CHAPTER XI_History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2)

_WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_

Origin and character of white-ground painting—Outline

drawing and polychromy—Funeral lekythi—Subjects and

types—Decadence of Greek vase-painting—Rise of new

centres—Kertch, Cyrenaica, and Southern

Italy—Characteristics of the latter

fabrics—Shapes—Draughtsmanship—Influence of Tragedy and

Comedy—Subjects—Paestum fabric—Lucanian, Campanian, and

Apulian fabrics—Gnathia vases—Vases modelled in form of

figures—Imitations of metal—Vases with reliefs—“Megarian”

bowls—Bolsena ware and Calene phialae 454–504

LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I

(_Except where otherwise noted the objects are in the British Museum_)

PLATE

I. Kylix signed by Duris: Labours of Theseus

(_colours_) Frontispiece

TO FACE PAGE

II. Archaic terracotta antefixes 98

III. Restoration of temple at Civita Lavinia 100

IV. Greek lamps and “brazier-handles” 106

V. Moulds for terracotta figures 114

VI. Terracotta vases from Southern Italy 118

VII. “Melian” reliefs 120

VIII. Archaic terracotta figures 122

IX. Terracotta figures of fine style 124

X. Porcelain and enamelled wares 128

XI. Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery 242

XII. Mycenaean vases found in Cyprus 246

XIII. Cypriote “Graeco-Phoenician” pottery 252

XIV. Example of Kamaraes ware from Palaiokastro,

Crete (from _Brit. School Annual_) 266

XV. Mycenaean vases (_colours_) 272

XVI. Subjects from the Aristonoös krater in the

Vatican (from _Wiener Vorl._) 296

XVII. Phaleron, Boeotian, and Photo-Corinthian vases 300

XVIII. Melian amphora in Athens (from Conze) 302

XIX. Proto-Corinthian and Early Corinthian vases 308

XX. Corinthian pyxis and Rhodian oinochoë

(_colours_) 312

XXI. Later Corinthian vases with figure subjects 316

XXII. Chalcidian vase in Bibl. Nat., Paris: Herakles

and Geryon; chariot 320

XXIII. “Tyrrhenian” Amphora: The death of Polyxena 324

XXIV. Rhodian and Naucratite wares 336

XXV. Situla from Daphnae; later Ionic vase in South

Kensington 352

XXVI. Caeretan hydria (_colours_) 354

XXVII. Painted sarcophagus from Clazomenae 364

XXVIII. The François vase in Florence, general view

(from Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._) 370

XXIX. Attic black-figured amphorae 380

XXX. Vases by Nikosthenes 384

XXXI. Obverse of vase by Andokides: Warriors playing

draughts (B.F.) 386

XXXII. Reverse of vase by Andokides: Herakles and the

Nemean lion (R.F.) 386

XXXIII. Panathenaic amphora, earlier style 388

XXXIV. Panathenaic amphora, later style 390

XXXV. Vases with opaque figures on black ground (Brit.

Mus. and Louvre) 394

XXXVI. Red-figured “Nolan” amphorae and lekythos 412

XXXVII. Cups of Epictetan style 422

XXXVIII. Kylix at Munich signed by Euphronios: Herakles

and Geryon (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 432

XXXIX. Kylikes by Duris at Berlin and in the style of

Brygos at Corneto (from Baumeister) 436

XL. Vases signed by Sotades (Brit. Mus. and Boston) 444

XLI. Hydria signed by Meidias 446

XLII. Vases of “late fine” style (_colours_) 448

XLIII. Polychrome white-ground vases (_colours_) 456

XLIV. Campanian and Apulian vases 484

XLV. Apulian sepulchral vase (colours) 486

XLVI. Vases modelled in various forms 492

XLVII. Archaic vase in Athens with reliefs (from

Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική) 496

XLVIII. Vases of black ware with reliefs (Hellenistic

period) 500

LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN

VOLUME I

FIG. PAGE

1. Coffin containing vases, from _Stackelberg_

Athens 34

2. Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus _Ath. Mitth._ 35

3. Tomb at Gela (Sicily) with _Ashmol. Vases_

vases 37

4. Campana tomb at Veii _Campana_ 39

5. Map of Greece 47

6. Map of Asia Minor and the

Archipelago 63

7. Map of Cyprus 66

8. Map of Italy 70

9. Diagram of roof-tiling, _Durm_

Heraion, Olympia 93

10. Antefix from Marathon _Brit. Mus._ 99

11. Inscribed tiles from Acarnania _Brit. Mus._

and Corfu 102

12. Ostrakon of Megakles _Benndorf_ 103

13. Ostrakon of Xanthippos _Jahrbuch_ 103

14. Hemikotylion from Kythera _Brit. Mus._ 135

15. Child playing with jug _Brit. Mus._ 137

16. Dedication to Apollo _Brit. Mus._

(Naukratis) 139

17. Youth with votive tablet _Benndorf_ 140

18. Vases used in sacrifice _Furtwaengler and

Reichhold_ 141

19. Funeral lekythos with vases _Brit. Mus._

inside tomb 143

20. Vases placed on tomb (Lucanian _Brit. Mus._

hydria) 144

21. Pithos from Knossos 152

22. Greek wine-jars _Brit. Mus._ 154

23. Amphora-stamps from Rhodes _Dumont._ 156

24. Amphora-stamps from Thasos _Dumont._ 158

25. “Tyrrhenian” amphora 160

26. Panathenaic amphora 160

27. Panel-amphora 161

28. Red-bodied amphora 161

29. “Nolan” amphora 162

30. Apulian amphora 162

31. “Pelike” 163

32. Stamnos 164

33. “Lekane” 164

34. Hydria 166

35. Kalpis 166

36. Krater with column-handles 169

37. Volute-handled krater 170

38. Calyx-krater 170

39. Bell-krater 170

40. Lucanian krater 172

41. Psykter 173

42. Deinos or lebes 173

43. Oinochoë (7th century) 177

44. Oinochoë (5th century) 177

45. Prochoös 178

46. Olpe 178

47. Epichysis 179

48. Kyathos 179

49. Kotyle 184

50. Kantharos 188

51. Kylix (earlier form) 190

52. Kylix (later form) 191

53. Phiale 191

54. Rhyton 193

55. Pinax 194

56. Lekythos 196

57. Lekythos (later form) 196

58. Alabastron 197

59. Aryballos 197

60. Pyxis 198

61. Epinetron or Onos 199

62. Askos 200

63. Apulian askos 200

64. Guttus 200

65. Potter’s wheel, from _Ant. Denkm._

Corinthian pinakes 207

66. Potter’s wheel (vase of about _Ath. Mitth._

500 B.C.) 208

67. Boy polishing vase; interior _Blümner_

of pottery 213

68. Seilenos as potter 216

69. Interior of furnace _Ant. Denkm._

(Corinthian pinax) 217

70. Interior of pottery _Ath. Mitth._ 218

71. Red-figured fragment,

incomplete 222

72. Studio of vase-painter _Blümner_ 223

73. Vase-painter varnishing cup _Jahrbuch_ 227

74. Vase-painter using feather- _Jahrbuch_

brush 228

75. Cypriote jug with concentric _Brit. Mus._

circles 251

76. Cypriote vase from Ormidhia _Baumeister_ 254

77. “Owl-vase” from Troy _Schliemann_ 258

78. Deep cup from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

79. Vase in form of pig from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

80. Double-necked vase from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

81. Vases from Thera _Baumeister_ 261

82. Mycenaean vases with marine _Brit. Mus._

subjects 273

83. Ornamentation on Geometrical _Perrot_

vases 283

84. Geometrical vase with panels _Brit. Mus._ 284

85. Boeotian Geometrical vases _Jahrbuch_ 288

86. Coffer from Thebes (Boeotian _Jahrbuch_

Geometrical) 289

87. Burgon lebes _Brit. Mus._ 296

88. Warrior vase from Mycenae _Schliemann_ 297

89. Proto-Attic vase from Vourva _Ath. Mitth._ 299

90. The Dodwell pyxis (cover) _Baumeister_ 316

91. Vases of Samian or “Fikellura” _Brit. Mus._

style 337

92. The Arkesilaos cup (Bibl. _Baumeister_

Nat.) 342

93. Cyrenaic cup with Kyrene _Brit. Mus._ 344

94. Naukratis fragment with “mixed _Brit. Mus._

technique” 346

95. “Egyptian situla” from Daphnae _Brit. Mus._ 351

96. Kylix by Exekias _Wiener Vorl._ 381

97. Vase by Amasis: Perseus _Brit. Mus._

slaying Medusa 382

98. Vase from Temple of Kabeiri _Brit. Mus._ 392

99. Diagram of rendering of eye on _Brit. Mus. Cat._

Attic vase 408

100. Palmettes under handles (early _Jahrbuch_

R.F.) 414

101. Palmettes under handles (later _Riegl_

R.F.) 415

102. Development of maeander and _Brit. Mus. Cat._

cross pattern 416

103. Krater of Polygnotan style: _Mon. dell’ Inst._

Slaying of Niobids (Louvre) 442

104. Boeotian kylix _Brit. Mus._ 452

105. Burlesque scene: Herakles and _Jahrbuch_

Auge 474

106. Apulian sepulchral vase _Brit. Mus._ 477

107. Vase by Assteas in Madrid _Baumeister_ 480

108. Lucanian krater: Departure of _Brit. Mus._

warrior 482

109. Hydria with opaque painting on _Brit. Mus._

black ground 489

110. Phiale with Latin inscription _Brit. Mus._ 490

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY

PART I

PERIODICALS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT

_American Journal of Archaeology._ Baltimore and Boston, 1885, etc. In

progress. (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._)

_Annali dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome, 1829–85.

(_Ann. dell’ Inst._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in

_Répertoire des Vases_, vol. i. (1899).

_Annual of the British School at Athens._ London, 1894, etc. In

progress. (_Brit. School Annual._)

_Antike Denkmäler_, herausgegeben vom kaiserl. deutschen Institut.

Berlin, 1887, etc. In progress. A supplementary atlas to the

_Jahrbuch_. (_Ant. Denkm._)

_Archaeologia_, or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity. London,

1770, etc. Issued by the Society of Antiquaries. In progress.

_Archaeological Journal_, issued by the Royal Archaeological Institute.

London, 1845, etc. In progress. Numerous articles on Roman pottery,

etc. in Britain. (_Arch. Journ._)

_Archaeologische Zeitung._ Berlin, 1843–85. Vols. vii.–xxv. have the

secondary title _Denkmäler, Forschungen und Berichte_. (_Arch.

Zeit._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,

vol. i. (1899).

