As typical of his later manner (about 480–460 B.C.) we may take the British Museum kylix and that in the museum at Perugia. They bear respectively the καλός-names Panaitios and Lykos, while the contemporary Berlin cup (2282) has the name of Glaukon. These clearly form a new group, distinct from the Leagros series, and, if the historical identification of Glaukon (see p. 404 above, and Chapter XVII.) is correct, enable us to place them about 470–460 B.C. The interior group of the British Museum cup shows us two figures, a woman standing by the side of a man, who is seated to the front and drawn in a very boldly foreshortened attitude. Their physiognomy, in particular the large prominent nose, is especially characteristic of Euphronios’ riper style, and in the treatment of the drapery we distinguish a great advance even on his earlier vases. Not only is it executed with perfect freedom and naturalness, but even different qualities of material are indicated, e.g. by the use of fine crinkly lines. The Theseus kylix in the Louvre, which Hartwig regards as the highest point of the R.F. style, a study in idealism rather than naturalism, is also conspicuous for its excellence in this respect.

The Troilos kylix in Perugia, which as far as can be ascertained is the latest of Euphronios’ works, is interesting, apart from its artistic treatment, as an instance of the current tendency to combine interior and exterior scenes in one whole, representing distinct or successive episodes of a single subject. On one side of the exterior, Achilles, having emerged from his ambush, drags the unfortunate boy by his hair to the altar at which the tragedy is to be consummated; his horses betake themselves off with flying reins. Meanwhile, on the other side, Troilos’ Trojan comrades, as on the François vase, hastily arm themselves in order to come to his rescue. But the interior scene shows us that their efforts are in vain; the boy, in whose countenance fear and agony are admirably depicted, is about to fall a victim to the sword of his relentless foe, who in a vigorous yet even graceful attitude raises his arm to deal the death-blow. Of the vase as a whole Murray says, “There is no mistaking in it the presence of all the best and strongest qualities of Euphronios, though in a more subdued and more poetic form. His draperies...are full of refinement and beauty.”

It remains to say a word on Euphronios in another aspect—as a painter in polychrome on white ground. The Berlin cup No. 2282, sadly fragmentary as it is, bears not only the signature of Euphronios, but the καλός-name Glaukon, to which we have already referred. The method of painting, to which we have referred on a subsequent page (p. 457), was one just at its height in the middle of the fifth century. The two heads, which are the best-preserved parts of the cup, are remarkable for their breadth and largeness of style, and for their idealising tendency, which recalls the coins of a slightly later period and such works of sculpture as the ephebos-head from the Athenian Acropolis, to say nothing of the sculptures of Olympia.

We must not, however, omit to notice here the views of some recent writers, who are inclined to doubt whether the paintings on some of these later vases are actually from Euphronios' hand.^[1349] It is certainly noteworthy that he has ceased to sign ἔγραψε; but to maintain that the ἐποίησε, where no other painter’s name occurs, does not include the painting of the vase, is to rest on somewhat negative evidence, and would also lead to the refusal to recognise Chachrylion and other noted artists as the painters of their signed vases. If, however, this view is to be accepted, it would entail the attribution of the scenes on the Troilos cup to Onesimos, who painted a cup of similar style in the Louvre,^[1350] of which Euphronios was the potter. Hartwig thinks that the Berlin cup is not by Euphronios, but would attribute to him a similar fragmentary cup in the British Museum (D 1). The beautiful Aphrodite cup in the same collection (D 2) bears the καλός-name of Glaukon, but in view of what has been said any attempt to attribute it to Euphronios would be dangerous.^[1351]

We now have to deal with a trio of his contemporaries, men of marked individuality and capacity, who display the same instincts for naturalism and freedom of style, though no one of them rises quite to the height of Euphronios’ genius.

Of these Duris has left a total of twenty-three signed vases, of which no less than twenty-one are kylikes, the other two being a kantharos and a psykter. He signs almost consistently ἔγραψε, but ἐποίησεν in addition on the kantharos; he employs three potters at different times—Python (who worked for Epiktetos), Kleophrades (who worked for Amasis II.), and Kalliades. Of καλός-names he uses no less than five, the first two of which go together in his earlier period—Chairestratos and Panaitios. The latter name, as we have seen, was used by Euphronios. On the vases in his later manner the names of Aristagoras, Hermogenes, and Hippodamas appear. He seems to have been about ten years the junior of Euphronios, but to what extent he was influenced by him is uncertain. Murray traces the influence of the other in his later manner, when he forsakes his old love of figures in repose for subjects entailing violent action. Hartwig, on the other hand, attributes this change to the influence of Brygos; and in any case, it is certain that he never attained to the vitality and freedom of Euphronios.

