In the Graeco-Phoenician pottery of Cyprus the lotos-flower often

appears in a purely Egyptian form (Fig. 159, from C 165 in B.M.), but

it is more often combined with and almost merged in some elaborate

system of patterns too complicated to describe or define by any

name.[2041] But in Greek vase-paintings, in which it first makes its

appearance in the seventh century, it is always more or less

conventional. It is thus found on the Melian amphorae in combination

with systems of spirals[2042]; though on the shoulder of the example

given by Riegl there occurs a band of lotos-flowers alternately upright

and inverted, linked together by scrolls, where the form is almost that

of Egyptian art, except that the cup of the flower is rounder, the

petals shorter and blunter. It is obviously as yet in the transitional

stage. Next we meet with it in the vases of Ionia, especially in those

of the so-called Rhodian and earlier Naukratite styles, which have

friezes of lotos-flowers alternating with closed buds or with

palmettes, connected by tendrils (Fig. 160). A similar pattern, on an

exceptionally large scale and treated in polychrome (white and purple),

surrounds the lower portion of the body on several of the later

Caeretan hydriae (cf. Plate XXVI.). But in most of the fabrics of the

sixth century the bud seems to have been preferred to the open flower

of the ornament.[2043] Rows of lotos-buds linked by tendrils, upright

or inverted, are found on the Cyrenaic cups, on the vases of the

Chalcidian type, and on the later Ionic fabrics, such as the Rhodian

kylikes in the British Museum (B 379–81). Sometimes, too, a single bud

appears in the design itself, overhanging the scene or rising from the

ground. On the so-called Pontic vases the buds are isolated, and placed

alternately upright and pendent. In the Corinthian and early Attic

fabrics the lotos-flower is found, combined in various ways with

palmettes and tendrils, as a neck-ornament, or above a panel, or under

the handles, and also as a centre in heraldic compositions (Fig. 161);

but subsequently the buds resume their sway, and are found bordering

the panels of black-bodied amphorae (as in Fig. 162), forming a lower

border to the designs on the red-bodied, and also on the shoulder of

lekythi. These motives linger on in the earlier R.F. amphorae and

hydriae, and in the column-handled kraters; rows of buds of a

degenerate elongated form, on the lip, neck, or shoulder, are continued

well into the period of the South Italian fabrics.

[Illustration: FIG. 160. LOTOS-FLOWERS AND BUDS (RHODIAN).]

[Illustration: FIG. 161. PALMETTE- AND LOTOS-PATTERN]

(EARLY B.F.).

[Illustration: FIG. 162. LOTOS-BUDS (ATTIC B.F.).]

[Illustration: FIG. 163. CHAIN OF PALMETTES AND LOTOS (EARLY B.F.).]]

The palmette or honeysuckle ornament is not usually found as an

independent ornament before the middle of the sixth century.[2044] Its

development in this direction really belongs to the R.F. period. But in

combination it is found, as we have seen, in Corinthian and Attic B.F.

vases, and also in Chalcidian. Before the Athenian unification of

styles it usually appears linked with lotos-flowers in a sort of double

chain, each pattern being alternately upright and reversed, as in Fig.

163; in this form it is usually found on the neck, or as an upper

border to the design. This type of ornament is favoured in the

Proto-Attic, Corinthian, and Corintho-Attic vases, and the earlier

panel-amphorae; the palmette is here regarded as the foliage of the

lotos-flower, which at first always predominates. Subsequently the

palmette gains the upper hand, as on the necks of the red amphorae (see

Fig. 165), and the lotos-flower is gradually ousted altogether. It,

however, returns occasionally on R.F. hydriae and amphorae.[2045]

Another variety, which may be described as a metope-like treatment,

compared with the frieze-like treatment above, consists of an

interlacing arrangement filling the space of a square, with two

palmettes and two lotos-flowers respectively opposed, or a symmetrical

arrangement of palmettes and lotos-flowers, connected by tendrils, as

in Fig. 164. This is found under the handle, or on the neck, or in the

middle of a frieze of the Corinthian “heraldic” type.[2046] On the

red-bodied B.F. amphorae the universal neck-ornament is a band of large

palmettes vertically opposed, linked by a continuous chain passing

between them and separated by elongated lotos-flowers (Fig. 165); this

is also found on the Panathenaic vases and the earlier R.F. amphorae.

Towards the end of the sixth century, however, there is a tendency to

drop these composite ornaments, and attention is devoted to the

palmette alone. The method of its application to the kylikes as a

handle-ornament, linked thereto by a scroll, has already been treated

in detail (Vol. I. p. 413); it first appears on the Cyrenaic cups, and

is usually employed by the “minor artists” of the B.F. period. The

chief feature of the new advance is that the palmette is no longer a

stiff upright design with straight unenclosed petals, the form to which

it adheres down to the end of the sixth century; but now assumes a more

flexible and graceful form, being encircled and linked to its fellows

by means of slender scrolls or tendrils, which thus form a series of

elliptical or oval forms capable of great variety of arrangement and

position (Fig. 166). This framed palmette is first found in the

Fikellura or Samian ware. It occurs in the form of a frieze, with

linking scrolls, on the later B.F. hydriae.[2047] The number of leaves

or petals of which the palmette is composed is usually limited to

seven. Another important and very effective improvement is achieved by

placing opposed pairs of palmettes no longer vertically, but obliquely,

forming an upper or lower border to the design (Fig. 167). These are

frequently found on the krater and hydria, and appear constantly on the

vases of Apulia and Lucania, especially on the lip. Great attention is

paid to the effective grouping of the framed palmettes in the spaces

under the handles, the object aimed at being more and more naturalism

rather than symmetry.[2048]

[Illustration: FIG. 164. PALMETTES AND LOTOS UNDER HANDLES (ATTIC

B.F.).]

[Illustration: FIG. 165. PALMETTE PATTERN ON NECK OF RED-BODIED

AMPHORAE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 166. ENCLOSED PALMETTES (R.F. PERIOD).]

[Illustration: FIG. 167. OBLIQUE PALMETTES (LATE R.F.).]

In the later R.F. period, on the other hand, there is a certain

reaction in the direction of conventional ornament, combined with

exaggeration and lack of refinement. The palmette under the handle

returns to the old erect unframed type, and increases enormously in

size, so that one or at most two vertically opposed suffice to fill the

space. In this form it appears on the bell-shaped kraters and hydriae

of Southern Italy, and especially those of Campania, surrounded by

elaborate scrolls and tendrils. In the latter fabric the palmette,

which has become almost gross and ugly, is usually flanked by two large

convolvulus or other flowers rising from the ground, and drawn in

profile (Fig. 168). In the Apulian and Lucanian vases there is no rule

as to the number of the palmettes, and sometimes the effect is

exceedingly rich and elaborate. Speaking generally, there is no

ornament which prevails so universally and in such varied forms and

systems on Greek vases, but to give an exhaustive account of all its

uses would be far beyond the limits of this work.

[Illustration: FIG. 168. PALMETTE UNDER HANDLES (SOUTH ITALIAN VASE).]

There remains only to be discussed the _rosette_, which, in spite of

its often purely formal character, may be reckoned as in its origin a

floral motive, even if it is not obvious that it is derived from any

particular plant. It may be said to have two distinct forms, the star

and the disc,[2049] the former consisting of an indefinite number of

radiating arms or leaves, the latter of a simple disc surrounded by a

row of dots. In both forms it is found at all periods, not so much as a

formal pattern in bands or groups, but as a decorative adjunct to

surfaces within or without the field of the design, especially as a

ground ornament on Ionic, Corinthian, and other early fabrics, or as an

embellishment of the draperies worn by the figures on the vases.

[Illustration: FIG. 169. ROSETTE (RHODIAN).]

[Illustration: FIG. 170. ROSETTE (APULIAN).]

In the Mycenaean period it is found usually in the dotted disc form, as

a ground ornament, but the star form is by no means rare.[2050] In

later Cypriote pottery the star-shaped rosette sometimes occurs in a

band of ornament, left in the colour of the clay on a black

background[2051]; but the other type is more common in conjunction with

the concentric circles. In Hellenic pottery the rosette at first

appears exclusively as a ground-ornament, and this function it fulfils

both in Corinthian and early Ionic pottery to a large extent, as well

as in some of the smaller groups. In the Rhodian and Naucratite wares

it assumes very varied forms (_e.g._ Fig. 169, from the Euphorbos

pinax), intermingled with hook-armed crosses and bits of maeander; in

the early Corinthian wares it takes the shape of an approximately

circular flower of six petals, which covers every available vacant

space over the area of the design[2052]; these are often rendered with

great carelessness, the artist’s only object being apparently to insert

a patch of colour where it would fill in a space. Subsequently the

rosettes become both more symmetrical and at the same time fewer in

number, and by the beginning of the Attic B.F. style have altogether

disappeared. Occasionally they are employed for a band of ornament on

the lip, neck, or handles of a B.F. vase.[2053] Lost sight of for a

period of some two hundred years, the rosette springs again to life in

the vases of Apulia, resuming its old functions as a ground-ornament,

and also being employed in bands on the neck or elsewhere. It usually

appears in the form of a star-shaped flower of six or eight petals, in

red edged with white on the black ground (Fig. 170).

* * * * *

It may also be found convenient to treat the ornamentation of Greek

vases from a different point of view, in order to give an outline of

the decorative system adopted in each of the principal styles, and as

considered appropriate to the various forms.

In the vases of the prehistoric period, from the primitive incised

wares down to the end of the Mycenaean style, there is an entire

absence of anything like rule or formalism. The principle observed in

the very early classes, such as the Cypriote relief and white slip

wares (Vol. I. p. 241 ff.), is the imitation of other substances, of

metal or leather. The object of the artist was to cover the surface of

the vase as far as possible with decorative designs; and if, as was

generally the case, his artistic capacity restricted him to linear or

simple vegetable patterns, the utmost he could achieve was to adapt

these to the whole of the space at his disposal—_i.e._ the whole body

of the vase. Mycenaean vases, however, are usually only decorated on

the upper part, as far as the middle of the body, which was encircled

with one or more plain bands of black. Thus there remained a sort of

panel between the handles, of varying extent.

In the Geometrical period, however, a great change takes place, which

from the artistic point of view is a reaction in the direction of

formalism, but nevertheless forms the basis of the decorative systems

of later times. Here we see for the first time a regular partition of

the surface of the vase by means of bands and panels of ornaments,

without indeed any restriction of particular patterns to any part of

the vase, but yet a deliberate endeavour to establish a decorative

system.[2054] With the increase of animal and human subjects the

ornament becomes more subsidiary, merely a framework to the design, but

even in the succeeding Proto-Attic and Melian classes it plays a very

important part. In the Melian vases the system is Geometrical, but the

ornamentation is curvilinear and Mycenaean. The ground-ornaments,

however, are derived from the former source as well (hook-cross and

zigzags in conjunction with rosettes). In both these classes the space

under the handles is selected for the display of a grouping of

ornamental motives, such as spirals or palmettes, or the two combined

in a series of heart-shaped motives or panel-compositions; similar

patterns cover the neck and the lower part of the body. The

ornamentation of Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian vases is an echo of the

Geometrical system. The ground-ornaments are the hook-cross, rosettes

of dots, and bits of maeander; the bands of pattern consist of zigzags,

chequers, double rows of dots, and toothed patterns. The early Ionic

vase-painters treat the subsidiary ornamentation as they do their

principal subjects, adopting the frieze principle in most cases; the

only exception is in the Rhodian pinakes, where it is usually confined

to simple patterns round the rim, with a sort of fan-pattern in the

exergue below the central design.[2055] The ground-ornaments are really

the chief feature of Rhodian ornamentation, as in Corinthian vases. The

decoration of the Fikellura or Samian ware is very characteristic, and

demands separate mention. The patterns are highly developed, and

suggest a late date—as, for instance, the scroll, the ivy-leaf, and the

framed palmette. In later Ionic vases the ornamentation is not very

prominent, except in the Caeretan hydriae, in which the broad bands of

palmette-and-lotos ornament, and the exaggerated tongue-pattern on the

lip and shoulder, occupy a proportion of the surface unusual at this

period. Besides the typical ground-ornaments (rosette and hook-crosses)

of the earlier vases, the favourite Ionian patterns are the maeander,

the guilloche, and wreaths of ivy and myrtle. At Corinth, as we have

seen, for a long time ornament is confined to the ground-filling

rosettes, with some simple motives, such as zigzag lines or

tongue-pattern, on the mouth and shoulder, or bordering the design;

even in the later examples, when the rosettes have disappeared, it is

practically confined to the interlacing palmette-and-lotos pattern on

the neck, above the design, or inserted in the subordinate friezes of

animals.[2056] The same principle applies in the Corintho-Attic and

Chalcidian fabrics.[2057]

In Athenian B.F. vases we at last find a stereotyped system of ornament

for each kind of vase, from which there is little or no variation.

Generally the system is as follows:—On the panel-amphorae, an

interlaced palmette-and-lotos pattern or a row of inverted lotos-buds

above the panel, and a calyx of leaves round the foot, those with

flanged handles having also ornaments thereon, ivy-leaves or rosettes.

On the red-bodied, a chain of double palmettes round the neck,

tongue-pattern on the shoulder, a grouping of palmettes, tendrils, and

lotos-flowers under the handle, and a row of three or four narrow bands

of ornament below the design (lotos-buds upright or inverted, maeander,

zigzags), terminating with the calyx round the foot. The Panathenaic

amphorae have the same neck-ornament as the red-bodied, with tongues

above the panel, and thick rays round the foot; the fourth-century

examples have palmettes on the neck, with elongated tongue-pattern

immediately below. On the hydriae, tongue-pattern above the

shoulder-design, borders to the panels (maeander above, ivy or network

down the sides, lotos-buds or framed palmettes below), and calyx round

the foot. On the oinochoae, panel-borders like those of the hydriae,

but on the _olpae_ (Vol. I. p. 178) only two or three rows of chequer,

maeander, etc., on the neck above; on the lekythi, lotos-buds,

ivy-leaves, and palmettes on the shoulder, and a double row of dots

above the design. The kylix-ornament is practically limited to the

handle-palmettes of the “minor artist” class, and a circle of

straight-edged rays, alternately black and outlined, round the stem on

the later varieties (together with the large eyes).

In the R.F. period the same system of appropriate patterns for each

form of vase is in the main adhered to, but with greater freedom; there

is also a wide difference between the earlier amphorae and hydriae,

which cling to the old panel-system with its ornamental borders, and

the vases of the fine period, in which there is an absence of all

restraint on the one hand, and a tendency to dispense with ornament

almost entirely on the other (as in the Nolan amphorae). On the kylix,

the ornament is throughout confined to the palmettes under the handles

and the maeander encircling the interior design, which have been dealt

with already (Vol. I. p. 413 ff.). The earlier amphorae and hydriae, as

we have seen, have panels with borders as in the B.F. period, usually

in the older technique; those of the fine style (including the

wide-bellied amphorae) have a short noncontinuous border, such as

egg-pattern or maeander, above and below the figures, with similar

patterns on the lip and round the bases of the handles. The stamnos has

egg-patterns round the lip and handles, tongue-pattern round the

shoulder, and a system of palmettes between the designs. The red

lekythi have egg-pattern or palmettes on the shoulder, and

maeander-pattern (with crosses) above or below the design; the white

have black rays on red ground or black and red palmettes on white on

the shoulder, and maeander above the designs. The bell-krater and

wide-bellied amphora of the late R.F. period, as also those of Southern

Italy, have a band of oblique palmettes or a laurel-wreath round the

top, maeander with crosses below the design, palmettes grouped under

the handles, and egg-pattern round their bases. The column-handled

krater, on the other hand, adheres throughout to the B.F. system of

ornamentation, with ivy-wreaths and elongated lotos-buds on the rim,

similar lotos-buds on the neck, panels bordered with tongue-pattern and

debased ivy-wreaths, and the calyx round the foot. The wide-bellied

lekythi have palmettes or egg-pattern above the design, and maeander

below.

In the vases of Southern Italy there is, as a rule, no system observed

in the ornamentation; in the large vases of Lucania and Apulia it is

used with great profusion and variety, chiefly in bands on the neck. In

the smaller Apulian vases and in those of Campania it is often confined

to a wave-pattern below the designs; the Campanian hydriae usually have

in addition a wreath of myrtle or laurel round the shoulder. Generally

speaking, the large vases, such as the bell-krater, the hydria, and the

wide-bellied amphora, continue the principles adopted in the R.F.

period. The systems of palmette-patterns under the handles have already

been discussed, and for other details the reader is also referred to

what has already been said in discussing the individual patterns.

