Turning now to the consideration of later literature,[[20]] we find in Hesiod a certain parallelism of theme to the vases, but little trace of actual influence. Indirectly he may have affected the vase-painter by his crystallisation of Greek mythology in the Theogony, where he establishes the number of the Muses (l. 77), and also the names of the Nereids.[[21]] It is, however, interesting to note the Hesiodic themes which were also popular with the vase-painters: the creation of Pandora; the fights of Herakles and Kyknos, and of Lapiths and Centaurs, and the pursuit of Perseus by the Gorgons; the contest of Zeus with Typhoeus (or Typhon); and the birth of Athena.[[22]]
The influence of lyric poetry was even slighter. Somewhat idealised figures of some of the Greek lyrists appear on R.F. vases, such as Sappho and Anakreon (see p. [152]); but this is all. In regard to Pindar and Bacchylides, the idealising and heroising tendencies of the age may be compared with the contemporary tendency of vase-paintings, and the latter may often be found useful to compare with—if not exactly to illustrate—the legends which the two poets commemorate. For instance, in the ode of Bacchylides in which he describes the fate of Kroisos, there is a curious deviation from the familiar Herodotean version, the king being represented as voluntarily sacrificing himself.[[23]] The only vase-painting dealing with this subject (Fig. [132], p. 150) apparently reproduces this tradition.
With the influence of the stage we have already dealt elsewhere.[[24]] With the exception of the Satyric drama, it can hardly be said to have made itself felt, except in the vases of Southern Italy, in the fourth century B.C., but indications of the Satyric influence may be traced in many R.F. Attic vases, no doubt owing to their connection with the popular Dionysiac subjects. On a vase in Naples[[25]] are represented preparations for a Satyric drama. When we reach the time of tragic and comic influence, we not only find the subjects reproduced, but even their stage setting; in other words, the vases are not so much intended to illustrate the written as the acted play, just as it was performed.
The whole question is admirably summed up by Luckenbach[[26]] in the following manner: (1) The Epos is the chief source of all vase-paintings from the earliest time to the decadence inclusive, and next comes Tragedy, as regards the later vases only; of the influence of other poetry on the formation of myths in vase-paintings there is no established example. (2) Vase-paintings are not illustrations, either of the Epos or of the Drama, and there is no intention of reproducing a story accurately; hence great discrepancies and rarity of close adherence to literary forms; but the salient features of the story are preserved. (3) Discrepancies in the naming of personages are partly arbitrary, partly due to ignorance; the extension of scenes by means of rows of bystanders, meaningless, but thought to be appropriate, is of course a development of the artist’s, conditioned by exigencies of space. Anachronisms on vases are of frequent occurrence. (4) Such scenes as those of warriors arming or departing are always the painter’s own invention, ordinary scenes being often “heroised” by the addition of names. But individuals are not necessarily all or always to be named; and, again, the artist often gives names without individualising the figures. (5) In the archaic period successive movements of time are often very naïvely blended (see p. 10); the difference between art and literature is most marked in scenes where a definite moment is not indicated. (6) Vase-paintings often give a general survey of a poem, the scene not being drawn from one particular passage or episode. The features of one poem are in art sometimes transferred to another.
The attention that has been paid now for many years to collecting, assorting, and critically discussing the material afforded by the vases has much diminished the difficulties of this most puzzling branch of archaeology. It has been chiefly lightened by the discovery from time to time of inscribed vases, though, as has just been noted, even these must be treated with caution; and even now, of course, there are numerous subjects the interpretation of which is either disputed or purely hypothetical. But we can at least pride ourselves on having advanced many degrees beyond the labours of early writers on the subject, down to the year 1850.
When painted vases first began to be discovered in Southern Italy, the subjects were supposed to relate universally to the Eleusinian or Dionysiac mysteries, and this school of interpretation for a long time found favour in some quarters, even in the days of Gerhard and De Witte. But it was obvious from the first that such interpretations did not carry the investigator very far, and even in the eighteenth century other systems arose, such as that of Italynski, who regarded the subjects as of historical import.[[27]] Subsequently Panofka endeavoured to trace a connection between the subjects and the names of artists or other persons recorded on the vases, or, again, between the subjects and shapes. The latter idea, of course, contained a measure of truth, as is seen in many instances[[28]]; but it was, of course, impossible to follow out either this or the other hypothesis in any detail.
The foundations of the more scientific and rational school of interpretation were laid as early as the days of Winckelmann, and he was followed by Lanzi, Visconti, and Millingen, and finally Otto Jahn, who, as we have seen, practically revolutionised the study of ceramography. Of late, however, the question of the interpretation of subjects has been somewhat relegated to the background, owing to the overwhelming interest evoked by the finds of early fabrics or by the efforts of German and other scholars to distinguish the various schools of painting in the finest period.
Millingen, in the Introduction to his Vases Grecs, drew up a classification of the subjects on vases which need not be detailed here, but which, with some modifications, may be regarded as holding good to the present day. He distinguishes ten classes, the first three mythological, the next four dealing with daily life, and the three last with purely decorative ornamentation. A somewhat similar order is adopted by Müller in his Handbuch, by Gerhard in his Auserlesene Vasenbilder, and by Jahn in his Introduction to the Munich Catalogue (p. cc ff.). In the present and following chapters the arrangement and classification of the subjects adhere in the main to the system laid down by these writers; and as the order is not, of course, chronological in regard to style, reference has been made where necessary to differences of epoch and fabric.[[29]] It may be convenient to recapitulate briefly the main headings under which the subjects are grouped.
I. The Olympian deities and divine beings in immediate connection with them, such as Eros and marine deities.
(a) In general; (b) individually. (Chapter [XII].)