His style is so marked that it is possible—apart from the evidence of καλός-names—to attribute to him many vases not actually signed by him, as may be gathered from the study of his work by Hartwig.^[1352] In his earlier vases he shows a strong preference for scenes from the palaestra, and only two are mythological. According to Hartwig it is these vases that show the closest parallelism with Euphronios, both in choice of subject and in treatment. The later works show a great and surprising falling off, and are frequently dull and comparatively careless. They show, in fact, a change from the perfecting of naturalism to mere mannerism, and this in spite of the change in subjects from repose to violent action. It is probable that he fell away from the influence of Euphronios to that of Hieron and Brygos, lacking entirely, as he did, the genius of the older artist. On the other hand, his choice of subjects becomes much more varied, many being heroic or mythological, and among these scenes from the labours of Theseus take the place of the older athletic types (cf. p. 418). He is also fond of banquet-scenes at all times, and found in them scope for bold foreshortening as applied to figures in repose.^[1353]

The best-known vase by Duris is a kylix in Berlin (2285 = Plate XXXIX.), on the exterior of which are painted scenes from a school. On one side a boy receives instruction in the lyre, while another stands before his teacher reading from a roll on which is inscribed the first line of an epic poem: Μοῖσά μοι ἀμφὶ Σκάμανδρουν ἐύρρων ἄρχομαι ἀείδειν (see Chapter XVII.). On the other side, the five figures on which exactly balance those on the first, we have a lesson on the flute and in drawing or writing; the seated figure in the middle holds a pen and an open tablet. The fifth figure in each case is a bearded man, seated on a stool watching the proceedings. In the field are suspended lyres, writing-tables, and rolls of manuscript. There is also a beautiful cup in the Louvre, the interior of which represents Eos with the body of Memnon; the exterior, Homeric combats.^[1354] Of the three examples of his work in the British Museum, one is occupied with the labours of Theseus (Frontispiece); another (E 49) shows his love of slim nude figures, contrasted with careful and formal drapery. The peculiar shape of the heads should be noticed; also the treatment of the eye, as a circle with a dot in the centre. Like Epiktetos, a slave of precision, he in nearly all these cases avoids violence of action, and seeks after a quiet gracefulness. His peculiarly fine technical skill appears to have been much appreciated in his day.^[1355]

Hieron has signed twenty-eight vases, all being kylikes except three, which are kotylae. His invariable formula is ἐποίησεν, and the signature is generally incised on the handle of the vase. Hartwig is inclined to attribute one or two cups with this signature to another master, who had a preference for introducing bald-headed figures^[1356]; and, in regard to others, there is fairly certain evidence that they were not painted by him. For instance, a very fine kylix with the carrying off of Helen bears the name of Makron as painter,^[1357] and it is possible that others are actually painted by that artist, who in any case must have been a partner of his. His work is regarded by Hartwig as full of individuality and excellence. Hieron, on the other hand, is inclined to the repetition of certain types, little individualised. He seems to have been trained in the school of Oltos rather than that of Euphronios,^[1358] except that he learned from the latter the use of foreshortening. His only καλός-name is that of Hippodamas, also used by Duris.

His subjects comprise scenes from myth and legend, musical and conversational groups, and Dionysiac scenes. He is fond of decorating his exteriors with rows of men and women of a somewhat sentimental type, smelling flowers, or in amorous converse. But he rises to higher flights in the Berlin cup (2290), with Maenads sacrificing to Dionysos Dendrites, and still more in the splendid kotyle in the British Museum (E 140 = Plate LI.), with the gathering of the Eleusinian deities at the sending forth of Triptolemos (see Chapter XII.).

