History of Ancient Pottery. Volume 1 (of 2) - Greek, Etruscan, and Roman

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

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 1 (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.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History of Ancient Pottery. Volume 1 (of 2) - Greek, Etruscan, and Roman" ***

Transcriber’s Note:

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

This text includes the rendering of ancient Greek inscriptions, using
the alphabets in a number of different regions, not all of which exist
in the unicode character set. It is not possible to render these
inscriptions in 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 epub versions

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
gathered at the end of each chapter. The occasional references to them
by the original number have been changed.

at:

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

HISTORY OF ANCIENT POTTERY

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

PLATE I

[Illustration:

KYLIX BY DURIS.
THE LABOURS OF THESEUS.
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

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

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 I

WITH 300 ILLUSTRATIONS
INCLUDING 8 COLOURED PLATES

[ILLUSTRATION]

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
1905

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

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

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

PREFACE

In 1857 Dr. Samuel Birch issued his well-known work on ancient pottery,
at that time almost the first attempt at dealing with the whole subject
in a comprehensive manner. Sixteen years later, in 1873, he brought out
a second edition, in some respects condensed, in others enlarged and
brought up to date. But it is curious to reflect that the succeeding
sixteen years should not only have doubled or even trebled the material
available for a study of this subject, but should even have
revolutionised that study. The year 1889 also saw the completion of the
excavations of the Acropolis at Athens, which did much to settle the
question of the chronology of Attic vases. Yet another sixteen years,
and if the increase in actual bulk of material is relatively not so
great, yet the advance in the study of pottery, especially that of the
primitive periods, has been astounding; and while in 1857, and even in
1873, it was impossible to do much more than collect and co-ordinate
material, in 1905 Greek ceramics have become one of the most advanced
and firmly based branches of classical archaeology.

It therefore implies no slur on the reputation of Samuel Birch’s work
that it has become out of date. Up till now it has remained the only
comprehensive treatise, and therefore the standard work, on the
subject; but of late years there has been a crying need, especially in
England, of a book which should place before students a condensed and
up-to-date account of Greek vases and of the present state of knowledge
of the subject. The present volumes, while following in the main the
plan adopted by Dr. Birch, necessarily deviate therefrom in some
important particulars. It has been decided to omit entirely the section
relating to Oriental pottery, partly from considerations of space,
partly from the impossibility of doing justice to the subject except in
a separate treatise; for the same reason the pottery of the Celts and
of Northern Europe has been ignored. Part I. of the present work,
dealing chiefly with the technical aspect of the subject, remains in
its main outlines much as it was thirty years ago; but the other
sections have been entirely re-written. For the historical account of
vase-painting in Birch’s second edition one chapter of forty pages
sufficed; it now extends to six chapters, or one quarter of the work.
The subjects on the vases, again, occupy four chapters instead of two;
and modern researches have made it possible to treat the subjects of
Etruscan and Roman pottery with almost the same scientific knowledge as
that of Greece.

A certain amount of repetition in the various sections will, it is
hoped, be pardoned on the ground that it was desirable to make each
section as far as possible complete in itself; and another detail which
may provoke unfavourable criticism is the old difficulty of the
spelling of Greek names and words. In regard to the latter the author
admits that consistency has not been attained, but his aim has been
rather to avoid unnecessary Latinising on the one hand and pedantry on
the other.

Finally, the author desires to express his warmest acknowledgments to
all who have been of assistance to him in his work, by their writings
or otherwise, especially to a friend, desiring to be nameless, who has
kindly read through the proofs and made many useful suggestions; to the
invaluable works of many foreign scholars, more particularly those of
M. Pottier, M. Salomon Reinach, and M. Déchelette, he owes a debt which
even a constant acknowledgment in the text hardly repays. Thanks are
also due to the Trustees of the British Museum for kind permission to
reproduce their blocks for Figs. 75, 109, 118, 125, 128, 131, 138, 185,
191, and 197, to M. Déchelette for permission to reproduce from his
work the vases given in Figs. 224, 226, and to the Committee of the
British School at Athens for similar facilities in regard to Plate XIV.
(pottery from Crete). Lastly, but by no means least, the author desires
to express to Mr. Hallam Murray his deep sense of obligation for the
warm interest he has shown in the work throughout and for the pains he
has taken to ensure the success of its outward appearance.

H. B. W.

LONDON, _January 1905_.

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

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I

PAGE

PREFACE v

CONTENTS OF VOLUME I ix

LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I xiii

LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN VOLUME I xv

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY xix

NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS WORK xxxvi

PART I

GREEK POTTERY IN GENERAL

CHAPTER I
_INTRODUCTORY_

Importance of study of ancient monuments—Value of pottery as
evidence of early civilisation—Invention of the art—Use of
brick in Babylonia—The potter’s wheel—Enamel and
glazes—Earliest Greek pottery—Use of study of
vases—Ethnological, historical, mythological, and artistic
aspects—Earliest writings on the subject—The “Etruscan”
theory—History of the study of Greek vases—Artistic,
epexegetic, and historical methods—The vase-collections of
Europe and their history—List of existing collections 1–30

CHAPTER II

_SITES AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DISCOVERY OF GREEK VASES_

Historical and geographical limits of subject—Description of
Greek tombs—Tombs in Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Sicily,
Italy—Condition of vases when found—Subsequent
restorations—Imitations and forgeries—Prices of vases—Sites
on which painted vases have been found: Athens, Corinth,
Boeotia, Greek islands, Crimea, Asia Minor, Cyprus, North
Africa, Italy, Etruria—Vulci discoveries—Southern Italy,
Sicily 31–88

CHAPTER III

_THE USES OF CLAY_

Technical terms—Sun-dried clay and unburnt bricks—Use of
these in Greece—Methods of manufacture—Roof-tiles and
architectural decorations in terracotta—Antefixal
ornaments—Sicilian and Italian systems—Inscribed
tiles—Sarcophagi—Braziers—Moulds—Greek lamps—Sculpture in
terracotta—Origin of art—Large statues in
terracotta—Statuettes—Processes of
manufacture—Moulding—Colouring—Vases with plastic
decoration—Reliefs—Toys—Types and uses of
statuettes—Porcelain and enamelled wares—Hellenistic and
Roman enamelled fabrics 89–130

CHAPTER IV

_USES AND SHAPES OF GREEK VASES_

Mention of painted vases in literature—Civil and domestic
use of pottery—Measures of capacity—Use in daily
life—Decorative use—Religious and votive uses—Use in funeral
ceremonies—Shapes and their names—Ancient and modern
classifications—Vases for storage—Pithos—Wine-
amphora—Amphora—Stamnos—Hydria—Vases for
mixing—Krater—Deinos or Lebes—Cooking-vessels—Vases for
pouring wine—Oinochoë and variants—Ladles—Drinking-
cups—Names recorded by
Athenaeus—Kotyle—Skyphos—Kantharos—Kylix—Phiale—
Rhyton—Dishes—Oil-
vases—Lekythos—Alabastron—Pyxis—Askos—Moulded vases 131–201

CHAPTER V

_TECHNICAL PROCESSES_

Nature of clay—Places whence obtained—Hand-made
vases—Invention of potter’s wheel—Methods of
modelling—Moulded vases and relief-
decoration—Baking—Potteries and furnaces—Painted vases and
their classification—Black varnish—Methods of
painting—Instruments and colours employed—Status of potters
in antiquity 202–233

PART II

HISTORY OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING

CHAPTER VI

_PRIMITIVE FABRICS_

Introductory—Cypriote Bronze-Age
pottery—Classification—Mycenaean pottery in Cyprus—Graeco-
Phoenician fabrics—Shapes and decoration—Hellenic and later
vases—Primitive pottery in Greece—Troy—Thera and
Cyclades—Crete—Recent discoveries—Mycenaean
pottery—Classification and distribution—Centres of
fabric—Ethnography and chronology 234–276

CHAPTER VII

_RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_

Geometrical decoration—Its origin—Distribution of
pottery—Shapes and ornamentation of vases—Subjects—Dipylon
vases—Boeotian Geometrical wares—Chronology—Proto-Attic
fabrics—Phaleron ware—Later Boeotian vases—Melian
amphorae—Corinth and its pottery—“Proto-Corinthian”
vases—Vases with imbrications and floral decoration—Incised
lines and ground-ornaments—Introduction of figure-
subjects—Chalcidian vases—“Tyrrhenian Amphorae” 277–327

CHAPTER VIII

_VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_

General characteristics—Classification—Mycenaean
influence—Rhodian pottery—“Fikellura” ware—Asia Minor
fabrics—Cyrenaic vases—Naukratis and its pottery—Daphnae
ware—Caeretan hydriae—Other Ionic fabrics—“Pontic”
vases—Early painting in Ionia—Clazomenae sarcophagi 328–367

CHAPTER IX

_ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_

Definition of “black-figured”—The François vase—Technical
and stylistic details—Shapes—Decorative patterns—Subjects
and types—Artists’ signatures—Exekias and Amasis—Minor
Artists—Nikosthenes—Andokides—“Affected” vases—Panathenaic
amphorae—Vases from the Kabeirion—Opaque painting on black
ground—Vase-painting and literary tradition—Early Greek
painting and its subsequent development 368–399

CHAPTER X

_RED-FIGURED VASES_

Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names
and historical personages—Technical characteristics—Draughts
manship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects and types—Subdivisions
of style—Severe period and artists—Strong
period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and Brygos—Fine
period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine period—Boeotian
local fabric 400–453

CHAPTER XI

_WHITE-GROUND AND LATER FABRICS_

Origin and character of white-ground painting—Outline
drawing and polychromy—Funeral lekythi—Subjects and
types—Decadence of Greek vase-painting—Rise of new
centres—Kertch, Cyrenaica, and Southern
Italy—Characteristics of the latter
fabrics—Shapes—Draughtsmanship—Influence of Tragedy and
Comedy—Subjects—Paestum fabric—Lucanian, Campanian, and
Apulian fabrics—Gnathia vases—Vases modelled in form of
figures—Imitations of metal—Vases with reliefs—“Megarian”
bowls—Bolsena ware and Calene phialae 454–504

LIST OF PLATES IN VOLUME I

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

PLATE

I. Kylix signed by Duris: Labours of Theseus
(_colours_) Frontispiece

TO FACE PAGE

II. Archaic terracotta antefixes 98

III. Restoration of temple at Civita Lavinia 100

IV. Greek lamps and “brazier-handles” 106

V. Moulds for terracotta figures 114

VI. Terracotta vases from Southern Italy 118

VII. “Melian” reliefs 120

VIII. Archaic terracotta figures 122

IX. Terracotta figures of fine style 124

X. Porcelain and enamelled wares 128

XI. Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery 242

XII. Mycenaean vases found in Cyprus 246

XIII. Cypriote “Graeco-Phoenician” pottery 252

XIV. Example of Kamaraes ware from Palaiokastro,
Crete (from _Brit. School Annual_) 266

XV. Mycenaean vases (_colours_) 272

XVI. Subjects from the Aristonoös krater in the
Vatican (from _Wiener Vorl._) 296

XVII. Phaleron, Boeotian, and Photo-Corinthian vases 300

XVIII. Melian amphora in Athens (from Conze) 302

XIX. Proto-Corinthian and Early Corinthian vases 308

XX. Corinthian pyxis and Rhodian oinochoë
(_colours_) 312

XXI. Later Corinthian vases with figure subjects 316

XXII. Chalcidian vase in Bibl. Nat., Paris: Herakles
and Geryon; chariot 320

XXIII. “Tyrrhenian” Amphora: The death of Polyxena 324

XXIV. Rhodian and Naucratite wares 336

XXV. Situla from Daphnae; later Ionic vase in South
Kensington 352

XXVI. Caeretan hydria (_colours_) 354

XXVII. Painted sarcophagus from Clazomenae 364

XXVIII. The François vase in Florence, general view
(from Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._) 370

XXIX. Attic black-figured amphorae 380

XXX. Vases by Nikosthenes 384

XXXI. Obverse of vase by Andokides: Warriors playing
draughts (B.F.) 386

XXXII. Reverse of vase by Andokides: Herakles and the
Nemean lion (R.F.) 386

XXXIII. Panathenaic amphora, earlier style 388

XXXIV. Panathenaic amphora, later style 390

XXXV. Vases with opaque figures on black ground (Brit.
Mus. and Louvre) 394

XXXVI. Red-figured “Nolan” amphorae and lekythos 412

XXXVII. Cups of Epictetan style 422

XXXVIII. Kylix at Munich signed by Euphronios: Herakles
and Geryon (from Furtwaengler and Reichhold) 432

XXXIX. Kylikes by Duris at Berlin and in the style of
Brygos at Corneto (from Baumeister) 436

XL. Vases signed by Sotades (Brit. Mus. and Boston) 444

XLI. Hydria signed by Meidias 446

XLII. Vases of “late fine” style (_colours_) 448

XLIII. Polychrome white-ground vases (_colours_) 456

XLIV. Campanian and Apulian vases 484

XLV. Apulian sepulchral vase (colours) 486

XLVI. Vases modelled in various forms 492

XLVII. Archaic vase in Athens with reliefs (from
Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική) 496

XLVIII. Vases of black ware with reliefs (Hellenistic
period) 500

LIST OF TEXT-ILLUSTRATIONS IN
VOLUME I

FIG. PAGE

1. Coffin containing vases, from _Stackelberg_
Athens 34

2. Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus _Ath. Mitth._ 35

3. Tomb at Gela (Sicily) with _Ashmol. Vases_
vases 37

4. Campana tomb at Veii _Campana_ 39

5. Map of Greece 47

6. Map of Asia Minor and the
Archipelago 63

7. Map of Cyprus 66

8. Map of Italy 70

9. Diagram of roof-tiling, _Durm_
Heraion, Olympia 93

10. Antefix from Marathon _Brit. Mus._ 99

11. Inscribed tiles from Acarnania _Brit. Mus._
and Corfu 102

12. Ostrakon of Megakles _Benndorf_ 103

13. Ostrakon of Xanthippos _Jahrbuch_ 103

14. Hemikotylion from Kythera _Brit. Mus._ 135

15. Child playing with jug _Brit. Mus._ 137

16. Dedication to Apollo _Brit. Mus._
(Naukratis) 139

17. Youth with votive tablet _Benndorf_ 140

18. Vases used in sacrifice _Furtwaengler and
Reichhold_ 141

19. Funeral lekythos with vases _Brit. Mus._
inside tomb 143

20. Vases placed on tomb (Lucanian _Brit. Mus._
hydria) 144

21. Pithos from Knossos 152

22. Greek wine-jars _Brit. Mus._ 154

23. Amphora-stamps from Rhodes _Dumont._ 156

24. Amphora-stamps from Thasos _Dumont._ 158

25. “Tyrrhenian” amphora 160

26. Panathenaic amphora 160

27. Panel-amphora 161

28. Red-bodied amphora 161

29. “Nolan” amphora 162

30. Apulian amphora 162

31. “Pelike” 163

32. Stamnos 164

33. “Lekane” 164

34. Hydria 166

35. Kalpis 166

36. Krater with column-handles 169

37. Volute-handled krater 170

38. Calyx-krater 170

39. Bell-krater 170

40. Lucanian krater 172

41. Psykter 173

42. Deinos or lebes 173

43. Oinochoë (7th century) 177

44. Oinochoë (5th century) 177

45. Prochoös 178

46. Olpe 178

47. Epichysis 179

48. Kyathos 179

49. Kotyle 184

50. Kantharos 188

51. Kylix (earlier form) 190

52. Kylix (later form) 191

53. Phiale 191

54. Rhyton 193

55. Pinax 194

56. Lekythos 196

57. Lekythos (later form) 196

58. Alabastron 197

59. Aryballos 197

60. Pyxis 198

61. Epinetron or Onos 199

62. Askos 200

63. Apulian askos 200

64. Guttus 200

65. Potter’s wheel, from _Ant. Denkm._
Corinthian pinakes 207

66. Potter’s wheel (vase of about _Ath. Mitth._
500 B.C.) 208

67. Boy polishing vase; interior _Blümner_
of pottery 213

68. Seilenos as potter 216

69. Interior of furnace _Ant. Denkm._
(Corinthian pinax) 217

70. Interior of pottery _Ath. Mitth._ 218

71. Red-figured fragment,
incomplete 222

72. Studio of vase-painter _Blümner_ 223

73. Vase-painter varnishing cup _Jahrbuch_ 227

74. Vase-painter using feather- _Jahrbuch_
brush 228

75. Cypriote jug with concentric _Brit. Mus._
circles 251

76. Cypriote vase from Ormidhia _Baumeister_ 254

77. “Owl-vase” from Troy _Schliemann_ 258

78. Deep cup from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

79. Vase in form of pig from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

80. Double-necked vase from Troy _Schliemann_ 259

81. Vases from Thera _Baumeister_ 261

82. Mycenaean vases with marine _Brit. Mus._
subjects 273

83. Ornamentation on Geometrical _Perrot_
vases 283

84. Geometrical vase with panels _Brit. Mus._ 284

85. Boeotian Geometrical vases _Jahrbuch_ 288

86. Coffer from Thebes (Boeotian _Jahrbuch_
Geometrical) 289

87. Burgon lebes _Brit. Mus._ 296

88. Warrior vase from Mycenae _Schliemann_ 297

89. Proto-Attic vase from Vourva _Ath. Mitth._ 299

90. The Dodwell pyxis (cover) _Baumeister_ 316

91. Vases of Samian or “Fikellura” _Brit. Mus._
style 337

92. The Arkesilaos cup (Bibl. _Baumeister_
Nat.) 342

93. Cyrenaic cup with Kyrene _Brit. Mus._ 344

94. Naukratis fragment with “mixed _Brit. Mus._
technique” 346

95. “Egyptian situla” from Daphnae _Brit. Mus._ 351

96. Kylix by Exekias _Wiener Vorl._ 381

97. Vase by Amasis: Perseus _Brit. Mus._
slaying Medusa 382

98. Vase from Temple of Kabeiri _Brit. Mus._ 392

99. Diagram of rendering of eye on _Brit. Mus. Cat._
Attic vase 408

100. Palmettes under handles (early _Jahrbuch_
R.F.) 414

101. Palmettes under handles (later _Riegl_
R.F.) 415

102. Development of maeander and _Brit. Mus. Cat._
cross pattern 416

103. Krater of Polygnotan style: _Mon. dell’ Inst._
Slaying of Niobids (Louvre) 442

104. Boeotian kylix _Brit. Mus._ 452

105. Burlesque scene: Herakles and _Jahrbuch_
Auge 474

106. Apulian sepulchral vase _Brit. Mus._ 477

107. Vase by Assteas in Madrid _Baumeister_ 480

108. Lucanian krater: Departure of _Brit. Mus._
warrior 482

109. Hydria with opaque painting on _Brit. Mus._
black ground 489

110. Phiale with Latin inscription _Brit. Mus._ 490

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANCIENT POTTERY

PART I

PERIODICALS DEALING WITH THE SUBJECT

_American Journal of Archaeology._ Baltimore and Boston, 1885, etc. In
progress. (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._)

_Annali dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome, 1829–85.
(_Ann. dell’ Inst._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in
_Répertoire des Vases_, vol. i. (1899).

_Annual of the British School at Athens._ London, 1894, etc. In
progress. (_Brit. School Annual._)

_Antike Denkmäler_, herausgegeben vom kaiserl. deutschen Institut.
Berlin, 1887, etc. In progress. A supplementary atlas to the
_Jahrbuch_. (_Ant. Denkm._)

_Archaeologia_, or miscellaneous tracts relating to antiquity. London,
1770, etc. Issued by the Society of Antiquaries. In progress.

_Archaeological Journal_, issued by the Royal Archaeological Institute.
London, 1845, etc. In progress. Numerous articles on Roman pottery,
etc. in Britain. (_Arch. Journ._)

_Archaeologische Zeitung._ Berlin, 1843–85. Vols. vii.–xxv. have the
secondary title _Denkmäler, Forschungen und Berichte_. (_Arch.
Zeit._) Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
vol. i. (1899).

_Archaeologischer Anzeiger._ Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress; a
supplement bound up with the _Jahrbuch_ (new acquisitions of
museums, reports of meetings, etc.). (_Arch. Anzeiger._)

_Archaeologische-epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn._
Vienna, 1877–97. Now superseded by _Jahreshefte_. (_Arch.-epigr.
Mitth. aus Oesterr._)

_Athenische Mittheilungen._ Athens, 1876, etc. In progress. Organ of
the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. (_Ath. Mitth._)

_Berichte der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften._ Leipzig,
1846, etc. In progress. Important articles by O. Jahn, 1853–67.
(_Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._)

_Bonner Jahrbücher. Jahrbücher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im
Rheinlande._ Bonn, 1842, etc. In progress. Important for notices of
pottery, etc., found in Germany, and for recent articles by
Dragendorff and others on Roman pottery (Arretine and provincial
wares, vols. xcvi., ci., cii., ciii.). (_Bonner Jahrb._)

_Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique._ Athens and Paris, 1877, etc.
In progress. (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._)

_Bullettino archeologico Napolitano._ Naples, 1842–62. Ser. i. 1842–48.
New ser. 1853–62. Re-edited by S. Reinach, 1899. (_Bull. Arch.
Nap._)

_Bullettino dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._ Rome,
1829–85. Chiefly records of discoveries in Italy and elsewhere.
(_Bull. dell’ Inst._)

_Classical Review._ London, 1887, etc. In progress. Reviews of
archaeological books and records of discoveries.

_Comptes-Rendus de la Commission impériale archéologique._ Petersburg,
1859–88. Edited by L. Stephani. With folio atlas, re-edited by S.
Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899). (Stephani,
_Comptes-Rendus_.)

Ἐφημερὶς Ἀρχαιολογική. Athens, 1883, etc. (new series). In progress.
Plates of vases, 1883–94, re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
vol. i. (1899). (Ἐφ. Ἀρχ.)

_Gazette archéologique._ Paris, 1875–89. (_Gaz. Arch._)

_Hermes._ Zeitschrift für classische Philologie. Berlin, 1866, etc. In
progress.

_Jahrbuch des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts._
Berlin, 1886, etc. In progress. With _Arch. Anzeiger (q.v.)_ as
supplement and _Antike Denkmäler (q.v.)_ as atlas. (_Jahrbuch._)

_Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen archaeologischen Institutes._
Vienna, 1898, etc. In progress. (_Jahreshefte._)

_Journal of Hellenic Studies._ London, 1880, etc. In progress. With
atlas in 4to of plates to vols. i.–viii., and supplementary papers
(No. 4 on Phylakopi). (_J.H.S._)

_Journal of the British Archaeological Association._ London, 1845, etc.
In progress. A few articles on Roman pottery in Britain. (_Journ.
Brit. Arch. Assoc._)

_Monumenti antichi_, pubblicati per cura della R. Accad. dei Lincei.
Milan, 1890, etc. In progress. (_Mon. antichi._)

_Monumenti inediti dell’ Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica._
Rome, 1829–85 (with supplementary volume, 1891). Re-edited (the
plates of vases) by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i. (1899).
(_Mon. dell’ Inst._)

_Monuments Grecs_, publiés par l’Association pour l’encouragement des
Études grecques. Paris, 1872–98. (_Mon. Grecs._)

_Monuments Piot._ Fondation Eugène Piot. Monuments et mémoires publiés
par l’Académie des Inscriptions. Paris, 1894, etc. In progress.

_Museo italiano di antichità classica._ 3 vols. Florence, 1885–90.
Plates of vases re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. i.
(1899). (_Ath. Mitth._)

_Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità_, communicate alla R. Accademia dei
Lincei. Rome and Milan, 1876, etc. In progress. Important as a
record of recent discoveries in Italy and Sicily. (_Notizie degli
Scavi._)

_Philologus._ Zeitschrift für das klassische Alterthum. Göttingen,
1846, etc. In progress. With occasional supplementary volumes.

_Revue archéologique._ Paris, 1844, etc. In progress (four series, each
numbered separately). (_Rev. Arch._)

_Römische Mittheilungen._ Rome, 1886, etc. In progress. Organ of German
Institute at Rome. (_Röm. Mitth._)

PART II

WORKS ON GREEK VASES

ADAMEK (L.). _Unsignierte Vasen des Amasis._ Prague, 1895 (Prager
Studien, Heft v.).

AMELUNG (W.). _Personnificierung des Lebens in der Natur in den
Vasenbildern der hellenistischen Zeit._ Munich, 1888. See also
Florence.

ANDERSON (W. F. C.). See Engelmann and Schreiber.

_Antiquités du Bosphore cimmérien._ 3 vols. Petersburg, 1854, fol.
Vases, etc., found in the Crimea. (Re-edited in 8vo by S. Reinach,
1892.)

ARNDT (P.). _Studien zur Vasenkunde._ Leipzig, 1887. Adopts Brunn’s
theory of the late Italian origin of black-figured vases.

_Athens_ (National Museum). _Catalogue des Vases peints_, by M.
COLLIGNON and L. COUVE. Paris, 1902. With atlas of photographic
plates. The fragments from the Acropolis form the subject of a
separate catalogue (in preparation).

_Aus der Anomia._ Collected articles, some relating to vases. Berlin,
1890.

BAUMEISTER (A.). _Denkmäler des klassischen Alterthums._ 3 vols.
Munich, 1884–88. Excellent illustrations of numerous vases
accompanying the articles, which are arranged alphabetically in
dictionary-form. The article _Vasenkunde_, by Von Rohden, is
useful, but now somewhat out of date. (Baumeister.)

BEGER (L.). _Thesaurus Brandenburgicus selectus._ 3 vols. Köln, 1696,
fol. Publishes vases belonging to the Elector of Brandenburg (see
Vol. I. p. 16).

BENNDORF (O.). _Griechische und sicilische Vasenbilder._ Berlin,
1869–83, fol. Chiefly funerary vases and later fabrics. (Benndorf,
_Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._) See also _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.

_Berlin._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium_, by A.
FURTWAENGLER. Berlin, 1885. 2 vols. With plates of shapes.

BLOCH (L.). _Die zuschauenden Götter in den rothfig. Vasengemälden._
Leipzig, 1888.

BLÜMNER (H.). _Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste._ 4
vols. Leipzig, 1875–86. (Vol. ii. _Arbeit in Thon_, for pottery and
terracottas; vol. iii. for building construction.) Out of date in
some particulars, but still exceedingly useful, and fairly well
illustrated. (Blümner, _Technologie_.)

BOECKH (A.) and others. _Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum._ 4 vols.
Berlin, 1828–77, fol. Vol. iv. contains many vase-inscriptions.
(Boeckh, _C.I.G._)

BÖHLAU (J.). _Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen._ Leipzig, 1898,
4to. Indispensable for the study of Ionic vase-fabrics. (Böhlau,
_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._)

_Bologna_ (Museo Civico). _Catalogo dei vasi_, by G. PELLEGRINI.
Bologna, 1900. (Plates and cuts.)

BOLTE (J.). _De monumentis ad Odysseam pertinentibus capita selecta._
Berlin, 1882, 8vo.

_Bonn._ _Das akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn_, by R. KEKULÉ. Bonn, 1872.

_Bonner Studien._ Aufsätze aus der Alterthumswissenschaft R. Kekulé
gewidmet. Berlin, 1890. Collected papers, including several on
Greek vases.

_Boston._ _Catalogue of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman vases in the Museum
of Fine Arts._ Boston, 1893. By E. ROBINSON. Now withdrawn, owing
to re-numbering and extensive subsequent accessions, for which see
_Boston Museum Reports_ (below).

_Boston Museum Reports_, 1895, etc. In progress from 1896. Issued
annually, with full details of new acquisitions, describing many
unique specimens. (_Boston Mus. Report._)

BÖTTIGER (C. A.). _Griechische Vasengemälde._ Weimar and Magdeburg,
1797–1800.

—— _Kleine Schriften._ 3 vols. Dresden, 1837–39.

_Bourguignon Collection._ _Sale Catalogue_, 18 March 1901. Paris, 1901.
(Best vases not included.)

BRANTEGHEM (A. VAN). See Froehner.

_British Museum._ _Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases._ Vol. i.,
by C. Smith, in preparation. Vol. ii., Black-figured vases, by H.
B. Walters (1893). Vol. iii., Red-figured vases, by C. Smith
(1896). Vol. iv., Vases of the later period, by H. B. Walters
(1896). (Referred to as _B. M. Cat. of Vases_, or B.M. with number
of vase.)

—— _Designs on Greek Vases_, by A. S. Murray and C. Smith. 1894, fol.
(Plates of interiors of R.F. kylikes.)

—— _White Athenian Vases_, by A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. 1896, fol.

—— _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, by A. S. Murray. 1898, fol. (The sarcophagi
from Clazomenae, Kameiros, and Cervetri; see Chapters VIII. and
XVIII.)

—— _Excavations in Cyprus_ (Enkomi, Curium, Amathus). 1900. By A. S.
Murray, H. B. Walters, and A. H. Smith.

BRÖNDSTED (P. O.). _A brief description of 32 ancient Greek painted
vases, lately found at Vulci by M. Campanari._ London, 1832, 8vo.

BRONGNIART (A.). _Traité des Arts Céramiques_, ou des Poteries
considerées dans leur Histoire, leur Pratique, et leur Théorie. 3rd
edn., 1877. 2 vols., with Atlas. (Brongniart, _Traité_.) See also
Sèvres.

BRUNN (H.). _Geschichte der griechischen Künstler._ 2 vols. Stuttgart,
1859. The second volume has some account of the vase-painters then
known.

—— _Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1871, 4to.
Theory of Italian origin of B.F. vases.

—— _Neue Probleme in der Geschichte der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1886.

—— _Griechische Kunstgeschichte._ 2 vols. (incomplete). Munich,
1893–97. Deals with some of the earlier fabrics.

—— _Kleine Schriften._ Vol. i. Leipzig, 1898. In progress. See also Lau.

BULLE (H.). _Die Silene in der archaischen Kunst._ Munich, 1893.

_Burlington Fine Arts Club._ _Catalogue of objects of Greek Ceramic
Art_ (exhibited in 1888), by W. Froehner. (Mostly vases from
Branteghem Collection.)

—— _Catalogue of Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art_, 1903, by E. Strong
and others. A revised _édition de luxe_ (1904) with plates.

_Cambridge_ (Fitzwilliam Museum). _A Catalogue of the Greek vases in
the Fitzwilliam Museum_, by E. A. GARDNER. Cambridge, 1897. With
plates.

CANESSA (C. and E.). _Collection d’Antiquités_, à l’Hôtel Drouot, 11
May 1903, 4to. Paris, 1903. A sale catalogue of an anonymous
collection containing several interesting vases.

CANINO (Prince Lucien Bonaparte of). _Muséum Étrusque de L. Bonaparte,
prince de Canino._ Fouilles de 1828 à 1829. Vases peints avec
inscriptions. Viterbo, 1829, 4to. With atlas of plates, of which
only one part was published.

—— _Catalogo di scelte Antichità Etrusche trovate negli Scavi del Pr.
di Canino_, 1828–29. Viterbo, 1829, 4to.

CAYLUS (A. C. P. de). _Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques,
grecques et romaines._ 7 vols. Paris, 1752–67, 4to. (Vases given in
vols. i. and ii.)

CESNOLA (L. P. di). _Cyprus: its ancient cities, tombs, and temples._
(With a chapter on the pottery, by A. S. Murray.) London, 1877, 8vo.

CHRISTIE (J.). _Disquisitions upon the Painted Vases_, and their
connection with the Eleusinian Mysteries. London, 1825, 4to. (See
Vol. I. p. 21.)

COLLIGNON (M.). See Athens, Rayet.

_Commentationes philologae in honorem T. Mommseni._ Berlin, 1877, 4to.
Several useful papers on vases.

CONZE (A.). _Melische Thongefässe._ Leipzig, 1862. Folio plates.

—— _Zur Geschichte der Anfänge griechischer Kunst._ Vienna, 1870, 8vo.
See also _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_.

COREY (A. D.). _De Amazonum antiquissimis figuris._ Berlin, 1891, 8vo.

COUVE (L.). See Athens.

DAREMBERG (C.) and SAGLIO (E.), and subsequently E. POTTIER.
_Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines._ Paris, 1873,
etc. In progress (to M in 1904). (Daremberg and Saglio.) Special
reference should be made to the articles Figlinum, Forma, Lucerna,
and those on vase-shapes. The bibliographies are very exhaustive.

DENNIS (G.). _The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria._ 2 vols. London,
1878 (2nd edn.), 8vo. Introductory matter on vases antiquated;
useful as record of discoveries, etc. (Dennis, _Etruria_.)

DES VERGERS (N.). _Étrurie et les Étrusques._ 2 vols. and atlas. Paris,
1862–64. Some fine vases published.

DISNEY (J.). _Museum Disneianum_, being a description of a collection
of various ancient fictile vases in the possession of J. D. (now at
Cambridge). London, 1846, 4to.

DUBOIS-MAISONNEUVE (A.). _Introduction à l’étude des vases antiques
d’argile peints._ Paris, 1817, fol. (Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._)

DUMONT (A.). _Inscriptions céramiques de Grèce._ Paris, 1872, 8vo.
(Inscriptions on handles of wine-amphorae.)

—— _Vases peints de la Grèce propre._ Paris, 1873. (Reprinted from the
_Gazette des Beaux Arts_.)

—— _Les Céramiques de la Grèce propre_; histoire de la peinture des
vases grecs depuis les origines jusqu'au V. siècle avant
Jésus-Christ. Illustrations by J. Chaplain. Revised by E. Pottier.
2 vols. Paris, 1888–90. Vol. i., on earlier vase fabrics (now
becoming out of date); plates mostly of later vases. Vol. ii.,
miscellaneous papers (vases, terracottas, etc.). (Dumont-Pottier.)

ENDT (J.). _Beiträge zur ionischen Vasenmalerei._ Prague, 1899, 8vo.
(Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._)

ENGELMANN (R.). _Bilder-Atlas zum Homer._ Leipzig, 1889. Translated by
W. F. C. Anderson: _Pictorial Atlas to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey_,
London, 1892. (Engelmann-Anderson.)

—— _Archaeologische Studien zu den Tragikern._ Berlin, 1900. _Eranos
Vindobonensis_ (collected papers). Vienna, 1893, 8vo.

FEA (C.). _Storia dei vasi fittili dipinti_ che si trovano nell’ antica
Etruria. Rome, 1832. (Dealing with “Etruscan” theory.)

_Festschrift für Johannes Overbeck_ (collected papers). Leipzig, 1893,
4to.

_Festschrift für Otto Benndorf zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet_
(collected papers). Vienna, 1898, 4to.

FIORELLI (G.). _Notizia dei vasi dipinti rinvenuti a Cuma nel 1856._
Naples, 1857. Plates reproduced in _Bull. Arch. Nap._ (_q.v._).

FLASCH (A.). _Angebliche Argonautenbilder._ Munich, 1870.

—— _Die Polychromie der griechischen Vasenbilder._ Würzburg, 1875.

_Florence._ _Führer durch die Antiken in Florenz_, by W. AMELUNG.
Munich, 1897.

FÖRSTER (P. R.). _Hochzeit des Zeus und der Hera_, Relief der
Schaubert’schen Sammlung in .... Breslau. Breslau, 1867, 4to.

—— _Der Raub und die Rückkehr der Persephone._ Stuttgart, 1873.

FROEHNER (W.). _Choix de vases grecs inédits de la collection du Prince
Napoléon._ Paris, 1867, fol.

—— _Deux peintures de vases grecs de la nécropole de Kameiros._ Paris,
1871, fol.

—— _Musées de France._ Recueil de monuments antiques. Paris, 1873, fol.

—— _Collection de M. Albert B_(_arre_). Paris, 1878, 4to. (Sale
catalogue.)

—— _Collection Eugène Piot_, Antiquités. Paris, 1890. (Sale catalogue.)

—— _Collection van Branteghem._ Brussels, 1892, fol., with plates.
(Sale catalogue.)

—— _Collection d’antiquités du Comte Michael Tyszkiewicz._ Paris, 1898.
(Sale catalogue.)

And see Burlington Fine Arts Club, Marseilles Mus.

FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Eros in der Vasenmalerei._ Munich, 1875, 8vo.

—— _Collection Sabouroff._ 2 vols. (the first giving vases). Berlin,
1883–87, 4to. (Also a German edition; the vases now in Berlin.)

—— _Orpheus, Attische Vase aus Gela_ (in _50tes
Winckelmannsfestprogr._, 1890).

—— _Neuere Fälschungen von Antiken._ Munich, 1899, 4to.

—— and LOESCHCKE (G.). _Mykenische Thongefässe._ Berlin, 1879, obl. fol.

—— —— _Mykenische Vasen_: Vorhellenische Thongefässe aus dem Gebiete
des Mittelmeeres. Berlin, 1886, 4to, with atlas in fol.

—— and REICHHOLD (C.). _Die griechische Vasenmalerei_, Auswahl
hervorragender Vasenbilder. Munich, 1900, etc. Text by A. F. and C.
R.; plates (separate) by C. R. And see Berlin, Genick.

GARDNER (E. A.). See Cambridge, Naukratis.

GARDNER (P.). See Oxford.

GARGIULO (R.). _Cenni sulla maniera di rinvenire i vasi fittili
Italo-Greci._ Naples, 1831; 2nd edn., 1843.

—— _Raccolta de Monumenti più interessanti del Real Mus. Borb._ Naples,
1825–3-. 2 vols. of plates.

GENICK (A.) and FURTWAENGLER (A.). _Griechische Keramik._ 4to. Tafeln
ausgewählt und aufgenommen von A. G., mit Einleitung und
Beschreibung von A. F. 2nd edn. Berlin, 1883, 4to.

GERHARD (E.). _Antike Bildwerke._ Munich, 1828–44. Text in 8vo and
plates in fol.

—— _Berlins antike Bildwerke._ Berlin, 1836, 8vo.

—— _Griechische und etruskische Trinkschalen_ des königl. Museums zu
Berlin. Berlin, 1840, fol.

—— _Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder._ 4 vols. Berlin, 1840–58.
(Gerhard, _A. V._) Re-edited by S. Reinach, _Répertoire_, vol. ii.
(1900).

—— _Etruskische und campanische Vasenbilder_ des königl. Museums zu
Berlin. Berlin, 1843, fol.

—— _Apulische Vasenbilder_ des königl. Museums zu Berlin. Berlin, 1845,
fol.

—— _Trinkschalen und Gefässe_ des königl. Museums zu Berlin und anderer
Sammlungen. Berlin, 1848–50, fol.

—— _Gesammelte akademische Abhandlungen und kleine Schriften._ 2 vols.
in 8vo and atlas in 4to. Berlin, 1866–68. (Chiefly papers on
mythology, illustrated by vases.)

GIRARD (P.). _La Peinture antique._ Paris, 1892. Vases as illustrative
of Greek painting.

GORI (A. F.). _Museum Etruscum._ 3 vols. Florence, 1737–43, fol.

GSELL (S.). _Fouilles dans la nécropole de Vulci_, exécutées et
publiées aux frais de Prince Torlonia. Paris, 1891, 4to.

HANCARVILLE (P. F. HUGUES, _pseud._ D’). _Antiquités étrusques,
grecques, et romaines_, tirées du cabinet de M. Hamilton. 4 vols.
folio, 1766–67.

HARRISON (JANE E.). _Myths of the Odyssey in art and literature._
London, 1882, 8vo.

—— _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_ (with translation from
Pausanias, by M. de G. Verrall). London, 1890. Introduction
important for vases relating to Attic cults.

—— _Prolegomena to Greek Religion._ Cambridge, 1903. Numerous vases
interpreted with reference to mythology and religion.

—— and MACCOLL (D. S.). _Greek Vase-paintings._ London, 1894.

_Harrow School Museum._ Catalogue of the classical antiquities from the
collection of the late Sir G. Wilkinson, by CECIL TORR. Harrow,
1887, 8vo.

HARTWIG (P.). _Die griechischen Meisterschalen des strengen
rothfigurigen Stils._ Stuttgart, 1893, 4to, with atlas in fol.
Invaluable for a study of cups of R.F. period.

HELBIG (W.). _Das homerische Epos, aus den Denkmälern erlautert._ 2nd
edn. Leipzig, 1884, 8vo. (Vases used to illustrate civilisation of
Homeric poems.)

—— _Les vases du Dipylon et les naucraries._ Paris, 1898, 4to.

—— _Eine Heerschau des Peisistratos oder Hippias auf einer
schwarzfigurigen Schale._ Munich, 1898, 8vo.

—— _Les_ Ἱππεῖς _Athéniens_. Paris, 1902, 4to. And see Rome.

HERMANN (P.). _Das Gräberfeld von Marion auf Cypern._ Berlin, 1888,
4to. An account of the finds by O. Richter and others at Poli,
Cyprus. (_48tes Winckelmannsfestprogr._)

HEYDEMANN (H.). _Iliupersis auf einer Trinkschale des Brygos._ Berlin,
1866, fol.

—— _Humoristische Vasenbilder aus Unteritalien._ Berlin, 1870. (_30tes
Winckelmannsfestprogr._)

—— _Griechische Vasenbilder._ Berlin, 1870, fol. (Chiefly vases at
Athens.)

—— _Nereiden mit den Waffen des Achill._ Halle, 1879, fol.

—— _Satyr und Bakchennamen._ Halle, 1880. (5tes hallische
Festprogr.). Numerous other monographs, chiefly Hallische or
Winckelmannsfestprogramme. And see Naples.

HIRSCHFELD (G.). _Athena und Marsyas._ Berlin, 1872.

HOPPIN (J. C.). _Euthymides_; a study in Attic vase-painting. Leipzig,
1896.

HUDDILSTON (J. H.). _Greek Tragedy in the light of vase-paintings._
London and New York, 1892.

—— _Lessons from Greek Pottery._ London and New York, 1902. With
bibliography.

INGHIRAMI (F.). _Monimenti etruschi o di etrusco nome._ Ser. 5. Vasi
fittili. Fiesole, 1824, 4to.

—— _Galeria Omerica._ 3 vols. Fiesole, 1831–36.

—— _Etrusco Museo Chiusino._ 2 vols. Fiesole, 1832–34, 4to.

—— _Pitture di vasi fittili._ 4 vols. Fiesole, 1833–37.

—— _Pitture di vase etruschi._ 4 vols. Florence, 1852–56. (A second
edition of the preceding work.)

JAHN (O.). _Telephos und Troilos._ Kiel, 1841, 8vo.

—— _Ueber Darstellungen griechischer Dichter auf Vasenbildern._
Leipzig, 1861. (From _Abhandl. des sächs. Gesellsch._ viii.)

—— _Archaeologische Aufsätze._ Greifswald, 1845, 8vo.

—— _Archaeologische Beiträge._Berlin, 1847, 8vo.

—— _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung Königs Ludwigs in der Pinakothek zu
München._ Munich, 1854, 8vo. (_Vasens. zu München._) The
_Einleitung_ (Introduction) gives a résumé of the whole subject.

—— _Ueber bemalte Vasen mit Goldschmuck._ Leipzig, 1865, 4to.

—— _Die Entführung der Europa_ auf antiken Kunstwerken. Vienna, 1870,
4to.

JATTA (G.). _Catalogo del Museo Jatta_ (at Ruvo). Naples, 1869, 8vo.

_Karlsruhe. Beschreibung der Vasensammlung der grossherzoglichen
vereinigte Sammlungen zu Karlsruhe_, by H. WINNEFELD. 1887, 8vo.

KARO (G.). _De arte vascularia antiquissima quaestiones._ Bonn, 1896,
8vo.

KEKULÉ (R. VON, now KEKULE VON STRADONITZ). See Bonn.

KIRCHHOFF (A.). _Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets._
4th edn. Gütersloh, 1887.

KLEIN (W.). _Euphronios_; eine Studie zur Geschichte der griechischen
Malerei. 2nd edn. Vienna, 1886, 8vo.

—— _Die griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen._ 2nd edn. Vienna,
1887, 8vo.

—— _Die griechischen Vasen mit Lieblingsinschriften._ 2nd edn. Vienna,
1898.

KNAPP (P.). _Nike in der Vasenmalerei._ Tübingen, 1876, 8vo.

_Kopenhagen. De malede Vaser i Antikkabinettet i Kjöbenhavn_.
Kopenhagen, 1862. Catalogue of the vases, by S. Birket Smith.
(Referred to as Kopenhagen, with number of vase.)

KRAMER (G.). _Ueber den Styl und die Herkunft der bemalten griechischen
Thongefässe._ Berlin, 1837.

KRAUSE (J. H.). _Angeiologie._ Halle, 1854, 8vo. (Study of vase-shapes
and their names.)

KRETSCHMER (P.). _Die griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach
untersucht._ Gütersloh, 1894.

LA BORDE (A. DE). _Collection des vases grecs de M. le Comte de
Lambert._ 2 vols. Paris, 1813–28, fol. The vases are now at Vienna.
Re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_, vol. ii. (1900).

LA CHAUSSE (M. A. de = Caussius). _Romanum Museum._ Rome, 1690; 3rd
edn., 1746.

LANZI (L.). _Dei vasi antichi dipinti volgarmente chiamati Etruschi._
Florence, 1806.

LAU (TH.), BRUNN (H.), and KRELL (P.). _Die griechischen Vasen, ihre
Formen und Decorationssystem._ Plates and text. From originals at
Munich. Leipzig, 1877. (Brunn-Lau, Gr. Vasen.)

LENORMANT (C.) and DE WITTE (J.). _Élite des monuments
céramographiques._ 4 vols. Paris, 1837–61, 4to. (_Él. Cér._)

LETRONNE (J. A.). _Observations sur les noms de vases grecs._ Paris,
1833.

_London._ See British Museum.

LONGPÉRIER (H. A. PRÉVOST DE). _Musée Napoléon III._ Choix de monuments
antiques ... Texte explicatif par A. de L. Paris, unfinished,
1868–74, 4to.

_Louvre._ See Paris.

LÜTZOW (C. VON). _Zur Geschichte des Ornaments an den bemalten
griechischen Thongefässen._ Munich, 1858.

LUYNES (H. D’A. DE). _Description de quelques vases peints_, étrusques,
italiotes, siciliens et grecs. Paris, 1840, fol. The vases are now
in the Bibliothèque Nationale. Re-edited by S. Reinach,
_Répertoire_, ii, (1900).

MACCOLL (D. S.). See Harrison.

MACPHERSON (D.). _Antiquities of Kertch_, and researches in the
Cimmerian Bosphorus, etc. London, 1857, 4to. (Discoveries in the
Crimea.)

_Madrid_ (Museo arquelogico nacional). _Catalogo del Museo_, by A. G.
Gutierrez and J. de D. de la Rada y Delgado. Part i. Madrid, 1883,
8vo.

_Marseilles._ _Catalogue des antiquités grecques et romaines du Musée_,
by W. FROEHNER. 1897.

MARTHA (J.). _L'Art Étrusque._ Paris, 1889, 4to.

MASNER (K.). See Vienna.

MAYER (M.). _Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst._
Berlin, 1886.

_Mélanges Perrot._ Paris, 1902, 4to. (Collected papers in honour of
Perrot.) (Recueil de mémoires concernant l’archéologie classique,
la littérature, et l’histoire anciennes, dedié à Georges Perrot.)

MICALI (G.). _Storia degli antichi popoli Italiani._ 3 tom. Firenze,
1832, 8vo. With atlas entitled _Monumenti per servire alla storia_,
etc. Fol.

——— _Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia degli antichi
popoli italiani._ Florence, 1844, 8vo, plates in fol. Vases found
in Etruria. (Micali, _Mon. Ined._)

MILCHHOEFER (A.). _Die Anfänge der Kunst in Griechenland._ Leipzig,
1883, 8vo.

MILLIET (P.). _Études sur les premières périodes de la céramique
grecque._ Paris, 1891.

MILLIN (A. L.). _Peintures des vases antiques._ 2 vols. Paris, 1808–10,
fol. The _Introduction_ of Dubois-Maisonneuve (_q.v._) was
published uniform with this. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to, Paris,
1891. (Millin-Reinach.)

MILLINGEN (F.). _Ancient Unedited Monuments_ of Grecian Art. 2 vols. in
one. London, 1822–26. (Millingen, _Anc. Uned. Monum._)

——— _Peintures antiques de vases grecs, tirées de diverses
collections._ Rome, 1813, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in 4to,
Paris, 1891. (Millingen-Reinach.)

——— _Peintures antiques de vases grecs de la collection de Sir J.
Coghill._ Rome, 1817, fol. Re-edited by S. Reinach in _Répertoire_,
ii. (1900).

MORGENTHAU (J. C.). _Ueber den Zusammenhang der Bilder auf griechischen
Vasen._ I. Die schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Leipzig, 1886. 8vo.

MOSES (H.). _A collection of antique vases, etc._, from various museums
and collections. London, 1814.

——— _Vases from the collection of Sir Henry Englefield._ London, 1848.

MUELLER (E.). _Drei griechische Vasenbilder._ Zurich, 1887. 4to.

MÜLLER (K. O.). _Denkmäler der Alten Kunst._ 1832–69, obl. fol. 2 vols.
(2nd re-edited by F. Wiestler).

—— —— Theil ii. 3rd edn., 1877. Text 4to; plates, 1881, obl. fol.

_Munich._ _Beschreibung der Vasensammlung König Ludwigs in der
Pinakothek_, by O. JAHN. Munich, 1855. With admirable introduction.
See also the guide (_Führer_) published in 1895. A new catalogue by
Furtwaengler said to be in progress.

MURRAY (A. S.). _Handbook of Greek Archaeology._ London, 1892. (Chaps.
i. and ii. deal with vases.) And see British Museum.

_Museo Borbonico._ Naples, 1824–57. 16 vols., 4to. Illustrations of the
collections in the Naples Museum (Real Museo Borbonico). See also
Gargiulo.

_Museo Gregoriano._ Museo Etrusci ... in Aedibus Vaticanis ...
Monumenta. 2 vols. (vases in 2nd). Rome, 1842, fol. (_Mus. Greg._)

MYRES, J. L. See Nicosia.

_Naples._ _Die Vasensammlungen des Museo Nazionale zu Neapel_, by H.
HEYDEMANN. Berlin, 1872. See also Gargiulo, Museo Borbonico.

_Naukratis, I._ and _II._ Third and Sixth Memoirs of the Egypt
Exploration Fund, by W. M. Flinders Petrie, E. A. Gardner, etc.
London, 1886–88. Plates of pottery found at Naukratis, discussed in
text by C. Smith and E. A. Gardner.

_Nicosia_ (Cyprus Museum). _A Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum_, by J. L.
MYRES and M. OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER. Oxford, 1899.

OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER (M.). _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer._ 2 vols., text
and plates. Berlin, 1893. Also a German edition. Useful for
collected examples of Cypriote pottery and terracottas. See also
Nicosia.

OVERBECK (J.). _Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und troischen
Heldenkreis._ 2 vols., text and atlas. Brunswick and Stuttgart,
1853–57. Lists of vases illustrating Theban and Trojan legends.
(Overbeck, _Her. Bildw._)

—— _Griechische Kunstmythologie._ Vols. ii.–iv. only published (Zeus,
Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Apollo, and myths connected with them).
Leipzig, 1871–89. With atlas in fol. (Overbeck, _Kunstmythol._)

_Oxford_ (Ashmolean Museum). _Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the
Ashmolean Museum_, by P. Gardner. Oxford, 1893. With coloured
plates.

PANOFKA (T.). _Vasi di premio illustrati._ Florence, 1826.

—— _Musée Blacas._ Paris, 1829, fol. Vases mostly in B.M.

—— _Recherches sur les véritables noms des vases grecs._ Paris, 1829.

—— _Antiques du cabinet du comte Pourtalès-Gorgier._ Paris, 1834, 4to.
(Panofka, _Cab. Pourtalès_.)

—— _Bilder antiken Lebens._ Berlin, 1843, 4to.

—— _Griechinnen und Griechen nach Antiken skizzirt._ Berlin, 1844, 4to.

—— _Der Vasenbilder Panphaios._ Berlin, 1848.

—— _Von den Namen der Vasenbildner in Beziehung zu ihren bildlichen
Darstellungen._ Berlin, 1849, 4to.

—— _Die griechischen Eigennamen mit_ καλός in Zusammenhang mit dem
Bilderschmuck auf bemalten Gefässen. Berlin, 1850.

(And many other pamphlets with publication of vases, chiefly from
the mythological point of view, but now out of date.)

_Paris_ (Louvre). _Catalogue des vases antiques de terre cuite_, by E.
POTTIER. Paris, 1896, etc. In progress (two volumes issued, dealing
with earlier fabrics). With accompanying atlas of photographic
plates (2 vols., down to Euphronios).

_Paris_ (Bibliothèque Nationale). _Catalogue des vases dans le Cabinet
des Médailles_, by A. DE RIDDER. Paris, 1901–02. 2 vols. With
plates.

PASSERI (J. B.). _Picturae Etruscorum in Vasculis._ 3 vols. Rome,
1767–75, fol.

PATRONI (G.). _Ceramica antica nell’ Italia meridionale._ Naples, 1897.
A useful study of Greek and local fabrics of Southern Italy.

PELLEGRINI (G.). See Bologna.

PERROT (G.) and CHIPIEZ (C.). _Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité._
(Text by Perrot, plates by Chipiez.) In progress: 8 vols, published
in 1882–1904. Vol. iii., Cypriote pottery; vol. vi., Mycenaean;
vol. vii., Dipylon. (Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art._)

_Petersburg._ _Vasensammlung der kaiserlichen Ermitage_, by L.
STEPHANI. Petersburg, 1869. 2 vols.

POLLAK (L.). _Zwei Vasen aus der Werkstatt Hierons._ Leipzig, 1900.

POTTIER (E.). _Étude sur les lécythes blancs attiques à représentations
funéraires._ Paris, 1883, 8vo. (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises,
No. 30.)

—— _La peinture industrielle chez les Grecs._ Paris, 1898, 8vo.

—— and REINACH (S.). _La Nécropole de Myrina._ 2 vols. Paris, 1887.

See also _Arch. Zeit._ 1848, p. 280.

Footnote 161:

See Ross, _Reisen_, iv. p. 44.

Footnote 162:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 581 (plain wares only).

Footnote 163:

_J.H.S._ viii. p. 446. pl. 83.

Footnote 164:

Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 33.

Footnote 165:

See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 130 ff.

Footnote 166:

See on the Geometrical pottery Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 136. It is
probably imported, although Dümmler (_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 268) thinks
otherwise.

Footnote 167:

There is at least one late R.F. vase from Crete in the National
Museum at Athens (_Cat._ 1851, 1860, 1921). See for other instances
of earlier finds, below, p. 269; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, p. 22;
Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 176.

Footnote 168:

_Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd Ser. xv. (1895), p. 351 ff.

Footnote 169:

See _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 157 ff. for an estimate of the Knossos
pottery; also p. 265 below.

Footnote 170:

_British School Annual_, 1899–1900, p. 94 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff.

Footnote 171:

_Ibid._ 1900–01, p. 121 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 248 ff.

Footnote 172:

_Ibid._ 1901–2, p. 289 ff.; 1902–3, p. 297.

Footnote 173:

_Rendiconti dell’ Accad. dei Lincei_, 1900, p. 631.

Footnote 174:

_American Journ. of Arch._ 1901, p. 371 ff., 302, 128; _British
School Annual_, 1901–02, p. 235 (Praesos).

Footnote 175:

Nos. 98 and 99 in the collection of M. van Branteghem were two fine
R.F. “aryballi” from Apollonia in Thrace.

Footnote 176:

The reader who wishes to gain a comprehensive idea of these vases is
referred to the plates of the Atlas to Stephani’s _Compte-Rendu de la
Comm. imp. arch. de St.-Pétersbourg_ (1861–83) = Reinach,
_Répertoire_, i. p. 1 ff.

Footnote 177:

See also Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, p. xxvii.

Footnote 178:

_Compte-Rendu_, 1870–71, pl. 4 = Reinach, i. 34.

Footnote 179:

See an interesting article in _Anzeiger_, 1900, p. 151, on the
relations of the Black Sea colonies to Greece, especially in regard
to pottery.

Footnote 180:

See Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304 ff.

Footnote 181:

So Jahn, _Vasens_. p. xxvii, but from the illustration given in
Choiseul-Gouffier’s _Voyage pittoresque_, pt. 2, pl. 30, this seems
doubtful.

Footnote 182:

Jahn, _Vasens_. p. xxvii.

Footnote 183:

_Monuments Piot_, x. pls. 6–7.

Footnote 184:

The style resembled that of B 80 in the Brit. Mus.

Footnote 185:

See Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. pp. 929, 931. The British Museum
possesses a similar one from Kalymnos (p. 273).

Footnote 186:

_Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ pp. 86–7.

Footnote 187:

_Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 274; Pottier and Reinach, _Nécropole de Myrina_,
pp. 221, 499; _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, p. 509; _Ath. Mitth._
1887, p. 228.

Footnote 188:

_Röm. Mitth._ 1888, pl. 6; now in Brit. Mus.

Footnote 189:

See generally Chapter VIII.

Footnote 190:

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

Footnote 191:

Athen. xi. 481 A. See also _Ath. Mitth._ 1900, p. 94.

Footnote 192:

_Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. ii. (1847), p. 258, and plate, fig.
D.

Footnote 193:

Chantre, _Recherches archéol._ pls. 8–14; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 37 ff.

Footnote 194:

_Ath. Mitth._ xii. (1887), pp. 226, 376.

Footnote 195:

Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 161; Athenaeus, i. 28 D; Lucian, _Lexiph._ 7.
For pottery from Datcha, near Knidos, see _Rev. Arch._ xxv. (1894),
p. 27.

Footnote 196:

Jahn, p. xxvii.

Footnote 197:

_Comptes-Rendus de l’Acad. des Inscr._ Aug. 1902, p. 428 ff.; 1903,
p. 216.

Footnote 198:

_Catalogue of Cyprus Museum_, Oxford, 1899.

Footnote 199:

See Hermann, _Gräberfeld von Marion_ (1888); _J.H.S._ xi. p. 41 ff.,
xii. p. 315; _Branteghem Sale Cat._ Nos. 14–18, 28–30.

Footnote 200:

_J.H.S._ xi. p. 273.

Footnote 201:

_B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. F 510–12.

Footnote 202:

Petrie, _Hawara_, pl. 16, figs. 1–4.

Footnote 203:

It was presented to the British Museum by Sir E. Codrington in 1830.
Similar painted vases were found in Roman tombs at Curium, Cyprus
(_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 78).

Footnote 204:

_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1885, p. 18.

Footnote 205:

See _Trans. Roy. Soc. of Lit._ 2nd Ser. ix. p. 165 ff., and _Arch.
Zeit._ 1846, p. 216; also p. 36 above.

Footnote 206:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1884, pl. 13; Froehner, _Ant. du Mus. de
Marseilles_, 1928–30.

Footnote 207:

_H.N._ xxxv. 161.

Footnote 208:

See Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, p. lxxxiv; _Arch. Zeit._ 1850, pl. 18
= Reinach, i. 372; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 45, p. 279; and Schöne,
_Mus. Bocchi_, 1878.

Footnote 209:

_H.N._ xxxv. 160.

Footnote 210:

See Chapter XXII., and Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 583.

Footnote 211:

_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1848, p. 62.

Footnote 212:

_Ibid._ 1847, p. 17.

Footnote 213:

_Class. Review_, 1899, p. 329; _Röm. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 7.

Footnote 214:

_Scavi della Certosa di Bologna_, text and plates, 1876: see also
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1872, pp. 12 ff., 76 ff., 108 ff.

Footnote 215:

See _Vasi Fitt._ iv. pl. 355, p. 82; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1849, p. 23.

Footnote 216:

P. lxxxiii.

Footnote 217:

Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, ii. p. 189; Micali, _Mon.
Ined._ p. 216.

Footnote 218:

_H.N._ xxxv. 160: Retinet hanc nobilitatem (_sc._ of Samian ware) et
Arretium in Italia.

Footnote 219:

Jahn, _Vasens._ p. lxxxii; Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 163, 332; and
see 166.

Footnote 220:

Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 431; Jahn, p. lxxxii; Reinach,
_Répertoire_, i. 137, 161, 251, 384.

Footnote 221:

See Plate XXVIII. and p. 370.

Footnote 222:

See Dennis, ii. p. 307 ff.; Jahn, p. lxxix.

Footnote 223:

Dennis, _ibid._

Footnote 224:

_Brit. Mus. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 25, Nos. G 179–94: cf. _Class.
Review_, 1897, p. 276, and _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1871, p. 5 ff.

Footnote 225:

xi. 480 E.

Footnote 226:

Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 46. _Class. Review_, 1894, p. 277, gives
some more recent finds.

Footnote 227:

Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pl. 47, p. 466: cf. _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1830,
p. 233.

Footnote 228:

See Jahn, p. lxxviii.

Footnote 229:

Reinach, i. 203, 222 (Plate XXXIX).

Footnote 230:

See also _Class. Review_, 1893, pp. 84, 381; 1894, p. 277.

Footnote 231:

Dennis, i. p. 405; Jahn, p. lxviii.

Footnote 232:

B.M. A 469, 1537, 1540.

Footnote 233:

_Jahrbuch_, 1889, pls. 5–6, p. 218.

Footnote 234:

F 479; also Reinach, i. 215. For a late R.F. vase with a Latin
inscription from this site see _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, pl. 10, p. 231.

Footnote 235:

Jahn, p. lxv.

Footnote 236:

For an account of this tomb see Dennis, i. p. 33 ff., and above, p.
39.

Footnote 237:

See Chapter XVIII., and Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 17.

Footnote 238:

See for these Chapter XVIII.

Footnote 239:

_Cat._ 1655=Reinach, i. 199: see p. 319.

Footnote 240:

The Antaios krater and the Petersburg psykter: see p. 431.

Footnote 241:

Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 106.

Footnote 242:

P. lxvi. ff.: see also generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 355 ff.

Footnote 243:

B.M. E 41.

Footnote 244:

_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1902, p. 84 ff.

Footnote 245:

_Class. Review_, 1894, p. 277.

Footnote 246:

Reinach, i. 320.

Footnote 247:

_Class. Review_, 1897, p. 226.

Footnote 248:

Jahn, p. lxiv; Reinach, i. 109, 368; _Class. Review_, 1897, p. 276.

Footnote 249:

Reinach, i. 345.

Footnote 250:

1831; see also _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1831, p. 161. A view of the site
is given in _Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. pl. 41.

Footnote 251:

See generally Chapter XVIII. The finds are described in a work edited
by Gsell, entitled _Fouilles de Vulci_ (1891).

Footnote 252:

Eng. transl. p. 112.

Footnote 253:

Besides the already cited _Rapporto Volcente_ of Gerhard in the
_Annali_ for 1831, an account of these discoveries will be found in
the _Muséum Étrusque_ of the Prince of Canino; _Trans. Royal Soc. of
Lit._ ii. (1834), p. 76 ff. (Millingen); _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1829, p.
188 ff.; Jahn’s _Einleitung_, p. lxviii; and an excellent description
in Dennis’s _Etruria_, 2nd edn. i. p. 448 ff.: see also Chapter
XVIII. Above all, reference should be made to the recent summary by
Gsell (see above).

Footnote 254:

Those who are curious in such matters may be grateful for a
bibliography of the controversy: Lanzi, _Dei Vasi antichi dipinti_;
Winckelmann, _Hist. de l’Art_, i. p. 188 ff.; Canino, _Mus. Étr._
(1829), and _Cat. di scelte ant. Étr._; _Annali_, 1831, p. 105 ff.,
1834, p. 285; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1829, pp. 60, 113 ff., 1831, p. 161
ff., 1832, p. 74 ff., 1833, p. 73 ff.; Gerhard, _Berl. ant. Bildw._
p. 143; _Journal de Savans_, 1830, pp. 115 ff., 177 ff.; Kramer,
_Styl und Herkunft_, p. 146; Thiersch, _Hell. bemalte Vasen_, etc.

Footnote 255:

Finds of “Proto-Corinthian,” B.F., and R.F. fragments have been
recently made in the precincts of the temple of Vesta (_Class.
Review_, 1901, p. 93).

Footnote 256:

A 1054 = _Bull. Arch. Nap._ ii. pl. 1, 1–2.

Footnote 257:

See p. 483, and Patroni, _Ceramica Antica_, p. 79 ff.

Footnote 258:

Mart. _Ep._ xiv. 114; Stat. _Silv._ iv. 9, 43.

Footnote 259:

See Patroni, _op. cit._ p. 93, also Jahn, _op. cit._ p. lxii, for
B.F. and other vases found here. Some of the vases are direct
imitations of Athenian fabrics.

Footnote 260:

Naples 3352–55.

Footnote 261:

B.M. B 610.

Footnote 262:

See Jahn, p. lxiii; Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 317.

Footnote 263:

See Jahn, p. lii. Those in the British Museum from Nola came chiefly
from the Blacas collection.

Footnote 264:

See also Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 228, 348; _Branteghem Sale Cat._
Nos. 84–5; and Jahn, p. li.

Footnote 265:

Walters, _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 16; Patroni, _Ceram. Ant._ pp.
37, 76.

Footnote 266:

See Jahn, p. xlvi ff.

Footnote 267:

_E.g._ Petersburg 355, and others in B.M.

Footnote 268:

Petersburg 1187, 1427; Naples 2991, S.A. 11, 708–9.

Footnote 269:

See Jahn, p. l, for examples from this site, mostly of inferior
merit; also Reinach, i. 250.

Footnote 270:

Berlin 2694; _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1830, p. 21.

Footnote 271:

B.M. F 157; Bibl. Nat. 422.

Footnote 272:

Lenormant, _Grande Grèce_, i. p. 94.

Footnote 273:

See Jahn, p. xl.

Footnote 274:

For recent excavations see _Class. Review_, 1893, p. 381; 1894, p.
129 (vases with subjects of Kanake and Theseus with the ring).

Footnote 275:

Patroni, _Ceram. Ant._ p. 142; B.M. F 237–38.

Footnote 276:

Cf. also Petersburg 778, 895.

Footnote 277:

See p. 488, and B.M. F 543 ff.; for earlier vases, Reinach, i. pp.
471–77.

Footnote 278:

_La Grande Grèce_, i. p. 92 ff.

Footnote 279:

See _Class. Review_, 1898, p. 185, for mention of two B.F. kylikes
signed by Antidoros; also _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34 ff., 205
ff., for other interesting B.F. vases, including signatures of
Tleson, Sakonides, and Thrax. The two latter were found at Leporano,
about ten miles S.W. of Tarentum.

Footnote 280:

Mycenaean vases from this site are in the Louvre (Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 48).

Footnote 281:

As for instance Munich 781 = Reinach, ii. 126.

Footnote 282:

These discoveries are summarised in the _Class. Review_, 1894, p.
278; 1896, p. 173; 1898, p. 428. Fuller details are given in the
_Notizie degli Scavi_ for those years. See also Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke, p. 47.

Footnote 283:

Jahn, p. xxxi.

Footnote 284:

_Arch.-Intell. Blatt_, 1836, No. 34, p. 283.

Footnote 285:

Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ 329–30; _Forman Sale Cat._ No. 357.

Footnote 286:

Millin-Reinach, ii. 61–2 (Taleides); _Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. pl. 52;
B.M. B 295 (Nikosthenes); B.M. E 474, E 478: cf. Jahn, p. xxxii, and
the index to Reinach’s _Répertoire_, _s.v._ Agrigente.

Footnote 287:

_Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 261 ff.

Footnote 288:

Jahn, p. xxxi.

Footnote 289:

_Arch.-Intell. Blatt_, 1834, No. 56, p. 457 ff.: see also _Bull.
della Comm. di Antich. in Sicilia_, 1872, p. 13 ff. pls. 4–5.

Footnote 290:

P. xxxi. One of the late vases with burlesque scenes (_Mon. dell’
Inst._ iv. pl. 12) was also found here.

Footnote 291:

See _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 1–2; _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 262.

Footnote 292:

_Class. Review_, 1893, p. 231.

Footnote 293:

Jahn, p. xxxii.

Footnote 294:

_Ibid._ p. xxx.

Footnote 295:

Reinach, i. 408.

Footnote 296:

A B.F. vase in the Cagliari Museum is published in _Bull. Arch. Nap._
N.S. iv. pl. 13.

Footnote 297:

_J.H.S._ vii. pl. 62, p. 55.

Footnote 298:

_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1842, p. 10.

Footnote 299:

Jahn, p. xxix.

CHAPTER III
_THE USES OF CLAY_

Technical terms—Sun-dried clay and unburnt bricks—Use of these in
Greece—Methods of manufacture—Roof-tiles and architectural
decorations in terracotta—Antefixal ornaments—Sicilian and
Italian systems—Inscribed tiles—Sarcophagi—Braziers—Moulds—Greek
lamps—Sculpture in terracotta—Origin of art—Large statues in
terracotta—Statuettes—Processes of
manufacture—Moulding—Colouring—Vases with plastic
decoration—Reliefs—Toys—Types and uses of statuettes—Porcelain
and enamelled wares—Hellenistic and Roman enamelled fabrics.

We now proceed to treat the subject of the fictile art among the Greeks
in its technical aspects, prefacing our study with a section dealing
with the uses of clay in general.

The term employed by the Greeks for pottery is κέραμος, or for the
material γῆ κεραμική. The word for clay in a general sense is πηλός,
while κέραμος has the more restricted sense of clay as material for
fictile objects; the latter word is supposed to be connected with
κεράννυμι, to mix. They likewise applied to pottery the term ὄστρακον,
meaning literally an oyster-shell, and ὀστράκινα τορεύματα[300] is also
an expression found for works in terracotta. Nor must we omit to
mention that πηλός too comes to bear a restricted sense, when it is
applied to the unburnt or sun-dried bricks freely employed in early
architecture. Keramos was regarded by the Greeks as a legendary hero,
from whom the name of the district in Athens known as the Kerameikos,
or potter’s quarter, was derived.[301] The word κέραμος soon became
generic, and as early as Homer’s time we find such an expression as
χάλκεος κέραμος for a bronze vessel[302]; similarly it came to be used
for tiles, even when they were of marble (see below, p. 100). The art
of working in clay may be considered among the Greeks, as among all
other nations, under three heads, according to the nature of the
processes employed: (1) Sun-dried clay (Gk. πηλινα or ὠμά, Lat.
_cruda_); (2) baked clay without a glaze, or terracotta (Gk. γῆ ὀπτή);
(3) baked clay with the addition of a glaze, corresponding to the
modern porcelain. It is then possible to treat of the uses of clay
under these three heads. The first, from its limited use, will occupy
our attention but very briefly; the second, the manufacture of building
materials and terracotta figures, only technically comes under the
heading of pottery, and will therefore also receive comparatively brief
mention. It remains, then, that in the succeeding chapters, as in the
preceding, it will be almost exclusively with the third heading that we
are concerned. Before, however, dealing with this third heading, or
pottery, we may review briefly the purposes for which clay was worked,
under the other two headings of brick and terracotta.

The uses of clay among the Greeks were very varied and extensive.
Sun-dried clay was used for building material, and we have already seen
what an important part was played by pottery in their domestic and
religious life. The uses of terracotta are almost more manifold than
those of pottery. It supplied the most important parts both of public
and private buildings, such as bricks, roof-tiles, drain-tiles, and
various architectural adornments; and was frequently used in the
construction and decoration of tombs and coffins. Among its adaptations
for religious purposes may be noted its use as a substitute for more
expensive materials in the statues of deities, as well as the countless
figurines or statuettes in this material, many of which have been found
on the sites of temples or in private shrines; and besides the
statuettes and other figures, of which such quantities have been found
in tombs, it was used for imitations of jewellery or metal vases made
solely for a sepulchral purpose. It also supplied many of the wants of
every-day life, in the form of spindle-whorls, theatre-tickets, lamps
and braziers, and culinary and domestic utensils of all kinds, taking
the place of the earthenware of modern times. It supplied the potter
with moulds for his figures and the sculptor with models for his work
in marble or bronze, and placed works of art within the reach of those
who found marble and the precious metals beyond their means.

One of the most elementary uses of clay is for the manufacture of
building material, for which it plays an important part, as we have
already seen, in the history of the Semitic races. Both burnt and
unburnt bricks were employed in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and their use
has already been referred to in the Introduction. Vitruvius[303] speaks
of the use of brick in the palace of Kroisos at Sardis, and we also
read of the walls of Babylon and Larissa (on the site of Nineveh) as
being of brick.[304] Generally speaking, sun-dried bricks belong to an
earlier period of development than baked bricks; at any rate, this is
the case in the buildings of Greece and Rome.

In Greece itself the antiquity of brick is implied by the words of
Pliny,[305] who tells us that Hyperbius and Euryalus of Athens “were
the first to” construct brick-kilns (_laterarias_) and houses; before
their time men lived in caves. He further goes on to say that Gellius
regarded one Toxius as the inventor of buildings of sun-dried clay,
inspired by the construction of swallows’ nests. The reference is
obviously to the employment by swallows of straw and twigs to make the
clay for their nests cohere; this may well have suggested, in the first
instance, the principle of mixing straw with sun-dried clay bricks, as
was done by the Israelites in their bondage in Egypt. The method is one
still practised in the East, where in such countries as Palestine and
Cyprus whole villages built in this fashion may be seen.

There is no doubt, however, that in Greece, with its stores of marble
and stone for building, brick never became general, though it was
probably more used in sun-dried form in earlier buildings before the
Greeks had begun to realise the possibilities of stone buildings.
Pausanias[306] speaks of temples of Demeter at Lepreon in Arcadia and
Stiris in Phokis, of a shrine of Asklepios at Panopeus in Phokis, and
of the Stoa of Kotys at Epidauros (restored by Antoninus Pius) as being
of unburnt brick (πηλός). Of the same material was the cella of a
temple at Patrae[307]; but the walls of various cities, such as
Mantinea, were of burnt brick.[308]

Nor was the use of sun-dried clay confined to building material. It
seems also to have been employed for modelling decorations of public
buildings. Thus Pausanias mentions “images of clay,” representing
Dionysos feasting in the house of Amphiktyon, adorning a chamber in the
temenos of that god in the Kerameikos,[309] and it seems highly
probable that these are to be identified with the _cruda opera_ of one
Chalcosthenes or Caicosthenes mentioned by Pliny,[310] where the word
_cruda_ can only be used in a technical sense (Greek ὠμά). He also
mentions at Tritaea in Achaia[311] statues of the Θεοὶ μέγιστοι in
clay, and at Megara an image of Zeus by Theokosmos,[312] of which the
face was gold and ivory, the rest clay and gypsum.

Our knowledge of the use of brick (both burnt and unburnt) and
terracotta in Greek architecture has been largely increased, not to say
revolutionised, by recent discoveries in all parts of the Greek world,
and going back to a very remote period.

Recent excavations have yielded walls of unburnt brick at Eleusis,
Mycenae, Olympia, Tegea, and Tiryns.[313] The Heraion at Olympia, which
dates from the tenth century B.C., is a peripteral temple with stone
stylobate, pillars and _antae_ of wood, and cella-wall of unburnt
brick. In this respect it resembles the temple of Zeus and Herakles at
Patrae (see above). It also possesses the oldest known example of a
terracotta roof (Fig. 9.). A recently discovered temple at Thermon in
Acarnania is constructed of wood and terracotta, with painted
terracotta slabs in wooden frames for metopes; the style of the
paintings appears to be Corinthian, and they form a valuable
contribution to the history of early Greek painting.[314]

[Illustration:

From _Durm’s Handbuch_.

FIG. 9. DIAGRAM OF ROOF-TILING, HERAION, OLYMPIA.
]

The stone stylobate at the Heraion was a necessity because of the
destructive effect of the moist earth on terracotta; it consisted of a
row of vertical slabs on which the bricks were placed in regular
courses. We may see in this method of construction the forerunner of
the system, universal since that time, of building walls on a plinth,
which survives even to the present day. In the same way door-jambs and
lintels, which were of necessity made of wood, not of brick, continued
to be constructed in that material even after the introduction of
stone.[315] It has been assumed by some authorities that the Doric
style of architecture is derived from a wooden prototype; this, however
true of the Ionic style, is not altogether true of Doric. The
proportions of the latter are too heavy. A more probable explanation is
that it is the combination of wood with sun-dried tiles or bricks which
we see in the Heraion that developed with the introduction of stone
into the Doric system.[316]

It is then clear that although in Greece bricks were by no means
indispensable for building temples, houses, and walls, and though stone
and marble undoubtedly had the preference, especially in later times,
yet their use is more general than was hitherto supposed. But when they
are mentioned by classical authors it is generally when speaking of
foreign or barbarian edifices, such as the palace of Kroisos at Sardis
or the monument of Hephaestion at Babylon,[317] and in a manner which
shows that they were not much employed in Greece at the time when they
wrote. The older temple of Apollo at Megara is described by
Pausanias[318] as having been of brick (πλίνθος), but we are left in
doubt as to whether this was baked or sun-dried; while the excavations
at Olympia have distinctly contradicted his statement[319] that the
Philippeion was of brick, as it is proved to have been built of stone
ashlar.[320] In 333–329 B.C. the Long Walls of Athens were constructed,
partly in brick, under Habron, son of Lykourgos, with Laconian tiles
for the roofs.[321] Other recorded buildings are all of late date and
under Roman influence, and we must leave an account of Roman
brick-building to be dealt with in a later chapter (XIX.).

There is an interesting passage in the _Birds_ of Aristophanes, in
which he is describing the building of the city of Nephelokokkygia, the
walls of which are apparently conceived as being of sun-dried brick. He
there speaks of “Egyptian brick-bearers,”[322] implying that the use of
brick was a characteristic distinction of that nation. The passage
(1133–51) is worth quoting in full, as showing the process employed in
the making of sun-dried bricks.

_Mess._ Birds and none else; no bricklayer of Egypt,
No stone-hewer was there, no carpenter:
With their own hands they did it, to my marvel.
There came from Libya thirty thousand cranes,
All having swallowed down foundation-stones,
Which with their beaks the rails still aptly shaped:
Another party of ten thousand storks
Were brick-makers: and water from below
The plovers and the other wading birds
Were raising up into the higher air.
_Peisth._ And who conveyed the mortar[323] for them?
_Mess._ Herons,
In hods (λεκάναισιν).
_Peisth._ And how did they get in the mortar?
_Mess._ That was the cleverest device of all, sir.
The geese with their webbed feet, as though with spades
(ἄμαις),
Dipp’d down, and laid it neatly on the hods.
_Peisth._ What feat indeed may not be wrought with feet?
_Mess._ Aye, and the ducks, by Jove, all tightly girt,
Kept carrying bricks, and other birds were flying,
With trowel on their head, to lay the bricks;
And then, like children sucking lollipops,
The swallows minced the mortar in their mouths.

(Kennedy’s Trans.)

Sun-dried bricks were known as πλίνθοι ὠμαί (_lateres crudi_); baked
bricks as πλίνθοι ὠπταί (_lateres cocti_ or _coctiles_). The Romans
also used the word _testa_ for baked brick, corresponding to the Greek
κέραμος. Vitruvius[324] distinguishes three varieties of unburnt
bricks, as used by the Greeks. One, known as “Lydian,” was also used by
the Romans, who named the bricks from their length _sesquipedales_;
their size was 1½ by 1 ft. The other two, exclusively Greek, were known
as πεντάδωρον and τετράδωρον, the word δῶρον signifying a “palm” or
three inches; in other words, they were respectively fifteen inches and
one foot square. The former was used for public buildings, the latter
for private houses, and they were arranged in the walls in courses of
alternate whole and half bricks, as is frequently done at the present
day. Vitruvius also speaks of bricks made at Pitane in Mysia, and in
Spain, which were so light that they would float in water.[325] He
advises that bricks should not be made of sandy or pebbly clay, which
makes them heavy and prevents the straw from cohering, so that they
fall to pieces after wet. Many other directions are given by him,[326]
but are too lengthy to quote here. Bricks were made in a mould called
πλαίσιον, a rectangular framework of boards[327]; and the sun-dried
bricks were, as we learn from the passage quoted above, made by
collecting the clay with shovels (ἄμαι) into troughs (λεκάναι) and
working it with the feet.[328] It is probable that we have some
allusion to the use of moulds in certain passages from the Latin
writers.[329] The final proceeding was the drying in the sun.

An important branch of the subject is the use of terracotta for
roof-tiles and other architectural decorations of temples and other
buildings. On this point our knowledge has during the last
five-and-twenty years been marvellously increased, the extent of its
use in architecture having been hitherto but little suspected.[330] The
generic term for a roof-tile is in Greek κέραμος; they are generally
divided into flat tiles (στεγαστῆρες or σωλῆες, _tegulae_) and
covering-tiles (καλυπῆρες, _imbrices_). Besides the ordinary roof-tiles
there must also be taken into consideration four varieties of
ornamental tiles which found their place on a classical building. They
are: (1) the covering-slabs arranged in a row along the γεῖσον, or
raking cornice of the pediment; (2) the κυμάτιον or cornice above the
γεῖσον; (3) the cornice along the sides of the building, with spouts in
the form of lions' heads, to carry off rain-water; (4) the row of
antefixal ornaments or ἀκρωτήρια surmounting the side-tiles.[331]

The flat roof-tiles or σωλῆες, as in the Heraion of Olympia and other
early buildings, are square and slightly concave, so that the raised
edges placed side by side may catch under the semi-cylindrical
καλυπῆρες, and so be held in their place. The latter are of plain
semi-cylindrical form, except the row at the lower edge of the roof,
which have attached to them the vertical semi-elliptical slabs known as
“antefixae,” of which more later.

The κυμάτια were painted with elaborate patterns of
lotos-and-honeysuckle, or maeanders, in red, blue, brown, and yellow,
the principle being preserved (as always in Greek architectural
decoration) of employing curvilinear patterns only on curved surfaces,
rectilinear only on flat surfaces.[332] At the back was the gutter for
collecting rain-water, which ran off through the holes pierced at
intervals in the cornice, passing through the mouths of lions’ heads,
moulded in very salient relief. These correspond to the gurgoyles of
Gothic architecture. Many specimens have been found at Olympia,
Elateia, and elsewhere in Greece; one of the finest, from a temple of
Apollo at Metapontum, is now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. It
is very finely modelled, and the whole, with the background, richly
coloured in red, yellow, and black.[333] Spouts were sometimes modelled
in other forms, such as a Satyric mask, or the fore-part of a lion; of
the latter there are some examples in the British Museum.[334] In the
accounts for the erection of the arsenal at the Peiraeus there is an
interesting entry relating to these lions’ head spouts, in which they
are described as κεραμίδες ἡγέμονες λεοντοκεφάλαι, “principal tiles
with lions' heads.”[335]

The invention of antefixae is attributed by Pliny[336] to Butades of
Sikyon, who is also credited with the invention of modelling in clay,
in a well-known story; “he was,” says Pliny, “the first to place masks
on the extremities of the roof-tiles, which were at first called
bas-reliefs (_protypa_), but afterwards alto-reliefs (_ectypa_).”[337]
It is possible that the ἀγάλματα ὀπτῆς γῆς seen by Pausanias in the
Stoa Basileios at Athens[338] were ἀκρωτήρια or antefixal ornaments at
the angles of the cornice, but they are more likely to have been
modelled free and in the round than in relief on a background.[339]
Such sculptured groups were not uncommon in Greek architecture; thus
the cornice of the pediment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia was
adorned with a series of figures of Victory. The groups above mentioned
represented Theseus slaying Skiron and Eos carrying off Kephalos; and
it is interesting to note that a terracotta group with the latter
subject found at Cervetri[340] also undoubtedly came from the cornice
of a building.

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

PLATE II

[Illustration:

ARCHAIC ANTEFIXAE OF GRAECO-ITALIAN STYLE (BRITISH MUSEUM).
1. SATYR AND MAENAD, FROM CIVITA LAVINIA; 2. FEMALE HEAD, FROM CAPUA.
]

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

The manner in which the antefixae were treated by the Greeks and
Etruscans for purposes of decoration is well illustrated in the British
Museum collection. In Cases 64–71 of the Terracotta Room may be seen a
series from Capua of archaic style, the front part being
semi-elliptical in form, having within an ornamental border a female
bust, Gorgon’s head, or other design in relief, all being richly
coloured (Plate II.). The back projects in a semi-cylindrical
termination, forming the covering-tile, with an arched support to the
upright piece. Similar antefixae were found by Lord Savile at Civita
Lavinia (see below), and some have elaborate subjects, such as Artemis
with two lions, or a Satyr and Maenad with a panther (Plate II.).[341]
Many have also been found at Cervetri, from which site came some
interesting friezes of terracotta now in the British Museum (B 626) and
at Berlin. These works of art, with which we must rank for their style
the reliefs on the archaic terracotta sarcophagus in the British Museum
(see Chapter XVIII.), show throughout a strong influence of Ionic art;
though all of local manufacture, their style is purely Greek, as is the
case with many of the contemporary works in bronze found in Italy.[342]

[Illustration: FIG. 10. TERRACOTTA ANTEFIX FROM MARATHON (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

Antefixes from Hellenic sites are not so common, nor do they present
the same variety of subject or richness of colour. In many cases, as in
the fourth-century British Museum specimens from Asia Minor,[343] the
decoration is confined to scrolls and floral patterns in low relief,
the palmette being regarded as the most appropriate decorative motive
for this form of tile. An example of this type in the British Museum (C
902 = Fig. 10.), found on the field of Marathon, is inscribed with the
name Athenaios. Many later antefixes with remains of colouring have
been found at Tarentum, the subjects being chiefly heads of women or
mythological personages.

Roof-tiles proper have been discovered in large numbers both in Greece
and Italy. Olympia has proved the richest site in this respect, and
there are many specimens in the Museums of Athens and Palermo.[344]
Many of them have coloured decoration, and these terracotta remains are
almost the only evidence we now have of the extensive system of
colouring applied by the Greeks to their temples.[345]

At Olympia all the buildings have terracotta roofs except the temple of
Zeus and two others, the dates varying from the seventh century B.C.
down to Roman times. We know from Pausanias[346] that the temple of
Zeus was roofed with marble tiles in imitation of terracotta, an
invention traditionally attributed to Byzes of Naxos. The
covering-tiles of the Heraion roof (see Fig. 9.) end in semicircular
discs painted with ornamental patterns; the flat roof-tiles are of the
concave type described above. The normal sixth-century type of roof is
seen in the Treasury of the Megarians, which has smooth flat tiles and
covering-tiles ending in antefixes with palmette-and-lotos ornament,
and a kymation cornice with lion’s head spouts.

A greater variety of tiles is to be seen in the Treasury of Gela.
Here for the first time we note the introduction of a new system,
which consists in nailing slabs of terracotta over the surface of
the stonework, or, to use the convenient German term,
“Bekleidungstechnik.”[347] It is obvious at the first glance that
the origin of this practice dates from the time when buildings were
largely or wholly of wood, which required protection from the
weather. When the wood was replaced by stone, the fashion held its
ground for a time; but with the more extensive use of marble, which
could not well be covered in this manner, it disappeared altogether
in Greece.

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

PLATE III

[Illustration:

PART OF ARCHAIC TEMPLE WITH TERRACOTTA ROOF, CIVITA LAVINIA, AS
RESTORED
IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
]

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

But the Treasury of Gela is by a Sicilian architect, and it seems
highly probable that the method of decoration employed was not one
usually practised in Greece, but was introduced from the Western
Mediterranean. Though rare in Greece, it is exceedingly common in
Sicily and Southern Italy. The middle temple (known as C) on the
acropolis of Selinus, and buildings at Gela and Syracuse, may be cited
as examples. The principle is also well illustrated in the terracotta
remains of the temple at Civita Lavinia, excavated by Lord Savile in
1890–94, which are now in the British Museum. They have, as far as
possible, been incorporated in a conjectural restoration in the
Etruscan Saloon (Plate III.).[348] It will be noted that most of the
slabs are pierced with holes, by means of which they were attached to
the walls or surface of the entablature; they are mostly decorated with
lotos-and-honeysuckle and other patterns, in relief and coloured, the
same being repeated in colour only on the back of the overhanging edges
of the cornice. These remains belong to two periods, the end of the
sixth century and the fourth century B.C.; they may be easily
distinguished by the differences in the treatment of the ornamental
patterns, while there is a marked absence of colouring in the later
remains. Similar architectural remains in terracotta have been found in
Etruria, and are described in Chapter XVIII. It should be noted that
the Civita Lavinia slabs are flat, whereas those used at Olympia, and
many others in Southern Italy and Sicily, are three-sided.

Specimens of ordinary Greek tiles have been found in many parts of the
ancient world, besides those for special architectural purposes already
discussed. Avolio[349] mentions many examples from Acrae and elsewhere
in Sicily, stamped with emblems or names of officials and of makers. At
Olbia, in Southern Russia, tiles were found stamped with names of Greek
aediles (ἀστυνόμοι), like the amphora-handles described below (p.
158),[350] and in Corfu tiles and bricks with names of magistrates
(πρυτάνεις), indicating in each case the existence of public
regulations concerning the potteries.[351] At Kertch (Panticapaeum) Dr.
Macpherson discovered large numbers of tiles with labels on which was
stamped the word [ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ], “Royal,” together with other
inscriptions.[352] These tiles showed the manner of their attachment
one upon the other, and their dimensions answered to the Lydian variety
mentioned above. Other tiles discovered by Mr. Burgon at Athens, by Sir
Charles Newton in Kalymnos, and by Mr. Colnaghi at Kandyla (Alyzia) in
Acarnania, bore labels with inscriptions and designs in relief.[353] On
one of the latter series in the British Museum is the inscription
[ALYZEIÔN], “of the people of Alyzia” (Fig. 11); on another was
inscribed in the manner of the Athenian vases (see Chapters X. and
XVII.) [ΙΠΠΕΟΣ] [ΚΑΛΟΣ] [ΑΡΙ[Σ]ΤΟΜΕΔΕΙ] [ΔΟΚΕΙ], “Hippeus seems
handsome to Aristomedes.”[354]

[Illustration: FIG. 11. INSCRIBED TILES FROM ACARNANIA AND CORFU
(BRITISH MUSEUM).]

Inscribed tiles from Greece proper are somewhat rare, and the
best-known examples, to the number of sixteen, have been collected by
M. Paris[355]; they are usually inscribed with the word [ΔΗΜΟΣΙΑ] or
[ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΣ], as a sort of Government stamp. Others have magistrates’
names, as [ΦΡΟΔFΙΣ], Ἀ]φροδ(ε)ισίου, on a tile at Corinth, or the
maker’s name, [FΑΣΤΟΥΚΡΙΤ], Fαστουκρίτ[ου, on one from Thisbe in
Boeotia.[356] Those found by M. Paris at Elateia have either the word
[ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΣ] or [Ε[Π]Ι] with the name of the magistrate; though all are
fragmentary, it is possible to restore the full formula as πλίνθος
δημοσία ἐπὶ Ἀπελλέα, “government bricks, in the year of Apelleas’
office.”[357] A remarkable tile or _stele_, found near Capua and now in
the British Museum, has an inscription in Oscan, and two stamps of a
boar and a head of Athena, resembling types on Italian coins of the
early part of the third century.[358]

[Illustration] [Illustration]
From _Benndorf_ From _Jahrbuch d. arch. Inst._
FIG. 12. CALYX-KRATER FIG. 13. OSTRAKON OF XANTHIPPOS.

We may recall the fact that it was with a tile that Pyrrhus met his
death when besieging Argos. Nor is this the only occasion on which
these humble objects have played a part in history. In the
well-known Athenian institution of Ostracism the act of voting was
performed by writing on fragments of tiles or potsherds the names
of those whom it was desired to banish. Recent excavations have
yielded more than one actual specimen of these ὄστρακα or
sherds,—one bearing the name of Megakles (Fig. 12.); another, part
of a painted vase from the pre-Persian débris on the Athenian
Acropolis, the name of Xanthippos, the father of Perikles (Fig.
13); and a third, that of Themistokles.[359]

It is also probable that in Greece, as among the Romans, the hollow
floors of the hypocausts, as well as the flue-tiles of the hot baths,
were made of terracotta. The same material was also used for the pipes,
by means of which water was conveyed from aqueducts or drained from the
soil. A drain-pipe from Ephesos in the Museum at Sèvres is noted by
Brongniart and Riocreux,[360] and others have been found at Athens[361]
and in the Troad.[362]

Tiles were also employed for constructing graves, as has already been
noted in Chapter II. (see p. 34). In some tombs the floor was paved
with flat tiles, and the roof was constructed of arched tiles forming a
vault. The flat and square tiles were not used for tombs until a
comparatively late period. Some graves had a second layer of tiles to
protect the body from the superincumbent earth.[363] We shall have
occasion to make further allusion to the use of painted terracotta
slabs in Etruscan tombs (Chapter XVIII.).

