By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: History of Ancient Pottery.  Volume 2 (of 2) - Greek, Etruscan, and Roman
Author: Walters, H. B.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Ancient Pottery.  Volume 2 (of 2) - Greek, Etruscan, and Roman" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical
effects. Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Bold
font is delimited by the ‘=’ character. Superscripted and subscripted
characters are shown as ‘^2’ and ‘_{2}’ respectively.

This text includes the rendering of ancient Greek inscriptions, using
the alphabets of a number of different regions, not all of which exist
in the unicode character set. Some are printed in reverse order (right
to left) and some are also mirror-imaged. It is not possible to render
these inscriptions as text without a wholesale loss of information
about the variant forms. Each inscription, therefore, is simply
rendered using modern Greek characters, including several archaic
characters (koppa = Ϙ and digamma= Ϝ) which are supported in unicode
fonts. These inscriptions are better viewed, obviously, in the HTML or

Minor errors and inconsistency in punctuation and formatting have been
silently corrected. Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of
this text for details regarding the handling of any other textual
issues encountered during its preparation.

Footnotes appeared in the printed text numbered sequentially on each
page. They have been renumbered to be unique across the text, and are
gathered at the end of each chapter. The occasional references to them
by the original number have been changed as well.


                       HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY


                                                              PLATE XLIX




                       HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY
                       GREEK, ETRUSCAN, AND ROMAN

                     BY H. B. WALTERS, M.A., F.S.A.
                          BASED ON THE WORK OF
                              SAMUEL BIRCH

                             IN TWO VOLUMES
                               VOLUME II

                         WITH 300 ILLUSTRATIONS
                      INCLUDING 8 COLOURED PLATES


                                NEW YORK
                        CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

                               PRINTED BY
                             HAZELL, WATSON
                            AND VINEY, LD.,
                         LONDON AND AYLESBURY,

                         CONTENTS OF VOLUME II


 CONTENTS OF VOLUME II                                                 v

 LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME II                                          ix

 LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME II                              xi

                                PART III

                      THE SUBJECTS ON GREEK VASES

                              CHAPTER XII

 Figured vases in ancient literature—Mythology and
 art—Relation of subjects on vases to literature—Homeric and
 dramatic themes and their treatment—Interpretation and
 classification of subjects—The Olympian deities—The
 Gigantomachia—The birth of Athena and other Olympian
 subjects—Zeus and kindred subjects—Hera—Poseidon and marine
 deities—The Eleusinian deities—Apollo and
 Artemis—Hephaistos, Athena, and Ares—Aphrodite and
 Eros—Hermes and Hestia                                             1–53

                              CHAPTER XIII

 Dionysos and his associates—Ariadne, Maenads, and
 Satyrs—Names of Satyrs and Maenads—The Nether World—General
 representations and isolated subjects—Charon, Erinnyes,
 Hekate, and Thanatos—Cosmogonic deities—Gaia and
 Pandora—Prometheus and Atlas—Iris and
 Hebe—Personifications—Sun, Moon, Stars, and
 Dawn—Winds—Cities and countries—The Muses—Victory—Abstract
 ideas—Descriptive names                                           54–92

                              CHAPTER XIV
                            _HEROIC LEGENDS_

 Kastor and Polydeukes—Herakles and his twelve labours—Other
 contests—Relations with deities—Apotheosis—Theseus and his
 labours—Later scenes of his life—Perseus—Pelops and
 Bellerophon—Jason and the Argonauts—Theban legends—The
 Trojan cycle—Peleus and Thetis—The Judgment of Paris—Stories
 of Telephos and Troilos—Scenes from the Iliad—The death of
 Achilles and the Fall of Troy—The Odyssey—The Oresteia—Attic
 and other legends—Orpheus and the
 Amazons—Monsters—Historical and literary subjects                93–153

                               CHAPTER XV
                     _SUBJECTS FROM ORDINARY LIFE_

 Religious subjects—Sacrifices—Funeral scenes—The Drama and
 burlesques—Athletics—Sport and games—Musical scenes—Trades
 and occupations—Daily life of women—Wedding scenes—Military
 and naval subjects—Orientals and Barbarians—Banquets and
 revels—Miscellaneous subjects—Animals                           154–186

                              CHAPTER XVI

 Distinctions of types—Costume and attributes of individual
 deities— Personifications—Heroes—Monsters—Personages in
 everyday life—Armour and shield-devices—Dress and
 ornaments—Physiognomical expression on vases—Landscape and
 architecture—Arrangement of subjects—Ornamental
 patterns—Maeander, circles, and other geometrical
 patterns—Floral patterns—Lotos and palmettes—Treatment of
 ornamentation in different fabrics                              187–235

                              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                                         236–278

                                PART IV

                            ITALIAN POTTERY

                             CHAPTER XVIII

 Early Italian civilisation—Origin of Etruscans—Terramare
 civilisation—Villanuova period—Pit-tombs—Hut-urns—Trench-
 tombs—Relief-wares and painted vases from Cervetri—Chamber-
 tombs—Polledrara ware—Bucchero ware—Canopic jars—Imitations
 of Greek vases—Etruscan inscriptions—Sculpture in
 terracotta—Architectural decoration—Sarcophagi—Local pottery
 of Southern Italy—Messapian and Peucetian fabrics               279–329

                              CHAPTER XIX

 Clay in Roman architecture—Use of bricks—Methods of
 construction—Tiles—Ornamental antefixae—Flue-tiles—Other
 uses—Inscriptions on bricks and tiles—Military tiles—Mural
 reliefs—List of subjects—Roman sculpture in
 terracotta—Statuettes—Uses at Rome—Types and
 subjects—Gaulish terracottas—Potters and centres of
 fabric—Subjects—Miscellaneous uses of terracotta—Money-boxes
 —Coin-moulds                                                    330–392

                               CHAPTER XX
                             _ROMAN LAMPS_

 Introduction of lamps at Rome—Sites where found—Principal
 parts of lamps—Purposes for which used—Superstitious and
 other uses—Chronological account of forms—Technical
 processes—Subjects—Deities—Mythological and literary
 subjects—_Genre_ subjects and animals—Inscriptions on
 lamps—Names of potters and their distribution—Centres of
 manufacture                                                     393–429

                              CHAPTER XXI

 Introductory—Geographical and historical limits—Clay and
 glaze—Technical processes—Stamps and moulds—_Barbotine_ and
 other methods—Kilns found in Britain, Gaul, and Germany—Use
 of earthenware among the Romans—Echea—Dolia and
 Amphorae—Inscriptions on amphorae—Cadus, Ampulla, and Lagena
 —Drinking-cups—Dishes—Sacrificial vases—Identification of
 names                                                           430–473

                              CHAPTER XXII

 Roman Pottery mentioned by ancient writers—“Samian”
 ware—Centres of fabric—The pottery of
 Arretium—Characteristics—Potters’ stamps—Shapes of Arretine
 vases—Sources of inspiration for decoration—“Italian
 Megarian bowls”—Subjects—Distribution of Arretine wares         474–496

                             CHAPTER XXIII
            _ROMAN POTTERY (continued); PROVINCIAL FABRICS_

 Distribution of Roman pottery in Europe—Transition from
 Arretine to provincial wares—_Terra sigillata_—Shapes and
 centres of fabric—Subjects—Potters’ stamps—Vases with
 _barbotine_ decoration—The fabrics of Gaul—St.
 Rémy—Graufesenque—“Marbled” vases—Vases with inscriptions
 (Banassac)—Lezoux—Vases with medallions (Southern
 Gaul)—Fabrics of Germany—_Terra sigillata_ in Britain—Castor
 ware—Upchurch and New Forest wares—Plain
 pottery—_Mortaria_—Conclusion                                   497–555

 INDEX                                                               557

                      LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME II

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


   XLIX. Attic black-figured hydria: Harnessing of horses
         to chariot (_colours_)                           _Frontispiece_

                                                          TO FACE PAGE

      L. Contest of Athena and Poseidon: vase at
         Petersburg (from Baumeister)                                 24

     LI. Kotyle by Hieron: Triptolemos at Eleusis                     26

    LII. The Under-world, from an Apulian vase at Munich
         (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold)                            66

   LIII. Helios and Stars (the Blacas krater)                         78

    LIV. The Sack of Troy: kylix by Brygos in Louvre
         (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold)                           134

     LV. Scenes from funeral lekythi (Prothesis and cult
         of tomb)                                                    158

    LVI. Early Etruscan red ware                                     300

   LVII. Etruscan hut-urn and Bucchero ware                          302

  LVIII. Etruscan imitations of Greek vases                          308

    LIX. Etruscan antefix and sarcophagus                            316

     LX. Sarcophagus of Seianti Thanunia                             322

    LXI. Roman mural reliefs: Zeus and Dionysos                      366

   LXII. Roman mural reliefs: Theseus; priestesses                   370

  LXIII. Roman lamps (1st century B.C.)                              402

   LXIV. Roman lamps: mythological and literary subjects             412

    LXV. Roman lamps: miscellaneous subjects                         416

   LXVI. Moulds and stamp of Arretine ware                           492

  LXVII. Gaulish pottery (Graufesenque fabric)                       520

 LXVIII. Gaulish pottery from Britain (Lezoux fabric)                526

   LXIX. Romano-British and Gaulish pottery                          544


    FIG.                                                           PAGE

    111. Gigantomachia, from Ionic vase _Mon. dell’ Inst._
         in Louvre                                                   13

    112. Poseidon and Polybotes, from   _Gerhard_
         kylix in Berlin                                             14

    113. The birth of Athena            _Brit. Mus._                 16

    114. Hermes slaying Argos (vase at  _Wiener Vorl._
         Vienna)                                                     20

    115. Poseidon and Amphitrite        _Ant. Denkm._
         (Corinthian pinax)                                          23

    116. Apollo, Artemis, and Leto      _Mon. dell’ Inst._           30

    117. Aphrodite and her following    Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.
         (vase at Athens)                                            43

    118. Eros with kottabos-stand       _Brit. Mus._                 48

    119. Hermes with Apollo’s oxen (in  _Baumeister_
         the Vatican)                                                51

    120. Dionysos with Satyrs and       _Brit. Mus._
         Maenads (Pamphaios hydria)                                  59

    121. Maenad in frenzy (cup at       _Baumeister_
         Munich)                                                     63

    122. Charon’s bark (lekythos at     _Baumeister_
         Munich)                                                     70

    123. Thanatos and Hypnos with body  _Brit. Mus._
         of warrior                                                  71

    124. Nike sacrificing bull          _Brit. Mus._                 88

    125. Herakles and the Nemean lion   _Brit. Mus._                 96

    126. Herakles bringing the boar to  _Brit. Mus._
         Eurystheus                                                  97

    127. Apotheosis of Herakles (vase   _Arch. Zeit._
         at Palermo)                                                107

    128. Peleus seizing Thetis          _Brit. Mus._                121

    129. Judgment of Paris (Hieron cup  _Wiener Vorl._
         in Berlin)                                                 122

    130. Capture of Dolon               _Brit. Mus._                129

    131. Pentheus slain by Maenads      _Brit. Mus._                142

    132. Kroisos on the funeral pyre    _Baumeister_
         (Louvre)                                                   150

    133. Alkaios and Sappho (Munich)    _Baumeister_                152

    134. Scene from a farce             _Brit. Mus._                161

    135. Athletes engaged in the        _Brit. Mus._
         Pentathlon                                                 163

    136. Agricultural scenes            _Baumeister_
         (Nikosthenes cup in Berlin)                                170

    137. Warrior arming; archers        _Hoppin_
         (Euthymides amphora in Munich)                             176

    138. Banqueters playing kottabos    _Brit. Mus._                181

    139. Maeander or embattled pattern                              212

    140. Maeander (Attic)                                           212

    141. Maeander (Ionic)                                           212

    142. Maeander and star pattern                                  212

    143. Maeander (Attic, 5th century)                              213

    144. Maeander (Attic, about 480
         B.C.)                                                      213

    145. Net-pattern                                                215

    146. Chequer-pattern                                            216

    147. Tangent-circles                                            216

    148. Spirals under handles
         (Exekias)                                                  217

    149. Wave-pattern (South Italy)                                 218

    150. Scale-pattern (Daphnae)                                    218

    151. Guilloche or plait-band
         (Euphorbos pinax)                                          219

    152. Tongue-pattern                                             219

    153. Egg-pattern                                                220

    154. Leaf- or chain-pattern                                     221

    155. Ivy-wreath (black-figure
         period)                                                    222

    156. Ivy-wreath (South Italian)                                 222

    157. Laurel-wreath (South Italian)                              223

    158. _Vallisneria spiralis_
         (Mycenaean)                                                224

    159. Lotos-flower (Cypriote)                                    224

    160. Lotos-flowers and buds         _Riegl_
         (Rhodian)                                                  225

    161. Palmette-and lotos-pattern
         (early B.F.)                                               225

    162. Lotos-buds (Attic B.F.)                                    226

    163. Chain of palmettes and lotos
         (early B.F.)                                               226

    164. Palmettes and lotos under
         handles (Attic B.F.)                                       227

    165. Palmette on neck of red-bodied
         amphorae                                                   228

    166. Enclosed palmettes (R.F.
         period)                                                    228

    167. Oblique palmettes (late R.F.)                              229

    168. Palmette under handles (South
         Italian)                                                   230

    169. Rosette (Rhodian)                                          231

    170. Rosette (Apulian)                                          231

    171. Facsimile of inscription on    _Brit. Mus._
         Tataie lekythos                                            242

    172. Facsimile of Dipylon           _Ath. Mitth._
         inscription                                                243

    173. Scheme of alphabets on Greek
         vases                                                      248

    174. Facsimile of inscription on    _Roehl_
         Corinthian pinax                                           251

    175. Facsimile of signatures on     _Furtwaengler and
         François vase                  Reichhold_                  257

    176. Facsimile of signature of      _Brit. Mus._
         Nikias                                                     259

    177. Figure with inscribed scroll
         (fragment at Oxford)                                       264

    178. Etruscan tomb with cinerary    _Ann. dell’ Inst._
         urn                                                        285

    179. Villanuova cinerary urns from  _Notizie_
         Corneto                                                    286

    180. Painted pithos from Cervetri   _Gaz. Arch._
         in Louvre                                                  293

    181. Canopic jar in bronze-plated   _Mus. Ital._
         chair                                                      305

    182. Etruscan alphabet, from a vase _Dennis_                    312

    183. Terracotta sarcophagus in      _Dennis_
         Brit. Mus.                                                 318

    184. Painted terracotta slab in     _Dennis_
         Louvre                                                     319

    185. Askos of local Apulian fabric  _Brit. Mus._                326

    186. Krater of “Peucetian” fabric   _Notizie_                   328

    187. Concrete wall at Rome          _Middleton_                 338

    188. Concrete wall faced with brick _Middleton_                 339

    189. Concrete arch faced with brick _Middleton_                 339

    190. Diagram of Roman wall-         _Blümner_
         construction                                               340

    191. Roman terracotta antefix       _Brit. Mus._                343

    192. Method of heating in Baths of  _Middleton_
         Caracalla                                                  347

    193. Flue-tile with ornamental
         patterns                                                   348

    194. Stamped Roman tile             _Brit. Mus._                354

    195. Inscribed tile in Guildhall
         Museum                                                     359

    196. Inscribed tile from London                                 363

    197. Mask with name of potter       _Brit. Mus._                377

    198. Gaulish figure of Aphrodite    _Blanchet_                  383

    199. Gaulish figure of Epona        _Blanchet_                  386

    200. Terracotta money-box           _Jahrbuch_                  390

    201. Terracotta coin-mould          _Daremberg and
                                        Saglio_                     392

    202. Lamp from the Esquiline        _Ann. dell Inst._           399

    203. “Delphiniform” lamp                                        399

    204. Lamp with volute-nozzle                                    400

    205. Lamp with pointed nozzle                                   400

    206. Lamp with grooved nozzle                                   401

    207. Lamp with plain nozzle                                     401

    208. Lamp with heart-shaped nozzle                              402

    209. Mould for lamp                 _Brit. Mus._                405

    210. Lamp with signature of Fortis  _Brit. Mus._                424

    211. Stamps used by Roman potters                               440

    212. Roman kiln at Heddernheim      _Ann. dell’ Inst._          444

    213. Kiln found at Castor                                       447

    214. Plan of kiln at Heiligenberg   _Daremberg and
                                        Saglio_                     450

    215. Section of ditto               _Daremberg and
                                        Saglio_                     450

    216. Ampulla                        _Brit. Mus._                466

    217. Lagena from France                                         467

    218. Arretine bowl in Boston: death _Philologus_
         of Phaëthon                                                484

    219. Arretine krater with Seasons   _Brit. Mus._                488

    220. “Italian Megarian” bowl        _Brit. Mus._                491

    221. Gaulish bowl of Form 29                                    500

    222. Gaulish bowl of Form 30                                    501

    223. Gaulish bowl of Form 37                                    502

    224. Vase of St.-Rémy fabric        _Déchelette_                517

    225. Vase of Aco, inscribed         _Déchelette_                518

    226. Vase of Banassac fabric from   _Mus. Borb._
         Pompeii                                                    525

    227. Medallion from vase of         _Brit. Mus._
         Southern Gaul: scene
         from the _Cycnus_                                          531

    228. Medallion from vase: Atalanta  _Gaz. Arch._
         and Hippomedon                                             532

    229. Jar from Germany, inscribed    _Brit. Mus._                537

    230. Roman mortarium from           _Brit. Mus._
         Ribchester                                                 551

                               PART III
                       THE SUBJECTS ON GREEK VASES

                              CHAPTER XII

    Figured vases in ancient literature—Mythology and art—Relation of
      subjects on vases to literature—Homeric and dramatic themes and
      their treatment—Interpretation and classification of
      subjects—The Olympian deities—The Gigantomachia—The birth of
      Athena and other Olympian subjects—Zeus and kindred
      subjects—Hera—Poseidon and marine deities—The Eleusinian
      deities—Apollo and Artemis—Hephaistos, Athena, and
      Ares—Aphrodite and Eros—Hermes and Hestia.

The representation of subjects from Greek mythology or daily life on
vases was not, of course, confined to fictile products. We know that
the artistic instincts of the Greeks led them to decorate almost every
household implement or utensil with ornamental designs of some kind, as
well as those specially made for votive or other non-utilitarian
purposes. But the fictile vases, from the enormous numbers which have
been preserved, the extraordinary variety of their subjects, and the
fact that they cover such a wide period, have always formed our chief
artistic source of information on the subject of Greek mythology and

Although (as has been pointed out in Chapter IV.) ancient literature
contains scarcely any allusions to the painted vases, we have many
descriptions of similar subjects depicted on other works of art, such
as vases of wood and metal, from Homer downwards. The cup of Nestor
(Vol. I. pp. 148, 172) was ornamented with figures of doves[1], and
there is the famous description in the first Idyll of Theocritus[2] of
the wooden cup (κισσύβιον) which represented a fisherman casting his
net, and a boy guarding vines and weaving a trap for grasshoppers,
while two foxes steal the grapes and the contents of his dinner-basket;
the whole being surrounded, like the designs on some painted vases,
with borders of ivy and acanthus. The so-called cup of Nestor
(νεστορίς) at Capua[3] was inscribed with Homeric verses, and the
σκύφος or cup of Herakles with the taking of Troy[4]. Anakreon
describes cups ornamented with figures of Dionysos, Aphrodite and Eros,
and the Graces[5]; and Pliny mentions others with figures of Centaurs,
hunts and battles, and Dionysiac subjects[6]. Or, again, mythological
subjects are described, such as the rape of the Palladion[7], Phrixos
on the ram[8], a Gorgon and Ganymede[9], or Orpheus[10]; and other
“storied” cups are described as being used by the later Roman emperors.
But the nearest parallels to the vases described in classical
literature are probably to be sought in the chased metal vases of the
Hellenistic and Roman periods.[11] We read of _scyphi Homerici_, or
beakers with Homeric scenes, used by the Emperor Nero, which were
probably of chased silver[12]; and we have described in Chapter XI.
what are apparently clay imitations of these vases, usually known as
“Megarian bowls,” many bearing scenes from Homer in relief on the

In attempting a review of the subjects on the painted vases, we are met
with certain difficulties, especially in regard to arrangement. This is
chiefly due to the fact that each period has its group of favourite
subjects; some are only found in early times, others only in the later
period. Yet any chronological method of treatment will be found
impossible, and it is hoped that it will, as far as possible, be
obviated by the general allusions in the historical chapters of this
work to the subjects characteristic of each fabric and period.

Embracing as they do almost the whole field of Greek myth and legend,
the subjects on Greek vases are yet not invariably those most familiar
to the classical student or, if the stories are familiar, they are not
always treated in accordance with literary tradition. On the other
hand, it must be borne in mind that the popular conception of Greek
mythology is not always a correct one, for which fact the formerly
invariable system of approaching Greek ideas through the Latin is
mainly responsible. The mythology of our classical dictionaries and
school-books is largely based on Ovid and the later Roman compilers,
such as Hyginus, and gives the stories in a complete connected form,
regarding all classical authorities as of equal value, and ignoring the
fact that many myths are of gradual growth and only crystallised at a
late period, while others belong to a relatively recent date in ancient

The vases, on the other hand, are contemporary documents, free from
later euhemerism and pedantry, and presenting the myths as the Athenian
craftsmen knew them in the popular folk-lore and religious observances
of their day. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that a
vase-painter was never an illustrator of Homer or any other writer, at
least before the fourth century B.C. (see Vol. I. p. 499). The epic
poems, of course, contributed largely to the popular acquaintance with
ancient legends, and offered suggestions of which the painter was glad
to avail himself; but he did not, therefore, feel bound to adhere to
his text. This will be seen in the list of Homeric subjects given below
(p. 126 ff.); and we may also refer here to the practice of giving
fanciful names to figures, which obtains at all periods, and has before
now presented obstacles to the interpreter.

The relation of the subjects on vases to Greek literature is an
interesting theme for enquiry, though, in view of what has already been
said, it is evident that it must be undertaken with great caution. The
antiquity and wide popularity of the Homeric poems, for instance, would
naturally lead us to expect an extensive and general use of their
themes by the vase-painter. Yet this is far from being the case. The
_Iliad_, indeed, is drawn upon more largely than the _Odyssey_; but
even this yields in importance as a source to the epics grouped under
the name of the Cyclic poets. It may have been that the poems were
instinctively felt to be unsuited to the somewhat conventional and
monotonous style of the earlier vase-paintings, which required simple
and easily depicted incidents. We are therefore the more at a loss to
explain the comparative rarity of subjects from the _Odyssey_, with its
many adventures and stirring episodes; scenes which may be from the
_Iliad_ being less strongly characterised and less unique—one
battle-scene, for instance, differing little from another in method of
treatment. But any subject from the _Odyssey_ can be at once identified
by its individual and marked character. It may be that the _Odyssey_
had a less firm hold on the minds of the Greeks than the _Iliad_, which
was more of a national epic, whereas the _Odyssey_ was a stirring
romance.[14] It may also be worth noting that scenes from the _Odyssey_
usually adhere more closely to the Homeric text than those from the

Another reason for the scarcity of Iliad-scenes may be that the Tale of
Troy as a whole is a much more comprehensive story, of which the
_Iliad_ only forms a comparatively small portion. Hence the large
number of scenes drawn both from the Ante-Homerica and the
Post-Homerica, such as the stories of Troilos and Memnon, or the sack
of Troy. The writings of the Cyclic poets begin, as Horace reminds us,
_ab ovo_,[15] from the egg of Leda, and the Kypria included the whole
story of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the subsequent Judgment of
Paris, and his journey to Greece after Helen, scenes from all these
events being extremely popular on the vases.[16] The _Patrokleia_ deals
with the events of the earlier years of the war, the _Aithiopis_ of
Arktinos with the stories of Penthesileia and Memnon, and the death of
Achilles, and the _Little Iliad_ of Lesches with the events of the
tenth year down to the fall of Troy. All provided frequent themes for
the vase-painter, as may be seen by a reference to a later page (119
ff.). The _Iliupersis_ of Arktinos and Lesches might almost be
reconstructed from two or three large vases, whereon all the episodes
of the catastrophe are collected together (see p. 134); but when we
come to the _Nostoi_ of Agias and the Telegonia, the vase-painters
suddenly fail us, the stories of Odysseus’ wanderings and Orestes’
vengeance seeming to supply the deficiency.

Luckenbach[17] has pointed out that the only right method of
investigating the relation is to begin with vase-paintings for which
the sources are absolutely certain, as with scenes from the _Iliad_ and
_Odyssey_. In this way the subjects from other epics can be rightly
estimated and the contents of the poems restored. Further, in
investigating the sources of the vase-painters, and the extent to which
they adhered to them or gave free play to the imagination, the three
main periods of vase-painting must be separately considered, though the
results in each case prove to be similar. By way of exemplifying these
methods he enters in great detail into certain vase-subjects, their
method of treatment on vases of the different periods, and their
approximation to the text. Thus, the funeral games for Patroklos (_Il._
xxiii.) are depicted on the François vase (see p. 11) with marked
deviations from Homer’s narrative; and not only this, but without
characterisation, so that if the performers were not named the subject
could hardly have been identified. To note one small point, all Homeric
races took place in two-horse chariots (_bigae_), but on B.F. vases
four-horse _quadrigae_ are almost invariably found.[18]

Subjects of a more conventional character, such as battle scenes,
farewell scenes, or the arming of a warrior, present even more
difficulty. Even when names occur it is only increased. We must assume
that the vase-painter fixed on typical names for his personages,
without caring whether he had literary authority. In some cases the
_genre_ scenes seem to be developed from heroic originals, in others
the contrary appears to be the case.[19] It is not, however, unfair to
say that the Epos was the vase-painter’s “source.” The only doubtful
question is the _extent_ of his inspiration; and, at all events, it was
a _source_ in the sense that no other Greek literature was until we
come to the fourth century.

Turning now to the consideration of later literature,[20] we find in
Hesiod a certain parallelism of theme to the vases, but little trace of
actual influence. Indirectly he may have affected the vase-painter by
his crystallisation of Greek mythology in the Theogony, where he
establishes the number of the Muses (l. 77), and also the names of the
Nereids.[21] It is, however, interesting to note the Hesiodic themes
which were also popular with the vase-painters: the creation of
Pandora; the fights of Herakles and Kyknos, and of Lapiths and
Centaurs, and the pursuit of Perseus by the Gorgons; the contest of
Zeus with Typhoeus (or Typhon); and the birth of Athena.[22]

The influence of lyric poetry was even slighter. Somewhat idealised
figures of some of the Greek lyrists appear on R.F. vases, such as
Sappho and Anakreon (see p. 152); but this is all. In regard to Pindar
and Bacchylides, the idealising and heroising tendencies of the age may
be compared with the contemporary tendency of vase-paintings, and the
latter may often be found useful to compare with—if not exactly to
illustrate—the legends which the two poets commemorate. For instance,
in the ode of Bacchylides in which he describes the fate of Kroisos,
there is a curious deviation from the familiar Herodotean version, the
king being represented as voluntarily sacrificing himself.[23] The only
vase-painting dealing with this subject (Fig. 132, p. 150) apparently
reproduces this tradition.

With the influence of the stage we have already dealt elsewhere.[24]
With the exception of the Satyric drama, it can hardly be said to have
made itself felt, except in the vases of Southern Italy, in the fourth
century B.C., but indications of the Satyric influence may be traced in
many R.F. Attic vases, no doubt owing to their connection with the
popular Dionysiac subjects. On a vase in Naples[25] are represented
preparations for a Satyric drama. When we reach the time of tragic and
comic influence, we not only find the subjects reproduced, but even
their stage setting; in other words, the vases are not so much intended
to illustrate the written as the acted play, just as it was performed.

The whole question is admirably summed up by Luckenbach[26] in the
following manner: (1) The Epos is the chief source of all
vase-paintings from the earliest time to the decadence inclusive, and
next comes Tragedy, as regards the later vases only; of the influence
of other poetry on the formation of myths in vase-paintings there is no
established example. (2) _Vase-paintings are not illustrations_, either
of the Epos or of the Drama, and there is no intention of reproducing a
story accurately; hence great discrepancies and rarity of close
adherence to literary forms; but the salient features of the story are
preserved. (3) Discrepancies in the naming of personages are partly
arbitrary, partly due to ignorance; the extension of scenes by means of
rows of bystanders, meaningless, but thought to be appropriate, is of
course a development of the artist’s, conditioned by exigencies of
space. Anachronisms on vases are of frequent occurrence. (4) Such
scenes as those of warriors arming or departing are always the
painter’s own invention, ordinary scenes being often “heroised” by the
addition of names. But individuals are not necessarily all or always to
be named; and, again, the artist often gives names without
individualising the figures. (5) In the archaic period successive
movements of time are often very naïvely blended (see p. 10); the
difference between art and literature is most marked in scenes where a
definite moment is not indicated. (6) Vase-paintings often give a
general survey of a poem, the scene not being drawn from one particular
passage or episode. The features of one poem are in art sometimes
transferred to another.

The attention that has been paid now for many years to collecting,
assorting, and critically discussing the material afforded by the vases
has much diminished the difficulties of this most puzzling branch of
archaeology. It has been chiefly lightened by the discovery from time
to time of inscribed vases, though, as has just been noted, even these
must be treated with caution; and even now, of course, there are
numerous subjects the interpretation of which is either disputed or
purely hypothetical. But we can at least pride ourselves on having
advanced many degrees beyond the labours of early writers on the
subject, down to the year 1850.

When painted vases first began to be discovered in Southern Italy, the
subjects were supposed to relate universally to the Eleusinian or
Dionysiac mysteries, and this school of interpretation for a long time
found favour in some quarters, even in the days of Gerhard and De
Witte. But it was obvious from the first that such interpretations did
not carry the investigator very far, and even in the eighteenth century
other systems arose, such as that of Italynski, who regarded the
subjects as of historical import.[27] Subsequently Panofka endeavoured
to trace a connection between the subjects and the names of artists or
other persons recorded on the vases, or, again, between the subjects
and shapes. The latter idea, of course, contained a measure of truth,
as is seen in many instances[28]; but it was, of course, impossible to
follow out either this or the other hypothesis in any detail.

The foundations of the more scientific and rational school of
interpretation were laid as early as the days of Winckelmann, and he
was followed by Lanzi, Visconti, and Millingen, and finally Otto Jahn,
who, as we have seen, practically revolutionised the study of
ceramography. Of late, however, the question of the interpretation of
subjects has been somewhat relegated to the background, owing to the
overwhelming interest evoked by the finds of early fabrics or by the
efforts of German and other scholars to distinguish the various schools
of painting in the finest period.

Millingen, in the Introduction to his _Vases Grecs_, drew up a
classification of the subjects on vases which need not be detailed
here, but which, with some modifications, may be regarded as holding
good to the present day. He distinguishes ten classes, the first three
mythological, the next four dealing with daily life, and the three last
with purely decorative ornamentation. A somewhat similar order is
adopted by Müller in his _Handbuch_, by Gerhard in his _Auserlesene
Vasenbilder_, and by Jahn in his Introduction to the Munich Catalogue
(p. cc ff.). In the present and following chapters the arrangement and
classification of the subjects adhere in the main to the system laid
down by these writers; and as the order is not, of course,
chronological in regard to style, reference has been made where
necessary to differences of epoch and fabric.[29] It may be convenient
to recapitulate briefly the main headings under which the subjects are

    I. The Olympian deities and divine beings in immediate connection
      with them, such as Eros and marine deities.

        (_a_) In general; (_b_) individually. (Chapter XII.)

   II. Dionysos and his cycle, Pan, Satyrs, and Maenads. (Page 54 ff.)

  III. Chthonian and cosmogonic deities, personifications, and minor
      deities in general. (Page 66 ff.)

   IV. Heroic legends and mythology in general.

    (_a_) Herakles; (_b_) Theseus, Perseus, and other heroes; (_c_)
      local or obscure myths; (_d_) the Theban and Trojan stories;
      (_e_) monsters. (Chapter XIV.)

    V. Historical subjects. (Page 149 ff.)

   VI. Scenes from daily life and miscellaneous subjects (for detailed
      classification see p. 154). (Chapter XV.)

The number of subjects to be found on any one vase is of course usually
limited to one, two, or at most three, according to the shape. Usually
when there is more than one the subjects are quite distinct from one
another; though attempts have been made in some cases, as in the B.F.
amphorae, to trace a connection.[30] On the other hand, the R.F.
kylikes of the strong period often show a unity of subject running
through the interior and exterior scenes, whether the theme is
mythological or ordinary.[31] It was only in exceptional cases that an
artist could devote his efforts to producing an entire subject, as on
some of the large kylikes with the labours of Theseus,[32] or the vases
representing the sack of Troy.[33] The great François vase in Florence
is a striking example of a mythology in miniature, containing as it
does more than one subject treated in the fullest detail. And here
reference may be made to the main principles which governed the method
of telling a story in ancient art, and prevailed at different
periods.[34] The earliest and most simple is the _continuous_ method,
which represents several scenes together as if taking place
simultaneously, although successive in point of time. This method was
often employed in Oriental art, but is not found in Hellenic times; it
was, however, revived by the Romans under the Empire, and prevailed all
through the early stages of Christian art. Secondly, there is the
_complementary_ method, which aims at the complete expression of
everything relating to the central event. The same figures are not in
this case necessarily repeated, but others are introduced to express
the action of the different subjects, all being collected in one space
without regard to time, as in the continuous style. This is of Oriental
origin, and is first seen in the description of Achilles’ shield; it is
also well illustrated in the François vase, in the story of Troilos.
Here the death of Troilos is not indeed actually depicted, but the
events leading up to it (the water-drawing at the fountain and the
pursuit by Achilles) and those consequent on it (the announcement of
the murder to Priam and the setting forth of Hector to avenge it) are
all represented without the repetition of any figures. Lastly, there is
the _isolating_ method, which is purely Hellenic, being developed from
the complementary. This is best illustrated by the Theseus kylikes,
with their groups of the labours, which, it should be remembered, are
not continuous episodes in one story, but single events separated in
time and space, and collected together with a sort of superficial
resemblance to the other methods.

Some description of the François vase has been given elsewhere (Vol. I.
p. 370)[35]; but as it is unique in its comprehensiveness, and as a
typical presentation of the subjects most popular at the time when
vase-painters had just begun to pay special attention to mythology, it
may be worth while to recapitulate its contents here. The subjects are
no less than eleven in number, arranged in six horizontal friezes, with
figures also on the handles, and there are in all 115 inscriptions
explaining the names of the personages and even of objects (_e.g._
ὑδρία, for the broken pitcher of Polyxena). Eight of these subjects
belong to the region of mythology:—(1) On the neck: the hunt of the
Calydonian boar, and (2) the landing of Theseus and Ariadne at Naxos,
accompanied by dancing youths and maidens. (3) On the shoulder: chariot
race at the funeral games of Patroklos, and (4) combat of Centaurs and
Lapiths (with Theseus). (5) On the body: the marriage of Peleus and
Thetis, attended by the gods in procession. (6) On the body: the death
of Troilos (see above), and (7) the return of Hephaistos to Olympos.
(8) On each of the handles, Ajax with the body of Achilles. On the flat
top of the lip is represented (9) a combat of pigmies and cranes; on
either side of the foot (10) a lion and a panther devouring a bull and
stag, Gryphons, Sphinxes, and other animals; and on the upper part of
the handles (11) Gorgons and figures of the Asiatic Artemis (see p. 35)
holding wild animals by the neck.

                  *       *       *       *       *

It is, of course, impossible to indicate all the subjects on the
thousands of painted vases in existence; and it must also be remembered
that many are of disputed meaning. The succeeding review must therefore
only be considered as a general summary which aims at omitting nothing
of any interest and avoiding as far as possible useless repetition. In
the references appended under each subject the principle has been
adopted of making them as far as possible representative of all
periods, and also of selecting the most typical and artistic examples,
as well as the most accessible, publications.[36]

In dealing with the subjects depicted on Greek vases, we naturally
regard the Olympian deities as having the preeminence. We will
therefore begin by considering such scenes as have reference to actions
in which those deities were engaged, and, secondly, representations of
general groups of deities, either as spectators of terrestrial events
or without any particular signification. It will then be convenient to
deal with the several deities one by one, noting the subjects with
which each is individually connected. We shall in the following chapter
proceed to consider the subordinate deities, such as those of the
under-world and the Dionysiac cycle, and personifications of nature and
abstract ideas. Chapter XIV. will be devoted to the consideration of
heroic legends, mythological beings, and historical subjects; and in
Chapter XV. will be discussed all such subjects as relate to the daily
life of the Greeks.

                          THE OLYMPIAN DEITIES

One of the oldest and most continuously popular subjects is the
=Gigantomachia=, or Battle of the Gods and Giants, which forms part of
the Titanic and pre-heroic cosmogony, and may therefore take precedence
of the rest. The Aloadae (Otos and Ephialtes), strictly speaking, are
connected with a different event—the attack on Olympos and chaining of
Ares; but the scenes in which they occur are so closely linked with the
Gigantomachy proper that it is unnecessary to differentiate them. We
also find as a single subject the combat of Zeus with the snake-footed

The _locus classicus_ of Greek art for the Gigantomachia is of course
the frieze of the great altar at Pergamon (197 B.C.), but several vases
bear representations almost as complete, though it is not as a rule
possible to identify the giants except where their names are
inscribed.[38] Most vases give only one to three pairs of combatants.


Some pairs are found almost exclusively together, _e.g._ Athena and
Enkelados, or Ares and Mimas; Artemis and Apollo are generally opposed
to the Aloadae Otos and Ephialtes, Zeus to Porphyrion, and Poseidon to
Polybotes (Fig. 112) or Ephialtes. Hestia alone, the “stay-at-home”
goddess of the hearth, is never found in these scenes, but Dionysos,
Herakles, and the Dioskuri all take their part in aiding the Olympian
deities. Zeus hurls his thunderbolts[39]; Poseidon is usually depicted
with his trident, or hurling the island of Nisyros (indicated as a rock
with animals painted on it) upon his adversary[40]; Hephaistos uses a
pair of tongs with a burning coal in them as his weapon[41]; and
Dionysos is in some cases aided by his panther.[42] Aeolus occurs once
with his bag of winds.[43]


The following groups can be identified on vases by inscriptions or
details of treatment:—

 Zeus and Agasthenes, Hyperbios, and Ephialtes: Louvre E 732 (Fig. 111).
 Zeus and Porphyrion: Berlin 2531.
 Hera and Harpolykos: Louvre E 732.
 Hera and Rhoitos (miswritten Phoitos): Berlin 2531.
 Poseidon and Polybotes: Louvre E 732; Berlin 2531 = Fig. 112.
 Poseidon and Ephialtes: Reinach, ii. 188.
 Apollo and Ephialtes: Berlin 2531.
 Artemis and Otos: Reinach, ii. 164.
 Artemis and Aigaion: Berlin 2531.
 Hephaistos and Euryalos: B.M. E 47.
 Hephaistos and Klytios: Berlin 2293.
 Athena and Enkelados: B.M. B 252; Louvre E 732; _Él. Cér._ i. 8.
 Ares and Mimas: Berlin 2531; B.M. B 617.
 Hermes and Hippolytos: Berlin 2293.
 Hermes and Polybios (?): Louvre E 732.
 Dionysos and Eurymedon: _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xx. pl. 7.
 Athena with arm of Akratos: Berlin 2957 = _Él. Cér._ i. 88.
 Death of Otos (supposed): Bibl. Nat. 299 = Reinach, ii. 255.

Among scenes supposed to take place in Olympos, the most important is
the =Birth of Athena= from the head of Zeus.[44] Usually she is
represented as a diminutive figure actually emerging from his head, but
in one or two instances she stands before him fully developed,[45] as
was probably the case in the centre of the east pediment of the
Parthenon. This subject is commoner on B.F. vases, and does not appear
at all after the middle of the fifth century.[46] In most cases several
of the Olympian deities are spectators of the scene; sometimes
Hephaistos wields his axe or runs away in terror at the result of his
operations[47]; in others the Eileithyiae or goddesses of child-birth
lend their assistance.[48] On a R.F. vase in the Bibliothèque Nationale
Athena flies out backwards from Zeus’ head.[49]

In accordance with a principle already discussed (Vol. I. p. 378), the
composition or “type” of this subject is sometimes adopted on B.F.
vases for other groups of figures, where the absence of Athena shows
clearly that the birth scene is not intended, and no particular meaning
can be assigned to the composition.[50]

Representations of the =Marriage of Zeus and Hera= cannot be pointed to
with certainty in vase-paintings. On B.F. vases we sometimes see a
bridal pair in a chariot accompanied by various deities, or figures
with the attributes of divinities[51]; but the chief figures are not in
any way characterised as such, and it is better to regard these scenes
as idealisations of ordinary marriage processions. On the other hand,
there are undoubted representations of Zeus and Hera enthroned among
the Olympian deities or partaking of a banquet.[52]

[Illustration: FIG. 113. THE BIRTH OF ATHENA (BRIT. MUS. B 244).]

The story of the enchaining of Hera in a magic chair by Hephaistos, and
her subsequent liberation by him, is alluded to on many vases, though
one episode is more prominent than the others. Of the expulsion of
Hephaistos from heaven we find no instance, and of the release of Hera
there is only one doubtful example[53]; but we find a parody of the
former’s combat with Ares, who forces him to liberate Hera.[54] The
episode most frequent is that of the =return of Hephaistos= in a
drunken condition to Olympos, conducted by Dionysos and a crowd of
Satyrs; of this there are fine examples on vases of all periods.[55] On
earlier vases Hephaistos rides a mule; on the later he generally
stumbles along, leaning on Dionysos or a Satyr for support.

On the François vase we see Zeus and Hera, with an attendant train of
deities, Nymphs, and Muses, going in a chariot to the nuptials of
Peleus and Thetis; on many vases we have the reception of the deified
Herakles among the gods of Olympos[56]; and on others groups of deities
banqueting or without particular signification.[57] But on the late
Apulian vases it is a frequent occurrence to find an upper row of
deities as spectators of some event taking place just below: thus they
watch battles of Greeks and Persians,[58] or such scenes as the
contract between Pelops and Oinomaos,[59] the madness of Lykourgos,[60]
the death of Hippolytos,[61] and others from heroic legend, which it is
unnecessary to specify here; only a few typical ones can be
mentioned.[62] They also appear as spectators of scenes in or relating
to the nether-world.[63]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Zeus= appears less frequently than some deities, and seldom alone; but
still there are many myths connected with him, besides those already
discussed. As a single figure he appears enthroned and attended by his
eagle on a Cyrenaic cup in the Louvre[64]; or again in his chariot,
hurling a thunderbolt[65]; in company with his brother-gods of the
ocean and under-world, Poseidon and Hades, he is seen on a kylix by
Xenokles.[66] He is also found with Athena,[67] with Hera, Apollo,
Artemis, Aphrodite, and Hermes[68]; and frequently with Herakles at the
latter’s reception into heaven.[69] In one instance he settles a
dispute between Aphrodite and Persephone.[70] He receives libations
from Nike,[71] or performs the ceremony himself, attended by Hera,
Iris, and Nike,[72] and is also attended by Hebe and Ganymede as
cupbearers.[73] His statue, especially that of Ζεὺς Ἑρκεῖος at Troy,
sometimes gives local colour to a scene.[74]

Most of the scenes in which he appears relate to his various love
adventures, among which the legends of Europa, Io, and Semele are the
most conspicuous; but first of his numerous _amours_ should perhaps be
mentioned his wooing of his consort Hera. He carries her off while
asleep from her nurse in Euboea,[75] and also appears to her in the
form of a cuckoo.[76] The rape of Ganymede by his eagle appears once or
twice on vases,[77] but more generally Zeus himself seizes the youth
while he is engaged in bowling a hoop or otherwise at play.[78] On a
fine late vase with Latin inscriptions Ganymede appears in Olympos,[79]
and he is also depicted as a shepherd.[80]

Semele Zeus pursues and slays with the thunderbolt[81]; the birth of
her son Dionysos from his thigh is represented but rarely on vases, and
is liable to confusion with other subjects. This story falls into three
episodes: (1) the reception of the infant by Hermes from Dirke, in
order to be sewn into Zeus’ thigh[82]; (2) the actual birth scene[83];
(3) the handing over of the child to the Nymphs.[84] Of his visit to
Alkmena there are no certain representations, but two comic scenes on
South Italian vases[85] may possibly refer to it, and one of them at
least seems to be influenced by the burlesque by Rhinton, from which
Plautus borrowed the idea of his _Amphitruo_. The apotheosis of
Alkmena, when her husband places her on a funeral pyre after
discovering her misdeed, is represented on two fine South Italian vases
in the British Museum; in one case Zeus looks on.[86] His appearing to
Leda in the form of a swan only seems to find one illustration on a
vase, but in one case he is present at the scene of Leda with the

He is also depicted descending in a shower of gold on Danaë[88]; or as
carrying off the Nymphs Aegina and Thaleia[89]; or, again, with an
unknown Nymph, perhaps Taygeta.[90] In the form of a bull, on which
Europa rides, he provides a very favourite subject, of which some fine
specimens exist.[91] One variation of the type is found on an Apulian
vase, where Europa advances to caress the bull sent by Zeus to fetch
her.[92] The story of Io[93] resolves itself into several scenes, all
of which find illustration on the vases: (1) the meeting of Io and Zeus
when she rests at the shrine of Artemis after her wanderings[94]; (2)
Io in the form of a cow, guarded by Argos[95]; (3) the appearance of
her deliverer Hermes[96]; (4) Hermes attacks and slays Argos (Fig.


  From _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.


In addition, the presence of Zeus may be noted in various scenes from
heroic or other legends, which are more appropriately discussed under
other headings[98], such as the freeing of Prometheus[99], the combat
of Herakles and Kyknos[100], or the weighing of the souls of Achilles
and Hector[101]; at the sending of Triptolemos, the flaying of Marsyas,
the death of Aktaeon, and that of Archemoros[102]; at the creation of
Pandora and the Judgment of Paris[103]; the rape of the Delphic tripod
and that of the Leukippidae, at Peleus’ seizing of Thetis,[104] and
with Idas and Marpessa.[105] The story of the golden dog of Zeus, which
was stolen by Pandareos, is referred to under a later heading.[106]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Hera= apart from Zeus appears but seldom, but there are a few scenes
in which she is found alone; of those in which she is an actor or
spectator some have been already described, the most important being
the story of Hephaistos’ return to heaven.[107] As her figure is not
always strongly characterised by means of attributes, it is not always
to be identified with certainty. As a single figure she forms the
interior decoration of one fine R.F. kylix,[108] and her ξόανον, or
primitive cult-idol, is sometimes found as an indication of the scene
of an action.[109] On one vase she is represented at her toilet.[110]

There is a vase-painting which represents Hera on her throne offering a
libation to Prometheus, an aged figure who stands before her.[111] She
is also present at the liberation of Prometheus[112]; in a scene
probably intended for the punishment of Ixion[113]; at the creation of
Pandora[114]; and in scenes from the story of Io.[115] She suckles the
child Herakles in one instance,[116] and in another appears with him in
the garden of the Hesperides[117]; she is also present at his
reconciliation with Apollo at Delphi,[118] and at his apotheosis,[119]
receiving him and Iolaos.[120] On an early Ionic vase she appears
contending with him in the presence of Athena and Poseidon, and wears a
goat-skin head-dress, as in the Roman type of Juno Sospita or

The scene in which she appears most frequently is the Judgment of Paris
(see below, p. 122); she is also present at the birth of Dionysos[122];
at the stealing of Zeus’ golden dog by Pandareos[123]; at the contest
between Apollo and Marsyas[124]; at the slaughter of the Niobids[125];
and with Perseus and Athena.[126]

She appears sometimes with Hebe, Iris, and Nike, from whom she receives
libations[127]; and in one scene, apparently from a Satyric drama, she
and Iris are attacked by a band of Seileni and rescued by Herakles.[128]

                  *       *       *       *       *


  From _Ant. Denkm._


=Poseidon= is a figure somewhat rare in archaic art as a whole,
especially in statuary, but is more frequently seen on vases, mostly in
groups of deities, or as a spectator of events taking place in or under
the sea, his domain. Among subjects already discussed, he is present at
the birth of Athena,[129] at the nuptials of Zeus and Hera,[130] and in
assemblies of the Olympian gods, generally with his consort
Amphitrite[131]; he also takes part in the Gigantomachia and the
reception of Herakles into Olympos.[132] He is represented in a group
with his brother deities of the higher and nether world, Zeus and
Hades[133]; with Apollo, Athena, Ares, and Hermes[134]; among the
Eleusinian deities at the sending forth of Triptolemos[135]; and
occasionally in Dionysiac scenes as a companion of the wine-god.[136]
As a single figure he is frequently found on the series of archaic
tablets or _pinakes_ found near Corinth, and also in company with
Amphitrite (Fig. 115)[137]; on later vases not so frequently.[138] In
one instance he rides on a bull,[139] in others on a horse, sometimes
winged[140]; elsewhere he drives in a chariot with Amphitrite and other
deities[141]; he watches the Sun-god in his car rising out of the
waves[142]; and one vase has the curious subject of Poseidon, Herakles,
and Hermes engaged in fishing.[143]


                                                                 PLATE L


  From _Baumeister_.



Among scenes in which he plays an active part the most interesting is
the dispute with Athena for the ownership of Attica, also represented
on the west pediment of the Parthenon[144]; his love adventures,
especially his pursuit of Amymone[145] and Aithra,[146] are common
subjects, but in many cases the object of his pursuit cannot be
identified.[147] He receives Theseus under the ocean,[148] and possibly
in one case Glaukos, on his acceptance as a sea-god[149]; he is also
present at the former’s recognition by Aigeus.[150] He is seen at the
death of Talos,[151] and with Europa crossing the sea.[152] In
conjunction with other deities, chiefly on late Italian vases, he is
present as a spectator of various episodes, such as the adventures of
Bellerophon, Kadmos, or Pelops, the rape of Persephone, the creation of
Pandora, the death of Hippolytos, and in one historical scene, a battle
of Greeks and Persians.[153] He superintends several of the adventures
of Herakles, notably those in which he is specially interested, as the
contests with Antaios and Triton[154]; and he supports Hera in her
combat with that hero.[155] He is also seen with Perseus on his way to
slay Medusa,[156] and among the Gorgons after that event.[157]

                  *       *       *       *       *

In connection with Poseidon it may be convenient to mention here other
divinities and beings with marine associations—such as Okeanos, Nereus,
and Triton, and the Nereids or sea-nymphs, daughters of Nereus, with
the more rarely occurring Naiads. Of these the name of Okeanos occurs
but once, on the François vase. The figure itself has disappeared, but
the marine monster on which he rides to the wedding of Peleus and
Thetis, and the inscription, remain. =Nereus= appears as a single
figure, with fish-tail and trident,[158] but is most frequently met
with in connection with the capture of his daughter Thetis by Peleus,
either as a spectator or receiving the news from a Nereid.[159] He also
watches the contest of Herakles with Triton,[160] himself encountering
the hero in some cases.[161] On one vase Herakles has seized his
trident and threatens him by making havoc of his belongings.[162] He
appears at Herakles’ combat with Kyknos,[163] and at his
apotheosis,[164] and also offers a crown to Achilles.[165] In one case
he is found in Dionysos’ company.[166] With his daughter Doris he
watches the pursuit of another Nereid by Poseidon.[167]

=Triton= is found as a single figure,[168] and (chiefly on B.F. vases)
engaged in a struggle with Herakles.[169] He also carries Theseus
through the sea to Poseidon,[170] and watches the flight of Phrixos and
Helle over the sea.[171] The group of deities represented by Ino and
Leukothea, Palaimon, Melikertes, and Glaukos appear in isolated
instances,[172] as do Proteus[173] and Skylla[174]—the latter as single
figures, without reference to their connection with the _Odyssey_. A
monstrous unidentified figure, with wings and a serpentine fish-tail,
which may be a sea-deity (in one case feminine), is found on some early
Corinthian vases[175]; possibly Palaimon is intended.

=The Nereids=, who are often distinctively named, are sometimes found
in groups,[176] especially watching the seizure of Thetis or bearing
the news to Nereus[177]; or, again, carrying the armour of Achilles
over the sea and presenting it to him.[178] On one vase they mourn over
the dead Achilles.[179] They are also present at the reception of
Theseus,[180] the contest of Herakles and Triton,[181] and with Europa
on the bull.[182] Kymothea offers a parting cup to Achilles[183]; the
Naiads, who are similar beings, present to Perseus the cap, sword,
shoes, and wallet.[184] They are also found grouped with various
deities,[185] and even one in the under-world.[186] Thetis appears once
as a single figure, accompanied by dolphins[187]; for her capture by
Peleus and relations with Achilles, see p. 120 ff.

                  *       *       *       *       *

=The Eleusinian deities= Demeter and Persephone (or Kore) are usually
found together, not only in scenes which have a special reference to
their cult, but in general assemblies of the gods. They once appear in
the Gigantomachia.[188] Scenes which refer to the Eleusinian cycle are
found exclusively on later examples,[189] and as a rule merely
represent the two chief deities grouped with others, such as Dionysos
and Hekate, and with their attendants, Iacchos, Eumolpos, and
Eubouleus.[190] One vase represents the initiation of Herakles, Kastor,
and Polydeukes in the Lesser Mysteries of Agra[191]; another, the birth
of Ploutos, who is handed to Demeter in a cornucopia by Gaia, rising
from the earth, in the presence of Persephone, Triptolemos, and
Iacchos[192]; and others, the birth of Dionysos or Iacchos—a very
similar composition.[193] Demeter and Persephone are represented
driving in their chariot, with attendant deities and other
figures,[194] or standing alone, carrying sceptre and torches
respectively,[195] or pouring libations at a tomb (on a sepulchral
vase).[196] They are present at the carrying off of Basile by Echelos
(a rare Attic legend),[197] and Demeter alone is seen, once at the
birth of Athena,[198] once at the slaughter of the dragon by
Kadmos,[199] once enthroned,[200] and once with Dionysos as
Thesmophoros, holding an open roll with the laws (θεσμοί) of her


                                                                PLATE LI



Closely connected with Eleusis is the subject of the sending forth of
_Triptolemos_ as a teacher of agriculture in his winged car. This is
found on vases of all periods,[202] but is best exemplified on the
beautiful kotyle of Hieron in the British Museum (Plate LI.), where,
besides Olympian and Chthonian deities, the personification of Eleusis
is present. Besides the other Eleusinian personages, Keleos and
Hippothoon are also seen.[203] Triptolemos is generally seated in his
car, but in one or two cases he stands beside it[204]; in another he is
just mounting it.[205] On the latter vase Persephone holds his plough.
On a vase in Berlin Triptolemos appears without his car, holding a
ploughshare; Demeter presents him with ears of corn, and Persephone
holds torches.[206]

=Persephone= is also seen with Iacchos,[207] who, according to various
accounts, was her son or brother. She appears with Aphrodite and
Adonis,[208] and one vase is supposed to represent the dispute between
her and Aphrodite over the latter, which was appeased by Zeus.[209]

The story of the rape of Persephone by Hades, her sojourn in the
under-world, and her return to earth is also chiefly confined to the
later vases, especially the incident of the rape.[210] In the elaborate
representations of the under-world on late Apulian vases she generally
stands or sits with Hades in a building in the centre.[211] She is
often depicted in scenes representing the carrying off of Kerberos by
Herakles,[212] or banqueting with Hades.[213] On both early and late
vases Hermes, in his character of Psychopompos, is seen preparing to
conduct her back from the nether world (see Plate XLV.),[214] or
actually on his way.[215] In another semi-mystical version of the
return of Persephone, signifying the return of spring and vegetation,
her head or part of her body emerges from the earth,[216] in one case
accompanied by the head of Dionysos, whereat Satyrs and Maenads flee
affrighted.[217] The interpretation of some of these scenes, however,
has been much questioned.[218]

                  *       *       *       *       *

The number of vases with subjects representing the three Delphic
deities—=Apollo=, =Artemis=, and =Leto=—is considerable. The
appearances of Apollo, at any rate, are probably only exceeded in
number by those of Athena, Dionysos, and Herakles. It is, in fact,
impossible to make a complete enumeration of the groups in which Apollo
occurs, and a general outline alone can be given.[219]

Apollo as a single figure is often found both on B.F. and R.F. vases,
usually as Kitharoidos, playing his lyre; sometimes also he is
distinguished by his bow.[220] As Kitharoidos he is usually represented
standing,[221] but in some cases is seated.[222] He is sometimes
accompanied by a hind[223] or a bull (Apollo Nomios?).[224] He is
represented at Delphi seated on the Pythoness’ tripod,[225] or is
seated at an altar,[226] or pours a libation.[227] He rides on a
swan[228] or on a Gryphon,[229] and also crosses the sea on a
tripod.[230] In some scenes he is characterised as Daphnephoros,[231]
holding a branch of laurel, or is represented in the attitude
associated with Apollo Lykeios, resting with one hand above his
head.[232] In one scene the type of Apollo Kitharoidos closely
resembles that associated with the sculptor Skopas.[233]


  From _Mon. dell’ Inst._ ix.

When he is grouped with Artemis, the latter deity usually carries a bow
and quiver,[234] or they pour libations to one another;[235] but more
commonly they stand together, without engaging in any action. They are
also depicted in a chariot.[236] More numerous are the scenes in which
Leto is also included (as Fig. 116), though she is not always to be
identified with certainty.[237] In this connection may be noted certain
scenes relating to Apollo’s childhood: his birth is once
represented,[238] and on certain B.F. vases a woman is seen nursing two
children (one painted black, the other white), which may denote Leto
with her infants, though it is more probably a symbolic representation
of Earth the Nursing-mother (Gaia Kourotrophos; see p. 73).[239]
Tischbein published a vase of doubtful authenticity, which represents
Leto with the twins fleeing from the serpent Python at Delos[240]; but
in two instances Apollo certainly appears in Leto’s arms, in one case
shooting the Python with his bow.[241]

With these three is sometimes joined Hermes—in one instance at Delphi,
as indicated by the presence of the _omphalos_[242]; or, again, Hermes
appears with Apollo alone, or with Apollo and Artemis.[243] Poseidon is
seen with Apollo, generally accompanied by Artemis and Hermes, also by
Leto and other indeterminate female figures.[244] In conjunction with
Athena, Apollo is found grouped with Hermes, Dionysos, Nike, and other
female figures; also with Herakles.[245] With Aphrodite he is seen in
toilet scenes, sometimes anointed by Eros.[246] In one case they are
accompanied by Artemis and Hermes,[247] and on one vase Apollo is
grouped with Zeus and with Aphrodite on her swan.[248] He accompanies
the chariots of various deities, such as Poseidon, Demeter, and
Athena,[249] especially when the latter conducts Herakles to

Apollo, in one case, is associated with the local Nymph Kyrene on a
fragment of a vase probably made in that colony.[251] He frequently
receives libations from Nike,[252] and in one case is crowned by
her.[253] With Nymphs and female figures of indeterminate character he
occurs on many (chiefly B.F.) vases, sometimes as receiving a
libation.[254] On several red-figured vases he is accompanied by some
or all of the nine Muses, one representing their contest with Thamyris
and Sappho.[255] He and Artemis are specially associated with marriage
processions, whether of Zeus and Hera or of ordinary bridal
couples.[256] Apollo also appears in a chariot drawn by a boar and a
lion at the marriage of Kadmos and Harmonia.[257]

In Dionysiac scenes he is a frequent spectator[258]; he greets Dionysos
among his thiasos,[259] joins him in a banquet,[260] or accompanies
Ariadne’s chariot[261] or the returning Hephaistos[262]; listens to the
Satyr Molkos playing the flutes,[263] or is grouped with Satyrs and
Maenads at Nysa.[264] More important and of greater interest are the
scenes which depict the legend of Marsyas, and they may fitly find a
place here. The story is told in eight different episodes on the vases,
which may be thus systematised:

  1. Marsyas picks up the flutes dropped by Athena: Berlin 2418 =
      Baumeister, ii. p. 1001, fig. 1209: cf. Reinach, i. 342 (in

  2. First meeting of Apollo and Marsyas: Millin-Reinach, i. 6.

  3. The challenge: Berlin 2638.

  4. Marsyas performing: B.M. E 490; Reinach, i. 452 (Berlin 2950), i.
      511 (Athens 1921), ii. 312; Jatta 1093 = Reinach, i. 175 =
      Baumeister, ii. p. 891, fig. 965.

  5. Apollo performing: Jatta 1364 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 63; _Wiener Vorl._
      vi. 11.

  6. Apollo victorious: Reinach, ii. 310; Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i.
      14 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 5.

  7. Condemnation of Marsyas: Naples 3231 = Reinach, i. 405; Reinach,
      ii. 324.

  8. Flaying of Marsyas: Naples 2991 = Reinach, i. 406 (a vase with
      reliefs); Roscher, ii. 2455 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 64.

Among other scenes in which Apollo (generally accompanied by Artemis)
plays a personal part, the following may be mentioned: the slaying of
the Niobids by the two deities[265]; the slaying of Tityos by
Apollo[266] (in one case Tityos is represented carrying off Leto, who
is rescued by Apollo)[267]; and various love adventures in which Apollo
is concerned.[268] The name of the Nymph pursued by him in the latter
scenes cannot, as a rule, be identified; one vase appears to represent
him contending with Idas for the possession of Marpessa.[269] He also
heals the Centaur Cheiron (this appears in burlesque form),[270] and
protects Creusa from the wrath of Ion.[271] He is seen seeking for the
cattle stolen from him by Hermes, and contending with that god over the
lyre.[272] He frequently appears in Birth of Athena scenes as
Kitharoidos,[273] and also at the sending forth of Triptolemos[274] or
in the under-world.[275] In one case he appears (with Athena, Artemis,
and Herakles) as protecting deity of Attica, watching a combat of
Greeks and Amazons.[276] On one vase there is a possible reference to
Apollo Smintheus, with whom the mouse was especially associated.[277]

Like other deities, Apollo and Artemis are frequently found on Apulian
vases as spectators of the deeds of heroes, or other events in which
they are more or less interested; some of these subjects have already
been specified (see above, p. 17). Apollo especially is often seen in
connection with the story of Herakles, or the Theban and Trojan
legends. One burlesque scene represents his carrying off the bow of
Herakles to the roof of the Delphic temple,[278] and the subject of the
capture of the tripod, with the subsequent reconciliation, is of very
frequent occurrence.[279] As Apollo Ismenios, the patron of Thebes, he
is a spectator of the scene of the infant Herakles strangling the
snakes[280]; in one case he is represented disputing with Herakles over
a stag,[281] which may be another version of the story of the Keryneian
stag, a scene in which he also occurs.[282] He is seen with Herakles
and Kyknos,[283] Herakles and Kerberos,[284] and is very frequently
present at the apotheosis of the hero.[285]

Apollo and Artemis watch Kadmos slaying the dragon,[286] and one or
other of them is present at the liberating of Prometheus[287]; Apollo
alone is seen with Oedipus and Teiresias,[288] and watches the slaying
of the Sphinx by the former.[289] Among Trojan scenes he is sometimes
present at the Judgment of Paris,[290] also at the sacrifice of
Iphigeneia, the pursuit of Troilos, the combats of Achilles and Ajax
with Hector, and the recognition of Aithra by her sons.[291] He is, of
course, frequently seen in subjects from the Oresteia, both in Tauris
and at Delphi,[292] and at the death of Neoptolemos before the latter
temple.[293] The pair are also seen at the carrying off of Basile by
Echelos (see p. 140).[294]

The ξόανον, or primitive cult-statue, of Apollo is sometimes
represented; in one case Kassandra takes refuge from Ajax before it,
instead of the usual statue of Athena.[295]

                  *       *       *       *       *

The appearances of =Artemis=, as distinct from Apollo, need not detain
us long; she is sometimes found in mythological scenes, but frequently
as a single figure, of which there are some fine examples.[296] A
winged goddess grasping the neck or paws of an animal or bird with
either hand frequently occurs on early vases, and is usually
interpreted as Artemis in her character of πότνια θηρῶν or mistress of
the brute creation, sometimes called the Asiatic or Persian
Artemis.[297] On an early Boeotian vase (with reliefs) at Athens is a
curious representation of Artemis Diktynna, a quasi-marine form of the
goddess, originally Cretan (?); on the front of her body is represented
a fish, and on the either side of her is a lion.[298] As a single
figure she appears either with bow or quiver, or with lyre, sometimes
accompanied by a stag or hind, or dogs[299]; she also rides on a
deer[300] or shoots at a stag.[301] Or, again, she is attended by a
cortège of Nymphs[302] or rides in a chariot.[303] Like that of Apollo,
her ξόανον is sometimes introduced into a scene as local colouring.[304]

The myth with which she is chiefly associated is that of Aktaeon, which
may find a place here, though in most cases Aktaeon alone is
represented, being devoured by his hounds.[305] A curious subject on a
vase at Athens appears to be the burial of Aktaeon, Artemis being
present.[306] She is also represented at the sacrifice of Iphigeneia,
for whom a stag was substituted by her agency,[307] and in connection
with the same story at her shrine in Tauris.[308] She is especially
associated with Apollo in such scenes as the contest with and flaying
of Marsyas,[309] the rape of the Delphic tripod by Herakles[310] and
the subsequent reconciliation,[311] or the appearance of Orestes at
Delphi.[312] The two deities sometimes accompany nuptial processions in
chariots, Artemis as _pronuba_ holding a torch, but it is not easy to
say whether these scenes refer to the nuptials of Zeus and Hera or are
of ordinary significance.[313] A scene in which she pursues a woman and
a child with bow and arrow may have reference to the slaughter of the

Other scenes in which she is found are the Gigantomachia[315] and the
Birth of Athena[316]; or she is seen accompanying the chariots of
Demeter[317] and Athena,[318] and with Aphrodite and Adonis.[319] She
disputes with Herakles over the Keryneian stag[320]; and is also
present when he strangles the snakes,[321] and at his apotheosis in
Athena’s chariot.[322] She attends the combat of Paris and
Menelaos,[323] and as protecting deity of Attica she watches a combat
of Greeks and Amazons.[324] A vase in Berlin, on which are depicted six
figures carrying chairs (Diphrophori, as on the Parthenon frieze) and a
boy with game, may perhaps represent a procession in honour of

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Hephaistos= is a figure who appears but seldom, and never as
protagonist, except in the case of his return to Olympos,[326] a
subject already discussed (p. 17), as has been his appearance in the
Gigantomachia[327] and at the birth of Athena.[328] In conjunction with
the last-named goddess he completes the creation and adornment of
Pandora on two fine vases in the British Museum[329]; he is also
present at the birth of Erichthonios.[330] His sojourn below the ocean
with Thetis and the making of Achilles’ armour also occur.[331]
Representations of a forge on some B.F. vases may have reference to the
Lemnian forge of Hephaistos and his Cyclopean workmen.[332] He is also
seen with Athena,[333] at the punishment of Ixion,[334] and taking part
in a banquet with Dionysos.[335]

                  *       *       *       *       *

More important than any of the other Olympian deities, for the part she
plays in vase-paintings, is =Athena=, the great goddess of the Ionic
race, and especially of Athens. Of her birth from the head of Zeus we
have already spoken, as also of the part she plays in the Gigantomachia
(p. 15). The separate episode of her combat with Enkelados (her
invariable opponent) is frequently depicted on B.F. vases[336]; but in
one instance she tears off the arm of another giant, Akratos.[337] We
have also seen her assisting at the creation of Pandora,[338] and
contending with Poseidon for Attica.[339] She receives the infant
Dionysos at the time of his birth,[340] and is also generally present
at that of Erichthonios,[341] and once with Leto at that of Apollo and
Artemis.[342] She is, of course, an invariable actor in Judgment of
Paris scenes, in one of which she is represented washing her hands at a
fountain in preparation for the competition.[343]

From assemblies of the gods she is rarely absent, and she is also
associated with smaller groups of divinities, such as Apollo and
Artemis (p. 31), with Ares or Hephaistos,[344] or with Hermes,[345] or
in Eleusinian[346] or Dionysiac scenes.[347] Thus she assists at the
slaying of the Niobids,[348] and on one vase is confronted with
Marsyas, before whom she has just dropped the flutes.[349] Scenes in
which she appears receiving a libation from Nike are extremely
common[350]; and she is also found with Iris and Hebe.[351] In one
instance she herself pours a libation to Zeus.[352]

Generally the companion of princes and patroness of heroes, she
protects especially Herakles, whom she aids in his exploits and conveys
finally in her chariot to Olympos, where he is introduced by her to
Zeus.[353] Some scenes represent the two simply standing together[354];
in others she welcomes and refreshes him after his labours,[355] and in
one case he is supposed to be represented pursuing her.[356] It is
unnecessary to particularise here the various scenes in which she
attends Herakles (see p. 95 ff.); but one may be mentioned as peculiar,
where she carries him off in her chariot with the Delphic tripod which
he has just stolen.[357] Another rare scene connected with the Herakles
myths is one in which, after the fight with Kyknos (see p. 101), Zeus
protects her from the wrath of Ares.[358] Another of her favourite
heroes is Theseus,[359] and she is even more frequently associated with
Perseus, whom she assists to overcome and escape from the Gorgons.[360]
She gives Kadmos the stone with which to slay the dragon,[361] and is
also seen with Bellerophon,[362] Jason and the Argonauts,[363] and
Oedipus.[364] She is present at the rape of Oreithyia by Boreas,[365]
at the punishment of Ixion,[366] and at the setting out of
Amphiaraos[367]; at the stealing of Zeus’ golden dog by Pandareos[368];
also at the rape of the Leukippidae by the Dioskuri,[369] and of Basile
by Echelos (see p. 140),[370] and in a scene from the tragedy of

The scenes where she is assisting the Greek heroes in the Trojan War
are almost too numerous to specify, her favourite being of course
Achilles; her meeting with Iris (_Il._ viii. 409) is once
depicted,[372] and she also appears in connection with the dispute over
Achilles’ arms.[373] She is not so frequently seen with her other
favourite, Odysseus, but in one instance she is present when he meets
with Nausikaa,[374] and also when he blinds Polyphemos.[375] On the
numerous vases representing Ajax and Achilles (or other heroes) playing
at draughts, the figure or image of the goddess is generally present in
the background.[376] The same type on B.F. vases is adopted for the
subject of two heroes casting lots before her statue[377]; lastly, she
appears as the friend and patron of Orestes when expiating the slaying
of his mother.[378]

As a single figure Athena is represented under many types and with
various attributes, seated with her owl[379] or in meditation,[380]
writing on tablets[381] or holding the ἀκροστόλιον of a ship[382];
playing on a lyre[383] or flutes,[384] or listening to a player on the
flute or lyre[385]; with a man making a helmet,[386] or herself making
the figure of a horse,[387] and in a potter’s workshop.[388] On an
early vase she appears between two lions[389]; or she is accompanied by
a hind (here grouped with other goddesses).[390] She is depicted
running,[391] and occasionally is winged[392]; or she appears mounting
a chariot, accompanied by various divinities.[393] As the protecting
goddess of Attica she watches a combat of Greeks and Amazons[394]; she
also attends the departure or watches combats of ordinary
warriors,[395] or receives a victorious one.[396] In one instance she
carries a dead warrior home.[397]

There are many representations of her image, either as a ξόανον or
cultus-statue, or recalling some well-known type of later art. Among
the former may be mentioned her statue at Troy, whereat Kassandra takes
refuge from Ajax,[398] and the Palladion carried off by Odysseus and
Diomede.[399] Among the latter, three can be traced to or connected
with creations of Pheidias: viz. the chryselephantine Parthenos
statue[400]; the Lemnian type, holding her helmet in her hand (Plate
XXXVI.)[401]; and the Promachos, in defensive attitude, with shield and
spear.[402] The last-named type (earlier, of course, than the famous
statue on the Acropolis) is that universally adopted for the figure of
Athena on the obverse of the Panathenaic amphorae, on which she is
depicted in this attitude between two Doric columns surmounted by cocks
(on the later examples by figures of Nike or Triptolemos).[403] Her
statue is also represented as standing in a shrine or heroön[404]; or
as the recipient of a sacrifice or offering.[405] Her head or bust
alone appears on several vases.[406]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Ares=, in the few instances in which he appears on vases, is generally
in a subordinate position; he is a spectator at the birth of
Athena[407]; and appears twice on the François vase, at the wedding of
Peleus and Thetis, and again in an attitude of shame and humility, to
indicate the part he played in the story of Hephaistos and Hera; of his
combat with the former god mention has already been made (p. 16). In
the Gigantomachia his opponent is Mimas, with whom he also appears in
single combat[408]; and he aids his son Kyknos against Herakles and
Athena.[409] He is seen in several of the large groups of Olympian
deities,[410] or in smaller groups, _e.g._ with Poseidon and
Hermes,[411] with Apollo, Artemis, and Leto,[412] or with Athena[413]
or his spouse Aphrodite[414]; also with Dionysos, Ariadne, and
Nereus.[415] He also receives a libation from Hebe.[416] He is seen at
the birth of Pandora,[417] the punishment of Ixion,[418] the slaying of
the Niobids,[419] the apotheosis of Herakles,[420] and the contest of
that hero with the Nemean lion.[421] In some cases his type is not to
be distinguished from that of an ordinary warrior or hero, as in one
case where he or a warrior is seen between two women.[422]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Aphrodite= seldom appears as a protagonist on vases, and in fact plays
a small personal part in mythology. Apart from scenes of a fanciful
nature she is usually a mere spectator of events; but as she is not
often characterised by any distinctive attribute, there is in many
cases considerable difficulty in identifying her personality. This is
especially the case on B.F. vases, on which her appearances are
comparatively rare. One vase represents her at the moment of her birth
from the sea in the presence of Eros and Peitho[423]; she also appears
(on late vases only) with Adonis,[424] embracing him, and in two
instances mourning for him after his death[425]; but caution must be
exercised in most cases in identifying this subject, which is but
little differentiated from ordinary love scenes. One scene apparently
represents Zeus deciding a dispute between her and Persephone over

More commonly she is seen riding over the sea on a goose or swan,[427]
of which there is one exceedingly beautiful example in the British
Museum; here she is to be recognised as the Heavenly Aphrodite
(Ourania), whereas in her character of Pandemos (profane or unlicensed
love) she rides on a goat.[428] In other instances the swan draws her
chariot over the sea,[429] or she is borne by a pair of Erotes,[430] or
sails in a shell, as in the story of her birth and appearance in the
island of Kythera[431]; in others, again, her chariot is drawn (on
land) by the Erotes,[432] or by a lion, wolf, and pair of boars.[433]
She is also represented at her toilet[434] or bathing,[435] in the
latter case in the attitude of the _Vénus accroupie_ of sculpture; in
these instances again there is often difficulty in distinguishing from
scenes of ordinary life. Again, she is represented spinning,[436]
playing with a swan,[437] or caressing a hare,[438] or in company with
a young hunter,[439] possibly meant for Adonis.


  From Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897.

In many scenes she is grouped with a cortège of attendant Nymphs and
personified figures, often with names attached.[440] Besides Eros, the
following are found on these vases: Pothos (Longing) and Himeros
(Charm), Hygieia (Health), Peitho (Persuasion), Paidia (Play),
Pandaisia (Good Cheer), Eunomia (Orderliness), Euthymia (Cheerfulness),
Eudaimonia (Happiness), Hedylogos (Winning Speech), and Kleopatra (a
fancy name). Eros himself she embraces[441] and suckles,[442] and in
some cases he assists in her toilet, perfuming her hair from an unguent
flask,[443] or adjusting her sandals[444]; he is seldom absent from her
side on the later vases. In one instance Aphrodite and two Erotes make
a basket of golden twigs.[445] Their heads or busts are also found on
late vases, as is that of Aphrodite alone.[446]

In relation to other mythological subjects she is frequently found in
assemblies of the gods, especially in the spectator groups on Apulian
vases[447]; also at the birth of Athena (rarely),[448] at the marriage
of Zeus and Hera,[449] and in the Gigantomachia (very rare).[450] She
is seen among the Eleusinian deities,[451] and in scenes from the
nether world[452]; and she accompanies the chariots of Athena and
Demeter.[453] She also accompanies Poseidon in his wooing of
Amymone,[454] and is present at the slaying of Argos by Hermes,[455]
the punishment of Aktaeon[456] and the contest of Apollo and
Marsyas,[457] and the wooing of Europa by Zeus.[458] She is also
grouped with Apollo and the Muses listening to Thamyris and Sappho.[459]

She is seldom seen with Herakles, but is present at his
apotheosis,[460] and also with him in the Garden of the
Hesperides[461]; she is once seen with Theseus,[462] and is present at
the rape of the Leukippidae by the Dioskuri.[463] Other heroes with
whom she is connected (chiefly as a spectator on the Apulian vases) are
Kadmos, Meleager, Perseus, and Pelops.[464] In the tale of Troy,
however, she plays a more important part. The Judgment of Paris is, of
course, the scene with which she is chiefly connected[465]; in one
instance she appears alone with Paris, unless Anchises be here
meant.[466] She is present at the first meeting and wedding of Peleus
and Thetis[467]; at the toilet of Helen, and at her carrying off by
Paris[468]; she assists her son Aeneas in his combat with Diomede,[469]
and is present at the rape of Kassandra.[470] Helen takes refuge from
Menelaos with her in her temple[471]; and finally she assists Aeneas to
escape with the aged Anchises from Troy.[472]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Besides the scenes in which he appears with Aphrodite, =Eros= is a
sufficiently important personage on vases to demand a section to
himself. On the black-figured vases he never appears, nor on the
earlier red-figured ones is it possible to find many instances, but
towards the end of the fifth century his popularity is firmly
established, while on the Italian vases, especially the the later
Apulian, his presence is almost invariable, not only in mythological
scenes, but in subjects from daily life. As a single figure he occurs
again and again, generally holding a wreath, mirror, box, fan, or some
object which may be regarded as signifying a lover’s present.

Concurrently with his increasing popularity we note the change that
comes over the conception of his personality. Beginning as a full-grown
youth of fair proportions, his form gradually attenuates and becomes
more juvenile, or even in some cases infantile, as in Hellenistic art;
while on the Apulian vases it assumes an androgynous, altogether
effeminate character. His hair is arranged in feminine fashion, and his
person is adorned with earrings, bracelets, anklets, and chains,
remaining otherwise entirely nude, except that he sometimes wears soft
shoes of a feminine kind (see Plate XLIV. and Fig. 118).

On the red-figured vases he generally appears as a single figure,
though on those of the “fine” style he is often in attendance on
Aphrodite; roughly speaking, it may be said that he figures in all
scenes that deal with the passion of Love, such as the Judgment of
Paris,[473] the story of Adonis,[474] the marriage of Dionysos and
Ariadne,[475] or the love-affairs of Zeus, Poseidon, and other

In other legends in which Love plays a part, such as the stories of
Jason and Medeia,[477] Phaidra and Hippolytos,[478] Peleus and Thetis
(or Theseus and Ariadne),[479] Pelops and Hippodameia,[480] Paris and
Helen,[481] he is also to be seen; as also at the carrying off of
Persephone.[482] Moreover, he occurs in several scenes where the reason
is not so apparent, as at the birth of Erichthonios,[483] in the Garden
of the Hesperides,[484] at the suckling of Herakles by Hera,[485] with
Herakles and a Centaur,[486] and in the nether world[487]; also with
deities such as Zeus, Athena, Nike, Helios and Selene, and
Dionysos[488]; anointing the head of Apollo.[489] The cosmogonic
conception of Eros and his connection with Gaia is referred to in the
next chapter under the latter heading (p. 73). Two Erotes draw the
chariot of Demeter and Persephone[490]; and he is also seen in company
with the Nereids.[491] His presence in Dionysiac scenes, especially on
the later vases, is often to be noted, though without any special
meaning to be attached to it[492]; in one instance he is carried on the
back of a Seilenos.[493] In many of these scenes he merely accompanies
Aphrodite, and they do not therefore require enumeration. Lastly, he is
seen in company with Sappho,[494] the great poetess of Love.

In non-mythological scenes he is found almost as frequently, especially
in toilet scenes,[495] or what we may regard as “scenes of courting”;
but on the later vases these exhibit little or no action, and are not
worth considering in detail, with a few exceptions. Thus we see Eros in
marriage processions,[496] in musical scenes,[497] and at
banquets[498]; at a sacrifice to a term[499]; watching girls play the
game of _morra_[500] (“How many fingers do I hold up?”); swinging them,
or being danced on their feet[501]; in scenes of fruit- and
incense-gathering[502]; or pouring wine into a krater.[503] He appears
with Agon (see p. 89) training in the palaestra.[504] He pursues a
youth or a girl,[505] embraces a girl,[506] or is carried by her
pick-a-back[507]; offers a hare to a youth,[508] or drives a youth with
a whip from an altar[509]; and in one instance is about to chastise
with a slipper two youths who are playing with a top and hoop[510];
these two latter scenes may be regarded as implying the power of Eros
over youth. He is also seen shooting an arrow at a woman,[511] an idea
characteristic of Anacreontic and Alexandrine poetry. Another scene
which recalls the wall-paintings of the Hellenistic Age is on a vase in
the British Museum, representing two Erotes being weighed in

As a single figure he pursues a hare or kills a snake[513]; crouches
before a plant[514]; is represented armed with shield and spear[515];
or places a sash or wreath on a tripod.[516] He is borne in a chariot
by horses or swans,[517] or rides on a horse, deer, dog, or swan.[518]
He is also seen playing various games, such as the _kottabos_ or
_morra_,[519] see-sawing or playing knucklebones,[520] or with a ball
or hoop or toy-boat.[521] Or he plays the flute or lyre[522]; or plays
with animals, such as a deer, dove, swan[523]; or finally (on Apulian
vases) with a toy which resembles a wheel, and was probably used for
magic purposes, as several passages of literature indicate.[524]

[Illustration: FIG. 118. EROS WITH KOTTABOS-STAND (BRIT. MUS.).]

Lastly, we must give a survey of the frequent representations of Eros
flying through the air carrying some attribute, which are so universal
on the Italian vases, though some of the earliest types also represent
him in this manner. Thus he carries a hare, or dove or other bird[525];
fruit (such as grapes or pomegranates), flowers, and branches[526];
wreaths, dishes of fruit, baskets, vases of various forms, and a spit
of meat[527]; thyrsi, tambourines, lyres, torches, incense-burners,
strigils, and ladders[528]; fans, parasols, mirrors, toilet-boxes,
strings of beads, and sashes, or balls.[529]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Among the other associates of Aphrodite the chief are Peitho, Pothos,
and Himeros, of whom mention has already been made. =Peitho=, except
where her name is given, is not always easy to identify; the other two
are not differentiated from Eros in form, and are, in fact, only
variations of the conception of Love, as are the more rarely occurring
Phthonos (_Amor invidiosus_)[530] and Talas (_Amor infelix_), the
latter of whom is associated with Sappho.[531] Peitho is found with
Himeros in one instance,[532] and in another with Eukleia[533]; she
also accompanies Aphrodite in Eleusinian and other scenes,[534] at the
deliverance of Andromeda,[535] in the Garden of the Hesperides,[536]
and at the rape of Helen[537] and the Leukippidae,[538] and at the
recovery of Helen by Menelaos[539]; she consoles her when mourning for
Adonis[540]; and is present at the moment of her birth.[541] Like Eros,
she is seen in company with Sappho,[542] and she also appears with
Meleager and Atalante.[543]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Pothos= and =Himeros= are seen floating over the sea with Eros on a
fine R.F. vase in the British Museum,[544] and at the Judgment of
Paris[545]; and grouped together generally as Erotes, they may be
distinguished on some late vases. Pothos attends at the toilet of
Helen,[546] and plays the flutes in a Dionysiac scene.[547] Himeros is
seen swinging Paidia (another of Aphrodite’s following)[548]; at the
marriage of Herakles and Hebe[549]; presenting a crown to
Dionysos,[550] or removing his shoes,[551] and accompanying him in a
scene of preparation for the Satyric drama.[552]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Hermes=, the messenger of the gods, is a common figure on vases of all
periods, but chiefly as a subordinate agent, though he plays a leading
part in some scenes, and frequently occurs as a single figure.[553]
Some small vases are decorated merely with his head, wearing the winged
petasos.[554] He is represented passing over the sea with a lyre,[555]
carrying a ram,[556] riding on a ram or goat,[557] or reclining on the
latter animal[558]; also as making a libation[559] or sacrificing a
goat.[560] He presides over the palaestra,[561] and is also seen
standing between Sphinxes,[562] or again (apparently as a statue)
standing by a fountain.[563] In one scene he leads a dog disguised as a
pig,[564] and he is also represented tending a flock of sheep,[565] or

The story so vividly recounted in the Homeric hymn of his infantile
theft of Apollo’s oxen is given in several scenes, including his taking
refuge in his cradle (Fig. 119)[567]; he is also represented with his
mother Maia,[568] and disputing with Apollo over the lyre which he
invented.[569] The only other myth in which he plays a chief part is
his pursuit of the Nymph Herse in the presence of her father Kekrops
and her sister Aglauros.[570] He appears in the Gigantomachia (in one
instance as Zeus’ charioteer),[571] frequently at the birth of
Athena,[572] and with the bridal _cortège_ of Zeus and Hera[573]; also
in numerous assemblies of the Olympian deities, especially on the
Apulian vases.[574] He is present at the seizing of Ganymede,[575] and
defends Hera against an attack of Seileni.[576] His slaying of Argos
and deliverance of Io has already been mentioned[577]; and he assists
in recovering the golden dog of Zeus which was stolen by Pandareos.[578]


  From _Baumeister_.


He is present at the return of Hephaistos,[579] at Poseidon’s capture
of Amymone,[580] with Aphrodite mourning for Adonis,[581] and with
Apollo slaying Tityos and the Niobids and contending with Marsyas,[582]
also at his reconciliation with Herakles.[583] He accompanies the
chariots of Poseidon, Apollo, and Athena,[584] and also those of
mortals, especially in wedding processions[585]; and he is also seen
with Eos and Selene,[586] Kastor and Polydeukes,[587] Prometheus,[588]
Leda at the finding of the egg,[589] and at the birth of Pandora.[590]
He is specially associated with Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and
Dionysos,[591] and also appears with Aphrodite Pandemos[592]; he is not
infrequently found in Dionysiac scenes[593]; and to him is entrusted
the newly born Dionysos to be handed over to the Nymphs of Nysa.[594]
On B.F. vases he is frequently seen leading a procession of Nymphs.[595]

As a Chthonian deity he is present in many scenes relating to the
nether world, especially on the large Apulian vases,[596] and in
connection with the Eleusinian myths, such as the carrying off of
Persephone.[597] As Psychagogos or Psychopompos he is seen in Hades
waiting to conduct Persephone to earth, or actually _en route_ with
her.[598] He frequently performs the same office for mortals,
conducting them to Charon’s bark.[599] He is also found in company with
Thanatos,[600] and with Herakles bringing back Alkestis.[601] A unique
scene with Hermes in his Chthonian capacity is on a vase where he is
represented chaining up Kerberos[602]; and another, yet more curious,
depicts him standing by a jar (πίθος) from which a number of small
winged figures (εἴδωλα or ghosts) are flying out, with a supposed
reference to the Athenian festival of the Πιθοίγια.[603]

In the stories of Herakles he plays an important part, as also in those
of Theseus and other heroes, and he is frequently visible in scenes
from the Trojan legends. He conveys the infant Herakles to Cheiron for
instruction,[604] and conducts the hero to Hades to fetch
Kerberos[605]; he is also seen feasting or bathing with him,[606] and
in company with him and Athena,[607] and most frequently in connection
with his apotheosis.[608] With Theseus he is found more rarely[609];
but he frequently accompanies Perseus in his flight from the
Gorgons.[610] In other heroic scenes he is often one of the spectator
deities on Apulian vases. In one instance he is seen banqueting with an
unidentified hero.[611]

In the Trojan legends his chief appearance is as conductor of the
goddesses to the Judgment of Paris[612]; and in one case he accompanies
Peleus when bringing the infant Achilles to Cheiron.[613] He also
assists Zeus in weighing the souls of Achilles and Hector,[614]
conducts Priam to Achilles,[615] and is present in many other scenes
which need not be recounted in detail. A scene difficult of explanation
represents him accompanying Odysseus in a chariot.[616]

A Herm or terminal figure of Hermes is a not uncommon feature on vases,
especially of the R.F. period,[617] and generally as the object of a
sacrifice made to it.[618]

Last of the Olympian deities comes =Hestia=, who is usually coupled
with Hermes; she, however, only appears on a few vases in gatherings of
the Olympian deities,[619] as on the François vase, where she attends
the nuptials of Peleus and Thetis, and at the marriage of Herakles and


Footnote 1:

  _Il._ xi. 635: cf. Athen, xi. 489 F.

Footnote 2:

  i. 27 ff.: cf. Vol. I. p. 180.

Footnote 3:

  Athenaeus, xi. p. 489 B.

Footnote 4:

  _Ibid._ p. 782 B.

Footnote 5:

  _Od._ 5.

Footnote 6:

  _H.N._ xxxiii. 155.

Footnote 7:

  _Ibid._ 156.

Footnote 8:

  Mart. viii. 51: cf. Juv. i. 76.

Footnote 9:

  Stat. _Theb._ i. 543.

Footnote 10:

  Virg. _Ecl._ iii. 46.

Footnote 11:

  Schreiber, _Alexandr. Toreutik, passim_; Robert in _50^{tes}
  Winckelmannsfestprogr._ 1890.

Footnote 12:

  Suet. _Ner._ 47: see Vol. I. pp. 134, 185, 499.

Footnote 13:

  Cf. Miss Harrison, _Mythol. and Monum. of Athens_, p. ii; and see
  Vol. I. p. 13.

Footnote 14:

  See on this subject _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 83.

Footnote 15:

  _Art. Poet._ 147.

Footnote 16:

  See Luckenbach in _Jahrb. für Class. Phil._ Suppl.-Bd. xi. (1880), p.
  575 ff.

Footnote 17:

  _Op. cit._ p. 493 ff.

Footnote 18:

  The only exceptions are in the Panathenaic contests, which are of
  course not epic: cf. B.M. B 130–31.

Footnote 19:

  See on this subject _Comm. in hon. T. Mommseni_, p. 163 ff.; _Arch.
  Zeit._ 1876, p. 116; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 366, and, _J.H.S._ x. p.
  13 ff.

Footnote 20:

  Luckenbach, _op. cit._ p. 560 ff.

Footnote 21:

  There is only one vase (Naples 2296 = Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 476)
  on which the names of the Nereids are derived from Homer.

Footnote 22:

  _Op. et Di._ 60 ff.; _Scut._ 345 ff., 178, 216; _Theog._ 820, 924 ff.

Footnote 23:

  See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 267.

Footnote 24:

  Vol. I. p. 472: see also below, p. 159. On the subject generally see
  Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._; Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in
  Vase-paintings_; Engelmann, _Arch. Studien zu den Tragikern_.

Footnote 25:

  Reinach, i. p. 114.

Footnote 26:

  _Op. cit._ p. 636.

Footnote 27:

  See for further details of early theories Vol. I. p. 21.

Footnote 28:

  _E.g._ the B.F. hydriae with water-drawing scenes; the funeral
  lekythi; and the R.F. cups with their subjects relating to banquets
  and revels.

Footnote 29:

  See also Chapters VI.–XI. throughout.

Footnote 30:

  Morgenthau, _Zusammenhang d. Bilder auf gr. Vasen_.

Footnote 31:

  Cf. for instance E 39, 45, 47, 48, in B.M.

Footnote 32:

  See below, p. 108.

Footnote 33:

  See p. 134.

Footnote 34:

  This subject has been admirably treated by Wickhoff in his _Roman
  Art_ (Eng. edn.), p. 13 ff.

Footnote 35:

  The publication of this vase by Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr.
  Vasenmalerei_, pls. 1–3, 11–13, with full discussion of subjects and
  technical details, has now superseded all previous illustrations. The
  only other complete ones were in _Mon. dell’ Inst._ iv. 54–8
  (Reinach, i. p. 134–36) and _Wiener Vorl._ ii. pls. 1–5. The general
  view given in Plate XXVIII. is reproduced from the first-named work.

Footnote 36:

  For the abbreviations used in the following notes see the
  Bibliography (Vol. I.).

Footnote 37:

  Munich 125 = Reinach, ii. 120 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32;
  B.M. F 237: cf. also B.M. B 62.

Footnote 38:

  The best and most complete examples are as follows:—B.F.: B.M. B 208;
  Reinach, i. 162 = Louvre E 732. R.F.: B.M. E 47, 469; Berlin 2293,
  2531 (both in _Wiener Vorl._ i. pls. 8 and 5; the latter very good);
  Bibl. Nat. 573 = Reinach, ii. 256. Best of all (late R.F.), a grand
  vase found in Melos (_Monum. Grecs_, 1875, pt. 4, pls. 1–2 = _Wiener
  Vorl._ viii. 7), on which no less than eighteen deities are engaged,
  but none of the giants are named. Hera, Hephaistos, and Amphitrite
  are absent. Figs. 111 and 112 give two of these—E 732 in Louvre, and
  the interior of Berlin 2531.

Footnote 39:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 8.

Footnote 40:

  Reinach, ii. 188 = _Él. Cér._ i. 5.

Footnote 41:

  B.M. E 47; Berlin 2293.

Footnote 42:

  B.M. B 253, E 443 (and see p. 56).

Footnote 43:

  _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xx. (1896), pl. 7: cf. the archaic frieze of
  the Siphnian treasury at Delphi.

Footnote 44:

  B.F.: B.M. B 147 (a very fine early example, but much restored), 244
  (Fig. 113), 424; Berlin 1704 (also good). R.F.: B.M. E 15, E 410
  (fine); Reinach, ii. 207.

Footnote 45:

  Reinach, i. 171.

Footnote 46:

  Reinach in _Revue des Études Grecques_, 1901, p. 127, traces the
  subject to a Megarian origin.

Footnote 47:

  _B.M. Vases_, ii. p. 11.

Footnote 48:

  B.M. B 147, 218, 244.

Footnote 49:

  _Cat._ 444.

Footnote 50:

  See B.M. B 157, B 341; also Berlin 1899 (= _Él. Cér._ i. 22) and
  Reinach, ii. 21, 2.

Footnote 51:

  _E.g._ B.M. B 197 (a fine vase, by Amasis?) and B 298: see on the
  subject Foerster, _Hochzeit des Zeus und Hera_.

Footnote 52:

  B.M. E 82; Wernicke, _Ant. Denkm._ pl. 1, 7 = Reinach, ii. 266.

Footnote 53:

  Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i. 14 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 5 (also
  interpreted as a sculptor finishing off a statue of Hera).

Footnote 54:

  B.M. F 269 (gods nicknamed respectively Daidalos and Enyalios).

Footnote 55:

  B.F.: François vase; B.M. B 42 (Plate XXI.), 264; Vienna 218; Athens
  628 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, pl. 8. R.F.: Bibl. Nat. 539 = Reinach, ii.
  261; Reinach, ii. 3 = Millin-Reinach, i. 9; Reinach, ii. 311; Munich
  776 = Baumeister, i. p. 644, fig. 714 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,
  pl. 29; Munich 780 = _Él. Cér._: i. pl. 46 A = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 9, 3.

Footnote 56:

  See below, p. 107; the best examples are Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._
  i. 9 (Sosias); B.M. B 379; Reinach, ii. 76 (in Berlin).

Footnote 57:

  B.M. B 345; E 67, 444; Berlin 2060; Reinach, i. 157, 1, 2 and 203 =
  Baumeister, iii. pl. 93, fig. 2400 (by Oltos and Euxitheos, a very
  fine example); a late instance, Petersburg 419 = Reinach, i. 161.

Footnote 58:

  Reinach, i. 98; 194 (Dareios in council).

Footnote 59:

  B.M. F 278; Reinach, i. 379.

Footnote 60:

  B.M. F 271.

Footnote 61:

  B.M. F 279.

Footnote 62:

  Numerous examples will be found in the pages of Reinach’s

Footnote 63:

  Rape of Persephone: Reinach, i. 99; other scenes, _ibid._ i. 355;
  B.M. F 270.

Footnote 64:

  E 668 = Reinach, i. 435; and cf. Jatta 1405 = Reinach, i. 483; Bibl.
  Nat. 489.

Footnote 65:

  Reinach, ii. 287.

Footnote 66:

  B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.

Footnote 67:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 82 (also i. 22?), and Vienna 329.

Footnote 68:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 30 (may be Poseidon); Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 37, 3; B.M.
  E 432 (Artemis); Naples S.A. 702 = Reinach, i. 499 and Reinach, ii.
  183 (Aphrodite); Bibl. Nat. 229 (Zeus with Hera, Athena, Ares, and
  Hermes); _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189, and _Boston Mus. Report_,
  1899, No. 15 (with Hermes).

Footnote 69:

  B.M. B 166, B 379, B 424, E 262; Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 20;
  Berlin 1857 (H. plays lyre); Petersburg 1775 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 9,
  1 = Reinach, i. 302 (parody): and see below, p. 107.

Footnote 70:

  Reinach, i. 156, 1.

Footnote 71:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 14 (now in B.M.); Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66.

Footnote 72:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 38 (fine polychrome pyxis in Berlin).

Footnote 73:

  B.M. E 381; _Él. Cér._ i. 20.

Footnote 74:

  B.M. F 278; Roscher, iii. p. 969.

Footnote 75:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 68 (in Louvre): cf. Eusebius, _Prep.
  evang._ iii. 84_b_.

Footnote 76:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 29A (doubtful).

Footnote 77:

  Reinach, i. 335, 2.

Footnote 78:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 18 (= Helbig, ii. p. 310, No. 104); Bibl. Nat. 416 =
  Reinach, i. 472; Berlin 2032 = Reinach, i. 334.

Footnote 79:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 10.

Footnote 80:

  B.M. F 542.

Footnote 81:

  B.M. E 313; Reinach, i. 408.

Footnote 82:

  Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1: see Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, pl. 2,
  p. 179 ff.

Footnote 83:

  Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3; Bibl. Nat. 219 = _Mon. Ant. di
  Barone_, pl. 1; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1895, No. 27: see also for the
  first Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, pl. 3, p. 189.

Footnote 84:

  B.M. E 182; Bibl. Nat. 440 = Reinach, ii. 260; and see p. 55, note

Footnote 85:

  B.M. F 150; _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 276 (see Vol. I. p. 473).

Footnote 86:

  B.M. F 149 (signed by Python) = _J.H.S._ xi. pl. 6; B.M. F 193.

Footnote 87:

  B.M. F 286; Reinach, i. 278.

Footnote 88:

  B.M. E 711; Petersburg 1723 = Baumeister, i. p. 406, fig. 447 (both

Footnote 89:

  Aegina: Helbig, ii. p. 311, No. 113 = Wernicke, _Ant. Denkm._ 6, 4;
  Berlin 3239 = _Él. Cér._ i. 17; _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1895, No. 39
  (a sister brings the news to her father Asopos). Thaleia: Reinach,
  ii. 285 = _Él. Cér._ i. 16 = Wernicke, 6, 3.

Footnote 90:

  Reinach, ii. 144: see below, p. 82.

Footnote 91:

  B.F.: Louvre E 696 = Reinach, i. 162; Athens 853 = Reinach, i. 507;
  _id._ ii. 49. R.F.: B.M. E 231; Munich 208 = Jahn, _Entführung d.
  Europa_, pl. 7 (polychrome on white); Petersburg 1637 = Reinach, i.
  24, and 1915 = Reinach, i. 22 (Europa brought to Zeus). Late: B.M. F
  184; Naples 3218 = Jahn, _op. cit._ pl. 1 (Eros on bull).

Footnote 92:

  Helbig, ii. p. 312, No. 118 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 6,
  fig. 13.

Footnote 93:

  See generally _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 62, and _Jahrbuch_,
  1903, p. 37; also _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 12.

Footnote 94:

  Berlin 3164, and Reinach, ii. 16 = _Él. Cér._ i. 25, 26.

Footnote 95:

  Reinach, i. 407.

Footnote 96:

  _Ibid._ i. 111, 1 = Berlin 2651 (R.F.), and 111, 2 = Munich 573 =
  _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 12, 1 (B.F.); _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900,
  No. 21.

Footnote 97:

  B.M. B 164; Bibl. Nat. 302 = _Él. Cér._ iii. 97; Reinach, i. 363;
  Vienna 338 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 11, 1 = Fig. 114; _ibid._ i.
  111, 4 = Jatta 1498 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 12, 2.

Footnote 98:

  See generally Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ ii. p. 27 ff., 181 ff.

Footnote 99:

  Reinach, i. 388.

Footnote 100:

  See p. 101; Zeus defending Athena against Ares after the combat,
  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (Boston vase).

Footnote 101:

  See p. 130.

Footnote 102:

  B.M. E 140; Reinach, i. 342, 405, 452; _ibid._ i. 229; i. 235.

Footnote 103:

  B.M. E 467 and _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.

Footnote 104:

  B.M. B 316; E 224; Naples 2638 = Reinach, i. 78.

Footnote 105:

  Munich 745 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 16.

Footnote 106:

  See p. 141.

Footnote 107:

  See above, p. 16.

Footnote 108:

  Munich 336 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 9, 19; head only,
  _Él. Cér._ i. 29; also perhaps in Naples 2900 = Baumeister, iii. p.
  1653, fig. 1714; but more probably Aphrodite is intended.

Footnote 109:

  Overbeck, _op. cit._ iii. p. 18; Reinach, i. 231, ii. 16.

Footnote 110:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 34.

Footnote 111:

  Bibl. Nat. 542 = Reinach, i. 141.

Footnote 112:

  Reinach, i. 388.

Footnote 113:

  B.M. E 155.

Footnote 114:

  B.M. E 467.

Footnote 115:

  B.M. B 164; Berlin 3164; Reinach, i. 111, 4.

Footnote 116:

  B.M. F 107.

Footnote 117:

  Naples 2873 = Millin-Reinach, i. 3: cf. B.M. F 148 and Reinach, i.

Footnote 118:

  Reinach, ii. 4.

Footnote 119:

  B.M. B 379; Berlin 2278; Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 20.

Footnote 120:

  Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i. 399.

Footnote 121:

  B.M. B 57: cf. the Hera αἰγοφάγος at Sparta (Paus. iii. 15, 9).

Footnote 122:

  Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1; Bibl. Nat. 219.

Footnote 123:

  _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.

Footnote 124:

  Jatta 1093 = Reinach, i. 175.

Footnote 125:

  Reinach, i. 463.

Footnote 126:

  Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pls. 45–46.

Footnote 127:

  Reinach, ii. 9, 321 and _Él. Cér._ i. 30 (Hebe); Reinach, ii. 325

Footnote 128:

  B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193.

Footnote 129:

  B.M. B 147, E 410.

Footnote 130:

  B.M. B 197.

Footnote 131:

  B.M. E 82; Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.

Footnote 132:

  See above, p. 13 (esp. Berlin 2531 (Fig. 112), Reinach, ii. 188 =
  _Él. Cér._ i. 5, _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 41, and Helbig, ii.
  p. 304, No. 81 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. pl. 56, 1); B.M. B 166; Berlin
  2278; Reinach, ii. 76; Louvre F 30 = _Rev. Arch._ xiii. (1889), pl. 4
  (by Amasis).

Footnote 133:

  B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.

Footnote 134:

  B.M. B 212, B 262, and Reinach, ii. 23, 30 = Munich 145 (Apollo);
  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1896, No. 1, and Athens 750 (Hermes); Athens
  838, _Él. Cér._ ii. 30(?), iii. 13, 36 A (Athena and Hermes); B.M. B
  191 (Ares and Hermes), B 228 (Athena, Ares, Herakles); _Bourguignon
  Sale Cat._ 41 (Apollo, Eros, Nereids, Papposilenos).

Footnote 135:

  B.M. E 140.

Footnote 136:

  Reinach, ii. 35; and see B.M. E 445.

Footnote 137:

  Berlin 347–473 (alone), 474–537 (with A.): see also 787–833;
  specimens published in _Ant. Denkm._ i. pls. 7–8 (_e.g._ Fig. 115 =
  Berlin 495).

Footnote 138:

  B.M. E 322; Berlin 2164; Bibl. Nat. 363 = Reinach, ii. 257, 4;
  _ibid._ ii. 22, 8; Petersburg 1531, 2164. With Amphitrite pouring a
  libation: _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 2 (Duris in Louvre).

Footnote 139:

  Reinach, ii. 35.

Footnote 140:

  Athens 880; Bibl. Nat. 314.

Footnote 141:

  Berlin 1869; Athens 836; Reinach, ii. 22; B.M. B 254 (Ἀφροδίτη
  inscribed by error for Ἀμφιτρίτη).

Footnote 142:

  Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125.

Footnote 143:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 14.

Footnote 144:

  Plate L.: cf. Bibl. Nat. 222 = Reinach, ii. 251 = Rayet and
  Collignon, p. 121.

Footnote 145:

  Reinach, i. 124, 465, ii. 22 (Jatta 1346), 181; Athens 1171 =
  Heydemann, _Gr. Vas._ pl. 2, 1. Amymone alone may be intended on
  Bibl. Nat. 359.

Footnote 146:

  B.M. E 174; Reinach, ii. 23 = Helbig, ii. p. 309, No. 102.

