By E. Anne 麦凯 (酒吧 2092）。 Pp。十三+ 413，无花果6，b&请84，颜色请。 2，图表10。考古出版社，牛津，2010年。£75. ISBN 978-1-4073-0568-4（纸）。
It is surprising, as 麦凯 notes in the preface to this book, that Exekias’ vases have until now not been the subject of a major monograph, for he is widely regarded as 上 e of the most skilled vase painters of archaic Athens. The small size of his extant corpus and certain inconsistencies in style are partly responsible for this state of affairs, since they have impeded the development of an accepted chronology for his work. 麦凯 thus approaches her study with two goals: to establish a relative chronology of Exekias’留存下来的花瓶，并考虑到花瓶与Exekian语料库的其余部分之间的关系以及雅典人观看者接收其图像的方式，对每件花瓶进行详细分析。结果是清晰呈现的深入研究，它将成为Exekias的标准工作。尽管希望获得更多背景知识的非专业读者会在脚注中找到有用的起点，但主要会吸引希腊艺术专家。
本书以目录的形式组织：在通篇介绍之后，各章专门论述了32个花瓶，作者都接受它们的署名。接下来是关于四个章节“disattributed” vases (353), a discussion of chronology, conclusions, and three appendices. Except in passing, 麦凯 does not treat Exekias’丧葬牌匾，由莫姆森（Exekias I：死格拉布塔芬。 Kerameus 11 [Mainz 1997]。她也没有为每个花瓶提供详尽的参考书目，而是将读者引向Beazley档案数据库。她的总参考书目主要与她提出的技术和解释性问题最相关。参考书目范围很广，我只注意到了一些重要的遗漏。 （例如，我错过了对Hedreen的任何提及’在游戏桌上对待Ajax和Achilles [捕捉特洛伊：景观在古代和早期古典希腊艺术中的叙事功能 （安娜堡2001）91–119], although 麦凯 devotes several pages to interpretations of this theme 上 the Vatican amphora [334–36]。）该书包含一些印刷错误和其他小错误，只有少数是误导性的：第74页–图6说明了伦敦B 210（不是B 209），以及第11页的目录–13应该分别列出条目2和12的错误编号310388和8492。 （两者在这些花瓶的章节中均正确显示。）插图通常清晰易读，并提供了大多数花瓶的多种视图。
The catalogue entries, which compose the bulk of the volume, consist of detailed descriptions followed by analyses of the imagery, and each concludes with a section 上 chronology. Analyses frequently draw 上 evidence from archaic ritual and poetry; while 麦凯’s Athenocentric perspective will trouble readers who prefer to emphasize the Etruscan findspots of many of the vases, she is certainly correct to insist that Athenian art reflects Athenian values, even if foreign consumers found their own meanings in the imagery. On the whole, 麦凯 is concerned not 上 ly with offering stylistic and iconographic analyses but with determining where the vases enter current scholarly debates. The pairing of images 上 a vase, the relationship of image to cult, and the influence of oral traditions 上 vase painting are all at various points discussed. Because the book touches 上 so many complex issues, readers will inevitably find themselves wishing at times to see a question treated more thoroughly; for example, the frequent comments about narrative imagery would probably benefit from greater engagement with the significant body of literature classical scholarship has produced 上 that topic. Yet as 麦凯 notes in the introduction, her interpretations “提供这些信息的目的是希望鼓励其他人发布确证信息，或者以更好的根据引起争议。”（4），总的来说，这种方法所产生的分析通常比典型目录中的预期更具启发性。
The main chapter 上 chronology follows the catalogue; it is supplemented by discussions in appendix A and at the end of each chapter. The vases are divided into four chronological phases stretching from the 540s to the early 520s B.C.E.; detailed sequencing within phases is often impossible. While 麦凯’s reluctance to provide absolute dates for individual vases will no doubt frustrate some readers, those who worry about a tendency toward false precision in the dating of vases should find the choice refreshing. 麦凯 is admirably clear about her methods of determining relative dates, and I suspect that even readers who disagree with the finer points of her arguments will find the discussions of chronology extremely useful.
麦凯’s book certainly succeeds in meeting its stated goals; however, I had hoped to find more discussion of its basic premises. Ideas about the importance of studying individual vase painters have changed a great deal since the genre of the painter monograph was conceived, and 麦凯 herself cautions against studying vases “根据毫无疑问的后文艺复兴时期的一组类别” (5), noting the unlikelihood that Exekias was celebrated as a master painter in his time. What, then, is the value of the painter monograph in a field that increasingly de-emphasizes the individual artist? One potential answer emerging from 麦凯’我们的讨论是，它提供了一种检查艺术变化如何发生的方法；她观察到“[a]几乎每[Exekias’]现存的花瓶...似乎在挑战他的同时代人’由他工作的传统所建立的期望视野”（6）。这种从借鉴理论中借用的表述，可能证明是一种对抗长期趋势的有用武器，这种趋势将希腊艺术的发展视为对现实主义的不懈努力，尽管它本身是冒险的，因为埃克西亚斯很少’ output (not to mention other sixth-century art) has survived. Given the thoughtfulness with which 麦凯 treats so much of her subject, however, I would have liked to see a more direct statement of how she envisions the study of individual artists fitting into the landscape of contemporary vase painting studies. Yet this concern hardly diminishes the usefulness of the volume, which should attract the attention of scholars interested in a wide range of questions in archaic art.