¹ Hesp. xxiv (1955) 64–5.Google Scholar

² AJA lxii (1958) 55–66.Google Scholar

³ ARV² 214.

⁴ Boardman, , Athenian Red Figure Vases (London 1975) 35Google Scholar, placed it in the following of the Pioneers. Cardon, Carol, The Berlin Painter and his School (PhD thesis, New York 1977)Google Scholar, left it unassigned; later, AJA lxxxiii (1979) 169–73Google Scholar, she proposed a new artist—the Gorgos Painter. Martin Robertson has now withdrawn his attribution (Robertson, forthcoming). After I completed this article (summer 1980) Gloria Pinney sent me ‘The Nonage of the Berlin Painter’, AJA lxxxv (1981) 145–58Google Scholar, in which she argued for an attribution to the Berlin Painter whose earliest work she identified with cups which Beazley had assigned to the Carpenter and HP painters. I have worked exclusively with vases which Beazley assigned to the Berlin Painter; I have, therefore, excluded many of the vases discussed by Dr Pinney and our conclusions are inevitably very different.

⁵ See above, title note *.

⁶ The proportion of red-figured cups of the late archaic period left unassigned by Beazley is very large. Excellent pieces, roughly contemporary with ours, stand alone, or nearly so. For example, the Gotha cup (ARV ² 20. CVA i pls 42 and 43.1—3); Sosias' (Berlin 2278. ARV ² 21.2. FR pl. 123); Athens, Ephoria Gamma, A 5040 (E. Serbeti, ‘Ἐρυθρόμορϕη κύλικα ἀπὸ τὴν ὁδὸ Λέκκα’, Stele, Fests. Kondoleon, N. [Athens 1980] 321–7Google Scholar and pls 146–7); and Athens 1666 (ARV ² 1567.13. CVA i pls 4–5) about which Beazley wrote (ARV ² 1568): ‘The cup was attributed to Douris, as an early work, in ARV ¹ (218 no. 25), but was always hard to place in the list.’

⁷ VA p. v.

⁸ See above, title note *.

⁹ Robertson, (n. 2) 55–6, describes the shape, tecnique and figure-style of the cup. I have not felt it necessary to repeat these details.

¹⁰ Ibid. 55–6.

¹¹ Ibid. 55.

¹² Florence 5 B 1. ARV ² 1590.1 (Krates). CVA i pl. 5.47. Beazley, , Campana Fragments in Florence (Oxford 1933)Google Scholar pl. 5.1. Robertson (n. 2) 56–7 gives reasons for attributing the Florence fragment to the Berlin Painter. I can see some points of similarity, but would be reluctant to associate the fragment with Gorgos' cup. See also Cardon, art. cit. (n. 4) 172.

¹³ Stylistic trends at this time have been reviewed by Beazley, VA 27–8, and more recently by Boardman (n.4) 29–31, 89–91.

¹⁴ Euphronios: ARV ² 13–7, 1619, 1705. Para 321–2. Phintias: ARV ² 23–5, 1620, 1700. Para. 323 Euthymides: ARV ² 26–9, 1620–1. Para. 323–4.

¹⁵ ARV ² 191–2, nos 103–7.

¹⁶ Athens, Agora, P 26245, fr. ARV ² 214.243. Hesp. xxviii (1959)Google Scholar pl., 22a, c, and p. 106 n. 43 (in which Beazley's letter of 13 October 1958 is cited; legs are said to be in the style of the Berlin Painter, but not the black navel line).

¹⁷ ARV ² 214.

¹⁸ Berl. (1930) 2Google Scholar; Berl. (Melbourne) 6Google Scholar. Very early and on small scale, however, the use of relief contour can be more extensive. See also Robertson (n. 47 below) 23.

¹⁹ Berl. Drawings 21.

²⁰ JHS xxxi (1911) 276–95.Google Scholar

²¹ VA 38.

²² JHS xlii (1922) 70–98.Google Scholar

²³ Beazley, , Attische Vasenmalerer (Leipzig 1925) 76–88, 469.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 84.102. See also below, n. 66.

²⁵ Ibid. 64.

²⁶ Ibid. 471. See also below, n. 78.

²⁷ PBSR xi (1929) 20–1.Google Scholar

²⁸ Robertson (n. 47) 28—9 reviews changes in attributions of these vases.

²⁹ Beazley's alteration to the chronological classification within a painter's work seems less common than reattributions.

