My thanks are due to Marchesa Isabella Guglielmi di Vulci, Marchese Giorgio Guglielmi di Vulci, and Mr. James Loeb for their kind permission to publish vases in their collections; to Miss G. M. A. Richter, Mr. S. Bastianelli, Prof. H. Bulle, Dr. L. D. Caskey, Dr. G. Cultrera, Mr. E. J. Forsdyke, Mr. E. T. Leeds, Mr. R. Mengarelli, Dr. B. Nogara, and Cav. E. Stefani for permission to publish vases in New York, Civitavecchia, Würzburg, Boston, London, Oxford, Palermo, the Vatican, and the Villa Giulia. Dr. R. Heidenreich obliged me by sending me very precise notes of some Leipsic cups; Dr. P. Mingazzini by inspecting a cup in Florence; Mr. Humfry Payne by searching for a cup in Athens; Mr. F. N. Pryce by examining with me several cups in the British Museum. To these also my thanks.

Abbreviations:–H. means Hoppin, A Handbook of Black-figured Vases; and ABS. my Attic Black-figure: a Sketch.

¹ It has been used in a wider sense, for instance by Pfuhl, (Malerei, pp. 273–8)Google Scholar, who makes it include ‘Siana cups,’ which I keep apart. On ‘Siana cups’ see JHS. 49, p. 260, and 51, p. 275.

² The two terms are Buschor, (FR. iii, p. 219 Google Scholar).

³ Ure, in Ἐφημ. 1915, pp. 120–4Google Scholar, type D; Beazley, and Payne, in JHS. 49, pp. 270–1Google Scholar; Ure, in JHS. 52, pp. 55–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Ἐφημ. 1915, pp. 117–20, types B and C.

⁵ ‘Siana cup’ is of course a conventional term, and does not imply any connexion with Eastern Greece.

⁶ Ure, (Ἐφημ. 1915, p. 120 Google Scholar, note 5) mentions three lip-cups with fillets: the Leipsic Tleson T 52; Louvre A 242; Louvre F 97. Of these, Louvre A 242 is not a normal lip-cup (see p. 184): the other two I have not noted. A lip-cup lately in the market has a fillet (A–B, each, rider: the inscriptions disposed as in the London lip-cup B 405, CV. pl. 14, 1).

⁷ Ure (l.c. p. 117, note 5) mentions two cups in which the lower part of the inside of the stem is black inside: but in Berlin inv. 4495 (see p. 183) I was not sure that the foot belonged; and A 242 is not a normal little-master cup (see p. 184).

⁸ One or two have lines (arranged one, three, one) on the flat underside of the foot: Nearchos cup; Eucheiros cup in London; … kles cup in Florence (see below, pp. 176, 175, 184); special lip-cup in Northwick (see p. 182: the outer lines red). These lines recur in Gordion cups (see p. 185), and sometimes in Siana cups and in eye-cups. One or two very large band-cups have more elaborate decoration on the underside (see p. 188).

⁹ The interior is very rarely black all over. Ure (l.c. p. 118, note 2) quotes a cup in Dresden which I have not seen. I add the ‘gageos’ cup (see p. 174).

¹⁰ The London Xenokles has five on A, four on B; a cup in Leningrad (210, St. 216, Waldhauer, , ARV. p. 12 Google Scholar below) seven on each half. In Cambridge 68 (CV. pl. 20, 1) the animals extend even farther.

¹¹ In Carlsruhe 2596 (I, AA. 1890, p. 2, no. 1; A, Welter, pl. 4, 10) and Munich 2133 (J. 41: I, man courting boy) the palmettes are of the same sort as in the Ergotimos, Berlin cup (WV. 1888, pl. 4, 2; H. p. 83)Google Scholar, but without the bow-shaped adjunct next the handle.

¹² Hope Xenokles (see p. 178: sphinxes); Tarquinia RC 4194 (see p. 178: sphinxes); New York Epitimos (pl. VIII; see p. 177: lions); Basseggio Tleson (see p. 172: cocks); Munich 2172 (J. 10: much repainted: sphinxes). Cf. p. 188, n. 27.

¹³ The cup Louvre F 68 (Pottier, pl. 68; Pfuhl, fig. 212), in which the whole interior except the lip is decorated, is. not Attic, or ‘Attico-Ionic,’ but pure East Greek—Fikellura style.

