DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0240
220 METAL VASES
motive in many places, to recommend it. Now the hydria in New York
certainly will not pass a test of this kind, for it has several peculiar features:
the foot is unusually small, and is of a kind not found in the tongue-pattern
group proper; the side-handles are likewise of a peculiar type; and the
tongues are unusually narrow.1 Indeed, so far from proving that the tongue-
pattern vases are Argive, it goes far towards proving the reverse—at any
rate it introduces us to an Argive tradition which is definitely not that of the
tongue-pattern fabric. And it has a further importance; it raises once more
the question of plastic style, an aspect in which bronze vases, through the
lack of adequate photographs of details, have not been sufficiently studied.
Langlotz attributes the New York hydria to the hypothetical school of
Cleonae, but the inscription, as Miss Richter says, is surely good evidence
that it is Argive, and that inference is confirmed by the fact that an almost
identical side-handle was found at the Heraeum.2 Further, the plastic style
is, to my mind at least, undoubtedly that of Argos. It is broad, simple, and
rather heavy, quite unlike that of the oinochoe pi. 45, 5; there we have small,
neat features which cannot but recall those of fifth-century 'Corinthian'
bronzes, such, for instance, as the dancing woman in the Ashmolean (J.H.S.
1910, pi. 13, 2), the woman from Tegea, and others which present the
clearest contrast with the Argive tradition. And in pi. 45, 5 the hair is rolled
over the headband in a manner which, as Langlotz has pointed out, is char-
acteristic of, but not peculiar to, this supposedly Corinthian group. The
probability that the tongue-pattern group is Corinthian would thus seem to be
enhanced, and not diminished, by the Argive hydria in New York.
The dinos in London is equally irrelevant, for the simple reason that it has
not sufficient characteristic features. If we included it on the strength of the
tongue-pattern and the beaded rim, we should have to include vases
like the dinos in London, Sieveking, Antike Metallgerate pi. 1, and the
whole group of 'Capuan' dinoi. These are undoubtedly related to the tongue-
pattern series, but, on the evidence at present available—and that is fairly
considerable—they must certainly be attributed to an Italian school.
PI. 45,7 shows a fifth-century oinochoe from Corinth which cannot be said
to belong to the tongue-pattern group, though it is evidently related.3 As a
comparison with the Boston oinochoe (pi. 45, 5) will show, it is almost identical
in shape, but with a flanged instead of a convex handle; and it is similar in
other respects, but the angle at the shoulder is sharper, and the sides are a
trifle more taut. It is probably therefore a little earlier, and should belong
to the middle of the second quarter of the century. In any case, it is a simple,
no doubt an inexpensive, piece, which was not meant to compete with the
elaborate products of the tongue-pattern fabric. The resemblance to the
1 Cf. Richter, loc. cit., who specifies details. some importance, appears to have been overlooked.
2 A.H. ii, pi. 123, 2206; this point, which is of 3 De Ridder, Bronzes de la Soc. Arch. no. 36.
motive in many places, to recommend it. Now the hydria in New York
certainly will not pass a test of this kind, for it has several peculiar features:
the foot is unusually small, and is of a kind not found in the tongue-pattern
group proper; the side-handles are likewise of a peculiar type; and the
tongues are unusually narrow.1 Indeed, so far from proving that the tongue-
pattern vases are Argive, it goes far towards proving the reverse—at any
rate it introduces us to an Argive tradition which is definitely not that of the
tongue-pattern fabric. And it has a further importance; it raises once more
the question of plastic style, an aspect in which bronze vases, through the
lack of adequate photographs of details, have not been sufficiently studied.
Langlotz attributes the New York hydria to the hypothetical school of
Cleonae, but the inscription, as Miss Richter says, is surely good evidence
that it is Argive, and that inference is confirmed by the fact that an almost
identical side-handle was found at the Heraeum.2 Further, the plastic style
is, to my mind at least, undoubtedly that of Argos. It is broad, simple, and
rather heavy, quite unlike that of the oinochoe pi. 45, 5; there we have small,
neat features which cannot but recall those of fifth-century 'Corinthian'
bronzes, such, for instance, as the dancing woman in the Ashmolean (J.H.S.
1910, pi. 13, 2), the woman from Tegea, and others which present the
clearest contrast with the Argive tradition. And in pi. 45, 5 the hair is rolled
over the headband in a manner which, as Langlotz has pointed out, is char-
acteristic of, but not peculiar to, this supposedly Corinthian group. The
probability that the tongue-pattern group is Corinthian would thus seem to be
enhanced, and not diminished, by the Argive hydria in New York.
The dinos in London is equally irrelevant, for the simple reason that it has
not sufficient characteristic features. If we included it on the strength of the
tongue-pattern and the beaded rim, we should have to include vases
like the dinos in London, Sieveking, Antike Metallgerate pi. 1, and the
whole group of 'Capuan' dinoi. These are undoubtedly related to the tongue-
pattern series, but, on the evidence at present available—and that is fairly
considerable—they must certainly be attributed to an Italian school.
PI. 45,7 shows a fifth-century oinochoe from Corinth which cannot be said
to belong to the tongue-pattern group, though it is evidently related.3 As a
comparison with the Boston oinochoe (pi. 45, 5) will show, it is almost identical
in shape, but with a flanged instead of a convex handle; and it is similar in
other respects, but the angle at the shoulder is sharper, and the sides are a
trifle more taut. It is probably therefore a little earlier, and should belong
to the middle of the second quarter of the century. In any case, it is a simple,
no doubt an inexpensive, piece, which was not meant to compete with the
elaborate products of the tongue-pattern fabric. The resemblance to the
1 Cf. Richter, loc. cit., who specifies details. some importance, appears to have been overlooked.
2 A.H. ii, pi. 123, 2206; this point, which is of 3 De Ridder, Bronzes de la Soc. Arch. no. 36.