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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.