¹ Sale Catalogue, Sotheby, May 22–23, 1919, No. 270 and Pl. 11. Miss Richter kindly confirmed my belief that the vase had passed into the Hearst collection. Height of the figures, 21·5 centimetres.

² Lau, , Griechische Vasen, Pl. 12, 1Google Scholar; Furtwängler-Reiehhold, i. p. 266; Caskey, , Geometry of Greek Vases, pp. 60 and 61.Google Scholar

³ Lau, Pl. 11, 2; Caskey, pp. 58 and 59.

⁴ Amphorae in Athens, Pottier, , B.C.H. 1898, p. 283Google Scholar; in London, A 1531, ibid. p. 285; in Munich, , Hackl, , Jahrbuch, xxii. pp. 83–85.Google Scholar

⁵ Athens 1166 (CC. 1220); Louvre G 534. The amphora signed by Polygnotos (Hoppin, , Handbook, ii. pp. 376–7Google Scholar), an early work of the painter, is a unique variant of type B; the foot is echinus-shaped, but the handles are ridged.

⁶ Karo, , J.H.S. xix. 148, b.Google Scholar He compares the Chalcidian amphora Munich 592 (Jahn 1108), which is now published in Hackl, , Vasensammlung zu München, Pl. 21Google Scholar; there the mouth is rifled.

⁷ The red-figured examples are the following:

(a) The pictures framed:

(1) Orvieto, Faina 33. By the Tyszkiewicz, painter (A.J.A. 1916, p. 152, No. 24).Google Scholar

(2) Louvre G 63. A, silen and maenad; B, two silens.

(3) Formerly in the Higgins collection. Gerhard, , A.V. Pl. 276Google Scholar, 1–2. Burlington Cat. 1903, K 99, No. 83.

(4) Würzburg, 309. By the Syleus painter (V.A. p. 67, No. 12).Google Scholar

(b) The pictures not framed:

(1) B.M. E. 258. V.A. p. 9, Fig. 4 = Hoppin, , Handbook, i. p. 449.Google Scholar By Oltos, (V.A. p. 9, No. 3).Google Scholar Hoppin says the vase is much repainted; it was so, but is so no longer, and was not when I made the drawings which he reproduces.

(2) Petrograd 602 (St. 1639). Compterendu, 1868, pp. 58 and 5.

(3) Naples 3174. Él. Cér. i. Pl. 9.

(4) Petrograd (St. 1637). Compterendu, 1866, Pl. 5, 1–3.

(5) Petrograd 603 (St. 1593). By the painter of Boston 98, 882 (Flying Angel painter) (V.A. p. 57, No. 1).

(6) Vienna, Oest. Mus. 332. Masner, Pl. 6, No. 332, and p. 7. By the same (ibid. No. 3).

(7) Paris, Petit Palais 328. By the same (ibid. No. 2).

(8) Milan, Museo Teatrale 416. Cat. Vend. Coll. Sarti 5 maggio 1906, Pl. 19; Cat. Coll. Dr. B. et M. C., Pl. 20, No. 169; Cat. Coll. Jules Sambon, Pl. 1, No. 9. By the same.

(9) Louvre G 212. A, man with spear; B, man. Repainted. By the same?

(10) Boston 98, 882. V.A. p. 58: the shape, Caskey, Geometry, p. 80. By the same (ibid. No. 4).

(11) Petrograd 604 (St. 1601). A, V.A. p. 59. By the same (ibid. No. 5).

(12) Louvre G 220. A, komast; B, komast.

(13) The Hearst vase.

⁸ By the painter of the Louvre Centauromachy; to be added to the list of his works in V.A. pp. 158–159.

⁹ The back of this band is well seen on the bronze corslet Bronzen von Olympia, Pl. 59, and on a fragmentary cantharos, by the Pan painter, in Athens (Wolters, , Jahrbuch, xiv. p. 104Google Scholar; J.H.S. xxxii, p. 363, No. 41).

¹⁰ Th. Reinach, in Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Lyra 1446, thinks that the cords were for fastening the apron to the cithara.

¹¹ Neck-amphora with twisted handles, 2319 (Jahn 8).

¹² F.R.H. Pl. 134, 1. See p. 80.

¹³ Él Cér. ii. Pl. 16; text 2, p. 38; previously in the Canino collection.

