INDEX

N.B.—All references are to pages.

[1]. F.-W. no. 1198; pub. in Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, no. 18, and Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. p. 1121.

[2]. Benndorf und Schöne, Die Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums. no. 92 = F.-W. no. 1200; pub. in Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, no. 17.

[3]. F.-W. no. 1201; pub. in Museo Torlonia, pl. 93, no. 377. This is the youngest of the three, but the original still belongs to the period just after the completion of the Parthenon.

[4]. Cf. Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 130 ff.

[5]. Cf. Isaeus v. 41, and Xen. Hieron, ix. 4.

[6]. Athen. Mitth. 1878, p. 233; Ἀθήναιον B. vii. p. 93.

[7]. 1. 20. 1.

[8]. Cf. C. I. A. ii. 3, 1298, and Anth. Pal. vi. 239.

[9]. Loc. cit.

[10]. 1. 21. 1 and 2.

[11]. Pub. Athen. Mitth. 1882, pl. 14; cf. F.-W. no. 1135.

[12]. Furtwängler, Sammlung Sabouroff, p. 31.

[13]. Cf. F.-W. no. 1843, 1844, and Jahn’s Archäologische Beiträge, p. 198 ff.

[14]. Cf. Overbeck’s Schriftquellen, no. 1128.

[15]. F.-W. no. 1242.

[16]. I follow Robert. Cf. Thanatos, p. 37 ff.

[17]. Cf. Robert in Jahrbuch, 1887, p. 244 ff.

[18]. F.-W. 1402. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36, 34.

[19]. One may distinguish two distinct moments in works of art based upon the Antiope myth. (1) The two sons of Antiope have the unfortunate Dirke all but fastened to the bull, which is being held only with the utmost exertion. (2) The catastrophe ensues. The wild animal is dragging his victim over the ground. It need not be said that the most celebrated representation of (1) is the toro farnese. For (2), cf. a wall painting, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1878, pl. 9, a and b. The myth was wonderfully popular and appears on coins, gems, reliefs, &c., all of which belong to the period when tragic influence predominated in art. Cf. Dilthey, Arch. Ztg. 1878, p. 43 ff. and Jahn, ibid., 1853, p. 65–105.

[20]. F.-W. no. 1422. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36, 37.

[21]. Robert, Bild und Lied, p. 192 ff., contends against the influence of Sophokles.

[22]. Cic. de opt. gen. orat. 1. 1.

[23]. Velleius, 1. 17. 1.

[24]. The favourite subject was the murder of Troïlos.

[25]. Brunn, op. cit. pl. 1–16; cf. Schlie, Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten, p. 13 ff.

[26]. Poet. 1453a. 21.

[27]. Op. cit. pl. 26–34, gives eighteen reliefs.

[28]. Cf. p. [113] f.

[29]. Brunn, op. cit. pl. 69–72; cf. especially nos. 1, 2 and 3. The remaining four are not Sophoklean and betray an admixture of different elements. Odysseus bathes the afflicted foot of Philoktetes on nos. 6 and 7.

[30]. Op. cit. p. 155; cf. pl. 74–83.

[31]. Op. cit. pl. 84–85. The attitude of ‘Iphigeneia’ causes some difficulty in this interpretation. Cf. her part on the other monuments.

[32]. Cf. p. [124] ff. below.

[33]. Körte, op. cit. vol. ii. pl. 1. 2.

[34]. Cf. p. [144] ff.

[35]. Op. cit. vol. ii. pl. 4. 1, 2 and 3. and pl. 5. 4.

[36]. Cf. schol. Eur. Phoin. v. 61, and Nauck’s Fragmenta, Eur. no. 541, and op. cit. ii. pl. 7. 1.

[37]. There are twenty-eight in all representing the fratricide, and nine showing the attack; Körte, I rilievi d. urne etrusche, ii. pl. 8 24.

[38]. Op. cit. ii. p. 32 ff.

[39]. Pl. 26–27.

[40]. Pl. 28–30.

[41]. Pl. 31–32.

[42]. Cf. p. [105] f. below.

[43]. Pl. 39–40. Three in all.

[44]. Pl. 41–56.

[45]. One may think of Soph. Oinom., called also Hippodameia, and of Eur. Oinom. The latter seems to have been followed by Accius.

[46]. Pl. 62; cf. also op. cit. ii. p. 150 ff.

[47]. Pl. 100–104.

[48]. The monumental publication, which is now appearing under the direction of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute, will, when completed, place within one’s reach all this immense material. The projected plan embraces six volumes of which the second has so far appeared: Die Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, ii. 1890, edited by Carl Robert. The third part is to embrace three vols., so that we have in the Antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, iii. 1897, Carl Robert, only the first vol.

[49]. Robert, op. cit. iii. part i, pl. 6–7. Nos. 22, 23, 24, 26 are all practically intact and agree closely with each other. Nos. 27–30 are larger or smaller fragments.

[50]. Pub. Arch. Ztg. 1875, pl. 9 = Robert, op. cit. iii. part i, pl. 7. 32 = Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. p. 46.

[51]. P. [101] ff.

[52]. Robert, op. cit. ii. p. 165.

[53]. Robert, Die antiken Sark.-Reliefs, ii. pl. 54, no. 154.

[54]. Cf. op. cit. ii. pl. 54–56, nos 155–166; vid. also p. [67] below.

[55]. Robert, op. cit. ii. pl. 57–59, nos. 167–180, and p. [124] ff. below.

[56]. P. [145] ff.

[57]. Robert, op. cit. ii. pl. 60, nos. 183, 184, and p. 191 ff.

[58]. Robert, op. cit. ii. pl. 51, no. 139.

[59]. Pub. by Robert, Die Pasiphaë-Sarkophag, 1890, pl. i.; also op. cit. iii. part i, pi. 10. 35, 35a, 35b.

[60]. Cf. Nauck’s Fragmenta, no. 472.

[61]. Cf. Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. p. 917, where the Louvre fragment is published = Clarac, Musée de Sculpture, pl. 201, no. 208. A similar scene is shown in no. 256.

[62]. Paus. 1. 22. 6.

[63]. Cf. p. [94] ff.

[64]. Cf. schol. Eur. Hek. v. 3, and Nauck’s Fragmenta, p. 245 ff.

[65]. Homerische Becher, p. 75; but on p. 25 f. of the Iliupersis des Polygnot in der Poikile, Robert refers the picture to Polykleitos on the strength of the epigram (Anth. Plan. 3. 30) by Pollianos. The question turns on the reading Πολυκλείτοιο, which has generally been held to be a corruption of Πολυγνώτοιο. But this does not convince me that Polygnotos might not have painted the work in the Propylaia. It is by no means necessary to consider the two paintings identical even if Πολυκλείτοιο must remain.

[66]. Paus. 10. 25. 2.

[67]. This was shown by Schneidewin in Philologus, 1849, p. 645 ff.

[68]. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35. 71.

[69]. Cf. Overbeck, Schriftquellen, 1735–1739, and p. [112] f. below.