The sarcophagi which played so important a part in the tomb were also
frequently made of terracotta, this material being most commonly
employed in Etruria. We have already mentioned (p. 62) the series of
archaic painted sarcophagi, which have all come from Clazomenae, near
Smyrna, and furnish us with much valuable information on the art of
painting in Ionia in the sixth century B.C. They will receive some
attention from this point of view in Chapter VIII. The British Museum
contains two very remarkable examples of Etruscan terracotta
sarcophagi, which are described in Chapter XVIII., as well as a series
of smaller examples, which are mere cinerary urns. Among other examples
of terracotta as used in tombs may be mentioned here a series of small
reliefs found in tombs at Capua and elsewhere in Southern Italy. They
consist of masks of Satyrs, river-gods, and Gorgons, and are often
highly coloured in red and blue. They are of late archaic work, about
480 B.C., but the exact way in which they were used to decorate the
tombs is uncertain. The British Museum collection contains many
specimens of these objects.[364]

There is a curious class of objects which hardly come under the heading
of any other category, but may be conveniently discussed here. Complete
specimens are very rare, but there is one in the Museum at Geneva which
has been identified as a brazier (πύραυνος or ἐσχάρα), and more
recently as a baking-oven (κλίβανος).[365] The form is that of a large
basin on a high stand, hollow underneath, with three square solid
handles projecting upwards from the rim. These handles, of which over a
thousand examples are to be found in various collections, are usually
the only part remaining, sometimes with part of the rim attached. They
are decorated with heads and other devices, usually in relief on square
panels, and the majority of these heads are of a Satyric or grotesque
character, wearing conical caps or adorned with ivy-wreaths. They
probably represent demons of some kind, and are placed there with
superstitious intent, to avert evil influences from whatever was baked
or cooked in the vessel. Similar masks are usually seen attached to
representations of forges and ovens on the painted vases,[366] and
remind us of the pseudo-Homeric invocation of evil deities against the
potters of Samos (see also p. 213 below). Professor Furtwaengler has
identified the heads as those of the Kyklopes, the attendant workmen of
Hephaistos.[367]

These objects are found all over the Mediterranean, especially at
Halikarnassos, Naukratis, and Delos, and the last-named place has been
regarded as the centre of their manufacture. They are all of the same
brick-like, coarse, red clay. Some bear the name of their maker,
Hekataios or Nikolaos. Besides the heads already mentioned, heads of
goats or oxen, or of Sirius, thunderbolts and rosettes are used by way
of devices. They have been collected together, and illustrations of all
the different types given by Conze in the _Jahrbuch_ for 1890, p. 118
ff.: two specimens are given on Plate IV. They belong to the
Hellenistic Age.

Other objects that exemplify the use of clay or terracotta in Greek
daily life are: moulds for vases and terracotta figures, lamps,
weights, and stamps for various purposes. Many flat discs of terracotta
have been found at Tarsus, Gela in Sicily, Tarentum, and other places,
pierced with two holes and about three inches in diameter.[368] They
are stamped with various devices and inscriptions, but their use is
unknown. Other discs of convex form found at Halikarnassos and stamped
with heads in relief are supposed to have been weights ([λεῖαι) to hold
down the threads of the loom (ἀγνύθες),[369] such as are used by the
Greeks at the present day; others again may be the weights used for
keeping the ends of the folds of a himation in position. Small pierced
cones of terracotta often found in the fields of Greece have been
supposed to have been suspended round the necks of cattle, but are
probably weights of some kind.[370] Lastly, terracotta egg-shaped
objects have been found in Sicily inscribed with various names, and are
supposed to have been voting-tickets used for the ballots of the
tribes.[371]

Many examples have been found of terracotta impressions from coins,
which may have been the trial-pieces of die-sinkers or forgers, since
persons of that class, as among the Romans, seem to have employed this
material for their nefarious practices. They are more fully discussed
in Chapter XIX. The British Museum contains a large collection of these
found in the Fayûm in Egypt, all of Roman date; also a copy of a coin
of Larissa from Acarnania. Terracotta medallions with impressions of
gems or seals are not uncommon, especially in Asia Minor and at
Naukratis, and among the latter are many lumps of clay actually used as
seals, with the pattern of the substance in which they were impressed
adhering to the back of them, while on the front is a design from a
signet-ring.[372]

* * * * *

The subject of =Lamps= is one that is more conveniently and
appropriately treated in the Roman section of this work (see Chapter
XX.), almost all existing examples in terracotta being of that period;
it may not, however, be out of place to include here a few general
remarks on the subject, pointing out the distinctive features of those
of purely Greek origin.

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

PLATE IV

[Illustration:

GREEK LAMPS AND “BRAZIER-HANDLES.”
1, 3, 4, 6, LAMPS FROM GREEK SITES; 2, 5 BRAZIERS FROM HALIKARNASSOS
AND CYPRUS (BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

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

The invention of lamps was ascribed by Clement of Alexandria to the
Egyptians; and they were certainly in common use among the Greeks.
Herodotos[373] describes those which he saw in Egypt as simple saucers
filled with oil in which the wick floated, and this statement is partly
supported by the form of the lamps found in the earlier tombs of Cyprus
and on sites under Phoenician influence.[374] He also uses the phrase
περὶ λύχνων ἁφάς, “about the time of lighting lamps,” to denote the
evening.[375] The Greek comic writers allude to the use of lamps of
terracotta or metal,[376] and they played a part in religious
ceremonies.

The regular Greek name for a lamp was λύχνος (not λαμπάς, which means a
torch), and a lampstand was called λυχνοῦχος; the spout or nozzle in
which the wick was placed was known as μύξος or μυκτήρ, the wick itself
as ἐλλύχνιον.[377] A lamp with more than one nozzle was known as
δίμυξος or τρίμυξος.[378] The simple form was that derived from the
Phoenician lamp, an open saucer with a bent-up lip in which the wick
was placed; but commonly the Greek lamp had a circular or oval body
(the receiver) with flat covered top, in the centre of which was the
filling-hole. To this was sometimes attached a handle permitting the
insertion of a finger, and the nozzle was usually very small and quite
plain. An epithet applied by Aristophanes[379] to a lamp is τροχήλατος,
“made on the wheel”; but evidence points to their being always made in
moulds.

The majority of the lamps which have been found on Greek sites are of
Roman date, and they frequently bear Latin inscriptions; those of the
Hellenic period are seldom ornamented, and are usually covered with a
thin black glaze. Others are modelled in the form of human figures,
animals, heads, or sandalled feet; the British Museum possesses a good
example of grey ware from Knidos in the form of a figure of Artemis
(_Cat._ C 421), with the oil-receptacle on the top of her head; another
from Naukratis represents Eros (see for these Plate IV.). One from
Athens was inscribed [ΜΗ ΑΠΤΟΥ], “Do not touch,”[380] an inscription of
similar import to those on the Roman lamps from the Esquiline described
in Chapter XX.

Little has at present been done in the way of a scientific
investigation of Roman lamps, but the results of a rough classification
according to shapes show that certain forms are more specially
associated with Greek sites, and moreover frequently bear names of
makers in Greek letters. This is particularly the case with one form,
which appears to be confined to Athens, Corfu, the coast of Asia Minor,
and Cyprus. These lamps, of a pale yellow clay, have a circular body
with flat top, round the edge of which runs a border of impressed
egg-pattern, interrupted on either side by a small plain raised
panel.[381] The handle is small and pierced with a hole, the nozzle
also small, with straight sides. These lamps bear the makers’ names (in
the genitive), Primus ([ΠΡΕΙΜΟΥ]), Abaskantos ([ΑΒΑCΚΑΝΤΟΥ]), etc., the
former being especially common; all are in Greek letters. Some again
only have a single letter or monogram engraved underneath. They are
often very carefully executed, with sharply cut details, and the
subjects are usually mythological (see Plate IV. fig. 1); they appear
to be of very late date, not earlier than the third century after
Christ.

Another form which appears to be specially characteristic of Greek
sites is that with a plain or heart-shaped nozzle, sometimes with a
groove incised at the base, but without a handle. They are usually
quite small, with circular bodies. Large numbers of these were found by
Mr. Newton at Knidos in 1859,[382] and by Mr. Barker at Tarsos in
1845.[383] The subjects are mostly poor and devoid of interest,
including animals, rosettes, and various floral patterns. Many of these
lamps bear the signature ROMAINE(N)SIS, the form of the word indicating
that they were made by a Roman residing abroad (_i.e._ at Knidos), not
in Rome.[384] A third form, approximating to the Christian type, has a
small solid handle and plain nozzle, and is confined to sites on or
near the coast of Asia Minor. These, with the remaining types of lamps,
will be more fully dealt with in the Roman section of this work. It
may, however, be worth while mentioning here that Mr. Newton found at
Knidos several lamps of a coarse black ware, covered with thin glaze,
which are mostly of large size. They are circular, and convex above,
and are supplied with two or more long nozzles with blunt terminations
radiating round them (see Plate IV. fig. 6). Between the nozzles are
roughly stamped devices of Satyrs’ heads, flowers, etc., in relief.
These may fairly be regarded as a Greek type.

* * * * *

The subject of Greek =sculpture in terracotta= is so wide as to demand
a volume to itself; but a discussion of the uses to which clay was put
by the Greeks would not be complete without some mention of their
achievements in this direction. We propose therefore briefly to review
the main features of Greek terracotta statuettes and reliefs, by way of
illustrating the purely artistic use which they made of this material.

The subject may be divided under four heads: (1) Large statues; (2)
Statuettes or figurines; (3) Reliefs; (4) Moulds. Large or life-size
statues belong more particularly to the earlier phases of Greek art,
but appear again in its later developments, under Italian influences.
Statues of terracotta were also a common feature of Italian art, being,
in fact, the usual material employed by Etruscan statuaries, as well as
for the decoration of temples (see Chapter XVIII.). Greek terracotta
statues are practically non-existent; and although there are some
female figures nearly life-size and a male torso of almost colossal
proportions in the British Museum, also a Hermes in the Vatican, these
were found at Rome, belong to the Roman period, and, though Greek in
style, are really following an Etruscan fashion.

It is characteristic of the Hellenic race that from its earliest
beginnings it did not employ clay for utilitarian purposes exclusively,
but, influenced partly by the natural imitative instincts of man,
partly by the anthropomorphic tendencies of the Greek religion, soon
learned the value of this easily worked material for producing images
of deities, animals, and other objects. Although an equally high
antiquity may be claimed for images of wood, and the word ξόανον used
for a primitive cult-statue argues for the frequent use of this
material, yet the history of the word πλάσσειν tells equally in the
other direction. Originally used of moulding wet clay, it came by
degrees to denote modelling in general, and finally its derivative
πλαστική became the authorised classical word for sculpture.

Lactantius[385] speaks of Prometheus as the inventor of fictile images
for religious purposes, and of figures in bronze and marble as a later
development; the Latin poets[386] bear similar witness to the primitive
use of clay for sculptured images, and Pliny marvels at its
long-continued employment in Italy.[387] Among early Greek legends the
most noteworthy is that of Butades, the potter of Sikyon, to whom the
invention of modelling clay in relief was ascribed by Pliny[388] and
Athenagoras. The story as told by the former was that, in order to
preserve the likeness of his daughter’s lover, he moulded in terracotta
the shadow of his profile which the girl drew on the wall. This
account, however, is not very intelligible, and the clue is perhaps to
be found in the words of Athenagoras,[389] who says that he hollowed
out the lines of the face in the wall, filled in the grooves with clay,
and so obtained his relief as from a mould. This primitive work of art
was said to have been exhibited in the Nymphaeum at Corinth.

But this same invention was also claimed by the Samian sculptors,
Theodoros and Rhoikos, who flourished about the end of the seventh
century. They were pre-eminently artists in bronze, and were associated
with the introduction of hollow-casting in that material into Greece;
it may therefore be supposed that they actually were among the first to
use clay models for statues, this being an essential preliminary to the
hollow-casting process. This would not be incompatible with the
invention of moulding reliefs by Butades, admitting the truth of his
story. The latter was also credited with the invention of antefixal
ornaments (see above, p. 98) and the introduction of a mixture of red
ochre or ruddle with clay in order to give it a warmer tone.

The clay models used by sculptors as the basis of their work, which
were known as προπλάσματα, were probably made on the same lines as the
large works of art in clay. We read that Lysistratos of Sikyon, the
brother of Lysippos, was the first to make casts of statues by means of
terracotta moulds,[390] implying that it was about this time that the
practice arose of multiplying the principal statues in the same manner
as is now done by means of plaster casts. Some of the latter artists
combined the plastic art with that of painting, and Zeuxis is said to
have previously modelled in terracotta the subjects which he afterwards
painted. Pasiteles, an artist who lived at Rome in the first century
B.C., always first modelled his statues in terracotta, and spoke of the
plastic art as the mother of statuary.[391] But it must not be supposed
that as a general rule the Greek sculptors worked their marble statues
from models; rather, the contrary was the case, and Pasiteles seems to
have been peculiar in this respect.

The statue of Zeus, which has already been mentioned as made by
Theokosmos for Megara (p. 92), appears to have been made from a clay
model. It was intended to be of gold and ivory, but the breaking out of
the Peloponnesian War prevented the artist from carrying out his
intention, and only the head was completed, the other portions being of
gypsum and terracotta. At a later period gypsum was sometimes used for
sculpture, as in the case of an Apollo mentioned by Prudentius,[392]
and some fragmentary remains from Cyprus in the British Museum.

The clay models were sometimes made entirely by hand, but more usually
on a wooden core known as κάναβος,[393] which we may conjecture to have
been formed of two rods in the form of a cross, from the use of the
Latin word _crux_ in this connection.[394] It was certainly a
framework, not a solid core, and must be carefully distinguished from
κίνναβος, a lay-figure. Aristotle, in an interesting passage, uses the
word in speaking of skeletons drawn on a wall.[395] The modelling of
details was done partly with tools, partly with the finger. The use of
the finger-nail for this purpose became proverbial, as in the saying
attributed to Polykleitos: “When the clay has reached the finger-nail
stage, then the real difficulty begins.”[396]

The chief attention of inferior artists was directed to the production
of small terracotta figures, which the Greeks used as ornaments or
household gods, buried in their tombs, or dedicated in their temples.
They follow the same lines of development as the larger sculptures,
beginning with the columnar (ξόανα) and board-like (σανίδες) types
found in the primitive tombs of the Mycenaean and early Hellenic
civilisation. Originally they seem to have been manufactured purely for
religious purposes, but in course of time, with the gradual
rationalising of religious beliefs and consequent secularisation of
art-types, they lost this significance, and, while the _types_ were
preserved, they were converted into _genre_ figures from daily life.

These statuettes have been found on nearly all the famous sites of
antiquity from Babylonia to Carthage and Kertch; the most fruitful have
been Tanagra in Boeotia, Rhodes, the Cyrenaica, Capua and Canosa in
Italy, and various sites in Sicily. In Cyprus, Sardinia, and to a great
extent also in Rhodes, Phoenician influences seem to have been
dominant, and the earlier types bear a markedly Oriental character. For
beauty and charm the palm has by general consent been given to the
Tanagra statuettes of the fourth and third centuries, which were known
in antiquity as κόραι or “maidens,” from the prevalence of the seated
or standing types of girls in various attitudes.

The makers of these charming figures, known as κοροπάσται or
κοροπλάθοι, were, like the vase-painters, quite in a subordinate
position in the artistic world, and are spoken of with some contempt by
Isokrates, as if it would be absurd to compare them with a Pheidias or
a Zeuxis.[397] A fable of Aesop’s[398] represents Hermes being offered
a statue of Zeus for a drachma and one of himself for a mere song; the
low price seems to suggest that they were of terracotta, but the vendor
is called an ἀγαλματοποιός, not a κοροπλάθος. Demosthenes[399] condemns
the Athenians for voting for figure-head generals like makers of toys
for the market; and in further illustration of the uses to which they
were put, we may cite the definition of Suidas, of “those who fashion
little images out of clay of all kinds of creatures, with which to
trick children”; and the remark of Dio Chrysostom, who speaks of those
who buy the “maiden” figures for their children. A pretty epigram in
the _Anthology_[400] tells how Timareta, when about to marry, dedicated
to Artemis the playthings of her childhood, including her terracotta
dolls (κόρας). Lastly, Plato speaks of κόραι and images hung up in
shrines.[401]

The processes employed in the manufacture of terracotta statuettes were
five in number: (1) the preparation of the clay; (2) moulding; (3)
retouching; (4) baking; and (5) colouring and gilding. It does not
follow that all five were employed in the production of any one object;
on the other hand, all processes necessary to the completion of any one
object fall under one or other of these heads.

There were many varieties of clay in use among the Greeks, some being
considered more suitable for one purpose, some for another. These clays
vary in their characteristics in different parts of the Greek world,
and this may often be an important criterion for distinguishing fabrics
and detecting instances of importation. The clay of Cyprus differs much
from that of Rhodes, and that of Naukratis again from either, being of
a dark, coarse, and brick-like consistency. M. Pottier noted nine
varieties of clay in use at Myrina in Asia Minor, and M. Martha
distinguishes five in the terracottas of Athens. But these differences
may be explained by variations in the length or temperature of the
firing rather than in the clay.

Generally speaking, the clay of the terracottas is softer and more
porous than that of the vases. It is easily scratched or marked, and
does not ring a clear sound when struck; nor does it when submitted to
a high temperature become so hard as the pottery.[402] Its colour
ranges from deep red to a pale buff colour, and its texture and density
vary greatly in different localities. It was prepared by being washed
free of all granular substances, and then kneaded with the aid of
water. So, as we read in Hesiod’s account of the creation of
Pandora,[403] the god directed the mixing of clay and water, in order
to form his new creation.

The modelling of the figures was done by hand in the case of the
earlier fabrics, and of small objects such as the toys and dolls; the
clay was worked up into a solid mass with the fingers, and the marks of
these, left while it was wet, may still be often seen. Subsequently the
use of moulds became universal, the final touches being given to the
figure either with the finger or with a graving-tool, traces of which
are often visible on the faces and hair of the Tanagra figures. These
were invariably moulded, and the finer ones show traces of having been
most carefully touched up.

There is a pretty epigram in the Anthology,[404] which seems to imply
that the wheel was sometimes brought into use for modelling figures,
perhaps for the first rough outlining. A statuette of Hermes is
supposed to say:

The rolling circle of the potter’s wheel
Me, Hermes, formed, of clay from head to heel.
Mud-made, I lie not: the poor potter’s art,
Stranger! was ever pleasant to my heart.
(MACGREGOR.)

The process of moulding gave scope for reducing the “walls” of the
figure to the smallest possible thickness, thereby avoiding the danger
of shrinkage in the baking; it also rendered them extremely light, and
allowed of great accuracy in detail. A model (πρότυπος) was made in
terracotta with modelling-tools, from which the mould (τύπος) was
taken, also in terracotta,

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

PLATE V

[Illustration:

MOULDS FOR TERRACOTTA FIGURES, WITH CASTS FROM THE MOULDS.
2, 3. ARCHAIC, FROM RHODES; 1, 4. ARCHAISTIC, FROM TARENTUM (BRITISH
MUSEUM).
]

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

usually in two pieces, which were then baked to a considerable
hardness. From this mould the figure was made by smearing it with
layers of clay until a sufficient thickness was reached, leaving the
figure hollow. The back was made separately, either from a mould or by
hand, and then fitted carefully on to the front, the join being
concealed by a layer of wet clay. The base was usually left open, and a
vent-hole was left at the back which may have served a double
purpose—first to allow the clay to contract without cracking, and
subsequently in some cases for the suspension of the completed figure.

The heads and arms were usually moulded separately and attached
afterwards, and altogether the average number of moulds employed—say
for a Tanagra figure—was four or five. M. Pottier[405] quotes an
instance of an Eros from Myrina which is made up of no less than
fourteen; yet it is not a specially complicated figure.

Greek moulds, either for statuettes or reliefs, are somewhat rare; but
the British Museum contains a fair number from Tarentum of all kinds
(see Plate V.).[406] Those that we possess are mostly for small
objects, such as figures of animals; but in the Museum collection there
are several moulds for reliefs, as well as for vases of the later class
with reliefs (see Chapters XI., XXII.), such as the Calenian phialae
with embossed designs.[407] Moulds employed for making stamps of
various kinds are also in existence; at Naukratis Mr. Petrie found
several circular “cake-stamps” with various designs. Of the moulds used
by forgers or others for copying coins we have already spoken (p.
106).[408]

The shrinkage of the clay as it dried afterwards permitted the figure
to be withdrawn easily from the mould, and it was then ready for the
necessary retouching. It is obvious from a glance at any collection of
terracottas that there is a great similarity between the various
representatives of any one type, and that actual or virtual repetitions
are by no means uncommon. This was, of course, due to the fact that
only a limited number of moulds were used, corresponding to the
different types. At the same time there are in almost all cases minute
differences which redeem them from a charge of monotony, and these were
obtained in various ways: by varying the pose of the head or attaching
the arms in different positions; by retouching before the baking; or by
the addition of attributes and colouring. As it has been neatly put by
M. Pottier,[409] “All the Tanagra figures are sisters, but few of them
are twins.” But retouching is not invariable, and is, in fact, confined
to the finer specimens, such as those of Tanagra. In the statuettes
from the Cyrenaica and Southern Italy it is the exception. The
difference which it effected may be well observed by comparing two
statuettes of Eros in the British Museum from Myrina (C 535–36), which
are from the same mould. They are identical in style and type, yet one
is far superior to the other in artistic merit, just because of the
greater finish of detail.

The process of baking required great care and attention; for if no
allowance was made for the evaporation of moisture, or if too great a
degree of temperature was reached, the result was bound to be
disastrous. It does not appear that a very high temperature was
reached, especially as compared with the pottery. The clay was further
insured against too rapid drying by preliminary exposure to the air. A
story told by Plutarch[410] of the fate which befell the chariot cast
for the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol illustrates the possibility of
disasters either from accident or carelessness. The clay swelled up to
such a size and hardness that it could only be extracted by pulling the
kiln to pieces.

The colouring of statuettes may be considered a fairly universal
practice, although not always suggested by their present appearance.
The earlier archaic specimens were not always, or only roughly,
coloured, and those of the Roman period seem to have been often left
plain; but otherwise it is the general rule. The surface on which the
colours were applied was formed by a white slip or _engobe_ of a creamy
colour and consistency, with which the whole figure (except the back)
was coated. This when dry becomes very flaky, and is liable to drop
off, carrying the colours with it; most statuettes retain at least
traces of this coating.

The method of painting is that known as _in tempera_, the pigments
being opaque, mixed with some stiffening medium. The colouring was as a
rule conventional, aiming at giving the figure a pleasing appearance,
without any particular regard to nature. It was applied after the
firing, as in that process the colours would have been liable to
injury. The tints are what are known as body-colours, without any
attempts at shading, and those usually employed are red, blue, yellow,
and black, the white slip forming a ground throughout, and left
untouched over the nude parts and often over the drapery; of these the
favourites, especially for drapery, were blue and red, as also we learn
from Lucian.[411] Pollux says it was a speciality of the κοροπλάθοι to
colour their figures yellow, or with a golden tint.[412] The reds range
in shade from scarlet to rose-colour and purple. At all times there was
a tendency to treat the drapery in masses of colour, and this we see
especially in the Tanagra figures, in which the chiton is almost
invariably blue, the himation rose-pink. At a later date it became more
customary to leave the drapery white, with borders and stripes only of
colour. Black was only used for details of features, such as the eyes;
green is very rare; and yellow was employed (in a deep brownish shade)
for the hair, and also for jewellery, etc. The use of gilding is at all
times rare in the statuettes; but some good examples are known—as, for
instance, two archaic statuettes from the Polledrara tomb, and a head
of Zeus, all in the British Museum.[413] Imitation jewellery in
terracotta gilt is not at all uncommon. On many of the earlier figures
from Cyprus the drapery is indicated by stripes of red and yellow laid
directly on the clay, while animals are usually decorated with stripes
of red and black; the method employed is the same as on the
contemporary vases (p. 253). Similarly, in the terracottas of the
Mycenaean and Geometrical periods, such as those from Boeotia, the
technique of the painted vases is closely followed, and the same
decorative patterns are employed.

The use of an enamelled glaze first appears at Athens in the fourth
century, and it is also occasionally found at Tanagra. The colour is
uniformly a dull ashen-grey. A few examples are also known from the
Cyrenaica, but it was in Sicily that the practice found most favour.
There we find attempts to reproduce the colouring of the flesh by an
enamel coating varying in hue from rose-pink to orange, and also grey
and purple tints.

It is probable that the colours employed for painting terracottas were
made from the same earths, though of a coarser kind, as the ware
itself. Some information on the subject may be derived from
Theophrastos, Vitruvius, and Dioskorides.[414] For white the artist
used a white earth, such as Melos produces, and white lead; it is also
said to have been produced from the burnt lees of wine, and from ivory.
The reds were composed of a red earth, probably ochre from Sinope, and
vermilion or _minium_. Yellow was obtained from Skyros and Lydia; and a
yellow ochre was obtained by burning a red earth.[415] The Egyptian
_smalto_ or cobalt served for blue, and a copper solution prepared with
alkali and silica was also employed. Copper green was obtained from
many places, and mixed with white or black.

* * * * *

This may be a convenient point at which to speak of a class of vases
which come rather under the heading of terracottas than that of painted
pottery. They are found at Calvi, Canosa, Cumae, and other places in
Southern Italy, and belong to the Hellenistic period, forming a
parallel development to the glazed wares with reliefs of which we shall
speak later (p. 497 ff.). They combine in a marked degree the
characteristics of the vase and the statuette, some being vases with
moulded reliefs or small figures in the round attached in different
places, others again actual figures or colossal heads modelled in vase
form by the addition of mouth, handle, and base (see Plate VI.). They
are usually of considerable—sometimes gigantic—size, and do not appear
to have served any practical purpose; some, indeed, are only imitation
vases with false bottoms. It is reasonable to suppose that they were
manufactured for sepulchral purposes only, like the large painted
kraters and amphorae of Apulia (p. 476).

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

PLATE VI

[Illustration: TERRACOTTA VASES FROM SOUTHERN ITALY (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

Like the statuettes, they are covered throughout with a white slip laid
directly on the unglazed clay, and this is often richly coloured _in
tempera_. Some of the heads have the hair covered with intersecting
pink lines to imitate a net, and the figures attached to them are
usually coloured in the manner of the statuettes, with blue and pink
draperies. There are some, however, in which the encaustic or a similar
process seems to have been employed[416]; one example, in the British
Museum (D 185, shown on Plate VI.), has a Hippocamp painted on either
side in white and colours outlined with black, the wings being
elaborately rendered in blue, brown, yellow, and pink. The same process
is employed for a large cover of a vase in the British Museum from
Sicily (D 1), but the figures are now nearly obliterated.

The prevailing shape of these vases is that conventionally known as the
_askos_, with spherical body, over which passes a flat handle and three
mouths on the top; the latter are often covered in and figures placed
upon them. On the front and back of these vases _appliqué_ masks of
Medusa or figures in relief are usually placed, flanked by the
fore-parts of galloping horses. Others take the form of a large jug or
bowl with _appliqué_ ornaments.

It now remains to consider the small but interesting class of
terracotta reliefs, which are nearly all of the late archaic period,
dating from the beginning of the fifth century. Later reliefs are
nearly all architectural in character, and have already been described,
as have those which were made for the decoration of tombs and
sarcophagi. But the purpose for which the reliefs were made, of which
we are about to speak, is not so certain. One group appears from the
character of the subjects to be votive, and they may possibly have been
let into the walls of temples or shrines; but the others are mostly
known to have been found in tombs. The former group are found at Athens
and at Locri in Southern Italy; the latter at Melos and other sites
round the Aegean Sea, being usually known as “Melian” reliefs.

The character of the work of these Melian reliefs (see Plate VII.) is
exceedingly delicate and refined; the subjects are mainly mythological,
and include the slaying of Medusa by Perseus and of the Chimaera by
Bellerophon, Helle on the ram, Peleus seizing Thetis, Eos carrying off
Kephalos, and the death of Aktaeon. Three classes have been
distinguished,[417] of which the peculiarly Melian type has the figures
cut out, without background; in the second only the outer contours are
cut round, and the third consists of rectangular plaques.

Brunn[418] considers that they served a definite architectural purpose,
being intended to cover a field enclosed by borders, and that the holes
with which they are pierced show that they were used either for
suspension or attachment. But his reasons for regarding them as an
archaistic survival have not been generally accepted.

The Locrian type of relief takes the form of a square plaque.[419] They
are easily recognised by the rough micaceous character of the clay, and
by their subjects, which mostly relate to the myth and cult of
Persephone. They were probably dedicated in one of her shrines, as were
those found on the Acropolis at Athens to Athena. All these reliefs
seem to have been impressed in moulds, not modelled by hand, as many of
them exist in duplicate. Those from Greece are sometimes coloured.

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

PLATE VII

[Illustration:

TERRACOTTA “MELIAN” RELIEFS, ARCHAIC PERIOD (BRIT. MUS.).
]

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

Many little figures in the shape of animals and other objects, such as
goats, pigs, pigeons, tortoises, chariots or boats, boys or apes riding
on animals, women making bread, and similar subjects, together with
jointed dolls or νευρόσπαστα, were evidently used as children’s toys.
They have been found deposited with the bodies of children in the tombs
of Melos, Rhodes, and Athens. In Mr. Biliotti’s excavations at Kameiros
in Rhodes in 1863, one child’s tomb was found containing two of the
“Melian” reliefs, small vases of glass and black-glazed ware, a
terracotta basket of fruit, and a sea-shell; in another were a bird,
two dolls, a child in a cradle, two grotesque figures, a woman playing
a tambourine, and two other terracotta figures.

The terracotta dolls were cast in a mould like the ordinary figures,
but the bodies, legs, and arms are formed of separate pieces pierced
with holes, so that they might be joined and moved with strings, like
the modern marionettes; hence their name of νευρόσπαστα, “drawn by
wires.” They all represent girls, and sometimes dancers with castanets
in their hands; they are coloured in the usual manner, and date from
various periods between 500 and 200 B.C. Allusion is sometimes made to
these figures in the Greek writers—as, for instance, by Xenophon, who
in his _Symposium_[420] introduces Socrates inquiring of an exhibitor
of these puppets what he chiefly relies on in the world. “A great
number of fools,” he replies, “for such are those who support me by the
pleasure they take in my performances.” Aristotle[421] mentions dolls
that moved their limbs and winked their eyes like marionettes, but this
can hardly refer to terracotta figures.[422]

* * * * *

It would require too much space to enumerate all the =subjects=
represented in the terracotta statuettes. But it may be found
convenient to give an outline of the subjects and principal types
adopted at different periods.[423] Roughly speaking, the range of
subjects may be divided into seven groups: (1) figures of deities; (2)
mythological subjects; (3) scenes from daily life; (4) imitations of
works of art; (5) caricatures; (6) masks; (7) animals. Among the
figures of the Olympian deities we find most commonly Demeter,
Aphrodite, and Artemis; Hephaistos, Ares, and Hestia are seldom if ever
represented; Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, and even Athena are also very rare.
Of the inferior deities, Dionysos, Persephone, Eros, and Nike (Victory)
are most frequently found, as well as Satyrs and similar personages.
Nor is it always easy to ascertain definitely whether a figure is or is
not intended to be mythological in significance.

This question is, in fact, closely bound up with that of the Uses for
which the statuettes were made, as on such a purpose their
interpretation in a mythological or human sense may largely depend. The
uncertainty of identification arises from the practice which obtained
of adhering closely to certain recognised _types_, which occur
repeatedly at all periods. There is a strong probability that a clear
distinction was not recognised by the Greek κοροπλάσται, but that the
same type of figure might be used either for a votive offering to a
deity, or as a mere ornament or article of tomb-furniture. And we are
further met with the fact that a type which was mythological at one
period ceases to be so at another, or at any rate is transformed by
some slight alteration of details or omission of an attribute. Thus the
seated figure of an Earth-goddess or Nursing-mother of a Rhodian or
Cypriote tomb becomes the nurse and child of the fourth century at
Tanagra, while the archaic standing type of a Persephone holding a
flower requires little but the omission of her special head-dress to
transform her into the girl-type of the Hellenistic age.

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

PLATE VIII

[Illustration:

ARCHAIC GREEK TERRACOTTAS (BRITISH MUSEUM).
1. MAN WITH RAM (RHODES); 2. PERSEPHONE (SICILY); 3. RHODES; 4. DOLL
(ATHENS).
]

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

The earliest beginnings of the statuette proper show, as might be
expected in primitive Greek art, a very limited range of ideas. As in
marble, bronze, and wood, so also in clay, the type of the female deity
reigns supreme. The primitive Hellenic type of goddess adopts two
forms, both derived from an original in wood, the board-form or σανίς,
and the column-form (κίων or ξόανον), each of which finds parallels in
sculpture. The limbs are either completely wanting or of the most
rudimentary description, the figure terminating below in a spreading
base. Both these types are found in Rhodes, but on the mainland of
Greece the columnar form is confined to the Mycenaean period. In the
succeeding “Geometrical” age the board-like types rose into popularity
at Athens and Tegea, and above all in Boeotia. Two varieties are found,
a standing and a sitting type, and they are usually painted in the
manner of the local vases (see p. 290). The later examples show a great
advance in modelling, especially in the heads. The columnar form
exhibits its development best in the terracottas of the
Graeco-Phoenician period from Cyprus.

The standing and sitting goddess (Plate VIII.) are the two principal
types in archaic Greek art, and are remarkable for their wide
distribution and universal popularity. The name of the goddess may vary
with the locality, but the types remain almost identical, and the
attributes show little variation.

Another interesting archaic type is the so-called funeral mask or bust
(Plate VIII.), of which the best examples have come from Rhodes. Being
almost exclusively feminine, we must suppose that they ceased to
represent the image of the dead person, as in Egypt and primitive
Greece, and became images of the Chthonian goddess, Demeter or
Persephone, represented under the form of a bust rising out of the
earth.[424] Thus they played in the tombs the rôle of protection
against evil influences, like the mask of Demeter Kidaria, worn by the
priest at Pheneus in Arcadia on certain occasions.[425] Male masks are
occasionally found, representing the Chthonian Dionysos. They are very
rare after the fifth century.

The purely divine and mythological types in the archaic period are very
few in number. Of the Olympian deities few are represented, except in
the conventional hieratic types, hardly to be differentiated one from
another. But on certain sites are found representations of
nature-goddesses, such as the Earth-mother with a child in her lap
(Gaia Kourotrophos), or a nude goddess within a shrine, who may be a
combination of Astarte and Aphrodite. These types are of Oriental
origin, and are found in Cyprus, Rhodes, Naukratis, and Sardinia. They
may represent offerings made after child-birth. Among the
individualised deities we may point to figures of Hermes Kriophoros
(from Rhodes and Sicily),[426] of Herakles,[427] or of the local nymph
Kyrene, who appears holding the silphium-plant in a terracotta from
Carthage.[428]

Among miscellaneous feminine types are the _hydrophoros_ or
water-carrier, the woman riding on a mule, horse, or other animal, the
musician, and the mother nursing a child. Some of these have their
mythological counterparts, as in the Aphrodite riding on a goose, or
the Earth-mother, already mentioned. Male types are curiously rare, the
athletic influences, which are so strongly manifest in early Greek
sculpture, not affecting terracottas. The most popular is that of the
horseman, particularly in Cyprus. These figures are usually of a rude
and primitive kind, especially in Cyprus and at Halikarnassos. The
examples from Greece Proper show a more developed archaism, and are
found at Athens and in Boeotia. Sometimes instead of a horse the man
rides on a swan, mule, or tortoise.

Reclining male figures are sometimes characterised as Herakles or a
Satyr; but this type is most fully developed at Tarentum, in numerous
terracottas representing the well-known subject of the Sepulchral
Banquet, associated with a cult of the Chthonian deities.[429] There
are also various types of grotesque figures, usually in a squatting or
crouching attitude; some assume the form of a Satyr, and others are
obviously derived from the Egyptian figures of Ptah-Socharis, with bent
knees and protruding stomach.

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

PLATE IX

[Illustration:

GREEK TERRACOTTAS OF HELLENISTIC PERIOD (BRITISH MUSEUM).
1, 4, TANAGRA; 2, 3, SOUTHERN ITALY.
]

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

In the fine and later periods, from the end of the fifth century
onwards, the standing or seated feminine figures are still by far the
most prominent. The change, however, which has taken place, from
mythological to _genre_, has been described as an evolution rather than
a revolution, brought about by artistic, not religious, considerations.
The possible varieties of the feminine standing types may be best
studied in the Tanagra figures (Plate IX.), which include women or
girls in every variety of pose or attitude. In most cases the arms are
more or less concealed by the himation, which is drawn closely across
the figure; in others a fan, mirror, wreath, or mask is held in one
hand, the other drawing the edges of the drapery together. Some lean on
a column or are seated on a rock; others play with a bird or perform
their toilet. Imitations of the Tanagra figures, but vastly inferior in
merit, subsequently became popular all over the Greek world; they are
found at Myrina in Asia Minor, in Cyprus, the Cyrenaica, and many parts
of Southern Italy.

Among miscellaneous types of the Hellenistic period, many of the
archaic ones already mentioned retain their popularity. Others appear
for the first time, and are more in accordance with the spirit of the
age, such as girls dancing, playing with knucklebones, or carrying
one another pick-a-back. There is a beautiful group of two
knucklebone-players from Capua in the British Museum (D 161). The
dancing type is found widely distributed.

Figures of goddesses and mythological subjects are very rare at
Tanagra, but fairly common on other sites, as at Myrina and Naukratis.
Archaistic imitations of the archaic seated and standing goddesses are
often found in the Cyrenaica and Southern Italy; but the Chthonian
deities appear but rarely among the types of more advanced style. As in
sculpture and vase-paintings, Aphrodite now becomes the most prominent
among the feminine deities, and some of the later statuettes appear to
be reproductions of well-known works of art, the Cnidian Aphrodite, the
Anadyomene, or the crouching type of Aphrodite at the bath. Artemis and
Athena are occasionally found, but Nike (Victory) is really the most
popular figure after Aphrodite. She, however, plays little more than
the part of a female Eros, a counterpart to whom the Hellenic artist
felt to be a necessity. Formerly these winged female types were styled
Psyche, but this was a conception of post-Hellenistic origin.

Among the male deities the conditions remain much as before. Zeus
appears for the first time, and was especially popular at Smyrna, and
Sarapis and Asklepios are also occasionally found. In Naukratis the
influence of the Egyptian religion made itself felt in the production
of numerous figures of Bes, Harpocrates, and the like. Hermes is not
found so often as might have been expected, though there is a notable
instance in the British Museum (C 406) of a caricature of the famous
statue by Praxiteles, where a Satyr takes his place. Dionysos is only
met with occasionally, as are Satyrs and Maenads; but masks of a
Bacchic character are very common in Italy.

The one deity who really seems to have caught the popular taste is
Eros, although at the time when most of the Tanagra statuettes were
produced this popularity was hardly assured. The types of Eros
standing, seated, flying, or riding on animals are innumerable and
found all over the Greek world. The best examples come from Eretria in
Euboea, but Myrina and Sicily have also produced large numbers. They
vary from almost Praxitelean conceptions, like the Flying Eros from
Eretria in the British Museum (C 199), to the veritable Pompeian
_amoretti_ from the same site and from Myrina. The riding types of Eros
(on a horse, dog, swan, or dolphin) are chiefly found in the Cyrenaica
or Southern Italy. In many cases the Eros types are used for ordinary
unwinged boys.

Among the human male types a new feature is the introduction of the
athlete, as he appears in many boyish figures from Tanagra, and later
as a boxer among the somewhat coarse conceptions of the Roman period.
Some years ago a remarkable copy of the Diadumenos of Polykleitos in
terracotta was found in Asia Minor.[430]

* * * * *

In the tombs of the Aegean Islands, Italy, and elsewhere, a class of
ware has sometimes been found quite distinct from the ordinary fictile
pottery and resembling the porcelain or enamelled ware of the Egyptians
and Babylonians, such as the _ushabtiu_, found in the tombs of the
former, and the enamelled bricks of the latter. For the most part they
must be regarded as importations, of foreign manufacture, the medium of
commerce being the Phoenicians, who not only introduced Egyptian
objects of art, but themselves endeavoured to imitate them. Hence we
must distinguish some as of Egyptian origin, others as made by the
Phoenicians. As might be expected, they are most often found where
Phoenician influence was strong, as in Rhodes and Sardinia. Egyptian
perfume-vases have been found in the Polledrara tomb at Vulci (see
Chapter XVIII.) and may be dated by the accompanying scarabs of
Psammetichus I. as belonging to the end of the sixth century.

But these are by no means the earliest examples. In the Bronze Age
tombs of Cyprus occasional finds have been made of plates of blue
porcelain or faïence, with Egyptian designs going back to the
eighteenth dynasty[431]; and for several centuries other Egyptian
objects in porcelain, or with enamelled glaze, continue to be found in
the tombs of Cyprus, Rhodes, and Greece. And there is also a
considerable quantity of such wares which is not Egyptian in character,
although it may be to some extent imitative, and therefore demands
notice. Of this the most remarkable examples are the _rhyta_, or
drinking-horns, found at Enkomi in Cyprus, in 1896, and now in the
British Museum.[432] The two finest specimens are in the form of a
female head surmounted by a cup (Plate X.) and a ram’s head
respectively. Although found in tombs with Mycenaean objects, and
therefore presumably of early date, the style and modelling are so far
advanced—so purely Hellenic—that they may be compared with archaic work
of the sixth century B.C. or even later.

In the tombs of Kameiros in Rhodes,[433] along with Egyptian porcelain
objects, were found many vases of this ware, of apparently Greek
workmanship. This is further implied by the presence in one tomb of a
figure of a dolphin with a Greek [[Π]Υ[Θ]ΕΩ [Ε]ΜΙ], “I belong to
Pythes.”[434] It is quite conceivable that the Greeks of Rhodes (as of
Naukratis: see below) knew and practised Egyptian methods. The finds
include small _alabastra_ with friezes of men and animals in relief,
and flasks of a compressed globular shape similarly ornamented; also
_aryballi_ of various moulded forms, such as animals or helmeted heads
(Plate X. fig. 3). The vase in the form of a head seems to be an early
Phoenician idea; and this particular type of the helmeted head seems to
have been adopted subsequently by Ionian artists in the Clazomenae
sarcophagi.[435] Similar vases and figures have been discovered in the
tombs of Melos, Corinth, Cervetri, and Vulci, and also in Syria and at
Naukratis in Egypt.[436] Others again from the tombs of Kameiros and
Vulci take the form of jars of opaque glass ornamented with zigzag
patterns in white and dull crimson on a greenish ground.[437] A
specimen of somewhat similar ware was found in a Bronze Age tomb at
Curium, Cyprus, in 1895,[438] consisting of a tall funnel-shaped beaker
of blue and yellow glazed ware with an edging of dark brown (Plate X.).
The technique is superior to that of the later examples, and more on a
level with that of the porcelain _rhyta_ from Enkomi.

In Greece Proper there are altogether few traces of this enamelled
ware, and after the sixth century B.C. it quite disappeared. But some
very fine specimens have been found in the tombs of Southern Italy. A
jug with delicate ornamentation in blue and white came from Naples, and
a similar vase from the same site, but shaped like a _kalathos_ and of
a pale green colour, is now in the British Museum. Objects of this ware
have also been found on the site of the ancient Tharros in Sardinia.
Their glaze was a pale green, like that of the twenty-sixth dynasty
wares, and with them was found a scarab of Psammetichus I, which shows
them to be contemporaneous with the objects found in the Polledrara
tomb. But the strong Phoenician element in Sardinia is sufficient to
indicate that these fabrics are all of Egyptian importation.

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

PLATE X

[Illustration:

PORCELAIN AND ENAMEL-GLAZED WARES (BRITISH MUSEUM).

4, 6, CYPRIOTE BRONZE AGE; 3, ARCHAIC GREEK (RHODES); 1, 2, 5,
GRAECO-ROMAN PERIOD.
]

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

In the Hellenistic period, when vase-painting had reached its latest
stages, the fashion of glazed enamelled ware was revived; its chief
centre was Alexandria, which would naturally have carried on the
traditions of Egyptian porcelain or faïence. Specimens of glazed ware
with reliefs or modelled in various forms have been found at Naukratis
and in the Fayûm, including a fine blue porcelain head of a Ptolemaic
queen (Plate X.). In a tomb at Tanagra were found a beautiful _askos_
in the form of a duck on which Eros rides, and another porcelain
vase,[439] evidently imported from Alexandria, or some other industrial
centre of Hellenised Egypt. Porcelain jugs, inscribed with the names of
Arsinoe, Berenike, and one of the Ptolemies, have been found at
Benghazi in North Africa, at Alexandria, and at Canosa in Southern
Italy.[440] They are of blue ware, with reliefs of Greek style
attached. Fragments of the same kind dating from the first century B.C.
were found at Tarsos in Cilicia,[441] and in the Louvre there are
glazed wares covered with yellow or green enamel from Smyrna and Kyme.
The British Museum possesses similar vases from Kos and elsewhere, with
wreaths and similar patterns in relief (Plate X.), but these are not
earlier than the Roman period. Enamelled wares of early Roman date have
also been found on the Esquiline, and the ware is common at
Pompeii.[442]

It does not appear that the manufacture of these enamelled wares was
confined to one spot; they are found all over Asia Minor, Italy, and
Gaul, and in other countries bordering on the Mediterranean. It seems
probable, however, that there were three principal centres of the
fabric, at least in the Roman period. The first of these was in Asia
Minor, or the islands along its coasts, whence came the specimens found
at Tarsos, in Ionia, and in the islands such as Kos. These are mostly
small vases, of metallic form, especially in the treatment of the
handles (cf. Plate X., fig. 5), the colour being usually a bluish
green, though some examples are more polychromatic. These seem to have
been exported to Italy, and _viâ_ Marseilles to Gaul. Next, there are
the wares made at Alexandria, of which the vases described above are
examples. And, thirdly, there was a Gaulish fabric, which must probably
be located at Lezoux in the Auvergne (see Chapter XXIII.), examples
from which are found at Vichy, in the Rhone Valley, and at Trier and
Andernach in Germany.[443] Fragments of this ware are even reported to
have been found in England—as, for instance, at Ewell in Surrey, at
Colchester and Weymouth.[444] These are of grey clay with yellow,
green, or brown glaze, with ornaments of leaves, vine-branches, or
scrolls, stamped in moulds; the shapes are jugs, flasks, or two-handled
cups. A later variety is of white clay with a malachite-green glaze,
the forms being again of a metallic type, and towards the end of the
period imitations of glass with _barbotine_ decoration (see Chapter
XXIII.) appear. These two groups cover the first century after Christ.

Sometimes the ornamentation of the later glazed wares from Italy takes
the form of small reliefs (_emblemata_), made separately and attached
before the glaze was applied, and there are two or three specimens of
this class in the British Museum. It was also not infrequently used for
lamps, which, apart from the glaze, have all the characteristics of the
ordinary kinds, and even for figures of gladiators, boats, and other
objects. The glaze is of a thick vitreous character, and was not
improbably produced by lead; at all events a French writer[445]
maintains, in opposition to the views of Brongniart and Blümner, that
by a study of this ware he has established a knowledge of lead-glaze
among the ancients.[446]

-----

Footnote 300:

Strabo, viii. p. 381 (the expression should probably be confined to
vases with reliefs).

Footnote 301:

Paus. i. 3, 1; Harpokration, _s.v._ κεραμεῖς.

Footnote 302:

_Il._ v. 387.

Footnote 303:

ii. 8, 10.

Footnote 304:

Hdt. i. 179; Xen. _Anab._ iii. 4, 7. Cf. Ovid, _Mel._ iv. 57:

“ubi dicitur altam
Coctilibus muris cinxisse Semiramis urbem.”

Footnote 305:

_H.N._ vii. 194.

Footnote 306:

v. 5, 4; x. 35, 5 and 4, 3; ii. 27, 7 (ὠμῆς τῆς πλίνθου: see Frazer’s
note ad loc.); Nissen, _Pompeian. Studien_, p. 24.

Footnote 307:

Vitr. ii. 8, 9.

Footnote 308:

Xen. _Hell._ v. 2, 5; Paus. viii. 8, 5.

Footnote 309:

ἀγάλματα ἐκ πηλοῦ, i. 2, 5.

Footnote 310:

xxxv. 155; see Milchhoefer in _Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebr._ p. 50.

Footnote 311:

vii. 22, 6.

Footnote 312:

i. 40, 4.

Footnote 313:

See on the subject generally Dörpfeld and others, _Die Verwendung von
Terrakotten_, Berlin, 1881.

Footnote 314:

_Ath. Mitth._ xxiv. (1899), p. 350; Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1903, pls. 2–6, p. 71
ff. Cf. the painted terracotta panels in wooden frames at Sparta,
mentioned by Vitruvius (ii. 8, 9).

Footnote 315:

See a passage in Xenophon (_Mem._ iii. 1, 7) bearing on the different
materials used in Greek domestic architecture.

Footnote 316:

See Dörpfeld, _Die antike Ziegelbau u. sein Einfluss auf d. dor.
Styl_, in _Hist. u. Phil. Aufsätze E. Curtius gewidmet_, p. 139 ff.

Footnote 317:

Diod. Sic. xvii. 115.

Footnote 318:

i. 42, 5.

Footnote 319:

v. 20, 5.

Footnote 320:

Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 11; _Olympia_ (_Ergebnisse_), ii. p.
129 ff.

Footnote 321:

_Inscr. Gr._ (_Atticae_), ii. 167.

Footnote 322:

Αἰγύπτιοι πλινθοφόροι (l. 1133).

Footnote 323:

An obviously incorrect rendering of πηλός; Tr. pêlos the process of
making sun-dried bricks is certainly here referred to, as the
allusion to Αἰγύπτιοι πλινθοφόροι implies.

Footnote 324:

ii. 3, 3.

Footnote 325:

ii. 2, 4.

Footnote 326:

ii. 2, 1, 2. For further details see Chapter XIX.

Footnote 327:

Ar. _Ran._ 800, quoted by Pollux, x. 148: cf. Plut. _Vit. Sol._ 25.

Footnote 328:

For representations of this process in Egyptian wall-paintings see
Rosellini, _Mon. Civili_, ii. p. 255, pl. 49, 1, and Wilkinson,
_Manners and Customs_, i. p. 344.

Footnote 329:

Isid. _Orig._ xix. 10, 16: _lateres ... inde nominati sunt quod lati
ligneis formis efficiuntur_. Cf. _ibid._ xv. 8, 16.

Footnote 330:

See on the subject generally, Dörpfeld, _Die Verwendung von
Terrakotten_, 1881, and Borrmann’s excellent treatise in Durm’s
_Handbuch d. Architektur, Die Keramik in d. Baukunst_ (1. Theil, Bd.
4), p. 28 ff.; also Wiegand, _Puteol. Bauinschr._ pp. 719, 756 ff.

Footnote 331:

On the origin of ἀκρωτήρια see Benndorf in _Jahreshefte_, 1899, p. 1
ff.

Footnote 332:

Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, C 904.

Footnote 333:

Rayet and Collignon, pl. 16.

Footnote 334:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, D 707–8.

Footnote 335:

Boeckh, _Urkunde über Scewesen_ (_Staatshaushaltung_, iii.), p. 406.

Footnote 336:

_H.N._ xxxv. 151.

Footnote 337:

_H.N._ xxxv. 152.

Footnote 338:

i. 3, 1.

Footnote 339:

The use of the word ἄγαλμα also seems to point to this conclusion.

Footnote 340:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pl. 15.

Footnote 341:

_J.H.S._ xiii. p. 315. See generally, Minervini, _Terrecotte del
Museo Campano_.

Footnote 342:

See Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.

Footnote 343:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, C 910 ff.

Footnote 344:

A good example of a painted tile from Aegion in Achaia is in the
British Museum (_Cat. of Terracottas_, C 908).

Footnote 345:

Cf. also the tiles from the temple at Elateia in Boeotia, described
by M. Paris, _Élatée_, p. 106.

Footnote 346:

v. 10, 3. It is noteworthy that Pausanias here uses the word κέραμος,
although the tiles are not of terracotta, indicating that it had
become by long usage the generic word for tiles of all kinds. Cf. St.
Luke v. 19.

Footnote 347:

See Dörpfeld, etc., _Verwendung von Terrakotten_, pls. 1–4;
_Olympia_, ii. p. 193 ff.

Footnote 348:

See _Builder_, 4 March 1899, p. 219.

Footnote 349:

_Fatture di argille in Sicilia_, pp. 27, 31.

Footnote 350:

Becker in _Mélanges Gréco-Romaines_, i. (1854), p. 482 ff.

Footnote 351:

_Inscr. Gr._ ix. p. 164.

Footnote 352:

_Antiqs. of Kertch_, pp. 72, 75, pl. 7.

Footnote 353:

See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 131 ff., E 186.

Footnote 354:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 541.

Footnote 355:

_Élatée_, p. 110.

Footnote 356:

See also _Ath. Mitth._ 1877, p. 441, for a long inscription from
Sparta.

Footnote 357:

Others with ἐπί and a magistrate’s name are in the British Museum
(_Cat. of Terracottas_, E 131–33, 186 ff.): see also _Inscr. Gr._ ix.
735 ff.

Footnote 358:

_B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 130.

Footnote 359:

See Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._ p. 50, pl. 29, fig. 10; _Jahrbuch
d. arch. Inst._ ii. (1887), p. 161; _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 345; Hicks
and Hill, _Gk. Hist. Inscrs._ p. 16.

Footnote 360:

_Musée de Sèvres_, p. 19.

Footnote 361:

_Ath. Mitth._ ii. (1877), pl. 8, p. 119; Daremberg and Saglio,
_Dict._ i. p. 1260, fig. 1673.

Footnote 362:

Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 338, fig. 399.

Footnote 363:

Cf. Stackelberg, _Gräber der Hellenen_, pl. 7; Dodwell, _Tour_, i. p.
452.

Footnote 364:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, B 494 ff.

Footnote 365:

Benndorf in _Eranos Vindobonensis_, p. 384.

Footnote 366:

Fig. 67.. Cf. also Berlin 2294, and see Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._
Caminus.

Footnote 367:

_Jahrbuch_, vi. (1891), p. 110.

Footnote 368:

_B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 156 ff.

Footnote 369:

See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 80.

Footnote 370:

Cf. Macpherson, _Antiqs. of Kertch_, p. 103.

Footnote 371:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ iii. 5686.

Footnote 372:

For examples of these see _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, E 93 ff.

Footnote 373:

ii. 62.

Footnote 374:

See Daremberg and Saglio, _art._ Lucerna, _init._; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._
p. 80.

Footnote 375:

vii. 215.

Footnote 376:

Ar. _Eccl._ 1; Axionikos, quoted by Pollux, x. 122.

Footnote 377:

The words φλόμος and θρυαλλίς seem to denote the _material_ of which
the wick was made (cf. Pollux, x. 115).

Footnote 378:

Pollux, vi. 103; x. 115.

Footnote 379:

_Loc. cit. supr._

Footnote 380:

_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1868, p. 59.

Footnote 381:

Probably an imitation of the projections on bronze lamps, to which
chains for suspension were attached. See on this type _Amer. Journ.
of Arch._ 1903, p. 338 ff.

Footnote 382:

Newton, _Travels and Discoveries_, ii. p. 184=_Discoveries_, ii. pt.
2, p. 395.

Footnote 383:

Barker and Ainsworth, _Lares and Penates_, p. 201.

Footnote 384:

See _C.I.L._ iii. Suppl. No. 7310.

Footnote 385:

_Div. Inst._ ii. 11.

Footnote 386:

Juvenal, xi. 116; Propertius, v. 1, 5; Ovid, _Fast._ i. 202.

Footnote 387:

_H.N._ xxxiv. 34.

Footnote 388:

_H.N._ xxxv. 151.

Footnote 389:

_Leg. pro Christ._ 17, 293, _ed._ Migne; see Blümner, _Technologie_,
ii. p. 129, note 2.

Footnote 390:

_H.N._ xxxv. 153.

Footnote 391:

_Ibid._ 156.

Footnote 392:

_Apotheosis_, 458. See generally Blümner, ii. p. 140 ff.

Footnote 393:

Pollux, x. 189; Hesych., _s.v._; _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p.
42; Blümner, ii. pp. 42, 117; and cf. p. 153 below.

Footnote 394:

Tertull. _Apol._ 12; _ad Nat._ i. 12.

Footnote 395:

_Anim. Gener._ ii. 6; _Hist. Anim._ iii. 5.

Footnote 396:

Plut. _De profect. in virt._ 17, p. 86 A; _Quaest. conviv._ ii. 3, 2,
p. 636 C.

Footnote 397:

_De permut._ 2.

Footnote 398:

_Fab._ 137 (Teubner).

Footnote 399:

_Phil._ i. 9, § 47.

Footnote 400:

_Anth. P._ vi. 280.

Footnote 401:

_Phaedr._ 230 B.

Footnote 402:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 305.

Footnote 403:

_Op. et Di._ 60: ἐκλευσε ... γαῖαν ὕδει φύρειν.

Footnote 404:

_Anth. P._ xvi. 191.

Footnote 405:

_Statuettes de Terre Cuite_, p. 251.

Footnote 406:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, E 1 ff.

Footnote 407:

See also for some interesting moulds from Girgenti, _Röm. Mitth._
xii. (1897), p. 253 ff. Similar specimens have been found at Kertch
and Smyrna.

Footnote 408:

See also on the subject C. C. Edgar, _Greek Moulds_ (_Cat. du Musée
du Caire_, viii. 1903), pls. 23–8, 33, p. xiv ff. These moulds are
nearly all made of plaster; but the account there given of the
technical processes would hold good of terracotta moulds.

Footnote 409:

_Op. cit._ p. 254.

Footnote 410:

_Poplic._ 13: see Chapter XVIII.

Footnote 411:

_Lexiph._ 22.

Footnote 412:

vii. 163.

Footnote 413:

_Cat._ B 458–59, D 392.

Footnote 414:

See Blümner, _Technologie_, iv. p. 464 ff.

Footnote 415:

Hirt, _Gesch. d. bild. Kunst_, p. 165.

Footnote 416:

Pliny (_H.N._ xxxvi. 189) mentions one Agrippa who painted in
encaustic on terracotta: see Chapter XIX. for possible examples of
this process.

Footnote 417:

Schöne, _Gr. Reliefs_, p. 62.

Footnote 418:

_Sitzungber. d. k. bayer. Akad. Phil. Cl._ 1883, p. 299 ff.

Footnote 419:

See for those from Athens _J.H.S._ xvii. p. 306 ff.

Footnote 420:

iv. 55.

Footnote 421:

_De Mundo_, 6, 398.

Footnote 422:

See on the subject Hermann, _Lehrbuch d. gr. Altert._ iv. (1882), p.
295; Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 123; Baumeister, _Denkm._ ii. p. 778.

Footnote 423:

A _Corpus_ of all the known types of terracotta statuettes has
recently been published by the German Archaeological Institute,
edited by Dr. F. Winter (_Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten_, 2 vols.
1903).

Footnote 424:

Cf. the types on painted vases, Vol. II. Chapter XII. (Eleusinian
deities).

Footnote 425:

Paus. viii. 15, 3.

Footnote 426:

B.M. B 258, 410.

Footnote 427:

B.M. B 256, 286, 335.

Footnote 428:

B.M. B 359: cf. p. 344.

Footnote 429:

_J.H.S._ vii. p. 9 ff.

Footnote 430:

_J.H.S._ vi. pl. 61.

Footnote 431:

Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 102; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 35, fig.
63.

Footnote 432:

_B.M. Excavations_, p. 22, pl. 3.

Footnote 433:

See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 150; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 193;
Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. pl. 5.

Footnote 434:

Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 192.

Footnote 435:

Cf. _J.H.S._ iv. p. 11. Heuzey, however, thinks that the Phoenicians
imitated the Greek painted examples of this time (such as A 1117 ff.
in B.M.). Cf. _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 159.

Footnote 436:

Good examples are given in Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. p. 676;
_Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pl. 28 (in Louvre, from Corinth); _Ath. Mitth._
1879, pl. 19: cf. also Berlin 1288–91, and many examples in B.M.
(First Vase Room). On one from Kos was found the name of Apries
(599–569 B.C.). See also _Naukratis I_. pl. 2, figs. 6–18.

Footnote 437:

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art._ iii. pl. 6.

Footnote 438:

_B.M. Excavations_, p. 69, fig. 99.

Footnote 439:

Furtwaengler, _Coll. Sabouroff_, i. pl. 70, fig. 3 (with text); Rayet
and Collignon, p. 374.

Footnote 440:

See _Journ. des Savans_, March 1862, p. 163; _Rev. Arch._ vii.
(1863), p. 259 (name of Ptolemy wrongly read as Kleopatra); _Arch.
Zeit._ 1869, p. 35; Rayet and Collignon, p. 372.

Footnote 441:

_Gazette des Beaux-Arts_, Nov. 1876, p. 385 ff.

Footnote 442:

Von Rohden, _Terracotten von Pompeii_, p. 29.

Footnote 443:

Hettner in _Festschr. für J. Overbeck_, p. 169.

Footnote 444:

_Archaeologia_, xxxii. p. 452 (Ewell); British Museum, Romano-British
Room, Case H.

Footnote 445:

Mazard, _De la connaissance par les anciens des glaçures
plombifères_; cf. Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 89.

Footnote 446:

On the subject generally see Dumont-Pottier, i. chap. xiii.; Rayet
and Collignon, p. 365 ff.; Daremberg and Saglio, _s.v._ Figlinum, p.
1131; and for the Graeco-Roman enamelled wares, _Bonner Jahrbücher_,
xcvi. p. 117, and Mazard, _op. cit._, where a full description and
list of examples is given.

CHAPTER IV
_USES AND SHAPES OF GREEK VASES_

Mention of painted vases in literature—Civil and domestic use of
pottery—Measures of capacity—Use in daily life—Decorative
use—Religious and votive uses—Use in funeral ceremonies—Shapes
and their names—Ancient and modern classifications—Vases for
storage—Pithos—Wine-amphora—Amphora—Stamnos—Hydria—Vases for
mixing—Krater—Deinos or Lebes—Cooking-vessels—Vases for pouring
wine—Oinochoe and variants—Ladles—Drinking-cups—Names recorded by
Athenaeus—Kotyle—Skyphos—Kantharos—Kylix—Phiale—Rhyton—
Dishes—Oil-vases—Lekythos—Alabastron—Pyxis—Askos—Moulded vases.

Those who are acquainted with the enormous number of painted vases now
gathered together in our Museums, showing the important part they must
have played in the daily life of the Greeks and the high estimation in
which they were clearly held, as evidenced by the great care bestowed
on their decoration and the pride exhibited by artists in their signed
productions, may feel some surprise that so few allusions to them can
be traced in classical literature. Such passages as can be interpreted
as referring to them may actually be counted on the fingers of one
hand, and even these are but passing allusions; while any full
descriptions of vases, such as that in Theocritus' first Idyll or some
of those in Athenaeus’ Book XI., almost invariably refer to metal vases
with chased designs. Nor can we trace any reference to known potters or
artists in literature or documents, save in a few inscriptions recently
found at Athens, which are, of course, of secondary importance for
literary history.

More general allusions to pottery and its use in daily life are common
enough, and it would hardly be profitable to quote all such passages in
detail; many indeed, such as the early allusion to the potter’s wheel
in the _Iliad_ (see p. 207), have found a place elsewhere in this work.
The passage of Homer at all events supplies proof, if such were needed,
that the use of the wheel was known in early times in Greece.

Of undoubted references to painted vases there are but two, though both
of them are particularly interesting, as they refer to well-known
special classes of Attic vases. The earlier of the two is in Pindar’s
tenth Nemean Ode,[447] in which he celebrates the victory of Thiaios of
Argos, who had twice been successful in the Panathenaic games at
Athens. He says:

γαία δὲ καυθείσα πυρὶ καρπος ἐλαίας
ἔμολεν Ἤρας τὸν ευάνορα λαόν, ἐν ἀγγέων ἔρκεσι παμποικίλοις.[448]

These prize-vases are also mentioned by Simonides of Keos:

καὶ Παναθηναίοις στεφάνους λάβε πέντ’ ἐπ’ ἀέθλοις
ἑξῆς ἀμφιφορεῖς ἐλαίου.[449]

The other passage, from the _Ecclesiazusae_ of Aristophanes (l. 996),
is equally well known. One speaker, in somewhat contemptuous terms,
alludes to “the fellow who paints the lekythi for the dead”:

ὃς τοῖς νεκροῖσι ζωγραφεῖ τοὺς ληκύθους.[450]

These lekythi may with certainty be identified with the white Athenian
variety decorated with appropriate subjects and made specially for
funerals (see Chapter XI.). The best examples of this class belong to
the very period at which the _Ecclesiazusae_ was written (392 B.C.),
but most of them show signs of being hastily executed or made to be
sold at a low price. It is probably for this reason that the speaker
implies his contempt for the painter, although at the same time it
seems likely that vase-painters, like all craftsmen, were looked down
upon by the Athenians of that day, in spite of the real beauty and
artistic merit of their productions.

One or two doubtful allusions must next be considered. The lyric poet
Alcaeus, who flourished 610–580 B.C., seems to allude to painted vases,
but the reading is very doubtful. The passage is read by Bergk as
follows (_Poet. Lyr. Graec._ iii. p. 165, frag. 41):

κἀδ δ' ἄειρε κυλίχναις μεγάλαις, αἴτ’ ὄτι, Οἶκι, λαῖς·
... ἔγχεε κίρναις ἔνα καὶ δύο
πλέαις κὰκ κεφάλας, ἁ δ’ ἀτέρα τῶν ἀτέρων κύλιξ
ὠθήτω.[451]

Ahrens[452] read αἶψα ποϊκίλαι for αἴτ’ ὄτι, Οἶκι, λαῖς, and other
versions have been suggested. Bergk’s reading is very uncouth, and it
certainly seems as if ποϊκίλαις was intended, whatever the preceding
word. If it is allowed to stand, it obviously implies _painted_ vases,
as in the παμποικίλοις of Pindar.

In the speech of Demosthenes _De Falsa Legatione_ (p. 415) occurs a
passage which is generally taken as having reference to painted vases:
καὶ σύ, Φιλόχαρες, σὲ μὲν τὰς ἀλαβαστοθήκας γράφοντα καὶ τὰ τύμπανα,
“And you, Philochares, who paint the alabastos-stands and the
pediments.” The word ἀλαβαστοθήκη is commonly supposed to describe a
stand with holders for pots of perfume (also called κέρνος, see below,
p. 195), although most painted examples of this vase found in Greece
are of very early date. The τύμπανα are more easy of explanation, being
the triangular pediments of temples, which, like the metopes of the
so-called Theseion at Athens and those at Thermon (p. 92), were no
doubt often adorned with paintings in place of sculpture.

Other passages, if they do not actually refer to painted or even to
fictile vases, are at least of value as giving information as to the
current names for those in every-day use, or as to various purposes for
which they were used. Reference will be made to many of these in the
course of the chapter.

Suetonius in his Life of Caesar (§ 81) describes how the colonists who
were sent out under the _Lex Julia_ to build new houses were destroying
ancient tombs for the purpose when they came upon remains of ancient
pottery (_aliquantum vasculorum operis antiqui_), the discovery of
which caused them to redouble their efforts in the work of destruction.
Similarly Strabo[453] tells us that when Julius Caesar sent colonists
to rebuild Corinth they came upon tombs containing large quantities of
ὀστράκινα τορεύματα, which they nicknamed “Necrocorinthia.” The meaning
of this expression is somewhat doubtful, but the word τορεύματα seems
to imply chased or relief work, and it is probable that these were not
painted vases, but Hellenistic ware with reliefs, like the so-called
Megarian bowls.[454] The latter can be identified, by means of their
subjects, with the _scyphi Homerici_ of which Nero was so fond;
Suetonius tells us that they were so named _a caelatura carminum
Homeri_, from the subjects from Homer’s poems carved in relief upon
them.[455] The _scyphi_ were doubtless of metal, the use of which was
confined to the wealthy and luxurious, while the so-called Megarian
bowls and similar ware were copied from them in the cheaper material
for the use of the humbler classes.

We see, then, that classical literature throws but little light on the
uses made of painted vases as such by the Greeks. But we are by no
means ill supplied with information as to the uses of pottery in
general, about which evidence may be obtained both from the vases
themselves and from innumerable passages in ancient writers or the
commentaries of the scholiasts and lexicographers. This question is
more or less bound up with that of the different shapes and names of
vases, of which some 150 have been handed down by Athenaeus, Pollux,
and other writers, and these will be considered in detail subsequently.
For the present it may suffice to say a few words on what is known of
the use of pottery in general and of painted vases in particular.

As most of the vases hitherto known have been discovered in tombs, it
would at first sight appear that they were exclusively destined for
sepulchral purposes; but this seems to have been in many cases only a
subsequent use of them, and they doubtless also found a place among the
wants of daily life. That this is true of the plain unglazed or
unpainted pottery goes indeed without saying; in regard to the painted
vases the question is, in view of the scanty literary evidence, more
difficult to decide.

[Illustration:

FIG. 14. HEMIKOTYLION (VASE USED AS MEASURE).
BRITISH MUSEUM.
]

As the civil and domestic use of pottery is the most important, it is
necessary to consider it first. For ordinary purposes earthenware
largely took the place of bronze and the precious metals, just as it
does at the present day. One instance of this we have already quoted in
speaking of the “Homeric bowls,” and others might be cited, in
particular its use for measures, for which metal would naturally be
employed as a general rule. This usage is established by the occasional
discovery of vases inscribed with the names of measures and the like.
The British Museum possesses a small one-handled cup of black glazed
ware (F 595 = Fig. 14) found in the island of Cerigo (Kythera), on
which is incised in fifth-century lettering the word [ΗΕΜΙΚΟΤΥΛΙΟΝ],
ἡμικοτύλιον, or “half-kotyle.” The word κοτύλη is interesting as
denoting not only a shape of a drinking-cup (see below, p. 184), but a
Greek measure, equivalent to about half a pint. Again, in 1867, a
cylindrical vase of red ware was found at Athens inscribed [ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΝ],
δημόσιον, or “public (measure).”[456] It was stamped with the figure of
an owl and an olive-branch, the official seal of Athens, and has been
supposed to represent the χοῖνιξ or quart, its capacity having been
estimated at 0·96 litres, or 1¾ pints, while the χοῖνιξ is generally
reckoned as equivalent to 1 litre.[457]

Many of the names in common use for shapes of vases are also found
applied to measures of capacity either for liquid or dry stuffs; and it
is possible that herein lies the explanation of the somewhat puzzling
_graffiti_ inscriptions found under the feet of Attic vases (see
Chapter XVII.), where the words used seem to have no relation to the
vase itself. Thus in liquid measure the amphora (ἀμφορεύς) or κάδος,
also known as μετρητής, was equivalent to about 7½ gallons, and was
divided into 12 χόες, the χοῦς into 12 κοτύλαι, which, as we have seen,
answer to our ½-pints. The ὀξύβαφο was one-fourth of a κοτύλη, the
κύαθος one-sixth.[458] All these words were in common use to express
various forms of vases, as will be seen later on. Further, the word
κεράμιον, which, like the Latin _testa_, is used generally for pottery,
has a more restricted sense of a cask or vessel used for transporting
wine, and is even used as a term of measure, presumably equivalent to
the amphora.[459]

Earthenware was also used generally for the purpose of storing liquids
or various kinds of food, for the preparation of food and liquids, and
for the uses of the table or toilet. The painted ware, however, was not
employed for the commoner purposes, nor to contain large quantities of
liquids, for which it would have been far too expensive. But we know
that it was largely used at banquets and drinking-bouts, and on other
occasions, from the evidence of the vases themselves. Thus, in the
well-known vase with the Harpies robbing the blind Phineus of his food
(p. 357), a kotyle painted with black figures is seen in the king’s
hands; and in a scene representing the reception of Paris by
Helen,[460] the former is offered wine drawn from a large four-handled
vase on which figures are painted.[461] Vases with subjects represented
on them are also seen placed on columns forming the background of
scenes, as if forming part of the furniture of a hall or chamber. But
as a general rule the vases represented in banquet scenes and elsewhere
are left plain or only decorated with patterns.

To the use of vases in connection with athletic games we have already
alluded in discussing Pindar’s mention of the Panathenaic amphorae; it
is, of course, likely that other forms of vases were also given as
prizes or presented to young men on special occasions, such as entering
the ranks of the ἔφηβοι or being married, but we have no evidence of
such customs.

[Illustration: FIG. 15. CHILD PLAYING WITH JUG (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

Vases were also used as toys, as is proved by the discovery of many
little vases, chiefly jugs, in the tombs of children at Athens, on
which are depicted children playing at various games.[462] They are too
small to have served any other purpose, and as similarly shaped jugs
appear among the toys used by the children in these scenes, it is
reasonable to suppose that they were playthings. No doubt some of the
more unusual shapes were made with the same end, such as vases in the
shape of animals or fruit, or the aski (p. 200), which contained little
balls and were used as rattles.

We have already hinted at the purely decorative use of vases as
domestic ornaments, in which capacity they were often placed on
columns; there is, however, no hint of this in ancient authors. But
that it was customary in Greece and Italy, at all events in the later
period (_i.e._ after the Persian Wars), seems to be indicated by the
practice which obtains with the larger vases of executing only one side
with care, while the other exhibits an unimportant and badly painted
design (generally three boys or men wrapped in mantles). It is natural
to suppose that the carelessly executed side was not supposed to be
seen, owing to the fact that the vase was intended to be placed against
a wall. Some of the large round dishes of Apulian fabric seem to have
been intended for hanging up against a wall, on the same principle.[463]

The question which next arises is that of the extent to which vases
were used for religious and votive purposes. Here, however, with one
exception noted below, we derive little aid from a study of the painted
vases themselves, in spite of the frequency of mythological subjects.
But inasmuch as many instances are known of offerings of metal vases in
the temples of the gods, it can hardly be doubted that painted vases
served the same purpose for those who could only afford the humbler
material. It was at one time supposed that the large vases painted for
a front view only, of which we have just spoken, were destined for this
purpose; but as they are mostly found in tombs, this can hardly be the
case.

Of late years, however, much light has been thrown upon this question
by means of scientific excavations. On many temple-sites which have
been systematically explored, such as the Acropolis of Athens or
Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta, enormous numbers of fragments of
painted vases have been found which are clearly the remains of votive
offerings. It was a well-known Greek custom to clear out the temples
from time to time and form rubbish-heaps of the disused vases and
statuettes, sometimes by digging pits for them; and thus these broken
fragments, rejected from their apparent uselessness, have from these
very circumstances been preserved to the present day to cast a flood of
light on many points of archaeology. At Naukratis many of the fragments
bear incised inscriptions in the form of dedications to Apollo (Fig.
16.) or Aphrodite, according to the site on which they were found. At
Penteskouphia near Corinth a large series of early painted tablets,
with representations of Poseidon and inscribed dedications, were found
in 1879 (p. 316), and illustrate the practice of making offerings in
this form, mentioned by Aeschylos.[464] Tablets painted with figures
and hung on trees or walls are not infrequently depicted on red-figured
vases, the subject generally implying their votive character.[465] Fig.
17. represents a youth carrying a tablet of this kind.

[Illustration: FIG. 16. RIM OF VASE FROM NAUKRATIS WITH DEDICATION TO
APOLLO (BRIT. MUS.).]

[Illustration:

From Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic. Vasenb._
FIG. 17. YOUTH WITH VOTIVE TABLET.
]

There is no doubt that vases (though not, perhaps, painted ones) must
have played a considerable part in the religious ceremonies of the
Greeks. In the Athenian festival of the Anthesteria, the second day was
devoted to the holding of ἀγῶνες χύτρινοι, or “pot-contests,” vessels
full of corn being dedicated to Hermes Chthonios.[466] At the festival
of the Gardens of Adonis flower-pots of earthenware containing flowers
were cast into the sea, as a type of the premature death of
Adonis.[467] These flower-pots were also placed on the tops of houses,
and in this same festival, which was chiefly celebrated by hetairae,
little terracotta figures (κοράλλια) were introduced.[468] The use of
flower-pots placed in windows to form artificial gardens is mentioned
by Martial and Pliny[469]; and they were also employed to protect
tender plants, as hinted by Theophrastos,[470] who speaks of the
necessity of propagating southernwood by slips in pots.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to speak of the constant use of the
jug and bowl (_phiale_) in sacrifices and libation scenes, as seen on
innumerable vases of the R.F. and later periods (see pp. 178, 191).
Fig. 18 shows the use of vases on the occasion of a sacrifice to
Dionysos. There is also a type of vase which, according to a recent
writer,[471] was used for burning incense. It is a form which hitherto
had been conventionally named the κώθων, on account of its recurved lip
(see below, p. 187); but it is pointed out that it had three feet (the
form being clearly derived from the tripod), and therefore stood, and
was not carried about; also that it varies much in size, and is found
at an early date, and chiefly in women’s graves.[472] There is also
evidence that it was meant to stand fire or hold coals. From these
details the conclusion is deduced that it represents the earlier form
of incense-burner (down to about 500 B.C.), those of later date being
of a different form, as often seen on R.F. vases.[473]

[Illustration:

From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_.
FIG. 18. VASES USED IN SACRIFICE (FROM VASE AT NAPLES).
]

The most important use, however, for which vases were employed, and
that to which their preservation is mainly due, was for purposes
connected with funeral ceremonies. These were of a varied nature,
including the use of vases at the burial, the placing of them on the
tomb to hold offerings, and the depositing of them in the tomb, either
to hold the ashes of the dead or as “tomb-furniture,” in accordance
with the religious beliefs of the Greeks on the life after death. The
principal methods in which they have been found deposited in the tombs
have already been described in Chapter II.

Vases were employed in the burial rites in various ways, as we learn
from the subjects depicted upon them. In the celebrated vase
representing the death and funeral of Archemoros,[474] two persons are
seen carrying tables laden with vases to the tomb, while an oinochoë is
placed under the bier on which the corpse is laid. It is also probable
that they were often burnt on the funeral pile with the corpse, and if
this is the case it may account for the discoloured condition of many
fine vases in which the red glaze has turned to an ashen grey under the
action of fire.[475] In any case vases were often broken before being
placed in the tomb, the idea being that they must participate in the
death of the person to whom they were consecrated. There is a special
class of B.F. amphorae found at Athens, which are commonly known as
“prothesis-amphorae,” the subjects relating exclusively to the πρόθεσις
or laying-out, and other funeral rites. They were, therefore, probably
placed round the bier during this ceremony.

Vases were also used for holding milk, oil, unguents, and other liquids
which were poured upon the corpse, or for the lustral water placed at
the entrance of the tomb. It was the regular practice of the Athenians
to place vases on the outside of the tombs, the commonest forms being
that of the lekythos, or a larger vase known as the λουτροφόρος,
mentioned by Demosthenes.[476] These were, however, generally of stone,
and are sometimes sculptured in relief, or bear inscriptions like the
Attic stelae[477] and modern tombstones.

The custom of placing lekythi on tombs is also alluded to once or twice
by Aristophanes in the _Ecclesiazusae_—_e.g._ line 538:

οὐδ’ ἐπιθεῖσα λήκυθον,

and again, line 1032:

καὶ ταινίωσαι καὶ παράθου τὰς ληκύθους.[478]

[Illustration: FIG. 19. FUNERAL LEKYTHOS, WITH VASES INSIDE TOMB (BRIT.
MUS.).]

The manner of employing vases as adjuncts to the tomb is nowhere better
illustrated than on the Athenian white lekythi, which are almost all
painted with funeral subjects, and, from the hasty way in which many
are executed, show that they were often made to order at short notice
(see above, p. 132). In particular, one example in the British Museum
(D 56 = Fig. 19) shows the interior of a conical tomb or tumulus,
within which vases of various shapes are seen. In other examples they
are ranged along the steps of a stele, or are represented as being
brought to the tomb in baskets by mourning women.[479] The larger vases
of Southern Italy, which similarly show by their subjects that they
were only made for funeral purposes, bear a close relation to the white
lekythi, and also to the Attic funeral stelae with reliefs. The
treatment of the subject varies in the different fabrics, but two main
types prevail. In the one, of Lucanian origin, the tomb takes the form
of a stele or column, round which vases are ranged on steps[480]; in
the other, on the large Apulian kraters and amphorae, the tomb is in
the shape of a ἡρῷον or small temple, within which is seen the figure
of the deceased, while on either side approach women bearing offerings
(Fig. 106); but vases do not play an important part in these latter
scenes.

[Illustration: FIG. 20. VASES PLACED ON TOMB (LUCANIAN HYDRIA IN BRIT.
MUS.).]

Thirdly, we have to deal with the use of painted vases in the tomb
itself. As regards their use as cinerary urns, to contain the ashes of
the dead, it appears to have been somewhat restricted.

In the Mycenaean period we know that inhumation, not cremation, was the
practice, contrary to that of the heroic or Homeric age, in which an
entirely different state of things is represented. But when we do read
in Homer or the tragic poets, of the methods of dealing with the ashes
of the dead, there is no mention of any but metal urns. Thus the ashes
of Patroklos were collected in a χρυσέη φιάλη[481] (the word is
probably used loosely), while those of Achilles were stored in a golden
amphora.[482] Again, Sophokles, in the fictitious account of Orestes’
death given in his _Electra_, uses the expression (l. 758)[483]:

ἐν βραχεῖ
χαλκῷ μέγιστον σῶμα δειλαίας σποδοῦ,

showing that metal vases were generally employed for this purpose.

No instances occurred among the early tombs in the Dipylon cemetery at
Athens or elsewhere in Greece before the sixth century, nor was the
practice usually favoured by the Etruscans, who employed painted vases
in their tombs exclusively as furniture. In Mycenaean times in Crete
coffers (λάρνακες) of terracotta, painted like the vases, were used as
_ossuaria_[484]; and similarly in Etruria at all periods the remains of
the deceased were placed in rectangular chests or sarcophagi of
terracotta or stone. But in the earliest tombs of Etruria and Central
Italy urns and hut-shaped receptacles for the ashes were invariably
employed (see Chapter XVIII.).

It is, however, probable that in course of time there was a partial
adoption of the practice in Greece. As early as the middle of the sixth
century there is an instance in the well-known Burgon Panathenaic
amphora, now in the British Museum,[485] found by Mr. Burgon in 1813;
it contained remains of burnt bones and several small plain vases. This
would seem to indicate that the Panathenaic amphorae in particular were
considered appropriate for this purpose, namely, that the cherished
prize won by the living should be used for the most sacred purpose in
connection with the dead.

Among the red-figured vases of the fifth century which have been found
to contain ashes, may be mentioned the famous Vivenzio vase at
Naples,[486] which was found carefully deposited within another vase at
Nola, and a vase of the shape known as λέβης, now in the British
Museum, found near the Peiraeus.[487] There is also a covered vase in
the British Museum,[488] which was employed for a similar purpose. It
is not, strictly speaking, a painted vase, being covered with a white
slip and coloured like the terracottas, while the heads of monsters
project from its sides; the shape is that known as λεκάνη (“tureen”),
and it dates from the fourth century. It contained human bones, among
which were found a small terracotta figure of a Siren and other
objects; the jaw-bone, which was preserved, had still fixed in it the
_obolos_, or small silver coin which was placed there as Charon’s fare
for ferrying the soul over the Styx. Of later date is a vase found at
Alexandria, in the catacombs, similarly decorated, and also filled with
bones; it was presented to the British Museum in 1830 by Sir E.
Codrington.

The class of large terracotta vases found in tombs at Canosa, Cumae,
Capua and Calvi (Cales), of which fine specimens may be seen in the
Terracotta Room of the British Museum (see above, p. 119), seems to
have been made for sepulchral purposes, as in many cases they are not
adapted for practical use. On the other hand, they may have been
ornaments for houses. They are decorated with figures in high relief,
or attached to different parts of the vase, and many of them,
especially those in the form of female heads, are strictly speaking not
vases at all, having no proper bottom.

The majority of painted vases found in the tombs must be regarded
purely as tomb-furniture, placed there with the idea that the deceased
would require in his future life all that had been associated with his
former existence. Sometimes they were placed round the corpse, with
food or liquids in them for the use of the “ghost,” and instances are
known of eggs and other objects having been preserved in this
manner.[489] Toy-vases are found buried with children in tombs at
Athens and elsewhere, and toilet-boxes or unguent-vases in women’s
graves. Nevertheless, it is probably not wide of the mark to say that
in the sixth and fifth centuries the custom had lost much of its
original meaning; the habit of placing painted vases in tombs survived,
but the original idea of the practice had become obscured, and the
religious significance was restricted to certain classes of vases, the
prothesis-amphorae, white lekythi, and others, which were not used
during life but only made specially for this purpose.

Great value seems to have been set upon the painted vases by their
possessors. When broken, they were repaired by the pieces being
skilfully fitted and drilled, with a rivet of lead or bronze neatly
attached to the sides. Several mended vases exist in the European
collections.[490] Occasionally they were repaired by inserting pieces
of other vases. Thus a vase with two handles, found at Vulci, of the
shape called στάμνος, is repaired with a part of a kylix representing
quite a different subject, and thus presents a discordant effect.[491]
A R.F. vase in the Louvre has actually been mended with part of a B.F.
vase.[492] A B.F. kylix in the British Museum (B 398) has a piece
inserted with the name of Priapos; similarly the two handles of the
R.F. kylix E 4, with the signature of Thypheithides, do not belong to
the vase; but these may both be modern restorations. The large casks of
coarse and unglazed ware (πίθοι) were also repaired with leaden cramps.
“The casks of the ill-clad Cynic,” says the Roman satirist, “do not
burn; should you break one of them, another house will be made by
to-morrow, or the same will continue to serve when repaired with
lead.”[493] Aristophanes puts into the mouth of his old litigant turned
_roué_ a popular story of Sybaris which alludes to the use of bronze
rivets. A woman of that city broke an earthen pot, which was
represented as screaming out, and calling for witnesses to prove how
badly it had been treated. “By Persephone!” exclaims the dame, “were
you to leave off bawling for witnesses, and make haste to buy a copper
clamp (ἐπίδεσμον) to rivet yourself with, you would show more
sense.”[494]

* * * * *

After noting the chief uses of Greek vases it is necessary to give some
account of the different shapes, and to identify the recorded names as
far as possible with the various kinds actually found.

The subject is, however, one of great difficulty, and it is impossible
to attain to scientific accuracy, owing to the differences of time
between the authors by whom they are mentioned, the difficulty of
explaining types by verbal descriptions, and the ambiguity often caused
by the ancient practice of describing a vase of one shape by the name
of another.

A study of any collection of Greek vases will make it apparent that
there is a great variety in the forms of the different periods. This is
especially marked in the earliest ages of Greece, in which the variety
is almost endless, and the adoption and development of certain
recognised forms practically unknown. It must therefore be evident that
the statements of ancient writers must always be used with caution, and
that a shape described by an early writer must not be taken as
representing the same in a later period, even if the same word be used,
or _vice versa_. For instance, the δέπας ἀμφικύπελλον of Homer, which
finds a curious parallel in the gold cup with the doves discovered by
Schliemann at Mycenae, is, whatever view we may take of the Homeric
civilisation, only an example of a passing fashion. Or again, many of
the drinking-cups described by Athenaeus in his eleventh book are
doubtless only instances of new experiments in pottery or metal-work
characteristic of the Hellenistic age, with its tendency to strive
after novelties. Many of his names are little more than nicknames for
familiar shapes, which enjoyed a temporary popularity.

Some information may be derived from the vases themselves by means of
inscriptions, specimens of which are given in Chapter XVII. Thus on the
François vase the three-handled pitcher used by Polyxena is inscribed
[ΥΔΡΙΑ], or “water-pot,” and enables us to apply the name hydria with
certainty to a three-handled vase, of which many black- and red-figured
specimens exist.[495] Then we have the _lekythos_ of Tataie, and the
_kylikes_ of Philto and Kephisophon,[496] which testify by inscriptions
to the name by which they were known. The names incised in _graffito_
on the feet of vases[497] are a more doubtful source of evidence,
inasmuch as they may refer either to mixed batches of vases or to the
names of measures of capacity.

Examples of cursory mention of names in the ancient writers, such as
Aristophanes, are innumerable, but seldom explicit, and the scholia on
these writers are hardly more useful, inasmuch as the grammarians
probably knew little more about obsolete shapes than we do ourselves,
and their commentaries have little critical weight. The _loci classici_
on the subject are the book of Athenaeus already referred to,[498] in
which he gives a list of over one hundred names, with more or less full
explanation and commentary, most of the forms being apparently
varieties of drinking-cups, and the _Onomasticon_ of Pollux.[499]
Notices of vases are also to be found in the lexicographers, such as
Hesychius and Suidas, and the _Etymologicum Magnum_.

In the early days of modern archaeology the first to propose an
identification of the shapes of vases was Panofka,[500] whose fanciful
and uncritical lucubrations were shortly afterwards combated by
Letronne[501] and Gerhard,[502] the latter of whom introduced a more
scientific method of criticism and classification, though his results
cannot be considered as final. Other writers were Müller,[503]
Thiersch,[504] Ussing,[505] Krause,[506] and Jahn,[507] of whom Ussing
followed practically on Gerhard’s lines but with more success; Krause,
though exhaustive, is on the whole uncritical; and Jahn has treated the
subject with his wonted conciseness and sobriety. Of late years little
attention has been paid to it, principally, no doubt, for the reason
that so many conventional names have been generally accepted for the
ordinary shapes by archaeologists, who have recognised the fact that it
will never be possible to treat the subject with scientific
accuracy.[508]

The classification of the shapes of vases has usually been undertaken
on the lines of distinguishing their main uses, such as (1) those in
which food or liquids were preserved; (2) those in which liquids were
mixed or cooked; (3) those by means of which liquids were poured out or
food distributed; (4) drinking-cups; (5) other vases for the use of the
table or toilet. Thus we have the pithos and amphora for storing wine,
the krater for mixing it, the psykter for cooling it, the kyathos for
ladling it out, and the oinochoë or prochoos for pouring it out; the
hydria was used for fetching water from the well. Of smaller vases, the
names for drinking-cups are innumerable, but the phiale, for instance,
was employed chiefly for pouring libations; while dishes and plates are
represented by the lekane, tryblion, pinax, and so on. The pyxis was
used by women at their toilet, and the lekythos, alabastron, and askos
for holding oil and unguents. There is an interesting passage in
Athenaeus (iv. 142 D)[509] which gives a list of the vases required for
use at a banquet: “And on the tripod was placed a bronze wine-cooler
(ψυκτήρ) and a κάδος (bucket) and a silver σκαφίον holding two kotylae
(one pint), and a ladle (κύαθος); and the wine-jug (ἐπίχυσις) was of
bronze, but nobody was offered drink unless he asked for it; and one
ladleful was given out before the meal.”

* * * * *

For the purposes of this work it is hoped that the usual method of
classification indicated above will be found sufficient, supplemented
by the descriptions of Athenaeus and other writers, where any details
can be obtained; but it is obvious that a really critical treatment of
the subject should be chronological, with endeavours to trace the first
appearance and development of each type. In the present state of our
knowledge, however, it would seem impossible to do so with success.

We begin our description of the vases of the Greeks with an account of
the large vases of rough manufacture calculated to hold great
quantities of wine, water, or food. The chief vase of this class is the
=Pithos= or cask (Lat. _dolium_), a vase of gigantic size, found both
in Italy and Greece.[510] They are shaped like enormous barrels, with
bulging bodies and wide mouths, and answer to the modern hogshead or
pipe. When full, the casks were closed with a circular stone, or with a
cover of clay. They were used to hold honey, wine, and figs, and were
usually kept half-buried in the earth.[511] They were sufficiently
capacious to hold a man, and the famous “tub” of Diogenes was of this
form. On a lamp in the British Museum and other monuments[512] he is
represented appearing from one, presumably on the occasion of his
interview with Alexander. In the vase-paintings Eurystheus takes refuge
in a pithos from Herakles when he brings the Erymanthian boar,[513] and
the same shape of vase is represented as holding the wine of the
Centaurs and the water drawn by the Danaids.[514] The “box” of Pandora
was in reality a large jar of this kind, as we learn from Hesiod.[515]
It required great skill to make these vases, whence a Greek proverb
characterised an ambitious but inexperienced man as “one who began with
a cask” (ἐν πίθῳ τὴν κεραμείαν μανθάνειν).[516] They were not made on
the wheel but by a peculiar process, which is described as plastering
the clay round a framework of wood, called κάνναβος[517]; it appears to
have been made of vertical boards ranged in a circle, like a tub.

[Illustration: FIG. 21. PITHOS FROM KNOSSOS.]

The British Museum possesses two or three πίθοι of exceptional size,
ornamented with bands of geometrical patterns in relief, which were
obtained from Mr. (now Sir A.) Biliotti’s excavations at Ialysos in
Rhodes, and belong to the Mycenaean period. In 1900 Mr. Arthur Evans,
among the remains of the Minoan palace at Knossos in Crete, came upon a
courtyard round which stood a number of similar πίθοι, with decorations
of a Mycenaean character (see Fig. 21).[518] These may be considered to
belong to the middle of the second millennium B.C., and it is therefore
evident that the πίθος may claim an antiquity second to none among
forms of Greek vases.

Among examples of later date may be mentioned the large series recently
found in Thera by German explorers, some plain, others with painted
geometrical decoration; they are partly of native make, partly
importations from Crete, and date from the seventh century B.C.[519]
Dr. Dörpfeld found examples of πίθοι in the remains of the earlier
cities at Hissarlik, from the second to the seventh layers. These were
used for keeping all sorts of liquids and solids, and also apparently
formed part of the cooking apparatus.[520] Others were found in the
excavations of Mr. J. Brunton on the site of Dardanus in the Troad;
they were of pale red clay, with a stone cover. In excavating between
Balaclava and Sevastopol Colonel Munroe discovered no less than
sixteen, about 4 ft. 4 in. in height, within a circular building,
apparently a storehouse; they were also of pale red ware. One had
incised upon its lip [ΔΔΠΠ ΠΙΙΙ], apparently indicating its price.
Similar πίθοι have been found in Athens, some having fractures joined
by leaden rivets. Large πίθοι with archaic reliefs have been found in
Crete, Rhodes, Sicily, and Etruria (at Cervetri); they are imitated
from metal vases, with designs of Oriental character.[521]

Perhaps of all the ancient vases the best known is the =Amphora=
(ἀμφορεύς or ἀμφιφορεύς), which was used for a variety of domestic and
commercial purposes. So numerous are the vases of this form, found all
over the Greek world, that they merit a lengthy description. They were
principally used for wine, but also for corn, honey, oil, and other
substances,[522] and to the use of the word as a measure of capacity we
have already alluded. It should be borne in mind that the conventional
use of the word _amphora_ in speaking of the painted Greek vases
implies a quite different form from the plain wine-amphorae, which were
neither painted nor varnished; the type of vase is the same, but the
painted examples are smaller and stouter, with a proper foot. For the
present we confine our description to the unadorned amphora of commerce.