-----

Footnote 1942:

To give detailed references throughout may be considered superfluous,

the order of subjects followed being that of the preceding chapters,

to which reference may in all cases be made without difficulty by the

reader.

Footnote 1943:

Cf. B.M. B 147; for other representations of Zeus, Figs. 111, 113,

114; Plate LI.

Footnote 1944:

See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 19.

Footnote 1945:

See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._

Footnote 1946:

_Él. Cér._ iii. pl. 32 B.

Footnote 1947:

Cf. the type created by Skopas in the fourth century.

Footnote 1948:

An exception is _Él. Cér._ i. pl. 62, where he is bearded (on a B.F.

vase).

Footnote 1949:

See for these two, Fig. 116.

Footnote 1950:

Exceptions are B.M. D 4; _Él. Cér._ i. pls. 46 A, 47, 63.

Footnote 1951:

Cf. for the two together on a vase, B.M. E 228.

Footnote 1952:

For an attempted distinction of the various Satyr-types, see

Loeschcke in _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 521 ff.

Footnote 1953:

See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296.

Footnote 1954:

Cf. the Greek heroes on B.F. vases (B.M. B 240, B 543).

Footnote 1955:

See B.M. E 477 and Weicker, _Seelenvogel_, _passim_.

Footnote 1956:

See also Roscher, iii. p. 330.

Footnote 1957:

Only on B.M. F 271 and Naples 3237; elsewhere unwinged.

Footnote 1958:

See p. 91.

Footnote 1959:

See _J.H.S._ ix. p. 47 ff.

Footnote 1960:

Note that the vase-painters are careful never to represent him

wearing the skin when contending with the lion.

Footnote 1961:

_E.g._ Reinach, ii. 80.

Footnote 1962:

Munich 125.

Footnote 1963:

See Six, _De Gorgone_.

Footnote 1964:

See above, p. 146.

Footnote 1965:

B.M. B 4.

Footnote 1966:

See Weicker’s _Seelenvogel_, _passim_.

Footnote 1967:

See the article _Gryps_ in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, vol. i.

Footnote 1968:

_E.g._ B.M. E 198.

Footnote 1969:

See Körte in _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 61 ff.; also Figs. 105, 134.

Footnote 1970:

Vol. I. p. 472.

Footnote 1971:

_E.g._ B.M. E 270; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65–6.

Footnote 1972:

_Él. Cér._ ii. 16 and iv. 90–93; B.M. E 308.

Footnote 1973:

_E.g._ B.M. B 59, B 103_{14}.

Footnote 1974:

See Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, pp. 284 ff., 342.

Footnote 1975:

Vol. I. p. 353.

Footnote 1976:

As on the Exekias amphora, B.M. B 209: see _J.H.S._ iv. p. 82.

Footnote 1977:

_E.g._ B.M. E 263, E 469.

Footnote 1978:

Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 2823–24.

Footnote 1979:

On this subject generally see T. Ely in _Archaeologia_, li. p. 477 ff.

Footnote 1980:

Xen. _Hell._ iv. 4, 10, vii. 5, 20; Paus. iv. 28, 5; Plut. _Apophth.

Lacon._ 234 D; _Vit. Demosth._ 20; Bacchyl. frag. 41 (Bergk).

Footnote 1981:

B.M. B 574: cf. B 608 and Urlichs, _Beiträge_, pl. 14.

Footnote 1982:

Berlin 1698, 1852; Munich 1121; Reinach, i. 453; Inghirami, _Vasi

Fitt._ pl. 109, 2.

Footnote 1983:

B.M. E 575.

Footnote 1984:

Cambridge 70.

Footnote 1985:

_Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp. 191, 198.

Footnote 1986:

Reinach, i. 77; Vienna 332.

Footnote 1987:

Reinach, i. 508, 6; ii. 94, 270.

Footnote 1988:

_Ibid._ i. 126, 181.

Footnote 1989:

See above, p. 90, and Roscher, iii. p. 2389 ff.

Footnote 1990:

Reinach, i. 181; Berlin 1701.

Footnote 1991:

Berlin 3988, 3992; B.M. B 364; Reinach, ii. 63.

Footnote 1992:

Reinach, i. 513; Louvre E 732 = Fig. 111.

Footnote 1993:

Cf. B.M. E 167–68, 295, etc.

Footnote 1994:

Cf. B.M. B 106_{1}, and the Busiris vases (p. 102).

Footnote 1995:

See especially the Meidias vase and the Python krater (B.M. E 224, F

149).

Footnote 1996:

See Plate LI.; also Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 3; $1$2 1883, pl.

3; 1885, pl. 5, fig. 3; _Röm. Mitth._ 1890, pl. 11 (on head-band).

Footnote 1997:

_Auscult. Mirab._ 96.

Footnote 1998:

Kavvadias, _Fouilles de Lycosura_, pl. 4.

Footnote 1999:

_Argonautica_, i. 729 ff.

Footnote 2000:

_Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 248 ff.

Footnote 2001:

See on this subject throughout _Mon. Grecs_, 1895–97, p. 7 ff.

Footnote 2002:

Cf. a funerary plaque in the Louvre, where the male mourners, no

doubt intentionally, have the oval form of eye; also Louvre F 256

(figure of Aeneas).

Footnote 2003:

For other instances M. Girard (_Mon. Grecs_, _loc. cit._) refers to

Louvre E 753, 754; E 643, 808; _Jahrbuch_, 1893, pl. 1; see also B.M.

E 440 (R.F. period).

Footnote 2004:

_Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.

Footnote 2005:

_Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 35, fig. 9: cf. Louvre E 612 _bis_, and _Ant.

Denkm._ ii. 24, 15.

Footnote 2006:

See also _Mon. Grecs_, 1895–97, p. 16.

Footnote 2007:

Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 8.

Footnote 2008:

_E.g._ B.M. E 773, 774, 779, 780.

Footnote 2009:

See on the subject P. Gardner in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 254.

Footnote 2010:

See on this motive and other heraldic groups, _Jahrbuch_, 1904, p. 27

ff.

Footnote 2011:

B 18 in B.M.: cf. also the fragment from Naukratis, B 103_{17}.

Footnote 2012:

This principle in its most developed form may be observed on the

Chalcidian and Tyrrhenian amphorae: see Vol. I. p. 321 ff.

Footnote 2013:

B.M. B 147.

Footnote 2014:

_Ibid._ B 313.

Footnote 2015:

B.M. B 589–91.

Footnote 2016:

_E.g._ B.M. B 264, B 428, etc.

Footnote 2017:

Cf. B.M. E 164 ff.

Footnote 2018:

See Winter, _Jüngere Attische Vasen_, p. 69; _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p.

102; also Plate XLV.

Footnote 2019:

This subject has hitherto received little or no general scientific

treatment from archaeologists. Riegl’s _Stilfragen_ (1893) contains

an interesting study of vegetable ornament on Greek vases; but the

plates of Brunn and Lau’s _Gr. Vasen_, though intended to illustrate

the system of ornamentation, are not very instructive.

Footnote 2020:

For the various types of these patterns see Vol. I. p. 416, Fig. 102.

Footnote 2021:

This is also found on a B.F. vase in the British Museum (B 330): see

Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 220; also B.M. E 84; Thiersch, _Hell.

Vasen_, pl. 5; _Arch. Zeit._ 1873, pl. 9.

Footnote 2022:

The Pamphaios hydria in the British Museum (B 300) has bits of

_red-on-black_ maeander down the sides of the design on the shoulder.

Footnote 2023:

See examples from Cyprus and Rhodes in Cases 24, 25, 28, Second Vase

Room, B.M.

Footnote 2024:

_E.g._ B.M. B 205, 474, 476, 620, D 15, E 151, F 178.

Footnote 2025:

It appears, however, to be of Mycenaean origin: cf. the B.M. vases A

253, 323, 324, and _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 6, fig. 6, from

Ialysos and Cyprus, decorated in this fashion with vertical

concentric circles.

Footnote 2026:

Riegl, p. 155.

Footnote 2027:

_E.g._ B.M. B 209, B 210.

Footnote 2028:

_E.g._ B.M. E 564.

Footnote 2029:

For its use on a B.F. kylix see B.M. B 382 (probably Ionic work).

Footnote 2030:

Munich 810, 849 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_, pls. 35–6: cf. B.M. F 278.

Footnote 2031:

Examples may be seen in Plates XXIII., XXVIII.-XXXIII.

Footnote 2032:

B.M. B 148–49, 151, 153; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 163.

Footnote 2033:

_E.g._ B.M. B 212, B 593, B 677, B 679: see also _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p.

161.

Footnote 2034:

See _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 298.

Footnote 2035:

_E.g._ B.M. B 63 (Plate LVIII.).

Footnote 2036:

_E.g._ B.M. B 364.

Footnote 2037:

As on the Python krater, B.M. F 149.

Footnote 2038:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 44, note 15.

Footnote 2039:

_Stilfragen_, _passim_, especially p. 48 ff. and p. 178.

Footnote 2040:

See Riegl, p. 115 ff., and Houssay in _Rev. Arch._ xxx. (1897), p. 91

ff.

Footnote 2041:

For the Egyptian types of lotos-flower and bud see Riegl, p. 48 ff.

Footnote 2042:

Riegl, p. 155: see also an early Boeotian example in the B.M. (A 564

= Riegl, p. 173).

Footnote 2043:

Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 70, points out that the form of

lotos-flower with two large points is Peloponnesian (Corinthian,

etc.) and Ionic; the form found in Attic, Boeotian, and

Proto-Corinthian fabrics has three principal points.

Footnote 2044:

See generally Riegl, p. 155 ff.

Footnote 2045:

_E.g_. B.M. E 169.

Footnote 2046:

The varieties of this pattern should be carefully distinguished.

Corinthian vases have a composition of lotos-flowers only;

Chalcidian, palmettes only (cf. Vienna 219; B.M. B 34). In the

“Tyrrhenian” amphorae, and subsequently in Attic red-bodied amphorae,

the two principles are seen to be united, and palmettes alternate

with lotos-flowers. See also Fig. 161.

Footnote 2047:

Cf. also an elegant oinochoë with white ground in the British Museum

(B 631). On a similar jug at Munich (334 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_,

pl. 22) the palmettes are enclosed in heart-shaped borders. For other

vases which, like these, have palmettes for their sole decoration,

see British Museum, Second Vase Room, Case 28, and Laborde, _Vases de

Lamberg_, ii. pl. 41.

Footnote 2048:

Cf. Riegl, pp. 201–3, and Vol. I. p. 415.

Footnote 2049:

They are distinguished by German writers as “Blattrosette” and

“Punktrosette.”

Footnote 2050:

Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 4, 25, 28, 37,

38; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pl. 5 (Crete).

Footnote 2051:

_E.g._ C 244 in B.M., and Fig. 76 (Vol. I. p. 254).

Footnote 2052:

See Riegl, _op. cit._ p. 197. He points out that the rosette,

although Assyrian in origin, is not here used in a strictly Assyrian

fashion.

Footnote 2053:

_E.g._ B.M. B 51, B 197 ff.: cf. also the Proto-Attic vase, _Ant.

Denkm._ i. 57.

Footnote 2054:

See what has already been said on this subject in Vol. I. Chapter

VII. p. 282: cf. also Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 165.

Footnote 2055:

Cf. a similar pattern on the Daphnae situlae (B.M. B 105–6).

Footnote 2056:

See generally Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 41 ff., for

Corinthian ornamentation.

Footnote 2057:

See on the ornamentation of the former Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,

p. 69 ff.; on the latter Riegl, p. 187.

CHAPTER XVII

_INSCRIPTIONS ON GREEK VASES_

Importance of inscriptions on vases—Incised inscriptions—Names and

prices incised underneath vases—Owners’ names and

dedications—Painted inscriptions—Early Greek alphabets—Painted

inscriptions on early vases—Corinthian, Ionic, Boeotian, and

Chalcidian inscriptions—Inscriptions on Athenian

vases—Dialect—Artists’ signatures—Inscriptions relating to the

subjects—Exclamations—Καλός-names—The Attic alphabet and

orthography—Chronology of Attic inscriptions—South Italian vases

with inscriptions.

The practice of inscribing works of art with the names of persons and

objects represented was one of some antiquity in Greece. The earliest

instance of which we have historical record is the chest of Kypselos,

which dated from the beginning of the sixth century B.C., and

concerning which Pausanias[2058] tells us that “the majority of the

figures on the chest have inscriptions written in the archaic

characters; and some of them read straight, but other letters have the

appearance called by the Greeks ‘backwards-and-forwards’

(βουστροφηδόν), which is like this: at the end of the verse the second

line turns round again like a runner half through his course. And any

way the inscriptions on the chest are written in a tortuous and hardly

decipherable fashion.” There is, however, no mention of inscribed vases

until a much later date; Athenaeus speaks of a cup with the name of

Zeus Soter upon it, also of γραμματικὰ ἐκπώματα, or cups with letters

on them.[2059]

Inscriptions on Greek vases are found in comparatively early times,

even prior to the date to which the chest of Kypselos is attributed.

This question will receive more attention subsequently; meanwhile, we

may point out some of the ways in which they have proved important in

the study of archaeology. In the first place, they were originally

among the principal, perhaps the strongest, arguments in the hands of

Winckelmann, Sir W. Hamilton, and the other upholders of the true

origin of Greek vases against Gori and the other “Etruscans” (see Vol.

I. p. 19). They are, in fact, if such were required, an incontestable

proof of Greek manufacture. Secondly, in more modern times, they have

been of inestimable value in enabling scholars to classify the early

vases according to their different fabrics. The alphabets of the

different cities and states being established by inscriptions obtained

from trustworthy sources or found _in situ_, it was an easy matter to

apply this knowledge to the vases. In Chapters VII.-VIII. numerous

instances have been given of the value of this evidence (see also

below, p. 247 ff.), perhaps the best being that of the Chalcidian

class, for which the inscriptions have been a more important criterion

even than style. Thirdly, the inscriptions are sometimes of

considerable philological value. Those on Attic vases may fairly be

said to represent the vernacular of the day; and thus we learn that the

Greeks of the Peisistratid age spoke of Ὀλυττεύς, not Ὀδυσσεύς, and of

Θῆσυς, not Θησεύς; that they used such forms as υἱύς for υἱός,[2060]

and πίει for πίε (see below, p. 255). Traces of foreign influence in

the inscriptions, as in the frequently occurring Doric forms, imply

that many of the vase-painters were foreigners, probably of the metic

class. We shall also see that one class of inscriptions gives some

interesting information on the subject of the names and prices of vases

in antiquity.

The whole subject has been treated exhaustively—especially from a

philological point of view—in a valuable treatise by P.

Kretschmer,[2061] to which we shall have occasion to make constant

reference in the following pages. He classifies them under two main

headings: (_a_) inscriptions incised with a sharp tool in the hard

clay; (_b_) inscriptions painted with the brush after the final baking.

They are also found in very rare instances impressed in the soft clay

and varnished over.[2062] In later times inscriptions in relief are

actually found, sometimes painted with thick white pigment, sometimes

gilded.[2063] On the so-called Megarian bowls and on the Arretine and

other wares of the Roman period they are stamped from the moulds.

Lastly, there are the stamps imprinted on the handles of wine-amphorae,

which have been discussed in Chapter IV.

The =incised inscriptions= are of three kinds: (1) those executed by

the maker of the vase; (2) those scratched under the foot; (3) those

incised by the owner. As these represent a much smaller class than the

painted ones, they shall be dealt with first.

(1) Inscriptions incised by the maker before the final baking. These

are found on the handles and feet, round the edge of a design, or

interspersed therewith like the painted inscriptions. Generally they

represent the signature of the potter, as in the case of the early

Boeotian vase signed by Gamedes,[2064] the vases of the fifth-century

artist Hieron,[2065] and those of Assteas, Python, and Lasimos in

Southern Italy.[2066] On the vases of the latter class explanatory

inscriptions seldom occur, but when they do (as on the vases of

Assteas) they are always incised. Of their palaeographical

peculiarities we will speak later. On a vase in the South Kensington

Museum[2067] the words Βραχᾶς καλός are incised and painted red, and on

the pottery found on the site of the Kabeirion at Thebes the same

process is often adopted, except that the paint used is white.[2068]

(2) Of inscriptions scratched under the foot a considerable number

remain, especially on B.F. vases. They are often difficult to decipher,

being in the form of monograms, and frequently appear to be

meaningless. In many cases they may have been private marks of the

potter or his workmen; others, again, are evidently private memoranda

made by the workman, relating to the number of forms of vases in his

batch, or by the merchant respecting the price to be paid. Commonly

they take the form of names of vases,[2069] such as [ΗVΔΡΙ] for ὑδρία

(_hydria_), [ΛΗΚ] or [ΛΗΚV] for λήκυθος (_lekythos_), [ΣΚV] for σκύφος

(_skyphos_),[2070] and so on. Many of the inscriptions give the words

in full, with numbers and prices, and we may obtain from them some

curious information.