¹⁴ Exceptions. In the Louvre Neandros there is a subsidiary pattern-band on each side of the tongueband—dots alternately from top and bottom of the bounding-line. The same in the special lip-cup at Northwick (see p. 182). This richer border is common enough in Siana cups; and is regular in Gordion cups (see p. 185). London B 419 (see p. 199) has a similar dot-band, but only outside the tongues.

Three cups have a simple border of three or four lines: Xenokles cups in Boston and in the Robinson collection, and an early cup in Cambridge (68, see p. 178).

Tarquinia RC 4194 (see p. 178) has a zone of figures, in lieu of border, round the tondo.

Vatican 316 has the ordinary tongue-border, but a red line outside it (Albizzati, pl. 34: the tondo is reversed in the reproduction).

¹⁵ Munich 2171 (J. 20: I, man running; A–B, each, lioness). London B 419 (seep. 199). Oxford fr. (I, sphinx).

¹⁶ Cf. the signature of Kriton on his oinochoe in Goluchow, (V. Pol. p. 8. 5Google Scholar; CV. pl. 16, 2). The signature of Kleimachos in Eleusis might appear, from H. p. 142, to end in a similar flourish; but that is only because it is misreported. The inscription is complete, and reads that is, as Pollak, showed (AEM. 1895, p. 22 Google Scholar), I add that this is a good verse, glyc + ba, like The fr. is from mouth and neck of a long-necked loutrophoros-like neck-amphora, much as Athens 1036 (AM. 18, pl. 2). H.'s plate (p. 143) gives not only this fr., but the frr. with the signature of Euphiletos, (see ABS. p. 37 Google Scholar), which have nothing to do with it.

¹⁷ See p. 169.

¹⁸ But the cup seems to be entered twice in Klein: for I suppose Archikles 3 to be the same as his Anakles 3.

¹⁹ Gábrici, , Vasi greci … di Palermo e Agrigento (from Atti R. Acc. di Palermo, 15 Google Scholar), figs. 1 and 10. I, here, pl. VI, 2. I, Herakles and the Lion: A–B, each, θεογνις: καλοξνεδια. Gábrici has already compared the Charitaios cup. Theognis does not occur elsewhere as a love-name; and I suppose this is our earliest authority for the expression νὴ Δία, as the cup cannot be later than 550 B.C.

²⁰ Also in the lip-cup Oxford 233, the band-cups Toronto 286 (Robinson, pl. 28, and p. 101, top) and Munich 2197.

²¹ I take what is written on the Louvre cup to be for Pottier, takes it otherwise, Cat. p. 743 Google Scholar. The inscr. on the Boeotian vase reads i.e. (or ). Possessive adjective from I punctuate after otherwise Rolfe, (Harv. St. II, p. 90 Google Scholar) and Bechtel, (Gr. Dial. 1, p. 109 Google Scholar). A rude iambic trimeter, with hiatus at the caesura.

²² I seize the opportunity of apologising for saying (JHS. 49, p. 263) that the plaque-fragments were put together wrongly.

²³ See Ure, in JHS. 52, p. 55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ For the spelling, see Richter, in Bull. Metr. 1931, p. 290 Google Scholar.

²⁵ For the convex lip, rare in Attic, , see JHS. 49, p. 259 Google Scholar, and add two Siana cups in Taranto, 5829 and 5845. It is common in Corinthian, Laconian, Ionian.

²⁶ Good examples of both in the London Corpus. Louvre F 81 (phot. Giraudon 16750, 2: frontal chariot, with riders and others) has large handlepalmettes set horizontally with ivy-leaves or palmettines springing from the back of the inner volutes; and so has a band-cup of the ‘brief’ class in Carlsruhe (2597: Welter, pl. 4, 11: frontal chariot) which is in the same style. This type of palmette is known from Droop cups (Athens 12281, JHS. 52, pl. 3, 96; fr. in Florence), from a cup of ‘Chalcidising’ shape (CV. Scheurleer, III, He, pl. 2, 1), from a class of kotylai ( Ure, , Sixth, pp. 58 and 61 and pl. 17Google Scholar: add Toronto 344, Robinson, pl. 52), and as Ure points out, from two Nicostbenic neck-amphorae (Torlonia, H. p. 271; Vatican, H. p. 275). The same kind of palmette, but without the leaflets, appears on bandcups in the Villa Giulia (CV. pl. 27, 4 and pl. 28) and in Florence (Minotaur): compare a kotyle in the Villa Giulia (Mingazzini, pl. 88, 7–8) and cups of eye-cup shape in London (64, 10–7. 167) and Rhodes, (Jacopi, , Jalisso, p. 245 Google Scholar). Acropolis 1629 (Graef, pl. 84) gives a late version of the normal palmette; and the style of the figures is late (see p. 188).

