At this moment the artist conceived his figure, and that one might not
mistake its meaning he wrote above it who the person was and what the
scene meant. Here, then, in this bit of potsherd, one can see and study
the workings of that awful curse which blasted the house of Labdakos and
sent the miserable Oedipus to wander ‘blind amidst the blaze of noon.’
§ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY.
There remains still a number of vase paintings that have been referred
to certain of Euripides’ extant plays. It will be seen that I have not
been able to convince myself of their Euripidean character, and have
therefore not included them in the number of published paintings. The
following list gives the most important vases of this class. No
discussion accompanies them, as they seem to me to present difficulties
that preclude their relation to extant tragedies.
_Alkestis._
1. Etruscan amphora, no. 728 in the _Cabinet des Médailles_, Paris.
Pub. as frontispiece to Dennis’ _Cities and Cemeteries of
Etruria_, vol. ii. = _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, pl. 180. 3.
_Andromache._
1. Amphora, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 155. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Mon.
inéd._ pl. 40. 2; cf. Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ p. 141 f., and
_Arch. Ztg._ 1880, p. 189.
_Elektra._
1. Slender Campanian amphora, Berlin. _Pub. Arch._ Anz. 1890, p. 90,
no. 7; cf. _loc. cit._ The interpretation given explains the
scene as representing Orestes slaying Aigisthos. This was done,
however, not at a sanctuary or in the open, as here, but _in the
palace_ where Aigisthos, Orestes, and Pylades were engaged in
the slaughtering of oxen. At v. 790 they had entered the palace.
_Herakles Furens._
1. The Assteas vase in Madrid. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. B,
pl. 1 = _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. 10; cf. Hirzel, _Annali d. Inst._
1864, p. 323 ff.: Körte, _Ueber Personificationen
psychologischer Affekte_, p. 18 f., and Vogel, _op. cit._ p.
143.
_Hippolytos._
1. Amphora. Attic fabric, _cir._ 420 B.C. Berlin, vid. _Arch. Anz._
1890, p. 89.
2. Lekythos from Paestum, now in Naples, no. 2900. Pub.
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, 41 = _Élite Céram._ iv. 87.
_Ion._
1. Nolan vase in Cassel. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1852, pl. 37; cf.
Furtwängler, _Sammlung Sabouroff, Vasen_, Einleitung, p. 14,
note 12; Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 145.
2. Painting on a fourth cent. krater. Pub. _Élite Céram._ ii. 76 a;
cf. Furtwängler, _op. cit._ p. 14.
3. An Oxybaphon in the Louvre. Pub. _Élite Céram._ ii. 88 a =
Reinach-Millin. _op. cit._ i. 46 = Müller-Wieseler, _Denkmäler
d. a. Kunst._ ii. 142; cf. Furtwängler, _loc. cit._
_Iphigeneia at Aulis._
1. Lucanian krater, Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 159. Pub. Overbeck,
_Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 9 = _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. 5, pl. 9.
3 = Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iii. pl. 251; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._
p. 116.
Euripides’ Lost Plays.
The following list includes most of the paintings referred to the lost
tragedies. Where it has seemed to me doubtful about the Euripidean
character of the scenes I have preferred to omit mention of them
altogether.
_Aiolos._
1. Canosa hydria in Bari. The shoulder decoration only is pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1883, pl. 7. 1; cf. p. 51 ff. and Furtwängler,
_Masterpieces_, p. 109. The latter thinks the painting is from
the fifth cent. B.C. Vid. also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 28 ff.
_Alkmene._
1. Bell-shaped krater, signed by Python now in the Brit. Mus., cat.
iv. F 149. Pub. _J. H. S._ 1890, pl. 6; cf. _ibid._ p. 225 ff.
2. Amphora from Capua. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 193. Pub. _Annali d.
Inst._ 1872, pl. A. Cf. _ibid._ p. 1 ff. On both paintings
Alkmene sitting on an altar appeals to Zeus against Amphitryon.
Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 34.
_Andromeda._
1. Krater from Capua. Berlin, no. 3237. Cf. _Arch. Anz._ 1893, p. 91,
f. no. 50. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 292
ff. and pl. 2; cf. Bethe’s _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des
Theaters im Altertum_, p. 320, 330, and p. 35 above.
2. Amphora from Canosa. Naples, no. 3225. Pub. Minervini, _Memorie
accademiche_, pl. 1–3; cf. Vogel, p. 39.
3. Amphora in Naples, no. 708, _Museo S. Angelo_. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._
ix. 38; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 108 f., and Vogel, _op.
cit._ p. 41.
4. Hydria from Anzi in the Basilicata. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 185; cf.
Vogel, p. 42. C.
_Antigone._
1. Ruvo amphora. Jatta coll. no. 423. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40.
2, and by Heydemann, _Ueber eine nacheuripideische Tragödie_,
1868, pl. 1, and _Mon. d. Inst._ x. 26, 27. Polychrome view of
whole vase on pl. 26 = Rayet et Collignon, _Histoire de la
Céramique grecque_, pl. 12, p. 300.
2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3240. Pub. Gerhard, _Apulische
Vasenbilder_, xi = _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40. 1. Cf. Heydemann,
_op. cit._ and Klügmann, _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 173 ff., and
Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 50 ff.
3. Fragment of Apulian amphora in Carlsruhe; Winnefeld’s _Beschreibung
der Vasensammlung_, p. 62 f. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1884, pl. 19. b =
_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. E. 6. 3. Cf. Winckler in _Aus der
Onomia_, p. 149 ff.
_Antiope._
1. Apulian krater found near Syracuse. Berlin, no. 3296. Pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1878, pl. 7 and 8; cf. _ibid._ p. 42 ff, and Robert, _Bild
und Lied_, p. 36; Vogel, p. 60 f.
_Bellerophon._
1. Ruvo amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 21 = _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter_, ser. viii, pl. 8. 1. Cf. _Annali d. Inst._
1845, p. 227.
_Chrysippos._
1. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 1769. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, 1. 2.
2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3239. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1. 1.
3. An abridgement of the foregoing. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser.
6, II. 2 = Roscher’s _Lexikon_, i. p. 903; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._
p. 137 f.
_Hypsipyle._
1. Lasimos amphora in the Louvre. Pub. Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_,
ii. 37 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 28. 1. Cf. Vogel, p. 98 f.
2. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 3255. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 4.
3 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. p. 114; cf. Vogel, p. 99 f.
3. Ruvo amphora. St. Petersburg, no. 523. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._
pl. 4. 2; cf. Vogel, _loc. cit._
_Meleagros._
1. Apulian amphora. Naples, _Mus. S. Angelo_, no. 11, A. Pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1867, pl. 220.
_Stheneboia._
1. Krater in Naples, No. 1891. Pub. _Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. A.
2. Krater in St. Petersburg, no. 427. Pub. Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ i.
pl. 1–3; cf. Engelmann in _Annali_, 1874, p. 35 f., and Vogel,
_op. cit._ p. 85 f.
_Telephos._
1. Hydria in Naples. Heydemann, _Raccolta Cumana_, no. 141. Pub.
_Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 106.
2. Tischbein, _Vases d’Hamilton_, ii. 6; cf. Jahn, _Telephos und
Troilos_, p. 44, and Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 89 ff.
INDEX
N.B.—All references are to pages.
Accius, 11.
Aischylos, authority of, in Magna Graecia, 55, 66, 81 f.
ἦθος of, 80.
statue of, 6.
_Agam._, 58, 112.
_Choe._, 17, 21, 43 ff., 58.
_Eumen._, 35, 55 ff., scenes of, 69 f.
_Iph._, 12, 23.
_Lykurgeia_, 23, 74.
_Niobe_, 8.
Ὅπλων Κρίσις, 31, note 2.
_Pentheus_, 88, 91.
_Phrygians_, 74.
_Prom._, 27.
_Telephos_, 23.
Andronicus (Livius), 11, 82.
Antiope, myth of, 9.
Assteas, 70, note 1, 179.
Choregos, prize of, 5 f.
Comedy, on vases, 40, note 2.
Dante, influence of on art, 1 ff.
Botticelli’s drawings for, 155.
Dirke, monuments of, 9.
Divinities, on vases, 110.
Ekkyklema, 66 f., 160.
Ennius, 11, 26, 82, 112.
Etruscans, art of, 10 ff., 27, note 6.
Euphronios, 31 f., 157.
Euripides, Aristotle’s criticism of, 79 f.
influence of, 26, 28 f.
πάθος of, 79 f.
_Aiolos_, 179.
_Alexandros_, 12.
_Alkestis_, 7, 16, 27, 178.
_Alkmene_, 14, 179.
_Andromache_, 83, 178.
_Andromeda_, 23, 35, 180.
_Antigone_, 180.
