Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The study of the relationships between artistic personalities is considered by some a futile self-indulgence in irrelevant art-history. Beazley's lexicographical work provided a prosopographical, and therefore also chronological, framework for the use of the evidence provided by Attic vase-painting. Additions and further refinements are necessary, as Liddell and Scott Supplements are necessary. But the investigation of relationships between artists, such as the exploration of teacher-pupil connexions, is frequently believed to provide no more than a sterile piece of information of narrow interest. This view is, I think, wrong, for an investigation of this type can also shed light on problems of a wider interest at three levels.
Firstly, the understanding of the groupings of artists by workshops, and of the relationships between workshops, is relevant to the study of Athenian social and economic history, since vase-manufacture was one of Athens' most important craft-industries. The study of the ‘Origins’ of an artist, with which I will be concerned here, can sometimes—especially if these origins are complex—throw some light on the early phases of the career-struct ure of Attic vase-painters. Thus it could also provide an example, of however limited validity, of the early structure of a classical Athenian craft-apprenticeship.
1 He did give the reasons for which he considered the Eucharides Painter to be a pupil of the Nikoxenos Painter, in BSA xix (1912–13) 245–6. (I owe this reference to Professor C. M. Robertson.) But even there, there was no attempt to define in a general way the criteria for distinguishing a teacher-pupil relationship between two artists.
4 Follmann, A.-B., Der Pan-Maler (Bonn, 1968) 71Google Scholar. She also challenged the view that Myson taught the Pan Painter (op. cit., 70–2).
5 Op. cit., 27–8. The Marpessa psykter is illustrated here in Plate IX a-b.
6 Cf. list in Caskey, L. D. and Beazley, J. D., Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (Oxford, 1931–1963) ii, 6–9Google Scholar, and von Bothmer, D., AJA lxi (1957) 310Google Scholar; cf. also Follmann 27–8. A list of the representations of the Marpessa legend is given by Beazley, in Charites (Festschrift Langlotz, Bonn, 1957) 139Google Scholar.
7 BABesch xliv (1969) 124–35.
8 PanMal passim. Diepolder, who tried to establish a relative (and to a lesser extent also an absolute) chronology for the Pan Painter's major works (Münchjb ix/x (1958/9) 13), also believes that the career of the artist started at c. 480, and that the Marpessa psykter is among his early, if not earliest, works.
9 BABesch xxiv-vi (1949–51) 21–5; Mnemosyneiii (1950) 292–4.
10 BABesch xliv (1969) 135.
13 On Peisianax cf. Davies, J. K., Athenian Propertied Families (Oxford, 1971) s.v. 9688, viii (p. 377)Google Scholar.
14 Op. cit., 96; 469–72.
16 Cf. infra nn. 17–18.
18 Op. cit., 94–5.
19 On the Mannerist workshop cf. Beazley, J. D., Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens (London. 1945Google Scholar, reprint from the Proceedings of the British Academy xxx) 13; ARV 2 562–88.
20 AntK xiv (1971) 53.
21 PanMal 17.
23 PanMal 19.
24 He is not, of course, the only artist of his generation to follow this formula for the clavicles. In general, it is clear that there are similarities between the anatomical renderings of the Pan Painter and those of vase-painters of the generation c. 500-c. 480 other than the Berlin Painter. But they concern isolated elements, as e.g. the clavicles, or the clavicles plus the small triangle at the junction of the median line with the breast line. They are not consistent, they cannot be seen as a system of similarities. While in the case of the Berlin Painter, the similarities can be seen as arranged into a system of anatomical renderings, a system of renderings related to another system. The differences that there are between the two systems appear in many cases to be the result of a development, an evolution depending upon the general evolution in style.
25 A few examples: PanMal pls. 6.3; 25.2; 28.3; Follmann pls. 3; 8.5.
26 Cf. e.g. Heracles on the Bousiris pelike (PanMal pls. 9; 10), Poseidon on the Nolan amphora Schwerin 1295 (ARV 2 553, 37; PanMal pl. 20.1).
27 It should be noted that in a few cases the Pan Painter's clavicles with curving inner ends just about miss joining each other or the median line, and, even more rarely, just about touch each other or/and the median line. Such renderings can also be found in the Berlin Painter's work.
28 Cf. e.g. the pelike Syracuse 15709 (ARV 2 238, 3; CVA pl. 1).
29 Cf. Oxford 561 (ARV 2 241, 52).
30 Cf. e.g. the lekythos Palermo V 671 (ARV 2 212, 211; CVA pl. 20.5); the Nolan amphora New York 07.286.69 (ARV 2 201, 70; Richter and Hall pl. 18); the stamnos Louvre G 192 (ARV 2 208, 160).
