Download - Greek Personality in Archaic Sculpture () || III. THE ORIENTALIZING PERIOD

III. T H E O R I E N T A L I Z I N G P E R I O D

IN SPITE of the strife and turmoil, the tragic war-ring of gods and men, in spite of treachery and

cruelty and tragic destiny, an invincible serenity rules the Iliad and has given its tone to all genuine Greek epics : the serenity of untroubled belief in the existing order, established and upheld by divine Power that governs gods, heroes and ordinary mortals alike. This is not the place to enlarge upon a theme which has been discussed by scholars of the highest authority. Of late years, R. K. Hack has treated it in a few illuminating pages.1 But it is important to point out the inherent resemblance between this Homeric outlook and the essential spirit of Geometric art which, in all exter-nals, seems diametrically opposed to the epic treatment of the world and the life of men. Underlying appar-ently almost lifeless rigidity, the very core of Geomet-ric art is the active acceptance of an ordered and bal-anced system, accepted and enforced without hesita-tion or wavering, and running its untroubled course for three or four centuries. Thus, the apparent con-trast between earliest Greek poetry and contemporary decorative art is solved by a deeper unity which reaches the very roots of Hellenic genius. And such an insight relieves us of the painfully illogical conception that a race supremely gifted for all the arts should have ex-pressed itself, at the same time, in such divergent, or even antagonistic ways.

Epic poetry was able to flourish through many suc-ceeding centuries, fulfilling one of the various aims of Greek poetic expression. The Geometric style could

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst LibraryAuthenticated | 10.248.254.158

Download Date | 9/16/14 2:02 PM

37

not have lived on, without becoming petrified, sterile, and thus quite inadequate for the plastic tendencies of Greek art, as they grew and spread and gained intensi-ty. Thus it was most fortunate for the entire Hellenic development that the ancient tree was not allowed to wither and dry up in peace, but was, at a crucial mo-ment, buffeted by powerful winds blowing from the East. There again are outward and visible signs of a spiritual revolution which, in poetry, finds convincing expression in Hesiod. Of course material reasons contributed drastically to such a revulsion. Very real distress and unrest led, or forced, men to question the old order and strive for a new one, to abandon the homeland to which Greeks have always clung with most tenacious love, and found new fragments of Hel-las in far-off colonies. Besides, an insatiable curiosity impelled them, rather like the English in modern times, to explore foreign countries, customs and civilizations, without ever losing the serene conviction of their cul-tural superiority. All these various factors produced a new Greek personality, in the second half of the eighth century. And Greek art could not but reflect such a transformation. It was not the rapid expansion of Greek trade, during this period, that was primarily responsible for the profound artistic change: oriental influences might have had the same effect during the preceding century, when the Phoenicians transmitted them, had the Greeks then been susceptible to such in-fluences. It was only when Hellenic personality had slowly changed, that what had formerly been precious exotic trinkets, eagerly admired and coveted, but not imitated, gained the mysterious power which releases the deep creative forces of a new style. This style was



38 GREEK PERSONALITY by no means subservient to foreign art, with a few ex-ceptions discussed below (p. 76) . Nobody could call Greek art of the latter eighth and seventh centuries oriental in the way Gothic or Rococo radiated from their French homeland, or the Chinoiseries of the eighteenth century copied Chinese models. The in-fluence of Far Eastern drawing on Whistler would be more to the point, if comparisons were not always "lame". What I should like to make quite clear is that what we call, appropriately enough, the Greek Or-ientalizing style, is by no means an offshoot of oriental art, in the sense of Syro-Phoenician dependence on Egypt and Assyria, but a new great period of Greek art, as essentially Hellenic as any, differing from oth-ers merely in the force with which oriental influences struck the old Geometric order and caused its disinte-gration. This is one of the most decisive facts in the history of ancient art.

The process differed from one Greek area and ra-cial division to another. Although our knowledge of some important regions, especially Eastern Ionia and Aeolia, is still entirely inadequate, we can distinguish and define the Orientalizing styles of the Dorian Main-land, Attica, Crete, and at least some of the other Ae-gean islands. The ceramic evidence is by far the most plentiful, in the majority of cases, and helps us to put the plastic remains, which are often scanty, in their proper context.

