CHAPTER XVI

_DETAILS OF TYPES, ARRANGEMENT, AND ORNAMENTATION_ Distinctions of types—Costume and attributes of individual deities—Personifications—Heroes—Monsters—Personages in every-day life—Armour and shield-devices—Dress and ornaments—Physiognomical expression on vases—Landscape and architecture—Arrangement of subjects—Ornamental patterns—Maeander, circles, and other geometrical patterns—Floral patterns—Lotos and palmettes—Treatment of ornamentation in different fabrics. It may be profitable to supplement the foregoing account with a few general considerations, such as the attributes, emblems, and costume by which the different figures may be distinguished, the general treatment of the subjects at different periods, and the use of ornamental motives in the various stages of Greek vase-painting. § 1. DISTINCTIONS OF TYPES In the earlier vase-paintings deities are often not only indistinguishable from one another, but even from kings and other mortal personages, attributes and subtle distinctions of costume being ignored; and in the period of decline a similar tendency may be noted, due in this case not so much to confusion of ideas as to a general carelessness of execution and indifference to the meaning of the subject. In the former vases it was, doubtless, largely the result of conventionality and limitation in the free expression of forms; but it is a peculiarity not confined to painting, and may be observed not only in the minor arts, in terracotta and bronze figurines, but even in sculpture of a more exalted kind—as, for instance, in the female statues from the Athenian Acropolis. Thus, all the deities are draped, and their costume differs in no respect from that worn by mortals; all alike wear the chiton, himation, or chlamys, and ornamentation of the drapery with embroidered patterns is no mark of distinction. It is only as the art advances in the B.F. period that the necessity for differentiation makes itself felt, and each deity becomes individualised by some peculiarity of costume or special attribute which makes it possible to recognise them without difficulty. To give a brief survey of these characteristic marks will be the object of the following pages.[1942] Among the Olympian deities, _Zeus_ is generally bearded, and fully draped in long chiton and mantle; on R.F. vases he wears a laurel-wreath. He fights the giants from his chariot, but otherwise is standing, or seated on a throne, which is often carved and ornamented with figures.[1943] He usually holds a thunderbolt, or a sceptre, surmounted by an eagle or otherwise ornamented; in one or two cases the termination is in the form of a lotos-bud, curiously conventionalised.[1944] _Hera_ is distinguished by the _stephane_ or broad diadem, often ornamented, and covered with the bridal veil, the edge of which she draws forward with one hand in the attitude considered typical of brides. Her sceptre is sometimes surmounted by her emblem—the cuckoo. _Poseidon_, on the Corinthian and Attic B.F. vases—on which he is but a rare figure—is often hardly to be distinguished from Zeus, the approximation of the types extending even to their emblems. Where he holds in addition a dolphin or tunny-fish, there is, of course, no doubt as to his presence; nor, again, in the Gigantomachia, where he wields a rock (see p. 13, and Fig. 112); but his trident, which subsequently becomes the unmistakable evidence of his identity, often assumes (as on the Corinthian pinakes) the form of a sceptre ending in a lotos-bud,[1945] which is typical of Zeus, and, indeed, of Olympian deities generally. The other sea-deities are, however, of a more clearly defined type. The essential feature of _Triton_ is the fish-tail in which his body terminates. _Nereus_, on the other hand, is represented as an old man, bald and grey-bearded. In this form he contends with Herakles (see p. 101), and it may be that the differentiation was necessary to avoid confusion with the Triton type. As attributes he often holds a dolphin or tunny-fish, and a trident or sceptre. The winged deity with a long sinuous fish-tail seen on early Corinthian vases is probably _Palaemon_ (see p. 26); but in one case this deity is feminine.[1946] _Amphitrite_, as the feminine consort of Poseidon, holds a sceptre or tunny-fish, and _Thetis_ and the _Nereids_ appear in ordinary female form. The former, however, in her struggles with Peleus, is accompanied by lions, serpents, and other animals, which indicate the transformations she was supposed to assume. _Skylla_ appears as described in Homer, with fish-tail and the fore-parts of dogs issuing from her waist, which is encircled by a fringe of scales or feathers. _Demeter_ and _Persephone_ are not always distinguishable from one another, both having the same attributes—a torch or ears of corn (cf. Plate LI.). Their identification depends rather on the nature of their respective actions in the scenes where they appear. _Triptolemos_ is always seen in his winged two-wheeled car (sometimes drawn by serpents), and usually holds ears of corn or a libation-bowl; on B.F. vases he is bearded. The other Eleusinian deities, on the late R.F. vases where they occur, are marked by the large torches which they hold. _Apollo_ on the B.F. vases almost invariably occurs in his character of Kitharoidos,[1947] the lyre which he holds being of the form known as _kithara_ (on later vases it is a _chelys_); he is therefore, like all musicians, fully draped in long chiton, and his hair falls in curls on his shoulders, or is gathered in a κρώβυλος. Unlike most gods, he is at all times youthful and beardless.[1948] He is also represented holding a laurel-branch, shooting an arrow from his bow, or riding on a swan or Gryphon, or accompanied by a hind or other animal. His sister _Artemis_ is draped in long chiton and mantle, and often wears a high cap on B.F. vases; it is not until the later R.F. period that she appears in hunting costume, with knotted-up hair, short chiton, and high laced-up hunting-boots or _endromides_; sometimes also a fawn-skin. She is usually distinguished by her bow and arrows, and is accompanied by a hound, deer, goat, or other animal.[1949] _Hephaistos_ is usually bearded,[1950] and often appears in the workman’s dress of the _exomis_ or short chiton covering one shoulder, and high conical cap; his craft is further symbolised by a hammer or tongs, or by the axe with which he brings Athena forth from the head of Zeus. In the Gigantomachia he uses his tongs with savage violence against an unfortunate opponent (see p. 14). _Ares_ is the typical Greek fully-armed warrior, bearded, with helmet, short chiton, cuirass, and greaves, sword, spear, and shield; but is not otherwise to be distinguished. _Hermes_, as the messenger of the gods, appears in appropriate costume of chlamys and _petasos_ (the Greek travelling-hat), and carrying the caduceus or herald’s staff; he usually wears high boots, and on the earlier vases a short chiton in addition. He is occasionally winged, but it is more usual to find the wings attached to his petasos or boots. On B.F. vases he is always bearded, but not after the sixth century. _Hestia_, who but rarely occurs on vases, forms a pair to Hermes in assemblies of the gods, but is not distinguished further than by the Olympian lotos-sceptre. _Athena_ on the earlier B.F. vases is not always distinguished from an ordinary woman; later, the helmet, spear, shield, and aegis become inseparable adjuncts of her costume, the shield being always circular in form. The spear, which is sometimes her only characteristic, is usually brandished or couched in her right hand, and sometimes she holds her helmet in her hand (see Plate XXXVI. and p. 40). Her costume consists of a long girt chiton, over which the _peplos_ or small mantle is thrown, and the aegis round her chest. The latter is covered with scales and has a fringe of rearing serpents, and sometimes, on later vases, the Gorgon’s head in the centre of the front. On the Panathenaic amphorae she is always represented in the Promachos attitude, at first to left, but later to right, brandishing her spear. At either side of her are columns surmounted by an owl, a cock, or other emblems. On the later specimens her figure is greatly elongated, and her drapery is often elaborately embroidered with patterns in purple and white. Her statue when represented is usually a mere reproduction of the living type; but on some later vases there seems to be a reminiscence of the Parthenos or other statues (see p. 40). _Aphrodite_ is less individualised than any other deity, at any rate on the earlier vases, on which she is invariably draped in the ordinary manner. She sometimes carries a lotos-headed sceptre (as in Judgment of Paris scenes). Occasionally she is represented armed. On the later vases the influence of fourth-century sculpture becomes apparent in the treatment of this, as of other deities. She now first appears nude (when bathing or washing), scantily clad or half draped, and in transparent Coan draperies, through which the outlines of her form are visible. She has no characteristic attribute, but is frequently represented with a dove or other bird. The types of _Eros_ have already been fully discussed (p. 45); briefly it may be said that on the Attic R.F. vases he is a full-grown nude youth with wings; on those of Southern Italy the type is more boyish, though never the child or _putto_ of the Hellenistic Age, and in Apulia the androgynous type, with hair arranged in feminine fashion and jewellery profusely adorning his person—earrings, necklace, chains, and anklets—is invariable. _Dionysos_ is distinguished primarily by the ivy-wreath which crowns his head; he generally wears a long chiton and mantle, but on the latest vases is frequently nude. On all B.F. vases, and often on those of the R.F. period, he is bearded, and it is only on those of Southern Italy that he appears as a somewhat effeminate youth, half draped like Apollo, with rounded and graceful limbs. His attributes are the rhyton or keras (only on B.F. vases), the kantharos, a form of drinking-cup specially associated with him, a vine-branch, and the thyrsos; he is accompanied by panthers and other animals, or swings the limbs of a kid (χιμαιροφόνος). Usually he maintains a calm and unmoved attitude amid the wild revelries of his followers. _Ariadne_ is undistinguished except by her association with him. _Pan_, who only occurs on later vases, is almost invariably represented as a beardless youthful figure, with goat’s horns, but human legs; when, however, he has goat’s legs or feet, he is usually called Aegipan, and in this aspect he assumes a somewhat dwarfish and more bestial aspect.[1951] _Satyrs_ are either elderly and bearded, or youthful; in all cases with pointed ears and horses’ tails, and undraped except for the fawn-skins which they frequently wear. They carry a thyrsos, drinking-cups, or musical instruments, according to the circumstances in which they are depicted. In Ionic art (Vol. I. p. 353 ff.) the Satyrs invariably have horses’ feet as well as tails, and are usually of repulsive appearance. The _Seileni_ are really aged Satyrs, depicted as bald or white-haired, but not otherwise differentiated, except in the case of _Papposeilenos_, who is covered with shaggy skin.[1952] The _Maenads_ are often represented (especially on B.F. vases) as ordinary draped women, or only with the addition of a fawn-skin or panther-skin over their chiton; they carry the _thyrsos_, or frequently on later vases a large tambourine (_tympanon_). Of the personages associated with the under-world, _Hades_ is usually an elderly bearded deity of the Zeus type. He carries a sceptre, often with ornamented top, and sometimes from his Chthonian association with Dionysos holds a kantharos, vine-branch, or cornucopia. _Kerberos_ has three heads only on two Cacretan hydriae and the Apulian under-world vases; his usual number is two, but once or twice he has only one.[1953] _Hekate_ has torches for her customary attribute, and the _Furies_, who only occur on South Italian vases, wear short chitons with cross-belts and have rough hair, in which and round their arms serpents are intertwined. _Charon_ the ferryman is represented as an elderly man in short chiton and conical cap (cf. Fig. 122), but the grim Etruscan _Charun_ is a repulsive and savage hook-nosed demon, wielding a hammer. _Thanatos_ and _Hypnos_, the two Death-deities, are both winged men, but only the former is bearded (cf. Fig. 123); there is usually nothing forbidding in his appearance. The question of the representation of ghosts or souls (εἴδωλα) has been fully discussed (p. 72); most commonly they are diminutive winged figures, and in other cases they appear as in ordinary life,[1954] but possibly they sometimes appear in the form of birds.