbow\u2014\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1fb6\u03c2\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03c9\u03bb\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 (v. 605). Cf. also the Pompeian wall painting, _Mus.\n  Borbonico_, 8, pl. 52. This and other wall paintings represent the\n  scene between Hippolytos and the nurse as taking place in the presence\n  of Phaidra, who sits quite alone.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  Cf. fig. 15. Cat. vol. iv. F 279; pub. by Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883,\n  pl. 6; vid. _ibid._ p. 43 ff.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  Cf. a similar group in fig. 23.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  The same group of divinities, with the exception of Apollo, occurs on\n  the Naples amphora, no. 3256, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. 30, and Robert,\n  _Die Marathonschlacht_, p. 37; Robert calls attention to the fact that\n  this is an essentially Athenian assembly. Poseidon, Athena, and Pan\n  were inseparably associated with the Acropolis, the latter, of course,\n  after the battle of Marathon. The Naples vase represents a battle\n  between Greeks and barbarians, and according to Robert\u2019s theory is\n  dependent upon Polygnotos\u2019 painting in the Stoa Poikile. As\n  participants and spectators the gods occur in the upper section.\n  Athena, indeed, whirls into line on her chariot. If this ingenious\n  theory has hit the gist of the matter regarding the Naples painting,\n  then we may also claim the group of gods on the Hippolytos vase as\n  peculiarly Athenian. And such would be very appropriate for a picture\n  that represented an Attic tragedy, whose hero had a cult under the\n  shadow of the Acropolis.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  vs. 1199 ff.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  v. 1214; cf. also Ovid, _Met._ 15. 512, where the bull is described as\n  having his breast half out of the water.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  Bk. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  _Nat. Hist._ 35. 114.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  Cf. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 2; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 6.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  K\u00f6rte, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, ii. pl. 33\u201336.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  The urn in the _Brit. Mus._, no. 6, pl. 36, _op. cit._, has two such\n  figures.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  So Bergk and Ribbeck.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  v. 234 ff.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Pliny, 35. 73, says of the picture, _oratorum laudibus celebrata_.\n  Numerous mentions are in fact made of it by the orators. Cf.\n  especially Cic. _Orat._ 22. 74. Vid. further, Brunn\u2019s _Griech.\n  K\u00fcnstler_, ii. p. 82 ff.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  Discovered April 30, 1825, in the house of the \u2018Tragic Poet\u2019; pub.\n  Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. no. 807 = photo, Alinari, 12027. Vid.\n  Helbig, _Campanische Wandgem\u00e4lde_, no. 1304. Here, however, Iphigeneia\n  is being carried (cf. Aisch. _Agam._ _loc. cit._), while Pliny speaks\n  of her as _stans_ in Timanthes\u2019 painting.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Pub. Baumeister, _op. cit._ i. 806; vid. F.-W. no. 2143.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Vid. Michaelis in _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1893, p. 201 ff.; cf. p. 4 above.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Brunn, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, i. pl. 35\u201347. There are\n  altogether twenty-six reliefs, of which twenty-one belong to Perugia.\n  Cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf\n  etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 60 f.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  _Op. cit._ p. 81 f., but cf. my remarks on p. 10 ff.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Pub. by Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 51.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  A second in Athens, pub. \u1f18\u03c6. \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7. 1887, pl. 5; a third, on the\n  authority of Furtw\u00e4ngler (vid. Robert, _loc. cit._), in the Branthegem\n  coll. in Brussels.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  So at least one thinks of the case. Agamemnon ought to have been\n  inside at this moment, shut off from the public gaze. The Greek drama,\n  however, had to bring outside, before the public as it were, even\n  those delicate scenes such as the present where the _interior_ of\n  Agamemnon\u2019s tent should have been the scene.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  The name occurs six times on the vase, and is always without an N.\n  This is strong epigraphical evidence that our spelling Klytaim_n_estra\n  is incorrect.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  P. 113 f.