[70]. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35, 132, and Helbig, Wandgemälde, 1183–1203.

[71]. Pliny, op. cit. 35, 136, and Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1189, 1262–1264. The latter is from Herculaneum. Cf. Overbeck, Schriftquellen, 2126–2135, for various epigrams touching this painting of Timomachus.

[72]. Overbeck, op. cit. 1642. Cf. Reisch, Griechische Weihgeschenke, p. 127.

[73]. Pliny, op. cit. 35, 144; cf. a Pompeian wall painting, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1883, pl. 9. 1.

[74]. Paus. 1. 20. 3.

[75]. Vid. Dörpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Theater, p. 21.

[76]. Cf. p. [74] below.

[77]. Cf. Helbig, op. cit. Three groups are distinguishable. (1) Nos. 1216–1240, Ariadne forsaken by Theseus. (2) 1222–1232, she mourns in her solitude. (3) 1233–1240, Dionysos comes to her rescue.

[78]. Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1242–1247; cf. p. [108], note 1.

[79]. Cf. Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1304, 1305.

[80]. Cf. p. [138] below.

[81]. Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1142, 1143.

[82]. Especially fine is the painting discovered in the casa dei Vettii, photo. Alinari, no. 12133; cf. Röm. Mitth. 1896, p. 50 f.

[83]. Cf. Röm. Mitth. 1896, p. 45 f., and Arch. Anz. 1895, p. 121, photo. Alinari, no. 12134. Pub. J. H. S. 1896, p. 151.

[84]. Helbig, op. cit. nos. 1151–1153. The excavations in 1895 added still another to those already known. Vid. Röm. Mitth. 1896, p. 46, photo. Alinari, no. 12135. Cf. also Arch. Ztg. 1878, pl. 9. a and b for two others.

[85]. Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Accius, each wrote an Andromeda. Ennius translated the Medeia, and chose over half his pieces from Euripides.

[86]. Gerhard’s Etruskische Spiegel, ii. pl. 239, and v. pl. 117.

[87]. Op. cit. iv. pl. 354. 2.

[88]. Gerhard, op. cit. iv. 367. 2. Cf. Euripides’ Κρῆτες.

[89]. Op. cit. iv. pl. 401.

[90]. Op. cit. ii. pl. 229 = Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 14. 1; iv. pl. 390. 2; v. pl. 108.

[91]. Op. cit. v. p. 217.

[92]. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. D. pl. 10. 4 and 5 = op. cit. ii. pl. 138. 139. Aischylos was the first to chain Prometheus, and all the monuments representing the giant thus fastened on the cliff are dependent on the Prometheus. Cf. Milchhoefer, in Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm for 1882.

[93]. The question as to where and how the Etruscans came to have so wide a knowledge of Greek poetry will long remain a perplexing one. One thing seems clear, viz., that the Romans did not serve as any connecting link between Greece and Etruria. Greek art as well as Greek letters reached this people direct. It hardly seems probable that translations of the Greek poets were so extensively made by this practical people, that the artists could in this manner have had access to so much that is Euripidean. There is, moreover, a great deal in some of the reliefs that bespeaks a familiarity with the scenes as actually given in the theatre. This leads me to think that the wandering troops of actors had penetrated Etruria also, and introduced the plays of which the Etruscans made so much in their art.

[94]. Figs. 12, 16, 27, 28; cf. also note 2, p. [95] f.

[95]. Vid. Lüders, Die dionysischen Künstler, Berlin, 1873.

[96]. Cf. p. [114] ff.

[97]. The ‘Megarian Bowls’ have much in common with such later monuments as the tabula iliaca. Cf. Jahn’s Bilderchroniken, and Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. no. 775.

[98]. Jahn, Telephos und Troilos, 1841, p. 46 ff., believed that Exekias was indebted to Euripides’ Telephos for the idea of his dice-players; cf. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 14. 4, and Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1888, pl. 6. 1a. We know now that Exekias must have lived nearly 100 years before the date of the Telephos.

[99]. Klein in his Euphronios, 1886, p. 236 ff., saw in the Iliupersis kylix, pub. Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. no. 795, the workings of Aischylos’ Ὅπλον Κρίσις; in the Euphronios kylix, Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. v. pl. 6, representing the death of Troïlos, a connexion was pointed out with Sophokles’ Troilos; and the Dolon kylix, also by Euphronios, cf. op. cit. p. 136 f., might be brought under the Rhesos of Euripides.

[100]. Note especially the Brygos kylix, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 65; pub. Mon. d. Inst. ix. 46, and Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. viii. 6. Dionysos stands by his altar over which a satyr springs to grasp Iris. Others of the tribe make merry. Cf. also Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 768; pub. Wiener Vorlegebl. ser. vii. 4, in the style of Euthymides. Seilenos in herald’s dress is in the midst of a long train of satyrs.

[101]. The main scene is published and discussed by Dümmler in Rheinisches Museum, 1888, p. 355 ff.

[102]. Cf. the Peiraieus frag. pub. Arch. Ztg. 1880, pl. 16. Other examples of later styles are included by Reisch, Griech. Weihgeschenke, p. 68 ff. Vid. further the list in Arch. Ztg. 1880, p. 182 f.

[103]. Gerhard, Auser. Vasen, pl. 56, and Reinach-Millin, Peintures, i. 9.

[104]. Berlin, inv. no. 3237. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, Jahrbuch, 1896, p. 292 ff. and pl. 2; cf. Furtwängler, Arch. Anz. 1893, p. 91 f.

[105]. P. [141] ff.

[106]. No. 3235, A. Pub. Mon. d. Inst. ii. pl. 36; Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 24. 19; cf. Furtwängler, Masterpieces, p. 152 f.

[107]. Fig. 8, and p. [63] f.

[108]. Heydemann’s cat. no. 3240. Pub. Müller-Wieseler, Theater-gebäude, pl. 6. 2; Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. fig. 422.

[109]. iv. 115–117. Cf. also Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, p. 42.

[110]. The Penelope vase, pub. Mon. d. Inst. ix. pl. 42 = Baumeister’s Denkmäler, iii. no. 2332, has lately been explained by Robert as being based on Soph. Νίπτρα. Cf. Die Marathonschlacht in der Poikile, p. 78 ff. If I could accept this view my position would be very materially strengthened. The Νίπτρα must be set cir. 428 B.C., and this means that the painting is later than this date. Much as I should like to bring this important monument into connexion with the drama, I cannot think of a later date for the vase than 440 B.C., which to be sure renders its relation to Sophokles impossible. If, however, Professor Robert be correct, it shows that there is at least one vase painting of the fifth century that represents a form of a myth which belonged to the theatre, and this was not granted in Bild und Lied.

[111]. Cf. Gardner’s Types of Greek Coins, pl. v. nos. 17–20, and Furtwängler’s Masterpieces, p. 105 ff., with the very instructive collection of Italian and Sicilian coins which shows the Attic influence in this period.

[112]. Cf. Mommsen, Unteritalische Dialekte, p. 89 ff.

[113]. De leg. 1. 637c.

[114]. Dio Cassius, 39. 3. 6.

