PLATE XXXVIII
Kylix by Euphronios (in Munich): Herakles Slaying Geryon.
As typical of his later manner (about 480–460 B.C.) we may take the British Museum kylix and that in the museum at Perugia. They bear respectively the καλός-names Panaitios and Lykos, while the contemporary Berlin cup (2282) has the name of Glaukon. These clearly form a new group, distinct from the Leagros series, and, if the historical identification of Glaukon (see p. [404] above, and Chapter [XVII].) is correct, enable us to place them about 470–460 B.C. The interior group of the British Museum cup shows us two figures, a woman standing by the side of a man, who is seated to the front and drawn in a very boldly foreshortened attitude. Their physiognomy, in particular the large prominent nose, is especially characteristic of Euphronios’ riper style, and in the treatment of the drapery we distinguish a great advance even on his earlier vases. Not only is it executed with perfect freedom and naturalness, but even different qualities of material are indicated, e.g. by the use of fine crinkly lines. The Theseus kylix in the Louvre, which Hartwig regards as the highest point of the R.F. style, a study in idealism rather than naturalism, is also conspicuous for its excellence in this respect.
The Troilos kylix in Perugia, which as far as can be ascertained is the latest of Euphronios’ works, is interesting, apart from its artistic treatment, as an instance of the current tendency to combine interior and exterior scenes in one whole, representing distinct or successive episodes of a single subject. On one side of the exterior, Achilles, having emerged from his ambush, drags the unfortunate boy by his hair to the altar at which the tragedy is to be consummated; his horses betake themselves off with flying reins. Meanwhile, on the other side, Troilos’ Trojan comrades, as on the François vase, hastily arm themselves in order to come to his rescue. But the interior scene shows us that their efforts are in vain; the boy, in whose countenance fear and agony are admirably depicted, is about to fall a victim to the sword of his relentless foe, who in a vigorous yet even graceful attitude raises his arm to deal the death-blow. Of the vase as a whole Murray says, “There is no mistaking in it the presence of all the best and strongest qualities of Euphronios, though in a more subdued and more poetic form. His draperies...are full of refinement and beauty.”
It remains to say a word on Euphronios in another aspect—as a painter in polychrome on white ground. The Berlin cup No. 2282, sadly fragmentary as it is, bears not only the signature of Euphronios, but the καλός-name Glaukon, to which we have already referred. The method of painting, to which we have referred on a subsequent page (p. [457]), was one just at its height in the middle of the fifth century. The two heads, which are the best-preserved parts of the cup, are remarkable for their breadth and largeness of style, and for their idealising tendency, which recalls the coins of a slightly later period and such works of sculpture as the ephebos-head from the Athenian Acropolis, to say nothing of the sculptures of Olympia.
We must not, however, omit to notice here the views of some recent writers, who are inclined to doubt whether the paintings on some of these later vases are actually from Euphronios' hand.[[1349]] It is certainly noteworthy that he has ceased to sign ἔγραψε; but to maintain that the ἐποίησε, where no other painter’s name occurs, does not include the painting of the vase, is to rest on somewhat negative evidence, and would also lead to the refusal to recognise Chachrylion and other noted artists as the painters of their signed vases. If, however, this view is to be accepted, it would entail the attribution of the scenes on the Troilos cup to Onesimos, who painted a cup of similar style in the Louvre,[[1350]] of which Euphronios was the potter. Hartwig thinks that the Berlin cup is not by Euphronios, but would attribute to him a similar fragmentary cup in the British Museum (D 1). The beautiful Aphrodite cup in the same collection (D 2) bears the καλός-name of Glaukon, but in view of what has been said any attempt to attribute it to Euphronios would be dangerous.[[1351]]
We now have to deal with a trio of his contemporaries, men of marked individuality and capacity, who display the same instincts for naturalism and freedom of style, though no one of them rises quite to the height of Euphronios’ genius.
Of these Duris has left a total of twenty-three signed vases, of which no less than twenty-one are kylikes, the other two being a kantharos and a psykter. He signs almost consistently ἔγραψε, but ἐποίησεν in addition on the kantharos; he employs three potters at different times—Python (who worked for Epiktetos), Kleophrades (who worked for Amasis II.), and Kalliades. Of καλός-names he uses no less than five, the first two of which go together in his earlier period—Chairestratos and Panaitios. The latter name, as we have seen, was used by Euphronios. On the vases in his later manner the names of Aristagoras, Hermogenes, and Hippodamas appear. He seems to have been about ten years the junior of Euphronios, but to what extent he was influenced by him is uncertain. Murray traces the influence of the other in his later manner, when he forsakes his old love of figures in repose for subjects entailing violent action. Hartwig, on the other hand, attributes this change to the influence of Brygos; and in any case, it is certain that he never attained to the vitality and freedom of Euphronios.