_Antiope_, 9, 13, 26, 180.
_Auge_, 8.
_Bakchai_, 25, 88 ff.
_Bellerophon_, 180.
_Chrysippos_, 180 f.
_Elektra_, 50, 178.
_Hekabe_, 21, 94 ff.
_Herakleidai_, 23.
_Herakles Fur._, 163 f., 179.
_Hippolytos_, 17, 25, 101 ff., 179.
_Hypsipyle_, 181.
_Ion_, 179.
_Iph. A._, 23, 25, 112 ff., 179.
_Iph. T._, 13, 17 f., 25 f., 121 ff.
_Kretes_, 14, 20, 27.
_Kyklops_, 35, 139 ff.
_Medeia_, 13, 19, 23, 144 ff.
_Melanippe_, 14.
_Meleagros_, 14, 20, 26, 181.
_Oedipus_, 13, 19.
_Oinomaos_, 14.
_Philoktetes_, 21.
_Phoin._, 14, 19, 171 ff.
_Rhesos_, 32.
_Stheneboia_, 181.
_Telephos_, 8, 12, 23, 31, 181.
_Theseus_, 14, 24.
_Flugmaschine_, 160.
Homer, 3, 34.
Laokoön, 9 f.
Lyssa, 163, 171.
Niobe, group, 8 f.
Oedipus, banishment of, 177.
Oistros, 162 ff.
Orpheus, relief of, 4 f.
Paeuvius, 12, 82.
Parrhasios, 23 f., 34.
Peirithoös, relief, 4.
Peliades, relief, 4.
Pergamon, frieze, 7.
Polygnotos, 21 f., 95, 110.
Polyxena, 21, 95.
Praxiteles, 6, 9.
Python, 70, note 1.
Seilanion, ‘Iokaste’ of, 7.
Skopas, 9.
Sophokles, influence of, on art, 75 ff.
statue of, 6.
_Antigone_, 75, 77.
_Elektra_, 50.
_Iphigeneia_, 12, 23.
_Lakainai_, 35.
_Laokoön_, 10.
_Mysoi_, 8.
_Niobe_, 8.
_Niptra_, 36, note 3.
_Oed. Rex_, 77.
_Oinomaos_, 14.
_Phaidra_, 101.
_Philoktetes_, 13, 19, 21.
_Polyxene_, 21.
_Trachiniai_, 77.
_Troilos_, 32.
Tarentum, 37 ff., 66, 82.
Timanthes, 23, 25, 34, 113, 140.
Timomachus, 23, 138.
Tragedy, Roman and Greek, 11, 82.
Zeuxis, 24.
-----
Footnote 1:
F.-W. no. 1198; pub. in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, no. 18, and
Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 1121.
Footnote 2:
Benndorf und Schöne, _Die Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums_. no.
92 = F.-W. no. 1200; pub. in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, no. 17.
Footnote 3:
F.-W. no. 1201; pub. in _Museo Torlonia_, pl. 93, no. 377. This is the
youngest of the three, but the original still belongs to the period
just after the completion of the Parthenon.
Footnote 4:
Cf. _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p. 130 ff.
Footnote 5:
Cf. Isaeus v. 41, and Xen. _Hieron_, ix. 4.
Footnote 6:
_Athen. Mitth._ 1878, p. 233; Ἀθήναιον B. vii. p. 93.
Footnote 7:
1. 20. 1.
Footnote 8:
Cf. _C. I. A._ ii. 3, 1298, and _Anth. Pal._ vi. 239.
Footnote 9:
_Loc. cit._
Footnote 10:
1. 21. 1 and 2.
Footnote 11:
Pub. _Athen. Mitth._ 1882, pl. 14; cf. F.-W. no. 1135.
Footnote 12:
Furtwängler, _Sammlung Sabouroff_, p. 31.
Footnote 13:
Cf. F.-W. no. 1843, 1844, and Jahn’s _Archäologische Beiträge_, p. 198
ff.
Footnote 14:
Cf. Overbeck’s _Schriftquellen_, no. 1128.
Footnote 15:
F.-W. no. 1242.
Footnote 16:
I follow Robert. Cf. _Thanatos_, p. 37 ff.
Footnote 17:
Cf. Robert in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 244 ff.
Footnote 18:
F.-W. 1402. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 34.
Footnote 19:
One may distinguish two distinct moments in works of art based upon
the Antiope myth. (1) The two sons of Antiope have the unfortunate
Dirke all but fastened to the bull, which is being held only with the
utmost exertion. (2) The catastrophe ensues. The wild animal is
dragging his victim over the ground. It need not be said that the most
celebrated representation of (1) is the _toro farnese_. For (2), cf. a
wall painting, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1878, pl. 9, _a_ and _b_. The myth
was wonderfully popular and appears on coins, gems, reliefs, &c., all
of which belong to the period when tragic influence predominated in
art. Cf. Dilthey, _Arch. Ztg._ 1878, p. 43 ff. and Jahn, _ibid._,
1853, p. 65–105.
Footnote 20:
F.-W. no. 1422. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 37.
Footnote 21:
Robert, _Bild und Lied_, p. 192 ff., contends against the influence of
Sophokles.
Footnote 22:
Cic. _de opt. gen. orat._ 1. 1.
Footnote 23:
Velleius, 1. 17. 1.
Footnote 24:
The favourite subject was the murder of Troïlos.
Footnote 25:
Brunn, _op. cit._ pl. 1–16; cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des
troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 13 ff.
Footnote 26:
_Poet._ 1453^a. 21.
Footnote 27:
_Op. cit._ pl. 26–34, gives eighteen reliefs.
Footnote 28:
Cf. p. 113 f.
Footnote 29:
Brunn, _op. cit._ pl. 69–72; cf. especially nos. 1, 2 and 3. The
remaining four are not Sophoklean and betray an admixture of different
elements. Odysseus bathes the afflicted foot of Philoktetes on nos. 6
and 7.
Footnote 30:
_Op. cit._ p. 155; cf. pl. 74–83.
Footnote 31:
_Op. cit._ pl. 84–85. The attitude of ‘Iphigeneia’ causes some
difficulty in this interpretation. Cf. her part on the other
monuments.
Footnote 32:
Cf. p. 124 ff. below.
Footnote 33:
Körte, _op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 1. 2.
Footnote 34:
Cf. p. 144 ff.
Footnote 35:
_Op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 4. 1, 2 and 3. and pl. 5. 4.
Footnote 36:
Cf. schol. Eur. _Phoin._ v. 61, and Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, Eur. no. 541,
and _op. cit._ ii. pl. 7. 1.
Footnote 37:
There are twenty-eight in all representing the fratricide, and nine
showing the attack; Körte, _I rilievi d. urne etrusche_, ii. pl. 8 24.
Footnote 38:
_Op. cit._ ii. p. 32 ff.
Footnote 39:
Pl. 26–27.
Footnote 40:
Pl. 28–30.
Footnote 41:
Pl. 31–32.
Footnote 42:
Cf. p. 105 f. below.
Footnote 43:
Pl. 39–40. Three in all.
Footnote 44:
Pl. 41–56.
Footnote 45:
One may think of Soph. _Oinom._, called also _Hippodameia_, and of
Eur. _Oinom._ The latter seems to have been followed by Accius.
Footnote 46:
Pl. 62; cf. also _op. cit._ ii. p. 150 ff.
Footnote 47:
Pl. 100–104.
Footnote 48:
The monumental publication, which is now appearing under the direction
of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute, will, when completed,
place within one’s reach all this immense material. The projected plan
embraces six volumes of which the second has so far appeared: _Die
Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. 1890, edited by Carl Robert. The third
part is to embrace three vols., so that we have in the _Antiken
Sarkophag-Reliefs_, iii. 1897, Carl Robert, only the first vol.
Footnote 49:
Robert, _op. cit._ iii. part i, pl. 6–7. Nos. 22, 23, 24, 26 are all
practically intact and agree closely with each other. Nos. 27–30 are
larger or smaller fragments.
Footnote 50:
Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 9 = Robert, _op. cit._ iii. part i, pl. 7.
32 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. p. 46.
Footnote 51:
P. 101 ff.
Footnote 52:
Robert, _op. cit._ ii. p. 165.
Footnote 53:
Robert, _Die antiken Sark.-Reliefs_, ii. pl. 54, no. 154.
Footnote 54:
Cf. _op. cit._ ii. pl. 54–56, nos 155–166; vid. also p. 67 below.
Footnote 55:
Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 57–59, nos. 167–180, and p. 124 ff. below.
Footnote 56:
P. 145 ff.
Footnote 57:
Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 60, nos. 183, 184, and p. 191 ff.
Footnote 58:
Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 51, no. 139.