¹⁴ Ibid., ii. Pl. 75. Style of the Meidias painter.

¹⁵ Helbig 488; Mus. Greg. ii. Pl. 58, 1; phots. Alinari 35773–4, from which our reproductions are made; I have strengthened the brown inner markings in front of the original; nearly all of them is visible in the photograph.

¹⁶ Gabrici, , Mon. Linc. xxii. Pl. 82.Google Scholar The two long faint lines on the himation from mid forearm to elbow are sketch-lines.

¹⁷ G 139a; the letter after the numeral suggests that other fragments of the same vase have been found, but I have not seen them.

¹⁸ G 186; the obverse, Cat. Coll. A. B(arre), Pl. 5. Height of the figure reproduced, 19·7 centimetres.

¹⁹ 635 (St. 1528); the obverse, Compterendu, 1873, p. 22. Height of the figure on the reverse, including the pattern, 23 centimetres.

²⁰ 2313 (J. 9). The obverse, Pl. IV. 2. Height of the figures, including the pattern: obverse, 26·7 centimetres; reverse, 24·5 centimetres.

²¹ Mon. Linc. xxii. Pl. 82.

²² 2310 (J. 1). Height of the figure, 26 centimetres. The horizontal line on the left anide represents a string.

²³ 2311 (J. 52). Height of the figures, 25·8 and 24·2 centimetres. The surface of the legs has suffered a great deal, so that much of the inner marking has disappeared.

²⁴ Gerhard, , E.C.V. Pls. 8–9Google Scholar; J.H.S. xxxi. Pls. 15–16 and p. 276. The only reproductions which do justice to the beauty of the original are those published by Winter, in Jahreshefte, 3, Pls. 3 and 4, and 5, 1.Google Scholar A new publication is promised in Furtwängler-Reichhold.

²⁵ Pl. 134.

²⁶ Pl. 134, 1.

²⁷ Pl. 134, 2.

²⁸ See p. 91 and note.

²⁹ F.R.H. Pl. 106, 2; J.H.S. xxxi. pl. 14.

³⁰ De Bidder, p. 280.

³¹ V.A. p. 39.

³² Cat. Coll. A. B(arre), Pl. 5; Chiron alone, Morin-Jean, , Le dessin des animaux en Grèce d'après les vases peints, p. 108.Google Scholar Neither drawing is accurate, and Morin-Jean omits all the brown lines on the limbs; but the reproduction of the himation is sufficient for comparison.

³³ B.S.A. xviii. Pls. 11–12 and p. 221; the Apollo, only, V.A. p. 45.Google Scholar

³⁴ See B.S.A xviii, pp. 217–233, and xix. p. 245; V.A. pp. 45–47.

³⁵ V.A. p. 46.

³⁶ These firms are not specified by Mr.Pottier, , but I submit that I am not misinterpreting the implication of the following passage (Catalogue des vases du Louvre, 3, p. 705)Google Scholar, where the author is speaking of the heads of the workshops, whom he supposes to have provided the executants with models: ‘Il pourrait se faire qu'ils n'eussent jamais tenu la poterie entre leurs mains et pourtant que cette œuvre d'art fût vraiment le produit de leur intelligence, comme aujourd'hui quelque engin formidable de l'industrie métallurgique sort d'un atelier, sans que celui qui l'a créé et construit l'ait seulement touché du bout du doigt.’

³⁷ See p. 94.

³⁸ I know but two other examples; Petrograd inv. 13387 (Izvestiya, xiii, pp. 188–189), and the small vase formerly in the Kircheriano and now in the Giulia, Villa (A, Mon. Linc. xiv. p. 307).Google Scholar The Villa Giulia vase is by the Achilles painter (J.H.S. xxxiv. 179–226Google Scholar; V.A. pp. 163–164), who continues in a later age the tradition of our group.

³⁹ P. 95. Alinari's excellent photographs do not show the two brown lines on the neck; they are duly present in the original.

⁴⁰ P. 91.

⁴¹ There is only one rf. amphora of type A or B which has but a single figure on either side; the Achilles amphora in the Vatican, (Mus. Greg. ii, Pl. 58, 3Google Scholar; A, J.H.S. xxxiv. 180; phots. Alinari 35816 and 35815). The Achilles painter, as I have observed before (note 38), continues the tradition of our group.

⁴² E. g. Figs. 4, 7, 8; Pls. III., IV. 2.

⁴³ Examples of this principle; J.H.S. xxxi. 279, Nos. 2–5 and 7.

⁴⁴ Hoppin, , Handbook, pp. 208–275Google Scholar, Nos. 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27.

⁴⁵ V.A. pp. 27–28; Ancient Gems in Lewes House, pp. 21–22; where I should have mentioned, as one of the earliest examples in sculptured relief, the warrior seen from behind on the cornice of the archaic Artemision at Ephesus (Hogarth, , Ephesus, Pl. 17, 30Google Scholar).

⁴⁶ I have already put together most of these vases in J.H.S. xxxi. 276–295; Burlington Magazine, xxviii, pp. 137–138; and V.A. pp. 35–40 and p. 193. See also Hauser, F.R.H. 3, pp. 77–80, and Perrot, , Histoire de l'Art, x. pp. 630–634.Google Scholar

Mr. Perrot exhibits considerable caution at first; between the Berlin and Würzburg vases, he begins, there is ‘une resemblance assez marquée pour que l'on soit fort tenté d'y voir l'œuvre d'un même artiste, auquel il y a peut-être lieu d'attribuer plusieurs autres peintures, qui ne sont pas sans analogie avec celles des deux vases. …’ Many of my tokens (indices), however, are not very convincing: ‘c'est vraiment abuser de la conjecture.’ As he proceeds, he becomes bolder: he is now ready to define the style of the artist (pp. 632, 634). There is some subtlety here which escapes me: one would have expected Mr. Perrot to make quite sure that the artist existed before attempting to define his style. Finally he steps into the ring himself: ‘à la liste qui en (of the artist's works) a été dressée, nous serions tentés d'ajouter le groupe d'Alcée et de Sapho’ (F.R. Pl. 64; Perrot, x. Pl. 15). This looks almost as if Mr. Perrot accepted the list; else why should he be tempted to add to it? Let us now see the tokens (‘indices’) which lead him to make this striking attribution. ‘L'œil n'y est pas encore franchement ouvert; le tracé est le même que dans les profils des têtes de nos deux amphores. La longue barbe d'Alcée, qui tombe en pointe sur sa poitrine, rappelle la barbe du Silène compagnon d'Hermès.’ Evidently we must number Mr. Perrot also among the connoisseurs.

In the list in the text above I have given the subjects of the pictures only where the vase was unpublished and not mentioned in my previous accounts.

⁴⁷ See note 24.

⁴⁸ All these vases, save the small vase in Oxford, are of a single type. There are only five other vases of just this type: the first, Munich 2317 (Jahn 2; Lützow, , Münchener Antiken, Pl. 18 and p. 30Google Scholar), is contemporary with the earlier members of our series, and is the work of the Eucharides, painter (B.S.A. xviii, p. 224, No. 6).Google Scholar The second and third, in Providence (Gerhard, , A.V. Pl. 24)Google Scholar and in the Vatican, (Mus. Greg. ii. Pl. 59, 2; A, phot. Alinari 35813)Google Scholar, are by the Providence painter, who seems to have been at one time a pupil of the Berlin painter (see note 50); the fourth (Petrograd 696; A, Compte-rendu, 1875, p. 199, and Waldhauer, , Kratkoe Opisanie, Pl., p. 88, Fig. 9)Google Scholar is by a pupil of the Berlin painter, Hermonax; the foot is lost, but in all other respects the vase corresponds to the Berlin painter's type. The last and latest is the Euphorbos vase in the Cabinet des Médailles (Mon. ii. Pl. 14; A, phot. Giraudon); it is by the Achilles painter, a craft-descendant of the Berlin painter in the third craft-generation (J.H.S. xxxiv. 187, No. 2). We noticed above (note 41) that the only amphora of type A or B, which was decorated in the same manner as the Berlin amphora, was also by the Achilles painter.

⁴⁹ Hoppin, (Handbook, i. p. 62, No. 26)Google Scholar confounds this vase with Naples Heyd. 3129, which is by a different and much later painter.

⁵⁰ The tradition of the Berlin painter's Nolan amphorae is continued, on the one hand by the Providence painter (V.A. pp. 76–80; the Nolan amphorae, ibid. pp. 78–79), who seems to have detached himself, however, from the Berlin painter before very long, and competed with him; and on the other, more directly, by Hermonax. Five Nolan amphorae by Hermonax, are mentioned in V.A. p. 127Google Scholar, Nos. 34–38; others are in London (E 311; Él Cér. i. Pl. 39) and in Naples (A, Zeus: B, woman with torches); and three rough vases (Brussels, , Él Cér. iii. Pl. 22Google Scholar; Dresden 309, and Altenburg 280) are probably also his. The subsequent stage in the tradition is represented by the Nolan amphorae of the Achilles painter and his pupils and imitators: a list of his Nolan amphorae is given in J.H.S. pp. 192–196; add Naples 3093 (Triptolemos) and Munich 2336 (J. 263; A, Lau, Pl. 24, 2). The Nolan amphorae of the Achilles painter are succeeded by those of his pupil, the painter of the Boston phiale (V.A. pp. 168–169; add Cambridge 167 and Naples Santangelo 240).

⁵¹ My attribution of Louvre G 166 to the Berlin painter (B.S.A. xviii, p. 226 note 1, and V.A. p. 40) was based on the picture on the reverse. A fresh examination has convinced me that the obverse pictures (phot. Giraudon, = Mons. Piot, ix. p. 39Google Scholar) are not by the same hand as the reverse. I do not think, however, that this is an instance of two painters working on one vase. The vase is in miserable condition; Mr. Pottier had already observed that the upper picture on the reverse was completely modern; but the foot is also modern, and the big palmette-designs on the body are a modern addition. Moreover, unless I am greatly mistaken, the man who built up the vase used fragments of two different volute-kraters, one by the Berlin painter, and one by another artist. It is well known that such a procedure was not uncommon in the last century; Mr. De Mot once told me that he had found a pelike in the Ravestein collection to consist of fragments from six different vases.

⁵² Hoppin, (Handbook, i. p. 73, No. 94)Google Scholar confounds this vase with the stamnos Mus. Greg. ii. Pl. 19, 1, which is by the Aegisthus, painter (A.J.A. 1916, p. 147Google Scholar, note 1; see Hoppin, 1, p. 79, No. 8).

⁵³ B.M. E. 445 (Gerhard, , A. V. Pls. 174–176Google Scholar) is a later school-piece, contemporary with the earlier work of Hermonax. The series of stamnoi initiated by the Oxford Pentheus stamnos mentioned above, in which a single picture runs right round the vase, is continued by Hermonax; a list of his stamnoi is given in V.A. p 124; the Busiris stamnos in Oxford (521: Annali, 1865. Pls. P–Q; J.H.S. xxiv. 307–308) stands very close to the earlier work of Hermonax.

⁵⁴ Miscalled a kalpis by Hoppin, (Handbook, i. p. 71Google Scholar, No. 82 bis).

⁵⁵ The line of lekythoi which is headed by those of the Berlin painter runs parallel to the line of Nolan amphorae described in note 50.

⁵⁶ Lately cleaned: part of the characteristic ankle, previously invisible, and omitted in the old publication, reappeared.

⁵⁷ Compare the young citharode on the neck-amphora by the Providence painter in the Vatican, , Mus. Greg. ii. Pl. 59, 2Google Scholar; phot. Alinari 35813.

⁵⁸ 576. Hartwig, Pl. 531; repainted in parts; the drawing is unworthy of the original.

⁵⁹ Mon. 1856, Pl. 14 = W.V. 8 Pl. 3 = Hoppin, , Handbook, i. p. 116Google Scholar; new but poor drawings in Perrot, , Histoire de l'Art, x. pp. 559–561.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Furtwängler, , 50 Berliner Winckelmannsprogramm, Pl. 2Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften 2, Pl. 50; Buschor, , Griechische Vasenmalerei, p. 197Google Scholar; see also Hauser, F.R.H. 3, pp. 108–109.

⁶¹ Savignoni, , Bollettino d'Arte, 10, p. 347.Google Scholar

⁶² F.R. 2, Pl. 93, 1 = Hoppin, , Handbook, i. p. 397Google Scholar; Pottier, , Album, Pl. 101.Google Scholar

⁶³ F.R.H. Pl. 139; Buschor, p. 199.

⁶⁴ Herrmann, , Denkmäler der Malerei, Pl. 69.Google Scholar