_Archaeologischer Anzeiger._ Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress; a

supplement bound up with the _Jahrbuch_ (new acquisitions of

museums, reports of meetings, etc.). (_Arch. Anzeiger._)

_Archaeologische-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn._

Vienna, 1877–97. Now superseded by _Jahreshefte_. (_Arch.-epigr.

Mitth. aus Oesterr._)

_Athenische Mittheilungen._ Athens, 1876, etc. In progress. Organ of

the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. (_Ath. Mitth._)

_Berichte der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften._ Leipzig,

1846, etc. In progress. Important articles by O. Jahn, 1853–67.

(_Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._)

_Bonner Jahrbücher. Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im

Rheinlande._ Bonn, 1842, etc. In progress. Important for notices of

pottery, etc., found in Germany, and for recent articles by

Dragendorff and others on Roman pottery (Arretine and provincial

wares, vols. xcvi., ci., cii., ciii.). (_Bonner Jahrb._)

_Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique._ Athens and Paris, 1877, etc.

In progress. (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._)

_Bullettino archeologico Napolitano._ Naples, 1842–62. Ser. i. 1842–48.

New ser. 1853–62. Re-edited by S. Reinach, 1899. (_Bull. Arch.

Nap._)

_Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,

1829–85. Chiefly records of discoveries in Italy and elsewhere.

(_Bull. dell’ Inst._)

_Classical Review._ London, 1887, etc. In progress. Reviews of

archaeological books and records of discoveries.

_Comptes-Rendus de la Commission impériale archéologique._ Petersburg,

1859–88. Edited by L. Stephani. With folio atlas, re-edited by S.

Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899). (Stephani,

_Comptes-Rendus_.)

Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική. Athens, 1883, etc. (new series). In progress.

Plates of vases, 1883–94, re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,

vol. i. (1899). (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.)

_Gazette archéologique._ Paris, 1875–89. (_Gaz. Arch._)

_Hermes._ Zeitschrift für classische Philologie. Berlin, 1866, etc. In

progress.

_Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts._

Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress. With _Arch. Anzeiger (q.v.)_ as

supplement and _Antike Denkmäler (q.v.)_ as atlas. (_Jahrbuch._)

_Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes._

Vienna, 1898, etc. In progress. (_Jahreshefte._)

_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ London, 1880, etc. In progress. With

atlas in 4to of plates to vols. i.–viii., and supplementary papers

(No. 4 on Phylakopi). (_J.H.S._)

_Journal of the British Archaeological Association._ London, 1845, etc.

In progress. A few articles on Roman pottery in Britain. (_Journ.

Brit. Arch. Assoc._)

_Monumenti antichi_, pubblicati per cura della R. Accad. dei Lincei.

Milan, 1890, etc. In progress. (_Mon. antichi._)

_Monumenti inediti dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._

Rome, 1829–85 (with supplementary volume, 1891). Re-edited (the

plates of vases) by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899).

(_Mon. dell’ Inst._)

_Monuments Grecs_, publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des

Études grecques. Paris, 1872–98. (_Mon. Grecs._)

_Monuments Piot._ Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et mémoires publiés

par l’Académie des Inscriptions. Paris, 1894, etc. In progress.

_Museo italiano di antichità classica._ 3 vols. Florence, 1885–90.

Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i.

(1899). (_Ath. Mitth._)

_Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità_, communicate alla R. Accademia dei

Lincei. Rome and Milan, 1876, etc. In progress. Important as a

record of recent discoveries in Italy and Sicily. (_Notizie degli

Scavi._)

_Philologus._ Zeitschrift für das klassische Alterthum. Göttingen,

1846, etc. In progress. With occasional supplementary volumes.

_Revue archéologique._ Paris, 1844, etc. In progress (four series, each

numbered separately). (_Rev. Arch._)

_Römische Mittheilungen._ Rome, 1886, etc. In progress. Organ of German

Institute at Rome. (_Röm. Mitth._)

PART II

WORKS ON GREEK VASES

ADAMEK (L.). _Unsignierte Vasen des Amasis._ Prague, 1895 (Prager

Studien, Heft v.).

AMELUNG (W.). _Personnificierung des Lebens in der Natur in den

Vasenbildern der hellenistischen Zeit._ Munich, 1888. See also

Florence.

ANDERSON (W. F. C.). See Engelmann and Schreiber.

_Antiquités du Bosphore cimmérien._ 3 vols. Petersburg, 1854, fol.

Vases, etc., found in the Crimea. (Re-edited in 8vo by S. Reinach,

1892.)

ARNDT (P.). _Studien zur Vasenkunde._ Leipzig, 1887. Adopts Brunn’s

theory of the late Italian origin of black-figured vases.

_Athens_ (National Museum). _Catalogue des Vases peints_, by M.

COLLIGNON and L. COUVE. Paris, 1902. With atlas of photographic

plates. The fragments from the Acropolis form the subject of a

separate catalogue (in preparation).

_Aus der Anomia._ Collected articles, some relating to vases. Berlin,

1890.

BAUMEISTER (A.). _Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums._ 3 vols.

Munich, 1884–88. Excellent illustrations of numerous vases

accompanying the articles, which are arranged alphabetically in

dictionary-form. The article _Vasenkunde_, by Von Rohden, is

useful, but now somewhat out of date. (Baumeister.)

BEGER (L.). _Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus._ 3 vols. Köln, 1696,

fol. Publishes vases belonging to the Elector of Brandenburg (see

Vol. I. p. 16).

BENNDORF (O.). _Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder._ Berlin,

1869–83, fol. Chiefly funerary vases and later fabrics. (Benndorf,

_Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._) See also _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.

_Berlin._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium_, by A.

FURTWAENGLER. Berlin, 1885. 2 vols. With plates of shapes.

BLOCH (L.). _Die zuschauenden Götter in den rothfig. Vasengemälden._

Leipzig, 1888.

BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste._ 4

vols. Leipzig, 1875–86. (Vol. ii. _Arbeit in Thon_, for pottery and

terracottas; vol. iii. for building construction.) Out of date in

some particulars, but still exceedingly useful, and fairly well

illustrated. (Blümner, _Technologie_.)

BOECKH (A.) and others. _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum._ 4 vols.

Berlin, 1828–77, fol. Vol. iv. contains many vase-inscriptions.

(Boeckh, _C.I.G._)

BÖHLAU (J.). _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen._ Leipzig, 1898,

4to. Indispensable for the study of Ionic vase-fabrics. (Böhlau,

_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._)

_Bologna_ (Museo Civico). _Catalogo dei vasi_, by G. PELLEGRINI.

Bologna, 1900. (Plates and cuts.)

BOLTE (J.). _De monumentis ad Odysseam pertinentibus capita selecta._

Berlin, 1882, 8vo.

_Bonn._ _Das akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn_, by R. KEKULÉ. Bonn, 1872.

_Bonner Studien._ Aufsätze aus der Alterthumswissenschaft R. Kekulé

gewidmet. Berlin, 1890. Collected papers, including several on

Greek vases.

_Boston._ _Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman vases in the Museum

of Fine Arts._ Boston, 1893. By E. ROBINSON. Now withdrawn, owing

to re-numbering and extensive subsequent accessions, for which see

_Boston Museum Reports_ (below).

_Boston Museum Reports_, 1895, etc. In progress from 1896. Issued

annually, with full details of new acquisitions, describing many

unique specimens. (_Boston Mus. Report._)

BÖTTIGER (C. A.). _Griechische Vasengemälde._ Weimar and Magdeburg,

1797–1800.

—— _Kleine Schriften._ 3 vols. Dresden, 1837–39.

_Bourguignon Collection._ _Sale Catalogue_, 18 March 1901. Paris, 1901.

(Best vases not included.)

BRANTEGHEM (A. VAN). See Froehner.

_British Museum._ _Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases._ Vol. i.,

by C. Smith, in preparation. Vol. ii., Black-figured vases, by H.

B. Walters (1893). Vol. iii., Red-figured vases, by C. Smith

(1896). Vol. iv., Vases of the later period, by H. B. Walters

(1896). (Referred to as _B. M. Cat. of Vases_, or B.M. with number

of vase.)

—— _Designs on Greek Vases_, by A. S. Murray and C. Smith. 1894, fol.

(Plates of interiors of R.F. kylikes.)

—— _White Athenian Vases_, by A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. 1896, fol.

—— _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. 1898, fol. (The sarcophagi

from Clazomenae, Kameiros, and Cervetri; see Chapters VIII. and

XVIII.)

—— _Excavations in Cyprus_ (Enkomi, Curium, Amathus). 1900. By A. S.

Murray, H. B. Walters, and A. H. Smith.

BRÖNDSTED (P. O.). _A brief description of 32 ancient Greek painted

vases, lately found at Vulci by M. Campanari._ London, 1832, 8vo.

BRONGNIART (A.). _Traité des Arts Céramiques_, ou des Poteries

considerées dans leur Histoire, leur Pratique, et leur Théorie. 3rd

edn., 1877. 2 vols., with Atlas. (Brongniart, _Traité_.) See also

Sèvres.

BRUNN (H.). _Geschichte der griechischen Künstler._ 2 vols. Stuttgart,

1859. The second volume has some account of the vase-painters then

known.

—— _Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1871, 4to.

Theory of Italian origin of B.F. vases.

—— _Neue Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1886.

—— _Griechische Kunstgeschichte._ 2 vols. (incomplete). Munich,

1893–97. Deals with some of the earlier fabrics.

—— _Kleine Schriften._ Vol. i. Leipzig, 1898. In progress. See also Lau.

BULLE (H.). _Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst._ Munich, 1893.

_Burlington Fine Arts Club._ _Catalogue of objects of Greek Ceramic

Art_ (exhibited in 1888), by W. Froehner. (Mostly vases from

Branteghem Collection.)

—— _Catalogue of Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art_, 1903, by E. Strong

and others. A revised _édition de luxe_ (1904) with plates.

_Cambridge_ (Fitzwilliam Museum). _A Catalogue of the Greek vases in

the Fitzwilliam Museum_, by E. A. GARDNER. Cambridge, 1897. With

plates.

CANESSA (C. and E.). _Collection d’Antiquités_, à l’Hôtel Drouot, 11

May 1903, 4to. Paris, 1903. A sale catalogue of an anonymous

collection containing several interesting vases.

CANINO (Prince Lucien Bonaparte of). _Muséum Étrusque de L. Bonaparte,

prince de Canino._ Fouilles de 1828 à 1829. Vases peints avec

inscriptions. Viterbo, 1829, 4to. With atlas of plates, of which

only one part was published.

—— _Catalogo di scelte Antichità Etrusche trovate negli Scavi del Pr.

di Canino_, 1828–29. Viterbo, 1829, 4to.

CAYLUS (A. C. P. de). _Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques,

grecques et romaines._ 7 vols. Paris, 1752–67, 4to. (Vases given in

vols. i. and ii.)

