Plate I

Fig. 52.—CORINTHIAN JAR.Fig. 53.—FRANÇOIS VASE.
(From Furtwängler and Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, by permission of F. Bruckmann.)
Fig. 54.—BLACK-FIGURED AMPHORA BY EXEKIAS.Fig. 55.—VASE FROM SOUTHERN ITALY.
Signed by Python.

Plate II

Fig. 56.—BOWL MADE AT CALES IN IMITATION OF METAL. (2ND CENT. b.c.)
Fig. 57.—VASE OF 5th CENT. B.C., MODELLED IN FORM OF HEAD.Fig. 58.—VASE OF 6th CENT. B.C., IN FORM OF HELMETED HEAD.
Fig. 59.—FLASK OF VITREOUS GLAZED WARE. (ROMAN PERIOD.)Fig. 60.—AMPHORA OF APULIAN STYLE, WITH SCENE FROM EURIPIDES’ “HECUBA.”

Plate III

Fig. 61.—MOULD FOR ARRETINE BOWL.Fig. 62.—JAR OF ARRETINE WARE FROM CAPUA.
Fig. 63.—EARLY ETRUSCAN JAR. (VILLANOVA PERIOD.)Fig. 64.—STAMP FOR ORNAMENTING ARRETINE VASE.Fig. 65.—ETRUSCAN "CANOPIC" JAR PLACED IN BRONZE CHAIR.

Plate IV

Fig. 67.—MEDALLION FROM VASE MADE IN S. FRANCE, WITH SCENE FROM TRAGEDY. (3rd CENT. AFTER CHRIST.)
Fig. 66.—MOULD FOR BOWL OF GERMAN WARE. (2nd CENT. AFTER CHRIST.)Fig. 68.—JAR OF RHENISH WARE WITH INSCRIPTION. (3rd CENT. AFTER CHRIST.)
Fig. 69.—BOWL OF GAULISH (LEZOUX) WARE WITH FIGURES IN “FREE” STYLE. (2nd CENT. AFTER CHRIST.)Fig. 70.—JAR OF LATER LEZOUX WARE. (3rd CENT. AFTER CHRIST.)

4. Lustred Majolica—This brilliant species of Italian pottery (to which alone Piccolpasso applied the name majolica) seems to have been mainly produced at Deruta and Gubbio, though experiments were made at Cafaggiolo and probably at Faenza and Siena. Considering how much the Italian majolist owed to the Spanish-Moorish potter, it is remarkable that this beautiful method of decoration should have made so tardy an appearance, for the earliest specimens do not appear to be much earlier than the end of the 15th century, and the process was apparently abandoned by the middle of the 16th. The lustre wares of Deruta, probably the earliest made in Italy, have strongly-marked affinities with their Spanish prototypes; the earlier examples are hardly to be distinguished from Spanish wares, and to the last the ware remained technically like the earlier ware, though with perfectly Italian decorative treatment. Yet the best examples of Deruta silver lustre have a quality of tone that has never been surpassed; a colour resembling a wash of very transparent umber bearing a delicate nacreous film of the most tender iridescence. The Gubbio lustre is best known to us through the works of Maestro Giorgio, whose distinctive lustre is a magnificent ruby-red unlike any other. In all probability the lustre process was so quickly abandoned on the fine painted majolica, because the increasing efforts to make a “picture” were discounted by so uncertain a process. When one of the later majolica painters had spent weeks on the decoration of some vase or dish, with an elaborate composition of carefully drawn figures, it was not likely that he would care to expose it to any risks that could be avoided. The risks of the lustre process were inordinately great—Piccolpasso says, “Frequently only six pieces were good out of a hundred”—so that its use was relegated only to inferior wares, and then the process was relinquished and forgotten until its rediscovery in the second half of the 19th century.