The subjects comprise several interesting mythological themes: Odysseus

and Kirke,[1149] the Calydonian boar-hunt, Boreas and one of his sons,

Bellerophon and the Chimaera. There is a curious series of nude figures

on horseback, painted white throughout, accompanied by warriors and

dogs; they have usually been interpreted as feminine, but are not so

necessarily, as Ionian painters used white indiscriminately for either

sex.[1150] Dionysiac scenes are popular, but monotonous, and often very

coarse; the Satyrs are of the Ionic type, with horses’ hoofs, and very

bestial in appearance; their place is often taken by grotesque dancers,

as on the Corinthian vases. Among small details the Oriental

embroidered saddle-cloths[1151] should be mentioned, as also the

curious hook (φάλος) in front of the warrior’s helmet on B 11; both are

found on the Clazomenae sarcophagi, and the latter is typical of Ionic

art.[1152]

§ 3. LATER IONIC FABRICS

What is in many ways the most remarkable group of Ionian vases is

formed by the =Caeretan hydriae=, so called because they have been

found almost exclusively at Caere (Cervetri) in Etruria. They form a

very homogeneous group, and their typical features are unmistakable.

Originally they were thought to be of local, _i.e._ Etruscan,

manufacture, or even imitations of Corinthian vases. But since the

sarcophagi of Clazomenae and the pottery of Naukratis and Daphnae have

been made known and studied, it has been established beyond doubt that

they stand in close relation to these undoubtedly Ionian fabrics.[1153]

If further proof were wanted, it is to be found in a class of Etruscan

vases which are clearly imitated from them (see Chapter XVIII.).

They were first collectively discussed in 1888 by Dümmler, who gave a

list of fourteen, assigning them to Phocaea; a more complete list of

twenty has since been drawn up by Endt, who to some extent endorses

Dümmler’s views, but is inclined to attribute them to Clazomenae, on

the opposite side of the Gulf of Smyrna, thus bringing them into closer

relation with the sarcophagi. Whichever be the correct view, there is

no doubt that they come from this region, and the existence of a

ceramic fabric at Clazomenae, as attested by the sarcophagi and a few

painted fragments of pottery, is in favour of Endt’s attribution. We

have also to set by the side of this the absence (so far) of any

pottery at Phocaea. In any case the place must have formed part of the

Naucratite confederation, and it was perhaps influenced much by

Rhodes.[1154] That the vases have all been found at Cervetri need

excite no surprise, as there is abundant evidence that certain fabrics

were specially favoured by different places, and apparently made for

exclusive importation.

From the circumstances of discovery of some of them they may be dated

about the middle of the sixth century B.C.; the style is remarkably

advanced, and shows the rapid development of Ionian art as compared

with that of Continental Greece. As regards the form of the hydria, it

is characterised by the egg-shaped body, the division of neck from

shoulder by a moulded ring, the low flat-ribbed handle at the back, and

the high concave foot. Even more marked is the system of ornamentation.

The main design runs in a broad frieze round the body, broken at the

back by a palmette pattern under the handle, on either side of which

are usually grouped two similar or opposed figures, distinct from the

principal subject. The rest of the surface is given over to floral

patterns, which assume great prominence on these vases. The normal

arrangement is as follows: inside the mouth a large tongue-pattern in

red, bordered with black; on the neck, palmette-and-lotos pattern; on

the shoulder, ivy-wreaths or other plants, treated in a naturalistic

manner; round the lower part of the body, a broad band of large

palmettes and lotos-flowers alternating, forming a very effective

pattern and enhanced with white and purple details. An illustration in

colours of a typical specimen is given on Plate XXVI.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXVI

[Illustration:

_To face page 354._

CAERETAN HYDRIA.

(BRITISH MUSEUM.)

]

------------------------------------

The range of subjects is wide and original, both in choice and method

of treatment. We find among mythological scenes the return of

Hephaistos to heaven, the rape of Europa, the contest of Herakles with

Busiris, and the hunt of the Calydonian boar.[1155] Other subjects,

such as combatants or horsemen, are more in the manner of the

Clazomenae sarcophagi. A curious feature of the group is the entire

absence of friezes of animals. The realistic treatment of the Egyptians

on the Busiris vase, and the introduction of apes and other African

animals into some of the scenes, clearly indicate a relation with that

part of the world, obviously through the medium of one of the Greek

colonies of Egypt. Naukratis, as we have seen, was largely colonised

from Phocaea, and some of the later fragments from this site[1156] show

a parallelism with the hydriae.

Among the smaller details which are typically Ionian may be

mentioned the horse-hoofed type of Seilenos (as at Daphnae); the

four-winged deities and winged boars[1157]; the favourite types of

stag-hunts,[1158] horsemen, and combats, all appearing on the

sarcophagi; the running dogs and the owls on horses’ backs; the

high-peaked cap of women and shoes with turned-up toes. All these

are generally, but not invariably, characteristic of the Ionian

fabrics, as is the peculiar treatment of boys’ hair, which is tied

in a tuft at the back.

In regard to technique the chief point is the extensive use of

accessories, which give a bright and varied appearance to the vases.

And we must also note the general use of white for flesh, of men as

well as of women, the white being laid on the black varnish in the

Attic fashion, and not on the clay, as usual in Ionia. The clay, too,

is not covered with the characteristic creamy slip, but with a red

glaze approaching more nearly to the “continental” fabrics. Incised

lines are used with great care, and folds of drapery are always

indicated; the male eye is always oval, and undistinguished from the

female.

Two groups of fragments from sites in Asia Minor, though differing in

some degree from the Caeretan hydriae, yet obviously stand in close

relation. Of these, one set, forming a large krater of the Corinthian

type, was found at Kyme in Aeolis[1159]; they appear to be later than

the hydriae, _i.e._ about 500 B.C., but the style and technique are not

dissimilar, except that the white is here laid on the clay ground and

the drawing tends to freedom and carelessness.[1160] Folds of drapery

are not indicated; the typical Ionic motive of a large bud in the field

is found.[1161] They may be described as a local differentiation from

the hydriae, representing the transition from the sarcophagi[1162] to

B.F. fabrics, or rather, perhaps, forming a link between the Caeretan

group and that next to be discussed. The other set was found at

Clazomenae,[1163] and appears to stand midway between the Daphnae

pottery and the hydriae; it is probably of local origin, and also

exhibits points of comparison with the sarcophagi. The influence of

this fabric has been traced in some Attic B.F. vases which represent a

similar scene—the harnessing of a chariot.[1164]

There are also various groups of vases (mostly amphorae) of advanced

B.F. technique, but thoroughly Ionian characteristics,[1165] which seem

to trace their descent mainly from the Caeretan hydriae, although the

scheme of ornamentation is widely different. In the majority the most

striking feature is the adoption of the panel-design, the rest of the

vase being covered with black. This is clearly non-Ionic, and probably

due to the growing influence of Attic vase-painting, in which it early

became a marked feature; but it is usually combined with a distinct

neck, on which is a smaller design, and this, on the other hand, is a

non-Attic idea. These vases were all most probably made in the

Clazomenae region; they are, however, rather to be regarded as forming

links between the Ionian fabrics proper and the Attic B.F. vases, and

are the predecessors of a group of vases of fully-developed B.F.

technique which are yet more Ionic than Attic in feeling and treatment

(see below, p. 387).

Among these may be mentioned two groups of kylikes, one found in Rhodes

and richly decorated with figures within and without, the form

suggesting a metallic original.[1166] The other consists of a series of

kylikes decorated on the outside with large eyes (formerly thought to

be of symbolical import), at the head of which stands the well-known

Würzburg cup, with the subject of Phineus attacked by the

Harpies.[1167] This vase bears remains of inscriptions in the Ionic

alphabet; the cup is of a form afterward introduced at Athens by

Exekias, in which the off-set rim and high foot of the other group are

replaced by a wide-spreading bowl of plain convex section, with a low

foot. Once adopted at Athens, this type remained firmly in favour

throughout the R.F. period.

It has often been remarked that inscribed vases are remarkably rare

among Ionian fabrics; there are not more than six at the outside,

including the Euphorbos pinax, the alphabet of which we have seen to be

Argive.[1168] But there are two vases the alphabet of which apparently

belongs to the island of Keos, being one of the Ionic or Eastern group,

and of these one[1169] may well be associated with the later Ionic

fabrics. The other, however, is in a style which is usually associated

with the Chalcidian group[1170]; there is the typical feature of the

fallen warrior with face turned to the front. If the two can both be

assumed to have been actually made in Keos, the geographical position

of that island would account for the combination of these Eastern and

Western elements.[1171]

A complete and detailed list of the Caeretan hydriae and of the allied

types may be found in Endt’s book (pp. 1, 21, 29, etc.); but a brief

summary may also be found useful:—

1. _Caeretan hydriae_: B.M. B 59 (Plate XXVI.); Louvre E 696–702;

Vienna 217–18; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 28 (in Berlin); _Mus. Greg._ ii.

16, 2_a_; Jahn, _Entführung der Europa_, pl. 5_a_; Endt, figs.

1–2, 5–8; four others unpublished. See also generally Dümmler in

_Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 166 ff., and Pottier in _Bull. de Corr.

Hell._ 1892, p. 253 ff., and _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 534.

2. _Later Ionic B.F. fabrics_, chiefly amphorae, kraters, hydriae,

and deinoi, from the region of the Gulf of Smyrna: Louvre E 736, E

737, E 739; Vienna 215; Munich 573, 583, 685; Berlin 1674, 1885,

2154; Würzburg, iii. 328 (= Reinach, ii. 97) and 331; Reinach, ii.

156; _J.H.S._ vi. pp. 181, 185, and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 83 (in

Berlin); Louvre E 754–81; Berlin 1676 = Reinach, ii. 22, 3–5; and

the fragments from Kyme and Clazomenae already discussed. See

besides Endt, Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 423 ff.;

Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 38 ff.; Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p.

146 ff.

3. _Kylikes of Attic-Ionic style_: (_a_) Rhodian: B.M. B 379-B 382:

see _J.H.S._ v. p. 220 ff.; (_b_) later type, with eyes (see p.

374); Würzburg, iii. 354 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 41

(Phineus cup) and 349; Berlin 1803, 2054, 2056; Munich 428, 468,

630, 553, 711, 1239, 1316, 1027, 1239; and others given by Böhlau;

to which may be added the British Museum cups with eyes, B 427

ff., and the amphora B.M. B 215.

4. _Keos fabric_ (?): Louvre E 732 = Reinach, i. 162; Gerhard, _A.V._

205, 3–4.

There are also numerous vases scattered about our museums which are of

a debased and inferior B.F. type, and on good grounds have been thought

to be of Italian manufacture, whether Etruscan or South Italian. The

former usually display unmistakable local characteristics, and there is

a class so sharply defined that its Etruscan origin is undoubted, in

spite of its affinities to the Caeretan hydriae. A full description

will be found in the chapter on Etruscan pottery (XVIII.). Others again

have more in common with the class next to be discussed; and, generally

speaking, they may all be found to show Ionian affinities. But the line

is not easy to draw: debased B.F. vases may have been produced in

Ionia, as they undoubtedly were at Kameiros[1172]; but, on the other

hand, the extensive export of Ionic wares to Cumae, Cervetri, and other

places may have incited the Italian potters, as in the case of the

Etruscan class just mentioned, to unsuccessful attempts at imitation.

There remains yet one class of Ionic vases to be discussed, a class

which can be clearly defined, but for which as yet no satisfactory name

has been found. Like the Caeretan hydriae, they were first discussed by

the late F. Dümmler; but his grounds for assigning them to the region

of Pontus—whence they have been provisionally styled “Pontic”—have not

found general acceptance.[1173] They were also originally, like the

Caeretan group, thought to be Etruscan, a view which at first sight

might seem justified by their rough execution; but style and other

reasons preclude such a possibility. On the other hand, it is quite

possible that some of them are imitative fabrics made in Southern

Italy. All at present known have been found in Etruria.

