Chapter XV

.) it will be seen what ample information is afforded on such points as the vocations and pastimes of men, the life of women, war and athletics, sport and education.

(3) =Mythological.=—On this head reference must again be made to the chapters on Subjects, as affording ample evidence of the importance of the vases not only for the elucidation of Greek mythology and legend, but also for religious cults and beliefs. One other point, however, is worth noting here. Our knowledge of Greek mythology, if only derived from literary records, rests largely on the compilations of Roman or late writers, such as Ovid, Hyginus, and Apollodoros. It has been aptly pointed out by a recent writer[4] that in these authors we have mythology in a crystallised form, modified and systematised, and perhaps confused with Latin elements, and that our popular modern notions are mainly derived from these sources as they have been filtered down to us through the medium of Lemprière’s Dictionary and similar works. But vase-paintings are more or less original and contemporary documents. Granted that it is possible to run to the opposite extreme and accept art traditions to the utter neglect of the literary tradition as derived from Homer and the Tragedians, the fact still remains that for _suggestions_, and for raising problems that could never have arisen through a literary medium, the evidence of vases is of inestimable value.

In regard to Greek religious beliefs, it should be borne in mind that with the Greeks art was the language by which they expressed their ideas of the gods. It was thus largely due to their religion that they attained supremacy in the plastic art, and their absolute freedom of treatment of their religious beliefs almost eliminated the hieratic and conventional character of Oriental art from their own, with its infinite variety of conceptions. The vase-paintings, almost more than any other class of monuments, reveal the universal religious sentiment which pervaded their life—the δεισιδαιμονία which prevailed even in Romanised Athens. Thus the vases constitute a pictorial commentary on all aspects of Greek life and thought.[5]

(4) =Artistic.=—(_a_) _Form._ In the grace of their artistic forms the Greeks have excelled all nations, either past or present. The beauty and simplicity of the shapes of their vases have caused them to be taken as models; but as every civilised people has received from other sources forms sanctioned by time, and as many of the Greek forms cannot be adapted to the requirements of modern use, they have not been extensively imitated. Yet to every eye familiar with works of art of the higher order their beauty is fully apparent.

(_b_) _Decoration._ It is at first difficult to realise how little we actually know of Greek painting. Our modern museums are so full of specimens of Greek sculpture, either originals or ancient copies of masterpieces, that we feel it possible to obtain an adequate idea of the genius of Pheidias or Praxiteles at first-hand, so to speak. But ancient literature clearly shows that painting was held by the Greeks in equally high estimation with sculpture, if not even higher. Consult the writings of the elder Pliny on ancient art. A considerable space is there devoted to the account of the great painters Zeuxis, Apelles, and Parrhasios, while Pheidias is barely mentioned, and the account of Praxiteles’ works is far from complete. Yet we look in vain through most modern collections for any specimen of Greek painting on fresco or panel.

This is, of course, due to the perishable character of pictures and the destruction of the buildings on the walls of which the great frescoes were preserved. But the fact remains that we have to look in other directions for the evidence we require to find. We have here and there a painted Greek tombstone, a Pompeian fresco, or the decoration of an Etruscan sepulchre to give us a hint; but while the first-named are far too inconsiderable in number to give us any idea of the art of their time, the two latter are merely products of an imitative art, giving but a faint echo of the originals.

Now, in the vases we have, as noted in regard to mythology, contemporary evidence. It must never be forgotten that vase-painting is essentially a decorative art; but, as we shall see later in tracing its historical development, there is always a tendency to ignore the essential subserviency of design to use, and to give the decoration a more pictorial character. Many of the late vases are, in fact, pictures on terracotta. Again, there is a class of fifth-century vases with polychrome paintings on white ground which actually recall the method we know to have been employed by the great master of that century, Polygnotos. And with regard to the late vases we shall hope to show in a future chapter that, like the Pompeian paintings, they often reflect the spirit, if not the exact likeness, of some well-known painting of which we have record.

