DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0118
98 THE CORINTHIAN FIGURE STYLE
is no close resemblance of form.1 The other two fragments are more ordinary,
and again are not quite like anything known from vase-painting. But they are
evidently pre-Corinthian.
The fragments from Aegina, fig. 30, are likewise very early.2 This has
been generally recognized, and it is a sure inference from the size of the
inscriptions, the absence of colour, the schematic drawing, and several
Fig. 30. Fragments of a pyxis from Aegina. a, new fragment seen from below; b, the whole restored
(the new fragment in the lower left-hand corner).
peculiar stylizations of detail. Studniczka and Pfuhl rightly compare them
with the Thermon metopes, but they are probably a good deal earlier than
these.3 They are, at present, an entirely isolated development.
1 The primitive features are (i) the inability to
draw the torso in profile, with consequent protrusion
of the chest in front. Compare Paris on the Chigi
vase and the men on the corselet; here the head is
balanced on the apex of a symmetrical curve, an
even more primitive conception than that of the
pinakes. For the painter of the pinakes at least
knows that the chest should protrude, while the back
is flat; only, impressed with his discovery, he makes
his meaning a little too clear. (2) The rendering of
the himation: the dress is clearly the same as that
seen on many later pinakes and vases—himation
worn diagonally over long chiton, but the problem
of showing the diagonal contours of the cloak has
been too much for the artist. He knows that one
arm is left free, and this he can indicate. The rest
he paints red as though it were entirely covered by
the cloak. We can trace a long progress in the
drawing of this dress in side-view. The next stage
is shown by the Olympia corselet or the Piraeus
amphora; later we get the forms seen in A.D. i, pi. 7,
24, or 28, on other pinakes and on red-ground vases.
Later still the perfectly accomplished form of A.D.
ii, pi. 24, 2, and pi. 30, 18, which corresponds
roughly to that of the Lyseas stele (Pfuhl fig. 487)
and is to be dated in the latter part of the sixth
century.
2 A.M. 1897, 320 ff.; the inscriptions restored, and
the subject explained as the marriage of Amphiaraos
and Eriphyle (for the horses of Amphiaraos were
Diasand Thoas), by Studniczka in A.M. 1899,391 ff.
Studniczka there adds a new fragment; yet another,
discovered in 1904, is shown in our figure, in the
left lower corner. This shows that the vase was a
pyxis, as it gives us the base, (cf. fig. 30 a). In-
scriptions p. 161, no. 1.
3 Studniczka, loc. cit.; Pfuhl i, 219. I believe that
these fragments belong to the period of the ovoid
aryballoi, and should date them about the beginning
of the second quarter of the seventh century. The
only analogies for the black and white palmette are
given by Protocorinthian vases of this type: cf. fig. 5
and A.H. ii, pi. 66, 11. A very primitive feature of
the drawing is the strong distortion of the frontal
is no close resemblance of form.1 The other two fragments are more ordinary,
and again are not quite like anything known from vase-painting. But they are
evidently pre-Corinthian.
The fragments from Aegina, fig. 30, are likewise very early.2 This has
been generally recognized, and it is a sure inference from the size of the
inscriptions, the absence of colour, the schematic drawing, and several
Fig. 30. Fragments of a pyxis from Aegina. a, new fragment seen from below; b, the whole restored
(the new fragment in the lower left-hand corner).
peculiar stylizations of detail. Studniczka and Pfuhl rightly compare them
with the Thermon metopes, but they are probably a good deal earlier than
these.3 They are, at present, an entirely isolated development.
1 The primitive features are (i) the inability to
draw the torso in profile, with consequent protrusion
of the chest in front. Compare Paris on the Chigi
vase and the men on the corselet; here the head is
balanced on the apex of a symmetrical curve, an
even more primitive conception than that of the
pinakes. For the painter of the pinakes at least
knows that the chest should protrude, while the back
is flat; only, impressed with his discovery, he makes
his meaning a little too clear. (2) The rendering of
the himation: the dress is clearly the same as that
seen on many later pinakes and vases—himation
worn diagonally over long chiton, but the problem
of showing the diagonal contours of the cloak has
been too much for the artist. He knows that one
arm is left free, and this he can indicate. The rest
he paints red as though it were entirely covered by
the cloak. We can trace a long progress in the
drawing of this dress in side-view. The next stage
is shown by the Olympia corselet or the Piraeus
amphora; later we get the forms seen in A.D. i, pi. 7,
24, or 28, on other pinakes and on red-ground vases.
Later still the perfectly accomplished form of A.D.
ii, pi. 24, 2, and pi. 30, 18, which corresponds
roughly to that of the Lyseas stele (Pfuhl fig. 487)
and is to be dated in the latter part of the sixth
century.
2 A.M. 1897, 320 ff.; the inscriptions restored, and
the subject explained as the marriage of Amphiaraos
and Eriphyle (for the horses of Amphiaraos were
Diasand Thoas), by Studniczka in A.M. 1899,391 ff.
Studniczka there adds a new fragment; yet another,
discovered in 1904, is shown in our figure, in the
left lower corner. This shows that the vase was a
pyxis, as it gives us the base, (cf. fig. 30 a). In-
scriptions p. 161, no. 1.
3 Studniczka, loc. cit.; Pfuhl i, 219. I believe that
these fragments belong to the period of the ovoid
aryballoi, and should date them about the beginning
of the second quarter of the seventh century. The
only analogies for the black and white palmette are
given by Protocorinthian vases of this type: cf. fig. 5
and A.H. ii, pi. 66, 11. A very primitive feature of
the drawing is the strong distortion of the frontal