³⁰ Berl. (1930) 8–14.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 14. The 1974 English edn of the text incorporates the revisions of the 1944 unpublished typescript. See below.

³² Berl. (1930) 18Google Scholar, after entry no. 88. See also below, n. 65.

³³ Ibid. 20, no. 130. Martin Robertson tells me that this vase is now in San Simeon and was reassigned by Beazley to the area of the Diogenes Painter (ARV ² 248.3).

³⁴ P. 6.

³⁵ ARV ¹ 131–46 and p. 952.

³⁶ The three volute-craters in the 1930 lists which are later shifted to the painter's ‘Early’ period are: Cambridge 5.1952. ARV ² 206.127 (PLATE VIIIa—e); Leipsic T 762, fr. ARV ² 206.128 (PLATE VIIIf); Louvre, Cp 10799 and part of G 166, fr. ARV ² 206.130 (PLATE IXa).

³⁷ ARV ¹ 27.

³⁸ P. 58.

³⁹ Pp. 23–4.

⁴⁰ ARV ² 196—214, 1633—5, 1700—1. Para. 341–5, 510.

⁴¹ Ibid. 213–14, no. 242.

⁴² The second cup (see above, n. 16), known since 1958, is not mentioned.

⁴³ Berl. (Melbourne) 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 12.

⁴⁵ Ibid. 12.

⁴⁶ Ibid. 13.

⁴⁷ JHS lxx (1950) 23–34.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cambridge 5.1952. ARV ² 206.127. Robertson tells me that he still considers the vase very early.

⁴⁹ Robertson (n. 47) 28.

⁵⁰ Cited in n. 2.

⁵¹ Ibid. 63–4.

⁵² Boston 00.325. ARV ² 30. Caskey, L. D. and Beazley, j. D., Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston i (Oxford 1931)Google Scholar pl. 2.3.

⁵³ Florence 5 B 1. See n. 12.

⁵⁴ Athens 1628. ARV ² 25.1 (alpha). Pfuhl fig. 386.See below, n. 100.

⁵⁵ VA 35.

⁵⁶ Beazley (n. 23) 84, 102.

⁵⁷ Boston 03.838, fr. ARV ² 209.162; Louvre, Cp 10799 and part G 166, fr. ARV ² 206.130; Leipsic T 762, fr. ARV ² 206.128.

⁵⁸ See n. 27.

⁵⁹ VA 39.

⁶⁰ Berl. (1930) 16Google Scholar, no. 4; Berl. (Melbourne) 4.Google Scholar

⁶¹ When I had completed this essay, Martin Robertson gave me the typescript of his chapter on the Berlin Painter's style of drawing for a monograph with Carol Cardon, in which he has retracted some of the pieces from the 1958 list and substantially altered the chronological order of many of the others.

⁶² Munich 2310. ARV ² 197.6. Beazley's drawing (Berl. Drawings 64, pls 2, 37b–c) of the figure on the reverse displays some deviations from the present figure. The painter's canon is described in Berl. Drawings 18–46, with anatomical drawings and a Glossary of anatomical terms.

⁶³ Berl. (Melbourne) 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Perhaps the more natural posture of the figure on the reverse initially kept Beazley from considering the vase ‘Very early’.

⁶⁵ Corinth CP 436, fr. ARV ² 205.115. Para. 342. Hesp. xxxv (1966) 312Google Scholar. Other crater fragments from Corinth, published by Boulter (Hesp. xxxv [1966]Google Scholar pl.74), and some of which might belong to this crater are: Athena (in part—CP 2617, fr. ARV ² 205.115 bis. Para. 344); helmet, crest and spear grasped by a hand (CP 1675, fr. ARV ² 205.115 ter. Para. 344) and shin of a male (CP 1716, fr. ARV ² 205.115 quater. Para. 344). The countenance of the Corinth warrior may be compared with Aigisthos' on the Vienna pelike and Memnon's on the Gorgos cup. His armour may be compared with the similar treatment of the warrior's on the body of the Paris crater (see above, n. 92). The Corinth warrior may also be compared with another on a fragmentary crater in the Getty Museum (77AE.5.1–4, 6–7, 9–12) which will be published by Robertson in The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal.

⁶⁶ New York 10.210.19. ARV ² 209.169. Richter, G. and Hall, L., Red-figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York 1936)Google Scholar pl. 16.

