CHAPTER X
_RED-FIGURED VASES_
Origin of red-figure style—Date of introduction—Καλός-names and historical personages—Technical characteristics—Draughtsmanship—Shapes—Ornamentation—Subjects and types—Subdivisions of style—Severe period and artists—Strong period—Euphronios—Duris, Hieron, and Brygos—Fine period—Influence of Polygnotos—Later fine period—Boeotian local fabric.
At first sight the sudden reversal of technical method involved in the change from black figures on red ground to red figures on black ground is not easy to explain. That it was a new invention, not a development from the old style, is obvious, seeing that no intermediate stage is possible. The theory has been promulgated by a German writer[1269] that the idea arose from the effect of the Gorgoneion painted on the inside of many late B.F. kylikes. Undoubtedly the effect is that of the R.F. style, the face itself being left red, surrounded by black hair, beyond which the black is continued over the whole surface of the interior.[1270] But this theory has not really much to support it; the Gorgoneion _is in the R.F. technique_, and did not therefore suggest it; and the earliest R.F. kylikes usually have B.F. interiors, not R.F. It is exceedingly doubtful that the kylikes had anything to do with bringing about the change.
Much more probable is the suggestion that the class of vases with opaque figures on black ground (p. 393) represents the transition, if transition it can be called.[1271] We have seen that some of these correspond more to the B.F. vases, others to the R.F., and that in many cases their _appearance_ is that of R.F. vases. It may easily be conceived that it occurred to the painter that it was more effective to let the red clay of the background appear through the black wherever he would place a figure than to paint the red on to the black. But these vases are few in number; and as the R.F. vases sprang at once into great popularity, the new invention must have become too general at the very first to have been adopted from such a comparatively rare method. There is also a greater tendency to naturalism in that class than in the earlier R.F. vases. The fact is that there had been going on throughout the course of early art a tendency (to which B.F. vase-painting forms an exception) in favour of drawing figures on a light ground against a dark background. And even in the B.F. vases this tendency is not altogether absent, as seen in the attempts at lightening the figures by making them polychrome, _i.e._ with purple and white, and also by the practice of covering the rest of the vase entirely with black.
Now, we have already seen that Andokides was a painter who liked to combine the two methods on one vase, and also that he was one who invariably adopted the completely black variety of amphora, for B.F. painting as well as R.F. His Louvre vase with the women swimming is clearly one of the earliest R.F. examples in existence. It is therefore much more likely that he represents for us the author of the new method than Epiktetos or the other artists who painted “mixed” kylikes or who used both styles. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that it was really in the kylikes that the new style rose into popularity.[1272]
Next to the question of how the new style was brought about comes that of when it arose, and the length of its duration at Athens. The chronology of R.F. vases rests on two considerations—the inscriptions on the vases themselves, and the evidence of history and excavations. Until within the last twenty years it had been customary to regard the year 480 B.C. as the line of demarcation between the two methods, and the earliest date for R.F. vases. Yet as long ago as 1834 Ludwig Ross, finding a fragment of R.F. pottery among the _debris_ of the Persian sack of the Acropolis, acutely deduced therefrom that this style must necessarily have been in existence before the date of the sack, _i.e._ before 480 B.C. His views, however, fell on deaf ears, and it was not until the scientific exploration of the Acropolis in 1885–89 that his deduction was seen to be justified. The result of these excavations was to show that among the mass of pottery found in the pre-Persian stratum a considerable quantity belonged to a comparatively advanced stage of R.F. painting, including signatures of artists of the archaic and severe style down to Euphronios. Some writers have thought that these fragments may belong to the period between 480 and 460, when the rebuilding of the site was begun; but so many show traces of burning that it is far more probable that the earlier date is correct.[1273] Allowing, then, for the necessary stages of development up to the time of Euphronios, the beginning of the style may be placed about 525–520 B.C., the date at which, as we have seen, Andokides may be placed. Besides his name (see above, p. 387) that of Euphronios “the potter” was also found on a base in the Acropolis excavations.[1274] The other limit of date will be more conveniently discussed in a subsequent connection, and it may suffice to say here that the gradual pushing back of the _terminus post quem_ points now to a much earlier _terminus ante quem_ than was formerly supposed. Reasons will subsequently appear for placing the termination of the red-figure fabrics at Athens in the closing years of the Peloponnesian War (410–400 B.C.).