Many instances might be given of vase-paintings which reflect, or assist our knowledge of, the products of the higher arts. Even as early as the end of the sixth century the group of the Tyrant-slayers, the creation of Antenor and of Kritios and Nesiotes, is found repeated on a black-figured vase[6]; and the early _poros_ pediments from the Athenian Acropolis find an interesting parallel in an early Attic vase of about the same date.[7] So again in Ionia, the style of the sculptures of the archaic temple at Ephesos finds its reflection in some of the local sixth-century vase-fabrics.[8] Coming to the fifth century, the heads in Euphronios’ paintings may be compared with some of the Attic heads in marble, like that of the ephebos from the Acropolis.[9] Combats of Greeks with Amazons and Centaurs on later R.F. vases often seem to suggest a comparison with the friezes of Phigaleia and Olympia; a figure from the balustrade of the Nike temple is almost reproduced on a R.F. vase,[10] and the riding youths of the Parthenon frieze on some of the white Athenian lekythi; and the Kertch vase with the contest of Athena and Poseidon (Plate L.) is of special interest as an almost contemporary reproduction of the Parthenon west pediment. In painting, again, the later R.F. vases in many instances reflect what we know of the style and composition of Polygnotos’ paintings, and there are many instances on the vases of the subjects treated by him and Mikon.[11]

It is not necessary here to say more of the importance of a study of Greek vases on the several lines that we have pointed out. It is sufficient to say that specialists in all these branches of Archaeology instinctively turn to vases for the main source of their information.

* * * * *

The earliest date at which public attention was directed to the painted vases was the end of the seventeenth century. In those days, it need hardly be said, systematic excavation was a thing quite unknown, while archaeology as a science was non-existent. Beyond a few sculptures which had been handed down at Rome or elsewhere through many vicissitudes, cabinets of gems which had been preserved by cardinals and other dignitaries who employed them for signet-rings, chiefly for ecclesiastical purposes, and some collections of coins of the Renaissance period, there were no specimens of ancient art preserved. During the seventeenth century, however, the fashion arose of making voyages to Italy or Greece, and bringing back any spoils that might attract the notice of the traveller. In this way the collection of Arundel Marbles at Oxford was made, and the nucleus of many of the famous private collections of England formed. But the painted vases, which for the most part lay buried in tombs, escaped notice almost entirely—and, perhaps even where specimens were preserved, they attracted little notice—until with Winckelmann arose a gradual hankering after the possession of artistic treasures and the formation of collections of antiques.

The earliest allusion to be found to painted vases is in the works of La Chausse (Caussius),[12] and in the _Thesaurus_ of Graevius,[13] while the oldest existing catalogue is that of the collection of the Elector of Brandenburg, compiled by L. Beger in 1696–1701.[14] Some few are illustrated in these works, while others were given later by Montfaucon,[15] Dempster,[16] Gori,[17] and Caylus.[18] Winckelmann published several vases in his _Histoire de l’Art_ (1764) and _Monumenti Antichi_ (1769), and the industrious Passeri in 1767–75 published, besides a supplement to Dempster, three volumes containing coloured engravings of vases in various collections.

Sir William Hamilton, who was for some time English Ambassador at Naples, formed there a considerable collection of Greek and Roman antiquities, mostly painted vases, which had been discovered in various tombs in Southern Italy and Etruria. All these he brought with him to England and sold to the newly instituted British Museum in 1767. A Frenchman named Hugues or D'Hancarville compiled a magnificent work in four volumes[19] illustrating the vases in this collection, with elaborate diagrams of the shapes; but the representations of the subjects are often marred by the imaginary ornamental borders in which they are framed, while the whole work, like others of the same period, is marked by a tendency to ignore all but the artistic interest, and instead of an accurate reproduction to aim merely at giving a pretty picture.

A second collection of vases belonging to Hamilton was mostly lost at sea, but a record of it has been preserved in Tischbein’s work, _Vases d’Hamilton_[20] in four volumes, which is more accurate and useful than that of D'Hancarville. It is believed that many of these vases are now in the Hope collection at Deepdene, which is unfortunately inaccessible to archaeologists.

