At first sight the sudden reversal of technical method involved in the

change from black figures on red ground to red figures on black ground

is not easy to explain. That it was a new invention, not a development

from the old style, is obvious, seeing that no intermediate stage is

possible. The theory has been promulgated by a German writer[1269] that

the idea arose from the effect of the Gorgoneion painted on the inside

of many late B.F. kylikes. Undoubtedly the effect is that of the R.F.

style, the face itself being left red, surrounded by black hair, beyond

which the black is continued over the whole surface of the

interior.[1270] But this theory has not really much to support it; the

Gorgoneion _is in the R.F. technique_, and did not therefore suggest

it; and the earliest R.F. kylikes usually have B.F. interiors, not R.F.

It is exceedingly doubtful that the kylikes had anything to do with

bringing about the change.

Much more probable is the suggestion that the class of vases with

opaque figures on black ground (p. 393) represents the transition, if

transition it can be called.[1271] We have seen that some of these

correspond more to the B.F. vases, others to the R.F., and that in many

cases their _appearance_ is that of R.F. vases. It may easily be

conceived that it occurred to the painter that it was more effective to

let the red clay of the background appear through the black wherever he

would place a figure than to paint the red on to the black. But these

vases are few in number; and as the R.F. vases sprang at once into

great popularity, the new invention must have become too general at the

very first to have been adopted from such a comparatively rare method.

There is also a greater tendency to naturalism in that class than in

the earlier R.F. vases. The fact is that there had been going on

throughout the course of early art a tendency (to which B.F.

vase-painting forms an exception) in favour of drawing figures on a

light ground against a dark background. And even in the B.F. vases this

tendency is not altogether absent, as seen in the attempts at

lightening the figures by making them polychrome, _i.e._ with purple

and white, and also by the practice of covering the rest of the vase

entirely with black.

Now, we have already seen that Andokides was a painter who liked to

combine the two methods on one vase, and also that he was one who

invariably adopted the completely black variety of amphora, for B.F.

painting as well as R.F. His Louvre vase with the women swimming is

clearly one of the earliest R.F. examples in existence. It is therefore

much more likely that he represents for us the author of the new method

than Epiktetos or the other artists who painted “mixed” kylikes or who

used both styles. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it

was really in the kylikes that the new style rose into popularity.[1272]

Next to the question of how the new style was brought about comes that

of when it arose, and the length of its duration at Athens. The

chronology of R.F. vases rests on two considerations—the inscriptions

on the vases themselves, and the evidence of history and excavations.

Until within the last twenty years it had been customary to regard the

year 480 B.C. as the line of demarcation between the two methods, and

the earliest date for R.F. vases. Yet as long ago as 1834 Ludwig Ross,

finding a fragment of R.F. pottery among the _debris_ of the Persian

sack of the Acropolis, acutely deduced therefrom that this style must

necessarily have been in existence before the date of the sack, _i.e._

before 480 B.C. His views, however, fell on deaf ears, and it was not

until the scientific exploration of the Acropolis in 1885–89 that his

deduction was seen to be justified. The result of these excavations was

to show that among the mass of pottery found in the pre-Persian stratum

a considerable quantity belonged to a comparatively advanced stage of

R.F. painting, including signatures of artists of the archaic and

severe style down to Euphronios. Some writers have thought that these

fragments may belong to the period between 480 and 460, when the

rebuilding of the site was begun; but so many show traces of burning

that it is far more probable that the earlier date is correct.[1273]

Allowing, then, for the necessary stages of development up to the time

of Euphronios, the beginning of the style may be placed about 525–520

B.C., the date at which, as we have seen, Andokides may be placed.

Besides his name (see above, p. 387) that of Euphronios “the potter”

was also found on a base in the Acropolis excavations.[1274] The other

limit of date will be more conveniently discussed in a subsequent

connection, and it may suffice to say here that the gradual pushing

back of the _terminus post quem_ points now to a much earlier _terminus

ante quem_ than was formerly supposed. Reasons will subsequently appear

for placing the termination of the red-figure fabrics at Athens in the

closing years of the Peloponnesian War (410–400 B.C.).

The evidence afforded by inscriptions is necessarily affected in some

degree by that of excavations, and chiefly important for the _relative_

dates of the vases. It is not palaeographical, but is afforded mainly

by one class of inscriptions, that of the καλός-names, so far as they

have an historical significance. These names will be the subject of

discussion elsewhere,[1275] and are only alluded to here for their

connection with the question of chronology. It is a well-known feature

of these καλός-names that many are those of famous historical

personages, such as Alkibiades, Megakles, Miltiades, and

Hipparchos.[1276] But, on the other hand, any attempts to connect the

vases with the historical bearers of the names have met with little

success; there is also the danger of arguing in a circle—_e.g._ of

saying that because Miltiades’ name appears on a vase, it is therefore

to be dated in his youth, and because the vase belongs to the date when

Miltiades was young, therefore it bears the name of that individual.

Where the importance of these names really comes in is in their

relation to particular artists or groups of artists. In this way, as

Klein and Hartwig have shown, connecting-links between the artists can

be traced and their chronological sequence assured. This, taken in

conjunction with questions of style and our fixed dates obtained from

other sources, enables us to extract a fair working chronology from all

the data. The subject must, however, be dealt with in greater detail

when considering the work of individual artists, and only a few general

statements can be laid down here.

Many of the historical καλός-names, such as Hipparchos or Glaukon, were

probably very common at Athens,[1277] and we have therefore no grounds

for attaching importance to their appearance. But in regard to the

great painter Euphronios, whose date is fairly certain, it is important

to note that two different names are connected with vases in his

earlier and later manner respectively, viz. Leagros[1278] and Glaukon.

Euphronios began his career about 500–490 B.C., and it probably covered

some forty years, from about 495 to 455. Hence we may place the time of

Leagros’ youth about 495–490, that of Glaukon about 465–460, and it is

remarkable that the latter appears as “son of Leagros” in one or two

cases.[1279] Now, we know that there was an Athenian general Leagros

who was στρατηγός in 467, and fell in battle against the Edones in that

year. Also that he had a son, Glaukon, who commanded at Kerkyra in

433–432. In this case the historical data fit in so exactly with the

evidence of the vases and of the Acropolis excavations[1280] that we

need hardly hesitate to accept the identity of these two names.

It has been assumed—and the assumption has hardly been questioned—that

the καλός-names are necessarily always those of youths, _i.e._ of about

seventeen to twenty years of age; this view is supported both by the

general character of the subjects on the vases where they appear, and

by the frequent use of the analogous formula ὁ παῖς καλός. Dr. Hartwig

has laid down certain conclusions in regard to these names which have

met with general acceptance, and may be briefly restated here by way of

summarising the subject.

(1) All vases with the same καλός-name are limited to a period of ten

years, and consequently all those which are by one artist belong to a

definite circumscribed period of his life.

(2) All vases by different artists, but with the same καλός-name, are

approximately contemporaneous, _i.e._ within ten years.

(3) The appearance of two or more καλός-names on the same vase

indicates the approximate similarity of age of the persons named, the

greatest possible difference being ten years.

(4) All vases with the same καλός-name, whether by one artist or more,

can always be linked together by their style; the same name does not

appear on a man’s earliest and latest vases.

He further impresses the caution that the identity and position of the

παῖδες καλοί (_i.e._ whether or no they belonged to the aristocratic

class) is a secondary question compared with that of the development of

painting which they help to elucidate.

The question of fabric is one that hardly needs discussion, the

evidence pointing so unanimously to Athens in all cases. The apparent

exceptions suggested by classes of vases found almost exclusively on

one site, like the “Nolan” amphorae or the Gela lekythi, can easily be

shown to be no real exceptions. We have already met more than once with

instances of particular fabrics being favoured by particular places;

and just as Ionian vases were imported to Caere or Vulci, and a special

class of Attic B.F. vases made for Cyprus, so we may suppose that

certain Athenian makers had a monopoly of export to Nola, to Gela, or

elsewhere. Otherwise similarity of style, of technique, of subject, of

the alphabet of inscriptions, and all other details point to a purely

homogeneous fabric, and that this was located in Athens itself is not a

matter to be seriously disputed. To this complete monopoly which Athens

enjoyed in the fifth century only one exception can be traced, that of

Boeotia, where local fabrics continued to be made at Thebes and

Tanagra. Of these one class has already been discussed (p. 391); the

other will be treated of subsequently (p. 451).

We must next consider briefly the technical characteristics and the

forms of the Attic R.F. vases. As regards the former, the method

pursued during the period under consideration may be summarised as

follows. The artist sketches his design on the red clay with a

fine-pointed tool; he then surrounds this outline with black varnish,

laid on with a pen or brush,[1281] to the extent of about an eighth of

an inch all round, this being done to prevent the varnish, when laid on

over the rest of the ground, from running over into any part of the

design. Finally, details such as features or folds of drapery are added

with a brush in black lines on the red, this process representing the

incised lines of the old style; and further details are often expressed

either in a thinned black pigment which becomes brown and is sometimes

only perceptible in a strong light, or by application of white and

purple as in the last period. In the severe style purple is generally

used; but at a later stage this colour was dropped, and finally

replaced by white. The accessory colours were chiefly used for fillets

in the hair, liquids, flowers, and other small details, as well as for

inscriptions. Thus we see that the technical process of the preceding

method is exactly reversed and that the figures now stand out in the

natural colour of the clay against the black ground.

The advantages of the new method were obvious. As long as the

vase-painters continued content with stiff and hieratic forms and mere

silhouettes the black figures were sufficient. The careful mapping-out

of the hair and muscles, the decorations, and all the details of shadow

in painting and of unequal surface in sculpture could be easily

expressed by the new method. But it is evident that these stiff lines

were quite inadequate to express those softer contours, which melted,

as it were, into one another, and marked the more refined grace and

freedom of the rapidly advancing schools of sculpture and painting. By

the change of colour of the figures to the lucid red or orange of the

background, the artist was enabled to draw lines of a tone or tint

scarcely darker than the clay itself, but still sufficient to express

all the finer anatomical details; while the more important outlines

still continued to be marked with fine black lines. At first the style

is essentially the same, the forms precise, the eyes in profile, the

attitudes rigid, and the draperies rectilinear. The backgrounds may

have been painted in by an ordinary workman, and some specimens exist

in which it has never been laid on (cf. p. 222). The artists seem to

have worked from slight sketches, and according to their individual

feelings and ideas, and as duplicate designs are quite unknown, there

was clearly no system of copying.

The correspondence of _style_ in the figures on the earlier R.F. vases

to those of B.F. technique shows that the two methods must have

coexisted for a time, and this is further borne out by the mixed vases

of Andokides, Hischylos, and others, and by the work of artists who

employed either style, like Pamphaios. The latter, for instance, seems

to have adhered to the old style by preference for hydriae and large

vases, but preferred to follow the new fashion in the kylix.

To quote a recent writer: “The new method opened up a path for the

freer exercise of the imagination,” and we can see in the red-figure

vases a gradual development of artistic conception and power of

expression, together with the shaking off of all restrictions until the

perfection of drawing is reached, and “the red figures stand out

against the black, unencumbered with anything that might distract from

harmony of colouring or purity of outline.”[1282] It is the essential

characteristic of the new style that it is drawing rather than

painting, and it stands out as the final attainment of what the

vase-painters had really been striving after from the days of the

Melian and early Ionic wares—namely, the perfection of linear design.

The same principle is at work in the vases with white ground which

passed through parallel phases of development.

Among minor details of drawing in which an advance is conspicuous is

the treatment of hair, eyes, and drapery. In the B.F. style the hair

was indicated as a black mass, standing out against the light

background; but now that the background had become black, a separation

was necessary. At first this was done by adhering to the old engraved

line method, for which came to be substituted a narrow unpainted line.

Next, an advance was made in the treatment of the hair itself, with a

view to more accuracy in detail, and the contours are undulated or

separate locks shown on the forehead. Sometimes a kind of stippling

process is adopted, by means of which the hair is indicated by rows or

clusters of raised dots, representing close curls, such as are seen in

Attic sculpture of the late archaic period.

The general contours of the forms are slender; the foreheads are low,

the noses prominent, the eyes long, the chins sharp, the legs short and

thick, and the folds of the garments stiff and rectilinear. Women are

not distinguished in this style either by their colour or by the shape

of their eyes, in which respects they are drawn just like the men, but

exclusively by their costume and form. The white hair of old men is

indicated by white markings on the black ground, and curly hair, as

noted, by little raised knobs of black paint (βόστρυχοι). The figures

are generally small, but some of grandiose proportions occur even in

the earlier stages, though more characteristic of the succeeding

“strong” style. The principal outlines are usually finished with

wonderful spirit and truth, but sometimes, as in the extremities, great

carelessness is visible. The general effect is much enhanced by the

fineness of the clay, which in the earlier R.F. vases is of a bright

orange-red, as also by the brilliancy of the black varnish.

[Illustration:

From _B.M. Cat._ iii.

FIG. 99. DIAGRAM SHOWING DEVELOPMENT IN RENDERING OF EYE.

]

The development of the form of the eye is most important, as an aid to

chronology (see Fig. 99). In the B.F. period it was invariably treated

in two ways,—that of a man as a complete circle, in front view, between

the lids, of which the upper is more arched than the lower; that of a

woman is almond-shaped. In the R.F. vases the eye in front view is

still maintained with figures in profile, but the sexes are not

distinguished; the pupil is painted black, and the lids drawn at first

like the B.F. male eye, then almond-shaped. The next stage is to shift

the pupil (which now becomes a ring with central dot) into the inner

corner. Lastly, this corner is opened out till it assumes the correct

profile appearance, and then, about the middle of the fifth century,

the pupil also attains the correct form. About midway in this

development, as we have already seen, the power is acquired of moving

the position of the pupil to express looking upwards, downwards, or

sideways; the importance of this point as bearing on the new

developments of Kimon of Kleonae we have already discussed. The

eyelashes are not rendered until the correct profile is attained,

except in a few instances, such as the Berlin cup of Euphronios (2282),

where the lids are fringed with short, vertical strokes.[1283]

In regard to the treatment of drapery, the earlier vases, such as those

of the Epiktetos cycle, retain the B.F. method of rendering folds only

in the skirts of the chiton, these taking the form of parallel lines.