CESNOLA (L. P. di). _Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs, and temples._

(With a chapter on the pottery, by A. S. Murray.) London, 1877, 8vo.

CHRISTIE (J.). _Disquisitions upon the Painted Vases_, and their

connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries. London, 1825, 4to. (See

Vol. I. p. 21.)

COLLIGNON (M.). See Athens, Rayet.

_Commentationes philologae in honorem T. Mommseni._ Berlin, 1877, 4to.

Several useful papers on vases.

CONZE (A.). _Melische Thongefässe._ Leipzig, 1862. Folio plates.

—— _Zur Geschichte der Anfänge griechischer Kunst._ Vienna, 1870, 8vo.

See also Daremberg, Dumont, Paris.

RAOUL-ROCHETTE. _Monumens inédits d’antiquité figurée._ Paris, 1833,

fol.

—— _Peintures antiques inédites._ Paris, 1836, 4to.

RAVESTEIN (E. DE M. DE). _Musée de Ravestein_; Catalogue descriptif. 2

vols. Liège, 1871–72, 8vo.

RAYET (O.) and COLLIGNON (M.). _Histoire de la céramique grecque._

Paris, 1888. (More or less popular, and becoming out of date; well

illustrated.) (Rayet and Collignon.)

REINACH (S.). _Chroniques d’Orient._ Paris, 1891–96. 2 vols. Reprinted

from the _Revue Archéol._ (1883–95). Notes of discoveries, etc.

—— _Répertoire des Vases Peints._ Paris, 1899–1900. 2 vols. An

invaluable re-editing, with outline reductions of the plates, of

many publications of vases, with bibliographical notes and

explanations appended. See Laborde, de Luynes, Tischbein, etc., and

list of periodicals. (Referred to as _Reinach_, with number of

volume and page. In Chapters XII.-XV. the references are all to

this publication in preference to the original works.)

See also Millin, Millingen, _Ant. du Bosph. Cimm._, and Pottier.

REISCH (E.). See Rome.

RIDDER (A. DE). See Paris.

RIEGL (A.). _Stilfragen._ Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der

Ornamentik. Berlin, 1893, 8vo. A valuable study of early vegetable

ornament on vases.

ROBERT (C.). _Thanatos._ Berlin, 1879, 4to. (_39tes

Winckelmannsfestprogr._)

—— _Bild und Lied._ Berlin, 1881, 8vo. On the relation of

vase-paintings to the Homeric poems.

—— _Archaeologische Märchen_ aus alter und neuer Zeit. Berlin, 1886,

8vo. Papers on various subjects, more or less controversial.

—— _Homerische Becher._ (_50tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1890.

ROBERT (C). _Scenen der Ilias und Aithiopis_ auf einer Vase der

Sammlung des Grafen M. Tyszkiewicz. Halle, 1891, fol. (_15tes Hall.

Winckelmannsprogr._)

—— _Die Nekyiades Polygnot._ Halle, 1892. (_16tes Hallisches

Festprog._; a restoration of the painting on the basis of vases.)

—— _Die Iliupersis des Polygnot._ Halle, 1893. (_17tes Hallisches

Festprogr._; dealing similarly with that painting.)

—— _Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile_ und weiteres über Polygnot.

(_18tes Hallisches Festprogr._) Halle, 1895.

ROBERTS (E. S.). _An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy._ Part i. The

archaic inscriptions and the Greek alphabet. Cambridge, 1887, 8vo.

ROBINSON (E.). See Boston.

ROEHL (H.). _Inscriptiones Graecae antiquissimae_ praeter Atticas in

Attica repertas. Berlin, 1882, fol. (Roehl, _I.G.A._)

ROHDEN (H. VON). See Baumeister.

_Rome_ (Vatican, Museo Gregoriano). _Führer durch die öffentlichen

Sammlungen in Rom_, by W. HELBIG and E. REISCH. 2nd edn., 1899. 2

vols. In vol. ii. is given a full description of the best vases

(about 250) in this collection; they are quoted as Helbig 1, 2, 3,

etc., according to the numbers of the book. See also _Museo

Gregoriano_.

ROSCHER (W. H.). _Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen

Mythologie._ Leipzig, 1884, etc. In progress (down to P in 1904).

Many vases published in the later parts.

ROSS (L.). _Reisen auf die griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres._

Halle, 1840–52, 4 vols., 8vo.

—— _Archaeologische Aufsätze._ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1855–61. With plates in

fol.

ROULEZ (J.). _Choix de vases peints du Musée d’antiquités de Leyde._

Gand, 1854. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii., 1900.

_Ruvo_ (Museo Jatta). See Jatta.

SALZMANN (A). _Nécropole de Camiros_. Paris, 1866–75, fol. Plates only.

SCHLIEMANN (H.). See Vol. I. p. 269.

SCHNEIDER (A.). _Der troische Sagenkreis in der älteren griechischen

Kunst._ Leipzig, 1886.

SCHNEIDER (F. J.). _Die zwölf Kämpfe des Herakles in der älteren

griechischen Kunst._ Leipzig, 1888.

SCHNEIDER (R.). _Die Geburt der Athena._ Vienna, 1880, 8vo.

SCHÖNE (R.). _Le antichità del Museo Bocchi di Adria._ Rome, 1878, 4to.

SCHREIBER (TH.) and ANDERSON (W. C. F.). _Atlas of Classical

Antiquities._ London, 1895, obl. 8vo. (Schreiber-Anderson.)

SCHULZ (H. W.). _Die Amazonenvase von Ruvo_, erklärt und in

Kunsthistorischer Beziehung betrachtet. Leipzig, 1851, fol. See

Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.

_Sèvres Museum._ _Description méthodique du Musée Céramique de Sèvres_,

by A. BRONGNIART and D. RIOCREUX. Paris, 1845. 2 vols., with atlas

of plates.

SITTL (K.). _Die Phineusschale und ähnliche Vasen mit bemalten

Flachreliefs._ Würzburg, 1892.

SMITH (A. H.). See British Museum.

SMITH (CECIL). _Catalogue of the Forman Collection of Antiquities_

(illustrated). London, 1899. And see British Museum.

SMITH (S. B.). See Kopenhagen.

STACKELBERG (O. M. VON). _Die Gräber der Hellenen._ Berlin, 1836, fol.

STEPHANI (L.). See Petersburg and _Compte-Rendu._

_Strena Helbigiana._ (Collected papers in honour of W. Helbig.)

Leipzig, 1900, 8vo.

STUDNICZKA (F.). _Kyrene, eine altgriechische Göttin._ Leipzig, 1890.

_Tanis II._ Fourth Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund (Tell-Nebesheh

and Defenneh). London, 1887. By W. M. F. PETRIE and F. L. GRIFFITH,

with notes on the Daphnae pottery by A. S. Murray.

THIERSCH (F.). _Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen_, mit besonderer

Rücksicht auf die Sammlung des Königs Ludwigs von Bayern. Munich,

1849. From _Abhandl. d. k. bayer. Akad., Philosoph.-philol.

Classe_, vol iv.

THIERSCH (H.). _Tyrrhenische Amphoren._ Eine Studie zur Geschichte der

altattischen Vasenmalerei. Leipzig, 1899.

TISCHBEIN (W.). _Collection of engravings from ancient vases_ (the

second Hamilton Collection; see Vol. I. p. 17). 4 vols. Naples,

1791–95, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.,

1900. About 100 plates were engraved for a fifth volume, never

published.

TREU (W.). _Griechische Thongefässe in Statuetten- und Büstenformen._

Berlin, 1875, 4to. (_35tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)

TYSZKIEWICZ (COUNT M.). See Froehner.

URLICHS (C. L. VON). _Der Vasenmaler Brygos und die ruland’sche

Münzsammlung._ Würzburg, 1875, fol.

—— _Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte._ Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. See also

Würzburg.

USSING (J.). _De nominibus vasorum graecorum disputatio._ Copenhagen,

1844.

_Vienna._ _Die Sammlung antiker Vasen und Terracotten im k. k.

Oesterreichischen Museum für Kunst und Industrie_, by K. MASNER.

Vienna, 1892. With plates.

VOGEL (K. J.). _Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen

Vasengemälden._ Leipzig, 1886.

_Vorlegeblätter für archäologische Übungen._ Vienna, 1869–91, fol.

Plates without text. Series i.–viii. 1869–75, _ed._ A. Conze

(chiefly R.F. kylikes, by Euphronios, Hieron, Duris). Series A-E,

1879–86, _ed._ O. Benndorf (chiefly R.F. kylikes). Third series,

1888–91 (3 vols.), _ed._ Benndorf and others (chiefly signed B.F.

vases). (_Wiener Vorl._)

WALLIS (H.). _Pictures from Greek Vases. The White Athenian lekythi._

London, 1896.

WALTERS (H. B.). See British Museum.

WATZINGER (C). _De vasculis pictis tarentinis capita selecta._

Darmstadt, 1899, 8vo.

WELCKER (F. G.). _Alte Denkmäler._ 5 vols, and atlas. Göttingen,

1849–64.

WERNICKE (K.). _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsnamen._ Berlin,

1890.

—— and GRAEF (B.). _Denkmäler der antiken Kunst._ Leipzig, 1899, etc.

In progress. A new edition of Müller and Wieseler’s well-known

work. Text and atlas.

WESTROPP (H. M.). _Epochs of painted vases, an introduction to their

study._ London, 1856.

WILISCH (E. G.). _Die altkorinthische Thonindustrie._ Leipzig, 1892.

WINKLER (A.). _De inferorum in vasis Italiae inferioris

repraesentationibus._ Breslau, 1888, 8vo.

WINNEFELD (H.). See Karlsruhe.

WINTER (F.). _Die jüngeren attischen Vasen_ und ihr Verhaltniss zur

grossen Kunst. Berlin, 1885.

WITTE (J. J. A. M. DE, BARON). _Description des antiquités et objects

d’art qui composent le cabinet de feu M. E. Durand._ Paris, 1836,

8vo.

—— _Description d’une collection de vases peints et bronzes antiques_

provenant des fouilles de l’Étrurie. Paris, 1837, 8vo. [Another

edition, 1857.]

—— _Noms des fabricants et dessinateurs de vases peints._ Paris, 1848,

8vo.

—— _Études sur les vases peints._ Paris, 1865, 8vo. (Extract from the

_Gazette des Beaux-Arts_.)

—— _Description des collections d’antiquités conservées à l’Hôtel

Lambert_ (the Czartoryski collection). Paris, 1886, 4to. (_Coll. à

l’Hôtel Lambert._) See also Lenormant.

_Würzburg._ _Verzeichniss der Antikensammlung der Universität

Würzburg_, by C. L. VON URLICHS. 1865–72, 8vo.

