As S. explains in her preface, this volume of the CVA includes all the black-figure lekythoi of the collection of the National Museum of Athens of (sub-) Deianeira type, Little-Lion Class, as well as those decorated in the Six's technique. Of the shoulder lekythoi of cylinder type by individual, well-known painters, only those that are not included in the first Athens CVA (1930) as well as part of the rest of the shoulder lekythoi are treated here. The vases entered the collection from various sources, often without a known context; 116 black-figured and 6 Six's technique lekythoi are presented; 47 are published here for the first time, at least 35 others have not been published with an illustration before.
S. has organised the material according to the evolution of the lekythos shape as far as possible. As a result of the shape classification, not all the work of individual painters appears in a single group, as some painters decorated different types of lekythoi. The study of lekythoi by a particular painter is facilitated by an index. The first 8 plates present the (sub-)Deianeira lekythoi, including lekythoi by the Amasis Painter (pl. 4.3–4) and the Wraith Painter (pls 6.3–4 and 7). The section of shoulder type lekythoi starts with a lekythos with much disputed attribution (pl. 9). This section includes lekythoi by the Wraith Painter (pls 11, 14), one Near the Taleides Painter (pl. 12), one according to Beazley Related to the Sandal Painter, but possibly by the painter himself (pl. 13). The Sandal Painter is also represented in the next section on the Phanyllis Class (pls 17–28), which is followed by two lekythoi of the Cock Group (pl. 29), the second one depicting an interesting image of a bearded man riding a hyppalektryon. Cylinder type lekythoi follow on plates 30–7 with lekythoi from the Leagros Group (with an interesting Helios rising from the sea watched by Heracles on 513, pl. 32), and by the Edinburgh and Athena Painters. Shoulder type lekythoi from the beginning of the fifth century b.c. are presented on plates 38–42 with the Diosphos, Gela and Beldam Painters. Next is the large Class of Athens 581 (pls 43–68), with an interesting image of an unarmed Dionysus dancing between warriors on 1143 (pl. 62); as S. suggests, probably a conflation of two themes: Dionysus dancing between satyrs and maenads, and Dionysus in a Gigantomachy. Hard to interpret is the scene on 9687 (pl. 63) with Heracles seated between two couples of seated Dionysoi. Of further interest are the representations of the phallos-bird on 471 (pl. 66.1–3, 6) and the story of Aktaion on 489 (pl. 67). The black-figured part is closed by the lekythoi of the Little-Lion Class (pls 69–79). Thereafter, the 6 lekythoi in Six's technique are presented (pls 80–3). The text concludes with two concordances and two indexes, followed by 35 crisp profile drawings by T. Kakarouga. The 83 plates with excellent photographs by V. Stamatopoulos present the vases in a clear way with useful details.
S. knows her subject and her commentaries are helpful and informative. A huge objection against the commentaries is, however, the fact that the manuscript seems to have been written a long time ago (when St Petersburg was still named Leningrad) and has not been seriously updated. Furthermore, the entries lack consistency, for example ‘Athens 371 (see below Pl. 18)’ and ‘Athens 371 (ABL pl. 10,2 and 12,2; ABV 70; Para 205, 207)’ (both p. 41); ‘Oxford (Miss.) (ABV 70,1; Para 28)’ on p. 36 and ‘Oxford, Mississippi 1977.3.68 (ABV 70,1; Para 28)’ on p. 46. The comments are often repetitive: the commentary of 384 (pl. 52.3–4; p. 95) is even an exact copy of that of 388 (pl. 48.1–2; p. 89). Whereas two publications from 2010 are cited in the text (Hatzivassiliou, Iconography and CVA Louvre 28), many relevant publications