The Hamilton collection formed, as we have said, the nucleus of the magnificent array of vases in the British Museum. Most of them, it is true, belong to the later period or decadence of vase-painting, and were not only found, but had also been manufactured, in Italy. Although the time for a scientific study and classification was not yet to be for some sixty years, the interest in the subject was decidedly on the increase, and many English noblemen and gentlemen were forming collections, as well as such foreigners as the Duc de Blacas, the Duc de Luynes, and M. Millin. It became the fashion to produce large folio works embodying the contents of these collections in series of coloured illustrations, and thus we have, besides those already mentioned, the imposing publications of Millin,[21] Millingen[22], Laborde[23], and others. On the same lines, but mostly of later date, are the publications of De Rossi[24], Christie[25], Moses[26], Inghirami[27], Lanzi[28], Böttiger[29], Micali[30], Raoul-Rochette[31], Stackelberg[32], and the Duc de Luynes[33], who published either their own vases, as De Luynes, or some well-known collection like that of the Duc de Blacas, or some particular class of vases: _e.g._ Micali, those found in Etruria; Raoul-Rochette and Inghirami, those illustrating Homer; and Stackelberg, those found in tombs in Greece Proper. Few of these, it will be seen, were published in England, where neither public patronage nor private enterprise were found prepared to rival the achievements of the Continent.

In most of these works the vases are styled “Etruscan” as a matter of course. Even nowadays it is a very common experience to hear vases spoken of as “Etruscan” or even as “Etruscan urns,” as if every vase was used as a receptacle for the ashes of the dead. This error has lasted, with all the perseverance of a popular fallacy, for over a century, and cannot now be too strongly denounced. But at the beginning of the last century the Etruscan origin of painted vases was most strongly maintained by erudite scholars, chiefly Italians who desired to champion the credit of their own country, and the controversy raged with varying force till Greece was able to substantiate her own case by the numbers of vases that came forth from her tombs to proclaim their Hellenic origin.

The “Etruscan” theory was first promulgated by Montfaucon, Gori, Caylus, and Passeri, between 1719 and 1752; their arguments being based on the plausible ground that up till that time the vases had been found almost exclusively in Etruria. So the term “Etruscan vase” passed into the languages of Europe, and has survived in spite of a century of refutation. But in 1763 Winckelmann, the father of scientific archaeology, conceived the idea that the spirit and character of the vase-paintings were wholly Greek; and he proposed to call them Italo-Greek or Graeco-Sicilian, indicating Magna Graecia as the true place of their manufacture. This was a step in the right direction, and he was supported later by Lanzi, Millin, Millingen, and others (1791–1813). A further attempt was made to define the particular places of their fabric, and Nola, Locri, and Agrigentum were suggested as the most important centres. Meanwhile, the discoveries of vases in Attica, at Corinth, and elsewhere in Greece, and subsequently the publication of Stackelberg’s work, helped to confirm the position of Winckelmann’s followers.

In 1828 came what M. Pottier terms “an objectionable revival of Etruscomania,” with the extensive and marvellously fruitful excavations at Vulci under the direction of the Prince of Canino, Lucien Bonaparte, on whose estates most of the tombs were found. Several thousand vases were the yield of this site, mostly of the best periods of Greek art. This was a great epoch in the history of the study of Greek vases. A flood of fresh light was thrown on the subject by the mass of new material, and a whole new literature arose in consequence. Hitherto vases of the archaic and fine periods had only been known in isolated instances, and the bulk of the existing collections was formed of the florid vases of the Decadence; but now it became possible to fill up the gaps and trace the whole development of the art from the simplest specimens with decorative patterns or figures of animals down to the very last stages of painting.

These discoveries prompted Prince Lucien Bonaparte to revive the theory of Etruscan origin, in which he was supported by D'Amatis and De Fea. It is probable that all three were animated more by patriotic motives than by intellectual conviction. At any rate their arguments appealed but little to scholars, although not a few inclined to take a middle course, and maintained that there existed, not only in Etruria but also in Southern Italy, various local centres of manufacture under Greek superintendence and in close connection with Athens and her influences. These ideas were upheld by Gerhard, Welcker, the Duc de Luynes, and Ch. Lenormant. But the preponderating arguments were to be found on the other side, from Kramer (1837), who attributed all vases but those of the Decadence to an Attic origin, O. Müller, who limited this to the finer examples from Vulci, and Raoul-Rochette, who pinned his faith to Sicily, to Otto Jahn[34], who may be said to have founded the modern comparative study of Greek ceramics on its present basis (1854).

Jahn pronounced decisively for the Greek origin of all but the later fabrics, and his principles have been adopted by all succeeding archaeologists, with the exception of Brunn, and one or two of the latter’s disciples, who have swung back to the Italian theory in some respects. Up to his time all had been in chaos, and each writer worked on his own particular line without regard to others, both as regards the origin of the vases and the subjects depicted thereon; but Jahn, in his epoch-making catalogue of the vases at Munich, was the first to make a serious and scientific attempt to reduce the chaos to order, not only by adopting a rational system of interpretation, but by systematising and reducing to one common denominator all previous contributions to knowledge.

