The influence of lyric poetry was even slighter. Somewhat idealised figures of some of the Greek lyrists appear on R.F. vases, such as Sappho and Anakreon (see p. 152); but this is all. In regard to Pindar and Bacchylides, the idealising and heroising tendencies of the age may be compared with the contemporary tendency of vase-paintings, and the latter may often be found useful to compare with—if not exactly to illustrate—the legends which the two poets commemorate. For instance, in the ode of Bacchylides in which he describes the fate of Kroisos, there is a curious deviation from the familiar Herodotean version, the king being represented as voluntarily sacrificing himself.[23] The only vase-painting dealing with this subject (Fig. 132, p. 150) apparently reproduces this tradition. With the influence of the stage we have already dealt elsewhere.[24] With the exception of the Satyric drama, it can hardly be said to have made itself felt, except in the vases of Southern Italy, in the fourth century B.C., but indications of the Satyric influence may be traced in many R.F. Attic vases, no doubt owing to their connection with the popular Dionysiac subjects. On a vase in Naples[25] are represented preparations for a Satyric drama. When we reach the time of tragic and comic influence, we not only find the subjects reproduced, but even their stage setting; in other words, the vases are not so much intended to illustrate the written as the acted play, just as it was performed. The whole question is admirably summed up by Luckenbach[26] in the following manner: (1) The Epos is the chief source of all vase-paintings from the earliest time to the decadence inclusive, and next comes Tragedy, as regards the later vases only; of the influence of other poetry on the formation of myths in vase-paintings there is no established example. (2) _Vase-paintings are not illustrations_, either of the Epos or of the Drama, and there is no intention of reproducing a story accurately; hence great discrepancies and rarity of close adherence to literary forms; but the salient features of the story are preserved. (3) Discrepancies in the naming of personages are partly arbitrary, partly due to ignorance; the extension of scenes by means of rows of bystanders, meaningless, but thought to be appropriate, is of course a development of the artist’s, conditioned by exigencies of space. Anachronisms on vases are of frequent occurrence. (4) Such scenes as those of warriors arming or departing are always the painter’s own invention, ordinary scenes being often “heroised” by the addition of names. But individuals are not necessarily all or always to be named; and, again, the artist often gives names without individualising the figures. (5) In the archaic period successive movements of time are often very naïvely blended (see p. 10); the difference between art and literature is most marked in scenes where a definite moment is not indicated. (6) Vase-paintings often give a