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Vid. p. 179.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Cf. Aisch. _Agam._ v. 224 ff.; Eur. _Iph. T._ v. 8 and 360; _Iph. A._\n  v. 873, 875, 935, 1177, are hardly to be taken in the literal sense.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  _Elekt._ v. 157 and schol.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  Cf. Proklos in Argum. to _Kypria_.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Frag. 123, and Paus. 1. 43. 1.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  Bk. iv, ch. 103, and Paus. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Vid. Suidas s.v.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  1456^a. 6; 1453^b. 11.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  Ribbeck, _Die r\u00f6mische Trag\u00f6die_, p. 50.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  Ribbeck thinks of Naevius.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  For these last two scenes as well as the others, vid. Robert, _Die\n  antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, vol. ii. pl. 57\u201359, and p. 165 f. and 177\n  ff.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Fig. 17, from Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. in\u00e9d._ pl. 41. Heydemann, _cat.\n  Santangelo_, no. 24; cf. Trendelenburg in _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p.\n  114.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Vid. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 157^b, 168, 171.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  A wall painting from Herculaneum, pub. _Pitture di Ercolano_, i. pl.\n  12; Overbeck\u2019s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 9; cf. Helbig, _Campanische\n  Wandgem\u00e4lde_, no. 1334. Another painting from Pompeii is published in\n  _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 13; for the same on pastes and gems cf.\n  Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30, and Furtw\u00e4ngler\u2019s _Beschreibung der\n  geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium_ (Berlin), nos. 791 ff.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  Fig. 18 from a Ruvo amphora in Naples. Heydemann, no. 3223. Pub. _Mon.\n  d. Inst._ ii. pl. 43; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 4. Vid. _Annali\n  d. Inst._ vol. ix. p. 198 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 137; Vogel,\n  _Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 70 ff.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Cf. v. 1463, where the poet says Iphigeneia is to be \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 for the\n  Brauronian Artemis. In Aisch. _Supp._, also, Io is spoken of as at one\n  time \u03ba\u03bb\u1fc3\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. Cf. v. 291.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Cf. the monuments in Overbeck\u2019s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30, that represent\n  this scene; and the central group on the front side of the Munich\n  sarcophagus, _op. cit._ no. 167.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Artemis sits on an altar in fig. 21, as do Orestes and Pylades on an\n  Etruscan mirror; vid. Gerhard\u2019s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. 239, and v.\n  117. Neoptolemos jumps upon the \u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2 in the _Andromache_ (v. 1123) to\n  avoid his foes. Cf. fig. 10, p. 84.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 177 and 178, the Berlin and Weimar\n  Sarcophagi, and no. 180, a fragment in the court of the Palazzo\n  Mattei. Robert properly refers to the next following moment when\n  Orestes and Pylades are left alone with the chorus, Iphigeneia having\n  gone inside to bring the letter. In order to obtain just the\n  sarcophagi scenes we have but to allow Iphigeneia to withdraw after\n  the close of her speech, v. 642.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  Robert, _op. cit._ pl. 57\u201359, and p. 165 f. and 177 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._\n  1875, p. 134 ff.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  The two wall paintings published by Overbeck, _Bildwerke_. pl. 30,\n  nos. 31 and 14, and interpreted as representing this same moment, have\n  since been explained by Petersen, _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, p. 113 ff., as\n  belonging to the _Alkestis_. While the former view has been generally\n  given up, the latter has not by any means been everywhere accepted. It\n  is, at most, probable.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  Fig. 19, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1849, pl. 12 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30.\n  7 = _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. pl. 51. Vid. also under \u2018Iphigeneia\u2019 in\n  Baumeister, and Roscher. Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 72 ff., and _Arch.\n  Ztg._ 1875 p. 136.