Among the more elaborate examples given by Schöne in his valuable

monograph is one from a krater in the Louvre[2071]:

[ΚΡΑΤΕΡΕΣ : ΠI] κρατῆρες ἑξ

[ΤΙΜΕ : ͰͰͰͰ ΟΞΙΔΕΣ : [Π]ΙΙΙ] τιμὴ τέσσαρες ὀξίδες ὀκτώ

[ΒΑΘΕΑ : ΔΔͰΙ] βαθέα εἰκόσι (at 1 _dr._ 1

_ob._)

That is, six kraters, value four drachmae; eight _oxides_; twenty

_bathea_ (an unknown form), one drachma one obol. The _bathea_ were

probably deep cups or ladles; the _oxides_ (_lit._ vinegar-cups) were

small vessels, probably answering to our wine-glasses.

Another instance given by Schöne[2072] is:

[ΛΗΚΥΘΙΑ Δ] ληκύθια δέκα

[ΟΙΝΟΧΟΑΙ ΙΙ] οἰνοχοαὶ δύο

or ten lekythi and two oinochoae.

Another good example is on a krater in the British Museum (E 504):

[ΚΡΑΤΕΡΕ [Π]Ι : ͰͰͰͰ] κρατῆρε(ς) ἑξ τέσσαρες

[ΠΕΛΛΙΝΙΑ : ΔΙΙ : ΙΙΙ] πελλίνια[2073] δώδεκα τρεῖς

[ΟΞΙΔΕΣ : ΔΔ : ΙΙΙ] ὀξίδες εἰκόσι τρεῖς

[ΟΞΥΒΑΦΑ : ΔΔͰI] ὀξύβαφα εἰκόσι (at 1 _dr._ 1

_ob._)

_i.e._ six kraters at four drachmae, twelve cups at three obols, twenty

_oxides_ at three obols, twenty _oxybapha_ at one drachma one obol.

Another in Vienna[2074]:

[ΚΡΑΤΕΡΕ[Σ] : [Π]Ι : ΤΙΜΕ : κρατῆρες ἑξ τιμὴ τέσσαρες (4 _dr._)

ͰͰͰͰ]

[ΒΑΘΕΑ : ΔΔ : ΤΙΜΕ : ͰΙ] βαθέα εἰκοσι τιμὴ ͰΙ (1 _dr._ 1

_ob._)

..[ΟΞΙΔΕ[Σ] : Δ] ὀξιδες δέκα

is to the same effect as the two preceding. On a hydria at

Petersburg[2075] we find:

[ΥΔΤΡΙΔΡΑΧΠΟΙ ΑΝ]

ὑδ(ρίαι) τρ(ε)ῖ(ς) δραχ(μῶν) π(έντε) ὀ(βόλου) ἑνός

or three hydriae worth five drachmae one obol. The last example that

need be mentioned is from a vase at Berlin[2076]:

[Α] · ΛΥΔΙΑ ΜΕΙΩ : Ι : Ε : ΛΕΠΑΣΤΙΔΕΣ : Κ : Ι

ὠά(?)· Λύδια με(ί)ξω ιέ λεπαστίδες κξ’

Here the letters probably stand for numerals of the ordinary kind,

denoting the numbers of the batch (ιε’ = 15, κξ’ = 27).

The form of the letters in all these cases is that of the fifth

century. In the case of the second, third, and fourth examples given,

it will be noted that the shape of the vase itself corresponds with the

first item. Jahn and Letronne originally held the view that these marks

were made by the potter on the feet of the vases _before_ they were

attached to their respective bodies.[2077] Schöne, in the light of the

examples already quoted, makes the ingenious suggestion that each list

represents a different “set” of so many vases of different forms, and

used for different purposes, sold together in a batch, like a modern

“dinner-set” or “toilet-set” of china. Thus we have in our fourth

example a set of six mixing-bowls at four drachmae (3_s._) apiece, ten

wine-glasses at (probably) three obols or 4½_d._ apiece, and twenty

cups or ladles at about 10½_d._ apiece.

Some of the shorter inscriptions also throw light on the prices at

which different vases were sold. For instance, 15[123]ΛΗΚV : ΛΔ : ΛΗ

would denote thirty-four lekythi for thirty-seven obols, or roughly

1½_d._ apiece; 15[121]ΛΗΚV : ΙΓ : ΙΑ thirteen lekythi for eleven obols,

at a slightly lower price.[2078] Aristophanes[2079] tells us that one

obol would purchase quite a fine lekythos, just as elsewhere[2080] he

mentions three drachmae as the cost of a κάδος or cask. This latter

statement is borne out by the inscription on a vase, [[Π]·ΚΑΔΙΑ·ΔΙΙ],

or five κάδια value twelve drachmae, _i.e._ at about 2½ _dr._

apiece.[2081] An inscription quoted below shows that the owner of a cup

valued it at one drachma. Other examples of the same kind are collected

by Schöne. The cup from Cerigo in the British Museum, on which is

incised [[Ͱ]ΕΜΙΚΟΤVΛΙΟΝ] (ἡμικοτύλιον)[2082] does not strictly come

into this category, but may be mentioned as having an inscription of

the same class.

(3) Inscriptions incised by the owner, and subsequently to the

completion of the vase. These usually take the form of the word [ΕΙΜΙ]

([ΕΜΙ]), with the owner’s name in the genitive, as [ΑΣΤΥΟΞΙΔΑ ΗΜΙ] (“I

am Idamenes’”), or [ΑΣΤΥΟΞΙΔΑ ΗΜΙ] (“I am Astyochidas’”), on two B.F.

cups from Rhodes.[2083] Sometimes this appears in an extended and

metrical form, as on another B.F. kylix from the same site:

[ΦΙΛΤΟΣΗΜΙΤΑΣΚΑΛΑΣΑΚΥΛΙΞΣΑΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ]

Φιλτῶς ἠμὶ τᾶς καλᾶς ἁ κύλιξ ἁ ποικίλα

“I am the painted cup of the fair Philto.”[2084]

Another metrical inscription runs:

Κηφισοφῶντος ἡ κύλιξ· ἐὰν δέ τις κατάξη δραχμὴν ἀποτείσει· δῶρον ὄν

παρὰ Ξενο....

“I am the cup of Kephisophon; if any one breaks me, let him pay

a drachma; the gift of Xeno(krates).”[2085]

A yet more remarkable example is on an early lekythos from Cumae in the

British Museum,[2086] which, in the manner favoured by modern

schoolboys, invokes an imprecation on the head of a thief:

[Illustration: FIG. 171.]

Ταταίης ἐμὶ λήϙυθος ὃς δ’ ἄν με κλέφσῃ θυφλὸς ἔσται

“I am Tataie’s oil-flask, and he shall be struck blind who steals me.”

Others, again, record the gift of the vase, as: “Epainetos gave me to

Charopos”[2087]; [ΤΕΝΔΙ[Σ]ΟΙ ΘΟΔΕΜΟ[Σ] ΔΙΔΟ[Σ]Ι[:]] “Lo, this Thoudemos

gives to thee.”[2088] A boat-shaped vase (_kymbion_) in the British

Museum has incised on it the exhortation [[Π]ΡΟ]Π]ΙΝΕ ΜΗ ΚΑΤΘΗΣ],

“Drink, do not lay me down.”[2089] The owner’s name is found in the

nominative on a vase from Carthage at Naples: [ΧΑΡΜΙΝΟΣ] [ΘΕΟΦΑΜΙΔΑ]

[ΚΩΙΟΣ], “Charminos, son of Theophamidas, a Coan”[2090]; similarly in

the genitive with the omission of εἰμί: [ΑΡΙϹΤΑΡΧΟ] [ΑΡΙΣΤΩΝΟϹ],

Ἀριστάρχου Ἀρίστωνος; [ΑΛΕΞΙΔΑΜΩ] Ἀλεξιδάμου.[2091]

Under the same heading comes the class of votive or dedicatory

inscriptions, found in such large numbers on the pottery of certain

temple-sites, such as that of Aphrodite at Naukratis,[2092] and that of

the Kabeiri at Thebes.[2093] The usual formula at Naukratis is ὁ δεῖνα

ἀνέθηκε τῇ Ἀφροδίτη (or τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι)[2094]; but sometimes we find the

formula Ἀπόλλωνος εἰμί, where the god as the recipient of the gift is

regarded as the owner.

[Illustration: FIG. 172.]

One of the most interesting, and certainly the most ancient, of all

incised inscriptions on Greek vases is that engraved on a jug of

“Dipylon” ware found at Athens in 1880.[2095] It runs: ὃς νῦν ὀρχηστῶν

παντων ἀταλώτατα παίζει, τῦυ τόδε.... “He who now sports most

delicately of all the dancers,” etc. Though probably not contemporary

with this eighth-century vase, it is still of great antiquity, and the

earliest Athenian inscription known.

In studying these _graffiti_, it must always be borne in mind that they

lend themselves easily to forgery, and that many are open to grave

suspicion. Instances of these doubtful inscriptions are the Kleomenes

vase in the Louvre[2096] and a late vase signed by Statios in the

British Museum (F 594).

* * * * *

The =painted inscriptions= are practically limited to a period

extending over two centuries, from the time at which the primitive

methods of painting were slowly emerging into the black-figured style,

down to the finest stage of red-figure vases. Rare at first, they

rapidly spring into popularity, being constantly found on the

sixth-century fabrics; but throughout the red-figure period they

gradually become rarer and rarer, until they drop out almost entirely.

In the vases of the Decadence they have for the most part fallen into

disuse; at any rate, they are comparatively scarce. Some of the latest

inscriptions are in the Oscan and Latin languages, showing the

increasing influence of the Romans over Southern Italy, and especially

Campania. The inscriptions always follow the laws of palaeography of

the region and period to which they belong.

Generally speaking, it may be said that they have some reference to the

design painted on the vase; at least, the majority are explanatory of

the subject represented. Sometimes not only is every figure accompanied

by its name, but even animals and inanimate objects, instances of which

are given below. On the François vase there are no less than 115 such

inscriptions. In almost all cases we can be certain that they are

original, and contemporaneous with the vase itself.

The explanatory inscriptions are generally small in size, the letters

averaging one-eighth of an inch in height. On B.F. vases they are

painted in black; on R.F. vases of the “severe” style, in purple on the

black ground, or in black on the red portions; on later R.F. vases, in

white. There is no rule for their position, or indeed for their

presence; but, as a general rule, it may be said that they are oftener

found on the finer and larger vases, and that they are placed in close

juxtaposition to the figures to which they refer. The direction in

which they are written may be either from left to right or right to

left (as generally on Corinthian or Chalcidian vases); on the

Panathenaic amphorae are the only known examples of κιονηδόν

inscriptions, in which the letters are placed vertically in relation to

each other. They are occasionally found on the objects depicted, as on

stelae or lavers (see pp. 260, 272), on shields,[2097] or even on the

figures themselves.[2098] Signatures of artists are occasionally found

on the handle or foot of a vase.[2099]

Kretschmer (p. 5) illustrates the practice of employing inscriptions on

vases from the art of the Semitic nations. He instances clay vases from

Cyprus with painted Phoenician inscriptions,[2100] for which the same

pigment is used as for the decoration of the vases themselves. But none

of these are likely to be earlier than the first Greek inscriptions,

and it is more than probable that the Cypriote Phoenicians borrowed the

practice from the Greeks. In order, therefore, to obtain information as

to the date of these painted inscriptions, we are entirely dependent

upon internal evidence.

The importance of these inscriptions may, perhaps, be best realised

when it is pointed out that they are one of the chief guides to the age

of the vases, and have contributed more than any other feature to the

establishment of a scientific classification of the earlier fabrics, as

will be fully indicated in the succeeding account.

The Greek alphabet, as is well known, is derived from the Phoenician,

and this is attested not only by tradition, but by the known existing

forms of the latter, the signs being twenty-two in number. The

invention of the two double letters, and of the long η and ω, which are

purely Greek, was attributed by popular tradition to various personages

without any authority. With the question of the introduction of writing

into Greece this is not the place to deal. Recent discoveries,

especially in Crete, have greatly modified all preconceived notions on

the subject, and for the present we are only immediately concerned with

the earliest use of the Greek alphabet, as we know it.

This can be traced as far back as the seventh century B.C. on various

grounds, and in all probability the traditional view which placed its

introduction into Greece at about 660 B.C. is fairly correct. The

earliest inscriptions on the vases are certainly not later, perhaps

earlier than this (see below, p. 254). At Abou-Simbel in Egypt, Greek

inscriptions have been found in which the name of Psammetichos occurs,

and this king is generally supposed to be the second of that name

(594–589).[2101] In Thera and other Aegean islands, and on the coast of

Asia Minor, inscriptions are known which, for various reasons, have

been placed even earlier than this, and the vase with Arkesilaos, the

inscriptions on which are discussed below, is hardly later, as it can

be shown to date between 580 and 550 B.C.

Before proceeding to discuss the early inscriptions, it may be as well

to note, for the benefit of those to whom Greek Epigraphy is an

unfamiliar subject, the chief peculiarities of the earlier

alphabets.[2102] They fall into two principal groups, the Eastern and

Western, each of which has many subdivisions. Certain forms, such as

[Χ] for Χ, are characteristic of one or the other division; but the

distinction is not so clearly marked on the vases, on which many

alphabets, such as the Ionic and Island varieties, are scarcely

represented. The vase-inscriptions fall mainly under three heads:

Corinthian and Athenian in the Eastern group, Chalcidian in the

Western. During the fifth century (or even earlier) there is a rapid

tendency to unification in the Greek alphabet, which is chiefly brought

about by the growing supremacy of Athens. This acted in two ways:

firstly, by the fact that Attic became the literary and therefore the

paramount language in Greece; secondly, by the fact of her artistic

pre-eminence, which crushed out the other local fabrics. Finally, by

the time of the archonship of Eukleides in 403 B.C., the alphabet, if

not the language, had become entirely unified, and the Ionic forms

universally adopted for public and official purposes. For private use

they had, of course, long been known at Athens; but the official

enactment of that year only set the seal to a long recognised practice.

Throughout the fifth century the old Attic and the Ionic forms are

found side by side on R.F. vases.[2103]

In the later archaic period the coins come in as an important source of

evidence.[2104] None of the inscribed ones appear to be earlier than

the sixth century, the oldest being perhaps the electrum stater usually

attributed to Halikarnassos, with the name of Phanes(?). The only

characteristic letter (the alphabet belonging to the Ionic group) is

the sign [heta] in place of Η to denote _eta_, which has not been found

on any vase with the Ionic alphabet, and therefore betokens a very

early date. Next comes an Attic stater of about 560 B.C., with the

legend [(Α)☉Ε], which may be fitly compared with the oldest Panathenaic

amphora,[2105] on which the dotted [☉] is also found. The earliest

coins of Haliartos in Boeotia have the curious form 15[8]curious asper

for the _spiritus asper_ or Η, dating apparently before 550 B.C.; the

succession can thence be traced through 14[10]asper2 14[9]asper3 and

[heta], down to about 480 B.C., when it is dropped entirely. At Himera

in Sicily [heta] occurs in the fifth century for the _spiritus asper_,

and is followed by the HH form, which in the West is employed down to

about 400 B.C. On the early coins of Poseidonia (Paestum) the [M] form

of Σ is found (550–480 B.C.), being also characteristic of Corinthian

vases of the sixth century; it also lingers on in Crete, but in Sicily

and elsewhere the [Σ] form of Attic and other alphabets is more usual,

until replaced in the fifth century by Σ. Of the specially Ionic

letters, Η (= _eta_) is found generally at an early date, as at Teos

(540–400 B.C.), and also Ω. At Corinth the _koppa_ Ϙ for Κ is in use

from the earliest times down to the days of the Achaean League, and

does not therefore afford evidence of date by itself, but only of a

local peculiarity, being equally universal on vases. The digamma is

only found on coins of Elis and Crete, whereas it often occurs on early

Greek vases.[2106]

It may also be of interest to note that the [heta] form for the rough

breathing occurs on the helmet of Hiero in the British Museum,[2107]

which can be dated 480–470 B.C., and that the use of Η for _eta_ and of

the four-lined [Σ] at Athens previous to the archonship of Eukleides

can be deduced from the well-known fragment of Euripides[2108] in which

the letters forming the name [ΘΗΣΕΥΣ] are carefully described.

