Chapter V: Euripides and Vase Painting (3)

As he re-enters the palace the terrible news reaches him, through, one of the female attendants, that Kreusa is possessed with some strange malady. It is at this juncture, dramatic in the extreme, that, as it seems to me, the vase painter thought of the pedagogue. The latter has forgotten Medeia’s command to arrange the boys’ program for the day and is determined to go to the apartments whence comes the great alarm. The attendant, however, endeavours to dissuade him, and the artist has even represented her in the attempt to deter the sturdy old pedagogue from carrying out his resolution. While all this is happening within the palace, Medeia gives expression to the great battle that is going on in her bosom. The speech is one of the finest in Euripides. Shall she now go ahead and kill her children, or is the courage lacking? She finally bids them enter the house χωρεῖτε, παῖδες, ἐς δόμους (vs. 1053 and 1076), and soon follows them. The death-cries of vs. 1271 ff. are heard not long afterwards. We have therefore no reason to infer from anything in Euripides that the pedagogue ever met the boys again. The fact that he is so often represented in the death-scene[292] is simply due to the fancy of the artists. It is natural to think of him in company with the boys. The vase painter has in the present instance shown us the whereabouts of the pedagogue when the poet had passed him by.

The lower section, which represents the events directly succeeding those in the one just considered, completes the dread vengeance work of Medeia. The artist had an opportunity here to follow largely his own notions in disposing of the details, for in the last moments when horror followed close upon horror, and the royal house of Corinth was shaking to its foundations, Euripides hurries us on with great rapidity and omits many of the particulars. Medeia moves with resistless fury through the last part of the bloody drama, till she at last disappears upon her chariot. What was the vase painter to do with all this? It is plain that he felt himself compelled to combine, for greater effect, different moments. Medeia enters the palace after the triumphant address in vs. 1236–1250, and a moment later the cries of the boys are heard within. Jason, aroused by the ruin wrought upon Kreusa, suddenly appears and asks where Medeia is, and remarks that he must save his sons from the fury of the populace (vs. 1293–1305). He at once learns the whole truth, and orders that the palace doors be thrown open that he may behold the scene of murder. Medeia appears then on her chariot, rolled out upon the ekkyklema. She stands thus during the final dialogue with Jason (vs. 1317–1404) till she disappears by the aid of the _Flugmaschine_[293].

From these elements the vase painter selected the murder scene, which, not being described by Euripides, could be represented in any manner that struck his fancy. He made this the centre about which all else was grouped; all eyes are turned upon Medeia and the altar. In this disposition of the matter other details had to be sacrificed. The chariot, which could not be wanting, had to have a charioteer, and as Medeia was not ready to mount it herself, the personification of the Medeia-spirit is the natural figure that the artist would select. Jason, again, to omit whom would have been unpardonable, had to be painted in the act of rescuing or attempting the rescue of his sons. So we see that the three moments discernible in the poet, (_a_) the murder, (_b_) Jason’s appearance to save the boys, (_c_) the chariot and the escape of Medeia, are all worked together by the artist into a strong complex. One feels no incongruity in the picture, and is forced to agree to a large amount of success that the artist has enjoyed here. Since the pedagogue appears in the scene above, the artist uses one of the ever convenient doryphoroi as a companion to the boys or rather as rescuer of one of them[294]. It is immaterial whether the painter intended to represent the one boy as actually out of danger or not. A great many useless words have been spent in trying to show that the vase painter has here followed a tradition referred to by Diodorus Siculus[295], who relates that one child escaped—πλὴν γὰρ ἑνὸς τοῦ διαφυγόντος τοὺς ἄλλους υἱοὺς ἀποσφάξαι. This is not only highly improbable[296], but, more than that, speaks for a superficial reading of Diodorus on the part of those who use this quotation. It appears that nothing more of the chapter had been read than it was necessary to quote. In the first place, what can τοὺς ἄλλους above refer to if not to _more than one_, and therefore to at least _two_? But where upon our vase or upon any other monument does Medeia appear with _three_ children[297]? It would seem, therefore, that, because the vase painter drew the scene as he did, this very inapt quotation is brought out to bolster up an unnecessary theory.

Is it necessary to conclude with numerous scholars that Oistros upon the chariot represents one of Pollux’s ἔκσκευα πρόσωπα (iv. 141)? Does our painting necessarily go back to some tragedy in which the personification, Oistros, appears before the audience as Medeia’s charioteer? It has already been pointed out that the moment which the vase painter chose to represent never was visible in the theatre of Euripides. What happened before the palace doors were unbarred, in v. 1314, could be painted in a hundred different ways, and still be inspired by the poet from v. 1271 to v. 1316. It is true that Euripides does not mention Οἶστρος, much less as Medeia’s charioteer. What need had he to introduce any personification of her rage and fury to guide the chariot, when, at the first glimpse of it in v. 1317, Medeia manages it herself? Any one who thoroughly works himself into the situation that the painter has shown upon the vase cannot help seeing that Medeia’s double, her burning and infuriated barbarian wildness, the spirit shown in vs. 1236–1250, was a natural and easy subject for embodiment under the name Οἶστρος. This personification is not met with in Euripides, and has naturally caused much stumbling. It should, however, be compared with Λύσσα, with which it has much in common. Orestes says to Pylades, μὴ θεαί (i. e. the Furies) μ’ οἴστρω κατασχῶς’[298], and two verses further on, εὐλαβοῦ Λύσσης μετασχεῖν τῆς ἐμῆς. Thus the use of the οἶστρος caused Λύσσα. The step to the personification of a figure Oistros would easily follow from some such development as this, and I hold both words to cover the _cause_ and _effect_ in the case mentioned.