His figures exhibit a strongly marked type of head, large and simple, perhaps developed from those of Duris. But it is in the treatment of drapery that he chiefly excels, especially in the British Museum kotyle and the Berlin cup. Particular mention should be made of the elaborate garment worn by Demeter on the former, with its rich figured embroideries (see Chapter XVI.); and the robes of Persephone, though simpler in decoration, show an even greater richness of treatment in the delicate lines of the chiton and the graceful fall of the mantle. On a cup in Berlin with the Judgment of Paris (Fig. 129) he makes a notable attempt at landscape, showing Paris seated on a rock, surrounded by a flock of goats.

Brygos has only left eight cups, but they are on the whole of a high order of merit. The Acropolis excavations yielded a fragment of his work, showing that the beginning of his career must be placed before 480 B.C. But although he retains some archaisms from his early training, he stands, as Murray has pointed out, on the threshold of the fine style, and in some of his compositions there is a distinctly pictorial tendency. His use of gilding (as on E 65 in B.M.) is also, as with Euphronios in his polychrome cup, an evidence of advanced work. He shows in his work more directness and actuality, as compared with the stateliness and grace of Hieron and Makron, and the infusion of earnestness and animation into his figures is a typical characteristic.^[1359] He pays more attention to his compositions than to his single figures, but lacks the rhythm of Euphronios.

His subjects are very varied, and cover almost all the vase-painters' ground except the palaestra. Hartwig on this account connects him with the school of Oltos, Hieron, and Peithinos, who preferred erotic and Dionysiac to athletic subjects, and points out that his use of bold foreshortening effects need not connote the direct influence of Euphronios, inasmuch as κατάγραφα were by this time the common property of vase- painters. It is interesting to note that he uses no καλός-name, and both he and Hieron seem to belong to a time when this fashion was dying out; by the end of the “strong” period it had practically disappeared.

To speak of his vases in detail, the British Museum cup has been praised for the composition and drawing of its exterior designs and its clever foreshortening. The exterior subject is interesting as being derived from a Satyric drama. The difference of scale between the figures of deities and those of the Satyrs reminds us (though there is of course no question of influence) of the similar treatment of the east frieze of the Parthenon. It has been suggested by several writers that the name Brygos implies a Macedonian origin for this painter, and on these grounds a kylix in the British Museum (E 68) has been attributed to him which bears inscriptions in the Macedonian or some kindred dialect—Pilon for Philon, Pilipos for Philippos (see Chapter XVII.). This cup is interesting for the introduction of a new type, that of the young dancing girl.^[1360] The beautiful cup on Plate XXXIX. (fig. 2) has also been referred to him. Among other interesting subjects are the Triptolemos cup in Frankfurt, the cup with the Judgment of Paris (which may be compared with that of Hieron), and the Sack of Troy cup in the Louvre (Plate LIV.). This latter subject we have already seen treated as a whole by Euphronios, though previously it had only appeared in the form of isolated episodes; but the growing tendency to pictorial treatment of such subjects is well illustrated by the cup of Brygos and the later Vivenzio hydria in Naples.

Peithinos is a master who has been largely rediscovered by Hartwig. Only one cup with his signature is known, a fine example in Berlin (2279) with the Euphronian καλός-name Athenodotos, and the interior subject of Peleus seizing Thetis, treated with great decorative effect. Hartwig traces his style in eight more cups, chiefly with erotic and banqueting subjects, and points out among the former an early instance of sentimentality in vase-painting in the figure of a love-sick man. He characterises his style as “over-ripe archaism,” with a slight reversion to the mannerisms of Exekias, and great attention to detail in general. He sees in Peithinos the first instance of the pictorial tendency of which we have spoken, contrasting him with Euphronios and other painters who were always in the first instance draughtsmen.

In the Berlin Museum there is a magnificent cup (2278)^[1361] purporting to be made by Sosias, a name which does not otherwise occur.^[1362] In the absence of indications of the painter, Hartwig and Furtwaengler are inclined to think that the decoration may be the work of Peithinos; but this can hardly amount to more than a matter of individual opinion. It is one of the most sumptuously decorated cups of this period that we possess, but the exterior is unfortunately greatly damaged. In the interior Achilles is represented binding up the wounded arm of his comrade Patroklos. The expressions of the figures and the remarkable foreshortening of Patroklos’ right leg are indications of the admirable skill of the painter, whoever he may have been. On the exterior is an assemblage of gods and goddesses to receive Herakles on his entry into Olympos, including seventeen figures in all, distinguished by inscriptions.