Gradually the folds follow the motion of the body; and finally, under

Euphronios, comes a marked advance, whereby contrasts of material are

indicated.[1284] He uses fine brown crinkly lines to represent the soft

transparent Athenian fabric which we also see worn by the archaic

female figures of the Acropolis.

Among the many improvements in drawing effected during the R.F. period,

a notable one is that of the introduction of true perspective and more

than conventional landscape. We know from the shield of the Athena

Parthenos that this began to be understood at Athens by the middle of

the fifth century, as also from the paintings of Polygnotos, and hence

we are not surprised to find it appearing in the vases of the period

when that artist’s influence began to be felt. A fine example is the

krater from Orvieto in the Louvre, with an Argonautic scene (see p.

442); and even more beautiful is the Blacas krater in the British

Museum, which shows Selene disappearing over the top of a hill, and the

stars setting in the sea (see Plate LIII.). These two vases also

illustrate the introduction of the new principle of placing figures at

different levels which was elaborated in the Meidias hydria, the vases

of Kertch, and to a still greater degree in those of Southern Italy.

All these details indicate the growing tendency towards a pictorial

style, which in the first instance was due to Polygnotos.

The =shapes= of the R.F. period are to a great extent the same as in

the last, but most of them are modified to some degree, and some new

ones are introduced. Moreover, the relative popularity of certain

shapes varies, the amphora and hydria of the B.F. period being now

surpassed in favour by the kylix, the krater and lekythos receiving

more attention, and certain new forms, such as the askos and stamnos,

appearing at different stages.

For the first half of the period, from 520 to 460 B.C., the kylix is

pre-eminent, not only in point of numbers, but for the attention

devoted to its decoration. It is, as we have seen, doubtful whether it

was actually in the kylikes that the new style came into being, but in

any case they form the material for the study of its earlier phases.

The form is that of the later B.F. varieties (see p. 191), as used by

Exekias and the painters who used the large eyes in its decoration,

tracing its origin probably to an Ionic source.[1285] At first the

decoration is often confined to the interior, or the exterior designs

are little more than conventional, consisting of the eyes and a simple

motive or figure between.[1286] In the strong period there is usually a

connection between the interior and exterior designs, the whole often

forming successive episodes of a story[1287]; but subsequently the old

principle asserts itself, and the interior subject becomes the

important one. Slight variations of form occur,[1288] as in the cups of

Brygos, with their off-set lip, or the delicate products of Sotades,

the handles of which are shaped like a chicken’s merrythought. In the

latest specimens the stem is often replaced by a flat broad foot, or

the bowl becomes flat and ugly, losing all the beauty of the earlier

graceful curves.

Among other drinking-cups the kotyle, kantharos, and rhyton are most

often found. The former was favoured by Epiktetos and Hieron, and a

kantharos is signed by Epigenes, others by Nikosthenes and Duris. The

kantharos, though a very beautiful form, is never common in the painted

vases, being perhaps oftener made in metal. Among the kotylae we may

mention here a series painted with an owl and olive-wreath,[1289] which

obviously have some reference to the cult of Athena. They have been

identified, but on slight authority, with the Παναθηναϊκά mentioned by

Athenaeus[1290]; but their real meaning has not yet found a

satisfactory explanation. The _rhyton_ strictly belongs to the series

of plastic vases (see pp. 201, 211), the lower portion being always

modelled in the form of a head, human or animal, or two conjoined. Some

of these are signed by artists, such as Charinos and Kaliades.[1291]

Of the amphora three main varieties are found. The earlier type, which

reproduces the “black-bodied” or panel-amphora of the B.F. period, did

not long remain in favour, and was mainly used by Andokides and

Euthymides and their associates. The panel system of decoration is

still retained, the framework being formed of ornamental patterns as in

the old style. Secondly, there is the “Nolan” amphora, which came in

about 500–480 B.C., and was obviously an improvement on the old

“red-bodied” B.F. type. It is a very graceful, slender form, with long

neck, distinguished by the surpassing excellence of its black varnish,

and the impression of taste and restraint given by its simple

decoration of one or two figures each side (see Plate XXXVI.). The

third variety is the so-called _pelike_ (see p. 163), a not very

successful variation of the amphora, but for some reason very popular

in the later stages. With its flat foot and bulbous body it stands in

the same relation to the amphora as does the so-called aryballos (see

below) to the lekythos.

Two forms that may be connected with the amphora are the stamnos and

the psykter (see pp. 163, 172). The former is peculiar to the R.F.

period in its earlier stages; the first known example is signed by

Pamphaios, a “transitional” artist. Most of the known specimens attain

a high average of excellence. The psykter or wine-cooler is very rare,

but there are two fine examples signed by Euphronios and Duris.

The hydria in this period at first retains the B.F. form, as seen in an

example of about 500 B.C. signed by Phintias (B.M. E 159), but the

tendency to prefer a curvilinear outline is soon manifested. The new

development is conventionally known as a _kalpis_. The shoulder having

ceased to be distinct from the body, the design becomes single, or else

is confined to the upper part of the field.

Of the krater we have at least four varieties, all belonging to the

more developed stages of the period. The earliest example is the

Antaios-krater of Euphronios in the Louvre, about 500 B.C., which is of

the form known as _vaso a calice_ (p. 170); but this and the other

varieties never become really common till the final stages are reached.

The bell-krater, or _vaso a campana_, is only found in the late fine

period, and is then almost the only kind of large vase made; the

volute-handled krater, which was developed from the old column-handled

type, is seen in some fine specimens. At first the design (as in the

B.F. example by Nikosthenes, B.M. B 364) is confined to the neck. The

treatment of the column-handled type is interesting as a survival of

archaism both in design and arrangement, with the bordered panels and

occasional B.F. friezes of animals.[1292]

Among the smaller vases, the oinochoë and lekythos with their

varieties, the askos and the pyxis, are the most important. With the

exception of the ordinary form of lekythos these belong chiefly to the

later stages, when the preference was for a sort of miniature style.

Very few of these bear artists' signatures. The oinochoë differs little

from the B.F. examples; the pyxis is practically a revival of an old

form favoured in the Corinthian and other early fabrics. The latter are

usually decorated with domestic or marriage subjects, in reference to

their use by women for toilet purposes (see Plates XLII., XLIII.).

The lekythos was, as we shall see, the form exclusively employed for

the funeral vases, and largely also for others with polychrome

decoration on white ground. Those painted with red figures belong

mainly to the strong period (500–460), and have been mostly found in

Sicily, whither they were imported by preference, like the amphorae

made for Nola; a fine specimen is given on Plate XXXVI. When this form

came to be adopted for the funeral vases, a new type arose with bulbous

or spherical body, conventionally known as an _aryballos_. In the late

fine style we have many examples of this form, with rich polychrome

decoration and gilding (Plate XLII.).[1293]

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

PLATE XXXVI

[Illustration: RED-FIGURED “NOLAN” AMPHORAE AND LEKYTHOS (BRITISH

MUSEUM).]

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

The =ornamental patterns= on R.F. vases do not, generally speaking,

call for so much attention as those of earlier style; they are on the

whole used with great restraint and little variety, and are more

subordinate to the designs than at any other period of vase-painting.

The principal motives are the palmette, maeander, and egg-pattern; all

others are comparatively rare. It is interesting to note, on the early

amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters down to quite a

late date, the survival of the old panel system with its borders of

ornament. Strictly speaking, now that the background was black

throughout, there was no necessity for enclosing the space on which the

figures were depicted; but the conservative instincts prevailed,

especially while the old shapes were retained.[1294] Gradually,

however, as these vases assumed new forms, the borders were almost

unconsciously dropped—first the sides, then the top, and lastly the

lower border, which maintained its ground longer than the others. The

same tendency, from a formal framework to absolute freedom, is in fact

to be observed in all the vases; and in the later stages we note a new

development, that of an elaborate pattern of palmettes under the

handles, which assumes more and more prominence.

The evolution of the palmette on R.F. vases has been skilfully traced

by Dr. Winter[1295] in reference to the kylikes; but it is no less

interesting in the amphorae and similar forms. In both cases it arose

from the tendency to make the handles terminate in stylised palmettes,

which on the B.F. kylikes of the minor artists are often a prominent

element in the decoration. Similarly, on the B.F. red-bodied amphorae

we have the symmetrical compositions of palmettes under the handles

radiating from a common centre. These were at first reduced to a modest

single palmette or a pair, but soon spread out again, preserving at

first the symmetrical grouping; subsequently, with an increasing

tendency to naturalism, the palmettes, enclosed within graceful

tendrils, form _unsymmetrical_ but highly pleasing compositions without

any definite centre.[1296] This development of ornament under the

handles—to which part of the vase it was almost restricted—can be

traced during the first half of the fifth century, till it reaches its

height about the middle. Where a band of ornament was required round

the base of the design, as on the large calyx-kraters, it takes the

form of a row of palmettes enclosed in tendrils, in the style of modern

arabesques; or the palmettes are arranged in pairs, set obliquely, and

each pair divided by a scroll ending in volutes. Or, again, a row of

somewhat squat palmettes, similarly enclosed, alternates with

lotos-flowers in the old style, as on B.M. E 169.[1297]

[Illustration: FIG. 100. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (EARLY R.F. PERIOD).]

In the kylikes the development of the handle-ornament first begins with

Epiktetos, who (as on E 3 in B.M.) first draws a free palmette with

separated leaves on either side.[1298] As the tendency to cover the

whole of the exterior space with the design increased, the intervening

space under the handle came to be filled in also, by extending the

tendrils of the palmettes and terminating them with buds (Fig.

100).[1299] Next, a tendency to symmetrical composition each side is

seen, the palmettes being doubled in number[1300]; or, again, an

attempt is made at uniting the two isolated palmette-systems in one

harmonious whole, and at the same time to fill the intervening space,

by means of interlacing tendrils.[1301] The palmettes are further

increased to three or four each side, and in the arrangement is seen

the tendency to freedom even at the cost of symmetry already noted, as

in Fig. 101.[1302] Thus is reached the point at which the severe passes

into the strong style. In the latter the palmettes are often omitted

altogether,[1303] especially where the two exterior scenes are

connected; or their place is taken by some figure under the handle, as

on vases by Hieron or Brygos. Where the patterns do occur, they are

often stereotyped, as in the vases of Duris, who on nine examples with

handle-patterns repeats the same device in each case. In the fine

style, after 460 B.C., the symmetrical arrangement recurs, the usual

type consisting of a double palmette between two large ones, with

connecting and enclosing tendrils.

[Illustration: FIG. 101. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (LATER STAGE).]

Another method of tracing the chronological sequence of the R.F. cups

is by means of the maeander patterns which surround the interior design

and extend below the outside scenes (Fig. 102).[1304] A parallel

development of this pattern may also be traced on the amphorae and

other vases, where it is used as a border below the figures. In the

severe style, as in the cups of Epiktetos, this pattern has not yet

made its appearance, and its place is taken by a simple line of red;

and in the vases of Euphronios, on which it is first found, a simple

maeander is employed. The first to vary this was Duris, who alternates

it with squares, the centre of which is “voided” in the form of a red

cross, and this practice subsequently became invariable. The square

itself shows a development of form, the cross being first filled in

with a black centre, then made diagonal; next, the black background is

largely diminished, until it disappears, except for dots between the

arms of the black cross; finally, it changes into the form of a

chequered square, black and red, of which the red squares are sometimes

dotted.

The =subjects= on red-figured vases may not perhaps be so varied or so

full of mythological interest as those on the black-figured, but yet

present many features worthy of attention. At the very outset we see

the tendency towards scenes from real life in preference to those from

mythology; and on the whole throughout the period the ratio of one

class to the other is exactly the reverse of the preceding period. Nor

are the stock subjects in either class the same. In regard to mythology

the cosmogonic themes of B.F. vases, such as the Gigantomachia and the

Birth of Athena, are replaced by such subjects as Eleusinian and Attic

local cults, the sending forth of Triptolemos or the birth of

Erichthonios. In the heroic cycles Herakles is no longer the popular

favourite, but is supplanted, for reasons presently to be detailed, by

Theseus. The Argonautika frequently provides subjects for vases of the

more developed style, in which the influence of Polygnotos is felt; and

the _Odyssey_ begins to rival the _Iliad_ as a source of epic themes.

The influence of the stage is as yet hardly felt, though here and there

scenes may be traced to the influence of some Satyric drama.

[Illustration:

From _B.M. Cat._ iii.

FIG. 102. DEVELOPMENT OF MAEANDER-AND-CROSS PATTERN.

]

In subjects relating to Dionysos and his attendant Satyrs and Maenads a

considerable change is to be noted, in the direction of a preference

for violent action. The Bacchic revellers of the B.F. vases, even at

their highest pitch of excitement, are generally stiff wooden figures,

with mechanical and restrained pose or action. But the exteriors of

many cups of the best R.F. period, such as those of Hieron or Brygos,

are enlivened by throngs of frenzied Maenads and wild drunken Satyrs,

given up to the most unrestrained and licentious merriment (see Chapter

XIII.).