Besides the two handles from which the word derives its name,[523] the
wine-amphora (Fig. 22.) is distinguished by its long egg-shaped body,
narrow cylindrical neck, and pointed base; this form is often known as
_diota_ (the Latin equivalent). The base is sometimes supplied with a
ring to stand on, but is more usually pointed, in order to be easily
fixed in the earth in cellars. The mouth was sealed by means of a
conical cover terminating in a boss.

[Illustration: FIG. 22. GREEK WINE-JARS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

Remains of these amphorae have been discovered not only in Greece
itself, but also wherever the Greek commerce and settlements extended,
as in Alexandria, Kertch (Panticapaeum), Corfu, Rhodes, Sicily, and
Asia Minor. They appear to have been used at a very early period, plain
specimens of red ware being found not only in the early Greek tombs,
like that of Menekrates in Corfu (p. 54), but even in tombs of the
Bronze Age period, as in Cyprus. The typical long shape, however, did
not come into fashion until about 300 B.C., when the island of Rhodes
was a great trading centre, carrying on an active commerce all over the
Mediterranean. Amphorae of this form are represented on the coins of
Chios and Thasos with reference to their trade in wine, and on the
Athenian silver tetradrachms which belong to the period subsequent to
about 220 B.C.; they are shown on the reverse, lying horizontally, with
an owl above. In this case the reference may be either to the large
Attic trade in oil or to the use of the amphora for voting at the
election of magistrates (see p. 167).

The most interesting feature of the wine-amphorae is the device or
impression stamped on the handles either in a circular medallion or an
oblong depression. This was done by means of a stone or bronze stamp,
while the clay was still moist. They are found in all parts of the
ancient world, but the greater number can be traced to a few places of
origin, of which the most important are: Rhodes, Knidos, Thasos, Paros,
and Olbia in Southern Russia. As regards the stamps, the usage differs
at each centre; but apart from them the handles can be distinguished by
their shapes and material, as will be seen in the subsequent
description.

The Rhodian amphorae, of which large numbers have been found at
Alexandria as well as in the island itself, were of a very pure and
tenacious clay, with a fracture as sharp as that of delf. The colour is
pale, deepening to a salmon hue. The numerous separate handles which
have also been found have all belonged to the same form of amphora,
with long square-shouldered handles, as on the Athenian and Chian
coins. An entire vase, but without a stamp,[524] which was brought from
Rhodes, was 40 in. in height, and the height of the handles alone was
10 in., the upper part attached to the top of the mouth being 3 in.
long. This is a typical instance for the shape. The seal when found is
impressed on the upper part of the handle, the size of the label being
generally about 1½ in. or 1¾ in. long, by ⅝ in. wide, except when they
are oval or circular. At Alexandria eight distinct varieties of handles
were found, broken from amphorae of different countries, but only one
inscribed; the base also assumed various forms.

In the Rhodian amphorae two stamps are in use, a principal and an
accessory one (Fig. 23._a_).[525] The former has a device of the head
of Helios, the Sun-God, or the emblematic rose, both of which types
occur on the coins; it is accompanied by an inscription, in the form
ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνος, sometimes explicitly described as ἱερέως, _i.e._ in the
year of the eponymous priest of the Sun. This is followed by the name
of a Rhodian month. The accessory stamp contains the name of a person,
usually in the genitive. The months belong to the Doric calendar, and
are as follows: Thesmophorios, Theudaisios, Pedageitnyos, Diosthyos,
Badromios, Sminthios, Artamitios, Agrianios, Hyakinthios, Panamos,
Dalios, Karneios, and the second Panamos, an intercalary month.[526]
The object of the stamps is involved in obscurity, but they were
probably intended to certify that the amphora (which was also a
measure) held the proper quantity. It is clear that they could not have
been intended to attest the age of the wine, as the vessel might be
used for any sort, and the stamps bear the name of every month in the
year.

[Illustration:

From _Dumont_.
FIG. 23. AMPHORA-STAMPS FROM RHODES.
]

Other handles of Rhodian amphorae, stamped with an oblong cartouche or
label, may be divided into two classes: (1) Those inscribed with the
name of a magistrate and an emblem. The latter resembled the “adjuncts”
found on the coins of some Greek cities, but it is uncertain whether
they were selected on any fixed principle, or merely adopted from
caprice. They may perhaps allude to the deity whom the magistrate
particularly honoured as the patron god of his tribe or village. The
same symbol was, however, often used by many individuals, and on the
whole the number known is not large. (2) Those bearing the name of a
magistrate, accompanied by that of a month of the Doric calendar, but
without any emblem (Fig. 23._b_).

Many handles of amphorae from Knidos have been found on different
sites. Their clay is coarser than the Rhodian, its colour darker and
duller, and the amphorae differ also somewhat in form, nor are they of
so early a date, being mostly as late as the Roman Empire. The stamps
on the Cnidian amphorae, like those of Rhodes, are inscribed with the
name of the eponymous magistrate, and also with that of the wine-grower
or exporter of the produce, which is always marked as Cnidian. The
stamps show a great variety in the matter of emblems. Remains of
Cnidian amphorae have been found in Sicily, at Athens, Alexandria, and
Olbia. The palaeography of the inscriptions covers a period of two
centuries, from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius, or even later.

Numerous examples have been found of handles of amphorae, in which the
celebrated wine of Thasos was exported to places such as Thasos and
Olbia. The stamps are nearly square, with a device in the middle, the
inscription [ΘΑΣΙΩΝ], and the name of an official. The names are
usually in the nominative, but in one instance at least the genitive is
used. The symbols include an amphora, kneeling archer, cornucopia,
dolphin, etc. (Fig. 24).[527] The known stamps of Paros are few in
number; they are simply inscribed [ΠΑΡΙΩΝ], which in one instance is
written retrograde.[528]

Handles inscribed with the name of an aedile (ἀστυνόμος) and of another
person, probably a magistrate, have been found on various sites in the
Crimea and Southern Russia, principally at Olbia. At Panticapaeum
(Kertch) two amphorae were found with stamps across the neck, thus:

EUARCHO EPI KALLIA
ARISTON EOPAMONOS

the upper name being that of the magistrate.[529] These vases appear to
have been made on the spot.

[Illustration:

From _Dumont_.
FIG. 24. AMPHORA-STAMPS FROM THASOS.
]

Stoddart also mentions amphora-handles as having come from
Corinth,[530] with names which can be traced to the time of the Roman
dominion. Falkner found at Pompeii an amphora with a Greek inscription
of three lines painted in red and black, with the name of Menodotos and
the letters KOR. OPT., which _may_ mean “the best Corcyraean
brand.”[531] A bibliography of the subject is appended below.[532]

Among painted vases the amphora holds a high place, especially in the
black-figure period, during which it was most prominent. It is
distinguished from the plain type, as already pointed out, by the
proportions of the body, as well as by the graceful curve of the
handles and the flat circular foot. The variations in its form at
different places and periods are so marked that they have led to the
adoption of qualifying adjectives for each kind. Although these names
cannot now be accepted in a strict sense, they are sometimes useful as
conventional expressions. We proceed to describe these in detail.

(1) The origin of the Greek amphora is clearly to be sought in the
pithos of primitive times, as may be seen in the vases of the Melian
and Proto-Attic classes, and in the early vases with reliefs from
Boeotia, Crete, Thera, and elsewhere. It is not found in the Mycenaean
style, the large vases of which come under the heading of the krater
(see below); and its appearance in Greece dates from the developed
stage of the Geometrical period. The earliest specimens among the
painted vases are virtually small pithoi, characterised by a long
cylindrical neck, and large elaborate handles obviously imitating metal
(see p. 495). Of this type are several of the Boeotian Geometrical and
Proto-Attic vases discussed in Chapter VII.,[533] and the Boeotian
vases with reliefs.[534] Among the Proto-Attic vases found at Vourva a
development occurs, in which the neck is greatly elongated, and the
body becomes exceedingly slim, while the handles are simplified into
plain flat bands united to the neck by bars of clay (see Fig. 89, p.
299). This form is found still further developed in the
prothesis-amphorae of the B.F. period[535]; but these are comparatively
rare, and the more normal evolution of the amphora with cylindrical
neck is to be traced in the varieties (2) and (6) described below.

[Illustration: FIG. 25. “TYRRHENIAN” AMPHORA.]

(2) The early amphorae preceding the ordinary B.F. Athenian types were
divided by Gerhard into two classes, “Egyptian” and “Tyrrhenian.”[536]
He describes the former as a vase with tolerably pronounced curve of
body, entirely covered with horizontal bands of figures; the latter as
of similar form, but with decoration confined to a panel on either
side. As regards shape, therefore, the two are actually one, and may be
regarded as such for our present purpose; but it is curious to note
that the particular class called “Egyptian” by Gerhard has since his
time been generally known as “Tyrrhenian,” while his “Tyrrhenian” class
has now received, from the peculiar mannerisms of the paintings, the
name of “affected” vases.[537] At all events the word is convenient to
adhere to for the description of this particular shape (Fig. 25), with
its long, egg-shaped body, the vertical section of which is almost an
ellipse, a shape common to all early B.F. fabrics—Athenian, Rhodian,
Ionic, and Corinthian—but best illustrated by the “Corintho-Attic”
class described by Thiersch.[538] It is seldom found in purely Attic
examples, and disappears after the middle of the sixth century.

[Illustration: FIG. 26. PANATHENAIC AMPHORA.]

(3) Gerhard’s next class is that of the Panathenaic amphorae, which
have a long body shaped something like a top, and tapering sharply
downwards; the mouth, handles, and neck are small, as is also the foot
(Fig. 26). It is so called as being the characteristic form of the
earlier (sixth-century) Panathenaic prize-vases, but is also
occasionally found in the ordinary fabrics. This type, together with
the two following examples, not mentioned explicitly by Gerhard or the
other early writers, form the class of “black-bodied” amphorae, as they
may conveniently be termed, in order to distinguish those with
panel-decoration from those in which the body is entirely covered with
red glaze (see below).

(4) The second variety of “black-bodied” amphora (Fig. 27.) is closely
akin to the Panathenaic, but the body is better proportioned. It is
characterised by the wide mouth in the form of a thick ring, the
cylindrical handles, and the concave curve of the shoulder. From the
style of the paintings it is probable that this variety must be placed
early in the black-figure period.

[Illustration: FIG. 27. PANEL-AMPHORA.]

(5) This type, on the other hand, is later in the period, being
developed out of the last, from which it is marked off only by the form
of the handles, which are broad and flanged, and often decorated with
patterns. These vases are mostly of large size, and are transitional,
some R.F. varieties being known. The paintings on them are in the style
of Exekias, Andokides, and Euthymides (see for an example Plates XXXI.,
XXXII.).

(6) The shape of the “red-bodied” amphora (Fig. 28) is peculiar to the
black-figure period.[539] Its characteristic features are the straight,
cylindrical neck, with its chain of lotos-and-honeysuckle, the width of
the shoulder, and the ribbed handles, formed from moulds in two or
three parallel pieces. Artistically it is far superior to the
black-bodied, and includes some of the finest specimens of B.F.
painting (as in the vases of Exekias), while the decorative element
reaches the perfection of beauty and symmetry.

[Illustration: FIG. 28. RED-BODIED AMPHORA.]

(7) The red-bodied amphora seems to have been the prototype of what is
the most characteristic form of the red-figure period—the so-called
“Nolan” amphora (Fig. 29).[540] These have been largely, but not
exclusively, found at Nola, whither they seem to have been imported in
large numbers from Greece. The whole vase is covered with black, and
the decoration confined to one or two figures each side, while the
elegant and beautiful outline, the lustre of the varnish, and the
restraint of the designs combine to render these perhaps the most
beautiful products of Athenian ceramic art. The handles are sometimes
four-sided, more often ribbed, and sometimes formed of two twisted
strands, produced by rolling up the soft paste; the general outline is
that of the last class, but the proportions are far more slender and
graceful.

[Illustration: FIG. 29. “NOLAN” AMPHORA.]

(8) The Apulian amphora (Fig. 30) illustrates the form which, though
generally adopted in Apulia, may have had its origin at Athens, as it
is adopted for the fourth-century Panathenaic amphorae.[541] It is
distinguished by its great size and egg-shaped body; the mouth is thick
and high, spreading out like an inverted cone, and the neck is not
cylindrical, but merges into the shoulder. A variety of the Apulian
amphora, hardly common enough to form a separate class, was formerly
known as the “candelabrum-amphora,” from its resemblance to an
incense-burner (an object wrongly interpreted formerly as a
_candelabrum_, or lamp-stand). Its peculiarities are the cylindrical
body, tall neck, and elaborate handles in the form of double
scrolls.[542]

[Illustration: FIG. 30. APULIAN AMPHORA.]

(9) The Campanian amphora is derived directly from the “Nolan,” and is
in fact a local adaptation, but it was chiefly manufactured at
Cumae.[543] It generally has twisted handles, and is painted in
polychrome; the proportions are somewhat more elongated than those of
the “Nolan” class.

(10) A rare variety of the amphora is sometimes found in the red-figure
period, with large spheroidal body and pointed base, intended to be
placed in a separate stand. The conventional name of _diota_ is
sometimes given to this form, from its imitation of the pointed base of
the wine-amphora.[544]

(11) The last variety of the amphora which calls for consideration is
the wide-bellied type, usually called (on very slight authority) a
_pelike_, πελίkη (Fig. 31).[545] The name was invented by Gerhard, and
has been generally adopted since, but is only to be regarded as a
conventional term. This form, which swells out towards the base, and
has no stem or neck, is very rarely found before the fifth
century,[546] but is common in the R.F. period, and in the Apulian
style, in which its proportions are usually more slender.

[Illustration: FIG. 31. SO-CALLED “PELIKE.”]

The amphora when complete usually had a cover of clay, either coated
with a plain black varnish or decorated with bands and patterns; it was
lifted by means of a central knob. An amphora in the Berlin Museum
(_Cat._ 1860) has a double cover, the inner one being of alabaster.

Of the other names which seem to denote vases adapted for containing
and storing wine or other commodities, the most important is the
=Stamnos= (στάμνος), used for holding wine and oil. It is mentioned by
Pollux[547] in his list of wine-jars, and he quotes a line from
Aristophanes about “a stamnos of Chian wine arriving.” The diminutives
σταμνίον and σταμνάριον are also found, and Aristophanes speaks of a
“small Thasian stamnos of wine.”[548] The amphora is defined in the
_Etymologicum Magnum_ as “a two-eared σταμνίον.” It has been generally
identified with a form well known in the R.F. period, but only found in
that style: a spherical jar with short thick neck and small
side-handles, of which some very beautiful specimens exist (Fig. 32).
The word is still in use in modern Greek.

[Illustration: FIG. 32. STAMNOS.]

The βῖκος is described by Hesychios as a στάμνος with ears, and by
Eustathius as a vessel holding wine[549]; it was also used for figs and
salted food.[550] It is probably only another name for the
στάμνοςστάμνος, but it seems to be inaccurately described by
Athenaeus[551] as “a saucer-shaped drinking-cup” (φιαλῶδες ποτήριον).
It was apparently identical with the ὕρχη,[552] a word used by
Aristophanes,[553] but more commonly by Roman writers in its Latin form
_orca_.

[Illustration: FIG. 33. SO-CALLED “LEKANE.”]

The names of Apulian stamnos or λεκάνη have at different times been
given to a late form of painted vase found in Southern Italy, with high
or low stem, upright handles, and cover, which latter often takes an
elaborate form, being surmounted by one or more small vases, also with
handles (Fig. 33.). The word λεκάνη,[554] however, seems to indicate a
large bowl rather than a covered jar, and no satisfactory name has as
yet been found. A similar but flatter form of vase, like a covered bowl
or dish, has been named λεκάνη, λεπαστή, or covered pyxis, but no name
is satisfactory.

The λαγυνος or λαγυνίς seems to have been a narrow-necked jar of
considerable size. Athenaeus[555] says the word represented a Greek
measure, equivalent to twelve Attic κοτύλαι, or six pints, and that it
was in use at Patrae. The word is used by Plutarch for the jar in which
the stork offered entertainment to the fox[556]; it frequently appears
in the Latin form _lagena_ (see Chapter XXI.). A wicker-covered λαγυνος
was known as a πυτίνη.[557]

Another form of the same class is the κάδοs, with its diminutive
καδίσκος, which is represented by the Latin _situla_, or bucket, the
latter word being the one usually employed by archaeologists. It is a
form easily to be recognised in Greek art, but is more usually found in
metal-work, _e.g._ in Etruscan and Italian bronzes, than in
pottery.[558] The painted situlae, of which a few late examples from
Italian tombs exist, are obviously direct imitations of the metal
buckets, and in some cases actually have movable bronze handles
attached. The situla appears to have been used not only for keeping
wine in the cellar, but for serving it up at banquets[559]; the word is
also used by Aristophanes for a voting-urn and a well-bucket.[560] In
Latin the uses were probably distinguished, _cadus_ denoting a
wine-jar, _situla_ a water-bucket. Athenaeus obviously goes astray in
regarding it as a drinking-cup.

A vase which was used almost exclusively for carrying water was the
=Hydria=, as is implied by its name (ὑδρία, from ὕδωρ). Its most
essential characteristic is the possession of three handles, a large
one at the back for carrying when empty, and two small horizontal
handles at the sides for carrying when full. The shape of the body
varies at different periods; in the B.F. period the shoulder is flat
and marked off by a sharp angle from the body (Fig. 34); but about the
beginning of the fifth century this is replaced by a form with more
rounded outline and smaller handle at the back, generally known for the
sake of distinction as a _kalpis_ (Fig. 35). In the earlier variety (of
which some R.F. examples are known) there are always two subjects, one
forming a frieze on the shoulder, the other treated more in the manner
of a metope on the body; they are invariably enclosed in frames or
panels, as on the “black-bodied” amphorae. Sometimes a third subject in
the form of a frieze of animals is added below. In the earlier stages
of the B.F. period this form is seldom found, except in a class known
as the “Caeretan hydriae,” distinguished (as far as concerns their
shape) by their round, plump body, as also by the florid character of
their ornament and curious treatment of subjects (p. 353). These vases
were closely copied by the Etruscans. The _kalpis_ form sometimes
occurs with black figures, but only in small late specimens, chiefly
found in Rhodes. In the vases of Southern Italy the _kalpis_ is fairly
popular, but the body is more cylindrical and the foot higher.

[Illustration: FIG. 34. HYDRIA.]

Any doubt that might have existed as to the identification of the ὑδρία
is solved by the appearance of the word inscribed over the pitcher
which Polyxena dropped in her flight from Achilles, on the François
vase. In a scene very common on B.F. hydriae, which represents women
drawing water at a fountain, this form of vase is invariably depicted.
The word seldom occurs in Greek literature, but Kallimachos speaks of
καλπίδες placed on the roof of the Parthenon (?) at Athens, not, he
says, by way of ornament, but as prizes of wrestlers.[561] Hence the
idea was conceived by Panofka that Panathenaic prize-vases were of this
form.

[Illustration: FIG. 35. KALPIS.]

Pollux (x. 74) thinks that the hydria was also a wine-vase, and
suggests its identity with the πλημοχόη, a vase with broad base used in
the Mysteries; but Athenaeus[562] implies that this was used for
pouring, and it must therefore have been some kind of jug. The κάλπις
is actually identified with the ὑδρία by Aristophanes, as may be seen
by a comparison of two lines in the _Lysistrata_.[563] From a passage
in Isocrates[564] it would appear that the hydria was used as a
voting-urn or ballot-box, but the κάδος was more generally used for
this purpose. That the amphora was also so used we know from Athenian
coins.

The next class to be considered is that of vases employed for mixing
wine and water for drinking, for which the generic name is that of
κρατήρ (from κεράννυμι, “I mix”). Before discussing this form, however,
allusion must be made to a vessel which is variously described as a
_hydria_ or a _krater_, and is therefore a link between the two
varieties; it was at any rate pre-eminently a water-jar, and was known
as a κρωσσός (connected with Fr. _cruche_ = Eng. “crock”). We have no
indications of its form except that it had two handles[565]; Pollux
(viii. 66) ranks it with the ὑδρία and κάλπις as a water-vessel.[566]
It was also used for holding ashes,[567] and Plutarch enumerates it
among the vessels in the bath of Darius.[568] Of the same character was
perhaps the ἀρδάνιον or ἀρδάλιον, described as a water-pot.[569]
Athenaeus also mentions a πρόαρον, or wooden vessel of the krater type,
as used in Attica.[570]

The =Krater= is distinguished from the amphora by its larger body,
wider mouth, and smaller handles. It was often placed on a stand,
called ὑποκρατήριον, or ὑποκρατηρίδιον,[571] which was either of
pottery or metal such as bronze. This either took the form of a hollow
cylindrical base, painted with subjects, or of an elaborately moulded
stem with egg-and-tongue and other patterns.[572] It is constantly
mentioned in Homer, but the kraters standing in the halls of the great
palaces, as in that of Odysseus, were made of gold or silver. It is on
the average the largest of all Greek vases (except the pithos), some of
the later Apulian specimens (of which F 278 in the B.M. is one)
reaching a height of about four feet; the ordinary examples have a
capacity of three or four gallons. The names Argolic, Lesbian,
Laconian, Corinthian, and Thericleian are applied to it by various
ancient authors.[573]

In the different fabrics of Greek pottery it takes several distinct
forms, to which convenient descriptive names have been given by Italian
dealers, and some attempt has been made to identify names given by
classical authors as forms of the krater, but without any success. The
Italian names, however, which will be mentioned in due course, are
somewhat cumbersome for English use.

Among Mycenaean vases there is a variety almost confined to Cyprus, to
which the name of krater may fairly be given.[574] Its chief
characteristics are a wide spheroidal body, hardly contracted at the
neck (which in some varieties is non-existent), flat vertical
side-handles, and a high stem. We hardly meet with this form again
until the end of the Corinthian style, when it suddenly leaps into
popularity.[575] The form in which it appears recalls, though it can
hardly be imitated from, the Mycenaean krater, but the stem disappears,
and the body is in section about two-thirds of a circle.[576] It is
clearly a local invention, and on the evidence of finds at Syracuse,
its first appearance may be traced to the first half of the seventh
century. Its distinguishing feature, however, is in the handles, each
of which is composed of two short vertical bars, sometimes meeting in
an arch, supporting a flat square piece formed by a projection from the
flat broad rim, which is generally decorated. From the columnar
appearance of these handles, the type has received the name of _vaso a
colonnette_, which at all events is a more accurate description than
the name κελέβη which, first proposed by Gerhard, has been generally
employed by archaeologists, on what grounds it is not clear. This word,
as described by Athenaeus, is clearly intended to imply a
_drinking-cup_ of some kind[577]; he quotes from Anakreon (_frag._ 63,
Bergk), who speaks of drinking its contents at one draught (ἄμυστιν).
On the other hand he quotes the authority of Pamphilos for identifying
it with the θερμοπότις, or “water-heater,” a kind of kettle. The
probability is that it was a general and loosely-employed word.

[Illustration: FIG. 36. KRATER WITH COLUMN-HANDLES.]

The column-handled krater is also found in the Naukratis wares of the
sixth century, as well as in the imitations of Corinthian fabrics in
which the Campana collection of the Louvre is so rich; the clay, style,
and inscriptions of the latter clearly show their Corinthian origin,
apart from the form. This krater is often decorated with friezes of
figures (as in the famous Amphiaraos krater, p. 319). In the few
existing Attic examples with black figures the subjects are in framed
panels. This form, after dying out before the end of the sixth century,
is revived towards the middle of the fifth in the later R.F. fabrics,
but in a much altered form, which gives greater prominence to the
columnar character of the handles. The neck is higher and narrower, and
the handles consequently lengthened, the square tops being much
diminished, and the body also takes a narrower and straighter form. In
the fabrics of Southern Italy this development is even more strongly
marked, and the elongated neck is adorned with an ivy-wreath in a
panel; this type enjoyed some popularity both in Apulia and Lucania.
The system of panel-decoration is employed throughout in all these
cases.

[Illustration: FIG. 37. VOLUTE-HANDLED KRATER.]

The only other form of krater found in the B.F. period—and that but
rarely—is that known as _volute-handled_ (_a rotelle_), from the large
handles reaching above the lip and curved round in a scroll (Fig. 37).
It has an egg-shaped body and large neck. The best and earliest example
is the François vase (p. 370), from which it may be clearly seen that
the form is derived from the columnar-handled krater. The British
Museum also possesses a fine example signed by Nikosthenes, with a
design in a frieze on the neck (B 364). The same shape and method of
decoration appear in some fine examples of the severe R.F. style (cf.
B.M. E 468, 469). During the R.F. period, two entirely new forms of
krater suddenly appear, known respectively as the _vaso a calice_ and
the _vaso a campana_, or “calyx-krater” and “bell-krater”; the former
is first used by Euphronios.[578] These names give a very accurate
description of the forms, the one being like the opening calyx of a
flower, the other like an inverted bell (Figs. 38, 39). In each the lip
projects above the body, the neck having entirely disappeared, while
the handles of the calyx-krater drop to the lower part of the vase, and
those of the bell-krater are attached horizontally to the sides. Both
types of handle are evidently adapted to carrying full vessels, like
the side-handles of the hydria. The name of ὀξύβαφον was given by
Gerhard[579] to the bell-krater, again without any real authority, and
probably owing to an error, from finding the name scratched underneath
one example. Comparison, however, with similar inscriptions (see
Chapter XVII.) shows clearly that the ὀξύβαφον was a small measure,
less even than a κύαθος, or ladleful. Athenaeus (xi. 494 B) is very
explicit on this point. He derives the name from ὀξός, vinegar, which
liquid the vessel was used to contain, and describes it as εἴδος
κύλικος μικρᾶς. It was therefore a small cup of some kind (see p. 194).

[Illustration] [Illustration]
FIG. 38. CALYX-KRATER FIG. 39. BELL-KRATER

In Southern Italy the krater holds the same position as the amphora of
the B.F. period.[580] The calyx- and bell-kraters are the two forms
chiefly affected in the transition period when Athenian artists were
working in Italy, or Italian artists directly under the influence of
Athenian (see p. 465), but they are also found among the purely local
fabrics, especially those of Cumae and Paestum (_ibid._). The
calyx-krater seems to have been reserved for the better and more
carefully-executed specimens,[581] and the Italian bell-kraters often
have a top-heavy effect from the greater height of their stems.

In Apulia (and occasionally also in Lucania—the Campanian potters did
not affect large vases) the volute-handled krater once more appears, in
great magnificence. Not only is the total size and bulk increased, but
the neck is lengthened and the handles are often treated with great
elaboration of detail, ending below in swans’ necks spreading over the
vase. In Apulia the volutes are generally replaced by medallions
(whence the Italian name _vaso con maniche a mascheroni_) decorated
with Gorgons’ heads or figures, in relief, painted white, yellow, and
red. These vases are sometimes, but incorrectly, called amphorae; they
range from two to three or four feet in height. They are generally
painted from head to foot with subjects, often of a sepulchral nature,
and were no doubt largely made for use at funeral ceremonies. They are
more fully described in Chapter XI.

[Illustration: FIG. 40. LUCANIAN KRATER.]

The last variety of krater (Fig. 40) is formed by a peculiar type of
vase, apparently devised by the Iapygian aborigines of Southern
Italy,[582] which has a wide mouth and sloping shoulder, and sometimes
a high neck. Its peculiarity is that it has four handles, two upright
and two horizontal, to the sides of which large discs are attached,
whence its Italian name is _vaso con maniche a rotelle_, from the wheel
or rosette patterns painted on the discs. This feature caused Panofka
to give it the name of νεστορίς, with reference to the famous
four-handled cup of Nestor (_Il._ xi. 632). It need hardly be pointed
out that there can be little in common between this form and the
drinking-cup used by the Homeric hero, in spite of the fact that the
latter was too heavy for an ordinary man to lift. We need not suppose
that Nestor’s cup (concerning which see below, p. 181) was larger than
an ordinary “loving-cup,” and the poet was probably guilty of a
pardonable exaggeration. As a painted vase, this four-handled krater is
peculiar to Lucania, and it is interesting to note that it sometimes
appears depicted on Lucanian vases as used in daily life.[583]

[Illustration: FIG. 41. PSYKTER.]

Closely related to the krater is the ψυκτήρ or ψυγεύς, a wine-cooler
(from ψύχω, “cool”), which was used for cooling wine by means of snow
or cold water.[584] The extant specimens are but few in number and vary
in form. The British Museum possesses a very remarkable specimen in the
form of a B.F. panel amphora (B 148),[585] with double walls and
bottom, and a large spout on one side, through which the snow or cold
water was introduced into the outer space; it was afterwards withdrawn
through an aperture in the bottom.[586] Similar vases in the
“Chalcidian” style are also known. After the beginning of the R.F.
period a new type was introduced in the shape of a vessel with a short
neck, the body of which bulges out towards its base, and is supported
on a high stem; it generally has two small eared handles (Fig. 41).
Several R.F. examples are known, of which two are in the British
Museum,[587] and three or four in the Louvre; the British Museum also
possesses a late B.F. specimen (B 299). The designs are painted in a
frieze round the vase.

The ἀκρατοφόρος, or vessel for holding unmixed wine, seems to have been
another name for the ψυκτήρ; Pollux (vi. 90) says the difference was
that it was supported on small knobs (_lit._ small knucklebones)
instead of a stem.

[Illustration: FIG. 42. DEINOS OR LEBES.]

Another name identified in antiquity with the ψυκτήρ is that of the
δῖνος (sometimes spelled δεῖνος); but the identity was more probably
one of usage than of form.[588] As to the latter, there is considerable
discrepancy in the accounts of the grammarians[589]; one calls it a
deep cup tapering down to a point; another, probably more correctly,
since it was certainly not a drinking-vessel, a clay vessel for wine
without a base, but rounded underneath. In virtue of this description
the name has usually been applied to a class of vase, commoner in the
earlier periods than the later, and more often found on Greek sites
than on Italian, which has a rounded base without foot, and no handles
(Fig. 42). These vases are found as early as the seventh century in
Greece, and were very common at Naukratis, appearing also in most of
the B.F. fabrics. That they were used to contain the ashes of the dead
is shown by the B.M. example already referred to (p. 146), which
belongs to the end of the R.F. period.[590] In Southern Italy this form
of vase is generally placed on a separate high moulded stem, and has a
cover with an ornamental knob. A variety with hemispherical cover
nearly equal in size to the vase itself has been identified with the
ἡμίτομος (“cut in half”), a form mentioned by Athenaeus.[591]

This type of vase has more usually been described by the name of λέβης,
denoting a kettle or caldron; but though the form of the λέβης was
practically the same (as we may gather from the fact of its always
being placed on a tripod), the purpose for which it was used (_i.e._
for boiling water) and the fact that it was always of metal, suggest
that it is not such an appropriate name as δῖνος for this form of
painted vase. The λέβης is constantly mentioned in Homer, both as a
cooking-vessel and as a washing-basin.[592] Herodotos[593] says that
the Scythians used a λέβης for cooking flesh, which resembled the
Lesbian krater, but was much larger. It was also the vessel in which
the ram, and subsequently Pelias, were boiled by Medeia; and may be
seen depicted in several B.F. representations of that story.[594] A
golden lebes was placed at each angle of the temple of Zeus at
Olympia.[595] It is also the name of the vessel used by the Boeotians
in their ingenious contrivance at the siege of Delion.[596] To its use
as a cinerary urn in the tragic poets we have already alluded.

The ordinary name for a cooking-vessel of earthenware in Greece was
χύτρα, answering to our “pot”: it was used both for water and for
solids, as well as for other domestic purposes. Children were exposed
in χύτραι[597]; and a boy’s game called χυτρίνδα is described by
Pollux[598]; it was apparently played in two ways, either by a boy
representing a χύτρα, who was pulled about by the other players until
he caught one, or by a boy carrying a pot, with some obscure reference
to the story of Midas. There were several proverbial expressions
connected with the χύτρα, such as ποικίλλειν χύτρας, “to paint pots,”
expressive of useless labour, owing to the roughness of the ware; and
together with the χοῦς, a vessel only known as a measure (12 kotylae or
5¾ pints), it played a part in the festival of the Anthesteria, one day
of which was known as Χύτραι καὶ Χόες, or “Pot-and-Pan Day.”[599] The
word χυτρόπους, used by Hesiod[600] and Aristophanes,[601] seems merely
to denote a cooking-pot with feet. The πύραυνοι or κλίβανοι large clay
vessels used either as brasiers or for baking purposes, have been
already described in Chapter III.

A few other general words for cooking-vessels and domestic utensils may
also be mentioned here. The θερμαντήρ mentioned by Pollux[602] is
presumably identical with the θερμοπότις and ἀναφαία of Athenaeus (475
D, 783 F), the former, as its name implies, being a vessel in which hot
drinks were prepared. It seems to have been exclusively made of metal,
and may, indeed, only be another name for the λέβης. It has, as we have
seen, been identified with the κελέβη. Pollux gives a list of vessels
used for warming water.[603]

The ἡθμός, or strainer,[604] answers to the modern colander, and is
represented by a flat round vessel with long handle, of which some late
fictile examples exist.[605] It is mentioned among the vessels in the
Sigeian inscription,[606] but is there spelled ἡθμός. Most of the
existing specimens are of bronze. The ὁλκεῖον mentioned by
Athenaeus[607] appears to have been a bowl used for washing cups. The
σκάφη (“boat”) is a general term used in the classics for vessels of
varied import: basins, troughs, washing-tubs, bowls, etc.[608] It is
the name used in inscriptions relating to the Panathenaic festival to
describe the flat dishes or trays borne by the maidens who were called
Skaphephori in the procession, as represented on the Parthenon
frieze.[609] The diminutive form σκάφιον or σκαφεῖον also occurs, and
is identified with καλπίον. The ὅλμος, generally used to denote a
mortar,[610] also signified a bowl,[611] and had the special
signification of the hollow bowl in which the priestess of Apollo sat
when delivering oracles from the Delphic tripod. It may here be noted
that the word τρίπους appears to be used in ancient writers[612] not
only for the stand which supported the λέβης and other vessels, but for
a vessel itself when thus supported on three feet. Most of the existing
tripods are made of bronze,[613] but one or two fictile examples are
known, including a very remarkable one in Berlin,[614] found at
Tanagra, and covered with archaic paintings in the B.F. method.

On bathing and washing vessels our best authority is Pollux (x. 63); it
is not, however, likely that they were often of earthenware. The
ποδανιπτήρ at all events was of metal; it is often seen on R.F. vases
with the subject of Theseus killing Procrustes.[615] Large vessels,
resembling modern baths, were known by the names of πύελος: and
ἀσαμινθος[616]; the λουτήριον, or laver, on a high stem, is frequently
represented on South Italian vases,[617] but is a purely decorative
adjunct. It is there painted white to indicate marble.

The λεκάνη[618] should also perhaps be included here, as according to
the literary accounts it was a basin used for washing feet or clothes,
or for vomiting. It also served the purpose of a mortar, and was used
in the game of kottabos. A method of divination sometimes practised was
known as λεκανομαντεία and consisted in placing waxen images in a
lekane full of water, which became as it were animated and sank, thus
signifying the destruction of an enemy. In Pseudo-Callisthenes we read
how Nectanebos, the supposed father of Alexander, made use of this
procedure.[619]

[Illustration: FIG. 43. OINOCHOË (7TH CENTURY).]

The next series with which we have to deal is that of vases used for
pouring out wine and serving it at the table. They fall into two
classes: the wine-jug for pouring, and the ladle for filling it out of
the mixing-bowl. We begin with the series of wine-jugs, as being the
more important.

[Illustration: FIG. 44. OINOCHOË (5TH CENTURY).]

Of these the most conspicuous is the =Oinochoë= (οἰνοχόη, from οἴνος,
“wine,” and χέω, “pour”), one of the most beautiful shapes among Greek
vases. It appears in several forms, but the name is generally
restricted to one, which corresponds most closely to the modern
beer-jug. It is found at all periods, and the form never varies to any
marked extent, except that the later examples are rather more graceful
than the earlier, and some of the fine R.F. specimens reach the
perfection of elegance in form and decoration (Fig. 44). Its chief
characteristic is the trefoil-shaped mouth, but this is not invariable,
many specimens having a plain circular lip. It is very commonly found
in the Rhodian wares of the seventh century, with designs in a
continuous frieze (Fig. 43); and a peculiar form appears in an Ionic
fabric (see page 359), with egg-shaped body and coarse designs. In the
B.F. period the subjects are nearly always in framed panels. Among the
R.F. vases of the fine style, many diminutive oinochoae occur, nearly
all of which were found at Athens, the subjects being those of children
playing with go-carts and other toys, and sometimes with jugs of the
same shape. As these appear to have been found in children’s tombs, it
is evident that these painted specimens were actually used as
playthings.[620]

The oinochoë is frequently represented in vase-paintings, chiefly in
scenes of libation, in which ceremony it was invariably used for
pouring wine into the phiale or _patera_, from which the libation was
made. It occurs on the Parthenon frieze. In conjunction with the
krater, or mixing-bowl, it is seen on a “Cyrenaic” kylix in the B.M. (B
3), in a scene representing a sacrifice. In reference to this may be
quoted a curious injunction given by Hesiod (_Op. et Di._ 744),

μηδέ ποτ’ οἰνοχόην τιθέμεν κρητῆρος ὔπερθεν πινόντων,

which seems to imply that it was considered an unlucky thing to put the
jug back in its place on the edge of the krater during a banquet.[621]
Thucydides[622] speaks of silver oinochoae in the temple at Eryx, in
conjunction with libation-bowls and incense-burners, and Athenaeus[623]
mentions similar offerings at Metapontum.

[Illustration: FIG. 45. PROCHOÖS.]

A variety of the oinochoë, which is not found before the middle of the
R.F. period, but becomes very popular in Apulia, has a very high curved
handle and tall stem, the body tapering straighter downwards (Fig. 45).
This is usually known as the πρόχοος, and corresponds in form to our
claret-decanter. The πρόχοος served the same purpose as the οἰνοχόη,
and is frequently mentioned in Homer. It was used not only for pouring
wine, but for water to wash the hands of guests.[624]

[Illustration: FIG. 46. OLPE.]

A third form, usually known as the ὄλπη (Fig. 46), is almost
cylindrical in shape, with plain or trefoil lip and no marked neck; it
is more usually found in the B.F. period. In early B.F. wares the
subjects on the olpae are usually painted on the _side_, adjoining the
handle on the right[625]; they are always in panels. The word is
mentioned by Sappho and Ion of Chios.[626]

[Illustration: FIG. 47. EPICHYSIS.]

Lastly, we have a curious form, only found in Apulia, and belonging to
the extreme decadence of vase-painting (Fig. 47), which has a flat
cylindrical body like a round toilet-box (see Pyxis, p. 198) with
moulded edges. This is surmounted by a long narrow neck and beak-like
semi-cylindrical mouth[627]; and the whole effect is awkward and
inartistic. The name ἐπίχυσις, derived from the list given by
Pollux,[628] is generally given to this form.

For the ladle used for drawing wine out of the krater to fill the
oinochoë the ordinary name was κύαθος (Lat. _simpulum_). This word also
commonly denoted a measure of about one gill. Among the painted vases
it is represented by a rare but particularly graceful shape, the body
fashioned like a straight-sided bowl, with a high looped handle (Fig.
48). In the early B.F. examples a high stem is added. This shape is not
found in the later R.F. period or in Southern Italy. The long handle is
obviously for convenience in dipping.

[Illustration: FIG. 48. KYATHOS.]

A series of names, all of which are derivatives from the word ἀρύω,
“draw” (used only of drawing water), appear to represent ladles of
various forms and uses. Herodotos[629] mentions the word ἀρυστήρ, and
the forms ἀρυστεῖς, ἀρυτήρ, ἀρυσάνη, ἀρυστρίς, are also found.[630] The
ἀρύταινα appears to have been a bronze ladle, used in the baths for
collecting oil, and for filling lamps.[631] The ἀρύςτιχος, on the other
hand, was a wine-ladle, also known as an ἔφηβος; it appears to have
been used in voting in the law-courts.[632] Another word used by
Aristophanes is οἰνήρυσις[633]; two parallels to which are the
ἐτνήρυσις and ζωμήρυσις of the same author[634] and other comic
writers, both words meaning “soup-ladle.” It is doubtful if any of
these words were in use for fictile utensils.

* * * * *

The next branch of the subject is concerned with the various forms of
=Drinking-cups= in use among the Greeks. In these the potters may
perhaps be said to have attained their highest excellence, not only in
regard to beauty and grace of form, but also, so far as concerns one
variety at any rate—the R.F. Athenian kylix—in regard to the
decoration. The _locus classicus_ on the subject is the eleventh book
of Athenaeus, to which frequent reference has already been made[635];
but there are of course frequent references to these cups in Homer and
other poets. Athenaeus devotes a discourse by one of his “Doctors at
Dinner” entirely to this subject, the different names being discussed
in alphabetical order. Many of them are, as will be seen, only
alternatives names or nicknames for well-known shapes, while others
included in his description are certainly not drinking-cups at all. It
must also be borne in mind that many of the names are purely generic,
like the Latin _poculum_, and are not intended to connote any special
form; this is particularly the case in the descriptions of Homer,
where, indeed, we should not look for scientific accuracy.

The ordinary word for a drinking-cup was ποτήριον or ἔκπωμα, but
neither is known to Homer[636]; the terms he uses are δέπας, ἄλεισον,
and κύπελλον, the first being further defined as ἀαμφικύπελλον. The
word κισσύβιον[637] may be once for all briefly dismissed; it was so
called from κισσός (ivy), probably as being ornamented with ivy-foliage
in relief, and was made of wood. It is seldom that Homer’s descriptions
give any details as to form, and where they do they are difficult to
interpret aright. Athenaeus devotes a lengthy section of his discourse
to the explanation of the famous cup (δέπας) of Nestor,[638] which he
names νεστορίς (cf. p. 172), but arrives at no definite conclusion. It
has already been pointed out that a hint at its form seems to be given
by the gold and silver cups found in Mycenaean tombs, at Mycenae, and
Enkomi in Cyprus, although it need not be assumed that these are the
products of the civilisation which Homer describes; he may, however, be
speaking of traditional forms. Another instance of the δέπας in legend,
is in the story of Herakles crossing the ocean in the golden δέπας of
the Sun.[639]

Among the names of drinking-cups given by Athenaeus, the following may
be taken as used in a purely general sense, without any idea of a
particular form.

Ἄμυστις.—A cup from which it is possible to drink at one draught (cf.
κελέβη, p. 169).

Αμφωτις.—A two-handled cup (see under Skyphos, p. 186).

Ἀντύγονις.—A cup named after King Antigonos.

Ἀργυρίς.—A cup of metal (not necessarily silver). Pollux also gives the
word χρυσίς.

Ἄωτον.—A Cypriote name for a cup (“without handles,” from α and οὔς).

Βαυκαλίς.—An Alexandrine variety, of glass or clay.

Βῆσσα.—Also an Alexandrine form, widening out below.

Γυάλας.—A Megarian name (the form of the word is Doric).

Δεπαστρόν.—An uncertain form, variously explained.

Δεπαστρόν.—A bye-form of δέπας, in use at Kleitor in Arcadia.

Ἐνιαυτός.—Also known as Ἀμαλθείας κέρας. See under Rhyton (p. 193).

Ἔφηβος or ἐμβασικοίτας.—The significance of these names is not obvious,
but see p. 179 for the former.

Ἡδυποτίς.—A Rhodian name (cf. Pollux, vi. 96). Said to have been made
by the Rhodians in competition with the Athenian Θηρίκλειοι (see below,
p. 189). They were of light make, and not, like the Thericleian cups,
for the exclusive use of the rich.

Ἠθάνιον.—Apparently an Egyptian name.

Ἡμίτομος.—An Athenian cup, probably hemispherical (but see above, p.
174).

Ἴσθμιον.—A Cypriote term.

Κελέβη.—See under Krater (p. 169).

Κόνδυ.—An Asiatic name. Menander describes it as holding ten kotylae,
or about five pints.

Κρατάνιον or κρανίον.—Polemon mentions silver specimens in the temple
of Hera and treasury of the Byzantines at Olympia.

Κρουνεῖον.—It is doubtful if this word denotes a cup, as it is
catalogued with the κρατήρ, κάδος, and ὁλκεῖον.

Λαβρωνία.—A Persian cup, named from “greedy” drinking (λαβρότης ἐν τῷ
πίνειν).

Λάκαινα.—A cup made of Laconian clay.

Λέσβιον.

Μάνης.—A cup or bowl placed on the top of the kottabos-stand, and used
in the game of kottabos to receive the drops of wine thrown from the
kylix (_q.v._)

Μέλη.

Ὄινιστηρία.—A name given to the wine-cup dedicated to Herakles by the
ephebi at the time of entry into that rank.

Ὄλλιξ.—A wooden cup.

Παναθηναικόν.—Probably a variety of the Skyphos (_q.v._).

Πελίκη.—See under Amphora (p. 163). A generally disputed form.

Πέταχνον.—A wide flat cup (from πετάννυμι, “spread”).

Πρίστις.

Προυσίας.—Named from the king of Bithynia.

Προχύτης.—Called a cup by Athenaeus, but more probably to be identified
with the πρόχοος (p. 178).

Ῥέον or Ῥέοντα.—Probably a variant of ῥυτόν. It is described as taking
the form of a Gryphon or Pegasos, both of which occur in rhyta (p. 193).

Σαννακία.—A Persian cup.

Σελευκίς.—A cup named after King Seleukos.

Ταβαίτας.—A wooden cup.

Τραγέλαφος.—Probably a kind of rhyton (p. 193).

Τριύρης.—See p. 186, under κύμβιον.

Ὑστιακόν.

Χαλκιδικόν.—Probably named from the Thracian Chalkidike.

Χόννος.—A bronze cup (perhaps a kind of kylix).

ᾨδός.—A cup associated with the singing of σκόλια.

ᾨόν.—An egg-shaped cup.

ᾨοσκύφιον.—A double cup, apparently like an egg standing in an egg-cup.

Pollux also mentions the names Βησιακόν and Καππαδοκικόν; and Athenaeus
describes a γραμματικὸν ἔκπωμα, or cup ornamented with letters (in
relief), probably a late Hellenistic type.

We now come to the names which can be identified with existing vases,
or are described with some indication of their form.

A name which constantly occurs in two forms is the κοτύλη or κότυλος.
The distinction appears to be that the former had no handles, but the
latter one,[640] but otherwise the form was probably much the same,
being that of a deep cup; it is also probable that it was sometimes
used like the κύαθος, as a ladle for drawing out wine, as well as for
drinking. The word κοτύλη is found as early as Homer,[641] used
metaphorically for the hollow where the thigh-bone joins the hip; in
its proper meaning as a cup, it occurs in the familiar proverb[642]
which has been adopted into our language:

πολλὰ μεταξὺ πέλει κοτύλης καὶ χείλεος ἀκροῦ
“There’s many a slip ’twixt the cup and the lip.”

As a measure it was equivalent to six kyathi, or roughly half a pint,
as already shown (p. 135). The ἡμικοτύλιον there discussed is, however,
a one-handled cup, and therefore to be called a κότυλος rather than a
κοτύλη. The latter is a word constantly found in Greek literature from
Homer downwards, as in the passage where Andromache describes the
impending fate of her orphan child, to whom a pitying patron will hold
out a cup, merely to taste, not to drain.[643]

From Athenaeus we learn that the κότυλος was like a deep
washing-basin (λουτήριον), and that it was associated with Dionysos.
Eratosthenes[644] calls it the most beautiful and the best for
drinking of all cups. The diminutive form κοτύλισκος occurs in
connection with the κέρνος], discussed below (p. 195), which had many
of these little cups attached to it. It has been customary to apply
the name κοτύλη to a class of vase found at all periods, with flat
base, slightly curved sides, and two flat handles level with the rim
(Fig. 49); it sometimes attains a considerable size for a
drinking-cup, and is usually decorated with one or two figures each
side. A notable exception is the beautiful vase in the British Museum
(Plate LI.), signed by Hieron, with its frieze of figures all round.
This identification is of course at variance with Athenaeus'
statement that the kotyle has no handle; but no other satisfactory
name has been found for the form.

[Illustration: FIG. 49. KOTYLE.]

Closely connected, it would seem, with the κοτύλη is the cup known as
the σκύφος or σκύπφος, to which there are frequent references in the
poets and elsewhere but not in Aristophanes. Homer[645] describes it as
a rustic sort of bowl, which held milk; Simonides applies to it the
epithet οὐατόεντα, or “handled.” Athenaeus connects the word with
σκαφίς, a round wooden vessel which held milk or whey, and this seems
to accord with the mention of it in Homer. It was always specially
associated with Herakles,[646] who was said to have used it on his
expeditions; hence certain varieties were known as σκύφοι Ἡρακλεωτικοί,
but it is more probable that this word refers to Heraklea Trachinia in
Northern Greece. Besides the Herakleotic, Athenaeus mentions specially
Boeotian, Rhodian, and Syracusan skyphi. The ordinary shape of the vase
may be inferred from the form of that which Herakles is often depicted
holding on the monuments[647]; it is of the same type as the κοτύλη,
but the body tapers below and has a higher foot, while the handles are
placed lower down and bent upwards. Among the late black-glazed wares
with opaque paintings (p. 488) some examples occur of cups with handles
twisted in a kind of knot, and it has been suggested that these
represent the “Heraklean knot” described by Athenaeus[648] as to be
seen on the handles of these: σκύφοι Ἡρακλεωτικοί.

The word is also frequently used by Roman authors, and there is a
particularly interesting passage in Suetonius (cf. p. 134) alluding to
the _Homerici scyphi_ adorned with chased designs from the Homeric
poems[649] which Nero possessed; these were, of course, metal bowls
with reliefs,[650] but they have their fictile counterparts in the
so-called Megarian bowls (p. 499).

Athenaeus[651] quotes from the philosopher Poseidonios a passage
referring to drinking-cups called Παναθηναικά, which may be supposed to
have some connection with the Panathenaic festival, and attempts have
been made to identify them with a class of skyphi or kotylae of the
R.F. period, the invariable subject on which is an owl between two
olive-branches (p. 410).[652] There is no doubt some reference to the
Athenian goddess, but it is more likely that they represent some kind
of official measure (see above, p. 135).

It will be noted that the σκύφος appears to have been originally a
wooden vessel used as a milking-pail, and it is further identified in
Theocritus with the wooden κισσύβιον, to which we have already alluded.
Two other words are given by Athenaeus to denote large wooden bowls of
the type of the σκύφος, namely the ἄμφωτις and the πέλλα[653] both used
as milking-pails. They were not strictly speaking drinking-cups. Among
existing Greek vases this form, viz. a deep straight-sided bowl, such
as a carved wooden vessel would naturally take, seems to be best
represented by the examples discovered on the site of the Cabeiric
temple at Thebes, which are of this shape and of considerable size (see
Fig. 98, p. 392).[654]

The βρομίας is described by Athenaeus[655] as a cup resembling the
taller skyphi, and the κιβώριον[656] (whence the ecclesiastical Latin
_ciborium_[657]) was also a kind of skyphos. The name μαστός should
also be included here, from the likeness of the cup to the skyphos. Its
characteristic is that it has no foot but only a small knob, and
therefore exactly resembles a woman’s breast with the nipple, whence
its name. In Greek pottery the only known painted examples are of the
B.F. period,[658] and these are usually modelled and painted with great
care and delicacy. The so-called Megarian bowls (see p. 499) should
also be included under this heading, in reference to which it has been
pointed out that μαστοί of metal were dedicated in temples at Oropos in
Boeotia and at Paphos.[659]

Another form of cup, of which Athenaeus has much to say, is the
κύμβιον[660] (other forms being κύμβη and κύββα), which was supposed to
represent the κύπελλον of Homer. He describes it as small and deep,
without foot or handles. On the other hand, the word also means “a
boat,” and we further find the words ἄκατος and τριήρης cited by
Athenaeus[661] as names of cups, the former being expressly called “a
boat-shaped cup.” This has the support of the author Didymos (quoted by
Athenaeus, 481 F) who says the κύμβιον was a long narrow cup like a
ship.[662] A possible instance of it is a long askos-shaped vessel in
the British Museum,[663] on which is incised [ΠΡΟΠΙΝΕ ΜΗ ΚΑΤΘΗΣ],
“Drink, do not lay me down”; but it is not of a form adapted for
drinking. The question must therefore remain undecided. Ussing thinks
that κύμβιον was originally a cup-name, and that the other meaning is
derived from it; but, on the other hand, ἄκατος and τριήρης are merely
nicknames as applied to cups.

The κώθων is a cup which cannot now be identified, but is often
referred to by ancient authors.[664] It seems to have been a Spartan
name for a soldier’s cup, used for drinking-water, and was adapted by
its recurved mouth for straining off mud.[665] It has been conjectured
to have been the name for the shape we have above described as a
κοτύλη, but on no good grounds; Pollux (vii. 162) wrongly classifies it
with the πίθος and amphora, but it was undoubtedly a cup, as indeed he
implies elsewhere (vi. 97). Usually of clay, it is sometimes described
as of bronze,[666] and Aristophanes applies to it the epithet
φαεινός,[667] which suggests a bright metallic surface. Hesychius and
Suidas describe it as having one handle. From the κώθων was derived the
word κωθωνίζεσθαι, “to drink hard.”[668]

The κάνθαρος was a cup so called because of a fancied resemblance to an
inverted beetle.[669] It was specially associated with Dionysos,[670]
and from this fact its form has been identified with certainty from the
two-handled drinking-cup which he is so often depicted holding,
especially on B.F. vases. It is a very beautiful though for some reason
never a very popular shape in pottery, and is found at all
periods.[671] In form it may be described as a deep straight-sided cup
on a high stem, with loop-shaped handles starting from the rim each
side and coming down to the lower edge of the body (Fig. 50). Probably
it was considered a difficult shape to produce in pottery, and was
commoner in metal examples.

At all events the καρχήσιον, a similar kind of cup, seems to have been
consistently made of metal. Athenaeus[672] describes it with more than
usual detail as tall, moderately contracted in the middle, with handles
reaching to the bottom (_i.e._ of the bowl). The form is to be
recognised on the monuments (if not in actual examples[673]) as a
variation of the κάνθαρος in which the body has a sort of “waist,”
bulging out again below. Virgil mentions _carchesia_,[674] and silver
specimens were among the dedications in the Parthenon at Athens.[675]

[Illustration: FIG. 50. KANTHAROS.]

Of all the ancient forms of drinking-cup, the most celebrated and in
some respects also the most beautiful, was the =Kylix= κύλιξ, Lat.
_calix_),[676] a two-handled cup of varying size, with large bowl on a
high stem. The shape of this vase shows a continuous development, as
does also its decorative treatment, from the most primitive times down
to the end of Greek vase-painting. It was moreover the form which the
great artists of the early part of the fifth century selected as the
medium of their finest efforts. The kylix played an important part at
the banquet, being not only one of the commonest forms of drinking-cup
in use, but as being also used in the game of kottabos (see Chapter
XV.). In the banqueting-scenes which are so popular a subject on the
R.F. kylikes of the best period, the guests are often represented
twirling vases of this shape on one finger crooked through the handle;
this being the manner in which they discharged the drops of wine at the
mark. Hence the kylix was also known as ἀγκύλη or κοτταβίς. When not in
use the kylix was hung on a peg on the wall, as it is sometimes
depicted on R.F. vases.[677]

Athenaeus[678] cites the Athenian and Argive kylikes as being of
special repute; the latter are described by Simonides as φοξίχειλος, a
word of doubtful meaning.[679] In the former’s own city of Naukratis a
special kind of kylix[680] was made by hand (not on the wheel), with
four handles and a very flat base, and this was dipped in a solution of
silver to give it a metallic appearance.[681] Lacedaemonian, Chian, and
Teian kylikes are also mentioned (the last-named by Alcaeus: see p.
64). But the most famous variety was the Thericleian, so named from
Therikles, a Corinthian potter contemporary with Aristophanes. These
cups were chiefly made at Athens; they are frequently mentioned by
Middle and New Comedy writers, and are described by Athenaeus[682] as
depressed round the sides, deep, with short handles. They were imitated
in wood or glass, and gilded, and Athenaeus mentions that the Rhodians
made ἡδυποτίδες (see above) in emulation of them.[683]

Besides the various diminutive forms of κύλιξ, such as κυλίχνη (see
above, p. 133), κυλίσκη, etc.,[684] there is a long list of synonyms
for this form, about most of which, however, there is nothing to say
except that they are probably mere nicknames. Athenaeus gives the
following: Κονώνιος, Λάκαινα, λοιβάσιον, πεντάπλοον, σκάλλιον,
χαλκόστομος, χόννος, and μαθαλίς; also μετάνιπτρον, from its use after
the washing of the hands, _i.e._ at the end of the meal; Προυσίας,
named from a king of Bithynia; and φιλοτησία, corresponding to our
“loving-cup.”[685]

In the history of Greek vase-painting the kylix is a shape known and
popular at all periods, from the Mycenaean Age down to the end of the
fifth century; in the fabrics of Southern Italy it but seldom occurs.
The Mycenaean form is peculiarly graceful, with its tall stem and
swelling bowl; it is generally decorated with a cuttle-fish, a motive
well suited to its outlines (see Plate XV.).

During the archaic period of Greek vases a steady development can be
traced, both in form and methods of decoration, until the outburst of
the R.F. style. The early Corinthian specimens (cf. p. 313) are
somewhat cumbrous, with very low stem, shallow bowl with heavy
overhanging lip and small handles; in strong contrast thereto are the
Cyrenaic cups (p. 341 ff.), which are in execution quite in advance of
their time (first half of sixth century); their graceful, delicate
forms are evidently imitated from metal. These early cups are as a rule
covered with a cream-coloured or buff slip and decorated all over, and
the interior designs, which cover the whole or almost the whole of the
inside, are a marked feature of these types.

[Illustration: FIG. 51. KYLIX (EARLIER FORM).]

Turning to the Attic fabrics we find that in the beginning of the sixth
century the prevalent form (evolved from the Corinthian type) has a
high stem and deep bowl with off-set lip, the decoration being confined
to the upper band of the exterior, in the form of a frieze (Fig. 51).
This type is also illustrated by a small Rhodian group in the British
Museum,[686] which, however, has elaborate interior designs. In the
next stage, represented by the Minor Artists (see p. 379 ff.), the form
remains the same, but the manner of decoration is different, interior
designs again appearing; often the design is confined to a narrow band,
the rest of the exterior being coloured black. Lastly, towards the end
of the fifth century, an entirely new form is introduced, in which the
break in the outline disappears and the bowl becomes flatter, with a
gracefully-curved convex outline, while the stem is shortened (Fig.
52). This form is the one adopted throughout the R.F. period, with few
exceptions, and it is possible that it was actually invented by the
earliest R.F. artists, such as Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, though it is
also employed by Exekias.[687] The methods of decoration cannot however
be treated of here.

[Illustration: FIG. 52. KYLIX (LATER FORM).]

An extremely delicate form of kylix is used by the potter Sotades
(Chapter X.), with handles in imitation of a bird’s merrythought.
Towards the end of the fifth century the shape changes somewhat, the
stem disappearing and the bowl becoming deeper. In Southern Italy the
kylix-form is only represented by gigantic shallow bowls, with small
stout handles attached to the rim, probably intended for hanging
against the wall. The Naucratite kylikes mentioned above seem to have
been made somewhat after this pattern; it was at any rate typical of
Hellenistic taste.

[Illustration: FIG. 53. PHIALE.]

The word φιάλη[688] (Lat. _patera_) bore in Greek a very different
meaning from that suggested by the modern word _phial_. It was in fact
a shallow bowl shaped like a saucer, and had no handle, but in place of
one a boss (ὄμφαλος) in the centre, which was hollowed out underneath
in order to admit of the insertion of a thumb or finger (Fig. 53).
Hence it was generally styled μεσόμφαλος or ὀμφαλωτός.[689] As a
vase-form it is not of frequent occurrence, and was probably more
frequently made in metal, especially in the Hellenistic period. Those
depicted on painted vases are usually indicated as having ribbed or
fluted exteriors, which can only denote metal (cf. Vol. II. Fig. 132).
About the third or second century B.C. imitations of metal phialae in
terracotta, with moulded interior designs, are of common occurrence.
Being signed by potters residing at Cales, they are usually known as
“Calene phialae.” There are two in the British Museum,[690] which are
an exact reproduction of silver specimens in the same collection.

Homer uses the word in two senses: (1) as equivalent to a λέβης, as if
used for boiling water[691]; (2) as a cinerary urn.[692] Obviously in
both these cases the significance of this particular word must not be
pressed. Later, however, we find very frequent mention of the phiale in
classical authors, such as Herodotos, Pindar, and Plato, in all cases
with the same restricted significance, that of a vessel used in making
libations. On the R.F. vases it appears in countless examples, used in
this manner, especially by Nike. Aristotle, by way of illustrating the
inversion of a simile, says “You may call the shield the phiale of
Ares, or the phiale the shield of Dionysos,” no doubt with reference to
its buckler-like shape.[693] Athenaeus (xi. 462 D) quotes a passage
from Xenophanes which implies its use for holding perfumes at banquets.

Many words occur as synonyms of φιάλη, such as the αιακις, ἄροτρον,
λυκιουργεῖς, ῥυσίς, φθοίς, βάτιακιον, and λεπάστη.[694] The last-named
word has been suggested above (p. 165) for a kind of large covered dish
or bowl, but we can only ascertain that it was a drinking-vessel of
some kind, resembling a large kylix.[695]

[Illustration: FIG. 54. Rhyton.]

The ῥυτόν, or drinking-horn (from ῥέω, “flow”), is a familiar shape in
the R.F. and later styles, but as a vase-form does not occur before the
middle of the fifth century.[696] Its peculiarities were: firstly, that
it could not be set down without drinking the contents; secondly, that
the narrow end was almost always modelled in the form of the head of
some animal, or of a woman or Satyr. Some examples are known in the
form of two heads back to back, usually a Satyr and a Maenad, but these
having a flat circular base are an exception to the first rule noted
above, and partake more of the nature of a cup than of a drinking-horn.
Although no archaic examples have been preserved, the rhyton, or
κέρας,[697] as it is also called, frequently appears on B.F. vases,
being generally held by Satyrs or revellers, or by Dionysos.[698]
Athenaeus says it was a form reserved for the use of heroes, and that
κέρας was the older name for it.[699] Among the South Italian vases, it
is found almost exclusively in Apulia, and these belong to the
decadence of the Apulian style, the paintings being limited to a figure
of Eros, or a woman, and little more. These rhyta have one handle, and
the cup-part is generally cylindrical in form, tapering slightly
towards the lower part, where the head is attached (Fig. 54.). In some
instances the form is narrower and more elongated, with fluted body.
The animals’ heads are usually left unvarnished, and coloured in detail
like the terracotta figures; the mouth often forms a spout from which
the liquid could be allowed to run out.[700] The heads, which occur in
great variety, include the panther, fox, wolf, horse, goat, mule, deer,
and dog[701]; also Gryphons and Pegasi (see below). Athenaeus mentions
a vase called the τραγέλαφος,[702] which was doubtless a rhyton ending
in two heads, a goat and a deer conjoined, like some known specimens;
he also quotes a description of another called ελέφας, explained as a
rhyton with two spouts (δίκρουνος).[703] Further, under the heading
ῥέοντα, which is doubtless a synonym for ῥυτόν, he mentions one in the
form of a Gryphon, another in the form of a Pegasos.[704] The name is
mentioned by Demosthenes, together with κύμβια and φιάλαι.[705] It is
worthy of mention that among the Mycenaean objects discovered at Enkomi
in Cyprus, in 1896, and now in the British Museum, there are two or
three rhyta in porcelain, corresponding in form to those of the R.F.
period, and of very advanced style[706]; they are in fact quite unique.

A few comparatively unimportant names of vessels for holding food and
liquids at the table may next be discussed.

[Illustration: FIG. 55. PINAX.]

The names given for dishes are δισκός, παροψίς, and τρύβλιον, the
latter of which frequently occurs in Aristophanes, but παροψίς seems to
be of late introduction, and more used by the Romans (see Chapter
XXI.).[707] For a plate the usual name was πίναξ (also πινακίον,
πινακίσκος), a form which is interesting as often occurring among
painted vases (Fig. 55). It is found at all periods, from the fabrics
of Rhodes and Naukratis down to the Apulian and Campanian
“fish-plates,” which have a sinking in the centre, and are painted with
fish, shell-fish, etc. They were no doubt used for eating fish, the
sinking being for the sauce.[708] A famous early instance of the pinax
is the “Euphorbos-plate” in the British Museum (see p. 335). The name
is also given to the square plaques or tablets, such as those found at
Corinth, on the Athenian Acropolis, and elsewhere, which were generally
of a votive character. They are often depicted on the vases themselves,
indicating the locality of a shrine.[709]

Vessels for holding vinegar or sauces were known by the names of
ὀξύβαφον, ὀξίς, or ἐμβάφιον.[710] The shapes are not exactly known, but
they were apparently small cups or dishes; the incorrect identification
of the first-named with the κρατήρ we have already discussed (p. 171).
The words ἐρεύς and κυψελίς are given by Pollux[711] as vases for
holding sweets, and the κυμινοδόκον or κυμινοθήκη was, as the name
implies, a box or receptacle for spices.[712] The last-named has been
identified with the κέρνος, described by Athenaeus as “a round vessel,
having attached several little kotylae (κοτυλίσκους).”[713] Two
existing forms correspond in some degree to this description: one found
in Cyprus and at Corinth, and consisting of a hollow ring, to which
small cups or jars are attached at intervals; the other found chiefly
in Melos, and consisting of a central stand, round which are grouped a
varying number of alabastron-like vases, evidently designed for holding
small quantities of unguents or perfumes, or perhaps flowers, eggs, or
other objects. They are all of very early date, and decorated in
primitive fashion.[714] A better form of the word seems to be κέρχνος.
Many have been found at Eleusis,[715] and it is supposed that they were
used in the Mysteries for carrying the first-fruits.[716]

[Illustration: FIG. 56. LEKYTHOS.]

Several kinds of vases were used for holding oil, the characteristic of
all these shapes being the narrow neck and small mouth, which were
better adapted for pouring the liquid drop by drop. The ordinary Greek
word for an oil-flask is λύκυθος, frequently found in Aristophanes and
elsewhere. We have already referred (pp. 132, 143) to the passages in
the _Ecclesiazusae_ where the practice of placing lekythi on tombs, and
generally of using them for funeral purposes, finds allusion. From
these passages it has been possible to identify the class of
white-ground Athenian vases on which funeral subjects are painted, with
absolute certainty as =Lekythi=. But the shape is not confined to this
one class. In the early B.F. period (especially in Corinthian wares) it
assumes a less elegant form, with cup-shaped mouth, short thick neck,
and quasi-cylindrical body tapering slightly upwards (cf. the
alabastron below). The later form, which prevails from the middle of
the B.F. period down to the end of the fourth century at Athens, with
very little variation of form, is one of the most beautiful types of
Greek vases (Fig. 56). It has a long neck, to which the handle is
attached, flat or almost concave shoulder, and cylindrical body,
semi-oval at the base. The B.F. examples are seldom found in Italy, and
almost all come from Athens and other Hellenic sites, or from Sicily, a
country in which the form seems to have been exceptionally popular. The
same may be said of the ordinary R.F. examples, which have no
sepulchral reference, and are found in large numbers at Gela
(Terranuova) in Sicily, but seldom elsewhere. The white lekythi have
been found in Eretria, and at Gela, and Locri in Southern Italy,
besides Athens. The lekythos seldom attains to any great size, except
in the marble examples used as tombstones. They were probably used at
the bath and in the gymnasium, and may also have served other purposes,
_e.g._ for pigments. In illustration of this reference may be made to
the well-known passage in Aristophanes’ _Frogs_ (1200 ff.), where the
jeer of Aeschylos at Euripides’ stereotyped beginnings of his plays,
ληκύθιον ἀπώλεσεν, seems to imply “he is hard up for something new to
say,” _i.e._ “he has lost his paint-pot; his lines need embellishment.”

[Illustration:

FIG. 57. LEKYTHOS (LATER FORM).
]

Towards the end of the fifth century the lekythos takes a new departure
(Fig. 57), and appears with a squat, almost spherical body, without
foot (except for the base-ring). This form is sometimes known as
_aryballos_ (see below), but is perhaps more accurately described as a
“wide-bodied” (Germ. _bauchige_) lekythos. It is very popular at Athens
in the late fine or polychrome vases,[717] and was adopted exclusively
in Southern Italy, where it is the only form of lekythos found. This
type of vase is often found in the period of the Decadence with a
subject moulded in relief attached to the front, sometimes of a comic
nature.

[Illustration: FIG. 58. ALABASTRON.]

The _alabastron_ (ἀλάβαστρον or ἀλάβαστος, both forms being found in
Classical Greek) is a shape closely allied to the lekythos. It
preserves the same form throughout the period of Greek vase-painting
(Fig. 58.), but is not often found after the middle of the sixth
century. In the early Corinthian wares it is very common. The name is
derived from the material of which it was originally made, and many
examples of alabaster vases of this shape have been found in
excavations. It was chiefly used for holding oil, unguents, and
cosmetics, and is often represented in scenes of ladies’ toilet as in
use for these purposes. Its characteristics are a flat round top with
small orifice, short neck, and more or less cylindrical body with
rounded-off base, intended for placing in a stand (ἀλαβαστοθήκη).[718]
It is generally without handles, but when they occur they are in the
form of two small ears, through which a cord was passed for carrying or
suspending it. The “alabaster box” of the Gospels was a vessel of this
form (cf. the original Greek), and it was broken by knocking off the
top, in order that the contents might flow out quickly. The name βῆσσα
is also given as a synonym of the ἀλάβαστρον.[719]

[Illustration: FIG. 59. ARYBALLOS.]

Another vase of the same type is that known as the ἀρύβαλλος. The
derivation of the word is unknown, but the first half connects it with
the “ladle” class of vases (ἀρυτήρ, etc.), of which we have already
spoken. It can, however, hardly be a vase of that type, and the
connection seems to be its use in the bath,[720] _i.e._ as an
oil-flask. It is generally described as resembling a purse;
Athenaeus[721] says it is broader below than above, like a purse tied
at the neck with a string. The name, however, is usually applied to a
form of vase akin to the alabastron, but with small globular body,
handle, and very short neck (Fig. 59.). This type is almost confined to
the Corinthian and other early fabrics, and frequently occurs in glazed
or enamelled ware (see p. 127). Its connection with the bath is
undoubted, and it was generally carried on a string, together with a
strigil or flesh-scraper. As this form died out in the sixth century,
the name has been used, as noted above, for a later variety of the
lekythos, in which the body approaches a globular form.

Transitional between the alabastron and the aryballos is a type of
which some examples occur among early Corinthian wares, with egg-shaped
body, flat round top, and small ear-like handle, the base being rounded
off. To this the name βομβύλιος has been tentatively given, on the
authority of Antisthenes, who defines the word as meaning a kind of
lekythos with narrow neck.[722] In the same passage of Athenaeus[723]
it is contrasted with the quickly-emptied φιάλη or bowl; those who
drink from it must do so drop by drop (κατὰ μικρὸν στάζοντες). The name
may denote a cocoon, the shape of which this vase resembles, or may be
imitative, from the gurgling sound made by a liquid poured therefrom.
The ἐξάλειπτρον was also probably a kind of oil-flask.[724]

[Illustration: FIG. 60. PYXIS.]

A few forms of vases were exclusively devoted to feminine use. These
include the πυξίς, a cylindrical box with cover, in which jewellery or
other objects such as hair-pins, cosmetics, etc., might be kept for use
in the toilet (Fig. 60.). The painted examples of this form, which
nearly all belong to the later R.F. period, are usually decorated with
appropriate subjects, women at their toilet, preparations for weddings,
etc. The σμηματοθήκη, or soap-box, served similar purposes.[725] It
seems to be represented by a form of vase of which the British Museum
possesses a specimen (without figure decoration), with cover and high
stem, but no handle except the knob on the cover. It is intermediate in
form between the pyxis and the so-called λεπαστή (p. 165), and
sometimes appears in toilet and other scenes.[726] A rare form, found
almost exclusively in the R.F. period,[727] consisting of a globular
vase with vertical looped handles on a high stem, has been variously
named, but the latest theory is that it represents a λέβης
γαμικός.[728] It contained lustral water, and is usually decorated with
bridal scenes. One is depicted in a toilet scene on a pyxis in the
British Museum.[729]

[Illustration: FIG. 61. EPINETRON OR ONOS.]

Lastly, a peculiar semi-cylindrical vessel, closed at one end and open
down the side (Fig. 61.), was for a long time a puzzle to
archaeologists, but its use was finally determined by its appearance in
a vase-painting.[730] It is there held by a seated woman, fitted over
her knee and thigh, and was used while spinning to pass the thread
over. The name of these objects is given by Pollux (vii. 32) as
ἐπίνητρον or ὄνος (“the donkey”). Several of them are painted with
spinning scenes, and the vase-painting alluded to above is curiously
enough on a vase of this form.

There is a type of vase, of which two or three varieties occur, which,
from its general likeness to a wine-skin, is usually styled =Askos=. It
does not, however, appear that there is any direct authority for this,
at least in literary records; where the word does occur, it always
denotes a leather skin, such as is sometimes depicted on the vases,
carried by a Seilenos or Satyr. It is, however, a convenient
expression, and there is no other recorded term which can on any
grounds be associated with this type.

[Illustration: FIG. 62. ASKOS.]

The earliest examples, which date from the middle of the R.F. period,
have a flat round body with convex top, and a projecting spout (Fig.
62); the handle is sometimes arched over the back to meet the spout, or
else takes a separate ring-like form.[731] They are usually decorated
with two small figures, one on each side. In the vases of Southern
Italy a new form appears (Fig. 63), chiefly found in Apulia, in which
the resemblance to a wine-skin is much more apparent, the tied-up pairs
of legs being represented by the spout or a projection. The handle is
usually arched over the back, and the pouch-shaped body sometimes
assumes an almost birdlike form.

[Illustration: FIG. 63. APULIAN ASKOS.]

A variety which is also common in Southern Italy is made of plain black
ware, and is not painted but has a subject in relief in a medallion on
the top[732]; the handle is ring-shaped[733] and the form generally
resembles the variety first described, except that the body is flat on
the top, and convex below, with a base-ring (Fig. 64). It seems
probable that these vases were used for holding oil for feeding lamps,
and consequently they are generally known by the Latin name of
_guttus_, or “lamp-feeder” (see pp. 211, 503). Whether the painted aski
were used for the same purpose is doubtful; those, however, with the
large body seem to have been intended for other purposes, especially as
they often have a strainer inserted in them. Some indeed appear to have
been used as rattles, and still contain small balls or pebbles, placed
within them for that purpose. On the whole, however, it seems more
convenient to reckon the ἀσκοί with the oil-vases.[734]

[Illustration: FIG. 64. SO-CALLED “GUTTUS.”]

Among vases which do not exactly fall under the heading of any
particular shape may be noted certain types of moulded vases, and those
with reliefs modelled on them or attached. Many of these almost fall
under the category of terracotta figures, but still must be reckoned as
vases, even when painted in the methods of terracottas rather than
pottery. Such are the large aski described on page 119, and the
contemporary ornamental vases modelled in the form of female heads, of
Maenads, or of Athena (as B.M. G 1). Other types we have described
elsewhere,[735] such as the rhyta ending in animals’ heads, the
kanthari and rhyta of the R.F. period in the form of human or Dionysiac
heads, and the analogous vases of the archaic period. Again, there are
such forms as the flasks with flat circular bodies, and the large
pyxides which are often found in Southern Italy.[736] They usually bear
a subject in relief, covered with a white slip and painted in pink and
blue, like the Canosa vases; a specimen from Pompeii, with rich remains
of colouring, has lately been acquired by the British Museum. The
curious type of vase sometimes found in Sicily, with a tall conical
cover, the ornamentation being partly in encaustic, partly in gilded
relief, has been already mentioned.[737] There is also a late variety
of the so-called kernos (p. 195), consisting of four cups united on an
elaborate fluted stand, of which the British Museum possesses two good
examples.[738]

It should be borne in mind that all these exceptional shapes are
probably imitations of metal-work, perhaps made for the benefit of
those who could not afford the more expensive material, just as
imitation jewellery was sometimes made in gilt terracotta. Throughout
the Hellenistic period (to which the classes we are discussing chiefly
belong), the universal tendency is to substitute metal vases for
pottery, and moulded or relief-wares for painted decoration, and the
potter, finding the painted vases were no longer appreciated, was
forced to confine himself to imitating metal, and thus keep abreast
with the new fashion. The whole subject of the plastic decoration of
vases has been more fully dealt with elsewhere (Chapter XI.).

-----

Footnote 447:

L. 64.

Footnote 448:

“And in earthenware baked in the fire, within the closure of figured
urns, there came among the goodly folk of Hera the prize of the
olive-fruit” (Myers).

Footnote 449:

“And he won five garlands in succession at the Panathenaic games,
amphorae full of oil” (Frag. 155, _ed._ Bergk = _Anth. P._ xiii. 19).
See also Schol. _in_ Ar. _Nub._ 1005, and _Inscr. Gr._ (_Atticae_),
ii. 965_b_.

Footnote 450:

Cf. Schol. _in_ Plat. _Hipp. Min._ 368 C: Λήκυθον δὲ ἀγγεῖόν τι φασίν
οἱ Ἀττικοὶ ἐων ᾡ τοῖς νεκροῖς ἕφερον τὸ μύρον.

Footnote 451:

“And raise the great goblets, or if, Oikis, thou desirest aught else
... pour in and mix one and two full up to the brim, and let the one
goblet oust the other.”

Footnote 452:

_Graec. Ling. Dialect_, i. p. 247.

Footnote 453:

viii. 381: see also p. 50.

Footnote 454:

See p. 499.

Footnote 455:

Suet. _Ner._ 47: see Robert, _Homer. Becher_, and _Class. Review_,
1894, p. 325. The British Museum possesses a silver phiale, with
terracotta replicas (G 117, 118), one of which is shown on Plate
XLVIII. See also p. 500.

Footnote 456:

Cf. the use of the word δημόσιον on bronze and lead weights.

Footnote 457:

Egger in _Revue Archéol._ xvi. (1867), p. 292.

Footnote 458:

See Hultsch, _Metrologie_, p. 99 ff.

Footnote 459:

Arist. _Categ._ 12; also Polybius, iv. 56, ἡτοίμασαν οίνου κεράμια
μύρια.

Footnote 460:

B.M. F 175.

Footnote 461:

Other instances are: Millingen-Reinach, 2; Munich 423; Reinach, i.
291–92.

Footnote 462:

Cf. B.M. E 534–37, 548–53; also Stackelberg, _Gräber der Hellenen_,
pl. 17. Fig. 15 is from the vase F 101 in the British Museum.

Footnote 463:

Cf. B.M. F 457–66.

Footnote 464:

_Suppl._ 463.

Footnote 465:

_E.g._ B.M. E 494. See also Chapter XV.

Footnote 466:

See Schol. _in_ Ar. _Ran._ 218, and _J.H.S._ xx. p. 110 ff.

Footnote 467:

For explanation and parallels see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. p. 119
ff.

Footnote 468:

Raoul-Rochette in _Revue Archéol._ viii. (1851), p. 112: see also
Theocr. xv. 113 ff.

Footnote 469:

_Revue Archéol. l.c._ p. 118; Mart. xi. 19; Pliny, _H.N._ xix. 59.

Footnote 470:

_Hist. Plant._ vi. 7.

Footnote 471:

Pernice in _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 60 ff. He would also regard the
so-called σμηματοθήκη (see p. 198) as a vase of this class; but this
seems much more doubtful. See also p. 167, under πλημοχόη.

Footnote 472:

Cf. Böhlau, _Ion. u. Ital. Nekrop._ p. 39; Berlin 1108.

Footnote 473:

Pernice’s arguments have been directly impugned by Kouroniotes in Ἐφ.
Ἀρχ. 1899, p. 233, and by Robinson in _Boston Mus. Report_, p. 73;
and it certainly seems more probable that metal vessels would have
been used for this purpose; moreover, the form of the θυμιατήριον is
well known. But he has personally assured the present writer that the
clay κώθωνες show traces internally of the use of fire.

Footnote 474:

Reinach, i. 235 = Naples 3255.

Footnote 475:

See p. 214.

Footnote 476:

_Adv. Leoch._ 1086, 1089.

Footnote 477:

Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Sculpture_, i. p. 297.

Footnote 478:

See note on p. 132 above. The custom seems to have been specially in
favour in the fourth century B.C.

Footnote 479:

_E.g._ B.M. D 65, 70–1; _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 2. On the subject
generally, see _ibid._ p. 169 ff.

Footnote 480:

Fig. 20 = F 93, a Lucanian hydria in the British Museum, is a very
fine instance, several of the vases being represented with painted
subjects. Among them is a Panathenaic amphora (see above, p. 132), on
which is depicted a chariot-race.

Footnote 481:

_Il._ xxiii. 253.

Footnote 482:

Q. Smyrn. iii. 737.

Footnote 483:

It no doubt suggested Tennyson’s “Two handfuls of white dust, shut in
an urn of brass.” Cf. l. 1142 (κήτει).

Footnote 484:

_Brit. School Annual_, 1901–2, pls. 18–19, p. 298; _Mon. Antichi_, i.
p. 201, pls. 1–2.

Footnote 485:

B 130: see also p. 46.

Footnote 486:

No. 2422 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 34.

Footnote 487:

E 811: see for other instances, Jahn, _Vasensamml. zu München_, p.
lxxxv, note 600, and p. 39 above.

Footnote 488:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, C 12.

Footnote 489:

Mr. J. L. Myres, on opening a tomb at Amathus, in Cyprus, in 1894,
found jugs, bowls, and other kinds of vases ranged round the body,
like a dinner-service set out on a table.

Footnote 490:

A good instance is the Python krater in the British Museum (F 149),
one of the handles of which has been repaired with lead. See also
Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, p. ci, note 731; B.M. B 607, B 608, E
106; Berlin 1768.

Footnote 491:

Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasenb._ ii. 145 = Reinach, ii. 75.

Footnote 492:

_Rev. Arch._ iii. (1904), p. 50.

Footnote 493:

Juvenal, xiv. 308.

Footnote 494:

_Vespae_, 1437.

Footnote 495:

The use of this form of vase is further illustrated by the
_hydrophoria_-scenes on B.F. vases, in which it constantly occurs.
See below, p. 166.

Footnote 496:

B.M. A 1054, B 450; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 545.

Footnote 497:

See Chapter XVII., where examples are given.

Footnote 498:

Cf. also Bk. v. 198 ff.

Footnote 499:

x. 62 ff.

Footnote 500:

_Recherches sur les véritables Noms des Vases Grecs_, Paris, 1829.

Footnote 501:

_Observations sur les Noms des Vases Grecs_, etc., Paris, 1833, and
_Supplément_, 1837–38.

Footnote 502:

_Rapporto Volcente_ in _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1831, p. 221 ff.; and in
criticism of Letronne, _Berlins ant. Bildwerke_, i. p. 342 ff., and
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1836, p. 147 ff.

Footnote 503:

_Handbuch d. Archäol._ § 298–301.

Footnote 504:

_Ueber die hellenischen bemalten Vasen_, Munich, 1844.

Footnote 505:

_De Nominibus Vasorum Graecorum_, Kopenhagen, 1844. This work is very
useful for its exhaustive references to classical literature. It is
also critically up to the mark.

Footnote 506:

_Angeiologie_, Halle, 1854.

Footnote 507:

_Vasensamml. zu München_, p. lxxxvi ff. (1854).

Footnote 508:

There are some very useful articles in Daremberg and Saglio’s
_Dictionnaire_ under the respective headings, so far as the work has
appeared (down to M in 1904).

Footnote 509:

Cf. also xi. 462 D.

Footnote 510:

Pliny (_H.N._ iii. 82) states that the island of Pithecusa (the
modern Ischia) was so called not from πίθηκος, an ape, but from πίθος
(_a figulinis doliorum_), implying that wine-casks were made here in
antiquity, as they are at the present day.

Footnote 511:

Athen. xi. 465 A, and cf. 495 B; _Il._ xxiv. 527; see Ussing, p. 33,
and Suidas, _s.v._ The comic poets also speak of a πιθάκνη, or small
πίθος, used for holding wine at festivals.

Footnote 512:

See Chapter XX., and a relief in the Villa Albani, Helbig,
_Führer_^2, ii. p. 56, No. 853; cf. also Hesychius, ἐν πίθῳ, and Ar.
_Eq._ 792.

Footnote 513:

See Chapter XIV. (Fig. 126).

Footnote 514:

B.M. B 464, F 210.

Footnote 515:

_Op. et Di._ 98; the word has been confused with πυξίς, meaning a
box. See _J.H.S._ xx. p. 99.

Footnote 516:

Hesych. _s.v._; Pollux, vii. 163.

Footnote 517:

This must be distinguished from κάναβος (see p. 111), a skeleton
frame on which statues were modelled. See _Geoponica_, vi. 3, p. 4;
Pollux, vii. 164; Jahn in _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, p. 42;
Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 42.

Footnote 518:

_Brit. School Annual_, 1899–1900, p. 22; cf. _Amer. Journ. of Arch._
1901, p. 404.

Footnote 519:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1903, pp. 96 ff., 140 ff., Beilagen 1–5.

Footnote 520:

_Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 315.

Footnote 521:

See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 381 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1886, pl. 4;
_Röm. Mitth._ xii. (1897), p. 256; _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 44 ff.;
Kekulé, _Terracotten von Sicilien_, pls. 55–7, 60; and p. 496.

Footnote 522:

Hom. _Il._ xxiii. 170; _Od._ ii. 290, ix. 164; _Inscr. Gr._
(_Atticae_), ii. 965 _b_ (oil); and see Chap. XXI., _s.v._ See also
Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, p. xcii, and cf. the amphora in Rome with
the oil-selling scene (Helbig, 70 = Reinach, i. p. 106).

Footnote 523:

ἀμφιφορεύς, from ἀμφί, “on either side,” and φέρω, “I carry.”
Athenaeus (xi. 501 A) explains it as ὁ ἑκατέρωθεν κατὰ τὰ ὧτα
δυνάμενος φέρεσθαι.

Footnote 524:

_Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. iii. (1850), p. 7.

Footnote 525:

Dumont, _Inscrs. Céramiques_, pl. 9.

Footnote 526:

The order here given is that suggested by H. von Gaertringen in
_Inscr. Gr._ xii. pt. 1, p. 8.

Footnote 527:

Dumont, _Inscrs. Céramiques_, pl. 6; see also _Revue Archéol._ N.S.
iii. (1861), pls. 9, 10, p. 283.

Footnote 528:

_Jahrbücher für Philol._ Suppl. xvii. (1890), p. 281.

Footnote 529:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 2121.

Footnote 530:

_Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ iii. (1850), p. 84.

Footnote 531:

_C.I.L._ iv. 2584; other examples from Pompeii are given in Chapter
XXI.

Footnote 532:

Stoddart in _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit._ 2nd Ser. iii. (1850), p. 1 ff.,
iv. (1853), p. 1 ff.; Boeckh, _C.I.G._ iii. Nos. 5375–5392,
5555–5566, 5751 (Sicily); _Philologus_, 1851, p. 278 ff. (Sicily);
_Jahrb. für Philol._ Suppl.-Bd. xviii. p. 520 ff.; _Abh. d.
phil.-phil. Kl. d. k. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss._ ii. (1837), p. 781 ff.;
_Mélanges Gréco-Romaines_, i. p. 416 ff. (Olbia); Dumont, _Inscrs.
Céramiques de Grèce_, Paris, 1872; _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 127 ff.;
_Jahrb. für Philol._ Suppl.-Bd. iv. p. 453, v. p. 447, x. pp. 1, 207
(Olbia); _Inscr. Gr._ (_Ins. Maris Aegaei_), xii. pp. 175–203, Nos.
1065–1441 (amphora-handles from Rhodes); and other references already
given.

Footnote 533:

_E.g._ Athens 657.

Footnote 534:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, pls. 4, 6; Plate XLVII.

Footnote 535:

_E.g._ Baumeister, iii. p. 1975, fig. 2114; Athens 688, 690.

Footnote 536:

_Berlins ant. Bildw._ p. 346; see also Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_,
p. 1 ff.

Footnote 537:

See below, p. 388, and Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 147 ff.

Footnote 538:

See note 536 above; also p. 324.

Footnote 539:

A “transitional” example has recently been published by Hartwig in
_Röm. Mitth._ 1901, pl. 5, p. 117.

Footnote 540:

See also Pollux, x. 66.

Footnote 636:

It should be noted that the cups he describes are always of metal.

Footnote 637:

_Od._ ix. 346, xiv. 78; cf. the description in Theocr. i. 26 ff., and
see below, p. 185; also Ussing, p. 126.

Footnote 638:

xi. 488 ff.; cf. _Il._ xi. 632. It is described by Homer as “studded
with golden nails; and four handles there were; and about each rested
two golden doves; and beneath there were two bottoms.”

Footnote 639:

See Chapter XIII.; and below, p. 186.

Footnote 640:

Poll. vi. 96; Athen. xi. 478 B, F.

Footnote 641:

_Il._ v. 306.

Footnote 642:

Athen. xi. 478 E.

Footnote 643:

_Il._ xxii. 494. See for other instances of its use, _Od._ xv. 312,
xvii. 12 (πύρνον καὶ κοτύλην, “bite and sup”); Schol. _ad_ Ar.
_Plut._ 1054; and Athen. xi. 478–79.

Footnote 644:

_Apud_ Athen. 482 B.

Footnote 645:

_Od._ xiv. 112. See Athenaeus, xi. 498 for quotations; also Eur.
_Cycl._ 256, 390, 556, and Liddell and Scott, _s.v._

Footnote 646:

Athen. xi. 500 A; Macrob. v. 21, 16.

Footnote 647:

_E.g._ _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 1244, 1272, 1309–14; Stephani,
_Ausruhende Herakles_, pp. 151 ff., 195 ff.

Footnote 648:

Ἡράκλειος δεσμός (500 A).

Footnote 649:

The sculptor Mys made a σκύφος Ἡρακλεωτικός with the sack of Troy
chased upon it (Athen. xi. 782 B).

Footnote 650:

In _C.I.G._ ii. 2852 silver σκύφοι chased with figures of animals are
recorded among the offerings in the temple of Apollo at Branchidae.

Footnote 651:

xi. 495 A.

Footnote 652:

_E.g._ B.M. E 152, and see _Cat._ iii. p. 14. The owl and
olive-branch seem to have been official marks; they appear on coins
and dicasts’ tickets.

Footnote 653:

xi. 783 D; 495 C; cf. Theocr. i. 25.

Footnote 654:

Cf. B.M. B 77, 78; _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 78.

Footnote 655:

xi. 784 D.

Footnote 656:

See _id._ xi. 477 E.

Footnote 657:

The word also occurs in Horace (_Od._ ii. 7, 22) for a large wine-cup.

Footnote 658:

_E.g._ B.M. B 370, 371, 681.

Footnote 659:

Robert, _Homerische Becker_, p. 3.

Footnote 660:

xi. 481 D.

Footnote 661:

xi. 782 F, 500 F.

Footnote 662:

Cf. Macrob. v. 21: _pocula procera ac navibus similia_. In
illustration of the resemblance of a bowl to a ship we may cite the
story of the wise men of Gotham, also the golden bowl of the Sun (p.
181), and the form of the Welsh coracle.

Footnote 663:

F 596.

Footnote 664:

Athen. xi. 483 B.

Footnote 665:

Cf. Ar. _Eq._ 600, and see the account of this cup given by Plutarch,
_Lycurg._ 9. The word for the inner rim or lip is ἄμβων (Pollux, vi.
97; Critias _apud_ Athen. xi. 483 B; see _ibid._ viii. p. 347 B). The
shape formerly regarded as a κώθων on account of its recurved lip has
been thought by Pernice to have been used for incense (_Jahrbuch_,
1899, p. 60); but see above, p. 140.

Footnote 666:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 161.

Footnote 667:

_Pac._ 1094.

Footnote 668:

Athen. xi. 483 F.

Footnote 669:

_Ibid._ 473 D.

Footnote 670:

Macrob. v. 21.

Footnote 671:

See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 288. For typical examples see Athens 612 and
_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 450 (Boeotian); also Berlin 1737,
2116–20, 2876, 2877, 4019; _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116.

Footnote 672:

xi. 474 E; cf. v. 198 B, C.

Footnote 673:

_E.g._ Visconti, _Mus. Pio-Clem._ iv. pl. 35; _B.M. Cat. of
Terracottas_, B 490.

Footnote 674:

_Georg._ iv. 380.

Footnote 675:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ i. 140, 141, 150 = _B.M. Inscrs._ 27–29.

Footnote 676:

So called from being turned (κυλίεσθαι) on the wheel (Athen. xi. 480
B). The word constantly occurs in literature: Phokyl. 11; Sappho, 5;
Hdt. iv. 70, etc.

Footnote 677:

_E.g._ B.M. E 49, 50. Cf. Hermippus _apud_ Athen. xi. 480 E, and the
Ficoroni cista (Roscher, i. p. 527).

Footnote 678:

xi. 480 C (quoting Pindar).

Footnote 679:

See p. 215.

Footnote 680:

Athen. xi. 480 E.

Footnote 681:

This was also done in the case of some late Italian fabrics; see
_B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iv. p. 25 and below, p. 501.

Footnote 682:

xi. 470 E, 471 D; cf. v. 199 B.