The evidence afforded by inscriptions is necessarily affected in some degree by that of excavations, and chiefly important for the _relative_ dates of the vases. It is not palaeographical, but is afforded mainly by one class of inscriptions, that of the καλός-names, so far as they have an historical significance. These names will be the subject of discussion elsewhere,[1275] and are only alluded to here for their connection with the question of chronology. It is a well-known feature of these καλός-names that many are those of famous historical personages, such as Alkibiades, Megakles, Miltiades, and Hipparchos.[1276] But, on the other hand, any attempts to connect the vases with the historical bearers of the names have met with little success; there is also the danger of arguing in a circle—_e.g._ of saying that because Miltiades’ name appears on a vase, it is therefore to be dated in his youth, and because the vase belongs to the date when Miltiades was young, therefore it bears the name of that individual.
Where the importance of these names really comes in is in their relation to particular artists or groups of artists. In this way, as Klein and Hartwig have shown, connecting-links between the artists can be traced and their chronological sequence assured. This, taken in conjunction with questions of style and our fixed dates obtained from other sources, enables us to extract a fair working chronology from all the data. The subject must, however, be dealt with in greater detail when considering the work of individual artists, and only a few general statements can be laid down here.
Many of the historical καλός-names, such as Hipparchos or Glaukon, were probably very common at Athens,[1277] and we have therefore no grounds for attaching importance to their appearance. But in regard to the great painter Euphronios, whose date is fairly certain, it is important to note that two different names are connected with vases in his earlier and later manner respectively, viz. Leagros[1278] and Glaukon. Euphronios began his career about 500–490 B.C., and it probably covered some forty years, from about 495 to 455. Hence we may place the time of Leagros’ youth about 495–490, that of Glaukon about 465–460, and it is remarkable that the latter appears as “son of Leagros” in one or two cases.[1279] Now, we know that there was an Athenian general Leagros who was στρατηγός in 467, and fell in battle against the Edones in that year. Also that he had a son, Glaukon, who commanded at Kerkyra in 433–432. In this case the historical data fit in so exactly with the evidence of the vases and of the Acropolis excavations[1280] that we need hardly hesitate to accept the identity of these two names.
It has been assumed—and the assumption has hardly been questioned—that the καλός-names are necessarily always those of youths, _i.e._ of about seventeen to twenty years of age; this view is supported both by the general character of the subjects on the vases where they appear, and by the frequent use of the analogous formula ὁ παῖς καλός. Dr. Hartwig has laid down certain conclusions in regard to these names which have met with general acceptance, and may be briefly restated here by way of summarising the subject.
(1) All vases with the same καλός-name are limited to a period of ten years, and consequently all those which are by one artist belong to a definite circumscribed period of his life.
(2) All vases by different artists, but with the same καλός-name, are approximately contemporaneous, _i.e._ within ten years.
(3) The appearance of two or more καλός-names on the same vase indicates the approximate similarity of age of the persons named, the greatest possible difference being ten years.
(4) All vases with the same καλός-name, whether by one artist or more, can always be linked together by their style; the same name does not appear on a man’s earliest and latest vases.
He further impresses the caution that the identity and position of the παῖδες καλοί (_i.e._ whether or no they belonged to the aristocratic class) is a secondary question compared with that of the development of painting which they help to elucidate.