The group is formed by a series of about twenty amphorae and sixteen

oinochoae, to which Endt appends a list of twenty or so which may

either be of this fabric or Italian imitations. Another example in the

Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, is illustrated on Plate

XXV. The list might doubtless be extended. That they date from the

first half of the sixth century seems indicated by the discovery of one

at Orvieto, together with an early Corinthian cup. Like so many of the

Ionic fabrics, they exhibit a fondness for bright colouring, with an

extensive use of accessory colours. In some cases Corinthian influence

seems to have been at work, especially in the technique. Incised lines

are sparingly and carelessly employed, and seldom for contours. Among

the subjects mythological scenes are rare, but one of the British

Museum examples (B 57) has a curious subject—the contest of Herakles

and the Lacinian Hera (the Roman Juno Sospita), assisted respectively

by Athena and Poseidon. Winged male figures are not uncommon, and the

typically Corinthian subject of grotesque figures dancing is

occasionally found. But the specially characteristic feature of the

group is formed by the friezes of animals. Of these there are usually

two on each vase, more rarely one; sometimes they are interspersed with

figures of men, not representing any definite subject, but as an

imitation of stamped metal vases (as on the Bucchero vases of Etruria,

Chapter XVIII.). The animals are so characteristic as in themselves to

mark off this class as distinct; sometimes they are naturalistic,

sometimes conventional, and repetitions in one frieze are very rare.

The favourite quadruped is a deer; Gryphons of a peculiar type and

Sphinxes are frequently found, and on some specimens a subordinate

frieze of quails.[1174] On the necks of the amphorae heraldic groups of

panthers or other animals confronted are sometimes seen, varied by

palmette and lotos patterns. The latter form the chief decorative

motive; but a combination of maeanders and stars (see Chapter XVI.) is

often found on the oinochoae, and this, it is interesting to note, also

appears on the Clazomenae sarcophagi. On one of the vases published by

Dümmler there is represented a combat of Greeks and mounted Barbarians;

the latter he identified as Scythians, and mainly on this ground

attributed the group to the northern coast of Asia Minor. But they are

more likely to be from Phocaea, or Kyme, or one of the neighbouring

cities. The oinochoae appear, from the absence of human figures, to be

earlier than the amphorae, and the number of friezes often exceeds two;

there are also a few minor distinctions.[1175]

§ 4. EARLY PAINTING IN IONIA

It is now time to turn, by way of supplementing our account of Ionic

pottery, to the history of the art of painting in general among these

peoples, so far as it is illustrated by literary records and by

existing monuments other than the vases. That the latter do afford us

considerable information on the subject of painting in Ionia is amply

shown in the foregoing pages; but there is yet another group of

monuments which the material of which they are made would alone entitle

to inclusion in this work, apart from the valuable illustration they

afford of certain aspects of Ionic pottery.

In the light of modern researches, we are prepared to find in Ionia a

great centre for the art of painting in the archaic period. That this

region inherited the characteristics of Mycenaean art has already been

so abundantly shown that we need not hesitate to believe that, among

other branches of art, that of fresco-painting was firmly established

in the Asiatic colonies. The art of which Crete, Mycenae, and Tiryns

have furnished such remarkable examples is hardly likely to have died

out. Hence it need excite no surprise when we read that as early as

about 700 B.C. Kandaules, the king of Lydia, purchased for its weight

in gold a picture painted by Bularchos representing a battle of the

Magnetes.[1176] That such an elaborate subject should have been treated

at this early date, when the vase-painter had not emerged from his

earliest limitations, is, if we may accept Pliny’s account, a most

remarkable proof of advanced art. Saurias of Samos is also mentioned as

an early painter,[1177] who “invented silhouette drawing,” and

Philokles the Egyptian, who “invented linear drawing,” was probably a

Naucratite, and his “inventions” may be reflected in the outlined

paintings on white ground which have been described above. Lastly, we

read that about 515 B.C. Mandrokles of Samos painted a picture which

represented Dareios watching his army crossing the Bosphoros,[1178] and

Kalliphon of Samos, probably a contemporary, painted scenes from the

story of Troy.[1179]

Combining these traditions with what we also know of Ionic painting

from the pottery, we should expect to find that its characteristic form

was that of figures in black silhouette or outline on a ground covered

with white slip; and, further, that the subjects treated were by no

means of an elementary character, but comprised elaborate battle-scenes

or groups of warriors, and even historical themes. Now, these

conditions are exactly fulfilled in the group of terracotta sarcophagi

excavated during the last twenty years at or in the neighbourhood of

Clazomenae, on the Gulf of Smyrna. It is practically certain that all

have come from this district,[1180] and no attempt has ever been made

to connect them with any other site. Further, we have already seen that

there are reasons for attributing some of the vase-fabrics to this

place, or at least for connecting them closely with the sarcophagi; and

thus there are good grounds for regarding Clazomenae as one of the

principal centres of Ionian art.

The sarcophagi which have come to light up to the present number over

twenty, inclusive of fragments, but very few are anything like

complete. There are fine specimens at Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and

Constantinople, with paintings round the flat rims; but all are

overshadowed by the magnificent example recently acquired by the

British Museum,[1181] which is absolutely complete, with a massive

gabled cover, and decorated over almost every inch of its surface with

subjects or ornamental patterns. Its dimensions are: body, 7 ft. 6 in.

by 3 ft. 9 in. by 2 ft. 9 in.; cover, 8 ft. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. The only

undecorated portions are the central panels on the sides of the coffin

and the bottom, but in some other parts the designs are largely worn

away. It is made of a coarse brick-like clay of very hard consistency,

which is completely covered, except on the bottom, with a thick white

slip to receive the paintings. The figures are painted throughout in

black silhouette, without any method of reproducing inner details

except by _traits réservés_, _i.e._ by leaving them unpainted on the

white ground; but the greater part has been imperfectly fired, so that

the black has become bright red.

On the long sides of the interior are representations of funeral games,

such as contests with spears and a chariot-race; the shorter sides have

groups of warriors on horseback and on foot. The chariot-races are also

repeated along the flat rim of the coffin, the exterior and the space

above the interior designs being ornamented with bands of egg-and-dart

moulding and the typical Ionic pattern of maeander interspersed with

stars, which we have already met with in the pottery (p. 360). The main

designs on the cover are in two rows, those on one side having almost

entirely disappeared; on the complete side the upper band represents an

episode from the story of Dolon, the lower an ordinary scene of

combat.[1182] The gable-ends have groups of Centaurs and horsemen, and

along the lower edges of the cover, underneath, are further scenes from

the Doloneia, groups of Sphinxes and Sirens, and bands of ornamental

pattern (rosettes, maeander, etc.). Of the many minor details of

interest in these paintings this is not the place to speak; but they

have been fully discussed by Murray (_op. cit._), especially

peculiarities of armour and costume.

It is possible that the battle-scenes on this and other sarcophagi may,

as Murray and S. Reinach[1183] have suggested, have some bearing on the

question of the painting by Bularchos already mentioned. It would, at

all events, help to explain the selling of the painting for its weight

in gold, if we may regard it as painted on terracotta; but it is not

safe to say more than that the sarcophagi confirm the story to the

extent of showing the popularity of such subjects in early Ionian art.

Many of the motives on the British Museum sarcophagus are found

repeated again and again throughout the series, especially the

battle-scenes; groups “heraldically” composed, such as a warrior

between two chariots or horsemen, or pairs of Sphinxes (Plate XXVII.),

or animals confronted, are of constant occurrence. There are also

various minor motives constantly repeated, such as helmeted heads of

warriors (Plate XXVII.),[1184] pairs of horses, one looking up, the

other down (this being a convenient position for silhouettes), or dogs

running under the horses.

M. Joubin,[1185] considering the group of sarcophagi as a whole,

recognises a triple development in form, technique, and decoration,

enabling him to divide them into three classes. In regard to technique

we observe throughout a remarkable combination of two methods, the

details of figures being expressed either by outlining or by leaving in

the colour of the clay, as in the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite vases

(see p. 331 ff.), or by lines of white paint _laid on the black_. The

latter method, which is not unknown on the vases (see p. 347), was no

doubt used in place of incising, which would have been a difficult

matter in the hard clay.[1186]

In the oldest group, then, the usual method is that of outlining or

“reserving” on the clay; the second group may be regarded as

transitional[1187]; and in the third group, which in style answers to

the Caeretan hydriae and later Ionic fabrics, the use of white for

details, and even of purple, is general. But it is noteworthy that, for

the groups of animals at the bases of the sarcophagi or elsewhere, the

old “Rhodian” method of the earlier examples is retained. This, it may

be remarked, is in accordance with a principle by which an older

technique tends to survive in subordinate decoration, just as on R.F.

vases friezes of animals or ornamental patterns are frequently painted

in the old black-on-red method.[1188]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXVII

[Illustration: SARCOPHAGUS FROM CLAZOMENAE (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

------------------------------------

In the decoration the development is in the direction of scenes with

human figures, in preference to friezes of animals and floral patterns;

the compositions advance from single figures to large groups, and

accessory figures are introduced, like the dogs under the horses.

Finally, we have the long friezes of figures which are so

characteristic, for instance, of the British Museum sarcophagus.

Mythological scenes, except the Doloneia, are conspicuously absent;

battles, chariot-races, and hunting-scenes have the preference, as well

as the heraldic groups of animals.

Nor is the development confined to the main decoration; it may be

traced both in the form of the sarcophagi and in the subordinate

ornamentation.[1189] The older examples approach more to the human

form, with a shouldered opening at the top indicating the place for the

head; but towards the end of the series the rectangular form

predominates—the opening enlarges, and the upper edge projects over the

lower. The British Museum example and one in Constantinople[1190] are

very elaborate, with mouldings and carefully-considered architectural

proportions. The origin of the form is doubtless to be traced to the

Egyptian mummy-cases, or perhaps to Chaldaean sarcophagi; but the

Cretan cinerary urns (p. 145) are also on the same plan, and may have

formed an intermediary link.

In point of date the sarcophagi seem to extend over the greater part of

the sixth century. We have seen that some present the same

characteristics of painting as the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite

fabrics; others fall more into line with the Caeretan hydriae and Ionic

B.F. pottery. In any case the sarcophagi form our best standard for

determining the sequence and relation of the Ionic fabrics, and at the

same time furnish an argument for regarding Clazomenae as one of the

principal centres of Ionic pottery. M. Reinach is of opinion that none

are later than about 540 B.C., at which time the people of Clazomenae,

menaced by the invading power of Persia, migrated to the neighbouring

islands. But one or two instances of advanced technique seem to point

to a later date.

The list of Clazomenae sarcophagi as at present known is as

follows[1191]:—

Reinach’s Joubin’s

List. List.

1. Brit. Mus. (1895) — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls.

1–7.

2. Brit. Mus. (1900) — — —

3. Brit. Mus. (1902) — — Plate XXVII. of this work.

4. Brit. Mus. 7 12 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 46, 4 =

_J.H.S._ iv. pl. 31.

5. Brit. Mus. 8 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv.

p. 20, fig. 15.

6. Brit. Mus. 9 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv.

p. 19, fig. 14.

7. Louvre 10 11 _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1890,

pl. 6.

8. Louvre 11 3 _Ibid._, 1892, p. 240.

9. Louvre 12 1 _Ibid._, 1895, pls. 1–2, p.

71.

10. Louvre 13 2 _Ibid._, 1895, p. 80.

11. Berlin 1 8 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 44.

12. Berlin 2 9 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 2.

13. Vienna 15 10 _Ibid._ pl. 45.

14. Smyrna 14 14 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 1.

15. Constantinople 3 7 _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pl. 53

= _J.H.S._ iv. p. 8 ff.

16. Constantinople 4 4, 5 _Ibid._ pl. 54 = _J.H.S._ iv.

p. 2 ff.

17. Constantinople 5 — _Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 163.

18. Constantinople 6 6 _Revue des Études Gr._ 1895,

p. 161.

19. ? 16 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 15.

20. ? 17 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 20.

21–3. In the market 18–20 — See _Revue des Études Gr._

_i.e._

To which may be added:—

24. Brit. Mus., from — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl.

Kameiros 8.

We have seen in the course of this chapter the gradual evolution of

Ionic vase-painting, from the time of lingering Mycenaean influences

down to the period when it ceased to have any existence as a separate

style, and having reached the same point of development as Attic

vase-painting, was soon merged in the latter. It is probable, however,

that this was largely due to political circumstances, which put an end

to Ionic art and industry generally about the close of the sixth

century. The conquest of Ionia by Harpagos in 545 B.C. was the event

which led to this result, and consequently to the dispersion of Ionic

artists, partly into Greece, partly into Italy. The migration of the

Phocaeans in particular caused an influx of Ionian culture into the

semi-barbarous regions of Italy, and contributed to the production of

the imitative vase-fabrics to which allusion has been made.

M. Pottier, in summing up the rôle played by Ionian Greece in the

history of art, regards it as the principal agent of transmission of

culture between the East and Europe, and thus the true civiliser of

Europe, influencing both Doric Greece and Etruscan Italy. Thus we may

see in Ionia the parent of modern civilisation.