As Lyssa was a favourite figure with Euripides, we may examine still another place where the rôle that she plays is much the same as that which Oistros takes in the painting.

In _Her. Fur._ vs. 880 ff., the chorus describes Lyssa as _travelling upon a chariot_[299].

βέβακεν ἐν δίφροισιν ἁ πολύστονος,
ἅρμασι δ’ ἐνδίδωσι κέντρον ὡς ἐπὶ λώβᾳ
Νυκτὸς Γοργὼν ἑκατογκεφάλοις
ὄφεων ἰαχήμασι,[300] Λύσσα[301] μαρμαρωπός.

Here at least one has adequate evidence that the vase painter did not paint an unknown scene, even though he did prefer to call his figure Οἶστρος[302].

The shade of Aetes[303], a pure invention of the artist, has been held to refer to a post-Euripidean tragedy. One finds such pedantic ingenuity used in explaining this figure that the would-be-learnedness borders upon the ridiculous. It is affirmed, for example, that somewhere it _must have been stated for the vase painter that Aetes had died since Medeia left him_[304]. How far, pray, did vase painters concern themselves about such points of chronology or sequence of events? We have already pointed out in regard to these artists that they introduced and omitted characters just as they chose; and especially is this true in regard to such side-figures as Aetes is here. Then again, why is any literary source necessary to prove the old man’s death? It was but the natural course of events that the painter followed when he concluded that Aetes was among the shades. It is absurd to require some proof that the unlucky king had, within the long period of Medeia’s absence, passed into the world of spirits. It seems to me that there are two views that can adequately explain this addition to the picture, and with either one in mind the vase painter would have needed no post-Euripidean work or painting but simply the _Medeia_ tragedy to inspire him.

Robert[305] pointed to vs. 31 ff. of the prologue as furnishing perhaps the suggestion for this figure, but that is but a small part of the whole suggestion, and it is well to follow this note which recurs in many places, and is, to my mind, a very important part of the Euripidean conception of Medeia. I give herewith the various places where this element may be discovered.

αὐτὴ πρὸς αὑτὴν πατέρ’ ἀποιμώζη φίλον
καὶ γαῖαν οἴκους θ’, οὒς προδοῦς’ ἀφίκετο. vs. 31 f.

ὤ πάτερ, ὤ πόλις, ὧν ἀπενάσθην
αἰσχρῶς τὸν ἐμὸν κτείνασα κάσιν. vs. 166 f.

αὐτὴ δὲ πατέρα καὶ δόμους προδοῦς’ ἐμούς. v. 483.

πότερα πρὸς πατρὸς δόμους,
οὓς σοὶ προδοῦσα καὶ πάτραν ἀφικόμην; vs. 502 f.

ἡμάρτανον τόθ’ ἡνίκ’ ἐξελίμπανον
δόμους πατρῴους. vs. 800 f.

These repeated allusions to her father and her former home seem to me to express in a strong manner what the painter chose to develop into the ghost-figure. Aetes appears here to behold the retribution that is overtaking Jason; and his participation in the fearful tragedy emphasizes the secret power in Medeia, her sorcery, and her chariot. The artist read between the lines and discovered the spirit of the poet, and this he has successfully reproduced. A similar instance was noted in the liberty assumed by Botticelli in including Beatrice in the second plate to the _Inferno_[306].

In the second place the εἴδωλον emphasizes the barbaric element in the Medeia-Jason history, and impresses the beholder with the workings of barbarism _versus_ Hellenism. This chord is, moreover, continuously struck by Euripides[307]. The poet endeavours from first to last to keep up the keenest distinction between Greece and Kolchis, between Jason’s family and that of Aetes.

There was, moreover, an opportunity, in introducing this oriental king, to add features strikingly characteristic of the Apulian vase paintings[308]. The elegance and display of costume peculiar to the Persian and Asia Minor kings were attractive for an artist, and the introduction of Aetes’ shade was a happy invention that went far towards making the deeper meaning of the poet plain.

The deities, who, as spectators, are an important part of the paintings on so many Lower Italy vases, are arranged in the upper section. They need not have any particular connexion with the incidents before them. The Olympian sympathy with earthly affairs was a favourite theme with the artists of the time, and a satisfactory number of participating divinities is usually added where important events occur. Herakles and Athena seem to be but indifferently interested in what is happening below them, although the former was intimately associated with the Argonautic expedition[309], and the latter was the promoter of the enterprise[310]. The Dioskouroi, who likewise took a large part in the adventures of the voyage, are fitly represented here[311]. They are, however, giving no heed to the tragedy. It is enough if the painter has recalled for us the famous voyage and shown us the prelude, as it were, to the drama played in the two lower sections. The panorama of Jason and Medeia’s life together passes before us in distinct scenes. By painting the participants in the expedition and also the shade of Aetes the artist has heightened the effect of the double tragedy which the poet made famous.

Such is the painting on this celebrated amphora, which I do not hesitate to call Euripidean.

Another monument which also shows Kreusa’s death is a vase from Pomarico, now in Naples[312].