We may say that the study of Greek vases has passed through three main stages: (1) Artistic; (2) Epexegetic; (3) Historical.

(1) =Artistic= (1690—1770).—In the first stage, as we have seen, the artistic merit of the vases and the aim of producing a pretty picture were alone regarded. Hence, too, arose the fashion of making copies of Greek vases, and many specimens were produced by Wedgwood[35], bearing, however, no more than a superficial likeness to the originals.

(2) =Epexegetic= (1770—1854).—In the second stage it seems to have been suddenly discovered that the figures on the vases were not mere meaningless groups, like the Watteau shepherds and shepherdesses on Dresden china, and many strange theories were at first promulgated as to the purposes for which the vases were made and the subjects thereon depicted. Three main lines of interpretation seem to have been adopted by the writers of this period:—

(_a_) Passeri, Millin, Lanzi, and Visconti supposed that allusions were made to the life of the deceased person in whose tomb they were found; allegorical representations were given of his childish games, his youthful pastimes, or the religious and social ceremonies in which he took part.

(_b_) Italynski, in his preface to Tischbein’s work, enunciates the strange notion that they allude to events of Greek and Roman history: for instance, three draped men represent the three chief archons of Athens, or three women conversing, Veturia, the mother of Coriolanus, with her daughter and daughter-in-law, considering whether she should appear as a suppliant before her son. The utterly fantastic and unscientific nature of these explanations was self-evident; the writers of the first group at any rate had a sounder basis for their theories, and on the analogy of the sculptured Greek tombstones might well have been near the truth.

(_c_) Another theory, which attained great popularity, and was even adhered to partially for some years afterwards by Panofka, Gerhard, and Lenormant, was that the subjects bore allusion to the Mysteries, more

## particularly the Eleusinian. The vases were regarded as presents given

to the initiated, and the reason why their interpretation was so difficult was that they related to the secrets unfolded in those ceremonies. Many attempts were made to unlock those secrets and to show the mystic moral purport of the pictures; but all is the merest guesswork. The height of fantastic explanation is perhaps reached by Christie, whose work is quite worth perusal as a literary curiosity. Panofka, on the other hand, turned his attention to the inscriptions on the vases,[36] and discerned a symbolical meaning in these, reading into the names of artists rebuses on the subjects over which they were inscribed, _e.g._ Douris is indicated by Athena with a spear (δόρυ) or Hermaios by a figure of Hermes.

(3) =Historical.=—The historical or scientific method of studying Greek vases consists mainly in classifying them according to different periods, and within that period to different schools. To these main considerations the artistic merits of the vases and the explanation of the subjects are subordinated. The reason for this is obvious. The artistic and mythological interest of the vases is soon exhausted, and receives no new impetus from new discoveries. Now, with the comparative study of vases this is not the case. Any day may bring forth a new discovery which will completely revolutionise all preconceived theories; hence there is the constant necessity for being “up-to-date,” and for the adjustment of old beliefs to new.

But the historical method is not entirely of modern growth. As long ago as 1767 the first attempt was made by D'Hancarville[37] to classify vases according to their age. Taking such scanty data as were available, he divided Italian vases into five classes, ranging from “some centuries before the foundation of Rome” down to the reigns of Trajan, the Antonines, and Septimius Severus, which “announc’d the total decadency of the Art.” The earlier vases he sought to fix more precisely by reference to the history of painting as told by Pliny.

The Duc de Luynes, writing in 1832,[38] hesitates to define the exact age of the various styles, though he arranges them generally in six classes, ranging from the “Doric” or “Phoenician” vases down to barbaric imitations by the natives of Italy. According to him the red-figured vases lasted from the time of Perikles down to that of Pyrrhos. Millingen was content with three periods only, his division[39] being: (1) ancient style, 700–450 B.C.; (2) fine style, 450–228 B.C.; (3) late style, 228 to Social War. Kramer distinguishes five epochs: (A) Egyptian style, 580–500 B.C.; (B) older style, 500–460 B.C.; (C) severe style, 460—420 B.C.; (D) fine style, 420–380 B.C.; (E) rich style, 380–200 B.C.[40] Gerhard[41] surmised that the earliest vases might date from the ninth or tenth century B.C., the fine style extending over the fifth and fourth, while the decadence culminated in the second, and in the first century fictile vases were entirely supplanted by those of metal.