In the following pages illustrations of the points above noted will be

fully detailed where occurring on the vases. The annexed scheme of

alphabets used on vases (Fig. 173) will serve to give a general idea of

the variations of form in different fabrics.

The painted inscriptions on vases first appear, as already noted,

about the beginning of the seventh century B.C. The earlier

fabrics—Mycenaean, Cretan, and Cycladic—generally belong to an epoch

when writing, if not unknown, was at any rate little practised[2109];

nor have any inscriptions been found on the Dipylon or Geometrical

vases, except the incised one which we have already discussed. The

oldest known painted inscriptions are found on a Proto-Corinthian

lekythos (see p. 254), the Euphorbos pinax from Kameiros (B.M. A

749), and the krater signed by Aristonoös, which is perhaps of Ionic

origin, strongly influenced by Mycenaean art.

SCHEME OF ALPHABETS USED ON GREEK VASES

[Illustration: FIG. 173.]

With the great impulse given to vase-painting at the beginning of the

sixth century by the development of the art in Corinth, Chalkis, and

Athens (especially in Corinth), the number of inscribed vases rapidly

increases. Among the earliest examples are those remarkable painted

pinakes found at Corinth (Vol. I. p. 316), nearly all of which have

dedicatory inscriptions, while in most cases the names are given of the

deities, Poseidon and Amphitrite, to whom they were dedicated, and

whose figures appear on them. They may be dated 600–550 B.C. The custom

of inscribing names on works of art is illustrated by other products of

this period, as we have already noted in the case of the chest of

Kypselos; and they occur on the early bronze reliefs from

Olympia,[2110] the Samothrace relief in the Louvre,[2111] the archaic

reliefs at Delphi, and the newly found painted metopes at

Thermon,[2112] as well as later on the paintings of Polygnotos.

On the Euphorbos pinax already mentioned[2113] appear the names of

Menelaos ([ΜΕΝΕΛΑΣ]), Hector ([ΡΟΤΚΕ]), and Euphorbos ([ΙΥΦΟΡΒΟΣ]).

Although found in Rhodes, it is proved to be of Argive origin by the

characteristic form [Λ] of the Λ in Menelaos.[2114] Although its date

cannot be exactly ascertained, it is probably about 620–600 B.C. It is

a vase important in more than one respect, as it may be said to

foreshadow the beginnings of the black-figure style.

The vase of Aristonoös[2115] was found at Cervetri, and bears the

artist’s signature,

[ΝΕΣΙΟΠΕΣΟΦΟΝΟΤΣΙΡΑ], Ἀριστόνο<φ>ος ἐποί[η]σεν,

in an alphabet from which, unfortunately, all characteristic letters

are wanting, so that its origin is uncertain. It is, however, as we

have said, probably a seventh-century product of an Ionian fabric, on

the coast of Asia Minor. The 14[13]halved circle has been taken by

several scholars[2116] to denote [F] as in the Phrygian alphabet, but

Kretschmer (p. 11) prefers to read it as ϑ 14[13]halved circle =

14[13]quartered circle We have, however, already seen that it is most

probably a superfluous letter.

Early in the sixth century must be placed another remarkable vase, the

Arkesilaos cup of Cyrenaean fabric.[2117] The inscribed names on this

vase are as remarkable as its subject; there are nine in all, two only

fragmentary. The only proper name is that of Arkesilas ([ΑΡΚΕΣΙΛΑΣ]),

who was king of Kyrene 580–550 B.C.; the others seem to be titles, such

as [ΙΟΦΟΡΤΟΣ], Ἰόφορτος or Σώφορτος, “Keeper of the burdens”;

[ΣΛΙΦΟΜΑΧΟΣ], Σλιφόμαχος, a word having some reference to silphium, the

subject of the vase; [ΦΥΛΑΚΟΣ], “Guardian”; [ΙΡΜΟΦΟΡΟΣ], and [ΟΞΥΡΟ],

ὀρυξό[ς. One word, [ΣΟΜΘΑ], στ]αθμός, refers to an inanimate object (a

balance). The dialect is Doric, Kyrene having been colonised by that

race.

Next we have to deal with a very important class of inscriptions—those

found on Corinthian vases.[2118] They are too numerous to be dealt with

in detail; Kretschmer mentions nearly fifty inscribed vases, exclusive

of the pinakes. Wilisch attributes the earliest to the latter half of

the seventh century, the latest to the middle of the sixth century; but

they certainly do not become common before the sixth.[2119] They

include several artists’ signatures—viz. Chares, Milonidas, and

Timonidas (Vol. I. p. 315). One of the most famous of the inscribed

vases is the Dodwell pyxis at Munich,[2120] representing a boar-hunt.

The figures are inscribed with fanciful names, such as [ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΟΝ]

(Agamemnon), [ΔΟΡΙΜΑΧΟΣ] (Dorimachos, or “spearman”), [ΠΑϘΟΝ] (Pakon),

and so on. A krater in the British Museum (Plate XXI.) represents a

similar scene, also with fancy names, such as Polydas and Antiphatas.

Another famous vase is the Amphiaraos krater in Berlin,[2121]

representing the setting out of Amphiaraos and the funeral games of

Pelias; no less than twenty names are inscribed. Of these, [ΒΑΤΟΝ]

(Baton) and [ἹΠΠΑΛϘΜΟΣ] (Hippalk(i)mos) illustrate other palaeo

graphical peculiarities. Other good examples are the vase by

Chares,[2122] another in the British Museum with the name of the owner

([ΑΣΝΒΤΑ ΒΜΣ], Αἰινετα ἐμίἐ),[2123] and that by Timonidas representing

Achilles lying in wait for Troilos.[2124] A study of the pinakes in

Berlin is also instructive in this respect. One is signed by Timonidas,

another by Milonidas, while others bear interesting inscriptions, such

as Fig. 174:

[Illustration: FIG. 174.]

Πειραείοθεν ἵκομες,

“We have come from Peiraeus”[2125];

[ΤΥΔΕΔΟΣΧΑΡΙΕΣΑΝ ΑΦΟΡΜΑΝ]

τὲ δὲ δὸς χαρίες(ς)αν ἀφορμάν,

“And do thou make a graceful repayment”[2126];

and so on. The majority have only the names of Poseidon and Amphitrite,

or (ὁ δεῖνα) ἀνέθηκεν,

In view of the palaeographical importance of these inscriptions, it may

be worth while to dwell briefly on their peculiarities. The dialect is

of course Doric, and consequently the names often differ widely from

the forms to which we are accustomed; and this is increased by

divergencies of spelling, which produce many anomalous results. For

instance, ([ΚΕΣΑΝΔΡΑ]) (Κεσάνδρα) appears for Kassandra on a vase in

the Louvre.[2127] ΑΕ is used for ΑΙ, as in [ΑΕΘΟΝ] (Ἀέθων = Αἴθων) on

the Chares pyxis, and in [ΠΕΡΑΕΟΘΕΝ] (Περαεόθεν for Πε(ι)ραιόθεν) on

the pinax already quoted. A nasal is dropped before a consonant, as in

the names of Amphiaraos ([ΑΦΙΑΡΕΟΣ]) and Amphitrite ([ΑΦΕΤΡΙΤΑ]) The

digamma lingers as a medial (more rarely as initial) in many words,

such as ϝαχύς, Δαμοϝάνασσα, Ποτειδαϝων, and Διδαίϝων; its written form

is 15[9]Ϝ or 15[9]ϝ The use of [heta] for the rough breathing is

invariable.[2128]

One or two vases have been recognised as of Sicyonian fabric by the use

in inscriptions of the unique 15[16]E for Ε, peculiar to that place

(Vol. I. p. 321). The only certain example, however, is a krater in

Berlin (_Cat._ 1147), with the names of Achilles ([ΣΥΕΛΙΞΑ]) and Memnon

([Μ[Ε]ΜΝΟΝ]). It may also be noted that an Athenian sixth-century vase,

signed by Exekias, has a Sicyonian inscription _incised_ upon it by its

owner[2129]:

[ΕΠΑΙΝΕΤΟΣ Μ ΕΔΟΚΕΝ ΧΑΡΟΠΟΙ]

Ἐπαίνετός μ’ ἔδωκεν Χαρόπω.

Boeotian vases never attained to the importance of the Corinthian

fabrics, though, on the other hand, the manufacture lasted longer; but

there are several instances of early signed vases from this district.

Two, of which one is in the British Museum, are by Gamedes, the others

by Theozotos, Gryton, Iphitadas, Mnasalkes, and Menaidas.[2130] They

are recognised as Boeotian by the use of typical letters, as well as by

origin, style, and dialect; such are the [Boeotian A] for A, [Boeotian

Χ] for Χ, and so on. There is also a fifth-century vase with the

Boeotian alphabet.[2131] The Kabeirion vases have inscriptions in the

local alphabet, with a few exceptions, which are Ionic.[2132]

A unique vase, from the epigraphical point of view, is E 732 in the

Louvre, found at Cervetri, to which allusion has been made elsewhere

(Vol. I. p. 357, and see Fig. 111). It bears eleven names (of gods and

giants) in an alphabet which has been recognised as Ionian, and is

according to Kretschmer most probably that of the island of Keos. The

great uncertainty as to the Ε sounds presented by this vase finds

parallels in the stone inscriptions found on that island, while in the

use of Β for Ϲ (the older form of that letter), the four-stroke

[Fourline Σ] and [☉], with a central dot, this attribution finds

further support. The only other islands that would fit the conditions

are Naxos and Amorgos. As instances of the confused use of Ε, we have

[ΖΗΥΣ] for Ζεύς, but [ΠΟΛΥΒΟΤΕ] for Πολυβώτη[ς, while again Ἐφιάλτης

appears as [ΕΙΠΙΑΛΤΕΣ]! But this confusion does not occur in Naxos or

Amorgos.

Other vases are undoubtedly of Ionic origin, but their actual home is

uncertain; they are usually assigned to the coast of Asia Minor. For

some reason, however, it is very rare for these vases to bear

inscriptions; in all the numerous instances now collected, only some

half-dozen with inscriptions can be found.[2133] One of these is the

well-known Würzburg kylix with Phineus and the Harpies (see Vol. I. p.

357); another is a vase from Vulci, published by Gerhard,[2134] which

has since disappeared. On both of these we find the characteristic

Ionic letters Ω for ω, Η for η, Χ for χ, Λ for λ, and [Σ] with four

strokes. Both vases are of the sixth century, and other details attest

their Ionic origin.

We now come to a very important but somewhat puzzling class of

inscriptions, those in the Chalcidian alphabet.[2135] The number of

these is hardly more than a dozen, but such as they are they have

enabled archaeologists to establish a Chalcidian school of painting by

comparisons with other uninscribed vases. In all cases the inscriptions

relate exclusively to the figures in the designs. Among the

characteristic Chalcidian letters are the Ϙ for Κ, as in [ΣΙΟΤΥΛϘ]

(Κλύτιος); the curved Ϲ for Γ, as in [ΣΕΝΟϜΥΡΑϹ] (Γαρυϝόνες=Γηρυόνης);

[Ξ] for Λ and [Ξ] for Χ, as in [ΑΧΙΛΛΕΥΣ]; (Ἀχιλλεύς); [Ξ] for [Ξ], as

in [ΣΟΘΝΑΞ] (Ξάνθος); and the abnormal form of the digamma [Ϝ], as in

[ΣΥΧΑϜ] (Ϝαχύς). [Ψ] is represented by [ΦΣ] in one instance ([ΜΠΟΦΣΟΣ]

= Μ<π>όψος).

Kretschmer has compiled a list of twelve vases with inscriptions in

this alphabet, to which one or two may be added, but for a fuller

treatment of the questions involved in studying this group the reader

is referred to Chapter VII. This, however, may be a more suitable place

for a few remarks relating to the inscriptions alone.

In one or two instances the dialect alone is peculiarly Chalcidian, as

the characteristic letters happen to be wanting. In some instances, as

Kretschmer points out, the Aeolic fondness for the vowel υ is to be

traced, as in [ΣΥΝϘΥϘ], for Κύκνος, which finds parallels in the

Chalcidian colony of Cumae, and probably influenced the Latin language

through that means. Hence, too, the preference for the Q sound of the

Ϙ, as in English and other languages when υ is preceded by a guttural.

On the British Museum Geryon vase (B 155) there is a curious mixture of

dialect in the forms Γαρυόνης, Νηίδες.

It must be borne in mind, in speaking of the Chalcidian alphabet, that

it really extended over a wide area, including not only Chalkis in

Euboea, but Chalkidike in Northern Greece, and the colonies on the

coast of Italy, such as Cumae, and this may partly account for the

mixed character of the dialect on some of these Chalcidian vases. But

although an attempt has been made to connect them with Cumae, it cannot

be said at present that any certainty has been attained as to the place

of their manufacture.

Though not belonging to the Chalcidian group, there is a vase which

must be mentioned here, on account of its inscription, which is partly

in the alphabet of the Chalcidian colonies. The vase is of the

“Proto-Corinthian” class (see Vol. I. p. 308), and dates about 700–650

B.C.; it bears the name of the maker, Pyrrhos[2136]:

[ΠΥΡΟΣΜΕΠΟΙΕΣΕΝΑΓΑΣΙΛΕϜ]

Πυρ(ρ)ος μ’ εποιησεν Αγασιλεϝου

and is therefore one of the oldest existing signatures.

ATHENIAN VASES

Under this heading are included all remaining vase-inscriptions, except

a few from Italy. Their value to us, as Kretschmer points out, is not

to be measured only by the mythological information they provide, or by

the list of Athenian craftsmen and popular favourites which can be

drawn up from them, but it is also largely philological. In other

words, they illustrate for us the vernacular of Athens in the sixth and

fifth centuries, just as the Egyptian papyri have thrown light on the

Hellenistic vernacular of the second. In countless small details the

language of the vase-painters varies from the official language of

state documents and the literary standard of Thucydides, Sophocles, and

even Aristophanes. The reason is, of course, a simple one—namely, that

the vase-artists occupied a subordinate position in the Athenian state;

they were mere craftsmen, of little education, and in all probability

their spelling was purely phonetic.[2137] Hence we constantly find such

forms as πίει for πίε, υἱύς for υἱός, or Θῆσυς for Θησεύς (see above,

p. 237); and even the rich potter Hyperbolos is ridiculed by the comic

poet Plato[2138] for saying ὀλίον (_sc. oliyon_) for ὀλίγον, and

δῃτώμην for διῃτώμην.

Another interesting point is that many of the artists who have signed

their vases were obviously not Athenians by birth. Thus we find such

names as Phintias, Amasis, Brygos, Cholkos, Sikanos, Thrax,[2139] and

even such signatures as ὁ Λυδός (or ὁ Σκύθης) ἔγραψεν. It is, then,

evident that many of them were μέτοικοι or resident aliens, and

consequently occupied but a humble rank in the social order of the

city.[2140] One name, indeed, that of Epiktetos, is actually a slave’s

name (Ἐπίκτητος = “acquired”).

We need not, then, be surprised at meeting with many un-Attic forms or

spellings in the vase-inscriptions, which sometimes give a clue to the

origin of the artist, and of which it may be interesting to give some

specimens. Kretschmer notes that these variations are always Doric,

never Ionic.

The commonest Doricism on Attic vases is the use of Α for H, of which

there are many instances, such as [ΔΑΙΑΝΕΙΡΑ], Δαιάνειρα for

Δηιάνειρα[2141]; [ΗΙΜΕΡΟΠΑ] for Ἱμερόπη (B.M. E 440); [ΟΙΔΙΠΟΔΑΣ] for

the Attic Οἰδιπούς.[2142] Such forms as Ὀλυσσεύς and Φερρέφασσα are

also clearly un-Attic. On the other hand, the names Menelaos and

Iolaos always appear in their Attic form Μενελέως, Ἰολέως. The above

instances are all from proper names; but there are other remarkable

instances, such as the use of καλά for καλή in [ΠΑΝΤΟΞΕΝΑ] [ΚΑΛΑ]

[ΚΟΡΙΝΘΩΙ].[2143] On one of his signed vases Exekias uses the

un-Attic form [ΤΕΣΑΡΑ], τέσ(σ)αρα, but, as Kretschmer notes, he also

uses Ἰόλαος for Ἰολέως, and was probably not an Athenian. On a B.F.

amphora in Rome (see below, p. 263) occurs the form παρβέβακεν.

