Footnote 1482:
See above, p. 112.
Footnote 1483:
François vase; Athens 644; Reinach, i. 332, 429.
Footnote 1484:
Reinach, i. 259.
Footnote 1485:
_E.g._ B.M. B 427, 428, 430, 436, 679, 680: cf. E 180.
Footnote 1486:
Cf. Virgil, _Aen._ iii. 216 (_virgineae vultus_) and 241 (_obscenae
volucres_).
Footnote 1487:
See, _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 103 ff.
Footnote 1488:
B.M. B 4, B 16 (?): see Vol. I. p. 344.
Footnote 1489:
See p. 115; B.M. E 302; Reinach, i. 119, 201; and for two Harpies,
with name inscribed, in connection with this story, Berlin 1682 =
Reinach, i. 441.
Footnote 1490:
Louvre A 478.
Footnote 1491:
B.M. E 440; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 1; _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31.
Footnote 1492:
On Sirens generally, and especially as death-deities, see Weicker,
_Der Seelenvogel_ (1902).
Footnote 1493:
Berlin 2157 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 211; on B.M. E 477 a Siren of the
ordinary decorative type appears with allusion to the death of
Prokris, perhaps as indicating her departing soul.
Footnote 1494:
B.M. B 651.
Footnote 1495:
Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.
Footnote 1496:
B.M. B 510: cf. Weicker, p. 48.
Footnote 1497:
Weicker, p. 120, fig. 46.
Footnote 1498:
_E.g._ B.M. A 1135; _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 291, 292, 479.
Footnote 1499:
Louvre E 667, 723; Vienna 318; Munich 1077.
Footnote 1500:
Munich 1050.
Footnote 1501:
B.M. B 215; Louvre A 441, E 858; Berlin 1727: cf. Athens 531 and
Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, pl. 3, fig. 38.
Footnote 1502:
B.M. B 429.
Footnote 1503:
See above, p. 117; and cf. Bibl. Nat. 278 and Athens 1480 = _Wiener
Vorl._ 1889, 9, 8.
Footnote 1504:
B.M. B 125, B 539, etc.
Footnote 1505:
B.M. B 650; Reinach, i. 319; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 235.
Footnote 1506:
Reinach, i. 471.
Footnote 1507:
Naples 2846 = _Festsehr. für Overbeck_, p. 103.
Footnote 1508:
B.M. B 32 and Athens 592 (with Hermes); Naples 3254 = Reinach, i. 327
= _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 7.
Footnote 1509:
Reinach, i. 54, 258, 480, ii. 236.
Footnote 1510:
B.M. E 434; Reinach, i. 23, 53.
Footnote 1511:
See above, p. 144.
Footnote 1512:
_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 11.
Footnote 1513:
Reinach, ii. 319.
Footnote 1514:
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 64, No. 21 (B.F.).
Footnote 1515:
Reinach, i. 220; and see ii. 314.
Footnote 1516:
_Bourguignon Cat._ 57.
Footnote 1517:
See p. 29 above.
Footnote 1518:
B.M. B 45, B 65, E 11, E 35, Bibl. Nat. 177, Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.
Vasenb._ 8, 1 (Pegasos); B.M. B 105, B 417, and Louvre A 307
(Chimaera).
Footnote 1519:
B.M. E 170; Reinach, ii. 309.
Footnote 1520:
Bibl. Nat. 449 = Reinach, i. 129.
Footnote 1521:
_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 5 (cf. pl. 4).
Footnote 1522:
Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 12, 2; B.M. B 308 (three Minotaurs).
Footnote 1523:
Bibl. Nat. 1066 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, pl. 3: see, _J.H.S._ xi. p. 349.
Footnote 1524:
Reinach, i. 188.
Footnote 1525:
_Ibid._ i. 498.
Footnote 1526:
B.M. F 218.
Footnote 1527:
Athens 961 = _Ath. Mitth._ xvi. pl. 9 (probably taken from a Satyric
drama).
Footnote 1528:
Reinach, i. 459.
Footnote 1529:
See above, p. 12.
Footnote 1530:
Munich 468 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 217 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.
Footnote 1531:
B.M. B 433; Berlin 1770; Athens 713 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 8,
4; Louvre F 100, 104 (between Sirens): cf. Ar. _Av._ 800.
Footnote 1532:
François vase; Reinach, i. 27, 54, 61, 470, ii. 295; B.M. B 77;
Millin-Reinach, i. 63; _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 5, 2; and cf. B.M. G 178
and Jahn, _Arch. Beitr._ pl. 12, 1.
Footnote 1533:
Cf. Naples 2609 (Hipparchos); B.M. E 46, Athens 1162, and Louvre G
103 (Leagros); Athens 1020 = _Jahrbuch_, ii. p. 163 (Glaukon); B.M. E
300 and Oxford 309 (Kleinias); Reinach, i. 513, 6 (Megakles).
Footnote 1534:
B.M. B 80; Berlin 1686 = Rayet and Collignon, pl. 7, and 1882 =
Reinach, ii. 122.
Footnote 1535:
See p. 60.
Footnote 1536:
See p. 53; also Reinach, i. 472 and ii. 198, 4 (both Dionysiac).
Footnote 1537:
Oxford 292 (Persephone); Reinach, ii. 321, 4; _ibid._ 122, 2 (=
Berlin 2129): see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 48, note; also _Él. Cér._
ii. 108, and Reinach, ii. 286.
Footnote 1538:
_Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 36 (in Berlin).
Footnote 1539:
B.M. B 633.
Footnote 1540:
B.M. E 284 = _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 1.
Footnote 1541:
B.M. B 80, B 585, B 648.
Footnote 1542:
Naples 2858; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_.
Footnote 1543:
B.M. B 79; Louvre F 10; Reinach, i. 428; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_;
Munich 386 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 19; and see under Nike,
p. 87.
Footnote 1544:
Bologna 275; B.M. B 362.
Footnote 1545:
Berlin 1727 = Reinach, i. 429; Athens 1428 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._
pl. 11, 3 (sacrifice to Hekate?); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 3, fig.
2.
Footnote 1546:
B.M. E 455, 456, 494; _Él. Cér._ ii. 105, 108; Millin-Reinach, i. 8;
Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 2; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 100
(Louvre).
Footnote 1547:
B.M. B 3.
Footnote 1548:
B.M. E 455; Athens 1858 = Baumeister, i. p. 211, fig. 165 = Reinach,
i. 396.
Footnote 1549:
B.M. E 284; Bologna 286; Reinach, i. 403 = Schreiber-Anderson, 25, 8
(referred to the Thargelia by Reisch, _Gr. Weihgeschenke_, p. 80).
Footnote 1550:
Berlin 1727, 2010.
Footnote 1551:
B.M. E 114, E 291; Bibl. Nat. 94; Reinach, ii. 135.
Footnote 1552:
B.M. E 88; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 78, 2 _b_; and see Stackelberg, pl. 35.
Footnote 1553:
Reinach, ii. 286; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, 2 = _Röm. Mitth._ v.
(1890), p. 324; _Mus. Greg._ 71, 1 _b_.
Footnote 1554:
Naples 3358 = Reinach, i. 313 = Schreiber-Anderson, 20, 3: see Miss
Harrison’s _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 157.
Footnote 1555:
De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 29.
Footnote 1556:
De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 22.
Footnote 1557:
_J.H.S._ xix. p. 228 (in Naples).
Footnote 1558:
Naples 2458 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 227: cf. B.M. B 641.
Footnote 1559:
Athens 695.
Footnote 1560:
_J.H.S._ xx. p. 101.
Footnote 1561:
Karlsruhe 278 = Reinach, i. 271.
Footnote 1562:
Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 31, 1.
Footnote 1563:
Fig. 17, Vol. I. p. 140 = Munich 51.
Footnote 1564:
B.M. E 494, E 585; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 103; Berlin 2213;
Naples 1760 (= Millingen-Reinach, 52), and S.A. 647 (= _Él. Cér._ iv.
19); Gerhard, _Akad. Abhandl._ pl. 63, figs. 1, 4, 5; _Él. Cér._ iii.
pls. 79, 80. They appear to be especially associated with terminal
figures.
Footnote 1565:
Miss Harrison’s comprehensive _Prolegomena to Greek Religion_
(Cambridge Press, 1903) appeared too recently for the writer to be
able to make detailed use of it in this section. It must, of course,
be borne in mind that many of the interpretations in that work are
only conjectural.
Footnote 1566:
Athens 199, 200 = _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 201; _ibid._ 214 = Reinach, i.
190 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1943, fig. 2071.
Footnote 1567:
Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 165.
Footnote 1568:
B.M. B 63 = Plate LVIII.; _Forman Sale Cat._ 279 (now in B.M.);
Baumeister, i. p. 238, fig. 217 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl.
1; Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 164.
Footnote 1569:
B.M. D 62 = Plate LV. fig. 1; Athens 1651 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl.
32; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 33. A fine R.F. example in
_Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5–6 (in Louvre).
Footnote 1570:
Bibl. Nat. 353; Micali, _Storia_, pl. 96, figs. 1–2.
Footnote 1571:
Athens 688 = Baumeister, i. p. 306, fig. 321 = Reinach, i. 164;
_Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 86 (Berlin). Cf. Fig. 123, p. 71.
Footnote 1572:
_Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 4; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 228; Athens 688.
Footnote 1573:
B.M. B 543, D 5 = Plate XL.
Footnote 1574:
B.M. D 65 ff. and Athens 1672–1836 _passim_: cf. B.M. F 93. Plate LV.
fig. 2 = B.M. D 70.
Footnote 1575:
B.M. F 93 (Fig. 20, Vol. I. p. 144), 212.
Footnote 1576:
B.M. F 276, 279–85, 352 (Fig. 106, Vol. I. p. 477).
Footnote 1577:
B.M. F 353.
Footnote 1578:
Millin-Reinach, ii. 29.
Footnote 1579:
B.M. D 39, 41, 43–45, 56, 70, F 93–96; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.
Vasenb._ pl. 34. See Plate LV. fig. 2 and Fig. 19, Vol. I. p. 143.
Footnote 1580:
B.M. D 54, 65, 67–86; F 212–13, 336; Athens 1692 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl.
2, and 1694 = Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 18, 1; _ibid._ pl. 19, 2.
Footnote 1581:
A unique instance of a sculptured _stele_ copied on a white lekythos
is _Burlington F.A.C. Cat._ (1903), p. 104, No. 25.
Footnote 1582:
B.M. D 51.
Footnote 1583:
B.M. F 352 = Fig. 106.
Footnote 1584:
B.M. (uncatalogued).
Footnote 1585:
B.M. D 21.
Footnote 1586:
B.M. D 60.
Footnote 1587:
B.M. D 58.
Footnote 1588:
B.M. D 35; Engelmann-Anderson, _Odyssey_, iii. 10.
Footnote 1589:
B.M. D 56 = Fig. 19.
Footnote 1590:
B.M. D 5 = Plate XL.
Footnote 1591:
Athens 1689 = Reinach, i. 512.
Footnote 1592:
See above, p. 69.
Footnote 1593:
See p. 52; also B.M. (uncatalogued).
Footnote 1594:
B.M. D 58–9; Athens 1093 (= Roscher, ii. 2678), 1653–54 (=
Dumont-Pottier, i. pls. 27–9); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2. Cf. Fig. 123,
p. 71.
Footnote 1595:
B.M. D 54; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. V._ pls. 14 and 33. See above, p.
72.
Footnote 1596:
B.M. F 279, 280, 282.
Footnote 1597:
B.M. F 276, 284; Millin-Reinach, ii. 32–33.
Footnote 1598:
B.M. F 281.
Footnote 1599:
B.M. F 276, 279–84, 352 (Fig. 106); Millin-Reinach, ii. 38.
Footnote 1600:
See p. 68.
Footnote 1601:
Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.
Footnote 1602:
_Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (Berlin); but see p. 76, under Asklepios.
Footnote 1603:
B.M. B 80: see for other parodies of processions or sacrifices Athens
1132, 1136, 1138.
Footnote 1604:
B.M. B 509; Berlin 1830 = _J.H.S._ ii. pl. 14, and 1697 (as horses).
Footnote 1605:
_J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, and p. 81; B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98: see generally
_J.H.S._ xiii. p. 77 ff. and Vol. I. p. 391.
Footnote 1606:
Vienna 321 (cf. Ar. _Ach._ 729 ff.), Hermes with dog got up as a pig.
Footnote 1607:
B.M. F 99; Berlin 3046 = Baumeister, ii. p. 821, fig. 904 (see
_Jahrbuch_, i. p. 283).
Footnote 1608:
_Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 260 ff.
Footnote 1609:
See for instance pp. 107, 118, 123.
Footnote 1610:
B.M. F 233: cf. Reinach, i. 114.
Footnote 1611:
Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 10 = Heydemann, p. 307 = Reinach, ii. 332, 5.
Footnote 1612:
B.M. F 543.
Footnote 1613:
B.M. F 189 = Fig. 134.
Footnote 1614:
Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114 = Baumeister, i. pl. 5, fig. 422.
Footnote 1615:
B.M. E 65.
Footnote 1616:
See _Philologus_, 1868, pls. 1–4, p. 1 ff.
Footnote 1617:
Jatta 1528 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 273; B.M. E 790; Naples 2846 =
_Festschr. für Overbeck_, p. 103.
Footnote 1618:
B.M. E 467 (Satyric chorus); Reinach, ii. 324, 5; ii. 288.
Footnote 1619:
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 50.
Footnote 1620:
Jatta 1402 = Reinach, i. 413.
Footnote 1621:
B.M. F 233, F 289.
Footnote 1622:
_Wiener Vorl._ B. 3, 5 _c_; Millin-Reinach, i. 20.
Footnote 1623:
Vol. I. p. 472: see also _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 10; Vogel,
_Scenen Eurip. Tragödien_ (where an exhaustive list is given), and
Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in the Light of Vase-paintings_, where the
subject is also treated in detail.
Footnote 1624:
See Vol. I. p. 389, and Plates XXXIII.-IV.; for a complete series of
illustrations, _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pls. 47–8 = Reinach, i. 210–15.
Footnote 1625:
B.F.: B.M. B 48, B 64; Berlin 1655, 1805; Bibl. Nat. 252, 354;
Reinach, ii. 129. R.F.: Reinach, i. 223 (= _Wiener Vorl._ D. 5), 424
(Berlin 2180), 454, ii. 134 (Berlin 2262), 137 (men with dogs);
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 15–6 = Bibl. Nat. 523.