In the later chapters of his great work Hartwig has disentangled the styles of several masters of this period, though not in every case is he able to give their names; but some vases can be grouped together by means of καλός-names or by special peculiarities, such as the use of a conventional foliage-ornament. They are, however, for the most part of inferior merit to those of the painters hitherto discussed. Among the painters’ names are those of Amasis II., Apollodoros, and Onesimos; the latter has already been mentioned in connection with Euphronios.

Generally speaking, the chief characteristic of the cups of this period is the tendency to treat the interior and exterior as representing successive episodes of one theme,^[1363] as in the Troilos cup of Euphronios, or at least as having some connection, more or less definite, as in the Theseus cup of the same master.

Both in exterior and interior designs the development of composition is very strongly marked, and there is a notable tendency to enhance the effect of interior scenes by rich decorative borders. Even in the work of individual painters a great development is to be observed, showing how rapid the growth of artistic power was at this time; and thus we are able to distinguish in Euphronios and Duris an earlier and a later manner. As Hartwig has said (p. 95), the period of progress associated with the names of Euphronios and Brygos is characterised by an individuality and freedom which were partly the cause and partly the effect of a closer study of nature and an increased capacity for rendering it.

Among other artists of the time, almost the only conspicuous name is that of Smikros, the painter of two stamni, in the British Museum (E 438) and Brussels,^[1364] and also most probably of a “Nolan” amphora in the Louvre (G 107), which is inscribed ΔΟΚΕΙ ΣΜΙΚΡΩΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ, “This is evidently Smikros’ work.” He signs in both the former cases with ἔγραψεν. He appears, says M. Gaspar, as a rival of Euphronios and Duris, but fails in the attempt to equal their achievements in vividness, originality, and faithful reproduction of the human figure. The Brussels stamnos is interesting as representing inscribed persons from ordinary life, just as Phintias (see p. 429) introduces on a vase figures of the artists Tlenpolemos and Euthymides. Klein also attributes to him a krater at Arezzo^[1365] with the καλός-name Pheidiades, which occurs on the signed vases. It is remarkable for the treatment of the subject (Herakles and the Amazons) in the style of the B.F. vases.

The next development of R.F. vase-painting, which presents all the characteristics of the best period of Greek art and of the highest point to which that art attained, is that called the fine style. In this the influence of painting first really begins to manifest itself, especially that of the Polygnotan school, which covers the years 470–440 B.C. It is shown alike in composition and in drawing, and to a lesser degree in the colouring; but the general use of colours and gilding on vases really belongs to the succeeding stage. As regards the drawing, the figures have lost the hardness which at first characterised them; the eyes are no longer represented obliquely, but in profile; the extremities are finished with greater care, the chin and nose are more rounded, and have lost the extreme elongation of the earlier schools. The limbs are fuller and thicker, the faces noble, the hair of the head and beard treated with greater breadth and mass, just as subsequently the painter Zeuxis gave more flesh to his figures in order to make them appear of greater breadth and grandeur, like Homer, who represented even his women of larger proportions.^[1366]

The great charm of these designs is the beauty of the composition, and the more perfect proportion of the figures. The head is an oval, three-quarters of which forms the distance from the chin to the ear; the disproportionate length of limbs has entirely disappeared, and the countenance assumes a natural form and expression. The folds of the drapery, too, are freer, and the attitudes have lost their old rigidity. It is the outgrowth of the life and freedom of an ideal proportion, united with careful composition. Before the introduction of the Polygnotan style of composition, the figures are generally large, and arranged in groups of two or three on each side, occupying about two-thirds of the height of the vase; but the pictorial influence is more in the direction of smaller figures, grouped at different levels. Figures in full face are now much less uncommon. In some of the larger vases with figures on both sides, such as the kraters, the reverse side is not finished with the same care as the obverse, being intended to stand against a wall, or at least to be less prominently seen.

The career of Polygnotos extends from 478 B.C. to 447 B.C., as far as can be gathered from the various works on which we know him to have been engaged. In 478 he painted frescoes for the temple of Athena Areia at Plataea, in 474 he decorated the Theseion and Anakeion at Athens, in 460 he worked with Mikon on the Stoa Poikile, and from 458 to 447 he was engaged on his great paintings of the Ἰλίου Πέρσις and Νέκυια for the Lesche at Delphi.^[1367] As all these paintings are described more or less in detail by Pausanias, their subjects form a valuable clue to the investigation of his influence on the vases.