The question of fabric is one that hardly needs discussion, the evidence pointing so unanimously to Athens in all cases. The apparent exceptions suggested by classes of vases found almost exclusively on one site, like the “Nolan” amphorae or the Gela lekythi, can easily be shown to be no real exceptions. We have already met more than once with instances of particular fabrics being favoured by particular places; and just as Ionian vases were imported to Caere or Vulci, and a special class of Attic B.F. vases made for Cyprus, so we may suppose that certain Athenian makers had a monopoly of export to Nola, to Gela, or elsewhere. Otherwise similarity of style, of technique, of subject, of the alphabet of inscriptions, and all other details point to a purely homogeneous fabric, and that this was located in Athens itself is not a matter to be seriously disputed. To this complete monopoly which Athens enjoyed in the fifth century only one exception can be traced, that of Boeotia, where local fabrics continued to be made at Thebes and Tanagra. Of these one class has already been discussed (p. 391); the other will be treated of subsequently (p. 451).
We must next consider briefly the technical characteristics and the forms of the Attic R.F. vases. As regards the former, the method pursued during the period under consideration may be summarised as follows. The artist sketches his design on the red clay with a fine-pointed tool; he then surrounds this outline with black varnish, laid on with a pen or brush,[1281] to the extent of about an eighth of an inch all round, this being done to prevent the varnish, when laid on over the rest of the ground, from running over into any part of the design. Finally, details such as features or folds of drapery are added with a brush in black lines on the red, this process representing the incised lines of the old style; and further details are often expressed either in a thinned black pigment which becomes brown and is sometimes only perceptible in a strong light, or by application of white and purple as in the last period. In the severe style purple is generally used; but at a later stage this colour was dropped, and finally replaced by white. The accessory colours were chiefly used for fillets in the hair, liquids, flowers, and other small details, as well as for inscriptions. Thus we see that the technical process of the preceding method is exactly reversed and that the figures now stand out in the natural colour of the clay against the black ground.
The advantages of the new method were obvious. As long as the vase-painters continued content with stiff and hieratic forms and mere silhouettes the black figures were sufficient. The careful mapping-out of the hair and muscles, the decorations, and all the details of shadow in painting and of unequal surface in sculpture could be easily expressed by the new method. But it is evident that these stiff lines were quite inadequate to express those softer contours, which melted, as it were, into one another, and marked the more refined grace and freedom of the rapidly advancing schools of sculpture and painting. By the change of colour of the figures to the lucid red or orange of the background, the artist was enabled to draw lines of a tone or tint scarcely darker than the clay itself, but still sufficient to express all the finer anatomical details; while the more important outlines still continued to be marked with fine black lines. At first the style is essentially the same, the forms precise, the eyes in profile, the attitudes rigid, and the draperies rectilinear. The backgrounds may have been painted in by an ordinary workman, and some specimens exist in which it has never been laid on (cf. p. 222). The artists seem to have worked from slight sketches, and according to their individual feelings and ideas, and as duplicate designs are quite unknown, there was clearly no system of copying.
The correspondence of _style_ in the figures on the earlier R.F. vases to those of B.F. technique shows that the two methods must have coexisted for a time, and this is further borne out by the mixed vases of Andokides, Hischylos, and others, and by the work of artists who employed either style, like Pamphaios. The latter, for instance, seems to have adhered to the old style by preference for hydriae and large vases, but preferred to follow the new fashion in the kylix.
To quote a recent writer: “The new method opened up a path for the freer exercise of the imagination,” and we can see in the red-figure vases a gradual development of artistic conception and power of expression, together with the shaking off of all restrictions until the perfection of drawing is reached, and “the red figures stand out against the black, unencumbered with anything that might distract from harmony of colouring or purity of outline.”[1282] It is the essential characteristic of the new style that it is drawing rather than painting, and it stands out as the final attainment of what the vase-painters had really been striving after from the days of the Melian and early Ionic wares—namely, the perfection of linear design. The same principle is at work in the vases with white ground which passed through parallel phases of development.