Footnote 1626:
B.M. B 271, B 295, B 607; E 39, 63 (parade of boxers before judges);
Athens 1169 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 31, 2 _a_; Reinach, ii.
292.
Footnote 1627:
B.M. B 191, B 295, B 603; E 94, 95; Bibl. Nat. 522 = Hartwig,
_Meistersch._ pl. 15, 2; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 16, 2 _a_; Vienna 332 =
_Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 1, 4.
Footnote 1628:
B.M. E 78 (very realistic), B 604, B 610; Louvre F 276, 278, 314;
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 64.
Footnote 1629:
_Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr._ 1881, pl. 4.
Footnote 1630:
B.M. B 48, B 134 (= Fig. 135), B 326; Munich 795 = Reinach, i. 422 =
Baumeister, i. p. 613, fig. 672; Reinach, i. 433, 1 = Baumeister, i.
p. 573, fig. 611; Reinach, i. 272, ii. 128. See on the subject
generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 54 ff.
Footnote 1631:
B.M. B 136, E 164; Louvre F 126; Athens 1188 = Reinach, i. 511;
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 21 (Duris, in Boston); De Witte, _Coll. à
l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 23; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 43, 2 _b_.
Footnote 1632:
B.M. B 380; Louvre F 126, G 37; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 69, 4 _c_, 70, 2
_a_; De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 24.
Footnote 1633:
B.M. B 48; Reinach, ii. 145, 175, 330; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 70, 1 _a_, 2
_b_; 73, 1 _b_. Athlete exercising with halteres: Louvre G 15;
_Forman Sale Cat._ 332.
Footnote 1634:
B.M. B 361. See _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 70.
Footnote 1635:
B.M. E 164.
Footnote 1636:
B.M. E 63, 113, 164; _Forman Sale Cat._ 358; and see _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ xxiii. p. 164.
Footnote 1637:
Athens 1478; Millin-Reinach, i. 45; Panathenaic amphora in B.M.
Footnote 1638:
B.M. B 137, B 609; Munich 498 = Reinach, i. 215; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 42,
2 _b_; 43, 1 _a_. Starter in foot-race: B.M. E 6, E 101; Reinach, i.
433, 2; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 45, fig. 6; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp.
185–88; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff.
Footnote 1639:
B.M. B 133, B 144; Berlin 1655, 1722, 2282; Munich 805; Athens 1546;
Reinach, i. 12, 100, 199, ii. 61, 253; and see Hartwig, _Meistersch._
p. 491, note 2.
Footnote 1640:
B.M. B 130–32, B 677; Berlin 1655; Louvre F 216, F 283; Reinach, ii.
68, 70, 125, 133; François vase.
Footnote 1641:
B.M. E 389, F 59; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35; Reinach, ii. 298, 320;
Baumeister, i. p. 522.
Footnote 1642:
B.M. B 143; E 6, E 22; B 608; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4
_b_; Reinach, ii. 128, 129 (= Berlin 2307); Munich 476 = _ibid._ ii.
127, and 803 = _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 196; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 62,
1. Runner with trainer: _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 31. See on the
subject generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff., and _Jahrbuch_, 1895,
p. 182 ff.
Footnote 1643:
Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 1 and pl. 16 (= Bibl. Nat. 523); B.M. E 22;
_Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ (1903), p. 100, No. 17.
Footnote 1644:
Berlin 2307 (one fig.); Reinach, i. 494 (Louvre); _Jahrbuch_, 1887,
p. 99: cf. B.M. B 628.
Footnote 1645:
_Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 49; Berlin 2307 = Reinach, ii. 129; Hartwig,
_op. cit._ pl. 16 (Bibl. Nat. 523); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 190;
_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 278.
Footnote 1646:
See _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 285 (runners with helmet in hand).
Footnote 1647:
_Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 4 _b_; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 191; Munich 803 and
1240; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 12. See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._
Footnote 1648:
B.M. B 144; Reinach, ii. 262, 291, 298, 320 (horsemen): cf. B.M. B
628.
Footnote 1649:
Reinach, i. 346 = _Bourguignon Cat._ 17; Louvre G 17, G 36.
Footnote 1650:
See under Nike, p. 88, note 1070.
Footnote 1651:
Berlin 2180 = Reinach, i. 424, and 2314; Karlsruhe 242 (Psiax and
Hilinos).
Footnote 1652:
Berlin 2178; Louvre G 38 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 25;
_Arch.-epigr. Mitth._ 1881, pl. 4; Reinach, i. 324.
Footnote 1653:
Petersburg 1611 = Baumeister, i. p. 247, fig. 226.
Footnote 1654:
Munich 895 = Reinach, ii. 106.
Footnote 1655:
Millin-Reinach, i. 47: cf. the athlete extracting a thorn on Berlin
2180 = Reinach, i. 424.
Footnote 1656:
Bibl. Nat. 283 (unexplained subject).
Footnote 1657:
Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, pl. 57, 2 = Schreiber-Anderson, 24,
2.
Footnote 1658:
B.M. F 232; Naples 2854; Reinach, i. 473; Baumeister, i. p. 585.
Footnote 1659:
Oxford 288; B.M. B 607; Louvre F 109 (with judges): and see p. 88.
Footnote 1660:
B.M. E 83; Louvre G 36; Athens 1156 = Reinach, i. 514; _ibid._ ii.
292 = Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 219 (basin inscribed ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ);
Schreiber-Anderson, 21, 9 = Reinach, ii. 275; Hartwig, _Meistersch._
pl. 67, 1, p. 206 (using sponge); Reinach, ii. 134, 275. Youth with
bath utensils: Berlin 2314.
Footnote 1661:
B.M. B 271; E 78, 94, 164; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pp. 416–17; _Wiener
Vorl._ vi. 9; _B.C.H._ xxiii. p. 158 (trainer marking goal).
Footnote 1662:
See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_.
Footnote 1663:
Three types:—(1) Hare seized by birds: Louvre E 701 = Reinach, i.
153; Naples 2458; Athens 618. (2) Hare pursued by dogs: B.M. B 119;
Berlin 340, 1753, 1799; Karlsruhe 170; Petersburg 310, 386; Reinach,
i. 34; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 227. (3) Dogs accompanied by
hunters: B.M. B 678, D 60; Berlin 306, and 1727 = Reinach, i. 431;
Oxford 189 (Oikopheles); Bibl. Nat. 187; Naples S.A. 200; B.M. A 1050
= Plate XIX. fig. 3; Reinach, ii. 333; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5.
Footnote 1664:
B.M. B 147 (cover); Helbig, 7; Munich 411 (Amasis); Reinach, ii. 275;
Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 23; _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40.
Footnote 1665:
B.M. B 7; Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.
Footnote 1666:
_Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5.
Footnote 1667:
B.M. B 37 (= Plate XXI.), F 154; Louvre E 696 = Reinach, i. 162;
Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 170; Munich 211 = Fig. 90, Vol. I. p. 316:
cf. _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1903, p. 115, No. 62, for B.F.
jug with man hiding in tree and attacked by boar and lion.
Footnote 1668:
Reinach, ii. 144, 223.
Footnote 1669:
B.M. B 52 = _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1891), p. 367; Louvre F 26 = _ibid._
p. 369; Millin-Reinach, i. 18.
Footnote 1670:
Millin-Reinach, ii. 11.
Footnote 1671:
Berlin 1900; Reinach, ii. 293.
Footnote 1672:
Louvre F 223.
Footnote 1673:
Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 146 (see p. 129); _Forman Sale
Cat._ 285.
Footnote 1674:
_Mélanges Perrot_, p. 252 (in B.M.).
Footnote 1675:
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 22; _Mon. Grecs_, 14–16 (1885–88), p.
10.
Footnote 1676:
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 53; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290.
Footnote 1677:
B.M. E 485; Berlin 2357 = Reinach, i. 423; _ibid._ ii. 179.
Footnote 1678:
B.M. E 3 (Hischylos), E 60; Munich 111; _Forman Sale Cat._ 336;
Reinach, i. 454, 4 (Pamphaios): see p. 177.
Footnote 1679:
Munich 337 = Reinach, i. 238 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 22
(Euphronios); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 53–4; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, pl.
4 (Onesimos); _Mon. Grecs_, 14–16 (1885–88), pl. 5, and see p. 1 ff.;
_Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5–6 (in Louvre). Cf. also Louvre G 26.
Footnote 1680:
See under Warriors, p. 176.
Footnote 1681:
B.M. F 70, F 306; Berlin 2154: cf. Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._
pl. 32, 5.
Footnote 1682:
B.M. B 127; Reinach, ii. 125.
Footnote 1683:
Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 32, fig. 5.
Footnote 1684:
B.M. B 17; Munich 903: see _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 139, 142.
Footnote 1685:
B.M. B 182; Berlin 2417 = Reinach, i. 425 = Baumeister, ii. p. 781,
fig. 836; Reinach, ii. 191; Oxford 250.
Footnote 1686:
Reinach, i. 81.
Footnote 1687:
B.M. E 467 (Satyrs); E 339, F 197, F 245; Berlin 2710 = Reinach, i.
425 (Eros); Naples 2872 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 12 =
Reinach, ii. 169 (Eros); Louvre G 36 (ephebos).
Footnote 1688:
Louvre F 90 and F 368 = _Rev. Arch._ xxi. (1893), pl. 5; Helbig, p.
327 = Baumeister, i. p. 622, fig. 695; Reinach, i. 310, 423 (Berlin
2030).
Footnote 1689:
Naples 922 = Schreiber-Anderson, 80, 7.
Footnote 1690:
B.M. E 70, 453–54, 495, F 37, 273, 275; Berlin 2416 and Jatta 1291 =
Reinach, i. 337, 178; Baumeister, ii. p. 793, fig. 857;
_Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; Louvre G 30. See also below, p. 181.
Footnote 1691:
_Branteghem Sale Cat._ 167 (here a woman); Hartwig, _Meistersch._
pls. 27, 72, 2.
Footnote 1692:
Louvre G 81; Reinach, i. 420; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 27, 2.
Footnote 1693:
Berlin 2177; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 130.
Footnote 1694:
B.M. E 205 (?).
Footnote 1695:
B.M. F 123; Louvre F 60; Berlin 2589 (= Harrison, _Mythol. and Monum.
of Athens_, p. xliv) and 2394; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 30;
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 27.
Footnote 1696:
B.M. E 387 (Seileni); Baumeister, iii. p. 1573, fig. 1633 (Eros);
Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 53.
Footnote 1697:
Naples 3151 = Reinach, i. 400.
Footnote 1698:
_Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (in Berlin).
Footnote 1699:
See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 110 (F 223, etc.), and Jahn in _Ber.
d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 256.
Footnote 1700:
B.M. E 527, 534–37, 548–53 (see Plate XLII.); Baumeister, ii. p. 779;
_Él. Cér._ ii. 89; _Gaz. Arch._ 1878, pl. 7; Stackelberg, pl. 17;
Reinach, i. 425: see generally Jahn in _Ber. d. sächs Gesellsch._
1854, p. 243 ff., pl. 12.
Footnote 1701:
B.M. F 101 = Fig. 15, Vol. I. p. 137; Reinach, i. 294.
Footnote 1702:
Bibl. Nat. 361 = Reinach, ii. 262; _Bourguignon Cat._ 52 (in B.M.);
Reinach, i. 207 (hare).
Footnote 1703:
Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 387.
Footnote 1704:
Reinach, i. 294: cf. ii. 137 = Baumeister, i. p. 705, fig. 765, and
for women with pets see below, p. 173.
Footnote 1705:
Berlin 2285 = Reinach, i. 196: cf. B.M. E 525 and _Brit. School
Annual_, 1898–99, p. 65 (Fig. 177).
Footnote 1706:
Naples 2004 = Reinach, i. 323.
Footnote 1707:
_Ibid._ ii. 333.
Footnote 1708:
Berlin 2322 = Micali, _Storia_, 103, 1.
Footnote 1709:
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 46.
Footnote 1710:
B.M. E 171–72; Oxford 266; Baumeister, i. p. 554, fig. 591 (flute):
cf. _ibid._ iii. p. 1993, fig. 2138 (Iphikles taught the lyre by
Linos) and the Duris kylix (Plate XXXIX.).
Footnote 1711:
Reinach, i. 248.
Footnote 1712:
B.M. E 185; Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 66.
Footnote 1713:
See p. 95.
Footnote 1714:
Athens 467 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 10; B.M. E 467, E 804;
Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 17–8. Single figure: B.M. F 343.
Footnote 1715:
B.M. E 61; Louvre G 18 (castanets).
Footnote 1716:
_Forman Sale Cat._ 361 (in Boston).
Footnote 1717:
Stackelberg, pl. 22; Reinach, i. 61, 372, 469 (Naples 3010); _Rev.
Arch._ xxvi. (1895), p. 221.
Footnote 1718:
_Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40: cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, p. 412.
Footnote 1719:
B.M. B 42, 44; Berlin 1662; and see _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287.
Footnote 1720:
B.M. E 271; Berlin 1686; Bologna 271 = Reinach, ii. 150; _Él. Cér._
ii. 16; Athens 1019 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, pl. 10, 2; _Anzeiger_,
1892, p. 172. Girls playing lyre: _Monuments Piot_, ii. pls. 5–6 (in
Louvre).
Footnote 1721:
B.M. E 308; and see Reinach, ii. 187, 3.
Footnote 1722:
B.M. E 270, E 469; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65–6.
Footnote 1723:
B.M. B 139, B 141; Louvre G 1 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 9;
Petersburg 1603 = Schreiber-Anderson, 7, 14; Vienna 234.
Footnote 1724:
B.M. B 188, E 354; Reinach, ii. 274; Louvre G 103 = _Atlas_, pl. 101
(Euphronios).
Footnote 1725:
B.M. E 460; Bologna 286; Athens 1260 = Dumont-Pottier, i. 16; Helbig,
90 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 60, 3; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4
_a_.
Footnote 1726:
_Mus. Greg._ ii. 22, 2 _a_.
Footnote 1727:
B.M. E 270.
Footnote 1728:
B.M. E 132.
Footnote 1729:
B.M. B 192, B 299, E 37; Athens 1158 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1984, fig.
2127; _Él. Cér._ ii. 16: see also Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 255, note
2.
Footnote 1730:
Berlin 639, 871, 885 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 7, 14, 23.