[115]. Zonaris, viii. 2. 370, καὶ τὸ θέατρον ἔκλεισε.

[116]. Cf. figs. 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.

[117]. The large class of Lower Italy vases that illustrate scenes from comedy are priceless treasures. They are based on the ‘farce-plays,’ φλύακες τραγικοί—the invention of Rhinthon (vid. Rhinthonis Fragmenta, Halle, dissertation by E. Völker, 1887); cf. especially Heydemann, Jahrbuch, 1886, p. 260 ff., where all the examples then known are discussed. Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, p. 278–292, handles particularly the interesting question of the stage represented in the scenes.

Mention should be made also of Körte’s excellent article in the Jahrbuch for 1893, p. 61–93, on Archaeologische Studien zur alten Komödie.

[118]. Robert’s conclusion in regard to the literary source of all the monuments (Bild und Lied, p. 149 ff.) is that they go back to the Oresteia of Stesichoros. This view has been generally accepted by archaeologists, and met with no opposition till Wilamowitz showed reason for believing in the existence of a Delphic epic dealing with this subject. The whole question needs another careful investigation.

[119]. Pub. Mon. d. Inst. vi. pl. 57. 1 = Roscher’s Lexikon, i. p. 1238. Cf. Robert, op. cit. p. 167 ff.

[120]. Naples, no. 1755, pub. Baumeister, Denkmäler, iii. 1939 = Reinach-Millingen, Peintures, pl. 14.

[121]. Fig. 2. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, Monuments inédits, pl. 34. Cf. ibid. p. 159 ff.; Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 28. 5; cf. text ibid., p. 688 ff.; Inghirami, Vasi fitt. ii. pl. 151.

[122]. Cf. figs. 14, 15, 23, 24 for the regulation dress of the pedagogue.

[123]. Cf. note 2, p. [44].

[124]. Munich coll. Jahn’s cat. no. 814. The figure of Elektra alone together with the view of the tomb is published by Inghirami, Vasi fitt. ii. pl. 154.

[125]. Pub. Inghirami, op. cit. ii. pl. 153.

[126]. An amphora, no. 544. The painting has not been published so far as I know, but the similarity it bears to figs. 3 and 4 appeared to me to render a publication of it here unnecessary.

[127]. Cf. παρ’ οὐδετέρω κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιία of the Hypothesis.

[128]. Cf. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29, and Raoul-Rochette, Mon. inéd. pl. 35–38.

[129]. Cat. no. 349; pub. Compte Rendu, 1864, pl. 6. 5; cf. Stephani, ibid. p. 252 ff.

[130]. Cf. a similar figure with the key in figs. 6, 18, 20. In the latter cases Iphigeneia is the priestess.

[131]. v. 1061.

[132]. v. 35.

[133]. Vid my Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art, p. 12 ff., for a discussion of this passage.

[134]. So Eur. Orest. v. 321; Elekt. v. 1345.

[135]. Naples, no. 3249, photo, Alinari, 11296, from which fig. 6 is taken. The painting was published by Jahn, Vasenbilder, 1839, pl. 1. 1, from a drawing. Jahn himself had not seen the vase. The drawing does the fine picture so little justice that I could not think of reproducing it. The work on the vase is wonderfully clear and strong. Every figure is in itself a beautiful work of art. The picture presents an unusual variety of situations that are artistically of great interest.

[136]. Cf. also fig. 8.

[137]. No. 3256. Pub. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29. 4; general view of the whole vase, Gerhard’s Apulische Vasen. pl. A. 6. Another painting, a late work and wretchedly done, somewhat similar, is published in Arch. Ztg. 1877, pl. 4. 11.

[138]. Fig. 8. Pub. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29. 7; Mon. d. Inst. iv. pl. 48; Arch. Ztg. 1860, pl. 138. 2; Baumeister’s Denkmäler, ii. p. 1117; Rayet et Collignon, Histoire de la céramique grecque, p. 297.

[139]. Vid. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29. 11, and 12.

[140]. Cf. vs. 67, 84, 91.

[141]. This view is maintained by Dörpfeld and Reisch, Das griechische Theater, p. 243 ff. In reply to this vid. Robert in Hermes, vol. 32, p. 439 ff. Vid. also Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, pp. 112–116, where this point in the production of the Eumenides is ably discussed.

[142]. Cf. this scene on the Sarcophagi reliefs. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, ii. pl. 54–56, nos. 155–161, the right end scene; also no. 1571, p. 173.

[143]. Cf. the ghosts of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra on the end reliefs of the Sarcophagus, no. 155, op. cit.

[144]. Orest. 408, 1650; Tro. 457; cf. also the relief found near Argos, pub. Athen. Mitth. 1879, pl. 9 = Roscher’s Lexikon, i. p. 1330.

[145]. Wilamowitz, Aischylos Orestie, Zweites Stück, 1896, p. 246 ff., has shown the plausibility of believing in such an epic. The author was a Delphian.

[146]. A few fragments remain from the Oresteia of Stesichoros. Cf. Bergk-Schaefer, Poetae lyrici graeci, iii. p. 219 ff.

[147]. Opinions vary on this point. Three different views are held. (1) The temple of Athena remains the scene throughout the rest of the play; the Areiopagos (v. 685) becomes then merely a part of the stage decorations given by the periaktoi. (2) Between v. 235 and v. 685 the scene was changed from the Acropolis to the Areiopagos. (3) There is no scene from v. 235 other than the Areiopagos. The latter seems to me absolutely untenable. Repeated allusion is made to the temple and to Orestes clinging to the old image in the δῶμα (v. 242 ff.). Regarding the first and second, it makes little difference whether the scene was in fact shifted or whether it was represented on the wings. The practical working was the same in either case.

[148]. The present whereabouts of the vase is not known. Pub. Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. p. 1118; Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29. 9; Reinach-Millingen, Peintures, ii. 68; also as frontispiece to the 4th ed. of Paley’s Aeschylus. He disposes of it in a line or two, and, with the usual accuracy which characterizes philologists when dealing with matters of archaeology, says the vase is ‘probably nearly contemporaneous’ with the Eumenides (p. 584). The composition is remarkably like the Assteas painting, Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. i. pl. 7. The figures of Apollo and Kadmos, as well as the two Athenas, have much in common. There is the same roundness and plumpness in the figures. Furthermore, Assteas was partial to bust figures and never lost an opportunity to introduce them. The border on the veil of the female bust of our vase is Campanian, as are also certain other details. All this brings me to the opinion that Assteas, who was very likely from Paestum and may have been in touch with Campanian styles as well, was the painter of our vase. It is at least from the school of Assteas. A painting by Python (J. H. S. 1890, pl. 6), one of the set of Assteas, exhibits the same treatment of hair and decoration that is found on the painting, fig. 9.

[149]. These feathers, for that is what these projections are, can be counted on dozens of helms belonging to this period. Athena and warriors wear them alike. Their occurrence before the latter part of the fourth century B.C. is unknown to me.

[150]. Cf. Aisch. Supp. v. 463.