Turning to the subjects of daily life again, it may be observed that on

the B.F. vases the preference is for battle-scenes, warriors setting

out for battle, or scenes of the chase; even athletic subjects are in a

great minority, except on the Panathenaic amphorae. In the R.F. period

the preference is for athletic scenes, banquets, and the life of women

and children; we also find frequent illustrations of religious cults,

and scenes of sacrifice and libations. The R.F. vases of the severe

stage in the main follow on the lines of the later B.F. period, except

in the interiors of the kylikes of the Epictetan cycle. In these we

find very few instances of mythological subjects, unless it be single

figures of Satyrs. The main object of the painter was to fill in the

circular space as best he might, and this space only admitted of a

single figure, the rule being observed that exterior and interior

figures should be of similar proportions. Hence the easiest solution

was obviously to choose a simple figure, such as that of a nude young

man, and depict him in various simple attitudes, running, leaping,

carrying a vase or musical instrument, or otherwise engaged in such a

way as to fill the space with his limbs or the objects he carried (see

p. 426).

In the “strong” style we observe a new principle at work, which may

be described in a single phrase as “the glorification of the Attic

ephebos or young athlete.” A new impetus had been given to athletics

at Athens by the Peisistratidae, who encouraged a more extensive

celebration of festivals, and thus we find a growing fondness for the

introduction of scenes from the palaestra and stadium, often rendered

with considerable spirit and unconventionality, as in a group of

boxers quarrelling,[1305] or on another vase depicting the humorous

side of the armed foot-race.[1306]

The introduction of scenes from the story of Theseus, which now begin

to be frequent, especially on the kylikes, is no doubt due partly to

this cause, though partly also to religious and patriotic reasons.

Theseus seems to have been regarded as the typical Attic ephebos and

athlete, and his contests as analogous to success in the palaestra.

Hence the grouping of scenes from his labours after the manner of

groups of athletes variously engaged. It was formerly thought that the

popularity of the Theseus legends was due to the bringing back of his

bones from Skyros by Kimon, and their solemn burial in the Theseion,

which gave rise to a regular cult of the national hero. But this took

place in 469 B.C., and recent investigations have shown that many of

the Theseus vases must be placed at an earlier date. He was, however,

supposed to have appeared at the battle of Marathon in aid of the

Athenians, and this event may have been quite sufficient to bring his

cult into prominence.

Towards the middle of the fifth century several new types are

introduced—such as the youth as distinguished from the ephebos, the

girl as distinguished from the matured woman,[1307] and the infant

playing with toys. Juvenile games, such as the top, hoop, and

knucklebones, now become generally popular. The evolution of the types

of Eros and Nike virtually dates from this time[1308]; hitherto Eros

(as, for instance, on the kylikes) has seldom appeared, and Nike is

also hardly found before the “strong” style. Meaningless groups of

figures, conversing or without particular action, are common on the

exterior of cups by Hieron and his contemporaries; and similar groups,

though, in accordance with the spirit of the times, more freely and

pictorially composed, become the recognised method of decorating the

small elegant vases of the late fine style. In some of these an ancient

practice is revived of attempting to give interest to the scenes by

adding mythological names to the figures. But these are chosen quite at

haphazard, sometimes as vague personifications (see Chapter XII., under

Aphrodite), sometimes in such anomalous collocations as Thetis and

Hippolyte, or Danae, Helen, and Iphigeneia.[1309]

In the treatment of mythological scenes it is curious to note how,

almost from the first, the well-worn conventional types of the B.F.

style are discarded, the painter, with his new-born capacities for

drawing and free composition, instinctively forming his own idea of his

subject, and departing from the lines on which his predecessors had

worked. Some subjects are almost entirely ignored, such as the chariot

procession (of Herakles or deities), the contests of Herakles with

Triton and the Cretan bull, warriors playing draughts, and Odysseus and

Polyphemos. The labours of Herakles are largely replaced by those of

Theseus. In other cases the subjects are still popular, but the “type”

is no longer preserved, as in the case of the Judgment of Paris or some

of the labours of Herakles.

But it must not be supposed that the principle of recognised “types” is

altogether absent from the R.F. vases. There are, in fact, certain

motives which occur over and over again, only with this difference—that

they are not always employed with the same signification. Thus the

“pursuing” type, which is as common as any on R.F. vases, may be either

mythological or ordinary. In the former case Eos pursues Kephalos, or

Menelaos Helen; in the latter a Seilenos pursues a Maenad, or a warrior

or hunter a woman. This type becomes almost conventional, and the

figures can only be identified when inscribed. Theseus, Ajax, Orestes,

Ion, Alkmaion, and Neoptolemos all pursue women in the same manner.

Again, the B.F. type of Peleus seizing Thetis, sometimes found on R.F.

vases,[1310] is used for that of a Seilenos seizing a Maenad, even the

snakes into which Thetis transforms herself becoming the ordinary

attribute of the Bacchanal.

A different class of subjects, in which the subject remains the same

but the type varies, is also found on R.F. vases. In such cases the

various artists seem to have drawn their inspiration from the same

model; it might be a famous sixth-century painting or sculptured group,

but each has treated it according to his own individuality. A good

instance is the subject of the sack of Troy, the principal episodes of

which we find depicted by the masters Euphronios and Brygos (Plate

LIV.), and on a hydria of somewhat later date.[1311]

Another characteristic of R.F. vases is the individualising of

barbarian types, a new feature in Greek art. It is possible that this

is largely the effect of the Persian wars, which rendered the Greeks

familiar with barbarian costumes.[1312] In any case the fashion of

wearing Thracian cloaks and other outlandish garments seems to have

been adopted by the young men of Athens at the beginning of the fifth

century, and many of the cups of that period represent young horsemen

apparelled in this fashion (see Chapter XV.). There was also in the

fifth century a fondness for vases modelled in the form of heads of

negroes or Persians. Such subjects as those relating to Orpheus, the

rape of Oreithyia, Herakles and Busiris, or combats of Greeks with

Amazons or Persians, also illustrate the popularity of these new ideas.

The only other class of subjects to which reference need be made is

that dealing with religious cults,[1313] such as libations or

sacrifices to deities or terminal figures, particular ceremonies and

festivals, or quasi-religious competitions of an athletic or musical

kind.[1314]

In regard to style, the Attic red-figured vases fall into four

principal groups, which are usually classified as follows (though each

group is sometimes subdivided):—

(1) =The archaic or severe period= (about 520–500 B.C.), in which there

is little advance in the drawing, which is stiff and lacks technical

freedom. Apart from the new experiments in technique, it is marked by

its wide and novel choice of subjects, with great attention paid to

details. The principal artists whose signatures are found in this group

are: (_a_) cup-painters—Epiktetos, Hischylos, Pheidippos, Pamphaios,

Chelis, Chachrylion, Euergides, Epilykos, Hermaios, Sikanos; (_b_)

other painters—Andokides, Euthymides, Phintias (amphora and hydria),

Hypsis (hydria), Psiax and Hilinos.

(2) =The strong style= (about 500–460 B.C.), characterised by a great

and sudden advance in drawing and power of expression, which leads the

painter to attempt difficult subjects with success. The difficulties of

front-view or three-quarter drawing, as opposed to the old

profile-figures, are also largely overcome. In the amphorae and other

forms the compositions are restrained and dignified, being often

limited to one or two figures in large style. The principal artists

are: (_a_) cup-painters—Euphronios, Oltos, Sosias, Phintias, Peithinos,

Duris, Hieron, Brygos, Amasis, Onesimos; (_b_) other artists—Euxitheos,

Smikros.

(3) =The fine style= (about 460–440 B.C.) exhibits the culmination of

technique and composition, with great breadth and largeness of

conception in the larger vases, delicacy and refinement in the smaller.

Cup-painting has passed its zenith, and yields comparatively few

artists’ names. In this period the influence of Polygnotos and the

great painters begins to make itself felt, in a tendency to more

pictorial composition; landscape is indicated, and figures are placed

at different levels. The influence of sculpture may also be traced. The

chief artists' names are: Aeson, Aristophanes and Erginos, Epigenes,

Hegias, Hermonax, Megakles, Polygnotos, Sotades, and Xenotimos; Meidias

and Nikias; Xenophantos.

(4) =The late fine style= (about 440–400 B.C.) is marked by a great

falling-off in every respect. The extraordinarily rapid advance, both

in artistic conception and in power of execution, during the preceding

fifty years, fostered by the concurrent advance in sculpture and

painting, hastened the vase-painter to his ruin. With the attainment of

perfection in drawing, dexterity and grace are his sole aim, and in

place of vigour and originality we meet with over-refinement and

mannerisms, and florid pictorial compositions executed in a careless

manner.

We now propose to speak in detail of the principal artists of this

period, a study of whose works will be sufficient to give a clear idea

of the achievements of the new style, at all events down to the middle

of the century.[1315] After that time the signatures become so rare

that the later vases are best treated as a whole.

It is important to note, by way of preliminary, the various methods of

signature which the artists adopt (see also Chapter XVII.).[1316] The

ordinary signatures fall under four headings: (1) ἐποίησεν; (2)

ἔγραψεν; (3) _A_. ἐποίησεν, _B_. ἔγραψεν (4) _A_. ἐποίησε καὶ ἔγραψεν.

In the archaic period ἐποίησεν covers the work of the potter and

painter, except in the case where the latter is specially mentioned. In

the best period we usually find ἐποίησεν on the kylikes, ἔγραψεν on the

amphorae. Euphronios and Phintias use either (1) or (2). The vase E 12

in the British Museum has only the inscription, Πάμφαιος ἐποίησεν; but,

as will be seen later, there is good reason for supposing that the

exterior was not painted by him. Different formulae, it has been

suggested, may represent different periods in a man’s career, as in the

case of Euphronios, who was at first a painter in Chachrylion’s

workshop, then worked independently, and finally adopted Onesimos as a

partner (see p. 434). The use of the imperfect ἐποίει in some cases is

characteristic of the transitional period (see below, p. 430).

In the archaic or severe period the typical name is that of

=Epiktetos=, who, as we have seen, is thought by some authorities to

have been actually the inventor of the red-figure style. However this

may be, he is the principal representative of the development of

cup-painting during this period—a development which has been carefully

traced by Klein.[1317] We have no B.F. kylikes signed by him, although

there are four examples of “mixed” cups with B.F. interiors, three of

which were made by Hischylos, the fourth by Nikosthenes, while

Epiktetos was presumably responsible for the whole of the decoration.

He invariably signs with the formula ἔγραψεν, from which we know that

all his signed vases are actually the work of his brush. Besides those

already mentioned, he painted two cups which bear Pamphaios’ name as

potter, and two more with those of Hischylos and Python as potters—all

R.F. throughout, one of the Pamphaios cups retaining the old fashion of

decoration with eyes on the exterior. The vase made by Python[1318] is

interesting from its subject—the slaying of Busiris by Herakles.[1319]

It belongs to an advanced stage of his career, when the exterior

designs were assuming more importance and developing from decorative

compositions to regular friezes. Thirteen kylikes and ten plates with

designs like those on the interiors of the cups (Plate XXXVII.), a

kotyle with Pistoxenos’ name as potter, and two amphorae, make up the

total of Epiktetos’ performances.

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

PLATE XXXVII

[Illustration: INTERIOR OF KYLIX OF TRANSITIONAL STYLE; 2, PLATE BY

EPIKTETOS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

Murray thus describes the chief characteristics of Epiktetos'

work[1320]: “No painter is so uniform and at the same time so peculiar

in his manner as Epiktetos. His drawing is always characterised by

precision and fastidiousness. He loves slim, youthful forms.... He

prefers to draw his figures on a small scale, where his minute touches

produce at times a startling vividness. He appears to have been

influenced in a measure by the older miniature vase-painters [the

‘minor artists’] ... his manner is singularly precise and fastidious

... but his precision never fails him.... He uses skilfully faint

yellow lines for the inner markings of muscle and bone.” Hartwig points

out that he continues the development of a refined archaism from Amasis

(p. 382). The period of his activity may be placed between 530 and 500

B.C.

=Pamphaios=, although the majority of his vases are in the R.F.

technique, really excelled in the old method. We have from his hand two

B.F. hydriae, four B.F. kylikes, two mixed kylikes, fifteen R.F.

kylikes (five with interior designs only), two amphorae and a stamnos,

and he also made two cups for Epiktetos. He signs consistently

ἐποίησεν. In the B.F. hydria in the British Museum (B 300 = Fig. 120),

he, as Murray says, has indulged to excess his sense of refinement and

grace, in which he was unsurpassed. When he turned to red figures, the

new technique seems to have perplexed him, and he found himself unable

to use his faculty for minute detail. But though comparatively coarse

and decadent, there is a freshness and vigour in his new conceptions,

especially in the Museum stamnos (E 437) with Herakles and Acheloos,

which atones for other deficiencies.

Most remarkable of all his signed works is the British Museum kylix (E

12), with its exquisite exterior designs, of which Murray says, “Surely

in the whole realm of Greek vase-painting there is hardly to be met

with a finer conception” than the figures of the two wind-gods or

death-deities carrying off the body of the dead warrior. Nor are the

figures of Amazons arming on the other side of inferior merit. So

marked, indeed, is the superiority of these designs to Pamphaios'

ordinary work, that most authorities are agreed in attributing them to

another artist belonging to a more advanced school—namely, Euphronios.

We have after all no certain proof that the _painting_ of the cup is

Pamphaios’ handiwork, and we can only say that, if it is, it betokens a

most surprising outbreak of artistic power.

Of the other artists in this cycle _Hischylos_ appears chiefly as a

potter for other artists; for Sakonides he made a (B.F.) kylix, for

Epiktetos four, and for Pheidippos one. A B.F. plate, two “mixed” cups,

and one R.F. cup bear his name alone. He always signs with ἐποίησεν,

but it is not improbable that he was responsible for the interior B.F.

designs on three of the cups made for Epiktetos. _Pheidippos_ is only

known from the one cup already mentioned. _Euergides_ made three cups,

_Epilykos_ three,[1321] _Hermaios_ five[1322] (one of which bears a

figure of Hermes, perhaps by way of a sort of canting heraldry), and

_Sikanos_ one plate. The cups by _Chelis_ number five, of which one has

a B.F. interior.