Fig. 24.
]

Kreusa has fallen from the θρόνος that occupies the middle of the scene, and in a half-sitting posture upon the floor endeavours to remove the head-dress. Before her is the open box in which the presents were brought. A mirror hangs on the wall. She is dressed in the Ionic chiton with mantle; has earrings and one bracelet. She stares at Kreon, who hurries toward her with outstretched right hand. He has the sceptre in the left hand, is bearded, bald, and wears a chiton which has slipped down to his waist. To the left a female figure rushes away _en face_, and, watching Kreusa, makes the gestures of one terror-stricken. She is dressed like the latter except the earrings and necklace. Jahn called her a companion of Kreusa, considering that if she were Merope of the Munich vase she would be approaching her daughter and not leaving her. I prefer to see in this figure one of the attendants who in vs. 1177 ff. spread the news. It is true that the appearance of the figure is that of a more important personage than a servant. The latter are not usually represented wearing jewellery and fine costumes, and yet the attendant on the Munich vase, who is endeavouring to divert the pedagogue, is quite as richly dressed. In the present instance, however, the drawing is very careless and the workmanship is of an inferior sort. I believe, therefore, that the artist either did not know the fitness of things, or else took no pains to indicate that this figure was a servant or attendant. When he had once drawn such a miserable king as Kreon is, hobbling along in a ridiculous manner, he might well have slipped into the other extreme of painting a nurse in a lady’s garb. The scene is based upon the messenger’s speech, vs. 1176 ff.

The pedagogue on the right, who is hurrying away the two boys wrapped in cloaks, is a reminiscence of vs. 1157 ff. where the father, Jason, goes away with them.

καὶ πρὶν ὲκ δόμων
μακρὰν ἀπεῖνει πατέρα καὶ παῖδας σέθεν.

The winged Fury sitting in the upper right-hand corner observing the scene might well be expected as a spectator. The suggestion for her may be found in

ἔξελ’ οἴκων φονίαν
τάλαινάν τ’ Ἐρινὺν ὑπ’ ἀλαστόρων. vs. 1259 f.

The murder of the boys inside of the palace is painted on a Nolan amphora in the _Cabinet des Médailles_ in Paris[313]. Medeia in Greek dress and Phrygian cap has slain one boy, who lies over the altar, either extremity touching the floor. She stands, _en face_, with the other child grasped fast by the hair. This hand also holds the sword. In her left, stretched out behind the altar, is the sheath. The artist doubtless had in mind the words which the chorus heard in vs. 1271 ff.—

οἴμοι, τί δράσω; ποῖ φύγω μητρὸς χέρας;
οὐκ οἶδ’, ἀδελφὲ φίλτατ’· ὀλλύμεσθα γάρ.

In the upper right-hand corner the pedagogue appears, carrying an oil-cruse in his left hand. His right is raised to his head. A wreath and two fillets point to the sanctuary.

Fig. 25.
]

Another Canosa vase in Naples[314], although furnishing a free handling of Medeia’s escape, is still an important witness for the chariot and its actual appearance in the production of the tragedy. In this particular the painting is Euripidean.

Medeia in rapid flight upon her dragon-chariot holds the reins in her left hand and the corner of her mantle in the right. Her dress is the customary one for charioteers. On the ground by the wheels one boy lies dead; the other is said to be visible on the original, inside of the chariot as on the sarcophagi. The sword is also on the ground. She is pursued by three youths, one on horseback, Jason (?), and two on foot. They all carry spears, and each has a chlamys. The middle one also wears a pilos and has a shield. In front of the chariot is Lyssa (?) with a sword in the right hand, and staff or κέντρον (?) in the left. She has an Artemis costume with a mantle. Galloping ahead to lead the way is Selene, seated as usual on her horse.

The painting is poorly preserved, but the main part is sufficiently plain. The artist followed the traditional manner of Medeia’s flight.

§ 10. PHOINISSAI.

The _Phoinissai_ in common with the _Septem_ of Aischylos deals with the well-known story of the attack of Polyneikes and his supporters on Thebes. The events connected with this war can be traced all through Greek and Roman literature and art[315]. We have here to do with a relief cup, which illustrates Euripides’ version of the combat. It possesses, like the other ‘Megarian Bowls’ discussed in the present work, a value so unique for the study of our poet that it may stand beside any vase painting in assisting us in the study of the drama’s influence upon art.

Fig. 26 (_vid. p. 170 f._).
]

The cup shown in fig. 27 is of red, unglazed ware, and is said to have been found in Thebes[316]. The following figures may be discerned. On the left Teiresias, ΤΕΙΡΕΣΙΑΣ, carrying a bough and led by his daughter Manto, ΜΑΝΤΩ, approaches Kreon, ΚΡΕΩΝ, who kneels before the aged seer. They are both bearded, and the latter wears a long chiton. Next follows Polyneikes, ΠΟΛΥΝΕΙΚΗΣ, and Eteokles, ΕΤΕΟΚΛΗΣ, in full armour, engaged in their fatal fight. Thebe, ΘΗΒΗ, holding in her hand a sceptre, sits upon a rock watching the sight. The messenger, ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ, wearing a short chiton and chlamys, stands by Iokaste, ΙΟΚ ... ΣΤΗ, before the palace from which Antigone, ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΗ, has come. The latter raises her hand in astonishment. The women both wear long chitons. Lastly, on the right, Antigone appears before Kreon, inscriptions in each case, in a supplicating attitude.

