DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0366
346 APPENDIX II
figure painters, notably Lydos, Nearchos and the author of the avros 7roi(rjoas) fragment, on the one
side, with the Burgon amphora and the vases by the painter of Acropolis 606, on the other.1
The history of the black-figure style before Klitias presents greater difficulties. The first large
series of vases to be placed is one which includes the comast group discussed in Ch. XIII, and the
vases by Sophilos.2 Sophilos is usually, and rightly, taken to be an older contemporary of Klitias.
Those of his works that are preserved are certainly all earlier than the Francois vase, and may belong
to about 570 B.C. or a little earlier. The chronological connexion between Sophilos and the comast
vases has been stressed in Ch. XIII; enough here to recall that the earliest of the comast vases are a
good deal earlier than the signed work of Sophilos, while the later are certainly as late as the sixties
of the sixth century, and lead directly to the style illustrated by the Ergotimos cup in Berlin.3 The
Deianeira group, also discussed in Ch. XIII, represents a rather different, though doubtless contem-
porary, style. The Gorgon group (p. 192), from which the Deianira group certainly derives, belongs
to the early years of the sixth century. This is a clear inference from the style of the figures on the
gorgon dinos and from the massive proportions of the animals, which are far removed from the
animal style of the sixties.4 The connexion of the amphora p. 192 no. 6 with the gorgon group is
important because, though this vase may be a little later than the dinos, it is clearly much more
developed in shape than amphorae which have been attributed to the early sixth century,5 and shows
that these must really belong to the last quarter of the seventh. But the amphora by the gorgon
painter, for all its rather smart appearance, has certain very early features—most notably the very
low point of greatest breadth.6
The animals which form the greater part of the decoration of the vases by the gorgon painter
and of the contemporary 'Vourva' vases, are of generous proportions, and are quite unlike those of
the second quarter of the sixth century. But this style is overshadowed by that of the later seventh
century. There is a magnificence about some of the Attic vases of that period which the orientalizing
style of the sixth century never achieved; this is of course most clearly apparent in such works as
the Nessos amphora, the Peiraeus amphora (most especially in the lion on this vase) or the London
amphora A 1531; but there is something of the same quality in the Menidi fragments, one of which
is herewith illustrated, reduced to \ (fig. 200), in the Leipzig amphora, or the Oxford fragment
from Naukratis. If it be doubted that this style is really the style of a particular time, and that
before the beginning of the sixth century, I would again call attention to the criterion provided by
1 I scarcely need insist upon the archaic features of the
style of the Francois vase; they have been well summarized
by Pfuhl (i, 257). Enough to mention the awkward drawing
of figures like Phaidimos (on the mouth-band), the pre-
dilection for red flesh-surfaces, the very angular profiles,
the rather fleshless horses, the technique of placing white
directly on the clay, the floral forms, and the fact that
Athena is represented unarmed. These peculiarities are
really good evidence of a date considerably before the
middle of the sixth century. This is decisively confirmed
by the fact that the amphora used by the painter of
Acropolis 606 (who, as Beazley points out, is about con-
temporary with Klitias) is of a markedly early type which
contrasts sharply with the amphora of 550 B.C. Some of
the Acropolis fragments in the manner of Klitias are
more developed in style than the Francois vase, and
cannot be much earlier than 560.
The early work of Lydos (e.g. the signed fragment
Hoppin p. 164, the amphora in Florence, Pfuhl fig. 211,
attributed by Rumpf (Gnomon 1925, 333), or the crater
C. V. A. Hoppin Coll. pi. 3) are of course earlier than the
signed dinos from the Acropolis, and show that Lydos'
earliest work is but little later than the Francois vase.
2 Beazley 14, note 1. The Acropolis fragments Graf
p. 63, no. 585, are very close to Sophilos.
3 Hoppin pp. 82-3; the stage which immediately pre-
cedes this cup is shown by the cup Mon. dell' Inst, x,
pi. 52, 4-5, where the drawing contains something of the
Corinthianizing character of the comast group.
4 In style and in technique the gorgon dinos is con-
siderably earlier than the work of Sophilos; the style is
best exemplified in the figure of Hermes (contrast the
men on the dinos of Sophilos, and on comast vases). The
fact that Athena is painted black must also be accounted
a very early feature; the gorgons are far more archaic than
those of Klitias (see p. 87). Lastly, note the very archaic
horses and the distortion of the chariot-rail.
5 Cf. Langlotz's dates for the amphorae illustrated in
his pi. 13, 1-2, and Buschor's chronology A.M. 1927,
211 ff. If the vase Langlotz pi. 13, 2 is really as late
as 580 B.C. it is impossible to avoid the conclusion the
Louvre amphora by the gorgon painter, and consequently
the gorgon dinos, are contemporary with the Francois vase.