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  Fig. 20, no. 420, in the cat. of the Hermitage, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._\n  vi. pl. 66; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1862, p. 116 ff., and Stephani in\n  _Compte Rendu_, 1863, p. 159 ff.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  _Compte Rendu_, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  Fig. 21; pub. in the _Bullettino archeologico Napolitano_, 1862, pl.\n  7, and in Brunn\u2019s _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, pl. 13. 1. Cf. also Vogel, _op.\n  cit._ p. 74 ff.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  P. 124.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Cf., however, Laborde\u2019s _Vases Lamberg_, i. p. 14, also _Annali d.\n  Inst._ 1848, pl. L, and Overbeck\u2019s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 8, for a vase\n  which probably shows the escape with the idol. It is not certain, but\n  this seems to be what is represented. The work is very ordinary.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Helbig, no. 1333, pub. in _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. pl. 22; photo,\n  Alinari, no. 12029. Cf. Helbig, _Untersuchungen \u00fcber die Campanische\n  Wandmalerei_, p. 147 ff.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 144.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  _Loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Vid. _R\u00f6m. Mitth._ 1896, p. 67.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  We know of such an original, the famous painting of Timomachus. Pliny,\n  _Hist. Nat._ 35. 136, says, _Timomachus Byzantius Caesaris dictatoris\n  aetate Aiacem et Medeam pinxit_ ... TIMOMACHI AEQUE LAUDANTUR ORESTES,\n  IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS. Further than this we know nothing of the painter.\n  That he was immensely popular follows from Pliny\u2019s statement (_loc.\n  cit._) that Caesar paid 80 talents for this Aiax. In regard to the\n  date of Timomachus we possess Pliny\u2019s authority for _Caesaris aetate_.\n  Robert defends this (_Arch. M\u00e4rchen_, p. 132), while others seek to\n  find an earlier date. Miss Sellers in _The Elder Pliny\u2019s Chapters on\n  the History of Art_, Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 160 f., argues for the\n  fourth century B.C. Vid. _loc. cit._ for the latest discussion of this\n  painter\u2019s date, as well as for references to the literature. Further\n  reference may be made to Helbig, _Untersuchungen_, p. 147 ff., where\n  especially the influence of Timomachus on the wall paintings is dwelt\n  upon.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  Cf. Arist. _Poet._ 1449^a. 19 and 20.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Miss Harrison, _J. H. S._ 1883, p. 248 ff., has brought together and\n  discussed thirteen vases connected with this myth, of which the first\n  twelve are bl. fig.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  v. 99, Odysseus says he thinks they have dropped down on a city of\n  Bromios, so many are the satyrs whom he sees before the cave.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  P. 23.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  Pliny 35, 74. A _Cyclops dormiens_ so large that a number of satyrs\n  were engaged in measuring his thumb with a thyrsos. I follow Robert\n  (_Bild und Lied_, p. 35) and Winter (_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 272) in\n  connecting this painting with Euripides.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  The painting is on a krater in the possession of Sir Francis Cook,\n  Richmond, England; pub. by Winter, _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 6. He thinks\n  the work Attic, but Furtw\u00e4ngler (_Masterpieces_, p. 109, note 8) is\n  sure it is Lower Italy ware.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  The three eyes are plainly visible. One huge eye alone in the centre\n  of the forehead belongs to later times.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  Furtw\u00e4ngler, _loc. cit._, remarks that the publication is not exactly\n  correct, as fire is plainly noticeable on the wood that the youths are\n  contributing.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Polyphemos here is strikingly like the figure on an Etruscan urn.\n  Brunn, _I rilievi_, i. pl. 873. The Kyklops is in both cases stretched\n  out upon his left side, and is on the point of being attacked.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  The poet mentions the krater, and in the next breath the skyphos,\n  neither of which is exactly found in the rough sketch in the painting.\n  Besides these, Euripides names in this play the kylix, amphora, and\n  pithos\u2014a considerable vocabulary of ceramic terms.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  My remark applies only to the extant monuments, for one finds that\n  Pausanias saw the marriage of Jason and Medeia represented on the\n  Kypselos Chest (5. 18. 3). This is in keeping with the Corinthian\n  origin of the Chest. It is hardly to be expected that such domestic\n  events in Medeia\u2019s career would have found their place in any work of\n  art that was not made in Corinth, or at least in a place essentially\n  influenced by Corinthian legend.