Footnote 147:

  Bibl. Nat. 432 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 20; _Él. Cér._ iii. 20–25; Bibl.
  Nat. 370; Reinach, i. 286 = _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 2, by Brygos
  (perhaps the Nymph Salamis: cf. _J.H.S._ ix. p. 56; the scenes on the
  exterior of this cup may refer to Kychreus, the son of Poseidon and
  Salamis, and the snake slain by him). Athens 1551 = Heydemann, _Gr.
  Vas._ pl. 1, fig. 2, seems to represent Poseidon pursuing a Nereid.

Footnote 148:

  _J.H.S._ xviii. pp. 277–79, and cf. pl. 14 (Louvre G 104, by
  Euphronios), where Theseus is received by Amphitrite.

Footnote 149:

  Bibl. Nat. 418 = _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 278.

Footnote 150:

  B.M. E 264.

Footnote 151:

  Reinach, i. 361.

Footnote 152:

  _E.g._ i. 36.

Footnote 153:

  Reinach, i. 108, 195; Berlin 2634; Reinach, i. 379; i. 99; B.M. E
  467; B.M. F 279; Reinach, i. 98.

Footnote 154:

  B.M. B 196, Munich 114 = Reinach, i. 422; Reinach, ii. 61; and see
  B.M. B 228; Reinach, i. 301; ii. 66 (Kyknos).

Footnote 155:

  B.M. B 57.

Footnote 156:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, pl. 10 (with the Graiae); _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl.
  2 (in Louvre).

Footnote 157:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 4.

Footnote 158:

  B.M. B 428 = Roscher, iii. 247.

Footnote 159:

  B.M. E 9, 73; Reinach, i. 64, i. 78 (= Naples 2638), ii. 278; _Wiener
  Vorl._ vii. 2 (Duris in Louvre); Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and
  Reichhold, 24 (Hieron): all R.F. See also p. 120.

Footnote 160:

  B.M. B 201; Reinach, i. 346, 6–7.

Footnote 161:

  B.M. B 225, E 162; Bibl. Nat. 255 = Reinach, ii. 61. See p. 101.

Footnote 162:

  Reinach, i. 339.

Footnote 163:

  Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66 (inscribed Ἅλιος Γέρων).

Footnote 164:

  Reinach, ii. 76.

Footnote 165:

  Naples 3352 = Reinach, i. 485.

Footnote 166:

  B.M. B 551.

Footnote 167:

  Athens 1551.

Footnote 168:

  B.M. E 109; Berlin 1676 = Reinach, ii. 22; Louvre F 148.

Footnote 169:

  B.M. B 223, 311; Reinach, i. 227, ii. 61, 1. See p. 101.

Footnote 170:

  _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 277.

Footnote 171:

  Naples 3412 = Reinach, i. 498.

Footnote 172:

  B.M. B 166 (Palaimon?), E 156 (Leukothea: see p. 136); Reinach, i.
  319 (Ino?): for possible instances of Melikertes see Berlin 779, 780,
  914, and Roscher, ii. p. 2635.

Footnote 173:

  Naples 1767 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Homer_, _Od._ pl. iv. 22;
  B.M. B 201.

Footnote 174:

  B.M. F 218.

Footnote 175:

  Berlin 1007, 1008; _Él. Cér._ iii. 31 and 32 B (fem.); see Vol. I. p.

Footnote 176:

  _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (Branteghem Coll. 85); B.M. E 774 (names given to
  fancy scene): see also Munich 331; Naples 2638 = Reinach, i. 78, 2;
  and Kretschmer, _Gr. Vaseninschr._ p. 200.

Footnote 177:

  See p. 25, note 159; also Reinach, p. 231.

Footnote 178:

  B.M. F 69; Jatta 1496 = Reinach, i. 112; Reinach, i. 300; Roscher,
  iii. 221–24: see generally Heydemann’s _Nereiden mit Waffen_.

Footnote 179:

  Louvre E 643 = Reinach, i. 311.

Footnote 180:

  Reinach, i. 83, 232.

Footnote 181:

  _Ibid._ ii. 61.

Footnote 182:

  Berlin 3241 = Roscher, iii. 218; Petersburg 1915 = Reinach, i. 21.

Footnote 183:

  Reinach, i. 286.

Footnote 184:

  B.M. B 155.

Footnote 185:

  _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41; and in assemblies of the gods, Reinach,
  ii. 76.

Footnote 186:

  Naples 3222 = Reinach, i. 167.

Footnote 187:

  Vase in Boston (1900 Report, No. 4): cf. for a Nereid(?) with
  dolphins, Louvre G 3.

Footnote 188:

  _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pt. 4, pls. 1–2.

Footnote 189:

  The best example is a votive plaque found at Eleusis in 1895 (Athens
  1968 = Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1901, pl. 1): see also Petersburg 1792 and 525 =
  Reinach, i. 1 and 11 = Baumeister, i. pp. 474–75.

Footnote 190:

  For other deities in Eleusinian scenes, see under Aphrodite, Hermes,
  Dionysos, Hekate.

Footnote 191:

  B.M. F 68.

Footnote 192:

  _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.

Footnote 193:

  Petersburg 1792–93 = Reinach, i. 1, 3.

Footnote 194:

  Reinach, ii. 32; B.M. F 90.

Footnote 195:

  Reinach, ii. 321; Athens 1844 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1881, pl. 4.

Footnote 196:

  Athens 1626 = Dumont-Pottier, pl. 37.

Footnote 197:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin): cf. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1893, pl. 9, and
  see p. 140 below.

Footnote 198:

  Berlin 1704 = Reinach, i. 197.

Footnote 199:

  Berlin 2634.

Footnote 200:

  Athens 1120 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pl. 8.

Footnote 201:

  Reinach, ii. 329 (very dubious): cf. a terracotta from Cyprus in B.M.
  (A 326).

Footnote 202:

  B.F.: Reinach, ii. 32–33. R.F.: B.M. E 140 (Plate LI.); E 183, E 281,
  E 469; Petersburg 1207 = Reinach, i. 10; _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 7, 4.
  Late: Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12; Helbig, 127 = Millin-Reinach,
  ii. 31, and 152 = Reinach, ii. 34; _Wiener Vorl._ i. 6.

Footnote 203:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 62; a newly acquired R.F. amphora in B.M.: see also
  Roscher, _E.g._ Keleos, p. 1028; Reinach, i. 286 (?); Munich 336.

Footnote 204:

  B.M. E 274 and Munich 299: see Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iii. p. 535.

Footnote 205:

  Bibl. Nat. 424 = Reinach, i. 463.

Footnote 206:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.

Footnote 207:

  Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401.

Footnote 208:

  Reinach, i. 124.

Footnote 209:

  _Ibid._ i. 156, 1: see Apollod. iii. 14, 4, and Hygin. _Astron._ ii.

Footnote 210:

  B.F.: B.M. B 310. R.F.: Reinach, i. 99, 156, 2; B.M. F 277;
  Baumeister, i. pl. 7, fig. 462: and see Helbig, 144 = Overbeck,
  _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, 18, 12.

Footnote 211:

  See below, p. 67; also Berlin 1844 and _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1, for
  earlier examples.

Footnote 212:

  Reinach, i. 389 and 401 (= Naples S.A. 11); _ibid._ ii. 70.

Footnote 213:

  B.M. E 82, F 68.

Footnote 214:

  B.F.: B.M. B 261; Munich 728 = Reinach, ii. 48. Late: B.M. F 332 =
  Plate XLV.

Footnote 215:

  Reinach, i. 522, 1 = Roscher, ii. p. 1378; Baumeister, i. p. 423,
  fig. 463 (inscribed).

Footnote 216:

  Reinach, i. 228 (Berlin 2646) and 348 (Boston); _Arch. Anzeiger_,
  1895, p. 37 (Berlin); Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 277
  (vase in Dresden; Satyrs astonished; Hermes present).

Footnote 217:

  Reinach, i. 144 = Louvre F 311 = Baumeister, i. p. 445, fig. 493.

Footnote 218:

  Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, p. 198 ff.: see _J.H.S._ xix. p. 232, xx. p.
  106 ff., and _Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 113; also below, under
  Ge-Pandora (p. 73), and Harrison, _Prolegom. to Gk. Religion_, p. 277

Footnote 219:

  For a more complete tabulation see Overbeck, _Kunstmythologie_, vol.
  iv., especially pp. 42 ff., 322 ff.; also the plates of vol. ii. of
  the _Él. Cér._, and the Atlas to Overbeck, pls. 19 to end.

Footnote 220:

  Bibl. Nat. 367 = Reinach, ii. 257.

Footnote 221:

  B.M. B 260, 681.

Footnote 222:

  B.M. B 592; Berlin 1868.

Footnote 223:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 3; ii. 6A = Petersburg 411.

Footnote 224:

  B.M. B 195, F 145(?); Berlin 1867; Reinach, ii. 29.

Footnote 225:

  Reinach, ii. 286.

Footnote 226:

  B.M. E 80.

Footnote 227:

  B.M. E 516; _Él. Cér._ ii. 4.

Footnote 228:

  B.M. E 232; Reinach, ii. 157, 296; _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 2.

Footnote 229:

  B.M. E 543; Reinach, ii. 228; Berlin 2641 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 44.

Footnote 230:

  Helbig, 97 = Reinach, i. 79 = Baumeister, i. p. 102, fig. 108.

Footnote 231:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 46; Petersburg 411 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 6A.

Footnote 232:

  B.M. F 311; Naples 2902 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 97A.

Footnote 233:

  Reinach, ii. 310 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 65.

Footnote 234:

  B.M. B 260, 548, E 274, 383, 514; Brygos vase in Louvre = Reinach. i.
  246; Naples R.C. 169 = Reinach, i. 313 (Artemis with torch; localised
  at Delphi by a crow on the omphalos).

Footnote 235:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 10 (Berlin 2206) and 32; Vienna 331; Reinach, ii. 27;
  B.M. E 579; _Forman Sale Cat._ 356.

Footnote 236:

  B.M. E 262; Reinach ii. 26 (= Louvre F 297), 284 (?); on Melian
  amphora (Athens 475 = Rayet and Çollignon, pl. 3), Apollo in chariot,
  before which stands Artemis with stag.

Footnote 237:

  B.M. B 680, E 256; Reinach, ii. 27–8, 45 (Naples S.A. 192); Athens

Footnote 238:

  Athens 1962 (Leto about to bring forth, assisted by Eileithyia).

Footnote 239:

  B.M. B 168, 213; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 39, 1 a; _Él. Cér._ ii. 2. Nyx
  (Night) was similarly represented on the Kypselos chest (Paus. v. 18,

Footnote 240:

  Reinach, ii. 310.

Footnote 241:

  Berlin 2212 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p. 378; Bibl. Nat. 306 =
  _Él. Cér._ ii. 1 A.

Footnote 242:

  Berlin 2645 = Reinach, i. 397 (Apollo on omphalos, with hind);
  Reinach, ii. 26 (Louvre F 297), 28 (Bibl. Nat. 443), i. 184 (Fig.
  116); B.M. E 502 (omphalos); Athens 1362 (by Mys, a fine example).

Footnote 243:

  Reinach, ii. 29; B.M. B 215, 245; Petersburg 9 = Reinach, ii. 24
  (Apollo crowned by woman); _Él. Cér._ ii. 39; Bibl. Nat. 428; Munich

Footnote 244:

  B.M. B 212, 262; Reinach, ii. 23, 323; _Él. Cér._ ii. 30 (?), 36 C:
  and cf. _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41.

Footnote 245:

  B.M. B 238; Reinach, ii. 24 (Munich 47), 25, 30; Naples 1891 = _Él.
  Cér._ ii. 35; Munich 609 = Reinach, ii. 42.

Footnote 246:

  B.M. F 311, 399.

Footnote 247:

  B.M. E 785.

Footnote 248:

  Reinach, ii. 183.

Footnote 249:

  _Ibid._ ii. 25 (?), 32, 72–73; B.M. B 203, and _Wiener Vorl._ 1889,
  pl. 6, 1; and see generally Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p. 51.

Footnote 250:

  B.M. B 199–201, 211, etc.; Reinach, ii. 72; Berlin 1827 (all B.F.).

Footnote 251:

  B.M. B 6; see Vol. I. p. 344.

Footnote 252:

  Reinach, i. 253; _Él. Cér._ ii. 47–48 (also Iris).

Footnote 253:

  Naples 1762 = Millingen-Reinach, 29.

Footnote 254:

  B.M. B 259, 261; E 323, 415; _Él. Cér._ ii. 13 (= Reinach, ii. 27).
  In some of these Artemis may be intended.

Footnote 255:

  Berlin 2388; _Él. Cér._ ii. 79, 80, 83, 86 (a fine example); Jatta
  1538 = Reinach, i. 526; Helbig, 133 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 15, 2; and cf.
  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 54 (A. as a neat-herd?).

Footnote 256:

  B.M. B 197, 298; B.M. B 257, Reinach, ii. 154, and Millingen-Reinach,

Footnote 257:

  _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 3 = Roscher, ii. 842.

Footnote 258:

  B.M. B 195, 255–56, 258; F 77; Reinach, ii. 23.

Footnote 259:

  Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 8 = Baumeister, i. p. 104, fig. 110.

Footnote 260:

  Munich 62 = Reinach, ii. 75.

Footnote 261:

  B.M. B 179.

Footnote 262:

  Reinach, ii. 31.

Footnote 263:

  Reinach, ii. 287 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 62 (inscribed ΑΕΛΙΟΣ: see below, p.

Footnote 264:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 54.

Footnote 265:

  B.F.: _Ant. Denkm._ i. 22. R.F.: B.M. E 81; Reinach, i. 227 = Vol. I.
  p. 442. Late: Jatta 424 = Reinach, i. 463; Naples 3246 = Roscher,
  iii. 407 (Niobe at grave of children).

Footnote 266:

  B.F.: Reinach, i. 244 (= Louvre E 864), 245; Bibl. Nat. 171 = _ibid._
  ii. 252. R.F.: B.M. E 278.

Footnote 267:

  Louvre G 42 = Reinach, ii. 26.

Footnote 268:

  B.M. E 64 (= Reinach, i. 111), E 170 (= _E.g._ i. 185); _Él. Cér._
  ii. 21; and see Millin-Reinach, i. 71.

Footnote 269:

  Munich 745 = Reinach, i. 67 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 16: see
  also Bibl. Nat. 171 = Reinach, ii. 253.

Footnote 270:

  B.M. F 151.

Footnote 271:

  Reinach, i. 375.

Footnote 272:

  Helbig 227 = Reinach, i. 357; _E.g._ ii. 259 = Bibl. Nat. 820 (?).

Footnote 273:

  B.M. B 147.

Footnote 274:

  Naples 690, 3245.

Footnote 275:

  Reinach, i. 355.

Footnote 276:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.

Footnote 277:

  Reinach, ii. 297.

Footnote 278:

  Petersburg 1777 = Reinach, i. 153.

Footnote 279:

  See below, p. 103.

Footnote 280:

  B.M. F 479.

Footnote 281:

  Reinach, ii. 56, 3: see p. 97.

Footnote 282:

  _Ibid._ i. 233.

Footnote 283:

  Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.

Footnote 284:

  Reinach, ii. 69.

Footnote 285:

  See p. 106, note 1219, for B.F. scenes; for R.F. (in Olympos),
  Reinach, i. 222 and ii. 76.

Footnote 286:

  Berlin 2634.

Footnote 287:

  Reinach, i. 388.

Footnote 288:

  Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 2, 11 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 6.

Footnote 289:

  B.M. E 696.

Footnote 290:

  Berlin 2633; Reinach, ii. 87 (?); _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_,
  1894, p. 252.

Footnote 291:

  B.M. F 159; François vase; Helbig 106 = Reinach, ii. 101; _Wiener
  Vorl._ vi. 7 (Duris in Louvre); B.M. E 468, Helbig 232 = Reinach, ii.
  59; Reinach, i. 218.

Footnote 292:

  Reinach i. 105 (Naples 3223) and i. 504; B.M. F 166, Berlin 3256,
  Naples 1984 = Reinach, i. 390, 2, and _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 90

Footnote 293:

  Reinach, i. 321.

Footnote 294:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin).

Footnote 295:

  B.M. E 336: cf. Reinach, i. 218 and Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._ iv. p.

Footnote 296:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 1; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 67, 2; _E.g._
  p. 602 ff. (cultus-statue of the moon-goddess, Artemis Munychia); and
  see note 299.

Footnote 297:

  Vol. I. p. 289; Berlin 301 = Reinach, i. 380; Naples 304 = Reinach,
  i. 380; Baumeister, i. p. 132, fig. 139; François vase; _Arch.
  Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 2 (Karlsruhe).

Footnote 298:

  Athens 462 = Reinach, i. 517: see $1$2 1892, p. 219 ff.

Footnote 299:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 7 (with hind and lyre); Bibl. Nat. 365 = Reinach, ii.
  257 (drawing arrow from quiver); Bibl. Nat. 491 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1885,
  pl. 32; Reinach, i. 494 (with two dogs); Froehner, _Musées de
  France_, pl. 4.

Footnote 300:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 8, 43; Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194; B.M. F 274;
  Reinach, ii. 228.

Footnote 301:

  B.M. E 432.

Footnote 302:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 77.

Footnote 303:

  B.M. E 262 = Reinach, ii. 45; and see _Él. Cér._ ii. 9 (in Louvre).

Footnote 304:

  Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379; Berlin 3164; Reinach, ii. 16 (?).

Footnote 305:

  B.F.: Athens 882 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vas._ pl. 8, 3; _Él. Cér._ ii. 103
  C. Late: B.M. F 176, F 480 (Etruscan); Berlin 3239 = _Él. Cér._ ii.
  103 B; Reinach, i. 229 and 250 (the former of these now at Boston).

Footnote 306:

  Athens 835 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1890, pl. 8.

Footnote 307:

  B.M. F 159.

Footnote 308:

  Reinach, i. 104, 133, 158, 504.

Footnote 309:

  Athens 1921 = Reinach, i. 511.

Footnote 310:

  B.M. B 195, B 316, E 255; Bibl. Nat. 251 = Reinach, ii. 252.

Footnote 311:

  Reinach, ii. 4.

Footnote 312:

  _Ibid._ i. 132.

Footnote 313:

  B.M. B 197, B 298; Reinach, ii. 154: cf. B.M. B 257.

Footnote 314:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 90.

Footnote 315:

  See above, p. 15.

Footnote 316:

  B.M. E 410.

Footnote 317:

  Reinach, ii. 32.

Footnote 318:

  B.M. B 203.

Footnote 319:

  Reinach, i. 499.

Footnote 320:

  B.M. B 231; Reinach, i. 233.

Footnote 321:

  B.M. F 479.

Footnote 322:

  B.M. B 320; Reinach, ii. 72; in Olympos, B.M. B 379, Berlin 2278, and
  Reinach, ii. 76.

Footnote 323:

  _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 = Duris kylix in Louvre.

Footnote 324:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.

Footnote 325:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 36.

Footnote 326:

  See note 326 on p. 17.

Footnote 327:

  B.M. E 47; Berlin 2293.

Footnote 328:

  B.M. B 147, B 244; B.M. E 410; Bibl. Nat. 444.

Footnote 329:

  E 467 and D 4.

Footnote 330:

  Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208; _ibid._ i. 66 (Munich 345), 113.

Footnote 331:

  Berlin 2294; and see below, p. 130.

Footnote 332:

  B.M. B 507; _Él. Cér._ i. 51: cf. p. 171.

Footnote 333:

  Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach, ii. 259 (?).

Footnote 334:

  Reinach, i. 330.

Footnote 335:

  B.M. B 302, and cf. F 68.

Footnote 336:

  B.M. B 252: see _Arch. Journ._ ii. p. 67.

Footnote 337:

  Berlin 2957 = _Él. Cér._ i. 88 (Etruscan).

Footnote 338:

  B.M. D 4; E 467.

Footnote 339:

  Plate L.; and see p. 24.

Footnote 340:

  B.M. E 182; Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1.

Footnote 341:

  Berlin 2537; B.M. E 372; Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66; _Wiener Vorl._
  iii. 2 = Reinach, i. 113.

Footnote 342:

  Athens 1962.

Footnote 343:

  Reinach, i. 126: for other examples see p. 122.

Footnote 344:

  Bibl. Nat. 216 = _Él. Cér._ iv. 96 (Ares); Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach,
  ii. 259 (Hephaistos).

Footnote 345:

  B.M. E 268; Bibl. Nat. 220 (= Reinach, ii. 211) and 229; and see
  under Hermes, p. 52, note 591.

Footnote 346:

  Reinach, i. 11.

Footnote 347:

  B.M. B 552; Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 38,
  2_E.g._ (with Poseidon and Dionysos).

Footnote 348:

  Reinach, i. 463.

Footnote 349:

  Berlin 2418 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1001, fig. 1209: cf. B.M. E 490 and
  Reinach, i. 342 (in Boston); Reinach, i. 175, 510, 511 (Athens 1921).

Footnote 350:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 68, 76 A; with N. sacrificing, _Boston Mus. Report_,
  1898, No. 51.

Footnote 351:

  B.M. E 324 (Hebe?); Reinach, ii. 323 (Hebe?); _ibid._ 324 (Iris).

Footnote 352:

  Vienna 329: cf. _Él. Cér._ i. 82 (A. with Z., but not pouring

Footnote 353:

  See p. 106 for these scenes, in which she is almost invariably

Footnote 354:

  B.M. B 198, B 498; Helbig 93 = _$1_ ii. 54, 2.

Footnote 355:

  B.M. D 14; Berlin 2626 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 67; Millin-Reinach,
  ii. 41.

Footnote 356:

  Reinach, ii. 75 (doubtful).

Footnote 357:

  Stackelberg, pl. 15.

Footnote 358:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).

Footnote 359:

  B.M. E 48; Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; _Boston Mus. Report_,
  1900, No. 25; Reinach, i. 55, 6 (Petersburg 116), 91, 421 (Petersburg
  2012), ii. 271; and see _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 2.

Footnote 360:

  B.M. B 155, 248, 380, E 181, 493, F 83; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i.
  290; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2.

Footnote 361:

  B.M. E 81; Petersburg 2189 = Reinach, i. 5(?).

Footnote 362:

  Reinach, i. 108, 195, 331.

Footnote 363:

  _Ibid._ i. 102, 226.

Footnote 364:

  B.M. E 696.

Footnote 365:

  Reinach, i. 184.

Footnote 366:

  B.M. E 155.

Footnote 367:

  Reinach, i. 480.

Footnote 368:

  _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.

Footnote 369:

  Reinach, i. 231.

Footnote 370:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39 (Berlin).

Footnote 371:

  Reinach, i. 363.

Footnote 372:

  _Ibid._ ii. 296: see pp. 77, 128.

Footnote 373:

  At meeting of Paris and Helen, Athens 1942 = Reinach, i. 402; at
  combat of Ajax and Hector, _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 (Duris in Louvre); at
  dispute over the arms, B.M. E 69; and see for other instances,
  Reinach, i. 3, 82, 138, 174, 218; ii. 59, 266.

Footnote 374:

  Reinach, ii. 110.

Footnote 375:

  Vase in Boston: see 1899 Report, No. 16.

Footnote 376:

  See below, p. 124.

Footnote 377:

  B.M. B 541, E 160.

Footnote 378:

  Reinach, i. 5 (?), 158, 390; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 90 (Berlin).

Footnote 379:

  Berlin 2313 = Reinach, i. 416 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 4, 3.

Footnote 380:

  B.M. E 316 = Plate XXXVI.

Footnote 381:

  Reinach, ii. 123 (= Munich 1185), 262 (= Bibl. Nat. 369).

Footnote 382:

  B.M. E 299.

Footnote 383:

  Berlin 1846 = Reinach, ii. 30 (before Dionysos).

Footnote 384:

  Reinach, i. 342.

Footnote 385:

  _Ibid._ ii. 166; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1896, No. 1.

Footnote 386:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 83.

Footnote 387:

  Berlin 2415 = Reinach, i. 343 (the Trojan horse?).

Footnote 388:

  Vol. I. p. 223, Fig. 72.

Footnote 389:

  Reinach, i. 501.

Footnote 390:

  _Ibid._ ii. 44.

Footnote 391:

  B.M. E 515, 519.

Footnote 392:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 12; Bibl. Nat. 260; Louvre F 380.

Footnote 393:

  B.M. B 203; Reinach, ii. 73; with Poseidon, Athens 836; with Hermes,
  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 4, 1.

Footnote 394:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.

Footnote 395:

  Reinach, ii. 125, 130; Bibl. Nat. 232, 256 = Rein. ii. 254.

Footnote 396:

  _Ibid._ i. 44.

Footnote 397:

  Bibl. Nat. 260.

Footnote 398:

  B.M. B 242, 379, 541, E 160, 470, F 160, 209, 278; Munich 65 =
  Reinach, i. 76; Naples 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, 34.

Footnote 399:

  See below, p. 133.

Footnote 400:

  B.M. E 494, E 696; E 716 (moulded vase); and cf. B 611 (Nikephoros).

Footnote 401:

  B.M. B 222, E 305 (Pl. XXXVI.), E 324, E 515; _Él. Cér._ i. 82; Bibl.
  Nat. 219; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 586.

Footnote 402:

  For a fine example of Athena Promachos see Athens 1169 = Benndorf,
  _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 31, 2.

Footnote 403:

  See Vol. I. p. 389, and Plates XXXIII., XXXIV.; also the B.M.
  examples B 130–46, 602–12.

Footnote 404:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 67.

Footnote 405:

  B.M. B 80; Berlin 1686 = Rayet-Collignon, pl. 7; Reinach, ii. 122;
  Athens 1858 = Reinach, i. 396 (identified as Athena Nike or Onka);
  for the trophy-like form of the figure on the last-named cf. the
  coins of Pergamon inscribed Ἀθηνᾶς Νικηφόρον: see also for a curious
  subject Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 31, fig. 1.

Footnote 406:

  B.M. D 22; Bibl. Nat. 472 = Reinach, i. 131, 4.

Footnote 407:

  B.M. B 147; Reinach, i. 156.

Footnote 408:

  B.M. B 617; Berlin 2531; Bibl. Nat. 573 = Reinach, ii. 256; Athens
  1259 = Reinach, i. 506.

Footnote 409:

  See p. 101; for his subsequent attack on Athena, _Arch. Anzeiger_,
  1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).

Footnote 410:

  B.M. E 67, E 82; Reinach, i. 203.

Footnote 411:

  B.M. B 191, B 228.

Footnote 412:

  _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 6, fig. 4.

Footnote 413:

  Bibl. Nat. 216 (= _Él. Cér._ iv. 96) and 229.

Footnote 414:

  _Él. Cér._ iv. 94–95; B.M. E 82, and Berlin 2278 (in assemblies of
  gods); _Gaz. Arch._ 1876, pl. 34.

Footnote 415:

  B.M. B 551; and see Athens 903.

Footnote 416:

  _Él. Cér._ iv. 98.

Footnote 417:

  B.M. E 467.

Footnote 418:

  B.M. E 155.

Footnote 419:

  Reinach, i. 463.

Footnote 420:

  B.M. B 379; Berlin 1961 (= Reinach, ii. 43) and 2278; Bibl. Nat. 254.

Footnote 421:

  Reinach, ii. 91.

Footnote 422:

  _Él. Cér._ iv. 99.

Footnote 423:

  _Röm. Mittheil._ 1899, pl. 7: cf. Paus. vii. 8.

Footnote 424:

  B.M. F 108, 373 (?); Millingen-Reinach, 26; Reinach, i. 119, 265,
  325, 479 (?); _Él. Cér._ iv. 66 (?).

Footnote 425:

  Reinach, i. 499 = Naples S.A. 702; also Naples 2900 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 41 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1653, fig. 1714.

Footnote 426:

  Reinach, i. 156.

Footnote 427:

  B.M. D 2; _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 13; _Jahrb._ 1886, pl. 11, 2; Berlin 2636
  (_Él. Cér._ iv. 5) and 2688 (= Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 37,
  3); Reinach, ii. 7, 183. Late: B.M. F 240, 556.

Footnote 428:

  Berlin 2635 = _Jahrbuch_, 1889, p. 208 = Roscher, iii. 1514.

Footnote 429:

  Berlin 2660.

Footnote 430:

  _Él. Cér._ iv. 6.

Footnote 431:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_. 1898, p. 137 (Dresden vase): cf. Paul, _E.g._ Fest.
  iii. _E.g._ Cytherea and the B.M. terracottas D 89–91.

Footnote 432:

  B.M. E 712, 775; Athens 1944; Reinach, i. 124, ii. 323; Inghirami,
  _Vasi Fitt._ 324.

Footnote 433:

  Reinach, i. 353.

Footnote 434:

  B.M. E 230, F 311; Athens 1588 = Roscher, iii. p. 2119 (Fig. 117);
  Reinach, i. 39, ii. (290; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1903), p.
  108, No. 46.

Footnote 435:

  Reinach, ii. 301, 320; Berlin 2707 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, pl. 62, 2.

Footnote 436:

  Petersburg 1983 = Reinach, i. 15.

Footnote 437:

  Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 13, 4.

Footnote 438:

  Berlin 4126 = Reinach, i. 128.

Footnote 439:

  B.M. E 699 = _J.H.S._ xi. pl. 4.

Footnote 440:

  B.M. E 224, 697, 698, 775; Berlin 3257 (with Eunomia and Euthymia at
  marriage of Herakles and Hebe); Naples S.A. 316 = Reinach, i. 477
  (with Eukleia, Klymene, and Pannychis); _Mon. Grecs_, 1889–90, pls.
  9–10 (without names); Fig. 117 = Athens 1588 = Roscher, iii. p. 2119
  (with Kore, Hebe, Eudaimon, Harmonia, and others).

Footnote 441:

  Reinach, ii. 315; Millin-Reinach, i. 65.

Footnote 442:

  Reinach, i. 198.

Footnote 443:

  B.M. E 230, E 289, and cf. F 311; Baumeister, i. p. 618, fig. 687 (?
  see p. 57, note 710).

Footnote 444:

  _Él. Cér._ iv. 38.

Footnote 445:

  Stackelberg, pl. 30: cf. B.M. E 697.

Footnote 446:

  Reinach, i. 129; B.M. F 258; Bibl. Nat. 1005, 1133 (head of A.
  adorned by two Erotes).

Footnote 447:

  See above, p. 17.

Footnote 448:

  B.M. E 15; Reinach, i. 156(B.F.).

Footnote 449:

  B.M. B 197.

Footnote 450:

  _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1–2.

Footnote 451:

  Petersburg 350, 525 = Reinach, i. 11–12; _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900),
  p. 93.

Footnote 452:

  B.M. F 270, 332; Reinach, i. 355–56, 479.

Footnote 453:

  B.M. B 203; F 90.

Footnote 454:

  Reinach, i. 124, 465; ii. 181.

Footnote 455:

  Berlin 3164; Reinach, i. 111, 4 and 416.

Footnote 456:

  Berlin 3239.

Footnote 457:

  Reinach, i. 405, 452 (Berlin 2950); ii. 197.

Footnote 458:

  Helbig 118 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, 6, 13.

Footnote 459:

  Reinach, i. 526.

Footnote 460:

  Reinach, i. 481; Berlin 2278; Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 20; at marriage
  with Hebe, Berlin 3257.

Footnote 461:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 462:

  Reinach, i. 91.

Footnote 463:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 464:

  Naples 3226 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 7 (Kadmos); B.M. F 271 (Pelops);
  Reinach, i. 188, and _Jahrbuch_, 1896, pl. 2 (Perseus); Naples S.A.
  11 = Reinach, i. 401 (Meleager).

Footnote 465:

  See below, p. 122.

Footnote 466:

  Millingen-Reinach, 43: cf. Berlin 3244 for another possible Anchises.

Footnote 467:

  B.M. E 424; François vase.

Footnote 468:

  Reinach, i. 437.

Footnote 469:

  B.M. E 73; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 18 (now in Boston).

Footnote 470:

  B.M. F 209.

Footnote 471:

  Reinach, i. 222, and cf. i. 437 and B.M. F 278 (statue of A.); Noel
  des Vergers, _Étrurie_, iii. pl. 39.

Footnote 472:

  B.M. B 173, 280; Reinach, ii. 116.

Footnote 473:

  B.M. E 289; Reinach, i. 7, 15, 126; _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 3.

Footnote 474:

  B.M. F 108 (anointing Adonis’ hair).

Footnote 475:

  B.M. E 129.

Footnote 476:

  Zeus and Danaë: B.M. E 711; Europa: B.M. E 231, F 184, Naples 3218
  (Eros on bull); Reinach, i. 22, 24.

Footnote 477:

  Reinach, i. 449.

Footnote 478:

  B.M. F 272, 279; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (Berlin).

Footnote 479:

  B.M. E 424; Plate XXXIX. fig. 2.

Footnote 480:

  B.M. F 271, 331; Reinach, i. 235.

Footnote 481:

  Reinach, i. 9, 402 (Athens 1942), 437.

Footnote 482:

  Reinach, i. 156, ii. 309.

Footnote 483:

  _Ibid._ i. 66.

Footnote 484:

  B.M. E 227.

Footnote 485:

  B.M. F 107.

Footnote 486:

  Reinach, i. 22.

Footnote 487:

  B.M. F 270; Reinach, i. 355, 455 (with Orpheus).

Footnote 488:

  Reinach, i. 66; _E.g._ i. 100, 167; B.M. F 152, 194; Gerhard, _Akad.
  Abhandl._ pl. 7, fig. 1 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 394 (with Helios
  and Selene ?see p. 79, note 954); B.M. F 74 and F 102 (Herakles).

Footnote 489:

  B.M. F 311: cf. F 399.

Footnote 490:

  B.M. F 90.

Footnote 491:

  B.M. F 69: cf. _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 41.

Footnote 492:

  B.M. E 228, 428, 435, 703; F 58, 60, 72, 382; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16
  (offers wreath to D.).

Footnote 493:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 20.

Footnote 494:

  Reinach, i. 525, 526.

Footnote 495:

  B.M. E 225, 229, 705; F 138, 308, 310, 332.

Footnote 496:

  Reinach, i. 206.

Footnote 497:

  B.M. E 126, 189, 191.

Footnote 498:

  B.M. F 48.

Footnote 499:

  Athens 1946 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 21, 5.

Footnote 500:

  B.M. E 205 (?); Reinach, i. 412.

Footnote 501:

  B.M. F 123 (cf. p. 50, note 547); Reinach, ii. 315 = Baumeister, ii.
  p. 780, fig. 834.

Footnote 502:

  B.M. E 704; E 721.

Footnote 503:

  Reinach, i. 232.

Footnote 504:

  _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1899, p. 158 = _Burlington Club Cat._ 1903, p.
  97, No. 11.

Footnote 505:

  B.M. E 397, Reinach, ii. 142; B.M. E 217, 360, 702, Reinach, ii. 315.

Footnote 506:

  Reinach, ii. 317; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 22, fig. 1 (? see p. 80,
  note 970).

Footnote 507:

  Reinach, ii. 191.

Footnote 508:

  Naples 2961.

Footnote 509:

  B.M. E 297.

Footnote 510:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 27, p. 262.

Footnote 511:

  Petersburg 1181 = Reinach, ii. 318: cf. Reinach, i. 250, and _Arch.
  Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (see p. 46, note 478).

Footnote 512:

  F 220.

Footnote 513:

  B.M. E 293; Reinach, i. 465.

Footnote 514:

  B.M. E 652.

Footnote 515:

  Bibl. Nat. 366 = _Él. Cér._ iv. 51.

Footnote 516:

  B.M. E 526, 528.

Footnote 517:

  Reinach, i. 479; _Ibid._ i. 57.

Footnote 518:

  Reinach, i. 55, Millin-Reinach, ii. 59; Reinach, ii. 324, _Él. Cér._
  iv. 53; Reinach, i. 347; _E.g._ ii. 248, B.M. F 555.

Footnote 519:

  B.M. F 579 = Fig. 118; Reinach, i. 277.

Footnote 520:

  Baumeister, iii. p. 1573, fig. 1633; B.M. E 501.

Footnote 521:

  B.M. E 706, Naples 2872 = Reinach, ii. 169; B.M. E 296, _Él. Cér._
  iv. 49; B.M. F 221.

Footnote 522:

  B.M. E 241, Reinach, i. 229, ii. 302; _Él. Cér._ iv. 50.

Footnote 523:

  B.M. E 213; Reinach, i. 36; B.M. F 68, F 441.

Footnote 524:

  B.M. F 223, 279, 373: cf. Theocr. ii. 30 (ῥόμβος); Hor. _Epod._ xvii.
  7 (_turbo_).

Footnote 525:

  B.M. E 118, 571; F 219, 257, Reinach, i. 312 (dove), _Él. Cér._ iv.
  49 (cock).

Footnote 526:

  B.M. E 13; F 294, 340, 378; Reinach, i. 528, B.M. F 17, 308, 409.

Footnote 527:

  B.M. F 132, 225, 278, 280, 258 (two Erotes holding wreath); F 165,
  176, 329, 389; F 310; F 234, 257, 306, 414, 440; E 518.

Footnote 528:

  B.M. F 349; E 242, F 391; Baumeister, i. p. 498, fig. 540; B.M. F
  387, 481; F 294, 382, Millin-Reinach, i. 20 (torch and bow); B.M. F
  443; E 239; F 308, 414 (Plate XLIV.).

Footnote 529:

  B.M. F 420, 434; F 456; F 13, 219, 292, 325; F 31, 280, 317, 323; F
  37; E 293, 388; F 31, 63, 234, 278; F 280, 315, 337, 373.

Footnote 530:

  Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401 (at death of Meleager).

Footnote 531:

  _Abhandl. d. k. sächs. Gesellsch._ viii. pl. 1, fig. 1 (with Sappho).

Footnote 532:

  B.M. E 222; also at the toilet of Aphrodite (Fig. 117 above).

Footnote 533:

  Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. Inéd._ 8.

Footnote 534:

  Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12; _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900),  p. 93;
  Reinach, i. 124.

Footnote 535:

  Reinach, i. 188.

Footnote 536:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 537:

  Reinach, i. 437.

Footnote 538:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 539:

  Noel des Vergers, _Étrurie_, iii. pl. 39.

Footnote 540:

  Naples 2900 = Millingen-Reinach, 41.

Footnote 541:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.

Footnote 542:

  Reinach, i. 526.

Footnote 543:

  Roscher, iii. p. 1811.

Footnote 544:

  B.M. E 440.

Footnote 545:

  Berlin 2633.

Footnote 546:

  B.M. E 226.

Footnote 547:

  Reinach, ii. 302: see also _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 11, and
  Jatta 1093 = Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_, pl. 1 (holding

Footnote 548:

  Munich 234 = Reinach, i. 298 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1571, fig. 1632.

Footnote 549:

  Berlin 3257.

Footnote 550:

  Reinach, ii. 200.

Footnote 551:

  Jatta 1093.

Footnote 552:

  Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114.

Footnote 553:

  B.M. B 32; Louvre G 10; Reinach, ii. 276.

Footnote 554:

  Berlin 4003 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 50.

Footnote 555:

  B.M. E 58.

Footnote 556:

  Louvre F 159; _Él. Cér._ iii. 87.

Footnote 557:

  Berlin 2727 and Reinach, i. 159; Berlin 1881.

Footnote 558:

  B.M. B 549.

Footnote 559:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 73 (Hermaios), 76.

Footnote 560:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 51.

Footnote 561:

  Reinach, ii. 276.

Footnote 562:

  B.M. B 32; Athens 592 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, pl. 2.

Footnote 563:

  B.M. B 332.

Footnote 564:

  Vienna 321 (cf. Ar. _Ach._ 729 ff.).

Footnote 565:

  Reinach, ii. 25.

Footnote 566:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 14 and 75.

Footnote 567:

  Louvre E 702 = Reinach, i. 354; Helbig, 227 = Reinach, i. 357 =
  Baumeister, i. p. 680, fig. 741 (Fig. 119).

Footnote 568:

  Reinach, ii. 25; De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 1.

Footnote 569:

  Bibl. Nat. 820 = Reinach, ii. 259.

Footnote 570:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 93; Millin-Reinach, i. 70; Reinach, ii. 330.

Footnote 571:

  B.M. F 237, and see above, p. 15.

Footnote 572:

  Berlin 1702 (Hermes Kyllenios), and see p. 15.

Footnote 573:

  B.M. B 197; Reinach, ii. 266.

Footnote 574:

  See above, p. 17.

Footnote 575:

  Reinach, i. 472.

Footnote 576:

  B.M. E 65.

Footnote 577:

  See p. 20.

Footnote 578:

  Louvre A 478 (_Hermes_, 1898, p. 638); _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898,
  p. 586.

Footnote 579:

  Reinach, i. 234.

Footnote 580:

  _Ibid._ i. 124.

Footnote 581:

  _Ibid._ i. 499.

Footnote 582:

  _Ibid._ i. 244; i. 463; i. 175.

Footnote 583:

  _Ibid._ ii. 4.

Footnote 584:

  B.M. B 203 (Athena); Reinach, ii. 22, 26, 73; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.
  Vasenb._ 4, 1.

Footnote 585:

  B.M. B 340; E 44, 459; Reinach, ii. 125, 152, 275.

Footnote 586:

  Athens 1345 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 10; Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos
  in Louvre).

Footnote 587:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 44.

Footnote 588:

  Reinach, i. 388.

Footnote 589:

  _Ibid._ i. 380.

Footnote 590:

  B.M. E 467; _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1.

Footnote 591:

  See generally under those deities; for H. and Athena: B.M. B 144,
  Reinach, i. 257, ii. 42 (Panathenaic); B.M. E 268, Reinach, i. 520
  (Athens 477), ii. 25, 211 (Bibl. Nat. 220).

Footnote 592:

  Berlin 2635 = _Jahrbuch_, 1889, p. 208.

Footnote 593:

  B.M. B 257, 259, 267, 302 (banqueting); Berlin 2160 (with the Satyr
  Oreimachos); Reinach, i. 129 (playing lyre).

Footnote 594:

  B.M. B 424, E 492; Petersburg 1792, 1793 (= Reinach, i. 1 and 3);
  Helbig, 103 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 223; Reinach, i. 93, ii. 310;
  and see _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1, p. 1 ff, and p. 55, note 642.

Footnote 595:

  B.M. B 230; Oxford 222; Reinach, ii. 29.

Footnote 596:

  See p. 69.

Footnote 597:

  B.M. F 277; Reinach, i. 99: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.

Footnote 598:

  See p. 28; also Naples 1989 = _Él. Cér._ iii. 91, and Reinach, i. 522.

Footnote 599:

  Reinach, i. 456; Berlin 2455; Munich 209 = Fig. 122, p. 70.

Footnote 600:

  Athens 1093 = Roscher, ii. p. 2678; Berlin 2991.

Footnote 601:

  Louvre F 60.

Footnote 602:

  Bibl. Nat. 269.

Footnote 603:

  _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101: cf. the story of Pandora’s “box,” and see Vol.
  I. p. 152 and p. 75 below.

Footnote 604:

  Munich 611 = Reinach, i. 419.

Footnote 605:

  Reinach, i. 389, ii. 32, 70.

Footnote 606:

  B.M. B 167, B 301; B 229.

Footnote 607:

  Reinach, i. 297, 323, ii. 70, 74–75.

Footnote 608:

  B.M. B 166, 318, 379; Louvre F 116–117; Reinach, i. 222, 368, ii. 76.

Footnote 609:

  Bibl. Nat. 172; Reinach, i. 91, ii. 271.

Footnote 610:

  B.M. B 248, B 280, E 493; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290; _E.g._
  ii. 48; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2 (represents an earlier episode).

Footnote 611:

  Bibl. Nat. 224.

Footnote 612:

  See p. 122.

Footnote 613:

  Athens 966.

Footnote 614:

  Reinach, i. 89, 144.

Footnote 615:

  _Ibid._ i. 138, ii. 99.

Footnote 616:

  _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 10 (Louvre).

Footnote 617:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 78–81; Bibl. Nat. 839: see Roscher, i. p. 2393.

Footnote 618:

  B.M. B 362, 627, E 585; Berlin 1928, 2172; Schreiber-Anderson, 16, 8,
  and 14, 3.

Footnote 619:

  B.M. B 345, E 444; Berlin 2278; Reinach, i. 203; _Ath. Mitth._ 1889,
  pl. 1.

Footnote 620:

  _Forman Sale Cat._ 364.

                             CHAPTER XIII

    Dionysos and his associates—Ariadne, Maenads, and Satyrs—Names of
      Satyrs and Maenads—The Nether World—General representations and
      isolated subjects—Charon, Erinnyes, Hekate, and
      Thanatos—Cosmogonic deities—Gaia and Pandora—Prometheus and
      Atlas—Iris and Hebe—Personifications—Sun, Moon, Stars, and
      Dawn—Winds—Cities and countries—The Muses—Victory—Abstract
      ideas—Descriptive names.

                    § 1. DIONYSOS AND HIS ASSOCIATES

The most important deity in Greek mythology outside the Olympian circle
is undoubtedly =Dionysos=; but the part that is played by him and his
attendant train in Greek art is out of all proportion even to this, at
least in the vase-paintings. Apart from what we may regard as strictly
mythological subjects, such as the Birth of Dionysos and scenes in
which other gods or heroes are introduced, the number and variety of
the themes are so great that an exhaustive enumeration is quite
impossible; nor indeed would it repay the trouble to give a complete
list of what may for convenience be termed Dionysiac scenes. Suffice it
to say that they occur with equal frequency on the vases of all periods
from the middle of the sixth century onwards.

The personages with whom we have to deal in this section are, besides
Dionysos himself, his spouse Ariadne, Pan, with his “double” Aegipan,
and the motley rout of Satyrs, Seileni, and Maenads, who appear either
in the wine-god’s company or by themselves. Dionysos is generally
accompanied by one or more Maenads or Seileni, whether engaged in some
definite action, such as pouring wine or playing flutes, or no; but he
is also not infrequently seen as a single figure.[621] On the earlier
vases he is elderly and bearded, but on the later youthful and
beardless. He is occasionally represented with horns,[622] or in the
form of a man-headed bull.[623] He is depicted sacrificing at an
altar,[624] pouring a libation,[625] or slaying a fawn[626] or goat
χιμαιροφόνος[627]; banqueting,[628] or playing on the lyre.[629] He
rides on a bull,[630] goat,[631] mule,[632] or panther,[633] or in a
winged chariot[634]—in one case drawn by Gryphons, in another by a
Gryphon, bull, and panther[635]—or in a chariot shaped like a
ship[636]; or is carried by a Seilenos.[637] On a beautiful cup by
Exekias[638] he sails over the ocean in a boat, the mast of which grows
into a vine. We are reminded in this scene of the Homeric hymn (xix.)
and the story of the Tyrrhenian pirates, a subject which, according to
one interpretation, is represented on a vase at Athens.[639]

His birth is not often represented, and chiefly on R.F. vases[640]; it
has been referred to already in detail, in reference to Zeus. When
handed over to Hermes,[641] the newly born infant is conveyed by that
god to Nysa, where he is finally delivered to a Seilenos, to be nursed
by the Nymphs of that place.[642] Or he is handed directly to a Nymph
by Zeus,[643] or, by a curious error or confusion on the artist’s part,
to Ariadne, his future bride.[644] There is a possible representation
of the Indian Dionysos or Bassareus,[645] India being the land whence
he was fabled to come; and other vases represent various events
connected with his first manifestation of himself in Greece: such as
the madness he brought on Lykourgos, who refused to receive him,[646]
and his subsequent sacrifice after his triumph[647]; the death of the
similarly contumelious Pentheus (the story on which the plot of the
_Bacchae_ turns)[648]; or his supposed visit to the Athenian
Ikarios.[649] He sometimes appears with his mother Semele, whom he
brings back from Hades[650]; in one or two instances their heads are
seen rising from the ground to indicate their return from the nether
world.[651] They are then solemnly introduced into Olympos.[652]

Dionysos is frequently grouped with various deities, such as Apollo,
Athena, and Hermes[653]; or they are seen in his company at a
banquet.[654] He sometimes appears at the birth of Athena,[655] the
apotheosis of Herakles,[656] and his marriage with Hebe[657]; or in
heroic scenes, such as the Judgment of Paris,[658] or the combat of
Herakles and Kyknos.[659] He appears with the Seileni who attack Hera
and Iris,[660] and brings back Hephaistos to Olympos.[661] He
frequently takes part in the Gigantomachia, usually in single
combat,[662] being aided by his panther, and sometimes by Seileni and
Maenads.[663] Sometimes he is seen preparing for this event, wearing a
cuirass, while Satyrs or Maenads hold the rest of his armour.[664] He
is also grouped with Gaia Κουροτρόφος,[665] and with Poseidon and
Nike[666]; or accompanies the chariot of Athena[667]; and is seen in
more than one assembly of the Olympian deities.[668]

His wooing and consoling of the deserted Ariadne[669] is an attractive
and popular subject, and several vases seem to represent the nuptial
ceremonies between the pair,[670] or the preparations for the same,
with Eros assisting at the bride’s toilet.[671] Numerous are the
instances in which he is seen grouped with Ariadne, often in loving
embrace,[672] and generally surrounded by his cortège,[673] but also
alone. Or, again, he and Ariadne drive in a chariot drawn by
lions,[674] panthers,[675] stags,[676] or goats[677]; in two cases
Ariadne drives her own chariot alone,[678] in another Dionysos is seen
alone in a four-horse chariot.[679] They are also seen reclining
together at a banquet,[680] sometimes accompanied by Herakles and other
deities.[681] On a vase of quasi-Etruscan style[682] we see the
sleeping Ariadne surrounded by Dionysos, Satyrs, and Maenads. This
presumably refers to the scene in Naxos.

The numerous vases on which Dionysos appears, with or without
Ariadne, accompanied by a throng of Satyrs and Maenads, sometimes
in high revelry, sometimes in more peaceful circumstances, may next
be mentioned, though it is not necessary to cite more than a few
typical examples[683]; equally numerous are smaller groups, where
only one or two followers appear, but only a few of these need be
particularised.[684] Thus we see him in peaceful converse with
Maenads or Nymphs[685]; seizing them with amorous intent[686];
listening to a Satyr playing the lyre or flute[687]; or going to a
banquet, accompanied by Satyrs with torches[688]; or feeding a
bird.[689] In banquet scenes he receives drink from a Satyr,[690]
or plays at the kottabos (see p. 182)[691]; or Seileni steal his
food and drink.[692] He watches a Lydian woman dancing in
armour,[693] or dances himself to the flutes played by an
actor.[694] In one instance he is seen leaving his chariot to join
in the revels of his followers[695]; in another he takes part in
the orgies of the Scythian Agathyrsi,[696] and he is seen in a
drunken condition, supported by one of his followers.[697] He is
not infrequently grouped with Eros, from whom he receives drink or
a wreath[698]; also with Pan,[699] or with semi-personified figures
such as Komos (Revelry)[700] or Oinopion (Wine-drinker).[701]

=Pan= only makes his appearance on late vases, usually in Dionysiac
groups,[702] or as a single figure on the smaller Apulian wares; when
he is depicted with goat’s legs and squat proportions, he is usually
called Aegipan[703]; or, again, Paniskos, when he has the form of a
beardless youth.[704] He surprises a Nymph asleep,[705] and is
sometimes associated with the Nymph Echo.[706]


Dionysos’ connection with the Attic drama is more specially indicated
by scenes in which he appears as the inventor or patron of tragedy,
presenting a tragic mask to a young actor[707]; he also appears in an
elaborate scene representing the preparations for a Satyric drama.[708]
As the object of worship he is sometimes seen in a form which implies a
reference to some primitive cult, as an aniconic pillar-image (ξόανον
or βαίτυλος)[709]; or, again, in the form of a tree (Dionysos
Dendrites), and homage is paid to him by Maenads.[710] Besides
sacrifices to his image, we see sacrificial dances performed,[711] or
choragic tripods consecrated to him.[712] His statue is once seen at a

                  *       *       *       *       *

We must now treat of the scenes in which Seileni and Satyrs, Maenads
and Nymphs, appear independently of Dionysos, or in particular actions
without relation to him. They are, indeed, often, if not invariably,
present in all scenes in which he takes part, whether mythological or
of a less definite character; as, for instance, the return of
Hephaistos to Olympos,[714] in which the gods are usually accompanied
by a more or less riotous escort of Satyrs, and others as already
mentioned. The attack of the Satyrs on Iris and Hera has been alluded
to in connection with the latter[715]; and they seldom elsewhere appear
in relation to the Olympian deities or other myths, except in those
scenes which depict the rising of Persephone or Ge-Pandora from the
earth.[716] But Satyrs and Maenads are sometimes represented as
performing sacrifices, not only to Dionysos,[717] but also to
Herakles,[718] or to a terminal figure of Hermes.[719] We turn next to
scenes of more general character.

There are numerous vases, especially of the R.F. period, on which
groups of Satyrs and Maenads are represented in revels of a more or
less wild and unrestrained character, or else in more peaceful
association. Those in which Dionysos himself is present have already
been enumerated, but the general types may be now considered. It may,
perhaps, be possible to distinguish two, or even three, classes of this
subject: the inactive groups of Satyrs and Maenads[720]; those in which
they rush along in frenzy and unrestrained licence, brandishing their
thyrsi, or with tambourines (_tympana_) and other musical
instruments[721]; and, lastly, scenes of convivial revelry (κῶμοι), in
which they are engaged in drinking from all sorts of vessels.[722]
Sometimes these revels are strictly confined to Satyrs, and then they
become absolutely licentious in character[723]; or, again, a group of
Maenads unattended tear along with torches, thyrsi, and musical
instruments[724]; or, lastly, both join in dances hand-in-hand, a
subject which on early vases is often adopted for a long frieze
encircling a vase.[725]

As a pendant to these, many subjects and single figures must here be
mentioned which seem to be excerpts from the larger compositions, as
well as independent motives presenting special features found in the
more elaborate scenes. We begin with subjects in which both Satyrs and
Maenads take part, among which we find a favourite subject to be the
gathering of fruit,[726] especially grapes, and the processes of the
vintage.[727] Satyrs offer drink to Maenads,[728] or play the flutes
for them to dance to[729]; and there is a favourite series of subjects
of an amorous character, in which the Satyrs pursue the objects of
their passion,[730] or surprise them asleep,[731] seize them and
overcome their struggles to escape,[732] and finally enfold them in
embraces,[733] or carry them on their shoulders.[734] Satyrs are also
seen surprising women while bathing[735]; and a group of them appear
astonished at the sunrise.[736]

                  *       *       *       *       *

We may next dismiss briefly the scenes which depict =Maenads= alone,
usually as single figures. They sometimes appear in a state of frenzy
(Fig. 121),[737] dancing with snakes twisted round their arms,[738] or
playing castanets,[739] or tearing a kid to pieces (χιμαιροφόνος).[740]
In quieter fashion they ride on a mule[741] or bull,[742] or are seen
accompanied by hinds, goats, and panthers,[743] or playing with a cat
and bird.[744]

                  *       *       *       *       *


  From _Baumeister_.


=Satyrs= in independent scenes often appear in burlesque guise, attired
and acting as athletes,[745] or as warriors,[746] with the Amazonian
_pelta_,[747] or even enacting the part of Herakles in the Garden of
the Hesperides[748]; and are present in other scenes of a burlesque
nature, which may often be derived from the Satyric drama, such as one
in which they carry ghosts (εἴδωλα) with torches.[749] There is also a
long list of scenes of miscellaneous character: a Seilenos
washing,[750] or piling up bedding(?)[751]; fishing[752]; as potter,
poking a furnace[753]; acting as footman to a girl and carrying a
parasol[754]; flogging a youth,[755] or holding a boy Satyr on his
hand[756]; caressing a hare[757]; and so on. Satyrs fight with
torches[758]; sport with deer and other animals[759]; ride on goats,
asses, and mules,[760] or lead them along[761]; and in one instance a
Satyr has fallen off his mule, and a companion runs to help him[762];
in another, two Satyrs draw a third in a cart.[763] They are seen
carrying chairs[764] and vessels of various kinds, such as amphorae,
situlae, kraters, rhyta,[765] or wine-skins[766]; also seated on
wine-skins or wine-jars,[767] playing games with jugs and
wine-jars,[768] balancing drinking-cups on their backs,[769] pouring
wine into a jar[770] or drawing it out from the mixing-bowl,[771] or
playing games, such as see-saw or ball.[772] Many of these scenes are
from the interiors of R.F. cups, to which they were well adapted, the
varied attitudes giving so much scope for the ingenuity of the daring
artists of the period. Scenes in which Satyrs play the lyre or flute
are, very numerous.[773]

A feature of the numerous Dionysiac subjects on vases is the tendency
to individualise Satyrs and Maenads by means of names, sometimes
meaningless, sometimes names otherwise known in mythology, and
frequently personifications of abstract conceptions, such as we shall
see later to be very common on vases of all periods; in these cases
they usually have some relation to the character or occupation of the
personages to whom they are attached. The Satyrs Marsyas and Olympos
sometimes appear in the larger compositions[774]; the former has been
already mentioned in another connection. There is also a curious
representation of Akratos,[775] the deity of unmixed wine (a liquid
which to the Greeks implied an extravagance of revelry, owing to the
intoxicating nature of the undiluted beverage). A type of Seilenos
covered from head to foot with shaggy skin, and known as Papposeilenos,
is often found on the later vases.[776] It is difficult to distinguish
in all cases between Seileni and Satyrs on the vases, and the exact
differences between the various types have not yet been properly
elucidated, so that the terms are of necessity somewhat
conventional.[777] The equine type of Satyr, with horse’s hoofs as well
as tail, which is so frequently found on the sixth-century Ionic vases,
has been noted elsewhere.[778] The young beardless Satyr is mostly
found in the later period.

The number of vases on which Satyrs and Maenads are distinguished by
name is very large, but only a few of the more important need be
mentioned, along with some of the more curious names from the isolated
instances.[779] On a vase in Berlin[780] no less than ten Maenads are
named—Anthe (Flower), Choro (Dance), Chrysis (Gold), Kale (Beauty),
Kisso (Ivy), Makaria (Blessed), Naia, Nymphe, Phanope, and Periklymene
(Renowned); on one at Leyden[781] six—Dorkis, Io, Klyto, Molpe (Song),
Myro, and Xantho (Fair-hair). On the former vase a Seilenos is
expressly so named, and on the latter are four Satyrs with names; on a
kylix by Brygos in the British Museum[782] the Seileni attacking Iris
are styled Babacchos, Dromis, Echon, Terpon, etc.[783]

Other Satyr-names are Briacchos,[784] Dithyrambos,[785] Demon,[786]
Hedyoinos (Sweet Wine),[787] Hybris (Insolence),[788] Hedymeles (Sweet
Song),[789] Komos (Revelry),[790] Kissos (Ivy),[791] Molkos,[792]
Oinos,[793] Oreimachos,[794] Simos (Snub-nose),[795] Tyrbas (Rout).[796]

The Maenads’ names are if anything more numerous: Bacche,[797] Choiros
(Pig!),[798] Doro,[799] Eudia (Calm),[800] Eudaimonia (Happiness),[801]
Euthymia (Good Cheer),[802] Erophyllis,[803] Galene (Calm),[804] Hebe
(Youth),[805] Komodia (Comedy) and Tragoedia (Tragedy),[806] Kalyke
(Bud),[807] Lilaia,[808] Mainas,[809] Nymphaia,[810] Opora (Harvest)
and Oreias (Mountain-Nymph),[811] Oinanthe,[812] Pannychis (All-night
Revel),[813] Polyerate (Well-beloved),[814] Philomela,[815] Sime
(Snub-nose),[816] Terpsikome,[817] Thaleia,[818] Rodo (Rose),[819]
Paidia,[820] and Kraipale,[821] a name which is not easy to render in
classical English, but which denotes the results following on a night’s


                                                               PLATE LII


  From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.



                         § 2. THE NETHER WORLD

The Chthonian character of Dionysos brings us by a natural transition
to the =deities of the under-world=, and in connection therewith it
will be convenient to treat of Death-deities of all kinds, as well as
scenes representing the life of the nether regions.

Of Demeter and Persephone, the Chthonian goddesses _par excellence_, we
have already spoken (p. 27), and of the myths connected with them, such
as the rape of the latter by =Hades= or Pluto, the king of the realms
named after him. It is owing to this connection with Persephone that
Hades is found in such scenes as the sending forth of Triptolemos,[822]
or at her return to the upper world,[823] as well as at the rape of his
consort. He is frequently seen in company with her, as the rulers of
the nether world,[824] especially on the large Italian “under-world
vases” referred to below, and sometimes they are represented banqueting
together.[825] As king of the nether world he is appropriately grouped
with his brothers Zeus and Poseidon, the rulers of the air and
ocean.[826] He is occasionally carried by Herakles on his
shoulders,[827] but the meaning of this subject is uncertain. He also
appears as a single figure, with sceptre and cornucopia.[828]

The only general representations of the under-world are to be found on
the large Apulian vases made for sepulchral purposes (Vol. I. p. 476),
of which some half-dozen are conspicuous for the number of subjects and
figures they contain. All these are collected together in the _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter_, Series E., the list being as follows:—

  (1) Munich 849      = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 1      = Reinach, i. 258
  (2) Naples 3222     =         ”         pl. 2      =    ”     i. 167
  (3) Karlsruhe 388   =         ”         pl. 3, 1   =    ”     i. 108
  (4) Naples S.A. 709 =         ”         pl. 3, 2   =    ”     i. 455
  (5) Petersburg 424  =         ”         pls. 4 and
                                          5, 1       =    ”     i. 355
  (6) Petersburg 426  =         ”         pl. 6, 2   =    ”     i. 479

No. (1) is reproduced in Plate LII. On a smaller scale, or fragmentary,
are the following:—

  (7) Petersburg 498    = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 5, 2
  (8) B.M. F 270        =         ”         pl. 6, 1 = Reinach, i. 356
  (9) Karlsruhe 256     =         ”         pl. 6, 3 =    ”     i. 455
  (10) Jatta Coll. 1094 =         ”         pl. 6, 4 =    ”     i. 356
  (11) Naples S.A. 11   =         ”         pl. 6, 5 =    ”     i. 401

There are also three B.F. vases having reference to the under-world,
though in the first two cases it is probable that the scene relates to
the return of Persephone (see p. 28), the accompanying figure of
Sisyphos only being introduced to mark the locality:—

  (12) B.M. B 261 (Hades, Persephone, Hermes, Sisyphos).

(13) Munich 728 = _Wiener Vorl._ E. pl. 6, 6 = Reinach, ii. 48 (similar

(14) Berlin 1844 (Persephone and Sisyphos only).

On the Apulian vases there is usually in the centre a pillared building
representing the palace of Hades, in which he and his spouse stand or
sit; round this are grouped various figures and episodes connected with
the nether regions: Herakles carrying off Kerberos[829]; Orpheus with
his lyre, sometimes accompanied by Eurydike[830]; persons undergoing
punishment, such as Sisyphos with his rock[831]; Tantalos threatened
with a rock, not as in the usual legend suffering from thirst[832]; the
Danaids with their hydriae[833]; and Theseus and Peirithoös sitting
with their hands bound behind them.[834] In one instance a Fury, at the
instance of Hades and Hekate, is binding one, the other having already
entered on his punishment[835]; in another we see Theseus liberated and
about to depart from his friend (see below, p. 111).[836]

Among the administrators of these penalties are Aiakos, Minos, and
Rhadamanthos, the judges of the souls[837]; the Erinnyes or
Furies[838]; and allegorical personages, such as Dike (Justice),[839]
Ananke (Necessity),[840] or Poinae (Punishments).[841] Of the Chthonian
deities, Hermes,[842] Hekate,[843] Triptolemos,[844] and Iacchos[845]
are present. Olympian deities are also sometimes introduced as
spectators.[846] Other figures introduced are Megara with the two
children of Herakles[847]; Pelops with Myrtilos and Hippodameia[848]; a
group of the Blessed Shades[849]; and (but not on this class of vase)
Oknos with his ass, a subject depicted by Polygnotos in his great
fresco at Delphi.[850] The subject of Ixion on the wheel is usually
found by itself, but occurs on the neck of one of the Apulian

Another subject which may be associated with the above scenes is that
of _Charon_ and his bark; on the vases, however, its significance is
purely sepulchral, as it is confined to the Attic white lekythi (Vol.
I. p. 459), on some of which the dead man is represented entering the
ferry-boat.[852] Some vases of Etruscan fabric also represent groups of
Chthonian deities, especially Charon, who in the mythology of that
people is no longer “the grim ferryman that poets write of,” but
_Charun_, a hideous demon wielding a huge hammer.[853] In one instance
he separates Alkestis from Admetos[854]; in another he watches Ajax
stabbing a captive Trojan.[855]


  From _Baumeister_.


The _Erinnyes_ or Furies play an important part in the nether-world
scenes,[856] and one is also represented at the punishment of
Ixion.[857] They pursue Orestes after the slaughter of his mother and
Aigisthos to Delphi and Tauris,[858] and even when with Pylades he
comes to make himself known to Electra.[859] Among other mythological
scenes they are found at the combat of Herakles and Kyknos[860]; with
Pelops,[861] and with Medeia and Jason[862]; and threatening with
punishment the hero Agrios, who is seized and bound upon an altar by
Oineus and Diomedes.[863] _Kerberos_ is once seen without Herakles in
the under-world vases[864]; and there is a very curious representation
of his being chained up by Hermes.[865]

_Hekate_ as a Chthonian deity frequently appears on the under-world
vases[866]; she is also connected with Eleusinian scenes and
legends,[867] such as the sending of Triptolemos,[868] the birth of
Dionysos or Iacchos,[869] or with the rape and return of
Persephone.[870] She appears also as a single figure.[871] Allusion has
already been made to the Chthonian associations of Hermes, Triptolemos,
and Iacchos (pp. 27, 52).

BRIT. MUS. D 58).]

_Thanatos_, the personification of Death, appears on vases[872] almost
exclusively in one aspect, as the bearer of souls in conjunction with
Hypnos (Sleep); they convey the body of Memnon from Troy to his home in
Egypt,[873] and this type is borrowed for other scenes (_e.g._ on the
funeral lekythi) in which an ordinary warrior is borne “to his long
home.”[874] In one instance Thanatos is seen urging Ajax on to commit
suicide[875]; he also appears on another vase where the subject may
relate to the story of Ixion.[876] Representations of Death-demons or
Harpies,[877] and of Κῆρες θανάτοιο, or small winged figures boding or
signifying death,[878] are by no means uncommon. It has been held by
some writers that the personifications of Thanatos above referred to
are more properly to be regarded as Κῆρες θανάτοιο.[879] These small
winged figures are also employed to represent a soul escaping from a
deceased person[880]; or, again, to indicate the souls of Achilles and
Hector (or Memnon) when weighed by Zeus (see below, pp. 130, 132).[881]
We also find actual representations on B.F. vases of the ghost of a
hero, especially in Trojan scenes; he floats through the air fully
armed, with large wings.[882]

                   § 3. COSMOGONIC AND OTHER DEITIES

In the next instance it will be found appropriate to discuss sundry
representations which are connected with the earlier or Titanic
cosmogony, although, with the exception of the Gigantomachia, already
discussed, allusions thereto are comparatively rare on vases.

Chief among these personages is =Ge= or =Gaia=, the Earth-mother, half
Titanic, half Chthonian, who is usually represented as a figure rising
half out of the ground, with flowing hair. She thus appears in several
Gigantomachia scenes (as the mother of the giants, who were Γηγενεῖς,
earth-born),[883] and at the birth of Dionysos and Erichthonios, where
she hands the child to Athena.[884] As a full-length figure she appears
protecting her sons Tityos and Antaios against Apollo and Herakles
respectively[885]; also in certain doubtful scenes on B.F. vases as the
Nursing-mother (Κουροτρόφος), with two children in her arms,[886]
though we have already seen (p. 30) that these are susceptible of
another interpretation. Finally, the series of scenes in which men are
represented hammering on the head of a female figure rising from the
earth[887] may be regarded as referring to Gaia, with allusion to the
custom of smiting on the earth to raise spirits. In this connection
Gaia is undoubtedly to be identified with Pandora (see below).[888] A
cognate subject is that of a similar female head or bust in company
with Eros, sometimes found on late Italian vases.[889] If Gaia is here
intended, her connection with Eros finds some support in the poetic
cosmogonies[890]; otherwise it may be Aphrodite.

The story of _Kronos_, who swallowed the stone given to him by his wife
Rhea in place of his children, is possibly depicted on one vase,[891]
though the genuineness thereof is open to doubt. The stone is enveloped
in drapery to prevent discovery. A bust of Kronos has also been
identified on a vase.[892] The story of Zagreus and his destruction by
the Titans, which belongs to the same cycle, also finds one or two
representations. One vase appears to represent them devouring him

Another personage who may perhaps be regarded as of pre-Olympian origin
is _Themis_, who comes between Gaia and Apollo in the occupation of the
prophetic stool at Delphi (Aesch. _Eum._ 2). Aigeus, the father of
Theseus, is represented as consulting her seated on her tripod,[894]
and one vase has been supposed to depict her conversing with Zeus
before the birth of Dionysos.[895] She also appears at the Judgment of

_Kybele_, the mother of the gods, only occurs in one or two doubtful
instances, with the lion which is usually associated with her.[897]

Among the primitive and recondite Greek cults which go back to a remote
origin, that of =the Kabeiri= may perhaps be mentioned here. Previous
to the discovery, in 1887–88, of their sanctuary near Thebes, little
was known, either from literary or monumental sources, of these
mysterious deities; but the excavations on this site yielded large
quantities of pottery with scenes relating to their cult, mostly of a
burlesque character.[898] Among these was one very interesting fragment
representing (with names inscribed) the Kabeiros and his son (Pais)
banqueting, and attended by two deities known as Mitos and
Pratoleia.[899] Lenormant noticed that the spectator-deities on an
under-world vase in the British Museum correspond exactly to the four
Cabeiric deities as described by certain ancient authorities.[900]

Turning next to myths which treat of the semi-divine personages of the
earliest cosmogony, we have the legends given by Hesiod of Prometheus
and the creation of =Pandora=; and we may include with them the Titan
Atlas. Pandora, it has been already noted, is only a variation of
Gaia,[901] and this is borne out by the name given to her on a
beautiful polychrome cup in the British Museum representing her
creation, completed by Hephaistos and Athena.[902] She is there named
Ἀνεσιδώρα, “She who sends up gifts,” _E.g._ from the earth. The subject
is not so popular as might have been expected, but appears on two other
vases in the Museum, in each case with Olympian deities as spectators
of the event, and on a beautiful vase now at Oxford.[903] The story of
the opening of the πίθος has not found its way into art, but its
connection with the Athenian feast of the πιθοίγια is curiously
illustrated in one instance.[904]

=Prometheus= too is seldom seen, and chiefly on B.F. vases. In one case
he receives a libation from Hera,[905] and there are two or three
representations of his liberation by Herakles.[906] On a Cyrenaic cup
he is grouped with Atlas, the vulture pecking at his breast, while the
other groans under the burthen of the heavens.[907] =Atlas= is found
almost exclusively with Herakles in connection with his visit to the
Garden of the Hesperides. Either he is actually present in the
Garden[908] or is confronted with the hero, who in some cases bears his
burden for him while he obtains the apples.[909] He is also seen in
company with a Sphinx.[910]

                  *       *       *       *       *

We now come to discuss a few subordinate deities or semi-divine
personages who do not fall into any of the preceding categories.

=Asklepios=, chiefly a figure of later art, is exceedingly rare on
vases. There is, in fact, only one on which he can certainly be
identified. This is a late R.F. vase at Athens, on which he is seen
reclining on a couch feeding a serpent and accompanied by Hygieia.[911]
Nor does the latter occur elsewhere, though her name, as already noted
(p. 43), is sometimes given to one of the personified figures attending
on Aphrodite.[912] =Eileithyia=, the goddess of childbirth, generally
appears, in duplicated form, assisting Zeus at the birth of
Athena,[913] or Leto at that of Apollo and Artemis.[914] She is closely
related to Artemis, and a representation of a goddess who has been
identified as Artemis-Eileithyia may be seen on an early Boeotian vase
with reliefs at Athens.[915]

=Iris=, the messenger of the gods, is usually distinguished from Nike
by her caduceus or herald’s staff, and from Hebe by her wings. She is
often depicted as a single figure,[916] or pouring a libation to Hera,
Athena, or other deities.[917] She is associated more especially with
Hera, as Hermes is with Zeus, and attends on the former in several
scenes of assemblages of the gods.[918] In company with Hera she is
attacked by a troop of Seileni and defended by Herakles,[919] and on
another vase she is similarly surprised by a troop of Centaurs.[920]
She assists at the creation of Pandora,[921] at the Judgment of
Paris,[922] and at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis,[923] and also
appears in the Garden of the Hesperides.[924] She is also seen with
Paris carrying off Helen[925]; and with Menelaos fetching her
back[926]; and in another scene, apparently drawn from a Homeric source
(_Il._ viii. 397 ff.), where she dissuades Athena and Hera from taking
sides in the war, at the behest of Zeus.[927] She conveys the infant
Herakles to the Centaur Cheiron,[928] and is also seen in company with
a warrior.[929]

=Hebe= in Olympos performs somewhat similar functions to Iris, more
particularly that of pouring out wine for the gods.[930] She is also
specially associated with Herakles at and after his apotheosis,[931]
appearing as his bride in several instances.[932] Besides these, she
frequently appears in assemblies of the gods,[933] or at the punishment
of Marsyas,[934] or the Judgment of Paris.[935]

                         § 4. PERSONIFICATIONS

The next group of deities with which we have to deal is that of the
various personifications which are to be found in great numbers on
vases of all periods, especially the later. These naturally fall under
several headings, which, following the lines of the classification
adopted by M. Pottier in a valuable article on the subject,[936] we may
distribute as follows:—

          1. Physical (Sun, Moon, Dawn, Winds, etc.). 2. Geographical
          (Cities, Rivers, Mountains, etc.). 3. Products of earth
          (Wine, Harvest, etc.). 4. Groups of various kinds (Muses,
          Nymphs, etc.). 5. Physical conditions (Health, Old Age,
          etc.). 6. Social advantages (Wealth, Peace, Victory, etc.).
          7. Ethical ideas (Justice, Envy, Strife, etc.). 8.
          Metaphysical ideas (Necessity, Law, etc.). 9. Social
          enjoyments (Comedy, Tragedy, Revelry, etc.). 10. Descriptive

Of some of these, indeed, we have already treated—such as the beings
included in the following of Aphrodite and Dionysos, Ge-Pandora, Hebe
(Youth), and the deities of the nether world. The rest we now proceed
to consider in order, beginning with natural phenomena, and firstly
those of an astronomical character.

I. =Helios=, the Sun, who in some senses, especially in the mythology
of the Roman poets, is identical with Phoebus Apollo, is only once so
identified on vases.[937] He is usually depicted in his four-horse
chariot rising out of the sea (as on the eastern pediment of the
Parthenon), either as a single figure or in connection with some myth,
indicating that the action takes place at sunrise. As a single figure
he appears both on early and late vases, on the latter, usually, as an
upper decoration on the large Apulian kraters.[938] He is also
accompanied by Eos (Dawn) and Selene (Moon), by Hemera (Day), or by
Eros[939]; but in most cases he and Selene appear together, the latter
descending as he rises (as on the Parthenon pediment). Thus on R.F.
vases they denote the time of the action, as when Theseus descends
below the sea to visit Poseidon,[940] or as on the Blacas krater in the
British Museum, when Eos pursues Kephalos.[941] On the latter vase four
stars are also depicted diving into the sea, to indicate their setting.
On Apulian vases he is present at the seizure of Persephone,[942] at
the flight of Pelops from Oinomaos,[943] at the madness of
Lykourgos,[944] at the Judgment of Paris,[945] and in the Garden of the
Hesperides.[946] In one instance a group of Satyrs start back
affrighted at his appearance.[947] There are two instances of his
encounter with Herakles, who endeavoured to stay his progress with his


                                                              PLATE LIII



=Selene=, the Moon, appears in many of the scenes already described
under Helios, as on the Blacas krater. She is depicted under two types,
either on horseback[949] or driving a chariot like Helios,[950] both as
a single figure and in other scenes; and she is sometimes characterised
by the lunar disc or crescent. Besides the scenes already referred to,
she appears on horseback at the birth of Dionysos[951] and at the
pursuit of Medeia by Jason.[952] The magic arts used by Thessalian
witches to draw down the moon from heaven are also the subject of a
vase-painting,[953] where two women essay to perform this feat by means
of a rope, addressing her, “O Lady Moon!”

=Stars= are occasionally represented with an astronomical reference, as
on the Blacas krater, where they appear in the form of youths, or
grouped with Helios, Selene, and Eos.[954] Phosphoros, the Morning
Star, may be identified in this connection, represented as a youth
running[955]; but in other cases they are not personified, as on a vase
which represents the moon and stars with the constellation Pegasos.[956]

=Hemera=, the Day, we have already once noted; but in art she is hardly
to be distinguished from Eos (Dawn). Nor can Nyx (Night) be identified
with certainty on vases.[957] =Eos= is not an uncommon figure,
especially on R.F. vases, and she also plays a part in certain myths.
As a single figure she appears rising from the sea in, or driving, a
four-horse chariot like Helios,[958] her steeds in one case being named
Phlegethon and Lampon. She is also represented flying with two hydriae,
from which she pours out dew upon the earth.[959] She is frequently
seen pursuing or carrying Kephalos[960] or Tithonos,[961] and is
present at the apotheosis of Alkmena.[962] At the combat of her son
Memnon with Achilles she and the other mother, Thetis, are generally
present.[963] She also pleads with Zeus for her son’s safety,[964] and
bears away his body after the fatal issue of the fight.[965]

Next we have to deal with =the Winds=, as personified by the figures of
Boreas, Zephyros, etc. As single figures they seldom appear, though we
have possible instances of _Boreas_, with the unusual type of a
serpent’s tail,[966] or simply as a winged male figure.[967] A wind-god
is seen in an episode from the Gigantomachia opposing the chariot of
Zeus,[968] and another in an assemblage of deities round Apollo
Kitharoidos.[969] _Zephyros_ is seen pursuing Hyakinthos,[970] and he
and Boreas together bear the body of a warrior to the tomb in the same
manner as Hypnos and Thanatos.[971] But the most important subject
connected with Boreas is his pursuit of the Athenian maiden Oreithyia,
a frequent scene on the later R.F. vases,[972] some being very fine
examples. Erechtheus, Kekrops, and the Nymphs Aglauros, Herse, and
Pandrosos, are usually present, and the latter in one case announce the
news to Kekrops or Erechtheus.[973] Boreas is also depicted in the act
of punishing Phineus by blinding him, and attacked by the latter’s
friend Parebios.[974]

On some early B.F. vases we find winged beings which may be styled
_Boreades_, in conjunction with Harpies, apparently representing the
influences of good and evil winds respectively.[975] Zetes and Kalais,
the sons of Boreas, will be treated of in the story of the
Argonautika.[976] The _Aurae_ or breezes have been identified on a
well-known vase in the British Museum,[977] and on an Apulian vase in
the same collection is a head undoubtedly intended for Aura.[978] The
_Hyades_ or rain-goddesses in two instances extinguish the flames of a
funeral pyre at the bidding of Zeus, at the apotheosis of Alkmena[979]
and of Herakles[980]; in one of the latter instances they are named
Arethusa and Premnusia. They also receive the infant Dionysos.[981]
_Echo_ belongs perhaps rather to the Dionysiac cycle, appearing as the
beloved of Pan.[982]

                  *       *       *       *       *

II. We may next consider the personifications of =cities and
countries=, which are, indeed, in some cases more than merely
symbolical figures, being actual goddesses with a definite cult, such
as the Nymph Kyrene, who often appears on works of art.[983] On the
great Naples vase representing Dareios in a council of war,
personifications of _Hellas_ and _Asia_ are placed among the
spectator-deities,[984] and the former seems also to be indicated on a
similar vase with a battle of Greeks and Persians.[985] On one of the
late vases with the subject of Pelops and Oinomaos, a personification
of the locality _Olympia_ appears to be similarly present,[986] just as
on the Hieron kotyle the personification of Eleusis is included among
the Eleusinian and other deities at the sending forth of
Triptolemos.[987] The city of _Thebes_ is personified in several
instances, especially as a spectator of Kadmos slaying the dragon[988];
also on a “Megarian” bowl with reliefs in the British Museum, the
subjects on which are taken from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides.[989]
_Nemea_, the scene of Herakles’ victory over the lion, and of the death
of Archermos, is similarly personified as a Nymph in the
representations of both subjects,[990] and the town of _Krommyon_ as a
Nymph protests against the slaying of the sow by Theseus.[991] The
Nymph _Sparta_ occurs once, dismounting from her horse.[992] Two cups
of the early B.F. class usually known (from their subjects) as
Cyrenaic, bear representations of the Nymph _Kyrene_ (see above)—in one
case with Apollo, in the other holding a branch of silphium (the local
product) and surrounded by Boreads and Harpies (see above).[993]

Among the Greek islands, _Aegina_ and _Salamis_ were supposed to have
derived their names from Nymphs beloved of Zeus and Poseidon, who are
represented pursuing these quasi-personified figures[994]; we may also
regard Europa as coming under that category.[995] Zeus also pursues
_Taygeta_, who is connected with the mountain in Laconia.[996] On one
vase we find the names of the islands _Delos_, _Euboea_, and
_Lemnos_,[997] given, presumably in pure fancy, to two Maenads and a
Satyr in a Dionysiac scene where all the figures are named. A more
genuine instance is that of the Nymph _Krete_ on the Talos vase,
indicating the locality.[998]

Turning to other geographical features, we have Mount _Olympos_
transformed into a lyre-playing companion of Satyrs[999]; or, again,
river-gods such as _Acheloös_, who as a combination of man and bull, or
with a fish-body like Triton, wrestles with Herakles.[1000] The river
_Nile_ appears once, but not personified—only as an indication of
landscape.[1001] In connection with the city of Thebes we find
personifications of the local river _Ismenos_ and the local
fountain-Nymphs _Dirke_ and _Krenaia_.[1002]

                  *       *       *       *       *

III. Natural products, such as Oinos (Wine) and Opora (Harvest), are
only found personified among the Dionysiac conceptions with which we
have already dealt (p. 65); to these two names we may add those of
Hedyoinos (Sweet Wine), Kissos (Ivy), Kalyke (Bud), and Rodo (Rose),
the three latter coming more under the heading of pet-names than of
strict personifications.

                  *       *       *       *       *

IV. Our next class includes certain groups of personages (all feminine)
which for the most part hold their own throughout all periods of art
and literature, and are, so to speak, more crystallised into definite
mythological personages, associated with the gods and human beings of
the legendary ages. These are the Muses, the Charites or Graces, the
Horae or Seasons, the Moirae or Fates, and the Erinnyes or Furies.

=The Muses= do not appear so frequently in vase-paintings as in
sculpture, and mostly on later vases. Two fine R.F. examples of the
whole nine (with their appropriate attributes) call for mention[1003];
other vases give a more limited number, or even single figures[1004];
but it must be remembered that in such cases identification is
difficult, as characterisation by means of a lyre or scenic mask does
not necessarily connote the presence of a Muse. On one vase Terpsichore
is seen with two figures inscribed as Mousaios and Melousa[1005]; but
these may be no more than fancy names for an ordinary group of
musicians. Five of them are seen in a group with Apollo, Thamyris, and
Sappho,[1006] and elsewhere they accompany Apollo.[1007]

The _Graces_ can nowhere be identified on Greek vases, though they form
a well-known type in sculpture; but there is an Etruscan kylix in the
British Museum (probably copied from a Greek original), which appears
to represent them as an interior group.[1008] The _Horae_ or Seasons
appear (without distinctive names) on the François vase at the nuptials
of Peleus and Thetis, and on the Sosias cup[1009] in an Olympian
assemblage (three in each case); also two of them at the sending forth
of Triptolemos.[1010] The three _Moirae_ (Fates) appear on the François
vase (as above), and once also at the birth of Athena[1011]; the Furies
have already been discussed.[1012]

                  *       *       *       *       *

V. The personifications having reference to physical conditions (as
distinguished from ethical ideas) are comparatively few in number. They
include _Hebe_ (Youth), who by virtue of her divine attributes has
already been discussed in another section (p. 77); _Hygieia_ (Health),
who is also a fully developed goddess, but only once occurs on a vase,
except among the somewhat vague personifications surrounding Aphrodite
(see pp. 43, 76]); and three others, regarded as of masculine sex.
These are Geras (Old Age), Hypnos (Sleep), and Thanatos (Death).
_Geras_ is seen in combat with Herakles[1013]; Thanatos has already
been discussed (p. 71). _Hypnos_ as a winged youth hovers over
Alkyoneus, whom Herakles overcame while asleep[1014]; causes Ariadne to
sleep while Theseus escapes[1015]; and with Thanatos carries the body
of Memnon,[1016] or an ordinary mortal,[1017] to the tomb.

                  *       *       *       *       *

VI. Social advantages as apart from ethical qualities are perhaps
difficult to determine exactly; but we may fairly rank under this
heading such ideas as are suggested by Chrysos (Gold) and Ploutos
(Wealth); Eirene (Peace); Nike (Victory); and the numerous attendants
of Aphrodite and Dionysos, such as Eunomia, Eudaimonia, and others
already named (pp. 43, 65). _Chrysos_ and _Ploutos_ as boys accompany
Nike in her chariot[1018]; _Eirene’s_ appearance on vases is doubtful,
but she may appear in one instance carrying the infant Ploutos.[1019]
The birth of Ploutos seems to be represented in one instance.[1020]

But by far the most important personage in this class is =Nike
(Victory)=, whose appearance as a winged female figure is so often
attested by inscriptions on R.F. vases that she can generally be
identified with certainty. She is especially popular as a single figure
on the Nolan amphorae and lekythi of the “severe” and “strong” periods,
some of which are conspicuously beautiful examples.[1021] Altogether
her appearances rival those of Eros in number, though on the Italian
vases they are far fewer. Whether Nike ever occurs on B.F. vases is a
very doubtful point, and has been denied by many scholars, but some
figures are not easy to explain in any other way.[1022] On other works
of art she does not appear before 480 B.C., unless the “Nike” of
Archermos is to be so identified; it seems probable that she was an
offshoot from Athena, whom we know to have been worshipped under the
name of Nike, as in her temple on the Athenian Acropolis.

She is frequently associated with the gods, either in scenes from
mythology or in groups apart from action[1023]; usually she pours
libations to them, or crowns them in reference to some achievement.
Thus we find her with Zeus,[1024] with Hera,[1025] with Athena,[1026]
with Poseidon and Dionysos,[1027] with Apollo (especially at his
victory over Marsyas),[1028] with Artemis Elaphebolos,[1029] and with
Aphrodite.[1030] She frequently crowns or pours libations to Herakles,
or attends him at his apotheosis[1031]; on the later vases she takes
Athena’s place in conveying him in a chariot to Olympos.[1032]

Among the numerous mythological events in which Nike plays a more or
less symbolical part may be mentioned the Gigantomachia, in which she
drives Zeus’ chariot,[1033] the birth of Athena,[1034] the sending of
Triptolemos,[1035] the Judgment of Paris,[1036] the birth of
Dionysos[1037] and that of Erichthonios,[1038] and the punishment of
Ixion.[1039] Among Trojan scenes she appears with Achilles
arming,[1040] at his (supposed) fight with Telephos and possibly also
at that with Memnon,[1041] and at the carrying off of the
Palladion.[1042] She is also seen with Herakles in the Garden of the
Hesperides,[1043] with the Dioskuri,[1044] with Perseus and
Bellerophon,[1045] with Orestes at Delphi[1046]; crowning Hellas as the
victor over the Persians[1047]; and in many scenes with Dionysos.[1048]

More numerous and characteristic, however, are the scenes in which she
appears as a single figure, or associated with mortals, usually
victorious warriors or athletes. As a single figure she most commonly
pours a libation over an altar,[1049] or flies towards the altar
bearing a torch, incense-burner, lyre, tripod, sash, or other
attribute[1050]; in one case (unless Iris is intended) a jug and
caduceus.[1051] Especially characterised as the goddess of Victory, she
often holds a palm-branch.[1052] She frequently takes part in religious
and sacrificial ceremonies, such as the decoration or dedication of a
choragic tripod,[1053] or burns incense,[1054] or herself sacrifices a
ram or bull.[1055] The last-named subject is, however, commoner on gems
and a certain class of terracotta reliefs.[1056] On one vase she gives
drink to a bull[1057]; or, again, she rides on a sacrificial
bull[1058]; or places a hydria on a fountain or altar.[1059] She
pursues a hare, doe, or bird,[1060] or offers a bird to a youth.[1061]
On the later Panathenaic amphorae and elsewhere she holds the
ἀκροστόλιον or stern-ornament of a ship[1062]; and sometimes she erects
a trophy.[1063]


She appears in a chariot drawn by female Centaurs,[1064] or accompanied
by Chrysos and Ploutos (see above),[1065] and she also conducts a
victorious warrior in this manner.[1066] In other instances she pours a
libation to a warrior,[1067] who is sometimes inscribed with a fanciful
name[1068]; or, again, as anticipating his victory, she brings him his
helmet.[1069] She is, however, more frequently seen in athletic scenes,
crowning a victorious athlete,[1070] rider,[1071] or charioteer,[1072]
or superintending the games in the palaestra,[1073] torch-races,[1074]
or the taking of an oath by an athlete.[1075] In musical contests she
performs the same functions, crowning or pouring libations to a
successful performer.[1076] She crowns a successful potter in his
workshop,[1077] and also a poet (?).[1078] A being of similar
character, who may perhaps be recognised in the figure of a winged
youth on some B.F. and early R.F. vases, is Agon, the personification
of athletic contests.[1079]

On the later R.F. vases the figure of Nike is often duplicated,
probably more to produce a balanced composition than for any other

                  *       *       *       *       *

VII. The next class of personifications is that of abstract ethical
ideas. Even on the earlier vases there are found a considerable number
of these, such as Eris (Strife); but on the later, unlimited play is
given to the tendency of the age (seen also in sculpture and painting)
to invest every abstract idea with a personality, apart from any idea
of deification or mythological import.

Among these, by far the most numerous examples are, of course, those
relating to the passion of Love. We have already traced the development
of the type and conception of Eros in vase-paintings, and in the same
place we have had occasion to speak of the associated ideas which
became personified as subsidiary conceptions to that of Love, such as
Peitho (Persuasion), Pothos (Yearning), and Himeros (Charm), Phthonos
(Envy or _Amor invidiosus_), and Talas (Unfortunate or Unrequited
Love).[1081] Of a similar type are the feminine conceptions associated
with Aphrodite-Eudaimonia (Happiness), Euthymia (Cheerfulness), and the

Among other abstract ideas are those of _Arete_ (Virtue) and _Hedone_
(Pleasure), which have been suggested as represented on one vase.[1083]
On a R.F. vase in Vienna, _Dike_ (Justice) is seen overcoming _Adikia_
(Injustice)[1084]; _Apate_ (Deceit) on the vase with Dareios in council
beguiles the goddess Asia with bad advice,[1085] and also leads Tereus
astray[1086]; _Phobos_ (Fear) drives the chariot of Ares when he
assists Kyknos against Herakles[1087]; he is specially associated with
the god of war, the idea being that of inducing panic among enemies;
and in many cases his head appears, like that of the Gorgon, as a
device on shields.[1088] In one instance he appears as a lion-headed
monster.[1089] Artemis, in the capacity of _Aidos_ (Shame), hinders
Tityos from carrying off Leto.[1090] _Eris_ (Strife) appears on B.F.
vases as a winged female figure running, in scenes of combat,
chariot-races, etc., or as a single figure.[1091] But the
identification is not always certain; in some combat scenes it is
possible that Ate or a Ker is meant, and in those of an agonistic
character we may see Agon, the personification of athletics (see above,
p. 89).[1092]

                  *       *       *       *       *

VIII. The metaphysical ideas next to be discussed are almost
exclusively punitive agencies, either connected with scenes in the
under-world (Ananke, Poinae, and the Furies), or bringing down
penalties and disasters on the heads of wrong-doers, such as the
personifications of madness which occur in many of the tragic subjects
on Apulian vases.

In the first group we reckon _Ananke_ (Necessity) and the _Poinae_
(Punishments), who appear with the Furies in a scene from the
under-world,[1093] _Ate_ or _Ker_ (Destiny), a winged figure seen at
the death of Hector[1094] and at the madness of Lykourgos[1095]; and
_Nemesis_ (Vengeance) in the scene between Atreus and Thyestes,[1096]
with reference to its fate-fraught character. In less tragic
circumstances the latter is present in a bridal scene, with attributes
of a flower and an apple.[1097] The Moirae or Fates have already been
mentioned (p. 83), as has Themis or Divine Ordinance (p. 74).

The second group includes _Lyssa_ (Frenzy), who drives Aktaeon,
Hippolytos, and Lykourgos to madness or destruction[1098]; _Mania_
(Madness), who similarly drives Herakles to slay his children[1099];
and _Oistros_ (_E.g._ a Gad-fly), who performs similar functions when
Medeia is about to slay hers.[1100]

                  *       *       *       *       *

IX. Personifications relating to social enjoyments, such as games, the
drama, or banquets, are closely analogous to many of those described
under headings III. and VI., and occur in the same connection. Thus in
Dionysiac scenes we find Choro (Dance), Molpe (Song), Dithyrambos,
Hedymeles (Sweet Song), Komos (Revelry), Komodia and Tragoedia (Comedy
and Tragedy), and Pannychis and Kraipale, typifying all-night revels
and their consequences.[1101]

                  *       *       *       *       *

X. Finally, there are what M. Pottier has described as personifications
of individualities, under which heading fall many conceptions which do
not find a place in any of the classes already discussed. Among these
are many of the names given to Maenads and Satyrs (p. 65), which are
intermediate between personal names and embodiments of abstract or
physical ideas, some inclining more to one side, some to the other. Of
these it is only necessary to mention as illustrative of the present
subject the Mainas[1102] and the Nymphe[1103] found as names of
individuals on several vases, and the Oinopion or “Wine-drinker” on
vases by Exekias.[1104]

To the same class belong the names given to Nymphs of various kinds,
such as the Nereids (see p. 26) or the Hesperides. The latter are named
on one vase[1105] as Asterope, Chrysothemis, Hygieia, and Lipara; on
another[1106] as Aiopis, Antheia, Donakis, Kalypso, Mermesa, Nelisa,
and Tara.

Of more general signification, and sometimes perhaps to be regarded as
descriptive titles rather than names, are such as Archenautes
(Ship-captain),[1107] Komarchos (Master of Revels),[1108] or Paidagogos
(Tutor).[1109] On the other hand, Neanias, Komos, Paian (given to boys
at play),[1110] and Eutychia (on the tomb of a woman)[1111] may be
merely fanciful personal names.


Footnote 621:

  B.M. B 589, B 693; B 180 (between vine-poles); Bibl. Nat. 176;
  Hartwig, pl. 30, fig. 2 (Hieron); Branteghem Coll. No. 28 (Hermaios);
  Athens 1583 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 291; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._
  1900, pl. 1, p. 185 (Duris in Boston).

Footnote 622:

  Petersburg 880 = Reinach, i. 13.

Footnote 623:

  B.M. F 194.

Footnote 624:

  B.M. E 257.

Footnote 625:

  _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, fig. 2 (Nikosthenes in Boston).

Footnote 626:

  B.M. E 439.

Footnote 627:

  B.M. E 362.

Footnote 628:

  Athens 1583 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 291.

Footnote 629:

  Bibl. Nat. 576 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 33, 1.

Footnote 630:

  Reinach, ii. 35.

Footnote 631:

  _Ibid._ i. 159.

Footnote 632:

  B.M. B 225, B 378, B 426, E 102; Louvre F 133; Petersburg 855 =
  Reinach, i. 18.

Footnote 633:

  B.M. E 429; Millin-Reinach, i. 60, ii. 17; Reinach, i. 168, ii. 302.

Footnote 634:

  Reinach, ii. 32 (cf. Triptolemos).

Footnote 635:

  _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 57; _Mon. Grecs_, 1879, pl. 3.

Footnote 636:

  B.M. B 79.

Footnote 637:

  _Mus. Greg._ ii. 3, 3_E.g._.

Footnote 638:

  Munich 339 = Reinach, ii. 36 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 7, 1.

Footnote 639:

  _Cat._ 969 = Reinach, i. 415: see p. 178.

Footnote 640:

  B.M. E 182; Bibl. Nat. 219 = _Mon. di Barone_, pl. 1; Reinach, i. 1
  and 3 = Petersburg 1792 and 1793; and see p. 19.

Footnote 641:

  B.M. E 492; Reinach, i. 93, 122; Helbig 103 = Rayet and Collignon, p.

Footnote 642:

  Petersburg 2007 = Reinach, i. 7.

Footnote 643:

  Bibl. Nat. 440 = Reinach, ii. 260.

Footnote 644:

  Reinach, i. 93.

Footnote 645:

  Baumeister, i. p. 434, fig. 483: cf. B.M. E 695 (doubtful).

Footnote 646:

  B.M. F 271; Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125 and 3237 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 1 = Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918.

Footnote 647:

  Naples 3237 = Millingen-Reinach, 2 = Baumeister, ii. p. 835, fig. 919.

Footnote 648:

  B.M. E 775 = Fig. 131; Munich 807 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1204, fig.
  1396; _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 5, p. 154 (Dionysos not present);
  and see below, p. 142.

Footnote 649:

  B.M. B 149, B 153, E 166.

Footnote 650:

  B.M. F 194 (D. with bull’s head).

Footnote 651:

  Naples S.A. 172 = Reinach, i. 498: cf. Louvre F 136 and F 311
  (Reinach, i. 144).

Footnote 652:

  Berlin 1904.

Footnote 653:

  B.M. B 347 (Hermes and Apollo); Bibl. Nat. 231; Athens 903 (Ares,
  Hermes, Herakles); Munich 157; Reinach, i. 8 (Petersburg 1807), 203,
  ii. 24, 42, and 75 (Munich 47, 609, 62), 30, 35, 74.

Footnote 654:

  B.M. B 302; E 66 (Herakles).

Footnote 655:

  B.M. E 410.

Footnote 656:

  B.M. B 200, B 201, B 318–21; Berlin 1961, 2278.

Footnote 657:

  Berlin 3257.

Footnote 658:

  Munich 773; and see Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 210.

Footnote 659:

  Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66.

Footnote 660:

  B.M. E 65.

Footnote 661:

  See p. 17.

Footnote 662:

  B.M. B 253, E 8, E 303, E 443;  Bibl. Nat. 230; and see p. 14.

Footnote 663:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 14 (Maenads); Froehner, _Musées de
  France_, pl. 6 (Seileni).

Footnote 664:

  Petersburg 1600 = Reinach, i. 25; Bibl. Nat. 391 = Froehner, _Musées
  de France_, pl. 8.

Footnote 665:

  B.M. B 168 (?): see Reinach, ii. 38 and p. 30.

Footnote 666:

  B.M. E 445.

Footnote 667:

  B.M. B 203.

Footnote 668:

  B.M. E 444; Reinach, i. 203: see note 653, p. 56.

Footnote 669:

  Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6.

Footnote 670:

  B.M. F 171 (crowned by Nike); Athens 667; _Forman Sale Cat._ 356.

Footnote 671:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 43 (doubtful); Baumeister, i. p. 618, fig. 687.

Footnote 672:

  B.M. B 198, B 256–59, E 129, E 279, F 307; Reinach, i. 161 =
  Baumeister, i. p. 441, fig. 491; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16, 49 A (D.
  throws himself into arms of A.).

Footnote 673:

  B.M. B 204, 206, 208, F 1, 69.

Footnote 674:

  Würzburg, Phineus cup = Reinach, i. 201 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,
  pl. 41 (lions and stags).

Footnote 675:

  B.M. E 546; Jatta 1092 = Reinach, i. 482.

Footnote 676:

  Petersburg 1427 = Reinach, i. 18.

Footnote 677:

  Reinach, ii. 37, 6.

Footnote 678:

  B.M. B 179; Micali, _Storia_, 86.

Footnote 679:

  B.M. B 206.

Footnote 680:

  B.M. B 302, B 476, B 556; Bibl. Nat. 433 = Millin-Reinach, i. 38;
  Cambridge 48.

Footnote 681:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 37.

Footnote 682:

  Reinach, i. 215.

Footnote 683:

  B.F.: B.M. B 206, B 300 = Fig. 120, B 427; Reinach, ii. 141 and i.
  203 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 1, 3 (D. in chariot). R.F.: B.M. E 16, 55,
  75, 228, 362, 462; Berlin 2471 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 55; Bibl. Nat.
  357 = _Monuments Piot_, vii. pl. 2; Roscher, iii. p. 2118. Late: B.M.
  F 1, 77, 179, 303–4; Reinach, ii. 200. See also p. 61.

Footnote 684:

  See _B.M. Cat._ and Reinach, _E.g._; B.M. B 148, E 110, 253, 503, F
  149; Berlin 2174; Bibl. Nat. 222 = Reinach, ii. 251; Louvre F 3, F 5,
  F 101, F 124, F 204, G 43.

Footnote 685:

  B.M. E 350 (receiving wine from Nymph).

Footnote 686:

  B.M. E 184.

Footnote 687:

  Berlin 2402 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 57; Berlin 2290 = Baumeister, i.
  p. 555, fig. 592 (Hieron); Reinach, ii. 155 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 4,
  5 (Taleides), and ii. 289, 6.

Footnote 688:

  B.M. E 465, F 153.

Footnote 689:

  Reinach, ii. 301.

Footnote 690:

  B.M. E 511, F 56.

Footnote 691:

  B.M. F 37, 275; in F 273 Ariadne similarly occupied.

Footnote 692:

  B.M. E 66, E 786.

Footnote 693:

  _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40.

Footnote 694:

  _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 278: cf. B.M. F 188.

Footnote 695:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 6 = Louvre G 34.

Footnote 696:

  _Ibid._ pls. 38–39, 1, and see p. 181.

Footnote 697:

  Athens 1282–83 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 98.

Footnote 698:

  B.M. E 703, F 152; Millin-Reinach, ii. 16 and ii. 40.

Footnote 699:

  B.M. F 114; Millin-Reinach, ii. 21.

Footnote 700:

  Reinach, ii. 38.

Footnote 701:

  B.M. B 210; _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 18 (both Exekias).

Footnote 702:

  B.M. E 228, 241, 435, F 163, 270; Reinach, ii. 301;
  Millingen-Reinach, 2.

Footnote 703:

  B.M. E 228, F 203, F 253.

Footnote 704:

  B.M. F 437.

Footnote 705:

  Petersburg 2161.

Footnote 706:

  B.M. F 83, 381.

Footnote 707:

  B.M. F 163; Munich 848 = Reinach, i. 383.

Footnote 708:

  Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114 = Baumeister, i. pl. 5, fig. 422.

Footnote 709:

  Minervini, _Mon. du Barone_, pl. 7.

Footnote 710:

  B.M. E 451–52, 471; Berlin 1930, 2290 (= _Wiener Vorl._ A. 4); Naples
  2419 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 36–7 (see Vol. I. p. 141);
  Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 14, 8.

Footnote 711:

  Berlin 2029; Naples 2411 = Reinach, i. 154.

Footnote 712:

  Bologna 286.

Footnote 713:

  B.M. B 332.

Footnote 714:

  See p. 17; and cf. B.M. B 42 (Plate XXI.).

Footnote 715:

  See pp 22, 76; also Berlin 2591.

Footnote 716:

  Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 21 and p. 69 ff.; Reinach, i. 144,
  228; Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 277; and see pp. 29,

Footnote 717:

  See p. 60, note 710.

Footnote 718:

  B.M. E 505.

Footnote 719:

  Reinach, i. 472, ii. 198.

Footnote 720:

  B.M. B 203–4, 206, 427, F 58, 77, 80–1, 156.

Footnote 721:

  B.M. F 75–6, 276; Louvre F 120, F 124 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, 5, 3),
  G 33, G 57; Naples 3113, 3241 (= Reinach, i. 384); Munich 184 =
  Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 46 (Hieron); _Gaz. Arch._ 1887, 15
  (Hieron in Brussels); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 6, 31–2.

Footnote 722:

  Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 1; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 79,
  2_E.g._; B.M. B 297 (Plate XXX.); Satyr as single figure, Louvre G 24.

Footnote 723:

  B.M. E 35, E 768; Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 45 (Hieron); Cambridge 48.

Footnote 724:

  B.M. F 133; Naples 2419 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 37; _Forman
  Sale Cat._ 352.

Footnote 725:

  B.M. B 296; Reinach, ii. 75 (Munich 62), 141; Karlsruhe 259 =
  Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pp.
  188–189; Vienna 231.

Footnote 726:

  Louvre F 334.

Footnote 727:

  B.M. B 426; Bibl. Nat. 320; Petersburg 9 = Reinach, ii. 24; _J.H.S._
  1899, pl. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 3, 2 (Nikosthenes).

Footnote 728:

  B.M. E 510.

Footnote 729:

  B.M. E 437, E 439, F 49, F 227.

Footnote 730:

  B.M. E 319; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 72, 2_E.g._; Munich 408 = Furtwaengler
  and Reichhold, pls. 44–5.