At first, indeed, this is limited to single figures or motives^[1368]; it is not until about 470 that his method of composition, with its rough perspective and variety of level, finds its way on to the vases. The oldest vase on which these new features appear is the krater from Orvieto in the Louvre,^[1369] which has usually been placed about 470, though at first sight it appears to be later; but certain small details of an archaic character point the other way. The main subject is a group of Argonauts, which has been variously interpreted, but Robert suggests that the scene represents their preparations for departure, and is thus able to associate it with a painting by Mikon in the Anakeion, on which that subject was employed. The various vases which depict the story of Theseus’ visit to Amphitrite^[1370] are referred also by Robert to an original by Mikon in the Theseion (about 470 B.C.). The cup of Euphronios (p. 431) and the Girgenti krater represent a stage of the subject contemporary with that painter; on the Bologna krater we have a reduced version of his work; and on the Tricase vase from Ruvo, which belongs to the school of Hermonax (see below) a simpler form of the myth occurs, contemporary with the preceding.

The technique and colouring of Polygnotos’ works find their reflection principally in the polychrome vases (see below, p. 455). On the red-figured vases of this period we must look for his influence rather in the arrangement and poses of the figures, the methods of indicating locality, and the attempts at perspective. Professor Robert’s ingenious reproductions of his paintings^[1371] may be profitably compared with such vases as the Orvieto krater, the Blacas krater in the British Museum (E 466 = Plate LIII.), or the somewhat later hydria of Meidias (see below). The principle adopted was that of arranging the figures, not in even rows or in proper perspective, but at different levels, those in the background being sometimes half hidden by rising ground. It is a principle which we shall find even more fully developed in the South Italy vases of the succeeding century; but it was at the time of its appearance quite sudden and unexpected, contradicting at first sight the decorative principles of vase-painting. Polygnotos was also fond of indicating characteristics of his personages or allusions to their history by means of subtle touches or actions. Thus Phaedra was represented in a swing, Eriphyle with her hand on her neck (with reference to the necklace), Theseus and Peirithoos in sitting postures, and so on. This is quite in the manner of the fifth-century vase-painter. Finally, the late F. Dümmler has pointed out that his influence is possibly to be traced in another manner on certain vases, viz. in the use of the dialect of Paros and Thasos for the inscriptions instead of Attic forms.^[1372] It should be borne in mind that he was a native of Thasos, and would naturally have used his native dialect for the inscriptions over his figures.

The following is a list of vases showing Polygnotan influence:

(1) In types and motives only (470–460 B.C.)^[1373]:

B.M. E 170, 450, 469; Berlin 2403 = Reinach, i. 450; Naples 2421 = Reinach, ii. 278 and 3089 = Millingen- Reinach, 33; Reinach, i. 184 (two vases), 218, 221; Jahrbuch, 1886, pl. 10, fig. 2; Millingen-Reinach, 49–50; Furtwaengler, 50^tes Winckelmannsfestprogr. pl. 2^[1374]; Louvre A 256 = Jahrbuch, 1887, pl. 11 (Dümmler).

(2) In method of composition (460–440 B.C.)^[1375]:

B.M. E 224, E 466, E 492; Berlin 2588 = Reinach, i. 217 and 2471 = Coll. Sabouroff, i. 55; Naples R.C. 239 = Reinach, i. 482; Jatta 1093, 1095, 1498 = Reinach, i. 175, 119, 111; Petersburg 1792, 1807 = Reinach, i. 1, 7; Reinach, i. 522, 5 (in Bologna); Ant. Denkm. i. 36 (ibid.); Reinach, i. 191; and reflecting the style of Polygnotos or of Mikon: Reinach, i. 226–27 = J.H.S. x. p. 118 (Louvre); Reinach, i. 232 = J.H.S. xviii. p. 277.

To these may perhaps be added:

Naples 2889 = Raoul-Rochette, Mon. Inéd. pls. 13–4; Athens 1921 = Reinach, i. 511; Berlin 2326 (see Jahrbuch, 1887, p. 172).