⁶⁷ With the ‘Very early’ athletes on the Munich Panathenaic compare: ‘Early’ fine athletes on Panathenaics in the Vatican (ARV ² 198.13. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 7.1) and in Munich (2313. ARV ² 198.12. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 7.3); ‘Early’ smaller athlete on a Doubleen in Madrid (11114. ARV ² 200.46. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 15.1. Berl. Drawings 74, pls 8, 43b); ‘Middle’ large komast on a neck-amphora in London (E 267. ARV ² 199.28. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 17.2. Berl. Drawings 68, pl 4, 39d).

With the ‘Very early’ Achilles on the New York kalpis compare: ‘Early’ fine Apollo on a Panathenaic in Wüirzburg (500. ARV ² 197.8. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 9.2, left); ‘Early’ more cursory satyr on a neck-amphora in New York (07.286.69. ARV ² 201.70. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 15.2. Berl. Drawings 82, pls 13, 47c, e); ‘Still early’ Ajax on a Doubleen in Madrid (11118. ARV ² 200.50. Berl., [1930, 1974] pl. 18.1. Berl. Drawings 76, pls 9, 44a).

With the ‘Very early’ Penthesilea on the New York kalpis compare:‘Early’fine Medusa on a Panathenaic in Munich (2312. ARV ², 199.11. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 9.1, right) for the bodice of the chiton; ‘Early’ Europa on a kalpis in Oxford (1927.4502. ARV ² 210.172. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 23.2. Berl. Drawings 102, pls 29, 58a—b) for the skirt; ‘Early’ Polyxena on a kalpis in Leningrad (B200 (628) ARV ² 210.174. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 24.1 Berl. Drawings 103–4, pls 30, 58c—d) for the bodice and skirt of chiton.

⁶⁸ Antecedents for the spectator figures can be found on slightly earlier vases like Euphronios' crater in the Louvre (G 103. ARV ² 14.2. Pfuhl fig. 392). On a fragmentary loutrophoros from the Acropolis (636, frr. ARV ² 25.1 (a). Langlotz pls 50–1) which Beazley described 'related to Phintias, and might be late work of his' there are similar ladies. Cardon would give the latter to the Berlin Painter but Robertson dissociates it, and corrects his earlier suggestion ([n.47] 32 n. 45) that these fragments and 766 (ARV ² 25.2 (a)) might be from the same vase.

⁶⁹ See above n. 65.

⁷⁰ JHS xxxvii (1917) 236.Google Scholar

⁷¹ These approach the ‘mantle figure’. See following note.

⁷² Berl. Drawings 48–51. ‘Early’ deviations are usually minor simplifications occasioned by small scale or haste. For the former compare the standing youths on the neck of the volute-crater in the Louvre (sec below, n. 92): the near leg is profiled but there are three continuous black fold lines. These youths may be compared with those on the small neck-amphora in Oxford (sec below, n. 94) whose mantles display the canonical fold-system and the additional brown fold-lines reserved for special work which are also found on the Louvre crater. An ‘Early’ deviation occasioned by haste is, for example, the continuous fold-line in Demeter's mantle on a Nolan in Dresden (289. ARV ² 201.69. Berl. Drawings 81–2, pls 13 and 47a). Less easily explained are the deviations on a large ‘Early’ neck-amphora in the Louvre (Cp 10841. ARV ² 199.32), which is fragmentary and unpublished. There are numerous continuous black fold-lines, and between them brown fold-lines. The near leg is not profiled, and the hem-line is low. On the other hand, there are slight peaks in the material over the shoulders, possibly brown lines over the flexed near arm (judging from the absence of black lines here), and the hem does not cling to the instep of the advanced foot.

⁷³ Compare what seems to be another system, coherent but less accomplished, on the Acropolis loutrophoros cited above, n. 68.

⁷⁴ Compare Pfuhl figs 366, 368, 369.

⁷⁵ Similarly realistic renderings of the surface features of the chest regions are not very common at this time. Compare a black-figure example, by the Madrid Painter—Herakles feasting, on a. neck-amphora previously in Castle Ashby (ABV 329.5. CVA pl. 10.4).

⁷⁶ Berl. Drawings 23–4.

⁷⁷ Ibid. 24.

⁷⁸ Aberdeen 695. ARV ² 209.164. Berl. Drawings 107, pls 31 and 59b.

⁷⁹ For other details preserved on fragments which may belong to this vase see n. 65.

⁸⁰ Euphronios: Pfuhl figs. 368, 369; Phintias: Pfuhl fig. 381; Euthymides: Pfuhl fig. 392.