Perhaps the most remarkable use of non-Attic Greek on a vase is in the

case of the artist Brygos, who, as we have already pointed out, was of

foreign origin. On a kylix in his style (B.M. E 69) we find the forms

Δίπιλος, Νικοπίλη, Πίλων, and Πίλιππος. These were at one time referred

to a Macedonian origin,[2144] but Kretschmer points out that that

people used Β, not Π, for Φ. He aptly quotes the Scythian in the

_Thesmophoriasusae_,[2145] with his πιλήσει, παίνεται, and κεπαλή, as

giving a likely clue to the home of this dropping of the aspirate.[2146]

The painted inscriptions on the Attic vases may be divided into three

classes: (1) those relating to the whole vase and its purpose, such as

artists’ signatures; (2) those relating to the designs on the vase,

_i.e._ explanatory inscriptions, and those found on Panathenaic

amphorae; (3) those which stand in no direct relation to the vase, such

as the so-called “love-names” or “pet-names,” and interjections such as

“hail,” “drink deep,” etc. The incised inscriptions have already been

discussed.

The artists’ signatures first call for consideration. In relation to

their works they are fully discussed elsewhere (Chapters IX., X.), but

the present may be regarded as a convenient opportunity for some

general outline of the style and palaeography of these inscriptions.

Klein in his _Meistersignaturen_ (2nd edn.) reckons a total of

ninety-five signatures, a number which has probably been largely

increased since he wrote in 1887. These names he finds distributed over

some 424 vases, one name, that of Nikosthenes, occurring on no fewer

than seventy-seven; he divides them into four classes, as follows: (1)

masters in the B.F. method; (2) masters combining the two methods; (3)

masters in the R.F. method (including S. Italy vases); (4) masters

whose names appear on vases without subjects. These four classes are

not mutually exclusive, as names in (1) and (3) appear again in (2) and

(4).

The form which the signature takes is usually (1)—

ὁ δεῖνα ἐποίησεν (of the potter);

or (2)—

ἔγραψεν (of the painter);

or (3), the two combined, either under one name, as—

Ἐξηκίας ἔγραψε κἀποιησέ με;

or (4), with separate names, as on the François vase—

[Illustration: FIG. 175.]

Κλίτιας μ’ ἔγραψεν Ἐργότιμός μ’ ἐποίησεν.

The form (3) may possibly indicate the priority of the artist, but it

is more probable that it was adopted as forming an iambic trimeter.

When ἐποίησεν only occurs on a painted vase, it is generally to be

assumed that the potter is also the painter.

The older artists avoided, as a rule, the imperfect ἔγραφε or ἐποίει,

but its use came into fashion for a short time among the early R.F.

artists, such as Andokides, Chelis, and Psiax, who use ἐποίει (Vol. I.

p. 430); it was again adopted by the Paestum and Apulian schools, as a

modest affectation that their work was as yet unfinished.[2147] But the

majority preferred the more decided aorist, indicating completeness.

The word με or ἐμέ is usually added by the earlier artists, as in the

instance already quoted from Exekias. Generally speaking, ἔγραψεν

rarely occurs on B.F. vases, ἐποίησεν being the rule. A rare form of

inscription is the formula ἔργον (τοῦ δεῖνα), as in the doubtful

signature of Statios[2148]; and even more unique is the use of the word

κεραμεύειν by the early Attic potter Oikopheles,[2149] as a synonym for

ποιεῖν. Other peculiarities of signature are to be seen on the works of

Lykinos (ἠργάσατο), Paseas (Πασέου τῶν γραμμάτων), and Therinos

(Θερίνου ποίημα).[2150]

The potter sometimes added the name of his father, either as being that

of a well-known man, or to distinguish himself from others of the same

name. Thus Timonidas of Corinth signs [ΤΙΜΟΝΙΔΑΣ ΕΓΡΑΨΙΑ] Τιμωνίδας

ἔγραψε Βία (_sc._ son of Bias); Tleson, Τλήσων ὁ Νεάρχου; Eucheiros,

Ὁργοτίμου υίυς (the son of Ergotimos); Euthymides, [ὉΠΟΛΙΟΥ], ὁ Πολίου.

The latter in one instance not only gives his patronymic, but

challenges comparison with his great rival Euphronios, in the following

terms: [ὉΣ ΟΥΔΕ ΠΟΤ ΕΥΦΡΟΝΙΟΣ], ὁς οὐδέποτ(ε) Εὐφρόνιος, _i.e._,

“Euphronios never made anything like this.”[2151] Other peculiarities

are: the omission of the verb, as was sometimes done by R.F. artists

(_e.g._ Psiax); or, on the contrary, the simple ἐποίησεν, without a

name, sometimes found on R.F. kylikes of the Epictetan school[2152]; or

the addition by the artist of his tribe or nationality. Among the

latter we have Kleomenes, Teisias, and Xenophantos, who style

themselves Ἀθηναῖος, and Nikias, who not only gives his father’s name,

but also his deme in Attica:

[Illustration: FIG. 176.]

Νικίας Ἑ[ρ]μοκλέους Ἀναφλύστιος ἐποίησεν.

Two other artists call themselves ὁ Λυδός (the Lydian) and ὁ Σκύθης

(the Scythian). Smikros signs one of his vases in the Louvre[2153]

ΔΟΚΕΙΣΜΙΚΡΩΕΙΝΑΙ, “It seems to be Smikros’ work.” There are also

frequent vagaries of spelling, as in Φιτίας for Φιντίας, Πάνφαιος or

Πάνθαιος for Πάμφαιος, and Ἱέπων for Ἱέρων. Sakonides once spells his

name Ζακωνίδης, and Nikosthenes once uses the koppa Ϙ for Κ. Fuller

information in regard to this subject may be found in Klein’s admirable

work; there is also much of interest relating to the R.F. cup-painters

in Hartwig’s exhaustive treatise. A complete list of all known artists’

names is given at the end of this chapter.

* * * * *

We now come to the inscriptions which have relation to the subjects

depicted on the vases. These are seldom of a general kind, having

reference to the whole composition; but on a Panathenaic amphora in

Naples a boxing scene is entitled [ΠΑΝΚΡΑΤΙΟΝ], “general maul,”[2154]

and on another in Munich over a foot-race is written, [ΣΤΑΔΙΟ ΑΝΔΡΟΝ

ΝΙΚΕ], σταδίου ἀνδρῶν νίκη,[2155] while B.F. lekythos in the same

collection with Dionysos and dancing Maenads is inscribed

[ΔΙΟΝΥΣΙΑ(Κ)Α].[2156] On a vase with a Homeric subject is [ΠΑΤΡΟΚΛΙΑ],

and on one with a scene from Theban legend [ΚΡΕΟΝΤΕΙΑ].[2157]

Localities are sometimes hinted at by the use of such words as [ΚΡΕΝΕ]

(κρήνη) on the François vase, where Polyxena goes to the fountain, or

by the [ΚΑΛΙΡΕΚΡΕΝΕ] Καλλιρρ(ό)η κρήνη on the British Museum hydria (B

331) with girls drawing water at the fountain of Kallirrhoë. More often

names are given to inanimate objects like the θᾶκος (seat) and ὑδρία

(pitcher) on the François vase, σταθμός on the Arkesilas cup, the βῶμος

(altar) on a vase in Munich (_Cat._ 124), λύρα (lyre) on a cup in

Munich (333), and θρονός (throne) on an amphora in the Louvre.[2158] On

a washing-basin on a R.F. vase published by Tischbein appears the word

[ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ], _i.e._ “public baths.”[2159] The word τέρμων sometimes

appears on a _stele_ on later vases.[2160] Animals are also

occasionally named, such as the ὗς on the Munich vase already quoted

(333).[2161]

But the greater majority of these inscriptions refer to the names of

persons, deities, and mythological figures, the name being usually in

the nominative, but occasionally in the genitive, with εἶδος or εἰκων

understood.[2162] Sometimes generic names or nicknames are given to

ordinary figures in _genre_ scenes, as Ἀρχεναύτης, “the ship’s

captain”; Κώμαρχος, “leader of the revels”; or, again, Πλήξιππος for a

horseman, Τόξαμις and Κιμμέριος for a Scythian bowman.[2163] Names of

real contemporary persons are occasionally introduced, as on a hydria

by Phintias, on which his comrade Euthymides and the “minor artist”

Tlenpolemos are represented, with names inscribed[2164]; and on a

stamnos by Smikros at Brussels the artist introduces himself and the

potter Pheidiades at a banquet.[2165] Although proper names usually

stand alone, they are sometimes accompanied by some interjection, as

ὁδὶ Μενεσθεύς, “Here is Menestheus,”[2166] Σφίγξ ἥδε χαῖρε, “This is

the Sphinx; hail!”[2167] or in the form of a phrase, as Ἑρμῆς εἰμὶ

Κυλλήνιος.[2168] So also we find [ΗΑΛΙΟΣ ΓΕΡΩΝ] Ἅλιος γέρων, “the old

man of the sea,” for Nereus[2169]; [ΝΕΣΤΟΡ ΠΥΛΙΟΣ] “Nestor of

Pylos”[2170]; [ΔΙΟΣ ΦΟΣ] Διὸς φῶς, for Dionysos[2171]; [ΔΙΟΣ ΠΑΙΣ],

“the son of Zeus,” for Herakles[2172]; ταῦρος φορβάς, “the grazing

bull,” for the metamorphosed Zeus (a doubtful instance).[2173]

Besides the names of figures and objects, words and exclamations are

sometimes represented as proceeding from the mouths of the figures

themselves, in the same manner as on the labels affixed to the figures

of saints in the Middle Ages. They vary in length and purport, but in

some cases they appear to be extracts from poems or songs, or

expressions familiar at the time, but now unintelligible or lost in the

wreck of Hellenic literature. They are found on both B.F. and R.F.

vases, but more commonly on the former, and generally read according to

the direction of the figure, as if issuing from the mouth.

Thus a boy pouring wine out of an amphora cries, [ΕΝΧΕ ΗΔ . . ΟΙΝΟΝ],

ἔ(γ)χει ἡδ[ὺν] οἶνον, “Pour in sweet wine”[2174]; over the first of

three runners in a race appears νικᾷς, Πολυμένων, “Polymenon, you

win”[2175]; again, Amphiaraos is exhorted to mount his chariot with the

word ἀνάβα,[2176] or one personage says to another, χαἶρε or πῖνε καὶ

σύ.[2177] Sometimes the words are evidently those of a song, as on a

R.F. kylix at Athens, where a man lying on a couch sings an elegy of

Theognis beginning ὦ παίδων κάλλιστε, “Fairest of boys!”[2178] Another

sings [ΜΑΜΕΚΑΙΠΟΤΕΟ], which has been recognised as an inaccurate

version of an Aeolic line, καὶ ποθήω καὶ μάομαι.[2179] On a red-figured

vase in the British Museum (E 270) a man accompanied by a flute-player

has an inscription proceeding from his open mouth, which runs,

[ΕΟΠΟΔΕΡΟΤΕΝΤΥΡΙΝΘΙ], ὡδέ ποτ’ ἐν Τύρινθι; evidently the beginning of a

song, “Here once in Tiryns....” On a stamnos in the British Museum (E

439) the letters ΝΟΝ appear before the mouth of a Seilenos, and

evidently represent notes of music.[2180]

On a psykter by Euphronios[2181] a courtesan playing at kottabos casts

the drops out of a cup with the words [·ΡΓΑΕΛΟΣΣΑΤΑΛΕΔΝΑΤΝΙΤ], τὶν

τάνδε λατάσσω Λέαγρ(ε), “To thee, Leagros, I dash these drops.” Another

kylix (Munich 371) represents a surfeited drinker on a couch, saying,

οὐ δύναμ’ οὔ, “I can no more!”

To turn to another class of these expressions, we have a Panathenaic

amphora in the British Museum (B 144), on which a herald proclaims a

victor in the horse-race as follows: [ΔΥΝΕΙΚΕΤΥ : ΗΙΠΟΣ : ΝΙΚΑΙ],

Δυ(σ)νείκητου ἵππος νικᾷ, “The horse of Dysneiketos[2182] wins.” On

another of the same class[2183] is an acrobat on horseback before

judges, of whom one cries, [ΚΑΛΟΣΤΟΙΚΥΒΙΣΤΕΙΤΟΙ], καλῶς τῷ

κυβιοτῇ[2184] τοι, “Bravo, then, to the acrobat.” A boy walking with

his dog calls to it, [ΜΕΛΙΤΑΙΕ], Μελιταῖε (_i.e._ “Maltese (?)

dog”).[2185] A charioteer calls to his horses, ἔλα, ἔλα, “Gee

up!”[2186] Women weeping over a corpse cry, οἴμοι, “Woe is me!”[2187]

In a representation of Oedipus and the Sphinx on a R.F. vase in Rome

the words [ΚΑΙΤΡΙ[ΠΟΥΝ]], καὶ τρίπουν, occur, evidently with reference

to the well-known riddle.[2188]

An interesting bit of dialogue appears on a B.F. vase,[2189] which

represents boys and men watching a swallow, evidently the first of the

returning spring; one boy says, ἰδοὺ χελιδών, “See, the swallow”; to

which a man replies, νὴ τὸν Ἡρακλέα, “Yes, by Herakles!” Another boy

joins in with αὑτηί, “There she is,” and ἔαρ ἤδη, “It is already

spring.” Another good instance is on a B.F. vase in the Vatican.[2190]

On one side we see the proprietor of an olive garden extracting oil

from the olives, with the prayer, [ΟΖΕΥΠΑΤΕΡΑΙΘΕΠΛΟΥΣΙΟΣΓΕΝ] ὦ Ζεῦ

πάτερ, αἴθε πλούσιος γέν[οιμ’ ἄν, “O Father Zeus, may I be rich!” while

on the other he sits over a full vessel, and cries to the purchaser,

[ΕΔΕΜΕΝΕΔΕ ΠΛΕΟΙ ΠΑΡΒΕΒΑΚΕΝ], ἤδη μέν, ἤδη πλέο(ν) παρβέβακεν,

“Already, already it has gone far beyond my needs.”[2191]

To conclude with a few miscellaneous and unique inscriptions, we have

firstly, on a vase in the British Museum (E 298), a tripod, on the base

of which are the words Ἀκαμαντὶς ἐνίκα φυλή, showing that it is

intended for a monument in honour of a choragic victory, with the name

of the victorious tribe. On a sepulchral stele on a B.F. funeral

amphora at Athens[2192] are the words (now nearly obliterated) ἀνδρὸς

ἀπ[οφθιμ]ένοιο ῥάκ[ος] κα[κ]ὸν [ἐν]θάδε κεῖμα[ι, “Here lie I, a vile

rag of a dead man.” Similarly, on a sepulchral plaque at Athens are the

words, [SÊMATODESTIN : AREIOU], “This is the grave of Areios.”[2193] In

a representation of Sappho reading from her poems, she holds an open

roll, on which are visible the words Θεοί, ἠερίων ἐπἐων ἄρχομαι ἄλλ[ων]

... ἔπεα πτερόεντα[2194]; and in the well-known school-scene on the

Duris vase in Berlin[2195] a teacher holds a roll, on which are the

words (in Aeolic dialect, and combined from the openings of two

distinct hymns):

[ΜΟΙΣΑΜΟΙ] Μοῖσά μοι

[ΑΦΙΣΚΑΜΑΝΔΡΟΝ] ἀ(μ)φὶ Σκάμανδρον

[ΕΥΡΩΝΑΡΧΟΜΑΙ] ἐύρ(ρ)ων ἄρχομαι

[ΑΕΙΝΔΕΝ] ἀεί<ν>δειν.[2196]

A small fragment of a red-figure kylix (?) of fine style, found at

Naukratis in 1899 (and now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford),[2197]

has a similar scene of a dictation lesson. A seated figure unrolls an

inscribed scroll, on which is the _boustrophedon_ legend, στησίχορον

ὕμνον ἄγοισαι, while another figure, of which the right hand alone

remains, is writing on a tablet (Fig. 177).

[Illustration: FIG. 177. FIGURE WITH INSCRIBED SCROLL.]

In a very puzzling scene on a R.F. vase of fine style, generally

supposed to have some reference to the Argonautic expedition, one

figure holds up an object inscribed with the name [ΣΙΣΥΦΟΣ].[2198] This

object has generally been interpreted as a _tessera hospitalis_, or

“letter of introduction,” as we should say.

Lastly, there is the class of Panathenaic vases with their

inscriptions.[2199] They fall into two groups: (1) the words [ΤΟΝ

ΑΘΕΝΕΘΕΝ ΑΘΛΟΝ], to which [ΕΜΙ] is sometimes added, “(I am) from the

games at Athens”; (2) the names of archons, which only occur on the

fourth-century examples. They form a unique instance of inscriptions

which give direct information as to the date of a vase, and range from

367 to 313 B.C. (see Vol. I. p. 390).