ZANNONI (A.). _Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna._ 2 vols., text and

plates. Bologna, 1876, fol. (An account of excavations at Bologna;

many illustrations of tombs and Greek vases.)

PART III

TERRACOTTAS

_Athens._ See Martha.

_Berlin Museum._ _Ausgewählte griechische Terrakotten_ im Antiquarium

des königliches Museum zu Berlin, herausgegeben von der

Generalverwaltung. Berlin, 1903. See also Panofka.

BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie._ See above, p.xxi. Vol.

ii. deals with method of working in clay (Thonplastik, p. 113 ff.).

BORRMANN (R.). _Die Keramik in der Baukunst._ Durm’s _Handbuch der

Architektur_, part i. vol. 4. Stuttgart, 1897. On the use of

terracotta in classical architecture. See also Dörpfeld.

_British Museum._ _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. London,

1898. See above, p. xxii.

—— _Catalogue of the Terracottas in the British Museum_, by H. B.

Walters. London, 1903. See also Combe.

CAMPANA (G. P.). _Antiche opere in plastica._ Rome, 1842–52, fol. Text

incomplete; plates of architectural terracottas of the Roman period.

COMBE (TAYLOR). _A description of the collection of ancient Terracottas

in the British Museum._ London, 1810. Describes the Towneley

figures and mural reliefs.

DAREMBERG (C.), SAGLIO (E.), and POTTIER (E.). _Dictionnaire des

Antiquités._ See above, p. xxiii. The article _Figlinum_ in vol.

ii. will be found useful.

DÖRPFELD (W.), GRAEBER (F.), BORRMANN (R.), and SIEBOLD (K.). _Über die

Verwendung von Terrakotten_ am Geison und Dache in griechischen

Bauwerke, (_41tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._) Berlin, 1881. (On

terracotta in architecture.)

FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Collection Sabouroff._ See above, p. xxiv. Vol. ii.

contains plates of Tanagra figures, with useful text to each.

HEUZEY (L.). _Les Figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du

Louvre._ Paris, 1883, 4to. Plates, with brief text.

—— _Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du Musée du

Louvre._ Vol. i. Paris, 1891. Deals with archaic terracottas

(Rhodes and Cyprus). No more published.

HUISH (M. B.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes_, their origin, evolution,

and uses. London, 1900. (The plates include some doubtful

specimens.)

HUTTON (MISS C.A.). _Greek Terracotta Statuettes._ (_Portfolio_

monograph, No. 49.) London, 1899. An excellent _résumé_ of the

subject, with good illustrations.

KEKULÉ (R., now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). _Griechische Thonfiguren aus

Tanagra._ Stuttgart, 1878, fol.

—— _Die antiken Terracotten_, im Auftrag des archäologischen Institutes

des deutschen Reichs, herausgegeben von R. K. Stuttgart, 1880,

etc., fol. In progress.

Vol. i. _Terracotten von Pompeii_, by A. VON ROHDEN. 1880. Chiefly

architectural.

Vol. ii. _Terracotten von Sicilien_, by R. KEKULÉ. 1884.

Vol. iii. _Typen der griechischen Terrakotten_, by F. WINTER. 1903.

In two parts. A _Corpus_ of all known types of terracotta

statuettes, with numerous illustrations and other useful

information.

MARTHA (J.). _Catalogue des Figurines en terre cuite du Musée de la

Société Archéologique d’Athènes._ Paris, 1880, 8vo. (Bibliothèque

des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 16.)

MINERVINI (G.). _Terre cotte del Museo Campano._ Vol. i. Naples, 1880.

Illustrations of architectural terracottas.

PANOFKA (T.). _Terracotten des königlichen Museums zu Berlin._ Berlin,

1842, 4to.

PARIS (P.). _Élatée_, la ville, le Temple d’Athéna Cranaia. Paris,

1892. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises, Fasc. 60.) Contains some

useful information on the subject.

POTTIER (E.). _Les Statuettes de Terre Cuite dans l’Antiquité._ Paris,

1890. (Bibliothèque des Merveilles.)

POTTIER (E.) and REINACH (S.). _La Nécropole de Myrina._ 2 vols., text

and plates. Paris, 1887.

ROHDEN (H. VON). See Kekulé.

SCHÖNE (R.). _Griechische Reliefs aus athenischen Sammlungen_,

herausgegeben von R. S. Leipzig, 1872, fol. Illustration and

discussion of the “Melian” reliefs (see pls. 30–34).

WINTER (F.). See Kekulé.

PART IV

ROMAN POTTERY

ARTIS (E. T.). _The Durobrivae of Antoninus_ identified and

illustrated. London, 1828, fol. Plates only; for accompanying text

(by C. Roach-Smith) see _Journ. of Brit. Arch. Assoc._ i. p. 1 ff.

Deals with pottery and kilns of Castor and neighbourhood.

BLANCHET (A.). _Mélanges d’Archéologie gallo-romaine_, ii. Paris, 1902,

8vo. (Lists of potteries in Gaul on p. 90 ff.)

BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie_, etc. See above, p. xxi.

BRONGNIART (A.). _Traité de la Céramique._ See above, p. xxii.

BUCKMAN (J.) and NEWMARCH (C. H.). _Illustrations of the remains of

Roman Art in Cirencester, the ancient Corinium._ London and

Cirencester, 1850, 4to. (Now somewhat out of date.)

CAUMONT (A. DE). _Cours d’antiquités monumentales_; histoire de l’art

dans l’Ouest de la France. 6 vols. Paris and Caen, 1830–41, 8vo,

with atlas in oblong 4to.

CHOISY (A.). _L'Art de Bâtir chez les Romains._ Paris, 1873, 4to. (For

the use of bricks and tiles.)

_Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum._ Berlin, 1863, etc., fol. In progress.

The portions of the published volumes giving the inscriptions on

vases, tiles, and lamps, under the heading _Instrumentum

Domesticum_, are invaluable, especially vol. xv. (by H. Dressel)

relating to Rome. (_C.I.L._)

DÉCHELETTE (J.). _Les Vases céramiques ornés de la Gaule romaine_

(Narbonnaise, Aquitaine, et Lyonnaise). 2 vols. Paris, 1904, 4to.

An invaluable survey of the pottery of Central and Southern Gaul,

with much new material. (Déchelette.)

FABRONI (A.). _Storia degli antichi vasi fittili aretini._ Arezzo,

1841, 8vo. (On the Arretine wares.)

_Guildhall Museum._ See London.

HÖLDER (O.). _Formen der römische Thongefässe, diesseits und jenseits

der Alpen._ Stuttgart, 1897, 8vo.

KOENEN (K.). _Gefässkunde der vorrömischen, römischen, und frankischen

Zeit in den Rheinlanden._ Bonn, 1895, 8vo.

_London_ (Guildhall Museum). _Catalogue of the Collection of London

Antiquities_ in the Guildhall Museum. London, 1903, 8vo.

—— (Museum of Practical Geology). _Handbook to the collection of

British Pottery and Porcelain_ in the Museum. London, 1893, 8vo.

MARINI (G.). _Iscrizioni antiche doliari_, edited by G. B. de Rossi and

H. Dressel. Rome, 1884, 4to.

MARQUARDT (J.). _Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer_ (with T. MOMMSEN).

Bd. vii., Privatalterthümer. Leipzig, 1879–82, 8vo. See p. 616 ff.

for Roman pottery.

MAZARD (H. A.). _De la connaissance par les anciens des glaçures

plombifères._ Paris, 1879, 8vo. (On the enamelled Roman wares

described in Vol. I. p. 129.)

MIDDLETON (J. H.). _The Remains of Ancient Rome._ 2 vols. London, 1892,

8vo. (On the use of bricks and tiles at Rome.)

PLICQUE (A. E.). _Étude de Céramique arverno-romaine._ Caen, 1887, 8vo.

(On the potteries of Lezoux.)

ROACH-SMITH (C). _Collectanea Antiqua_; etchings and notices of ancient

remains, etc. 7 vols. London, 1848–80, 8vo. Useful for records of

discoveries of Roman remains in Gaul and Britain.

—— _Illustrations of Roman London._ London, 1859, 4to.

STEINER (J. W. C). _Codex Inscriptionum Romanarum Danubii et Rheni._ 4

vols. Darmstadt, etc., 1851–61, 8vo. Contains many inscriptions on

pottery and tiles not as yet published in the C.I.L.

_Victoria County History of England_, ed. by W. PAGE, etc. In progress.

London, 1900, etc. Articles in the first volume of each separate

county history, by F. HAVERFIELD, dealing with all known Roman

remains. Those of Northants and Hampshire are especially useful and

complete.

WRIGHT (T.). _The Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon._ Fourth edn., 1885.

Still useful as a summary of Roman Britain, though out of date and

inaccurate in many particulars.

----------

Reference should also be made to the _Bonner Jahrbücher_ (see above, p.

xix), especially to the treatise by Dragendorff in vol. xcvi., and

for German pottery to Von Hefner’s article in _Oberbayrische Archiv

für vaterlandische Geschichte_, xxii. (1863), p. 1 ff.

For Bibliography of Roman Lamps, see heading to Chapter XX.

----------

NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK

B.F. = Black-figured vases.

R.F. = Red-figured vases.

B.M. = British Museum.

Reinach = Reinach’s _Répertoire des Vases_ (see Bibliography).

In the cases where particular vases are cited, as in Chapters XII.-XV.,

the name of the museum is given with the catalogue number attached, as

B.M. B 1; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2000, etc. The vases in the Vatican Museum

at Rome are quoted as Helbig, 1, 2, 3, etc. (see Bibliography, under

_Rome_).

All other abbreviations will be found in the Bibliography.

PART I

GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL

CHAPTER I

_INTRODUCTORY_

Importance of study of ancient monuments—Value of pottery as

evidence of early civilisation—Invention of the art—Use of brick

in Babylonia—The potter’s wheel—Enamel and glazes—Earliest Greek

pottery—Use of study of vases—Ethnological, historical,

mythological, and artistic aspects—Earliest writings on the

subject—The “Etruscan” theory—History of the study of Greek

vases—Artistic, epexegetic, and historical methods—The

vase-collections of Europe and their history—List of existing

collections.

The present age is above all an age of Discovery. The thirst for

knowledge manifests itself in all directions—theological, scientific,

geographical, historical, and antiquarian. The handiwork of Nature and

of Man alike are called upon to yield up their secrets to satisfy the

universal demand which has arisen from the spread of education and the

ever-increasing desire for culture which is one of the characteristics

of the present day. And though, perhaps, the science of Archaeology

does not command as many adherents as other branches of learning, there

is still a very general desire to enquire into the records of the past,

to learn what we can of the methods of our forefathers, and to trace

the influence of their writings or other evidences of their existence

on succeeding ages.

