History of Ancient Pottery: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman....

Figured vases in ancient literature—Mythology and art—Relation of subjects on vases to literature—Homeric and dramatic themes and their treatment—Interpretation and classification of subjects—The Olympian deities—The Gigantomachia—The birth of Athena and other Olympian subjects—Zeus and kindred subjects—Hera—Poseidon and marine deities—The Eleusinian deities—Apollo and Artemis—Hephaistos, Athena, and Ares—Aphrodite and Eros—Hermes and Hestia.

The representation of subjects from Greek mythology or daily life on vases was not, of course, confined to fictile products. We know that the artistic instincts of the Greeks led them to decorate almost every household implement or utensil with ornamental designs of some kind, as well as those specially made for votive or other non-utilitarian purposes. But the fictile vases, from the enormous numbers which have been preserved, the extraordinary variety of their subjects, and the fact that they cover such a wide period, have always formed our chief artistic source of information on the subject of Greek mythology and antiquities.

Although (as has been pointed out in Chapter IV.) ancient literature contains scarcely any allusions to the painted vases, we have many descriptions of similar subjects depicted on other works of art, such as vases of wood and metal, from Homer downwards. The cup of Nestor (Vol. I. pp. 148, 172) was ornamented with figures of doves[1], and there is the famous description in the first Idyll of Theocritus[2] of the wooden cup (κισσύβιον) which represented a fisherman casting his net, and a boy guarding vines and weaving a trap for grasshoppers, while two foxes steal the grapes and the contents of his dinner-basket; the whole being surrounded, like the designs on some painted vases, with borders of ivy and acanthus. The so-called cup of Nestor (νεστορίς) at Capua[3] was inscribed with Homeric verses, and the σκύφος or cup of Herakles with the taking of Troy[4]. Anakreon describes cups ornamented with figures of Dionysos, Aphrodite and Eros, and the Graces[5]; and Pliny mentions others with figures of Centaurs, hunts and battles, and Dionysiac subjects[6]. Or, again, mythological subjects are described, such as the rape of the Palladion[7], Phrixos on the ram[8], a Gorgon and Ganymede[9], or Orpheus[10]; and other “storied” cups are described as being used by the later Roman emperors.

But the nearest parallels to the vases described in classical literature are probably to be sought in the chased metal vases of the Hellenistic and Roman periods.[11] We read of scyphi Homerici, or beakers with Homeric scenes, used by the Emperor Nero, which were probably of chased silver[12]; and we have described in Chapter XI. what are apparently clay imitations of these vases, usually known as “Megarian bowls,” many bearing scenes from Homer in relief on the exterior.

In attempting a review of the subjects on the painted vases, we are met with certain difficulties, especially in regard to arrangement. This is chiefly due to the fact that each period has its group of favourite subjects; some are only found in early times, others only in the later period. Yet any chronological method of treatment will be found impossible, and it is hoped that it will, as far as possible, be obviated by the general allusions in the historical chapters of this work to the subjects characteristic of each fabric and period.

Embracing as they do almost the whole field of Greek myth and legend, the subjects on Greek vases are yet not invariably those most familiar to the classical student or, if the stories are familiar, they are not always treated in accordance with literary tradition. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the popular conception of Greek mythology is not always a correct one, for which fact the formerly invariable system of approaching Greek ideas through the Latin is mainly responsible. The mythology of our classical dictionaries and school-books is largely based on Ovid and the later Roman compilers, such as Hyginus, and gives the stories in a complete connected form, regarding all classical authorities as of equal value, and ignoring the fact that many myths are of gradual growth and only crystallised at a late period, while others belong to a relatively recent date in ancient history.[13]

The vases, on the other hand, are contemporary documents, free from later euhemerism and pedantry, and presenting the myths as the Athenian craftsmen knew them in the popular folk-lore and religious observances of their day. It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that a vase-painter was never an illustrator of Homer or any other writer, at least before the fourth century B.C. (see Vol. I. p. 499). The epic poems, of course, contributed largely to the popular acquaintance with ancient legends, and offered suggestions of which the painter was glad to avail himself; but he did not, therefore, feel bound to adhere to his text. This will be seen in the list of Homeric subjects given below (p. 126 ff.); and we may also refer here to the practice of giving fanciful names to figures, which obtains at all periods, and has before now presented obstacles to the interpreter.