Among minor details of drawing in which an advance is conspicuous is the treatment of hair, eyes, and drapery. In the B.F. style the hair was indicated as a black mass, standing out against the light background; but now that the background had become black, a separation was necessary. At first this was done by adhering to the old engraved line method, for which came to be substituted a narrow unpainted line. Next, an advance was made in the treatment of the hair itself, with a view to more accuracy in detail, and the contours are undulated or separate locks shown on the forehead. Sometimes a kind of stippling process is adopted, by means of which the hair is indicated by rows or clusters of raised dots, representing close curls, such as are seen in Attic sculpture of the late archaic period.
The general contours of the forms are slender; the foreheads are low, the noses prominent, the eyes long, the chins sharp, the legs short and thick, and the folds of the garments stiff and rectilinear. Women are not distinguished in this style either by their colour or by the shape of their eyes, in which respects they are drawn just like the men, but exclusively by their costume and form. The white hair of old men is indicated by white markings on the black ground, and curly hair, as noted, by little raised knobs of black paint (βόστρυχοι). The figures are generally small, but some of grandiose proportions occur even in the earlier stages, though more characteristic of the succeeding “strong” style. The principal outlines are usually finished with wonderful spirit and truth, but sometimes, as in the extremities, great carelessness is visible. The general effect is much enhanced by the fineness of the clay, which in the earlier R.F. vases is of a bright orange-red, as also by the brilliancy of the black varnish.
[Illustration:
From _B.M. Cat._ iii. FIG. 99. DIAGRAM SHOWING DEVELOPMENT IN RENDERING OF EYE. ]
The development of the form of the eye is most important, as an aid to chronology (see Fig. 99). In the B.F. period it was invariably treated in two ways,—that of a man as a complete circle, in front view, between the lids, of which the upper is more arched than the lower; that of a woman is almond-shaped. In the R.F. vases the eye in front view is still maintained with figures in profile, but the sexes are not distinguished; the pupil is painted black, and the lids drawn at first like the B.F. male eye, then almond-shaped. The next stage is to shift the pupil (which now becomes a ring with central dot) into the inner corner. Lastly, this corner is opened out till it assumes the correct profile appearance, and then, about the middle of the fifth century, the pupil also attains the correct form. About midway in this development, as we have already seen, the power is acquired of moving the position of the pupil to express looking upwards, downwards, or sideways; the importance of this point as bearing on the new developments of Kimon of Kleonae we have already discussed. The eyelashes are not rendered until the correct profile is attained, except in a few instances, such as the Berlin cup of Euphronios (2282), where the lids are fringed with short, vertical strokes.[1283]
In regard to the treatment of drapery, the earlier vases, such as those of the Epiktetos cycle, retain the B.F. method of rendering folds only in the skirts of the chiton, these taking the form of parallel lines. Gradually the folds follow the motion of the body; and finally, under Euphronios, comes a marked advance, whereby contrasts of material are indicated.[1284] He uses fine brown crinkly lines to represent the soft transparent Athenian fabric which we also see worn by the archaic female figures of the Acropolis.
Among the many improvements in drawing effected during the R.F. period, a notable one is that of the introduction of true perspective and more than conventional landscape. We know from the shield of the Athena Parthenos that this began to be understood at Athens by the middle of the fifth century, as also from the paintings of Polygnotos, and hence we are not surprised to find it appearing in the vases of the period when that artist’s influence began to be felt. A fine example is the krater from Orvieto in the Louvre, with an Argonautic scene (see p. 442); and even more beautiful is the Blacas krater in the British Museum, which shows Selene disappearing over the top of a hill, and the stars setting in the sea (see Plate LIII.). These two vases also illustrate the introduction of the new principle of placing figures at different levels which was elaborated in the Meidias hydria, the vases of Kertch, and to a still greater degree in those of Southern Italy. All these details indicate the growing tendency towards a pictorial style, which in the first instance was due to Polygnotos.