To many of us what is known as a classical education seems perhaps in

these utilitarian times somewhat antiquated and unnecessary, but at the

same time “the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome”

have not lost their interest for us, and can awaken responsive chords

in most of our hearts. Nor can we ever be quite forgetful of the debt

that we owe to those nations in almost every branch of human learning

and industry. To take the most patent instance of all, that of our

language, it is not too much to say that nearly every word is either

directly derived from a classical source or can be shown to have

etymological affinities with either of the two ancient tongues. Nor is

it necessary to pursue illustrations further. We need only point to the

evidences of classical influence on modern literature, modern

philosophy, and modern political and social institutions, to indicate

how our civilisation is permeated and saturated with the results of

ancient ideas and thoughts. The man of science has recourse to Greek or

Latin for his nomenclature; the scholar employs Latin as the most

appropriate vehicle for criticism; and modern architecture was for a

long time only a revival (whether successful or not) of the principles

and achievements of the classical genius.

Now, those who would pursue the study of a nation’s history cannot be

content with the mere perusal of such literary records as it may have

left behind. It needs brief consideration to realise that this leaves

us equipped with very little real knowledge of an ancient race,

inasmuch as the range of literature is necessarily limited, and deals

with only a few sides of the national character: its military history,

its political constitution, or its intellectual and philosophical

bent—in short, its external and public life alone. He who would

thoroughly investigate the history of a nation instinctively desires

something more; he will seek to gain a comprehensive acquaintance with

its social life, its religious beliefs, its artistic and intellectual

attainments, and generally to estimate the extent of its culture and

civilisation. But to do this it is necessary not only to be thoroughly

conversant with its literary and historical records, but to turn

attention also to its _monuments_. It need hardly be said that the word

“monument” is here used in the quasi-technical sense current among

archaeologists (witness the German use of the word _Denkmäler_), and

that it must bear here a much wider signification than is generally

accorded to it nowadays. It may, in fact, be applied to any object

which has come down to us as a memorial and evidence of a nation’s

productive capacity or as an illustration of its social or political

life. The student of antiquity can adopt no better motto than the

familiar line of Terence:

Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto.

For the very humblest product of the human brain or hand, a potsherd or

a few letters scratched on a stone, may throw the most instructive

light on the history of a race.

In no instance is this better seen than in the case of Assyria, where

almost all that we know of that great and wonderful people is derived

from the cuneiform inscriptions scratched on tablets of baked clay. Or,

again, we may cite the stone and bronze implements of the primitive

peoples of Europe as another instance where “the weak and base things

of the world and the things that are despised” have thrown floods of

light on the condition of things in a period about which we should have

been completely in the dark so long as we looked only to literary

records for our information. Nothing is so common that it may be

overlooked, and we may learn more from a humble implement in daily use

than from the finest product of a poetic or artistic intellect, if we

are really desirous of obtaining an intimate acquaintance with the

domestic life of a people.

Among the simplest yet most necessary adjuncts of a developing

civilisation Pottery may be recognised as one of the most universal.

The very earliest and rudest remains of any people generally take the

form of coarse and common pots, in which they cooked their food or

consumed their beverages. And the fact that such vast quantities of

pottery from all ancient civilisations have been preserved to us is due

partly to its comparatively imperishable nature, partly to the absence

of any intrinsic value which saved it from falling a prey to the

ravages of fire, human greed, or other causes which have destroyed more

precious monuments, such as gold ornaments, paintings, and statues of

marble or bronze. Moreover, it is always in the pottery that we

perceive the first indications of whatever artistic instinct a race

possesses, clay being a material so easy to decorate and so readily

lending itself to plastic treatment for the creation of new forms or

development from simple to elaborate shapes.

To trace the history of the art of working in clay, from its rise

amongst the oldest nations of antiquity to the period of the decline of

the Roman Empire, is the object of the present work. The subject

resolves itself into two great divisions, which have engaged the

attention of two distinct classes of enquirers: namely, the technical

or practical part, comprising all the details of material,

manipulation, and processes; and, secondly, the historical portion,

which embraces not only the history of the art itself, and the

application of ancient literature to its elucidation, but also an

account of the light thrown by monuments in clay on the history of

mankind. Such an investigation is therefore neither trifling in

character nor deficient in valuable results.

It is impossible to determine when the manufacture of pottery was

invented. Clay is a material so generally diffused, and its plastic

nature is so easily discovered, that the art of working it does not

exceed the intelligence of the rudest savage. Even the most primitive

graves of Europe and Western Asia contain specimens of pottery, rude

and elementary indeed, but in sufficient quantities to show that it was

at all times reckoned among the indispensable adjuncts of daily life.

It is said that the very earliest specimens of pottery, hand-made and

almost shapeless, have been discovered in the cave-dwellings of

Palaeolithic Man, such as the Höhlefels cave near Ulm, and that of

Nabrigas, near Toulouse; and pottery has also been found in the

“kitchen-middens” of Denmark, which belong to this period. Such relics

are, however, so rude and fragmentary, and so much doubt has been cast

on the circumstances of their discovery, that it is better to be

content with the evidence afforded by the Neolithic Age, of which

perhaps the best authenticated is the predynastic pottery of Egypt.[1]

Abundant specimens of pottery have been found in long barrows in all

parts of Western Europe; these are supposed to be the burial-places of

the early dolichocephalic races, now represented by the Finns and

Lapps, which preceded the Aryan immigration. The chief characteristic

of this pottery is the almost entire absence of ornamentation.

Neolithic man appears to have been far less endowed with the artistic

instinct than his palaeolithic predecessor. Where ornament does occur,

it appears to have a quite fortuitous origin: for instance, a kind of

rope-pattern that appears on the earliest pottery of Britain and

Germany, and also in America, owes its origin to the practice of

moulding the clay in a kind of basket of bark or thread. It is also

possible that cords of some kind were used for carrying the pots; and

this reminds us of another characteristic of the earliest pottery,

which, indeed, lasts down to the Bronze Age—namely, the absence of

handles.

The baking of clay, so as to produce an indestructible and tenacious

substance, was probably also the result of accident rather than design.

This was pointed out as long ago as the middle of the eighteenth

century by M. Goguet. In most countries the condition of the atmosphere

precludes the survival of sun-dried clay for any length of time;

moreover, such a material was more suitable for architecture (as we

shall see later) than for vessels destined to hold liquids. Thus it is

that Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia alone have transmitted to posterity

the early efforts of workers in sun-dried clay.

To return to the new invention. The savage conceivably found that the

calabash or gourd in which he boiled the water for his simple culinary

needs was liable to be damaged by the action of fire; and it required

no very advanced mental process to smear the exterior of the vessel

with some such substance as clay in order to protect it. As he found

that the surface of the clay was thereby rendered hard and impervious,

his next step would naturally be to dispense with the calabash and

mould the clay into a similar form. These two simple qualities of clay,

its plastic nature and its susceptibility to the action of fire, are

the two elements which form the basis of the whole development of the

potter’s art.

From the necessity for symmetrical buildings arose the invention of the

brick, which must have superseded the rude plastering of the hut with

clay, to protect it against the sun or storm. In the history of the

Semitic nations the brick appears among the earliest inventions, and

its use can be traced with various modifications, from the building of

the Tower of Babel to the present day. It is essential that bricks

should be symmetrical, and their form is generally rectangular. Their

geometrical shape affords us a clue to ancient units of measurement,

and the various inscriptions with which they have been stamped have

elevated them to the dignity of historical monuments. Thus the bricks

of Egypt not only afford testimony, by their composition of straw and

clay, that the writer of Exodus was acquainted with that country, but

also, by the hieroglyphs impressed upon them, transmit the names of a

series of kings, and testify to the existence of edifices, all

knowledge of which, except for these relics, would have utterly

perished. Those of Assyria and Babylon, in addition to the same

information, have, by their cuneiform inscriptions, which mention the

locality of the edifices for which they were made, afforded the means

of tracing the sites of ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria with an

accuracy unattainable by any other means. The Roman bricks have also

borne their testimony to history. A large number of them present a

series of the names of consuls of imperial Rome; while others show that

the proud nobility of the eternal city partly derived their revenues

from the kilns of their Campanian and Sabine estates.

From the next step in the progress of the manufacture—namely, that of

modelling in clay the forms of the physical world—arose the plastic

art. Delicate as is the touch of the finger, which the clay seems to

obey, almost as if comprehending the intention of the potter’s mind,

yet certain forms and ornaments which require a finer point than the

nail gave rise to the use of pieces of horn, wood, and metal, and thus

contributed to the invention of tools. But modelling in clay was soon

superseded by sculpture in stone and metal, and at length only answered

two subordinate ends: that of enabling the sculptor to elaborate his

first conceptions in a material which could be modified at will; and

that of readily producing works of a small and inexpensive form, for

some transitory purpose. The invention of the mould carried this last

application to perfection, and the terracottas of antiquity were as

numerous and as cheap as the plaster casts now sold by itinerants.

The materials used for writing have varied in different ages and

nations. Stone and bronze, linen and papyrus, wax and parchment, have

all been used. But the Assyrians and Babylonians employed for their

public archives, their astronomical computations, their religious

dedications, their historical annals, and even for title-deeds and

bills of exchange, tablets, cylinders, and hexagonal prisms of

terracotta. Some of these cylinders, still extant, contain the history

of the Assyrian monarchs Tiglath-pileser and Assurbanipal, and the

campaign of Sennacherib against the kingdom of Judah; and others,

excavated from the Birs Nimrud, give a detailed account of the

dedication of the great temple by Nebuchadnezzar to the seven planets.

To this indestructible material, and to the happy idea of employing it

in this manner, the present age is indebted for a detailed history of

the Assyrian monarchy; whilst the decades of Livy, the plays of

Menander, and the lays of Anakreon, confided to a more perishable

material, have either wholly or partly disappeared.

The application of clay to the making of vases was made effective by

the invention of the potter’s wheel. Before the introduction of the

wheel only vessels fashioned by the hand, and of rude unsymmetrical

shape, could have been made. But the application of a circular table or

lathe, laid horizontally and revolving on a central pivot, on which the

clay was placed, and to which it adhered, was in its day a truly

wonderful advance. As the wheel spun round, all combinations of oval,

spherical, and cylindrical forms could be produced, and the vases not

only became symmetrical in their proportions, but truthfully reproduced

the potter’s conception. The invention of the wheel has been ascribed

to all the great nations of antiquity. It is represented in full

activity in the Egyptian sculptures; it is mentioned in the Scriptures,

and was certainly in use at an early period in Assyria. The Greeks and

Romans attributed it to a Scythian philosopher, and to the states of

Athens, Corinth, and Sikyon, the first two of which were great rivals

in the ceramic art. But, as will be explained hereafter, it was

introduced at a very early stage in the history of civilisation upon

Greek soil (see p. 206).