[1955] _Gaia_ is represented half rising out of the earth, a beautiful but not young woman, with long hair (Fig. 112); or, as Pandora, her head alone is seen (see p. 73). _Kybele_ occasionally appears, with her attendant lion, and an even rarer figure is _Asklepios_, with his serpent. The _Eileithyiae_, who attend at the birth of Athena, are ordinary women, distinguished by the appropriate gestures of their hands (Fig. 113). _Iris_, the female messenger of the gods, appears winged, with short chiton to allow of rapid movement, and carrying the caduceus or herald’s staff; _Hebe_, on the other hand, is an ordinary woman. _Nike_ is usually to be distinguished from Iris by her long flowing draperies, even when in flight; the various attributes usually associated with her have already been dealt with in detail (p. 87).[1956] Among personifications, _Helios_ is a youthful figure in a chariot, usually with rays round his head (as on Plate LIII.); in one or two cases his head is surmounted by a white disc; _Selene_ appears on horseback, and is sometimes indicated by a crescent moon; where Helios is accompanied by a goddess in a chariot, it is probable that _Nyx_ (Night) is intended (see p. 79). The _Stars_ are represented as nude youths. The _Aurae_ or breezes appear as girls floating through the air; the _Hyades_ or rain-Nymphs are identified by their water-pitchers. A group of winged gods and goddesses is formed by Eos, Agon (the masculine counterpart of Nike), Eris, Lyssa (Frenzy),[1957] and the various wind-gods, such as Boreas and Zephyros. These are found at all periods, but the types vary. _Eris_, who is only found on B.F. vases, resembles the Gorgons (see below), a somewhat grotesque figure with wings, rough hair, and short girt chiton; _Lyssa_ only occurs on Apulian vases, and is akin in type to the Furies—in two instances her figure is enclosed in a circle of rays of light, perhaps to express the blinding effect of her action, and she holds a goad.[1958] _Oistros_, a kindred figure, rides in a car drawn by serpents, and carries torches. The type of Agon is assimilated to that of Eros on R.F. vases; on those of earlier date (if this is the correct interpretation) he wears a short girt chiton and holds a wreath. The _Wind-gods_ on B.F. vases wear the petasos and high boots, and short girt chiton; _Zephyros_ is represented as a youth; and _Boreas_, who only occurs on R.F. vases, wears Thracian costume; he is bearded, and his hair is often rough and shaggy. But these winged deities cannot always be identified with certainty. Among other personifications, _Geras_ is a somewhat ugly old man; the _Muses_ are distinguished by their various musical instruments; and _Cities and Countries_ are occasionally individualised. For instance, Thebes, on a vase by Assteas, wears a turreted crown; Sparta appears as a Nymph on horseback; and, generally speaking, their presence is usually indicated not only by inscriptions, but by their relation to the scene depicted.[1959] _River-gods_, such as Acheloös, appear as human-headed bulls, with horns, but the last-named on a stamnos by Pamphaios (E 437 in B.M.) has a fish-tail. _Kastor_ and _Polydeukes_ usually appear on horseback and in hunting costume, with petasos, chlamys, and spears; on later vases they sometimes wear the pileus, a conical cap which often appears as their emblem on coins. _Herakles_ on earlier vases is always bearded, and wears the lion’s skin fastened round his waist with a belt, the forepaws knotted round his throat[1960]; the head covers his head like a cap, leaving his face only exposed, and under it he wears a short girt chiton; he is armed with his club, or bow and quiver, and sometimes with a sword. On R.F. vases he is often nude, or only wears the skin in chlamys fashion. On the earlier vases he is often less characterised, and the same applies to the later R.F. vases, on which he is frequently beardless; in many cases he is only to be identified by his club. _Theseus_ always appears as a youth, and on the R.F. cups usually wears a short loose chiton of crinkly material (cf. Vol. I., Frontisp.); his arms are a sword, or sometimes a club. _Perseus_ wears the winged petasos or cap of darkness and high boots (the shoes of swiftness), sometimes winged; he carries the wallet or κίβισις, and sometimes the ἅρπη or curved sword with which he slew Medusa. _Pelops_ on the Apulian vases is usually characterised as an Oriental, with richly embroidered costume and a tiara or embroidered cap. The Homeric heroes are only to be identified by inscriptions, or by the actions in which they take part, but _Paris_ is usually in Oriental costume; in Judgment scenes he holds a lyre, but when he takes part in combats he is attired as an archer, with bow and quiver, Phrygian cap, jerkin, and trousers. _Kekrops_, the mythical king of Athens, usually ends in a serpent’s tail, to denote his autochthonous origin; _Midas_ has ass’s ears; _Orpheus_ is recognised by his lyre, and sometimes wears, as a musician, feminine costume (see below, p. 197).[1961] Of other mythological types the _Amazons_ are, of course, always armed, frequently in the Oriental fashion, with Phrygian cap or _kidaris_ and trousers; their weapons are the crescent-shaped shield or _pelta_, and a peculiar type of battle-axe, the _sagaris_. The _Giants_ on B.F. vases are ordinary armed warriors, not even of exceptional size, but in later times they often end in serpents, as on the Pergamene frieze. _Typhon_ appears in this form on a Chalcidian vase.[1962] _Geryon_ is represented in the manner described by Pausanias (vi. 19, 1), as “three men joined together,” with distinctive arms and legs; on Chalcidian vases he has four wings, and is only triple from the waist upwards. The _Centaurs_ on the more archaic vases, as on those of Ionia, appear as men with the body and hind legs of a horse attached behind; by the middle of the sixth century they appear in the familiar form of a human bust conjoined with a horse’s body. The _Gorgons_ are always rendered in grotesque fashion, with grinning faces and dishevelled hair intertwined with serpents; they wear short girt chitons and high winged boots, and have four wings, the upper pair recurved; usually on B.F. vases they appear in what is known as “the archaic running attitude,” or, as the Germans more expressively phrase it, “Knielaufschema,” the figures being represented as if kneeling on one knee. The same grotesque type of face,[1963] with the protruding tongue and teeth, appertains to the Medusa’s head or Gorgoneion, which is at all periods such a favourite decorative motive on vases, either as the interior design of a B.F. kylix, or as a medallion in relief on late vases. The more beautiful type of Medusa head is a creation of later date than most of the painted vases, but in the medallions on Italian vases much of the grotesqueness has disappeared. Much confusion at one time existed between the conceptions of the _Harpy_ and the _Siren_, both names being indiscriminately applied to the female-headed bird so common on vases of all periods. But there is ample evidence for the representation of the Harpy more in the style of the Gorgons, as a purely feminine type, with the short chiton suited for rapid movement, high boots, and wings, and often in the conventional running attitude.[1964] In this form they appear in one instance as feminine counterparts of the male Boreades.[1965] The Siren types vary at different times, the earlier Sirens frequently having human arms.[1966] The _Sphinx_ is always a woman-headed winged four-footed beast; sometimes on Corinthian and Ionic vases she wears a high head-dress. The _Gryphon_[1967] is a winged lion with eagle’s beak, and often with erect ears; the winged _Pegasos_ and the bull-headed _Minotaur_ require no description. * * * * * Turning now to personages concerned in events of every-day life, we find great variety of costume and equipment, especially at different periods and under different circumstances. The vases, in fact, may be said to supply the most instructive _locus classicus_ for Greek dress and ornament, as well as for minor details—such as weapons, implements, and furniture—of which they provide contemporary illustrations. _Kings_ are usually distinguished by dignified flowing robes, by the wearing of a wreath or head-dress, or by the sceptre which they hold.[1968] Oriental potentates wear the costume of their country, with lofty ornamented tiaras, or the Persian _kidaris_ or _kyrbasia_—a peaked cap decorated with fringes and lappets. Their dress is often very elaborate on the later vases. _Actors_ and _musicians_ both wear appropriate costumes. The former, who hardly occur except on the Italian vases, wear the dress of the Old Comedy, with grotesque mask, padded stomach, loose jerkin, and trousers.[1969] Tragic actors are seldom represented; but it has already been pointed out[1970] that in the setting of the mythological scenes on the vases of Southern Italy there is an unmistakable reflection of the tragic stage, especially in the elaborate and somewhat exaggerated details of costume. Musicians invariably wear a long chiton, over which on R.F. vases they sometimes wear a short loose garment called the ὀρθοστάδιον, embroidered with patterns.[1971] There are also a few instances of male performers (recognisable by their beards) in distinctively feminine costume.[1972] _Athletes_ are invariably nude when performing their exercises, except in the case of the armed foot-race (see p. 164); in the torch-race they seem to have worn high crowns; on the reverse of late R.F. vases they appear inactive, wrapped in mantles and conversing in groups. _Hunters_ wear a distinctive costume of petasos and chlamys, and usually carry two spears. Boys on horseback are usually represented nude, and on Ionic vases have their hair tied in a tuft behind.[1973] _Charioteers_ are always attired in a long girt chiton reaching to the feet, which on Attic B.F. vases is painted white. They usually hold a goad in the right hand, the reins in the left. _Heralds_ wear the attributes of Hermes—the petasos, caduceus, and high boots, with a chlamys or short girt chiton. _Warriors_ on the early and B.F. vases are equipped in a fashion which tallies to some extent with the descriptions of Homer.[1974] Their armour usually consists of a crested Corinthian helmet, a metal cuirass, under which is a short chiton, and greaves, to which are sometimes added the thigh-coverings known as _parameridia_. Some peculiarities may also be noted—such as the hooked projection on the front of helmets on the Ionic vases of Daphnae and the Clazomenae sarcophagi,[1975] the linen cuirasses (indicated by white paint) sometimes worn on Attic B.F. vases,[1976] or the heavy helmets with large cheek-pieces seen on the Caeretan hydriae (Plate XXVI.). The R.F. vases often represent the fully armed Athenian hoplite equipped in the same fashion as the B.F.; but in these, and more especially in the Italian vases, there is a tendency to omit much of the defensive armour. Cuirasses on R.F. vases are often decorated with patterns of scales or panelling.[1977] Helmets on Italian vases often assume a local character, with conical crowns and two or three lofty plumes.[1978] Of offensive armour, the full equipment consists of sword, spear, and shield. The two former call for no comment, but the shields, which are of two forms, the circular Argive or the indented oval Boeotian, present one feature of great interest—the devices with which they are adorned.[1979] Investigations have failed to discern in these any symbolical or heraldic significance; they are not appropriated to particular personages, and all that can be noted about them is that they usually seem to suggest rapid movement. Thus we find an eagle or other flying bird, wheels, balls, chariots, a bent leg, a serpent, Pegasos, and so on. The passage in the _Septem_ of Aeschylus (387 ff.), in which the shield-devices of the combatants are described, is of course familiar, and similar allusions are not wanting in Greek writers.