6 This is at the level of the hindquarters of the sphinxes;
the handles are uncanonical.
figure painters, notably Lydos, Nearchos and the author of the avros 7roi(rjoas) fragment, on the one
side, with the Burgon amphora and the vases by the painter of Acropolis 606, on the other.1
The history of the black-figure style before Klitias presents greater difficulties. The first large
series of vases to be placed is one which includes the comast group discussed in Ch. XIII, and the
vases by Sophilos.2 Sophilos is usually, and rightly, taken to be an older contemporary of Klitias.
Those of his works that are preserved are certainly all earlier than the Francois vase, and may belong
to about 570 B.C. or a little earlier. The chronological connexion between Sophilos and the comast
vases has been stressed in Ch. XIII; enough here to recall that the earliest of the comast vases are a
good deal earlier than the signed work of Sophilos, while the later are certainly as late as the sixties
of the sixth century, and lead directly to the style illustrated by the Ergotimos cup in Berlin.3 The
Deianeira group, also discussed in Ch. XIII, represents a rather different, though doubtless contem-
porary, style. The Gorgon group (p. 192), from which the Deianira group certainly derives, belongs
to the early years of the sixth century. This is a clear inference from the style of the figures on the
gorgon dinos and from the massive proportions of the animals, which are far removed from the
animal style of the sixties.4 The connexion of the amphora p. 192 no. 6 with the gorgon group is
important because, though this vase may be a little later than the dinos, it is clearly much more
developed in shape than amphorae which have been attributed to the early sixth century,5 and shows
that these must really belong to the last quarter of the seventh. But the amphora by the gorgon
painter, for all its rather smart appearance, has certain very early features—most notably the very
low point of greatest breadth.6
The animals which form the greater part of the decoration of the vases by the gorgon painter
and of the contemporary 'Vourva' vases, are of generous proportions, and are quite unlike those of
the second quarter of the sixth century. But this style is overshadowed by that of the later seventh
century. There is a magnificence about some of the Attic vases of that period which the orientalizing
style of the sixth century never achieved; this is of course most clearly apparent in such works as
the Nessos amphora, the Peiraeus amphora (most especially in the lion on this vase) or the London
amphora A 1531; but there is something of the same quality in the Menidi fragments, one of which
is herewith illustrated, reduced to \ (fig. 200), in the Leipzig amphora, or the Oxford fragment
from Naukratis. If it be doubted that this style is really the style of a particular time, and that
before the beginning of the sixth century, I would again call attention to the criterion provided by
1 I scarcely need insist upon the archaic features of the
style of the Francois vase; they have been well summarized
by Pfuhl (i, 257). Enough to mention the awkward drawing
of figures like Phaidimos (on the mouth-band), the pre-
dilection for red flesh-surfaces, the very angular profiles,
the rather fleshless horses, the technique of placing white
directly on the clay, the floral forms, and the fact that
Athena is represented unarmed. These peculiarities are
really good evidence of a date considerably before the
middle of the sixth century. This is decisively confirmed
by the fact that the amphora used by the painter of
Acropolis 606 (who, as Beazley points out, is about con-
temporary with Klitias) is of a markedly early type which
contrasts sharply with the amphora of 550 B.C. Some of
the Acropolis fragments in the manner of Klitias are
more developed in style than the Francois vase, and
cannot be much earlier than 560.
The early work of Lydos (e.g. the signed fragment
Hoppin p. 164, the amphora in Florence, Pfuhl fig. 211,
attributed by Rumpf (Gnomon 1925, 333), or the crater
C. V. A. Hoppin Coll. pi. 3) are of course earlier than the
signed dinos from the Acropolis, and show that Lydos'
earliest work is but little later than the Francois vase.
2 Beazley 14, note 1. The Acropolis fragments Graf
p. 63, no. 585, are very close to Sophilos.
3 Hoppin pp. 82-3; the stage which immediately pre-
cedes this cup is shown by the cup Mon. dell' Inst, x,
pi. 52, 4-5, where the drawing contains something of the
Corinthianizing character of the comast group.
4 In style and in technique the gorgon dinos is con-
siderably earlier than the work of Sophilos; the style is
best exemplified in the figure of Hermes (contrast the
men on the dinos of Sophilos, and on comast vases). The
fact that Athena is painted black must also be accounted
a very early feature; the gorgons are far more archaic than
those of Klitias (see p. 87). Lastly, note the very archaic
horses and the distortion of the chariot-rail.
5 Cf. Langlotz's dates for the amphorae illustrated in
his pi. 13, 1-2, and Buschor's chronology A.M. 1927,
211 ff. If the vase Langlotz pi. 13, 2 is really as late
as 580 B.C. it is impossible to avoid the conclusion the
Louvre amphora by the gorgon painter, and consequently
the gorgon dinos, are contemporary with the Francois vase.
6 This is at the level of the hindquarters of the sphinxes;
the handles are uncanonical.