Footnote 1731:
Berlin 608 ff.; 800 93: cf. _op. cit._ pl. 8, Nos. 14 _b_, 17, 18 (=
885, 869, 868); also Nos. 1, 4, 12, 19 _b_, 22, 26 (= Berlin 608,
802, 616, 893, 827, 611). See also Chapter V., Figs. 65, 69.
Footnote 1732:
B.M. B 432; Munich 731 = Fig. 67, Vol. I. p. 213; _Gaz. Arch._ 1880,
p. 106.
Footnote 1733:
Figs. 67, 71, Vol. I. pp. 213, 223.
Footnote 1734:
Fig. 70, Vol. I. p. 218.
Footnote 1735:
Fig. 74, Vol. I. p. 228.
Footnote 1736:
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 17, 1, and see _ibid._ p. 174; Kopenhagen
125; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 37.
Footnote 1737:
Berlin 831 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, fig. 3 _a_. See on the subject
_Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 45 ff.
Footnote 1738:
Berlin 2294 = Baumeister, i. p. 506, fig. 547.
Footnote 1739:
B. M. B 507; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1582, fig. 1639
(in Boston).
Footnote 1740:
_J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 305; _Branteghem Cat._ 44. See also _Él. Cér._ i.
83.
Footnote 1741:
Kopenhagen 119 = Schreiber-Anderson, 73, 7.
Footnote 1742:
See p. 40: cf. also for a sculptor, p. 16, note 53.
Footnote 1743:
Berlin 1806 = Fig. 136 (Nikosthenes); Louvre F 77 = _ibid._ fig. 13;
Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 13, 1 (sowing).
Footnote 1744:
B.M. F 147: see p. 73, and Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, pl. 5, p. 198 ff.
Footnote 1745:
Berlin 2274 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 74.
Footnote 1746:
Louvre F 68.
Footnote 1747:
Louvre F 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 9–10; _ibid._ pl. 1,
figs. 2, 7.
Footnote 1748:
Vienna 335 = Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 64, figs. 1, 3; _ibid._ pl. 64,
fig. 6 (in Naples); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 5; and see under
Hermes and Seilenos.
Footnote 1749:
Reinach, ii. 90.
Footnote 1750:
B.M. B 226; Berlin 1855 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, fig. 1259.
Footnote 1751:
_Forman Sale Cat._ 323 (now in Boston): cf. _B.M. Cat. of
Terracotta_, D 550.
Footnote 1752:
Helbig, 70 = Reinach, i. 106 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, figs.
1260–1261; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 69, No. 24.
Footnote 1753:
Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 70,
No. 25.
Footnote 1754:
Berlin 1915 = Reinach, ii. 155.
Footnote 1755:
Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 13, 2; _Eranos Vindobonensis_, p.
381 (woman kneading dough).
Footnote 1756:
Millin-Reinach, ii. 61.
Footnote 1757:
Vol. I. p. 342: see also p. 149.
Footnote 1758:
B.M. E 86; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1587, fig. 1649 (in
Boston).
Footnote 1759:
B.M. E 23.
Footnote 1760:
Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 3.
Footnote 1761:
B.M. B 339; Louvre F 10, F 56.
Footnote 1762:
B.M. B 160, B 174, B 257; B 485; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 133, 137, 142.
Footnote 1763:
B.M. E 810, D 11 (Plate XLIII.); Berlin 2372 (= _Coll. Sabouroff_, i.
pl. 58), 2373 (= Reinach, i. 440); Athens 1224 and 1225 = Heydemann,
_Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 10, 1, and Reinach, i. 206; Athens 1588 = $1$2
1897, pl. 10, 2 (preparations for marriage, with fancy names): see
generally _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 8.
Footnote 1764:
Baumeister, i. p. 313, fig. 328.
Footnote 1765:
Millingen-Reinach, 44 (in Louvre); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 314.
Footnote 1766:
Berlin 2374 = Reinach, i. 128.
Footnote 1767:
Reinach, i. 173; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 133.
Footnote 1768:
Athens 693.
Footnote 1769:
Petersburg 151 = Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amph._ pl. 5.
Footnote 1770:
Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44 (B.F.); Athens 1552 = Heydemann, _Gr.
Vasenb._ pl. 8, 5; Berlin 2261 = Reinach, i. 440, and 2720 = _Coll.
Sabouroff_, i. pl. 64; Reinach, i. 2 (Petersburg 1791), 472 (= Jatta
1526), 477 (= Naples S.A. 316, with fancy names).
Footnote 1771:
B.M. E 225, 773–74, F 308, 310; Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 4.
Footnote 1772:
B.M. B 598, E 87, E 193, E 215, D 13; Athens 1550, 1552, and 1589 =
Reinach, i. 517 (note the use of the ἐπίνητρον); Louvre F 224 = _Él.
Cér._ iii. 36 B; Stackelberg, 34; Reinach, i. 420, ii. 7, 4: see
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 340.
Footnote 1773:
Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 8 = Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 4.
Footnote 1774:
Baumeister, iii. p. 1711, fig. 1796.
Footnote 1775:
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 41, No. 10.
Footnote 1776:
Baumeister, iii. p. 1583, fig. 1641.
Footnote 1777:
_Ibid._ i. p. 609, fig. 668.
Footnote 1778:
B.M. E 18; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2272 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 89;
Reinach, ii. 146, 7.
Footnote 1779:
Baumeister, iii. p. 1919, fig. 2034 = Reinach, ii. 148.
Footnote 1780:
Louvre F 114 = Plate XXX.; B.M. F 101, 207.
Footnote 1781:
Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 12; B.M. F 139, 207, 342.
Footnote 1782:
Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 14.
Footnote 1783:
Berlin 1843 (= Baumeister, i. p. 243, fig. 221), and 2707 (= _Coll.
Sabouroff_, i. 62, 2); Jatta 654 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 19;
Millin-Reinach, ii. 9 (frontispiece); Reinach, ii. 146, 328, 1;
Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 220; B.M. D 29, E 90, 201–2; and see
generally Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 599.
Footnote 1784:
Louvre F 197 and F 203 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 3 =
Schreiber-Anderson, 57, 5.
Footnote 1785:
B.M. F 311; and see _Él. Cér._ iv. 10–22.
Footnote 1786:
B.M. B 329–38; Louvre F 296; Reinach, ii. 151: cf. B.M. E 159 and
Athens 1429 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 2.
Footnote 1787:
B.M. D 6; Munich 142: cf. Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44.
Footnote 1788:
B.M. E 241, E 721; _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 98–9.
Footnote 1789:
Athens 1550 = Heydemann, _op. cit._ pl. 9, 5.
Footnote 1790:
B.M. E 34.
Footnote 1791:
B.M. E 769.
Footnote 1792:
B.M. E 190.
Footnote 1793:
B.M. E 88.
Footnote 1794:
_Branteghem Cat._ 167.
Footnote 1795:
Naples R.C. 117 = Reinach, i. 490, 22.
Footnote 1796:
Munich 903 = Reinach, ii. 110.
Footnote 1797:
B.M. B 53, B 163, B 409; Berlin 3993 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 51.
Footnote 1798:
Bibl. Nat. 94; Athens 466 = Plate XLVII.
Footnote 1799:
Oxford 320.
Footnote 1800:
B.M. E 396.
Footnote 1801:
_Branteghem Cat._ 163.
Footnote 1802:
Petersburg 875 = Reinach, i. 39: cf. Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 27.
Footnote 1803:
B.M. F 232; Athens 1031 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 3; Reinach,
i. 473; _Mus. Borb._ vii. 58; _Mon. Barone_, pls. 3, 9; and see pp.
165, 182.
Footnote 1804:
See p. 169.
Footnote 1805:
See on the subject Winter in _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 187 ff.; and
_Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, p. 25 ff.
Footnote 1806:
B.F.: B.M. B 165, B 657; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 172 and
203 = Reinach, ii. 95. R.F.: Louvre G 47–8; Bologna 274; Helbig, 167
and 174 (= Reinach, ii. 133); Reinach, ii. 114; Vienna 324 = _Wiener
Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).
Footnote 1807:
B.F.: B.M. B 147, B 309, B 360; Louvre F 12, F 39, F 53, F 150;
Reinach, ii. 124, 131. R.F.: B.M. E 254, E 276, E 448; Louvre G 44;
Baumeister, iii. p. 2034, fig. 2207 (Duris). Late: B.M. F 158, F 174;
Munich 382 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 35.
Footnote 1808:
B.F.: _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5 (Proto-Cor.); B.M. B 75, B 199, B 212, B
400; Athens 623; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14. R.F.: B.M. E 7, E 33, E 43, E
808; _Röm. Mitth._ 1890, p. 332. Late: B.M. F 175, F 215. Horseman
and foot-soldier: two uncatalogued in B.M.
Footnote 1809:
See pp. 3, 7, 126.
Footnote 1810:
B.M. B 224, B 243; Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 87;
Reinach, ii. 129, 131, 4, 133.
Footnote 1811:
_J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 203 = Reinach, ii. 95.
Footnote 1812:
Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Millin-Reinach, i. 39; and see under Hector,
p. 127.
Footnote 1813:
B.M. E 405.
Footnote 1814:
_Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 165: cf. Reinach, ii. 133 and Ar. _Ach._ 574.
Footnote 1815:
Louvre G 5: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 122, note.
Footnote 1816:
B.M. E 33; Munich 1229; _Forman Sale Cat._ 337 (in Boston); Hartwig,
_op. cit._ pl. 14, 1: cf. Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428, and B.M. E
598.
Footnote 1817:
See note 1815; also _Festschrift für O. Benndorf_, p. 66.
Footnote 1818:
B.M. B 303–05; Berlin 1897 = Reinach, ii. 124; _Jahrbuch_, iv.
(1889), pl. 10; Louvre F 285, F 345.
Footnote 1819:
Reinach, ii. 198.
Footnote 1820:
See pp. 118, 127.
Footnote 1821:
B.M. B 15, B 206, B 523; Louvre F 9; Reinach, i. 462, 1; ii. 255 =
Bibl. Nat. 227; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108 =
1903, No. 21, p. 102 (Andokides).
Footnote 1822:
Athens 618 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1963, fig. 2098.
Footnote 1823:
Reinach, ii. 128; B.M. B 24; Louvre E 609 = Reinach, i. 395 (Chares);
and Fig. 88, Vol. I. p. 297.
Footnote 1824:
B.M. E 476: Louvre G 54 = Reinach, ii. 7; Petersburg 1692, 1711 =
Reinach, i. 43–4: see B.M. E 65, Louvre F 19, F 70, and Vienna 324 =
_Wiener Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).
Footnote 1825:
B.M. B 51: see under Nike, p. 88.
Footnote 1826:
Berlin 1718 = Reinach, i. 393; Helbig, ii. p. 301, No. 77 = Reinach,
ii. 107 (may be Ajax with body of Achilles).
Footnote 1827:
_J.H.S._ xix. pp. 227–28; and cf. B.M. B 171 (inspection of liver), B
641; Bibl. Nat. 400; Reinach, ii. 131, 1 (hoplite taking oath);
Louvre G 46.
Footnote 1828:
Reinach, i. 203 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 2–3; B.M. B 380; Louvre F 127,
G 5: bust of warrior, Louvre F 137.
Footnote 1829:
B.M. B 470, B 618; Louvre F 292, G 25; Engelmann-Anderson, _Od._
xiii. 71: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 9, p. 106, note.
Footnote 1830:
Berlin 1879.
Footnote 1831:
Berlin 2304.
Footnote 1832:
Reinach, i. 372.
Footnote 1833:
See _Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3.
Footnote 1834:
B.M. B 658.
Footnote 1835:
B.M. B 149, B 360.
Footnote 1836:
B.M. B 590–91; Louvre G 70; Helbig, 292; Munich 4 = Reinach, ii. 57;
_Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pl. 4. As shield-device: Vienna 332 (a
negro); Reinach, i. 77; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 46, 1.
Footnote 1837:
B.M. E 285; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 18, 1, and see p. 185.
Footnote 1838:
See p. 179, note 1853; also Plate XXXVII. fig. 2, and _Jahrbuch_,
1889, pl. 4.
Footnote 1839:
_Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759; Hartwig, p. 368, note: cf. p.
186.
Footnote 1840:
B.M. B 426; Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428; Helbig, 54; _Mon. Grecs_,
1885–88, p. 11: see also Helbig, _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos_,
and _Les Ἱππεῖς Athéniens_, p. 71 ff.
Footnote 1841:
Reinach, i. 486 = _Boston Cat._ p. 137.
Footnote 1842:
B.M. B 60; Louvre A 526; Plate XVI. (Aristonoös krater); Reinach, i.
190, 4, 328, 6, and 459 (Dipylon).
Footnote 1843:
_J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8; Louvre A 525–532; _Mon. Grecs_, ii. (1882–84),
pl. 4, pp. 44–57; and see Chapter VII.
Footnote 1844:
B.M. B 436; Berlin 836; Louvre E 735 and F 123 (= _J.H.S._ 1885, pl.
49); _Forman Sale Cat._ 322; Reinach, ii. 19 = Baumeister, iii. p.
1599, fig. 1662.
Footnote 1845:
B.M. B 436; Berlin 646 ff., 831; Louvre F 145 (?).
Footnote 1846:
B.M. B 679, E 2 (Plate XXXVII.); Bibl. Nat. 322; _Bourguignon Sale
Cat._ 14; Louvre F 123, F 145.
Footnote 1847:
Louvre F 62; Vienna 235; Naples R.C. 246; Munich 781 = Reinach, ii.
126; Petersburg 10 and 86; Würzburg 337 = Reinach, ii. 141; _Rev.
Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 323; _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, 3.
Footnote 1848:
Athens 969 = Reinach, i. 415.
Footnote 1849:
See above, p. 148.
Footnote 1850:
B.M. B 173, B 280, B 323; F 278.
Footnote 1851:
Cf. B.M. B 184, 207, 243, 246, etc.
Footnote 1852:
See generally Zahn, _Die Barbaren_, and Hartwig, _Meistersch._
_passim_.
Footnote 1853:
B.M. E 6; Louvre F 126, F 388, G 45; _Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4; and see
above, p. 177.
Footnote 1854:
B.M. B 184, B 207, B 426; Reinach, i. 376 (?).
Footnote 1855:
_Wiener Vorl._ vi. 5; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14.
Footnote 1856:
B.M. B 590–91.
Footnote 1857:
B.M. E 233; Berlin 2295; Reinach, ii. 84; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.
55–56.