Footnote 59:
Pub. by Robert, _Die Pasiphaë-Sarkophag_, 1890, pl. i.; also _op.
cit._ iii. part i, pi. 10. 35, 35^a, 35^b.
Footnote 60:
Cf. Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, no. 472.
Footnote 61:
Cf. Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 917, where the Louvre fragment is
published = Clarac, _Musée de Sculpture_, pl. 201, no. 208. A similar
scene is shown in no. 256.
Footnote 62:
Paus. 1. 22. 6.
Footnote 63:
Cf. p. 94 ff.
Footnote 64:
Cf. schol. Eur. _Hek._ v. 3, and Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, p. 245 ff.
Footnote 65:
_Homerische Becher_, p. 75; but on p. 25 f. of the _Iliupersis des
Polygnot in der Poikile_, Robert refers the picture to Polykleitos on
the strength of the epigram (_Anth. Plan._ 3. 30) by Pollianos. The
question turns on the reading Πολυκλείτοιο, which has generally been
held to be a corruption of Πολυγνώτοιο. But this does not convince me
that Polygnotos might not have painted the work in the Propylaia. It
is by no means necessary to consider the two paintings identical even
if Πολυκλείτοιο must remain.
Footnote 66:
Paus. 10. 25. 2.
Footnote 67:
This was shown by Schneidewin in _Philologus_, 1849, p. 645 ff.
Footnote 68:
Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35. 71.
Footnote 69:
Cf. Overbeck, _Schriftquellen_, 1735–1739, and p. 112 f. below.
Footnote 70:
Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35, 132, and Helbig, _Wandgemälde_, 1183–1203.
Footnote 71:
Pliny, _op. cit._ 35, 136, and Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1189,
1262–1264. The latter is from Herculaneum. Cf. Overbeck,
_Schriftquellen_, 2126–2135, for various epigrams touching this
painting of Timomachus.
Footnote 72:
Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1642. Cf. Reisch, _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p.
127.
Footnote 73:
Pliny, _op. cit._ 35, 144; cf. a Pompeian wall painting, pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1883, pl. 9. 1.
Footnote 74:
Paus. 1. 20. 3.
Footnote 75:
Vid. Dörpfeld and Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 21.
Footnote 76:
Cf. p. 74 below.
Footnote 77:
Cf. Helbig, _op. cit._ Three groups are distinguishable. (1) Nos.
1216–1240, Ariadne forsaken by Theseus. (2) 1222–1232, she mourns in
her solitude. (3) 1233–1240, Dionysos comes to her rescue.
Footnote 78:
Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1242–1247; cf. p. 108, note 1.
Footnote 79:
Cf. Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1304, 1305.
Footnote 80:
Cf. p. 138 below.
Footnote 81:
Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1142, 1143.
Footnote 82:
Especially fine is the painting discovered in the _casa dei Vettii_,
photo. Alinari, no. 12133; cf. _Röm. Mitth_. 1896, p. 50 f.
Footnote 83:
Cf. _Röm. Mitth_. 1896, p. 45 f., and _Arch. Anz_. 1895, p. 121,
photo. Alinari, no. 12134. Pub. _J. H. S._ 1896, p. 151.
Footnote 84:
Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1151–1153. The excavations in 1895 added still
another to those already known. Vid. _Röm. Mitth_. 1896, p. 46, photo.
Alinari, no. 12135. Cf. also _Arch. Ztg_. 1878, pl. 9. _a_ and _b_ for
two others.
Footnote 85:
Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Accius, each wrote an _Andromeda_.
Ennius translated the _Medeia_, and chose over half his pieces from
Euripides.
Footnote 86:
Gerhard’s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 239, and v. pl. 117.
Footnote 87:
_Op. cit._ iv. pl. 354. 2.
Footnote 88:
Gerhard, _op. cit._ iv. 367. 2. Cf. Euripides’ Κρῆτες.
Footnote 89:
_Op. cit._ iv. pl. 401.
Footnote 90:
_Op. cit._ ii. pl. 229 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 1; iv. pl.
390. 2; v. pl. 108.
Footnote 91:
_Op. cit._ v. p. 217.
Footnote 92:
_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. D. pl. 10. 4 and 5 = _op. cit._ ii. pl.
138. 139. Aischylos was the first to chain Prometheus, and all the
monuments representing the giant thus fastened on the cliff are
dependent on the _Prometheus_. Cf. Milchhoefer, in _Berliner
Winckelmannsprogramm_ for 1882.
Footnote 93:
The question as to where and how the Etruscans came to have so wide a
knowledge of Greek poetry will long remain a perplexing one. One thing
seems clear, viz., that the Romans did not serve as any connecting
link between Greece and Etruria. Greek art as well as Greek letters
reached this people direct. It hardly seems probable that translations
of the Greek poets were so extensively made by this practical people,
that the artists could in this manner have had access to so much that
is Euripidean. There is, moreover, a great deal in some of the reliefs
that bespeaks a familiarity with the scenes as actually given in the
theatre. This leads me to think that the wandering troops of actors
had penetrated Etruria also, and introduced the plays of which the
Etruscans made so much in their art.
Footnote 94:
Figs. 12, 16, 27, 28; cf. also note 2, p. 95 f.
Footnote 95:
Vid. Lüders, _Die dionysischen Künstler_, Berlin, 1873.
Footnote 96:
Cf. p. 114 ff.
Footnote 97:
The ‘Megarian Bowls’ have much in common with such later monuments as
the _tabula iliaca_. Cf. Jahn’s _Bilderchroniken_, and Baumeister,
_Denkmäler_, i. no. 775.
Footnote 98:
Jahn, _Telephos und Troilos_, 1841, p. 46 ff., believed that Exekias
was indebted to Euripides’ _Telephos_ for the idea of his
dice-players; cf. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 4, and _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter_, 1888, pl. 6. 1^a. We know now that Exekias must have
lived nearly 100 years before the date of the _Telephos_.
Footnote 99:
Klein in his _Euphronios_, 1886, p. 236 ff., saw in the Iliupersis
kylix, pub. Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. no. 795, the workings of
Aischylos’ Ὅπλον Κρίσις; in the Euphronios kylix, _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter_, ser. v. pl. 6, representing the death of Troïlos, a
connexion was pointed out with Sophokles’ _Troilos_; and the Dolon
kylix, also by Euphronios, cf. _op. cit._ p. 136 f., might be brought
under the _Rhesos_ of Euripides.
Footnote 100:
Note especially the Brygos kylix, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 65; pub.
_Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 46, and _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. viii. 6.
Dionysos stands by his altar over which a satyr springs to grasp Iris.
Others of the tribe make merry. Cf. also Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 768;
pub. _Wiener Vorlegebl._ ser. vii. 4, in the style of Euthymides.
Seilenos in herald’s dress is in the midst of a long train of satyrs.
Footnote 101:
The main scene is published and discussed by Dümmler in _Rheinisches
Museum_, 1888, p. 355 ff.
Footnote 102:
Cf. the Peiraieus frag. pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1880, pl. 16. Other examples
of later styles are included by Reisch, _Griech. Weihgeschenke_, p. 68
ff. Vid. further the list in _Arch. Ztg._ 1880, p. 182 f.
Footnote 103:
Gerhard, _Auser. Vasen_, pl. 56, and Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_, i.
9.
Footnote 104:
Berlin, inv. no. 3237. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, _Jahrbuch_, 1896,
p. 292 ff. and pl. 2; cf. Furtwängler, _Arch. Anz._ 1893, p. 91 f.
Footnote 105:
P. 141 ff.
Footnote 106:
No. 3235, A. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 36; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_,
pl. 24. 19; cf. Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_, p. 152 f.
Footnote 107:
Fig. 8, and p. 63 f.
Footnote 108:
Heydemann’s cat. no. 3240. Pub. Müller-Wieseler, _Theater-gebäude_,
pl. 6. 2; Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. fig. 422.
Footnote 109:
iv. 115–117. Cf. also Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters
im Altertum_, p. 42.
Footnote 110:
The Penelope vase, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. pl. 42 = Baumeister’s
_Denkmäler_, iii. no. 2332, has lately been explained by Robert as
being based on Soph. Νίπτρα. Cf. _Die Marathonschlacht in der
Poikile_, p. 78 ff. If I could accept this view my position would be
very materially strengthened. The Νίπτρα must be set _cir._ 428 B.C.,
and this means that the painting is later than this date. Much as I
should like to bring this important monument into connexion with the
drama, I cannot think of a later date for the vase than 440 B.C.,
which to be sure renders its relation to Sophokles impossible. If,
however, Professor Robert be correct, it shows that there is at least
one vase painting of the fifth century that represents a form of a
myth which belonged to the theatre, and this was not granted in _Bild
und Lied_.