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 58.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  Benndorf und Sch\u00f6ne, _Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen\n  Museums_, p. 61 ff.; F.-W. no. 1200. The Berlin copy of this relief,\n  long supposed to be of Renaissance origin, has lately been proved to\n  be antique; vid. Kekul\u00e9 von Stradonitz in _Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 96 ff.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Cf. Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. p. 142; ii. p. 875; iii. p. 1852.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Kekul\u00e9\u2019s _Die antiken Terracotten_, ii. p. 21.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  Vid. Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, ii. p. 2513.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Robert in _Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. p. 205\u2013217, gives all\n  the literature; cf. also pl. 62\u201365. Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1866, p. 234\n  ff.; _Annali d. Inst._ 1869, p. 5 ff.; Urlichs\u2019 _W\u00fcrzburger Programm,\n  ein Medea-Sarkophag_, 1888. (This fine sarcophagus is now in the\n  Berlin museum.) Robert and Urlichs have, to my mind, shown\n  conclusively that these reliefs go back to Euripides\u2019 _Medeia_ for\n  their literary source. Notwithstanding that they all date from about\n  the second century A.D., and could thus be based on various Roman\n  plays, the arrangement of the events on the reliefs bears a remarkable\n  similarity to the scenes in Euripides. The reliefs on the long sides\n  are taken up with exactly the scenes of the Greek poet. Those on the\n  ends are but indifferently worked out, and often do not represent any\n  events in the Medeia-Jason adventures.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  A half-tone reproduction of the vase is shown in the _frontispiece_.\n  The section with the painting is given separately in fig. 23. It is\n  no. 810 in Jahn\u2019s catalogue; pub. in Millin\u2019s _Tombeaux de Canose_,\n  1816, pl. 7; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 3; _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, ser.\n  i. pl. 12; Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii. p. 903; Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_,\n  ii. p. 2510; Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iv. pl. 388; Engelmann,\n  _Bilderatlas zu Ovid_, pl. 13, 81. Discussed by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._\n  1847, p. 33 ff.; _ibid._ (by Dilthey) 1875, p. 68 f.; Robert, _Bild\n  und Lied_, p. 37 ff., and _Hermes_, vol. 30, p. 567 note; K\u00f6rte,\n  _Ueber Personificationen psychologischer Affecte_, p. 38 ff.; Vogel,\n  _Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 146 ff.; Seeliger in Roscher\u2019s _Lexikon_, _loc.\n  cit._; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_,\n  p. 148, note 6.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  The latter name is found in schol. Eur. _Med._ v. 19, and in Hyginus.\n  _fab._ 25.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Diod. Sic. iv. 55. 5, calls Kreusa\u2019s brother Hippotes.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  The reading \u039a ... \u03a9\u039d in Millin\u2019s publication, followed also by Conze\n  in the _Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_ and by Baumeister, is incorrect as Jahn (vid.\n  cat. no. 810, note) expressly stated, and as is plainly proved by a\n  glance at the original. Hence the useless conjectures that have been\n  made to fill up the space between the first and last letters. There is\n  absolutely no trace of the \u039a, but there are faint remains of letters\n  preceding \u03a9\u039d, and the correct reading is without question, \u039a\u03a1\u0395]\u03a9\u039d.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  Cf. p. 152, and note 3.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  This inscription, which is very distinct, does not appear in Conze\u2019s\n  publication. All the inscriptions occurring on the palace are painted\n  in white. All others are incised.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  This moment is shown on another vase (vid. fig. 24), and so, too, on\n  the sarcophagi Kreusa is always represented in the moment of falling\n  or springing from the \u03ba\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  In spite of this, Vogel, p. 149, asks, _Warum zeigt uns der Vasenmaler\n  den Kreon nicht in dem Augenblicke, wo er seine Tochter von den\n  unheilvollen Brautgeschenken der Medeia befreien will, sondern in dem,\n  wo er \u00fcberw\u00e4ltigt von dem Ungl\u00fccke das Scepter seinen H\u00e4nden entfallen\n  l\u00e4sst und starr und seiner selbst nicht mehr m\u00e4chtig seine Blicke auf\n  die herbeieilende Merope lenkt?_ i. e. why did the vase painter not\n  paint another scene instead of the one he did?