HESPERIA 75 (2006)
THE
EVOLUTION
THE
PAN
OF
435-451
Page*
PAINTER'S
STYLE
ARTISTIC
ABSTRACT
In this article the author explores the decorative style of the Pan Painter in
and highlight the three
order to distance him from the so-called Mannerists
oeuvre reveals traits
nature
his
of his artistry. An analysis of
dimensional
s
shared with the Berlin Painter and thus revives Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood
was a shop-boy under Myson and later an ap
suggestion that the Pan Painter
to
is given to the Pan Painter's treatment
Attention
Painter.
the
Berlin
prentice
in amanner suiting
of costume, which enlivened his figures and compositions
types and vessel shapes with which he worked.
the range of iconographie
our
to flatten images from
tendency in
publications
as
two-dimensional
Athenian
artworks, it has
pots by rendering them
become difficult to appreciate fully the artistry of vase painters.11 make
to bring attention to the fact that some Attic pot paint
this observation
to the modern
Thanks
ers did not merely paint pictures on awkwardly shaped surfaces, but used
their artistry to enhance the overall appearance of each individual pot.
of the Pan Painter, the Classical
In this article I seek an understanding
pot decorator named for his memorable
depiction of the woodland
on a bell krater in Boston
a
(Figs. 1, 2).2 The Pan
god chasing
shepherd
Painter probably worked in the Early Classical period, from 480 to at least
Attic
460 b.c.3 I do not take it for granted that this painter?or
any other, for
to paint pots because that was all there was to paint.
that matter?chose
The skills of an artist who was as good a draftsman as the Pan Painter
would
more
1. This
tendency
from
ranging
works
can be
seen
in
18th-century
to
21st-century
photographs
vasorum
series.
antiquorum
Corpus
to
I am
Cullen
Tracey
grateful
ings
two anonymous
Hesperias
who
read and recommended
ments
?
The
to earlier
American
versions
School
have been useful
a matter
script. This
of
in any medium.
choice.
a paper
from
essay derives
etch
delivered to the Classical Archaeology
in the
Seminar
Studies,
and
reviewers
improve
of this manu
of Classical
at the Institute
London,
for Classical
December
4,2002.
My thanks toAlan Johnston andDyfri
Williams for the invitation to deliver
that paper.
2. Boston,
Studies
to have been
It seems, therefore,
10.185.
ARV2
550,
no.
1; Paralipomena
386; Beazley Addenda2 256-257; Beaz
leyArchive (hereafter abbreviated BA)
no. 206276.
Database,
For
the Beazley
Archive
see
www.beazley.ox.ac.uk.
3. Hereafter,
all dates are b.c. Beaz
ley (1931, p. 17) dates the Pan Painter's
Museum
at Athens
of Fine
Arts
work
to the
period
480-450.
436
AMY
C.
SMITH
1. Pan
Figure
pursuing
at a rural shrine.
Side
by
the Pan
Painter.
Boston,
Museum
10.185. Photo ? 2006,
of Fine Arts
Museum
a
goatherd,
B of a krater
of Fine Arts,
Boston
Figure 2. Artemis and the death
of Aktaion. Side A of a krater by
the Pan
Painter.
of Fine Arts
Museum
Boston,
Museum
10.185. Photo ? 2006,
of Fine Arts,
Boston
EVOLUTION
OF
THE
PAN
ARTISTIC
PAINTER'S
STYLE
437
so than other
More
known Classical
the Pan
red-figure painters,
aware of the space and volume of the surfaces he
keenly
use the decoration
to complement
the object
painted, and of how best to
to
and the object
the decoration. His decorative choices, some
complement
of which
reflect Late Archaic
styles, have led to his being classified as a
as a sub-Archaic
I argue here, however, for his identification
Mannerist.
as a manifestation
I
his
mannerism
and
of his decorative
painter
explain
Painter was
tendencies.
BEAZLEY AND THE MANNERIST
INTERPRETATION
In 1912 Sir John Beazley
first defined
the Pan Painter
as follows:
composition;
rapid motion; quick deft draughtsmanship;
a deliberate archaism,
and
strong
peculiar stylisation;
retaining old
forms, but refining, refreshing, and galvanizing
them; nothing noble
or
but
humour,
grace,
majestic,
vivacity, originality, and dramatic
Cunning
force: these are the qualities which mark the Boston krater, and
characterize the anonymous artist who, for the sake of
convenience, may be called the "master of the Boston Pan-vase,"
which
or, more
"the
briefly,
Pan-master."4
I can hardly disagree with Beazley's brief comments.
I seek rather to
seem to
elucidate the Pan Painter s peculiar style and archaism, which
a
that
recognition
particular forms?whether
display
clothing, attributes,
or
some pot
better
than
others.
How
did the master
poses?suited
shapes
4. Beazley
1912b, p. 354.
5. Robertson
1959, p. 120.
6. For Beazley's
fluctuating
opinions
these terms, see Robertson
regarding
as the Pan Painter
the style by which we identify him?
come about?
looking genius"5
A painters training is a central concern in the exploration of his ar
tistic style. In this context it is best to avoid Beazley's own terms such as
"master," "school," or "teacher," for which he may have had very specific
intentions and usages.6 By training I refer rather to the evolution of the
known
How
1989; Rouet 2001, pp. 93-108.
Pan Painters
7. Beazley
includes
the
Mannerists
among
painter
(ARV2
where:
Painter
the Pan Painter
in his
lists
him else
550), but excludes
"I am not including
the Pan
in the
the
Mannerists
among
sense. He
from the
proceeds
in com
teacher, and has much
with
them, but went his own way,
stricter
same
mon
not
is immeasurably
superior, and did
sit, or not for long, in the Mannerist
1946, p. 13, n. 1).
workshop"
(Beazley
8. Beazley 1931.
9. Sourvinou-Inwood
An
exception
1975,
is the Eucharides
p. 108.
Painter;
Beazley 1913, p. 245. This followed his
publication
oeuvre
in
of the Eucharides
Beazley
1912a.
Painter's
a
develop
did his "backward
who
complicated
probably
artistic skills. Becoming
must
acquire
some
process. The
precluded
a
painter of any sort?let
knowledge
of
the
potter's
range of artistic skills entailed
a one-on-one,
student-teacher
art
alone a pot
as well?is
in pot painting
relationship,
as
even
Beazley might have acknowledged. Yet I must reopen the question that
laid to rest for generations
of students and scholars of
Beazley ostensibly
ancient art: who was the teacher of the Pan Painter?
own conclusion
as follows: the Pan
can be summarized
Beazley's
Painter was aMannerist,
and Myson was the teacher of the Mannerists;
therefore, Myson was the teacher of the Pan Painter.7 Of course his opinion
(as opposed to his conclusion) may have been better reasoned, as were his
on the
oeuvre of the Pan Painter,
style, character, and
opinions
expressed
inDer Pan-Maler} As Christiane
has noted, however,
Sourvinou-Inwood
with
the Pan Painter
aswith most
analyze why he identified
a
others, Beazley did not try to explain or
as a teacher.9
particular painter
AMY
438
C.