Footnote 1858:
_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 5.
Footnote 1859:
B.M. E 695.
Footnote 1860:
_Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 1; Oxford 310 = Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2
p. 87.
Footnote 1861:
See p. 151.
Footnote 1862:
_Röm. Mitth._ ii. (1887), pl. 9, p. 172; Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Plate
XXXVII. fig. 2.
Footnote 1863:
Bibl. Nat. 473 = Reinach, i. 131.
Footnote 1864:
_Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 72.
Footnote 1865:
Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 38–9; and see _ibid._ p. 422.
Footnote 1866:
B.M. E 481–82; and see pp. 80, 143.
Footnote 1867:
Louvre G 26: cf. _Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, pl. 6, p. 11.
Footnote 1868:
Munich 337 = Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 82; _Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, pl.
5; and see pp. 166, 177.
Footnote 1869:
B.M. E 301; _J.H.S._ ix. pl. 6; Reinach, i. 63.
Footnote 1870:
B.M. B 673–74; Athens 1088; _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 45: cf. Louvre G
93; another unarmed, G 100. On Vienna 332 a negro trumpeter occurs as
a shield-device.
Footnote 1871:
Petersburg 1603.
Footnote 1872:
Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 42.
Footnote 1873:
Louvre G 100.
Footnote 1874:
B.M. B 106_1.
Footnote 1875:
B.M. F 197, 241–42 (see Plate XLIV.), 297, 301, 525; Reinach, i.
292–93.
Footnote 1876:
B.F.: B.M. B 46, B 382, B 679; Louvre F 2, F 216, F 314; _Gaz. Arch._
1887, pl. 14, 1. R.F.: B.M. E 38, 49, 68, 70; Munich 272 = Hartwig,
_Meistersch._ pl. 15, 1; Helbig, 225 and 227; Reinach, ii. 4. Late:
B.M. E 495, F 303; Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl.
45, and R.C. 144 = Schreiber-Anderson, 76, 2; _ibid._ pl. 76, 4 =
Millingen-Reinach, pl. 8; Millin-Reinach, ii. 58.
Footnote 1877:
See pp. 57, 105.
Footnote 1878:
Bibl. Nat. 94.
Footnote 1879:
B.M. E 351, E 474.
Footnote 1880:
B.M. B 46, 301–2, 382, 679, E 66, E 454.
Footnote 1881:
Louvre G 98; Athens 691 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pls. 13–4 (Xenokles and
Kleisophos); _Cab. Pourtalès_, 34; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _a_.
Footnote 1882:
Reinach, ii. 247: see _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 180.
Footnote 1883:
Louvre G 25; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _b_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.
14, 2, 48, and p. 332; _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 5.
Footnote 1884:
See Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 115, for a collected list of examples;
also the following notes.
Footnote 1885:
Louvre G 30; B.M. E 70 = Fig. 138, E 161, E 454, E 795; Berlin 4221;
Naples 822, 965, 972, 2415, S.A. 281.
Footnote 1886:
It is worth noting that on the best R.F. vases mortals play the game;
on the later ones gods and Satyrs. It must have disappeared from
social life about the end of the fifth century.
Footnote 1887:
B.M. F 37; Naples 903, S.A. 302, R.C. 144, 145, 2308; Berlin 2416 =
Reinach, i. 337; _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; and see Vol. I. p. 452
for a curious variant.
Footnote 1888:
B.M. F 50, 175–77; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 197.
Footnote 1889:
B.M. F 161, F 273, F 275, F 304, F 425; F 579 = Fig. 118 (Eros).
Footnote 1890:
Louvre G 30; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 83, 1_b_, and 85, 2_b_.
Footnote 1891:
Louvre F 216; Reinach, ii. 329, 5: see also _ibid._ ii. 6, 304, 5;
_Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1_a_; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ pls. 273, 356.
Footnote 1892:
B.M. E 14, 38, 61, 68; Reinach, ii. 4.
Footnote 1893:
See pp. 165, 174.
Footnote 1894:
Athens 1158; and see p. 169.
Footnote 1895:
Petersburg 1670 = Reinach, i. 32 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 2; Reinach, ii.
290, 2 (κῶμος of women).
Footnote 1896:
B.M. E 61 (Hieron).
Footnote 1897:
B.M. E 71, 474, 484, 489, 506, 767; Reinach, ii. 94, 7; _Mus. Greg._
ii. 84, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 11 and p. 41; _Wiener
Vorl._ viii. 5 (Brygos in Würzburg).
Footnote 1898:
B.M. E 33, 46, 53, 508; _Forman Sale Cat._ 317; Reinach, ii. 120.
Footnote 1899:
B.M. B 299; and see above, p. 169.
Footnote 1900:
B.M. E 137, E 488; Reinach, ii. 68, 290, 301, 313; _Mus. Greg._ ii.
54, 1 _a_, 2 _a_; 78, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 36, pp. 333,
335; Inghirami, _Vasi. Fitt._ 198.
Footnote 1901:
B.M. E 54; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 11, 20.
Footnote 1902:
B.M. E 37; Louvre F 129, G 73; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 8, 11; and
see Berlin 2265, and _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 5, fig. 2.
Footnote 1903:
See above, p. 57 ff.
Footnote 1904:
Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 49.
Footnote 1905:
B.M. B 41; Berlin 2171; Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 40, 2.
Footnote 1906:
_B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_; Bibl. Nat. 905 is a good typical
example.
Footnote 1907:
See Vol. I. p. 21: cf. Christie, _Disquisitions_, _passim_.
Footnote 1908:
B.M. E 648, 705–9, 778–83 (see Plate XLII.); Athens 1941 = Jahn,
_Vasen mit Goldschmuck_, pl. 1.
Footnote 1909:
B.M. E 61; Munich 819 = Millingen-Reinach, 26; Berlin 2279 = Hartwig,
_Meistersch._ pl. 25 (very fine); Reinach, i. 207; Helbig, 218 =
_ibid._ ii. 146; and see Hartwig, p. 238.
Footnote 1910:
See Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 26, and Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_,
_passim_; also Vol. I. p. 426.
Footnote 1911:
Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 27 (from
exterior of kylix).
Footnote 1912:
B.M. E 2: cf. E 16, E 27; Louvre F 129 (youth balancing amphora).
Footnote 1913:
Athens 1162 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 19, 2 (in
Louvre), and p. 178; Louvre G 17 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, pl. 10.
Footnote 1914:
Cambridge 71 = Hartwig, pl. 2, fig. 3.
Footnote 1915:
B.M. E 46; Hartwig, p. 86; and see _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 8.
Footnote 1916:
Louvre G 40.
Footnote 1917:
Louvre G 70, 96.
Footnote 1918:
B.M. E 57.
Footnote 1919:
Hartwig, pl. 70, 1: cf. _Il._ iii. 33.
Footnote 1920:
_J.H.S._ xvii. p. 75 = Fig. 82; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1890, pl. 22,
p. 437 ff.; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 9 (vase in Marseilles).
Footnote 1921:
Berlin 2324 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, 1.
Footnote 1922:
B.M. E 1; Bibl. Nat. 128; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 21; _Mus.
Greg._ ii. 31, 2; Reinach, ii. 225 (lion and panther fighting).
Footnote 1923:
Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 9 (in Boston).
Footnote 1924:
B.M. B 382, E 4; Louvre F 84 and F 54 = Fig. 96, Vol. I. p. 381.
Footnote 1925:
Louvre F 125 (ram); Berlin 4042 (bull) and 2266 (horse); Munich 1171
and _Mus. Greg._ ii. 64, 3 _a_ (cock). Also on exterior of B.F.
kylikes: cocks and hens, B.M. B 391–92; Louvre F 92, F 380; Bibl.
Nat. 317; Reinach, ii. 171. Lion and bull, Louvre F 313. Apes, _Sale
Cat. Hôtel Drouot_, May 1903, No. 71. See generally Hartwig,
_Meistersch._ p. 565.
Footnote 1926:
Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 63, 1.
Footnote 1927:
Bibl. Nat. 175–76.
Footnote 1928:
Munich 468 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.
Footnote 1929:
Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.
Footnote 1930:
Berlin 2517 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 65.
Footnote 1931:
Reinach, i. 96 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1985, fig. 2128. For the
inscription on this vase, see Chapter XVII.
Footnote 1932:
See Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 63, 6; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 19, F
254–68, and references there given; also Vol. I. pp. 194, 487, Plate
XLIV.
Footnote 1933:
B.M. B 57, B 58; Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92; Bibl. Nat. 172.
Footnote 1934:
B.M. B 28, B 31; and see p. 185, note 1925.
Footnote 1935:
Rayet and Collignon, p. 330 = Reinach, i. 503: see p. 273.
Footnote 1936:
R.F. kalpis in Louvre; _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759: see for
this and the following subjects Hartwig, _Meistersch._, p. 368, note;
also p. 177 above.
Footnote 1937:
Louvre F 127 (Pamphaios).
Footnote 1938:
Munich 1170.
Footnote 1939:
Munich 1223.
Footnote 1940:
B.M. E 771.
Footnote 1941:
In South Kensington Museum.
CHAPTER XVI
_DETAILS OF TYPES, ARRANGEMENT, AND ORNAMENTATION_
Distinctions of types—Costume and attributes of individual
deities—Personifications—Heroes—Monsters—Personages in
every-day life—Armour and shield-devices—Dress and
ornaments—Physiognomical expression on vases—Landscape and
architecture—Arrangement of subjects—Ornamental
patterns—Maeander, circles, and other geometrical
patterns—Floral patterns—Lotos and palmettes—Treatment of
ornamentation in different fabrics.
It may be profitable to supplement the foregoing account with a few
general considerations, such as the attributes, emblems, and costume by
which the different figures may be distinguished, the general treatment
of the subjects at different periods, and the use of ornamental motives
in the various stages of Greek vase-painting.
§ 1. DISTINCTIONS OF TYPES
In the earlier vase-paintings deities are often not only
indistinguishable from one another, but even from kings and other
mortal personages, attributes and subtle distinctions of costume being
ignored; and in the period of decline a similar tendency may be noted,
due in this case not so much to confusion of ideas as to a general
carelessness of execution and indifference to the meaning of the
subject. In the former vases it was, doubtless, largely the result of
conventionality and limitation in the free expression of forms; but it
is a peculiarity not confined to painting, and may be observed not only
in the minor arts, in terracotta and bronze figurines, but even in
sculpture of a more exalted kind—as, for instance, in the female
statues from the Athenian Acropolis. Thus, all the deities are draped,
and their costume differs in no respect from that worn by mortals; all
alike wear the chiton, himation, or chlamys, and ornamentation of the
drapery with embroidered patterns is no mark of distinction. It is only
as the art advances in the B.F. period that the necessity for
differentiation makes itself felt, and each deity becomes
individualised by some peculiarity of costume or special attribute
which makes it possible to recognise them without difficulty. To give a
brief survey of these characteristic marks will be the object of the
following pages.[1942]
Among the Olympian deities, _Zeus_ is generally bearded, and fully
draped in long chiton and mantle; on R.F. vases he wears a
laurel-wreath. He fights the giants from his chariot, but otherwise
is standing, or seated on a throne, which is often carved and
ornamented with figures.[1943] He usually holds a thunderbolt, or a
sceptre, surmounted by an eagle or otherwise ornamented; in one or
two cases the termination is in the form of a lotos-bud, curiously
conventionalised.[1944] _Hera_ is distinguished by the _stephane_ or
broad diadem, often ornamented, and covered with the bridal veil, the
edge of which she draws forward with one hand in the attitude
considered typical of brides. Her sceptre is sometimes surmounted by
her emblem—the cuckoo.
_Poseidon_, on the Corinthian and Attic B.F. vases—on which he is but a
rare figure—is often hardly to be distinguished from Zeus, the
approximation of the types extending even to their emblems. Where he
holds in addition a dolphin or tunny-fish, there is, of course, no
doubt as to his presence; nor, again, in the Gigantomachia, where he
wields a rock (see p. 13, and Fig. 112); but his trident, which
subsequently becomes the unmistakable evidence of his identity, often
assumes (as on the Corinthian pinakes) the form of a sceptre ending in
a lotos-bud,[1945] which is typical of Zeus, and, indeed, of Olympian
deities generally. The other sea-deities are, however, of a more
clearly defined type. The essential feature of _Triton_ is the
fish-tail in which his body terminates. _Nereus_, on the other hand, is
represented as an old man, bald and grey-bearded. In this form he
contends with Herakles (see p. 101), and it may be that the
differentiation was necessary to avoid confusion with the Triton type.
As attributes he often holds a dolphin or tunny-fish, and a trident or
sceptre. The winged deity with a long sinuous fish-tail seen on early
Corinthian vases is probably _Palaemon_ (see p. 26); but in one case
this deity is feminine.[1946] _Amphitrite_, as the feminine consort of
Poseidon, holds a sceptre or tunny-fish, and _Thetis_ and the _Nereids_
appear in ordinary female form. The former, however, in her struggles
with Peleus, is accompanied by lions, serpents, and other animals,
which indicate the transformations she was supposed to assume. _Skylla_
appears as described in Homer, with fish-tail and the fore-parts of
dogs issuing from her waist, which is encircled by a fringe of scales
or feathers.
_Demeter_ and _Persephone_ are not always distinguishable from one
another, both having the same attributes—a torch or ears of corn (cf.
Plate LI.). Their identification depends rather on the nature of their
respective actions in the scenes where they appear. _Triptolemos_ is
always seen in his winged two-wheeled car (sometimes drawn by
serpents), and usually holds ears of corn or a libation-bowl; on B.F.
vases he is bearded. The other Eleusinian deities, on the late R.F.
vases where they occur, are marked by the large torches which they hold.