1. The East Insufficient exploration and tribal differences pro-

duce a very irregular picture of this region where the rise of oriental influences would be most interesting to



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 39 trace, owing to the immediate neighborhood of un-Hellenic, wealthy realms like Lydia and Phrygia. The thorough destruction of archaic Ephesus and Miletus, wth their great sanctuaries of Artemis and Apollo, is especially regrettable. It deprives us of adequate archaeological evidence for the period when Ionian elegiac and lyric poetry flourished, in its own home-land ; though we shall see that Sparta makes up for this loss, to a certain extent.

On the other hand, Eastern Ionia has preserved the only extant evidence of what a great Greek sanc-tuary looked like in the eighth and seventh centuries, while the appearance of the larger sacred precincts, in the rest of the Aegean area, is almost entirely un-known, before the very end of this period. No build-ings of any importance can be traced, beyond the late seventh century, either at Delphi or Olympia, Délos or Athens. The Argive Heraeum is too completely de-stroyed to offer any idea of the great early temple which must have stood on the huge terrace. And though sacred buildings of Geometric or sub-Geomet-ric times have been discovered in increasing numbers on other sites, they are mostly small and artistically insig-nificant. Nor do I know of a single instance where a satisfactory idea of the sanctuary as a whole can be gained, except at Samos, where Buschor's excavations of the Heraeum have yielded amazing results, due to a subtle technique elaborated during many successive campaigns, in spite of unusual obstacles; for the de-struction has been almost as bad, at Samos, as on any other Ionian site.2

Over the remains of a Mycenaean settlement, an altar of modest size (ca. 2.50 χ 1.50 m) was erected,



40 GREEK PERSONALITY

soon after 1000 B.C., and enlarged and remodeled six times, during the succeeding four centuries.8 Altar II probably marks the time when the miraculous rude image of the goddess, tied up in branches of the sacred lygos bush (see below, p. 46 ) , was discovered, accord-ing to a legend handed down through the ages ( Meno-dotus in Athenaeus XV. 672) . Hera was always wor-shipped at Samos as the bride of Zeus, and thus her im-age was periodically bathed in the river Imbrhsos, which in early times flowed into the sea, at the bottom of a gentle slope leading down eastward from the al-tar. For the rest of the year, the wooden xoanon could not be left exposed to the weather, but must have been housed in a hut, of however modest dimensions. Its remains have disappeared, but a very ancient path or road, which the excavators call the West Way, led to it from the altar ; and there is every probability that a cylindrical block of limestone, found to the West of the altar, once carried the sacred image, in a square sinking on its top.4 This would be by far the oldest base of a statue extant in Greece.

We can fortunately form an approximate idea of this venerable cult image. A few small terracotta cop-ies were found in the Heraeum, and late coins of Sa-mos show what is evidently the same figure, with the peculiar cross-bands which held the lygos branches. It stands beside the later cult statue of Hera ; and as this was no doubt a good deal larger than life, we may ac-cept the coin's evidence that the ancient xoanon was of considerable size. But it appears to have been very rude and primitive; its size alone would not afford proof of a monumental Greek sculpture in the ninth century (see above, p. 17) .



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 41 On the other side of the Samian altar, the East Way

ran down to the bank or mouth of the Imbrasos, which shifted its bed so rapidly, in this marshy lowland, that the East Way was superseded by a Southeast Way, within a century. In the meantime, the first temple had arisen: quite an imposing structure for its age, probably around 800 B.C. I t was a long, narrow, rectangular building, the earliest Hekatompedos known to us, since it measures just a hundred feet.5 One row of thirteen columns divided the cella into two equal aisles, the base of the cult image, preserved in part, stood behind the last of these columns, while the first was flanked by two others between the antae or heads of the long walls. There seems to have been no porch or pronaos; nor were remains of the columns dis-covered. They were evidently made of wood; but their simple, square stone bases prove that the pub-lished plans are correct.

