Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names and historical personages—Technical characteristics—Draughtsmanship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects and types—Subdivisions of style—Severe period and artists—Strong period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and Brygos—Fine period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine period—Boeotian local fabric.
At first sight the sudden reversal of technical method involved in the change from black figures on red ground to red figures on black ground is not easy to explain. That it was a new invention, not a development from the old style, is obvious, seeing that no intermediate stage is possible. The theory has been promulgated by a German writer[[1269]] that the idea arose from the effect of the Gorgoneion painted on the inside of many late B.F. kylikes. Undoubtedly the effect is that of the R.F. style, the face itself being left red, surrounded by black hair, beyond which the black is continued over the whole surface of the interior.[[1270]] But this theory has not really much to support it; the Gorgoneion is in the R.F. technique, and did not therefore suggest it; and the earliest R.F. kylikes usually have B.F. interiors, not R.F. It is exceedingly doubtful that the kylikes had anything to do with bringing about the change.
Much more probable is the suggestion that the class of vases with opaque figures on black ground (p. [393]) represents the transition, if transition it can be called.[[1271]] We have seen that some of these correspond more to the B.F. vases, others to the R.F., and that in many cases their appearance is that of R.F. vases. It may easily be conceived that it occurred to the painter that it was more effective to let the red clay of the background appear through the black wherever he would place a figure than to paint the red on to the black. But these vases are few in number; and as the R.F. vases sprang at once into great popularity, the new invention must have become too general at the very first to have been adopted from such a comparatively rare method. There is also a greater tendency to naturalism in that class than in the earlier R.F. vases. The fact is that there had been going on throughout the course of early art a tendency (to which B.F. vase-painting forms an exception) in favour of drawing figures on a light ground against a dark background. And even in the B.F. vases this tendency is not altogether absent, as seen in the attempts at lightening the figures by making them polychrome, i.e. with purple and white, and also by the practice of covering the rest of the vase entirely with black.
Now, we have already seen that Andokides was a painter who liked to combine the two methods on one vase, and also that he was one who invariably adopted the completely black variety of amphora, for B.F. painting as well as R.F. His Louvre vase with the women swimming is clearly one of the earliest R.F. examples in existence. It is therefore much more likely that he represents for us the author of the new method than Epiktetos or the other artists who painted “mixed” kylikes or who used both styles. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it was really in the kylikes that the new style rose into popularity.[[1272]]
Next to the question of how the new style was brought about comes that of when it arose, and the length of its duration at Athens. The chronology of R.F. vases rests on two considerations—the inscriptions on the vases themselves, and the evidence of history and excavations. Until within the last twenty years it had been customary to regard the year 480 B.C. as the line of demarcation between the two methods, and the earliest date for R.F. vases. Yet as long ago as 1834 Ludwig Ross, finding a fragment of R.F. pottery among the debris of the Persian sack of the Acropolis, acutely deduced therefrom that this style must necessarily have been in existence before the date of the sack, i.e. before 480 B.C. His views, however, fell on deaf ears, and it was not until the scientific exploration of the Acropolis in 1885–89 that his deduction was seen to be justified. The result of these excavations was to show that among the mass of pottery found in the pre-Persian stratum a considerable quantity belonged to a comparatively advanced stage of R.F. painting, including signatures of artists of the archaic and severe style down to Euphronios. Some writers have thought that these fragments may belong to the period between 480 and 460, when the rebuilding of the site was begun; but so many show traces of burning that it is far more probable that the earlier date is correct.[[1273]] Allowing, then, for the necessary stages of development up to the time of Euphronios, the beginning of the style may be placed about 525–520 B.C., the date at which, as we have seen, Andokides may be placed. Besides his name (see above, p. [387]) that of Euphronios “the potter” was also found on a base in the Acropolis excavations.[[1274]] The other limit of date will be more conveniently discussed in a subsequent connection, and it may suffice to say here that the gradual pushing back of the terminus post quem points now to a much earlier terminus ante quem than was formerly supposed. Reasons will subsequently appear for placing the termination of the red-figure fabrics at Athens in the closing years of the Peloponnesian War (410–400 B.C.).
The evidence afforded by inscriptions is necessarily affected in some degree by that of excavations, and chiefly important for the relative dates of the vases. It is not palaeographical, but is afforded mainly by one class of inscriptions, that of the καλός-names, so far as they have an historical significance. These names will be the subject of discussion elsewhere,[[1275]] and are only alluded to here for their connection with the question of chronology. It is a well-known feature of these καλός-names that many are those of famous historical personages, such as Alkibiades, Megakles, Miltiades, and Hipparchos.[[1276]] But, on the other hand, any attempts to connect the vases with the historical bearers of the names have met with little success; there is also the danger of arguing in a circle—e.g. of saying that because Miltiades’ name appears on a vase, it is therefore to be dated in his youth, and because the vase belongs to the date when Miltiades was young, therefore it bears the name of that individual.
Where the importance of these names really comes in is in their relation to particular artists or groups of artists. In this way, as Klein and Hartwig have shown, connecting-links between the artists can be traced and their chronological sequence assured. This, taken in conjunction with questions of style and our fixed dates obtained from other sources, enables us to extract a fair working chronology from all the data. The subject must, however, be dealt with in greater detail when considering the work of individual artists, and only a few general statements can be laid down here.
Many of the historical καλός-names, such as Hipparchos or Glaukon, were probably very common at Athens,[[1277]] and we have therefore no grounds for attaching importance to their appearance. But in regard to the great painter Euphronios, whose date is fairly certain, it is important to note that two different names are connected with vases in his earlier and later manner respectively, viz. Leagros[[1278]] and Glaukon. Euphronios began his career about 500–490 B.C., and it probably covered some forty years, from about 495 to 455. Hence we may place the time of Leagros’ youth about 495–490, that of Glaukon about 465–460, and it is remarkable that the latter appears as “son of Leagros” in one or two cases.[[1279]] Now, we know that there was an Athenian general Leagros who was στρατηγός in 467, and fell in battle against the Edones in that year. Also that he had a son, Glaukon, who commanded at Kerkyra in 433–432. In this case the historical data fit in so exactly with the evidence of the vases and of the Acropolis excavations[[1280]] that we need hardly hesitate to accept the identity of these two names.
It has been assumed—and the assumption has hardly been questioned—that the καλός-names are necessarily always those of youths, i.e. of about seventeen to twenty years of age; this view is supported both by the general character of the subjects on the vases where they appear, and by the frequent use of the analogous formula ὁ παῖς καλός. Dr. Hartwig has laid down certain conclusions in regard to these names which have met with general acceptance, and may be briefly restated here by way of summarising the subject.
(1) All vases with the same καλός-name are limited to a period of ten years, and consequently all those which are by one artist belong to a definite circumscribed period of his life.