=Chachrylion=, who stands on the verge of the next period, calls for

more detailed treatment, especially since the exhaustive discussion of

his work by Hartwig.[1323] Sixteen cups signed by him are known, two

having been discovered since Klein made his list; he also acted as

potter for Euphronios on one occasion. He always signs ἐποίησεν, but we

may assume that this includes the decoration of the vases. With him we

enter upon the period in which the use of “favourite names” by

vase-painters becomes regular, those employed by Chachrylion being

Leagros and Memnon. The former name is also used by Oltos, Euthymides,

and Euphronios, and the names of Epidromos and Athenodotos belong to

this period, if not to this cycle. A number of vases with the name

Memnon have no signature, and these have usually been attributed _en

bloc_ to Chachrylion. But it has been pointed out by Hartwig that some

of them must belong to an earlier stage, standing in much closer

relation to the B.F. vases. Besides the sixteen signed vases, Hartwig

assigns to him seven with the name of Epidromos, and two others with

that of Leagros in addition, and another without name. A remarkable

number of these cups have no exterior decoration.

Chachrylion’s work is in character essentially transitional. Some of

his cups[1324] are in the style of the archaic decadence, before the

new influence of Euphronios, but he never freed himself from the

trammels of the severe style. He drops the Epictetan method of

decorating the exterior with large eyes and animals bounding the scene,

and uses large palmettes under the handles; but his interior scenes are

still bordered with a plain ring, instead of the later maeander. He is

never altogether happy in his exterior designs; hence his preference

for interiors, in which, it may be noted, he is almost the first to

introduce more than one figure.[1325] His figures, like those of

Epiktetos, have slim proportions and small heads, the bodily forms

better rendered than the limbs. He seems to strike a medium between the

vigour of Pamphaios and the refinement of Epiktetos, combining

robustness and grace with a tendency to largeness of style,[1326] which

shows that he is preparing the way for Euphronios.

In summing up the characteristics of the cups of severe style, we note

that they exhibit throughout a development in technique and decoration

rather than in style and drawing. The earliest are little removed from

the later B.F. kylikes with interior designs and large eyes on the

exterior, many having in fact B.F. interiors. With the eyes occupying

so much space, it is rare at first to find anything like a composition

on the exterior; but gradually the eyes disappear, the palmette

ornaments (see p. 414) decrease in size, and the figures extend

themselves into friezes, with definite action. We have scenes of combat

with a marked centre, like a sculptured pediment, group of athletes or

revellers, and mythological or heroic subjects from the stories of

Herakles, Theseus, and Troy.

In the interiors the development is somewhat different. Beginning with

a simple design of a simple figure within a plain circle—at first an

enforced necessity, but subsequently due to choice—the tendency is to

fill in the space more and more as the power of drawing develops, and

the painter casts about for new ideas. Hence, as Klein[1327] says,

“Here we have carrying, lifting, hurrying, running, stooping, dancing,

springing ... and all for the sole purpose of obtaining those movements

of the human body which the space of the vase demanded.” We also note

the almost entire absence of mythological scenes in the interiors;

repose or simple action is all that is aimed at, whereas on the

exteriors scenes of activity or even violence are admitted.

Murray[1328] has pointed out some interesting parallels between the

kylix-interiors and contemporary coins and gems, which show the

vase-painter to have been in full accord with the spirit of the times.

Thus, to take the coins first, the Sphinx of Chios is repeated on the

B.M. vase E 10, the armed warrior of Aspendos on E 11, the Diskobolos

of Kos on E 78, and the squatting Satyr of Naxos on a vase formerly in

the Bourguignon collection.[1329] Among fifth-century gems we find such

subjects as a youth kneeling and holding a jug, a woman at a

washing-basin, a Satyr with wine-skin, a youth fastening his sandal,

and an archer[1330]—all of which occur on the interior of R.F. kylikes.

The beautiful subject of the body of Memnon borne by two genii (see

above), although an exterior subject, may also be mentioned here as

paralleled in a fine gem.[1331]

In Klein’s valuable monograph on early R.F. cup-painting there is a

useful table[1332] setting forth the development of the Epictetan cycle

of cups, both in subject and arrangement. His first class includes the

purely B.F. cups of Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, with the Gorgoneion in

the interior and large eyes on the exterior, which form the prelude to

the R.F. series. In the next stage a B.F. subject, such as a warrior,

horseman, or deer, takes the place of the Gorgoneion; the exteriors are

R.F., but the eyes are retained, allowing only of a single figure each

side. Three of these are painted by Epiktetos, others by Pamphaios and

Chelis. The third stage has only R.F. interiors, the exterior

preserving the same character; instances may be found among the works

of Chelis and Pheidippos. Finally, there is a long series of nearly

eighty cups and plates, many of the former with interior designs only,

in which the eyes are finally dropped, and the exterior subjects are

developed into regular friezes, being often mythological. These include

the majority of the works of Epiktetos, Pamphaios, and Chachrylion, the

latter of whom marks the transition to the next stage.

Turning now to the works of other artists in this period, and passing

over Andokides, whom we have already discussed (p. 386), we find that

=Euthymides= is the most conspicuous name after those of the

cup-painters.[1333] Strictly speaking, he does not belong exclusively

to the severe period, at least in point of date, though his style is

comparatively behindhand; as we shall see, he was partly contemporary

with Euphronios. His style is curiously similar to that of Phintias, as

is shown by the fact that the same unsigned vases have been attributed

to both by different authorities. Five vases bear his signature (in two

cases ἔγραφε, in the others ἔγραφεη), and he gives the additional

information that he was the son of Polios. He uses three καλός-names—

Megakles, Smikythos, and Phayllos, the first-named being also employed

by Phintias. Two of his vases (in Munich; see Fig. 137) are amphorae,

one a hydria, one a _psykter_, and one a circular dish or plate like

those of Epiktetos.

The similarity of his work to that of Phintias suggests that they were

partners. A vase with the inscription τοὶ τήνδε, Εὐθυμίδες, “This [vase

I dedicate] to thee, Euthymides,” has been attributed by Hartwig to

Phintias, and may be an interesting instance of the friendship existing

between the two artists. On the other hand, Euthymides seems to have

viewed with apprehension and jealousy the growing success of his

junior, Euphronios. On one of the Munich amphorae he places the

boast—by no means with justification—“Euphronios never made the like”

(ὡς οὐδέποτε Εὐφρόνιος).

The height of his activity may be placed about 500–490 B.C., a date

which suits the use of the name Megakles. This probably denotes the

grandfather of Alkibiades and uncle of Perikles, who was ostracised in

487 B.C. The same name, as is well known, occurs on the warrior-tablet

found on the Acropolis[1334], and on the strength of this Hoppin

attributes the tablet to Euthymides.[1335] There is, however, no proof

that such tablets, which belong rather to the higher branch of painting

at that time, were made by vase-painters.

The style of Euthymides and his preference for the amphora seem to

indicate that he was much under the influence of Andokides. He still

clings to the old style in his methods of decoration, as in the borders

of the designs. His individuality, says Hoppin, is best shown in his

draperies, the details of which are faintly indicated in red, and he

shows some skill in foreshortening, but his heads are too large. He

also exhibits a strong preference for mythological subjects, such as

the arming of Hector, but usually balances these subjects with a

genre-scene from the gymnasium or symposium.

His partner =Phintias=[1336] is distinguished from him in one

respect—namely, that he painted cups as well as other shapes. But his

cups have nothing in common with his Epictetan cycle, and seem rather

to have been under the influence of Euphronios. We may therefore regard

him as another connecting-link between the severe and strong periods.

Eight vases are actually signed by him,[1337] though one of these has

no subject, being merely modelled in the form of a head (see below, p.

493); but from his use of Megakles and Chairias as καλός-names, and

other indications, Hartwig has been enabled to add to the number no

less than twelve cups and eleven other vases[1338].

The cups are mostly small, with interior designs only, and those single

figures; his composition is not a strong point, but the single figures

are good, especially the nude forms; his draperies are stiff, but

effective, and his heads are influenced by Euphronios, as Hartwig notes.

A pair of painters that may be linked together are =Oltos= and

=Euxitheos=, the former the painter, the latter the potter, of a kylix

in Berlin (2264). We also have a magnificent kylix at Corneto, with the

name of Euxitheos as potter, probably painted by Oltos; on one side of

the exterior is an assemblage of the gods, on the other a Dionysiac

scene.[1339] In the British Museum is an amphora, also made by

Euxitheos (E 258; signed on handles), with a single figure each side

(Achilles and Briseis), and a krater in the Louvre with the καλός-name

Leagros seems to be by the same hand.[1340] Hartwig, who regards Oltos

as the painter in each case, shows his connection on the one side with

Andokides and Euthymides, on the other with Hieron. He displays a

preference for large figures and for Dionysiac subjects.

The one vase of _Hypsis_, a hydria,[1341] must be of early date; the

shape, ornamentation, and arrangement of the designs are purely B.F. in

character. We have two vases of the _alabastron_ form[1342]—an unusual

one for signatures—made by _Hilinos_ and painted by _Psiax_, and a

kylix of Epictetan style in Munich signed by the latter.[1343] The two

former are each decorated with two figures in a simple, severe, yet

effective style; the latter has a B.F. interior (figure of Seilenos),

and R.F. exterior with the large eyes, and a warrior on one side only.

In the latter case the signature is simply [ΦΣΙΑΞΣ], without a verb; on

the Odessa vase the imperfect tense ἐποίει is used, the casual use of

which is a characteristic of the transitional period.[1344] Mr. Hoppin

has given several reasons for attributing an early date to those two

artists (about 520–500), not the least convincing of which is the use

of a B.F. technique and of the large eyes.

We now find ourselves at the point where =Euphronios= forces his way to

the front as the great master in the new school of painting in which

the influence of Kimon of Kleonae can be traced.[1345] Hartwig compares

this new departure of art to the Italian schools of painting in the

fifteenth century, in which also naturalism and a knowledge of

perspective become the characteristics in which they differ most

markedly from their predecessors. The early work of the school of

Euphronios, which we may place about 500–480 B.C., is best illustrated

by the series of cups with the καλός-name Leagros, which must belong to

this time. This name is found on two of the vases signed by Euphronios,

the Antaios krater in the Louvre and the Geryon kylix in Munich, of

which Chachrylion was the potter. The fact that it is found also on

some B.F. vases[1346] seems to argue, not for its appearance previous

to this date, but rather for the view that at the beginning of the

fifth century there was still a preference for the old method for

certain shapes—the amphora, hydria, and lekythos. It may also be

inferred that Euphronios had already appeared on the scene while

Chachrylion, Pamphaios, and Oltos were still painting more in the

manner of Epiktetos, and hence we are justified in regarding those

artists as belonging to the severe style, even though they overlap with

the succeeding period.

The labours of Hartwig and other scholars have now made it possible to

associate an extensive series of vases with the school of Euphronios,

but there are only ten in existence which actually bear his

signature.[1347] They are as follows (the order being roughly

chronological):—

(1) Krater in Louvre, G 103: Herakles and Antaios; musical

performance. Pottier, _Louvre Atlas_, pls. 100, 101.

(2) Psykter in Petersburg, 1670: Banquet of Hetairae.

(3) Kylix in Munich, 337: Herakles and Geryon. Furtwaengler and

Reichhold, pl. 22 = Plate XXXVIII.

(4) Kylix in Louvre, G 104: Theseus’ adventures. Furtwaengler and

Reichhold, pl. 5; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14.

(5) Kylix in Bibl. Nat., 526: Scene from Doloneia (fragmentary).

Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 137.

(6) Kylix in Brit. Mus., E 44: Herakles and Eurystheus. Furtwaengler

and Reichhold, pl. 23.

(7) Kylix in Perugia: Achilles and Troilos scenes. Hartwig, pls. 58–9.

(8) Kylix in Berlin, 2281: Sack of Troy (fragmentary).

(9) Kylix in Boston: Banquet scenes. Hartwig, pls. 47–8.

(10) Kylix in Berlin, 2282 (polychrome): Achilles and Diomede.

Hartwig, pls. 51–2.

In the first three instances he signs ἔγραψεν, in the rest ἔποιησεν.

The Louvre krater shows Euphronios in his early manner, when, as Murray

says, “he was in the mood of drawing massive limbs and colossal

proportions.” The “type” of the Herakles and Antaios is interesting as

a reminiscence of the B.F. wrestling-scheme adopted for Herakles and

the Nemean lion (see Chapter XIV.). The chief variation is that the

figures are posed in a sort of elongated isosceles triangle, no doubt

with the intention of showing Herakles’ efforts to raise the giant from

the earth to which he so strenuously clings. In the form of Antaios we

already observe the capacity for rendering a body accurately in

different planes which was one of the chief distinctions of the new

school. On the other hand, the agitated female figures in the

background are depicted in the old quasi-Egyptian attitudes, with

bodies in front view and heads in profile; yet in the treatment of

their draperies there is a great advance.

The Geryon cup (Plate XXXVIII.) is a wonderful combination of

picturesque and effective grouping with elaboration of detail, and is

so far the most naturalistic piece of work that any vase-painter has

produced. Here again the old B.F. “type” is retained, at least for the

Geryon, who appears as the “three men joined together” of the Kypselos

chest,[1348] one of whom falls backward wounded. But the whole scene is

vivid and instinct with life; even Athena and Iolaos, instead of calmly

watching the contest, join in animated comment thereon, and the former

seems to be hastening forward to join in the fray. Not the least

effective part of the design is formed by the group of Geryon’s cows on

the reverse, which show that Euphronios was a keen observer of nature

and anatomy, and the varied poses and skilful grouping of the herd are

striking instances of his art in composition.

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

PLATE XXXVIII

[Illustration: KYLIX BY EUPHRONIOS (IN MUNICH): HERAKLES SLAYING

GERYON.]