Footnote 111:
Cf. Gardner’s _Types of Greek Coins_, pl. v. nos. 17–20, and
Furtwängler’s _Masterpieces_, p. 105 ff., with the very instructive
collection of Italian and Sicilian coins which shows the Attic
influence in this period.
Footnote 112:
Cf. Mommsen, _Unteritalische Dialekte_, p. 89 ff.
Footnote 113:
_De leg._ 1. 637^c.
Footnote 114:
Dio Cassius, 39. 3. 6.
Footnote 115:
Zonaris, viii. 2. 370, καὶ τὸ θέατρον ἔκλεισε.
Footnote 116:
Cf. figs. 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.
Footnote 117:
The large class of Lower Italy vases that illustrate scenes from
comedy are priceless treasures. They are based on the ‘farce-plays,’
φλύακες τραγικοί—the invention of Rhinthon (vid. _Rhinthonis
Fragmenta_, Halle, dissertation by E. Völker, 1887); cf. especially
Heydemann, _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 260 ff., where all the examples then
known are discussed. Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters
im Altertum_, p. 278–292, handles particularly the interesting
question of the stage represented in the scenes.
Mention should be made also of Körte’s excellent article in the
_Jahrbuch_ for 1893, p. 61–93, on _Archaeologische Studien zur alten
Komödie_.
Footnote 118:
Robert’s conclusion in regard to the literary source of all the
monuments (_Bild und Lied_, p. 149 ff.) is that they go back to the
_Oresteia_ of Stesichoros. This view has been generally accepted by
archaeologists, and met with no opposition till Wilamowitz showed
reason for believing in the existence of a Delphic epic dealing with
this subject. The whole question needs another careful investigation.
Footnote 119:
Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 57. 1 = Roscher’s _Lexikon_, i. p. 1238.
Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ p. 167 ff.
Footnote 120:
Naples, no. 1755, pub. Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, iii. 1939 =
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 14.
Footnote 121:
Fig. 2. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Monuments inédits_, pl. 34. Cf. _ibid._
p. 159 ff.; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 28. 5; cf. text _ibid._, p. 688
ff.; Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ ii. pl. 151.
Footnote 122:
Cf. figs. 14, 15, 23, 24 for the regulation dress of the pedagogue.
Footnote 123:
Cf. note 2, p. 44.
Footnote 124:
Munich coll. Jahn’s cat. no. 814. The figure of Elektra alone together
with the view of the tomb is published by Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ ii.
pl. 154.
Footnote 125:
Pub. Inghirami, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 153.
Footnote 126:
An amphora, no. 544. The painting has not been published so far as I
know, but the similarity it bears to figs. 3 and 4 appeared to me to
render a publication of it here unnecessary.
Footnote 127:
Cf. παρ’ οὐδετέρω κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιία of the Hypothesis.
Footnote 128:
Cf. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29, and Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. inéd._
pl. 35–38.
Footnote 129:
Cat. no. 349; pub. _Compte Rendu_, 1864, pl. 6. 5; cf. Stephani,
_ibid._ p. 252 ff.
Footnote 130:
Cf. a similar figure with the key in figs. 6, 18, 20. In the latter
cases Iphigeneia is the priestess.
Footnote 131:
v. 1061.
Footnote 132:
v. 35.
Footnote 133:
Vid my _Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art_, p. 12 ff., for a
discussion of this passage.
Footnote 134:
So Eur. _Orest._ v. 321; _Elekt._ v. 1345.
Footnote 135:
Naples, no. 3249, photo, Alinari, 11296, from which fig. 6 is taken.
The painting was published by Jahn, _Vasenbilder_, 1839, pl. 1. 1,
from a drawing. Jahn himself had not seen the vase. The drawing does
the fine picture so little justice that I could not think of
reproducing it. The work on the vase is wonderfully clear and strong.
Every figure is in itself a beautiful work of art. The picture
presents an unusual variety of situations that are artistically of
great interest.
Footnote 136:
Cf. also fig. 8.
Footnote 137:
No. 3256. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 4; general view of the
whole vase, Gerhard’s _Apulische Vasen_. pl. A. 6. Another painting, a
late work and wretchedly done, somewhat similar, is published in
_Arch. Ztg._ 1877, pl. 4. 11.
Footnote 138:
Fig. 8. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 7; _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. pl.
48; _Arch. Ztg._ 1860, pl. 138. 2; Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, ii. p.
1117; Rayet et Collignon, _Histoire de la céramique grecque_, p. 297.
Footnote 139:
Vid. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 11, and 12.
Footnote 140:
Cf. vs. 67, 84, 91.
Footnote 141:
This view is maintained by Dörpfeld and Reisch, _Das griechische
Theater_, p. 243 ff. In reply to this vid. Robert in _Hermes_, vol.
32, p. 439 ff. Vid. also Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des
Theaters im Altertum_, pp. 112–116, where this point in the production
of the _Eumenides_ is ably discussed.
Footnote 142:
Cf. this scene on the Sarcophagi reliefs. Robert, _Die antiken
Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. pl. 54–56, nos. 155–161, the right end scene;
also no. 157^1, p. 173.
Footnote 143:
Cf. the ghosts of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra on the end reliefs of the
Sarcophagus, no. 155, _op. cit._
Footnote 144:
_Orest._ 408, 1650; _Tro._ 457; cf. also the relief found near Argos,
pub. _Athen. Mitth._ 1879, pl. 9 = Roscher’s _Lexikon_, i. p. 1330.
Footnote 145:
Wilamowitz, _Aischylos Orestie, Zweites Stück_, 1896, p. 246 ff., has
shown the plausibility of believing in such an epic. The author was a
Delphian.
Footnote 146:
A few fragments remain from the _Oresteia_ of Stesichoros. Cf.
Bergk-Schaefer, _Poetae lyrici graeci_, iii. p. 219 ff.
Footnote 147:
Opinions vary on this point. Three different views are held. (1) The
temple of Athena remains the scene throughout the rest of the play;
the Areiopagos (v. 685) becomes then merely a part of the stage
decorations given by the periaktoi. (2) Between v. 235 and v. 685 the
scene was changed from the Acropolis to the Areiopagos. (3) There is
no scene from v. 235 other than the Areiopagos. The latter seems to me
absolutely untenable. Repeated allusion is made to the temple and to
Orestes clinging to the old image in the δῶμα (v. 242 ff.). Regarding
the first and second, it makes little difference whether the scene was
in fact shifted or whether it was represented on the wings. The
practical working was the same in either case.
Footnote 148:
The present whereabouts of the vase is not known. Pub. Baumeister,
_Denkmäler_, ii. p. 1118; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 9;
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, ii. 68; also as frontispiece to the
4th ed. of Paley’s _Aeschylus_. He disposes of it in a line or two,
and, with the usual accuracy which characterizes philologists when
dealing with matters of archaeology, says the vase is ‘probably nearly
contemporaneous’ with the _Eumenides_ (p. 584). The composition is
remarkably like the Assteas painting, _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. i.
pl. 7. The figures of Apollo and Kadmos, as well as the two Athenas,
have much in common. There is the same roundness and plumpness in the
figures. Furthermore, Assteas was partial to bust figures and never
lost an opportunity to introduce them. The border on the veil of the
female bust of our vase is Campanian, as are also certain other
details. All this brings me to the opinion that Assteas, who was very
likely from Paestum and may have been in touch with Campanian styles
as well, was the painter of our vase. It is at least from the school
of Assteas. A painting by Python (_J. H. S._ 1890, pl. 6), one of the
set of Assteas, exhibits the same treatment of hair and decoration
that is found on the painting, fig. 9.
Footnote 149:
These feathers, for that is what these projections are, can be counted
on dozens of helms belonging to this period. Athena and warriors wear
them alike. Their occurrence before the latter part of the fourth
century B.C. is unknown to me.
Footnote 150:
Cf. Aisch. _Supp._ v. 463.
Footnote 151:
Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1860, pl. 137. 4 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 8.
Footnote 152:
Vid. _Arch. Anz._ 1890, p. 90.
Footnote 153:
It is worth noting that, when viewed both from the artistic in his
plays and the art that was an outgrowth of his plays, Sophokles
occupies the same position as regards Aischylos and Euripides. Cf. my
_Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art_, p. 32 ff.
Footnote 154:
P. 35, note 3, and p. 36, note 3.
Footnote 155:
_Poet._ 1450^a. 25.
Footnote 156:
_Rep._ 8. 568^a.
Footnote 157:
C. 29.
Footnote 158:
Athen. p. 537; cf. Plut. _Alex._ c. 10 and 53.
Footnote 159:
Athen. p. 175.
Footnote 160:
This fact comes out particularly in Polybios; cf. Susemihl,
_Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexanderzeit_, ii. p. 119.
Footnote 161:
_C. I. A._ ii. 973 is the authority for this occurrence in the years
341–39 B.C.