Sometimes vases (especially in the B.F. period) are covered with

meaningless collocations of letters, either separate or in the form of

words. Some ingenious explanations of these have been propounded, but

none are very satisfactory. They are often found on the class known as

“Corintho-Attic” or “Tyrrhenian amphorae,” and it is just possible that

in this case they are attempts by an Athenian workman to copy the

unfamiliar Corinthian alphabet.

* * * * *

The third class of inscriptions on Attic vases is composed of those

which have no direct relation to the vase itself. They include

invocations to deities such as were used in making libations, _e.g._

Διὸς Σωτῆρος, “To Zeus the Saviour”[2200]; or, again, the exhortations

so frequently found on B.F. kylikes of the “Minor Artists’” school, of

which the commonest is χαῖρε καὶ πίει εὖ, “Hail, and drink deep!”[2201]

or χαῖρε καὶ πίει τήνδε, “Hail, and drink this!”[2202] On a number of

R.F. kylikes appears the word προσαγορεύω, “I salute you.”[2203]

But the most numerous and important inscriptions of this class are

those conveniently named by German archaeologists “Lieblingsnamen,” or

“Lieblingsinschriften,” for which we have no satisfactory equivalent in

English, though “pet-name” and “love-name” have been suggested, and

latterly “καλός-name.” The latter title has been adopted from the fact

that the usual form which these inscriptions take is that of a proper

name in the nominative case, generally masculine, with the word καλός

attached. Sometimes, but not so frequently, the name is feminine, with

καλή[2204]; the superlative form κάλλιστος is also found.[2205] In

other cases ὁ or ἑ παῖς appears in place of the proper name, or the

word δοκεῖ is added, and sometimes also ναί or ναιχί, emphasising the

statement. The most remarkable instance is a B.F. jug at Munich, round

the shoulder of which is the inscription καλός Νικόλα Δωρόθεος καλὸς

κἀμοὶ δοκεῆ, ναί· χἄτερος παῖς καλὸς, Μέμνων κἀμοὶ καλὸς φιλός.[2206]

It is not quite certain how far the word καλὸς should be interpreted in

a physical sense as “handsome” or “fair,” or in an ethical sense as

“good” or “noble”; but having regard to the manners and customs of

fifth-century Athens,[2207] it is more likely that the physical meaning

of the word is to be inferred.

These inscriptions are often found on B.F. vases, but far more

frequently in the succeeding period, and generally in more or less

direct connection with artists’ signatures, from which fact interesting

results have been obtained. Special attention has been drawn to them of

late years, from the fact that many of the names are those borne by

historical personages, such as Miltiades, Megakles, Glaukon, and so on,

and attempts have been made to connect them with those characters (see

Vol. I. p. 403).

Klein, the chief writer on this subject, has collected in the second

edition of his valuable work no less than 558 instances of these

καλὸς-inscriptions,[2208] as against 424 signatures of artists; and

there are besides these the numerous instances in which no proper name

is given.

The chief question which calls for consideration in regard to these

inscriptions is their purport, and the reason why they occur

exclusively on vases, and of these exclusively on Attic vases covering

a period of not more than one hundred years. The custom was not, of

course, an unfamiliar one at Athens, as two references in Aristophanes

indicate. In the _Acharnians_[2209] he describes the Thracian Sitalkes

as being such a “lover” of the Athenians that he wrote on the walls,

“The Athenians are fair”; and, again, the slave Xanthias, in the

_Wasps_, speaking of his master’s litigious proclivities, says that if

ever he saw Δῆμος καλός written on a door he promptly wrote by the side

κημὸς καλός.[2210] But the most interesting and apposite instance

recorded is that of Pheidias, who scratched on the finger of his statue

of the Olympian Zeus, Παντάρκης καλός.[2211] Generally speaking, the

word was no doubt intended to refer to the personal beauty of boys (as

indicated by the use of ὁ παῖς), or at any rate of young athletes, and

was applied to popular favourites of the day,[2212] whose occupations

in the gymnasium, at the banquet, and elsewhere were matters of

every-day talk.

These names may have been placed on the vases with the view of

attracting the public to purchase them, or may even have been the

subject of special orders from customers. Some light seems to be thrown

on the matter by a cup signed by the painter Phintias,[2213] which

represents a young man, purse in hand, making purchases of vases in a

potter’s workshop. This vase has the inscription Χαιρίας καλός, but

whether it is intended as a representation of Chairias or his admirer

it is impossible to say. The names, however, are not always those of

every-day life. They may have relation to the figures on the vase, as

[ΗΕΚΤΟΡ ΚΑΛΟΣ].[2214]

We have already noted that historical names frequently occur in this

series, and it is obvious that if they can be identified with the

actual historical owners of such names much valuable information in

regard to the chronology of Greek vases will be gained. The question

has already been discussed in a previous chapter (Vol. I. p. 403), and

the principles there laid down need not be repeated. It is sufficient

to say that so far only two or three names have been identified with

those of historical personages, though more results may yet be

obtained. Of these one is Stesileos, occurring on two vases in Berlin,

and identified with a _strategos_ who fell at Marathon in 490.[2215] On

two lekythi (one late B.F., the other R.F.) the name of Glaukon son of

Leagros[2216] appears, and these two names have also been identified

with Athenian _strategi_, Leagros having fallen in battle against the

Edones in 467, while Glaukon commanded at Kerkyra in 433–432 B.C. It

may be roughly inferred that Leagros was a boy (παῖς) about 510 B.C.,

and his son Glaukon about 470 B.C., which gives an approximate date

(within ten years or so) for these two groups of vases. It is, however,

obvious that much at present only rests on hypothesis.

It is curious to note that nearly all these names have an aristocratic

sound: thus we have Alcibiades, Alkmaeon, Hipparchos, and Megakles,

besides those already quoted. Miltiades καλός occurs on a R.F. plate at

Oxford,[2217] but there seems hardly sufficient evidence for referring

it to the youth of the conqueror of Marathon (cf. Vol. I. p. 403). The

table at the end of this chapter may be found useful as giving a

_conspectus_ of the principal names and their relation to the artists.

* * * * *

It is now necessary to discuss some of the principal peculiarities of

the Attic vase-inscriptions, in regard to palaeography, orthography,

and grammar.[2218] The variety in the forms and uses of the letters is

somewhat surprising at first sight, but it must be remembered that

non-Attic influences were always strong, as has indeed already been

pointed out.

Α usually appears either in that form or as [Corinthian Α], [Sicyonian

Α]; but such variations as 15[14]RF Attic alpha 15[14]RF Attic alpha

15[13]RF Attic alpha are found on R.F. vases, while at a later period

even 15[13]RF Attic alpha occurs. Δ on the vases of Duris generally

appears as 15[13]RF Attic alpha [Attic lambda2] is found for [Attic

lambda], the Attic form of Λ. Σ varies between [sigma] and [fourline

sigma], while such abnormal forms as 15[11]rounded S (Oikopheles), and

15[11]E-shaped sigma are not unknown. The minor artist Xenokles uses a

sort of cursive handwriting for his signature. Η is used for ἑ and ἡ,

as in [HΡΜΕΣ] for [ΗΕΡΜΕΣ], [ΗΡΑΚΛΕΣ] for [ΗΕΡΑKΛΕΣ], which seems to be

a confusion of ideas resulting from its use for _eta_ in Ionic, and for

_h_ in Chalcidian (_i.e._ Western) alphabets.[2219] The sign for the

aspirate occurs first as [heta], afterwards as Η, and is sometimes

introduced without apparent reason, as in [ΗΙΛΕΙΘΙΑ] for Εἰλείθυια, and

[HΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΕ] for Ἀφροδίτη. The digamma is unknown on Attic vases, but

the François vase and the allied 'Tyrrhenian' group give some

interesting examples of the use of Ϙ for Κ. Thus we find [ϘORAΞΣ] for

Κόραξ, [ΕΤΕΟϘΛΟΣ] for Ἐτέοκλος, [ΧARIϘΛO] for Χαπικλώ. On the

Corintho-Attic vase in Berlin (1704) are two curious instances of

dittography, due no doubt to Corinthian influence, Κυλλήνιος being

written [ΚϘYΕNIOΣ] (Κϙυελνιος) and Ζεύς as [ΔΒΕYΣ], where the

Corinthian and Attic forms of Κ and Ε stand side by side. So on a vase

in the Louvre (E 852) we have [ΖDEYΣ] = Ζδεύς.[2220]

As a result no doubt of the unsettled state of the alphabet in the

fifth century, a confusion in the use of ε and η, and ο and ω

respectively, often arises, and we find Ἀλκιμάχως κάλως for Ἀλκίμαχος

καλός, [ΚΥΜΟΔΩΚΕ] for Κυμοδόκη, [ΘΗΤΙΣ] for Θέτις, and similar

forms.[2221] The diphthong ει is sometimes rendered by ΕΙ, sometimes by

Ε, as in [ΚΑΛΕΔΟΚΕΣ] for καλὴ δοκεῖς; αι and ει are also rendered by Ε,

as in the name [ΑΛΚΜΕΟΝ] for Ἀλκμαίων and [ΠΕΝΘΕΣΙΛΕΑ] for Πενθεσίλεια,

or αι by Α, as in [ΑΘΕΝΑΑ] for Ἀθηναία. In a few words, such as [ΧΙΡΟΝ]

(Χείρων) and [ΣΙΛΕΝΟΣ] (Σείληνος), the diphthong ει is represented by

its other member Ι. On the other hand, we find [ΕΙΟΛΕΟΣ] for Ἰολέως

(B.M. B 301). The general vagueness of the Attic craftsmen’s

orthography is well illustrated by Kretschmer in the word Ὀδυσσεύς,

which is not only invariably spelled with a Λ, reminding us of the

Latin form _Ulixes_, but occurs in the following different

forms[2222]:— 15[86]ΟΛΥΤΕΥΣ 15[79]ΟΛΥΤΕΥ 15[99]ΟΛΛΥΤΕΥΣ 15[103]ΟΛΥΤΤΕΥΣ

15[73]ΟΛΥΤΕΣ 15[81]ΟΛΥΣΕΥΣ 15[91]ΩΛΥΣΣΕΥΣ this order being roughly

chronological. The ordinary δ-form is, however, found.[2223]

A tendency to assimilation of aspirated consonants, always avoided in

literary Greek, is seen in such forms as [ΘΑΛΘΥΒΙΟΣ] for Ταλθύβιος,

[ΧΑΧΡΥΛΙΟΝ] for Καχρυλίων, and [ΦΑΝΦΑΙΟΣ] for Πάμφαιος. The reverse

tendency is curiously illustrated in [ΚΑΡΙΘΑΙΟΣ] for Χαριταῖος.

Unassimilated forms occur, as in the case of [ΑΝΧΙΠΟΣ] for

Ἄγχιππος.[2224] Another peculiarity is the omission of nasals before

consonants, as in [ΑΤΑΛΑΤΕ] for Ἀταλά(ν)τη, [ΤΥΤΑΡΕΟΣ] for

Τυ(ν)δαρέως,[2225] [ΙΑΦΥΙ] for Νύ(μ)φαι, [ΛΑΠΟΝ] for Λά(μ)πων, and

[ΕΚΕΛΑΔΟΣ] for Ἐ(γ)κέλαδος. There is also a tendency to avoid double

consonants, as in [ΜΕΣΙΛΑ] for Μνήσιλλα, [ΑΡΙΑΝΕ] for Ἀριάδνη,

[ΚΛΥΤΑΙΜΕΣΤΡΑ] for Κλυταίμνηστρα, [ΠΕΡΟΦΑΤΑ] for Περσέφαττα[2226]; this

is especially common in the case of double Λ or double Σ, as in

[ΟΛΥΤΕΥΣ] and [ΜΕΣΙΛΑ] just quoted. On the other hand, on later vases

consonants are often doubled without reason, as in [ΚΑΣΣΤΟΡ] for

Κάστωρ,[2227] [ΤΡΙΠΠΤΟΛΕΜΟΣ] for Τριπτόλεμος, [ΜΕΜΜΝΟΝ] for Μέμνων,

this being commonest with [fourline Σ] and [Π]. [Χ] and [Chalcidian Χ],

originally absent from the Attic alphabet, are represented usually by

[ΞΣ] and [ΘΣ], exceptionally by [ΚΣ] and [ΠΣ], as in [ΧΑΡΟΠΣ],

[ΚΣΕΝΟΚΛΕΣ][2228]; also occasionally by metathesis, as [ΕΛΡΑΣΦΕΝ],

[ΣΧΑΝΘΟΣ], [ΠΙΣΤΟΣΧΕΝΟΣ].[2229] Attic contractions, such as [ΧΑΤΕΡΟΣ]

for καὶ ἕτερος and [ΚΑΜΟΙ] for καὶἐμοί, are also found.[2230]

Among peculiarities of inflection (some of which may of course be mere

misspellings) may be mentioned [ΗΥΙΥΣ] = υἱύς for υἱός, [ΠΑΥΣ] for

paῖs, [ΘΕΣΥΣ] for Θησεύς, and [ΠΕΡΣΕΣ] for Περσεύς; also the open form

-εες for -hς, as in [ΗΕΡΑΚΛΕΕΣ], [ΧΣΕΝΟΚΛΕΕΣ], and the form πίει for

πίε; to some of these allusion has already been made.

* * * * *

From this mass of detail it is possible to deduce certain chronological

results,[2231] which are not without their value for the dating of the

various Athenian fabrics. Excluding the doubtful Dipylon vase, the

inscriptions extend from the seventh century[2232] down to the time of

Xenophantos and the late Panathenaic amphorae, a period of over three

hundred years.

In the François vase we meet with the closed [asper] for the aspirate,

the Ϙ and Κ together, and the two forms [Θ] and [Θ] of Θ; as the [Θ]

form dropped out of private use earlier than out of official documents,

and is found in the latter down to 520 B.C., we can date the François

vase about the middle of the sixth century (not later, as the closed

[asper] shows); the same date will also apply to the earliest

Panathenaic amphora (B.M. B 130), and the cup of Oikopheles. The fact

that Eucheiros, a “minor artist,” calls himself the son of Ergotimos,

who made the François vase, permits us to place him some thirty years

later, about 520 B.C., and this point may be regarded as the zenith of

the B.F. period. In the later B.F. vases the H and Ω for Ε and Ο begin

to make their appearance[2233]; but the conservative Panathenaic

amphorae, like the coins, adhere to the original spelling right down to

the end.

The existence of the R.F. style for some time previous to 480 B.C. has

now been established by the discoveries on the Athenian Acropolis. This

is also borne out by the appearance on vases by Euthymides of the [Θ]

form for [Θ], and the complete absence in the earlier vases of the H

and Ω forms, which are not found among the Acropolis fragments. The

hydria of Meidias (B.M. B 224), which marks the zenith of the “fine”

period, has a purely Ionic alphabet. The Ionic forms seem to have come

in with the “fine” R.F. style after 480 B.C., and for some time we find

a mixed alphabet on the vases.[2234] It is also interesting to note the

appearance in some cases of the Thasian alphabet, with its use of Ω for

Ο (as in Ἀλκιμάχως καλώς, B.M. E 318), which has been traced to the

influence of Polygnotos.[2235]

* * * * *

We conclude our account of inscriptions on Greek vases with a brief

survey of those found on the vases of Southern Italy[2236]; it will be

seen that they are neither numerous nor specially interesting.

The inscriptions are for the most part in the Doric dialect and Ionic

alphabet, with the addition of the Doric sign [doric asper] for the

aspirate. Generally speaking, these Doric forms are found on the

Apulian vases, whereas on the products of Paestum they are mainly

Ionic, with admixtures of Doric. Attic forms also occur. It seems

probable that the Doric tendencies of the Apulian inscriptions are due

to the influence of the great Laconian colony of Tarentum (although the

vases were not made there), while Paestum was influenced, on the other

hand, by the neighbouring Ionic colonies, such as Cumae.

The latter, being for the most part of earlier date, will first occupy

our attention. They include two artists’ signatures, which appear in

the form [ΑΣΣΤΕΑΣ] [ΕΓΡΑΦΕ] and [ΠΥΘΩΝ] [ΕΓΡΑΦΕ]. We have already

remarked on the use of the imperfect tense (p. 258); there are five

vases by Assteas and one by Python, on all of which the figures also

have their names inscribed.[2237] The Ionic forms appear in [ΜΕΓΑΡΗ],

Μεγάρη, [ΑΛΚΜΗΝΗ], Ἀλκμήνη, and so on; on the other hand, Python uses

the Doric form [ΑΩΣ], Ἀώς = Ἠώς, and Assteas the Doric [Doric heta] in

[ἙΣΣΠΕΡΙΑΣ] = Ἑ<σ>σπεριάς. Ionic forms are also found on a few Apulian

vases, as for instance Berlin 3257 (from Ceglie), which has [Ε]ΥΘΥΜΙΗ]

and [ΕΥΝΟΜΙΗ] for Εὐθυμία and Εὐνομία, or Naples 2296 with [ΝΗΣΑΙΗ] for

Νησαία.