Footnote 731:

  B.M. E 555; Berlin 2241; Naples S.A. 313; Reinach, i. 340, ii. 261
  (Bibl. Nat. 852).

Footnote 732:

  B.M. B 265, E 368; Bibl. Nat. 539 = Reinach, ii. 261; _Él. Cér._ i.
  45; Louvre F 161, F 381, G 34 (= Hartwig, pl. 6), G 46.

Footnote 733:

  B.M. F 192; Munich 184 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, pl. 46 (Hieron);
  Reinach, i. 223 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 5; and cf. Adamek, _Vasen des
  Amasis_, pl. 2 (in Berlin).

Footnote 734:

  _Sale Cal. Hôtel Drouot_, 11 May, 1903, No. 62.

Footnote 735:

  Reinach, i. 201.

Footnote 736:

  Roscher, i. 1998.

Footnote 737:

  Munich 332 = Baumeister, ii. p. 847, fig. 928.

Footnote 738:

  B.M. E 253, and cf. E 510; Bibl. Nat. 357 = _Monuments Piot_, vii.
  pl. 3; Munich 372 = Reinach, ii. 117; and cf. _J.H.S._ xix. p. 220.

Footnote 739:

  B.M. E 357; Karlsruhe 242; Reinach, i. 281 (?); Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ p. 32.

Footnote 740:

  Athens 1353 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 95; Bibl. Nat. 357 =
  _Monuments Piot_, vii. pl. 2; Munich 807 = Millingen-Reinach, pl. 5.

Footnote 741:

  Louvre F 311 = Reinach, i. 144.

Footnote 742:

  B.M. B 284 (?), B 486 (?); Reinach, ii. 77; Millin-Reinach, ii. 12.

Footnote 743:

  B.M. B 515, E 567.

Footnote 744:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 49 A.

Footnote 745:

  Munich 542; Stackelberg, 24; _Forman Sale Cat._ 331 (as racing
  charioteers, driving Maenads).

Footnote 746:

  B.M. E 377; Louvre G 73 (trumpeting); Froehner, _Musées de France_,
  pl. 6; and see p. 56, note 663.

Footnote 747:

  B.M. E 3 (with pelta and trumpet); Louvre G 89.

Footnote 748:

  B.M. E 539.

Footnote 749:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 20.

Footnote 750:

  Inghirami, _Mus. Chius._ 208.

Footnote 751:

  B.M. E 487.

Footnote 752:

  B.M. E 108.

Footnote 753:

  See Vol. I. p. 216, Fig. 68.

Footnote 754:

  Berlin 2589 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1684, fig. 1766.

Footnote 755:

  Helbig, 186 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 80, 1_E.g._.

Footnote 756:

  Berlin 2550.

Footnote 757:

  B.M. B 148.

Footnote 758:

  Berlin 2578.

Footnote 759:

  B.M. B 168; Reinach, ii. 98; with a mouse, Reinach, i. 500.

Footnote 760:

  B.M. E 102; B 168.

Footnote 761:

  B.M. E 139, E 338.

Footnote 762:

  Millingen-Reinach, 59.

Footnote 763:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 14.

Footnote 764:

  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 199.

Footnote 765:

  Berlin 2240; B.M. F 363; _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 1; Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ pl. 45, p. 28; _Forman Sale Cat._ 331.

Footnote 766:

  B.M. E 24, E 261; Hartwig, _E.g._

Footnote 767:

  Munich 139; Reinach, i. 460; Hartwig, pls. 7 and 44, 1.

Footnote 768:

  B.M. E 35, E 530, E 768.

Footnote 769:

  Berlin 2267 = Hartwig, _E.g._ pl. 2, 1.

Footnote 770:

  Reinach, ii. 303.

Footnote 771:

  _Bourguignon Cat._ 57; Louvre G 91.

Footnote 772:

  B.M. E 387, E 467.

Footnote 773:

  B.M. B 560, E 583; Berlin 2243; Louvre F 204 = _Amer. Journ. of
  Arch._ 1896, p. 14; Baumeister, i. p. 555, fig. 592.

Footnote 774:

  Naples 3235 = Reinach, i. 103 = Roscher, iii. 861.

Footnote 775:

  _J.H.S._ vii. pl. 62, p. 54.

Footnote 776:

  B.M. F 273; Reinach, ii. 201, 235; Naples 2846; _Bourguignon Cat._
  41, 57.

Footnote 777:

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

Footnote 778:

  Vol. I. pp. 353, 355, and p. 208 below.

Footnote 779:

  See generally Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_.

Footnote 780:

  _Cat._ 2471.

Footnote 781:

  Reinach, ii. 268.

Footnote 782:

  E 65.

Footnote 783:

  See also Jatta Coll. 1093; B.M. E 253; Naples 2369; Roscher, iii. p.
  2118; De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pls. 13, 27. For Terpon
  see also Reinach, i. 203, and Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 6.

Footnote 784:

  B.M. E 253.

Footnote 785:

  Reinach, i. 249; Roscher, iii. p. 2115.

Footnote 786:

  De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, 27.

Footnote 787:

  Reinach, ii. 200.

Footnote 788:

  Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130 (see Heydemann, _E.g._ pp. 25, 36: cf.
  Hydris, B.M. E 65).

Footnote 789:

  Heydemann, _Satyr- u. Bakchennamen_, p. 29 (_E.g._).

Footnote 790:

  B.M. E 82; Berlin 2471, 2532; Naples 2369; Reinach, i. 426, ii. 6,
  38, 200.

Footnote 791:

  Berlin 2532.

Footnote 792:

  Reinach, ii. 287 (name also read as Molpos).

Footnote 793:

  _Ibid._ ii. 302.

Footnote 794:

  Berlin 2160.

Footnote 795:

  Munich 780; Naples 2369, 3235; Jatta 1093; Reinach, ii. 268.

Footnote 796:

  Naples 3235.

Footnote 797:

  Bologna 286.

Footnote 798:

  Naples 2369.

Footnote 799:

  Heydemann, _E.g._ p. 28 (x).

Footnote 800:

  Jatta 1093; Reinach, ii. 302.

Footnote 801:

  Jatta 1093.

Footnote 802:

  Berlin 3257.

Footnote 803:

  B.M. E 253.

Footnote 804:

  Reinach, ii. 6.

Footnote 805:

  Jatta 1093.

Footnote 806:

  Reinach, ii. 3 = Millin-Reinach, i. 9; Reinach, ii. 38.

Footnote 807:

  Heydemann, _E.g._ p. 29 (β).

Footnote 808:

  _Ibid._ (α).

Footnote 809:

  B.M. E 492; Naples 2419; Karlsruhe 208; De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel
  Lambert_, 13.

Footnote 810:

  B.M. E 350: cf. Nymphe on Berlin 2471.

Footnote 811:

  Jatta 1093.

Footnote 812:

  B.M. E 182; Heydemann, p. 20 (X) = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ 22.

Footnote 813:

  Naples S.A. 316; Heydemann, p. 19 (U).

Footnote 814:

  Heydemann. p. 19 (U).

Footnote 815:

  Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 59.

Footnote 816:

  Naples S.A. 172 = Reinach, i. 498.

Footnote 817:

  _Pourtalès Cat._ 29, 2.

Footnote 818:

  Naples 3235, 2419.

Footnote 819:

  Heydemann, p. 29 (z).

Footnote 820:

  Naples 2883.

Footnote 821:

  _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 111 = _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 20.

Footnote 822:

  B.M. E 183.

Footnote 823:

  B.M. B 261, B 425, F 332 (Plate XLV.).

Footnote 824:

  Munich 728; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1; and see Nos. 1–7 in the list
  given below.

Footnote 825:

  B.M. E 82, F 68.

Footnote 826:

  B.M. B 425: cf. _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1.

Footnote 827:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 10; _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1855, pls. 1–2.

Footnote 828:

  Roscher, i. p. 1802.

Footnote 829:

  See below, p. 99, and _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296 (Hades is frequently

Footnote 830:

  See Nos. 1–4, 7, 8, 11; for Eurydike, Nos. 7–9.

Footnote 831:

  See Nos. 1–3 and 12–14; also Munich 153, and Louvre F 382.

Footnote 832:

  See No. 1; for the rock version of the legend, cf. Pind. _Ol._ i. 90.

Footnote 833:

  Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6; B.M. F 210; Munich 153 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1924,
  fig. 2040; Reinach, i. 408 (parody).

Footnote 834:

  Nos. 3, 4, 9 (P. only), and 11.

Footnote 835:

  No. 10.

Footnote 836:

  No. 1.

Footnote 837:

  Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9.

Footnote 838:

  Nos. 1–6, 10, 11.

Footnote 839:

  Nos. 1, 4, 10.

Footnote 840:

  No. 2 (see Baumeister, iii. p. 1928).

Footnote 841:

  No. 3.

Footnote 842:

  Nos. 1–5, 8.

Footnote 843:

  Nos. 3, 6, 10.

Footnote 844:

  Nos. 2, 3, 9.

Footnote 845:

  No. 11.

Footnote 846:

  See Nos. 5 and 8.

Footnote 847:

  Nos. 1–3: cf. _Od._ xi. 269, and Paus. x. 29, 7.

Footnote 848:

  No. 2.

Footnote 849:

  No. 1.

Footnote 850:

  Reinach, i. 408 (parody): cf. Paus. x. 29, 1.

Footnote 851:

  B.M. E 155; Berlin 3023 = Reinach, i. 330 = Baumeister, i. p. 767,
  fig. 821; and No. 5 above.

Footnote 852:

  B.M. D 61; Berlin 2455, 2680, 2681 (= Reinach, i, 457); Munich 209 =
  Baumeister, i. p. 378, fig. 414 (Fig. 122); Athens 1660–62 (= _Ant.
  Denkm._ i. 23); _ibid._ 1663, 1665 (= _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ i. pls.

Footnote 853:

  B.M. F 486; Vienna 448 = Reinach, i. 343; Reinach, i. 220; Helbig,
  121 = Reinach, ii. 121 is doubtful.

Footnote 854:

  Bibl. Nat. 918 = Reinach, i. 395 = Dennis, _Etruria_, ii.

Footnote 855:

  Bibl. Nat. 920 = Reinach, i. 88.

Footnote 856:

  See above, p. 69, note 838.

Footnote 857:

  See No. 5 above.

Footnote 858:

  See below, p. 138.

Footnote 859:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 38.

Footnote 860:

  Reinach, i. 475.

Footnote 861:

  _Ibid._ i. 204, 290 (Berlin 3072).

Footnote 862:

  Naples 3221 = _Ibid._ i. 402.

Footnote 863:

  B.M. F 155: see below, p. 141.

Footnote 864:

  No. 8 above.

Footnote 865:

  Bibl. Nat. 269.

Footnote 866:

  See above, p. 69, note 843.

Footnote 867:

  B.M. F 68; Petersburg 525 = Reinach, i. 11.

Footnote 868:

  B.M. E 183; Reinach, ii. 324.

Footnote 869:

  Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1: cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p.

Footnote 870:

  B.M. F 277; Reinach, i. 99 (and see i. 155); _E.g._ i. 522, 1, and
  Baumeister, i. p. 423, fig. 463.

Footnote 871:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 37 A.

Footnote 872:

  See Ubell, _Thanatos_, p. 22 ff. He doubts the possibility of the
  identification of Thanatos on Greek vases.

Footnote 873:

  Athens 1093 = Roscher, ii. 2678; Reinach, i. 149 = Baumeister, i. p.
  727, fig. 781: cf. Louvre F 388 (where Pottier identifies the warrior
  as Sarpedon).

Footnote 874:

  B.M. D 58 (= Fig. 123), E 12 (= _Wiener Vorl._ D. pl. 3, figs. 1–2);
  Athens 1654 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 29; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893, p.
  86 (in Berlin); with body of woman, Athens 1653 = Dumont-Pottier, i.
  pls. 27–28, and _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2. All but two of these are
  funeral lekythi.

Footnote 875:

  Reinach, i. 278.

Footnote 876:

  B.M. E 155.

Footnote 877:

  Berlin 2157 = _Jahrbuch_, i. p. 211; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 37
  (see under Herakles, p. 103, note 1172).

Footnote 878:

  See _J.H.S._ xii. p. 340 (Ker seizing soul of fallen warrior); also
  for a Ker in combats, Reinach, ii. 63, 126 (Munich 781), 97 (in the
  latter case protecting Aeneas against Diomede); also i. 113 (Berlin
  1713, 1714), 223, where they represent demons of good or evil
  according to the will of the gods.

Footnote 879:

  See Robert, _Thanatos_, and _J.H.S._ xii. p. 345. The Ker hovering
  over Alkyoneus (see below, p. 100) in Reinach, i. 255, 451, may be a
  Hypnos (see Koepp in _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, p. 42 ff.).

Footnote 880:

  B.M. D 54; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pls. 14, 33; Athens 688 =
  Reinach, i. 165 = Roscher, ii. 1147; Stackelberg, pl. 48: and cf.
  Reinach, i. 347 (= _Bourguignon Cat._ 19) and Benndorf, _E.g._ pl.
  42, 2; in the former the soul is armed; in the latter the winged
  figure may be the Κήρ. There often seems to be a confusion between
  the εἴδωλον or ghost and the Κήρ or Δαίμων, both in its functions and
  its art-form. Thus, on the vase given in _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101 (see p.
  52), small winged figures like souls are seen flying out of the jar,
  which are here intended to represent evil spirits or maleficent
  ghosts, like the evils let out of the jar by Pandora.

Footnote 881:

  B.M. B 639; Reinach, i. 89; Millin-Reinach, i. 19.

Footnote 882:

  B.M. B 240, B 543; Berlin 1921.

Footnote 883:

  Fig. 112, p. 14; Naples 2883 = Reinach, i. 181: cf. the beautiful
  conception on the Pergamene frieze.

Footnote 884:

  B.M. E 182 and Petersburg 1792 = Reinach, i. 1; Reinach, i. 66, 113,

Footnote 885:

  B.M. E 278, Reinach, i. 244 (Louvre E 864), 245, 249; B.M. B 196.

Footnote 886:

  B.M. B 168, B 213; _Él. Cér._ ii. 1, 2.

Footnote 887:

  Bibl. Nat. 298 = Reinach, i. 249, 4 = _J.H.S._ xx. p. 106, fig. 2
  (and cf. _ibid._ xix. p. 235); Naples 3355 = Reinach, i. 248; _Él.
  Cér._ i. 53 = Reinach, i. 249, 6: cf. also B.M. F 147; Froehner,
  _Musées de France_, p. 69; Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_,
  p. 277; and see above, p. 29.

Footnote 888:

  As on the vase _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1, p. 5: cf. Schol. in Ar. _Av._
  971, and Sophocles’ drama of _Pandora or the Hammerers_ (Σφυροκόποι):
  see also _Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 113 ff., and for another
  explanation, Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, p. 194 ff. A vase in Berlin
  (_Cat._ 2646 = Reinach, i. 229 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 232) represents the
  Ἄνοδος of Ge-Pandora, with Satyrs astonished at the sight.

Footnote 889:

  Munich 558; Naples S.A. 287; Reinach, i. 129.

Footnote 890:

  Hes. _Theog._ 116; Ar. _Av._ 696 ff.

Footnote 891:

  _Gaz. Arch._ 1875, pl. 9.

Footnote 892:

  Roscher, ii. p. 1550.

Footnote 893:

  B.M. E 246: see _J.H.S._ xi. p. 343.

Footnote 894:

  Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162.

Footnote 895:

  Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3; but see below, p. 125.

Footnote 896:

  Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.

Footnote 897:

  B.M. B 49 = Reinach, ii. 122; Millin-Reinach, i. 50.

Footnote 898:

  See _Ath. Mitth._ xiii. (1888), p. 412 ff. and _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 77
  ff.; also Vol. I. p. 391.

Footnote 899:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 9.

Footnote 900:

  B.M. F 270: see Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict._, _E.g._ Cabeiri.

Footnote 901:

  See above, p. 73, note 888, for representations of Ge-Pandora rising
  from the earth, which may be considered in connection with the
  creation of Pandora.

Footnote 902:

  D 4.

Footnote 903:

  E 467, 789; _J.H.S._ xxi. pl. 1 (here P. rises out of the ground,
  assisted by Epimetheus with his hammer; Zeus and Hermes are present).

Footnote 904:

  _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101: see above, p. 52.

Footnote 905:

  Bibl. Nat. 542 = Reinach, i. 141.

Footnote 906:

  Berlin 1722 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 9, 8, and another B.F. vase in
  Reinach, i. 388; _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pls. 5–6, fig. 1.

Footnote 907:

  Helbig, 275 = Reinach, ii. 48 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1411, fig. 1567.

Footnote 908:

  B.M. F 148; Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 236.

Footnote 909:

  Berlin 3245 = Gerhard, _Ges. Akad. Abhandl._ pl. 19; Athens 957 =
  _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 3 (H. bears the heavens).

Footnote 910:

  Reinach, i. 471.

Footnote 911:

  Athens 1926 = Reinach, i. 515. Possibly also on a Berlin vase (_Arch.
  Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89) with a similar subject, which may, however,
  denote a “sepulchral banquet.” See Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk.
  Religion_, p. 349.

Footnote 912:

  B.M. E 224, E 698.

Footnote 913:

  B.M. B 218, 244 (Fig. 113), E 410; Louvre E 861 and Berlin 1704 =
  Reinach, i. 156, 198.

Footnote 914:

  Athens 1962.

Footnote 915:

  _Ibid._ 466 = Plate XLVII.

Footnote 916:

  B.M. E 720; Munich 351 = Reinach, ii. 46; Berlin 2248 = Benndorf,
  _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 27, 2; Bibl. Nat. 841 = Millin-Reinach, i. 62;
  Roscher, ii. p. 350 (with tablets; B.F. in Louvre).

Footnote 917:

  Reinach, ii. 324; _ibid._ 325 = _Él. Cér._ i. 32 (may be Nike).

Footnote 918:

  B.M. E 67; Bibl. Nat. 444; Reinach, i. 99, 339, 463: and see _Arch.
  Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 38 (Berlin).

Footnote 919:

  B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193; Berlin 2591: cf. Bibl. Nat. 840 =
  Reinach, ii. 260.

Footnote 920:

  _J.H.S._ i. pl. 3.

Footnote 921:

  B.M. E 467.

Footnote 922:

  Berlin 1895.

Footnote 923:

  François vase.

Footnote 924:

  Reinach, i. 301.

Footnote 925:

  B.M. R.F. amphora (uncatalogued).

Footnote 926:

  Reinach, ii. 34.

Footnote 927:

  _Ibid._ ii. 296: see p. 39.

Footnote 928:

  _Ibid._ ii. 47.

Footnote 929:

  _Ibid._ ii. 279.

Footnote 930:

  B.M. E 381(?); _Él. Cér._ i. 20, 31 (= Reinach, ii. 9), 33 (= _E.g._
  ii. 321).

Footnote 931:

  B.F. (H. in chariot): B.M. B 201, 317; Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i.
  399; Reinach, ii. 76, 161. In Olympos: B.F.: B.M. B 379. R.F.:
  Reinach, ii. 186.

Footnote 932:

  Berlin 3257 = Baumeister, i. p. 630, fig. 700; _Forman Sale Cat._
  364; Reinach, ii. 8: see p. 108.

Footnote 933:

  Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9; Reinach, i. 157, 203; Roscher, iii.
  p. 2119 (with Aphrodite).

Footnote 934:

  Jatta 1093; Reinach, i. 175.

Footnote 935:

  Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7.

Footnote 936:

  _Mon. Grecs_, 1889–90, p. 5 ff.: see also on the subject generally
  the article _Personifikationen_ in Roscher’s _Lexikon_.

Footnote 937:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 62 = Reinach, ii. 287: see above, p. 32.

Footnote 938:

  B.F.: Berlin 1983; Bibl. Nat. 220 and Reinach, ii. 211 = _Él. Cér._
  ii. 115–116 (in the former case the solar disc is on his head). Late:
  B.M. F 305; Reinach, i. 258 (Karlsruhe 388), 368; Millin-Reinach, i.
  16, ii. 49.

Footnote 939:

  Reinach, i. 99, 100, 312 (Naples 3222), 291 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 114
  (Hemera); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 394 (?see p. 79, note 954). In the
  last but one they step out of a boat.

Footnote 940:

  Reinach, i. 232.

Footnote 941:

  B.M. E 466 = Plate LIII. A general view in colours, _Art Journal_,
  Sept. 1904.

Footnote 942:

  Reinach, i. 99.

Footnote 943:

  _Ibid._ i. 100.

Footnote 944:

  _Ibid._ i. 125.

Footnote 945:

  _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 252.

Footnote 946:

  Reinach, i. 236.

Footnote 947:

  _Ibid._ i. 109.

Footnote 948:

  Cambridge 100 = Stackelberg, pl. 15; Athens 900 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 9.

Footnote 949:

  B.M. E 252, 466, 776; Berlin 2519 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 63;
  Reinach, i. 312 (Naples 3222), 451.

Footnote 950:

  Berlin 2293 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 268 (a fine R.F. kylix); Athens 1345 =
  _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 10. The figure in the chariot may be perhaps
  identified as Nyx; see Berlin 2519, where Selene rides a horse and
  another goddess drives a chariot; also B.M. E 776. See _Art Journal_,
  Sept. 1904, p. 290.

Footnote 951:

  Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3.

Footnote 952:

  Reinach, i. 402.

Footnote 953:

  _Ibid._ ii. 319 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 118.

Footnote 954:

  B.M. E 466 (Plate LIII.); Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 100 (here as

Footnote 955:

  B.M. E 466; Reinach, i. 236, 291 (?), 339; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._
  iv. 394 (?).

Footnote 956:

  Bibl. Nat. 449 = Reinach, i. 129: cf. B.M. F 573, E 658, E 659, and
  _Art Journal_, Sept. 1904, p. 289.

Footnote 957:

  But see above, note 950; p. 30, note 239.

Footnote 958:

  R.F.: B.M. E 449, E 776 (? Nyx; see above); Helbig, 132 = Reinach,
  ii. 46. Late: Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (with Hermes; vase by Lasimos in

Footnote 959:

  Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 6 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 108 A = Roscher,
  i. 1257; De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 6.

Footnote 960:

  B.F.: Louvre E 702 = Reinach, i. 354. R.F.: B.M. E 72, 466; Reinach,
  i. 463 (= Bibl. Nat. 423), and ii. 81 (= Helbig, 80); Reinach, i. 107
  = Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pls. 39–40 (by Hieron; may be either K. or
  T.); Bibl. Nat. 374 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 34. Late: Millin-Reinach,
  i. 48. Eos carrying K.: Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208.

Footnote 961:

  Oxford 275 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 137; Bibl. Nat. 846.

Footnote 962:

  B.M. F 149.

Footnote 963:

  Reinach, ii. 105; B.M. E 468: see Reinach, i. 144, ii. 254 (Bibl.
  Nat. 207).

Footnote 964:

  Reinach, i. 156, 1.

Footnote 965:

  Reinach, i. 347 = _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 19; Millingen, _Anc. Uned.
  Mon._ i. pl. 5; Roscher, i. 1265 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7.

Footnote 966:

  B.M. B 104 = Vol. I. p. 351; and cf. _Él. Cér._ iii. 31 ff.

Footnote 967:

  B.M. B 431, B 445; _Forman Sale Cat._ 318.

Footnote 968:

  B.M. F 237.

Footnote 969:

  B.M. B 212.

Footnote 970:

  B.M. F 39; Berlin 2305 = Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pl. 72, 1; _ibid._
  pl. 22, 1 (see p. 47, note 50612); and cf. Reinach, ii. 248;
  _Philologus_, 1893, p. 211.

Footnote 971:

  B.M. D 59.

Footnote 972:

  B.M. E 480, E 512; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 6; Berlin 2165 = Reinach, i.
  352; Munich 376 = Reinach, i. 240 = Baumeister, i. p. 352, fig. 373;
  Reinach, i. 305; Helbig, 101 = Reinach, ii. 78 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii.
  9; Rayet and Collignon, p. 299 (in Louvre).

Footnote 973:

  Berlin 2165 = Reinach, i. 352.

Footnote 974:

  Reinach, i. 346: cf. Serv. _ad Aen._ iii. 209; _Ann. dell’ Inst._
  1882, p. 90 ff.; Roscher, iii. p. 1566.

Footnote 975:

  B.M. B 4, B 104: see Studniczka, _Kyrene_, p. 26, and _J.H.S._ xiii.
  p. 109 ff.

Footnote 976:

  See below pagelink?], pp. 115, 116.

Footnote 977:

  B.M. E 804 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 135.

Footnote 978:

  B.M. F 277.

Footnote 979:

  B.M. F 149.

Footnote 980:

  Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130; Reinach, i. 481.

Footnote 981:

  De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 11: cf. Reinach, i. 1.

Footnote 982:

  B.M. E 228 (see note in _Cat._); F 381.

Footnote 983:

  See especially Studniczka, _Kyrene_, and on the subject generally,
  _J.H.S._ ix. p. 47 ff.

Footnote 984:

  Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194.

Footnote 985:

  Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 98.

Footnote 986:

  B.M. F 271.

Footnote 987:

  B.M. E 140 = Plate LI.

Footnote 988:

  Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl. 27; Millin-Reinach,
  ii. 7 (in Louvre); Berlin 2634 = Roscher, ii. 837.

Footnote 989:

  G 104.

Footnote 990:

  B.M. B 319; Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235; _ibid._ i. 466 (Petersburg
  523), ii. 51.

Footnote 991:

  B.M. E 48, 74, 84; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 1: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p.
  116, and Loeschcke in _Dorpater Programm_ for 1887.

Footnote 992:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 63.

Footnote 993:

  B.M. B 4, B 6. See Vol. I. p. 341 ff.

Footnote 994:

  See above, pp. 19, 24.

Footnote 995:

  See above, p. 19.

Footnote 996:

  Reinach, ii. 144: see Paus. iii. 1, 2, and 18, 10; Apollod. iii. 10,
  3, 1; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 491, note.

Footnote 997:

  De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 28.

Footnote 998:

  Jatta 1501 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 38.

Footnote 999:

  Naples 3235 = Reinach, i. 103 = Roscher, iii. 861.

Footnote 1000:

  B.M. E 437 (fish-body); and see p. 101.

Footnote 1001:

  Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12.

Footnote 1002:

  Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl. 27 (Ismenos and
  Krenaia): cf. Millin-Reinach, ii. 7. The nymph Dirke is, according to
  Robert, represented in the figure rising from the ground to receive
  the child Dionysos at his birth on the vase Petersburg 1792 = Reinach
  i. 1 (otherwise Gaia): see his _Arch. Märchen_, p. 185.

Footnote 1003:

  _Él. Cér._ ii. 86; Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 391 (see _ibid._ p. 277)
  = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 4.

Footnote 1004:

  François vase (at Peleus and Thetis’ nuptials); B.M. E 805; Berlin
  2391, 2401 (Klio and Terpsichore): cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895,
  p. 102 (in Louvre; three figures named Ourania, Kalliope, and

Footnote 1005:

  B.M. E 271.

Footnote 1006:

  Reinach, i. 526 = Jatta 1538.

Footnote 1007:

  See p. 32.

Footnote 1008:

  F 478; and see Jatta 654 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 19, for a possible

Footnote 1009:

  Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.

Footnote 1010:

  Petersburg 350 = Reinach, i. 12.

Footnote 1011:

  Louvre E 861 = Reinach, i. 156.

Footnote 1012:

  See p. 70; and also p. 137, under Orestes.

Footnote 1013:

  B.M. E 290.

Footnote 1014:

  Reinach, i. 255, 451 (but see note 879 on p. 72).

Footnote 1015:

  Reinach, i. 222 = Plate XXXIX.; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, No. 25.

Footnote 1016:

  B.M. E 12; Reinach, i. 149 = Baumeister, i. p. 727, fig. 781.

Footnote 1017:

  B.M. D 58 = Fig. 123; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2; Dumont-Pottier, i.
  pls. 27–8.

Footnote 1018:

  Berlin 2661 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 257. For Ploutos see also
  Reinach, i. 1 (at birth of Dionysos), and the following notes.

Footnote 1019:

  Munich 291 = Reinach, ii. 47 (more probably Iris).

Footnote 1020:

  _Rev. Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 93.

Footnote 1021:

  See _e.g._ B.M. E 287, E 574 (Plate XXXVI.), E 643; Oxford 312–314.

Footnote 1022:

  Studniczka, _Siegesgöttin_ (1898), and in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, iii.
  p. 318: see also Sikes, _Nike of Archermos_ (Cambridge, 1890), and
  _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 111 ff. Studniczka regards the following as certain
  B.F. instances: B.M. B 1, B 106_{3}, B 125_{2}, B 334; _Jahrbuch_,
  1889, pls. 5–6, figs. 2, 2a; Jahn, _Entführung d. Europa_, pl. 5. The
  instances on late careless B.F. vases, such as B 356, B 357, B 652 in
  B.M., are not to the point, as these belong to the fifth century.

Footnote 1023:

  B.M. E 444; Reinach, i. 157, 1; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 21, 1; Berlin 2278 =
  _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9.

Footnote 1024:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 14 (in B.M.); Reinach, i. 66, 194, 417, ii. 266 (N.
  crowning Z.); Berlin 2167 (Z. and Poseidon).

Footnote 1025:

  _Él. Cér._ i. 32 and iii. 38 (= Berlin 2317); Petersburg 355 =
  Reinach, i. 14.

Footnote 1026:

  Naples 3373; _Él. Cér._ i. 76 A: cf. Reinach, i. 1, 3, 5, 37, 158;
  B.M. B 608, 610, E 523; _Él. Cér._ i. 68.

Footnote 1027:

  B.M. E 445.

Footnote 1028:

  Reinach, i. 14, 253 (Bibl. Nat. 392), 406, 511, ii. 310; Naples 1891
  = _Él. Cér._ ii. 35; _ibid._ ii. 48.

Footnote 1029:

  B.M. E 432.

Footnote 1030:

  Reinach, ii. 290.

Footnote 1031:

  B.M. E 262; Reinach, i. 22, 251; B.M. F 178, Athens 1346 =
  Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 15, _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 69 (N. crowning H.).

Footnote 1032:

  See p. 107, note 1222.

Footnote 1033:

  _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pls. 1–2; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 467.

Footnote 1034:

  B.M. E 410.

Footnote 1035:

  Reinach, i. 286 (?), 398 (Berlin 2521).

Footnote 1036:

  B.M. F 109; Reinach, i. 7.

Footnote 1037:

  B.M. E 182; Reinach, i. 1, 3.

Footnote 1038:

  Reinach, i. 113; and cf. BM. E 788.

Footnote 1039:

  Berlin 3023 = Reinach, i. 330.

Footnote 1040:

  Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 18, 7.

Footnote 1041:

  Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 22; Reinach, i. 358 (unwinged figure;
  may be Eris).

Footnote 1042:

  Naples 3231 = Reinach, i. 299.

Footnote 1043:

  Reinach, i. 236.

Footnote 1044:

  _Ibid._ i. 361 (crowning them); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 187.

Footnote 1045:

  Reinach, ii. 49; i. 108, 195.

Footnote 1046:

  _Ibid._ i. 390.

Footnote 1047:

  _Ibid._ i. 98.

Footnote 1048:

  B.M. F 163; Reinach, i. 197, 8, ii. 198, 287.

Footnote 1049:

  B.M. E 574 = Plate XXXVI.; B.M. E 287, E 643; Reinach, ii. 7.

Footnote 1050:

  Reinach, i. 254 (Bibl. Nat. 392), 340, Athens 1018 = Benndorf, _Gr.
  u. Sic. Vasenb._ 19, 3 (torch); B.M. E 251, E 513, Roscher, iii. 329,
  Benndorf, _op. cit._ 47, 2 (incense-burner); B.M. E 574 (lamp);
  Oxford 274, Athens 1362, Reinach, ii. 235, 310, De Witte, _Coll. à
  l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 4, Benndorf, _op. cit._ 47, 1 (lyre); Athens
  1362, Reinach, i. 410 (tripod); Benndorf, _op. cit._ 48, 1 (wreath).
  On Oxford 312 she plays on a lyre. On her costume and attributes
  generally see Roscher, iii. p. 330.

Footnote 1051:

  Munich 351 = Reinach, ii. 46: see above, p. 76, note 1048.

Footnote 1052:

  Petersburg 355 = Reinach, i. 14; B.M. F 109; Jatta 1050.

Footnote 1053:

  B.M. E 455–56; Reinach, i. 195, ii. 180; _ibid._ i. 403, 428;
  Roscher, iii. 330; _Cab. Pourtalès_, pl. 6.

Footnote 1054:

  Reinach, i. 492.

Footnote 1055:

  B.M. F 66 = Fig. 124; Naples 2684 = Reinach, i. 474; Reinach, ii.
  206; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 51.

Footnote 1056:

  _J.H.S._ vii. p. 275 ff.

Footnote 1057:

  Munich 386 = Reinach, ii. 46 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 19.

Footnote 1058:

  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 361.

Footnote 1059:

  Athens 1026 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 23, 2.

Footnote 1060:

  Oxford 265; B.M. E 538; _Él. Cér._ i. 100.

Footnote 1061:

  Reinach, ii. 216.

Footnote 1062:

  B.M. B 608; Berlin 2211 = _Él. Cér._ i. 96.

Footnote 1063:

  B.M. E 700; Reinach, ii. 326 = Roscher, iii. 326 (here she is putting
  on the inscription).

Footnote 1064:

  B.M. F 550.

Footnote 1065:

  Berlin 2661 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 257.

Footnote 1066:

  Reinach, ii. 4; Millin-Reinach, i. 24; Jatta 1050.

Footnote 1067:

  B.M. E 264, 275, 476, 576.

Footnote 1068:

  B.M. E 379.

Footnote 1069:

  B.M. E 128; Reinach, i. 268.

Footnote 1070:

  B.M. F 170; Reinach, i. 45, 378, 2, ii. 187, 230, 292.

Footnote 1071:

  Reinach, ii. 262 (Bibl. Nat. 364), 291; and see 298.

Footnote 1072:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 72.

Footnote 1073:

  B.M. B 607; Stackelberg, pl. 25 (Hegias); Oxford 288 (_Cat._ pl. 15);
  Louvre F 109 (? Agon).

Footnote 1074:

  Reinach, ii. 320; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35 (now in B.M.);
  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 363.

Footnote 1075:

  Reinach, i. 322.

Footnote 1076:

  B.M. E 460, 469; Reinach, i. 49, 378, ii. 274.

Footnote 1077:

  Vol. I. p. 223.

Footnote 1078:

  Reinach, i. 63.

Footnote 1079:

  B.M. B 1 (?); Petersburg 183 = Micali, _Storia_, pl. 87; Reinach, ii.
  126 (?); Daremberg and Saglio, _Dict. s.v._ Agon, fig. 180; Louvre F
  109: see also _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ (1903), pp. 92, 97.

Footnote 1080:

  B.M. F 20; Berlin 3023; Millingen-Reinach, 36; Helbig, 90 = _Mus.
  Greg._ ii. 60, 3; and see Knapp, _Nike_, p. 37.

Footnote 1081:

  See above, p. 49.

Footnote 1082:

  See p. 43.

Footnote 1083:

  _Jahreshefte_, 1899, p. 16 = Reinach, i. 279; but more probably the
  scene refers to Orestes and Pylades in Tauris.

Footnote 1084:

  Vienna 319 = Reinach, i. 353: for Dike in under-world see p. 69.

Footnote 1085:

  Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194.

Footnote 1086:

  Naples 3233 = Reinach, i. 239.

Footnote 1087:

  Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66; B.M. B 364, B 365: see Reinach, i. 223.

Footnote 1088:

  See Roscher, iii. p. 2934.

Footnote 1089:

  Louvre E 723: see _Ath. Mitth._ 1902, p. 255.

Footnote 1090:

  Reinach, ii. 26, 4 (in Louvre).

Footnote 1091:

  B.M. B 334; Berlin 1775; Karlsruhe 259; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i.
  7 (at Judgment of Paris); Reinach, i. 100 (with Pelops), ii. 26, 1,
  161; Baumeister, i. p. 18, fig. 20.

Footnote 1092:

  For unidentified winged deities see Louvre F 54 = _Wiener Vorl._
  1888, pl. 5, fig. 2 (Exekias); _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 3, fig. 2

Footnote 1093:

  Naples 3222 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1927, fig. 2042 A: see p. 69.

Footnote 1094:

  Reinach, ii. 100 (now in B.M.: see _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 468).

Footnote 1095:

  Naples 3237 = Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918 (?): see below, p. 91,
  note 1098, for other interpretations.

Footnote 1096:

  Millingen-Reinach, 23.

Footnote 1097:

  Reinach, i. 173.

Footnote 1098:

  _Ibid._ i. 229 (in Boston); B.M. F 279; B.M. F 271 and Naples 3237 =
  Baumeister, ii. p. 834, fig. 918: cf. Reinach, i. 331, 1. The name of
  Typhlosis (Blindness) has also been suggested for the figure on the
  Naples vase.

Footnote 1099:

  Vol. I. p. 480 (Assteas vase in Madrid).

Footnote 1100:

  Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363.

Footnote 1101:

  See above, p. 65, for instances.

Footnote 1102:

  B.M. E 492; Naples 2419; Karlsruhe 208.

Footnote 1103:

  Berlin 2471.

Footnote 1104:

  B.M. B 210: see p. 58, note 701.

Footnote 1105:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 1106:

  Naples 2873 (Assteas).

Footnote 1107:

  B.M. E 455.

Footnote 1108:

  Munich 378.

Footnote 1109:

  Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235.

Footnote 1110:

  Berlin 2658 = Reinach, i. 375.

Footnote 1111:

  B.M. F 111.

                              CHAPTER XIV
                            _HEROIC LEGENDS_

    Kastor and Polydeukes—Herakles and his twelve labours—Other
      contests—Relations with deities—Apotheosis—Theseus and his
      labours—Later scenes of his life—Perseus—Pelops and
      Bellerophon—Jason and the Argonauts—Theban legends—The Trojan
      cycle—Peleus and Thetis—The Judgment of Paris—Stories of Telephos
      and Troilos—Scenes from the Iliad—The death of Achilles and the
      Fall of Troy—The Odyssey—The Oresteia—Attic and other
      legends—Orpheus and the Amazons—Monsters—Historical and literary

In treating of the subject of heroic legends, we propose to deal first
with the more prominent heroes, such as Kastor and Polydeukes,
Herakles, Theseus, and Perseus, and with the tales of Thebes and Troy;
next with the series of myths connected specially with Attica or other
localities; then with semi-mythical personages, such as Orpheus and
Thamyris, which lead us on to the next division of the subject—scenes
connected with Greek history.

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Kastor and Polydeukes= do not play a very extensive part on vases; and
as they are not further characterised than by the petasos and two
spears, which are the ordinary equipment of young horsemen, they are
not always to be identified with certainty, except in mythological
scenes. Among these they appear in the Gigantomachia,[1112] or in
company with Herakles are initiated into the lesser mysteries at
Agra[1113]; they are also seen at the apotheosis of Herakles.[1114]
They are present when Leda discovers the egg laid by Nemesis,[1115] and
on two B.F. vases appear with Leda and Tyndareus in a family
group[1116]; they are also seen in company with Hermes,[1117] with
Paris and Helen,[1118] with Danaos taking refuge in Attica,[1119] in a
scene from the _Merope_ of Euripides,[1120] and at the slaying of the
Sphinx by Oedipus.[1121] They take part in the hunt of the Calydonian
boar,[1122] and in many scenes from the Argonautika, such as the death
of Talos,[1123] the punishment of Amykos,[1124] and others of doubtful
meaning.[1125] There is more than one representation of their carrying
off the Leukippidae,[1126] the best being the beautiful Meidias vase in
the British Museum (Plate XLI.), where all the figures are named.[1127]
They appear as hunters,[1128] as deified beings present at a Theoxenia
(_lectisternium_), or feast of the gods,[1129] and are crowned by Nike
(with stars over their heads).[1130]


Of all the heroic legends the most numerous and the most important are
those of the Herakleid. They appear on vases of all periods, though in
the largest proportion on the black-figured varieties, and include
every event in his life, from his birth to his deified life in Olympos.
Of the visit of Zeus to his mother Alkmena we have already spoken, as
also of her apotheosis.[1131] As an infant we see Herakles engaged in

the serpents sent by Hera, while his brother Iphikles recoils in
terror[1132]; later on Hera appears to be reconciled to his existence,
for she is actually seen suckling him at her breast.[1133] Next he is
carried off by Hermes to Cheiron the Centaur for his education,[1134]
and we see him undergoing instruction on the lyre from Linos,[1135] or
on his way, accompanied by an old woman carrying his lyre.[1136] By the
time when his series of labours begins he is usually represented as a
full-grown bearded man, especially on the archaic vases; but he appears
in a few instances as a quite youthful beardless figure.

Of all the achievements of Herakles the most famous are the Twelve
Labours, to which he was subjected by Hera at the hands of Eurystheus.
We find them all represented on vases, with the exception of the
cleansing of the Augean stables, which may be presumed to have offered
too many difficulties to the painter; it only occurs once in the whole
history of Greek art, on a metope at Olympia. The horses of Diomede
only occur once, the Keryneian stag thrice, and the Stymphalian birds
five times; but the rest may be described as common. In all these
scenes Herakles is usually accompanied by Athena; also, but less
frequently, by Iolaos and Hermes.

                  *       *       *       *       *

I. _The Nemean Lion._

Of this subject we find two “normal” types on B.F. vases,[1137] with
one or two abnormal versions; on R.F. vases the treatment is less

  B.F. (1) Standing type:—Herakles plunges sword into lion’s neck (both
          upright): B.M. B 160, B 232, B 621 (Plate XXX.). H. strangles
          lion: Berlin 1720 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 6, 3 (Exekias);
          _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 6, 3 (Charitaios).

      (2) Crouching type:—Herakles stoops and strangles lion: B.M. B
          159, B 199, B 318 (Fig. 125); Petersburg 68 = _Wiener Vorl._
          1889, 4, 6 (Taleides).

      (3) Abnormal:—Lion on its back; Herakles slays it with club:
          Reinach, ii. 52. Herakles pursues lion: Louvre F 108 =
          _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 1, 5 (Nikosthenes).

  R.F. (1) Herakles with lion over shoulder about to hurl it on
          Eurystheus (type borrowed from Erymanthian Boar, see below):
          B.M. B 193 = Plate XXXII. (Andokides).

      (2) Crouching type: Munich 415 = Reinach, i. 150 = Baumeister, i.
          p. 656, fig. 723; B.M. E 168; _Röm. Mitth._ v. (1890), pl. 12
          = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 7, 2 (Nikosthenes, in Boston). See
          also B.M. E 104 (abnormal).


We may also note here a curious B.F. vase, on which Herakles is seen in
the forests of Nemea preparing the lion’s skin for his own wear.[1138]

II. _The Cretan Bull._

      Type: Herakles seizes the bull from the front and ties its legs
          with a cord.

        B.F. B.M. B 309; Berlin 1886, 1898; Helbig, 31; Reinach, ii.
          55, 5 = Baumeister, i. p. 660, fig. 727.

        R.F. B.M. E 104; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, 2 (Nikosthenes,
          in Boston) = _Röm. Mitth._ v. (1890), p. 324.

        Late. Berlin 3145 = Millingen-Reinach, 11; Athens 1931.

          See also a very remarkable vase in _Forman Sale Cat._ No. 305
          (now at Boston), where the same subject appears each side,
          one B.F., the other R.F. (by Andokides).[1139]

III. _The Erymanthian Boar_ (see Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 87).

  (1) The capture:

        B.M. B 462; Louvre F 236; Berlin 1981, 2034; Naples 2705 and
          S.A. 150; Athens 858, 860 (all B.F.).

  (2) The bringing back of the boar (Eurystheus absent; Athena usually
          receives the hero):

        B.M. B 447, 492; Cambridge 57; Munich 694; Athens 1097 (all


        (3) Herakles hurls the boar upon Eurystheus, who hides himself
          in a large sunk jar (πίθος):

        B.F. B.M. B 161 (Fig. 126); Reinach, ii. 55, 1; Helbig, 37;
          Louvre F 59, 202.

        R.F. B.M. E 44 (Euphronios) = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl.
          23; Louvre G 17 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, pl. 10.

IV. _The Keryneian Stag._

  B.F. B.M. B 169, B 231.

  R.F. Reinach, i. 233.

A dispute between Apollo and Herakles over a stag (Rein. ii. 56, 3: see
p. 34) may perhaps be referred to this subject, as the myth is not
otherwise known, but it is more usually Artemis who endeavours to
thwart Herakles’ capture.

V. _The Stymphalian Birds._

Found only on four B.F. vases (B.M. B 163; Louvre F 387; _Arch.
Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 172; and Munich 1111 = Reinach, ii. 58) and one
late example (Reinach, ii. 297). Herakles shoots the birds with bow and

VI. _The Lernaean Hydra._

This subject, occurring only on archaic vases, has no very fixed type;
the Hydra has seven or nine heads, and the body of a serpent or of a
cuttle-fish. Iolaos sometimes assists Herakles, and in two cases the
crab sent by Hera is also visible.

  B.F. Early: Reinach, i. 389; _Jahrbuch_, 1898, pl. 12; Reinach, i.
          118 (6) = Louvre E 851.

        Later: Reinach, i. 118 (1) = Berlin 1854 (crab); _ibid._ 118
          (3); 118 (5) = Louvre F 386 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 75 (Athena
          slays crab); Reinach, ii. 53 = Baumeister, i. p. 657, fig.
          724; Berlin 1801 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 7, 3: see also Athens
          792 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 4, 1, where two successive
          scenes are given.

  R.F. Reinach, ii. 76. Hydra has cuttle-fish body and ten or eleven

VII. _The Horses of Diomede._

Naples 2506; Reinach, ii. 297 (?).

VIII. _The Augean Stables._

Not found on vases.

IX. _The Combat with Geryon and Capture of his Cattle._

A very favourite subject on B.F. and early vases, including some of the
finest specimens. Geryon is at first winged and only three-headed, then
triple-bodied, represented as three armed warriors united,[1140] one or
two of whom generally fall wounded. Herakles attacks with bow.

        Early B.F. “Proto-Corinthian”: B.M. A 487 = _J.H.S._ v. p. 176.
          Chalcidian: B.M. B 155; Bibl. Nat. 202 = Reinach, ii. 58 and
          253 = Plate XXII.

        Late B.F. B.M. B 156, B 194; Louvre F 53 = Reinach, ii. 59 =
          Baumeister, i. p. 662, fig. 729 (Exekias); _J.H.S._ xviii. p.
          299, and Bibl. Nat. 223 (abnormal types).

        R.F. Munich 337 (Plate XXXVIII.) = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,
          22 (Euphronios); Noel des Vergers, _Étrurie_, pl. 38.

        Late. Berlin 3258; Naples 1924 = Millingen-Reinach, 27.

The driving off of the cattle by Herakles is also represented:

    B.M. E 104; Reinach, ii. 58, 5; and see Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 61.

X. _The Girdle of Hippolyta._

    B.F. B.M. B 533.

    Late. Naples 3241 = Reinach, i. 384.

Besides the scenes in which Herakles is evidently capturing the girdle,
there are many vases on which he is seen in combat with Hippolyte and
other Amazons, such as Andromache or Alkaia, assisted himself by Iolaos
or Telamon.

    B.F. B.M. B 154, B 426; Louvre E 875; Cambridge 44; _Bourguignon
      Sale Cat._ 18 (Exekias); Berlin 3988 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl.

    R.F. B.M. E 45; Reinach, i. 166; Bibl. Nat. 535 = Reinach, ii. 265;
      Bologna 322; Reinach, i. 353 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 4, 1 (Duris).

    Late. Jatta 423 = Reinach, i. 206.

XI. _Fetching Kerberos from Hades._

The various types and methods of representing this subject have been
collected in _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296; as typical examples may be given:

    Early B.F. Louvre E 701 = Reinach, i. 153; Reinach, i. 389, ii. 32.

    Late B.F. _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 295 (in B.M.); Reinach, ii. 69.

    R.F. _Jahrbuch_ viii. (1893), pl. 2 (in Berlin) and p. 160 (in

    Late. On several of the “under-world” vases, see p. 68, Nos. 1–4,

XII. _Fetching the Golden Apples from the Garden of the Hesperides._

There are two versions of this myth. In one, which seems to be the
earlier, Atlas fetches the apples, while Herakles supports the universe
for him (see above, p. 75). The vases representing Herakles in the
Garden surrounded by the Nymphs (for whom see p. 92) are almost all of
the later period:

  B.F. Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 42, 1.

  R.F. B.M. E 224 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 8–9 (Plate XLI.).

  Late. B.M. F 148; Naples 2873 = Millin-Reinach, i. 3 = _Wiener Vorl._
    viii. 12, 3 (Assteas); and Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 236 =
    Baumeister, i. p. 686, fig. 745.

  Parody. Athens 1894 = Reinach, i. 506 (?).

Besides the somewhat insignificant part that he plays in the
Gigantomachia,[1141] Herakles had several independent combats of his
own with gigantic monsters and such-like beings. Of these the most
popular subjects are Antaios and Alkyoneus. The legend of Herakles’
wrestling with the former is familiar from Pindar[1142]; on the vases
Antaios is not characterised as a giant in size or otherwise, but his
mother Gaia is generally present.[1143]

Alkyoneus, on the other hand, is represented as a being of gigantic
size, lying asleep in a cave[1144]; a small winged figure which
sometimes hovers over him has been interpreted by some as Hypnos
(Sleep), but might also be a Κὴρ Θανάτοιο, or harbinger of death.[1145]
Herakles generally attacks him with club or bow and arrow, but on one
vase is depicted gouging out his eye[1146]; on another he is assisted
by Telamon with a stone.[1147] Another giant with whom we find the hero
contending is Cacus, whose oxen he carried off. This is a purely Roman
myth, and belongs rather to the legends of the Roman Hercules, but
curiously enough it finds a place on one Greek vase of Sicilian origin,
which represents Cacus in a hut with the oxen and Herakles playing a
lyre in triumph.[1148]

One of the commonest subjects connected with Herakles is his combat
with Kyknos, the son of Ares, described at length in the Hesiodic
_Scutum Herculis_. It is mostly found on B.F. vases, the usual “type”
showing the two combatants supported by Athena and Ares respectively in
their chariots, while Zeus appears in the midst to interrupt
them.[1149] One late R.F. vase seems to show the preparations for the
combat, in the presence of an Amazon, a Fury, and other
personages[1150]; another vase, the subsequent attack made on Athena by

We find him in combat with Acheloös, the river-god, represented as a
bull with the face of a bearded man,[1152] or occasionally, by
confusion with a sea-deity, with the body and tail of a fish.[1153]
This latter form is assumed by Triton, with whom also the hero
contends,[1154] though the myth is unknown in literature. Of similar
import is his combat with Nereus, the old man of the sea (Ἁλιος Γέρων),
who appears in human form as an aged man[1155]; the “type” employed on
B.F. vases is similar to that of Peleus wrestling with Thetis (see
below, p. 120), with similar indications of the sea-god’s
transformation into animals. In one case an air of humour is imparted
to the scene, and Herakles is represented smashing the furniture in
Nereus’ house.[1156]

Another important group of subjects is concerned with Herakles’
adventures with the Centaurs, which fall under several headings.
Allusion has already been made to his early education by Cheiron, and
again we see him paying a visit of a peaceful nature to the aged
Pholos, who entertains him by opening a jar of wine.[1157] The smell
therefrom attracted the other Centaurs and led to a combat, which we
see vividly depicted on many early B.F. vases, on which it was a
favourite subject, as also on later ones.[1158] We also find him in
combat with particular Centaurs, from whom he rescues a woman carried
off by them. Thus we see Hippolyta delivered from Eurytion,[1159] and
Deianeira from Nessos[1160] or Dexamenos[1161] (the latter appears on
later vases only, and there seems to be no distinction between them in
the myth).

Other adventures in which he engages include the freeing of Prometheus
from the vulture, which he slays with his bow[1162]; the bringing back
of Alkestis from Hades[1163]; the seizure of the Kerkopes, a pair of
brigands, whom he carries off head downwards over his shoulders[1164];
and his capture by Busiris in Egypt,[1165] with his escape after
slaying the king’s negro attendants.[1166] Among rarer myths may be
mentioned the destruction of the vines of Syleus[1167]; a possible
representation of his contest in drawing water with Lepreos[1168]; and
his combat with Erginos, the king of Orchomenos, and the capture of his
heralds.[1169] A vase in Athens, on which he is depicted dragging two
Satyrs in a leash,[1170] depicts an unknown myth; as do those which
represent him contending with Geras, a personification of Old
Age,[1171] and beating a winged Ker with his club.[1172] In company
with Athena he attacks an unknown man,[1173] and he is also seen
leading a Sphinx.[1174]

Next we turn to the relations between the hero and the Olympian or
other deities, which often take the form of disputes or combats. Of
these the most famous and important is his capture of the Delphic
tripod, for which he fights with Apollo, generally in the presence of
Athena and Artemis[1175]; in one instance Herakles is seen in Athena’s
chariot, carrying the tripod off with him[1176]; other vases represent
the final reconciliation with Apollo.[1177] There is a curious
representation of a combat between Herakles and Hera (depicted as the
Roman Juno Sospita, wearing a goatskin on her head), with Athena and
Poseidon assisting on either side.[1178] Another rare and interesting
subject is that of his attack on Helios, whom he interrupts at sunrise
to prevent his journey after Geryon’s cattle from becoming known.
Herakles is shown waiting for the chariot of the sun-god as it rises
from the waves, and preparing to discharge his arrows.[1179] A later
stage of the story is illustrated by a fine R.F. vase, where he voyages
over the sea in the golden bowl given him by Helios.[1180] Lastly, he
defends Hera and Iris against the attacks of a troop of Seileni.[1181]
In other scenes where he is associated with the gods, it is in his
divine capacity after his apotheosis.

His relations with women are not so frequently depicted but we have at
least one representation of his visit to Omphale[1182]; or, again, of
his entertainment by Eurytos,[1183] the carrying off of his daughter
Iole,[1184] and the subsequent fight with Eurytos.[1185] His rescue of
Deianeira from the Centaur has already been alluded to, and there may
also be a reference to his carrying her off from her father
Oineus.[1186] Hesione is not found with him on vases, but he is seen
carrying off Auge[1187]; he is also associated with a Nymph, who may be
Nemea.[1188] On one vase he pursues, with amorous intention, a woman,
who may possibly be intended for Athena.[1189]

A remarkable vase-painting by Assteas of Paestum depicts Herakles in a
fit of madness destroying his children by hurling them on a fire, on
which he has already thrown the household furniture; his mother and
others look on, expressing various emotions.[1190] In more peaceful
mood he is seen grouped with his wife Deianeira and their son
Hyllos,[1191] or with Oineus, his father-in-law.[1192]

We now proceed to note a few subjects which do not admit of more exact
classification. Herakles is initiated into the lesser mysteries at
Agra, together with Kastor and Polydeukes,[1193] and is conducted by
Hermes to the revels of the Scythian Agathyrsi (cf. p. 179).[1194] He
is also sometimes seen carrying Hades on his back, the latter bearing a
large cornucopia[1195]; but the signification of this subject is
unknown. He accompanies the Argonauts on their wanderings,[1196] and
appears as a single figure shooting from a bow.[1197] He is often
represented performing an act of sacrifice, either as a single
figure[1198] or in groups, sacrificing a ram or other animal.[1199]
Some of these scenes, where he sacrifices to the _xoanon_ of
Chryse,[1200] a local Lemnian goddess, must refer to the story of
Philoktetes, with which he was connected. Or, again, conversely, we see
a statue of Herakles made the subject of offerings from others.[1201] A
scene from the story of Antigone (see below, p. 119) is represented as
taking place before a shrine, in which stands the deified hero
interceding with Kreon for her life.[1202] He also appears as
protecting god of Attica,[1203] and also of the palaestra, with
reference to his traditional founding of the Olympian games.[1204]
Finally, there is a series of subjects which (as in the case with most
of the preceding section) may be concerned with Herakles either before
or after his apotheosis.

Among these are the numerous vases (especially B.F.) where he is
represented as being greeted by Athena or conversing with her,[1205]
or receiving a libation from her.[1206] These may either refer to his
receiving visits of encouragement from her in the intervals between
his labours, or to his reception by her in Olympos (see below). Many
vases represent him banqueting, usually in company with Dionysos and
other deities.[1207] With Hermes and Iolaos he takes part in a
procession accompanied by music[1208]; and he is also represented
overcome with wine and forming a subject for mockery,[1209] while
Satyrs steal his weapons[1210] (this subject being probably taken
from a Satyric drama). Or he is represented bathing at a
fountain[1211]; and in one case fishing with Hermes and
Poseidon.[1212] He also takes part in the Gigantomachia,[1213] and is
present at the birth of Athena,[1214] in both cases by a curious
anticipation of his deified character. Exceedingly common are his
appearances with a lyre, as Kitharoidos.[1215]

The last scenes of Herakles’ earthly life are his last sacrifice on
Mount Kenaion,[1216] the wearing of the poisoned robe which led to his
death,[1217] and the subsequent burning of his body on the funeral
pyre. The last scene is occasionally combined with his apotheosis; the
Hyades quench the flames among which his body is consuming, while the
deified hero ascends in the chariot of Athena or Nike to Olympos.[1218]

The vases relating exclusively to his apotheosis fall into two main
classes, which admit of more than one sub-division: (1) his ascent into
heaven in the chariot of Athena or Nike; (2) his reception in Olympos.
The ascent in the chariot of Athena is almost confined to B.F. vases;
on those of the R.F. period it rarely occurs; and on the Italian vases
her place is usually taken by Nike, who is also represented crowning
him with a wreath. On the B.F. vases the “type” is almost invariable
(see Plate XXIX.): Herakles mounts the four-horse chariot in which the
goddess stands ready; on the farther side of it stand various deities,
the commonest being Apollo, Dionysos, and Hebe, with Hermes at the
horses’ heads; more rarely Zeus, Hera, and Artemis are seen.[1219] In
one or two cases Iolaos acts as charioteer, Athena standing at the
side[1220]; or, again, Hebe performs the same office.[1221] On the late
red-figured vases the attendant deities are almost limited to Hermes
and Eros; the chariot is here usually represented as on its way.[1222]


  From _Arch. Zeit._

The first stage of the hero’s introduction into Olympos is his
introduction to Zeus by Athena, a scene common on both B.F. and R.F.
vases (Fig. 127). The attendant deities vary very greatly: Hermes,
Apollo, Hebe, and Artemis are most often seen; also Hera, Poseidon,
Ares, and Dionysos.[1223] Besides these there are numerous scenes in
which he is grouped with various deities, usually Athena and Hermes,
but also Poseidon, Ares, Dionysos, and Hebe, apparently in the
enjoyment of his new life among the welcoming gods[1224]; and to this
group may be added the scenes in which he is crowned by Nike.[1225] The
completion of his bliss is the marriage with Hebe, found on two or
three fine R.F. vases,[1226] with a numerous company of attendant

                  *       *       *       *       *

The adventures of =Theseus=, the peculiarly Attic hero, are portrayed
on vases of all dates; they are rare on the later kinds, but are most
popular on the R.F. vases of the “strong” and “fine” periods, as would
naturally be expected at a time when his cult was coming into special
prominence in Athens (see Vol. I. p. 418). Of his seven labours the
only one commonly found on the B.F. vases is the combat with the
Minotaur, but some of the finest R.F. kylikes give a complete series.
They are given in the order of his progress from his birthplace Troezen
through the Isthmus to Athens. It should be noted that the Cretan
legends, which alone are common on the early vases, are clearly older
than the more purely Attic.

The first subject to be mentioned in connection with the story of
Theseus is that of his father Aigeus consulting the oracle of
Themis.[1227] His finding of Aigeus’ sword and sandals beneath the
stone (cf. Plate LXII.) is not depicted on vases, but we have a
possible representation of his recognition by Aigeus,[1228] and an
unintelligible scene where he pursues or attacks his mother Aithra,
apparently wielding the newly found sword.[1229]

There are only two R.F. kylikes which give the complete series of
adventures, including that in Crete; the Duris kylix in the British
Museum (Vol. I., frontisp.) omits two (the bull and Prokrustes), and
others give a varying number of scenes, omitting sometimes one,
sometimes another. The adventure with Periphetes appears to be confined
to literature. We give the list as follows, with the vases on which
they may be seen[1230]:

(1) The pine-bender Sinis.

   B.F.: Athens 879. R.F.: Reinach, i. 313 (= Naples R.C. 180) and ii.

(2) The sow of Krommyon, sometimes accompanied by a Nymph or old woman,
the personification of the locality.

   Reinach, i. 459; Noel des Vergers, _Étrurie_, pl. 14.

(3) The brigand Skiron (in Megara); this scene is usually to be
identified by the foot-pan and the tortoise.

   Reinach, i. 119.

(4) The wrestling with Kerkyon (at Eleusis).

   Reinach, i. 324.

(5) Prokrustes and his bed (near Athens).

   B.F.: Athens 879. R.F.: B.M. E 441–42; Athens 1166 = _J.H.S._ 1889,
      pl. 1; Millingen-Reinach, 9–10.

(6) The Marathonian bull.

   B.F.: Bibl. Nat. 174. R.F.: B.M. E 442; Naples 2865 = Inghirami,
      _Vasi Fitt._ 54; Millin-Reinach, i. 43: Noel des Vergers,
      _Étrurie_, pl. 35 (in Brussels).

(7) The slaying of the Minotaur.

   A very early representation (about 610 B.C.) on the Polledrara
      hydria in the British Museum (_J.H.S._ xiv. pl. 7: see Chapter

   B.F.: B.M. B 148, B 205; Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119 = _Wiener
      Vorl._ 1889, 2, 2, and 1155 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 7, 2; Berlin
      1698 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 7, 1; Millin-Reinach, ii. 61

   R.F.: B.M. E 441; Helbig, 80 = Reinach, ii. 81 = Baumeister, iii. p.
      1790, fig. 1874.

The complete set of seven is to be found on the following:

   B.M. E 84, where the scenes are duplicated on the exterior and
      interior of the kylix; here the Minotaur forms the central scene
      of the interior.

   _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 1 (kylix by Aeson).

The following are more or less complete:

   B.M. E 48 = Frontispiece, Vol. I. (by Duris; five scenes).

   Louvre G 104 (Euphronios).

   Reinach, i. 528–32.

After the labours on his journey comes the purification of Theseus on
reaching Athens.[1231] To this time may perhaps be referred a scene in
which he receives a palm-branch from Athena.[1232] There is a subject
which cannot be placed in literary tradition, but probably comes in
point of time immediately before or after the labours; this is the
visit to Poseidon and Amphitrite under the sea, whither he is borne by
Triton. It occurs on the beautiful Euphronios kylix in the Louvre (G
104) and elsewhere.[1233]

Next in point of time we have to deal with the story of Theseus’ voyage
to Crete and his marriage with and desertion of Ariadne. It begins with
a scene in which he bids farewell to Aigeus[1234]; then on his arrival
in Crete he slays the Minotaur, as already described. We next see the
meeting with Ariadne,[1235] followed by the nuptial ceremonies; the
latter scene, together with the subsequent arrival at Delos, and a
dance of boys and maidens liberated by Theseus, is vividly depicted on
the François vase. His desertion of the sleeping Ariadne in Naxos and
the appearance of Dionysos as her consoler form the subjects of two
very beautiful R.F. vases[1236]; but the return to Athens and the death
of Aigeus are not depicted.

The reign of Theseus at Athens is signalised by his combats with the
Amazons and Centaurs. In the former story he carries off their leader
Hippolyta as his queen, assisted by his friend Peirithoös[1237]; and in
another version it is Antiope whom he overcomes,[1238] or the subject
is treated in a more general fashion.[1239] This scene is supposed to
take place in Attica; but the story of the Centaurs belongs to
Thessaly, the home of Peirithoös. The Centaurs are represented
interrupting a banquet, throwing everything into confusion, and
carrying off Laodameia and other female victims. It occurs on the
François vase, and is treated in a vivid pictorial fashion on several
vases of a later period.[1240] The episode of the death of Kaineus (see
p. 145) belongs to this group of subjects. To the same period belongs a
vase representing the rape of a girl named Korone by Theseus and his
friend.[1241] In the story as told by Plutarch (_Thes._ 31) it was
Helene[1242] whom Theseus carried off; curiously enough, a figure thus
inscribed is also present on this vase,[1243] as well as Antiope (see
above). The rape (as described by Plutarch) was followed by their
descent into Hades to seize Persephone. For this they were doomed to
punishment, to sit for ever with hands bound behind them[1244]; but in
one version Theseus is allowed to depart after a time, as is seen on
one of the Apulian under-world vases.[1245] A vase signed by Xenotimos
represents Peirithoös seated in a chair holding two spears[1246]; but
its mythological significance is open to question.

Closely linked with the story of Theseus is that of the love of Phaidra
for Hippolytos and the death of the latter, confined to late Italian
vases; but Phaidra has not been certainly identified in any case.[1247]
There is, however, an undoubted representation of the appearance of the
bull which overthrew Hippolytos’ chariot.[1248]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Next in importance as a hero of Greek legend comes =Perseus=, born from
the golden shower in which Zeus visited Danae (see p. 19). We find
representations of the scene so touchingly sung of by Simonides, the
placing of Danae and her child in the wooden chest and sending them
adrift[1249]; and next we find Perseus as a full-grown youth, about to
set forth on his mission of slaying the Gorgon, and receiving from the
Naiads the cap, sandals, and wallet, which were to aid him in his
quest.[1250] On later vases he receives from Athena the sickle
(_harpe_) with which he slays the monster.[1251] On his way he seizes
the eye and tooth of the Graiae, a subject rarely depicted in
art.[1252] The actual slaying of the Gorgon[1253] is not so often
represented as the subsequent flight of Perseus, generally accompanied
by Athena and Hermes[1254]; in one or two instances we see Perseus
approaching his victim unobserved.[1255] Other vases depict the
headless corpse of Medusa, from which springs the young Chrysaor or
Pegasos, and the other two Gorgons, Stheno and Euryale, either pursuing
Perseus or remaining with the corpse[1256]; in one instance they appeal
to Poseidon for help.[1257]

We next see Perseus arriving at the court of Kepheus to deliver
Andromeda[1258]; she is generally represented chained to a column in
the palace itself. On other vases he is depicted in the act of slaying
the monster, but this is a somewhat rare subject.[1259] Finally, we
have the return to Seriphos and the petrifaction of the king Polydektes
by showing him the Gorgon’s head.[1260] Perseus is also represented
showing the head to Satyrs,[1261] or placing it in the wallet
(κίβισις),[1262] or in combat with Maenads[1263]; or, again, he is
accompanied by Athena, who holds the Gorgon’s head while he looks at
the reflection.[1264] Lastly, on some small R.F. vases, a bust of
Perseus is depicted wearing his winged cap.[1265]

                  *       *       *       *       *

The story of =Pelops= is chiefly connected with Olympia, and his visit
to Oinomaos; but the subjects are almost exclusively confined to the
later Apulian vases. On one B.F. (Cyrenaic) kylix Pelops is depicted
with the winged horses given him by Poseidon,[1266] but this is
exceptional. The Olympia scenes include five episodes: (1) the arrival
of Pelops at Olympia[1267]; (2) the sacrifice or compact with
Oinomaos[1268]; (3) the race[1269]; (4) the death of Myrtilos[1270];
(5) the carrying off of Hippodameia.[1271] Pelops also occurs with
Myrtilos and Hippodameia in the under-world.[1272]

                  *       *       *       *       *

The adventures of =Bellerophon= are not so popular as those of other
heroes, especially in the R.F. period. The story told in the sixth
_Iliad_ appears in several scenes, beginning with Bellerophon’s taking
leave of Proitos[1273]; next we see him delivering the letter with its
σήματα λυγρά to Iobates, the king of Lycia,[1274] and then, mounted on
Pegasos, slaying the Chimaera.[1275] Subsequent events represented on
vases are the death of the perfidious Stheneboia, who falls from the
back of Pegasos,[1276] and the marriage of Bellerophon with

                  *       *       *       *       *

Nor need the story of =Meleager= detain us long. Scenes from his life
are practically confined to the Calydonian boar-hunt, a subject popular
at all periods, especially on early vases.[1278] Kastor and Polydeukes,
Peleus, and other heroes, together with Atalante, are represented as
taking part, as well as Meleager. There is also a vase on which
Meleager is represented with the boar’s hide, accompanied by Atalante,
Peitho, and Eros.[1279] Other scenes where a boar-hunt is represented,
but no names given, or only names of a fanciful kind, may or may not be
identified in this way.[1280] There is one vase which appears to
represent the death of Meleager.[1281]

                  *       *       *       *       *

The next of the Greek heroes with whom we have to deal is =Jason=, with
whom we must include the whole cycle of subjects relating to the
Argonautika—such as the stories of Helle, Phineus, and Talos. The
legend of the golden fleece which gave rise to the famous quest of
Jason is first illustrated by scenes representing Helle or Phrixos in
flight on the ram,[1282] or the former grouped with her mother Nephele
and her brother Phrixos,[1283] who accompanied her on her flight. The
pursuit of Phrixos and the ram by Ino is also represented.[1284]
Lastly, there is a vase which may represent the setting out of

In the earlier history of the Argonautic expedition the most
interesting subject found on the vases is the story of Phineus, who had
been blinded for impiety by Boreas,[1286] and was subsequently deprived
of his food by the Harpies until he was delivered by the sons of
Boreas, Zetes, and Kalais.[1287] Another event is the chastisement of
Amykos by Kastor and Polydeukes,[1288] and a fine vase of “Polygnotan”
style in the Louvre represents a group of Argonauts apparently without
any special signification.[1289] In all these scenes Kastor and
Polydeukes and the Boreades are present together with Jason. There is
also a scene which has been interpreted as belonging to the
Argonautika: Herakles is represented sacrificing to a statue of Chryse
on the island of Lemnos.[1290]

Then we have the arrival of Jason and his companions in Kolchis,[1291]
and the subsequent feats performed by the hero—his slaying the
dragon[1292] (in one version he enters into its mouth[1293]), his
contest with the bull,[1294] and finally the capture of the
fleece,[1295] which he is also represented as bringing to Pelias on his
return.[1296] The only important event relating to the homeward journey
is the death of Talos.[1297]

Among the events of his later life are the boiling of the ram by
Medeia,[1298] and the subsequent destruction of the aged Pelias[1299];
the renewal of Jason’s own youth[1300]; the death of his wife Glauke by
Medeia’s agency[1301]; and the latter’s slaughter of her
children,[1302] with her pursuit by Jason.[1303] Medeia also appears in
another connection at Theseus’ leave-taking of his father Aigeus,[1304]
and among the Athenian tribal heroes on the vase by Meidias.[1305]
Though not necessarily connected with Jason, the funeral games held
after the death of Pelias[1306] must also find mention here. Scenes
therefrom are represented on more than one vase—such as the
chariot-race conducted by Kastor and others in the presence of three
judges (Pheres, Akastos, and Argeos), and the wrestling of Peleus and
Hippalkimos.[1307] On another Zetes is victorious over Kalais in the

                           THE THEBAN LEGEND

The “tale of Thebes” falls into various episodes, more or less
connected, especially those which relate to the story of Oedipus and
his line.[1309] Conspicuous as founder of the city is the Phoenician
_Kadmos_, whose encounter with the dragon is depicted on vases of
various periods. On some he receives from Athena the stone with which
he is to slay the monster[1310]; on others he is seen approaching the
fountain of Ares, where he was to meet it[1311]; and, lastly, we have
the actual slaying of the dragon,[1312] sometimes in the presence of
Harmonia and various deities and personified figures, including Thebes.
After the slaying of the dragon Kadmos sacrifices to Athena Onka.[1313]
The completion of the story is seen in his marriage with
Harmonia.[1314] A rarer subject is the punishment of Dirke by her
brothers Amphion and Zethos, who tied her to a wild bull[1315]; while a
later episode of the story is the pursuit of her sister Antiope by her
lover Phokos.[1316]

The story of the Oidipodia is introduced by the subject of Laios (the
father) carrying off the young Chrysippos.[1317] Then we have the
exposure of the infant Oedipus and his discovery by the shepherd
Euphorbos.[1318] Of later events in the life of _Oedipus_, the only one
that attained to any popularity is the slaying of the Sphinx. The
actual deed only occurs once,[1319] and the usual “type” is that of
Oedipus (usually a young man) standing before the Sphinx, which is
seated on a rock or column.[1320] It is not always to be identified
with certainty.[1321] In one instance Oedipus is represented with
Teiresias[1322]; in another with persons named Sikon and Kalliope—a
subject hitherto unexplained.[1323] We need only make passing reference
here to a vase supposed to represent the tomb of Oedipus, inscribed
with a couplet of verses, at which stand two youths.[1324]

Before continuing the story of the house of Oedipus, we must digress to
that of _Amphiaraos_, the warrior-seer, whose departure from his wife
Eriphyle to the Theban War is a favourite subject on vases.[1325] It
becomes, in fact, a “type” adopted in ordinary scenes.[1326] We also
find on the reverse of one of the vases with this subject the departure
of another warrior, perhaps intended for the hero’s son Alkmaion, or
for Adrastos.[1327] On an early vase Amphiaraos is seen bringing home
Eriphyle in his chariot. The names of his horses, Thoas and Dion, are
given.[1328] A curious subject is that of the hero in the bosom of his
family, with his wife Eriphyle suckling her son Alkmaion, and a maiden
spinning.[1329] His death is represented on one B.F. vase[1330]; on
another his slaying of Eriphyle.[1331] Another event is the death of
the child Archemoros, caused by a serpent.[1332] A fine late vase in
Naples depicts the _prothesis_ or laying out of his body by his mother
Eurydike and others.[1333] The subsequent fight of Tydeus and
Lykourgos, interrupted by Adrastos, also occurs,[1334] and the
reception of the fugitive Tydeus by Adrastos.[1335] Tydeus appears once
more as the slayer of Ismene[1336]; but according to another version
she and her sister Antigone are attacked by Laodamas when the Epigoni
return to Thebes many years later.[1337] We can only point to one
possible representation of the combat of Eteokles and Polyneikes on
vases,[1338] though it is common enough, _e.g._ in Etruscan art; but
there is at least one representation of Antigone being brought before
Kreon after the burial of her brother,[1339] which also forms a
burlesque subject on the comic stage.[1340]

                            THE TROJAN CYCLE

We now come to the story of the Trojan War, linked with which are the
events which led up to it and those which immediately followed upon
it—such as the Judgment of Paris on the one hand, and the stories of
Odysseus and Orestes on the other. These events are so numerous that
they require careful classification. They may be divided into three
main sections: (1) Ante-Homerica, including the events that led to the
war and those that took place during the first nine years of it; (2)
Homerica, or the events of the _Iliad_; (3) Post-Homerica, or the
stories of the death of Achilles, the fall of Troy, the _Odyssey_ and
other Νοστοί, and the Oresteia. The literary authorities for these
events, on the lines of which our classification follows, are discussed
elsewhere (p. 4 ff.).

In spite of the warning of Horace that in writing of the story of Troy
it is not necessary to begin _ab ovo_, it is impossible here to avoid
reference to the earliest event which bears at all on the
subject—namely, the birth of Helen from the egg, which was the result
of Zeus’ _amour_ with Nemesis. The subject is referred to on several
vases, the moment chosen being that when the egg is found by
Leda.[1341] Her husband Tyndareus and her other offspring,
Klytaemnestra and the Twin Brethren, are usually present. There is one
undoubted instance of the nuptials of Helen and Menelaos.[1342]

The first event, however, which can be regarded as having a direct
effect on the outbreak of the war is the marriage of Peleus and Thetis,
at which the apple of discord was flung by Eris among the goddesses,
and which brought about the birth of the hero of the war, Achilles. In
ancient art, especially on vases,[1343] Peleus is depicted forcibly
capturing Thetis from the company of her sister Nereids, while she
tries to elude him by assuming various shapes, all conventionally
indicated in the vase-paintings. Some vases represent the approach of
Peleus and his pursuit of Thetis,[1344] the majority the actual
struggle (Fig. 128),[1345] and one or two the announcement of the issue
to Nereus and the company of Nereids (who are named).[1346]

The next stage is the introduction of Thetis to the Centaur Cheiron by
Peleus.[1347] Then we have the celebration of their nuptials, with the
assembling of the gods, as described by Catullus, and vividly, if
quaintly, depicted on the François vase,[1348] followed in due course
by Peleus bringing the young Achilles to be educated by Cheiron,[1349]
and his subsequent sojourn in Skyros.[1350] There is one possible
representation of the seething of Achilles in the caldron to secure his

                  *       *       *       *       *


The next event is the =Judgment of Paris=, perhaps of all the scenes
from the story of the Trojan War the most popular with the
vase-painters of all periods. The story of the forsaken Oenone, in the
telling of which Tennyson has familiarised us with the scene of the
Judgment, did not appeal to the unromantic Greeks in the same way. We
only find one vase on which she is possibly represented.[1352]
Curiously enough, the vase-paintings seldom show the central act of the
story—the award of the golden apple. In fact, in the earlier examples
Paris is omitted altogether, and we only see the three goddesses led in
procession by Hermes. One vase, again, represents the preparations of
the goddesses for the trial, Athena washing at a fountain and Aphrodite
performing her toilet with the assistance of Eros.[1353] The rest may
be classified as follows (the order adopted showing a rough
chronological development of the type[1354]):


  From _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_

    (1) Hermes leads the three goddesses, Athena alone being
      characterised; Paris absent. Only on B.F. vases.[1355]

    (2) Procession-type preserved, but Paris is present, standing. Type
      modified on R.F. vases.[1356]

    (3) Procession-type; Paris seated; landscape introduced (see Fig.

    (4) Procession-type abandoned; goddesses picturesquely grouped,
      with attendant figures. Only on R.F. and later vases.[1358] In
      one instance two stages seem to be represented: first, the
      goddesses grouped for the Judgment, accompanied by Apollo,
      Helios, and Selene; secondly, the victorious Aphrodite crowned by

Parodied renderings of the subject also occur.[1360]

The reward of Paris for his judgment was, as we know, “the fairest wife
in Greece.” Accordingly we next find him arrived at Sparta and carrying
off the fair Helen as his bride. The vases (all of the R.F. and late
periods) depict him on his arrival at Menelaos’ palace introduced to
Helen,[1361] or else we see Helen at her toilet making preparations for
her new consort[1362]; next, Paris leads away Helen or carries her off
in his chariot,[1363] and finally introduces her to his father Priam on
his return home.[1364]

The war having now broken out, we are introduced to the two chief
heroes on the Greek side, Achilles and Ajax, as they bid farewell to
their family and friends and set out in full equipment. Achilles,
accompanied by Patroklos, Menoitios, and other heroes, bids farewell to
his parents Peleus and Thetis[1365]; he also pays a farewell visit to
his grandfather Nereus, who presents him with a crown,[1366] and
receives a valedictory libation from a Nereid.[1367] Again, we see
Achilles and Patroklos taking leave of Nestor, accompanied by
Antilochos.[1368] Ajax is represented taking leave of Lykos,[1369] and
also of his father Telamon[1370]; but as in one of the latter cases the
names are wrongly applied on the vase, it may only represent an
idealised departure of an ordinary warrior. There is also a vase which
represents Nestor arming (putting on a greave) in presence of

We next find the warriors gathered in Aulis, waiting for the favouring
breeze, and whiling away the time (as Euripides describes[1372]) in the
game of πεσσοί or draughts, which is played by Ajax and Achilles (names
usually given) seated at a raised board in full armour, with the statue
of Athena behind them.[1373] There is another variety of the type, in
which the presence of Athena seems to have more meaning. Here the two
heroes cast lots with dice before the statue, and there may be some
reference to the dispute of Ajax and Odysseus for the arms of Achilles,
which was settled by Athena.[1374] The story of the sacrifice of
Iphigeneia, though popular with poets and painters, for some reason
never found its way on to the vases until the influence of great
pictures and plays was beginning to make itself felt; and then only
appears in one instance, where the transformation into a deer is
indicated.[1375] The only other incident of the voyage which concerns
us is the halt at Lemnos and the sacrifice to the local goddess Chryse,
where Philoktetes is bitten by the serpent and has to be left behind on
account of his wound.[1376] This island was also the scene of the
carrying off by Achilles of Chryseis, the daughter of Chryses, the
priest of the local goddess, of which there is one possible

Two doubtful references to opening scenes of the war are to be found in
a supposed consultation of Zeus with Themis among the Olympian
deities,[1378] and a representation of the Greeks formally demanding
back Helen,[1379] a demand which of course was not granted. The story
of Telephos also belongs to an early stage, and three incidents
therefrom are found. In one case he is represented as wounded by the
spear of Achilles[1380]; again, entering the Greek camp disguised as a
beggar, in order to apply to Agamemnon for aid[1381]; and, lastly, he
is seen seizing the infant Orestes, whom he threatens to destroy if his
request is not granted.[1382] A R.F. kylix in Boston represents in the
interior Odysseus persuading Achilles to heal Telephos’ wound; on the
exterior the wounded hero comes, not to Agamemnon’s tent, but to his
palace at Mycenae.[1383]

At a much later stage of the war comes the incident of Troilos, a
subject which attained to great popularity, especially with the B.F.
vase-painters. It falls into five distinct scenes: (1) the departure of
Troilos, with his two horses[1384]; (2) the ambuscade of Achilles
behind the fountain to which Polyxena comes to draw water[1385]; (3)
the flight of Troilos and Polyxena, and pursuit by Achilles[1386]; (4)
the death of Troilos[1387]; and (5) the fight over his body.[1388] Of
these, the ambuscade and the pursuit are the most commonly represented.

A few incidents which are not to be traced in literature probably
belong to the Ante-Homeric period. They are (1) Achilles bandaging the
wounded Patroklos, on the well-known Sosias cup[1389]; (2) the wounded
Achilles tended by Patroklos and Briseis[1390]; (3) a combat of Hector
and Achilles attended by Sarpedon and Phoinix (in one case Phoinix
interrupts)[1391]; (4) a general combat of Greeks and Trojans.[1392]

It will be most convenient to deal with the various scenes which can be
traced to the Homeric poems (or to co-ordinate traditions) in tabular
form, noting where possible the actual passages which they appear to
illustrate. But it must be borne in mind that the vase-painter was
never an illustrator; he rather looked to literature for suggestions,
which he worked out on his own lines, and consequently coincidences
with or divergencies from the Homeric text must not be too closely
insisted upon.

Book I. 187 ff. The dispute of Agamemnon and Achilles.

    Possibly to be identified in such scenes as on B.M. B 327, 397, and
      E 13; but very doubtful: see below, p. 133, and Robert, _Bild u.
      Lied_, p. 213.

      320 ff. Agamemnon and Briseis.

    Reinach, i. 148 = Baumeister, i. p. 721, fig. 776 (Hieron in
      Louvre); and see B.M. E 76. Achilles and Briseïs are found
      grouped together on two R.F. vases, but without any particular
      allusion: see B.M. E 258 and Helbig, 84 = _J.H.S._ i. pl. 6 =
      Reinach, ii. 91.

      430 ff. Chryses propitiating Apollo.

    Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Iliad_, iii. 12.

Book II. 50 ff. Agamemnon in council.

    B.M. B 149.

      212 ff. Thersites insulting Agamemnon.

    B.M. E 196.

Book III. 259 ff. Priam setting out in his chariot.

    _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pl. 10.

      340 ff. Combat of Menelaos and Paris.

    B.M. E 20; Duris kylix in Louvre (_Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 =
      Engelmann-Anderson, vi. 23).

Book V. 95–296. Combat of Diomedes and Pandaros (a reminiscence of).

    Berlin 764 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 7, fig. 15; and see _Hermes_,
      1901, p. 388; actually here Diomedes and Aeneas fight over the
      body of Pandaros.

      312 ff. Combat of Diomedes and Aeneas, the latter protected by

    B.M. E 73; Tyszkiewicz Coll. pl. 18 (very fine R.F. vase, now in
      Boston); Reinach, i. 120 = ii. 97 (B.F.).

Book VI. 215 ff. Diomedes and Glaukos exchanging arms.

    Stackelberg, pl. 11, 1.

      258 ff. (1) Hector arming.

    Munich 378 = Reinach, ii. 94 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 14.

          (2) Hector bidding farewell to Priam and Hecuba.

    Helbig, 134 = Reinach, ii. 94 = Engelmann-Anderson, iii. 38.

          (3) Hector bidding farewell to Andromache and Astyanax.[1393]

    _J.H.S._ ix. pl. 3 = B.M. E 282; Reinach, ii. 255 = Bibl. Nat. 207.

          (4) Departure of Hector.

    B.M. B 76, B 235 (?); Louvre E 638 (= Reinach, i. 243), E 642;
      Reinach, ii. 160; _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), p. 260.

      321 ff. Hector conducting Paris to battle.

    Bibl. Nat. 207 = Reinach, ii. 255.

Book VII. 162 ff. Combat of Ajax and Hector.

    Munich 53; Helbig, 6 = Reinach, i. 104 (see under xiv. 402 ff.);
      Baumeister, i. pl. 13, figs. 779–80; B.M. E 438 (Smikros); and
      see Duris kylix in Louvre (_Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 =
      Engelmann-Anderson, vii. 42).

Book VIII. 89 ff. Combat of Hector and Diomedes.

    Reinach, ii. 96.

      261 ff. Teukros and Ajax son of Telamon.

    Robert, in _Hermes_, 1901, p. 390, mentions a fragment of a
      Corinthian pinax in Berlin with these two figures, which may
      either belong to the above passage, or to xii. 370 ff., or to xv.
      415 ff.

      397 ff. Iris interrupting Athena (see pp. 39, 77).

    Reinach, ii. 296.

Book IX. Achilles lying sick (apparently a _contaminatio_ or confusion
      of ix. 168 ff. and xviii. 35 ff.).[1394]

    _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 1.

      173 ff. Embassy of Odysseus and Phoinix to Achilles (R.F. vases

    B.M. E 56 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 3, 3; Berlin 2176 (= Reinach, i.
      282), 2326 (= Reinach, i. 431 = Roscher, iii. 658);
      Millin-Reinach, i. 14; Reinach, i. 148 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 6
      (Hieron) and 149.

Book X. 330–461. Episode of Dolon; his capture by Odysseus.

    Oxford 226; Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, v. (1890), p. 143; Bibl. Nat.
      526 = Reinach, i. 89 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 5 (Euphronios); Reinach,
      i. 334 = Petersburg 879; B.M. F 157 = Fig. 130. Dolon as single
      figure: Reinach, i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1.

      469–525. Rhesos and his horses.

    B.M. B 234–35; Naples 2910 = Baumeister, i. p. 728, fig. 782
      (Odysseus and Diomedes with the horses); _Wiener Vorl._ C. 3, 2.

      566 ff. The horses of Rhesos brought to the tent of Diomedes.

    Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, v. (1890), p. 146 (a slave waters the
      horses; another brings drink to Diomedes).

Book XI. The fight at the ships.

    Munich 890 = Reinach, ii. 99 = Baumeister, i. p. 729, fig. 783.

Book XIV. Combat of Ajax and Aeneas (? l. 402 ff.).

    Reinach, i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1; _id._ i. 104 = Helbig, No.
      6 (? see above, under vii. 162 ff.).


Book XVI. 666 ff. Sarpedon carried off by Hypnos and Thanatos.

    See Louvre F 388; but this scene is hardly to be distinguished from
      those with Memnon (see below, p. 132).

Book XVII. 60 ff. Combat of Menelaos and Euphorbos, and fight over his

    B.M. A 749 = Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig. 784[1395]; and see E 20.

      123 ff. Combat over body of Patroklos.

    Exekias kylix (Munich 339 = Reinach, ii. 36); Reinach, ii. 95;
      Millin-Reinach, i. 49; Berlin 2264 (Oltos and Euxitheos) =
      _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 1 = Engelmann-Anderson, xiv. 76.

Book XVIII. 367 ff. (1) Thetis in the smithy of Hephaistos.

    Berlin 2294 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 18, 6.

          (2) Hephaistos polishing Achilles’ shield.

    _Röm. Mitth._ ii. (1887), p. 242.

Book XIX. 1–18. Thetis and the Nereids bringing the armour to Achilles.

    (_a_) Riding on sea-monsters over the waves (all late vases).

    B.M. F 69; Jatta 1496 = Reinach, i. 112; Roscher, iii. 221–24; and
      see Heydemann, _Nereiden mit Waffen_.

    (_b_) Presenting the weapons to Achilles.

    B.M. E 363; Millin-Reinach, i. 14.

    364 ff. Achilles arming.

    Athens 671 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 6; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ xviii.
      4, 7; vase by Amasis at Boston (_Report_ for 1901, No. 5).

Book XXI. 114 ff. Combat of Achilles and Lykaon.

    B.M. F 173.

Book XXII. 188 ff. Achilles pursuing Hector round the walls of Troy.

    Reinach, ii. 102 (now in Boston: see _Museum Report_ for 1898, No.

      209 ff. Zeus weighing the heroes’ souls in his scales.[1396]

    B.M. B 639; Bibl. Nat. 385 = Reinach, i. 89; Millin-Reinach, i. 19
      = Baumeister, ii. p. 921, fig. 994.

      306 ff. Death of Hector.

    B.M. E 468; Munich 421; Reinach, ii. 101 = Helbig, 106; _Boston
      Mus. Report_ for 1899, p. 79, No. 31 (parody). Cf. Millingen,
      _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 4 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Odyss._ iii. 15.

      437 ff. Andromache suckling Astyanax (_compare only_).

    B.M. E 509.

Book XXIII. 157 ff. Funeral games for Patroklos.

    François vase (chariot-race, etc.).

    175 ff. Sacrifice of Trojan captives on the pyre of Patroklos.

    Naples 3254 = Reinach, i. 187.

Book XXIV. 16 ff. Achilles dragging Hector’s body past the
                       tomb of Patroklos.

    B.M. B 543 and _Forman Sale Cat._ 306 = Reinach, ii. 100 (now in
      B.M.)[1397]; Berlin 1867 = Reinach, ii. 99; Naples 2746.

      141 ff. Achilles offering his hair to the river Spercheios.

    B.M. E 555 (?).

      448 ff. Priam begging Achilles for the body of Hector; the
      Achaean princes deliberating over the ransom.

    Munich 404 (= Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 20, 3), and 890 (=
      Reinach, ii. 99); Petersburg 422 = Reinach, i. 138 = Baumeister,
      i. p. 739, fig. 792; Reinach, i. 172 = Vienna 328; Athens 889 =
      _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 4 (B.F., but poor).

      580 ff. Hector’s body carried out to prepare for burial.

    Petersburg 422 (as above).

Among the events of the war between the death of Hector and the final
fall of Troy, those which relate to the final exploits of Achilles are
most prominent, and especially the encounters with Memnon, and with
Penthesileia, his death and the events arising out of it. The story of
Achilles’ fight with Penthesileia, and the death of the Amazon queen,
is less frequently depicted, but there are some very fine examples
remaining.[1398] Other representations of Amazons arming, setting out,
or in combat may be placed here, but except where Penthesileia is
specially indicated it is better to regard them as having no definite
reference to the Trojan story.[1399] A remarkable painting on an
Apulian amphora depicts the slaying of Thersites by Achilles in the
presence of Phoinix and Diomedes. Thersites had insulted Achilles after
his slaying of Penthesileia.[1400]

The story of Memnon is related on the vases in several scenes,
beginning with his equipment and departure for the fray.[1401] Next we
see the great fight of Achilles and Memnon over the body of
Antilochos,[1402] at which the respective mothers of the heroes, Thetis
and Eos, are usually present as spectators.[1403] The result of the
fight was fatal to Memnon, whose body we see carried off by Thanatos
and Hypnos,[1404] or by Eos herself,[1405] for burial in his native
land. Eos is also represented mourning over him.[1406] The
Psychostasia, or weighing of souls by Zeus (see p. 130), has also been
referred to this event. The body of Antilochos is finally rescued and
carried off by Nestor.[1407]

Lastly, we find a few possible representations of the death of
Achilles,[1408] and others, more certainly to be identified, of the
battle raging round his body, in which Diomedes is wounded[1409]; also
of Ajax carrying the body off out of the battle,[1410] and the
subsequent mourning of the Nereids over it.[1411] A representation of
the ghost of a warrior, winged and fully armed, flying over a
ship,[1412] is to be regarded as that of Achilles, though to what event
it alludes is not clear. The dispute over the hero’s armour and the
suicide of the disappointed Ajax are introduced by a scene representing
the fetching of Neoptolemos, his son, from Skyros, where he bids
farewell to Lykomedes and Deidameia[1413]; of the quarrel between Ajax
and Odysseus there are also several representations.[1414] It was
decided finally by Athena, who is represented presiding over the Greek
chiefs as they vote[1415]; or, according to another version, they cast
lots before her statue.[1416] The armour is then awarded to
Neoptolemos,[1417] who, according to an oracle, was indispensable for
the capture of Troy. Ajax goes mad with disappointment, and finally
commits suicide by falling on his sword[1418]; the episode of his
slaying the sheep is not, however, represented.

The Ἰλίου Πέρσις, or =sack of Troy=, which is so vividly represented on
many of the vases of advanced and late style, may be said to begin with
the episode of the seizure of the Palladion by Odysseus and
Diomede.[1419] It is rapidly followed by the construction of the wooden
horse and its entry into the city.[1420] There is, however, only one
certain representation of the death of Laokoön to be traced,[1421] and
none of the traitorous Sinon.

Several vases, especially of the later epoch, collect the chief
episodes in a frieze or in a series of groups, including the rape of
Kassandra by Ajax, son of Oileus, the death of Priam and Astyanax, the
recapture of Helen by Menelaos, and the flight of Aeneas; other scenes
represented are the leading back of Aithra by Akamas and Demophon, and
the sacrifice of Polyxena and subsequent blinding of Polymestor by

I. General.

  Berlin 1685 (= Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 26, 1) and 2281; Plate
    LIV. = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 25 (Brygos in Louvre);
    Naples 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 34 = Baumeister, i.
    pl. 14, fig. 795; B.M. F 160, F 278.

II. (_a_) Ajax seizing Kassandra at the altar of Athena.

  B.F. B.M. B 242, 379; Berlin 1698; Roscher, ii. p. 979.

  R.F. B.M. E 336, E 470; Reinach, i. 221, 338 = Roscher, ii. pp. 985,
    981; _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 33.

  Late. B.M. F 209; Roscher, ii. p. 983.

(_b_) Death of Priam and Astyanax.[1422]

    (1) Priam only.

  B.M. B 241; _Röm. Mitth._ iii. (1888), pp. 108–9; Reinach, ii. 109;
    Berlin 3996. [Priam dead in all except second.]

    (2) Priam usually seated on altar; Neoptolemos swings body or head
      of Astyanax.

  B.M. B 205; Berlin 2175, 3988; Reinach, i. 221, ii. 109; _J.H.S._
    xiv. pl. 9. [See also under I.]

    (3) Andromache or Hecuba with body of Astyanax.

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos in Louvre; also identified as
    Archemoros: see p. 118).

(_c_) Menelaos and Helen.

  B.M. E 161, 263; Reinach, i. 437, 3 (Hieron), ii. 34; Helbig, 43 (=
    _Mus. Greg._ ii. 49, 2), and ii. p. 325 (= Baumeister, i. p. 746,
    fig. 798); Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 32; Louvre G 3
    (Pamphaios); Reinach, i. 222 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 8, 1; Noel des
    Vergers, _Étrurie_, iii. pl. 39.

(_d_) Akamas and Demophon with Aithra.

  B.M. B 244 (?), E 458; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 26, 13.

(_e_) Flight of Aeneas with family.

  B.M. B 173, B 280; Reinach, ii. 110 (= Munich 903), 116, 273;
    Baumeister, i. p. 31, fig. 32; Helbig, 201 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 85,
    2; Naples 2481; Bibl. Nat. 261; Louvre F 122 = _Wiener Vorl._
    1890–91, pl. 5, 1.

(_f_) Sacrifice of Polyxena.

  Plate XXIII. = _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 15 (B.M.); Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._
    pl. 27, 19.

(_g_) Polymestor blinded.

  Reinach, i. 91 = Hill, _Illustrations of School Classics_, p. 170
    (now in B.M.).

(_h_) Ajax stabbing a captive (?).

  Reinach, i. 88.


                                                               PLATE LIV


  From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.



Among the various adventures described by the Cyclic poets in the
Νοστοί, few seem to have found their way into the vase-paintings except
the fate of Agamemnon, the interview of Menelaos with Proteus (told in
the _Odyssey_), and, of course, the adventures of Odysseus.

The house of Atreus and its story will be dealt with later under the
heading of the Oresteia: we turn now to the =Odyssey=, scenes from
which are surprisingly few in Greek art, and appear to have attracted
the painter less than the more stirring events of the _Iliad_. The
following, however, have been identified:

Book II. 94 ff. Penelope at her loom.

    Reinach, i. 191.

Book III. 12 ff. Arrival of Telemachos at Nestor’s house in Pylos.

    Berlin 3289 = Roscher, iii. 298 = Engelmann-Anderson, iii. 13.

Book IV. 349 ff. The story of Menelaos’ interview with Proteus.

    Naples 1767 = _Mus. Borb._ xiii. 58 = Engelmann-Anderson, iv. 22.

Book V. 228 ff. Odysseus navigating the sea on a raft.

    Oxford 262, _Cat._ pl. 26 (burlesque). See also B.M. E 156
      (Odysseus and Leukothea).

Book VI. 126 ff. Nausikaa washing clothes.

    Munich 420 = Reinach, ii. 110 = Roscher, _s.v._

            Alkinoös and Nausikaa (parody).

      Reinach, i. 153.

Book IX. 345 ff. Odysseus offering wine to Polyphemos.

    _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 60.

          371 ff. Odysseus putting out the eye of Polyphemos.

    Plate XVI. = Helbig, i. p. 435, No. 641 (Aristonoös); Bibl. Nat.
      190 = Reinach, i. 64; B.M. B 154; Louvre F 342 = _Gaz. Arch._
      1887, pl. 1; Berlin 2123; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 35;
      _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 6: see Bolte, _Monum. ad Odyss. pert._ p. 2.

          420 ff. Odysseus escaping under the ram.

    B.M. B 407, 502, 687; Karlsruhe 167 = _J.H.S._ iv. p. 249; Louvre A
      482; Reinach, i. 64: see also _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8 (a very
      early instance); generally, _J.H.S._ iv. p. 248 ff., and _Rev.
      Arch._ xxxi. (1897), p. 28 ff.

Book X. 210 ff. Odysseus and Kirke (see _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 82).

      (_a_) Arrival of Odysseus.

    Reinach, i. 142 = Roscher, ii. 1195.

      (_b_) Transformations of comrades.

    Reinach i. 396; Berlin 2342 = _ibid._ i. 418; _Boston Mus. Report_,
      1899, pp. 59, 61 (both early B.F.).

      (_c_) Odysseus and Kirke.

    _J.H.S._ xiii. pls. 2 (Athens 956), 4 (in B.M.), p. 81 (Oxford
      262); and see Reinach, i. 142.

Book XI. 23 ff. Odysseus sacrificing before his visit to Hades.

    Bibl. Nat. 422 = Reinach, i. 126 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1040, fig.

Book XII. 164–200. Odysseus passing the Sirens.

    Athens 958 = _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 1; B.M. E 440; and see _J.H.S._ vi.
      pl. 49, p. 20 (= Louvre F 123); Corinthian aryballos in Boston
      (_Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31).

Scenes from the last twelve books are even rarer:

Book XVIII. 35 ff. Odysseus and Iros.

    Reinach, ii. 357.

Book XIX. 385 ff. Odysseus recognised by Eurykleia.

    Reinach, i. 191.

          394 ff. The story of Autolykos.

    In connection herewith see Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 277 for a
      possible representation of the betrothal of Laertes and Antikleia
      (_Hermes_, 1898, p. 641; Robert, _Homer_. _Becher_, p. 90 ff.;
      Hyginus, _Fab._ 201).

Book XXI. 393—XXII. 5 ff. The slaying of the suitors.

    Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217.

The scenes from the =Oresteia= cover roughly the same ground as the
great trilogy of Aeschylos, together with the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_
and the _Andromache_ of Euripides. We have first the murder of
Agamemnon by Klytaemnestra with her axe.[1423] Next, Elektra making her
offerings at the tomb of Agamemnon, sometimes accompanied by her sister
Chrysothemis.[1424] It must be borne in mind that the “type” of this
scene does not differ in any respect from ordinary scenes of “offering
at a _stele_,” and therefore, where the names are not given or are
obviously modern additions, this interpretation is at best a doubtful
one. The same applies to the next series of vases, on which Orestes
meets Elektra at the tomb[1425]; but there seems to be one undoubted
instance of Orestes and Pylades with the urn containing the supposed
ashes of the former (cf. Soph. _Electra_, 1098 ff.).[1426] The next
group to be dealt with shows us Orestes slaying Aegisthos,[1427] while
Klytaemnestra is held back by Talthybios[1428]; and, finally, the death
of Klytaemnestra herself.[1429]

Orestes is then pursued by the Furies,[1430] and seeks refuge at
Delphi, where he is purified by Apollo at the Omphalos[1431]; and he is
also seen at Athens, where he afterwards sought the protection of
Athena.[1432] Other vases, nearly all of late date, and therefore under
the influence of the Euripidean tragedy, represent Orestes accompanied
by Pylades, arrived at the temple of the Tauric Artemis, where
Iphigeneia presents Pylades with the letter.[1433] Lastly, we have the
death of Neoptolemos at the hand of Orestes at Delphi.[1434]

                             ATTIC LEGENDS

It will now be necessary to deal with sundry isolated subjects, which
do not admit of being grouped together round the name of any one great
hero or any particular legend. There are, however, a certain number
which may perhaps be regarded as having a special connection with
Athens, and with these we will begin.[1435] Some of the specially
Athenian myths have already been discussed in other connections,
notably the story of Theseus (p. 108), the dispute of Athena and
Poseidon (p. 24), the sending of Triptolemos (p. 27), and the rape of
Kephalos by Eos[1436] and of Oreithyia by Boreas (p. 80). There remain
then the following:

  (1) The birth of Erichthonios, who is represented as received by
  Athena from Gaia emerging out of the earth, in the presence of
  Kekrops and his daughters. It only occurs on the later R.F. vases;
  the type closely resembles that of the birth of Dionysos (p. 19).

      B.M. E 372; Berlin 2537 = Reinach, i. 208 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 12;
        Munich 345 = Reinach, i. 66; and Reinach, i. 113 = _Wiener
        Vorl._ iii. 2. Also a scene from the childhood of Erichthonios:
        B.M. E 788.

  (2) The reception of Dionysos in Attica (by Ikarios or Amphiktion).

      B 149, B 153, and E 166 in the British Museum appear to refer to
        this, but not certainly. See above, p. 56.

  (3) The story of Tereus and his daughters, Prokne and Philomela.[1437]

      (_a_) Tereus meeting Apate (Deceit); Prokne and Philomela in

        Naples 3233 = Reinach, i. 240.

      (_b_) Prokne and the dumb Philomela:

        Reinach, i. 308 (in Louvre).

      (_c_) Aedonaia slaying Itys.

        _J.H.S._ viii. p. 440 (= Munich 799_a_).

  (4) The three sons of Pandion, Lykos, Nisos, and Pallas,[1438] with
  Orneus the son of Erechtheus.

      Reinach, i. 510 = Roscher, ii. 2187.

  (5) The death of Prokris by the agency of Kephalos.

      B.M. E 477 (with Siren as soul of Prokris or death-deity).

  (6) Kreousa defended by Apollo from the attack of Ion.

      Reinach, i. 375: cf. Eur. _Ion._ 1250 ff.

  (7) Danaos taking refuge in Attica (?).

      Reinach, i. 244 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 4, 2 (in Louvre).

  (8) Echelos carrying off Basile.[1439]

      _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 39: see p. 27.

  (9) The story of Diomos, the eponymous deme-hero (?).

      B.M. B 178 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 116.

  (10) Kodros, the last king of Athens.

      Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1998, fig. 2148 = _Jahrbuch_,
        1898, pl. 4.

The Kodros cup (completely published in _Wiener Vorl._ i. 4) is
decorated with groups of figures intended to illustrate the legendary
history of the great Attic families, in accordance with the
genealogising tendencies of the period (about 450 B.C.). The outer
scenes represent Theseus taking leave of Aigeus, and Ajax taking leave
of Lykos; and Aigeus and Ajax (Aias) are eponymous heroes of two Attic
tribes. On the Meidias vase in the British Museum[1440] we see a group
of Athenian tribal heroes, such as Akamas, Antiochos, Demophon, and
Hippothon, together with Medeia, who is also connected with Athens in
the Theseus scene of the Kodros cup.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Other isolated myths which occasionally appear on vases, but defy more
exact classification, may be briefly recorded here:

  (1) Admetos and Alkestis.

      Bibl. Nat. 918 = Reinach, i. 395 = Dennis, _Etruria_^2, ii.
        frontispiece. See also p. 69.

  (2) Agamedes and Trophonios as prisoners fed by Augias.

      Louvre E 632 = Reinach, i. 349 (see Paus. ix. 37, 5; _Ann. dell’
        Inst._ 1885, p. 130).