Footnote 162:
6. 3. 5.
Footnote 163:
Cf. _Nem._ 7. v. 49 ff.
Footnote 164:
Vid. Hypothesis: τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα τῶν δευτέρον.
Footnote 165:
Fig. 10; no. 239 in the Jatta catalogue. Pub. _Annali d. Inst._ 1868,
pl. E = Engelmann’s _Atlas zum Homer_, ii. _Odyssee_, pl. 4. 18; cf.
Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 36 ff.
Footnote 166:
Cf. similar figures in figs. 6, 18, 20.
Footnote 167:
The composition is strikingly like that in fig. 18. The two temples
are exact counterparts of each other. The altars likewise and the
Apollo figures have much in common. Most important of all is the fact
that in both pictures the chief persons are denoted by inscriptions.
It should be observed further that both vases are of the same style,
amphoras with volute handles, and both were found in Ruvo. These facts
lead me to believe that one and the same artist may have been the
painter of both works.
Footnote 168:
Cf. figs. 6, 7, 18, 20, 21, 23.
Footnote 169:
The 26th idyll of Theokritos should also be counted with the
_Bakchai_.
Footnote 170:
Suidas s. v. Thespis.
Footnote 171:
But one verse remains, Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, no. 183.
Footnote 172:
A psykter in the Bourguignon coll., Naples; pub. _Jahrbuch_, 1892, pl.
5. The vase belongs to the Epiktetos set, and may be dated _cir._ 500
B.C.
Footnote 173:
The following, given by Hartwig, _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 154 ff., may be
mentioned as supplementing the list in Jahn’s well-known essay,
_Pentheus und die Mainaden_, Kiel, 1841.
(1) Attic pyxis, Louvre; pub. _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 156; date 420–400
B.C.
(2) Kylix in _Museo di Papa Giulio_, Rome, described by Hartwig, _op.
cit._ p. 163, who thinks it may have well been influenced by
Euripides, but he sets the date of the _Bakchai_ at 410 B.C.! I have
not seen the vase nor any publication of it, but should infer from
Hartwig’s description that it is older than the tragedy.
Footnote 174:
Lucanian fabric, no. 807 in Jahn’s cat., pub. Jahn’s _Pentheus und die
Mainaden_, pl. ii. a; Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 5 =
Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. no. 1396.
Footnote 175:
The original shows no trace of the fire that is so prominent in the
publications. There can, however, be no doubt that a _burning_ torch
was meant, if not so painted originally.
Footnote 176:
vs. 954 ff., 1052, 1061 ff.
Footnote 177:
P. 25 above. It should be noted that this is the first example of a
Pentheus scene discovered in Pompeii or Herculaneum.
Footnote 178:
P. 23 above.
Footnote 179:
The episode seems to have been first told in the Ἰλίου Πέρσις of
Arktinos. Polyxena being led by Neoptolemos to the tomb of Achilles
appears on an Attic bl. fig. vase of _cir._ 550 B.C., vid. Berlin cat.
1902; pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 27. 17. Two gems of the severe
style in the Berlin Antiquarium (nos. 489, 490), pub. Overbeck, _op.
cit._ pl. 27. 13 and 14, also represent the sacrifice. The painting in
the Pinakotheke of the Propylaia may have been by Polygnotos (cf. p.
21 above), and if it was, Euripides no doubt had often seen it. This
showed her about to be sacrificed; Paus. 1. 22. 6.
Footnote 180:
‘Megarian Bowls’ is a name applied to a class of small cups decorated
with a band of relief. The ware is red or black, and appears both in
glazed and unglazed form. The largest number of the vases has been
found in Megara, hence the name ‘Megarian.’ As many have been
discovered also in Boeotia and other places, the present terminology
is somewhat misleading. Examples of this ware are to be found in every
large museum in Europe. The British Museum possesses no less than nine
such cups, and fragments from fourteen others (vid. cat. iv. pp.
251–256). The reliefs illustrate mostly scenes from the Theban and
Trojan Cycles. Whether the terra cotta presented a cheap way of
reproducing silver and gold cups, which were highly prized, and served
therefore the place of our casts, or whether the bowls were made from
special moulds and are to be considered independent works of art, is
quite uncertain. The fact that there are in existence three copies of
the same work, each agreeing in every detail with the others, would
seem to point to the former supposition. Robert, who has handled this
set of monuments most thoroughly, distinguishes two classes: (1) the
whole vase is cast from one mould; (2) the reliefs having been made
separately are stamped on the ready bowl. Vid. especially Robert’s
_Homerische Becher_ for the whole question; cf. also p. 27 ff. above.
Footnote 181:
Fig. 12, pub. by Robert, _op. cit._ p. 73 ff.
Footnote 182:
Fig. 13: pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 12; Welcker, _Alte Denkmäler_,
iii. pl. 23. 2; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 28. 2.
Footnote 183:
The first play belonged to the trilogy containing the _Aigeus_ and
_Theseus_, which made up a set of purely Attic interest. It is well
known that Euripides deepened and widened the belief in the Athenian
heroic period.
Footnote 184:
Suidas names an _Hippolytos_ of Lykophron—a poet of Alexandria.
Footnote 185:
The _Phaedra_ seems to have followed the first _Hippolytos_ of
Euripides.
Footnote 186:
Cf. _Met._ 15, vs. 497 ff., and _Heroid._ 4.
Footnote 187:
Cat. iv. F 272, pub. by Braun, _Mon. ed Annali_, 1854, pl. 16;
Engelmann’s _Atlas zum Homer_, ii, _Odyssee_, pl. 15. 93. First
correctly interpreted by Heydemann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, p. 158 ff.; cf.
also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 66 f., and Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p.
62 ff. The vase is Apulian ware. The lower zone represents the
violence of the Centaurs at the marriage of Peirithoös’ daughter,
Laodameia. Theseus and the father are seen rushing to the help of the
bride.
Footnote 188:
The fact that no succession of events, where one person appears more
than once, can be found in Hellenic art, forbids us interpreting this
group as again Phaidra and an attendant. I cannot, however, rid myself
of the feeling that the figure leaning on the _kline_ is not a
servant, but is more in rank with Phaidra. Her rôle is more than that
of the other attendants. This is shown by her attitude and dress. Her
appearance is exactly that required for Phaidra after she had ordered
her attendants to lift her up, remove her veil, and allow her hair to
drop over her shoulders (vs. 198–202).
Footnote 189:
Cf. the part of the pedagogue on the Medeia vase, fig. 23, p. 146.
Footnote 190:
There are, besides, fragments of several other reliefs. For the
literature vid. Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. 65 ff., and Jahn,
_Arch. Beiträge_, p. 300 ff.
Footnote 191:
Cf. vs. 201 ff.
Footnote 192:
Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 5 and 6.
Footnote 193:
Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 1, 2, 3.
Footnote 194:
So on the Constantinople relief, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 100 =
Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, pl. 9. 3; and on the Girgenti sarcophagi;
cf. note 1 above.
Footnote 195:
Clarac, _Musée de Sculpture_, pl. 213, no. 228, and _Mon. d. Inst._
viii. pl. 38. 1 = _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. 5, pl. 12, and
Gerhard, _Antike Bildwerke_, pl. 26.
Footnote 196:
A number of vase paintings interpreted as Phaidra are not included
here since they all admit of a variety of interpretations. Vid. p. 179
below.
Footnote 197:
The remarkable feature in these reliefs that shows non-Euripidean
influence is the letter which the old nurse hands to Hippolytos. This
points to another handling of the myth, where the former confined
herself to a written statement rather than a word of mouth proposal.
Strikingly in harmony with Euripides, however, is the position of the
trophos. She grasps Hippolytos’ elbow—ναὶ πρός δε τῆσδε δεξιᾶς
εὐωλένου (v. 605). Cf. also the Pompeian wall painting, _Mus.
Borbonico_, 8, pl. 52. This and other wall paintings represent the
scene between Hippolytos and the nurse as taking place in the presence
of Phaidra, who sits quite alone.
Footnote 198:
Cf. fig. 15. Cat. vol. iv. F 279; pub. by Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883,
pl. 6; vid. _ibid._ p. 43 ff.
Footnote 199:
Cf. a similar group in fig. 23.
Footnote 200:
The same group of divinities, with the exception of Apollo, occurs on
the Naples amphora, no. 3256, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. 30, and Robert,
_Die Marathonschlacht_, p. 37; Robert calls attention to the fact that
this is an essentially Athenian assembly. Poseidon, Athena, and Pan
were inseparably associated with the Acropolis, the latter, of course,
after the battle of Marathon. The Naples vase represents a battle
between Greeks and barbarians, and according to Robert’s theory is
dependent upon Polygnotos’ painting in the Stoa Poikile. As
participants and spectators the gods occur in the upper section.