Soon after the first temple was built, certainly less than half a century later, an outer colonnade was added to the venerable building: seven columns in front, six at the back, seventeen on each of the long sides. At the same time, the altar (phase I I ) was encas-ed in an outer shell, ashlar walls of hard grey limestone ; an oval enclosure of loose, unworked large stones surrounded it, evidently not made to be seen, probably a retaining wall for the rapidly growing mass of ashes from burnt offerings. This phase ( I I I ) is dated to the first half of the eighth century. But before 700 B.C., the altar had again been enlarged, first by a new outer shell ( IV) , then by a radical reconstruction which more than doubled its width (from ca.5 to 11.50 m ) . The walls are composed of two faces of low ashlar



42 GREEK PERSONALITY blocks, with a rubble fill between them, thus attaining the surprising thickness of 1.25 m.

A few decades later, Altar V was again encased in new walls (VI : 5.90x13.00 m ) , and surrounded by a polygonal pavement bounded by vertical slabs. And this phase, early in the seventh century, shows exact-ly the same technique of stone work as the new temple, Hekatompedos II , which must have been built at the same time. In size it did not differ much from its Ge-ometric predecessor. The colonnade had changed slightly to six and eighteen columns, still made of wood, on stone bases. A second row of six columns was added in front, forming the double entrance hall so characteristic of later Ionic temples. But the really momentous innovation concerned the cella : two rows of six columns placed close to the walls, instead of the single line of Hekatompedos I, a broad nave which presented a full view of the cult image at the back, while it had been hidden by the interior colonnade in the earlier temple. The four equally spaced columns, between the antae, and the double row of six standing in front of the cella, must have shown the same spatial effect of depth and changing light and shadow, which distinguished the great sixth century Ionic temples from their Doric contemporaries (below, pp. 205ff.) . I t is a surprise to discover this type of Ionic architec-ture in the First Orientalizing period, a point of capi-tal importance in the early history of Greek art.

Unfortunately, the available evidence stops there. W e do not know how high the stone walls reached, before they changed to half-timbered sundried bricks. The use of wooden beams and panels is proved by iron nails still traceable in two anta blocks; but their ar-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 43 rangement is unknown. The column bases are simple square slabs, without a trace of the typical Ionic mould-ing. Nothing remains of columns, entablature, or roof; no decorative revetments in terracotta. Payne has shown that the use of tiles and revetments is not older than about the middle of the seventh century in the Dorian area (below, p. 57) , and the negative evidence from Samos bears this out. From all we can gather, Hekatompedos I I appears to have been lack-ing in ornament. And this is corroborated by the al-most complete absence of stone sculpture in the Herae-um, before the early sixth century.® However risky conclusions ex silentio may be, we can confidently assert that none of the early buildings here bore plastic deco-ration of any sort—an interesting contrast to Doric architecture, as we shall see (pp. 57 f . ) . I t would seem that the Samian architect left his building unadorned for the same reason which dominated his spatial con-ception : to concentrate all attention on the cult image. If he was the first thus to transform the old type of tem-ple which had been in use all over Eastern Ionia and Aeolia, from the ninth century, our nameless master builder was one of the creative geniuses of his art, a forerunner of the great architects who built temples for cult statues, in classical times. The old xoanon can hardly have inspired him; we must postulate a new statue of Hera for Hekatompedos II . Not the fully developed figure which coins show, but presum-ably a "Daedalid" work (below, pp. 80 f i . ) . Pausanias (VIII . 4,4) stresses the age of the cult statue in the Heraeum : " I t is the work of an Aeginetan, Smilis the son of Eukleides. This Smilis was a contemporary of Daidalos, but did not equal him in fame." In another



44 GREEK PERSONALITY passage (V. 17, 1) Pausanias mentions seated statu, ettes of the Seasons, in the Heraeum at Olympia, by the same artist, who is otherwise almost unknown to us.T

The choice of this foreigner corroborates the curious fact that Samian sculpture in limestone or marble ap-parently did not begin before the early sixth century.

Besides the two successive temples and the altar, remains of five smaller naiskoi have been found : small rectangular buildings, shrines or treasuries like those of Delphi or the Athenian Acropolis, and equal-ly irregular in their orientation and the way they are scattered over the precinct.8 But while none of the Delphian treasuries can well be older than the late sev-enth century, and the Athenian remains hardly go back so far, their Samian counterparts belong at least in part to the early years of that century. And none appear to be as late as Altar VII , which may have been built in the late seventh or even the early sixth century.

By this time, the sanctuary must have grown con-siderably beyond its original size ; but nothing remains of the hedges, fences or stone markings which fixed its limits. T o the Northeast, a spacious Propylon, evi-dently the chief entrance from the town, already her-alds the period of building activities on a larger scale which culminated in the temple and altar by Rhoikos (see below, p. 205) : the Propylon, contemporary with Altar VII , is broader than the Second Hekatom-pedos. T o the South, a great Stoa of amazing dimen-sions shows the same new tendencies in its double row of columns. I t was 69.70 m long (200 Samian feet) and had two rows of wooden columns, twenty-nine in each row. A broad pavement was laid in front of the outer colonnade.