That Kreon might know definitely how matters were to terminate, he had sent for Teiresias. The latter makes his appearance in v. 834—

ἡγοῦ πάροιθε, θύγατερ, ὡς τυφλῷ ποδὶ
ὀφθαλμὸς εἶ σύ, ναυτίλοισιν ἄστρον ὤς·

Fig. 27 (_vid. p. 173 ff._).
]

and so one sees him here before Kreon. His daughter has brought him as he wished, and now stands behind him, while the seer discloses the terrible misfortune which must visit Kreon before success can crown the Theban arms. The son Menoikeus, who is present in Euripides, has been left out of the group. The messenger soon appears and calls for Iokaste.

ἔξελθ’, ἄκουσον, Οἰδίπου κλεινὴ δάμαρ. v. 1070.

She does hear, and comes from the palace and learns everything about the attack thus far, and how the different heroes on each side were armed. To her special inquiry regarding her two sons the messenger replies in detail (vs. 1217 ff.).

ἤδη δ’ ἔκρυπτον σῶμα παγχάλκοις ὅπλοις
δισσοὶ γέροντος Οἰδίπου νεανίαι. vs. 1242 f.

στήτην δὲ λαμπρώ, χρῶμά τ’ οὐκ ἠλλαξάτην,
μαργῶντ’ ἐπ’ ἀλλήλοισιν ἱέναι δόρυ. vs. 1246 f.

But this is before the battle. They were waiting for the word from the priests who examined the entrails of the victims. The second messenger brings the account of the engagement proper, and this is what the artist seized upon[317].

ᾖξαν δρόμημα δεινὸν ἀλλήλοις ἔπι·
κάπροι δ’ ὅπως θήγοντες ἀγρίαν γένυν
ξυνῆψαν, ἀφρῷ διάβροχοι γενειάδας·
ᾖσσον δὲ λόγχαις· ἀλλ’ ὑφίζανον κύκλοις,
ὅπως σίδηρος ἐξολισθάνοι μάτην. vs. 1379 ff.

This is the moment which the relief represents. Their spears have clashed, and each is still safe behind the good circumference of his shield.

Iokaste, much disturbed at the critical situation described by the messenger, determines to call Antigone and rush to the battle-field to reconcile the brothers,—

ὦ τέκνον, ἔξελθ’, Ἀντιγόνη, δόμων πάρος. v. 1264.

she cries, and Antigone at once appears and asks—

τίν’, ὦ τεκοῦσα μῆτερ, ἔκπληξιν νέαν
φίλοις ἀϋτεῖς τῶνδε δωμάτων πάρος; vs. 1270 f.

The situation is dramatically told on the vase. The palace doors are still open, and Antigone stands astonished before her mother.

No sooner has Kreon learned the result of the battle than he passes an edict banishing the blind Oedipus from the land. The faithful daughter comes to intercede for her father and the scene is described in vs. 1539–1682. The artist has seized upon this situation, but has omitted Oedipus. Antigone bows before the new king, who stands with his arms folded listening placidly to the supplications.

ἀτὰρ ς’ ἐρωτῶ τὸν νεωστὶ κοίρανον·
τί θεσμοποιεῖς ἐπὶ ταλαιπώρῳ νεκρῷ; vs. 1644 f.

This is the moment which the last group represents.

The personification of Thebes occupying the central field and presiding, as it were, over the destinies of the capital, extends the setting of the poet and adds not a little to the interest of the picture.

Fig. 28
]

There exists, remarkable enough, a small fragment of another cup, which must have been much like the one just discussed. It is shown in fig. 28, and joins on well to the last scene in fig. 27, filling out the gap made by the omission of Oedipus[318]. We see the stooping and aged figure of the former king, in long chiton, feeling his way along or being led by some one. The inscription renders everything plain. Οἰδίπ]ους κελεύει [ἄγειν πρὸς τὸ π]τῶμα τῆς αὑτοῦ μητρ[ός τε καὶ] γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν υίῶ[ν. The unfortunate Oedipus’ doom is sealed, and he enters with Antigone upon his permanent banishment, but he will be led to Iokaste that he may embrace her once more, even though she is now a corpse;

προσάγαγέ νύν με, μητρὸς ὡς ψαύσω σέθεν. v. 1693.

At this moment the artist conceived his figure, and that one might not mistake its meaning he wrote above it who the person was and what the scene meant. Here, then, in this bit of potsherd, one can see and study the workings of that awful curse which blasted the house of Labdakos and sent the miserable Oedipus to wander ‘blind amidst the blaze of noon.’

§ 11. SUPPLEMENTARY.

There remains still a number of vase paintings that have been referred to certain of Euripides’ extant plays. It will be seen that I have not been able to convince myself of their Euripidean character, and have therefore not included them in the number of published paintings. The following list gives the most important vases of this class. No discussion accompanies them, as they seem to me to present difficulties that preclude their relation to extant tragedies.

_Alkestis._

1. Etruscan amphora, no. 728 in the _Cabinet des Médailles_, Paris.
Pub. as frontispiece to Dennis’ _Cities and Cemeteries of
Etruria_, vol. ii. = _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, pl. 180. 3.

_Andromache._

1. Amphora, Brit. Mus., cat. iii. E 155. Pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Mon.
inéd._ pl. 40. 2; cf. Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ p. 141 f., and
_Arch. Ztg._ 1880, p. 189.