-----

Footnote 1082:

See M. Pottier’s excellent _résumé_ in his _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 486

ff.

Footnote 1083:

_Bronzefunde von Olympia_, p. 45: cf. _Olympia_, iv. p. 109.

Footnote 1084:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 208: cf. Athenaeus, v. 210 B, and Pottier,

_Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 487.

Footnote 1085:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1890, p. 378. The painting on a white slip

marks an important development, and a rupture with all previous

styles (_ibid._).

Footnote 1086:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p.

179; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 161 ff.; Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._

p. 73 ff.

Footnote 1087:

Böhlau, p. 52 ff.

Footnote 1088:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 226.

Footnote 1089:

_Rev. Arch._ xxv. (1894), p. 26.

Footnote 1090:

Böhlau, p. 86 ff.

Footnote 1091:

Pottier, ii. p. 277.

Footnote 1092:

Böhlau, _i.e._; Pottier and Reinach, _Nécropole de Myrina_, p. 505.

Footnote 1093:

See above, p. 254; probably a Cypriote fabric.

Footnote 1094:

Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 310.

Footnote 1095:

Stephani, _Comptes-Rendus_, 1870–71, pl. 4 = Reinach, _Répertoire_,

i. p. 34.

Footnote 1096:

_Naukratis I., II._; _J.H.S._ x. p. 126 ff.

Footnote 1097:

See below, p. 362.

Footnote 1098:

For bibliographies of Class II. see below, pp. 344, 349, 358 ff.

Footnote 1099:

See _Monuments Piot_, i. p. 45.

Footnote 1100:

Cf. Fig. 94 below; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, viii. pl. 79; and _Monuments

Piot_, i. pl. 4.

Footnote 1101:

See Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 503.

Footnote 1102:

See _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 180.

Footnote 1103:

See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff. A list of Rhodian

vases is given in _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p. 179.

Footnote 1104:

For fragments found in Cyprus see _J.H.S._ xii. p. 142; _B.M.

Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 104, fig. 151.

Footnote 1105:

Cf. examples in Cases 43–4 in the First Vase Room, Brit. Mus.

Footnote 1106:

See generally Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 160.

Footnote 1107:

_Il._ xvii. 60 ff.: see Chapter XIV. The vase is published by

Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, pl. 53; Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig.

784.

Footnote 1108:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 118: cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263, and _Berl.

Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.

Footnote 1109:

The latest supporter of this view is Böhlau (_Aus ion. u. ital.

Nekrop._ p. 73 ff.).

Footnote 1110:

Böhlau, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.

Footnote 1111:

Böhlau regards this pattern as “Mycenaean,” on the ground that it

does not follow the lines of the vase.

Footnote 1112:

Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, pl. 21, fig. 188, and _Mon. Antichi_,

vi. pl. 11, figs. 30, 34.

Footnote 1113:

See Böhlau’s list, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.

Footnote 1114:

_i.e._ p. 79.

Footnote 1115:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 524; _Naukratis I._ p. 50; Böhlau,

_i.e._

Footnote 1116:

_J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, fig. 3 (now in Berlin). Cf. Fig. 94 on p. 346.

Footnote 1117:

E 659 = _Monuments Piot_, i. pl. 4, p. 43.

Footnote 1118:

_Op. cit._ p. 85.

Footnote 1119:

_Op. cit._ p. 89 ff.

Footnote 1120:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, pl. 7; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 274.

Footnote 1121:

See examples in B.M. (Second Vase Room, Cases 24–5). The B.M. also

possesses similar vases found in the Troad.

Footnote 1122:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223.

Footnote 1123:

_J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.

Footnote 1124:

Stephani, _Compte-Rendu_, 1870–71, pl. 4, p. 178; Reinach, i. 34.

Footnote 1125:

Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125.

Footnote 1126:

_Kyrene_ (1890), p. 17 ff.

Footnote 1127:

Baumeister, iii. p. 1664, fig. 1728; Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 81;

and see bibliography in De Ridder’s _Catalogue_, i. p. 98. It is a

matter for much regret that no satisfactory publication of this vase

has as yet been made. The best is in Babelon’s _Cab. des Antiques de

la Bibl. Nat._ pl. 12.

Footnote 1128:

_I.e._ Σιλιφιόμαχος.

Footnote 1129:

Cf. the Amphiaraos krater (p. 319).

Footnote 1130:

The list is as follows: B.M. B 1–7; Bibl. Nat. 189–92; Louvre E

660–72; Petersburg 183; Munich 737 and 1164; Vienna 140; two each in

the Vatican, Florence, and Würzburg (Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 26 in

Dumont’s list); one in Brussels (_Gaz. Arch._ 1887, pl. 14);

_Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189 (Berlin); Dumont-Pottier, i. pp. 301, 305,

Nos. 17 and 32; Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238;

_Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3, p. 189, and see _ibid._ pp. 191, 193;

Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125 ff.; and a doubtful

example in B.M. B 58. For an exhaustive bibliography of the subject,

see Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 226.

Footnote 1131:

_J.H.S._ x. p. 126.

Footnote 1132:

Other examples of Naucratite wares have been found in Rhodes

(_J.H.S._ _loc. cit._), Cyprus (_J.H.S._ xii. p. 142), and at Athens

on the Acropolis (_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 341).

Footnote 1133:

These fragments will be fully illustrated in colour in the

forthcoming vol. i. of the _B.M. Catalogue of Vases_.

Footnote 1134:

Cf. A 763 in B.M. = _Naukratis II._ pl. 5, 1.

Footnote 1135:

A 762. Other good examples are A 764, 790, 792.

Footnote 1136:

A 985 = _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79.

Footnote 1137:

One Melian; B 102_{5} and 102_{29} (with Corinthian inscriptions); B

102_{13}, 102_{27}, 102_{32} (Daphniote), etc.

Footnote 1138:

See generally _Tanis II._ (_Fourth Mem. Egypt Expl. Fund_), pp. 48

ff., 61 ff., pls. 25–31; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff. and _Ant.

Denkm._ ii. pl. 21; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 41; Endt, _Ion.

Vasenm._ p. 18.

Footnote 1139:

ii. 30, 107.

Footnote 1140:

ii. 154.

Footnote 1141:

_Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff.; Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 18.

Footnote 1142:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 51: and cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p.

256.

Footnote 1143:

B.M. B 104–6.

Footnote 1144:

Cf. for the crosses in the field the Boeotian example given in Fig.

86, p. 287.

Footnote 1145:

B.M. B 107–15.

Footnote 1146:

See Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 65. He derives this

pattern through the medium of the “Fikellura” vases.

Footnote 1147:

B.M. B 116–25.

Footnote 1148:

This is also occasionally found at Naukratis, and appears on a

fragment from Mytilene in the British Museum (B 99) of Daphniote

style.

Footnote 1149:

_Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 55.

Footnote 1150:

See Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 50.

Footnote 1151:

Cf. the Xanthos reliefs, _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. No. 86.

Footnote 1152:

See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 17, and cf. coins of Methymna.

Footnote 1153:

Cf. Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ pp. 5, 13 ff., who points out the similarity

in subject and decoration, as also in details of colouring, armour,

etc., with the other groups.

Footnote 1154:

_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 182.

Footnote 1155:

Vienna 217–18; Louvre E 696. For list of subjects see _Bull. de Corr.

Hell._ 1892, p. 254.

Footnote 1156:

B.M. B 103_{14} for instance.

Footnote 1157:

Cf. Louvre E 739. Also found at Daphnae as a shield-device (B.M. B

115_{2}), and on coins of Clazomenae (see Endt, p. 24).

Footnote 1158:

Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 259.

Footnote 1159:

_Röm. Mitth._ iii. (1888), p. 159 ff.; now in B.M.

Footnote 1160:

_Op. cit._ p. 172.

Footnote 1161:

It is found also on the sarcophagi (cf. _Terracotta Sarcophagi in

B.M._ pls. 1, 2), on the quasi-Ionic vase, Gerhard, _A. V._ 205, and

on B.M. B 379 (see below).

Footnote 1162:

Cf. for instance _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. 53–4.

Footnote 1163:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 6, p. 38 ff.

Footnote 1164:

Vol. II. Frontisp.; Reinach, ii. 124.

Footnote 1165:

Cf. especially Berlin 2154 (Endt, _op. cit._ pl. 1, figs. 11–13) and

Gerhard, _A. V._ 194 = Reinach, ii. 97. They have been discussed by

Endt (_op. cit._ pp. 21, 29), by Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._

1893, p. 424 ff., and by Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 146 ff.

Footnote 1166:

B.M. B 379–82; _J.H.S._ v. pls. 40–3.

Footnote 1167:

These have been recently collected and discussed by Böhlau (_Ath.

Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff.), who notes a total of seventeen. His list is

certainly incomplete, as some examples in the British Museum might

have been added. See also Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 220,

who attributes the Phineus cup to Naxos.

Footnote 1168:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 93.

Footnote 1169:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi.–vii. pl. 78: see Fig. 111 and Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1170:

Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3–4 = Reinach, ii. 105: see p. 323.

Footnote 1171:

See on Ionian inscribed vases, Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 38; Böhlau,

_loc. cit._ p. 93.

Footnote 1172:

_E.g._ B.M. B 348–58, 439–50.

Footnote 1173:

_Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 171 ff. Furtwaengler regards the whole class

as South Italian (_Antike Gemmen_, iii. p. 88); Pottier (_Louvre

Cat._ ii. p. 538) wavers between Kyme and Italy.

Footnote 1174:

B.M. B 57; Gerhard, _A.V._ 185: cf. B.M. B 58, which is difficult to

classify.

Footnote 1175:

A complete list of this group is given by Endt (p. 39 ff.), and may

be briefly recapitulated:—(1) Amphorae: B.M. B 57; Cambridge 43;

Bibl. Nat. 171–73; Berlin 1673, 1675; Munich 123, 155; Vienna 216 and

Kaiserhaus 278; Würzburg, iii. 79–80, 84; four in Rome (see _Röm.

Mitth._ 1887, pls. 8–9); others in Brussels, Karlsruhe, and Orvieto.

(2) Jugs: B.M. B 54–6; Bibl. Nat. 178; Munich 173, 176, 1047, 1291;

Würzburg, iii. 36 and 40; others in Karlsruhe, Florence, and

Boulogne. (3) Ionic or Italian allied fabrics: Berlin 1677–79 and

numerous others in Munich and Würzburg, enumerated and illustrated by

Endt, p. 55 ff. figs. 27–40: cf. also Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92

= Endt, p. 65. To his list must be added the vase on Plate XXV.

Footnote 1176:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 55.

Footnote 1177:

Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293.

Footnote 1178:

Hdt. iv. 88.

Footnote 1179:

Paus. v. 19, 1, x. 26, 6.

Footnote 1180:

The British Museum possesses a sarcophagus of the same type from

Kameiros in Rhodes (Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl. 8).

Footnote 1181:

Published by A. S. Murray in _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._

pls. 1–7, and in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.

Footnote 1182:

See Murray’s description and commentary, _op. cit._ p. 7 ff., and in

_Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 40.

Footnote 1183:

_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 161 ff.

Footnote 1184:

Cf. the archaic Rhodian vases in the form of helmeted heads (_e.g._

B.M. A 1117, 1118, 1121; Pl. XLVI. fig. 1).

Footnote 1185:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 89.

Footnote 1186:

Cf. _J.H.S._ vi. p. 185.

Footnote 1187:

Examples of the earliest are Nos. 9–12, 16–18 in list below; of the

second, Nos. 8, 13, 15 in list below.

Footnote 1188:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p. 240 ff.

Footnote 1189:

The principal decorative patterns are the guilloche or plait-band;

maeander, often combined with stars, as on the “Pontic” vases;

palmettes; a bold egg-and-dart pattern of Ionic type. For an Egyptian

prototype of the maeander-and-star pattern, cf. Perrot, _Hist. de

l’Art_, i. fig. 541.

Footnote 1190:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. 53 = No. 15 below.

Footnote 1191:

The following bibliography may be useful: _J.H.S._ iv. p. 1 ff.;

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1892, p. 240 ff., 1895, p. 69 ff.; Murray,

_Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._ p. 1 ff., and _id._ in

_Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.; _Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895,

p. 161 ff.

CHAPTER IX

_ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_

Definition of “black-figured”—The François vase—Technical and

stylistic details—Shapes—Decorative patterns—Subjects and

types—Artists' signatures—Exekias and Amasis—Minor

Artists—Nikosthenes—Andokides—“Affected” vases—Panathenaic

amphorae—Vases from the Kabeirion—Opaque painting on black

ground—Vase-painting and literary tradition—Early Greek painting

and its subsequent development.