\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Cf. note 7, p. 145. On fragment no. 197, Robert, _op. cit._, the arms\n  of Kreon are incorrectly restored, and his hands are represented as\n  clasped. On all the reliefs Kreon is turned towards Kreusa and not\n  away, as on the vase. I refuse, however, to believe with Jahn and\n  others that Kreon is staring at Merope. He sees nothing and nobody.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  Apollod. I. 9. 3.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  Soph. _Oed. Rex_, v. 775, the wife of \u03a0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  Supposing the word to be a pure invention of the painter, there are\n  still in Euripides suggestions of the name if one were seeking such\n  for the figure. In v. 404, Medeia declares she \u2018will not be a\n  laughing-stock to the race of _Sisyphos_ and Jason\u2019s new alliances\u2019;\n  and in v. 1381, \u03b3\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5 \u03a3\u03b9\u03c3\u03cd\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5, the former queens would be\n  suggested with the name Merope. It is but natural that the vase\n  painter took the name thus suggested by Euripides.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  P. 149.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Suidas refers to a _Medeia_ by Neophron. Ennius\u2019 _Medea_ was,\n  according to Cicero, _De Fin._ 1. 2. 4, a literal translation from\n  Euripides. The _Medea exul_ by the same poet has generally been held\n  to be a version of Euripides\u2019 _Aigeus_.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  _Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 567 note.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  _Bild und Lied_, p. 42.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  _Zeichnungen von Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes Goettlicher Komoedie nach\n  den Originalen im K\u00f6nig. Kupferstichkabinet zu Berlin_, von Dr. F.\n  Lippmann.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  In _canto_ iii, Charon is an old man; Botticelli drew him as the\n  devil. In the second plate to this same _canto_ the souls are swimming\n  out to Charon\u2019s boat, a fact which Dante does not mention. The\n  illustration to _canto_ xx has only two persons identical with those\n  of the poet, and in _Purgatorio_ iii the souls on the shore and in the\n  boat are additions of the artist.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Cf. Dilthey in _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 294, and pl. 35 in _Mon. d.\n  Inst._ x.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  Vid. Klein\u2019s _Euphronios_, p. 89, and Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Her.\n  Fur._ vol. ii, ed. 1, p. 214.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  Cf. fig. 24, where the female figure on the left is none other than a\n  nurse.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  _Bild und Lied_, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  Cf. figs. 24 and 25 and Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. p. 142.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  It will be observed that the writer does not share the view of Bethe,\n  _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_, p. 142 ff.,\n  that the _Flugmaschine_ was not in use in the Greek theatre before 425\n  B.C. Robert, _Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 530\u2013577, has conclusively shown the\n  incorrectness of Bethe\u2019s arguments, and not only proved the use of the\n  _Flugmaschine_ for the _Medeia_, 431 B.C., but also for a much earlier\n  date. Bethe\u2019s remark, _Demnach ist f\u00fcr die erste Auff\u00fchrung der Medea\n  im Jahre 431 ihr Erscheinen in der H\u00f6he, also auch die Anwendung der\n  Flugmaschine, nicht m\u00f6glich_ (p. 146), is based upon a false\n  conception of the resources at hand in that period of Athenian\n  architectural activity.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  It has already been pointed out above, p. 159, that Medeia entered the\n  palace to slay the boys, and that they might or might not have been\n  alone. At any rate it was not allowable to represent them in art\n  without some older companion. Robert\u2019s remark, _Bild und Lied_, p. 39,\n  _Den Kindern die bereits bei der Mutter angelangt sind, muss aber\n  jetzt noch ein anderer Begleiter zugestellt werden_, is inexplicable.\n  Where had the children gone to reach their mother? Was it not just the\n  reverse, viz. that the mother had gone to them?\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  iv. 54. 7.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  One must remember that Diodorus gathered his excerpts together at\n  least 300 years after the date of our vase, during all of which time\n  the mythographers had been busy helping to straighten out the family\n  affairs that the tragedians of the fifth century had treated\n  imperfectly!\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  As a matter of fact this reference, although brought in under another\n  \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03af than the first remark, where three sons are named, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03bf \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03cd\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u0398\u03b5\u03c4\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\n  \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03a4\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, iv. 54. 