⁸¹ The rendering of the hair around Chrysothemis' ear is very unusual. Compare a somewhat similar rendering on a fragmentary loutrophoros from the Acropolis (636; sec n. 68). Less close, but still similar is the rendering on an amphora by Euthymides in Munich (2309. ARV ² 27.4. FR pl. 33). In the Berlin Painter's work the treatment of the strand of hair, echoing the hair mass, can be paralleled on a fragment of a crater in Winchester College (444, fr. ARV ² 205.118. Berl. [1930, 1974] pl. 13.4).

⁸² London E 468. ARV ² 206.132. Berl. (1930, 1974) pl. 30.1.

⁸³ Compare Phintias' rendering on the fragmentary volute-crater in Berlin (2181) and the Villa Giulia (frr.), ARV ² 23.4. JHS xxxv (1925) 117Google Scholar, fig. 3. Also, on the fragmentary calyx-crater in Leningrad (1843. ARV ² 23.5. FR 3, 234) and the Phintian cup in Athens (1628. ARV ² 25.1 alpha. Pfuhl fig. 368).

⁸⁴ The red-figure florals above the figures on the obverses of the vases are in the Berlin Painter's manner. The nearest to their form, although not exactly the same, occurs on the fragmentary calyx-crater from Corinth (see n. 65) where the rendering is more detailed. The black florals above the figures on the reverses of the vases are not in the painter's manner. On the latter see Kurtz, , Athenian White Lekythoi (Oxford 1975) 124Google Scholar n. 7. See also Carol Cardon's discussion of the painter's florals, , J. Paul Getty Mus.J. vi–vii (1978–1979) 135Google Scholar. Becker, Regina, Formen attischer Peliken (Tübingen 1977) 5, 7, 98Google Scholar, has shown that the two pelikai go together in shape and are probably by the same potter. They follow closely on the Pioneer sequence and stand apart from the other pelikai decorated by the Berlin Painter.

⁸⁵ Compare Robertson's criteria (n. 2) 63.

⁸⁶ If the Vienna Painter is distinct from the Berlin Painter, it might prove possible in the future to associate other vases with him, but I would not see the Acropolis skyphos (454, fr. ARV ² 213.242. Langlotz pl. 38) in this position. Carol Cardon, art. cit. (n. 4) 170, has compared the flanking female figures on the obverse of the Vienna pelike with the Nereid on the unassigned plate in Boston (see above, n. 52). Martin Robertson (Robertson, forthcoming) has pointed out that the ‘ghost’ on the Vienna pelike came from another vase by the same hand which sat next to it in the kiln. He has also observed that stylistically the hydriai of the old ‘Nereus Painter’ are close to the pelikai.

⁸⁷ Among the renderings uncharacteristic of the Berlin Painter is the clear definition of the lachrymal duct (Berl. Drawings 21–2). Cardon associates the skyphos with Phintias (art. cit. [n. 4] 170) and this may be correct, although so little remains.

⁸⁸ On the mount of his photograph of the skyphos Beazley compared the hair with the treatment on the Gotha cup (see above, n. 3) and on the Berlin Painter's bell-crater in Tarquinia (RC 7456. ARV ² 206.126. Arias, P., Hirmer, M., Shefton, B., A History of Greek Vase Painting (London 1962)Google Scholar pls xxxvi and 154). Berl. Drawings 21.

⁸⁹ I feel that this somewhat lessens the degree of Phintian influence on the cup. Phintias seems to have had a good deal more difficulty rendering the anatomy of the human body than drapery. His poses are often strained and details of anatomy are incorrect. Cf. Pfuhl fig. 381 (fine drapery) and figs 382–3 (misunderstood anatomy). In this I differ from Cardon who would place the cup near the mature work of Phintias (art. cit. [n. 4] 169–73). Her observations on the potting of the cup and its Phintian associations seem entirely reasonable.

⁹⁰ Cardon, ibid. 172, makes most comparisons with the youth on the tondo.

⁹¹ Small figures on large vases are discussed in nn. 92 and 94.

⁹² The decoration of one of the registers of the neck of a volute-crater goes back to black-figure; Nikosthenes' signed example in London (B 364. ARV ² 229, vi. Pfuhl fig. 256) has black body, patternwork on the upper registers and figures in a frieze on the lower.