[151]. Pub. Arch. Ztg. 1860, pl. 137. 4 = Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 29. 8.

[152]. Vid. Arch. Anz. 1890, p. 90.

[153]. It is worth noting that, when viewed both from the artistic in his plays and the art that was an outgrowth of his plays, Sophokles occupies the same position as regards Aischylos and Euripides. Cf. my Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art, p. 32 ff.

[154]. P. [35], note 3, and p. [36], note 3.

[155]. Poet. 1450a. 25.

[156]. Rep. 8. 568a.

[157]. C. 29.

[158]. Athen. p. 537; cf. Plut. Alex. c. 10 and 53.

[159]. Athen. p. 175.

[160]. This fact comes out particularly in Polybios; cf. Susemihl, Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexanderzeit, ii. p. 119.

[161]. C. I. A. ii. 973 is the authority for this occurrence in the years 341–39 B.C.

[162]. 6. 3. 5.

[163]. Cf. Nem. 7. v. 49 ff.

[164]. Vid. Hypothesis: τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα τῶν δευτέρον.

[165]. Fig. 10; no. 239 in the Jatta catalogue. Pub. Annali d. Inst. 1868, pl. E = Engelmann’s Atlas zum Homer, ii. Odyssee, pl. 4. 18; cf. Vogel, op. cit. p. 36 ff.

[166]. Cf. similar figures in figs. 6, 18, 20.

[167]. The composition is strikingly like that in fig. 18. The two temples are exact counterparts of each other. The altars likewise and the Apollo figures have much in common. Most important of all is the fact that in both pictures the chief persons are denoted by inscriptions. It should be observed further that both vases are of the same style, amphoras with volute handles, and both were found in Ruvo. These facts lead me to believe that one and the same artist may have been the painter of both works.

[168]. Cf. figs. 6, 7, 18, 20, 21, 23.

[169]. The 26th idyll of Theokritos should also be counted with the Bakchai.

[170]. Suidas s. v. Thespis.

[171]. But one verse remains, Nauck’s Fragmenta, no. 183.

[172]. A psykter in the Bourguignon coll., Naples; pub. Jahrbuch, 1892, pl. 5. The vase belongs to the Epiktetos set, and may be dated cir. 500 B.C.

[173]. The following, given by Hartwig, Jahrbuch, 1892, p. 154 ff., may be mentioned as supplementing the list in Jahn’s well-known essay, Pentheus und die Mainaden, Kiel, 1841.

(1) Attic pyxis, Louvre; pub. Jahrbuch, 1892, p. 156; date 420–400 B.C.

(2) Kylix in Museo di Papa Giulio, Rome, described by Hartwig, op. cit. p. 163, who thinks it may have well been influenced by Euripides, but he sets the date of the Bakchai at 410 B.C.! I have not seen the vase nor any publication of it, but should infer from Hartwig’s description that it is older than the tragedy.

[174]. Lucanian fabric, no. 807 in Jahn’s cat., pub. Jahn’s Pentheus und die Mainaden, pl. ii. a; Reinach-Millingen, Peintures, pl. 5 = Baumeister, Denkmäler, ii. no. 1396.

[175]. The original shows no trace of the fire that is so prominent in the publications. There can, however, be no doubt that a burning torch was meant, if not so painted originally.

[176]. vs. 954 ff., 1052, 1061 ff.

[177]. P. [25] above. It should be noted that this is the first example of a Pentheus scene discovered in Pompeii or Herculaneum.

[178]. P. [23] above.

[179]. The episode seems to have been first told in the Ἰλίου Πέρσις of Arktinos. Polyxena being led by Neoptolemos to the tomb of Achilles appears on an Attic bl. fig. vase of cir. 550 B.C., vid. Berlin cat. 1902; pub. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 27. 17. Two gems of the severe style in the Berlin Antiquarium (nos. 489, 490), pub. Overbeck, op. cit. pl. 27. 13 and 14, also represent the sacrifice. The painting in the Pinakotheke of the Propylaia may have been by Polygnotos (cf. p. [21] above), and if it was, Euripides no doubt had often seen it. This showed her about to be sacrificed; Paus. 1. 22. 6.

[180]. ‘Megarian Bowls’ is a name applied to a class of small cups decorated with a band of relief. The ware is red or black, and appears both in glazed and unglazed form. The largest number of the vases has been found in Megara, hence the name ‘Megarian.’ As many have been discovered also in Boeotia and other places, the present terminology is somewhat misleading. Examples of this ware are to be found in every large museum in Europe. The British Museum possesses no less than nine such cups, and fragments from fourteen others (vid. cat. iv. pp. 251–256). The reliefs illustrate mostly scenes from the Theban and Trojan Cycles. Whether the terra cotta presented a cheap way of reproducing silver and gold cups, which were highly prized, and served therefore the place of our casts, or whether the bowls were made from special moulds and are to be considered independent works of art, is quite uncertain. The fact that there are in existence three copies of the same work, each agreeing in every detail with the others, would seem to point to the former supposition. Robert, who has handled this set of monuments most thoroughly, distinguishes two classes: (1) the whole vase is cast from one mould; (2) the reliefs having been made separately are stamped on the ready bowl. Vid. especially Robert’s Homerische Becher for the whole question; cf. also p. [27] ff. above.

[181]. Fig. 12, pub. by Robert, op. cit. p. 73 ff.

[182]. Fig. 13: pub. Mon. d. Inst. ii. pl. 12; Welcker, Alte Denkmäler, iii. pl. 23. 2; Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 28. 2.

[183]. The first play belonged to the trilogy containing the Aigeus and Theseus, which made up a set of purely Attic interest. It is well known that Euripides deepened and widened the belief in the Athenian heroic period.

[184]. Suidas names an Hippolytos of Lykophron—a poet of Alexandria.

[185]. The Phaedra seems to have followed the first Hippolytos of Euripides.

[186]. Cf. Met. 15, vs. 497 ff., and Heroid. 4.

[187]. Cat. iv. F 272, pub. by Braun, Mon. ed Annali, 1854, pl. 16; Engelmann’s Atlas zum Homer, ii, Odyssee, pl. 15. 93. First correctly interpreted by Heydemann, Arch. Ztg. 1871, p. 158 ff.; cf. also Vogel, op. cit. p. 66 f., and Kalkmann, Arch. Ztg. 1883, p. 62 ff. The vase is Apulian ware. The lower zone represents the violence of the Centaurs at the marriage of Peirithoös’ daughter, Laodameia. Theseus and the father are seen rushing to the help of the bride.

[188]. The fact that no succession of events, where one person appears more than once, can be found in Hellenic art, forbids us interpreting this group as again Phaidra and an attendant. I cannot, however, rid myself of the feeling that the figure leaning on the kline is not a servant, but is more in rank with Phaidra. Her rôle is more than that of the other attendants. This is shown by her attitude and dress. Her appearance is exactly that required for Phaidra after she had ordered her attendants to lift her up, remove her veil, and allow her hair to drop over her shoulders (vs. 198–202).