Athena, indeed, whirls into line on her chariot. If this ingenious
theory has hit the gist of the matter regarding the Naples painting,
then we may also claim the group of gods on the Hippolytos vase as
peculiarly Athenian. And such would be very appropriate for a picture
that represented an Attic tragedy, whose hero had a cult under the
shadow of the Acropolis.
Footnote 201:
vs. 1199 ff.
Footnote 202:
v. 1214; cf. also Ovid, _Met._ 15. 512, where the bull is described as
having his breast half out of the water.
Footnote 203:
Bk. ii. 4.
Footnote 204:
_Nat. Hist._ 35. 114.
Footnote 205:
Cf. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 2; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 6.
Footnote 206:
Körte, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, ii. pl. 33–36.
Footnote 207:
The urn in the _Brit. Mus._, no. 6, pl. 36, _op. cit._, has two such
figures.
Footnote 208:
So Bergk and Ribbeck.
Footnote 209:
v. 234 ff.
Footnote 210:
Pliny, 35. 73, says of the picture, _oratorum laudibus celebrata_.
Numerous mentions are in fact made of it by the orators. Cf.
especially Cic. _Orat._ 22. 74. Vid. further, Brunn’s _Griech.
Künstler_, ii. p. 82 ff.
Footnote 211:
Discovered April 30, 1825, in the house of the ‘Tragic Poet’; pub.
Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. no. 807 = photo, Alinari, 12027. Vid.
Helbig, _Campanische Wandgemälde_, no. 1304. Here, however, Iphigeneia
is being carried (cf. Aisch. _Agam._ _loc. cit._), while Pliny speaks
of her as _stans_ in Timanthes’ painting.
Footnote 212:
Pub. Baumeister, _op. cit._ i. 806; vid. F.-W. no. 2143.
Footnote 213:
Vid. Michaelis in _Röm. Mitth._ 1893, p. 201 ff.; cf. p. 4 above.
Footnote 214:
Brunn, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, i. pl. 35–47. There are
altogether twenty-six reliefs, of which twenty-one belong to Perugia.
Cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf
etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 60 f.
Footnote 215:
_Op. cit._ p. 81 f., but cf. my remarks on p. 10 ff.
Footnote 216:
Pub. by Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 51.
Footnote 217:
A second in Athens, pub. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 5; a third, on the
authority of Furtwängler (vid. Robert, _loc. cit._), in the Branthegem
coll. in Brussels.
Footnote 218:
So at least one thinks of the case. Agamemnon ought to have been
inside at this moment, shut off from the public gaze. The Greek drama,
however, had to bring outside, before the public as it were, even
those delicate scenes such as the present where the _interior_ of
Agamemnon’s tent should have been the scene.
Footnote 219:
The name occurs six times on the vase, and is always without an N.
This is strong epigraphical evidence that our spelling Klytaim_n_estra
is incorrect.
Footnote 220:
P. 113 f.
Footnote 221:
Vid. p. 179.
Footnote 222:
Cf. Aisch. _Agam._ v. 224 ff.; Eur. _Iph. T._ v. 8 and 360; _Iph. A._
v. 873, 875, 935, 1177, are hardly to be taken in the literal sense.
Footnote 223:
_Elekt._ v. 157 and schol.
Footnote 224:
Cf. Proklos in Argum. to _Kypria_.
Footnote 225:
Frag. 123, and Paus. 1. 43. 1.
Footnote 226:
Bk. iv, ch. 103, and Paus. _loc. cit._
Footnote 227:
Vid. Suidas s.v.
Footnote 228:
1456^a. 6; 1453^b. 11.
Footnote 229:
Ribbeck, _Die römische Tragödie_, p. 50.
Footnote 230:
Ribbeck thinks of Naevius.
Footnote 231:
For these last two scenes as well as the others, vid. Robert, _Die
antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, vol. ii. pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177
ff.
Footnote 232:
Fig. 17, from Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. inéd._ pl. 41. Heydemann, _cat.
Santangelo_, no. 24; cf. Trendelenburg in _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p.
114.
Footnote 233:
Vid. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 157^b, 168, 171.
Footnote 234:
A wall painting from Herculaneum, pub. _Pitture di Ercolano_, i. pl.
12; Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 9; cf. Helbig, _Campanische
Wandgemälde_, no. 1334. Another painting from Pompeii is published in
_Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 13; for the same on pastes and gems cf.
Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30, and Furtwängler’s _Beschreibung der
geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium_ (Berlin), nos. 791 ff.
Footnote 235:
Fig. 18 from a Ruvo amphora in Naples. Heydemann, no. 3223. Pub. _Mon.
d. Inst._ ii. pl. 43; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 4. Vid. _Annali
d. Inst._ vol. ix. p. 198 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 137; Vogel,
_Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 70 ff.
Footnote 236:
Cf. v. 1463, where the poet says Iphigeneia is to be κλῃδοῦχος for the
Brauronian Artemis. In Aisch. _Supp._, also, Io is spoken of as at one
time κλῃδοῦχος ἥρας. Cf. v. 291.
Footnote 237:
Cf. the monuments in Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30, that represent
this scene; and the central group on the front side of the Munich
sarcophagus, _op. cit._ no. 167.
Footnote 238:
Artemis sits on an altar in fig. 21, as do Orestes and Pylades on an
Etruscan mirror; vid. Gerhard’s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. 239, and v.
117. Neoptolemos jumps upon the βωμός in the _Andromache_ (v. 1123) to
avoid his foes. Cf. fig. 10, p. 84.
Footnote 239:
Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 177 and 178, the Berlin and Weimar
Sarcophagi, and no. 180, a fragment in the court of the Palazzo
Mattei. Robert properly refers to the next following moment when
Orestes and Pylades are left alone with the chorus, Iphigeneia having
gone inside to bring the letter. In order to obtain just the
sarcophagi scenes we have but to allow Iphigeneia to withdraw after
the close of her speech, v. 642.
Footnote 240:
Robert, _op. cit._ pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._
1875, p. 134 ff.
Footnote 241:
The two wall paintings published by Overbeck, _Bildwerke_. pl. 30,
nos. 31 and 14, and interpreted as representing this same moment, have
since been explained by Petersen, _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, p. 113 ff., as
belonging to the _Alkestis_. While the former view has been generally
given up, the latter has not by any means been everywhere accepted. It
is, at most, probable.
Footnote 242:
Fig. 19, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1849, pl. 12 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30.
7 = _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. pl. 51. Vid. also under ‘Iphigeneia’ in
Baumeister, and Roscher. Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 72 ff., and _Arch.
Ztg._ 1875 p. 136.
Footnote 243:
Fig. 20, no. 420, in the cat. of the Hermitage, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._
vi. pl. 66; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1862, p. 116 ff., and Stephani in
_Compte Rendu_, 1863, p. 159 ff.
Footnote 244:
_Compte Rendu_, _loc. cit._
Footnote 245:
Fig. 21; pub. in the _Bullettino archeologico Napolitano_, 1862, pl.
7, and in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, pl. 13. 1. Cf. also Vogel, _op.
cit._ p. 74 ff.
Footnote 246:
P. 124.
Footnote 247:
Cf., however, Laborde’s _Vases Lamberg_, i. p. 14, also _Annali d.
Inst._ 1848, pl. L, and Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 8, for a vase
which probably shows the escape with the idol. It is not certain, but
this seems to be what is represented. The work is very ordinary.
Footnote 248:
Helbig, no. 1333, pub. in _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. pl. 22; photo,
Alinari, no. 12029. Cf. Helbig, _Untersuchungen über die Campanische
Wandmalerei_, p. 147 ff.
Footnote 249:
_Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 144.
Footnote 250:
_Loc. cit._
Footnote 251:
Vid. _Röm. Mitth._ 1896, p. 67.
Footnote 252:
We know of such an original, the famous painting of Timomachus. Pliny,
_Hist. Nat._ 35. 136, says, _Timomachus Byzantius Caesaris dictatoris
aetate Aiacem et Medeam pinxit_ ... TIMOMACHI AEQUE LAUDANTUR ORESTES,
IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS. Further than this we know nothing of the painter.
That he was immensely popular follows from Pliny’s statement (_loc.
cit._) that Caesar paid 80 talents for this Aiax. In regard to the
date of Timomachus we possess Pliny’s authority for _Caesaris aetate_.
Robert defends this (_Arch. Märchen_, p. 132), while others seek to
find an earlier date. Miss Sellers in _The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on
the History of Art_, Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 160 f., argues for the
fourth century B.C. Vid. _loc. cit._ for the latest discussion of this
painter’s date, as well as for references to the literature. Further
reference may be made to Helbig, _Untersuchungen_, p. 147 ff., where
especially the influence of Timomachus on the wall paintings is dwelt
upon.