²⁷ See p. 169. The handle-sphinxes are sometimes ‘taken seriously’: on a cup in the Villa Giulia (Mingazzini, pl. 91, 5 and pl. 93, 2–3) they are attacked by youths.

²⁸ On the palmettes see note 26.

²⁹ Cf. the Droop cup Toronto 289 ( Robinson, , pl. 29; JHS. 52, p. 66 Google Scholar), and an eye-cup-foot in London.

³⁰ The others are Munich 2107; Munich 2089; London B 426 (CV. pl. 21); Munich 2244 (JHS. 52, pl. 4). The first two are variants of the eye-cup; the third is a huge eye-cup by the Lysippides painter; the fourth is an abnormally large and elaborate Droop cup. If the reproduction in MonInst. (9, pl. 13) is to be trusted, a giant band-cup represented in the Tomba dei Vasi Dipinti at Tarquinia has rays on the lower part of the stem: but the painting is damaged and fragmentary (Weege, pl. 68).

³¹ For the idea cf. the Acropolis dinos 606 (Graef, pl. 32).

³² From the catalogue, Toronto 285 (Forman, 319, plate; Baur, , Centaurs, i, p. 25 Google Scholar; Robinson, pl. 28 and p. 99) would appear to be another band-cup of peculiar technique. But I take it that it has been discoloured in firing; that the ‘brown’ flesh was originally black, and the ‘red’ beards, cloaks, etc., originally red.

³³ Archenedes, Chiron, Epitimos, Kaulos, ‘Myspios,’ Thrax, Thypheithides.

³⁴ Ergotimos, Exekias, Hischylos, Nikosthenes, Sakonides.

³⁵ Hischylos, Nikosthenes. Tleson?

³⁶ Charitaios, Ergotimos, Exekias, Hermogenes, Kleitias, Nearchos, Nikosthenes, Priapos, Taleides, Xenokles.

³⁷ Archikles and Glaukytes. Anakles and Nikosthenes.

³⁸ Munich Sakonides. London Phrynos. Berlin Anakles-Nikosthenes.

³⁹ More elaborate, the palmette forming part of the picture on the goat cup in Castle Ashby: but that is in different case.

⁴⁰ The second figure from the left is not Poseidon (as H.) but probably Zeus. The flesh of the women is not white but black, and the eye of the left-hand one (the other eye is lost) is accordingly of ‘male’ shape: cf. the oinochoai, of the same shape, by the Amasis painter, in the Louvre, F 37 (Pottier, pl. 67) and in Oxford, (CV. pl. 3, 28 Google Scholar) (arms and feet black, face red, ‘male’ eye).

⁴¹ Prof. Zahn showed me the vase some years ago, then just acquired. The greeting is χαιρεκαιπιει…, perhaps incomplete, for a break after the iota. The head of the left-hand man is lost, and was probably modern.

⁴² The unusual foot, shortish, with a slight groove at the lower end of the stem, seems to belong. On the inside pattern, see p. 169. No relief-line in the tongues.

⁴³ The description in H. is wrong: the animals are not on the shoulder, but in a predella below the main picture. The shoulder-picture is that marked d. There must be some restorations.

⁴⁴ The bilingual and rf. Hischylos cups, new and old, will be dealt with in my Campana Fragments. Note meanwhile that the Berlin fr. (H. p. 137) is from a bilingual, as Kraiker shows (JdI. 44, p. 152), and that nos. 3 and 4 of H.'s rf. list (Rf. pp. 114–7) are not signed by Hischylos and have nothing to do with him.

⁴⁵ The inscriptions are given imperfecdy by H. (see Graef) and he figures with 611 two fragments of Acr. 693, which have nothing to do with Nearchos.

⁴⁶ Miss Richter has now published it (AJA. 1932, p. 272): she has shown me that I was wrong to doubt its genuineness (BSA. 29, p. 200).