[189]. Cf. the part of the pedagogue on the Medeia vase, fig. 23, p. [146].

[190]. There are, besides, fragments of several other reliefs. For the literature vid. Kalkmann, Arch. Ztg. 1883, p. 65 ff., and Jahn, Arch. Beiträge, p. 300 ff.

[191]. Cf. vs. 201 ff.

[192]. Pub. Arch. Ztg. 1847, pl. 5 and 6.

[193]. Pub. Mon. d. Inst. vi. pl. 1, 2, 3.

[194]. So on the Constantinople relief, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1857, pl. 100 = Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, pl. 9. 3; and on the Girgenti sarcophagi; cf. note 1 above.

[195]. Clarac, Musée de Sculpture, pl. 213, no. 228, and Mon. d. Inst. viii. pl. 38. 1 = Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. 5, pl. 12, and Gerhard, Antike Bildwerke, pl. 26.

[196]. A number of vase paintings interpreted as Phaidra are not included here since they all admit of a variety of interpretations. Vid. p. [179] below.

[197]. The remarkable feature in these reliefs that shows non-Euripidean influence is the letter which the old nurse hands to Hippolytos. This points to another handling of the myth, where the former confined herself to a written statement rather than a word of mouth proposal. Strikingly in harmony with Euripides, however, is the position of the trophos. She grasps Hippolytos’ elbow—ναὶ πρός δε τῆσδε δεξιᾶς εὐωλένου (v. 605). Cf. also the Pompeian wall painting, Mus. Borbonico, 8, pl. 52. This and other wall paintings represent the scene between Hippolytos and the nurse as taking place in the presence of Phaidra, who sits quite alone.

[198]. Cf. fig. 15. Cat. vol. iv. F 279; pub. by Kalkmann, Arch. Ztg. 1883, pl. 6; vid. ibid. p. 43 ff.

[199]. Cf. a similar group in fig. 23.

[200]. The same group of divinities, with the exception of Apollo, occurs on the Naples amphora, no. 3256, pub. Mon. d. Inst. ii. 30, and Robert, Die Marathonschlacht, p. 37; Robert calls attention to the fact that this is an essentially Athenian assembly. Poseidon, Athena, and Pan were inseparably associated with the Acropolis, the latter, of course, after the battle of Marathon. The Naples vase represents a battle between Greeks and barbarians, and according to Robert’s theory is dependent upon Polygnotos’ painting in the Stoa Poikile. As participants and spectators the gods occur in the upper section. Athena, indeed, whirls into line on her chariot. If this ingenious theory has hit the gist of the matter regarding the Naples painting, then we may also claim the group of gods on the Hippolytos vase as peculiarly Athenian. And such would be very appropriate for a picture that represented an Attic tragedy, whose hero had a cult under the shadow of the Acropolis.

[201]. vs. 1199 ff.

[202]. v. 1214; cf. also Ovid, Met. 15. 512, where the bull is described as having his breast half out of the water.

[203]. Bk. ii. 4.

[204]. Nat. Hist. 35. 114.

[205]. Cf. Mon. d. Inst. vi. pl. 2; Arch. Ztg. 1847, pl. 6.

[206]. Körte, I rilievi delle urne etrusche, ii. pl. 33–36.

[207]. The urn in the Brit. Mus., no. 6, pl. 36, op. cit., has two such figures.

[208]. So Bergk and Ribbeck.

[209]. v. 234 ff.

[210]. Pliny, 35. 73, says of the picture, oratorum laudibus celebrata. Numerous mentions are in fact made of it by the orators. Cf. especially Cic. Orat. 22. 74. Vid. further, Brunn’s Griech. Künstler, ii. p. 82 ff.

[211]. Discovered April 30, 1825, in the house of the ‘Tragic Poet’; pub. Baumeister, Denkmäler, i. no. 807 = photo, Alinari, 12027. Vid. Helbig, Campanische Wandgemälde, no. 1304. Here, however, Iphigeneia is being carried (cf. Aisch. Agam. loc. cit.), while Pliny speaks of her as stans in Timanthes’ painting.

[212]. Pub. Baumeister, op. cit. i. 806; vid. F.-W. no. 2143.

[213]. Vid. Michaelis in Röm. Mitth. 1893, p. 201 ff.; cf. p. [4] above.

[214]. Brunn, I rilievi delle urne etrusche, i. pl. 35–47. There are altogether twenty-six reliefs, of which twenty-one belong to Perugia. Cf. Schlie, Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten, p. 60 f.

[215]. Op. cit. p. [81] f., but cf. my remarks on p. [10] ff.

[216]. Pub. by Robert, Homerische Becher, p. 51.

[217]. A second in Athens, pub. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 5; a third, on the authority of Furtwängler (vid. Robert, loc. cit.), in the Branthegem coll. in Brussels.

[218]. So at least one thinks of the case. Agamemnon ought to have been inside at this moment, shut off from the public gaze. The Greek drama, however, had to bring outside, before the public as it were, even those delicate scenes such as the present where the interior of Agamemnon’s tent should have been the scene.

[219]. The name occurs six times on the vase, and is always without an N. This is strong epigraphical evidence that our spelling Klytaimnestra is incorrect.

[220]. P. [113] f.

[221]. Vid. p. [179].

[222]. Cf. Aisch. Agam. v. 224 ff.; Eur. Iph. T. v. 8 and 360; Iph. A. v. 873, 875, 935, 1177, are hardly to be taken in the literal sense.

[223]. Elekt. v. 157 and schol.

[224]. Cf. Proklos in Argum. to Kypria.

[225]. Frag. 123, and Paus. 1. 43. 1.

[226]. Bk. iv, ch. 103, and Paus. loc. cit.

[227]. Vid. Suidas s.v.

[228]. 1456a. 6; 1453b. 11.

[229]. Ribbeck, Die römische Tragödie, p. 50.

[230]. Ribbeck thinks of Naevius.

[231]. For these last two scenes as well as the others, vid. Robert, Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, vol. ii. pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177 ff.

[232]. Fig. 17, from Raoul-Rochette, Mon. inéd. pl. 41. Heydemann, cat. Santangelo, no. 24; cf. Trendelenburg in Annali d. Inst. 1872, p. 114.

[233]. Vid. Robert, op. cit. nos. 157b, 168, 171.

[234]. A wall painting from Herculaneum, pub. Pitture di Ercolano, i. pl. 12; Overbeck’s Bildwerke, pl. 30. 9; cf. Helbig, Campanische Wandgemälde, no. 1334. Another painting from Pompeii is published in Arch. Ztg. 1875, pl. 13; for the same on pastes and gems cf. Overbeck, op. cit. pl. 30, and Furtwängler’s Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium (Berlin), nos. 791 ff.

[235]. Fig. 18 from a Ruvo amphora in Naples. Heydemann, no. 3223. Pub. Mon. d. Inst. ii. pl. 43; Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 30. 4. Vid. Annali d. Inst. vol. ix. p. 198 ff.; Arch. Ztg. 1875, p. 137; Vogel, Scenen eur. Trag. p. 70 ff.

