Csornay Boldizsár - Dobos Zsuzsa - Varga Ágota - Zakariás János szerk.: A Szépművészeti Múzeum közleményei 100. (Budapest, 2004)

SZILÁGYI, JÁNOS GYÖRGY: "La gigantesque horreur de l'ombre Herculéenne" Apulian Red-Figure Vases Decorated in Superposed Colours

and comprehensive study, De Juliis, refers to the "obsoleteness of the earlier separation" of the Xenon and Red Swan Groups as an indisputable fact.

14 The terminology in which the above views were expressed deserves particular attention. Robinsons first paper on the Red Swan Group, which he describes following scrupulously Beazley, states that the group is inseparable from the Xenon Group "in both style and technique". Panayides's final conclusion is that Beazley's three groups are in actual fact three branches of a single class ("verschiedene Zweige einer einzigen Klasse"); according to De Juliis's wording, the Xenon and Red Swan Groups "undoubtedly constitute a single class, even though this class is made up of products attributable to various workshops" ("formano certamente ununica classe, anche se constituita daprodotti ascrivibili a varie officine"). This rather careful phrasing coming from an outstanding expert in the material points to the heart of the problem. Beazley repeatedly emphasised the danger of going astray if one uses the terminology incorrectly. During the many decades of his studies, he sometimes extended and sometimes narrowed down the scope of terms he used (Martin Robertson considered it important to sum up the lessons of the finished oeuvre relating to terminology, with good reason).

15 It is also indisputable that those subtle nuances of terminology, which were called for when discussing the outstanding masters of Attic black- and red-figure vase-painting, are not always applicable to pottery groups of different character. But when it is about basic terms, it is impossible to ignore without negative consequences Beazley's system of terminology, which is widely used in the field. This is the case, among others, with the generally accepted definition of the terms class' and 'group'. The former consistently refers to vases belonging together due to likeness in the shape of the pottery, while the latter indicates similarity in decoration or style. Robinson's argumentation is both irrelevant and erroneous when he considers the groups in question inseparable, based on stylistic and technical peculiarities. The technique of superposed colours clearly cannot be the basis for their relatedness, since it was employed in ancient vase-painting across a spectrum of cultures for two and a half centuries; on the other hand, no stylistic similarities can be detected in the decoration of the vases constituting the two groups. It is equally misleading to speak of a single class, as do Panayides and De luliis, in view of the fact that the shapes found in one group are practically nonexistent in the other. To mention 'branches' within a class means admitting the difference between the two groups, at the same time offering the conjecture that the feature that links them (i.e., the shapes) is precisely the one regarding which actually they have nothing in common, just as they have nothing to do really with the Hanau Group either. De Juliis is clearly aware of the problem when he states that the two groups are different only (sic!) considering their orna14 Ibid., nn. 8 and 14, referring to Robinsons later paper and concerning the separation of the two groups, joining him in the refutation of Schauenburg (NAC 22 [ 1993], 25-26), whose opinion he cites as 'isolated'. 15 Beazley's use of terms, in Beazley Addenda, comp. L. Burn and R. Glynn, Oxford 1982, XI-XVIII.