1, seems to me to speak of a\n  common origin, and I hold both as coming from the same authority,\n  under whose influence our vase painter certainly never stood.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Eur. _Orest._ v. 791.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  As in the _Medeia_, nothing is said to indicate how the chariot was\n  drawn. It is only from the monuments and later literary references\n  (vid. Argum. to the _Medeia_ and schol. on v. 1320) that one learns of\n  the dragons; or is the utterance of Jason, vs. 1297 f., \u1f22 \u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u1f06\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\n  \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u2019 \u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b2\u03ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 | \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd | \u03c0\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b8\u2019,\n  an intimation of the strange escape of the sorceress? How was Lyssa\u2019s\n  chariot drawn? Why not also by dragons?\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  Cf. fig. 26, where the figure that stands beside the dragons has been\n  identified as \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 or \u039b\u03cd\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1. That the latter is the child of night\n  harmonizes well with the night escape indicated by Selene and the\n  stars on this vase.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  On a vase of Assteas, vid. p. 179 below, which shows Herakles in the\n  act of murdering his sons, the painter calls the personification of\n  Lyssa, _mania_.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  Mention should be made here of the Parian inscription, which gives us\n  the curious information that there was a society of _hetairai_\n  established under the patronage of the goddess \u039f\u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ce; cf. Pernice,\n  _Athen. Mitth._ 1893, p. 16. 2, and Maass, _ibid._ p. 25 f. There is,\n  of course, a wide distinction between the personification and the cult\n  use of \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, but it is worth while to point out that Eur. _Hipp._\n  vs. 1300 ff., gives the same notion that Maass suggests and supports\n  by a quotation from Paullus Silentiarius (_Anth. Plan._ v. 234), where\n  \u03bf\u1f30\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c6\u03af\u03b7\u03c2 occurs. Artemis, speaking to Theseus of Hippolytos\u2019\n  death and its cause, says, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f10\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b4\u2019 \u1f26\u03bb\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c1\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 |\n  \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u2019 \u03b5\u1f50\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 | \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f22\n  \u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 | \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1, where we may suppose Euripides to have\n  thought of Phaidra as possessed with \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, which means \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n  \u03b8\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd (v. 1301), i.e. \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u039a\u03cd\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2 (v. 1304).\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  Cf. Aisch. _Pers._ vs. 681\u2013842, where the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Dareios is one of\n  the _dramatis personae_. Also Eur. _Hek._, where the prologue is\n  spoken by the \u03b5\u1f34\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd of Polydoros.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Dilthey, _Arch._ 219, 1875, p. 71, followed also by Vogel, _Scen. eur.\n  Trag._ p. 151. How do these scholars account for the appearance of\n  Megara and her sons upon the \u2018under-world\u2019 vases where Herakles is\n  also represented in his last labour of capturing Kerberos? This latter\n  must have been finished and Herakles must have returned to the upper\n  world before Megara and the boys _could be thought of as in fact in\n  the under-world_.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  _Bild und Lied_, p. 39 f.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  P. 156 above.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  Cp. among other places in the _Medeia_, vs. 133, 328, 405, 475 ff.,\n  536 ff., 550, 1330.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Cf. the Dareios vase in Naples, also found in Canosa; pub.