  (3) Agrios seized by Oineus and bound on the altar.

      B.M. F 155: see Anton. Liber. 37 and Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._
        p. 125.

  (4) Atalante offering a cup to her antagonist Hippomenes.

      R.F. kotyle in B.M.

  (5) Atreus and Thyestes (the latter as suppliant in the former’s

      Millingen-Reinach, 23 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 1.

  (6) Daidalos and Ikaros, flight of.

      Naples 1767 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1884, pls. 1–2.

  (7) Glaukos in the tomb brought to life by the seer Polyeidos.

      B.M. D 5 = Plate XL.: see Apollod. iii. 3, 1.

  (8) Kanake’s suicide.

      Reinach, i. 448.

  (9) Laios, Keleos, Kerberos, and Aigolios stung by bees when stealing
  the honey on which the infant Zeus was fed.

      B.M. B 177: cf. Anton. Liber. 19 and Roscher, i. p. 154.

  (10) Lykourgos destroying his children in a frenzy.

      B.M. F 271; Naples 3219 = Reinach, i. 125, and 3237 = Baumeister,
        ii. pp. 834–35. See also Reinach, i. 333: Lykourgos slaying
        Thoas; and p. 56.

  (11) Melampus healing the daughters of Proitos from their madness at
  the altar of Artemis Lusia, in the presence of Dionysos.

      Naples 1760 = Millingen-Reinach, 52 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 3.

  (12) Merope (a scene from the tragedy of that name).

      Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363: see Vogel, _Scenen Eur. Trag._ p.

  (13) Pandareos with the golden dog of Zeus, which he stole.

      Louvre A 478 = _Hermes_ 1898, p. 638; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._
        1898, p. 586.

  (14) Peleus wrestling with Atalante.

      Munich 125 (= Reinach, ii. 120 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl.
        31), and 584 = Reinach, ii. 88; Bibl. Nat. 818 = _Gaz. Arch._
        1880, pl. 14; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 41.

  (15) Peleus hunting a stag.

      Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162: cf. Apollod. iii. 13, 3.


  (16) Pentheus torn to pieces by his mother Agave and the frenzied

      B.M. E 775 = Fig. 131; Munich 807 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1204, fig.
        1396; Jatta 1617 = Müller-Wieseler, _Denkmaeler_, ii. 37, 436;
        _Jahrbuch_, 1892, pl. 5 (and see p. 154); _Gaz. Arch._ 1879,
        pls. 4–5 (?).

  (17) Phaon with Chryse and Philomele.

      Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 59 (vase in Palermo, formerly
        interpreted as Dionysos and Ariadne: see text, p. 296, for the
        correct interpretation).

  (18) Phineus invoking the gods.

      B.M. E 291 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 8, 1. For other Phineus scenes,
        see pp. 81, 115.

  (19) The madness of Salmoneus.

      _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1899, pl. 4 (interpreted as Athamas): cf.
        _Class. Review_, 1903, p. 276 and Harrison, _Prolegomena to Gk.
        Religion_, p. 61.

  (20) Thoas placed in the chest by Hypsipyle.

      Berlin 2300 = Reinach, i. 273: see Ap. Rhod. i. 622, and Hartwig,
        _Meistersch._ p. 374.

  (21) Aktor and Astyoche (uncertain reference).

      _Jahrbuch_, 1902, pl. 2 (in Boston): see _ibid._ p. 68, _Il._ ii.
        513 and 658; _Schol. in_ Pind. _Ol._ vii. 42.

  (22) The foundation of Boiae in Laconia by the appearance of a hare.

      Reinach, ii. 333 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 120 (this is
        exceedingly doubtful).

  (23) Two boys delivered to a Nymph (unknown myth).

      _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 3.

The story of =Orpheus= often finds a place on vases of the R.F.
period,[1441] but is chiefly confined to two episodes, his playing the
lyre among a group of Thracians[1442] (the men recognisable by their
costume, see p. 179), and his pursuit by the Thracian women[1443] and
subsequent death at their hands.[1444] In one scene his head after his
death is made use of as an oracle.[1445] He is often present in
under-world scenes (see p. 68), but not always in connection with the
fetching back of Eurydike.[1446]

_Thamyris_, a quasi-legendary figure, appears contending with the Muses
for pre-eminence with the lyre[1447]; on one fine R.F. vase he is
accompanied by Sappho,[1448] who, though strictly an historical
personage, appears among the Muses in quasi-mythical guise; he also
plays the lyre among Amazons.[1449] Other semi-historical persons
enveloped in a cloud of fable are: _Taras_, the founder of
Tarentum[1450]; _Midas_, who is generally represented with asses’ ears,
and is depicted judging the Seilenos who was caught in his rose-garden
and is led before him with hands tied[1451]; and _Minos_, who appears
at the slaying of the Minotaur by Theseus,[1452] and in the under-world
as one of the judges of souls.[1453]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Nor must we omit to mention the =Amazons=, who play such a large part
on Greek vases; besides their connection with various legendary events,
they are often employed purely as decorative figures. Mention has
already been made of their combats with Herakles and Theseus, and of
the part played by their queen Penthesileia in the Trojan War[1454];
and we also find them in such scenes as the Judgment of Paris[1455] and
Herakles’ fight with Kyknos.[1456] They also contend with
Gryphons[1457]; and many battle scenes in which they are opposed to
Greek warriors may also be here alluded to as not admitting of more
definite identification.[1458] They are further represented arming and
preparing for the fray,[1459] or setting out on horseback,[1460] or
defending a besieged city[1461]; and as decorative figures we see them
charging,[1462] stringing bows[1463] and discharging arrows,[1464]
blowing a trumpet,[1465] running by the side of a horse or checking a
restive animal,[1466] or fastening a shoe[1467]; or in peaceful
converse with a Greek warrior,[1468] or else without any distinguishing
action.[1469] Nearly all these subjects belong to the R.F. and later

                  *       *       *       *       *

We may conclude this section with an account of the monstrous
semi-human, semi-bestial creatures, which play a large part in the
decoration of Greek vases, and appear in connection with many legends.
Such are the Centaurs, half man, half horse; the Gorgons, winged women
with snaky locks; the Harpies, also found on early vases in the form of
winged women; and mythical creatures like Pegasos, the Chimaera, or the

=The Centaurs=, who probably symbolise mountain torrents or other
forces of nature, appear (mostly on early vases) in combat with
Herakles, either in troops or in single combat, as in the stories of
Nessos, Dexamenos, and Eurytion[1470]; or, again, in the scenes so
often celebrated in the sculptured friezes and metopes of Greek
temples, where they contend with Theseus and Peirithoös,[1471] or with
the Thessalian Lapiths.[1472] Among the latter a common episode is the
death of Kaineus, whom the Centaurs buried in the earth, showering
rocks upon him.[1473] In a more peaceful aspect appear the aged
Centaurs, Pholos and Cheiron, especially in the stories of Herakles and
Achilles,[1474] both of whom are brought to the latter for their
youthful education.[1475] As the friend of Peleus Cheiron often assists
at his capture of Thetis.[1476] Centaurs, especially Pholos, are
sometimes represented returning from the chase,[1477] or as single
decorative figures[1478]; in one case they fight with cocks.[1479] Nike
in one or two instances is drawn in her chariot by male or female
Centaurs[1480]; and, finally, representations of youthful Centaurs are
found, though usually they are middle-aged.[1481]

=The Gorgons= appear almost exclusively in connection with the Perseus
legend,[1482] but are besides frequently found as decorative figures,
especially on B.F. vases,[1483] in the running attitude characteristic
of archaic art, in one case between two Sphinxes.[1484] Besides these,
the head or mask of the Gorgon Medusa, familiar at all periods as a
decorative motive of Greek art—first with an ugly and grotesque face,
afterwards refined and beautiful—is often found by itself on Greek
vases, especially as an interior central ornament of B.F. kylikes.[1485]

=Harpies=, conventionally associated through the medium of the Roman
poets[1486] with the human-headed bird-form which really denotes the
Siren, are found invariably on vases in the form of winged women.[1487]
They are, as has been elsewhere noted (p. 81), associated with the
Boreades[1488] as symbolical of evil and good influences of winds, and
probably should be regarded as personifications of the _southern_
breezes (the malevolent influence of which is seen in the sirocco).
Traditionally they were supposed to guard the Garden of the Hesperides
in Africa, whence the hot baleful winds come. The story of Phineus is
probably to be explained on these lines.[1489] A Harpy appears at the
recovery of Zeus’ golden dog from Pandareos.[1490]

That the human-headed bird represents a =Siren= in Greek art is amply
attested by the representations of Odysseus’ adventure with the vocal
enchantresses.[1491] Their appearance on the so-called Harpy monument
of Xanthos, however, shows them in another aspect, that of
death-deities[1492]—not necessarily of a violent and rapacious
character, as on a vase in Berlin,[1493] but gentle and kindly. So,
again, a Siren is represented in connection with a tomb[1494]; and in a
scene representing a banquet in Elysium they are depicted crowning the
dead.[1495] On some vases we find a Siren playing a flute or a lyre
(probably merely fanciful subjects)[1496]; or, again, two Sirens
kissing each other.[1497] As mere decorative motives their appearances
are countless, and many early vases are modelled in the form of
Sirens[1498]; sometimes they have human arms[1499]; in one case a
bird’s wings and a fish-tail[1500]; or, again, more anomalously,
bearded masculine heads.[1501] More rarely they are seen flying.[1502]

=The Sphinx= is familiar in the first place as the monster, half woman,
half dog, which vexed the city of Thebes till slain by Oedipus; this
story is often alluded to on vases,[1503] but many groups of a man and
a Sphinx have probably no special meaning.[1504] The Sphinx has
sometimes a sepulchral reference,[1505] and is grouped with other
figures, such as Atlas[1506] or a Seilenos[1507] (the latter probably a
scene from a Satyric drama). Like the Siren, she is exceedingly common
as a decorative figure,[1508] especially in the friezes of animals and
monsters so dear to the early vase-painters. Her invariable form is
that of a winged lion or dog with a woman’s bust.

=The Gryphon=, a kind of dragon composed of an eagle’s head and lion’s
body and legs (occasionally a bird’s), is almost exclusively
decorative[1509]; but on the later vases we find the fabulous combat of
the Oriental Arimaspi with the Gryphons who guarded the mountain of
gold in the Far East (cf. Plate XLII.)[1510]; or, again, they contend
with the Amazons,[1511] with Scythians,[1512] or with ordinary Greek
warriors.[1513] In one instance an Arimasp woman is seen shooting at a
Gryphon of curious type.[1514] Further, they draw the chariots of
deities, such as Persephone,[1515] and Dionysos[1516]; and we have
already seen Apollo coming on a Gryphon from the Hyperborean

_Pegasos_, the winged steed of Bellerophon, and the monster _Chimaera_
which he slew, also appear as decorative figures[1518]; and the former
draws the chariots of Apollo and of a woman,[1519] and also appears as
a constellation with the moon and stars.[1520] A human-headed monster
attacked by a hero seems to have been suggested by the Chimaera on a
companion vase.[1521] The _Minotaur_ is generally seen in connection
with Theseus, but also appears as a single or decorative figure,[1522]
and one vase appears to represent the youthful monster in his mother’s
lap.[1523] Other monsters found occasionally on vases are _Skylla_, who
appears, not in connection with the story of Odysseus, but with those
of Perseus and Andromeda,[1524] and Phrixos and Helle,[1525] or as a
single figure[1526]; and _Lamia_, a vampire or ogress in the form of a
hideous old woman, who is seen undergoing torture from Satyrs,[1527]
and in another unexplained scene.[1528] Another type of monster, the
serpent-footed giant _Typhon_, has already been mentioned.[1529] Yet
another and a unique type is that of the Nymphs with serpent bodies
which protect vines from the attacks of goats.[1530]

Lastly, another creation of fancy, though not strictly mythological, is
the ἰππαλεκτρύων or “cock-horse,” a bird with horse’s head, which
appears on some B.F. vases ridden by a youth.[1531] This may also be a
convenient place for mentioning the common decorative subject of
Pygmies fighting with cranes.[1532]

                          HISTORICAL SUBJECTS

The number of vases on which undoubted historical subjects have been
discovered is very limited, though the old systems of interpretation
exerted much ingenuity in eliciting an historical meaning from many
scenes of daily life, with or without names inscribed over the figures.
In the instances given below, the names are given in most cases,
obviating all doubts. It is worth noting that the subjects chosen are
not as a rule those that would most obviously suggest themselves. They
fall into two classes, one relating to historical events and persons,
the other to literary celebrities:

I. (1) The weighing of silphium by Arkesilas, one of the descendants of
    Battos, who ruled at Kyrene—probably the second of the name (B.C.
    580–550). This scene occurs on a Cyrenaic cup in the Bibliothèque
    at Paris (_Cat._ 189: see Vol. I., p. 342, Fig. 92), which is
    probably a contemporary production.

 (2) Kroisos, the king of Lydia, on the funeral pyre (B.C. 545). See
    above, p. 6.

 Fig. 132 = Reinach, i. 85 = Baumeister, ii. p. 796, fig. 860 (in


  From _Baumeister_.

 (3) Harmodios and Aristogeiton slaying the tyrant Hipparchos (B.C.

 B.F.: _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr._ iii. (1879), pl. 6. R.F.;
    Reinach, i. 449; and see a late Panath. amph. in B.M. (B 605).

 (4) Diitrephes shot to death with arrows, B.C. 479 (?). See Paus. i.
    23, 3, and Frazer’s note.

 Bibl. Nat. 299 = _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 185 (but see Reinach, ii. p.
    255, and p. 15 under Gigantomachia).

 (5) The Persian king and queen.

 Helbig, p. 281 = Reinach, i. 275 (see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 525).

 (6) The Persian king hunting.

 Petersburg, 1790 = Reinach, i. 23 (Xenophantos): cf. Naples 2992.

 (7) Dareios in council, with various deities and personifications as

 Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 194 = Baumeister, i. pl. 6, fig. 449.

 (8) Battle of Greeks and Persians (with spectator-deities, etc.).

 Naples 3256 = Reinach, i. 98: see also p. 179; Reinach, ii. 84;
    Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 55–56 and p. 518.

 (9) Battle of Greeks and Messapians.

 Berlin 3264 = Reinach, i. 270.

II. (1) Sappho.

     (_a_) As single figure.

 De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 3.

     (_b_) With Alkaios.

 Fig. 133 = Munich 753 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1543, fig. 1607.

     (_c_) Reading her poems.

 Athens 1241 = Dumont-Pottier, pl. 6 = Reinach, i. 526.

     (_d_) In rivalry with Muses.

 Jatta 1538 = Reinach, i. 526.

     (_e_) With Eros (named Talas).

 _Abhandl. d. k. sächs. Gesellsch._ viii. (1861), pl. 1, fig. 1: see p.

 (2) Aesop.

 Helbig, 154 = Jahn, _Arch. Beitr._ pl. 12, fig. 2.

 (3) Anakreon.

 B.M. E 18: cf. E 266–67, 314–15; and see generally Jahn, _Gr. Dichter
    auf Vasenb._ in _Abhandl. d. k. sächs. Gesellsch._ viii. (1861), p.
    699 ff.


  From _Baumeister_.

 (4) Kydias of Hermione (a lyric poet: cf. Schol. _in_ Ar. _Nub._ 967)
    and Nikarchos (a contemporary flute-player) are to be seen,
    according to Jahn (_op. cit._ p. 740) on a psykter in the British
    Museum (E 767), on which these names are inscribed over two
    revellers; but the identification is exceedingly doubtful. See also
    Munich 1096 = Jahn, _op. cit._ pl. 4, fig. 1.

III. Mention should also here be made of the names of historical renown
which often appear on R.F. vases with the word καλός (see Vol. I. p.
403, and below, p. 267), such as Alkibiades, Glaukon, Hipparchos,
Kleinias, Leagros, Megakles, and Miltiades. The question is dealt with
elsewhere, and it has been shown that only in one or two cases—_e.g._
Leagros, Glaukon, and Kleinias (the father of Alkibiades)—can an
identification with the historical personages be certainly maintained;
it is, however, of sufficient interest for reference in this chapter,
because the inscribed names may in some cases possibly refer to the
figures depicted on the vases.[1533]

                              CHAPTER XV
                      _SUBJECTS FROM ORDINARY LIFE_

    Religious subjects—Sacrifices—Funeral scenes—The Drama and
      burlesques—Athletics—Sport and games—Musical scenes—Trades and
      occupations—Daily life of women—Wedding scenes—Military and
      naval subjects—Orientals and Barbarians—Banquets and
      revels—Miscellaneous subjects—Animals.

It is hardly possible to give within brief limits all the illustrations
that the vases afford, either directly or indirectly, of the religious
and secular life of the Greeks. It is, however, feasible to classify
these subjects under several headings, and to give a list of the most
typical and popular in each case. Thus we have:

    1. Religious ceremonies and sacrifices.
    2. Funeral scenes and offerings at tombs.
    3. Subjects connected with the drama.
    4. Athletic contests, games and sport, and musical scenes.
    5. Trades and occupations.
    6. Scenes from daily life of women and children.
    7. Military and naval subjects.
    8. Oriental and barbarian figures.
    9. Miscellaneous subjects and compositions of no particular import.
    10. Animals (mostly only decorative).

                         1. RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS

These mostly appear in the form of sacrifices, either before a simple
altar, or before the statue of some deity, a cult-image, or terminal
figure. Thus we have representations of the offering of a bull to
Athena,[1534] sacrifices to a primitive image of Dionysos[1535] or to a
terminal figure of Hermes,[1536] or a sacrifice or libation to
Persephone, Apollo, or other deities.[1537] A procession of six maidens
carrying chairs and a boy with game is probably in honour of
Artemis[1538]; and in another scene we have the Dioskuri coming to the
Theoxenia or feast prepared in their honour.[1539] Many other examples
may be found under the heading of the various Olympian deities. In
other instances we see the preparations for a sacrifice,[1540] or a
procession of figures with victims and sacrificial implements[1541];
the victims are either rams,[1542] bulls,[1543] goats,[1544] or
pigs.[1545] Other scenes of sacrifice represent the roasting of a piece
of meat held on a spit over a blazing altar[1546]; or two men stand
over a large krater on a stand, accompanied by a flute-player.[1547] In
many cases the sacrifice is doubtless intended to celebrate a dramatic,
agonistic, or other victory.[1548]

Among other religious scenes we have the dedication of a tripod,[1549]
religious festival dances,[1550] praying figures,[1551] men or women
burning incense over an altar or incense-burner[1552]; or scenes of
libation,[1553] a Metragyrtes or mendicant priest praying before
devotees,[1554] and a priest examining the entrails of a ram.[1555] An
ephebos is initiated and purified by the Διὸς κῴδιον[1556]; oaths are
taken over a tomb,[1557] or omens from birds on a tumulus[1558]; and
here perhaps may be mentioned a man making a gesture against the evil
eye.[1559] There is also a scene illustrative of the Πιθοίγια, an
Athenian feast[1560]; and a possible representation of the feast of
Adonis, and the “gardens” or pots of flowers exhibited on that
occasion.[1561] Lastly, there are scenes relating to votive offerings,
such as a figure of a child on a column offered to Athena,[1562] a
youth carrying a votive tablet,[1563] and others in which similar
votive tablets occur.[1564] The number of scenes which can be shown to
relate to Athenian festivals, or bear on Greek religious belief and
ritual, might be greatly expanded and multiplied, but at present little
has been done in this direction.[1565]

                           2. FUNERAL SCENES

Closely connected with these religious subjects are those which played
so large a part in the life of the Greeks, and found such a strong
reflection in their decorative art—namely, those which relate to the
burial and cult of the dead. The relation of Greek vases to the tomb
has been discussed elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 141 ff.), and it is sufficient
here to repeat that there are only three or four classes of vases which
yield undoubted evidence that they were expressly made for funeral
purposes, each belonging to a different period of the art.

In the earliest period we have the great Dipylon vases (Vol. I. p.
285), many of which represent funeral processions and rows of mourning
women[1566]; these were made for standing outside the tomb. In the B.F.
period there are the prothesis-amphorae, made likewise for placing
first round the bier and then on the tomb, as plainly shown in one
instance[1567]; and in the R.F. period the Athenian white lekythi are
decorated almost exclusively with sepulchral scenes. Among the vases of
the decadence a whole series of Lucanian and Campanian hydriae and
Apulian kraters and amphorae, as well as some late Athenian vases, the
Apulian examples being usually of enormous size, equally betray the
special purpose for which they were made.

On the B.F. vases the commonest subject is the _prothesis_ or
_conclamatio_, where the body is exposed on the bier and the mourners
stand round in attitudes of grief,[1568] a subject also occasionally
found on the lekythi.[1569] Elsewhere we have the carrying of the bier
to the tomb,[1570] accompanied by warriors, and the _depositio_ or
placing of the body therein.[1571] On the vases of this period the tomb
invariably assumes the form of a mound (χῶμα or tumulus),[1572] as it
appears in some mythical scenes already described.[1573] On the
lekythi, on the other hand, the tomb is in the form of a tall plain
_stele_, on a stepped base, crowned with an ornament of acanthus-leaves
or a palmette, and wreathed with coloured sashes, while vases and
baskets of flowers are sometimes placed on the steps.[1574] On the
vases of Southern Italy it is developed either into a tall column with
altar-like base,[1575] or into a large shrine or _heroön_, with columns
in front and gabled roof, within which stands the figure of the
deceased,[1576] or sometimes an acanthus-plant[1577] or several

The subjects on the white lekythi and later vases almost invariably
take the form of mourners,[1579] or men and women making offerings to
the dead, or placing sashes, wreaths, and vases on the tomb.[1580] Or,
again, we may note interesting parallels with the Athenian sepulchral
reliefs of the fourth century, which are mostly contemporaneous with
the vases.[1581] Thus we have “farewell scenes” between a man and
woman,[1582] or between two women[1583]; or the equestrian figure of a
warrior, as on the famous _stele_ of Dexileos,[1584] or a warrior
charging with his spear[1585]; or, again, a hare-hunt at a tomb,
perhaps with reference to the occupations of the deceased.[1586]
Sometimes the tomb of a warrior is indicated by his armour.[1587] The
interior of a tomb is occasionally shown, with a dead boy in it,[1588]
or a series of vases,[1589] or as in the story of Polyeidos.[1590] In
one instance a group of figures is placed on the top of the tomb.[1591]
Mythological figures are sometimes introduced, as Charon ferrying the
dead in his bark,[1592] or Hermes Psychopompos[1593]; or the type of
Thanatos and Hypnos (or that of Boreas and Zephyros) with Memnon is
borrowed for that of a warrior, a youth, or a woman whom they place in
the tomb.[1594] Occasionally we see the soul of the deceased as a small
flitting winged figure.[1595] On the Italian vases the figure of the
deceased usually appears inside the _heroön_, painted white, as if to
indicate a sculptured marble figure: a warrior with armour,[1596] or a
youth with his horse or dog,[1597] or pouring a libation from a
kantharos.[1598] These _heroa_ are always surrounded by figures of
women bearing baskets of offerings, unguent-vases, and wreaths, and by
youths as mourners.[1599]


                                                                PLATE LV




Apart from the under-world scenes already described,[1600] the future
life is not illustrated by the vases, except in a curious scene on a
B.F. Cyrenaic cup, representing a banquet of the blessed, attended by
Sirens.[1601] There is also one single representation of the subject so
common on later Greek reliefs—the sepulchral banquet.[1602]

                              3. THE DRAMA

The relation of vase-paintings to the drama has already been discussed
in Chapter XI., in which it has been shown how the tragedies of
Euripides and the farces of Rhinthon influenced the artists of Southern
Italy. It may, however, be worth while to recapitulate here the actual
representations of actors or of scenes taking place on a stage,
together with some account of the numerous burlesques of mythical

On one curious B.F. vase (probably late and imitative) we see a rude
representation of a tragic and a comic chorus,[1603] and occasionally
on vases of this period we find figures of actors dressed up as birds,
or otherwise in comic fashion.[1604] More important in this connection
are the fifth-century vases found on the site of the Cabeiric temple at
Thebes, several of which have parodies of well-known subjects, such as
Odysseus and Kirke, or Peleus bringing the young Achilles to
Cheiron.[1605] It seems probable that these scenes are actual
reproductions of burlesque performances connected with the worship of
the Kabeiri.

We look in vain for representations of scenes from Aristophanes and the
Old Comedy, though there are one or two vases which recall (if nothing
more) episodes in the _Acharnians_[1606] and _Frogs_.[1607] But for the
rest, these comic scenes are almost confined to the vases of Southern
Italy, especially those made at Paestum, with their presentations of
the φλύακες or fourth-century farces. A fairly exhaustive list of these
was made some years ago by Heydemann,[1608] and probably requires
little emendation as yet; we repeat below a number of the more
interesting subjects, and others may be collected from the foregoing
pages in which myths are burlesqued (the Judgment of Paris, the
apotheosis of Herakles, Oedipus and the Sphinx, etc.).[1609]

    (1) Zeus visiting Alkmena: Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 8 = Heydemann,
      _loc. cit._ p. 276: cf. B.M. F 150.

    (2) Apollo healing the Centaur Cheiron: B.M. F 151.

    (3) Herakles at Delphi; Apollo takes refuge on the roof of the
      temple: Reinach, i. 153, 2 = Rayet and Collignon, p. 318.

    (4) Combat of Hephaistos (Daidalos) and Ares (Enyalios): B.M. F 269.

    (5) Herakles with the Kerkopes: Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 2 =
      Heydemann p. 281.

    (6) Herakles seizing Auge: Fig. 105, Vol. I. p. 474 = Reinach, i.
      123 = Heydemann, p. 279.

    (7) Burlesque of the story of Antigone: Reinach, i. 273.

    (8) Rape of the Palladion: B.M. F 366.

    (9) Death of Priam: Berlin 3045 = Reinach, i. 370, 8.

    (10) Odysseus and Kirke: Jatta 901 = Heydemann, p. 271.

    (11) Odysseus in Phaeacia: Reinach, i. 153, 1.

[Illustration: FIG. 134. SCENE FROM A FARCE (BRITISH MUSEUM, F 189).]

Other scenes represent single figures, such as Herakles,[1610] or Taras
on the dolphin[1611]; or subjects from farces of daily life, such as an
actor with a table of cakes[1612] or the drunken return from a
revel.[1613] Many scenes, again, have some reference to the Satyric
drama, as on the fine vase in Naples, where Dionysos and other figures
attend the preparations for a performance of that kind[1614]; or such
scenes as that of Hera and Iris attacked by Seileni,[1615] or those
relating to adventures of Herakles and Perseus with Satyrs.[1616] Other
subjects have no particular significance, such as an actor attired as a
Seilenos playing on the flute, or dancing, or with a Sphinx,[1617]
groups of actors[1618] (in one case dressing[1619]), a comic actor
among Satyrs and Maenads,[1620] and single figures.[1621] Some, which
are apparently mythological, defy explanation.[1622]

The influence of Tragedy on vase-paintings is an indirect one, and
entirely confined to the vases of Southern Italy on the one hand, and
to the plays of Euripides on the other. The subject has been discussed
at length elsewhere in this work,[1623] and it is unnecessary here to
give a list of the subjects on South Italian vases which can be traced
to the influence of Euripides. It has also been pointed out that this
influence made itself felt, not only in the actual choice of subjects,
but generally in their treatment and arrangement, in the
quasi-architectural setting of many scenes, and in the elaborate
costumes of the figures.

MUSEUM, B 134).]

                         4. ATHLETICS AND SPORT

From the theatre we naturally turn to the palaestra and gymnasium,
which played so important a part in the public and private life of the
Greeks, and, like the former, may be said to be vested with a religious
significance, as exemplified in the Olympic and other great games.
Hardly any class of subject is found so frequently and consistently on
the vases. The series of Panathenaic amphorae alone supply instances of
every form of athletic exercise in which the Greeks indulged.[1624]
Many vases, especially the R.F. kylikes, represent groups of athletes
in the palaestra engaged in various exercises, such as boxing,
wrestling, running, and leaping[1625]; in other cases we have single
groups of boxers[1626] or wrestlers,[1627] or of the παγκράτιον, a
somewhat brutal combination of the two.[1628] A boxer is sometimes seen
putting on his caestus.[1629] The πένταθλον, which played so important
a part in the national games, is not infrequently found, though often
only three or four out of the five contests appear.[1630] Here, again,
we also find single figures of diskos-throwers[1631] or
javelin-throwers,[1632] representations of the long-jump,[1633] and men
marking the ground with a pick-axe or poles.[1634] An athlete is seen
binding round his javelin the cord or ἀγκύλη by which it was
thrown,[1635] and the pick-axe afore-mentioned also appears in such a
way as to indicate its general use by athletes—viz. for digging up the
ground over which jumps were made, by way of exercising the
limbs.[1636] A variation of the javelin contest was one in which the
competitors were mounted, and aimed at a shield set up as a target as
they rode past.[1637] Other important contests are the foot-race[1638];
the horse-race, generally taken part in by boys (κέλητες)[1639]; the
chariot-race[1640]; the torch-race (λαμπαδηδρομία)[1641]; and the race
of armed warriors (ὁπλιτοδρομία).[1642] In the latter contest various
types may be distinguished: the arming for the race[1643]; the
start[1644]; the race itself, with runners turning at the end of the
stadion[1645]; the finish[1646]; and a variation in which the runner
carried his armour.[1647] On the earlier vases this race is run in full
armour; on the later, only with helmets and shields. Frequently the
victorious athlete, horseman, or hoplite is seen proclaimed as
winner,[1648] and receiving his prize[1649]; also receiving a crown
from Nike.[1650]

Among more miscellaneous scenes may be mentioned athletes anointing
themselves[1651] and using the strigil[1652]; the κωρυκομαχία or
quintain[1653]; an athlete expiring[1654]; a girl-runner wounded in the
foot[1655]; men rolling discs[1656]; acrobats[1657] and female tumblers
performing contortions over swords, or lifting objects with their
feet.[1658] To the list of palaestra scenes may be added those where
Nike or another deity appears as patron of the palaestra watching the
athletes,[1659] and scenes of ephebi washing or bathing in preparation
for or after their contests.[1660] The athletes are often accompanied
by trainers, who use a forked stick to direct their movements.[1661] On
the later R.F. and the Italian vases it is a regular thing to find on
the reverse a roughly painted group of two or three athletes or ephebi,
usually wrapped in himatia and conversing together[1662]; in such cases
the palaestra is indicated by a pair of jumping-weights or a ball

Subjects coming under the heading of what we call =Sport= are not so
common, and are practically limited to hunting scenes. They include
hare-hunts,[1663] stag-hunts,[1664] wolf-hunts and fox-hunts,[1665]
lion-hunts,[1666] and boar-hunts[1667]; in the latter on early B.F.
vases the figures often have fancy names, with a reference in some
cases to the hunt of the Calydonian boar, which created the type. Some,
especially B.F. vases, depict the departure of a hunter for the
chase,[1668] or his return loaded with game[1669]; or we see a party of
hunters resting (all with fancy names).[1670] A group of youths
capturing and taming a bull may also be mentioned here,[1671] and
horse-taming is similarly depicted.[1672] We see horses being
unharnessed, groomed, and watered,[1673] or exercised,[1674] and a man
with a backing horse[1675]; and we may also perhaps include among these
subjects scenes representing riding-lessons, a school for ephebi,[1676]
or a boy learning to mount a horse.[1677] A favourite subject for the
interiors of R.F. cups is that of a young Athenian on horseback,[1678]
often in Oriental or Thracian costume (see p. 179).[1679] On the B.F.
vases a horseman or a chariot is sometimes depicted in front view, a
notable exception to the preference of the time,[1680] and sometimes a
three-horse chariot takes the place of the quadriga.[1681] Among
miscellaneous chariot-scenes may be mentioned a goddess (?) and a hero
mounting chariots,[1682] a girl in a chariot drawn by hinds[1683]; and
people travelling in a country cart.[1684]

Among the various =Games= popular with Greek youths the favourite
is, perhaps, that of ball, which was often played by men mounted on
each other’s shoulders in two parties, this being known as
ἐφεδρισμός[1685]; a rougher variant, in which the ball was omitted
and victory was probably gained by overthrowing the opponent pair,
was known as ἐγκοτύλη.[1686] Women and children also play at ball,
as does Eros.[1687] Equally popular was cock-fighting[1688]; and we
also see a group of boys shooting with bow and arrows at a popinjay
or figure of a bird.[1689] Of indoor amusements the favourite is
the κότταβος, a popular relaxation after a banquet, often seen on
kylikes and other R.F. vases.[1690] Other games, more suitable to
younger boys, are top-spinning[1691] and bowling a hoop[1692];
others, again, in which boys and girls join, or even occasionally
Eros and Satyrs, are the games of _morra_ (_micare digitis_, or
“How many fingers do I hold up?”),[1693] and its variant, the
ὤμιλλα, played with knucklebones[1694]; swinging[1695] and
see-sawing[1696]; and flying a kite.[1697] A game of similar
character to the _morra_ is played by a winged girl, who places her
hands over the eyes of a boy in a chair.[1698] The so-called magic
wheel, which was twirled on a string, is almost exclusively used by
Eros on the vases of Southern Italy.[1699] Children with their
toys, such as go-carts, vases of various shapes, etc., are often
depicted on the smaller R.F. vases of the fine style, some of which
were perhaps actually made for playthings[1700]; and we often see
them accompanied by pet dogs, tortoises, and other animals.[1701]
Similarly there are representations of birds and beasts kept in
cages,[1702] and of grown-up people playing with pets: a youth and
girl with a mouse or jerboa,[1703] or a man with a Maltese

Equal in importance in the eyes of the Greeks was the other great
division of their education, μουσική; the wider sense in which they
used the word, the culture of the mind as opposed to that of the body
(γυμναστικη), admits of including under this heading school scenes as
well as musical performances. Among the former is the well-known kylix
of Duris in Berlin (Plate XXXIX.),[1705] where a teacher is seen
unrolling a manuscript on which appears an epic hexameter (see Chapter
XVII.); a pupil is about to write on tablets; and others undergo
instruction on the flute and lyre. Elsewhere we see a youth writing on
a tablet,[1706] or on his way to school[1707]; a man reading from a
roll[1708]; and a vivid representation of a schoolmaster giving a
writing lesson.[1709]

Lessons in music,[1710] singing,[1711] and dancing[1712] are by no
means infrequently represented, especially on R.F. vases; we have
already seen the young Herakles and Iphikles receiving instruction of
this kind,[1713] and on the vases both boys and girls take part in the
lessons. Dancing scenes include dances of maidens (very common on early
B.F. vases), or single figures of dancers[1714]; a girl dancing to the
flute or with castanets,[1715] or a youth to the music of a girl[1716];
a woman dancing the Pyrrhic dance in the attire of a warrior,[1717] and
a sacred Lydian dancer with her wicker head-dress.[1718] The grotesque
dancers on some early B.F. vases appear to be performing the

Groups of musicians with no particular signification are often found,
generally playing the lyre and flute,[1720] or single figures, such as
a lyre-player in female costume,[1721] or in the distinctive
ὀρθοστάδιον of the musician.[1722] Other scenes relate to agonistic and
musical competitions, which often formed part of the great games; thus
we have on some Panathenaic vases and elsewhere contests for victory
with the lyre[1723] or flute.[1724] Sometimes the victorious musician
appears receiving the prize[1725] or a crown from Nike[1726]; he
usually stands on a _bema_ or raised platform. On one vase a poet
recites an epic to the sound of the flute; the opening words appear
proceeding from his mouth.[1727] On another a man is seen tuning his
lyre.[1728] Singing was a common recreation of banqueters or revellers,
especially as seen on R.F. vases.[1729]


  From _Baumeister_.

                       5. TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS

The trades and occupations represented on vases are very varied,
ranging from mining to shoemaking. The representations of miners in
caves which appear on some of the early Corinthian _pinakes_[1730] most
probably refer to the digging out of the clay for the potteries rather
than to mining for metals. This seems the more probable when it is
taken into consideration that potters’ workshops and furnaces are so
frequently depicted in the same series.[1731] Besides these we find
later instances of potters turning vases on the wheel,[1732] painting
them, or finishing them off,[1733] as already described in a previous
chapter: one vase represents the interior of a potter’s workshop with
vases in various stages[1734]; another, a man painting the design with
a sort of quill.[1735] Young men and girls are depicted negotiating the
purchase of completed vases in the shop.[1736] Another of the
Corinthian _pinakes_[1737] represents the exportation of vases in a
ship. Metal-work is represented by a well-known R.F. kylix in
Berlin,[1738] showing a bronze foundry, with statues in various stages
of completion; there are also representations of a smithy,[1739] in
some of which writers have seen an allusion to Hephaistos and the
Kyklopes (see p. 37). A man is depicted finishing off a bronze
helmet,[1740] or carrying a completed terminal figure[1741]; and of
similar import is the subject of Athena modelling a horse.[1742]

Agriculture is represented by vases in Berlin and the Louvre with
scenes of men ploughing with oxen (Fig. 136) or hoeing, sowers, and
mules carrying sacks of grain[1743]; and certain vase-paintings have
been interpreted as referring to the digging of a well.[1744] A man is
seen cutting down a tree,[1745] and another birds’-nesting.[1746]
Shepherds with flocks of sheep and goats are seen on two early Boeotian
vases,[1747] and also fishermen,[1748] and men crushing grapes in a
wine-press.[1749] The various stages of oil-making include the
gathering of the olives from a tree,[1750] the pressing in an
oil-press,[1751] and lastly the merchant measuring out and selling his
oil.[1752] A butcher is represented cutting up meat,[1753] and also the
preparing and cutting up of a tunny-fish,[1754] and the baking of
bread[1755]; on a B.F. vase two men weigh goods in a balance[1756]; and
the export of the silphium (?) on the Arkesilas vase may also be
mentioned here.[1757] Lastly, we have a shoemaker in his shop,[1758] a
carpenter working with an adze,[1759] and a boy going to market with
two baskets carried on a pole.[1760]

                         6. DAILY LIFE OF WOMEN

Scenes from the daily life of women form our next heading, and we
include therewith those relating to marriage or preparations for
nuptials, which play so important a part in woman’s life. The “type” of
a marriage procession on B.F. vases is, as we have seen (p. 16, and
Vol. I. p. 378), liable to be confused with the subject of the marriage
of Zeus and Hera; the bride and bridegroom appear in a four-horse
chariot, accompanied by persons who, if not deities, at any rate bear
similar attributes, such as the caduceus of Hermes or the torches of
Artemis (as _pronuba_).[1761] In scenes of simpler character the
wedding party walk in procession or drive in a cart.[1762] On later
vases the bride is generally led by the hand by her husband,
accompanied as before in appropriate fashion.[1763] We also find scenes
representing the bridal pair on their marital couch (_lectus
genialis_),[1764] and the return of the bride after the
ceremonies.[1765] Other scenes may possibly represent a
betrothal,[1766] a bridal toilet,[1767] or a nuptial sacrifice,[1768]
and, finally, the arrival of the bridal pair at their house, with a
servant preparing the marriage-bed.[1769]

More common, especially on R.F. vases of the fine style, are scenes
taken from the life of the women’s apartments (γυναικωνῖτις),[1770]
such as women at their toilet,[1771] spinning wool,[1772] or bleaching
linen,[1773] or embroidering.[1774] Under the heading of toilet scenes
are included single figures of women arranging their hair,[1775]
painting their faces,[1776] fastening on their girdles[1777] or
shoes,[1778] or putting clothes in a wardrobe.[1779] They also play
with cats or dogs[1780] or pet birds,[1781] and there is a subject
identified as a “consolation” scene.[1782] Again, we see women bathing
both in private and public baths,[1783] or even swimming[1784]; but in
some of these scenes the bath merely forms part of the toilet. Many of
these toilet scenes may perhaps be idealised and regarded as groups of
Aphrodite, the Graces, etc.[1785]

A favourite subject, but almost confined to the B.F. hydriae, is that
of maidens with pitchers on their heads fetching water from a fountain,
which is usually in the form of a building with columns and lion’s-head
spouts of water; the maidens, five or six in number, carry the empty
hydriae flat on their heads, the full ones upright.[1786] Women are
sometimes seen in gardens or orchards, gathering fruit[1787] or (on
late R.F. vases) frankincense.[1788] Other miscellaneous scenes which
cannot be classified are: a woman in bed,[1789] woman with
foot-pan,[1790] at a meal,[1791] reading from a scroll,[1792] burning
incense,[1793] spinning a top,[1794] balancing a stick,[1795] riding in
a mule-car[1796]; two or more women wrapped in one large cloak[1797];
and an accouchement scene.[1798] Those in which children appear include
a nurse and child[1799]; a child learning to walk[1800]; a mother, and
a child in a high chair[1801]; and a woman beating a child with a
slipper[1802]; subjects of children playing with toys, etc., have
already been discussed (p. 167). Finally, there are the scenes in which
women appear as jugglers[1803] or performing dances in armour,[1804] of
which mention has been made; these were probably amusements associated
with banquets (see p. 182; also _ibid._ for banquets in which women,
_i.e._ courtesans, take part).

A very common decoration of vases, especially the inferior ones of
Apulia, is that of a woman’s head, either as the main subject or in
some subsidiary part of the decoration; these, however, are so common
that they hardly call for detailed description.[1805]

                     7. MILITARY AND NAVAL SUBJECTS

Subjects of a military character on vases are chiefly confined to
three—the arming of warriors,[1806] their setting out in chariots, on
horseback, or on foot,[1807] and combats of two or more figures.[1808]
In all these cases we are confronted with the often-recurring
difficulty as to when such subjects have a mythological significance.
Especially on B.F. vases, familiar types—such as the departure of
Hector or the combat of Achilles and Memnon, to be identified in other
cases by inscriptions—occur again and again in the same form, only
diversified by the varying number of bystanders, which is generally
regulated by the space at the painter’s disposal. Even when names are
added they are often of a fanciful kind; and thus, for instance, we
find combats between Homeric heroes which have no counterpart in
literary record.[1809]

In the scenes of warriors arming we may note certain motives as
recurring with more or less frequency—such as that of a warrior putting
on his greaves,[1810] helmet,[1811] or cuirass (Fig. 137),[1812] or
lacing up his helmet.[1813] Kindred subjects are that of a warrior
taking his shield out of his case,[1814] or an archer drawing an arrow
from his quiver,[1815] testing an arrow,[1816] or stringing his
bow.[1817] We may also note the rarer occurrence of such scenes as the
harnessing of a chariot (Frontispiece)[1818] or the equipping of a
war-horse.[1819] In the departure scenes the usual type on B.F. vases
is that of a four-horse chariot to the right, which the warrior is
mounting or has mounted; a woman sometimes give him drink, and an old
man stands at the horses’ heads. This “type” is used for the departure
of Amphiaraos (cf. Berlin 1655), Hector, or other heroes.[1820] It is
sometimes varied by placing the quadriga to the front.[1821] Or, again,
the warrior is seen on horseback, accompanied by his groom,[1822] or a
company on foot set out in marching array.[1823] On later vases the
more usual version is that of a warrior receiving a libation or
“stirrup-cup” from a woman before his departure, but the same scenes
might be interpreted as referring to his successful return.[1824]
Unmistakable instances of the return are those scenes where he receives
a crown,[1825] or is brought back as a corpse by his comrades.[1826]
There are scenes representing warriors taking oaths or omens at a tomb,
or omens by the inspection of the liver of a victim, all before
departure for battle[1827]; and single figures are countless,
especially inside R.F. kylikes.[1828]


  From _Hoppin_.

Among the various scenes incident to warfare may be mentioned an
ambuscade,[1829] a wounded warrior dragged out of battle,[1830] a
warrior protecting himself from darts,[1831] the capture of a
prisoner,[1832] warriors carrying dead bodies,[1833] or human heads as
trophies of victory.[1834] Besides single figures of warriors,
heralds,[1835] trumpeters,[1836] slingers,[1837] and archers[1838]
often appear; or representations of the armour of a warrior[1839]; or
of the Δοκιμασία or parade of Athenian knights.[1840] Of a somewhat
burlesque character is a scene depicting warriors riding on ostriches
and dolphins.[1841]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Naval scenes are very rare, but we find occasional early
representations of sea-fights,[1842] as on the Dipylon vases, the
vessels on which appear to be biremes.[1843] On the B.F. and R.F. vases
we find war-galleys[1844] or merchant-vessels,[1845] usually in places
suitable for a row of ships—such as the outer edge of a kylix[1846] or
the broad rim of a _deinos_ or large bowl.[1847] These are specially
common on vases of “mixed” technique. The subject of “keel-hauling,”
the punishment administered to refractory sailors, must also find a
place here.[1848]

                      8. ORIENTALS AND BARBARIANS

Oriental figures which can neither be classified as mythological,
historical, or _genre_ subjects sometimes appear on vases. We have
already made mention of such quasi-mythological subjects as combats of
Gryphons with Arimaspi or other figures in Oriental attire.[1849]
Phrygian warriors, too, may be seen in some Trojan scenes—such as the
sack of Troy or the flight of Aeneas[1850]—but their presence in scenes
of departure or combat does not necessarily make the subject
mythological.[1851] It is not always easy to identify the nationality
of these barbarians, and the names usually given to them—Persian,
Phrygian, or Scythian—must in many cases be regarded as somewhat
conventional, except where details of costume are unmistakable.[1852]

Archers in Oriental costumes, wearing peaked caps with long lappets,
and close-fitting costume of jerkin and trousers (ἀναξυρίδες), stippled
over to indicate skin, are seen shooting arrows, on foot or on
horseback,[1853] or accompanying the chariots of Greek warriors,[1854]
or taking part in general combats[1855]; as also warriors blowing
trumpets.[1856] Persian warriors in combat with Greeks appear on R.F.
vases of the strong period,[1857] and may have some reference to the
historical events of the time. It is even suggested that one is copied
from the famous painting by Mikon of the battle of Marathon.[1858] One
vase represents a sort of triumphal procession, perhaps of a Persian
king, riding on a camel[1859]; and others depict Persians riding.[1860]
Those of undoubted historical signification have already been
mentioned.[1861] Scythians appear as mounted or unmounted
archers,[1862] a Scythian horseman is attacked by a lion,[1863] a
Scythian pursues two courtesans,[1864] and there is a curious scene
depicting the revels of the Scythian Agathyrsi.[1865] Thracians, in the
typical local costume of ζεῖρα (a thick cloak) and ἀλωπεκῆ (a fox-skin
cap), appear by themselves or with Orpheus and Boreas[1866]; Thracian
horsemen are represented setting out[1867]; and after the conquests of
Miltiades the local costume appears to have become fashionable among
the Athenian youth, as they are depicted wearing it on some
contemporary vases.[1868] The Thracian custom of tattooing is suggested
in some of the Orpheus scenes.[1869]

Figures of negroes are not very common on vases, though many of
fifth-century date and later are modelled in the form of negroes’
heads; but there is a small class of B.F. alabastra on which they are
represented in the traditional barbarian costume of trousers, etc., and
are armed with the Oriental battle-axe.[1870] In one case a negro
accompanies a camel.[1871] Ethiopians are seen conveying the body of
Memnon or an ordinary warrior to his grave,[1872] and one vase
represents an Ethiopian with a jug.[1873] A pair of Egyptian combatants
can be identified on a fragmentary vase from Daphnae (Defenneh).[1874]
Lastly, many of the vases of Southern Italy, especially those of
Campania, represent combats or leave-takings of native Osco-Samnite
warriors, in their typical costume of triangular cuirass, gaily plumed
helmet, and scanty tunic.[1875]


                         9. BANQUETS AND REVELS

A group of subjects which play an important part on vases of all
periods, especially the height of the R.F. style, but which do not
exactly fall under any of the headings so far enumerated, is that of
scenes connected with banquets and revels, especially of Athenian
ephebi. In the ordinary “type” of banquets at all periods (as in other
branches of art) the participants recline on couches on their left
elbows, the right arm being free to use, and that hand often holding a
drinking-cup or other appropriate attribute.[1876] In this fashion the
gods—such as Dionysos, Hermes, or Herakles after his apotheosis—indulge
in the pleasures of the banquet and the wine-cup.[1877] There are
scenes which represent the preparations for a banquet,[1878] or young
men on their way thither[1879]; and in those depicting the feast itself
a table is often placed before the couch, on which viands of various
kinds are seen[1880]; or the krater (mixing-bowl) stands by, ready for
the drinkers to replenish their cups.[1881] Vases are also filled by
means of a funnel.[1882] The results of over-indulgence are sometimes
realistically indicated on the R.F. cups.[1883] After the
drinking-bouts come amusements of various kinds, notably the game of
the kottabos.[1884] No instances of this occur before the middle of the
R.F. period, and on the cups of that time it is usually only indicated
by the manner in which the banqueters twirl their kylikes with a finger
crooked in the handle,[1885] preparatory to throwing the remaining
drops of liquid at the little figure on the top of the kottabos-stand,
the hitting of which caused part of the apparatus to fall with a
ringing noise.[1886] On the latest Athenian and many Apulian vases the
stand is often represented as well,[1887] not only in position for the
game, but borne along by revellers.[1888] It is also carried by
Seileni, Maenads, or Eros, and used by Dionysos at his banquets.[1889]

Other amusements take the form of music and dancing. The banqueters
themselves play the lyre or flute,[1890] or listen to male and female
performers on those instruments,[1891] or a young girl dances for their
amusement.[1892] The women jugglers, tumblers, and acrobatic
sword-dancers who often appear on late vases[1893] no doubt often
contributed to the entertainment of the “gilded youth” of their day.
Sometimes a banqueter is represented reclining on his couch and
singing, the words in one or two cases being inscribed as proceeding
out of his mouth.[1894] Not only men but women are represented
banqueting, as on the psykter by Euphronios at Petersburg, which has a
group of courtesans.[1895] This character also appears on the R.F.
vases at the men’s banquets.[1896]

The κῶμος or revel is equally popular with the banquet. It usually
takes the form of a procession of young and elderly men in various
unrestrained attitudes,[1897] dancing,[1898] singing,[1899] playing the
lyre, flute, or other instruments,[1900] carrying drinking-cups and
other vessels,[1901] or balancing them in sportive manner.[1902]
Frequently these κῶμος scenes are of a Dionysiac character, the god
himself, Seileni, Satyrs, and Maenads taking part,[1903] and sometimes
human beings are mingled with them. On a vase of the series connected
with the comic stage (Fig. 134, p. 161) a father is seen dragging a
drunken youth home from a banquet; but these scenes of rioting are not
always necessarily conceived as taking place before or after social
festivities. On a red-figured cup at Petersburg the subject of the
return from the feast of the Brauronian Dionysos is depicted in most
realistic fashion, the revellers indulging in all sorts of buffoonery
and fantastic actions, which suggest an Athenian counterpart of modern
Bank Holiday amusements[1904]!

To turn to a subject of a quieter character, what may be termed “love
scenes” are not uncommon on vases, especially of the later period. On
the Apulian vases indeed such subjects are innumerable. The usual type,
occasionally found on earlier vases,[1905] is that of a youth and a
seated girl exchanging presents, such as mirrors, wreaths, baskets of
fruit or jewel-boxes, Eros being frequently present.[1906] Scenes of
this kind were originally interpreted somewhat fantastically, as having
some reference to the Eleusinian or other mysteries,[1907] an idea
which no one would now seriously hold. Similar scenes which have no
particular import, such as groups of women, often with Eros, occur on
many R.F. vases of the later fine style, especially the pyxides and
lekythi.[1908] They are all clearly fanciful, and belong to an age when
tastes resembled those of the eighteenth century in their
artificiality. There are also some instances, especially on the R.F.
vases, where the sentiment is more definitely expressed, and couples
are seen embracing or caressing one another in amorous fashion.[1909]
It is not necessary to make more than passing allusion to the many
vases on which this harmless sentiment is replaced by coarseness and
open indecency of treatment, some of which, however, belong to the very
finest stage of red-figure painting.

Finally, we may mention here a few subjects of a _genre_ character
which seem to defy classification, and yet are sufficiently definite to
require separate mention. Such are the scenes so common on the
interiors of R.F. kylikes, which represent ephebi in all kinds of
attitudes, or carrying all sorts of objects, the great aim of the
artist being to find the most suitable design to fill in the circular
space.[1910] Thus we have such subjects as a youth putting on a greave
or sandals,[1911] carrying a wine-amphora[1912] or a lyre,[1913]
playing with castanets,[1914] or pursuing a hare[1915]; reclining at a
banquet[1916]; armed with a club or a large stone[1917]; a man leading
a leopard,[1918] and a man who seems from his gestures to be treading
unawares on a snake[1919]; and others of an athletic or military
character, of which mention has already been made. There are also many
subjects which appear to have a meaning, yet are not mythological, and
cannot be satisfactorily explained; such instances it would, however,
hardly be profitable to describe in detail.

                              10. ANIMALS

The last class of subjects with which this section has to deal is that
of animals, as considered apart from human beings, or objects of what
modern painters term “still life.” In the historical chapters of this
work it has been shown what a large part the animal world played in the
decoration of vases down to the sixth century B.C., and also which were
the animals most frequently selected for the friezes and other
decorations of early vases. Most noteworthy in this respect are the
Mycenaean vases (Vol. I. p. 273), with their representations of
cuttle-fish (Plate XV.), the nautilus or argonaut,[1920] and other
marine subjects. But to these early vases in the present case no
further allusion need be made; as _subjects_ they have not as a rule
sufficient interest. On the Attic vases of the B.F. and R.F. periods
animals rarely form a principal subject on vases, though they still
sometimes appear in small friezes on the less important parts of the
vase; it may, therefore, be of interest to note a few typical instances
in which this feature retains its prominence. Sometimes we have
subjects with action: as, for instance, one in which a panther tears a
stag, and is attacked by an archer and an armed warrior[1921]; or a
lion attacks a panther, a bull, or a deer.[1922] Again, the interior of
a B.F. kylix is sometimes filled with an animal subject, such as a
wounded stag,[1923] or a deer scratching itself or grazing,[1924] or
other animals[1925]; and in a similar position on one R.F. kylix we
have an ass with its pack.[1926] Other animal subjects worth mentioning
are a sea-serpent,[1927] goats browsing on vines,[1928] a fox caught in
a trap,[1929] cats and mice,[1930] the appearance of the swallow.[1931]

There is a class of ware made in Southern Italy which takes the form of
flat plates or dishes, decorated with representations of fish and
molluscs, such as the pike or mullet, the cuttle-fish and various
shell-fish; these were clearly used for eating fish off, and they have
in the centre a hollow to receive the sauce.[1932] Friezes of fish are
not infrequently found on the vases of Apulia. Animals, especially
birds, sometimes appear in friezes on the early Ionic vases, such as
geese, quails, or guinea-fowl[1933]; cocks and hens confronted are more
common, especially in the B.F. period,[1934] and one late Italian vase
has an amusing group of a cock and goose greeting one another with the
words, “Ah, the goose!” “Oh, the cock!”[1935]

Lastly, of subjects from still life, distinct from their appearance in
figure subjects, we find the armour of a warrior,[1936] a
washing-basin,[1937] a flute-case,[1938] a lyre,[1939] a table with
bread upon it,[1940] and a collection of objects for the toilet.[1941]


Footnote 1112:

  Athens 1259 = Reinach, i. 506; _Mon. Grecs_, 1876, pls. 1–2.

Footnote 1113:

  B. M. F 68.

Footnote 1114:

  Reinach, ii. 186.

Footnote 1115:

  Petersburg 2188 = Reinach, i. 8; Reinach, i. 279 (= Baumeister, i. p.
  635, fig. 706) and 380. In _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (now at Boston) and in
  Berlin 2430 they do not appear in this connection.

Footnote 1116:

  B.M. B 170; Helbig, 78 = Reinach, i. 96 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6,
  1 (Exekias).

Footnote 1117:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 44 (doubtful; perhaps Zethos and Amphion).

Footnote 1118:

  Petersburg 1924 and 1929 = Reinach, i. 9.

Footnote 1119:

  Reinach, i. 244.

Footnote 1120:

  _Ibid._ i. 363.

Footnote 1121:

  B.M. E 696.

Footnote 1122:

  François vase; Reinach, i. 230, ii. 119.

Footnote 1123:

  Reinach, i. 361 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 38–39.

Footnote 1124:

  Bibl. Nat. 442 = Reinach, ii. 79 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 12, 5.

Footnote 1125:

  Jatta 1095 = Reinach, i. 119 (Phineus scene); Reinach, i. 226 (in

Footnote 1126:

  Reinach, i. 231, 507 (= Athens 853), ii. 1: see generally Roscher’s
  _Lexikon_, _s.v._ Leukippiden.

Footnote 1127:

  B.M. E 224 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 8–9; probably
  influenced by the painting by Polygnotos of this subject (see Vol. I.
  p. 443).

Footnote 1128:

  Reinach, i. 484: cf. Bibl. Nat. 388.

Footnote 1129:

  B.M. B 633 = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 9, 3.

Footnote 1130:

  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 187: cf. Reinach, i. 361 (rev. of vase).

Footnote 1131:

  See p. 19.

Footnote 1132:

  B.M. F 479; Reinach, i. 229; _Gaz. Arch._ 1875, pl. 14 (in Louvre).

Footnote 1133:

  B.M. F 107.

Footnote 1134:

  Munich 611 and 291 = Reinach, i. 419, ii. 47.

Footnote 1135:

  Munich 371 = _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 10, 1, p. 145. He
  is represented as attacking Linos, who had found fault with his

Footnote 1136:

  Reinach, i. 326 (Iphikles here with Linos).

Footnote 1137:

  See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 13.

Footnote 1138:

  Reinach, ii. 70.

Footnote 1139:

  Furtwaengler, however, thinks the subject is Herakles sacrificing a
  bull (_Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 16: see below, p. 106).

Footnote 1140:

  Cf. Paus. v. 19, 1: τρεῖς ἄνδρες ἀλλήλοις προσεχόμενοι.

Footnote 1141:

  See p. 106.

Footnote 1142:

  _Isthm._ iii. 90.

Footnote 1143:

  B.F.: B.M. B 196, B 322; Munich 3 = Reinach, ii. 62; an early
  Athenian example in _J.H.S._ xxii. pl. 2. R.F.: Reinach, i. 242 =
  _Wiener Vorl._ v. 4 = Louvre G 103 (Euphronios); Athens 1166. See
  also Vienna 322 = Reinach, i. 339 and Munich 605 = _Ber. d. sächs.
  Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 8, fig. 1.

Footnote 1144:

  B.M. B 314; Berlin 2057; Louvre F 208 = Reinach, i. 452; Munich 1180
  = Reinach, i. 255, 2, and Helbig, 228 = _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._
  1853, pls. 5, fig. 2, and 8, fig. 2; Reinach, i. 255, 1 = Baumeister,
  i. p. 49, fig. 56; Reinach, i. 451. The only R.F. examples published
  are Munich 401 (= Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32) and 605 (=
  _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1853, pl. 7, fig. 1).

Footnote 1145:

  See above, p. 72.

Footnote 1146:

  Bibl. Nat. 322.

Footnote 1147:

  Cambridge 43: cf. Pind. _Nem._ iv. 46.

Footnote 1148:

  _J.H.S._ xiii. pp. 71–2.

Footnote 1149:

  B.F.: B.M. B 197, B 364 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 6, 1,
  Nikosthenes); Berlin 1732 = Reinach, ii. 66 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 1,
  2 (Kolchos). R.F.: B.M. E 73; Reinach, ii. 47, 68, 1 (?), and i. 223
  = _Wiener Vorl._ D. pl. 5 (Pamphaios).

Footnote 1150:

  Jatta 1088 = Reinach, i. 475 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 4: see _Röm.
  Mitth._ 1894, p. 285.

Footnote 1151:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51 (vase in Boston).

Footnote 1152:

  B.F.: B.M. B 228, B 313; Berlin 1851–52. R.F.: Munich 251 = Reinach,
  i. 259.

Footnote 1153:

  B.M. E 437 = Reinach, ii. 62 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 6, 2.

Footnote 1154:

  B.F.: B.M. B 223, B 311; Berlin 1906; Louvre F 38 = _Wiener Vorl._
  1889, pl. 5, fig. 3 (Timagoras); Reinach, i. 227. No good R.F.
  examples (see Reinach, i. 346).

Footnote 1155:

  B.F.: B.M. B 225; Bibl. Nat. 255 = Reinach, ii. 61. R.F.: B.M. E 162;
  Athens 1202 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 32, 4.

Footnote 1156:

  Reinach, i. 339 (R.F.).

Footnote 1157:

  B.M. B 226; Helbig, 27; Reinach, ii. 64 (one = Bologna 195). R.F.:
  Reinach, i. 221 and i. 41 (= Petersburg 1272, curious).

Footnote 1158:

  B.F.: _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 6 (Proto-Corinthian);
  _J.H.S._ i. pl. 1; Berlin 336 (= Reinach, i. 448), 1670 (= _ibid._
  ii. 64, 1), 1737. R.F.: Reinach, i. 221. Late: B.M. F 43;
  Millin-Reinach, i. 68.

Footnote 1159:

  Petersburg 1787 = Reinach, i. 40.

Footnote 1160:

  B.F.: B.M. B 30; Berlin 1702; Helbig, 5; Athens 657 = _Ant. Denkm._
  i. 57; Louvre E 852 = Reinach, i. 156. R.F.: B.M. E 42, E 176;
  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1900, p. 49, No. 17 (Aristophanes and

Footnote 1161:

  _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 3 (in B.M.); Naples 3089 = _ibid._ p. 10 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 33.

Footnote 1162:

  Berlin 1722; Reinach, i. 388.

Footnote 1163:

  Louvre F 60.

Footnote 1164:

  Oxford 249; Berlin 766–67; Munich 783; Reinach, ii. 59, 10. Late
  R.F.: Berlin 2359. Parody: Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 5, 2 = _Jahrbuch_,
  i. p. 280.

Footnote 1165:

  Bibl. Nat. 393 = Reinach, i. 397.

Footnote 1166:

  B.F.: Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 169 (Caeretan hydria). R.F.: B.M. E
  38; Athens 1175 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 18; Berlin 2534. See
  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 53, note 1.

Footnote 1167:

  B.M. E 364; Reinach, i. 229, 338, 392.

Footnote 1168:

  Berlin 4027 = Reinach, i. 338: cf. Aelian, _Var. Hist._ i. 24.

Footnote 1169:

  Reinach, i. 384, and see i. 475 and ii. p. 423; Louvre E 633 (capture
  of heralds): see for the myth, Paus. ix. 17, 2, ix. 25, 4; Diod. Sic.
  iv. 10; Apollod. ii. 4, 11.

Footnote 1170:

  Athens 970.

Footnote 1171:

  Berlin 1927 (?); B.M. E 290.

Footnote 1172:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 37 (R.F. in Berlin).

Footnote 1173:

  Bibl. Nat. 174.

Footnote 1174:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 33.

Footnote 1175:

  B.F.: B.M. B 195, B 316; Bibl. Nat. 251 = Reinach, ii. 252. R.F.:
  B.M. E 255 (= Hoppin, _Euthymides_, pl. 5); E 318, E 458; Berlin 2159
  = Wernicke-Graef, _Ant. Denkm._ pl. 27, fig. 3; Munich 401 =
  Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 32 (Phintias); Reinach, i. 224. Late:
  Naples 1762 = Millingen-Reinach, 30.

Footnote 1176:

  Stackelberg, pl. 15.

Footnote 1177:

  Munich 1294 = Reinach, i. 403; _ibid._ ii. 4 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 8.

Footnote 1178:

  B.M. B 57.

Footnote 1179:

  Cambridge 100; and see _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 9.

Footnote 1180:

  Helbig, 232 = Reinach, ii. 59; a B.F. example in _Röm. Mitth._ 1902,
  pl. 5.

Footnote 1181:

  B.M. E 65 = Reinach, i. 193.

Footnote 1182:

  B.M. F 494; Berlin 3291; heads of Herakles and Omphale, Bibl. Nat.

Footnote 1183:

  Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151 = Rayet and Collignon, pl. 6; _Mon.
  Grecs_, 21–2 (1893–94), pl. 14 (in Louvre).

Footnote 1184:

  B.M. B 165; Athens 477 = Reinach, i. 519 (Melian vase): see note 1186

Footnote 1185:

  _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 19; _Jahreshefte_, 1900, p. 64. The slaying of
  Iphitos is represented on a white-ground cup in the Louvre,
  _Monuments Piot_, ii. p. 53.

Footnote 1186:

  Athens 477, according to Pottier in _Revue des Études Grecques_,
  1895, p. 389.

Footnote 1187:

  _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 119 (in Berlin); a burlesque of the subject is
  given in Fig. 105, Vol. I. p. 474.

Footnote 1188:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 71.

Footnote 1189:

  Reinach, ii. 75.

Footnote 1190:

  Fig. 107, Vol. I. p. 480.

Footnote 1191:

  Oxford 322; Reinach, ii. 62 = Roscher, iii. p. 762.

Footnote 1192:

  Naples 3359 = Reinach, i. 400; and see note 1186.

Footnote 1193:

  B.M. F 68.

Footnote 1194:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 38, p. 422.

Footnote 1195:

  Bibl. Nat. 822 = Millin-Reinach, ii. 10; _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._
  1855, pls. 1–2. See above, p. 67.

Footnote 1196:

  Reinach, i. 226.

Footnote 1197:

  Berlin 2164: cf. Athens 1119 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1901, pp. 146, 149.

Footnote 1198:

  B.M. B 473; Berlin 1856, 1919.

Footnote 1199:

  Berlin 3256 (Argonautic?).

Footnote 1200:

  B.M. E 494 (? see p. 106, note 1216); Reinach, ii. 180 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 51. On Chryse see _Class. Review_, 1888, p. 123;
  the same figure occurs on the B.M. vase E 224 in connection with the
  rape of the Leukippidae.

Footnote 1201:

  B.M. E 505: cf. for statue B.M. F 233.

Footnote 1202:

  Jatta 423 = Reinach, i. 205.

Footnote 1203:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 25.

Footnote 1204:

  Reinach; i. 257; and cf. B.M. F 211, F 278 for H. at Olympia; also
  Stackelberg, pl. 42.

Footnote 1205:

  B.M. B 198, B 498; Reinach, ii. 74–5; Louvre F 116–117 = Reinach, i.
  297 (Nikosthenes); Helbig, 93 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 54, 2.

Footnote 1206:

  B.M. D 14; Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 24 (Duris);
  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 42, 4; Reinach, ii. 298.

Footnote 1207:

  B.M. B 301, B 497, E 66; Berlin 1961 = Reinach, ii. 43; Berlin 2534
  (with Seilenos); Munich 388 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 4 (B.F.
  and R.F. “bilingual”); Reinach. ii. 39; Millin-Reinach, i. 37; Athens
  764 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 3, 1.

Footnote 1208:

  B.M. B 167.

Footnote 1209:

  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 44 (in Petersburg).

Footnote 1210:

  Reinach, ii. 318; Helbig, ii. p. 327 = Millingen-Reinach, 35;
  _Philologus_, 1868, pl. 2.

Footnote 1211:

  B.M. B 229: cf. Berlin 4027 and B.M. E 814.

Footnote 1212:

  _Él. Cér._ iii. 14.

Footnote 1213:

  Berlin 2293, 3988; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 467; _Él. Cér._ i. 1;
  _Mon. Grecs_, 1875, pl. 1.

Footnote 1214:

  B.M. B 147; Reinach, ii. 21.

Footnote 1215:

  B.M. B 228; Berlin 1857; Helbig, 25; Reinach, ii. 43: cf. Athens 791
  = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 3, 2.

Footnote 1216:

  See B.M. E 494; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 275; Roscher, _Lexikon_, i. p.
  2235; Bacchylides, _Od._ 16; also p. 96, note 1211.

Footnote 1217:

  B.M. E 370.

Footnote 1218:

  Munich 384 = Reinach, i. 130 = Baumeister, i. p. 307, fig. 322;
  Reinach, i. 481.

Footnote 1219:

  B.F.: B.M. B 199–201, 211 (Pl. XXIX.), 230, 317–21; Reinach, ii. 72;
  Oxford 212 (no deities). R.F.: Helbig, 230 (A. about to mount

Footnote 1220:

  Bibl. Nat. 253 = Reinach, i. 399 and 254.

Footnote 1221:

  Berlin 1827 = Reinach, ii. 74; Reinach, ii. 161.

Footnote 1222:

  With Athena: B.M. F 238; Millingen-Reinach, 36. With Nike: B.M. F 64,
  F 102; Reinach, i. 368, 481, and ii. 204; _Wiener Vorl._ E. pls. 7,
  8, fig. 3 = _Mon. Grecs_, 1876, pl. 3 (in Louvre; parody; chariot
  drawn by Centaurs).

Footnote 1223:

  B.F.: B.M. B 166, B 379, B 424; Berlin 1691, 1857; Reinach, i. 359,
  1, ii. 76 (in Berlin). R.F.: B.M. E 262 = Reinach, ii. 75; Berlin
  2278 = Reinach, i. 70 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 9 (Sosias); Furtwaengler and
  Reichhold, pl. 20; Reinach, i. 222, 408 (Fig. 127). Late: Naples 2408
  = Reinach, i. 323; Petersburg 1775 = Reinach, i. 302 (parody).

Footnote 1224:

  B.F.: Louvre F 30 = _Rev. Arch._ xiii. (1889), pl. 4 (Amasis); F
  116–117 = Reinach, i. 297 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 4, figs. 1–2
  (Nikosthenes); Bibl. Nat. 254; Berlin 1961 = Reinach, ii. 43. R.F.:
  Berlin 2626; Reinach, ii. 76, 186.

Footnote 1225:

  B.M. E 262; Bonn 720 = _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 69; Athens 1346 =
  Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 15; B.M. F 178; Reinach, i. 251 (all R.F. or

Footnote 1226:

  B.M. E 244; Berlin 3257; _Forman Sale Cat._ 364: see p. 77.

Footnote 1227:

  Berlin 2538 = Reinach, ii. 162.

Footnote 1228:

  B.M. E 264 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 8, 1; a similar vase in _Röm.
  Mitth._ 1894, pl. 8, has been otherwise interpreted (see below, p.
  110, note 1233).

Footnote 1229:

  Petersburg 830 = Reinach, i. 150 = _Wiener Vorl._ A. 8 (Hieron).

Footnote 1230:

  See on the subject generally _Museo Ital._ iii. p. 235.

Footnote 1231:

  _Gaz. Arch._ 1884, pls. 44–6.

Footnote 1232:

  _Wiener Vorl._ E. 12, 2.

Footnote 1233:

  See _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14, and pp. 277–79 for three other instances;
  the last, however, is susceptible of other interpretations.

Footnote 1234:

  Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1999, fig. 2149. The B.M. vase E
  264 (see p. 108, note 1228) _may_ have the same meaning, in which
  case the woman holding the clue is a sort of “short-hand” allusion to
  the adventure awaiting him. See also Reinach, ii. 81 (Theseus
  receiving libation from Aithra).

Footnote 1235:

  B.M. E 41 = Reinach, i. 532 (Chachrylion).

Footnote 1236:

  Berlin 2179 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 6; Reinach, i. 222 = Plate XXXIX.
  (also interpreted as Peleus and Thetis, see p. 120); Harrison and
  Verrall, p. cxxxi (in Vienna): see also _Boston Mus. Report_ for
  1900, p. 67, No. 25.

Footnote 1237:

  Reinach, i. 91; ii. 264 (= Bibl. Nat. 421).

Footnote 1238:

  Munich 7; B.M. E 41; Reinach, i. 87.

Footnote 1239:

  B.M. E 157, 272, 450; Reinach, ii. 163 (now in B.M.; a complete and
  magnificent example); Millin-Reinach, i. 10; Naples 2421, 3253, and
  R.C. 239 = Reinach, ii. 278, i. 330, i. 482 (the first of these given
  by Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 26–8).

Footnote 1240:

  B.M. F 272; Munich 368 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 59, 60, and 805
  = Reinach, i. 391; Reinach, ii. 181–82; _Boston Mus. Report_ for
  1900, p. 50, No. 17 (Erginos and Aristophanes); and see under
  Centaurs, p. 145.

Footnote 1241:

  Munich 410 = Reinach, ii. 86 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 33.

Footnote 1242:

  Berlin 1731 = Roscher, iii. p. 1782, has been interpreted as the rape
  of Helene.

Footnote 1243:

  See Furtwaengler, _op. cit._ p. 177; and cf. Bibl. Nat. 256 =
  Reinach, ii. 254. Berlin 3143 = Reinach, i. 373, may also represent a
  rape by Theseus.

Footnote 1244:

  Jatta 1094 = Reinach, i. 356: see also Reinach, i. 108, 455, and
  above, p. 68.

Footnote 1245:

  Munich 849 = Reinach, i. 258.

Footnote 1246:

  _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (in Boston).

Footnote 1247:

  See B.M. F 123 and F 272; also a vase in Berlin (_Arch. Anzeiger_,
  1890, p. 89), where Eros shoots with his bow at Phaidra; Hippolytos
  is present. Cf. also Naples 2900 = Millingen-Reinach, 41.

Footnote 1248:

  B.M. F 279.

Footnote 1249:

  Petersburg 1357 = Reinach, i. 244, and 1723 = Baumeister, i. p. 406,
  fig. 448; Naples 3140 = _Mus. Borb._ ii. 30, 4; _Monuments Piot_, x.
  pl. 8 (in Boston); and cf. Berlin 2300 = Reinach, i. 273.

Footnote 1250:

  B.M. B 155, F 490 (?).

Footnote 1251:

  B.M. F 83.

Footnote 1252:

  Athens 1956 = _Ath. Mitth._ xi. (1886), pl. 10.

Footnote 1253:

  B.M. B 471 = Fig. 97, Vol. I. p. 382; Berlin 3022 = Reinach, i. 172;
  Munich 1187 = Reinach, ii. 109: cf. Bibl. Nat. 456.

Footnote 1254:

  B.M. B 248, B 380; E 181, E 399; F 500; Berlin 1682 = Reinach, i.
  441; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290; Munich 619 = Reinach, ii. 48.

Footnote 1255:

  B.M. E 493; _Mon. Grecs_, 1878, pl. 2 (a fine example in the Louvre).

Footnote 1256:

  Munich 619, 910 = Reinach, ii. 48–9; _Ant. Denkm._ i. 57. For
  Chrysaor see Reinach, i. 172 (Louvre E 857), ii. 49, and Stackelberg,

Footnote 1257:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 4.

Footnote 1258:

  B.M. E 169 = _J.H.S._ xxiv. pl. 5, and F 185; Engelmann, _Arch.
  Studien_, p. 6; and cf. Naples 3225; Millin-Reinach, ii. 3;
  _Jahrbuch_, xi. (1896), pl. 2 (in Berlin). For the correct
  explanation of the first-named vase see Petersen in _op. cit._ p. 104

Footnote 1259:

  Berlin 1652 = Reinach, i. 217; Roscher, iii. p. 2053 (in Berlin; a
  fine instance); Naples 3225, S.A. 24, S.A. 708 = Reinach, i. 188.

Footnote 1260:

  Reinach, i. 344; _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), p. 38: cf. _Philologus_,
  1868, pl. 1, fig. 1, and pl. 3.

Footnote 1261:

  Millingen-Reinach, 3: see _Philologus_, 1868, pl. 1, figs. 2–3, p. 16.

Footnote 1262:

  Berlin 2377 = Reinach, i. 289.

Footnote 1263:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 33.

Footnote 1264:

  Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 46; Reinach, i. 284.

Footnote 1265:

  B.M. E 610, E 715 (Plate XLVI., fig. 4).

Footnote 1266:

  B.M. B 2: cf. Bibl. Nat. 977 for a similar figure inaccurately (?)
  inscribed Oinomaos.

Footnote 1267:

  B.M. F 331; Naples 1982 = Reinach, i. 292 (very doubtful; Oinomaos
  absent: see p. 123, note 1361).

Footnote 1268:

  B.M. F 271, 278; Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379; Athens 968 =
  _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 34 (B.F.); Reinach, i. 290 = _Wiener Vorl._ i.
  pl. 10, 2; Naples 2858 = _ibid._ pl. 10, 1 (subject doubtful).

Footnote 1269:

  Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235; Reinach, i. 163 = Baumeister, ii. p.
  1203, fig. 1395; Naples S.A. 697.

Footnote 1270:

  Berlin 3072 = Reinach, i. 204.

Footnote 1271:

  Naples 2200 = Reinach, i. 379.

Footnote 1272:

  Naples 3222 = Reinach, i. 167.

Footnote 1273:

  Jatta 1499 = Reinach, i. 127 = _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 8; _Boston Mus.
  Report_, 1900, p. 68, No. 25.

Footnote 1274:

  Naples 2418 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 69; _Wiener Vorl._
  viii. 9, 1 = Roscher, ii. 282; Reinach, i. 287, ii. 318.

Footnote 1275:

  _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 4; Louvre A 478; Reinach, i. 108
  (Karlsruhe 388), 517 (Athens 1589), 331 (four late examples), and ii.
  279; and see B.M. B 105, B 162; Naples 3253 = Reinach, i. 195; Berlin

Footnote 1276:

  Petersburg 427 = Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ 3 (see Vol. I. p. 478 and
  _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1874, p. 35).

Footnote 1277:

  Baumeister, i. p. 303, fig. 319; and see Reinach, i. 331, and Munich
  805 = _ibid._ i. 277 (the latter so interpreted by Flasch, _Angebl.
  Argonautenbilder_, p. 30 ff.).

Footnote 1278:

  B.F.: François vase; Munich 333 = Reinach, ii. 119 = _Wiener Vorl._
  1889, 2, 2; Berlin 1705; Helbig, 34 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 90; Reinach,
  i. 230. R.F.: Reinach, ii. 162, 210.

Footnote 1279:

  Roscher, iii. p. 1811.

Footnote 1280:

  _E.g._ B.M. B 37 (Plate XXI.), F 154; Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 170.
  See also p. 166.

Footnote 1281:

  Naples S.A. 11 = Reinach, i. 401.

Footnote 1282:

  Naples 3412 = Reinach, i. 498 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 2, 1 (Assteas;
  Phrixos also on ram); Reinach, ii. 309. For Phrixos on ram see Berlin
  3345, and _Festschr. für Overbeck_, p. 17.

Footnote 1283:

  _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 12 (the antiquity of this vase is very

Footnote 1284:

  Naples S.A. 270 = Reinach, i. 319.

Footnote 1285:

  Reinach, i. 226, 1–3: see _Festschrift für O. Benndorf_, p. 67 and p.
  133, note 5.

Footnote 1286:

  See p. 81.

Footnote 1287:

  Ionic cup in Würzburg, Reinach, i. 201 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold,
  pl. 41; B.M. E 302; Jatta 1095 = Reinach, i. 119; Stackelberg, pl. 38
  = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 15; and see Berlin 1682.

Footnote 1288:

  Bibl. Nat. 442 = Reinach, ii. 79 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 12, 5.

Footnote 1289:

  _J.H.S._ x. p. 118 = Reinach, i. 226.

Footnote 1290:

  Millingen-Reinach, 51 = Reinach, ii. 180: see above, p. 105.

Footnote 1291:

  Munich 805 = Reinach, i. 277 = _Wiener Vorl._ iv. 3; but see Flasch,
  _Angebl. Argonautenb._ p. 30 ff., and p. 137 (Laertes and Antikleia).

Footnote 1292:

  Petersburg 422 = Reinach, i. 139; Baumeister, i. p. 123, fig. 128;
  Millingen-Reinach, 6.

Footnote 1293:

  Helbig, ii. p. 328 = Reinach, i. 102 = Baumeister, i. p. 124, fig.
  129; Reinach, i. 137; but see Flasch, _Angebl. Argonautenb._ p. 24 ff.

Footnote 1294:

  Naples 2413 = Roscher, ii. 81, and 3252 = Reinach, i. 449.

Footnote 1295:

  Naples 3248 = Roscher, ii. 83.

Footnote 1296:

  Millingen-Reinach, 7 = _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 8.

Footnote 1297:

  Jatta 1501 = Reinach, i. 361 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 38–39.

Footnote 1298:

  Helbig, 179 = Reinach, i. 359 (ram led to caldron). B.M. B 221, B
  328; Berlin 2188; Reinach, ii. 81 (ram placed in caldron; daughters
  of Pelias usually present).

Footnote 1299:

  Reinach, i. 336; _ibid._ 359 = Helbig 179 (P. led to slaughter by
  daughters; M. waiting with knife).

Footnote 1300:

  B.M. E 163 (J. as old man; ram in caldron).

Footnote 1301:

  Naples S.A. 526.

Footnote 1302:

  Munich 810 = Reinach, i. 363 = Baumeister, ii. p. 903, fig. 980;
  Reinach, i. 402.

Footnote 1303:

  Naples 3221 = Reinach, i. 402.

Footnote 1304:

  Bologna 273 = Baumeister, iii. 1999, fig. 2149.

Footnote 1305:

  B.M. E 224.

Footnote 1306:

  Cf. the poem by Stesichoros, Ἄthla ἐpὶ Pelίa

Footnote 1307:

  Berlin 1655 = Reinach, i. 199: see Vol. I. p. 319.

Footnote 1308:

  _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ xxiii. p. 158; but see _Burlington Fine Arts
  Club Cat._ (1903), p. 92, for another explanation; also p. 47.

Footnote 1309:

  The only literary source for these stories (before Roman times) is in
  the tragic poets. But subjects from the _Septem_ of Aeschylus are not
  found on vases; and it is not until the Hellenistic period that any
  real references to the Sophoclean and Euripidean plays occur. On some
  of the Megarian bowls (Vol. I. p. 500) the subjects adhere very
  closely to the text.

Footnote 1310:

  B.M. E 81; Petersburg 2189 = Reinach, i. 5.

Footnote 1311:

  B.M. B 505–6.

Footnote 1312:

  Louvre E 669 = Reinach, i. 435, 1; Berlin 2634 = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 7
  = Roscher, ii. 837; Naples 3226 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. pl.
  27 (Assteas); Millin-Reinach, ii. 7 (in Louvre); _Röm. Mitth._ v.
  (1890), p. 343.

Footnote 1313:

  Athens 1858 = Reinach, i. 396: see p. 155, note 1548, for another
  interpretation; also _Arch. Zeit._ 1865, p. 68, and Frazer,
  _Pausanias_, v. p. 49.

Footnote 1314:

  _Wiener Vorl._ C. 7, 3 = Roscher, ii. 842.

Footnote 1315:

  Berlin 3296 = Reinach, i. 421 = Baumeister, i. p. 456, fig. 502. The
  vase given in Millin-Reinach, ii. 44, may represent Zethos and
  Amphion with Antiope.

Footnote 1316:

  Reinach, i. 379.

Footnote 1317:

  Berlin 3239; Naples 1769; _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 11 = Roscher, i. p. 903.

Footnote 1318:

  Bibl. Nat. 372 = Reinach, i. 92 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1049, fig. 1266.

Footnote 1319:

  B.M. E 696 = _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 81.

Footnote 1320:

  B.F.: B.M. B 539; Stackelberg, pl. 16. R.F.: B.M. E 156; Vienna 336 =
  Reinach, i. 177; _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 314 (Oxford); Helbig, 186 =
  Hartwig, _Meistersch_. pl. 73. See also parodies in _Philologus_,
  1897, pl. 1 (in Boston), and _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 119 (Berlin).

Footnote 1321:

  See p. 147; _q.v._ also for Sphinx seizing Theban youth.

Footnote 1322:

  _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 6.

Footnote 1323:

  _Ibid._ pl. 8, 8 = Reinach, i. 376: see Roscher, iii. p. 736.

Footnote 1324:

  Naples 2868 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 10. See also Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1325:

  B.F.: Berlin 1655 = Reinach, i. 199 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 10;
  Kopenhagen 112 = Millingen-Reinach, 20; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 16 (?);
  Roscher, i. p. 295. R.F.: Munich 151 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ iii. 5;
  Petersburg 1650 = Reinach, i. 120, and 406 = _ibid._ i. 480.

Footnote 1326:

  B.M. B 247; Berlin 1712.

Footnote 1327:

  Millingen-Reinach, 20.

Footnote 1328:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1899, p. 361.

Footnote 1329:

  Berlin 2395 = Reinach, i. 461: see _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 258.

Footnote 1330:

  Athens 960 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11, 8.

Footnote 1331:

  _Jahrbuch_, viii. (1893), pl. 1: see Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,
  p. 56.

Footnote 1332:

  B.M. D 7; Petersburg 523 = Reinach, i. 466 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11,

Footnote 1333:

  Naples 3255 = Reinach, i. 235 = Baumeister, i. p. 114, fig. 120;
  perhaps also Millin-Reinach, ii. 37 (Lasimos in Louvre).

Footnote 1334:

  Munich 144: cf. Naples 1766 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 4, 4; and
  see Reinach, ii. 284, Roscher, i. p. 296, and Stat. _Theb._ v. 699 ff.

Footnote 1335:

  Kopenhagen 64 = Reinach, i. 259 = Baumeister, i. p. 17, fig. 19.

Footnote 1336:

  Louvre E 640 = Reinach, i. 147 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 11, 4;
  Millingen-Reinach, 22 (?).

Footnote 1337:

  Petersburg 452 = Reinach, i. 161 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 3.

Footnote 1338:

  _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 17, 1 (?).

Footnote 1339:

  Jatta 423 and Berlin 3240 = Reinach, i. 205, 409 = _Wiener Vorl._
  1889, pl. 9, figs. 14, 12; B.M. F 175 (?): see also Jatta 414 =
  Reinach, i. 467 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 4, 2.

Footnote 1340:

  Reinach, i. 273.

Footnote 1341:

  Petersburg 2188 = Reinach, i. 8; Berlin 2430 = _ibid._ i. 287 (Helen
  coming forth); Reinach, i. 279 (= Baumeister, i. p. 635, fig. 706)
  and 380; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 38; _Ant. Denkm._ i. 59 (in Boston).
  For the various versions of the myth see Roscher, _s.v._ Helena.

Footnote 1342:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1900, p. 70, No. 27; and cf. Reinach, i. 173.

Footnote 1343:

  For a collected list of all vase-paintings connected with this story
  see _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 201 ff.

Footnote 1344:

  B.M. E 647; Munich 807 = Millingen-Reinach, 4; Louvre E 639 =
  _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pl. 10, 1; Reinach, ii. 91; and see _ibid._ i. 222
  = Plate XXXIX. (otherwise interpreted, p. 111).

Footnote 1345:

  B.F.: B.M. B 215 (Fig. 128); Munich 380 = Reinach, ii. 115 =
  Baumeister, iii. p. 1799, fig. 1882. R.F.: B.M. E 424; Berlin 2279 =
  Baumeister, iii. p. 1797, fig. 1881 (Peithinos); Athens 1202 =
  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 32, 4; Athens 1588 = $1$2 1897, pl.
  9; Munich 369 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 24 (Duris); Overbeck,
  _Her. Bildw._ pl. 7, fig. 8 (in Vatican).

Footnote 1346:

  B.M. E 9, E 73; and see above, pp. 25, 26.

Footnote 1347:

  Palermo 1503 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 8, fig. 6: see also for
  Cheiron p. 146.

Footnote 1348:

  Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 1.

Footnote 1349:

  B.M. B 620; Berlin 4220; De Witte, _Coll. à  l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 1;
  Athens 966 (with Athena and Hermes); Louvre G 3 (Pamphaios); Micali,
  _Storia_, pl. 87; B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98 (parody).

Footnote 1350:

  Bibl. Nat. 538 = Reinach, i. 90 (doubtful); Jahn. _Arch. Beitr._ pl.
  11 (?), and see p. 352 ff.

Footnote 1351:

  Reinach, ii. 43.

Footnote 1352:

  Bibl. Nat. 1047 = Reinach, i. 87.

Footnote 1353:

  Reinach, i. 126 = Bibl. Nat. 422.

Footnote 1354:

  See _J.H.S._ vii. p. 196 ff., whence this classification is taken.

Footnote 1355:

  B.M. B 236–38; early Ionic vase in Munich, 123 = Furtwaengler and
  Reichhold, pl. 21; Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 9, fig. 2 (Xenokles);
  _J.H.S._ vii. pl. 70, p. 198.

Footnote 1356:

  B.F.: B.M. B 312. R.F.: B.M. E 445; Berlin 2536 = Roscher, iii. p.

Footnote 1357:

  B.F.: B.M. B 171; Munich 1269 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ 9, 6. R.F.:
  Berlin 2291 = Fig. 129 (Hieron); Reinach, i. 246 = Roscher, iii. p.
  1610 (Brygos, in Louvre); Roscher, iii. p. 1617 (fine pyxis in
  Kopenhagen; the goddesses in chariots).

Footnote 1358:

  Berlin 2633; Petersburg 1807 = Reinach, i. 7; B.M. F 109, F 167;
  Berlin 3240; Karlsruhe 259 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 30;
  _Ath. Mitth._ xxiv. (1899), p. 67 (R.F. kotyle in Berlin, Hermes

Footnote 1359:

  _Wiener Vorl._ E. 11 = _Jahrbuch_, ix. (1894), p. 252.

Footnote 1360:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 30, and 1901, p. 35 (both from the
  Kabeirion, Thebes).

Footnote 1361:

  B.M. F 175; Athens 1942 = Reinach, i. 402; Petersburg 1924 = Reinach,
  i. 9 = _Wiener Vorl._ C. 1, 3; Naples 1982 = Reinach, i. 292 (? See
  p. 113, note 1267); Reinach, i. 375.

Footnote 1362:

  B.M. E 226; Jatta 1619 = _Él. Cér._ iv. 72 = Roscher, i. 1961.

Footnote 1363:

  B.M. E 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 2; Berlin 2291 = Reinach, i. 437, 1 =
  Baumeister, i. p. 637, fig. 709 (Hieron); Petersburg 1929 = Reinach,
  i. 9; Reinach, i. 437, 2 (Hieron and Makron): see also _Rev. Arch._
  xxxiii. (1898), p. 399.

Footnote 1364:

  B.M. F 175 (?).

Footnote 1365:

  Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 21 (fine R.F. vase in Louvre); _Röm. Mitth._
  ii. (1887), pls. 11–12, 4; Berlin 1737 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 9, 4.

Footnote 1366:

  Naples 3352 = Reinach, i. 485; and see Bibl. Nat. 418 = Reinach, i.
  83; also Roscher, _s.v._ Nereus.

Footnote 1367:

  Reinach, i. 286 = Bibl. Nat. 851 = _Wiener Vorl._ B. 9, 2 (Epigenes).

Footnote 1368:

  Berlin 2264 (Oltos and Euxitheos) = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 1; Bibl.
  Nat. 851 = Reinach, i. 287 = Roscher, iii. 295: see also Roscher,
  iii. 1697–99 (setting out of Patroklos). As Nestor himself went to
  the war, it is possible that this scene is to be regarded as taking
  place during and not before it.

Footnote 1369:

  Bologna 273 = _Wiener Vorl._ i. 4.

Footnote 1370:

  B.M. E 16; Baumeister, i. p. 683, fig. 743; and see Overbeck, _Her.
  Bildw._ pl. 13, 7, p. 276.

Footnote 1371:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1902, pl. 2 (in Boston).

Footnote 1372:

  _Iph. in Aul._ 192 ff.

Footnote 1373:

  B.M. B 193 (Plate XXXI.), B 211, E 10; Helbig, 78 = Reinach, i. 96 =
  _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 6, 1 (Exekias). A “bilingual” example in Boston
  (by Andokides? B.F. and R.F.): see _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp.
  40–41, figs. 15–16. The latest example seems to be _Arch. Anzeiger_,
  1892, p. 102.

Footnote 1374:

  B.M. B 541, E 160: see below, p. 133, and _B.M. Cat._ iii. p 36.

Footnote 1375:

  B.M. F 159 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 9, 3.

Footnote 1376:

  Reinach, i. 358 = Millingen-Reinach, 50; _ibid._ i. 145 = Baumeister,
  iii. p. 1326, fig. 1479; Milani, _Mito di Filottete_, frontispiece.

Footnote 1377:

  Bibl. Nat. 256 = Reinach, ii. 254: see p. 111, note 1243.

Footnote 1378:

  Petersburg 1793 = Reinach, i. 3: for a more probable interpretation
  (birth of Dionysos) see p. 19.

Footnote 1379:

  Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl. 63; Engelmann, _Arch. Stud. zu den
  Trag._ p. 17; and see Urlichs, _Beiträge_, pl. 4.

Footnote 1380:

  Petersburg 1275 = Reinach, i. 152: cf. Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._
  i. pl. 22 (Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 296).

Footnote 1381:

  Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 13, 9.

Footnote 1382:

  B.M. E 382; Naples 2293 and R.C. 141 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1725, fig.

Footnote 1383:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1898, No. 40 (signed by Hieron).

Footnote 1384:

  B.M. B 153.

Footnote 1385:

  B.M. B 324, 542; _Forman Sale Cat._ 282 (= Reinach, i. 285, 1) and
  308 (both in B.M.); Athens 620 = Reinach, i. 394 = _Wiener Vorl._
  1888, 1, 1 (Timonidas); B.M. F 493 (caricature).

Footnote 1386:

  Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92 (early Ionic); B.M. B 307; François
  vase; Berlin 1685; Helbig, 130 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 22, 1; B.M. E 10, E
  13, and _Forman Sale Cat._ 339.

Footnote 1387:

  Reinach, ii. 114–15 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1901, fig. 2000
  (Euphronios); Reinach, i. 285, 3; Louvre G 18 = Reinach, i. 203, 3;
  Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92; B.M. B 326.

Footnote 1388:

  Munich 124 = Reinach, ii. 113.

Footnote 1389:

  Berlin 2278 = _Ant. Denkm_. i. 10; and see Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p.

Footnote 1390:

  Reinach, ii. 198.

Footnote 1391:

  _Ibid._ i. 306 = _Wiener Vorl._ iii. 1 (the names may be fanciful);
  _ibid._ i. 77 (cf. Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ p. 333).

Footnote 1392:

  Louvre E 609 = Reinach, i. 395 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 1, 3 (Chares

Footnote 1393:

  Like others of the Homeric scenes on B.F. vases, this type is
  sometimes used for an ordinary warrior taking leave of his family,
  and unless names are given it is difficult to distinguish.

Footnote 1394:

  Robert, in _Hermes_, 1901, p. 391, connects this scene with Book xix.
  320 ff.

Footnote 1395:

  The text is not exactly followed here. Menelaos kills Euphorbos in
  the _Iliad_, but does not fight over his body with Hector as he does
  on the vase. Possibly there is a confusion with the Patroklos episode

Footnote 1396:

  The “Psychostasia” is also referred to the combat of Achilles and
  Memnon (p. 132).

Footnote 1397:

  See, for a revised drawing of this vase, Hill, _Illustrations of
  School Classics_, p. 105.

Footnote 1398:

  B.M. B 209–10 (= _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6, 2, 1889, pl. 3, 3 =
  Reinach, ii. 105), B 323 (?), E 280; Munich 478 = Reinach, ii. 105,
  and 370 = Furtwaengler-Reichhold, 6.

Footnote 1399:

  See below, p. 144.

Footnote 1400:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1903, No. 70: cf. Quint. Smyrn. i. 741 ff.

Footnote 1401:

  Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ 21, 16 = Roscher, ii. 2674; and see B.M. B
  209 = Reinach, ii. 105.

Footnote 1402:

  Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 4 = Engelmann-Anderson, _Atlas to Od._ iii. 15
  (? see above, under _Il._ xxii. 306 ff.); Reinach, ii. 105, 2.

Footnote 1403:

  B.F.: Berlin 1147; Helbig, 8, 31 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 28, 1, and 38,
  1; Bibl. Nat. 207 = Reinach, ii. 254. R.F.: B.M. E 468;
  Millingen-Reinach, 49 = Reinach, i. 358; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 17
  (now in Boston). In the last-named the subject is slightly varied.

Footnote 1404:

  B.M. E 12 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 3, 1; Reinach, i. 149; Louvre F 388
  (?): see p. 71.

Footnote 1405:

  Millingen, _A.U.M._ i. 5; _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 7 = Roscher, i. p. 1265
  (in Louvre); Reinach, i. 347 = _Bourguignon Cat._ 19: cf. also Athens
  1093 = Roscher, ii. 2678 (Eos, together with Thanatos and Hypnos, two

Footnote 1406:

  Helbig, 43 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 49, 2.

Footnote 1407:

  Reinach, ii. 106.

Footnote 1408:

  B.M. E 808 (?).

Footnote 1409:

  Reinach, i. 82.

Footnote 1410:

  B.M. B 172; Munich 380 = Reinach, ii. 115; Helbig, 77 = _ibid._ ii.
  107 (see below, p. 177); Bibl. Nat. 537 = Reinach, i. 90; _Boston
  Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 28 = _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 51.
  (Thetis present)

Footnote 1411:

  Louvre E 643 = Reinach, i. 311; _ibid._ ii. 107 (?).

Footnote 1412:

  B.M. B 240 = Reinach, ii. 99.

Footnote 1413:

  Reinach, i. 304 (and i. 226, 1–3 (?), see p. 115); Engelmann, _Arch.
  Stud. zu d. Trag._ p. 37: cf. _Sale Cat. Hôtel Drouot_, 11 May, 1903,
  No. 100.

Footnote 1414:

  Athens 475 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1955, fig. 2086 (Melian vase); B.M.
  B 327, B 397, E 13; _Forman Sale Cat._ 298; Berlin 2000 = Robert,
  _Bild u. Lied_, p. 217; Baumeister, i. p. 29, fig. 30; _Wiener Vorl._
  1889, 5, 2 (in Louvre); Naples 3358 = Reinach, i. 313 = _Wiener
  Vorl._ C. 8, 2. The type is derived from that of Herakles and Kyknos
  (p. 101).

Footnote 1415:

  B.M. E 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 2; Millin-Reinach, i. 66.

Footnote 1416:

  B.M. B 541, E 160: see above, p. 124.

Footnote 1417:

  Vienna 325 = Reinach, i. 174 = _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 1.

Footnote 1418:

  Two Corinthian vases, _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116, and _Boston
  Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 12; Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151 = Rayet
  and Collignon, p. 69; B.M. F 480 = Plate LVIII.; Reinach, i. 278.

Footnote 1419:

  Petersburg 830 = Reinach, i. 150 = _Wiener Vorl._ A. 8; Naples 3231,
  3235 = Reinach, i. 299, 102; parody, B.M. F 366.

Footnote 1420:

  Bibl. Nat. 186 = _Jahrbuch_, vii. (1892), pl. 2; Munich 400 =
  Reinach, ii. 116; Roscher, i. 1279.

Footnote 1421:

  _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 15: see _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 4, p. 190.

Footnote 1422:

  See for the various types _J.H.S_, xiv. p. 171.

Footnote 1423:

  Berlin 2301 = Reinach, i. 381; Petersburg 812 = Reinach, i. 381 =
  Millin-Reinach, i. 58 (doubtful).

Footnote 1424:

  Reinach, ii. 16; Naples 2858 = Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._ pl. 28, 5;
  _ibid._ 1755 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1848, fig. 1939; _ibid._ 1761 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 16.

Footnote 1425:

  B.M. D 33, F 57.

Footnote 1426:

  Reinach, ii. 175: cf. _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 38.

Footnote 1427:

  Vienna 333 = Reinach, i. 169; Berlin 2184 = Reinach, i. 296 =
  Baumeister, ii. p. 1113, fig. 1310; Reinach, i. 143; Roscher, iii.
  969 (in Berlin).

Footnote 1428:

  Vienna 333 = Reinach, i. 169 = Roscher, iii. 971; Reinach i. 381;
  Millin-Reinach, ii. 24.

Footnote 1429:

  B.M. E 446.

Footnote 1430:

  Petersburg 349 = Reinach, i. 19; _ibid._ ii. 9, 316; Naples 1984 =
  Baumeister, ii. p. 1116, fig. 1313.

Footnote 1431:

  B.M. F 166; Reinach, i. 132 (in Louvre); Millin-Reinach, ii. 68;
  Naples 1984; Helbig, 117 = Reinach, i. 390; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890,
  p. 90 (Berlin); and cf. B.M. B 641 (possibly Orestes and Pylades at

Footnote 1432:

  Petersburg 2189 (according to Roscher, iii. p. 993); but see Reinach,
  i. 5, and above under Kadmos.

Footnote 1433:

  Reinach, i. 105 = Naples 3223; _ibid._ 133 = Baumeister, i. p. 757,
  fig. 808; _ibid._ i. 158 = Petersburg 420; Naples S.A. 24; and see
  B.M. F 155, and Reinach, i. 279.

Footnote 1434:

  Reinach, i. 321 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1009, fig. 1215 (Jatta Coll.).

Footnote 1435:

  See generally on Athenian cults, as illustrated by vase-paintings,
  Harrison, _Mythol. and Mon. of Athens_, Introd. p. xxi ff.

Footnote 1436:

  On one of these vases the scene (in the interior of a cup) is watched
  by a group of Athenians at the foot of a hill, round the outside of
  the cup (Reinach, i. 107 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 39–40).

Footnote 1437:

  See Harrison, _op. cit._ p. lxxxiv ff.

Footnote 1438:

  Cf. Strabo, ix. § 392, and see for Lykos in another connection p. 124
  above. In the vase here given they witness the exploits of their
  kinsman Theseus (on the obverse).

Footnote 1439:

  Cf. $1$2 1893, pl. 9, p. 130 ff., and Frazer’s _Pausanias_, ii. p.

Footnote 1440:

  E 224 = Plate XLI. = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 8–9.

Footnote 1441:

  Furtwaengler (_50^{tes} Winckelmannsfestprogr._ p. 163) refers the
  Orpheus scenes to the Aeschylean tetralogy of the Lykourgeia.

Footnote 1442:

  B.M. E 390; Naples 1978, 2889, 3143 (see Reinach, i. 176); Reinach,
  i. 403 = Roscher, iii. p. 1181; Roscher, iii. p. 1179 (in Berlin).

Footnote 1443:

  Munich 383; Reinach, i. 63; ii. 80.

Footnote 1444:

  B.M. E 301; Naples 3114; Reinach, i. 186, 327 (= Roscher, iii. p.
  1185–86); Roscher, iii. p. 1184: see also _J.H.S._ ix. p. 143.

Footnote 1445:

  Reinach, i. 493 = Roscher, iii. p. 1178.

Footnote 1446:

  She occurs on B.M. F 270, Petersburg 498, and Karlsruhe 256.

Footnote 1447:

  Reinach, i. 96 = Helbig, 99; _Röm. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 9; and see
  Naples 3143 = Reinach, i. 176.

Footnote 1448:

  Jatta 1538 = Reinach, i. 526.

Footnote 1449:

  Athens 1344 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 14.

Footnote 1450:

  Schreiber-Anderson, _Atlas_, pl. 5, 10 = Reinach, ii. 333, 5
  (burlesque scene with actor as Taras on dolphin: see p. 160).

Footnote 1451:

  B.M. E 447; Louvre F 166; Helbig, 189 = Reinach, i. 268; Reinach, i.
  122; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 53, 2; Naples 1851 = _Jahrbuch_,
  1887, p. 113; _Ath. Mitth._ xxii. (1897), pl. 13: see for the myth,
  Hdt. viii. 138 and Roscher, _s.v._

Footnote 1452:

  Reinach, i. 147, 509; ii. 81, 271.

Footnote 1453:

  Munich 849 = Reinach, i. 258.

Footnote 1454:

  See pp. 99, 111, 132.

Footnote 1455:

  _Wiener Vorl._ A. 10, 3.

Footnote 1456:

  _Ibid._ iii. 4: see _Röm. Mitth._ 1894, p. 285.

Footnote 1457:

  B.M. F 6, 85, 230; Reinach, i. 492, ii. 295.

Footnote 1458:

  B.M. F 158, 278; Naples R.C. 239 (= Reinach, i. 482), 3253 (=
  Reinach, i. 330 = _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 6b, 1), and 2421 (= Reinach,
  ii. 278 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 26–8); Millin-Reinach, i.
  56 (= Bibl. Nat. 427) and 61; Millingen-Reinach, 37.

Footnote 1459:

  B.M. E 12; Naples 2613; Louvre F 203; Munich 4 = Reinach, ii. 57;
  Reinach, ii. 56.

Footnote 1460:

  _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 6, 2; B.M. B 158, 566; Micali, _Storia_, 91.

Footnote 1461:

  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 304 = Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amph._ p. 64.

Footnote 1462:

  B.M. E 40; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 2, fig. 2 (Louvre G 35);
  _ibid._ pl. 22, 2; Reinach, i. 166.

Footnote 1463:

  Engelmann-Anderson, _Iliad_, v. 24, vi. 25.

Footnote 1464:

  B.M. E 19; Vienna 231 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 1, 6.

Footnote 1465:

  B.M. B 591; Berlin 2264 = Reinach, i. 508, 4.

Footnote 1466:

  _Boston Mus. Report_ for 1899, No. 22: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p.
  119, note 1.

Footnote 1467:

  Louvre A 256 = _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11.

Footnote 1468:

  B.M. E 253, E 295.

Footnote 1469:

  B.M. E 573.

Footnote 1470:

  See above, p. 102.

Footnote 1471:

  See above, p. 111.

Footnote 1472:

  François vase; B.M. B 176, F 162, F 277; Reinach, i. 154 (= Naples
  2411), 309 (Louvre E 700), 391 (Munich 805); Furtwaengler and
  Reichhold, pl. 15 (a fine R.F. example).