SMITH
Figure 3. The death of Argos.
Shoulder of a kalpis hydria attributed
to the
Agrigento
Drawing
Painter.
Boston,
of Fine Arts 08.417.
Museum
after CB, pi. 86
A. C. Smith,
as applied to ancient Greek vase painting refers to the
depiction of figures, and especially their attire, attributes, and other de
effect, not necessarily as a reflection
tails, for decorative, that is,mannered
Mannerism
of contemporary
styles.10 Figures by the Classical
red-figure Mannerists
Dutch painters of the early
reminded Beazley of the Antwerp Mannerists,
16th century whose slender figures and pleated garments were barely dis
tinguishable from those of their immediate predecessors.11 The comparison
is apt. The Antwerp Mannerists,
like the Greek vase painters, remain
were
influenced by their contemporaries,
and
mediocre.
anonymous
They
while copying older compositions
and styles.
A kalpis hydria in Boston exemplifies Early Classical red-figure man
nerism (Fig. 3).12 Here the Agrigento
Painter, who worked ca. 470-440,13
uses Archaic-style
details
and
clothing
(sharply pointed beards and cloth
the decora
corners, loopy hems, and pleated drapery) without mastering
tive spirit that buoyed the Archaic period. Despite great strides and raised
arms, the doughy human figures are rigidly posed in three-quarter views.
or not Archaic
in style), framed panels, and
Affected
drapery (whether
are
the
of
old-fashioned
typical
red-figure Mannerists.
They
shapes
often use the border ornaments shown in Figure 3, especially the pendant
lotus-bud
arcs, on the neck.14 The Agrigento
chain, with
intersecting
Painter
shares with
other Early Classical
the composition with
bery beneath Argos,
everywhere.
Only
a
tendency to crowd
painters
details
such as the shrub
fussy
overlapping figures,
or
ornament
almost
and sloppy bordering
filling
the Classical
the last of these tendencies characterizes
century
ity and grace
at home with the Archaic
is one
style in its final phase.15 Archaism
the
Pan
Painter
and
of many means or aspects of mannerism
practiced by
in
the Early Classical period (480-450). Beazley s
other sub-Archaic artists
term
this
as
in the
11. Beazley
12. Boston,
with
and
Attic
in a chapter
painters
1918, pp. 3-22.
1974, p. 8.
Museum
ARV2
abil
noted by
succinctly
first used
p. 1. Beazley
in connection
vase
the
from
affectation
also
but
black-figure
title in Beazley
08.417.
is derived
("style"), which
"artistic
denoted
superficiality,"
Mannack
2001,
579,
of Fine
no.
Arts
84; Paralipom
ena 391; Beazley Addenda1 262; BA
no. 206686.
13. Mannack
67-68)
p. 121.
2001,
14. See Mannack
The
was
maniera
16th
Mannerists.
re
as a
pejorative term,
appellation "Mannerist," usually taken
our
of
stricts the Pan Painter's significance
and confuses
understanding
his style. I prefer to call the Pan Painter a sub-Archaic painter, one who
term
10. The
Italian
for the
pp. 61, 65,
chain.
(2001,
lotus-bud
15. Boardman (1975, p. 181) called
him
endet
mehr"
to
Beazley,
According
Manierist
und
als
beginnt
sub-Archaic.
"Der Maler
als Manierist:
(1931,
p. 17).
dazwischen
ist er
EVOLUTION
4. The
Figure
choice
scene
Figurai
uted to the Pan
Staatliche
on
OF
THE
PAN
ARTISTIC
PAINTER'S
STYLE
439
of
Marpessa.
attrib
psykter
Painter. Munich,
a
und
Antikensammlungen
2417. FR, pl. 16
Glyptothek
Figure 5.The choiceofMarpessa.
^^^^^^^^^^^H
Psykterattributedto thePan Painter. ^^^^^^^^^^^H
Munich, StaatlicheAntikensamm- ^^^^^^^^^^^^H
undGlyptothek
2417
lungen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(J 745). Photo C. Koppermann,courtesy
StaariicheAntikensammlungen undGlyptothekM?nchen
fl^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r
^^^HBHBBB?^^^
group (or school or workshop)
practiced mannerism?some
archaism?into
the
390s.
assertion that
John Boardman's
through
"sub-Archaic Mannerism
be
rendered
slimmer
may
by
figures, smaller
Mannerist
16. Boardman
p. 181.
1975,
17. Munich,
Antikensammlungen
2417 (J 745). ARV2 556, no. 101;
376; Beazley
no. 206344.
Paralipomena
BA
258-259;
to choose
had
Apollo
of this
and
between
Idas. For
legend
in Greek
art, see Beazley
1957,
Addenda2
Marpessa
two suitors,
representations
and Etruscan
p. 138.
See, more
1992, pp. 364-366,
recently, LIMCVl,
s.v.
R?ceos).
(L.Jones
Marpessa
18. Drougou
1975, pp. 48-51;
Vierneisel
1990.
times
heads, exaggeration of gesture, exploitation of pattern in dress for its own
sake . . . rendered by vitality of subject, with a touch of the theatrical."
describes the archaism practiced by the Pan Painter and a few others in
the 470s, rather than the mannerism
practiced by laterMannerists.16 The
Pan Painters sub-Archaic drawing of the choice ofMarpessa
on a psykter
and confident
(Figs. 4, 5) shows all the jauntiness, coherent composition,
outline characteristic of the best work of the Archaic
period.17 The re
strained
wine
ornament,
cooler?distance
the
continuous
this work
scene,
and
even
the
shape?the
from those of the Mannerists.18
sympotic
AMY
440
SMITH
C.
PROBLEMS OF DATING THE PAN PAINTER
we have
date of theMarpessa
psykter typifies the problems
the career of the Pan Painter from the evidence of his works.
The
contested
in charting
Like Beazley,19 Anna-Barbara
Follmann
classes the Marpessa
psykter
s
Pan
earliest
but
she sees its profile as Late Ar
the
Painter
works,
among
chaic rather than sub-Archaic, dating it to the last decade of the Archaic
rightly notes, however, the choice
not
for an artist with a fondness for
is
unusual
shape
van Ufford
the past.21 Lily Byvanck-Quarles
argues that the
convincingly
traits with
psykter combines old-fashioned
figurai style of the Marpessa
ca.
to
it
Classical
460.22
Because
he
combines
innovations, dating
Early
even
sum
new and old
the Pan
and
the
of
shapes, decorations,
techniques,
period (480s).20 As
of an old-fashioned
sworks
Painter
Sourvinou-Inwood
in a consistent
cannot be ordered
frame
developmental
such as Beazley and his successors have built for most Attic painters.