Although none of the very ancient kilns have survived the destructive

influence of time, yet among all the great nations baked earthenware is

of the highest antiquity. In Egypt, in the tombs of the first

dynasties, vases and other remains of baked earthenware are abundantly

found; and in Assyria and Babylon even the oldest bricks and tablets

have passed through the furnace. The oldest remains of Hellenic pottery

in all cases owe their preservation to their having been subjected to

the action of fire. To this process, as to the consummation of the art,

the other processes of preparing, levigating, kneading, drying, and

moulding the clay were necessarily ancillary.

The desire of rendering terracotta less porous, and of producing vases

capable of retaining liquids, gave rise to the covering of it with a

vitreous enamel or glaze. The invention of glass was attributed by the

ancients to the Phoenicians; but opaque glass or enamels, as old as the

Eighteenth Dynasty, and enamelled objects as early as the Fourth, have

been found in Egypt. The employment of copper to produce a brilliant

blue-coloured enamel was very early both in Babylonia and Assyria; but

the use of tin for a white enamel, as discovered in the enamelled

bricks and vases of Babylonia and Assyria, anticipated by many

centuries the rediscovery of that process in Europe in the fifteenth

century, and shows the early application of metallic oxides. This

invention apparently remained for many centuries a secret among the

Eastern nations only, enamelled terracotta and glass forming articles

of commercial export from Egypt and Phoenicia to every part of the

Mediterranean. Among the Egyptians and Assyrians enamelling was used

more frequently than glazing; hence they used a kind of faience

consisting of a loose frit or body, to which an enamel adheres after

only a slight fusion. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the art of

enamelling terracotta disappeared except amongst the Arab and Moorish

races, who had retained a traditionary knowledge of the process. The

application of a transparent vitreous coating, or glaze, to the entire

surface, like the varnish of a picture, is also to be referred to a

high antiquity. Originally intended to improve the utility of the vase,

it was used by Greeks and Romans with a keen sense of the decorative

effects that could be derived from its use.

In Greece, although nearly all traces of the Stone Age are wanting, and

little pottery has been found which can be referred to that period,[2]

yet the earliest existing remains of civilisation are, as we shall see

later, in the form of pottery; and Greece is no exception to the

general rule. But the important difference between the pottery of Asia

and Egypt and that of Greece is that only in the latter was there any

development due to artistic feeling. Of the Greek it may be said, as of

the medieval craftsman, _nihil tetigit quod non ornavit_. In the

commonest vessel or implement in every-day use we see almost from the

first the workings of this artistic instinct, tending to exalt any and

every object above the mere level of utilitarianism, and to make it, in

addition to its primary purpose of usefulness, “a thing of beauty and a

joy for ever.” Feeble and rude it may be at first, and hampered by

imperfect knowledge of technique or capacity for expression—but still

the instinct is there.

There is indeed at first but little in Greek pottery to differentiate

it from that of other nations possessing any decorative instincts. As

M. Pottier[3] has pointed out, there is a universal law which manifests

itself in nascent art all over the world: “More than once men have

remarked the extraordinary resemblance which the linear decoration of

Peruvian, Mexican, and Kabyle vases bears to the ornamentation of the

most ancient Greek pottery. There is no possibility of contact between

these different peoples, separated by enormous distances of time and

space. If they have this common resemblance at the outset of their

artistic evolution, it is because all must pass through a certain

phase, resulting in some measure from the structure of the human brain.

Even so at the present day there are savages in Polynesia who, by means

of a point applied to the soft clay, produce patterns exactly similar

to those found on Greek or Cypriote pottery of fifteen or twenty

centuries before our era.” Or to take a later stage of development, the

compositions of vase-paintings of the sixth century B.C. are governed

by the same immutable laws of convention and principles of symmetry as

the carvings of the Middle Ages. Instances might be multiplied _ad

infinitum_; but the principle is universal.

* * * * *

A question that may be well asked by any visitor to a great museum is,

What is the use of the study of Greek vases? The answer is, that no

remains of Greek art have come down to us in such large quantities,

except perhaps coins, and certainly none cover so long a period.

Portraying as they do both the objective and subjective side of Greek

life, they form perhaps the best introduction to the study of Greek

archaeology in general. In no other class of monuments are the daily

life and religious beliefs of the Greeks so vividly presented as in the

painted vases. Their value to the modern student may be treated under

four separate heads: (1) Ethnological; (2) Historical; (3)

Mythological; (4) Artistic.

(1) =Ethnological.=—On this subject we have already touched in this

chapter, pointing out that pottery has an exceptional importance, not

only as one of the most universal and instructive illustrations of the

early developments of a single nation, but for purposes of comparison

of one nation with another. Sculpture, painting, architecture, and

other arts have a more limited range, and tell us nothing of domestic

life or social progress; but the common utensils of daily life, like

flint implements or bronze weapons, are of incalculable value for the

light that they throw on the subject, and the evidence which, in the

absence of historical data, they afford. We have also called attention

to the prevalence of universal laws acting on the development of the

early art of all nations.

Thus in dealing with the early history of Greece, before historical

records are available, we are enabled by the pottery-finds to trace the

extent of the Mycenaean civilisation, from Egypt to the Western

Mediterranean; we may see Homeric customs reflected in the vases of the

Geometrical period from Athens; and in the decorative patterns of the

succeeding period we may see signs of close intercourse with Assyria

and a knowledge of Oriental textile fabrics. The finds in Rhodes,

Cyprus, and the islands off Asia Minor also testify to a continued and

extensive intercourse between the mainland of Greece and the Eastern

Aegean.

(2) =Historical.=—The historical value of Greek vases rests partly on

the external, partly on the internal evidence that they afford. In the

former aspect those of historic times, like those of the primitive age,

confirm, if they do not actually supplement, literary records of Greek

history. Thus the numerous importations of vases from Corinth to Sicily

and Italy in the seventh century B.C. show the maritime importance of

that city and the extent of her commercial relations; while in the

succeeding century the commercial rivalry between her and Athens is

indicated by the appearance of large numbers of Attic fabrics in the

tombs of Italy along with the Corinthian; the final supremacy of Athens

by the gradual disappearance of the Corinthian wares, and the

consequent monopoly enjoyed by the rival state. The fact that after the

middle of the fifth century the red-figured Attic vases are seldom

found in Sicilian or Italian tombs shows clearly the blow dealt at

Athenian commerce by the Peloponnesian War, and the enforced cessation

of exports to the west, owing to the hostility of Sicily and the

crippling of Athenian navies; and the gradual growth of local fabrics

shows that the colonists of Magna Graecia at that time began themselves

to supply local demands. Instances might be multiplied.

But the internal evidence of the vases is of even greater value, not

only for the political, but still more for the social history of

Greece. By the application of painting to vases the Greeks made them

something more than mere articles of commercial value or daily use.

Besides the light they throw on the Greek schools of painting, they

have become an inexhaustible source for illustrating the manners,

customs, and literature of Greece. A Greek vase-painting—to quote M.

Pottier— is not only a work of art, but also an historical document.

Even when all artistic qualities are lacking, and the vase at first

sight is liable to be regarded as a worthless and uninteresting

production, a closer inspection will often reveal some small point

which throws light on a question of mythology, or of costume or armour.

Or, again, an inscription painted or even scratched on a vase may be of

surpassing philological or palaeographical importance. For instance,

the earliest inscription known in the Attic alphabet is a _graffito_ on

a vase of the seventh century B.C. (see Chapter XVII.), which of itself

would command no consideration; but this inscription is valuable not

only as evidence for early forms of lettering, but from its

subject-matter. It is true that it need not necessarily be contemporary

with the vase itself, as it may have been scratched in after it was

made, but this cannot detract from its importance or affect its

chronological value.

Or, again, a fragment of a painted vase found at Athens bears the name

of Xanthippos rudely scratched upon it; on the foot of another is that

of Megakles (see below, p. 103). Both of these are undoubted instances

of ὄστρακα, which were used for the banishment of these historical

personages. They therefore provide a striking illustration of the

institution of Ostracism, and bear out what we have said as to the

importance of archaeological discoveries for the study of History.

Historical or quasi-historical subjects are sometimes actually depicted

on the vases, but this question must be reserved for fuller treatment

in Part III., which deals with the subjects on vases in detail. In that

section of the work we shall also deal with the relations of

vase-paintings to ancient literature; and in the list of subjects taken

from daily life (Chapter XV.) it will be seen what ample information is

afforded on such points as the vocations and pastimes of men, the life

of women, war and athletics, sport and education.

(3) =Mythological.=—On this head reference must again be made to the

chapters on Subjects, as affording ample evidence of the importance of

the vases not only for the elucidation of Greek mythology and legend,

but also for religious cults and beliefs. One other point, however, is

worth noting here. Our knowledge of Greek mythology, if only derived

from literary records, rests largely on the compilations of Roman or

late writers, such as Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodoros. It has been aptly

pointed out by a recent writer[4] that in these authors we have

mythology in a crystallised form, modified and systematised, and

perhaps confused with Latin elements, and that our popular modern

notions are mainly derived from these sources as they have been

filtered down to us through the medium of Lemprière’s Dictionary and

similar works. But vase-paintings are more or less original and

contemporary documents. Granted that it is possible to run to the

opposite extreme and accept art traditions to the utter neglect of the

literary tradition as derived from Homer and the Tragedians, the fact

still remains that for _suggestions_, and for raising problems that

could never have arisen through a literary medium, the evidence of

vases is of inestimable value.

In regard to Greek religious beliefs, it should be borne in mind that

with the Greeks art was the language by which they expressed their

ideas of the gods. It was thus largely due to their religion that they

attained supremacy in the plastic art, and their absolute freedom of

treatment of their religious beliefs almost eliminated the hieratic and

conventional character of Oriental art from their own, with its

infinite variety of conceptions. The vase-paintings, almost more than

any other class of monuments, reveal the universal religious sentiment

which pervaded their life—the δεισιδαιμονία which prevailed even in

Romanised Athens. Thus the vases constitute a pictorial commentary on

all aspects of Greek life and thought.[5]

(4) =Artistic.=—(_a_) _Form._ In the grace of their artistic forms the

Greeks have excelled all nations, either past or present. The beauty

and simplicity of the shapes of their vases have caused them to be

taken as models; but as every civilised people has received from other

sources forms sanctioned by time, and as many of the Greek forms cannot

be adapted to the requirements of modern use, they have not been

extensively imitated. Yet to every eye familiar with works of art of

the higher order their beauty is fully apparent.