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

As typical of his later manner (about 480–460 B.C.) we may take the

British Museum kylix and that in the museum at Perugia. They bear

respectively the καλός-names Panaitios and Lykos, while the

contemporary Berlin cup (2282) has the name of Glaukon. These clearly

form a new group, distinct from the Leagros series, and, if the

historical identification of Glaukon (see p. 404 above, and Chapter

XVII.) is correct, enable us to place them about 470–460 B.C. The

interior group of the British Museum cup shows us two figures, a woman

standing by the side of a man, who is seated to the front and drawn in

a very boldly foreshortened attitude. Their physiognomy, in particular

the large prominent nose, is especially characteristic of Euphronios’

riper style, and in the treatment of the drapery we distinguish a great

advance even on his earlier vases. Not only is it executed with perfect

freedom and naturalness, but even different qualities of material are

indicated, _e.g._ by the use of fine crinkly lines. The Theseus kylix

in the Louvre, which Hartwig regards as the highest point of the R.F.

style, a study in idealism rather than naturalism, is also conspicuous

for its excellence in this respect.

The Troilos kylix in Perugia, which as far as can be ascertained is the

latest of Euphronios’ works, is interesting, apart from its artistic

treatment, as an instance of the current tendency to combine interior

and exterior scenes in one whole, representing distinct or successive

episodes of a single subject. On one side of the exterior, Achilles,

having emerged from his ambush, drags the unfortunate boy by his hair

to the altar at which the tragedy is to be consummated; his horses

betake themselves off with flying reins. Meanwhile, on the other side,

Troilos’ Trojan comrades, as on the François vase, hastily arm

themselves in order to come to his rescue. But the interior scene shows

us that their efforts are in vain; the boy, in whose countenance fear

and agony are admirably depicted, is about to fall a victim to the

sword of his relentless foe, who in a vigorous yet even graceful

attitude raises his arm to deal the death-blow. Of the vase as a whole

Murray says, “There is no mistaking in it the presence of all the best

and strongest qualities of Euphronios, though in a more subdued and

more poetic form. His draperies...are full of refinement and beauty.”

It remains to say a word on Euphronios in another aspect—as a painter

in polychrome on white ground. The Berlin cup No. 2282, sadly

fragmentary as it is, bears not only the signature of Euphronios, but

the καλός-name Glaukon, to which we have already referred. The method

of painting, to which we have referred on a subsequent page (p. 457),

was one just at its height in the middle of the fifth century. The two

heads, which are the best-preserved parts of the cup, are remarkable

for their breadth and largeness of style, and for their idealising

tendency, which recalls the coins of a slightly later period and such

works of sculpture as the ephebos-head from the Athenian Acropolis, to

say nothing of the sculptures of Olympia.

We must not, however, omit to notice here the views of some recent

writers, who are inclined to doubt whether the paintings on some of

these later vases are actually from Euphronios' hand.[1349] It is

certainly noteworthy that he has ceased to sign ἔγραψε; but to maintain

that the ἐποίησε, where no other painter’s name occurs, does not

include the painting of the vase, is to rest on somewhat negative

evidence, and would also lead to the refusal to recognise Chachrylion

and other noted artists as the painters of their signed vases. If,

however, this view is to be accepted, it would entail the attribution

of the scenes on the Troilos cup to _Onesimos_, who painted a cup of

similar style in the Louvre,[1350] of which Euphronios was the potter.

Hartwig thinks that the Berlin cup is not by Euphronios, but would

attribute to him a similar fragmentary cup in the British Museum (D 1).

The beautiful Aphrodite cup in the same collection (D 2) bears the

καλός-name of Glaukon, but in view of what has been said any attempt to

attribute it to Euphronios would be dangerous.[1351]

We now have to deal with a trio of his contemporaries, men of marked

individuality and capacity, who display the same instincts for

naturalism and freedom of style, though no one of them rises quite to

the height of Euphronios’ genius.

Of these =Duris= has left a total of twenty-three signed vases, of

which no less than twenty-one are kylikes, the other two being a

kantharos and a psykter. He signs almost consistently ἔγραψε, but

ἐποίησεν in addition on the kantharos; he employs three potters at

different times—Python (who worked for Epiktetos), Kleophrades (who

worked for Amasis II.), and Kalliades. Of καλός-names he uses no less

than five, the first two of which go together in his earlier

period—Chairestratos and Panaitios. The latter name, as we have seen,

was used by Euphronios. On the vases in his later manner the names of

Aristagoras, Hermogenes, and Hippodamas appear. He seems to have been

about ten years the junior of Euphronios, but to what extent he was

influenced by him is uncertain. Murray traces the influence of the

other in his later manner, when he forsakes his old love of figures in

repose for subjects entailing violent action. Hartwig, on the other

hand, attributes this change to the influence of Brygos; and in any

case, it is certain that he never attained to the vitality and freedom

of Euphronios.

His style is so marked that it is possible—apart from the evidence of

καλός-names—to attribute to him many vases not actually signed by him,

as may be gathered from the study of his work by Hartwig.[1352] In his

earlier vases he shows a strong preference for scenes from the

palaestra, and only two are mythological. According to Hartwig it is

these vases that show the closest parallelism with Euphronios, both in

choice of subject and in treatment. The later works show a great and

surprising falling off, and are frequently dull and comparatively

careless. They show, in fact, a change from the perfecting of

naturalism to mere mannerism, and this in spite of the change in

subjects from repose to violent action. It is probable that he fell

away from the influence of Euphronios to that of Hieron and Brygos,

lacking entirely, as he did, the genius of the older artist. On the

other hand, his choice of subjects becomes much more varied, many being

heroic or mythological, and among these scenes from the labours of

Theseus take the place of the older athletic types (cf. p. 418). He is

also fond of banquet-scenes at all times, and found in them scope for

bold foreshortening as applied to figures in repose.[1353]

The best-known vase by Duris is a kylix in Berlin (2285 = Plate

XXXIX.), on the exterior of which are painted scenes from a school. On

one side a boy receives instruction in the lyre, while another stands

before his teacher reading from a roll on which is inscribed the first

line of an epic poem: Μοῖσά μοι ἀμφὶ Σκάμανδρουν ἐύρρων ἄρχομαι ἀείδειν

(see Chapter XVII.). On the other side, the five figures on which

exactly balance those on the first, we have a lesson on the flute and

in drawing or writing; the seated figure in the middle holds a pen and

an open tablet. The fifth figure in each case is a bearded man, seated

on a stool watching the proceedings. In the field are suspended lyres,

writing-tables, and rolls of manuscript. There is also a beautiful cup

in the Louvre, the interior of which represents Eos with the body of

Memnon; the exterior, Homeric combats.[1354] Of the three examples of

his work in the British Museum, one is occupied with the labours of

Theseus (Frontispiece); another (E 49) shows his love of slim nude

figures, contrasted with careful and formal drapery. The peculiar shape

of the heads should be noticed; also the treatment of the eye, as a

circle with a dot in the centre. Like Epiktetos, a slave of precision,

he in nearly all these cases avoids violence of action, and seeks after

a quiet gracefulness. His peculiarly fine technical skill appears to

have been much appreciated in his day.[1355]

=Hieron= has signed twenty-eight vases, all being kylikes except three,

which are kotylae. His invariable formula is ἐποίησεν, and the

signature is generally incised on the handle of the vase. Hartwig is

inclined to attribute one or two cups with this signature to another

master, who had a preference for introducing bald-headed figures[1356];

and, in regard to others, there is fairly certain evidence that they

were not painted by him. For instance, a very fine kylix with the

carrying off of Helen bears the name of _Makron_ as painter,[1357] and

it is possible that others are actually painted by that artist, who in

any case must have been a partner of his. His work is regarded by

Hartwig as full of individuality and excellence. Hieron, on the other

hand, is inclined to the repetition of certain types, little

individualised. He seems to have been trained in the school of Oltos

rather than that of Euphronios,[1358] except that he learned from the

latter the use of foreshortening. His only καλός-name is that of

Hippodamas, also used by Duris.

His subjects comprise scenes from myth and legend, musical and

conversational groups, and Dionysiac scenes. He is fond of decorating

his exteriors with rows of men and women of a somewhat sentimental

type, smelling flowers, or in amorous converse. But he rises to higher

flights in the Berlin cup (2290), with Maenads sacrificing to Dionysos

Dendrites, and still more in the splendid kotyle in the British Museum

(E 140 = Plate LI.), with the gathering of the Eleusinian deities at

the sending forth of Triptolemos (see Chapter XII.).

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

PLATE XXXIX

[Illustration:

1, KYLIX BY DURIS (IN BERLIN): SCHOOL SCENE.

2, KYLIX IN STYLE OF BRYGOS (CORNETO): THESEUS DESERTING ARIADNE.

]

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

His figures exhibit a strongly marked type of head, large and simple,

perhaps developed from those of Duris. But it is in the treatment of

drapery that he chiefly excels, especially in the British Museum kotyle

and the Berlin cup. Particular mention should be made of the elaborate

garment worn by Demeter on the former, with its rich figured

embroideries (see Chapter XVI.); and the robes of Persephone, though

simpler in decoration, show an even greater richness of treatment in

the delicate lines of the chiton and the graceful fall of the mantle.

On a cup in Berlin with the Judgment of Paris (Fig. 129) he makes a

notable attempt at landscape, showing Paris seated on a rock,

surrounded by a flock of goats.

=Brygos= has only left eight cups, but they are on the whole of a high

order of merit. The Acropolis excavations yielded a fragment of his

work, showing that the beginning of his career must be placed before

480 B.C. But although he retains some archaisms from his early

training, he stands, as Murray has pointed out, on the threshold of the

fine style, and in some of his compositions there is a distinctly

pictorial tendency. His use of gilding (as on E 65 in B.M.) is also, as

with Euphronios in his polychrome cup, an evidence of advanced work. He

shows in his work more directness and actuality, as compared with the

stateliness and grace of Hieron and Makron, and the infusion of

earnestness and animation into his figures is a typical

characteristic.[1359] He pays more attention to his compositions than

to his single figures, but lacks the rhythm of Euphronios.

His subjects are very varied, and cover almost all the vase-painters'

ground except the palaestra. Hartwig on this account connects him with

the school of Oltos, Hieron, and Peithinos, who preferred erotic and

Dionysiac to athletic subjects, and points out that his use of bold

foreshortening effects need not connote the direct influence of

Euphronios, inasmuch as κατάγραφα were by this time the common property

of vase- painters. It is interesting to note that he uses no

καλός-name, and both he and Hieron seem to belong to a time when this

fashion was dying out; by the end of the “strong” period it had

practically disappeared.

To speak of his vases in detail, the British Museum cup has been

praised for the composition and drawing of its exterior designs and its

clever foreshortening. The exterior subject is interesting as being

derived from a Satyric drama. The difference of scale between the

figures of deities and those of the Satyrs reminds us (though there is

of course no question of influence) of the similar treatment of the

east frieze of the Parthenon. It has been suggested by several writers

that the name Brygos implies a Macedonian origin for this painter, and

on these grounds a kylix in the British Museum (E 68) has been

attributed to him which bears inscriptions in the Macedonian or some

kindred dialect—Pilon for Philon, Pilipos for Philippos (see Chapter

XVII.). This cup is interesting for the introduction of a new type,

that of the young dancing girl.[1360] The beautiful cup on Plate XXXIX.

(fig. 2) has also been referred to him. Among other interesting

subjects are the Triptolemos cup in Frankfurt, the cup with the

Judgment of Paris (which may be compared with that of Hieron), and the

Sack of Troy cup in the Louvre (Plate LIV.). This latter subject we

have already seen treated as a whole by Euphronios, though previously

it had only appeared in the form of isolated episodes; but the growing

tendency to pictorial treatment of such subjects is well illustrated by

the cup of Brygos and the later Vivenzio hydria in Naples.

=Peithinos= is a master who has been largely rediscovered by Hartwig.

Only one cup with his signature is known, a fine example in Berlin

(2279) with the Euphronian καλός-name Athenodotos, and the interior

subject of Peleus seizing Thetis, treated with great decorative effect.

Hartwig traces his style in eight more cups, chiefly with erotic and

banqueting subjects, and points out among the former an early instance

of sentimentality in vase-painting in the figure of a love-sick man. He

characterises his style as “over-ripe archaism,” with a slight

reversion to the mannerisms of Exekias, and great attention to detail

in general. He sees in Peithinos the first instance of the pictorial

tendency of which we have spoken, contrasting him with Euphronios and

other painters who were always in the first instance draughtsmen.

In the Berlin Museum there is a magnificent cup (2278)[1361] purporting

to be made by _Sosias_, a name which does not otherwise occur.[1362] In

the absence of indications of the painter, Hartwig and Furtwaengler are

inclined to think that the decoration may be the work of Peithinos; but

this can hardly amount to more than a matter of individual opinion. It

is one of the most sumptuously decorated cups of this period that we

possess, but the exterior is unfortunately greatly damaged. In the

interior Achilles is represented binding up the wounded arm of his

comrade Patroklos. The expressions of the figures and the remarkable

foreshortening of Patroklos’ right leg are indications of the admirable

skill of the painter, whoever he may have been. On the exterior is an

assemblage of gods and goddesses to receive Herakles on his entry into

Olympos, including seventeen figures in all, distinguished by

inscriptions.

In the later chapters of his great work Hartwig has disentangled the

styles of several masters of this period, though not in every case is

he able to give their names; but some vases can be grouped together by

means of καλός-names or by special peculiarities, such as the use of a

conventional foliage-ornament. They are, however, for the most part of

inferior merit to those of the painters hitherto discussed. Among the

painters’ names are those of Amasis II., Apollodoros, and Onesimos; the

latter has already been mentioned in connection with Euphronios.

Generally speaking, the chief characteristic of the cups of this period

is the tendency to treat the interior and exterior as representing

successive episodes of one theme,[1363] as in the Troilos cup of

Euphronios, or at least as having some connection, more or less

definite, as in the Theseus cup of the same master.