In this stage, as has been noted, artists’ signatures are far more rare than in either of the two preceding, and cup-painters in particular are few and far between. The καλός-names, too, have almost entirely come to an end. Of the cup-painters the only known names are those of Aeson, Erginos and Aristophanes, Hegias, Hegesiboulos, Sotades, and Xenotimos, and of these four (Aeson, Hegesiboulos, Hegias,^[1376] and Xenotimos^[1377]) are only represented by single specimens. Two very fine cups, made by Erginos and painted by Aristophanes, are in the museums of Berlin and Boston respectively,—the former decorated with scenes from the Gigantomachia within and without (Fig. 112); the latter has in the interior Herakles rescuing Deianeira from Nessos, on the exterior a battle of Centaurs and Lapiths. An unsigned duplicate of this vase was acquired by the Boston Museum at the same time.^[1378] The vase by Aeson is decorated with scenes from the labours of Theseus.^[1379]

Sotades stands apart from his contemporaries as an artist of much individuality, with a tendency to great refinement and delicacy in his work. He has left one R.F. kantharos and some half-dozen vases of the white-ground type, two with very interesting subjects (see also p. 457); all but the first were formerly in M. van Branteghem’s collection, and these are now divided between the British and Boston Museums. He is remarkable for his extremely delicate cups, with handles in the form of a chicken’s merrythought, and he also made two phialae with white interior and moulded exterior painted in rings of red, white, and black; on the interior of one of these a cicala (τέττιξ) is ingeniously modelled so as to appear resting there (Plate XL.). Hegesiboulos, one of whose vases was also in the Van Branteghem collection,^[1380] seems to have been an artist of similar tendencies.

Of the rest, Epigenes' name appears on a small kantharos in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and those of Megakles and Maurion on pyxides. Among the painters who exercised their skill on larger vases the most noteworthy is Polygnotos, who has left an amphora and two stamni. The similarity of his name to that of the great contemporary painter has naturally led to conjectures as to a possible connection of the two, which has been discussed by Professor Robert in publishing two of the vases with his signature.^[1381] His conclusion is that they belong to the period 460–450 B.C., in which the influence of the painter is beginning to make itself felt, but only in isolated figures and motives, not, as in a class of which we shall presently speak, in the composition of scenes. The earliest of the three is the stamnos in Brussels, with the subject of Kaineus overwhelmed by the Centaurs^[1382]; next comes the stamnos with the combat of Herakles and the Centaur Dexamenos^[1383]; and lastly the British Museum amphora,^[1384] which retains an archaic form, but in its style and drawing presents no traces of archaism.^[1385] In the reverses of his vases, with their tendency to meaningless and carelessly drawn figures, we seem to trace the beginnings of the decadence. Hermonax, who painted four stamni and a “pelike,” seems to be closely associated in style with Polygnotos.^[1386] Professor Robert would also attribute to a pupil of Polygnotos three fine R.F. cups of about 445 B.C.—the Kodros cup in Bologna (Chapter XIV.) and two in Berlin (2537–38), with the subjects of the birth of Erichthonios, and Aegeus consulting the oracle of Themis.

Nikias, of whom we have only one example, a bell-shaped krater in the British Museum (formerly in the Tyszkiewicz collection),^[1387] is evidently, from the form of the vase and the style of the paintings, an artist of the latest stage of R.F. vase-painting at Athens. He is, however, remarkable in one respect, namely the form of his signature,^[1388] which gives not only his parentage but—a unique instance among vase-painters—his deme:

The subject of the vase is the torch-race, one often found on late Athenian kraters, and seldom at an earlier date.

Lastly we have a hydria from the hand of Meidias, in the British Museum, which originally formed part of the Hamilton collection (Plate XLI.). Winckelmann estimated it above all other vases known to him, and regarded it as illustrating the highest achievement of the Greeks in the way of drawing. His criticism is hardly even now out of date, in spite of the enormous number that now challenge comparison with it, as far as concerns the beauty and richness of the drawing and of the composition. The artist, says Furtwaengler, “revels in a sea of beauty and grace; youth and charm are idealised in his work.” In point of style it belongs to the epoch of the Peloponnesian War, about 430–420 B.C., but so admirable is the work that it can hardly be placed so low as the contemporary vases of “late fine” style, with their patent evidences of decadence. Meidias may therefore fairly be included with the foregoing.^[1389]