[236]. Cf. v. 1463, where the poet says Iphigeneia is to be κλῃδοῦχος for the Brauronian Artemis. In Aisch. Supp., also, Io is spoken of as at one time κλῃδοῦχος ἥρας. Cf. v. 291.

[237]. Cf. the monuments in Overbeck’s Bildwerke, pl. 30, that represent this scene; and the central group on the front side of the Munich sarcophagus, op. cit. no. 167.

[238]. Artemis sits on an altar in fig. 21, as do Orestes and Pylades on an Etruscan mirror; vid. Gerhard’s Etruskische Spiegel, ii. 239, and v. 117. Neoptolemos jumps upon the βωμός in the Andromache (v. 1123) to avoid his foes. Cf. fig. 10, p. 84.

[239]. Cf. Robert, op. cit. nos. 177 and 178, the Berlin and Weimar Sarcophagi, and no. 180, a fragment in the court of the Palazzo Mattei. Robert properly refers to the next following moment when Orestes and Pylades are left alone with the chorus, Iphigeneia having gone inside to bring the letter. In order to obtain just the sarcophagi scenes we have but to allow Iphigeneia to withdraw after the close of her speech, v. 642.

[240]. Robert, op. cit. pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177 ff.; Arch. Ztg. 1875, p. 134 ff.

[241]. The two wall paintings published by Overbeck, Bildwerke. pl. 30, nos. 31 and 14, and interpreted as representing this same moment, have since been explained by Petersen, Arch. Ztg. 1863, p. 113 ff., as belonging to the Alkestis. While the former view has been generally given up, the latter has not by any means been everywhere accepted. It is, at most, probable.

[242]. Fig. 19, pub. Arch. Ztg. 1849, pl. 12 = Overbeck, op. cit. pl. 30. 7 = Mon. d. Inst. iv. pl. 51. Vid. also under ‘Iphigeneia’ in Baumeister, and Roscher. Cf. Vogel, op. cit. p. 72 ff., and Arch. Ztg. 1875 p. 136.

[243]. Fig. 20, no. 420, in the cat. of the Hermitage, pub. Mon. d. Inst. vi. pl. 66; cf. Annali d. Inst. 1862, p. 116 ff., and Stephani in Compte Rendu, 1863, p. 159 ff.

[244]. Compte Rendu, loc. cit.

[245]. Fig. 21; pub. in the Bullettino archeologico Napolitano, 1862, pl. 7, and in Brunn’s Vorlegeblätter, pl. 13. 1. Cf. also Vogel, op. cit. p. 74 ff.

[246]. P. [124].

[247]. Cf., however, Laborde’s Vases Lamberg, i. p. 14, also Annali d. Inst. 1848, pl. L, and Overbeck’s Bildwerke, pl. 30. 8, for a vase which probably shows the escape with the idol. It is not certain, but this seems to be what is represented. The work is very ordinary.

[248]. Helbig, no. 1333, pub. in Mon. d. Inst. viii. pl. 22; photo, Alinari, no. 12029. Cf. Helbig, Untersuchungen über die Campanische Wandmalerei, p. 147 ff.

[249]. Arch. Ztg. 1875, p. 144.

[250]. Loc. cit.

[251]. Vid. Röm. Mitth. 1896, p. 67.

[252]. We know of such an original, the famous painting of Timomachus. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 35. 136, says, Timomachus Byzantius Caesaris dictatoris aetate Aiacem et Medeam pinxit ... Timomachi aeque laudantur Orestes, Iphigenia in Tauris. Further than this we know nothing of the painter. That he was immensely popular follows from Pliny’s statement (loc. cit.) that Caesar paid 80 talents for this Aiax. In regard to the date of Timomachus we possess Pliny’s authority for Caesaris aetate. Robert defends this (Arch. Märchen, p. 132), while others seek to find an earlier date. Miss Sellers in The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art, Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 160 f., argues for the fourth century B.C. Vid. loc. cit. for the latest discussion of this painter’s date, as well as for references to the literature. Further reference may be made to Helbig, Untersuchungen, p. 147 ff., where especially the influence of Timomachus on the wall paintings is dwelt upon.

[253]. Cf. Arist. Poet. 1449a. 19 and 20.

[254]. Miss Harrison, J. H. S. 1883, p. 248 ff., has brought together and discussed thirteen vases connected with this myth, of which the first twelve are bl. fig.

[255]. v. 99, Odysseus says he thinks they have dropped down on a city of Bromios, so many are the satyrs whom he sees before the cave.

[256]. P. [23].

[257]. Pliny 35, 74. A Cyclops dormiens so large that a number of satyrs were engaged in measuring his thumb with a thyrsos. I follow Robert (Bild und Lied, p. 35) and Winter (Jahrbuch, 1891, p. 272) in connecting this painting with Euripides.

[258]. The painting is on a krater in the possession of Sir Francis Cook, Richmond, England; pub. by Winter, Jahrbuch, 1891, pl. 6. He thinks the work Attic, but Furtwängler (Masterpieces, p. 109, note 8) is sure it is Lower Italy ware.

[259]. The three eyes are plainly visible. One huge eye alone in the centre of the forehead belongs to later times.

[260]. Furtwängler, loc. cit., remarks that the publication is not exactly correct, as fire is plainly noticeable on the wood that the youths are contributing.

[261]. Polyphemos here is strikingly like the figure on an Etruscan urn. Brunn, I rilievi, i. pl. 873. The Kyklops is in both cases stretched out upon his left side, and is on the point of being attacked.

[262]. The poet mentions the krater, and in the next breath the skyphos, neither of which is exactly found in the rough sketch in the painting. Besides these, Euripides names in this play the kylix, amphora, and pithos—a considerable vocabulary of ceramic terms.

[263]. My remark applies only to the extant monuments, for one finds that Pausanias saw the marriage of Jason and Medeia represented on the Kypselos Chest (5. 18. 3). This is in keeping with the Corinthian origin of the Chest. It is hardly to be expected that such domestic events in Medeia’s career would have found their place in any work of art that was not made in Corinth, or at least in a place essentially influenced by Corinthian legend.

[264]. Vid. Arch. Ztg. 1867, p. 58.

[265]. Benndorf und Schöne, Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums, p. 61 ff.; F.-W. no. 1200. The Berlin copy of this relief, long supposed to be of Renaissance origin, has lately been proved to be antique; vid. Kekulé von Stradonitz in Jahrbuch, 1897, p. 96 ff.

[266]. Cf. Baumeister’s Denkmäler, i. p. 142; ii. p. 875; iii. p. 1852.

[267]. Kekulé’s Die antiken Terracotten, ii. p. 21.

[268]. Vid. Roscher’s Lexikon, ii. p. 2513.