The term “black-figured” is generally applied to the Athenian fabrics

of a certain well-defined character and a comparatively restricted

period, but in point of fact is strictly applicable to several of the

classes already discussed, such as the Chalcidian and the later

Corinthian and Ionian wares. It is, indeed, in some respects inadequate

as a definition. We must remember that it was originally introduced at

a time when the Greek vases in public museums consisted mainly of two

classes—the one with figures painted in black silhouette on red ground,

the other with figures drawn in outline and surrounded with black, so

that they stand out in red. Between these two classes the terms

“black-figured” and “red-figured” offered an obvious and useful

distinction. By way of illustration, it may be advantageous to make a

comparison between the two main varieties of black-figured Attic

amphorae (see pp. 161, 221), as, for instance, they are grouped on the

two sides of the Second Vase Room of the British Museum, and those with

red figures in the Third Room. In the one class of black-figured

amphorae the whole vase stands out in the natural red colour of the

clay, whereas the red-figured amphorae are covered with black colour,

so as to conceal the whole of the red of the clay except where it is

left to fill in the contours of the figures. In other words, the one

class, which we may term “red-bodied” amphorae, are red all but the

figures; the other class are black all but the figures. There is,

however, an intermediate class, which no doubt suggested the

arrangement of decoration on the red-figured amphorae (see below, p.

411), and which we may call “black-bodied” amphorae. Here the whole

body of the vase is covered with _black_ colour, except a framed panel,

which is left in the red to receive the black figures. It is clear,

then, that this second class of black-figured amphorae approaches more

nearly in aspect to the red-figured, although it does not follow that

they were necessarily a late or transitional development.

But in regard to our definition, it is necessary to reckon with the

fact that there are not only vases of an earlier stage of art which

have black figures painted on a (more or less) red ground, but that

there are others in which the figures are painted not on red, but on a

white slip. In particular we may instance the Cyrenaic vases and some

of the Naucratite wares. We thus lose the sense of an exact contrast

between black figures on red ground and red figures on black; and,

moreover, the term acquires almost too wide a connotation to be of any

value for a system of classification. The term “black-figured” must

therefore be used to some extent conventionally, to denote a certain

class of vases made at Athens during a certain period and with certain

characteristics. The latter may be summarised as follows: (1) black

varnish entirely filling in the contours of the figures; (2) red glaze

(or white slip) employed as background; (3) details indicated by

accessory pigments of white and purple, and incised lines; (4) subjects

almost exclusively human and mythological figures.

The history of vase-painting in the middle of the sixth century B.C. is

largely the history of a gradual centralising of that art in one place

from a number of scattered local fabrics. This was mainly brought about

by one cause—namely, the extraordinary advance in art and culture at

Athens under the beneficent rule of the tyrant Peisistratos and his

successors (565–510 B.C.). Previous to this time Athenian art was very

limited in its scope, and in the domain of painting had so far produced

nothing except the great Dipylon funeral vases, their immediate

successors (the “Proto-Attic” wares), and the “Tyrrhenian” vases,

which, as we have seen, were largely under the influence of Corinth.

Attic importations into Italy cannot be traced until the black-figure

style is well developed.

The immediate result of this advance was to attract artists from all

parts of Greece—not only from Corinth, whose power was now on the wane,

but also from Ionia, whose artists were driven to seek refuge elsewhere

by the encroaching conquests of the Persian monarchs. Thus we shall see

that certain artists, like Amasis and Nikosthenes, infused a large

amount of Ionic element into their productions, just as in others we

see the influence, more or less marked, of Corinth. But one marked

characteristic of the Attic sixth-century vases is the entire

disappearance of Oriental influence.

At the head of the new development stands the famous François vase in

Florence (Plate XXVIII.), to which allusion has been made already (p.

73). Its date can hardly be later than the middle of the sixth century,

probably somewhat earlier, and the two artists Klitias and Ergotimos,

who were responsible for its production, are among the earliest of whom

we have any record at Athens. The alphabet of the inscriptions leaves

no doubt that it is a purely Athenian work, and the technique is also

purely Attic, as are some of the subjects; but there are not a few

small points which betray the influence of a Corinthian artist, such as

the arrangement in several friezes. The winged goddesses, Sphinxes, and

animals are non-Attic, but not necessarily Corinthian. It is, however,

chiefly interesting for its wealth of subjects, which are mentioned in

another chapter (Chapter XII.); with these every available space is

decorated. The style has been described as “dry, precise, and careful,”

the artist as “exact and well instructed.” Closely related to this vase

is one in the British Museum representing the Birth of Athena (B 147).

Although the subjects (exclusive of those on the cover) are only two in

number, the minuteness of treatment in detail and the richness of the

composition show that it belongs to the same school.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXVIII

[Illustration]

From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_. THE FRANÇOIS VASE IN FLORENCE.

------------------------------------

In regard to technique, two points distinguish Athenian vases at all

periods above other fabrics. Firstly, the admirable clay, traditionally

obtained from Cape Kolias in Attica, and mingled with red ochre

(_rubrica_) in order to produce its ruddy hue; this clay was eminently

suited for taking a glaze, which was of course an essential preliminary

for painting the surface. Next, the black varnish, with its exquisitely

lustrous sheen, which was brought to a pitch of perfection in the

subsequent period, and always affords such an admirable counterfoil to

the red of the clay, though it has not been altogether popular with the

modern photographer, owing to its reflecting qualities.

As regards the figures, they were seldom left entirely black, though

black is at all times their prevalent aspect. The accessory whites and

purples are used in varying degrees at different times, and it may be

laid down as a general rule that purple is more affected on the earlier

vases, white on the later. A like principle obtains with the

accessories on red-figured vases. In the later examples, moreover, they

are much more sparingly used, perhaps owing to the influence of the new

technique, and by the end of the sixth century they disappear

altogether. The more careful artists pay greater attention to the use

of incised lines, and prefer to produce effects of richness and

delicacy by elaboration of details and patterns in this manner.

At first there is a tendency to use purple in large masses, and even

for the flesh of men; but it is generally employed for folds or

portions of drapery, and for throwing up different parts of animals’

figures, or of the decorative patterns, such as palmettes and

lotos-buds. White is employed for the hair of old men, for rocks and

details of buildings, for the long garment worn by charioteers, and

above all for the flesh of women. The latter we have already seen (p.

317) to be an invention traditionally attributed to Eumaros, who

probably lived about the middle of this century; but whether it was

first introduced at Athens or Corinth is uncertain.

Throughout the period there is a steady advance in drawing, but more in

the direction of carefulness and refinement than in accuracy and

truthfulness to nature; that is to say, that it always remains

conventional. We shall see later that, even after the red-figured style

came in, a certain archaic stiffness still prevailed for a time, both

in the old and new methods. On the other hand, there is a degenerate

class of black-figured vases, found chiefly on Greek sites, in which

the drawing is free almost to carelessness, and it is clear that these

illustrate the last efforts of the black-figured method in Greece in

the fifth century; but the vases are all rough and hasty productions,

altogether devoid of merit or interest.

The treatment of drapery may generally be regarded as a fair indication

of date. The chiton is at first straight, with rigid stripes or casual

patches of purple; then patterns are incised or painted in white; the

waist is usually very small, and often bound tightly with a broad

girdle.[1192] By degrees the lines indicating the folds of the skirt

take an oblique direction, as if to indicate motion, while the himation

or mantle—which is adopted in addition by the women to wear over the

chiton—is made to fall in long formal folds with diagonal edges, known

as πτέρυγες. It is curious that the more advanced style of drapery is

usually found on the red-bodied amphorae, the older types on the

black-bodied. In the hydriae, which preserve the panel form of

decoration throughout, a progress is visible from the most rigid

severity to comparative freedom.

The =shapes= most frequently employed by Athenian potters are very

limited in number—as, for instance, when compared with the Corinthian

and other earlier fabrics. The really popular forms are limited to

five: the amphora, hydria, kylix, oinochoe, and lekythos. Besides these

we find the krater (usually with columnar handles), the deinos, the

skyphos or kotyle (with its variant the mastos), the kyathos, the

pyxis, and the pinax, and occasionally also the alabastron; but these

are practically all. Some of these remain constant throughout, but

others in their form and system of decoration present interesting

varieties of development. In all cases there is an evident aim at

improving upon the somewhat inartistic Corinthian forms, in the

direction of grace, lightness, and architectonic symmetry.

The different types of Attic amphora have been described elsewhere (p.

160), but may be briefly recapitulated here.

(1) The so-called Tyrrhenian amphora, found in the Corintho-Attic and

“affected” varieties, with elliptical body (Plates XXIII., XXIX.).

(2) The panel-amphora, with cylindrical handles.

(3) The panel-amphora, with broad grooved handles (probably a later

development) (Plates XXXI-II.).

(4) The red-bodied amphora, distinguished by its straight neck sharply

marked off from the shoulder (Plate XXIX.).

(5) The Panathenaic amphora, with small mouth and foot and widely

swelling body (Plates XXXIII-IV.).

(6) The _prothesis_-amphora, a tall, elongated type, used in connection

with funeral ceremonies (see above, p. 159).

(7) The Nikosthenes type (Plate XXX.).

The hydria, oinochoe, and krater almost universally adhere to the panel

form of decoration, but the lekythos is red-bodied. In none of these is

there much change visible, except in the later hydriae, some of which

assume the curvilinear form of the R.F. “kalpis” (see p. 166). The

evolution of the kylix is, however, of considerable interest,

especially in view of its subsequent importance.

Before the sixth century this form was unknown at Athens, its nearest

equivalent being the skyphos, or deep two-handled bowl with low base.

But in course of time two forms of the kylix make their appearance, one

apparently earlier than the other, and probably derived from a

Corinthian prototype. At Corinth the kylix took the form of a large

shallow bowl, with bulging outline and flat lip, on a very low foot.

This type was also known in Ionia, as at Samos and Naukratis. It was

usually decorated with friezes, internal or external, sometimes with a

Gorgon’s head in the centre. The Athenians adopted this form, but

raised it on a high stem, proportionately reducing its diameter (p.

190). At the same time they greatly reduced the surface available for

decoration, either covering the whole with black varnish, except a

narrow red band on the exterior, or else leaving the whole of the

exterior red, but confining the figures strictly to the upper part.

This became a very favourite fashion, and in course of time a school of

painters arose whose practice was either to paint a row of diminutive

figures (or even a single figure, as Fig. 96) on the upper band and

sign their names below, or else to leave the cup quite plain except for

the signature on one side and a motto on the other, such as χαῖρε, καὶ

πίει εὖ, “Hail, and drink deep!”

These artists are known as the minor or miniature painters, and among

them are found the names of Archikles and Glaukytes, Eucheiros,

Hermogenes, Tleson, and Xenokles. At first they preferred not to

decorate the interior, but then a small medallion with a figure of an

animal or monster, such as a Sphinx, is introduced. Interior designs,

however, were not at any time popular in this style.

The second type of kylix is purely Ionic in origin (see above, p. 357).

It is distinguished from the others by the absence of a lip, by its

low, thick foot, and by the greater width and shallowness of the bowl

(p. 191). With a very slight modification it obtains throughout the

red-figure period. Its form is clearly derived from the libation-bowl,

or _phiale_, with the addition of foot and handles; and it appears

first in Ionia in the large cups ornamented with eyes, the best of

which is the Phineus cup in Würzburg (see p. 357). The Cyrenaic cup

(see p. 341) seems to be half-way between the two types, having a high

stem and a very slight marking off of the lip.

The introduction of this form into Attica was apparently due to

Exekias, who belongs to the middle of the B.F. period, and has left a

very fine specimen, decorated with the Ionic eyes and a beautiful

interior design of Dionysos sailing over the sea (see p. 381). They are

invariably red-bodied externally, and, in contradistinction to the

other form, decorated all over, inside and out. Some of the larger

varieties have an inner frieze surrounding the medallion[1193]; but in

many of the smaller examples the practice is to paint a Gorgon’s face

in the interior, leaving the rest black. On the exterior, not only are

the Ionic eyes generally to be seen, but also the whole scene is filled

in with a background of interlacing branches or foliage—a common

characteristic of later B.F. vases, and supposed to be also Ionic in

its origin.

