No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2015
The Euphronios problem is more than twenty years old: in 1893; Hartwig, in his Meisterschalen, first attributed to the painter <Ones>imos the Troïlos kylix in Perugia bearing the single signature Ἐυφρόνιος ἐποίησεν. Since then the question has been considerably extended and modified, and the moment has perhaps come for some sort of summary of results.
The attempted answer to the particular question does not profess to be a solution of the whole problem of ἔγραψεν and ἐποίησεν. Dispassionate analysis of style tends more and more to separate potter from painter in most well-known workshops. Makron was in all probability directly or indirectly responsible for the painting of all Hieron's vases, Brygos a potter solely. It is, however, impossible to generalise on the subject. In the black-figure period there is the notable exception of Exekias: there is no difference of style between the vases signed Ἐξήκιας ἐποίησεν and Ἐξήκιας ἔγραψε κἀποίησε με. Again in the strong red-figured period we have the instance of the Gotha kylix (F.R.H. iii. Abb. 7), with its inscriptions ασιαδες (retrograde) and a dubious inscription ending εσεν (left to right)—i.e. a potter's signature, The painter's name is clearly that of Pasiades, the style of the exterior unmistakeably that of his other vases; but these are signed with ἐποίησεν. Here, then, is a contemporary of Euphronios whose ἐποίησεν includes ἔγραψεν.
2 The interior appears to be by Peithinos.
3 Hartwig, , Meist. p. 3Google Scholar, and Klein, , Liebl. p. 70 foll.Google Scholar
4 The most plausible completion of the name, of which only the last four letters are actually extant.
5 R.-f. lekythoi in Ashmolean (320) and Athens N.M. (1645, Cat. 1193), and white lekythos in Bonn.
6 F.R. Tafeln 92–3, 63, and 22.
7 Jahrb. 1881, Taf. 2, and A.M. 1882, p. 105.
8 Amphora in Munich (2307 <378>).
9 See Fig. 1.
10 Cf. in particular the hydria of Euthymides, or Phintias (so Hoppin, , Euthymides, p. 16Google Scholar, and Sieveking, in his Führer), in Munich, (2421 <6>), Klein, , Euphronios, p. 110.Google Scholar
11 I follow without hesitation the interpretation of the Throne as some kind of monument to Aphrodite, the central slab representing her birth from the water.
12 Not known to Klein, Jahrb. 1888, Taf. 2, and A.M. 1882, p. 105.
13 F.R.H. Taf. 123.
14 See Fig. 1 for drawings of hands and feet in Euphronios' style.
15 So Hauser in his publication of it in F.R.H., though he does not commit himself definitely. Furtwängler's attribution to Peithinos is untenable. A glance at the two kylikes, that of Sosias and that of Peithinos, which stand side by side in the Berlin Museum (Nos. 2278, 2279), shows that the latter is as affected as the former is sincere, its line very weak in comparison. Peithinos' remarkably bad drawing of the hand alone (Fig. 1, k, l) would disprove the attribution. Hartwig's case for Sosias as painter is not based on style and is unconvincing, particularly as he instances as a parallel Brygos, who may never have painted a line. The little plate (Berlin 2315), also signed by Sosias, is insignificant, but the drawing is good and may quite well be by Euphronios too.
The very remarkable drawing of the eye on the interior and once on the exterior 
does not affect the question of authorship. It is an approach to accuracy, unique at this date, which Euphronios may have chanced on as well as another.
16 A.Z. 1882, Taf. 3. Inscriptions εν. ρ and ος, the latter, to judge from the spacing, belonging to an isolated καλος.
17 Cf. Skiron in Duris' Theseus kylix (B.M. E 48), Kerkyon in Euphronios' Louvre kylix, Troilos in the Perugia kylix, Kaineus and a Lapith in a kelebe in the British Museum (E 473), etc. The reason for the convention lies in the difference of expression which this position imparts to the face. There is no attempt to render actual pain or fear (the face of Troilos in the Perugia kylix is a restoration. Spearing, Childhood of Art, note on p. 480), but the very rarity of the full face serves to focus the attention on it, and reserves to it, as it were, a character other than that of the normal profile.
18 See Fig. 2, e, f.
19 See Fig. 1, f.
20 F.R. Taf. 61–2.
21 Xenon occurs on a psykter in the style of Phintias (Hauser, in Jahrb. p. 108).Google Scholar
22 Mon. Piot, ix. Figs. 6 and 8.
23 Stamnos, in Brussels (Mon. Piot, ix. Pll. 2–3Google Scholar) and stamnos in B.M. (E 438).
24 F.R. ii. p. 1 foll.
25 So Gaspar, , Mon. Piot, ix. p. 15.Google Scholar
26 Furtwängler admits that it may be by Euphronios.
27 See Pottier, , Louvre Cat. p. 946Google Scholar, for this valuable addition to the discussion.
28 This vase and the next may be the work of a copyist.
29 Drawing in the Apparat des Röm. Inst. reproduced by Klein, Liebl. p. 73, Fig. 13.
30 Three out of six in each: the lion, the kantharos, and the gorgoneion.
31 Fig. 3. I had intended to publish, by Dr. Zahn's permission, the whole fragment, but am prevented by the present circumstances.
32 That a vase bearing this name may date from Euphronios' early days is proved by the conjunction on a kylix (A.Z. 1885, Taf. 19. 2) of the names Epidromos and Leagros.
33 So Mr. Beazley tells me. Hartwig, Meist. Taf. 14.
34 The reproduction is bad, but there are indications of more detail in the foot (as usual with Euphronios) than it actually shows.