The subjects represented are arranged in two friezes all round the vase, the upper containing the rape of the Leukippidae by the Dioskuri—a subject which had been chosen by Polygnotos for his painting in the Anakeion.^[1390] Not only this, but all the vases with the same subject are doubtless largely indebted to the painting for their ideas, especially in the system of composition with figures at different levels.^[1391] On the lower row the front view shows Herakles in the garden of the Hesperides, and at the back is a group of Athenian tribal heroes.^[1392] All the figures have their names inscribed; these, together with the artist’s signature, were only first noticed by Gerhard in 1839. Among the details of treatment are to be noted the exquisitely fine lines for the folds of drapery, and the elaborate chequers and other patterns representing embroidery, the occasional use of gilding, the attempts to impart expression to faces by means of wrinkles, and the characteristic rendering of the hair with wavy dark lines of thinned black on a brown wash.

The last artist of Athenian origin who remains to be mentioned is Xenophantos, a contemporary of Meidias, whose name appears on a vase found at Kertch and now in the Hermitage at Petersburg.^[1393] Here he expressly calls himself an Athenian, and it has therefore been supposed that the vase was made on the spot, otherwise it would not be obvious why he should proclaim his nationality (see below, p. 464). The chief feature of the vase—a lekythos of the “bellied” type so common at this stage—is the use of figures moulded in relief and applied to the surface, in conjunction with gilding and a lavish use of white colour. The subject is the Persian king hunting.

The vases of the late fine style, into which the “fine” style merges about the year 430 B.C., may be divided into two classes,—that of the larger vases, chiefly kraters, in which the pictorial traditions of the Polygnotan vases are carried on and developed, and the influence of contemporary art makes itself felt; and that of the smaller types, such as the pyxis and the wide-bellied lekythos, in which new features and new subjects are introduced (cf. Plate XLII.).

The former class is chiefly made up of the vases found in Southern Italy, in the Crimea, the Cyrenaica, and the Greek islands, which are apparently of Athenian, not local, fabric; but they are comparatively rare at Athens and in Greece Proper, where the smaller vases have been found in considerable numbers. It may be found convenient to deal first with the latter, as more typically Athenian, while the larger vases serve as a connecting-link with the succeeding fabrics dealt with in the next section.

In these vases linear drawing reaches its limits in respect of perfect freedom and refinement of detail; but it is at a severe cost. The artist seems to have lost interest in his subject when it no longer required an effort to execute it, and is content to decorate his vase with a few stock figures in conventional attitudes, uncharacterised by action or attribute. Frequent faults of design may be observed, such as coarseness of drawing or negligence in the laying on of the black varnish. The artist works by routine, and appears to be nonchalant and bored. Mythological scenes become exceedingly rare, and are confined to Dionysos or Aphrodite with their attendant personifications, and the compositions are fanciful or decorative in character, without any suggestion of particular events or actions. The all-pervading presence of Eros is another feature which is new to vase-painting, but henceforward his position is established. An even greater novelty is the preponderance

of subjects connected with the daily life of women or children—the toilet, the occupations of every-day life, or nuptial ceremonies; and a whole series of small jugs, themselves in all probability toys, depicts the various games in which the Athenian child delighted—the hoop, the go-cart, and the ball, or his pet animals (cf. Plate XLII.).

The shapes most popular in this group are, as we have indicated, the oinochoë, the wide-bellied lekythos, and the pyxis (Plate XLII.). Milchhoefer, in a most important article,^[1394] regards the lekythi as more instructive than any other group for illustrating the later developments of R.F. vase-painting. Beginning with early examples of the fine style,^[1395] they extend to the very end without any gaps, the tradition being further continued in Apulia. They exhibit a development from simple to rich compositions, from “strong” style to perfect freedom. In the latest examples, such as that by Xenophantos, we see the straining after novelty which marks the decadence, in the introduction of figures in relief applied to the surface of the vase, as well as in the increase of polychromy and gilding. Among the finer vases we may note a hydria at Karlsruhe (259) with the Judgment of Paris, in which may be traced the hand of Meidias; the lekythos in the British Museum from Cyprus (E 696), with Oedipus slaying the Sphinx, in which the figure of Athena with its white coating is clearly reminiscent of the gold-and-ivory Parthenos statue; and two pretty lekythi from Apollonia, in Thrace, with the subject of incense-gathering. There are also two pyxides in the British Museum (E 773–4), on which are groups of women, with fancy names added to give interest to the scene: thus Klytaemnestra, Danae, and Iphigeneia occur all together, and the Nereids are engaged in the every-day occupations of the women’s apartments.