Both in exterior and interior designs the development of composition is

very strongly marked, and there is a notable tendency to enhance the

effect of interior scenes by rich decorative borders. Even in the work

of individual painters a great development is to be observed, showing

how rapid the growth of artistic power was at this time; and thus we

are able to distinguish in Euphronios and Duris an earlier and a later

manner. As Hartwig has said (p. 95), the period of progress associated

with the names of Euphronios and Brygos is characterised by an

individuality and freedom which were partly the cause and partly the

effect of a closer study of nature and an increased capacity for

rendering it.

Among other artists of the time, almost the only conspicuous name is

that of _Smikros_, the painter of two stamni, in the British Museum (E

438) and Brussels,[1364] and also most probably of a “Nolan” amphora in

the Louvre (G 107), which is inscribed [ΔΟΚΕΙ ΣΜΙΚΡΩΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ], “This is

evidently Smikros’ work.” He signs in both the former cases with

ἔγραψεν. He appears, says M. Gaspar, as a rival of Euphronios and

Duris, but fails in the attempt to equal their achievements in

vividness, originality, and faithful reproduction of the human figure.

The Brussels stamnos is interesting as representing inscribed persons

from ordinary life, just as Phintias (see p. 429) introduces on a vase

figures of the artists Tlenpolemos and Euthymides. Klein also

attributes to him a krater at Arezzo[1365] with the καλός-name

Pheidiades, which occurs on the signed vases. It is remarkable for the

treatment of the subject (Herakles and the Amazons) in the style of the

B.F. vases.

The next development of R.F. vase-painting, which presents all the

characteristics of the best period of Greek art and of the highest

point to which that art attained, is that called the =fine style=. In

this the influence of painting first really begins to manifest itself,

especially that of the Polygnotan school, which covers the years

470–440 B.C. It is shown alike in composition and in drawing, and to a

lesser degree in the colouring; but the general use of colours and

gilding on vases really belongs to the succeeding stage. As regards the

drawing, the figures have lost the hardness which at first

characterised them; the eyes are no longer represented obliquely, but

in profile; the extremities are finished with greater care, the chin

and nose are more rounded, and have lost the extreme elongation of the

earlier schools. The limbs are fuller and thicker, the faces noble, the

hair of the head and beard treated with greater breadth and mass, just

as subsequently the painter Zeuxis gave more flesh to his figures in

order to make them appear of greater breadth and grandeur, like Homer,

who represented even his women of larger proportions.[1366]

The great charm of these designs is the beauty of the composition, and

the more perfect proportion of the figures. The head is an oval,

three-quarters of which forms the distance from the chin to the ear;

the disproportionate length of limbs has entirely disappeared, and the

countenance assumes a natural form and expression. The folds of the

drapery, too, are freer, and the attitudes have lost their old

rigidity. It is the outgrowth of the life and freedom of an ideal

proportion, united with careful composition. Before the introduction of

the Polygnotan style of composition, the figures are generally large,

and arranged in groups of two or three on each side, occupying about

two-thirds of the height of the vase; but the pictorial influence is

more in the direction of smaller figures, grouped at different levels.

Figures in full face are now much less uncommon. In some of the larger

vases with figures on both sides, such as the kraters, the reverse side

is not finished with the same care as the obverse, being intended to

stand against a wall, or at least to be less prominently seen.

The career of Polygnotos extends from 478 B.C. to 447 B.C., as far as

can be gathered from the various works on which we know him to have

been engaged. In 478 he painted frescoes for the temple of Athena Areia

at Plataea, in 474 he decorated the Theseion and Anakeion at Athens, in

460 he worked with Mikon on the Stoa Poikile, and from 458 to 447 he

was engaged on his great paintings of the Ἰλίου Πέρσις and Νέκυια for

the Lesche at Delphi.[1367] As all these paintings are described more

or less in detail by Pausanias, their subjects form a valuable clue to

the investigation of his influence on the vases.

[Illustration:

FIG. 103. KRATER OF POLYGNOTAN STYLE IN LOUVRE:

THE SLAYING OF THE NIOBIDS.

]

At first, indeed, this is limited to single figures or motives[1368];

it is not until about 470 that his method of composition, with its

rough perspective and variety of level, finds its way on to the vases.

The oldest vase on which these new features appear is the krater from

Orvieto in the Louvre,[1369] which has usually been placed about 470,

though at first sight it appears to be later; but certain small details

of an archaic character point the other way. The main subject is a

group of Argonauts, which has been variously interpreted, but Robert

suggests that the scene represents their preparations for departure,

and is thus able to associate it with a painting by Mikon in the

Anakeion, on which that subject was employed. The various vases which

depict the story of Theseus’ visit to Amphitrite[1370] are referred

also by Robert to an original by Mikon in the Theseion (about 470

B.C.). The cup of Euphronios (p. 431) and the Girgenti krater represent

a stage of the subject contemporary with that painter; on the Bologna

krater we have a reduced version of his work; and on the Tricase vase

from Ruvo, which belongs to the school of Hermonax (see below) a

simpler form of the myth occurs, contemporary with the preceding.

The technique and colouring of Polygnotos’ works find their reflection

principally in the polychrome vases (see below, p. 455). On the

red-figured vases of this period we must look for his influence rather

in the arrangement and poses of the figures, the methods of indicating

locality, and the attempts at perspective. Professor Robert’s ingenious

reproductions of his paintings[1371] may be profitably compared with

such vases as the Orvieto krater, the Blacas krater in the British

Museum (E 466 = Plate LIII.), or the somewhat later hydria of Meidias

(see below). The principle adopted was that of arranging the figures,

not in even rows or in proper perspective, but at different levels,

those in the background being sometimes half hidden by rising ground.

It is a principle which we shall find even more fully developed in the

South Italy vases of the succeeding century; but it was at the time of

its appearance quite sudden and unexpected, contradicting at first

sight the decorative principles of vase-painting. Polygnotos was also

fond of indicating characteristics of his personages or allusions to

their history by means of subtle touches or actions. Thus Phaedra was

represented in a swing, Eriphyle with her hand on her neck (with

reference to the necklace), Theseus and Peirithoos in sitting postures,

and so on. This is quite in the manner of the fifth-century

vase-painter. Finally, the late F. Dümmler has pointed out that his

influence is possibly to be traced in another manner on certain vases,

viz. in the use of the dialect of Paros and Thasos for the inscriptions

instead of Attic forms.[1372] It should be borne in mind that he was a

native of Thasos, and would naturally have used his native dialect for

the inscriptions over his figures.

The following is a list of vases showing Polygnotan influence:

(1) In types and motives only (470–460 B.C.)[1373]:

B.M. E 170, 450, 469; Berlin 2403 = Reinach, i. 450; Naples 2421

= Reinach, ii. 278 and 3089 = Millingen- Reinach, 33;

Reinach, i. 184 (two vases), 218, 221; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pl.

10, fig. 2; Millingen-Reinach, 49–50; Furtwaengler, _50^{tes}

Winckelmannsfestprogr._ pl. 2[1374]; Louvre A 256 =

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11 (Dümmler).

(2) In method of composition (460–440 B.C.)[1375]:

B.M. E 224, E 466, E 492; Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217 and 2471 =

_Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 55; Naples R.C. 239 = Reinach, i. 482;

Jatta 1093, 1095, 1498 = Reinach, i. 175, 119, 111; Petersburg

1792, 1807 = Reinach, i. 1, 7; Reinach, i. 522, 5 (in Bologna);

_Ant. Denkm._ i. 36 (_ibid._); Reinach, i. 191; and reflecting

the style of Polygnotos or of Mikon: Reinach, i. 226–27 =

_J.H.S._ x. p. 118 (Louvre); Reinach, i. 232 = _J.H.S._ xviii. p.

277.

To these may perhaps be added:

Naples 2889 = Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. Inéd._ pls. 13–4; Athens 1921 =

Reinach, i. 511; Berlin 2326 (see _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 172).

In this stage, as has been noted, artists’ signatures are far more rare

than in either of the two preceding, and cup-painters in particular are

few and far between. The καλός-names, too, have almost entirely come to

an end. Of the cup-painters the only known names are those of Aeson,

Erginos and Aristophanes, Hegias, Hegesiboulos, Sotades, and Xenotimos,

and of these four (Aeson, Hegesiboulos, Hegias,[1376] and

Xenotimos[1377]) are only represented by single specimens. Two very

fine cups, made by _Erginos_ and painted by _Aristophanes_, are in the

museums of Berlin and Boston respectively,—the former decorated with

scenes from the Gigantomachia within and without (Fig. 112); the latter

has in the interior Herakles rescuing Deianeira from Nessos, on the

exterior a battle of Centaurs and Lapiths. An unsigned duplicate of

this vase was acquired by the Boston Museum at the same time.[1378] The

vase by _Aeson_ is decorated with scenes from the labours of

Theseus.[1379]

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

PLATE XL

[Illustration:

CUPS BY SOTADES.

1, IN BOSTON; 2, BRIT. MUS.: POLYEIDOS IN THE TOMB OF GLAUKOS.

]

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

_Sotades_ stands apart from his contemporaries as an artist of much

individuality, with a tendency to great refinement and delicacy in his

work. He has left one R.F. kantharos and some half-dozen vases of the

white-ground type, two with very interesting subjects (see also p.

457); all but the first were formerly in M. van Branteghem’s

collection, and these are now divided between the British and Boston

Museums. He is remarkable for his extremely delicate cups, with handles

in the form of a chicken’s merrythought, and he also made two phialae

with white interior and moulded exterior painted in rings of red,

white, and black; on the interior of one of these a cicala (τέττιξ) is

ingeniously modelled so as to appear resting there (Plate XL.).

_Hegesiboulos_, one of whose vases was also in the Van Branteghem

collection,[1380] seems to have been an artist of similar tendencies.

Of the rest, _Epigenes'_ name appears on a small kantharos in the

Bibliothèque Nationale, and those of _Megakles_ and _Maurion_ on

pyxides. Among the painters who exercised their skill on larger vases

the most noteworthy is _Polygnotos_, who has left an amphora and two

stamni. The similarity of his name to that of the great contemporary

painter has naturally led to conjectures as to a possible connection of

the two, which has been discussed by Professor Robert in publishing two

of the vases with his signature.[1381] His conclusion is that they

belong to the period 460–450 B.C., in which the influence of the

painter is beginning to make itself felt, but only in isolated figures

and motives, not, as in a class of which we shall presently speak, in

the composition of scenes. The earliest of the three is the stamnos in

Brussels, with the subject of Kaineus overwhelmed by the

Centaurs[1382]; next comes the stamnos with the combat of Herakles and

the Centaur Dexamenos[1383]; and lastly the British Museum

amphora,[1384] which retains an archaic form, but in its style and

drawing presents no traces of archaism.[1385] In the reverses of his

vases, with their tendency to meaningless and carelessly drawn figures,

we seem to trace the beginnings of the decadence. _Hermonax_, who

painted four stamni and a “pelike,” seems to be closely associated in

style with Polygnotos.[1386] Professor Robert would also attribute to a

pupil of Polygnotos three fine R.F. cups of about 445 B.C.—the Kodros

cup in Bologna (Chapter XIV.) and two in Berlin (2537–38), with the

subjects of the birth of Erichthonios, and Aegeus consulting the oracle

of Themis.

_Nikias_, of whom we have only one example, a bell-shaped krater in the

British Museum (formerly in the Tyszkiewicz collection),[1387] is

evidently, from the form of the vase and the style of the paintings, an

artist of the latest stage of R.F. vase-painting at Athens. He is,

however, remarkable in one respect, namely the form of his

signature,[1388] which gives not only his parentage but—a unique

instance among vase-painters—his deme:

Νικίας Ἐρμοκλέους Ἀναθλύσιος ἐποίησεν.

The subject of the vase is the torch-race, one often found on late

Athenian kraters, and seldom at an earlier date.

Lastly we have a hydria from the hand of _Meidias_, in the British

Museum, which originally formed part of the Hamilton collection (Plate

XLI.). Winckelmann estimated it above all other vases known to him, and

regarded it as illustrating the highest achievement of the Greeks in

the way of drawing. His criticism is hardly even now out of date, in

spite of the enormous number that now challenge comparison with it, as

far as concerns the beauty and richness of the drawing and of the

composition. The artist, says Furtwaengler, “revels in a sea of beauty

and grace; youth and charm are idealised in his work.” In point of

style it belongs to the epoch of the Peloponnesian War, about 430–420

B.C., but so admirable is the work that it can hardly be placed so low

as the contemporary vases of “late fine” style, with their patent

evidences of decadence. Meidias may therefore fairly be included with

the foregoing.[1389]

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

PLATE XLI

[Illustration: HYDRIA BY MEIDIAS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

The subjects represented are arranged in two friezes all round the

vase, the upper containing the rape of the Leukippidae by the

Dioskuri—a subject which had been chosen by Polygnotos for his painting

in the Anakeion.[1390] Not only this, but all the vases with the same

subject are doubtless largely indebted to the painting for their ideas,

especially in the system of composition with figures at different

levels.[1391] On the lower row the front view shows Herakles in the

garden of the Hesperides, and at the back is a group of Athenian tribal

heroes.[1392] All the figures have their names inscribed; these,

together with the artist’s signature, were only first noticed by

Gerhard in 1839. Among the details of treatment are to be noted the

exquisitely fine lines for the folds of drapery, and the elaborate

chequers and other patterns representing embroidery, the occasional use

of gilding, the attempts to impart expression to faces by means of

wrinkles, and the characteristic rendering of the hair with wavy dark

lines of thinned black on a brown wash.

The last artist of Athenian origin who remains to be mentioned is

_Xenophantos_, a contemporary of Meidias, whose name appears on a vase

found at Kertch and now in the Hermitage at Petersburg.[1393] Here he

expressly calls himself an Athenian, and it has therefore been supposed

that the vase was made on the spot, otherwise it would not be obvious

why he should proclaim his nationality (see below, p. 464). The chief

feature of the vase—a lekythos of the “bellied” type so common at this

stage—is the use of figures moulded in relief and applied to the

surface, in conjunction with gilding and a lavish use of white colour.