Footnote 253:
Cf. Arist. _Poet._ 1449^a. 19 and 20.
Footnote 254:
Miss Harrison, _J. H. S._ 1883, p. 248 ff., has brought together and
discussed thirteen vases connected with this myth, of which the first
twelve are bl. fig.
Footnote 255:
v. 99, Odysseus says he thinks they have dropped down on a city of
Bromios, so many are the satyrs whom he sees before the cave.
Footnote 256:
P. 23.
Footnote 257:
Pliny 35, 74. A _Cyclops dormiens_ so large that a number of satyrs
were engaged in measuring his thumb with a thyrsos. I follow Robert
(_Bild und Lied_, p. 35) and Winter (_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 272) in
connecting this painting with Euripides.
Footnote 258:
The painting is on a krater in the possession of Sir Francis Cook,
Richmond, England; pub. by Winter, _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 6. He thinks
the work Attic, but Furtwängler (_Masterpieces_, p. 109, note 8) is
sure it is Lower Italy ware.
Footnote 259:
The three eyes are plainly visible. One huge eye alone in the centre
of the forehead belongs to later times.
Footnote 260:
Furtwängler, _loc. cit._, remarks that the publication is not exactly
correct, as fire is plainly noticeable on the wood that the youths are
contributing.
Footnote 261:
Polyphemos here is strikingly like the figure on an Etruscan urn.
Brunn, _I rilievi_, i. pl. 873. The Kyklops is in both cases stretched
out upon his left side, and is on the point of being attacked.
Footnote 262:
The poet mentions the krater, and in the next breath the skyphos,
neither of which is exactly found in the rough sketch in the painting.
Besides these, Euripides names in this play the kylix, amphora, and
pithos—a considerable vocabulary of ceramic terms.
Footnote 263:
My remark applies only to the extant monuments, for one finds that
Pausanias saw the marriage of Jason and Medeia represented on the
Kypselos Chest (5. 18. 3). This is in keeping with the Corinthian
origin of the Chest. It is hardly to be expected that such domestic
events in Medeia’s career would have found their place in any work of
art that was not made in Corinth, or at least in a place essentially
influenced by Corinthian legend.
Footnote 264:
Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 58.
Footnote 265:
Benndorf und Schöne, _Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen
Museums_, p. 61 ff.; F.-W. no. 1200. The Berlin copy of this relief,
long supposed to be of Renaissance origin, has lately been proved to
be antique; vid. Kekulé von Stradonitz in _Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 96 ff.
Footnote 266:
Cf. Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. p. 142; ii. p. 875; iii. p. 1852.
Footnote 267:
Kekulé’s _Die antiken Terracotten_, ii. p. 21.
Footnote 268:
Vid. Roscher’s _Lexikon_, ii. p. 2513.
Footnote 269:
Robert in _Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. p. 205–217, gives all
the literature; cf. also pl. 62–65. Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1866, p. 234
ff.; _Annali d. Inst._ 1869, p. 5 ff.; Urlichs’ _Würzburger Programm,
ein Medea-Sarkophag_, 1888. (This fine sarcophagus is now in the
Berlin museum.) Robert and Urlichs have, to my mind, shown
conclusively that these reliefs go back to Euripides’ _Medeia_ for
their literary source. Notwithstanding that they all date from about
the second century A.D., and could thus be based on various Roman
plays, the arrangement of the events on the reliefs bears a remarkable
similarity to the scenes in Euripides. The reliefs on the long sides
are taken up with exactly the scenes of the Greek poet. Those on the
ends are but indifferently worked out, and often do not represent any
events in the Medeia-Jason adventures.
Footnote 270:
A half-tone reproduction of the vase is shown in the _frontispiece_.
The section with the painting is given separately in fig. 23. It is
no. 810 in Jahn’s catalogue; pub. in Millin’s _Tombeaux de Canose_,
1816, pl. 7; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 3; _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser.
i. pl. 12; Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 903; Roscher’s _Lexikon_,
ii. p. 2510; Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iv. pl. 388; Engelmann,
_Bilderatlas zu Ovid_, pl. 13, 81. Discussed by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._
1847, p. 33 ff.; _ibid._ (by Dilthey) 1875, p. 68 f.; Robert, _Bild
und Lied_, p. 37 ff., and _Hermes_, vol. 30, p. 567 note; Körte,
_Ueber Personificationen psychologischer Affecte_, p. 38 ff.; Vogel,
_Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 146 ff.; Seeliger in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, _loc.
cit._; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_,
p. 148, note 6.
Footnote 271:
The latter name is found in schol. Eur. _Med._ v. 19, and in Hyginus.
_fab._ 25.
Footnote 272:
Diod. Sic. iv. 55. 5, calls Kreusa’s brother Hippotes.
Footnote 273:
The reading Κ ... ΩΝ in Millin’s publication, followed also by Conze
in the _Vorlegeblätter_ and by Baumeister, is incorrect as Jahn (vid.
cat. no. 810, note) expressly stated, and as is plainly proved by a
glance at the original. Hence the useless conjectures that have been
made to fill up the space between the first and last letters. There is
absolutely no trace of the Κ, but there are faint remains of letters
preceding ΩΝ, and the correct reading is without question, ΚΡΕ]ΩΝ.
Footnote 274:
Cf. p. 152, and note 3.
Footnote 275:
This inscription, which is very distinct, does not appear in Conze’s
publication. All the inscriptions occurring on the palace are painted
in white. All others are incised.
Footnote 276:
This moment is shown on another vase (vid. fig. 24), and so, too, on
the sarcophagi Kreusa is always represented in the moment of falling
or springing from the κλίνη.
Footnote 277:
In spite of this, Vogel, p. 149, asks, _Warum zeigt uns der Vasenmaler
den Kreon nicht in dem Augenblicke, wo er seine Tochter von den
unheilvollen Brautgeschenken der Medeia befreien will, sondern in dem,
wo er überwältigt von dem Unglücke das Scepter seinen Händen entfallen
lässt und starr und seiner selbst nicht mehr mächtig seine Blicke auf
die herbeieilende Merope lenkt?_ i. e. why did the vase painter not
paint another scene instead of the one he did?
Footnote 278:
Cf. note 7, p. 145. On fragment no. 197, Robert, _op. cit._, the arms
of Kreon are incorrectly restored, and his hands are represented as
clasped. On all the reliefs Kreon is turned towards Kreusa and not
away, as on the vase. I refuse, however, to believe with Jahn and
others that Kreon is staring at Merope. He sees nothing and nobody.
Footnote 279:
Apollod. I. 9. 3.
Footnote 280:
Soph. _Oed. Rex_, v. 775, the wife of Πόλυβος Κορίνθιος.
Footnote 281:
Supposing the word to be a pure invention of the painter, there are
still in Euripides suggestions of the name if one were seeking such
for the figure. In v. 404, Medeia declares she ‘will not be a
laughing-stock to the race of _Sisyphos_ and Jason’s new alliances’;
and in v. 1381, γη δε τηδε Σισύφου, the former queens would be
suggested with the name Merope. It is but natural that the vase
painter took the name thus suggested by Euripides.
Footnote 282:
P. 149.
Footnote 283:
Suidas refers to a _Medeia_ by Neophron. Ennius’ _Medea_ was,
according to Cicero, _De Fin._ 1. 2. 4, a literal translation from
Euripides. The _Medea exul_ by the same poet has generally been held
to be a version of Euripides’ _Aigeus_.
Footnote 284:
_Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 567 note.
Footnote 285:
_Bild und Lied_, p. 42.
Footnote 286:
_Zeichnungen von Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes Goettlicher Komoedie nach
den Originalen im König. Kupferstichkabinet zu Berlin_, von Dr. F.
Lippmann.
Footnote 287:
In _canto_ iii, Charon is an old man; Botticelli drew him as the
devil. In the second plate to this same _canto_ the souls are swimming
out to Charon’s boat, a fact which Dante does not mention. The
illustration to _canto_ xx has only two persons identical with those
of the poet, and in _Purgatorio_ iii the souls on the shore and in the
boat are additions of the artist.
Footnote 288:
Cf. Dilthey in _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 294, and pl. 35 in _Mon. d.
Inst._ x.
Footnote 289:
Vid. Klein’s _Euphronios_, p. 89, and Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Her.
Fur._ vol. ii, ed. 1, p. 214.
Footnote 290:
Cf. fig. 24, where the female figure on the left is none other than a
nurse.
Footnote 291:
_Bild und Lied_, p. 38.
Footnote 292:
Cf. figs. 24 and 25 and Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. p. 142.