When there are figures on the neck and body of a volute-crater, as on the Berlin Painter's in Cambridge and Paris (see below), there is an excellent opportunity to compare draughtsmanship on large and small scale and to observe what differences scale imposes. The Berlin Painter maintains quality in the neck frieze where the system of forms is substantially unaltered. This is not always the case, as Euphronios' volute-crater in Arezzo (1465. ARV ² 15.6. FR pls 61–2) demonstrates: here figures on the neck are less carefully painted than those on the body, but they are more lively—thus showing two aspects of the painter's ‘personality’ which on different vases might be assigned to different periods in his career or even to different hands. On another early volute-crater with figures on the neck, Euthymides also takes less pains on smaller scale (Serra Orlando. ARV ² 28.10. AJA lxiii [1959]Google Scholar pls 43, fig. 24 and 44).

The following volute-craters are now assigned to the Berlin Painter:

ARV ² 206.127: Cambridge 5.1952

ARV ² 206.128: Leipsic T 762, fr.

ARV ² 206.129: Louvre C 10799, fr.

ARV ² 206.130: Louvre, Cp 10799 and Part of G 166

ARV ² 206.131: Villa Giulia

ARV ² 206.131 bis: Carlsruhe 68.101 (Para. 344)

ARV ² 206.132: London E 468

ARV ² 206.132. bis: Naples, Astarita, 703 (ARV ² 1634) In 1930 Beazley considered one of the Louvre fragments(Cp 10799, fr. Berl. 21, no. 180) ‘Sehr früh’ and the other (G166, part, fr. Berl. 18, no. 94) ‘früh’. In ARV ² he suggested that the two might belong to the same vase, as Herbert Giroux (RA 1972, 243–50) has shown to be correct, but the handles associated by Giroux (ibid. 246, fig. 6) are now known to belong not to this vase but to another. I assume that the warrior's head on G166, fr. was thought to be ‘Very early’ because of clear similarities to Achilles' on the New York kalpis, and the neck-figures on Cp 10799 too advanced for such an early date on small scale.

⁹³ Compare Berlin 1897 (ABV 293.8. FR pl. 154.2) and New York 14.146.1. (ARV ² 8.9. Richter-Hall [n. 66] pl. 1).

⁹⁴ Oxford 1924.3 ARV ² 200.43. Berl. Drawings 72–3, pls 6 and 42a–b. Another large vase by the Berlin Painter with small figures on the neck (as on the volute-craters), is a black-bodied amphora of Type A (on vases of this type see Hoffmann, H., Jb. d. Hamburger Kunstsammlungen xii [1967] 9–14)Google Scholar in Bothmer's collection (ARV ² 196.2 bis. Para. 520). The drawing is very fine and the iconography (Dionysos, satyr, maenad, animal) is related to that of Gorgos' cup. The maenad's dress, as preserved, illustrates the painter's system on small, high quality work. The folds in the bodice are parallel brown vertical lines, those in the sleeves (which are doubly engrailed) diverge from evenly spaced buttons, in straight and looping lines. The near leg is well-profiled beneath the skirt of the chiton whose hem rises and falls three times, with a decorative black band at the calf following its course. For the same quality on larger scale, compare a calyx-crater fragment in Cahn's collection (ARV ² 205.116 bis and Para. 344) which differs only in elaborations; the subject, satyr and maenads, also invites comparisons. This fine, early, work looks near to Phintias, who would have approved of the intricate drapery. Other fragments of this vase are in the Louvre (G 193, fr.) and Getty Museum. They will be published by Robertson in The J. Paul Getty Museum Journal. Another vase by the Berlin Painter with subject similar to the cup which might be mentioned here, is a kalpis in Boulogne (449. ARV ² 210.175): on the shoulder Dionysos is joined by a maenad and animal, See also below, n. 121. I should like to thank Dietrich von Bothmer and Herbert Cahn for allowing me to mention their unpublished vases.

⁹⁵ Berl. Drawings 23.

⁹⁶ Ibid. 23.

⁹⁷ Ibid. 24.

⁹⁸ See n. 54. Cardon says of the cup and Gorgos', art.cit. (n. 4) 172: ‘… while both are closer to each other than to the Berlin Painter's work, it is difficult to attribute them to the same hand.’ I think she is probably correct.

⁹⁹ Berl. Drawings 25. This rendering, in the frontal abdomen and groin, can be found on some vases by Pioneers. Euthymides seems to have liked it (cf. Pfuhl figs 365, 367, 368). Phintias represents it with stylized hair (Pfuhl fig. 383) as does Euphronios (Pfuhl fig. 392).