Footnote 1473:

  François vase; B.M. E 473; _J.H.S._ xvii. pl. 6; Munich 846 =
  Millingen-Reinach, 8; _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 2; Reinach, i. 22, 474,
  ii. 272.

Footnote 1474:

  For Herakles and Pholos see p. 102.

Footnote 1475:

  B.M. B 620 (Achilles); Munich 611 = Reinach, i. 419 (Herakles);
  Reinach, ii. 91 (Achilles); B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98 (parody).

Footnote 1476:

  See _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pp. 202–4, Nos. 51–9, 94.

Footnote 1477:

  Reinach, ii. 209, 289; Athens 1246: cf. B.M. B 226.

Footnote 1478:

  Reinach, i. 58, 452; Helbig, 237 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 82, 2_b_;
  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 8, 2.

Footnote 1479:

  _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 2.

Footnote 1480:

  B.M. F 550; _Wiener Vorl._ E. pls. 7–8, fig. 3 (cf. p. 88).

Footnote 1481:

  B.M. F 370.

Footnote 1482:

  See above, p. 112.

Footnote 1483:

  François vase; Athens 644; Reinach, i. 332, 429.

Footnote 1484:

  Reinach, i. 259.

Footnote 1485:

  _E.g._ B.M. B 427, 428, 430, 436, 679, 680: cf. E 180.

Footnote 1486:

  Cf. Virgil, _Aen._ iii. 216 (_virgineae vultus_) and 241 (_obscenae

Footnote 1487:

  See, _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 103 ff.

Footnote 1488:

  B.M. B 4, B 16 (?): see Vol. I. p. 344.

Footnote 1489:

  See p. 115; B.M. E 302; Reinach, i. 119, 201; and for two Harpies,
  with name inscribed, in connection with this story, Berlin 1682 =
  Reinach, i. 441.

Footnote 1490:

  Louvre A 478.

Footnote 1491:

  B.M. E 440; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 1; _Strena Helbigiana_, p. 31.

Footnote 1492:

  On Sirens generally, and especially as death-deities, see Weicker,
  _Der Seelenvogel_ (1902).

Footnote 1493:

  Berlin 2157 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 211; on B.M. E 477 a Siren of the
  ordinary decorative type appears with allusion to the death of
  Prokris, perhaps as indicating her departing soul.

Footnote 1494:

  B.M. B 651.

Footnote 1495:

  Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.

Footnote 1496:

  B.M. B 510: cf. Weicker, p. 48.

Footnote 1497:

  Weicker, p. 120, fig. 46.

Footnote 1498:

  _E.g._ B.M. A 1135; _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 291, 292, 479.

Footnote 1499:

  Louvre E 667, 723; Vienna 318; Munich 1077.

Footnote 1500:

  Munich 1050.

Footnote 1501:

  B.M. B 215; Louvre A 441, E 858; Berlin 1727: cf. Athens 531 and
  Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, pl. 3, fig. 38.

Footnote 1502:

  B.M. B 429.

Footnote 1503:

  See above, p. 117; and cf. Bibl. Nat. 278 and Athens 1480 = _Wiener
  Vorl._ 1889, 9, 8.

Footnote 1504:

  B.M. B 125, B 539, etc.

Footnote 1505:

  B.M. B 650; Reinach, i. 319; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 235.

Footnote 1506:

  Reinach, i. 471.

Footnote 1507:

  Naples 2846 = _Festsehr. für Overbeck_, p. 103.

Footnote 1508:

  B.M. B 32 and Athens 592 (with Hermes); Naples 3254 = Reinach, i. 327
  = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, 9, 7.

Footnote 1509:

  Reinach, i. 54, 258, 480, ii. 236.

Footnote 1510:

  B.M. E 434; Reinach, i. 23, 53.

Footnote 1511:

  See above, p. 144.

Footnote 1512:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 11.

Footnote 1513:

  Reinach, ii. 319.

Footnote 1514:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 64, No. 21 (B.F.).

Footnote 1515:

  Reinach, i. 220; and see ii. 314.

Footnote 1516:

  _Bourguignon Cat._ 57.

Footnote 1517:

  See p. 29 above.

Footnote 1518:

  B.M. B 45, B 65, E 11, E 35, Bibl. Nat. 177, Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.
  Vasenb._ 8, 1 (Pegasos); B.M. B 105, B 417, and Louvre A 307

Footnote 1519:

  B.M. E 170; Reinach, ii. 309.

Footnote 1520:

  Bibl. Nat. 449 = Reinach, i. 129.

Footnote 1521:

  _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pl. 5 (cf. pl. 4).

Footnote 1522:

  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 12, 2; B.M. B 308 (three Minotaurs).

Footnote 1523:

  Bibl. Nat. 1066 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, pl. 3: see, _J.H.S._ xi. p. 349.

Footnote 1524:

  Reinach, i. 188.

Footnote 1525:

  _Ibid._ i. 498.

Footnote 1526:

  B.M. F 218.

Footnote 1527:

  Athens 961 = _Ath. Mitth._ xvi. pl. 9 (probably taken from a Satyric

Footnote 1528:

  Reinach, i. 459.

Footnote 1529:

  See above, p. 12.

Footnote 1530:

  Munich 468 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 217 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.

Footnote 1531:

  B.M. B 433; Berlin 1770; Athens 713 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 8,
  4; Louvre F 100, 104 (between Sirens): cf. Ar. _Av._ 800.

Footnote 1532:

  François vase; Reinach, i. 27, 54, 61, 470, ii. 295; B.M. B 77;
  Millin-Reinach, i. 63; _Wiener Vorl._ ii. 5, 2; and cf. B.M. G 178
  and Jahn, _Arch. Beitr._ pl. 12, 1.

Footnote 1533:

  Cf. Naples 2609 (Hipparchos); B.M. E 46, Athens 1162, and Louvre G
  103 (Leagros); Athens 1020 = _Jahrbuch_, ii. p. 163 (Glaukon); B.M. E
  300 and Oxford 309 (Kleinias); Reinach, i. 513, 6 (Megakles).

Footnote 1534:

  B.M. B 80; Berlin 1686 = Rayet and Collignon, pl. 7, and 1882 =
  Reinach, ii. 122.

Footnote 1535:

  See p. 60.

Footnote 1536:

  See p. 53; also Reinach, i. 472 and ii. 198, 4 (both Dionysiac).

Footnote 1537:

  Oxford 292 (Persephone); Reinach, ii. 321, 4; _ibid._ 122, 2 (=
  Berlin 2129): see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 48, note; also _Él. Cér._
  ii. 108, and Reinach, ii. 286.

Footnote 1538:

  _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 36 (in Berlin).

Footnote 1539:

  B.M. B 633.

Footnote 1540:

  B.M. E 284 = _Mon. Antichi_, ix. pl. 1.

Footnote 1541:

  B.M. B 80, B 585, B 648.

Footnote 1542:

  Naples 2858; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_.

Footnote 1543:

  B.M. B 79; Louvre F 10; Reinach, i. 428; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 1 _a_;
  Munich 386 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 19; and see under Nike,
  p. 87.

Footnote 1544:

  Bologna 275; B.M. B 362.

Footnote 1545:

  Berlin 1727 = Reinach, i. 429; Athens 1428 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._
  pl. 11, 3 (sacrifice to Hekate?); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 3, fig.

Footnote 1546:

  B.M. E 455, 456, 494; _Él. Cér._ ii. 105, 108; Millin-Reinach, i. 8;
  Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 2; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 100

Footnote 1547:

  B.M. B 3.

Footnote 1548:

  B.M. E 455; Athens 1858 = Baumeister, i. p. 211, fig. 165 = Reinach,
  i. 396.

Footnote 1549:

  B.M. E 284; Bologna 286; Reinach, i. 403 = Schreiber-Anderson, 25, 8
  (referred to the Thargelia by Reisch, _Gr. Weihgeschenke_, p. 80).

Footnote 1550:

  Berlin 1727, 2010.

Footnote 1551:

  B.M. E 114, E 291; Bibl. Nat. 94; Reinach, ii. 135.

Footnote 1552:

  B.M. E 88; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 78, 2 _b_; and see Stackelberg, pl. 35.

Footnote 1553:

  Reinach, ii. 286; _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, 2 = _Röm. Mitth._ v.
  (1890), p. 324; _Mus. Greg._ 71, 1 _b_.

Footnote 1554:

  Naples 3358 = Reinach, i. 313 = Schreiber-Anderson, 20, 3: see Miss
  Harrison’s _Prolegomena to Gk. Religion_, p. 157.

Footnote 1555:

  De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 29.

Footnote 1556:

  De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 22.

Footnote 1557:

  _J.H.S._ xix. p. 228 (in Naples).

Footnote 1558:

  Naples 2458 = _J.H.S._ xix. p. 227: cf. B.M. B 641.

Footnote 1559:

  Athens 695.

Footnote 1560:

  _J.H.S._ xx. p. 101.

Footnote 1561:

  Karlsruhe 278 = Reinach, i. 271.

Footnote 1562:

  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 31, 1.

Footnote 1563:

  Fig. 17, Vol. I. p. 140 = Munich 51.

Footnote 1564:

  B.M. E 494, E 585; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1895, p. 103; Berlin 2213;
  Naples 1760 (= Millingen-Reinach, 52), and S.A. 647 (= _Él. Cér._ iv.
  19); Gerhard, _Akad. Abhandl._ pl. 63, figs. 1, 4, 5; _Él. Cér._ iii.
  pls. 79, 80. They appear to be especially associated with terminal

Footnote 1565:

  Miss Harrison’s comprehensive _Prolegomena to Greek Religion_
  (Cambridge Press, 1903) appeared too recently for the writer to be
  able to make detailed use of it in this section. It must, of course,
  be borne in mind that many of the interpretations in that work are
  only conjectural.

Footnote 1566:

  Athens 199, 200 = _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 201; _ibid._ 214 = Reinach, i.
  190 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1943, fig. 2071.

Footnote 1567:

  Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 165.

Footnote 1568:

  B.M. B 63 = Plate LVIII.; _Forman Sale Cat._ 279 (now in B.M.);
  Baumeister, i. p. 238, fig. 217 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl.
  1; Athens 688 = Reinach, i. 164.

Footnote 1569:

  B.M. D 62 = Plate LV. fig. 1; Athens 1651 = Dumont-Pottier, i. pl.
  32; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 33. A fine R.F. example in
  _Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5–6 (in Louvre).

Footnote 1570:

  Bibl. Nat. 353; Micali, _Storia_, pl. 96, figs. 1–2.

Footnote 1571:

  Athens 688 = Baumeister, i. p. 306, fig. 321 = Reinach, i. 164;
  _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 86 (Berlin). Cf. Fig. 123, p. 71.

Footnote 1572:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 4; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 228; Athens 688.

Footnote 1573:

  B.M. B 543, D 5 = Plate XL.

Footnote 1574:

  B.M. D 65 ff. and Athens 1672–1836 _passim_: cf. B.M. F 93. Plate LV.
  fig. 2 = B.M. D 70.

Footnote 1575:

  B.M. F 93 (Fig. 20, Vol. I. p. 144), 212.

Footnote 1576:

  B.M. F 276, 279–85, 352 (Fig. 106, Vol. I. p. 477).

Footnote 1577:

  B.M. F 353.

Footnote 1578:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 29.

Footnote 1579:

  B.M. D 39, 41, 43–45, 56, 70, F 93–96; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic.
  Vasenb._ pl. 34. See Plate LV. fig. 2 and Fig. 19, Vol. I. p. 143.

Footnote 1580:

  B.M. D 54, 65, 67–86; F 212–13, 336; Athens 1692 = _J.H.S._ xix. pl.
  2, and 1694 = Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 18, 1; _ibid._ pl. 19, 2.

Footnote 1581:

  A unique instance of a sculptured _stele_ copied on a white lekythos
  is _Burlington F.A.C. Cat._ (1903), p. 104, No. 25.

Footnote 1582:

  B.M. D 51.

Footnote 1583:

  B.M. F 352 = Fig. 106.

Footnote 1584:

  B.M. (uncatalogued).

Footnote 1585:

  B.M. D 21.

Footnote 1586:

  B.M. D 60.

Footnote 1587:

  B.M. D 58.

Footnote 1588:

  B.M. D 35; Engelmann-Anderson, _Odyssey_, iii. 10.

Footnote 1589:

  B.M. D 56 = Fig. 19.

Footnote 1590:

  B.M. D 5 = Plate XL.

Footnote 1591:

  Athens 1689 = Reinach, i. 512.

Footnote 1592:

  See above, p. 69.

Footnote 1593:

  See p. 52; also B.M. (uncatalogued).

Footnote 1594:

  B.M. D 58–9; Athens 1093 (= Roscher, ii. 2678), 1653–54 (=
  Dumont-Pottier, i. pls. 27–9); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pl. 2. Cf. Fig. 123,
  p. 71.

Footnote 1595:

  B.M. D 54; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. V._ pls. 14 and 33. See above, p.

Footnote 1596:

  B.M. F 279, 280, 282.

Footnote 1597:

  B.M. F 276, 284; Millin-Reinach, ii. 32–33.

Footnote 1598:

  B.M. F 281.

Footnote 1599:

  B.M. F 276, 279–84, 352 (Fig. 106); Millin-Reinach, ii. 38.

Footnote 1600:

  See p. 68.

Footnote 1601:

  Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238.

Footnote 1602:

  _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (Berlin); but see p. 76, under Asklepios.

Footnote 1603:

  B.M. B 80: see for other parodies of processions or sacrifices Athens
  1132, 1136, 1138.

Footnote 1604:

  B.M. B 509; Berlin 1830 = _J.H.S._ ii. pl. 14, and 1697 (as horses).

Footnote 1605:

  _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, and p. 81; B.M. B 77 = Fig. 98: see generally
  _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 77 ff. and Vol. I. p. 391.

Footnote 1606:

  Vienna 321 (cf. Ar. _Ach._ 729 ff.), Hermes with dog got up as a pig.

Footnote 1607:

  B.M. F 99; Berlin 3046 = Baumeister, ii. p. 821, fig. 904 (see
  _Jahrbuch_, i. p. 283).

Footnote 1608:

  _Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 260 ff.

Footnote 1609:

  See for instance pp. 107, 118, 123.

Footnote 1610:

  B.M. F 233: cf. Reinach, i. 114.

Footnote 1611:

  Schreiber-Anderson, 5, 10 = Heydemann, p. 307 = Reinach, ii. 332, 5.

Footnote 1612:

  B.M. F 543.

Footnote 1613:

  B.M. F 189 = Fig. 134.

Footnote 1614:

  Naples 3240 = Reinach, i. 114 = Baumeister, i. pl. 5, fig. 422.

Footnote 1615:

  B.M. E 65.

Footnote 1616:

  See _Philologus_, 1868, pls. 1–4, p. 1 ff.

Footnote 1617:

  Jatta 1528 = _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 273; B.M. E 790; Naples 2846 =
  _Festschr. für Overbeck_, p. 103.

Footnote 1618:

  B.M. E 467 (Satyric chorus); Reinach, ii. 324, 5; ii. 288.

Footnote 1619:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 50.

Footnote 1620:

  Jatta 1402 = Reinach, i. 413.

Footnote 1621:

  B.M. F 233, F 289.

Footnote 1622:

  _Wiener Vorl._ B. 3, 5 _c_; Millin-Reinach, i. 20.

Footnote 1623:

  Vol. I. p. 472: see also _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 10; Vogel,
  _Scenen Eurip. Tragödien_ (where an exhaustive list is given), and
  Huddilston, _Gk. Tragedy in the Light of Vase-paintings_, where the
  subject is also treated in detail.

Footnote 1624:

  See Vol. I. p. 389, and Plates XXXIII.-IV.; for a complete series of
  illustrations, _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pls. 47–8 = Reinach, i. 210–15.

Footnote 1625:

  B.F.: B.M. B 48, B 64; Berlin 1655, 1805; Bibl. Nat. 252, 354;
  Reinach, ii. 129. R.F.: Reinach, i. 223 (= _Wiener Vorl._ D. 5), 424
  (Berlin 2180), 454, ii. 134 (Berlin 2262), 137 (men with dogs);
  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 15–6 = Bibl. Nat. 523.

Footnote 1626:

  B.M. B 271, B 295, B 607; E 39, 63 (parade of boxers before judges);
  Athens 1169 = Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 31, 2 _a_; Reinach, ii.

Footnote 1627:

  B.M. B 191, B 295, B 603; E 94, 95; Bibl. Nat. 522 = Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ pl. 15, 2; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 16, 2 _a_; Vienna 332 =
  _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, 1, 4.

Footnote 1628:

  B.M. E 78 (very realistic), B 604, B 610; Louvre F 276, 278, 314;
  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 64.

Footnote 1629:

  _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr._ 1881, pl. 4.

Footnote 1630:

  B.M. B 48, B 134 (= Fig. 135), B 326; Munich 795 = Reinach, i. 422 =
  Baumeister, i. p. 613, fig. 672; Reinach, i. 433, 1 = Baumeister, i.
  p. 573, fig. 611; Reinach, i. 272, ii. 128. See on the subject
  generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 54 ff.

Footnote 1631:

  B.M. B 136, E 164; Louvre F 126; Athens 1188 = Reinach, i. 511;
  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 21 (Duris, in Boston); De Witte, _Coll. à
  l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl. 23; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 43, 2 _b_.

Footnote 1632:

  B.M. B 380; Louvre F 126, G 37; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 69, 4 _c_, 70, 2
  _a_; De Witte, _op. cit._ pl. 24.

Footnote 1633:

  B.M. B 48; Reinach, ii. 145, 175, 330; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 70, 1 _a_, 2
  _b_; 73, 1 _b_. Athlete exercising with halteres: Louvre G 15;
  _Forman Sale Cat._ 332.

Footnote 1634:

  B.M. B 361. See _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 70.

Footnote 1635:

  B.M. E 164.

Footnote 1636:

  B.M. E 63, 113, 164; _Forman Sale Cat._ 358; and see _Bull. de Corr.
  Hell._ xxiii. p. 164.

Footnote 1637:

  Athens 1478; Millin-Reinach, i. 45; Panathenaic amphora in B.M.

Footnote 1638:

  B.M. B 137, B 609; Munich 498 = Reinach, i. 215; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 42,
  2 _b_; 43, 1 _a_. Starter in foot-race: B.M. E 6, E 101; Reinach, i.
  433, 2; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 45, fig. 6; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp.
  185–88; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff.

Footnote 1639:

  B.M. B 133, B 144; Berlin 1655, 1722, 2282; Munich 805; Athens 1546;
  Reinach, i. 12, 100, 199, ii. 61, 253; and see Hartwig, _Meistersch._
  p. 491, note 2.

Footnote 1640:

  B.M. B 130–32, B 677; Berlin 1655; Louvre F 216, F 283; Reinach, ii.
  68, 70, 125, 133; François vase.

Footnote 1641:

  B.M. E 389, F 59; _Tyszkiewicz Coll._ pl. 35; Reinach, ii. 298, 320;
  Baumeister, i. p. 522.

Footnote 1642:

  B.M. B 143; E 6, E 22; B 608; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4
  _b_; Reinach, ii. 128, 129 (= Berlin 2307); Munich 476 = _ibid._ ii.
  127, and 803 = _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 196; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 62,
  1. Runner with trainer: _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 31. See on the
  subject generally _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 268 ff., and _Jahrbuch_, 1895,
  p. 182 ff.

Footnote 1643:

  Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 1 and pl. 16 (= Bibl. Nat. 523); B.M. E 22;
  _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ (1903), p. 100, No. 17.

Footnote 1644:

  Berlin 2307 (one fig.); Reinach, i. 494 (Louvre); _Jahrbuch_, 1887,
  p. 99: cf. B.M. B 628.

Footnote 1645:

  _Bourguignon Sale Cat._ 49; Berlin 2307 = Reinach, ii. 129; Hartwig,
  _op. cit._ pl. 16 (Bibl. Nat. 523); _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 190;
  _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 278.

Footnote 1646:

  See _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 285 (runners with helmet in hand).

Footnote 1647:

  _Mus. Greg._ ii. 71, 4 _b_; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 191; Munich 803 and
  1240; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 12. See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._

Footnote 1648:

  B.M. B 144; Reinach, ii. 262, 291, 298, 320 (horsemen): cf. B.M. B

Footnote 1649:

  Reinach, i. 346 = _Bourguignon Cat._ 17; Louvre G 17, G 36.

Footnote 1650:

  See under Nike, p. 88, note 1070.

Footnote 1651:

  Berlin 2180 = Reinach, i. 424, and 2314; Karlsruhe 242 (Psiax and

Footnote 1652:

  Berlin 2178; Louvre G 38 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 25;
  _Arch.-epigr. Mitth._ 1881, pl. 4; Reinach, i. 324.

Footnote 1653:

  Petersburg 1611 = Baumeister, i. p. 247, fig. 226.

Footnote 1654:

  Munich 895 = Reinach, ii. 106.

Footnote 1655:

  Millin-Reinach, i. 47: cf. the athlete extracting a thorn on Berlin
  2180 = Reinach, i. 424.

Footnote 1656:

  Bibl. Nat. 283 (unexplained subject).

Footnote 1657:

  Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, pl. 57, 2 = Schreiber-Anderson, 24,

Footnote 1658:

  B.M. F 232; Naples 2854; Reinach, i. 473; Baumeister, i. p. 585.

Footnote 1659:

  Oxford 288; B.M. B 607; Louvre F 109 (with judges): and see p. 88.

Footnote 1660:

  B.M. E 83; Louvre G 36; Athens 1156 = Reinach, i. 514; _ibid._ ii.
  292 = Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 219 (basin inscribed ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ);
  Schreiber-Anderson, 21, 9 = Reinach, ii. 275; Hartwig, _Meistersch._
  pl. 67, 1, p. 206 (using sponge); Reinach, ii. 134, 275. Youth with
  bath utensils: Berlin 2314.

Footnote 1661:

  B.M. B 271; E 78, 94, 164; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pp. 416–17; _Wiener
  Vorl._ vi. 9; _B.C.H._ xxiii. p. 158 (trainer marking goal).

Footnote 1662:

  See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_.

Footnote 1663:

  Three types:—(1) Hare seized by birds: Louvre E 701 = Reinach, i.
  153; Naples 2458; Athens 618. (2) Hare pursued by dogs: B.M. B 119;
  Berlin 340, 1753, 1799; Karlsruhe 170; Petersburg 310, 386; Reinach,
  i. 34; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 227. (3) Dogs accompanied by
  hunters: B.M. B 678, D 60; Berlin 306, and 1727 = Reinach, i. 431;
  Oxford 189 (Oikopheles); Bibl. Nat. 187; Naples S.A. 200; B.M. A 1050
  = Plate XIX. fig. 3; Reinach, ii. 333; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5.

Footnote 1664:

  B.M. B 147 (cover); Helbig, 7; Munich 411 (Amasis); Reinach, ii. 275;
  Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ i. 23; _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40.

Footnote 1665:

  B.M. B 7; Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.

Footnote 1666:

  _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5.

Footnote 1667:

  B.M. B 37 (= Plate XXI.), F 154; Louvre E 696 = Reinach, i. 162;
  Vienna 217 = Reinach, i. 170; Munich 211 = Fig. 90, Vol. I. p. 316:
  cf. _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1903, p. 115, No. 62, for B.F.
  jug with man hiding in tree and attacked by boar and lion.

Footnote 1668:

  Reinach, ii. 144, 223.

Footnote 1669:

  B.M. B 52 = _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1891), p. 367; Louvre F 26 = _ibid._
  p. 369; Millin-Reinach, i. 18.

Footnote 1670:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 11.

Footnote 1671:

  Berlin 1900; Reinach, ii. 293.

Footnote 1672:

  Louvre F 223.

Footnote 1673:

  Munich 583 = _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 146 (see p. 129); _Forman Sale
  Cat._ 285.

Footnote 1674:

  _Mélanges Perrot_, p. 252 (in B.M.).

Footnote 1675:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 22; _Mon. Grecs_, 14–16 (1885–88), p.

Footnote 1676:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 53; Bibl. Nat. 277 = Reinach, i. 290.

Footnote 1677:

  B.M. E 485; Berlin 2357 = Reinach, i. 423; _ibid._ ii. 179.

Footnote 1678:

  B.M. E 3 (Hischylos), E 60; Munich 111; _Forman Sale Cat._ 336;
  Reinach, i. 454, 4 (Pamphaios): see p. 177.

Footnote 1679:

  Munich 337 = Reinach, i. 238 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 22
  (Euphronios); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 53–4; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, pl.
  4 (Onesimos); _Mon. Grecs_, 14–16 (1885–88), pl. 5, and see p. 1 ff.;
  _Monuments Piot_, i. pls. 5–6 (in Louvre). Cf. also Louvre G 26.

Footnote 1680:

  See under Warriors, p. 176.

Footnote 1681:

  B.M. F 70, F 306; Berlin 2154: cf. Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._
  pl. 32, 5.

Footnote 1682:

  B.M. B 127; Reinach, ii. 125.

Footnote 1683:

  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 32, fig. 5.

Footnote 1684:

  B.M. B 17; Munich 903: see _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 139, 142.

Footnote 1685:

  B.M. B 182; Berlin 2417 = Reinach, i. 425 = Baumeister, ii. p. 781,
  fig. 836; Reinach, ii. 191; Oxford 250.

Footnote 1686:

  Reinach, i. 81.

Footnote 1687:

  B.M. E 467 (Satyrs); E 339, F 197, F 245; Berlin 2710 = Reinach, i.
  425 (Eros); Naples 2872 = Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 12 =
  Reinach, ii. 169 (Eros); Louvre G 36 (ephebos).

Footnote 1688:

  Louvre F 90 and F 368 = _Rev. Arch._ xxi. (1893), pl. 5; Helbig, p.
  327 = Baumeister, i. p. 622, fig. 695; Reinach, i. 310, 423 (Berlin

Footnote 1689:

  Naples 922 = Schreiber-Anderson, 80, 7.

Footnote 1690:

  B.M. E 70, 453–54, 495, F 37, 273, 275; Berlin 2416 and Jatta 1291 =
  Reinach, i. 337, 178; Baumeister, ii. p. 793, fig. 857;
  _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; Louvre G 30. See also below, p. 181.

Footnote 1691:

  _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 167 (here a woman); Hartwig, _Meistersch._
  pls. 27, 72, 2.

Footnote 1692:

  Louvre G 81; Reinach, i. 420; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 27, 2.

Footnote 1693:

  Berlin 2177; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 130.

Footnote 1694:

  B.M. E 205 (?).

Footnote 1695:

  B.M. F 123; Louvre F 60; Berlin 2589 (= Harrison, _Mythol. and Monum.
  of Athens_, p. xliv) and 2394; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 30;
  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1898, No. 27.

Footnote 1696:

  B.M. E 387 (Seileni); Baumeister, iii. p. 1573, fig. 1633 (Eros);
  Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 53.

Footnote 1697:

  Naples 3151 = Reinach, i. 400.

Footnote 1698:

  _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 89 (in Berlin).

Footnote 1699:

  See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 110 (F 223, etc.), and Jahn in _Ber.
  d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 256.

Footnote 1700:

  B.M. E 527, 534–37, 548–53 (see Plate XLII.); Baumeister, ii. p. 779;
  _Él. Cér._ ii. 89; _Gaz. Arch._ 1878, pl. 7; Stackelberg, pl. 17;
  Reinach, i. 425: see generally Jahn in _Ber. d. sächs Gesellsch._
  1854, p. 243 ff., pl. 12.

Footnote 1701:

  B.M. F 101 = Fig. 15, Vol. I. p. 137; Reinach, i. 294.

Footnote 1702:

  Bibl. Nat. 361 = Reinach, ii. 262; _Bourguignon Cat._ 52 (in B.M.);
  Reinach, i. 207 (hare).

Footnote 1703:

  Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 387.

Footnote 1704:

  Reinach, i. 294: cf. ii. 137 = Baumeister, i. p. 705, fig. 765, and
  for women with pets see below, p. 173.

Footnote 1705:

  Berlin 2285 = Reinach, i. 196: cf. B.M. E 525 and _Brit. School
  Annual_, 1898–99, p. 65 (Fig. 177).

Footnote 1706:

  Naples 2004 = Reinach, i. 323.

Footnote 1707:

  _Ibid._ ii. 333.

Footnote 1708:

  Berlin 2322 = Micali, _Storia_, 103, 1.

Footnote 1709:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 46.

Footnote 1710:

  B.M. E 171–72; Oxford 266; Baumeister, i. p. 554, fig. 591 (flute):
  cf. _ibid._ iii. p. 1993, fig. 2138 (Iphikles taught the lyre by
  Linos) and the Duris kylix (Plate XXXIX.).

Footnote 1711:

  Reinach, i. 248.

Footnote 1712:

  B.M. E 185; Gerhard, _Ant. Bildw._ pl. 66.

Footnote 1713:

  See p. 95.

Footnote 1714:

  Athens 467 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 10; B.M. E 467, E 804;
  Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pls. 17–8. Single figure: B.M. F 343.

Footnote 1715:

  B.M. E 61; Louvre G 18 (castanets).

Footnote 1716:

  _Forman Sale Cat._ 361 (in Boston).

Footnote 1717:

  Stackelberg, pl. 22; Reinach, i. 61, 372, 469 (Naples 3010); _Rev.
  Arch._ xxvi. (1895), p. 221.

Footnote 1718:

  _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 40: cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, p. 412.

Footnote 1719:

  B.M. B 42, 44; Berlin 1662; and see _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287.

Footnote 1720:

  B.M. E 271; Berlin 1686; Bologna 271 = Reinach, ii. 150; _Él. Cér._
  ii. 16; Athens 1019 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, pl. 10, 2; _Anzeiger_,
  1892, p. 172. Girls playing lyre: _Monuments Piot_, ii. pls. 5–6 (in

Footnote 1721:

  B.M. E 308; and see Reinach, ii. 187, 3.

Footnote 1722:

  B.M. E 270, E 469; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65–6.

Footnote 1723:

  B.M. B 139, B 141; Louvre G 1 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 9;
  Petersburg 1603 = Schreiber-Anderson, 7, 14; Vienna 234.

Footnote 1724:

  B.M. B 188, E 354; Reinach, ii. 274; Louvre G 103 = _Atlas_, pl. 101

Footnote 1725:

  B.M. E 460; Bologna 286; Athens 1260 = Dumont-Pottier, i. 16; Helbig,
  90 = _Mus. Greg._ ii. 60, 3; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ 43, 4

Footnote 1726:

  _Mus. Greg._ ii. 22, 2 _a_.

Footnote 1727:

  B.M. E 270.

Footnote 1728:

  B.M. E 132.

Footnote 1729:

  B.M. B 192, B 299, E 37; Athens 1158 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1984, fig.
  2127; _Él. Cér._ ii. 16: see also Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 255, note

Footnote 1730:

  Berlin 639, 871, 885 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 7, 14, 23.

Footnote 1731:

  Berlin 608 ff.; 800  93: cf. _op. cit._ pl. 8, Nos. 14 _b_, 17, 18 (=
  885, 869, 868); also Nos. 1, 4, 12, 19 _b_, 22, 26 (= Berlin 608,
  802, 616, 893, 827, 611). See also Chapter V., Figs. 65, 69.

Footnote 1732:

  B.M. B 432; Munich 731 = Fig. 67, Vol. I. p. 213; _Gaz. Arch._ 1880,
  p. 106.

Footnote 1733:

  Figs. 67, 71, Vol. I. pp. 213, 223.

Footnote 1734:

  Fig. 70, Vol. I. p. 218.

Footnote 1735:

  Fig. 74, Vol. I. p. 228.

Footnote 1736:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 17, 1, and see _ibid._ p. 174; Kopenhagen
  125; Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Mon._ pl. 37.

Footnote 1737:

  Berlin 831 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, fig. 3 _a_. See on the subject
  _Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 45 ff.

Footnote 1738:

  Berlin 2294 = Baumeister, i. p. 506, fig. 547.

Footnote 1739:

  B. M. B 507; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1582, fig. 1639
  (in Boston).

Footnote 1740:

  _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 305; _Branteghem Cat._ 44. See also _Él. Cér._ i.

Footnote 1741:

  Kopenhagen 119 = Schreiber-Anderson, 73, 7.

Footnote 1742:

  See p. 40: cf. also for a sculptor, p. 16, note 53.

Footnote 1743:

  Berlin 1806 = Fig. 136 (Nikosthenes); Louvre F 77 = _ibid._ fig. 13;
  Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 13, 1 (sowing).

Footnote 1744:

  B.M. F 147: see p. 73, and Robert, _Arch. Märchen_, pl. 5, p. 198 ff.

Footnote 1745:

  Berlin 2274 = _Él. Cér._ ii. 74.

Footnote 1746:

  Louvre F 68.

Footnote 1747:

  Louvre F 69 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 9–10; _ibid._ pl. 1,
  figs. 2, 7.

Footnote 1748:

  Vienna 335 = Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 64, figs. 1, 3; _ibid._ pl. 64,
  fig. 6 (in Naples); Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 5; and see under
  Hermes and Seilenos.

Footnote 1749:

  Reinach, ii. 90.

Footnote 1750:

  B.M. B 226; Berlin 1855 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, fig. 1259.

Footnote 1751:

  _Forman Sale Cat._ 323 (now in Boston): cf. _B.M. Cat. of
  Terracotta_, D 550.

Footnote 1752:

  Helbig, 70 = Reinach, i. 106 = Baumeister, ii. p. 1047, figs.
  1260–1261; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 69, No. 24.

Footnote 1753:

  Louvre E 635 = Reinach, i. 151; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, p. 70,
  No. 25.

Footnote 1754:

  Berlin 1915 = Reinach, ii. 155.

Footnote 1755:

  Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 13, 2; _Eranos Vindobonensis_, p.
  381 (woman kneading dough).

Footnote 1756:

  Millin-Reinach, ii. 61.

Footnote 1757:

  Vol. I. p. 342: see also p. 149.

Footnote 1758:

  B.M. E 86; Reinach, i. 224 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1587, fig. 1649 (in

Footnote 1759:

  B.M. E 23.

Footnote 1760:

  Micali, _Storia_, pl. 97, fig. 3.

Footnote 1761:

  B.M. B 339; Louvre F 10, F 56.

Footnote 1762:

  B.M. B 160, B 174, B 257; B 485; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pp. 133, 137, 142.

Footnote 1763:

  B.M. E 810, D 11 (Plate XLIII.); Berlin 2372 (= _Coll. Sabouroff_, i.
  pl. 58), 2373 (= Reinach, i. 440); Athens 1224 and 1225 = Heydemann,
  _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 10, 1, and Reinach, i. 206; Athens 1588 = $1$2
  1897, pl. 10, 2 (preparations for marriage, with fancy names): see
  generally _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 8.

Footnote 1764:

  Baumeister, i. p. 313, fig. 328.

Footnote 1765:

  Millingen-Reinach, 44 (in Louvre); Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv. 314.

Footnote 1766:

  Berlin 2374 = Reinach, i. 128.

Footnote 1767:

  Reinach, i. 173; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 133.

Footnote 1768:

  Athens 693.

Footnote 1769:

  Petersburg 151 = Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amph._ pl. 5.

Footnote 1770:

  Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44 (B.F.); Athens 1552 = Heydemann, _Gr.
  Vasenb._ pl. 8, 5; Berlin 2261 = Reinach, i. 440, and 2720 = _Coll.
  Sabouroff_, i. pl. 64; Reinach, i. 2 (Petersburg 1791), 472 (= Jatta
  1526), 477 (= Naples S.A. 316, with fancy names).

Footnote 1771:

  B.M. E 225, 773–74, F 308, 310; Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 4.

Footnote 1772:

  B.M. B 598, E 87, E 193, E 215, D 13; Athens 1550, 1552, and 1589 =
  Reinach, i. 517 (note the use of the ἐπίνητρον); Louvre F 224 = _Él.
  Cér._ iii. 36 B; Stackelberg, 34; Reinach, i. 420, ii. 7, 4: see
  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 340.

Footnote 1773:

  Dumont-Pottier, i. pl. 8 = Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 4.

Footnote 1774:

  Baumeister, iii. p. 1711, fig. 1796.

Footnote 1775:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 41, No. 10.

Footnote 1776:

  Baumeister, iii. p. 1583, fig. 1641.

Footnote 1777:

  _Ibid._ i. p. 609, fig. 668.

Footnote 1778:

  B.M. E 18; Louvre G 2; Berlin 2272 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 89;
  Reinach, ii. 146, 7.

Footnote 1779:

  Baumeister, iii. p. 1919, fig. 2034 = Reinach, ii. 148.

Footnote 1780:

  Louvre F 114 = Plate XXX.; B.M. F 101, 207.

Footnote 1781:

  Schreiber-Anderson, 82, 12; B.M. F 139, 207, 342.

Footnote 1782:

  Schreiber-Anderson, 83, 14.

Footnote 1783:

  Berlin 1843 (= Baumeister, i. p. 243, fig. 221), and 2707 (= _Coll.
  Sabouroff_, i. 62, 2); Jatta 654 = _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 19;
  Millin-Reinach, ii. 9 (frontispiece); Reinach, ii. 146, 328, 1;
  Baumeister, i. p. 242, fig. 220; B.M. D 29, E 90, 201–2; and see
  generally Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 599.

Footnote 1784:

  Louvre F 197 and F 203 = _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 3 =
  Schreiber-Anderson, 57, 5.

Footnote 1785:

  B.M. F 311; and see _Él. Cér._ iv. 10–22.

Footnote 1786:

  B.M. B 329–38; Louvre F 296; Reinach, ii. 151: cf. B.M. E 159 and
  Athens 1429 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 2.

Footnote 1787:

  B.M. D 6; Munich 142: cf. Berlin 1841 = Reinach, ii. 44.

Footnote 1788:

  B.M. E 241, E 721; _Branteghem Sale Cat._ 98–9.

Footnote 1789:

  Athens 1550 = Heydemann, _op. cit._ pl. 9, 5.

Footnote 1790:

  B.M. E 34.

Footnote 1791:

  B.M. E 769.

Footnote 1792:

  B.M. E 190.

Footnote 1793:

  B.M. E 88.

Footnote 1794:

  _Branteghem Cat._ 167.

Footnote 1795:

  Naples R.C. 117 = Reinach, i. 490, 22.

Footnote 1796:

  Munich 903 = Reinach, ii. 110.

Footnote 1797:

  B.M. B 53, B 163, B 409; Berlin 3993 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 51.

Footnote 1798:

  Bibl. Nat. 94; Athens 466 = Plate XLVII.

Footnote 1799:

  Oxford 320.

Footnote 1800:

  B.M. E 396.

Footnote 1801:

  _Branteghem Cat._ 163.

Footnote 1802:

  Petersburg 875 = Reinach, i. 39: cf. Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 27.

Footnote 1803:

  B.M. F 232; Athens 1031 = Heydemann, _Gr. Vasenb._ pl. 9, 3; Reinach,
  i. 473; _Mus. Borb._ vii. 58; _Mon. Barone_, pls. 3, 9; and see pp.
  165, 182.

Footnote 1804:

  See p. 169.

Footnote 1805:

  See on the subject Winter in _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 187 ff.; and
  _Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, p. 25 ff.

Footnote 1806:

  B.F.: B.M. B 165, B 657; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 172 and
  203 = Reinach, ii. 95. R.F.: Louvre G 47–8; Bologna 274; Helbig, 167
  and 174 (= Reinach, ii. 133); Reinach, ii. 114; Vienna 324 = _Wiener
  Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).

Footnote 1807:

  B.F.: B.M. B 147, B 309, B 360; Louvre F 12, F 39, F 53, F 150;
  Reinach, ii. 124, 131. R.F.: B.M. E 254, E 276, E 448; Louvre G 44;
  Baumeister, iii. p. 2034, fig. 2207 (Duris). Late: B.M. F 158, F 174;
  Munich 382 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 35.

Footnote 1808:

  B.F.: _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 44–5 (Proto-Cor.); B.M. B 75, B 199, B 212, B
  400; Athens 623; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14. R.F.: B.M. E 7, E 33, E 43, E
  808; _Röm. Mitth._ 1890, p. 332. Late: B.M. F 175, F 215. Horseman
  and foot-soldier: two uncatalogued in B.M.

Footnote 1809:

  See pp. 3, 7, 126.

Footnote 1810:

  B.M. B 224, B 243; Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 87;
  Reinach, ii. 129, 131, 4, 133.

Footnote 1811:

  _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 293; Bibl. Nat. 203 = Reinach, ii. 95.

Footnote 1812:

  Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Millin-Reinach, i. 39; and see under Hector,
  p. 127.

Footnote 1813:

  B.M. E 405.

Footnote 1814:

  _Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 165: cf. Reinach, ii. 133 and Ar. _Ach._ 574.

Footnote 1815:

  Louvre G 5: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 122, note.

Footnote 1816:

  B.M. E 33; Munich 1229; _Forman Sale Cat._ 337 (in Boston); Hartwig,
  _op. cit._ pl. 14, 1: cf. Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428, and B.M. E

Footnote 1817:

  See note 1815; also _Festschrift für O. Benndorf_, p. 66.

Footnote 1818:

  B.M. B 303–05; Berlin 1897 = Reinach, ii. 124; _Jahrbuch_, iv.
  (1889), pl. 10; Louvre F 285, F 345.

Footnote 1819:

  Reinach, ii. 198.

Footnote 1820:

  See pp. 118, 127.

Footnote 1821:

  B.M. B 15, B 206, B 523; Louvre F 9; Reinach, i. 462, 1; ii. 255 =
  Bibl. Nat. 227; _Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108 =
  1903, No. 21, p. 102 (Andokides).

Footnote 1822:

  Athens 618 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1963, fig. 2098.

Footnote 1823:

  Reinach, ii. 128; B.M. B 24; Louvre E 609 = Reinach, i. 395 (Chares);
  and Fig. 88, Vol. I. p. 297.

Footnote 1824:

  B.M. E 476: Louvre G 54 = Reinach, ii. 7; Petersburg 1692, 1711 =
  Reinach, i. 43–4: see B.M. E 65, Louvre F 19, F 70, and Vienna 324 =
  _Wiener Vorl._ vii. 1 (Duris).

Footnote 1825:

  B.M. B 51: see under Nike, p. 88.

Footnote 1826:

  Berlin 1718 = Reinach, i. 393; Helbig, ii. p. 301, No. 77 = Reinach,
  ii. 107 (may be Ajax with body of Achilles).

Footnote 1827:

  _J.H.S._ xix. pp. 227–28; and cf. B.M. B 171 (inspection of liver), B
  641; Bibl. Nat. 400; Reinach, ii. 131, 1 (hoplite taking oath);
  Louvre G 46.

Footnote 1828:

  Reinach, i. 203 = _Wiener Vorl._ D. 2, 2–3; B.M. B 380; Louvre F 127,
  G 5: bust of warrior, Louvre F 137.

Footnote 1829:

  B.M. B 470, B 618; Louvre F 292, G 25; Engelmann-Anderson, _Od._
  xiii. 71: see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 9, p. 106, note.

Footnote 1830:

  Berlin 1879.

Footnote 1831:

  Berlin 2304.

Footnote 1832:

  Reinach, i. 372.

Footnote 1833:

  See _Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3.

Footnote 1834:

  B.M. B 658.

Footnote 1835:

  B.M. B 149, B 360.

Footnote 1836:

  B.M. B 590–91; Louvre G 70; Helbig, 292; Munich 4 = Reinach, ii. 57;
  _Jahrbuch_, iv. (1889), pl. 4. As shield-device: Vienna 332 (a
  negro); Reinach, i. 77; Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 46, 1.

Footnote 1837:

  B.M. E 285; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 18, 1, and see p. 185.

Footnote 1838:

  See p. 179, note 1853; also Plate XXXVII. fig. 2, and _Jahrbuch_,
  1889, pl. 4.

Footnote 1839:

  _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759; Hartwig, p. 368, note: cf. p.

Footnote 1840:

  B.M. B 426; Berlin 2296 = Reinach, i. 428; Helbig, 54; _Mon. Grecs_,
  1885–88, p. 11: see also Helbig, _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos_,
  and _Les Ἱππεῖς Athéniens_, p. 71 ff.

Footnote 1841:

  Reinach, i. 486 = _Boston Cat._ p. 137.

Footnote 1842:

  B.M. B 60; Louvre A 526; Plate XVI. (Aristonoös krater); Reinach, i.
  190, 4, 328, 6, and 459 (Dipylon).

Footnote 1843:

  _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8; Louvre A 525–532; _Mon. Grecs_, ii. (1882–84),
  pl. 4, pp. 44–57; and see Chapter VII.

Footnote 1844:

  B.M. B 436; Berlin 836; Louvre E 735 and F 123 (= _J.H.S._ 1885, pl.
  49); _Forman Sale Cat._ 322; Reinach, ii. 19 = Baumeister, iii. p.
  1599, fig. 1662.

Footnote 1845:

  B.M. B 436; Berlin 646 ff., 831; Louvre F 145 (?).

Footnote 1846:

  B.M. B 679, E 2 (Plate XXXVII.); Bibl. Nat. 322; _Bourguignon Sale
  Cat._ 14; Louvre F 123, F 145.

Footnote 1847:

  Louvre F 62; Vienna 235; Naples R.C. 246; Munich 781 = Reinach, ii.
  126; Petersburg 10 and 86; Würzburg 337 = Reinach, ii. 141; _Rev.
  Arch._ xxxvi. (1900), p. 323; _Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, 3.

Footnote 1848:

  Athens 969 = Reinach, i. 415.

Footnote 1849:

  See above, p. 148.

Footnote 1850:

  B.M. B 173, B 280, B 323; F 278.

Footnote 1851:

  Cf. B.M. B 184, 207, 243, 246, etc.

Footnote 1852:

  See generally Zahn, _Die Barbaren_, and Hartwig, _Meistersch._

Footnote 1853:

  B.M. E 6; Louvre F 126, F 388, G 45; _Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4; and see
  above, p. 177.

Footnote 1854:

  B.M. B 184, B 207, B 426; Reinach, i. 376 (?).

Footnote 1855:

  _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 5; _Bourguignon Cat._ 14.

Footnote 1856:

  B.M. B 590–91.

Footnote 1857:

  B.M. E 233; Berlin 2295; Reinach, ii. 84; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.

Footnote 1858:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pl. 5.

Footnote 1859:

  B.M. E 695.

Footnote 1860:

  _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl. 1; Oxford 310 = Klein, _Lieblingsinschr._^2
  p. 87.

Footnote 1861:

  See p. 151.

Footnote 1862:

  _Röm. Mitth._ ii. (1887), pl. 9, p. 172; Munich 374 = Fig. 137; Plate
  XXXVII. fig. 2.

Footnote 1863:

  Bibl. Nat. 473 = Reinach, i. 131.

Footnote 1864:

  _Boston Mus. Report_, 1900, p. 72.

Footnote 1865:

  Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 38–9; and see _ibid._ p. 422.

Footnote 1866:

  B.M. E 481–82; and see pp. 80, 143.

Footnote 1867:

  Louvre G 26: cf. _Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, pl. 6, p. 11.

Footnote 1868:

  Munich 337 = Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 82; _Mon. Grecs_, 1885–88, pl.
  5; and see pp. 166, 177.

Footnote 1869:

  B.M. E 301; _J.H.S._ ix. pl. 6; Reinach, i. 63.

Footnote 1870:

  B.M. B 673–74; Athens 1088; _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 45: cf. Louvre G
  93; another unarmed, G 100. On Vienna 332 a negro trumpeter occurs as
  a shield-device.

Footnote 1871:

  Petersburg 1603.

Footnote 1872:

  Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ pl. 42.

Footnote 1873:

  Louvre G 100.

Footnote 1874:

  B.M. B 106_1.

Footnote 1875:

  B.M. F 197, 241–42 (see Plate XLIV.), 297, 301, 525; Reinach, i.

Footnote 1876:

  B.F.: B.M. B 46, B 382, B 679; Louvre F 2, F 216, F 314; _Gaz. Arch._
  1887, pl. 14, 1. R.F.: B.M. E 38, 49, 68, 70; Munich 272 = Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ pl. 15, 1; Helbig, 225 and 227; Reinach, ii. 4. Late:
  B.M. E 495, F 303; Naples 2202 = Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ pl.
  45, and R.C. 144 = Schreiber-Anderson, 76, 2; _ibid._ pl. 76, 4 =
  Millingen-Reinach, pl. 8; Millin-Reinach, ii. 58.

Footnote 1877:

  See pp. 57, 105.

Footnote 1878:

  Bibl. Nat. 94.

Footnote 1879:

  B.M. E 351, E 474.

Footnote 1880:

  B.M. B 46, 301–2, 382, 679, E 66, E 454.

Footnote 1881:

  Louvre G 98; Athens 691 = _Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pls. 13–4 (Xenokles and
  Kleisophos); _Cab. Pourtalès_, 34; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _a_.

Footnote 1882:

  Reinach, ii. 247: see _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 180.

Footnote 1883:

  Louvre G 25; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1 _b_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls.
  14, 2, 48, and p. 332; _Wiener Vorl._ viii. 5.

Footnote 1884:

  See Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 115, for a collected list of examples;
  also the following notes.

Footnote 1885:

  Louvre G 30; B.M. E 70 = Fig. 138, E 161, E 454, E 795; Berlin 4221;
  Naples 822, 965, 972, 2415, S.A. 281.

Footnote 1886:

  It is worth noting that on the best R.F. vases mortals play the game;
  on the later ones gods and Satyrs. It must have disappeared from
  social life about the end of the fifth century.

Footnote 1887:

  B.M. F 37; Naples 903, S.A. 302, R.C. 144, 145, 2308; Berlin 2416 =
  Reinach, i. 337; _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 14; and see Vol. I. p. 452
  for a curious variant.

Footnote 1888:

  B.M. F 50, 175–77; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ ii. 197.

Footnote 1889:

  B.M. F 161, F 273, F 275, F 304, F 425; F 579 = Fig. 118 (Eros).

Footnote 1890:

  Louvre G 30; _Mus. Greg._ ii. 83, 1_b_, and 85, 2_b_.

Footnote 1891:

  Louvre F 216; Reinach, ii. 329, 5: see also _ibid._ ii. 6, 304, 5;
  _Mus. Greg._ ii. 81, 1_a_; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ pls. 273, 356.

Footnote 1892:

  B.M. E 14, 38, 61, 68; Reinach, ii. 4.

Footnote 1893:

  See pp. 165, 174.

Footnote 1894:

  Athens 1158; and see p. 169.

Footnote 1895:

  Petersburg 1670 = Reinach, i. 32 = _Wiener Vorl._ v. 2; Reinach, ii.
  290, 2 (κῶμος of women).

Footnote 1896:

  B.M. E 61 (Hieron).

Footnote 1897:

  B.M. E 71, 474, 484, 489, 506, 767; Reinach, ii. 94, 7; _Mus. Greg._
  ii. 84, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 11 and p. 41; _Wiener
  Vorl._ viii. 5 (Brygos in Würzburg).

Footnote 1898:

  B.M. E 33, 46, 53, 508; _Forman Sale Cat._ 317; Reinach, ii. 120.

Footnote 1899:

  B.M. B 299; and see above, p. 169.

Footnote 1900:

  B.M. E 137, E 488; Reinach, ii. 68, 290, 301, 313; _Mus. Greg._ ii.
  54, 1 _a_, 2 _a_; 78, 2 _a_; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 36, pp. 333,
  335; Inghirami, _Vasi. Fitt._ 198.

Footnote 1901:

  B.M. E 54; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 11, 20.

Footnote 1902:

  B.M. E 37; Louvre F 129, G 73; Hartwig, _op. cit._ pls. 8, 11; and
  see Berlin 2265, and _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 5, fig. 2.

Footnote 1903:

  See above, p. 57 ff.

Footnote 1904:

  Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 49.

Footnote 1905:

  B.M. B 41; Berlin 2171; Froehner, _Musées de France_, pl. 40, 2.

Footnote 1906:

  _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. _passim_; Bibl. Nat. 905 is a good typical

Footnote 1907:

  See Vol. I. p. 21: cf. Christie, _Disquisitions_, _passim_.

Footnote 1908:

  B.M. E 648, 705–9, 778–83 (see Plate XLII.); Athens 1941 = Jahn,
  _Vasen mit Goldschmuck_, pl. 1.

Footnote 1909:

  B.M. E 61; Munich 819 = Millingen-Reinach, 26; Berlin 2279 = Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ pl. 25 (very fine); Reinach, i. 207; Helbig, 218 =
  _ibid._ ii. 146; and see Hartwig, p. 238.

Footnote 1910:

  See Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 26, and Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_,
  _passim_; also Vol. I. p. 426.

Footnote 1911:

  Athens 1161 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 27 (from
  exterior of kylix).

Footnote 1912:

  B.M. E 2: cf. E 16, E 27; Louvre F 129 (youth balancing amphora).

Footnote 1913:

  Athens 1162 = Hartwig, _op. cit._ p. 87; Hartwig, pl. 19, 2 (in
  Louvre), and p. 178; Louvre G 17 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890, pl. 10.

Footnote 1914:

  Cambridge 71 = Hartwig, pl. 2, fig. 3.

Footnote 1915:

  B.M. E 46; Hartwig, p. 86; and see _Wiener Vorl._ vi. 8.

Footnote 1916:

  Louvre G 40.

Footnote 1917:

  Louvre G 70, 96.

Footnote 1918:

  B.M. E 57.

Footnote 1919:

  Hartwig, pl. 70, 1: cf. _Il._ iii. 33.

Footnote 1920:

  _J.H.S._ xvii. p. 75 = Fig. 82; _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1890, pl. 22,
  p. 437 ff.; _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 9 (vase in Marseilles).

Footnote 1921:

  Berlin 2324 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1890–91, pl. 7, 1.

Footnote 1922:

  B.M. E 1; Bibl. Nat. 128; _Boston Mus. Report_, 1899, No. 21; _Mus.
  Greg._ ii. 31, 2; Reinach, ii. 225 (lion and panther fighting).

Footnote 1923:

  Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 9 (in Boston).

Footnote 1924:

  B.M. B 382, E 4; Louvre F 84 and F 54 = Fig. 96, Vol. I. p. 381.

Footnote 1925:

  Louvre F 125 (ram); Berlin 4042 (bull) and 2266 (horse); Munich 1171
  and _Mus. Greg._ ii. 64, 3 _a_ (cock). Also on exterior of B.F.
  kylikes: cocks and hens, B.M. B 391–92; Louvre F 92, F 380; Bibl.
  Nat. 317; Reinach, ii. 171. Lion and bull, Louvre F 313. Apes, _Sale
  Cat. Hôtel Drouot_, May 1903, No. 71. See generally Hartwig,
  _Meistersch._ p. 565.

Footnote 1926:

  Hartwig, _op. cit._ pl. 63, 1.

Footnote 1927:

  Bibl. Nat. 175–76.

Footnote 1928:

  Munich 468 = _Philologus_, 1898, pl. 1.

Footnote 1929:

  Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 80, 3.

Footnote 1930:

  Berlin 2517 = _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 65.

Footnote 1931:

  Reinach, i. 96 = Baumeister, iii. p. 1985, fig. 2128. For the
  inscription on this vase, see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1932:

  See Schreiber-Anderson, pl. 63, 6; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 19, F
  254–68, and references there given; also Vol. I. pp. 194, 487, Plate

Footnote 1933:

  B.M. B 57, B 58; Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92; Bibl. Nat. 172.

Footnote 1934:

  B.M. B 28, B 31; and see p. 185, note 1925.

Footnote 1935:

  Rayet and Collignon, p. 330 = Reinach, i. 503: see p. 273.

Footnote 1936:

  R.F. kalpis in Louvre; _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 93; B.M. E 759: see for
  this and the following subjects Hartwig, _Meistersch._, p. 368, note;
  also p. 177 above.

Footnote 1937:

  Louvre F 127 (Pamphaios).

Footnote 1938:

  Munich 1170.

Footnote 1939:

  Munich 1223.

Footnote 1940:

  B.M. E 771.

Footnote 1941:

  In South Kensington Museum.

                              CHAPTER XVI

    Distinctions of types—Costume and attributes of individual
      deities—Personifications—Heroes—Monsters—Personages in
      every-day life—Armour and shield-devices—Dress and
      ornaments—Physiognomical expression on vases—Landscape and
      architecture—Arrangement of subjects—Ornamental
      patterns—Maeander, circles, and other geometrical
      patterns—Floral patterns—Lotos and palmettes—Treatment of
      ornamentation in different fabrics.

It may be profitable to supplement the foregoing account with a few
general considerations, such as the attributes, emblems, and costume by
which the different figures may be distinguished, the general treatment
of the subjects at different periods, and the use of ornamental motives
in the various stages of Greek vase-painting.

                       § 1. DISTINCTIONS OF TYPES

In the earlier vase-paintings deities are often not only
indistinguishable from one another, but even from kings and other
mortal personages, attributes and subtle distinctions of costume being
ignored; and in the period of decline a similar tendency may be noted,
due in this case not so much to confusion of ideas as to a general
carelessness of execution and indifference to the meaning of the
subject. In the former vases it was, doubtless, largely the result of
conventionality and limitation in the free expression of forms; but it
is a peculiarity not confined to painting, and may be observed not only
in the minor arts, in terracotta and bronze figurines, but even in
sculpture of a more exalted kind—as, for instance, in the female
statues from the Athenian Acropolis. Thus, all the deities are draped,
and their costume differs in no respect from that worn by mortals; all
alike wear the chiton, himation, or chlamys, and ornamentation of the
drapery with embroidered patterns is no mark of distinction. It is only
as the art advances in the B.F. period that the necessity for
differentiation makes itself felt, and each deity becomes
individualised by some peculiarity of costume or special attribute
which makes it possible to recognise them without difficulty. To give a
brief survey of these characteristic marks will be the object of the
following pages.[1942]

Among the Olympian deities, _Zeus_ is generally bearded, and fully
draped in long chiton and mantle; on R.F. vases he wears a
laurel-wreath. He fights the giants from his chariot, but otherwise
is standing, or seated on a throne, which is often carved and
ornamented with figures.[1943] He usually holds a thunderbolt, or a
sceptre, surmounted by an eagle or otherwise ornamented; in one or
two cases the termination is in the form of a lotos-bud, curiously
conventionalised.[1944] _Hera_ is distinguished by the _stephane_ or
broad diadem, often ornamented, and covered with the bridal veil, the
edge of which she draws forward with one hand in the attitude
considered typical of brides. Her sceptre is sometimes surmounted by
her emblem—the cuckoo.

_Poseidon_, on the Corinthian and Attic B.F. vases—on which he is but a
rare figure—is often hardly to be distinguished from Zeus, the
approximation of the types extending even to their emblems. Where he
holds in addition a dolphin or tunny-fish, there is, of course, no
doubt as to his presence; nor, again, in the Gigantomachia, where he
wields a rock (see p. 13, and Fig. 112); but his trident, which
subsequently becomes the unmistakable evidence of his identity, often
assumes (as on the Corinthian pinakes) the form of a sceptre ending in
a lotos-bud,[1945] which is typical of Zeus, and, indeed, of Olympian
deities generally. The other sea-deities are, however, of a more
clearly defined type. The essential feature of _Triton_ is the
fish-tail in which his body terminates. _Nereus_, on the other hand, is
represented as an old man, bald and grey-bearded. In this form he
contends with Herakles (see p. 101), and it may be that the
differentiation was necessary to avoid confusion with the Triton type.
As attributes he often holds a dolphin or tunny-fish, and a trident or
sceptre. The winged deity with a long sinuous fish-tail seen on early
Corinthian vases is probably _Palaemon_ (see p. 26); but in one case
this deity is feminine.[1946] _Amphitrite_, as the feminine consort of
Poseidon, holds a sceptre or tunny-fish, and _Thetis_ and the _Nereids_
appear in ordinary female form. The former, however, in her struggles
with Peleus, is accompanied by lions, serpents, and other animals,
which indicate the transformations she was supposed to assume. _Skylla_
appears as described in Homer, with fish-tail and the fore-parts of
dogs issuing from her waist, which is encircled by a fringe of scales
or feathers.

_Demeter_ and _Persephone_ are not always distinguishable from one
another, both having the same attributes—a torch or ears of corn (cf.
Plate LI.). Their identification depends rather on the nature of their
respective actions in the scenes where they appear. _Triptolemos_ is
always seen in his winged two-wheeled car (sometimes drawn by
serpents), and usually holds ears of corn or a libation-bowl; on B.F.
vases he is bearded. The other Eleusinian deities, on the late R.F.
vases where they occur, are marked by the large torches which they hold.

_Apollo_ on the B.F. vases almost invariably occurs in his character of
Kitharoidos,[1947] the lyre which he holds being of the form known as
_kithara_ (on later vases it is a _chelys_); he is therefore, like all
musicians, fully draped in long chiton, and his hair falls in curls on
his shoulders, or is gathered in a κρώβυλος. Unlike most gods, he is at
all times youthful and beardless.[1948] He is also represented holding
a laurel-branch, shooting an arrow from his bow, or riding on a swan or
Gryphon, or accompanied by a hind or other animal. His sister _Artemis_
is draped in long chiton and mantle, and often wears a high cap on B.F.
vases; it is not until the later R.F. period that she appears in
hunting costume, with knotted-up hair, short chiton, and high laced-up
hunting-boots or _endromides_; sometimes also a fawn-skin. She is
usually distinguished by her bow and arrows, and is accompanied by a
hound, deer, goat, or other animal.[1949]

_Hephaistos_ is usually bearded,[1950] and often appears in the
workman’s dress of the _exomis_ or short chiton covering one shoulder,
and high conical cap; his craft is further symbolised by a hammer or
tongs, or by the axe with which he brings Athena forth from the head of
Zeus. In the Gigantomachia he uses his tongs with savage violence
against an unfortunate opponent (see p. 14). _Ares_ is the typical
Greek fully-armed warrior, bearded, with helmet, short chiton, cuirass,
and greaves, sword, spear, and shield; but is not otherwise to be
distinguished. _Hermes_, as the messenger of the gods, appears in
appropriate costume of chlamys and _petasos_ (the Greek
travelling-hat), and carrying the caduceus or herald’s staff; he
usually wears high boots, and on the earlier vases a short chiton in
addition. He is occasionally winged, but it is more usual to find the
wings attached to his petasos or boots. On B.F. vases he is always
bearded, but not after the sixth century. _Hestia_, who but rarely
occurs on vases, forms a pair to Hermes in assemblies of the gods, but
is not distinguished further than by the Olympian lotos-sceptre.

_Athena_ on the earlier B.F. vases is not always distinguished from an
ordinary woman; later, the helmet, spear, shield, and aegis become
inseparable adjuncts of her costume, the shield being always circular
in form. The spear, which is sometimes her only characteristic, is
usually brandished or couched in her right hand, and sometimes she
holds her helmet in her hand (see Plate XXXVI. and p. 40). Her costume
consists of a long girt chiton, over which the _peplos_ or small mantle
is thrown, and the aegis round her chest. The latter is covered with
scales and has a fringe of rearing serpents, and sometimes, on later
vases, the Gorgon’s head in the centre of the front. On the Panathenaic
amphorae she is always represented in the Promachos attitude, at first
to left, but later to right, brandishing her spear. At either side of
her are columns surmounted by an owl, a cock, or other emblems. On the
later specimens her figure is greatly elongated, and her drapery is
often elaborately embroidered with patterns in purple and white. Her
statue when represented is usually a mere reproduction of the living
type; but on some later vases there seems to be a reminiscence of the
Parthenos or other statues (see p. 40).

_Aphrodite_ is less individualised than any other deity, at any rate on
the earlier vases, on which she is invariably draped in the ordinary
manner. She sometimes carries a lotos-headed sceptre (as in Judgment of
Paris scenes). Occasionally she is represented armed. On the later
vases the influence of fourth-century sculpture becomes apparent in the
treatment of this, as of other deities. She now first appears nude
(when bathing or washing), scantily clad or half draped, and in
transparent Coan draperies, through which the outlines of her form are
visible. She has no characteristic attribute, but is frequently
represented with a dove or other bird. The types of _Eros_ have already
been fully discussed (p. 45); briefly it may be said that on the Attic
R.F. vases he is a full-grown nude youth with wings; on those of
Southern Italy the type is more boyish, though never the child or
_putto_ of the Hellenistic Age, and in Apulia the androgynous type,
with hair arranged in feminine fashion and jewellery profusely adorning
his person—earrings, necklace, chains, and anklets—is invariable.

_Dionysos_ is distinguished primarily by the ivy-wreath which crowns
his head; he generally wears a long chiton and mantle, but on the
latest vases is frequently nude. On all B.F. vases, and often on those
of the R.F. period, he is bearded, and it is only on those of Southern
Italy that he appears as a somewhat effeminate youth, half draped like
Apollo, with rounded and graceful limbs. His attributes are the rhyton
or keras (only on B.F. vases), the kantharos, a form of drinking-cup
specially associated with him, a vine-branch, and the thyrsos; he is
accompanied by panthers and other animals, or swings the limbs of a kid
(χιμαιροφόνος). Usually he maintains a calm and unmoved attitude amid
the wild revelries of his followers. _Ariadne_ is undistinguished
except by her association with him. _Pan_, who only occurs on later
vases, is almost invariably represented as a beardless youthful figure,
with goat’s horns, but human legs; when, however, he has goat’s legs or
feet, he is usually called Aegipan, and in this aspect he assumes a
somewhat dwarfish and more bestial aspect.[1951]

_Satyrs_ are either elderly and bearded, or youthful; in all cases with
pointed ears and horses’ tails, and undraped except for the fawn-skins
which they frequently wear. They carry a thyrsos, drinking-cups, or
musical instruments, according to the circumstances in which they are
depicted. In Ionic art (Vol. I. p. 353 ff.) the Satyrs invariably have
horses’ feet as well as tails, and are usually of repulsive appearance.
The _Seileni_ are really aged Satyrs, depicted as bald or white-haired,
but not otherwise differentiated, except in the case of
_Papposeilenos_, who is covered with shaggy skin.[1952] The _Maenads_
are often represented (especially on B.F. vases) as ordinary draped
women, or only with the addition of a fawn-skin or panther-skin over
their chiton; they carry the _thyrsos_, or frequently on later vases a
large tambourine (_tympanon_).

Of the personages associated with the under-world, _Hades_ is usually
an elderly bearded deity of the Zeus type. He carries a sceptre, often
with ornamented top, and sometimes from his Chthonian association with
Dionysos holds a kantharos, vine-branch, or cornucopia. _Kerberos_ has
three heads only on two Cacretan hydriae and the Apulian under-world
vases; his usual number is two, but once or twice he has only
one.[1953] _Hekate_ has torches for her customary attribute, and the
_Furies_, who only occur on South Italian vases, wear short chitons
with cross-belts and have rough hair, in which and round their arms
serpents are intertwined. _Charon_ the ferryman is represented as an
elderly man in short chiton and conical cap (cf. Fig. 122), but the
grim Etruscan _Charun_ is a repulsive and savage hook-nosed demon,
wielding a hammer. _Thanatos_ and _Hypnos_, the two Death-deities, are
both winged men, but only the former is bearded (cf. Fig. 123); there
is usually nothing forbidding in his appearance. The question of the
representation of ghosts or souls (εἴδωλα) has been fully discussed (p.
72); most commonly they are diminutive winged figures, and in other
cases they appear as in ordinary life,[1954] but possibly they
sometimes appear in the form of birds.[1955]

_Gaia_ is represented half rising out of the earth, a beautiful but not
young woman, with long hair (Fig. 112); or, as Pandora, her head alone
is seen (see p. 73). _Kybele_ occasionally appears, with her attendant
lion, and an even rarer figure is _Asklepios_, with his serpent. The
_Eileithyiae_, who attend at the birth of Athena, are ordinary women,
distinguished by the appropriate gestures of their hands (Fig. 113).
_Iris_, the female messenger of the gods, appears winged, with short
chiton to allow of rapid movement, and carrying the caduceus or
herald’s staff; _Hebe_, on the other hand, is an ordinary woman. _Nike_
is usually to be distinguished from Iris by her long flowing draperies,
even when in flight; the various attributes usually associated with her
have already been dealt with in detail (p. 87).[1956]

Among personifications, _Helios_ is a youthful figure in a chariot,
usually with rays round his head (as on Plate LIII.); in one or two
cases his head is surmounted by a white disc; _Selene_ appears on
horseback, and is sometimes indicated by a crescent moon; where Helios
is accompanied by a goddess in a chariot, it is probable that _Nyx_
(Night) is intended (see p. 79). The _Stars_ are represented as nude
youths. The _Aurae_ or breezes appear as girls floating through the
air; the _Hyades_ or rain-Nymphs are identified by their
water-pitchers. A group of winged gods and goddesses is formed by Eos,
Agon (the masculine counterpart of Nike), Eris, Lyssa (Frenzy),[1957]
and the various wind-gods, such as Boreas and Zephyros. These are found
at all periods, but the types vary. _Eris_, who is only found on B.F.
vases, resembles the Gorgons (see below), a somewhat grotesque figure
with wings, rough hair, and short girt chiton; _Lyssa_ only occurs on
Apulian vases, and is akin in type to the Furies—in two instances her
figure is enclosed in a circle of rays of light, perhaps to express the
blinding effect of her action, and she holds a goad.[1958] _Oistros_, a
kindred figure, rides in a car drawn by serpents, and carries torches.
The type of Agon is assimilated to that of Eros on R.F. vases; on those
of earlier date (if this is the correct interpretation) he wears a
short girt chiton and holds a wreath. The _Wind-gods_ on B.F. vases
wear the petasos and high boots, and short girt chiton; _Zephyros_ is
represented as a youth; and _Boreas_, who only occurs on R.F. vases,
wears Thracian costume; he is bearded, and his hair is often rough and
shaggy. But these winged deities cannot always be identified with
certainty. Among other personifications, _Geras_ is a somewhat ugly old
man; the _Muses_ are distinguished by their various musical
instruments; and _Cities and Countries_ are occasionally
individualised. For instance, Thebes, on a vase by Assteas, wears a
turreted crown; Sparta appears as a Nymph on horseback; and, generally
speaking, their presence is usually indicated not only by inscriptions,
but by their relation to the scene depicted.[1959] _River-gods_, such
as Acheloös, appear as human-headed bulls, with horns, but the
last-named on a stamnos by Pamphaios (E 437 in B.M.) has a fish-tail.

_Kastor_ and _Polydeukes_ usually appear on horseback and in hunting
costume, with petasos, chlamys, and spears; on later vases they
sometimes wear the pileus, a conical cap which often appears as their
emblem on coins. _Herakles_ on earlier vases is always bearded, and
wears the lion’s skin fastened round his waist with a belt, the
forepaws knotted round his throat[1960]; the head covers his head like
a cap, leaving his face only exposed, and under it he wears a short
girt chiton; he is armed with his club, or bow and quiver, and
sometimes with a sword. On R.F. vases he is often nude, or only wears
the skin in chlamys fashion. On the earlier vases he is often less
characterised, and the same applies to the later R.F. vases, on which
he is frequently beardless; in many cases he is only to be identified
by his club. _Theseus_ always appears as a youth, and on the R.F. cups
usually wears a short loose chiton of crinkly material (cf. Vol. I.,
Frontisp.); his arms are a sword, or sometimes a club. _Perseus_ wears
the winged petasos or cap of darkness and high boots (the shoes of
swiftness), sometimes winged; he carries the wallet or κίβισις, and
sometimes the ἅρπη or curved sword with which he slew Medusa. _Pelops_
on the Apulian vases is usually characterised as an Oriental, with
richly embroidered costume and a tiara or embroidered cap. The Homeric
heroes are only to be identified by inscriptions, or by the actions in
which they take part, but _Paris_ is usually in Oriental costume; in
Judgment scenes he holds a lyre, but when he takes part in combats he
is attired as an archer, with bow and quiver, Phrygian cap, jerkin, and
trousers. _Kekrops_, the mythical king of Athens, usually ends in a
serpent’s tail, to denote his autochthonous origin; _Midas_ has ass’s
ears; _Orpheus_ is recognised by his lyre, and sometimes wears, as a
musician, feminine costume (see below, p. 197).[1961]

Of other mythological types the _Amazons_ are, of course, always armed,
frequently in the Oriental fashion, with Phrygian cap or _kidaris_ and
trousers; their weapons are the crescent-shaped shield or _pelta_, and
a peculiar type of battle-axe, the _sagaris_. The _Giants_ on B.F.
vases are ordinary armed warriors, not even of exceptional size, but in
later times they often end in serpents, as on the Pergamene frieze.
_Typhon_ appears in this form on a Chalcidian vase.[1962] _Geryon_ is
represented in the manner described by Pausanias (vi. 19, 1), as “three
men joined together,” with distinctive arms and legs; on Chalcidian
vases he has four wings, and is only triple from the waist upwards. The
_Centaurs_ on the more archaic vases, as on those of Ionia, appear as
men with the body and hind legs of a horse attached behind; by the
middle of the sixth century they appear in the familiar form of a human
bust conjoined with a horse’s body. The _Gorgons_ are always rendered
in grotesque fashion, with grinning faces and dishevelled hair
intertwined with serpents; they wear short girt chitons and high winged
boots, and have four wings, the upper pair recurved; usually on B.F.
vases they appear in what is known as “the archaic running attitude,”
or, as the Germans more expressively phrase it, “Knielaufschema,” the
figures being represented as if kneeling on one knee. The same
grotesque type of face,[1963] with the protruding tongue and teeth,
appertains to the Medusa’s head or Gorgoneion, which is at all periods
such a favourite decorative motive on vases, either as the interior
design of a B.F. kylix, or as a medallion in relief on late vases. The
more beautiful type of Medusa head is a creation of later date than
most of the painted vases, but in the medallions on Italian vases much
of the grotesqueness has disappeared.

Much confusion at one time existed between the conceptions of the
_Harpy_ and the _Siren_, both names being indiscriminately applied to
the female-headed bird so common on vases of all periods. But there is
ample evidence for the representation of the Harpy more in the style of
the Gorgons, as a purely feminine type, with the short chiton suited
for rapid movement, high boots, and wings, and often in the
conventional running attitude.[1964] In this form they appear in one
instance as feminine counterparts of the male Boreades.[1965] The Siren
types vary at different times, the earlier Sirens frequently having
human arms.[1966] The _Sphinx_ is always a woman-headed winged
four-footed beast; sometimes on Corinthian and Ionic vases she wears a
high head-dress. The _Gryphon_[1967] is a winged lion with eagle’s
beak, and often with erect ears; the winged _Pegasos_ and the
bull-headed _Minotaur_ require no description.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Turning now to personages concerned in events of every-day life, we
find great variety of costume and equipment, especially at different
periods and under different circumstances. The vases, in fact, may be
said to supply the most instructive _locus classicus_ for Greek dress
and ornament, as well as for minor details—such as weapons, implements,
and furniture—of which they provide contemporary illustrations.

_Kings_ are usually distinguished by dignified flowing robes, by the
wearing of a wreath or head-dress, or by the sceptre which they
hold.[1968] Oriental potentates wear the costume of their country, with
lofty ornamented tiaras, or the Persian _kidaris_ or _kyrbasia_—a
peaked cap decorated with fringes and lappets. Their dress is often
very elaborate on the later vases. _Actors_ and _musicians_ both wear
appropriate costumes. The former, who hardly occur except on the
Italian vases, wear the dress of the Old Comedy, with grotesque mask,
padded stomach, loose jerkin, and trousers.[1969] Tragic actors are
seldom represented; but it has already been pointed out[1970] that in
the setting of the mythological scenes on the vases of Southern Italy
there is an unmistakable reflection of the tragic stage, especially in
the elaborate and somewhat exaggerated details of costume. Musicians
invariably wear a long chiton, over which on R.F. vases they sometimes
wear a short loose garment called the ὀρθοστάδιον, embroidered with
patterns.[1971] There are also a few instances of male performers
(recognisable by their beards) in distinctively feminine costume.[1972]

_Athletes_ are invariably nude when performing their exercises, except
in the case of the armed foot-race (see p. 164); in the torch-race they
seem to have worn high crowns; on the reverse of late R.F. vases they
appear inactive, wrapped in mantles and conversing in groups. _Hunters_
wear a distinctive costume of petasos and chlamys, and usually carry
two spears. Boys on horseback are usually represented nude, and on
Ionic vases have their hair tied in a tuft behind.[1973] _Charioteers_
are always attired in a long girt chiton reaching to the feet, which on
Attic B.F. vases is painted white. They usually hold a goad in the
right hand, the reins in the left. _Heralds_ wear the attributes of
Hermes—the petasos, caduceus, and high boots, with a chlamys or short
girt chiton. _Warriors_ on the early and B.F. vases are equipped in a
fashion which tallies to some extent with the descriptions of
Homer.[1974] Their armour usually consists of a crested Corinthian
helmet, a metal cuirass, under which is a short chiton, and greaves, to
which are sometimes added the thigh-coverings known as _parameridia_.
Some peculiarities may also be noted—such as the hooked projection on
the front of helmets on the Ionic vases of Daphnae and the Clazomenae
sarcophagi,[1975] the linen cuirasses (indicated by white paint)
sometimes worn on Attic B.F. vases,[1976] or the heavy helmets with
large cheek-pieces seen on the Caeretan hydriae (Plate XXVI.). The R.F.
vases often represent the fully armed Athenian hoplite equipped in the
same fashion as the B.F.; but in these, and more especially in the
Italian vases, there is a tendency to omit much of the defensive
armour. Cuirasses on R.F. vases are often decorated with patterns of
scales or panelling.[1977] Helmets on Italian vases often assume a
local character, with conical crowns and two or three lofty

Of offensive armour, the full equipment consists of sword, spear, and
shield. The two former call for no comment, but the shields, which are
of two forms, the circular Argive or the indented oval Boeotian,
present one feature of great interest—the devices with which they are
adorned.[1979] Investigations have failed to discern in these any
symbolical or heraldic significance; they are not appropriated to
particular personages, and all that can be noted about them is that
they usually seem to suggest rapid movement. Thus we find an eagle or
other flying bird, wheels, balls, chariots, a bent leg, a serpent,
Pegasos, and so on. The passage in the _Septem_ of Aeschylus (387 ff.),
in which the shield-devices of the combatants are described, is of
course familiar, and similar allusions are not wanting in Greek
writers.[1980] They are universal on B.F. vases, being painted in white
on black ground, and are often found on the earlier R.F. vases in black
on red; but they seem to disappear at an early stage of the R.F.
period. Sometimes they consist only of letters of the alphabet, as on a
Panathenaic amphora, where Athena’s shield has the letters Α to Θ; on a
B.F. vase in the British Museum are the letters ΑΘΕ.[1981] Other
peculiar subjects are a winged boar, two rams butting, a figure of
Artemis, a white-bordered square, and a ladder.[1982] Some of those on
R.F. vases are somewhat elaborate—a Seilenos,[1983] a fox eating
grapes,[1984] an armed runner,[1985] or a warrior blowing a
trumpet.[1986] A variation is when the device takes the form of an
object in relief—a Satyr-mask,[1987] Gorgoneion,[1988] mask of Phobos
(Panic),[1989] or a Gryphon,[1990] or a rearing serpent[1991]; or when
a shield is surrounded by a fringe of serpents.[1992] Shields
frequently have a piece of fringed and embroidered stuff suspended from
them, which seems to have served as a protection to the legs.[1993]

_Archers_ are depicted in Oriental costume, wearing peaked caps with
long lappets and a close-fitting dress of leather, consisting of jerkin
and trousers, usually embroidered with various patterns. The different
barbarian types which appear on vases—Persians, Scythians, Arimaspi,
and Thracians—are more or less individualised, especially on the R.F.
vases. Such subjects, indeed, were not really popular until the Persian
wars. The details of Oriental costume have already been noted.
Thracians on R.F. vases wear a long loose cloak known as the _zeira_
and a cap of foxskin (_alopeke_) with long flaps, which dress is also
worn by Boreas (see above). In the first half of the fifth century
Oriental costumes seem to have had a period of popularity among the
fashionable young men of Athens, especially the knights; and they are
often depicted riding in the _zeira_ or striped and embroidered dresses
of outlandish style (see pp. 166, 179). Egyptians are often
realistically rendered, with shaven heads,[1994] as are negroes and
Aethiopians. The latter, like all barbarians on vases, usually wear
trousers. On the vases of Southern Italy details of local (Osco-Samnite
or Messapian) costumes often appear (see p. 180, and Vol. I. p. 483),
especially in the case of helmets and breastplates worn by warriors on
Campanian vases.

On the earlier vases, down to the end of the B.F. period, there is
frequently no distinction between the dress of men and women, and to
this fact may have been due the practice of painting the latter white
to differentiate them. Both wear the long Doric chiton, with a mantle
or himation thrown over it; but men often wear the smaller chlamys over
the shoulders in place of the himation. Women, again, on the earlier
B.F. vases, often appear without the himation, and wear a long chiton
tightly girt at the waist, with a short _apoptygma_ or fold falling
over the breast. On R.F. vases the Doric chiton is sometimes worn by
women, open down one side (known as the χίτων σχιστός). Men in the
“strong” R.F. period wear a short loose chiton of fine crinkly linen.
Generally in the R.F. period there is greater freedom of costume and
variety of material and arrangement. The Ionic chiton is introduced
about 500 B.C., but its vogue does not seem to have lasted long at
Athens. In place of the _apoptygma_ women sometimes wear a loose
over-garment, known as the _diplois_. On the earliest vases men are
often nude, with the exception of a loin-cloth or pair of tight-fitting
“bathing-drawers.” Women are practically never nude on vases, except
when occupied in bathing or washing, or in the case of _hetairae_ and

The draperies, especially the chitons, are often richly embroidered
with patterns, represented by incising and purple and white colours on
the B.F. vases, by black paint on the R.F. On the former the women’s
chiton is often covered with a sort of diaper pattern of squares,
filled in with circles and stars, or the dresses (both of men and
women) are covered with groups of dots and flowers in white and purple.
In the late fine R.F. period and on the vases of Lucania and Apulia the
patterns become exceedingly rich and varied[1995]: chequers,
wave-pattern, palmettes, stars, egg-pattern, maeander, and all kinds of
borders are introduced. A further extension of the principle is seen in
the introduction of borders of figures, the most notable instances of
which are on the François vase and the Hieron kotyle.[1996] On the
former the technique is remarkable as a kind of anticipation of red
figures on black. Aristotle speaks of a garment made for Alkimenes of
Sybaris on which deities were represented between borders decorated
with Oriental figures, the subjects being the sacred animals of the
Medes and Persians.[1997] We may also cite the remarkable statue of
Demeter found at Lykosura in Arcadia, the drapery of which is decorated
with inlaid borders of figures,[1998] and the mantle of Jason described
by Apollonius Rhodius.[1999]

The hair of women on B.F. vases, and frequently also that of men,
usually falls loose or in tight curls on the shoulders, with a fringe
over the forehead. On the early R.F. vases men often wear their hair
looped up behind in the fashion known as the κρώβυλος,[2000] which, as
we know from Thucydides, went out about 480 B.C. Women, on the other
hand, have theirs knotted up and confined under a cap. On later R.F.
vases and on those of Apulia their hair is usually gathered up in the
_opisthosphendone_, or in a broad coif or fillets, and arranged in
bunches of curls in front and behind. On late R.F. vases a radiated
diadem, painted white, is often seen. Men are seldom represented with
long hair after 480 B.C., but they usually wear a wreath or plain
fillet. Head-coverings are rarely worn by ordinary persons, with the
exception of the traveller’s and huntsman’s _petasos_; but Oriental
personages usually wear a high cap of some kind (see above, under
Barbarians). Jewellery—such as necklaces, earrings, armlets, or
anklets—is comparatively rare on B.F. vases, but becomes more and more
common, until it reaches profusion on those of Apulia. Bracelets and
anklets are often in the form of serpents. Various forms of sandals or
shoes are seen on later vases, but on the black-figured the only kind
of footgear is the high boot or _endromis_, with a curved tag in front.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The extent to which physiognomical expressions are rendered on vases
varies at different periods[2001]; but it is not true, as has sometimes
been thought, that the artists altogether ignored such expressions in
their figures; it was only in the earlier phases that this was the
case, and even during the fifth century the advance was timid and slow,
much more so than in sculpture. As a rule, in the same vase all the
faces are alike, and no physiognomical distinction can be drawn between
gods and heroes, or even between men and women, except (on the Attic
vases) in the treatment of the eye. On the B.F. vases the ordinary type
of face has a long nose, with a tendency to turn up, a pointed chin,
deep rounded jaw, and large eyes, while the limbs are sinewy, angular,
and tapering. Beards of some length are invariable for grown or elderly
men; otherwise distinctions of age are hardly observed until the R.F.
period. And as in sculpture of the archaic period all figures have the
same conventional smile, so on the B.F. vases gods, heroes, and mortals
alike all pursue the actions in which they are engaged with the same
unvarying expression. The contrast of violent action and calm unmoved
physiognomy is often quaint, and almost grotesque.

Indications of expression or sentiment are, in fact, rather implicit
than explicit. They are given in a sort of shorthand fashion, just as
Polygnotos in his great paintings, by some subtle touch—by a change of
attitude or the action of a hand—indicated the emotion he wished to
convey. In the different treatment of the male and female eye there is,
no doubt, an attempt to give to the man a more lively expression by
means of the round pupil, while the oval form of the woman’s eye gives
her a softer and less intense look. The neglect of this principle on
Ionian vases, where the male eye is oval, seems to be a reflection of
the effeminate tendencies of the Ionian races.[2002] At an early date
we may observe a special treatment of the eye to represent it as
closed, in the case of a blind or dying person. Thus the Phineus of the
Würzburg cup has merely an angular mark in place of an eye,
representing the fall of the upper eyelid over the lower, or the eye is
represented as a vacant space without pupil.[2003] The mouth is
sometimes open to express pain or anger, as in the Nessos of the
Proto-Attic vase,[2004] or the quarrelling heroes on a vase in the
Louvre (F 340). It is also used to express the agony of a dying or
injured person, as on a vase with the outraged Polyphemos,[2005] with
which we may compare the dying warrior of the Aegina pediment. But all
these are rather exceptions than the rule on B.F. vases.

After the time of Polygnotos the influence of painting makes itself
felt, and we may recall that he perfected the advances of Kimon in this
respect. Not only did the vase-painters learn from him how to dispose
figures _en face_ or in three-quarter view, but they also learned how
to mark different expressions. It has also been observed that the
influence of tragedy must have been strong at this time. The krater
from Orvieto in the Louvre (Vol. I. p. 442) is a good instance of the
progress made in the fifth century in this direction. On one side of
the vase (see Fig. 103, _ibid._) we have a dying Niobid and a youth
with face to the front and eyes closing; on the other, in the
Argonautic scene, a warrior holding his knees, with lower lip fallen,
giving him a melancholy expression, and Herakles with a face of
sadness, marked by wrinkles. Other figures show exactly in what
direction they are looking (compare Kimon’s figures “looking down or
upwards”).[2006] In the later developments of the Apulian vases, with
their scenes drawn from tragic themes and represented in such dramatic
fashion, there is plenty of ability to represent emotion, and in
several cases it is accurately expressed, as in some of the scenes from
the sack of Troy. But in other cases, as on the Assteas vase in Madrid
(Fig. 107), much of the old quaintness and grotesqueness is apparent.

                  *       *       *       *       *

It is also necessary to treat of the methods adopted by the artist for
indicating locality or landscape in his pictures, a thing which is
often done in the briefest and most cursory manner. The germs of this
principle are perhaps to be observed (as noted elsewhere, Vol. I. p.
312) in the floral ground-ornaments of the Corinthian and other early
vases. In the more developed vase-paintings a sort of shorthand system
is customary, a system which in some degree probably prevailed on the
Greek stage, as on that of the Elizabethan drama. Thus a temple or a
house is represented by a column, or two columns supporting a pediment,
a wood or grove by a single tree, water by two dolphins swimming in the
lower part of the design, and so on. A notable exception is in the
palace depicted on the François vase, in which Thetis awaits the
arrival of the bridegroom Peleus. So much of the building is given in
detail that it is even possible to attempt a restoration.[2007] On the
same vase the walls of Troy are depicted, with a double door studded
with nails. In the Hydrophoria scenes (p. 173) considerable attention
is paid to the architectural details of the well-house, which was
probably in the form of a small temple, perhaps circular, surrounded by
a colonnade. The water issues from spouts in the form of lions’ heads,
and statues are often depicted in different parts of the building. The
François vase also gives an illustration of a well-house, with portico
supported by columns. The architecture is almost invariably Doric. In
outdoor scenes rocks occasionally appear, but only where they are
necessary to the subject, as in the ambuscade of Achilles for Troilos.
The branches of trees which frequently cover all the vacant spaces of
the design on later B.F. vases, especially in Dionysiac scenes, may be
mainly intended for decorative effect.

In the R.F. period more and more attention is paid to landscape and
architectural detail as the style develops, but there is still a strong
tendency to adhere to the shorthand system—a tendency which increases
rather than disappears, especially on the white-ground vases. The
artist’s object was always to make his figures stand out, as far as
possible, clear against the background, and he therefore deliberately
avoided anything likely to interfere with the desired effect. Landscape
proper, with indications of ground-lines, rocks, and trees, was only
introduced when the Polygnotan influence became strong, and the Orvieto
krater in the Louvre may be once more cited as a good and early
instance of a new development. Scenes in architectural settings are
rare, but an exception may be noted in the case of some of the late
R.F. vases with scenes in women’s apartments, where careful attention
is paid to the details of the door-ways, even to the locks and
key-holes.[2008] For the rest, it usually sufficed to indicate the
palaestra by a strigil or oil-flask suspended, or a pair of
jumping-weights; musical gatherings by a lyre or a flute in a case;
banqueting-rooms by cups and other vases hung up, or by rows of boots.
Similarly, women’s apartments are represented by a window, door, or
column, or by sashes, hoods, mirrors, wreaths, and wool-baskets
scattered about.[2009]

In the vases of Southern Italy this principle is carried almost to
excess. Not only is the old idea of rosettes and flowers scattered
about the scene revived, but the whole surface of the design is often
covered with miscellaneous objects, such as balls, sashes, and mirrors.
On the Apulian vases the use of a double line of white dots to indicate
the ground is invariable, and loose stones are scattered about where it
is intended to be rocky. Flowers grow about in rich profusion. In the
mythological scenes an elaborate architectural background is frequent,
and altars, tripods, and columns serve the same end; the _heroa_ or
shrines and other forms of tomb in the sepulchral scenes have already
been described. In athletic scenes, especially on the reverse of the
kraters, a ball, a stylus and tablets, or a pair of jumping-weights are
suspended in the air to indicate the palaestra; and on Lucanian vases
subjects of a military nature are suggested by a suspended shield only
partly visible. The “courting-scenes” on Apulian vases usually have a
representation of a window in a corner of the design.

                      § 2. ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECTS

The next point to be considered is the method of arrangement and
composition of the figures in general on Greek vases. As regards the
Mycenaean, Geometrical, and other early wares, they may be left out of
consideration,—firstly, because their ornamentation is mainly composed
of decorative motives or single figures of animals; secondly, because
even where compositions of figure subjects are found, as on the great
Dipylon vases, the method of arrangement is still tentative and without
system. The figures are arranged in haphazard groups and bands, and all
the remaining spaces are filled in with ornament.

The first attempt at an organised method of decoration is seen in the
vases of Corinth and Ionia, and is exemplified principally in the
arrangement of the friezes of animals. Roughly speaking, there are two
main tendencies, one characteristic of each line of development—the
procession and the heraldic group. Both are essentially Oriental
(_i.e._ Assyrian) in origin, the prototype of the latter being the
familiar motive of the two animals and the sacred tree, which is so
frequently found on Mycenaean gems, and is best exemplified in the
famous Lion Gate of Mycenae.[2010] Yet this typically Mycenaean and
Oriental motive was not the one adopted by its natural inheritors, the
Ionians, and it is in Dorian Corinth that we find its reflection on the
painted vases. On one Corinthian vase[2011] it actually occurs in the
form of a conventional palmette and lotos-pattern (representing the
tree), on either side of which two lions are confronted in true
Mycenaean fashion. Later, it becomes a common device on the necks of
vases, the ornament taking the form of a decorative combination of
palmettes (see below, p. 226). Even when on Corinthian vases a whole
frieze of animals is found, there is always a central “heraldic” group
of two, towards which the whole seems to lead up, or else the frieze is
broken up into several isolated heraldic groups.[2012] But on the Ionic
vases, as on those of Rhodes and Naukratis, we have over and over again
regular processions of animals all facing the same way, or, as at
Daphnae, solemn dances of women, similarly placed and joining
hand-in-hand (see Plate XXV.).

In the developed B.F. vases the same principles are observed to some
extent, especially where friezes of animals are introduced; but there
is much greater freedom of treatment within the limits of the field
available. Generally speaking, however, all designs on B.F. vases may
be regarded as following one of the three methods of architectural
composition—the frieze, the pediment, or the metope. The frieze style,
which is seen on the shoulders of hydriae, the exteriors of kylikes,
and sometimes on the bodies of amphorae, oinochoae, or lekythi, implies
a series of figures, all turned in the same direction, but without any
central point for the action, as in processions of warriors, dances of
Satyrs and Maenads, and so on. In the pediment style of composition the
essential feature is a centre-point, in which the interest of the
subject is concentrated, as in such scenes as the Birth of Athena[2013]
or Theseus killing the Minotaur.[2014] The central group is then
flanked by figures immediately interested in the action (Eileithyia and
Hephaistos, or Ariadne, in the instances quoted; Athena and Iolaos at
the labours of Herakles); and the ends of the pediment, so to speak,
are occupied by groups of bystanders, often nameless and
uncharacterised, who are in fact only included to fill up the space

The metope style, which only admits of three, or at most four, figures,
was found convenient for all the vases with subjects on panels, where
space was restricted, and also on the kylikes of the “minor artist”
class, on which a limited use of figures was preferred, and on those of
later date where the space was mainly taken up by the large eyes. But
in all these cases—friezes, pediments, or metopes—one thing was held to
be essential: the correspondence of the two halves of the design
(except in friezes), producing perfect symmetry in the composition.

Lastly, there are a limited number of cases where a single figure was
found sufficient, as in the interior of kylikes, on the circular
pinakes,[2015] and sometimes on the vases where the large eyes take up
most of the space.[2016]

Subordinate designs, bordering the main design of an amphora above or
below, or decorating the cover, are usually in the form of animals or
chariot-races, in the frieze style of composition. Similar friezes are
sometimes also found (in the old B.F. method) on R.F. vases, and even
on the kraters of Southern Italy.

The earlier R.F. vases preserve the principles of the preceding period;
and, in regard to the kylikes, the system of decoration has been
discussed in detail elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 427). In all of them we see
particular attention paid to arrangement, and the variations in the
principles of composition form one of our guides in determining the
development of the style. In the amphorae and hydriae of the transition
from the severe to the strong period the number of figures employed in
one scene was diminished, while they became larger in their proportions
and were treated with more care; the usual number on the Nolan amphora
is one or two each side. On the smaller vases, such as the oinochoë,
the number of the figures never exceeds three. Sometimes the hydriae
have an elongated composition on the shoulder, containing a frieze of
several figures[2017]; but usually the design runs into both shoulder
and body. Designs in framed panels are rare, except on the earlier
amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters. The latter are
unique in preserving the older methods of decoration right through the
R.F. period down to the fourth-century specimens from Southern Italy.

The influence of Polygnotos and his contemporaries brought about, as we
have seen, a great change in the arrangement of the compositions, by
the introduction of landscape and perspective, and the depicting of
figures at different levels. This new development was subsequently
exemplified in the large vases of Kertch and Apulia, but in the late
fine period at Athens small vases with single friezes or simple
subjects were the rule. In the pyxides and other vases with frieze
subjects the figures are often crowded together and of dwarfish
proportions (Plate XLII. fig. 3). A return to the old system of several
friezes is seen where the figures are arranged in two or more rows
divided by bands of ornaments, as in the Meidias hydria, or the early
Apulian and some of the Lucanian vases.[2018]

The earlier vases of Southern Italy, especially those of Lucania,
preserve in some measure the spirit of the best R.F. vases, in the
arrangement of the figures, and at all times the composition is one of
the best features of these vases; but in the later examples the purely
decorative element obtrudes itself; single figures of little more than
ornamental character abound, and the old preference for mere ornament
asserts itself, the patterns encroaching all over the scenes.

                        § 3. ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS

Although by far subordinate to the subjects in point of artistic or
archaeological interest, the ornamental patterns which are employed on
the vases are by no means without their value in both respects.[2019]
They are, indeed, intimately interwoven with the subjects themselves,
which they frame in, relieve, or embellish. Numerous vases are
decorated with ornaments only, even in the advanced stages of the art;
and this is, of course, an extremely common occurrence in the earlier
fabrics, such as the Geometrical and Rhodian. Others, again, are only
ornamented in the simplest fashion, with plain bands of red left to
show through the black varnish round the body or foot. That the artist
took a pride even in this form of ornamentation is shown by the fact
that some potters, such as Nikosthenes and the “minor artists,” have
left their names on vases only decorated with simple patterns.

From the very beginning of Greek vase-painting there may be observed an
endeavour to dispose the ornamental patterns in accordance with some
system; and even though in some cases, as in the Cypriote Geometrical
vases, there is an offence against the canons of art, yet at all
periods the prevailing effect is one of symmetry and taste. It may be
thought that in some respects there is a poverty in the variety of
ornaments employed—as compared, for instance, with mediaeval art; but
it should be remembered that—as their architecture shows—the Greek
principle was to achieve the highest results within a limited sphere.
Their system was conventional, but its conventions are forgotten in the
artistic effect that it produces.

It is on the earliest vases that the greatest variety and richness of
ornament occurs; as the art is developed the ornamentation becomes more
and more subsidiary, until on the vases of the finest R.F. period it
has almost disappeared. But in the later phases it again comes to the
fore, tending more and more to obscure and finally to supersede the
subjects. To set forth as briefly as possible the growth and
development of Greek ornament, both as a whole and in the case of
individual motives, will be the object of the succeeding summary. It
will be found advisable to treat the subject in a twofold
aspect,—firstly, dealing with individual forms and their development;
and, secondly, in their relation to the decoration of the vases and
their subjects, as exemplified in the different periods and fabrics.

Various theories have been propounded as to the origin of the ornaments
found on Greek vases. Some have seen in the patterns architectural
adaptations, suggested by the ornamentation of the different members of
a temple, such as the maeander, egg-and-tongue pattern, or the
astragalus, just as the disposition of the subject is often a
reminiscence of the frieze or metopes. But this is no real explanation.
In the first place, the patterns are found on vases at a period when
they were hardly as yet used in architecture; and, secondly, their use
on vases and in architecture must undoubtedly be traced to a common
source. Others, again, have regarded them as conventional symbols, the
kymation or wave-pattern representing water, a flower or rosette the
ground on which the figures stand, and so on. Or, again, it has been
thought that they were originally derived from textile patterns, being
produced mechanically by the ways in which the threads ran in the loom,
whence they were applied with deliberate artistic intention to the
surface of a vase.

It is, in fact, impossible to put forward any one theory which will
account for the whole system of decorative ornament. As has been
pointed out in our introductory chapter, many of these patterns are not
only spontaneous, but universal in their origin among primitive
peoples; every nation has begun with its circles, triangles, spirals,
or chevrons. We are also, in regard to the Greeks, met with the
remarkable fact that in its earliest form their painted pottery
presents a very elaborate and highly developed system of
ornamentation—purely geometrical, it is true, yet none the less of an
advanced character. It is a composite system, formed partly from
Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean local elements, and partly from the
decorative ideas introduced by the Dorians from Central Europe;
subsequently the range of Greek vase-ornament was yet further enlarged
by the introduction of vegetable patterns, the palmette, the
lotos-flower, and the rosette, which are due to the growth of Oriental
influences, both from Egypt and from Assyria.

                  *       *       *       *       *


[Illustration: FIG. 140. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (ATTIC).]

In order to deal with the various ornaments and patterns in detail, it
may be found convenient to divide them under three heads—rectilinear,
curvilinear, and vegetable or floral. Of the first class the most
consistently popular is the typically Greek pattern known as the
_maeander_, key, or fret pattern. It first appears with the Geometrical
style, in which it plays an important part, often covering a large
proportion of the surface of a vase, arranged in broad friezes. Three
varieties are found—a simple battlement pattern (Fig. 139), and the
slightly more elaborate forms, Fig. 140, and the pattern given in Vol.
I. p. 283, Fig. 83. In the Boeotian Geometrical, Phaleron, and
Proto-Corinthian fabrics it is seldom found, or only in a debased form,
as [maeander] but one or two forms occur in the “Rhodian” and “Samian”
fabrics of Ionia; one of these is given in Fig. 141, and another
consists of squares of the same alternating with crosses or stars in
panels. We meet with a most interesting development of the latter
variety in the vases of the so-called Pontic class and on the
Clazomenae sarcophagi, where an elaborate maeander pattern, usually in
two rows, is interspersed with stars or rosettes (Fig. 142). It thus
becomes almost a distinguishing characteristic of the later Ionian

[Illustration: FIG. 141. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (IONIC).]


In the Attic B.F. vases there is a return to simplicity. Here we find
it for the most part in the form Fig. 140 above, and its usual position
is below the designs on the red-bodied amphorae; but it is sometimes
found on other vases, as above the panels on the bodies of hydriae or
oinochoae. In the R.F. period its development is most important for
determining the succession of the kylikes, on which it almost becomes a
date-mark, so regular is its evolution. This has, however, been already
dealt with in the chapter on the history of the style (Vol. I. p. 416).
After the severe period it is of frequent appearance on all forms of
vases, the kylix, amphora, krater, and pelike in particular; the usual
arrangement is a group of three to five maeanders, either of the simple
Fig. 140 type, or of a more complicated form (Fig. 143), divided by
rectangular panels or squares composed of chequers, or of crosses
(diagonal and vertical) with dots or strokes between the arms.[2020] A
curious variety of the maeander is used by Duris; it consists of a
double intersecting maeander interspersed with squares[2021] (Fig. 144).

[Illustration: FIG. 143. MAEANDER (ATTIC, 5TH CENTURY).]

The invariable place for this ornament is below the design on the large
vases, and it is usually continued the whole way round (except on the
earlier Nolan amphorae); it is also found on the R.F. and white lekythi
along the top of the design. It is always painted in black on the clay

[Illustration: FIG. 144. MAEANDER (ATTIC, ABOUT 480 B.C.).]

A similar form of maeander prevails on the vases of Southern Italy
(except in Campania); it is found on the krater, amphora, lebes,
kotyle, etc., and is almost invariable. But there is one unique variety
which is occasionally found on the great Apulian kraters, as on F 278
in the British Museum; the type is that of the pattern in Fig. 144, but
the maeander is represented _in perspective_, being painted in white on
the black, the shaded edges left in the colour of the clay.

Of patterns akin to the maeander, the so-called _swastika_ or
hook-armed cross, 16[21]swastika occurs in panels on the Geometrical
vases, but subsequently it is only found as a ground-ornament in the
field, as frequently at Naukratis, in Rhodes, and elsewhere. It is,
strictly speaking, to be regarded as a fragmentary piece of maeander,
without any of the symbolical meaning which it bears in the art of
northern nations, with whom it was the emblem of the Scandinavian god
Thor. Another pattern, 16[63]maeander or 16[90]maeander which may be
called a variety of the maeander, is frequently found as a continuous
border on early vases, such as the Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian wares,
and occasionally in the B.F. period.

Next there is the _chevron_, zigzag, or herring-bone pattern,
consisting of systems of V-shaped patterns, arranged in two ways,
either 20[15]chevron or 16[64]zigzag these patterns are practically
only found on the earlier fabrics of Greece and Cyprus, or on the
native wares of Apulia. On the incised vases of the early Bronze Age
found at Hissarlik and in Cyprus this is the prevailing motive, the
lines of zigzag being either single, or arranged in groups of four or
five parallel:


On the Geometrical vases such patterns are of very frequent occurrence,
and panels or bands of chevrons arranged vertically, 20[15]chevron or
20[22]zigzag occur in many instances (Fig. 83). These groups of
chevrons or zigzags are also a distinguishing mark of the Boeotian
Geometrical fabrics (cf. Fig. 85); they occur to a lesser extent on the
Melian, Proto-Corinthian, and Early Corinthian vases, and even in the
Chalcidian fabrics. They are either employed as ground-ornaments to
fill in spaces, or as panels forming part of the subsidiary decoration.
A variation, or rather development, of the chevron, sometimes employed
as a ground-ornament on early Ionic vases, is composed of a cross,
22[21]cross with sets of chevrons between the arms.

[Illustration: FIG. 145. NET-PATTERN.]