De Witte made a more detailed classification, extending to nine groups, and based rather on technical differences, as several of the groups are contemporaneous; but his classification is essentially a practical one, and may be regarded as forming a sound basis for all succeeding catalogues and treatises, as also for the arrangement of museums.

Jahn in his Introduction is content with four main headings, which for a general classification of a large collection is convenient enough, and has, in fact, been adopted in the Vase Rooms of the British Museum. Under this system the four divisions are: (1) Primitive; (2) Black-figured; (3) Red-figured; (4) Vases of the Decadence. In the Louvre, on the other hand, the arrangement is mainly geographical, according to the sites from which the vases have come.

It is recognised by modern archaeologists,[42] working on the lines laid down by Jahn in the three main divisions of his Introduction, that in dating and classifying a vase or series of vases three points must be taken into consideration: (1) circumstances of discovery; (2) technique and style; (3) inscriptions (when present). The various questions with which the modern study of vase-paintings has mainly to deal will be fully investigated in subsequent chapters, and it is not necessary to say more on this head. But we trust that sufficient attention has been drawn to the many-sided interests presented by—it is not necessary to say a collection of vases, but—a single vase[43].

It may be worth while here to turn aside for a moment and study the rise and growth of the various great vase-collections of Europe. We may with pardonable pride regard the British Museum as standing at the head of these collections, possessing as it does the most representative collection of any, if not the largest. Hardly any known fabric is unrepresented, nor the work of any known artist; though here and there another museum may have the advantage—as, for instance, the Louvre in early black-figured fabrics, Naples in vases of Southern Italy (especially the large specimens), or Athens in various fabrics peculiar to Greece, such as the early vases of Thera and Melos, or the marvellous specimens of “transitional” handiwork found on the Acropolis of Athens.

The nucleus of the British Museum collection was, as has been indicated, formed by the vases obtained from Sir W. Hamilton in 1767, supplemented by those of Towneley and Payne Knight (1805–24): these are nearly all vases of the late period from Southern Italy. Between the years 1837 and 1845 a large quantity of fine black-figured and red-figured vases was acquired from the Canino collection, having been found on that estate at Vulci, and in 1836 acquisitions from M. Durand’s sale had helped to swell the number of vases representing that site, including some very fine examples. In 1842 came the Burgon collection, mostly of small vases from Athens and the Greek islands; in 1856 the bequest by Sir William Temple of his collection, formed at Naples, added greatly to the value of the collection of later vases. In 1860–64 large numbers of vases of all periods from 700 B.C. to 400 B.C. were excavated by Salzmann and Biliotti at Kameiros in Rhodes; and from Ialysos in the same island came a number of Mycenaean vases by the generosity of Prof. Ruskin in 1870. Meanwhile, the Blacas collection, purchased in 1867, had added a large number, chiefly of red-figured and Italian vases, and in 1873 many more fine specimens from Capua, Nola, and elsewhere were acquired from M. Castellani. Of late years the chief additions have been from Cyprus, beginning with a few vases from Cesnola in 1876 down to the Turner Bequest excavations in 1894–96, and from the Egypt Exploration Fund’s excavations at Naukratis and Daphnae (1884–86). Other acquisitions have been mostly in the form of isolated purchases, especially of the white lekythi and similar classes; some have come from important collections, such as those of Forman, Tyszkiewicz, and Van Branteghem.

In 1870, when the old Catalogue was completed, the collection must have numbered over 2,000 painted vases, besides 1,000 undecorated; at the present day the total cannot be computed at less than 5,000, of which about 4,000 may be described as painted vases.

The Louvre collection in Paris[44] started life about a century ago under the first Napoleon, who established a ceramic section about 1797. Other vases were added from the Vatican and Naples; and meanwhile the Royal collection went to form the present Cabinet of Antiquities in the Bibliothèque Nationale. In 1818 the very limited collection was augmented by 564 vases from M. Tochon, and in 1825 came a magnificent acquisition of about 2,000 vases (mostly painted) from M. Durand. From this time till 1863 the growth was very slow, and the Louvre does not seem to have profited like other museums by the excavations at Vulci. In the latter year, however, another splendid collection of 2,000 painted and 1,400 unpainted vases was acquired from Count Campana, which necessitated the building of new galleries. The early B.F. fabrics, in which the Louvre is so pre-eminently rich, were all in this collection. During the last thirty years the only acquisitions of importance have been representative specimens from Greece and Cyprus; but the total number is now reckoned at 6,000.