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 45 An essential feature of the Samian cult of Hera, the

bridal bath given to her venerable image, can be traced through three centuries. At first the xoanon was sim-ply carried down to the mouth of the Imbrasos, by the East Way. As the river shifted its bed, this earliest path was superseded, first by the South Way, which branches off from the South side of the Second Temple. Probably not much later, a rather primitive tank was constructed in front of the temple; scanty traces of a water supply from the Imbrasos, and of its outlet, re-main (Ath. Mitt. 1933, p. 164f.) A bath tub of poros stone turned up, in an early seventh century context, at the river mouth of that time. I t was superseded, with-in the same century, by a roomy tank of ashlar blocks, whose accurate workmanship and beautiful lion's head spout (below, pp. 196 f.) are unrivalled in that pe-riod.9 This tank, and the adjacent South Stoa, lay close to the sea coast, the sanctuary's natural southern boundary.

Within the precinct, votive offerings must have abounded at all times. Unfortunately, however, little except pottery has survived from the first centuries of the sanctuary's life. The bronze group discussed above (p. 23) gives us some idea of the treasures that are

lost. Only one other plastic work earlier than 700 B. C. has been published:10 a small clay plaque bearing in low relief, impressed from a mould, a scene of high religious and artistic importance. Hera stands in full front view, her head turned to the right, where Zeus faces her in profile. His right hand caresses her chin, while his left clasps her left wrist. She spreads both arms lightly from her sides, in a charming attitude of shy submission, her timidity and her husband's eager



46 GREEK PERSONALITY caress are rendered with surprising skill, in spite of the small dimensions and summary modeling of the relief. The divine pair is flanked by the two most important natural features of the sanctuary : the miraculous lygos tree (agnus castus) behind Zeus, the Imbrasos, repre-sented by parallel zig-zag lines, behind Hera. Thus this little offering of some obscure votary, insignificant at first sight, proves to be not only a precious document of early Ionian religious conceptions, but the first at-tempt in Greek art to represent a sacred site.11 The nudity of Hera has nothing to do with the Sacred Wed-ding : a naked bride would be impossible, according to all Hellenic tradition. It is a Geometric trait which recalls the Dipylon goddesses (above, p. 28) . Yet I should prefer to date the Samian relief to sub-Geo-metric times, toward the end of the eighth century.

Quite a number of bases for more ambitious offer-ings, dedicated in the seventh and early sixth centuries, have been traced in the neighborhood of the temple and altar.12 But none of them can be connected with the first great monument in the Heraeum, of which we know from literary sources. Herodotus (IV. 152) describes the adventurous voyage of a Samian mer-chant vessel, whose captain, Kolaios, is not otherwise known to us. Bound for Egypt about 640-630 B.C., they were driven by contrary winds to the island of Platea, off the Libyan coast; setting sail for Egypt, once more, they were caught in what must have been an unusually persistent easterly gale, since it swept them right across the Mediterranean and through the Pillars of Hercules. But divine protection finally took them to Tartessus, on the southwestern coast of Spain, which had not yet been touched by Greek com-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 47 merce at that time. Thus their gains were enormous and remained legendary. Returning to Samos, they took a tithe of six talents from their profits, and "had a bronze vessel in the shape of an Argolic krater made ; round about it griffon's heads stand out ; and they dedi-cated it in the Heraeum, borne by three colossal kneel-ing figures of bronze, seven cubits high." Thus the whole offering must have reached a height of some fif-teen feet. It is by far the largest and most cosdy Ionian monument of which early Greek tradition tells us.18

Naturally enough, this first masterpiece of Samian metal work has entirely disappeared; nor has any trace of its base been discovered. Buschor suggests, very plausibly, that a curious group of nine parallel foundation walls, roughly resembling a ship in shape, may once have carried the actual vessel in which Ko-laios and his crew made their daring raid, and which they would have dedicated to Hera (Ath . Mitt. LX. 1935, pp. 238f.) . The area of this foundation disap-peared about 550 B.C., under a building of unknown use. East of which a row of votive bases stretched from the altar to the coast. All this was covered, before the end of the sixth century, by a thick layer of earth. Thus the ship would not have been visible in the time of He-rodotus ; and as he evidently saw the great bronze mon-ument, it cannot have stood in this neighborhood. One imágines so spectacular an offering to have been placed originally close to altar or temple, "in the most distin-guished spot of the sanctuary," as Delphic inscriptions say. That is just the area which was entirely remod-eled, around 550 B.C., when the great new temple was built (below, p. 205 ) . At that time, the huge bronzé bowl would have been displaced, but carefully pre-



4β GREEK PERSONALITY served, while the far less important offerings connected with the bases mentioned above might have disap-peared.