¹⁰⁰ Berl. Drawings 24. This is another rendering which Euphronios seems to like: cf. Pfuhl figs 365, 367, 369.

¹⁰¹ Berl. Drawings 24–5. The definition of rectus abdominis below the navel is a notable feature of some Euthymidean figures (cf. Pfuhl figs 365, 367, 369).

¹⁰² Berl. Drawings 25–6. Among the high quality examples of approximately this date preserving this distinctive rendering, is an unassigned cup in Athens 1666; see above n. 7) by an artist of quite different temperament.

¹⁰³ Berl. Drawings 26–7.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. 20–1, 29–30.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. 20, 93. Foreshortening of shields is also discussed by Robertson (n. 2) 59.

¹⁰⁶ Berl. Drawings 26, 30. See also n. 105 for Robertson's remarks on foreshortening of limbs.

¹⁰⁷ Berl. Drawings 26–7.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid. 28–9.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid. 30. Cf. Pfuhl figs 381, 383.

¹¹⁰ Berl. Drawings 27.

¹¹¹ Ibid. 27. See also below n. 131.

¹¹² Ibid. 21–2.

¹¹³ Ibid. 72–3, pls 6, 42a–b.

¹¹⁴ Cf. the rendering on the Cambridge crater (PLATE VIIIc—d) and the somewhat similar treatment of a spear shaft crossing the face on Phintias' fragmentary volute-crater in Berlin (2181. ARV ² 23.4. JHS li [1931] 41Google Scholar). Phintias, working on larger scale, has drawn face and shield more successfully. The unusual detail of spear's point piercing the shield occurs here and on Gorgos' cup.

¹¹⁵ Berl. (Melbourne) 12.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Cf. Berl. Drawings 51.

¹¹⁷ Ibid. 50.

¹¹⁸ Ibid. 50–1.

¹¹⁹ Ibid 53–4. Compare Dionysos' chiton on a fragment in Florence (7 B 14, fr. ARV ² 213.237. CVAi pl. 7 B 14. PLATE VIe). Compare also the head, face and neck of this Dionysos (and Dionysos on the Astarita crater fragment; see nn. 94 and 127) with Dionysos' on the cup.

¹²⁰ Berl. Drawings 54–5. The maenad's sleeve on Bothmer's amphora (sec above n. 96) is rendered in this manner.

¹²¹ Berl. Drawings 96, pls 25, 56c (seated figure, dressed in chiton and long mantle).

¹²² Berl. Drawings 51–3.

¹²³ Ibid 53–4.

¹²⁴ Ibid 51–3.

¹²⁵ Naples, Astarita, 703. ARV ² 206.132 bis and p. 1634. Berl. (Melbourne) pl. 7a. Some features of the Dionysos are like those on the cup, but there are no significant features on the crater fragment uncharacteristic of the Berlin Painter whereas there are many on the cup.

¹²⁶ Madrid 11200. ARV ² 204.112. Berl. Drawings 88–9, pls 19, 51a.

¹²⁷ Among cups which could be cited is an unassigned, fragmentary one divided between New York, Amsterdam and Paris (ARV ² 1600, ‘Memnon’).

¹²⁸ Cf. e.g. the scene on the obverse of a stamnos in Munich (2406. ARV ² 207.137. Berl. Drawings pl. 54a).

¹²⁹ Robertson (n. 2), 61, found the style of maenad especially like the Berlin Painter's but I still cannot see the closeness of the connection. The ‘spread pose’, as Cardon has pointed out, art. cit. (n. 4) 171, is popular with other artists.

¹³⁰ Cardon ibid. offers some parallels.

¹³¹ A cup recently on the Basle Market (Münzen und Medaillen, Sonderliste Ν, no. 70) looks like a less accomplished artist's version of Gorgos' cup: within, a youth with hare and dog; outside, Dionysos seated, holding vine and kantharos, attended by satyrs and maenads (A) and youths (B).

¹³² Robertson (n. 2), 60 n. 44, has given some examples. Others are: Philadelphia Market. Black exterior; within, a youth in long mantle with knobby stick, holding a hare by the ears. Copenhagen 14268. ARV ² 1583, 1654 (where Beazley has already made the comparison with Gorgos' cup), Para. 377 (possibly the Ashby Painter). Within, a youth in short mantle over his back holding a hare in both hands; exterior, Herakles and centaurs (A), chariot and warriors (B).

¹³³ See n. 89.