The growth of the Berlin collection has been much more slow and consistent.[45] Its nucleus was derived from the collection of the Elector of Brandenburg described by Beger in 1701. Up to 1830 most of the vases acquired were from Southern Italy and Campania, including 1,348 from the Koller collection in 1828. In 1831, 442 vases and 179 specimens of Etruscan plain ware were acquired from the Dorow collection, and from 1833 to 1867 the activity of Gerhard procured fine specimens from time to time, while 174 were bequeathed by him at his death. When Levezow’s Catalogue was published in 1834, it included 1,579 specimens; the next one by Furtwaengler in 1885 describes more than 4,000. Of late years many valuable specimens have been derived from various parts of Greece.

These three may be regarded as the typical representative collections of Europe; those of Athens, Munich, Naples, and Petersburg are all of great merit and value, but chiefly strong in one particular department—Athens in early vases and Attic lekythi, Petersburg in late red-figured vases, and Naples in the fabrics of Southern Italy. Many of the finest specimens, however, are to be found in the smaller collections in the Paris Bibliothèque, at Florence, Vienna, Madrid, and in Rome. Of late years Europe has found a formidable rival in America, especially in the Museum of Fine Arts at Boston, which, backed by almost inexhaustible private benefactions, is gradually acquiring a large proportion of the signed vases and other _chefs-d’œuvre_ which from time to time find their way into the market. The Metropolitan Museum at New York, on the other hand, rests its claim to distinction on the possession of General Cesnola’s enormous collections of Cypriote pottery of all periods.

The gradual centralising of vases into public museums is a noteworthy feature at the present day. The private collections formed by so many amateurs at the beginning of the century have nearly all been long since dispersed and incorporated with the various national collections[46]; and those formed more recently are rapidly sharing the same fate. Hardly a year passes now without seeing the dispersion of some notable collection like those of M. Sabouroff, M. van Branteghem, Colonel Brown (Forman collection), or M. Bourguignon; and almost the only important one that still remains intact is that of Sig. Jatta at Ruvo (consisting almost entirely of South Italian vases). Now that the days are past when it was the custom for rich collectors to publish magnificently illustrated atlases of their possessions, this tendency to centralisation can only be welcomed both by artists and students. For the latter now it only remains to be desired that a scientific and well-illustrated catalogue of every public museum should be available.

We append here a list of the principal museums and collections in Europe, which may form a supplement to that given by Jahn in 1854. The more important ones are printed in heavier type.

I. GREAT BRITAIN.

1. =London. British Museum= (see p. 24). Catalogue by C. Smith and Walters.

South Kensington Museum (a few isolated specimens; also some from the Museum of Practical Geology Jermyn Street).

Soane Museum (the Cawdor Vase).

2. =Oxford. Ashmolean Museum.= Catalogue by P. Gardner (1893).

3.= Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum.= Catalogue by E. A. Gardner (1896).

4. Deepdene (Dorking). Hope Collection. Inaccessible to students. Consists entirely of late vases from Southern Italy.

5. Numerous private collections, among the more important being—

Richmond. The late Sir F. Cook.

Castle Ashby. Marquis of Northampton.

6. Harrow School Museum (a fine “Theseus” Kylix and Krater with Centaurs). Catalogue by C. Torr (1887).

7. Edinburgh.

II. FRANCE.

1. =Paris. The Louvre= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Pottier (in progress).

=Bibliothèque Nationale.= Catalogue by A. de Ridder (1902).

Dzialynski Collection. See De Witte, _Coll. à l’Hôtel Lambert_.

2. Marseilles Museum. Catalogue by Froehner (1897).

3. Rouen Museum.

4. Boulogne Museum.

5. Compiègne Museum.

6. Sèvres Museum.

III. BELGIUM AND HOLLAND.

1. Brussels.[47] See Cat. of Musée de Ravestein. Somzée Collection (now dispersed).

2. Amsterdam. Six Collection.

3. Leyden Museum. See Roulez, _Vases de Leyde_.

IV. GERMANY.

1. =Berlin. Antiquarium= (see p. 25). Catalogue by Furtwaengler (1885).