From the shapes we pass to the decorative patterns on Athenian vases,

which form a link with the important question of subjects. As the

methods of disposing the main designs became fixed, so did the scheme

of subsidiary decoration, until it almost became stereotyped. Thus on

the neck of an amphora there is always a pattern of double palmettes

and lotos-buds (see Chapter XVI.), round the foot always rays or

pointed leaves shooting upwards. The former seems to have been a

Corinthian, or perhaps Chalcidian, invention; the latter is Ionic, and

is found as early as the Rhodian vases. On the shoulder of the

red-bodied amphorae is a “tongue”-pattern bordering the field of design

above, and below the field are rows of maeander-pattern and lotos-buds,

sometimes repeated. The characteristic ornament of this class is,

however, the arrangement of palmettes and lotos-buds under the handles,

which is often very delicate and artistically conceived. A variation is

found in the works of Exekias, who replaces it by an elaborate system

of spirals—a pattern which, as we have seen, descended from Mycenaean

art, by way of the Melian amphorae, to Athens. In the panel-amphorae

the only ornaments besides those of the neck and foot are those

bordering the panels, usually along the top only, and, in the case of

those with large flanged handles, on that part of the vase also. In the

former case a band of lotos-buds, sometimes alternating with palmettes,

is most commonly found; in the latter, rows of ivy-leaves or rosettes

occur on the sides of the handles, and a palmette at the point of

junction with the vase.[1194]

In the hydriae the ornamentation consists of rays round the foot, with

tongue-pattern on the top of the shoulder and round the handles; to

this are added bands of ornament down the sides and along the bottom of

the panel on the body. For the sides the favourite pattern is an

ivy-wreath; but network is also used, and, on the inferior varieties,

plain dots. Along the bottom the favourite device is a scroll of

palmettes, often very artistic in character, the place of which is

sometimes taken by a frieze of animals.

The same decorative principles are seen in the other shapes, but in a

more limited degree. The ornament on a kylix is almost confined to

palmettes springing from each side of the handles; but the interior

designs are sometimes surrounded with tongue-pattern. The panels on the

oinochoae are often bordered with ivy, network, or dots, as on the

hydriae; on the lekythos the ornament is confined to a row of

lotos-buds or palmettes on the shoulder.

Many vases of the B.F. period are decorated solely with these patterns;

but these are usually small and insignificant specimens, with a band of

palmettes or other pattern carelessly painted, perhaps used for the

tomb by those who could not afford more elaborate specimens. In the

tombs of Rhodes and Cyprus small amphorae and lekythi are often found,

the bodies of which are covered with a plain network pattern in black

on a red or white ground.[1195] Others, again, seem to have been

executed with great care, and there is a beautiful example from Vulci

in the British Museum—a jug with a frieze of palmettes and scrolls on a

white ground (B 632).

To treat of the =subjects= depicted on Athenian black-figured vases

within a reasonable compass is not only well-nigh impossible, but

unnecessary, since it would practically be to traverse the ground

covered in another part of this work. There are, however, some general

considerations which must not be passed over. While we bear in mind

that they are as comprehensive in their character as those on any other

class of Greek vases, it may not be amiss to point out in what respects

they vary, for instance, from the red-figured Athenian vases or from

those of the decadence.

The main point of difference is that in B.F. vases the mythological

element on the whole predominates, whereas in the later periods it is

fully counterbalanced, if not outweighed, by the preponderance of

subjects from daily life. The Attic ephebos has not yet attained to the

height of popularity which he reaches on the red-figure kylikes of

Euphronios and Duris, and the softer side of Greek life, the life of

the women’s quarters, or the sentimental scenes of courting which begin

to prevail towards the end of the fifth century, are the products of a

later development of social conditions. Religion, it is true, does not

maintain on the vases the overwhelming importance that it does in other

branches of art, except in a few classes relating to certain cults; nor

has the cult of the dead as yet found general expression. To what,

then, do we owe the preference for scenes from heroic legend, and the

myths relating to the gods? It is, perhaps, largely due to the extreme

conventionality of Greek art in the sixth century, which embodies its

conceptions in a series of fixed _types_, which the artist repeats

again and again from sheer inability to strike out a new line for

himself. But with the general and rapid advance of artistic conception

and technical power at the beginning of the fifth century, the change

at once becomes apparent,—not, be it noted, with the beginning of the

red-figure style, which for a time preserves most of the

characteristics of its predecessor; but with the ripening of the powers

of a Euphronios and a Brygos, who paved the way for the greater freedom

and variety of conception exhibited in the highest products of

fifth-century vase-painting. At the same time an ethical change is to

be observed, especially in the position now occupied by two deities who

are entirely absent from the B.F. vases—the god of love (Eros), and the

goddess of victory (Nike). To the popularising of these two conceptions

is mainly due the preponderance of the sentimental and athletic

elements of the subsequent age.

To return to the black-figured vases, we must now devote a few words to

the consideration of the feature to which allusion has just been made,

namely, the conventionalised types and schemes of composition in which

the various myths and other themes are portrayed. Roughly speaking,

they fall into three classes: (1) subjects represented by one single

and constant type[1196]; (2) subjects represented by two or more

distinct types[1197]; (3) subjects which fall into two or more

episodes, each represented by a different type.[1198]

The question of the _origin_ of these types is a difficult one to

answer. They appear to have sprung, like the fully-armed Athena from

the head of Zeus, in a matured form from the brain of the Athenian

artist. It is, however, possible that the genius of some school of

artists, such as those who conceived the decoration of the chest of

Kypselos or the throne at Amyklae, may have influenced the

vase-painters to a great extent. We have already seen how closely the

scenes on some later Corinthian vases adhere to the description of

Kypselos' chest. It is also a curious fact that the simpler form of a

type is not necessarily the older. Some early types are of a quite

complicated or elaborate nature; and the only variation apparent in a

particular type is that of the number of bystanders watching the event.

This, again, is due to an accidental cause—namely, the surface

available for the painter, who, perhaps unconsciously, took the

architectural sculptures of a temple for his model, and where his space

resembled that of a metope (as in the panel-vases) reduced the number

of his figures to a minimum, or where it took the form of a frieze

filled in the space with a convenient number of spectators, the

original “type” being preserved as a constant quantity in either case.

A question which has always presented great difficulties to students of

vase-paintings is one that to a certain degree arises at all periods,

but more especially in the one under discussion—namely, the difficulty

of deciding whether certain subjects have a mythological meaning or

not. The difficulty is, of course, in the first instance, due to the

type-system. If the artist wished to depict a marriage procession in

daily life, he instinctively had recourse to a familiar scheme for the

purpose—namely, the “chariot-procession” type consecrated to the

marriage of Zeus and Hera and similar Olympian triumphs. Or, again,

scenes of warriors departing to battle or engaged in the fray would

naturally be copied from such familiar types as that of Hector parting

from his wife and child, or the fight of Achilles and Memnon over the

body of Antilochos. Even inscriptions do not lend the aid that might be

expected, as in some cases they are wrongly applied, or the names

convey no meaning (as on the Corinthian vases, see pp. 315, 318); and

it is probable that in many cases the intention was just to produce a

sort of parable or idealised picture of events of ordinary life, in

order to give more interest to a theme.[1199]

Much of the interest of Athenian vases is derived from the inscriptions

found upon them. These, which will be more fully dealt with elsewhere

(Chapter XVII.), fall into three main classes—artists’ signatures,

names with καλός, and descriptive names referring to the designs. On

the last-named head no more need now be said; the second is more

appropriately dealt with in the next chapter[1200]—although not a few

καλός-names are found on B.F. vases; and it only remains therefore to

treat of the artists whose signatures have come down to us.[1201]

We have already met with a few signed vases, among those of Corinth and

Boeotia, of which the earliest go back to the beginning of the seventh

century. Those of undoubtedly Attic origin fall into three or four main

groups, the representative names in which may here be given.[1202]

(1) Early artists:

Klitias and Ergotimos, Taleides, Sophilos, Oikopheles.

(2) Middle period:

Amasis, Exekias, Kolchos, Nearchos, Timagoras, Tychios.

(3) Minor artists, who painted kylikes almost exclusively:

Archikles, Eucheiros, Glaukytes, Hermogenes, Phrynos, Tleson,

Xenokles, Sakonides.

(4) Later artists, combining B.F. and R.F. methods, or painting in

transitional style:

Andokides, Charinos, Nikosthenes, Pamphaios, Hischylos and Epiktetos,

Pasiades.

Kittos, who painted in black figures a Panathenaic amphora of the later

class (see p. 391), belongs to the middle of the fourth century.

Most of these artists use the formula ἐποίησε,[1203] implying that the

same man both made and painted the vase; but Exekias in two cases (see

below) says ἔγραψε κἀποίησε. The François vase, as we have seen,

records the names both of painter and artist. Some of these painters

give the name of their father, and thus we learn that Eucheiros (Class

3) was the son of Ergotimos (Class 1), Tleson (Class 3) the son of

Nearchos (Class 2). The names Andokides and Nearchos are found among

the dedications on the Athenian Acropolis. We now proceed to speak of

these artists in detail.

In Class 1 Sophilos appears as the maker of a vase of which fragments

were found on the Athenian Acropolis.[1204] In style it closely

resembles the François vase, and its subject also appears to have been

akin—the marriage of Peleus and Thetis—to judge from the figures of

Horae still visible. Taleides, whose work is of early character,

painted an amphora representing Theseus slaying the Minotaur and two

men weighing goods in a balance.[1205] Ergotimos, besides the François

vase, signed a kylix found in Aegina, and now in Berlin,[1206] with

interior and exterior subjects.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXIX

[Illustration:

ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED AMPHORAE (BRITISH MUSEUM).

1. IN STYLE OF EXEKIAS; 2. IN “AFFECTED” STYLE.

]

------------------------------------

In the next group are two very interesting names, those of Amasis and

Exekias, and both demand special attention, the latter for the

excellence of his work, the former as connected with a special branch

of Attic B.F. vases, which must be treated by themselves. The vases of

=Exekias= include four amphorae, four cups (see Fig. 96), and two

fragments, together with a few unsigned vases which for various reasons

may be attributed to him.[1207] The finest of his works is an amphora

in the Vatican,[1208] on one side of which are Ajax and Achilles

playing draughts, the one calling out [ΤΕΣΑΡΑ] “four!” the other [ΤΡΙΑ]

“three!”[1209] On the reverse are the Dioskuri, with Tyndareus and

Leda. Besides the signature in iambic form

29[400]ΕΞΣΕΚΙΑΣ ΕΓΡΑΦΣΕ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΙΕΣΕΜΕ

Ἐξηκίας ἔγραφσε καὶ ’ποιησέ με,

the vase is inscribed with the καλός-name Onetorides. The others are in

the British Museum (B 210), the Louvre (F 53), and Berlin (1720)

respectively, and are all painted with mythological subjects. A

fragment of a _deinos_[1210] is interesting, as having, besides the

signature, an iambic line in the alphabet of Sikyon (see Chapter

XVII.). Among the four cups, one in Munich (339) is a masterpiece of

its kind. It is of the later form of B.F. kylix (see p. 374), and

represents on the inside Dionysos in a ship which takes the form of a

fish, the mast and yard overgrown with the vine; on the exterior are

large eyes and groups of warriors. The other three are of the earlier

“Kleinmeister” type, and two are merely signed, without subject.

[Illustration: FIG. 96. KYLIX BY EXEKIAS: “MINOR ARTIST” TYPE.]

Exekias may be regarded as one of the most typical B.F. artists. His

subjects are mostly from the usual stock-in-trade of the time, but

distinguished above other examples by the care and accuracy displayed

in every detail, especially in the extraordinary delicacy and

minuteness of the incising and the judicious but sparing use of

accessory colour, as also by the careful naming of the figures in

almost all cases. He stands midway between Klitias of the François vase

and the transitional work of Andokides and Pamphaios, and helps to

carry on the tradition of minuteness and accuracy in detail

characteristic of all these artists.

=Amasis= is an artist of similar calibre and temperament. His style is

more individual than that of any B.F. artist, and hence it is possible

to attribute to him many vases which he has not signed. It is marked,

like that of Exekias, by accuracy of drawing and careful and delicate

work in details[1211]; but his subjects are more monotonous and his

figures much more rigid and conventional. There is much in his vases

which suggests a connection with Ionia, especially with the later

fabrics discussed above (p. 356); and this point has been well brought

out by Karo.[1212] We have seven signed vases from his hand, of which

no less than four are jugs of a characteristic form—a form not unknown

in Ionic fabrics,[1213] but usually found among the later Corinthian

wares. It is of the form known as _olpe_, with the design in a panel,

on the right side of the handle only. An example of his work is given

in Fig. 97.

[Illustration: FIG. 97. PERSEUS SLAYING MEDUSA: FROM AN OLPE BY AMASIS

(BRITISH MUSEUM).]

