¹ BSA XXXIV (1933–4), 99 ff. cited here as ‘Lane’. I owe a personal debt of gratitude to Mr. Lane, who generously allowed me to use his collection of photographs and notes on Laconian vases. Abbreviations, apart from those in regular use in BSA, are self-explanatory. AO stands for Artemis Orthia ed. R. M. Dawkins; BdA for Bollettino d'arte. References to CV are as follows: the number following CV is always that of the muscum volume; then where there is a consecutive run of plate numbers in the volume, that number is given. In other cases (viz. Louvre, Brussels, Rhodes) the national sequence number of the plate is quoted and indicated as such.

² BSA XLVIII (1953), 172, opening paragraph.

³ Thanks are due to the authorities of the British Museum, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Antikensammlung at Munich, and the Louvre for photographs and permissions. The photographs of the Louvre vases reproduced here are my own, that of the Florence cup is by E. A. Lane, the rest were supplied by the Museums concerned. Mrs. Zancani Montuoro sent me pictures of the cup in Sorrento, Mr. R. M. Cook of a fragment in Erlangen. Sir John Beazley read through my manuscript, and I profited much from his comments and suggestions. I also owe to him my knowledge of some of the items in my lists. To all these scholars I am deeply indebted.

⁴ The dolphin cup in Taranto, Lane, pl. 30 a, which has been called the finest of all Laconian vases, may with its companion piece, Lane, pl. 30 b, turn out to be his work but as yet the links are too tenuous for more than a suggestion.

⁵ Many vases and fragments in Samos were destroyed or lost during the war. I have no information on the fate of any particular piece. SAMOS might therefore mean ‘lost’ or ‘destroyed’.

⁶ The pomegranate frieze framing the inside tondo, a commonplace in the Arkesilas Painter's early work, but abandoned by him in his latest cups, survives here in nos. 5 and 13. In details of drawing, as an instance the horizontal line above the pubes, which occurs in, e.g., Arkesilas Painter nos. 12 and 14, is found here on no. 11. More notable still is the dismemberment, in the workshop, of iconographic inventions taken from the Masters' works or pattern books. Thus the building in nos. 5, 6, 10, 15 is probably derived from the fountain house in a picture of Achilles at the fountain by the Arkesilas Painter; the hare in the exergue of no. 15 no doubt once had its place under Troilos' horse, as it also has in the New York cup by the C Painter (Beazley, , Development of Attic Black-Figure, pl. 8, 2Google Scholar). Perhaps the rider on nos. 17, 21, 22 was once none other than Troilos himself. A complete Troilos cup by the Arkesilas Painter will surely turn up one day and show us the scattered and abducted elements in their proper places.

^6a For Plate 52, b I am indebted to M. P. Devambez of the Louvre.

^6b But the lower part of the foot is alien, belonging to a Little-Master Cup.

⁷ See Works of Art in Greece …, Losses and Survivals (London, 1946), 17–18.

⁸ See Works of Art in Greece …, Losses and Survivals 27. Fragments with the rear portion of the lion were, however, in Samos in the summer of 1954. They were presumably separated when the cup was removed.

⁹ It still seems to me most probable that the Arkesilas on the cup is the King of Cyrene, though one cannot be absolutely certain (see the excellent account Lane 161–2). To deny the very possibility and substitute for the king a Spartan merchant, as Rumpf has recently done (Malerei und Zeichnung 54; Archäologie I 117–18), seems to me perverse. Granted the identity, there is still the problem of dating the reign of Arkesilas II and also the question whether the reign can be more than a terminus post quem.

The best recent discussions on the date of Arkesilas are by Smith, H. R. W., The Hearst Hydria 273 n. 88Google Scholar and Mazzarino, S., Fra Oriente e Occidente 150 ff.Google Scholar and 313 ff., both of which reach very much the same conclusions. Mazzarino, basing himself on a very plausible interpretation of a neo-Babylonian document, concludes that his short reign must have been in 569–8 B.C. (Sidney Smith, discussing this inscription in his Isaiah, Chapters XL–LV 204, objects to the identification of Puṭu-Yaman with Cyrene on historical grounds, which, however, are not cogent. If, as is highly probable, Cyrene is meant, Mazzarino's argument from what remains of the royal (?) name becomes very attractive and is, I am informed, philologically possible. I have had the benefit of being able to discuss this inscription with Mr. P. Hulin and Professor H. T. Wade-Gery, and Professor Sidney Smith kindly allowed me to consult him on the transliteration of names. Chamoux, F., Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades 142–3Google Scholar and Schaefer, H., RheinMus XCV (1952), 157 n. 80Google Scholar and 158 n. 83 discuss Mazzarino's views, but their scepticism is not well founded.) Both H. R. W. Smith and Mazzarino think that the cup must have been painted during Arkesilas' reign because of the king's unfortunate end. I doubt whether this is a safe inference, and therefore do not regard the reign as more than the earliest possible date for the cup, without, however, wanting to leave more than a few years at the most between the king's death and the painting of the cup.

¹⁰ See above p. 306. Yet it is not only the use of inscriptions which suggests this influence, but also the proportions of the figures and the manner of their drawing. Take Sliphomachos and his companion who holds the basket and compare them with figures by the Hunt Painter at almost any stage of his career. Many of their traits are to be found there, in the Hunt Painter, rather than in the earlier work of the Arkesilas Painter. Of course, despite this influence Sliphomachos could have been drawn by no one but the Arkesilas Painter!

¹¹ This is also the date Smith arrives at in his careful consideration of this tomb in The Hearst Hydria 251–2. One of his premises, however, is the date of the Arkesilas cup, which he fixes very close to 565 B.C.

¹² The lydion found in it has a squat foot modelled on that of early Attic eye-cups (Type A, cf. Beazley, , Development of Attic Black-Figure 67Google Scholar) in contrast to earlier examples such as Cl. Rh. VIII 70, bottom l. (Mrs. Ure has very kindly shown me a photograph of the unpublished part of the tomb group.)

¹³ Lane 137–9. I know the outside of the Taranto cup from an inadequate photograph only and cannot vouch for the aptness of the comparison. In any case Lane's list of differences in·the outside decoration of these two cups is incomplete. Instead of the frieze of buds in the lowest zone, the Taranto cup has pomegranates.

¹⁴ This does not disagree with the evidence, such as it is, of the tomb group of which the Rhodes cup is part; see Lane 180; Hopper, , BSA XLIV (1949), 191.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Lane 151, but it can hardly be used for close dating. There were fifty or more vases in the tomb, not just the three Lane mentions. The trefoil-mouth olpe discussed by Lane is published in Sardis I 119, fig. 125, extreme r., and Richter, , Handbook of the Greek Coll., pl. 26 b.Google Scholar It is Attic of the first half of the century and is now New York 26.164.28 (cf. Beazley, , Hesperia XIII (1944), 42 n. 8Google Scholar and, with wrong inv. number, Richter, , Archaic Greek Art 53, n. 199Google Scholar). For this tomb see also AJA XVIII (1914), 432 ff. None of its contents seems to be later than early in the second half of the century.

¹⁶ Nos. 2–4, however, which are obviously contemporary with work of his own hand, may in fact be his.

¹⁷ Cf. Pfuhl, MuZ III, figs. 313, 317. 318.

¹⁸ See Homann-Wedeking, , Archaische Vasenornamentik 13.Google Scholar I owe my knowledge of this cup to the kindness of Dr. Homann-Wedeking, who sent me photographs of it.

¹⁹ See Perachora II, on no. 4093.

²⁰ See Beazley, , Development 58.Google Scholar