2. Altenburg.

3. Bonn.

4. Breslau.

5. Brunswick.

6. Dresden.

7. Frankfurt. Museum Städel.

8. Gotha.

9. Heidelberg.

10. =Karlsruhe.= Catalogue by Winnefeld (1887).

11. Leipzig.

12. =Munich.= Catalogue by Jahn (1854).

13. Schwerin.

14. =Würzburg.= Antikenkabinet. Coll. Bankó.

V. DENMARK AND SWEDEN.

1. Kopenhagen. Catalogue by Smith (1862).

2. Stockholm.

VI. RUSSIA.

1. =Petersburg. Hermitage.= Catalogue by Stephani (1869).

Stroganoff Coll.

Pisareff Coll.

2. Dorpat (University).

VII. AUSTRIA.

1. =Vienna. Oesterreichisches Museum.= Catalogue by Masner (1891). K. K. Kabinet. University.

2. Cracow. Czartoryski Coll.

3. Prague. Pollak Coll.

4. Trieste. Museum.

VIII. SWITZERLAND.

1. Berne } 2. Geneva } All unimportant for Greek Vases. 3. Zürich.}

IX. SPAIN.

Madrid.

X. ITALY AND SICILY.

1. Acerra. Spinelli Coll.

2. Adria. Museo Bocchi. Publication by Schöne.

3. Arezzo. Chiefly Roman Arretine ware.

4. =Bologna. Museo Civico.= Catalogue by Pellegrini (1900). Università.

5. Capua. Campana Coll.

6. Cervetri. Ruspoli Coll.

7. Chiusi. Museum. Casucchini Coll. (but see p. 73).

8. Corneto. Museum. Bruschi Coll.

9. Florence. Museum.

10. =Naples. Museo Nazionale.= Catalogue by Heydemann (1872).

11. Orvieto. Museum. Faina Coll.

12. Palermo. Museum.

13. Parma.

14. Perugia. Museum.

15. =Ruvo. Jatta Coll.= Catalogue by Sig. G. Jatta (1869).

16. Taranto. Museum.

17. Terranuova (Gela). Private collections.

18. =Rome. Vatican= (=Mus. Gregoriano=). Guide by Helbig. Museo Capitolino. Museo Papa Giulio. Numerous private collections: Hartwig, Torlonia, Castellani, etc., and Deutsches Arch. Inst.

XI. GREECE.

1. =Athens. National Museum.= Catalogue by Couve and Collignon (1902). Do. (Acropolis Collection). Catalogue in progress. Trikoupis Coll. Other private collections.

2. Eleusis. Museum (local finds).

3. Candia (Crete).

XII. ASIA MINOR.

Smyrna. Various private collections.

XIII. CYPRUS.

Nicosia. Cyprus Museum. Catalogue by Myres and Richter (1899).

Private collections at Larnaka, Nicosia, and Limassol.

XIV. EGYPT.

Cairo. Ghizeh Museum.

XV. AMERICA.

1. =Boston.= Catalogue by Robinson.

2. New York. Metropolitan Museum. Atlas of Cesnola Collection from Cyprus published.

3. Baltimore.

4. Chicago.

-----

Footnote 1:

_B.M. Guide to First and Second Egyptian Rooms_ (1904), p. 22; for early Neolithic pottery from Ireland see _Guide to Antiqs. of Stone Age_, p. 84.

Footnote 2:

Remains of Neolithic pottery have recently been found in Crete (_J.H.S._ xxiii. p. 158) and in the Cyclades.

Footnote 3:

_Cat. des Vases Antiques du Louvre_ i. p. 18.

Footnote 4:

Miss Harrison, _Mythology and Monuments of Athens_, preface, p. ii. The Introduction to this work contains some excellent examples of the modern method of using vase-paintings to elucidate mythology.

Footnote 5:

For the use of vase-paintings in illustration of Greek religious beliefs and customs, reference may be made to Miss Harrison’s _Prolegomena to Greek Religion_ (Cambridge Press, 1903), containing many interesting interpretations of scenes on the vases which may bear on the subject.

Footnote 6:

See