_Apollo_ on the B.F. vases almost invariably occurs in his character of
Kitharoidos,[1947] the lyre which he holds being of the form known as
_kithara_ (on later vases it is a _chelys_); he is therefore, like all
musicians, fully draped in long chiton, and his hair falls in curls on
his shoulders, or is gathered in a κρώβυλος. Unlike most gods, he is at
all times youthful and beardless.[1948] He is also represented holding
a laurel-branch, shooting an arrow from his bow, or riding on a swan or
Gryphon, or accompanied by a hind or other animal. His sister _Artemis_
is draped in long chiton and mantle, and often wears a high cap on B.F.
vases; it is not until the later R.F. period that she appears in
hunting costume, with knotted-up hair, short chiton, and high laced-up
hunting-boots or _endromides_; sometimes also a fawn-skin. She is
usually distinguished by her bow and arrows, and is accompanied by a
hound, deer, goat, or other animal.[1949]
_Hephaistos_ is usually bearded,[1950] and often appears in the
workman’s dress of the _exomis_ or short chiton covering one shoulder,
and high conical cap; his craft is further symbolised by a hammer or
tongs, or by the axe with which he brings Athena forth from the head of
Zeus. In the Gigantomachia he uses his tongs with savage violence
against an unfortunate opponent (see p. 14). _Ares_ is the typical
Greek fully-armed warrior, bearded, with helmet, short chiton, cuirass,
and greaves, sword, spear, and shield; but is not otherwise to be
distinguished. _Hermes_, as the messenger of the gods, appears in
appropriate costume of chlamys and _petasos_ (the Greek
travelling-hat), and carrying the caduceus or herald’s staff; he
usually wears high boots, and on the earlier vases a short chiton in
addition. He is occasionally winged, but it is more usual to find the
wings attached to his petasos or boots. On B.F. vases he is always
bearded, but not after the sixth century. _Hestia_, who but rarely
occurs on vases, forms a pair to Hermes in assemblies of the gods, but
is not distinguished further than by the Olympian lotos-sceptre.
_Athena_ on the earlier B.F. vases is not always distinguished from an
ordinary woman; later, the helmet, spear, shield, and aegis become
inseparable adjuncts of her costume, the shield being always circular
in form. The spear, which is sometimes her only characteristic, is
usually brandished or couched in her right hand, and sometimes she
holds her helmet in her hand (see Plate XXXVI. and p. 40). Her costume
consists of a long girt chiton, over which the _peplos_ or small mantle
is thrown, and the aegis round her chest. The latter is covered with
scales and has a fringe of rearing serpents, and sometimes, on later
vases, the Gorgon’s head in the centre of the front. On the Panathenaic
amphorae she is always represented in the Promachos attitude, at first
to left, but later to right, brandishing her spear. At either side of
her are columns surmounted by an owl, a cock, or other emblems. On the
later specimens her figure is greatly elongated, and her drapery is
often elaborately embroidered with patterns in purple and white. Her
statue when represented is usually a mere reproduction of the living
type; but on some later vases there seems to be a reminiscence of the
Parthenos or other statues (see p. 40).
_Aphrodite_ is less individualised than any other deity, at any rate on
the earlier vases, on which she is invariably draped in the ordinary
manner. She sometimes carries a lotos-headed sceptre (as in Judgment of
Paris scenes). Occasionally she is represented armed. On the later
vases the influence of fourth-century sculpture becomes apparent in the
treatment of this, as of other deities. She now first appears nude
(when bathing or washing), scantily clad or half draped, and in
transparent Coan draperies, through which the outlines of her form are
visible. She has no characteristic attribute, but is frequently
represented with a dove or other bird. The types of _Eros_ have already
been fully discussed (p. 45); briefly it may be said that on the Attic
R.F. vases he is a full-grown nude youth with wings; on those of
Southern Italy the type is more boyish, though never the child or
_putto_ of the Hellenistic Age, and in Apulia the androgynous type,
with hair arranged in feminine fashion and jewellery profusely adorning
his person—earrings, necklace, chains, and anklets—is invariable.
_Dionysos_ is distinguished primarily by the ivy-wreath which crowns
his head; he generally wears a long chiton and mantle, but on the
latest vases is frequently nude. On all B.F. vases, and often on those
of the R.F. period, he is bearded, and it is only on those of Southern
Italy that he appears as a somewhat effeminate youth, half draped like
Apollo, with rounded and graceful limbs. His attributes are the rhyton
or keras (only on B.F. vases), the kantharos, a form of drinking-cup
specially associated with him, a vine-branch, and the thyrsos; he is
accompanied by panthers and other animals, or swings the limbs of a kid
(χιμαιροφόνος). Usually he maintains a calm and unmoved attitude amid
the wild revelries of his followers. _Ariadne_ is undistinguished
except by her association with him. _Pan_, who only occurs on later
vases, is almost invariably represented as a beardless youthful figure,
with goat’s horns, but human legs; when, however, he has goat’s legs or
feet, he is usually called Aegipan, and in this aspect he assumes a
somewhat dwarfish and more bestial aspect.[1951]
_Satyrs_ are either elderly and bearded, or youthful; in all cases with
pointed ears and horses’ tails, and undraped except for the fawn-skins
which they frequently wear. They carry a thyrsos, drinking-cups, or
musical instruments, according to the circumstances in which they are
depicted. In Ionic art (Vol. I. p. 353 ff.) the Satyrs invariably have
horses’ feet as well as tails, and are usually of repulsive appearance.
The _Seileni_ are really aged Satyrs, depicted as bald or white-haired,
but not otherwise differentiated, except in the case of
_Papposeilenos_, who is covered with shaggy skin.[1952] The _Maenads_
are often represented (especially on B.F. vases) as ordinary draped
women, or only with the addition of a fawn-skin or panther-skin over
their chiton; they carry the _thyrsos_, or frequently on later vases a
large tambourine (_tympanon_).
Of the personages associated with the under-world, _Hades_ is usually
an elderly bearded deity of the Zeus type. He carries a sceptre, often
with ornamented top, and sometimes from his Chthonian association with
Dionysos holds a kantharos, vine-branch, or cornucopia. _Kerberos_ has
three heads only on two Cacretan hydriae and the Apulian under-world
vases; his usual number is two, but once or twice he has only
one.[1953] _Hekate_ has torches for her customary attribute, and the
_Furies_, who only occur on South Italian vases, wear short chitons
with cross-belts and have rough hair, in which and round their arms
serpents are intertwined. _Charon_ the ferryman is represented as an
elderly man in short chiton and conical cap (cf. Fig. 122), but the
grim Etruscan _Charun_ is a repulsive and savage hook-nosed demon,
wielding a hammer. _Thanatos_ and _Hypnos_, the two Death-deities, are
both winged men, but only the former is bearded (cf. Fig. 123); there
is usually nothing forbidding in his appearance. The question of the
representation of ghosts or souls (εἴδωλα) has been fully discussed (p.
72); most commonly they are diminutive winged figures, and in other
cases they appear as in ordinary life,[1954] but possibly they
sometimes appear in the form of birds.[1955]
_Gaia_ is represented half rising out of the earth, a beautiful but not
young woman, with long hair (Fig. 112); or, as Pandora, her head alone
is seen (see p. 73). _Kybele_ occasionally appears, with her attendant
lion, and an even rarer figure is _Asklepios_, with his serpent. The
_Eileithyiae_, who attend at the birth of Athena, are ordinary women,
distinguished by the appropriate gestures of their hands (Fig. 113).
_Iris_, the female messenger of the gods, appears winged, with short
chiton to allow of rapid movement, and carrying the caduceus or
herald’s staff; _Hebe_, on the other hand, is an ordinary woman. _Nike_
is usually to be distinguished from Iris by her long flowing draperies,
even when in flight; the various attributes usually associated with her
have already been dealt with in detail (p. 87).[1956]
Among personifications, _Helios_ is a youthful figure in a chariot,
usually with rays round his head (as on Plate LIII.); in one or two
cases his head is surmounted by a white disc; _Selene_ appears on
horseback, and is sometimes indicated by a crescent moon; where Helios
is accompanied by a goddess in a chariot, it is probable that _Nyx_
(Night) is intended (see p. 79). The _Stars_ are represented as nude
youths. The _Aurae_ or breezes appear as girls floating through the
air; the _Hyades_ or rain-Nymphs are identified by their
water-pitchers. A group of winged gods and goddesses is formed by Eos,
Agon (the masculine counterpart of Nike), Eris, Lyssa (Frenzy),[1957]
and the various wind-gods, such as Boreas and Zephyros. These are found
at all periods, but the types vary. _Eris_, who is only found on B.F.
vases, resembles the Gorgons (see below), a somewhat grotesque figure
with wings, rough hair, and short girt chiton; _Lyssa_ only occurs on
Apulian vases, and is akin in type to the Furies—in two instances her
figure is enclosed in a circle of rays of light, perhaps to express the
blinding effect of her action, and she holds a goad.[1958] _Oistros_, a
kindred figure, rides in a car drawn by serpents, and carries torches.
The type of Agon is assimilated to that of Eros on R.F. vases; on those
of earlier date (if this is the correct interpretation) he wears a
short girt chiton and holds a wreath. The _Wind-gods_ on B.F. vases
wear the petasos and high boots, and short girt chiton; _Zephyros_ is
represented as a youth; and _Boreas_, who only occurs on R.F. vases,
wears Thracian costume; he is bearded, and his hair is often rough and
shaggy. But these winged deities cannot always be identified with
certainty. Among other personifications, _Geras_ is a somewhat ugly old
man; the _Muses_ are distinguished by their various musical
instruments; and _Cities and Countries_ are occasionally
individualised. For instance, Thebes, on a vase by Assteas, wears a
turreted crown; Sparta appears as a Nymph on horseback; and, generally
speaking, their presence is usually indicated not only by inscriptions,
but by their relation to the scene depicted.[1959] _River-gods_, such
as Acheloös, appear as human-headed bulls, with horns, but the
last-named on a stamnos by Pamphaios (E 437 in B.M.) has a fish-tail.
_Kastor_ and _Polydeukes_ usually appear on horseback and in hunting
costume, with petasos, chlamys, and spears; on later vases they
sometimes wear the pileus, a conical cap which often appears as their
emblem on coins. _Herakles_ on earlier vases is always bearded, and
wears the lion’s skin fastened round his waist with a belt, the
forepaws knotted round his throat[1960]; the head covers his head like
a cap, leaving his face only exposed, and under it he wears a short
girt chiton; he is armed with his club, or bow and quiver, and
sometimes with a sword. On R.F. vases he is often nude, or only wears
the skin in chlamys fashion. On the earlier vases he is often less
characterised, and the same applies to the later R.F. vases, on which
he is frequently beardless; in many cases he is only to be identified
by his club. _Theseus_ always appears as a youth, and on the R.F. cups
usually wears a short loose chiton of crinkly material (cf. Vol. I.,
Frontisp.); his arms are a sword, or sometimes a club. _Perseus_ wears
the winged petasos or cap of darkness and high boots (the shoes of
swiftness), sometimes winged; he carries the wallet or κίβισις, and
sometimes the ἅρπη or curved sword with which he slew Medusa. _Pelops_
on the Apulian vases is usually characterised as an Oriental, with
richly embroidered costume and a tiara or embroidered cap. The Homeric
heroes are only to be identified by inscriptions, or by the actions in
which they take part, but _Paris_ is usually in Oriental costume; in
Judgment scenes he holds a lyre, but when he takes part in combats he
is attired as an archer, with bow and quiver, Phrygian cap, jerkin, and
trousers. _Kekrops_, the mythical king of Athens, usually ends in a
serpent’s tail, to denote his autochthonous origin; _Midas_ has ass’s
ears; _Orpheus_ is recognised by his lyre, and sometimes wears, as a
musician, feminine costume (see below, p. 197).[1961]
Of other mythological types the _Amazons_ are, of course, always armed,
frequently in the Oriental fashion, with Phrygian cap or _kidaris_ and
trousers; their weapons are the crescent-shaped shield or _pelta_, and
a peculiar type of battle-axe, the _sagaris_. The _Giants_ on B.F.
vases are ordinary armed warriors, not even of exceptional size, but in
later times they often end in serpents, as on the Pergamene frieze.
_Typhon_ appears in this form on a Chalcidian vase.[1962] _Geryon_ is
represented in the manner described by Pausanias (vi. 19, 1), as “three
men joined together,” with distinctive arms and legs; on Chalcidian
vases he has four wings, and is only triple from the waist upwards. The
_Centaurs_ on the more archaic vases, as on those of Ionia, appear as
men with the body and hind legs of a horse attached behind; by the
middle of the sixth century they appear in the familiar form of a human
bust conjoined with a horse’s body. The _Gorgons_ are always rendered
in grotesque fashion, with grinning faces and dishevelled hair
intertwined with serpents; they wear short girt chitons and high winged
boots, and have four wings, the upper pair recurved; usually on B.F.
vases they appear in what is known as “the archaic running attitude,”
or, as the Germans more expressively phrase it, “Knielaufschema,” the
figures being represented as if kneeling on one knee. The same
grotesque type of face,[1963] with the protruding tongue and teeth,
appertains to the Medusa’s head or Gorgoneion, which is at all periods
such a favourite decorative motive on vases, either as the interior
design of a B.F. kylix, or as a medallion in relief on late vases. The
more beautiful type of Medusa head is a creation of later date than
most of the painted vases, but in the medallions on Italian vases much
of the grotesqueness has disappeared.
Much confusion at one time existed between the conceptions of the
_Harpy_ and the _Siren_, both names being indiscriminately applied to
the female-headed bird so common on vases of all periods. But there is
ample evidence for the representation of the Harpy more in the style of
the Gorgons, as a purely feminine type, with the short chiton suited
for rapid movement, high boots, and wings, and often in the
conventional running attitude.[1964] In this form they appear in one
instance as feminine counterparts of the male Boreades.[1965] The Siren
types vary at different times, the earlier Sirens frequently having
human arms.[1966] The _Sphinx_ is always a woman-headed winged
four-footed beast; sometimes on Corinthian and Ionic vases she wears a
high head-dress. The _Gryphon_[1967] is a winged lion with eagle’s
beak, and often with erect ears; the winged _Pegasos_ and the
bull-headed _Minotaur_ require no description.
* * * * *
Turning now to personages concerned in events of every-day life, we
find great variety of costume and equipment, especially at different
periods and under different circumstances. The vases, in fact, may be
said to supply the most instructive _locus classicus_ for Greek dress
and ornament, as well as for minor details—such as weapons, implements,
and furniture—of which they provide contemporary illustrations.