35 Jahrb. 1893, Taf. 2.
36 See Fig. 2. Cf. also the thumb of the Seilenos with other hands by Euphronios, Fig. 1, g.
37 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 13.Google Scholar See Fig. 2, h, i. for drawings of heads.
38 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 24, 2Google Scholar, where it is attributed on very unsubstantial evidence to Peithinos. The hands again are sufficient disproof.
39 Fig. 1, h, i.
40 For the modification of his type see Fig. 2.
41 Cf. Fig. 6.
42 F.R. Taf. 23.
43 Eurystheus in the πίθος is, of course, not new.
44 Contrast especially the woman of the exterior with any by Euphronios.
45 Herakles is the most stylised of all the gods and heroes. This broad, thick-set type continues to occur with great persistence throughout the whole ‘strong’ period, combined with figures of a quite different style.
46 F.R. Taf. 5.
47 Louvre Cat. p. 935.
48 Pl. IV. Photographs of the Bibliothèque d' Art et d' Archéologie, 196–7.
49 Cat. p. 942.
50 See Fig. 4.
51 De Ridder, 525. Repr. in Mon. ii. Tav. 10, A.
52 Bulletin of Metr. Mus. vol. viii. No. 7, July, 1913; short notice and small photograph of the interior. My notes on the work are based on drawings by Mr. J. D. Beazley, to whose kindness I owe my knowledge both of this cup and that belonging to Hauser, referred to below.
53 Cat. 388. Repr. in Hartwig, Meist. Taf. 47–48. i.
54 Meist. Taf. 48. ii.–49.
55 This cup is not published, and I have not seen it, but Mr. Beazley, who has kindly given me particulars of it, tells me that the style is that of the Munich and Boston athlete cups described below, p. 126. The interior represents two youths, with athletic accessories, the exterior athletes. A second word on the interior, faint and dubious, might be the expected ϵποιϵσϵν.
56 Not in Catalogue. Inv. 3139. Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 46.Google Scholar
57 2639 <515>. Published by Meier, A.Z. 1885, Taf. 11.
58 See Fig. 4 for drawings from the Theseus and Berlin kylikes.
59 As in a fragment in Würzburg, with the single figure of a diskobolos seen from the back. See Fig. 4.
60 Published A.Z. 1878, Taf. 11.
61 Is the pick, which figures also on Hauser's cup, the σκαπάνη of Theocritus, 4. 10, about the exact nature of which, beyond its connexion with σκάπτω, there seems to be no evidence ? Its use is, in any case, the same; it is, as the scholiast on the passage remarks, to keep the upper part of the body in training.
62 See note 17.
63 Published A.Z. 1884, Taf. 16, ii.
64 So Furtwängler (F.R. i. p. 104), who, however, identified him later with Onesimos. For discussion of this theory, see p. 135.
65 Meisterschalen, ‘Euphronios.’
66 F.R. i. p. 111.
67 F.R. i. p. 27.
68 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 58 and 59 i.Google Scholar
69 Except possibly the Dolon kylix.
70 F.R. Taf. 86.
71 F.R. ii. pp. 133–5, Abb. 35–7.
72 See Fig. 5. For the whole Iliupersis, F.R. Pl. 25.
73 F.R. Pl. 50.
74 Meist. Taf. 56, ii, and 57.
75 Meist. Taf. 55 and 56, i. Cf. with both cups that in Oxford signed by Brygos. J.H.S. vol. xxxiv. Pl. 9.
76 F.R. ii. p. 134.
77 This at least he does not mention, and I do not know of any theory of his relating to it. In his Catalogue, ii. p. 566, he calls it simply the latest of Euphronios' signed works.
78 Louvre Cat. p. 1004.
79 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 53.Google Scholar
80 Cf. the exterior of the Penthesileia kylix (Munich 2688 <370>), F.R. Taf. 6.
81 See below.
82 M. Collignon notes the same thing in his discussion of another question (Mon. Grecs, ii. 14–16, p. 9): ‘Le cheval peint par Onesimos a l'encolure large, la croupe pleine, le corps épais; la queue est sobrement dessinée à l'aide de quelques hachures; enfin la tête est courte et petite. Or vous retrouverez tous ces caractères dans les vases ďEuphronios qu'on s'accorde à considérer commes les plus anciens, par exemple dans la coupe de Leagros.’
83 Mon. Piot, xvi. Pll. 15–17.
84 It is, of course, possible that Brygos was his own painter; but it is less confusing not to assume it.
85 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 54.Google Scholar
86 B.S.A. xiv. Pl. 14.
87 As on Boston 394 (Robinson's Cat.). Severe, style. They occur, made of deer-skin, on one b.-f. amphora. Here it is the Dioscuri who wear them. Gerhard, V. Etr. D 2.
88 Smith, Pl. 63.
89 Fig. 7. I have added for comparison one which cannot be attributed to Onesimos under any circumstances.
90 B.S.A. xiv. p. 302. Burrows and Ure, who also raise the Onesimos question with regard to it.
91 Curiously enough Furtwängler first realised the possibility that the Troilos kylix was by the same painter as the vases of Brygos (Winck. Progr. 50), but abandoned the idea in favour of the above theory.
92 Hartwig, , Meist. Taf. 51–2.Google Scholar
93 Buschor, , Griechische Vasenmaler, pp. 179–180.Google Scholar
94 Unfortunately not enumerated.
95 See p. 153.
96 F.R. Taf. 49.
97 J.H.S. ix. Pl. 6.
98 The works signed by Euphronios are underlined.