It has been thought by more than one writer that he must have been a

foreigner. The name, of course, suggests Egypt, and his Ionic

affinities would further suggest Naukratis or Daphnae as his home; but

he may well have come from Asia Minor.[1214] His best-known work is the

fine amphora in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (222), with a

representation of Athena and Poseidon, and among the _olpae_, one in

the British Museum (B 471), with Perseus slaying Medusa (Fig. 97), and

one in the Louvre (F 30), with Herakles’ reception by the Olympian

deities.[1215]

Of the other artists in this group, Nearchos is only represented by a

fragmentary vase from the Athenian Acropolis[1216]; Timagoras was the

artist of two fine hydriae in the Louvre (F 38–9), one representing

Herakles wrestling with the fish-bodied Triton; Tychios has also signed

a hydria; Kolchos is only known from one vase, but that a very fine jug

with the combat of Herakles and Kyknos (Berlin 1732). The design on the

last-named is not, as usual, confined to a panel, but is continued all

round the body.

The list of “Kleinmeister,” or minor artists, is a long one,[1217] but

few individual names are of importance. The most prolific is _Tleson_,

whose name appears on no fewer than forty cups, fourteen of which have

no design, but only the signature on either side. Others have a design

in the interior only, such as a Sphinx or Siren; others, again, a

figure of an animal—a cock, hen, or ram—on either side above the

signature. Seventeen are ascribed to _Hermogenes_, nine with signature

only, and thirteen to _Xenokles_, of which eight have no design. But

that Xenokles sometimes had larger aims is shown by two of the cups in

the British Museum and the Deepdene collection, as well as by an

oinochoe which he made for the painter Kleisophos to decorate. The

Museum cup (B 425) has on one side the three cosmic deities Zeus,

Poseidon, and Hades; on the other a subject of four figures which may

be interpreted as the return of Persephone from Hades. The Deepdene

cup[1218] has in the interior the procession of the goddesses to the

Judgment of Paris, and on the exterior Herakles with Kerberos and

Achilles’ pursuit of Troilos. _Phrynos_, an artist of similar style,

has one cup (B.M. B 424) with the Birth of Athena and the reception of

Herakles in Olympos, the figures being very diminutive, as are those on

the British Museum Xenokles cup. _Eucheiros_ and _Sakonides_[1219] show

a preference for a female bust painted in outline on either side of the

cup, as does also Hermogenes.[1220] _Archikles_ and _Glaukytes_ are

associated on a fine cup in Munich (333), which is remarkable for the

number of figures each side, the style being very minute and detailed.

On one side is Theseus slaying the Minotaur, on the other the hunt of

the Calydonian boar, appropriate figures being added each side to fill

in the spaces at the ends of the friezes. There are seventeen figures

in the first scene, and, exclusive of animals, nine in the latter. A

similar cup in the British Museum (B 400), with continuous frieze,

representing a battle (twenty fighters, three chariots), is signed by

Glaukytes alone. Other names are Anakles, Charitaios, Ergoteles,

Epitimos, Myspios, Neandros, Psoieas, Sokles, Sondros, Thrax, and

Tlenpolemos.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXX

[Illustration:

VASES BY NIKOSTHENES (BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

------------------------------------

In the fourth class we are introduced to a very interesting

personality, that of =Nikosthenes=, the most prolific of all Greek

vase-painters known to us, and of the B.F. artists by far the most

original.[1221] He was, however, a potter rather than a painter, and on

many of his vases the designs are little more than decorative motives.

He favoured vases of metallic form,[1222] such as the _phiale_

_mesomphalos_, and invented a peculiar type of amphora, also derived

from a metallic origin, with broad, flat handles and slim body, with

moulded rings dividing the subjects (see Plate XXX.). Altogether,

seventy-eight examples with his signature are known, of which

forty-eight, or nearly two-thirds, are amphorae, nineteen are cups,

four jugs, and one a krater. To these must be added two cups in mixed

B.F. and R.F. technique, one made for Epiktetos, and three kanthari in

the R.F. method, of which he was probably only the potter. That he had

affinities with the “minor artists” is shown by his making a cup with

Anakles, as also by the style of some of his paintings[1223]; while

some of his cups have only the signature.

The amphorae are all very much alike, with subjects of a simple

character—Sphinxes and Sirens, combats of warriors or boxers, Satyrs

and Maenads dancing, and Herakles with the Nemean lion, a subject of

which he seems to have been especially fond. The large krater in the

British Museum (B 364) is interesting as an early example of the form

with volute handles, and for the manner of its decoration, with a

narrow band of minute figures on the neck only. In the Louvre there are

two elegant jugs representing the reception of Herakles in Olympos (F

116–17), the figures being painted on a white slip in the Ionic

manner.[1224] This point is important, because it has been held by many

writers that Nikosthenes was of Ionian origin, and introduced the

white-slip method at Athens. Attempts have even been made to connect

him with Naukratis. The jug figured on Plate XXX. is similar to those

in the Louvre, and is probably also Nikosthenes’ handiwork.[1225]

Whether this view can be maintained or not, there is no doubt that

towards the end of the sixth century the practice of using a white slip

does appear at Athens for vases with black figures, and it is quite

reasonable to associate its introduction with a versatile and original

artist like Nikosthenes. But the consideration of this style of

painting must be reserved for a later page (p. 455).

Pamphaios and Epiktetos, with their associates Hischylos, Pheidippos,

and Chelis, must, on the whole, be regarded as belonging to the R.F.

period, the majority of their works being purely in that style; they

will therefore be considered under a subsequent heading. But the case

of the remaining name in our fourth class, that of =Andokides=, is

somewhat different. Among the signed examples we have from his hand

only one is purely B.F., three are in mixed style, and two are purely

R.F. It is clear, then, that he represents, better than any other

artist, the intermediate stage between the two styles, more especially

as a whole series of amphorae can be attributed to him in which the two

are combined, sometimes in what has been called “bilingual”

fashion—that is to say, that the design on both sides of the vase is

identical, except for the variation of technique.[1226]

There are, then, six vases signed by Andokides, of which one is a

kylix, the rest amphorae with designs in panels and broad grooved

handles. The B.F. amphora represents a chariot seen from the front, in

very minute, careful style.[1227] One of the “mixed” amphorae (Louvre F

203) has three Amazons preparing for battle (B.F.), and women in the

bath, one of whom is swimming, another diving (R.F.) [1228]; the other,

a Dionysiac B.F. scene, and Apollo, Artemis, Leto, and Ares on the R.F.

side. The “mixed” kylix[1229] is a remarkable example of the

counterchanging principle, the two halves of the exterior being exactly

reversed in technique, the dividing-line passing under the

handles.[1230] Of the two R.F. amphorae, one in Berlin represents the

contest for the tripod and a pair of wrestlers; the other, in the

Louvre, a combat and a musical contest.[1231]

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXXI

[Illustration:

AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).

OBV.: HEROES PLAYING DRAUGHTS.

]

------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXXII

[Illustration:

AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).

REV.: HERAKLES WITH NEMEAN LION.

]

------------------------------------

The characteristics of Andokides’ work are freedom of composition,

delicacy of drawing,[1232] and wealth of detail; but he is always bound

by conventionalities, and his power of observation is stronger than his

power of correct delineation. Furtwaengler thinks his combinations of

B.F. and R.F. were deliberately chosen to show the superiority of the

latter.[1233] His date may be placed about 525 B.C., and it is probable

that his name appears on a marble base found on the Acropolis of

Athens. He seems to have learnt his art either from Exekias or Amasis,

probably the latter.

Scholars are generally agreed in attributing to him the series of

“bilingual” amphorae already mentioned, of which the most notable

examples are one in Munich (388) representing Herakles banqueting, and

one in Boston with Herakles and a bull.[1234] Even more probable is the

attribution to his hand of some half-dozen amphorae of the type which

he employed, with _different_ designs on either side, but B.F. and R.F.

respectively. The most interesting of these is an amphora in the

British Museum (B 193 = Plates XXXI.-II.), with the typical B.F.

representation of warriors playing with _pessi_ on one side, quite in

the manner of Exekias (see above), and on the other Herakles with the

Nemean lion, in which scene the painter has attempted a new departure.

The lion is already subdued, and the hero carries it in triumph on his

shoulder, no doubt with a reminiscence of the Erymanthian boar types

(see Chapter XIV.).[1235]

* * * * *

A curious group of B.F. vases found exclusively in Italy, and belonging

apparently to the middle of the sixth century, is marked by the

extremes to which the mannerisms of the artists Exekias and Amasis are

carried. They are without exception amphorae, and so similar in style

that they must all have been produced by one workshop, if not one hand.

In spite of the excellence of technique and careful drawing which they

exhibit, showing a really advanced stage of B.F. vase-painting, they

are lifeless and monotonous almost to grotesqueness. Karo, in

publishing the series,[1236] reckons forty-four in all, and points out

the various Ionian peculiarities they present, which mark them either

as an offshoot of the school of Amasis or a parallel development.

Originally known as “Tyrrhenian,” from the form of the amphora (cf. p.

160), they are now generally spoken of as “affected amphorae,” in

allusion to their peculiar and mannered style. An example is given on

Plate XXIX.

The subjects are all dull repetitions of certain “types,” often without

any apparent meaning, the personages being usually warriors, horsemen,

or ordinary draped figures, young and old. Women are rarely seen;

subjects of a Dionysiac character are occasionally found, but

mythological scenes never, except that the “type” of the “Birth of

Athena” is borrowed, copied, and divested of all meaning by omitting

the figure of the goddess and depriving the others of their

attributes.[1237] In addition to this, Karo notes six prevailing

motives: (1) two men in animated discourse, occurring about forty

times; (2) a warrior arming, putting on a greave; (3) a warrior

conversing with another man, with spectators; (4) two warriors in

combat; (5) a young rider with second horse (Troilos?); (6) a reception

of a guest, sometimes, but rather doubtfully, identified as Ikarios

receiving Dionysos (see Chapter XIV.).

The complete absence of inscriptions is an Ionic feature as are the

ornamental patterns, such as the tongue-pattern round the handles; the

fondness for winged figures also points in this direction. The

combination of good technique with feeble compositions points to a late

and imitative stage, and is contrary to the Attic tendency to prefer

new ideas and new subjects to a high standard of technique. Among other

characteristic details we may note the tendency to give the human

figures tapering extremities, common to all archaic art, but here

greatly exaggerated; also the elaborate ornamentation of the draperies

with purple and white flowers or rosettes.

* * * * *

The =Panathenaic amphorae=, of which some mention has already been made

elsewhere (pp. 48, 132), form one of the most interesting groups of

black-figured vases.[1238] The Panathenaic games, which were celebrated

in the third year of each Olympiad, were traditionally attributed to

Theseus, but at any rate were reconstituted by Peisistratos about 566

B.C., when rhapsodic contests were introduced. To these musical

contests with flute and lyre were added in 456 by Pericles. The prizes

were, as we know from Pindar, painted amphorae containing olive oil,

and there is an interesting inscription[1239] which gives the number

assigned as prizes for each contest. Thus, for the pentathlon, the

first prize was 40 amphorae, the second 8; for the chariot-race, the

first 104, the second 40; for the foot-race, the first 50 to 60, the

second 10 to 12.[1240] That these vases were greatly valued and buried

in tombs we know from the number found under such circumstances. About

130 in all are in existence.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXXIII

[Illustration:

PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).

EARLIER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).

]

------------------------------------

The shape of the sixth-century amphora is peculiar, but not exclusively

used for this class[1241]; in height they vary from twenty-five inches

to about eight inches. Towards the end of the century, and during the

fifth, other forms were sometimes employed, that of the red-bodied

amphora and even the “Nolan” being found. In the fourth century a great

change took place, the height being greatly increased and the body

becoming proportionately slim; the form exactly resembles that of the

contemporary Apulian sepulchral amphorae (Fig. 30, p. 162), with the

addition of a conical cover. After the end of the fourth century they

appear to have been made only of metal, but that they continued to be

made we know both from literature and monuments, such as the Athenian

coins.