(_b_) _Decoration._ It is at first difficult to realise how little we

actually know of Greek painting. Our modern museums are so full of

specimens of Greek sculpture, either originals or ancient copies of

masterpieces, that we feel it possible to obtain an adequate idea of

the genius of Pheidias or Praxiteles at first-hand, so to speak. But

ancient literature clearly shows that painting was held by the Greeks

in equally high estimation with sculpture, if not even higher. Consult

the writings of the elder Pliny on ancient art. A considerable space is

there devoted to the account of the great painters Zeuxis, Apelles, and

Parrhasios, while Pheidias is barely mentioned, and the account of

Praxiteles’ works is far from complete. Yet we look in vain through

most modern collections for any specimen of Greek painting on fresco or

panel.

This is, of course, due to the perishable character of pictures and the

destruction of the buildings on the walls of which the great frescoes

were preserved. But the fact remains that we have to look in other

directions for the evidence we require to find. We have here and there

a painted Greek tombstone, a Pompeian fresco, or the decoration of an

Etruscan sepulchre to give us a hint; but while the first-named are far

too inconsiderable in number to give us any idea of the art of their

time, the two latter are merely products of an imitative art, giving

but a faint echo of the originals.

Now, in the vases we have, as noted in regard to mythology,

contemporary evidence. It must never be forgotten that vase-painting is

essentially a decorative art; but, as we shall see later in tracing its

historical development, there is always a tendency to ignore the

essential subserviency of design to use, and to give the decoration a

more pictorial character. Many of the late vases are, in fact, pictures

on terracotta. Again, there is a class of fifth-century vases with

polychrome paintings on white ground which actually recall the method

we know to have been employed by the great master of that century,

Polygnotos. And with regard to the late vases we shall hope to show in

a future chapter that, like the Pompeian paintings, they often reflect

the spirit, if not the exact likeness, of some well-known painting of

which we have record.

Many instances might be given of vase-paintings which reflect, or

assist our knowledge of, the products of the higher arts. Even as early

as the end of the sixth century the group of the Tyrant-slayers, the

creation of Antenor and of Kritios and Nesiotes, is found repeated on a

black-figured vase[6]; and the early _poros_ pediments from the

Athenian Acropolis find an interesting parallel in an early Attic vase

of about the same date.[7] So again in Ionia, the style of the

sculptures of the archaic temple at Ephesos finds its reflection in

some of the local sixth-century vase-fabrics.[8] Coming to the fifth

century, the heads in Euphronios’ paintings may be compared with some

of the Attic heads in marble, like that of the ephebos from the

Acropolis.[9] Combats of Greeks with Amazons and Centaurs on later R.F.

vases often seem to suggest a comparison with the friezes of Phigaleia

and Olympia; a figure from the balustrade of the Nike temple is almost

reproduced on a R.F. vase,[10] and the riding youths of the Parthenon

frieze on some of the white Athenian lekythi; and the Kertch vase with

the contest of Athena and Poseidon (Plate L.) is of special interest as

an almost contemporary reproduction of the Parthenon west pediment. In

painting, again, the later R.F. vases in many instances reflect what we

know of the style and composition of Polygnotos’ paintings, and there

are many instances on the vases of the subjects treated by him and

Mikon.[11]

It is not necessary here to say more of the importance of a study of

Greek vases on the several lines that we have pointed out. It is

sufficient to say that specialists in all these branches of Archaeology

instinctively turn to vases for the main source of their information.

* * * * *

The earliest date at which public attention was directed to the painted

vases was the end of the seventeenth century. In those days, it need

hardly be said, systematic excavation was a thing quite unknown, while

archaeology as a science was non-existent. Beyond a few sculptures

which had been handed down at Rome or elsewhere through many

vicissitudes, cabinets of gems which had been preserved by cardinals

and other dignitaries who employed them for signet-rings, chiefly for

ecclesiastical purposes, and some collections of coins of the

Renaissance period, there were no specimens of ancient art preserved.

During the seventeenth century, however, the fashion arose of making

voyages to Italy or Greece, and bringing back any spoils that might

attract the notice of the traveller. In this way the collection of

Arundel Marbles at Oxford was made, and the nucleus of many of the

famous private collections of England formed. But the painted vases,

which for the most part lay buried in tombs, escaped notice almost

entirely—and, perhaps even where specimens were preserved, they

attracted little notice—until with Winckelmann arose a gradual

hankering after the possession of artistic treasures and the formation

of collections of antiques.

The earliest allusion to be found to painted vases is in the works of

La Chausse (Caussius),[12] and in the _Thesaurus_ of Graevius,[13]

while the oldest existing catalogue is that of the collection of the

Elector of Brandenburg, compiled by L. Beger in 1696–1701.[14] Some few

are illustrated in these works, while others were given later by

Montfaucon,[15] Dempster,[16] Gori,[17] and Caylus.[18] Winckelmann

published several vases in his _Histoire de l’Art_ (1764) and

_Monumenti Antichi_ (1769), and the industrious Passeri in 1767–75

published, besides a supplement to Dempster, three volumes containing

coloured engravings of vases in various collections.

Sir William Hamilton, who was for some time English Ambassador at

Naples, formed there a considerable collection of Greek and Roman

antiquities, mostly painted vases, which had been discovered in various

tombs in Southern Italy and Etruria. All these he brought with him to

England and sold to the newly instituted British Museum in 1767. A

Frenchman named Hugues or D'Hancarville compiled a magnificent work in

four volumes[19] illustrating the vases in this collection, with

elaborate diagrams of the shapes; but the representations of the

subjects are often marred by the imaginary ornamental borders in which

they are framed, while the whole work, like others of the same period,

is marked by a tendency to ignore all but the artistic interest, and

instead of an accurate reproduction to aim merely at giving a pretty

picture.

A second collection of vases belonging to Hamilton was mostly lost at

sea, but a record of it has been preserved in Tischbein’s work, _Vases

d’Hamilton_[20] in four volumes, which is more accurate and useful than

that of D'Hancarville. It is believed that many of these vases are now

in the Hope collection at Deepdene, which is unfortunately inaccessible

to archaeologists.

The Hamilton collection formed, as we have said, the nucleus of the

magnificent array of vases in the British Museum. Most of them, it is

true, belong to the later period or decadence of vase-painting, and

were not only found, but had also been manufactured, in Italy. Although

the time for a scientific study and classification was not yet to be

for some sixty years, the interest in the subject was decidedly on the

increase, and many English noblemen and gentlemen were forming

collections, as well as such foreigners as the Duc de Blacas, the Duc

de Luynes, and M. Millin. It became the fashion to produce large folio

works embodying the contents of these collections in series of coloured

illustrations, and thus we have, besides those already mentioned, the

imposing publications of Millin,[21] Millingen[22], Laborde[23], and

others. On the same lines, but mostly of later date, are the

publications of De Rossi[24], Christie[25], Moses[26], Inghirami[27],

Lanzi[28], Böttiger[29], Micali[30], Raoul-Rochette[31],

Stackelberg[32], and the Duc de Luynes[33], who published either their

own vases, as De Luynes, or some well-known collection like that of the

Duc de Blacas, or some particular class of vases: _e.g._ Micali, those

found in Etruria; Raoul-Rochette and Inghirami, those illustrating

Homer; and Stackelberg, those found in tombs in Greece Proper. Few of

these, it will be seen, were published in England, where neither public

patronage nor private enterprise were found prepared to rival the

achievements of the Continent.

In most of these works the vases are styled “Etruscan” as a matter of

course. Even nowadays it is a very common experience to hear vases

spoken of as “Etruscan” or even as “Etruscan urns,” as if every vase

was used as a receptacle for the ashes of the dead. This error has

lasted, with all the perseverance of a popular fallacy, for over a

century, and cannot now be too strongly denounced. But at the beginning

of the last century the Etruscan origin of painted vases was most

strongly maintained by erudite scholars, chiefly Italians who desired

to champion the credit of their own country, and the controversy raged

with varying force till Greece was able to substantiate her own case by

the numbers of vases that came forth from her tombs to proclaim their

Hellenic origin.

The “Etruscan” theory was first promulgated by Montfaucon, Gori,

Caylus, and Passeri, between 1719 and 1752; their arguments being based

on the plausible ground that up till that time the vases had been found

almost exclusively in Etruria. So the term “Etruscan vase” passed into

the languages of Europe, and has survived in spite of a century of

refutation. But in 1763 Winckelmann, the father of scientific

archaeology, conceived the idea that the spirit and character of the

vase-paintings were wholly Greek; and he proposed to call them

Italo-Greek or Graeco-Sicilian, indicating Magna Graecia as the true

place of their manufacture. This was a step in the right direction, and

he was supported later by Lanzi, Millin, Millingen, and others

(1791–1813). A further attempt was made to define the particular places

of their fabric, and Nola, Locri, and Agrigentum were suggested as the

most important centres. Meanwhile, the discoveries of vases in Attica,

at Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece, and subsequently the publication

of Stackelberg’s work, helped to confirm the position of Winckelmann’s

followers.

In 1828 came what M. Pottier terms “an objectionable revival of

Etruscomania,” with the extensive and marvellously fruitful excavations

at Vulci under the direction of the Prince of Canino, Lucien Bonaparte,

on whose estates most of the tombs were found. Several thousand vases

were the yield of this site, mostly of the best periods of Greek art.

This was a great epoch in the history of the study of Greek vases. A

flood of fresh light was thrown on the subject by the mass of new

material, and a whole new literature arose in consequence. Hitherto

vases of the archaic and fine periods had only been known in isolated

instances, and the bulk of the existing collections was formed of the

florid vases of the Decadence; but now it became possible to fill up

the gaps and trace the whole development of the art from the simplest

specimens with decorative patterns or figures of animals down to the

very last stages of painting.

These discoveries prompted Prince Lucien Bonaparte to revive the theory

of Etruscan origin, in which he was supported by D'Amatis and De Fea.

It is probable that all three were animated more by patriotic motives

than by intellectual conviction. At any rate their arguments appealed

but little to scholars, although not a few inclined to take a middle

course, and maintained that there existed, not only in Etruria but also

in Southern Italy, various local centres of manufacture under Greek

superintendence and in close connection with Athens and her influences.

These ideas were upheld by Gerhard, Welcker, the Duc de Luynes, and Ch.

Lenormant. But the preponderating arguments were to be found on the

other side, from Kramer (1837), who attributed all vases but those of

the Decadence to an Attic origin, O. Müller, who limited this to the

finer examples from Vulci, and Raoul-Rochette, who pinned his faith to

Sicily, to Otto Jahn[34], who may be said to have founded the modern

comparative study of Greek ceramics on its present basis (1854).

Jahn pronounced decisively for the Greek origin of all but the later

fabrics, and his principles have been adopted by all succeeding

archaeologists, with the exception of Brunn, and one or two of the

latter’s disciples, who have swung back to the Italian theory in some

respects. Up to his time all had been in chaos, and each writer worked

on his own particular line without regard to others, both as regards

the origin of the vases and the subjects depicted thereon; but Jahn, in

his epoch-making catalogue of the vases at Munich, was the first to

make a serious and scientific attempt to reduce the chaos to order, not

only by adopting a rational system of interpretation, but by

systematising and reducing to one common denominator all previous

contributions to knowledge.