The subject is the Persian king hunting.

The vases of the =late fine= style, into which the “fine” style merges

about the year 430 B.C., may be divided into two classes,—that of the

larger vases, chiefly kraters, in which the pictorial traditions of the

Polygnotan vases are carried on and developed, and the influence of

contemporary art makes itself felt; and that of the smaller types, such

as the pyxis and the wide-bellied lekythos, in which new features and

new subjects are introduced (cf. Plate XLII.).

The former class is chiefly made up of the vases found in Southern

Italy, in the Crimea, the Cyrenaica, and the Greek islands, which are

apparently of Athenian, not local, fabric; but they are comparatively

rare at Athens and in Greece Proper, where the smaller vases have been

found in considerable numbers. It may be found convenient to deal first

with the latter, as more typically Athenian, while the larger vases

serve as a connecting-link with the succeeding fabrics dealt with in

the next section.

In these vases linear drawing reaches its limits in respect of perfect

freedom and refinement of detail; but it is at a severe cost. The

artist seems to have lost interest in his subject when it no longer

required an effort to execute it, and is content to decorate his vase

with a few stock figures in conventional attitudes, uncharacterised by

action or attribute. Frequent faults of design may be observed, such as

coarseness of drawing or negligence in the laying on of the black

varnish. The artist works by routine, and appears to be nonchalant and

bored. Mythological scenes become exceedingly rare, and are confined to

Dionysos or Aphrodite with their attendant personifications, and the

compositions are fanciful or decorative in character, without any

suggestion of particular events or actions. The all-pervading presence

of Eros is another feature which is new to vase-painting, but

henceforward his position is established. An even greater novelty is

the preponderance

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

PLATE XLII

[Illustration:

VASE OF “LATE FINE” STYLE.

(BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

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

of subjects connected with the daily life of women or children—the

toilet, the occupations of every-day life, or nuptial ceremonies; and a

whole series of small jugs, themselves in all probability toys, depicts

the various games in which the Athenian child delighted—the hoop, the

go-cart, and the ball, or his pet animals (cf. Plate XLII.).

The shapes most popular in this group are, as we have indicated, the

oinochoë, the wide-bellied lekythos, and the pyxis (Plate XLII.).

Milchhoefer, in a most important article,[1394] regards the lekythi

as more instructive than any other group for illustrating the later

developments of R.F. vase-painting. Beginning with early examples of

the fine style,[1395] they extend to the very end without any gaps,

the tradition being further continued in Apulia. They exhibit a

development from simple to rich compositions, from “strong” style to

perfect freedom. In the latest examples, such as that by Xenophantos,

we see the straining after novelty which marks the decadence, in the

introduction of figures in relief applied to the surface of the vase,

as well as in the increase of polychromy and gilding. Among the finer

vases we may note a hydria at Karlsruhe (259) with the Judgment of

Paris, in which may be traced the hand of Meidias; the lekythos in

the British Museum from Cyprus (E 696), with Oedipus slaying the

Sphinx, in which the figure of Athena with its white coating is

clearly reminiscent of the gold-and-ivory Parthenos statue; and two

pretty lekythi from Apollonia, in Thrace, with the subject of

incense-gathering. There are also two pyxides in the British Museum

(E 773–4), on which are groups of women, with fancy names added to

give interest to the scene: thus Klytaemnestra, Danae, and Iphigeneia

occur all together, and the Nereids are engaged in the every-day

occupations of the women’s apartments.

From a technical point of view, the principal change is in the

increased use of gilding and polychrome colouring. The former, employed

exceptionally by Euphronios and Brygos, now becomes the rule, and

concurrently the use of white for flesh-tints, as in the figure of

Athena just mentioned, and of red, green, and blue for draperies,

becomes more and more general. The gilding was applied for small

details, such as wreaths, and for the hair; and the places where it was

to be applied were marked by low relief. It was fixed in the form of

gold-leaf by means of a yellowish gum. Jahn, who some years ago

collected the list of vases with gilding,[1396] reckoned fifty-one

known to him, chiefly from Kertch; and Heydemann and Collignon[1397]

have since added several to the list, chiefly from collections at

Athens. They have been found not only in Athens and Kertch, but at

Corinth, Megara, Hermione, Thebes, and in Acarnania and Thrace.

In the larger vases of this period the pictorial method of the

preceding phase is, as might have been expected, greatly developed.

Among the vases of undoubted Attic origin we have, first of all, the

Meidias hydria and its companion vase, the Karlsruhe hydria with the

Judgment of Paris[1398]; and, secondly, the great Gigantomachia vase

from Melos in the Louvre, which contains no less than forty-seven

figures.[1399] Another fine instance is the polychrome Kameiros vase in

the British Museum with the subject of Peleus and Thetis. Robert[1400]

sees in the two latter a possible influence of Parrhasios, who is known

to have paid great attention to drawing, and, in reference to the

Kameiros vase, draws attention to the plastic silhouette effect of the

figures. Parrhasios’ art consisted in giving this effect by his linear

drawing.[1401] The influence of Zeuxis is less apparent, though from

his earlier date it might more naturally have been expected.[1402]

It is, however, still more instructive to trace in this group the

influence of the Parthenon sculptures, which, where it can be observed,

enables us to date the vases approximately as at any rate not earlier

than 438 B.C. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that sculptor

and painter may often have gone back to the same original type. This

explains the appearance of apparently Pheidian motives on vases of an

earlier style—such as riding youths, water-carriers, etc.—or the

similarity of composition on one of the Parthenon metopes and a vase of

undoubtedly earlier date.[1403] But in one or two instances there can

be no doubt of such influence, most notably in the Athena and Poseidon

vase from Kertch (see below, p. 464). It cannot be without significance

here that the two figures are actually in relief on the vase, and the

parallelism with the pediment (so far as we know the design) is so

close that a copy of it was manifestly the vase-artist’s intention.

Mention has already been made of a figure of the Parthenos on a vase of

this period, and another instance, though not on a painted vase, may be

noted in the polychrome bust of the goddess in terracotta from Athens,

now in the British Museum.[1404] Some instances of this type on vases

may be earlier than the statue; it was not created by Pheidias.[1405]

* * * * *

It has already been mentioned that there is one exception to the

Athenian monopoly of vase-making in the fifth century, and this is in

the local fabrics of Boeotia. Of the Kabeirion vases, which, though in

the B.F. technique, belong to this period, we have already spoken.

There remains a small class—only five examples are at present

known—which appears to have been made at Tanagra. All five evidently

came from the same workshop, and in three cases the provenance is

certainly known. Two are in the British Museum (E 813–4), and three in

the Museum at Athens.[1406] With the exception of E 814 in the British

Museum, which is a pyxis, all are small two-handled cups, with low

feet. The designs are outlined on a background of yellow clay in a

black-brown pigment, the lines being coarsely drawn. Inner details are

indicated by means of thinned-out pigment. That they are of Boeotian

origin is further shown by the ornamentation: the pyxis has round the

sides rows of vertical wavy lines, such as are often seen on the

Boeotian geometrical fabrics (p. 288), and also an ivy-leaf which

recalls the Kabeirion ware. The ornamentation of the hangings round the

chair on Athens 1120 exactly resembles the patterns indicating the

drapery on some of the early Boeotian terracottas.[1407] The subjects,

on the other hand, seem to suggest Athenian prototypes: in the designs

much archaism is to be observed—such as defects in perspective, the

rendering of the eyelashes, and the drawing of the feet in profile, but

with toes in front. Numerous small details point to a date late in the

fifth century, which, in view of the conservative tendencies of

Boeotia, is not unlikely.

[Illustration: FIG. 104. BOEOTIAN KYLIX (BRITISH MUSEUM): GIRL PLAYING

KOTTABOS(?).]

The subjects are of some interest, and include two figures of Herakles,

one bearded, the other youthful; a girl playing kottabos (Fig. 104);

and a cultus-image of an enthroned Chthonian goddess (Demeter or

Persephone), holding a torch, ears of corn, and poppies. These vases

have been collected and fully discussed in an interesting article by

Dr. S. Wide.[1408]

-----

Footnote 1269:

Klein, _Euphronios,^2_ p. 31 ff.

Footnote 1270:

See _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112.

Footnote 1271:

See Norton in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 37.

Footnote 1272:

Furtwaengler, in _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112, in repudiating the

idea that the new style was first introduced in the kylikes, seems to

have misunderstood Hartwig’s arguments.

Footnote 1273:

_Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p. 159 ff. The alternative view is upheld by

Klein, _Lieblingsinschr.^2_ p. 26 ff., and he is followed by Murray,

_Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 6. Klein compares Epictetan vases with the

work of Mikon, and also bases his argument on the story of Kimon and

the bones of Theseus (see p. 418).

Footnote 1274:

_Inscr. Gr._ i. (_Atticae_), Suppl. pp. 79, 154; _Jahrbuch_, _loc.

cit._ p. 144.

Footnote 1275:

Chapter XVII. See also especially Klein, _Lieblingsinschriften_ (2nd

edn. 1898); Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_; Wernicke, _Lieblingsnamen_;

and _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 24.

Footnote 1276:

On the identity of these names in particular, see Klein,

_Lieblingsinschr_.^2 p. 27 ff.; Murray, _Designs_, p. 6; _J.H.S._

xii. p. 380.

Footnote 1277:

Hartwig (p. 11) points out that vase-painters also bear well-known

names, such as Hieron, Andokides, Aristophanes.

Footnote 1278:

The name of Leagros also occurs on late B.F. hydriae, _e.g._ B 325 in

B.M. It is used by four R.F. painters in all.

Footnote 1279:

_E.g._ _Branteghem Cat._ 57.

Footnote 1280:

See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 3, and _id._ in _Mélanges d’Arch._

1894, p. 10. He also cites a vase in Berlin (1906) which bears the

name Stesileos καλός. This may refer to the S. who fell at Marathon.

Footnote 1281:

On the instrument employed, see above, p. 227.

Footnote 1282:

C. Smith in _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 1.

Footnote 1283:

See also B.M. E 15, E 458.

Footnote 1284:

Cf. Pliny’s _In veste rugas et sinus inventit_, of Kimon.

Footnote 1285:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff., and above, p. 357.

Footnote 1286:

See below, p. 427, for fuller details of the early development.

Footnote 1287:

Cf. the Troilos kylix of Euphronios (below, p. 433).

Footnote 1288:

See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 11.

Footnote 1289:

See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 14; Urlichs, _Beiträge_, p. 37; and

cf. p. 135 for a mention of a vase stamped with an owl and

olive-branch, and supposed to be an official choinix measure.

Footnote 1290:

xi. 495 B.

Footnote 1291:

See Reisch in _Röm. Mitth._ v. (1890), p. 313 ff., and below, p. 493.

Footnote 1292:

Cf. B.M. E 471 ff.

Footnote 1293:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 60.

Footnote 1294:

See what has been said above on the changes in the form of the

amphora, hydria, and krater.

Footnote 1295:

_Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 105 ff.

Footnote 1296:

_E.g._ Vienna 234, 339 (the latter given in Fig. 101).

Footnote 1297:

See also some valuable notes on the subject in Riegl’s _Stilfragen_,

p. 191 ff.

Footnote 1298:

B.M. E 4–5; _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 16, fig. 3.

Footnote 1299:

B.M. E 17–19; Berlin 2263, 4220; Louvre G 18; Helbig 246 = _Mus.

Greg._ ii. 70, 2. All these are cups with the name of Memnon καλός.

Footnote 1300:

Berlin 2262.

Footnote 1301:

B.M. E 22, 41; Berlin 2264–65; Louvre G 17.

Footnote 1302:

_E.g._ Munich 1160 (by Hischylos) B.M. E 37–8, 40.

Footnote 1303:

As on E 69, 78.

Footnote 1304:

See also Chapter XVI. § 3.]

Footnote 1305:

B.M. E 6, 78.

Footnote 1306:

B.M. E 818.

Footnote 1307:

See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 321; and cf. B.M. E 68, 718.

Footnote 1308:

See Furtwaengler, _Eros in d. Vasenm._; Knapp, _Nike in d. Vasenm._

Footnote 1309:

B.M. E 772–73.

Footnote 1310:

Notably on the fine kylix by Peithinos in Berlin (Hartwig,

_Meistersch._ pl. 24). Cf. B.M. E 462, 510, and Furtwaengler and

Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ pls. 44–5 = Munich 408.

Footnote 1311:

Cf. also, for varied treatment of the same subject by two artists,

B.M. E 44 (ext.) with Louvre G 17.

Footnote 1312:

See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 515 ff.; and for further details,

Chapter XV.

Footnote 1313:

See Chapter XV. § 1.

Footnote 1314:

_E.g._ B.M. E 406 (Lampadedromia); E 298, 460, 469, 270 (musical

contests).

Footnote 1315:

General reference may be made to Klein’s _Meistersig._, 2nd edn.,

supplemented by Hartwig.

Footnote 1316:

Cf. also C. Smith in _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 21.

Footnote 1317:

_Euphronios_,^2 p. 14 ff., with list of cups in Appendix.

Footnote 1318:

B.M. E 18.

Footnote 1319:

The _type_, it should be noted, is purely B.F. in character.

Footnote 1320:

_Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 8.

Footnote 1321:

The Louvre cup F 129, inscribed Ἐπίλυκος καλός, cannot be assigned to

him, although Klein did so. See _Monuments Piot_, ix. pp. 157, 168 ff.

Footnote 1322:

_Él. Cér._ iii. 73; B.M. E 34; _Branteghem Cat._ 28; fragment

acquired by B.M., 1896; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1903, No. 52.

Footnote 1323:

_Meisterschalen_, chap. iv.

Footnote 1324:

Nos. 8–11 in Klein’s list, according to Hartwig, p. 63.