Nor does the quality of the Pan Painter sworks vary greatly; one cannot
saw for
career
project onto him the
path of gradual decline that Beazley
work
vase
most
painters.23
of a painter s oeuvre is normally charted
internal development
a
of
comparison
through
stylistic tendencies (especially drapery) in sculpture
and mural painting, some of which maybe dated by external events. The Pan
The
selective archaism defies such comparisons. A new analysis of the
internal chronology of the Pan Painter is needed.24 For now I avoid discus
Painters
rather on his decorative style. I agree with Beaz
and
Sourvinou-Inwood,
however, that the Pan Painter s career ismost
ley
ca. 480, near the end of the Berlin Painters career.25
likely to have started
The only argument for an external dating of the Pan Painter ismade by
sion of dates and concentrate
van Ufford,
Byvanck-Quarles
ing movement,
his ostracism
19. Beazley
20. Follmann
p. 71, Follmann
the Pan Painter
ca. 490, which
relationship.
that the
suggest
and
500;
the Berlin
for Myson,
see Beazley 1946, p. 13; for the Berlin
see below,
Painter,
21.
n. 25.
Sourvinou-Inwood
22. Byvanck-Quarles
1969, pp. 128-132.
23.
summary
decline.
after
1975, p. 109.
van Ufrbrd
so-called
unlike
historical
iconography,
the
is part of a larger
project
I have embarked;
I suspect
internal chronology
of the Pan
on which
the
that
s oeuvre
Painter
on his
depends
and shapes.
ornaments,
lines,
25.Whereas
a
notes
Painter,
long
from
"latest
period"
sketch
500
the Berlin
just after 480
the career
of the Pan
Painter
ca. 490.
See
even
Myson
also n. 20.
and
26. Byvanck-Quarles
1949-1951,
vanck-Quarles
1975)
van Ufford
1988,
Byvanck-Quarles
For Kimons
ostracism,
pp. 184-186.
1.102;
Plut.
Vit. Cim.
(Beaz
Painter
starting
van UfFord
see also
pp. 21-25;
By
van Ufford
1950,
16.8
17.2.
van Ufford
1969, p. 132.
28.
Painter's
is Follmann (1968, p. 71), who has the
Pan
and (seemingly in igno
of Sourvinou-Inwood
27. Byvanck-Quarles
to after 460,
ley 1986, p. 87). The only dissenting
on
rance
for the Berlin
before
to
pp. 292-294
seeThuc.
Beazley (1931, p. 15)
career
he dates
elsewhere
voice
for Beazley's
e.g., ARV2196
of the Berlin Painters
See,
an archaiz
Kimon
24. This
also
On
1968, pp. 27-28.
sees both
and
Myson
their careers
starting
their
further complicates
of both Myson
around
began
Painter
her
has correctly dismissed
has also noted,
p. 15. See
1931,
and others
Beazley
careers
against
Sourvinou-Inwood
teacher-student
alleged
statesman
the
in 462.26 In support of this "style archai'sant,"
at 460.27 Her argument is circular,
psykter too late,
1958-1959, p. 13.
Diepolder
was
that mannerism
proposes
reaction
from Athens
she dates theMarpessa
and Sourvinou-Inwood
proof.28 As
who
a short-lived
Sourvinou-Inwood
(1975,
pp. 110-111) objects that Kimons
successors
nor
reverse
did not
reject
his
artistic
his policies
as
patronage,
exemplified by the inclusion of the
Battle
of Oinoe,
the murals
ca. 461
on
or later,
the Stoa
Poikile
among
statue
of Pheidiass
and the completion
of Athena
Promachos.
OF
EVOLUTION
THE
advent of mannerism
to external,
nonartistic
PAN
PAINTER'S
ARTISTIC
is a stylistic phenomenon
causes.29
Mannerism
STYLE
441
that cannot be attributed
is not
a short-lived
style?it
archaism
of the 4th century?and
continues
through to the beginning
is only one aspect of mannerism. The Pan Painters use of Late Archaic
elements was not unique, but itwas not common enough to represent an
style
archaizing
or movement.30
RECONSTRUCTING
CAREER
The
identification
ofMyson
THE PAN PAINTER'S
as the teacher of the Pan Painter
classes the
at least
latter as merely another one of the Mannerists,
although Beazley
ac
was the only
pupil who exceeded the
recognized that the Pan Painter
has
teacher.31
Sourvinou-wood
of
his
rightly
purported
complishments
noted that the link between the two is based on rudimentary aspects of
a few formal similarities between
them.32 As she has argued, the
only
identification of such amaster's teacher should be based on similarities in
of scenes, that is, "more sophisticated
types of figures and the composition
s
craft," rather than on elementary renderings and
aspects of the vase-painter
is correct, these
consistent sets of formal similarities.33 If Sourvinou-Inwood
29.
Sourvinou-Inwood
p. 110.
1975,
30. Following Follmann 1968, p. 12.
31. Beazley
p. 17. Mannack
1931,
also n. 7 above.
pp.
1975,
108-109.
33. Sourvinou-Inwood
1975,
34. Sourvinou-Inwood
1975,
p. 108.
p. 109.
Follmann (1968, p. 71) did not come
to this or any conclusion,
although
view
the traditional
she challenged
was
that Myson
the teacher
of the Pan
Painter. Berge (1974) also challenged
s view
of the relationship
and Myson
the Pan Painter
Beazley
between
(see above,
n. 7).
35. Giovanni Morelli pioneered the
study
of individual
style
in art. As
noted
by Rouet (2001, p. 60), while Beazley
never mentioned
Morelli
individual
that
the precedent
set for his own attributions
artists,
their
to
were
approaches
his disci
similar and Morelli,
broadly
works were
surely known
ples, and their
toWilliams
to
Beazley. According
s
anal
p. 241), Beazley
stylistic
from that of Paul Hartwig.
derived
(1996,
ysis
Painter
he was an errand- or shop-boy
under the Berlin Painter.34
inwhich
apprentice
If we
(2001, p. 5) is in agreement on this
See
point.