From a technical point of view, the principal change is in the increased use of gilding and polychrome colouring. The former, employed exceptionally by Euphronios and Brygos, now becomes the rule, and concurrently the use of white for flesh-tints, as in the figure of Athena just mentioned, and of red, green, and blue for draperies, becomes more and more general. The gilding was applied for small details, such as wreaths, and for the hair; and the places where it was to be applied were marked by low relief. It was fixed in the form of gold-leaf by means of a yellowish gum. Jahn, who some years ago collected the list of vases with gilding,^[1396] reckoned fifty-one known to him, chiefly from Kertch; and Heydemann and Collignon^[1397] have since added several to the list, chiefly from collections at Athens. They have been found not only in Athens and Kertch, but at Corinth, Megara, Hermione, Thebes, and in Acarnania and Thrace.

In the larger vases of this period the pictorial method of the preceding phase is, as might have been expected, greatly developed. Among the vases of undoubted Attic origin we have, first of all, the Meidias hydria and its companion vase, the Karlsruhe hydria with the Judgment of Paris^[1398]; and, secondly, the great Gigantomachia vase from Melos in the Louvre, which contains no less than forty-seven figures.^[1399] Another fine instance is the polychrome Kameiros vase in the British Museum with the subject of Peleus and Thetis. Robert^[1400] sees in the two latter a possible influence of Parrhasios, who is known to have paid great attention to drawing, and, in reference to the Kameiros vase, draws attention to the plastic silhouette effect of the figures. Parrhasios’ art consisted in giving this effect by his linear drawing.^[1401] The influence of Zeuxis is less apparent, though from his earlier date it might more naturally have been expected.^[1402]

It is, however, still more instructive to trace in this group the influence of the Parthenon sculptures, which, where it can be observed, enables us to date the vases approximately as at any rate not earlier than 438 B.C. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that sculptor and painter may often have gone back to the same original type. This explains the appearance of apparently Pheidian motives on vases of an earlier style—such as riding youths, water-carriers, etc.—or the similarity of composition on one of the Parthenon metopes and a vase of undoubtedly earlier date.^[1403] But in one or two instances there can be no doubt of such influence, most notably in the Athena and Poseidon vase from Kertch (see below, p. 464). It cannot be without significance here that the two figures are actually in relief on the vase, and the parallelism with the pediment (so far as we know the design) is so close that a copy of it was manifestly the vase-artist’s intention. Mention has already been made of a figure of the Parthenos on a vase of this period, and another instance, though not on a painted vase, may be noted in the polychrome bust of the goddess in terracotta from Athens, now in the British Museum.^[1404] Some instances of this type on vases may be earlier than the statue; it was not created by Pheidias.^[1405]

It has already been mentioned that there is one exception to the Athenian monopoly of vase-making in the fifth century, and this is in the local fabrics of Boeotia. Of the Kabeirion vases, which, though in the B.F. technique, belong to this period, we have already spoken. There remains a small class—only five examples are at present known—which appears to have been made at Tanagra. All five evidently came from the same workshop, and in three cases the provenance is certainly known. Two are in the British Museum (E 813–4), and three in the Museum at Athens.^[1406] With the exception of E 814 in the British Museum, which is a pyxis, all are small two-handled cups, with low feet. The designs are outlined on a background of yellow clay in a black-brown pigment, the lines being coarsely drawn. Inner details are indicated by means of thinned-out pigment. That they are of Boeotian origin is further shown by the ornamentation: the pyxis has round the sides rows of vertical wavy lines, such as are often seen on the Boeotian geometrical fabrics (p. 288), and also an ivy-leaf which recalls the Kabeirion ware. The ornamentation of the hangings round the chair on Athens 1120 exactly resembles the patterns indicating the drapery on some of the early Boeotian terracottas.^[1407] The subjects, on the other hand, seem to suggest Athenian prototypes: in the designs much archaism is to be observed—such as defects in perspective, the rendering of the eyelashes, and the drawing of the feet in profile, but with toes in front. Numerous small details point to a date late in the fifth century, which, in view of the conservative tendencies of Boeotia, is not unlikely.