The =shapes= of the R.F. period are to a great extent the same as in the last, but most of them are modified to some degree, and some new ones are introduced. Moreover, the relative popularity of certain shapes varies, the amphora and hydria of the B.F. period being now surpassed in favour by the kylix, the krater and lekythos receiving more attention, and certain new forms, such as the askos and stamnos, appearing at different stages.
For the first half of the period, from 520 to 460 B.C., the kylix is pre-eminent, not only in point of numbers, but for the attention devoted to its decoration. It is, as we have seen, doubtful whether it was actually in the kylikes that the new style came into being, but in any case they form the material for the study of its earlier phases. The form is that of the later B.F. varieties (see p. 191), as used by Exekias and the painters who used the large eyes in its decoration, tracing its origin probably to an Ionic source.[1285] At first the decoration is often confined to the interior, or the exterior designs are little more than conventional, consisting of the eyes and a simple motive or figure between.[1286] In the strong period there is usually a connection between the interior and exterior designs, the whole often forming successive episodes of a story[1287]; but subsequently the old principle asserts itself, and the interior subject becomes the important one. Slight variations of form occur,[1288] as in the cups of Brygos, with their off-set lip, or the delicate products of Sotades, the handles of which are shaped like a chicken’s merrythought. In the latest specimens the stem is often replaced by a flat broad foot, or the bowl becomes flat and ugly, losing all the beauty of the earlier graceful curves.
Among other drinking-cups the kotyle, kantharos, and rhyton are most often found. The former was favoured by Epiktetos and Hieron, and a kantharos is signed by Epigenes, others by Nikosthenes and Duris. The kantharos, though a very beautiful form, is never common in the painted vases, being perhaps oftener made in metal. Among the kotylae we may mention here a series painted with an owl and olive-wreath,[1289] which obviously have some reference to the cult of Athena. They have been identified, but on slight authority, with the Παναθηναϊκά mentioned by Athenaeus[1290]; but their real meaning has not yet found a satisfactory explanation. The _rhyton_ strictly belongs to the series of plastic vases (see pp. 201, 211), the lower portion being always modelled in the form of a head, human or animal, or two conjoined. Some of these are signed by artists, such as Charinos and Kaliades.[1291]
Of the amphora three main varieties are found. The earlier type, which reproduces the “black-bodied” or panel-amphora of the B.F. period, did not long remain in favour, and was mainly used by Andokides and Euthymides and their associates. The panel system of decoration is still retained, the framework being formed of ornamental patterns as in the old style. Secondly, there is the “Nolan” amphora, which came in about 500–480 B.C., and was obviously an improvement on the old “red-bodied” B.F. type. It is a very graceful, slender form, with long neck, distinguished by the surpassing excellence of its black varnish, and the impression of taste and restraint given by its simple decoration of one or two figures each side (see Plate XXXVI.). The third variety is the so-called _pelike_ (see p. 163), a not very successful variation of the amphora, but for some reason very popular in the later stages. With its flat foot and bulbous body it stands in the same relation to the amphora as does the so-called aryballos (see below) to the lekythos.
Two forms that may be connected with the amphora are the stamnos and the psykter (see pp. 163, 172). The former is peculiar to the R.F. period in its earlier stages; the first known example is signed by Pamphaios, a “transitional” artist. Most of the known specimens attain a high average of excellence. The psykter or wine-cooler is very rare, but there are two fine examples signed by Euphronios and Duris.
The hydria in this period at first retains the B.F. form, as seen in an example of about 500 B.C. signed by Phintias (B.M. E 159), but the tendency to prefer a curvilinear outline is soon manifested. The new development is conventionally known as a _kalpis_. The shoulder having ceased to be distinct from the body, the design becomes single, or else is confined to the upper part of the field.