32. Sourvinou-Inwood
reflect a mature mentor-advisee
relationship.
complex similarities might
with
the
Pan
Painter
That is,
might have developed his formal similarities
career
inMysons
workshop, while his compositional
early in his
Myson
a later
and figurai similarities with the Berlin Painter developed
through
a career for the Pan
Sourvinou-Inwood
association. Accordingly,
proposed
under Myson
and a proper
to the career
hypothesis with regard
adopt Sourvinou-Inwoods
of the Pan Painter, we can keep the main contribution of Beazley swork on
definition ofthat painter s style in theMorellian manner35
the master?his
of the
?and
cogent points of comparison
accept Sourvinou-Inwoods
and the Berlin Painter.
his supposed teachers, Myson
of this article, I follow this proposed career path of the
of the formal tenden
identification
Pan Painter. I begin with Beazley's
a
of
which of them he may have
cies of the Pan Painter and consideration
Pan Painter with
In the remainder
I then enumerate and explain connections between
learned from Myson.
include the range of shapes
the Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter. These
and formal similarities. This leads to an
decorated aswell as compositional
investigation of the ways inwhich the younger painter may have adapted
lessons learned from the Berlin Painter to his own distinct artistic style,
the use of contour, emphatic
renderings,
including specific anatomical
oeuvre of the Pan Painter,
In
the
and
black
(mannered) drapery,
space.
a
in decorative style through which
themselves
these tendencies manifest
across
the shape of each pot. Using
examples from
images emphasize
the Pan Painter s iconographie range, Iwill detail the four ways (volume,
in which he adapted costumes,
outline, texture, and detailed flourishes)
attributes,
decorated.
and overall composition
to complement
the shape of each pot
AMY
442
C.
SMITH
6. Herakles
Figure
and
of a calyx
krater
tripod. Side B
to
attributed
London, British Museum
Photo ? Trustees
Pan
The
Painter
and
strug
Apollo
gling over the Delphic
Myson.
E 458.
of the British Museum
Myson
s
Beazley
points concerning the Pan Painter's style are easily summarized in
his analysis of the painter's name vase, the Pan krater in Boston (Figs. 1,2).36
in anatomical order from head to toe, these consist of (1) round
Noted
skulls; (2) the outer contour of the hair, usually smooth; (3) small facial
never indicated, lashes indicated
features; (4) eyes as on Artemis
(upper lid
a
black dot); (5) short, round, conventional
only once, eyeball rendered with
ears, rendered with black arcs; (6) short, flat noses; (7) large, round chins;
(8) thick necks; (9) female breast large, not prominent, but deep; (10) de
tached black lines above the armpits as on the goatherd; (11) nipples indi
cated by black open ring or small arc, as on Aktaion;
(12) frontal open hand
as on Aktaion;
(13) clenched hand as on Pan; (14) profile hip, as on the
as on Pan; and (16) a
goatherd; (15) profile leg
tendency to favor profile feet,
on other,
or
seven
toes.
six
and
with
sinewy
graceful,
Beazley also remarks
nonanatomical
for
the
of
tendencies,
example,
rarity
inscriptions.37 With
a
regard to patterns, Beazley notes
preference for the stopped meander,
in pairs, sometimes alternating with cross-squares.38 Regarding
and especially attire, however, Beazley's description
of the painter's
often
becomes
Of
diffuse,
with
the formal
many
or
variants
characteristics
style
alternatives.39
of the Pan Painter's
are
found
Beazley, few
consistently
of their similar traits are illustrated
hair
style discerned
in the oeuvre of Myson.40 Almost
by
all
in Figure 6, side B of a calyx krater
that
the
for
the Delphic
by Myson
struggle
depicts
tripod.41 For example,
are
noses are
facial features
longer than
generally small, although Myson's
are rendered with black dots, as
those of the Pan Painter. While
eyeballs
36.
Beazley
I exclude
from
tain
to no more
or those
made
pp. 363-366.
list points
that per
than a few examples
1912b,
this
on which
inroads
Sourvinou-Inwood
(see Table
1). See
also
version
1974, the final English
Beazley
in
of Der Pan-Maler,
after revisions
1944 and 1947.
37. Beazley
38. Beazley
1912b,
1912b,
pp. 368-369.
p. 369.
39. Beazley
1912b, pp. 367-368.
on
see
40. For more
Myson,
Berge
1974.
41. ARV2
239,
no.
16; Paralipomena
349; Beazley Addenda2 201; BA no.
202164.
EVOLUTION
THE
OF
PAN
ARTISTIC
PAINTER'S
STYLE
443
of the Pan Painter, Myson
embellishes his figures with more
are round, and the female breasts are
eyelashes. Ears and chins
large and
are sometimes (not
with
the
open round
always) rendered,
deep.42 Nipples
circles familiar from the Pan Painter's oeuvre. Most
similar is their treat
in the work
ment
of feet; both artists show such enthusiasm for long graceful feet that
or seven on a
they forget to count the toes, which often number six
profile
foot. Significant differences occur, however, in the treatment of the heads.
contour is
Myson's
profile heads taper toward the front, and the exterior
almost always rough.
Pan
The
Sourvinou-Inwood's
the Berlin Painter
other
and
Painter
attributes
the
Berlin
Painter
more
analysis of the
complex similarities between
and the Pan Painter in terms of anatomy, clothing, and
is summarized
in Table
1. In addition
to these formal
similarities in spirit and figurai types. For ex
correspondences,
ample, both the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter do not abandon grace
she notes
in so-called stac
tendency is exemplified
as on side B of the Pan krater
cato movement,
She
also observes
(Fig. 1).
or
in
divine, such
particular similarities
figure types, including the heroic
as Achilles, Poseidon/Triton,
and Oreithyia,
and generic
Perseus, Apollo,
as
such
the
and
kitharoidos
types,
flute-playing
boys.43
for liveliness. This Late Archaic
I would
add to these
connections
between
the Berlin
Painter
and
further similarities in shapes, pattern, and style. Table 2
shows the overlap in shapes between the Pan Painter and his two putative
teachers.44 The two shapes in common that the Pan Painter and Myson
most often decorated,
the pelike and column krater, are the shapes that
seems
to have preferred in his younger days, according to
the Pan Painter
the Pan Painter
42. This
is not
last detail
in Fig. 5, but see the figure
the obverse
of the same vase,
on
depicted
is not known for small pots, or even other large pots (small
Myson
of only eight other shapes have been attributed to his hand), both
the Berlin Painter and the Pan Painter painted awide range of small- to
Whereas
inRobertson 1992, p. 125, fig. 128.
43.
Sourvinou-Inwood
numbers
1975,
115-119.
pp.
44. This
table
at
all pots
includes
medium-sized
tributed to the hand of each of these
that were
masters
ley Archive
in the Beaz
included
as of October
database
13,
2005.While the Beazley Archive lists
all published (andmany unpublished)
a
it necessarily
only
provides
of any painter's
oeuvre, due
snapshot
vases,
of the archaeological
45. Beazley
1931, p. 17.
limitations
to
record.