The relation of the subjects on vases to Greek literature is an interesting theme for enquiry, though, in view of what has already been said, it is evident that it must be undertaken with great caution. The antiquity and wide popularity of the Homeric poems, for instance, would naturally lead us to expect an extensive and general use of their themes by the vase-painter. Yet this is far from being the case. The Iliad, indeed, is drawn upon more largely than the Odyssey; but even this yields in importance as a source to the epics grouped under the name of the Cyclic poets. It may have been that the poems were instinctively felt to be unsuited to the somewhat conventional and monotonous style of the earlier vase-paintings, which required simple and easily depicted incidents. We are therefore the more at a loss to explain the comparative rarity of subjects from the Odyssey, with its many adventures and stirring episodes; scenes which may be from the Iliad being less strongly characterised and less unique—one battle-scene, for instance, differing little from another in method of treatment. But any subject from the Odyssey can be at once identified by its individual and marked character. It may be that the Odyssey had a less firm hold on the minds of the Greeks than the Iliad, which was more of a national epic, whereas the Odyssey was a stirring romance.[14] It may also be worth noting that scenes from the Odyssey usually adhere more closely to the Homeric text than those from the Iliad.

Another reason for the scarcity of Iliad-scenes may be that the Tale of Troy as a whole is a much more comprehensive story, of which the Iliad only forms a comparatively small portion. Hence the large number of scenes drawn both from the Ante-Homerica and the Post-Homerica, such as the stories of Troilos and Memnon, or the sack of Troy. The writings of the Cyclic poets begin, as Horace reminds us, ab ovo,[15] from the egg of Leda, and the Kypria included the whole story of the marriage of Peleus and Thetis, the subsequent Judgment of Paris, and his journey to Greece after Helen, scenes from all these events being extremely popular on the vases.[16] The Patrokleia deals with the events of the earlier years of the war, the Aithiopis of Arktinos with the stories of Penthesileia and Memnon, and the death of Achilles, and the Little Iliad of Lesches with the events of the tenth year down to the fall of Troy. All provided frequent themes for the vase-painter, as may be seen by a reference to a later page (119 ff.). The Iliupersis of Arktinos and Lesches might almost be reconstructed from two or three large vases, whereon all the episodes of the catastrophe are collected together (see p. 134); but when we come to the Nostoi of Agias and the Telegonia, the vase-painters suddenly fail us, the stories of Odysseus’ wanderings and Orestes’ vengeance seeming to supply the deficiency.

Luckenbach[17] has pointed out that the only right method of investigating the relation is to begin with vase-paintings for which the sources are absolutely certain, as with scenes from the Iliad and Odyssey. In this way the subjects from other epics can be rightly estimated and the contents of the poems restored. Further, in investigating the sources of the vase-painters, and the extent to which they adhered to them or gave free play to the imagination, the three main periods of vase-painting must be separately considered, though the results in each case prove to be similar. By way of exemplifying these methods he enters in great detail into certain vase-subjects, their method of treatment on vases of the different periods, and their approximation to the text. Thus, the funeral games for Patroklos (Il. xxiii.) are depicted on the François vase (see p. 11) with marked deviations from Homer’s narrative; and not only this, but without characterisation, so that if the performers were not named the subject could hardly have been identified. To note one small point, all Homeric races took place in two-horse chariots (bigae), but on B.F. vases four-horse quadrigae are almost invariably found.[18]

Subjects of a more conventional character, such as battle scenes, farewell scenes, or the arming of a warrior, present even more difficulty. Even when names occur it is only increased. We must assume that the vase-painter fixed on typical names for his personages, without caring whether he had literary authority. In some cases the genre scenes seem to be developed from heroic originals, in others the contrary appears to be the case.[19] It is not, however, unfair to say that the Epos was the vase-painter’s “source.” The only doubtful question is the extent of his inspiration; and, at all events, it was a source in the sense that no other Greek literature was until we come to the fourth century.

Turning now to the consideration of later literature,[20] we find in Hesiod a certain parallelism of theme to the vases, but little trace of actual influence. Indirectly he may have affected the vase-painter by his crystallisation of Greek mythology in the Theogony, where he establishes the number of the Muses (l. 77), and also the names of the Nereids.[21] It is, however, interesting to note the Hesiodic themes which were also popular with the vase-painters: the creation of Pandora; the fights of Herakles and Kyknos, and of Lapiths and Centaurs, and the pursuit of Perseus by the Gorgons; the contest of Zeus with Typhoeus (or Typhon); and the birth of Athena.[22]

The influence of lyric poetry was even slighter. Somewhat idealised figures of some of the Greek lyrists appear on R.F. vases, such as Sappho and Anakreon (see p. 152); but this is all. In regard to Pindar and Bacchylides, the idealising and heroising tendencies of the age may be compared with the contemporary tendency of vase-paintings, and the latter may often be found useful to compare with—if not exactly to illustrate—the legends which the two poets commemorate. For instance, in the ode of Bacchylides in which he describes the fate of Kroisos, there is a curious deviation from the familiar Herodotean version, the king being represented as voluntarily sacrificing himself.[23] The only vase-painting dealing with this subject (Fig. 132, p. 150) apparently reproduces this tradition.

With the influence of the stage we have already dealt elsewhere.[24] With the exception of the Satyric drama, it can hardly be said to have made itself felt, except in the vases of Southern Italy, in the fourth century B.C., but indications of the Satyric influence may be traced in many R.F. Attic vases, no doubt owing to their connection with the popular Dionysiac subjects. On a vase in Naples[25] are represented preparations for a Satyric drama. When we reach the time of tragic and comic influence, we not only find the subjects reproduced, but even their stage setting; in other words, the vases are not so much intended to illustrate the written as the acted play, just as it was performed.

(1) The Epos is the chief source of all vase-paintings from the earliest time to the decadence inclusive, and next comes Tragedy, as regards the later vases only; of the influence of other poetry on the formation of myths in vase-paintings there is no established example.

(2) Vase-paintings are not illustrations, either of the Epos or of the Drama, and there is no intention of reproducing a story accurately; hence great discrepancies and rarity of close adherence to literary forms; but the salient features of the story are preserved.

(3) Discrepancies in the naming of personages are partly arbitrary, partly due to ignorance; the extension of scenes by means of rows of bystanders, meaningless, but thought to be appropriate, is of course a development of the artist’s, conditioned by exigencies of space. Anachronisms on vases are of frequent occurrence.

(4) Such scenes as those of warriors arming or departing are always the painter’s own invention, ordinary scenes being often “heroised” by the addition of names. But individuals are not necessarily all or always to be named; and, again, the artist often gives names without individualising the figures.

The attention that has been paid now for many years to collecting, assorting, and critically discussing the material afforded by the vases has much diminished the difficulties of this most puzzling branch of archaeology. It has been chiefly lightened by the discovery from time to time of inscribed vases, though, as has just been noted, even these must be treated with caution; and even now, of course, there are numerous subjects the interpretation of which is either disputed or purely hypothetical. But we can at least pride ourselves on having advanced many degrees beyond the labours of early writers on the subject, down to the year 1850.

When painted vases first began to be discovered in Southern Italy, the subjects were supposed to relate universally to the Eleusinian or Dionysiac mysteries, and this school of interpretation for a long time found favour in some quarters, even in the days of Gerhard and De Witte. But it was obvious from the first that such interpretations did not carry the investigator very far, and even in the eighteenth century other systems arose, such as that of Italynski, who regarded the subjects as of historical import.[27] Subsequently Panofka endeavoured to trace a connection between the subjects and the names of artists or other persons recorded on the vases, or, again, between the subjects and shapes. The latter idea, of course, contained a measure of truth, as is seen in many instances[28]; but it was, of course, impossible to follow out either this or the other hypothesis in any detail.

The foundations of the more scientific and rational school of interpretation were laid as early as the days of Winckelmann, and he was followed by Lanzi, Visconti, and Millingen, and finally Otto Jahn, who, as we have seen, practically revolutionised the study of ceramography. Of late, however, the question of the interpretation of subjects has been somewhat relegated to the background, owing to the overwhelming interest evoked by the finds of early fabrics or by the efforts of German and other scholars to distinguish the various schools of painting in the finest period.

Millingen, in the Introduction to his Vases Grecs, drew up a classification of the subjects on vases which need not be detailed here, but which, with some modifications, may be regarded as holding good to the present day. He distinguishes ten classes, the first three mythological, the next four dealing with daily life, and the three last with purely decorative ornamentation. A somewhat similar order is adopted by Müller in his Handbuch, by Gerhard in his Auserlesene Vasenbilder, and by Jahn in his Introduction to the Munich Catalogue (p. cc ff.). In the present and following chapters the arrangement and classification of the subjects adhere in the main to the system laid down by these writers; and as the order is not, of course, chronological in regard to style, reference has been made where necessary to differences of epoch and fabric.[29] It may be convenient to recapitulate briefly the main headings under which the subjects are grouped.

The number of subjects to be found on any one vase is of course usually limited to one, two, or at most three, according to the shape. Usually when there is more than one the subjects are quite distinct from one another; though attempts have been made in some cases, as in the B.F. amphorae, to trace a connection.[30] On the other hand, the R.F. kylikes of the strong period often show a unity of subject running through the interior and exterior scenes, whether the theme is mythological or ordinary.[31] It was only in exceptional cases that an artist could devote his efforts to producing an entire subject, as on some of the large kylikes with the labours of Theseus,[32] or the vases representing the sack of Troy.[33] The great François vase in Florence is a striking example of a mythology in miniature, containing as it does more than one subject treated in the fullest detail. And here reference may be made to the main principles which governed the method of telling a story in ancient art, and prevailed at different periods.[34] The earliest and most simple is the continuous method, which represents several scenes together as if taking place simultaneously, although successive in point of time. This method was often employed in Oriental art, but is not found in Hellenic times; it was, however, revived by the Romans under the Empire, and prevailed all through the early stages of Christian art. Secondly, there is the complementary method, which aims at the complete expression of everything relating to the central event.

The same figures are not in this case necessarily repeated, but others are introduced to express the action of the different subjects, all being collected in one space without regard to time, as in the continuous style. This is of Oriental origin, and is first seen in the description of Achilles’ shield; it is also well illustrated in the François vase, in the story of Troilos. Here the death of Troilos is not indeed actually depicted, but the events leading up to it (the water-drawing at the fountain and the pursuit by Achilles) and those consequent on it (the announcement of the murder to Priam and the setting forth of Hector to avenge it) are all represented without the repetition of any figures. Lastly, there is the isolating method, which is purely Hellenic, being developed from the complementary. This is best illustrated by the Theseus kylikes, with their groups of the labours, which, it should be remembered, are not continuous episodes in one story, but single events separated in time and space, and collected together with a sort of superficial resemblance to the other methods.

Some description of the François vase has been given elsewhere (Vol. I. p. 370)[35]; but as it is unique in its comprehensiveness, and as a typical presentation of the subjects most popular at the time when vase-painters had just begun to pay special attention to mythology, it may be worth while to recapitulate its contents here. The subjects are no less than eleven in number, arranged in six horizontal friezes, with figures also on the handles, and there are in all 115 inscriptions explaining the names of the personages and even of objects (e.g. ὑδρία, for the broken pitcher of Polyxena). Eight of these subjects belong to the region of mythology:—