_Elektra._

1. Slender Campanian amphora, Berlin. _Pub. Arch._ Anz. 1890, p. 90,
no. 7; cf. _loc. cit._ The interpretation given explains the
scene as representing Orestes slaying Aigisthos. This was done,
however, not at a sanctuary or in the open, as here, but _in the
palace_ where Aigisthos, Orestes, and Pylades were engaged in
the slaughtering of oxen. At v. 790 they had entered the palace.

_Herakles Furens._

1. The Assteas vase in Madrid. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. B,
pl. 1 = _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. 10; cf. Hirzel, _Annali d. Inst._
1864, p. 323 ff.: Körte, _Ueber Personificationen
psychologischer Affekte_, p. 18 f., and Vogel, _op. cit._ p.
143.

_Hippolytos._

1. Amphora. Attic fabric, _cir._ 420 B.C. Berlin, vid. _Arch. Anz._
1890, p. 89.

2. Lekythos from Paestum, now in Naples, no. 2900. Pub.
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, 41 = _Élite Céram._ iv. 87.

_Ion._

1. Nolan vase in Cassel. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1852, pl. 37; cf.
Furtwängler, _Sammlung Sabouroff, Vasen_, Einleitung, p. 14,
note 12; Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 145.

2. Painting on a fourth cent. krater. Pub. _Élite Céram._ ii. 76 a;
cf. Furtwängler, _op. cit._ p. 14.

3. An Oxybaphon in the Louvre. Pub. _Élite Céram._ ii. 88 a =
Reinach-Millin. _op. cit._ i. 46 = Müller-Wieseler, _Denkmäler
d. a. Kunst._ ii. 142; cf. Furtwängler, _loc. cit._

_Iphigeneia at Aulis._

1. Lucanian krater, Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 159. Pub. Overbeck,
_Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 9 = _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. 5, pl. 9.
3 = Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iii. pl. 251; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._
p. 116.

Euripides’ Lost Plays.

The following list includes most of the paintings referred to the lost tragedies. Where it has seemed to me doubtful about the Euripidean character of the scenes I have preferred to omit mention of them altogether.

_Aiolos._

1. Canosa hydria in Bari. The shoulder decoration only is pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1883, pl. 7. 1; cf. p. 51 ff. and Furtwängler,
_Masterpieces_, p. 109. The latter thinks the painting is from
the fifth cent. B.C. Vid. also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 28 ff.

_Alkmene._

1. Bell-shaped krater, signed by Python now in the Brit. Mus., cat.
iv. F 149. Pub. _J. H. S._ 1890, pl. 6; cf. _ibid._ p. 225 ff.

2. Amphora from Capua. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 193. Pub. _Annali d.
Inst._ 1872, pl. A. Cf. _ibid._ p. 1 ff. On both paintings
Alkmene sitting on an altar appeals to Zeus against Amphitryon.
Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 34.

_Andromeda._

1. Krater from Capua. Berlin, no. 3237. Cf. _Arch. Anz._ 1893, p. 91,
f. no. 50. Pub. and discussed by Bethe, _Jahrbuch_, 1896, p. 292
ff. and pl. 2; cf. Bethe’s _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des
Theaters im Altertum_, p. 320, 330, and p. 35 above.

2. Amphora from Canosa. Naples, no. 3225. Pub. Minervini, _Memorie
accademiche_, pl. 1–3; cf. Vogel, p. 39.

3. Amphora in Naples, no. 708, _Museo S. Angelo_. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._
ix. 38; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 108 f., and Vogel, _op.
cit._ p. 41.

4. Hydria from Anzi in the Basilicata. Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 185; cf.
Vogel, p. 42. C.

_Antigone._

1. Ruvo amphora. Jatta coll. no. 423. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40.
2, and by Heydemann, _Ueber eine nacheuripideische Tragödie_,
1868, pl. 1, and _Mon. d. Inst._ x. 26, 27. Polychrome view of
whole vase on pl. 26 = Rayet et Collignon, _Histoire de la
Céramique grecque_, pl. 12, p. 300.

2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3240. Pub. Gerhard, _Apulische
Vasenbilder_, xi = _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, pl. 40. 1. Cf. Heydemann,
_op. cit._ and Klügmann, _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 173 ff., and
Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 50 ff.

3. Fragment of Apulian amphora in Carlsruhe; Winnefeld’s _Beschreibung
der Vasensammlung_, p. 62 f. Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1884, pl. 19. b =
_Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. E. 6. 3. Cf. Winckler in _Aus der
Onomia_, p. 149 ff.

_Antiope._

1. Apulian krater found near Syracuse. Berlin, no. 3296. Pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1878, pl. 7 and 8; cf. _ibid._ p. 42 ff, and Robert, _Bild
und Lied_, p. 36; Vogel, p. 60 f.

_Bellerophon._

1. Ruvo amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 21 = _Wiener
Vorlegeblätter_, ser. viii, pl. 8. 1. Cf. _Annali d. Inst._
1845, p. 227.

_Chrysippos._

1. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 1769. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, 1. 2.

2. Apulian amphora. Berlin, no. 3239. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1. 1.

3. An abridgement of the foregoing. Pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser.
6, II. 2 = Roscher’s _Lexikon_, i. p. 903; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._
p. 137 f.

_Hypsipyle._

1. Lasimos amphora in the Louvre. Pub. Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_,
ii. 37 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 28. 1. Cf. Vogel, p. 98 f.