Some of the inscribed Apulian vases are not without interest, as for

instance that in the Louvre, which bears the signature of Lasimos:

[ΛΑΣΙΜΟΣ ΕΓΡΑΨΕ], Λάσιμος ἔγραψε.[2238] He was probably not a Greek,

but of Messapian origin. On the great Dareios vase in Naples (No. 3253)

several names are inscribed, such as [ἙΛΛΑΣ] forἝλλας, [ΑΣΙΑ],

[ΔΑΡΕΙΟΣ], and the general title of the scene, [ΠΕΡΣΑΙ]. On a

well-known burlesque scene in the British Museum (F 269) the characters

are inscribed [ΗΕΡΑ] (Ἥρα), [ΔΑΙΔΑΛΟΣ] (Δαίδαλος = Hephaistos), and

[ΕΝΕΥΑΛΙΟΣ] (Ἐν<ε>υάλιος = Ares); and on the fine amphora F 331,

representing Pelops at Olympia, are numerous incised inscriptions:

[ΠΕΛΟΨ], Πέλοψ; [ΟΙΝΟΜΑΟΣ], Οἰνόμαος; [ἹΠΠΟΔΑΜΕΙΑ], Ἱπποδάμεια, etc. On

the altar is painted [ΔΙΟΣ], Διός, _sc._ “the altar of Zeus.”

A curious inscription is that on a krater in Naples (No. 2872), which

represents Eros and a woman playing at ball; the latter leans on a

stele on which is inscribed [ἹΗΣΑΝΜΟΙΤΑΝΣΦΙΡΑΝ] which was interpreted

by Cavedoni, probably correctly, as ἵης ἄν μοι τὰν σφ(α)ῖραν, “You

might send me the ball.” The [Sicyonian Χ] is an error for [Doric

heta], the [heta reversed] for Η. This inscription, be it noted, is

painted, contrary to the general rule in these vases, as they are

generally incised; but an exception seems to be made in favour of

inscriptions on _stelae_ and similar objects, which are not uncommon,

though many are open to suspicion. In the British Museum there are

several examples,[2239] but by far the most curious is on an amphora in

Naples (No. 2868), where a _stele_ is inscribed:

[Illustration:

νώτω [μὲν] μολάχην τε καὶ ἀσφόδολον πολύριζον

κόλπῳ δ’ Οἰδιπόδαν Λαίο(υ) υἱὸν ἔχω

“On my back I bear mallow and many-rooted asphodel, but

in my bosom Oedipus, Laios’ son.”[2240]

]

A curious and unique inscription is found engraved on a kotyle from

Chiusi: οὗτος τὸν δᾶμον ἔφα ποναρόν, “This fellow said that the people

were a depraved lot.”[2241] The η of πονηρόν was first written Ε, and

then corrected into Α, the Doric form. It may be supposed that the

inscription is due to a workman who did not approve of the democracy

under which he lived.

On an amphora from Gnatia (Fasano), with a goose and a cock, in white

on the black ground, is the quaint dialogue:

[ΑΝΗΧΝΟΤΙΑ, ΟΤΟΝΕΛΕΤΡΥΓΟΝΑ]

αἴ τὸν χῆνα, ὦ τὸν ἐλετρυγόνα, or, “What, the goose?”

“Oh, the cock!”[2242]

Etruscan inscriptions do not come within the scope of this chapter, but

an Oscan inscription should be mentioned here, which is incised on a

vase in the British Museum (F 233), over an actor: [ΑΙΤΝΑΣ] = _Santia_,

the Oscan form of Ξανθίας, which was a common name for the slave of

comedy.

LIST OF ARTISTS’ SIGNATURES FOUND ON GREEK VASES

I. EARLY FABRICS (CHAPTER VII.)

Aristonoös ἐποίησε Uncertain fabric See Vol. I. p. 297

Pyrrhos ἐποίησε Proto-Corinthian _Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902),

p. 41

Chares ἔγραψε Corinthian Klein, _Meistersig._ p.

29

Milonidas ἔγραψε do. _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl.

1, fig. 4

Timonidas ἔγραψε do. Klein, p. 28

Gamedes ἐποίησε Boeotian _Ibid._ p. 31

Gryton ἐποίησε do. _Boston Mus. Report_,

1898, p. 54

Iphitadas ἐποίησε Boeotian _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p.

105

Menaidas ἐποίησε do. _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl.

1, fig. 1

Mnasalkes ἐποίησε do. _Boston Mus. Report_,

1899, p. 56

Theozotos ἐποίησε do. Louvre F 69

II. ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED VASES (Vol. I. p. 379).

Amasis ἐποίησε Amphorae and Klein, p. 43; Vol. I. p.

oinochoae 383

Anakles ἐποίησε[2243] Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 75

Antidoros ἐποίει Minor artist _Notizie degli Scavi_,

1897, p. 231

Archikles ἐποίησε Minor artist Klein, p. 76

Charitaios ἐποίησε Hydria and kylix _Ibid._ p. 51

Cheiron ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79

Epitimos ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 84

Ergoteles ἐποίησε Minor artist Berlin 1758

Ergotimos ἐποίησε Potter of François Klein, p. 37

vase; kylix

Eucheiros ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 72

Euphiletos ἔγραψε Pinax _Ibid._ p. 49

Exekias {ἔγραψε } Amphorae and kylikes _Ibid._ p. 38

{ἐποίησε}

Glaukytes ἐποίησε Minor artist (with _Ibid._ p. 77

Archikles)

Hermogenes ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 82

Kaulos ἐποίησε Potter for Sakonides _Notizie degli Scavi_,

1903, p. 35

Kittos ἐποίησε Panathen. amph. (4th B.M. B 604

cent.)

Kleisophos ἔγραψε Oinochoë (Xenokles Athens 691

as potter)

Klitias ἔγραψε François vase Klein, p. 32; B.M. B

(painter) 601_{4–5}

Kolchos ἐποίησε Oinochoë Berlin 1732

Mnesikleides ἔγραψε Aryballos Athens 669

Myspios ἐποίησε Minor artist Klein, p. 84

Neandros ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79

Nearchos ἐγρ. κ. ἐπ. Situla _Ibid._ p. 38

Nikosthenes ἐποίησε About eighty vases _Ibid._ p. 51

Oikopheles ἐκεράμευσε Kylix Oxford 189

Paseas γράμμα Pinax Klein, p. 49

Phrynos ἐποίησε Minor artist B.M. B 424 and Boston

Priapos ἐποίησε Doubtful B.M. B 395

Psoieas ἐποίησε(?) Minor artist B.M. B 600_{40}

Sakonides ἔγραψε Minor artist Klein, p. 85

Sikelos ἔγραψε Panathen. amphora _Ibid._ p. 86

Skythes ἔγραψε Pinax _Ibid._ p. 48

Sokles ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 79

Sondros ἐποίησε Minor artist B.M. B 601_{6}

Sophilos ἔγραψε Fragment _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1

Taleides ἐποίησε Various shapes Klein, p. 46

Thrax ἐποίησε Minor artist _Notizie degli Scavi_,

1903, p. 36

Timagoras ἐποίησε Hydriae Klein, p. 50

Tlenpolemos ἐποίησε Minor artist; potter _Ibid._ p. 84

for Sakonides

Tleson ἐποίησε Minor artist _Ibid._ p. 73

Tychios ἐποίησε Hydria _Ibid._ p. 50

Xenokles ἐποίησε Minor artist; potter _Ibid._ p. 80

for Kleisophos

III. TRANSITIONAL OR “MIXED TECHNIQUE”

Andokides { ἐποίησε } Amphorae, etc. See Vol. I. p. 386

{ ἐποίει }

Chelis See below

Epiktetos See below

Epilykos See below

Hischylos ἐποίησε Potter for Klein, p. 97

Epiktetos,

Sakonides,

Pheidippos

Nikosthenes See above; two

mixed; three

R.F.[2244]

Pamphaios ἐποίησε Various shapes _Ibid._ p. 87

Pasiades ἐποίησε White-ground B.M. B 668

Thypheithide ἐποίησε Doubtful See B.M. E 4

s

IV. ATTIC RED-FIGURED VASES (see Vol. I. p. 420 ff.)

Aeson ἔγραψε Kylix _Ant. Denkm._ ii. pl. 1

Amasis II (ἔγραψε) Kylix Bibl. Nat. 535; Hartwig,

_Meistersch._ chap. xvi.

Apollodoros ἔγραψε Kylikes _Ibid._ chap. xxii.

Aristophanes ἔγραψε Kylikes Berlin 2531; _Boston Mus.

Report_, 1900, p. 49 ff.

Brygos ἐποίησε Kylikes Hartwig, chap. xiii.

Chachrylion ἐποίησε Kylikes _Ibid._ chap iv.

Chelis { ἐποίησε} Kylikes (one Klein, _Meistersig._ p.

“mixed”) 116

{ ἐποίει }

Deiniades ἐποίησε Potter for Phintias

Duris ἔγραψε Various shapes Hartwig, chaps. x., xxi.

Epigenes ἐποίησε Kantharos Klein, p. 186

Epiktetos ἔγραψε Kylikes and plates _Ibid._ p. 100

Epilykos ἔγραψε Kylikes _Ibid._ p. 114: see

_Monuments Piot_, ix. p.

135 ff.

Erginos ἐποίησε Potter for

Aristophanes

Euergides ἐποίησε Kylikes Klein, p. 99

Euphronios { ἔγραψε } Various shapes Hartwig, chaps. vii.,

xviii.

{ἐποίησε }

Euthymides ἔγραψε Various shapes Hoppin, _Euthymides_

Euxitheos ἐποίησε Amphora; potter for Klein, p. 135

Oltos

Hegesiboulos ἐποίησε White-ground cup _Branteghem Cat._, No.

167

Hegias ἔγραψε Kylix Klein, p. 186

Hermaios ἐποίησε Kylikes See Vol. I. p. 424

Hermonax ἔγραψε Stamni and “pelikae” Klein, p. 200

Hieron ἐποίησε Kylikes and kotylae; Hartwig, chap. xii.

potter for Makron

Hilinos ἐποίησε Potter for Psiax

Hischylos ἐποίησε See above

Hypsis ἔγραψε Hydria Klein, p. 198

Kalliades ἐποίησε Potter for Duris:

see Table V.

Kleophrades ἐποίησε Potter for Duris and

Amasis II.

Makron ἔγραψε (With Hieron)

Maurion ἐποίει Pyxis B.M. E 770; _Class. Rev._

1894, p. 419

Megakles ἐποίησε Pyxis Klein, p. 205

Meidias ἐποίησε Hydria B.M. E 224 = Plate XLI.

Mys ἐποίησε Lekythos Athens 1362

Nikias ἐποίησε Krater in B.M See p. 259 above

Oltos ἔγραψε Kylikes Hartwig, chap. v.

Onesimos ἔγραψε Kylikes (Euphronios _Ibid._ chap. xix.

as potter)

Peithinos ἔγραψε Kylikes _Ibid._ chap. xi.

Pheidippos ἔγραψε Kylix B.M. E 6

Phintias ἔγραψε Various shapes Hartwig, chap. ix.

Pistoxenos ἐποίησε Kotylae; potter for _Ibid._ chap. xiv.

Euphronios

Polygnotos ἔγραψε Amphorae; stamni _Mon. Antichi_, ix. p. 1

ff.

Praxias ἔγραψε (Non-Athenian?) Klein, p. 31

Psiax ἔγραψε Kylix and alabastron _Amer. Journ. of Arch._

1895, p. 485

Python I. ἐποίησε Potter for Epiktetos

and Duris

Sikanos ἐποίησε Plate Klein, p. 116

Smikros ἔγραψε[2245] Stamni _Monuments Piot_, ix. p.

15 ff.

Sosias ἐποίησε Kylix Berlin 2278; Klein, p.

147

Sotades { ἐποίησε } White-ground vases { _Branteghem Cat._

159–166

{ ἐποίει } { Klein, p. 187

Syriskos ἐποίησε Astragalos vase Hartwig, chap. xxiv.

Xenophantos ἐποίησε Lekythos Petersburg 1790

Xenotimos ἐποίησε Kylikes _Branteghem Cat._ 84–85

V. UNFIGURED AND MODELLED VASES

Charinos ἐποίησε Modelled vases Klein, p. 215; _Röm.

Mitth._ 1890, p. 316

Kalliades ἐποίησε Modelled vases; Klein, p. 216

potter for Duris

Kleomenes ἐποίησε Modelled vase in _Mon. Grecs_, 1897, pls.

Louvre 16–17

Kriton ἐποίησε Jug; no subject Klein, p. 213

Lydos ἐποίησε Fragment; painter’s _Ibid._ p. 217

name lost

Lykinos ἠργάσατο Pyxis _Ibid._ p. 213

Lysias ἐποίησε Jug; no subject _Ibid._ p. 213

Myson ἐγρ. κ. ἐπ. Fragment _Ibid._ p. 217

Prokles ἐποίησε Modelled lekythos Berlin 2202

Teisias ἐποίησε Vases without Klein, p. 212

subject

Therinos ποίημα Chytra _Ibid._ p. 214

VI. SOUTH ITALIAN (see Vol. I. p. 478)

Assteas ἔγραψε Kraters, etc. See Vol. I. p. 478

Lasimos ἔγραψε Krater Klein, p. 210

Python ἔγραφε Krater B.M. F 149

Statios ἔργον Doubtful See B.M. F 594

LIST OF ΚΑΛΟΣ-NAMES ON GREEK VASES

_Names in parentheses denote the artists with whom they are associated_

I. BLACK-FIGURED VASES

Aischis Myia

Andokides (Timagoras) Mys

Anthylle Neokleides (Taleides)

Automenes Onetor

Chairaia? (Nikosthenes) Onetorides (Exekias)

Chares Pyles

Dorotheos (Charinos? also Pythokles I.

R.F.)

Eresilla Rhodon

Euphiletos Rhodopis

Hippokrates (also R.F.) Sibon (Kabeirion vase: see

Vol. I. p. 218)

Hippokritos (Glaukytes) Sime

Hippon I. Sostratos

Kallias I. (Taleides) Stesias (Exekias)

Kallippe Stesileos

Klitarchos (Taleides) Stroibos

Leagros (Exekias; also R.F.) Timotheos

Lysippides Xenodoke (Charinos)

Mnesilla

II. RED-FIGURED VASES

Aisimides Antimachos

Akestor Antiphon

Akestorides Aphrodisia

Alexomenos Archinos II.

Alkides Aristagoras (Duris)

Alkimachos Aristarchos

Antias Aristeides

Athenodotos (Peithinos; with Lichas

Leagros)

Brachas Lyandros

Chairestratos Lykopis

Chairias (Phintias) Lykos (Euphronios, Duris,

Onesimos)

Chairippos Lysis (Hartwig, chap. xxiii.)

Charmides Megakles I. (Phintias,

Euthymides)

Damas Megakles II.

Diogenes (see Hartwig, chap. Memnon (Chelis, Chachrylion)

xv.)

Diokles Midas

Dion Mikion II.

Dionokles Miltiades

Diphilos Naukleia (Hieron)

Dorotheos (also B.F.) Nikodemos

Dromippos Nikon

Elpinikos Nikophile

Epidromos (Chachrylion?) Nikostratos II. (Hartwig,

chap. xx.)

Epileios Oinanthe

Epimedes Olympiodoros (also one B.F.)

Erosantheo Panaitios (Euphronios, Duris)

Erothemis (Euphronios and Pedieus

Onesimos)

Euaion Perses

Eurymachos Phayllos

Euryptolemos (Apollodoros) Pheidiades

Glaukon (Euphronios) Pheidon

Heras Philon

Hermogenes (Duris) Praxiteles

Hiketes Sekline (Euphronios)

Hipparchos (Epiktetos) Sikinnos

Hippodamas (Duris and Hieron) Simiades

Hippon II. Smikythos (Euthymides)

Hygiainon Sokrates

Kallias II. Solon

Kallides Sophanes

Kallikles Sostratos

Kallisto (Hieron) Thaleia

Karton Theodoros

Kephisios Thero (Oltos)

Kephisophon Timarchos

Kleinias Timokrates

Kleophon (with Megakles I.) Timoxenos or Timaxenos

Krates Tleson

Laches (see Hartwig, chap. Xenon

xx.)

Leagros (Chachrylion, Xenophon.