Footnote 683:

xi. 469 B. In § 464 C he speaks of Ρὁδιακαὶ χυτρίδες, which lessened
the tendency to inebriety, and in § 496 F he describes a cup called
Ρὁδίας.

Footnote 684:

Pollux, vi. 95–98; x. 66.

Footnote 685:

Ar. _Lys._ 203.

Footnote 686:

B 379–82.

Footnote 687:

A recent writer (Böhlau, in _Athen. Mitth._ for 1900, p. 40 ff.)
attributes this shape to an Ionic origin.

Footnote 688:

See generally Athen. xi. 501 ff. Isidorus (_Etym._ xx. 5) says:
“Phyalae dictae quod ex vitro fiant” (_sc._ ὔαλον).

Footnote 689:

The words βαλανωτή, βαλανειόμφαλος, and καρυωτή also seem to be
descriptive of this type. Phialae (καρυωταί) dedicated to Agathe
Tyche, Themis, Leto, and Hekate, were among the possessions of the
temple of Apollo at Branchidae (Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 2852).

Footnote 690:

G 117, 118: see Plate XLVIII.

Footnote 691:

_Il._ xxiii. 270, where it is described as ἀπυρωτός, implying that it
was used over a fire.

Footnote 692:

_Ibid._ l. 243.

Footnote 693:

_Rhet._ iii. 4: cf. Athen. x. 433 C.

Footnote 694:

See Athen. xi. _s.vv._; also Pollux, vi. 98.

Footnote 695:

Schol. _in_ Ar. _Pac._ 916.

Footnote 696:

Cf. B.M. E 784–803.

Footnote 697:

See for a discussion of this word, Athen. xi. 476 A.

Footnote 698:

_E.g._ B.M. B 42, 46, 181, 204, etc.

Footnote 699:

xi. 461 B, 497 B.

Footnote 700:

διατετρημένον, Athen. xi. 497 E.

Footnote 701:

Exx. in B.M. F 417–36.

Footnote 702:

xi. 500 E. In the temple of Apollo at Branchidae there were
παλίμποτοι, τραγέλαφοι, πρότομοι, with dedicatory inscriptions to
Apollo and Artemis; evidently _rhyta_ of this kind (Boeckh, _C.I.G._
ii. 2852). An example in the B.M. (F 431) ends in the heads of a boar
and dog conjoined.

Footnote 703:

xi. 468 F; cf. 497 A.

Footnote 704:

xi. 496 E; other names for the rhyton are δικέρας (Pollux, vi. 97),
ἐνιαυτός, ὄλμος, and παλίμποτος: see note 702.

Footnote 705:

_In Meid._ 565 fin.

Footnote 706:

See p. 127 and Plate X.

Footnote 707:

Pollux, vi. 84–5; x. 86; Ar. _passim_; Lucian, _Somn._ 14, p. 723
(τρύβλιον); see Ussing, _De nom. vas. graec._ p. 160 ff.

Footnote 708:

Schöne in _Comm. phil. in hon. Mommseni_, p. 653, mentions a plate
with ΙΧΘΥΑΙ inscribed underneath. Cf. also Plate XLIV. and p. 487.

Footnote 709:

See p. 139.

Footnote 710:

Pollux, vi. 85; x. 86; Ar. _Ran._ 1440, _Plut._ 812, _Av._ 361;
Athen. ii. 67 D, xi. 494 C. Cf. for these words Chapter XVII.

Footnote 711:

x. 92. Liddell and Scott state that ἐρεύς is a _vox nihili_.

Footnote 712:

Pollux, x. 93.

Footnote 713:

xi. 476 E.

Footnote 714:

See _Brit. School Annual_, iii. (1896–97) p. 58; _Ath. Mitth._ 1898,
p. 271; Couve in Daremberg and Saglio’s _Dict. s.v._ Kernos.
Athenaeus cannot have known this type.

Footnote 715:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, pls. 13, 14; _Ephem. Arch._ 1885, pl. 9, 1897, p.
163 ff.

Footnote 716:

_Ath. Mitth._ _loc. cit._ p. 295.

Footnote 717:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1894, p. 57 ff.

Footnote 718:

Cf. Dem. _Fals. Leg._ p. 415, and p. 133 above.

Footnote 719:

Athen. xi. 784 B.

Footnote 720:

See Pollux, vii. 166; x. 63.

Footnote 721:

xi. 783 F; he derives the -βαλλος from βαλάντιον (_sic_). He also
says it is like the αρύστιχος, and that ἀρυστίς = πρόχοος.

Footnote 722:

See Athen. xi. 784 D; Pollux, vi. 98; Hippokrates, 494, 55.

Footnote 723:

He somewhat vaguely identifies it with the Thericleian and Rhodian
kylikes. Pollux (vi. 98) also implies it to be a cup.

Footnote 724:

See Ussing, p. 117; Pollux, vi. 106, x. 121; Ar. _Ach._ 1063.

Footnote 725:

Hesych. _s.v._ ῥύμμα. Also called σμηματοδοκίς.

Footnote 726:

_E.g._ B.M. 208, 225, 376, 386, 794, 810, D 65. But see on this shape
Pernice in _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 68, and Robinson in _Boston Mus.
Report_, 1899, p. 73. The latter rejects Pernice’s incense-burner
theory (see above, p. 140), and suggests their use for perfume or
scented water.

Footnote 727:

The B.M. has a late B.F. example, B 298.

Footnote 728:

_Jahrbuch___, 1899, p. 129.

Footnote 729:

E 774; E 810 in the B.M. is a good example of this form.

Footnote 730:

It was formerly thought to be a kind of roof-tile. See Robert in Ἐφ.
Ἀρχ. 1892, p. 247; B.M. B 597, 598; Athens 1588–92.

Footnote 731:

See _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 17.

Footnote 732:

See _op. cit._ iv. p. 8, fig. 18.

Footnote 733:

In the examples from Greek sites, such as the Cyrenaica, the handle
is arched over the back, as in Fig. 62.

Footnote 734:

For the Mycenaean “false amphora,” a variation of the askos, see p.
271 and Plate XV.

Footnote 735:

See Chapter XI. for a general discussion of the subject, and Chapter
V. for its technical aspect.

Footnote 736:

_B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 204 ff.

Footnote 737:

See p. 88; also _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 1–2; _Röm. Mitth._
1897, p. 262.

Footnote 738:

_Cat. of Terracottas_, D 209–10.

CHAPTER V
_TECHNICAL PROCESSES_

Nature of clay—Places whence obtained—Hand-made vases—Invention
of potter’s wheel—Methods of modelling—Moulded vases and
relief-decoration—Baking—Potteries and furnaces—Painted vases
and their classification—Black varnish—Methods of
painting—Instruments and colours employed—Status of potters in
antiquity.

In this chapter we propose to deal with the various technical processes
required for the manufacture of painted vases, that being of all the
methods of working in clay employed by the Greeks the most important,
and thus, as already implied, forming the main branch of our subject.
These vases show, in fact, the highest point of perfection to which the
ceramic art attained.

In the making of Greek vases we can distinguish four separate stages:
(1) Preparation of the clay; (2) Modelling (_a_) on the wheel, (_b_) by
hand, or (_c_) from a mould; (3) Baking; (4) Painting, glazing, and
other decoration. The last-named is not absolutely essential, _i.e._ a
vase, especially one for ordinary daily use, may be considered complete
without it. Further, the three first stages are practically the same at
all periods of Greek art, whereas the systems of painting and
decoration are subject to local variations and chronological
development. For the purposes of the present chapter it is sufficient
to consider only those vases which have undergone the complete process
of manufacture, or what are known for the purposes of study as “Painted
Greek Vases.”

1. PREPARATION OF THE CLAY

The paste of these vases is similar to terracotta in its general
characteristics, such as the constitution of the mixture of which it is
composed; it is in general very delicate, but deeper in tone and finer
in texture than that of the terracottas. Brongniart has described it as
“tender, easily scratched or cut with a knife, remarkably fine and
homogeneous, but of loose texture”[739]; but it would be more accurate
to say that it varies in one respect, being sometimes so hard that
cutting or scratching has no effect upon it. When broken it exhibits a
dull opaque colour, varying from red to yellow and yellow to grey. On
being struck it gives forth a dull metallic sound; it is exceedingly
porous, and easily allows water to ooze through.

The surface was protected by a fine, thin alkaline glaze, which is
semi-transparent, enhancing the colours with which the vase was
painted, like the varnish of a picture. It is this glaze which forms
the special distinction of the Greek painted vases and renders them, in
contradistinction to common pottery or earthenware, the counterpart of
the medieval faïences or majolicas, or the finer porcelain of the
present day.

As to the chemical composition of the paste, it would seem that
hitherto investigations have been confined to vases of Italian origin,
but probably those found on Greek soil would yield similar results. The
principal ingredients are clay, silicic acid, and iron oxide, with
slight admixtures of carbonate of lime and magnesia. The principal
results of previous investigations have been tabulated by Blümner,[740]
and yield the following average result (chiefly from analyses of vases
from Southern Italy):—

Silicic acid 52 to 60 parts.
Clay earth 13 to 19 parts.
Chalk 5 to 10 parts.
Magnesia 1 to 3 parts.
Iron oxide 12 to 19 parts.

The largest proportion of clay found in any one vase was 27 parts;
there was also one instance given of 24 parts of iron oxide.

The variations in tone of the clay of Greek vases are very marked. The
usual colour is an ochre varying from yellowish-white to brownish-red,
the mean being a sort of orange. These variations were apparently
regulated by the amount of iron oxide employed. It has been noted by
Jahn[741] that vases were sometimes moulded “double,” _i.e._ turned on
the wheel in two different thicknesses of clay, the finer and ruddier
forming the exterior surface for decoration.

The earliest and most primitive Greek vases (including those of the
Mycenaean period) in most cases exhibit the natural quality of the
clay, ranging from yellow to grey in colour; it is usually coarse and
insufficiently baked, and protected by no lustrous glaze. In the early
archaic vases, such as those of Melos, Athens, and Rhodes, we observe a
pale yellow tone, which is apparently not a glaze, but inherent in the
clay.[742] Thenceforward the clay becomes appreciably redder and warmer
in tone until the lustrous glaze reaches its perfection in the Attic
vases of the fifth century. In the later Italian fabrics again there is
a great degeneration, the clay rapidly reverting to a paler hue,
especially in the vases of Campania; while in the Etruscan imitations
of the third century it is a dull coarse yellow, apparently due to a
preponderance of lime. Generally speaking, it may be said that the
colour depends on the proportion in which the constituent parts are
mixed, a larger proportion of iron oxide producing a redder, a larger
proportion of lime a paler hue.

The clay is permeable, allowing water to exude when not glazed, and
when moistened emits a strong earthy smell. It is not known how this
paste was prepared, for the Greeks have left few or no details of their
processes, but it has been conjectured that the clay was fined by
pouring it into a series of vats, and constantly decanting the water,
so that the last vat held only the finest particles in suspension. The
clay was worked up to the right consistency with the hands, and is
supposed to have been ground in a mill or trodden out with the feet.
Either red or white clay, or a mixture of the two, was preferred by the
ancients, according to the nature of the pottery required to be made,
as we learn from an interesting passage in the _Geoponica_:—“All kinds
of earth are not suited for pottery, but some prefer the reddish
variety, others the white; others again blend the two ... but the
potter ought personally to assist in the operations and see that the
clay is well levigated and not placed on the wheel until he has
obtained a clear idea of the probable appearance of the jar after the
baking” (vi. 3).

Certain sites enjoyed in antiquity great reputation for their clays.
One of the most celebrated was that procured from a mine near the
promontory of Cape Kolias,[743] close to Phaleron, from which was
produced the paste which gave so much renown to the products of the
Athenian Kerameikos. The vases made of it became so fashionable, that
Plutarch[744] relates an anecdote of a person who, having swallowed
poison, refused to drink the antidote except out of a vessel made of
this clay. It seems to have been of a fine quality, but not remarkably
warm in tone when submitted to the furnace; ruddle, or red ochre
(_rubrica_), being employed to impart to it that rich deep orange glow
which distinguishes the finest vases of the best period.[745]
Corinth,[746] Knidos, Samos, and various other places famous for their
potteries, were provided with fine clays. At Koptos, in Egypt, and in
Rhodes, vases were manufactured of an aromatic earth.[747] The extreme
lightness of the paste of these vases was remarked by the ancients, and
its tenuity is mentioned by Plutarch.[748] That it was an object of
ambition to excel in this respect, appears from the two amphorae
mentioned by Pliny as preserved in the temple of Erythrae,[749] of
extreme lightness and thinness, made by a potter and his pupil when
contending which could produce the lightest vase. The thinnest vases
which have come down to us are scarcely thicker than pieces of stout
paper. Great difference is to be observed in the pastes of vases from
widely-separated localities, due either to the composition or to the
baking, as has been noted in the case of the terracottas (p. 113).

2. MANUFACTURE OF VASES

The earliest glazed vases were made with the hand, but the wheel was an
invention of very remote antiquity, as has been noted in our
Introductory Chapter. It is generally supposed that its origin is to be
attributed to Egypt. Its introduction into Greece may easily be traced
by a study of primitive pottery from any site such as Crete, Cyprus, or
Troy, where the distinction between hand-made and wheel-made vessels is
clear. Thus in the tombs of Cyprus which belong to the Bronze Age, the
earlier finds, dating from about 2500–1500 B.C., are exclusively of
hand-made pottery.[750] The latter part of the Bronze Age may be
regarded as a transitional period, in which the tombs contain hand-made
unglazed painted vases, together with pottery of a much more developed
character, with a lustrous yellow glaze, bearing unmistakable evidence
of having been turned on a wheel. This pottery appears to be largely
imported, as opposed to the local wares, which are still hand-made, and
its widespread distribution over the whole of the “Aegean” area marks
an important epoch in the history of early ceramics (see Chapter VI.).
It covers the period from 1500 to about 900 B.C., and it is to this
time that we may attribute the general use of the potter’s wheel in
Greece, although it was known even earlier, as some isolated specimens
prove.

Among the Greeks there were many contending claims for the honour of
having invented the potter’s wheel. Tradition attributed it to various
personages, such as Daedalos,[751] or his nephew and rival Talos[752];
Hyperbios of Corinth[753]; Koroibos of Athens; and Anacharsis the
Scythian.[754] Kritias, the comic poet, claimed the invention for
Athens—“that city which ... invented pottery, the famous offspring of
the wheel, of earth, and of fire.”[755] There is also a familiar
allusion to it in Homer,[756] which is a fair testimony to its
antiquity:—

“Full lightly, as when some potter sitteth and maketh assay
Of the wheel to his hands well-fitted, to know if it runneth true.”

As regards the traditions, even Strabo[757] realised their absurdity,
when he asked, “How could the wheel be the invention of Anacharsis,
when his predecessor Homer knew of it?” On the other hand, Poseidonios
adheres to the tradition, maintaining that the passage in Homer is an
interpolation.[758] Other allusions to the wheel are in the writings of
Plato[759] and the comic poet Antiphanes.[760]

[Illustration: FIG. 65. POTTER’S WHEEL (FROM A PAINTING OF ABOUT 600
B.C.).]

Among the Egyptians and Greeks the wheel took the form of a low
circular table, turned with the hand, not as nowadays with the
foot.[761] The assumption that the wheel was turned with the foot is
only supported by one passage in the Book of Ecclesiasticus[762]; the
evidence of Plutarch[763] and Hippokrates[764] tells decidedly against
it. In 1840 some discs of terracotta, strengthened with spokes and a
leaden tire, came to light on the site of the ancient potteries at
Arezzo, and these had evidently been used as potter’s wheels.[765] The
process is also represented on two or three vases, as on a Corinthian
painted tablet of about 600 B.C. (Fig. 65),[766] on a kylix in the
British Museum (B 433), on a B.F. hydria in Munich (Fig. 67 _b_,
below), and on a R.F. fragment from the Acropolis of Athens (Fig.
66),[767] which shows a man modelling the foot of a large krater, while
a boy or slave turns the wheel, as on the Munich vase. On the British
Museum cup the potter is seated on a low stool, apparently modelling a
vase which he has just turned into shape on the wheel.

[Illustration: FIG. 66. POTTER’S WHEEL (FROM A VASE OF ABOUT 500 B.C.).]

In making the vases the wheel was used in the following manner:—A piece
of paste of the required size was placed upon it vertically in the
centre, and while it revolved was formed with the finger and thumb, the
potter paying regard not only to the production of the right shape, but
to the necessary thickness of the walls. This process sufficed for the
smaller pieces, such as cups or jugs; the larger amphorae and hydriae
required the introduction of the arm. The feet, necks, mouths, and
handles were separately turned on moulds, and fixed on while the clay
was moist. They are often modelled with great beauty and precision,
especially the feet, which are admirably finished off, to effect which
the vase must have been inverted. The modelling and separate attachment
of the handle is represented in more than one ancient work of art (see
Fig. 66). In many cases the joining of the handles is so excellent that
it is easier to break than to detach them. Great technical skill was
displayed in turning certain peculiar forms of vases, and generally
speaking the Greeks with their simple wheel effected wonders, producing
shapes still unrivalled for beauty.

In the case of the earlier vases, which are made by hand, after the
clay was properly kneaded the potter took up a mass of the paste, and
hollowing it into the shape of walls with one hand, placed the other
inside it and pressed it out into the required form. In this way also
the thickness of the walls could be regulated. When raised or incised
ornaments were required, he used modeller’s tools, such as wooden or
bronze chisels. The largest and coarsest vases of the Greeks were made
with the hand, and the large πίθοι, or casks, such as have been
recently found in such numbers in Crete and Thera (p. 152), were
modelled by the aid of a kind of hooped mould (κάνναβος): see _ibid._).
The smaller and finer vases, however, were invariably turned on the
wheel. On a Graeco-Roman lamp from Pozzuoli, in the British
Museum,[768] a potter is seen standing and modelling a vase before his
furnace, in the manner no doubt employed at all periods.

Certain parts of the ancient painted vases were modelled by the potter
from the earliest times—_e.g._ on those of the Geometrical period
horses are occasionally found on the covers of the flat dishes moulded
in full relief, and in other examples the handle is enriched with the
moulded figure of a serpent twining round it. This kind of ornament is
more suitable to works in metal than in clay, and suggests the idea
that such vases were, in fact, imitations of metallic ones. On vases of
all periods moulded bosses and heads, like the reliefs on metal vases,
are sometimes found; even in black-figured vases the insertions of the
handles of hydriae and oinochoae are occasionally thus enriched. In the
later styles modelling was more profusely employed; small projecting
heads were affixed to the handles of jugs[769] at their tops and bases,
and on the large kraters found in Apulia the discs in which the handles
terminated (see above, p. 171) were ornamented with heads of the Gorgon
Medusa, or with such subjects as Satyrs and Maenads. These portions
were sometimes covered with the black varnish used for the body of the
vase, but frequently they were painted with white and red colours of
the opaque kind.

A peculiar kind of modelling was used for the gilded portions of
reliefs, introduced over the black varnish. When the vase was baked a
fine clay was applied to the parts intended for gilding and delicately
modelled, either with a small tool or a brush, a process similar to
that adopted in the Roman red ware (_en barbotine_, see Chapter XXI.).
It may indeed have been squeezed in a fluid state through a tube upon
the vase, and then modelled. As the gilded-portions are generally
small, this process was not difficult or important. A vase discovered
at Cumae[770] has two friezes executed in this style, the upper round
the neck, representing the Eleusinian deities, delicately modelled,
coloured, and with the flesh completely gilded; the lower one consists
of a band of animals and arabesque ornaments. Several vases from the
same locality, from Capua and from the Cyrenaica, have wreaths of corn,
ivy, or myrtle, and necklaces round the neck, modelled in the same
style, while the rest is plain.

But the art of modelling was soon extensively superseded by that of
_moulding_, or producing several impressions from a mould, generally
itself of terracotta. The subject was in the first place modelled in
relief with considerable care; and from this model a cast in clay was
taken and then baked. The potter availed himself of moulds for various
purposes. From them he produced entire parts of his vase in full
relief, such as the handles, and possibly in some instances the feet.
He also stamped out certain ornaments in relief, much in the same
manner as the ornaments of cakes are prepared, and fixed them while
moist to the still damp body of the vase. Such ornaments were
principally placed upon the lips or at the base of the handles, and in
the interior of the _kylikes_ or cups of a late style. A late bowl of
black glazed ware in the British Museum (see Plate XLVIII.) contains an
impression from one of the later Syracusan decadrachms having for its
subject the head of Persephone surrounded by dolphins: it was struck
about 370 B.C. by Euainetos.[771]

The last method to be described is that of producing the entire vase
from a mould by stamping it out, a process extensively adopted in Roman
pottery. During the best period of the fictile art, while painting
flourished, such vases were very rare; but on the introduction of a
taste for magnificent vases of chased metal, the potters endeavoured to
meet the public taste by imitating the reliefs of metal ware.

The most remarkable of these moulded vases are the _rhyta_ or
drinking-horns, the bodies of which terminate in the heads of animals,
produced from a mould (see above, p. 192). By the same process were
also made vases in the form of jugs or lekythi, the bodies of which are
moulded in the shape of human heads, and sometimes glazed, while the
necks were fashioned on the lathe, and the handles added. These were
coloured and ornamented on the same principle as the rhyta, the
vase-portion being generally covered with a black glaze, but sometimes
with a white slip, after the manner of the terracottas. Besides the
rhyta, _phialae_, or saucers, were also moulded; fine examples of which
process may be seen on the flat bossed saucers, or _phialae
mesomphaloi_, discussed in Chapter XI., p. 502.

Amphorae and other vases of late black ware, the bodies of which are
reeded, were also evidently produced from moulds, and could not be made
by the expensive process of modelling. Of smaller dimensions, but also
made by moulding, were the vases known as _gutti_, or “lamp-feeders”
(see above, p. 200). They have reeded bodies, long-necked mouths, and
circular handles; and on their upper surface a small circular medallion
in bas-relief, with a mythological subject. Such vases are principally
found in Southern Italy and in Sicily, and belong to the second century
B.C. (Chapter XI., p. 502). After being moulded they were entirely
covered with a black glaze. Other vases again are entirely moulded in
human or animal forms, with a small mouth or spout. These are found at
all periods, but chiefly in the archaic Rhodian and Corinthian fabrics,
and again reviving in the later stages of vase-fabrics in Southern
Italy. Examples may be seen in the First Vase Room (Cases 33–34 and F)
and Fourth Vase Room (Case B) of the British Museum: see also Plate
XLVI. Others again retain the form of the jug or _lekythos_, with a
figure or relief attached to the front of the body and coloured or
covered with a white slip, while the back is varnished black. The whole
subject is treated in fuller detail in Chapter XI.

Many vases of the fourth century and later are entirely covered with a
coating of black glaze, while rows of small stamped ornaments,
apparently made with a metal punch, have been impressed on the wet clay
before the glaze was applied. These decorations are unimportant in
their subjects, which are generally small Gorgons’ heads, tendrils, or
palmettes, and hatched bands, arranged round the axis of the vase. This
latter ornament was probably produced by rolling the edge of a disc
notched for the purpose round the vase, in the same manner as a
bookbinder uses his brass punch. When these vases came into use the
potter’s trade had ceased to be artistic, and was essentially
mechanical. They are found on almost all sites from Cyprus to
Italy.[772]

* * * * *

After the vases had been made on the wheel they were duly dried in the
sun[773] and lightly baked, after which they were ready for varnishing
and painting; it is evident that they could not be painted while wet
and soft. Moreover the glaze ran best on a surface already baked. It is
also probable that the glaze was brought out by a process of polishing,
the surface of the clay being smoothed by means of a small piece of
wood or hard leather. At all events this seems the most satisfactory
interpretation of a vase-painting in Berlin (Fig. 67_a_),[774] where a
boy is seen applying a tool of some kind to the outer surface of a
completed vase (_kotyle_); that the vase is not yet varnished is shown
by its being left in a red colour, while two others, varnished black
all over, stand on the steps of an oven close by, probably to dry after
the application of the varnish.

[Illustration: FIG. 67. (_a_) CUP IN BERLIN WITH BOY POLISHING VASE;
(_b_) HYDRIA IN MUNICH: INTERIOR OF POTTERY.]

Many vases, whether decorated with designs or not, are varnished black
throughout the exterior, except the feet and lips, and we cannot be
certain whether or not any glaze had been previously applied to the
surface; but in respect of the red-figured vases, it is clear from the
method employed (see p. 221) that they were originally glazed
throughout.

This lustrous glaze is, like the black varnish, now quite a lost art.
Seen under a microscope it has evidently been fused by baking; it
yields neither to acids nor the blow-pipe. It is remarkably fine and
thin, insomuch that it can only be analysed with great difficulty. No
lead entered into its composition. It is however far inferior to modern
glazes, being permeable by water; but it is not decomposed by the same
chemical agents. On the later R.F. vases it is of decidedly inferior
quality, and often scales away, carrying the superimposed colours with
it.[775]

3. THE BAKING OF VASES

The process of baking (ὀπτᾶν, _coquere_) was regarded as one of the
most critical in the potter’s art. It was not indeed universal, as
Plato[776] distinguishes between vases which have or have not been
exposed to the action of fire (ἔμπυρα and ἄπυρα), and Pliny[777] speaks
of _fictile crudum_ (ὠμόν) used for medicinal purposes. But all the
vases that have come down to us have certainly been baked. The
necessary amount of heat required was regulated by the character of the
ware, and in the case of most Greek fabrics it appears to have been
high. Many examples exist of discoloured vases which have been
subjected to too much or too little heat, and in which the varnish has
acquired a greenish or reddish hue. On the other hand, in some of those
that have been subjected to subsequent burning, the red glaze has
turned to an ashen-grey colour,[778] the black remaining unimpaired;
but there are also instances of the varnish peeling off, the red colour
alone preserving the outline of the figures.

Other accidents were liable to befall them in the baking, such as the
cracking of the vase under too great heat; this produced an effect
expressed by the term πυρορραγής or φοξός, words which seem to have
some reference to the _sound_ of a cracked pot.[779] Or the shape of a
vase might be damaged while it was yet soft, one knocking against
another and denting its side, or crushing the lip through being
carelessly superimposed. On a R.F. amphora in the British Museum (E
295) a dent has been caused by the pressure of another vase, which has
left traces of a band of maeanders. This probably happened when the
vases were in the kiln for the second firing. The quality of the baking
was tested by tapping the walls of the vase.[780]

These misfortunes were attributed to the action of malicious demons,
whose influence had to be counteracted in various ways; thus, for
instance, a Satyric or grotesque head was placed in front of the
furnace and was supposed to have an apotropaeic effect against the evil
eye.[781] The pseudo-Homeric hymn addressed to the potters of Samos
invokes the protection of Athena for the vases in the furnace, and
mentions the evil spirits which are ready to injure them in the case of
bad faith on the potter’s part. Among the names given are: Ἄσβεστος,
“the Unquenchable”; Σμάραγος, “the Crasher”; Σύντριψ, “the Smasher”;
Ὠμόδαμος, “the Savage Conqueror.”

The form of the oven probably differed little from those in use at the
present day. No furnaces have been found in Greece, and our only
evidence is derived from the painted vases; but they have been found at
Ruvo[782] and elsewhere in Italy, and also in France, Germany, and
England. Those of Roman date are indeed by no means uncommon, but are
discussed in fuller detail in the corresponding section of the work
(Chapter XXI.).

As depicted on vases and elsewhere, the ancient furnaces seem to have
been of simple construction, tall conical ovens fed by fires from
beneath, into which the vases were placed with a long shovel resembling
a baker’s peel. The kilns were heated with charcoal or wood fuel, and
in some of the representations of them we see men holding long
instruments with which they are about to poke or rake the fires (Fig.
68). They had two doors, one for the insertion of the vases and one for
the potter to watch the progress of the baking. For vases of great
size, like the huge πίθοι, special ovens must have been necessary; and
we have a representation on a Corinthian pinax[783] of such an oven,
the roof of which resembles the upper part of a large _pithos_
surrounded by flames.

[Illustration: FIG. 68. SEILENOS AS POTTER.]

On the lamp from Pozzuoli in the British Museum, referred to on p. 209,
there is a curious subject in relief, representing a potter about to
place a vase in an oven with a tall chimney; and on a hydria at
Munich[784] (Fig. 67 _b_) a man is about to place an amphora in a kiln,
while other jars (painted white) stand ready to be baked. But for our
purposes the Corinthian pinakes are even more valuable for the
information they afford. There are several representing the exterior of
the conical furnace, with men standing by watching the fires and
tending them with rakes[785]; in another we have a bird’s-eye view in
horizontal section of the interior of an oven, filled with jugs of
various forms (Fig. 69). Flames are usually indicated rising from
underneath the ovens.[786]

[Illustration: FIG. 69. INTERIOR OF FURNACE (FROM CORINTHIAN PINAX)]

The Munich hydria (Fig. 67_b_) reproduces the interior of a potter’s
workshop with such detail that a full description of the scene may be
permissible.[787] On the left of the picture a seated man seems to be
examining an amphora, which has just been finished (it is painted
black) and is brought up for his approval. Next is seen an amphora on
the potter’s wheel, painted white to indicate its imperfect state; one
man places his arm inside to shape the interior, while another turns
the wheel for him. On their right another white amphora is being
carried out, just fresh from the wheel, but without handles or mouth,
to be dried in the open or at the furnace; next is another standing on
the ground to dry. On the right of the scene stands the foreman or
master of the pottery, before whom a nude man carries what has been
thought to be a sack of coals for the furnace, which is seen on the
extreme right.

Even more vivid and instructive, in spite of its careless execution, is
the painting on a kotyle found at Exarchos or Abae in Lokris, and now
in the Athens Museum (Fig. 70).[788] The style is that of the imitation
B.F. vases found in the temple of the Kabeiri at Thebes, late in the
fifth century. We see represented the interior of a potter’s workshop,
in which the master of the business sits holding up a kylix in one
hand, while with the other he threatens a slave, who runs off with
three kotylae ready for the furnace; three similar kotylae stand by the
master’s feet, and behind him are two more vases on a shelf. On the
right of the scene a workman sits at a table on which is a pot full of
paint, with a brush in it; he holds up a newly-painted kotyle, admiring
his workmanship. The picture is completed by a realistic representation
of an unfortunate slave suspended by cords to the ceiling as a
punishment for some offence, while another belabours him with a leather
thong.

[Illustration: FIG. 70. INTERIOR OF POTTERY.]

It would appear that the vases after the baking were often placed on
the exterior of the furnace, either to prevent the too rapid cooling of
the clay, or (as indicated on the Berlin cup) for the pigments to dry.
Jahn and others have published a gem[789] on which a small two-handled
vase is placed on the top of an oven, and a youth is applying two
sticks to it, perhaps in order to take it down without injury by the
contact of the hand. A companion gem,[790] on which an artist is
painting a similar jar, shows a jug and a kylix standing on a kiln.

When the vases were returned from the furnace, the potter appears to
have made good as far as possible the defects of those not absolutely
spoiled; and if naturally or by accident any parts remained too pale
after the baking, the defect was remedied by rubbing them over with a
deep red ochre, which supplied the necessary tone.

4. PAINTING

We may distinguish three principal classes of painted pottery, of which
one at least admits of several subdivisions:—

(1) Primitive Greek vases, with simple painted ornaments, chiefly
linear and geometrical, laid directly on the ground of the clay with
the brush. The colour employed is usually a yellowish or brownish red,
passing into black. The execution varies, but is often extremely coarse.

(2) Greek vases (and Italian imitations) painted with figures. These
may be subdivided as follows:—

(_a_) Vases with figures in black varnish on red glazed ground (see
Frontispiece, Vol. II.);

(_b_) Vases with figures left in the red glaze on a ground of black
varnish (see Frontispiece, Vol. I.).

(3) (_a_) Vases of various dates with outline or polychrome decoration
on white ground (see Plate XLIII.);

(_b_) Vases (also of various dates) with designs in opaque colour on
black ground.

Of these, the second group is by far the largest and most important,
and the complicated and technical processes which it involved will
demand by far the greater share of our attention in the following
account of the methods of painting. In both the classes (_a_) and (_b_)
the colouring is almost confined to a contrasting of the red glazed
ground of the clay with a black varnish-like pigment, a contrast which
perhaps more than anything else furnishes the great charm of a Greek
vase.

This black varnish is particularly lustrous and deep, but varies under
different circumstances. Great difference of opinion has always existed
as to its nature, and the method by which it was brought to such
perfection by the Greeks. The variations in its appearance are due
partly to differences of locality and fabric, partly to accidents of
production. It is seen in its greatest perfection in the so-called
Nolan amphorae of the severe red-figure period; and at its worst in the
Etruscan and Italiote imitations of Greek fabrics. On the vases found
at Vulci it shows a tendency to assume a greenish hue, as opposed to
the blue-black of the Nolan vases, while variations in the direction of
red, brown, and (on late South Italy fabrics) grey are of frequent
occurrence. It is probable that these gradations of quality are mainly
due to the action of fire, according as a higher or lower temperature
was employed. On the other hand, the ashen-grey hue which vases of all
periods sometimes assume[791] seems to be due to the direct action of
fire in contact with them, and this may perhaps be explained by
supposing that they had been burnt on a funeral pyre. This varnish also
varies in the thickness with which it was laid on, as can be easily
detected with the finger.

Although the chemical action of the earth sometimes causes the black
varnish to disappear entirely, leaving only the figures faintly
indicated on the red-clay ground, there has never yet been found any
acid which has any effect upon it.[792] Various opinions have been
promulgated, from Caylus downwards, as to the elements of which it is
composed.[793] Brongniart[794] has analysed it with the following
results:—

Silicic acid 46·30 50·00
Clay earth 11·90
Iron oxide 16·70 17·00
Chalk 5·70
Magnesia 2·30
Soda 17·10
Copper traces.

It is unnecessary here to enter in detail into the numerous other
theories of its composition, but so far it cannot be said that any
certainty has been attained.

Turning now to the methods by which the black varnish was applied, we
find it necessary to distinguish between the two classes of
black-figured and red-figured vases; some vases, of course, are
completely covered with it, having no painted design, but these do not
enter into the question.

In the black-figured vases the figures are painted in black silhouette
on the red ground of the vase, the outlines being first roughly
indicated by a pointed instrument making a faint line.[795] The surface
within these outlines was then filled in with the black pigment by
means of a brush, the details of anatomy, drapery, armour, etc., being
subsequently brought out in part by further incising of lines with a
pointed tool. In some of the finest vases, such as those of Amasis and
Exekias (p. 381), the delicacy and minuteness of these lines is brought
to an extraordinary pitch of perfection. After a second baking had
taken place, the designs were further enriched by the application of
opaque purple and white pigments, usually following certain
conventional principles, the flesh of women and devices on shields, for
instance, being always white, folds of drapery always purple. A third
baking at a much lower heat was necessary to fix these colours, and the
vase was then complete.

It should here be noted that there are really two subdivisions of these
black-figured vases, which may be termed for convenience “red-bodied”
and “black-bodied.”[796] In the former the whole vase stands out in the
natural red colour of the clay; whereas in the latter the treatment
approaches more nearly to the red-figure method which we shall
presently discuss. The whole body of the vase is in these examples
covered with the black varnish, with the exception of a framed panel of
red, on which the figures are painted. This distinction may be well
observed in the Second Vase Room of the British Museum, where most of
the vases on the east side of the room belong to the former or
“red-bodied” class, while all those on the west side are
“black-bodied,” with designs in panels.

In the red-figured vases the black varnish is used as the background,
and covers the whole vase, as in the “black-bodied” B.F. fabrics, the
figures not being actually painted, but _left red_ in the colour of the
clay. The process was as follows:—Before the varnish was applied the
outlines of the figures were indicated, not by incised lines but by
drawing a thick line of black with a brush round their contours. It is
probable that a fine brush was used at first, especially for more
delicate work, and then a broader brush producing a line about an
eighth of an inch in thickness. The process, be it noted, is more akin
to _drawing_ than painting; and it was as draughtsmen _par excellence_
that the red-figure artists excelled. The next stage was to mark the
inner details by means of very fine black lines (corresponding to the
incised lines of B.F. vases), or by masses of black for surfaces such
as the hair; white and purple were also employed, but far more
sparingly than on the earlier vases. In the late Athenian and South
Italian vases a tendency to polychromy sprang up, but the main process
always remained the same to the final decadence of the art. The figures
being completed and protected from accidents by their broad black
borders, the varnishing of the whole exterior surface was then
proceeded with. This was of course a purely mechanical business. A
fragment of a red-figured vase in the Sèvres Museum forms an excellent
illustration of the method employed, as, although the figures are
finished, the ground has never been filled in, and the original black
border is plainly visible (Fig. 71).

[Illustration: FIG. 71. FRAGMENT OF UNFINISHED RED-FIGURED VASE.]

The result of the second baking was to fix the varnish and cause it to
permeate the surface of the clay in such a way as to become practically
inseparable from it. The subsidiary colours, on the other hand, which
were laid on over the black, are always liable to disappear or fade.

A very interesting representation of painters at work on their vases is
to be seen on a hydria from Ruvo (Fig. 72).[797] Three painters are
seated at work with their brushes, of whom two are being crowned by
Victories, while the third is about to receive a wreath from Athena,
the protecting goddess of the industry. Their paint-pots are to be seen
by their side. At one end of the scene a woman is similarly occupied.

From _Blümner_.

[Illustration: FIG. 72. STUDIO OF VASE-PAINTER.]

In class 3 (_a_), or vases with figures on white ground, we have to
deal with the process of covering the naturally pale clay with a white
slip of more or less thick and creamy consistency, on which the designs
were painted. In the archaic period this process is fairly common,
especially in the earliest vases of Corinth and of Ionia, and at Kyrene
and Naukratis. It was revived at Athens about the end of the sixth
century (see pp. 385, 455). But when once the white slip was laid on,
the technical process differed little from that in use on ordinary
red-ground vases, except for the general avoidance of white as an
accessory; it merely results that instead of a contrast of black and
red, one of black and cream is obtained. The method was one also
largely practised in early painting, as we see in the Corinthian
pinakes and the sarcophagi of Clazomenae (pp. 316, 362).

But there is another class of white-ground vases to which we must
devote more special attention, namely, those on which the figures are
painted either in outline or with polychrome washes on the same white
slip. The earliest instance of such a method is in the series of
fragments found at Naukratis, dating from the beginning of the sixth
century (see p. 348), which technically and artistically are of
remarkably advanced character, and combine the two methods of painting
in outline and in washes of colour. In the fifth century the practice
was revived at Athens as a means of obtaining effective results with
small vases, and became especially characteristic of one class, the
funeral lekythi, which are elsewhere described (Chapter XI.). This,
however, must serve as the most convenient place for a few remarks on
their technique.

The vases, after they had left the wheel and were fitted with handle,
etc., were covered with a coating of white flaky pigment, in
consistency resembling liquid plaster of Paris, or, when dry, pipeclay.
They received this coat of white while still on the wheel, and then a
second coating, of the usual black varnish, was applied to such parts
as were not required for decoration. Usually the white covered the
cylindrical part of the body, and the shoulder up to the neck; black
was applied to the mouth, neck, handle, base of body, and stem. The
clay, it should be noted, is of the ordinary kind, but two varieties
have been distinguished, one of pale red, for light thin vases, the
other of a blackish-grey, for thicker and heavier ware. The natural
colour appears on the inside of the lip and foot. Before being removed
from the wheel the vases were finely polished, which gave to the white
coating a sort of lustrous sheen; they were then fired at a low
temperature.

The method of decoration[798] was usually as follows:—A preliminary
sketch was made with fine grey lines, ignoring draperies (hence the
lines of figures are usually visible _through_ the draperies), but not
always necessarily followed when the colours were laid on. This was
done as soon as the first lines were dry, the colour being applied with
a fine brush and in monochrome—black, yellow, or red—following the
lines of the sketch more or less closely. In the later examples red was
used exclusively, and at all periods at Athens; but in the vases
attributed to Locri and Sicily, a black turning to yellow is used. This
combination of black and yellow is also used on the best Attic vases
for various details, such as eyes and hair. The outlines also served to
indicate the folds of the draperies. For the surfaces of drapery and
other details, polychrome washes were employed, the colour being spread
uniformly by means of a large brush. All varieties of red from rose to
brown are found, also violet, light and brownish yellow, blue, black,
and green. Hair is sometimes treated in outline, sometimes by means of
washes. It is noteworthy that in the later examples the wash-colours
were often painted right over the red lines. On the bodies of the
figures these washes are rare, but in some cases shades of brown are
used for flesh colour, as on the figure of Hypnos on a lekythos in the
British Museum (D 58).

At Athens this polychrome decoration was not indeed limited to the
lekythi, but was extended to the kylix, the pyxis, and other forms, of
which some beautiful examples exist in the British Museum and at
Athens.[799] In these, as in the best of the lekythi, the drawing of
Greek artists seems almost to have reached perfection, and arouses our
wonder yet more when we reflect that everything was done merely by
freehand strokes of the brush. This technique is practically limited to
the period 480–350 B.C.

The subsidiary ornamentation of the lekythi was put on either after the
main design or before, this being immaterial. The lines above the
design can be seen to have been painted on the wheel, as they go all
round the vase; but the palmettes on the shoulder and maeander patterns
above the design do not extend beyond it. After the colouring the vases
appear to have been fired again, and in some cases the white slip was
probably varnished. The details of their manufacture show that the
lekythi were not intended for daily use; the shape is awkward for
handling—the handles, for instance, are obviously not intended for
practical use—and the delicate, lightly baked slip made them too porous
for liquids. Everything tends in the direction of elegance and delicacy.

Our next sub-division consists of vases, chiefly of late date, in which
the decoration is by means of opaque colours laid on the surface of a
vase altogether coated with black varnish or glaze. The process is not
indeed one absolutely unknown in earlier times, for there is the
primitive Kamaraes ware of Crete (p. 266), and also a small series of
archaic vases belonging to the early part of the fifth century (p. 393)
in which this principle is adhered to, the designs being painted in
opaque red or white on the black varnish. The latter seem to show a
development from the black-figure period, to the end of which they
belong, and may have been intended to rival the new red-figure method,
but failed to attain popularity.

We next meet with the process in Southern Italy, where it again appears
as the last effort of a worn-out fashion to flicker into life with
renewed popularity. The centre of this revival, which follows on after
the Apulian vases of the third century, was Gnatia (Fasano), on the
coast of that district. The vases are partly modelled in relief, or
have ornaments in relief attached; the decoration, in white and purple,
is confined to one side only, and is very feeble and limited in its
scope. An apparently local variety, perhaps made in Campania by native
craftsmen, has the figures in opaque red, with details marked by rudely
incised lines.

The Gnatia style was adopted by the Romans in the second century for a
small series of vases inscribed with names of Italian deities, such as
Juno and Vesta (p. 490), and it appears in the method of decoration
known as _en barbotine_ on the pottery of the Empire (see Chapters
XXI., XXIII.).

[Illustration: FIG. 73. VASE-PAINTER VARNISHING CUP ON WHEEL.]

The instruments which were employed for the painting of the vases were
not, as formerly supposed, limited to a metal or reed pen, and a
camel’s-hair brush. It has been recently pointed out in a most
illuminating article by Dr. Hartwig[800] that the lines of black
bordering the figures on red-figured vases are usually double, the
space in between being filled in with varnish thus: [ornament].
Practical experiments have shown that this can be obtained with a
_feather brush_ or pen, drawing the lines separately, not concurrently,
as might be done with a metal pen.[801] The feathers of the snipe were
specially suitable for this purpose, as were also those of the swallow.
It is probable that we see the use of the ordinary brush on the Ruvo
vase-painting already mentioned, but this was no doubt used for filling
in the ground and all parts where the colour was laid on in large
masses. Again, on a fragment from the Athenian Acropolis (Fig. 73)[802]
a man is seen covering the inside of a B.F. kylix with black varnish
while he turns it on the wheel; this is also done with an ordinary
brush. But there is a R.F. kylix,[803] on the interior of which we see
the undoubted use of the feather-brush or pen (Fig. 74). In his left
hand the painter seems to hold the sharp tool for engraving the
outlines of the figures, and with his right he manipulates the
feather-pen which is seen to consist of a small feather inserted in a
wooden holder.

[Illustration: FIG. 74. VASE-PAINTER USING FEATHER-BRUSH.]

It is not likely that this instrument was generally used before the
introduction of the R.F. style; it would hardly have been required
either for the silhouette figures of the B.F. vases or the outlines on
the white ground. According to Hartwig, Andokides, one of the earliest
R.F. artists (about 520 B.C.) was making experiments in the use of the
feather-pen, and in the course of twenty years, in the vases of
Epiktetos and his school, its use had become general. It is not indeed
unknown on B.F. vases, and can be traced in the ornamentation where
fine lines were required, as on the Amasis vase in the Bibliothèque
Nationale.[804] It was probably first used in the more developed Ionic
pottery, but as we have seen had no chance of becoming generally used
until the essentially linear R.F. style came into vogue. The artists
who reached the height of skill in its use were Meidias and the
painters of the delicate little vases of the latter half of the fifth
century, this instrument being also admirably adapted for making the
fine inner lines in which the painters of that period achieved such
success.

Besides the painting-brush and the feather-pen, the other instruments
used in the decoration of vases include the pointed graving-tools
employed for incised lines, modelling-tools for the parts in relief, a
stick for steadying the hand while at work, and a pair of compasses.
The latter were employed for marking circles, as may be clearly seen on
shields on the B.F. vases, where the mark left by the central point of
the compasses is often visible.

The difficulties in the painting of Greek vases must have been
numerous. In the first place, it was necessary for the artist to finish
his sketch with great rapidity, since the clay rapidly absorbed the
colouring matter, and the outlines were required to be bold and
continuous, any joins producing a bad effect. Again, the vases were
often painted while in an upright position, and the artist was obliged
to stoop, rise, and execute his work in these difficult attitudes; nor
could he remove the pencil from any figure which he had once begun. The
eye must have been his only guide. Then, as he was obliged to draw his
outline upon a damp surface, the black colour which he used was
instantly confounded with the tint of the clay. The lines grew broad at
first, and afterwards contracted themselves, leaving but a light trace,
so that the artist could with difficulty discern what he had been
doing. Moreover, the lines, once begun, could not be left off except
where they met other lines which cut or terminated them. Thus, for
example, the profile of a head must have been executed with a single
continuous line, which could not be interrupted till it met the neck;
and in drawing a thigh or leg, the whole outline must have been
finished without taking off the pencil: proceeding from the top
downwards, making use of the point to mark the horizontal lines, and
afterwards rising upwards to finish the opposite side. The drawing was
done entirely by the hand and no pattern used.

The outlines round the figures on R.F. vases were drawn strongly, in
the manner described above, to prevent the background encroaching on
the figure. That this was done while the clay was moist appears by the
outlines uniting, which could not have taken place if the clay had been
dry. It was so difficult to fill in the outlines without alteration,
that they were frequently changed, and sometimes the ground was not
reached, while at others it exceeded the line.

The ancient artists, notwithstanding these difficulties, observed all
the laws of balance and proportion, especially ἰσομετρία, or the law of
equal height of all figures; conveyed expression by means of attitude;
and, by the use of profile, and the introduction of accessories, or
small objects, into the background, contrived to compensate for the
want of perspective.

This latter deficiency was due to the use of flat colours, which did
not allow of shades, and the figures were consequently not seen in
masses distinguished by light and shade, but isolated in the air.
Hence, in order to make the figures distinct, and to express by
attitude all the actions and sentiments required, the artist was
compelled to use profile. The black colour, the choice of which may at
first appear singular, is, after all, the most harmonious, and the best
suited for showing the elegance and purity of the outline; whilst by
its aptness to reveal any defects of shape, it compelled the artist to
be very careful in his drawing.

The colours employed[805] were, as we have seen, remarkably few in
number. Of the black varnish which plays such an important part, and of
its composition we have already spoken. Of the opaque accessory
colours, the white is said by Brongniart[806] to be a carbonate of lime
or fine clay. It is evidently an earth of some kind, and gives no trace
of lead under analysis. The creamy slip of the white-ground vases is of
similar character, and appears to be a kind of pipeclay. It was
probably of the same character as the earth of Melos used by
Polygnotos.[807] The deep purple or crimson, so largely employed on the
Corinthian and early Attic B.F. vases, is known to be an oxide of iron,
an element which entered largely into the red glaze. The yellow found
on the white vases and those of Apulia as an accessory to white is of
an ochrous nature. The red used for outlines on the white lekythi is
probably not vermilion (_minium_), but red ochre (μίλτος, _rubrica_).
Blue and green, which are rarely found, and only on vases of the later
styles, were produced from a basis of copper. On vases from the time of
Euphronios and Brygos (about 480 B.C.) onwards, gilding was
occasionally employed, the process being one which we have already
described (see above, p. 210). Good instances of this process are to be
seen in the fourth-century vases from Capua, which are glazed black
throughout and ornamented solely with gilding.[808] But the gold leaf
has often perished. Besides Capua, these vases are found chiefly in
Athens and the Cyrenaica.

5. STATUS OF POTTERS

It now remains to say something respecting the makers of Greek
vases—the potters of antiquity. Unfortunately, however, little is known
of their condition, except that they formed a guild, or fraternity, and
that they amassed considerable fortunes by exporting their products to
the principal emporia of the ancient world. The existence of two
_Kerameikoi_, or pottery districts, at Athens shows the great
commercial importance of the manufacture. In later times there seems to
have been a considerable tendency to division of labour among the
potters, and each man “specialised” in some particular shape; hence we
find them characterised as χυτρεύς and χυτροπλάθος,[809]
ληκυθοποιός,[810] καδοποιός,[811] or κωθωνοποιός.[812] It is assumed
that the word ἐποίησεν, “made,” when found on a vase, indicates the
potter, and not the artist, although it is reasonable to suppose that
when no artist’s name accompanies the formula the potter was at the
same time the painter. On one vase the names of two potters, Glaukytes
and Archikles, are found[813]; one has been supposed to be the
artist’s, but it is more probable they were partners.

By the Athenians, potters were called _Prometheans_,[814] from the
Titan Prometheus, who made man out of clay—which, according to one
myth, was the blood of the Titans, or Giants—and was thus the founder
of the fictile art. It was not, however, much esteemed, although
without doubt the pursuit of it was a lucrative one, and many of the
trade realised large fortunes; in proof of which may be cited the
well-known anecdote of Agathokles,[815] who, at a time when the rich
used plate, was in the habit of mixing earthenware with it at his
table, telling his officers that he formerly made such ware, but that
now, owing to his prudence and valour, he was served in gold—an
anecdote which also suggests that the profession was not highly
esteemed. The guild at Athens was called ἐκ κεραμέων, “of the
potters,”[816] and we also hear of a college of κεραμεῖς at
Thyateira.[817] However, the competition in the trade was so warm as to
pass into a proverb, and the animosity of some of the rival potters is
even recorded upon the vases.[818] To this spirit are also probably to
be referred many of the tricks of the trade, such as imitations of the
names of makers, and the numerous illegible inscriptions. When the
potter’s establishment—called an _ergasterion_—was large, he employed
under him a number of persons, some of whom were probably free but poor
citizens, whilst others were slaves belonging to him.[819] How the
labour was subdivided there are no means of accurately determining, but
the following hands were probably employed:—(1) A potter, to make the
vase on the wheel; (2) an artist, to trace with a point in outline the
subject of the vase; (3) a painter, who executed the whole subject in
outline, and who probably returned it to No. 2, when incised lines were
required; (4) a modeller, who added such parts of the vase as were
moulded; (5) a fireman, who took the vase to the furnace and brought it
back; (6) a fireman for the furnace; (7) packers, to prepare the vases
for exportation. Hence it may readily be conceived that a large
establishment employed a considerable number of hands, and exhibited an
animated scene of industrial activity.

-----

Footnote 739:

_Traité_, i. p. 548.

Footnote 740:

_Technologie_, ii. p. 56.

Footnote 741:

_Die Malerei_, p. 176.

Footnote 742:

See Jahn, _Vasens. zu München_, p. cxliv; and Brunn-Lau, _Griech.
Vasen_, p. 6.

Footnote 743:

Suidas, _s.v._; Athenaeus, xi. 482 B; Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 36.

Footnote 744:

_De recta audiendi rat._ 9, § 42 D.

Footnote 745:

Suidas, _s.v._ Κωλιάδος κεραμῆες; cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 152.

Footnote 746:

For representations of quarrying for clay at Corinth see the pinakes
at Berlin, _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, Nos. 7, 23.

Footnote 747:

Athen. xi. 464 B. C.

Footnote 748:

_Reg. et Imp. Apophth._ 174 E.

Footnote 749:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 161.

Footnote 750:

Myres in _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 16.

Footnote 751:

Diod. Sic. iv. 76.

Footnote 752:

See Frazer, _Pausanias_, note to i. 21, 4.

Footnote 753:

Pliny, _H.N._ vii. 198; Schol. _ad_ Pind. _Ol._ xiii. 27.

Footnote 754:

Diog. Laert. i. 105; Suidas, _s.v._ Ἀνάχαρσις.

Footnote 755:

Athen. i. 28 C.

Footnote 756:

_Il._ xviii. 600.

Footnote 757:

vii. 303.

Footnote 758:

Seneca, _Ep._ 90, 31.

Footnote 759:

_Rep._ 420 E.

Footnote 760:

_Apud_ Athenaeum, x. 449 B.

Footnote 761:

See Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 38, note 3.

Footnote 762:

xxxviii. 29: κεραμεὺς καθήμενος ... καὶ συστρέφων ἐν ποσὶν αὐτοῦ
τροχόν.

Footnote 763:

_De gen. Socr._ 20, p. 588 F.

Footnote 764:

i. 645 K, quoted by Blümner.

Footnote 765:

Blümner, ii. p. 39; Jahn in _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch_. 1854, p. 40,
note. See also Chapters XXI.-XXII.

Footnote 766:

_Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, figs. 17, 18; cf. _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 106.

Footnote 767:

_Ath. Mitth._ xiv. (1889), p. 157.

Footnote 768:

Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 51.

Footnote 769:

As on the vases of Nikosthenes (see below, p. 385; B.M. B 619, 620;
Louvre F 116, 117).

Footnote 770:

Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. 11 = Petersburg 525.

Footnote 771:

Evans, in _Num. Chron._ 3rd Ser. xi. p. 319 = _B.M. Cat._ iv. G 121,
122.

Footnote 772:

See for examples _B. M. Cat._ iv. G 87–95.

Footnote 773:

Cf. Aesop, _Fab._ 166 _a_, _b_.

Footnote 774:

_Cat._ 2542 = Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 50.

Footnote 775:

Brongniart, _Traité_, i. p. 552.

Footnote 776:

_Legg._ iii. 679 A.

Footnote 777:

_H.N._ xxix. 34.

Footnote 778:

_E.g._ B.M. B 426, E 459.

Footnote 779:

Cf. Ar. _Ach._ 933: ψοφεῖ λάλον τι καὶ πυρορραγές. See also Suid.
_s.v._ πυρορραγές; Pollux, vii. 164; _Etym. Magn._ p. 798, 17; and
Schol. _in_ Hom. _Il._ ii. 219. I cannot but think that in the term
φοξός, as applied to Thersites' head, there is some correspondence to
our phrase “crack-brained.” Simonides (_apud_ Athen. xi. 480 D)
speaks of a φοξίχειλος Ἀργείη κύλιξ, a term of disputed meaning; but
a cup of which the brim (χεῖλος) would suggest the shape of a peaked
head is hardly conceivable; and here again there must surely be some
notion of sound.

Footnote 780:

See Blümner, _op. cit._ ii. p. 46.

Footnote 781:

See Fig. 67 _b_; Berlin 2294; Furtwaengler, in _Jahrbuch_, vi.
(1891), p. 110, points out that these heads probably represent the
Kyklopes or demon-attendants of the fire-god Hephaistos. See above,
p. 105, under πύραυνοι; also Daremberg and Saglio, _art._ Caminus.

Footnote 782:

Lenormant, _La Grande Grèce_, i. p. 94.

Footnote 783:

Berlin 802 = _Ant. Denkm._ i. 8, 4.

Footnote 784:

_Cat._ 731 = Jahn in _Ber. d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1854, pl. 1, fig. 1,
p. 27.

Footnote 785:

A Seilenos in this act appears on a vase in _Sale Cat. Hôtel Drouot_,
May 11th, 1903, No. 131 (reproduced in Fig. 68).

Footnote 786:

Examples are: _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 8, figs. 12, 19_b_, 22 (in
Berlin); _Gaz. Arch._ 1880, pp. 105, 106 (in Louvre).

Footnote 787:

A better drawing has recently been given in Furtwaengler and
Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 159; but the reproduction in Fig. 67 is
accurate in all essentials.

Footnote 788:

_Cat._ 1114 = _Ath. Mitth._ xiv. (1889), p. 151.

Footnote 789:

See Blümner, ii. p. 52.

Footnote 790:

_Ibid._

Footnote 791:

See above, p. 214.

Footnote 792:

Blümner (ii. p. 75) gives an account of various chemical experiments
made upon it.

Footnote 793:

See Blümner, ii. p. 76 ff.

Footnote 794:

_Traité_, i. p. 550.

Footnote 795:

This process is well illustrated on certain vases (_e.g._ B 158 in
Brit. Mus.), where the artist has subsequently altered his design,
and the lines still remain visible.

Footnote 796:

See for a fuller consideration of this point p. 368.

Footnote 797:

Baumeister, iii. p. 1992, fig. 2137 = Reinach, i. 336.

Footnote 798:

See Pottier, _Lecythes blancs_, p. 99 ff.

Footnote 799:

See Chapter XI., and Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_, p. 499.

Footnote 800:

_Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 147 ff.

Footnote 801:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 376.

Footnote 802:

_Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 154.

Footnote 803:

_Jahrbuch_, 1899, pl. 4.

Footnote 804:

_Cat._ 222.

Footnote 805:

See Durand-Gréville in _Rev. Arch._ xviii. (1891), p. 99 ff., xix.
(1892), p. 363 ff.

Footnote 806:

See Blümner, _Technol._ ii. p. 81.

Footnote 807:

See for the four colours used by him, Plut. _de defect. orac._ 47,
436 C; Cic. _Brut._ 18, 70; and cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 50.

Footnote 808:

On vases with gilding, see Jahn, _Vasen mit Goldschmuck_ (1865).

Footnote 809:

Plat. _Theaet._ 147 A, _Rep._ iv. 421 D; Pollux, vii. 163.

Footnote 810:

Strabo, xv. 717; Pollux, vii. 182.

Footnote 811:

Schol. _in_ Ar. _Pac._ 1202.

Footnote 812:

Pollux, vii. 160.

Footnote 813:

B.M. B 400.

Footnote 814:

Lucian, _Prom. in Verbis_, 2; cf. Lactantius, _Div. Inst._ ii. 11.

Footnote 815:

Plutarch, _Apophth. Reg. et Imp._ 176 E.

Footnote 816:

Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Sculpt._ i. 599; Ross-Meier, _Demen von Attika_, p.
122, No. 67. The persons here mentioned were not necessarily potters.

Footnote 817:

Boeckh, _C.I.G._ ii. 3485.

Footnote 818:

Hes. _Op. et Di._ 25: καὶ κεραμεὺς κεραμεῖ κοτέει; quoted by
Aristotle, _Rhet._ ii. 4, 21, and Plat. _Lys._ 215 C. Euthymides on
one of his vases places the boast, “Euphronios never did anything
like this.” See for these two artists, Chapter X.

Footnote 819:

Cf. the vase at Athens described above (p. 218), and the others with
representations of potteries.

PART II
HISTORY OF GREEK VASE-PAINTING

CHAPTER VI
_PRIMITIVE FABRICS_

Introductory—Cypriote Bronze-Age pottery—Classification—Mycenaean
pottery in Cyprus—Graeco-Phoenician fabrics—Shapes and
decoration—Hellenic and later vases—Primitive pottery in
Greece—Troy—Thera and Cyclades—Crete—Recent discoveries—Mycenaean
pottery—Classification and distribution—Centres of
fabric—Ethnography and chronology.

In the preceding chapters we have given a general _résumé_ of the
subject of Greek pottery; we have discussed the sites on which Greek
vases have been found, the methods employed in their manufacture, the
shapes which they assume, and the uses to which they were put both on
earth and in the tombs; and we have now reached perhaps the most
important part of the subject, at any rate in the eyes of
archaeologists, namely, the history of the rise, development and
decadence of painting on Greek vases.

It has already been noted (in Chapter I.) that this branch of the study
of Greek vases is one that has only been called into existence in
comparatively recent times, and that up to the year 1854 or thereabouts
all attempts at dating the vases (chiefly of course owing to the
poverty of material) were purely empirical and tentative. They were
moreover largely combined with fantastic interpretations of the painted
designs.

During the last forty years, and especially during the last twenty, the
steady growth of archaeological study and increased attention to
excavations have enormously increased both the material at command and
the power of utilising it with scientific method. The extensive finds
of pottery in Greece, Asia Minor, Northern Africa, Italy, and
elsewhere, including more especially products of the earlier periods,
have enabled the students of the subject to trace the sequence of
fabrics from the rude wares of Troy and the Greek Islands up to the
graceful and finished products of the Athenian _ateliers_, and onward
to the overgrown luxuriousness of the gigantic Apulian wares. The
subjects of the paintings, once of all-absorbing, are now only of
subordinate interest, except so far as they illustrate certain phases
of development, and the chief interest of the vases is the question of
their origin, their maker, or their place in relation to others.

It will therefore be the object of this and of the succeeding chapters
to trace with all possible detail, as far as space permits, the history
of Greek vase-manufacture and vase-painting in all their aspects. We
have already indicated (p. 31) the limits within which the subject
falls, and the convenient rough division into four main classes of
which it permits (p. 23). This introductory chapter, therefore, deals
with the primitive fabrics, leading up, through the two following, to
the period of black-figured vases in Chapter IX. The lines of
demarcation are, indeed, difficult if not impossible to draw, but they
must not in any case be taken as rigid ones, being largely
conventional, and only adopted in order to obtain a point of division
for the chapters.

Perhaps the leading feature of the early history of Greek vases is the
gradual coalescence of the numerous local fabrics first into two or
three main streams, and finally into the one great and all-absorbing
current of Athenian art. In the sixth century this was really brought
about more by historical causes than anything else, as a result of the
gradually increasing supremacy of Athens in art and culture from the
time of the Peisistratidae down to that of Perikles.

One region, and one only, pursues its artistic course without regard to
the contemporaneous tendencies prevailing in the Greek world, and that
is the island of =Cyprus=. Here again the causes are largely political,
as we shall see; largely also ethnographical and geographical, from the
character of the inhabitants and the position of the island, a
meeting-place and bone of contention between the great nations of the
Eastern Mediterranean. For this reason we propose to deal first with
the pottery of Cyprus, which has little in common with that of the rest
of Greece, and always retains something of its primitive character,
though it is always as much influenced from Greece on the one hand as
from the East on the other. It is in Cyprus also that we meet with some
of the earliest remains of pottery yet found on Greek soil.

§ 1. CYPRIOTE POTTERY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cesnola, _Cyprus_; O.-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_;
Perrot and Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. p. 648 ff.; _Cyprus
Mus. Cat._ (Myres and O.-Richter); _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_
(Turner Bequest), 1894–6; Dümmler in _Ath. Mitth._ xi. (1886), p.
209 ff.; _Archaeologia_, xlv. p. 127 ff.; Pottier, _Cat. des
Vases ant. du Louvre_, i. p. 82 ff., and other references there
given.

In order to understand aright the history of Cypriote art, it is indeed
necessary to know something of its ethnography and political history,
and the various influences to which it has been subjected. But space
forbids us to do more than make very brief allusions to the more
important of these features. Speaking generally, Cyprus may be regarded
as a centre wherein have met all the currents of ancient civilisation,
forming an amalgamation of artistic elements. Thus Cypriote art, though
it loses in originality, gains in interest; and yet though often
slavishly imitative, it has at bottom great individuality, more
especially in its pottery. Hence it will be seen that it is essentially
necessary to consider the pottery of Cyprus as a thing apart.

As regards chronology, except for a certain determinable sequence of
artistic phases, even more caution than in dealing with Hellenic art is
required. The remarkable conservatism and persistence of types
exhibited by Cypriote art has more than once proved a pitfall, and has
given rise to considerable controversy at one time or another. Dates
can only be used in the vaguest manner.

The pottery of Cyprus falls under three headings, which for
convenience, though not perhaps with the strictest accuracy, are
usually defined as follows:—

1. _Bronze Age_, from about 2500 B.C. to 800 B.C.

2. _Graeco-Phoenician period_, from 800 B.C. to 400 B.C., overlapping
with

3. _Hellenic period_, from 550 B.C. to 200 B.C., representing the
time during which imported Greek vases are found in the tombs,
native pottery gradually dying out except in the form of plain
vessels.

The pottery of the Bronze-Age period again falls into two distinct
periods: (1) Copper Age or pre-Mycenaean period (2500–1500 B.C.),
during which few bronze implements are found in the tombs, and all the
pottery is purely indigenous, the work of the original inhabitants of
the island, without any admixture of importations. (2) The Mycenaean
period (1500–800 B.C.), during which the local pottery (including both
unpainted and painted vases) is reinforced by large quantities of
imported Mycenaean pottery, together with elaborately decorated vases
of Mycenaean technique, either made locally or specially made for
Cyprus and imported.

The sites on which Bronze-Age remains are found (see above, p. 66) are
chiefly confined to the central and southern parts of the island, the
most important sites being near the modern towns of Nicosia, Larnaka,
and Famagusta. The discovery in these tombs of such objects as
milking-bowls and querns is an additional proof of the conclusion
naturally to be drawn—that the early inhabitants of Cyprus were a race
of pastoral lowlanders.[820] The tombs (see p. 35) are mostly pit-tombs
of moderate depth, recalling in type the Egyptian _mastaba_, and burial
is universal.

There is no doubt that the art of pottery was introduced into Cyprus
coincidently with the beginning of the Copper Age, which may be placed
at about the year 2000 B.C. Although no bronze is found in the earliest
tombs, on the other hand stone implements are absent, and the types of
the pottery are identical with those of the later Bronze Age. It will
be seen that it presents throughout very striking parallels with the
pottery of Hissarlik, which will form the subject of the next section.
The forms are largely similar and the technique is the same, but the
Hissarlik pottery is ruder and of inferior clay. Stone implements are
found at Hissarlik, but no copper, from which the inference may be
drawn that that metal, being indigenous to Cyprus, supplanted stone
there at an earlier date than in the Troad, whither it had to find its
way by means of commerce. It was no doubt largely due to the existence
of its copper ores that Cyprus so early shows an advance in its
civilisation.

The shapes of the earliest Cypriote pottery are purely indigenous and
very characteristic, but the technique may very likely have been
learned from elsewhere; in regard to which it should be noted that as
it is invariably hand-made, an Egyptian origin is altogether precluded,
owing to the early use of the wheel for pottery in that country (see
pp. 7, 206). For the most part the forms are characterised by a
tendency to fantastic and unsymmetrical modelling, with a preference
for complicated forms, such as two or three vases joined together.
Others again imitate gourds or vessels of straw and basket-work, such
as are used in Cyprus at the present day. They have no foot or
“base-ring” to stand upon; and another characteristic is the frequent
absence of handles, the place of which is supplied by small ears, by
means of which the vase was hung up or carried by cords.[821] Sometimes
these ears cover the whole outline of the vase. The plastic principle
is always popular in the Bronze-Age pottery, and manifests itself in
more than one direction. From the first it is exhibited in the
tendency, so common in early art, to combine the vase and the
statuette,[822] a tendency which is even stronger in the pottery of
Hissarlik. It also takes the form of designs in relief covering the
surface of, or moulded to, the vase.

In one point Cyprus is manifestly in advance of the rest of the ancient
world, and that is, in the decoration of the pottery. Here, in fact, we
meet with the first attempts at painted vases, combined with the
employment of a fine bright red or polished black slip to cover the
surface. In the earlier varieties the designs, when they occur, are
confined to simple rectilinear geometrical patterns incised through the
slip before baking; but these are soon supplemented by the employment,
first of a matt-white pigment, secondly of a brown-black paint obtained
from the native umber. The only other locality in which painted vases
occur at so early a period is the island of Thera (see below, p. 260).

We pass now to the consideration of the later Bronze-Age
pottery—namely, that which is found in tombs together with vases of
Mycenaean style. In this we see various modifications of the indigenous
art, and witness its eventual transformation by the introduction of new
processes and ideas from various sources. The main streams of influence
are three in number, coming from the east, south, and west
respectively. Of these the first represents the Asiatic civilisations
of Babylonia and the Hittites, to whom in the first place are due the
engraved cylinders frequently found in these tombs, and at a
comparatively late date such objects as the ivory draught-box from
Enkomi in the British Museum, which affords points of comparison with
the reliefs of Kouyounjik. Egyptian influences date from the invasion
of Cyprus by Thothmes III. (eighteenth dynasty), about 1450 B.C., as
exemplified by the frequent occurrence of scarabs and porcelain
objects. A counter-influence of Cyprus on Egypt is seen in the presence
of exported Cypriote pottery in tombs at Kahun, Saqqara, and
elsewhere.[823] Lastly, there is the far more extensive influence of
the Mycenaean civilisation, covering several hundred years, and
eventually absorbing the indigenous fabrics until the foundations of a
new phase of decorative art were laid on a combination of the two. The
Mycenaean vases belong to the later styles exclusively (see below, p.
271), and show a strong preference for certain forms such as the
false-necked amphora and the large richly-decorated krater peculiar to
Cyprus; but these we must discuss later in fuller detail. Briefly, they
represent the first entry of Greece proper into the Cypriote world.

The ethnological affinities of the early inhabitants of Cyprus cannot
be positively ascertained. In M. Heuzey’s opinion they were Asiatics,
Syrian rather than Phoenician, and he suggests that the names of Kition
(Chittim) and Amathus (Hamath) imply Hittite and Hamathite colonists.
Dümmler regarded them as closely akin to the race which inhabited the
second city at Hissarlik,[824] an idea to which the similarity of the
pottery might be thought to lend support. At all events in Greek legend
this people was personified by the mythical king Kinyras, the father of
Adonis, who came from the neighbouring Asiatic coast. The Hellenic, or
rather Achaean, invasion is crystallised into the legends of Teucer’s
colonisation of Salamis after the fall of Troy,[825] of an Arcadian
settlement at Kerynia and elsewhere, and of the founding of Curium by
Argives (? Mycenaeans).[826]

The first attempt to classify the pottery of Cyprus, and to distinguish
between the Bronze-Age wares and what are now known as the
Graeco-Phoenician fabrics, was made by the late Mr. T. B. Sandwith in
1876.[827] Considering the comparative poverty of material at his
command, and the state of archaeological knowledge at the time, his
brief but illuminating monograph is a wonderfully accurate and
scientific contribution, and, so far as it goes, his classification can
still be accepted in the main. But the extensive series of excavations
in the island since the British occupation, and the investigation of
such fruitful sites as Salamis, Curium, and Kition, have resulted in a
great advance of our knowledge of the subject. The elaborate
classification made by Messrs. Myres and Ohnefalsch-Richter of the
representative collections of the Cyprus Museum must for the present be
regarded as final, and of necessity forms the basis of the succeeding
description.

* * * * *

The pottery of the Bronze Age may be classified under two main
headings: Painted and Unpainted Pottery. Of these the former is
practically confined to the later tombs, and we naturally turn first to
the unpainted pottery as taking precedence in chronology and
development.

Almost the commonest, and probably the earliest, variety is the =red
polished ware=, sometimes plain, but generally ornamented with incised
patterns or reliefs (see Plate XI., Nos. 3, 4, 7).[828] The polished
surface, which seems to betoken a great advance in technique, was
doubtless produced by means of a burnisher. In some varieties the
surface is black, a result due to the action of smoke in firing. The
commonest forms are a globular bottle with long neck and handle, a
plain bowl, a cooking-pot on feet, and a two-handled globular amphora;
besides composite and abnormal forms. None of these vases have any kind
of base except the cooking-pots.

The incised patterns, when they occur, are scratched in deeply before
firing, and often filled in with white; the patterns, which tend to
become more and more elaborate, consist of zigzags, wavy lines,
chequers and lozenges, network patterns, and concentric circles.
Ornament in relief is applied in the form of strips of clay, often
worked into the shape of rude figures of trees, snakes, animals, or
simple patterns. Many tombs and even cemeteries, as at Alambra, Agia
Paraskevi, and elsewhere, contain no other form of pottery; but though
these are undoubtedly earlier than the mixed tombs, the red ware in a
degenerate form continues long afterwards.

There is also a small class of =black-slip ware=, covered with a thin
dark lustreless slip which flakes off easily. The ornamentation, which
is seldom absent, is generally in the form of a straight or wavy line
with a row of dots alternately on either side, either incised or in
relief. The forms are much the same as in the red ware, but often seem
to suggest metal or leather prototypes.

An interesting class is formed by the =black punctured ware=, in which
the clay is black throughout, without a slip, but partly polished. Most
of these vases are small jugs with a narrow neck, swelling body, and
small foot, and they are ornamented with punctured dots, usually in
triangular patches, but sometimes irregularly distributed. In Cyprus
they are mostly found in the early necropolis at Kalopsida, but they
also occur in the late Mycenaean tombs at Enkomi. The special interest
of this ware is that it is found in Egypt, under such circumstances
that it can fairly be dated; notably at Khata'anah in conjunction with
scarabs and flint chips of the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties
(2500–2000 B.C.). It is also found in the Fayûm, where Prof. Petrie
obtained some good specimens.[829]

Allied to this is the Cypriote _bucchero_ ware, of plain black clay
without slip, ornamented with ribs or flutings. It is only found in the
later tombs, and can be traced through the subsequent transitional
period.[830]

Of the remaining fabrics the most conspicuous is that termed by Mr.
Myres the =base-ring ware=, which is marked off from other Bronze-Age
types by its flat-ringed base in all cases. The clay is dark and of
fine texture, with thinly-glazed surface. The ornament is either in
relief or painted in matt-white, the patterns being exclusively of a
basket or network type (Plate XI., figs. 1, 2). The reliefs, when they
occur, consist of scrolls or raised seams curving over the body,
obviously in imitation of the seams of a leather bottle; they sometimes
end in a leaf-ornament,[831] and at other times take the form of a
snake. This fabric is very commonly found in the later tombs with
Mycenaean vases, and hardly earlier. It has been found in Egypt and at
Lachish.[832]

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

PLATE XI

[Illustration:

EARLY CYPRIOTE POTTERY (BRITISH MUSEUM).
1, 2, “BASE-RING” BLACK WARE; 3, 4, 7, INCISED RED AND BLACK WARES;
5, 6, “WHITE-SLIP” WARES.
]

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

Among the rarer varieties of unpainted wares Mr. Myres includes white
base-ring ware (plates and bowls), imitations of straw-plait or
wicker-work, and plain _wheel-made wares_ with red or black slip, of
peculiar form.[833]

Among the Painted Pottery by far the most widely-spread local fabric is
that styled by Mr. Myres the =white-slip ware=, which appears in the
tombs of the later Bronze Age, and is more than any other associated
with Mycenaean vases. In cemeteries such as Enkomi, Curium, and
Maroni[834] it has been found in large quantities in almost every tomb,
and its range is not limited to Cyprus. The characteristics of this
ware are a black gritty clay, worked very thin, and a thick white
creamy slip with which it is covered both inside and out; it is
exceedingly brittle, and perfect specimens are comparatively uncommon.
The ornament is laid on in a black pigment, often turning to red by the
action of fire; the most common form is that of a hemispherical bowl
with a flat triangular handle, notched at the apex. Almost the only
other forms are a long-necked flask or bottle of the lekythos type and
a large jug with cylindrical body (like an _olpe_) and a flat
thumb-piece above the handle.

Mr. Myres[835] points out that the scheme of decoration seems intended
to imitate the binding and seams of a leather bowl; it usually consists
of a band of various patterns (lattice-work, zigzags, lozenges, or
lines of dots) round the rim, from which similar bands descend
vertically, but do not meet at the bottom. Similarly the handle seems
intended to represent two pieces of flexible wood bound together. In
the case of the jugs the patterns follow a similar principle, giving
the effect of a decoration in panels to the upper part. Specimens of
this ware are given in Plate XI., Nos. 5, 6.

Beyond the confines of Cyprus isolated specimens of this ware have been
found at Athens, Hissarlik, Thera, Lachish in Palestine, and at Saqqara
and Tell-el-Amarna in Egypt, in the last-named instance along with
Mycenaean vases.[836] The resemblance of some white-slip wares to the
Dipylon vases is not a little curious.[837] But it can hardly be
thought that the one influenced the other.

The other local painted wares are by no means so common. They are, in
fact, almost limited to specimens of an unpolished _white ware_, with
fine cream-coloured clay, on which patterns such as groups of straight
or wavy lines, chevrons, chequers, and triangles filled with hatched
lines are painted with a pigment varying from dull black to dull red.
The commonest forms are one-handled bowls and small bottles, either
globular or sausage-shaped. The latter are distinguished by often
having long tube-like spouts attached and by the numerous perforated
projections for the attachment of strings, handles being generally
absent at first, but when they are introduced the projections remain as
an ornamental survival. In a few isolated specimens the surface is
covered with a polished slip. Others again are covered with a _black
glaze_,[838] on which are painted in dull red groups of short parallel
lines, which (as Mr. Myres points out) seem to have been executed at a
single stroke with a cluster of brushes.

* * * * *

The =Mycenaean pottery= which has been found on not a few sites in
Cyprus, and of late years in such surprising quantities at Enkomi and
in the neighbourhood of Larnaka and Limassol (Maroni, Curium, etc.),
belongs properly to another section of this chapter, and would not call
for discussion in this connection, but for the fact that in Cyprus it
presents certain features which seem to be almost exclusively local. At
all events it is advisable to consider how far Mycenaean pottery in
Cyprus differs from that found in Rhodes, Crete, or Mycenae.

Two points claim our attention in the first instance: (1) that in point
of technique the Cypriote finds fall absolutely into line with those in
other parts of the Mycenaean world; (2) that the range of subjects
depicted on the vases found in Cyprus is wider and in a measure more
developed than elsewhere. To what extent we may be permitted, bearing
both facts in mind, to predicate a local fabric of Mycenaean pottery in
Cyprus, must for the present remain an open question; at the same time
it seems extremely probable that the larger vases, which it will be
necessary to discuss in detail, are, if not of local manufacture, at
all events a fabric made specially for exportation to Cyprus, as we
shall see was the case with a later variety of black-figured Attic ware.

The peculiarity of the Cypriote-Mycenaean pottery is that whereas on
other sites the decoration is confined to linear ornaments, and animal
or vegetable subjects drawn almost exclusively from the aquatic world
(such as cuttle-fish, shell-fish, or seaweed), in Cyprus we find
represented not only animals, such as bulls, deer, goats, and dogs, but
even human figures, both male and female, and monsters such as Sphinxes
and Gryphons. Having regard to what M. Pottier[839] calls the law of
the _hierarchie des genres_, it does not seem impossible that this may
imply a _late survival_ of Mycenaean art in Cyprus, and although this
view has been hitherto strongly contested in certain quarters, it finds
support from other evidence obtained in recent excavations. The whole
chronology of Cypriote pottery is still in a very unsettled state, and
until it can be definitely shown that the Cypriote Geometrical style
began concurrently with the appearance of Geometrical pottery in
Greece, it is still admissible to urge that Mycenaean art prevailed
here for some time subsequent to its disappearance from the greater
part of the Hellenic world. For this the accepted date is the end of
the tenth century B.C., but it is not necessary to extend its influence
in Cyprus more than two centuries longer, _i.e._ beyond the eighth
century, at the latest.

If we accept the view generally held that the Mycenaean civilisation
was Achaean, and that after the Dorian invasion its representatives
were driven in an easterly direction and settled on the coast of Asia
Minor; and if again we regard this as an historical version of the
Greek traditions of the Trojan war and the subsequent migrations of the
Achaean heroes[840]; we may then consider that the stories of Teucer’s
foundation of a new Salamis and of an Argive colonisation of Curium
find their verification in the Mycenaean settlements recently
discovered on those two Cypriote sites. The extent and richness of the
old Salamis at Enkomi at any rate seems to suggest that it may have
flourished as a Mycenaean settlement for some centuries.

But to return to the pottery. Two forms are eminently characteristic of
the Cypriote varieties. Of these, one—the “false amphora” (p. 271)—is
not peculiar to the island, but is found wherever Mycenaean pottery has
penetrated; though especially common in Cyprus, it is in fact the most
popular of all Mycenaean shapes. The other is a large krater, found in
two varieties, either a straight-sided deep bowl with wide mouth and no
neck, or a spheroidal vessel on a high stem, with a low straight neck
of less diameter than the body. It is this latter class which appears
to be of local manufacture and presents such a variety of painted
decoration.

Up to the year 1895 only some half-dozen of these kraters were known,
one of which was found by General Cesnola in the rich necropolis at
Agia Paraskevi near Nicosia[841]; another he alleged to have come from
Amathus, but it was no doubt found at Maroni, not so far distant, where
for many years a Bronze-Age cemetery has been known. In the above-named
year two more came to light at Curium,[842] one of the same type as
General Cesnola’s, with figures driving two-horse chariots; the other
having in addition the unique subject of a series of women, each figure
in a separate panel, represented as waving their arms or holding
flowers.[843] These were speedily followed by the rich and valuable
series from Enkomi now in the British Museum, since which time other
interesting specimens have been obtained for the Museum in various
excavations or have found their way into the hands of local collectors
(see Plate XII.).

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

PLATE XII

[Illustration: MYCENAEAN VASES FROM CYPRUS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

Native imitations of the Mycenaean vases, which have been described as
“sub-Mycenaean wares,” have been found in considerable numbers on most
of the sites where the genuine Mycenaean ware exists. They fall
technically under the heading of painted white ware (p. 251),[844] the
difference being that the decoration is in _matt_ colour (varying from
black to red) on an unpolished drab ground. The patterns mostly follow
Mycenaean models, but some are new. They are well represented on the
Mycenaean site at Curium,[845] especially in one or two tombs of
transitional character, and in some cases the decoration is of a
distinctly Geometrical type, illustrating the development of the
succeeding style. In any case it is not difficult to distinguish them
from the genuine Mycenaean fabrics.

* * * * *

In these so-called sub-Mycenaean vases we can trace the best evidence
of the transition from the Bronze Age to the succeeding or
Graeco-Phoenician period. But on the whole the line of demarcation is
clearly defined, as for instance by the forms and position of the
tombs, which become larger and lie deeper; by the appearance of iron
implements and bronze fibulae; and by the fact that all the native
pottery is now made on the wheel. Relations with continental Greece are
evidenced by the occasional importation of Geometrical pottery of the
Dipylon type (as in the great vase found at Curium), dating from the
ninth and eighth centuries B.C. As we have already seen, the first
Hellenic settlements in Cyprus seem to have followed on more or less
immediately after the Dorian invasion, in the sites of Salamis, Curium,
Kerynia, Paphos, and others which afterwards became the capitals of
small Hellenic kingdoms.

On the other hand, the Phoenician thalassocracy, which began about the
ninth century B.C., never had much foothold in Cyprus, less at any rate
than was formerly supposed. Politically at all events the Phoenician
influence was comparatively small, even in their settlements at Kition
and Amathus[846]; we read of expeditions of the kings of Tyre in the
tenth and eighth centuries, the object of which was to force the former
town to pay tribute; but subsequently they were compelled by the
Assyrian domination under Sargon to retreat westwards. In the seventh
century a new power arose in the shape of Egypt, and in the sixth
Cyprus became a tributary of Amasis.[847] Throughout, however,
relations with Greece were maintained, and we read that in 501 B.C. the
Cypriote princes joined the Ionians in their revolt against Persia, a
fact which shows the strength of the Hellenic element.

Nevertheless the term “Graeco-Phoenician,” which has been adopted to
describe the art of this period, is convenient, and can hardly be
improved upon, if we bear in mind that the term “Phoenician” really
represents the combination of Egyptian and Assyrian elements of art
which filtered through that race into Cyprus, and in which sometimes
the one, sometimes the other has the predominance. This is seen perhaps
more clearly in the sculpture, metal-work, and terracottas, as for
instance in the incised bronze and silver bowls,[848] than in the
pottery. Painted pottery was never a feature of Oriental art, and the
Phoenician influence in the pottery is confined to borrowed motives of
Oriental character, like foreign words in a language. Another proof
that Cyprus resisted the Phoenician domination is afforded by the
curious fact that though the Greeks of the mainland adopted the
Phoenician alphabet entirely, in Cyprus, on the other hand—where, above
all, we should have expected to find it—its place is taken by a
syllabary, the forms of which appear to bear some relation to the
Lycian, Carian, and Pamphylian alphabets. That this syllabary, which is
universally employed for inscriptions down to the fourth century, is of
a very high antiquity is shown by its close affinities with the
newly-discovered Cretan script, and by the fact that single characters
of a similar type are often found engraved on the handles of Mycenaean
vases in Cyprus. Each character represents a syllable, not a letter
(except in the case of vowels), and the dialect is thought to be
largely influenced by Aeolic.

Mycenaean influence, as might be expected, was slow to die out in
Cyprus, and the pottery is no exception. It is seen not only in the
patterns, such as the concentric circles—an invention of the
Cypriote-Mycenaean pottery, which forms a favourite and almost
universal motive at a later date—but in the subjects and technique. The
practice of painting figures in outline, not in silhouette, as in the
birds and beasts of the Enkomi kraters, the use of dull red and black
pigments on an unglazed light-coloured surface, and many other details
are an heritage from the Bronze Age, extending over many a succeeding
century. With these are combined the influences of the early Attic
pottery,[849] in the panels of Geometrical patterns, and the later
rosette and conventionalised lotos-flower, which, with the concentric
circles, form the stock-in-trade of the “Graeco-Phoenician” potter. The
British Museum collection includes one or two remarkable isolated
specimens which illustrate this principle. It is for instance
instructive to compare the Sphinxes on a krater from Enkomi[850] with
those on a large amphora lately acquired from the Karpas,[851] or the
oinochoe from General Cesnola’s collection with a chariot-scene (Plate
XIII.),[852] with those from Mycenaean sites similarly decorated. On
the other hand, the extraordinary large vase from Tamassos,[853] with
its crudely and childishly drawn figures, combines a curious admixture
of Greek and Oriental motives, and early as it must be, is not
Mycenaean in conception or technique.

Oriental influence is not, however, altogether wanting in the pottery.
The lotos-flowers and rosettes, of which we have already spoken, are
derived respectively from Egypt and Assyria, and the conventionalised
palm-trees, which also appear, are of course purely Oriental. So too,
again, the typically Oriental subject of the sacred tree between two
animals appears in various forms. But here again we are met with the
surprising fact that the Oriental element is far stronger in Greece
than in Cyprus, as will be seen later in the account of the early
Hellenic fabrics; and no doubt it is due to this cause that the
Geometric style was not driven out from Cyprus as it was from Greece,
but continued for many centuries.

In attempting a detailed description of the Graeco-Phoenician pottery,
it will be seen that any chronological system is impossible. The
conservative tendency of Cypriote art caused the same methods of
decoration to be employed with extraordinary persistency during a
period of time which saw the whole development of Hellenic
vase-painting from its earliest beginnings to its decline, and though
there is a certain amount of variety, there is no development properly
speaking, and the latest fabrics are, artistically speaking, on the
same level as the earliest. It might be thought that the evidence of
excavations would compensate for this absence of artistic criteria; but
such is not the case. As a general rule in tombs containing imported
Greek vases, the dates of which can be fixed within reasonable limits,
native pottery is conspicuous by its absence, as may be seen from the
results obtained at Curium. In any case, in the tombs richest in
Hellenic pottery, as at Poli, the local wares are largely of a
definitely late character, and so far distinct from the Geometrical and
Orientalising fabrics as to form a class by themselves. Another
difficulty which has to be taken into account, is that caused by the
frequency of re-burials in Cypriote tombs. Of this there were countless
instances at Amathus and Poli, so much so that explorers of the latter
site were actually led to believe that the Geometrical pottery was
contemporaneous with remains of the Hellenistic age with which it was
frequently found.[854] But where trustworthy evidence can be obtained,
it entirely militates against this possibility.

The principal sites[855] on which “Graeco-Phoenician” pottery has been
found are: Amathus, Curium, Dali (Idalion), Kition, Lapathos, Poli
(Marion-Arsinoe), Paphos, Salamis, Soli, and Tamassos. Other sites are
not at present identified, but the finds were made in the neighbourhood
of the modern Achna, Ormidhia, and other villages, and in the Karpas.
Of these sites the richest are Amathus, Dali, Curium, and Poli; but in
the finest collection of vases of this class, that of General Cesnola
at New York, the alleged sites are not always to be accepted with
certainty.

[Illustration: FIG. 75. JUG WITH CONCENTRIC CIRCLES: GRAECO-PHOENICIAN
PERIOD (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

Graeco-Phoenician pottery is, as has been said, exclusively wheel-made,
and almost always supplied with a “base-ring.” Reliefs and incised
ornaments are never found, but instances of moulded wares, combining
the vase with the statuette, are not wanting, especially among the
later varieties. The designs are usually painted in a non-lustrous
black pigment, varied with the use of opaque purple and white,
corresponding to the pigments employed by Hellenic potters. The ground
is either white, without any polish or slip—as in the painted white
ware of the Bronze Age and sub-Mycenaean fabrics—or else covered with a
more or less lustrous red slip, varying from a bright orange or deep
red to a dark brown (the latter usually with unpolished surface).
Purple is employed only on the white wares, white only on the red. The
typical decoration of the white wares consists of lotos-patterns,
tree-ornaments, and water-fowl. Generally speaking, these are earlier
than the red. On the lustrous red wares the decoration is usually
confined to simple patterns of concentric circles, vertical and
horizontal, maeander crosses, lozenges and triangles. Fig. 75, from
Curium, is a typical specimen of the more elaborate types, and another
is shown in Plate XIII.

The forms are at first very varied, but gradually crystallise into some
half-dozen main types: dishes, bowls on stems, lekythi with one or two
handles, jugs with globular bodies, and large amphorae with vertical
side-handles. Of these the jug is by far the commonest. Among the
peculiar forms in the earlier tombs (eighth to sixth centuries) may be
mentioned _aski_ in the form of birds or oxen (the latter a Mycenaean
survival), and a kind of flask with barrel-shaped body, on which the
decoration of concentric circles, etc., does not follow the usual
horizontal system of classical pottery, but is disposed vertically, in
contradiction to all artistic feeling (see Plate XIII.). The circles
are often very fine and close, and were produced by holding a brush
full of paint close to the surface of the vase as it was turned on the
wheel. The drawing of the circles in different planes, without regard
to the lines of the vase, was easily effected by placing it in
different positions. In the period of Hellenic importations the
principal form is the jug with ovoid body and modelled spout, and flat
dishes are also common.

* * * * *

Unpainted pottery is almost as common as painted in the
Graeco-Phoenician period, and calls for a few words of separate
treatment. For the most part it comes under the heading of Domestic
Ware, or earthenware vessels similar to those in ordinary use at the
present day. They are made of plain, unrefined, usually reddish, clay,
without any slip or polish, and include various forms of jugs, bowls,
and plates, as well as the large wine-amphorae with pointed bases
universally found at all periods. Many lamps and small “cup-and-saucer”
double bowls occur in this category. In the earlier tombs of the
Transitional period, pottery of a black-slip ware, with reeded body, is
frequently found, chiefly in the form of jugs and kraters. Plain black
wares, like the Italian _bucchero_, are also rarely found; as are
vessels covered with a fine red slip and polished.

* * * * *

In most of the painted pottery of the Graeco-Phoenician period,
especially in its earlier phases, the technical methods are those which
we have already described in speaking not only of the “sub-Mycenaean”
or Transitional fabrics, but also of the painted white ware of the
Bronze-Age tombs. That is to say, that the decoration is in dull colour
on a lustreless and (usually) unpolished white or drab ground. The
colour, however, is usually not red, as in the earlier stages, but
black, red being used chiefly as an accessory or for picked-out
details. The latter varies from a pale brick-red to deep purple. The
system of decoration is often extremely elaborate, although the range
of subjects is limited. Apart from geometrical or conventional
patterns, such as the stylised palmette, lotos-flower, stars, or trees,
we only find water-fowl, fish, a few quadrupeds such as bulls or
deer,[856] and finally human figures. But the last are exceedingly
rare, and confined to the white wares, the best example being perhaps
the very Oriental design of two warriors driving in a chariot,[857] or
the worshippers rendering homage to seated deities on the fine vase
from Ormidhia (Fig. 76).[858]

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

PLATE XIII

[Illustration: CYPRIOTE POTTERY: GRAECO-PHOENICIAN PERIOD (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

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

The system of geometrical decoration on some of the earlier vases,
especially the large jars, is often extremely elaborate, covering every
available inch of the surface[859]; the patterns consist of rosettes,
panels of lozenge-pattern or chequers, triangles of hatched lines,
dotted circles, etc., all combined in parallel bands or friezes, much
in the same way as on the Dipylon wares. The disappearance of this
elaborate style, together with human figures and figures of animals, is
perhaps to be accounted for by the importations of Hellenic wares which
began in the sixth century, and relegated the local fabrics to a
subordinate position, just as in Greece the early Geometrical fabrics
were obscured by the Mycenaean pottery (see below, p. 279).

Some interesting specimens, forming a late survival of these earlier
Geometrical wares, were found at Amathus in 1894.[860] They include one
which has a parallel in a vase found at Phocaea by Prof. Ramsay,[861]
and originally thought to be Ionic in origin; the decoration consists
of a head of Hathor the Egyptian goddess in a panel, with debased
geometrical patterns. There can be no doubt now that the fabric is
Cypriote, probably of the fifth century, and not without traces of
Ionic influence. Another shows a remarkable development in the
direction of naturalism, and the subject is unique in Cypriote pottery:
men banqueting under a palm-tree.