46. The Beazley Archive lists only
12 red-figure bell kraters (many frag
mentary,
or without
with
evidence
of
lugs) from the period from 500 to 450,
1,587 red-figure
among
the entire archive.
47. Robertson
lug-handled
1983,
1992,
bell krater,
pp. 50-53.
bell
stylistic observations.45 This pattern supports Sourvinou-Inwood's
as an
apprentice under Myson. The
proposal that the Pan Painter began
Berlin Painter also painted a fair number of each of these shapes, however.
Beazley's
apparent
of Aithra
kraters
in
the
p. 76. On
see also
Knigge
pots, notably neck amphoras (32% and 9% of their oeuvres,
respectively),
lekythoi (14% and 18%), hydrias (8% and 6%), stamnoi (6%
it is clear that both painted a
and 2%), and oinochoai
(2% and 2%).While
wider range of shapes than their contemporaries, most of the shapes that
they
shared
in common
were
popular
among
other
painters.
More
remarkable, however, is that both painted the extremely rare
bell krater form with lugs (five and three examples, respectively).46 Lug
handles seem to have been a characteristic of earlier bell kraters. Martin
stops short of suggesting that the Berlin Painter (or his potter)
introduced the bell krater, which was unknown
in the 6th century.47 The
Pan Painter adapted the bell krater by adding a foot in two degrees, as on
Robertson
his name vase (Fig. 2). Like the column krater (the Pan Painter's favorite
the flat top
krater), the bell krater with lugs high on the body emphasizes
of the krater, which contrasts with its sharply curving body.
There
pots. First,
are three reasons
a painter would
paint such a wide range of
it shows off a painter's versatility, which, combined with varied
AMY
444
TABLE 1. STYLISTIC
AND MYSON*
PAN PAINTER,
PAINTER,
Pan Painter
Painter
Berlin
SMITH
OF THE BERLIN
COMPARISON
Feature
C.
Myson
Renderings
Anatomical
brown
Neck Two
lines
not
converging,
Same,
meeting
but
Occasional,
occasionally
at base
curve
ends
Inner
Clavicle
in
Similar, but sketchier; lines begin
Same
arm
Upper
Two
Breast
abdominis
Rectus
at
Triangle
join
of median
Breast
Unes
Series
of separate,
Same
Same,
and breast
lines
arms
reach upper
self-contained
and
thigh
(if rear
leg
Unes
Ankle Two
leg
on
nearest
Same,
but
Same
Same,
but
Same
for figures
Four
less emphatic
less refined
but widely
Same,
occasionally
Four bulges
spaced
bulges
in
simple drapery
spectator
wearer)
garment
(above
occasionally
Same
Same,
bulges
Six bulges
Flowing relief line on front profile of
Lower leg
of neck
base
beyond
curves
line without
join median
convex brown
lines
Clavicles
curving
strongly
of neck
and below),
almost
Same,
and various
Occasional
later works
single hooked line
in horseshoe
Clothing/Attributes
two-dimensional
Simple
Drapery
naturalistic
ending
club
Herakles'
with
between
knots
relationship
thrown over sides
backward
of arms,
stiffly
Similar,
tries
but
dimensional
to
give
appearance
three
and
depth to folds
in three dimensions,
Sourvinou-Inwood
from
parallel
careful
flying
*Drawn
straight
at flat hemline
Same
folds
Conceived
Ends
Himation
with
garment
fall,
under
Same
Two-dimensional,
with
knots
Same
then
arms
1975.
suggest some element of artistic experimentation.
iconography, might
Second, the wide range would appeal to a variety of markets and consum
ers. Third, it could also suggest that the painter was working with several
over his career. None of these explanations
is provable,
different workshops
the last in particular because of the lack of potter signatures in the oeuvres
of
two
these
painters.48
and, more famously, the Berlin Painter preferred
to use black space at the expense of ornament. The Pan Painter is not alone
a
in following
the Berlin Painter in this preference, but it is nonetheless
either used ornament, however, he
noticeable feature of his oeuvre. When
as
most
ground
frequently in the decorative bands that served
employed it
lines. There are clear similarities between the two in terms of actual pat
Both
terns. Here
common
48.
ferent
the Pan Painter
the remarks of Beazley ring true, that the Pan Painters most
pattern is the stopped meander, often rendered in pairs varied
It has been
times
that
suggested
the Berlin
at dif
Painter
painted pots made and signed by
Sosias (Berlin F 2278; ARV2 21, no. 1;
Paralipomena
323; Beazley
Addenda2
154; BA no. 200108; attribution by
C. M.
Robertson)
and Gorgos
(Agora
P 24113; ARV2 213, no. 242; Paralipo
mena 344; Beazley Addenda2 98; BA
no. 202142; attribution by L. Talcott),
neither
although
has been widely
of these
accepted.
attributions
Robertson
(1992, pp. 58, 82) preferred an attribu
tion of the Sosias
des Painter.
Berlin
The
Painter
the Beazley
cup to the Kleophra
to the
attributions
are, however,
Archive
Table 2 is based.
figures
included
on which
in
OF
EVOLUTION
THE
PAN
PAINTER
STYLE
S ARTISTIC
445
BY THE BERLIN
TABLE 2. SHAPES DECORATED
PAINTER, PAN PAINTER, AND MYSON*
Berlin
Shape
(A) 5
(B) 1
Amphora
Amphora
Neck amphora (incl.Nolan)
Panathenaic
Askos
amphora
4
amphoras
?
Chous 2
Cup 4
Stemless
1
16
1
114
33
9
1
?
cup
11
29
Hydria
?
Kantharos
1
3
Bell kraterwith lugs 5
Calyx krater 20
Lebes
2
29
4
krater
Column
volute
krater
6
kraters
1
gamikos
1
30
4
51
Lekythos
1
Loutrophoros
?
1
Mug
7
Oinochoe
Pelike 9
Phiale 2
Plate 2
Psykter
Skyphos 1
Total
*Drawn
49. Beazley 1912b, p. 368. London
E 512. ARV2 557, no. 125; Paralipo
mena 387; Beazley Addenda2 259; BA
no. 206239.
50. Berlin
Paralipomena
Painter:
345,
no.
Berlin
1965.5.
lS4bis;
Beazley
Addenda2196; BA no. 352486. Pan
Painter: Boston 13.198. ARV2 557,
no.
113,1659;
Paralipomena
387; Beaz
no. 206356.
leyAddenda2 126; BA
see
51. On
the Achilles
Painter,
1914, p. 186; more
recently,
Beazley
Robertson
1992, pp. 71-72,
esp. n. 167;
n.
202.
93; p.
p. 174,
52. Beazley
1964, p. 7.
1
3
1
22
21
1
1
?
Other
1
80
1
4
?
Lekanis
Stamnos
Myson
2
Dinos
Other
Painter
?