[1980] They are universal on B.F. vases, being painted in white on black ground, and are often found on the earlier R.F. vases in black on red; but they seem to disappear at an early stage of the R.F. period. Sometimes they consist only of letters of the alphabet, as on a Panathenaic amphora, where Athena’s shield has the letters Α to Θ; on a B.F. vase in the British Museum are the letters ΑΘΕ.[1981] Other peculiar subjects are a winged boar, two rams butting, a figure of Artemis, a white-bordered square, and a ladder.[1982] Some of those on R.F. vases are somewhat elaborate—a Seilenos,[1983] a fox eating grapes,[1984] an armed runner,[1985] or a warrior blowing a trumpet.[1986] A variation is when the device takes the form of an object in relief—a Satyr-mask,[1987] Gorgoneion,[1988] mask of Phobos (Panic),[1989] or a Gryphon,[1990] or a rearing serpent[1991]; or when a shield is surrounded by a fringe of serpents.[1992] Shields frequently have a piece of fringed and embroidered stuff suspended from them, which seems to have served as a protection to the legs.[1993] _Archers_ are depicted in Oriental costume, wearing peaked caps with long lappets and a close-fitting dress of leather, consisting of jerkin and trousers, usually embroidered with various patterns. The different barbarian types which appear on vases—Persians, Scythians, Arimaspi, and Thracians—are more or less individualised, especially on the R.F. vases. Such subjects, indeed, were not really popular until the Persian wars. The details of Oriental costume have already been noted. Thracians on R.F. vases wear a long loose cloak known as the _zeira_ and a cap of foxskin (_alopeke_) with long flaps, which dress is also worn by Boreas (see above). In the first half of the fifth century Oriental costumes seem to have had a period of popularity among the fashionable young men of Athens, especially the knights; and they are often depicted riding in the _zeira_ or striped and embroidered dresses of outlandish style (see pp. 166, 179). Egyptians are often realistically rendered, with shaven heads,[1994] as are negroes and Aethiopians. The latter, like all barbarians on vases, usually wear trousers. On the vases of Southern Italy details of local (Osco-Samnite or Messapian) costumes often appear (see p. 180, and Vol. I. p. 483), especially in the case of helmets and breastplates worn by warriors on Campanian vases. On the earlier vases, down to the end of the B.F. period, there is frequently no distinction between the dress of men and women, and to this fact may have been due the practice of painting the latter white to differentiate them. Both wear the long Doric chiton, with a mantle or himation thrown over it; but men often wear the smaller chlamys over the shoulders in place of the himation. Women, again, on the earlier B.F. vases, often appear without the himation, and wear a long chiton tightly girt at the waist, with a short _apoptygma_ or fold falling over the breast. On R.F. vases the Doric chiton is sometimes worn by women, open down one side (known as the χίτων σχιστός). Men in the “strong” R.F. period wear a short loose chiton of fine crinkly linen. Generally in the R.F. period there is greater freedom of costume and variety of material and arrangement. The Ionic chiton is introduced about 500 B.C., but its vogue does not seem to have lasted long at Athens. In place of the _apoptygma_ women sometimes wear a loose over-garment, known as the _diplois_. On the earliest vases men are often nude, with the exception of a loin-cloth or pair of tight-fitting “bathing-drawers.” Women are practically never nude on vases, except when occupied in bathing or washing, or in the case of _hetairae_ and jugglers. The draperies, especially the chitons, are often richly embroidered with patterns, represented by incising and purple and white colours on the B.F. vases, by black paint on the R.F. On the former the women’s chiton is often covered with a sort of diaper pattern of squares, filled in with circles and stars, or the dresses (both of men and women) are covered with groups of dots and flowers in white and purple. In the late fine R.F. period and on the vases of Lucania and Apulia the patterns become exceedingly rich and varied[1995]: chequers, wave-pattern, palmettes, stars, egg-pattern, maeander, and all kinds of borders are introduced. A further extension of the principle is seen in the introduction of borders of figures, the most notable instances of which are on the François vase and the Hieron kotyle.[1996] On the former the technique is remarkable as a kind of anticipation of red figures on black. Aristotle speaks of a garment made for Alkimenes of Sybaris on which deities were represented between borders decorated with Oriental figures, the subjects being the sacred animals of the Medes and Persians.[1997] We may also cite the remarkable statue of Demeter found at Lykosura in Arcadia, the drapery of which is decorated with inlaid borders of figures,[1998] and the mantle of Jason described by Apollonius Rhodius.[1999] The hair of women on B.F. vases, and frequently also that of men, usually falls loose or in tight curls on the shoulders, with a fringe over the forehead. On the early R.F. vases men often wear their hair looped up behind in the fashion known as the κρώβυλος,[2000] which, as we know from Thucydides, went out about 480 B.C. Women, on the other hand, have theirs knotted up and confined under a cap. On later R.F. vases and on those of Apulia their hair is usually gathered up in the _opisthosphendone_, or in a broad coif or fillets, and arranged in bunches of curls in front and behind. On late R.F. vases a radiated diadem, painted white, is often seen. Men are seldom represented with long hair after 480 B.C., but they usually wear a wreath or plain fillet. Head-coverings are rarely worn by ordinary persons, with the exception of the traveller’s and huntsman’s _petasos_; but Oriental personages usually wear a high cap of some kind (see above, under Barbarians). Jewellery—such as necklaces, earrings, armlets, or anklets—is comparatively rare on B.F. vases, but becomes more and more common, until it reaches profusion on those of Apulia. Bracelets and anklets are often in the form of serpents. Various forms of sandals or shoes are seen on later vases, but on the black-figured the only kind of footgear is the high boot or _endromis_, with a curved tag in front. * * * * * The extent to which physiognomical expressions are rendered on vases varies at different periods[2001]; but it is not true, as has sometimes been thought, that the artists altogether ignored such expressions in their figures; it was only in the earlier phases that this was the case, and even during the fifth century the advance was timid and slow, much more so than in sculpture. As a rule, in the same vase all the faces are alike, and no physiognomical distinction can be drawn between gods and heroes, or even between men and women, except (on the Attic vases) in the treatment of the eye. On the B.F. vases the ordinary type of face has a long nose, with a tendency to turn up, a pointed chin, deep rounded jaw, and large eyes, while the limbs are sinewy, angular, and tapering. Beards of some length are invariable for grown or elderly men; otherwise distinctions of age are hardly observed until the R.F. period. And as in sculpture of the archaic period all figures have the same conventional smile, so on the B.F. vases gods, heroes, and mortals alike all pursue the actions in which they are engaged with the same unvarying expression. The contrast of violent action and calm unmoved physiognomy is often quaint, and almost grotesque. Indications of expression or sentiment are, in fact, rather implicit than explicit. They are given in a sort of shorthand fashion, just as Polygnotos in his great paintings, by some subtle touch—by a change of attitude or the action of a hand—indicated the emotion he wished to convey. In the different treatment of the male and female eye there is, no doubt, an attempt to give to the man a more lively expression by means of the round pupil, while the oval form of the woman’s eye gives her a softer and less intense look. The neglect of this principle on Ionian vases, where the male eye is oval, seems to be a reflection of the effeminate tendencies of the Ionian races.[2002] At an early date we may observe a special treatment of the eye to represent it as closed, in the case of a blind or dying person. Thus the Phineus of the Würzburg cup has merely an angular mark in place of an eye, representing the fall of the upper eyelid over the lower, or the eye is represented as a vacant space without pupil.[2003] The mouth is sometimes open to express pain or anger, as in the Nessos of the Proto-Attic vase,[2004] or the quarrelling heroes on a vase in the Louvre (F 340). It is also used to express the agony of a dying or injured person, as on a vase with the outraged Polyphemos,[2005] with which we may compare the dying warrior of the Aegina pediment. But all these are rather exceptions than the rule on B.F. vases. After the time of Polygnotos the influence of painting makes itself felt, and we may recall that he perfected the advances of Kimon in this respect. Not only did the vase-painters learn from him how to dispose figures _en face_ or in three-quarter view, but they also learned how to mark different expressions. It has also been observed that the influence of tragedy must have been strong at this time. The krater from Orvieto in the Louvre (Vol. I. p. 442) is a good instance of the progress made in the fifth century in this direction. On one side of the vase (see Fig. 103, _ibid._) we have a dying Niobid and a youth with face to the front and eyes closing; on the other, in the Argonautic scene, a warrior holding his knees, with lower lip fallen, giving him a melancholy expression, and Herakles with a face of sadness, marked by wrinkles. Other figures show exactly in what direction they are looking (compare Kimon’s figures “looking down or upwards”).[2006] In the later developments of the Apulian vases, with their scenes drawn from tragic themes and represented in such dramatic fashion, there is plenty of ability to represent emotion, and in several cases it is accurately expressed, as in some of the scenes from the sack of Troy. But in other cases, as on the Assteas vase in Madrid (Fig. 107), much of the old quaintness and grotesqueness is apparent. * * * * * It is also necessary to treat of the methods adopted by the artist for indicating locality or landscape in his pictures, a thing which is often done in the briefest and most cursory manner. The germs of this principle are perhaps to be observed (as noted elsewhere, Vol. I. p. 312) in the floral ground-ornaments of the Corinthian and other early vases. In the more developed vase-paintings a sort of shorthand system is customary, a system which in some degree probably prevailed on the Greek stage, as on that of the Elizabethan drama. Thus a temple or a house is represented by a column, or two columns supporting a pediment, a wood or grove by a single tree, water by two dolphins swimming in the lower part of the design, and so on. A notable exception is in the palace depicted on the François vase, in which Thetis awaits the arrival of the bridegroom Peleus. So much of the building is given in detail that it is even possible to attempt a restoration.[2007] On the same vase the walls of Troy are depicted, with a double door studded with nails. In the Hydrophoria scenes (p. 173) considerable attention is paid to the architectural details of the well-house, which was probably in the form of a small temple, perhaps circular, surrounded by a colonnade. The water issues from spouts in the form of lions’ heads, and statues are often depicted in different parts of the building. The François vase also gives an illustration of a well-house, with portico supported by columns. The architecture is almost invariably Doric. In outdoor scenes rocks occasionally appear, but only where they are necessary to the subject, as in the ambuscade of Achilles for Troilos. The branches of trees which frequently cover all the vacant spaces of the design on later B.F. vases, especially in Dionysiac scenes, may be mainly intended for decorative effect. In the R.F. period more and more attention is paid to landscape and architectural detail as the style develops, but there is still a strong tendency to adhere to the shorthand system—a tendency which increases rather than disappears, especially on the white-ground vases. The artist’s object was always to make his figures stand out, as far as possible, clear against the background, and he therefore deliberately avoided anything likely to interfere with the desired effect. Landscape proper, with indications of ground-lines, rocks, and trees, was only introduced when the Polygnotan influence became strong, and the Orvieto krater in the Louvre may be once more cited as a good and early instance of a new development. Scenes in architectural settings are rare, but an exception may be noted in the case of some of the late R.F. vases with scenes in women’s apartments, where careful attention is paid to the details of the door-ways, even to the locks and key-holes.