No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
Till quite recently, only one vase was known with a picture of Icarus. The publication of the black-figure fragments from the Acropolis added a second. I am putting a third to these, possibly a fourth and even a fifth.
And Daedalus? He appears on two of the Icarus vases and on one of the possibles. And Hauser has tried to show that the builder on a Laconian cup from Samos is Daedalus constructing the labyrinth. Hauser may perhaps be right; but that the winged figure on a vase in the Louvre is meant for Daedalus, I do not find it so easy as others find it to believe.
This vase is a black-figured kotyle of the sixth century, probably still the first half; it is reported to have been found at Tanagra; the style is a provincial travesty of Attic, and the fabric no doubt Boeotian. On one side, Theseus and the Minotaur: on the other, a helmeted horseman at the gallop, and behind him, in the air, a winged male, bearded and dressed in a short chiton, flying in the same direction.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1927
References
1 Jahreshefte, x. pp. 10–12.
2 Gaz. arch. 1884, Pl. 1–2 (Rayet): after this (part of A), Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Minotaurus, Fig. 5079 (Durrbach), and (B) s.v. Daedalus, Fig. 2279 (Pottier); B only, Münchener Arch. Studien, p. 277Google Scholar (Schmidt).
3 Gaz. arch., 1884, p. 6: reported by Pottier in Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Daedalus, p. 6: the figure is accepted as Daedalus by Robert, (Heldensage, i. p. 364)Google Scholar, Heeg (in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. Ikaros, p. 988), and Hauser, (Jahreshefte, x. p. 12).Google Scholar
4 Jahrbuch, 1923–4, Pl. I. (Waldhauer): A.Z., 1881, Pl. 13, 2 (the figure is not female, as stated by Walters, , B. M. Cat. ii. p. 49Google Scholar, B 1: see phot. Mansell 3091, left).
5 See below, p. 232.
6 F 269: El. cér. i. Pl. 36; new B. M. Guide to the Exhibition illustrating Greek and Roman Life,2 p. 27, whence Bieber, , Denkmäler zum Theaterwesen, p. 142Google Scholar: phot. Mansell. See Preller–Robert, i. p. 183.
7 See especially Swindler, Cretan Elements in the Cults and Ritual of Apollo.
8 Two other Apulian vases, a volutekrater in the Louvre, (Mon., 1856, Pl. 9)Google Scholar and a fragment in Taranto, (Neapolis, i. p. 138)Google Scholar represent an aged suppliant at the feet of a king; but there is nothing to show that the king is Minos, or Daedalus the suppliant.
9 Graef, , Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, Pl. 28Google Scholar and p. 67, No. 601.
10 Heldensage, i. p. 364.
11 Schol. Ar. Frogs, 849 (Süss, , Die Frösche des Aristophanes, p. 57Google Scholar). The exact date of Euripides' Cretans is unknown, but Zieliński shows, from the metre of the new fragment (conveniently in Hunt's Fragmenta Tragica Papyracea) that it was probably not late (Zieliński, , Tragodumenon Libri Tres, p. 226Google Scholar).
12 E.g. Münchener Arch. Studien, p. 291 (Achilles).
13 Akropolis Vasen, p. 67.
14 Hermeneutik, pp. 349–55.
15 Dr. Wrede writes: ‘A careful examination of the Acropolis fragments by Professor Buschor and myself gives the following result:—Graef, Pl. 28: there is nothing against putting the Icarus fragment a in the same row as the Birth of Athena, fragments b, c, d, e, f, m. The size of the pattern-band below, the thinning of the vase downwards, and the curvature, all agree. Of the animal fragments, h probably belongs to the same row as i, and the two bits of boar might be from the same animal. The animal-row g is somewhat bigger; and another reason why it cannot be the same as the row of h and i (the row of dots being interrupted by the inscription) is that the decoration below it cannot be reconciled with that below h–k: the plastic fillets above and below the inscription are somewhat thicker than the fillet below g: besides, in h–k the lower of these fillets is immediately followed by the black varnish with red lines, whereas in g the lower fillet is followed by a reserved band with a line of thinned varnish on it, and then by black with red. Fragment l remains. It cannot belong either to g or to h–i because there is a red line above the animal on l and none above the other animals: then comes the plastic fillet and above it remains of black varnish on clay ground—which does not appear elsewhere in this position. So we are led to suppose a third animal-row. The back of l has flaked away, so that curvature and thickness cannot be determined.
‘Curvature and thickness of the fragments point to the following sequence, beginning above: (1) figure frieze, (2) animal frieze h–i, (3) inscription, (4) animal frieze g, (5) animal frieze l. The remains to the left of Icarus I take to be part of a shield standing on the ground. The question hydria or amphora cannot be answered. The wheel-marks on the back do not help in placing the fragments.’