Alabastron
Other
Pan
Painter
22
28
fragments
354
from
the Beazley
Archive
8
3
15
3
170
116
Database.
or cross-squares
also
(Fig. 7).49 Saltire, checkerboard,
or
schemes
of
meanders.
Such
interrupt pairs
triplets
stopped
commonly
are found on a variety of shapes (see Figs. 1 and 2 where the Pan Painter
or four stopped meanders
alternating with cross-squares),
employs three
on
but mostly
lekythoi (cf. Figs. 8 and 9 with the work of the Berlin Painter
by cross-squares
and the Pan Painter, respectively).50
It is remarkable that the Pan Painter
used the same range of pat
and few of his
terns as the Berlin Painter, for none of his contemporaries
students (notably the Achilles
Painter) followed the Berlin Painter with
to
the Berlin Painter's variation
The
Pan
Painter
modified
regard
patterns.51
technique,
According
from which
dubbed
"ULEA" (upper, lower, facing alternately) by Beazley.52
system, the painter would alternate the direction
to the ULFA
the interruptive
ornament
emerged
(upper, lower) and the
AMY
446
C.
SMITH
m
direction
Sometimes
on either side of the ornament
(facing alternately).
the Pan Painter used an intermediate version, which Iwill call
of the meander
the interruptive ornament emerged alternately from the
"UL," in which
and
lower
upper
parts of the decorative band, as on the upper body frieze
of a lekythos in Providence
(Fig. 10).53
of
revolve
style
Comparisons
primarily around contour and figurai ren
as "the line
is aptly defined by Sourvinou-Inwood
derings. Contour
along
which the black surface meets the red one."54 It is an overwhelming
passion
of both the Pan Painter and the Berlin Painter, one that is all the more
notable in an era when contemporaries
such as the Kleophrades
Painter
or even
were
for
Both
the
Pan
Painter
statuesque figures.
Myson
striving
and the Berlin Painter insert extra attributes into the outstretched hands
Figure 7 (left). Oreithyia
Boreas.
Painter.
British
London,
Photo
E 512.
pursued by
to the Pan
attributed
Hydria
? Trustees
Museum
of the British
Museum
crowning a
Figure 8 (right). Nike
youth.
Berlin
Oinochoe
Painter.
zu Berlin,
seen
to the
attributed
Mu
Staatliche
Berlin,
Preussischer
Kultur
1965.5.
Antikensammlung
zu Berlin,
courtesy Staatliche Museen
Preussischer Kulturbesitz
besitz,
Photo
of their figures or embellish them with emphatic drapery,
providing longer
and more varied contour lines. Moreover,
both make use of the black space
to focus the viewers attention on the
lovingly detailed contour line.
The Archaic passion for contour is a legacy of the black-figure
style,
black figures were essentially silhouettes (dark
epitomized by Exekias.The
forms) surrounded by light (the pinkish red reserved clay), and the contour
each figure. Contour was all the artists could use to flesh out their
(incision and added colors), the
figures; regardless of surface decoration
black figures remained flat and two-dimensional. The red-figure revolution,
starting ca. 530, freed the figures; the black backgrounds
literally threw
the red figures (now in a color that more closely corresponded
to a natural
outlined
53. Providence,
Rhode
Island
School of Design 25.110. ARV2 556,
no.
104; Paralipomena
388; BA
no.
206347.
54. Sourvinou-Inwood
1975,
p. 111.
EVOLUTION
OF
THE
PAN
PAINTER
K'M$jhk*
Figure 9 (left). Hunter and dog.
Lekythos attributed to the Pan
Painter.
Arts
Museum
Boston,
13.198.
Fine Arts,
Photo ?
of Fine
2006, Museum
of
Figure 10 (right). Nike with a thymi
to the
attributed
Lekythos
Painter.
Museum
of
Providence,
aterion.
Pan
Art, Rhode Island School of Design,
Photo courtesy Museum
Island School of Design
25.110.
Rhode
55.1
disagree
here with
of Art,
Sourvinou
Inwood
noted
(1975, p. 112), who
uses contour
that "the Pan Painter
generally
way"
and
in an
(in comparison
Painter).
different
entirely
with
the Berlin
less
STYLE
447
-
skin tone) into the spotlight. This inversion of light on dark made the red
seem three-dimensional,
even without
added details. Late Archaic
figures
and especially Early Classical red-figure artists paid increasingly less atten
tion to contour
Boston
>:-
S ARTISTIC
and invested more
effort in the careful articulation of the
to
delineate musculature,
body through relief lines
drapery, and texture, as
well as form. These are the elements that describe a figure's volume. The
more
or
of a figure, the more it
emphatic the volume
three-dimensionality
a
the
of
the
of some Late
statue, prompting
gives
impression
description
Archaic and Early Classical figures as statuesque.
As I discuss below, the Pan Painter is by no means ignorant of or dis
interested in the volume of his figures or their clothing. The Berlin Painter
and the Pan Painter, however, both use contour and volume (sometimes
even in the same
to obtain specific effects.55 An elaborate
compositions)
outline might convey a two-dimensional
effect, as in the case of flat hem
lines (compare, for example, Oreithyia on Fig. 7 with Nike on Fig. 8). Both
slim and small-headed
painters also make their otherwise
figures more
voluminous
skillful
anatomical
dramatic
touches,
through
drapery, and
especially patches of unarticulated
clothing; compare Oreithyia's buttocks
on
on
to
7
those
of
Nike
Figure
Figure 8. Yet their figures remain elegant
and are hardly massive enough to be called statuesque.
AMY
448
Pan
The
Painter's
Distinct
Artistic
C.
SMITH
Style
It is in his figurai renderings that the Pan Painter's style evolved beyond
that of the Berlin Painter. Like his supposed mentor, he brought the Ar
chaic style and spirit into the Classical period. Both painters dressed their
notes the peculiar stiffen
familiar from theMarpessa
is found in capes and epiblemata
figures in emphatic drapery; Sourvinou-Inwood
ing of the ends of the himatia.56 This ismost
same
psykter (Figs. 4, 5). The
tendency
on
in
Artemis
(as
Fig. 2, and Nike in Fig. 8). The Pan Painter, however,
to emphasize or
made further use of clothing, attributes, and composition
of
the
the
decorated
vessel.
complement
shape
The Pan Painter's use of clothing for artistic effect manifested
itself in
four ways. First, the shape of the clothing, as defined by its volume, mimics
the volume of the pot, as in the case of the woman on aNolan amphora in
her trunk, with narrowed waist and billowing skirt, suggests
Copenhagen;
the overall form of the amphora, with its broad neck sharply divided from
the rounded body.57 Second, the shape of the clothing, as defined by the
reflect the shape of the pot. The verticality of a lekythos
outline, might
from the excavations at Eretria is emphasized by the himation
that falls
almost perfectly into a hemline that mimics the base of the lekythos body
or the overall surface of the
(Fig. II).58 Third, the texture
clothing might
imitate the pot shape, as in the case of the pleats on Oreithyia's
skirt, which
the slope of the lower part of an oinochoe
(Fig. 7). Fourth, other
flourishes might also repeat the shape of the pot. For example,
the stiffened ends of Nike's epiblema hang almost plumb vertical, as does
follow
detailed
in her right hand on the lekythos in Providence
both
the verticality
of the
(Fig. 10);
clothing and attribute emphasize
on which she hovers. It is true that
are es
vertical
lekythos
standing
figures
a
pecially well suited to strongly curving vertical surface, but the Pan Painter
is unusual among Classical Attic painters in using clothing and other attri
the stand that she holds
butes, rather than figures or patterns alone, to emphasize
the verticality of his
lekythoi.
