Chapter VII: Rise of Vase-Painting in Greece (2)

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

“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_

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.