Euphronios, Euxitheos)

[The foregoing list is not exhaustive, but only gives the more

frequently occurring names; reference should be made

throughout to Klein’s _Lieblingsinschriften_, 1898 edition.]

-----

Footnote 2058:

v. 17, 6.

Footnote 2059:

xi. 466 D-E.

Footnote 2060:

Hence the oblique cases υἱεῖ, υἱεῖς, etc., of classical usage.

Footnote 2061:

_Die griechischen Vaseninschriften_, Gütersloh, 1894.

Footnote 2062:

See Berlin 2891; _Arch. Zeit._ 1879, p. 96.

Footnote 2063:

Cf. Berlin 2866 and the vase of Xenophantos (Reinach, i. 23).

Footnote 2064:

B.M. A 189* = Plate XVII. fig. 6.

Footnote 2065:

Vol. I. p. 436; Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 162 ff.

Footnote 2066:

Vol. I. p. 478; Klein, _ibid._ p. 206 ff.

Footnote 2067:

Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 118.

Footnote 2068:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 396.

Footnote 2069:

For the explanation of these names see Chapter IV.

Footnote 2070:

B.M. E 497; Schöne in _Comm. Phil. in hon. Mommseni_, p. 658, Nos.

29–32.

Footnote 2071:

_Op. cit._ p. 651, No. 5. In this and the other examples it will be

understood that [Δ] denotes 10 (δέκα), [Π] 5 (πέντε), and so on; [Ͱ]

being the sign for a drachma.

Footnote 2072:

_Op. cit._ No. 17.

Footnote 2073:

A diminutive of πέλλα, a large deep cup or bowl (see Vol. I. p. 186).

Footnote 2074:

Schöne, _op. cit._ p. 650, No. 3.

Footnote 2075:

_Ibid._ No. 7 = _Cat._ 1206.

Footnote 2076:

_Cat._ 2188; Schöne’s No. 8. The meaning of Λύδια μείζω is uncertain.

Footnote 2077:

_Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 36.

Footnote 2078:

B.M. B 310; Munich 693. See Jahn in _Ber. d. Sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854,

p. 37.

Footnote 2079:

_Ran._ 1236.

Footnote 2080:

_Pac._ 1202.

Footnote 2081:

Schöne, _op. cit._ p. 655, No. 13.

Footnote 2082:

F 595: see Vol. I. p. 135.

Footnote 2083:

B.M. B 451; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 374 ff.

Footnote 2084:

B.M. B 450 = _J.H.S._ vi. p. 372.

Footnote 2085:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 545.

Footnote 2086:

A 1054 = Roehl, _I.G.A._ 524, p. 151. See also Kretschmer, pp. 3–4.

Footnote 2087:

_I.G.A._ 22: see below, p. 252.

Footnote 2088:

_Ibid._ 2 = B.M. A 1512.

Footnote 2089:

B.M. F 596: see Vol. I. p. 186.

Footnote 2090:

Heydemann’s _Cat._ 1212.

Footnote 2091:

B.M. F 605–6.

Footnote 2092:

_Naukratis I._, pls. 32–4, p. 54 ff.; _Naukratis II._, pl. 21, p. 62

ff.; _Brit. Sch. Annual_, 1898–99, p. 53.

Footnote 2093:

_Ath. Mitth._ xv. p. 395 ff.

Footnote 2094:

See Vol. I. pp. 139, 345.

Footnote 2095:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 107; 1893, p. 225; Kretschmer, p. 110; also

Vol. I. p. 291.

Footnote 2096:

_Mon. Grecs_, 1897, pls. 16–7, p. 55; and see Vol. I. p. 493.

Footnote 2097:

B.M. B 134; Urlichs, _Beiträge_, pl. 14.

Footnote 2098:

Berlin 2314.

Footnote 2099:

Examples in the B.M. are E 12 and E 457 (Pamphaios), E 61 (Hieron), E

65 (Brygos), E 258 (Euxitheos); and cf. Fig. 129.

Footnote 2100:

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. p. 670. They have been found at

Larnaka, Paphos, Dali, and Amathus.

Footnote 2101:

Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 154.

Footnote 2102:

On the subject generally see Roberts, _Greek Epigraphy_, vol. i.

(Cambridge Press).

Footnote 2103:

See the table given by Kretschmer, p. 105.

Footnote 2104:

See Hill, _Handbook of Greek and Roman Coins_, p. 208 ff.

Footnote 2105:

B.M. B 130.

Footnote 2106:

See for other details of coin-inscriptions Hill, _op. cit._

Footnote 2107:

_Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 250.

Footnote 2108:

No. 385 (Didot).

Footnote 2109:

It should be borne in mind that Mycenaean vases have been found in

Argolis, Cyprus, and elsewhere, with characters _incised_ on the

handles, of contemporaneous execution, and forming parallels to the

Cretan script and the later Cypriote syllabary.

Footnote 2110:

_Olympia_, iv. pl. 39, p. 102.

Footnote 2111:

Roehl, _I.G.A._ 377.

Footnote 2112:

$1$2 1903, pls. 2–6: see Vol. I. p. 92.

Footnote 2113:

See also Vol. I. p. 335.

Footnote 2114:

_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263; Kretschmer, p. 7.

Footnote 2115:

Vol. I. p. 297 and Plate XVI.; for the latest interpretation of the

name, as here adopted, see _Class. Review_, 1900, p. 264.

Footnote 2116:

_E.g._ Ramsay in _J.H.S._ x. p. 187.

Footnote 2117:

Studniczka, _Kyrene_, p. 11 ff.; Vol. I. p. 342.

Footnote 2118:

Collected by Blass, _Dialektinschr._ iii. 3120 ff., and Wilisch,

_Altkorinthische Thonindustrie_, p. 156.

Footnote 2119:

Roberts (_Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 134) distinguishes three periods in

the Corinthian alphabet from 700 to 400 B.C., but the vases seem to

belong almost entirely to the first, down to 550 B.C.

Footnote 2120:

Vol. I. p. 316, Fig. 90.

Footnote 2121:

_Cat._ 1655: see Vol. I. p. 319.

Footnote 2122:

Louvre E 600 = Reinach, i. 395.

Footnote 2123:

B.M. A 1080 = Reinach, i. 306.

Footnote 2124:

Athens 620 = Reinach, i. 394.

Footnote 2125:

Roehl, _I.G.A._ 20, 5.

Footnote 2126:

_Ibid._ 20, 63.

Footnote 2127:

E 638 = _Mon. dell’ Inst._ 1855, pl. 20. It has been suggested that

the name is originally a corruption of _Alexandra_ = Xandra = Ksandra

= Kesandra (Kretschmer, p. 28).

Footnote 2128:

The general peculiarities of the Corinthian alphabet are not touched

on here, as examples have been given of all characteristic letters.

See Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 134.

Footnote 2129:

Kretschmer, p. 51; Roehl, _I.G.A._ p. 14, No. 22.

Footnote 2130:

See Vol. I. p. 300; Klein, _Meisters._ p. 30; _Boston Mus. Report_,

1898, p. 54, 1899, p. 56; _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 105.

Footnote 2131:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 6, p. 101.

Footnote 2132:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 411.

Footnote 2133:

See Vol. I. p. 357; Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 156; _Ath. Mitth._ 1900,

p. 93, note.

Footnote 2134:

_Auserl. Vasenb._ 205, 3, 4: see Vol. I. p. 357.

Footnote 2135:

See Vol. I. p. 322 and Kretschmer, p. 62.

Footnote 2136:

_Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902), p. 41.

Footnote 2137:

As is often the case with English seventeenth-century inscriptions.

Footnote 2138:

_Frag. Com. Gr._ (_Script. Gr. Bibl._, xlii.), p. 248.

Footnote 2139:

_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34.

Footnote 2140:

For the language spoken by the μέτοικοι cf. Kretschmer, p. 76, and

Philostratus, _Vit. Soph._ ii. 1, 14; also Plat. Lys. 223_a_,

ὑποβαρβαρίζοντες παιδαγωγοί.

Footnote 2141:

Naples 3089 = Millingen-Reinach, 33–4.

Footnote 2142:

Bibl. Nat. 372 = Reinach, i. 92.

Footnote 2143:

Bibl. Nat. 846 = Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 129.

Footnote 2144:

Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 320; Dümmler in _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1888,

p. 20; Kretschmer, p. 81.

Footnote 2145:

Ar. _Thesm._ 1084–1225.

Footnote 2146:

Kretschmer also hints that it seems to indicate the pronunciation of

Φ by the Athenians as PH in “hap-hazard,” not as F.

Footnote 2147:

There are also isolated instances of ἔγραφε; Timonidas of Corinth,

Pheidippos, Euthymides, and Aristophanes. See Klein, _Meisters._ p.

13.

Footnote 2148:

B.M. F 594.

Footnote 2149:

Gardner, _Ashmolean Vases_, No. 189, pl. 26: Εκεράμευσεν ἐμὲ

Οἰκυφέλης. We are reminded of the jest about Chairestratos made by

the comic poet Phrynichos, who speaks of “Chairestratos soberly

pottering (κεραμεύων) at home” (Athen. xi. 474 B).

Footnote 2150:

See list at end of chapter, and Klein, _op. cit._ pp. 49, 213, 214.

Footnote 2151:

Munich 378 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 14. See Vol. I. p. 428.

Footnote 2152:

Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 111.

Footnote 2153:

G 107: see _Monuments Piot_, ix. p. 33.

Footnote 2154:

Naples 3415.

Footnote 2155:

Munich 498 = Reinach, i. 215.

Footnote 2156:

_Cat._ 1152.

Footnote 2157:

Munich 380, 810 = Reinach, ii. 115, i. 363.

Footnote 2158:

Louvre E 852 = Reinach, i. 156.

Footnote 2159:

Reinach, ii. 292.

Footnote 2160:

_E.g._ B.M. F 62.

Footnote 2161:

See also Kretschmer, p. 84.

Footnote 2162:

_E.g._ B.M. B 164, B 254; Louvre F 297 = Reinach, ii. 26.

Footnote 2163:

Kretschmer, p. 85: see p 92.

Footnote 2164:

Munich 6: see Vol. I. p. 428, and Hoppin, _Euthymides_, p. 18.

Footnote 2165:

_Monuments Piot_, ix. pl. 2.

Footnote 2166:

Berlin 1737.

Footnote 2167:

Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119.

Footnote 2168:

Berlin 1704 = Reinach, i. 198; Vol. I. p. 326.

Footnote 2169:

Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.

Footnote 2170:

Plate XXIII.: see Vol. I. p. 326.

Footnote 2171:

Bibl. Nat. 219.

Footnote 2172:

Louvre F 385 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 38.

Footnote 2173:

Reinach, ii. 49.

Footnote 2174:

Kretschmer, p. 86.

Footnote 2175:

Reinach, ii. 128.

Footnote 2176:

Kretschmer, pp. 86, 197.

Footnote 2177:

See Kretschmer, p. 86.

Footnote 2178:

_Cat._ 1158 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1884, pl. 1.

Footnote 2179:

Kretschmer, _loc. cit._: cf. Bergk, _Poet. lyr. Gr._ iii.^4 p. 97,

frag. 23.

Footnote 2180:

See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 255.

Footnote 2181:

Petersburg 1670. The Doric dialect is explained by Kretschmer as due

to the Sicilian origin of the game.

Footnote 2182:

_Sc._ “hard to beat.”

Footnote 2183:

Kretschmer, p. 88.

Footnote 2184:

_I.e._ κυβιστητῆρι.

Footnote 2185:

Reinach, i. 294. Probably, as Kretschmer points out, a dog of Melita

off Illyricum, not of Malta.

Footnote 2186:

Kretschmer, p. 91.

Footnote 2187:

Benndorf, _Gr. u. sic. Vasenb._ pl. 1.

Footnote 2188:

Helbig, 186 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 8, 6.

Footnote 2189:

Reinach, i. 96.

Footnote 2190:

Reinach, i. 106.

Footnote 2191:

This translation is somewhat doubtful: see Reinach, _loc. cit._

Footnote 2192:

_Cat._ 688 = Reinach, i. 164.

Footnote 2193:

Reinach, i. 513.

Footnote 2194:

Athens 1241 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 6.

Footnote 2195:

Plate XXXIX.

Footnote 2196:

On the form of the Δ see below, p. 268.

Footnote 2197:

_Brit. Sch. Annual_, 1898–99, p. 65.

Footnote 2198:

Reinach, i. 277: see on the subject, _Hermes_, 1898, p. 640; _Notizie

degli Scavi_, 1895, 86 ff.; and above, pp. 115, 137.

Footnote 2199:

See on this subject, Urlichs, _Beiträge_, p. 33 ff., and Vol. I. p.

389.

Footnote 2200:

Athen. xi. 466 D; not found on Attic vases, but cf. B.M. F 548.

Footnote 2201:

B.M. B 415, 422; Berlin 1775–76.

Footnote 2202:

Berlin 1764; Munich 37. For variations see Kretschmer, p. 195.

Footnote 2203:

See Klein, _Meisters._ p. 110; Kretschmer, p. 82.

Footnote 2204:

Instances are B.M. B 330, B 339, B 631, E 182, E 718.

Footnote 2205:

_E.g._ B.M. B 400.

Footnote 2206:

_Cat._ 334 = Reinach, i. 79. The vase is probably by Charinos.

Footnote 2207:

Cf. the story of Pericles and Sophocles told by Cicero, _De Offic._

i. 40, 144.

Footnote 2208:

_Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften_, 2nd edn., 1898. Of these, 528 are

masculine names, and only 30 feminine.

Footnote 2209:

143 ff. There is, of course, a play here on the word ἐραστής.

Footnote 2210:

97 ff. Demos is here a proper name; κημός means the ballot-box, in

which the juries recorded their votes.

Footnote 2211:

Cf. Frazer’s note on Paus. vi. 10, 6 (vol. iv. p. 37).

Footnote 2212:

Such as the Laches καλός on Berlin 2314, a name which recalls the

Platonic dialogue with that title.

Footnote 2213:

Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 17, 1.

Footnote 2214:

Reinach, ii. 94.

Footnote 2215:

Hartwig in _Mélanges d’Arch._ 1894, p. 10 note.

Footnote 2216:

The name of Leagros occurs on many vases by Euphronios and other

artists: see Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 70 ff.

Footnote 2217:

Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2 p. 87 = _Ashmolean Vases_, No. 310.

Footnote 2218:

See for this section, Kretschmer, p. 94 ff.

Footnote 2219:

See Kretschmer, p. 98.

Footnote 2220:

See Vol. I. p. 326.

Footnote 2221:

But see p. 271 for the probable explanation of this use of ω.

Footnote 2222:

Kretschmer, p. 146.

Footnote 2223:

Naples 2899; B.M. E 156.

Footnote 2224:

Louvre F 53 = Reinach, ii. 59 (Exekias).

Footnote 2225:

Berlin 2291.

Footnote 2226:

Munich 340 = _C.I.G._ 7433.

Footnote 2227:

B.M. E 224; Karlsruhe 209: cf. Berlin 2184 ([ΟΡΕΣΣΤΕΣ]) and 1906

([ΤΡΙΤΟΝΝΟΣ]).

Footnote 2228:

Kretschmer, p. 179.

Footnote 2229:

_Ibid._ p. 180.

Footnote 2230:

Munich 334.

Footnote 2231:

See generally Kretschmer, p. 110 ff.

Footnote 2232:

The two Proto-Attic inscribed vases (Berlin 1682 and _Art. Denkm._ i.

57: see Vol. I. p. 293).

Footnote 2233:

Berlin 2008; _Röm. Mitth._ 1886, p. 21.

Footnote 2234:

See the table given by Kretschmer, p. 105.

Footnote 2235:

See Vol. I. p. 443, and Dümmler’s article in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 168

ff.

Footnote 2236:

See Kretschmer, p. 211 ff.

Footnote 2237:

For the proof that Assteas and Python worked at Paestum, see Vol. I.

p. 479.

Footnote 2238:

The name is perhaps a by-form of Dasimos (see Vol. I. p. 478). The

correspondence of D and L is not uncommon, as in δακρύς = _lacrima_.

Footnote 2239:

F 62, [ΤΕΡΜΩΝ]; F 92, [ΟΡΕΣΣΤΑΣ]. See also Millingen-Reinach, pls.

14, 17, 18.

Footnote 2240:

Cf. the version given by Eustathius _ad Odyss._ p. 1698, 25.

Footnote 2241:

Kretschmer, p. 218; _Rev. Arch._ xii. (1888), p. 344.

Footnote 2242:

Rayet and Collignon, p. 330 (in Louvre): see above, p. 186; also Vol.

I. p. 488.

Footnote 2243:

One kylix in partnership with Nikosthenes.

Footnote 2244:

In one case as potter for Epiktetos.