[Illustration:

From _Baumeister_.
FIG. 76. CYPRIOTE VASE FROM ORMIDHIA.
]

These probably date from the fifth century, the period which seems to
be represented by the later Geometrical red wares with concentric
circles, now slowly dying out under the influence of Hellenic
importations, and exceedingly rare in tombs where Greek vases are
found. At the same time a great transformation comes over the contents
of the tombs, which themselves begin to increase in size, with a
shorter δρόμος, to which a flight of steps leads down. Other tombs—and
this is often the case where Greek importations are found, as at
Curium—are merely in the form of ramifying passages cut in the earth,
without any structural remains. Sixth century and earlier Greek
fabrics, such as the Geometrical, Corinthian, or Ionian wares, are very
rare; but the imported Dipylon vase found by General Cesnola at
Curium[862] is a notable instance. Black-figured vases when found are
almost invariably of a late and careless type, characteristic of the
last efforts of that style in the fifth century. There is, however, a
remarkable exception in the case of a small class of jugs, which are in
shape an exact imitation of the globular Cypriote jugs with
concentric-circle decoration[863]; the long narrow neck and trefoil
mouth, with its incised eyes, are retained, but the decoration is
purely Attic, in the style of B.F. vases of 520–500 B.C. These are
found at Poli and Amathus, and appear to have been made specially at
Athens for importation to Cyprus. Poli (Marion) was for some reason a
great centre for Athenian imports in general, and has yielded many fine
specimens of Hellenic pottery (see p. 67). Red-figured vases signed by
Chachrylion, Hermaios, etc., have been found here,[864] and at Curium a
fine R.F. krater with the name of Megakles (καλός)[865]; also some fine
white-ground specimens at Poli.[866]

By the fourth century, if not earlier, the Geometrical and Hellenic
vases are almost entirely replaced by a new class of wares, which may
be termed “Graeco-Cypriote,” in contradistinction to the
Graeco-Phoenician. The same red clay, covered with a more or less
polished red slip, still obtains, but the painted decoration is
confined to olive-wreaths in brown or plain bands of colour. We also
witness the revival of an old practice, in a partial return to the
taste for plastic decoration on vases. In many of the fourth-century
tombs are found large pitchers, with a spout modelled in the form of a
woman holding a jug, out of which the liquid was intended to pour
(Plate XIII.).[867] These are sometimes richly decorated in polychrome,
red, blue, green, black, pink, and white; but the colouring is apt to
flake off and disappear. The imported wares of the fourth century are
confined to plain cups and bowls of glazed black ware with stamped
patterns, such as are often found in Greece and Italy. In the
Hellenistic period (300–146 B.C.) painted vases are practically
unknown, though a few rare specimens have turned up at Curium[868]; and
it is not long before they are entirely replaced by the glass vessels
and common wine-amphorae of the large and elaborate Roman tombs.

§ 2. PRIMITIVE POTTERY IN GREECE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TROY: Schliemann, _Ilios_; Dörpfeld, _Troja 1893_, and _Troja und
Ilion_ (1902), i. p. 243 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. p.
3 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 74 ff.

THERA: Fouqué, _Santorin_; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. p. 19
ff.; Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 135 ff.; Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 18; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.
119 ff.; Hiller von Gaertringen, _Thera_, vol. ii. (1903), p. 127
ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ xxviii. (1903), p. 1 ff.

MELOS: Excavations of British School at Phylakopi (_J.H.S._
Suppl. Vol. iv. 1904). See also Dümmler in _Ath. Mitth._ xi.
(1886), p. 15 ff.

The earliest remains of pottery on Hellenic soil are to be sought
chiefly in the Cyclades and on the site of ancient Troy. We have
already had occasion to allude to the latter in speaking of the
earliest Cypriote fabrics, and it is therefore fitting that we should
now give it our first attention.

The site of =Troy=, now known as Hissarlik, was, as is well known,
first explored by Dr. Schliemann in his laudable endeavours to prove
the truth of the early Greek legends of the Trojan War. Although
doubtless there are visible links between the Homeric poems and the
discoveries at Hissarlik, and although it is not necessary to deny all
credence to the historical truth of the “Bible of the Greeks,” yet it
is now generally recognised that Dr. Schliemann’s pardonable enthusiasm
sometimes led him to hasty conclusions. For instance, Dr. Dörpfeld in
his more recent investigations proved that if any remains are to be
connected with the tale of Troy, it is those of the sixth, not of the
second or burnt city.[869] Nine layers in all have been traced, of
which the five lowest may be termed prehistoric, the third, fourth, and
fifth being mere villages on the ruins of the first two. In the lowest
and earliest of all, which may be roughly dated 3000–2500 B.C., flint
implements were found, together with rude black pottery: hand-made
utensils baked in the open, with rings for suspension in place of
handles.

The second city belongs to the period 2500–2000 B.C., and it is this
which has yielded pottery analogous to the earliest examples from
Cyprus (p. 238). It is of the same rough hand-polished black ware, with
decoration either of a plastic character or engraved in the clay while
wet and filled in with white paint. Apart from this there are no traces
of painted decoration, or of any slip; but the colour of the surface
varies with the firing. The patterns consist of zigzags, circles, and
other rudimentary geometrical ornaments. A few wheel-made specimens
were found, but the majority are made by hand. What artistic sense was
evinced by these primitive potters was shown exclusively in the forms,
and in the tendency which is especially conspicuous in primitive times,
though it lingered on through the history of Greek art, and again broke
out in the period of the decadence, to combine the ceramic and the
plastic idea, and to give to the vase the rude resemblance of the human
form.[870] That this was no far-fetched idea is shown by the universal
nomenclature which permits us to speak of the mouth, neck, shoulder,
body, and foot of a vase—a principle which has been extended by general
consent to countless inanimate objects. Thus we find the Hissarlik
potter incising eyes on the upper part of the vase, or affixing lumps
of clay to give a rude suggestion of ears, nose or breasts, or bands to
denote necklaces. The handles often seem intended for rudimentary arms,
and we are tempted to see in the hat-shaped covers of the vases the
idea of a head-covering. Schliemann even went so far as to regard them
as actual idols, and was led by the superficial resemblance of some to
the form of an owl into identifying them with figures of the “owl-eyed”
(γλαυκῶπις) Pallas Athena (cf. Fig. 77). But this interpretation has
not found favour for many reasons, and the accidental combination of
forms is obviously only an artistic phase. There are also many similar
shapes, such as plain jars and jugs, and deep funnel-shaped cups with
two graceful handles.

[Illustration: FIG. 77. “OWL-VASE” FROM TROY.]

M. Dumont[871] classifies the fabrics as follows: (1) ordinary vessels,
plates, etc.; (2) large jars or amphorae; (3) primitive kraters, deep
cups, etc.; (4) spherical vases with base-ring [?] and long neck[872];
(5) long two-handled cups; (6) vases reproducing the human form; (7)
vases in the form of pigs and other animals; (8) exceptional forms,
such as double vases; (9) vases with incised patterns, on one of which
a Sphinx is engraved. Figs. 78–80 give examples of classes (5), (7),
and (8); Fig. 77 a specimen of class (6).[873]

[Illustration: FIG. 78. FUNNEL-VASE FROM TROY.]

The Hissarlik pottery may be regarded as a local development, partly
parallel with that of Cyprus,[874] partly derivative therefrom; of
Oriental influence there are no traces, but the connection with Thera
and Cyprus is indisputable.

[Illustration: FIG. 79. VASE IN FORM OF PIG, FROM TROY.]

Passing over the unimportant traces of the three succeeding
settlements, we find in the sixth city a great advance. The plastic
forms disappear, and generally speaking the shapes become more
classical. Besides plain pottery with matt-black polished surface we
meet with painted vases with curvilinear and vegetable patterns. The
remains of genuine Mycenaean pottery, the fortifications and buildings,
with great halls in the style of Mycenae and Tiryns, bear out Dr.
Dörpfeld’s contention that this is the Troy of Homer. Two points among
the pottery finds of this period are worth noting; firstly that they
included a fragment of Cypriote “white-slip” ware, secondly that
Geometrical patterns mingle with the Mycenaean in the upper layers.

[Illustration: FIG. 80. VASE WITH TWO NECKS (TROY).]

The three remaining layers cover respectively the archaic period, the
developed Hellenic and Hellenistic periods, and the age in which the
city of Ilium was refounded by the Romans. Dr. Dörpfeld found some
interesting local fabrics dating from the fifth century, examples of
which had previously been obtained by Mr. Calvert for the British
Museum.[875]

* * * * *

Of almost equal antiquity with the remains at Hissarlik is some of the
pottery discovered in the Cyclades, and especially at =Thera=. Here,
indeed, we meet with the earliest known examples of Greek _painted_
pottery (Crete excepted), and that, as we shall see, of a remarkably
developed type.

The island of Thera may be described as a sort of prehistoric Pompeii
buried under volcanic deposits, which have completely transformed the
configuration of the island. The results of preliminary excavations by
the French in 1866 showed that the cataclysm which overwhelmed the
island must (on geological grounds) have taken place about the
twentieth century B.C., and that the remains of pottery must be
anterior to this event.[876] Herodotos[877] states that Kadmos founded
a settlement in the fourteenth century, and the Minyae again about the
twelfth, and the island must have been uninhabitable for a long time
previously.

The houses and other remains of civilisation discovered below the
volcanic deposits show an advance on Hissarlik (second city) and the
earliest Cypriote culture, and the pottery is no exception. The vases
are wheel-made, fired at a moderate heat in closed furnaces (sometimes
baked in the sun), and plastic forms are almost wanting.[878] Many are
pierced with holes in the bottom, for what purpose is not known. They
were often found _in situ_, mixed with stone implements, and with
evidence of having contained grain. The forms are very regular, a
cylindrical shape being specially affected, and they are made of a
badly levigated clay, covered with a greyish slip, on which the
patterns are laid in _matt_ colours—white, black, or red—without any
incised markings.

[Illustration:

From _Baumeister_.
FIG. 81. VASES FROM THERA.
]

M. Dumont distinguishes four varieties of ornament: simple patterns,
such as bands, hatchings, and dots; volutes, wave-patterns, and
intersecting circles; vegetable motives, such as long narrow leaves or
flowers; and animals, including deer, and ducks or swans. Generally
there is a strong predilection for vegetable motives, and in this
naturalistic tendency we may see the prelude to the Mycenaean period.
Among those now at the French School at Athens, which has the best
collection, are several interesting examples illustrated in Fig.
81.[879] One is a trefoil-mouthed jug with running quadrupeds in black,
and red bands, on a grey ground; another jug is painted with birds in
black, the details in red and white. A sort of cream-jug is decorated
with water-plant patterns; a cylindrical jar with oblique wreaths; and
a dish with seaweed. A funnel-shaped vase and a beak-mouthed jug are
obvious prototypes of Mycenaean forms.

The chief differences from the Hissarlik vases are in the forms and
methods of decoration, but resemblances may be noted in the long narrow
necks, and the rings for suspension, as in the plastic forms when they
do occur. That the fabric is a local one hardly admits of doubt, but it
is interesting to note the occurrence of a bowl of white-slip ware from
Cyprus in Thera,[880] and conversely the appearance of a vase of Thera
fabric at Mycenae.[881] Thus we have evidence of extensive commercial
relations. Some tombs of the Hellenic period seem to have been dug
right down into the volcanic deposit, for they contained pottery with
Geometrical decoration.[882]

The discovery of primitive stone idols in Thera shows that it belonged
to the Cycladic civilisation, which extended from 2500 to 1600 B.C.,
filling up the gap between Hissarlik and Mycenae. It has been suggested
that these Cycladic peoples were Carians,[883] subsequently driven to
the Asiatic mainland by Minos, who typifies the rising power of Crete
and the Mycenaean world.[884] This Cycladic civilisation is also
exemplified in the earliest finds from other islands, such as Amorgos,
Syra, Paros, and Antiparos, and in other instances noted early in the
century by the observant traveller Ross.[885] The pottery from these
sites is, however, less advanced than that of Thera, but varies in
character. Painted patterns were found on vases from Amorgos and Syra,
the latter in the form of brown foliage on yellow ground.

It would not be right to conclude this section without some notice of
the remarkably interesting pottery excavated at Phylakopi in =Melos= by
the British School in 1896–99, which is important as forming a
connecting link between the Cycladic wares and the fully-developed
Mycenaean style. Space forbids more than a brief abstract of the
results obtained, which have just been given to the world in an
admirable publication.[886] Mr. C. C. Edgar, to whom the task of
studying the pottery was allotted, distinguishes four main groups:

1. (_a_) Primitive pottery of the cist-tomb type, corresponding to
that of Hissarlik; (_b_) more advanced ware of the same kind.

2. Painted Geometrical wares.

3. Local pottery in Mycenaean style with spiral and naturalistic
designs, falling into two divisions, earlier and later.

4. Imported Mycenaean pottery of the third and fourth styles (see
below, p. 271).

Generally speaking the pottery is of local make, and Phylakopi seems to
have been an important centre in the early Mycenaean period, having
considerable intercourse with Crete. The earliest wares (class 1)
include plain pottery, hand-made, with burnished brown surface or
simple incised patterns; those of class 2 are painted in lustrous or
matt black on a white slip, or in white on lustrous black or red, with
simple patterns; they appear to be hand-made. The Mycenaean pottery is
more or less akin to that found elsewhere in the Aegean.

§ 3. Crete

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 64 (finds in 1878 at Knossos); Milchhoefer,
_Anfänge der Kunst_; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_,
p. 22; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 173; _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p.
333 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff., xxiii. p. 157 ff.; _British
School Annual_, vi. p. 85 ff., vii. p. 51, and ix. p. 297 ff.;
_Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xv. (1894), p. 351 ff.

In turning our attention next to the island of Crete, we are confronted
with a new element in Greek archaeology; namely, the results of the
recent discoveries, which as yet have hardly become material ripe for
use in a general handbook. On the other hand, their singular importance
deserves full recognition. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that
much in the succeeding section is merely the embodiment of previous
researches, and that the new evidence can only be briefly summarised.

Allusion has just been made to the thalassocracy of Minos and its
bearing on the history of early Greek civilisations, and the recent
discoveries have done much to show that the prince who built the great
palace at Knossos in the early days of Mycenaean civilisation, if he is
not actually the Minos of Greek legend, yet represents the rising power
which extended its dominion over the Aegean and drove the Carian people
to the mainland. This supremacy of Crete from the fifteenth to the
eleventh century was artistic as well as political. The Crete of Minos
was, moreover, the point of contact between the Aegean peoples and the
Oriental races; and in the story of the Minotaur we may perhaps see a
reflection of the human sacrifices offered to the Phoenician Moloch or
Melkarth. The familiar passage in Homer[887] which deals with the
ethnography of Crete speaks of four component elements, which may be
explained as (1) the Eteokretes, or aborigines of the island, to whom
the early civilisation exemplified in their ceramic and glyptic
products is mainly due; (2) the Kydonii or Leleges, brought by Minos
from the islands[888]; (3) the Achaeans or mainland Greeks of the
period of the Trojan War; (4) the Dorians, whose connection with the
island dates from the eleventh century onwards.

Even before the recent excavations pottery had been found in Crete
which dated from the dawn of the Mycenaean period, and from the
island’s early connection with Egypt was thought to be contemporaneous
with that of Hissarlik and Thera. From the circumstances of its first
appearance in any quantity at Kamaraes, in the plain of Ida, it has
usually been named after that place. Dr. Orsi discovered two fragments
of Hissarlik type at Phaestos,[889] also a vase of island type, one of
Thera type,[890] and some early Cypriote wares.[891] Large numbers of
fragments of this ware in the Museum at Candia were first noted by Dr.
Orsi and Mr. J. L. Myres about 1894.[892] The extensive discoveries
made by Messrs. Hogarth and Welch for the British School at Athens in
1899–1900 (see p. 60) have added still further to our knowledge of the
ware; and these, taken in conjunction with Mr. Arthur Evans’s extensive
finds at Knossos (1899–1902), have enabled a recent writer to draw up a
tentative classification of all the prehistoric pottery of Crete.[893]

In his paper Mr. Mackenzie divides the pottery into three main classes,
which he distinguishes as Neolithic, Early and Middle Minoan, and Late
Minoan. The first-named extends down to about 3000 B.C.; the second
covers the period 3000–2000 B.C.; and the third (including Mycenaean
pottery of the usual types) lasts down to 1500 B.C., about which time
the Cretan supremacy came to an end, and the Mycenaean centre of
gravity was shifted to the mainland of Greece.

(1) Pottery of the Neolithic period is quite exceptional in Aegean
localities; yet the evidence from the excavations is so unmistakable
that there can be no question of its great antiquity. It consists of
common household vessels of grey clay, hand-made and burnished; at
first devoid of decoration, but subsequently fragments appear with
incised patterns filled in with white. These, it may be noted, may help
to date the analogous wares from Troy and Egypt. The black surface
becomes more and more lustrous, and in some cases a sort of rippling
effect is produced in the soft clay with a blunt instrument[894];
finally an age of decline manifests itself, but at the same time an
advance is made from filling in hollows with white to painting in
colours on the flat surface.

(2) The pottery in this stage is still hand-made; but the clay, which
is of a brick or terracotta colour, is greatly improved, and shows that
a potter’s oven must have been employed. The most remarkable feature is
that, along with the white or polychrome patterns on dark ground, the
origin of which has been noted, there appear vases with patterns in
lustrous dark colour on buff ground, like the Mycenaean wares. Hitherto
it had been supposed that the latter process was much later than the
other[895]; but the Cretan evidence admits of no doubt as to their
synchronism, even at this early stage of painted pottery in any form.
The pre-Mycenaean character of the Early Minoan deposits is, for
instance, proved by the entire absence of plain pottery of Mycenaean
types. It is then clear that Crete developed both independently of, and
with far greater rapidity than, the rest of the Aegean at this period.
The painted patterns are usually of a Geometrical character.[896]

The middle deposits of the third millennium, found above the floors of
the first palace, are, like the preceding, both polychrome and
monochrome in their decoration. The former include most of the types
formerly known as Kamaraes ware, the patterns being mainly but not
exclusively Geometrical; the curvilinear are rather later in date. The
commonest shape is one resembling a tea-cup.[897] In the next stage
relief-work is introduced to enhance the polychrome effect, probably in
imitation of metal. In the latest deposits a great decline is manifest,
and the monochrome vases tend to assert themselves to the exclusion of
the others.

That the period under discussion must have been one of great length is
shown by the depth of the “Minoan” deposits; they are, moreover, so
extensive at Knossos, and so scanty and isolated are examples from
other sites, that it cannot be doubted that here we have the centre of
the fabric. As regards their date we have good evidence from early
Aegean deposits in Egypt. By means of Professor Petrie’s finds at Kahun
in the Fayûm, which include specimens of the best Minoan ware,[898] we
are able to place the height of the period about 2500 B.C.

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

PLATE XIV

[Illustration:

From _Brit. School Annual_, ix.
STAND FOR VASE; KAMARAES WARE.
FROM PALAIOKASTRO, CRETE.
]

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

The appearance of the so-called Kamaraes ware is unmistakable, with its
bright, almost gay, aspect, and the contrast of the colours with the
lustrous black ground. The pigments employed are four in number—milky
white, yellow ochre, brick-red, and purple-red. These vases are mostly
made on the wheel, and the buff-coloured clay is fairly well levigated,
as is the slip, on which the pigments are directly laid; its lustre
often almost rivals that of the best Hellenic pottery. Mr. Evans found
some specimens in 1902 of an extremely delicate character, almost as
thin as an egg-shell. The colours are, however, sometimes dull and
powdery, and apt to flake away except when fired. The forms are of a
Cycladic type, the favourite being a two-handled globular vase with
spout, and a pear-shaped one-handled vase, also with a spout[899] (see
also Plate XIV.[900]).

The decoration is, as has been indicated, plastic as well as pictorial;
the relief ornaments are often of an elaborate type, as may be seen in
some of Mr. Hogarth’s finds.[901] Some vases are merely covered with
knobs, or with a sort of honeycombing in relief[902]; in others toothed
or bossed bands are employed, either simply or combined into complex
patterns. In any case this plastic element is quite a new departure.
The pictorial designs include geometrical and linear patterns, zigzags,
network, concentric circles, spirals, and swastikas; leaves, rosettes,
and other vegetable forms; fishes, and even in one case a human
figure.[903] The chief field of decoration is the shoulder of the vase.

Although varying in the extent of their naturalism, the patterns
exhibit considerable boldness and power of drawing; they seem to be
drawn chiefly from floral or textile sources, and are closely parallel
to the Thera vases, but more advanced. Some motives are of Mycenaean
character, such as the use of rows of white dots[904]; on the other
hand, the style of the fishes and human figure is more like that of the
Geometrical vases.

Mr. Hogarth notes that metal types of Kamaraes cups appear in the hands
of Kefti tributaries in the paintings of the tomb of Rekhmara (about
1550 B.C.), and he even found their Neolithic prototypes at Kephala,
near Knossos.[905] He also traces a connection with the early Aegean
pottery of Phylakopi in Melos. The Kamaraes pottery can be shown not to
have survived the incoming of the new Mycenaean influences, but the
patterns rapidly became conventionalised, and are replaced by the new
motives of the Mycenaean wares. It may further be noted that fragments
of Kamaraes ware have turned up not only in Egypt, as at Kahun (already
mentioned), but at Tiryns, in the fifth and sixth Acropolis graves at
Mycenae, and at Curium in Cyprus.

(3) The pottery of the “Late Minoan” period from the palace of Knossos
falls into two groups—the “palace” style, and the ordinary Mycenaean
fabrics. The former class of vases has been found in considerable
numbers in the second palace, and also at Zakro and other sites. The
vases are painted in a lustrous brown-to-black glaze on a buff
hand-polished slip, with fine and elaborate naturalistic designs,
including vegetable patterns, birds, and fishes; others, again, are
more architectonic in character.[906] We also find adaptations of the
Kamaraes style, with bands of white paint laid on the black varnish,
the usual forms being a flat bowl and a small cup with flat handles
like the Vaphio cups.[907]

In their decoration the most highly developed varieties of the “palace”
style show a parallelism with the wall-paintings, the patterns
consisting of rosettes, spirals, and conventional flowers; in some very
naturalistic examples this is strongly marked, the designs of olive and
myrtle wreaths and bulbous plants showing an almost Japanese fidelity
to nature. Others, again, have marine subjects—seaweed, shells, and
rocks. Lastly, there are the representations of the double axe, which
Mr. Evans has shown to be a religious symbol.[908]

The whole of this pottery belongs to the third or highest period of
Mycenaean pottery, a time when decadence was actually beginning to set
in, concurrent with the end of the eighteenth dynasty. At this time all
over the Aegean area, in Melos, Egypt, and elsewhere, the styles of
pottery were perfectly uniform, and had clearly been imported from one
centre. In the light of recent discoveries we can no longer doubt that
this centre was Crete, and the previous history of its pottery and the
early development of its technical processes, as well as its
geographical position, point in the same direction. About the year 1500
B.C. the site appears to have been invaded and abandoned, with the
consequent result that Mycenaean civilisation now spread all over the
Aegean, centring chiefly in Greece, where it lasted several centuries
longer. Of its influence on Cyprus we have already spoken.

Mycenaean vases had turned up in Crete for some time previous to 1899
in a sporadic fashion[909]; but these, being for the most part of the
ordinary type, do not call for separate consideration. There is,
however, one class that appears to be peculiar to the island. It
consists of large “false amphorae” and other vases, made of a rough
coarse-grained clay, and decorated in the “third Mycenaean” style with
large cuttle-fish; at Knossos this was found only outside the palace,
and was probably a coarse household ware. A good specimen has also been
found at Curium in Cyprus.[910]

§ 4. MYCENAEAN POTTERY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Mykenische Thongefässe_ (1879), and
_Mykenische Vasen_ (1886); Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 47 ff.; Perrot,
_Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 893 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.
181 ff. General reference should also be made to Schuchhardt,
_Schliemann’s Excavations_ (transl. E. Sellers); Schliemann’s own
works; Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_; Tsountas and
Manatt, _The Mycenaean Age_; and other works.

We have already had occasion to deal to some extent with Mycenaean
pottery in connection with Cyprus and Crete, but it is now necessary to
review it as a whole in the light of the present state of our knowledge
of this wonderful civilisation and its products. To enter here upon the
wide and much-debated questions to which the discoveries of the last
thirty years have given rise is of course beyond our province; but the
pottery of the people to whom the name Mycenaean has been somewhat
loosely given is of so homogeneous a character, although found in all
parts of the Mediterranean, that it may be treated as a phase of Greek
ceramics, independently of considerations of ethnography and
chronology. First found in any quantity at Ialysos in the island of
Rhodes, its exact position in the history of early art was not then
recognised; but when the marvellous discoveries of Heinrich Schliemann
at Mycenae became known to the world, including large numbers of
similar vases, Sir Charles Newton readily recognised that the Ialysos
vases in the British Museum belonged to the same class. It was not long
before the whole number of vases of this type, now christened
Mycenaean, was collected in a “Corpus” by two German scholars, with
numerous illustrations; but since that time the excavations of
“Mycenaean” sites in Cyprus and Crete must have doubled or even trebled
the material available.

The pottery at Mycenae was found in four different positions, implying
consecutive chronological stages, ranging roughly from the fifteenth to
the tenth or even ninth century. On these grounds Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke[911] distinguished four main classes; but it will be seen
that these are capable of even more subdivision. There are, in fact,
two main classes, distinguished by the use of _matt_ and lustrous
colour respectively; and of the first of these two, of the second four,
subdivisions are possible.

Class (1) is indeed comparatively rare,[912] and only found at Thera
and in the oldest tombs on the Mycenaean Acropolis; it represents the
transition from the pottery of Troy and Thera to that of Mycenae. The
subdivision is a purely technical one: (_a_) vases of pale coarse clay,
with patterns in a brown colour, some hand-made[913]; (_b_) wheel-made
vases of a reddish and finer clay, the designs in black and pale red,
occasionally white.[914] The decoration generally resembles that of the
Thera vases, and animals occasionally appear.

(2) The vases with lustrous painting may be classified as follows:

(_a_) Badly levigated clay; floral motives in matt-white or
red-brown on black ground.[915] A fine example of this class was
recently excavated at Maroni in Cyprus, a large krater with a
figure of a bird outlined in white on either side (Plate XII.).

(_b_) Similar clay, but coated with a white or yellow slip on which
geometrical or floral patterns are painted in lustrous black.[916]

(_c_) Fine clay with polished yellow surface; designs in black
turning to red or yellow, with occasional details in white;
chiefly marine plants and animals, but occasionally (especially in
Cyprus) human figures.[917] This class is by far the most numerous
of all, but is not found in Thera. It corresponds with the period
1400–1000 B.C.

(_d_) Clay grey or reddish, less brilliant, as is also the black;
large figures of quadrupeds and human figures.[918] The vases are
sometimes painted _inside_, which is a sign of late date.

The structure of these vases is very varied, and no less than 122
different forms may be distinguished in the illustrations to the
_Mykenische Vasen_. Most characteristic and popular is the “false
amphora,” as it is generally termed (German, _Bügelkanne_), a vase with
spheroidal body, of varying size, with the peculiarity that the
ordinary neck and mouth on the top are closed by a flat handle arching
over the vase, and the only aperture is a spout on one side (see Plate
XV. and Fig. 82). These are very widely distributed, but their
decoration is as a rule very simple; they appear depicted on the
paintings of Egyptian tombs of the eighteenth dynasty, and this has
often been used as an argument for the dating of Mycenaean vases. But
they must have remained in favour for a considerable period. Other
favourite shapes are: a funnel-shaped vase with handle at the top,
doubtless a reminiscence of a Hissarlik type (p. 258); a tall graceful
two-handled goblet or kylix, almost invariably decorated with
cuttle-fish (see Plate XV.), as the funnel-vases are with murex (purple
dye) shells; a beaked jug (German _Schnabelkanne_), derived from Thera;
a squat jar or pyxis, with three small handles (cf. Fig. 82); and a
tall pear-shaped vase with three handles on a high stem, which is
perhaps the prototype of the hydria. The large kraters are, as we have
seen, peculiar to Cyprus. Rarer forms are a sort of mug, and a
combination of the false amphora and pyxis. Mention should also be made
of the painted λάρνακες or _ossuaria_ found in Crete by Mr. J. H.
Marshall (p. 268 above) and by Dr. Orsi.[919]

The technique presents several entirely new features, such as the use
of a slip as a basis for the colours; the polished, brilliant, and even
surface; and above all the lustrous black varnish, which was the
peculiar pride of Greek potters, and is now a lost art. The comparative
monotony of the colouring is probably due to a purely technical reason,
namely, the difficulty of resisting the action of fire; otherwise such
an artistic people would doubtless have exhibited the same richness of
colouring in their pottery that we find in their frescoes.

The Mycenaean pottery is deservedly held in high estimation for its
picturesque and naturalistic style, which in its reproduction of animal
and vegetable forms often rivals Japanese art. Although its scope is
remarkably wide, yet there is a strong preference for marine
subjects—the cuttle-fish, the murex shell, the nautilus, and various
kinds of seaweed or such plants as the _Vallisneria spiralis_ (Chapter
XVI.). In Fig. 82 two good examples in the British Museum are
illustrated—one from Egypt, the other from Kalymnos.[920] Altogether
there is an originality and poetry of ideas such as never appears again
in Greek art; but that is not a peculiar possession of the potters, as
the metal-work, gem-engraving, and fresco-paintings testify—above all,
such masterpieces as the Vaphio gold cups, or some of the
wall-paintings recently discovered in Crete.

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

PLATE XV

[Illustration:

MYCENAEAN POTTERY
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

_To face page 273._

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

Religious ideas, on the other hand, are strangely conspicuous by their
absence. Mycenaean mythology is so far almost nonexistent in the art;
and although attempts have at times been made to detect traces of early
cults, as in the figures of men dressed as animals,[921] or the
representations of the double axe,[922] they have not as yet met with
universal acceptance. More improbable is the curious idea recently
mooted,[923] that the subjects of the vase-paintings indicate an
acquaintance with such theories as those of biological evolution.

[Illustration: FIG. 82. MYCENAEAN VASES WITH MARINE SUBJECTS (BRIT.
MUS.).]

Mycenaean pottery has been found on a very large number of sites
throughout the Mediterranean. The most productive have been Mycenae,
Crete, and Cyprus, especially the cemetery at Enkomi in the latter
island. Other Cypriote centres are Curium, Agia Paraskevi near Nicosia,
Maroni, and the neighbourhood of Dali and Larnaka (see p. 66). In
Attica the Acropolis of Athens and the beehive tombs of Spata and
Menidi have been most fruitful, and finds have been made at Haliki and
elsewhere. In the Peloponnese the chief site is Tiryns, and many
fragments have also been found at Nauplia; in Central Greece several
sites in Boeotia, such as Orchomenos, may be mentioned. Of the Aegean
islands, Rhodes and Melos are most conspicuous, especially the sites of
Ialysos in the former island, Phylakopi in the latter. In Asia Minor,
Mycenaean remains are rare, except at Troy, but in Egypt there is ample
evidence of a close commercial relation, as in the finds at
Tell-el-Amarna, in the Fayûm, and elsewhere. In the Western
Mediterranean, Syracuse has yielded numerous fragments, and occasional
finds have been made in Italy.[924]

Having reviewed the extent of Mycenaean influence, the next question we
must consider is which, if any, was the centre whence this pottery was
exported. It had been for some time observed that the early varieties
of Thera, and those of Crete and Cyprus (_v. supra_), showed strong
indications of local origin; but on the whole the Mycenaean pottery
proper is remarkably uniform and homogeneous. It is perhaps possible to
detect technical differences between the pottery, _e.g._, of Athens and
Rhodes, but they may be only differences of date rather than fabric.
Furtwaengler and Loeschcke regarded Argolis as the centre of
manufacture, at least for the later lustrous varieties[925]; Pottier,
on the other hand, writing before the recent discoveries, thought that
Crete was, after Thera, the original centre, and Argolis only
subsequently, the pottery of Rhodes lying midway between. In the light
of the Cretan discoveries it is now possible largely to disregard
previous theories. We have seen that Mycenaean pottery found in Crete
has a pedigree which no other region can claim, and that it can only
have a local origin. We have also seen that the Cretan supremacy came
to an end about 1500 B.C., and that, though the pottery may have
continued to be made in the island, it ceased to be an exclusive
centre, and for the remainder of the Mycenaean Age the art, learned in
Crete, spread to other Aegean centres—Mycenae, Rhodes, and Cyprus.

A far more difficult question to decide is the ethnographical one,
together with the consideration of the relation of the Mycenaean
civilisation to others in which the same decoration appears (as in the
case of the spiral). One point seems to be abundantly clear, viz. that
Mycenaean decoration owes nothing to Oriental influences. That there
was a close relation with the East has already been indicated, and is
much more apparent in other forms of Mycenaean art; but no student of
this art in general can doubt that it is, as has been pointed out,
purely spontaneous and unique, the art of a people of genuine artistic
genius. Among the art of ancient races it stands alone in this respect,
that of Egypt and Assyria, its only prominent rivals, being always
essentially conventional; and herein lies its special distinction.

That the Mycenaeans were a maritime people admits of no doubt. It is
shown by the position of their chief centres, by the evidence of their
extensive commercial relations, and, as far as concerns their pottery,
pre-eminently by the subjects which form the staple decoration. Hence
of late years an attempt has been made to substitute for “Mycenaean”
the more comprehensive term “Aegean,” and there is much to be said in
its favour. As regards the actual ethnographical position of the race,
_Quot homines, tot sententiae_, may almost be said. They have been
identified with the Achaeans, the Pelasgians, the Phoenicians, the
Carians, and as combinations of Phrygians with Cretans, of Phoenicians
with Greeks of Asia Minor.[926] But few of these terms have real
historical value, and such identifications do not really advance the
solution of the question.

A more real ground of battle is that afforded by the question of date,
though on this point scholars now show a greater tendency to fall into
line, and a period culminating in the years 1400 to 1100 or 1000 B.C.
is now very generally accepted.[927] The question necessarily turns
largely on the evidence afforded by Crete and Egypt, and so far as this
is trustworthy it all points in the same direction. But it would be
beyond the scope of a work of this kind to do more than briefly
summarise the general results of archaeological criticism.

An interesting study of Mycenaean ornamentation has been made by Dr.
Riegl,[928] who deals generally with the principles underlying its
vegetable motives, and points out that here we first meet with scrolls
or continuous bands of foliage applied to a decorative purpose. These
motives are peculiar to Greek art, and in Mycenaean design their origin
is to be sought. In this way we may regard it as the immediate
forerunner of Hellenic art, although its development was temporarily
arrested by the Dorian invasion, just as the people who produced it
formed the basis of the Hellenic race. The naturalism of Mycenaean
ornament, which is seen both in continuous and in isolated patterns, is
in marked contrast to the convention of Egypt, where the same motives
may be in use. It is not, in short, the motive, but its treatment,
which shows the independence of Mycenaean art. There are, again, other
patterns, such as the spiral, which cannot be traced in Oriental art,
and seem to be purely original, at least as far as concerns the Eastern
Mediterranean.

Another recent writer, Dr. S. Wide, has noticed that where Mycenaean
influence was originally strongest, as in Crete and Rhodes, there its
characteristics were most strongly impressed upon the art of the
succeeding period, and he is inclined to place the centre of the fabric
in these islands or on the coast of the adjoining continent of Asia. At
all events the Mycenaean influence shows itself more in the pottery of
the islands than it does in Attica; and, in Crete and Rhodes in
particular, instances have been found of undoubted survivals of typical
Mycenaean ornaments in later pottery.[929]

-----

Footnote 820:

See _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 14.

Footnote 821:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. figs. 487–93.

Footnote 822:

Cf. Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 498–503.

Footnote 823:

See Hall, _Oldest Civilisation of Greece_, p. 72.

Footnote 824:

See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. p. 249 ff., and Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi.
p. 648. A fragment of late Bronze-Age Cypriote pottery was found at
Hissarlik (Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 286, fig. 182).

Footnote 825:

See Meursius, _Cyprus_, i. chap. 20; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du
Louvre_, p. 115.

Footnote 826:

Strabo, xiv. 6, p. 683.

Footnote 827:

_Archaeologia_, xlv. p. 127 ff.

Footnote 828:

Similar red polished wares were found in the New-Race tombs of Egypt
(seventh to tenth dynasty), but in spite of the likeness it cannot be
said that one is borrowed from the other (_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 16).

Footnote 829:

See Hall, _Oldest Greek Civilisation_, p. 69; _Journ. Hell. Stud._
xi. pl. 14; _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 38.

Footnote 830:

The resemblance to Italian bucchero ware is probably only accidental.
See Chapter XVIII.

Footnote 831:

_E.g._ A 66 in B.M.

Footnote 832:

Hall, _Oldest Civilisation_, pp. 72, 98.

Footnote 833:

_E.g._ B.M. A 67–8.

Footnote 834:

Cf. _Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 34 ff., 72.

Footnote 835:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 39.

Footnote 836:

Myres, _ibid._

Footnote 837:

Cf. for instance the jug given in Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 408, fig. 29.

Footnote 838:

_E.g._ B.M. A 134: cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ 401–2.

Footnote 839:

_Cat. des Vases du Louvre_, i. p. 250: see below, pp. 284, 315.

Footnote 840:

The Trojan legends were familiar in Cyprus, as the Κυπριακά of the
local Cyclic poet Stasinos shows.

Footnote 841:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist, de l’Art_, iii. pp. 714–15, figs. 525–26.

Footnote 842:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73.

Footnote 843:

Recent discoveries by Mr. Arthur Evans at Knossos (_Brit. Sch.
Annual_, 1901–2, p. 15) seem to suggest that these panels may be
meant for windows or storeys of houses. Cf. also the bronze from
Enkomi (_Excavations_, p. 10).

Footnote 844:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 59.

Footnote 845:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 74.

Footnote 846:

See _Athen. Mitth._ xi. (1886), p. 248; cf. also Meursius, _Cyprus_,
i. chap. 10; Heuzey, _Cat. des Fig. ant. du Louvre_, pp. 116–17.

Footnote 847:

Cypriote pottery with concentric circles has been found at Nebesheh
in the Delta. It was brought by the Cypriote mercenaries, enrolled by
Psammetichus, in the seventh century (_Eg. Expl. Fund_, 4th Mem. pl.
3, p. 20).

Footnote 848:

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. p. 769 ff.

Footnote 849:

M. Pottier (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 92) thinks that Greek influence may
explain all the stages of Cypriote pottery from the Mycenaean period
onwards. See also on this subject Dümmler, in _Ath. Mitth._ xi. p.
284.

Footnote 850:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 8, fig. 14.

Footnote 851:

B.M. C 244.

Footnote 852:

B.M. C 121 = Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. pp. 716–17, figs. 527–8.

Footnote 853:

B.M. C 120 = _Rev. Arch._ ix. (1887), p. 77 ff.

Footnote 854:

_Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 26.

Footnote 855:

_Ibid._ p. 21.

Footnote 856:

See Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. figs. 510–13; _ibid._ figs. 520–23
(human figures); Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 55, pls. 44–6; _Excavations in
Cyprus_, pp. 75, 104 ff.; _J.H.S._ v. p. 103.

Footnote 857:

See above, p. 249. Cf. Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, pl. 10 =
Nimroud Gallery of B.M., slab 4_a_.

Footnote 858:

Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. p. 711, fig. 523.

Footnote 859:

_E.g._ Perrot, _op. cit._ iii. figs. 507, 523, pp. 699, 711;
_Excavations in Cyprus_, pp. 104–5, figs. 151–52.

Footnote 860:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 105, fig. 152.

Footnote 861:

B.M. C 268 = _J.H.S._ ii. p. 304.

Footnote 862:

_Cyprus_, pl. 29.

Footnote 863:

See O.-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_, p. 497, and
frontispiece to text volume; also _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p.
105, fig. 152.

Footnote 864:

B.M. E 34; _Branteghem Cat._ 30; Klein, _Meistersig._^2 p. 221.

Footnote 865:

Louvre A 258.

Footnote 866:

_E.g._ _J.H.S._ xii. pl. 14; _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11.

Footnote 867:

See Hermann, _Gräberfeld von Marion_, p. 46 ff.; _B.M. Excavations in
Cyprus_, pp. 78, 109.

Footnote 868:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 78, Fig. 110.

Footnote 869:

_Troja 1893_, p. 86; _Troja u. Ilion_, i. p. 18. On the pottery
generally see the latter, p. 243 ff.

Footnote 870:

Its evolution is well illustrated by the Canopic vases described in
Chapter XVIII.

Footnote 871:

_Céramiques_, i. p. 6: see for examples _ibid._ pp. 7, 11.

Footnote 872:

A jug with beak-shaped mouth, called by the Germans a
_Schnabelkanne_. The base-ring to which he alludes is not apparent.
Cf. for the type Fig. 81 below, from Thera.

Footnote 873:

See Schliemann, _Ilios_, pp. 340, 372, 375, 384.

Footnote 874:

Cf. _Cyprus Mus. Cat._ p. 18.

Footnote 875:

_ibid._, p. 118; _ibid._, i. p. 310; B.M. B 83 ff.; and see p. 339.

Footnote 876:

See Fouqué, _Santorin_, _passim_; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 28; Hiller
von Gaertringen, _Thera_, i. p. 36 ff.

Footnote 877:

iv. 147–48.

Footnote 878:

One is given by Dumont-Pottier, pl. 2, fig. 13.

Footnote 879:

See Dumont-Pottier, p. 21, figs. 32–3, pls. 1, 2.

Footnote 880:

Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pl. 12, No. 80.

Footnote 881:

Fouqué, _op. cit._ p. 127, note.

Footnote 882:

On the later pottery from Thera see generally Hiller von Gaertringen,
_Thera_, ii. p. 127 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.

Footnote 883:

Dümmler (Ath. Mitth. 1886, p. 45) calls them “Leleges”; but he places
Minos in the Geometrical period.

Footnote 884:

Cf. Hdt. i. 171, and Thuc. i. 4–8.

Footnote 885:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1886, p. 15; Ross, _Reisen durch die Inseln_, _passim_;
Athens Mus. Nos. 23–9, 136, 142–43; _J.H.S._ v. p. 53 ff.

Footnote 886:

_J.H.S._ _Suppl. Papers_, vol. iv. (1904).

Footnote 887:

_Od._ xix. 172 ff.

Footnote 888:

Hdt. i. 171.

Footnote 889:

_Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 342, pl. 12, figs. 50, 52.

Footnote 890:

_Ibid._ pl. 11, figs. 44–5.

Footnote 891:

_Ibid._ pl. 10, fig. 23; pl. 12, figs. 57, 59.

Footnote 892:

_Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 333 ff., pls. 9–11; _Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ 2nd
Ser. xv. p. 351 ff.

Footnote 893:

_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 157 ff.

Footnote 894:

_Ibid._ pl. 4, figs. 6–14.

Footnote 895:

See, for instance, Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. vi.

Footnote 896:

_J.H.S._ xxi. p. 97, fig. 31, will serve as an example.

Footnote 897:

_Ibid._ xxiii. p. 171.

Footnote 898:

_Ibid._ xi. pl. 14, figs. 5–10, p. 275.

Footnote 899:

Cf. _Mon. Antichi_, vi. pl. 9, fig. 8; pl. 10, fig. 14.

Footnote 900:

From _Brit. School Annual_, ix. p. 308.

Footnote 901:

_J.H.S._ xxi. pls. 6, 7, p. 84 ff.

Footnote 902:

_Mon. Antichi_, vi. pl. 9, figs. 2, 6; pl. 10, fig. 14.

Footnote 903:

_Ibid._ pl. 9, fig. 10.

Footnote 904:

_Ibid._ p. 339.

Footnote 905:

_Brit. School Annual_, vi. p. 85. On the Kefti, see _ibid._ viii. p.
157 ff.

Footnote 906:

See for examples_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 192 ff.

Footnote 907:

_Brit. School Annual_, vi. p. 88.

Footnote 908:

_J.H.S._ xxi. p. 99 ff. See the _larnax_ published by Mr. Bosanquet
in _Brit. School Annual_, viii. pls. 18–9: cf. _ibid._ vii. p. 52.

Footnote 909:

See Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 13–4; _Ath.
Mitth._ 1886, pl. 3 and pl. 4 (a large pithos with reliefs, for which
compare p. 152 above); _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1880, p. 125, 1892, p.
295; Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 451 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._
i. p. 176.

Footnote 910:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 74, fig. 128. cf. Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke, _op. cit._ pl. 14, No. 88; _Brit. School Annual_, vi. p.
91.

Footnote 911:

_Myken. Vasen_, p. vi. ff. The evidence from Crete, however, appears
to upset this chronology, the vases with lustrous painting being
there found on a level with the matt paintings on dark ground.

Footnote 912:

For examples see Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Thongef._ pls.
1; 4, 13; 5, 20; 7, 40; 11, 52.

Footnote 913:

_Myken. Thongef._ pl. 1, fig. 6; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 23–4.

Footnote 914:

_Myken. Thongef._ pl. 8; pl. 11, 52; _Myken. Vasen_, pl. 23.

Footnote 915:

_Myken. Thongef._ pl. 6, 32, 34.

Footnote 916:

_Myken. Thongef._ pl. 12; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 7, 25.

Footnote 917:

Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. 22, p. 99, fig. 20; _Myken. Thongef._ pls.
2, 4; _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 26–34, 39–41.

Footnote 918:

_Myken. Vasen_, pls. 37–41.

Footnote 919:

_Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 201 ff., pls. 1–2.

Footnote 920:

See _J.H.S._ xvii. pp. 75, 76.

Footnote 921:

Cook in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 81 ff.

Footnote 922:

Evans in _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 99 ff. Recent discoveries seem to leave
little room for doubt as to the correctness of Mr. Evans' theories.

Footnote 923:

_Rev. Arch._ xxvi. (1895), p. 1 ff.; xxx. (1897), p. 81 ff.: cf.
_ibid._ xxviii. (1896), p. 24 ff.

Footnote 924:

See _J.H.S._ xxiv. p. 125.

Footnote 925:

_Myken. Vasen_, p. ix. ff.

Footnote 926:

See for a summary of the theories, Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 200
ff.

Footnote 927:

See Hall, _Oldest Civilisation_, chap. iii.; Pottier, _op. cit._ i.
p. 209; and _Arch. Anzeiger_, 1892, p. 11 ff.

Footnote 928:

_Stilfragen, p. 112 ff._

Footnote 929:

See Wide, in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 233; and for some general
considerations on Mycenaean pottery and its achievements, Pottier,
_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 247.

CHAPTER VII
_RISE OF VASE-PAINTING IN GREECE_

Geometrical decoration—Its origin—Distribution of pottery—Shapes
and ornamentation of vases—Subjects—Dipylon vases—Boeotian
Geometrical wares—Chronology—Proto-Attic fabrics—Phaleron
ware—Later Boeotian vases—Melian amphorae—Corinth and its
pottery—“Proto-Corinthian” vases—Vases with imbrications and
floral decoration—Incised lines and ground-ornaments—Introduction
of figure-subjects—Chalcidian vases—“Tyrrhenian Amphorae.”

§ 1. THE GEOMETRICAL PERIOD

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 154 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1872,
p. 138 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 94 ff.; 1899, pp. 26, 78, 188;
_Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 106; 1892, p. 285; 1893, p. 73 ff.; 1896,
p. 385 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 212 ff. For Boeotian
Geometrical pottery, Böhlau in _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.; for
early Argive wares, Waldstein, _Argive Heraeum_, i. p. 49 ff.

The Dorian invasion of Greece, which is generally supposed to have
taken place in the twelfth century—the traditional date is about 1100
B.C.—was, like the contemporaneous Etruscan immigration (Chapter
XVIII.), only an episode in the general displacement taking place
throughout Europe. In Greece it caused a dispersion of the Achaean
race, chiefly in the direction of Asia Minor, which, as we have already
seen, probably gave rise to the stories of the Trojan War and
subsequent adventures of the Achaean leaders. In other words, the
Mycenaean civilisation was driven to seek a new home elsewhere, and to
lay the foundations of a new artistic development in the cities of
Aeolis and Ionia. But its disappearance from Greece was not complete,
and Hellenic Greece was from the beginning an amalgam of the old and
new elements, the Achaean (or Ionian) and the Dorian, in which one or
the other had at different times or in different places the
pre-eminence. The Ionian element represents the civilisation of the
Mediterranean, succeeding to that of the Mycenaean world; the Dorian,
the influence of Central Europe.[930]

It has hitherto been a truism of archaeology that the Dorians brought
with them from Central Europe a new form of art, of which the chief
characteristic is that of _rectilinear and geometrical decoration_,
forming, it is obvious, a marked contrast to the curvilinear and
naturalistic Mycenaean designs. This new principle was thought to be
most conspicuously illustrated by the pottery which now replaces the
Mycenaean. But certain recent discoveries have given occasion for some
scepticism in regard to the acceptance of this idea as conveying the
whole truth; and even if they do not radically alter preconceived
ideas, they are at least worthy of consideration.

At Aphidna in Attica a find has been made of very rude pottery, without
glaze or varnish, but with decoration of a Geometrical character,
sometimes painted.[931] Although earlier than any other pottery in
Attica, it need not be pre-Mycenaean in date; it seems more likely to
be a _contemporary survival_. Early wares have also been found in the
islands, as in Aegina, with Geometrical ornament in _matt_-colour; nor
must we forget that the Geometrical principle was known in Cyprus and
the Cyclades, as also at Hissarlik, at a very remote age. From these
data Dr. Wide has ingeniously drawn the conclusion that the Geometrical
style was always indigenous in Greece,[932] pointing out that it was
more likely and more in accordance with historical precedent that the
Dorians, like Rome in later days, accepted the art of the people they
conquered[933] than that they introduced their own and forced it upon
the subjugated race. This theory has the additional merit of disposing
of a difficulty which had always been felt. If the Geometrical pottery
was Dorian, how do we account for its reaching its height in Attica,
which was never at any time Doric, or influenced by Doric
characteristics? But if it can be shown to be indigenous in Attica, the
difficulty disappears.

Again, it is necessary to explain the varying character of Geometrical
pottery in different parts of Greece, as compared with the homogeneity
of the Mycenaean wares. If, as was supposed, the Geometrical style came
full-grown into Greece, why should this be? Dr. Wide therefore
maintains that there were in Greece _concurrently_ a _Bauernstil_ or
domestic art, aboriginal and industrial, which produced the rude
geometrical fabrics, and a _Herrenstil_ or _art de luxe_, exotic and
ornamental, which we know as Mycenaean. With the upheaval and
dispersion of the Achaean aristocracy this art practically died out,
but the humbler industry held its ground, and gradually forged its way
to comparative excellence, perhaps learning much from Mycenaean
technique.

The real novelty of the developed Geometrical pottery which now
manifests itself in Greece consists in its evolution _as a style_, and
the combination of the patterns into an artistic system, with a
continuous progress towards symmetry and rhythm. Geometrical patterns
are indeed the property of all primitive peoples, and are no less
spontaneous and universal in their origin than the folk-lore stories
which we find adopting the same or similar forms in all parts of the
world. In Greece, no doubt, the cultured traditions of Mycenaean art
had in course of time their due effect, and both in technique and in
ornament left their impress on the inferior fabrics,[934] as we have
seen to have been the case, especially in the Greek islands. It is an
influence which is not confined to the pottery, but made itself felt,
for instance, in architecture. It can hardly be doubted that in the
Lion Gate of Mycenae we find the prototype of the Doric column; and the
parallel with the Geometrical pottery can be further followed up when
we consider that Doric architecture also became the common property of
Continental Greece, and also realised its highest perfection at Athens.

The Geometrical pottery has been found in great numbers in Attica and
Boeotia, in the islands of Aegina, Melos, Thera, Rhodes, and
Crete,[935] in Argolis and Laconia, in Sicily and Etruria, and also
isolated specimens in Cyprus and the Troad.[936] That found in Italy
and Cyprus is certainly exported from the mainland. It has been
observed that each region has its own peculiar variety of the style,
and this is especially conspicuous in the examples from Attica and
Boeotia.[937] The first writer who attempted to deal with it
scientifically was Conze,[938] but owing to its clearly-defined
characteristics it has always been more or less correctly treated by
the older schools of archaeologists. But with a more extended outlook
over the fabrics of early Hellas, many problems have arisen in
connection with it which have called for more recent discussion, and
the writings of Kroker, Böhlau, and Wide in particular should be
studied.[939]

At Mycenae fragments of Geometrical pottery were found both on the
surface and in the palace, among the débris of the huts built on its
site; while in the island of Salamis there is a cemetery of distinctly
transitional character, containing false amphorae with linear
decoration and combinations of the spiral with the maeander.[940] It
may be noted that a similar transitional cemetery was found by Mr.
Paton at Assarlik in Caria,[941] and that the “sub-Mycenaean” pottery
of Cyprus (p. 246) has been shown to exhibit the same combination of
features. These facts fall into line with what has already been said as
to the survival of Mycenaean art in these fabrics.

From the fact that large quantities of this ware have been obtained
from the tombs of the Kerameikos near the Dipylon Gate of Athens,
chiefly between 1870 and 1891, it has frequently been styled _Dipylon
ware_; but it is questionable whether this title should not be reserved
for varieties peculiar to this site. These Dipylon tombs were in the
form of deep quadrangular trenches, and the bodies had been sometimes
inhumed, sometimes cremated, the bones being placed in vessels of
bronze or clay, containing smaller objects. Above the trenches was a
layer of earth mixed with burnt offerings, on the top of which,
_outside the tombs_, were placed the large painted vases (representing
the tombstones or stone sepulchral vases of later times) which now form
a prominent part of the collections at Athens and in the Louvre.[942]

* * * * *

Turning to treat of their general characteristics, we note that the
vases are all wheel-made, of a carefully-prepared red clay covered with
a lustrous and impermeable yellow slip, on which the designs are
painted in the same lustrous black as the Mycenaean wares. Later, but
rarely, white is introduced as an accessory. As regards the shapes,
there is less variety than in Mycenaean pottery. They include the
typical forms of Dipylon vases, a large wide-mouthed _krater_ on a high
stem, and an _amphora_ with cylindrical neck and side-handles; also the
_lebes_, the cylindrical jug or _olpe_, the wide bowl or _skyphos_, and
the _pyxis_ or covered jar. Open-work stands for vases are often found
in the Cyclades.[943] On the covers of the _pyxides_ a group of two or
three rudely-modelled horses sometimes forms the handle. In considering
the forms generally, it is permissible to say that the potter of the
day was in advance of his Mycenaean predecessor, although the painter
was not.

The decoration follows a development which permits of the division of
Geometrical vases into three periods, in which we follow Kroker[944]:
(1) for a long time it is exclusively limited to Geometrical patterns,
and (2) even when quadrupeds and birds are introduced they are still
only decorative (as in Boeotia); (3) finally, while the animals take a
subsidiary place, human figures and large compositions spring into
prominence. But this final development is chiefly characteristic of
Athens. Wide distinguishes four varieties of the Dipylon ware: (_a_)
amphorae, with black varnished bodies and designs only on the neck;
(_b_) “black Dipylon ware,” mainly varnished, but more decorated than
(_a_); (_c_) large vases, with linear decoration or figures all over in
horizontal friezes (the tomb-amphorae); (_d_) as the last, but with
vertical panels, divided like metopes. His view is that these represent
a continuous development, but that the style did not last long in
Attica. Returning to Kroker’s classification, it must be borne in mind
that the three classes are not successive in point of _time_, only in
artistic development; the plain linear decoration survived throughout,
and is often found in tombs contemporaneously with the figure subjects.

The patterns are mainly, though not exclusively, rectilinear, and
sometimes extremely elaborate. The favourite are a large bold maeander,
chevrons, chequers, and arrangements of hatched lines; also squares,
with diagonals and much ground-ornament. Among the simpler motives are
lines of dots, triangles, lozenges, and various forms of crosses; but
concentric and “tangent” circles occur not infrequently, the latter
being clearly derived from the Mycenaean spiral, and one vegetable
motive appears in the form of a conventionalised leaf, later developed
into a rosette. M. Perrot[945] gives a very instructive diagram of the
typical scheme of ornamentation on the neck and body of a vase,
including most of the principal varieties. It should also be noted that
these patterns occur frequently on the field of the designs as
ground-ornaments, to cover the vacant spaces.

In the arrangement of the patterns an architectural instinct is clearly
at work, the influence of the Doric metope being especially prominent.
They are usually arranged, as the diagram (Fig. 83) shows, in
horizontal bands round the neck and body, like the bands of painted
ornament on the entablature of a temple. The metopes and triglyphs are
represented by large square patterns of ornament, separated by narrow
vertical strips of simpler motives (cf. Fig. 84). The introduction of
the frieze principle proper is a later development. Generally speaking,
there is an invariable tendency towards symmetry and refinement in the
arrangement. When figure subjects begin to be introduced, it betokens a
great advance in decorative art, especially over the Cypriote and other
varieties of the style. In the tendency to a _horror vacui_, the style
is inferior to Mycenaean, as also in the figure-drawing, of which more
anon. The absence of any plant-ornament is most characteristic, as
showing the great change from the Mycenaean spirit; but it was not long
before this element was destined to reappear and virtually usurp the
field of decoration.[946]

[Illustration:

From _Perrot’s Hist. de l’Art_.
FIG. 83. SCHEME OF ORNAMENTATION ON GEOMETRICAL VASES.
]

In regard to its ornamentation the Geometrical style may be said to
have attained success. It is not so, however, with its representations
of living form, least of all those of human beings. But this is only in
accordance with the principle which M. Pottier styles the _hierarchie
des genres_, a principle which is universal in all early development of
Greek art, and to which we have already referred (p. 245: see also p.
315). Briefly it is this: first, the predominance of pure _ornament_
and the perfecting of the same; secondly, the employment of _animal_
forms and the relegation of ornament to a subsidiary place; thirdly and
lastly, the rise and development of _human_ forms, the other animals
ceasing to form the main theme of decoration, and sinking to the level
of mere decorative adjuncts.

[Illustration: FIG. 84. GEOMETRICAL VASE WITH PANELS (BRIT. MUS.).]

Hence we find that figures of animals when first introduced on
Geometrical vases are of a conventional and ill-drawn character, but
show a gradual progress and development. Human forms again, which now
appear for the first time, are only seen in a very rude and undeveloped
stage, from which there is continuous development throughout the
archaic period till perfection is reached in the fifth century. Their
original extreme conventionality may be the result of a training in
Egyptian canons of art.

The favourite animal motives are the horse, the deer, and water-fowl.
The first also appears in a plastic form, surmounting the covers of
vases and forming a sort of handle. Usually a single animal is seen in
a metope-like panel (cf. Fig. 84), and the frieze system is seldom
found at this period. A curious conception is that of a lion or wolf
devouring a man, whose legs are seen protruding from its mouth, and
this appears to have been adopted by the Etruscans, on whose archaic
bronze-work and bucchero vases it sometimes occurs.[947] The lions on
the Geometrical vases, it may be noted in passing, are obviously drawn
without knowledge, and borrowed from Asiatic art; the same conventional
type obtains at a later date, as in the Burgon lebes (below, p. 296).

Human figures are almost confined to the large vases from the Dipylon
cemetery, which are evidently a purely local product; almost the only
exceptions are two from Boeotia (see below, p. 288), and one from
Rhodes in the British Museum (A 439). The infantile and barbarous style
of the figures recalls in a measure the primitive marble idols from the
Cyclades; there is seldom any actual distinction of sex, the narrow
waist, wide hips, and tapering limbs being apparently common to both.
The figures being painted in plain silhouette, there is no attempt at
rendering features. Where it is intended to represent a warrior, the
body is completely hidden behind a shield of the Boeotian type
[Boeotian shield], a ready resource of the artist for avoiding
anatomical difficulties, which was also adopted later by his
seventh-century Corinthian successors, except that in the latter case
the shield is circular.

The subjects include battles and naval scenes, dances of women hand in
hand, and funeral processions. From the combination of ships with
funeral scenes, it would seem that they were sometimes used for
carrying the dead. A remarkable lebes recently acquired by the British
Museum[948] is decorated with a large ship-of-war with two banks of
rowers (bireme), and appears to represent a warrior landing therefrom
on shore.[949] The funeral scenes on the great Dipylon vases are
exceedingly elaborate, and exhibit a corpse drawn on a bier,
accompanied by chariots and bands of mourning women beating their
heads.[950] By a conventional attempt at perspective the figures are
often placed above the central group when they are supposed to be on
its farther side, just as, in the fresco from Tiryns, and an
“Island-gem” of the Mycenaean period, a man leading a bull is
represented over its back.[951]

Two very interesting specimens of Geometrical fabrics are in the
museum at Kopenhagen,[952] late indeed and almost transitional in
character, but still typical. One is a deep two-handled cup or bowl
with long panels on either side, in two tiers; the upper ones are
filled with ornaments and animals, and in the lower are several
subjects—combatants, lyre-players, a dance of armed men with shield
and spear, two lions devouring a man (see above), and men with jugs
and lustral branches preparing for some religious rite. The other is
a jug, with very little ornamentation except on the background of the
designs, which also include several subjects. On the neck is a man
holding horses; on the shoulder, dogs pursuing a hare; and on the
body, combats on land and sea.

In the range of subjects a general correspondence with epic poetry is
to be noted,[953] as in the funerals and combats; but there are some
important discrepancies, such as the _quadriga_ in place of the Homeric
_biga_, the types of the ships, and in the appearance of horsemen,
which are of course unknown to Homer.[954]

The Geometrical vases found in Boeotia form an important and distinct
local variety, which calls for separate treatment. The existence of
this local style was first suspected by Furtwaengler in 1878 on seeing
the first finds made at Thebes, and it has since been studied with
great care and detail by Böhlau.[955] Among these finds were, in
addition to the recognised local pottery, ordinary (imported) Dipylon
vases, and later Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian wares, as well as
bronze fibulae and terracotta figures, to which subsequent reference
must be made. Similar pottery was also found in large numbers on the
site of the temple of Apollo at Mount Ptoös in 1885–91, and other
examples have turned up at Tanagra. It has been suggested, though on
somewhat slight grounds, that Aulis was the centre of the local fabric;
and, further, it was supposed by Böhlau, who is supported by
Perrot,[956] that the Boeotian wares represent a primitive phase of the
Geometrical pottery, anterior to the Dipylon, and consequently that
Boeotia is the original home of the style as a whole. But in view of
what has been said above, and generally of the relation of the Boeotian
pottery to the Dipylon, and to the later Proto-Corinthian, it seems
doubtful if this view can be maintained. Moreover, it has been pointed
out by M. Holleaux,[957] in discussing the Ptoös finds, that the pure
Geometrical vases were found at a lower level than the typical local
wares, and were never found either with them or with the analogous
terracotta figures. This certainly points to the later origin of the
Boeotian pottery.

The local clay differs from that of Athens both in nature and
appearance, being less well levigated and of a reddish-yellow colour,
as compared with the warm brown of the Dipylon. Further, the designs
are not laid directly on the clay, as in the latter, but on a thin
creamy-yellow slip, as in Mycenaean and Ionian pottery. The technique
is, generally speaking, inferior, as is also the black pigment used;
the work is rough and hasty, the drawing careless and inaccurate.

The vases are mostly small, at least compared with those of the
Dipylon, and the favourite shape is the _kylix_, with or without a
stem. Out of seventy-two examples given by Böhlau, no less than
fifty-five take this form. He traces its development from a deep bowl
with “base-ring,” which seems to be related to the Cypriote white-slip
one-handled bowls; but the Boeotian type has at first two small
finger-pieces in place of handles, afterwards replaced by a single
handle for hanging up. The majority, however, have no less than four
handles, and that they were still intended for suspension is shown by
the method of decoration which can only be properly seen in this
position (cf. Fig. 85).

[Illustration:

From _Jahrbuch_.
FIG. 85. BOEOTIAN GEOMETRICAL VASES (BERLIN MUSEUM).
]

There is a wearisome uniformity in the patterns, and indeed in the
decoration generally. Only two examples are known from Boeotia with
human figures,[958] and the rest belong to the intermediate class, with
its combination of animals and decorative patterns. On the exterior is
usually a broad frieze, divided by bands of ornament into four or five
fields, in which are birds or palmette patterns; these panels are not
necessarily arranged with reference to the position of the handles. The
patterns comprise rows of vertical zigzags, dotted lozenges, chevrons,
latticed triangles, rosettes, and scrolls, the first-named being
specially characteristic of Boeotia. It is to be noted that the typical
Athenian motives, the maeander and the ornamented square, do not occur;
in fact, these bowls have no analogies in the Dipylon ware. But it is
also interesting to observe the appearance of a new vegetable element
in the form of friezes of palmettes and lotos-flowers.[959] The
importance of this feature is due to the extensive part it was destined
to play in the ornamentation of Greek vases all through the sixth
century. Some of the palmettes are remarkably advanced, and the whole
pattern is even emancipated from the confinement of the frieze, and
treated freely without regard to space.[960] Böhlau, in his analysis of
the ornament as a whole, notes its independence of the Athenian vases,
though remaining a parallel and closely-related development.

Individual vases do not call for much comment, but there is a curious
coffer of terracotta from Thebes in Berlin (Fig. 86),[961] painted with
figures in this style. The subjects include the Asiatic Artemis, a
hare-hunt, a woman leading a horse, a horse tied up, and two serpents
erect, confronted. The ground is filled in with rosettes, crosses, and
other ornaments, such as the so-called _swastika_.

[Illustration:

From _Jahrbuch_.
FIG. 86. COFFER FROM THEBES: BOEOTIAN GEOMETRICAL STYLE
(BERLIN MUSEUM).
]

While on the subject of the Boeotian vases it is worth while to call
attention to the remarkable parallels presented by two other classes of
objects also found in that region: bronze fibulae and terracotta
statuettes. The former may be regarded as important chronological
evidence, inasmuch as their development can be clearly traced from
their first appearance at the end of the Mycenaean period (about the
tenth century), and similar types have been found in Rhodes, at
Olympia, and elsewhere. The characteristic of the Boeotian fibulae is
the flat plate which forms the foot (in some cases the central part or
bow), and is generally of a quadrangular form, decorated with an
engraved subject, usually animals or birds of a similar type to those
painted in the panels on the vases. More rarely ships or human figures
are found.[962]

The terracotta figures (p. 123), on the other hand, bear a different
relation to the pottery. They are flat board-like figures (σανίδες),
known to the modern Greek digger as “Pappades,” the high head-dress
which they wear suggesting to him the well-known hat of the orthodox
“Papas” or priest. The flat surface of the body gives scope for
ornamentation representing embroidered robes,[963] and the patterns
employed are just those which are seen on the vases; and, moreover, the
method of painting is the same, the figures being covered with a buff
slip, the patterns in black with purple details. It should be remarked
that some of these figures are comparatively developed in style,[964]
and that they are practically _later imitations_ of the decoration of
the vases.

* * * * *

In considering the Geometrical vases as a whole, we are struck with the
laudable aspirations of the artist, who, though unable to execute his
new ambitions with complete success, yet shows in his work the same
promise of the future that is latent in all early Greek art. His best
achievement is in the ornamentation. Oriental influences as yet count
for very little, though they are perhaps to be discerned in the human
figures, as already noted; Kroker also thinks that the nude female
figures on the larger vases are due to Oriental art.[965] In any case
they are not to be traced until late in the period, and first, as might
be expected for geographical reasons, in the fabrics found at Kameiros
in Rhodes.

The question of chronology must next be considered. That the developed
Geometrical style succeeds to the Mycenaean, and forms a link between
it and the early Attic attempts at black-figured ware, of which we
shall subsequently treat, is sufficiently clear. It may also be laid
down that the Dipylon ware represents the last stage of Geometrical
decoration, being in point of fact too far advanced to be regarded as a
purely typical Geometrical ware. Such data as the finding of iron in
the tombs, or the evidence of finds at Troy,[966] also tend to place
the beginning of the style at least as early as the tenth century. It
has also been noted that the figures correspond closely with the
bronzes of Olympia which are dated about the ninth century, and this,
if accepted, necessitates placing the simpler linear decoration back as
far as the tenth. The lower limits of the style may be roughly fixed by
the evidence from the tombs of Etruria, discussed in Chapter XVIII., at
about 700 B.C.

Next, there is the evidence afforded by the ships,[967] which it should
be noted are all of the bireme or διήρης form, with two banks of oars.
The invention of the trireme, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 13, 5),
was due to Ameinokles, about the year 704 B.C. Hence Kroker’s dating of
the Dipylon vases about the year 700 can hardly be accepted. But the
eighth century may be taken as representing the latest period of the
Geometrical pottery, both in Attica and Boeotia. The curious
inscription engraved on a Dipylon vase from Athens is dealt with
elsewhere (Chapter XVII.); undoubtedly the earliest known Attic
inscription, its value as evidence is limited to that of a _terminus
ante quem_, from the fact that it was probably engraved at a subsequent
time to the manufacture of the vase.

The question of centres of manufacture is one that has already been the
subject of some discussion,[968] the result of which has been to show
that there is no complete homogeneity in the wares from different
sites, and consequently no one central fabric. The colossal funerary
vases, which, it may be remarked in passing, stand at the head of a
long line of funerary fabrics and show the Athenian fondness for this
class of vase,[969] were not, and could not have been, generally
exported, in spite of the notable exception at Curium. The ordinary
wares might have been made in some one place (probably a Dorian centre,
not Attica or Boeotia); but we have seen that most finds, as in Rhodes,
present local peculiarities.[970] Athens at this period was not
sufficiently advanced to become the centre of large potteries, and did
not become so, as we shall see, before the age of the Peisistratidae;
such vases as were made were strictly confined to special purposes. It
is a curious fact that very little Geometrical ware was found on the
Acropolis.

The Geometrical pottery of Cyprus has already been discussed in its
relation to that of Greece (pp. 249, 253)[971]; but there is yet
another region which passed through a Geometrical period similar to
that of Greece, and that is Etruria (see Chapter XVIII.). It is,
however, better illustrated by the metal products of the Villanova
period, such as the bronze discs and large cinerary urns, than by the
local pottery, which never reached the same level as in Greece; in the
former the same combinations of elaborate ornament with rude animals
and yet ruder human figures may be witnessed, and it is possible that
importations from Greece may have had a share in influencing these
products. They cover the period from the tenth to the eighth century
B.C.

§ 2. ATTICA, BOEOTIA, AND MELOS

Following on to the Geometrical vases both in chronological and
artistic sequence is a small class of Athenian vases, which, more for
convenience than with regard to strict accuracy, have been styled
=Proto-Attic=. The term has this much of truth in it, that the group
may be said to stand at the head of, and in direct relation to, the
long series of painted vases produced in the Athenian potteries for
some two centuries afterwards. It is only of late years that a
sufficient number of these vases has become known for them to be
studied as a separate class, and even when Böhlau first drew attention
to them, in 1887, only two or three were known. The list up to date is
as follows (the order being roughly chronological):—

1. Athens 467

(_Couve’s Amphora Kerameikos _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl.
Cat._) 10.

2. Berlin 56 Amphora Hymettos _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 5.

3. Athens 468 Hydria Analatos _ibid._ pls. 3, 4.
(Phaleron)

4. Athens 464 Lebes Thebes _ibid._ pl. 4.

5. Athens 469 Amphora Pikrodaphni _Bull. de Corr. Hell._
1893, pls. 2, 3.

6. Athens Mus. Amphora Kynosarges _J.H.S._ xxii. pls. 2–4.

7. Athens 650 Fragment Aegina Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic._
_Vasenb._ pl. 54.

8. Athens 657 Amphora Kerameikos _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.

9. Athens 651 Amphora Peiraeus Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, pl. 5.

10. Berlin 1682 Lebes Aegina _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pls.
9, 10.

11. B.M. A 535 Lebes Athens Rayet and Collignon, p.
43 = Fig. 87.

We may also add to this list Athens 652–664, a vase from Aegina
(_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8), B.M. A 1531 (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._
1898, p. 285), and another at Athens (_ibid._ p. 283).

It will be noticed that the majority are of the amphora form, and that
all without exception have been found in or near Athens, which leaves
little room for doubt as to their origin.

A close connection with the Dipylon vases may be observed in the first
three, not only in shape and technique, but in decoration. In No. 2,
which we may take as typical of the oldest form of the Attic amphora, a
combination of Geometrical and Mycenaean ornament is to be observed,
but the figures of the warriors are purely Hellenic, like those of the
Euphorbos pinax (p. 335). The shape of No. 3 is typical of the
Geometrical vases, with its long neck and slim body, and it is perhaps
more accurately called a three-handled jug than a hydria, though at the
same time it is clearly the prototype of the later Attic hydria. The
panel on the neck of the vase (also seen in No. 6) is also a
Geometrical feature, and the figures therein are quite in the Dipylon
style. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the designs in
continuous friezes without vertical divisions we trace the incoming
influence of a foreign style—the Rhodian or Ionian. Other motives
again, such as the birds and the vegetable ornaments, have nothing of
the Geometrical or Ionian about them, and may perhaps be directly
derived from Mycenaean vases. But the typically Geometrical lozenges,
zigzags, etc., still hold their own. In No. 6 Mr. Cecil Smith notes
that the ornamentation covering the field of the design is partly
rectilinear and geometrical, partly floral and of Mycenaean origin. The
spiral pattern which here closes the design, and is also seen on No. 1,
is again an instance of Mycenaean influence, and is a motive which
became exceedingly popular. In another seventh-century class, the
so-called Melian vases, it is absolutely overdone, but the more
restrained Attic tradition is preserved for many years as an
appropriate decoration for the division of the designs under the
handles, especially in the red-bodied amphorae of the developed B.F.
style. This vase has some other unusual features, such as incised
lines, which are also found on some early Attic fragments from the
Acropolis,[972] but seem to appear equally early at Corinth, so that it
is impossible to say certainly if the process is an Attic invention. At
all events it is not Ionian, as its place is taken on the east of the
Aegean by lines of white paint (_e.g._ in the Clazomenae sarcophagi).
Curiously enough, in this same vase (No. 6) may be noted attempts at
this very process, here, no doubt, as on the Ionian vases, due to
Mycenaean influence (see p. 331); but it is unique in early Attic
work.[973] The peculiar treatment of the eye and hair is also worthy of
attention.

To sum up the characteristics of the Proto-Attic vases, it may be said
that they represent the transformation of the Attico-Dorian element
into the Attico-Ionian, just as we shall see in the next stage a
further transformation under new influences into Attico-Corinthian (p.
324). The Ionian influence brings with it into Attica not only a
revival of Mycenaean elements, but also traces of Orientalism.[974] The
general appearance of the decoration links it with the Geometrical, but
closer examination shows the admixture of spirals, rosettes, and
lotos-flowers with the lozenges and zigzags, while the Geometrical
animal-types are combined with new ones from Ionia, such as the lion,
and the funeral scenes and combats are supplanted by Centaurs and
winged genii of Assyrian character.[975] Further, there is a distinct
tendency to get rid of the old silhouette and to draw in outline, a
practice typical of Ionia and a direct heritage from Mycenaean
vase-paintings. As in the Rhodian vases, the bodies are rendered in
full colour, the heads in outline; while the practice of covering the
field with ground-ornaments is also a peculiarly Rhodian
characteristic. These latter, however, gradually disappear, as do the
Geometrical conventions in the drawing of the figures.

The amphora-type develops steadily onwards from the Berlin Hymettos
amphora, which, as has been pointed out, is the oldest Attic variety.
In some of the forms, as in No. 5, there are traces of a metallic
origin, shown by the open-work handles and other details.[976]
Generally speaking, there is a tendency towards the colossal, and
towards emphasising the figure-decoration, not only by increasing the
size of the figures, but by confining the subject to one side. M.
Pottier thinks that this is due to architectural influences, and
suggests a comparison with a temple-façade. But the local traditions
are still strong, and in spite of the influence of the lively and
original Ionic style, the vases remain “continental” at bottom, the
drawing always soberer and more powerful throughout. In many respects
there is, as we shall see, a close parallelism with the so-called
Melian fabrics.

No. 11, the large Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87), is one
of the latest representatives of the Proto-Attic class; its
Ionic-looking lions and “Rhodian” wealth of ground-ornaments seem to
suggest Asiatic influences, the presence of which has been accounted
for above. Moreover, the loop-pattern on the reverse is distinctly
Proto-Attic, and finds its parallels on vases found at Eretria,[977] as
well as on others of the class under consideration.

[Illustration: FIG. 87. BURGON LEBES (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

Another interesting point in connection with the Proto-Attic vases is
the introduction of mythological subjects, as on No. 6 (Herakles and
Antaios), No. 8 (Herakles and the Centaur Nessos), No. 10 (Perseus and
Athena, and a Harpy[978]). The only parallel to this early appearance
of myths on vases is to be found in the Melian class (see below, p.
301), the Aristonoös krater (see below) and the Euphorbos pinax (p.
335), which, however, is of later date. It will be seen that they only
occur in the later group of the Attic vases.

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

PLATE XVI

[Illustration:

From _Wiener Vorl._
THE ARISTONOÖS KRATER (IN THE VATICAN).
]

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

On two of these it is to be noted that inscriptions occur, identifying
the figures (Nos. 8 and 10). These are the oldest painted inscriptions
on Attic vases, but henceforward they increase in number, at least in
the Athenian and Corinthian fabrics; they are always more
characteristic of the mainland than of Asia Minor.[979] There are two
early signed vases which may possibly represent the work of Athenian
artists prior to the time of the François vase, the cup by Oikopheles
at Oxford,[980] and the famous vase of Aristonophos,[981] Ariston of
Kos (ὁ Κῷος), Aristonothos, or Aristonoös as various scholars interpret
the name.[982] The former, however, is somewhat archaistic in
character, with careless rather than incompetent drawing, and hardly
earlier than the sixth century; and the latter has been claimed with
much probability as Ionian work, on account of the treatment of certain
details, as well as on the ground of the name Ariston of Kos (if this
interpretation be accepted). The inscription is not conclusive either
way, and it may also be here remarked that the krater has several
points of resemblance with the well-known “Warrior” vase of Mycenae
(Fig. 88),[983] which is probably later in date than the rest of the
pottery from that site, being found outside the Acropolis. The
Aristonoös vase (Plate XVI.) is usually dated in the seventh century,
and is interesting for its subjects as well as for its artistic
position. On one side is a sea-fight, a subject only common on Greek
vases in the Geometrical period, and therefore obviously derived from
that source; on the other, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus, a
subject popular in archaic vase-painting (see Chapter XIV.), and found
in Cyrenaic and other early examples. At first sight this vase would
certainly seem to be of the Proto-Attic class, showing the transition
from Geometrical to developed Attic style; but the Mycenaean and Ionian
elements must not be left out of consideration. As regards the Warrior
vase, M. Pottier has given good grounds for showing that it also is to
be reckoned as Proto-Attic. But we must not leave out of sight the view
urged by Furtwaengler,[984] that the Aristonoös vase is of an Argive
fabric. When the Heraion finds are published, they may afford more
evidence on this point. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that the
circumstances of the finding of the Warrior vase may support this view.

[Illustration: FIG. 88. VASE FROM MYCENAE, WITH WARRIORS.]

Closely connected with these early Attic fabrics is a very interesting
series of small vases which, from the place of their discovery, are
usually known as =Phaleron ware=. They are nearly all small jugs, and
number some fifty, mostly at Athens, but there is a representative
series in the British Museum. More conspicuously, perhaps, than the
Proto-Attic, they illustrate the growing tendency to combine
Geometrical and Oriental influences. In form and technique they are
Geometrical, but in the ornamentation there is a large admixture of
Oriental elements. It has been said that “the whole character of these
vases seems to reflect an influence of the style of Oriental vases on
painters accustomed to the Dipylon style,”[985] and it is largely in
the arrangement of the decoration that the former is apparent, as well
as in the introduction of new motives and patterns.[986] See for
examples Plate XVII. figs. 2, 4, 5.

[Illustration:

From _Ath. Mitth._ 1890.

FIG. 89. VASE OF PROTO-ATTIC
TYPE FROM VOURVA.
]

The usual scheme consists of a panel with figures on the neck, a band
of ornament round the shoulder, and below that parallel bands of lines
or other ornaments, with zigzags or rays round the foot. A typical
example is A 471 in the British Museum, with a cock on the neck, and
below, dogs pursuing a hare.[987] On a cup of Geometrical form, with
conventionalised plants and ground-ornaments of Geometrical character,
are two deer fleeing from a lion, and there is also a pyxis with
chariot-scenes obviously derived from Mycenaean vases. But most curious
and interesting is a jug with two bearded heads and a woman with very
small body, apparently playing flutes.[988] The general effect is quite
unique, but the drawing is rude and childish to a degree; the middle
head is almost Semitic in type. It would seem that here again we have a
Mycenaean influence at work, and in general the appearance and style of
these vases undoubtedly recall the figured vases from Cyprus.[989]

Another series of vases in close relation to the Proto-Attic fabrics is
that found at Vourva, near Marathon[990]; they are important as forming
a connecting link with the next development of Attic vase-painting, the
Tyrrhenian amphorae described at the conclusion of this chapter. They
have been studied by Böhlau,[991] and more recently by Nilsson,[992]
and these writers have shown how they represent the influence of Ionic
ideas, derived through Euboea. On the other hand the friezes of
animals, which are so characteristic of this class, are clearly derived
from Corinthian sources, but are distinguished from those on Corinthian
vases by the absence of accessory colours. Fig. 89[993] may be taken as
a typical example. They appear to be contemporary with the later
Proto-Attic vases, such as the Burgon lebes, on which also traces of
Ionic influence have been noted.

* * * * *

From the Geometrical period onwards the manufacture of painted vases
seems to have been continued intermittently in =Boeotia= down to the
fourth century. It would be taking too great a liberty with chronology
to deal with all Boeotian fabrics here, and the later must fall into
their place with the contemporary Attic fabrics. But there is a small
class which seems to take its origin directly or indirectly from the
Geometrical pottery; and as it belongs to a period anterior to the
perfected B.F. style, it may be treated here as analogous in
development to the Proto-Attic vases.

A favourite shape among the Boeotian Geometrical wares was that of a
jug with long cylindrical neck and somewhat flat body, of a form
clearly imitated from metal.[994] This shape, which is also often found
in Proto-Corinthian fabrics (see below, p. 308), was utilised by a
potter named Gamedes, whose signature is found on a vase from Tanagra
in the Louvre,[995] in the Boeotian alphabet of about 600 B.C. It is
decorated with the figure of a herdsman driving before him a bull and a
flock of sheep, the figures being in black silhouette, with details
indicated by white markings within incised lines. This is quite a local
peculiarity,[996] and seems to be due to a combination of Corinthian
and Ionian influences. Gamedes has also signed his name on an unpainted
aryballos of the typical early Corinthian globular form (see p. 197) in
the British Museum (Plate XVII. fig. 6), and a similar vase in the
Louvre is signed by Menaidas.[997] Yet another Boeotian potter,
Theozotos, has a signed vase with a similar subject to the Gamedes jug,
but the style is more advanced.[998]

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

PLATE XVII

[Illustration:

EARLY POTTERY FROM GREECE (BRITISH MUSEUM).

1, 3, “PROTO-CORINTHIAN”; 2, 4, 5, “PHALERON” WARE; 6, BOEOTIAN,
SIGNED BY GAMEDES.
]

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

Another typically Boeotian form found in the same period is a
kantharos,[999] also obviously imitated from metal and decorated with
figures of animals or palmette-and-lotos patterns of a peculiarly local
type. The style of the animals is, like that of the Gamedes vase, also
peculiar and local; but both in decoration and technique these vases
seem to reflect Corinthian influence.

* * * * *

A small but remarkable class of vases, which seem to stand almost by
themselves, is that known as the =Melian amphorae=. Four vases of this
type now in the Athens Museum[1000] were found in Melos many years ago,
and were recognised as a separate class and described as “Melian vases”
as long ago as 1862 by Conze.[1001] Since that time a splendid example
has been added to the list, found in the same island in 1893[1002]; and
to this must be added several fragments recognised at different times,
including one from Naukratis in the British Museum.[1003] All the
complete vases are large amphorae, about three feet high, but of
elegant proportions, with two handles branching out low down on the
body. The figures are painted in brown on a pale yellow ground, and
enhanced with dull red and purple accessories, some of the details also
being incised. In two cases the subjects are mythological, one
representing Apollo with his lyre in a chariot accompanied by Artemis
and two Muses[1004]; another the Asiatic Artemis (see Chapter
XII.)[1005]; another, the one found in 1893, has the subjects of Hermes
and Athena, and Herakles carrying off Iole. Deities in chariots are a
typical Melian subject. The figures are of quite original design, in no
way imitative, and the costumes seem to indicate a period between Homer
and the sixth century. They may be roughly dated about the middle of
the seventh.

They exhibit a combination of highly-developed Geometrical ornament
with vegetable motives from the East and Mycenaean details, such as the
spiral, which, as has already been noted (p. 294), attains almost to a
rank growth over the vacant spaces of the vases. The human forms are
conceived with a remarkable degree of freedom. In general appearance
they are not unlike the large Proto-Attic amphorae, but much richer and
freer in style; they may be also said to approach the finer Naukratite
or Rhodian vases, such as the Euphorbos pinax with its quasi-Homeric
subject and lavish use of ornament.[1006]

The decoration is more advanced than that of the Proto-Attic class, the
palmettes, for instance, being more freely treated. Riegl[1007] notes
that the palmettes and lotos-flowers are derived from Egypt, but
transformed and Hellenised, and that the spirals are not Geometrical,
but are naturalised into plants. The characteristic arrangement of the
ornament in long vertical stripes he traces from Egypt through
Mycenaean art; it develops later into the plait-band of the Clazomenae
sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.). In brief, the ornament of the Melian vases
forms a direct link between Mycenaean and Hellenic ornament.

An altogether new light has been thrown on this group by a large series
of fragments of painted pottery found in 1898 in the island of Rheneia,
which undoubtedly form part of the contents of graves brought over from
Delos in 426–25 B.C., as recorded by Thucydides (iii. 104). They have
been recently made the subject of careful study by Mr. J. H.
Hopkinson,[1008] who recognised them as belonging to the Melian class,
and identified parts of at least ten distinct vases. The scanty
preservation of fragments of complete vases is, in his opinion, due to
the fact that they had been originally placed outside the tombs like
the Dipylon vases. Like the complete examples, they are characterised
by their fine slip and brilliant polychrome technique, the system of
frieze-decoration with Geometric ornaments and spirals, the free and
spirited drawing, and their purely plastic forms, showing no signs of
imitation of metal. They also bear out the isolated character of this
fabric, in which all the vases seem to be on the same level of
excellence, without any signs of transition at either end.

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

PLATE XVIII

[Illustration: MELIAN AMPHORA (ATHENS MUSEUM).]

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

Mr. Hopkinson draws the conclusion, in which he may prove to be
justified, that this pottery is of Delian manufacture, but if so, that
the clay must have been imported, as the local clay is, and always has
been, too poor in character. At all events, the Cycladic origin of the
fabric can hardly be a matter of doubt, and it is clear that the
intermediate position of these islands would account for a combination
of Geometrical and Ionian elements, so far as such exists. But the
strongly individualistic character of the vases compels us to seek some
other influence for their real origin, and it seems on the whole
probable that they represent a separate and independent descent from
Mycenaean pottery, starting with the spiral as the basis of
ornamentation. Some evidence of this descent may be traced in the
native pottery of Phylakopi, to which allusion has been made in the
previous chapter (p. 263).[1009]

§ 3. CORINTH

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wilisch, _Altkorinthische Thonindustrie_ (1892); Pottier, _Louvre
Cat._ ii. p. 417 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. chaps. xi.
and xvi.; Rayet and Collignon, p. 39 ff. For “Proto-Corinthian”
pottery see references given in text.

As a commercial and artistic centre, no one city during the early
archaic period entered into serious rivalry with Corinth, which was at
a very remote date in relations with the East, and was one of the first
of the Greek states to extend the system of colonisation in the
Mediterranean, by the foundation of Corcyra, Syracuse, and other
important outposts. The epoch of this supremacy and of its commercial
prosperity extends from the eighth to the sixth century B.C., being
coincident with the rule of the great tyrants, Periander, Kypselos,
etc. In the course of the sixth century, when the Athenian tyranny rose
to such a great height under Peisistratos, Corinth, with equal
rapidity, sank to a subordinate position, and her artistic supremacy
passed to the growing power of Athens. Hence it is fitting that Corinth
and its famous potteries should be the subject of our next section.

Two causes contributed to the importance of Corinth as a centre of
ceramic industry—the excellence of its clay (see p. 205), and its
position as a commercial port at the junction of the Peloponnese and
Central Greece. Pollux[1010] selects Corinthian clay for commendation,
and other writers speak of different varieties of pottery as
Corinthian. Hence it is not surprising that large quantities of pottery
should have been found here, the local origin of which is established
by the inscriptions in the Corinthian alphabet which are frequently
painted upon them; and not only that, but similar pottery has been
found almost all over the Mediterranean, being more widely distributed
than any other fabric except the Athenian B.F. and R.F. vases. The list
of sites as given by Wilisch is as follows: Athens, Eleusis, Aegina,
Argos, Kleonae, Tiryns, Mycenae, Thebes, and Tanagra in Greece; Euboea
(Karystos), Melos, Corfu, Crete, Rhodes,[1011] Samos, and Cyprus among
the islands; Hissarlik, Smyrna, Pontus, and the Crimea; Alexandria,
Naukratis, and Carthage; Syracuse and Selinus in Sicily, and Sardinia;
and many places in Italy, such as Bari, Nola, Capua, Cumae, Beneventum,
Cervetri, Vulci, Orvieto, Corneto, and Viterbo. M. Pottier thinks that
this wide distribution is due, not to the merit of the vases
themselves, which are often of poor style, but to the merchandise which
they contained. This might, at any rate, account for the great
preponderance of small oil-flasks, a form which took the place of the
Mycenaean “false amphora.”

The Corinthian vases are not, however, strictly homogeneous, and,
in fact, fall into certain distinct categories. The earliest class
found at Corinth stands quite by itself, and has been termed
“Proto-Corinthian,” though the justice of this title has been
strongly combated by some scholars. On many of the Sicilian and
Italian sites a class of small vases[1012] is found which differs
from the authentic Corinthian examples of the same forms, and may
not impossibly denote local fabrics. If this is so, they would
stand in the same relation to the genuine Corinthian as the
Boeotian Geometrical vases to those of the Dipylon, forming a sort
of supplementary fabric. At all events, such imitations of a
popular ware might reasonably be expected.

M. Pottier maintains that five distinct varieties of clay may be
observed, which partially serve as a basis for classification, apart
from questions of style and ornamentation. They are as follows: (1)
small vases of a greenish-yellow clay found in Greece, especially at
Corinth, but rare in Italy; (2) vases of cream-coloured clay from
Boeotia, and large kraters from Cervetri; (3) vases of reddish clay
from Boeotia, Euboea, and Etruria; (4) vases of white and grey clay,
very numerous in Italy; (5) vases of yellow clay, chiefly found in
Italy. Some of the “Proto-Corinthian” wares belong to Class (1), but as
a rule they are marked off from the rest by technique as well as
decoration. This first class is without doubt exclusively local, and
represents the κέραμος Κορίνθιος of Pollux; the same clay is even used
at Corinth at the present day. On one of the Penteskuphia pinakes (see
p. 316), the clay of which differs from the rest, a potter is
represented making an aryballos of “Proto-Corinthian” form[1013]; but
the majority belong to the second class, which is also local, and
includes the large kraters of advanced style with Corinthian
inscriptions. In colour and porosity the clay resembles that of
Boeotia. The red clay of Class (3) suggests a connection with Chalkis,
a question which needs future consideration (see below, p. 321); (4)
and (5) present analogies to the native clays of Italy, and include all
the local imitative fabrics. The older varieties with merely linear
decoration are most largely found at Corinth and Syracuse, and the
later with incised lines and figures of animals or men are
comparatively rare. But as far as the present state of our knowledge
permits, it is certainly possible to claim as Corinthian, at least in a
sense, all the varieties of fabrics which have been hitherto mentioned,
except probably the “Proto-Corinthian.”

In describing these fabrics in detail, it will be found more convenient
to ignore the technical differences, and adopt the more chronologically
accurate system of classification which follows the development of the
decoration. We thus obtain five distinct classes,[1014] which may be
summarised as follows:—

1. “Proto-Corinthian” wares (called by M. Pottier the Corinthian
Geometric style). 750–650 B.C., and later.

2. Corinthian vases with incised scale-patterns or imbrications.

3. Corinthian vases with floral decoration, ground-ornaments, and
figures not incised.

4. Similar vases, but with figures incised. [Classes 2 to 4 roughly
cover the seventh century.]

5. Corinthian vases without ground-ornaments, and with large friezes
of animals or human figures; incised details. 600–550 B.C.

1. Although the priority of the so-called =Proto-Corinthian= or
Corinthian Geometrical pottery is certain, the term is, strictly
speaking, applied to vases of different dates, which are only connected
by form with the original fabrics.[1015] The distinction lies in the
fact that the earlier vases have linear decoration without purple
accessories or incised lines, both of which occur in the more developed
examples as the result of the revolution effected by the Corinthian
painters.[1016] They therefore fall into two main classes, of which the
earlier includes the larger vases with purely Geometrical decoration of
a simple type, doubtless reflecting the original local Geometrical
pottery, and sometimes with zones of animals. The figures are merely in
black silhouette. In the later class the vases are small, sometimes
diminutive, but of developed style, with zones of animals of the later
Corinthian type, and with purple accessories and incised lines. The
earlier class date from the eighth to the seventh century B.C.; the
later cannot be older than the sixth. For the dating of the earlier
group some evidence may be derived from the results of excavations at
Syracuse, founded from Corinth in 735 B.C. In its earliest cemeteries,
as also at Megara Hyblaea, numerous Proto-Corinthian vases of the
earlier class have been found.[1017] In Italy Proto-Corinthian wares
were found in trench-tombs of about 750–650 B.C., and in the earlier
chamber-tombs (see Chapter XVIII.). The older class disappears by the
end of the seventh century, when the typical Corinthian _aryballos_
(see p. 197) takes its place.