\n  Baumeister\u2019s _Denkm\u00e4ler_, i. no. 449; also the costume of the judges\n  on the so-called \u2018under-world\u2019 vases, pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_,\n  ser. E. 1\u20133.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  Apoll. Rhod. 1. 122 and 341 ff.; Hyg. _fab._ 14; Diod. Sic. iv. 53. 4.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Apoll. Rhod. 1. 108 ff.; Apollod. 1. 9. 16; Hyg. _fab._ 14.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Apoll. Rhod. 1. 146 ff.; Paus., 1. 18. 1, relates that in the temple\n  of the Dioskouroi in Athens, known also as the Anakeion, Mikon painted\n  events from the Argonautic expedition.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Fig. 24. Heydemann, _cat. Mus. Santangelo_, no. 526. Pub. in\n  Raoul-Rochette\u2019s _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 263. Discussed by Jahn,\n  _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 59, and referred to by Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._\n  p. 151.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  Fig. 25; pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 277.\n  Described by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 60; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p.\n  79.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  Fig. 26. Heydemann, no. 3221, A. Cf. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 62 and pl.\n  224. 1.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  The Theban Cycle was handled in the \u0398\u03b7\u03b2\u03b1\u0390\u03c2 and the \u039f\u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, from\n  which the tragedians probably drew their material. For the subject in\n  the fifth century B.C. vid. Benndorfs _Heroon von Gj\u00f6lbaschi_, p. 187\n  ff. and pl. 24. A1\u2013A5. Kapaneus\u2019 catastrophe in attempting to storm\n  the walls was often shown. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1889, pl. 11,\n  nos. 13, 14, 16, 17. The death of Amphiaraos was another popular\n  story. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1889, pl. 11. 8. 15. There are\n  many interesting monuments which represent the conference of the\n  chiefs before the assault. Cf. especially the famous Etruscan gem with\n  inscriptions naming Polyneikes, Amphiaraos, Adrastos, Tydeus, and\n  Parthenopaios; pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1889, pl. 11. 5;\n  Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, iii. no. 1839, no. 369 in _Bilderheft_. An\n  Etruscan mirror, Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 178, gives\n  Adrastos, Amphiaraos, and Tydeus.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  Brit. Mus., vase cat. vol. iv. G 104. Pub. _ibid._ pl. 16. Cf. _Class.\n  Review_, 1894, p. 325.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  The fratricide, so common on the Etruscan urns, is rare on Greek\n  monuments. (1) The group was on the Kypselos Chest (Paus. 5. 19, 6).\n  (2) Pythagoras worked the brothers in marble (vid. Overbeck,\n  _Schriftquellen_, no. 501). (3) One group on the Hero\u00f6n from\n  Gj\u00f6lbaschi, cf. Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 24. A. 3. There are thirty\n  urns representing the scene: vid. K\u00f6rte, _I rilievi delle urne\n  etrusche_, ii. pl. 8\u201320, and 36, and supplement. p. 261 ff. Cf.\n  further Overbeck\u2019s _Bildwerke_, pl. 5 and 6. An Etruscan mirror, which\n  shows a composition remarkably like that in the inside of the\n  Penthesileia kylix (Munich, no. 370, pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl.\n  17. 3), and must be from a fifth century pattern, is perhaps the\n  oldest of the extant representations. Vid. Gerhard, _Etruskische\n  Spiegel_, v. pl. 95.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  Brit. Mus., cat. iv. G 105_{1}; pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl\u00e4tter_, 1889,\n  pl. 9. 13; Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 59; first correctly\n  interpreted by Murray, _Class. Rev._ 1888, p. 328.\n\n                          OXFORD: HORACE HART\n                       PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. P. xx, changed \u201cScenen euripideisher Trag\u00f6dien in griechischen\n      Vasengem\u00e4lden\u201d to \u201cScenen euripideischer Trag\u00f6dien in griechischen\n      Vasengem\u00e4lden\u201d.\n 2. P. 128, changed \u201cIn her left close by her side\u201d to \u201cIn her left hand\n      close by her side\u201d.\n 3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.\n 4. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.\n 5. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at\n      the end of the last chapter.\n 6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.\n 7. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript\n      character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in\n      curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.\n 8. Subscripts are denoted by an underscore before a series of\n      subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. H_{2}O.","title":"Greek Tragedy in the Light of Vase Paintings","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":52231}