31 Cf. e.g. PanMal pls. 18.2; 25.3.
32 Cf. the pelike Syracuse 15709 (ARV 2 238, 3; CVA pl. 1.2); the krater Louvre CA 1947 (ARV 2 240, 44; Paralipomena 349; AntK ix, pl. 23.2).
33 Cf. the krater Louvre CA 1947; Oxford 561 (JHS xxviii, pl. 31).
34 Cf. PanMal pls. 18.1; 21.1.
35 Cf. the satyr on the amphora Berlin 2160 (ARV 2 196, 1; Arias-Hirmer-Shefton pls. 150–3); Ganymede on the bell-krater Louvre G 175 (ARV 2 206, 124).
36 Cf. Heracles on the Bousiris pelike, and some of the figures on the outside of the cup Oxford 1911.617 (ARV 2 559, 152).
37 Cf. e.g. on Oxford 561 (ARV 241, 52).
38 Cf. e.g. PanMal pl. 30.1.
39 Cf. e.g. the Bousiris pelike (Athens 9683; ARV 2 554, 82).
40 Cf. PanMal 17 on the difficulties in attributing the Pan Painter's work to phases.
41 It may perhaps be noted that Hermonax, acknowledged pupil of the Berlin Painter, also displays the same simplified type of ankle, L-shaped, with the corner of the L rounded.
42 Cf. e.g. PanMal pls. 16.3; 24.1.
43 Cf. e.g. PanMal pls. 18.2; 28.3.
44 Cf. e.g. PanMal pls. 22; 28; Follmann pls. 8.5; 9.1.
45 For the Berlin Painter cf. e.g. the neck-amphora Oxford 274 (ARV 2 203, 100), here Plate X a; and the stamnos Oxford 1965.123 (ARV 2 208 154; Paralipomena 343).
46 Pelike Athens 9683 (ARV 2 554, 82).
47 ARV 2 1634, 1 bis; Paralipomena 342.
48 Cf. the column-krater Villa Giulia 984 (ARV 2 239, 21; Paralipomena 349; EAA v, 317 fig. 430).
49 Cf. Beazley, J. D., Der Kleophrades-Makr (Berlin, 1933) pl. 29.3Google Scholar. At a superficial glance, the fragmentary club of Heracles on the Agora fragment P 7241 (ARV 2 189, 79; Paralipomena 341) by the Kleophrades Painter may appear similar to the clubs of the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter. However, a more careful examination, and a comparison with other clubs by the Kleophrades Painter (cf. Beazley, KleophrMal pls. 22; 29.3), make clear that the fragmentary club on Agora P 7241 is, like all clubs by the Kleophrades Painter, much thinner than those of the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter, and that the knots stop too high up on the club by comparison to the clubs by the two other artists. (The superficial resemblance is caused by the fragmentary state of the Agora club: since only part of its length is perserved, its thinness is at first less apparent, and of its lower part which is devoid of knots only a small part is preserved.)
50 Cf. kalyx-krater Louvre G 341 (ARV 2 601, 22), side A.
51 Fragmentary cup from the Astarita Collection in the Vatican (ARV 2 880, 13).
52 This line of inquiry was kindly suggested to me by Professor C. M. Robertson.
53 Munich 2312 (ARV 2 197, 11; BerlMal pl. 9.1; here Plate X b-c; early work).
54 Hydria London E 181 (ARV 2 555, 96; PanMal pl. 5.1; here Plate XI a). Cf. also the abduction of Oreithyia on the oinochoe London E 512 (ARV 2 557, 125; PanMal pl. 5.2; here Plate XI b) in which only the seated figure is conceived in the new ethos and rendered in the new spirit.
55 Cf. the cup Munich 2646 by Douris (ARV 2437, 128) side A, where Heracles is attacking Linos with the plektron.
56 Cf. also, for example, Follmann pl. 7.2.
57 Achilles on the Berlin Painter's (1) is wearing greaves, which he is lacking in the Berlin Painter's (2A) and (2B) and in the scene by the Pan Painter.
58 It should, of course, be remembered that the coiffure mentioned above and found on the Berlin Painter's Triton, on Myson's Croesus and on two of the figures of Poseidon by the Pan Painter considered here, is not peculiar to these artists but is also used by others. The exact rendering of the coiffure depends, obviously, on the individual artist's style, and can even vary from figure to figure in the work of the same man.
59 It is perhaps conceivable that some echo of the Berlin Painter's Triton may also be found in the Pan Painter's Zeus on the Marpessa psykter (ARV 2 556, 101)—in the same way that it may be possible to see, in the build of the figure and the bearing of the body of Artemis on the same vase, a faint echo of Athena by the Berlin Painter on a Panathenaic amphora in the Vatican (ARV 2 197, 5; BerlMal pl. 11.1).
60 Cf. the oinochoe London E 512 discussed infra in v(c).