The designs are always in panels, the obverse representing the goddess

to whom the games were sacred, in her character of Athena Promachos;

the reverse, the contest in which the prize was won (see Plates

XXXIII.-IV.). Athena is represented standing to the left, with crested

helmet, spear raised aloft in right hand, and shield on left arm,

adorned with an emblematic device; her drapery is usually much

ornamented. Except in the earliest examples there is a Doric column on

either side of her, surmounted by a cock, as the bird sacred to Agon,

the god of athletic contests; sometimes in place of it a Sphinx, Siren,

panther, or vase. In the fourth century we sometimes find a figure of

Nike or Triptolemos in his car surmounting the columns. Down the side

of the left-hand column is usually placed the inscription (always

preserving an archaic form): [ΤΟΝ Α[Θ]ΕΝΕ[Θ]ΕΝ Α[Θ]ΛΟΝ], τῶν Ἀθηνῆἄθεν

ἄθλων, “(a prize) from the games at Athens.” On the earliest known, the

Burgon amphora (B.M. B 130), the word [ΕΜΙ] is added. In the fourth

century the inscription still reads down the side of the column, but

the letters are placed parallel to it, not at right angles. Further, in

this period it often becomes customary to add on the right-hand side

the name of the archon in whose year of office the games were held,

thus enabling us to date the vase exactly.[1242] Of these, some ten

examples are known, ranging from 367 to 313 B.C., the list being as

follows:—

Polyzelos 367 B.C. B.M. B 603 Found at Teucheira,

Cyrenaica

Themistokles 347 ” Athens Mus. ” Athens

Pythodelos 336 ” B.M. B 607 and 608 ” Cervetri

Nikokrates 333 ” B.M. B 609 ” Benghazi

Niketes 332 ” B.M. B 610 ” Capua

Euthykritos 328 ” B.M. B 611 ” Teucheira

Hegesias 324 ” Louvre ” Benghazi

Kephisodoros 323 ” Louvre ” Benghazi

Archippos 321 ” Louvre ” Benghazi

Theophrastos 313 ” Louvre ” Benghazi

The contests represented include the pentathlon, chariot-race,

foot-race, armed foot-race, torch-race, tilting on horseback, the

παγκράτιον, and musical contests (see Chapter XV., § 4).

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXXIV

[Illustration:

PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).

LATER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).

]

------------------------------------

The black-figure method is preserved throughout, in spite of the

development in drawing, that of the fourth-century vases being

perfectly free. In the latter there is a lavish use of white and purple

for details, especially on the figure of Athena; and Nike, when present

at the contests, is usually painted white; but the tendency of later

vases to neglect the reverse at the expense of the obverse in the

matter of decoration is strongly manifested. The figure of Athena

becomes greatly elongated, until her head is actually painted on the

neck of the vase, and in all the vases after 336 B.C. she is turned to

the right instead of the left. Two signatures of artists are

found—Sikelos in the fifth century, Kittos in the fourth. There also

exist some miniature fourth-century examples of these vases, the

purpose of which is not obvious; on the reverse of one in the British

Museum is represented a runner in the torch-race.[1243]

* * * * *

A peculiar local development of the black-figure style is to be seen in

the vases found on the site of the temple of the Kabeiri, near Thebes,

in Boeotia. From the style of the painting, which is free and careless,

they can hardly be earlier than the fifth century, and may be later,

the old style being preserved, as in the Panathenaic amphorae, for

religious reasons. The site was excavated in 1887–88, and yielded a

large number of vases and fragments, together with Attic R.F. and plain

black glazed wares. Of the local fabrics the majority are of a

Dionysiac character, or have reference, more or less direct, to the

cult of the Kabeiri; many bear dedicatory inscriptions to the presiding

deities, such as τῷ Καβίρῳ or τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τῷ Καβίρῳ, etc.

The material is a reddish-yellow clay of good quality, on which the

designs are painted in a pigment varying from yellow-brown to the

deep lustrous black of the best Attic vases. Occasionally details in

white or purple are added; incised lines are used only for inner

markings as a rule. The shapes are confined almost entirely to one, a

large deep bowl with two small ring-handles, to which are attached

projections for the support of the fingers; it comes nearest to the

_pella_ described by Athenaeus (see p. 186). The decorative motives

are simple—vine-wreaths, ivy-wreaths, myrtle and olive, and the

wave-pattern; sometimes the reverse is only ornamented with a pattern

of this kind.[1244]

[Illustration:

FIG. 98. VASE FROM TEMPLE OF KABEIRI: PARODY OF ACHILLES AND CHEIRON

(BRIT. MUS. B 77).

]

The subjects are interesting from the fact that they are an early

instance (in vase-paintings) of intentional caricatures or grotesques;

this is shown not only in the manner of treating the themes selected,

but in the rude character of the drawing. Among those drawn from myth

and legend may be mentioned Odysseus with Kirke (two instances) and

traversing the sea on a raft; Peleus bringing the young Achilles to

Cheiron (Fig. 98); Kephalos hunting a fox; and Bellerophon slaying the

Chimaera. A favourite subject is that of Pigmies in combat with cranes.

But the most interesting is one which represents the deity Kabeiros

(answering to Dionysos) with his son (Pais, _i.e._ Iacchos) at a

banquet, accompanied by three symbolical figures—Mitos, Pratolaos, and

Krateia. Another fragment shows a train of worshippers approaching the

Kabeiros, in the manner of the Asklepios reliefs.[1245]

The transitional stage from black to red figures is illustrated by more

than one class of vases. Those in which the two methods are united on

one vase have been discussed elsewhere, in considering the

characteristics of the artists who used both. But there is another

class corresponding to neither method, and yet partaking of the

character of both, in which the figures are painted in opaque red or

white pigment laid directly on the surface of the vase, which is

covered throughout with black varnish (Plate XXXV.). Inasmuch as the

method of painting in colours is more suggestive of the B.F. vases,

they are classed therewith in some collections, as in the British and

Athens Museums; but since their appearance and style link them more

closely with the R.F. period, they are found in others, as at Berlin,

ranged with the latter class. In any case they form a distinct group,

in which the earlier examples correspond more with the B.F., the later

with the R.F., vases. They are undoubtedly of Athenian origin, but to

what extent they affected the change from black to red figures is

doubtful.

The practice of laying colours on the black varnish is, of course, one

that was quite familiar to B.F. artists; the analogous procedure in the

R.F. period was the laying of black pigment on the red glaze, as was

necessarily done for details such as devices on shields. The transition

was therefore easy in the case of a vase covered with black varnish, to

painting the figures only in the opaque colours upon it, thereby

enlarging the scope of the process. The incised lines in which the

figure was necessarily sketched out before painting (and which

frequently occur in this class) led the way to the process by which the

R.F. artist engraved his design on the red clay _before_ covering the

rest of the vase with varnish. In the case of female figures it is

obvious that this method was already practised, especially in scenes in

which they appeared entirely nude, and the whole figure was painted

white over the black silhouette, the black becoming the real accessory

where it was required for the hair, etc.[1246]

Dr. Six, who has studied this class, gives a list of about seventy

examples,[1247] including one signed by Nikosthenes (Plate XXXV., fig.

2 = F 114 in the Louvre) which has a figure of a woman painted in white

each side, the style, be it noted, being purely black-figured. In later

specimens the object seems to have been to imitate the appearance of

the R.F. vases, and to paint the figures in a similar but opaque red

colour instead of white.[1248] Other examples again have figures only

incised on the black, without any addition of colour.[1249] In some of

the earlier ones the use of black as an accessory[1250] shows that the

painter, so to speak, “thought” in the B.F. style, but used white for

black and _vice versa_.

Most of the earlier examples have been found in Greece or Magna

Graecia; they are usually of the lekythos form, which is always rare in

Etruria. The later group chiefly consists of small bowls (_phialae_) of

very negligent style, but some are of the typical R.F. forms, such as

the “Nolan” amphora and the stamnos. A considerable number of fragments

were found on the Acropolis of Athens, showing that even these late

imitative specimens, in spite of their rude, careless execution, cannot

be placed later than 480 B.C.

One of the most interesting examples is a fragment found on the

Acropolis of Athens,[1251] with an owl within an olive-wreath; it had

been dedicated to Athena by a potter whose name is now lost. There is

also a good series in the British Museum (B 681–700), including a

lekythos with Odysseus carried under the ram, painted in polychrome.

* * * * *

Before embarking upon the history of the red-figured vases it may be

well to endeavour to see what light the vase-paintings up to this point

throw on the literary traditions preserved for us, chiefly by Pliny, in

regard to early painting. There is, perhaps, no subject which that

writer has treated with greater vagueness; and we are forced to the

conclusion that he really knew nothing about it, and did not comprehend

the meaning of the earlier writers from whom he borrowed.[1252] Still,

it may fairly be supposed that the names he mentions are those of real

persons, even if his account of their achievements is vague or

imaginary. There are also a few stray items of information given by

Aristotle, Aelian, Strabo, and Athenagoras.

------------------------------------------------------

PLATE XXXV

[Illustration:

VASES WITH OPAQUE DESIGNS ON BLACK GROUND.

1. BRIT. MUS.; 2. BY NIKOSTHENES, IN LOUVRE.

]

------------------------------------

Pliny[1253] begins by attributing to Corinth or Sikyon the discovery of

the possibility of producing figures by outlining shadows, as in the

story of Butades (p. 110). The next stage, he says, was to fill in the

outlines with single colours, or monochrome. He next states that

Philokles, an Egyptian,[1254] and Kleanthes of Corinth “invented linear

painting,” and that they were followed by Aridikes of Corinth and

Telephanes of Sikyon, who, still without using any colours, introduced

inner markings and details,[1255] and inscribed names over their

figures. Ekphantos of Corinth introduced the use of a red wash,

employing a pigment made from pounded pottery (_testa trita_),[1256]

which may represent the purple so lavishly employed on Corinthian

vases. A later development was that of monochrome painting—_i.e._ the

use of a single flat body-colour—introduced by Hygiainon, Deinias, and

Charmadas.

Aristotle, on the other hand, speaks of Eucheiros of Corinth as the

“inventor of painting.” The name reminds us of the tradition of

Demaratos, who took with him from Corinth to Etruria a craftsman of

that name. It is also interesting to note that the name is borne by an

Athenian kylix-painter (see above, p. 384), the son of Ergotimos, who

made the François vase. Possibly he may have been the grandson of the

Corinthian artist.

Strabo (viii. 343) and Athenaeus (viii. 346 C) mention a picture by

Kleanthes (see above) which represented the Birth of Athena,[1257] and

can hardly have been later than the seventh century—a period to which

such evidence as we have would allot the series of artists already

named.

It must be borne in mind that the names of these early artists are

those of draughtsmen, not of painters. Even in the time of Polygnotos

drawing was the chief aim of all artists—as the red-figured vases amply

testify—and painting, as we regard the art, only came into existence

after the middle of the fifth century. The development from _liniarem_,

or “outline-drawing,” to monochrome at first sight presents a

difficulty, as it seems to be opposed to the evolution of

vase-painting, which is from silhouette (as in the Dipylon ware) to

outlines (as in the Ionic vases). But even if it is not always

intelligible, we can still observe a distinct continuity in Pliny’s

account.[1258]

After Ekphantos had introduced the filling-in of outlines with red

washes, and Hygiainon and his _confrères_ had continued painting with a

single colour,[1259] a step further was made by Eumaros of Athens, who

distinguished the sexes and “introduced all kinds of new subjects.”

Here we may clearly discern the introduction of white in the later

Corinthian and early Attic wares for female figures, and the growth of

mythological and genre subjects on the vases of the time.[1260] His

innovations of technique and subject may therefore be fairly regarded

as coincident with the great advance in vase-painting made at Athens

under Peisistratos and reacting upon Corinth. It is interesting to note

that the name of Eumaros occurs on a marble base found on the Acropolis

at Athens; and if this can be the painter, his date would be fixed

about 590–570 B.C.[1261]

In any case one thing is certain—that painting had not yet developed

into anything like a high art. It was still purely decorative, and the

few early paintings of which we hear, such as those of Bularchos (p.