16 For the dotted plastic rings, compare B.M. B 76 (Torr, , Rhodes, Pl. 6Google Scholar, A: phot. Mansell); for the use of a floral pattern on the neck, the same; for the triple dotrow, Vienna, Oest. Mus. 220 (Masner, p. 23), etc.; for the use of a pattern on the upper side of the mouth, late Corinthian hydria in Berlin, 1657 (Fölzer, , Die Hydria, Pl. 5, 63Google Scholar), etc.; resolution of the mouth into plastic fillets, common, but no exact parallel to the mouth of our vase; no parallel for the plastic fillet on the foot, but a red line frequent in this place, and the detachment of the lowest part of the foot as a fillet fairly common.
17 E.g. neck-amphorae Berlin 1713 (Mon., 3, Pl. 24, 2) and 1714 (ibid., i.: Jacobsthal, , Ornamente, Pl. 14Google Scholar, a), Brussels A 714 (Corpus, Belgium, iii. He, Pl. 1, 1).
18 Solon, i. 49–50: 
19 See Hauser and Zahn in F.R. iii. p. 189, note 63.
20 F.-R., Pls. 43–44: Bull. Nap., n.s., 2, pl. 4, and Mon. 12, Pl. 16: Mon. 12, Pl. 15, Annali, 1885, Pl. F, and from photographs Vases in Poland, Pl. 32. See Vases in Poland, pp. 66–9.
21 Annali, 1881, Pls. F–G.
22 See Riezler in Brunn-Bruckmann, text to 578.
23 E 695 (F.-R., Pl. 78, 3).
24 1767: from the Basilicata, not from S. Agata as Heydemann states (see Macchioro, , Röm. Mitt. 26, p. 189Google Scholar): Mus. Borb. 13, Pls. 57–9: the Daedalus group, after this, Daremberg and Saglio, s.v. Daedalus, Fig. 2281: the Proteus group, Engelmann, , Bilder-Atlas zur Odyssee, Pl. 4, 22Google Scholar: phot. Sommer 11059. The technique is the ordinary red-figure, not ‘red-painted’ as Robert states (Heldensage, i. p. 365, note 5).
25 One of them is 3252 (A.Z., 1883, Pl. 11). In quality these two are even more abject than the vase signed by Lasimos in the Louvre (Millin and Reinach, p. 66: Hoppin, , B.f. Vases, pp. 449 and 451Google Scholar) and the Cawdor vase in the Soane Museum (Cook, , Zeus, i. Pl. 5Google Scholar).
26 See F.-R. i. p. 199.
27 Hauser identified the object in the Carlsruhe vase, the London hydria, and the Centauromachies (Jahreshefte, xii. p. 91 and F.-R. iii. p. 91)Google Scholar: see also Zahn in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. gastrai.
28 F.-R., Pl. 78, 1 = Jahreshefte, xii. p. 91.
29 E 241: Burlington Cat. 1888, p. 19 = Jahreshefte, xii. p. 96, Fig. 56: new, Cook, , Zeus, ii. Pl. 6Google Scholar: Hauser's explanation of the picture seems to have escaped the notice of Cock.
30 F.-R., Pls. 128–9 and iii. p. 54.
31 Gervasio, , Bronzi arcaici e ceramica geometrica nel Museo di Bari, p. 52Google Scholar: after Gervasio, , Arch. Anz., 1926, p. 147Google Scholar, Fig. 27 (Lehmann-Hartleben). Gervasio thinks that the scene is laid in a potter's workshop, and he calls the gastra a basin with a foot and two handles—which in a sense it is. The gastra and the vessel to the left recall the squat lekythos in Carlsruhe (F.-R., Pl. 78, 1); but the satyr at the gastra is using an object which reminds one of the millers on a Megarian bowl in Athens, (Eph. arch., 1914, Pl. 1Google Scholar: see Versakis, ibid., pp. 50–57; Kuruniotis, ibid., 1917, pp. 151–7, and Courby, , Vases grecs à reliefs, pp. 300–3Google Scholar). Lehmann-Hartleben sees preparations for a repast.
32 Robert, , Heldensage, i. pp. 364–5.Google Scholar
33 Antike Gemmen, iii. pp. 239–40.
34 Sammlung Somzée, p. 57, no. 85.
35 Rev. arch., 1915, p. 43.
36 Schaeffer, E., Van Dyck (in Klassiker der Kunst), p. 52Google Scholar: Schaeffer mentions two replieas or copies of the Althorp picture. A drawing of the same type, attributed to the painter himself, was sold at Sotheby's in June 1927.
37 Starie Godi, July–Sept. 1916, p. 27.
38 E.g. F.-R., Pl. 137 (Ge); Att. Vases in American Museums, p. 130 (Persephone); Corpus, Louvre, iii. 1 c, Pl. 6, 5 (Kaineus); Benndorf, , GSV., Pl. 38Google Scholar (Eros).
39 E.g. Att. Vases in Amer. Mus., p. 168 = F.-R. iii. p. 135; F.-R., Pls. 143–4.
40 F.-R., Pl. 41.
41 By the same hand, a third small lekythos in the Louvre (Thracian woman running), and a fragment of a loutrophoros in Louvain, (Mélanges Holleaux, p. 136Google Scholar: prothesis).
- 1
- Cited by