[2008] For the rest, it usually sufficed to indicate the palaestra by a strigil or oil-flask suspended, or a pair of jumping-weights; musical gatherings by a lyre or a flute in a case; banqueting-rooms by cups and other vases hung up, or by rows of boots. Similarly, women’s apartments are represented by a window, door, or column, or by sashes, hoods, mirrors, wreaths, and wool-baskets scattered about.[2009] In the vases of Southern Italy this principle is carried almost to excess. Not only is the old idea of rosettes and flowers scattered about the scene revived, but the whole surface of the design is often covered with miscellaneous objects, such as balls, sashes, and mirrors. On the Apulian vases the use of a double line of white dots to indicate the ground is invariable, and loose stones are scattered about where it is intended to be rocky. Flowers grow about in rich profusion. In the mythological scenes an elaborate architectural background is frequent, and altars, tripods, and columns serve the same end; the _heroa_ or shrines and other forms of tomb in the sepulchral scenes have already been described. In athletic scenes, especially on the reverse of the kraters, a ball, a stylus and tablets, or a pair of jumping-weights are suspended in the air to indicate the palaestra; and on Lucanian vases subjects of a military nature are suggested by a suspended shield only partly visible. The “courting-scenes” on Apulian vases usually have a representation of a window in a corner of the design. § 2. ARRANGEMENT OF SUBJECTS The next point to be considered is the method of arrangement and composition of the figures in general on Greek vases. As regards the Mycenaean, Geometrical, and other early wares, they may be left out of consideration,—firstly, because their ornamentation is mainly composed of decorative motives or single figures of animals; secondly, because even where compositions of figure subjects are found, as on the great Dipylon vases, the method of arrangement is still tentative and without system. The figures are arranged in haphazard groups and bands, and all the remaining spaces are filled in with ornament. The first attempt at an organised method of decoration is seen in the vases of Corinth and Ionia, and is exemplified principally in the arrangement of the friezes of animals. Roughly speaking, there are two main tendencies, one characteristic of each line of development—the procession and the heraldic group. Both are essentially Oriental (_i.e._ Assyrian) in origin, the prototype of the latter being the familiar motive of the two animals and the sacred tree, which is so frequently found on Mycenaean gems, and is best exemplified in the famous Lion Gate of Mycenae.[2010] Yet this typically Mycenaean and Oriental motive was not the one adopted by its natural inheritors, the Ionians, and it is in Dorian Corinth that we find its reflection on the painted vases. On one Corinthian vase[2011] it actually occurs in the form of a conventional palmette and lotos-pattern (representing the tree), on either side of which two lions are confronted in true Mycenaean fashion. Later, it becomes a common device on the necks of vases, the ornament taking the form of a decorative combination of palmettes (see below, p. 226). Even when on Corinthian vases a whole frieze of animals is found, there is always a central “heraldic” group of two, towards which the whole seems to lead up, or else the frieze is broken up into several isolated heraldic groups.[2012] But on the Ionic vases, as on those of Rhodes and Naukratis, we have over and over again regular processions of animals all facing the same way, or, as at Daphnae, solemn dances of women, similarly placed and joining hand-in-hand (see Plate XXV.). In the developed B.F. vases the same principles are observed to some extent, especially where friezes of animals are introduced; but there is much greater freedom of treatment within the limits of the field available. Generally speaking, however, all designs on B.F. vases may be regarded as following one of the three methods of architectural composition—the frieze, the pediment, or the metope. The frieze style, which is seen on the shoulders of hydriae, the exteriors of kylikes, and sometimes on the bodies of amphorae, oinochoae, or lekythi, implies a series of figures, all turned in the same direction, but without any central point for the action, as in processions of warriors, dances of Satyrs and Maenads, and so on. In the pediment style of composition the essential feature is a centre-point, in which the interest of the subject is concentrated, as in such scenes as the Birth of Athena[2013] or Theseus killing the Minotaur.[2014] The central group is then flanked by figures immediately interested in the action (Eileithyia and Hephaistos, or Ariadne, in the instances quoted; Athena and Iolaos at the labours of Herakles); and the ends of the pediment, so to speak, are occupied by groups of bystanders, often nameless and uncharacterised, who are in fact only included to fill up the space required. The metope style, which only admits of three, or at most four, figures, was found convenient for all the vases with subjects on panels, where space was restricted, and also on the kylikes of the “minor artist” class, on which a limited use of figures was preferred, and on those of later date where the space was mainly taken up by the large eyes. But in all these cases—friezes, pediments, or metopes—one thing was held to be essential: the correspondence of the two halves of the design (except in friezes), producing perfect symmetry in the composition. Lastly, there are a limited number of cases where a single figure was found sufficient, as in the interior of kylikes, on the circular pinakes,[2015] and sometimes on the vases where the large eyes take up most of the space.[2016] Subordinate designs, bordering the main design of an amphora above or below, or decorating the cover, are usually in the form of animals or chariot-races, in the frieze style of composition. Similar friezes are sometimes also found (in the old B.F. method) on R.F. vases, and even on the kraters of Southern Italy. The earlier R.F. vases preserve the principles of the preceding period; and, in regard to the kylikes, the system of decoration has been discussed in detail elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 427). In all of them we see particular attention paid to arrangement, and the variations in the principles of composition form one of our guides in determining the development of the style. In the amphorae and hydriae of the transition from the severe to the strong period the number of figures employed in one scene was diminished, while they became larger in their proportions and were treated with more care; the usual number on the Nolan amphora is one or two each side. On the smaller vases, such as the oinochoë, the number of the figures never exceeds three. Sometimes the hydriae have an elongated composition on the shoulder, containing a frieze of several figures[2017]; but usually the design runs into both shoulder and body. Designs in framed panels are rare, except on the earlier amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters. The latter are unique in preserving the older methods of decoration right through the R.F. period down to the fourth-century specimens from Southern Italy. The influence of Polygnotos and his contemporaries brought about, as we have seen, a great change in the arrangement of the compositions, by the introduction of landscape and perspective, and the depicting of figures at different levels. This new development was subsequently exemplified in the large vases of Kertch and Apulia, but in the late fine period at Athens small vases with single friezes or simple subjects were the rule. In the pyxides and other vases with frieze subjects the figures are often crowded together and of dwarfish proportions (Plate XLII. fig. 3). A return to the old system of several friezes is seen where the figures are arranged in two or more rows divided by bands of ornaments, as in the Meidias hydria, or the early Apulian and some of the Lucanian vases.[2018] The earlier vases of Southern Italy, especially those of Lucania, preserve in some measure the spirit of the best R.F. vases, in the arrangement of the figures, and at all times the composition is one of the best features of these vases; but in the later examples the purely decorative element obtrudes itself; single figures of little more than ornamental character abound, and the old preference for mere ornament asserts itself, the patterns encroaching all over the scenes. § 3. ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS Although by far subordinate to the subjects in point of artistic or archaeological interest, the ornamental patterns which are employed on the vases are by no means without their value in both respects.[2019] They are, indeed, intimately interwoven with the subjects themselves, which they frame in, relieve, or embellish. Numerous vases are decorated with ornaments only, even in the advanced stages of the art; and this is, of course, an extremely common occurrence in the earlier fabrics, such as the Geometrical and Rhodian. Others, again, are only ornamented in the simplest fashion, with plain bands of red left to show through the black varnish round the body or foot. That the artist took a pride even in this form of ornamentation is shown by the fact that some potters, such as Nikosthenes and the “minor artists,” have left their names on vases only decorated with simple patterns. From the very beginning of Greek vase-painting there may be observed an endeavour to dispose the ornamental patterns in accordance with some system; and even though in some cases, as in the Cypriote Geometrical vases, there is an offence against the canons of art, yet at all periods the prevailing effect is one of symmetry and taste. It may be thought that in some respects there is a poverty in the variety of ornaments employed—as compared, for instance, with mediaeval art; but it should be remembered that—as their architecture shows—the Greek principle was to achieve the highest results within a limited sphere. Their system was conventional, but its conventions are forgotten in the artistic effect that it produces. It is on the earliest vases that the greatest variety and richness of ornament occurs; as the art is developed the ornamentation becomes more and more subsidiary, until on the vases of the finest R.F. period it has almost disappeared. But in the later phases it again comes to the fore, tending more and more to obscure and finally to supersede the subjects. To set forth as briefly as possible the growth and development of Greek ornament, both as a whole and in the case of individual motives, will be the object of the succeeding summary. It will be found advisable to treat the subject in a twofold aspect,—firstly, dealing with individual forms and their development; and, secondly, in their relation to the decoration of the vases and their subjects, as exemplified in the different periods and fabrics. Various theories have been propounded as to the origin of the ornaments found on Greek vases. Some have seen in the patterns architectural adaptations, suggested by the ornamentation of the different members of a temple, such as the maeander, egg-and-tongue pattern, or the astragalus, just as the disposition of the subject is often a reminiscence of the frieze or metopes. But this is no real explanation. In the first place, the patterns are found on vases at a period when they were hardly as yet used in architecture; and, secondly, their use on vases and in architecture must undoubtedly be traced to a common source. Others, again, have regarded them as conventional symbols, the kymation or wave-pattern representing water, a flower or rosette the ground on which the figures stand, and so on. Or, again, it has been thought that they were originally derived from textile patterns, being produced mechanically by the ways in which the threads ran in the loom, whence they were applied with deliberate artistic intention to the surface of a vase. It is, in fact, impossible to put forward any one theory which will account for the whole system of decorative ornament. As has been pointed out in our introductory chapter, many of these patterns are not only spontaneous, but universal in their origin among primitive peoples; every nation has begun with its circles, triangles, spirals, or chevrons. We are also, in regard to the Greeks, met with the remarkable fact that in its earliest form their painted pottery presents a very elaborate and highly developed system of ornamentation—purely geometrical, it is true, yet none the less of an advanced character. It is a composite system, formed partly from Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean local elements, and partly from the decorative ideas introduced by the Dorians from Central Europe; subsequently the range of Greek vase-ornament was yet further enlarged by the introduction of vegetable patterns, the palmette, the lotos-flower, and the rosette, which are due to the growth of Oriental influences, both from Egypt and from Assyria. * * * * * [Illustration: FIG. 139. MAEANDER OR EMBATTLED PATTERN.] [Illustration: FIG. 140. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (ATTIC).] In order to deal with the various ornaments and patterns in detail, it may be found convenient to divide them under three heads—rectilinear, curvilinear, and vegetable or floral. Of the first class the most consistently popular is the typically Greek pattern known as the _maeander_, key, or fret pattern. It first appears with the Geometrical style, in which it plays an important part, often covering a large proportion of the surface of a vase, arranged in broad friezes. Three varieties are found—a simple battlement pattern (Fig. 139), and the slightly more elaborate forms, Fig. 140, and the pattern given in Vol. I. p. 283, Fig. 83. In the Boeotian Geometrical, Phaleron, and Proto-Corinthian fabrics it is seldom found, or only in a debased form, as [maeander] but one or two forms occur in the “Rhodian” and “Samian” fabrics of Ionia; one of these is given in Fig. 141, and another consists of squares of the same alternating with crosses or stars in panels. We meet with a most interesting development of the latter variety in the vases of the so-called Pontic class and on the Clazomenae sarcophagi, where an elaborate maeander pattern, usually in two rows, is interspersed with stars or rosettes (Fig. 142). It thus becomes almost a distinguishing characteristic of the later Ionian fabrics. [Illustration: FIG. 141. MAEANDER OR KEY-PATTERN (IONIC).] [Illustration: FIG. 142. MAEANDER AND STAR PATTERN (LATER IONIC).] In the Attic B.F. vases there is a return to simplicity. Here we find it for the most part in the form Fig. 140 above, and its usual position is below the designs on the red-bodied amphorae; but it is sometimes found on other vases, as above the panels on the bodies of hydriae or oinochoae. In the R.F. period its development is most important for determining the succession of the kylikes, on which it almost becomes a date-mark, so regular is its evolution. This has, however, been already dealt with in the chapter on the history of the style (Vol. I. p. 416). After the severe period it is of frequent appearance on all forms of vases, the kylix, amphora, krater, and pelike in particular; the usual arrangement is a group of three to five maeanders, either of the simple Fig. 140 type, or of a more complicated form (Fig. 143), divided by rectangular panels or squares composed of chequers, or of crosses (diagonal and vertical) with dots or strokes between the arms.[2020] A curious variety of the maeander is used by Duris; it consists of a double intersecting maeander interspersed with squares[2021] (Fig. 144). [Illustration: FIG. 143. MAEANDER (ATTIC, 5TH CENTURY).] The invariable place for this ornament is below the design on the large vases, and it is usually continued the whole way round (except on the earlier Nolan amphorae); it is also found on the R.F. and white lekythi along the top of the design. It is always painted in black on the clay ground.[2022] [Illustration: FIG. 144. MAEANDER (ATTIC, ABOUT 480 B.C.).] A similar form of maeander prevails on the vases of Southern Italy (except in Campania); it is found on the krater, amphora, lebes, kotyle, etc., and is almost invariable. But there is one unique variety which is occasionally found on the great Apulian kraters, as on F 278 in the British Museum; the type is that of the pattern in Fig. 144, but the maeander is represented _in perspective_, being painted in white on the black, the shaded edges left in the colour of the clay. Of patterns akin to the maeander, the so-called _swastika_ or hook-armed cross, 16[21]swastika occurs in panels on the Geometrical vases, but subsequently it is only found as a ground-ornament in the field, as frequently at Naukratis, in Rhodes, and elsewhere. It is, strictly speaking, to be regarded as a fragmentary piece of maeander, without any of the symbolical meaning which it bears in the art of northern nations, with whom it was the emblem of the Scandinavian god Thor. Another pattern, 16[63]maeander or 16[90]maeander which may be called a variety of the maeander, is frequently found as a continuous border on early vases, such as the Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian wares, and occasionally in the B.F. period. Next there is the _chevron_, zigzag, or herring-bone pattern, consisting of systems of V-shaped patterns, arranged in two ways, either 20[15]chevron or 16[64]zigzag these patterns are practically only found on the earlier fabrics of Greece and Cyprus, or on the native wares of Apulia. On the incised vases of the early Bronze Age found at Hissarlik and in Cyprus this is the prevailing motive, the lines of zigzag being either single, or arranged in groups of four or five parallel: [Illustration] On the Geometrical vases such patterns are of very frequent occurrence, and panels or bands of chevrons arranged vertically, 20[15]chevron or 20[22]zigzag occur in many instances (Fig. 83). These groups of chevrons or zigzags are also a distinguishing mark of the Boeotian Geometrical fabrics (cf. Fig. 85); they occur to a lesser extent on the Melian, Proto-Corinthian, and Early Corinthian vases, and even in the Chalcidian fabrics. They are either employed as ground-ornaments to fill in spaces, or as panels forming part of the subsidiary decoration. A variation, or rather development, of the chevron, sometimes employed as a ground-ornament on early Ionic vases, is composed of a cross, 22[21]cross with sets of chevrons between the arms. [Illustration: FIG. 145. NET-PATTERN.] Diagonally or directly _intersecting lines_ form another universal element of early decoration, varying from a simple arrangement of cross lines 22[54]mesh to an elaborate diaper-pattern, and in such forms found even in later times. Beginning with the simple intersecting lines, or bands filled in with hatching, of the primitive incised vases, further developed in the white slip ware of Cyprus (Vol. I. p. 243), we next come to their use on the vases of the Geometrical period, both in Greece and in Cyprus. The variety of these patterns is so great that they can hardly be described in any detail; the usual method of treatment is in a band or panel of lozenges, squares, or triangles, filled in with a reticular pattern formed by the short intersecting lines. Sometimes dots are inserted in the spaces to enrich the general effect. Some very good examples of these patterns are to be seen in the Geometrical vases of Apulia (p. 327). In the B.F. period plain bands or panels of intersecting lines are not infrequent; sometimes small amphorae or lekythi are decorated entirely in this fashion.[2023] A variation of the motive is the border of network which often surrounds the panels on hydriae or oinochoae, in which the points of intersection are ornamented with studs, resembling the knots of a net (Fig. 145). It is also frequently found on the later Corinthian vases. _Chequer-patterns_ are often used with great effect, at all periods from the Geometrical vases down to the fourth century, their usual position being on the neck of a vase (Fig. 146).[2024] [Illustration: FIG. 146. CHEQUER-PATTERN.] [Illustration: FIG. 147. PROTOTYPE OF GEOMETRICAL TANGENT-CIRCLES.] The _circle_ as an ornament occurs comparatively rarely, but there are two exceptions. In the Geometrical vases we find a use both of concentric circles and of rows of single circles joined by straight lines forming tangents, a motive which is obviously derived from the Mycenaean spirals (Fig. 147). Secondly, in the Graeco-Phoenician pottery of Cyprus, especially in its later phases and in the smaller vases, such as the jugs and lekythi, the decoration is practically confined to systems of concentric circles, of a character quite peculiar to this fabric.[2025] The chief feature of these systems is that the ordinary principles of vase-decoration are entirely ignored, and the circles, arranged in series of five or six, forming a band about three-quarters of an inch in width, are placed not only at right angles to the axis of the vase, but parallel to it. The illustrations in Plate XIII. and Fig. 75 (Vol. I. p. 251) will give a better idea of the arrangement than any description; it is clear that the circles were easily produced by applying a fine brush to the vase while turning on the wheel, first in its natural position and then on its side. Artistically, of course, the principle is a wrong one, and this is most glaringly conspicuous in the barrel-shaped lekythi, in which the axis of the vase is regarded as horizontal rather than vertical. Groups of small concentric circles are also arranged vertically or otherwise on the bodies and necks of vases. [Illustration: FIG. 148. SPIRALS UNDER HANDLES (EXEKIAS).] [Illustration: FIG. 149. WAVE-PATTERN (SOUTH ITALY).] The _spiral_, which forms such a conspicuous element in Mycenaean decorative art, appears again prominently in a class which, as we have seen (Vol. I. p. 302), owes much to that source—the Melian amphorae. Systems of spirals are arranged to fill the spaces at the sides of the design,[2026] especially in combination with floral ornaments and reticulated lozenges; and the same feature may also be observed in the Proto-Attic vases. It occurs similarly, combined with a flower, on the Samian or Fikellura vases (Vol. I. p. 337). In later times the spiral passes from the sphere of inorganic to that of organic ornament, being combined in various ways with vegetable patterns, and merging in the tendril or volute. But it occasionally reverts to its old form, notably in the red-bodied amphorae of Exekias,[2027] who, in place of the usual palmette-and-lotos ornament under the handles, contrives an elaborate system of large spirals to fill the space between the designs (Fig. 148). A variation of this is the figure-of-eight ornament, 15[34]figure-eight sometimes continuous, 15[61]continuous figure-eight which is found on vases of the Proto-Attic class, such as the Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87). [Illustration: FIG. 150. SCALE-PATTERN (DAPHNAE).] The _wave-pattern_ or kymation moulding, shown in Fig. 149, is one which constantly occurs in Greek architectural decoration, but on the vases at any rate seems to be found only at a late period. On the Campanian vases it is the regular border below the design; it is also found on those of Lucania and Apulia. The _crescent_ is only found on early Ionic vases, including those which have been attributed to a Samian origin (Vol. I. p. 336 ff.), and some of the Daphnae and Naukratis fragments, which probably borrowed it from Samos; it is arranged in bands alternating in colour, black or purple and white. Another typically Ionic ornament is the _scale-pattern_, which occurs on many of the so-called Rhodian vases, and also on those from Daphnae (Fig. 150). In the former it is produced by means of incising on the black varnish, the alternate scales being often coloured purple; but in the latter it is painted in outline. Curiously enough, it also occurs in the incised form on an early group of Corinthian vases (Plate XIX. fig. 3). Like other patterns, it can be traced to a Mycenaean origin, being very common in that style. Subsequently it occurs but rarely, but is sometimes employed on the neck or shoulder of a vase.