Footnote 293:
It will be observed that the writer does not share the view of Bethe,
_Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_, p. 142 ff.,
that the _Flugmaschine_ was not in use in the Greek theatre before 425
B.C. Robert, _Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 530–577, has conclusively shown the
incorrectness of Bethe’s arguments, and not only proved the use of the
_Flugmaschine_ for the _Medeia_, 431 B.C., but also for a much earlier
date. Bethe’s remark, _Demnach ist für die erste Aufführung der Medea
im Jahre 431 ihr Erscheinen in der Höhe, also auch die Anwendung der
Flugmaschine, nicht möglich_ (p. 146), is based upon a false
conception of the resources at hand in that period of Athenian
architectural activity.
Footnote 294:
It has already been pointed out above, p. 159, that Medeia entered the
palace to slay the boys, and that they might or might not have been
alone. At any rate it was not allowable to represent them in art
without some older companion. Robert’s remark, _Bild und Lied_, p. 39,
_Den Kindern die bereits bei der Mutter angelangt sind, muss aber
jetzt noch ein anderer Begleiter zugestellt werden_, is inexplicable.
Where had the children gone to reach their mother? Was it not just the
reverse, viz. that the mother had gone to them?
Footnote 295:
iv. 54. 7.
Footnote 296:
One must remember that Diodorus gathered his excerpts together at
least 300 years after the date of our vase, during all of which time
the mythographers had been busy helping to straighten out the family
affairs that the tragedians of the fifth century had treated
imperfectly!
Footnote 297:
As a matter of fact this reference, although brought in under another
φασί than the first remark, where three sons are named, τοὺς μὲν
πρεσβυτάτους δίο διδύμους Θετταλόν τε καὶ Ἀλκιμένην, τὸν δὲ τρίτον
πολυνεώτερον τούτων Τίσανδρον, iv. 54. 1, seems to me to speak of a
common origin, and I hold both as coming from the same authority,
under whose influence our vase painter certainly never stood.
Footnote 298:
Eur. _Orest._ v. 791.
Footnote 299:
As in the _Medeia_, nothing is said to indicate how the chariot was
drawn. It is only from the monuments and later literary references
(vid. Argum. to the _Medeia_ and schol. on v. 1320) that one learns of
the dragons; or is the utterance of Jason, vs. 1297 f., ἢ πτηνὸν ἆραι
σῶμ’ ες αἰθέρος βάθος | εἰ μὴ τυράννων δώμασιν δώσειν δίκην | πέποιθ’,
an intimation of the strange escape of the sorceress? How was Lyssa’s
chariot drawn? Why not also by dragons?
Footnote 300:
Cf. fig. 26, where the figure that stands beside the dragons has been
identified as Οἶστρος or Λύσσα. That the latter is the child of night
harmonizes well with the night escape indicated by Selene and the
stars on this vase.
Footnote 301:
On a vase of Assteas, vid. p. 179 below, which shows Herakles in the
act of murdering his sons, the painter calls the personification of
Lyssa, _mania_.
Footnote 302:
Mention should be made here of the Parian inscription, which gives us
the curious information that there was a society of _hetairai_
established under the patronage of the goddess Οἰστρώ; cf. Pernice,
_Athen. Mitth._ 1893, p. 16. 2, and Maass, _ibid._ p. 25 f. There is,
of course, a wide distinction between the personification and the cult
use of οἶστρος, but it is worth while to point out that Eur. _Hipp._
vs. 1300 ff., gives the same notion that Maass suggests and supports
by a quotation from Paullus Silentiarius (_Anth. Plan._ v. 234), where
οἰστροφόρου Παφίης occurs. Artemis, speaking to Theseus of Hippolytos’
death and its cause, says, ἀλλ’ ἐς τόδ’ ἦλθον, παιδὸς ἐκδεῖξαι φρένα |
τοῦ σοῦ δικαίαν, ὁς ὑπ’ εὐκλείας θάνῃ | καὶ σῦς γυναικὸς οἶστρον, ἢ
τρόπον τινὰ | γενναιότητα, where we may suppose Euripides to have
thought of Phaidra as possessed with οἶστρος, which means τῆς ἐχθίστης
θεῶν (v. 1301), i.e. τῆς Κύπριδος (v. 1304).
Footnote 303:
Cf. Aisch. _Pers._ vs. 681–842, where the εἴδωλον of Dareios is one of
the _dramatis personae_. Also Eur. _Hek._, where the prologue is
spoken by the εἴδωλον of Polydoros.
Footnote 304:
Dilthey, _Arch._ 219, 1875, p. 71, followed also by Vogel, _Scen. eur.
Trag._ p. 151. How do these scholars account for the appearance of
Megara and her sons upon the ‘under-world’ vases where Herakles is
also represented in his last labour of capturing Kerberos? This latter
must have been finished and Herakles must have returned to the upper
world before Megara and the boys _could be thought of as in fact in
the under-world_.
Footnote 305:
_Bild und Lied_, p. 39 f.
Footnote 306:
P. 156 above.
Footnote 307:
Cp. among other places in the _Medeia_, vs. 133, 328, 405, 475 ff.,
536 ff., 550, 1330.
Footnote 308:
Cf. the Dareios vase in Naples, also found in Canosa; pub.
Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. no. 449; also the costume of the judges
on the so-called ‘under-world’ vases, pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_,
ser. E. 1–3.
Footnote 309:
Apoll. Rhod. 1. 122 and 341 ff.; Hyg. _fab._ 14; Diod. Sic. iv. 53. 4.
Footnote 310:
Apoll. Rhod. 1. 108 ff.; Apollod. 1. 9. 16; Hyg. _fab._ 14.
Footnote 311:
Apoll. Rhod. 1. 146 ff.; Paus., 1. 18. 1, relates that in the temple
of the Dioskouroi in Athens, known also as the Anakeion, Mikon painted
events from the Argonautic expedition.
Footnote 312:
Fig. 24. Heydemann, _cat. Mus. Santangelo_, no. 526. Pub. in
Raoul-Rochette’s _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 263. Discussed by Jahn,
_Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 59, and referred to by Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._
p. 151.
Footnote 313:
Fig. 25; pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 277.
Described by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 60; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p.
79.
Footnote 314:
Fig. 26. Heydemann, no. 3221, A. Cf. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 62 and pl.
224. 1.
Footnote 315:
The Theban Cycle was handled in the Θηβαΐς and the Οἰδιπόδεια, from
which the tragedians probably drew their material. For the subject in
the fifth century B.C. vid. Benndorfs _Heroon von Gjölbaschi_, p. 187
ff. and pl. 24. A1–A5. Kapaneus’ catastrophe in attempting to storm
the walls was often shown. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11,
nos. 13, 14, 16, 17. The death of Amphiaraos was another popular
story. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11. 8. 15. There are
many interesting monuments which represent the conference of the
chiefs before the assault. Cf. especially the famous Etruscan gem with
inscriptions naming Polyneikes, Amphiaraos, Adrastos, Tydeus, and
Parthenopaios; pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11. 5;
Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, iii. no. 1839, no. 369 in _Bilderheft_. An
Etruscan mirror, Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 178, gives
Adrastos, Amphiaraos, and Tydeus.
Footnote 316:
Brit. Mus., vase cat. vol. iv. G 104. Pub. _ibid._ pl. 16. Cf. _Class.
Review_, 1894, p. 325.
Footnote 317:
The fratricide, so common on the Etruscan urns, is rare on Greek
monuments. (1) The group was on the Kypselos Chest (Paus. 5. 19, 6).
(2) Pythagoras worked the brothers in marble (vid. Overbeck,
_Schriftquellen_, no. 501). (3) One group on the Heroön from
Gjölbaschi, cf. Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 24. A. 3. There are thirty
urns representing the scene: vid. Körte, _I rilievi delle urne
etrusche_, ii. pl. 8–20, and 36, and supplement. p. 261 ff. Cf.
further Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 5 and 6. An Etruscan mirror, which
shows a composition remarkably like that in the inside of the
Penthesileia kylix (Munich, no. 370, pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl.
17. 3), and must be from a fifth century pattern, is perhaps the
oldest of the extant representations. Vid. Gerhard, _Etruskische
Spiegel_, v. pl. 95.
Footnote 318:
Brit. Mus., cat. iv. G 105_{1}; pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889,
pl. 9. 13; Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 59; first correctly
interpreted by Murray, _Class. Rev._ 1888, p. 328.
OXFORD: HORACE HART
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. P. xx, changed “Scenen euripideisher Tragödien in griechischen
Vasengemälden” to “Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen
Vasengemälden”.
2. P. 128, changed “In her left close by her side” to “In her left hand
close by her side”.
3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
4. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.
5. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at
the end of the last chapter.
6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
7. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript
character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in
curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}.
8. Subscripts are denoted by an underscore before a series of
subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. H_{2}O.