Fortunately we can reconstruct the monument of Kolaios from contemporary works on a far more mod-est scale. Great bronze bowls with griffon's protomes rising menacingly from under their rim, were one of the favorite votive offerings, all over the Aegean, and as far afield as Central Italy, Gaul and Spain, from the later eighth century to the turn of the sixth." They rested, either upon conical bases of embossed bronze, or upon tripods made of bronze and iron rods. Both these types superseded the old Geometric tripods in sub-Geometric times. While the rod tripod, like the Geometric straightlegged type, goes back to Late Min-oan and Mycenaean art,18 the conical stands, with their richly embossed sides and capital-like finíais, as well as the griffon bowls, are new invaders from the F.ast. A few of the stands seem to be of actual oriental work-manship ;1β the rest are evidently copied from such im-ported models. Most of the bowls carry a pair of curi-ous attachments composed of a human head above the outspread wings and tail of a bird, between which a ring could serve to suspend the bowl. Here, again, genuine oriental pieces appear, beside Greek copies and new creations of purely Hellenic style. And a few of the former have been found as far East as Nimroud in Assyria and the Chaldan capital on Lake Van in Armenia." . It is not often that we can so easily and clearly fol-

low the successive phases from oriental prototypes to harmonious recreations of purely Greek artistic genius.



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 49 And this must have been accomplished quite rapidly within the last decades of the eighth century.

As for griffon protomes, none but genuine Hellenic examples have yet been found, besides Etruscan copies in central Italy ; and the same is true of the far less pop-ular lion's heads, for which oriental prototypes exist ( see below, p. 67 ) . The huge figures which sustained the offering of Kolaios have been compared with sev-enth century flat bowls, of clay and marble, that rest on a central column surrounded by standing female statuettes.18 This type of "tripod" was evidently pop-ular all over Greece, since it occurs from Rhodes to Athens, Corinth, Delphi and Olympia, and even as far afield at Latium and Etruria. But the supporting fig-ures are never male, nor do they kneel. Some idea of the "colossoi" may be gained from Samian alabastro (oil flasks) fashioned as nude kneeling men, whose heavy bodies and burly, bearded faces suggest daemon-ic beings.18 As they are at least one hundred years later than Kolaios, they could not be used in an attempt to reconstruct his offering, beyond the general idea of such supporting figures. Yet they are important enough, if, as I believe, they tend to show that the Greeks, even in the East, and during the period of strongest oriental influence, refused to admit oriental types, where they clashed with the Hellenic spirit. All over the Near East, from Egypt and Syria to Mesopo-tamia, Assyria, Persia, and the Hittite Kingdom, fig-ures of captives were frequently used as carrying mem-bers in architecture and furniture. A favorite device was to show the royal throne borne by unfortunate prisoners, staggering and almost crushed under the king's majesty. Such a degradation of the human



SO GREEK PERSONALITY frame repelled the Greeks, at all times. The girls who carry the clay or marble basins just mentioned are not forced into submission : they freely offer their ser-vice, which is never very hard. They are the true an-cestors of the Caryatids at Delphi and Athens.20 Their duty is leiturgia, not slavery. And as for the alabastra shaped as kneeling men, their attitude is equally free from any trace of servility. Thus, these humble fore-runners of some of the greatest creations of archaic and classical Greek art already show one of the essen-tial qualities of Hellenic personality.: love of freedom and human dignity. If we remember how these vir-tues inspired the impassioned appeals with which Cal-linus tried to rouse his Ephesian countrymen against the menace of Lydian invasion, we can hardly doubt that a roughly contemporary Samian monument which commemorated a daring exploit, showed no submissive tendencies, such as huge kneeling figures would have conveyed, had they been fashioned in the oriental spirit. And this increases our admiration for the ear-liest great votive monument in the Samian Heraeum.