Footnote 1325:

The earliest example seems to be Reinach, i. 223 = _Wiener Vorl._ D.

5 (a cup by Pamphaios).

Footnote 1326:

As in the Epidromos cup (B.M. E 25).

Footnote 1327:

_Euphronios_,^2 p. 26: cf. Plate XXXVII.

Footnote 1328:

_Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 4.

Footnote 1329:

Reinach, i. 460, 1.

Footnote 1330:

See Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 39, fig. 8, pl. 40, figs. 11–12; the Satyr

and archer are among recent acquisitions of the British Museum.

Footnote 1331:

_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p. 213.

Footnote 1332:

_Euphronios_, p. 289 ff.

Footnote 1333:

See Hoppin’s monograph on this painter, _passim_. In addition to the

five signed vases (for which see Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 194) he

gives the following as probably Euthymides’ work: B.M. B 254–56, 767;

Munich 410 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 33; Berlin 2180;

Reinach, ii. 133.

Footnote 1334:

Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 6.

Footnote 1335:

See also _J.H.S._ xii. p. 380.

Footnote 1336:

See Hartwig, chap. ix. throughout; also Jones in _J.H.S._ xii. p. 366

ff.

Footnote 1337:

Klein only knew of four, but Hartwig (p. 168) has added to his list.

Footnote 1338:

A hydria in Munich (No. 6) is also probably his work. It represents

his colleague Euthymides and another potter, Tlenpolemos (see p.

440). Cf. the vase mentioned above, dedicated by Phintias to

Euthymides.

Footnote 1339:

Reinach, i. 203.

Footnote 1340:

See also Hartwig, pl. 6.

Footnote 1341:

Gerhard, _A.V._ 103 = Reinach, ii. 57. The vase in _Ant. Denkm._ ii.

pl. 8, is probably not his work, as has been suggested. The

ornamentation of the hydria is not given accurately by Gerhard (see

Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 198).

Footnote 1342:

Karlsruhe 242; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1894, p. 180 (at Odessa).

Footnote 1343:

_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1895, p. 485.

Footnote 1344:

It is used by Andokides, Chelis, Euthymides, Pamphaios, and

Nikosthenes.

Footnote 1345:

See Klein, _Euphronios_, _passim_; Hartwig, chaps. vii. xviii.;

Murray, _Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 11.

Footnote 1346:

_E.g._ the B.M. hydria B 325: see Klein, _Lieblingsinschr_^2. p. 70.

Footnote 1347:

Hartwig, p. 152, mentions another possible instance, an amphora in

the Louvre. All the vases except (9) are published in Klein’s

_Euphronios_, and all except (8) and (9) in the _Wiener

Vorlegeblätter_, ser. 5, pls. 1–7. A few more recent publications are

noted in the list.

Footnote 1348:

Paus. v. 19, 1.

Footnote 1349:

Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 487; Furtwaengler in _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 110

(denies the B.M. kylix to Euphronios).

Footnote 1350:

Hartwig, pl. 53.

Footnote 1351:

As noted on p. 457, it has been attributed by Furtwaengler (with some

probability) to Sotades. For other attributions of vases to

Euphronios, see Hartwig, chaps. vii. and xviii.

Footnote 1352:

_Op. cit._ chaps. x. and xxi.

Footnote 1353:

A good instance of this is E 50 in the British Museum.

Footnote 1354:

_Wiener Vorl._ vi. pl. 7.

Footnote 1355:

Murray, p. 12.

Footnote 1356:

See his chap. xvii.: “Der Meister mit dem Kahlkopf.”

Footnote 1357:

Hartwig, p. 301.

Footnote 1358:

_Ibid._ p. 305.

Footnote 1359:

Murray, p. 15.

Footnote 1360:

See Murray, _Designs_, p. 16; Hartwig, p. 321.

Footnote 1361:

_Ant. Denkm._ i. pls. 9, 10.

Footnote 1362:

Except in one insignificant instance: see Rayet and Collignon, p. 187.

Footnote 1363:

Murray (_Designs_, p. 5) notes the same characteristic in the cups

with genre subjects, as in the B.M. examples E 33, 39, 49, 51, 54,

55, 61, 68, 70, 71, 78.

Footnote 1364:

See _Monuments Piot_, ix. pls. 2–3, p. 15 ff·

Footnote 1365:

_Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 126 = Reinach, i. 166.

Footnote 1366:

Quint. _Inst. Or._ xii. 15.

Footnote 1367:

This chronology is taken from Robert’s _Marathonschlacht_, p. 69.

Footnote 1368:

Cf. _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p. 170 ff.

Footnote 1369:

_J.H.S._ x. p. 118. The reverse is illustrated in Fig. 103.

Footnote 1370:

See _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14, p. 276 ff.

Footnote 1371:

See his monographs on the _Nekyia_ and _Iliupersis_ = _Hallisches

Festprogramm_, Nos. 16 and 17 (1892–93).

Footnote 1372:

_E.g._ B.M. E 492; Reinach, i. 217.

Footnote 1373:

See Robert in _Mon. Antichi_, ix. p. 24; _id._ _Marathonschlacht_, p.

55.

Footnote 1374:

The type of Orpheus on this vase is clearly derived from Polygnotos;

the figure standing with one foot raised, like Antilochos in the

_Nekyia_, is a well-known motive of his. See Furtwaengler, _op. cit._

p. 161.

Footnote 1375:

See Robert, _Nekyia_, p. 43; Dümmler in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 170 ff.

Footnote 1376:

Stackelberg, pl. 25.

Footnote 1377:

_Branteghem Cat._ 84 = _Ant. Denkm_, i. 59: see also _ibid._ 85.

Footnote 1378:

_Report for 1900_, Nos. 17–8.

Footnote 1379:

In Madrid (_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pl. 1). The vase E 84 in the British

Museum is very similar, and the style also has affinities with that

of Aristophanes.

Footnote 1380:

_Cat._ 167.

Footnote 1381:

_Mon. Antichi_, ix. pls. 2–3, p. 5 ff.

Footnote 1382:

_Op. cit._ pl. 2.

Footnote 1383:

_Ibid._ pl. 3.

Footnote 1384:

E 284 = Reinach, ii. 123.

Footnote 1385:

Naples 3089 = Millingen-Reinach, 33 is probably also by Polygnotos.

Footnote 1386:

The British Museum pelike with the Birth of Athena (E 410) and the

Tricase vase (_J.H.S._ xviii. p. 279) may perhaps be his work.

Footnote 1387:

Froehner, _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35.

Footnote 1388:

For facsimile see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1389:

The following vases are in the style of Meidias, though not

necessarily from his hand: Athens 1287 = Reinach, i. 342; Naples,

S.A. 311 = Reinach, i. 474, 7; _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 252; Karlsruhe

259 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30; Reinach, i. 472, 1; 476, 2;

477, 2; 493, 3; Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 8; Furtwaengler and Reichhold,

pl. 59.

Footnote 1390:

Paus. i. 18, 1.

Footnote 1391:

See Robert, _Marathonschlacht_, p. 97; _Nekyia_, p. 42. On late R.F.

vases with double friezes see Winter, _Jüngere attische Vasen_, p.

69, and _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 102. The principle is frequently

adopted in the vases of Apulia (_e.g._ Plate XLV.); for early Apulian

examples see p. 485.

Footnote 1392:

See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 119.

Footnote 1393:

_Cat._ 1790 = _Ant. du Bosph. Cimm._ pl. 46 (in colours) = Reinach,

i. 23. For a curious imitation of this vase, see Naples 2992.

Footnote 1394:

_Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 57 ff.

Footnote 1395:

Naples 3135, according to him, is contemporaneous with the B.M.

Aphrodite cup (D 2), about 460 B.C.

Footnote 1396:

_Vasen mit Goldschmuck_ (1865).

Footnote 1397:

_Gr. Vasenbilder_, p. 2, pl. 1, fig. 3, pl. 9, fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._

xxx. (1875), pp. 1, 73, pls. 17–20. See also Berlin 2661 = Rayet and

Collignon, p. 257, and 2705 = Reinach, i. 426, 2.

Footnote 1398:

Of similar style are the fragment Naples 2664 = Reinach, i. 181, and

Athens 1259 = Reinach, i. 506.

Footnote 1399:

_Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1, 2.

Footnote 1400:

_Marathonschlacht_, p. 74.

Footnote 1401:

Cf. Quint. xii. 10, 3, and Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 67.

Footnote 1402:

See Robert, _Iliupersis_, p. 35.

Footnote 1403:

Cf. Michaelis, _Parthenon_, pl. 4, 25, with a vase in the Vatican

(Baumeister, i. p. 746); and see _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 177, and

Roscher, i. p. 1355.

Footnote 1404:

E 716 = _J.H.S._ xv. pl. 5.

Footnote 1405:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 69.

Footnote 1406:

Nos. 1119–20, and one uncatalogued.

Footnote 1407:

Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, B 57–8.

Footnote 1408:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1901, p. 143 ff., with pl. 8.

CHAPTER XI

_WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_

Origin and character of white-ground painting—Outline drawing

and polychromy—Funeral lekythi—Subjects and types—Decadence

of Greek vase-painting—Rise of new centres—Kertch,

Cyrenaica, and Southern Italy—Characteristics of the latter

fabrics—Shapes—Draughtsmanship—Influence of Tragedy and

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

Apulian fabrics—Gnathia vases—Vases modelled in form of

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

bowls—Bolsena ware and Calene phialae.

§ 1. WHITE-GROUND VASES

The method of painting on a white ground, which was brought to such

perfection in the fifth century, really requires a section to itself,

its development being parallel to, yet different from, that of the

painting in red on black. Its genealogy can be traced almost throughout

the period of Greek vase-painting, beginning with the Ionian fabrics of

Rhodes and Samos, through the more developed vases of Naukratis and

Kyrene, until it was introduced at Athens in the latter part of the

sixth century, perhaps, as we have seen (p. 385), by Nikosthenes. The

method was not, of course, new then to Continental Greece. It was the

one usually employed for painting votive tablets or pictures on wood,

the surface of the tablet being prepared by covering it with a thick

slip of creamy-white lustrous character, known as λεύκωμα.[1409] Thus

it is used in one of the few examples known of Attic painting, apart

from the vases, the Warrior pinax from the Acropolis, which may be

dated about 500 B.C., and stands midway between frescoes and

white-ground vases (see above, p. 397). Possibly the idea of the white

slip was to get the effect of painting on marble such as we see in the

tombstones of Lyseas and Aineos.[1410]

This method was adhered to throughout the fifth century by all the

great painters, such as Polygnotos, and hence the importance to us of

the white-ground vases of that time, as reflecting their methods, and

in a miniature form the appearance of their works. In the fifth century

the all-important consideration in a picture was perfection of design

and composition; colouring was relatively unimportant, and the

technical processes exceedingly simple, three or four colours alone

being employed. Cicero[1411] tells us that Polygnotos, Zeuxis, and

Timanthes only used four colours—black, white, red, and yellow. It is

interesting to note that these are just the four colours we ordinarily

find on the polychrome vases, the flat tints so frequently employed

being no doubt suggested by the mural paintings.

To go back to the earlier Athenian vases with white ground, we observe

that at first the method of painting in silhouette, in the manner of

the ordinary B.F. vases, obtains exclusively.[1412] About the beginning

of the fifth century this method is superseded by what we may regard as

a transitional class, in which the figures are painted partly in

silhouette, partly in outline, the simple black-on-white design being

preserved, with a very occasional use of purple or yellow.[1413]

According to Winter, the origin of outline drawing of this kind may be

found in the partly outlined female heads which are found on some of

the minor artists’ cups, such as those of Sakonides, Eucheiros, and

Hermogenes.[1414] We need not go as far as he does in explaining the

_catagrapha_ of Kimon (see p. 397) as the replacement of mere

silhouettes by outline drawing, so as to give individuality and variety

to faces; but the vases which he publishes are remarkable for the

highly developed character of the heads depicted thereon.[1415] One in

particular is more like a head by Euphronios than one of the Epictetan

cycle, to which it must belong in point of date. But it must be

remembered that Epiktetos and his school were still hampered by archaic

conventions, while the painter on a white ground was carving out the

way to perfect freedom.

The shapes employed for the new white-ground technique are much the

same as those used in the previous period—the kylix, the lekythos, the

oinochoë, the pyxis, and the alabastron.[1416] But of these only one

retains its popularity for any length of time; in fact, after the

middle of the fifth century it is the only one employed at all. This

shape is the lekythos, on which, indeed, alone the whole development of

white-ground painting can be traced from the B.F. types down to the

fourth century, when it finally disappears. Although not exclusively

the sepulchral vase (as may be seen from the appearance of other vases

on tombs in the painted funeral scenes[1417]), yet for some reason it

came to be regarded as the proper shape for such purposes, and the

fashion of making white lekythi exclusively for the tomb, and decorated

as a general rule with funerary subjects, prevailed for about a hundred

and fifty years. We have elsewhere (pp. 132, 143) noted instances of

its use recorded by Aristophanes.

The introduction of polychromy is a gradual development. At first, as

we have seen, colour is very sparingly employed, only in the use of a

brownish yellow (produced by thinning out the black) for details or

washes, or of a purple or pinkish brown. Subsequently the outlines are

drawn in black or brown, and filled in with black, brown, or purple

washes; the occasional use of a clear, thick, white pigment, standing

out against the cream background, is also to be noted[1418]; and next a

wash of bright red or vermilion is employed. In the final stages of

polychrome painting, during the fourth century, the range of colours is

greatly extended, and blue or green are employed

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

PLATE XLIII

[Illustration:

VASES WITH POLYCHROME DESIGNS ON WHITE GROUND.

(BRITISH MUSEUM).

]

_To face page 456._

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

in addition to those already named. The outlines are also painted in

the vermilion colour already mentioned, instead of the black in

previous use. Up to the end of the fifth century the colouring always

preserves a character of soberness and austerity; and such a feature as

the use of gilding[1419] is quite exceptional.