Besides Corinth and Syracuse, Proto-Corinthian vases have been found in
considerable numbers at the Argive Heraion, at Thebes, and in the
island of Aegina, and more rarely at Tiryns, Athens, Eleusis, Tanagra,
Smyrna, and Hissarlik. Out of thirty in the Berlin Museum, eight
certainly came from Corinth. Taking this into consideration, and also
the Corinthian origin of Syracuse, it is evident that there is, apart
from their style, a strong presumption in favour of their Corinthian
origin.[1018] As long ago, however, as 1877 Helbig cast doubts on this
and proposed to locate them at the rival commercial centre of
Chalkis.[1019] He was followed by Dümmler, Klein, and others,[1020] but
recently Aegina[1021] and Boeotia[1022] have also been suggested, the
latter at least for the earlier class. Yet more recently the pendulum
has swung in another direction, that of Argos,[1023] chiefly in view of
the extensive finds at the Heraion (not yet published). Two specimens
have recently been made known which bear inscriptions, but neither
yields very definite evidence. One is a signed vase (with the name of
Pyrrhos[1024]), in which the alphabet is mixed, but mainly Chalcidian
in character; in the other[1025] the inscriptions are fragmentary, but
though the letter Σ appears in Argive, not Corinthian, form, the Λ is
not of the peculiar Argive [Argive Σ] type, but [Sicyonian Λ]. The
Pyrrhos inscription cannot be much later than 700 B.C., and thus ranks
as the earliest known “signature.” Mr. Hoppin,[1026] arguing from the
Heraion finds, regards the Proto-Corinthian fabrics as a direct
offshoot of Mycenaean pottery, not as forming a link between the
Geometrical and the Corinthian. The term, however, may be preserved, as
implying priority in point of time, and it cannot be said as yet that
the Corinthian theory is absolutely disproved.

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

PLATE XIX

[Illustration:

“PROTO-CORINTHIAN” AND EARLY CORINTHIAN VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).
1–3, 5, EARLY CORINTHIAN; 4, 6, “PROTO-CORINTHIAN.”
]

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

The dominating form is that of the _alabastron_ or lekythos, a
pear-shaped vase with flat round lip and flat handle. The aryballos
form is also known, as are the skyphos, pyxis, and a small krater. A
characteristic shape is the jug with flat base rising in pyramidal form
to a long cylindrical neck, with trefoil lip and handle.[1027] The
earlier group, although of “Corinthian” technique, usually have only
“Geometrical” ornament, such as water-birds or simple patterns; hence
they have been held, for instance, by M. Pottier, to represent the true
type of Corinthian Geometrical pottery. But it does not seem that the
Geometrical style was ever popular at Corinth, and there are many signs
that the Proto-Corinthian fabrics were to a great extent influenced
directly by Mycenaean wares. The patterns, which are in black
monochrome, are on the smaller vases limited to bands, rows of dots, or
a kind of “tongue”-pattern of stylised leaves. The Proto-Corinthian
vases found in Aegina[1028] form in some respects a class by
themselves, being often of considerable size; they also include some
unusual varieties, such as cups, and even amphorae.[1029] They usually
have Geometrical decoration in the form of zigzags, maeander, chevrons,
triangles, or parallel rays; on the larger ones are found friezes of
animals, such as dogs pursuing deer, bulls, or water-fowl.

[Examples of this class are: B.M. A 487, 1050 ff. (see Plate XVII.
figs. 4 and 6, XIX. fig. 1); Louvre E 13, 18, 32, 309, 375, 390, 396
(_Atlas_, pls. 39, 40); Berlin, 316–35; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls.
C, D, U, V; _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 7 (B.M. A 1530, of Aegina type).]

The second class is one of considerable interest. It consists of a
series of miniature vases, of which some twenty in all are known, of
the pear-shaped lekythos form, with minute but skilfully-executed
figures in a very advanced style. At their head for beauty and delicacy
of execution stands the exquisite little Macmillan lekythos in the
British Museum,[1030] a masterpiece of its kind. There is also a fine
specimen in Berlin (No. 336), others in the Louvre[1031] and the
Syracuse Museum (the latter from the local excavations), and three very
fine ones have recently been acquired by the Boston Museum.[1032] But
for size and richness, if not for beauty, all these are surpassed by a
marvellous vase in the Chigi collection at Florence.[1033] This is a
jug or oinochoë, decorated with no less than four friezes, two of which
are broad, with numerous figures, the two alternate forming narrow
borders to these, with hunting scenes. The colouring is most
remarkable, the figures being painted in black, yellow ochre, and
bright crimson on a cream ground, with a lavish use of incised lines,
and on the upper narrow frieze the animals are actually painted in pale
buff on a black ground. The upper large frieze represents a combat,
with serried ranks of warriors and horsemen advancing to meet each
other, those on the right all having elaborate emblems on their shields
(birds, ox-heads, Gorgon-heads, etc.). On the lower friezes the figures
fall into groups: a four-horse chariot and a row of boys on horseback;
a Sphinx; hunters slaying a lion; and lastly a fragmentary group,
clearly representing the Judgment of Paris (see Chapter XIV.). It is
the figures of this group which bear the inscriptions alluded to above.
As an instance of the extreme richness and delicacy of the painting,
attention should be called to the chariot-horses in the lower frieze,
which are drawn slightly in advance of each other, and painted
respectively yellow, black, red, and yellow.

The Macmillan lekythos, in spite of its diminutive size, is decorated
with no less than three friezes of human figures and animals, as well
as other ornaments; the main design represents a combat of warriors;
the next, a race of boys on horseback; the lowest, dogs pursuing a
hare, and a crouching ape. The total height of the vase is barely 2¾
inches, and yet every detail in these friezes is marked with surprising
care and accuracy, the shield-devices of the warriors, for instance,
being drawn with wonderful minuteness. The three Boston vases are
interesting for their subjects: on one is Bellerophon slaying the
Chimaera; on the next, a hero attacking a lion with a human head on its
back (a monster no doubt _suggested by_ the Chimaera); the third has
the favourite early subject of Herakles’ combat with the Centaurs. In
all these vases the use of a red colour on the human figures should be
noted, a technical device which we have already noted in the figures on
the Melian amphorae (see above, p. 301).

It is abundantly clear that such work could not have been produced in
the eighth, or even the seventh, century; the style is virtually that
of the subsequent black-figured vases, and we are therefore forced to
the conclusion that these miniature vases were made under the more or
less direct influence of the later Corinthian wares proper, at a time
when that style was developing into the black-figured.

With the Proto-Corinthian ware may be linked a series of vases in the
form of animals, human heads, etc., which imitate Oriental porcelain
vases and show an early development of the plastic art which is
remarkable for its advanced style (see pp. 127, 492). The decoration of
these vases is usually of a simple Geometrical character. They are
found in Rhodes and on many other sites, such as Eretria, Vulci, and
Nola.

2. =Vases with incised imbrications.=—The importance of this class is
betokened by the appearance of the incised line, which as a matter of
pure technique is of course only a revival from the primitive fabrics,
but as an adjunct to figure-decoration in order to express details is
an entirely new feature (see above, p. 306, and below, p. 313). It was
probably derived from metal-work, in which it had long been familiar,
as the Boeotian Geometrical fibulae and the early Corinthian or
Chalcidian bronze reliefs testify. Although destined largely to
revolutionise design, it was at first used with restraint. In the vases
under consideration it is confined to the imbrications[1034] or
scale-patterns with which the body is largely covered (Plate XIX. fig.
3). They were produced by means of a compass in which the graving-tool
was fixed, the edge of each scale forming an arc of a circle, the
centre points of which are usually visible. This scale-pattern is not a
new feature in the decoration of vases; it appears in a painted form on
many Mycenaean specimens,[1035] and was also adopted by the Ionian
painters of Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta (see p. 352). But as a more
satisfactory result was obtained by incising, the Corinthian variety
soon became exceedingly popular. The effect is often enhanced by the
use of red colour.[1036] In some cases this ornament is combined with
painted friezes of animals (as in the Louvre vase E 421). The shapes
employed are various, but a new and conspicuous variety is the large
jug or _olpe_, with circular lip and large discs attached on either
side to the tops of the handles. Attempts have been made to dissociate
this fabric from Corinth, by attributing it to Rhodes, Ionia, and
Sicily[1037]; but although it is certainly true that large numbers were
found in Rhodes and in Sicily, the claims of neither prevail over those
of Corinth, and the most that can be said with any certainty is that
some are local imitations. It is, moreover, possible to discover their
prototypes in the Proto-Corinthian wares.

3. =Vases with floral decoration=, but no incised lines (about 700–650
B.C.).—Towards the end of the eighth century may be observed an influx
of Oriental motives, transforming the Corinthian style, just as at
Athens it transformed the local style, producing the Phaleron ware. Its
effect can also be observed in Etruria (Chapter XVIII.). It is largely
due to historical causes, such as the development of Greek commerce and
colonial expansion, and generally to the fusion of Dorian and Ionian
elements. Hence the prominent characteristic which distinguishes the
new variety from the Proto-Corinthian; namely, the employment of
vegetable ornament, not from direct observation of nature, but
conventionalised. These patterns seem to be largely drawn from Oriental
textile embroideries, and mainly take the form of rosettes, leaves, and
flowers strewn all over the field; according to some writers, this is
the explanation of the phrase _spargentes lineas intus_,[1038] used in
connection with the Corinthian painters Aridikes and Telephanes.
_Ground_-ornaments are almost unknown in Oriental art; but their
adoption from the embroideries would only exemplify the principle,
universal in early art, of imitating in one material the salient
features of another. It has been suggested that these flowers and
leaves are intended to represent the ground on which the animals are
walking. If this is so, the effect is due to a principle already
existing in Mycenaean art—the conventional rendering of perspective by
placing objects whose real position is beyond the principal subjects in
the same vertical plane with them. Another favourite pattern, either as
a ground-ornament or as part of the subordinate decoration, is a
combination of the palmette and lotos-flower, picked out with purple
accessories[1039]; this pattern is purely conventional, and often
assumes colossal dimensions in relation to the size of the vase. The
purple accessories, which now become very common, may possibly be
connected with another traditional Corinthian invention, that of
Ekphantos, who used a red pigment made from pounded earth (see p.
395).[1040]

As regards shapes, the alabastron and aryballos[1041] are preeminently
popular; the flat-bottomed jug, the pyxis or covered jar, and the
skyphos or kotyle, are also found (see Plate XIX. figs. 1, 2, 5). There
arises now a tendency in the larger vases to divide the body into zones
or friezes, which henceforth become a characteristic feature. The
subjects are strictly limited to animals such as the lion, or various
types of birds; and friezes of running dogs and other quadrupeds now
become the typical Corinthian motive.

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

PLATE XX

_To face page 312_

[Illustration:

1. COVERED JAR OF CORINTHIAN FABRIC.
2. “RHODIAN” OINOCHOE.
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

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

4. =Vases with floral decoration and figures with incised lines= (about
650–600 B.C.).—In this next stage, the date of which corresponds with
the later trench-tombs and older chamber-tombs of Etruria (see Chapter
XVIII.), there is a marked tendency of the vases to increase in size,
and several new forms are either introduced for the first time or
increase in popularity. Besides the ever-popular aryballos and
alabastron, there are various forms of covered jars, the cylindrical
pyxis, and the so-called _lekane_, a sort of tureen; also various
drinking-cups, the kotyle, the so-called _kothon_, and the kylix, the
last a new type. Its prototype is perhaps to be sought in the shallow
four-handled bowls of the Boeotian Geometrical ware, and it is marked
by its bent-over rim and low foot.[1042]

The decoration loses all restraint, and the prevailing idea with the
artist is the _horror vacui_ which impels him to fill up every vacant
part of the surface, at the expense of utterly conventionalising his
figures and ornaments and distorting their forms (cf. Plate XIX. figs.
1, 5, and XX. fig. 1). The vases contrast unfavourably with their
Ionian contemporaries, in which, however profuse the ground-ornaments,
the importance of the figures is never lost sight of, and they never
fail to strike the eye. Incised lines and purple accessories are
employed freely, and even the rosettes are always marked by cross-wise
incisions.

Incision as a method of ornamenting vases was of course always known
from the earliest times, but it was not until now employed within and
round painted designs. Hitherto the only alternatives were plain
silhouettes (as in Geometrical vases) or half-opaque, half-outlined
figures (as in Mycenaean and some early Ionian vases). The former,
however, were too conventional, the latter too elaborate, and the new
method of painting _plus_ engraving reconciled the two, being at once
more realistic and more rapid. It is generally supposed that this
method was a Corinthian invention (compare its use in the imbricated
vases, p. 311), but it is not unknown in early Attic vases, and Böhlau
attributes its origin to an early Ionian tendency to imitate metal
ware.[1043] But this was an anomaly, and the Ionians never took to the
incising method, preferring outline designs or inner lines of white
paint (see p. 331). In any case the Corinthians were the first to adopt
it and popularise it.

The subjects, which now begin to present greater interest, include all
kinds of animals and monsters, arranged in friezes, and by degrees
human figures, and even scenes from mythology, make their appearance.
Some vases have only decorative ornament, such as a flower of four
long, pointed petals, which is frequently found on the aryballi.[1044]
The animals include the lion, panther, boar, bull, ram, deer, goat,
swan, and eagle; the monsters are Gryphons, Sphinxes, or Sirens, and a
sea-deity of which the upper part is human (both male and female), the
lower is in the form of a sinuous fish-tail, and the figure is often
winged in addition.[1045] It is possible that in these figures we may
see the local sea-deities Palaemon and Ino-Leukothea. The human figures
are either single, ranged in friezes, or in groups; the favourite types
are combats of two warriors and Bacchanalian dances; hunting scenes;
and warriors setting out in chariots. The mythological scenes include
the combat of Herakles with the Centaurs,[1046] and scenes from the
Trojan War, such as the combat of Ajax and Aeneas, or the episode of
Dolon.[1047]

So far, then, in the three groups of Corinthian fabrics proper, we are
able to trace the working of M. Pottier’s law of the _hiérarchie des
genres_,[1048] the law which was made by M. Dumont the basis of his
work _Les Céramiques de Grèce propre_ (vol. i., dealing with the
earlier fabrics). According to this law, the decoration of vases
advances by a logical process from linear patterns to floral ornament,
and then from animals to human, and finally mythological, figures.
Another feature in this group is that inscriptions now appear for the
first time. They became exceedingly popular at Corinth, and on most of
the vases with figure-subjects they may be found, each person bearing a
name, whether the scene is mythological or not.[1049] The fashion seems
to have received an impetus from the chest of Kypselos, which was
largely a Corinthian work, and often shows close parallel with the
vases (see below). We have a signed vase with figures in this style by
Chares (Louvre E 609), and others by Timonidas (Athens 620), and
Milonidas (a pinax in Louvre).[1050] The abundance of these
inscriptions has done much to increase our knowledge of the somewhat
peculiar Corinthian alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).

Among the vases of this period one of the most remarkable is the
so-called Dodwell vase in Munich (Fig. 90),[1051] found at Mertese,
near Corinth, about the year 1800, and purchased by the explorer
Dodwell. It is a cylindrical jar or box (_pyxis_), with cover,
decorated round the sides and on the top. Round the body are two
friezes of animals, with numerous flowers as ground-ornaments; on the
top of the cover is a frieze representing a boar-hunt, in which eight
fancifully-named personages take more or less active part. Of these
Philon lies dead under the boar’s feet; Thersandros attacks it with a
sword in front, and Pakon discharges an arrow at it from behind. Behind
him Andrytas hurls a spear, and he is followed by four inactive
figures, all draped and unarmed—Dorimachos, Sakis, Alka ... and
Agamemnon. The scene is closed by a heraldic group of two Sphinxes. It
will be observed that here, as in other contemporary scenes with human
figures, the ground-ornaments are already showing a tendency to die
out; perhaps under the influence of Ionia, where it was soon discovered
that they interfered with the effect of figures in action. The alphabet
of the inscriptions enables us to date this vase about 650–620 B.C.

[Illustration: FIG. 90. THE DODWELL PYXIS (COVER).]

The _pinakes_, or votive tablets, from Penteskuphia, of which mention
has been made elsewhere (p. 51), form an important feature in this
group, both from their subjects, their inscriptions, and the method of
painting. They appear to range in date from 650 to 550 B.C., and fall
into three classes in point of style. The earliest have designs in rude
silhouette without incised lines; in the second only the contours of
the figures are incised; the third are like the vases, with incised
lines and purple details. In a few cases the clay is red, not
drab-coloured. Some are decorated on both sides, but the majority on
one only, and they were clearly intended for hanging up in a temple.
Two of them are signed by artists, Timonidas and Milonidas,[1052] and
there are other interesting inscriptions, besides the ordinary
dedications to Poseidon and Amphitrite (see Chapter XVII.). The
subjects are partly the same as on the vases, but the majority fall
under two heads: (_a_) Poseidon and Amphitrite, standing or in a
chariot (Fig. 115); (_b_) _genre_ scenes from Corinthian industries,
such as miners digging out clay, potters and painters at work, and
vessels exporting pottery over the sea (cf. pp. 207, 216, and Chapter
XV. § 5). Of the subjects common to the vases, Oriental animal-types
and horses occur most frequently; also rosettes and floral
ground-ornaments.

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

PLATE XXI

[Illustration: 1. IMITATION CORINTHIAN KRATER, RETURN OF HEPHAISTOS; 2,
CORINTHIAN KRATER WITH BOAR-HUNT (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

5. The vases of the fifth class (600–550 B.C.) are characterised by the
prevalence of =human and mythological subjects=, with large friezes of
animals, a general use of incised lines, and an absence of
ground-ornaments. They are mostly of considerable size, but small vases
still continued to be made during the sixth century, as is seen in the
“Proto-Corinthian” lekythi. The amphora and hydria now first make their
appearance; the later lekythi approach more to the Attic form.[1053]
One or two other typical shapes may also be noticed, such as the
column-handled krater (Plate XXI.) and the trefoil-mouthed jug with a
panel on one side of the vase only; the prototype of the former we have
seen in the krater of Aristonoös. Another important feature is the
general use of a red ground in the place of the old creamy white; and
yet another, the use of white accessories, especially for the flesh of
female figures. It should be noted that this white is always applied
directly on the clay, as in Ionian fabrics, not as in the Attic, upon
the black varnish. We may bear in mind that it was about this time that
the Athenian Eumaros _marem a femina discrevit_, according to Pliny;
but his date is uncertain, and the bearing of this invention on the
vase-paintings is not to be accepted without hesitation. For the faces
of male figures purple is often used, and, generally speaking, the
vases tend to present a polychrome appearance. This again is an Ionian
characteristic.

The subjects now take a much wider range, and include almost every
variety known in the earlier part of the sixth century. Friezes of
animals seldom form the main motive of decoration, but are placed in
subordination either on the shoulder or low down on the body. Some of
the older types still linger, such as the monsters and fish-tailed
sea-deities, and also that of a heraldic group of two animals with a
palmette and lotos pattern between, suggesting the old Assyrian motive
of two animals guarding the sacred tree. Generally, there is a great
advance in composition; but two traditional principles are still
observed—the juxtaposition of figures turned in the same direction, as
in Oriental compositions, and a symmetrical disposition of the two
sides converging to a centre, a “Continental” principle already seen in
the Dipylon vases. The subjects taken from daily life include combats,
banquets, Bacchic or grotesque dances, hunting-scenes, warriors setting
out for battle, and processions. Some appear now for the first time,
as, for instance, the banquets. Among the mythological scenes, Herakles
and his adventures find most favour; scenes from the Trojan cycle are
far from uncommon; and other myths of more isolated character are those
of Amphiaraos, Perseus, and the Theban cycle (Tydeus killing Ismene).
Many of the mythological scenes are really only _genre_ scenes with
names added; for instance, the krater in the Louvre with Herakles’
reception by Eurytos (E 635), is only an ordinary banquet-scene in
composition, but for the inscriptions; and so with many others, as we
have also observed in the preceding class.

It may suffice to describe one vase in detail as typical of the later
Corinthian wares. This is the so-called Amphiaraos krater in
Berlin,[1054] a column-handled krater of considerable size and very
richly decorated. It belongs to a series exceptionally well represented
in the Louvre (E 613–39; all found, like this, at Cervetri), and
illustrating the absolutely latest development of Corinthian pictorial
art. Its special interest is that it affords a close comparison in
several points with the chest of Kypselos. The subjects are disposed in
two rows all round the vase, of which the upper is the more important,
containing two mythological subjects. These, which are unequally
divided, one occupying more of the circumference than the other, are
the Departure of Amphiaraos and the Funeral Games for Pelias,[1055] the
ἀγὼν ὁ ἐπὶ Πελίᾳ of Pausanias.[1056] On the lower frieze are seven boys
taking part in a horse-race, seven groups of combatants, and two
marching hoplites. It will be noted that there is no frieze of animals.

The Amphiaraos scene depicts that hero in the act of ascending his
war-chariot, in which the driver Baton stands; he turns to look at his
family behind, consisting of two daughters, a son, and an infant in the
nurse’s arms, and last of all his wife Eriphyle, who stands in the rear
with the pearl necklace, the price of her treachery. Her children seem
to be supplicating for her. In the background Amphiaraos’ house is
indicated by a Doric building. The correspondence of this scene with
the description of the Kypselos chest[1057] is extraordinary; the
latter might almost be a description of the vase. An interesting
feature of this painting is formed by the animals which are scattered
over the scene: a hare, a hedgehog, an owl and another bird, a serpent,
a scorpion, and a lizard or salamander.[1058]

The funeral games for Pelias adjoined the Amphiaraos scene on the
chest, just as they do here, except that the scene on the vase is only
an excerpt from the contest of the Pentathlon, which is there complete.
We have here only the wrestling (by Peleus and Hippalkimos), and in
place of the other scenes a chariot-race, with the judges waiting to
decide the result; as on the chest, tripods are standing ready as
prizes for the victor. It must not, of course, be supposed that these
scenes are directly copied from the chest—the discrepancies are too
great, although the parallels are very interesting; but the only object
of such comparisons is to assist us to an idea of the appearance of
these great contemporary works of art.[1059]

One of the chief features of this class is the almost total
disappearance of the ground-ornaments. Sometimes indeed a frieze of
animals with the old profusion of rosettes is combined on the same vase
with a design of figures on a clear field; but, generally speaking,
rosettes are not found with the figure subjects. Their place is almost
supplied by the inscriptions, which become more and more extensively
employed, even for animals. Accessory colours are used in a purely
conventional fashion, not to reproduce nature, but—probably—to
reproduce metal-work. Thus we may surmise that white is intended to
give the effect of silver (or ivory) and red that of copper (or gold),
just as such substances were used on the chest of Kypselos in order to
give variety and picturesqueness to the surface. The black then
represents the ground of bronze or wood.

The sixth-century Corinthian vase-paintings have a special importance
at the present day, because they are almost the only remnant left to us
of the artistic products of the city at that time.[1060] Though not of
course to be reckoned as examples of the higher art, they yet reflect
it in some measure, and help us to reconstruct such works as the chest
of Kypselos, almost every subject on which finds a parallel in the
Corinthian vases. And it is possible that they are important in another
respect. We know from Pliny that there was a very influential school of
painting centred at Corinth in this century, which is represented by
the names of Kleanthes and Aridikes, Ekphantos, Aregon, and perhaps
also Kimon of Kleonae. Although Professor Robert[1061] has endeavoured
to show that the traditions are untrustworthy, and places Kimon in the
seventh century, Kleanthes later, the probability is that they may
fairly be upheld, and Pliny’s dates accepted. Allusion has already been
made to the inventions traditionally associated with Aridikes and
Ekphantos; but Kimon belongs to a later development of painting
altogether, and must be reserved for a later chapter. Of Kleanthes it
is only stated that he “invented linear drawing,” whatever that may
mean; Pliny, our informant, was perhaps hardly aware himself, and is no
more definite as to the period at which he lived. We can only,
therefore, assume that he marks the epoch of some new departure or
advance in contour or outline drawing.[1062]

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

PLATE XXII

[Illustration: CHALCIDIAN VASE: HERAKLES AND GERYON; QUADRIGA
(BIBLIOTHÈQUE NATIONALE).]

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

There are a few vases which, on account of various peculiarities, can
only be described as “imitation Corinthian.” Among these may be
mentioned one with an inscription in the Sicyonian alphabet (Berlin
1147), and a krater in the British Museum (B 42 on Plate XXI.) with
designs on a white ground, which from the similarity of its style to
the Berlin vase may be linked therewith.[1063] The late F. Dümmler was
of opinion that these two vases were made at Sikyon. There is also the
group of vases from Caere in the Campana collection of the Louvre,
which have usually been regarded as imitations of Corinthian ware made
in Italy; but M. Pottier in his catalogue makes no distinction between
these and the genuine Corinthian fabrics.

§ 4. CHALCIDIAN VASES

A very puzzling class of vases, about which little is at present known,
is that formed by the so-called Chalcidian group. They are so named
from the fact of their bearing inscriptions which may undoubtedly be
referred to the alphabet of Chalkis in Eretria; but there is no
evidence that they were actually made there. We know, however, that
Chalkis was a great art-centre and rival of Corinth in the seventh and
sixth centuries, and was especially famous for work in metal. As,
therefore, more than one of these vases bears evident indications, in
the shape of the handles, the ornamentation, and other details, of an
imitation of metallic originals, there may be some ground for the
attribution. Only a dozen or so of these vases with Chalcidian
inscriptions are known, and several of them are in character almost to
be ranked with the developed B.F. Attic wares; their date cannot
therefore be earlier than the middle of the sixth century, probably
about 560–540 B.C. On the other hand, they often present a close
parallel, especially in the ornamental patterns, to the later
Corinthian wares,[1064] whence it seems probable that they form, like
the so-called Tyrrhenian amphorae (see below), a connecting-link
between Corinth and Athens. While as yet it is impossible to obtain a
definite idea of the characteristics of “Chalcidian” vases, the attempt
to classify other uninscribed vases with them can only be very
tentative, although there is more than one in the British Museum, in
the Louvre, and elsewhere, which presents some feature especially
typical of the inscribed examples.[1065]

The prevailing shape is the amphora, all but one of the inscribed group
coming under this heading, in which the outline of the body approaches
nearer to a pure ellipse than is usual in this form; the typical
ornaments are rows of oblique zigzags and a peculiar variety of the
lotos-pattern. An occasional rosette in the field preserves a trace of
Corinthian influence. The subjects are mainly mythological, such as the
combat of Herakles and Geryon, battle-scenes from the Trojan legends,
etc.; and two points are worth noting as apparently characteristic of
the group: (1) the tendency to represent fallen figures in full face,
which is very rare in archaic vase-painting; (2) the type of Geryon,
who is winged, and not, as in the Attic vases, “three men joined
together,” as Pausanias describes the figure on the chest of Kypselos,
but a triple-headed, six-armed monster.

The most typical example of the class is the amphora in the Hope
collection at Deepdene,[1066] with scenes from the Trojan War. Ajax
stands over the body of Achilles, defending it from the attacks of
Glaukos, whom he has wounded, and of Paris, who has just discharged his
bow; behind the latter advance Aeneas and two other Trojans with
spears, while a fourth falls back wounded. Achilles and the two wounded
men are all shown in full face.[1067] The combat is watched by a stiff
archaic figure of Athena, with serpent-fringed aegis, and behind her,
standing apart, is Diomede, having his wounded hand bound up by
Sthenelos. The drawing on the whole is accurate, and the style more
vigorous and less conventional than that of the Attic vases.

Two of the group represent Herakles encountering Geryon: an amphora in
the British Museum (B 155) and one in the Bibliothèque at Paris (202).
In the latter the figure of Athena is almost exactly repeated from the
Deepdene vase, and behind her is a group of cattle. The reverse of this
vase represents a quadriga seen from the front (a typical Chalcidian
subject). Both sides of the vase are illustrated in Plate XXII.

Until the whole series of Chalcidian vases is properly studied and
estimated,[1068] it is difficult to give an adequate account of this
important group; we append, however, a list of those bearing
inscriptions in the alphabet, and a few others for various reasons
associated with them.[1069]

§5. “TYRRHENIAN AMPHORAE”

There is a large and important class of vases, not differing in
technique from the Attic B.F. vases proper, yet clearly of earlier
date, and while not exclusively Attic in all their characteristics, yet
sufficiently so to suggest that they are closely connected therewith.
The problem which these vases have for a long time presented is whether
they merely represent an early stage of the Attic B.F. fabrics, linking
them to the “Proto-Attic,” or whether they owe their origin to foreign,
_e.g._ Corinthian, sources.

About eighty vases, nearly all amphorae, have been recognised as
presenting the characteristics of this class, and all have been found
in Italy, chiefly at Cervetri and Vulci; hence they have been known for
many years. As long ago as 1830 the name “Tyrrhenian amphorae” was
applied to them by Gerhard, meaning thereby a sort of cross between
Greek vases proper and those of obviously Italian origin. The name has
adhered to them, and was also used generally to describe the
characteristic form of amphora, with its cylindrical neck and
egg-shaped body[1070]; but it was not long before it began to be
realised that the vases bore inscriptions in the Attic dialect, and,
further, that the subjects on them had much in common with the later
Corinthian fabrics. Thereupon sprang up the idea, fostered by
Loeschcke,[1071] that the vases were made by Athenian potters, but that
they were largely indebted to Corinthian—or, as Loeschcke called them,
Peloponnesian—prototypes.[1072] For the last ten years or so they have
been generally known as “Corintho-Attic,” but Thiersch, the most recent
writer on the subject,[1073] reverts to the old name of Tyrrhenian,
using it of course in a purely conventional sense. His conclusion is
that the class is to be regarded as “old Attic,” rather than imitative
of Corinthian, and he shows clearly that it must be regarded as a
development of the Vourva vases (p. 299), as will be seen from an
examination of the vase given in Fig. 89, p. 299; but that it is
entirely free from Corinthian influence can hardly be maintained. We
have seen that the Vourva class borrowed from Corinth the friezes of
animals which are also characteristic of this group, and it is possible
that this influence continued to make itself felt. At all events, this
ware belongs to the first half of the sixth century B.C., and stands in
close relation to the François vase, and others which represent the
earliest school of Attic B.F. artists. Its specially Attic
characteristic are, according to Holwerda, (1) the inscriptions, (2)
the clay, (3) the types of the lotos and other ornaments, (4) the
importance given to one subject, (5) the thin proportions of the
figures.[1074]

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

PLATE XXIII

[Illustration: “TYRRHENIAN” AMPHORA: DEATH OF POLYXENA (BRIT. MUS.).]

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

The vases are for the most part decorated in the same manner, with an
elaborate lotos-and-honeysuckle pattern on either side of the neck, and
several friezes of figures, usually three, covering the body, of which
all but the principal one are composed of animals or monsters. The
principal frieze is always the upper one, covering the body from the
neck to the middle. The friezes are more numerous on the earlier
examples; they become fewer as Corinthian characteristics give way to
Attic. Altogether, these vases are remarkably homogeneous, both in
style, in shape, and in technique, and it has even been suggested that
the whole series is the work of one man; nor is this an impossibility.

An interesting feature is formed by the inscriptions,[1075] which are
of frequent occurrence. They tend, however, to degenerate into
meaningless collocations of letters, which some have thought to
represent Corinthian inscriptions misunderstood; but the alphabet is
pure Attic throughout, except for the double forms on the Berlin
amphora (see below), and a Chalcidian [Chalcidian Γ] for Γ on a vase in
the British Museum. The artist is fond of giving his figures surnames,
and thus we find Hermes styled Κυλλήνιος, “of Kyllene,” Nestor Πύλιος,
“of Pylos,” and Ajax [Ὀ]ιλιάδης, “son of Oileus,” a feature which
hardly occurs on any other class of vases. The meaningless inscriptions
are not easy to account for; certain groups of letters are repeated
over and over again, and it has been suggested by Thiersch that they
are analogous to the friezes of animals, with their repetitions and
combinations. They also seem to serve a decorative purpose by filling
up spaces.

The subjects are mainly mythological, with many features of interest.
For several the artist seems to have had a decided preference, such as
the combats of Herakles with Amazons and with the Centaur Nessos, that
of the Lapiths with the Centaurs, the adventure of Troilos and Polyxena
from the Trojan legends. Bacchic scenes are altogether wanting, but on
many examples a Corinthian type is adopted in their place, representing
grotesque dancing figures in various attitudes.[1076] Of scenes from
daily life, combats of armed warriors and young riders galloping
prevail above all others; the latter are, as on the Caeretan hydriae
(p. 355), little more than decorative. Generally speaking, it is
doubtful if Loeschcke’s idea of types borrowed from the Peloponnese can
be maintained; it is true that some scenes which occur on the chest of
Kypselos may be found, but the treatment is not quite the same; and
some subjects seem to be rather from an Ionic source. The animals or
monsters which form the subordinate friezes include the Sphinx and
Siren; the lion, panther, goat, and deer; the eagle, swan, and
cock.[1077]

Some of the vases call for more than passing mention, especially the
remarkable Berlin vase (_Cat._ 1704) with the Birth of Athena, and the
richly decorated specimen recently acquired by the British Museum, with
the Death of Polyxena. The former seems to be the earliest example of
its subject, and in the number and arrangement of the figures it
resembles the fine early Attic amphora in the British Museum (B 147).
Its chief interest is epigraphical, in the use of the double forms
(Corinthian and Attic) in the same word of the letters E ([Corinthian
E]) and Κ (Ϙ).[1078] Over the figure of Hermes is written Ἑρμῆς εἰμὶ
Κϙυέλνιος (sc. Κυλλήνιος), as already noted above. This vase may be
regarded as having established the “type” for the subject so long
popular on Attic vases, until Pheidias created a new and more ideal
version.[1079] The Museum vase (Plate XXIII.) has a very remarkable
representation of a subject rare in Greek art, with several unique
features.[1080] The body of Polyxena is carried in a rigid horizontal
position by Ajax Iliades (_sc._ son of Oïleus) and two others, to the
tomb of Achilles, over which Neoptolemos stands to perform the fatal
deed. Phoenix, Diomede, and Nestor “of Pylos” are spectators of the act.

The style of the vases as a whole is coarse and clumsy, though it often
rises to a greater standard of merit; the lines are often mechanically
drawn and lifeless, which may be to some extent the result of
imitation. Details of drapery are seldom shown, except that the dresses
are often richly decorated with incised patterns, but the folds are
never indicated.[1081]

-----

Footnote 930:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 222–3.

Footnote 931:

Wide, in _Ath. Mitth._ 1896, p. 385 ff.; see also _ibid._ 1893, p.
138.

Footnote 932:

Cf. the results from the Argive Heraion (Waldstein, i. p. 49 ff.).

Footnote 933:

Cf. Horace, _Ep._ ii. 1, 156: _Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et
artes intulit agresti Latio_.

Footnote 934:

M. Pottier notes the unexpected repetition of curvilinear elements in
Geometrical pottery (_Louvre Cat._ i. p. 223).

Footnote 935:

For Melos, see _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 112; for Thera, H. von
Gaertringen, _Thera_, ii. p. 127 ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ 1903, p. 1 ff.;
for Crete, _Brit. School Annual_, 1899–1900, p. 91.

Footnote 936:

Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _B.M. Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 103, fig.
150; Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304.

Footnote 937:

See Wide’s study of the pottery in the Athens Museum, _Jahrbuch_,
xiv. (1899), pp. 26, 78, 188; xv. (1900), p. 49.

Footnote 938:

_Zur Geschichte d. Anfänge d. Kunst_, p. 1 ff. (_Sitzungsber. d. k.
Akad. d. Wiss._ Wien, 1870, lxiv. p. 505 ff.).

Footnote 939:

See Bibliography.

Footnote 940:

Perrot and Chipiez, vii. pp. 51, 208.

Footnote 941:

_J.H.S._ viii. p. 68 ff.; cf. _Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223 ff.

Footnote 942:

See p. 35, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1893, p. 73 ff.

Footnote 943:

_E.g._ B.M. A 383, 384; Louvre, A 490, 491; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1872,
pl. K, fig. 12.

Footnote 944:

_Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 95.

Footnote 945:

_Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 165, reproduced in Fig 83. The part
bracketed denotes the ornamentation of the neck.

Footnote 946:

See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 150 ff.

Footnote 947:

_E.g._ _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 600.

Footnote 948:

_J.H.S._ xix. pl. 8.

Footnote 949:

For other instances of ships on Dipylon vases, see Chapter XV. § 7;
also _Mon. Grecs_, xi.–xiii. (1882–4), p. 40 ff.; _Rev. Arch._ xxv.
(1894), p. 14 ff.

Footnote 950:

Cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 57.

Footnote 951:

Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. 13; _J.H.S._ xvii. pl. 3, p. 70.

Footnote 952:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1885, pl. 8.

Footnote 953:

_Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 119.

Footnote 954:

The most important of the Dipylon vases have been published in the
_Monumenti_, vol. ix. pl. 39, and _Annali_, 1872, pl. 1, besides the
others already mentioned. See also Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pl. 29; _Louvre
Cat._ A 516–19, 526, 575; _Athens Cat._ 196–214, 350, etc.

Footnote 955:

_Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.

Footnote 956:

_Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 212.

Footnote 957:

_Monuments Piot_, i. p. 35 ff.

Footnote 958:

A 575 in the Louvre, with funeral scenes; Fig. 86 below.

Footnote 959:

See Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 173.

Footnote 960:

Riegl, fig. 81.

Footnote 961:

_Cat._ 306; _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 357.

Footnote 962:

On these fibulae see _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xxxix, and Nos.
119–21, 3204–5.

Footnote 963:

This would seem to suggest a textile origin for Geometrical patterns,
at least on Boeotian vases.

Footnote 964:

_E.g._ B 57–8 in Brit. Mus.

Footnote 965:

_Jahrbuch_, i. (1886), p. 99 ff.: see also, for relations with Egypt,
p. 114.

Footnote 966:

Dörpfeld, _Troja und Ilion_, i. p. 304 ff.

Footnote 967:

See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 232, and _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, p. 285.

Footnote 968:

_Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 106; Pottier, _op. cit._ p. 229.

Footnote 969:

In the B.F. period, pinakes and prothesis-amphorae (Athens 688–690,
845–847; Berlin 1811–26, 1887–89); in the R.F. period, the white
lekythi.

Footnote 970:

See Pottier, _op. cit._ i. p. 135 ff.

Footnote 971:

See also _Ath. Mitth._ xiii. (1888), p. 280.

Footnote 972:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1895, pl. 3.

Footnote 973:

See _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 35.

Footnote 974:

Ionian influence in the early part of the sixth century is also
indicated by the finds of Rhodian and Naucratite pottery on the
Acropolis at Athens; and in another way by the style of the vases
found at Vourva and others from Eretria: see Böhlau, _Aus ion. u.
ital. Nekrop._, p. 116; Nilsson in _Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.

Footnote 975:

Cf. Athens 464, 469; _Jahrbuch_, 1897, pl. 7; _Notizie degli Scavi_,
1895, p. 186, as examples of the transition.

Footnote 976:

Cf. the large Boeotian πίθοι, (Plate XLVII., and _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ 1898, p. 497 ff.).

Footnote 977:

Athens 665–66: cf. 469.

Footnote 978:

See Chapter XIV.

Footnote 979:

See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 980:

_Ashmolean Vases_, No. 189.

Footnote 981:

In the Vatican (Helbig, i. p. 435, No. 641). Reinach, i. 179 =
_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, 1, 8.

Footnote 982:

For the interpretation of the inscription see _J.H.S._ x. p. 187
(Ramsay); _Arch.-epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterr.-Ungarn_, 1888, p. 85
(Dümmler); _Class. Review_, 1900, p. 264 (Richards). The last
explanation (Aristonoös) seems the most natural. See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 983:

Schliemann, _Mycenae_, p. 133: cf. Pottier in _Revue Arch._ xxviii.
(1896), p. 19. The technique of the vase is not strictly Mycenaean,
as the use of yellow colour for details implies.

Footnote 984:

_Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.

Footnote 985:

See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 58.

Footnote 986:

That they are an immediate development of the Dipylon style is
indicated by various features of the later Attic Geometrical vases
(_Jahrbuch_, 1886, pp. 98, 120).

Footnote 987:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 48, fig. 8 = Plate XVII. No. 5.

Footnote 988:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 46.

Footnote 989:

See p. 246; and cf. for example _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 73, figs.
126–27. For a later Ionic vase of similar type see _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ 1884, pl. 7 (below, p. 339).

Footnote 990:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, pls. 10–12; 1893, pl. 2.

Footnote 991:

_Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 115 ff.

Footnote 992:

_Jahrbuch_, 1903, p. 124 ff.

Footnote 993:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1890, p. 10.

Footnote 994:

Cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 446, and Plate XIX. fig. 5
(Corinthian).

Footnote 995:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1, figs. 2 and 7: cf. Berlin 1651 = _Bull.
de Cor. Hell._ 1897, p. 448.

Footnote 996:

It also occurs at Daphnae: see below, p. 352.

Footnote 997:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 1, fig. 1.

Footnote 998:

Louvre F 69. For other signatures see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 999:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1897, p. 450: cf. Athens 612 and a Berlin vase
= _Anzeiger_, 1891, p. 116. On this shape see above, p. 187.

Footnote 1000:

_Cat._ 473–76. Plate XVIII. gives No. 474.

Footnote 1001:

_Melische Thongefässe._ See also Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 213;
_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 211.

Footnote 1002:

Athens 477 = Mylonas in Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1894, pls. 12–4, p. 226 (admirably
reproduced in colours).

Footnote 1003:

Cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 212.

Footnote 1004:

Athens 475.

Footnote 1005:

Berlin 301 = Reinach, i. 380, 4.

Footnote 1006:

Cf. also _J.H.S._ viii. pl. 79 and B.M. A 762–64, 790.

Footnote 1007:

_Stilfragen_, p. 154.

Footnote 1008:

_J.H.S._ xxii. p. 46 ff.

Footnote 1009:

Cf. _J.H.S._ xxii. p. 66.

Footnote 1010:

x. 182.

Footnote 1011:

On the relations of Corinthian and Rhodian pottery, see Wilisch,
_Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 127. The Corinthian vases found in Rhodes
are roughly contemporaneous with the so-called Rhodian fabric.

Footnote 1012:

_E.g._ Louvre E 460, 467; Berlin 1156 ff. Furtwaengler, Dümmler, and
Wilisch call these Italo-Corinthian, but Böhlau regards them as
Aeolic, Orsi and Gsell as Sicilian. See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.
422.

Footnote 1013:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1880, p. 106.

Footnote 1014:

Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 6 ff., limits these classes to
three: Proto-Corinthian, Yellow-ground, and Red-ground; he arrives at
this by combining Classes 2, 3, and 4 in one.

Footnote 1015:

Cf. Couve in _Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 214.

Footnote 1016:

Cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16, of Aridikes and Telephanes, _spargentes
linear intus_. But it is not certain that this passage refers to the
use of _incised_ lines.

Footnote 1017:

_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls. C, D; _Mon. Antichi_, i. p. 780.

Footnote 1018:

_J.H.S._ xi. p. 173; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 481.

Footnote 1019:

_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, p. 406; _Italiker in der Po-ebene_, p. 84.

Footnote 1020:

_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 18; Klein, _Euphronios_, p. 68; Wilisch, p. 11.

Footnote 1021:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pp. 262, 265 ff.; and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 17.

Footnote 1022:

_Rev. Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 228.

Footnote 1023:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 262; _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 202; _Amer.
Journ. of Arch._ 1900, p. 441.

Footnote 1024:

_Rev. Arch._ xl. (1902), p. 41.

Footnote 1025:

_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44–5.

Footnote 1026:

_Amer. Journ._ loc. cit.

Footnote 1027:

It is interesting to note that this form quite disappears, and is not
revived until the glass vessels of the Roman period. Cf. _J.H.S._ xi.
p. 175: see also p. 300; and for this and the other shapes, Plates
XVII., XIX.

Footnote 1028:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 265 ff.

Footnote 1029:

In some specimens Ionian influence seems to manifest itself: cf. for
instance the Ionic palmette in _Ath. Mitth._ 1897, p. 279. Studniczka
notes that the purely monochrome outline drawing of the Aegina vases
is like that ascribed by Pliny to the early Corinthian painters
(_Ath. Mitth._ 1899, p. 376).

Footnote 1030:

Plate XVII. fig. 3 = A 1050 = _J.H.S._ xi. pls. 1, 2: cf. also
_ibid._ p. 179.

Footnote 1031:

_Mélanges Perrot_, pl. 4, p. 269, and see p. 271, note 2; _Rev.
Arch._ xxxii. (1898), p. 213.

Footnote 1032:

_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1900, pls. 4–6, p. 441.

Footnote 1033:

_Ant. Denkm._ ii. pls. 44–5.

Footnote 1034:

So called from the imitation of overlapping roof-tiles (_imbrices_).

Footnote 1035:

_E.g._ B.M. A 193, 223; Louvre A 275.

Footnote 1036:

_E.g._ Louvre, _Atlas_, pl. 40, E 347.

Footnote 1037:

_Mon. Antichi_, iv. p. 271 ff.; Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 91.

Footnote 1038:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 16. See p. 306, note 1016.

Footnote 1039:

Cf. Louvre E 350 ff.

Footnote 1040:

Studniczka (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 151) connects Ekphantos with Melos
(cf. the inscription in Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 32). On the
connection of Corinth with Melos, see Wilisch, p. 123 ff.

Footnote 1041:

The aryballos is also found in early Boeotian fabrics (subsequent to
the Geometrical period): cf. the Gamedes vase in the B.M. (p. 300.),
and that of Menaidas in the Louvre.

Footnote 1042:

See Wilisch, p. 24; examples in Athens Mus., Nos. 621, 622, 640 ff.

Footnote 1043:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 437 ff.; but see _Ath. Mitth._ 1895, p.
125, and Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 98.

Footnote 1044:

_E.g._ Athens Mus. 502 and 507; Berlin 1034 ff.; _J.H.S._ xii. p. 312
(from Cyprus); and cf. Wilisch, p. 41.

Footnote 1045:

See _Él. Cér._ iii. 31–32 B, etc., and Chapter XII.

Footnote 1046:

_J.H.S._ i. pl. 1.

Footnote 1047:

Louvre E 600; Wilisch, figs. 47–9. In some of these the inscribed
names may be purely fanciful. The Corinthian potters were
particularly fond of idealising ordinary scenes in this way. Cf. for
Trojan scenes Chapter XIV. and _Hermes_, 1901, p. 388.

Footnote 1048:

See above, pp. 245, 284.

Footnote 1049:

Cf. the Dodwell pyxis described below.

Footnote 1050:

Cf. also the aryballos of Ainetas, B.M. A 1080 = _Ann. dell’ Inst._
1862, pl. A, and the series of pinakes described below.

Footnote 1051:

_Cat._ 211; Dodwell, _Tour_, ii. p. 197; Baumeister, iii. pl. 88,
fig. 2046.

Footnote 1052:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 1.

Footnote 1053:

Cf. B.M. B 30 and B 586.

Footnote 1054:

_Cat._ 1655 = _Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 10 = Reinach, _Répertoire_, i.
p. 199.

Footnote 1055:

See Chapter XIV.

Footnote 1056:

v. 17, 9.

Footnote 1057:

Paus. v. 17–19.

Footnote 1058:

Cf. the Arkesilas vase described below, p. 342.

Footnote 1059:

See on this subject H. S. Jones in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 30 ff.

Footnote 1060:

Cf. the Thermon metopes (p. 92).

Footnote 1061:

_Arch. Märchen_, p. 121: see p. 395 ff.

Footnote 1062:

See on the achievements of the early Greek painters as described by
Pliny, Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny’s Chapters on Greek Art_, p.
xxviii.

Footnote 1063:

But see _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 510, and _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287, note.
The other vases classified in the Museum Catalogue as imitations (B
43–6, 49–53) are more probably of Ionic or quasi-Ionic fabric. Athens
655 is in style not unlike B.M. B 42.

Footnote 1064:

See Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 133 ff.

Footnote 1065:

Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenm_. p. 161, points out that the Chalcidian
fabrics are not like those of Corinth and Athens, exhibiting growth
and development, but a small group coming from one workshop.

Footnote 1066:

_Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. 51 = Reinach, i. 82.

Footnote 1067:

It is curious that the Chalcidian artists only attempted this novelty
in the case of helmeted warriors.

Footnote 1068:

A publication by Loeschcke is in preparation (1904). See also
Furtwaengler’s remarks on this group (to which he adds some examples)
in _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 161. For the inscriptions see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1069:

The list in Klein’s _Euphronios_, p. 65, is as follows:—

(1) _Mon. dell’ Inst._ i. 51 (Deepdene): Combat over body of Achilles.

(2) Gerhard, _A.V._ 105–6 = Reinach, ii. 58, 253 (Bibl. Nat. 202):
Geryon; quadriga (Plate XXII.).

(3) B.M. B 155: Geryon; Perseus and Nymphs.

(4) Gerhard, _A.V._ 190–91 = Reinach, ii. 95 (Bibl. Nat. 203):
Warriors arming.

(5) _Ibid._ 322 = Reinach, ii. 160 (Wurzburg 315): Departure of
Hector.

(6) _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1839, plate P = Reinach, i. 259 (Kopenhagen
64). Skyphos: Tydeus and Adrastos.

(7) Leiden 1626 (Reinach, ii. 268): Sileni and Maenads.

(8) Durand Coll. 145.

(9) Gerhard, _A.V._ 237 = Reinach, ii. 120 (Munich 125). Hydria: Zeus
and Typhon; Peleus and Atalanta.

(10) _Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1870, p. 187, No. 32 (in Florence).

(11) Gerhard, _A.V._ 95–6 = Reinach, ii. 53: Contests of Herakles
with hydra and Amazons.

To these may be added (12, 13) B.M. B 75 and B 76 (both inscribed);
(14) Munich 1108; (15) Vienna 219; (16) _Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p.
154, note 82; (17) B.M. B 154 (inscriptions Attic, but style
resembling No. 1); (18) Gerhard, _A.V._ 205, 3–4 = Reinach, ii. 105,
2 (inscriptions Ionic, but style Chalcidian); (19) Kopenhagen 115 =
Daremberg and Saglio, i. p. 821, fig. 1026; (20) _Arch. Anzeiger_,
1889, p. 91 (in Berlin); also Louvre E 793–813 (according to
Pottier). See on the subject generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p.
551, and for the inscriptions, Kretschmer, _Gr. Vaseninschr._ p. 62.

Footnote 1070:

For a description of the shape of this particular kind of amphora,
see p. 160.

Footnote 1071:

_Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108.

Footnote 1072:

On the relation of Attic vases to Corinthian, see Wilisch, _Altkor.
Thonindustrie_, p. 137.

Footnote 1073:

_Tyrrhen. Amphoren_ (1898).

Footnote 1074:

_Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564.

Footnote 1075:

See Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1076:

See, _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 287. The dance is that known as the κόρδαξ.

Footnote 1077:

On the ornamental patterns typical of this group, see Thiersch,
_Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 69 ff.

Footnote 1078:

Cf. the [ΖΔΕΥΣ] (Ζδεύς) on E 852 in the Louvre; and see Chapter XVII.

Footnote 1079:

M. Reinach, in a recent article (_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1901,
p. 127 ff.), maintains that the vases with this subject are of
Megarian origin. See also _Arch. Zeit._ 1876, p. 108 ff.

Footnote 1080:

See for fuller discussion _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 15, p. 282.

Footnote 1081:

See on the subject of these vases generally, Dumont-Pottier, i. p.
329 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1890, p. 237 ff.; _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 283;
Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 564; and above all, Thiersch, _Tyrrhen.
Amphoren_ (1898).

CHAPTER VIII
_VASE-PAINTING IN IONIA_

General characteristics—Classification—Mycenaean influence—Rhodian
pottery—“Fikellura” ware—Asia Minor fabrics—Cyrenaic
vases—Naukratis and its pottery—Daphnae ware—Caeretan
hydriae—Other Ionic fabrics—“Pontic” vases—Early painting in
Ionia—Clazomenae sarcophagi.

Having traced the history of vase-painting in Greece Proper down to the
middle of the sixth century B.C., the point at which a tendency towards
unification of style becomes perceptible, we must now turn our
attention to the remains of the art on the other side of the Aegean,
among the representatives of the Ionian race and in the centres of
Ionian influence. To a certain extent it is difficult to treat the
subject at all in a handbook, as, owing chiefly to want of material,
the existence of an Ionian school of vase-painting has only been
realised of late years, and it is as yet too early to sift proofs from
theories, or to give a succinct and systematised account of the
development and achievements of this school. The most that can be
attempted is to present the reader with a review of the accumulated
materials, and to point out what groups of vases may be regarded as
exhibiting “Ionian” characteristics, or at all events such as permit of
their being connected together.[1082] It must be borne in mind that
some of these fabrics, such, for instance, as the Rhodian wares, have
not actually been found in Ionic settlements; in other words, the name
Ionian is to be applied to certain styles or schools, in the main
associated with that race, apart from considerations of ethnography.

On one point scholars are in general agreement—namely, that Ionic art
is a direct survival of Mycenaean. This was recognised as long ago as
1879 by Furtwaengler[1083] and by Lenormant,[1084] who pointed out that
the silver cauldron dedicated by King Alyattes at Delphi must have been
quite Mycenaean in character, although not earlier than the seventh
century. It was decorated with aquatic animals and plants. There was in
Ionia no disturbing element, such as the Dorian invasion introduced
into Europe, between Mycenaean culture and the spread of Oriental
influences. The Greek cities in Ionia owe their origin to that
upheaval, but their culture was not affected by it; and their founders
brought their Mycenaean civilisation with them fresh from Greece to
their new homes in Miletos, Ephesos, Phocaea, Chios, and Samos. This
was in the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C., and the Panionion, or
union of Ionian cities, lasted down to the sixth century (when it was
broken up by the Persian invasion), besides stretching out its feelers
over the Mediterranean, to the Egyptian Delta and elsewhere. The actual
centres of pottery-manufacture are not, however, easy to determine, and
much may depend on the results of future excavations. That there was
more than one is fairly obvious, and it will probably appear that
Clazomenae, Miletos, and perhaps Phocaea, played the most important
parts.

As regards the characteristics of the Ionian wares, a rough division
may be made into two classes, corresponding to the buff-clay and
red-clay Corinthian wares respectively. In the earlier, the vases are
always covered with a creamy-white or drab-coloured slip, on which the
figures stand out in lustrous black paint.[1085] The most typical
fabric is that of the Rhodian wares, found in such large quantities in
that island, but not necessarily made there. In the later group the
place of the white slip is taken by a red coating or glaze similar to
that of the Attic and later Corinthian wares, but somewhat brighter.

The principal subdivisions may be classified as follows (the
arrangement is M. Pottier’s, with one or two small differences):—

I. 1. Rhodian wares.[1086]
2. Samian and “Fikellura” wares.[1087]
3. Asia Minor fabrics:
(_a_) Caria.[1088]
(_b_) Knidos.[1089]
(_c_) Larissa.[1090]
(_d_) Myrina.[1091]
(_e_) Pitane.[1092]
(_f_) Phocaea.[1093]
(_g_) Troad.[1094]
4. Vases found in the Crimea.[1095]
5. Naukratis wares.[1096]
6. Clazomenae sarcophagi.[1097]

II. 1. Cyrenaic wares.
2. Daphnae wares.
3. Caeretan hydriae.
4. So-called “Pontic” vases.
5. Developed B.F. Ionian fabrics from Clazomenae, Kyme,
Naukratis, Rhodes, etc.
6. Italo-Ionic vases of the decadence and Etruscan
imitations.[1098]

The subdivision between the earlier and later fabrics is, roughly
speaking, between those with white and red ground, and between those in
which ground-ornaments are used or not. Generally speaking, all the
second class have more in common with the Attic B.F. vases than with
“primitive” fabrics.

Before proceeding to the consideration of these fabrics in detail, it
may be as well to note some of the general characteristics of Ionian
pottery. In the use of incised lines and accessory pigments we may note
two points: firstly, the absence for some time of any attempt at
incised lines, their place being taken partly by contours drawn in
outline on the clay; secondly, the use of white lines or patches for
details. The incised lines, when they do appear, seem to be derived
from Corinth. We may, perhaps, detect their arrival in the vases with
imbrications (see p. 311), which were imported thence to Rhodes; but
another theory is that they were derived from engraved work in metal.
Practically their place had been, and to some extent continued to be,
taken by the white paint, which, be it noted, is obviously a Mycenaean
survival or revival.[1099] It frequently occurs on the pottery of
Ialysos and Enkomi, in precisely the same manner as we see it used in
Rhodes or on the sarcophagi of Clazomenae. Sometimes both the incised
lines and the white-paint details are found on the same vase, as is
seen in some of the Rhodian jugs, or on a pinax from Naukratis.[1100]
The white pigments are usually laid directly on the clay, not on the
black, as at Athens. They are used for flesh tints, but not to
distinguish sex (cf. the Caeretan hydriae, p. 355, where men are
painted white, as on the Melian vases they are yellow).

As regards the ornamentation, the persistence of Mycenaean motives is
exceedingly remarkable.[1101] It is seen especially in the fabrics of
Rhodes and Naukratis, with their wealth of ground-ornaments, and is
found not only in the more conventional motives such as spirals, or
scale-pattern, but also in the vegetable patterns. There is generally
in the floral decoration of the vases a tendency towards the naturalism
of Mycenaean pottery. Animals, when decoratively treated, are usually
arranged in long friezes, contrasting with the Corinthian method of
grouping them heraldically in pairs.[1102] In the human figures
Oriental influence is frequently prominent, as in the hybrid beings
which so often adorn the vases, or in such types as the “Asiatic
Artemis”; or, again, in small details, the conical caps and shoes with
turned-up toes, which recall the figures on the monuments of Lydia and
Phrygia. Oriental costumes generally are reproduced with great
fidelity. As a rule the proportions are gross and heavy, as compared
with the slimness of figures on Attic vases, wherein a curious contrast
may be observed with the characteristics of Ionian and Continental
architecture and sculpture, in which these features are reversed. There
is, moreover, a conspicuous absence of stiffness in the Ionian
compositions—rather, a remarkable freshness, vigour, and originality
quite in advance of their time. Another point of contrast with the
Attic vases is the absence of any differentiation of the sexes in the
shape of the eye, which is always oval (cf. p. 408).

In the choice of subjects the same law may be observed to prevail as in
the Corinthian wares—that of the _hiérarchie des genres_. Mythological
subjects appear first about the middle of the seventh century, in the
Euphorbos pinax. Later we find actually scenes of a quasi-historical
character, as in the battle-scenes on the Clazomenae sarcophagi and the
Cyrenaic Arkesilaos vase. Throughout there is a remarkable absence of
inscriptions, which are only found at the most on some half-dozen
vases. The height of the Ionian style may be said to have been reached
in the seventh century, lasting up to about the middle of the sixth;
thence there is a rapid downfall, due mainly to historical causes, and
the traces of its influence are only to be sought in Italian imitations
of an inferior kind, and in some of the Attic black-figured vases, such
as those of Amasis and Nikosthenes.

But the influence that was exercised during all this period by Ionian
art in general on Greece is not easy to estimate; it is not confined to
the pottery, but is found in sculpture and architecture as well as the
minor arts. There are numerous passages in ancient writers bearing on
the activity of early Ionian artists, such as Theodoros and Rhoikos of
Samos, and their works, which often took the form of offerings of
Asiatic princes to the Greek temples. The Ionic school of sculpture,
illustrated by the early temple at Ephesos, the “Harpy” Monument, and
other notable works, as well as the great Amyclaean throne, which
Bathykles of Magnesia was commissioned to erect, established the fame
of early Greek sculpture in no small degree; and Ionic architecture,
though slower to win its way to favour in Greece Proper, reached a high
degree of excellence at an early period on the eastern shore of the
Aegean. Of painting in Ionia, apart from the vases, we propose to speak
later. In literature and in civilisation generally Ionia was, up to the
middle of the sixth century, far more advanced than any part of the
Greek mainland.

§ 1. RHODES AND ASIA MINOR

The distinctive pottery of Rhodes,[1103] which, whether of local
manufacture or not, is found almost exclusively in that island,[1104]
represents the union of Mycenaean elements with a new feature, that of
Oriental influence. Although primarily due to the dispersion of the
Phoenicians by Assyria in the eighth century, this Orientalising of
Ionia is purely artistic and industrial, not political, and is due to
the commercial activity of the Phoenicians. The pottery represents a
sort of transition between Assyrian and Greek decorative art, the
essentially Greek elements in which are a survival of Mycenaean
ornaments and a Mycenaean faculty of observation of nature, especially
in the animal world. From the East were derived such features as hybrid
monsters (the Sphinx, Siren, etc.), animals such as the lion, isolated
motives like the lotos-flower and the rosette, and generally a tendency
to imitate textile fabrics with long bands of decoration, in which the
ground is strewn with these rosettes and other ornaments. We have
already seen that these features also made their mark on the Corinthian
style, but they are more especially characteristic of Rhodes. Human
figures are exceedingly rare.

In regard to the shapes a great advance is made towards the classical
types; the parts of the vase are more clearly distinguished, and the
forms are few and consistent. The special Rhodian shape is the
oinochoë, a large jug with trefoil lip and spherical body, decorated
with two or three friezes of animals (see Plate XX. and p. 177); next
in popularity is the circular plate or _pinax_. The ornamentation is
always in lustrous black paint on the characteristic white or
drab-coloured slip, with a free use of purple for details. White is
little used as an accessory—there seems to have been a prejudice
against its use when the ground of the vase was also white—but incised
lines occur more freely. On the other hand, the heads of animals are
almost always outlined in black on the clay ground, a feature derived
from Mycenaean pottery, and interior details are also frequently left
in the ground of the clay, as in the Geometrical style. We have already
mentioned instances in which the two methods are found on the same vase.

The typical Rhodian oinochoae, like the contemporary Corinthian vases,
owe much to the imitation of the textile embroideries of Assyria, of
which we have already spoken under the other head (p. 312). These had
become familiar in Rhodes through the agency of the Phoenicians, but it
is also possible that the Ionians were themselves proficient in this
industry. The bands of lotos-ornament and friezes of animals also
appear on the porcelain vases found in large numbers at Kameiros (p.
127), which are sometimes most elaborately ornamented, and are clearly
of Phoenician origin; the seventh century was, in fact, the time when
the Greek world was most dominated by Oriental influences.

The ornamental patterns on the vases of this class fall under two
heads—the smaller independent ground-ornaments, and the more elaborated
bands of vegetable ornament. The former are best illustrated by the
Euphorbos pinax, presently to be described; in contrast to the
unvarying Corinthian rosette, they show a considerable variety of
treatment, and are partly variations on the rosette theme, partly
geometrical, like the fragments of maeander, or crosses with hooked
arms, which recall in form the ubiquitous _swastika_. The band of
lotos-flowers and buds actually occurs at a much earlier date in
Boeotia, as we have seen, but it is at Rhodes that it first assumes the
characteristic Greek form. On the pinakes a development of this motive,
forming a fan-shaped combination of radiating leaves, is usually
employed to fill in the “exergue” below the designs; a similar ornament
is found on the black wares with incised patterns, and it is the
forerunner of the pear-shaped radiations painted on the small bowls of
a more recent date.[1105]

A typically Ionian motive is the plait-band, found at Naukratis and on
the Clazomenae sarcophagi, and introduced from Assyria. The Mycenaean
spiral, so prominent in Attica and Melos, retires into the background,
or loses its geometrical significance, and becomes a mere vegetable
motive, an adjunct to the floral combinations of bud and flower. The
Rhodian vases are, in fact, the first in which spiral motives were
freely used for calyx-ornaments, as, generally speaking, they were the
first in post-Mycenaean times to raise floral motives from mere
ground-ornaments to independent decoration.[1106]

The series of pinakes yield the most interesting examples of Rhodian
vase-painting; they are usually decorated with a figure of a ram or
other animal on a large scale (Plate XXIV.), the exergue or lower
portion of the field being filled in with a suitable pattern, such as a
sort of fan-pattern of spreading rays or fronds (see above), or a free
variation of the Egyptian lotos-flower. But one is of surpassing
interest and importance, the famous Euphorbos pinax as it is generally
called, which was found at Kameiros, and is now in the British Museum.
The subject is the combat of Menelaos and Hector over the body of
Euphorbos,[1107] a scene from the _Iliad_, but not reproduced in
accurate detail, as, indeed, is seldom the case in archaic art. The
figures are drawn partly in outline, with a lavish use of purple for
details, and the whole of the ground is filled in with various
ornaments, rosettes, etc., one at the top of the scene taking the form
of a pair of eyes, with a conventionalised floral pattern between.
Additional interest is given to the design by the fact that the figures
are named, the words being in the Argive alphabet (see Chapter XVII.).

This inscription does not necessarily affect the question of the place
of fabric of the pinax, as it has been shown that the Argive alphabet
was used in Rhodes in the seventh century[1108]; but it enables us to
fix its date about B.C. 650, and the whole of the Rhodian ware may be
regarded as belonging to the seventh century. It has, indeed, been
suggested that the subject is copied from an Argive metal relief, and
this might account for the unexpected presence of an inscription.

As to the place of fabric of Rhodian ware generally, it has been more
than once suggested that it is to be sought, not in Rhodes, but in the
neighbouring Ionian city of Miletos.[1109] Dümmler’s theory of an
Argive origin, resting as it does almost exclusively on the Euphorbos
inscriptions, is practically negatived by the absence of any similar
pottery in the extensive finds at the Argive Heraion. Miletos, however,
was in close connection with Rhodes, and in favour of the argument is
the remarkable parallelism of the pottery of Naukratis, which was
undoubtedly in close association with Miletos; it was, in fact, first
colonised by Milesian Greeks, and the Milesian Apollo was worshipped
there. But further evidence is needed before this view can be regarded
as other than a mere hypothesis. At all events, no convincing argument
has as yet been urged against the pottery being of local manufacture.
In date, as has been said, it covers the seventh century, being thus
contemporaneous with the Melian and earlier Corinthian fabrics.

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

PLATE XXIV

[Illustration: 1. PINAX FROM RHODES; 2. BOWL FROM NAUKRATIS (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

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

In one of the extensive cemeteries of Kameiros, known as Fikellura,
there were found quantities of a class of pottery which has since been
generally known by that name, but is probably not a local fabric. It
has also been found in large numbers in the island of Samos,[1110]
where Rhodian vases are comparatively rare, and owing to this more
recent evidence the ware has been regarded as probably of Samian
origin. Several specimens were also found on another Ionian site, that
of Daphnae in the Egyptian Delta, but are quite distinct from the local
fabric of that place. The date of the tombs in Samos is the second half
of the sixth century, and it is noteworthy that from the ornamentation
of these vases all Oriental influence has disappeared. On the other
hand, they seem to represent the last lingering vestiges of Mycenaean
influence. The majority are in the form of amphorae, but other forms,
such as jugs and lekythi, are known. The technique is that of the
Orientalising vases, with the typical Ionian creamy-white slip; the
black has a tendency to become brown, or even red, and purple
accessories are employed. Incised lines do not appear, but details are
marked by spaces left in the ground of the clay. The subjects are
simple in character and arrangement, usually one or two animals (or
sometimes human figures) on either side of the body, the spaces being
filled in with palmettes, spirals, or other ornaments. The
ornamentation is strikingly characteristic, especially the network
patterns on the necks of the vases, the scale-patterns, and the bands
of crescents which we also find in use in Lesbos and at Daphnae.[1111]
They form altogether a clearly-distinguished group, but sometimes show
signs of late date, if they are not actually to be regarded as
archaistic. Examples are given in Fig. 91.

[Illustration: FIG. 91. VASES OF SAMIAN OR “FIKELLURA” STYLE (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

The system of decoration is curiously reminiscent of the Mycenaean
vases,[1112] as exemplified in the great prominence given to the
ornament as the main decoration, the scrolls and palmettes recalling
the seaweed and other vegetable patterns on the former. This prominence
of ornament is always an Ionian characteristic, retained as late as the
Caeretan hydriae (p. 354), with their bold bands of palmettes and
lotos-flowers round the very centre of the body. The scale-patterns,
another Mycenaean legacy, we shall meet with again at Daphnae, where
similarly they cover the most prominent part of the vases. The most
representative series of Fikellura vases is that in the British Museum,
from Rhodes, Naukratis, and Daphnae; there are also some in the Louvre
(A 321–34).[1113]

Dr. Böhlau, in his treatise on Ionian pottery,[1114] discusses as a
class certain vases which, in accordance with his theory, he terms
“Later Milesian.” At all events, they demand attention from the
remarkable way in which they combine Ionian and Corinthian
characteristics, sometimes, as we have seen, on the same vase. They
have been found in Rhodes, Naukratis, and Italy, but the place of their
manufacture is variously assigned to Corinth, Naukratis, and
Miletos.[1115] An oinochoe found in Rhodes, with the incised lines in
one animal-frieze and the details left in the colour of the clay or
shown in black outline in the other, seems to incline to an Asiatic
origin, at least as regards its shape[1116]; on the other hand, the
fine krater in the Louvre[1117] is of a form more usually associated
with Corinth. The upper half of the latter is Corinthian in style, the
lower Rhodian, and thus there is not much to choose. But on the
evidence adduced by Dr. Böhlau[1118] it would seem to be more probably
of Ionian fabric. It may be that further evidence will enable us to
assign these vases of mixed style to Naukratis, always a meeting-place
of styles or fabrics; but it has not as yet been definitely ascertained
to what extent the earlier fabrics of that place are local in origin.
Meanwhile, the group is one that fully deserves separate consideration.
Dr. Böhlau points out that it is characterised by the half-palmettes at
the handles of the vases, by the Mycenaean-like spirals, and the
inferior careless ground-ornaments, and generally by its deviations
from the normal Rhodian types.

The black ware with patterns in purple and white and incised lines
which has been mentioned as found in Rhodes is regarded by Böhlau[1119]
as Aeolic. It is, as we shall see, paralleled at Naukratis by wares
which there is good reason for regarding as of Lesbian origin. The
typical form of decoration, the fan-shaped palmette, also occurs at
Daphnae. In any case there is clearly an attempt at the imitation of
metal vases, the polychrome colouring being intended to reproduce the
effect of bronze inlaid with gold and silver. But before it can be
established as an Aeolic fabric more results must be obtained by
excavation in that part of Asia Minor.

In various places on the mainland of Asia Minor (see p. 62) vases of
early fabric have been found, about which at present little is known,
except that they usually show some points of comparison with the
recognised Ionian fabrics, and may therefore be regarded as of local
manufacture, or at least from some place on the coast of Asia. An
attempt has indeed been made by Böhlau to recognise in these also an
Aeolic fabric, centring in the neighbourhood of Kyme and Myrina. An
example is to be seen in the remarkable vase found at Myrina,[1120]
with the bust of a man painted in outline, which resembles in shape the
Fikellura vases, and is probably intermediate between the Rhodian and
this fabric. Similar pottery finds have been made at Larisa, at Pitane,
and in the Troad. At Larisa and Myrina Böhlau notes vases of the
earlier Rhodian style, and at Larisa others which show a distinct
independent derivation from Mycenaean pottery, especially in the
ground-ornaments. On the site of Troy Dr. Dörpfeld found fragments of
pottery of a Rhodian type with ornaments of pear-shaped leaves, such as
occur on late sixth- century bowls from Kameiros[1121]; also a vase
with a female head resembling that from Myrina, and another of
Naucratite character. There appears to have been a local fabric in the
sixth century—or perhaps even later—of flat bowls with bracket-handles,
on which are painted figures of birds, etc., in coarse black pigment
without any incised lines or accessories; a series of these is in the
British Museum, and others were found by Dr. Dörpfeld (see above, pp.
61, 259).

In Caria the Ionian style is represented by finds at Stratonikeia and
Mylasa,[1122] with ornamentation of Mycenaean character, which appears
to have reached a similar stage of development to the earlier
Graeco-Phoenician vases from Cyprus; many analogies may be noted. That
the Mycenaean influence was strong in Caria is also shown by the
pottery of transitional character found by Mr. Paton at Hissarlik.[1123]

At Temir-Gora (Phanagoria) in the Crimea a vase was found in 1870 with
paintings in brown on buff ground, representing a hare-hunt, panthers,
and other animals.[1124] The style has evident affinities to that of
the “Rhodian” vases, and Phanagoria being a Milesian colony, this is
only natural. But it seems to be a local product, not an importation;
the panther, for instance, is unknown on Rhodian vases proper.

§ 2. AFRICA

The fabrics of the Ionian school are not confined to Asia Minor as
regards their place of origin. In the Greek colonies which were founded
in Africa in the seventh and sixth centuries we find evidences of great
industrial activity, and in some cases extensive remains of painted
pottery, which exhibit a close connection with the fabrics more closely
associated with Asia Minor. There is, however, one group of vases which
seems to stand by itself, and which, though it may be ranked with the
Ionian fabrics from its use of the white slip and from the original
naturalistic treatment of the subjects, yet shows a marked independence
both in technique and in decoration.

The vases grouped under this head have been found chiefly in Etruria,
but more recently several examples have come to light in the Ionian
colony of Naukratis in the Egyptian Delta and in Samos.[1125] As long
ago as 1881 it was proposed by Puchstein to connect them with the
Theraean colony of Kyrene on the north coast of Africa, on the ground
of the subject depicted on the finest and most remarkable of them—the
Arkesilaos cup of the Cabinet des Médailles at Paris. When, however,
the Naucratite specimens turned up, it was thought that they might
after all be a local fabric of that colony, especially as that place
was known to have had a close connection with Kyrene, whence about 570
B.C. came the queen of Amasis, who was a great benefactor to Naukratis.
But to urge only one of the opposing arguments, there seems to have
been little or no export of pottery _from_ Naukratis, although imported
specimens have been found there of almost every early fabric known. It
was reserved for the ingenuity of Dr. Studniczka[1126] to identify a
scene on a fragmentary cup found there with the figure of the nymph
Kyrene, the patron goddess of that city, and thereby to establish
definitely the origin of this class. Curiously enough, no remains of
the early colony of Kyrene have ever been discovered; but when, if
ever, they are brought to light, it may be confidently hoped that
further evidence will be obtained.

The =Cyrenaic= vases, as they are now generally styled, are for the
most part _kylikes_ of a slender and graceful form, owing much
apparently to metal originals, as indicated by the use of palmettes at
the ends of the handles, and by their form and ornamentation in
general. The designs are painted in black on a slip varying in tint
from deep buff to a pale cream-colour, with firmly-drawn incised lines
and a plentiful use of purple for details. The drawing is remarkably
spirited, and the subjects mostly marked by _naïveté_ and freshness.
The popularity of mythological scenes is remarkable; we find
representations of Zeus, Atlas and Prometheus, Kadmos, Pelops, and
other heroic figures, besides the remarkable vases which deal with
local legend and history.

[Illustration:

From _Baumeister_.
FIG. 92. ARKESILAOS OF KYRENE SUPERINTENDING HIS COMMERCE
(FROM A KYLIX IN THE BIBL. NAT.).
]

The Arkesilaos vase[1127] (Fig. 92) demands something more than a
passing description. It represents the king of Kyrene superintending
the weighing of the silphium-plant, which was a valuable source of his
revenue. Although there were four sovereigns of that name, the choice
is practically limited to one, the second of the name, who reigned
about 580–550 B.C. The scene takes place on a ship ready to sail, of
which the yard-arm and part of the sails are visible; from the yard
hangs a large balance, inscribed with the word σταθμός, in each pan of
which is a large mass of some substance, which has generally been
interpreted as representing the silphium. But as a matter of fact it is
open to doubt whether it is not really wool, or some similar article of
merchandise. On the left of the scene, on a folding-chair, sits the
king, with flowing locks and large hat, before whom a man named
Sophortos stands, with a gesture implying that he is making a statement
relating to the transaction. On the right are four men variously
occupied, two carrying bags of the stuff tied at the neck; one of these
is named Σλιφόμαχος,[1128] a word of uncertain meaning, but apparently
having some reference to the silphium. A horizontal line is drawn below
the scene, and in the lower part of the circle we see perhaps the
storing of the merchandise in the hold, under the superintendence of an
official named Φύλακος (guardian); two men are carrying bags to add to
a heap of three already stored away. In the upper part of the design
and behind Arkesilaos are depicted various birds, a monkey, a lizard,
and a panther, perhaps to give local colouring to the scene.[1129] The
whole is conceived with wonderful _naïveté_ and freshness, so much so
that early writers regarded it as a parody or burlesque of a serious
subject; but this can hardly be the case.

Several other scenes on the Cyrenaic vases merit description, did space
permit; but it must suffice to refer to the list of subjects already
given. The majority of the specimens are in the Louvre, which possesses
no less than ten cups, besides three larger vases, decorated with
animals and ornaments only. There are also four in the Cabinet des
Médailles, of which, besides the Arkesilaos cup, one representing
Polyphemos devouring the companions of Odysseus and the subsequent
blinding (all in one scene) is of conspicuous interest. The British
Museum possesses two or three cups and several fragments from
Naukratis, including the important one restored by Studniczka as
representing the local nymph holding branches of silphium and
pomegranate, and surrounded by flying daemons, male and female, or
Boreads and Harpies (Fig. 93).

[Illustration: FIG. 93. CYRENAIC CUP WITH FIGURE OF KYRENE (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

Of this series the Arkesilaos cup is the only one with inscriptions.
They are without doubt in an alphabet of Peloponnesian, not Ionian,
character, as is shown, for instance, by the [ψ] for Χ in Σλιφόμαχος.
But this may be explained by reference to the history of the city,
which in the seventh and sixth centuries received a considerable influx
of the Dorian element, especially from Sparta, whose alphabet may have
been adopted for general use.

The total number of specimens in existence is about forty; some of
which, however, are merely fragmentary examples.[1130]

Allusion has already been made to the extensive finds of pottery at
=Naukratis=, among the most remarkable of recent years, which have done
much to increase our knowledge of Ionian industrial art. As has been
said, almost every other early fabric is represented there, from the
Melian and Corinthian wares to those of Rhodes and other Asiatic sites,
including a large series of Athenian vases or fragments down to the
latest times. But with these were present in overwhelming numbers
specimens of an entirely new fabric which could only be regarded as
local in its origin. Of the pottery with figure subjects three stages
can be traced, all characterised by the Ionian cream-coloured slip, of
which the earliest is remarkably like the Rhodian wares, the next is
distinguished by its polychrome decoration on a white ground, and the
third represents a sort of transition from the quasi-Rhodian style of
decoration to the regular black-figured ware, and is parallel in many
respects to the sister-fabric of Daphnae (see below).

All this pottery was discovered in _favissae_ or rubbish-heaps attached
to the sanctuaries of Apollo, Aphrodite, Hera, and the Dioskuri,
especially the two former. As the vases had been rejected as useless or
crowded out by new ones, they are almost all broken and fragmentary.
But it is interesting to note that on numbers of the earlier potsherds
from the Apollo temple the words Ἀπόλλωνος ἐμί, “I am Apollo’s,” have
been roughly scratched, as if the priests had wished to mark them as
sacred and preserve them from profane uses, although no longer
required. Even more frequent on all the sites are dedications to the
respective deities, with the formula ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι, or τῇ
Ἀφροδίτῃ, in the Ionic alphabet (cf. Fig. 16, p. 139). On
palaeographical grounds the inscriptions may be dated as ranging from
about 600 to 520 B.C., but there are some difficulties with regard to
the date of the foundation of the settlement.

Strabo (xvii. 1, p. 801) assigns the foundation to Greeks of Miletos,
about 620 B.C., but the words of Herodotos (ii. 178) are to the effect
that Amasis (564–526 B.C.), “who was a phil-Hellene ... gave those who
arrived in Egypt the city of Naukratis to inhabit.” If this means that
no Greeks had lived there before his time, we cannot place any of the
pottery earlier than 570; but it does not seem unreasonable to take the
words to mean that the city already existed, and that Amasis merely
recognised the right of Greeks to reside there. Herodotos also tells us
that by permission of Amasis the Milesians independently founded the
temenos of Apollo. From the evidence of the excavations Messrs. Petrie
and Ernest Gardner felt themselves justified in placing the foundation
of the city about the middle of the seventh century, a date which
certainly seems to be required by the character of the earliest
pottery. The disappearance of the local fabrics and their replacement
by Attic importations would then fall about 520 B.C.

[Illustration: FIG. 94. FRAGMENT FROM NAUKRATIS, ILLUSTRATING “MIXED
TECHNIQUE.”]

In the earliest class a distinction, as in Rhodes, is to be noted
between figures without incised lines, but with faces in outline, and
figures with incised lines, the two being sometimes combined on one
vase, as in Fig. 94. It has already been shown that the former must be
earlier in origin than the latter. On the other hand, in the polychrome
white ware (see below) the incised lines again disappear; but the more
advanced style of the drawing and choice of subjects testifies to its
being a later variety. There can, however, be no doubt that the
influence of Rhodes (or whatever was the fabric-centre of “Rhodian”
pottery) was very strong at Naukratis, and if we adopt Böhlau’s theory
of a Milesian origin for the Rhodian wares, this is fully accounted for
by the history of the place. Consequently the two fabrics are very
difficult to distinguish, and, in fact, the difference is mainly in
point of style.

There is, however, a class of wares found at Naukratis which does not
seem to be of local origin. This is the so-called Polledrara fabric, or
black ware resembling that found in Etruria, and especially in the tomb
of that name at Vulci (see Chapter XVIII.). It has also been found in
Rhodes, where black wares are by no means uncommon, some closely
resembling the Italian bucchero in character. It is hardly likely that
this ware is Naucratite in origin, although the Polledrara tomb
contains objects undoubtedly exported from Egypt. Professor E. A.
Gardner[1131] has pointed out that one of the black-ware vases bears an
inscription showing that it was dedicated by a Mytilenaean, and others
have inscriptions in Aeolic dialect. Hence he deduces the theory that
this black ware was made in Lesbos, and exported thence both to Rhodes
and to Naukratis. He also points out that it is really distinct from
the Italian variety both in style and technique, as, for instance, in
the Italian use of blue.

But there is a class of pottery, unfortunately only represented by
fragments, which appears to be developed partly from the “Lesbian”
ware, partly from the early Naucratite fabric, and must certainly be of
local origin. It has never been found elsewhere,[1132] and the
combination of “Lesbian” and Rhodian elements also points to this
conclusion. The vases, which seem to have been large bowls, are covered
on the inside with a black varnish, on which patterns of purely
decorative character (palmettes, pear-shaped rays of Rhodian or Aeolic
form, etc.) are painted in white and red. The outside, on the contrary,
is covered with a white slip, the designs being painted, partly in
outline, in various tints, such as flesh-colour, dark brown, purple,
dark red, yellow, and even opaque white. In spite of the retention of
the Rhodian system of outlines and absence of incised lines, the style
is remarkably advanced, and the treatment of details often most careful
and elaborate; moreover, the subjects are almost exclusively human
figures, although the fragmentary nature of the remains renders the
interpretation in many cases almost impossible. They seem to stand on
the same level as the Daphnae pottery (see below), both in style and
range of subject.[1133]

To return to the vases of “Rhodian” type, a few typical characteristics
may be noted, showing their development. The earliest specimens are
decorated exclusively with animals, painted in the Rhodian fashion,
with heads and other parts in outline and details only indicated by
leaving them in the colour of the clay. The typical ground-ornaments
are the cross with hooked arms, the spiral, and a pattern of diagonals
with chevrons between.[1134] Later, a preference is shown for large
vases, usually bowls or kraters, sometimes also large plates, with
friezes of animals and Sphinxes on a corresponding scale. The Rhodian
style still obtains, with the addition of purple accessories. The
favourite animals are the lion, bull, boar, and Cretan goat; a broad
plait-band or guilloche as border is of frequent occurrence; and in
addition to the ground-ornaments already mentioned, various forms of
rosettes and borders of maeander are found. On a large bowl dedicated
to Aphrodite by one Sostratos (Plate XXIV.), besides lions, Sphinxes,
and water-fowl, two dogs are seen attacking a boar; the drawing is more
advanced than in most examples.[1135]

The next stage in which the incised lines begin to appear is best
illustrated by the fine plate with a seated Sphinx,[1136] where they
are combined with outlined contours (in the head), and details rendered
by white laid on the black, as also are the patterns round the rim.
Another large plate (A 986) has a dance of men and a frieze of animals
with incised lines and purple accessories, but the surrounding patterns
(lotos-flowers and palmettes, tongue-pattern, etc.) are in plain black.

Lastly, there is the stage which forms a transition from the earlier or
“Rhodian” style to the black-figured, in which for a time the influence
of Corinth seems to make itself felt. The figures are painted in black,
which often turns to red through faulty firing, on a warm buff ground,
sometimes with purple accessories. The favourite shapes are the _lebes_
or _deinos_ with flat rim, and the column-handled krater so popular at
Corinth in the sixth century, with flat-topped handles, on which human
heads or animals are painted. Corinthian influence is sometimes also
seen in the designs, as in the Sphinxes of B 100; or in other ways, as
in the olpe A 1534, with a ram in a panel on one side of the handle.
Another curious example is the column-handled krater A 1533, with two
friezes of animals, of which the lower is more Ionic in type. The
British Museum collection also contains numerous fragments (B 102–3) in
this local style, together with a few of other fabrics,[1137] among
which an interesting representation of Odysseus passing the Sirens may
be noted; also a series of chariot-scenes and horsemen, which in style
recall the Caeretan hydriae (see p. 355). The merging of the local
style in the fully-developed black-figure Athenian style is clearly
visible in these fragments, which are interesting from their
parallelism, though not their resemblance, to those of Daphnae.

Among the later Ionic fabrics, of practically fully-developed
black-figure style (_i.e._ with buff ground, incised lines, and
accessory colours), not the least interesting is the group of vases and
fragments from =Daphnae= in the Egyptian Delta, now in the British
Museum.[1138] Like the pottery of Naukratis, they illustrate the
relations between Ionia and Africa in the sixth century, but even in a
more marked degree, inasmuch as they were more directly influenced by
local circumstances.

This pottery was discovered by Mr. Flinders Petrie in 1886, on a site
known as Tell Defenneh, representing the Tahpanhes of the Hebrew
prophets and the Daphnae of Herodotos,[1139] from whom we learn that a
fort was found here by Psammetichos I. at the beginning of the sixth
century. As Naukratis guarded the west of the Delta, so did Daphnae the
east, with the highway to Syria. Herodotos[1140] also speaks of camps
garrisoned by Ionian and Carian troops; and if we might identify these
with Daphnae, we should have a _terminus post quem_ for the pottery, as
the camps were desolated by Amasis about 560 B.C. On the other hand,
the pottery is hardly to be dated so early from its style, and it is
important to notice that it is practically unrepresented at Naukratis,
that meeting-place of all early fabrics.

The chief problem with which we are confronted in regard to the Daphnae
pottery is whether it is a local fabric or imported. Opinions of
scholars are somewhat divided, Dümmler and Endt declaring for the local
fabric,[1141] Zahn for importations from Clazomenae.[1142] The close
connection with the fabrics of Asia Minor, such as the Caeretan hydriae
and the Clazomenae sarcophagi, cannot be denied, and there are many
small details which are peculiar to Ionic vases; but, on the other
hand, there is much that is peculiar to this group and tells in favour
of a local origin. It is also important to bear in mind that the
Daphnae pottery has little in common with that of Naukratis, in spite
of the relation of both to Ionia.

[Illustration:

FIG. 95. “EGYPTIAN SITULA,” FROM DAPHNAE
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

It will perhaps be convenient to take the groups of Daphnae fragments
one by one, noting the general characteristics and individual
peculiarities of each. First we have a group of tall cylindrical
vases[1143] (one or two of which are completely preserved), of an
obviously Egyptian form, which has been called a _situla_ or pail (Fig.
95). The clay is of a drab colour, brittle, and badly levigated, and
covered with a dark brown varnish laid on a coating of glaze. Owing to
chemical causes this varnish has in almost all cases disappeared,
carrying with it most of the designs, which can only be distinguished
by the incised lines. The figure subjects are confined to panels on
either side of the neck, and usually consist of heraldic groups of
animals or winged monsters. Round the body are patterns of
lotos-flowers and fan-shaped half-rosettes of Rhodian type. The
technique, however, and other points recall the Geometrical vases, and
this is especially marked in one case (B.M. B 104 = Fig. 95), where the
panels are bordered and filled in with ornamental patterns of
Geometrical style.[1144] The whole appearance of this vase, in which
the varnish is preserved, is that of the Geometrical style; the method
may have been learned through Rhodes. On the other hand, some subjects
are of Egyptian type, such as the hawks (B 106_{2}), and the pair of
combatants with their nude bodies and shaven crowns (B 106_{1}).

Secondly, there is a group of tall slim amphorae, of purely Greek
style,[1145] with a characteristic scheme of decoration, consisting of
panels on the neck, usually containing a Sphinx or Siren, and two
friezes round the body, divided by a band of dots; the neck is always
divided from the body by a moulded ring, below which is a polychrome
tongue-pattern in black, white, and purple alternately. An example is
given in Plate XXV. It is important to note here that the white
colouring, of which lavish use is made, is laid directly on the clay,
as in other Ionic vases; incised lines are only employed for inner
details, not for contours. This group is obviously of later date than
the _situlae_, and the points of correspondence between it and the
Caeretan hydriae and sarcophagi of Clazomenae (see below) are very
marked. Sometimes the place of the main design is taken by a panel of
scale-pattern,[1146] rendered in colour only, curiously reminiscent of
Mycenaean vases. Two other points are worth citing here as presenting
the same feature: the two-handled cup with tall stem on B 115_{2}, which
is clearly the Mycenaean type of kylix, and the borders of white dots
laid on the black which sometimes occur on the draperies. The clay is
of a warm yellow colour, well levigated and polished, and the general
appearance of the vases is bright and pleasing. The lower frieze on the
body usually takes the form of a row of animals, especially of geese
feeding; but where the main design is replaced by a scale-pattern,
dancing figures are usually found.

Thirdly, there is a squat form of amphora, with cylindrical neck and
wide body, which has been distinguished by the name of _stamnos_.[1147]
Most of the vases of this form found at Daphnae are of the “Fikellura”
type described above (p. 337), and are obviously importations, whether
from Samos or Rhodes; but others (nearly all fragmentary) are of the
same type as the amphorae. On both shapes a motive is sometimes
introduced which is clearly learned from the Fikellura vases, that of a
row of crescents, which, instead of being merely painted in black, are
treated, like the tongue-pattern, in polychrome.[1148] The only other
shape found is the hydria, of a type differing greatly from the
Caeretan (see below) with its flat shoulder at right angles to the
body; but the same typical wreath of pointed leaves occurs on both (cf.
B 126–27). The list is completed by a few fragments of imported B.F.
vases from Athens.

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

PLATE XXV

[Illustration:

IONIAN VASES.

1. SITULA FROM DAPHNAE (BRITISH MUSEUM); 2. DEINOS IN SOUTH
KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
]

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

The subjects comprise several interesting mythological themes: Odysseus
and Kirke,[1149] the Calydonian boar-hunt, Boreas and one of his sons,
Bellerophon and the Chimaera. There is a curious series of nude figures
on horseback, painted white throughout, accompanied by warriors and
dogs; they have usually been interpreted as feminine, but are not so
necessarily, as Ionian painters used white indiscriminately for either
sex.[1150] Dionysiac scenes are popular, but monotonous, and often very
coarse; the Satyrs are of the Ionic type, with horses’ hoofs, and very
bestial in appearance; their place is often taken by grotesque dancers,
as on the Corinthian vases. Among small details the Oriental
embroidered saddle-cloths[1151] should be mentioned, as also the
curious hook (φάλος) in front of the warrior’s helmet on B 11; both are
found on the Clazomenae sarcophagi, and the latter is typical of Ionic
art.[1152]

§ 3. LATER IONIC FABRICS

What is in many ways the most remarkable group of Ionian vases is
formed by the =Caeretan hydriae=, so called because they have been
found almost exclusively at Caere (Cervetri) in Etruria. They form a
very homogeneous group, and their typical features are unmistakable.
Originally they were thought to be of local, _i.e._ Etruscan,
manufacture, or even imitations of Corinthian vases. But since the
sarcophagi of Clazomenae and the pottery of Naukratis and Daphnae have
been made known and studied, it has been established beyond doubt that
they stand in close relation to these undoubtedly Ionian fabrics.[1153]
If further proof were wanted, it is to be found in a class of Etruscan
vases which are clearly imitated from them (see Chapter XVIII.).

They were first collectively discussed in 1888 by Dümmler, who gave a
list of fourteen, assigning them to Phocaea; a more complete list of
twenty has since been drawn up by Endt, who to some extent endorses
Dümmler’s views, but is inclined to attribute them to Clazomenae, on
the opposite side of the Gulf of Smyrna, thus bringing them into closer
relation with the sarcophagi. Whichever be the correct view, there is
no doubt that they come from this region, and the existence of a
ceramic fabric at Clazomenae, as attested by the sarcophagi and a few
painted fragments of pottery, is in favour of Endt’s attribution. We
have also to set by the side of this the absence (so far) of any
pottery at Phocaea. In any case the place must have formed part of the
Naucratite confederation, and it was perhaps influenced much by
Rhodes.[1154] That the vases have all been found at Cervetri need
excite no surprise, as there is abundant evidence that certain fabrics
were specially favoured by different places, and apparently made for
exclusive importation.