Diagonally or directly _intersecting lines_ form another universal
element of early decoration, varying from a simple arrangement of cross
lines 22[54]mesh to an elaborate diaper-pattern, and in such forms
found even in later times. Beginning with the simple intersecting
lines, or bands filled in with hatching, of the primitive incised
vases, further developed in the white slip ware of Cyprus (Vol. I. p.
243), we next come to their use on the vases of the Geometrical period,
both in Greece and in Cyprus. The variety of these patterns is so great
that they can hardly be described in any detail; the usual method of
treatment is in a band or panel of lozenges, squares, or triangles,
filled in with a reticular pattern formed by the short intersecting
lines. Sometimes dots are inserted in the spaces to enrich the general
effect. Some very good examples of these patterns are to be seen in the
Geometrical vases of Apulia (p. 327). In the B.F. period plain bands or
panels of intersecting lines are not infrequent; sometimes small
amphorae or lekythi are decorated entirely in this fashion.[2023] A
variation of the motive is the border of network which often surrounds
the panels on hydriae or oinochoae, in which the points of intersection
are ornamented with studs, resembling the knots of a net (Fig. 145). It
is also frequently found on the later Corinthian vases.
_Chequer-patterns_ are often used with great effect, at all periods
from the Geometrical vases down to the fourth century, their usual
position being on the neck of a vase (Fig. 146).[2024]

[Illustration: FIG. 146. CHEQUER-PATTERN.]


The _circle_ as an ornament occurs comparatively rarely, but there are
two exceptions. In the Geometrical vases we find a use both of
concentric circles and of rows of single circles joined by straight
lines forming tangents, a motive which is obviously derived from the
Mycenaean spirals (Fig. 147). Secondly, in the Graeco-Phoenician
pottery of Cyprus, especially in its later phases and in the smaller
vases, such as the jugs and lekythi, the decoration is practically
confined to systems of concentric circles, of a character quite
peculiar to this fabric.[2025] The chief feature of these systems is
that the ordinary principles of vase-decoration are entirely ignored,
and the circles, arranged in series of five or six, forming a band
about three-quarters of an inch in width, are placed not only at right
angles to the axis of the vase, but parallel to it. The illustrations
in Plate XIII. and Fig. 75 (Vol. I. p. 251) will give a better idea of
the arrangement than any description; it is clear that the circles were
easily produced by applying a fine brush to the vase while turning on
the wheel, first in its natural position and then on its side.
Artistically, of course, the principle is a wrong one, and this is most
glaringly conspicuous in the barrel-shaped lekythi, in which the axis
of the vase is regarded as horizontal rather than vertical. Groups of
small concentric circles are also arranged vertically or otherwise on
the bodies and necks of vases.


[Illustration: FIG. 149. WAVE-PATTERN (SOUTH ITALY).]

The _spiral_, which forms such a conspicuous element in Mycenaean
decorative art, appears again prominently in a class which, as we have
seen (Vol. I. p. 302), owes much to that source—the Melian amphorae.
Systems of spirals are arranged to fill the spaces at the sides of the
design,[2026] especially in combination with floral ornaments and
reticulated lozenges; and the same feature may also be observed in the
Proto-Attic vases. It occurs similarly, combined with a flower, on the
Samian or Fikellura vases (Vol. I. p. 337). In later times the spiral
passes from the sphere of inorganic to that of organic ornament, being
combined in various ways with vegetable patterns, and merging in the
tendril or volute. But it occasionally reverts to its old form, notably
in the red-bodied amphorae of Exekias,[2027] who, in place of the usual
palmette-and-lotos ornament under the handles, contrives an elaborate
system of large spirals to fill the space between the designs (Fig.
148). A variation of this is the figure-of-eight ornament,
15[34]figure-eight sometimes continuous, 15[61]continuous figure-eight
which is found on vases of the Proto-Attic class, such as the Burgon
lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87).

[Illustration: FIG. 150. SCALE-PATTERN (DAPHNAE).]

The _wave-pattern_ or kymation moulding, shown in Fig. 149, is one
which constantly occurs in Greek architectural decoration, but on the
vases at any rate seems to be found only at a late period. On the
Campanian vases it is the regular border below the design; it is also
found on those of Lucania and Apulia. The _crescent_ is only found on
early Ionic vases, including those which have been attributed to a
Samian origin (Vol. I. p. 336 ff.), and some of the Daphnae and
Naukratis fragments, which probably borrowed it from Samos; it is
arranged in bands alternating in colour, black or purple and white.
Another typically Ionic ornament is the _scale-pattern_, which occurs
on many of the so-called Rhodian vases, and also on those from Daphnae
(Fig. 150). In the former it is produced by means of incising on the
black varnish, the alternate scales being often coloured purple; but in
the latter it is painted in outline. Curiously enough, it also occurs
in the incised form on an early group of Corinthian vases (Plate XIX.
fig. 3). Like other patterns, it can be traced to a Mycenaean origin,
being very common in that style. Subsequently it occurs but rarely, but
is sometimes employed on the neck or shoulder of a vase.[2028] It
differs from most other patterns in that it does not lend itself to the
panel or frieze, but covers a surface of indefinite extent. It is also
known as the “imbricated” pattern, from its likeness to overlapping
tiles (_imbrices_).


[Illustration: FIG. 152. TONGUE-PATTERN (B.F. PERIOD).]

[Illustration: FIG. 153. EGG-PATTERN (R.F. PERIOD).]

The _guilloche_ or plait-band (Fig. 151) is characteristic of early
fabrics, such as those of Naukratis and Samos, the Clazomenae
sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.), and the small Proto-Corinthian lekythi, but
is not often found in later times.[2029] It is typically Ionic, and
seems to be derived from Mycenae (cf. A 209 in B.M.). Lastly, there is
the so-called _tongue-pattern_, which is exclusively used as an upper
border to designs. On its first appearance in the Geometrical vases it
is rectilinear in form, 15[63]tongue-pattern and formed of alternating
bars; but from the beginning of the sixth century onwards it assumes a
curvilinear form, all the tongues pointing downwards, broader, and
close together, as in Fig. 152. In the Daphnae vases and the later
Corinthian wares it is treated in polychrome fashion, black, purple,
and white alternately. On the lip and shoulders of Caeretan hydriae it
appears in an exaggerated form, painted red, with black edges, as on
Plate XXVI. In the Attic B.F. vases it forms the invariable upper
border of the designs, below the necks of the amphorae and hydriae, and
is also used as a border to the interior designs of the kylikes; here,
too, purple is often applied to the alternate tongues. Occasionally the
rectilinear form reappears. In the R.F. period it changes its character
again, and the tongues become short and semi-oval in form, with black
centre and narrow outlined edge; in this form it is usually described
as an _egg-pattern_ (Fig. 153). It is found in the smaller hydriae, and
in many other shapes above or below the designs; also round the lip of
the vase. The same form and arrangement obtain in the South Italian
vases, especially in Apulia and Lucania, except that a dot is often
placed between each pair of tongues. In some cases it approximates
closely to the egg-and-dart, as on F 179 in the British Museum. Both
tongue and egg-patterns are often ranged round the base of the handles.
The egg-and-tongue, with its variants, is a typically Ionic
architectural pattern; hence its non-appearance in Attic vases before
the fifth century. In later Roman pottery (Chap. XXIII.) it becomes
very common. The variety known as the Lesbian kymation is found in a
few late instances.[2030]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Having surveyed the various types of inorganic patterns, whether
rectilinear or curvilinear, we now come to the consideration of those
which are not only derived from vegetable ornament, but still preserve,
in greater or less degree, a naturalistic character. To begin with the
simple leaf-ornament, which is of too conventional a type to associate
with any particular plant, this occurs most frequently in the form of
of a _calyx_, placed round the lower part of the body, immediately
above the foot, so that the leaves radiate from the foot, pointing
upwards.[2031] This ornament begins at a very early period, and is
found in most fabrics, continuing down to the latest stages. It is,
however, specially associated with the B.F. period, in which it is
invariable on the large vases with a more or less marked stem, the
amphorae, hydriae, and kraters. On the smaller ones, however, it does
not occur. In the “affected” B.F. amphorae (Vol. I. p. 388) the calyx
is double, with two tiers of rays.[2032]

An arrangement of four leaves saltire-wise in a panel sometimes occurs
on the Geometrical vases, a remarkable instance of vegetable ornament
in this style (cf. Vol. I. p. 282); an analogous pattern is also found
on many early Corinthian aryballi (Vol. I. p. 314; B.M. A 1086 ff.),
the leaves not being united at the base, and usually interspersed with
reticulated or other motives.

[Illustration: FIG. 154. LEAF- OR CHAIN-PATTERN.]

Another form of leaf-pattern is of rare occurrence, and is found now
and then on Attic vases; in this small leaves are joined together in a
sort of ribbon or chain-pattern[2033] (Fig. 154). The peculiarity of
this ornament is that even in the B.F. period it is red-figured in
technique, being left in the colour of the clay with a background of

[Illustration: FIG. 155. IVY-WREATH (B.F. PERIOD).]

The _ivy-leaf_ was not adopted as a decorative pattern before the
middle of the sixth century; it seems to be Ionic in origin.[2034]
Single large leaves occur on the necks of B.F. lekythi, on late Ionic
B.F. vases, and to a considerable extent on the imitations made in
Etruria.[2035] These are usually treated in a very naturalistic manner.
Double rows of smaller leaves, forming a straight wreath, constantly
occur as borders to the panels on B.F. hydriae, kraters, and oinochoae
(Fig. 155); and similar ivy-wreaths are found along the flat edges of
the flange-shaped handles on the larger panel-amphorae, as well as on
the volute-handles of kraters.[2036] These patterns preserve their
vogue in the R.F. amphorae of the earlier period, and in the kraters of
Lucania, and it should be noted that they are always painted in the
B.F. method (black leaves on red ground) except in the vases of Apulia
and Paestum. But as a rule on the South Italian vases the ivy-leaf is
treated in a naturalistic manner, with tendrils and berries, occupying
a large panel on the necks of the column-handled kraters, or forming a
border on the lip of the vase (Fig. 156).[2037] The vine as an ornament
is very rare, but there is a good instance on a late _phiale_ in the
British Museum (F 503), where it is treated in a very naturalistic
manner, forming the sole decoration of the interior; it is also of
frequent occurrence on the vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes (Vol. I.
p. 391). The pomegranate occurs only on the Cyrenaic cups (Fig. 93),
where it forms a continuous frieze of buds round the exterior, united
by interlacing lines. The acanthus is only introduced quite late
(except where it appears as an ornament on the top of a _stele_), and
is found on the necks of kraters and other large Apulian vases, forming
a rich and luxuriant mass of foliage, often with a flower in the
centre, on which rests a female head. Myrtle or olive-wreaths occur at
all times, especially on the flat rim of the mouth of a vase; the
myrtle seems to be a typically Ionic motive, and is found at Daphnae,
Samos, Rhodes, and on the Caeretan hydriae.[2038] In the Rhodian vases
it is either roughly painted in black on red, or else in red and white
on a black ground. It was also adopted at Athens—_e.g._ by Nikosthenes.
Laurel-wreaths form the regular decoration of the neck in the
bell-shaped kraters and wide-bellied amphorae of the late R.F. period
and the decadence (Fig. 157). These wreath-patterns on the late vases,
it should be noted, are either treated in R.F. technique or painted in
opaque white on the black varnish. They are often drawn with great care
and accuracy.



The history of the development of the _palmette_ (or honeysuckle), the
_lotos-flower and bud_, and of continuous foliated patterns in general,
has been skilfully treated by Riegl.[2039] To write a complete account
of this class of ornamentation would be impossible within the limits of
the present work; only a few main features can be noted, to show the
form the patterns assume at different periods, so universal is their
appearance on vases of all shapes and dates. The lotos-flower or bud
is, of course, a motive of purely Oriental origin, which found its way
into Greece probably through the medium of Phoenicia; the palmette, on
the other hand, is purely Greek, although it may possibly be derived
from a Mycenaean prototype, the _Vallisneria spiralis plant_, which is
so frequently found on Mycenaean vases (Fig. 158).[2040] They are found
not only as single motives, isolated or repeated, but also combined
together, or forming part of elaborate systems of floral ornament, with
stems and tendrils often conventionalised, which link them together,
either in continuous bands or in groups occupying a limited space, on
the neck or under the handle.



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. 162. LOTOS-BUDS (ATTIC 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. 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.


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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

_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._)

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

  ..[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:


                 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.


[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

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

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

                      [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

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]:

                    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

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

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

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).


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

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

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:


  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


                    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.

 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.

 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


 Glaukytes    ἐποίησε       Minor artist (with   _Ibid._ p. 77

 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

 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


 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

 Nikosthenes                See above; two
                            mixed; three

 Pamphaios    ἐποίησε       Various shapes       _Ibid._ p. 87

 Pasiades     ἐποίησε       White-ground         B.M. B 668

 Thypheithide ἐποίησε       Doubtful             See B.M. E 4

          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

 Euergides    ἐποίησε       Kylikes              Klein, p. 99

 Euphronios   { ἔγραψε }    Various shapes       Hartwig, chaps. vii.,

              {ἐποίησε }

 Euthymides   ἔγραψε        Various shapes       Hoppin, _Euthymides_

 Euxitheos    ἐποίησε       Amphora; potter for  Klein, p. 135

 Hegesiboulos ἐποίησε       White-ground cup     _Branteghem Cat._, No.

 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.

 Polygnotos   ἔγραψε        Amphorae; stamni     _Mon. Antichi_, ix. p. 1

 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.

 Sotades      { ἐποίησε }   White-ground vases   { _Branteghem Cat._

              { ἐποίει  }                        { Klein, p. 187

 Syriskos     ἐποίησε       Astragalos vase      Hartwig, chap. xxiv.

 Xenophantos  ἐποίησε       Lekythos             Petersburg 1790

 Xenotimos    ἐποίησε       Kylikes              _Branteghem Cat._ 84–85


 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

 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


 _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.

     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)


                         II. RED-FIGURED VASES

     Aisimides                      Antimachos

     Akestor                        Antiphon

     Akestorides                    Aphrodisia

     Alexomenos                     Archinos II.

     Alkides                        Aristagoras (Duris)

     Alkimachos                     Aristarchos

     Antias                         Aristeides

     Athenodotos (Peithinos; with   Lichas

     Brachas                        Lyandros

     Chairestratos                  Lykopis

     Chairias (Phintias)            Lykos (Euphronios, Duris,

     Chairippos                     Lysis (Hartwig, chap. xxiii.)

     Charmides                      Megakles I. (Phintias,

     Damas                          Megakles II.

     Diogenes (see Hartwig, chap.   Memnon (Chelis, Chachrylion)

     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

     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

     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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Footnote 2245:

  See also Vol. I. p. 440.

                                PART IV
                             ITALIAN POTTERY

                             CHAPTER XVIII

    Early Italian civilisation—Origin of Etruscans—Terramare
      period—Pit-tombs—Hut-urns—Trench-tombs—Relief-wares and painted
      vases from Cervetri—Chamber-tombs—Polledrara ware—Bucchero
      ware—Canopic jars—Imitations of Greek vases—Etruscan
      inscriptions—Sculpture in terracotta—Architectural
      decoration—Sarcophagi—Local pottery of Southern Italy—Messapian
      and Peucetian fabrics.

In the succeeding section of this work we propose, by a natural
transition, to deal with Italian pottery, that is, Etruscan and Roman,
as distinct from Greek. The subject naturally falls under three
heads—the first two dealing with the pottery of the period previous to
the Roman domination of Italy, and therefore contemporaneous with the
Greek pottery; the third with Roman pottery from the second century
B.C. onwards, and of necessity including also remains of similar
pottery from Gaul, Britain, and other countries over which that
civilisation extended.

In the present chapter the first two branches of the subject—namely,
Etruscan pottery, and the local fabrics of Southern Italy—will be
discussed; the period of time which they cover is, as has been said,
coincident with that covered by the history of Greek pottery, extending
from the Bronze Age down to the end of the third century B.C.

                         § 1. ETRUSCAN POTTERY


    Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p.
      108 ff., 1885, p. 5 ff.; Karo, _Cenni sulla cronologia
      preclassica_, Parma, 1898; Von Duhn in _Bonner Studien_, p. 21
      ff., and in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125 ff.; Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_,
      _passim_; Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, 2nd edn.
      (good for topography; archaeology out of date); _J.H.S._ xiv. p.
      206 ff. (C. Smith on Polledrara ware); Gsell, _Fouilles de
      Vulci_; Pottier, _Cat. des vases ant. du Louvre_, ii. p. 285 ff.
      (the best general survey); _Notizie degli Scavi_, _passim_, for
      excavations; _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xliv ff.

                     (1) EARLY ITALIAN CIVILISATION

As regards Etruria, it will be seen that the art of the people was
largely imitative, being derived mainly from Greece, but in some
measure also from the East. Few remains of their productions have
reached the present day, with the exception of large numbers of vases,
bronzes, and jewellery; these, however, afford a very clear notion of
the characteristics of Etruscan art. It is hardly possible to treat the
subject of working in clay in Etruria with such fulness as can be done
in the case of Greece and Rome, owing to the greater dearth of
literature; but in our previous chapter (III.) on this subject much has
already been said with reference to what is known on this head. In
regard to the pottery, careful scientific excavations, such as those
undertaken by M. Gsell at Vulci (Vol. I. p. 77), have done much to
increase our knowledge of all periods, and to place chronological
certainty within the reach of the inquirer.

In dealing with the history of art in Italy, we are naturally first met
with two questions: (1) Who were the earliest inhabitants of the
country, particularly in the region afterwards known as Etruria, in
which the first signs of artistic development appear? (2) At what
period and from what quarter did the Etruscans occupy this region, or
are they aboriginal? It will therefore be necessary to devote a few
preliminary paragraphs to these much-debated questions,[2246] in order
to gain a better understanding of the subsequent history.

The question of the origin of the Etruscans, to take the second first,
is as old as Herodotos.[2247] As is well known, the Father of History
held to the view that they originally came from Lydia, a view which
found general support in antiquity, and is referred to by Horace,[2248]
and many other writers. His fellow-townsman Dionysios was, however, of
the opinion that they were autochthonous.[2249] However much of truth
there may be in either of these theories, the fact remains that with
certain modifications each of the two alternatives has found supporters
even down to the present day, though to Niebuhr first is due the
suggestion that the immigration of the Etruscans was by land and not by
sea, and that they came from Central Europe by way of the Rhaetian
Alps. He has been followed by most writers since—above all by Mommsen,
who was the first to point out the absurdity of identifying the Lydian
Τυρρηνοί or Τυρρηβοί with the Italian _Tusci_ or _Etrusci_. It follows
from this that the whole of the civilisation of Northern and Central
Italy is due to this race, which would obviously have left its impress
on each district as it passed through it; and, secondly, that it was
this same race that was afterwards known by the name of Etruscan.

The chief objection to the theory of an autochthonous origin is that,
as we shall presently see, a break in the civilisation of Northern
Italy which can be traced about the beginning of the ninth century B.C.
is of such a marked and rapid character that it cannot be regarded as
due to any cause but the irruption of a new race. Moreover, there is
probably, as M. Pottier points out,[2250] more truth in the words of
Herodotos than appears at first sight. It is true that there are no
grounds for accepting the Lydian theory absolutely; but apart from
this, it is to be noted that Herodotos nowhere states that the
Tyrrhenians landed on the west coast of Italy—_i.e._ in Etruria. What
he does say is that, “after having visited (or coasted along) many
nations, they arrived at the Umbrians, where they founded cities and
inhabit them to this day; and instead of Lydians, their name was
changed to that of Tyrrhenians.” Additional evidence is given by
Hellanikos,[2251] who explicitly states that they landed at the mouth
of the Po; and as the Umbrians probably occupied a larger territory in
prehistoric than in classical times,[2252] we may fairly place here the
city of Tyrsenia or Tyrrhenia, which Herodotos gives as the name of
their first new home. Thus the Umbrians will represent the early
aborigines whose civilisation, known as the Terramare, we shall
presently describe, and it was this civilisation, transformed and
developed, which was carried by the invaders over the Apennines into
the region now to be known as Etruria. It will be noted that this
theory at least satisfactorily combines the land and sea migrations of
the Etruscans into Etruria, though it does not profess to dogmatise as
to the region whence they first started. The idea that they first
landed on the west coast is entirely due to Roman ideas, fostered by
poets like Virgil; and though it is in one passage accepted by
Dionysios of Halicarnassos, he expressly contradicts himself in

The two chief characteristics of this new Etrusco-Umbrian civilisation
are the development of geometrical decoration and the predominance of a
metallurgic element, both of which are obviously derived from Eastern
sources, whether Hellenic or Oriental. It will suffice here to point
out that the “Tyrrhenians” during their previous voyages (see above)
might well have come in contact with the other civilisations of the
Eastern Mediterranean, such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Mycenae, and the
Greek islands, and that their natural acquisitiveness and capacity for
imitation, which we shall find illustrated throughout their history,
enabled them to pick up and use artistic ideas from all these quarters.
Even their earliest art yields many points of comparison with that of
the Eastern Mediterranean.

The earliest civilisation of which traces have survived in Italy is, as
we have already seen, that of the Terramare, so called from the remains
discovered in that district, covering the basin of the Eridanus or Po,
but chiefly between Piacenza and Bologna. We have further seen that the
aboriginal people to whom these remains belong are probably to be
identified with the Umbrians, but it is perhaps safer to style them
Italiotes. They were lake-dwellers, living in wooden houses built on
piles in the water or in the marshy lagoons of the district which they
inhabited, and their civilisation was of the rudest description.

We find among their remains, besides rude objects in bronze and other
substances, pottery of the very simplest kinds, hand-made and roughly
baked. This is not found in tombs, but mingled with the débris of the
dwellings. The shapes comprise cups and pots, and there are few
attempts at decoration beyond rows of knobs or bosses. A
crescent-shaped or lunulated handle is attached to many of the vases,
serving as a support for the thumb; but this is a feature also found in
other parts of Italy and in Sicily. Iron, glass, and silver are quite
unknown, and gold only represented by a doubtful specimen; on the other
hand, along with the finds of bronze, which include weapons, tools, and
objects of toilet, are survivals of the Neolithic Age in the shape of
axes, spear-heads, and tools of stone. In several of the settlements
actual moulds for bronze-casting were found.

The Neolithic remains are sufficient to indicate the early date of this
civilisation, and it is probably contemporary in point of development
(if not of date) with the earliest remains from Hissarlik and Cyprus.
It may thus be traced back as far as 1500 B.C. at least, and seems to
extend down to about the end of the tenth century B.C. The analogous
pottery found at Thapsus in Sicily is mixed with Mycenaean vases, and
may therefore be more precisely dated; but it is altogether more
advanced than that of the Terramare. The influence of the latter no
doubt spread gradually downwards during these thousand years through
Central and Southern Italy.[2254]


The next stage in the development of civilisation in Italy, probably
separated from the preceding by a period of transition, is what is
known as the Villanuova period, from a site of that name at Bologna. It
begins with the ninth century B.C., and lasts for some two hundred
years; its traces are much more widely spread than those of the
Terramare people, being found not only to the north of the Apennines,
but all over Etruria. It is interesting to note that the chief finds
have been made in what afterwards became the principal centres of
Etruscan civilisation, such as Bologna, Corneto, Vetulonia, etc. In
almost every respect it shows a marked development on the preceding
stage. Iron is already known, and the working of bronze better
understood, the processes of hammering plates (σφυρήλατον) and working
in _repoussé_ being introduced to supplement that of casting.[2255]

We now for the first time meet with tombs, the characteristic form of
which is that of a well or pit, ending in a small circular chamber, in
which the remains are deposited. Italian archaeologists have given to
these tombs the name of _a pozzo_. The method of burial practised was
almost exclusively that of incineration, but it appears certain that
the inhabitants of Etruria never showed a special preference either for
one method or the other, and the alternative method of inhumation
already appears at Corneto before the next stage is reached with the
eighth century.

It has been sometimes objected that the introduction of inhumation must
connote the first arrival of the Etruscan people in these regions, on
the ground that they did not practise incineration; but this idea rests
on no sound basis. The introduction of the new system, which never
entirely ousted incineration, can easily be explained as due to
external influences; not indeed to the Phoenicians (although it was a
universal Oriental custom), for their influence in Italy has been much
exaggerated; but rather to the Greeks, who colonised Cumae in the
middle of the eighth century, from which time onwards Hellenic
influence gradually becomes more and more apparent.

We have seen, then, that the Villanuova civilisation may be fairly
regarded as Etruscan. It was not, however, by any means confined to
Etruria, for it is spread all over the country to the north of the
Apennines, and two of its most important centres were at Bologna and
Este. The whole of this region shows traces of having been for a long
time under the early Etruscan domination. It is, in fact, in close
dependence on the Terramare civilisation which here preceded it, the
difference, as we have indicated, being brought about by commerce and
foreign influences.


  From _Ann. dell’ Inst._
  FIG. 178. TOMB _A POZZO_

The _pozzo_ tombs usually contain a large cinerary urn or _ossuarium_,
in which the ashes were placed after being burnt (Fig. 178).[2256]
These urns are fashioned by hand from a badly levigated volcanic clay,
generally known as _impasto Italico_. It is to be distinguished from
the later _bucchero nero_ (see p. 301) by its quality, and by the fact
that vases of the latter clay are always wheel-made. The clay is
irregularly baked over an open fire, and the colour of the surface
varies from red-brown to greyish black. It is covered with a polished
slip, and there is no doubt that it was the intention of the potter to
give the vases a metallic appearance as well as form.

As regards their shape, they are of a peculiar but uniform type, with a
small handle at the widest part, and cover in the form of an inverted
bowl or saucer with handle (Fig. 179: see also Fig. 178).[2257] The
ornamentation consists of geometrical ornaments incised or stamped in
bands round the neck and body—such as maeanders, chevrons, stars, and
dots—the incisions being made while the clay was moist. In rare cases
we meet with painted ornaments in white applied directly to the
surface. Besides the urns, which often almost fill the chamber,
accessory objects in the form of common pottery, fibulae, and other
bronze objects, spindle-whorls and amber objects, are found in the

The common pottery does not in its character exhibit much advance on
that of the Terramare. The difference, indeed, consists not so much in
development of technique as in a greater variety of decoration. It has
points of resemblance with the far earlier pottery of Hissarlik and the
early Bronze Age tombs of Cyprus (see Chapter VI.), and there are not
wanting evidences of commercial intercourse with and importation from
the Eastern Mediterranean. But two salient features of the Italian
wares are the employment of handles and the unique form of the hut-urn
(see below).


  From _Notizie degli Scavi_.

The clay is mostly of the same kind as that of the urns, and the smoked
and irregularly fired surface shows that furnaces were not yet in use,
but that an open fire sufficed for the purpose. The technique is
exceedingly primitive, and the forms are simple but heavy. In the
latter respect the striking difference in the inherent artistic
capacity of the Greeks and Italians is already apparent. The latter
never at any time displayed that unfailing eye for form which
distinguishes the Greeks in all their products. The shapes include
saucers like the urn-covers, bowls with a flat vertical or high-looped
handle, flasks with long beak-like necks like the early Cypriote vases,
bowls with small feet, jars with one or two handles, _aski_, and
_kerni_, or groups of vases united on one stem.

Many of these are quite plain, but the majority are decorated with
geometrical patterns, like the _ossuaria_ or urns already described.
Some of the patterns show quite a mechanical regularity, as if produced
from a stamp. These take the form of circular sinkings and other
patterns formed by circles, an early instance of a motive which
afterwards became common in Etruria. There are even some instances of
designs in colour, a sort of cream pigment being used. A peculiarity of
this class is the fondness for protuberances in the form of horns on
the handles (_ansae lunulatae_), which are also found in the Terramare,
as already mentioned; or knobs round the body of the vase, in order to
hold cords for suspension, which afterwards served a merely decorative
purpose, like the bosses on cups described by Homer.[2258] Sometimes
are to be seen rude attempts at modelling horses or heads of oxen, or
at giving the whole vase the form of a bird, as is seen in some of the

The absence of accessory vases in Villanuova tombs, as is sometimes the
case at Vulci,[2260] seems to show either very great antiquity or else
a long survival of an older type. On the whole, however, a
chronological classification is hardly possible. Generally speaking,
the pit-tombs were still in use throughout Etruria at the end of the
eighth century, and no tombs of the next stage can be dated earlier
than 700 B.C. The line of demarcation for the latter end of the period
is therefore the seventh century, coincident with the first undoubtedly
Greek importations found in the tombs.

The real interest of the Villanuova period is, however, centred in
remains which do not come within our province—namely, the objects in
bronze which have been found in such enormous numbers at Bologna,
Vetulonia, and elsewhere.[2261] They fall into line with the earliest
remains on Hellenic sites—such as Olympia, Rhodes, and Crete—and a
connection can often be traced, as in the fibulae, with the Hallstatt
civilisation.[2262] On the other hand, they are entirely free from any
Oriental influence.

Sometimes the cinerary urns in the tombs of this period take the form
of huts (_tuguria_), though these are more often found in the
neighbourhood of Rome, as at Alba Longa. They represent, in fact, the
civilisation of the Italiote people on their first arrival in Latium,
which they probably colonised by moving southward through Umbria and
Picenum, leaving Tuscany to the Etruscans. One of the best examples of
these hut-urns is that from the Hamilton collection in the British
Museum (Plate LVII. fig. 4), which still contains ashes. The ashes were
inserted through a little door, which was secured by a cord passing
through two rings at its side and tied round the vase. The
ornamentation suggests the rude carpentry which was applied to the
construction of the dwellings of this primitive people, the cover or
roof being vaulted, with raised ridges intended to represent the beams
of a house or cottage. These urns have no glaze on their surface, but a
polish was produced by friction. They are occasionally painted with
patterns in white, inlaid in grooves. On the Museum example are
fragments of maeander. They are usually found inside large vases, which
protected them from falling earth and other accidents. The fact that
they were found under beds of lava originally led to an exaggerated
opinion of their antiquity, but in any case the nature of their
contents confirms their very primitive use.[2263]

An interesting account of the early settlements in the southern
extremity of Etruria is given by Von Duhn,[2264] as the result of
exploration by local archaeologists on the sites of Falerii (Civita
Castellana) and Narce.[2265] The most interesting feature of these
results is the gradual migration of the peoples from the hill-tops to
the valleys as they became more civilised. Thus many modern cities,
such as Florence, are direct descendants of the early hill-settlements
of primitive Italy. In Etruria it was usually the reclaiming of the
marshes for cultivation that enabled the population to settle in the
lower and more accessible situations.

The Faliscan region well illustrates this principle, as does Narce. In
the earliest graves on the hill-tops cremation is the rule, and the
urns are of the Villanuova type. Nothing of later date than the eighth
century is found, and no importations. The hut-dwellings at Narce seem
to have been of the hut-urn type. The common pottery is of the
primitive hand-made greyish black clay; but after the eighth century
the position of the settlement was shifted lower down, and in these
later tombs a remarkable series of red-glazed wares is found (see
below, p. 301), and Greek and Oriental importations soon make their
appearance. Narce soon fell under Etruscan sway, but Falerii retained
its individuality for some time longer.


The next stage in the development of Etruscan civilisation is marked by
a change in the form of the tomb. The pit is now replaced by a trench;
in other words, the vertical form is exchanged for a horizontal one.
Concurrently with this change the practice of inhumation becomes fairly
general. This period may be regarded as extending from the eighth
century B.C. to the beginning of the sixth, and is marked by the first
signs of importations from Greece in the shape of Geometric pottery and
bronzes. In general character it is not strongly marked off from the
preceding. The great advance is in the development of art in the
objects found in the tombs. Not only do we witness the first beginnings
of what is destined to become the typical species of Etruscan
pottery—namely, the _bucchero nero_—but towards the end of the period
the Greek influence, as evidenced by finds of wheel-made vases with
Geometrical decoration, or even of the so-called Proto-Corinthian type,
becomes widely felt. It was no doubt largely due to the foundation of
colonies in the south of Italy, such as Cumae. Altogether it is a most
important period for the history of Etruscan pottery. Of Oriental
influence there are at present hardly any signs, and all wheel-made
vases found in these tombs are probably of Greek origin, as it does not
appear that the wheel was in regular use before the middle of the sixth

It is now necessary to turn our attention to the local hand-made
varieties. And, in the first place, it is worthy of note that pottery
of the Villanuova type actually survives the transition from the
pit-tombs to the trenches, as is seen at Corneto, Vetulonia, and
elsewhere. Probably it indicates the pottery in common use, the
imported objects being only regarded as _de luxe_; or else, as Prof.
Helbig suggests,[2267] the former types were preserved for religious
reasons connected with burial rites, as was often the case in Roman

In the earlier types of pottery from the _fossa_ tombs, such as are
common at Vulci, the hand-made pottery of _impasto Italico_ still
continues, preserving the same shapes and the same simple linear
decoration; but it is better baked, and the surface is somewhat better
polished. Red wares are also found, and yellow wares with Geometrical
ornaments painted in red, which are evidently local imitations of the
Greek Geometrical fabrics (see below).

Later, while the technique remains unaltered, a difference is seen in
the forms, which become lighter, more varied, and more symmetrical.
Such shapes as the stamnos, kantharos, and trefoil-mouthed oinochoë now
for the first time appear. The methods of ornamentation are also
modified; new varieties of incised patterns are seen, and the bodies of
the vases are sometimes fluted or ribbed; while such motives as friezes
of ducks, which are also found on the contemporary bronzes,[2268] now
first find a place. M. Gsell, describing in detail the various fabrics
found in the Vulci tombs of this period,[2269] speaks of pottery of a
grey clay baked to red, perhaps in a furnace, forming urns and jars of
a considerable size. He thinks that some primitive kind of wheel (see
above) must have been used to produce these. In some of the _impasto_
wares there is a decided advance in technique, the clay being better
levigated and the walls of the vases thinner. Some black wares seem to
have been _fumigated_ like the later _bucchero_. Generally speaking,
both incineration and inhumation are still practised.

The ornaments are incised, stamped, or painted, and the decoration
almost exclusively linear, the stamped patterns being usually in the
form of stars. This pottery is, in fact, merely a continuation of that
of the pit-tombs, except that the imitation of metal-work is much more
strongly in evidence.

Yet another variety preserves the methods and forms of the Villanuova
class, but introduces a new kind of clay, altogether black, as
distinguished from the earlier reds and browns. A remarkable specimen
of this early black ware found at Orvieto has incised upon it the
subject of Bellerophon and the Chimaera, the style being, as we should
expect, childish to the verge of the ludicrous.[2270] Later, the black
wares acquire a very fair glazed surface, and are ornamented with
incised linear patterns of zigzags, chevrons, etc.; these are mostly
small vases. It is in these two particularly that we see the
forerunners of the highly developed _bucchero_ ware.

Besides these local fabrics, there are found Greek imported wares with
Geometrical decoration of pale yellow clay, with ornaments in brown
turning to red; the commonest form is the oinochoë, and the patterns
include circles, zigzags, wavy lines, embattled patterns, etc. These
are all wheel-made, and are, in fact, the same types as are found in
the Dipylon cemetery at Athens and in Boeotia (Chapter VII.); the
earliest instances belong to the end of the eighth century, in some
late pit-tombs at Caere, in which also “Proto-Corinthian” pottery was
found. They coincide with the great impetus given to Greek colonisation
in Sicily and Southern Italy, and probably came by that way into
Etruria. It should be borne in mind that these vases were imported not
for their own merit, but for the value of their contents. It has
already been mentioned that local imitations of them are found in the

To the seventh century belong also two classes of pottery which are
more or less connected, and are chiefly associated with Caere.[2271]
The first class consists of a series of vases of red ware, mostly large
jars and πίθοι, ornamented with designs in relief, the lower part of
the body being usually ribbed. The designs take the form of bands of
figures stamped round the upper part of the vase, either in groups on
the principle of the metope or in extended friezes. In the former case
the design was produced from a single stamp for each group; in the
latter, it was rolled out from a cylinder resembling those in use in
Assyria for sealing documents. Besides the jars, plates of this ware
are not uncommon; they may have formed either covers like those of the
Villanuova _ossuaria_, or stands for the jars, in order to hold
drippings of liquid, etc. The use of the πίθοι in tombs is not quite
clear, though they were doubtless in daily use for holding grain or

The subjects are always of an Orientalising character, similar to those
found on Greek vases under Oriental influence, and comprising animals,
monsters, hunting scenes, combats, and banquets. The origin of these
vases is doubtful; they may be either indigenous or imported, as
similar examples have been found in Rhodes, Boeotia, Sicily, and
elsewhere; but they are rare outside Etruria. The suggestion of a
Sicilian origin[2273] has found some favour, but it is more likely that
they are native productions after Greek models (see Vol. I. p. 496);
some are undoubtedly of local make,[2274] and they were probably made
at Caere or in the neighbourhood. Their prototypes go back almost to
the Mycenaean period, but were hardly imported before 700 B.C., after
which time the local imitations begin, being one more instance of the
invariable rule that all Etruscan pottery is more or less imitative.
Similar vases in metal were manufactured on the coast of Asia Minor,
and the ἀναθήματα of the Lydian kings at Delphi[2275] were probably
examples of this class.[2276]


  From _Gaz. Arch._

The second class shows some affinities to the other in regard to the
shape and the nature of the clay; but the important difference is that
the vases are decorated with _painted_ subjects instead of reliefs. The
subjects are painted in white outline on a brick-red glazed ground, the
process being as follows: The clay, which resembles the _impasto
Italico_, is first hardened by baking, and then a mixture of wax and
resin and iron oxide is applied to it, and a lustre given to the
surface by polishing. The pigment, a mixture of chalk and lime, is then
laid on. The process can hardly be said to be Greek, and yet the
subjects are purely Greek, being borrowed in part from the Greek
Geometrical vases, such as sea-fights, and in part from later (Ionian)
sources[2277]; we actually find representations of the Birth of Athena
and the Hunt of the Calydonian Boar (Fig. 180).[2278] The shapes of the
vases again are certainly local, as are the animal forms, which
resemble those incised on the _bucchero_ wares. The drawing is usually
crude in the extreme. It is interesting to note that on the vase from
which Fig. 180 is taken the potter has painted in white an Etruscan
inscription (not shown in the cut). Another vase of the same class was
found in the Polledrara tomb (see Plate LVI. and p. 300 below). The
method of painting in opaque pigment on a red or black ground is, it
would seem, an Ionian characteristic, being found at Naukratis in the
seventh century (Vol. I. p. 347), and also, as we shall see on other
quasi-Ionic fabrics in Etruria.

Generally speaking, the tombs _a fossa_ are not later than the middle
of the seventh century; evidence of this is given by the absence of
_bucchero_ proper and of Corinthian fabrics. There are, however, traces
of their lingering on even down into the sixth century, as at Vulci,
where Helbig mentions a tomb found in 1884 containing Corinthian vases
of that date.[2279] At Corneto the latest belong to the end of the
seventh century.


Our fourth period, which in many respects shows a close continuity with
that of the tombs _a fossa_, is nevertheless clearly defined by two
circumstances: firstly, the adoption of a new type of tomb, doubtless
developed out of the _fossa_, which takes the form of a large chamber,
and is therefore known as _a camera_; secondly, the influence of
Oriental art, concurrently with an increased influx of importations
from Greece. The period covers about a century of time, from 650 to 550
B.C., and includes several of the largest and most important tombs that
have been found in Etruria, which will demand more or less detailed
treatment. In none, however, were any great finds of pottery made; but
one of these tombs, the Grotta d’ Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci,
contained several specimens of exceptional interest.

The simplest form of chamber-tomb consists of a narrow corridor or
δρόμος leading into a larger chamber; next, the δρόμος opens into a
square or rectangular vestibule, round which various side-chambers are
attached; finally, the tomb assumes the form of a vast subterranean
edifice composed of several wings, and used for more than one corpse—in
fact, a “family vault.”

While on the one hand the ceramic types of the Villanuova period still
linger on, as in the retention of _ossuaria_ for the receipt of ashes,
on the other the painted Greek vases and the local _bucchero_ wares
increase more and more, and altogether there is a great advance in the
direction of variety and richness. This period saw not only the general
introduction of the wheel into Etruria, but also the introduction of
the alphabet of Western Greece, through Cumae. A vase of _bucchero_
ware found at Vetulonia bears an Etruscan inscription, which can hardly
be much later than 700 B.C.,[2280] and we have already seen an instance
on a vase from Caere.

In the earlier chamber-tombs no _bucchero_ is found, and the pottery is
of the same types as in the trench-tombs; but with the enlarged
arrangement of the tomb come the Corinthian vases of Orientalising
style, to be followed later by the Ionian and later Corinthian fabrics,
and finally by the Athenian wares. The vestibule disappears after the
sixth century, and all later tombs have the simple δρόμος. The typical
contents of a chamber-tomb are, as regards local pottery, in the
earlier tombs _impasto Italico_ wares, in the later _bucchero_. The
former is hand-made, the shapes similar to those found in the
trench-tombs—_i.e._ pots incised with zigzags, circles, and other
patterns, or painted in white. The latest varieties are wheel-made, of
_bucchero_ forms. The latter wares, which are much more numerous, are
evolved from the _impasto_: (1) by the use of the wheel; (2) by the
introduction of the furnace; (3) by extensive imitation of Greek
ceramic and metal forms. The earliest _bucchero_ vases at Vulci and
Corneto synchronise with Corinthian pottery of the middle style, about
630-600 B.C., and they last down to the end of the fifth century.

The appearance of the alphabet seems to point to a marked incursion of
Greek influence in the early part of the seventh century. The story of
the arrival of Demaratos of Corinth, about 665 B.C., with the three
artists whom he brought in his train, Diopos, Eucheir, and
Eugrammos,[2281] is no doubt an echo of this. The progress of Hellenism
was, however, momentarily arrested by the growing power of Carthage,
which may partly account for the temporary Orientalising of Etruscan
civilisation. It is certainly to the Carthaginian influence in Italy
that the Phoenician objects found in the seventh century tombs, such as
the silver bowls of Praeneste, are due. Oriental influence is also seen
in the large tombs at Vulci, Caere, and Vetulonia, but it is hardly so
strong as was at one time supposed; and of late years scholars have
generally recognised that Ionian art and commerce played a much larger
part throughout in the civilisation of Etruria[2282]; and, further,
that Oriental art found its way mainly through these channels. At all
events there was throughout the seventh and sixth centuries a keen
struggle for supremacy in the Western Mediterranean, in which the
Etruscans, the Phoenicians of Carthage, and the Ionian and Continental
Greeks alike shared; and hence the diverse influences at work in

But it was not long before Greece, with its rising colonies of Cumae,
Sybaris, and Syracuse, made its predominance to be felt in the Western
Mediterranean, and this was consummated by the final victory of Hiero
over the combined fleets of Carthage and Etruria off Cumae in 474 B.C.
A monument of this exists to the present day in the bronze helmet
dedicated by that king at Olympia, now in the British Museum.

We may further define as the second great period of Greek importations,
that extending over the sixth and fifth centuries, a period which saw
the development not only of the local _bucchero_ fabrics, but also of
the Greek black- and red-figured vases, which, heralded by the
Corinthian wares, now pour in a continuous stream into Etruria. To this
same period belong the paintings of the Etruscan tombs.

The earliest influences from Greece came, as has been hinted, through
colonies like Chalcidian Cumae, which were the chief agents in the
Hellenisation of Etruria; but at Cervetri, at any rate, the prevailing
influence was Corinthian, as testified by the remarkable series of
Corinthian and quasi-Corinthian vases in the Campana collection at the
Louvre. Later in the sixth century came the connection with Athens, the
chief results of which are to be seen in the contents of the tombs of
Vulci (Vol. I. p. 76). It extends from the time of the Peisistratidae
(540-520 B.C.) down to about 450 B.C., being probably brought to an end
by the Peloponnesian War and the destruction of the Athenian maritime
supremacy; but isolated instances of importations occur down to the
time of Alexander the Great, in the Panathenaic amphorae of which dated
examples of 336 B.C. have been found at Cervetri (Vol. I. p. 390).

In sketching this outline of Hellenic influence in Etruria we have
overstepped the limits of chronological sequence, and must retrace our
steps in order to deal first with the local products of the period from
650 B.C. onwards, and secondly with the effects of the Greek
civilisation on the same.

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Polledrara ware.=—The Grotta d’ Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci
has been dated, on the authority of a scarab of Psammetichos I.
(656-611 B.C.) which it contained, towards the closing years of the
seventh century. This dating has been generally accepted, and there
seems no reason to doubt it, although the evidence of an isolated
scarab is not always as trustworthy as appears at first sight.
Besides local bronze work and objects of Egyptian or quasi-Egyptian
character, it contained one vase of unique character which calls for
special consideration.[2283]

This is a hydria of somewhat peculiar, if not unique form, with a very
wide body and rudimentary foot. In some details, especially in the
treatment of the handles, it exhibits obvious evidence of imitation of
metal-work. Although at first sight resembling _bucchero_ ware, the
clay is seen on examination to be of a different type, not being grey
but reddish brown in fracture, while the lustrous black surface is
produced by a thin coating or slip. It is decorated with designs in
three colours, red, blue, and a yellowish white, which were laid on the
black and then fired. The red is best preserved, the blue fairly so,
but the white has almost entirely disappeared.[2284] The designs are
arranged in three friezes, of which the lower consists only of isolated
bits of key-pattern. On the two upper rows are scenes from the story of
Theseus and Ariadne, together with Centaurs, Sphinxes, and other
accessory figures. On the upper row Theseus slays the Minotaur; on the
lower, Theseus and Ariadne are seen, firstly in a chariot, secondly
leading a dance of four other figures, the hero playing a lyre, while
Ariadne holds the clue.[2285] The colouring scheme is most elaborate,
and cannot be detailed here; an occasional use of incised lines may
also be noted.

A small two-handled cup or kylix,[2286] of a type often found at
Naukratis decorated with eyes, was also found in this tomb, and appears
to belong to the same class. The clay is similar to that of the hydria,
as is the decoration, which however, owing to the flaking off of the
black slip, has largely disappeared. Although in its technique it
resembles the hydria, the subjects and motives are probably derived
from Naukratis. Only a few other examples of this “Polledrara” ware are
known: an oinochoë in Berlin,[2287] two vases in the Louvre,[2288] and
a vase found at Cervetri, unpublished.[2289] From the contents of the
tomb in which the last-named was found, it may fairly be dated early in
the sixth century.

Mr. Cecil Smith regards the Polledrara hydria as the result of an
Italian attempt to imitate the new _bucchero_ technique which was at
this time being perfected (see below), the form of the vase being
borrowed from an Ionic source.[2290] Ionic influence (see above, p.
296) is visible in more than one respect in this vase, as also in the
reliefs decorating the bronze bust from the same tomb. Other details,
such as the imitation of metal-work, are rather to be referred to a
Corinthian source; and it is worthy of note that two Corinthian vases
were among the contents of the tomb.

The striving after a gaudy effect by the use of polychrome decoration,
and especially the employment of blue, a colour otherwise unknown in
vase-painting before the end of the fifth century, finds a parallel in
the sixth century poros-sculptures from the Athenian Acropolis, in
which even more violent effects of colour are attained, as in the
bright blue beard of the Triton. But in this case there seems little
doubt that the idea is borrowed from Egypt, with its fondness for
brightly decorated mummy-cases and bright blue images of faïence and
porcelain. Other details which betray an Egyptian origin are the lions’
masks, the all-pervading lotos-flower, and the seated dog or jackal.
The connecting link is no doubt the great trading centre of Naukratis,
through whose agency the Egyptian scarabs, porcelain objects, and
ostrich eggs found in this tomb also came to Etruria.

As a parallel to the Polledrara finds should here be cited the painted
terracotta panels from Caere now in the British Museum and Louvre,
which are certainly local products, and give a realistic representation
of the Etruscan people. They are described below (p. 319). These again,
both in subject and style, lead to a comparison with the large Etruscan
terracotta sarcophagi, of which the most remarkable is that in the
British Museum.[2291] Here, as in the Polledrara bronze bust, the rude
native attempts at sculpture in the round are combined with reliefs
which successfully reflect the style of Ionic art. Lastly, we note
another parallel in the paintings of animals on the walls of a tomb at

Mr. Cecil Smith sums up: “The Polledrara ware was probably local
Italian, made at Caere under the combined influence of Ionian and
Naukratite imports, acting on an artistic basis principally derived
from Corinth.” Developed _pari passu_ with the red _impasto_ ware (of
which a painted example was found in the Vulci tomb), it gradually
gave way to the _bucchero_ ware with which we deal in our next
section. It only remains to note that similar ware has been found in
Rhodes,[2293] where also later wares of a genuine _bucchero_ type,
unpainted, have come to light; and these appear to be instances of a
counter-importation from Etruria to Asia Minor.

The only other piece of pottery from the Polledrara tomb which calls
for special comment is one to which reference has just been made, a
large _pithos_ of the primitive _impasto_ red ware, made on the wheel
(Plate LVI.). It falls into line with the painted and stamped fabrics
from Caere already described (p. 292 ff.), and is, like the hydria,
painted in polychrome, but the colours are much faded. The subjects are
a frieze of animals and a ship.

Three other tombs which rival the Polledrara in size and importance are
the Regulini-Galassi tomb at Caere,[2294] the Tomba del Duce at
Vetulonia,[2295] and the Bernardini tomb at Praeneste.[2296] Although
the finds of pottery herein were small, they are yet of great interest
for the history of Etruscan art in general, especially as they afford
evidence for approximate dating. In the two former Etruscan
inscriptions were found. The Caere and Praeneste tombs are probably the
earliest, about 650 B.C., and the Del Duce and Polledrara tombs are not
later than the end of the seventh century.


                                                               PLATE LVI




In the Regulini-Galassi tomb the pottery takes the form of large
caldrons of red glazed ware, which mark a transitional stage between
the _impasto_ and _bucchero_. They are characterised by the large
Gryphons’ heads projecting in relief round the sides, to which are
attached chains. Sometimes they are supported on high open-work stands.
In 1892 the British Museum acquired a series of these and similar vases
(Plate LVI.), including some plain specimens of _bucchero_ ware from
early tombs at Civita Castellana (Falerii: see Vol. I. p. 75).

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Bucchero ware.=—This may be called the national pottery of Etruria.
Its technique is not at present perfectly known, and analysis does not
show certainly whether the black paste is natural or artificial. Modern
experiments have been made which seem to indicate that this result may
be obtained by fumigating or smoking the clay in a closed chamber after
the baking, which process blackens the clay throughout.[2297] But M.
Pottier[2298] thinks that the black surface was obtained not by
fumigation of the vase, but by applying a slip of pounded charcoal
already smoked, which at a moderate temperature would permeate the
clay. The surface was then covered with wax and resin, and polished,
like the Polledrara hydria. A combination of analyses of the paste made
by Brongniart[2299] gives the following result:

                     Silica            60-70 parts.
                     Clay earth        12-16   ”
                     Carbonate of lime  2-4    ”
                     Magnesia           1-2    ”
                     Water             8-10    ”
                     Carbon            1 -3    ”

The oldest _bucchero_ vases go back to the tombs _a fossa_ of the end
of the seventh century. They are small and hand-made, ornamented, if at
all, with geometric patterns, incised. The engraving was done by a sort
of toothed wheel or a sharp tool; more rarely, hollowed out in grooves.
Obviously the process is an imitation of metal engraving. Oriental
influence soon appears, first of all in the chalice-shaped cups found
at Cervetri, the surface of which is covered with figures of lions,
deer, etc., in Oriental style. Both form and decoration are derived
from metallic prototypes. The projecting Gryphons’ heads mentioned
above are also typical of this class.

In tombs of 560-500 B.C., along with Corinthian vases, a different type
occurs, the vases being wheel-made, of light and elegant forms—cups,
chalices, pyxides, amphorae, and jugs.[2300] The ornament is in the
form of reliefs, either stamped from a cylinder on a narrow band, as in
the red ware from Caere (see p. 292), or composed of a series of
medallions separately modelled or made from moulds and stuck on. This,
again, is an imitation of metal. Examples of these types are given in
Plate LVII. figs. 1-3, 5.

The subjects are not very varied. They range from animals such as stags
and lions, or monsters such as Sphinxes and Centaurs, to winged
deities, suppliants with offerings before deities, and other
mythological figures—Chimaera, the Asiatic Artemis, or the Minotaur.
Egyptian masks are also common. Episodes of hunts or banquets
occur,[2301] and also groups of figures in meaningless juxtaposition.
Some vases have only curvilinear patterns, such as palmettes, all of a
vegetable rather than a geometrical type. In this group the general
tendency is rather Hellenic than Oriental, especially towards Ionian
art.[2302] This is only a temporary phase, and is practically confined
to Cervetri, Veii, and Corneto—_i.e._ the maritime region in which the
Corinthian vases are found.


                                                              PLATE LVII





At Chiusi an extraordinary development is manifested, which gradually
obtained a monopoly. The city was far from the sea and Hellenic
influences, and retained Oriental traditions. After the end of the
sixth century all the varieties of _bucchero_ were fused into one type,
which lasted down to the end of the fourth century.[2303] The shapes
include amphorae, trefoil-mouthed oinochoae, various forms of cups,
bowls with raised handles and ladles (kyathi), table-utensils, basins
imitating metal forms, braziers, and vases in the form of birds or
fishes. They are ornamented with reliefs from top to bottom, the
subjects being much the same as in the last group. The tops or covers
are often in the form of female or cows’ heads, or surmounted by birds
(cf. Plate LVII. fig. 5). The figures and ornaments are stamped in from
moulds and fixed by some adhesive medium, incised designs being
inserted to fill up the spaces. These reliefs are never found earlier
than the period of Attic importations.

The subjects are derived as before from Greek, Egyptian, and Assyrian
sources, the Oriental types being so much combined that they must
evidently have come through the Phoenicians. Among the Greek subjects
we find Theseus and the Minotaur, Perseus and the Gorgons, Pegasos and
the Chimaera, warriors, etc. The animals and the four-winged figures
are Assyrian in type, while Egypt supplies such types as Ptah, Anubis,
and other animal-headed deities, and the female heads on the so-called
Canopic jars.

There are here no signs of inventive genius. The technique is purely
native, but all is founded on foreign models.[2304] The shapes are
those of Ionia and the coast of Asia or of Athens. On the other hand,
the development of the technique from the Villanuova pottery is
certainly apparent. The Greeks, indeed, tried to imitate it at times,
and _bucchero_ ware is found at Rhodes and Naukratis. We may fairly lay
down that Etruscan invention is limited to the perfecting of the
technique and the combination of the borrowed elements and art-forms.
Many of the flat reliefs seem to be copied from ivories, and the
rounded reliefs are certainly from bronze _repoussé_ work; in some
cases we find traces of gilding, silvering, and colour, which have been
intended to reproduce the appearance of metal. Again, in many respects
the _bucchero_ vases are merely the counterparts of works in bronze, as
in the case of the braziers and the bowl with Caryatid supports given
in Plate LVII. fig. 2.[2305] In short, they reproduce for us what is
wanting in our knowledge of early Greek metal ware.[2306]

There seem to be some references to this early black ware in the Roman
poets, for Juvenal[2307] mentions it as being in use in the time of
Numa: “Who dared then,” he says, “to ridicule the ladle (_simpuvium_)
and black saucer of Numa?” Persius[2308] styles it _Tuscum fictile_,
and Martial[2309] imagines Porsena to have been quite content with his
dinner-service of Etruscan earthenware.

                  *       *       *       *       *

A peculiarly Etruscan type of vase which deserves some separate
attention is that known as the Canopic jar, resembling the so-called
κάνωποι in which the Egyptians placed the bowels of their
mummies.[2310] These Etruscan _canopi_ are rude representations of the
human figure, the heads, which are often attired in Egyptian fashion,
forming the covers. The eyes are sometimes inlaid, and the female heads
have large movable earrings and other adornments. In the tombs it was
customary to place these vases on round chairs of wood, bronze, or
terracotta. An example may be seen in the Etruscan Room of the British
Museum, where the chair is plated with bronze, covered with archaic
designs in _repoussé_ relief,[2311] and another is shown in Fig. 181.
Similar chairs were discovered in the _Tomba delle Sedie_ at Cervetri;
but the Canopic jars are almost confined to Chiusi. The type finds a
parallel in the so-called “owl-vases” from the second city at Hissarlik
(Vol. I. p. 258), in which the same combination of the vase-form with
the human figure is to be observed. The lower portion of the jar was
intended to receive the ashes of the dead, like the _ossuaria_, this
method of placing the mortal remains of a person within a
representation of himself being peculiarly Egyptian.

Signor Milani[2312] has traced the origin of the Canopic jars to the
funeral masks placed over the faces of the dead, which are sometimes
found in the earliest Etruscan tombs. This practice may have been
derived from Mycenae, where Schliemann found gold masks in the
shaft-tombs of the Agora; but in Etruria the examples are all in
bronze, except a few of terracotta.[2313] A gradual transition can be
observed from the mask, at first placed on the corpse and then attached
to the urn containing its ashes, to the head fashioned in the round and
assimilated with the cover; while in later times a further transition
may be observed from the vase with human head to the complete human
figure. Finally, its place was taken by the reclining effigies on the
covers of the sarcophagi (p. 320). The earliest jars are found in the
_pozzo_ tombs of the eighth century, the evolution of the head modelled
in the round being accomplished by the seventh century, and the archaic
types last down to about 550 B.C., when the severe perfected style
comes in, to be succeeded by the free style of the fifth century, after
which time the Canopic jars cease to be manufactured.


  From _Mus. di ant. class._

The types are both male and female throughout, the latter being usually
distinguished by wearing earrings and necklaces. Towards the end of the
series the handles are gradually converted into rudimentary arms, and
finally into fully developed human arms, sometimes holding attributes.
They are probably placed on chairs as emblems of the power and
authority which the deceased enjoyed during his life. In the Berlin
Museum[2314] there is a remarkable example of the sixth century in
which the jar is placed on a chair of the same clay, covered with
_graffito_ ornamental designs and figures of animals. The jars are
always made of a plain red unglazed clay, and are uncoloured. In the
British Museum[2315] there are two seated female figures on detached
square bases, wearing bright red chitons and large circular earrings,
which seem to represent the period of transition from the jar to the
sarcophagus, the style in which they are modelled being that of the
fifth century. Some of the later examples have strongly individualised
features, and seem to be genuine portraits; it is possible that they
are actually from moulds taken from the faces of the dead.


Although the Etruscans executed such admirable works in bronze,
exercised with such skill the art of engraving gems, and produced such
refined specimens of filagree-work in gold, they never attained to high
excellence in their pottery. The vases already described belong to
plastic rather than pictorial art, and are mostly imitations of work in
metal. Down to the end of the sixth century B.C. their attempts at
painting vases have been, as we have seen, limited practically to two
fabrics, the Polledrara ware and the Caere jars with paintings in a
similar technique. These methods have, however, nothing in common with
Greek vase-paintings of the ordinary kind on a glazed surface, a method
which was never popularised in Etruria.

The total failure of the Etruscans in vase-painting finds a curious
parallel in their sculpture; all their best work is to be sought in
their engraving or figures in low relief, as in the mirrors and
_cistae_. Yet the same mirrors and _cistae_ show clearly that it was
from no lack of ability in drawing that they failed; wherefore it is
the less easy to understand, not only the absence of all originality in
their painted vases, but also the rarity of instances of their
imitative tendencies in this respect.

Apparently the red-figured vases which were imported into Etruria in
such large numbers in the fifth century served as prototypes, not for
their paintings, but for the engraved mirrors to which we have alluded.
It may have been that they shrank from the task so successfully
achieved by Greek painters of suitably decorating the curved surfaces
of a vase, and preferred the flat even surfaces supplied by the
circular mirrors and the sides of the _cistae_. Moreover, the interior
designs of the kylikes, perfected by Epiktetos, Euphronios, and their
contemporaries, served as obvious models for disposing a design in a
circular space; and they had in the subjects of the vases a
mythological repertory ready to hand.

It now remains to be seen to what extent they actually were influenced
in their pottery by the imported Greek vases.

For considerably over a century painted pottery, at all times rare in
Etruria, is practically unrepresented in the tombs except by Greek
importations, Corinthian, Ionic, and Attic; the only local attempts in
this direction are the Polledrara and Cervetri vases. As we have seen,
early Corinthian vases appear in the _fossa_ tombs, and later
Corinthian in the chamber tombs, in which, towards the middle of the
sixth century, the Attic B.F. fabrics begin to make their appearance.
The latest developments of the Corinthian wares are, indeed, almost
unrepresented, but their place is taken by what appear to be local
imitations of the Corinthian vases, a large series of which was found
at Cervetri, and now forms part of the Campana collection in the
Louvre. These are, however, for the most part certainly Greek, being
presumably made by the Greek settlers in that town—at any rate, an
Etruscan origin cannot be proved for them.[2316]

We have also seen that the Ionian fabrics exercised a great influence
on Etruscan art, and this leads us to another series of vases found at
Cervetri, the Caeretan hydriae discussed in Chapter VIII. Some years
ago it was noticed by the late F. Dümmler[2317] that there were in many
museums examples of a class of vases which stood in close relation to
the Caeretan hydriae, yet were obviously a different fabric. Having
collected and examined these vases, he was able to demonstrate
satisfactorily that they were direct imitations by the Etruscans of the
Caeretan hydriae,[2318] thereby proving at the same time that the
latter were imported from other sources (_sc._ Ionia), and not, as had
hitherto been supposed, themselves of Italian origin. It is not
unlikely that the Ionic influence in Etruria is due to the Phocaean
migration of 544 B.C.; on reaching Italy the Ionian fugitives would
naturally hand on their art-traditions there.


                                                             PLATE LVIII



These Etruscan vases are not exclusively hydriae, some being amphorae,
others kyathi; but they all bear the unmistakable stamp of Etruscan art
in the drawing of the figures and other small details, such as the
treatment of the incised lines. It will further be noticed that the
drawing is in most cases quite free from archaism, figures being often
drawn in full face or correct profile; and this consequently proves
that they belong to a considerably later date than the fabrics which
they imitate, although the figures are always in black on a red ground.
The style in some cases is not unlike that of the later Panathenaic
amphorae of the fourth century, and may also be compared with some of
the bronze cistae from Palestrina. Accessory pigments are rare, and the
incised lines are sketchy and careless; great prominence is given to
the bands of ornament bordering the designs, this being a feature
borrowed from the Caeretan hydriae. On a large amphora in the British
Museum (B 64) the characteristic Caeretan band of lotos-flowers and
palmettes is exactly reproduced, though in black instead of
polychrome.[2319] Other typical ornaments are the maeander and
chevrons; ivy-leaves and sprigs shooting up from the ground;
lotos-buds, and wreaths of all kinds. The subjects are limited in
range, and thoroughly Etruscan in feeling; Pegasi and beardless
Centaurs with human forelegs, Bacchic subjects, and genre scenes, such
as athletic contests, combats, or funeral ceremonies (Plate LVIII.),
almost complete the list. The turned-up shoes and the pointed _tutuli_
worn by the women, as well as the physiognomy of the figures, with
their receding foreheads, are all characteristically Etruscan, though
the two former details are borrowed from Ionia.[2320] The shapes of the
vases are heavy and inartistic, and the effect altogether unpleasing. A
list of the principal examples is here appended.[2321]

When at last the imitative instincts of the Etruscans did in course of
time impel them to turn their fancy to copying the red-figured vases,
we find the same characteristics reproduced. The number of such
imitations is not large, but they are unmistakable, not only from the
style, but from the pale yellow clay, dull black glaze, and bizarre
character of the ornamentation. Nevertheless, in some cases fairly good
results are obtained, as in the B.M. kylix F 478, which in its interior
design at all events is an obvious attempt to imitate the work of the
great Athenian kylix-painters. The artist seems to have learned his art
from the school of Hieron and Brygos, but his Etruscan instincts are
revealed in the over-elaboration and stiff mannerisms of the drawing.
The Museum also possesses a very fine krater from Falerii (F 479),
which appears to be an example of a local school,[2322] imitating the
red-figured vases of the “fine” period and large style. But these
comparatively successful imitations are exceptional.

The other red-figured Etruscan vases are far inferior, and are executed
in a style which none can fail to recognise. It is dry and lifeless in
the extreme, the drawing helpless, and the whole effect repulsive and
disagreeable, as is so often the case with Etruscan art. These vases
are not earlier than the third century B.C., and may be later. In them
we observe, besides Greek mythological subjects, the introduction of
local deities such as Charun and Ker. The British Museum possesses some
ten examples of this class, in addition to the two already described.
The most interesting is a krater (F 480 = Plate LVIII.), with, on one
side, the death of Aktaeon, designated by his Etruscan name _Ataiun_;
on the other, Ajax, designated _Aifas_, throwing himself upon his
sword, after the award of the armour of Achilles.

Another vase of this class has for its subject the farewell of Admetos
and Alkestis,[2323] with Etruscan inscriptions accompanying the
figures, and a speech issuing from the mouth of one of them. Behind
Admetos is one of the demons of the Etruscan hell, probably intended
for Hades or Thanatos, wearing a short tunic and holding in each hand a
snake. Behind Alkestis is Charun with his mallet. On another vase found
at Vulci[2324] Ajax is represented slaying a Trojan prisoner in the
presence of Charun; and on the reverse the latter appears again with
Penthesileia and two other women. On a third[2325] Leda is represented
showing Tyndareus the egg from which Helen and Klytaemnestra were
destined to be born; it is inscribed _Elinai_, the Etruscan form of

The latest specimens of these fabrics, which have been found at Orvieto
and Orbetello, positively degenerate into barbarism[2326]; the figures
are carelessly and roughly painted, and white is extensively used as an
accessory, as in the later Apulian and Campanian vases. The subjects
are usually borrowed from the infernal regions, and the gruesome figure
of Charun is common.

Inscriptions on Etruscan vases are rare as compared with Greek, and in
many cases have only been scratched in after the vase was made. There
are also instances of imported Greek vases on which Etruscan
inscriptions have been incised in this manner, as in the case of a vase
in the form of a lion in the British Museum (A 1137, from Veii), on
which is incised [FΕΛΘΥΡ] [ἉΘΙΣΝΑΣ], _felthur hathisnas_. The earliest
known are incised on plain pots of black ware, and several of these
take the form of what are known as _abecedaria_, or alphabets. Strictly
speaking, some of these alphabets are of Hellenic origin, and do not
give the forms of the Etruscan letters as they are known to us; but as
the latter are derived from the Greek (western group), probably through
Cumae (see above, p. 295) these inscriptions would naturally represent
their original forms in Etruria.

In 1882 an amphora was discovered at Formello near Veii,[2327] on which
this Greek alphabet is written twice from left to right, together with
a retrograde Etruscan inscription, and a “syllabary” or spelling
exercise. The alphabet is as follows: α, β, γ, δ, ε, ϝ, ζ, _h_, θ, ι,
κ, λ, μ, ν, [samech,], ο, π, Ϻ, ϙ, ρ, σ, τ, υ, [X], φ, ψ. This is the
most complete _abecedarium_ extant, containing twenty-six letters and
illustrating the archaic Greek forms of the twenty-two Phoenician
letters in their Semitic order. The four additional ones are υ, [X] ( =
ξ), φ, and ψ ( = χ). The character [X] is the representative of
_samech_, and is not found in Greek inscriptions; Ϻ is _shin_ or _san_
(cf. p. 247).

The Caere alphabet, on a vase now in the Museo Gregoriano, is also
combined with an Etruscan syllabary, consisting of such forms as _bi_,
_ba_, _bu_, _be_, _gi_, _ga_, _gu_, _ge_, etc.[2328]; the alphabet
resembles that from Formello, except for the omission of the ϙ, and the
[san], of the same type, extending as far as ο, was found at Colle near
Siena.[2329] On another small black jar also found at Caere, and now in
the Museo Gregoriano,[2330] is incised an Etruscan inscription in two
lines, in which also the letters are certainly early Greek rather than
Etruscan; these two from Caere must be of the same date as the
Regulini-Galassi tomb, about 650-600 B.C.


The two following, however, are genuine Etruscan _abecedaria_: one from
the foot of a cup found at Bomarzo,[2331] on which the alphabet runs
(retrograde): α, γ, ε, ϝ, ζ, η, θ, ι, λ , μ, ν, π, Ϻ, ρ, σ, τ, υ, φ, χ,
φ, the other in the museum at Grosseto,[2332] in which the letters are
practically the same, but with the addition of κ and ϙ. In the first
named the form ζ for Z should be noted, and in both occur the _san_ and
two forms of φ, which in Etruscan generally appears as [Etrusan phi].
Among other instances of early Etruscan inscriptions are that on the
Louvre vase from Caere, with white paintings on red ground (D 151: see
p. 294), which dates from the seventh century; and on objects from the
Regulini-Galassi and Del Duce tombs (pp. 295, 300). They are, however,
very rare on the pottery of the next two centuries, with the exception
of those incised on the plain pottery, which bear no essential relation
to the vase itself.[2333] These, as has been noted, are also found on
imported Greek wares, one of the best instances being the kylix of
Oltos and Euxitheos, at Corneto,[2334] on the foot of which is an
inscription of thirty-eight letters not divided into words.
Occasionally also painted inscriptions are found.[2335]

When, however, we come to the imitation Greek vases of the third and
second centuries, we find a curious reversion to the old Greek practice
of inscribing the names of the figures and even sentences on the
paintings themselves. Some of these have already been mentioned. The
best example is afforded by the krater with Admetos and Alkestis, on
which the names of the two principals are given as [ΑΤΜΙΤΕ], _Atmite_,
and [ΑΛCΣΤΙ], _Alcsti_; while by the side of the figure of Charun is a
long inscription 15[46]ΕΓΗ: 15[72]ΕΑΣΓΕ: 15[56]ΝΑΓ: 15[94]ΑΤΔΛΜ:
14[96]ΦΛΕΔΟΔΓΕ On the vase with Ajax and Penthesileia the names are
given as [ΑΙFΑΣ], [ΨΑΔΥ], [ΠΕΝΤΑΣΙΛΑ], and [ἹΝΘΙΑΛ] [TYRMYGAS]. On a
vase mentioned by Gerhard, Nike inscribes on a shield the word [ΑΝΣΑΛ],

                     § 2. ETRUSCAN TERRACOTTA WORK

It remains to say a few words on the other uses of clay among the
Etruscans. This subject has indeed been discussed to some extent in
Chapter III., regarding the use of clay in general in classical times.
But there are some features of work in terracotta which are peculiar to
this people. For their extensive use of this material we are quite
prepared by the evidence of the pottery found in their tombs, which
shows that they understood the processes of manufacture perfectly, even
if they failed in their attempts at decoration. As we shall see, they
employed it constantly, not only for finer works of art, but for
ordinary and more utilitarian purposes. This we know not only from the
existing remains, but from many passages of ancient writers, who speak
of the Etruscan preference for clay and their skill in its use.

Pliny, in particular, speaks of the art of modelling in clay as
“brought to perfection in Italy, and especially in Etruria.”[2337] He
attributes its introduction to the three craftsmen whom Demaratos
brought with him from Corinth in the seventh century B.C.—Eucheir,
Eugrammos, and Diopos—whom he styles _fictores_.[2338] This story of
its origin need not, of course, be implicitly believed; nor, on the
other hand, need the statement of Tatian,[2339] who, followed in modern
times by Campana and other Italian writers, claimed for Italy a
priority over Greece in the art of making terracotta figures. For their
statues the Etruscans certainly seem to have preferred clay to any
other material. Although few of these have descended to us, there are
many passages in Roman literature which imply their excellence, and it
is chiefly from these that our knowledge of Etruscan statues in
terracotta is derived. The Romans, unable themselves to execute such
works, were obliged to employ Etruscan artists for the decoration of
their temples, as in the notable instance of that of Jupiter on the
Capitol. A certain Volca of Veii[2340] was employed by Tarquinius
Priscus, about 509 B.C., to make the statue of the god, which was of
colossal proportions, and was painted vermilion, the colour being
solemnly renewed from time to time. The same artist made the famous
chariot on the pediment of the temple, which, instead of contracting in
the furnace, swelled to such an extent that the roof had to be taken
off. This circumstance was held to prognosticate the future greatness
of Rome.[2341] Volca also made a figure of Hercules in the Forum
Boarium, and we read that Numa consecrated a statue of Janus[2342]; but
the material in the latter case is not actually specified as terracotta.

Pliny goes on to say that such statues existed in many places even in
his day. He also speaks of numerous temples in Rome and other towns
with remarkable sculptured pediments and cornices; the existing remains
of some of these will presently be discussed. There is no doubt that
the use of terracotta for the external decoration of temples was even
more general in Etruria than in Greece; and, whereas in Greece it
ceased in the fifth century, in Etruria it lasted down to Roman times.
The use of bricks in Etruria seems to have belonged entirely to the
time when it had lost its independence, under Roman dominion. For
instance, the brick walls of Arretium, which are highly spoken of by
Pliny and Vitruvius,[2343] do not belong to the Etruscan, but to the
later city; and although Gell alleged that he saw tufa walls with a
substructure of tiling at Veii, Dennis sought for these in vain[2344];
even a pier of a bridge resting on tiles which he found there proved to
be later work. For buildings and for tombs the principal material seems
to have been tufa, but the tiles of the roofs were probably of
terracotta, as were sometimes those used for covering tombs.[2345]

Etruscan temples were also largely built of wood, with a covering of
terracotta slabs, as the evidence of recent excavations shows. This
method of decoration, which, as we saw in a previous chapter (Vol. I.
p. 100), was largely practised in Italy and Sicily, and even spread
thence to Greece, as at Olympia, is not alluded to by Vitruvius in his
description of Etruscan temples (iv. 7), although he speaks of the
wooden construction of the roofs; but he alludes to _antepagmenta_
fixed on the front of the temples, which may refer to the terracotta
slabs.[2346] Earlier restorations made after his descriptions are
imperfect in this respect, only regarding construction and not
decorative effect.[2347] It is at any rate clear that the roof had a
pediment on the front only, the other three sides projecting over and
forming eaves, round which hung the pendent slabs (see below); they
were not required in front because of the portico. Araeostyle temples,
the same writer tells us, had wooden architraves and pediments,
ornamented with sculpture in terracotta. The cinerary urns often supply
evidence as to the construction of the roofs, with their exact
imitation of tiles.

We have now remains of at least four temples built in this method, or,
rather, of their terracotta decoration: from Cervetri in Berlin, from
Civita Lavinia in the British Museum (Plates II.-III.), from Alatri
(1882), and from Falerii or Civita Castellana (1886).[2348] Other
remains of architectural terracotta work come from Orvieto,[2349]
Pitigliano,[2350] and Luni (see below), and from Conca or
Satricum,[2351] the latter being chiefly antefixal ornaments of the
ordinary Italian types. The Cervetri remains consist of roof-tiles,
antefixal ornaments with figures in relief in front, and friezes with
chariots and warriors.[2352] Portions of a similar frieze from the same
site are in the British Museum,[2353] as are also three antefixes in
the same style as one in Berlin from Cervetri (Plate LIX.).[2354] They
belong to the fifth century, and illustrate a later development from
the ordinary archaic type—idealised female heads or heads of Satyrs
with rich polychrome decoration. Another example in Berlin appears to
represent Juno Sospita.[2355] The friezes are a good example of the
Italo-Ionic style of the end of the sixth century, the points of
comparison with the Chalcidian and other B.F. vases being particularly

But for information on the form of the Etruscan temple these are too
fragmentary to be of any use. The remains from Alatri, Civita
Castellana, and Civita Lavinia are much more illuminating. The
last-named, of which some description has already been given (Vol. I.
p. 101), are partly archaic, partly of the fourth century, the two
former wholly of the later date; but allowing for differences of style,
the general arrangement was in all cases practically the same. The
front of the temple was in the form of a pediment supported on columns,
with ornamental raking cornices, and _akroteria_ in the form of figures
or groups. Along the sides and back ran gutters, with lion-head spouts
at intervals, faced by upright cornices, with pendent plates of
terracotta, or “barge-boards” hanging free and ornamented with patterns
in relief. These were for protection against weather, like the edgings
to the roofs of Swiss châlets and modern railway stations. The practice
was quite un-Greek, and peculiar to Etruria. The antefixal ornaments
were continued along the sides above the cornice. The architraves were
also ornamented with terracotta slabs, on which were palmette patterns;
and thus the whole formed a rich and continuous system of terracotta
plating which completely covered the woodwork of the architraves and
roof. All the slabs were ornamented with coloured patterns in relief,
or simply painted on a white slip, such as maeanders, tongue,
scale-pattern, lotos-flowers, or various forms of the palmette.

                  *       *       *       *       *

                                                               PLATE LIX




The existing remains of Etruscan monumental sculpture in clay are, as
has been indicated, not large. Some of the architectural antefixes are
almost important enough to be included under this head, especially
those in the form of figures or groups modelled almost in the round.
These belong mostly to the fifth century B.C., and the finest example
is the group in the Berlin Museum from the Cervetri find already
mentioned, representing Eos carrying off Kephalos[2357]; it is in the
style of about 480 B.C. A smaller but still very effective example is
the antefix from Civita Lavinia in the British Museum, representing a
Satyr and Maenad awaiting the advent of Dionysos (Plate II.).[2358]
With these must be reckoned the sculptured friezes from Cervetri in the
British and Berlin Museums, and the reliefs on the British Museum
sarcophagus from the same site.[2359] In all these the same prevalence
of Ionic Greek influence may be observed, which is characteristic of so
much Etruscan work of the late archaic period, both in terracotta and
bronze, as in the reliefs of the Polledrara bust.[2360] This influence,
which is due to the strong Hellenic element in the civilisation of
Caere and the Campanian cities, we have also seen at work in the
vase-paintings of the period.[2361]

One of the earliest instances, and perhaps the most remarkable, of
Etruscan clay modelling in the round, for its size and execution, is
the group on the top of the famous sarcophagus in the British Museum
(Fig. 183).[2362] The figures, a man and woman reclining on a couch,
are life-size, of somewhat slender proportions, with smiling features,
the drapery of the woman stiff and formal. Sir Charles Newton has
described the style as “archaic, the treatment throughout very
naturalistic, in which a curious striving after truth in anatomical
details gives animation to the group, in spite of the extreme
ungainliness of form and ungraceful composition.” The same difficulties
that beset the sculptor of the Polledrara bust, in working in the round
instead of relief, are visible here; and the contrast with the Hellenic
style of the reliefs round the lower part is very marked. There are
similar sarcophagi in the Louvre, and in the Museo Papa Giulio at
Rome.[2363] M. Martha notes in regard to the figures on the former that
the faces are remarkable for individuality and precision of type, but
the limbs are stiff and rude. This is not an infrequent feature of
early Greek art.[2364] Signor Savignoni claims these three monuments as
purely Ionic Greek work, but repudiates much of the British Museum
sarcophagus as un-antique.


Of later sculpture in terracotta the instances are comparatively few,
by far the best being the pedimental sculptures from Luni in Northern
Tuscany, discovered in 1842, and now at Florence.[2365] Their date is
about 200 B.C., and they include figures of the Olympian deities,
Muses, and a group of Apollo and Artemis slaying the Niobides. A few
remains of similar figures were found at Orvieto.[2366]



It may be convenient to speak here of a small group of monuments in
terracotta which illustrate in an interesting manner the achievements
of Etruscan painting in the archaic period. This is a series of
terracotta slabs, which were inserted into the walls of small tombs at
Cervetri to receive the painted decoration which the Etruscans
considered such an important feature of their sepulchral
arrangements.[2367] Two sets have been found, one of which is in the
Louvre, the other in the British Museum; both are of similar character,
and belong to the beginning of the sixth century, but the style varies
in some degree. Fig. 184 gives one of the slabs in the Louvre.

The surface of the slabs was covered with the usual white slip or
λεύκωμα of early Greek paintings,[2368] on which the designs were
sketched with a point and filled in with red and black outlines or
washes. The white ground was left for the flesh of women and for white
drapery, the flesh of the men being coloured red. Of the two the Louvre
slabs seem the more advanced, and more directly under Ionic influence,
while the others are more provincial in character. The Caeretan hydriae
seem to have left some traces on the former, and in the latter it is
interesting to note the use of borders of white dots for the drapery,
such as we see on the Daphnae vases (Vol. I. p. 352).

These paintings may also be compared with those in the Grotta Campana
at Veii (Vol. I. p. 39), which, in spirit at any rate, if not in date,
are the oldest examples of Etruscan painting, while still under
Oriental influence. But not being works in terracotta, they do not
strictly concern us here.

                  *       *       *       *       *

Although the more important sarcophagi of the Etruscans were made of
alabaster, tufa, and peperino, a considerable number, principally of
small size, were of terracotta. All of these belong to a late stage of
Etruscan art. Some few were large enough to receive a body laid at full
length. Two large sarcophagi, from a tomb at Vulci, now in the British
Museum, may be taken as typical.[2369] The lower part, which held the
body, is shaped like a rectangular bin or trough, about three feet high
and as many wide. On the covers are recumbent Etruscan women, modelled
at full length. One has both its cover and chest divided into two
portions, probably because it was found that masses of too large a size
failed in the baking. The edges at the point of division are turned up,
like flange tiles. These have on their fronts in one case dolphins, in
the other branches of trees, incised with a tool in outline. Other
sarcophagi of the same dimensions are imitations of the larger ones of
stone. Many of the smaller sort, which held the ashes of the dead, are
of the same shape, the body being a small rectangular chest, while the
cover presents a figure of the deceased in a reclining posture. They
generally have in front a composition in relief, freely modelled in the
later style of Etruscan art, the subject being often of funeral import:
such as the last farewell to the dead; combats of heroes (Plate LIX.),
especially that of Eteokles and Polyneikes; a battle in which an
unarmed hero is fighting with a ploughshare[2370]; the parting of
Admetos and Alkestis in the presence of Death and Charun; and the
slaying of the dragon by Kadmos at the fountain of Ares.[2371] Some few
have a painted roof. All these were painted in _tempera_ upon a white
ground, in bright and vivid tones, producing a gaudy effect. The
inscriptions were also traced in paint, and rarely incised. A good and
elaborate example of the colouring of terracotta occurs in the
recumbent figure on a small sarcophagus in the British Museum (Plate
LIX.).[2372] Here the flesh is red, the eyes black, the hair red, the
wreath green, and the drapery of the figure is white, with purple and
crimson borders; the phiale which the figure holds is yellow (to
imitate gilding), and the cushions on which he reclines are red and
blue. This system of colouring is maintained to an even greater degree
in the relief on the front of the sarcophagus, the subject of which is
a combat of five warriors. The background is coloured indigo, and every
detail is rendered in colour, except the nude parts, which are covered
with a white slip throughout. The pigments employed are red, yellow,
black, green, and purple, and the inscription above is painted in brown
on white, all the colours being marvellously fresh and well preserved;
but the general effect is gaudy, fantastic, and scarcely appropriate.
It may also be said in regard to the whole series that the subjects are
monotonous and unpleasing, and the compositions crowded to excess.

By far the finest example of these terracotta sarcophagi is one found
at Cervetri not many years ago, now in the British Museum (Plate
LX.).[2373] It is known from the inscription in front to be the last
resting-place of a lady named Seianti Thanunia, whose effigy,
life-size, adorns the top—a most realistic specimen of Etruscan
portrait-sculpture, and in splendid preservation. Within the lower part
her skeleton is still preserved, together with a series of silver
utensils. A very similar specimen, that of Larthia Seianti, is in the
Museum at Florence,[2374] and from the coins found therewith the date
of these two may be fixed at about 150 B.C. The figure of the lady was
cast in two halves, the joint being below the hips; she is represented
as a middle-aged matron, her head veiled in a mantle which she draws
aside with her right hand. In her left she holds a mirror in an open
case; she wears a _sphendone_ in her hair, and much jewellery. On the
right arm are bracelets, and on the left hand six rings, the bezels of
which are painted purple to imitate sard-stones; in her ears are
pendants painted to imitate amber set in gold. The nude parts are
painted flesh-colour, and colouring is freely employed throughout, the
cushions being painted in stripes. The dimensions of the sarcophagus
itself are 6 ft. by 2 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in.; it has no reliefs on the
front, but is ornamented with pilasters, triglyphs, and quatrefoils.

For antefixal ornaments, masks, and the decoration of the smaller
sarcophagi and other products of ordinary industry, the clay seems to
have been invariably made in the form of a mould; but for the larger
sarcophagi and the Canopic figures a rough clay model was made by hand
and itself baked. Probably both processes were employed
concurrently—large statues, for instance, being made in several pieces;
in these it will generally be noted that the head and torso are
modelled more carefully than the limbs.


                                                                PLATE LX



M. Martha[2375] explains the invariable colouring of Etruscan
terracottas on the supposition that the Etruscans did not profess to
make figures in this material, but looked down on it as a common
substance, to be concealed wherever possible. However this may be, the
polychromy was not only a necessary artifice, but an admirable means of
imparting life and realism to the figures. In the archaic period there
is much less variety, yellow, red, brown, and black being the only
colours employed as a rule.[2376] The dark red pigment usually applied
for flesh-colour on the sarcophagi may suggest the _minium_ with which
the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus was smeared. In later work the tints
are lighter and much more varied, as we have seen, and this is
especially noticeable on the figures from the Luni pediments, in which
rose, yellow, green, and blue are employed with the same delicate
_nuances_ that we see in the Tanagra figures.

                          § 3. SOUTHERN ITALY

In dealing with the indigenous non-Hellenic people of Southern Italy
and their pottery, we are almost more at a disadvantage than in regard
to the Etruscans. The peoples are almost unknown to us, and are vaguely
characterised as “Iapygian,” “Messapian,” “Oscan,” and so on; but this
does not really carry us much further. Moreover, this part of Italy has
never been scientifically or thoroughly excavated, like Etruria, and
even where finds have been made they are small and poor; nothing of
very remote date appears to have come to light, and very few early
Greek importations. Hence there has been until quite recently no
attempt made at a scientific study of the pottery, or even to
distinguish local from imported wares; in Heydemann’s catalogue of the
Naples vases it is practically ignored. Recently, however, Herr Max
Mayer, and Signor Patroni, whose laudable investigations of the
Graeco-Italian vases have already received attention (Chapter XI.),
have turned their attention to the study of the less promising
indigenous fabrics.[2377]

The region with which the present section deals is that comprised by
the three districts of Apulia, Lucania, and Campania. The barbarian
races by which it was occupied in classical times were known by various
names, used with some vagueness; but roughly we may divide them into
two groups: the Iapygians or Messapians and the Peucetians, occupying
the south-east portion of the peninsula from modern Bari to the end of
the “heel”[2378]; and the Osco-Samnites, who occupied Campania and the
mountainous district of Samnium on its north-eastern border. In Lucania
the district of Sala Consilina has yielded local pottery.[2379] The
Osco-Samnites appear to have been more amenable to the influence of
Greek civilisation than the others, owing to the existence in their
midst of such centres of culture as Cumae, Capua, and Poseidonia
(Paestum); hence we find that the pottery of that region shows a much
more Hellenic character than that of Apulia, and is more like that of
Etruria in its attempts to imitate the Greek imported fabrics (see Vol.
I. p. 484).

Greek painted vases are found in Southern Italy as early as the seventh
century B.C., though even in “Aegean” times they had penetrated as far
as Sicily, and even Marseilles (see Vol. I. pp. 69, 86).[2380] At Cumae
in particular, and also at Nola, “Proto-Corinthian” and Corinthian
wares have been found; during the sixth century Ionic and Attic B.F.
wares make their appearance, but never in large quantities, as in
Etruria. They, however, gave rise to a class of imitative fabrics found
chiefly in Campania: small amphorae and other forms rudely painted with
black silhouettes, dating from the fifth century. At Tarentum the finds
of vases have been mainly Greek, but even these are comparatively rare.
The principal examples of local wares are to be seen in the museums of
Bari, Lecce, Taranto, and Naples; the British Museum, Louvre, and
Berlin only possess isolated specimens.[2381] The general scarcity of
imports is due, Signor Patroni thinks, to the restricted intercourse
between the colonies on the coast and the interior districts peopled by
hostile local tribes. After the fifth century, when large numbers of
Greek artists were established in the towns of Southern Italy, the
circumstances became different, and we have already made in Chapter XI.
a general survey of the various fabrics produced from that time in the
various centres down to the total decay of the art.

All Italiote pottery, before this direct influence of Hellenism made
itself felt, may be called “archaic”; but it must at the same time be
borne in mind that these archaic types still went on during the time of
Greek influence. They formed, in fact, a “domestic” style, as opposed
to the “high-art” style of the Graeco-Italian wares, just as the early
Geometrical pottery of Athens is thought to have been in relation to
the Mycenaean vases (see Vol. I. p. 279). They must not, however, be
regarded—as has been done by some writers—as deliberate archaistic
revivals of older fabrics. It is true that they bear a remarkable
resemblance in many cases to Aegean, Cypriote, and Geometrical wares;
but this likeness is due to other causes, being the result of
development, not of direct imitation. A learned Italian, on first
seeing some of the local pottery excavated in Apulia, exclaimed, “This
is the Mycenaean style of Italy.” Chronologically and ethnographically
he was wrong, but artistically he was right; and as Signor Patroni has
pointed out, parallels to nearly all the ornamental motives of local
Apulian fabrics may be traced in Mycenaean pottery.

There is also a favourite shape, that of a large double-mouthed
_askos_, examples of which may be seen in the British Museum (F 508 =
Fig. 185, and F 509), which is obviously derived directly from the
Mycenaean “false-necked amphora” (see Vol. I. p. 271). It is not a
Hellenic type, although it is the forerunner of a form of askos found
among the painted vases of Apulia.[2382] Another favourite form, which
Signor Patroni calls the _orcio appulo_, a jar with three vertical
handles round the nearly spherical body, and wide-spreading mouth, may
similarly be derived from the Mycenaean three-handled _pyxis_ (Vol. I.
p. 272). Other forms, again, are parallel with those of Cyprus, as is
in some cases the system of geometrical decoration, a figure or pattern
in a panel with borders of geometrical ornament.

The writers above-mentioned distinguish two main classes of the local
pottery of Apulia (including the south-eastern extremity or “heel” of
Italy). The central portion of this district was inhabited by a tribe
known as the Peucetii, and the extremity by Messapians, or, as they are
also styled, Iapygians. The vases, which appear to be the product of
the latter race, are found in various places—such as Brindisi, Egnazia
or Fasano, Lecce, Nardo, Ostuni, Otranto, Putignano, Rugge, Taranto,
and Uzento—and they may best be studied in the museum at Bari. The
pottery of the Peucetii, which Signor Patroni calls Apulian, covers the
region round Bari, including Putignano on the south, Bitonto and Ruvo
on the north, where the local civilisation seems to have been modified
by the influence of such centres as Canosa.


The typical form of Messapian pottery is a krater with high angular
handles, at the highest and lowest points of which are pairs of discs
(_rotelle_), a spherical body, and neck sloping inwards, without lip.
The form is one which, as we have seen in Chapter XI., was adopted by
the Greek vase-painters in Lucania at a later date.[2383] Mayer states
that this form is only found in the “heel” of Italy, but Patroni seems
to imply that it is typical of Central Apulia.[2384] It is painted in
two colours—purple-red and dark brown or black; but the former colour
is not found in the earlier examples. The decoration includes simple
geometrical or vegetable patterns, such as wreaths, panels of
lozenge-pattern, zigzags, and an ornament composed of two triangles
point to point [hourglass], which Mayer calls the “hour-glass“
ornament. The more developed examples have figures in panels, ranging
from rows of ducks to human figures. Among these are a man gathering
fruit from a tree and two stags confronted. Lenormant published two
very interesting specimens in the Louvre, one of which has two cocks
confronted, the other a man swimming accompanied by a dolphin.[2385]

The latter, with others of the same class, styled by Lenormant
“Iapygian,” appear to be imitations of B.F. amphorae[2386]; but if they
are imitations they must be almost contemporaneous with their
prototypes, and cannot be later than the fifth century. The man with
the dolphin recalls the story of Taras and the coin-types of Tarentum;
but Lenormant pointed out that a similar legend was current relating to
Iapys, the eponymous hero of Iapygia,[2387] and he may therefore be
intended. Some of these vases have painted inscriptions, one of which
runs, [ΙΑΡ]; but they are apparently nothing more than names, partly

Among other shapes are a kind of askos with simple decoration, a jug or
pitcher with discs attached to the handles, also with simple patterns,
and a unique variety of the krater with four flat-topped
column-handles. Signor Patroni[2388] calls attention to another class
of Messapian vases from which the geometrical decorative element is
absent, the ornament being arranged in bands of equal width, and
varying between linear and natural forms. A characteristic motive is a
sort of chain-pattern. The wave and rows of pomegranate-buds also
occur, and animals, such as dogs and dolphins; also human heads and
figures. The shapes are either the double-necked askos, as given in
Fig. 185, with an arched handle between the mouths, or a kind of double
situla, formed of two jars on a cylindrical stand with a vertical
handle between.

As Mayer has pointed out, there cannot here be any question of a very
ancient class of vases, but rather of one of eclectic character. The
Geometrical tendency appears chiefly in the north of the district,
where the influence of Peucetia (see below) was felt. The vegetable
ornaments, he suggests, have affinities with those of “Rhodian”
vases.[2389] The date can hardly be earlier than the fifth century.


  From _Notizie degli Scavi_.


The fabrics of Central or Peucetian Apulia centre, as has been noted,
round Bari. They are all of a strongly Geometrical type, but the system
of ornamentation is freer and more varied than in the Messapian class.
They are easily recognisable by their forms and characteristic designs,
painted only in brown or black. Here, again, the typical form is a
krater, in which the handles are either arched in vertical fashion or
else form flat bands. It has a shallow, spreading lip. The patterns are
arranged in panels and bands, and are often executed with great care.
Fig. 186 gives an example from Sala Consilina in Lucania.[2390] The
favourite motives are chequers, zigzags, the “hour-glass,” hook-armed
crosses, and lozenges filled with reticulated pattern, neatly arranged
in friezes or saltire-wise. Round the lower part of the vase is often
found what may be described as a comb-pattern, and on some vases is a
curious rudimentary form of the maeander, arranged in triangles or
diagonal crosses. Among the other shapes are a small askos with
ring-handle on the back, a sort of high stand like a fruit-dish, large
cups and bowls, and the _orcio_ already mentioned. One of the finest
examples is a krater from Ruvo in the Jatta collection,[2391] with
twisted handles and a very elaborate system of ornamentation, chiefly
diaper and maeander patterns.

Like the Messapian, the Peucetian or Apulian pottery seems to have
flourished during the fifth century[2392]; but there are some vases
which seem to form connecting-links with their Hellenic prototypes, and
probably belong to the sixth century.[2393] In any case, both fabrics
must be regarded as much earlier than previously supposed; they are
certainly not late archaistic work, and time must be allowed for their
disappearance when the Hellenic fabrics of Apulia begin. In placing the
majority of the products between 600 and 450 B.C., we shall probably
not be far from the truth, although M. Pottier[2394] would throw the
origin of the fabrics as far back as the eighth century.


Footnote 2246:

  See especially Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 285 ff., and Gsell,
  _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 315 ff.

Footnote 2247:

  i. 94.

Footnote 2248:

  _Sat._ i. 6, 1.

Footnote 2249:

  i. 30.

Footnote 2250:

  _Op. cit._ p. 297.

Footnote 2251:

  _Frag. Hist. Graec._ ed. Didot, i. p. 45: ἐπὶ Σπινῆτι ποταμῷ (the
  name of one of the mouths). He calls them here Pelasgians.

Footnote 2252:

  Bertrand and Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les vallées du Po et du
  Danube_, p. 73 ff.: cf. Bertrand, _Arch. celtique et gauloise_, p.

Footnote 2253:

  Cf. i. 27 with vii. 3.

Footnote 2254:

  See Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_, for a full account of this
  period; also Von Duhn in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 128, whose ethnographical
  views seem to differ in many details from those of other writers
  previously cited.

Footnote 2255:

  See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv.

Footnote 2256:

  See _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p. 111.

Footnote 2257:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1881, pl. 5, Nos. 15, 16.

Footnote 2258:

  _Il._ xi. 633; _Od._ iv. 615, vi. 232. See Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 152.

Footnote 2259:

  On the ornamentation of the Villanuova period general reference may
  be made to Böhlau’s _Zur Ornamentik der Villanovaperiode_ (1895).

Footnote 2260:

  Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 254.

Footnote 2261:

  See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv, and references there given.

Footnote 2262:

  The objects found at Hallstatt date from about the tenth to ninth
  centuries B.C., and are sometimes “sub-Mycenaean” in character.

Footnote 2263:

  See on the subject of hut-urns the bibliographies given in Gsell,
  _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 258; _Bonner Studien_, p. 24 (Von Duhn); and
  _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 127 (_id._).

Footnote 2264:

  _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125.

Footnote 2265:

  See also for Narce _Mon. Antichi_, iv. pt. 1, p. 105 ff.

Footnote 2266:

  M. Pottier states that a primitive kind of wheel was used for making
  the _impasto_ in the eighth century, and Helbig and Martha are
  certainly wrong in stating that it was not introduced till the sixth
  (see _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 294).

Footnote 2267:

  _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1885, p. 118.

Footnote 2268:

  _E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat._ Nos. 347 ff.

Footnote 2269:

  _Op. cit._ p. 345 ff.

Footnote 2270:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1884, p. 186 = 338: cf. for the style a vase
  from Tamassos, Cyprus, in the British Museum (_Rev. Arch._ ix. 1887,
  p. 77).

Footnote 2271:

  See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 363 ff.

Footnote 2272:

  See Vol. I. p. 153, and cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 211,
  fig. 57, for examples from Troy.

Footnote 2273:

  Abeken, _Mittelital._ p. 362 ff.; but see _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 41.

Footnote 2274:

  _E.g._ _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, pl. C.

Footnote 2275:

  Hdt. i. 14, 25; Paus. x. 16.

Footnote 2276:

  For Greek examples of early vases with reliefs see Vol. I. p. 497,
  and Plate XLVII.

Footnote 2277:

  See for specimens _Gaz. Arch._ 1881, pls. 28, 29, 32-3; Pottier,
  _Vases du Louvre_, pls. 33-4.

Footnote 2278:

  Louvre D 151.

Footnote 2279:

  _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p. 163.

Footnote 2280:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1886, p. 135.

Footnote 2281:

  See Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 152. The names are doubtless descriptive.

Footnote 2282:

  Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlvii, and references there given.

Footnote 2283:

  Nearly all the contents of this tomb are now in the British Museum
  (Etruscan Saloon, Cases 126-35): see Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 4-8;
  Dennis, _Etruria_^2, i. p. 457 ff.; C. Smith in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 206.

Footnote 2284:

  A most trustworthy reproduction of this vase and its decoration, made
  by Mr. F. Anderson, is given in _J.H.S._ xiv. pls. 6-7.

Footnote 2285:

  Cf. throughout the François vase.

Footnote 2286:

  Micali, _op. cit._ pl. 5, fig. 2.

Footnote 2287:

  _Cat._ 1543.

Footnote 2288:

  _Cat._ C 617-18.

Footnote 2289:

  _Bull. dell’ Inst._  1881, p. 167, No. 26.

Footnote 2290:

  The hydria is a form of essentially Ionic origin, the earliest
  examples being found in the “Caeretan” and Daphnae fabrics (see
  Chapter VIII.).

Footnote 2291:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 630 = Fig. 183.

Footnote 2292:

  Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 58; Dennis, _Etruria_, i. p. 34 ff.

Footnote 2293:

  Cf. an oinochoë in the British Museum, A 633; and see _J.H.S._ x. p.

Footnote 2294:

  _Mus. Greg._ i. pl. 15 ff.; Helbig, _Führer_, 1899, ii. p. 344 ff.

Footnote 2295:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, pls. 14-18.

Footnote 2296:

  _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1876, p. 117 ff., and _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pls.
  31-33. The art of Praeneste, though a Latin town, was wholly
  Etruscan. Cf. the later series of bronze cistae found here.

Footnote 2297:

  Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 462.

Footnote 2298:

  _Louvre Cat._ ii. pp. 294, 315.

Footnote 2299:

  _Traité_, i. p. 414: see Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 62. It may be
  compared with the analysis of the clay of Greek vases given in Vol.
  I. p. 203.

Footnote 2300:

  Cf. Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 28-30.

Footnote 2301:

  Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 28-32.

Footnote 2302:

  Cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, pl. 8, fig. 1, and the reliefs from Sparta,
  _Ath. Mitth._ 1877, pls. 20-4.

Footnote 2303:

  Cf. _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls. U, V; Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 27-32.

Footnote 2304:

  See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 324 ff.

Footnote 2305:

  Cf. B.M. A 379 with _Bronze Cat._ Nos. 385, 436-37.

Footnote 2306:

  See also on the subject generally, _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 99 ff.;
  Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 314 ff.; Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p.
  462 ff.; and Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 445 ff.

Footnote 2307:

  vi. 343: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 158-59, and Chapter XXI.

Footnote 2308:

  ii. 60.

Footnote 2309:

  xiv. 98: cf. p. 479.

Footnote 2310:

  See Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, i. p. 308.

Footnote 2311:

  See _Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 600, and _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 215. The
  bronze plates were formerly made up into the shape of a shield, with
  many restorations; but on removing these, the true form was
  discovered. The body of the chair is modern.

Footnote 2312:

  _Mus. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 299 ff., with many examples on pls. 9,
  9_a_, 11-13. Fig. 181 is from pl. 9, figs. 9, 9_a_.

Footnote 2313:

  H 148 in the British Museum is a curious terracotta example, covered
  with incised designs: see Benndorf, _Gesichtshelme und
  Sepuleralmasken_, pl. 11, p. 42.

Footnote 2314:

  _Cat._ 3976-77.

Footnote 2315:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 219-220.

Footnote 2316:

  See Vol. I. p. 321.

Footnote 2317:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 174 ff.: see also Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 71.

Footnote 2318:

  They also show the influence of the “Pontic” class (Vol. I. p. 359).

Footnote 2319:

  It may be compared with B 59 in the same case (Plate XXVI.).

Footnote 2320:

  See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 51; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 413.

Footnote 2321:

  B.M. B 61-74; Louvre E 754-81 (some of these do not show distinctive
  Etruscan features, although made in Italy); Naples 2522, 2717, 2757;
  Würzburg 81-2; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 36. 1, 37, 1, and 43, 3; _id._
  _Storia_, 82, 3; Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ 34; Inghirami, _Mus.
  Chins._ 72; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 18-9; _Anzeiger_, 1893,
  p. 87. According to Endt, _loc. cit._, about 200 examples are known.
  B 63 in the B.M. is reproduced in Plate LVIII.

Footnote 2322:

  Another is given in _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pl. 51.

Footnote 2323:

  Bibl. Nat. 918 = Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. frontispiece.

Footnote 2324:

  Reinach, i. p. 88.

Footnote 2325:

  Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 38.

Footnote 2326:

  Cf. _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pls. 4-5; also Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv.

Footnote 2327:

  Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 16 (_q.v._ for facsimile); _Bull.
  dell’ Inst._ 1882, p. 91.

Footnote 2328:

  Roberts, p. 17: for a facsimile see Dennis, i. p. 271.

Footnote 2329:

  Roberts, p. 18.

Footnote 2330:

  Dennis, i. p. 273; Deecke, _Etr. Forsch. u. Stud._ iv. (1883) p. 39.

Footnote 2331:

  Dennis, i. p. 172.

Footnote 2332:

  _Ibid._ ii. p. 224.

Footnote 2333:

  See for instances Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 55, 7; _ibid._ _Storia_,
  pl. 101; _Mus. Greg._ ii. pl. 99.

Footnote 2334:

  Reinach, i. 203.

Footnote 2335:

  _E.g._ Fabretti, _C. I. Ital._ 2606, 2609.

Footnote 2336:

  _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1831, p. 176: cf. also Fabretti, Nos. 2222, 2583.

Footnote 2337:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 157.

Footnote 2338:

  _Ibid._ 152.

Footnote 2339:

  _Orat. ad Graec._ 1.

Footnote 2340:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 157.

Footnote 2341:

  The story is told by Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 16, and Plutarch,
  _Poplicola_, 13. See Vol. I. p. 116.

Footnote 2342:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiv. 33.

Footnote 2343:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 173; Vitr. ii. 8, 9.

Footnote 2344:

  _Etruria_, i. p. 12.

Footnote 2345:

  See Durm, _Handbuch d. Architektur_, 2. Theil, Bd. 2 (_Die Baukunst
  der Etrusker_), p. 5.

Footnote 2346:

  See Wiegand, _Puteolanische Bauinschr._ (_Jährb. für Philol._
  Suppl.-Bd. 20, p. 756 ff.); Borrmann in Durm’s _Handbuch_, 1. Theil,
  Bd. 4, p. 40.

Footnote 2347:

  For a recent restoration of an Etruscan temple see Anderson and
  Spiers, _Architecture of Greece and Rome_, p. 126.

Footnote 2348:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, p. 92 ff.

Footnote 2349:

  _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1881, p. 48.

Footnote 2350:

  _Notizie_, 1898, p. 429 ff.; _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 329.

Footnote 2351:

  _Notizie_, 1896, p. 33.

Footnote 2352:

  _Mon. dell’ Inst._ Suppl. pls. 1-3.

Footnote 2353:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 626.

Footnote 2354:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, B 621-23: cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1871, pl. 1. B 621
  is illustrated in Plate LIX.

Footnote 2355:

  Panofka, _Terracotten des k. Mus._ pl. 10.

Footnote 2356:

  See Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.

Footnote 2357:

  _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pl. 15: cf. also Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 324
  (in Louvre).

Footnote 2358:

  _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 316.

Footnote 2359:

  Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11.

Footnote 2360:

  _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 434, and p. xlvii.

Footnote 2361:

  See p. 308, and Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.