2. Ruvo amphora. Naples, no. 3255. Pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 4.
3 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. p. 114; cf. Vogel, p. 99 f.

3. Ruvo amphora. St. Petersburg, no. 523. Pub. Overbeck, _op. cit._
pl. 4. 2; cf. Vogel, _loc. cit._

_Meleagros._

1. Apulian amphora. Naples, _Mus. S. Angelo_, no. 11, A. Pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1867, pl. 220.

_Stheneboia._

1. Krater in Naples, No. 1891. Pub. _Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. A.

2. Krater in St. Petersburg, no. 427. Pub. Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ i.
pl. 1–3; cf. Engelmann in _Annali_, 1874, p. 35 f., and Vogel,
_op. cit._ p. 85 f.

_Telephos._

1. Hydria in Naples. Heydemann, _Raccolta Cumana_, no. 141. Pub.
_Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 106.

2. Tischbein, _Vases d’Hamilton_, ii. 6; cf. Jahn, _Telephos und
Troilos_, p. 44, and Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 89 ff.

INDEX

N.B.—All references are to pages.

Accius, 11.

Aischylos, authority of, in Magna Graecia, 55, 66, 81 f.
ἦθος of, 80.
statue of, 6.
_Agam._, 58, 112.
_Choe._, 17, 21, 43 ff., 58.
_Eumen._, 35, 55 ff., scenes of, 69 f.
_Iph._, 12, 23.
_Lykurgeia_, 23, 74.
_Niobe_, 8.
Ὅπλων Κρίσις, 31, note 2.
_Pentheus_, 88, 91.
_Phrygians_, 74.
_Prom._, 27.
_Telephos_, 23.

Andronicus (Livius), 11, 82.

Antiope, myth of, 9.

Assteas, 70, note 1, 179.

Choregos, prize of, 5 f.

Comedy, on vases, 40, note 2.

Dante, influence of on art, 1 ff.
Botticelli’s drawings for, 155.

Dirke, monuments of, 9.

Divinities, on vases, 110.

Ekkyklema, 66 f., 160.

Ennius, 11, 26, 82, 112.

Etruscans, art of, 10 ff., 27, note 6.

Euphronios, 31 f., 157.

Euripides, Aristotle’s criticism of, 79 f.
influence of, 26, 28 f.
πάθος of, 79 f.
_Aiolos_, 179.
_Alexandros_, 12.
_Alkestis_, 7, 16, 27, 178.
_Alkmene_, 14, 179.
_Andromache_, 83, 178.
_Andromeda_, 23, 35, 180.
_Antigone_, 180.
_Antiope_, 9, 13, 26, 180.
_Auge_, 8.
_Bakchai_, 25, 88 ff.
_Bellerophon_, 180.
_Chrysippos_, 180 f.
_Elektra_, 50, 178.
_Hekabe_, 21, 94 ff.
_Herakleidai_, 23.
_Herakles Fur._, 163 f., 179.
_Hippolytos_, 17, 25, 101 ff., 179.
_Hypsipyle_, 181.
_Ion_, 179.
_Iph. A._, 23, 25, 112 ff., 179.
_Iph. T._, 13, 17 f., 25 f., 121 ff.
_Kretes_, 14, 20, 27.
_Kyklops_, 35, 139 ff.
_Medeia_, 13, 19, 23, 144 ff.
_Melanippe_, 14.
_Meleagros_, 14, 20, 26, 181.
_Oedipus_, 13, 19.
_Oinomaos_, 14.
_Philoktetes_, 21.
_Phoin._, 14, 19, 171 ff.
_Rhesos_, 32.
_Stheneboia_, 181.
_Telephos_, 8, 12, 23, 31, 181.
_Theseus_, 14, 24.

_Flugmaschine_, 160.

Homer, 3, 34.

Laokoön, 9 f.

Lyssa, 163, 171.

Niobe, group, 8 f.

Oedipus, banishment of, 177.

Oistros, 162 ff.

Orpheus, relief of, 4 f.

Paeuvius, 12, 82.

Parrhasios, 23 f., 34.

Peirithoös, relief, 4.

Peliades, relief, 4.

Pergamon, frieze, 7.

Polygnotos, 21 f., 95, 110.

Polyxena, 21, 95.

Praxiteles, 6, 9.

Python, 70, note 1.

Seilanion, ‘Iokaste’ of, 7.

Skopas, 9.

Sophokles, influence of, on art, 75 ff.
statue of, 6.
_Antigone_, 75, 77.
_Elektra_, 50.
_Iphigeneia_, 12, 23.
_Lakainai_, 35.
_Laokoön_, 10.
_Mysoi_, 8.
_Niobe_, 8.
_Niptra_, 36, note 3.
_Oed. Rex_, 77.
_Oinomaos_, 14.
_Phaidra_, 101.
_Philoktetes_, 13, 19, 21.
_Polyxene_, 21.
_Trachiniai_, 77.
_Troilos_, 32.

Tarentum, 37 ff., 66, 82.

Timanthes, 23, 25, 34, 113, 140.

Timomachus, 23, 138.

Tragedy, Roman and Greek, 11, 82.

Zeuxis, 24.

-----

Footnote 1:

F.-W. no. 1198; pub. in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, no. 18, and
Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 1121.

Footnote 2:

Benndorf und Schöne, _Die Bildwerke des Lateranensischen Museums_. no.
92 = F.-W. no. 1200; pub. in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, no. 17.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 4:

Cf. _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p. 130 ff.