From the circumstances of discovery of some of them they may be dated
about the middle of the sixth century B.C.; the style is remarkably
advanced, and shows the rapid development of Ionian art as compared
with that of Continental Greece. As regards the form of the hydria, it
is characterised by the egg-shaped body, the division of neck from
shoulder by a moulded ring, the low flat-ribbed handle at the back, and
the high concave foot. Even more marked is the system of ornamentation.
The main design runs in a broad frieze round the body, broken at the
back by a palmette pattern under the handle, on either side of which
are usually grouped two similar or opposed figures, distinct from the
principal subject. The rest of the surface is given over to floral
patterns, which assume great prominence on these vases. The normal
arrangement is as follows: inside the mouth a large tongue-pattern in
red, bordered with black; on the neck, palmette-and-lotos pattern; on
the shoulder, ivy-wreaths or other plants, treated in a naturalistic
manner; round the lower part of the body, a broad band of large
palmettes and lotos-flowers alternating, forming a very effective
pattern and enhanced with white and purple details. An illustration in
colours of a typical specimen is given on Plate XXVI.

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

PLATE XXVI

[Illustration:

_To face page 354._
CAERETAN HYDRIA.
(BRITISH MUSEUM.)
]

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

The range of subjects is wide and original, both in choice and method
of treatment. We find among mythological scenes the return of
Hephaistos to heaven, the rape of Europa, the contest of Herakles with
Busiris, and the hunt of the Calydonian boar.[1155] Other subjects,
such as combatants or horsemen, are more in the manner of the
Clazomenae sarcophagi. A curious feature of the group is the entire
absence of friezes of animals. The realistic treatment of the Egyptians
on the Busiris vase, and the introduction of apes and other African
animals into some of the scenes, clearly indicate a relation with that
part of the world, obviously through the medium of one of the Greek
colonies of Egypt. Naukratis, as we have seen, was largely colonised
from Phocaea, and some of the later fragments from this site[1156] show
a parallelism with the hydriae.

Among the smaller details which are typically Ionian may be
mentioned the horse-hoofed type of Seilenos (as at Daphnae); the
four-winged deities and winged boars[1157]; the favourite types of
stag-hunts,[1158] horsemen, and combats, all appearing on the
sarcophagi; the running dogs and the owls on horses’ backs; the
high-peaked cap of women and shoes with turned-up toes. All these
are generally, but not invariably, characteristic of the Ionian
fabrics, as is the peculiar treatment of boys’ hair, which is tied
in a tuft at the back.

In regard to technique the chief point is the extensive use of
accessories, which give a bright and varied appearance to the vases.
And we must also note the general use of white for flesh, of men as
well as of women, the white being laid on the black varnish in the
Attic fashion, and not on the clay, as usual in Ionia. The clay, too,
is not covered with the characteristic creamy slip, but with a red
glaze approaching more nearly to the “continental” fabrics. Incised
lines are used with great care, and folds of drapery are always
indicated; the male eye is always oval, and undistinguished from the
female.

Two groups of fragments from sites in Asia Minor, though differing in
some degree from the Caeretan hydriae, yet obviously stand in close
relation. Of these, one set, forming a large krater of the Corinthian
type, was found at Kyme in Aeolis[1159]; they appear to be later than
the hydriae, _i.e._ about 500 B.C., but the style and technique are not
dissimilar, except that the white is here laid on the clay ground and
the drawing tends to freedom and carelessness.[1160] Folds of drapery
are not indicated; the typical Ionic motive of a large bud in the field
is found.[1161] They may be described as a local differentiation from
the hydriae, representing the transition from the sarcophagi[1162] to
B.F. fabrics, or rather, perhaps, forming a link between the Caeretan
group and that next to be discussed. The other set was found at
Clazomenae,[1163] and appears to stand midway between the Daphnae
pottery and the hydriae; it is probably of local origin, and also
exhibits points of comparison with the sarcophagi. The influence of
this fabric has been traced in some Attic B.F. vases which represent a
similar scene—the harnessing of a chariot.[1164]

There are also various groups of vases (mostly amphorae) of advanced
B.F. technique, but thoroughly Ionian characteristics,[1165] which seem
to trace their descent mainly from the Caeretan hydriae, although the
scheme of ornamentation is widely different. In the majority the most
striking feature is the adoption of the panel-design, the rest of the
vase being covered with black. This is clearly non-Ionic, and probably
due to the growing influence of Attic vase-painting, in which it early
became a marked feature; but it is usually combined with a distinct
neck, on which is a smaller design, and this, on the other hand, is a
non-Attic idea. These vases were all most probably made in the
Clazomenae region; they are, however, rather to be regarded as forming
links between the Ionian fabrics proper and the Attic B.F. vases, and
are the predecessors of a group of vases of fully-developed B.F.
technique which are yet more Ionic than Attic in feeling and treatment
(see below, p. 387).

Among these may be mentioned two groups of kylikes, one found in Rhodes
and richly decorated with figures within and without, the form
suggesting a metallic original.[1166] The other consists of a series of
kylikes decorated on the outside with large eyes (formerly thought to
be of symbolical import), at the head of which stands the well-known
Würzburg cup, with the subject of Phineus attacked by the
Harpies.[1167] This vase bears remains of inscriptions in the Ionic
alphabet; the cup is of a form afterward introduced at Athens by
Exekias, in which the off-set rim and high foot of the other group are
replaced by a wide-spreading bowl of plain convex section, with a low
foot. Once adopted at Athens, this type remained firmly in favour
throughout the R.F. period.

It has often been remarked that inscribed vases are remarkably rare
among Ionian fabrics; there are not more than six at the outside,
including the Euphorbos pinax, the alphabet of which we have seen to be
Argive.[1168] But there are two vases the alphabet of which apparently
belongs to the island of Keos, being one of the Ionic or Eastern group,
and of these one[1169] may well be associated with the later Ionic
fabrics. The other, however, is in a style which is usually associated
with the Chalcidian group[1170]; there is the typical feature of the
fallen warrior with face turned to the front. If the two can both be
assumed to have been actually made in Keos, the geographical position
of that island would account for the combination of these Eastern and
Western elements.[1171]

A complete and detailed list of the Caeretan hydriae and of the allied
types may be found in Endt’s book (pp. 1, 21, 29, etc.); but a brief
summary may also be found useful:—

1. _Caeretan hydriae_: B.M. B 59 (Plate XXVI.); Louvre E 696–702;
Vienna 217–18; _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 28 (in Berlin); _Mus. Greg._ ii.
16, 2_a_; Jahn, _Entführung der Europa_, pl. 5_a_; Endt, figs.
1–2, 5–8; four others unpublished. See also generally Dümmler in
_Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 166 ff., and Pottier in _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ 1892, p. 253 ff., and _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 534.

2. _Later Ionic B.F. fabrics_, chiefly amphorae, kraters, hydriae,
and deinoi, from the region of the Gulf of Smyrna: Louvre E 736, E
737, E 739; Vienna 215; Munich 573, 583, 685; Berlin 1674, 1885,
2154; Würzburg, iii. 328 (= Reinach, ii. 97) and 331; Reinach, ii.
156; _J.H.S._ vi. pp. 181, 185, and _Anzeiger_, 1893, p. 83 (in
Berlin); Louvre E 754–81; Berlin 1676 = Reinach, ii. 22, 3–5; and
the fragments from Kyme and Clazomenae already discussed. See
besides Endt, Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 423 ff.;
Zahn in _Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 38 ff.; Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p.
146 ff.

3. _Kylikes of Attic-Ionic style_: (_a_) Rhodian: B.M. B 379-B 382:
see _J.H.S._ v. p. 220 ff.; (_b_) later type, with eyes (see p.
374); Würzburg, iii. 354 = Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 41
(Phineus cup) and 349; Berlin 1803, 2054, 2056; Munich 428, 468,
630, 553, 711, 1239, 1316, 1027, 1239; and others given by Böhlau;
to which may be added the British Museum cups with eyes, B 427
ff., and the amphora B.M. B 215.

4. _Keos fabric_ (?): Louvre E 732 = Reinach, i. 162; Gerhard, _A.V._
205, 3–4.

There are also numerous vases scattered about our museums which are of
a debased and inferior B.F. type, and on good grounds have been thought
to be of Italian manufacture, whether Etruscan or South Italian. The
former usually display unmistakable local characteristics, and there is
a class so sharply defined that its Etruscan origin is undoubted, in
spite of its affinities to the Caeretan hydriae. A full description
will be found in the chapter on Etruscan pottery (XVIII.). Others again
have more in common with the class next to be discussed; and, generally
speaking, they may all be found to show Ionian affinities. But the line
is not easy to draw: debased B.F. vases may have been produced in
Ionia, as they undoubtedly were at Kameiros[1172]; but, on the other
hand, the extensive export of Ionic wares to Cumae, Cervetri, and other
places may have incited the Italian potters, as in the case of the
Etruscan class just mentioned, to unsuccessful attempts at imitation.

There remains yet one class of Ionic vases to be discussed, a class
which can be clearly defined, but for which as yet no satisfactory name
has been found. Like the Caeretan hydriae, they were first discussed by
the late F. Dümmler; but his grounds for assigning them to the region
of Pontus—whence they have been provisionally styled “Pontic”—have not
found general acceptance.[1173] They were also originally, like the
Caeretan group, thought to be Etruscan, a view which at first sight
might seem justified by their rough execution; but style and other
reasons preclude such a possibility. On the other hand, it is quite
possible that some of them are imitative fabrics made in Southern
Italy. All at present known have been found in Etruria.

The group is formed by a series of about twenty amphorae and sixteen
oinochoae, to which Endt appends a list of twenty or so which may
either be of this fabric or Italian imitations. Another example in the
Victoria and Albert Museum, South Kensington, is illustrated on Plate
XXV. The list might doubtless be extended. That they date from the
first half of the sixth century seems indicated by the discovery of one
at Orvieto, together with an early Corinthian cup. Like so many of the
Ionic fabrics, they exhibit a fondness for bright colouring, with an
extensive use of accessory colours. In some cases Corinthian influence
seems to have been at work, especially in the technique. Incised lines
are sparingly and carelessly employed, and seldom for contours. Among
the subjects mythological scenes are rare, but one of the British
Museum examples (B 57) has a curious subject—the contest of Herakles
and the Lacinian Hera (the Roman Juno Sospita), assisted respectively
by Athena and Poseidon. Winged male figures are not uncommon, and the
typically Corinthian subject of grotesque figures dancing is
occasionally found. But the specially characteristic feature of the
group is formed by the friezes of animals. Of these there are usually
two on each vase, more rarely one; sometimes they are interspersed with
figures of men, not representing any definite subject, but as an
imitation of stamped metal vases (as on the Bucchero vases of Etruria,
Chapter XVIII.). The animals are so characteristic as in themselves to
mark off this class as distinct; sometimes they are naturalistic,
sometimes conventional, and repetitions in one frieze are very rare.

The favourite quadruped is a deer; Gryphons of a peculiar type and
Sphinxes are frequently found, and on some specimens a subordinate
frieze of quails.[1174] On the necks of the amphorae heraldic groups of
panthers or other animals confronted are sometimes seen, varied by
palmette and lotos patterns. The latter form the chief decorative
motive; but a combination of maeanders and stars (see Chapter XVI.) is
often found on the oinochoae, and this, it is interesting to note, also
appears on the Clazomenae sarcophagi. On one of the vases published by
Dümmler there is represented a combat of Greeks and mounted Barbarians;
the latter he identified as Scythians, and mainly on this ground
attributed the group to the northern coast of Asia Minor. But they are
more likely to be from Phocaea, or Kyme, or one of the neighbouring
cities. The oinochoae appear, from the absence of human figures, to be
earlier than the amphorae, and the number of friezes often exceeds two;
there are also a few minor distinctions.[1175]

§ 4. EARLY PAINTING IN IONIA

It is now time to turn, by way of supplementing our account of Ionic
pottery, to the history of the art of painting in general among these
peoples, so far as it is illustrated by literary records and by
existing monuments other than the vases. That the latter do afford us
considerable information on the subject of painting in Ionia is amply
shown in the foregoing pages; but there is yet another group of
monuments which the material of which they are made would alone entitle
to inclusion in this work, apart from the valuable illustration they
afford of certain aspects of Ionic pottery.

In the light of modern researches, we are prepared to find in Ionia a
great centre for the art of painting in the archaic period. That this
region inherited the characteristics of Mycenaean art has already been
so abundantly shown that we need not hesitate to believe that, among
other branches of art, that of fresco-painting was firmly established
in the Asiatic colonies. The art of which Crete, Mycenae, and Tiryns
have furnished such remarkable examples is hardly likely to have died
out. Hence it need excite no surprise when we read that as early as
about 700 B.C. Kandaules, the king of Lydia, purchased for its weight
in gold a picture painted by Bularchos representing a battle of the
Magnetes.[1176] That such an elaborate subject should have been treated
at this early date, when the vase-painter had not emerged from his
earliest limitations, is, if we may accept Pliny’s account, a most
remarkable proof of advanced art. Saurias of Samos is also mentioned as
an early painter,[1177] who “invented silhouette drawing,” and
Philokles the Egyptian, who “invented linear drawing,” was probably a
Naucratite, and his “inventions” may be reflected in the outlined
paintings on white ground which have been described above. Lastly, we
read that about 515 B.C. Mandrokles of Samos painted a picture which
represented Dareios watching his army crossing the Bosphoros,[1178] and
Kalliphon of Samos, probably a contemporary, painted scenes from the
story of Troy.[1179]

Combining these traditions with what we also know of Ionic painting
from the pottery, we should expect to find that its characteristic form
was that of figures in black silhouette or outline on a ground covered
with white slip; and, further, that the subjects treated were by no
means of an elementary character, but comprised elaborate battle-scenes
or groups of warriors, and even historical themes. Now, these
conditions are exactly fulfilled in the group of terracotta sarcophagi
excavated during the last twenty years at or in the neighbourhood of
Clazomenae, on the Gulf of Smyrna. It is practically certain that all
have come from this district,[1180] and no attempt has ever been made
to connect them with any other site. Further, we have already seen that
there are reasons for attributing some of the vase-fabrics to this
place, or at least for connecting them closely with the sarcophagi; and
thus there are good grounds for regarding Clazomenae as one of the
principal centres of Ionian art.

The sarcophagi which have come to light up to the present number over
twenty, inclusive of fragments, but very few are anything like
complete. There are fine specimens at Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and
Constantinople, with paintings round the flat rims; but all are
overshadowed by the magnificent example recently acquired by the
British Museum,[1181] which is absolutely complete, with a massive
gabled cover, and decorated over almost every inch of its surface with
subjects or ornamental patterns. Its dimensions are: body, 7 ft. 6 in.
by 3 ft. 9 in. by 2 ft. 9 in.; cover, 8 ft. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. The only
undecorated portions are the central panels on the sides of the coffin
and the bottom, but in some other parts the designs are largely worn
away. It is made of a coarse brick-like clay of very hard consistency,
which is completely covered, except on the bottom, with a thick white
slip to receive the paintings. The figures are painted throughout in
black silhouette, without any method of reproducing inner details
except by _traits réservés_, _i.e._ by leaving them unpainted on the
white ground; but the greater part has been imperfectly fired, so that
the black has become bright red.

On the long sides of the interior are representations of funeral games,
such as contests with spears and a chariot-race; the shorter sides have
groups of warriors on horseback and on foot. The chariot-races are also
repeated along the flat rim of the coffin, the exterior and the space
above the interior designs being ornamented with bands of egg-and-dart
moulding and the typical Ionic pattern of maeander interspersed with
stars, which we have already met with in the pottery (p. 360). The main
designs on the cover are in two rows, those on one side having almost
entirely disappeared; on the complete side the upper band represents an
episode from the story of Dolon, the lower an ordinary scene of
combat.[1182] The gable-ends have groups of Centaurs and horsemen, and
along the lower edges of the cover, underneath, are further scenes from
the Doloneia, groups of Sphinxes and Sirens, and bands of ornamental
pattern (rosettes, maeander, etc.). Of the many minor details of
interest in these paintings this is not the place to speak; but they
have been fully discussed by Murray (_op. cit._), especially
peculiarities of armour and costume.

It is possible that the battle-scenes on this and other sarcophagi may,
as Murray and S. Reinach[1183] have suggested, have some bearing on the
question of the painting by Bularchos already mentioned. It would, at
all events, help to explain the selling of the painting for its weight
in gold, if we may regard it as painted on terracotta; but it is not
safe to say more than that the sarcophagi confirm the story to the
extent of showing the popularity of such subjects in early Ionian art.

Many of the motives on the British Museum sarcophagus are found
repeated again and again throughout the series, especially the
battle-scenes; groups “heraldically” composed, such as a warrior
between two chariots or horsemen, or pairs of Sphinxes (Plate XXVII.),
or animals confronted, are of constant occurrence. There are also
various minor motives constantly repeated, such as helmeted heads of
warriors (Plate XXVII.),[1184] pairs of horses, one looking up, the
other down (this being a convenient position for silhouettes), or dogs
running under the horses.

M. Joubin,[1185] considering the group of sarcophagi as a whole,
recognises a triple development in form, technique, and decoration,
enabling him to divide them into three classes. In regard to technique
we observe throughout a remarkable combination of two methods, the
details of figures being expressed either by outlining or by leaving in
the colour of the clay, as in the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite vases
(see p. 331 ff.), or by lines of white paint _laid on the black_. The
latter method, which is not unknown on the vases (see p. 347), was no
doubt used in place of incising, which would have been a difficult
matter in the hard clay.[1186]

In the oldest group, then, the usual method is that of outlining or
“reserving” on the clay; the second group may be regarded as
transitional[1187]; and in the third group, which in style answers to
the Caeretan hydriae and later Ionic fabrics, the use of white for
details, and even of purple, is general. But it is noteworthy that, for
the groups of animals at the bases of the sarcophagi or elsewhere, the
old “Rhodian” method of the earlier examples is retained. This, it may
be remarked, is in accordance with a principle by which an older
technique tends to survive in subordinate decoration, just as on R.F.
vases friezes of animals or ornamental patterns are frequently painted
in the old black-on-red method.[1188]

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

PLATE XXVII

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

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

In the decoration the development is in the direction of scenes with
human figures, in preference to friezes of animals and floral patterns;
the compositions advance from single figures to large groups, and
accessory figures are introduced, like the dogs under the horses.
Finally, we have the long friezes of figures which are so
characteristic, for instance, of the British Museum sarcophagus.
Mythological scenes, except the Doloneia, are conspicuously absent;
battles, chariot-races, and hunting-scenes have the preference, as well
as the heraldic groups of animals.

Nor is the development confined to the main decoration; it may be
traced both in the form of the sarcophagi and in the subordinate
ornamentation.[1189] The older examples approach more to the human
form, with a shouldered opening at the top indicating the place for the
head; but towards the end of the series the rectangular form
predominates—the opening enlarges, and the upper edge projects over the
lower. The British Museum example and one in Constantinople[1190] are
very elaborate, with mouldings and carefully-considered architectural
proportions. The origin of the form is doubtless to be traced to the
Egyptian mummy-cases, or perhaps to Chaldaean sarcophagi; but the
Cretan cinerary urns (p. 145) are also on the same plan, and may have
formed an intermediary link.

In point of date the sarcophagi seem to extend over the greater part of
the sixth century. We have seen that some present the same
characteristics of painting as the earlier Rhodian and Naucratite
fabrics; others fall more into line with the Caeretan hydriae and Ionic
B.F. pottery. In any case the sarcophagi form our best standard for
determining the sequence and relation of the Ionic fabrics, and at the
same time furnish an argument for regarding Clazomenae as one of the
principal centres of Ionic pottery. M. Reinach is of opinion that none
are later than about 540 B.C., at which time the people of Clazomenae,
menaced by the invading power of Persia, migrated to the neighbouring
islands. But one or two instances of advanced technique seem to point
to a later date.

The list of Clazomenae sarcophagi as at present known is as
follows[1191]:—

Reinach’s Joubin’s
List. List.

1. Brit. Mus. (1895) — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls.
1–7.

2. Brit. Mus. (1900) — — —

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

4. Brit. Mus. 7 12 _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 46, 4 =
_J.H.S._ iv. pl. 31.

5. Brit. Mus. 8 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 3 = J.H.S. iv.
p. 20, fig. 15.

6. Brit. Mus. 9 13 _Ibid._ pl. 46, 5 = J.H.S. iv.
p. 19, fig. 14.

7. Louvre 10 11 _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1890,
pl. 6.

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

9. Louvre 12 1 _Ibid._, 1895, pls. 1–2, p.
71.

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

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

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

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

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

15. Constantinople 3 7 _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pl. 53
= _J.H.S._ iv. p. 8 ff.

16. Constantinople 4 4, 5 _Ibid._ pl. 54 = _J.H.S._ iv.
p. 2 ff.

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

18. Constantinople 6 6 _Revue des Études Gr._ 1895,
p. 161.

19. ? 16 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 15.

20. ? 17 — _J.H.S._ iv. p. 20.

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

To which may be added:—

24. Brit. Mus., from — — _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl.
Kameiros 8.

We have seen in the course of this chapter the gradual evolution of
Ionic vase-painting, from the time of lingering Mycenaean influences
down to the period when it ceased to have any existence as a separate
style, and having reached the same point of development as Attic
vase-painting, was soon merged in the latter. It is probable, however,
that this was largely due to political circumstances, which put an end
to Ionic art and industry generally about the close of the sixth
century. The conquest of Ionia by Harpagos in 545 B.C. was the event
which led to this result, and consequently to the dispersion of Ionic
artists, partly into Greece, partly into Italy. The migration of the
Phocaeans in particular caused an influx of Ionian culture into the
semi-barbarous regions of Italy, and contributed to the production of
the imitative vase-fabrics to which allusion has been made.

M. Pottier, in summing up the rôle played by Ionian Greece in the
history of art, regards it as the principal agent of transmission of
culture between the East and Europe, and thus the true civiliser of
Europe, influencing both Doric Greece and Etruscan Italy. Thus we may
see in Ionia the parent of modern civilisation.

-----

Footnote 1082:

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

Footnote 1083:

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

Footnote 1084:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 208: cf. Athenaeus, v. 210 B, and Pottier,
_Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 487.

Footnote 1085:

_Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1890, p. 378. The painting on a white slip
marks an important development, and a rupture with all previous
styles (_ibid._).

Footnote 1086:

Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p.
179; Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 161 ff.; Böhlau, _Ion. u. ital. Nekrop._
p. 73 ff.

Footnote 1087:

Böhlau, p. 52 ff.

Footnote 1088:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 226.

Footnote 1089:

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

Footnote 1090:

Böhlau, p. 86 ff.

Footnote 1091:

Pottier, ii. p. 277.

Footnote 1092:

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

Footnote 1093:

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

Footnote 1094:

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

Footnote 1095:

Stephani, _Comptes-Rendus_, 1870–71, pl. 4 = Reinach, _Répertoire_,
i. p. 34.

Footnote 1096:

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

Footnote 1097:

See below, p. 362.

Footnote 1098:

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

Footnote 1099:

See _Monuments Piot_, i. p. 45.

Footnote 1100:

Cf. Fig. 94 below; _J.H.S._ vi. p. 186, viii. pl. 79; and _Monuments
Piot_, i. pl. 4.

Footnote 1101:

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

Footnote 1102:

See _Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 180.

Footnote 1103:

See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 129 ff. A list of Rhodian
vases is given in _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1883, p. 179.

Footnote 1104:

For fragments found in Cyprus see _J.H.S._ xii. p. 142; _B.M.
Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 104, fig. 151.

Footnote 1105:

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

Footnote 1106:

See generally Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 160.

Footnote 1107:

_Il._ xvii. 60 ff.: see Chapter XIV. The vase is published by
Salzmann, _Nécropole de Camiros_, pl. 53; Baumeister, i. p. 730, fig.
784.

Footnote 1108:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1891, p. 118: cf. _Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 263, and _Berl.
Phil. Woch._ 1895, p. 201.

Footnote 1109:

The latest supporter of this view is Böhlau (_Aus ion. u. ital.
Nekrop._ p. 73 ff.).

Footnote 1110:

Böhlau, _op. cit._ p. 53 ff.

Footnote 1111:

Böhlau regards this pattern as “Mycenaean,” on the ground that it
does not follow the lines of the vase.

Footnote 1112:

Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, pl. 21, fig. 188, and _Mon. Antichi_,
vi. pl. 11, figs. 30, 34.

Footnote 1113:

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

Footnote 1114:

_i.e._ p. 79.

Footnote 1115:

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

Footnote 1116:

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

Footnote 1117:

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

Footnote 1118:

_Op. cit._ p. 85.

Footnote 1119:

_Op. cit._ p. 89 ff.

Footnote 1120:

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

Footnote 1121:

See examples in B.M. (Second Vase Room, Cases 24–5). The B.M. also
possesses similar vases found in the Troad.

Footnote 1122:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1887, p. 223.

Footnote 1123:

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

Footnote 1124:

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

Footnote 1125:

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

Footnote 1126:

_Kyrene_ (1890), p. 17 ff.

Footnote 1127:

Baumeister, iii. p. 1664, fig. 1728; Reinach, _Répertoire_, i. p. 81;
and see bibliography in De Ridder’s _Catalogue_, i. p. 98. It is a
matter for much regret that no satisfactory publication of this vase
has as yet been made. The best is in Babelon’s _Cab. des Antiques de
la Bibl. Nat._ pl. 12.

Footnote 1128:

_I.e._ Σιλιφιόμαχος.

Footnote 1129:

Cf. the Amphiaraos krater (p. 319).

Footnote 1130:

The list is as follows: B.M. B 1–7; Bibl. Nat. 189–92; Louvre E
660–72; Petersburg 183; Munich 737 and 1164; Vienna 140; two each in
the Vatican, Florence, and Würzburg (Nos. 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 26 in
Dumont’s list); one in Brussels (_Gaz. Arch._ 1887, pl. 14);
_Anzeiger_, 1898, p. 189 (Berlin); Dumont-Pottier, i. pp. 301, 305,
Nos. 17 and 32; Louvre E 667 = _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 238;
_Jahrbuch_, 1901, pl. 3, p. 189, and see _ibid._ pp. 191, 193;
Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 125 ff.; and a doubtful
example in B.M. B 58. For an exhaustive bibliography of the subject,
see Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1893, p. 226.

Footnote 1131:

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

Footnote 1132:

Other examples of Naucratite wares have been found in Rhodes
(_J.H.S._ _loc. cit._), Cyprus (_J.H.S._ xii. p. 142), and at Athens
on the Acropolis (_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, p. 341).

Footnote 1133:

These fragments will be fully illustrated in colour in the
forthcoming vol. i. of the _B.M. Catalogue of Vases_.

Footnote 1134:

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

Footnote 1135:

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

Footnote 1136:

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

Footnote 1137:

One Melian; B 102_{5} and 102_{29} (with Corinthian inscriptions); B
102_{13}, 102_{27}, 102_{32} (Daphniote), etc.

Footnote 1138:

See generally _Tanis II._ (_Fourth Mem. Egypt Expl. Fund_), pp. 48
ff., 61 ff., pls. 25–31; _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 35 ff. and _Ant.
Denkm._ ii. pl. 21; _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, ii. p. 41; Endt, _Ion.
Vasenm._ p. 18.

Footnote 1139:

ii. 30, 107.

Footnote 1140:

ii. 154.

Footnote 1141:

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

Footnote 1142:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1898, p. 51: and cf. _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1892, p.
256.

Footnote 1143:

B.M. B 104–6.

Footnote 1144:

Cf. for the crosses in the field the Boeotian example given in Fig.
86, p. 287.

Footnote 1145:

B.M. B 107–15.

Footnote 1146:

See Böhlau, _Aus ion. u. ital. Nekrop._ p. 65. He derives this
pattern through the medium of the “Fikellura” vases.

Footnote 1147:

B.M. B 116–25.

Footnote 1148:

This is also occasionally found at Naukratis, and appears on a
fragment from Mytilene in the British Museum (B 99) of Daphniote
style.

Footnote 1149:

_Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 55.

Footnote 1150:

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

Footnote 1151:

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

Footnote 1152:

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

Footnote 1153:

Cf. Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ pp. 5, 13 ff., who points out the similarity
in subject and decoration, as also in details of colouring, armour,
etc., with the other groups.

Footnote 1154:

_Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895, p. 182.

Footnote 1155:

Vienna 217–18; Louvre E 696. For list of subjects see _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ 1892, p. 254.

Footnote 1156:

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

Footnote 1157:

Cf. Louvre E 739. Also found at Daphnae as a shield-device (B.M. B
115_{2}), and on coins of Clazomenae (see Endt, p. 24).

Footnote 1158:

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

Footnote 1159:

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

Footnote 1160:

_Op. cit._ p. 172.

Footnote 1161:

It is found also on the sarcophagi (cf. _Terracotta Sarcophagi in
B.M._ pls. 1, 2), on the quasi-Ionic vase, Gerhard, _A. V._ 205, and
on B.M. B 379 (see below).

Footnote 1162:

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

Footnote 1163:

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

Footnote 1164:

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

Footnote 1165:

Cf. especially Berlin 2154 (Endt, _op. cit._ pl. 1, figs. 11–13) and
Gerhard, _A. V._ 194 = Reinach, ii. 97. They have been discussed by
Endt (_op. cit._ pp. 21, 29), by Pottier in _Bull. de Corr. Hell._
1893, p. 424 ff., and by Karo in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 146 ff.

Footnote 1166:

B.M. B 379–82; _J.H.S._ v. pls. 40–3.

Footnote 1167:

These have been recently collected and discussed by Böhlau (_Ath.
Mitth._ 1900, p. 40 ff.), who notes a total of seventeen. His list is
certainly incomplete, as some examples in the British Museum might
have been added. See also Furtwaengler, _Gr. Vasenmalerei_, p. 220,
who attributes the Phineus cup to Naxos.

Footnote 1168:

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

Footnote 1169:

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

Footnote 1170:

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

Footnote 1171:

See on Ionian inscribed vases, Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 38; Böhlau,
_loc. cit._ p. 93.

Footnote 1172:

_E.g._ B.M. B 348–58, 439–50.

Footnote 1173:

_Röm. Mitth._ 1887, p. 171 ff. Furtwaengler regards the whole class
as South Italian (_Antike Gemmen_, iii. p. 88); Pottier (_Louvre
Cat._ ii. p. 538) wavers between Kyme and Italy.

Footnote 1174:

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

Footnote 1175:

A complete list of this group is given by Endt (p. 39 ff.), and may
be briefly recapitulated:—(1) Amphorae: B.M. B 57; Cambridge 43;
Bibl. Nat. 171–73; Berlin 1673, 1675; Munich 123, 155; Vienna 216 and
Kaiserhaus 278; Würzburg, iii. 79–80, 84; four in Rome (see _Röm.
Mitth._ 1887, pls. 8–9); others in Brussels, Karlsruhe, and Orvieto.
(2) Jugs: B.M. B 54–6; Bibl. Nat. 178; Munich 173, 176, 1047, 1291;
Würzburg, iii. 36 and 40; others in Karlsruhe, Florence, and
Boulogne. (3) Ionic or Italian allied fabrics: Berlin 1677–79 and
numerous others in Munich and Würzburg, enumerated and illustrated by
Endt, p. 55 ff. figs. 27–40: cf. also Louvre E 703 = Reinach, ii. 92
= Endt, p. 65. To his list must be added the vase on Plate XXV.

Footnote 1176:

Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 55.

Footnote 1177:

Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293.

Footnote 1178:

Hdt. iv. 88.

Footnote 1179:

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

Footnote 1180:

The British Museum possesses a sarcophagus of the same type from
Kameiros in Rhodes (Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pl. 8).

Footnote 1181:

Published by A. S. Murray in _Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._
pls. 1–7, and in _Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.

Footnote 1182:

See Murray’s description and commentary, _op. cit._ p. 7 ff., and in
_Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 40.

Footnote 1183:

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

Footnote 1184:

Cf. the archaic Rhodian vases in the form of helmeted heads (_e.g._
B.M. A 1117, 1118, 1121; Pl. XLVI. fig. 1).

Footnote 1185:

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

Footnote 1186:

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

Footnote 1187:

Examples of the earliest are Nos. 9–12, 16–18 in list below; of the
second, Nos. 8, 13, 15 in list below.

Footnote 1188:

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

Footnote 1189:

The principal decorative patterns are the guilloche or plait-band;
maeander, often combined with stars, as on the “Pontic” vases;
palmettes; a bold egg-and-dart pattern of Ionic type. For an Egyptian
prototype of the maeander-and-star pattern, cf. Perrot, _Hist. de
l’Art_, i. fig. 541.

Footnote 1190:

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

Footnote 1191:

The following bibliography may be useful: _J.H.S._ iv. p. 1 ff.;
_Bull. de Corr. Hell._, 1892, p. 240 ff., 1895, p. 69 ff.; Murray,
_Terracotta Sarcophagi in Brit. Mus._ p. 1 ff., and _id._ in
_Monuments Piot_, iv. p. 27 ff.; _Revue des Études Grecques_, 1895,
p. 161 ff.

CHAPTER IX
_ATHENIAN BLACK-FIGURED VASES_

Definition of “black-figured”—The François vase—Technical and
stylistic details—Shapes—Decorative patterns—Subjects and
types—Artists' signatures—Exekias and Amasis—Minor
Artists—Nikosthenes—Andokides—“Affected” vases—Panathenaic
amphorae—Vases from the Kabeirion—Opaque painting on black
ground—Vase-painting and literary tradition—Early Greek painting
and its subsequent development.

The term “black-figured” is generally applied to the Athenian fabrics
of a certain well-defined character and a comparatively restricted
period, but in point of fact is strictly applicable to several of the
classes already discussed, such as the Chalcidian and the later
Corinthian and Ionian wares. It is, indeed, in some respects inadequate
as a definition. We must remember that it was originally introduced at
a time when the Greek vases in public museums consisted mainly of two
classes—the one with figures painted in black silhouette on red ground,
the other with figures drawn in outline and surrounded with black, so
that they stand out in red. Between these two classes the terms
“black-figured” and “red-figured” offered an obvious and useful
distinction. By way of illustration, it may be advantageous to make a
comparison between the two main varieties of black-figured Attic
amphorae (see pp. 161, 221), as, for instance, they are grouped on the
two sides of the Second Vase Room of the British Museum, and those with
red figures in the Third Room. In the one class of black-figured
amphorae the whole vase stands out in the natural red colour of the
clay, whereas the red-figured amphorae are covered with black colour,
so as to conceal the whole of the red of the clay except where it is
left to fill in the contours of the figures. In other words, the one
class, which we may term “red-bodied” amphorae, are red all but the
figures; the other class are black all but the figures. There is,
however, an intermediate class, which no doubt suggested the
arrangement of decoration on the red-figured amphorae (see below, p.
411), and which we may call “black-bodied” amphorae. Here the whole
body of the vase is covered with _black_ colour, except a framed panel,
which is left in the red to receive the black figures. It is clear,
then, that this second class of black-figured amphorae approaches more
nearly in aspect to the red-figured, although it does not follow that
they were necessarily a late or transitional development.

But in regard to our definition, it is necessary to reckon with the
fact that there are not only vases of an earlier stage of art which
have black figures painted on a (more or less) red ground, but that
there are others in which the figures are painted not on red, but on a
white slip. In particular we may instance the Cyrenaic vases and some
of the Naucratite wares. We thus lose the sense of an exact contrast
between black figures on red ground and red figures on black; and,
moreover, the term acquires almost too wide a connotation to be of any
value for a system of classification. The term “black-figured” must
therefore be used to some extent conventionally, to denote a certain
class of vases made at Athens during a certain period and with certain
characteristics. The latter may be summarised as follows: (1) black
varnish entirely filling in the contours of the figures; (2) red glaze
(or white slip) employed as background; (3) details indicated by
accessory pigments of white and purple, and incised lines; (4) subjects
almost exclusively human and mythological figures.

The history of vase-painting in the middle of the sixth century B.C. is
largely the history of a gradual centralising of that art in one place
from a number of scattered local fabrics. This was mainly brought about
by one cause—namely, the extraordinary advance in art and culture at
Athens under the beneficent rule of the tyrant Peisistratos and his
successors (565–510 B.C.). Previous to this time Athenian art was very
limited in its scope, and in the domain of painting had so far produced
nothing except the great Dipylon funeral vases, their immediate
successors (the “Proto-Attic” wares), and the “Tyrrhenian” vases,
which, as we have seen, were largely under the influence of Corinth.
Attic importations into Italy cannot be traced until the black-figure
style is well developed.

The immediate result of this advance was to attract artists from all
parts of Greece—not only from Corinth, whose power was now on the wane,
but also from Ionia, whose artists were driven to seek refuge elsewhere
by the encroaching conquests of the Persian monarchs. Thus we shall see
that certain artists, like Amasis and Nikosthenes, infused a large
amount of Ionic element into their productions, just as in others we
see the influence, more or less marked, of Corinth. But one marked
characteristic of the Attic sixth-century vases is the entire
disappearance of Oriental influence.

At the head of the new development stands the famous François vase in
Florence (Plate XXVIII.), to which allusion has been made already (p.
73). Its date can hardly be later than the middle of the sixth century,
probably somewhat earlier, and the two artists Klitias and Ergotimos,
who were responsible for its production, are among the earliest of whom
we have any record at Athens. The alphabet of the inscriptions leaves
no doubt that it is a purely Athenian work, and the technique is also
purely Attic, as are some of the subjects; but there are not a few
small points which betray the influence of a Corinthian artist, such as
the arrangement in several friezes. The winged goddesses, Sphinxes, and
animals are non-Attic, but not necessarily Corinthian. It is, however,
chiefly interesting for its wealth of subjects, which are mentioned in
another chapter (Chapter XII.); with these every available space is
decorated. The style has been described as “dry, precise, and careful,”
the artist as “exact and well instructed.” Closely related to this vase
is one in the British Museum representing the Birth of Athena (B 147).
Although the subjects (exclusive of those on the cover) are only two in
number, the minuteness of treatment in detail and the richness of the
composition show that it belongs to the same school.

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

PLATE XXVIII

[Illustration]

From _Furtwaengler and Reichhold_. THE FRANÇOIS VASE IN FLORENCE.

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

In regard to technique, two points distinguish Athenian vases at all
periods above other fabrics. Firstly, the admirable clay, traditionally
obtained from Cape Kolias in Attica, and mingled with red ochre
(_rubrica_) in order to produce its ruddy hue; this clay was eminently
suited for taking a glaze, which was of course an essential preliminary
for painting the surface. Next, the black varnish, with its exquisitely
lustrous sheen, which was brought to a pitch of perfection in the
subsequent period, and always affords such an admirable counterfoil to
the red of the clay, though it has not been altogether popular with the
modern photographer, owing to its reflecting qualities.

As regards the figures, they were seldom left entirely black, though
black is at all times their prevalent aspect. The accessory whites and
purples are used in varying degrees at different times, and it may be
laid down as a general rule that purple is more affected on the earlier
vases, white on the later. A like principle obtains with the
accessories on red-figured vases. In the later examples, moreover, they
are much more sparingly used, perhaps owing to the influence of the new
technique, and by the end of the sixth century they disappear
altogether. The more careful artists pay greater attention to the use
of incised lines, and prefer to produce effects of richness and
delicacy by elaboration of details and patterns in this manner.

At first there is a tendency to use purple in large masses, and even
for the flesh of men; but it is generally employed for folds or
portions of drapery, and for throwing up different parts of animals’
figures, or of the decorative patterns, such as palmettes and
lotos-buds. White is employed for the hair of old men, for rocks and
details of buildings, for the long garment worn by charioteers, and
above all for the flesh of women. The latter we have already seen (p.
317) to be an invention traditionally attributed to Eumaros, who
probably lived about the middle of this century; but whether it was
first introduced at Athens or Corinth is uncertain.

Throughout the period there is a steady advance in drawing, but more in
the direction of carefulness and refinement than in accuracy and
truthfulness to nature; that is to say, that it always remains
conventional. We shall see later that, even after the red-figured style
came in, a certain archaic stiffness still prevailed for a time, both
in the old and new methods. On the other hand, there is a degenerate
class of black-figured vases, found chiefly on Greek sites, in which
the drawing is free almost to carelessness, and it is clear that these
illustrate the last efforts of the black-figured method in Greece in
the fifth century; but the vases are all rough and hasty productions,
altogether devoid of merit or interest.

The treatment of drapery may generally be regarded as a fair indication
of date. The chiton is at first straight, with rigid stripes or casual
patches of purple; then patterns are incised or painted in white; the
waist is usually very small, and often bound tightly with a broad
girdle.[1192] By degrees the lines indicating the folds of the skirt
take an oblique direction, as if to indicate motion, while the himation
or mantle—which is adopted in addition by the women to wear over the
chiton—is made to fall in long formal folds with diagonal edges, known
as πτέρυγες. It is curious that the more advanced style of drapery is
usually found on the red-bodied amphorae, the older types on the
black-bodied. In the hydriae, which preserve the panel form of
decoration throughout, a progress is visible from the most rigid
severity to comparative freedom.

The =shapes= most frequently employed by Athenian potters are very
limited in number—as, for instance, when compared with the Corinthian
and other earlier fabrics. The really popular forms are limited to
five: the amphora, hydria, kylix, oinochoe, and lekythos. Besides these
we find the krater (usually with columnar handles), the deinos, the
skyphos or kotyle (with its variant the mastos), the kyathos, the
pyxis, and the pinax, and occasionally also the alabastron; but these
are practically all. Some of these remain constant throughout, but
others in their form and system of decoration present interesting
varieties of development. In all cases there is an evident aim at
improving upon the somewhat inartistic Corinthian forms, in the
direction of grace, lightness, and architectonic symmetry.

The different types of Attic amphora have been described elsewhere (p.
160), but may be briefly recapitulated here.

(1) The so-called Tyrrhenian amphora, found in the Corintho-Attic and
“affected” varieties, with elliptical body (Plates XXIII., XXIX.).

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

(3) The panel-amphora, with broad grooved handles (probably a later
development) (Plates XXXI-II.).

(4) The red-bodied amphora, distinguished by its straight neck sharply
marked off from the shoulder (Plate XXIX.).

(5) The Panathenaic amphora, with small mouth and foot and widely
swelling body (Plates XXXIII-IV.).

(6) The _prothesis_-amphora, a tall, elongated type, used in connection
with funeral ceremonies (see above, p. 159).

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

The hydria, oinochoe, and krater almost universally adhere to the panel
form of decoration, but the lekythos is red-bodied. In none of these is
there much change visible, except in the later hydriae, some of which
assume the curvilinear form of the R.F. “kalpis” (see p. 166). The
evolution of the kylix is, however, of considerable interest,
especially in view of its subsequent importance.

Before the sixth century this form was unknown at Athens, its nearest
equivalent being the skyphos, or deep two-handled bowl with low base.
But in course of time two forms of the kylix make their appearance, one
apparently earlier than the other, and probably derived from a
Corinthian prototype. At Corinth the kylix took the form of a large
shallow bowl, with bulging outline and flat lip, on a very low foot.
This type was also known in Ionia, as at Samos and Naukratis. It was
usually decorated with friezes, internal or external, sometimes with a
Gorgon’s head in the centre. The Athenians adopted this form, but
raised it on a high stem, proportionately reducing its diameter (p.
190). At the same time they greatly reduced the surface available for
decoration, either covering the whole with black varnish, except a
narrow red band on the exterior, or else leaving the whole of the
exterior red, but confining the figures strictly to the upper part.
This became a very favourite fashion, and in course of time a school of
painters arose whose practice was either to paint a row of diminutive
figures (or even a single figure, as Fig. 96) on the upper band and
sign their names below, or else to leave the cup quite plain except for
the signature on one side and a motto on the other, such as χαῖρε, καὶ
πίει εὖ, “Hail, and drink deep!”

These artists are known as the minor or miniature painters, and among
them are found the names of Archikles and Glaukytes, Eucheiros,
Hermogenes, Tleson, and Xenokles. At first they preferred not to
decorate the interior, but then a small medallion with a figure of an
animal or monster, such as a Sphinx, is introduced. Interior designs,
however, were not at any time popular in this style.

The second type of kylix is purely Ionic in origin (see above, p. 357).
It is distinguished from the others by the absence of a lip, by its
low, thick foot, and by the greater width and shallowness of the bowl
(p. 191). With a very slight modification it obtains throughout the
red-figure period. Its form is clearly derived from the libation-bowl,
or _phiale_, with the addition of foot and handles; and it appears
first in Ionia in the large cups ornamented with eyes, the best of
which is the Phineus cup in Würzburg (see p. 357). The Cyrenaic cup
(see p. 341) seems to be half-way between the two types, having a high
stem and a very slight marking off of the lip.

The introduction of this form into Attica was apparently due to
Exekias, who belongs to the middle of the B.F. period, and has left a
very fine specimen, decorated with the Ionic eyes and a beautiful
interior design of Dionysos sailing over the sea (see p. 381). They are
invariably red-bodied externally, and, in contradistinction to the
other form, decorated all over, inside and out. Some of the larger
varieties have an inner frieze surrounding the medallion[1193]; but in
many of the smaller examples the practice is to paint a Gorgon’s face
in the interior, leaving the rest black. On the exterior, not only are
the Ionic eyes generally to be seen, but also the whole scene is filled
in with a background of interlacing branches or foliage—a common
characteristic of later B.F. vases, and supposed to be also Ionic in
its origin.

From the shapes we pass to the decorative patterns on Athenian vases,
which form a link with the important question of subjects. As the
methods of disposing the main designs became fixed, so did the scheme
of subsidiary decoration, until it almost became stereotyped. Thus on
the neck of an amphora there is always a pattern of double palmettes
and lotos-buds (see Chapter XVI.), round the foot always rays or
pointed leaves shooting upwards. The former seems to have been a
Corinthian, or perhaps Chalcidian, invention; the latter is Ionic, and
is found as early as the Rhodian vases. On the shoulder of the
red-bodied amphorae is a “tongue”-pattern bordering the field of design
above, and below the field are rows of maeander-pattern and lotos-buds,
sometimes repeated. The characteristic ornament of this class is,
however, the arrangement of palmettes and lotos-buds under the handles,
which is often very delicate and artistically conceived. A variation is
found in the works of Exekias, who replaces it by an elaborate system
of spirals—a pattern which, as we have seen, descended from Mycenaean
art, by way of the Melian amphorae, to Athens. In the panel-amphorae
the only ornaments besides those of the neck and foot are those
bordering the panels, usually along the top only, and, in the case of
those with large flanged handles, on that part of the vase also. In the
former case a band of lotos-buds, sometimes alternating with palmettes,
is most commonly found; in the latter, rows of ivy-leaves or rosettes
occur on the sides of the handles, and a palmette at the point of
junction with the vase.[1194]

In the hydriae the ornamentation consists of rays round the foot, with
tongue-pattern on the top of the shoulder and round the handles; to
this are added bands of ornament down the sides and along the bottom of
the panel on the body. For the sides the favourite pattern is an
ivy-wreath; but network is also used, and, on the inferior varieties,
plain dots. Along the bottom the favourite device is a scroll of
palmettes, often very artistic in character, the place of which is
sometimes taken by a frieze of animals.

The same decorative principles are seen in the other shapes, but in a
more limited degree. The ornament on a kylix is almost confined to
palmettes springing from each side of the handles; but the interior
designs are sometimes surrounded with tongue-pattern. The panels on the
oinochoae are often bordered with ivy, network, or dots, as on the
hydriae; on the lekythos the ornament is confined to a row of
lotos-buds or palmettes on the shoulder.

Many vases of the B.F. period are decorated solely with these patterns;
but these are usually small and insignificant specimens, with a band of
palmettes or other pattern carelessly painted, perhaps used for the
tomb by those who could not afford more elaborate specimens. In the
tombs of Rhodes and Cyprus small amphorae and lekythi are often found,
the bodies of which are covered with a plain network pattern in black
on a red or white ground.[1195] Others, again, seem to have been
executed with great care, and there is a beautiful example from Vulci
in the British Museum—a jug with a frieze of palmettes and scrolls on a
white ground (B 632).

To treat of the =subjects= depicted on Athenian black-figured vases
within a reasonable compass is not only well-nigh impossible, but
unnecessary, since it would practically be to traverse the ground
covered in another part of this work. There are, however, some general
considerations which must not be passed over. While we bear in mind
that they are as comprehensive in their character as those on any other
class of Greek vases, it may not be amiss to point out in what respects
they vary, for instance, from the red-figured Athenian vases or from
those of the decadence.

The main point of difference is that in B.F. vases the mythological
element on the whole predominates, whereas in the later periods it is
fully counterbalanced, if not outweighed, by the preponderance of
subjects from daily life. The Attic ephebos has not yet attained to the
height of popularity which he reaches on the red-figure kylikes of
Euphronios and Duris, and the softer side of Greek life, the life of
the women’s quarters, or the sentimental scenes of courting which begin
to prevail towards the end of the fifth century, are the products of a
later development of social conditions. Religion, it is true, does not
maintain on the vases the overwhelming importance that it does in other
branches of art, except in a few classes relating to certain cults; nor
has the cult of the dead as yet found general expression. To what,
then, do we owe the preference for scenes from heroic legend, and the
myths relating to the gods? It is, perhaps, largely due to the extreme
conventionality of Greek art in the sixth century, which embodies its
conceptions in a series of fixed _types_, which the artist repeats
again and again from sheer inability to strike out a new line for
himself. But with the general and rapid advance of artistic conception
and technical power at the beginning of the fifth century, the change
at once becomes apparent,—not, be it noted, with the beginning of the
red-figure style, which for a time preserves most of the
characteristics of its predecessor; but with the ripening of the powers
of a Euphronios and a Brygos, who paved the way for the greater freedom
and variety of conception exhibited in the highest products of
fifth-century vase-painting. At the same time an ethical change is to
be observed, especially in the position now occupied by two deities who
are entirely absent from the B.F. vases—the god of love (Eros), and the
goddess of victory (Nike). To the popularising of these two conceptions
is mainly due the preponderance of the sentimental and athletic
elements of the subsequent age.

To return to the black-figured vases, we must now devote a few words to
the consideration of the feature to which allusion has just been made,
namely, the conventionalised types and schemes of composition in which
the various myths and other themes are portrayed. Roughly speaking,
they fall into three classes: (1) subjects represented by one single
and constant type[1196]; (2) subjects represented by two or more
distinct types[1197]; (3) subjects which fall into two or more
episodes, each represented by a different type.[1198]

The question of the _origin_ of these types is a difficult one to
answer. They appear to have sprung, like the fully-armed Athena from
the head of Zeus, in a matured form from the brain of the Athenian
artist. It is, however, possible that the genius of some school of
artists, such as those who conceived the decoration of the chest of
Kypselos or the throne at Amyklae, may have influenced the
vase-painters to a great extent. We have already seen how closely the
scenes on some later Corinthian vases adhere to the description of
Kypselos' chest. It is also a curious fact that the simpler form of a
type is not necessarily the older. Some early types are of a quite
complicated or elaborate nature; and the only variation apparent in a
particular type is that of the number of bystanders watching the event.
This, again, is due to an accidental cause—namely, the surface
available for the painter, who, perhaps unconsciously, took the
architectural sculptures of a temple for his model, and where his space
resembled that of a metope (as in the panel-vases) reduced the number
of his figures to a minimum, or where it took the form of a frieze
filled in the space with a convenient number of spectators, the
original “type” being preserved as a constant quantity in either case.

A question which has always presented great difficulties to students of
vase-paintings is one that to a certain degree arises at all periods,
but more especially in the one under discussion—namely, the difficulty
of deciding whether certain subjects have a mythological meaning or
not. The difficulty is, of course, in the first instance, due to the
type-system. If the artist wished to depict a marriage procession in
daily life, he instinctively had recourse to a familiar scheme for the
purpose—namely, the “chariot-procession” type consecrated to the
marriage of Zeus and Hera and similar Olympian triumphs. Or, again,
scenes of warriors departing to battle or engaged in the fray would
naturally be copied from such familiar types as that of Hector parting
from his wife and child, or the fight of Achilles and Memnon over the
body of Antilochos. Even inscriptions do not lend the aid that might be
expected, as in some cases they are wrongly applied, or the names
convey no meaning (as on the Corinthian vases, see pp. 315, 318); and
it is probable that in many cases the intention was just to produce a
sort of parable or idealised picture of events of ordinary life, in
order to give more interest to a theme.[1199]

Much of the interest of Athenian vases is derived from the inscriptions
found upon them. These, which will be more fully dealt with elsewhere
(Chapter XVII.), fall into three main classes—artists’ signatures,
names with καλός, and descriptive names referring to the designs. On
the last-named head no more need now be said; the second is more
appropriately dealt with in the next chapter[1200]—although not a few
καλός-names are found on B.F. vases; and it only remains therefore to
treat of the artists whose signatures have come down to us.[1201]

We have already met with a few signed vases, among those of Corinth and
Boeotia, of which the earliest go back to the beginning of the seventh
century. Those of undoubtedly Attic origin fall into three or four main
groups, the representative names in which may here be given.[1202]

(1) Early artists:

Klitias and Ergotimos, Taleides, Sophilos, Oikopheles.

(2) Middle period:

Amasis, Exekias, Kolchos, Nearchos, Timagoras, Tychios.

(3) Minor artists, who painted kylikes almost exclusively:

Archikles, Eucheiros, Glaukytes, Hermogenes, Phrynos, Tleson,
Xenokles, Sakonides.

(4) Later artists, combining B.F. and R.F. methods, or painting in
transitional style:

Andokides, Charinos, Nikosthenes, Pamphaios, Hischylos and Epiktetos,
Pasiades.

Kittos, who painted in black figures a Panathenaic amphora of the later
class (see p. 391), belongs to the middle of the fourth century.

Most of these artists use the formula ἐποίησε,[1203] implying that the
same man both made and painted the vase; but Exekias in two cases (see
below) says ἔγραψε κἀποίησε. The François vase, as we have seen,
records the names both of painter and artist. Some of these painters
give the name of their father, and thus we learn that Eucheiros (Class
3) was the son of Ergotimos (Class 1), Tleson (Class 3) the son of
Nearchos (Class 2). The names Andokides and Nearchos are found among
the dedications on the Athenian Acropolis. We now proceed to speak of
these artists in detail.

In Class 1 Sophilos appears as the maker of a vase of which fragments
were found on the Athenian Acropolis.[1204] In style it closely
resembles the François vase, and its subject also appears to have been
akin—the marriage of Peleus and Thetis—to judge from the figures of
Horae still visible. Taleides, whose work is of early character,
painted an amphora representing Theseus slaying the Minotaur and two
men weighing goods in a balance.[1205] Ergotimos, besides the François
vase, signed a kylix found in Aegina, and now in Berlin,[1206] with
interior and exterior subjects.

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

PLATE XXIX

[Illustration:

ATTIC BLACK-FIGURED AMPHORAE (BRITISH MUSEUM).

1. IN STYLE OF EXEKIAS; 2. IN “AFFECTED” STYLE.
]

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

In the next group are two very interesting names, those of Amasis and
Exekias, and both demand special attention, the latter for the
excellence of his work, the former as connected with a special branch
of Attic B.F. vases, which must be treated by themselves. The vases of
=Exekias= include four amphorae, four cups (see Fig. 96), and two
fragments, together with a few unsigned vases which for various reasons
may be attributed to him.[1207] The finest of his works is an amphora
in the Vatican,[1208] on one side of which are Ajax and Achilles
playing draughts, the one calling out [ΤΕΣΑΡΑ] “four!” the other [ΤΡΙΑ]
“three!”[1209] On the reverse are the Dioskuri, with Tyndareus and
Leda. Besides the signature in iambic form

29[400]ΕΞΣΕΚΙΑΣ ΕΓΡΑΦΣΕ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΙΕΣΕΜΕ
Ἐξηκίας ἔγραφσε καὶ ’ποιησέ με,

the vase is inscribed with the καλός-name Onetorides. The others are in
the British Museum (B 210), the Louvre (F 53), and Berlin (1720)
respectively, and are all painted with mythological subjects. A
fragment of a _deinos_[1210] is interesting, as having, besides the
signature, an iambic line in the alphabet of Sikyon (see Chapter
XVII.). Among the four cups, one in Munich (339) is a masterpiece of
its kind. It is of the later form of B.F. kylix (see p. 374), and
represents on the inside Dionysos in a ship which takes the form of a
fish, the mast and yard overgrown with the vine; on the exterior are
large eyes and groups of warriors. The other three are of the earlier
“Kleinmeister” type, and two are merely signed, without subject.

[Illustration: FIG. 96. KYLIX BY EXEKIAS: “MINOR ARTIST” TYPE.]

Exekias may be regarded as one of the most typical B.F. artists. His
subjects are mostly from the usual stock-in-trade of the time, but
distinguished above other examples by the care and accuracy displayed
in every detail, especially in the extraordinary delicacy and
minuteness of the incising and the judicious but sparing use of
accessory colour, as also by the careful naming of the figures in
almost all cases. He stands midway between Klitias of the François vase
and the transitional work of Andokides and Pamphaios, and helps to
carry on the tradition of minuteness and accuracy in detail
characteristic of all these artists.

=Amasis= is an artist of similar calibre and temperament. His style is
more individual than that of any B.F. artist, and hence it is possible
to attribute to him many vases which he has not signed. It is marked,
like that of Exekias, by accuracy of drawing and careful and delicate
work in details[1211]; but his subjects are more monotonous and his
figures much more rigid and conventional. There is much in his vases
which suggests a connection with Ionia, especially with the later
fabrics discussed above (p. 356); and this point has been well brought
out by Karo.[1212] We have seven signed vases from his hand, of which
no less than four are jugs of a characteristic form—a form not unknown
in Ionic fabrics,[1213] but usually found among the later Corinthian
wares. It is of the form known as _olpe_, with the design in a panel,
on the right side of the handle only. An example of his work is given
in Fig. 97.

[Illustration: FIG. 97. PERSEUS SLAYING MEDUSA: FROM AN OLPE BY AMASIS
(BRITISH MUSEUM).]

It has been thought by more than one writer that he must have been a
foreigner. The name, of course, suggests Egypt, and his Ionic
affinities would further suggest Naukratis or Daphnae as his home; but
he may well have come from Asia Minor.[1214] His best-known work is the
fine amphora in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (222), with a
representation of Athena and Poseidon, and among the _olpae_, one in
the British Museum (B 471), with Perseus slaying Medusa (Fig. 97), and
one in the Louvre (F 30), with Herakles’ reception by the Olympian
deities.[1215]

Of the other artists in this group, Nearchos is only represented by a
fragmentary vase from the Athenian Acropolis[1216]; Timagoras was the
artist of two fine hydriae in the Louvre (F 38–9), one representing
Herakles wrestling with the fish-bodied Triton; Tychios has also signed
a hydria; Kolchos is only known from one vase, but that a very fine jug
with the combat of Herakles and Kyknos (Berlin 1732). The design on the
last-named is not, as usual, confined to a panel, but is continued all
round the body.

The list of “Kleinmeister,” or minor artists, is a long one,[1217] but
few individual names are of importance. The most prolific is _Tleson_,
whose name appears on no fewer than forty cups, fourteen of which have
no design, but only the signature on either side. Others have a design
in the interior only, such as a Sphinx or Siren; others, again, a
figure of an animal—a cock, hen, or ram—on either side above the
signature. Seventeen are ascribed to _Hermogenes_, nine with signature
only, and thirteen to _Xenokles_, of which eight have no design. But
that Xenokles sometimes had larger aims is shown by two of the cups in
the British Museum and the Deepdene collection, as well as by an
oinochoe which he made for the painter Kleisophos to decorate. The
Museum cup (B 425) has on one side the three cosmic deities Zeus,
Poseidon, and Hades; on the other a subject of four figures which may
be interpreted as the return of Persephone from Hades. The Deepdene
cup[1218] has in the interior the procession of the goddesses to the
Judgment of Paris, and on the exterior Herakles with Kerberos and
Achilles’ pursuit of Troilos. _Phrynos_, an artist of similar style,
has one cup (B.M. B 424) with the Birth of Athena and the reception of
Herakles in Olympos, the figures being very diminutive, as are those on
the British Museum Xenokles cup. _Eucheiros_ and _Sakonides_[1219] show
a preference for a female bust painted in outline on either side of the
cup, as does also Hermogenes.[1220] _Archikles_ and _Glaukytes_ are
associated on a fine cup in Munich (333), which is remarkable for the
number of figures each side, the style being very minute and detailed.
On one side is Theseus slaying the Minotaur, on the other the hunt of
the Calydonian boar, appropriate figures being added each side to fill
in the spaces at the ends of the friezes. There are seventeen figures
in the first scene, and, exclusive of animals, nine in the latter. A
similar cup in the British Museum (B 400), with continuous frieze,
representing a battle (twenty fighters, three chariots), is signed by
Glaukytes alone. Other names are Anakles, Charitaios, Ergoteles,
Epitimos, Myspios, Neandros, Psoieas, Sokles, Sondros, Thrax, and
Tlenpolemos.

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

PLATE XXX

[Illustration:

VASES BY NIKOSTHENES (BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

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

In the fourth class we are introduced to a very interesting
personality, that of =Nikosthenes=, the most prolific of all Greek
vase-painters known to us, and of the B.F. artists by far the most
original.[1221] He was, however, a potter rather than a painter, and on
many of his vases the designs are little more than decorative motives.
He favoured vases of metallic form,[1222] such as the _phiale_
_mesomphalos_, and invented a peculiar type of amphora, also derived
from a metallic origin, with broad, flat handles and slim body, with
moulded rings dividing the subjects (see Plate XXX.). Altogether,
seventy-eight examples with his signature are known, of which
forty-eight, or nearly two-thirds, are amphorae, nineteen are cups,
four jugs, and one a krater. To these must be added two cups in mixed
B.F. and R.F. technique, one made for Epiktetos, and three kanthari in
the R.F. method, of which he was probably only the potter. That he had
affinities with the “minor artists” is shown by his making a cup with
Anakles, as also by the style of some of his paintings[1223]; while
some of his cups have only the signature.

The amphorae are all very much alike, with subjects of a simple
character—Sphinxes and Sirens, combats of warriors or boxers, Satyrs
and Maenads dancing, and Herakles with the Nemean lion, a subject of
which he seems to have been especially fond. The large krater in the
British Museum (B 364) is interesting as an early example of the form
with volute handles, and for the manner of its decoration, with a
narrow band of minute figures on the neck only. In the Louvre there are
two elegant jugs representing the reception of Herakles in Olympos (F
116–17), the figures being painted on a white slip in the Ionic
manner.[1224] This point is important, because it has been held by many
writers that Nikosthenes was of Ionian origin, and introduced the
white-slip method at Athens. Attempts have even been made to connect
him with Naukratis. The jug figured on Plate XXX. is similar to those
in the Louvre, and is probably also Nikosthenes’ handiwork.[1225]

Whether this view can be maintained or not, there is no doubt that
towards the end of the sixth century the practice of using a white slip
does appear at Athens for vases with black figures, and it is quite
reasonable to associate its introduction with a versatile and original
artist like Nikosthenes. But the consideration of this style of
painting must be reserved for a later page (p. 455).

Pamphaios and Epiktetos, with their associates Hischylos, Pheidippos,
and Chelis, must, on the whole, be regarded as belonging to the R.F.
period, the majority of their works being purely in that style; they
will therefore be considered under a subsequent heading. But the case
of the remaining name in our fourth class, that of =Andokides=, is
somewhat different. Among the signed examples we have from his hand
only one is purely B.F., three are in mixed style, and two are purely
R.F. It is clear, then, that he represents, better than any other
artist, the intermediate stage between the two styles, more especially
as a whole series of amphorae can be attributed to him in which the two
are combined, sometimes in what has been called “bilingual”
fashion—that is to say, that the design on both sides of the vase is
identical, except for the variation of technique.[1226]

There are, then, six vases signed by Andokides, of which one is a
kylix, the rest amphorae with designs in panels and broad grooved
handles. The B.F. amphora represents a chariot seen from the front, in
very minute, careful style.[1227] One of the “mixed” amphorae (Louvre F
203) has three Amazons preparing for battle (B.F.), and women in the
bath, one of whom is swimming, another diving (R.F.) [1228]; the other,
a Dionysiac B.F. scene, and Apollo, Artemis, Leto, and Ares on the R.F.
side. The “mixed” kylix[1229] is a remarkable example of the
counterchanging principle, the two halves of the exterior being exactly
reversed in technique, the dividing-line passing under the
handles.[1230] Of the two R.F. amphorae, one in Berlin represents the
contest for the tripod and a pair of wrestlers; the other, in the
Louvre, a combat and a musical contest.[1231]

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

PLATE XXXI

[Illustration:

AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).
OBV.: HEROES PLAYING DRAUGHTS.
]

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

PLATE XXXII

[Illustration:

AMPHORA IN STYLE OF ANDOKIDES (BRITISH MUSEUM).
REV.: HERAKLES WITH NEMEAN LION.
]

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

The characteristics of Andokides’ work are freedom of composition,
delicacy of drawing,[1232] and wealth of detail; but he is always bound
by conventionalities, and his power of observation is stronger than his
power of correct delineation. Furtwaengler thinks his combinations of
B.F. and R.F. were deliberately chosen to show the superiority of the
latter.[1233] His date may be placed about 525 B.C., and it is probable
that his name appears on a marble base found on the Acropolis of
Athens. He seems to have learnt his art either from Exekias or Amasis,
probably the latter.

Scholars are generally agreed in attributing to him the series of
“bilingual” amphorae already mentioned, of which the most notable
examples are one in Munich (388) representing Herakles banqueting, and
one in Boston with Herakles and a bull.[1234] Even more probable is the
attribution to his hand of some half-dozen amphorae of the type which
he employed, with _different_ designs on either side, but B.F. and R.F.
respectively. The most interesting of these is an amphora in the
British Museum (B 193 = Plates XXXI.-II.), with the typical B.F.
representation of warriors playing with _pessi_ on one side, quite in
the manner of Exekias (see above), and on the other Herakles with the
Nemean lion, in which scene the painter has attempted a new departure.
The lion is already subdued, and the hero carries it in triumph on his
shoulder, no doubt with a reminiscence of the Erymanthian boar types
(see Chapter XIV.).[1235]

* * * * *

A curious group of B.F. vases found exclusively in Italy, and belonging
apparently to the middle of the sixth century, is marked by the
extremes to which the mannerisms of the artists Exekias and Amasis are
carried. They are without exception amphorae, and so similar in style
that they must all have been produced by one workshop, if not one hand.
In spite of the excellence of technique and careful drawing which they
exhibit, showing a really advanced stage of B.F. vase-painting, they
are lifeless and monotonous almost to grotesqueness. Karo, in
publishing the series,[1236] reckons forty-four in all, and points out
the various Ionian peculiarities they present, which mark them either
as an offshoot of the school of Amasis or a parallel development.
Originally known as “Tyrrhenian,” from the form of the amphora (cf. p.
160), they are now generally spoken of as “affected amphorae,” in
allusion to their peculiar and mannered style. An example is given on
Plate XXIX.

The subjects are all dull repetitions of certain “types,” often without
any apparent meaning, the personages being usually warriors, horsemen,
or ordinary draped figures, young and old. Women are rarely seen;
subjects of a Dionysiac character are occasionally found, but
mythological scenes never, except that the “type” of the “Birth of
Athena” is borrowed, copied, and divested of all meaning by omitting
the figure of the goddess and depriving the others of their
attributes.[1237] In addition to this, Karo notes six prevailing
motives: (1) two men in animated discourse, occurring about forty
times; (2) a warrior arming, putting on a greave; (3) a warrior
conversing with another man, with spectators; (4) two warriors in
combat; (5) a young rider with second horse (Troilos?); (6) a reception
of a guest, sometimes, but rather doubtfully, identified as Ikarios
receiving Dionysos (see Chapter XIV.).

The complete absence of inscriptions is an Ionic feature as are the
ornamental patterns, such as the tongue-pattern round the handles; the
fondness for winged figures also points in this direction. The
combination of good technique with feeble compositions points to a late
and imitative stage, and is contrary to the Attic tendency to prefer
new ideas and new subjects to a high standard of technique. Among other
characteristic details we may note the tendency to give the human
figures tapering extremities, common to all archaic art, but here
greatly exaggerated; also the elaborate ornamentation of the draperies
with purple and white flowers or rosettes.

* * * * *

The =Panathenaic amphorae=, of which some mention has already been made
elsewhere (pp. 48, 132), form one of the most interesting groups of
black-figured vases.[1238] The Panathenaic games, which were celebrated
in the third year of each Olympiad, were traditionally attributed to
Theseus, but at any rate were reconstituted by Peisistratos about 566
B.C., when rhapsodic contests were introduced. To these musical
contests with flute and lyre were added in 456 by Pericles. The prizes
were, as we know from Pindar, painted amphorae containing olive oil,
and there is an interesting inscription[1239] which gives the number
assigned as prizes for each contest. Thus, for the pentathlon, the
first prize was 40 amphorae, the second 8; for the chariot-race, the
first 104, the second 40; for the foot-race, the first 50 to 60, the
second 10 to 12.[1240] That these vases were greatly valued and buried
in tombs we know from the number found under such circumstances. About
130 in all are in existence.

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

PLATE XXXIII

[Illustration:

PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).
EARLIER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).
]

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

The shape of the sixth-century amphora is peculiar, but not exclusively
used for this class[1241]; in height they vary from twenty-five inches
to about eight inches. Towards the end of the century, and during the
fifth, other forms were sometimes employed, that of the red-bodied
amphora and even the “Nolan” being found. In the fourth century a great
change took place, the height being greatly increased and the body
becoming proportionately slim; the form exactly resembles that of the
contemporary Apulian sepulchral amphorae (Fig. 30, p. 162), with the
addition of a conical cover. After the end of the fourth century they
appear to have been made only of metal, but that they continued to be
made we know both from literature and monuments, such as the Athenian
coins.

The designs are always in panels, the obverse representing the goddess
to whom the games were sacred, in her character of Athena Promachos;
the reverse, the contest in which the prize was won (see Plates
XXXIII.-IV.). Athena is represented standing to the left, with crested
helmet, spear raised aloft in right hand, and shield on left arm,
adorned with an emblematic device; her drapery is usually much
ornamented. Except in the earliest examples there is a Doric column on
either side of her, surmounted by a cock, as the bird sacred to Agon,
the god of athletic contests; sometimes in place of it a Sphinx, Siren,
panther, or vase. In the fourth century we sometimes find a figure of
Nike or Triptolemos in his car surmounting the columns. Down the side
of the left-hand column is usually placed the inscription (always
preserving an archaic form): [ΤΟΝ Α[Θ]ΕΝΕ[Θ]ΕΝ Α[Θ]ΛΟΝ], τῶν Ἀθηνῆἄθεν
ἄθλων, “(a prize) from the games at Athens.” On the earliest known, the
Burgon amphora (B.M. B 130), the word [ΕΜΙ] is added. In the fourth
century the inscription still reads down the side of the column, but
the letters are placed parallel to it, not at right angles. Further, in
this period it often becomes customary to add on the right-hand side
the name of the archon in whose year of office the games were held,
thus enabling us to date the vase exactly.[1242] Of these, some ten
examples are known, ranging from 367 to 313 B.C., the list being as
follows:—

Polyzelos 367 B.C. B.M. B 603 Found at Teucheira,
Cyrenaica
Themistokles 347 ” Athens Mus. ” Athens
Pythodelos 336 ” B.M. B 607 and 608 ” Cervetri
Nikokrates 333 ” B.M. B 609 ” Benghazi
Niketes 332 ” B.M. B 610 ” Capua
Euthykritos 328 ” B.M. B 611 ” Teucheira
Hegesias 324 ” Louvre ” Benghazi
Kephisodoros 323 ” Louvre ” Benghazi
Archippos 321 ” Louvre ” Benghazi
Theophrastos 313 ” Louvre ” Benghazi

The contests represented include the pentathlon, chariot-race,
foot-race, armed foot-race, torch-race, tilting on horseback, the
παγκράτιον, and musical contests (see Chapter XV., § 4).

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

PLATE XXXIV

[Illustration:

PANATHENAIC AMPHORA (BRITISH MUSEUM).
LATER TYPE (OBV. AND REV.).
]

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

The black-figure method is preserved throughout, in spite of the
development in drawing, that of the fourth-century vases being
perfectly free. In the latter there is a lavish use of white and purple
for details, especially on the figure of Athena; and Nike, when present
at the contests, is usually painted white; but the tendency of later
vases to neglect the reverse at the expense of the obverse in the
matter of decoration is strongly manifested. The figure of Athena
becomes greatly elongated, until her head is actually painted on the
neck of the vase, and in all the vases after 336 B.C. she is turned to
the right instead of the left. Two signatures of artists are
found—Sikelos in the fifth century, Kittos in the fourth. There also
exist some miniature fourth-century examples of these vases, the
purpose of which is not obvious; on the reverse of one in the British
Museum is represented a runner in the torch-race.[1243]

* * * * *

A peculiar local development of the black-figure style is to be seen in
the vases found on the site of the temple of the Kabeiri, near Thebes,
in Boeotia. From the style of the painting, which is free and careless,
they can hardly be earlier than the fifth century, and may be later,
the old style being preserved, as in the Panathenaic amphorae, for
religious reasons. The site was excavated in 1887–88, and yielded a
large number of vases and fragments, together with Attic R.F. and plain
black glazed wares. Of the local fabrics the majority are of a
Dionysiac character, or have reference, more or less direct, to the
cult of the Kabeiri; many bear dedicatory inscriptions to the presiding
deities, such as τῷ Καβίρῳ or τῷ παιδὶ καὶ τῷ Καβίρῳ, etc.

The material is a reddish-yellow clay of good quality, on which the
designs are painted in a pigment varying from yellow-brown to the
deep lustrous black of the best Attic vases. Occasionally details in
white or purple are added; incised lines are used only for inner
markings as a rule. The shapes are confined almost entirely to one, a
large deep bowl with two small ring-handles, to which are attached
projections for the support of the fingers; it comes nearest to the
_pella_ described by Athenaeus (see p. 186). The decorative motives
are simple—vine-wreaths, ivy-wreaths, myrtle and olive, and the
wave-pattern; sometimes the reverse is only ornamented with a pattern
of this kind.[1244]

[Illustration:

FIG. 98. VASE FROM TEMPLE OF KABEIRI: PARODY OF ACHILLES AND CHEIRON
(BRIT. MUS. B 77).
]

The subjects are interesting from the fact that they are an early
instance (in vase-paintings) of intentional caricatures or grotesques;
this is shown not only in the manner of treating the themes selected,
but in the rude character of the drawing. Among those drawn from myth
and legend may be mentioned Odysseus with Kirke (two instances) and
traversing the sea on a raft; Peleus bringing the young Achilles to
Cheiron (Fig. 98); Kephalos hunting a fox; and Bellerophon slaying the
Chimaera. A favourite subject is that of Pigmies in combat with cranes.
But the most interesting is one which represents the deity Kabeiros
(answering to Dionysos) with his son (Pais, _i.e._ Iacchos) at a
banquet, accompanied by three symbolical figures—Mitos, Pratolaos, and
Krateia. Another fragment shows a train of worshippers approaching the
Kabeiros, in the manner of the Asklepios reliefs.[1245]

The transitional stage from black to red figures is illustrated by more
than one class of vases. Those in which the two methods are united on
one vase have been discussed elsewhere, in considering the
characteristics of the artists who used both. But there is another
class corresponding to neither method, and yet partaking of the
character of both, in which the figures are painted in opaque red or
white pigment laid directly on the surface of the vase, which is
covered throughout with black varnish (Plate XXXV.). Inasmuch as the
method of painting in colours is more suggestive of the B.F. vases,
they are classed therewith in some collections, as in the British and
Athens Museums; but since their appearance and style link them more
closely with the R.F. period, they are found in others, as at Berlin,
ranged with the latter class. In any case they form a distinct group,
in which the earlier examples correspond more with the B.F., the later
with the R.F., vases. They are undoubtedly of Athenian origin, but to
what extent they affected the change from black to red figures is
doubtful.

The practice of laying colours on the black varnish is, of course, one
that was quite familiar to B.F. artists; the analogous procedure in the
R.F. period was the laying of black pigment on the red glaze, as was
necessarily done for details such as devices on shields. The transition
was therefore easy in the case of a vase covered with black varnish, to
painting the figures only in the opaque colours upon it, thereby
enlarging the scope of the process. The incised lines in which the
figure was necessarily sketched out before painting (and which
frequently occur in this class) led the way to the process by which the
R.F. artist engraved his design on the red clay _before_ covering the
rest of the vase with varnish. In the case of female figures it is
obvious that this method was already practised, especially in scenes in
which they appeared entirely nude, and the whole figure was painted
white over the black silhouette, the black becoming the real accessory
where it was required for the hair, etc.[1246]

Dr. Six, who has studied this class, gives a list of about seventy
examples,[1247] including one signed by Nikosthenes (Plate XXXV., fig.
2 = F 114 in the Louvre) which has a figure of a woman painted in white
each side, the style, be it noted, being purely black-figured. In later
specimens the object seems to have been to imitate the appearance of
the R.F. vases, and to paint the figures in a similar but opaque red
colour instead of white.[1248] Other examples again have figures only
incised on the black, without any addition of colour.[1249] In some of
the earlier ones the use of black as an accessory[1250] shows that the
painter, so to speak, “thought” in the B.F. style, but used white for
black and _vice versa_.

Most of the earlier examples have been found in Greece or Magna
Graecia; they are usually of the lekythos form, which is always rare in
Etruria. The later group chiefly consists of small bowls (_phialae_) of
very negligent style, but some are of the typical R.F. forms, such as
the “Nolan” amphora and the stamnos. A considerable number of fragments
were found on the Acropolis of Athens, showing that even these late
imitative specimens, in spite of their rude, careless execution, cannot
be placed later than 480 B.C.

One of the most interesting examples is a fragment found on the
Acropolis of Athens,[1251] with an owl within an olive-wreath; it had
been dedicated to Athena by a potter whose name is now lost. There is
also a good series in the British Museum (B 681–700), including a
lekythos with Odysseus carried under the ram, painted in polychrome.

* * * * *

Before embarking upon the history of the red-figured vases it may be
well to endeavour to see what light the vase-paintings up to this point
throw on the literary traditions preserved for us, chiefly by Pliny, in
regard to early painting. There is, perhaps, no subject which that
writer has treated with greater vagueness; and we are forced to the
conclusion that he really knew nothing about it, and did not comprehend
the meaning of the earlier writers from whom he borrowed.[1252] Still,
it may fairly be supposed that the names he mentions are those of real
persons, even if his account of their achievements is vague or
imaginary. There are also a few stray items of information given by
Aristotle, Aelian, Strabo, and Athenagoras.

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

PLATE XXXV

[Illustration:

VASES WITH OPAQUE DESIGNS ON BLACK GROUND.
1. BRIT. MUS.; 2. BY NIKOSTHENES, IN LOUVRE.
]

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

Pliny[1253] begins by attributing to Corinth or Sikyon the discovery of
the possibility of producing figures by outlining shadows, as in the
story of Butades (p. 110). The next stage, he says, was to fill in the
outlines with single colours, or monochrome. He next states that
Philokles, an Egyptian,[1254] and Kleanthes of Corinth “invented linear
painting,” and that they were followed by Aridikes of Corinth and
Telephanes of Sikyon, who, still without using any colours, introduced
inner markings and details,[1255] and inscribed names over their
figures. Ekphantos of Corinth introduced the use of a red wash,
employing a pigment made from pounded pottery (_testa trita_),[1256]
which may represent the purple so lavishly employed on Corinthian
vases. A later development was that of monochrome painting—_i.e._ the
use of a single flat body-colour—introduced by Hygiainon, Deinias, and
Charmadas.

Aristotle, on the other hand, speaks of Eucheiros of Corinth as the
“inventor of painting.” The name reminds us of the tradition of
Demaratos, who took with him from Corinth to Etruria a craftsman of
that name. It is also interesting to note that the name is borne by an
Athenian kylix-painter (see above, p. 384), the son of Ergotimos, who
made the François vase. Possibly he may have been the grandson of the
Corinthian artist.

Strabo (viii. 343) and Athenaeus (viii. 346 C) mention a picture by
Kleanthes (see above) which represented the Birth of Athena,[1257] and
can hardly have been later than the seventh century—a period to which
such evidence as we have would allot the series of artists already
named.

It must be borne in mind that the names of these early artists are
those of draughtsmen, not of painters. Even in the time of Polygnotos
drawing was the chief aim of all artists—as the red-figured vases amply
testify—and painting, as we regard the art, only came into existence
after the middle of the fifth century. The development from _liniarem_,
or “outline-drawing,” to monochrome at first sight presents a
difficulty, as it seems to be opposed to the evolution of
vase-painting, which is from silhouette (as in the Dipylon ware) to
outlines (as in the Ionic vases). But even if it is not always
intelligible, we can still observe a distinct continuity in Pliny’s
account.[1258]

After Ekphantos had introduced the filling-in of outlines with red
washes, and Hygiainon and his _confrères_ had continued painting with a
single colour,[1259] a step further was made by Eumaros of Athens, who
distinguished the sexes and “introduced all kinds of new subjects.”
Here we may clearly discern the introduction of white in the later
Corinthian and early Attic wares for female figures, and the growth of
mythological and genre subjects on the vases of the time.[1260] His
innovations of technique and subject may therefore be fairly regarded
as coincident with the great advance in vase-painting made at Athens
under Peisistratos and reacting upon Corinth. It is interesting to note
that the name of Eumaros occurs on a marble base found on the Acropolis
at Athens; and if this can be the painter, his date would be fixed
about 590–570 B.C.[1261]

In any case one thing is certain—that painting had not yet developed
into anything like a high art. It was still purely decorative, and the
few early paintings of which we hear, such as those of Bularchos (p.
361) and Kleanthes, were not beyond the level of the Clazomenae
sarcophagi or the François vase in merit. We probably gain the best
idea of painting which was not merely decorative from the Corinthian
pinakes (p. 316) and the Acropolis warrior-tablet,[1262] especially as
they are painted on the white slip or λεύκωμα, which we know to have
been favoured by early Greek painters.[1263]

The relation of Pliny’s next artist, Kimon of Kleonae, and of his
improvements to the work of the vase-painters, has been much discussed
by writers on the red-figured vases; and they have not been by any
means unanimous in their conclusions, either as to the nature of his
“inventions” or as to the time at which their influence made itself
felt. They are described by Pliny in the following words: “Cimon of
Cleonae improved upon the inventions of Eumarus. He invented
_catagrapha_—that is, oblique images—and varied positions of the
features, looking back or up or down. He distinguished limbs from
joints, emphasised the veins, and further reproduced folds and hollows
in the drapery.”[1264]

The _crux_ of this passage is of course the word _catagrapha_, with
Pliny’s Latin equivalent, _obliquas imagines_. At first sight it would
seem that the Latin rendering of the word connected it with the
rendering of the face in a new way, _i.e._ in three-quarter aspect
instead of the old profile of the silhouettes. But this was not
introduced into vase-painting until quite a late period[1265]; it is
found, for instance, on the Meidias vase about 440 B.C., and is
certainly not earlier than the time of Euphronios, whereas Kimon
appears to have lived about 540–490 B.C.[1266] Moreover, there seems to
be some antithesis between the _imagines_ and _voltus_—i.e. _varios
formare voltus_ is not an explanation of the _imagines_—and, on the
whole, it seems more natural to take the first word as a general term
for figures. _Obliquas imagines_, then, would obviously imply some kind
of perspective, which, when applied to the human figure, indicates
foreshortening.

Now, this advance in drawing is first found in the earlier work of
Euphronios, _i.e._ about 500–490 B.C., though traces of it are to be
seen in the later work of the Epictetan cycle. It will be noted in the
next chapter that Epiktetos and his contemporaries are still in the
trammels of the old method. Many of these vases even exhibit traces of
a _decadent_ style, with rough and carelessly drawn figures. As Hartwig
has well pointed out, the real division of _style_ comes, not before
Epiktetos, but between him and Euphronios. The Epictetan cycle is
transitional, and a time of preparation, firstly in the change of
technique, secondly in the evolution of cup-decoration, thirdly in the
discovery of new motives and extending the scope of subjects. The new
birth is seen in the form of increased naturalism, and is parallel to
the development of sculpture under Pythagoras and Myron, who, like
Kimon, “gave prominence to sinews and veins.” We may therefore sum up
with Studniczka and Hartwig by saying that the reforms of Kimon, which
first manifest themselves in Euphronios and his contemporaries about
500 B.C., imply a new theoretical knowledge of linear perspective,
which in practice displays itself in a correct rendering of
foreshortening.[1267] In minor details the same advance is at this time
apparent, in the treatment of the eye, which now begins to be rendered
with some approach to truth, and in the accurate and detailed rendering
of muscles and anatomy, and of folds of drapery. These are precisely
the points in which Pliny regards Kimon as having so greatly advanced
his art, which, as Aelian tells us, he “helped out of
leading-strings.”[1268]

The first painter in polychrome was Panaenos, who also introduced
portraiture, but must still be regarded as a draughtsman only; and,
finally, Polygnotos, by such innovations as giving expression to faces,
and rendering transparent draperies, gave the first real advance to the
art. So far Pliny on the beginnings of Greek painting; but its further
developments, and more particularly the relation of Polygnotos to the
fifth-century vase-paintings, must be more fully dealt with in a
succeeding section.

-----

Footnote 1192:

_E.g._ B 130 in B.M.

Footnote 1193:

B.M. B 426.

Footnote 1194:

_E.g._ B 193–205 in B.M.

Footnote 1195:

_Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 76, fig. 139.

Footnote 1196:

As the Birth of Athena, _B.M. Vases_, ii. p. 11, and Fig. 113
(Chapter XII.).

Footnote 1197:

Herakles and the Nemean Lion, _ibid._ p. 13; Fig. 125 (Chapter XIV.)
and Plate XXXII.

Footnote 1198:

Herakles and the Erymanthian Boar: see Fig. 126 (Chapter XIV.).

Footnote 1199:

See also on this subject Chapter XII. _init._

Footnote 1200:

General reference may here be made to Klein’s _Lieblingsinschriften_,
2nd edn.

Footnote 1201:

See _id._, _Meistersignaturen_, 2nd edn., for full details.

Footnote 1202:

See also table at end of Chapter XVII., and Klein, _Meistersig._^2
p. 32 ff. The principal examples of signed vases are illustrated in
the _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1888–91.

Footnote 1203:

A unique exception is the early Attic potter Oikopheles, who uses the
word ἐκεράμευσε (Oxford 189 = _Ashmolean Vases_, pl. 26).

Footnote 1204:

_Ath. Mitth._ 1889, pl. 1.

Footnote 1205:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1889, pl. 5, 1.

Footnote 1206:

Reinach, ii. 120.

Footnote 1207:

_E.g._ B.M. B 211 (Plate XXIX.).

Footnote 1208:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 6, fig. 1.

Footnote 1209:

Cf. Ar. _Ran._ 1400: Βέβληκ’ Ἀχιλλεύς δύο κύβω καὶ τέτταρα.

Footnote 1210:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 5, fig. 3.

Footnote 1211:

Adamek _Unsignierte Vasen des A._, p. 13 ff.) notes the use of
fringed draperies as especially characteristic of Amasis. By this
means he is enabled to trace several other vases to his hand.

Footnote 1212:

_J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.

Footnote 1213:

Cf. A 1532 from Naukratis in B.M.

Footnote 1214:

Loeschcke and Karo connect him with Samos, _J.H.S._ xix. p. 143.

Footnote 1215:

See on Amasis, Klein, _Meisters_. p. 43; Adamek, _Unsignierte Vasen
d. A._ (_Prager Studien_, Heft v.); Karo, in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 135
ff.; Loeschcke in Pauly-Wissowa’s _Lexikon_, _s.v._ Other vases
signed by Amasis are: Reinach, i. 359, 1 and 453, 3; _Boston Mus.
Report_, 1903, No. 45 (fragment of cup with eyes); Würzburg, iii.
384; and one mentioned in _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 178, note 1. Unsigned
vases attributed to him by Adamek, Karo, and other writers are B.M. B
53, B 151, B 197; Louvre F 25, F 26, F 28, F 36; Berlin 1688–92,
1731; Munich 75 and 81; Adamek, _op. cit._ pls. 1, 2 (Berlin); _Mus.
Greg._ ii. 3; _J.H.S._ xix. pl. 5 (Würzburg); Reinach, i. 513, 1–5
(Athens); and two others mentioned _J.H.S._ xix. p. 139, Nos. 11, 12.

Footnote 1216:

_Wiener Vorl._ 1888, pl. 4, fig. 2. But see also _Bull. de Corr.
Hell._ 1896, pls. 6–7, p. 372.

Footnote 1217:

Klein, _Meistersig._ p. 72 ff., reckons seventeen, to which number
two or three must be added.

Footnote 1218:

Klein, _op. cit._ p. 81, No. 13.

Footnote 1219:

For a recently-discovered kylix painted by Sakonides, with Kaulos (?)
as potter, see _Notizie degli Scavi_, 1903, p. 34.

Footnote 1220:

See _Arch. Zeit._ 1885, p. 189·

Footnote 1221:

Most of his vases are illustrated in the _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_ for
1890–91.

Footnote 1222:

See Loeschcke in _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 35. He may have imitated
Etruscan bronze jugs, which were now being imported. The Berlin vase
(Fig. 136, Chapter XV.) seems to be an imitation of the early
Cyprio-Phoenician metal bowls (_ibid._).

Footnote 1223:

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

Footnote 1224:

Loeschcke (_Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 36) has pointed out that these are
the most archaic examples of the Attic white-ground vases.

Footnote 1225:

Fig. 2 on Plate XXXV. is also his work.

Footnote 1226:

Perhaps the nearest analogy is the “counterchanging” of heraldry.

Footnote 1227:

_Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat._ 1888, No. 108; 1903, No. 21, p. 102.

Footnote 1228:

See on the curious technique of this design _Ath. Mitth._ 1879, p.
290, note 4.

Footnote 1229:

_Jahrbuch_, 1889, pl. 4.

Footnote 1230:

Note especially the treatment of the large eyes in either case.

Footnote 1231:

See on all these vases _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 1 ff.; also
Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 15 ff., and
_Jahreshefte_, 1900, p. 69.

Footnote 1232:

On his technique see _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 157, and Furtwaengler and
Reichhold, _op. cit._ p. 19 ff.

Footnote 1233:

_Op. cit._ p. 17.

Footnote 1234:

A third example is given in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 40–41
(with warriors playing dice).

Footnote 1235:

The other examples are Munich 373, 375; Louvre F 204; a vase in
Bologna (_Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, pp. 18, 19); and one in
Würzburg.

Footnote 1236:

_J.H.S._ xix. p. 147 ff. See also B.M. B 149–53; Gsell, _Fouilles de
Vulci_, pls. 7–8, p. 502.

Footnote 1237:

_E.g._ B.M. B 149, 157.

Footnote 1238:

See generally C. Smith in _Brit. School Annual_, 1896–97, p. 187 ff.;
and for a bibliography, Urlichs, _Beiträge_, p. 33.

Footnote 1239:

_Inscr. Gr._ ii. (_Atticae_) pt. 2, No. 965.

Footnote 1240:

It is not likely that all of those given as prizes were painted. On
the other hand, the number of the amphorae may denote the number of
measures of oil given, the painted vases being, like modern silver
cups, symbolical and honorific (C. Smith, _loc. cit._).

Footnote 1241:

See p. 160 for a description.

Footnote 1242:

A fourth-century fragment at Athens has the name of the agonothetes
instead of the archon: ἀγωνο]θετοῦ(ν)το[ς τοῦ δεῖνος. See _Brit.
School Annual_, 1896–97, pl. 16 (_b_).

Footnote 1243:

_J.H.S._ xviii. p. 300.

Footnote 1244:

Riegl, _Stilfragen_, p. 176, notes the absence of all the usual B.F.
patterns. The ivy-wreaths represent an old Boeotian tradition.

Footnote 1245:

See _Ath. Mitth._ 1888, pls. 9–12; _J.H.S._ xiii. pl. 4, p. 77 ff.;
B.M. B 77–8.

Footnote 1246:

Six (see next note) quotes the Berlin vase, 1843 = _Él. Cér._ iv. 18,
in illustration of this.

Footnote 1247:

_Gaz. Arch._ 1888, pp. 193 ff., 281 ff.

Footnote 1248:

_E.g._ B.M. B 691, 700.

Footnote 1249:

Cf. _Mus. Ital._ ii. pl. 3 = De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_, pl.
3.

Footnote 1250:

Cf. B.M. B 693.

Footnote 1251:

Six, _op. cit._ pl. 29, fig. 9.

Footnote 1252:

His chief source was Xenokrates of Sikyon, about 280 B.C.: see
Jex-Blake and Sellers, _Pliny’s Chapters on Greek Art_, p. xxviii;
Münzer in _Hermes_, xxx. (1895), p. 499 ff.; _id._, _Beitr. zur
Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius_ (1897).

Footnote 1253:

_H.N._ xxxv. 15: see _ibid._ 56.

Footnote 1254:

Probably an inhabitant of Naukratis, and connected with the Ionian
school of painting. See Smith, _Dict. Antiqs._^3 ii. p. 401;
Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 582.

Footnote 1255:

As opposed to mere silhouettes, _e.g._ of the Dipylon vases. Some
writers take the words (_spargentes lineas intus_) to refer to
ground-ornaments (see above, p. 312).

Footnote 1256:

On the possible connection of Ekphantos with Melos, see above, p.
312. Studniczka’s argument rests partly on the early use of red on
the Melian vases. In reference to the use of the word γρόφων in the
Melian inscription, he thinks that the column supported a votive
painted pinax or vase. For _testa trita_ see Blümner, _Technologie_,
iv. p. 478 ff.