from the first decade of this century have been neglected and omitted from the bibliographies and commentaries. Additions to the bibliographies: ad 497 (pl. 5): F. Zardini, The Myth of Herakles and Kyknos. A Study in Greek Vase-Painting and Literature (2009), pp. 310–11, fig. 8; ad 1071 (pl. 6.3–4): C. Servadei, La figura di Theseus nella ceramica attica (2005), p. 235 scheda 06.00281; ad 413 (pl. 9): H.A.G. Brijder, Siana Cups III (2000), pp. 630, 646, 650, 706, pl. 225c, proposing that only the shoulder has been decorated by the Griffin-Bird Painter; ad 414 (pl. 12): N. Kaltsas, Athens-Sparta (2006), pp. 104, 117; ad 415 (pl. 13): S. von Hofsten, The Feline-Prey Theme in Archaic Greek Art (2007), p. 60, pl. 20.2; ad 9693 (pl. 16): F. Zardini, op.cit., pp. 318–19, fig. 12; ad 12951 (pls 33, 34.4): M-C. Villanueva Puig, Ménades. Recherches sur la genèse iconographique du thiase feminine de Dionysos des origins à la fin de la période archaïque (2009), p. 186; ad 11749 (pl. 39): M-C. Villanueva Puig, op. cit., p. 200; ad 2246 (pl. 80): H.A.G. Brijder in K. Lapatin, Papers on Special Techniques in Athenian Vases (2006), p. 37, fig. 2. Selected additions to the commentaries: for the Amsterdam (and ex The Hague) lekythoi mentioned as parallels, for example on pp. 68, 71 and 75, see CVA Amsterdam 3 (2006), remarkably this publication has been cited on page 131 ad 26941. For the Taleides Painter (pp. 33–5) see now also P. Heesen, Athenian Little-Master Cups (2011), pp. 96–101. For silens and satyrs (p. 79), add, for example, G. Hedreen, JHS 114 (1994), 47–69; idem, ClAnt 25.2 (2006), pp. 277–325; C. Isler-Kerényi, Civilizing Violence. Satyrs on Sixth-Century Greek Vases (2004). For the Struggle of Peleus and Thetis (p. 93), add Hatzivassiliou, Iconography, p. 135, nos. 382–93. For the Six's technique (introduction on p. 133), add B. Cohen, The Colors of Clay. Special Techniques in Athenian Vases (2006), pp. 71–104, and H.A.G. Brijder in Lapatin, op. cit., pp. 35–46.
Further notes: p. 17: Taranto 52146 shows a hairy Minotaur, not a hairy satyr; p. 21: the very early dating of 497 to ‘About 560–550 b.c.’ needs further explanation, as the Blackneck Class is traditionally dated 550–530 b.c.; p. 30: for ‘band cup Bucarest 3209’ read lip-cup Bucarest 3209; on pp. 32–3 S. suggests she has attributed a lekythos in a private collection herself, however it was already attributed to the Wraith Painter (Geister-Maler) by W. Hornbostel in the (cited) publication; p. 48: ‘lekythos London market’ is now Princeton 86.53; p. 54: the suggestion that the youths with clubs running towards the protomes of a man and woman on 1699 (pl. 26, 4–6) could be related to Peisistratus’ bodyguard needs better reasoning than the mere existence of such bodyguard; p. 60: the inscription reads ΗΟ ΠΑΙΣ, not ‘ΗΟ ΠΑΙΣ ΚΑΛΟΣ’; p. 68: ‘New York Hearst Collection’ is now Detroit, Institute of Arts 63.10. Typographical errors and inconsistencies may seem unworthy of mention here, but the sheer number of them indicates that the text was poorly edited, if at all, for example ‘Edinburg Painter’ (p. 19), ‘Von Brommer’ (p. 39), ‘Leningrand’ (p. 41), ‘G.F. Piney’ (p. 52), ‘bridergroom’ (p. 60), ‘Bohum S 496’ (p. 65), ‘Ritsona’ (p. 66), ‘relashionship’ (p. 80), ‘dublicated’ (p. 82), ‘Upublished’ (p. 111); ‘Brussels A 2292’ and ‘Bruxelles A 2292’ (p. 56), ‘hippalektryon’ and ‘hippalectryon’ (p. 58), ‘Viergespanne in Frontalansicht’ (p. 62) and ‘Viergespanne in Vorderansicht’ (p. 68); ‘Leiden’ (p. 110) and ‘Leyden’ (p. 122).
The above objections could have easily been avoided if the Academy of Athens had asked the author (or somebody else) to edit and update the old, but worthy manuscript. Then the material would have received the treatment it deserves: a CVA where text, drawings and photos complement each other equally.