Of the krater we have at least four varieties, all belonging to the more developed stages of the period. The earliest example is the Antaios-krater of Euphronios in the Louvre, about 500 B.C., which is of the form known as _vaso a calice_ (p. 170); but this and the other varieties never become really common till the final stages are reached. The bell-krater, or _vaso a campana_, is only found in the late fine period, and is then almost the only kind of large vase made; the volute-handled krater, which was developed from the old column-handled type, is seen in some fine specimens. At first the design (as in the B.F. example by Nikosthenes, B.M. B 364) is confined to the neck. The treatment of the column-handled type is interesting as a survival of archaism both in design and arrangement, with the bordered panels and occasional B.F. friezes of animals.[1292]
Among the smaller vases, the oinochoë and lekythos with their varieties, the askos and the pyxis, are the most important. With the exception of the ordinary form of lekythos these belong chiefly to the later stages, when the preference was for a sort of miniature style. Very few of these bear artists' signatures. The oinochoë differs little from the B.F. examples; the pyxis is practically a revival of an old form favoured in the Corinthian and other early fabrics. The latter are usually decorated with domestic or marriage subjects, in reference to their use by women for toilet purposes (see Plates XLII., XLIII.).
The lekythos was, as we shall see, the form exclusively employed for the funeral vases, and largely also for others with polychrome decoration on white ground. Those painted with red figures belong mainly to the strong period (500–460), and have been mostly found in Sicily, whither they were imported by preference, like the amphorae made for Nola; a fine specimen is given on Plate XXXVI. When this form came to be adopted for the funeral vases, a new type arose with bulbous or spherical body, conventionally known as an _aryballos_. In the late fine style we have many examples of this form, with rich polychrome decoration and gilding (Plate XLII.).[1293]
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE XXXVI
[Illustration: RED-FIGURED “NOLAN” AMPHORAE AND LEKYTHOS (BRITISH MUSEUM).]
------------------------------------
The =ornamental patterns= on R.F. vases do not, generally speaking, call for so much attention as those of earlier style; they are on the whole used with great restraint and little variety, and are more subordinate to the designs than at any other period of vase-painting. The principal motives are the palmette, maeander, and egg-pattern; all others are comparatively rare. It is interesting to note, on the early amphorae and hydriae, and on the column-handled kraters down to quite a late date, the survival of the old panel system with its borders of ornament. Strictly speaking, now that the background was black throughout, there was no necessity for enclosing the space on which the figures were depicted; but the conservative instincts prevailed, especially while the old shapes were retained.[1294] Gradually, however, as these vases assumed new forms, the borders were almost unconsciously dropped—first the sides, then the top, and lastly the lower border, which maintained its ground longer than the others. The same tendency, from a formal framework to absolute freedom, is in fact to be observed in all the vases; and in the later stages we note a new development, that of an elaborate pattern of palmettes under the handles, which assumes more and more prominence.
The evolution of the palmette on R.F. vases has been skilfully traced by Dr. Winter[1295] in reference to the kylikes; but it is no less interesting in the amphorae and similar forms. In both cases it arose from the tendency to make the handles terminate in stylised palmettes, which on the B.F. kylikes of the minor artists are often a prominent element in the decoration. Similarly, on the B.F. red-bodied amphorae we have the symmetrical compositions of palmettes under the handles radiating from a common centre. These were at first reduced to a modest single palmette or a pair, but soon spread out again, preserving at first the symmetrical grouping; subsequently, with an increasing tendency to naturalism, the palmettes, enclosed within graceful tendrils, form _unsymmetrical_ but highly pleasing compositions without any definite centre.[1296] This development of ornament under the handles—to which part of the vase it was almost restricted—can be traced during the first half of the fifth century, till it reaches its height about the middle. Where a band of ornament was required round the base of the design, as on the large calyx-kraters, it takes the form of a row of palmettes enclosed in tendrils, in the style of modern arabesques; or the palmettes are arranged in pairs, set obliquely, and each pair divided by a scroll ending in volutes. Or, again, a row of somewhat squat palmettes, similarly enclosed, alternates with lotos-flowers in the old style, as on B.M. E 169.[1297]
[Illustration: FIG. 100. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (EARLY R.F. PERIOD).]