361) and Kleanthes, were not beyond the level of the Clazomenae

sarcophagi or the François vase in merit. We probably gain the best

idea of painting which was not merely decorative from the Corinthian

pinakes (p. 316) and the Acropolis warrior-tablet,[1262] especially as

they are painted on the white slip or λεύκωμα, which we know to have

been favoured by early Greek painters.[1263]

The relation of Pliny’s next artist, Kimon of Kleonae, and of his

improvements to the work of the vase-painters, has been much discussed

by writers on the red-figured vases; and they have not been by any

means unanimous in their conclusions, either as to the nature of his

“inventions” or as to the time at which their influence made itself

felt. They are described by Pliny in the following words: “Cimon of

Cleonae improved upon the inventions of Eumarus. He invented

_catagrapha_—that is, oblique images—and varied positions of the

features, looking back or up or down. He distinguished limbs from

joints, emphasised the veins, and further reproduced folds and hollows

in the drapery.”[1264]

The _crux_ of this passage is of course the word _catagrapha_, with

Pliny’s Latin equivalent, _obliquas imagines_. At first sight it would

seem that the Latin rendering of the word connected it with the

rendering of the face in a new way, _i.e._ in three-quarter aspect

instead of the old profile of the silhouettes. But this was not

introduced into vase-painting until quite a late period[1265]; it is

found, for instance, on the Meidias vase about 440 B.C., and is

certainly not earlier than the time of Euphronios, whereas Kimon

appears to have lived about 540–490 B.C.[1266] Moreover, there seems to

be some antithesis between the _imagines_ and _voltus_—i.e. _varios

formare voltus_ is not an explanation of the _imagines_—and, on the

whole, it seems more natural to take the first word as a general term

for figures. _Obliquas imagines_, then, would obviously imply some kind

of perspective, which, when applied to the human figure, indicates

foreshortening.

Now, this advance in drawing is first found in the earlier work of

Euphronios, _i.e._ about 500–490 B.C., though traces of it are to be

seen in the later work of the Epictetan cycle. It will be noted in the

next chapter that Epiktetos and his contemporaries are still in the

trammels of the old method. Many of these vases even exhibit traces of

a _decadent_ style, with rough and carelessly drawn figures. As Hartwig

has well pointed out, the real division of _style_ comes, not before

Epiktetos, but between him and Euphronios. The Epictetan cycle is

transitional, and a time of preparation, firstly in the change of

technique, secondly in the evolution of cup-decoration, thirdly in the

discovery of new motives and extending the scope of subjects. The new

birth is seen in the form of increased naturalism, and is parallel to

the development of sculpture under Pythagoras and Myron, who, like

Kimon, “gave prominence to sinews and veins.” We may therefore sum up

with Studniczka and Hartwig by saying that the reforms of Kimon, which

first manifest themselves in Euphronios and his contemporaries about

500 B.C., imply a new theoretical knowledge of linear perspective,

which in practice displays itself in a correct rendering of

foreshortening.[1267] In minor details the same advance is at this time

apparent, in the treatment of the eye, which now begins to be rendered

with some approach to truth, and in the accurate and detailed rendering

of muscles and anatomy, and of folds of drapery. These are precisely

the points in which Pliny regards Kimon as having so greatly advanced

his art, which, as Aelian tells us, he “helped out of

leading-strings.”[1268]

The first painter in polychrome was Panaenos, who also introduced

portraiture, but must still be regarded as a draughtsman only; and,

finally, Polygnotos, by such innovations as giving expression to faces,

and rendering transparent draperies, gave the first real advance to the

art. So far Pliny on the beginnings of Greek painting; but its further

developments, and more particularly the relation of Polygnotos to the

fifth-century vase-paintings, must be more fully dealt with in a

succeeding section.

-----

Footnote 1192:

_E.g._ B 130 in B.M.

Footnote 1193:

B.M. B 426.

Footnote 1194:

_E.g._ B 193–205 in B.M.

Footnote 1195:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 76, fig. 139.

Footnote 1196:

As the Birth of Athena, _B.M. Vases_, ii. p. 11, and Fig. 113

(Chapter XII.).

Footnote 1197:

Herakles and the Nemean Lion, _ibid._ p. 13; Fig. 125 (Chapter XIV.)

and Plate XXXII.

Footnote 1198:

Herakles and the Erymanthian Boar: see Fig. 126 (Chapter XIV.).

Footnote 1199:

See also on this subject Chapter XII. _init._

Footnote 1200:

General reference may here be made to Klein’s _Lieblingsinschriften_,

2nd edn.

Footnote 1201:

See _id._, _Meistersignaturen_, 2nd edn., for full details.

Footnote 1202:

See also table at end of Chapter XVII., and Klein, _Meistersig._^2

p. 32 ff. The principal examples of signed vases are illustrated in

the _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1888–91.

Footnote 1203:

A unique exception is the early Attic potter Oikopheles, who uses the

word ἐκεράμευσε (Oxford 189 = _Ashmolean Vases_, pl. 26).

Footnote 1204:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1.

Footnote 1205:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 5, 1.

Footnote 1206:

Reinach, ii. 120.

Footnote 1207:

_E.g._ B.M. B 211 (Plate XXIX.).

Footnote 1208:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6, fig. 1.

Footnote 1209:

Cf. Ar. _Ran._ 1400: Βέβληκ’ Ἀχιλλεύς δύο κύβω καὶ τέτταρα.

Footnote 1210:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, fig. 3.

Footnote 1211:

Adamek _Unsignierte Vasen des A._, p. 13 ff.) notes the use of

fringed draperies as especially characteristic of Amasis. By this

means he is enabled to trace several other vases to his hand.

Footnote 1212:

_J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.

Footnote 1213:

Cf. A 1532 from Naukratis in B.M.

Footnote 1214:

Loeschcke and Karo connect him with Samos, _J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.

Footnote 1215:

See on Amasis, Klein, _Meisters_. p. 43; Adamek, _Unsignierte Vasen

d. A._ (_Prager Studien_, Heft v.); Karo, in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 135

ff.; Loeschcke in Pauly-Wissowa’s _Lexikon_, _s.v._ Other vases

signed by Amasis are: Reinach, i. 359, 1 and 453, 3; _Boston Mus.

Report_, 1903, No. 45 (fragment of cup with eyes); Würzburg, iii.

384; and one mentioned in _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 178, note 1. Unsigned

vases attributed to him by Adamek, Karo, and other writers are B.M. B

53, B 151, B 197; Louvre F 25, F 26, F 28, F 36; Berlin 1688–92,

1731; Munich 75 and 81; Adamek, _op. cit._ pls. 1, 2 (Berlin); _Mus.

Greg._ ii. 3; _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 5 (Würzburg); Reinach, i. 513, 1–5

(Athens); and two others mentioned _J.H.S._ xix. p. 139, Nos. 11, 12.

Footnote 1216:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 4, fig. 2. But see also _Bull. de Corr.

Hell._ 1896, pls. 6–7, p. 372.

Footnote 1217:

Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 72 ff., reckons seventeen, to which number

two or three must be added.

Footnote 1218:

Klein, _op. cit._ p. 81, No. 13.

Footnote 1219:

For a recently-discovered kylix painted by Sakonides, with Kaulos (?)

as potter, see _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34.

Footnote 1220:

See _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 189·

Footnote 1221:

Most of his vases are illustrated in the _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_ for

1890–91.

Footnote 1222:

See Loeschcke in _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 35. He may have imitated

Etruscan bronze jugs, which were now being imported. The Berlin vase

(Fig. 136, Chapter XV.) seems to be an imitation of the early

Cyprio-Phoenician metal bowls (_ibid._).

Footnote 1223:

_E.g._ B.M. B 364.

Footnote 1224:

Loeschcke (_Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 36) has pointed out that these are

the most archaic examples of the Attic white-ground vases.

Footnote 1225:

Fig. 2 on Plate XXXV. is also his work.

Footnote 1226:

Perhaps the nearest analogy is the “counterchanging” of heraldry.

Footnote 1227:

_Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108; 1903, No. 21, p. 102.

Footnote 1228:

See on the curious technique of this design _Ath. Mitth._ 1879, p.

290, note 4.

Footnote 1229:

_Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4.

Footnote 1230:

Note especially the treatment of the large eyes in either case.

Footnote 1231:

See on all these vases _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 1 ff.; also

Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 15 ff., and

_Jahreshefte_, 1900, p. 69.

Footnote 1232:

On his technique see _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 157, and Furtwaengler and

Reichhold, _op. cit._ p. 19 ff.

Footnote 1233:

_Op. cit._ p. 17.

Footnote 1234:

A third example is given in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 40–41

(with warriors playing dice).

Footnote 1235:

The other examples are Munich 373, 375; Louvre F 204; a vase in

Bologna (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 18, 19); and one in

Würzburg.

Footnote 1236:

_J.H.S._ xix. p. 147 ff. See also B.M. B 149–53; Gsell, _Fouilles de

Vulci_, pls. 7–8, p. 502.

Footnote 1237:

_E.g._ B.M. B 149, 157.

Footnote 1238:

See generally C. Smith in _Brit. School Annual_, 1896–97, p. 187 ff.;

and for a bibliography, Urlichs, _Beiträge_, p. 33.

Footnote 1239:

_Inscr. Gr._ ii. (_Atticae_) pt. 2, No. 965.

Footnote 1240:

It is not likely that all of those given as prizes were painted. On

the other hand, the number of the amphorae may denote the number of

measures of oil given, the painted vases being, like modern silver

cups, symbolical and honorific (C. Smith, _loc. cit._).

Footnote 1241:

See p. 160 for a description.

Footnote 1242:

A fourth-century fragment at Athens has the name of the agonothetes

instead of the archon: ἀγωνο]θετοῦ(ν)το[ς τοῦ δεῖνος. See _Brit.

School Annual_, 1896–97, pl. 16 (_b_).

Footnote 1243:

_J.H.S._ xviii. p. 300.

Footnote 1244:

Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 176, notes the absence of all the usual B.F.

patterns. The ivy-wreaths represent an old Boeotian tradition.

Footnote 1245:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1888, pls. 9–12; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, p. 77 ff.;

B.M. B 77–8.

Footnote 1246:

Six (see next note) quotes the Berlin vase, 1843 = _Él. Cér._ iv. 18,

in illustration of this.

Footnote 1247:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1888, pp. 193 ff., 281 ff.

Footnote 1248:

_E.g._ B.M. B 691, 700.

Footnote 1249:

Cf. _Mus. Ital._ ii. pl. 3 = De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl.

3.

Footnote 1250:

Cf. B.M. B 693.

Footnote 1251:

Six, _op. cit._ pl. 29, fig. 9.

Footnote 1252:

His chief source was Xenokrates of Sikyon, about 280 B.C.: see

Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny’s Chapters on Greek Art_, p. xxviii;

Münzer in _Hermes_, xxx. (1895), p. 499 ff.; _id._, _Beitr. zur

Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius_ (1897).

Footnote 1253:

_H.N._ xxxv. 15: see _ibid._ 56.

Footnote 1254:

Probably an inhabitant of Naukratis, and connected with the Ionian

school of painting. See Smith, _Dict. Antiqs._^3 ii. p. 401;

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 582.

Footnote 1255:

As opposed to mere silhouettes, _e.g._ of the Dipylon vases. Some

writers take the words (_spargentes lineas intus_) to refer to

ground-ornaments (see above, p. 312).

Footnote 1256:

On the possible connection of Ekphantos with Melos, see above, p.

312. Studniczka’s argument rests partly on the early use of red on

the Melian vases. In reference to the use of the word γρόφων in the

Melian inscription, he thinks that the column supported a votive

painted pinax or vase. For _testa trita_ see Blümner, _Technologie_,

iv. p. 478 ff.

Footnote 1257:

The earliest vase-painting with this subject is one from Athens (Ἐφ.

Ἀρχ.) 1886, pl. 8, fig. 1). See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 153.

Footnote 1258:

See Jex-Blake and Sellers, _op. cit._ p. xxix.

Footnote 1259:

These artists represent the Dorian and Continental school, as opposed

to the polychrome Ionian (see Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 584).

Footnote 1260:

It has, however, been suggested (Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 101) that

_figuras_, the word used by Pliny, denotes “positions” rather than

“subjects.” But this would seem more appropriate to Kimon (see below).

Footnote 1261:

As Studniczka maintains (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 152): see also Hartwig,

_Meistersch._ p. 154.

Footnote 1262:

Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 6.

Footnote 1263:

Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293 (ed. Migne).

Footnote 1264:

_H.N._ xxxv. 56.

Footnote 1265:

Even full face is exceptional on the earlier R.F. vases. Cf. B.M. E

67, 74, and Hartwig, pl. 59, fig. 2.

Footnote 1266:

He is perhaps mentioned by Simonides of Keos (Overbeck,

_Schriftquellen_, 379).

Footnote 1267:

Studniczka says that _catagrapha_ is a scientific term = “projection

of a figure.” Cf. Stephanus, _Thesaurus_, _s.v._, and Jahn in _Ber.

d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1850, p. 138.

Footnote 1268:

_Lit._ “released from milk and swaddling-clothes” (_Var. Hist._ viii.

8).

CHAPTER X

_RED-FIGURED VASES_

Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names

and historical personages—Technical

characteristics—Draughtsmanship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects

and types—Subdivisions of style—Severe period and

artists—Strong period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and

Brygos—Fine period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine

period—Boeotian local fabric.