Footnote 2362:

  For full description of this sarcophagus see _Cat. of Terracottas_, B
  630; Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11, p. 21. It is
  interesting to note that the figures must be contemporaneous with the
  Capitoline statues made by Volca.

Footnote 2363:

  _Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi. pl. 59; _Mon. Antichi_, viii. pl. 13, p. 521
  ff. (Savignoni). The latter was found in the same group of tombs as
  the painted slabs in the Louvre described below.

Footnote 2364:

  Cf. _Mon. Antichi_, viii. p. 531.

Footnote 2365:

  _Mus. Ital. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 89 ff., pls. 3-7.

Footnote 2366:

  Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 48.

Footnote 2367:

  Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, pl. 4 = _Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi.-vii. pl. 30;
  _J.H.S._ x. pl. 7, p. 243 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 412.

Footnote 2368:

  Cf. the Thermon metopes, $1$2 1903, pls. 2-6 (Vol. I. p. 92).

Footnote 2369:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 799, 800.

Footnote 2370:

  This subject has been interpreted as Kadmos (or Jason), contending
  with the armed men who sprang from the sown teeth of the dragon: see
  Dennis, _Etruria_^2, ii. p. 165.

Footnote 2371:

  See generally Brunn and Körte, _I rilievi dell’ urne Etruschi_, 2
  vols.; _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 787-98.

Footnote 2372:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 795.

Footnote 2373:

  Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 351; _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 20; _Cat. of
  Terracottas_, D 786.

Footnote 2374:

  _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pl. 1.

Footnote 2375:

  _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 300.

Footnote 2376:

  Blue occurs on the B.M. sarcophagus (B 630) (as also on the
  Polledrara hydria).

Footnote 2377:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 201 ff., 1899, p. 13 ff.; Patroni, _Ceramica
  Antica_, chap. i., and _id._ in _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 349 ff.: see
  also Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 371.

Footnote 2378:

  A line drawn across from Taranto to Fasano roughly divides the two
  districts, the Peucetians being on the north, the Messapians on the

Footnote 2379:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897, p. 167.

Footnote 2380:

  For Marseilles see also Déchelette, _Vases Céramiques de la Gaule
  rom._ i. p. 7.

Footnote 2381:

  See also Reinach, ii. 242-43, for those in the Imperial Museum at

Footnote 2382:

  _E.g._ B.M. F 414-16, 584-85.

Footnote 2383:

  See also Vol. I. p. 172, Fig. 40.

Footnote 2384:

  _Ceram. Ant._ p. 27.

Footnote 2385:

  _Gaz. Arch._ 1881-82, pl. 19, p. 107.

Footnote 2386:

  _Ibid._ pls. 19, 21; _Sale Cat. Hôtel Drouot_, May 11, 1903, No. 20.

Footnote 2387:

  Serv. _ad_ Virg. _Aen._ iii. 332.

Footnote 2388:

  _Ceramica Antica_, p. 19 ff.

Footnote 2389:

  Cf. _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 10, p. 222.

Footnote 2390:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897. p. 168.

Footnote 2391:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 3, fig. 32.

Footnote 2392:

  Patroni puts the limits of date for both fabrics at 600-450 B.C.

Footnote 2393:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1899, p. 46, pls. 4-5.

Footnote 2394:

  _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 372.

                              CHAPTER XIX

    Clay in Roman architecture—Use of bricks—Methods of
      construction—Tiles—Ornamental antefixae—Flue-tiles—Other
      uses—Inscriptions on bricks and tiles—Military tiles—Mural
      reliefs—List of subjects—Roman sculpture in
      terracotta—Statuettes—Uses at Rome—Types and subjects—Gaulish
      terracottas—Potters and centres of fabric—Subjects—Miscellaneous
      uses of terracotta—Money-boxes—Coin-moulds.

The uses of clay among the Romans were, as may be supposed, much the
same as among the Greeks and Etruscans, in architecture, in sculpture,
and for household implements. The main differences are that in some
cases—as in architecture—its use was more extensive at Rome, in others
less; and that generally the products of this material in Roman
workshops are inferior to those of the Greeks. But the technical
processes are in the main identical with those employed by the Greeks,
and consequently much that has been said in Chap. III. of this work
need not be here repeated.

                            I. ARCHITECTURE

                          1. BRICKS AND TILES

The Romans divided the manufacture of objects in clay into two classes:
_opus figlinum_ or fine ware, made from _argilla_ or _creta figularis_;
and _opus doliare_, for tiles and common earthenware.[2395] We begin,
then, as in the chapter on the Greek uses of clay, with the latter
division, including the use of this material in Roman architecture, and
primarily in the making of =bricks and tiles=. It must be borne in
mind, however, that the structural use of bricks of clay, such as we
employ at the present day, was unknown to the Romans; they only used
what we should call tiles, and even these were only employed
structurally, as a facing to walls and vaults of concrete; no walls
were ever built of solid brick, and even in those of seven inches
thickness the bricks are built on a core of concrete. Nor were the
bricks allowed to appear on the outer face of the building, at least
before the second century of the Empire; they were always faced with a
coating of marble or stucco.

Nevertheless, the general use of bricks or tiles was most extensive,
and they were employed as tiles for roofing houses, as bricks for walls
and vaults, and even for columns, as slabs for pavements, for furnaces
and for covering graves, and in tube form for conveying water or hot
air; they are found in temples, theatres, and baths, and are used for
cisterns and fountains, and in aqueducts and military fortifications.
They were called _lateres_, because, says Isidorus, “they were broad,
and made by placing round them four boards.”[2396] The kilns were
called _laterariae_, and the makers _laterarii_; to make bricks was
_lateres ducere_, _fingere_,[2397] or (with reference to the baking
only) _coquere_. The word _later_ seems to be employed indiscriminately
for sun-dried (_crudi_) and baked bricks (_coctiles_),[2398] without
the qualifying epithet, but _testa_ is also used when burnt brick is
intended.[2399] The sun-dried bricks were the earlier and simpler form,
used for building walls and cemented together with clay or mud.[2400]
Vitruvius in his account of brick-making (ii. 3) only refers to this
kind, and apparently never mentions baked bricks except in passing
allusions. He describes three kinds, to which he says the Greeks gave
the respective names of _genus Lydium_, _pentadoron_, and _tetradoron_
(see Vol. I. p. 95). The two latter are exclusively Greek, but the
first-named, 1½ by 1 foot in dimensions, answers to the Roman _tegula
sesquipedalis_.[2401] A frequent arrangement, he says, was to employ
half-bricks in alternate courses with the ordinary sizes, which served
to bind the walls together and present an effective as well as a stable
appearance. This information is repeated by Pliny, copying almost word
for word.[2402]

Among the Romans two dimensions were in general use, as may be inferred
from the frequent mention in inscriptions or elsewhere of the
_sesquipedales_ and of _bipedales_,[2403] or two-foot bricks, as we
shall have occasion to show later. Being very flat and thin in
proportion to their size, these bricks rather resemble tiles, as has
been already noted; they are generally square, or at least rectangular.
But there were also _tegulae bessales_ or bricks measuring two-thirds
of a foot square, _i.e._ about 8 inches, and triangular bricks,
equilateral in form, with a length varying from 4 to 14 inches. The
latter are the kind used in all existing Roman walls of concrete with
brick facings. The thickness varies from 1¼ to 2 inches. They are not
always made with mechanical accuracy, the edges being rounded and the
sides not always parallel. In military works they were often used
alternately with flint and stone (see below, p. 337), as we see them in
England, at Colchester, Dover, Verulam, and many other places.[2404] At
Verulam the tiles are arranged in three horizontal layers at intervals
of about 4 feet, with flint and mortar between. They were also used for
turning the arches of doorways, and for this purpose _tegulae
bipedales_ were cut into pieces, so as only to tail a few inches into
the concrete which they cover. Complete squares were introduced at
intervals to improve the bonding.[2405]

The pillars of the floors of hypocausts were formed of _tegulae
bessales_, and sometimes also of two semicircular bricks joined so as
to form a circle, varying from 6 to 15 inches in diameter.[2406]
Occasionally the upper bricks diminished in size, in order to give
greater solidity to the structure. The bricks or tiles forming the
upper floors were from 18 to 20 inches square; in some cases, as at
Cirencester,[2407] these were flanged tiles (see below).

The general size of Roman bricks was, in the case of the
_sesquipedales_, 1½ by 1 Roman foot; but variations are found, such as
15 by 14 inches. For the _bipedales_ Palladius recommends 2 feet by 1
foot by 4 inches. The great building at Trier known as the Palace of
Constantine is built of burnt bricks, 15 inches square by 1¼ inch
thick.[2408] Prof. Middleton notes tiles in Rome of 12, 14, and 18
inches square,[2409] and Marquardt[2410] states that bricks found in
France measure 15 by 8 to 10 inches; others (the _bessales_) 8 by 8 by
3 inches. A complete circular brick, measuring 7½ inches across by 3¼
inches thick, and impressed with the stamp of the eleventh legion, was
found at Dolae near Gardun, and is now in the museum at Spalato.[2411]

Vitruvius[2412] gives elaborate instructions about the preparation of
the clay for sun-dried bricks, and counsels in the first place a
careful choice of earth, avoiding that which was sandy or stony or full
of loose flints, which made the bricks too heavy, and so liable to
split and fall out when affected by rain; it also prevented the straw
from binding properly. Clay which was either whitish or decidedly red
(from a prevalence of ochre) was preferred, and that combined with
coarse sand (_sabulo masculus_) made light tiles, easily set. The
process of manufacture was a very simple one. The clay was first
carefully cleaned of foreign bodies, and then moistened with water and
kneaded with straw. It was then moulded by hand or in a mould or frame
of four boards, and perhaps also pressed with the foot.[2413] The
bricks were then dried in the sun and turned as required, the usual
process also adopted in the modern brickfield. Some bricks actually
bear the marks of the feet of animals and birds which had passed over
them while the clay was soft, and there is one in the Shrewsbury Museum
with the imprint of a goat’s feet. Others at York and Wiesbaden show
the nails of a boy’s shoes.[2414] These impressions of feet (where
human) may also be referred to the practice of using the feet to knead
the bricks.

The bricks were then ready for use, but were kept for two years before
being employed, otherwise they were liable to contract, which caused
the stucco to break off and the walls to collapse. At Utica, Vitruvius
tells us, they had to be kept five years, and then could only be used
if passed by a magistrate. Altogether, much care was taken in their
preparation, and it was generally considered that spring and autumn
were the most favourable times for making them, probably because they
dried more slowly and were less liable to crack during the operation.
In summer the hot sun baked the outer surface too fast, and this
appeared dry while the interior was still moist, so that when the
inside dried the outside contracted and split.[2415] It was also, of
course, advisable to avoid seasons of rain and frost. But the bricks
could not be properly tested until they had undergone some exposure to
the weather, and for this reason Vitruvius recommends the employment of
old roof-tiles where possible in building walls.[2416]

For baked bricks the processes must have been much the same, with, of
course, the addition of the baking in the furnace. Existing Roman
bricks are nearly always of well-tempered clay and well baked; but the
clay exhibits a great variety of colour—red, yellow, and brown. The
paste is remarkably hard, breaking with an almost vitreous fracture,
and sometimes shows fragments of red brick (_pozzolana_) ground up with
it to bind it together, and prevent warping. This may be seen in the
Flavian Palace on the Palatine, and in an archway in the Aurelian Wall
near the Porta Latina. As an instance of varieties of brick found in
the same building, Nero’s Aurea Domus may be cited.[2417] The
durability of Roman tiles is ascribed to their careful preparation and
seasoning, which give them a much longer life than modern tiles; hence
they were frequently used up again in early mediaeval buildings and in
Romanesque churches in England, as at St. Albans, St. Mary-in-Castro,
Dover, and St. Botolph’s and Holy Trinity, Colchester.[2418]

During the period of the Republic private houses and public buildings
alike were built of unburnt brick in Rome, as we learn from the words
of Dio Cassius,[2419] Varro,[2420] and Cicero[2421]; Varro speaks of
_domus latericiae_, and Cicero of “the brick (_latere_) and concrete of
which the city is constructed.” After the Republican period this
material was still employed outside Rome with burnt-brick
cornices,[2422] but even this was exceptional. Pliny mentions walls of
sun-dried bricks at Arretium and Mevania.[2423] Henceforth, then, burnt
brick was employed more and more as Rome grew more populous.[2424] In
Vitruvius’ time (the beginning of our era) the materials used for
building were stone for substructures, burnt brick (_structura
testacea_) for the outer walls, concrete for the party-walls, and wood
for the roofs and floors. He explains the cessation of the use of
unburnt brick as due to the legal regulations of his time, which
prohibited party-walls of more than 1½ foot in thickness, and unburnt
bricks could only support one story above them in that size.[2425]

Baths, either public or private, walls and military fortifications,
were built of bricks, the latter being thus better able to resist
attacks than if they were of stone. Temples, palaces, amphitheatres,
the magnificent aqueducts and the cisterns with which they
communicated, were also usually of this material. Of these, numerous
remains exist in Rome and other places, such as Cumae and Pozzuoli. The
aqueduct made by Nero from the Anio to Mons Caelius is of brick, that
of Trajan partly so; the _aqua Alexandrina_ of Severus Alexander (A.D.
229) and that existing at Metz are wholly of brick, and so are the
_castella_ or reservoirs made by Agrippa when he constructed the Julian
conduit over the Marcian and Tepulan.[2426] It is true that Augustus
boasted that he had found Rome of brick and left it marble[2427]; but
it must be remembered, firstly, that Suetonius uses the term
_latericiam_, which may denote unburnt brick; secondly, that the phrase
is probably to be limited to public buildings and monuments, in which
there was an increased use of marble for pillars and roofs. For walls
brick and concrete continued to be used, as in private buildings, with
a covering of stucco in place of marble incrustation.

In the first century of the Empire brick-making was brought to
perfection, and its use became universal for private and public
buildings alike; the mortar of the period is also of remarkable
excellence. The Romans introduced brick-making wherever they went; and
even their legions when on foreign service used it for military
purposes. But of pure brick architecture, as we see it, for instance,
in the Byzantine churches of Northern Italy, there was no question
until comparatively late times. It was always covered over with marble
or stucco until the second century of the Empire. Examples of
sepulchral buildings wholly in brick, of the time of Hadrian, may be
seen in the tomb before the Porta San Sebastiano at Rome, known as the
temple of Deus Rediculus. This has Corinthian pilasters with a rich
entablature, red bricks being used for architectural members, yellow
for the walls; the capitals are formed of layers of bricks. Of
Hadrian’s time are also the guard-house of the seventh cohort of
Vigiles across the Tiber, of which a small part remains, and the
_amphitheatrum castrense_ on the walls of Aurelian.[2428]

One of the most remarkable instances of Roman brick construction is the
Pile Cinq-Mars, as it is called, a tower still standing on the right
bank of the Loire, near Tours. It is about 95 feet high and 13 feet
square, expanding at the base, being built of tiles to a depth of 3
feet each side, with a body of concrete; the tiles are set in mortar
composed of chalk, sand, and pounded tiles. On one side there are
eleven rectangular panels with tile-work of various patterns, like
those on the flue-tiles (see p. 348), and as also seen on the Roman
wall at Cologne; the patterns include squares, triangles, and rosettes.
The history and purpose of this building are quite unknown.[2429]

At Pompeii bricks are used only for corners of buildings or doorposts,
and sometimes for columns, as in the Basilica and the house of the
Labyrinth.[2430] There are also late examples of brick columns with
capitals in tiers of bricks as in the tomb mentioned above. Brick walls
are not found, but bricks occur as facing for rubble-work. These are
less than an inch thick, triangular in form, with the hypotenuse (about
6 inches long) showing in the face of the wall. Sometimes fragments of
roof-tiles are used (cf. p. 334). The earlier bricks contain sea-sand,
and have a granular surface; the later are smooth and even in
appearance. Later, what is known as _opus mixtum_ (see below) is used,
as in the entrance of the Herculaneum gate; this implies courses of
stone and brick alternating,[2431] which, as we have seen, was common
in military works, as in the Roman walls in Britain. In this country,
owing to the absence of good material for concrete, the use of stones
or brick throughout for building was general from the first; hence,
too, the bricks are always flat and rectangular in form

The arrangement of triangular bricks (made by dividing a medium-sized
brick into four before baking), laid flat in regular horizontal
courses, is characteristic of the earliest examples of Roman methods.
It is found in the Rostra (44 B.C.) and in the Regia (35 B.C.), the
earliest existing examples.[2433] The back wall of the Rostra is of
concrete faced with triangular bricks 1½ inch thick, the sides 10
inches long. The same arrangement may be seen in the Pantheon, in the
Thermae of Diocletian, and in some of the aqueducts (see below). The
brickwork in the Pantheon was formerly thought to belong to the
building of Agrippa in 27 B.C., but has been now shown to belong to the
second century.[2434] At Ostia, in the temple of Honos and Virtus, the
walls are built of triangular bricks or with red and yellow bricks with
moulded cornices.


  Section of Angle.

  Faced with (A) _opus incertum_, (B) _opus reticulatum_. C shows the
    horizontal section, similar in both.


About the year 80 B.C. the method known as _opus reticulatum_ was
introduced, in which the bricks presented square faces (about 4 inches
each way), and were arranged diagonally to form a network pattern (Fig.
187). At Pompeii the _opus reticulatum_ dates from the time of
Augustus; it is laid on concrete, and the bricks are small four-sided
pyramids with bases 3 to 4 inches square.[2435] This method lasted down
to about A.D. 130 in Italy. It should, however, be noted that it was
commoner in stone than in brick, the latter material not having come
into general use for building at the time when it was employed.[2436]
But even when tufa was used for the reticulated work, bricks or tiles
were used for quoins at the angles, and for bonding courses through the
walls, as well as for arches and vaults (Fig. 188). This combination of
_opus reticulatum_ and brickwork is well illustrated in the palace of
Caligula.[2437] In the case of vaults, indeed, the use of brick seems
to have been general, as in the baths of Caracalla, and many other
buildings (cf. Fig. 189). Vitruvius[2438] advises the use of _tegulae
bipedales_ to protect the wooden joists over the vaults from being
rotted by the steam from the hot bathrooms; they were to be placed over
the whole under-surface of the concrete vault, supported on iron
girders, which were suspended from the concrete by iron clamps or pins.
Over the whole was laid a coating of cement (_opus tectorium_) in which
pounded pottery was the chief constituent, and this was stuccoed.[2439]


The _opus mixtum_ (the term is not classical) prevailed regularly under
the later Empire, from the fourth to the sixth century; the earliest
example which can be dated is the circus of Maxentius. It is also used
in work of the time of Theodoric.[2440] The method of construction is
shown in Fig. 190.

The reason for the limited use of brick in Rome may have been the
scarcity of wood for fuel for the kilns. But in any case the pointed
backs of the bricks made a good bonding with concrete, and presented a
large surface with a comparatively small amount of clay. The secret of
the wonderful durability of Roman buildings is that each wall was one
solid coherent mass, owing to the excellence of the concrete. In the
Pantheon the concrete of the dome is nearly 20 feet thick, the brick
facing only about 5 inches. The character of the brick facing often
indicates the date of a wall, the bricks in early work being thick and
the joints thin; later, the reverse is the case. But caution must be
exercised in dating on this principle, owing to the great variety of
methods employed during the same reign, and even in the same


  From _Blümner_.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The word for a tile, _tegula_, is derived from _tegere_, to cover, or,
as Isidorus says, they are so called _quod aedes tegant_[2442]; the
curved roof-tiles were known as _imbrices_ because they received
rain-showers (_imbres_). The maker of roof-tiles was known as
_tegularius_[2443] or _figulus ab imbricibus_.[2444] _Tegulae_ or flat
roof-tiles were usually made with vertical flanges (2½ inches high)
down the sides, and these flanges, which fitted into one another
longitudinally, when placed side by side served to hold the
covering-tiles placed over them. There were also roof-tiles known as
_tegulae deliciares_[2445] and _colliciares_, which formed the
arrangement underneath the surface of the roof by means of which the
water was collected from the _tegulae_ and carried off in the front
through spouts in the form of lions’ heads.[2446]

Besides the various rectangular forms we find triangular tiles used,
either equilateral or right-angled; semicircular or curved tiles, used
for circular walls, ovens, tombs, and cornices, or other parts of
buildings; cylindrical tiles (_tubuli fictiles_),[2447] which were used
for drains and conduits; and, finally, the rectangular hollow
flue-tiles, employed for hot air in hypocausts.[2448] Another form was
the _tegula mammata_, a plain square tile with four knobs or
breast-like projections (_mammae_), which was often used in party-walls
with the object of keeping out damp.[2449] The tiles were inserted by
the points of the projections into the concrete, thus leaving a space
between in which the warm air could circulate freely.

Existing examples of tiles are composed of a compact dense clay, less
fine than that of the bricks, and of a pale salmon or light straw
colour when baked. They were probably made in moulds—but these may only
have been a couple of boards placed together—and after being dried in
the sun were baked in kilns. The flanged tiles were, of course,
produced by turning up the edges before drying. Besides the arrangement
described above, it is probable that roofs were sometimes tiled in the
manner prevalent in the present day, with flat or curved tiles
overlapping like scales; and for this purpose the tiles seem to have
been pierced with holes at one corner, and so attached to one another.
The same method obtained in the Roman villas in Britain, except that
Stonesfield slate was used in place of tiles. An inscription found at
Niederbrunnen in Germany speaks of _attegia tegulicia_, or huts roofed
with tiles, erected in honour of Mercury.[2450]

Tiles with turned-up edges or flanged tiles were principally employed,
as has been indicated, for roofing; but some were also placed in walls
where required, especially where a space was required for the passage
of air.[2451] They were also employed for the floors of bath-rooms, in
which case they were laid on the _pilae_ of the hypocaust in an
inverted position, and the cement flooring was laid upon them. The
flanges are generally about 2¼ inches higher than the lower surface of
the tile; they are bevelled on the inner side in order to diminish the
diameter of the _imbrex_, but have no holes for nailing to the rafters.
The ends of the sides were cut away in order that the lower edge of one
tile might rest on the upper edge of the one adjoining. Those found in
France are said to be distinguished by the sand and stones found in
their composition.[2452] There are flange tiles of red and yellow clay
from the Roman Thermae at Saintes in the Museum of Sèvres, and others
from ancient potteries at Milhac de Nontron, as well as tiles of red
clay from Palmyra.[2453] In the military _castra_ in England flange
tiles of a red or yellow colour have been found, the latter with
fragments of red tiles mixed in the clay. They are also often found in
the ruins of villas. A flange tile from Boxmoor, Herts, now in the
British Museum, measures 15½ by 12 inches, the flange being 2¼ inches
high; and it will be seen that these dimensions correspond roughly with
the _tegulae bipedales_. Flanged tiles with holes in them appear to
have been used at Pompeii for lighting passages, the flanges serving to
keep out rain.[2454]

The _imbrices_ or covering-tiles which held the flat tiles together,
thus rendering the roof compact, were quite plain, with the exception
of the end ones over the gutters. These were in the form of antefixal
ornaments like the Greek examples (Vol. I. p. 98), an upright semi-oval
termination ornamented with a relief or painted pattern, with an arched
support at the back. Many examples exist at Pompeii (see below),
Ostia,[2455] and elsewhere; but artistically they are far inferior to
the Greek examples, and of simpler design. Most of them have a simple
palmette or acanthus pattern in low relief, but on or below this an
ideal head or the head of a deity is sometimes added, such as Zeus
Ammon, Medusa, a Bacchic head, or a mask, or even a figure of Victory.
Of the last-named there is a good specimen in the British Museum (D 690
= Fig. 191); she carries a trophy from the battle of Actium, and stands
on a globe from which spring two Capricorns (the symbol of



No better example of the various uses of ornamental tiles in
architecture can be selected than the remains found at Pompeii, which
are exceedingly numerous. Terracotta seems to have been used here
especially for such parts of the decoration as were exposed to wet, as
well-mouths, gutters, and antefixal tiles.[2457] A characteristic
feature of the decoration of Pompeian houses was the trough-like gutter
which surrounded and formed an ornamental cornice to the _compluvium_
or open skylight of the atrium and peristyle, through and from which
the rain-water was collected in the _impluvium_ or tank sunk in the
ground below. These were adorned with spouts in the form of animals’
heads or foreparts,[2458] usually lions and dogs, with borders of
palmettes between; the gutter behind was virtually a long tank of
square section.

Antefixes and gutter-cornices, where they occur, must always be
regarded as serving ornamental rather than necessary purposes. All
early work in terracotta at Pompeii is of coarse clay, but good
execution; later, the reverse is the case. The only public building in
which many remains of terracotta tiles and cornices have been preserved
is the temple of Isis; but the Basilica may also have had terracotta
decoration. Many fragments also remain from private houses, some
actually _in situ_, having been neglected by early explorers as
unimportant. In the house of Sallust a kymation cornice from one of the
garden courts has scenic masks forming the spouts; this is not earlier
than the rebuilding of the house A.D. 63. There is also much terracotta
work in the house of the Faun.[2459] Comic masks were used both as
spouts and as antefixes, the exaggerated mouth of the mask serving
admirably for the former purpose.[2460] These date from the reigns of
Nero and Vespasian, and all seem to be from the same fabric, although
there is considerable variety in the types; the use of masks for these
purposes is not earlier than Nero’s reign (cf. the house of Sallust,
above). Besides the ornaments above mentioned the patterns on the
cornices include palmettes and floral scrolls, dolphins and Gryphons.

The roof-tiles were of the usual kinds, flat oblong _tegulae_ with
flanges, measuring 24 by 19 by 20 inches,[2461] with semi-cylindrical
_imbrices_. They were laid in lines parallel to the long ridges of the
roofs, so that the water converged into the gutter-tiles at the angles,
whence it fell into the impluvium. These gutters, however, were not
confined to the angles of the openings, but were sometimes ranged along
the whole length of the sides, as we have seen; those at the angles
only seem to be earlier in date. They are not found on the exteriors of
buildings. The front of the gutter was usually in the form of a
vertical kymation moulding, but was sometimes simply chamfered.
Antefixal ornaments terminating the covering or ridge-tiles are not
invariable, but are found at different periods. The earliest examples
are in the form of palmettes, but the later exhibit a great
variety[2462]: comic masks, a head in low relief on a palmette, or a
head surmounted by a palmette. Of the latter class thirty-eight were
found in 1861. In the Augustan period ideal heads of gods and demi-gods
are sometimes found.[2463]

Von Rohden, in summing up (p. 14), is of the opinion that terracotta
roof-decoration at Pompeii was _comparatively_ rare. In the whole
record of excavations only twenty-three water-spouts are mentioned,
though it is probable that many were never registered. In scarcely more
than twelve private houses have as many pieces been found as would
suffice for the whole of the atrium and peristyle roofs, and nearly all
of these are of late date. The discovery of isolated pieces in a house
seems to show that they were used up again in the restorations after
the earthquake of A.D. 63.

There are also some good examples of roof-tiles among those which have
been found at Ostia, both in baths and private houses; some of the
latter came from a house of which the brickwork bore inscriptions with
the names of consuls of Hadrian’s reign. The arrangement of the
roof-tiles is that described on p. 341; the antefixal ornaments are
usually in the form of palmettes or acanthus leaves, with maeander
below; but heads of deities, such as Venus and Neptune,[2464] or of
Medusa, and tragic masks were also found. Two exceptional examples had
groups in relief of Neptune drawn over the sea by hippocamps, and of
the statue of Cybele in the ship drawn by the Vestal Virgin

                  *       *       *       *       *

Tiles of the size known as _bipedales_ are also used for lining the
walls of rooms. They are found in Roman villas in Britain, and are
ornamented on one side with various incised patterns, made with a tool
in the wet clay. On some found at Ridgewell in Essex the decoration
consists of lozenges, rosettes, and other ornaments,[2466] like those
on the Pile Cinq-Mars already described; they are often found covered
with the stucco with which the walls were plastered. At Pompeii,
Orvieto, and elsewhere the stucco-painted walls were constructed with
_tegulae mammatae_ placed edgewise, and connected with the main walls
by leaden cramps, the brick lining being thus detached from the walls
by a narrow interval which served as an air-cavity.[2467] This was a
frequent proceeding, and was also contrived with flanged tiles; it
corresponds with the system prescribed by Vitruvius for keeping damp
from the painted walls of rooms.[2468] It was also largely employed in
baths and bathrooms, the object being both to keep the walls dry and to
allow hot air to circulate from the hypocausts and warm the rooms. In
the cold climate of Britain the Romans found this a universal
necessity, and instances may be observed in many of their villas; but,
as far as can be observed, the general method of warming was by an
extensive system of pipes under the floors rather than up the
walls.[2469] These tiles are pierced with holes, by means of which they
were attached to the walls by plugs or nails of lead. In the _castrum_
at Jublains a chamber is yet partly standing with one of its sides
coated with tiles of this kind.[2470]


  From _Middleton_.

               A A   Concrete wall, faced with brick,
                     shown in vertical and horizontal

               B     Lower part of wall, with no brick

               C C   _Suspensura_, or upper floor of
                     Hypocaust, supported by pillars.

               D D   Another floor, with support only at

               E E   Marble flooring.

               F F   Marble plinth and wall lining.

               G G   Under floor of Hypocaust, paved
                     with large tiles.

               H H   Horizontal and vertical sections of
                     flue-tiles lining wall of

               _a a_ Iron hold-fasts.

               J J   Socket-jointed flue-pipe of

               K     Rain-water pipe (in horizontal

               L L   Vaults of crypt, made of pumice-
                     stone concrete.

More commonly, however, a peculiar kind of tile was used for warming
the hot rooms (_sudationes_) of baths, and in villas when required.
They were hollow parallelopipeds, known as _tubi_, with a hole in the
side for the escape of the air which traversed them, the usual
dimensions being about 16 by 6 by 5 inches.[2471] Seneca speaks of
pipes inserted in walls, which allowed the warmth to circulate and warm
both the upper and lower stories equally[2472]; and the younger Pliny
mentions the air-holes (_fenestrae_) in the pipes which warmed his
bedroom, by means of which the temperature could be regulated at
pleasure.[2473] Sometimes, as in the baths of Caracalla and the house
of the Vestals, the whole side of a wall was composed of flue-tiles
covered with cement,[2474] which was made to adhere by scoring the
sides with wavy or diagonal lines, as in the flat tiles described
above, and as is often done in modern building. The whole system of
heating, which may be seen in the baths of Caracalla, is very
instructive (Fig. 192): the walls were of concrete with brick facing,
through which a system of flues of socket-jointed tiles passes upwards
from the hypocaust below, effectually warming every part.[2475]


The hollow tiles often assume a more ornamental appearance (as in Fig.
193), the patterns scratched on them taking the form of lozenges and
diapers, chevrons, chequers, and rosettes, as may be seen in a Roman
villa at Hartlip in Kent, where other tiles are simply scored with
squares.[2476] This villa is remarkable for the extensive use of tiles
throughout; even the staircases are constructed with them. Others found
in Essex and Surrey have dogs, stags, and initial letters among
foliage; one found in London had among the wavy lines of pattern the
letters Px Tx[2477]; and another, from Plaxtol in Kent, the local
maker’s name, CABRIABANTI.[2478] These hollow tiles, which are
generally of the same clay as the roof-tiles, were also occasionally
used as pillars of hypocausts,[2479] but for this purpose columns of
_tegulae bessales_ were more usual, as Vitruvius implies.[2480] Many
examples may be seen in the Roman villas of Britain, as at Cirencester,
Chedworth, Lympne, and Wroxeter. In a villa found at Carisbrooke, Isle
of Wight, the whole bath was constructed of tiles, the floor supported
by _pilae_ of the same.[2481] At Bath the hollow tiles are actually
used as _voussoirs_ for arches and vaults.[2482]

Through these chimneys—for this is what they practically were—the hot
air circulated and gave an imperfect warmth to the rooms, the heat
radiating from the walls or penetrating through the air-holes.[2483]
The pipes standing close to one another virtually made up the wall; but
the exact method by which the warming was accomplished, without great
inconvenience to the occupiers of the rooms, is not quite clear. It is
not difficult to imagine that the tiles would have warmed rooms merely
by the introduction of hot air circulating through them, even though
covered with stucco. On the other hand, the apertures for admitting the
air into the rooms, if of any size, must also have admitted smoke from
the hypocausts, and interfered with the ventilation. It may be that
they were not made for this purpose at all, but only for fastening the
pipes together or to the walls. Another difficulty is the method in
which the flues made their exit into the open air. It has been
suggested, partly on the analogy of a mosaic found in Algeria, that
they ended above in an arrangement like a chimney-stack. There is,
moreover, a terracotta roof-tile in the Museo delle Terme at Rome with
a circular pipe, 8 inches in diameter, projecting from its upper

Terracotta pipes, or _tubuli_, of cylindrical form, were sometimes
employed by the Romans for conveying or distributing water, but the
more usual material for this purpose, especially for drinking-water,
was lead; the latter were called _fistulae_.[2485] The Venafrum
inscription, an edict of the Emperor relating to the water-supply of
the town, mentions _canales_, _fistulae_, and _tubi_.[2486] Vitruvius
calls the _canales structiles_, implying that they were of
masonry.[2487] Pliny speaks of _tubi fictiles_ used for conduits from
fountains,[2488] and Vitruvius recommends the use of terracotta pipes
(_tubuli fictiles_) in aqueducts.[2489] Examples of clay piping are
preserved in the Museo delle Terme at Rome. At Marzabotto, near
Bologna, terracotta pipes were used for carrying off the water from the
roof of a house, by means of a straight tube through the wall fitting
into another which curved upwards inside.[2490] These date from the
fifth century B.C. Other examples have been found in Rome and
Italy,[2491] and specimens found on the Rhine were 21½ inches long, of
which ¾ inch was inserted into the adjoining pipe, and 3½ to 4½ inches
in diameter. Terracotta was also used for cisterns, as at
Taormina,[2492] and for aqueducts; but Lanciani has pointed out that
its use in these ways was confined to irrigating purposes. The Campagna
of Rome was formerly extensively drained with these tiles, and owed to
that circumstance much of its ancient healthfulness.

Of the use of tiles in pavements there is frequent mention in Roman
writers.[2493] For this purpose complete tiles were seldom used, at any
rate in Italy; but in Britain it was not at all uncommon, as in the
villa at Hartlip already mentioned. On the other hand, hypocausts were
regularly paved with tiles, as in the Baths of Caracalla (Fig. 192
above),[2494] and in an example found at Cirencester, where the tiles
are flanged.[2495] But in another form tiles played a considerable part
in Roman methods of paving. Pliny and other writers[2496] speak of
_pavimentum testaceum_ or _opus signinum_ as the usual pavement for
rooms, especially those liable to damp, such as kitchens and
outbuildings, or for baths and cisterns. This was made of a layer of
fragments of tiles stamped and pounded into a firm solid mass, combined
with mortar. It corresponds to the _nucleus ex testis tunsis_ of
Vitruvius, which (to a depth of six inches) was laid on the _rudus_ or
coarser concrete. On this was laid the flooring, consisting either of
tiles or marble slabs, or more generally of mosaic. The Baths of
Caracalla again afford a good illustration of the process.[2497] In the
mosaics too fragments of clay were often used, especially for producing
red or black colour.[2498] Vitruvius and other writers allude to this
practice,[2499] and the former also speaks of _testacea spicata_, a
kind of false mosaic made with small bricks about 4 inches by 1 inch,
set on edge to form a herring-bone pattern. In the Guildhall Museum is
part of a tesselated pavement of concrete, faced with small bricks
about an inch square.

One of the most interesting uses of tiles by the Romans is in
connection with their tombs. Not only are they used in the construction
of the more magnificent edifices (cf. p. 336), but they were also often
employed (as in Greece) for the humbler graves. For the latter, three,
or sometimes six, _tegulae bipedales_ were set up in the form of a
prism, one forming the floor, the other two the gabled covering which
protected the body from the superincumbent earth. Within this were laid
the _ollae_ or sepulchral urns which held the ashes of the dead, and
other vases. A tomb found at Litlington in Cambridgeshire was covered
with a large flanged tile, which protected the pottery buried
underneath[2500]; and at Eastlow Hill in Suffolk a tomb was found
roofed with twelve rows of flanged tiles, each side in rows of
four.[2501] In some of the tombs of Greece belonging to the Roman
period semi-cylindrical tiles were used for this purpose. In the
provinces the tiles often have impressed upon them in large letters the
names of the legions which garrisoned the various cities. The tiles of
Roman tombs at York are inscribed with the names of the sixth and ninth
legions which were quartered there: as LEG · VI · VICT · P · F, _legio
sexta victrix pia fidelis_; LEG · IX · HISP (or VICT), _legio nona
Hispana_ (or _victrix_).[2502] At Caerleon (Isca Silurum) the bricks
bear the name of the second or Augustan legion: LEG · II · AVG.[2503]
The stations of the twentieth legion may also be traced at Chester in
this manner; the tiles are inscribed LEG · XX · V · V.[2504] They were
placed at the foot of the tomb like tombstones, in order to indicate
who was buried beneath, the inscriptions being written across the
breadth of the tile. They are of very different dates, some of those in
Britain being apparently as late as the introduction of Christianity.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The extent to which bricks and tiles were used in Roman buildings under
the Empire may be gauged by the number of those with inscriptions which
remain; a whole section of the Latin _Corpus_ (see below) is devoted to
those found in Rome alone, numbering some two thousand. Many of them
have been removed to the museums from the principal edifices, such as
the Pantheon, the Coliseum, the Circus Maximus, the Baths of Titus and
Caracalla, the Basilica of Constantine, and the Praetorian Camp. Other
inscriptions have been found on tiles removed from such buildings and
used to repair the roofs of churches in Rome. Such places as Bologna,
Cortona, Tibur, and Ostia have also produced numerous inscribed tiles
of this class. The use of such stamps was to guarantee the quality of
the clay. To the topographer, as will be seen, these stamps are often
of great value; and had the custom of placing on them the names of the
buildings for which they were intended been less rare, they might often
have afforded valuable evidence as to doubtful sites. Besides their
topographical value, the tiles also help to settle the succession of
consuls, and throw great light on the economy of the Roman farms and
the possessions of the great landed proprietors. The uninterrupted
series, extending from the times of the Caesars to the age of Septimius
Severus, of names of proprietors, potters, and estates, tells much of
the internal condition of Italy, and of one of the sources of revenue
to the Roman nobility.[2505]

The stamps found on bricks and tiles are of four kinds—rectangular,
semicircular, circular, and crescent-shaped. The inscriptions are in
raised letters in all cases, but instances are also known of incised
inscriptions, written without frames across the tile. After the time of
Diocletian the only forms found are square, circular, and octagonal;
the square stamps always have straight inscriptions. On the circular
stamps the inscriptions are placed in a circle, in one or two lines,
and the beginning is determined by a small cut-out circle at the edge
of the stamp, thus 20[22]orbiculus known as the _orbiculus_; apart from
this its object is uncertain. In later stamps the inscription often
reads backwards, or certain letters are reversed. The letters were cut
straight in a mould and lie in the plane of the surface, being of
rectangular section, not wedge-shaped, as in inscriptions on marble.
During the Republican period and the first century of the Empire a
plain “block” type is used; then the letters become smaller and more
elegant, with bars at the ends of the _hastae_, as 20[54]E, M etc.
Finally they show a tendency about A.D. 200 to become broader and
shorter: 20[76]E, M, S At and after the time of Diocletian the forms
become very varied. Punctuation in the best period takes the form of a
15[17]triangle afterwards the mark becomes vague in form. Ligatured
letters are rarely found after the time of Diocletian, but are common
in the best period; sometimes more than two are combined.[2506] The
stamps with which the letters were made were usually of wood or bronze,
but have not been preserved.

In the centre of the stamp it was customary to place an emblem or
device of some kind, perhaps in view of a law which obliged brick and
tile makers to affix distinctive marks or emblems on their bricks; but
the devices are not peculiar to individual workshops, and some
potteries, such as the Terentian (see below), used several. They may be
compared with the countermarks or small adjuncts on the coins of the
Republic, and the seals and stamps on the wine-amphorae of Thasos (Vol.
I. p. 158). Figures of gods, such as Mars, Cupid, and Victory, animals,
and even groups of figures, occur, and after the third century
Christian emblems are often found. It is most probable that they were
merely ornamental and without significance, except in certain cases of
canting or punning allusions. Thus M. Rutilius Lupus has a wolf;
Flavius Aper a boar; Aquilia an eagle; C. Julius Stephanus a wreath;
and Aelius Asclepiades a serpent, with reference to the god

[Illustration: FIG. 194. STAMPED TILE (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

The most complete stamps have the date of the emperor or the
consulship, the name of the estates (_praedia_) which supplied the
clay, that of the pottery where it was baked (_figlinae_ or
_officina_), and that of the potter who prepared it; sometimes even of
the slave who moulded the tile, and even its very dimensions. Two
typical examples may be given from the British Museum collection,[2508]
of which the first (Fig. 194) is said to have been found in the
Catacombs at Rome. It has in the centre of the stamp a figure of
Victory, round which is the inscription in two lines, beginning with
the outer band:


    “Pottery[2509] from the Publinian works, (the clay) from the estate
    of Aemilia Severa.”

The other has no device, but the last word of the inscription is in the

                     IMP ANTONINO II E(_t_) BALBINO COS
                     D P Q S P D O ARABI SER(_vi_)

  “The Emperor Antoninus for the second time and Balbinus consuls; from
    the estates (_de praediis_) of Q. Servilius Pudens, pottery
    (_doliare opus_) from the hand of the slave Arabus.”

The earlier stamps exhibit more method and precision; the later betray
comparative carelessness. In the latter the name of the emperor
sometimes occurs alone, and unusual expressions are introduced.
Contractions are invariable at all periods, and even the consuls are
sometimes only mentioned by initials; but by comparison of examples it
is possible to place them in the right order. Those found in Rome cover
the period from the reign of Trajan to that of Theodoric (A.D. 500),
but in other parts of Italy they are found dating as early as 50 B.C.
We are told that Theodoric, when he repaired the walls of Rome, made a
present of twenty-five thousand tiles for the purpose,[2510] and on the
tiles bearing his name he is styled “The good and glorious king,” with
the additional exclamation, “Happy is Rome!”[2511]

The estates on which the clay for the tiles was produced are called
_possessiones_; _privata_ (private property); _rationes_ (shares);
_insulae_ (blocks); or more generally, _praedia_. The latter word,
indeed, is almost invariably used down to the third century, the
others being more characteristic of the time of Diocletian. The
_praedia_ not only provided the clay, but in some cases also
contained the potteries. On some tiles _fundus_, which means a
country farm, is found. The proprietors of these estates were
imperial personages, persons of consular dignity or equestrian rank,
and sometimes imperial freedmen. Many tiles give merely the name of
the imperial estates, without mentioning the reigning emperor; in the
later ones, as in the Basilica of Constantine, it is usual to find
the expression OFF · AVGG ET CAES NN, _Officina Augustorum (duorum)
et Caesarum (duorum) nostrorum_.[2512] Several names of the Antonines
occur; also Annius Verus and his wife Domitia Lucilla, the parents of
M. Aurelius. Septimius Severus owned many _praedia_ which supplied
bricks for his palace on the Palatine.[2513] The Empress Plotina was
evidently a large landed proprietor, and we also find the names of
Aelius Caesar (Hadrian’s adopted heir), M. Aurelius, Faustina II.,
and Julia Procula. Among the names of inferior proprietors, unknown
to fame, occur Q. Servilius Pudens, T. Statilius Severus, and L.
Aemilius Julianus, priest of the sun and moon.[2514] Such names as Q.
Agathyrsus, Rutilius Successus, and Sulpicius Servandus seem to
denote imperial freedmen; the first-named styles himself AVG ·

A remarkable fact in connection with these inscriptions is the
prevalence of feminine names, the quantity of tiles on which these are
found being enormous. The causes are various,—partly the renunciation
by emperors of their private fortunes in favour of their female
relations; partly the proscriptions which, from the failure of male
heirs, caused estates to devolve upon women; partly the gradual
extinction of great families. The important position held by freedmen
under the Empire is well known to the student of Roman history.

The potteries of the tile-makers were of two kinds—_figlinae_ and
_officinae_; but the former seems to be a wider and inclusive term—that
is to say, that one _figlina_ included several _officinae_ or
workshops. In the inscriptions, ex figlinis is usually followed by the
name of the owner, _ex officinis_ by the name of the potter
(_officinator_). The former expression is by far the commoner, and the
latter (OF or OFFIC) is more usually found on lamps and vases, although
after the third century it is invariable on the tiles. The _figlinae_
are always mentioned in a subordinate manner to the _praedia_, when
both are mentioned, as is usually the case. The potteries were mostly
outside the city, even at some distance. Localities are not often
mentioned, but we have the Salarian potteries on the _Via
Salaria_,[2516] and also mention of the _Via Nomentana_,[2517] and such
expressions as _Ad Aureliam_, _Ad Mercurium felicem_, or _Ad viam
triumphalem_. Stamps found in the walls along the Appian and Latin ways
show that potteries existed in the direction of the Alban and Tusculan
hills, and in other parts of Latium, as at Praeneste and Ostia. On the
north side they extended as far as Narnia and Ocriculum[2518] on the
Tiber. They are also found in Etruria and Campania. Tiles from Latium
were exported to Liguria, the Adriatic, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul, and

Usually a descriptive epithet is associated with the word _figlinae_,
either of a geographical or personal character. Examples of the former
are Macedonianae, Rhodianae, and Oceanae. The latter give either the
name of an emperor, as Neronianae, Domitianae; or a Gentile or family
name, as Favorianae,[2519] Furianae, Publinianae, Terentianae, or
Voconianae. One of the names which occurs most frequently is that of L.
Brutidius Augustalis, a freedman; others are stamped EX FIGLINIS
PRIMIGENI SERVI DNI NOSTRI IMP—“From the potteries of Primigenius,
slave of our lord the Emperor.” Imperial slaves owned many potteries,
and others were owned by the emperors or other wealthy proprietors, and
administered by freedmen or slaves. The _officinae_ served to
distinguish the functions of the different _figlinae_. Thus the
establishment of M. Publicius Januarius, a freedman, is styled
_doliariae officinae_; or they are distinguished by separate names, as
Claudianae, Domitianae, and so on. The tiles from the potteries of
Asinius Pollio bear the name of C. Cosconius as maker, as do those of
Julia Procula’s potteries, being further distinguished as _doliares_,
_bipedales_, and _sesquipedales_.[2520] It would appear that the
potteries of private proprietors were under the direction of freedmen,
while those of the imperial estates were chiefly managed by slaves,
from whose labours large revenues were obtained.

There were many private potteries in Gaul and Germany.[2521] In the
neighbourhood of Saarbrück many tiles have been found with the maker’s
name, L. Valerius Labeius. Others with private names have been found at
Trier, one with the stamp of the _colonia_. Several potters with
Gaulish names are known, and probably FIDENATIS on a tile at Zulpich,
SECVNDANVS F(_igulus_ or _fecit_) and PACATVS F from Seligenstadt,
refer to craftsmen of that nationality.[2522] Often the master’s name
only occurs, of which possible instances are BELLICIANVS on a tile from
Caerwent, and PRIMV(_s_) on another from Colchester.[2523] In the
British Museum are tiles with the initials T · P · F · A, T · P · F ·
C, T · P · F · P, from Rodmarton in Gloucestershire.[2524] Tiles found
in the provinces also have the maker’s name simply, without indications
of date or the owner of the pottery, as on those from Seligenstadt
already cited. The makers must in all cases have been of inferior
condition, as implied in the example already quoted of the slave Arabus
(p. 354); and other names—Daedalus, Peculiaris, Primigenius,
Zosimus—belong to the same rank of life. Yet the occurrence of a single
name for a private individual is everywhere very common. On the other
hand, imperial slaves usually have two names given, and freedmen

On the tiles of the freedmen of the Gens Domitia (dating about the
reign of Hadrian) is frequently stamped the formula VALEAT QVI FECIT,
“May he who made it prosper,” with the name of the representative of
the family in the genitive.[2526] On other tiles we find such
expressions as VTAMVR FELICES, “May we use it and be happy”[2527];
FORTVNA COLENDA, “Fortune is to be worshipped” (a second-century
tile)[2528]; and on others of post-Diocletian date, VRBIS ROMAE, “The
city of Rome”[2529]; SECVLO CONSTANTINIANO, “The age of Constantine”;
FELIX ROMA (on the tiles of Theodoric), “Happy is Rome.”[2530] Even on
sepulchral tiles of late Imperial times are stamped such aspirations
as, VTI FELIX VIVAS, “May you live happily.”[2531]


Again, memoranda are found incised on the tiles, as on one at Hooldorn
“Quartus (made) 214 tiles on the first of June”; and on another, found
XXII, “In the third layer large tiles of the number of the
twenty-second legion.”[2532] A tile found in Hungary had scratched upon
it two metrical lines in cursive writing:

    _Senem severum semper esse condecet_
    _Bene debet esse povero_ (sc. _puero_) _qui discit bene_[2533];

and on others names such as Tertius, Kandidus, Verna, were
incised.[2534] Idle boys in the brickfields often seem to have
scratched the alphabet or other words in the soft clay, and complete
Roman alphabets are found at Hooldorn[2535] and Stein on the
Anger[2536]; the letters I K L M on one at Winchester[2537]; on another
at Silchester is ... E PVELLAM.[2538] On a tile in the Guildhall Museum
(Fig. 195), found in Warwick Square, E.C., are the words AVSTALIS |
DIBVS · III | VAGATVRSIB | COTIDIM, of which no satisfactory
translation has been given, but it has been usually regarded as the
gibe of a fellow-workman at a devout individual.[2539] On another, now
at Madrid, the first two lines of the _Aeneid_ are written in excellent
cursive characters of the first century after Christ.[2540]

The Roman tiles, if rightly used, are found very useful for judging the
dates of buildings. For instance, a study of those in the Pantheon
showed that the walls were neither the original ones nor those built by
Agrippa in 27 B.C., but were restored in the second century or supplied
then with new brickwork. On the other hand, the stamps from the Flavian
amphitheatre and Thermae Antoninianae confirm the dates of those
buildings. Those tiles which bear the name M. Aurelius Antoninus as
consul[2541] seem to be the Emperor Caracalla’s. In the time of
Diocletian the dates cannot be definitely ascertained, but before his
time the shape of the stamp is a good criterion. Rectangular stamps are
found in the best period, and in the first century B.C. only one line
of inscription is usual. Two lines denote the period 50–100 A.D. or
later; semicircular or lunate forms came into use under Claudius, and
lasted to the end of the first century; perfect circles belong to the
same period. The type with the cut-out _orbiculus_ came in about Nero’s
reign, and the size of the _orbiculus_ gradually diminishes down to
that of Severus, while the inscriptions gradually increase in

A considerable number of the Roman tiles are inscribed with the names
of the consuls of the current year in which they were made, presenting
a long and interesting series, from the consulship of L. Licinius Sura
and C. Sosius Senecio (A.D. 107) to that of Severus Alexander (A.D.
222). Many of these consulships do not, however, appear to have been
recorded in the regular _fasti consulares_ or official lists, and they
were probably _suffecti_, whose names were not recorded after their
temporary elevation. It seems likely that the occurrence of consuls’
names implies that such tiles were destined for public buildings, and
were so marked to prevent their being stolen with impunity. They are
fewer in number than those which have merely the names of _praedia_ or
potteries, but are yet sufficiently numerous to be an invaluable aid in
tracing the succession for upwards of sixty years. Inscriptions of this
class are only found on _opus doliare_, and chiefly in Italy. Their
appearance is probably due to some law passed by the Senate about the
reign of Trajan to regulate the potteries. As an example may be given a
tile from Hooldorn in the Netherlands, inscribed SVB · DIDIO · IVLIANO
· COSS[2543]; the date is A.D. 179, the name being that of the future
emperor (COSS is a mistake for COS).

The following examples are taken from Dr. Dressel’s scheme of the
chronological order of the stamps,[2544] and show the style of
inscription characteristic of the different periods:

I. First century after Christ.

  1.  (_a_) With name of master only (either of _praedia_ or

          _Asini Pollionis._

     (_b_) With name of _officinator_ or potter:

          _C. Cosconi._

  2.  (_a_) Master and potter (often a slave):

          _Felicis Domiti Afri._

     (_b_) Master and _conductor_ (lessee of the pottery), or potter:

          _Tegula C. Cosconi, figuli Asini Pollionis._

  3.  (_a_) Master, potter, and name of pottery:

          _Amoeni duorum Domitiorum Lucani et Tulli, ex figlinis

     (_b_) Master, lessee or potter, name of pottery:

          _T. Grei Ianuari ex figlinis Caninianis duorum Domitiorum._

II. Second century to third century.

  1.  (_a_) _Ex praedis L. Memmi Rufi._

     (_b_) _Opus doliare L. Bruttidi Augustalis._

         _L. Lurius Martialis fecit._

  2.  (_a_) _Ex figlinis_ (vel _praedis_) _Domitiae Lucillae, opus
        doliare Terti Domitiae Lucillae_ (vel _ab Tertio servo_).

     (_b_) _C. Comini Proculi ex praedis Domitiae Lucillae._

        _Ex figlinis Q. Asini Marcelli doliare opus fecit C. Nunnidius

        _Opus doliare ex praedis domini n(ostri) ex conductione
        Publiciaes Quintinae._

  3.  (_a_) _Ex figlinis_ (vel _praedis_) _Caepionianis Plotiae
        Isauricae, fornace Peculiaris servi._

     (_b_) _Opus doliare ex praedis duorum Augustorum nostrorum,
        figlinis Domitianis minoribus, Fulvi Primitivi._

During the greater part of the third century chronological indications
are absent, but about the time of Diocletian the practice of signatures
is revived. The inscriptions, however, differ now from the earlier
ones, not only in the forms of the letters and of the stamp, but also
in style; they are less regular in form, and present several
peculiarities. The expressions _opus doliare_ and _ex figlinis_ are now
no longer found, and in place of the latter _officina_ is invariable.
Many of the _officinae_ are the same as in the former period, but new
ones, such as the Britannica, Claudia, Gemella, and Jobia, occur, the
latter with the _cognomen_ Diocletiana. _Officina_ is sometimes used
twice over, for the pottery and for the workshop. In place of _praedia_
we have such expressions as _statio_, _rationes_, or _possessiones_.
Formulae are introduced in an abbreviated form which give the method of
administration or character of the estates: as R · S · P, _ratio summae
patrimonii or privatae_; S · P · C, _stationis patrimonii Caesaris_; S
· R for _summae rei or stationis Romanae_; S · P for _summae privatae_
or _stationis patrimonii_; S · R · F for _sacrae rationis fisci_; or
simply S for _stationis_ or _summarum_.[2545] Apparently several
_stationes_ might be united in one _officina_, or several _officinae_
in one _administratio_; the number of the _statio_ is given in some
instances. The name of the _statio_ may be replaced by that of the
potter; or merely the _administratio_ is given, as OFF · PRIVATA.
Besides the names of master, lessee, and potter, that of the
_negotiator_ is sometimes mentioned. We also find the _portus_ or depôt
in which the _tegulae_ were stored for distribution, as PORTU
LICINI,[2546] or the name of the building for which they were destined,
as PORTVS AVGVSTI,[2547] CASTRIS PRAETORI(_s_) AVG(_usti_) N(_ostri_),
HORREIS POSTVMIANIS.[2548] Some tiles dug up in Lambeth Hill, London,
on the site of the Post Office, now in the British and Guildhall
Museums,[2549] were impressed with the letters P · P · BR · LON or PR ·
BR · LON (Fig. 196), which have been interpreted as _publicani
provinciae Britanniae Londinienses_.[2550]


Tiles made for military purposes are exceedingly common in the later
period, and the stamps probably had a double use. In the first place,
they show that they were made by the soldiers, from which we learn that
in the legions, as in a modern army, there were many men acquainted
with handicrafts. Secondly, they prevented theft or removal of the
tiles, and served as a “broad arrow” to denote public property. They
are not, of course, found in Rome, where there was no necessity for the
legions to make bricks or tiles; here the camp seems to have been
supplied by private individuals.

Of special interest are the inscriptions stamped on tiles which relate
to the military divisions stationed throughout the provinces of the
vast empire. These are found in soldiers’ graves (see above, p. 351),
as well as in their camps and quarters; they contain the names and
titles of the legions, and mark the extent of Roman conquest. Thus the
route of the thirty legions through Germany has been traced; and in
Britain an examination and comparison of such tiles shows the
distribution of military force and the migrations of different legions
from one quarter to another. The stamps are in the form of long labels
(_tesserae_), circles, or crescents, occasionally surrounded by a
wreath, or else in the shape of a foot, an ivy-leaf, or a vase; the
letters are in relief, sharply impressed, as if from a metal die. The
names and titles of the legions are given either in initials or in
contractions, as LEG · II · P(_arthicae_), and so on (see above, p.
351); sometimes the potter’s name is added, with FIGVLVS or FECIT.[2551]

The tiles of the first legion have been found at Mainz and Nimeguen;
those of the second, or Parthian, at Darmstadt, Ems, Hooldorn,
Caerleon, and the Lake of Nemi[2552]; of the third, in Scotland; of the
fourth, at Mainz; of the fifth, in Scotland, and at Baden, Cleves,
Xanten, and Nimeguen; of the sixth, at Nimeguen, Neuss,
Aix-la-Chapelle, Darmstadt, and Windisch; the seventh, at
Aix-la-Chapelle and Xanten; the eighth, at Mainz, Baden, and elsewhere;
the ninth, at Baden and York; the tenth, at Nimeguen, Hooldorn, Vienna,
and Jerusalem; the twentieth, at Chester[2553]; and so on down to the
thirtieth.[2554] At Bonn tiles have been found of the _Legio
Cisrhenana_ on the left bank of the Rhine, and of the _Legio
Transrhenana_ on the right bank. Cohorts have also left their names on
tiles: the second Asturian at Acsica on the Roman Wall[2555]; the
fourth (_Breucorum_), at Huddersfield[2556]; the fourth Vindelician, at
Frankfurt, Mainz, and Wiesbaden[2557]; the Ulpian Pannonian at
Buda-Pesth.[2558] The _vexillationes_, whose main body was at Nimeguen,
are similarly recorded; a British _vexillatio_ was attached to the army
at Hooldorn[2559] and Nismes, and another to that of Lower Germany, as
instanced by tiles inscribed VEX · EX · G · INF (_vexillatio exercitus
Germaniae inferioris_), found at Utrecht and Nimeguen in the
Netherlands, and at Xanten in Germany.[2560] Tiles of the British
fleet, CL(_assis_) BR(_itannica_), have been found at Boulogne, Lympne,
and Dover.[2561]

                      2. TERRACOTTA MURAL RELIEFS

Terracotta =mural decoration= was largely employed by the Romans for
the interior and exterior of their buildings, in the form of slabs,
ornamented with reliefs, which were placed round the impluvium or on
the walls. Sometimes they seem to have formed a sort of hanging
“curtain” round the lower edge of the cornice, as the open-work
patterns along the edges seem to imply, a method of decoration which we
have already met with at Civita Lavinia (Vol. I. p. 101), where also
the hanging slabs are bordered with patterns in outline or open-work.
But, as also at Civita Lavinia, these slabs seem to have been
frequently used as _antepagmenta_,[2562] being pierced with holes,
which imply that they were nailed against the walls. In the Casa dei
Cecilii at Tusculum there is evidence that they were used as
wall-friezes,[2563] and those found at Pompeii (where they are very
rare) also have holes for fastening to walls. It may be to the
first-named variety that Festus refers when he speaks of _antefixa_ of
fictile work which are affixed to the walls underneath the
gutters.[2564] There is also a reference to them in Cicero, who, in
writing to Atticus, says, “I entrust to you the bas-reliefs (_typos_)
which I shall insert in the cornice of my little atrium.”[2565]

The slabs are usually about 18 inches long by 9 or more high, and 1 to
2 inches thick; they have nearly all been found at Rome, but specimens
are also known from Civita Lavinia, Cervetri, Nemi, Pompeii, and Atri
in Picenum.[2566] The British Museum possesses a very fine series,
numbering, with fragments, one hundred and sixty, nearly all of which
were collected by Mr. Charles Towneley at Rome[2567]; and there is an
equally fine collection in the Louvre, which came from Signor Campana,
who devoted a large work to the illustration of them.[2568] Other good
examples, some of which were found in the Baths of Caracalla, are in
the various collections at Rome.[2569]

The reliefs were evidently cast in moulds, as many subjects are
repeated over and over again, or at least with only slight differences;
moreover, the relief is low, with sharp and definite outlines, such as
a mould would produce. Among the British Museum examples a group of
Eros, a Satyr, and a Maenad is repeated in three cases (D 520-522),
with no variations except in the colouring; another of Dionysos and
Satyr three times (D 528-530), with only one small variation. It is
evident that in the latter, as in some other cases, the relief had been
retouched before baking. Reliefs entirely modelled are of much rarer
occurrence, but exhibit considerable artistic feeling and freedom, as
in an instance in the British Museum (D 651), which represents the
sleeping Endymion; the hair is so fine and deeply cut that it could not
possibly have been produced from a mould. The moulds may have been made
of various materials—wood, stone, metal, or gypsum, as well as
terracotta. Circular holes are left in the slabs for the plugs—usually
of lead—by which they were attached to the woodwork or masonry. The
clay varies in quality and appearance, being often coarser than that of
Greek reliefs, and mixed with coarse sand in order to make it stronger
and more durable; in tone it varies from a pale buff to dark
reddish-brown. Traces of colouring are often found on the slabs,[2570]
and the background in some cases (as B.M. D 577, 623) was coloured a
bright blue; the figures, or more often details such as hair, etc.,
were usually painted red, yellow, purple, or white. These colours are
not fired, as in the earlier terracotta reliefs, but painted in
_tempera_, and their use is entirely conventional. The slabs are
ornamented above and below with bands or cornices in the form of
egg-and-tongue mouldings, or a system of palmettes and intersecting
arches; these are sometimes in low relief on a band, sometimes partly
in outline or open-work.


                                                               PLATE LXI





The figures are mostly in low relief, being usually grouped with large
flat surfaces between, in the manner of Hellenistic art; in some cases
the design is composed in such a way that the whole surface (except the
principal figures) is occupied by patterns of scroll-work or foliage,
more or less conventional. The compositions are either in the form of
narrow friezes, usually with rows of busts or figures of Cupids, or
square metope-like groups with two or three figures on a large scale.
For the narrower slabs the busts were preferred, owing to the scope
they gave for high relief, which better suited the distance from the
eye; but this rule is not invariable. The style is, in general, bold
and vigorous, and, though essentially architectural, not devoid of
dignity and beauty; but it is somewhat conventional, and at times even
archaistic.[2571] Those found at Pompeii are usually of remarkably good
style, especially the Nereid frieze,[2572] with its rich colouring.
These are earlier than the earthquake of A.D. 63, and probably belong
to the Augustan period, to which also the majority may be assigned. On
one or two names of potters are found, such as Annia Arescusa(na) and
M. Antonius Epaphras in the British Museum.[2573]

The subjects on these reliefs cover a very wide field, almost as wide
as those on the painted vases, and quite as wide as those on the Roman
lamps. In many cases they are doubtless copies of well-known works of
art, and may even go back to prototypes of the fifth century, as in the
case of a figure of a girl in the British Museum (D 648), or one of
Eros, conceived as a full-grown youth, in the Campana collection.[2574]
Others, again, present points of comparison with the Hellenistic
reliefs, as is the case with that representing the visit of Dionysos to
a mortal (B.M. D 531). Lastly, we find in the reliefs, as also on the
Arretine vases (below, p. 492), a series of types closely related to
the New Attic reliefs, in which it was sought to revive an older
style[2575]; among the types borrowed from these originals are Maenads
in frenzy or dancing in various attitudes,[2576] and the figures of the
four Seasons.[2577] Among those which reflect the character of their
time rather than the spirit of Greek art, we have representations of
Egyptian landscapes, or Egyptian deities and emblems; scenes from the
circus or gladiatorial arena; and quasi-historical subjects, such as
triumphs over barbarian enemies. Of mythological subjects, the most
popular are Dionysiac scenes or groups; next to these, Apollo,
Aphrodite, Eros, and Victory. Heroic legend is represented by the
labours of Theseus, Herakles, Perseus, and Jason, and occasional scenes
from the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_. Lastly, there are a certain number
which are purely decorative, with a single figure of Eros or Victory
(treated in archaistic fashion), or an ideal head surrounded by
elaborate and graceful scrolls or acanthus foliage; others, again, have
conventional groups of two priestesses or canephori, with a candelabrum
or a foliated pattern between (Plate LXII.), a mask between two Cupids,
and so on. Even the figures in some cases tail off into conventional

To mention a few of the more interesting subjects in detail, it may
suffice to quote examples from the two best-known collections—those of
the British Museum and Louvre. Beginning with the Olympian deities, we
have the infant Zeus in the cave on Mount Ida, protected by the
Curetes, who dance above him, wielding swords and shields (Plate LXI.);
in one instance he is in his nurse’s arms.[2579] On a narrow frieze the
busts of Zeus, Ares, Hera, and Athena are represented[2580]; Apollo
receives a libation from Victory,[2581] or a warrior consults his
oracle, indicated by a bird in a cage[2582]; Aphrodite is seen riding
on a sea-horse or on a goose.[2583] Eros or Cupid appears in various
attitudes and combinations of figures: flying, embracing Psyche, or
being embraced by a Satyr; accompanying Aphrodite, Triton, and the
Nereids; a pair on either side of a mask of Triton or Medusa; or a
group of three struggling under the weight of a heavy garland of fruit
and flowers.[2584] Busts or masks of Demeter,[2585] Zeus Ammon, and
Triton are also found; a group of Aphrodite and Peitho; and the three
Eleusinian deities, Demeter, Persephone, and Iacchos.[2586]

The Dionysiac scenes are very frequent, though often of little
interest, and mere groups without definite action. The best known is
the reception of Dionysos in the house of a mortal,[2587] a subject
formerly interpreted as his reception by Ikarios at Athens (cf. p.
139); this type is remarkable for its rich and elaborate composition,
probably derived from a Hellenistic original. A very effective
composition is that of a dancing Satyr and Maenad swinging the infant
Dionysos in a λίκνον (_vannus_) or winnowing-van, which serves as his
cradle (Plate LXII.).[2588] Among other scenes may be mentioned
Dionysos giving drink to a panther; two Satyrs standing on tiptoe to
peep into a laver; Satyrs gathering or pressing grapes (of which many
replicas exist), or working an oil-press; Ampelos (the personified
vine) between two Satyrs[2589]; Bacchic processions, sacrifices, or
ceremonies[2590]; and friezes of Bacchic masks and masks of Pan.[2591]

Among other deities Victory is by far the most common. She is usually
represented slaying a bull for sacrifice, a subject of which there are
two principal varieties, according as she turns to right or left. The
motive is a well-known one, and found in fifth- and fourth-century art,
from the balustrade of the Nike temple at Athens onwards.[2592] She is
also depicted flying with a wreath, or as a conventional archaistic
figure between tendrils and scrolls.[2593] Of the figures of the
Seasons we have already spoken; they are characterised by the
attributes they carry, as a kid for Spring, corn for Summer, fruit for
Autumn, and a hare and boar for Winter. Masks of Medusa, Sirens, and
Sphinxes (both male and female) are found in compositions of a
decorative character.

Of heroic legends, the rape of the Leukippidae by Castor and Pollux is
repeated more than once[2594]; Herakles is seen contending with the
Nemean lion, the hydra, and the Cretan bull, and with Apollo for the
Delphic tripod[2595]; Theseus raises the rock which discloses his
father’s weapons (Plate LXI.), contends with the Marathonian bull, or
overcomes a Centaur; Jason builds the Argo, superintended by Athena,
and, assisted by Medeia, obtains the golden fleece; Perseus rescues
Andromeda, and brings the Medusa’s head to Athena; Aktaeon is slain by
his hounds.[2596] The Homeric scenes include Paris carrying off Helen
from Sparta (or, as some interpret it, Pelops with Hippodameia); Nestor
healing the wounded Machaon with a potion[2597]; Priam bringing
offerings to Achilles; Penelope mourning for the absent Odysseus;
Odysseus recognised by Eurykleia; and Orestes on the Delphic
omphalos.[2598] There are also numerous semi-mythical scenes, such as
combats between Amazons and Gryphons, between Amazons and Greeks, or
between Arimaspi and Gryphons.[2599]


                                                              PLATE LXII

[Illustration: ROMAN MURAL RELIEFS.]


With the exception of the Roman subjects from the circus and arena, the
remaining subjects are purely decorative, and of little interest; the
former, some of which have reference to the conquest of Dacia, admit of
the dating of the reliefs in the reign of Trajan. Others depict
gladiators contending with lions; chariots racing in the circus, which
is indicated by the obelisks and other adornments of the _spina_; or
colonnades adorned with statues of boxers and victorious
athletes.[2600] Some of the Egyptian subjects are interesting for their
local colouring, with their representations of the Nile, on which
pygmies ply a boat, among hippopotami, crocodiles, and lotos-flowers,
and ibises[2601]; but these compositions are more curious than
artistically effective.

                             II. SCULPTURE

                    1. ROMAN STATUES AND STATUETTES

In the earlier ages of Rome the laws and institutions, based without
doubt on the sentiments of the people, were unfavourable to art. Numa
was said to have prohibited the representation of the deity in human
form,[2602] and the statues of great men were not allowed to exceed
three Roman feet. To women the privilege of having statues was not
conceded until much later. Pliny constantly compares the luxury of his
own day with the simplicity of early times, to the disadvantage of the
former, dwelling fondly on the times when men could be content with
plain terracotta images, and it was not necessary or possible to make a
display of silver and gold.

Most of the ancient statues of the Romans were of terracotta, a fact to
which constant allusion is made by their writers. Juvenal speaks of “a
fictile Jove, not spoiled by gold”[2603] and Propertius speaks of the
early days of the golden temples, when their gods were only of
clay.[2604] Similarly Pliny expresses his surprise that, since statuary
in Italy goes back to such a remote period, statues of clay should even
in his day still be preferred in the temples.[2605] Vitruvius alludes
to the favourite Tuscan fashion of ornamenting pediments with _signa
fictilia_,[2606] examples of which, he says, may be seen in the temple
of Ceres in the Circus Maximus (see below), and the temple of Hercules
at Pompeii. Cicero speaks of a statue of Summanus on the pediment of
the Capitoline temple “which at that time was of terracotta,”[2607] and
Livy[2608] tells how in 211 B.C. a figure of Victory on the apex of the
pediment of the temple of Concord was struck by lightning and fell, but
was caught on the antefixal ornaments, also figures of Victory, and
there stuck fast. Though not stated to be of terracotta, these figures
would hardly be of any other material at that period. Other allusions
may be found in Ovid and Seneca.[2609]

In the early days of the Republic art was clearly at a very low ebb—in
fact, Roman art can hardly be said to have existed—and everything was
either borrowed from the Etruscans or imported from Greece. Hence the
statues of terracotta which adorned their temples are spoken of as
_signa Tuscanica_. The most celebrated works in ancient Rome were made
by artists of Veii or the Volscian Fregellae, such as the famous
quadriga on the pediment of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the
statue of the god himself, described elsewhere (p. 314), which were
made by Veientine artists in the time of Tarquinius Priscus. Numa, ever
attentive to Roman arts and institutions, is said to have founded a
corporation or guild of potters.[2610] In 493 B.C. Gorgasos and
Damophilos, natives of Himera in Sicily, ornamented with terracotta
reliefs and figures the temple of Ceres at Rome (now Santa Maria in
Cosmedin).[2611] Their work, which is alluded to by Vitruvius in the
passage referred to above, was probably Greek rather than Etruscan in
style, as we have seen to be the case generally with the archaic
terracotta relief-work of Italy (p. 317). In the reign of Augustus the
temple was restored, and so great was the esteem in which the works of
these old masters were held that they were taken out of the walls and
framed in wood.

Coming down to later times, Possis, “who made fruit and bunches of
grapes,” and Arkesilaos are cited by Pliny,[2612] on the authority of
Varro, as modellers in clay. The latter made for Julius Caesar a statue
of Venus, which, although unfinished, was highly prized. Pliny also
mentions a terracotta figure of _Felicitas_ made by order of
Lucullus.[2613] It seems probable that the extensive use of terracotta
was mainly due to the absence of white marble in Italy, none being
discovered till imperial times. The siege of Corinth, which unfolded to
the eyes of the Romans an entirely new school of art in the quantities
of Greek masterpieces carried by Mummius to Rome, as also the conquest
of Magna Graecia and other parts of Greece, caused the old fashion of
sculpture in terracotta to fall into contempt and neglect. Henceforth
the temples of the gods and houses of the nobility became enriched and
beautified with the spoils of Greek art in all materials. Even at an
earlier period (195 B.C.) Cato in vain protested against the invading
flood of luxury, and especially against the new taste in sculpture.
“Hateful, believe me,” says he, “are the statues brought from Syracuse
into this city. Already do I hear too many who praise and admire the
ornaments of Corinth and Athens, and deride the terracotta antefixes of
the Roman gods. For my part I prefer these propitious gods, and hope
they will continue to be so, if we allow them to remain in their
places.”[2614] Yet up to the close of the Republic, and even later,
great works continued to be executed in terracotta, and were much
esteemed.[2615] The statue made for Lucullus is an instance, and
existing statues in this material, which we shall shortly discuss, are
probably of early Imperial date.

Few statues of any size in this material have escaped the ravages of
time, but there are some specimens to be seen in our museums. In the
Vatican is a figure of Mercury about life-size,[2616] and in the
British Museum a colossal torso,[2617] to which the head and limbs had
been mortised separately. A head of a youth from a large statue, found
on the Esquiline, was exhibited in 1888 at the Burlington Fine Arts
Club.[2618] A series of female figures, including a seated Athena,
ranging from two to four feet in height, was found in a well near the
Porta Latina at Rome in 1767.[2619] They were purchased by the sculptor
Nollekens, who restored them and sold them to Mr. Towneley, from whom
they were acquired for the British Museum. They are made of the same
clay as the mural reliefs already described, and are supposed to have
decorated a garden. Some of them have been identified, on somewhat
slight authority, as the Muses Ourania, Calliope, and Thaleia; there
are also two terminal busts of the bearded Indian Bacchus, which show
some traces of conventional archaism in their style. Other large
figures have been found at Nemi and Ardea in Latium, the latter being
now in the Louvre.[2620]

At Pompeii in 1766 three pieces of colossal sculpture in terracotta
were found in the temple of Aesculapius, representing a male and female
deity and a bust of Minerva with her shield. The two former used to be
identified as Aesculapius and Hygieia, but it is more probable that
they are Jupiter and Juno, making, with the bust, the triad of
Capitoline deities,[2621] a subject found on lamps at Pompeii. The
execution is careful, and they seem to date from the latter half of the
first century B.C. They formed the cult-statues of the temple. Other
statues appear to have been employed for adorning gardens, or for
niches in private houses, among which are a portrait of a seated
physician of great originality,[2622] a nude boy, and two actors.[2623]
A figure of Eros appears to have been attached to a wall as an
ornament[2624]; a fragment of a colossal Minerva found in a niche near
the Porta Marina is an excellent example of sculpture of the first
century B.C. Figures were also employed as architectural members, such
as the Atlantes supporting the entablature in the _tepidarium_ of the
Thermae in the Forum,[2625] dating from the Augustan period; the former
seem to be copied from originals in tufa. Of later date is a Caryatid
figure, probably of the Neronian epoch.[2626] These sculptures are all
of great importance for the history of art at the end of the first
century B.C., and as showing the continued popularity of terracotta;
the fashion, however, did not outlive the reign of Nero, and all those
in Pompeii must be anterior to the earthquake of A.D. 63.

Sculptors sometimes made preliminary models in clay of the statues
which they intended to execute in bronze and marble. This was not a
common practice with the Greeks, and the first sculptor who made use of
it, according to Pliny,[2627] was Lysistratos, the brother of Lysippos.
But at Rome in the time of Augustus it became much more frequent;
Pasiteles is said by Pliny[2628] never to have made a statue except in
this manner. These models, known as _proplasmata_, were much sought
after, as exhibiting the artist’s style and powers of conception in the
most free and unfettered manner, and those of Arkesilaos, another
artist of the period, fetched a high price.[2629]

                  *       *       *       *       *

=Terracotta statuettes=, similar in proportions and subjects to those
of Greece, are found in houses and tombs of the Roman period, and also
as votive objects on sacred sites. They were known to the Romans as
_sigilla_, and were employed as toys and presents, or placed in the
_lararia_ or domestic shrines; the same subjects are found applied to
all these uses. Thus in the _lararia_ were placed not only figures of
deities, such as Venus, Mercury, or Bacchus, but masks, busts of
children, and so on.[2630] Sometimes they served to decorate the walls,
as in the house of Julia Felix at Pompeii, where in the wall
surrounding the garden were eighteen niches, containing alternately
marble terms and terracotta figures, one of the latter representing a
woman feeding a prisoner with her own milk.[2631] In the Via Holconia
forty-three terracotta figures from a workshop were found, showing that
there was a local manufacture at Pompeii; the types were the same as in
the houses.[2632] It is noteworthy that the terracottas, of which some
two hundred have been found, were nearly all from the lower parts of
the city and the inferior houses, or in the domestic quarters of the
large houses. This implies that the richer Romans preferred bronze
statuettes for their shrines and household decoration. Comparatively
few were found in tombs.

A few notices relating to terracotta figures are found in Roman
authors. Martial speaks of a statuette of Hercules, which he calls
_sigillum_[2633]; he also alludes to a caricature of a man which was so
repulsive that Prometheus could only have made it when intoxicated at
the Saturnalia, and to a grotesque mask of a Batavian.[2634] In another
epigram he refers to the imitation of a well-known statue of a boy in
terracotta.[2635] Persius speaks of clay dolls (_pupae_) dedicated by a
maiden to Venus,[2636] and Achilles Tatius of clay figures of Marsyas
made by _coroplathi_.[2637] Elagabalus, by way of a jest, used to place
viands made of earthenware before his parasitical guests, and force
them to enjoy a Barmecide feast.[2638]

There is also an interesting passage in the _Satires_ of Macrobius
relating to the festival of the Sigillaria,[2639] at which large
numbers of terracotta masks and figures were in demand. This festival
took place on the twelfth to the tenth days before the Kalends of
January, forming the fifth to seventh days of the Saturnalia, and
corresponding to the 21st to 23rd of December. Ausonius says that the
festival was so named from the _sigilla_ or figurines,[2640] and
Macrobius more explicitly states that it was added to the Saturnalia to
extend the religious festival and time of public relaxation.[2641]
Subsequently he diverges into an excursus on the origin of the feast,
more curious than convincing. Epicadus is quoted by him as referring it
to the story of Hercules on his return from slaying Geryon, when he
threw into the river from the Pons Sublicius images of men which
represented his lost travelling-companions, in order that they might be
carried by the sea to their native shores.[2642] His own view is that
they represent expiatory offerings (_piacula_) to Saturn, each man
offering an _oscillum_ or mask on his own behalf in the chapel of that
god. Hence, he says, _sigilla_ were made by the potter and put on sale
at the Saturnalia.[2643] Elsewhere he states that clay _oscilla_ were
given to children as playthings at this season even before they had
learned to walk.[2644] The festival was indulged in by all classes of
society, who vied in making presents of statuettes and figures to one
another[2645]; and we are told that Hadrian exchanged gifts with
others, and even sent them to those who did not expect to receive
them.[2646] Similarly, Caracalla, when a child, gave to his tutors and
clients, as a mark of condescension, those which he had received from
his parents.[2647]


  (BRIT. MUS.).

From the use of this word _sigilla_ (a diminutive of _signum_), for
terracotta figures, the makers came to be known as _sigillarii_, or
_figuli sigillatores_,[2648] and a street in which they lived was known
as the _Via Sigillaria_.[2649] There was also a market for the sale of
_sigilla_ for the feast near the Pantheon.[2650] Although the names of
makers are constantly found on Roman lamps and pottery, as well as the
tiles, they are very seldom found on statuettes, with the exception
mentioned below of those found in Gaul. But the name of Q. Velius
Primus, in a sort of mixture of Greek and Latin, is found in raised
letters on a mask of a Satyr in the British Museum (D 177 = Fig. 197),
and other names are occasionally found on the moulds. The social
condition of the Roman potter seems to have been much lower than that
of the Greek, who was often a person of respectable position; but this
may be partly due to the fact that his _clientèle_ was drawn mainly
from the poorer classes. He was generally a slave, sometimes a
barbarian, and even the masters of the potteries were only freedmen. As
we saw in the case of the tile-makers, the potters often worked on the
estates of wealthy or influential people, from which their clay was
obtained. More details of Roman potters will be found in the sections
dealing with tiles and lamps.

On the technical aspect of Roman terracotta figures little need be
said. The processes were practically the same as those described in
Chapter III. when dealing with the Greek terracottas. Large figures
were made from models (_proplasmata_) and built up in several pieces on
a wooden framework, known as _crux_ or _stipes_.[2651] A reference to
this method may be traced in a fable of Phaedrus,[2652] which describes
Prometheus as having made human figures in clay in separate pieces,
and, on returning from a supper with Bacchus, joined them together
wrongly, so that the sexes became confused. The smaller figures were
all made from moulds, by means of which they could be repeated with but
slight alterations. Few statuettes seem to have been made after the
second century of the Empire.

                  *       *       *       *       *

The range of subjects in Roman terracottas is much the same as in the
Greek figures of the Hellenistic period. At Pompeii _genre_ figures
predominate, including such types as gladiators, athletes in the
circus, slaves carrying bundles, and personages in Roman costume.[2653]
A favourite type at Pompeii is a mask of a youth in a Phrygian
cap.[2654] There is a decided preference shown for portraits and
grotesques. Von Rohden,[2655] in dealing with the question of the
extent to which these figures represent Greek or purely Roman types,
considers that although the influence of the former is still strong,
yet they are marked by such wide differences that they must be ranked
in the latter category. He dates them in the time of Vespasian, in
which the decadence which had begun with the later Hellenistic age is
in the Roman fabrics still more strongly accentuated. The style is
negligent, the proportions faulty, and the art of colouring practically
lost. They are only redeemed from insignificance by the taste for
portraiture and the interest which attaches to the reproduction of
motives borrowed from contemporary life.

The Pompeii figures may serve as typical Roman terracottas, but they
are also found elsewhere in Italy, as well as in other parts of the
Roman Empire; nearly all, however, are of inferior merit and execution.
At Praeneste in 1878, on the site of the temple of Fortuna Primigenia,
were found _genre_ figures and votive objects,[2656] and similar _ex
votos_ have come to light at Gabii.[2657] At Nemi figures have been
found which are obviously of Roman date, some of considerable
size.[2658] From time to time finds have been made in Rome, and there
is a pretty little head in the British Museum found in the Tiber (D
383), which, however, may be of Greek workmanship. The industry also
extended from Rome to the provinces, and even in Britain terracotta
figures are sometimes found, as at Richborough[2659]; at Caistor, by
Norwich, a terracotta head of Diana, of fairly good style, is
recorded.[2660] There are also in the Guildhall Museum some terracottas
in the coarse red clay which characterises most of the British
examples: a Venus on a swan; a female head with turreted crown, of
archaistic style, from Finsbury; and a large figure of Proserpina
holding a fruit, of very fair style, from Liverpool Street.[2661] A
figure of a boy on horseback is or was in the Museum of Practical

                         2. GAULISH TERRACOTTAS

In Gaul there appear to have been very extensive manufactures of
terracottas, but not anterior to the conquest by Julius Caesar in 58
B.C. These statuettes were made for the Roman colonists, who introduced
the types of their own religious conceptions, but the makers were local
craftsmen. Potteries have been unearthed at Moulins on the banks of the
Allier, and in Auvergne and other parts of France, and even in Germany,
where one was discovered at Heiligenberg in Alsace, and others on the
Rhine (see below, p. 384). The finds on the Allier, made in 1857, give
a practically complete survey of the subjects; they are all now
collected in the museums of Moulins and St. Germain, and were fully
published at the time in a work by M. Tudot.[2663] The figures found
here are not from tombs, but were unearthed from the sites of the
potteries and from ruins of buildings; they are all made in a peculiar
white clay, whereas the figures of the Gironde district are grey or
black, and those of the Rhine Valley reddish, like those of Britain.
The technique resembles that of the Roman figures; there is no
vent-hole, and they usually stand on a conical base; the modelling is
very heavy, and the latest specimens are absolutely barbaric.

Until recently the subject of Gaulish terracottas had been greatly
neglected; Tudot’s plates were useful, but his text unsatisfactory and
devoid of method, there being no proper description of the plates. M.
Pottier has given a good summary of his work, and M. Héron de
Villefosse has also dealt with some aspects of the subject.[2664] But
they had not been treated as a whole and in relation to the subject of
ancient terracottas in general until 1891, when an important memoir by
M. Blanchet appeared, in which a complete survey of the Gaulish
terracottas was given.[2665] This must of necessity form the basis of
the present account.

In dealing with the technical character of the terracottas found in
Gaul, M. Blanchet points out that the white clay of which many are made
(_e.g._ those from the Allier valley) is not universal; some are made
of red or grey clay, which has turned white in the baking, apparently
by a process analogous to that used by the Chinese for porcelain,
others are actually covered with a white _engobe_ like the Greek
terracottas. This appears to have been done with a view to subsequent
colouring, which in nearly all cases has quite disappeared; but
statuettes with remains of colouring, made of purely red clay, have
recently been found in the neighbourhood of the Moselle and in
Germany.[2666] M. Blanchet quotes an example in the Museum at Angers,
with the name of the maker, P · FABI · NICIAE, which is coated with a
lead glaze like the enamelled wares described in Chapter III. He
considers that the moulds from which they were made were often of
bronze, and that bronze models were used as copies; but that they were
also of terracotta is clear from the numerous examples given by Tudot.
A terracotta mould for a figure of Venus Anadyomene, found at
Clermont-Ferrand, is in the British Museum, and another from Moulins is
for the back of the head of a similar figure, with hair elaborately
coiled.[2667] From the numerous moulds which have been found it may be
seen that the figures were cast in two pieces, longitudinally, the arms
being added afterwards, together with the circular plinth. The mould in
the British Museum may be cited as an example of one for the back part
of a figure; probably only the upper part was modelled.

Potters’ names are exceedingly common, not only on the figures, but
also on the moulds,[2668] and form two distinct classes, those on the
_exterior_ of the moulds, and those on the figures or _interior_ of the
moulds (which are obviously the same thing). The distinction is that
the former were merely for the identification of the moulds, while the
latter indicated the creator of the type and made him known to the
world, a feature which, as will be noted in Chapter XXIII. (p. 511),
reappears in the pottery of Westerndorff in Germany. Tudot gives an
example of a mould with the name ATILANO on the exterior and IOPPILLO
on the inside.[2669] Many of the names are identical with those of the
makers of vases,[2670] but the types and subjects are quite distinct
from those on the Gaulish _terra sigillata_. Those on the exterior of
the moulds are usually in a scrawling cursive type, whereas the other
class are in capital letters[2671]; the cursive characters resemble
those in use at Pompeii, but are not necessarily contemporary; they
are, however, not later than the second century. The influence of this
cursive character seems to have extended to the other class; for
instance, in the inscription given in Fig. 198 below, not only are the
G and S of cursive form, but E appears in the form II. Otherwise the
letters are in the ordinary Roman alphabet (with the exception of A,
which is sometimes 15[14]Attic alpha the forms E and II seem to have
been used indifferently in Gaul at all periods. The “signature”
sometimes combines the two names, as in the form

         AVOT        FORM

which has been taken to mean _Sacrillos fecit forma Caratri_, “made by
Sacrillos from Caratrius’ mould.”[2672] Among the Roman names which
occur are Attilianus, Lucanus, Pistillus, Priscus, Taurus, and
Tiberius; among the Gaulish, Abudinus, Belinus, Camulenus, and


  From _Blanchet_.

A large majority of the existing statuettes were, as we have seen, made
in the valley of the Allier; these show more conspicuously than any
others, the influence of transplanted Graeco-Roman art. Curiously
enough none have been found at Lezoux, one of the chief pottery-centres
of Gaul, although there is abundant evidence that the vases and
statuettes were made in the same workshops (see above).[2673] M.
Blanchet considers that there was a large and important manufacture in
Western France, which may have been inspired by the Allier workshops,
but mainly exhibits native characteristics; he also notes the scarcity
of these figures in Southern Gaul (Narbonensis), which may perhaps be
explained by the preference there shown for bronze statuettes and vases
with medallions (p. 530).[2674] Other centres were Cesson, Meaux (where
Atilanus and Sacrillos can be located), Bourbon-Lancy in
Saône-et-Loire, and St. Rémy-en-Rollat (see p. 516), where vases also
were made of the local white clay. M. Déchelette has been able to
assign to the last-named pottery a date between A.D. 15 and 50. Another
fabric was in the neighbourhood of Liège, and in Germany there were
centres at Salzburg, and at Cologne, where the maker Vindex can be
dated in the reign of Postumus (A.D. 260-270).[2675] An important
maker, Pistillus, had a pottery at Autun; his statuettes are found all
over Gaul,[2676] and the name appears on vases and coins, and also in
an inscription.[2677] Julius Allusa had a workshop at Bordeaux. In West
and North-West France statuettes are found with the name of Rextugenos;
they are all of peculiar and original character, with highly-ornamented
backgrounds to the figures, and easily distinguished. The specimen
given in Fig. 198, representing Venus Genetrix, was found at
Caudebec-les-Elbeuf in Normandy (Seine-Inférieure); it bears the
inscription RIIXTVGIINOSSVLLIASAVVOT, _Rextugenos Sullias auvot_ (sc.

An interesting find of terracotta figures was made at Colchester in
1866,[2679] consisting of thirteen figures presenting exact analogies
to the Gallo-Roman terracottas of the second period both in type and
style. One very poor specimen represents Hercules with club and
lion-skin; another a bull, and a third a bust of a boy (perhaps a
portrait of Nero or Britannicus); four are recumbent figures. The rest
are more or less grotesque, including caricatured seated figures
holding books or rolls, and a buffoon. With them were found vases in
the form of animals of yellow-glazed ware. Figures of suckling
goddesses (see below) have been found in Britain, and similar finds of
Gallo-Roman types in white clay in London, among them a Venus holding a
tress of her hair.[2680] Votive offerings of parts of the body and
figures of the goddess Fecunditas were found near the source of the
Seine, in a temple of Dea Sequana, the local river-deity.[2681] Other
finds have been made in Touraine, Anjou, La Vendée, Brittany, and
Normandy, brought by commerce from the Allier potteries; and in Germany
at Heddernheim and on the Rhine. Part of a group of some size in purely
Graeco-Roman style from the Department of Marne is now in the British
Museum (Morel Collection).

Tudot originally classified the Gaulish terracottas chronologically in
three periods according to style, and in this he has been followed by
M. Pottier. But M. Blanchet[2682] has pointed out that the former’s
method was altogether unscientific, that he trusted too much to the
evidence of coin-finds, and that he was altogether wrong in conceiving
the possibility of any being anterior to the Roman conquest. On the
whole the chronological data are exceedingly vague, and can only be
accepted in isolated instances, as in the case of the finds at St.
Rémy-en-Rollat (A.D. 15-50) or Cologne (A.D. 260-270), or where a
resemblance in the coiffure of the feminine figures to those of Roman
ladies can be traced. Some figures may probably be dated about A.D. 100
on the latter ground, the head-dress recalling those of Domitia and
Julia the daughter of Titus. But it can only be laid down with
certainty that the manufacture of statuettes was introduced into Gaul
with the _terra sigillata_ or ornamented red pottery at the beginning
of the Imperial period. Where there is a question of decadent or
barbaric style, as is undoubtedly often the case, it does not
necessarily imply a late date, but only that the inferior work is due
to the incapacity of some local artist, and figures of varying style
must frequently be contemporaneous.[2683]

In dealing with the types of Gaulish terracottas, their origin and
signification, M. Blanchet divides the subjects into three classes, of
which the first is not only the largest but the most interesting:
divinities, subjects from daily life, and animals. The deities are not
those we should expect from Caesar’s statement[2684] that Mercury,
Apollo, Mars, Jupiter, and Minerva represent the scale of popularity in
Gaul, for they are mainly variants of one type, that of Venus. Many of
these Venus figures reproduce types familiar in Greek and Graeco-Roman
art, such as the Anadyomene, and the Cnidian or Pudica type; but in the
majority she is frankly recognised as a Nature-goddess (Aphrodite
Pandemos or Venus Genetrix), and hence we find numerous examples in
which the old Oriental conception of the nude Aphrodite-Astarte with
pronounced sexual characteristics, so common in the primitive
terracottas of Chaldaea, Phoenicia, and Cyprus,[2685] once more
reappears, as in Fig. 198. Of almost equal frequency is the seated type
of the Mother-Goddess or Κουροτρόφος, suckling a child[2686]; this is
not peculiar to Gaul, but is found in the terracottas of Southern
Italy.[2687] We may compare also the Fecunditas types on Roman
coins.[2688] Blanchet thinks that the goddess Rumina may be here
intended, but prefers to adopt the general term of Mother-Goddess.


  From _Blanchet_.


Among other mythological types the Ephesian Artemis, Pallas, Mercury,
Epona (Fig. 199), and Abundantia occur; and among _genre_ subjects the
most interesting type is that of the Spinario, or boy extracting a
thorn from his foot, familiar in Greek sculpture. Slaves, caricatures,
and busts of ladies (see above) or children wearing the _bulla_, vases
in the form of heads, and busts affixed to plates, also come under the
latter category. Many of these are exceedingly rude and barbaric;
children are transformed into coarse grotesques, and animals look (says
M. Pottier) as if they had come out of a Noah’s ark.

The artistic origin of the Gaulish types has been discussed by M.
Blanchet,[2689] who points out that although the modern tendency is to
restrict the rôle played by Alexandrine art of the Hellenistic period
in influencing that of Rome,[2690] yet its effect on Gaul cannot be
altogether ignored. That Egyptian cults found their way into Gaul is
well known,[2691] and in the terracottas such types as Isis and Horus
appear, while comparisons may frequently be made with the late
terracottas found in the Fayûm and at Naukratis. But there was also a
stream of influence from Southern Italy, especially Campania, whence,
as we have seen, the Mother-Goddess types were largely derived.

As regards the uses for which these terracottas were made, much that
has been said on that head in Chapter III. will apply equally to Gaul.
They have been found not only in tombs, but in wells and rivers, and on
the sites of sanctuaries[2692]; but they do not seem to have had any
special funerary significance. The majority were probably used for
various domestic purposes in the houses, the figures of animals, for
instance, as toys, and were then buried with their owners. Those found
in wells or rivers may be regarded as votive offerings, as it is well
known that the Gauls were fond of throwing votive figures into rivers
or springs.


It is impossible to enumerate all the purposes to which the Romans
applied terracotta, but a few peculiar uses deserve special notice. The
excavations at Pompeii have yielded several examples of its application
to the decoration of a _puteal_, the circular structure which protected
the mouth of a well; the core is of tufa or other hard material, and
round this are laid curved slabs of terracotta decorated with
reliefs.[2693] They are all of comparatively early date; one has
triglyphs and bulls’ heads in relief, and is stuccoed over. Instances
are also found at Pompeii of its use for table-legs, in the form of
figures of kneeling Atlantes,[2694] like those supporting the
entablature in the Thermae (p. 374), but sculptured in the round. Small
altars, or stands for holding lamps or for burning incense, supposed to
have formed part of the furniture of the domestic shrines, have also
been found in this material.[2695] Varro tells us that the _dolia_ or
large jars made by potters were used as cages for dormice which were
being fattened for the palates of Roman epicures[2696]; and Columella
gives instructions for the use of clay tiles in making beehives.[2697]
Porphyry implies that it was customary to hive bees in kraters or
amphorae of clay.[2698] Tickets (_tesserae_) for admission to the
circus or amphitheatre were also occasionally made of clay, and on them
were stamped letters or numbers referring to the position of the seat,
or representations of the animals exhibited. Two from Catania in the
British Museum[2699] have an elephant on the obverse and the letter A
on the reverse, showing that they were for admission to a spectacle in
which those beasts were shown. There are also possible instances of
_tesserae frumentariae_, or tickets for the supply of cheap corn in
time of necessity.[2700] Moulds of terracotta for making counters, with
masks or figures of Fortune and Isis, have also been found; there is an
example in the British Museum from Arezzo (E 46).[2701]

Herr Graeven, in a very interesting article,[2702] has recently
collected all the known examples (numbering some fifty) of money-boxes
in terracotta used by the Romans. There is no mention of such objects
in Latin literature, but it is probable that they were known as
_loculi_, and were made in imitation of the metal Θησαυροί used for
keeping money in temples. Of this there is a clear instance in a
specimen recently found at Priene in Asia Minor,[2703] in the form of a
small shrine with a slit in the top. Graeven states that there is
evidence of their having been placed on a cornice which ran round the
walls of the rooms in the houses. This box has an additional hole at
the back for extracting the money, but the Roman specimens have only
one opening. An example of a clay treasure-box from Western Europe is
one in the form of a chest, 12½ inches high, with a bust of Apollo on
the top, found at Vichy, and now in the Museum at Moulins.[2704] It may
have been placed in a _sacellum_ or chapel for the offerings of those
who visited the medicinal springs.

Of the Roman money-boxes proper four main types may be distinguished.
The first, of which examples have been found at Pompeii,[2705] is in
the form of a small chest or coffer (_arca_), and may have been known
by the name _arcula_. The second type is that of a money-box in the
form of a vase.[2706] The custom of hoarding money in jars (_ollae_, p.
470) was universal in Roman times, as we know from the _Aulularia_ of
Plautus, the plot of which turns on this practice,[2707] and from the
numerous finds of coins in jars in our own day. None of these have any
ornamentation; they have been found in Germany, and there is a small
specimen in the British Museum from Lincoln,[2708] of spherical form
with a knob at the top. Aubrey records the finding of a similar one in
North Wiltshire.[2709] These appear to be of very late date.

The next two types are of much greater interest, not only from their
ornamentation, but from their form and the inscriptions which they
bear. In the one the box takes a flat circular form, closely resembling
the body of a lamp (the shape is that of Fig. 207), with a design
similarly placed in a medallion. One actually has a figure of Victory
with a shield, which reproduces the type of the New Year lamps
described on page 413 (B.M. No. 309), and has a similar
inscription.[2710] It may be supposed that these boxes were carried
round on New Year’s Day to solicit contributions, just as is done (says
Herr Graeven) by boys in Rome at the present time. Others have figures
of Fortune and Hermes in a shrine,[2711] the latter deity being of
course specially associated with money-making. These two examples have
their respective makers’ names on the back, C IVN BIT and PALLADI,
names which are also found on Roman lamps,[2712] another detail which
shows the close connection between these two classes of objects.


  From _Jahrbuch_.


The last type to be described is shaped like a bee-hive, or, as in Fig.
200, like a circular temple, forms which were found convenient for the
then favourite design of a deity in a shrine. Among the examples quoted
by Graeven[2713] is one of the latter shape with Fortune (Fig. 200),
now in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Of the bee-hive form three may be
mentioned as presenting interesting features. One with Hermes in a
shrine has the maker’s name, PAS AVGV, which also occurs on
lamps[2714]; another, found on the Aventine, and now at Gotha,[2715]
has on the front the figure of a victorious charioteer, on the reverse
a slit for the coins, and the maker’s name, AEL MAX. D’Agincourt
suggested that this type of box was carried about by victors in the
games to receive donations. Lastly, there is one recorded to have been
found in the Baths of Titus in 1812, but now lost, which contained
coins of Trajan, and was inscribed FISCI IVDAICI CALUMNIA SVBLATA. The
evidence points to the dating of these two classes in the first century
of the Empire, or slightly later.

Terracotta moulds for false or debased coins of the Imperial period
have frequently been discovered in different parts of the Empire.[2716]
None, indeed, have come to light in Italy, but they occur in Egypt,
Tunis, France, on the Rhine, in Switzerland, Lower Austria, and
Britain. They were first noted by A. le Pois in 1579 at Fourvières,
where moulds were found of coins of Septimius Severus and his
successors. In 1697 and 1706 more of the same period, of local clay,
were found at Lingwell Gate, near Wakefield,[2717] in 1704 at Lyons,
and in 1764 at Augst, near Basle. In 1829 and 1830 further finds were
made at Wakefield, and again in 1869 at Duston, Northants.[2718]
Numbers have been noted from time to time in the museums of France and
the Rhenish provinces, the most interesting find being that made in
1829-30 at Damery, near Épernay, in the Department of Marne. In 1859 a
find of 130 moulds contained in a jug was made at Bernard; they appear
to have been hastily placed there and left by forgers. At Bordeaux in
1884 finds were made in the ruins of a pottery, and others more
recently at Autun and La Coulouche. In 1899 thirty-four moulds were
found at Susa in Tunis. The British Museum has a collection of moulds
of denarii from Egypt, mostly found at Crocodilopolis (Arsinoe) in the
Fayûm; they are of a deep brick-red local clay, but a great number are
burnt black.

Nearly all these moulds fall between the reigns of Septimius Severus
and Diocletian, but some of those at Bernard go back as far as Trajan,
and there are isolated instances of coins of Domitian at one end, of
Constantius II. and Julia Mamaea at the other. Caracalla and Elagabalus
are frequently represented, and those in the British Museum include
Albinus, Crispus, Constantine, Galerius, Licinius, and Macrinus. The
Damery find included thirty-nine moulds, comprising types of the coins
of Caracalla, the elder Philip, and Postumus; 2,000 pieces of base
silver coin, chiefly of Postumus; 3,900 bronzes of Constans I. and
Constantius, all evidently made together; chisels and remains of other
tools, and groups of moulds still containing the metal, and also lumps
of metal which had overflowed from the moulds.

The way in which these moulds were used is as follows. The complete
mould was composed of two shallow round boxes with hollow impressions
respectively of the obverse and reverse, obtained by impressing the
designs from genuine coins into the soft clay. The depth of the hollow
was so calculated that when the two were placed together the space
represented the required thickness. To cast the coins, a number of
these moulds were placed one on the other, and luted with clay to
prevent the liquid metal from escaping between the two pieces of each
mould; down the side of the column formed by the pile of moulds a
hollow cutting was made, at the base of which holes were pierced
corresponding to the cavities where the metal was to enter. The metal
was then poured into the hollow, and ran in through the holes as
required.[2719] Sometimes the columns were joined in groups of three
25[29]image for which a single column served; of this there is an
example at Damery, where each _rouleau_ contained a dozen moulds
(thirteen discs). In the Cabinet des Médailles at Paris there is an
example of one of these _rouleaux_ of moulds, found at Lyons in 1704
(Fig. 201),[2720] with the basin in which they were placed for the
casting. At Susa the moulds were fitted slantwise into a bronze tube.

[Illustration: FIG. 201. TERRACOTTA COIN-MOULD.]

It is not absolutely certain whether these moulds were all used for
fraudulent purposes by forgers; the find at Damery, for instance, was
made on the site of Bibe, an important station on the road from Rheims
to Beauvais, which would be too prominent a place for forgers to have
selected. It is much more likely that in such a case they were used to
make coins of inferior alloy, perhaps in some instances for the issues
of usurpers who, being at a considerable distance from the capital,
were unable to fill their military chests except with hastily cast
coins. The distant parts of the Empire in which these moulds are found
lend some colour to this theory. It will also be remembered that they
mostly date from the time when a debased coinage was current throughout
the Empire, beginning with the reign of Septimius Severus; this was put
an end to by Diocletian in 297. We may therefore suppose that they
represent, so to speak, officially recognised forgeries, emanating from
a kind of local mint for producing coins hastily for provincial use.
Hence the rapid spread of base money in the third century, which was
not only forced upon the State, but was also readily taken advantage of
by forgers.


Footnote 2395:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxi. 47; Columella, _Re Rust._ iii. 11, 9.

Footnote 2396:

  _Etym._ xv. 8, 16: cf. xix. 10, 16.

Footnote 2397:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 170; Nonius, p. 445, 22.

Footnote 2398:

  Columella, _Re Rust._ ix. 1, 2; Vitr. i. 5, 8; Varro, _Re Rust._ i.
  14, 4.

Footnote 2399:

  Vitr. ii. 8, 4; Varro, _Re Rust._ ii. 3, 6.

Footnote 2400:

  Columella, _loc. cit._: _paries crudo latere ac luto constructus_.
  Cf. Caesar, _Bell. Civ._ ii. 9, of a floor, and ii. 15; also Vitr.
  ii. 1, 7; Pliny, _H.N._ xviii. 301.

Footnote 2401:

  Vitr. ii. 3, 3.

Footnote 2402:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 170 ff.

Footnote 2403:

  Vitr. vii. 1, 7 and 4, 2; Pallad. _Agric._ i. 19, 1 and 40, 2;
  Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2793-94; Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, 942-944.

Footnote 2404:

  Cf. Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 188.

Footnote 2405:

  Cf. Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 59 (cut) =
  _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 1, fig. 5.

Footnote 2406:

  Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 618.

Footnote 2407:

  Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 64 ff.