[2028] It differs from most other patterns in that it does not lend itself to the panel or frieze, but covers a surface of indefinite extent. It is also known as the “imbricated” pattern, from its likeness to overlapping tiles (_imbrices_). [Illustration: FIG. 151. GUILLOCHE OR PLAIT-BAND (IONIC), FROM THE EUPHORBOS PINAX.] [Illustration: FIG. 152. TONGUE-PATTERN (B.F. PERIOD).] [Illustration: FIG. 153. EGG-PATTERN (R.F. PERIOD).] The _guilloche_ or plait-band (Fig. 151) is characteristic of early fabrics, such as those of Naukratis and Samos, the Clazomenae sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.), and the small Proto-Corinthian lekythi, but is not often found in later times.[2029] It is typically Ionic, and seems to be derived from Mycenae (cf. A 209 in B.M.). Lastly, there is the so-called _tongue-pattern_, which is exclusively used as an upper border to designs. On its first appearance in the Geometrical vases it is rectilinear in form, 15[63]tongue-pattern and formed of alternating bars; but from the beginning of the sixth century onwards it assumes a curvilinear form, all the tongues pointing downwards, broader, and close together, as in Fig. 152. In the Daphnae vases and the later Corinthian wares it is treated in polychrome fashion, black, purple, and white alternately. On the lip and shoulders of Caeretan hydriae it appears in an exaggerated form, painted red, with black edges, as on Plate XXVI. In the Attic B.F. vases it forms the invariable upper border of the designs, below the necks of the amphorae and hydriae, and is also used as a border to the interior designs of the kylikes; here, too, purple is often applied to the alternate tongues. Occasionally the rectilinear form reappears. In the R.F. period it changes its character again, and the tongues become short and semi-oval in form, with black centre and narrow outlined edge; in this form it is usually described as an _egg-pattern_ (Fig. 153). It is found in the smaller hydriae, and in many other shapes above or below the designs; also round the lip of the vase. The same form and arrangement obtain in the South Italian vases, especially in Apulia and Lucania, except that a dot is often placed between each pair of tongues. In some cases it approximates closely to the egg-and-dart, as on F 179 in the British Museum. Both tongue and egg-patterns are often ranged round the base of the handles. The egg-and-tongue, with its variants, is a typically Ionic architectural pattern; hence its non-appearance in Attic vases before the fifth century. In later Roman pottery (Chap. XXIII.) it becomes very common. The variety known as the Lesbian kymation is found in a few late instances.[2030] * * * * * Having surveyed the various types of inorganic patterns, whether rectilinear or curvilinear, we now come to the consideration of those which are not only derived from vegetable ornament, but still preserve, in greater or less degree, a naturalistic character. To begin with the simple leaf-ornament, which is of too conventional a type to associate with any particular plant, this occurs most frequently in the form of of a _calyx_, placed round the lower part of the body, immediately above the foot, so that the leaves radiate from the foot, pointing upwards.[2031] This ornament begins at a very early period, and is found in most fabrics, continuing down to the latest stages. It is, however, specially associated with the B.F. period, in which it is invariable on the large vases with a more or less marked stem, the amphorae, hydriae, and kraters. On the smaller ones, however, it does not occur. In the “affected” B.F. amphorae (Vol. I. p. 388) the calyx is double, with two tiers of rays.[2032] An arrangement of four leaves saltire-wise in a panel sometimes occurs on the Geometrical vases, a remarkable instance of vegetable ornament in this style (cf. Vol. I. p. 282); an analogous pattern is also found on many early Corinthian aryballi (Vol. I. p. 314; B.M. A 1086 ff.), the leaves not being united at the base, and usually interspersed with reticulated or other motives. [Illustration: FIG. 154. LEAF- OR CHAIN-PATTERN.] Another form of leaf-pattern is of rare occurrence, and is found now and then on Attic vases; in this small leaves are joined together in a sort of ribbon or chain-pattern[2033] (Fig. 154). The peculiarity of this ornament is that even in the B.F. period it is red-figured in technique, being left in the colour of the clay with a background of black. [Illustration: FIG. 155. IVY-WREATH (B.F. PERIOD).] The _ivy-leaf_ was not adopted as a decorative pattern before the middle of the sixth century; it seems to be Ionic in origin.[2034] Single large leaves occur on the necks of B.F. lekythi, on late Ionic B.F. vases, and to a considerable extent on the imitations made in Etruria.[2035] These are usually treated in a very naturalistic manner. Double rows of smaller leaves, forming a straight wreath, constantly occur as borders to the panels on B.F. hydriae, kraters, and oinochoae (Fig. 155); and similar ivy-wreaths are found along the flat edges of the flange-shaped handles on the larger panel-amphorae, as well as on the volute-handles of kraters.[2036] These patterns preserve their vogue in the R.F. amphorae of the earlier period, and in the kraters of Lucania, and it should be noted that they are always painted in the B.F. method (black leaves on red ground) except in the vases of Apulia and Paestum. But as a rule on the South Italian vases the ivy-leaf is treated in a naturalistic manner, with tendrils and berries, occupying a large panel on the necks of the column-handled kraters, or forming a border on the lip of the vase (Fig. 156).[2037] The vine as an ornament is very rare, but there is a good instance on a late _phiale_ in the British Museum (F 503), where it is treated in a very naturalistic manner, forming the sole decoration of the interior; it is also of frequent occurrence on the vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes (Vol. I. p. 391). The pomegranate occurs only on the Cyrenaic cups (Fig. 93), where it forms a continuous frieze of buds round the exterior, united by interlacing lines. The acanthus is only introduced quite late (except where it appears as an ornament on the top of a _stele_), and is found on the necks of kraters and other large Apulian vases, forming a rich and luxuriant mass of foliage, often with a flower in the centre, on which rests a female head. Myrtle or olive-wreaths occur at all times, especially on the flat rim of the mouth of a vase; the myrtle seems to be a typically Ionic motive, and is found at Daphnae, Samos, Rhodes, and on the Caeretan hydriae.[2038] In the Rhodian vases it is either roughly painted in black on red, or else in red and white on a black ground. It was also adopted at Athens—_e.g._ by Nikosthenes. Laurel-wreaths form the regular decoration of the neck in the bell-shaped kraters and wide-bellied amphorae of the late R.F. period and the decadence (Fig. 157). These wreath-patterns on the late vases, it should be noted, are either treated in R.F. technique or painted in opaque white on the black varnish. They are often drawn with great care and accuracy. [Illustration: FIG. 156. IVY-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).] [Illustration: FIG. 157. LAUREL-WREATH (SOUTH ITALIAN VASES).] The history of the development of the _palmette_ (or honeysuckle), the _lotos-flower and bud_, and of continuous foliated patterns in general, has been skilfully treated by Riegl.[2039] To write a complete account of this class of ornamentation would be impossible within the limits of the present work; only a few main features can be noted, to show the form the patterns assume at different periods, so universal is their appearance on vases of all shapes and dates. The lotos-flower or bud is, of course, a motive of purely Oriental origin, which found its way into Greece probably through the medium of Phoenicia; the palmette, on the other hand, is purely Greek, although it may possibly be derived from a Mycenaean prototype, the _Vallisneria spiralis plant_, which is so frequently found on Mycenaean vases (Fig. 158).[2040] They are found not only as single motives, isolated or repeated, but also combined together, or forming part of elaborate systems of floral ornament, with stems and tendrils often conventionalised, which link them together, either in continuous bands or in groups occupying a limited space, on the neck or under the handle. [Illustration: FIG. 158. VALLISNERIA SPIRALIS (MYCENAEAN).] [Illustration: FIG. 159. LOTOS-FLOWER ON CYPRIOTE VASE.] In the Graeco-Phoenician pottery of Cyprus the lotos-flower often appears in a purely Egyptian form (Fig. 159, from C 165 in B.M.), but it is more often combined with and almost merged in some elaborate system of patterns too complicated to describe or define by any name.[2041] But in Greek vase-paintings, in which it first makes its appearance in the seventh century, it is always more or less conventional. It is thus found on the Melian amphorae in combination with systems of spirals[2042]; though on the shoulder of the example given by Riegl there occurs a band of lotos-flowers alternately upright and inverted, linked together by scrolls, where the form is almost that of Egyptian art, except that the cup of the flower is rounder, the petals shorter and blunter. It is obviously as yet in the transitional stage. Next we meet with it in the vases of Ionia, especially in those of the so-called Rhodian and earlier Naukratite styles, which have friezes of lotos-flowers alternating with closed buds or with palmettes, connected by tendrils (Fig. 160). A similar pattern, on an exceptionally large scale and treated in polychrome (white and purple), surrounds the lower portion of the body on several of the later Caeretan hydriae (cf. Plate XXVI.). But in most of the fabrics of the sixth century the bud seems to have been preferred to the open flower of the ornament.[2043] Rows of lotos-buds linked by tendrils, upright or inverted, are found on the Cyrenaic cups, on the vases of the Chalcidian type, and on the later Ionic fabrics, such as the Rhodian kylikes in the British Museum (B 379–81). Sometimes, too, a single bud appears in the design itself, overhanging the scene or rising from the ground. On the so-called Pontic vases the buds are isolated, and placed alternately upright and pendent. In the Corinthian and early Attic fabrics the lotos-flower is found, combined in various ways with palmettes and tendrils, as a neck-ornament, or above a panel, or under the handles, and also as a centre in heraldic compositions (Fig. 161); but subsequently the buds resume their sway, and are found bordering the panels of black-bodied amphorae (as in Fig. 162), forming a lower border to the designs on the red-bodied, and also on the shoulder of lekythi. These motives linger on in the earlier R.F. amphorae and hydriae, and in the column-handled kraters; rows of buds of a degenerate elongated form, on the lip, neck, or shoulder, are continued well into the period of the South Italian fabrics. [Illustration: FIG. 160. LOTOS-FLOWERS AND BUDS (RHODIAN).] [Illustration: FIG. 161. PALMETTE- AND LOTOS-PATTERN] (EARLY B.F.). [Illustration: FIG. 162. LOTOS-BUDS (ATTIC B.F.).] [Illustration: FIG. 163. CHAIN OF PALMETTES AND LOTOS (EARLY B.F.).]] The palmette or honeysuckle ornament is not usually found as an independent ornament before the middle of the sixth century.[2044] Its development in this direction really belongs to the R.F. period. But in combination it is found, as we have seen, in Corinthian and Attic B.F. vases, and also in Chalcidian. Before the Athenian unification of styles it usually appears linked with lotos-flowers in a sort of double chain, each pattern being alternately upright and reversed, as in Fig. 163; in this form it is usually found on the neck, or as an upper border to the design. This type of ornament is favoured in the Proto-Attic, Corinthian, and Corintho-Attic vases, and the earlier panel-amphorae; the palmette is here regarded as the foliage of the lotos-flower, which at first always predominates. Subsequently the palmette gains the upper hand, as on the necks of the red amphorae (see Fig. 165), and the lotos-flower is gradually ousted altogether. It, however, returns occasionally on R.F. hydriae and amphorae.