Footnote 5:

Cf. Isaeus v. 41, and Xen. _Hieron_, ix. 4.

Footnote 6:

_Athen. Mitth._ 1878, p. 233; Ἀθήναιον B. vii. p. 93.

Footnote 7:

1. 20. 1.

Footnote 8:

Cf. _C. I. A._ ii. 3, 1298, and _Anth. Pal._ vi. 239.

Footnote 9:

_Loc. cit._

Footnote 10:

1. 21. 1 and 2.

Footnote 11:

Pub. _Athen. Mitth._ 1882, pl. 14; cf. F.-W. no. 1135.

Footnote 12:

Furtwängler, _Sammlung Sabouroff_, p. 31.

Footnote 13:

Cf. F.-W. no. 1843, 1844, and Jahn’s _Archäologische Beiträge_, p. 198
ff.

Footnote 14:

Cf. Overbeck’s _Schriftquellen_, no. 1128.

Footnote 15:

F.-W. no. 1242.

Footnote 16:

I follow Robert. Cf. _Thanatos_, p. 37 ff.

Footnote 17:

Cf. Robert in _Jahrbuch_, 1887, p. 244 ff.

Footnote 18:

F.-W. 1402. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 34.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 20:

F.-W. no. 1422. Cf. Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 36, 37.

Footnote 21:

Robert, _Bild und Lied_, p. 192 ff., contends against the influence of
Sophokles.

Footnote 22:

Cic. _de opt. gen. orat._ 1. 1.

Footnote 23:

Velleius, 1. 17. 1.

Footnote 24:

The favourite subject was the murder of Troïlos.

Footnote 25:

Brunn, _op. cit._ pl. 1–16; cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des
troischen Sagenkreises auf etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 13 ff.

Footnote 26:

_Poet._ 1453^a. 21.

Footnote 27:

_Op. cit._ pl. 26–34, gives eighteen reliefs.

Footnote 28:

Cf. p. 113 f.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 30:

_Op. cit._ p. 155; cf. pl. 74–83.

Footnote 31:

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

Footnote 32:

Cf. p. 124 ff. below.

Footnote 33:

Körte, _op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 1. 2.

Footnote 34:

Cf. p. 144 ff.

Footnote 35:

_Op. cit._ vol. ii. pl. 4. 1, 2 and 3. and pl. 5. 4.

Footnote 36:

Cf. schol. Eur. _Phoin._ v. 61, and Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, Eur. no. 541,
and _op. cit._ ii. pl. 7. 1.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 38:

_Op. cit._ ii. p. 32 ff.

Footnote 39:

Pl. 26–27.

Footnote 40:

Pl. 28–30.

Footnote 41:

Pl. 31–32.

Footnote 42:

Cf. p. 105 f. below.

Footnote 43:

Pl. 39–40. Three in all.

Footnote 44:

Pl. 41–56.

Footnote 45:

One may think of Soph. _Oinom._, called also _Hippodameia_, and of
Eur. _Oinom._ The latter seems to have been followed by Accius.

Footnote 46:

Pl. 62; cf. also _op. cit._ ii. p. 150 ff.

Footnote 47:

Pl. 100–104.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 50:

Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 9 = Robert, _op. cit._ iii. part i, pl. 7.
32 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. p. 46.

Footnote 51:

P. 101 ff.

Footnote 52:

Robert, _op. cit._ ii. p. 165.

Footnote 53:

Robert, _Die antiken Sark.-Reliefs_, ii. pl. 54, no. 154.

Footnote 54:

Cf. _op. cit._ ii. pl. 54–56, nos 155–166; vid. also p. 67 below.

Footnote 55:

Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 57–59, nos. 167–180, and p. 124 ff. below.

Footnote 56:

P. 145 ff.

Footnote 57:

Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 60, nos. 183, 184, and p. 191 ff.

Footnote 58:

Robert, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 51, no. 139.

Footnote 59:

Pub. by Robert, _Die Pasiphaë-Sarkophag_, 1890, pl. i.; also _op.
cit._ iii. part i, pi. 10. 35, 35^a, 35^b.

Footnote 60:

Cf. Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, no. 472.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 62:

Paus. 1. 22. 6.

Footnote 63:

Cf. p. 94 ff.

Footnote 64:

Cf. schol. Eur. _Hek._ v. 3, and Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, p. 245 ff.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 66:

Paus. 10. 25. 2.

Footnote 67:

This was shown by Schneidewin in _Philologus_, 1849, p. 645 ff.

Footnote 68:

Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35. 71.

Footnote 69:

Cf. Overbeck, _Schriftquellen_, 1735–1739, and p. 112 f. below.

Footnote 70:

Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 35, 132, and Helbig, _Wandgemälde_, 1183–1203.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 72:

Overbeck, _op. cit._ 1642. Cf. Reisch, _Griechische Weihgeschenke_, p.
127.

Footnote 73:

Pliny, _op. cit._ 35, 144; cf. a Pompeian wall painting, pub. _Arch.
Ztg._ 1883, pl. 9. 1.

Footnote 74:

Paus. 1. 20. 3.

Footnote 75:

Vid. Dörpfeld and Reisch, _Das griechische Theater_, p. 21.

Footnote 76:

Cf. p. 74 below.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 78:

Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1242–1247; cf. p. 108, note 1.

Footnote 79:

Cf. Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1304, 1305.

Footnote 80:

Cf. p. 138 below.

Footnote 81:

Helbig, _op. cit._ nos. 1142, 1143.

Footnote 82:

Especially fine is the painting discovered in the _casa dei Vettii_,
photo. Alinari, no. 12133; cf. _Röm. Mitth_. 1896, p. 50 f.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 85:

Livius Andronicus, Ennius, and Accius, each wrote an _Andromeda_.
Ennius translated the _Medeia_, and chose over half his pieces from
Euripides.

Footnote 86:

Gerhard’s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 239, and v. pl. 117.

Footnote 87:

_Op. cit._ iv. pl. 354. 2.

Footnote 88:

Gerhard, _op. cit._ iv. 367. 2. Cf. Euripides’ Κρῆτες.

Footnote 89:

_Op. cit._ iv. pl. 401.

Footnote 90:

_Op. cit._ ii. pl. 229 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 14. 1; iv. pl.
390. 2; v. pl. 108.

Footnote 91:

_Op. cit._ v. p. 217.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 94:

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

Footnote 95:

Vid. Lüders, _Die dionysischen Künstler_, Berlin, 1873.

Footnote 96:

Cf. p. 114 ff.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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. 1^a. We know now that Exekias must have
lived nearly 100 years before the date of the _Telephos_.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 101:

The main scene is published and discussed by Dümmler in _Rheinisches
Museum_, 1888, p. 355 ff.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 103:

Gerhard, _Auser. Vasen_, pl. 56, and Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_, i.
9.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 105:

P. 141 ff.

Footnote 106:

No. 3235, A. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 36; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_,
pl. 24. 19; cf. Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_, p. 152 f.

Footnote 107:

Fig. 8, and p. 63 f.

Footnote 108:

Heydemann’s cat. no. 3240. Pub. Müller-Wieseler, _Theater-gebäude_,
pl. 6. 2; Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. fig. 422.

Footnote 109:

iv. 115–117. Cf. also Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters
im Altertum_, p. 42.

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 112:

Cf. Mommsen, _Unteritalische Dialekte_, p. 89 ff.

Footnote 113:

_De leg._ 1. 637^c.

Footnote 114:

Dio Cassius, 39. 3. 6.

Footnote 115:

Zonaris, viii. 2. 370, καὶ τὸ θέατρον ἔκλεισε.

Footnote 116:

Cf. figs. 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23.

Footnote 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_.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 119:

Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 57. 1 = Roscher’s _Lexikon_, i. p. 1238.
Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ p. 167 ff.

Footnote 120:

Naples, no. 1755, pub. Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, iii. 1939 =
Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 14.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 122:

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

Footnote 123:

Cf. note 2, p. 44.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 125:

Pub. Inghirami, _op. cit._ ii. pl. 153.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 127:

Cf. παρ’ οὐδετέρω κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιία of the Hypothesis.

Footnote 128:

Cf. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29, and Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. inéd._
pl. 35–38.

Footnote 129:

Cat. no. 349; pub. _Compte Rendu_, 1864, pl. 6. 5; cf. Stephani,
_ibid._ p. 252 ff.

Footnote 130:

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

Footnote 131:

v. 1061.

Footnote 132:

v. 35.

Footnote 133:

Vid my _Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward Art_, p. 12 ff., for a
discussion of this passage.

Footnote 134:

So Eur. _Orest._ v. 321; _Elekt._ v. 1345.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 136:

Cf. also fig. 8.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 139:

Vid. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 11, and 12.

Footnote 140:

Cf. vs. 67, 84, 91.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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. 157^1, p. 173.

Footnote 143:

Cf. the ghosts of Aigisthos and Klytaimestra on the end reliefs of the
Sarcophagus, no. 155, _op. cit._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 146:

A few fragments remain from the _Oresteia_ of Stesichoros. Cf.
Bergk-Schaefer, _Poetae lyrici graeci_, iii. p. 219 ff.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 150:

Cf. Aisch. _Supp._ v. 463.

Footnote 151:

Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1860, pl. 137. 4 = Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 29. 8.

Footnote 152:

Vid. _Arch. Anz._ 1890, p. 90.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 154:

P. 35, note 3, and p. 36, note 3.

Footnote 155:

_Poet._ 1450^a. 25.

Footnote 156:

_Rep._ 8. 568^a.

Footnote 157:

C. 29.

Footnote 158:

Athen. p. 537; cf. Plut. _Alex._ c. 10 and 53.

Footnote 159:

Athen. p. 175.

Footnote 160:

This fact comes out particularly in Polybios; cf. Susemihl,
_Geschichte der griech. Litteratur in der Alexanderzeit_, ii. p. 119.

Footnote 161:

_C. I. A._ ii. 973 is the authority for this occurrence in the years
341–39 B.C.

Footnote 162:

6. 3. 5.

Footnote 163:

Cf. _Nem._ 7. v. 49 ff.

Footnote 164:

Vid. Hypothesis: τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα τῶν δευτέρον.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 166:

Cf. similar figures in figs. 6, 18, 20.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 168:

Cf. figs. 6, 7, 18, 20, 21, 23.

Footnote 169:

The 26th idyll of Theokritos should also be counted with the
_Bakchai_.

Footnote 170:

Suidas s. v. Thespis.

Footnote 171:

But one verse remains, Nauck’s _Fragmenta_, no. 183.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 173: