Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:57:03.591Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charinos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. D. Beazley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Buschor, by his Crocodile, has brought order into the study of Attic plastic vases, but even after Buschor much remains to be done. I propose to examine and classify the Attic vases in the form of human heads. I shall not discuss, or not fully, either the vases in the form of complete human figures —the Dionysos in London, the satyrs in Saraievo and Taranto; or the sphinxes; or the groups—mounted Amazon, blackamoor and cayman, pygmy and dead crane; or the small and usually petty plastic adjuncts to hydriai, oinochoai, kyathoi, epinetra; or the head-vases and bust-vases of the fourth century, which are best studied in connexion with the other plastic vases of the same period.

Some head-vases are oil- or perfume-pots, others drinking-vessels, others jugs. The perfume-pots have the same mouth, neck, and handles as a round aryballos: fourth-century vases borrow this part from the squat lekythos, but with these we are not concerned. The drinking-vessels, whether two-handled or single-handled, have a kantharos mouth: I shall keep the word kantharos for the two-handled sort; the single-handled kantharos I shall call a mug. The jugs nearly always have the same mouth as the kind of vase which I have called oinochoe shape I: but three other kinds of mouth occur as exceptions, and will be noted each in its place.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , 1929 , pp. 38 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Das Krokodil des Sotades in Münchener Jahrbuch, 1919, pp. 1–43: referred to in my article as Buschor K.

The fine collection of Attic head-vases in the British Museum is to be published in the next, fourth, fascicule of the London Corpus Vasorum: by the kindness of Mr. H. B. Walters I am able to give references to the plates. This publication dispenses me from figuring a number of important pieces which I had intended to figure. I beg the reader to have the London fascicule, as well as his Crocodile, at his elbow.

I am indebted to Miss Richter, Professor Bulle, Professor Buschor, Dr. Caskey, Mr. Castriotis, Mr. Pottier, Dr. Sieveking, Mr. Walters, and Professor Zahn for permission to publish vases in the museums of New York, Würzburg, Boston, Athens, Paris, Munich, London, Berlin; to Mr. Buckler, Dr. Hirsch, and Mr. Torr, in their collections; to my wife, for the photographs reproduced in Pl. 4, 1–2, Pl. 2, Pl. 3, 3–4, Pl. 4, 1–2, Pl. 6, 3–4, and Figs. 5, 13–15, 17, 21 and 24.

2 London, E 785: C.V. B.M. III. Ic, Pl. 37, 1; Dionysos (so Buschor, , K. p. 18Google Scholar, rightly) sitting with a great rhyton on his knees: compare the amphora-stands represented in the paintings of the Tomba delľ Orco at Corneto (Weege, , Etruskische Vasenmalerei, p. 30Google Scholar; phot. Moscioni 6980): date about 520.

3 Bulanda, , Vasen in Saraievo, p. 33Google Scholar, Fig. 52, and p. 34; from Camiros.

4 The fourth-century vases, and the larger group of which they form a part, have been studied by Treu, , Griechische Thongefässe in Statuetten- und Büstenform, and Séchan, Léda et le Cygne, in Rev. arch. 20 (1912), pp. 106–126Google Scholar. See also Waldhauer, Lekith iz Tamani in the Russian Hermes, and Zahn, in Die Antike, i. pp. 80–85Google Scholar.

5 See N.Y. Shapes, p. 27, 2; Pfuhl, Malerei, Fig. 777; Die Antike, l, pp. 282–3 (Zahn). I shall study the round aryballos in the next number of B.S.A.

6 E.g. Treu, op. cit., Pl. 1, 4–5.

7 The handles (except in the special class of face-kantharoi, see p. 40) do not rise above the mouth, so the variety of kantharos I mean is what I have called kantharos shape B (Attische Vasenmaler, p. 4).

8 Att. V. p. 3.

9 See pp. 45; 50 and 68; 76.

10 Maximova, , Vases plastiques, p. 27Google Scholar, top.

11 Perrot, , Histoire de l' Art, 10, pp. 752–3Google Scholar.

12 The term is Maximova's: I use it in the same modified sense as Price, E. R., East-Greek Pottery, pp. 37–8Google Scholar. The Samo-Milesian figure-vases (Price, pp. 36–7), though later than the gorgoneion class, are inferior to it.

13 The work of M. I. Maximova gives an excellent account of archaic figure-vases (including head-vases) with the exception of the Attic, (Antichniya figurniya Vazi, vol. i Moscow, 1916Google Scholar): translated as Les vases plastiques dans ľantiquité, époque archaïque, Paris, 1927: some of the pictures are better in the Russian edition): I fancy the author exaggerates the importance of Ionian art, and the religious significance of the objects. The account of East-Greek figure-vases is supplemented by a valuable chapter in MissPrice's, E. R.East-Greek Pottery, pp. 34–41Google Scholar; and that of the protocorinthian by Johansen, K. Friis, Les vases sicyoniens, pp. 156–8Google Scholar. Protocorinthian and Corinthian plastic vases will be dealt with by Payne in his forthcoming book on Corinthian art.

14 B 378: Buschor, , K. p. 12Google Scholar.

15 W.V. 1888, Pl. 1, 9–10, whence Hoppin, B.f. Vases, p. 353Google Scholar (dated far too early, and the inscription given wrong).

16 E.g. W.V. 1888, Pl. 7, 3: see Vases in Poland, p. 3.

17 E.g. Sieveking, and Hackl, , Vasensammlung zu München, Pl. 42, 973Google Scholar.

18 Jahreshefte, 6, pp. 66–8: cf. also Schaal, Gr. Vasen aus Frankfurter Sammlungen, Pl. 26, f.

19 See A.Z. 1881, p. 37 (Loeschcke, ), A.J.A. 1926, pp. 76–8Google Scholar (Gallatin).

20 E.g. Pottier, Vases du Louvre, Pl. 27, C 650 and C 649.

21 In Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. cantharus.

22 Mon. Piot, 9, pp. 135–40.

23 Histoire de ľ Art, 10, pp. 749–52. This passage is copied from Pottier, , Mon. Piot, 9, p. 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 10; p. 136,6; p. 136, 7; p. 137, 3; p. 137, 9–19; p. 138, 16; p. 139, 5; p. 139, 10–19; p. 139, 23; p. 140, 9: one of these passages is placed between inverted commas. I shall give other examples of this method of composition: it is never unprofitable to follow the process by which great works of scholarship and literature come into being.

24 L.C., pp. 141–2. For the references to the Proklees vase see p. 75.

25 00.332: Buschor, , G.V. p. 142Google Scholar, and K. p. 13, Fig. 19. B.f., between eyes, Dionysos and silens. Below, p. 77, No. 1.

25a See C.V. Oxford, text to Pl. 40, 3.

26 It also occurs, but not as a love-name, on the psycter by Phintias in Boston, (A.D. 2Google Scholar, Pl. 20), which is contemporary with the vases by Skythes.

27 Cat. des vases du Louvre, p. 892: the cup is Louvre G 10.

28 On Skythes, see Att. Vasenmaler, pp. 39–42Google Scholar and 468; on his b.f. work, Langlotz in Graef, and Langlotz, , Vasen von der Akropolis, Pl. 110, 2586Google Scholar, and Pl. 106, 2557. The mysterious object in the Louvre cup G 14 (Pottier, , Mon. Piot, 9, p. 163Google Scholar, bottom) is the end of the warrior's spear plus the end of his crest: this is obvious in the original though not in the reproduction. The warrior is not shod but greaved.

29 Furtwängler, , Vasensammlung im Antiquarium, p. 512Google Scholar.

30 B 631: Hoppin, , B.f., p. 69Google Scholar. The inscriptions are given wrong in Hoppin. The signature is not incised but painted: it reads with perhaps a trace of the final epsilon. The other inscription is fragmentary and hard to read: Between the proper name and the rest, room for three letters, and traces of two more: seems likely at the end, but the letter before it was not a sigma, more like an upsilon, and of the letter preceding that only the lower part remains. Most of the handle is modern, and patches of the lip.

31 L.c. pp. 147 and 149. See below, p. 51.

32 L.c. p. 149: see below, p. 52.

33 L.c. p. 149: see below, p. 60, No. 4.

34 See p. 58.

35 I find the same mouth in one other vase, a black oinochoe, of peculiar shape, in Athens (12474).

35a See p. 47.

35b Acropolis F 19: see p. 76.

36 See p. 48, No. 6.

36a I do not know if this can be the vase mentioned in Bullettino, 1866, p. 236, as found at Corneto.

36b Neue Denkmäler, iii, p. 243, No. 8 = Kleine Schriften, p. 488.

37 K. p. 14: he speaks of it in conjunction with my Nos. 5, 6, and 9.

37a See below, p. 68.

38 Mr. Buckler's vase (see below, p. 68), has the same mouth. The closest analogy to this mouth is to be found in oinochoai of the shape discussed by Wolters, , Zu griechischen Agonen, p. 5Google Scholar: see also Furtwängler, , Aigina, Pl. 128, 26Google Scholar and text, p. 452, No. 198. But in our vases the neck is longer.

39 B.M. Cat. iii, p. 372: No. 77 in my list of vases by the Brygos, painter, Att. V. p. 181Google Scholar: on the painter see also Vases in Poland, pp. 23–25.

40 A list of vases by this painter is given in Att. V. pp. 158–69 and p. 473: additions in Vases in Poland, pp. 17–18. See also below, pp. 58, 60.

41 See Pfuhl, , Malerei, 1, p. 306Google Scholar: Watzinger, , Vasen in Tübingen, p. 40Google Scholar.

42 Mon. Piot, 9, p. 145: cf. ibid., pp. 150 and 152.

43 Op. cit., pp. 748–9.

44 Op. cit., pp. 147–9.

45 See pp. 45, 58, 60.

46 A.J.A. 1927, p. 348.

47 Patroni (p. 141) speaks of ‘traits imitated from the archaic,’ Buschor, of ‘conscious imitation of archaic work’ (K. p. 19Google Scholar).

48 See below, p. 74.

48a See Buschor, , K. pp. 5–8Google Scholar. His Fig. 4, however, is Attic.

49 A.J.A., 1928, p. 51, note 1.

50 K. p. 20.

51 See Smith, C., B.M. Cat. iii. p. 373Google Scholar.

51a See above, p. 38.

52 See Att.V. p. 3.

53 Mon. Piot, 9, p. 149.

54 K. p. 13.

55 V.A. p. 92: Att. V. p. 181, No. 78.

56 See pp. 45, 52.

57 See p. 51.

58 K. p. 19.

59 Loc. cit., p. 223.

59a See p. 52.

60 K. p. 20.

61 See p. 51.

61a On this tradition see Vases in Poland, pp. 34–36.

62 Albizzati, l.c. p. 223: Pottier, , Mon. Piot, 9, p. 150Google Scholar. Albizzati's 470 seems a little early.

63 Op. cit. p. 753.

64 Op. cit. p. 150.

65 Not 2586: Demangel has already corrected Nicole's slip.

66 Vases ď Athènes, supplément, pp. 283–4.

67 Mon. Piot, 26, p. 80.

68 Ath. Mitt. 16, p. 155, note 2 (Wolters).

69 Op. cit., p. 154.

69a London E 788: J.H.S. 8, Pls. 72–3 = FR. iii, p. 93; new, C.V. B.M. Pls. 40, 2, and 42, 1.

70 See above, p. 50.

70a See p. 49.

70b Arndt, and Amelung, , Einzelaufnahmen 505–6Google Scholar: Jahrbuch 26, pp. 186–7, Figs. 86 and 89.

71 K. p. 13.

72 K. p. 20.

73 Att. V. p. 328.

74 A list of his works in Att. V. pp. 413–14.

75 Att. V. p. 328, Nos. 32–3, and ‘manner,’ Nos. 1–5; Att. V. pp. 413, Nos. 7–14.

75a Athens 1629 (Eph. Arch. 1897, Pls. 9–10): on the painter, Att. V., pp. 428–30, and Vases in Poland, pp. 61–4.

76 Ibid., p. 66.

77 See p. 56.

78 A list of his works in Att. V. pp. 445–7 and 479.

79 See p. 56.

80 Ruvo, , Jatta, collection, Atti Pont. Acc. 14, p. 225Google Scholar, Fig. 4 and p. 227, left (Albizzati): Naples, phot. Sommer 11065, bottom, 1: B.M. F 436. On such imitations see above, p. 52, and Albizzati, l.c. p. 230, top.

81 Bieber by a slip describes the style as early classical (l.c. p. 57).

82 C.V. Oxford, pp. 10–11.

83 Aristophanes, , Lysiatrata 8Google Scholar. Artists at Athens must have had good opportunities of studying this expression in the last decade of the fifth century and the first of the fourth.

84 C.V. Oxford, text to Pl. 4, 7; see Corneille, Examen ďAndromède. In an Apulian negro-head vase (Cabinet des Médailles 1238; phot. Giraudon 8121; the picture, De Ridder, p. 668), the black wears a tiara.

85 L.c., p. 223.

85a The museum number is not 2160 as Nicole states, and the height is not ·28 but ·128.

86 On Leagros, see Langlotz, , Zeitbestimmung, pp. 48–54Google Scholar.

86a Mon. Piot, 9, pp. 142–3.

87 K. p. 13.

88 Treu, , Thongefässe in Statuettenform, Pl. 2, 1Google Scholar, and 3, 5, and 6.