[2045] Another variety, which may be described as a metope-like treatment, compared with the frieze-like treatment above, consists of an interlacing arrangement filling the space of a square, with two palmettes and two lotos-flowers respectively opposed, or a symmetrical arrangement of palmettes and lotos-flowers, connected by tendrils, as in Fig. 164. This is found under the handle, or on the neck, or in the middle of a frieze of the Corinthian “heraldic” type.[2046] On the red-bodied B.F. amphorae the universal neck-ornament is a band of large palmettes vertically opposed, linked by a continuous chain passing between them and separated by elongated lotos-flowers (Fig. 165); this is also found on the Panathenaic vases and the earlier R.F. amphorae. Towards the end of the sixth century, however, there is a tendency to drop these composite ornaments, and attention is devoted to the palmette alone. The method of its application to the kylikes as a handle-ornament, linked thereto by a scroll, has already been treated in detail (Vol. I. p. 413); it first appears on the Cyrenaic cups, and is usually employed by the “minor artists” of the B.F. period. The chief feature of the new advance is that the palmette is no longer a stiff upright design with straight unenclosed petals, the form to which it adheres down to the end of the sixth century; but now assumes a more flexible and graceful form, being encircled and linked to its fellows by means of slender scrolls or tendrils, which thus form a series of elliptical or oval forms capable of great variety of arrangement and position (Fig. 166). This framed palmette is first found in the Fikellura or Samian ware. It occurs in the form of a frieze, with linking scrolls, on the later B.F. hydriae.[2047] The number of leaves or petals of which the palmette is composed is usually limited to seven. Another important and very effective improvement is achieved by placing opposed pairs of palmettes no longer vertically, but obliquely, forming an upper or lower border to the design (Fig. 167). These are frequently found on the krater and hydria, and appear constantly on the vases of Apulia and Lucania, especially on the lip. Great attention is paid to the effective grouping of the framed palmettes in the spaces under the handles, the object aimed at being more and more naturalism rather than symmetry.[2048] [Illustration: FIG. 164. PALMETTES AND LOTOS UNDER HANDLES (ATTIC B.F.).] [Illustration: FIG. 165. PALMETTE PATTERN ON NECK OF RED-BODIED AMPHORAE.] [Illustration: FIG. 166. ENCLOSED PALMETTES (R.F. PERIOD).] [Illustration: FIG. 167. OBLIQUE PALMETTES (LATE R.F.).] In the later R.F. period, on the other hand, there is a certain reaction in the direction of conventional ornament, combined with exaggeration and lack of refinement. The palmette under the handle returns to the old erect unframed type, and increases enormously in size, so that one or at most two vertically opposed suffice to fill the space. In this form it appears on the bell-shaped kraters and hydriae of Southern Italy, and especially those of Campania, surrounded by elaborate scrolls and tendrils. In the latter fabric the palmette, which has become almost gross and ugly, is usually flanked by two large convolvulus or other flowers rising from the ground, and drawn in profile (Fig. 168). In the Apulian and Lucanian vases there is no rule as to the number of the palmettes, and sometimes the effect is exceedingly rich and elaborate. Speaking generally, there is no ornament which prevails so universally and in such varied forms and systems on Greek vases, but to give an exhaustive account of all its uses would be far beyond the limits of this work. [Illustration: FIG. 168. PALMETTE UNDER HANDLES (SOUTH ITALIAN VASE).] There remains only to be discussed the _rosette_, which, in spite of its often purely formal character, may be reckoned as in its origin a floral motive, even if it is not obvious that it is derived from any particular plant. It may be said to have two distinct forms, the star and the disc,[2049] the former consisting of an indefinite number of radiating arms or leaves, the latter of a simple disc surrounded by a row of dots. In both forms it is found at all periods, not so much as a formal pattern in bands or groups, but as a decorative adjunct to surfaces within or without the field of the design, especially as a ground ornament on Ionic, Corinthian, and other early fabrics, or as an embellishment of the draperies worn by the figures on the vases. [Illustration: FIG. 169. ROSETTE (RHODIAN).] [Illustration: FIG. 170. ROSETTE (APULIAN).] In the Mycenaean period it is found usually in the dotted disc form, as a ground ornament, but the star form is by no means rare.[2050] In later Cypriote pottery the star-shaped rosette sometimes occurs in a band of ornament, left in the colour of the clay on a black background[2051]; but the other type is more common in conjunction with the concentric circles. In Hellenic pottery the rosette at first appears exclusively as a ground-ornament, and this function it fulfils both in Corinthian and early Ionic pottery to a large extent, as well as in some of the smaller groups. In the Rhodian and Naucratite wares it assumes very varied forms (_e.g._ Fig. 169, from the Euphorbos pinax), intermingled with hook-armed crosses and bits of maeander; in the early Corinthian wares it takes the shape of an approximately circular flower of six petals, which covers every available vacant space over the area of the design[2052]; these are often rendered with great carelessness, the artist’s only object being apparently to insert a patch of colour where it would fill in a space. Subsequently the rosettes become both more symmetrical and at the same time fewer in number, and by the beginning of the Attic B.F. style have altogether disappeared. Occasionally they are employed for a band of ornament on the lip, neck, or handles of a B.F. vase.[2053] Lost sight of for a period of some two hundred years, the rosette springs again to life in the vases of Apulia, resuming its old functions as a ground-ornament, and also being employed in bands on the neck or elsewhere. It usually appears in the form of a star-shaped flower of six or eight petals, in red edged with white on the black ground (Fig. 170). * * * * * It may also be found convenient to treat the ornamentation of Greek vases from a different point of view, in order to give an outline of the decorative system adopted in each of the principal styles, and as considered appropriate to the various forms. In the vases of the prehistoric period, from the primitive incised wares down to the end of the Mycenaean style, there is an entire absence of anything like rule or formalism. The principle observed in the very early classes, such as the Cypriote relief and white slip wares (Vol. I. p. 241 ff.), is the imitation of other substances, of metal or leather. The object of the artist was to cover the surface of the vase as far as possible with decorative designs; and if, as was generally the case, his artistic capacity restricted him to linear or simple vegetable patterns, the utmost he could achieve was to adapt these to the whole of the space at his disposal—_i.e._ the whole body of the vase. Mycenaean vases, however, are usually only decorated on the upper part, as far as the middle of the body, which was encircled with one or more plain bands of black. Thus there remained a sort of panel between the handles, of varying extent. In the Geometrical period, however, a great change takes place, which from the artistic point of view is a reaction in the direction of formalism, but nevertheless forms the basis of the decorative systems of later times. Here we see for the first time a regular partition of the surface of the vase by means of bands and panels of ornaments, without indeed any restriction of particular patterns to any part of the vase, but yet a deliberate endeavour to establish a decorative system.[2054] With the increase of animal and human subjects the ornament becomes more subsidiary, merely a framework to the design, but even in the succeeding Proto-Attic and Melian classes it plays a very important part. In the Melian vases the system is Geometrical, but the ornamentation is curvilinear and Mycenaean. The ground-ornaments, however, are derived from the former source as well (hook-cross and zigzags in conjunction with rosettes). In both these classes the space under the handles is selected for the display of a grouping of ornamental motives, such as spirals or palmettes, or the two combined in a series of heart-shaped motives or panel-compositions; similar patterns cover the neck and the lower part of the body. The ornamentation of Phaleron and Proto-Corinthian vases is an echo of the Geometrical system. The ground-ornaments are the hook-cross, rosettes of dots, and bits of maeander; the bands of pattern consist of zigzags, chequers, double rows of dots, and toothed patterns. The early Ionic vase-painters treat the subsidiary ornamentation as they do their principal subjects, adopting the frieze principle in most cases; the only exception is in the Rhodian pinakes, where it is usually confined to simple patterns round the rim, with a sort of fan-pattern in the exergue below the central design.[2055] The ground-ornaments are really the chief feature of Rhodian ornamentation, as in Corinthian vases. The decoration of the Fikellura or Samian ware is very characteristic, and demands separate mention. The patterns are highly developed, and suggest a late date—as, for instance, the scroll, the ivy-leaf, and the framed palmette. In later Ionic vases the ornamentation is not very prominent, except in the Caeretan hydriae, in which the broad bands of palmette-and-lotos ornament, and the exaggerated tongue-pattern on the lip and shoulder, occupy a proportion of the surface unusual at this period. Besides the typical ground-ornaments (rosette and hook-crosses) of the earlier vases, the favourite Ionian patterns are the maeander, the guilloche, and wreaths of ivy and myrtle. At Corinth, as we have seen, for a long time ornament is confined to the ground-filling rosettes, with some simple motives, such as zigzag lines or tongue-pattern, on the mouth and shoulder, or bordering the design; even in the later examples, when the rosettes have disappeared, it is practically confined to the interlacing palmette-and-lotos pattern on the neck, above the design, or inserted in the subordinate friezes of animals.[2056] The same principle applies in the Corintho-Attic and Chalcidian fabrics.[2057] In Athenian B.F. vases we at last find a stereotyped system of ornament for each kind of vase, from which there is little or no variation. Generally the system is as follows:—On the panel-amphorae, an interlaced palmette-and-lotos pattern or a row of inverted lotos-buds above the panel, and a calyx of leaves round the foot, those with flanged handles having also ornaments thereon, ivy-leaves or rosettes. On the red-bodied, a chain of double palmettes round the neck, tongue-pattern on the shoulder, a grouping of palmettes, tendrils, and lotos-flowers under the handle, and a row of three or four narrow bands of ornament below the design (lotos-buds upright or inverted, maeander, zigzags), terminating with the calyx round the foot. The Panathenaic amphorae have the same neck-ornament as the red-bodied, with tongues above the panel, and thick rays round the foot; the fourth-century examples have palmettes on the neck, with elongated tongue-pattern immediately below. On the hydriae, tongue-pattern above the shoulder-design, borders to the panels (maeander above, ivy or network down the sides, lotos-buds or framed palmettes below), and calyx round the foot. On the oinochoae, panel-borders like those of the hydriae, but on the _olpae_ (Vol. I. p. 178) only two or three rows of chequer, maeander, etc., on the neck above; on the lekythi, lotos-buds, ivy-leaves, and palmettes on the shoulder, and a double row of dots above the design. The kylix-ornament is practically limited to the handle-palmettes of the “minor artist” class, and a circle of straight-edged rays, alternately black and outlined, round the stem on the later varieties (together with the large eyes). In the R.F. period the same system of appropriate patterns for each form of vase is in the main adhered to, but with greater freedom; there is also a wide difference between the earlier amphorae and hydriae, which cling to the old panel-system with its ornamental borders, and the vases of the fine period, in which there is an absence of all restraint on the one hand, and a tendency to dispense with ornament almost entirely on the other (as in the Nolan amphorae). On the kylix, the ornament is throughout confined to the palmettes under the handles and the maeander encircling the interior design, which have been dealt with already (Vol. I. p. 413 ff.). The earlier amphorae and hydriae, as we have seen, have panels with borders as in the B.F. period, usually in the older technique; those of the fine style (including the wide-bellied amphorae) have a short noncontinuous border, such as egg-pattern or maeander, above and below the figures, with similar patterns on the lip and round the bases of the handles. The stamnos has egg-patterns round the lip and handles, tongue-pattern round the shoulder, and a system of palmettes between the designs. The red lekythi have egg-pattern or palmettes on the shoulder, and maeander-pattern (with crosses) above or below the design; the white have black rays on red ground or black and red palmettes on white on the shoulder, and maeander above the designs. The bell-krater and wide-bellied amphora of the late R.F. period, as also those of Southern Italy, have a band of oblique palmettes or a laurel-wreath round the top, maeander with crosses below the design, palmettes grouped under the handles, and egg-pattern round their bases. The column-handled krater, on the other hand, adheres throughout to the B.F. system of ornamentation, with ivy-wreaths and elongated lotos-buds on the rim, similar lotos-buds on the neck, panels bordered with tongue-pattern and debased ivy-wreaths, and the calyx round the foot. The wide-bellied lekythi have palmettes or egg-pattern above the design, and maeander below. In the vases of Southern Italy there is, as a rule, no system observed in the ornamentation; in the large vases of Lucania and Apulia it is used with great profusion and variety, chiefly in bands on the neck. In the smaller Apulian vases and in those of Campania it is often confined to a wave-pattern below the designs; the Campanian hydriae usually have in addition a wreath of myrtle or laurel round the shoulder. Generally speaking, the large vases, such as the bell-krater, the hydria, and the wide-bellied amphora, continue the principles adopted in the R.F. period. The systems of palmette-patterns under the handles have already been discussed, and for other details the reader is also referred to what has already been said in discussing the individual patterns. ----- Footnote 1942: To give detailed references throughout may be considered superfluous, the order of subjects followed being that of the preceding chapters, to which reference may in all cases be made without difficulty by the reader. Footnote 1943: Cf. B.M. B 147; for other representations of Zeus, Figs. 111, 113, 114; Plate LI. Footnote 1944: See _J.H.S._ xiii. p. 19. Footnote 1945: See _J.H.S._ _loc. cit._ Footnote 1946: _Él. Cér._ iii. pl. 32 B. Footnote 1947: Cf. the type created by Skopas in the fourth century. Footnote 1948: An exception is _Él. Cér._ i. pl. 62, where he is bearded (on a B.F. vase). Footnote 1949: See for these two, Fig. 116. Footnote 1950: Exceptions are B.M. D 4; _Él. Cér._ i. pls. 46 A, 47, 63. Footnote 1951: Cf. for the two together on a vase, B.M. E 228. Footnote 1952: For an attempted distinction of the various Satyr-types, see Loeschcke in _Ath. Mitth._ 1894, p. 521 ff. Footnote 1953: See _J.H.S._ xviii. p. 296. Footnote 1954: Cf. the Greek heroes on B.F. vases (B.M. B 240, B 543). Footnote 1955: See B.M. E 477 and Weicker, _Seelenvogel_, _passim_. Footnote 1956: See also Roscher, iii. p. 330. Footnote 1957: Only on B.M. F 271 and Naples 3237; elsewhere unwinged. Footnote 1958: See p. 91. Footnote 1959: See _J.H.S._ ix. p. 47 ff. Footnote 1960: Note that the vase-painters are careful never to represent him wearing the skin when contending with the lion. Footnote 1961: _E.g._ Reinach, ii. 80. Footnote 1962: Munich 125. Footnote 1963: See Six, _De Gorgone_. Footnote 1964: See above, p. 146. Footnote 1965: B.M. B 4. Footnote 1966: See Weicker’s _Seelenvogel_, _passim_. Footnote 1967: See the article _Gryps_ in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, vol. i. Footnote 1968: _E.g._ B.M. E 198. Footnote 1969: See Körte in _Jahrbuch_, 1893, p. 61 ff.; also Figs. 105, 134. Footnote 1970: Vol. I. p. 472. Footnote 1971: _E.g._ B.M. E 270; Hartwig, _Meistersch._ pls. 65–6. Footnote 1972: _Él. Cér._ ii. 16 and iv. 90–93; B.M. E 308. Footnote 1973: _E.g._ B.M. B 59, B 103_{14}. Footnote 1974: See Helbig, _Hom. Epos_^2, pp. 284 ff., 342. Footnote 1975: Vol. I. p. 353. Footnote 1976: As on the Exekias amphora, B.M. B 209: see _J.H.S._ iv. p. 82. Footnote 1977: _E.g._ B.M. E 263, E 469. Footnote 1978: Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, 2823–24. Footnote 1979: On this subject generally see T. Ely in _Archaeologia_, li. p. 477 ff. Footnote 1980: Xen. _Hell._ iv. 4, 10, vii. 5, 20; Paus. iv. 28, 5; Plut. _Apophth. Lacon._ 234 D; _Vit. Demosth._ 20; Bacchyl. frag. 41 (Bergk). Footnote 1981: B.M. B 574: cf. B 608 and Urlichs, _Beiträge_, pl. 14. Footnote 1982: Berlin 1698, 1852; Munich 1121; Reinach, i. 453; Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ pl. 109, 2. Footnote 1983: B.M. E 575. Footnote 1984: Cambridge 70. Footnote 1985: _Jahrbuch_, 1895, pp. 191, 198. Footnote 1986: Reinach, i. 77; Vienna 332. Footnote 1987: Reinach, i. 508, 6; ii. 94, 270. Footnote 1988: _Ibid._ i. 126, 181. Footnote 1989: See above, p. 90, and Roscher, iii. p. 2389 ff. Footnote 1990: Reinach, i. 181; Berlin 1701. Footnote 1991: Berlin 3988, 3992; B.M. B 364; Reinach, ii. 63. Footnote 1992: Reinach, i. 513; Louvre E 732 = Fig. 111. Footnote 1993: Cf. B.M. E 167–68, 295, etc. Footnote 1994: Cf. B.M. B 106_{1}, and the Busiris vases (p. 102). Footnote 1995: See especially the Meidias vase and the Python krater (B.M. E 224, F 149). Footnote 1996: See Plate LI.; also Furtwaengler and Reichhold, pl. 3; $1$2 1883, pl. 3; 1885, pl. 5, fig. 3; _Röm. Mitth._ 1890, pl. 11 (on head-band). Footnote 1997: _Auscult. Mirab._ 96. Footnote 1998: Kavvadias, _Fouilles de Lycosura_, pl. 4. Footnote 1999: _Argonautica_, i. 729 ff. Footnote 2000: _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 248 ff. Footnote 2001: See on this subject throughout _Mon. Grecs_, 1895–97, p. 7 ff. Footnote 2002: Cf. a funerary plaque in the Louvre, where the male mourners, no doubt intentionally, have the oval form of eye; also Louvre F 256 (figure of Aeneas). Footnote 2003: For other instances M. Girard (_Mon. Grecs_, _loc. cit._) refers to Louvre E 753, 754; E 643, 808; _Jahrbuch_, 1893, pl. 1; see also B.M. E 440 (R.F. period). Footnote 2004: _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57. Footnote 2005: _Anzeiger_, 1895, p. 35, fig. 9: cf. Louvre E 612 _bis_, and _Ant. Denkm._ ii. 24, 15. Footnote 2006: See also _Mon. Grecs_, 1895–97, p. 16. Footnote 2007: Furtwaengler and Reichhold, _Gr. Vasenm._ p. 8. Footnote 2008: _E.g._ B.M. E 773, 774, 779, 780. Footnote 2009: See on the subject P. Gardner in _J.H.S._ xix. p. 254. Footnote 2010: See on this motive and other heraldic groups, _Jahrbuch_, 1904, p. 27 ff. Footnote 2011: B 18 in B.M.: cf. also the fragment from Naukratis, B 103_{17}. Footnote 2012: This principle in its most developed form may be observed on the Chalcidian and Tyrrhenian amphorae: see Vol. I. p. 321 ff. Footnote 2013: B.M. B 147. Footnote 2014: _Ibid._ B 313. Footnote 2015: B.M. B 589–91. Footnote 2016: _E.g._ B.M. B 264, B 428, etc. Footnote 2017: Cf. B.M. E 164 ff. Footnote 2018: See Winter, _Jüngere Attische Vasen_, p. 69; _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 102; also Plate XLV. Footnote 2019: This subject has hitherto received little or no general scientific treatment from archaeologists. Riegl’s _Stilfragen_ (1893) contains an interesting study of vegetable ornament on Greek vases; but the plates of Brunn and Lau’s _Gr. Vasen_, though intended to illustrate the system of ornamentation, are not very instructive. Footnote 2020: For the various types of these patterns see Vol. I. p. 416, Fig. 102. Footnote 2021: This is also found on a B.F. vase in the British Museum (B 330): see Hartwig, _Meistersch._ p. 220; also B.M. E 84; Thiersch, _Hell. Vasen_, pl. 5; _Arch. Zeit._ 1873, pl. 9. Footnote 2022: The Pamphaios hydria in the British Museum (B 300) has bits of _red-on-black_ maeander down the sides of the design on the shoulder. Footnote 2023: See examples from Cyprus and Rhodes in Cases 24, 25, 28, Second Vase Room, B.M. Footnote 2024: _E.g._ B.M. B 205, 474, 476, 620, D 15, E 151, F 178. Footnote 2025: It appears, however, to be of Mycenaean origin: cf. the B.M. vases A 253, 323, 324, and _Excavations in Cyprus_, p. 6, fig. 6, from Ialysos and Cyprus, decorated in this fashion with vertical concentric circles. Footnote 2026: Riegl, p. 155. Footnote 2027: _E.g._ B.M. B 209, B 210. Footnote 2028: _E.g._ B.M. E 564. Footnote 2029: For its use on a B.F. kylix see B.M. B 382 (probably Ionic work). Footnote 2030: Munich 810, 849 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_, pls. 35–6: cf. B.M. F 278. Footnote 2031: Examples may be seen in Plates XXIII., XXVIII.-XXXIII. Footnote 2032: B.M. B 148–49, 151, 153; _J.H.S._ xix. p. 163. Footnote 2033: _E.g._ B.M. B 212, B 593, B 677, B 679: see also _Jahrbuch_, 1899, p. 161. Footnote 2034: See _Bull. de Corr. Hell._ 1898, p. 298. Footnote 2035: _E.g._ B.M. B 63 (Plate LVIII.). Footnote 2036: _E.g._ B.M. B 364. Footnote 2037: As on the Python krater, B.M. F 149. Footnote 2038: See _Jahrbuch_, 1895, p. 44, note 15. Footnote 2039: _Stilfragen_, _passim_, especially p. 48 ff. and p. 178. Footnote 2040: See Riegl, p. 115 ff., and Houssay in _Rev. Arch._ xxx. (1897), p. 91 ff. Footnote 2041: For the Egyptian types of lotos-flower and bud see Riegl, p. 48 ff. Footnote 2042: Riegl, p. 155: see also an early Boeotian example in the B.M. (A 564 = Riegl, p. 173). Footnote 2043: Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 70, points out that the form of lotos-flower with two large points is Peloponnesian (Corinthian, etc.) and Ionic; the form found in Attic, Boeotian, and Proto-Corinthian fabrics has three principal points. Footnote 2044: See generally Riegl, p. 155 ff. Footnote 2045: _E.g_. B.M. E 169. Footnote 2046: The varieties of this pattern should be carefully distinguished. Corinthian vases have a composition of lotos-flowers only; Chalcidian, palmettes only (cf. Vienna 219; B.M. B 34). In the “Tyrrhenian” amphorae, and subsequently in Attic red-bodied amphorae, the two principles are seen to be united, and palmettes alternate with lotos-flowers. See also Fig. 161. Footnote 2047: Cf. also an elegant oinochoë with white ground in the British Museum (B 631). On a similar jug at Munich (334 = Brunn-Lau, _Gr. Vasen_, pl. 22) the palmettes are enclosed in heart-shaped borders. For other vases which, like these, have palmettes for their sole decoration, see British Museum, Second Vase Room, Case 28, and Laborde, _Vases de Lamberg_, ii. pl. 41. Footnote 2048: Cf. Riegl, pp. 201–3, and Vol. I. p. 415. Footnote 2049: They are distinguished by German writers as “Blattrosette” and “Punktrosette.” Footnote 2050: Cf. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, pls. 4, 25, 28, 37, 38; _J.H.S._ xxiii. pl. 5 (Crete). Footnote 2051: _E.g._ C 244 in B.M., and Fig. 76 (Vol. I. p. 254). Footnote 2052: See Riegl, _op. cit._ p. 197. He points out that the rosette, although Assyrian in origin, is not here used in a strictly Assyrian fashion. Footnote 2053: _E.g._ B.M. B 51, B 197 ff.: cf. also the Proto-Attic vase, _Ant. Denkm._ i. 57. Footnote 2054: See what has already been said on this subject in Vol. I. Chapter VII. p. 282: cf. also Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 165. Footnote 2055: Cf. a similar pattern on the Daphnae situlae (B.M. B 105–6). Footnote 2056: See generally Wilisch, _Altkor. Thonindustrie_, p. 41 ff., for Corinthian ornamentation. Footnote 2057: See on the ornamentation of the former Thiersch, _Tyrrhen. Amphoren_, p. 69 ff.; on the latter Riegl, p. 187.