_Kings_ are usually distinguished by dignified flowing robes, by the
wearing of a wreath or head-dress, or by the sceptre which they
hold.[1968] Oriental potentates wear the costume of their country, with
lofty ornamented tiaras, or the Persian _kidaris_ or _kyrbasia_—a
peaked cap decorated with fringes and lappets. Their dress is often
very elaborate on the later vases. _Actors_ and _musicians_ both wear
appropriate costumes. The former, who hardly occur except on the
Italian vases, wear the dress of the Old Comedy, with grotesque mask,
padded stomach, loose jerkin, and trousers.[1969] Tragic actors are
seldom represented; but it has already been pointed out[1970] that in
the setting of the mythological scenes on the vases of Southern Italy
there is an unmistakable reflection of the tragic stage, especially in
the elaborate and somewhat exaggerated details of costume. Musicians
invariably wear a long chiton, over which on R.F. vases they sometimes
wear a short loose garment called the ὀρθοστάδιον, embroidered with
patterns.[1971] There are also a few instances of male performers
(recognisable by their beards) in distinctively feminine costume.[1972]
_Athletes_ are invariably nude when performing their exercises, except
in the case of the armed foot-race (see p. 164); in the torch-race they
seem to have worn high crowns; on the reverse of late R.F. vases they
appear inactive, wrapped in mantles and conversing in groups. _Hunters_
wear a distinctive costume of petasos and chlamys, and usually carry
two spears. Boys on horseback are usually represented nude, and on
Ionic vases have their hair tied in a tuft behind.[1973] _Charioteers_
are always attired in a long girt chiton reaching to the feet, which on
Attic B.F. vases is painted white. They usually hold a goad in the
right hand, the reins in the left. _Heralds_ wear the attributes of
Hermes—the petasos, caduceus, and high boots, with a chlamys or short
girt chiton. _Warriors_ on the early and B.F. vases are equipped in a
fashion which tallies to some extent with the descriptions of
Homer.[1974] Their armour usually consists of a crested Corinthian
helmet, a metal cuirass, under which is a short chiton, and greaves, to
which are sometimes added the thigh-coverings known as _parameridia_.
Some peculiarities may also be noted—such as the hooked projection on
the front of helmets on the Ionic vases of Daphnae and the Clazomenae
sarcophagi,[1975] the linen cuirasses (indicated by white paint)
sometimes worn on Attic B.F. vases,[1976] or the heavy helmets with
large cheek-pieces seen on the Caeretan hydriae (Plate XXVI.). The R.F.
vases often represent the fully armed Athenian hoplite equipped in the
same fashion as the B.F.; but in these, and more especially in the
Italian vases, there is a tendency to omit much of the defensive
armour. Cuirasses on R.F. vases are often decorated with patterns of
scales or panelling.[1977] Helmets on Italian vases often assume a
local character, with conical crowns and two or three lofty
plumes.[1978]
Of offensive armour, the full equipment consists of sword, spear, and
shield. The two former call for no comment, but the shields, which are
of two forms, the circular Argive or the indented oval Boeotian,
present one feature of great interest—the devices with which they are
adorned.[1979] Investigations have failed to discern in these any
symbolical or heraldic significance; they are not appropriated to
particular personages, and all that can be noted about them is that
they usually seem to suggest rapid movement. Thus we find an eagle or
other flying bird, wheels, balls, chariots, a bent leg, a serpent,
Pegasos, and so on. The passage in the _Septem_ of Aeschylus (387 ff.),
in which the shield-devices of the combatants are described, is of
course familiar, and similar allusions are not wanting in Greek
writers.[1980] They are universal on B.F. vases, being painted in white
on black ground, and are often found on the earlier R.F. vases in black
on red; but they seem to disappear at an early stage of the R.F.
period. Sometimes they consist only of letters of the alphabet, as on a
Panathenaic amphora, where Athena’s shield has the letters Α to Θ; on a
B.F. vase in the British Museum are the letters ΑΘΕ.[1981] Other
peculiar subjects are a winged boar, two rams butting, a figure of
Artemis, a white-bordered square, and a ladder.[1982] Some of those on
R.F. vases are somewhat elaborate—a Seilenos,[1983] a fox eating
grapes,[1984] an armed runner,[1985] or a warrior blowing a
trumpet.[1986] A variation is when the device takes the form of an
object in relief—a Satyr-mask,[1987] Gorgoneion,[1988] mask of Phobos
(Panic),[1989] or a Gryphon,[1990] or a rearing serpent[1991]; or when
a shield is surrounded by a fringe of serpents.[1992] Shields
frequently have a piece of fringed and embroidered stuff suspended from
them, which seems to have served as a protection to the legs.[1993]
_Archers_ are depicted in Oriental costume, wearing peaked caps with
long lappets and a close-fitting dress of leather, consisting of jerkin
and trousers, usually embroidered with various patterns. The different
barbarian types which appear on vases—Persians, Scythians, Arimaspi,
and Thracians—are more or less individualised, especially on the R.F.
vases. Such subjects, indeed, were not really popular until the Persian
wars. The details of Oriental costume have already been noted.
Thracians on R.F. vases wear a long loose cloak known as the _zeira_
and a cap of foxskin (_alopeke_) with long flaps, which dress is also
worn by Boreas (see above). In the first half of the fifth century
Oriental costumes seem to have had a period of popularity among the
fashionable young men of Athens, especially the knights; and they are
often depicted riding in the _zeira_ or striped and embroidered dresses
of outlandish style (see pp. 166, 179). Egyptians are often
realistically rendered, with shaven heads,[1994] as are negroes and
Aethiopians. The latter, like all barbarians on vases, usually wear
trousers. On the vases of Southern Italy details of local (Osco-Samnite
or Messapian) costumes often appear (see p. 180, and Vol. I. p. 483),
especially in the case of helmets and breastplates worn by warriors on
Campanian vases.
On the earlier vases, down to the end of the B.F. period, there is
frequently no distinction between the dress of men and women, and to
this fact may have been due the practice of painting the latter white
to differentiate them. Both wear the long Doric chiton, with a mantle
or himation thrown over it; but men often wear the smaller chlamys over
the shoulders in place of the himation. Women, again, on the earlier
B.F. vases, often appear without the himation, and wear a long chiton
tightly girt at the waist, with a short _apoptygma_ or fold falling
over the breast. On R.F. vases the Doric chiton is sometimes worn by
women, open down one side (known as the χίτων σχιστός). Men in the
“strong” R.F. period wear a short loose chiton of fine crinkly linen.
Generally in the R.F. period there is greater freedom of costume and
variety of material and arrangement. The Ionic chiton is introduced
about 500 B.C., but its vogue does not seem to have lasted long at
Athens. In place of the _apoptygma_ women sometimes wear a loose
over-garment, known as the _diplois_. On the earliest vases men are
often nude, with the exception of a loin-cloth or pair of tight-fitting
“bathing-drawers.” Women are practically never nude on vases, except
when occupied in bathing or washing, or in the case of _hetairae_ and
jugglers.
The draperies, especially the chitons, are often richly embroidered
with patterns, represented by incising and purple and white colours on
the B.F. vases, by black paint on the R.F. On the former the women’s
chiton is often covered with a sort of diaper pattern of squares,
filled in with circles and stars, or the dresses (both of men and
women) are covered with groups of dots and flowers in white and purple.
In the late fine R.F. period and on the vases of Lucania and Apulia the
patterns become exceedingly rich and varied[1995]: chequers,
wave-pattern, palmettes, stars, egg-pattern, maeander, and all kinds of
borders are introduced. A further extension of the principle is seen in
the introduction of borders of figures, the most notable instances of
which are on the François vase and the Hieron kotyle.[1996] On the
former the technique is remarkable as a kind of anticipation of red
figures on black. Aristotle speaks of a garment made for Alkimenes of
Sybaris on which deities were represented between borders decorated
with Oriental figures, the subjects being the sacred animals of the
Medes and Persians.[1997] We may also cite the remarkable statue of
Demeter found at Lykosura in Arcadia, the drapery of which is decorated
with inlaid borders of figures,[1998] and the mantle of Jason described
by Apollonius Rhodius.[1999]
The hair of women on B.F. vases, and frequently also that of men,
usually falls loose or in tight curls on the shoulders, with a fringe
over the forehead. On the early R.F. vases men often wear their hair
looped up behind in the fashion known as the κρώβυλος,[2000] which, as
we know from Thucydides, went out about 480 B.C. Women, on the other
hand, have theirs knotted up and confined under a cap. On later R.F.
vases and on those of Apulia their hair is usually gathered up in the
_opisthosphendone_, or in a broad coif or fillets, and arranged in
bunches of curls in front and behind. On late R.F. vases a radiated
diadem, painted white, is often seen. Men are seldom represented with
long hair after 480 B.C., but they usually wear a wreath or plain
fillet. Head-coverings are rarely worn by ordinary persons, with the
exception of the traveller’s and huntsman’s _petasos_; but Oriental
personages usually wear a high cap of some kind (see above, under
Barbarians). Jewellery—such as necklaces, earrings, armlets, or
anklets—is comparatively rare on B.F. vases, but becomes more and more
common, until it reaches profusion on those of Apulia. Bracelets and
anklets are often in the form of serpents. Various forms of sandals or
shoes are seen on later vases, but on the black-figured the only kind
of footgear is the high boot or _endromis_, with a curved tag in front.
* * * * *
The extent to which physiognomical expressions are rendered on vases
varies at different periods[2001]; but it is not true, as has sometimes
been thought, that the artists altogether ignored such expressions in
their figures; it was only in the earlier phases that this was the
case, and even during the fifth century the advance was timid and slow,
much more so than in sculpture. As a rule, in the same vase all the
faces are alike, and no physiognomical distinction can be drawn between
gods and heroes, or even between men and women, except (on the Attic
vases) in the treatment of the eye. On the B.F. vases the ordinary type
of face has a long nose, with a tendency to turn up, a pointed chin,
deep rounded jaw, and large eyes, while the limbs are sinewy, angular,
and tapering. Beards of some length are invariable for grown or elderly
men; otherwise distinctions of age are hardly observed until the R.F.
period. And as in sculpture of the archaic period all figures have the
same conventional smile, so on the B.F. vases gods, heroes, and mortals
alike all pursue the actions in which they are engaged with the same
unvarying expression. The contrast of violent action and calm unmoved
physiognomy is often quaint, and almost grotesque.
Indications of expression or sentiment are, in fact, rather implicit
than explicit. They are given in a sort of shorthand fashion, just as
Polygnotos in his great paintings, by some subtle touch—by a change of
attitude or the action of a hand—indicated the emotion he wished to
convey. In the different treatment of the male and female eye there is,
no doubt, an attempt to give to the man a more lively expression by
means of the round pupil, while the oval form of the woman’s eye gives
her a softer and less intense look. The neglect of this principle on
Ionian vases, where the male eye is oval, seems to be a reflection of
the effeminate tendencies of the Ionian races.[2002] At an early date
we may observe a special treatment of the eye to represent it as
closed, in the case of a blind or dying person. Thus the Phineus of the
Würzburg cup has merely an angular mark in place of an eye,
representing the fall of the upper eyelid over the lower, or the eye is
represented as a vacant space without pupil.[2003] The mouth is
sometimes open to express pain or anger, as in the Nessos of the
Proto-Attic vase,[2004] or the quarrelling heroes on a vase in the
Louvre (F 340). It is also used to express the agony of a dying or
injured person, as on a vase with the outraged Polyphemos,[2005] with
which we may compare the dying warrior of the Aegina pediment. But all
these are rather exceptions than the rule on B.F. vases.
After the time of Polygnotos the influence of painting makes itself
felt, and we may recall that he perfected the advances of Kimon in this
respect. Not only did the vase-painters learn from him how to dispose
figures _en face_ or in three-quarter view, but they also learned how
to mark different expressions. It has also been observed that the
influence of tragedy must have been strong at this time. The krater
from Orvieto in the Louvre (Vol. I. p. 442) is a good instance of the
progress made in the fifth century in this direction. On one side of
the vase (see Fig. 103, _ibid._) we have a dying Niobid and a youth
with face to the front and eyes closing; on the other, in the
Argonautic scene, a warrior holding his knees, with lower lip fallen,
giving him a melancholy expression, and Herakles with a face of
sadness, marked by wrinkles. Other figures show exactly in what
direction they are looking (compare Kimon’s figures “looking down or
upwards”).[2006] In the later developments of the Apulian vases, with
their scenes drawn from tragic themes and represented in such dramatic
fashion, there is plenty of ability to represent emotion, and in
several cases it is accurately expressed, as in some of the scenes from
the sack of Troy. But in other cases, as on the Assteas vase in Madrid
(Fig. 107), much of the old quaintness and grotesqueness is apparent.
* * * * *
It is also necessary to treat of the methods adopted by the artist for
indicating locality or landscape in his pictures, a thing which is
often done in the briefest and most cursory manner. The germs of this
principle are perhaps to be observed (as noted elsewhere, Vol. I. p.
312) in the floral ground-ornaments of the Corinthian and other early
vases. In the more developed vase-paintings a sort of shorthand system
is customary, a system which in some degree probably prevailed on the
Greek stage, as on that of the Elizabethan drama. Thus a temple or a
house is represented by a column, or two columns supporting a pediment,
a wood or grove by a single tree, water by two dolphins swimming in the
lower part of the design, and so on. A notable exception is in the
palace depicted on the François vase, in which Thetis awaits the
arrival of the bridegroom Peleus. So much of the building is given in
detail that it is even possible to attempt a restoration.[2007] On the
same vase the walls of Troy are depicted, with a double door studded
with nails. In the Hydrophoria scenes (p. 173) considerable attention
is paid to the architectural details of the well-house, which was
probably in the form of a small temple, perhaps circular, surrounded by
a colonnade. The water issues from spouts in the form of lions’ heads,
and statues are often depicted in different parts of the building. The
François vase also gives an illustration of a well-house, with portico
supported by columns. The architecture is almost invariably Doric. In
outdoor scenes rocks occasionally appear, but only where they are
necessary to the subject, as in the ambuscade of Achilles for Troilos.
The branches of trees which frequently cover all the vacant spaces of
the design on later B.F. vases, especially in Dionysiac scenes, may be
mainly intended for decorative effect.
In the R.F. period more and more attention is paid to landscape and
architectural detail as the style develops, but there is still a strong
tendency to adhere to the shorthand system—a tendency which increases
rather than disappears, especially on the white-ground vases. The
artist’s object was always to make his figures stand out, as far as
possible, clear against the background, and he therefore deliberately
avoided anything likely to interfere with the desired effect. Landscape
proper, with indications of ground-lines, rocks, and trees, was only
introduced when the Polygnotan influence became strong, and the Orvieto
krater in the Louvre may be once more cited as a good and early
instance of a new development. Scenes in architectural settings are
rare, but an exception may be noted in the case of some of the late
R.F. vases with scenes in women’s apartments, where careful attention
is paid to the details of the door-ways, even to the locks and
key-holes.[2008] For the rest, it usually sufficed to indicate the
palaestra by a strigil or oil-flask suspended, or a pair of
jumping-weights; musical gatherings by a lyre or a flute in a case;
banqueting-rooms by cups and other vases hung up, or by rows of boots.