Footnote 2408:

  Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 618; Roach-Smith, _Collect.
  Antiq._ ii. p. 91.

Footnote 2409:

  _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 12: see also _Archaeologia_, xlix.
  p. 427, where it is pointed out that measurements of bricks form no
  guide to their date.

Footnote 2410:

  _Loc. cit._

Footnote 2411:

  _Jahreshefte_ (Beiblatt), i. p. 123.

Footnote 2412:

  ii. 3, 1.

Footnote 2413:

  This may be the origin of the foot-shaped stamp so common in Roman
  lamps and vases (see Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 18).

Footnote 2414:

  Cf. also Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 186.

Footnote 2415:

  Vitr. ii. 3. This passage with Pallad. _Agric._ vi. 12 and Isid.
  _Etym._ xix. 10, 16 are the _loci classici_ on the subject.

Footnote 2416:

  Blümner, ii. p. 20, points out that there are very few instances of
  this, and perhaps Vitruvius’ idea was not practical.

Footnote 2417:

  Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. pp. 12, 62.

Footnote 2418:

  See Roach-Smith, _Illustr. Rom. London_, p. 112.

Footnote 2419:

  xxxix. 61 (ἐκ πλίνθων).

Footnote 2420:

  _Apud_ Non., p. 48 (s.v. suffundatum).

Footnote 2421:

  _De Div._ ii. 47, 99.

Footnote 2422:

  Vitr. ii. 8, 18.

Footnote 2423:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 173.

Footnote 2424:

  Vitr. ii. 8, 17.

Footnote 2425:


Footnote 2426:

  See Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Aquaeductus; Middleton, _Remains of
  Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 323.

Footnote 2427:

  Suet. _Aug._ 28.

Footnote 2428:

  Borrmann, _Die Keramik in der Baukunst_ (Durm’s _Handbuch d.
  Architektur_), p. 51.

Footnote 2429:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iv. p. 11, pls. 5-6.

Footnote 2430:

  Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 26; Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 36.

Footnote 2431:

  See Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 38.

Footnote 2432:

  _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 664.

Footnote 2433:

  Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. pp. 254, 301; _id._ in
  _Archaeologia_, xlix. p. 426.

Footnote 2434:

  See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 9.

Footnote 2435:

  Mau-Kelsey, p. 38: but see Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 59.

Footnote 2436:

  See Blümner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 146, where a good illustration is

Footnote 2437:

  _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 2, fig. 4; Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 55,
  fig. 6.

Footnote 2438:

  v. 10, 2.

Footnote 2439:

  See also on this subject Anderson and Spiers, _Architecture of Greece
  and Rome_, p. 137 ff.; Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 66, ii. p. 120,
  fig. 64.

Footnote 2440:

  See Middleton, _op. cit._ i. p. 62; _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 2, fig. 5.

Footnote 2441:

  Middleton, _op. cit._ i. pp. 12, 62.

Footnote 2442:

  _Etym._ xv. 8, 15; xix. 10, 15.

Footnote 2443:

  Henzen, _Inscr._ 6445, 7279-80.

Footnote 2444:

  Orelli, _Inscr._ 4190.

Footnote 2445:

  There are tiles in existence marked DOL · DELIC, _i.e._ (_opus_)
  _doliare deliciare_ (Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 619).

Footnote 2446:

  The arrangement is well illustrated on pl. 6 of Campana’s _Ant. opere
  in plastica_ (from Ostia).

Footnote 2447:

  Vitr. v. 9, 7; viii. 7, 1.

Footnote 2448:

  Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 374; Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p.

Footnote 2449:

  See Vitr. vii. 4, 2; Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 65 ff.

Footnote 2450:

  Orelli, 1396: see _Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad. Gesellsch._ 1901, pt.
  2, p. 13.

Footnote 2451:

  Caumont, _Cours_, ii. p. 182.

Footnote 2452:

  _Ibid._ p. 184.

Footnote 2453:

  Brongniart and Riocreux, _Mus. de Sèvres_, i. p. 18.

Footnote 2454:

  _Bull. Arch. Nap._ 1853, pl. 14, p. 185.

Footnote 2455:

  Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 6.

Footnote 2456:

  For references to ornamental terracotta antefixes in Latin literature
  see below, p. 371; and cf. Livy, xxvi. 23, xxxiv. 4.

Footnote 2457:

  See for an account of these Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p.
  5; also Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 251.

Footnote 2458:

  Von Rohden, pl. 7, fig. 1, from the Casa dei Niobidi.

Footnote 2459:

  _Ibid._, pls. 5, 2, and 6, 1.

Footnote 2460:

  For examples of this type see _B.M. Terracottas_, D 66 (from
  Corneto), D 700 (from Cumae), and D 706 (from Capua).

Footnote 2461:

  Mau-Kelsey, _Pompeii_, p. 36.

Footnote 2462:

  Von Rohden, pls. 14-16; 18, fig. 1: cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D
  699, from Pompeii.

Footnote 2463:

  _Ibid._ pls. 11-13.

Footnote 2464:

  Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 6.

Footnote 2465:

  Campana, pl. 6: cf. for the story Livy, xxix. 14, and Preller-Jordan,
  _Röm. Mythol._ ii. p. 55.

Footnote 2466:

  _Archaeologia_, xiv. pl. 13, p. 64: cf. Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p.

Footnote 2467:

  Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 181, ii. p. 121 ff.

Footnote 2468:

  vii. 4, 2.

Footnote 2469:

  See Middleton in _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 663, for a general
  discussion of the subject; also Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p.

Footnote 2470:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ iii. pl. 26, p. 114; _Illustr. Rom.
  London_, p. 115.

Footnote 2471:

  Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, vii. p. 620.

Footnote 2472:

  _Ep._ 90, 25 (xiv. 2).

Footnote 2473:

  _Ep._ ii. 17, 23.

Footnote 2474:

  So also in the Roman villa at Woodchester (Wright, _Celt, Roman, and
  Saxon_^4, p. 198).

Footnote 2475:

  Middleton, _op. cit._ ii. p. 113 ff.; _id._ in _Archaeologia_, li.
  pl. 3.

Footnote 2476:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. p. 21, pl. 8, figs. 1-2.

Footnote 2477:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1250; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 114, fig. 3.

Footnote 2478:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1238.

Footnote 2479:

  _Archaeologia_, lii. pl. 20.

Footnote 2480:

  vii. 4, 2.

Footnote 2481:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 125. Cf. _Arch. Journ._ viii.
  p. 30 ff. for another example from Hadstock, Essex.

Footnote 2482:

  _Archaeologia_, lii. p. 666.

Footnote 2483:

  Cf. Vitr. _loc. cit._

Footnote 2484:

  Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, ii. p. 123.

Footnote 2485:

  See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._, and cf. Vitr. viii. 7, 1; Isid.
  _Etym._ xv. 8, 17; xix. 10, 29.

Footnote 2486:

  _C.I.L._ x. 4842.

Footnote 2487:

  viii. 7, 1.

Footnote 2488:

  _H.N._ xxxi. 57.

Footnote 2489:

  viii. 7, 10.

Footnote 2490:

  _Mon. Antichi_, i. pl. 6, p. 326.

Footnote 2491:

  See Lanciani in _Atti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei_, Ser. 3, iv.
  (1879-80), p. 399 ff.

Footnote 2492:

  Avolio, _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, p. 8.

Footnote 2493:

  See generally Blümner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 161 ff.; Middleton,
  _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 80.

Footnote 2494:

  _Archaeologia_, li. pl. 3.

Footnote 2495:

  Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 64.

Footnote 2496:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 165; xxxvi. 188: cf. _Geoponica_, ii. 27, 5; Pallad. i.
  9, 4; Cato, _Agric._ xviii. 7; Vitr. vii. 1, 4; Columella, i. 6, 13;
  viii. 15, 3, 17, 1; ix. 1, 2.

Footnote 2497:

  Middleton, _op. cit_. ii. p. 121, fig. 65.

Footnote 2498:

  Cf. Buckman and Newmarch, _Roman Art in Cirencester_, p. 49 ff.

Footnote 2499:

  Vitr. vii. 1, 4; Pliny, _H.N._ xxxvi. 184; Stat. _Silv._ i. 3, 54.

Footnote 2500:

  _Archaeologia_, xxvi. pl. 44, p. 370.

Footnote 2501:

  Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 113.

Footnote 2502:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1223-24.

Footnote 2503:

  _Ibid._ 1222 (in B.M.); others from Brecon and Abergavenny.

Footnote 2504:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1225.

Footnote 2505:

  The inscribed tiles found in Rome have been collected and published
  by Dressel in vol. xv. (part 1, Nos. 1-2155) of the _Corpus Inscr.
  Lat._ Others are published in the other volumes under the heading
  “Instrumentum Domesticum.” In the succeeding pages Dressel’s account
  has been mainly followed.

Footnote 2506:

  See Hübner, _Exempla Script. Epigr. Lat._ p. lxviii.

Footnote 2507:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 19-29; 209, 1145; 709; 1212; 398.

Footnote 2508:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 148-49.

Footnote 2509:

  _Opus doliare_ is the invariable word for bricks or tiles in Roman
  inscriptions, _figlinum_ being confined to pottery of the finer kind
  (cf. p. 330).

Footnote 2510:

  Cassiodorus, _Variar._ i. 25: cf. ii. 23.

Footnote 2511:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 1668-70.

Footnote 2512:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 204, Nos. 1616, 1627, etc.

Footnote 2513:

  Middleton, _Remains of Ancient Rome_, i. p. 13.

Footnote 2514:

  _C.I.L._ xiv. 4089, 7, from Ostia.

Footnote 2515:

  _Ibid._ 4090, No. 14.

Footnote 2516:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 478 ff.: cf. 683, and _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1840, p. 240.

Footnote 2517:

  _Ibid._ 677-82.

Footnote 2518:

  _Ibid._ 389.

Footnote 2519:

  B.M. _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 150.

Footnote 2520:

  _E.g._ Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscr. Lat._ 2793_a_.

Footnote 2521:

  See Blanchet,  _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 110.

Footnote 2522:

  See Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danubii et Rheni_, i. p. 85, No. 190,
  ii. p. 187, No. 1231.

Footnote 2523:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1255, 1257.

Footnote 2524:

  _Ibid._ 1242.

Footnote 2525:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. p. 274.

Footnote 2526:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 1097-1101, and see p. 275.

Footnote 2527:

  Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, 1418.

Footnote 2528:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 1539.

Footnote 2529:

  _Ibid._ 1540, 1542.

Footnote 2530:

  _Ibid._ 1668-70.

Footnote 2531:

  Steiner, _op. cit._ i. p. 252, No. 541 (from Mainz); also _Bonner
  Jahrbücher_, ii. p. 92.

Footnote 2532:

  Steiner, i. p. 75, No. 171; ii. p. 248, No. 1373.

Footnote 2533:

  _C.I.L._ iii. p. 962; _Wiener Sitzungsberichte_, xiv. (1855), p. 133.

Footnote 2534:

  _C.I.L._ _ibid._

Footnote 2535:

  Steiner, ii. p. 254, No. 1391.

Footnote 2536:

  Now in Pesth Museum (_C.I.L._ _ibid._).

Footnote 2537:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1260.

Footnote 2538:

  _Ibid._ 1259; _Victoria County Hist. of Hants_, i. p. 282 (_q.v._ for
  other examples).

Footnote 2539:

  _Cat._ p. 73, No. 56; _Ephem. Epigr._ vii. (1892), p. 344.

Footnote 2540:

  _C.I.L._ ii. 4967, 31: cf. _Victoria County Hist. of Hants_, i. p.

Footnote 2541:

  _E.g._ B.M. E 149: see p. 354.

Footnote 2542:

  See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 10.

Footnote 2543:

  Steiner, _Cod. Inscr. Rom. Danub. et Rheni_, ii. p. 253, No. 1389.

Footnote 2544:

  _C.I.L._ xv. p. 5 ff. For epigraphical and grammatical peculiarities
  see _ibid._ p. 7. On p. 204 is given a list of emperors whose names
  are found on the tiles, from Trajan to Septimius Severus.

Footnote 2545:

  See for these abbreviations and expressions _C.I.L._ xv. p. 387.

Footnote 2546:

  B.M. E 152.

Footnote 2547:

  _C.I.L._ xiv. 4089, 1.

Footnote 2548:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 3, 4, xiv. 4089, 4.

Footnote 2549:

  _Cat._ p. 73, Nos. 60-3.

Footnote 2550:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1235; Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. p. 143: see
  also _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxix. p. 389.

Footnote 2551:

  Numerous examples of these legionary stamps will be found in
  Steiner’s _Codex Inscr. Rom. Danubii et Rheni_ (1851); they will
  presumably be republished in the forthcoming part of vol. xiii. of
  the Latin _Corpus_.

Footnote 2552:

  _C.I.L._ xiv. 4090, 2.

Footnote 2553:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1225.

Footnote 2554:

  See generally _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. 1, for Dacia, Pannonia, and the
  East; for Germany, Steiner, _op. cit. passim_, and _Bonner
  Jahrbücher_, index to vols. 1-60.

Footnote 2555:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1228.

Footnote 2556:

  _Ibid._ 1231: see Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 116.

Footnote 2557:

  Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2804.

Footnote 2558:

  _C.I.L._ iii. 3756.

Footnote 2559:

  Steiner, ii. p. 250, No. 1379.

Footnote 2560:

  Marini, _Iscriz. ant. doliari_, No. 1382; Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 2805

Footnote 2561:

  _C.I.L._ vii. 1226; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 112;
  Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. p. 110.

Footnote 2562:

  Vitr. iv. 6.

Footnote 2563:

  Campana, _Ant. opere in plastica_, p. 31.

Footnote 2564:

  _S.v._ Antefixa or Impluvium.

Footnote 2565:

  _Ep. ad Att._ i. 10.

Footnote 2566:

  B.M. D 543, 576, 594; _Röm. Mitth._ 1886, p. 173; _Notizie degli
  Scavi_, 1901, p. 188.

Footnote 2567:

  _Cat._ 501-660. It has been stated, but on what authority is unknown,
  that they were found in a well near the Porta Latina, together with a
  series of statues discussed below (p. 373).

Footnote 2568:

  A collective publication of these reliefs is being prepared by the
  German Archaeological Institute.

Footnote 2569:

  See Helbig’s _Führer_^2, ii. pp. 272, 408 ff.

Footnote 2570:

  Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxvi. 189: Agrippa in thermis figulinum opus
  encausto pinxit: see also Vol. I. p. 119.

Footnote 2571:

  See _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, p. xvii.

Footnote 2572:

  Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 20: see also pls. 21, 23.

Footnote 2573:

  D 626-27: cf. _Jahreshefte_, 1903, p. 25.

Footnote 2574:

  _Ant. opere in plastica_, pl. 14.

Footnote 2575:

  Hauser, _Neuattische Reliefs_, pp. 111, 128.

Footnote 2576:

  B.M. D 520, 527; Campana, pls. 47-8.

Footnote 2577:

  B.M. D 583-85; Campana, pls. 61, 62: cf. the Arretine krater, Fig.
  219, p. 488.

Footnote 2578:

  B.M. D 561; Campana, pls. 27, 41.

Footnote 2579:

  B.M. D 501; Campana, pls. 1-2.

Footnote 2580:

  Campana, pl. 3.

Footnote 2581:

  B.M. D 505; Campana, pl. 18.

Footnote 2582:

  B.M. D 507; Campana, pl. 19.

Footnote 2583:

  B.M. D 508-9; Campana, pl. 10.

Footnote 2584:

  B.M. D 510-24; Campana, pls. 9-10, 15, 53, 88, 102-3.

Footnote 2585:

  Helbig 1459 = Overbeck, _Kunstmythol. Atlas_, pl. 16, 8.

Footnote 2586:

  Campana, pls. 7-8, 13, 16-7.

Footnote 2587:

  B.M. D 531: cf. Campana, pls. 29-30.

Footnote 2588:

  B.M. D 525; Campana, pl. 50: see _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 295.

Footnote 2589:

  See for these B.M. D 526, 534-52.

Footnote 2590:

  Campana, pls. 26, 31, 35-7, 43-6.

Footnote 2591:

  B.M. D 553-60.

Footnote 2592:

  B.M. D 569-79: cf. _J.H.S._ vii. p. 284.

Footnote 2593:

  B.M. D 566-68; Campana, pls. 86 ff.

Footnote 2594:

  Campana, pl. 55; Helbig, 1179.

Footnote 2595:

  Campana, pls. 20-4; Helbig, 1180.

Footnote 2596:

  B.M. D 592-605; Campana, pls. 56-58, 63-65, 68; Helbig, 1188.

Footnote 2597:

  Otherwise interpreted, Helbig, _Führer_^2, ii. p. 418.

Footnote 2598:

  B.M. D 606-609; Campana, pls. 66-67, 71-73; Helbig, 1190, 1456.

Footnote 2599:

  B.M. D 611-617; Campana, pls. 74-81.

Footnote 2600:

  B.M. D 624-632; Campana, pls. 89-96; Helbig, 1466; and see
  _Jahreshefte_, 1903, p. 16 ff.

Footnote 2601:

  B.M. D 633-638; Campana, pls. 114, 115.

Footnote 2602:

  Plutarch, _Vit. Num._ viii. 8.

Footnote 2603:

  _Sat._ xi. 116.

Footnote 2604:

  iv. (v.), 1, 5.

Footnote 2605:

  _H.N._ xxxiv. 34; and see xxxv. 158.

Footnote 2606:

  iii. 2 (3), 5.

Footnote 2607:

  _De Div._ i. 10, 16.

Footnote 2608:

  xxvi. 23.

Footnote 2609:

  Ovid, _Fast._ i. 202; Seneca, _Cons. ad Helv._ 10, 7: cf. _Ep._ 31
  (iv. 2, 11).

Footnote 2610:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 159; Plut. _Vit. Num._ 17.

Footnote 2611:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 154.

Footnote 2612:

  _Ibid._ 155.

Footnote 2613:

  _Ibid._ 156.

Footnote 2614:

  Livy, xxxi. 4.

Footnote 2615:

  Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 155.

Footnote 2616:

  Helbig, _Führer_, ii. p. 272, No. 1177.

Footnote 2617:

  _Cat._ D 439.

Footnote 2618:

  Froehner’s _Cat._ No. 249.

Footnote 2619:

  B.M. _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 431-437, and see _ibid._ p. xiii; also
  Smith, _Nollekens and his Times_, i. p. 10.

Footnote 2620:

  Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuit_, p. 233.

Footnote 2621:

  Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 29, p. 18, 21; Pottier,
  _op. cit._ p. 230.

Footnote 2622:

  Von Rohden, pl. 32.

Footnote 2623:

  _Ibid._ pls. 34-35.

Footnote 2624:

  _Ibid._ pl. 19, fig. 2.

Footnote 2625:

  _Ibid._ pl. 25: cf. pl. 26.

Footnote 2626:

  _Ibid._ pl. 24, 2.

Footnote 2627:

  _H.N._ xxxv. 153.

Footnote 2628:

  _Ibid._ 156.

Footnote 2629:

  _Ibid._ 155: see also on this subject Wickhoff, _Roman Art_, English
  edn., p. 42; Blümner, _Technologie_, iii. p. 190; Gardner, _Handbook
  of Gk. Sculpture_, p. 33.

Footnote 2630:

  Cf. Von Rohden, _op. cit._ p. 24.

Footnote 2631:

  _Ibid._: cf. also pls. 35-36, 41, 47. For the subject of the feeding
  of the prisoner cf. _Classical Review_, 1901, p. 93.

Footnote 2632:

  _Ibid._ pl. 42, pp. 25, 53.

Footnote 2633:

  xiv. 178.

Footnote 2634:

  _Ibid._ 176, 182.

Footnote 2635:

  _Ibid._ 171.

Footnote 2636:

  ii. 70: cf. Lactant, _Div. Inst._ ii. 4.

Footnote 2637:

  iii. 15.

Footnote 2638:

  Lampridius, _Vit._ 25.

Footnote 2639:

  i. 10, 23 and 11, 46: cf. Warde Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 272.

Footnote 2640:

  _De fer. rom._ 31 (Teubner edn. p. 105); but see Marquardt,
  _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. p. 563.

Footnote 2641:

  _Sat._ i. 10, 23.

Footnote 2642:

  Cf. the ceremony of the Argei on the Ides of May (Preller-Jordan,
  _Röm. Mythol._ ii. p. 135).

Footnote 2643:

  _Sat._ i. 11, 46-49: cf. Preller-Jordan, _loc. cit._

Footnote 2644:

  _Sat._ i. 11, 1.

Footnote 2645:

  Cf. Seneca, _Ep._ 12 (i. 12, 3), and other references given by
  Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 125.

Footnote 2646:

  Spartianus, _Vit. Hadriani_, 17.

Footnote 2647:

  _Id. Vit. Carac._ 1.

Footnote 2648:

  Orelli, _Inscr. Lat._ 4279, 4191.

Footnote 2649:

  Suet. _Claud._ 16, _Nero_ 28; Gellius, ii. 3, 5, v. 4, 1.

Footnote 2650:

  Dio Cass. lix. 6; Gell. ii. 3, 5.

Footnote 2651:

  Tert. _Apol._ 12 and _ad Nat._ i. 12; the Greek word is κάναβος: see
  Vol. I. p. 111.

Footnote 2652:

  iv. 15.

Footnote 2653:

  Von Rohden, pls. 36-45.

Footnote 2654:

  _Ibid._ p. 21, fig. 14.

Footnote 2655:

  _Op. cit._ p. 22: see also Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p.

Footnote 2656:

  Fernique, _Praeneste_, pp. 166, 211 ff.

Footnote 2657:

  Paris, _Élatée_, p. 156.

Footnote 2658:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1886, p. 176: cf. _Archaeologia_, 1. pls. 8, 9.

Footnote 2659:

  Wright, _Celt, Roman, and Saxon_^4, p. 281.

Footnote 2660:

  _Victoria County Hist. of Norfolk_, p. 291.

Footnote 2661:

  _Cat._ p. 71, Nos. 39, 46; p. 70, No. 30.

Footnote 2662:

  _Handbook of British Pottery_, 1893, p. 77.

Footnote 2663:

  _Figurines en Argile_ (1859): see for abstracts Roach-Smith in
  _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 48 ff., and Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre
  Cuite_, p. 236.

Footnote 2664:

  _Rev. Arch._ xi. (1888), p. 145 ff.

Footnote 2665:

  _Mémoires de la Soc. Nat. des Antiquaires de France_, li. (1891), p.
  65 ff., with a supplement in vol. lx. (1901), p. 189 ff.

Footnote 2666:

  _Op. cit._ lx. p. 197.

Footnote 2667:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 48-49: cf. Tudot, pl. 9, and Roach-Smith,
  _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 109.

Footnote 2668:

  See the lists given by Tudot (p. 64) and Blanchet (p. 83).

Footnote 2669:

  Pl. 3: other examples in pls. 4-14.

Footnote 2670:

  See Chapter XXIII. and Pottier, _Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p. 241.

Footnote 2671:

  See the tables given by Blanchet, p. 115.

Footnote 2672:

  Blanchet, p. 89. For AVOT see also p. 384.

Footnote 2673:

  For a complete list of Gaulish sites on which statuettes were made,
  see Blanchet, _Mélanges Gallo-romaines_, ii. (1902), p. 90 ff.

Footnote 2674:

  _Op. cit._ lx. p. 204.

Footnote 2675:

  _Op. cit._ lx. pp. 206, 234.

Footnote 2676:

  _Rev. Arch._ xv. (1890), p. 423 (from Dijon); for a list, see
  Blanchet, _op. cit._ li. p. 96.

Footnote 2677:

  Orelli, _Inscr. Lat._ 2776.

Footnote 2678:

  Blanchet, _op. cit._ plate, fig. 1; _Rev. Arch._ xi. (1888), p. 155,
  pl. 6.

Footnote 2679:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vi. p. 228 ff., pls. 46-47.

Footnote 2680:

  _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 71, No. 32. See also for Britain generally,
  _Cumbd. and Westmd. Ant. Soc. Trans._ xv. p. 505.

Footnote 2681:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ vii. p. 63; _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p 109.

Footnote 2682:

  _Op. cit._ p. 106 ff.

Footnote 2683:

  See Blanchet, p. 120 ff.

Footnote 2684:

  _Bell. Gall._ vi. 17.

Footnote 2685:

  Cf. Heuzey, _Figurines ant. du Louvre_, pls. 2-4.

Footnote 2686:

  For a good example at Rouen see Blanchet, p. 167.

Footnote 2687:

  Cf. _B.M. Cat.  of Terracottas_, D 229 ff.

Footnote 2688:

  See Roscher, _s.v._ Fecunditas.

Footnote 2689:

  _Op. cit._ lx. p. 198.

Footnote 2690:

  See p. 489.

Footnote 2691:

  Cf. Lafaye, _Culte des divinités d’Alexandrie_, p. 162 ff.

Footnote 2692:

  See Blanchet, _op. cit._ p. 143 ff.

Footnote 2693:

  See Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, pl. 27, p. 5.

Footnote 2694:

  _Ibid._ pl. 26.

Footnote 2695:

  Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, fig. 4607: see below, p. 396.

Footnote 2696:

  _Re Rust._ iii. 15.

Footnote 2697:

  ix. 6.

Footnote 2698:

  _Antr. Nymph._ 3, 14 ff. (Teubner).

Footnote 2699:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 123-124.

Footnote 2700:

  See _Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc._ xxxii. p. 65.

Footnote 2701:

  See also Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Forma, fig. 3186.

Footnote 2702:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 161 ff.: see also Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._

Footnote 2703:

  _Op. cit._ p. 167. Cf. also for the form the Θησαυροί at Olympia.

Footnote 2704:

  _Op. cit._ p. 166; Tudot, _Figurines_, pl. 48; Daremberg and Saglio,
  _s.v._ Loculus, fig. 4512.

Footnote 2705:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 168.

Footnote 2706:

  _Ibid._ p. 170.

Footnote 2707:

  Cf. also Hor. _Sat._ ii. 6, 10.

Footnote 2708:

  Jahrbuch, _loc. cit._

Footnote 2709:

  _Miscellanies_, p. 26.

Footnote 2710:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 178 = _C.I.L._ xv. 6068.

Footnote 2711:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 179; fig. 200.

Footnote 2712:

  See below, p. 428, and _C.I.L._, xv. 6502, 6608; also B.M. Nos. 329,

Footnote 2713:

  _Op. cit._ p. 183 ff.

Footnote 2714:

  B.M. 488, 490; _C.I.L._ xv. 6610.

Footnote 2715:

  _Jahrbuch_, 1901, p. 185; _C.I.L._ xv. 6073: cf. for the signature on
  lamps, _ibid._ 6274, and B.M. 477.

Footnote 2716:

  See on this subject throughout Babelon, _Traité des monnaies grecques
  et romaines_, i. p. 955 (with full bibliography).

Footnote 2717:

  _Numism. Journal_, ii. pp. 58, 195.

Footnote 2718:

  Hill, _Greek and Roman Coins_, p. 157; _Victoria County History,
  Northants_, i. p. 198.

Footnote 2719:

  See Daremberg and Saglio, ii. _s.v._ Forma, for an account of the

Footnote 2720:

  Daremberg and Saglio, _loc. cit._, fig. 3187.

                              CHAPTER XX
                              _ROMAN LAMPS_

    Introduction of lamps at Rome—Sites where found—Principal
      parts of lamps—Purposes for which used—Superstitious and
      other uses—Chronological account of forms—Technical
      processes—Subjects—Deities—Mythological and literary
      subjects—_Genre_ subjects and animals—Inscriptions on
      lamps—Names of potters and their distribution—Centres of


    Bartoli, _Le antichi lucerne sepolcrali_; _Antichità di Ercolano_,
      vol. viii.; Kenner, _Die antiken Thonlampen des k.-k. Münz- und
      Antiken-Cabinetes zu Wien_, 1858; Wieseler in _Göttinger
      Nachrichten_, 1870 (Kestnersche Sammlung); La Blanchère and
      Gauckler, _Cat. du Musée Alaoui_, 1897; Daremberg and Saglio,
      _Dict. des Antiqs_, iii. art. LUCERNA (an admirable résumé by
      Toutain); Fink in _Sitzungsber. d. Münchener Akad. d. Wissensch._
      1900, p. 685 ff.; _C.I.L._, _passim_, _s.v._ Instrumentum
      Domesticum, but above all vol. xv. pt. 2, p. 782 ff. (Dressel).

Lamps (_lucernae_) were often made of terracotta, and these are in many
ways of special interest. Originally they appear to have been called
_lychnus_, from the Greek λύχνος, and this word is used by Ennius,
Lucilius, Lucretius, and Virgil.[2721] Varro[2722] says that the word
_lucerna_, from _lux_, was invented when the want of a Latin word was
felt, and that previously _candelae_ or torches had been alone in use,
there being no oil known in Italy suitable for this purpose. Even in
Greece lamps were comparatively rare all through the best period (cf.
Vol. I. p. 106). The oldest lamps found in Rome date from the third
century B.C., and are thought to be of Campanian fabric; they were
found on the Esquiline, and are of quite different character from the
ordinary Roman types.[2723] It would appear, therefore, that originally
the Romans borrowed lamps from Southern Italy. By the time of the
Empire their use had become general, and they are found everywhere. The
increase in their manufacture was mainly due to growing taste in house
decoration, and also to use in funeral ceremonies and for public
purposes, such as illumination. Of the latter use in imperial times
there is plenty of evidence (see below, p. 396).

The sites on which Roman lamps have been found are far too numerous to
discuss in detail, as they embrace every part of the Roman Empire. In
Rome and the neighbourhood they are especially plentiful, as is implied
by the fact that a large portion of the fifteenth volume of the Latin
_Corpus Inscriptionum_ is devoted to those with potters’ stamps alone.
They are found in all parts of Italy, in Gaul, Germany, Britain, Spain,
North Africa, Sicily, Greece, Egypt, Cyprus, and Asia Minor. The
question of centres of manufacture is discussed elsewhere (p. 427) in
connection with the potters’ stamps; but it may be noted that those
found on Greek soil are often of a distinct character from those of
Western Europe, and the stamps on them form a distinct group, being
usually in Greek letters (cf. Vol. I. p. 108). Of provincial sites,
Knidos, Ephesos, Carthage, and some of the German towns have proved
particularly rich in this respect. Large numbers have been found in
London, mostly of the later types, some perhaps of local fabric, and
those in the Romano-British collection of the British Museum are nearly
all from that city or from Colchester. Not the least remarkable fact of
their wide distribution is the occurrence in the most widely separated
regions of the same potter’s stamps and the same subjects, implying in
the former case extensive export from one centre, in the latter
systematic commercial intercourse between the potters of different

                  *       *       *       *       *

The principal parts of a Roman lamp[2724] are: (1) the reservoir or
body, which contained the oil (_infundibulum_); (2) the flat circular
top, known as the _discus_, sometimes with an ornamented rim (_margo_);
(3) the nozzle, with a hole for the insertion of the wick
(_rostrum_,[2725] _nasus_, myxus[2726]; the wick was called
_ellychnium_); (4) the handle (_ansa_, _manubrium_), which was not
indispensable. In the _discus_ was a filling-hole for pouring in the
oil, sometimes protected by a cover or stopper, and sometimes a second
smaller hole, the purpose of which has been disputed (see p. 406). The
number of nozzles was not limited, though there is usually only one; a
lamp with two is known as _bilychnis_[2727]; one with several, as
_polymyxus_. Martial in one of his epigrams says: “Though I illuminate
whole banquets with my flame, and have so many nozzles (_myxos_), I am
known as a single lamp.”[2728] The wicks were made of a plant known as
_verbascum_ φλόμος or _thryallis_,[2729] but tow, papyrus, and sulphur
were also employed[2730]; the oil was a vegetable oil of some kind.
Sometimes the lamps were provided with a sort of snuffers or tweezers
for extracting and trimming the wick,[2731] as described in a passage
in the _Moretum_ (10 ff.), which speaks of drawing out the wick of a
dying lamp with a needle:

             Admovet his pronam submissa fronte lucernam,
             Et producit acu stuppas humore carentes
             Excitat et crebris languentem flatibus ignem.

The purposes for which lamps were used by the Romans were various, but
fall under three main heads: (1) for purposes of illumination in
private houses, in public buildings, or on occasions of rejoicing; (2)
as offerings in temples; (3) as funerary furniture.

In small houses they were placed either in niches in the walls or on
brackets, or were suspended by chains, or even in some cases hung by
the handle from a nail. An Etruscan terracotta lamp bears evidence of
having been suspended in the last-named manner,[2732] but there is no
doubt that this was more usual with lamps of bronze, there being few in
terracotta which would have admitted of such a use. Sometimes the lamps
were made resting on a kind of support, as is the case with two in the
British Museum, and others found in Africa.[2733] On the support a
figure of a deity was usually modelled in relief.[2734] Combinations of
a lamp and altar are not uncommon, especially at Rome and Naples.[2735]
There are numerous examples from Pompeii and Herculaneum illustrating
their use in private life, although lamps of clay are confined to the
poorer houses or to domestic service. For their use in the bedchamber
at night evidence is afforded by Martial and other writers.[2736] A
rough classification of the existing terracotta lamps might be made by
dividing them into—(1) those with knobs for hanging, (2) those with
handles for carrying, (3) those without handles for placing on tables
or brackets.

Many passages in Latin writers afford evidence for the use of lamps in
processions or for illuminations at times of public rejoicings, such as
triumphs. They were thus used by Cleopatra, at the triumph of Julius
Caesar, at the return of Nero, and so on.[2737] Caligula had theatrical
representations performed by lamp-light at night, and Domitian arranged
hunts and gladiatoral combats _ad lychnuchos_.[2738] Severus Alexander
lighted up the baths with oil-lamps,[2739] and Tertullian speaks of
assisting in political triumphs by defrauding the day with the light of
lamps.[2740] Juvenal also speaks of their use in illuminations.[2741]
Many lamps, especially those with subjects relating to the circus or
games, are inscribed with the word SAECVL(_ares_), and it is possible
that they were used in connection with the Ludi Saeculares, at which
illuminations took place. But lamps with this inscription are not
exclusively ornamented with such subjects.[2742]

Lamps were used for burning in temples, and were also the subject of
votive offerings to the gods, in Greece as well as in Italy. One found
at Oenoanda in Lycia was offered “to the most high God”[2743]; and
those which Sir Charles Newton found in such large numbers at Knidos
(Vol. I. p. 108) were also votive offerings in the temenos of Demeter.
Votive lamps are recorded from Selinus,[2744] and at Carthage numbers
were found round the altar of Saturnus Balcaranensis.[2745] To their
use in the worship of Isis, as referred to by Apuleius, we allude below.

Nearly all lamps have been found in tombs, the custom of placing them
there being one of Asiatic, not of Greek, origin; it became quite
general under the Roman dominion. Christian lamps are found in the
catacombs, but not in cemeteries, showing that the practice came to be
regarded as pagan. At Avisford in Sussex they were found placed in open
bowls with handles, on brackets along the side of a tomb.[2746] The
Roman lamps found in tombs were placed there, like the Greek vases and
the later glass, for the use of the dead, sometimes, though not
necessarily, with the idea of their burning perpetually.[2747] An
inscription on a sepulchral _cippus_ in the British Museum[2748]
directs the heirs of the deceased to place a lighted lamp in his tomb
on the Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each month, and similarly L. Granius
Pudens of the seventh cohort requests that his family should place oil
in a lamp on his birthday.[2749] Another inscription in an elegiac
couplet says: “Whosoever places a lighted lamp in this tomb, may golden
earth cover his ashes.”[2750] A fourth inscription directs the daily
offering of a lamp at the public expense to the _manes_ of a deceased
person.[2751] In the story of the matron of Ephesus, told by Petronius,
a servant-maid is described as replenishing the lamp in a tomb as often
as was required.[2752] Two lamps in the Athens Museum have the subject
of a bear, and over it the inscription ΦΟΒΟC, “Fear”; being found in
tombs, they must have been placed there with some significance, and as,
on the evidence of a Cilician inscription, Phobos was regarded as a
guardian of tombs who frightened off robbers and other evilly-disposed
persons, it may be that the terrible bear was placed on the lamp as a
symbol of this protector of the dead.[2753]

Other superstitious uses of lamps, not connected with the tomb, were
not uncommon. Omens were drawn from the way in which the flame
burned,[2754] and Chrysostom describes a method of naming children by
giving names to lamps, which were then lighted, and the name of the
child was taken from that last extinguished.[2755]

There are also a few other exceptional uses of lamps, as for instance
when they were given as _strenae_, or New Year’s presents. Such lamps
usually have a figure of Victory holding a shield, on which are the
words ANNVM NOVVM FAVSTVM FELICEM, “A happy and prosperous New
Year!”[2756] In the field are heads of Janus, or cakes, wreaths, and
other objects also probably intended for presents. These all appear to
date from the beginning of the first century after Christ.[2757] A lamp
of the same class in the Guildhall Museum has on the shield FIILICTII,
_Felic(i)t(as)_.[2758] It is interesting to note that the New Year
lamps are found in tombs[2759]; they may, of course, have been
preserved and buried as mementoes; but at the same time, it is not
essential that the subject on a lamp should have any relation to its
purpose, as we have seen in the case of those inscribed
_Saeculares_.[2760] The Helioserapis lamp (see p. 403) and those with
Phobos as a bear may, indeed, be instances to the contrary, but on the
whole it would seem that the same rule would apply as in the case of
the terracottas (see Vol. I. p. 122).

[Illustration: FIG. 202. LAMP FROM THE ESQUILINE.]

The earliest Roman lamps are of rude shape, undecorated, with a long
projecting nozzle and circular reservoir; they are not always provided
with handles, but are often covered with black glaze, like the Greek
examples. Lamps of this type are found on the Esquiline, in North
Africa, as at Carthage, and in Sicily.[2761] One of the Esquiline
examples, dating from the second century, has the engraved inscription
VEVCADIA (Fig. 202).[2762] Like the Greek lamps, these are made on the
wheel (τροχήλατοι), not, as later ones, in a mould. Names in _graffito_
seem to imply a reference to the person in whose tomb the lamp was
found, and such formulae as AVE, NOLI ME TANGERE, NII ATTIGAS NON SVM
TVA M · SVM, PONE FVR (“Drop it, thief!”), which occur on the Esquiline
lamps, also clearly refer to funeral usage.[2763]


  FIG. 203.

In the first century B.C. the lamps, still mostly of black ware, and
devoid of subjects, are distinguished by the straight-ended,
concave-sided nozzle 20[26]nozzle with a shallow groove leading to the
centre, small grooved ring-handle, and sometimes a lateral projection
like a fin, from which some varieties are known as “delphiniform” (Fig.
203).[2764] These are often found in North Africa, but are also
imported into Italy, and some have Greek stamps. The top is sometimes
covered with globules, or with patterns of vine and ivy, and in the
later examples figure-subjects are introduced.[2765] The earlier ones
have large single letters or monograms underneath for potters’ marks;
the later, the name of the potter or superintendent of the pottery.


We now come to the Roman lamps of the Imperial period, of which such
large numbers exist in museums all over Europe and the basin of the
Mediterranean. They have not as yet been very systematically studied
and classified; but so far as the subject has been treated at all,
those who have investigated the development of the forms are fairly
unanimous in their general conclusions.[2766] The last writer on the
subject, Herr Fink, of Munich, has advanced a step further, and by
comparison of forms with potters’ signatures has arrived at some
interesting results, which we need not hesitate to accept in the
main.[2767] He adopted as the basis of his classification the form of
the nozzle in each case, for the obvious reason that it is more
essential to the character of a lamp than the handle; if the latter is
removed, the form is in no way affected, as it would be by the absence
of the nozzle.


Following, then, on the lines of Fink and the other writers, we may
establish—apart from abnormal forms and lamps modelled in the shape of
figures—four main classes, which are sufficient to include practically
all the lamps with which we have to deal. They may be summarised as

(1) Lamps with rounded nozzle or nozzles, flanked on each side by a
kind of double volute, as in Fig. 204 and B.M. 167-352. The usual
number of nozzles is one, but two are not infrequently found. These
belong to the first century B.C., and, being convenient forms for a
decorated top, are ornamented with all kinds of subjects[2768]; the
handle when present is often ornamented as in the cut.

(2) Lamps of the same type as the last, except that the nozzle ends in
an obtuse-angled termination, as Fig. 205 and B.M. 94-166. It is a form
not adapted for more than one nozzle, and usually has no handle.[2769]


(3) A small but distinct class, almost devoid of figured decoration
(Fig. 206 and B.M. 379-392), but usually with a potter’s name
underneath; the form is elegant, and probably copied from bronze.[2770]
The chief feature is the sunk centre, in which is usually placed a
Bacchic or comic mask; round it runs a raised rim, through which a
shallow groove passes to the somewhat elongated nozzle. This dates from
the first century of the Empire or earlier, some being found with coins
of Augustus, others at Pompeii; these lamps are of red clay, unglazed,
and have no handle. On the sides are projecting knobs, either
concealing the joins of the moulds (see p. 405), or for the attachment
of chains. The names of the makers, Strobilus, Communis, Fortis, etc.,
are in good raised letters, impressed in the mould (see Fig. 210). They
are found in all parts, but rarely south of Rome; most of them are from
Gallia Cispadana,[2771] and they may have been made at Mutina.


(4) In this class (Fig. 207 and B.M. 393-567) the nozzle is small, and
hardly projects beyond the rim of the lamp; it is semicircular or
heart-shaped in form, and sometimes has an incised line or circles at
the base. Fig. 208 represents a late development with the heart-shaped
nozzle, in which the design is always surrounded by a wreath or
ornamental pattern. Many of these lamps, especially those found in
Greece (see Vol. I. p. 108), have no handle; there is also a somewhat
late variety, described on the same page, which is confined to Greece
and marked by potters’ signatures in Greek letters (B.M. 604-629).
These lamps date from the time of Trajan onwards; the signatures are
usually abbreviated, and are stamped hollow, or sometimes scratched in
the wet clay; raised letters are rare. The subjects are very varied.

[Illustration: FIG. 208. THIRD-CENTURY TYPE OF LAMP.]

Some of the larger lamps in the first class, especially those with more
than one nozzle, have a flat vertical projection attached to the top of
the handle, triangular in form or crescent-shaped (as in Fig. 204), and
this is often ornamented with figures in relief, either whole subjects
or busts of deities, or such simple motives as a pair of dolphins, a
leaf, or a palmette. The figure-subjects are often quasi-Egyptian, such
as Harpocrates and Safekh on a British Museum example (No. 337 = Plate
LXIII. fig. 3), or a _lectisternium_ of Sarapis, Isis, Helios, and
Selene.[2772] In a few cases this projection is replaced by a bust or
even a seated figure of Sarapis enthroned in a niche. But in most cases
the handle, when present, is of a simple form, either a ring with
shallow parallel grooves or a solid projecting piece through which a
hole is pierced.


                                                             PLATE LXIII




Lamps of terracotta often assume, like those in bronze,[2773] a more
ornamental form, being modelled partly or wholly in the form of
figures, heads, animals, and so on. In some cases the upper part or
_discus_ only is modelled, assuming the form of a mask—Satyric,
theatrical, or grotesque.[2774] Among the entire-figures which form
lamps occur Artemis,[2775] Eros,[2776] Victory slaying a bull,[2777]
and various animals; more common are heads of Zeus Ammon,[2778] Pan,
Seilenos,[2779] negroes,[2780] and animals such as oxen, birds, snails,
frogs, or tortoises.[2781] A favourite shape is a lamp in the form of a
foot or a pair of feet, shod in sandals or boots,[2782] and there are
two lamps in the British Museum, one of enamelled ware, in the form of
a gladiator’s helmet[2783]; others form fruit, pine-cones or
crescents.[2784] In the lamps which are modelled in the form of a head,
the chin usually forms the nozzle, and the orifice for filling is on
the forehead; in those in the shape of a foot the nozzle is formed by
the great toe. Occasionally lamps are found in the form of a ship,
recalling that which, according to Apuleius, was used in the worship of
Isis: a golden boat or cup (_cymbium_, see Vol. I. p. 186), which shone
with a clear light and sent forth a long flame.[2785] An interesting
commentary on this use of lamps is formed by a remarkable example in
the British Museum (Plate LXIII. fig. 1),[2786] which is not only in
the shape of a boat, but is decorated with subjects referring to the
pseudo-Egyptian cults characteristic of Rome in the late republican and
early imperial period. This lamp, which is no less than twenty inches
long and has numerous holes for wicks along the sides, was dredged up
from the sea at Pozzuoli, where it may originally have been in the
temple of Isis and Sarapis. On it is the inscription [ΕΥΠΛΟΙΑ],
signifying “a prosperous voyage,” perhaps as a prayer on behalf of the
donor, and underneath are the words [ΛΑΒΕ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ] [ΗΛΙΟΣΕΡΑΠΙΝ],
“Receive me, Helioserapis,” by which the name of the vessel may be

Most lamps had only one wick, but the light which they afforded must
have been feeble, and consequently the number was often increased. When
the number is not large, or when the body is circular (as in Plate
LXIII. fig. 4), they project beyond the rim of the lamp, as in Class I.
already described, but the lamps which have a large number are usually
boat-shaped or rectangular in form (see Plate LXIII.), and the nozzles
do not then project, but are ranged along the sides, merely indicated
by separate moulding underneath.[2787] Occasionally a conglomeration of
small lamps was made in a row or group, but even in these cases the
illumination given must still have been feeble. The average size of a
lamp is from three to four inches in diameter across the body, the
length depending on the form of the handle and nozzle, but averaging
about an inch over the diameter, and they are mostly about an inch in
height. The top of the lamp is almost always circular in form,
occasionally oval, and rarely rectangular,[2788] and is usually
slightly depressed, being thus shaped to enable any overflow of oil to
run down through the filling-hole. Many Greek lamps, and Roman lamps
from Greek sites, such as Cyprus, are convex above, with a small
moulded disc on the raised centre, in which is the hole. These are
either devoid of decoration, or only have an ornamental pattern or a
frieze of figures on a small scale. Usually the subject is enclosed
within a plain moulded rim, but in the later examples (Class IV.)
especially it is more contracted in extent, and surrounded with a
border of ornament, such as the egg-pattern or a wreath of some kind
(see Fig. 208).

Christian lamps, which hardly come within the scope of this work, vary
very little in form; they have ovoid instead of circular bodies, a
plain rounded nozzle, and a small solid handle, and the design is
always encircled by a band of ornamental pattern or symbolical

                  *       *       *       *       *

The clay of which the lamps are made is usually of a red colour, due to
the presence of red ochre (_rubrica_), but it varies both in quality
and tone according to localities; those from Greek sites, such as
Athens and Corfu, are often of a pale buff colour, those from Cyprus a
light reddish brown, and so on. Martial refers to the red clay of
Cumae,[2790] a place where lamps are sometimes found, and those from
Naples are usually of a dull brown or yellow colour. Lamps found in
France and England are often imported from Italy, and therefore of the
ordinary red clay, but those of local manufacture are of a white or
yellowish tone.


The earliest undecorated examples are made on the wheel, as are those
from the Esquiline and from Carthage, in which the decoration is only
incised; but subjects in relief required a different technique.
Occasionally they are modelled by hand, but we find that from the first
century B.C. onwards they are almost invariably made in moulds,
modelled from a pattern lamp, in a harder and finer clay than the
pattern.[2791] The mould was divided into two parts, adjusted by
mortices and tenons, which, in the opinion of some writers, explains
the lateral projections visible on certain varieties; the lower part
formed the body of the lamp, the upper the decorated _discus_. The two
parts seem to have been marked by corresponding letters to avoid
errors, and there are two or three lower lamp-moulds in the British
Museum from Ephesos and elsewhere, marked with an A on the under side
for this purpose.[2792] Other examples of moulds have been found in
Greece, Italy, and Africa,[2793] and there are also specimens both for
the upper and lower half in the Guildhall Museum.[2794] They were
either of terracotta or plaster.

The clay was impressed into the mould with the fingers, the figured
decoration being applied by means of models or stamps, as with the
Arretine ware (see below, p. 439), and the ornamental patterns probably
produced with a kind of wheel or running instrument, as in Roman
pottery (p. 441). Signatures in relief were taken from the mould, those
in hollow letters were impressed in the lamp itself from a stamp before
baking. Important potteries must have possessed a large number of
moulds; for instance, at Rome alone ninety-one different subjects are
found on the lamps of one potter (L. Caecilius Saevus), eighty-four on
those of C. Oppius Restitutus, fifty-one on those of Florentius, and
there must of course have been many more now lost. It is clear that the
same types were used by different potters; the models must, therefore,
have been handed about from one to another, each potter merely adding
his own name.

The two portions of the mould were joined while the clay was moist, and
pared with a tool, and the orifice for filling was then pierced. Glaze,
when used, was applied before the baking, for which only a moderate
temperature seems to have been required; this process followed as soon
as the clay was dry. In some lamps a small hole or slit may be
observed, which some have thought to be for the pin with which the wick
was extracted,[2795] but it is more probable that it was for a piece of
wood which held the top and bottom of the mould together until the clay
was united; it was usually covered over before the baking, and may have
taken the place of the knobs already spoken of which occur in other
forms. The lamps were baked in batches, placed closely together or
superimposed,[2796] and it sometimes happens that a number are found
united together which had coalesced firmly in the furnace, as in Sir
Charles Newton’s excavations at Knidos.

=Subjects= are first found on lamps in the second century B.C., though
these are quite of a simple character. Lamps of this date from North
Africa[2797] have such designs as an altar and fruit, a vase, or a
caduceus, a head of an ibis, or a nude incised figure of Tanit; others
have merely a wreath round the centre, and these apparently belong to
the first century B.C.[2798] The number of figures is generally small,
it being contrary to the principles of ancient art to crowd a work with
minute figures and details. The majority of lamps have only one figure,
and few beyond those of exceptional size have more than three. As a
rule the treatment is careless and the figures very indistinct, but the
lamps with Greek signatures (see Vol. 1. p. 108) form a notable

It may be imagined that the lamp-maker sought to gratify the taste of
his customers by ornamenting his ware with familiar subjects.
Purchasers of terracotta lamps were, as has been noted, generally
persons of inferior condition, and the subjects on the lamps are in
many cases a popularising of well-known myths or even of works of art,
such as the Venus types (p. 410) or the Maenads of the “new-Attic”
reliefs (p. 411). The types of Victory and Fortune are reflections of
statues of the period, and are repeated in many bronze statuettes.
There are also, as we shall see, occasional references to literature.
In Rome the stage exerted little influence, and subjects are rarely
taken from the drama (masks are an exception); but the games of the
circus and gladiatorial contests found a ready market, and form a large
proportion of the designs. The subjects on the lamps, in fact,
represent not so much the great masterpieces of art, as do coins or
gems, but, like the Greek vases, the popular art of the day, and may be
compared with the illustrations of the popular journals and magazines
of our own time. On the whole, they are of great value to us as
illustrating Roman life and religion, just as subsequently those on the
Christian lamps are of inestimable importance for the light they throw
on the early ages of our own religion.

As the number of published lamps and catalogues of collections is so
very small, the subjects included in the following list are mostly
confined to the collections in the British Museum, which are quite
sufficiently comprehensive for the purpose.[2799] A few additional
examples are given from the Guildhall, Vienna, and other collections,
from the _Antichità di Ercolano_, Bartoli’s _Lucernae veterum
sepulcrales_, the _Musée Alaoui_, and other isolated sources.[2800]
References to Passeri’s work, _Lucernae fictiles Musei Passerii_, have
been avoided, as it has been shown by Dr. Dressel[2801] that nearly all
those published by him are false.

We proceed to note the principal subjects in detail, observing
practically the same order that was adopted in describing the subjects
on Greek vases. They may be roughly divided into eight classes:—

          (1) Olympian deities.
          (2) Miscellaneous deities.
          (3) Heroic legends, etc.
          (4) Historical and literary subjects.
          (5) _Genre_ subjects.
          (6) Animals.
          (7) Inanimate objects.
          (8) Floral and decorative devices.

The Olympian deities are not often represented, some not at all, except
on a lamp in the Kestner collection at Göttingen, which has busts of
all the twelve[2802]; they are not, however, clearly distinguished by
attributes. Zeus is represented with Hera and Athena, the three
Capitoline deities of Rome, whom the Etruscans knew as Tinia, Thalna,
and Menerfa, the Romans as Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva.[2803] He also
appears alone, seated on his throne,[2804] but more commonly his bust
only is represented (Plate LXIV. fig. 4), accompanied by his eagle,
which perches on a thunderbolt, sometimes conventionally
rendered.[2805] The eagle and the thunderbolt also appear alone,[2806]
or the former with Ganymede.[2807] A bearded horned mask may be
intended for Dionysos, but is more probably Zeus Ammon.[2808] Sarapis
is sometimes enthroned, with Cerberus at his side[2809]; sometimes only
his bust occurs, surmounted by the usual _kalathos_[2810]; Cerberus is
also found alone.[2811] Hera, except in the instance mentioned, does
not occur. A very interesting lamp from Salamis, Cyprus, now in the
British Museum, represents the contest of Athena and Poseidon for the
possession of Attica[2812]; it is doubtless a reminiscence of the
Parthenon west pediment, though rough and indistinct in execution.
Athena is also seen as a single figure,[2813] seated, or standing in
the usual Promachos attitude, or before an altar, or pursuing a
panther[2814]; her head or bust are not uncommon.[2815] Apollo is
usually represented seated, playing on his lyre, or with the Gryphon at
his side[2816]; Artemis appears as a huntress, accompanied by her
hound, or drawing an arrow from her quiver.[2817] A lyre or a crescent
appearing alone may be the symbols of these two deities.[2818] There
are one or two possible instances of Hephaistos and Poseidon,[2819] and
Demeter may be indicated by a pair of torches[2820]; the latter also
appears in her chariot, seeking for Persephone.[2821] Ares or Mars is
found either as a single figure,[2822] in a chariot,[2823] or playing
with Eros, who steals his armour.[2824] Hermes appears as a single
figure, or accompanied by a sheep, goat, or cock[2825]; in one instance
he presents a purse to Fortune, who is accompanied by Herakles.[2826] A
common subject is his bust, along with his attributes of the purse and
caduceus[2827]; the latter attribute, accompanied by two hands joined,
may also have reference to this deity.[2828] Aphrodite occurs but
rarely; she is either represented accompanied by lions,[2829] or riding
on a goat,[2830] or at the bath or toilet,[2831] or in the Cnidian
type,[2832] all these types being probably reproductions of known works
of art. She is also accompanied by Eros, who assists in arming her;
this type is known as Venus Victrix, and is seen in a group of
Aphrodite and Eros in the Louvre.[2833]

More common than all the Olympian deities put together is Eros or
Cupid, who appears in all sorts of attitudes and actions, besides those
already mentioned.[2834] He sits on a chair or reclines on a
couch,[2835] or is represented in motion, carrying a hare[2836] or a
bird, a dish of fruit or a branch of vine or palm, a cup, situla, or
torch[2837]; or plays on the lyre, flutes, or Pan-pipes[2838]; or
sacrifices a pig, or pours wine into a krater.[2839] He rides on a
donkey,[2840] a dolphin, or a crocodile,[2841] or sails in a
boat[2842]; plays with a chained lion,[2843] or is himself tied to a
tree.[2844] He is represented in the character of Ares, armed with
spear and shield; or in that of Dionysos, with cup and thyrsos; or of
Herakles, whose club he carries; also, probably in the character of
Herakles, he shoots at a serpent.[2845] He is also associated with
Psyche,[2846] and two Erotes sometimes appear together, in one instance
in the character of gladiators fighting, in another of boxers.[2847]
One of the most remarkable lamps in the Museum collection (No. 168)
represents a number of diminutive Erotes playing with the club and cup
of Herakles; it is unfortunately fragmentary, but another example in
Dresden gives the complete design.[2848] One plunges head-foremost into
the cup; three others raise the club with difficulty from the ground,
one supporting it with his back, and a fifth, hovering in the air,
pulls at it with his hands. In front of the last-named are the words
ADIVATE SODALES, “Help, comrades!”

Dionysos is another surprisingly rare figure on the lamps, though his
followers, the Satyrs and Maenads, have their full share of
representation. He occurs as a single figure of youthful
appearance,[2849] and also with his panther, to which he offers his
kantharos to drink from[2850]; his mask or head may also be
recognised.[2851] Pan is occasionally found,[2852] in one case in the
form known as Aegipan (see p. 60) in company with Echo,[2853] in
another as a grotesque bust.[2854] There is also an instance of Marsyas
hung up for his punishment to the branch of a tree.[2855] A pastoral
deity playing flutes on the handle of a lamp in the B.M. (No. 366) may
be either Pan or Marsyas. Satyrs are represented seizing Maenads,[2856]
dancing, drinking, and playing on the Pan-pipes,[2857] or carrying cups
and wine-skins,[2858] or with a goat[2859]; both the bearded and
beardless types are found, and their masks or busts are also
common.[2860] The shaggy-haired Papposeilenos is occasionally
represented.[2861] Maenads are depicted dancing, in frenzied attitudes,
or sacrificing kids; the type is often that of the “new-Attic” reliefs,
derived originally from Scopas, of the Maenad Χιμαιροφόνος.[2862] Their
heads and masks also occur.[2863]


                                                             PLATE LXIV.




Among the minor deities we find that Helios and Selene (Sol and Luna)
are often depicted together,[2864] or Selene alone,[2865] or else their
busts together,[2866] or separately[2867]; in one case there is a
simple representation of the solar disc for Helios.[2868] A curious
subject in the British Museum collection is apparently a combination of
the Christian “Good Shepherd” with Helios and the crescent for
Selene.[2869] Asklepios and Hygieia occur in rare instances,[2870] and
there is an example of Charon in his boat.[2871] Of marine deities and
monsters, Triton or Proteus, wearing the _pileus_ or mariner’s
cap,[2872] Scylla,[2873] and a Nereid riding on a sea-monster (Plate
LXIV. fig. 1)[2874] are found. The popularity of exotic religions at
Rome is testified to by the occurrence, on the one hand, of Kybele with
her lions,[2875] and Atys[2876]; on the other, of Egyptian deities such
as Sarapis, already mentioned, and Harpocrates, who is found either
alone, or with Isis, or with Isis and Anubis,[2877] or with Safekh
(Plate LXIII. fig. 3)[2878]; Isis and Horus, and busts of Hermanubis
and Isis are also found.[2879] On the handle of a lamp is a
_lectisternium_ with busts of Sarapis and Isis, and of Helios and
Selene.[2880] The busts of the two Kabeiri also occasionally
appear.[2881] Among personifications or quasi-personifications we find
the three Charites or Graces[2882] and a Muse with lyre[2883]; others
are all typically Roman, such as a bust of Africa on a lamp from
Carthage,[2884] and such types as Abundantia[2885] (or two cornucopiae
as her symbol[2886]), Vertumnus,[2887] Fortune with her steering-oar
and cornucopia,[2888] and Victory.[2889] Many of these seem to be
reflections of bronze statuettes of the Roman period.[2890] The latter
goddess is frequently found, bearing a wreath, a trophy, or a
shield,[2891] sometimes reclining or in a chariot[2892]; or again
between two Lares[2893]; or two Victories are grouped together.[2894]
Of special interest are what are known as the New Year lamps, given as
_strenae_ on January 1st (see p. 398),[2895] on which Victory is
represented holding a shield, on which is inscribed an aspiration (see
p. 420) for a happy New Year, the head of Janus, cakes, coins
(_stipes_), and other emblems filling in the rest of the design (Plate
LXIV. fig. 5).[2896]

Occasionally the inscription is varied, and appears as “For the safety
of the state”[2897] or “Happiness” simply.[2898] Two Lares confronted,
holding cornucopia, etc., are also found without Victory.[2899] Of
representations of Phobos (Fear) we have spoken already (see p. 398).
There are also representations of terminal deities,[2900] as well as
unidentified goddesses.[2901]

Coming now to the heroes and heroic legends, we find that they play on
the whole an inconsiderable part in the list of subjects on lamps. Leda
is represented with the swan,[2902] and the Dioskuri sometimes appear
as busts[2903]; also Kastor as a full figure, accompanied by his
horse.[2904] Of the labours of Herakles we have the Nemean lion,[2905]
the Erymanthian boar,[2906] the hydra,[2907] and the slaying of the
serpent in the Garden of the Hesperides,[2908] as well as the combat
with a Centaur[2909] and the freeing of Prometheus.[2910] He is also
represented as a single figure, holding the apples of the
Hesperides,[2911] leading kids,[2912] or with a jug or
drinking-cup,[2913] or his head alone (both bearded and beardless
types).[2914] Theseus slays the Amazon Andromache[2915]; Perseus is
represented carrying the Gorgon’s head[2916]; Bellerophon is seen
fallen from his horse Pegasos, or leading him to drink at
Peirene[2917]; there are also possible representations of Kadmos and
Meleager.[2918] Europa is depicted on the bull[2919]; Endymion
asleep[2920]; Aktaeon devoured by his hounds[2921]; Telephos suckled by
the hind[2922]; and Eos pursuing Kephalos.[2923] Icaros in his
attempted flight is watched by Minos from the walls of Knossos (Plate
LXIV. fig. 2).[2924] From the Theban legend we have only Oedipus before
the Sphinx,[2925] a scene from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides (see p.
415), and Amphion and Zethos seizing the bull for the punishment of
Dirke.[2926] Nor are scenes from the Trojan cycle much more common; but
Achilles and Thetis are represented,[2927] and also Achilles dragging
the body of Hector round the walls of Troy[2928]; there is a curious
scene, somewhat grotesquely treated, of Odysseus and Neoptolemos
stealing the bow of Philoktetes, who fans his wounded foot[2929]; Ajax
is seen grieving after his madness[2930]; and Aeneas carries off his
aged father and his son from Troy.[2931] Odysseus appears before
Kirke,[2932] passing the Sirens,[2933] and offering a cup to
Polyphemos,[2934] but sometimes also without the Cyclops. Orestes
appears at his trial before Athena in the presence of a Fury.[2935] A
Centaur is seen carrying off a woman, and in combat with a
Lapith[2936]; also with a lion,[2937] carrying an amphora,[2938] or
playing flutes.[2939] An Amazon wounded, standing at an altar, and
accompanied by a crane, are also among the list of subjects.[2940] A
single figure of Pegasos,[2941] and the Gorgoneion or
Medusa-head,[2942] are not infrequently found. Combats of Pygmies and
cranes,[2943] and a Pygmy on a crocodile,[2944] may also perhaps be
included under this heading.

The next group of subjects includes those of a historical or literary
character. In the British Museum there are two very interesting
representations of Diogenes in his tub or _pithos_ (see Vol. I. p.
152), presumably addressing Alexander, as in the well-known
story,[2945] but the latter is not represented (Plate LXIV. fig. 6).

Among portraits are busts of Aesop,[2946] and various Roman personages,
such as Hadrian, Antonia, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus,
Commodus, Julia Domna,[2947] Lucius Verus,[2948] and others who cannot
be identified.[2949] A scene from the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides occurs
on one lamp, with the combat of the two brothers and the death of
Jocasta; the name of the play is actually inscribed on the lamp.[2950]
With reference to Virgil’s first Eclogue we find a representation of
the shepherd Tityrus on a lamp found at Pozzuoli[2951]; the shepherd,
whose name is given, is seated among his flocks. Several lamps
illustrate the well-known fable of Aesop, of the Fox and Crow.[2952]
The fox, wearing a chlamys, stands on his hind-legs holding up a pair
of flutes to the crow, which is perched on the top of a tree. Another
subject, which doubtless has reference to some fable, is that of a
stork holding in its beak a balance, in which a mouse is weighed
against an elephant.[2953] The humour of the subject lies in the fact
that the mouse is seen to weigh the elephant down. These two are
illustrated on Plate LXV. figs. 3, 6. There is also a lamp in the
British Museum (Plate LXIII. fig. 2) with a curious subject which may
either be a scene from a comedy like those on the South Italian vases,
or else a parody of “a visit to Asklepios.”[2954]

The subjects taken from ordinary life are eminently characteristic of
the social life of Rome under the Empire. An almost inordinate
proportion relate to the now popular gladiatorial shows, and many
others deal with the events of the circus and arena. Of gladiatorial
subjects there are three principal varieties, which occur again and
again on lamps of all shapes and periods with little alteration.[2955]
One class represents a single gladiator in the characteristic armour,
with visored helmet, greaves, and arm-guards, sword and shield[2956];
the next represents a combat of two (Plate LXV. fig. 5), in which the
one is usually worsted and falls at the other’s feet, his shield on the
ground beside him.[2957] An interesting example in the British Museum
(No. 526) shows a _mirmillo_ or _secutor_ in combat with a _retiarius_,
who fought with net and trident. The third series has representations
of gladiatorial armour ranged in a circle: swords, shields, arm-guards,
greaves, and helmets.[2958]


                                                              PLATE LXV.




From the circus and games we have such subjects as a naval contest in
the amphitheatre[2959]; a bull-fight[2960]; a _bestiarius_ contending
with boars[2961]; a man leaping over a bull[2962]; and boxers.[2963] A
remarkable lamp in the British Museum (No. 164 = Plate LXV. fig. 4)
gives a representation of a chariot-race in the circus; we have the
colonnade of latticed barriers (_carceres_) from which the chariots
started, the _spina_ down the middle of the course, adorned with
shrines and obelisks, and rows of seats full of spectators; four
chariots take part in the race. Next there are scenes such as an
athlete crowning himself, a victorious charioteer in his quadriga, or a
victory in the horse-race.[2964] Of more miscellaneous character are
such subjects as a chariot drawn by four men, a two-horse or four-horse
chariot by itself, or a man or boy on horseback.[2965]

Military subjects are at all times rare, but a not infrequent subject
is a mounted warrior charging with a spear[2966]; a soldier is also
depicted with a bird,[2967] at an altar, taking an oath, and saluting
an officer who rides past.[2968] There are also representations of an
_imperator_ on his triumphal car,[2969] of an eagle and standard,[2970]
and of a trophy perhaps commemorating a victory over barbarians.[2971]
A representation of a ship or galley is not uncommon, but sometimes it
is not easy to distinguish these from the type of Odysseus and the
Sirens.[2972] Some lamps have landscapes in the style of Alexandrine
reliefs and chased metalwork, as for instance a harbour surrounded by
buildings, in which two fishermen pursue their vocation (Plate LXV.
fig. 1),[2973] or a hunter accompanied by a porter, with a town in the
background.[2974] Among pastoral scenes we have also, besides the
Tityrus already mentioned, shepherds and goatherds with their dogs,
tending sheep and goats which nibble the foliage of trees[2975];
fishermen,[2976] and hunters, as already noted. Another interesting
type is that of a juggler or mountebank accompanied by a dog and a cat,
which climb ladders, jump through rings, and perform other tricks
(Plate LXV. fig. 2).[2977] Of a more miscellaneous character are such
subjects as a butcher slaughtering animals hung from a tree[2978]; a
fuller at work[2979]; a slave washing a dog, and another washing a
statue[2980]; slaves carrying casks or _fasces_[2981]; a mule turning a
mill.[2982] Others, again, do not admit of any exact classification;
such are a man and woman embracing; a woman scraping herself after the
bath; a youth with a mortar; the sacrifice of a pig[2983]; a man riding
on a camel or elephant,[2984] or driving a camel[2985]; a dwarf in a
boat or playing on a flute[2986]; comic actors,[2987] and comic and
tragic masks[2988] innumerable; and two skeletons dancing.[2989]

Animals form a large proportion of the representations on lamps,[2990]
especially on the late class without handle from Knidos (Vol. I. p.
108), and include Gryphons, elephants, lions, panthers, boars, bears,
wolves, deer, horses, oxen, sheep, goats, dogs, rabbits, eagles,
storks, ostriches,[2991] peacocks,[2992] parrots,[2993] cocks and hens,
and other birds; dolphins, sea-horses, cuttle-fish and other kinds of
fish, scorpions,[2994] frogs, shell-fish, and so on. Those mentioned so
far are single figures, merely decorative; in others there is more
definite action. Such are a lion attacking a bull or crocodile, or
seizing a hind or a donkey[2995]; two bears dancing[2996]; a monkey and
vine[2997]; a dog on a couch,[2998] fighting with a goose, or attacking
a stag,[2999] hind, or boar[3000]; two monkeys in a boat[3001]; a hare
or rabbit nibbling at a plant[3002]; a bird on a twig, sometimes eating
fruit[3003]; an eagle seizing a hare[3004]; an ibis and a
serpent[3005]; a hen with chickens, cocks fighting, or a cock pursuing
a hen[3006]; dolphins twisted round a trident or anchor; a crocodile
and serpent; a lizard or sea-monster and eel; two serpents, sea-horses,
or dolphins with an altar between[3007]; and a grasshopper eating

There are also a large number of lamps, the centre of which is only
ornamented with some decorative motive, such as a _carchesium_ (Vol. I.
p. 188), situla, or krater, from which spring vine-branches, ivy, or
other plants; an oinochoë, flask, or drinking-cup; palm-branches,
wreaths of ivy, vine, oak, and myrtle, sprays of flowers; a cornucopia
and caduceus,[3009] or other emblems of deities, such as two hands
joined with a caduceus behind them (see p. 410); scallop-shells; or
purely conventional patterns, such as large four-leaved flowers, stars,
and rosettes. The latter are mostly found on lamps from Greek sites,
especially in Cyprus, and at Tarsus and Knidos. Many lamps have no
decoration on the _discus_, but only comic masks round the edge, or a
border of foliage.

The Christian lamps are as a rule easily to be distinguished from the
pagan by their form, as well as by their subjects. These subjects are
mainly taken from the Old Testament, from the life of our Lord, and
from the sphere of symbolism; the Good Shepherd, the seven-branched
candlestick, the cross or _labarum_, and the sacred monogram, are all

                  *       *       *       *       *

A considerable number of Roman lamps have inscriptions, either
impressed in relief or hollow letters from a stamp, or engraved with a
pointed instrument; the stamps were probably of bronze. Potters’
signatures and trade-marks are always underneath the lamp, and those
found on the top usually relate in some way to the subject. Sometimes,
as in lamps from Pozzuoli and Naples,[3011] the inscriptions are in
relief on the surface, in small tablets. They may, however, be
classified under four headings:—

    (1) Inscriptions referring to the circumstances under which or for
      which the lamp was made, as, for instance, with reference to
      national events or public games, or for religious dedications.

    (2) Inscriptions descriptive of the subjects.

    (3) Acclamations or formulae addressed by the potter to the public.

    (4) Signatures of potters or trade-marks; this class is by far the
      most numerous.

To the first class belong some of the formulae to which allusion has
already been made (pp. 396, 398), such as those on the New Year lamps:
ANNVM NOVVM FAVSTVM FELICEM MIHI HIC (or TIBI, or to some person whose
name is given); occasionally this is varied by formulae such as
FIILICTII (for FELICITAS?), “Happiness (to you)!”[3012] OB CIVES
SERV(_atos_), “For the preservation of the state”[3013]; G · P · R · F,
_Genio populi Romani feliciter_[3014]; EX·S·C, “By the decree of the
senate”[3015]; FIDES PVBLICA, “The public trust,”[3016] and the
SAECVLI, SAECVLO, SAECVLARES group of inscriptions,[3017] which may in
a few cases refer to the Ludi Saeculares, but more probably are of
similar import to the SAEC(_ulum_) AV(_reum_) DOM(_ini_), “The golden
age of our lord,“ on a lamp from Antium.[3018] The last-named formula,
it should be noted, is found both above and below the lamps.
LVCER(_na_) PV(_b_)LICA probably refers to the use of the lamp in some
public illuminations (see p. 396).[3019] A lamp in the Trier
Museum[3020] has the names of the consuls for the year 235 (Severus and
Quintianus). Among names of deities for whose sanctuaries the lamps
were intended are Venus (SACRVM VENERI, with a figure of the
goddess),[3021] and the Ephesian Artemis ([ΑΡΤΕΜΙΣ ΕΦΕΣΙΩΝ]).[3022]

Among the inscriptions relating to the subjects on the lamps are
several which have already been mentioned, such as DIOGENES and
TITVRVS, and also GA(_ny_)MEDES over a figure of the same.[3023] On a
lamp representing the flight of Aeneas from Troy are the names
AEN(_eas_), ANC(_hises_), ASC(_anius_), and the exclamation REX PIE,
alluding to the former.[3024] On another, which represents the fight of
Eteokles and Polyneikes and the death of Jocasta, subjects taken from
the _Phoenissae_ of Euripides, occur not only the letters PVL for
Polyneikes, but also PHO(_e_)NISS(_ae_), leaving no doubt as to the
source whence the scenes are taken.[3025] Another in the form of Eros
or a Genius with the club and lion-skin of Herakles, lying asleep, has
on it the curious inscription AIA STLACIA TVRA DORMIT, STERNIT SIR
...,[3026] the import of which is not quite clear. Similar inscriptions
often occur in scenes from the circus or amphitheatre, giving the names
of gladiators, as Afer, Helenus, Popillius, or Sabinus,[3027] or of
charioteers in the circus-races, as C. Annius Lacerta and the horse
Corax, which won him a race for the white faction at the Secular
Games[3028]; another lamp has the name of a horse or his driver,
INCITATVS, and a third the exhortation VIG(_i_)LA PRASINE,[3029] which
may allude to a driver of the green faction. Over the figure of a
warrior on a lamp from Carthage is PLVS FECISSES SI PLVS LICERET, “You
would have done more if you had had the chance.”[3030] In other cases
there seems to be a revival of the old Greek fashion of apostrophising
the figures as _Kalos_—_e.g._ AQVILO CALOS, AXOLMVS (_c_)ALOS.[3031]
There are also inscriptions put into the mouths of figures, as in the
subject of Cupids with the club of Herakles, one of whom cries
ADIV(_v_)ATE SODALES, “Help, comrades!”[3032] or the funerary Genius
weeping over an urn and saying, LVGEO, “I mourn.”[3033]

To the third class belong such expressions as HAVE, “Hail!”[3034];
VIVAS or VALEAS, “Long life!”; VTERE, “Use this”[3035]; AVE ET VALE,
“Greeting and farewell,” on a lamp from Cologne[3036]; and on another
from the same site, HAVE · MACENA · VILLIS · HAVE · LASCIBA ·
VALE,[3037] which seems to have a somewhat coarse significance. Others
allude to the future purchaser, as EME ME, “Buy me”[3038]; QVI FECERIT
VIVAT ET Q(_ui_) EMERIT, “May the potter and purchaser flourish”; EMITE
LVCERNAS AB ASSE COLATAS, “Buy lamps for an ass”[3039]; BONO QVI
EME(_rit_), “May it be for his good who shall buy it.”[3040] The latter
class are chiefly found in North Africa. Mention has already been made
of the inscriptions on the Esquiline lamps, such as PONE FVR; these are
not found on lamps of imperial times, and appear to be peculiar to the
early fabrics. Μὴ ἅπτου has been found on a lamp at Athens.[3041] On a
lamp from Spain is inscribed G · IVLIVS · ARTEMIDOR ... LVCERNAS · II ·
D D, “C. Julius Artemidorus makes a present of two lamps.”[3042] A very
curious inscription is found written in ink on a lamp at Rome, to this
effect: “Helenus delivers his name to the nether world; he carries down
with him coins, a New Year’s gift, and his lamp; let no one deliver him
except us who have made them.”[3043]

                  *       *       *       *       *

Potters’ signatures are almost invariably to be found on the under side
of the lamp, where they are arranged on the diameter at right angles to
the axis of the lamp; sometimes they are placed in a panel or tablet,
or within the outline of a foot. In rare instances they are found on
the handle, or on the top.[3044] Greek lamps which are not of Roman
origin are never signed, nor are those of Christian origin; the oldest
signatures are to be found on the Esquiline lamps, but they rarely
appear before imperial times, when they become fairly general. Among
these earlier instances are PRAESE(_ntis_)[3045] and FL(_a_)BIA
(_Flavia_), the latter found at Carthage.[3046] More frequently, lamps
of this kind have a single letter or monogram by way of stamp[3047]; a
“delphiniform” lamp in the Musée Alaoui has a monogram of Α and Π. A
single letter sometimes occurs above or below the inscription, which
may be regarded as a sort of trade-mark indicating the potter
(_figulus_), the full name being that of the _officinator_ or master;
on a lamp in the British Museum from Knidos (No. 132) the name
ROMANE(_n_)SIS is accompanied by the letter X; on another, FORTIS by
the letter N. On the lamps signed by L · HOS · CRI, a Gaulish potter,
are found the letters G, I, L, M, P, S, T, V, N, Z, and other
signs.[3048] These trade-marks are not confined to letters; Fortis uses
a wreath and palm-branch, as in Fig. 210; L. Caecilius Saevus a
palm-branch or a foot-shaped stamp; L. Fabricius Masculus the letters H
and X, a wheel, or a star.[3049] Other lamps have no name underneath,
but some simple pattern, such as five circles in _quincunx_ form, or
the favourite device of the foot-shaped stamp (cf. p. 333). These
varieties of marks were probably intended to distinguish different
series in the products of a single pottery.

(BRIT. MUS.).]

The signatures are usually abbreviated, the full form being _ex
officina_ (_officinatoris_), the name being consequently in the
genitive. On a lamp from Rome is EX · OF · AIACIS, _ex officina
Aiacis_.[3050] Sometimes, but rarely under the Empire, the nominative
is used: _A.B. fecit_, or more commonly _A.B.f._ Thus we have AVGENDI,
single name occurs it is rarely full enough to show the case. On a lamp
at Dresden the potter Diomedes calls himself LVCERNARIVS.[3051] From
the second century down to the time of Augustus the name may be either
in the nominative or genitive, either the _praenomen_ and _nomen_, or
the _nomen_ or _cognomen_ only; these signatures were all incised while
the clay was moist. In the period represented by the third class (see
p. 401) nearly all the signatures are _cognomina_ simply, as ATIMETI,
COMMVNIS, FORTLS, STROBILI, all in the genitive. In the fourth class,
or lamps of the second century, the nominative is very rare; the names
are usually abbreviated, and one (_cognomen_), two (_nomen_ and
_cognomen_), or three may be found. Potteries were, as we have seen,
often owned by women, hence female names are not uncommon.
Abbreviations of a particular name vary considerably; for instance, L.
Caecilius Saevus appears as L · CAEC · SAE, L · CAE · SAE, L · CA · SAE
(see below, p. 428); L. Fabricius Masculus as L · FABRIC · MASC, L ·
FABRIC · MAS, L · FABR · MASC, FABRIC · MAS, and so on.[3052] Or the
_praenomen_ may vary, and for C · OPPI · RES we find L · OPPI · RES;
or, again, the _cognomen_, as in the case of C. Junius, where it may be
Alexis, Bitus, or Draco,[3053] or of L. Munatius, found with Adjectus,
Restitutus, Successus, Threptus, and Philemo.[3054] The variations in
the names may denote potteries in connection, or successive holders of
one business. In one instance the name of a workman PVLCHER occurs with
that of Fabricius Masculus, in another that of PRIMVS with C. Oppius
Restitutus.[3055] Greek names, where they occur, seem to imply that the
potters were freedmen, as in the case of Dionysius, Phoetaspus, and

The following list gives the names most frequently found, with the
localities in which they occur[3056]:—

  _Annius Serapiodorus_ (ANNI · SER): Rome, Ostia.

  _C. Atilius Vestalis_ (C · ATILI · VEST): Rome, Italy, Gaul, Britain.

  _Atimetus_: Italy, Gallia Narbonensis, Pannonia.

  _L. Caecilius Saevus_ (L · CAE · SAE): Rome, Southern Italy, Sicily,
      Sardinia, Gallia Narbonensis, Britain.

  _Clodius Heliodorus_ (CLO · HEL): Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul.

  _C. Clodius Successus_ (C · CLO · SVC): Rome, Gaul, Sardinia, Africa.

  _Communis_: Rome, Pompeii, Gallia Cisalpina, Pannonia.

  _Crescens_: Gaul, Pannonia.

  _L. Fabricius Masculus_ (L · FABR · MASC): Rome, Gallia Cisalpina,

  _Florentius_ (FLORENT): Rome, Italy, Sicily, Tunis, Gaul, Germany,

  _Fortis_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Dalmatia, Germany, Gaul, Britain.

  _Gabinia_: Italy, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul.

  _L. Hospidius Crispus_ (L · HOS · CRI): Gaul.

  _C. Julius Nicephorus_ (C · IVLI · NICEP): Italy, Gaul.

  _C. Junius Alexis_: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa.

  _C. Junius Bito_: Italy, Sicily, Gaul.

  _C. Junius Draco_: Rome, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Africa, Gallia

  _L. Mar. Mi._: Rome, Campania, Sicily, Spain, Gallia Cisalpina.

  _L. Munatius_ (with various _cognomina_): Rome, Africa.

  _N. Naevius Luc._ (N · NAEV · LVC): Italy, Sardinia, Spain, Gaul.

  _M. Novius Justus_ (M · NOV · IVST): Rome, Naples, Sicily, Sardinia,
      Africa, Gallia Narbonensis.

  _C. Oppius Restitutus_ (C · OPPI · RES): Rome, Italy, Sicily,
      Sardinia, Africa, Gallia Narbonensis, Cyprus.

  _Passenus Augurinus_ (PAS · AVG): Italy, Gaul.

  _Phoetaspus_: Italy, Gaul, Pannonia.

  _Strobilus_: Rome, Italy, Africa, Pannonia, Dalmatia, Gaul, Britain.

  _Vibianus_: Gaul, Pannonia.

  _C. Viciri Agathopus_ (C · VICIRI · AGAT): Italy, Sardinia, Gallia

It will be noted that nearly all are found at Rome, but that the others
fall into geographical groups; the same name is seldom found both in
the north and south of the Empire. Thus Fortis is not found in Africa,
Oppius Restitutus only rarely in Gaul. Certain names are entirely
localised, as Annius Serapiodorus at Rome and Ostia, L. Hos. Cri. and
Marcellus in Gaul, Q. Mem. Kar. and Pudens in Sardinia. The name of
Vindex, a maker of terracotta figures at Cologne (see above, p. 383),
is found on lamps at Trier and Nimeguen.[3057]

The distribution of the Fortis lamps in particular is remarkable. They
have been found in several places in Gallia Cisalpina, such as
Aquileia[3058]; at Lyons, Aix, Orange, and elsewhere in France[3059];
at Nimeguen in Holland[3060]; at Trier, Cologne, Mainz, and Louisendorf
in Germany[3061]; in London[3062]; in Spain[3063]; and over the region
of Dacia, Pannonia, and Dalmatia,[3064] as well as in Rome and
Italy.[3065] The most natural conclusion to be drawn from these results
is that the majority of the lamps seem to have been made in Italy, and
it has been thought probable that there were three principal centres of
fabric whence exportation went on in different directions—Rome and its
environs, Campania for the lamps found in Southern Italy, Africa, and
the Mediterranean, and Gallia Cisalpina for those found in Central
Europe.[3066] It has also been suggested that the last-named fabric
centred in Mutina (Modena) and that this was the place where the lamps
of Class III. (see p. 401) were chiefly made.[3067] Outside Italy there
may well have been manufactures in North Africa, where lamps are so
plentiful, and in Gallia Narbonensis, to which region some signatures
are peculiar. Evidence of a lamp-manufacturer in Africa seems to be
afforded by the mention of _praedia Pullaenorum_ in an inscription from
Tunis,[3068] the lamps of Pullaenus occurring in Sardinia and Africa.
Local fabrics of very poor lamps were doubtless numerous.

A certain number of Roman lamps have Greek signatures, not differing in
character but only in alphabet from the Latin inscriptions. The most
curious instance is that of [ΚΕΛΣΕΙ] [ΠΟΜΠΕΕΙ] for _Celsi Pompeii_,
which is found on lamps in Southern Italy[3069]; Πομπιλίου is also
found at Naples, and even Ἀβασκάντου and Πρείμου, which are usually
associated with lamps made in Greece (see Vol. I. p. 108), occur on
some found in Italy.[3070] In Sicily we find the signatures of
Apollophanes of Tyre ([ΑΠΟΛΛΟΦΑΝ] [ΤΥΡΙΟ]) at Himera and Proklos
Agyrios ([ΠΡΟΚΛ ΑΓΥΡ]) at Gela and Catania[3071]; Ῥήγλου for Regulus
occurs at Tarentum.[3072] Greek names are often found in Cyprus,[3073]
and conversely a large number of lamps found at Knidos by Sir Charles
Newton bore the signature ROMANE(_n_) [ROMANE(n)SIS], in Latin letters
with the S reversed, apparently suggesting that the lamps were made by
a Roman abroad.[3074] Greek signatures are even found in Gaul and

Mention must also be made here of the recent researches of Herr
Fink[3076] with the object of ascertaining the chronological succession
and general distribution of the signatures on lamps of the Imperial
period. Starting with the four main classes of forms which have already
been laid down as the basis[3077] (the distinction resting mainly on
the various forms of the nozzle), he has obtained, by comparison
chiefly of the lamps in the British Museum, Berlin, and Munich
collections, the following interesting results.

Certain stamps appear to be peculiar, or almost peculiar, to each
class: thus, in Class I. only, we find P. Cessius Felix and L. Munatius
Successus; in Class II. only, L. Fabricius Masculus; in Class III.
only, Atimetus, Fortis, Phoetaspus, and other single _cognomina_; in
Class IV., which contains by far the larger number of stamps, Clodius
Helvidius, C. Junius Bitus,[3078] L. Munatius Threptus, and C.
Cornelius Ursus. The lamps of the Gaulish potter L. Hospidius Crispus
are all of one peculiar form, a transition between Fink’s I. and
IV.[3079] Cross-instances are very rare, but C. Junius Draco is found
in Classes I. and IV., C. Oppius Restitutus in Classes II. and IV.,
Florentius and Celsus Pompeius in Classes III. and IV. It is also
interesting to note that there are lamps in Class IV. with the
Christian monogram and the figure of the Good Shepherd. In Class I.,
generally speaking, signatures are very rare; in Class III. they are
almost invariable, but the total number of lamps is relatively small.
Another curious result is that certain signatures, such as L. Caecilius
Saevus, Bassus, Cerialis, Sextus Egnatius Aprilis, and Romanensis, are
not confined to one type of lamp, but in these cases it is to be noted
that each type has a variation of signature: thus, in Class I.,
L·CAEC·SAE; in II., L·CAE·SAE; in III., L·CA·SAE; while in IV.,
L·CAE·SAE occurs no less than 140 times.

His conclusions are that one workshop did not necessarily set itself to
produce only one form, but that the differences in form are merely due
to changes of fashion. In Class I. Greek technical instincts are still
strong as regards form and choice of subjects, but in ornament the
taste of Southern Italy prevails; the subjects are mainly mythological.
In Class II. the typically Roman motives appear: gladiators, combats,
and hunting-scenes; this form, according to Fink, is more developed
than Class I. Evidence which has been obtained from Regensburg shows
that Class III. belongs to the time from Augustus to Hadrian, and, as
we have seen, it is chiefly confined to the north of the Apennines.
Where provincial potteries can be traced, as at Westerndorf and at
Westheim in Bavaria, the lamps are usually of this form, but it was
doubtless imitated in Italy. Form IV. is essentially Italian, but is
also found in Central Europe, and is evidently of late date.


Footnote 2721:

  See Macrobius, _Sat._ vi. 4, 18. Lucilius uses this word and
  _lucerna_ in the same line.

Footnote 2722:

  _L.L._ v. 119.

Footnote 2723:

  _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 265 ff.: see below, p. 399.

Footnote 2724:

  Cf. Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 784.

Footnote 2725:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 163.

Footnote 2726:

  The corresponding Greek word was μύξα.

Footnote 2727:

  Petronius, _Sat._ 30 (Teubner edn. p. 21); Orelli, _Inscr._ 3678.

Footnote 2728:

  xiv. 41.

Footnote 2729:

  Pliny, _H.N._ xxv. 121.

Footnote 2730:

  _Moretum_, 11; Pliny, _H.N._ xix. 17, xxviii. 168, xxxv. 175.

Footnote 2731:

  La Blanchère and Gauckler, _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 193, Nos. 487-88; _Ant.
  di Ercolano_, viii. pl. 52.

Footnote 2732:

  Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Lucerna, p. 1335, fig. 4605.

Footnote 2733:

  No. 393 and _Cat. of Terracottas_, C 421 (Plate IV. fig. 4); _Mus.
  Alaoui_, No. 484.

Footnote 2734:

  B.M. Nos. 2, 393.

Footnote 2735:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 6609-10; Daremberg and Saglio, fig. 4607; _Ant. di
  Ercol._ viii. pl. 12: see also p. 387.

Footnote 2736:

  _Epigr._ xiv. 39; _Moretum._ 10 ff.

Footnote 2737:

  Plutarch, _Ant._ 26; Suetonius, _Vit. Caes._ 37; Dio Cass. 63, 4.

Footnote 2738:

  Suet. _Calig._ 18; _Domit._ 4.

Footnote 2739:

  Lampridius, _Vit._ 24.

Footnote 2740:

  _Apol._ 35: cf. _ad uxorem_, ii. 6.

Footnote 2741:

  xii. 92.

Footnote 2742:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6221; and B.M. Nos. 476, 506, 507, 534, 535.

Footnote 2743:

  Θεῷ ὑψίστῳ λύχνον εὐχήν, Boeckh, _C.I.Gr._ iii. p. 1169, No. 4380

Footnote 2744:

  _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1894, p. 205.

Footnote 2745:

  _Mélanges de l’École franç. de Rome_, xii. (1892), p. 116 ff.

Footnote 2746:

  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ i. pl. 44, p. 123.

Footnote 2747:

  Cf. Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ p. 111, and _C.I.L._ vi. pt. 4,
  No. 30102 (_semper vigilet lucerna nardo_).

Footnote 2748:

  Ellis, _Townley Gallery_, ii. p. 250.

Footnote 2749:

  Orelli, 4416.

Footnote 2750:

  _C.I.L._ x. 633 (from Salerno).

Footnote 2751:

  _Ibid._ ii. 2102.

Footnote 2752:

  _Sat._ 111 (Teubner ed. p. 77).

Footnote 2753:

  See _Athen. Mitth._ 1902, p. 257 ff.; and cf. _Amer. Journ. of Arch._
  1903, p. 344.

Footnote 2754:

  Virg. _Georg._ i. 390; Apul. _Metam._ ii. 28.

Footnote 2755:

  _Homil. in Ep. ad Cor._ i. 12 (Pusey’s _Library of the Fathers_, p.

Footnote 2756:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ ii. 4969, 3; x. 8053, 5; xv. 6196-210: see also pp. 413,
  420, and Plate LXIV. fig. 5.

Footnote 2757:

  _Ibid._ xv. p. 785.

Footnote 2758:

  _Cat._ p. 47, No. 26.

Footnote 2759:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ ix. 6081, 1.

Footnote 2760:

  See also the lamps from the altar of Saturnus Balcaranensis
  (Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1339).

Footnote 2761:

  B.M. 27-30, 67, 68; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, pl. O; _Mus. Alaoui_,
  pl. 34, Nos. 6-12, pp. 147-48.

Footnote 2762:

  See _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 275.

Footnote 2763:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 6631, 6900 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1880, p. 315.

Footnote 2764:

  B.M. 25-26; _C.I.L._ xv. part 2, plate, No. 2; Daremberg and Saglio,
  _s.v._ _Lucerna_, p. 1323.

Footnote 2765:

  Cf. _Mus. Alaoui_, pl. 34, p. 149, Nos. 17-8: see also B.M. 69-82.

Footnote 2766:

  See Dressel in _C.I.L._ xv. p. 782 ff.; Toutain in Daremberg and
  Saglio, _art._ Lucerna; Fink, _Formen u. Stempel röm. Thonlampen, in
  Sitzungsberichte d. Münchener Akad._ 1900, p. 685 ff.

Footnote 2767:

  On the evidence yielded by the potters’ signatures see also below, p.

Footnote 2768:

  See the examples given on Plates LXIV.-LXV.

Footnote 2769:

  I am inclined to agree with Dr. Dressel in placing this type earlier
  than Fink’s Class I. It seems to be intermediate in form between the
  delphiniform and other types with blunt nozzles, and the type given
  in Fig. 204. Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 3.

Footnote 2770:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ xv. pl. 2, No. 5 = Fig. 206, and Dressel, _ad loc._, p.

Footnote 2771:

  Cf. _C.I.L._ v. 8114.

Footnote 2772:

  See Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ p. 1011, fig. 4381.

Footnote 2773:

  Cf. for bronze examples, _B.M. Cat._ 2514 ff.

Footnote 2774:

  B.M. 3, 13.

Footnote 2775:

  Plate IV. fig. 4.

Footnote 2776:

  _C.I.L._ xi. 6699, 5.

Footnote 2777:

  In the Louvre.

Footnote 2778:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 6701.

Footnote 2779:

  _Ibid._ xv. 6513; Kenner, _Ant. Thonlampen_, No. 431.

Footnote 2780:

  B.M. 9-12: see also _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 49, No. 50, for negro’s
  head combined with camel’s.

Footnote 2781:

  B.M. 18-21 (bulls’ heads); 22 (eagle); _Mus. Borb._ xiv. 38; C.I.L.
  xv. 6739, 6334, 6393; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 27; Kenner, 437, 437a;
  _Mus. Alaoni_, pl. 36, No. 485.

Footnote 2782:

  B.M. 14-17; _C.I.L._ xv. 6287; Kenner, 434-35.

Footnote 2783:

  Greek and Roman Department, from Cologne; British and Mediaeval
  Department, from Britain; others in Guildhall Museum, and _C.I.L._
  xv. 6450.

Footnote 2784:

  _C.I.L._ xv. 6387, 6627; _ibid._ 6393 (artichoke); B.M. 24 (walnut);
  _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 5.

Footnote 2785:

  _Metam._ xi. 245.

Footnote 2786:

  No. 1 = _Cab. Durand_, 1777: cf. Lafaye, _Culte des Divinités
  d’Alexandrie_, pp. 122, 303, No. 132; also Vol. I. pp. 209, 216.

Footnote 2787:

  See for examples in B.M., Nos. 58-66.

Footnote 2788:

  Cf. _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 170, and B.M. Nos. 90, 91.

Footnote 2789:

  See Dalton, _B. M. Cat. of Early Christian Antiqs._ pl. 32, p. 148.

Footnote 2790:

  xiv. 114.

Footnote 2791:

  See on the subject Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1334; Blümner,
  _Technologie_, ii. pp. 71, 108.

Footnote 2792:

  _Cat. of Terracottas_, E 81-83: see Fig. 209.

Footnote 2793:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 253, Nos. 396-97 (Christian).

Footnote 2794:

  _Cat._ p. 51, Nos. 117-18 (from London Wall).

Footnote 2795:

  See also p. 395 above.

Footnote 2796:

  Cf. Avolio, _Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, p. 123.

Footnote 2797:

  Cf. _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 86; _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 148, No. 13.

Footnote 2798:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, p. 156, Nos. 74-81: cf. the Roman lamps of the same
  date (_C.I.L._ xv. p. 782).

Footnote 2799:

  The numbers given in the following notes are those of the forthcoming
  Catalogue of Roman lamps in the Department of Greek and Roman

Footnote 2800:

  See also _C.I.L._ xv. 6195-751 for mention of many interesting

Footnote 2801:

  _Röm. Mitth._ 1892, p. 144 ff.

Footnote 2802:

  _Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 174: cf.
  Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. London_, p. 111.

Footnote 2803:

  B.M. 511; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1.

Footnote 2804:

  _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1394; B.M. 604 = Plate IV. fig. 1.

Footnote 2805:

  B.M. 270, 315, 330, 331, 394, 472-475: cf. also Roach-Smith, _Ill.
  Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 1; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 1; Bartoli, ii. 4;
  Kenner, _Antike Thonlampen_, Nos. 4-6.

Footnote 2806:

  _Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 177, No. 18; Kenner, Nos. 227, 228, 425.

Footnote 2807:

  B.M. 605; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1866, pl. G.

Footnote 2808:

  Kenner, No. 7: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1385-86.

Footnote 2809:

  Kenner, No. 8; B.M. 358 (handle).

Footnote 2810:

  B.M. 395; 360-363 on handle.

Footnote 2811:

  Kenner, No. 137.

Footnote 2812:

  No. 679 = _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 93.

Footnote 2813:

  B.M. 307, 402, 466, 573: see also p. 415, note 2935.

Footnote 2814:

  Kenner, No. 10.

Footnote 2815:

  B.M. 607-609, 681, 707; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1384.

Footnote 2816:

  B.M. 271, 398, 571; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1356.

Footnote 2817:

  Kenner, Nos. 17-22; Bartoli, ii. 32-3; B.M. 332, 512, 680.

Footnote 2818:

  Kenner, No. 230; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 43 (from Royal

Footnote 2819:

  B.M. 572; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 151.

Footnote 2820:

  Kenner, No. 229.

Footnote 2821:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 115.

Footnote 2822:

  B.M. 94; with Sphinx, _ibid._ 574.

Footnote 2823:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 142.

Footnote 2824:

  B.M. 69.

Footnote 2825:

  B.M. 554, 614; Kenner, No. 28.

Footnote 2826:

  B.M. 174.

Footnote 2827:

  B.M. 175, 176, 333, 411-413; Kenner, No. 26; Bartoli, ii. 17.

Footnote 2828:

  B.M. 432, 433; Kenner, Nos. 231-2; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 32.

Footnote 2829:

  Kenner, No. 23.

Footnote 2830:

  Masner, _Wiener Vasensamml._ No. 684: cf. _Anzeiger_, 1890, p. 27.

Footnote 2831:

  B.M. 575; Kenner, Nos. 24-5; _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 46;
  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 181.

Footnote 2832:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 180.

Footnote 2833:

  B.M. 70: cf. Clarac, _Musée de Sculpt._ iii. 343, 1399; _B.M.
  Terracottas_, D 286.

Footnote 2834:

  See Kenner, Nos. 37-57.

Footnote 2835:

  B.M. 410, 477.

Footnote 2836:

  B.M. 172; Roach-Smith, _Ill. Rom. Lond._ pl. 30, 6 (Brit. and
  Mediaeval Dept.).

Footnote 2837:

  B.M. 516, 610, 611, 405, 515, 364, 553.

Footnote 2838:

  B.M. 407-409, 461, 479, 612, 654.

Footnote 2839:

  B.M. 478, 406.

Footnote 2840:

  _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168.

Footnote 2841:

  B.M. 308, 97.

Footnote 2842:

  B.M. 170, 171.

Footnote 2843:

  _Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 179, No. 43.

Footnote 2844:

  _Anzeiger_, _loc. cit._

Footnote 2845:

  B.M. 92, 613; 98; 95, 96, 156; 403, 404.

Footnote 2846:

  B.M. 272; Bartoli, i. 7.

Footnote 2847:

  B.M. 173, 89, 576; Bartoli, ii. 25.

Footnote 2848:

  _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 168: cf. _C.I.L._ xv. 6230.

Footnote 2849:

  B.M. 517, 577; Bartoli, ii. 20.

Footnote 2850:

  B.M. 78.

Footnote 2851:

  B.M. 273, 499.

Footnote 2852:

  B.M. 616, 709.

Footnote 2853:

  _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39 (in Berlin).

Footnote 2854:

  _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 169.

Footnote 2855:

  Kenner, No. 36.

Footnote 2856:

  B.M. 481: cf. 316, 519.

Footnote 2857:

  B.M. 102, 180, 579; 183; Kenner, No. 34.

Footnote 2858:

  B.M. 101, 182; Kenner, No. 33.

Footnote 2859:

  B.M. 518.

Footnote 2860:

  B.M. 184, 274, 275, 326, 462, 500; Kenner, No. 35.

Footnote 2861:

  B.M. 181.

Footnote 2862:

  B.M. 58, 99, 578; 178, 179, 480, 618; _Bull. Comm. Arch._ 1887, p.
  366, No. 8: cf. Hauser, _Neuattische Reliefs_, p. 154, Nos. 25-32.

Footnote 2863:

  B.M. 100, 582.

Footnote 2864:

  B.M. 476.

Footnote 2865:

  B.M. 514.

Footnote 2866:

  B.M. 513; Bartoli, ii. 13.

Footnote 2867:

  B.M. 83, 334, 399, 400, 157, 606; Masner, _Wiener Vasens_. 695;
  Bartoli, ii. 11.

Footnote 2868:

  B.M. 401.

Footnote 2869:

  No. 535: cf. also _C.I.L._ xv. 6221, 20.

Footnote 2870:

  B.M. 463, 482, 615; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 157.

Footnote 2871:

  _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 40.

Footnote 2872:

  B.M. 396, 397; _Göttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 184, Nos. 103-4.

Footnote 2873:

  B.M. 523; 191, 591 (bust); Kenner, No. 71; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 164;
  _Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 30.

Footnote 2874:

  B.M. 167; Masner, 685; Fiedler, _Castra Vetera_, pl. 8, No. 3.

Footnote 2875:

  B.M. 465; _Ant. di Ercol_. viii. 11; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 113; _C.I.L._
  xii. 5682, 71 (K. adored by a Gallus); Kenner, No. 3, and see No. 23.

Footnote 2876:

  Kenner, No. 77.

Footnote 2877:

  B.M. 370, 467, 508; 190, 297, 280; Kenner, No. 1; _Ant. di Ercol_.
  viii. 2: cf. _B.M. Terracottas_, D 285.

Footnote 2878:

  B.M. 337.

Footnote 2879:

  B.M. 369; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 134.

Footnote 2880:

  Daremberg and Saglio, iii. p. 1011, fig. 4381.

Footnote 2881:

  B.M 281.

Footnote 2882:

  B.M. 468-470; Bartoli, ii. 42.

Footnote 2883:

  B.M. 104, 185(?).

Footnote 2884:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 82.

Footnote 2885:

  Kenner, Nos. 66-7.

Footnote 2886:

  _Ibid._ Nos. 233-4.

Footnote 2887:

  _Ibid._ Nos. 72-3.

Footnote 2888:

  B.M. 276-278, 348, 484, 510, 586; Kenner, Nos. 58-9; Bartoli, ii. 46.

Footnote 2889:

  See generally, _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 6; Bartoli, iii. 3 (with

Footnote 2890:

  _E.g._ _B.M. Bronzes_, 1510 ff.

Footnote 2891:

  B.M. 189 (see p. 420), 335, 367, 520; 336; 103, 187, 188, 483: cf.
  Roach-Smith, _Collect. Antiq._ ii. pl. 15.

Footnote 2892:

  _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.

Footnote 2893:

  B.M. 583; Bartoli, iii. 2; _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.

Footnote 2894:

  B.M. 186.

Footnote 2895:

  See Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 245; _C.I.L._ x. 8053, 5; ii.
  4969, 3, and xv. 6196 ff; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 189 ff. These lamps date
  from the time of Augustus and his successors.

Footnote 2896:

  B.M. 309, and cf. 368, 584, 585; Bartoli, iii. 5. For a similar
  subject on a money-box see above, p. 389.

Footnote 2897:

  B.M. 189; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. pl. 6; Bartoli, iii. 4.

Footnote 2898:

  _Guildhall Mus. Cat._ p. 47, No. 26. See for these two p. 398 above,
  and p. 420 below.

Footnote 2899:

  B.M. 84, 105, 485; Kenner, No. 83; Bartoli, i. 13-14.

Footnote 2900:

  _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.

Footnote 2901:

  B.M. 710 (archaic _xoanon_).

Footnote 2902:

  Kenner, No. 76; _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 139-40.

Footnote 2903:

  B.M. 415.

Footnote 2904:

  B.M. 521.

Footnote 2905:

  B.M. 337 (Plate LXIII.), and 486.

Footnote 2906:

  _Anzeiger_, 1889, p. 167; _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 131.

Footnote 2907:

  B.M. 619.

Footnote 2908:

  B.M. 192, 587.

Footnote 2909:

  _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1358.

Footnote 2910:

  B.M. 416.

Footnote 2911:

  B.M. 620; 338, 339; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 4 (in the three latter
  only with club and lion’s skin).

Footnote 2912:

  _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 1393.

Footnote 2913:

  B.M. 506, 566, 588.

Footnote 2914:

  B.M. 106, 417.

Footnote 2915:

  B.M. 487.

Footnote 2916:

  B.M. 621.

Footnote 2917:

  B.M. 193; Kenner, No. 81.

Footnote 2918:

  Kenner, No. 82; B.M. 107.

Footnote 2919:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 126-27; _Rev. Arch._ xxxiii. (1898), p. 229.

Footnote 2920:

  _Göttinger Nachrichten_, 1870, p. 182, No. 72.

Footnote 2921:

  B.M. 158, 589; Bartoli, ii. 24; _Ant. di Ercol._ viii. 33; _Guildhall
  Mus. Cat._ p. 48, No. 39.

Footnote 2922:

  B.M. 108; _Göttinger Nachrichten_, p. 188, Nos. 235-36.

Footnote 2923:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, No. 100.

Footnote 2924:

  B.M. 194 = _Arch. Zeit._ 1852, pl. 39.

Footnote 2925:

  _Mus. Alaoui_, Nos. 153-56.

Footnote 2926:

  _Ibid._ No. 123.

Footnote 2927:

  Kenner, Nos. 79, 80.

Footnote 2928:

  B.M. 371.

Footnote 2929:

  B.M. 590 = Roscher, _Lexikon_, iii. p. 2338.