Footnote 1257:

The earliest vase-painting with this subject is one from Athens (Ἐφ.
Ἀρχ.) 1886, pl. 8, fig. 1). See _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 153.

Footnote 1258:

See Jex-Blake and Sellers, _op. cit._ p. xxix.

Footnote 1259:

These artists represent the Dorian and Continental school, as opposed
to the polychrome Ionian (see Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 584).

Footnote 1260:

It has, however, been suggested (Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 101) that
_figuras_, the word used by Pliny, denotes “positions” rather than
“subjects.” But this would seem more appropriate to Kimon (see below).

Footnote 1261:

As Studniczka maintains (_Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 152): see also Hartwig,
_Meistersch._ p. 154.

Footnote 1262:

Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 6.

Footnote 1263:

Athenag. _Leg. pro Christo_, 17, 293 (ed. Migne).

Footnote 1264:

_H.N._ xxxv. 56.

Footnote 1265:

Even full face is exceptional on the earlier R.F. vases. Cf. B.M. E
67, 74, and Hartwig, pl. 59, fig. 2.

Footnote 1266:

He is perhaps mentioned by Simonides of Keos (Overbeck,
_Schriftquellen_, 379).

Footnote 1267:

Studniczka says that _catagrapha_ is a scientific term = “projection
of a figure.” Cf. Stephanus, _Thesaurus_, _s.v._, and Jahn in _Ber.
d. sächs. Gesellsch._ 1850, p. 138.

Footnote 1268:

_Lit._ “released from milk and swaddling-clothes” (_Var. Hist._ viii.
8).

CHAPTER X
_RED-FIGURED VASES_

Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names
and historical personages—Technical
characteristics—Draughtsmanship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects
and types—Subdivisions of style—Severe period and
artists—Strong period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and
Brygos—Fine period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine
period—Boeotian local fabric.

At first sight the sudden reversal of technical method involved in the
change from black figures on red ground to red figures on black ground
is not easy to explain. That it was a new invention, not a development
from the old style, is obvious, seeing that no intermediate stage is
possible. The theory has been promulgated by a German writer[1269] that
the idea arose from the effect of the Gorgoneion painted on the inside
of many late B.F. kylikes. Undoubtedly the effect is that of the R.F.
style, the face itself being left red, surrounded by black hair, beyond
which the black is continued over the whole surface of the
interior.[1270] But this theory has not really much to support it; the
Gorgoneion _is in the R.F. technique_, and did not therefore suggest
it; and the earliest R.F. kylikes usually have B.F. interiors, not R.F.
It is exceedingly doubtful that the kylikes had anything to do with
bringing about the change.

Much more probable is the suggestion that the class of vases with
opaque figures on black ground (p. 393) represents the transition, if
transition it can be called.[1271] We have seen that some of these
correspond more to the B.F. vases, others to the R.F., and that in many
cases their _appearance_ is that of R.F. vases. It may easily be
conceived that it occurred to the painter that it was more effective to
let the red clay of the background appear through the black wherever he
would place a figure than to paint the red on to the black. But these
vases are few in number; and as the R.F. vases sprang at once into
great popularity, the new invention must have become too general at the
very first to have been adopted from such a comparatively rare method.
There is also a greater tendency to naturalism in that class than in
the earlier R.F. vases. The fact is that there had been going on
throughout the course of early art a tendency (to which B.F.
vase-painting forms an exception) in favour of drawing figures on a
light ground against a dark background. And even in the B.F. vases this
tendency is not altogether absent, as seen in the attempts at
lightening the figures by making them polychrome, _i.e._ with purple
and white, and also by the practice of covering the rest of the vase
entirely with black.

Now, we have already seen that Andokides was a painter who liked to
combine the two methods on one vase, and also that he was one who
invariably adopted the completely black variety of amphora, for B.F.
painting as well as R.F. His Louvre vase with the women swimming is
clearly one of the earliest R.F. examples in existence. It is therefore
much more likely that he represents for us the author of the new method
than Epiktetos or the other artists who painted “mixed” kylikes or who
used both styles. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it
was really in the kylikes that the new style rose into popularity.[1272]

Next to the question of how the new style was brought about comes that
of when it arose, and the length of its duration at Athens. The
chronology of R.F. vases rests on two considerations—the inscriptions
on the vases themselves, and the evidence of history and excavations.
Until within the last twenty years it had been customary to regard the
year 480 B.C. as the line of demarcation between the two methods, and
the earliest date for R.F. vases. Yet as long ago as 1834 Ludwig Ross,
finding a fragment of R.F. pottery among the _debris_ of the Persian
sack of the Acropolis, acutely deduced therefrom that this style must
necessarily have been in existence before the date of the sack, _i.e._
before 480 B.C. His views, however, fell on deaf ears, and it was not
until the scientific exploration of the Acropolis in 1885–89 that his
deduction was seen to be justified. The result of these excavations was
to show that among the mass of pottery found in the pre-Persian stratum
a considerable quantity belonged to a comparatively advanced stage of
R.F. painting, including signatures of artists of the archaic and
severe style down to Euphronios. Some writers have thought that these
fragments may belong to the period between 480 and 460, when the
rebuilding of the site was begun; but so many show traces of burning
that it is far more probable that the earlier date is correct.[1273]
Allowing, then, for the necessary stages of development up to the time
of Euphronios, the beginning of the style may be placed about 525–520
B.C., the date at which, as we have seen, Andokides may be placed.
Besides his name (see above, p. 387) that of Euphronios “the potter”
was also found on a base in the Acropolis excavations.[1274] The other
limit of date will be more conveniently discussed in a subsequent
connection, and it may suffice to say here that the gradual pushing
back of the _terminus post quem_ points now to a much earlier _terminus
ante quem_ than was formerly supposed. Reasons will subsequently appear
for placing the termination of the red-figure fabrics at Athens in the
closing years of the Peloponnesian War (410–400 B.C.).

The evidence afforded by inscriptions is necessarily affected in some
degree by that of excavations, and chiefly important for the _relative_
dates of the vases. It is not palaeographical, but is afforded mainly
by one class of inscriptions, that of the καλός-names, so far as they
have an historical significance. These names will be the subject of
discussion elsewhere,[1275] and are only alluded to here for their
connection with the question of chronology. It is a well-known feature
of these καλός-names that many are those of famous historical
personages, such as Alkibiades, Megakles, Miltiades, and
Hipparchos.[1276] But, on the other hand, any attempts to connect the
vases with the historical bearers of the names have met with little
success; there is also the danger of arguing in a circle—_e.g._ of
saying that because Miltiades’ name appears on a vase, it is therefore
to be dated in his youth, and because the vase belongs to the date when
Miltiades was young, therefore it bears the name of that individual.

Where the importance of these names really comes in is in their
relation to particular artists or groups of artists. In this way, as
Klein and Hartwig have shown, connecting-links between the artists can
be traced and their chronological sequence assured. This, taken in
conjunction with questions of style and our fixed dates obtained from
other sources, enables us to extract a fair working chronology from all
the data. The subject must, however, be dealt with in greater detail
when considering the work of individual artists, and only a few general
statements can be laid down here.

Many of the historical καλός-names, such as Hipparchos or Glaukon, were
probably very common at Athens,[1277] and we have therefore no grounds
for attaching importance to their appearance. But in regard to the
great painter Euphronios, whose date is fairly certain, it is important
to note that two different names are connected with vases in his
earlier and later manner respectively, viz. Leagros[1278] and Glaukon.
Euphronios began his career about 500–490 B.C., and it probably covered
some forty years, from about 495 to 455. Hence we may place the time of
Leagros’ youth about 495–490, that of Glaukon about 465–460, and it is
remarkable that the latter appears as “son of Leagros” in one or two
cases.[1279] Now, we know that there was an Athenian general Leagros
who was στρατηγός in 467, and fell in battle against the Edones in that
year. Also that he had a son, Glaukon, who commanded at Kerkyra in
433–432. In this case the historical data fit in so exactly with the
evidence of the vases and of the Acropolis excavations[1280] that we
need hardly hesitate to accept the identity of these two names.

It has been assumed—and the assumption has hardly been questioned—that
the καλός-names are necessarily always those of youths, _i.e._ of about
seventeen to twenty years of age; this view is supported both by the
general character of the subjects on the vases where they appear, and
by the frequent use of the analogous formula ὁ παῖς καλός. Dr. Hartwig
has laid down certain conclusions in regard to these names which have
met with general acceptance, and may be briefly restated here by way of
summarising the subject.

(1) All vases with the same καλός-name are limited to a period of ten
years, and consequently all those which are by one artist belong to a
definite circumscribed period of his life.

(2) All vases by different artists, but with the same καλός-name, are
approximately contemporaneous, _i.e._ within ten years.

(3) The appearance of two or more καλός-names on the same vase
indicates the approximate similarity of age of the persons named, the
greatest possible difference being ten years.

(4) All vases with the same καλός-name, whether by one artist or more,
can always be linked together by their style; the same name does not
appear on a man’s earliest and latest vases.

He further impresses the caution that the identity and position of the
παῖδες καλοί (_i.e._ whether or no they belonged to the aristocratic
class) is a secondary question compared with that of the development of
painting which they help to elucidate.

The question of fabric is one that hardly needs discussion, the
evidence pointing so unanimously to Athens in all cases. The apparent
exceptions suggested by classes of vases found almost exclusively on
one site, like the “Nolan” amphorae or the Gela lekythi, can easily be
shown to be no real exceptions. We have already met more than once with
instances of particular fabrics being favoured by particular places;
and just as Ionian vases were imported to Caere or Vulci, and a special
class of Attic B.F. vases made for Cyprus, so we may suppose that
certain Athenian makers had a monopoly of export to Nola, to Gela, or
elsewhere. Otherwise similarity of style, of technique, of subject, of
the alphabet of inscriptions, and all other details point to a purely
homogeneous fabric, and that this was located in Athens itself is not a
matter to be seriously disputed. To this complete monopoly which Athens
enjoyed in the fifth century only one exception can be traced, that of
Boeotia, where local fabrics continued to be made at Thebes and
Tanagra. Of these one class has already been discussed (p. 391); the
other will be treated of subsequently (p. 451).

We must next consider briefly the technical characteristics and the
forms of the Attic R.F. vases. As regards the former, the method
pursued during the period under consideration may be summarised as
follows. The artist sketches his design on the red clay with a
fine-pointed tool; he then surrounds this outline with black varnish,
laid on with a pen or brush,[1281] to the extent of about an eighth of
an inch all round, this being done to prevent the varnish, when laid on
over the rest of the ground, from running over into any part of the
design. Finally, details such as features or folds of drapery are added
with a brush in black lines on the red, this process representing the
incised lines of the old style; and further details are often expressed
either in a thinned black pigment which becomes brown and is sometimes
only perceptible in a strong light, or by application of white and
purple as in the last period. In the severe style purple is generally
used; but at a later stage this colour was dropped, and finally
replaced by white. The accessory colours were chiefly used for fillets
in the hair, liquids, flowers, and other small details, as well as for
inscriptions. Thus we see that the technical process of the preceding
method is exactly reversed and that the figures now stand out in the
natural colour of the clay against the black ground.

The advantages of the new method were obvious. As long as the
vase-painters continued content with stiff and hieratic forms and mere
silhouettes the black figures were sufficient. The careful mapping-out
of the hair and muscles, the decorations, and all the details of shadow
in painting and of unequal surface in sculpture could be easily
expressed by the new method. But it is evident that these stiff lines
were quite inadequate to express those softer contours, which melted,
as it were, into one another, and marked the more refined grace and
freedom of the rapidly advancing schools of sculpture and painting. By
the change of colour of the figures to the lucid red or orange of the
background, the artist was enabled to draw lines of a tone or tint
scarcely darker than the clay itself, but still sufficient to express
all the finer anatomical details; while the more important outlines
still continued to be marked with fine black lines. At first the style
is essentially the same, the forms precise, the eyes in profile, the
attitudes rigid, and the draperies rectilinear. The backgrounds may
have been painted in by an ordinary workman, and some specimens exist
in which it has never been laid on (cf. p. 222). The artists seem to
have worked from slight sketches, and according to their individual
feelings and ideas, and as duplicate designs are quite unknown, there
was clearly no system of copying.

The correspondence of _style_ in the figures on the earlier R.F. vases
to those of B.F. technique shows that the two methods must have
coexisted for a time, and this is further borne out by the mixed vases
of Andokides, Hischylos, and others, and by the work of artists who
employed either style, like Pamphaios. The latter, for instance, seems
to have adhered to the old style by preference for hydriae and large
vases, but preferred to follow the new fashion in the kylix.

To quote a recent writer: “The new method opened up a path for the
freer exercise of the imagination,” and we can see in the red-figure
vases a gradual development of artistic conception and power of
expression, together with the shaking off of all restrictions until the
perfection of drawing is reached, and “the red figures stand out
against the black, unencumbered with anything that might distract from
harmony of colouring or purity of outline.”[1282] It is the essential
characteristic of the new style that it is drawing rather than
painting, and it stands out as the final attainment of what the
vase-painters had really been striving after from the days of the
Melian and early Ionic wares—namely, the perfection of linear design.
The same principle is at work in the vases with white ground which
passed through parallel phases of development.

Among minor details of drawing in which an advance is conspicuous is
the treatment of hair, eyes, and drapery. In the B.F. style the hair
was indicated as a black mass, standing out against the light
background; but now that the background had become black, a separation
was necessary. At first this was done by adhering to the old engraved
line method, for which came to be substituted a narrow unpainted line.
Next, an advance was made in the treatment of the hair itself, with a
view to more accuracy in detail, and the contours are undulated or
separate locks shown on the forehead. Sometimes a kind of stippling
process is adopted, by means of which the hair is indicated by rows or
clusters of raised dots, representing close curls, such as are seen in
Attic sculpture of the late archaic period.

The general contours of the forms are slender; the foreheads are low,
the noses prominent, the eyes long, the chins sharp, the legs short and
thick, and the folds of the garments stiff and rectilinear. Women are
not distinguished in this style either by their colour or by the shape
of their eyes, in which respects they are drawn just like the men, but
exclusively by their costume and form. The white hair of old men is
indicated by white markings on the black ground, and curly hair, as
noted, by little raised knobs of black paint (βόστρυχοι). The figures
are generally small, but some of grandiose proportions occur even in
the earlier stages, though more characteristic of the succeeding
“strong” style. The principal outlines are usually finished with
wonderful spirit and truth, but sometimes, as in the extremities, great
carelessness is visible. The general effect is much enhanced by the
fineness of the clay, which in the earlier R.F. vases is of a bright
orange-red, as also by the brilliancy of the black varnish.

[Illustration:

From _B.M. Cat._ iii.
FIG. 99. DIAGRAM SHOWING DEVELOPMENT IN RENDERING OF EYE.
]

The development of the form of the eye is most important, as an aid to
chronology (see Fig. 99). In the B.F. period it was invariably treated
in two ways,—that of a man as a complete circle, in front view, between
the lids, of which the upper is more arched than the lower; that of a
woman is almond-shaped. In the R.F. vases the eye in front view is
still maintained with figures in profile, but the sexes are not
distinguished; the pupil is painted black, and the lids drawn at first
like the B.F. male eye, then almond-shaped. The next stage is to shift
the pupil (which now becomes a ring with central dot) into the inner
corner. Lastly, this corner is opened out till it assumes the correct
profile appearance, and then, about the middle of the fifth century,
the pupil also attains the correct form. About midway in this
development, as we have already seen, the power is acquired of moving
the position of the pupil to express looking upwards, downwards, or
sideways; the importance of this point as bearing on the new
developments of Kimon of Kleonae we have already discussed. The
eyelashes are not rendered until the correct profile is attained,
except in a few instances, such as the Berlin cup of Euphronios (2282),
where the lids are fringed with short, vertical strokes.[1283]

In regard to the treatment of drapery, the earlier vases, such as those
of the Epiktetos cycle, retain the B.F. method of rendering folds only
in the skirts of the chiton, these taking the form of parallel lines.
Gradually the folds follow the motion of the body; and finally, under
Euphronios, comes a marked advance, whereby contrasts of material are
indicated.[1284] He uses fine brown crinkly lines to represent the soft
transparent Athenian fabric which we also see worn by the archaic
female figures of the Acropolis.

Among the many improvements in drawing effected during the R.F. period,
a notable one is that of the introduction of true perspective and more
than conventional landscape. We know from the shield of the Athena
Parthenos that this began to be understood at Athens by the middle of
the fifth century, as also from the paintings of Polygnotos, and hence
we are not surprised to find it appearing in the vases of the period
when that artist’s influence began to be felt. A fine example is the
krater from Orvieto in the Louvre, with an Argonautic scene (see p.
442); and even more beautiful is the Blacas krater in the British
Museum, which shows Selene disappearing over the top of a hill, and the
stars setting in the sea (see Plate LIII.). These two vases also
illustrate the introduction of the new principle of placing figures at
different levels which was elaborated in the Meidias hydria, the vases
of Kertch, and to a still greater degree in those of Southern Italy.
All these details indicate the growing tendency towards a pictorial
style, which in the first instance was due to Polygnotos.

The =shapes= of the R.F. period are to a great extent the same as in
the last, but most of them are modified to some degree, and some new
ones are introduced. Moreover, the relative popularity of certain
shapes varies, the amphora and hydria of the B.F. period being now
surpassed in favour by the kylix, the krater and lekythos receiving
more attention, and certain new forms, such as the askos and stamnos,
appearing at different stages.

For the first half of the period, from 520 to 460 B.C., the kylix is
pre-eminent, not only in point of numbers, but for the attention
devoted to its decoration. It is, as we have seen, doubtful whether it
was actually in the kylikes that the new style came into being, but in
any case they form the material for the study of its earlier phases.
The form is that of the later B.F. varieties (see p. 191), as used by
Exekias and the painters who used the large eyes in its decoration,
tracing its origin probably to an Ionic source.[1285] At first the
decoration is often confined to the interior, or the exterior designs
are little more than conventional, consisting of the eyes and a simple
motive or figure between.[1286] In the strong period there is usually a
connection between the interior and exterior designs, the whole often
forming successive episodes of a story[1287]; but subsequently the old
principle asserts itself, and the interior subject becomes the
important one. Slight variations of form occur,[1288] as in the cups of
Brygos, with their off-set lip, or the delicate products of Sotades,
the handles of which are shaped like a chicken’s merrythought. In the
latest specimens the stem is often replaced by a flat broad foot, or
the bowl becomes flat and ugly, losing all the beauty of the earlier
graceful curves.

Among other drinking-cups the kotyle, kantharos, and rhyton are most
often found. The former was favoured by Epiktetos and Hieron, and a
kantharos is signed by Epigenes, others by Nikosthenes and Duris. The
kantharos, though a very beautiful form, is never common in the painted
vases, being perhaps oftener made in metal. Among the kotylae we may
mention here a series painted with an owl and olive-wreath,[1289] which
obviously have some reference to the cult of Athena. They have been
identified, but on slight authority, with the Παναθηναϊκά mentioned by
Athenaeus[1290]; but their real meaning has not yet found a
satisfactory explanation. The _rhyton_ strictly belongs to the series
of plastic vases (see pp. 201, 211), the lower portion being always
modelled in the form of a head, human or animal, or two conjoined. Some
of these are signed by artists, such as Charinos and Kaliades.[1291]

Of the amphora three main varieties are found. The earlier type, which
reproduces the “black-bodied” or panel-amphora of the B.F. period, did
not long remain in favour, and was mainly used by Andokides and
Euthymides and their associates. The panel system of decoration is
still retained, the framework being formed of ornamental patterns as in
the old style. Secondly, there is the “Nolan” amphora, which came in
about 500–480 B.C., and was obviously an improvement on the old
“red-bodied” B.F. type. It is a very graceful, slender form, with long
neck, distinguished by the surpassing excellence of its black varnish,
and the impression of taste and restraint given by its simple
decoration of one or two figures each side (see Plate XXXVI.). The
third variety is the so-called _pelike_ (see p. 163), a not very
successful variation of the amphora, but for some reason very popular
in the later stages. With its flat foot and bulbous body it stands in
the same relation to the amphora as does the so-called aryballos (see
below) to the lekythos.

Two forms that may be connected with the amphora are the stamnos and
the psykter (see pp. 163, 172). The former is peculiar to the R.F.
period in its earlier stages; the first known example is signed by
Pamphaios, a “transitional” artist. Most of the known specimens attain
a high average of excellence. The psykter or wine-cooler is very rare,
but there are two fine examples signed by Euphronios and Duris.

The hydria in this period at first retains the B.F. form, as seen in an
example of about 500 B.C. signed by Phintias (B.M. E 159), but the
tendency to prefer a curvilinear outline is soon manifested. The new
development is conventionally known as a _kalpis_. The shoulder having
ceased to be distinct from the body, the design becomes single, or else
is confined to the upper part of the field.

Of the krater we have at least four varieties, all belonging to the
more developed stages of the period. The earliest example is the
Antaios-krater of Euphronios in the Louvre, about 500 B.C., which is of
the form known as _vaso a calice_ (p. 170); but this and the other
varieties never become really common till the final stages are reached.
The bell-krater, or _vaso a campana_, is only found in the late fine
period, and is then almost the only kind of large vase made; the
volute-handled krater, which was developed from the old column-handled
type, is seen in some fine specimens. At first the design (as in the
B.F. example by Nikosthenes, B.M. B 364) is confined to the neck. The
treatment of the column-handled type is interesting as a survival of
archaism both in design and arrangement, with the bordered panels and
occasional B.F. friezes of animals.[1292]

Among the smaller vases, the oinochoë and lekythos with their
varieties, the askos and the pyxis, are the most important. With the
exception of the ordinary form of lekythos these belong chiefly to the
later stages, when the preference was for a sort of miniature style.
Very few of these bear artists' signatures. The oinochoë differs little
from the B.F. examples; the pyxis is practically a revival of an old
form favoured in the Corinthian and other early fabrics. The latter are
usually decorated with domestic or marriage subjects, in reference to
their use by women for toilet purposes (see Plates XLII., XLIII.).

The lekythos was, as we shall see, the form exclusively employed for
the funeral vases, and largely also for others with polychrome
decoration on white ground. Those painted with red figures belong
mainly to the strong period (500–460), and have been mostly found in
Sicily, whither they were imported by preference, like the amphorae
made for Nola; a fine specimen is given on Plate XXXVI. When this form
came to be adopted for the funeral vases, a new type arose with bulbous
or spherical body, conventionally known as an _aryballos_. In the late
fine style we have many examples of this form, with rich polychrome
decoration and gilding (Plate XLII.).[1293]

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

PLATE XXXVI

[Illustration: RED-FIGURED “NOLAN” AMPHORAE AND LEKYTHOS (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]

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

The =ornamental patterns= on R.F. vases do not, generally speaking,
call for so much attention as those of earlier style; they are on the
whole used with great restraint and little variety, and are more
subordinate to the designs than at any other period of vase-painting.
The principal motives are the palmette, maeander, and egg-pattern; all
others are comparatively rare. It is interesting to note, on the early
amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters down to quite a
late date, the survival of the old panel system with its borders of
ornament. Strictly speaking, now that the background was black
throughout, there was no necessity for enclosing the space on which the
figures were depicted; but the conservative instincts prevailed,
especially while the old shapes were retained.[1294] Gradually,
however, as these vases assumed new forms, the borders were almost
unconsciously dropped—first the sides, then the top, and lastly the
lower border, which maintained its ground longer than the others. The
same tendency, from a formal framework to absolute freedom, is in fact
to be observed in all the vases; and in the later stages we note a new
development, that of an elaborate pattern of palmettes under the
handles, which assumes more and more prominence.

The evolution of the palmette on R.F. vases has been skilfully traced
by Dr. Winter[1295] in reference to the kylikes; but it is no less
interesting in the amphorae and similar forms. In both cases it arose
from the tendency to make the handles terminate in stylised palmettes,
which on the B.F. kylikes of the minor artists are often a prominent
element in the decoration. Similarly, on the B.F. red-bodied amphorae
we have the symmetrical compositions of palmettes under the handles
radiating from a common centre. These were at first reduced to a modest
single palmette or a pair, but soon spread out again, preserving at
first the symmetrical grouping; subsequently, with an increasing
tendency to naturalism, the palmettes, enclosed within graceful
tendrils, form _unsymmetrical_ but highly pleasing compositions without
any definite centre.[1296] This development of ornament under the
handles—to which part of the vase it was almost restricted—can be
traced during the first half of the fifth century, till it reaches its
height about the middle. Where a band of ornament was required round
the base of the design, as on the large calyx-kraters, it takes the
form of a row of palmettes enclosed in tendrils, in the style of modern
arabesques; or the palmettes are arranged in pairs, set obliquely, and
each pair divided by a scroll ending in volutes. Or, again, a row of
somewhat squat palmettes, similarly enclosed, alternates with
lotos-flowers in the old style, as on B.M. E 169.[1297]

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

In the kylikes the development of the handle-ornament first begins with
Epiktetos, who (as on E 3 in B.M.) first draws a free palmette with
separated leaves on either side.[1298] As the tendency to cover the
whole of the exterior space with the design increased, the intervening
space under the handle came to be filled in also, by extending the
tendrils of the palmettes and terminating them with buds (Fig.
100).[1299] Next, a tendency to symmetrical composition each side is
seen, the palmettes being doubled in number[1300]; or, again, an
attempt is made at uniting the two isolated palmette-systems in one
harmonious whole, and at the same time to fill the intervening space,
by means of interlacing tendrils.[1301] The palmettes are further
increased to three or four each side, and in the arrangement is seen
the tendency to freedom even at the cost of symmetry already noted, as
in Fig. 101.[1302] Thus is reached the point at which the severe passes
into the strong style. In the latter the palmettes are often omitted
altogether,[1303] especially where the two exterior scenes are
connected; or their place is taken by some figure under the handle, as
on vases by Hieron or Brygos. Where the patterns do occur, they are
often stereotyped, as in the vases of Duris, who on nine examples with
handle-patterns repeats the same device in each case. In the fine
style, after 460 B.C., the symmetrical arrangement recurs, the usual
type consisting of a double palmette between two large ones, with
connecting and enclosing tendrils.

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

Another method of tracing the chronological sequence of the R.F. cups
is by means of the maeander patterns which surround the interior design
and extend below the outside scenes (Fig. 102).[1304] A parallel
development of this pattern may also be traced on the amphorae and
other vases, where it is used as a border below the figures. In the
severe style, as in the cups of Epiktetos, this pattern has not yet
made its appearance, and its place is taken by a simple line of red;
and in the vases of Euphronios, on which it is first found, a simple
maeander is employed. The first to vary this was Duris, who alternates
it with squares, the centre of which is “voided” in the form of a red
cross, and this practice subsequently became invariable. The square
itself shows a development of form, the cross being first filled in
with a black centre, then made diagonal; next, the black background is
largely diminished, until it disappears, except for dots between the
arms of the black cross; finally, it changes into the form of a
chequered square, black and red, of which the red squares are sometimes
dotted.

The =subjects= on red-figured vases may not perhaps be so varied or so
full of mythological interest as those on the black-figured, but yet
present many features worthy of attention. At the very outset we see
the tendency towards scenes from real life in preference to those from
mythology; and on the whole throughout the period the ratio of one
class to the other is exactly the reverse of the preceding period. Nor
are the stock subjects in either class the same. In regard to mythology
the cosmogonic themes of B.F. vases, such as the Gigantomachia and the
Birth of Athena, are replaced by such subjects as Eleusinian and Attic
local cults, the sending forth of Triptolemos or the birth of
Erichthonios. In the heroic cycles Herakles is no longer the popular
favourite, but is supplanted, for reasons presently to be detailed, by
Theseus. The Argonautika frequently provides subjects for vases of the
more developed style, in which the influence of Polygnotos is felt; and
the _Odyssey_ begins to rival the _Iliad_ as a source of epic themes.
The influence of the stage is as yet hardly felt, though here and there
scenes may be traced to the influence of some Satyric drama.

[Illustration:

From _B.M. Cat._ iii.
FIG. 102. DEVELOPMENT OF MAEANDER-AND-CROSS PATTERN.
]

In subjects relating to Dionysos and his attendant Satyrs and Maenads a
considerable change is to be noted, in the direction of a preference
for violent action. The Bacchic revellers of the B.F. vases, even at
their highest pitch of excitement, are generally stiff wooden figures,
with mechanical and restrained pose or action. But the exteriors of
many cups of the best R.F. period, such as those of Hieron or Brygos,
are enlivened by throngs of frenzied Maenads and wild drunken Satyrs,
given up to the most unrestrained and licentious merriment (see Chapter
XIII.).

Turning to the subjects of daily life again, it may be observed that on
the B.F. vases the preference is for battle-scenes, warriors setting
out for battle, or scenes of the chase; even athletic subjects are in a
great minority, except on the Panathenaic amphorae. In the R.F. period
the preference is for athletic scenes, banquets, and the life of women
and children; we also find frequent illustrations of religious cults,
and scenes of sacrifice and libations. The R.F. vases of the severe
stage in the main follow on the lines of the later B.F. period, except
in the interiors of the kylikes of the Epictetan cycle. In these we
find very few instances of mythological subjects, unless it be single
figures of Satyrs. The main object of the painter was to fill in the
circular space as best he might, and this space only admitted of a
single figure, the rule being observed that exterior and interior
figures should be of similar proportions. Hence the easiest solution
was obviously to choose a simple figure, such as that of a nude young
man, and depict him in various simple attitudes, running, leaping,
carrying a vase or musical instrument, or otherwise engaged in such a
way as to fill the space with his limbs or the objects he carried (see
p. 426).

In the “strong” style we observe a new principle at work, which may
be described in a single phrase as “the glorification of the Attic
ephebos or young athlete.” A new impetus had been given to athletics
at Athens by the Peisistratidae, who encouraged a more extensive
celebration of festivals, and thus we find a growing fondness for the
introduction of scenes from the palaestra and stadium, often rendered
with considerable spirit and unconventionality, as in a group of
boxers quarrelling,[1305] or on another vase depicting the humorous
side of the armed foot-race.[1306]

The introduction of scenes from the story of Theseus, which now begin
to be frequent, especially on the kylikes, is no doubt due partly to
this cause, though partly also to religious and patriotic reasons.
Theseus seems to have been regarded as the typical Attic ephebos and
athlete, and his contests as analogous to success in the palaestra.
Hence the grouping of scenes from his labours after the manner of
groups of athletes variously engaged. It was formerly thought that the
popularity of the Theseus legends was due to the bringing back of his
bones from Skyros by Kimon, and their solemn burial in the Theseion,
which gave rise to a regular cult of the national hero. But this took
place in 469 B.C., and recent investigations have shown that many of
the Theseus vases must be placed at an earlier date. He was, however,
supposed to have appeared at the battle of Marathon in aid of the
Athenians, and this event may have been quite sufficient to bring his
cult into prominence.

Towards the middle of the fifth century several new types are
introduced—such as the youth as distinguished from the ephebos, the
girl as distinguished from the matured woman,[1307] and the infant
playing with toys. Juvenile games, such as the top, hoop, and
knucklebones, now become generally popular. The evolution of the types
of Eros and Nike virtually dates from this time[1308]; hitherto Eros
(as, for instance, on the kylikes) has seldom appeared, and Nike is
also hardly found before the “strong” style. Meaningless groups of
figures, conversing or without particular action, are common on the
exterior of cups by Hieron and his contemporaries; and similar groups,
though, in accordance with the spirit of the times, more freely and
pictorially composed, become the recognised method of decorating the
small elegant vases of the late fine style. In some of these an ancient
practice is revived of attempting to give interest to the scenes by
adding mythological names to the figures. But these are chosen quite at
haphazard, sometimes as vague personifications (see Chapter XII., under
Aphrodite), sometimes in such anomalous collocations as Thetis and
Hippolyte, or Danae, Helen, and Iphigeneia.[1309]

In the treatment of mythological scenes it is curious to note how,
almost from the first, the well-worn conventional types of the B.F.
style are discarded, the painter, with his new-born capacities for
drawing and free composition, instinctively forming his own idea of his
subject, and departing from the lines on which his predecessors had
worked. Some subjects are almost entirely ignored, such as the chariot
procession (of Herakles or deities), the contests of Herakles with
Triton and the Cretan bull, warriors playing draughts, and Odysseus and
Polyphemos. The labours of Herakles are largely replaced by those of
Theseus. In other cases the subjects are still popular, but the “type”
is no longer preserved, as in the case of the Judgment of Paris or some
of the labours of Herakles.

But it must not be supposed that the principle of recognised “types” is
altogether absent from the R.F. vases. There are, in fact, certain
motives which occur over and over again, only with this difference—that
they are not always employed with the same signification. Thus the
“pursuing” type, which is as common as any on R.F. vases, may be either
mythological or ordinary. In the former case Eos pursues Kephalos, or
Menelaos Helen; in the latter a Seilenos pursues a Maenad, or a warrior
or hunter a woman. This type becomes almost conventional, and the
figures can only be identified when inscribed. Theseus, Ajax, Orestes,
Ion, Alkmaion, and Neoptolemos all pursue women in the same manner.
Again, the B.F. type of Peleus seizing Thetis, sometimes found on R.F.
vases,[1310] is used for that of a Seilenos seizing a Maenad, even the
snakes into which Thetis transforms herself becoming the ordinary
attribute of the Bacchanal.

A different class of subjects, in which the subject remains the same
but the type varies, is also found on R.F. vases. In such cases the
various artists seem to have drawn their inspiration from the same
model; it might be a famous sixth-century painting or sculptured group,
but each has treated it according to his own individuality. A good
instance is the subject of the sack of Troy, the principal episodes of
which we find depicted by the masters Euphronios and Brygos (Plate
LIV.), and on a hydria of somewhat later date.[1311]

Another characteristic of R.F. vases is the individualising of
barbarian types, a new feature in Greek art. It is possible that this
is largely the effect of the Persian wars, which rendered the Greeks
familiar with barbarian costumes.[1312] In any case the fashion of
wearing Thracian cloaks and other outlandish garments seems to have
been adopted by the young men of Athens at the beginning of the fifth
century, and many of the cups of that period represent young horsemen
apparelled in this fashion (see Chapter XV.). There was also in the
fifth century a fondness for vases modelled in the form of heads of
negroes or Persians. Such subjects as those relating to Orpheus, the
rape of Oreithyia, Herakles and Busiris, or combats of Greeks with
Amazons or Persians, also illustrate the popularity of these new ideas.

The only other class of subjects to which reference need be made is
that dealing with religious cults,[1313] such as libations or
sacrifices to deities or terminal figures, particular ceremonies and
festivals, or quasi-religious competitions of an athletic or musical
kind.[1314]

In regard to style, the Attic red-figured vases fall into four
principal groups, which are usually classified as follows (though each
group is sometimes subdivided):—

(1) =The archaic or severe period= (about 520–500 B.C.), in which there
is little advance in the drawing, which is stiff and lacks technical
freedom. Apart from the new experiments in technique, it is marked by
its wide and novel choice of subjects, with great attention paid to
details. The principal artists whose signatures are found in this group
are: (_a_) cup-painters—Epiktetos, Hischylos, Pheidippos, Pamphaios,
Chelis, Chachrylion, Euergides, Epilykos, Hermaios, Sikanos; (_b_)
other painters—Andokides, Euthymides, Phintias (amphora and hydria),
Hypsis (hydria), Psiax and Hilinos.

(2) =The strong style= (about 500–460 B.C.), characterised by a great
and sudden advance in drawing and power of expression, which leads the
painter to attempt difficult subjects with success. The difficulties of
front-view or three-quarter drawing, as opposed to the old
profile-figures, are also largely overcome. In the amphorae and other
forms the compositions are restrained and dignified, being often
limited to one or two figures in large style. The principal artists
are: (_a_) cup-painters—Euphronios, Oltos, Sosias, Phintias, Peithinos,
Duris, Hieron, Brygos, Amasis, Onesimos; (_b_) other artists—Euxitheos,
Smikros.

(3) =The fine style= (about 460–440 B.C.) exhibits the culmination of
technique and composition, with great breadth and largeness of
conception in the larger vases, delicacy and refinement in the smaller.
Cup-painting has passed its zenith, and yields comparatively few
artists’ names. In this period the influence of Polygnotos and the
great painters begins to make itself felt, in a tendency to more
pictorial composition; landscape is indicated, and figures are placed
at different levels. The influence of sculpture may also be traced. The
chief artists' names are: Aeson, Aristophanes and Erginos, Epigenes,
Hegias, Hermonax, Megakles, Polygnotos, Sotades, and Xenotimos; Meidias
and Nikias; Xenophantos.

(4) =The late fine style= (about 440–400 B.C.) is marked by a great
falling-off in every respect. The extraordinarily rapid advance, both
in artistic conception and in power of execution, during the preceding
fifty years, fostered by the concurrent advance in sculpture and
painting, hastened the vase-painter to his ruin. With the attainment of
perfection in drawing, dexterity and grace are his sole aim, and in
place of vigour and originality we meet with over-refinement and
mannerisms, and florid pictorial compositions executed in a careless
manner.

We now propose to speak in detail of the principal artists of this
period, a study of whose works will be sufficient to give a clear idea
of the achievements of the new style, at all events down to the middle
of the century.[1315] After that time the signatures become so rare
that the later vases are best treated as a whole.

It is important to note, by way of preliminary, the various methods of
signature which the artists adopt (see also Chapter XVII.).[1316] The
ordinary signatures fall under four headings: (1) ἐποίησεν; (2)
ἔγραψεν; (3) _A_. ἐποίησεν, _B_. ἔγραψεν (4) _A_. ἐποίησε καὶ ἔγραψεν.
In the archaic period ἐποίησεν covers the work of the potter and
painter, except in the case where the latter is specially mentioned. In
the best period we usually find ἐποίησεν on the kylikes, ἔγραψεν on the
amphorae. Euphronios and Phintias use either (1) or (2). The vase E 12
in the British Museum has only the inscription, Πάμφαιος ἐποίησεν; but,
as will be seen later, there is good reason for supposing that the
exterior was not painted by him. Different formulae, it has been
suggested, may represent different periods in a man’s career, as in the
case of Euphronios, who was at first a painter in Chachrylion’s
workshop, then worked independently, and finally adopted Onesimos as a
partner (see p. 434). The use of the imperfect ἐποίει in some cases is
characteristic of the transitional period (see below, p. 430).

In the archaic or severe period the typical name is that of
=Epiktetos=, who, as we have seen, is thought by some authorities to
have been actually the inventor of the red-figure style. However this
may be, he is the principal representative of the development of
cup-painting during this period—a development which has been carefully
traced by Klein.[1317] We have no B.F. kylikes signed by him, although
there are four examples of “mixed” cups with B.F. interiors, three of
which were made by Hischylos, the fourth by Nikosthenes, while
Epiktetos was presumably responsible for the whole of the decoration.
He invariably signs with the formula ἔγραψεν, from which we know that
all his signed vases are actually the work of his brush. Besides those
already mentioned, he painted two cups which bear Pamphaios’ name as
potter, and two more with those of Hischylos and Python as potters—all
R.F. throughout, one of the Pamphaios cups retaining the old fashion of
decoration with eyes on the exterior. The vase made by Python[1318] is
interesting from its subject—the slaying of Busiris by Herakles.[1319]
It belongs to an advanced stage of his career, when the exterior
designs were assuming more importance and developing from decorative
compositions to regular friezes. Thirteen kylikes and ten plates with
designs like those on the interiors of the cups (Plate XXXVII.), a
kotyle with Pistoxenos’ name as potter, and two amphorae, make up the
total of Epiktetos’ performances.

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

PLATE XXXVII

[Illustration: INTERIOR OF KYLIX OF TRANSITIONAL STYLE; 2, PLATE BY
EPIKTETOS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

Murray thus describes the chief characteristics of Epiktetos'
work[1320]: “No painter is so uniform and at the same time so peculiar
in his manner as Epiktetos. His drawing is always characterised by
precision and fastidiousness. He loves slim, youthful forms.... He
prefers to draw his figures on a small scale, where his minute touches
produce at times a startling vividness. He appears to have been
influenced in a measure by the older miniature vase-painters [the
‘minor artists’] ... his manner is singularly precise and fastidious
... but his precision never fails him.... He uses skilfully faint
yellow lines for the inner markings of muscle and bone.” Hartwig points
out that he continues the development of a refined archaism from Amasis
(p. 382). The period of his activity may be placed between 530 and 500
B.C.

=Pamphaios=, although the majority of his vases are in the R.F.
technique, really excelled in the old method. We have from his hand two
B.F. hydriae, four B.F. kylikes, two mixed kylikes, fifteen R.F.
kylikes (five with interior designs only), two amphorae and a stamnos,
and he also made two cups for Epiktetos. He signs consistently
ἐποίησεν. In the B.F. hydria in the British Museum (B 300 = Fig. 120),
he, as Murray says, has indulged to excess his sense of refinement and
grace, in which he was unsurpassed. When he turned to red figures, the
new technique seems to have perplexed him, and he found himself unable
to use his faculty for minute detail. But though comparatively coarse
and decadent, there is a freshness and vigour in his new conceptions,
especially in the Museum stamnos (E 437) with Herakles and Acheloos,
which atones for other deficiencies.

Most remarkable of all his signed works is the British Museum kylix (E
12), with its exquisite exterior designs, of which Murray says, “Surely
in the whole realm of Greek vase-painting there is hardly to be met
with a finer conception” than the figures of the two wind-gods or
death-deities carrying off the body of the dead warrior. Nor are the
figures of Amazons arming on the other side of inferior merit. So
marked, indeed, is the superiority of these designs to Pamphaios'
ordinary work, that most authorities are agreed in attributing them to
another artist belonging to a more advanced school—namely, Euphronios.
We have after all no certain proof that the _painting_ of the cup is
Pamphaios’ handiwork, and we can only say that, if it is, it betokens a
most surprising outbreak of artistic power.

Of the other artists in this cycle _Hischylos_ appears chiefly as a
potter for other artists; for Sakonides he made a (B.F.) kylix, for
Epiktetos four, and for Pheidippos one. A B.F. plate, two “mixed” cups,
and one R.F. cup bear his name alone. He always signs with ἐποίησεν,
but it is not improbable that he was responsible for the interior B.F.
designs on three of the cups made for Epiktetos. _Pheidippos_ is only
known from the one cup already mentioned. _Euergides_ made three cups,
_Epilykos_ three,[1321] _Hermaios_ five[1322] (one of which bears a
figure of Hermes, perhaps by way of a sort of canting heraldry), and
_Sikanos_ one plate. The cups by _Chelis_ number five, of which one has
a B.F. interior.

=Chachrylion=, who stands on the verge of the next period, calls for
more detailed treatment, especially since the exhaustive discussion of
his work by Hartwig.[1323] Sixteen cups signed by him are known, two
having been discovered since Klein made his list; he also acted as
potter for Euphronios on one occasion. He always signs ἐποίησεν, but we
may assume that this includes the decoration of the vases. With him we
enter upon the period in which the use of “favourite names” by
vase-painters becomes regular, those employed by Chachrylion being
Leagros and Memnon. The former name is also used by Oltos, Euthymides,
and Euphronios, and the names of Epidromos and Athenodotos belong to
this period, if not to this cycle. A number of vases with the name
Memnon have no signature, and these have usually been attributed _en
bloc_ to Chachrylion. But it has been pointed out by Hartwig that some
of them must belong to an earlier stage, standing in much closer
relation to the B.F. vases. Besides the sixteen signed vases, Hartwig
assigns to him seven with the name of Epidromos, and two others with
that of Leagros in addition, and another without name. A remarkable
number of these cups have no exterior decoration.

Chachrylion’s work is in character essentially transitional. Some of
his cups[1324] are in the style of the archaic decadence, before the
new influence of Euphronios, but he never freed himself from the
trammels of the severe style. He drops the Epictetan method of
decorating the exterior with large eyes and animals bounding the scene,
and uses large palmettes under the handles; but his interior scenes are
still bordered with a plain ring, instead of the later maeander. He is
never altogether happy in his exterior designs; hence his preference
for interiors, in which, it may be noted, he is almost the first to
introduce more than one figure.[1325] His figures, like those of
Epiktetos, have slim proportions and small heads, the bodily forms
better rendered than the limbs. He seems to strike a medium between the
vigour of Pamphaios and the refinement of Epiktetos, combining
robustness and grace with a tendency to largeness of style,[1326] which
shows that he is preparing the way for Euphronios.

In summing up the characteristics of the cups of severe style, we note
that they exhibit throughout a development in technique and decoration
rather than in style and drawing. The earliest are little removed from
the later B.F. kylikes with interior designs and large eyes on the
exterior, many having in fact B.F. interiors. With the eyes occupying
so much space, it is rare at first to find anything like a composition
on the exterior; but gradually the eyes disappear, the palmette
ornaments (see p. 414) decrease in size, and the figures extend
themselves into friezes, with definite action. We have scenes of combat
with a marked centre, like a sculptured pediment, group of athletes or
revellers, and mythological or heroic subjects from the stories of
Herakles, Theseus, and Troy.

In the interiors the development is somewhat different. Beginning with
a simple design of a simple figure within a plain circle—at first an
enforced necessity, but subsequently due to choice—the tendency is to
fill in the space more and more as the power of drawing develops, and
the painter casts about for new ideas. Hence, as Klein[1327] says,
“Here we have carrying, lifting, hurrying, running, stooping, dancing,
springing ... and all for the sole purpose of obtaining those movements
of the human body which the space of the vase demanded.” We also note
the almost entire absence of mythological scenes in the interiors;
repose or simple action is all that is aimed at, whereas on the
exteriors scenes of activity or even violence are admitted.

Murray[1328] has pointed out some interesting parallels between the
kylix-interiors and contemporary coins and gems, which show the
vase-painter to have been in full accord with the spirit of the times.
Thus, to take the coins first, the Sphinx of Chios is repeated on the
B.M. vase E 10, the armed warrior of Aspendos on E 11, the Diskobolos
of Kos on E 78, and the squatting Satyr of Naxos on a vase formerly in
the Bourguignon collection.[1329] Among fifth-century gems we find such
subjects as a youth kneeling and holding a jug, a woman at a
washing-basin, a Satyr with wine-skin, a youth fastening his sandal,
and an archer[1330]—all of which occur on the interior of R.F. kylikes.
The beautiful subject of the body of Memnon borne by two genii (see
above), although an exterior subject, may also be mentioned here as
paralleled in a fine gem.[1331]

In Klein’s valuable monograph on early R.F. cup-painting there is a
useful table[1332] setting forth the development of the Epictetan cycle
of cups, both in subject and arrangement. His first class includes the
purely B.F. cups of Nikosthenes and Pamphaios, with the Gorgoneion in
the interior and large eyes on the exterior, which form the prelude to
the R.F. series. In the next stage a B.F. subject, such as a warrior,
horseman, or deer, takes the place of the Gorgoneion; the exteriors are
R.F., but the eyes are retained, allowing only of a single figure each
side. Three of these are painted by Epiktetos, others by Pamphaios and
Chelis. The third stage has only R.F. interiors, the exterior
preserving the same character; instances may be found among the works
of Chelis and Pheidippos. Finally, there is a long series of nearly
eighty cups and plates, many of the former with interior designs only,
in which the eyes are finally dropped, and the exterior subjects are
developed into regular friezes, being often mythological. These include
the majority of the works of Epiktetos, Pamphaios, and Chachrylion, the
latter of whom marks the transition to the next stage.

Turning now to the works of other artists in this period, and passing
over Andokides, whom we have already discussed (p. 386), we find that
=Euthymides= is the most conspicuous name after those of the
cup-painters.[1333] Strictly speaking, he does not belong exclusively
to the severe period, at least in point of date, though his style is
comparatively behindhand; as we shall see, he was partly contemporary
with Euphronios. His style is curiously similar to that of Phintias, as
is shown by the fact that the same unsigned vases have been attributed
to both by different authorities. Five vases bear his signature (in two
cases ἔγραφε, in the others ἔγραφεη), and he gives the additional
information that he was the son of Polios. He uses three καλός-names—
Megakles, Smikythos, and Phayllos, the first-named being also employed
by Phintias. Two of his vases (in Munich; see Fig. 137) are amphorae,
one a hydria, one a _psykter_, and one a circular dish or plate like
those of Epiktetos.

The similarity of his work to that of Phintias suggests that they were
partners. A vase with the inscription τοὶ τήνδε, Εὐθυμίδες, “This [vase
I dedicate] to thee, Euthymides,” has been attributed by Hartwig to
Phintias, and may be an interesting instance of the friendship existing
between the two artists. On the other hand, Euthymides seems to have
viewed with apprehension and jealousy the growing success of his
junior, Euphronios. On one of the Munich amphorae he places the
boast—by no means with justification—“Euphronios never made the like”
(ὡς οὐδέποτε Εὐφρόνιος).

The height of his activity may be placed about 500–490 B.C., a date
which suits the use of the name Megakles. This probably denotes the
grandfather of Alkibiades and uncle of Perikles, who was ostracised in
487 B.C. The same name, as is well known, occurs on the warrior-tablet
found on the Acropolis[1334], and on the strength of this Hoppin
attributes the tablet to Euthymides.[1335] There is, however, no proof
that such tablets, which belong rather to the higher branch of painting
at that time, were made by vase-painters.

The style of Euthymides and his preference for the amphora seem to
indicate that he was much under the influence of Andokides. He still
clings to the old style in his methods of decoration, as in the borders
of the designs. His individuality, says Hoppin, is best shown in his
draperies, the details of which are faintly indicated in red, and he
shows some skill in foreshortening, but his heads are too large. He
also exhibits a strong preference for mythological subjects, such as
the arming of Hector, but usually balances these subjects with a
genre-scene from the gymnasium or symposium.

His partner =Phintias=[1336] is distinguished from him in one
respect—namely, that he painted cups as well as other shapes. But his
cups have nothing in common with his Epictetan cycle, and seem rather
to have been under the influence of Euphronios. We may therefore regard
him as another connecting-link between the severe and strong periods.
Eight vases are actually signed by him,[1337] though one of these has
no subject, being merely modelled in the form of a head (see below, p.
493); but from his use of Megakles and Chairias as καλός-names, and
other indications, Hartwig has been enabled to add to the number no
less than twelve cups and eleven other vases[1338].

The cups are mostly small, with interior designs only, and those single
figures; his composition is not a strong point, but the single figures
are good, especially the nude forms; his draperies are stiff, but
effective, and his heads are influenced by Euphronios, as Hartwig notes.

A pair of painters that may be linked together are =Oltos= and
=Euxitheos=, the former the painter, the latter the potter, of a kylix
in Berlin (2264). We also have a magnificent kylix at Corneto, with the
name of Euxitheos as potter, probably painted by Oltos; on one side of
the exterior is an assemblage of the gods, on the other a Dionysiac
scene.[1339] In the British Museum is an amphora, also made by
Euxitheos (E 258; signed on handles), with a single figure each side
(Achilles and Briseis), and a krater in the Louvre with the καλός-name
Leagros seems to be by the same hand.[1340] Hartwig, who regards Oltos
as the painter in each case, shows his connection on the one side with
Andokides and Euthymides, on the other with Hieron. He displays a
preference for large figures and for Dionysiac subjects.

The one vase of _Hypsis_, a hydria,[1341] must be of early date; the
shape, ornamentation, and arrangement of the designs are purely B.F. in
character. We have two vases of the _alabastron_ form[1342]—an unusual
one for signatures—made by _Hilinos_ and painted by _Psiax_, and a
kylix of Epictetan style in Munich signed by the latter.[1343] The two
former are each decorated with two figures in a simple, severe, yet
effective style; the latter has a B.F. interior (figure of Seilenos),
and R.F. exterior with the large eyes, and a warrior on one side only.
In the latter case the signature is simply [ΦΣΙΑΞΣ], without a verb; on
the Odessa vase the imperfect tense ἐποίει is used, the casual use of
which is a characteristic of the transitional period.[1344] Mr. Hoppin
has given several reasons for attributing an early date to those two
artists (about 520–500), not the least convincing of which is the use
of a B.F. technique and of the large eyes.

We now find ourselves at the point where =Euphronios= forces his way to
the front as the great master in the new school of painting in which
the influence of Kimon of Kleonae can be traced.[1345] Hartwig compares
this new departure of art to the Italian schools of painting in the
fifteenth century, in which also naturalism and a knowledge of
perspective become the characteristics in which they differ most
markedly from their predecessors. The early work of the school of
Euphronios, which we may place about 500–480 B.C., is best illustrated
by the series of cups with the καλός-name Leagros, which must belong to
this time. This name is found on two of the vases signed by Euphronios,
the Antaios krater in the Louvre and the Geryon kylix in Munich, of
which Chachrylion was the potter. The fact that it is found also on
some B.F. vases[1346] seems to argue, not for its appearance previous
to this date, but rather for the view that at the beginning of the
fifth century there was still a preference for the old method for
certain shapes—the amphora, hydria, and lekythos. It may also be
inferred that Euphronios had already appeared on the scene while
Chachrylion, Pamphaios, and Oltos were still painting more in the
manner of Epiktetos, and hence we are justified in regarding those
artists as belonging to the severe style, even though they overlap with
the succeeding period.

The labours of Hartwig and other scholars have now made it possible to
associate an extensive series of vases with the school of Euphronios,
but there are only ten in existence which actually bear his
signature.[1347] They are as follows (the order being roughly
chronological):—

(1) Krater in Louvre, G 103: Herakles and Antaios; musical
performance. Pottier, _Louvre Atlas_, pls. 100, 101.

(2) Psykter in Petersburg, 1670: Banquet of Hetairae.

(3) Kylix in Munich, 337: Herakles and Geryon. Furtwaengler and
Reichhold, pl. 22 = Plate XXXVIII.

(4) Kylix in Louvre, G 104: Theseus’ adventures. Furtwaengler and
Reichhold, pl. 5; _J.H.S._ xviii. pl. 14.

(5) Kylix in Bibl. Nat., 526: Scene from Doloneia (fragmentary).
Klein, _Euphronios_,^2 p. 137.

(6) Kylix in Brit. Mus., E 44: Herakles and Eurystheus. Furtwaengler
and Reichhold, pl. 23.

(7) Kylix in Perugia: Achilles and Troilos scenes. Hartwig, pls. 58–9.

(8) Kylix in Berlin, 2281: Sack of Troy (fragmentary).

(9) Kylix in Boston: Banquet scenes. Hartwig, pls. 47–8.

(10) Kylix in Berlin, 2282 (polychrome): Achilles and Diomede.
Hartwig, pls. 51–2.

In the first three instances he signs ἔγραψεν, in the rest ἔποιησεν.

The Louvre krater shows Euphronios in his early manner, when, as Murray
says, “he was in the mood of drawing massive limbs and colossal
proportions.” The “type” of the Herakles and Antaios is interesting as
a reminiscence of the B.F. wrestling-scheme adopted for Herakles and
the Nemean lion (see Chapter XIV.). The chief variation is that the
figures are posed in a sort of elongated isosceles triangle, no doubt
with the intention of showing Herakles’ efforts to raise the giant from
the earth to which he so strenuously clings. In the form of Antaios we
already observe the capacity for rendering a body accurately in
different planes which was one of the chief distinctions of the new
school. On the other hand, the agitated female figures in the
background are depicted in the old quasi-Egyptian attitudes, with
bodies in front view and heads in profile; yet in the treatment of
their draperies there is a great advance.

The Geryon cup (Plate XXXVIII.) is a wonderful combination of
picturesque and effective grouping with elaboration of detail, and is
so far the most naturalistic piece of work that any vase-painter has
produced. Here again the old B.F. “type” is retained, at least for the
Geryon, who appears as the “three men joined together” of the Kypselos
chest,[1348] one of whom falls backward wounded. But the whole scene is
vivid and instinct with life; even Athena and Iolaos, instead of calmly
watching the contest, join in animated comment thereon, and the former
seems to be hastening forward to join in the fray. Not the least
effective part of the design is formed by the group of Geryon’s cows on
the reverse, which show that Euphronios was a keen observer of nature
and anatomy, and the varied poses and skilful grouping of the herd are
striking instances of his art in composition.

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

PLATE XXXVIII

[Illustration: KYLIX BY EUPHRONIOS (IN MUNICH): HERAKLES SLAYING
GERYON.]

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

As typical of his later manner (about 480–460 B.C.) we may take the
British Museum kylix and that in the museum at Perugia. They bear
respectively the καλός-names Panaitios and Lykos, while the
contemporary Berlin cup (2282) has the name of Glaukon. These clearly
form a new group, distinct from the Leagros series, and, if the
historical identification of Glaukon (see p. 404 above, and Chapter
XVII.) is correct, enable us to place them about 470–460 B.C. The
interior group of the British Museum cup shows us two figures, a woman
standing by the side of a man, who is seated to the front and drawn in
a very boldly foreshortened attitude. Their physiognomy, in particular
the large prominent nose, is especially characteristic of Euphronios’
riper style, and in the treatment of the drapery we distinguish a great
advance even on his earlier vases. Not only is it executed with perfect
freedom and naturalness, but even different qualities of material are
indicated, _e.g._ by the use of fine crinkly lines. The Theseus kylix
in the Louvre, which Hartwig regards as the highest point of the R.F.
style, a study in idealism rather than naturalism, is also conspicuous
for its excellence in this respect.

The Troilos kylix in Perugia, which as far as can be ascertained is the
latest of Euphronios’ works, is interesting, apart from its artistic
treatment, as an instance of the current tendency to combine interior
and exterior scenes in one whole, representing distinct or successive
episodes of a single subject. On one side of the exterior, Achilles,
having emerged from his ambush, drags the unfortunate boy by his hair
to the altar at which the tragedy is to be consummated; his horses
betake themselves off with flying reins. Meanwhile, on the other side,
Troilos’ Trojan comrades, as on the François vase, hastily arm
themselves in order to come to his rescue. But the interior scene shows
us that their efforts are in vain; the boy, in whose countenance fear
and agony are admirably depicted, is about to fall a victim to the
sword of his relentless foe, who in a vigorous yet even graceful
attitude raises his arm to deal the death-blow. Of the vase as a whole
Murray says, “There is no mistaking in it the presence of all the best
and strongest qualities of Euphronios, though in a more subdued and
more poetic form. His draperies...are full of refinement and beauty.”

It remains to say a word on Euphronios in another aspect—as a painter
in polychrome on white ground. The Berlin cup No. 2282, sadly
fragmentary as it is, bears not only the signature of Euphronios, but
the καλός-name Glaukon, to which we have already referred. The method
of painting, to which we have referred on a subsequent page (p. 457),
was one just at its height in the middle of the fifth century. The two
heads, which are the best-preserved parts of the cup, are remarkable
for their breadth and largeness of style, and for their idealising
tendency, which recalls the coins of a slightly later period and such
works of sculpture as the ephebos-head from the Athenian Acropolis, to
say nothing of the sculptures of Olympia.

We must not, however, omit to notice here the views of some recent
writers, who are inclined to doubt whether the paintings on some of
these later vases are actually from Euphronios' hand.[1349] It is
certainly noteworthy that he has ceased to sign ἔγραψε; but to maintain
that the ἐποίησε, where no other painter’s name occurs, does not
include the painting of the vase, is to rest on somewhat negative
evidence, and would also lead to the refusal to recognise Chachrylion
and other noted artists as the painters of their signed vases. If,
however, this view is to be accepted, it would entail the attribution
of the scenes on the Troilos cup to _Onesimos_, who painted a cup of
similar style in the Louvre,[1350] of which Euphronios was the potter.
Hartwig thinks that the Berlin cup is not by Euphronios, but would
attribute to him a similar fragmentary cup in the British Museum (D 1).
The beautiful Aphrodite cup in the same collection (D 2) bears the
καλός-name of Glaukon, but in view of what has been said any attempt to
attribute it to Euphronios would be dangerous.[1351]

We now have to deal with a trio of his contemporaries, men of marked
individuality and capacity, who display the same instincts for
naturalism and freedom of style, though no one of them rises quite to
the height of Euphronios’ genius.

Of these =Duris= has left a total of twenty-three signed vases, of
which no less than twenty-one are kylikes, the other two being a
kantharos and a psykter. He signs almost consistently ἔγραψε, but
ἐποίησεν in addition on the kantharos; he employs three potters at
different times—Python (who worked for Epiktetos), Kleophrades (who
worked for Amasis II.), and Kalliades. Of καλός-names he uses no less
than five, the first two of which go together in his earlier
period—Chairestratos and Panaitios. The latter name, as we have seen,
was used by Euphronios. On the vases in his later manner the names of
Aristagoras, Hermogenes, and Hippodamas appear. He seems to have been
about ten years the junior of Euphronios, but to what extent he was
influenced by him is uncertain. Murray traces the influence of the
other in his later manner, when he forsakes his old love of figures in
repose for subjects entailing violent action. Hartwig, on the other
hand, attributes this change to the influence of Brygos; and in any
case, it is certain that he never attained to the vitality and freedom
of Euphronios.

His style is so marked that it is possible—apart from the evidence of
καλός-names—to attribute to him many vases not actually signed by him,
as may be gathered from the study of his work by Hartwig.[1352] In his
earlier vases he shows a strong preference for scenes from the
palaestra, and only two are mythological. According to Hartwig it is
these vases that show the closest parallelism with Euphronios, both in
choice of subject and in treatment. The later works show a great and
surprising falling off, and are frequently dull and comparatively
careless. They show, in fact, a change from the perfecting of
naturalism to mere mannerism, and this in spite of the change in
subjects from repose to violent action. It is probable that he fell
away from the influence of Euphronios to that of Hieron and Brygos,
lacking entirely, as he did, the genius of the older artist. On the
other hand, his choice of subjects becomes much more varied, many being
heroic or mythological, and among these scenes from the labours of
Theseus take the place of the older athletic types (cf. p. 418). He is
also fond of banquet-scenes at all times, and found in them scope for
bold foreshortening as applied to figures in repose.[1353]

The best-known vase by Duris is a kylix in Berlin (2285 = Plate
XXXIX.), on the exterior of which are painted scenes from a school. On
one side a boy receives instruction in the lyre, while another stands
before his teacher reading from a roll on which is inscribed the first
line of an epic poem: Μοῖσά μοι ἀμφὶ Σκάμανδρουν ἐύρρων ἄρχομαι ἀείδειν
(see Chapter XVII.). On the other side, the five figures on which
exactly balance those on the first, we have a lesson on the flute and
in drawing or writing; the seated figure in the middle holds a pen and
an open tablet. The fifth figure in each case is a bearded man, seated
on a stool watching the proceedings. In the field are suspended lyres,
writing-tables, and rolls of manuscript. There is also a beautiful cup
in the Louvre, the interior of which represents Eos with the body of
Memnon; the exterior, Homeric combats.[1354] Of the three examples of
his work in the British Museum, one is occupied with the labours of
Theseus (Frontispiece); another (E 49) shows his love of slim nude
figures, contrasted with careful and formal drapery. The peculiar shape
of the heads should be noticed; also the treatment of the eye, as a
circle with a dot in the centre. Like Epiktetos, a slave of precision,
he in nearly all these cases avoids violence of action, and seeks after
a quiet gracefulness. His peculiarly fine technical skill appears to
have been much appreciated in his day.[1355]

=Hieron= has signed twenty-eight vases, all being kylikes except three,
which are kotylae. His invariable formula is ἐποίησεν, and the
signature is generally incised on the handle of the vase. Hartwig is
inclined to attribute one or two cups with this signature to another
master, who had a preference for introducing bald-headed figures[1356];
and, in regard to others, there is fairly certain evidence that they
were not painted by him. For instance, a very fine kylix with the
carrying off of Helen bears the name of _Makron_ as painter,[1357] and
it is possible that others are actually painted by that artist, who in
any case must have been a partner of his. His work is regarded by
Hartwig as full of individuality and excellence. Hieron, on the other
hand, is inclined to the repetition of certain types, little
individualised. He seems to have been trained in the school of Oltos
rather than that of Euphronios,[1358] except that he learned from the
latter the use of foreshortening. His only καλός-name is that of
Hippodamas, also used by Duris.

His subjects comprise scenes from myth and legend, musical and
conversational groups, and Dionysiac scenes. He is fond of decorating
his exteriors with rows of men and women of a somewhat sentimental
type, smelling flowers, or in amorous converse. But he rises to higher
flights in the Berlin cup (2290), with Maenads sacrificing to Dionysos
Dendrites, and still more in the splendid kotyle in the British Museum
(E 140 = Plate LI.), with the gathering of the Eleusinian deities at
the sending forth of Triptolemos (see Chapter XII.).

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

PLATE XXXIX

[Illustration:

1, KYLIX BY DURIS (IN BERLIN): SCHOOL SCENE.
2, KYLIX IN STYLE OF BRYGOS (CORNETO): THESEUS DESERTING ARIADNE.
]

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

His figures exhibit a strongly marked type of head, large and simple,
perhaps developed from those of Duris. But it is in the treatment of
drapery that he chiefly excels, especially in the British Museum kotyle
and the Berlin cup. Particular mention should be made of the elaborate
garment worn by Demeter on the former, with its rich figured
embroideries (see Chapter XVI.); and the robes of Persephone, though
simpler in decoration, show an even greater richness of treatment in
the delicate lines of the chiton and the graceful fall of the mantle.
On a cup in Berlin with the Judgment of Paris (Fig. 129) he makes a
notable attempt at landscape, showing Paris seated on a rock,
surrounded by a flock of goats.

=Brygos= has only left eight cups, but they are on the whole of a high
order of merit. The Acropolis excavations yielded a fragment of his
work, showing that the beginning of his career must be placed before
480 B.C. But although he retains some archaisms from his early
training, he stands, as Murray has pointed out, on the threshold of the
fine style, and in some of his compositions there is a distinctly
pictorial tendency. His use of gilding (as on E 65 in B.M.) is also, as
with Euphronios in his polychrome cup, an evidence of advanced work. He
shows in his work more directness and actuality, as compared with the
stateliness and grace of Hieron and Makron, and the infusion of
earnestness and animation into his figures is a typical
characteristic.[1359] He pays more attention to his compositions than
to his single figures, but lacks the rhythm of Euphronios.

His subjects are very varied, and cover almost all the vase-painters'
ground except the palaestra. Hartwig on this account connects him with
the school of Oltos, Hieron, and Peithinos, who preferred erotic and
Dionysiac to athletic subjects, and points out that his use of bold
foreshortening effects need not connote the direct influence of
Euphronios, inasmuch as κατάγραφα were by this time the common property
of vase- painters. It is interesting to note that he uses no
καλός-name, and both he and Hieron seem to belong to a time when this
fashion was dying out; by the end of the “strong” period it had
practically disappeared.

To speak of his vases in detail, the British Museum cup has been
praised for the composition and drawing of its exterior designs and its
clever foreshortening. The exterior subject is interesting as being
derived from a Satyric drama. The difference of scale between the
figures of deities and those of the Satyrs reminds us (though there is
of course no question of influence) of the similar treatment of the
east frieze of the Parthenon. It has been suggested by several writers
that the name Brygos implies a Macedonian origin for this painter, and
on these grounds a kylix in the British Museum (E 68) has been
attributed to him which bears inscriptions in the Macedonian or some
kindred dialect—Pilon for Philon, Pilipos for Philippos (see Chapter
XVII.). This cup is interesting for the introduction of a new type,
that of the young dancing girl.[1360] The beautiful cup on Plate XXXIX.
(fig. 2) has also been referred to him. Among other interesting
subjects are the Triptolemos cup in Frankfurt, the cup with the
Judgment of Paris (which may be compared with that of Hieron), and the
Sack of Troy cup in the Louvre (Plate LIV.). This latter subject we
have already seen treated as a whole by Euphronios, though previously
it had only appeared in the form of isolated episodes; but the growing
tendency to pictorial treatment of such subjects is well illustrated by
the cup of Brygos and the later Vivenzio hydria in Naples.

=Peithinos= is a master who has been largely rediscovered by Hartwig.
Only one cup with his signature is known, a fine example in Berlin
(2279) with the Euphronian καλός-name Athenodotos, and the interior
subject of Peleus seizing Thetis, treated with great decorative effect.
Hartwig traces his style in eight more cups, chiefly with erotic and
banqueting subjects, and points out among the former an early instance
of sentimentality in vase-painting in the figure of a love-sick man. He
characterises his style as “over-ripe archaism,” with a slight
reversion to the mannerisms of Exekias, and great attention to detail
in general. He sees in Peithinos the first instance of the pictorial
tendency of which we have spoken, contrasting him with Euphronios and
other painters who were always in the first instance draughtsmen.

In the Berlin Museum there is a magnificent cup (2278)[1361] purporting
to be made by _Sosias_, a name which does not otherwise occur.[1362] In
the absence of indications of the painter, Hartwig and Furtwaengler are
inclined to think that the decoration may be the work of Peithinos; but
this can hardly amount to more than a matter of individual opinion. It
is one of the most sumptuously decorated cups of this period that we
possess, but the exterior is unfortunately greatly damaged. In the
interior Achilles is represented binding up the wounded arm of his
comrade Patroklos. The expressions of the figures and the remarkable
foreshortening of Patroklos’ right leg are indications of the admirable
skill of the painter, whoever he may have been. On the exterior is an
assemblage of gods and goddesses to receive Herakles on his entry into
Olympos, including seventeen figures in all, distinguished by
inscriptions.

In the later chapters of his great work Hartwig has disentangled the
styles of several masters of this period, though not in every case is
he able to give their names; but some vases can be grouped together by
means of καλός-names or by special peculiarities, such as the use of a
conventional foliage-ornament. They are, however, for the most part of
inferior merit to those of the painters hitherto discussed. Among the
painters’ names are those of Amasis II., Apollodoros, and Onesimos; the
latter has already been mentioned in connection with Euphronios.

Generally speaking, the chief characteristic of the cups of this period
is the tendency to treat the interior and exterior as representing
successive episodes of one theme,[1363] as in the Troilos cup of
Euphronios, or at least as having some connection, more or less
definite, as in the Theseus cup of the same master.

Both in exterior and interior designs the development of composition is
very strongly marked, and there is a notable tendency to enhance the
effect of interior scenes by rich decorative borders. Even in the work
of individual painters a great development is to be observed, showing
how rapid the growth of artistic power was at this time; and thus we
are able to distinguish in Euphronios and Duris an earlier and a later
manner. As Hartwig has said (p. 95), the period of progress associated
with the names of Euphronios and Brygos is characterised by an
individuality and freedom which were partly the cause and partly the
effect of a closer study of nature and an increased capacity for
rendering it.

Among other artists of the time, almost the only conspicuous name is
that of _Smikros_, the painter of two stamni, in the British Museum (E
438) and Brussels,[1364] and also most probably of a “Nolan” amphora in
the Louvre (G 107), which is inscribed [ΔΟΚΕΙ ΣΜΙΚΡΩΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ], “This is
evidently Smikros’ work.” He signs in both the former cases with
ἔγραψεν. He appears, says M. Gaspar, as a rival of Euphronios and
Duris, but fails in the attempt to equal their achievements in
vividness, originality, and faithful reproduction of the human figure.
The Brussels stamnos is interesting as representing inscribed persons
from ordinary life, just as Phintias (see p. 429) introduces on a vase
figures of the artists Tlenpolemos and Euthymides. Klein also
attributes to him a krater at Arezzo[1365] with the καλός-name
Pheidiades, which occurs on the signed vases. It is remarkable for the
treatment of the subject (Herakles and the Amazons) in the style of the
B.F. vases.

The next development of R.F. vase-painting, which presents all the
characteristics of the best period of Greek art and of the highest
point to which that art attained, is that called the =fine style=. In
this the influence of painting first really begins to manifest itself,
especially that of the Polygnotan school, which covers the years
470–440 B.C. It is shown alike in composition and in drawing, and to a
lesser degree in the colouring; but the general use of colours and
gilding on vases really belongs to the succeeding stage. As regards the
drawing, the figures have lost the hardness which at first
characterised them; the eyes are no longer represented obliquely, but
in profile; the extremities are finished with greater care, the chin
and nose are more rounded, and have lost the extreme elongation of the
earlier schools. The limbs are fuller and thicker, the faces noble, the
hair of the head and beard treated with greater breadth and mass, just
as subsequently the painter Zeuxis gave more flesh to his figures in
order to make them appear of greater breadth and grandeur, like Homer,
who represented even his women of larger proportions.[1366]

The great charm of these designs is the beauty of the composition, and
the more perfect proportion of the figures. The head is an oval,
three-quarters of which forms the distance from the chin to the ear;
the disproportionate length of limbs has entirely disappeared, and the
countenance assumes a natural form and expression. The folds of the
drapery, too, are freer, and the attitudes have lost their old
rigidity. It is the outgrowth of the life and freedom of an ideal
proportion, united with careful composition. Before the introduction of
the Polygnotan style of composition, the figures are generally large,
and arranged in groups of two or three on each side, occupying about
two-thirds of the height of the vase; but the pictorial influence is
more in the direction of smaller figures, grouped at different levels.
Figures in full face are now much less uncommon. In some of the larger
vases with figures on both sides, such as the kraters, the reverse side
is not finished with the same care as the obverse, being intended to
stand against a wall, or at least to be less prominently seen.

The career of Polygnotos extends from 478 B.C. to 447 B.C., as far as
can be gathered from the various works on which we know him to have
been engaged. In 478 he painted frescoes for the temple of Athena Areia
at Plataea, in 474 he decorated the Theseion and Anakeion at Athens, in
460 he worked with Mikon on the Stoa Poikile, and from 458 to 447 he
was engaged on his great paintings of the Ἰλίου Πέρσις and Νέκυια for
the Lesche at Delphi.[1367] As all these paintings are described more
or less in detail by Pausanias, their subjects form a valuable clue to
the investigation of his influence on the vases.

[Illustration:

FIG. 103. KRATER OF POLYGNOTAN STYLE IN LOUVRE:
THE SLAYING OF THE NIOBIDS.
]

At first, indeed, this is limited to single figures or motives[1368];
it is not until about 470 that his method of composition, with its
rough perspective and variety of level, finds its way on to the vases.
The oldest vase on which these new features appear is the krater from
Orvieto in the Louvre,[1369] which has usually been placed about 470,
though at first sight it appears to be later; but certain small details
of an archaic character point the other way. The main subject is a
group of Argonauts, which has been variously interpreted, but Robert
suggests that the scene represents their preparations for departure,
and is thus able to associate it with a painting by Mikon in the
Anakeion, on which that subject was employed. The various vases which
depict the story of Theseus’ visit to Amphitrite[1370] are referred
also by Robert to an original by Mikon in the Theseion (about 470
B.C.). The cup of Euphronios (p. 431) and the Girgenti krater represent
a stage of the subject contemporary with that painter; on the Bologna
krater we have a reduced version of his work; and on the Tricase vase
from Ruvo, which belongs to the school of Hermonax (see below) a
simpler form of the myth occurs, contemporary with the preceding.

The technique and colouring of Polygnotos’ works find their reflection
principally in the polychrome vases (see below, p. 455). On the
red-figured vases of this period we must look for his influence rather
in the arrangement and poses of the figures, the methods of indicating
locality, and the attempts at perspective. Professor Robert’s ingenious
reproductions of his paintings[1371] may be profitably compared with
such vases as the Orvieto krater, the Blacas krater in the British
Museum (E 466 = Plate LIII.), or the somewhat later hydria of Meidias
(see below). The principle adopted was that of arranging the figures,
not in even rows or in proper perspective, but at different levels,
those in the background being sometimes half hidden by rising ground.
It is a principle which we shall find even more fully developed in the
South Italy vases of the succeeding century; but it was at the time of
its appearance quite sudden and unexpected, contradicting at first
sight the decorative principles of vase-painting. Polygnotos was also
fond of indicating characteristics of his personages or allusions to
their history by means of subtle touches or actions. Thus Phaedra was
represented in a swing, Eriphyle with her hand on her neck (with
reference to the necklace), Theseus and Peirithoos in sitting postures,
and so on. This is quite in the manner of the fifth-century
vase-painter. Finally, the late F. Dümmler has pointed out that his
influence is possibly to be traced in another manner on certain vases,
viz. in the use of the dialect of Paros and Thasos for the inscriptions
instead of Attic forms.[1372] It should be borne in mind that he was a
native of Thasos, and would naturally have used his native dialect for
the inscriptions over his figures.

The following is a list of vases showing Polygnotan influence:

(1) In types and motives only (470–460 B.C.)[1373]:

B.M. E 170, 450, 469; Berlin 2403 = Reinach, i. 450; Naples 2421
= Reinach, ii. 278 and 3089 = Millingen- Reinach, 33;
Reinach, i. 184 (two vases), 218, 221; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, pl.
10, fig. 2; Millingen-Reinach, 49–50; Furtwaengler, _50^{tes}
Winckelmannsfestprogr._ pl. 2[1374]; Louvre A 256 =
_Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 11 (Dümmler).

(2) In method of composition (460–440 B.C.)[1375]:

B.M. E 224, E 466, E 492; Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217 and 2471 =
_Coll. Sabouroff_, i. 55; Naples R.C. 239 = Reinach, i. 482;
Jatta 1093, 1095, 1498 = Reinach, i. 175, 119, 111; Petersburg
1792, 1807 = Reinach, i. 1, 7; Reinach, i. 522, 5 (in Bologna);
_Ant. Denkm._ i. 36 (_ibid._); Reinach, i. 191; and reflecting
the style of Polygnotos or of Mikon: Reinach, i. 226–27 =
_J.H.S._ x. p. 118 (Louvre); Reinach, i. 232 = _J.H.S._ xviii. p.
277.

To these may perhaps be added:

Naples 2889 = Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. Inéd._ pls. 13–4; Athens 1921 =
Reinach, i. 511; Berlin 2326 (see _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 172).

In this stage, as has been noted, artists’ signatures are far more rare
than in either of the two preceding, and cup-painters in particular are
few and far between. The καλός-names, too, have almost entirely come to
an end. Of the cup-painters the only known names are those of Aeson,
Erginos and Aristophanes, Hegias, Hegesiboulos, Sotades, and Xenotimos,
and of these four (Aeson, Hegesiboulos, Hegias,[1376] and
Xenotimos[1377]) are only represented by single specimens. Two very
fine cups, made by _Erginos_ and painted by _Aristophanes_, are in the
museums of Berlin and Boston respectively,—the former decorated with
scenes from the Gigantomachia within and without (Fig. 112); the latter
has in the interior Herakles rescuing Deianeira from Nessos, on the
exterior a battle of Centaurs and Lapiths. An unsigned duplicate of
this vase was acquired by the Boston Museum at the same time.[1378] The
vase by _Aeson_ is decorated with scenes from the labours of
Theseus.[1379]

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

PLATE XL

[Illustration:

CUPS BY SOTADES.
1, IN BOSTON; 2, BRIT. MUS.: POLYEIDOS IN THE TOMB OF GLAUKOS.
]

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

_Sotades_ stands apart from his contemporaries as an artist of much
individuality, with a tendency to great refinement and delicacy in his
work. He has left one R.F. kantharos and some half-dozen vases of the
white-ground type, two with very interesting subjects (see also p.
457); all but the first were formerly in M. van Branteghem’s
collection, and these are now divided between the British and Boston
Museums. He is remarkable for his extremely delicate cups, with handles
in the form of a chicken’s merrythought, and he also made two phialae
with white interior and moulded exterior painted in rings of red,
white, and black; on the interior of one of these a cicala (τέττιξ) is
ingeniously modelled so as to appear resting there (Plate XL.).
_Hegesiboulos_, one of whose vases was also in the Van Branteghem
collection,[1380] seems to have been an artist of similar tendencies.

Of the rest, _Epigenes'_ name appears on a small kantharos in the
Bibliothèque Nationale, and those of _Megakles_ and _Maurion_ on
pyxides. Among the painters who exercised their skill on larger vases
the most noteworthy is _Polygnotos_, who has left an amphora and two
stamni. The similarity of his name to that of the great contemporary
painter has naturally led to conjectures as to a possible connection of
the two, which has been discussed by Professor Robert in publishing two
of the vases with his signature.[1381] His conclusion is that they
belong to the period 460–450 B.C., in which the influence of the
painter is beginning to make itself felt, but only in isolated figures
and motives, not, as in a class of which we shall presently speak, in
the composition of scenes. The earliest of the three is the stamnos in
Brussels, with the subject of Kaineus overwhelmed by the
Centaurs[1382]; next comes the stamnos with the combat of Herakles and
the Centaur Dexamenos[1383]; and lastly the British Museum
amphora,[1384] which retains an archaic form, but in its style and
drawing presents no traces of archaism.[1385] In the reverses of his
vases, with their tendency to meaningless and carelessly drawn figures,
we seem to trace the beginnings of the decadence. _Hermonax_, who
painted four stamni and a “pelike,” seems to be closely associated in
style with Polygnotos.[1386] Professor Robert would also attribute to a
pupil of Polygnotos three fine R.F. cups of about 445 B.C.—the Kodros
cup in Bologna (Chapter XIV.) and two in Berlin (2537–38), with the
subjects of the birth of Erichthonios, and Aegeus consulting the oracle
of Themis.

_Nikias_, of whom we have only one example, a bell-shaped krater in the
British Museum (formerly in the Tyszkiewicz collection),[1387] is
evidently, from the form of the vase and the style of the paintings, an
artist of the latest stage of R.F. vase-painting at Athens. He is,
however, remarkable in one respect, namely the form of his
signature,[1388] which gives not only his parentage but—a unique
instance among vase-painters—his deme:

Νικίας Ἐρμοκλέους Ἀναθλύσιος ἐποίησεν.

The subject of the vase is the torch-race, one often found on late
Athenian kraters, and seldom at an earlier date.

Lastly we have a hydria from the hand of _Meidias_, in the British
Museum, which originally formed part of the Hamilton collection (Plate
XLI.). Winckelmann estimated it above all other vases known to him, and
regarded it as illustrating the highest achievement of the Greeks in
the way of drawing. His criticism is hardly even now out of date, in
spite of the enormous number that now challenge comparison with it, as
far as concerns the beauty and richness of the drawing and of the
composition. The artist, says Furtwaengler, “revels in a sea of beauty
and grace; youth and charm are idealised in his work.” In point of
style it belongs to the epoch of the Peloponnesian War, about 430–420
B.C., but so admirable is the work that it can hardly be placed so low
as the contemporary vases of “late fine” style, with their patent
evidences of decadence. Meidias may therefore fairly be included with
the foregoing.[1389]

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

PLATE XLI

[Illustration: HYDRIA BY MEIDIAS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

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

The subjects represented are arranged in two friezes all round the
vase, the upper containing the rape of the Leukippidae by the
Dioskuri—a subject which had been chosen by Polygnotos for his painting
in the Anakeion.[1390] Not only this, but all the vases with the same
subject are doubtless largely indebted to the painting for their ideas,
especially in the system of composition with figures at different
levels.[1391] On the lower row the front view shows Herakles in the
garden of the Hesperides, and at the back is a group of Athenian tribal
heroes.[1392] All the figures have their names inscribed; these,
together with the artist’s signature, were only first noticed by
Gerhard in 1839. Among the details of treatment are to be noted the
exquisitely fine lines for the folds of drapery, and the elaborate
chequers and other patterns representing embroidery, the occasional use
of gilding, the attempts to impart expression to faces by means of
wrinkles, and the characteristic rendering of the hair with wavy dark
lines of thinned black on a brown wash.

The last artist of Athenian origin who remains to be mentioned is
_Xenophantos_, a contemporary of Meidias, whose name appears on a vase
found at Kertch and now in the Hermitage at Petersburg.[1393] Here he
expressly calls himself an Athenian, and it has therefore been supposed
that the vase was made on the spot, otherwise it would not be obvious
why he should proclaim his nationality (see below, p. 464). The chief
feature of the vase—a lekythos of the “bellied” type so common at this
stage—is the use of figures moulded in relief and applied to the
surface, in conjunction with gilding and a lavish use of white colour.
The subject is the Persian king hunting.

The vases of the =late fine= style, into which the “fine” style merges
about the year 430 B.C., may be divided into two classes,—that of the
larger vases, chiefly kraters, in which the pictorial traditions of the
Polygnotan vases are carried on and developed, and the influence of
contemporary art makes itself felt; and that of the smaller types, such
as the pyxis and the wide-bellied lekythos, in which new features and
new subjects are introduced (cf. Plate XLII.).

The former class is chiefly made up of the vases found in Southern
Italy, in the Crimea, the Cyrenaica, and the Greek islands, which are
apparently of Athenian, not local, fabric; but they are comparatively
rare at Athens and in Greece Proper, where the smaller vases have been
found in considerable numbers. It may be found convenient to deal first
with the latter, as more typically Athenian, while the larger vases
serve as a connecting-link with the succeeding fabrics dealt with in
the next section.

In these vases linear drawing reaches its limits in respect of perfect
freedom and refinement of detail; but it is at a severe cost. The
artist seems to have lost interest in his subject when it no longer
required an effort to execute it, and is content to decorate his vase
with a few stock figures in conventional attitudes, uncharacterised by
action or attribute. Frequent faults of design may be observed, such as
coarseness of drawing or negligence in the laying on of the black
varnish. The artist works by routine, and appears to be nonchalant and
bored. Mythological scenes become exceedingly rare, and are confined to
Dionysos or Aphrodite with their attendant personifications, and the
compositions are fanciful or decorative in character, without any
suggestion of particular events or actions. The all-pervading presence
of Eros is another feature which is new to vase-painting, but
henceforward his position is established. An even greater novelty is
the preponderance

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

PLATE XLII

[Illustration:

VASE OF “LATE FINE” STYLE.
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]

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

of subjects connected with the daily life of women or children—the
toilet, the occupations of every-day life, or nuptial ceremonies; and a
whole series of small jugs, themselves in all probability toys, depicts
the various games in which the Athenian child delighted—the hoop, the
go-cart, and the ball, or his pet animals (cf. Plate XLII.).

The shapes most popular in this group are, as we have indicated, the
oinochoë, the wide-bellied lekythos, and the pyxis (Plate XLII.).
Milchhoefer, in a most important article,[1394] regards the lekythi
as more instructive than any other group for illustrating the later
developments of R.F. vase-painting. Beginning with early examples of
the fine style,[1395] they extend to the very end without any gaps,
the tradition being further continued in Apulia. They exhibit a
development from simple to rich compositions, from “strong” style to
perfect freedom. In the latest examples, such as that by Xenophantos,
we see the straining after novelty which marks the decadence, in the
introduction of figures in relief applied to the surface of the vase,
as well as in the increase of polychromy and gilding. Among the finer
vases we may note a hydria at Karlsruhe (259) with the Judgment of
Paris, in which may be traced the hand of Meidias; the lekythos in
the British Museum from Cyprus (E 696), with Oedipus slaying the
Sphinx, in which the figure of Athena with its white coating is
clearly reminiscent of the gold-and-ivory Parthenos statue; and two
pretty lekythi from Apollonia, in Thrace, with the subject of
incense-gathering. There are also two pyxides in the British Museum
(E 773–4), on which are groups of women, with fancy names added to
give interest to the scene: thus Klytaemnestra, Danae, and Iphigeneia
occur all together, and the Nereids are engaged in the every-day
occupations of the women’s apartments.

From a technical point of view, the principal change is in the
increased use of gilding and polychrome colouring. The former, employed
exceptionally by Euphronios and Brygos, now becomes the rule, and
concurrently the use of white for flesh-tints, as in the figure of
Athena just mentioned, and of red, green, and blue for draperies,
becomes more and more general. The gilding was applied for small
details, such as wreaths, and for the hair; and the places where it was
to be applied were marked by low relief. It was fixed in the form of
gold-leaf by means of a yellowish gum. Jahn, who some years ago
collected the list of vases with gilding,[1396] reckoned fifty-one
known to him, chiefly from Kertch; and Heydemann and Collignon[1397]
have since added several to the list, chiefly from collections at
Athens. They have been found not only in Athens and Kertch, but at
Corinth, Megara, Hermione, Thebes, and in Acarnania and Thrace.

In the larger vases of this period the pictorial method of the
preceding phase is, as might have been expected, greatly developed.
Among the vases of undoubted Attic origin we have, first of all, the
Meidias hydria and its companion vase, the Karlsruhe hydria with the
Judgment of Paris[1398]; and, secondly, the great Gigantomachia vase
from Melos in the Louvre, which contains no less than forty-seven
figures.[1399] Another fine instance is the polychrome Kameiros vase in
the British Museum with the subject of Peleus and Thetis. Robert[1400]
sees in the two latter a possible influence of Parrhasios, who is known
to have paid great attention to drawing, and, in reference to the
Kameiros vase, draws attention to the plastic silhouette effect of the
figures. Parrhasios’ art consisted in giving this effect by his linear
drawing.[1401] The influence of Zeuxis is less apparent, though from
his earlier date it might more naturally have been expected.[1402]

It is, however, still more instructive to trace in this group the
influence of the Parthenon sculptures, which, where it can be observed,
enables us to date the vases approximately as at any rate not earlier
than 438 B.C. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that sculptor
and painter may often have gone back to the same original type. This
explains the appearance of apparently Pheidian motives on vases of an
earlier style—such as riding youths, water-carriers, etc.—or the
similarity of composition on one of the Parthenon metopes and a vase of
undoubtedly earlier date.[1403] But in one or two instances there can
be no doubt of such influence, most notably in the Athena and Poseidon
vase from Kertch (see below, p. 464). It cannot be without significance
here that the two figures are actually in relief on the vase, and the
parallelism with the pediment (so far as we know the design) is so
close that a copy of it was manifestly the vase-artist’s intention.
Mention has already been made of a figure of the Parthenos on a vase of
this period, and another instance, though not on a painted vase, may be
noted in the polychrome bust of the goddess in terracotta from Athens,
now in the British Museum.[1404] Some instances of this type on vases
may be earlier than the statue; it was not created by Pheidias.[1405]

* * * * *

It has already been mentioned that there is one exception to the
Athenian monopoly of vase-making in the fifth century, and this is in
the local fabrics of Boeotia. Of the Kabeirion vases, which, though in
the B.F. technique, belong to this period, we have already spoken.
There remains a small class—only five examples are at present
known—which appears to have been made at Tanagra. All five evidently
came from the same workshop, and in three cases the provenance is
certainly known. Two are in the British Museum (E 813–4), and three in
the Museum at Athens.[1406] With the exception of E 814 in the British
Museum, which is a pyxis, all are small two-handled cups, with low
feet. The designs are outlined on a background of yellow clay in a
black-brown pigment, the lines being coarsely drawn. Inner details are
indicated by means of thinned-out pigment. That they are of Boeotian
origin is further shown by the ornamentation: the pyxis has round the
sides rows of vertical wavy lines, such as are often seen on the
Boeotian geometrical fabrics (p. 288), and also an ivy-leaf which
recalls the Kabeirion ware. The ornamentation of the hangings round the
chair on Athens 1120 exactly resembles the patterns indicating the
drapery on some of the early Boeotian terracottas.[1407] The subjects,
on the other hand, seem to suggest Athenian prototypes: in the designs
much archaism is to be observed—such as defects in perspective, the
rendering of the eyelashes, and the drawing of the feet in profile, but
with toes in front. Numerous small details point to a date late in the
fifth century, which, in view of the conservative tendencies of
Boeotia, is not unlikely.

[Illustration: FIG. 104. BOEOTIAN KYLIX (BRITISH MUSEUM): GIRL PLAYING
KOTTABOS(?).]

The subjects are of some interest, and include two figures of Herakles,
one bearded, the other youthful; a girl playing kottabos (Fig. 104);
and a cultus-image of an enthroned Chthonian goddess (Demeter or
Persephone), holding a torch, ears of corn, and poppies. These vases
have been collected and fully discussed in an interesting article by
Dr. S. Wide.[1408]

-----

Footnote 1269:

Klein, _Euphronios,^2_ p. 31 ff.

Footnote 1270:

See _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112.

Footnote 1271:

See Norton in _Amer. Journ. of Arch._ 1896, p. 37.

Footnote 1272:

Furtwaengler, in _Berl. Phil. Woch._ 1894, p. 112, in repudiating the
idea that the new style was first introduced in the kylikes, seems to
have misunderstood Hartwig’s arguments.

Footnote 1273:

_Jahrbuch_, ii. (1887), p. 159 ff. The alternative view is upheld by
Klein, _Lieblingsinschr.^2_ p. 26 ff., and he is followed by Murray,
_Designs on Gk. Vases_, p. 6. Klein compares Epictetan vases with the
work of Mikon, and also bases his argument on the story of Kimon and
the bones of Theseus (see p. 418).

Footnote 1274:

_Inscr. Gr._ i. (_Atticae_), Suppl. pp. 79, 154; _Jahrbuch_, _loc.
cit._ p. 144.

Footnote 1275:

Chapter XVII. See also especially Klein, _Lieblingsinschriften_ (2nd
edn. 1898); Hartwig, _Meisterschalen_; Wernicke, _Lieblingsnamen_;
and _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 24.

Footnote 1276:

On the identity of these names in particular, see Klein,
_Lieblingsinschr_.^2 p. 27 ff.; Murray, _Designs_, p. 6; _J.H.S._
xii. p. 380.

Footnote 1277:

Hartwig (p. 11) points out that vase-painters also bear well-known
names, such as Hieron, Andokides, Aristophanes.

Footnote 1278:

The name of Leagros also occurs on late B.F. hydriae, _e.g._ B 325 in
B.M. It is used by four R.F. painters in all.

Footnote 1279:

_E.g._ _Branteghem Cat._ 57.

Footnote 1280:

See Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 3, and _id._ in _Mélanges d’Arch._
1894, p. 10. He also cites a vase in Berlin (1906) which bears the
name Stesileos καλός. This may refer to the S. who fell at Marathon.

Footnote 1281:

On the instrument employed, see above, p. 227.

Footnote 1282:

C. Smith in _B.M. Cat. of Vases_, iii. p. 1.

Footnote 1283: