diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65461-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65461-0.txt | 7023 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7023 deletions
diff --git a/old/65461-0.txt b/old/65461-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1b7f9b8..0000000 --- a/old/65461-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7023 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Greek Tragedy in the Light of Vase -Paintings, by John Homer Huddilston - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Greek Tragedy in the Light of Vase Paintings - -Author: John Homer Huddilston - -Release Date: May 28, 2021 [eBook #65461] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Richard Tonsing, Turgut Dincer, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The Internet - Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GREEK TRAGEDY IN THE LIGHT OF VASE -PAINTINGS *** - - - - - GREEK TRAGEDY - - IN - - THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS - - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration: - - (_Size, about 1 ∶ 9_) - - MEDEIA AMPHORA IN THE OLD PINAKOTHEK, MUNICH - - (_Vid. p. 145 ff._) -] - - - - - GREEK TRAGEDY - IN - THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS - - - BY - - JOHN H. HUDDILSTON - B.A. (HARV.), PH.D. (MUNICH) - - FORMERLY INSTRUCTOR IN GREEK IN THE NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AUTHOR OF - ‘THE ESSENTIALS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK’ AND ‘THE ATTITUDE OF THE GREEK - TRAGEDIANS TOWARD ART’ - - - London - MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED - NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY - 1898 - - - - - Oxford - HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY - - - - - TO - - PROFESSOR CARL RIEMENSCHNEIDER, PH.D. - - GERMAN WALLACE COLLEGE - - BEREA, OHIO - - WHOSE RARE CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP - - IS ALL TOO LITTLE KNOWN - - THIS VOLUME - - BY ONE OF HIS FORMER PUPILS - - IS AFFECTIONATELY - - DEDICATED - - Πλὴν ὁ Σιμωνίδης τὴν μὲν ζωγραφίαν ποίησιν σιωπῶσαν προσαγορεύει, τὴν - δὲ ποίησιν, ζωγραφίαν λαλοῦσαν· ἃς γὰρ οἱ ζωγράφοι πράξεις ὁς - γινομένας δεικνύουσι, ταύτας οἱ λόγοι γεγενημένας διηγοῦνται καὶ - συγγράφουσιν. - - PLUTARCH, _De Gloria Athen._, c. 3. - - Nec mirum, si ista, quae tamen in aliquo posita sunt motu, tantum in - animis valent, cum pictura, tacens opus et habitus semper eiusdem, sic - in intimos penetrat adfectus, ut ipsam vim dicendi nonnumquam superare - videatur. - - QUINTILIAN, _Inst. Orat._, xi. 3. 67. - - - - - PREFACE - - -Although the archaeologists and mythologists constitute for the most -part the number of those seriously concerned with Greek vases, there -still remain many engaged in the study of Greek literature for whom the -vases are bound to possess an abiding value, since they often relate the -stories that Homer, Pindar, Aischylos, and Euripides tell. One may find -on vases of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries B.C. illustrations -for not a few of the famous pieces in Greek poetry. The paintings may -have been an outgrowth of the common stock of legendary tales, having -their origin in the folk-lore, and in such cases they are independent of -the written literature and go along, so to speak, parallel with the work -of the poets, who drew from the same source. These paintings are -valuable as illustrations of the myths, quite apart from any literary -version of the same. Another class still more interesting, perhaps, owe -their origin to some particular poem or play, and are to be taken as -direct products of the poets’ work. Such are of prime importance for one -who would understand the poet thoroughly. - -The first class of paintings of the latter sort are based on Homer and -the Cyclic poets. After the epic literature, the tragic drama became the -chief formative force in Greek legend and its representation in art. Yet -here again, as in the case of the Cyclic poets, one is compelled to -interpret paintings inspired by works that have come down to us either -as mere names or in a few wretched fragments. The relation of these -monuments to the lost literature is of paramount importance, but the -investigation is beset with many obstacles and will continue to be -largely a field for the specialist. _Extant_ tragedy and vase paintings, -however, come together at so many points, and the former is so illumined -by the latter, that every student of the classics should become -acquainted with at least this part of Greek ceramics. - -The present work represents an attempt to bring this material together -in a convenient and accessible form. The first chapter, which deals with -the influence of tragedy on other classes of monuments, is meant to be -suggestive, not exhaustive; if I shall have succeeded here in setting -the student to think along some new lines that in the end will place him -in more direct touch with antiquity, and help him to a better -understanding of Greek tragic poetry and the part it played in the -artistic life of the Greeks and Romans, my aim will have been achieved. -The foot-notes all the way through are intended to contain somewhat full -references to the literature of the different topics, and to be a sort -of guide to one who desires to prosecute this study further. - -In dealing with even the subject of vase paintings and extant tragedy, -it was not possible to omit saying a word regarding the general question -of the earliest influence of the drama upon the vase painters; this has -been done, however, very briefly, and is no more than a sketch. Some may -think that the subject is disposed of too quickly; many pages, indeed, -might have been written to advantage on this much mooted point, but this -would have required going far aside from the task which I set myself; -and, further, it did not seem wise to encumber the work with a -discussion necessarily of a nature to appeal to the archaeologist rather -than to the student of Aischylos and Euripides. It is the latter’s needs -that have been uppermost in my mind, and it will be found that I have -written for him first and for the archaeologist second. - -My aim has been to collect and publish all paintings that can with a -high degree of probability be said to be inspired by any of the extant -tragedies, and to unfold the relation of the two to each other in such a -way as to throw the greatest possible light upon the interpretation of -the literature. Many of the publications where one can find these -paintings are so expensive and inaccessible that but a comparatively -small number of classical students can make any use of the original -works; the result is that this important class of monuments has been -very little used by philologists. Wherever it seemed necessary, synopses -of the plays have been given, and these will place the student in -possession of everything required for a full appreciation of the -reproductions. Reference has been made to other monuments representing -scenes based on the plays, so that there is in fact a sort of -archaeological commentary for those who care to go further and examine -the general influence of the poet over the artist. It should be borne in -mind, however, that I have not been concerned with the myths involved -except in so far as they were _the_ forms invented or followed by the -tragedians. To be sure, opinions will not be unanimous regarding the -interpretation of some of the paintings, but wherever I have not felt -sure of the debt of the artist to a given play I have preferred not to -publish the work; some such are mentioned in a separate chapter, where -reference is also made to the literature. My endeavour has been to keep -as far as possible aloof from conjectures and reckless theories into -which one is apt to be drawn in dealing with questions in archaeology; -sins of omission should be less reprehended in a work of this character -than sins of commission, and although I shall no doubt be judged guilty -of both, I hope to have erred rather on the side of the former. - -It will be of special interest to archaeologists to have the painting on -the Medeia amphora, in Munich, correctly published; fig. 23 gives for -the first time the correct reading of the inscriptions, and for this -reason I could have wished that space had permitted a much larger -reproduction. The frontispiece, presenting a general view of the whole -vase, will, it is hoped, be of some help in affording those who have not -had an opportunity of seeing the originals, some notion of the size and -magnificent workmanship of this class of vases, called so appropriately -by the Germans _Prachtamphoren_. Another painting, fig. 3, is published -for the first time, and fig. 6, taken from a photograph, displaces the -drawing in Jahn’s _Vasenbilder_. Further than this, the illustrations -are the same as those that have already appeared elsewhere; it has been -possible for me to add new information regarding the whereabouts of some -few vases. - -On the spelling of Greek names it need only be said that I have nearly -always preferred the Greek forms to the Latin equivalents; yet I have -not gone so far as to write _Hiketides_ for _Supplices_, or _Hepta_ for -_Septem_; neither did it seem advisable to disturb a word so common in -English as is _Oedipus_ by writing it _Oidipous_, or much less -_Oidipus_. - -My thanks are due to Professor Otto Kern for help and encouragement -while he was still at the University of Berlin. Professor Carl Robert -has lent me valuable assistance, and I scarcely know whether I am more -indebted to his suggestive replies to my numerous inquiries or to his -writings, which latter have been a constant inspiration to me. Professor -A. Furtwängler, whose profound knowledge in the field of Greek ceramics, -as well as in every department of classical archaeology, is well known, -has aided me by his counsel and has spared some of his valuable time to -go over all the manuscript. I wish to express my indebtedness to all -these eminent scholars as well as to Mr. Charles B. Newcomer, M.A., who -has been kind enough to read the proof, and has favoured me with many -valuable suggestions. Mrs. Huddilston, who more than any one else has -followed all the work, deserves special mention; there is scarcely a -page that does not bear evidence of her sound judgement. - -I indulge the hope that this little book may, with all its defects (and -I am well aware they are many), present much that is helpful in a field -in which there is little addressed to the student of classical -literature; and this brings me to remark that I have long wondered why -the editions of the Greek tragedies are not enlivened more with -reproductions of works of art pertaining to the myth involved. There is -no reason why the student who is set to read the _Choephoroi_, -_Eumenides_, _Medeia_, or _Iphigeneia in Tauris_, not to mention other -plays, should look only at the literary and philological sides of the -author. Is it considered unscholarly to illustrate books of this sort, -or are the scholars who edit them ignorant of the archaeological -apparatus? The time is coming, I firmly believe, when these two -departments of classical studies will not be so divorced as they are at -present, and when the monuments based upon a myth will be included in -our text-books and examined quite as closely as is the text of the poet. -When Greek art is thus made to supplement the study of the poetry, the -latter will be invested with a still greater charm than it now -possesses. More of the spirit is required and less of the letter, and -this is bound to be brought about when Greek art is introduced more -extensively into the instruction in Greek studies. I trust that these -pages will be considered a contribution towards this manner of studying -Greek tragedy, and that the plays which come in question will be read -with renewed interest by all students, and reviewed with pleasure and -profit by those who are instructors in classics; and again by those who -in the various walks of life still have time and inclination to turn -occasionally to the masterpieces of Greek letters—works that will always -remain substantial parts of the world’s literary ballast. - - J. H. HUDDILSTON. - - LONDON, _March, 1898_. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER I - - THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY UPON ANCIENT ART OUTSIDE OF THE VASES - - PAGE - § 1. INTRODUCTORY 1 - - § 2. TRAGIC INFLUENCES IN SCULPTURE 4 - - 1. Greek Sculpture 4 - - 2. The Etruscan Ash-Urns 10 - - 3. The Roman Sarcophagi 15 - - § 3. THE INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON PAINTING 20 - - 1. On Greek Painting 21 - - 2. The Wall Paintings of Pompeii 24 - - § 4. TRAGIC ELEMENTS ON THE ETRUSCAN MIRRORS 26 - - § 5. GREEK TRAGEDY AND THE ‘MEGARIAN BOWLS’ 27 - - - CHAPTER II - - THE EARLIEST INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON VASE PAINTING - - § 1. THEORIES ADVANCED FOR THE EARLIEST TRACES 31 - - § 2. EARLIEST EVIDENCE 32 - - § 3. THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C. 33 - - § 4. THE FOURTH CENTURY B.C. AND THE CONDITIONS IN LOWER ITALY 37 - - - CHAPTER III - - AISCHYLOS AND VASE PAINTING - - § 1. INTRODUCTION 42 - - § 2. _CHOEPHOROI_ 43 - - § 3. _EUMENIDES_ 55 - - § 4. THE LOST PLAYS 73 - - - CHAPTER IV - - SOPHOKLES AND HIS RELATION TO VASE PAINTING 75 - - - CHAPTER V - - EURIPIDES AND VASE PAINTING - - § 1. INTRODUCTION 78 - - § 2. _ANDROMACHE_ 83 - - § 3. _BAKCHAI_ 88 - - § 4. _HEKABE_ 94 - - § 5. _HIPPOLYTOS_ 101 - - § 6. _IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS_ 112 - - § 7. _IPHIGENEIA AMONG THE TAURIANS_ 121 - - § 8. _KYKLOPS_ 139 - - § 9. _MEDEIA_ 144 - - § 10. _PHOINISSAI_ 171 - - § 11. SUPPLEMENTARY 178 - - A List of Vase Paintings sometimes referred to Extant Plays 178 - - A List of Vase Paintings referred to Lost Plays 179 - - INDEX 182 - - - - - THE COMMON ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES - - -_Annali d. Inst._ = _Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza -archeologica_ (Rome). - -_Arch. Anz._ = _Archäologischer Anzeiger, Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des -Archäologischen Instituts_ (Berlin). - -_Arch. Ztg._ = _Archäologische Zeitung_ (Berlin). - -_Athen. Mitth._ = _Mittheilungen des K. deutschen Archäologischen -Instituts in Athen._ - -Baumeister, _Denkmäler_ = Baumeister’s _Denkmäler des Klassischen -Altertums_. - -_B. C. H._ = _Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique_ (Athens). - -_Compte Rendu_ = _Compte Rendu de la Commission impériale archéologique_ -(St. Petersburg). - -_C. I. A._ = _Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum._ - -_Élite Céram._ = _Élite des monuments céramographiques_, Lenormant et De -Witte. - -F.-W. = Friederichs-Wolters, _Die Gipsabgüsse antiker Bildwerke_. - -Furtwängler, _Masterpieces_ = Furtwängler, _Masterpieces of Greek -Sculpture_. - -Gerhard, _Auserl. Vasen._ = Gerhard, _Auserlesen griechische -Vasenbilder_. - -Helbig, _Wandgemälde_ = Helbig, _Wandgemälde der vom Vesuv verschütteten -Städte Campaniens_. - -Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ = Inghirami, _Pitture di vasi fittili_. - -_Jahrbuch_ = _Jahrbuch des K. deutschen Archäologischen Instituts_ -(Berlin). - -_J. H. S._ = _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (London). - -_Mon. d. Inst._ = _Monumenti inediti pubblicati dall’ Instituto di -Corrispondenza archeologica_ (Rome). - -Nauck, _Fragmenta_ = Nauck, _Fragmenta tragicorum graecorum._ 2 ed. - -Overbeck, _Bildwerke_ = Overbeck, _Die Bildwerke zum thebischen und -troischen Heldenkreis_. - -Overbeck, _Schriftquellen_ = Overbeck, _Die antiken Schriftquellen zur -Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen_. - - Reinach-Millin, _Peintures_ = Reinach, _Peintures de Vases - Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_ antiques recueillies par Millin - (1808) et Millingen (1813)._ - -Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ = Vogel, _Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in -griechischen Vasengemälden_. - - - - - GREEK TRAGEDY IN THE LIGHT OF VASE PAINTINGS - - - - - CHAPTER I - THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY UPON ANCIENT ART OUTSIDE OF THE VASES - - - § 1. INTRODUCTORY. - -Painting as a fine art has never been developed to any great degree of -perfection independent of literature. The two are, in a sense, -handmaids, each inspiring the other and assisting it to solve new -problems. A great literature is, furthermore, a necessary precursor of -great achievements in art, since the latter is the more dependent of the -two, and seeks its inspiration from the poet. This may not be clear to -one who looks about at painting in this age of eclecticism, and -endeavours to satisfy himself that literature and art are thus related, -and that the former is required to give the initial impetus to the -latter. The principle can, however, be made plain by going back nearer -the fountain spring of modern literary and artistic development. One -should turn to the Italian Renaissance of the fourteenth and fifteenth -centuries—to the period when Dante became the teacher and guide of -artistic notions—in order to observe the full meaning and force of the -supremacy of literature. There, where for the first time in the modern -world a great genius fashioned the thought of more than a century, one -can study easily the power of the poet over the artist. The influence of -Dante upon artistic notions from Giotto down to the present has, indeed, -been incalculably great. No painter of the _quattrocento_, at least, -worked in any other than the Dantesque spirit; whether consciously or -unconsciously, he was under the spell of the father of Italian letters. -Dante’s Hell and Paradise became the Hell and Paradise of Signorelli and -Michel Angelo. Botticelli, Flaxman, Doré, and many others left their -canvasses and frescoes to interpret the hidden secrets of the _Divina -Commedia_. The great Christian Epic which Cornelius developed through -many years of study and contemplation of Dante, and which he considered -the crowning work of his life, is told in the altar fresco of the -Ludwig’s Church in Munich. Yet this is but one of the many monumental -works of this century which owes its existence to this poet. Delacroix’s -‘Barque of Dante,’ exhibited in the Paris _Salon_ of 1822, has been -called the first real painting of the century. When one turns to England -there is Rossetti, with ‘Beatrice and Dante,’ ‘Dante’s Dream,’ and -several other famous paintings that witness again to the influence of -the Italian poet. But one may remark that Dante’s position in the -history of human progress is unique. This is true. The world has not -known another whose authority was so absolute or whose philosophy -appeared so final. The influence of poets of less power has been -correspondingly smaller. The principle, however, remains true. The poet -ventures where the boldest artist has not gone and prepares, as it were, -the way for him. - -The closest parallel to Dante’s influence upon the trend of artistic -notions must be looked for in ancient Greece; Homer must be named with -Dante. The Homeric poetry has exercised a power which the _Divina -Commedia_ has scarcely surpassed; the thousand and more streams of -influence which rose in the Greek epic literature went out in every -direction to water the fields of art and letters in Greece and Rome, and -flowed on again after Petrarch’s time, and are to-day mighty forces. -Events and incidents of the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ have taken so -permanent a place in modern art that one hardly stops to think that this -or that is from Homer. But this company of persons which the world calls -Homer was not the only vital force that shaped men’s thoughts and -furnished the artist with fresh inspiration. The tragic poets are to be -named with Homer. Had Aischylean, Sophoklean, and Euripidean elements -not entered into ancient and modern works of art the world would never -have known some of its most beautiful monuments. This is not, however, -the place to linger over the influence of the Greek epic and tragic -literature in modern times, interesting though this would be. It is in -ancient times, when there was still among the people a peculiar interest -in the mythic legends, that the contact of poet and artist is most -apparent; it is with the three Greek tragedians that we have to do at -present, and some traces of their work may be pointed out in the various -classes of monuments before the vase paintings are examined. - - - § 2. TRAGIC INFLUENCES IN SCULPTURE. - - - 1. _Greek Sculpture._ - -One does not expect the sculptor’s notions to be largely shaped by a -definite situation in literature, as he has little to do with -illustration; his art is too severe and confined to reproduce the -dramatic and pathetic with great success. There is accordingly little -direct influence of the Greek tragic literature over ancient sculpture -except on the sarcophagi. Of the monuments belonging to the fifth -century B.C., which owe their existence indirectly to the drama, three -reliefs occupy the foremost place. These are the well-known Orpheus[1], -Peliades[2], and Peirithoös[3] reliefs, all of which belong close to the -time of the Parthenon frieze. Reisch has made it clear that these works -were conceived and carried out in the spirit of the tragic drama[4]. -They are claimed, indeed, as dedicatory offerings in memory of -particular tragic exhibitions, but no attempt is made to name any poet -or tragedy with which they were connected. Whether one is correct in -holding these reliefs as ἀναθήματα, certain it is that in every -particular they breathe forth the spirit of tragedy. The triple group in -each has been pointed out as corresponding to the three actors. This, -however, is an outer sign that might serve to indicate their origin. The -relation of the figures to each other—the conflict of soul which one may -observe—the pathos that pervades the groups—these are so unlike anything -that occurs on the earlier monuments that a person involuntarily asks -himself whence the artists received their motives. Tragedy provides the -answer. The parting scene between Alkestis and Admetos which Euripides -describes so beautifully belongs to the same decade as does the Orpheus -relief. This touching episode may well have been the incentive to some -such work as the parting between Orpheus and Eurydike. In all three -instances the sculptor was at any rate occupied with the problems which -concerned the tragic poet, and he reproduced true echoes of dramatic -situations. - -Related to these reliefs is another class of monuments which grew out of -the tragic performances. From the middle of the fifth century B.C.[5] -till at least the close of the third century B.C.[6] it was customary -for the successful choregos to dedicate the tripod that the state had -given him as a prize. The magnificence and elaborateness accompanying -this ceremony can be learned from the still extant Lysikrates monument -upon which the tripod once stood and on the intercolumniations of which -tripods in relief are represented. A street in Athens was given over to -the exposition of these prizes. Pausanias states that they were of -bronze and stood on temples[7]. More important still for us in this -connexion is the fact that together with the tripod, probably under the -kettle, it was the custom to set up a figure of a satyr or Dionysos or -Nike[8]. This practice does not appear to have been older than the time -of Praxiteles. So it is that one learns of his famous satyr which -Pausanias mentions in connexion with one of the tripods[9]. The Greek of -this passage does not admit of a satisfactory interpretation, and it is -not possible therefore to determine what the attitude of the figure was. -It is probable that the statue which was thus intimately associated with -the Dionysiac performances was the περιβόητος satyr of Praxiteles, -existing in so many copies and known throughout English literature as -the ‘Marble Faun.’ One can easily understand that this class of choregic -monuments was alone of great importance, and that through this channel -the tragic performances worked a wide influence over sculpture. There -was a vast number of statues in bronze and marble that thus arose from -the exigencies of the theatre. Along with these works may be classed the -numerous pieces of sculpture that were put up as decorations for the -theatre. Such were the εἰκόνες mentioned by Pausanias as being in the -Dionysiac theatre at Athens. The periegete names the statues of -Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides, and Menander[10]. - -A large number of reliefs that represent Dionysos receiving the worship -of mortals, or advancing in a train of satyrs before a man lying on a -couch, makes up another class of sculpture, which probably owed its -origin to the drama. On the Peiraieus[11] relief three persons carrying -tragic masks advance before the god who reclines upon a _kline_. The -work may possibly be dated as early as the close of the fifth century -B.C.[12] It is at any rate an early example of the influence of the -tragic muse upon sculpture. The so-called Ikarios reliefs illustrating -Dionysos’ first appearance in Attica, and the consequent origin of -tragedy, may not refer to Ikarios at all, but are nevertheless to be -linked to tragedy in some way, as the masks clearly show[13]. They may -have been purely decorative work, or were perhaps offerings of actors. - -It remains to speak of a few monuments which seem to have been more -directly under the influence of particular tragedies. One hears, for -example, that the sculptor Seilanion made a ‘Dying Iokaste.’[14] This -notion would appear to have been borrowed from some play. One may think -of the _Oedipus Tyrannus_ of Sophokles or the _Phoinissai_ of Euripides. -Of far greater importance is the relief on one of the columns from -Ephesos which is known to every one[15]. The most satisfactory -interpretation of this work so far offered explains the scene as -Alkestis being delivered from Death. The heroine, rescued from Thanatos -by Hermes, is being conducted to the upper world again. Unfortunately -there is no agreement among archaeologists on this explanation[16]. -Until a better one is brought forward, however, this important monument -may be held as evidence for the influence exerted by Euripides’ handling -of this popular myth. The _Alkestis_ is known to have been exceptionally -well received. - -If tragic influences are only possibly at hand in the fragment from -Ephesos, the excavations at Pergamon have brought to light extensive -remains of reliefs that were inspired by Attic tragedy. The Telephos -frieze, now in Berlin, is directly associated with the drama. The mythic -founder of Pergamon had a long and varied career, which was told in -dramatic form by both Sophokles and Euripides. The suggestions for the -reliefs in question came from the _Auge_ and _Telephos_ of the latter, -and the _Mysoi_ of the former[17]. In these fragments one can see -distinctly the high esteem in which the Attic drama was held at the -court of the Attalidai. I know of no Greek sculpture which comes so near -being an illustration of tragedy as does this frieze. - -Another work of monumental greatness belonging to about the same period -and exhibiting unmistakable signs of tragic influence is the Farnese -Bull in the National Museum in Naples[18]. This colossal group, which -represents Dirke being tied to a rampant bull by Amphion and Zethos, the -sons of Antiope, is characterized by a passion and violence that are -late products in Greek sculpture. Such motives made their appearance -first in the fourth century B.C. Niobe and her children are the earliest -representation on a grand scale of these elements that are so akin to -the drama. Such compositions were first possible with Praxiteles and -Skopas who broke away from the traditions of the Pheidian age. The -generation that saw a new type of Dionysos and of Aphrodite, and could -appreciate the frenzied maenad of Skopas, had been prepared for these -new motives very largely through the theatre. The drama had not a little -to do with impressing the artist and his public with the importance of -delineating the human feelings. In the case of the Niobe group one would -not attempt to point out any special influence of the _Niobe_ of -Aischylos or Sophokles, and still there is little doubt in my own mind -that the sculptor was more or less influenced by the tragic literature. -May not Praxiteles or Skopas, each of whom shares the credit of the -Niobe group, have been led to the pathetic look upon the mother’s face -by the lines of one of these lost plays? This new tendency in sculpture -reached its highest expression in the Laokoön and the Farnese Bull. The -latter can be traced to the influence of Euripides’ _Antiope_, which -appears to have been the source of all Dirke monuments in ancient art; -there is no dissenting voice as to Euripides’ right to occupy the -honourable position thus assigned[19] him. Reference has already been -made to the Laokoön[20] as representing the culmination of tragedy in -marble. The view held by Lessing and many others that Virgil was the -sculptors’ authority has been abandoned long since. The Pergamon altar -frieze has enabled us to fix the date of the Laokoön with approximate -correctness. It is surely some centuries older than the _Aeneid_ and -stands therefore in a possible relation to the _Laokoön_ of Sophokles. -Yet here again opinions vary widely. Sophokles’ play is lost, and the -few remaining fragments are not enough to enable one to make a -satisfactory reconstruction. The story came down from the epic -literature, and, like so many incidents in the fall of Troy, needed no -further popularization in order to appeal to the artist. That Sophokles’ -tragedy, however, was wholly without any influence on the Rhodian -sculptors who so tragically and realistically represented Apollo’s -vengeance on his priest seems to me highly improbable. Such a conception -as found expression in this masterpiece of sculpture may well have -sprung from the masterpiece in poetry which was at hand in Sophokles’ -_Laokoön_[21]. - - - 2. _The Etruscan Ash-urns._ - -The reliefs on the Etruscan and Roman sarcophagi carry us to Italian -soil and furnish us with a much larger field for pursuing our subject -than could be found in Greek sculpture. Of all the Italian races with -whom the Greeks came into contact, the Etrurians were by far the most -advanced in civilization; and during the centuries of active commercial -relations between the two peoples this nation, whose origin is the -puzzle of historians, and whose language is the _crux_ of philologists, -came more under the influence of Greek literature and art than any of -the Latin races that remained unhellenized. They have left abundant -evidence of these hellenizing influences. In various classes of -monuments which may still be studied—urns, mirrors, cistae, -tomb-paintings, and vases—one discovers Greek mythology and poetry. The -national mythology of the Etruscans is so much of an exception in their -art, and the Greek is so universally adopted, that one is at a loss to -account for the strange fact. On hundreds of Etruscan monuments one sees -the workings of Greek poetry, which found its way into Etruria before -Livius Andronicus produced the first tragedy in Rome 240 B.C. That the -Greek drama was introduced for the most part directly and not through -the medium of the early Latin tragedians, is shown by the fact that the -latter flourished in the second and first centuries B.C., while the urns -exhibiting tragic subjects are, for the most part, from the third -century B.C. Some may, indeed, date from the fourth century. Roman -tragedy can not be said to have really become at all a matter of general -interest before Ennius went to Rome in 204 B.C. He died 169 B.C., and -one should not think that the influence of these Latin adaptations and -translations of Greek plays took an immediate hold upon the neighbouring -Etruscans. Such elements percolate gradually into the various strata of -national life, to say nothing of the time required to reach a foreign -people whose language and customs are so different. But the _summus -epicus poeta_[22] was not the most popular or most prolific pilferer of -Greek plays. His tragedies numbered only about twenty. _In Accio -circaque eum Romana tragoedia est_[23]; and the probable truth of this -statement is well attested by the list of fifty plays that have come -down to us under Accius’ name. This poet, however, was born 170 B.C. and -first exhibited tragedies in 140 B.C. It is therefore very doubtful -whether one can rightly speak of the influence of Latin tragedy upon the -Etruscan artists. One dare not, at any rate, bring the ash-urns too far -into the second century B.C., as Brunn and those immediately under his -teaching formerly did. More recent investigations have proved the -chronological impossibility of interpreting these reliefs with the help -of Ennius, Accius, and Pacuvius. - -Without taking time and space to review the arguments on which the -interpretations of the reliefs are based it will be enough for my -purpose to simply add a list of the scenes which one may reasonably -refer to Greek tragedy. Examining the first volume of Brunn’s _I rilievi -delle urne etrusche_, which is devoted to urns with scenes from the -Trojan Cycle, one learns that those presenting a version of the stories -ascribable to the tragic poets exceed those that are based on the -_Iliad_, _Odyssey_, and other epics. The representation of Paris’ return -to his Trojan home is, with one exception[24], the most frequent. The -thirty-four reliefs were referred, even in the time of the former late -dating, to Euripides’ Ἀλέξανδρος[25]. The fate of Telephos was, -according to Aristotle, a common subject for a tragedy[26]. We have -already met the story on the Pergamon frieze, and it is very frequent on -the Etruscan urns. Telephos grasps the young Orestes and threatens his -life on the altar after the manner of the drama. It may be the influence -of Aischylos or Euripides, but if one judges from the comparative -popularity of these poets in this period he would be inclined to assign -the first place to the latter[27]. The offering of Iphigeneia occurs on -twenty-six urns, nearly all of which were found in the vicinity of -Perugia[28]. It was again unquestionably Greek tragedy that was the -incentive for these scenes. Aischylos, Sophokles, and Euripides may all -share the credit of having furnished the literary source. A smaller -series of urns representing Odysseus’ adventure in taking Philoktetes -from Lemnos is also to be placed under the influence of the fifth -century tragedy[29]. The δόλιος Ὀδυσσεύς is seen playing his part as -cleverly as he does in the extant play of Sophokles. The attitude of -Philoktetes standing before Neoptolemos, having in two cases the arrow -in his hand, corresponds well to the character drawn by this poet. The -injured chieftain displays his courage and scoffs at the thought of -being carried away by the detested Odysseus. The murder of Aigisthos and -Klytaimestra represented on seventeen urns has been shown by Schlie to -be essentially Euripidean[30]. The arrival of Orestes and Pylades at the -precinct of the Tauric Artemis is possibly the subject of three -reliefs[31]. This would also take one directly to Euripides[32]. The -following are published in the second volume of the _Urne etrusche_ by -Körte. Medeia escapes on her dragon-chariot, driving over the bodies of -her children[33]—an echo of the great tragedy that exercised so wide an -influence in other fields of art[34]. The punishment of Dirke on four -reliefs is based without question on the _Antiope_ of Euripides[35]. The -blinding of Oedipus at the hands of Laios’ sons seems to have been an -invention of the same poet and is recognized in another relief[36]. The -Theban fratricide and the assault on the city were both much-prized -subjects[37]. Körte points out many features common to the numerous -reliefs and the _Phoinissai_ of Euripides[38]. The death of Alkmene is -represented on five urns which one would associate with the _Alkmene_ of -the same poet[39]. Euripides’ Κρῆτες is traceable on seven reliefs, -showing the legend of Daidalos and Pasiphaë[40]. Theseus’ fight with the -Minotaur occurs four times and reminds us of Euripides’ _Theseus_[41]. -The death of Hippolytos on eight reliefs does not present any essential -variation from the extant Greek tragedy[42]. Perseus and Andromeda are -met with likewise and emphasize the wide popularity of Euripides’ -play[43]. The famous legend of Oinomaos’ death and Pelops’ triumph -occurs on thirty-one urns[44]. It can be shown that these were inspired -by one or more of the lost tragedies that dealt with the subject[45]. -The Μελέαγρος of Euripides appears to have been the source of at least -three of the many reliefs representing the Kalydonian Hunt[46]. To this -long list of urns based on Euripidean tragedies one must still add seven -that were probably inspired by this poet’s Μελανίππη ἡ σοψή and three -more that follow his Μελανίππη ἡ δεσμῶτις[47]. - -More than two-thirds of the more than four hundred Etruscan urns -examined are decorated with sculpture based on Greek tragedy, and in -nearly all instances the drama was Euripidean. Such are the instructive -facts regarding this important class of monuments. - - - 3. _Roman Sarcophagi._ - -Under the expression ‘Roman sarcophagi’ one understands those of the -first and second centuries A.D. unless the expression is further -qualified. Sarcophagi from the time of the Republic are very rare and -they are withal modest in their workmanship. The florid decorations of -the time of the Empire, and especially of the period just noted, are -often of secondary interest, but the reliefs on the sarcophagi are for -the most part of prime importance, as furnishing reminiscences of lost -tragedies and ancient paintings of great renown. The majority are copies -of very ordinary merit, while now and then a sarcophagus relief is not -unworthy a Greek artist of the fourth century B.C. - -It is a commonly known fact that long before the Laokoön, or the Farnese -Bull, or the Apollo Belvidere was unearthed in the sixteenth and -fifteenth centuries—long before the classical antiquities of Rome, -Florence, and Naples had attracted students and lovers of art—the -sculptures of these sarcophagi, scattered about in cathedrals and -palaces, had begun to teach the Italian artist what the human figure -really is, and what composition and decoration should be. The -Renaissance artist first learned the charm and simplicity of the ancient -costume from these marbles and perceived how vastly superior this was to -the heavy, conventional church-dress that concealed the outlines of the -form and rendered grace and beauty impossible. The study of the antique, -we have reason to believe, was in the early Renaissance largely a study -of these Roman sarcophagi. - -There is no need of going into detail. It will be enough to hint at the -most important monuments of this class that stand under the influence of -Greek tragedy. Whether they are a direct product of the Greek plays or -are founded on the Latin translations, or whether they represent copies -of Greek paintings based on Greek tragedy—this is for the present -purpose all one and the same. It is not necessary to determine whence -the incentive came. The important fact for one to grasp first is, that a -surprisingly large number of the reliefs owe their existence to the -tragic drama, and that these sculptures should be brought into one’s -study of the tragic poets[48]. - -The series of reliefs illustrating Euripides’ _Alkestis_ is of prime -importance for one who wishes to see in art a scene worthy of the -poet[49]. The touching farewell of Alkestis as she reclines upon her -death-bed is in each instance the centre of the groups on the long side. -Around her gathers the whole family. The children draw up close to their -mother’s side. Her parents are also present, and this lends more -interest to the sight, for they could scarcely be absent although the -poet does not mention them in this connexion. The last words of -Alkestis, and Admetos’ reply, form the real charm of the play. All else -falls far behind these speeches, and following one of the gems in Greek -literature the artist could afford to assign his illustration the first -place on the reliefs. Arranged on either side are the other incidents of -the drama, following the poet with considerable faithfulness. In this -connexion should be mentioned the relief in Florence, also based upon -the same source[50]. - -The Hippolytos sarcophagi are, so far as I know, the most numerous of -those that are dependent upon tragedy. If we possess more than a score, -either entire or in fragments, after the destructive elements have been -at work on them since antiquity, there is reason to believe that many -times this number were once in existence. Copies were made in large -numbers, and many a Roman was laid to rest behind the tragedy in marble -which in the _Hippolytos_ of Euripides has continued with some -interruptions to move the sympathies of the civilized world for more -than two thousand years. The reliefs are in the main faithful -illustrations of Euripides. One or two situations are foreign to him, -and these would suggest the influence of a Roman poet. It is unnecessary -to do more here than to refer to the following chapter, where the whole -question finds a further discussion[51]. - -‘The Orestes myth appears upon the sarcophagi exclusively in the form -given to it by the Attic drama. The first part—the slaying of Aigisthos -and Klytaimestra—follows the _Oresteia_ of Aischylos. The second -part—the meeting of Iphigeneia and Orestes and the rape of the Tauric -idol—is based upon the _Iphigeneia in Tauris_ of Euripides.’[52] One -exception only is noted and this appears to represent the influence of a -later play which handled the subject of the _Oresteia_[53]. The scenes -on the other sarcophagi are indeed illustrations of Aischylos. In each -case the final moment of the _Choephoroi_, when the Furies rush in upon -the murderer, guilty of a mother’s blood, is chosen for the middle -group. Right and left from this the succeeding events are arranged. The -right end scene invariably represents Orestes as he is about to escape -from the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and go to Athens. He picks his -way with circumspection over the sleeping Furies, and one is led up to -the triumphal verdict of the _Eumenides_[54]. Robert has shown very -clearly the relation of these sculptures to Aischylos’ words, and it is -enough to refer to his discussion. - -The Iphigeneia-Orestes sarcophagi breathe from first to last the spirit -of Euripides. A study of them is scarcely less instructive than a -reading of the play. Step by step the story is unfolded. Orestes and -Pylades are taken captives and stand before the priestess, whose -dreadful office is made more horrible by the remains of human sacrifices -that are fastened up around the sanctuary; the recognition scene with -the letter follows. Then Iphigeneia appears with the idol in her arms, -and asks Thoas’ permission to go and purify it in the sea. The two -Greeks stand bound, ready to follow her, and last of all comes the -_mêlée_ at the ship. One after another of the barbarians is laid low by -the strong arms of Orestes and Pylades. Iphigeneia is placed safely -aboard with the image, and one sees the beginning of the homeward -journey that closed the history of the house of Atreus[55]. - -The Euripidean _Medeia_ is discussed at length in another place, and I -have pointed out there the part that the sarcophagi occupy in art -representations of the tragedy[56]. The two extremes of touching -tenderness and violent passion, which no one ever combined more -successfully in one character than did Euripides in his Medeia, come -prominently to the foreground in these reliefs. I know of no monuments -of ancient art that grasp the spirit of a Greek tragedy more effectually -than the Medeia sarcophagi. The strange and secret power of the -sorceress hovers over and pervades the whole. The dreadful vengeance -exacted by the slighted queen is shown in the most graphic manner. -Standing before the Berlin replica, which is the best preserved and most -beautiful of all the sculptures, one cannot but feel that he is face to -face with a marvellous illustration of the great tragedy. The marble all -but breathes; the dragons of Medeia’s chariot may be heard to hiss. - -A small number of other monuments of this class belongs to the ‘Seven -against Thebes,’ and, as in the case of the Etruscan urns, the -_Phoinissai_ of Euripides is the main source of the illustrations. -Perhaps Seneca’s _Phoenissae_ also entered into the work. Robert -conjectures that Euripides’ _Oedipus_ may have furnished suggestions for -parts of the scenes[57]. - -The _Philoktetes_ of Sophokles is illustrated on one relief very much in -the manner of the Etruscan urns already referred to. The wounded -Philoktetes stands at the mouth of the cave and speaks to Neoptolemos on -the right. Odysseus keeps safely out of sight on the left[58]. - -The story of Pasiphaë’s unholy love is told on a fragment of a -sarcophagus in the Louvre[59]; Daidalos and his cunning work play the -leading part. The ultimate literary authority was Euripides’ Κρῆτες. The -latter may not have been used directly, as the myth enjoyed after this -play a continuous popularity. The relief on one end represents a fruit -offering, and as this would agree with the vegetarian vow of the chorus, -Robert prefers to recognize a direct connexion with Euripides[60]. - -Mention may be made lastly of the Meleager sarcophagi, which, like the -Etruscan urns, have much in common with Euripides’ Μελέαγρος[61]. - - - § 3. THE INFLUENCE OF TRAGEDY ON PAINTING. - -Our knowledge of Greek painting is entirely literary. No vestige of this -art has survived that one may study the real monuments. The wall -paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum are, however, a sort of recompense -for this loss, and with these and the assistance of Pliny and a few -other writers one can get some notion of certain masterpieces of ancient -painting. But the records are at the most very scant, and the student -has, after all, to allow his imagination to fill in many gaps. - - - 1. _On Greek Painting._ - -The first probable point of contact between tragedy and painting is in -the time of Polygnotos. The series of paintings mentioned by Pausanias -as being in the Propylaia _may_ be brought under the name of the great -painter, since it is expressly stated that two of the ten were from his -hand[62]. Among the subjects were Odysseus fetching Philoktetes from -Lemnos; Orestes slaying Aigisthos; Polyxena on the point of being -sacrificed at Achilles’ tomb. The question arises, have these works any -connexion with the drama? If Polygnotos was the author of all the -paintings, the period of his activity excludes both Sophoklean and -Euripidean influence in the Philoktetes scene. The _Philoktetes_ of -Sophokles is known to have been produced in 409 B.C., and the same play -by Euripides appeared in the trilogy with the _Medeia_ in 431 B.C. This -leaves Aischylos’ tragedy, which could have served Polygnotos’ purpose. -Orestes killing Aigisthos seems also a possible product of the -_Oresteia_, but Pylades engaging the sons of Nauplios who came to the -usurper’s assistance renders the Aischylean source improbable. -Polyxena’s sacrifice is described by Euripides in the _Hekabe_[63], and -was the subject of Sophokles’ _Polyxene_[64]. Nothing, however, can be -made out of the few fragments belonging to the latter. The character of -this picture, in which πάθος excluded ἦθος, led Robert to assign it to -the fourth century and base it upon Euripides[65]. All these subjects -are from the Trojan Cycle, and agree well with what is known of -Polygnotos’ taste in selecting his legends. One has but to recall the -painting in the Lesche of the Knidians at Delphi—τὸ μὲν σύμπαν τὸ ἐν -δεξιᾷ τῆς γραφῆς Ἴλιός τέ ἐστιν ἑαλωκυῖα καὶ ἀπόπλους ὁ Ἑλλήνων[66]—to -learn that the drama was not essential to inspire Polygnotos. On the -other hand, a closer examination of the Philoktetes-Orestes legend -reveals the fact that the crafty Ithacan’s part in bringing Philoktetes -from Lemnos was an invention of the Attic drama[67]. The tragedians -placed Odysseus in the room occupied by Diomede in the Trojan Cycle. It -is absolutely necessary therefore to place this painting under the -influence of tragedy, whether it was by Polygnotos and inspired by -Aischylos or by a later artist and inspired by one or more of the three -tragedies. If the Polygnotos authorship be rejected (and as it is based -on pure conjecture there is nothing to forbid placing it aside), one is -at liberty to point out a relation between these works and later tragic -literature, as has already been done in the case of the Polyxena scene. - -In the latter half of the fifth century B.C. painting appears to have -reflected pronounced tendencies of the drama. The legends of the heroic -time when tried in the crucible of the dramatic poet appealed more -strongly to the imagination of the artist who had been accustomed to -epic severeness and calmness. The conventionality and regulation types -gave way, and the tragic drama remained thereafter the vital force in -shaping the character of paintings occupied with heroic legends. At this -time we learn of a Telephos by Parrhasios, which one naturally -associates with Euripides or Aischylos[68]. The Iphigeneia of Timanthes -was a work that was scarcely possible but for the fresh interest -awakened in the story by the three tragedians[69]. It is highly probable -again that Euripides was the inspiration for the Andromeda of Nikias[70] -and the Medeia of Timomachus[71]. These were both works of great renown. -Apollodoros’ painting representing the Herakleidai can with some -certainty be referred to Euripides’ tragedy[72]. Theorus, a Samian, -painted Orestes slaying Aigisthos and Klytaimestra, and could hardly -have worked independent of Aischylos[73]. The fate of Pentheus and -Lykurgos was painted in the younger of the two temples in the Dionysiac -precinct south of the Acropolis[74]. The date of this temple has been -fixed at approximately 400 B.C.[75] The punishment of Pentheus was -particularly popular with the tragedians, and the dependence of this -painting on the play of Aischylos or Euripides is all but certain. The -former’s _Lykurgeia_ was the source of the numerous vase paintings of -Lower Italy representing the madness of the Thracian king[76], and one -may infer that this painting mentioned by Pausanias was essentially the -Aischylean Lykurgos. In the same place were two other scenes from the -career of Dionysos. Ariadne was represented as being forsaken by Theseus -and rescued by the god, and in another place Dionysos was conducting -Hephaistos to Olympos. Euripides’ _Theseus_ handled the love episode in -the first of the two latter, and this play was probably not without its -effect upon the popularity of the story which was of frequent -occurrence, particularly in Pompeii[77]. This poet’s power in dealing -with love exploits and depicting the sad case of unrequited love and the -attending calamities, was a new force in literature and a never-failing -spring from which the painter could draw. These compositions are one and -all connected with Dionysos, while three of them are parallel with -subjects handled in tragedy. Such scenes were possible only after the -drama had popularized the subjects and prepared the way, so to speak, -for the reception of the same in art. Even though one does not go so far -as to contend that these paintings were an outgrowth of tragedy, they -must be accepted as signs of the increasing interest in Dionysos and his -worship—and this was primarily the Greater Dionysia, where the first -editions of Greek tragedies were published. This was the period of -Zeuxis and Parrhasios—the time when Euripidean πάθος was shaping -artistic conceptions. - - - 2. _The Wall Paintings of Pompeii and Herculaneum._ - -The Pompeian wall paintings, representing scenes from tragedy, are -largely reminiscences of earlier paintings, and many famous works that -have already been referred to are doubtless preserved in more or less -exact copies in these invaluable monuments. Besides the Medeia and -Andromeda, which have been noticed above, there is a series of paintings -based on the Hippolytos-Phaidra casualty[78], and another representing -the sacrifice of Iphigeneia[79]. The latter exhibit a marked similarity -to the work of Timanthes and the final scene in Euripides’ _Iphigeneia -at Aulis_. Several important paintings represent the meeting of Orestes -and Iphigeneia in the Tauric sanctuary, and there can be no question -regarding the decided dramatic colouring here[80]. Two pictures are -based on the Telephos legend, and remind one again of the Pergamon -frieze and the relation of this to Euripides and Sophokles[81]. Daidalos -with his wooden cow before Pasiphaë was another favourite Euripidean -story told at Pompeii[82]. The excavations in 1895 brought to light an -unusual number of priceless treasures in the _casa dei Vettii_. Among -the paintings was one showing the death of Pentheus[83]. The maenads are -hurling stones at him and thrusting him through with their thyrsoi; the -wildness of the locality and the tone of the whole work make it highly -probable that Euripides’ _Bakchai_ was the artist’s inspiration. Mention -may be made lastly of the punishment of Dirke, told in several -paintings[84]. After what has been said touching the Farnese Bull, it is -not necessary to point out again the part played in the Dirke monuments -by Euripides’ _Antiope_. - -A glance at this brief sketch of ancient paintings on tragic subjects -cannot but impress one with the permanent and far-reaching influence of -the tragic poet over the painter. The striking fact that stands out -prominently before all others is the firm hold exercised by Euripides. -Note the following subjects—Andromeda, Dirke, Hippolytos, Iphigeneia at -Aulis, Medeia. Each of these characters has stamped upon it the form -given by this poet. Others after him adapted and translated his work, -but the ultimate authority remains none the less the Greek tragedian, -and neither the ancient nor the modern world accepts any other than the -Euripidean Andromeda, Hippolytos, or Medeia[85]. - - - § 4. TRAGIC ELEMENTS ON THE ETRUSCAN MIRRORS. - -The engravers of the mirrors were less inventive than were the sculptors -of the ash-urns, and they moved in a much narrower sphere. Their work is -for the most part that of the ordinary mechanic whose hand is none too -sure. The compositions taken from tragedy are common with those already -met with on the Etruscan sarcophagi. There are Orestes and Pylades at -the temple of the Tauric Artemis[86]; the Kalydonian Hunt, following the -Μελέαγρος[87]; Daidalos constructing the wooden cow[88]; Polyxena taking -her farewell of Hekabe[89]; three scenes from the Telephos legend[90]; -the parting scene between Alkestis and Admetos[91]; and Prometheus -chained to the Caucasus[92]. These instances at least may be adduced to -emphasize the fact of the wide-spread familiarity of the Etruscans with -tragedy. There is no doubt whatever that in these common everyday -articles, as well as on their sarcophagi, the Etruscans had -illustrations of the tragic poetry that may have been brought to them by -troops of ‘Dionysiac artists’[93]. - - - § 5. GREEK TRAGEDY AND THE ‘MEGARIAN BOWLS.’ - -Intermediate between sculpture and vase paintings appears a remarkably -interesting class of vases, or rather cups, which are decorated with a -band of relief. Certain of these are so intimately connected with the -drama, and with Euripides in particular, that at least a brief reference -should be made to them here. Examples of this ware are to be seen in -nearly every large museum, and I have seen fit to include reproductions -of three in the present work, as well as a small fragment of a -fourth[94]. The inscriptions and general style of the vases lead one to -date them in the second or third century B.C. They are surely not later -than this, and not much earlier. They owe their origin to a wide-spread -interest in the older Greek poets. The majority of the reliefs represent -scenes from the Trojan and Theban Cycles, and illustrate some poetical -work. We have to do at this time with those that are related to tragedy. -It is plain from a casual glance at the nature of the compositions taken -from tragic literature that it was not the words of the poet that -suggested the figures to the artist so much as the theatrical -performances themselves. The posings, gestures, groupings—in short, the -general attempt at effect, take one past the written work to the -Hellenistic stage. The motives are borrowed from Euripides, as played in -the second- and third-century theatre. The humble artist who conceived -these designs had visited the exhibitions of the _Iphigeneia at Aulis_ -or of the _Phoinissai_, and received fresh ideas for his work. It is -necessary to emphasize the fact that these little monuments date from -the time when the dominating force in art was the tragic drama. The -influence of the theatre was felt among all classes of people. The -guilds of Dionysiac actors travelled around from one village to another, -and from one city to another, producing their _répertoire_ from the -three great tragedians, and, even when there was no permanent stage, -delivered from an improvised platform bad and indifferent versions of -the well-known plays[95]. The result was that tragedy was the one -popular form of literature in the Hellenistic period, and this meant -practically that the people were feasted on Euripides. The ‘Megarian -Bowls’ are priceless treasures from this period when the drama had -permeated all classes of society. The unpretentious reliefs are replete -with the spirit that one may discover at the same time in Italy, Asia -Minor, Athens, and Alexandria. They are direct witnesses of the fact -that Euripides was the people’s poet, and re-enforce the impression -gained from the study of all other classes of monuments. - -For my own part I prefer to think of these cups as answering the place -of text illustrations and corresponding to our illustrated editions of -poetical works. One cannot imagine the papyri texts of the ancient poets -illumined with illustrations, but these ‘Megarian Bowls’ meet every -requirement of this kind of art. In order to keep the reader from going -astray in the interpretation the scenes are often accompanied by -inscriptions that render any misunderstanding impossible. The several -groups showing the successive stages of the play serve in fact every end -that is demanded of illustrations. Whether the vases were used by -schoolmasters in drilling their boys in classical poetry, or whether -they were ornaments for the home, the poet was sure to appeal to his -admirers in a new manner. He could be easily remembered by this means if -artificial aid was at all necessary. They had, moreover, the great merit -of being cheap; any number of copies could be made from the mould, and -such cups are really in existence[96]. If three replicas of one and the -same work have accidentally survived the centuries and can to-day be -studied as text illustrations of Euripides, how extensive must have been -the production and use of this sort of art in ancient times![97] - - - - - CHAPTER II - THE INFLUENCE OF GREEK TRAGEDY ON VASE PAINTING. - - - § 1. THEORIES ADVANCED FOR THE EARLIEST POINT OF CONTACT. - -The question as to when the tragic drama first began to influence the -vase painters has been in late years a much mooted one. When our -knowledge of vase chronology was far more fragmentary than it is now, -and the black figured fabric was dated as largely a fifth-century B.C. -product, the attempt was made to point out the dependence on the drama -of certain paintings of this style[98]. Later, when the improbability of -this theory became more and more plain, and an earlier date was fixed -for the black figured vases, other scholars endeavoured to show that the -painters of Euphronios’ set—the masters of the severe red figured -kylikes—stood under the influence of the three tragedians[99]. No one -would venture, however, to speak now of the influence of any of the -dramatists upon the vase painters of this style that flourished at the -end of the sixth and beginning of the fifth century. More nearly correct -was the principle laid down by Robert, in his famous book _Bild und -Lied_, that no vase painting of the fifth century B.C. shows the -influence of heroic legends as recast by the tragedians and produced in -the theatre. Before the year 400 B.C. one should not expect to find -scenes upon the vases that are the direct outcome of the tragic drama. -This, however, is going too far to the other extreme. There is a mean -that may be struck, and this is, as will appear, more in accord with the -present knowledge of Greek ceramics. - - - § 2. EARLIEST EVIDENCE. - -There is one point on which there seems to be little difference of -opinion, and that is, that the lusty choruses of satyrs that abound on -the early red figured vases were largely popularized through the -Dionysiac trains. These groups of dancing, springing satyrs along with -Dionysos are direct reflexions of the scenes that actually took place, -and as these celebrations were the simple beginnings of the tragic drama -there is in this class of pictures a remote echo of the theatre. Yet one -must not understand that the artists were conscious of following any -particular performance[100]. These scenes border more on what we should -imagine a satyric drama to have been. It was a long way from this -comical, kick-about dance of the satyrs around Dionysos and his altar to -the time when the actual performance of the theatre, such as is seen on -the Andromeda krater, occurs on the vases. Still these were beginnings. -Another exceedingly instructive bit of evidence for the development of -tragic influences (or rather it is better to speak still of Dionysiac -influences) is found on a black figured vase in Bologna[101]. The -painting represents the epiphany of the god who rides in a ship borne on -wheels and drawn by two satyrs before whom march two others leading a -steer. The god who sits enthroned upon the ship is being entertained by -flute music furnished by two satyrs riding with him. Such sights we have -reason to believe were not uncommon in Attica, and it may have been in -such a _carrus navalis_ that Thespis travelled the country and -established the beginnings of the later drama. These πομπαί and the -satyr-trains appear therefore to be a very significant inheritance which -the earlier vase painters have left us for the disentangling of the all -too bare literary records touching the origin of the tragic drama. - - - § 3. FIFTH CENTURY. - -Long before one can distinguish definite plays reflected in the vase -paintings, certain marks of interest in tragedy may be detected. There -are, for example, representations of the ceremony connected with the -dedication of the tripod-prize. The painters of _cir._ 460 B.C. have -already taken up this part of the dramatic performances and have -indicated thereby the growing interest in the theatrical -exhibitions[102]. About the same time also the personification of -tragedy and comedy makes its appearance on the vases[103]. These are not -in themselves points of so great weight, but they help to clear the way -for understanding the tremendous influence which the drama had upon -artists of the succeeding generations. - -Down to the middle of the fifth century the predominating force in the -legendary scenes on the vases was Homer and the other epic writers. At -this point the latter began to share their popularity with the -tragedians, and gradually but surely passed into the second place. That -Robert’s position is not a correct one seems to me highly probable, and -nevertheless one finds his words so often quoted that there is need of -placing the evidence together and inquiring anew into the question. For -my own part I am unable to understand why the theatre did not exert an -influence upon the smaller art of vase industry as well as it did upon -the more important art of painting. When one notes in the fifth century -that great artists like Timanthes and Parrhasios were drawn under the -spell of tragedy it is but natural to suppose that the same was true -also in the case of the less famous vase painters. Why should the -influence have been more pronounced in one instance than in the other? -If Aischylos and Euripides were popular enough to warrant the support of -the illustrious artists, one may correctly assume that the vase painter -grasped this point likewise. The latter was primarily concerned in -producing something saleable, and the pictures that were popular and -saleable for the first class were no less so for the second class. This -so far has, however, no further weight than one’s personal opinion. Let -us turn to the monuments and see what there is to bear out this view. - -The Berlin Andromeda krater may be referred to first[104]. This is one -of the most brilliant examples ascribable to tragedy. The profusely -decorated costumes induce one to believe that the artist really -reproduced the dress of the actors in Euripides’ play. The theatrical -air about the work is quite unmistakable, and its Attic origin leads one -to connect it directly with the immense success won by the _Andromeda_ -in 412 B.C. The Kyklops vase, published and discussed below, also dates -from the last quarter of the fifth century[105]. A vase in Naples -representing Diomedes’ rape of the Palladium has been referred to -Sophokles’ Λάκαιναι, and its date is _cir._ 420 B.C.[106] The painting -on the Lower Italy vase published below is also from about this same -time and follows the _Eumenides_[107]. I refer lastly to the celebrated -satyr-play vase in Naples as belonging to this period, and furnishing at -the same time the most palpable evidence of theatrical influence upon -the artist[108]. The picture shows a recital of a satyr chorus in the -presence of Dionysos and Ariadne, and is, as it were, a snap-shot of -this peculiar institution. The painting has long been the keystone of -the ancient testimony concerning the nature of the satyric drama. The -richness of the costume worn by Dionysos and Ariadne gives an invaluable -illustration of the actors’ dress. In this regard the work is in direct -accord with Pollux’s καὶ ἐσθῆτες μὲν τραγικαὶ ποικίλον ... ὁ δὲ κροκωτὸς -ἱμάτιον· Διόνυσος δὲ αὐτῷ ἐχρῆτο, καὶ μασχαλιστῆρι ἀνθινῷ καὶ -θύρσῳ[109]. - -These are the most important examples that can be brought forward to -show the influence of the drama on fifth-century vase painting, and -although not to be compared with the vast number of paintings of a later -period that indicate the development of tragic tendencies, they seem -nevertheless to constitute a considerable array of evidence for the -occurrence of definite tragic scenes borrowed from the drama. The vase -paintings therefore of the last quarter of this century do furnish -undoubted traces of the forms of the myths seen in the theatre[110]. - - - § 4. THE FOURTH CENTURY AND THE CONDITIONS IN LOWER ITALY. - -Till the close of the fifth century, or at least till the time of the -Peloponnesian War, the export of vases from Athens, Corinth, and other -centres in Greece was a lively and paying industry. This traffic had -been carried on with all the Mediterranean and Black Sea ports, but -especially with the cities of Italy. By far the largest number of sixth- -and fifth-century Attic vases now in the European museums and private -collections have come from excavations in Etruria. This article of trade -must have been highly prized by the Etruscans, and it is to their -fondness for Greek vases that we owe a very large part of our knowledge -in this important field of classical archaeology. With the founding of -Greek colonies in Italy the Greek industries were likewise established, -and it was but a question of time till Thurii (founded 445 B.C.), -Tarentum, Herakleia, and other cities supplied the western demand for -vases, and so destroyed the Attic trade. As a matter of fact, few Attic -vases belonging to the fourth century have been discovered in Lower -Italy, and this means that from about 400 B.C. the demand had fallen -off, and the manufacture in Athens had become gradually less and less -important. - -It was to favourable soil that this industry was transplanted. The -cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily were as Greek as were Athens and -Corinth, and they were, besides, far more prosperous. The fourth century -was one of great luxury in these western capitals and Athenian art and -letters found a hearty welcome here. It is instructive to observe the -clear traces of Athenian art that are at hand on the coins of these -regions. The legends on the coins of Thurii, Herakleia, Terina, and -Syracuse, dating from the latter half of the fifth century b.c., are as -distinctly Pheidian in style as are those of the corresponding time at -Athens[111], and this shows clearly the intimate intercourse that -existed between the East and the West, and how rapidly the colonists -took up and appropriated the artistic notions of Athens. Many other -things point to the thoroughly Greek landscape of Southern Italy. Greek -names of cities abounded everywhere, and the ancestral hero of most of -the Apulian towns was Diomede—the Aeneas of the South[112]. Each town -had its own mint and struck its own coin with, of course, a Greek legend -and a Greek inscription. Tarentum soon became the largest and most -influential city of Magna Graecia. The city founded by Taras was -destined to be the Athens of the West for some time to come. Here was -the centre from which Attic influences penetrated inland. The literature -and art of Hellas were received here and handed on to the neighbouring -cities. It is but natural that this flourishing capital should have -become the seat of the vase industry for this part of Italy. The -manufacture was not, however, confined to the limits of the city. We -know that other towns in Apulia contributed to the vast number of vases -that we know as ‘Tarentine’ fabric. There is every reason to believe -that this thoroughly Greek industry continued without any interruption -till the capture of Tarentum, 272 B.C.; but at this point the interest -in vase manufacture no doubt began to abate somewhat. When the -commercial independence and rank of Tarentum were gone the period of -decline began, and the vases that belong to the third century B.C. are -neither numerous nor of great worth artistically. The mysteries of Lower -Italy vase chronology are, however, too great to be settled for some -time to come, and it is best not to be rash in assigning hard and fast -dates to a class of monuments, the investigation concerning which is -quite in its infancy. - -But what can be said about the drama at Tarentum? The remarks already -made hardly render it necessary to emphasize the high esteem in which -the Attic tragedy was held. That it was patronized extensively and that -it was _the_ literature of the time was true in any Greek city of the -fourth century, and here where a new Athens flourished it must have been -doubly true. It is interesting, however, to learn something definite in -this regard concerning the Tarentines. We learn from Plato that the -people were inveterate theatre-goers, and that they did not stop short -of drunkenness at the Dionysiac feast[113]. In another place one is told -that when the Roman general Valerius sailed into the harbour in 282 B.C. -the Tarentines were celebrating the Dionysia and paid no heed to the -practical Roman[114]. Worse than this, Pyrrhus found it necessary to -order the theatres to be closed that he might succeed in getting the men -out for military service[115]. Such was the favourable soil in which the -Attic drama took root in Lower Italy, and in this centre the influence -of tragedy on the vase decorators was perhaps more far-reaching than in -any ancient city. - -The extent of the influence may be seen by an examination of the -paintings on the Lower Italy vases. It has long since been noticed that -many of the Apulian, Campanian, and Lucanian vase paintings have a -marked theatrical composition. The costumes, posings, and gestures are -often notoriously stage-like. In many cases one can observe the -reminiscence of the stage setting; the scene often represents a temple -or palace in or before which the action occurs[116], and even where one -is not able to determine upon the literary source of the picture the -dramatic handling is plain, and one is convinced that some tragedy -furnished the suggestion for the work. The paintings are not to be -considered by any means reliable copies of any particular scene in a -theatre. They were abridged, extended or modified at the notion of the -artist. When he took his ideas from the tragedian, he might turn the -characters round to please his own fancy, putting in or omitting others. -He never illustrated. The value of these paintings in helping one to -reconstruct the lost plays is very considerable. They are generally -certain to provide more valuable information regarding the lost -literature than the few fragments that may have come down to us[117]. As -the three tragedians of the fifth century B.C. were practically the only -ones that were read and heard with pleasure in the fourth century, their -work is the source of nearly all of the paintings based on tragedy. We -may pass on therefore to our study of Aischylos, Sophokles, and -Euripides in their influence upon the vase painters. - - - - - CHAPTER III - AISCHYLOS AND THE VASE PAINTINGS - - - § 1. INTRODUCTION. - -Notwithstanding the fact that the oldest of the tragedians was the least -read in the fourth century B.C., he easily rivals Sophokles in his -influence on art. This was not due to his being more admired, and can -only be accounted for by the bold situations that he invented-situations -new and striking. There are certain of his plays that left a lasting -impression on Greek and Roman art. Such are the _Choephoroi_, the -_Eumenides_, and the _Lykurgeia_. Further than these, Aischylean plays -did not appeal to the artist to any great extent. It is the peculiarly -popular inventions distinguishable in these tragedies, their uniqueness, -so to speak, that set them apart by themselves, a mark for the artist. -The character of the plays is easily denoted. They ring with cries of -murder and resound with the storming fury of avenging deities; we are -struck by the perils of the situations and remain all but breathless to -learn the issue. These features attracted the painter and sculptor, and -this is what meets one on all the monuments that may be called -Aischylean. The deep religious vein that pulsates in every line of the -mighty tragedian is reflected to some degree on the vases and the -sarcophagi. This force in art was rather epic; it was, in a way, -Polygnotean, and the ethical nature of it all but condemned it for the -artists who sought the πάθος of Euripides. This very fact explains why -Aischylos and Sophokles did not address themselves more to the -succeeding generations of artists. The ethical was more difficult to -express than was the pathetic, and it was not so attractive. The spirit -of the times, moreover, demanded the latter as it demanded Euripides, -and consequently one should not expect to meet a large number of vase -paintings that were made under the influence of either Aischylos or -Sophokles. Those that can be associated with the extant tragedies of the -former are given in the following pages. It will be observed that -certain scenes from Aischylos were greatly in favour in Lower Italy. All -of the nine paintings published are from Italian ware. Not one Attic -vase that shows an Aischylean scene has, so far as I know, been -discovered. In the West, however, where he was quite as much at home as -in his own Athens and where he was destined to end his days, the vase -decorators were largely influenced by him. - - - § 2. CHOEPHOROI. - -There is no proof at hand that epic literature knew aught of Elektra or -the part which she played in avenging her father’s murder. The fragments -from the lyric poet Stesichoros furnish the oldest literary source for -the _Oresteia_ which became later so popular under the hands of the -fifth-century tragedians. The trilogy of Aischylos which has happily -come down to us is, therefore, the oldest extant authority. When one -turns to works of art one discovers a series of vase paintings -representing the death of Aigisthos; yet these are but a little older -than Aischylos’ work[118]. Events concerned with Orestes’ return are -even less common in early art. The Melan terra cotta _plaque_ in the -Louvre, which represents a scene somewhat similar to the opening of the -_Choephoroi_, is the oldest of the _Oresteia_ monuments, but still must -be dated within the fifth century B.C.[119] It may be considered as -fairly well established that Elektra and Orestes first appeared in art -but a few years before the production of Aischylos’ trilogy in 458 B.C. -Nor is it possible, so far as I know, to discover any influence of the -_Agamemnon_ or _Choephoroi_ upon artistic productions in the last half -of the century. A small group of vase paintings from Lower Italy -belonging to the fourth century B.C. do, however, present situations -which one may well believe to have been suggested by the early part of -the _Choephoroi_. - -[Illustration: - - FIG. 1. -] - -The painting shown in fig. 1[120] represents a tomb, the base of which -is decorated with triglyphs. Surmounting this is a stele, crowned with a -Corinthian helm, and bearing the name ΑΓΑΜΕ[Μ]ΝΩΝ. Sitting with her back -to the stele on the left is Elektra, ΕΛΕΚΤΡ[Α, wearing a chiton and -mantle and clasping her left knee in a meditative mood; beside her is -another female figure similarly dressed and holding a toilet box in the -left arm, an unusually common article on the vases of Lower Italy. -Perhaps the box is meant to recall the offerings which were brought in -it to the grave. This person is not necessarily Chrysothemis, although -her dress would be more appropriate for Elektra’s sister than for her -attendant. It is, however, the work of the latter to carry such a box of -offerings for Elektra. The figure may therefore be left unnamed. Her -face is turned towards Orestes, ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ, who stands on the right and -appears to be speaking to Elektra, who pays no attention to his words or -his gesture. He is in travelling costume, chlamys, petasos, and carries -a spear and sword, but curiously enough wears no boots. Below him to the -right in a similar attitude stands Pylades. He has simply a chlamys and -a spear. Another youth sits above on a _terrain_. He serves to round out -the picture, and indicates at the same time the attendants of Orestes. -In the background are a sword and shield; on the grave is an amphora, as -an offering, exactly the shape of the vase on which the painting occurs. -There are numerous restorations in the work, but the main part seems to -be antique. Heydemann states that the inscription on the stele is -genuine, and also ΕΛΕΚΤΡ[Α. Doubt is expressed concerning ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ. - -We have before us the grave of Agamemnon, at which the first 585 verses -of the _Choephoroi_ were played. There is no trace of palace or royal -building. Orestes, accompanied by Pylades, enters the orchestra and lays -his tribute upon his father’s tomb, τύμβου δ’ ἐπ’ ὄχθῳ (v. 4), but -suddenly withdraws to avoid the company of women which approaches with -ceremonial step. The chorus and Elektra proceed to perform their -services when the latter discovers the lock of hair, ἄγαλμα τύμβου (v. -200), and the footprints—two proofs that Orestes must be near. While she -is still examining the tracks the latter comes up and proves beyond a -doubt, by pointing to the garment that Elektra had once woven, who he is -(vs. 212–232). Perhaps one may think of Elektra as sitting upon the -grave at some point between v. 84 and v. 212, but when she had -discovered the traces of Orestes’ presence, she must have been actively -scanning the surroundings. It pleased the artist, however, to represent -her as ignoring the appeal of her brother, or at least manifesting no -signs of recognizing him. But for the presence of the τύμβος one would -be inclined to see the influence of Sophokles’ _Elektra_, where Orestes’ -words gain credence very slowly, and where Elektra hesitates long, -before believing his assertions that he is living and standing before -her (v. 1219 ff.). But the Sophoklean tragedy is played before the -palace. The pedagogue and Orestes leave the orchestra to pour their -libations on the grave (v. 82 ff.) when Elektra comes out of the house. -The fact that the recognition scene is represented as taking place at -the grave gives us therefore ample reason for accepting our painting as -under the influence of the _Choephoroi_. This painting is strikingly -free in its conception; no words of the poet can be cited as fitting the -situation. The suggestion, the setting, are Aischylean; all else is the -artist’s. The work is far removed from the character of an illustration. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 2 (_vid. p. 47 ff._). -] - -The second painting is on a Lucanian hydria[121]. The central scene is -again the τύμβος of Agamemnon, built up with several steps and -surmounted by a stele with Ionic capital and bound by a fillet. Elektra -sits upon the upper step in veil and chiton. She holds the former with -her right hand and looks away into space. On other steps below her are a -lekythos and other small vases, also a pomegranate and a fillet. The -offerings are much more abundant here than in fig. 1. Unnoticed by his -sister, Orestes approaches the stele on the left, dressed as in fig. 1, -with the addition of boots. He is about to pour a libation from a kylix -in his left hand. The male figure sitting next to him is doubtless -Pylades. He turns his head towards the main scene. The remaining figure -here is but remotely associated with the action. The persons on the -right are more interesting. The youth standing on the step of the grave -about to lay a wreath upon the stele is denoted by his kerykeion as -Hermes. He wears a travelling costume without the usual boots. An -elderly, bearded, male figure stands behind him. He is not characterized -except by a mantle and a long staff, but has been interpreted as -Orestes’ pedagogue. The only objection to this is his dress[122], but -this may be due to the carelessness of the artist. Behind him is another -bearded male figure sitting upon a sort of bag, or pack. His short -chiton, shoes, and staff all point him out as a traveller. The peculiar, -close-fitting cap denotes him as a foreigner. The female figure on the -extreme right in Doric peplos carries an aryballos in her left hand, and -gazes at the group before her. Perhaps she belongs to Elektra. - -The discussion of fig. 1 above applies equally well to Orestes and -Elektra here. We have practically a repetition of the group. The former -figure is, however, thought of at an earlier moment. By removing Elektra -one may think of Orestes at the opening of the play. He holds the vase -in his hand rather than the lock of hair. The first words of the -prologue are suggestive— - - Ἑρμῆ χθόνιε πατρῷ’ ἐποπτεύων κράτη, - σωτὴρ γενοῦ μοι ξύμμαχός τ’ αἰτουμένῳ. - -Chthonian Hermes, who guards the ancestral rights, has really manifested -himself in the painting, and has appeared as a particular ally. The act -of crowning the stele declares Hermes’ friendliness toward the family -and his interest in Agamemnon’s shade. Elektra addresses him also and -beseeches him to hear her supplications and pity her and her dear -Orestes (v. 124 ff.). We may note, therefore, a special fitness in the -artist’s expressing this double relation of Hermes to the children. -Invoked by both of them as a protecting god he introduces nothing that -is not in harmony with the spirit of Aischylos. The addition of this -figure is, moreover, a good instance of the liberty which the vase -painters took with their authors, and shows well the difference between -illustration and independent work. It cannot be denied that with the -assistance of this monument one is led to see between the lines of the -_Choephoroi_. The pedagogue who does not appear in Aischylos is -nevertheless a natural extension of the group. It will be remembered -that he speaks the prologue in the _Elektra_ of Sophokles and occupies -the place which Pylades usually fills. In Euripides’ _Elektra_ (v. 16), -Autourgos says that Orestes had been given into the charge of a τροφεύς. -The person resting on the pack appears at first sight a gratuitous -addition of the artist, but on closer examination the suggestion for him -is found in the poet. When Orestes explains to the chorus that he and -Pylades will attempt to gain an entrance to the palace, he states that -they will disguise themselves as foreigners by speaking the Phokean -dialect (v. 563 f.). To Klytaimestra’s interrogations (v. 668 ff.) he -replies— - - ξἐνος μέν εἰμι Δαυλιεὺς ὲκ Φωκέων· - στείχοντα δ’ αὐτόφορτον οἰκείᾳ σαγῇ - εἰς Ἄργος ... - -In other words, he is a stranger from Phokis who has to carry his own -pack. It is upon this σαγή that the figure is resting. The artist has -characterized him as a foreigner by the peculiar cap. No Greek ever wore -such a head-dress. The make-up hints at the appearance of Orestes -seeking admittance to the palace, while, of course, the person is to be -understood merely as one of the latter’s servants. Whatever he may have -said about carrying his own pack, no artist would have thus represented -him. On the oldest of the Orestes-Elektra monuments, the Melan -relief[123], there is such a figure standing behind Orestes with his -luggage strapped to his shoulders. It seems to me that the painter has -naïvely caught up the spirit of the text and brought in a figure which -goes far towards adding a charm and interest to the scene. - -Another Lucanian hydria representing the same scene is published here -for the first time, in fig. 3[124]. It will be more instructive to point -out the few points in which the two paintings differ from each other -than to describe this one entire. The column in 3 has a Doric capital, -with maeander and checker-board ornament; in 2 the capital is Ionic. In -3 Hermes stands on the ground; in 2 he stands on the step to the grave. -Elektra reaches out her left hand in 3 as though to receive the -libation; in 2 she is unmindful of Orestes. The latter holds a kylix in -2, and in 3 a pitcher. His hat is a pilos in 3, and he wears it; in 2 -the petasos hangs on the back of his neck. The Phokean attendant sitting -upon the luggage is in 3 upon the left, and in 2 upon the right. There -is an extraordinary likeness between the two. There is the same crooked -nose, short chiton, and odd cap, but the latter has no tassel in 3. The -servant wears, besides, a chlamys and rests his stick over his leg. -Behind him is the nude youth, as in 2, upon the left, holding an -ointment vase in a sort of carrier. The two male figures of 2 adjoining -the main scene are wanting in 3. In their stead is a female figure -sitting upon a stool and holding a large toilet box. She is dressed in a -Doric peplos with an _apoptygma_. She is evidently an attendant of -Elektra, and reminds one strongly of the figure in fig. 1. Behind her is -the charming girl, exactly as in 2, except that she carries the -aryballos in her right, and in the left hand a small box. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 3 (_vid. p. 51 ff._). -] - -The painting is, it would seem, more beautiful than that of fig. 2, -although the publication of the latter is an old one, and may be more or -less inaccurate. I have not seen the vase myself. The scene is -abbreviated by one figure; Pylades would be expected. - -Still another painting is given in fig. 4[125], showing a further step -of simplification. Only the middle group, with the female attendant -carrying the aryballos, occurs. Hermes’ position is the same as in fig. -2, but the artist has forgotten to draw the wreath in his right. His -chlamys, too, is buttoned properly instead of being wrapped around his -arm. The latter, however, has the same stumpy appearance seen in 2 and -3. As the scene is simpler, so the offerings on the tomb are fewer. -Orestes’ libation is here in a kantharos. The painting is a careless -piece of work, and cannot be ranked with the other two. It is, however, -very interesting as giving another link to the chain of evidence. - -There can be little doubt that these vases all belong to the same artist -or that they come from the same locality. The marvellous agreement that -runs through them is something quite extraordinary. I know of no other -similar cases in vase paintings of the red figured ware. The popularity -of this scene, and therefore of Aischylos’ _Choephoroi_, is attested by -such a series of paintings as one cannot find in the case of any other -work in Greek literature. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 4. -] - -Since writing the above I have discovered in the Louvre another Lucanian -vase that represents a further simplification of this scene[126]. The -painting is practically identical with the middle group in fig. 3. -Peculiar to the Louvre painting are the tomb with five steps and the -rather tall column, Doric order, surmounted by a krater; an aryballos -and strigil, in addition to the taenia, are fastened to the column. -There is a further slight variation in Elektra’s position, for on her -right is a krater. On her left is a lekythos; below are the two -pomegranates, taenia, and black lekythos, just as in fig. 3. The only -difference in the other persons is that Orestes holds out a kylix and -not a pitcher. - -The painting is evidently a product of the same studio as are those in -figs. 2, 3 and 4. It forms another member of this remarkable class of -pictures that stands alone, unique in Greek ceramics, and bears witness -to the enormous popularity of this scene from Aischylos. In the face of -this important chain of evidence one is safe, it seems to me, in -claiming that Aischylos was acted in the fourth century B.C. and that -considerably. What kept this scene before the public and induced the -artist and his pupils to turn out so many copies of the same work? To -have been thus so saleable the picture must have been popular, and this -could have come about best through the acted drama. These vases and -those following, based on the _Eumenides_, must impress the impartial -student with the fact that Euripides and Sophokles did not by any means -oust Aischylos completely in Lower Italy. - - - § 3. EUMENIDES. - -The various stories which may have been popularly told in regard to -Orestes’ purification, and his reconciliation with the Furies, prior to -March 458 B.C. were swept for ever into oblivion by the last member of -Aischylos’ trilogy. The stamp of his genius has ever remained upon the -myth, and no one ever attempted to repeat his work[127]. All the -elements of the persecution were cast by him into their final mould. The -immense influence of this work is attested in no way more forcibly than -by the monuments of art to which one can point. There is a long line of -vase paintings, dating from the fifth century, that bear witness to the -wide popularity of the _Eumenides_, and that give the most direct and -authoritative testimony of the influence of the play upon the masses of -the people. A sharp distinction must be made, however, between paintings -that illustrate the general myth and those that exhibit unmistakable -Aischylean features. Orestes’ pursuit and expiation were universally -known, and the tale was so popular that it often found its way into art -where the artist had in mind no poetic version of the story. So it is -that there is a number of paintings representing Orestes either pursued -by the Furies or already having reached the omphalos, which do not -represent any situation or combination of situations that can be traced -to Aischylos[128]. Of the number whose subject is Orestes at Delphi, at -least four, it seems to me, are to be explained as substantially under -the influence of the _Eumenides_ and representing the first scene of the -tragedy in more or less modified form. - -I discuss first the scene on the St. Petersburg krater[129], fig. 5. The -painting belongs to the latest period of ceramic art, and is in nearly -every detail a hasty and careless piece of work. In an Ionic temple on -four columns, all painted white, Orestes, flesh dark red, sits _en face_ -with his left arm around the omphalos which is covered with a white net. -He holds the sword in the right and the sheath in the left, and wears -boots and chlamys. On the steps of the temple lie five sleeping Furies. -They are painted, flesh black, only in rough outline. Their dress is a -short chiton. On the right, hastening from the temple, is the Pythia in -long chiton and veil. She carries the big key—emblem of her office as -κλῃδοῦχος[130]. Her flesh is white. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 5. -] - -The addition of the temple strikes one at once as being in harmony with -the poet. To be sure, this need not mean a particularly close relation -with the actual production of the play in a Greek theatre. Our temple is -merely one of the numerous buildings of this class found upon the vases -of Lower Italy, some of which were intended evidently as suggestions of -the stage setting. In the present instance the coincidence is a happy -one. The _Agamemnon_ and the _Choephoroi_, which had just been produced, -were both played before the palace at Argos, and this scenery was -changed to represent the Apollo temple at Delphi for the third play. -There can be no question as to this σκηνή for the _Oresteia_, at least, -even though one does not allow an extensive background for the earlier -plays. The painting is well adapted, therefore, for placing the opening -scene vividly before us. It brings one closer to the meaning of the text -than is apparent at first sight. In v. 1048 ff. of the _Choephoroi_ -Orestes saw the Furies. They wore bright chitons, and had snakes in -their hair. He calls them hounds from whose eyes oozed ugly drops of -blood. The chorus evidently did not see them, for Orestes cries, ‘You do -not behold them here, but I do’.[131] At these words he is away to -Delphi to seek Apollo’s protection. During the intermission which -followed between the two plays the necessary alterations were made in -the σκηνή and the costumes were changed. The chorus in particular, which -had represented Argive maidens, underwent considerable transformation in -order to appear again as Furies. The _Eumenides_ is opened by the -Pythia, who comes from the temple. She recounts the nature of her -duties, and mentions various gods in her address until v. 30, at which -point she turns from the orchestra to re-enter the temple and attend to -the delivery of responses. In a moment she reappears in great fright, -and begins to relate the cause of her alarm. The sight described is -exactly that which the painter had in mind. One is able, however, to get -behind the scenes with the aid of the picture, for the front of the -temple is removed so that the interior is plainly in view. To compare -the words of Aischylos and the painting more closely—the Pythia says -that a terrible sight drove her ἐκ δόμων τῶν Λοξίου[132]. The artist has -expressed this with some action, for she is actually represented as -leaving ‘the house of Loxias.’ She adds further— - - ὁρῶ δ’ ἐπ’ ὀμφαλῷ μὲν ἄνδρα θεομυσῆ - ἕδραν ἔχοντα προστρόπαιον, αἵματι - στάζοντα χεῖρας, καὶ νεοσπαδὲς ξίφος - ἔχοντ’ ... - -The picture shows the man upon the omphalos, and in his hand the drawn -sword. One may imagine that the suppliant’s hands are stained with -blood, when but a short time before he had fled from the scene of the -murder in Argos. Even greater explicitness characterizes the next words -of the priestess:— - - πρόσθεν δὲ τἀνδρὸς τοῦδε θαυμαστὸς λόχος - εὕδει γυναικῶν ἐν θρόνοισιν ἥμενος. - -Surely a ‘marvellous troop of women’ fits the group which we see before -us. In this particular the work is practically an illustration of the -text. The distinction is at once made that the figures are not women nor -Gorgons nor Harpies[133]. They are ἄπτεροι and μέλαιναι, and snore with -unapproachable blasts. It should be noted that the figures in the -painting are also black, as though in direct agreement with -Aischylos[134]. They are further wingless, while the unpleasant details -added are conceivable from the appearance of the ugly creatures. The -number five is of course a mere accident. They lie here in an -unconscious stupour till the ghost of Klytaimestra arouses them again. -The _Eumenides_ is, as is well known, the only extant Greek tragedy in -which the chorus is not visible from the beginning of their part. In the -_Persai_ and _Supplices_ of Aischylos and the _Bakchai_ and _Supplices_ -of Euripides the chorus is, however, in the orchestra when the play -opens. - -There are still two other vase paintings to be considered in this -connexion. They present minor variations from the one just discussed, -but on the whole the three betray a common source. In fig. 6[135] one -sees also the interior of the temple represented by three Ionic columns. -Various dedicatory articles hang from the wall and ceiling. Further -indications of the sanctuary are the two tripods, the laurel tree, and -the omphalos. Orestes, characterized as usual by the drawn sword and -flying chlamys, has fled to the latter and embraces it. His erect hair -shows his fright. Apollo with bow and arrows hastens behind him and -gestures with his right hand to drive back a Fury who is swooping down -upon Orestes. She is but half in sight, and wears a short Doric peplos, -and her flesh is black. The Pythia, with dishevelled gray hair and -frightened mien, quits the sanctuary on the left. Her key, indistinctly -drawn in Jahn’s publication, owing probably to the copyist’s ignorance -of what the article really was, has just fallen from her hands. Artemis -in her huntress-costume, carrying two spears, stands on tiptoe on the -right of the omphalos and shades her eyes with her right hand as she -peers at the disturbance. Two dogs are with her. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 6 -] - -The time of the Pythia’s exit from the temple, as in fig. 5, and the -later moment when Apollo orders the Erinyes from the sanctuary, are well -combined in this painting:— - - ἔξω, κελεύω, τῶνδε δωμάτων τάχος - χωρεῖτ’, ἀπαλλάσσεσθε μαντικῶν μυχῶν, - μὴ καὶ λαβοῦσα πτηνὸν ἀργηστὴν ὄφιν, - χρυσηλάτου θώμιγγος ἐξορμώμενον, - ἀνῇς ὑπ’ ἄλγους μέλαν’ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἀφρόν. - vs. 179 ff. - -Apollo’s authoritative bearing and absolute power in his own precinct -are very well brought out by the artist. One can all but hear the ἔξω, -κελεύω of Aischylos, and the arrows that the god holds in his left hand -seem to show that Apollo is quite ready to carry out his threat. The -whole is, moreover, dramatically told, and in this respect the stage -influence is easily traceable in the painting. That the Fury is black -accords again with the poet’s μέλαιναι (v. 52). The presence of Artemis -lends a certain charm that one can attribute to the artist’s desire to -appear original[136]. - -The following work falls still further away from the scenery of the -play. Fig. 7 shows a painting on the neck of a large Apulian amphora in -Berlin[137]. The limited space, and the secondary position likewise, -have perhaps curtailed the scope of the work. No architectural details -are given. The sanctuary is denoted by the omphalos and the tripod. -Orestes has sought protection at the former, as in the preceding scenes, -and looks back at a Fury, with short dress and huge wings, who runs -toward him with a dagger in her right and a burning torch in the left -hand. Apollo, who sits upon the tripod, a laurel bough in his hand and -wreath in his hair, extends his right hand to repel the Fury as in fig. -6. On the right the Pythia, dressed as in fig. 5, leaves the shrine in -fright, gesturing at the unexpected visitors. The painter has forgotten -to give her the key. Beside her is an attendant carrying a sort of kylix -in the left hand and looking back at the sanctuary. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 7. -] - -It does not appear necessary to take up the details here after the -examination which has been given to the preceding paintings. The -artist’s debt to Aischylos was quite as direct as in the case of the two -other works. The greatest modification occurs in the figure of the Fury, -which is a being far removed from the Aischylean type. - -A painting on a bell-shaped krater in the Louvre is less hampered by the -scene given in Aischylos, and is accordingly more artistic[138]. The -inventiveness and individuality of the artist come prominently to view, -and the result is an intensely interesting composition. The combination -of events and the manner in which all is told bring one a great deal -nearer to the deeper meaning of _Eumenides_ than any other monument with -which I am acquainted. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 8. -] - -The shrine of Apollo, the μυχός of vs. 39 and 170, is denoted by a -platform on two steps, above which are the laurel tree and the omphalos. -The god stands to the left in large, embroidered chiton or chlamys, -grasping the tree with his left hand and extending his right, in which -is a young pig, over the head of Orestes, who sits with his back to the -omphalos. The latter holds his sword in his right hand, which is raised -meditatively to his chin. Artemis stands behind the platform on the -right, characterized by her costume and the spears. In the left-hand -upper corner the shade of Klytaimestra, veiled, is engaged in arousing -two Furies who sit fast asleep. She points toward Apollo with her right -hand. Below is the half-figure of another Fury apparently rising out of -the ground wide-awake. The Erinyes are all dressed like Artemis, in -short costume and high boots. - -The artist has combined with the first scene a moment earlier than the -action of the play. Orestes’ expiation preceded the prologue of the -Pythia. The purificatory rite had been performed immediately on his -arrival at Delphi, for, when he first appears in the _Eumenides_, he is -undefiled. This is plainly declared to Athena in vs. 237 ff., and to the -Chorus and Athena in vs. 280 ff. While the purification is represented -in various ways upon the other vase paintings[139], this ceremony is the -only one that reminds us of Aischylos. The latter hints at the manner of -the rite, and this passage has unquestionably suggested the group which -we have before us:— - - ποταίνιον γὰρ ὂν πρὸς ἑστίᾳ θεοῦ - Φοίβου καθαρμοῖς ἠλάθη χοιροκτόνοις. vs. 282 f. - -‘While the blood was fresh it was cleansed at the shrine of the god -Phoibos by purification with the blood of pigs.’ The ceremony is -referred to again in - - σφαγαὶ καθαιμάξωσι νεοθήλου βοτοῦ. v. 450. - -There is, therefore, in the painting a representation of this service -with pig’s blood. The freshness and beauty of the scene are peculiar to -works of art in the Pheidian age, and the painting must be considered as -a valuable witness of Aischylos’ influence. The fact that the work is -Apulian and not Attic supplies an interesting bit of evidence for the -extension of Athenian literature in Lower Italy during the fifth century -B.C. Tarentum, which was scarcely less Athenian than Athens, received an -edition of the plays brought out at the Greater Dionysia soon after -their appearance in Athens. It is further to be remembered that -Aischylos’ long connexion with Syracuse had probably made him more -widely known in the West than was either Sophokles or Euripides during -the fifth century. Our vase belongs to the last decades of the century, -perhaps as early as 420 B.C., and in this period Euripides had scarcely -gained a large following in Magna Graecia. - -Apollo’s speech follows directly upon that of the Pythia’s. How the god -appeared in the orchestra is a question on which scholars are not -agreed. The most widely accepted view is that the ekkyklema was brought -into use, and that on it the whole company was in some manner rolled or -pushed out from the temple to the orchestra. This means that the chorus -of twelve or fifteen, together with Orestes, Apollo, and Hermes, was -moved bodily forward from the σκηνή, far enough at least to give the -audience a glimpse of what had been the interior of the temple with all -its surroundings. Apollo seems to speak of the Furies and Orestes as -though he himself saw them and as though the audience could see -them[140]. They are in fact in plain view if one insists upon the -literal meaning of his words. It is argued on the other hand that such a -ponderous weight could not have been moved by any machinery at -Aischylos’ command. In other words, the ekkyklema, in the interpretation -usually given the term, is not to be counted apart of the Aischylean -scenic apparatus[141]. If Apollo stood in the doorway of the temple -where he could look in upon the Furies and Orestes, and at the same time -be seen by the audience, one has really no need of any machinery. The -shade of Klytaimestra must also be thought of as appearing in the same -place. She glances in upon the Furies who continue to give forth their -grunts till v. 140, when they for the first time appear in the -orchestra. There is much in favour of this explanation of the -arrangements for the scene. Fortunately for our purpose it makes little -difference which of the two opinions one follows. Conclusive evidence is -hardly to be reached either one way or the other, yet the notion that -Aischylos did not employ such extensive machinery as the ekkyklema must -have been certainly does not harmonize either with the extant plays or -with the tradition in regard to Aischylos’ inventions. My conviction is -that from v. 64 the interior of the temple was in some way visible, and -that the whole audience could see Orestes at the omphalos, surrounded by -the slumbering Furies. The god reassures the suppliant of his support, -and bids him leave for Athens and embrace the sacred image of Athena. He -turns to Hermes, who is at hand for the occasion, and bids him accompany -Orestes. At this point, v. 93, the two quit the orchestra, Orestes -passing over the bodies of the Furies[142]. - -Our painting follows the development in vs. 94–140, where the shade of -Klytaimestra appears and chides the Erinyes for neglecting their duty -and forgetting her and her rights. The artist has grasped the spirit of -the poet, and has given a graphic account of the scene such as one is -not likely to forget. The dread figure of the veiled ghost, who glances -searchingly at the sleeping instruments of her vengeance and endeavours -to rouse them into consciousness, is a creation but little inferior to -that in Aischylos[143]. Her position on the extreme limits of the -sanctuary serves to express the uncleanliness of the spirit and the -incongruity of its appearing within the sacred ground. The gesture -towards the main group connects the two scenes and lends a unity to the -whole. This is real art and no illustration. One must remember that -Orestes is at this time on his way to Athens, and that the shade did not -appear in his presence. The very fact that the painter chose to unite -the two moments adds greatly to the general effect. The tragedy is -played in part before us. The number of Furies representing the chorus -is the same that one meets first in Euripides[144], and that is -particularly emphasized also by Aischylos in - - ἔγειρ’, ἔγειρε καὶ σὺ τήνδ’, ἐγὼ δέ σε. v. 140. - -Their dress is that of the later type of Erinyes—the huntress-costume of -Artemis. This facilitated their motion. Perhaps the half-figure of the -awakened Fury may be rising from the earth to continue the pursuit, but -it seems to me more probable that the half-figure is such from choice. -After the appearance of the Erinyes in the _Choephoroi_ they are -certainly above ground till conducted to their new home under the -Areopagos. - -While the story of Agamemnon’s murder and the succeeding terrible -revenge wrought by Orestes, as well as the latter’s atonement at Delphi, -were all a part of the legendary inheritance from a very early period -and had played for some centuries, at least, before Aischylos an -important rôle in the epic[145] and lyric[146] literature, it remained -for the great tragedian to break new ground for the last chapter of the -_Oresteia_. Orestes’ acquittal and deliverance were, prior to Aischylos, -distinctly Delphic in setting; in his hands all became decidedly -Athenian. Apollo had once been the sole divinity to absolve the -murderer; Athena became the new arbiter and director of the case. The -temple at Delphi gave way to the ‘Old Temple’ of Athena upon the -Acropolis. Keeping these facts in mind, one has to look about for vase -paintings which show traces of this Attic turn. So far, only the early -scene at Delphi has claimed our attention, and here it has been possible -to point out several compositions that demand the _Eumenides_ to the -exclusion of popular tradition. - -From v. 235 the scene is transferred from Delphi to Athens, and remains -throughout the rest of the play the ‘Old Temple’ on the Acropolis[147]. -Athena becomes the centre. Everything moves about her. The one -impressive figure in this part of the tragedy is the goddess. Orestes is -simply a poor helpless mortal—the apparent subject of the action. He and -the Erinyes sink into insignificance when compared with the majestic -figure of Athena. Substantial traces of the influence of Aischylos’ -invention have reached us on the vases. A small number of paintings -claim the right to be considered under this head. The composition of all -(I know three such) is so similar that it seemed necessary to reproduce -only one. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 9 (_vid. p. 70 ff._) -] - -The painting shown in fig. 9[148] represents the sanctuary at Delphi -with the tripod and the omphalos; kneeling upon the latter is Orestes, -in the same costume as that noticed in the preceding monuments, holding -two spears in addition to the νεοσπαδὲς ξίφος. He glances up to the -right, where Athena looks down upon him. Her right foot rests on a sort -of plinth; she carries a double-pointed spear in her left hand and wears -a Corinthian helm with peculiar crest[149]. Her dress is an embroidered -Ionic chiton and large aigis. The latter is not uncommon on the -fourth-century vases, and is characteristic of the exaggeration of types -in this period. Apollo stands on the left of the omphalos, with a laurel -branch on which are hung fillets and πινάκια[150]. He looks to the left -at a winged Fury with a very elaborate costume, a huge serpent about her -body and one in her hair; above the tripod is the bust of another Fury -on whom are four snakes. In the left-hand upper corner a bust of a youth -with chlamys, pilos, and a spear is most likely meant for Pylades. -Corresponding to this on the other side are the head and shoulders of a -woman, interpreted as Klytaimestra. - -The two other vase paintings are, in the main, close counterparts of -this and need not be described here. The Vatican amphora[151] is -particularly interesting as representing Athena with aigis extended over -Orestes to protect him from the Furies. The Capua hydria in Berlin[152] -takes precedence over the other two in age, and furnishes us with the -nearest approach to Aischylos’ time. It falls within the fifth century, -while the others are to be placed in the last half of the fourth -century. - -The introduction of Athena is the unmistakable sign. She intervenes at -Delphi simply because Aischylos introduced her in Athens. The artist -transferred her to Delphi and combined the two scenes of the tragedy. If -one considers only Orestes and Athena in fig. 9, and reads the interview -between them in the _Eumenides_, he will appreciate at once how well the -painter has managed his task. The whole make-up of the figures is that -of stage characters. This is especially noticeable in the dresses of the -Fury and Athena. This elegance and finery on vases of the fourth century -were widely regulated by dramatic performances. - -The set of paintings which thus associates Athena with Orestes’ delivery -may be counted as the direct product of the _Eumenides_, and therefore -important witnesses for the influence of Aischylos upon the succeeding -century of Greek art. - - - § 4. THE LOST PLAYS. - -One might carry on a long and fruitless discussion concerning certain of -the lost plays, and paintings that present subjects common to them. It -must be all but ‘fruitless,’ since we know next to nothing about the -character of some of these tragedies, as, for example, the _Pentheus_. -But this whole question lies outside the province of the present work, -and I shall not go further than to append a list of the vase paintings -that do in all probability owe much to Aischylos. - - - LYKURGEIA. - - 1. Apulian amphora, Munich, no. 853. Pub. Millin, _Tombeaux de - Canose_, pl. 13. - - 2. Apulian krater, Naples, no. 2874. Pub. Müller-Wieseler, _Denkmäler - der Alten Kunst_, ii. pl. 37, 440. Cf. Welcker’s _Aeschyleische - Trilogie_, p. 327. - - 3. Amphora from Ruvo, Naples, no. 3219 (p. 500 of Heydemann). Pub. - _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. 16, B. - - 4. Krater from Anzi in the Basilicata, no. 3237 in Naples. Pub. - Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 1 = Müller-Wieseler, _op. - cit._ ii. pl. 38, 442 = Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 834. - - 5. Krater in Ruvo-Jatta coll. Pub. _Catalogo Jatta_, pl. 2. 5 = - _Annali d. Inst._ 1874, pl. R.; cf. _ibid._ p. 194 ff. - - 6. Krater, also from Ruvo, in Brit. Mus.; cat. iv. F 271. Pub. _Mon. - d. Inst._ v. pl. 23. Cf. Brunn in _Annali d. Inst._ 1850, p. 336 - ff. - - 7. Fragment of an Apulian amphora in Dresden museum. Pub. _Arch. Anz._ - 1891, p. 24; cf. p. 23 f. - - 8. Marble relief-vases. Pub. Welcker, _Alte Denkmäler_, ii. pl. 3. 8; - cf. _ibid._, p. 94 ff.; _Mon. d. Inst._ ix. 45. - - Cf. further for a discussion of most of these monuments, Michaelis, - _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. 248 ff. - - - PHRYGIANS. - - 1. Tarentine amphora. Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ v. pl. 11; cf. _Annali d. - Inst._ 1866, p. 249 ff., and _Arch. Ztg._ 1879, p. 16, and - G. Haupt. _Commentationes archaeologicae in Aeschylum, - Dissertationes Hallenses_, xiii. 1895, p. 13 ff. Vid. also this - work for the whole subject of Aischylos and the monuments. - - - - - CHAPTER IV - SOPHOKLES AND HIS RELATION TO VASE PAINTING - - -Sophokles appears to have enjoyed together with Euripides a large share -of popularity in the fourth and third centuries, and it is well known -that with the Roman tragedians he was a very important factor. It must -be held as passing strange that we can point to but few monuments -inspired by him. One feels that there is abundant material in the -_Antigone_, for example, to have aroused both painters and sculptors, -and yet there is, so far as I know, no trace in Greek art of any -Antigone scene that owes its existence to Sophokles. It is, however, -true that tragedies which were known in ancient times as among the most -celebrated, and which are to-day counted the masterpieces of Greek -tragedy, were often particularly neglected by the artists. How meagre is -the record of monuments based on the _Prometheus_, the _Ion_, or the -_Oedipus Rex_! The reputation of a play cannot be taken as any guaranty, -therefore, that the artist found in it the required motives. The gentle -and calm Sophokles, who ‘made men as they ought to be and not as they -are,’ wrote in a grand and dignified manner that charmed the people of -his own time and won the praise and admiration of all posterity. How -then is one to account for the small part that he played in ancient art? -It seems to me that it rests on the fact that Sophokles was not a -creative power. Say what we may of the elegance and grace of his style -and the perfection of his diction, a glance at his extant work convinces -us that he seldom allowed his imagination to carry him beyond the bounds -of the accepted form of a myth. He preserved the mythological fabric -with religious fervour and altered little. He was neither an iconoclast -nor an innovator. The gods and heroes in their old-time relations to -each other and to humanity served him fully, and he showed an -unwillingness either to shatter the popular faith or to disturb it with -new doctrines. So long, therefore, as nothing new mythologically was -introduced, the value of the Sophoklean plays, from an artist’s point of -view, was far below the fresh and dashing manner of Euripides, who left -the old and beaten paths and added new chapters to the lives of the -heroes and the exploits of the gods. It has already been observed that -where Aischylos broke new ground he was followed by the painter and -sculptor. The novelty of the _Eumenides_ appealed to the artist even -more strongly than to the public; here was something absolutely new, -unheard of before. So it was with the _Choephoroi_, and we have already -seen that of the extant plays these two are the only ones that -influenced vase painting. Had Sophokles grafted new branches on the old -trees of myths he would likewise have had a far larger following among -ancient artists. As it is, it does not seem possible to point to a -single vase painting that is indisputably a Sophoklean product, and one -must be perplexed by the strange problem. To be sure conjectures have -not been wanting, and here and there a painting has been named in -connexion with Sophokles. But this is by no means a frequent occurrence, -and there has never been any consensus of opinion among archaeologists -that this or that picture _must_ be the outgrowth of one of his extant -tragedies. I have accordingly not published any painting under this -head. It seemed best merely to point out the few instances where -Sophoklean influences have been seen by some, and leave the student free -to determine each case for himself[153]. - - _Antigone._ A Lucanian amphora in the Brit. Mus., cat. iv. F 175. A. - 2. Pub. Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 54; cf. Hirzel in - _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, p. 70, who bases the scene on vs. 376 ff. It - may be remarked that the oriental cap of the king does not at - all fit the position of the Theban Kreon. - - _Oed. Rex._ Painting pub. Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iii. pl. 248 = - Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 2. 11; cf. _ibid._ p. 62 ff., where - vs. 316 ff. are thought of. A much more satisfactory - interpretation is that kindly sent me by Professor Carl Robert. - The scene represents Chryses before Agamemnon and is based on - _Il._ 1. - - _Trachiniai._ Herakles wrestles with the river god Acheloös in the - presence of Deianeira. Reinach-Millingen, _op. cit._ pl. 10. B. - 11. Robert in _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. 262, refers the painting to - vs. 9–24 of the prologue, and calls my attention in a letter to - another similar painting, unpublished, in the Jatta-Ruvo coll. - no. 1092. - -Two of the lost plays that have been held by some to be represented on -vase paintings have already been referred to above[154]. - - - - - CHAPTER V - EURIPIDES AND VASE PAINTING - - - § 1. INTRODUCTION. - -It has already been made clear that Euripides enjoyed an enormous -popularity among Greek and Italian artists, and that he was the chief -inspiration for works of art based on tragedy. This latter feature -assumes a new interest when studied with the Greek vases. The great -majority of these paintings, as has been pointed out, is to be placed -within the fourth cent. B.C., and through them one approaches very near -to the poet’s own time. They are to be valued, therefore, as most direct -and reliable testimony concerning Greek tragedy and the place it -occupied in the life of Lower Italy. Not a few of the paintings -published in the following pages may have been seen by people who had -known the Athenian society in which Euripides himself had moved. This -proximity of the vases to the poet’s own day is an important point, and -should be thoroughly comprehended in order to bring the true value of -the paintings before one. The text of a classical Greek author, exposed -to the emendatory zeal of the ancient grammarians and the ignorance and -carelessness of scribes, had a precarious sort of existence before it -was microscopically dissected and violently revised by modern -philologists. Our oldest manuscript hardly goes back more than one-third -of the way to the original. Between 1000 A.D. and 340 B.C., when the -archetype of the three tragedians was ordered by Lykurgos, how long was -the line of copies! It is vastly different with the edition of the -_Medeia_, for example, on the amphora, p. 145. The vase relates the -tragedy at first hand, and furnishes the student with an exhibition of -the play that is more than twenty-two hundred years old. The original -work and no copy carries one into the century succeeding the first -production of the play. Such facts impress one with the importance of -this class of monuments. - -Before taking up the discussion of the vase paintings that are under the -influence of Euripides, it may be well to examine for a moment the -ancient testimony touching the poet. It is well known that he did not -follow the orthodox form of tragic composition established by Aischylos -and adhered to by Sophokles. He was less religious than either of the -other two and, in the same degree, more a man of the world. He was -interested in politics, rhetoric, and philosophy, and these elements -accordingly found room in his plays. For introducing the common, -ordinary affairs of daily life he was stoutly condemned by Aristophanes. -His policy continued the same in spite of the virulent attacks of his -enemies, and the individual appealed to him more strongly than the body -politic; where the former poets had preached ἦθος and directed their -messages to the world καθ’ ὅλον, Euripides disclosed for the first time -the power of πάθος, and that of itself was specific and applied to the -community καθ’ ἕκαστον. Herein lay Aristotle’s unfavourable criticism. -The philosopher admired Homer, Aischylos, and Sophokles more than -Euripides simply because he considered ἦθος to be a more potent factor -than πάθος, and so he complains that none of the younger poets have the -former[155]. By νέοι he evidently meant post-Euripidean writers, and yet -there is no trace of the Aristotelian conception of ἦθος in Euripides. -We may imagine that the great thinker looked for something more stable -than πάθος. But this was all cold, calculating criticism, and Aristotle -appears, for the most part, alone in placing Euripides below Aischylos -and Sophokles. The Alexandrian grammarians were his chief followers. -Plato found in Euripides an authority of great pre-eminence[156]. The -immediate success that he enjoyed in his own time is well illustrated by -the anecdote related in Plutarch’s _Life of Nikias_[157]. The fugitives -from the Athenian army in the Sicilian expedition are said to have -maintained themselves by reciting from Euripides’ works, and captives -were able to gain their freedom by teaching their masters new selections -from the Euripidean plays. The element of truth in this remarkable story -enables one to understand something of the place held by this poet in -the West. It is related of Alexander that he was particularly fond of -Euripides, and that he performed the feat of reciting a whole scene from -the _Andromeda_ at his fatal banquet[158]. A certain Axionikos wrote a -comedy called the ‘Lover of Euripides,’ in which he represented the -people as suffering from the Euripides-fad to such an extent that they -counted all other poetry worthless[159]. A fitting _finale_ to all this -is reached in the story told in the _vita_ of Euripides to the effect -that Philemon would have been willing to hang himself if thereby he -might have seen Euripides. That he was always in men’s mouths is -attested by the large number of fragments from the lost plays. It is -instructive to see that he was quoted in the Hellenistic period to the -exclusion of Aischylos and Sophokles. Wisdom and state-craft were found -in Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Euripides[160]. One is not surprised, -therefore, to learn that his tragedies were the only ones produced at -certain Dionysia[161]. This was the period in which most of the vase -paintings in the following pages belong, and it is only these numerous -traditions of the unparalleled popularity of this poet, east and west, -north and south, that makes it possible to appreciate his wide-spread -influence over art. The vases have to be studied in this light, and only -then does their importance as a Euripidean commentary become -sufficiently clear. - -A glance at the conditions in Magna Graecia is necessary before leaving -this topic. The theatre-going propensities of the Tarentines has been -mentioned above, and one has now to ask himself who their favourite poet -was. There can be but one answer. Here, as in Africa, Asia Minor, and -Sicily, the public was sure to find the greatest satisfaction in a -Euripidean _répertoire_. The travelling troops of actors performed in -all the towns of Apulia, Campania, and Lucania, and the tragic forms of -the myths were widely published. Euripides was, in short, more than ever -the people’s poet, and he became later, with the rise of Latin tragedy, -the poet of the Republic. Roman tragedy was Greek in everything but the -language. The 166 years between the death of Euripides and the -production of Livius Andronicus’ first play in Rome were a seed-time for -the works of the Greek poet. The titles of Livius’ ten tragedies include -two from Euripides—the _Andromeda_ and the _Danaë_—and the father of -Latin poetry was a native of Tarentum. Ennius, born in Rudiae, which -Strabo calls a πόλις Ἑλληνίς[162], was educated at Tarentum, and became -the first national poet of the Romans. Among his twenty-two plays the -following are either translations of Euripides or adaptations from him: -_Alexandrus_, _Andromacha_, _Andromeda_, _Erechtheus_, _Medea_, _Medea -exul_, _Melanippa_, _Phoenix_, _Telephus_, and perhaps _Alcumena_. -Pacuvius, a nephew of Ennius, and the third one of the Latin tragedians, -also followed Euripides more than Aischylos or Sophokles. He was born in -Brundusium 268 B.C. and died in Tarentum 140 B.C. These three poets who -come first in the history of Latin literature are peculiarly indebted to -Euripides and likewise have a special relation to Magna Graecia and -Tarentum. More than half of the whole number of works produced by them -would appear to have been Euripidean. Whether it was the rhetorical or -pathetic element that appealed to the Romans more strongly, the fact -that Euripides was the primary force in Latin tragedy is very important. - -In this attempt to indicate the wider influence of the Attic drama upon -the Latins I have been carried beyond the time of the vase industry, but -the Latin literature of the third and second century B.C. was the -legitimate product of the conditions that had prevailed in the preceding -period. The Greek literary and artistic genius blossomed into an Italian -flower and flourished in the soil that had been fertilized by centuries -of Hellenic influences. It is to a small section of this wonderful life -in Magna Graecia that the present work is devoted. The vase paintings -that follow can best tell their own story of the wide-spread -Hellenization of Lower Italy in the fourth century and of the place held -by Euripides in the onward march of Hellenism. - - - § 2. ANDROMACHE. - -It does not appear that in the pre-Euripidean literature Orestes played -any part in the death of Neoptolemos. Pindar at least did not know -anything of the Menelaos-Orestes conspiracy against the son of -Achilles[163] but Menelaos’ relation to Sparta afforded a rare -opportunity for a political polemic. The latter could be painted as a -much more despicable character, as could also the Lakedaimonians in -general, provided Orestes were involved in the unholy murder. The -anti-Spartan feeling in Athens was sufficient to guarantee a hearty -reception to any drama depicting the crookedness and treachery of the -Spartan character. Such a play was certain to meet the demands of a -campaign document. - -The _Andromache_ has, however, little of the merit which one can usually -discover in Euripides; it was classed even by the ancients among his -second-rate works[164]. There is but one effective situation in the -whole tragedy, and that is the speech of the messenger, vs. 1085–1165, -which gives the account of Neoptolemos’ murder at Delphi. The beginning -is remarkably simple and unaffected, but when once the poet gets under -way the action increases rapidly in violence, becoming at every step -more and more intense until at last the whole temple of Apollo resounds -with the roar of the unholy tumult. Orestes’ party is, of course, -victorious over the single-handed descendant of Peleus. This manœuvring -inside the temple is unique, and intensely dramatic and picturesque. The -pictorial importance of the scene is attested by a painting on a large -amphora found in Ruvo[165]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 10. -] - -In the centre is the sanctuary of Apollo denoted by two tripods, the -laurel tree, the omphalos covered with a netting, and the altar. To the -latter, already dashed with blood, Neoptolemos, ΝΕΟΠΤΟΛΕΜΟΣ, has fled. -He holds a drawn sword in his right hand and whirls his chlamys about -his left. He wears a petasos and has a sword-cut in his left side from -which blood is oozing. His face is turned towards the omphalos behind -which Orestes, ΟΡΕΣΤΑΣ, appears to be dodging. He has a chlamys and a -pilos; in his left hand the sheath of a sword, the latter being in his -right. On the left, behind the altar, is another youth, nude except the -chlamys on the left arm. He holds a spear in the right hand as though -about to cast it at Neoptolemos. The centre of the upper section is -filled out with an Ionic temple, the doors of which are open. On the -left, the half-figure of a woman, recognizable by the key as the temple -priestess (κλῃδοῦχος)[166], appears in great alarm. Apollo, ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝ, -with his bow, occupies a seat on the right of the temple[167]. - -In order to understand the painting it is necessary to bear in mind what -preceded the speech of the messenger. Andromache, the wife of Hektor, -had fallen to the lot of Neoptolemos on the division of the Trojan -spoils and had been taken by him to Phthia. As his captive she had -raised him a son, Molossos, while his lawful wife Hermione, daughter of -Menelaos and cousin of Orestes, continued barren. Hermione, being -suspicious that it was through some drugs of Andromache that she had -been rendered thus unhappy, determined upon the latter’s death, and -while Neoptolemos was absent at Delphi to atone for certain family -wrongs the desperate Hermione proceeded to carry out her resolve to -destroy both the mother and the young Molossos. This spiteful work of -the injured wife occupies the first part of the tragedy. The two are -finally saved by the intervention of the aged Peleus, and Hermione -thereupon resolves to kill herself. At this point, Orestes, who is on -his way to consult the oracle at Dodona, enters. On learning of the -insults and injuries that had been heaped upon Hermione, once promised -him for a bride, he at once undertakes to relieve her of any reason for -dreading the return of Neoptolemos and the attendant disclosure of her -wicked plans. - -He leaves accordingly for Delphi. The messenger comes in after a song by -the chorus and relates what has taken place. Orestes had gone round -putting the Delphians on their guard against this Neoptolemos whose plan -was to sack the temple. Credence was at once given to the fabrication, -and the inhabitants determined upon a bold step. When Neoptolemos was at -the altar addressing the god, the band of armed Delphians who were lying -in wait for him behind the sacred laurel tree sprang out and fell upon -him. - -This furnishes the setting for our painting, and we may turn for a -little to a closer examination of the account given by the poet. It will -be noticed that the artist, while in some respects keeping close to the -latter, has in the main done his work rather independently. Common to -both are the δάφνη (v. 1115) and the βωμός (vs. 1123 and 1138). The -attacking party in the painting includes Orestes, thus emphasizing the -point which Euripides really had in mind. In this particular the artist -has gone ahead of the poet. It appears, indeed, as though Orestes had -just made the slash in Neoptolemos’ side. The moment represented is, -therefore, that when the fight was on. The Delphians appear to have but -one representative, who is certainly creating far less annoyance for -Neoptolemos than does the company in Euripides, where they hurl rocks -and fill the air with dust and din. The setting of the scene in the -painting is magnificent. Everything points to the great shrine; both the -exterior and interior of the temple are visible. As for the Ionic order -it should be remembered that this has nought to do with the historic -facts in the case. An examination of the buildings on the vases of Lower -Italy reveals a decided preference on the part of the artists for this -order of architecture[168]. The painting is an excellent example of the -influence of the poet over the artist. This is, however, no mere -illustration, a fact to be remembered in dealing with all the paintings -of this class; the spirit and not the letter is what one can trace most -readily in works of art based upon the tragedians. The agreement between -the literary source and the picture is more apparent here than in most -instances, and this is largely due to the fact that the _Andromache_ is -particularly Euripidean. This turn does not occur in any other author. A -parallel case will be observed in the chapter dealing with _Iphigeneia -among the Taurians_. It is this alteration and extension of old myths -which characterizes Euripides’ work. These new features were popular and -attracted the public, and here one gets the key to the unparalleled -influence which this poet exercised upon artists. - - - § 3. BAKCHAI. - -Euripides’ _Bakchai_ is our chief authority concerning the fate of -Pentheus[169], yet this writer did not by any means establish the -details of the story. This was done long before Thespis may have assayed -to dramatize the tragic episode[170] and before Aischylos wrote his -_Pentheus_[171]. It is not probable that Euripides materially altered -the accepted form of the myth, and there may be in his play a mixture of -the traditional and Aischylean versions. Pentheus’ death, like the -madness of the Thracian king Lykurgos, was inseparably connected with -the advent of the Dionysiac worship. The series of victories won by the -orgiastic god from the wild North was not bloodless; his coming was -attended with opposition. In the end, however, his foes were annihilated -or ruined, and the new joy brought in by the foreign god captivated a -nation and made it his devout worshipper. Euripides could say little or -nothing new touching the triumph of Dionysos over the king of Thebes, -yet this tragedy, one of the most brilliant pieces of Greek literature, -paints in glorious colours the history of the victory. - -The events, as told by Euripides, are briefly as follows. Dionysos has -arrived in Thebes from Lydia and the East, where he had already -established his choirs of Bacchanals. Thebes was the first city to which -he came, and here, where he least expected opposition, scepticism met -him. The sisters of his mother Semele circulated the report that he was -no god but an impostor. He forthwith drove the Kadmeian women maddened -from their homes to wander in the mountains attired in the Dionysiac -dress; the Bacchic craze spread further, and seized even the seer -Teiresias and Kadmos, who with thyrsoi and fawn-skins joined the orgies. -Pentheus, on hearing of these strange doings, appears and chides them -both, and threatens to hunt the women from the mountains and punish the -stranger who has made his family drunk with frenzy. At v. 434 Dionysos, -bewitchingly beautiful, is led a prisoner before Pentheus, who orders -him to be bound and cast into the royal stable. Soon afterward the walls -are heard to crash in and flames burst forth in every direction (v. 593 -ff.). The god, to be sure, is safe, and Pentheus is mocked and wild with -anger, while the former bids him be quiet and subdue his anger. At this -point a messenger arrives to recount the strange sights that had met his -eyes on the mountains. Three bands of women, led by Autonoë, Agave, and -Ino, had rushed upon his herd of cattle and torn them limb from limb, -and afterward they washed the blood from their hands in a fountain made -to flow by the god. In the face of these wonders he urges Pentheus to -honour the latter, but the king will not brook this Bacchic insolence -and threatens to sacrifice a hekatomb of women on Kithairon rather than -propitiate the unwelcome visitor. Dionysos advises him not to kick -against the pricks (v. 795); in a moment Pentheus’ attitude is seen to -change; the secret power of the god is working on him; he will see the -strange actions himself, and would rather forfeit a thousand-weight in -gold than forgo the opportunity (v. 812). The linen chiton is at once -provided, and Dionysos, who is to lead the way, directs the arrangement -of the dress so that Pentheus shall not be mistaken for a man. After -some scruples as to the figure he may make before his citizens he is -anxious to be off. Once in the mountains giddiness comes upon him. He -sees two suns, and a double Thebes, and twice seven gates; he declares -that the god himself has taken on a bull’s form with horns (v. 918 ff.). -Immediately thereafter he obtains the first glimpse of the women. There -are Ino and his mother Agave. Then he worries lest he may not hold his -thyrsos correctly. This shows his sad predicament too plainly. Dionysos -has done his work; his vengeance on the recalcitrant Pentheus is at -hand. At first the latter feels himself able to overturn the whole -mountain and asks the advice of the god as to the best means of -annihilating the troop. When violence is not recommended he suggests -that he had best hide in a pine-tree to view the sight (v. 954). Nothing -further is ever heard from the king’s own lips except in his death-cry -reported by the messenger who had accompanied him. When they had reached -the band in the glen, shadowed by pines (πεύκη, v. 1052), the thicket -was so dense that Pentheus requested that he might be allowed to ascend -the bank or climb a tree (v. 1061) in order to command the field. -Dionysos bent a tree to the ground, placed the king upon the boughs and -allowed it to rise again, and, turning to his devotees, pointed to their -prey. Stones and darts are directed at Pentheus, and finally the tree is -pulled up by main force and he falls an easy victim to the maddened -women. Agave, heeding none of his cries, tears out a shoulder; Ino, -Autonoë, and the rest help in dismembering the king. His mother fixed -his head upon a thyrsos and led the troop on a wild dance over -Kithairon, finally coming to the palace. Gradually freed from the -insanity, she realized the enormity of her crime. Dionysos’ godhead was, -however, established, and the house of Kadmos remained a terrible -witness of his power. These are the harrowing details of the murder, and -one cannot wonder that there are numerous vase paintings based on the -tragedy. - -There is a long list of vases that can for the most part be passed over -with a mere reference. They are all, with perhaps one exception, later -than 500 B.C. This means that the impetus for the tragedy in art was -given largely by the tragic drama. The oldest painting is older than the -_Pentheus_ of Aischylos and cannot, therefore, be connected with his -play. There may have been an earlier dramatization, such as that -recorded of Thespis, which figured in this monument[172]. All the -remaining paintings belong to the latter part of the fifth century B.C. -and the fourth century B.C., and are, with one exception, of too general -a character to be used as evidence for one of the tragedies[173]. On the -Munich hydria it seems to me there are clear traces of the _Bakchai_, -and this widely-known work is given here in fig. 11[174]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 11. -] - -Pentheus, wearing chlamys, pilos, and boots, crouches, with a drawn -sword in his right hand, in a thicket denoted by two trees. A maenad who -appears to have just discovered him rushes into the hiding-place with a -torch in her right hand[175]; she is dressed in a plain, Doric peplos. -Another maenad, similarly dressed but having a fawn-skin over the left -hand and a sword in the right, does not seem to have sighted Pentheus. A -third, dressed like the first one, holding a tympanon in the left hand -and a thyrsos in the right, approaches wholly unconcerned with the -discovery of her companions. On the right is another group of three -maenads all dressed alike and all in rapid motion. The first holds in -either hand the quarters of a kid or roe. The second shoulders the -thyrsos with her left hand and makes an ecstatic gesture with her right. -The third one, in even more violent motion, swings her veil about her -and rushes on towards the left. - -It should be noted, to begin with, that the vase is a Lower Italy fabric -of the fourth century B.C., and that there is therefore no chronological -difficulty in placing it under the influence of the _Bakchai_. The troop -of maenads is arranged symmetrically, an equal number being on each side -of the central scene, and this suggests the chorus in the play. The -striking feature is the introduction of the landscape; there is no doubt -as to where the catastrophe occurs. The artist did not allow himself the -licence of placing Pentheus in the tree, for this had been too grotesque -a sight for the fourth-century painter. The frequent references to the -thicket[176] and the protection it was or the inconvenience it caused, -is happily brought out in the picture, but the poet has not been -followed in details. Pentheus does not appear with the thyrsos, talaric -chiton, and dishevelled hair, for the simple reason that he would have -been indistinguishable from the maenads. As he appears in the painting -the contrast is striking and the eye at once grasps the situation. The -torch held by the foremost maenad lights the way to the retreat of -Pentheus, suggesting the words— - - καὶ πρὸς οὐρανὸν - καὶ γαῖαν ἐστήριζε φῶς σεμνοῦ πυρός. v. 1082 f. - -That one is armed with a sword while the others have no weapon finds -also a parallel in Euripides, who says one time that they used nought -but their hands— - - χειρὸς ἀσιδήρου μέτα. v. 736. - -and again that the sword shall do its work— - - ἴτω ξιφηφόρος. vs. 992, 1012. - -The wild revelry of the whole is instructive when studied with the poet. -The Bacchanal who flaunts the quarters of her victim reminds one at once -of the words— - - ἀγρεύων | αἷμα τραγοκτόνον, ὠμοφάγον χάριν. v. 138 f. - -In conclusion, reference should be made again to the newly discovered -wall painting in Pompeii. It is so remarkably preserved and so -thoroughly in the spirit of Euripides that there can be little doubt as -to the influence of the _Bakchai_[177]. The only Pentheus painting -recorded in classical literature was that in the Dionysos temple in -Athens, which may also have been inspired by Euripides[178]. Is the -Pompeian painting an echo of the celebrated one in Athens? - - - § 4. HEKABE. - -The _Hekabe_ is one of those plays which, like the _Andromache_, -embraces a series of events loosely associated. There are in fact two -distinct parts to this tragedy, having no other connexion than one would -observe between two separate works where the same heroine appeared. Two -heavy blows which the Fates dealt Hekabe after the fall of Troy -constitute the subject of the action. - -The first of these new calamities was the death of Polyxena. The Greeks -are encamped on the Chersonesos side of the Hellespont. Among the -captives are the former queen of Troy and her daughter. Achilles, who is -among the shades, demands of the Greeks that Polyxena be sacrificed to -him. The request cannot be ignored, and Odysseus and others are -commissioned to secure her from her mother. The parting scene between -Hekabe and the daughter is heartrending, but the courage and -self-control exhibited by the latter are remarkable. Talthybios, the -faithful herald of Agamemnon, afterwards reports to Hekabe the details -of the sacrifice, and this description of the fair and innocent Polyxena -is one of the gems of Greek literature. The lines in particular which -describe her actions immediately before the fatal moment are famous for -their beauty. - -Although the offering of Polyxena was known in Greek art and letters -before Euripides’ time[179], the subject must have been far more popular -after the production of this tragedy. It appears to me a mere accident -that no vase painting representing the scene has so far come to light. -There is, however, on a so-called ‘Megarian Bowl’ a relief decoration, -probably dating from the third century B.C., which doubtless owes its -existence to Euripides[180]. It has seemed to me desirable to include -this here, even though it carries us beyond the limits prescribed to the -present work. The cup, found in Thebes, is in the Berlin -Antiquarium[181]. The middle of the composition represents the tumulus -of Achilles, above which is raised a stele with akroteria and a fillet. -On the left, Polyxena, with exposed bosom and flowing hair, kneels with -extended arms. Approaching her is Neoptolemos wearing a chlamys and -holding his sword ready for the fatal stroke; behind the latter is a -figure in a short undergarment, mantle and pilos. The cap distinguishes -the person as Odysseus. Agamemnon sits with back to the beholder upon -the extreme left, and lifts his left hand (not his right hand as Robert -says), evidently astonished at the remarkable composure of the victim. -On the right of the tomb are three warriors, who are more or less -closely connected with the others. The first one appears to raise his -hand in wonder at the fortitude of Polyxena; the second, who does not -seem to be armed, has the appearance of one weeping; the third is -apparently little interested in the tragedy. It is not necessary to name -these three persons, evidently representatives of the Achaeans. The -first one may perhaps be Talthybios, since he says he was present (v. -524). The dolphins upon the vase are meant no doubt to characterize the -sea-shore where the sacrifice took place. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 12. -] - -The essential part of the composition is, however, the tumulus and the -figures on the left. Everything here illustrates Euripides. One reads in -v. 221 of - - ... ὀρθὸν χῶμ’ Ἀχιλλείου τάφου. - -The attitude of Polyxena is based upon the beautiful verses in the -messenger’s speech:— - - λαβοῦσα πέπλους ἐξ ἄκρας ἐπωμίδος - ἔρῥηξε λαγόνος ἐς μέσον παρ’ ὀμφαλόν, - μαστούς τ’ ἔδειξε στέρνα θ’ ὡς ἀγάλματος - - κάλλιστα, καὶ καθεῖσα πρὸς γαῖαν γόνυ - ἔλεξε πάντων τλημονέστατον λόγον· - ‘ἰδοὺ τόδ’, εἰ μὲν στέρνον, ὦ νεανία, - παίειν προθυμεῖ, παῖσον, εἰ δ’ ὑπ’ αὐχένα - χρῄζεις, πάρεστι λαιμὸς εὐτρεπὴς ὅδε.’ - ὁ δ’ οὐ θέλων τε καὶ θέλων, οἴκτῳ κόρης, - τέμνει σιδήρῳ πνεύματος διαρῥοάς. vs. 558–567. - -Even the hesitation of Neoptolemos, expressed in the last two verses, -finds its place in the relief. Odysseus, who was intimately identified -with the proceedings from first to last (vs. 218–437), could not be -wanting in an illustration of the final scene. Agamemnon too is -fittingly present, for, according to Euripides, he had given the order -to carry out the sacrifice, - - Ἀγαμέμνων τ’ ἄναξ - εἶπεν μεθεῖναι παρθένον νεανίαις. vs. 553 f. - -and had dismissed Talthybios to Hekabe (v. 504). - -The second part of the play begins with v. 658, where the servant of -Hekabe enters with the body of the latter’s young son Polydoros. Priam -had intrusted the boy to Polymestor, king of Thrace, when the Greeks -attacked Ilion. A considerable sum of gold accompanied the child to -ensure his maintenance if the city should be captured. As long as the -Trojans held out, Polymestor was true to his charge, but no sooner had -the news of the downfall of Priam’s house reached the ears of the good -Thracian than he put the child to death for the money and cast his body -out unburied. This is related in the prologue by the ghost of Polydoros, -who also prophesies the death of Polyxena on that day. His body was -accordingly discovered by the attendant, who happened upon it by mere -chance, and immediately after receiving the terrible message from -Talthybios, Hekabe was made to bow beneath another sorrow. She at once -summons her courage and determines to have revenge upon the unrighteous -Polymestor. She first relates to Agamemnon the story of the boy’s death, -and the king, deeply incensed at the ἀξενία of the Thracian, agrees to -her plan for avenging herself on the latter. She sends for Polymestor -under the pretence of disclosing to him some weighty matter. He comes, -and at her request dismisses his bodyguard, not mistrusting in the least -that his crime had been discovered. To questions as to the welfare of -Polydoros and the safety of the gold he replies that all is well and -that the child would gladly have come to visit his mother. Hekabe then -proceeds to tell him of some treasures which she wishes to commit to his -keeping. These are in the tent, and he shall go inside and examine them -for himself. ‘No Achaean is within; we are quite alone,’ she says, and -with this assurance Polymestor leaves the light of day for ever. Once -inside, his cries of agony soon announce that Hekabe has done her work -with swift and certain hand. - -The scene representing the reappearance of the blinded Polymestor has -been recognized on a Lucanian vase[182]. In the middle stands the -helpless king, his arms extended in a distressed manner. He is dressed -in a short, embroidered chiton and a mantle, and wears a tall head-gear -that indicates his barbarian nationality. Agamemnon is on the left, with -sceptre and himation; he appears to be addressing the former. Following -is a doryphoros. On the right are Hekabe and an attendant, both dressed -in chiton and mantle. The latter places her arm over Hekabe’s shoulder -and seems to be comforting her, as she shrinks away from the figure in -the centre. The cane is suggestive of the queen’s age and of the -wandering life upon which she is entering. A sword rests upon the -ground, pointing probably to the weapon which was used to blind -Polymestor. It is not necessary to cite any particular verses from -Euripides which the artist may have had in mind. He simply told the -story as it recurred to him. Especially suggestive of the king’s -staggering step are the verses beginning - - ὤμοι ἐγώ, πᾷ βῶ, - πᾷ στῶ, πᾷ κέλσω; vs. 1056 ff., - -spoken when Polymestor first appeared before the tent of Hekabe after -the latter had put out his eyes. The chorus, Agamemnon, and Hekabe are -then present, and with alternating parts fill out the rest of the play -(vs. 1109 ff.). - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 13. -] - - - § 5. HIPPOLYTOS. - -In the _Phaidra_ of Sophokles and the first _Hippolytos_ of Euripides it -was Phaidra herself who acknowledged to Hippolytos her love for him. The -votary of Artemis, at once enraged at this effrontery, cast her aside. -She then defamed the youth to Theseus, who, believing her statement, -prayed to Poseidon to destroy his son. The god accordingly sent a -sea-monster to frighten the horses of Hippolytos, and the latter was -soon dragged to his death. On receiving the news of this, Phaidra hung -herself[183]. Sophokles’ play does not appear to have ever made any -impression upon the world and must have been soon forgotten, and -Euripides’ tragedy met with great disapproval. Such a Phaidra was more -than the Greeks would tolerate. The poet grasped the situation and wrote -another _Hippolytos_, which set him right with his public. It was no -longer Phaidra in and of herself who became the instrument of the -youth’s death; Aphrodite, angered at Hippolytos’ serving Artemis instead -of herself, starts the gentle flame within Phaidra’s bosom and visits -her with a love-sickness that drives the unfortunate woman into a -confession of her illness to her attendant. On the latter’s placing the -matter before Hippolytos, all to no avail, Phaidra takes her own life, -not forgetting, however, to leave behind a letter containing delicate -charges against her step-son. Theseus returns, finds his wife a corpse, -and reads the letter. The curse and death of his son follow, as in the -earlier _Hippolytos_. This ruin was brought on him not so much by -Phaidra as by Aphrodite. - -The tragedy was counted among the best of Euripides’, and has always -retained its popularity. The subject was dramatized again in Greek[184], -and there is extant the Latin version of Seneca[185]. The theme was one -which was sure to appeal to modern authors, and among the French alone -one hears of no less than seven tragedies on the love of Phaidra, -written between the years 1573 and 1786. Four of these, the most famous -of which is Racine’s _Phèdre_, belong to the seventeenth century. They -are, however, more directly indebted to Seneca and Ovid[186] than to -Euripides. Mention should be made also of the two operas by Pellegrin, -1733, and Lemoine, 1786. But after all has been said on versions of the -story either in classical or modern times, one turns to the masterpiece -of Euripides as the great work. According to the author of the -Hypothesis, the play is among the best of this poet and was given the -first prize. In reflecting that Hippolytos has stood forth since March, -428 B.C., as the _beau idéal_ of innocent, unsullied, young manhood, one -is inclined to credit the judges with possessing good sense. - -There was hardly a more attractive legend than this which the artists -might have been tempted to make their own, yet one discovers a -surprising dearth of Greek monuments that can be referred to the myth. -From these I select two vase paintings that appear to be based upon -Euripides. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 14 (_vid. p. 102 ff._). -] - -Fig. 14 represents a painting on a krater in the British Museum[187]. -The upper section alone concerns us here, and this shows the interior of -a gynaikonitis with _kline_. On the left is a group of two females. One -sits on a stool to the right, wears chiton and veil, diadem, bracelets, -and necklace, and leans forward, with head dropped to one side, clasping -her right knee thrown over the other. Her left foot rests on a -foot-stool. Behind her a white-haired servant in the usual costume holds -her right hand to her chin, and with troubled air gestures with the left -hand as she speaks to her mistress. A large Eros with immense wings -flies down towards the latter with a taenia in his hands. There are, -further, two other groups of two each. The one before the _kline_ is two -females again. An attendant, distinguished by her hood, who holds a fan -in her right hand, talks and gestures earnestly before the other, who -wears the simple Doric peplos, ungirdled, and stands with her back to -the _kline_ in a disturbed and troubled sort of mood. The remaining -group of two, a pedagogue in the customary dress and a female figure -similar to the one on the extreme left, is also concerned over some -important matter which the pedagogue is telling. Certain articles hang -on the wall. - -The picture has been interpreted as representing Phaidra in the presence -of the chorus, and depending upon _Hippolytos_ vs. 267 ff. The -right-hand group would then be very loosely connected with the rest. In -so far as the love-sickness of Phaidra is concerned this appears to me a -correct interpretation, but that the chorus is in any way represented by -the other figures is entirely out of the question. The whole affair is -supposed to be in Phaidra’s apartments, to which at no time the -Troizenian women had access. What would they be doing by the -_kline_[188]? The pedagogue is added on one side, as though to indicate -how the news is spreading among the domestics[189]. - -But let me turn for a moment to another class of monuments that help to -a better understanding of the scene. There are no less than seventeen -reliefs on the long side of Roman sarcophagi which are practically -intact and furnish from two to three scenes of the tragedy. Less -frequently the ends contain one or two other groups supplementing the -front side[190]. There are four moments that are distinctly traceable. -(1) The love-sick Phaidra sits on a chair in her apartments surrounded -by the old nurse and other servants, who attempt to comfort her. She -wears a veil as on the vase painting, and on two reliefs one of the -attendants is removing this[191]. The diadem is also distinguishable. -(2) The nurse makes her declaration to Hippolytos, who turns away from -her. (3) Hippolytos with his followers is about to start upon, or is -already engaged in, the hunt. (4) The horses run away and bring him to -his death. All four scenes occur on the famous sarcophagus in -Girgenti[192], and on another in St. Petersburg[193]. It will be -observed that in three of the four groups Hippolytos himself is present, -and one naturally looks for him in scenes taken from the tragedy where -he is the main figure. The earliest scene in Euripides which develops -the hopeless state of affairs with Phaidra is, however, of prime -importance next to the death of Hippolytos. - -But a brief comparison of the left-hand group of our painting and the -Phaidra scene on these reliefs is necessary, in order to reveal a -striking resemblance in the compositions. The one difference rests in -the size of the groups; the painter has confined himself to fewer -figures. This fact, however, is of little importance. A closer -examination of the two discloses much that points to a common source. On -nearly all the reliefs Phaidra’s chair has, as in the painting, no back -or arms; Eros, who flies towards Phaidra in fig. 14, invariably stands -beside her on the sarcophagi, looking up into her sad face, or, what is -still worse, aims an arrow at her[194]. The queen wears in all cases the -veil, and often on the reliefs the diadem likewise[195]. The nurse never -fails in her ministry. - -It is time now to look more closely at the tragedy. After the prologue -by Aphrodite, Hippolytos and his followers enter and pay their homage to -Artemis. The hero lays a wreath upon her statue, which adorned one side -of the entrance to Pittheus’ palace. The attendants are ordered inside -and he then withdraws. His servant remains long enough to address a -prayer to Aphrodite’s image on the other side of the stage. Following is -the parodos in which the chorus relates what had been learned concerning -the illness of Phaidra. Among other things they hear that she sits - - ... λεπτὰ δὲ φάρη - ξανθὰν κεφαλὰν σκιάζειν. v. 133 f. - -This, it will be observed, corresponds to her position in the painting -and in the reliefs. It is just this time of abstinence and mourning, -spent in the palace surrounded by the faithful old nurse and other -servants, which suggested the scene on the reliefs and on the vase. The -visitations of Eros serve well to bring into objectivity the real cause -of Phaidra’s illness, and to render the poet more plain. To be sure this -all took place in her apartments, ἐντὸς οἴκων (v. 132), and could -therefore be worked out according to the artist’s fancy. A long and -animated scene ensues, in which Phaidra utters strange expressions that -betray the sadness of her condition. The trophos finally coaxes the -secret from her, and the chorus dips in from time to time as a sort of -second to the nurse. The interview which the latter has with Hippolytos, -vs. 601–668, is overheard by Phaidra. Her unrequited love bears her down -and she leaves the stage determined to die (v. 731), and in a few -moments is announced as dead[196]. - -The scenes on the sarcophagi representing Hippolytos’ hunt, the -counterpart of Phaidra’s illness, and the trophos’ proposal[197] to the -hero do not appear on vases. - -Hippolytos’ ride to death, the terrible _finale_ of the tragedy, appears -on an Apulian krater also in the British Museum[198]. The painting falls -into an upper and lower section. In the latter, Hippolytos dashes along -in his chariot; the four horses are not in any apparent disorder -although the next moment must be fatal, for just before them the -sea-monster rises into view, and a Fury with a flaming torch and -serpents wound about her arms runs into their course. A pedagogue -hurries along from the rear, extending his left hand, warning Hippolytos -of his danger. The scene is viewed by five divinities. Their positions -are the stereotyped ones of the Apulian vases, and their connexion with -the tragedy before them need not be intimate[199]. Athena in the middle, -a great favourite in these groups, leans on her shield and carries a -lance and in her right hand the helmet. Apollo, distinguished by bow, -laurel bough, and wreath in the hair, sits on her right, facing Pan who -stands half reversed to the beholder with the syrinx in the right hand, -and resting his left elbow on a rock. On Athena’s left sits Aphrodite, -attended by a large Eros, who extends a kylix to Poseidon sitting on the -right, holding the trident. There is certainly ample reason for the -presence of the last two gods at the death of Hippolytos; they are, in -fact, very instrumental in bringing about the catastrophe. I am not able -to assign any satisfactory reason for the appearance of Athena, Apollo, -and Pan. Mere speculation concerning the choice of these deities cannot -be of much value. Artemis is surely indispensable in a group of gods -concerned with Hippolytos’ death. Any one who knows these groups on the -vases of Lower Italy is aware that Athena is a great favourite and often -appears, as here, merely because she was so admired. Perhaps Apollo is -intended to represent Artemis, but it is not likely that the artist -thought so far[200]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 15 (_vid. p. 108 ff._). -] - -In regard to the lower section it may be observed first that the -district is not denoted in any way as being the sea-shore where -Euripides sends the youth for a drive[201]. There is no water indicated, -out of which the ταῦρος ἄγριον τέρας[202] is issuing. The mounted -companions of Hippolytos are represented only by the pedagogue. The time -is that just preceding the breaking away of the horses described by the -messenger, vs. 1218 ff. The Fury, a gratuitous addition of the artist, -serves to intensify the violence of the death awaiting Hippolytos. - -The deplorable end of the hero has never failed to awaken one’s -sympathy. The innocent youth dragged to his death through the workings -of a hasty and unjust curse presents one of the most pathetic pictures -in Greek literature. It is well depicted by Philostratos in the -_Imagines_[203]. ‘You see,’ he says, ‘how the horses no longer obey the -reins but rush madly along the plain, covered with foam. This one makes -for the wild beast, the second rebounds, another rushes for the sea, and -the fourth glances fearfully at the ground.’ The breaking and crashing -of the chariot are pointed out. Then the companions gallop up and try to -manage the horses. The hills near by, sentinels of the disaster, in the -form of women, tear their cheeks for grief; the meadows, in the form of -boys, allow their flowers to wilt and the nymphs from the springs rend -their hair, while water spouts from their breasts. Hippolytos’ limbs are -torn and shattered, and his eyes are gouged from their sockets. Pliny -tells of a painting by Antiphilus of Alexandria which represented -_Hippolytus tauro emisso expavescens_[204], but nothing further is known -of Antiphilus or when he lived. The sarcophagi reliefs representing the -catastrophe are numerous, compared with those showing any other -moment[205]. Not less interesting is the list of Etruscan urns decorated -with reliefs showing the bull, the runaway horses, and the _expavescens_ -youth[206]. In all of these a female figure, doubtless a Fury, is -frightening the horses[207]. In two cases she is winged, and every one -carries a torch likewise, as on the vase painting. - - - § 6. IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS. - -The story of Iphigeneia’s sacrifice appears to have been told first in -the _Kypria_, and yet only occasional references are made to it by -writers before the fifth century. It was the drama that infused new life -into the myth and launched it as one of the most popular ones in the -Trojan Cycle. Each of the three great tragedians tried his hand at the -catastrophe in Aulis. Euripides’ work, the only one surviving, is at -least two generations younger than the play of Aischylos, so that the -wide popularity of the tragedy in this period is well attested. Among -the Roman poets we know that Ennius, at least, wrote a version of the -tragedy. Although it is known that this poet had a special predilection -for Euripides, and for the most part translated or adapted the latter’s -plays, attempts have been made to show that in his _Iphigenia_ Ennius -was largely indebted to Sophokles[208]. The few fragments remaining from -these three _Iphigeneias_ are, however, inconsiderable, and a clear -notion of their relation to each other cannot be reached. The extant -work of Euripides is accordingly of great value to us. - -In art, likewise, this subject was rarely treated. I know of no -Iphigeneia monument earlier than the fifth century. There is a reference -in the _Agamemnon_ to the sacrifice as though Aischylos may have seen -the scene represented in a painting[209], and granted that the poet -really had such a work in mind this becomes the earliest date for -Iphigeneia in art. The earliest monument of which we possess any -authentic record is the famous painting of Timanthes, who was a -contemporary of Zeuxis and Parrhasios[210]. This date, however, does not -carry one beyond the last years of the fifth century B.C.—an altogether -late date for an art representation of a myth, which, from Aischylos’ -time at least, was widely known. We have reason to believe that -Timanthes’ work was suggested by Euripides’ tragedy. The latter was -first produced in Athens after the poet’s death, not earlier than 405 -B.C., and this requires that the painting be placed near the end of the -century, which many are unwilling to admit; it is, however, more a -matter of opinion than proof. Traces of this celebrated picture are very -probably at hand in the well-known Pompeian wall painting[211], and the -Uffizi altar[212]. The composition of the latter has much in common with -such fifth-century products as the Orpheus and Peliades reliefs[213]. -The Etruscan urns on the other hand furnish a wealth of reliefs -representing the sacrifice, rarely surpassed in this class of monuments. -Numbers have come to light in the neighbourhood of Perugia -especially[214]. Two groups are easily distinguishable, (1) Iphigeneia, -as a little girl, is held over the altar by Odysseus, while Agamemnon -goes through the ἀπαρχαί. (2) The first group is extended by (_a_) -Klytaimestra on the side of Agamemnon, and (_b_) Achilles on the side of -Odysseus, each begging for mercy and the life of Iphigeneia. This is all -non-Euripidean, and Schlie has attempted to point out that the reliefs -owe their origin to Ennius’ play which combined Sophoklean and -Euripidean elements[215]. - -There is no vase painting which can be claimed for this scene in its -Euripidean character, but the whole play is the basis of a relief on a -‘Megarian’ cup, and the illustration is so valuable for the proper -appreciation of the tragedy that I do not hesitate to include this -little monument. The cup furnishes inscriptional evidence not only for -the _dramatis personae_ but for the literary source as well, and is, -therefore, a _unicum_ among the monuments that are based upon Euripides. -The cut given in fig. 16 is of the vase in Berlin[216]. It should be -observed, however, that there are two other copies of this same work, -and that they tell exactly the same story from the _Iphigeneia_[217]. A -word is necessary in order to prepare us for the first scene given. -Agamemnon had sent a message to Argos summoning Iphigeneia, and, in -spite of his attempt to countermand this by a secret letter to -Klytaimestra, he was forced to face the results of his earlier resolve. -His daughter came, and accompanying her were her mother and her young -brother Orestes. The nuptials were to be celebrated with the son of -Peleus, and the Argive party in gayest, happiest mood halted before the -tent of Agamemnon. The Chalkian women, who through curiosity had crossed -the Euripos to see the gathered hosts of the Greeks, are ready at hand -to assist Iphigeneia in alighting from the chariot. The lad Orestes, who -appears to have gone to sleep during the journey, is awakened and lifted -down by one of the kindly strangers. With her mother’s permission, -Iphigeneia hastens inside to meet her father[218]—she, innocently happy -over the arrival of her wedding day—he, overcome with grief at her -impending death, and smitten with remorse at the enormity of his crime. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 16. -] - -This much renders plain the group on the right. Agamemnon, ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ, -sits upon his θρόνος with one foot on a foot-rest; his right hand is -placed to his temple as though to shut out the gaze of Iphigeneia, -ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑ, who approaches him in a beseeching manner with extended arms. -The group is based upon vs. 644 ff.— - - Iph. ἔα· - ὡς οὐ βλέπεις ἕκηλον, ἄσμενος μ’ ἰδών. - - Aga. πόλλ’ ἀνδρὶ βασιλεῖ καὶ στρατηλάτῃ μέλει. - - · · · · · - - Iph. μέθες νυν ὀφρὺν ὄμμα τ’ ἔκτεινον φίλον. - - · · · · · - - κἄπειτα λείβεις δάκρυ’ ἀπ’ ὀμμάτων σέθεν; - -Such is the situation described by the poet, and surely the artist has -succeeded to a considerable degree in grasping the meaning of the scene. -Klytaimestra, ΚΛΥΤΑΙΜΗΣΤΡΑ[219], appears on the left with Orestes, -ΟΡΕΣΤΗΣ, and would seem to have had the boy in charge after he was -helped from the chariot (vs. 621 f.). Following is the inscription, -ΕΥΡ[ΙΠΙΔΟΥ] ΙΦΙΓΕΝΕΙΑΣ. The genitive case in the last word may depend -upon some such word as τύποι. To avoid a possible misunderstanding of -the scenes, even with the characters named each time, the artist -considered it advisable to add the literary source. This is the -_Iphigeneia of Euripides_ and not of any other poet. - -After Iphigeneia leaves her father he endeavours to persuade -Klytaimestra to return to Argos and leave the final arrangements for the -nuptials in his charge. Naturally enough she refuses, and retires to -appear at v. 819, where she meets Achilles and enthusiastically brings -up the subject of the marriage. Achilles, amazed at the disclosure, -assures the queen that he has neither wooed Iphigeneia nor heard aught -from the Atreidai concerning any such an alliance. This scene is -represented in the next group. Achilles, ΑΧΙΛΛΕΥΣ, bends toward -Klytaimestra and gestures emphatically. The latter holds her hand to her -chin and is evidently dumbfounded by the declarations. The last words -exchanged before the two separate are suggestive— - - Ach. ἴσως ἐκερτόμησε κἀμὲ καὶ σέ τις, - ἀλλ’ ἀμελίᾳ δὸς αὐτὰ καὶ φαύλως φέρε. - - Kly. χαῖρ’· οὐ γὰρ ὀρθοῖς ὄμμασίν ς’ ἔτ’ εἰσορῶ, - ψευδὴς γενομένη καὶ παθοῦς’ ἀνάξια. - - Ach. καὶ σοὶ τόδ’ ἐστὶν ἐξ ἐμοῦ· πόσιν δὲ σὸν - στείχω ματεύσων τῶνδε δωμάτων ἔσω. vs. 849–854. - -Immediately after these words the faithful old servant of Agamemnon -comes out and relates to Klytaimestra that Iphigeneia is to be slain by -her father; he goes further and tells the cause of it all, and how he -had failed to get away to Argos with the letter. This meeting of the -servant, ΠΡΕΣΣΒΥΣ, and the queen, is dramatically told in the third -group. The former wears the costume of a pedagogue, with -peculiar-looking boots. The latter has laid aside the veil which she -wears in all the other scenes. - -The following groups on the relief reverse the order of the text, so it -is best to consider first that on the extreme left. Agamemnon, -Klytaimestra, and Iphigeneia are all named. The young Orestes pulls at -his father’s chiton; the latter has a mantle over his head, and shields -his face with his left hand. The mother has turned aside and is consumed -with her deep sorrow. She had won the sympathy of Achilles after the -talk with the old servant, vs. 896–1035, and following the choral song -appears again to seek Agamemnon whom neither she nor Iphigeneia had seen -since the terrible truth of the marriage was disclosed. She calls her -daughter from the house, v. 1117, and bids her - - λαβοῦς’ Ὀρέστην σὸν κασίγνητον, τέκνον. - -All of these figures occur on the cup, so that in a certain sense the -whole scene from v. 1122 to v. 1275 is illustrated. The position of -Klytaimestra and Iphigeneia would, however, lead one to think that the -latter’s long appeal was particularly in the mind of the artist. She -recounts in words, as eloquent as they are pathetic, the promises her -father had once made to her as a child, and goes over all the ambitions -that had filled her girlish heart in the happy Argive home. - - βλέψον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὄμμα δὸς φίλημά τε, - ἵν’ ἀλλὰ τοῦτο κατθανοῦς’ ἔχω σέθεν - μνημεῖον, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἐμοῖς πείθει λόγοις. - ἀδελφέ, μικρὸς μὲν σύ γ’ ἐπίκουρος φίλοις, - ὅμως δὲ συνδάκρυσον, ἱκέτευσον πατρὸς - τὴν σὴν ἀδελφὴν μὴ θανεῖν· αἴσθημά τοι - κἀν νηπίοις γε τῶν κακῶν ἐγγίγνεται. - ἰδοὺ σιωπῶν λίσσεταί ς’ ὅδ’, ὦ πάτερ. - ἀλλ’ αἴδεσαί με καὶ κατοίκτειρον βίον. - ναί, πρὸς γενείου ς’ ἀντόμεσθα δύο φίλω· - ὁ μὲν νεοσσός ἐστιν, ἡ δ’ ηὐξημένη. vs. 1238–1248. - -There is certainly inspiration enough in these verses for a more -pretentious group than the simple terra cotta cup presents, but lacking -all other Greek monuments bearing upon this scene one may prize this -witness as a valuable inheritance from the Hellenistic period. Agamemnon -speaks; he loves his child and realizes full well the meaning of the -sacrifice, but he must obey the clamourings of the Greeks. - -Iphigeneia and her mother remain alone with the chorus and bewail the -bitterness of their sorrow, vs. 1276–1345, when a company of men is -observed approaching. Among them is Achilles. His attempt to intercede -in behalf of the doomed Iphigeneia had been of no avail. The Achaeans -were inexorable; her blood must be spilt. Nevertheless he promises them -his assistance, and encourages Klytaimestra to resist Odysseus and the -others who come to drag her daughter away to the altar, vs. 1338–1433. -The early part of this scene is recognizable in the remaining group. - - Iph. διαχαλᾶτέ μοι μέλαθρα, δμῶες, ὡς κρύψω δέμας. - - Kly. τί δέ, τέκνον φεύγεις; - - Iph. Ἀχιλλέα τόνδ’ ἰδεῖν αἰσχύνομαι. - - Kly. ὁς τί δέ; - - Iph. τὸ δυστυχές μοι τῶν γάμων αἰδῶ φέρει. - - Kly. οὐκ ἐν ἁβρότητι κεῖσαι πρὸς τὰ νῦν πεπτωκότα. - ἀλλὰ μίμν’· οὐ σεμνότητος ἔργον, ἢν δυνώμεθα. - - Ach. ὦ γύναι τάλαινα, Λήδας θύγατερ. vs. 1340–1345. - -Achilles stands with staff in hand, either about to address the mother -or perhaps having uttered the last verse above. Iphigeneia turns with -bowed head to avoid his presence; her mother evidently tries to detain -her. Inscriptions again indicate who the persons are. We have then -precisely the situation in the lines quoted. - -The sacrifice which followed, was attended by the marvellous wonder, and -it was to be expected that if any _one_ incident of the tragedy was told -in art it would be the scene at the altar. Our little monument curiously -enough stops where _all_ the others begin. We are taken step by step up -to the final act and there we are left. The works enumerated above[220] -are, without exception, confined to the moment of the sacrifice. The -famous wall painting and the Florence altar have much in common with the -renowned painting of Timanthes, and all three are conceived in the -spirit of Euripides as far as the actions of Agamemnon are concerned. - - ... ὡς δ’ ἐσεῖδεν Ἀγαμέμνων ἄναξ - ἐπὶ σφαγὰς στείχουσαν εὶς ἄλσος κόρην, - ἀνεστέναζε, κἄμπαλιν στρέψας κάρα - δάκρυα προῆγεν, ὀμμάτων πέπλον προθείς. vs. 1547 ff. - -And so he stands completely wrapped in his mantle, exposing no part of -his face. In this invention lay the unsurpassed success which Timanthes -enjoyed with his painting. The dates for this artist allow us to place -the work subsequent to the production of the _Iphigeneia_ in 405 B.C., -and credit Euripides with influencing Timanthes. This is at least -possible, but does not admit of proof. It appears to me very likely that -all three of these works are more or less closely connected with each -other and with Euripides. The Etruscan ash-urns on the other hand, as -well as the vase painting in the British Museum[221], follow a totally -different version of the story. In these cases Agamemnon himself takes -the part of the priest in the ceremony, and performs the ἀπαρχαί. So far -from being the tender-hearted father who cannot even stand and watch the -offering, he draws the fatal knife or pours the sacrificial liquid upon -the victim’s head. Traces of this turn are found early in tragedy[222], -but this is an Agamemnon with a far different heart from the one we -follow in the _Iphigeneia_ of Euripides. Even though the part from v. -1532 till the close of the play be thrown out as an interpolation, the -character of Agamemnon in the first 1500 verses could not have changed -so suddenly at the end that he would have taken the place of Kalchas at -the altar. This set of monuments does not, therefore, give us the -Euripidean spirit. - - - § 7. IPHIGENEIA AMONG THE TAURIANS. - -Euripides in all probability created in the life of Iphigeneia the -chapter concerning her return to Greece with Orestes. There is at any -rate no trace of this turn in preceding authors. Homer does not appear -to have known any such a daughter of Agamemnon, unless one is to seek to -identify Iphigeneia with Iphianassa. The ‘king of men’ speaks of - - Χρυσόθεμις καὶ Λαοδίκη καὶ Ιφιάνασσα. _Il._ 9. 145. - -as his three daughters. We know, however, from Sophokles[223] that -Iphianassa was distinguished from Iphigeneia. Since Homer has not even -her name there is no allusion to the catastrophe at Aulis. It is first -in the _Kypria_[224], a work usually accredited to Stasinos in the early -part of the eighth century B.C., that reference is made to the gathered -hosts at Aulis, the calm, the sacrifice. It was not Iphigeneia, however, -who was the victim, for Artemis had suddenly intervened and, having -taken her away to the Black Sea country, had blessed her with -immortality. From this date then the myth may have been widely spread -among the Greeks. Hesiod related in his Κατάλογος γυναικῶν that -Iphigeneia had received the gift of immortality from Artemis, thus -following closely the author of the _Kypria_[225]. Herodotos also -repeats the same story[226]. One looks in vain for any trace of her -delivery from this wild people, until the latter part of Euripides’ -life. Then it is that new light breaks in upon the old orthodox form of -the myth: the mortal side of Iphigeneia is made to assume a new interest -for the world, and she, who had been long lost amidst a wild, barbarous -people, is suddenly restored to her only hope, Orestes. This is the work -of ‘Euripides, the human, with his droppings of warm tears.’ With this -tragedy the poet created at once a definite chapter in dramatic -literature and furnished another impetus for ancient art. - -There are traces of two other Greek tragedies dealing with this same -subject; yet the play of Timestheos is a mere name[227], while that of -Polyeidos is but little more. Aristotle, however, has given a certain -prominence to the latter work by making two references to it in his -_Poetics_[228]. This differed from the play of Euripides particularly in -the recognition scene. The ἀναγνώρισις was brought about by Orestes -using the words ‘and shall I too be sacrificed?’ Who but Orestes was -likely to know aught of the attempt once made to sacrifice her at Aulis? -It is worthy of note that the _libretto_ of Glück’s opera also follows -this manner of the _dénouement_. Among the Latin dramatists we hear that -Naevius wrote a play called _Iphigenia_. One verse only is -preserved[229]. It goes without saying that the tragedy was taken from -the Greek, but from what author it is worthless to conjecture. The -_Dolorestes_ of Pacuvius was long thought to deal with the same subject, -but this has been shown to be of an entirely different character. It is -altogether improbable that these Latin versions worked any radical -change in the Euripidean form of the myth. It is true that the story was -remodelled in some particulars; Hyginus, e.g. in _fabula_ 261, relates -that the bones of Orestes had been brought from Aricia to Rome and had -been interred before the temple of Saturn! Such a violent contortion of -the myth may be laid to the credit of a poet[230], but I would prefer to -recognize in the words of Hyginus the influence of the mythological -handbooks which were written up in a manner well calculated to pamper -the national pride of the Romans. - -In no work written subsequent to Euripides is it possible to detect the -sources for the representations of the myth in art; in all cases the -poet of the fifth century B.C. can be shown to have wielded his absolute -power. We shall see in the discussion of the vase paintings based upon -the play that this class of monuments is not the only one in which the -new Iphigeneia found her place. The Etruscan urns and mirrors, the wall -paintings of Pompeii and of Herculaneum, the Roman sarcophagi, as well -as pastes and gems, all furnish an extensive field in which parallel -scenes may be traced. - -This introduces the consideration of the vases and their relation to the -tragedy. They fall readily into three classes corresponding to three -well-defined stages in the play: 1. Orestes and Pylades alone upon the -Taurian coast are surprised, and led by the shepherds to the king and -Iphigeneia (vs. 67–466). 2. The scene following, in which it is -determined that not both shall be killed, but that one, and he Pylades, -shall be allowed to return to Mykenai, bearing a message from Iphigeneia -(vs. 467–724). 3. The handing over of the letter and the accompanying -explanation, whereby Orestes and his sister recognize each other (vs. -725–1088). There follow two other well-defined scenes which are not -traceable on vases[231]. 4. The escape with the Artemis idol (vs. -1152–1233), and 5. the messenger’s speech which relates the manner of -the escape. - -There is but one vase painting that can be assigned to the first step in -the play. The painting is a thoroughly ugly and, from an artistic -standpoint, worthless specimen that represents the very decadence of -ceramic art[232]. The vase is a slender amphora with three zones of -pictures; ours is the middle one. On the left a woman in chiton and -mantle sits with head turned to the right, her left hand resting on a -sceptre or staff and her right on her knee. She wears a necklace and on -one arm a bracelet. Standing before her with outstretched right hand is -a bearded male figure in short chiton and mantle, and a spear in his -left; he has just arrived, as one may conclude from the position of his -feet. Immediately following are two youths entirely naked, hands -pinioned behind their backs. The ends of the ropes seem to be held by -the group of three youths following, who are dressed as the first male -figure except that two of them wear boots. Their attention, like that of -all, is directed towards the female figure. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 17. -] - -The arrest of Orestes and Pylades is given here, and more definitely -their appearance before Iphigeneia. To be sure the manner is entirely -different from that on other monuments. One expects Iphigeneia to be in -or near the temple of Artemis and to be represented in a more concerned -and active attitude; and furthermore, one looks for the altar (v. 72), -and some indication of the fate which awaits the captives. All these -features are wanting. That the artist endeavoured to represent the -meeting of the priestess and the two Greeks can, however, admit of no -doubt; that the necessary setting of the scene was omitted need be no -more a matter of surprise to one than the helpless workmanship of the -whole. The monument is valuable as being the only vase painting showing -the first scene, which is never wanting on the sarcophagi[233]. This -moment occurs likewise on certain other monuments[234]. The shepherd -relates (vs. 260–339) how the discovery and capture were made; how they -learned that one of the two was named Pylades; and further that the -prisoners had been conducted first to the king, who after glancing at -them (ἐσιδών) sent them to Artemis and her priestess. Iphigeneia says to -the boukolos in v. 342, σὺ μὲν κόμιζε τοὺς ξένους μολών, and in v. 467, -after her soliloquy and the song of the chorus, she appears again on the -stage where she meets the captives. This is the moment, very largely -modified, which the painting represents. Iphigeneia’s first words are— - - μέθετε τῶν ξένων χέρας, - ὡς ὄντες ἱεροὶ μηκέτ’ ὦσι δέσμιοι. - -At this the guards are commanded to enter the temple and make ready for -the offering. Our picture follows in one respect the traditional manner -of representing the scene. Orestes and Pylades are invariably nude, or -so lightly clad with the chlamys that they are practically naked. There -is the closest analogy between them as they appear here and as they -occur on the sarcophagi. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 18. -] - -The second moment, as I have marked it out above, is also represented on -one vase only[235]. In the centre Orestes, ΟΡΕΣΤΑΣ, sits to the right -upon a large altar, chlamys about his hips, sword on his left side, -hands supported upon his stick towards which his head is sunk. The whole -attitude betokens sorrow. On the right is Iphigeneia wearing long, -sleeved chiton, and mantle, necklace, and bracelets. In her left hand -close by her side (incorrectly published as a knife) is the temple key -which is emblematic of her office as κλῃδοῦχος[236]. Her right is -extended towards Orestes, with whom she is speaking. She is accompanied -by a temple servant who, entirely wrapped in chiton and mantle, carries -in her right an oinochoë and upon her head a dish in which are articles -for the sacrifice, including the branches for sprinkling. Behind Orestes -is a laurel tree and on his right Pylades, ΠΥΛΑΔΗΣ, standing with one -foot thrown over the other, his right hand placed sorrowfully to his -head. The left rests upon his staff. On his left side is a sword. He is -deeply concerned in the conversation. Above on the right behind a -_terrain_ is the temple of Artemis, Ionic order, and akroteria. Beside -it on the left, Artemis, distinguished by her huntress-mantle, two -spears, and hair-dress, sits with face to the left towards Apollo who is -the remaining figure on the vase. He wears a garment around his waist, -and rests his right upon a cane and turns his face towards Artemis. - -The vase is especially interesting as being the only one on which any of -the characters is accompanied by an inscription, and secondly, because -Orestes sits here upon the altar. He cannot be thought of as a victim, -and I do not believe he has fled to the altar for refuge, as has been -suggested. That would comport but poorly with the spirit which he -exhibits throughout the interview. Where does Orestes sit passively upon -an altar at the attack of the Furies? He invariably has his sword drawn -in a very emphatic manner, and while he crouches upon or clings to the -altar he never gives any appearance of being an easy victim to his -pursuers[237]. Just this point it is necessary to emphasize, for had the -artist felt that the meaning of Orestes’ position indicated his pursuit -either by seen or unseen Furies, he never would have committed the -egregious error of placing him in a calm attitude quite unconscious that -he has a _sword ready at his side_. Furthermore there is no trace in -Euripides or the painting to allow us to assume that Orestes is again -pursued at this point. He is not, therefore, in any sense a suppliant. -The vase painter has simply allowed himself a great liberty in seating -his figure where we should least expect to find him. An altar is not by -any means a usual seat, and much less for the victim[238]. This same -freedom in disposing of details led the decorator still further from the -established usage, for neither of the captives should be allowed their -swords. They are already ἱεροί (v. 469) and should be represented -accordingly. In these particulars we must acknowledge that the painter -idealized the scene (vs. 472 ff.). - -If it were necessary to determine upon any one moment which the artist -had in mind, one would discover a close parallel between vs. 625 ff. and -the present scene. It has been agreed that Pylades shall be the -messenger; Orestes is to die in his stead. The latter proceeds to ask -who shall perform the sacrificial act, and whether a tomb shall receive -him when all is over. To this Iphigeneia replies— - - πῦρ ἱερὸν ἔνδον χάσμα τ’ εὐρωπὸν πέτρας. - -and Orestes— - - φεῦ· - πῶς ἄν μ’ ἀδελφῆς χεὶρ περιστείλειεν ἄν; - -to which Iphigeneia remarks, - - μάταιον εὐχήν, ὦ τάλας, ὅστις ποτ’ εἶ, - ηὔξω. - -I can conceive of no more pitiable and hopeless condition than that of -the unfortunate Orestes which the poet depicts. At this point his course -seemed all in vain; Apollo’s promise appeared to be a farce, and Heaven -and Earth seemed wrought into one violent confusion (cf. vs. 572 f. and -711). Perhaps it was at this juncture that he most impressed the -painter, and we may see the wretched Orestes prostrate upon the altar in -this moment of extreme despair. - -Artemis and Apollo take no part in the action, but there is a greater -fitness in their position as spectators than is often the case with the -gods on the vases of Lower Italy. The former is a natural figure in her -own precinct, by her own temple, while Apollo, as her brother, properly -balances the scene. The latter, moreover, stands in so close a relation -to Orestes’ trial and delivery that he is a most appropriate beholder of -the progress of this his own enterprise (cf. v. 977). - -Mention should be made here of the sarcophagi, on which essentially the -same scene is found. The agreement with our vase is striking[239]. -Orestes sits with his head wrapped in his mantle and drooping on his -lap, while Pylades stands before him, always in the same attitude, one -leg thrown over the other, one hand clutching his hair and the other -resting on his stick. This is a striking coincidence, indeed, in these -two classes of monuments, separated by at least four hundred years. - -In the third step of the tragedy we are more fortunate and possess among -vase paintings at least three that represent the transmission of the -letter to Pylades, and the accompanying recognition between Orestes and -his sister. It is not surprising that the supreme moment in the action -should have attracted the artists, and that on the sarcophagi[240] also -this unique point in Greek tragedy should have been represented[241]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 19. -] - -1. The best known of the vases is an amphora formerly in the possession -of the Duke of Buckingham[242]. In front of the temple of Artemis, Doric -order, stands Iphigeneia, _en face_, in richly embroidered chiton, and -high head-dress from which falls a sort of veil reaching to the knees. -She wears necklace, bracelets, earrings, and sandals; her costume -bespeaks in every respect that of the theatre. She carries again the -token of her office in the left, and hands the letter to Pylades with -the right, who stands ready for the journey, wearing chlamys, pilos, -boots, and carrying two spears. Further, on the left, leaning against -the περιρῥαντήριον is Orestes, _en face_, but with laurel-wreathed head -turned towards Pylades; his right leg is thrown over the left. He wears -a chlamys, and carries two spears and a sword. Beside Iphigeneia is her -servant, as in fig. 18, but with a simple girdled chiton, and in her -right the dish with articles for the altar which is represented in poor -perspective behind Iphigeneia. Above, on the right, before the temple -doors, is Artemis in short, huntress-costume and high Thracian boots; -two spears in her left, and a burning torch in her right. She wears the -Thracian cap. On the left of the temple behind a _terrain_ is a young -satyr, no doubt thrown in to fill up the space. - -2. The largest painting representing this scene is that on an amphora in -St. Petersburg[243]. The centre of the picture is taken up by the -temple, four Ionic columns. Inside on the right is the Artemis statue, -costumed like Artemis in fig. 19; a burning torch in the right, around -which is bound a sort of decoration. It is on a large pedestal, and has -in the left a spear. On the left, about to leave the temple, is -Iphigeneia with an elegant chiton, mantle, a diadem in hair, and the -peculiar key in her left; beside her, and leaning against the wall, is a -kylix with long handle. She makes a gesture towards Pylades with her -right in which there is no letter. He stands on the left by the temple, -leaning against his knotty stick; has petasos on the back of the neck, -and wears high boots and an escaping chlamys. On the left, lower down, -Orestes leans on the περιρῥαντήριον, as in fig. 19, but he is evidently -more dejected here. The rest of the painting, which consists of five -groups of two figures each, has so little to do with the central scene -that we may omit any description of it. In the upper zone on the right -are Hermes and Artemis, on the left Athena and Nike. Athena will observe -the final part of the affair in which she was so deeply interested in -Athens. The two groups, a female and an armed Thracian, represent the -common ‘love-scenes’ on this class of vases. For the third group on the -right, the artist preferred to draw a young deer instead of the female -figure. Stephani[244] is correct in calling these ‘love-scenes,’ and so -separating them permanently from any part in the action. Countless such -groups are thrown upon vases of this style as meaningless, decorative -figures. The parasol, wreaths, and vessels serve to enrich the setting -and add charm to the coquetry. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 20 (_vid. p. 133 ff._). -] - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 21. -] - -3. A vase, formerly in the possession of the art dealer Barone in -Naples, shows an abridgement of the scene[245]. In an Ionic temple, four -columns, and akroteria, Iphigeneia, _en face_, long chiton, mantle, hair -done in a knot behind, leans with her left elbow upon the βρέτας. In her -left is the temple attribute, and in the right the letter which she -extends to Pylades, in chlamys and petasos. He leans against his stick, -and has a sword in the left, while he points with the right towards the -letter. On the right are Apollo and Artemis. The former, nude except for -a mantle and high boots, grasps the laurel tree with his left, and rests -his right upon Artemis’ shoulder, who sits to the left upon the altar -and looks up to Apollo. She is dressed as usual with short chiton and -high boots. She has two spears in the left. - -In setting these three paintings over against each other and comparing -the elements in them, the uniformity is very striking. Perhaps the -details may be clearer if placed in a sort of scheme. - - -_a._ Elements common to all three vases. - -1. Temple of Artemis. 2. Iphigeneia in elaborate dress, indicated as the -κλῃδοῦχος. 3. A youth in travelling costume, with whom she is talking. -4. Artemis on the _right_ of the temple. - -_b._ Elements common to two of the three vases. - -1. In figs. 19 and 20 a youth leans against the περιρῥαντήριον, resting -on one leg over which the other is thrown. 2. In figs. 19 and 21 -Iphigeneia hands the letter to the youth. 3. The Artemis ἄγαλμα is in -the temple in figs. 20 and 21; so also is Iphigeneia. - - -We thus observe that the remarkable agreement, even in the details, -shows that they must all be copies more or less exact of one and the -same original. That Iphigeneia in fig. 20 does not hold the letter in -her hand may be accredited to the carelessness of the artist who merely -forgot to paint it. The same may be said with regard to the abridged -form of the scene in fig. 21, where Orestes has been left out. The two -central figures appeared to the artist to be the important part of the -original, and accordingly he omitted all else. - -Immediately following the scene represented in fig. 18, Iphigeneia -entered the temple to get the letter— - - ἀλλ’ εἶμι, δέλτον τ’ ἐκ θεᾶς ανακτόρων - οἴσω. v. 636 f. - -and ordered the guards to watch the two without binding them. Thereafter -ensues the touching scene between Orestes and Pylades (vs. 657–724). The -priestess then reappears, and commanding the attendants to go inside, -continues— - - δέλτου μὲν αἵδε πολύθυροι διαπτυχαί, - ξένοι, πάρεισιν· ἃ δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖσδε βούλομαι, - ἀκούσατ’. - -Orestes speaks first after these lines and asks her what she wishes. It -shall be an oath for the safe delivery of the letter. At this he demands -a counter-oath from her for the safe withdrawal of Pylades from the -country. We may imagine that during the delivery of these verses, which -were probably spoken while Iphigeneia was still in the temple doorway, -Pylades had approached her to receive the letter, while Orestes stepped -to one side as he appears in figs. 19 and 20. In vs. 769–787 the -contents of the letter are related to ensure safe transfer of the -message, even though the written words be lost in a shipwreck. This is -the time represented on our vases. The hopelessness of Orestes requires, -moreover, the earlier part of the scene, since from v. 772 he begins to -be aroused and to prove his brotherhood to Iphigeneia. The αναγνώρισις -is complete at the close of v. 826, and there follow the fourth and -fifth stages which were noticed above[246]. Neither of these movements -is, so far as I am aware, shown on any vase painting, although they are -an important part of the reliefs on the Roman sarcophagi[247]. - -In conclusion, mention should be made of the wall paintings which -represent the departure of the three with the statue to purify it in the -sea. The first and most important of these is the fine _casa del -citarista_ painting[248]. Robert first correctly recognized the right -meaning of this beautiful monument and based it upon the poet[249], -thereby bringing it into harmony with the sarcophagi. That he was -happily correct in reading the time in the painting _after the -recognition_, contrary to Helbig’s interpretation[250], is nicely borne -out by the painting recently discovered in the _casa dei Vettii_[251], -which is another copy of the same original[252]. The variations are, -however, enough to render any misunderstanding of it impossible. Here -there is no temple, and Iphigeneia occupies the centre between Orestes -and Pylades on the left, and Thoas on the right. She carries plainly the -temple βρέτας on the left shoulder. Furthermore, the unconcerned -attitude of the two prisoners in their _tête-à-tête_ points clearly to -the proper significance of the scene. Curiously enough Orestes appears -to sit on the altar here as on the vase painting, fig. 18. - - - § 8. KYKLOPS. - -The satyr dance, the earliest form of the Greek drama and the simple -beginning from which the immense superstructure of tragedy took its -start, continued, in the satyr composition which followed the regular -trilogy, to remind the public of the original plan and tendency of the -performances in honour of Dionysos[253]. Till late in the fourth century -B.C., at least, this echo of the original Dionysiac festival remained in -vogue. The _Kyklops_ of Euripides is the only example of this sort of -composition which has reached us, and although the present work is -concerned with tragedy and vase paintings I cannot refrain from -including here a painting that is under the influence of this unique -relic of Greek literature. The connexion between the satyr-play and -tragedy is certainly intimate enough to warrant the introduction of the -present chapter. - -Every one is acquainted with the story of Odysseus’ adventure with the -Kyklops Polyphemos. Since the author of the _Odyssey_ threw a charm -around the story, this event in the wanderings of the hero has remained -one of the most popular. In early Greek art there are numerous monuments -based upon the myth. The black figured vases represent two critical -moments. 1. The blinding of Polyphemos. 2. The escape of Odysseus and -his companion from the cave. A long list of paintings tells this story -over and over again, with little variation[254]. The artists evidently -became tired of the monotony of the subject, for it is practically dead -at the beginning of the fifth century. There was nothing new in the -tale; it was distinctly epic, and for this very reason had its day and -gave way to new motives in the dramatic literature. At the end of the -century there was a revival of the myth. It gained a new lease of life -through the _Kyklops_ of Euripides, and once again all eyes were turned -towards the old Homeric fiction. When the poet introduces Seilenos and -his company of satyrs as slaves to Polyphemos, and turns the fortunes of -Odysseus, on his arrival at the cave, by the intervention of this new -element, the artist had certainly a new incentive. The rollicking, lusty -antics of the tribe of satyrs had ever been the red figured vase -painter’s delight, and when Euripides connected them with the adventures -of Odysseus and the Kyklops the old story was ingrafted with a vigorous -shoot[255]. Timanthes, whom we have already met[256], very likely owed -it to Euripides that he associated Polyphemos with satyrs[257]. An -interesting vase painting, which may be dated _cir._ 410 B.C., bears -strong testimony to the influence of the _Kyklops_ in Lower Italy[258]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 22. -] - -The picture appears in fig. 22. In the foreground Polyphemos lies -stretched out in his drunken stupour[259]; beside him is a stump on -which hangs an empty wineskin, and on the ground a bowl. In the centre -three youths, the middle one wearing a pilos, are busy tugging at a log. -Two others on the left bring fire-wood to kindle the large stick[260]; -another youth, probably Odysseus, in pilos and chlamys, directs the work -from the opposite side. Two bearded satyrs, with the usual horse-tails, -caper around on the right[261]. - -The whole painting breathes with the spirit running through the -_Kyklops_. The impression gained by reading the play is remarkably well -supported by a study of the former. There is no detailed agreement -between the two which strikes one, for the situations in Euripides are -not closely followed. There is, however, the same stamp of originality -and newness characterizing both. The painting is a revelation to one who -has seen only the earlier Homeric monuments. - -It may first be noticed that Polyphemos is represented outside of his -cave, and that the attack upon his big eye is about to take place. This -is quite opposed to Homer and Euripides, yet more than half the charm of -the scene lies in the _naïveté_ with which the artist disposes of the -giant. A glance at the words of the poet will make this clearer. -Odysseus and his chorus of satyrs have fixed upon the means for -overcoming the Kyklops. They beg Odysseus for permission to take a hand -in preparing the fatal pole; - - δεῖ γοῦν· μέγας γὰρ δαλός, ὃν ξυλληπτέον. v. 472. - -says the son of Laertes, but when he came to the point where he really -needed their help they made every manner of excuse; some were suddenly -seized with lameness; others had dust in their eyes. But he knew that it -would turn out so, and he relies on his own companions, - - ... τοῖσι δ’ οἰκείοις φίλοις - χρῆσθαί μ’ ἀνάγκη. vs. 650 f. - -This is well brought out, whether intentionally or not I do not say, for -it is Greeks who are lifting the δαλός, and as for its size every one -will agree that it is μέγας. The two satyrs, representing the chorus, -dance around lustily the while, having smelt the contents of the -wineskin (v. 153 f.). As soon as the plan has been decided upon, -Polyphemos appears again, having already sated his appetite on two of -the Greeks, and having had at least a taste of the wine. What could -prepare one better for the appreciation of the figure on the vase than -his own words? - - παπαπαῖ, πλέως μὲν οἴνου, - γάνυμαι δὲ δαιτὸς ἥβῃ - σκάφος ὁλκὰς ὡς γεμισθεὶς - ποτὶ σέλμα γαστρὸς ἄκρας. - ὑπάγει μ’ ὁ χόρτος εὔφρων - ἐπὶ κῶμον ἦρος ὥραις, - ἐπὶ Κύκλωπας ἀδελφούς. - φέρε μοι, ξεῖνε, φέρ’ ἀσκὸν ἔνδος μοι. vs. 503 ff. - -His proposal to go and share his good fortune with the brother Kyklopes -does not meet the approval of Odysseus, who bids him keep his good -things to himself and enjoy them. Seilenos goes even further and says— - - κλίθητί νύν μοι πλεῦρα θεὶς ἐπὶ χθονός. v. 543. - -and Polyphemos takes up the suggestion at once, for we hear him ask - - τί δῆτα τὸν κρατῆρ’ ὄπισθε μου τίθης; v. 545. - -There can be little doubt that these verses particularly interested the -artist. Well satisfied with the newly discovered drink, the Kyklops has -dropped down upon his side as Seilenos recommended. The ἀσκός, which he -ordered extra, hangs beside him and upon the ground is a bowl[262]. Both -of these have evidently been drained. The inhuman monster sleeps on, -quite in the manner of Euripides, in the presence of the active -preparations for his own ruin. - - - § 9. MEDEIA. - -The heroine of this tragedy of Euripides is one of the most imposing and -terrible figures that has come down to us from ancient Greek literature. -It is not, however, the magician of strange power, who assisted Jason in -winning the Golden Fleece and in performing his other Kolchian -adventures, that overawes one; neither is it the sorceress who worked -her wonders on Pelias, but rather the Medeia who avenged her slighted -honour through the destruction of Jason’s newly won bride and his two -sons; it is the Medeia _at Corinth_ that we know best, the Medeia of -Euripides. This chapter in the barbarian’s career assumed under his hand -a prominence which far exceeded anything that had gone before. -Euripides’ Medeia has remained ever since _the_ Medeia of art and -letters. - -In early Greek art Medeia is not a common figure, and when she does -occur it is invariably as the sorceress[263]. In this rôle one meets her -on both black and red figured vases[264], and on the famous relief in -the Lateran[265]. After the beginning of the fourth century B.C. the -Corinthian Medeia predominates. As such one finds her on vases from -Lower Italy, Apulia and Campania especially, on Pompeian wall -paintings[266], on terra cottas[267], gems[268], and the Roman -sarcophagi[269]. - -[Illustration: - - Fig. 23 (_vid. p. 145 ff._) -] - -The most famous vase upon which we find Medeia is the great amphora in -Munich[270], found in Canosa, the ancient Canusium, in Apulia, Oct. 16, -1813. The painting consists of three sections of figures parallel with -the perimeter of the vase. The two upper ones are divided in the middle -by a building with six Ionic columns. On the inside hang two round -shields—a common decoration in this sort of picture. On the right, -inside of the house, is a chair or θρόνος, over the arm-rest of which a -richly dressed female figure has fallen; above on the frieze the -inscription ΚΡΕΟΝΤΕΙΑ (sc. ΠΑΙΣ) shows the person to be Kreusa, or -Glauke[271], the daughter of Kreon. Rushing rapidly towards her from the -right is a youth in petasos and chlamys. He has already reached the -upper step of the palace and is attempting to remove Kreusa’s -head-dress. Incised in the vase is the name ΙΠΠΟΤΗΣ[272]. On the left an -elderly male figure, bearded, wearing long, richly embroidered chiton, -hurries to Kreusa. One hand is placed behind her as though to support -the body; the other, from which the sceptre has just fallen, clutches -his hair. He gazes to one side in a dazed sort of manner. On the frieze -above is ΩΝ, evidently the last letters of ΚΡΕΩΝ[273]. To the left -outside of the palace, and somewhat lower, an elderly woman in long -chiton and mantle runs toward the scene of the tragedy, extending her -left hand and holding her right to her head in the usual attitude of -fright. She is designated by the inscription, incised, as -ΜΕΡΟΠΗ[274]—most likely the wife of Kreon. Further on the left is a -group of two, a pedagogue in the usual costume, and a female attendant. -The former is hurrying towards the palace, while the latter attempts to -divert him from his onward rush. - -To the right from Hippotes is another female figure, _en face_, who -appears to be leaving the palace. Her dress, especially the veil, and -her bearing point her out as a nurse or servant of Kreusa. Just in front -of the latter upon the ground is the open box in which the baneful -presents were brought. - -The lower section is divided into two parts by Medeia’s dragon-chariot, -held in readiness by the charioteer with a burning torch in either hand. -The upper part of the latter’s body is nude. There can be little doubt -that the figure is female. The inscription ΟΙΣΤΡΟΣ shows it to be -Οἴστρος, the personification of Medeia’s rage. On the left, Medeia, -ΜΗΔΕΙΑ[275], with richly decorated oriental costume and Phrygian cap, -advances to the right with drawn sword to kill one son whom she grasps -by the hair with the left hand. It is not easy to say whether the boy -has taken refuge on the altar, or whether his mother has lifted him upon -it. More probably the latter is true. The lad is nude, with the -exception of a garment over his left shoulder. He wears bracelets and on -the left leg an anklet. Immediately behind Medeia a doryphoros, dressed -as Hippotes, but with two spears instead of a sword, hurries to the left -with the second boy, dressed as is the other. On the right of the -chariot and hastening impetuously to rescue his son is Jason, ΙΑΣΩΝ. He -is bearded and has a sword and long spear. His chlamys is thrown over -his left arm. Beside him, but moving at slackened speed, another -doryphoros extends the right hand towards the chariot as though to warn -Jason of the futility of his intervention. Above this group on the right -is a bearded male figure, pointing towards the events transpiring below. -He wears a long royal dress and Phrygian cap, and carries a sceptre in -his left. ΕΙΔΩΛΟΝ ΑΗΤΟΥ, incised, indicates him as the ghost of Aetes, -Medeia’s father. - -The upper section is bounded on either side by a Corinthian column -surmounted by a tripod. Herakles, with club, bow and quiver, and lion’s -skin, stands on the left facing Athene, who sits upon a _terrain_. She -has her helmet in her right hand and leans against her shield. The spear -is not wanting. On the right are two male figures, one sitting, the -other standing. The oil-cruses and strigils, as well as the two stars -and the pilos, near the one who sits, designate them as the Dioskouroi. - -We turn now to a closer consideration of our vase to see if it is under -the influence of Euripides. Starting with the scene which the vase -painter has given us in Kreon’s palace, one cannot but be struck with -the agreement between the picture and the scene described by the poet -through the mouth of the messenger in the celebrated speech, vs. -1136–1230. This wonderful passage is the triumph of Euripidean rhetoric -in the _Medeia_. The two boys, together with their father, had entered -Kreusa’s apartment conveying the box with the rich vestment and golden -crown, and she, who had refused to listen to words and be softened, was, -woman-like, melted by these unexpected gifts. She accepts them, and -father and sons retire. She then arrays herself before the mirror, -admires her beauty, retreats across the room with proud, exulting step, -all too captivated by her gracious figure, when the terrible moment -comes— - - χροιὰν γὰρ ἀλλάξασα λεχρία πάλιν - χωρεῖ τρέμουσα κῶλα καὶ μόλις φθάνει - θρόνοισιν ἐμπεσοῦσα μὴ χαμαὶ πεσεῖν. vs. 1168–1170. - -There is a remarkable harmony between these words and the picture upon -the vase, where Kreusa lies a helpless mass across the arms of the -θρόνος. Her attitude suggests to one’s mind exactly the idea in -θρόνοισιν ἐμπεσοῦσα μὴ χαμαὶ πεσεῖν. Rarely has a vase painter come -nearer to _illustration_ than here. It had, indeed, been far easier to -paint Kreusa in her fallen position upon the floor, πίτνει δ’ ἐς οὖδας -(v. 1195), where the chair and the form of the body would have presented -no such difficulties in drawing as they do in the present position[276]. -Why was this not done? Simply, as I am convinced, because the painter -chose to present the most tragic moments, and shape them into the -greatest possible dramatic effect. He seized the crisis in Kreusa’s -dread struggle, when, doomed by the poison and flames, she _dropped_ -across the chair. Here, as in the scene below, the vase painter has -given evidence of dramatic power of a high degree, and I venture to -think that had he not been an artist he would have been a tragedian. - -Kreon, who, of course, could not be represented as falling upon the body -of Kreusa as he entered the room, ἄφνω προσελθὼν δῶμα προσπίτνει νεκρῷ -(v. 1205), while she was still resting on the chair[277], is painted in -the first moment of reaching the unfortunate one. He places his left -hand under her body, and, overcome by the horror of the sight, lets fall -his sceptre from his right hand as he gazes for a moment in transfixed -agony from his daughter’s situation. The position of the arms is exactly -that of the same figure on the sarcophagi reliefs[278], and no doubt -would be traceable through the five intervening centuries if the -monuments were at hand. Our vase would appear to represent here a -tradition that was always closely followed in representing Kreon in an -upright position. - -Merope, the mother, who is mentioned in Corinthian legends only as the -wife of Sisyphos[279] and of Polybos[280], does not appear at all in -Euripides. The painter’s principle was to name all the chief figures on -the vase, and it is not necessary to point out here another source than -the _Medeia_ of Euripides. A name thus known as belonging to Corinthian -royal families would be a natural invention for the wife of Kreon if -there was no legend to provide further information about her. I hold -this painting, however, as adequate evidence that there was a _third_ -Merope known in Corinth[281]. That the mother as well as the father -should be represented here is further witness of the spirit which the -poet breathed into his work. Medeia’s fixed determination to ruin all -her enemies at one blow and to root out the whole royal house in a day -(vs. 373 f.) is expressed in the extended scene here given, in a manner -well calculated to inspire the beholder with much that lies between the -lines in Euripides. There is absolutely no reason for claiming this -scene as an extension of that given in the poet, and therefore based -upon a post-Euripidean tragedy. One who denies the vase painter the -right to introduce figures foreign to the poet fails utterly in -comprehending the spirit of the fourth and third century vase painting. -The artists followed the number of characters in the poetical version no -more slavishly than they did the disposition and movement of the same. -Starting with what the poet gave them and holding this in mind as a -guide and inspiration in certain details, the painters proceeded to -create, as _independent_ artists, a similar scene, transfused, however, -with their own alterations. It is to be expected that in the over-filled -vase paintings of Apulia and Campania one will find figures that show a -wide liberty on the part of the painters, and that illustrate well how -much the severe methods of the Athenian vase painters had been altered -in Magna Graecia. - -Another instance of this same independence of the painter is seen in the -introduction of Hippotes, to whom there is not the slightest reference -in Euripides. In vs. 1168–1203, where Kreusa’s fate is described, no one -is referred to as present except the female attendants, who were -possessed with terror and lent no aid to their mistress. Kreon -unexpectedly entered, ξυμφορᾶς ἀγνωσίᾳ, and soon succumbed, a victim -together with his daughter. Why does Hippotes appear on the vase as the -one who is trying to liberate Kreusa? With Vogel[282] again the answer -_liegt auf der Hand: weil Euripides nicht die Quelle der Darstellung -ist_. Because the painter enlarged the scene of the poet, and was more -tragic and more dramatic than Euripides, a later or at least another -version of the myth is claimed as his authority. This appears to me -altogether _improbable_ and _unnecessary_. It is _improbable_ because, -as we have abundant reason to believe, Euripides’ version of the myth -was, both in Greek and Roman times, the most popular[283]. Other -_Medeias_ are mere names. Furthermore our vase cannot be dated later -than the second half of the fourth century B.C., i. e. not much more -than a century after the first appearance of the _Medeia_ in 431 B.C. -This is an important fact which seems to have been mostly overlooked. -Euripides, it must be remembered, ruled the fourth century B.C. as the -prophet of the time, and was hailed by the Greeks of the colonies and -the motherland with universal admiration. It is safe to say that no -Greek poet was more upon the lips of the people or more in their hearts. -Tardy as was the recognition of his genius during his lifetime, the -extent of his posthumous fame was unparalleled and his name rang through -Alexandrian and Hellenistic times as that of one of the immortals. Are -we to suppose then that a vase painter of Magna Graecia, who might have -lived with those who had seen Euripides, was, in dealing with the Medeia -myth, under the influence of some poet of a day? Was an artist who lived -in this proximity to Euripides’ own time likely to follow the guidance -of any other than the great master who created the Medeia character and -started her down the centuries in that unexampled rage and fury? We -dare, moreover, go further and claim with Robert that _die Vasen stehen -der Aufführungszeit der Medeia so nahe, dass sie den Werth directer -Zeugnisse beanspruchen dürfen_[284]. - -This explanation is _unnecessary_, for, as we have already pointed out, -the vase painters gave less heed to the subject-matter and the details -of the traditional types than to the general effect and dramatic -arrangement. It was possible to double the dramatic effect here through -the introduction of the bride’s brother, and the painter did not -hesitate to place him on the vase, although the poet did not refer to -him. The onward rush of this finely drawn figure, with his chlamys -fluttering in the wind, has altogether a dramatic air and brings one to -feel that the theatrical element, so much in the background in the fifth -century B.C., had taken possession of the fourth century work[285]. It -is surprising to find with what persistency certain scholars refuse such -additions as incompatible with the dependence of the work on a given -literary source. If the artist has done more than _illustrate_, all -relationship between him and the poet is denied. But let us turn to a -famous work where illustration pure and simple is meant, and we shall -discover that if one follows even there this mode of criticism, the poet -and the drawing which is meant to illustrate him will have to be -divorced. I refer to Botticelli’s drawings for Dante’s _Divina -Commedia_[286]. Each drawing is intended to bring out the events of the -_canto_ to which it is devoted, and so one expects only the incidents of -one _canto_ to appear in one drawing. The illustration for the -_Inferno_, _canto_ ii, represents Beatrice swinging upward in the air, -to whom Virgil is pointing and calling Dante’s attention. This is all a -pure invention of the artist as Beatrice is simply mentioned in the -text, and not at all thought of as present or appearing to the two -pilgrims. Had Botticelli then some other story in mind, and was there -another version of Dante than that which we have? Certainly not. The -artist, although in this place engaged as a mere illustrator, read his -own notions into Dante and put them into his drawing. Again, even on the -same plate, the entrance to the _Inferno_ is shown with the words _per -me_ over the door. This scene belongs to _canto_ iii, where in fact -Botticelli again introduces it. If, therefore, the third _canto_ and the -drawing that belongs to it had never reached us but we did possess -_canto_ ii and its illustration, how would the critics who read the -Greek vases as we have indicated, dispose of Botticelli and his -faithfulness to Dante? They would all declare that the famous painter -must have had another text which he followed. And so one may go on -multiplying instances in this one work to show that an artist, even when -he set out to follow the poet, was not able to do so[287]. - -There are also among the Pompeian wall paintings[288] some that are mere -illustrations and are in the spirit of this sort of work, and yet they -show various peculiar changes and additions contrary to the epigrams on -which they are based. One is to remember therefore that in the vase -paintings, where a more independent form of art is found than in -illustrations, a liberty in adding or omitting figures, that may often -disturb the form of the myth, is to be allowed. To select one example -from many: Euphronios[289] on the Eurystheus kylix represents Sthenelos -and his wife as present when Herakles brings the boar and is about to -drop it into the cistern where Eurystheus has taken refuge. That the -latter was king and had imposed the labours on Herakles, was proof -enough that Sthenelos was already dead. How then did Euphronios dare to -place him on the vase? Evidently because he took little heed of the -exactitude for which modern scholars would call him and others of his -trade to account. - -The old nurse who observed the first signs of her mistress’ precarious -condition—καὶ τις γεραιὰ προσπόλων ... ἀνωλόλυξε (vs. 1171–73)—or one of -the numerous attendants present (v. 1176) may be recognized in the -figure to the right from Hippotes. Perhaps this is more correctly the -one who broke away to convey the sad news to Jason—ἑ δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀρτίως -πόσιν, | φράσουσα νύμφης συμφοράς (vs. 1178 f.). This person with the -matronly air always occurs on the sarcophagi, but in the scene where the -two boys are handing over the gifts to Kreusa[290]. - -The position of the pedagogue on the opposite side is not so incongruous -as many have thought. There is really no reason for considering him a -sort of connecting link between the middle and lower sections, as Robert -has done[291]. Let us follow the pedagogue and the boys through the -play. At vs. 46 f. of the prologue the nurse reports the latter as -returning from their sport—ἐκ τρόχων πεπαυμένοι—and in vs. 89 ff. she -orders them inside the palace, - - ἴτ’, εὖ γὰρ ἔσται, δωμάτων ἔσω, τέκνα, - -and commands the pedagogue to keep them at a safe distance from their -mother, - - σὺ δ’ ὡς μάλιστα τούσδ’ ἐρημώσας ἔχε, - καὶ μὴ πέλαζε μητρὶ δυσθυμουμένῃ. - -At v. 105 the three disappear and nothing more is heard of them till -Medeia, who is addressing Jason and the chorus, cries out in v. 894— - - ὦ τέκνα, τέκνα, δεῦτε, λείπετε στέγας, - ἐξέλθετ’. - -Hereupon the boys appear in the orchestra, _unaccompanied_ by their -pedagogue, and remain with Medeia and Jason till vs. 969 ff., where -their mother hands them the gifts and bids them go, ὁς τάχιστα (v. 974), -to Kreusa and place the same in her hands. They then depart with their -father and deliver the presents in the manner afterwards described by -the messenger (vs. 1136–1155), and in company with Jason leave Kreusa’s -apartments. Just outside somewhere the pedagogue joins them and appears -with the children in the orchestra to inform Medeia that her sons have -been pardoned (vs. 1002 ff.). Immediately thereafter she orders the -pedagogue to go inside, - - ... ἀλλὰ βαῖνε δωμάτων ἔσω - καὶ παισὶ πόρσυν’ οἶα χρὴ καθ’ ἡμέραν. vs. 1019 f. - -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]. - -[Illustration: - - 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. - -[Illustration: - - 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. - -[Illustration: - - 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· - -[Illustration: - - 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. - -[Illustration: - - 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: - - The following, given by Hartwig, _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 154 ff., may be - mentioned as supplementing the list in Jahn’s well-known essay, - _Pentheus und die Mainaden_, Kiel, 1841. - - (1) Attic pyxis, Louvre; pub. _Jahrbuch_, 1892, p. 156; date 420–400 - B.C. - - (2) Kylix in _Museo di Papa Giulio_, Rome, described by Hartwig, _op. - cit._ p. 163, who thinks it may have well been influenced by - Euripides, but he sets the date of the _Bakchai_ at 410 B.C.! I have - not seen the vase nor any publication of it, but should infer from - Hartwig’s description that it is older than the tragedy. - -Footnote 174: - - Lucanian fabric, no. 807 in Jahn’s cat., pub. Jahn’s _Pentheus und die - Mainaden_, pl. ii. a; Reinach-Millingen, _Peintures_, pl. 5 = - Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, ii. no. 1396. - -Footnote 175: - - The original shows no trace of the fire that is so prominent in the - publications. There can, however, be no doubt that a _burning_ torch - was meant, if not so painted originally. - -Footnote 176: - - vs. 954 ff., 1052, 1061 ff. - -Footnote 177: - - P. 25 above. It should be noted that this is the first example of a - Pentheus scene discovered in Pompeii or Herculaneum. - -Footnote 178: - - P. 23 above. - -Footnote 179: - - The episode seems to have been first told in the Ἰλίου Πέρσις of - Arktinos. Polyxena being led by Neoptolemos to the tomb of Achilles - appears on an Attic bl. fig. vase of _cir._ 550 B.C., vid. Berlin cat. - 1902; pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 27. 17. Two gems of the severe - style in the Berlin Antiquarium (nos. 489, 490), pub. Overbeck, _op. - cit._ pl. 27. 13 and 14, also represent the sacrifice. The painting in - the Pinakotheke of the Propylaia may have been by Polygnotos (cf. p. - 21 above), and if it was, Euripides no doubt had often seen it. This - showed her about to be sacrificed; Paus. 1. 22. 6. - -Footnote 180: - - ‘Megarian Bowls’ is a name applied to a class of small cups decorated - with a band of relief. The ware is red or black, and appears both in - glazed and unglazed form. The largest number of the vases has been - found in Megara, hence the name ‘Megarian.’ As many have been - discovered also in Boeotia and other places, the present terminology - is somewhat misleading. Examples of this ware are to be found in every - large museum in Europe. The British Museum possesses no less than nine - such cups, and fragments from fourteen others (vid. cat. iv. pp. - 251–256). The reliefs illustrate mostly scenes from the Theban and - Trojan Cycles. Whether the terra cotta presented a cheap way of - reproducing silver and gold cups, which were highly prized, and served - therefore the place of our casts, or whether the bowls were made from - special moulds and are to be considered independent works of art, is - quite uncertain. The fact that there are in existence three copies of - the same work, each agreeing in every detail with the others, would - seem to point to the former supposition. Robert, who has handled this - set of monuments most thoroughly, distinguishes two classes: (1) the - whole vase is cast from one mould; (2) the reliefs having been made - separately are stamped on the ready bowl. Vid. especially Robert’s - _Homerische Becher_ for the whole question; cf. also p. 27 ff. above. - -Footnote 181: - - Fig. 12, pub. by Robert, _op. cit._ p. 73 ff. - -Footnote 182: - - Fig. 13: pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. pl. 12; Welcker, _Alte Denkmäler_, - iii. pl. 23. 2; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 28. 2. - -Footnote 183: - - The first play belonged to the trilogy containing the _Aigeus_ and - _Theseus_, which made up a set of purely Attic interest. It is well - known that Euripides deepened and widened the belief in the Athenian - heroic period. - -Footnote 184: - - Suidas names an _Hippolytos_ of Lykophron—a poet of Alexandria. - -Footnote 185: - - The _Phaedra_ seems to have followed the first _Hippolytos_ of - Euripides. - -Footnote 186: - - Cf. _Met._ 15, vs. 497 ff., and _Heroid._ 4. - -Footnote 187: - - Cat. iv. F 272, pub. by Braun, _Mon. ed Annali_, 1854, pl. 16; - Engelmann’s _Atlas zum Homer_, ii, _Odyssee_, pl. 15. 93. First - correctly interpreted by Heydemann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1871, p. 158 ff.; cf. - also Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 66 f., and Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. - 62 ff. The vase is Apulian ware. The lower zone represents the - violence of the Centaurs at the marriage of Peirithoös’ daughter, - Laodameia. Theseus and the father are seen rushing to the help of the - bride. - -Footnote 188: - - The fact that no succession of events, where one person appears more - than once, can be found in Hellenic art, forbids us interpreting this - group as again Phaidra and an attendant. I cannot, however, rid myself - of the feeling that the figure leaning on the _kline_ is not a - servant, but is more in rank with Phaidra. Her rôle is more than that - of the other attendants. This is shown by her attitude and dress. Her - appearance is exactly that required for Phaidra after she had ordered - her attendants to lift her up, remove her veil, and allow her hair to - drop over her shoulders (vs. 198–202). - -Footnote 189: - - Cf. the part of the pedagogue on the Medeia vase, fig. 23, p. 146. - -Footnote 190: - - There are, besides, fragments of several other reliefs. For the - literature vid. Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, p. 65 ff., and Jahn, - _Arch. Beiträge_, p. 300 ff. - -Footnote 191: - - Cf. vs. 201 ff. - -Footnote 192: - - Pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 5 and 6. - -Footnote 193: - - Pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 1, 2, 3. - -Footnote 194: - - So on the Constantinople relief, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1857, pl. 100 = - Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, pl. 9. 3; and on the Girgenti sarcophagi; - cf. note 1 above. - -Footnote 195: - - Clarac, _Musée de Sculpture_, pl. 213, no. 228, and _Mon. d. Inst._ - viii. pl. 38. 1 = _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. 5, pl. 12, and - Gerhard, _Antike Bildwerke_, pl. 26. - -Footnote 196: - - A number of vase paintings interpreted as Phaidra are not included - here since they all admit of a variety of interpretations. Vid. p. 179 - below. - -Footnote 197: - - The remarkable feature in these reliefs that shows non-Euripidean - influence is the letter which the old nurse hands to Hippolytos. This - points to another handling of the myth, where the former confined - herself to a written statement rather than a word of mouth proposal. - Strikingly in harmony with Euripides, however, is the position of the - trophos. She grasps Hippolytos’ elbow—ναὶ πρός δε τῆσδε δεξιᾶς - εὐωλένου (v. 605). Cf. also the Pompeian wall painting, _Mus. - Borbonico_, 8, pl. 52. This and other wall paintings represent the - scene between Hippolytos and the nurse as taking place in the presence - of Phaidra, who sits quite alone. - -Footnote 198: - - Cf. fig. 15. Cat. vol. iv. F 279; pub. by Kalkmann, _Arch. Ztg._ 1883, - pl. 6; vid. _ibid._ p. 43 ff. - -Footnote 199: - - Cf. a similar group in fig. 23. - -Footnote 200: - - The same group of divinities, with the exception of Apollo, occurs on - the Naples amphora, no. 3256, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ ii. 30, and Robert, - _Die Marathonschlacht_, p. 37; Robert calls attention to the fact that - this is an essentially Athenian assembly. Poseidon, Athena, and Pan - were inseparably associated with the Acropolis, the latter, of course, - after the battle of Marathon. The Naples vase represents a battle - between Greeks and barbarians, and according to Robert’s theory is - dependent upon Polygnotos’ painting in the Stoa Poikile. As - participants and spectators the gods occur in the upper section. - Athena, indeed, whirls into line on her chariot. If this ingenious - theory has hit the gist of the matter regarding the Naples painting, - then we may also claim the group of gods on the Hippolytos vase as - peculiarly Athenian. And such would be very appropriate for a picture - that represented an Attic tragedy, whose hero had a cult under the - shadow of the Acropolis. - -Footnote 201: - - vs. 1199 ff. - -Footnote 202: - - v. 1214; cf. also Ovid, _Met._ 15. 512, where the bull is described as - having his breast half out of the water. - -Footnote 203: - - Bk. ii. 4. - -Footnote 204: - - _Nat. Hist._ 35. 114. - -Footnote 205: - - Cf. _Mon. d. Inst._ vi. pl. 2; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 6. - -Footnote 206: - - Körte, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, ii. pl. 33–36. - -Footnote 207: - - The urn in the _Brit. Mus._, no. 6, pl. 36, _op. cit._, has two such - figures. - -Footnote 208: - - So Bergk and Ribbeck. - -Footnote 209: - - v. 234 ff. - -Footnote 210: - - Pliny, 35. 73, says of the picture, _oratorum laudibus celebrata_. - Numerous mentions are in fact made of it by the orators. Cf. - especially Cic. _Orat._ 22. 74. Vid. further, Brunn’s _Griech. - Künstler_, ii. p. 82 ff. - -Footnote 211: - - Discovered April 30, 1825, in the house of the ‘Tragic Poet’; pub. - Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, i. no. 807 = photo, Alinari, 12027. Vid. - Helbig, _Campanische Wandgemälde_, no. 1304. Here, however, Iphigeneia - is being carried (cf. Aisch. _Agam._ _loc. cit._), while Pliny speaks - of her as _stans_ in Timanthes’ painting. - -Footnote 212: - - Pub. Baumeister, _op. cit._ i. 806; vid. F.-W. no. 2143. - -Footnote 213: - - Vid. Michaelis in _Röm. Mitth._ 1893, p. 201 ff.; cf. p. 4 above. - -Footnote 214: - - Brunn, _I rilievi delle urne etrusche_, i. pl. 35–47. There are - altogether twenty-six reliefs, of which twenty-one belong to Perugia. - Cf. Schlie, _Die Darstellungen des troischen Sagenkreises auf - etruskischen Aschenkisten_, p. 60 f. - -Footnote 215: - - _Op. cit._ p. 81 f., but cf. my remarks on p. 10 ff. - -Footnote 216: - - Pub. by Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 51. - -Footnote 217: - - A second in Athens, pub. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1887, pl. 5; a third, on the - authority of Furtwängler (vid. Robert, _loc. cit._), in the Branthegem - coll. in Brussels. - -Footnote 218: - - So at least one thinks of the case. Agamemnon ought to have been - inside at this moment, shut off from the public gaze. The Greek drama, - however, had to bring outside, before the public as it were, even - those delicate scenes such as the present where the _interior_ of - Agamemnon’s tent should have been the scene. - -Footnote 219: - - The name occurs six times on the vase, and is always without an N. - This is strong epigraphical evidence that our spelling Klytaim_n_estra - is incorrect. - -Footnote 220: - - P. 113 f. - -Footnote 221: - - Vid. p. 179. - -Footnote 222: - - Cf. Aisch. _Agam._ v. 224 ff.; Eur. _Iph. T._ v. 8 and 360; _Iph. A._ - v. 873, 875, 935, 1177, are hardly to be taken in the literal sense. - -Footnote 223: - - _Elekt._ v. 157 and schol. - -Footnote 224: - - Cf. Proklos in Argum. to _Kypria_. - -Footnote 225: - - Frag. 123, and Paus. 1. 43. 1. - -Footnote 226: - - Bk. iv, ch. 103, and Paus. _loc. cit._ - -Footnote 227: - - Vid. Suidas s.v. - -Footnote 228: - - 1456^a. 6; 1453^b. 11. - -Footnote 229: - - Ribbeck, _Die römische Tragödie_, p. 50. - -Footnote 230: - - Ribbeck thinks of Naevius. - -Footnote 231: - - For these last two scenes as well as the others, vid. Robert, _Die - antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, vol. ii. pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177 - ff. - -Footnote 232: - - Fig. 17, from Raoul-Rochette, _Mon. inéd._ pl. 41. Heydemann, _cat. - Santangelo_, no. 24; cf. Trendelenburg in _Annali d. Inst._ 1872, p. - 114. - -Footnote 233: - - Vid. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 157^b, 168, 171. - -Footnote 234: - - A wall painting from Herculaneum, pub. _Pitture di Ercolano_, i. pl. - 12; Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 9; cf. Helbig, _Campanische - Wandgemälde_, no. 1334. Another painting from Pompeii is published in - _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, pl. 13; for the same on pastes and gems cf. - Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30, and Furtwängler’s _Beschreibung der - geschnittenen Steine im Antiquarium_ (Berlin), nos. 791 ff. - -Footnote 235: - - Fig. 18 from a Ruvo amphora in Naples. Heydemann, no. 3223. Pub. _Mon. - d. Inst._ ii. pl. 43; Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 4. Vid. _Annali - d. Inst._ vol. ix. p. 198 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 137; Vogel, - _Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 70 ff. - -Footnote 236: - - Cf. v. 1463, where the poet says Iphigeneia is to be κλῃδοῦχος for the - Brauronian Artemis. In Aisch. _Supp._, also, Io is spoken of as at one - time κλῃδοῦχος ἥρας. Cf. v. 291. - -Footnote 237: - - Cf. the monuments in Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30, that represent - this scene; and the central group on the front side of the Munich - sarcophagus, _op. cit._ no. 167. - -Footnote 238: - - Artemis sits on an altar in fig. 21, as do Orestes and Pylades on an - Etruscan mirror; vid. Gerhard’s _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. 239, and v. - 117. Neoptolemos jumps upon the βωμός in the _Andromache_ (v. 1123) to - avoid his foes. Cf. fig. 10, p. 84. - -Footnote 239: - - Cf. Robert, _op. cit._ nos. 177 and 178, the Berlin and Weimar - Sarcophagi, and no. 180, a fragment in the court of the Palazzo - Mattei. Robert properly refers to the next following moment when - Orestes and Pylades are left alone with the chorus, Iphigeneia having - gone inside to bring the letter. In order to obtain just the - sarcophagi scenes we have but to allow Iphigeneia to withdraw after - the close of her speech, v. 642. - -Footnote 240: - - Robert, _op. cit._ pl. 57–59, and p. 165 f. and 177 ff.; _Arch. Ztg._ - 1875, p. 134 ff. - -Footnote 241: - - The two wall paintings published by Overbeck, _Bildwerke_. pl. 30, - nos. 31 and 14, and interpreted as representing this same moment, have - since been explained by Petersen, _Arch. Ztg._ 1863, p. 113 ff., as - belonging to the _Alkestis_. While the former view has been generally - given up, the latter has not by any means been everywhere accepted. It - is, at most, probable. - -Footnote 242: - - Fig. 19, pub. _Arch. Ztg._ 1849, pl. 12 = Overbeck, _op. cit._ pl. 30. - 7 = _Mon. d. Inst._ iv. pl. 51. Vid. also under ‘Iphigeneia’ in - Baumeister, and Roscher. Cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. 72 ff., and _Arch. - Ztg._ 1875 p. 136. - -Footnote 243: - - Fig. 20, no. 420, in the cat. of the Hermitage, pub. _Mon. d. Inst._ - vi. pl. 66; cf. _Annali d. Inst._ 1862, p. 116 ff., and Stephani in - _Compte Rendu_, 1863, p. 159 ff. - -Footnote 244: - - _Compte Rendu_, _loc. cit._ - -Footnote 245: - - Fig. 21; pub. in the _Bullettino archeologico Napolitano_, 1862, pl. - 7, and in Brunn’s _Vorlegeblätter_, pl. 13. 1. Cf. also Vogel, _op. - cit._ p. 74 ff. - -Footnote 246: - - P. 124. - -Footnote 247: - - Cf., however, Laborde’s _Vases Lamberg_, i. p. 14, also _Annali d. - Inst._ 1848, pl. L, and Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 30. 8, for a vase - which probably shows the escape with the idol. It is not certain, but - this seems to be what is represented. The work is very ordinary. - -Footnote 248: - - Helbig, no. 1333, pub. in _Mon. d. Inst._ viii. pl. 22; photo, - Alinari, no. 12029. Cf. Helbig, _Untersuchungen über die Campanische - Wandmalerei_, p. 147 ff. - -Footnote 249: - - _Arch. Ztg._ 1875, p. 144. - -Footnote 250: - - _Loc. cit._ - -Footnote 251: - - Vid. _Röm. Mitth._ 1896, p. 67. - -Footnote 252: - - We know of such an original, the famous painting of Timomachus. Pliny, - _Hist. Nat._ 35. 136, says, _Timomachus Byzantius Caesaris dictatoris - aetate Aiacem et Medeam pinxit_ ... TIMOMACHI AEQUE LAUDANTUR ORESTES, - IPHIGENIA IN TAURIS. Further than this we know nothing of the painter. - That he was immensely popular follows from Pliny’s statement (_loc. - cit._) that Caesar paid 80 talents for this Aiax. In regard to the - date of Timomachus we possess Pliny’s authority for _Caesaris aetate_. - Robert defends this (_Arch. Märchen_, p. 132), while others seek to - find an earlier date. Miss Sellers in _The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on - the History of Art_, Jex-Blake and Sellers, p. 160 f., argues for the - fourth century B.C. Vid. _loc. cit._ for the latest discussion of this - painter’s date, as well as for references to the literature. Further - reference may be made to Helbig, _Untersuchungen_, p. 147 ff., where - especially the influence of Timomachus on the wall paintings is dwelt - upon. - -Footnote 253: - - Cf. Arist. _Poet._ 1449^a. 19 and 20. - -Footnote 254: - - Miss Harrison, _J. H. S._ 1883, p. 248 ff., has brought together and - discussed thirteen vases connected with this myth, of which the first - twelve are bl. fig. - -Footnote 255: - - v. 99, Odysseus says he thinks they have dropped down on a city of - Bromios, so many are the satyrs whom he sees before the cave. - -Footnote 256: - - P. 23. - -Footnote 257: - - Pliny 35, 74. A _Cyclops dormiens_ so large that a number of satyrs - were engaged in measuring his thumb with a thyrsos. I follow Robert - (_Bild und Lied_, p. 35) and Winter (_Jahrbuch_, 1891, p. 272) in - connecting this painting with Euripides. - -Footnote 258: - - The painting is on a krater in the possession of Sir Francis Cook, - Richmond, England; pub. by Winter, _Jahrbuch_, 1891, pl. 6. He thinks - the work Attic, but Furtwängler (_Masterpieces_, p. 109, note 8) is - sure it is Lower Italy ware. - -Footnote 259: - - The three eyes are plainly visible. One huge eye alone in the centre - of the forehead belongs to later times. - -Footnote 260: - - Furtwängler, _loc. cit._, remarks that the publication is not exactly - correct, as fire is plainly noticeable on the wood that the youths are - contributing. - -Footnote 261: - - Polyphemos here is strikingly like the figure on an Etruscan urn. - Brunn, _I rilievi_, i. pl. 873. The Kyklops is in both cases stretched - out upon his left side, and is on the point of being attacked. - -Footnote 262: - - The poet mentions the krater, and in the next breath the skyphos, - neither of which is exactly found in the rough sketch in the painting. - Besides these, Euripides names in this play the kylix, amphora, and - pithos—a considerable vocabulary of ceramic terms. - -Footnote 263: - - My remark applies only to the extant monuments, for one finds that - Pausanias saw the marriage of Jason and Medeia represented on the - Kypselos Chest (5. 18. 3). This is in keeping with the Corinthian - origin of the Chest. It is hardly to be expected that such domestic - events in Medeia’s career would have found their place in any work of - art that was not made in Corinth, or at least in a place essentially - influenced by Corinthian legend. - -Footnote 264: - - Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 58. - -Footnote 265: - - Benndorf und Schöne, _Die antiken Bildwerke des Lateranensischen - Museums_, p. 61 ff.; F.-W. no. 1200. The Berlin copy of this relief, - long supposed to be of Renaissance origin, has lately been proved to - be antique; vid. Kekulé von Stradonitz in _Jahrbuch_, 1897, p. 96 ff. - -Footnote 266: - - Cf. Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. p. 142; ii. p. 875; iii. p. 1852. - -Footnote 267: - - Kekulé’s _Die antiken Terracotten_, ii. p. 21. - -Footnote 268: - - Vid. Roscher’s _Lexikon_, ii. p. 2513. - -Footnote 269: - - Robert in _Die antiken Sarkophag-Reliefs_, ii. p. 205–217, gives all - the literature; cf. also pl. 62–65. Vid. _Arch. Ztg._ 1866, p. 234 - ff.; _Annali d. Inst._ 1869, p. 5 ff.; Urlichs’ _Würzburger Programm, - ein Medea-Sarkophag_, 1888. (This fine sarcophagus is now in the - Berlin museum.) Robert and Urlichs have, to my mind, shown - conclusively that these reliefs go back to Euripides’ _Medeia_ for - their literary source. Notwithstanding that they all date from about - the second century A.D., and could thus be based on various Roman - plays, the arrangement of the events on the reliefs bears a remarkable - similarity to the scenes in Euripides. The reliefs on the long sides - are taken up with exactly the scenes of the Greek poet. Those on the - ends are but indifferently worked out, and often do not represent any - events in the Medeia-Jason adventures. - -Footnote 270: - - A half-tone reproduction of the vase is shown in the _frontispiece_. - The section with the painting is given separately in fig. 23. It is - no. 810 in Jahn’s catalogue; pub. in Millin’s _Tombeaux de Canose_, - 1816, pl. 7; _Arch. Ztg._ 1847, pl. 3; _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, ser. - i. pl. 12; Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, ii. p. 903; Roscher’s _Lexikon_, - ii. p. 2510; Inghirami, _Vasi fitt._ iv. pl. 388; Engelmann, - _Bilderatlas zu Ovid_, pl. 13, 81. Discussed by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._ - 1847, p. 33 ff.; _ibid._ (by Dilthey) 1875, p. 68 f.; Robert, _Bild - und Lied_, p. 37 ff., and _Hermes_, vol. 30, p. 567 note; Körte, - _Ueber Personificationen psychologischer Affecte_, p. 38 ff.; Vogel, - _Scenen eur. Trag._ p. 146 ff.; Seeliger in Roscher’s _Lexikon_, _loc. - cit._; Bethe, _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_, - p. 148, note 6. - -Footnote 271: - - The latter name is found in schol. Eur. _Med._ v. 19, and in Hyginus. - _fab._ 25. - -Footnote 272: - - Diod. Sic. iv. 55. 5, calls Kreusa’s brother Hippotes. - -Footnote 273: - - The reading Κ ... ΩΝ in Millin’s publication, followed also by Conze - in the _Vorlegeblätter_ and by Baumeister, is incorrect as Jahn (vid. - cat. no. 810, note) expressly stated, and as is plainly proved by a - glance at the original. Hence the useless conjectures that have been - made to fill up the space between the first and last letters. There is - absolutely no trace of the Κ, but there are faint remains of letters - preceding ΩΝ, and the correct reading is without question, ΚΡΕ]ΩΝ. - -Footnote 274: - - Cf. p. 152, and note 3. - -Footnote 275: - - This inscription, which is very distinct, does not appear in Conze’s - publication. All the inscriptions occurring on the palace are painted - in white. All others are incised. - -Footnote 276: - - This moment is shown on another vase (vid. fig. 24), and so, too, on - the sarcophagi Kreusa is always represented in the moment of falling - or springing from the κλίνη. - -Footnote 277: - - In spite of this, Vogel, p. 149, asks, _Warum zeigt uns der Vasenmaler - den Kreon nicht in dem Augenblicke, wo er seine Tochter von den - unheilvollen Brautgeschenken der Medeia befreien will, sondern in dem, - wo er überwältigt von dem Unglücke das Scepter seinen Händen entfallen - lässt und starr und seiner selbst nicht mehr mächtig seine Blicke auf - die herbeieilende Merope lenkt?_ i. e. why did the vase painter not - paint another scene instead of the one he did? - -Footnote 278: - - Cf. note 7, p. 145. On fragment no. 197, Robert, _op. cit._, the arms - of Kreon are incorrectly restored, and his hands are represented as - clasped. On all the reliefs Kreon is turned towards Kreusa and not - away, as on the vase. I refuse, however, to believe with Jahn and - others that Kreon is staring at Merope. He sees nothing and nobody. - -Footnote 279: - - Apollod. I. 9. 3. - -Footnote 280: - - Soph. _Oed. Rex_, v. 775, the wife of Πόλυβος Κορίνθιος. - -Footnote 281: - - Supposing the word to be a pure invention of the painter, there are - still in Euripides suggestions of the name if one were seeking such - for the figure. In v. 404, Medeia declares she ‘will not be a - laughing-stock to the race of _Sisyphos_ and Jason’s new alliances’; - and in v. 1381, γη δε τηδε Σισύφου, the former queens would be - suggested with the name Merope. It is but natural that the vase - painter took the name thus suggested by Euripides. - -Footnote 282: - - P. 149. - -Footnote 283: - - Suidas refers to a _Medeia_ by Neophron. Ennius’ _Medea_ was, - according to Cicero, _De Fin._ 1. 2. 4, a literal translation from - Euripides. The _Medea exul_ by the same poet has generally been held - to be a version of Euripides’ _Aigeus_. - -Footnote 284: - - _Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 567 note. - -Footnote 285: - - _Bild und Lied_, p. 42. - -Footnote 286: - - _Zeichnungen von Sandro Botticelli zu Dantes Goettlicher Komoedie nach - den Originalen im König. Kupferstichkabinet zu Berlin_, von Dr. F. - Lippmann. - -Footnote 287: - - In _canto_ iii, Charon is an old man; Botticelli drew him as the - devil. In the second plate to this same _canto_ the souls are swimming - out to Charon’s boat, a fact which Dante does not mention. The - illustration to _canto_ xx has only two persons identical with those - of the poet, and in _Purgatorio_ iii the souls on the shore and in the - boat are additions of the artist. - -Footnote 288: - - Cf. Dilthey in _Annali d. Inst._ 1876, p. 294, and pl. 35 in _Mon. d. - Inst._ x. - -Footnote 289: - - Vid. Klein’s _Euphronios_, p. 89, and Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Her. - Fur._ vol. ii, ed. 1, p. 214. - -Footnote 290: - - Cf. fig. 24, where the female figure on the left is none other than a - nurse. - -Footnote 291: - - _Bild und Lied_, p. 38. - -Footnote 292: - - Cf. figs. 24 and 25 and Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. p. 142. - -Footnote 293: - - It will be observed that the writer does not share the view of Bethe, - _Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum_, p. 142 ff., - that the _Flugmaschine_ was not in use in the Greek theatre before 425 - B.C. Robert, _Hermes_, vol. 31, p. 530–577, has conclusively shown the - incorrectness of Bethe’s arguments, and not only proved the use of the - _Flugmaschine_ for the _Medeia_, 431 B.C., but also for a much earlier - date. Bethe’s remark, _Demnach ist für die erste Aufführung der Medea - im Jahre 431 ihr Erscheinen in der Höhe, also auch die Anwendung der - Flugmaschine, nicht möglich_ (p. 146), is based upon a false - conception of the resources at hand in that period of Athenian - architectural activity. - -Footnote 294: - - It has already been pointed out above, p. 159, that Medeia entered the - palace to slay the boys, and that they might or might not have been - alone. At any rate it was not allowable to represent them in art - without some older companion. Robert’s remark, _Bild und Lied_, p. 39, - _Den Kindern die bereits bei der Mutter angelangt sind, muss aber - jetzt noch ein anderer Begleiter zugestellt werden_, is inexplicable. - Where had the children gone to reach their mother? Was it not just the - reverse, viz. that the mother had gone to them? - -Footnote 295: - - iv. 54. 7. - -Footnote 296: - - One must remember that Diodorus gathered his excerpts together at - least 300 years after the date of our vase, during all of which time - the mythographers had been busy helping to straighten out the family - affairs that the tragedians of the fifth century had treated - imperfectly! - -Footnote 297: - - As a matter of fact this reference, although brought in under another - φασί than the first remark, where three sons are named, τοὺς μὲν - πρεσβυτάτους δίο διδύμους Θετταλόν τε καὶ Ἀλκιμένην, τὸν δὲ τρίτον - πολυνεώτερον τούτων Τίσανδρον, iv. 54. 1, seems to me to speak of a - common origin, and I hold both as coming from the same authority, - under whose influence our vase painter certainly never stood. - -Footnote 298: - - Eur. _Orest._ v. 791. - -Footnote 299: - - As in the _Medeia_, nothing is said to indicate how the chariot was - drawn. It is only from the monuments and later literary references - (vid. Argum. to the _Medeia_ and schol. on v. 1320) that one learns of - the dragons; or is the utterance of Jason, vs. 1297 f., ἢ πτηνὸν ἆραι - σῶμ’ ες αἰθέρος βάθος | εἰ μὴ τυράννων δώμασιν δώσειν δίκην | πέποιθ’, - an intimation of the strange escape of the sorceress? How was Lyssa’s - chariot drawn? Why not also by dragons? - -Footnote 300: - - Cf. fig. 26, where the figure that stands beside the dragons has been - identified as Οἶστρος or Λύσσα. That the latter is the child of night - harmonizes well with the night escape indicated by Selene and the - stars on this vase. - -Footnote 301: - - On a vase of Assteas, vid. p. 179 below, which shows Herakles in the - act of murdering his sons, the painter calls the personification of - Lyssa, _mania_. - -Footnote 302: - - Mention should be made here of the Parian inscription, which gives us - the curious information that there was a society of _hetairai_ - established under the patronage of the goddess Οἰστρώ; cf. Pernice, - _Athen. Mitth._ 1893, p. 16. 2, and Maass, _ibid._ p. 25 f. There is, - of course, a wide distinction between the personification and the cult - use of οἶστρος, but it is worth while to point out that Eur. _Hipp._ - vs. 1300 ff., gives the same notion that Maass suggests and supports - by a quotation from Paullus Silentiarius (_Anth. Plan._ v. 234), where - οἰστροφόρου Παφίης occurs. Artemis, speaking to Theseus of Hippolytos’ - death and its cause, says, ἀλλ’ ἐς τόδ’ ἦλθον, παιδὸς ἐκδεῖξαι φρένα | - τοῦ σοῦ δικαίαν, ὁς ὑπ’ εὐκλείας θάνῃ | καὶ σῦς γυναικὸς οἶστρον, ἢ - τρόπον τινὰ | γενναιότητα, where we may suppose Euripides to have - thought of Phaidra as possessed with οἶστρος, which means τῆς ἐχθίστης - θεῶν (v. 1301), i.e. τῆς Κύπριδος (v. 1304). - -Footnote 303: - - Cf. Aisch. _Pers._ vs. 681–842, where the εἴδωλον of Dareios is one of - the _dramatis personae_. Also Eur. _Hek._, where the prologue is - spoken by the εἴδωλον of Polydoros. - -Footnote 304: - - Dilthey, _Arch._ 219, 1875, p. 71, followed also by Vogel, _Scen. eur. - Trag._ p. 151. How do these scholars account for the appearance of - Megara and her sons upon the ‘under-world’ vases where Herakles is - also represented in his last labour of capturing Kerberos? This latter - must have been finished and Herakles must have returned to the upper - world before Megara and the boys _could be thought of as in fact in - the under-world_. - -Footnote 305: - - _Bild und Lied_, p. 39 f. - -Footnote 306: - - P. 156 above. - -Footnote 307: - - Cp. among other places in the _Medeia_, vs. 133, 328, 405, 475 ff., - 536 ff., 550, 1330. - -Footnote 308: - - Cf. the Dareios vase in Naples, also found in Canosa; pub. - Baumeister’s _Denkmäler_, i. no. 449; also the costume of the judges - on the so-called ‘under-world’ vases, pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, - ser. E. 1–3. - -Footnote 309: - - Apoll. Rhod. 1. 122 and 341 ff.; Hyg. _fab._ 14; Diod. Sic. iv. 53. 4. - -Footnote 310: - - Apoll. Rhod. 1. 108 ff.; Apollod. 1. 9. 16; Hyg. _fab._ 14. - -Footnote 311: - - Apoll. Rhod. 1. 146 ff.; Paus., 1. 18. 1, relates that in the temple - of the Dioskouroi in Athens, known also as the Anakeion, Mikon painted - events from the Argonautic expedition. - -Footnote 312: - - Fig. 24. Heydemann, _cat. Mus. Santangelo_, no. 526. Pub. in - Raoul-Rochette’s _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 263. Discussed by Jahn, - _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 59, and referred to by Vogel, _Scen. eur. Trag._ - p. 151. - -Footnote 313: - - Fig. 25; pub. Raoul-Rochette, _Choiseaux de Peintures_, p. 277. - Described by Jahn, _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 60; cf. Vogel, _op. cit._ p. - 79. - -Footnote 314: - - Fig. 26. Heydemann, no. 3221, A. Cf. _Arch. Ztg._ 1867, p. 62 and pl. - 224. 1. - -Footnote 315: - - The Theban Cycle was handled in the Θηβαΐς and the Οἰδιπόδεια, from - which the tragedians probably drew their material. For the subject in - the fifth century B.C. vid. Benndorfs _Heroon von Gjölbaschi_, p. 187 - ff. and pl. 24. A1–A5. Kapaneus’ catastrophe in attempting to storm - the walls was often shown. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11, - nos. 13, 14, 16, 17. The death of Amphiaraos was another popular - story. Cf. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11. 8. 15. There are - many interesting monuments which represent the conference of the - chiefs before the assault. Cf. especially the famous Etruscan gem with - inscriptions naming Polyneikes, Amphiaraos, Adrastos, Tydeus, and - Parthenopaios; pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, pl. 11. 5; - Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, iii. no. 1839, no. 369 in _Bilderheft_. An - Etruscan mirror, Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, ii. pl. 178, gives - Adrastos, Amphiaraos, and Tydeus. - -Footnote 316: - - Brit. Mus., vase cat. vol. iv. G 104. Pub. _ibid._ pl. 16. Cf. _Class. - Review_, 1894, p. 325. - -Footnote 317: - - The fratricide, so common on the Etruscan urns, is rare on Greek - monuments. (1) The group was on the Kypselos Chest (Paus. 5. 19, 6). - (2) Pythagoras worked the brothers in marble (vid. Overbeck, - _Schriftquellen_, no. 501). (3) One group on the Heroön from - Gjölbaschi, cf. Benndorf, _op. cit._ pl. 24. A. 3. There are thirty - urns representing the scene: vid. Körte, _I rilievi delle urne - etrusche_, ii. pl. 8–20, and 36, and supplement. p. 261 ff. Cf. - further Overbeck’s _Bildwerke_, pl. 5 and 6. An Etruscan mirror, which - shows a composition remarkably like that in the inside of the - Penthesileia kylix (Munich, no. 370, pub. Overbeck, _Bildwerke_, pl. - 17. 3), and must be from a fifth century pattern, is perhaps the - oldest of the extant representations. Vid. Gerhard, _Etruskische - Spiegel_, v. pl. 95. - -Footnote 318: - - Brit. Mus., cat. iv. G 105_{1}; pub. _Wiener Vorlegeblätter_, 1889, - pl. 9. 13; Robert, _Homerische Becher_, p. 59; first correctly - interpreted by Murray, _Class. Rev._ 1888, p. 328. - - OXFORD: HORACE HART - PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES - - - 1. P. xx, changed “Scenen euripideisher Tragödien in griechischen - Vasengemälden” to “Scenen euripideischer Tragödien in griechischen - Vasengemälden”. - 2. P. 128, changed “In her left close by her side” to “In her left hand - close by her side”. - 3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling. - 4. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed. - 5. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at - the end of the last chapter. - 6. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. - 7. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript - character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in - curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}. - 8. Subscripts are denoted by an underscore before a series of - subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. H_{2}O. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GREEK TRAGEDY IN THE LIGHT OF VASE -PAINTINGS *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |