DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12655#0052
xlviii
CATALOGUE OF BRONZES.
to be of a local- Italian fabric under both Ionian and Corinthian influences.
This leads us to speak of the bronze bust from this tomb (No. 434), the upper
part of which is undoubtedly of local make, but the bands of figures round the
lower part are Greek in feeling and style, if not in actual execution. They
afford points of comparison with both early Corinthian and Ionic works of art,
such as the gold reliefs published in Arch. Zeit. 1884, pl. 8, figs. 3, 4, 7. Other
Etruscan products in this collection which owe their origin to Ionic sources are
some fragments of repousse relief-work (No. 600) and the two bronze tripods,
Nos. 587, 588. The latter call for some further remarks. They belong to
a series, all found at Vulci, in which a development of type and style can
be traced, through an example found at Metapontum (Mon. Ant. dei Lincei,
vii. pl. 8), from an original Greek type, which is best represented by a specimen
found on the Acropolis of Athens.* This at first sight might be taken for
one of the Etruscan series, but that no Etruscan importations into Greece can
be traced further back than the fifth century B.C., while the Acropolis bronze
cannct be later than 550 B.C. In style these tripods compare with the archaic
bronzes of Perugia and Campania, as well as with their Greek prototypes ; they
cannot be later in date than 500 B.C. It is worth while here to mention the
descriptions given by Pausanias (x. 16, 1) and Athenaeus (v. 210 B, c) of the
stand dcdicated at Delphi by Alyattes, the work of Glaucos of Chios. From
the details supplied by the former, the general type seems to have been
approximately that of our tripods ; the latter alludes to the representations
of animals and plants with which it was decorated.
It is a moot question whether the Etruscans were
Charaeteristies entirely devoid of originality and were imitators of the
of Etrusean Greeks in everything, or, while endowed with some artistic
bronzes. genius of their own, were yet susceptible to external
influences. Literary evidence can be cited to show that
they were held in great estimation in antiquity as bronze-workers, as for
instance two passages quoted by Athenaeus :
i. 28 B :
Tvpcrrjvr) Se Kparei 'gpvaoTVJTO'i (juaXr)
Kai 7ra? ^aX/co? otc? Kocrpei bopov ’ev rtvi Xpeta.
xv. 700 C : A. rt? tmv \vyveiu>v r/ 'pyaata ; B. TvpprjvtKrj.
7roiKi\.at yap r/aav al irapa toI? Tvppr/voL epyacrtai, (ju\oTegva>v ovtwv tmv Tvpppvorv.
At the same time both passages rather suggest that this reputation was confined
to household furniture and objects in daily use ; on the other hand, we have a
statement of Pliny’s (//. N. xxxiv. 33) relating to the subject: signa luscanica
per terras dispersa quin in Etruria factitata sint non est dubium. Our
museums afford ample evidence that the Etruscans excelled in the production
of ornamental vases, candelabra, or tripods, and that they made the art of
De Ridder in Bttll. de Corr. Ifell. xx. (1896), pl. I, p. 401 ff. ; A/ott. Ant. dei Lincei, vii. p. 277 fif.
CATALOGUE OF BRONZES.
to be of a local- Italian fabric under both Ionian and Corinthian influences.
This leads us to speak of the bronze bust from this tomb (No. 434), the upper
part of which is undoubtedly of local make, but the bands of figures round the
lower part are Greek in feeling and style, if not in actual execution. They
afford points of comparison with both early Corinthian and Ionic works of art,
such as the gold reliefs published in Arch. Zeit. 1884, pl. 8, figs. 3, 4, 7. Other
Etruscan products in this collection which owe their origin to Ionic sources are
some fragments of repousse relief-work (No. 600) and the two bronze tripods,
Nos. 587, 588. The latter call for some further remarks. They belong to
a series, all found at Vulci, in which a development of type and style can
be traced, through an example found at Metapontum (Mon. Ant. dei Lincei,
vii. pl. 8), from an original Greek type, which is best represented by a specimen
found on the Acropolis of Athens.* This at first sight might be taken for
one of the Etruscan series, but that no Etruscan importations into Greece can
be traced further back than the fifth century B.C., while the Acropolis bronze
cannct be later than 550 B.C. In style these tripods compare with the archaic
bronzes of Perugia and Campania, as well as with their Greek prototypes ; they
cannot be later in date than 500 B.C. It is worth while here to mention the
descriptions given by Pausanias (x. 16, 1) and Athenaeus (v. 210 B, c) of the
stand dcdicated at Delphi by Alyattes, the work of Glaucos of Chios. From
the details supplied by the former, the general type seems to have been
approximately that of our tripods ; the latter alludes to the representations
of animals and plants with which it was decorated.
It is a moot question whether the Etruscans were
Charaeteristies entirely devoid of originality and were imitators of the
of Etrusean Greeks in everything, or, while endowed with some artistic
bronzes. genius of their own, were yet susceptible to external
influences. Literary evidence can be cited to show that
they were held in great estimation in antiquity as bronze-workers, as for
instance two passages quoted by Athenaeus :
i. 28 B :
Tvpcrrjvr) Se Kparei 'gpvaoTVJTO'i (juaXr)
Kai 7ra? ^aX/co? otc? Kocrpei bopov ’ev rtvi Xpeta.
xv. 700 C : A. rt? tmv \vyveiu>v r/ 'pyaata ; B. TvpprjvtKrj.
7roiKi\.at yap r/aav al irapa toI? Tvppr/voL epyacrtai, (ju\oTegva>v ovtwv tmv Tvpppvorv.
At the same time both passages rather suggest that this reputation was confined
to household furniture and objects in daily use ; on the other hand, we have a
statement of Pliny’s (//. N. xxxiv. 33) relating to the subject: signa luscanica
per terras dispersa quin in Etruria factitata sint non est dubium. Our
museums afford ample evidence that the Etruscans excelled in the production
of ornamental vases, candelabra, or tripods, and that they made the art of
De Ridder in Bttll. de Corr. Ifell. xx. (1896), pl. I, p. 401 ff. ; A/ott. Ant. dei Lincei, vii. p. 277 fif.