Similarly, women’s apartments are represented by a window, door, or
column, or by sashes, hoods, mirrors, wreaths, and wool-baskets
scattered about.[2009]
In the vases of Southern Italy this principle is carried almost to
excess. Not only is the old idea of rosettes and flowers scattered
about the scene revived, but the whole surface of the design is often
covered with miscellaneous objects, such as balls, sashes, and mirrors.
On the Apulian vases the use of a double line of white dots to indicate
the ground is invariable, and loose stones are scattered about where it
is intended to be rocky. Flowers grow about in rich profusion. In the
mythological scenes an elaborate architectural background is frequent,
and altars, tripods, and columns serve the same end; the _heroa_ or
shrines and other forms of tomb in the sepulchral scenes have already
been described. In athletic scenes, especially on the reverse of the
kraters, a ball, a stylus and tablets, or a pair of jumping-weights are
suspended in the air to indicate the palaestra; and on Lucanian vases
subjects of a military nature are suggested by a suspended shield only
partly visible. The “courting-scenes” on Apulian vases usually have a
representation of a window in a corner of the design.
§ 2. ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECTS
The next point to be considered is the method of arrangement and
composition of the figures in general on Greek vases. As regards the
Mycenaean, Geometrical, and other early wares, they may be left out of
consideration,—firstly, because their ornamentation is mainly composed
of decorative motives or single figures of animals; secondly, because
even where compositions of figure subjects are found, as on the great
Dipylon vases, the method of arrangement is still tentative and without
system. The figures are arranged in haphazard groups and bands, and all
the remaining spaces are filled in with ornament.
The first attempt at an organised method of decoration is seen in the
vases of Corinth and Ionia, and is exemplified principally in the
arrangement of the friezes of animals. Roughly speaking, there are two
main tendencies, one characteristic of each line of development—the
procession and the heraldic group. Both are essentially Oriental
(_i.e._ Assyrian) in origin, the prototype of the latter being the
familiar motive of the two animals and the sacred tree, which is so
frequently found on Mycenaean gems, and is best exemplified in the
famous Lion Gate of Mycenae.[2010] Yet this typically Mycenaean and
Oriental motive was not the one adopted by its natural inheritors, the
Ionians, and it is in Dorian Corinth that we find its reflection on the
painted vases. On one Corinthian vase[2011] it actually occurs in the
form of a conventional palmette and lotos-pattern (representing the
tree), on either side of which two lions are confronted in true
Mycenaean fashion. Later, it becomes a common device on the necks of
vases, the ornament taking the form of a decorative combination of
palmettes (see below, p. 226). Even when on Corinthian vases a whole
frieze of animals is found, there is always a central “heraldic” group
of two, towards which the whole seems to lead up, or else the frieze is
broken up into several isolated heraldic groups.[2012] But on the Ionic
vases, as on those of Rhodes and Naukratis, we have over and over again
regular processions of animals all facing the same way, or, as at
Daphnae, solemn dances of women, similarly placed and joining
hand-in-hand (see Plate XXV.).
In the developed B.F. vases the same principles are observed to some
extent, especially where friezes of animals are introduced; but there
is much greater freedom of treatment within the limits of the field
available. Generally speaking, however, all designs on B.F. vases may
be regarded as following one of the three methods of architectural
composition—the frieze, the pediment, or the metope. The frieze style,
which is seen on the shoulders of hydriae, the exteriors of kylikes,
and sometimes on the bodies of amphorae, oinochoae, or lekythi, implies
a series of figures, all turned in the same direction, but without any
central point for the action, as in processions of warriors, dances of
Satyrs and Maenads, and so on. In the pediment style of composition the
essential feature is a centre-point, in which the interest of the
subject is concentrated, as in such scenes as the Birth of Athena[2013]
or Theseus killing the Minotaur.[2014] The central group is then
flanked by figures immediately interested in the action (Eileithyia and
Hephaistos, or Ariadne, in the instances quoted; Athena and Iolaos at
the labours of Herakles); and the ends of the pediment, so to speak,
are occupied by groups of bystanders, often nameless and
uncharacterised, who are in fact only included to fill up the space
required.
The metope style, which only admits of three, or at most four, figures,
was found convenient for all the vases with subjects on panels, where
space was restricted, and also on the kylikes of the “minor artist”
class, on which a limited use of figures was preferred, and on those of
later date where the space was mainly taken up by the large eyes. But
in all these cases—friezes, pediments, or metopes—one thing was held to
be essential: the correspondence of the two halves of the design
(except in friezes), producing perfect symmetry in the composition.
Lastly, there are a limited number of cases where a single figure was
found sufficient, as in the interior of kylikes, on the circular
pinakes,[2015] and sometimes on the vases where the large eyes take up
most of the space.[2016]
Subordinate designs, bordering the main design of an amphora above or
below, or decorating the cover, are usually in the form of animals or
chariot-races, in the frieze style of composition. Similar friezes are
sometimes also found (in the old B.F. method) on R.F. vases, and even
on the kraters of Southern Italy.
The earlier R.F. vases preserve the principles of the preceding period;
and, in regard to the kylikes, the system of decoration has been
discussed in detail elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 427). In all of them we see
particular attention paid to arrangement, and the variations in the
principles of composition form one of our guides in determining the
development of the style. In the amphorae and hydriae of the transition
from the severe to the strong period the number of figures employed in
one scene was diminished, while they became larger in their proportions
and were treated with more care; the usual number on the Nolan amphora
is one or two each side. On the smaller vases, such as the oinochoë,
the number of the figures never exceeds three. Sometimes the hydriae
have an elongated composition on the shoulder, containing a frieze of
several figures[2017]; but usually the design runs into both shoulder
and body. Designs in framed panels are rare, except on the earlier
amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters. The latter are
unique in preserving the older methods of decoration right through the
R.F. period down to the fourth-century specimens from Southern Italy.
The influence of Polygnotos and his contemporaries brought about, as we
have seen, a great change in the arrangement of the compositions, by
the introduction of landscape and perspective, and the depicting of
figures at different levels. This new development was subsequently
exemplified in the large vases of Kertch and Apulia, but in the late
fine period at Athens small vases with single friezes or simple
subjects were the rule. In the pyxides and other vases with frieze
subjects the figures are often crowded together and of dwarfish
proportions (Plate XLII. fig. 3). A return to the old system of several
friezes is seen where the figures are arranged in two or more rows
divided by bands of ornaments, as in the Meidias hydria, or the early
Apulian and some of the Lucanian vases.[2018]
The earlier vases of Southern Italy, especially those of Lucania,
preserve in some measure the spirit of the best R.F. vases, in the
arrangement of the figures, and at all times the composition is one of
the best features of these vases; but in the later examples the purely
decorative element obtrudes itself; single figures of little more than
ornamental character abound, and the old preference for mere ornament
asserts itself, the patterns encroaching all over the scenes.
§ 3. ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS
Although by far subordinate to the subjects in point of artistic or
archaeological interest, the ornamental patterns which are employed on
the vases are by no means without their value in both respects.[2019]
They are, indeed, intimately interwoven with the subjects themselves,
which they frame in, relieve, or embellish. Numerous vases are
decorated with ornaments only, even in the advanced stages of the art;
and this is, of course, an extremely common occurrence in the earlier
fabrics, such as the Geometrical and Rhodian. Others, again, are only
ornamented in the simplest fashion, with plain bands of red left to
show through the black varnish round the body or foot. That the artist
took a pride even in this form of ornamentation is shown by the fact
that some potters, such as Nikosthenes and the “minor artists,” have
left their names on vases only decorated with simple patterns.
From the very beginning of Greek vase-painting there may be observed an
endeavour to dispose the ornamental patterns in accordance with some
system; and even though in some cases, as in the Cypriote Geometrical
vases, there is an offence against the canons of art, yet at all
periods the prevailing effect is one of symmetry and taste. It may be
thought that in some respects there is a poverty in the variety of
ornaments employed—as compared, for instance, with mediaeval art; but
it should be remembered that—as their architecture shows—the Greek
principle was to achieve the highest results within a limited sphere.
Their system was conventional, but its conventions are forgotten in the
artistic effect that it produces.
It is on the earliest vases that the greatest variety and richness of
ornament occurs; as the art is developed the ornamentation becomes more
and more subsidiary, until on the vases of the finest R.F. period it
has almost disappeared. But in the later phases it again comes to the
fore, tending more and more to obscure and finally to supersede the
subjects. To set forth as briefly as possible the growth and
development of Greek ornament, both as a whole and in the case of
individual motives, will be the object of the succeeding summary. It
will be found advisable to treat the subject in a twofold
aspect,—firstly, dealing with individual forms and their development;
and, secondly, in their relation to the decoration of the vases and
their subjects, as exemplified in the different periods and fabrics.
Various theories have been propounded as to the origin of the ornaments
found on Greek vases. Some have seen in the patterns architectural
adaptations, suggested by the ornamentation of the different members of
a temple, such as the maeander, egg-and-tongue pattern, or the
astragalus, just as the disposition of the subject is often a
reminiscence of the frieze or metopes. But this is no real explanation.
In the first place, the patterns are found on vases at a period when
they were hardly as yet used in architecture; and, secondly, their use
on vases and in architecture must undoubtedly be traced to a common
source. Others, again, have regarded them as conventional symbols, the
kymation or wave-pattern representing water, a flower or rosette the
ground on which the figures stand, and so on. Or, again, it has been
thought that they were originally derived from textile patterns, being
produced mechanically by the ways in which the threads ran in the loom,
whence they were applied with deliberate artistic intention to the
surface of a vase.
It is, in fact, impossible to put forward any one theory which will
account for the whole system of decorative ornament. As has been
pointed out in our introductory chapter, many of these patterns are not
only spontaneous, but universal in their origin among primitive
peoples; every nation has begun with its circles, triangles, spirals,
or chevrons. We are also, in regard to the Greeks, met with the
remarkable fact that in its earliest form their painted pottery
presents a very elaborate and highly developed system of
ornamentation—purely geometrical, it is true, yet none the less of an
advanced character. It is a composite system, formed partly from
Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean local elements, and partly from the
decorative ideas introduced by the Dorians from Central Europe;
subsequently the range of Greek vase-ornament was yet further enlarged
by the introduction of vegetable patterns, the palmette, the
lotos-flower, and the rosette, which are due to the growth of Oriental
influences, both from Egypt and from Assyria.
* * * * *
[Illustration: FIG. 139. MAEANDER OR EMBATTLED PATTERN.]
[Illustration: FIG. 140. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (ATTIC).]
In order to deal with the various ornaments and patterns in detail, it
may be found convenient to divide them under three heads—rectilinear,
curvilinear, and vegetable or floral. Of the first class the most
consistently popular is the typically Greek pattern known as the
_maeander_, key, or fret pattern. It first appears with the Geometrical
style, in which it plays an important part, often covering a large
proportion of the surface of a vase, arranged in broad friezes. Three
varieties are found—a simple battlement pattern (Fig. 139), and the
slightly more elaborate forms, Fig. 140, and the pattern given in Vol.
I. p. 283, Fig. 83. In the Boeotian Geometrical, Phaleron, and
Proto-Corinthian fabrics it is seldom found, or only in a debased form,
as [maeander] but one or two forms occur in the “Rhodian” and “Samian”
fabrics of Ionia; one of these is given in Fig. 141, and another
consists of squares of the same alternating with crosses or stars in
panels. We meet with a most interesting development of the latter
variety in the vases of the so-called Pontic class and on the
Clazomenae sarcophagi, where an elaborate maeander pattern, usually in
two rows, is interspersed with stars or rosettes (Fig. 142). It thus
becomes almost a distinguishing characteristic of the later Ionian
fabrics.
[Illustration: FIG. 141. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (IONIC).]
[Illustration: FIG. 142. MAEANDER AND STAR PATTERN (LATER IONIC).]
In the Attic B.F. vases there is a return to simplicity. Here we find
it for the most part in the form Fig. 140 above, and its usual position
is below the designs on the red-bodied amphorae; but it is sometimes
found on other vases, as above the panels on the bodies of hydriae or
oinochoae. In the R.F. period its development is most important for
determining the succession of the kylikes, on which it almost becomes a
date-mark, so regular is its evolution. This has, however, been already
dealt with in the chapter on the history of the style (Vol. I. p. 416).
After the severe period it is of frequent appearance on all forms of
vases, the kylix, amphora, krater, and pelike in particular; the usual
arrangement is a group of three to five maeanders, either of the simple
Fig. 140 type, or of a more complicated form (Fig. 143), divided by
rectangular panels or squares composed of chequers, or of crosses
(diagonal and vertical) with dots or strokes between the arms.[2020] A
curious variety of the maeander is used by Duris; it consists of a
double intersecting maeander interspersed with squares[2021] (Fig. 144).
[Illustration: FIG. 143. MAEANDER (ATTIC, 5TH CENTURY).]
The invariable place for this ornament is below the design on the large
vases, and it is usually continued the whole way round (except on the
earlier Nolan amphorae); it is also found on the R.F. and white lekythi
along the top of the design. It is always painted in black on the clay
ground.[2022]
[Illustration: FIG. 144. MAEANDER (ATTIC, ABOUT 480 B.C.).]
A similar form of maeander prevails on the vases of Southern Italy
(except in Campania); it is found on the krater, amphora, lebes,
kotyle, etc., and is almost invariable. But there is one unique variety
which is occasionally found on the great Apulian kraters, as on F 278
in the British Museum; the type is that of the pattern in Fig. 144, but
the maeander is represented _in perspective_, being painted in white on
the black, the shaded edges left in the colour of the clay.
Of patterns akin to the maeander, the so-called _swastika_ or
hook-armed cross, 16[21]swastika occurs in panels on the Geometrical
vases, but subsequently it is only found as a ground-ornament in the
field, as frequently at Naukratis, in Rhodes, and elsewhere. It is,
strictly speaking, to be regarded as a fragmentary piece of maeander,
without any of the symbolical meaning which it bears in the art of
northern nations, with whom it was the emblem of the Scandinavian god
Thor. Another pattern, 16[63]maeander or 16[90]maeander which may be
called a variety of the maeander, is frequently found as a continuous
border on early vases, such as the Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian wares,
and occasionally in the B.F. period.