In the kylikes the development of the handle-ornament first begins with Epiktetos, who (as on E 3 in B.M.) first draws a free palmette with separated leaves on either side.[1298] As the tendency to cover the whole of the exterior space with the design increased, the intervening space under the handle came to be filled in also, by extending the tendrils of the palmettes and terminating them with buds (Fig. 100).[1299] Next, a tendency to symmetrical composition each side is seen, the palmettes being doubled in number[1300]; or, again, an attempt is made at uniting the two isolated palmette-systems in one harmonious whole, and at the same time to fill the intervening space, by means of interlacing tendrils.[1301] The palmettes are further increased to three or four each side, and in the arrangement is seen the tendency to freedom even at the cost of symmetry already noted, as in Fig. 101.[1302] Thus is reached the point at which the severe passes into the strong style. In the latter the palmettes are often omitted altogether,[1303] especially where the two exterior scenes are connected; or their place is taken by some figure under the handle, as on vases by Hieron or Brygos. Where the patterns do occur, they are often stereotyped, as in the vases of Duris, who on nine examples with handle-patterns repeats the same device in each case. In the fine style, after 460 B.C., the symmetrical arrangement recurs, the usual type consisting of a double palmette between two large ones, with connecting and enclosing tendrils.
[Illustration: FIG. 101. PALMETTES UNDER HANDLES (LATER STAGE).]
Another method of tracing the chronological sequence of the R.F. cups is by means of the maeander patterns which surround the interior design and extend below the outside scenes (Fig. 102).[1304] A parallel development of this pattern may also be traced on the amphorae and other vases, where it is used as a border below the figures. In the severe style, as in the cups of Epiktetos, this pattern has not yet made its appearance, and its place is taken by a simple line of red; and in the vases of Euphronios, on which it is first found, a simple maeander is employed. The first to vary this was Duris, who alternates it with squares, the centre of which is “voided” in the form of a red cross, and this practice subsequently became invariable. The square itself shows a development of form, the cross being first filled in with a black centre, then made diagonal; next, the black background is largely diminished, until it disappears, except for dots between the arms of the black cross; finally, it changes into the form of a chequered square, black and red, of which the red squares are sometimes dotted.
The =subjects= on red-figured vases may not perhaps be so varied or so full of mythological interest as those on the black-figured, but yet present many features worthy of attention. At the very outset we see the tendency towards scenes from real life in preference to those from mythology; and on the whole throughout the period the ratio of one class to the other is exactly the reverse of the preceding period. Nor are the stock subjects in either class the same. In regard to mythology the cosmogonic themes of B.F. vases, such as the Gigantomachia and the Birth of Athena, are replaced by such subjects as Eleusinian and Attic local cults, the sending forth of Triptolemos or the birth of Erichthonios. In the heroic cycles Herakles is no longer the popular favourite, but is supplanted, for reasons presently to be detailed, by Theseus. The Argonautika frequently provides subjects for vases of the more developed style, in which the influence of Polygnotos is felt; and the _Odyssey_ begins to rival the _Iliad_ as a source of epic themes. The influence of the stage is as yet hardly felt, though here and there scenes may be traced to the influence of some Satyric drama.
[Illustration:
From _B.M. Cat._ iii. FIG. 102. DEVELOPMENT OF MAEANDER-AND-CROSS PATTERN. ]
In subjects relating to Dionysos and his attendant Satyrs and Maenads a considerable change is to be noted, in the direction of a preference for violent action. The Bacchic revellers of the B.F. vases, even at their highest pitch of excitement, are generally stiff wooden figures, with mechanical and restrained pose or action. But the exteriors of many cups of the best R.F. period, such as those of Hieron or Brygos, are enlivened by throngs of frenzied Maenads and wild drunken Satyrs, given up to the most unrestrained and licentious merriment (see