[269]. Robert in Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs, ii. p. 205–217, gives all the literature; cf. also pl. 62–65. Vid. Arch. Ztg. 1866, p. 234 ff.; Annali d. Inst. 1869, p. 5 ff.; Urlichs’ Würzburger Programm, ein Medea-Sarkophag, 1888. (This fine sarcophagus is now in the Berlin museum.) Robert and Urlichs have, to my mind, shown conclusively that these reliefs go back to Euripides’ Medeia for their literary source. Notwithstanding that they all date from about the second century A.D., and could thus be based on various Roman plays, the arrangement of the events on the reliefs bears a remarkable similarity to the scenes in Euripides. The reliefs on the long sides are taken up with exactly the scenes of the Greek poet. Those on the ends are but indifferently worked out, and often do not represent any events in the Medeia-Jason adventures.

[270]. A half-tone reproduction of the vase is shown in the frontispiece. The section with the painting is given separately in fig. 23. It is no. 810 in Jahn’s catalogue; pub. in Millin’s Tombeaux de Canose, 1816, pl. 7; Arch. Ztg. 1847, pl. 3; Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. i. pl. 12; Baumeister’s Denkmäler, ii. p. 903; Roscher’s Lexikon, ii. p. 2510; Inghirami, Vasi fitt. iv. pl. 388; Engelmann, Bilderatlas zu Ovid, pl. 13, 81. Discussed by Jahn, Arch. Ztg. 1847, p. 33 ff.; ibid. (by Dilthey) 1875, p. 68 f.; Robert, Bild und Lied, p. 37 ff., and Hermes, vol. 30, p. 567 note; Körte, Ueber Personificationen psychologischer Affecte, p. 38 ff.; Vogel, Scenen eur. Trag. p. 146 ff.; Seeliger in Roscher’s Lexikon, loc. cit.; Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, p. 148, note 6.

[271]. The latter name is found in schol. Eur. Med. v. 19, and in Hyginus. fab. 25.

[272]. Diod. Sic. iv. 55. 5, calls Kreusa’s brother Hippotes.

[273]. The reading Κ ... ΩΝ in Millin’s publication, followed also by Conze in the Vorlegeblätter and by Baumeister, is incorrect as Jahn (vid. cat. no. 810, note) expressly stated, and as is plainly proved by a glance at the original. Hence the useless conjectures that have been made to fill up the space between the first and last letters. There is absolutely no trace of the Κ, but there are faint remains of letters preceding ΩΝ, and the correct reading is without question, ΚΡΕ]ΩΝ.

[274]. Cf. p. [152], and note 3.

[275]. This inscription, which is very distinct, does not appear in Conze’s publication. All the inscriptions occurring on the palace are painted in white. All others are incised.

[276]. This moment is shown on another vase (vid. fig. 24), and so, too, on the sarcophagi Kreusa is always represented in the moment of falling or springing from the κλίνη.

[277]. In spite of this, Vogel, p. 149, asks, Warum zeigt uns der Vasenmaler den Kreon nicht in dem Augenblicke, wo er seine Tochter von den unheilvollen Brautgeschenken der Medeia befreien will, sondern in dem, wo er überwältigt von dem Unglücke das Scepter seinen Händen entfallen lässt und starr und seiner selbst nicht mehr mächtig seine Blicke auf die herbeieilende Merope lenkt? i. e. why did the vase painter not paint another scene instead of the one he did?

[278]. Cf. note 7, p. [145]. On fragment no. 197, Robert, op. cit., the arms of Kreon are incorrectly restored, and his hands are represented as clasped. On all the reliefs Kreon is turned towards Kreusa and not away, as on the vase. I refuse, however, to believe with Jahn and others that Kreon is staring at Merope. He sees nothing and nobody.

[279]. Apollod. I. 9. 3.

[280]. Soph. Oed. Rex, v. 775, the wife of Πόλυβος Κορίνθιος.

[281]. Supposing the word to be a pure invention of the painter, there are still in Euripides suggestions of the name if one were seeking such for the figure. In v. 404, Medeia declares she ‘will not be a laughing-stock to the race of Sisyphos and Jason’s new alliances’; and in v. 1381, γη δε τηδε Σισύφου, the former queens would be suggested with the name Merope. It is but natural that the vase painter took the name thus suggested by Euripides.

[282]. P. [149].

[283]. Suidas refers to a Medeia by Neophron. Ennius’ Medea was, according to Cicero, De Fin. 1. 2. 4, a literal translation from Euripides. The Medea exul by the same poet has generally been held to be a version of Euripides’ Aigeus.

[284]. Hermes, vol. 31, p. 567 note.

[285]. Bild und Lied, p. 42.

[286]. Zeichnungen von Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes Goettlicher Komoedie nach den Originalen im König. Kupferstichkabinet zu Berlin, von Dr. F. Lippmann.

[287]. In canto iii, Charon is an old man; Botticelli drew him as the devil. In the second plate to this same canto the souls are swimming out to Charon’s boat, a fact which Dante does not mention. The illustration to canto xx has only two persons identical with those of the poet, and in Purgatorio iii the souls on the shore and in the boat are additions of the artist.

[288]. Cf. Dilthey in Annali d. Inst. 1876, p. 294, and pl. 35 in Mon. d. Inst. x.

[289]. Vid. Klein’s Euphronios, p. 89, and Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Her. Fur. vol. ii, ed. 1, p. 214.

[290]. Cf. fig. 24, where the female figure on the left is none other than a nurse.

[291]. Bild und Lied, p. 38.

[292]. Cf. figs. 24 and 25 and Baumeister’s Denkmäler, i. p. 142.

[293]. It will be observed that the writer does not share the view of Bethe, Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, p. 142 ff., that the Flugmaschine was not in use in the Greek theatre before 425 B.C. Robert, Hermes, vol. 31, p. 530–577, has conclusively shown the incorrectness of Bethe’s arguments, and not only proved the use of the Flugmaschine for the Medeia, 431 B.C., but also for a much earlier date. Bethe’s remark, Demnach ist für die erste Aufführung der Medea im Jahre 431 ihr Erscheinen in der Höhe, also auch die Anwendung der Flugmaschine, nicht möglich (p. 146), is based upon a false conception of the resources at hand in that period of Athenian architectural activity.

[294]. It has already been pointed out above, p. [159], that Medeia entered the palace to slay the boys, and that they might or might not have been alone. At any rate it was not allowable to represent them in art without some older companion. Robert’s remark, Bild und Lied, p. 39, Den Kindern die bereits bei der Mutter angelangt sind, muss aber jetzt noch ein anderer Begleiter zugestellt werden, is inexplicable. Where had the children gone to reach their mother? Was it not just the reverse, viz. that the mother had gone to them?

[295]. iv. 54. 7.

[296]. One must remember that Diodorus gathered his excerpts together at least 300 years after the date of our vase, during all of which time the mythographers had been busy helping to straighten out the family affairs that the tragedians of the fifth century had treated imperfectly!

[297]. As a matter of fact this reference, although brought in under another φασί than the first remark, where three sons are named, τοὺς μὲν πρεσβυτάτους δίο διδύμους Θετταλόν τε καὶ Ἀλκιμένην, τὸν δὲ τρίτον πολυνεώτερον τούτων Τίσανδρον, iv. 54. 1, seems to me to speak of a common origin, and I hold both as coming from the same authority, under whose influence our vase painter certainly never stood.