Next there is the _chevron_, zigzag, or herring-bone pattern,
consisting of systems of V-shaped patterns, arranged in two ways,
either 20[15]chevron or 16[64]zigzag these patterns are practically
only found on the earlier fabrics of Greece and Cyprus, or on the
native wares of Apulia. On the incised vases of the early Bronze Age
found at Hissarlik and in Cyprus this is the prevailing motive, the
lines of zigzag being either single, or arranged in groups of four or
five parallel:
[Illustration]
On the Geometrical vases such patterns are of very frequent occurrence,
and panels or bands of chevrons arranged vertically, 20[15]chevron or
20[22]zigzag occur in many instances (Fig. 83). These groups of
chevrons or zigzags are also a distinguishing mark of the Boeotian
Geometrical fabrics (cf. Fig. 85); they occur to a lesser extent on the
Melian, Proto-Corinthian, and Early Corinthian vases, and even in the
Chalcidian fabrics. They are either employed as ground-ornaments to
fill in spaces, or as panels forming part of the subsidiary decoration.
A variation, or rather development, of the chevron, sometimes employed
as a ground-ornament on early Ionic vases, is composed of a cross,
22[21]cross with sets of chevrons between the arms.
[Illustration: FIG. 145. NET-PATTERN.]
Diagonally or directly _intersecting lines_ form another universal
element of early decoration, varying from a simple arrangement of cross
lines 22[54]mesh to an elaborate diaper-pattern, and in such forms
found even in later times. Beginning with the simple intersecting
lines, or bands filled in with hatching, of the primitive incised
vases, further developed in the white slip ware of Cyprus (Vol. I. p.
243), we next come to their use on the vases of the Geometrical period,
both in Greece and in Cyprus. The variety of these patterns is so great
that they can hardly be described in any detail; the usual method of
treatment is in a band or panel of lozenges, squares, or triangles,
filled in with a reticular pattern formed by the short intersecting
lines. Sometimes dots are inserted in the spaces to enrich the general
effect. Some very good examples of these patterns are to be seen in the
Geometrical vases of Apulia (p. 327). In the B.F. period plain bands or
panels of intersecting lines are not infrequent; sometimes small
amphorae or lekythi are decorated entirely in this fashion.[2023] A
variation of the motive is the border of network which often surrounds
the panels on hydriae or oinochoae, in which the points of intersection
are ornamented with studs, resembling the knots of a net (Fig. 145). It
is also frequently found on the later Corinthian vases.
_Chequer-patterns_ are often used with great effect, at all periods
from the Geometrical vases down to the fourth century, their usual
position being on the neck of a vase (Fig. 146).[2024]
[Illustration: FIG. 146. CHEQUER-PATTERN.]
[Illustration: FIG. 147. PROTOTYPE OF GEOMETRICAL TANGENT-CIRCLES.]
The _circle_ as an ornament occurs comparatively rarely, but there are
two exceptions. In the Geometrical vases we find a use both of
concentric circles and of rows of single circles joined by straight
lines forming tangents, a motive which is obviously derived from the
Mycenaean spirals (Fig. 147). Secondly, in the Graeco-Phoenician
pottery of Cyprus, especially in its later phases and in the smaller
vases, such as the jugs and lekythi, the decoration is practically
confined to systems of concentric circles, of a character quite
peculiar to this fabric.[2025] The chief feature of these systems is
that the ordinary principles of vase-decoration are entirely ignored,
and the circles, arranged in series of five or six, forming a band
about three-quarters of an inch in width, are placed not only at right
angles to the axis of the vase, but parallel to it. The illustrations
in Plate XIII. and Fig. 75 (Vol. I. p. 251) will give a better idea of
the arrangement than any description; it is clear that the circles were
easily produced by applying a fine brush to the vase while turning on
the wheel, first in its natural position and then on its side.
Artistically, of course, the principle is a wrong one, and this is most
glaringly conspicuous in the barrel-shaped lekythi, in which the axis
of the vase is regarded as horizontal rather than vertical. Groups of
small concentric circles are also arranged vertically or otherwise on
the bodies and necks of vases.
[Illustration: FIG. 148. SPIRALS UNDER HANDLES (EXEKIAS).]
[Illustration: FIG. 149. WAVE-PATTERN (SOUTH ITALY).]
The _spiral_, which forms such a conspicuous element in Mycenaean
decorative art, appears again prominently in a class which, as we have
seen (Vol. I. p. 302), owes much to that source—the Melian amphorae.
Systems of spirals are arranged to fill the spaces at the sides of the
design,[2026] especially in combination with floral ornaments and
reticulated lozenges; and the same feature may also be observed in the
Proto-Attic vases. It occurs similarly, combined with a flower, on the
Samian or Fikellura vases (Vol. I. p. 337). In later times the spiral
passes from the sphere of inorganic to that of organic ornament, being
combined in various ways with vegetable patterns, and merging in the
tendril or volute. But it occasionally reverts to its old form, notably
in the red-bodied amphorae of Exekias,[2027] who, in place of the usual
palmette-and-lotos ornament under the handles, contrives an elaborate
system of large spirals to fill the space between the designs (Fig.
148). A variation of this is the figure-of-eight ornament,
15[34]figure-eight sometimes continuous, 15[61]continuous figure-eight
which is found on vases of the Proto-Attic class, such as the Burgon
lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87).
[Illustration: FIG. 150. SCALE-PATTERN (DAPHNAE).]
The _wave-pattern_ or kymation moulding, shown in Fig. 149, is one
which constantly occurs in Greek architectural decoration, but on the
vases at any rate seems to be found only at a late period. On the
Campanian vases it is the regular border below the design; it is also
found on those of Lucania and Apulia. The _crescent_ is only found on
early Ionic vases, including those which have been attributed to a
Samian origin (Vol. I. p. 336 ff.), and some of the Daphnae and
Naukratis fragments, which probably borrowed it from Samos; it is
arranged in bands alternating in colour, black or purple and white.
Another typically Ionic ornament is the _scale-pattern_, which occurs
on many of the so-called Rhodian vases, and also on those from Daphnae
(Fig. 150). In the former it is produced by means of incising on the
black varnish, the alternate scales being often coloured purple; but in
the latter it is painted in outline. Curiously enough, it also occurs
in the incised form on an early group of Corinthian vases (Plate XIX.
fig. 3). Like other patterns, it can be traced to a Mycenaean origin,
being very common in that style. Subsequently it occurs but rarely, but
is sometimes employed on the neck or shoulder of a vase.[2028] It
differs from most other patterns in that it does not lend itself to the
panel or frieze, but covers a surface of indefinite extent. It is also
known as the “imbricated” pattern, from its likeness to overlapping
tiles (_imbrices_).
[Illustration: FIG. 151. GUILLOCHE OR PLAIT-BAND (IONIC), FROM THE
EUPHORBOS PINAX.]
[Illustration: FIG. 152. TONGUE-PATTERN (B.F. PERIOD).]
[Illustration: FIG. 153. EGG-PATTERN (R.F. PERIOD).]
The _guilloche_ or plait-band (Fig. 151) is characteristic of early
fabrics, such as those of Naukratis and Samos, the Clazomenae
sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.), and the small Proto-Corinthian lekythi, but
is not often found in later times.[2029] It is typically Ionic, and
seems to be derived from Mycenae (cf. A 209 in B.M.). Lastly, there is
the so-called _tongue-pattern_, which is exclusively used as an upper
border to designs. On its first appearance in the Geometrical vases it
is rectilinear in form, 15[63]tongue-pattern and formed of alternating
bars; but from the beginning of the sixth century onwards it assumes a
curvilinear form, all the tongues pointing downwards, broader, and
close together, as in Fig. 152. In the Daphnae vases and the later
Corinthian wares it is treated in polychrome fashion, black, purple,
and white alternately. On the lip and shoulders of Caeretan hydriae it
appears in an exaggerated form, painted red, with black edges, as on
Plate XXVI. In the Attic B.F. vases it forms the invariable upper
border of the designs, below the necks of the amphorae and hydriae, and
is also used as a border to the interior designs of the kylikes; here,
too, purple is often applied to the alternate tongues. Occasionally the
rectilinear form reappears. In the R.F. period it changes its character
again, and the tongues become short and semi-oval in form, with black
centre and narrow outlined edge; in this form it is usually described
as an _egg-pattern_ (Fig. 153). It is found in the smaller hydriae, and
in many other shapes above or below the designs; also round the lip of
the vase. The same form and arrangement obtain in the South Italian
vases, especially in Apulia and Lucania, except that a dot is often
placed between each pair of tongues. In some cases it approximates
closely to the egg-and-dart, as on F 179 in the British Museum. Both
tongue and egg-patterns are often ranged round the base of the handles.
The egg-and-tongue, with its variants, is a typically Ionic
architectural pattern; hence its non-appearance in Attic vases before
the fifth century. In later Roman pottery (Chap. XXIII.) it becomes
very common. The variety known as the Lesbian kymation is found in a
few late instances.[2030]
* * * * *
Having surveyed the various types of inorganic patterns, whether
rectilinear or curvilinear, we now come to the consideration of those
which are not only derived from vegetable ornament, but still preserve,
in greater or less degree, a naturalistic character. To begin with the
simple leaf-ornament, which is of too conventional a type to associate
with any particular plant, this occurs most frequently in the form of
of a _calyx_, placed round the lower part of the body, immediately
above the foot, so that the leaves radiate from the foot, pointing
upwards.[2031] This ornament begins at a very early period, and is
found in most fabrics, continuing down to the latest stages. It is,
however, specially associated with the B.F. period, in which it is
invariable on the large vases with a more or less marked stem, the
amphorae, hydriae, and kraters. On the smaller ones, however, it does
not occur. In the “affected” B.F. amphorae (Vol. I. p. 388) the calyx
is double, with two tiers of rays.[2032]
An arrangement of four leaves saltire-wise in a panel sometimes occurs
on the Geometrical vases, a remarkable instance of vegetable ornament
in this style (cf. Vol. I. p. 282); an analogous pattern is also found
on many early Corinthian aryballi (Vol. I. p. 314; B.M. A 1086 ff.),
the leaves not being united at the base, and usually interspersed with
reticulated or other motives.
[Illustration: FIG. 154. LEAF- OR CHAIN-PATTERN.]
Another form of leaf-pattern is of rare occurrence, and is found now
and then on Attic vases; in this small leaves are joined together in a
sort of ribbon or chain-pattern[2033] (Fig. 154). The peculiarity of
this ornament is that even in the B.F. period it is red-figured in
technique, being left in the colour of the clay with a background of
black.
[Illustration: FIG. 155. IVY-WREATH (B.F. PERIOD).]
The _ivy-leaf_ was not adopted as a decorative pattern before the
middle of the sixth century; it seems to be Ionic in origin.[2034]
Single large leaves occur on the necks of B.F. lekythi, on late Ionic
B.F. vases, and to a considerable extent on the imitations made in
Etruria.[2035] These are usually treated in a very naturalistic manner.
Double rows of smaller leaves, forming a straight wreath, constantly
occur as borders to the panels on B.F. hydriae, kraters, and oinochoae
(Fig. 155); and similar ivy-wreaths are found along the flat edges of
the flange-shaped handles on the larger panel-amphorae, as well as on
the volute-handles of kraters.[2036] These patterns preserve their
vogue in the R.F. amphorae of the earlier period, and in the kraters of
Lucania, and it should be noted that they are always painted in the
B.F. method (black leaves on red ground) except in the vases of Apulia
and Paestum. But as a rule on the South Italian vases the ivy-leaf is
treated in a naturalistic manner, with tendrils and berries, occupying
a large panel on the necks of the column-handled kraters, or forming a
border on the lip of the vase (Fig. 156).[2037] The vine as an ornament
is very rare, but there is a good instance on a late _phiale_ in the
British Museum (F 503), where it is treated in a very naturalistic
manner, forming the sole decoration of the interior; it is also of
frequent occurrence on the vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes (Vol. I.
p. 391). The pomegranate occurs only on the Cyrenaic cups (Fig. 93),
where it forms a continuous frieze of buds round the exterior, united
by interlacing lines. The acanthus is only introduced quite late
(except where it appears as an ornament on the top of a _stele_), and
is found on the necks of kraters and other large Apulian vases, forming
a rich and luxuriant mass of foliage, often with a flower in the
centre, on which rests a female head. Myrtle or olive-wreaths occur at
all times, especially on the flat rim of the mouth of a vase; the
myrtle seems to be a typically Ionic motive, and is found at Daphnae,
Samos, Rhodes, and on the Caeretan hydriae.[2038] In the Rhodian vases
it is either roughly painted in black on red, or else in red and white
on a black ground. It was also adopted at Athens—_e.g._ by Nikosthenes.
Laurel-wreaths form the regular decoration of the neck in the
bell-shaped kraters and wide-bellied amphorae of the late R.F. period
and the decadence (Fig. 157). These wreath-patterns on the late vases,
it should be noted, are either treated in R.F. technique or painted in
opaque white on the black varnish. They are often drawn with great care
and accuracy.
[Illustration: FIG. 156. IVY-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).]
[Illustration: FIG. 157. LAUREL-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).]
The history of the development of the _palmette_ (or honeysuckle), the
_lotos-flower and bud_, and of continuous foliated patterns in general,
has been skilfully treated by Riegl.[2039] To write a complete account
of this class of ornamentation would be impossible within the limits of
the present work; only a few main features can be noted, to show the
form the patterns assume at different periods, so universal is their
appearance on vases of all shapes and dates. The lotos-flower or bud
is, of course, a motive of purely Oriental origin, which found its way
into Greece probably through the medium of Phoenicia; the palmette, on
the other hand, is purely Greek, although it may possibly be derived
from a Mycenaean prototype, the _Vallisneria spiralis plant_, which is
so frequently found on Mycenaean vases (Fig. 158).[2040] They are found
not only as single motives, isolated or repeated, but also combined
together, or forming part of elaborate systems of floral ornament, with
stems and tendrils often conventionalised, which link them together,
either in continuous bands or in groups occupying a limited space, on
the neck or under the handle.
[Illustration: FIG. 158. VALLISNERIA SPIRALIS (MYCENAEAN).]
[Illustration: FIG. 159. LOTOS-FLOWER ON CYPRIOTE VASE.]