We may say that the study of Greek vases has passed through three main

stages: (1) Artistic; (2) Epexegetic; (3) Historical.

(1) =Artistic= (1690—1770).—In the first stage, as we have seen, the

artistic merit of the vases and the aim of producing a pretty picture

were alone regarded. Hence, too, arose the fashion of making copies of

Greek vases, and many specimens were produced by Wedgwood[35], bearing,

however, no more than a superficial likeness to the originals.

(2) =Epexegetic= (1770—1854).—In the second stage it seems to have been

suddenly discovered that the figures on the vases were not mere

meaningless groups, like the Watteau shepherds and shepherdesses on

Dresden china, and many strange theories were at first promulgated as

to the purposes for which the vases were made and the subjects thereon

depicted. Three main lines of interpretation seem to have been adopted

by the writers of this period:—

(_a_) Passeri, Millin, Lanzi, and Visconti supposed that allusions were

made to the life of the deceased person in whose tomb they were found;

allegorical representations were given of his childish games, his

youthful pastimes, or the religious and social ceremonies in which he

took part.

(_b_) Italynski, in his preface to Tischbein’s work, enunciates the

strange notion that they allude to events of Greek and Roman history:

for instance, three draped men represent the three chief archons of

Athens, or three women conversing, Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus,

with her daughter and daughter-in-law, considering whether she should

appear as a suppliant before her son. The utterly fantastic and

unscientific nature of these explanations was self-evident; the writers

of the first group at any rate had a sounder basis for their theories,

and on the analogy of the sculptured Greek tombstones might well have

been near the truth.

(_c_) Another theory, which attained great popularity, and was even

adhered to partially for some years afterwards by Panofka, Gerhard, and

Lenormant, was that the subjects bore allusion to the Mysteries, more

particularly the Eleusinian. The vases were regarded as presents given

to the initiated, and the reason why their interpretation was so

difficult was that they related to the secrets unfolded in those

ceremonies. Many attempts were made to unlock those secrets and to show

the mystic moral purport of the pictures; but all is the merest

guesswork. The height of fantastic explanation is perhaps reached by

Christie, whose work is quite worth perusal as a literary curiosity.

Panofka, on the other hand, turned his attention to the inscriptions on

the vases,[36] and discerned a symbolical meaning in these, reading

into the names of artists rebuses on the subjects over which they were

inscribed, _e.g._ Douris is indicated by Athena with a spear (δόρυ) or

Hermaios by a figure of Hermes.

(3) =Historical.=—The historical or scientific method of studying Greek

vases consists mainly in classifying them according to different

periods, and within that period to different schools. To these main

considerations the artistic merits of the vases and the explanation of

the subjects are subordinated. The reason for this is obvious. The

artistic and mythological interest of the vases is soon exhausted, and

receives no new impetus from new discoveries. Now, with the comparative

study of vases this is not the case. Any day may bring forth a new

discovery which will completely revolutionise all preconceived

theories; hence there is the constant necessity for being “up-to-date,”

and for the adjustment of old beliefs to new.

But the historical method is not entirely of modern growth. As long ago

as 1767 the first attempt was made by D'Hancarville[37] to classify

vases according to their age. Taking such scanty data as were

available, he divided Italian vases into five classes, ranging from

“some centuries before the foundation of Rome” down to the reigns of

Trajan, the Antonines, and Septimius Severus, which “announc’d the

total decadency of the Art.” The earlier vases he sought to fix more

precisely by reference to the history of painting as told by Pliny.

The Duc de Luynes, writing in 1832,[38] hesitates to define the exact

age of the various styles, though he arranges them generally in six

classes, ranging from the “Doric” or “Phoenician” vases down to

barbaric imitations by the natives of Italy. According to him the

red-figured vases lasted from the time of Perikles down to that of

Pyrrhos. Millingen was content with three periods only, his

division[39] being: (1) ancient style, 700–450 B.C.; (2) fine style,

450–228 B.C.; (3) late style, 228 to Social War. Kramer distinguishes

five epochs: (A) Egyptian style, 580–500 B.C.; (B) older style, 500–460

B.C.; (C) severe style, 460—420 B.C.; (D) fine style, 420–380 B.C.; (E)

rich style, 380–200 B.C.[40] Gerhard[41] surmised that the earliest

vases might date from the ninth or tenth century B.C., the fine style

extending over the fifth and fourth, while the decadence culminated in

the second, and in the first century fictile vases were entirely

supplanted by those of metal.

De Witte made a more detailed classification, extending to nine groups,

and based rather on technical differences, as several of the groups are

contemporaneous; but his classification is essentially a practical one,

and may be regarded as forming a sound basis for all succeeding

catalogues and treatises, as also for the arrangement of museums.

Jahn in his Introduction is content with four main headings, which for

a general classification of a large collection is convenient enough,

and has, in fact, been adopted in the Vase Rooms of the British Museum.

Under this system the four divisions are: (1) Primitive; (2)

Black-figured; (3) Red-figured; (4) Vases of the Decadence. In the

Louvre, on the other hand, the arrangement is mainly geographical,

according to the sites from which the vases have come.

It is recognised by modern archaeologists,[42] working on the lines

laid down by Jahn in the three main divisions of his Introduction, that

in dating and classifying a vase or series of vases three points must

be taken into consideration: (1) circumstances of discovery; (2)

technique and style; (3) inscriptions (when present). The various

questions with which the modern study of vase-paintings has mainly to

deal will be fully investigated in subsequent chapters, and it is not

necessary to say more on this head. But we trust that sufficient

attention has been drawn to the many-sided interests presented by—it is

not necessary to say a collection of vases, but—a single vase[43].

It may be worth while here to turn aside for a moment and study the

rise and growth of the various great vase-collections of Europe. We may

with pardonable pride regard the British Museum as standing at the head

of these collections, possessing as it does the most representative

collection of any, if not the largest. Hardly any known fabric is

unrepresented, nor the work of any known artist; though here and there

another museum may have the advantage—as, for instance, the Louvre in

early black-figured fabrics, Naples in vases of Southern Italy

(especially the large specimens), or Athens in various fabrics peculiar

to Greece, such as the early vases of Thera and Melos, or the

marvellous specimens of “transitional” handiwork found on the Acropolis

of Athens.

The nucleus of the British Museum collection was, as has been

indicated, formed by the vases obtained from Sir W. Hamilton in 1767,

supplemented by those of Towneley and Payne Knight (1805–24): these are

nearly all vases of the late period from Southern Italy. Between the

years 1837 and 1845 a large quantity of fine black-figured and

red-figured vases was acquired from the Canino collection, having been

found on that estate at Vulci, and in 1836 acquisitions from M.

Durand’s sale had helped to swell the number of vases representing that

site, including some very fine examples. In 1842 came the Burgon

collection, mostly of small vases from Athens and the Greek islands; in

1856 the bequest by Sir William Temple of his collection, formed at

Naples, added greatly to the value of the collection of later vases. In

1860–64 large numbers of vases of all periods from 700 B.C. to 400 B.C.

were excavated by Salzmann and Biliotti at Kameiros in Rhodes; and from

Ialysos in the same island came a number of Mycenaean vases by the

generosity of Prof. Ruskin in 1870. Meanwhile, the Blacas collection,

purchased in 1867, had added a large number, chiefly of red-figured and

Italian vases, and in 1873 many more fine specimens from Capua, Nola,

and elsewhere were acquired from M. Castellani. Of late years the chief

additions have been from Cyprus, beginning with a few vases from

Cesnola in 1876 down to the Turner Bequest excavations in 1894–96, and

from the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavations at Naukratis and Daphnae

(1884–86). Other acquisitions have been mostly in the form of isolated

purchases, especially of the white lekythi and similar classes; some

have come from important collections, such as those of Forman,

Tyszkiewicz, and Van Branteghem.

In 1870, when the old Catalogue was completed, the collection must have

numbered over 2,000 painted vases, besides 1,000 undecorated; at the

present day the total cannot be computed at less than 5,000, of which

about 4,000 may be described as painted vases.

The Louvre collection in Paris[44] started life about a century ago

under the first Napoleon, who established a ceramic section about 1797.

Other vases were added from the Vatican and Naples; and meanwhile the

Royal collection went to form the present Cabinet of Antiquities in the

Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1818 the very limited collection was

augmented by 564 vases from M. Tochon, and in 1825 came a magnificent

acquisition of about 2,000 vases (mostly painted) from M. Durand. From

this time till 1863 the growth was very slow, and the Louvre does not

seem to have profited like other museums by the excavations at Vulci.

In the latter year, however, another splendid collection of 2,000

painted and 1,400 unpainted vases was acquired from Count Campana,

which necessitated the building of new galleries. The early B.F.

fabrics, in which the Louvre is so pre-eminently rich, were all in this

collection. During the last thirty years the only acquisitions of

importance have been representative specimens from Greece and Cyprus;

but the total number is now reckoned at 6,000.

The growth of the Berlin collection has been much more slow and

consistent.[45] Its nucleus was derived from the collection of the

Elector of Brandenburg described by Beger in 1701. Up to 1830 most of

the vases acquired were from Southern Italy and Campania, including

1,348 from the Koller collection in 1828. In 1831, 442 vases and 179

specimens of Etruscan plain ware were acquired from the Dorow

collection, and from 1833 to 1867 the activity of Gerhard procured fine

specimens from time to time, while 174 were bequeathed by him at his

death. When Levezow’s Catalogue was published in 1834, it included

1,579 specimens; the next one by Furtwaengler in 1885 describes more

than 4,000. Of late years many valuable specimens have been derived

from various parts of Greece.

These three may be regarded as the typical representative collections

of Europe; those of Athens, Munich, Naples, and Petersburg are all of

great merit and value, but chiefly strong in one particular

department—Athens in early vases and Attic lekythi, Petersburg in late

red-figured vases, and Naples in the fabrics of Southern Italy. Many of

the finest specimens, however, are to be found in the smaller

collections in the Paris Bibliothèque, at Florence, Vienna, Madrid, and

in Rome. Of late years Europe has found a formidable rival in America,

especially in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, which, backed by

almost inexhaustible private benefactions, is gradually acquiring a

large proportion of the signed vases and other _chefs-d’œuvre_ which

from time to time find their way into the market. The Metropolitan

Museum at New York, on the other hand, rests its claim to distinction

on the possession of General Cesnola’s enormous collections of Cypriote

pottery of all periods.

History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman. Volume 1 (of 2) · 第 7 / 16 章