The Pan Painter's use of clothing to mimic pot shapes results in some
unusual iconography. Both women's garments billow out unusually toward
the hem on the bottom-heavy pelike inNewcastle
that they adorn (Fig. 12).59
The same effect is used in moderate
form on a running Athena
from
mimic
of
whose
sleeves
the
handles
the
neck
Madrid,
billowing
amphora.60
a neck
are sometimes
in
New
York the
inverted.
On
Shapes
amphora
Figure 11. Persephone holding
phiale and staff. Lekythos attributed
to the Pan
Painter.
Eretria,
Archaeo
Museum
logical
A. C. Smith,
(no inv. no.). Drawing
after Balomenou
1984, pi. 101
robe tapers and billows at the bottom, just as the body of the
that round out around
amphora tapers and billows at the top.61 Garments
are
reminiscent of the high maximum
the upper half of the body
diameter
of the hydria, as on an example in St. Petersburg.62 The wide flaring skirts
kitharoidos
of ladies running
around the conical base of a lebes gamikos
56. Sourvinou-Inwood
1975,
p. 113.
57. Copenhagen 4978. ARV2 553,
no. 36; BA no. 206311.
58. Eretria,
Museum
Archaeological
inv. no.). BA no. 16290. For
photo
see Balomenou
1984, pis. 101
graphs,
(no
103.
59. Newcasde
Museum
in Providence
upon Tyne,
203. ARV21659,
Paralipomena
386; Beazley
Shefton
no. 92bis;
Addenda2
258; BA no. 275255.
60.Madrid 11119 (L 174).ARV2
553, no. 42; Beazley Addenda2 258;
BA no. 206317.
61. New York 20.245. ARV2 552,
no. 30; Beazley Addenda2 257; BA
no. 206305.
62. St. Petersburg 627 (St. 1537).
ARV2
555,
no. 95;
Paralipomena
287-288; Beazley Addenda2 258;
BA no. 206338.
EVOLUTION
Figure
12. Two
women
with
OF
THE
PAN
PAINTER
S ARTISTIC
STYLE
449
a basket.
Side A of a pelike attributed to the
Pan
Painter.
Newcasde
Shefton Museum
Archaeology,
203. Photo
Greek Art
upon
Tyne,
of Greek Art and
Newcasde
University,
courtesy Shefton Museum
and Archaeology
of
the shape of this support itself.63 In addition, the totally ar
complement
tificial flourishes of drapery at neck level on theMarpessa
psykter suggest
the everted rim of the vessel that they decorate (Figs. 4, 5).
not only figurai
The Pan Painter matched
drapery but also headgear
and other attributes to the shapes of the pots. A broad-brimmed
petasos
tops a figure in the same manner as the shoulder of a lekythos tops that
vessel, and it lines up neatly with the carinated shoulder of the lekythos
(Fig. 9). A favorite hat of the Pan Painter is the furry hat of the fisherman
or ferryman; not
the shape of the pelike.64
surprisingly, this hat mimics
Medusas
rounded wings nicely inscribe the tondo of a cup in Berlin.65
inNew York recalls the trefoil lip of the
cock on an oinochoe
Ganymede's
selfsame pot.66 Dionysos's
stool, held by a satyr on a column krater, recalls
the leglike, upright handles of that krater.67 Gestures might produce the
same effect, as in the case of outstretched
arms that recall the broad rim
of
a column
Finally,
krater.68
could fill the shape of the pot most
composition
as on the Busiris
s
pelike in Athens69 and the Pan Painter
the overall
appropriately,
BA no. 206405.
66. New York 23.160.55. ARV2 558,
63. Rhode Island School of
Design
28.020.
ARV2
553,
no. 27;
BA no. 206302.
64. E.g.,
Vienna
no.
3727. ARV2
555,
no. 88; Beazley Addenda2 258; BA
no. 206331.
65. Berlin
127,1569;
Paralipomena
leyAddenda2 259; BA no. 206371.
67. New York 16.72. ARV2 551,
no. 6;
Paralipomena
4951. ARV2
560,
no.
159;
287; Beaz
386; Beazley
Addenda2125; BA no. 206281.
68.Munich
551,
2378 (J 777). ARV2
no. 9;
Paralipomena
387; Beazley
Addenda2 257; BA no. 206284.
69. Athens,
National
Museum
9683
(CC 1175). ARV2 554, no. 82; Parali
pomena 386; Beazley Addenda2 258; BA
no. 206325.
AMY
45o
name vase. On
C.
SMITH
of the Pan vase
(Fig. 2), the pose of each figure
curve of the bell krater. The legs of both characters are
out to the
brought together below, while their upper bodies lean up and
same
as the walls of the krater.
degree
follows
side A
the gentle
A FREELANCE PAINTER IN EARLY CLASSICAL
ATHENS?
If we
return to
and the Berlin Painter in order to understand
the
Myson
on the Pan Painter, our
to their collaborators. For
turn
thoughts
which potters did each of the three paint? Scholars have recently agreed
influences
the workshops
that potters rather than painters seem to have organized
near the end of the Archaic
Artists'
have
been
signatures
period.
helpful in
and
this regard, especially for Late Archaic artists including Nikosthenes
(innovators of the red-figure technique); by the 530s, potter
seven to one.70 The
only signature
signatures outnumber painter signatures
is his own signature, as both potter and
associated with the work ofMyson
the Pioneers
on a column krater
painter,
fragment from the Acropolis.71 This must have
a
been
special votive piece prepared by the master for the goddess Athena.