[298]. Eur. Orest. v. 791.

[299]. As in the Medeia, nothing is said to indicate how the chariot was drawn. It is only from the monuments and later literary references (vid. Argum. to the Medeia and schol. on v. 1320) that one learns of the dragons; or is the utterance of Jason, vs. 1297 f., ἢ πτηνὸν ἆραι σῶμ’ ες αἰθέρος βάθος | εἰ μὴ τυράννων δώμασιν δώσειν δίκην | πέποιθ’, an intimation of the strange escape of the sorceress? How was Lyssa’s chariot drawn? Why not also by dragons?

[300]. Cf. fig. 26, where the figure that stands beside the dragons has been identified as Οἶστρος or Λύσσα. That the latter is the child of night harmonizes well with the night escape indicated by Selene and the stars on this vase.

[301]. On a vase of Assteas, vid. p. [179] below, which shows Herakles in the act of murdering his sons, the painter calls the personification of Lyssa, mania.

[302]. Mention should be made here of the Parian inscription, which gives us the curious information that there was a society of hetairai established under the patronage of the goddess Οἰστρώ; cf. Pernice, Athen. Mitth. 1893, p. 16. 2, and Maass, ibid. p. 25 f. There is, of course, a wide distinction between the personification and the cult use of οἶστρος, but it is worth while to point out that Eur. Hipp. vs. 1300 ff., gives the same notion that Maass suggests and supports by a quotation from Paullus Silentiarius (Anth. Plan. v. 234), where οἰστροφόρου Παφίης occurs. Artemis, speaking to Theseus of Hippolytos’ death and its cause, says, ἀλλ’ ἐς τόδ’ ἦλθον, παιδὸς ἐκδεῖξαι φρένα | τοῦ σοῦ δικαίαν, ὁς ὑπ’ εὐκλείας θάνῃ | καὶ σῦς γυναικὸς οἶστρον, ἢ τρόπον τινὰ | γενναιότητα, where we may suppose Euripides to have thought of Phaidra as possessed with οἶστρος, which means τῆς ἐχθίστης θεῶν (v. 1301), i.e. τῆς Κύπριδος (v. 1304).

[303]. Cf. Aisch. Pers. vs. 681–842, where the εἴδωλον of Dareios is one of the dramatis personae. Also Eur. Hek., where the prologue is spoken by the εἴδωλον of Polydoros.

[304]. Dilthey, Arch. 219, 1875, p. 71, followed also by Vogel, Scen. eur. Trag. p. 151. How do these scholars account for the appearance of Megara and her sons upon the ‘under-world’ vases where Herakles is also represented in his last labour of capturing Kerberos? This latter must have been finished and Herakles must have returned to the upper world before Megara and the boys could be thought of as in fact in the under-world.

[305]. Bild und Lied, p. 39 f.

[306]. P. [156] above.

[307]. Cp. among other places in the Medeia, vs. 133, 328, 405, 475 ff., 536 ff., 550, 1330.

[308]. Cf. the Dareios vase in Naples, also found in Canosa; pub. Baumeister’s Denkmäler, i. no. 449; also the costume of the judges on the so-called ‘under-world’ vases, pub. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, ser. E. 1–3.

[309]. Apoll. Rhod. 1. 122 and 341 ff.; Hyg. fab. 14; Diod. Sic. iv. 53. 4.

[310]. Apoll. Rhod. 1. 108 ff.; Apollod. 1. 9. 16; Hyg. fab. 14.

[311]. Apoll. Rhod. 1. 146 ff.; Paus., 1. 18. 1, relates that in the temple of the Dioskouroi in Athens, known also as the Anakeion, Mikon painted events from the Argonautic expedition.

[312]. Fig. 24. Heydemann, cat. Mus. Santangelo, no. 526. Pub. in Raoul-Rochette’s Choiseaux de Peintures, p. 263. Discussed by Jahn, Arch. Ztg. 1867, p. 59, and referred to by Vogel, Scen. eur. Trag. p. 151.

[313]. Fig. 25; pub. Raoul-Rochette, Choiseaux de Peintures, p. 277. Described by Jahn, Arch. Ztg. 1867, p. 60; cf. Vogel, op. cit. p. 79.

[314]. Fig. 26. Heydemann, no. 3221, A. Cf. Arch. Ztg. 1867, p. 62 and pl. 224. 1.

[315]. The Theban Cycle was handled in the Θηβαΐς and the Οἰδιπόδεια, from which the tragedians probably drew their material. For the subject in the fifth century B.C. vid. Benndorfs Heroon von Gjölbaschi, p. 187 ff. and pl. 24. A1–A5. Kapaneus’ catastrophe in attempting to storm the walls was often shown. Cf. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1889, pl. 11, nos. 13, 14, 16, 17. The death of Amphiaraos was another popular story. Cf. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1889, pl. 11. 8. 15. There are many interesting monuments which represent the conference of the chiefs before the assault. Cf. especially the famous Etruscan gem with inscriptions naming Polyneikes, Amphiaraos, Adrastos, Tydeus, and Parthenopaios; pub. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1889, pl. 11. 5; Baumeister, Denkmäler, iii. no. 1839, no. 369 in Bilderheft. An Etruscan mirror, Gerhard, Etruskische Spiegel, ii. pl. 178, gives Adrastos, Amphiaraos, and Tydeus.

[316]. Brit. Mus., vase cat. vol. iv. G 104. Pub. ibid. pl. 16. Cf. Class. Review, 1894, p. 325.

[317]. The fratricide, so common on the Etruscan urns, is rare on Greek monuments. (1) The group was on the Kypselos Chest (Paus. 5. 19, 6). (2) Pythagoras worked the brothers in marble (vid. Overbeck, Schriftquellen, no. 501). (3) One group on the Heroön from Gjölbaschi, cf. Benndorf, op. cit. pl. 24. A. 3. There are thirty urns representing the scene: vid. Körte, I rilievi delle urne etrusche, ii. pl. 8–20, and 36, and supplement. p. 261 ff. Cf. further Overbeck’s Bildwerke, pl. 5 and 6. An Etruscan mirror, which shows a composition remarkably like that in the inside of the Penthesileia kylix (Munich, no. 370, pub. Overbeck, Bildwerke, pl. 17. 3), and must be from a fifth century pattern, is perhaps the oldest of the extant representations. Vid. Gerhard, Etruskische Spiegel, v. pl. 95.

[318]. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. G 1051; pub. Wiener Vorlegeblätter, 1889, pl. 9. 13; Robert, Homerische Becher, p. 59; first correctly interpreted by Murray, Class. Rev. 1888, p. 328.

OXFORD: HORACE HART

PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. P. [xx], changed “Scenen euripideisher Tragödien in griechischen Vasengemälden” to “Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen Vasengemälden”.
  2. P. [128], changed “In her left close by her side” to “In her left hand close by her side”.
  3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  4. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.
  5. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.