Two cups signed by potters once associated with the Berlin Painter are now
are
not generally included in his oeuvre.72 No artist signatures whatsoever
in the oeuvre of the Pan Painter.
found
Martin
own
Robertson
potter.73 While
proposed that the Pan Painter might have been his
seems to have been
his influence on the Mannerists
great in stylistic and iconographie details, and in details related to shape,
neither they nor any other painters copied his overall style.74 The Pan
Painter might have collaborated in some way with theMannerist workshop,
founded, as Beazley implies, by Myson,75 but if he ever found himself in
he must have run it with a very free hand. This
charge of the workshop
free hand extended
the
other
to his own work,
however,
not just to his influence
on
Mannerists.
that of the Berlin Painter, the Pan Painter's oeuvre is one of con
stant variety. There are general tendencies in costume and pattern, but no
stock figures or scenes. The variation in the oeuvre of the Pan Painter makes
it difficult for us to pin him down. It seems most likely, therefore, that the
Pan Painter, like the Berlin Painter before him, worked for a wide range
Like
or different potters at different times, perhaps
to decorate. Whereas
the
occasionally
choosing
shapes that he preferred
an
exact and dependable
had
draftsman
the Berlin Painter,
extraordinaire,
hand, the Pan Painter varied his lines as much as he varied his figures,
scenes, and the shapes of the pots he decorated. This variation attests to a
that would characterize a craftsman,
high level of artistic experimentation
art for its own sake, regardless of how
perhaps self-employed, who created
of workshops,
for himself
have appealed to potters, patrons, or even other painters. Such
as was once
a craftsman may not have been as rare in Classical Athens
it might
era
in the Late Archaic-Early
Classical period?the
thought. Certainly
of the Pioneers, kalos inscriptions, and artist signatures?Greek
pottery
or
as
as
at
artists
the
the
about
least
about
much
says
myths that
people
they illustrated.
1995, pp. 145-149.
70.Williams
71. Athens,
National
Museum,
Acropolis Coll. 2.806. ARV2 240,
no. 42;
Paralipomena
349; Beazley
Addenda2 201; BA no. 202359.
72. See n. 48,
73. Robertson
above.
1992,
74. See Mannack
p. 148.
2001,
pp.
14,17,
19,22,56.
75.Mannack
Beazley's
(2001, p. 1) follows
ideas here.
EVOLUTION
PAN
THE
OF
PAINTER'S
ARTISTIC
STYLE
451
REFERENCES
"
EpuOpouopcpr)
arc? inv Ep?xpia," ArchDelt
A.
Balomenou,
?tjicuOo?
pp. 337-341.
33, A'(1978),
-. 1912b.
"The Master
BSA
Vase,"
-. 1914.
19, pp. 229
grec
of the
JHS 34, pp. 179-226.
-. 1918. Attic
inAmerican
vase
Red-Figured
Museums,
Vases
Cambridge,
-. 1946.
Pan-Maler,
Potter
and Painter
in
London.
Athens,
-. 1957.
in Charit?s:
"Marpessa,"
Studien zur
Altertumswissenschaft,
ed. K. Schauenburg,
Bonn,
pp. 136
139.
-. 1964.
The Berlin
cil Occasional
-.
1974.
-. 1986.
Painter
Research
(Aus
Coun
6), Melbourne.
Paper
The Pan Painter,
The Development
Mainz.
Attic
of
Berkeley.
Black-Figure,
The
Berge, L. 1974. "Beazley's Myson:
of an Artistic
Definition
Personality
Amy C. Smith
of
University
department
school
reading
united
Reading,
of
of
classics
humanities
rg6
kingdom
[email protected]
6aa
Oxford.
entre
460
Whiteknights
CB
style
archa?sant,"
Boston,
1931
Oxford
-.
Beazley
1992.
Use
"Beazley's
The Art
of Terms,"
pp. xii-xx.
Addenda1,
of Vase-Painting
Athens,
Cambridge.
to the
P. 2001.
Rouet,
Study
Approaches
Attic Vases:
andPottier,
of
Beazley
Oxford.
C.
Sourvinou-Inwood,
Was
the Teacher
1975.
"Who
of the Pan
Painter?"///^ 95, pp. 107-121.
fur
K. 1990. "Psykter
in Kunst der Schale:
k?hlen Wein,"
Kultur
des Trinkens,
ed. K. Vier
of
neisel
and B. Kaeser,
Munich,
pp. 259-264.
H.
"Ein neues
1958-1959.
des Pan-Malers,"
pp. 7-14.
S. 1975. Der
Drougou,
Mu?
attische
9/10,
Psykter,
W?rzburg.
Follmann,
Greek Painting,
Vierneisel,
1963.
Diepolder,
Werk
in
in Classical
BABesch
and J. D. Beazley,
Caskey
in theMuseum
Vase Paintings
Fine Arts,
1959.
-. 1989.
pp.
= L. D.
Attic
M.
Vase-Painting,
Geneva.
de l'art
"La chronologie
de 475 ? 425 av. J.-Chr.," Mne
de
The Late Man
inAthenian
Robertson,
24-26,
180-188.
Berlin.
Ancient
tralian Humanities
la
dans
44, pp. 124-135.
-. 1988. "L'art grec
pr?classique
et le
63,
style archa?sant," BABesch
Mass.
-. 1931. Der
1949
mosyne 3, pp. 183-214,288-301.
-. 1969. "Le
de Mar
psykter
ou
de
Vase
pessa:
style arch?que
in the Vatican,"
Amphora
98, pp. 45-56.
T. 2001.
Mannack,
nerists
pp. 21-26.
-. 1950.
of the
"The Master
L.
style archa?sant
vases
des
attiques
peinture
et 450 av. J.-Chr," BABesch
247.
Achilles
van Ufford,
Byvanck-Quarles
1951. "Le
32,
Pan-Krater,"y//S
pp. 354-369.
-. 1913. "The Master
Red
Figure
London.
J. 1975. Athenian
Vases: The Archaic Period,
of the
Boston
Knigge, U. 1983. "Ein J?nglingskopf
vom Heiligen Tor inAthen," AM
(diss. Univ.
Vase-Painting"
of Oxford).
Boardman,
"The Master
of
J. D. 1912a.
Beazley,
in
the Eucharides-Stamnos
Copen
hagen," BSA 18, pp. 217-233.
Nikoxenos
in Attic
1984.
A.-B.
1968. Der
Pan-Maler,
Bonn.
FR = A. Furtw?ngler
and K. Reichhold,
Griechische
Vasenmalerei, Munich
1900-1925.
R. 1995. "Potter,
DJ.
in Cul
and Purchaser,"
Painter,
ture et cit?:L av?nement
d Ath?nes
Williams,
?
A. Ver
l'?poque archa?que, ?d.
banck-Pi?rard
and D. Viviers,
Brussels,
pp.
-. 1996.
139-160.
Red-Figure:
"Re-figuring
A Review
RA1996,
pp. 227-252.
Attic
Article,"