It must have stood in solitary majesty for quite a long time, dwarfing all other offerings of which bases can be traced. It represents a fusion of Eastern and Western Greek elements, all the more remarkable at a time when the ceramic styles, as we shall see, differ to an extraordinary degree, from one part of the Ae-gean to another. The supporting figures were un-doubtedly Ionian in style, while Herodotus expressly states that the shape of the krater was Argolic. This is corroborated by recent discoveries, to be discussed below, pp. 63 ff., together with the development of the griffons and "sirens" on such great bowls or cauldrons.



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 51 But it should be stated here that a few stone copies of bronze votive bowls were found in the Heraeum, and that they differ entirely, in the shape both of the bowls and stands, from the "Argolic" type.21 And though a great number of griffon's heads or protomes have come to light at Samos, none, to my knowledge are older, or even as old, as the earliest group from the Dorian Mainland (below, p. 63) . Thus the stone bowls may well represent an Ionian type, free from ori-ental influences, though I would hesitate to claim a pre-Orientalizing tradition for it.

The early buildings in the Samian Heraeum are dat-ed by stratigraphical evidence, based on an unusually rich harvest of vases, or rather sherds. These have been studied with affectionate perspicacity by R. Eil-mann, who had the advantage of living for many months on the spot.22 Full reconstructions of designs preserved only in shattered fragments, present a unique sequence from the tenth century to the end of the seventh. I t is the only case where purely Ionian artistic development, in one of the most important and progressive centres of Greece, can be followed from phase to phase, through the entire course of the Geo-metric and Orientalizing styles.

The most striking results aire the harmonious pro-gress of this development and its self-sufficient inde-pendence. Hardly twenty Geometric and Early Orien-talizing imported sherds occur, among thousands of Samian ware.

The Samian potters of the earlier Geometric phases seem to have kept to a restricted number both of shapes and designs. These are composed of simple rectilinear patterns, while curvilinear ones are absent, except for



52 GREEK PERSONALITY a few concentric circles. There is a strong tendency to a "close" style, no doubt influenced by textile de-signs, for which Samos, like Miletus, was famous. But they are enlivened by a strong rhythmic principle in the disposition of the patterns. The harmonious unison of both these tendencies produced the characteristic Samian Geometric, which is both vigorous and deli-cate, instinct with an airy vitality. An evident predi-lection for patterns placed obliquely on the curved sur-face of a vase imparts a rhythmically swinging move-ment to the whole design, during the eighth century, and makes it easier for Orientalizing elements to en-ter the Geometric structure. In no other part of Greece has this process commenced and been accom-plished as smoothly, without friction or hybrid transi-tional phenomena. I t looks as if the Geometric style had hospitably welcomed Orientalizing features to cer-tain portions of the available space, and later retired quietly, leaving the entire field to the new art which produced decorative compositions of unrivalled, state-ly beauty.

Compared to these, both the animals and human be-ings on Samian sub-Geometric and Early Orientalizing pottery are less fine; nor can they compete with the plastic works discussed below (p. 56) , though they share their mobile vitality. Certainly Samos equalled, or excelled, all other Eastern Greek wares. At least, that is the clear impression gained from the scanty ma-terial available as yet both from Ionia proper and from the Aeolian and Dorian regions to the North and South.28 Of the latter, Rhodes is by far the richest in pottery of the seventh century ; but the evidence for earlier times, almost entirely provided by a cemetery



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 53 near Ialysos, can hardly convey an adequate idea of Rhodian Geometric and Early Orientalizing pottery.24

Eilmann (/. c. pp. 144 f.) points out that what he calls the "rhythmic" element is almost absent here, while the "close style" is in full force. Nor do the Oriental-izing designs attain to the imposing splendour of the best Samian examples. In fact, eighth and seventh century art in Rhodes conveys the same impression as that of the Mycenaean period there : foreign models are reproduced with great skill and good taste, but little originality. This applies most of all to the plastic works from Rhodes, which we know best from the Danish excavations at Lindos, on the East coast of the island.25

The fibulae and small bronze animals are exact coun-terparts of Peloponnesian, Northern Greek and Cycla-dic types, with an admixture of Cypriote and Syro-Egyptian elements. This oriental influence increases in the seventh century, very naturally, since Rhodes is the last purely Greek outpost on the trade route to and from the Near East. And the same geographical reasons explain the stylistic connections with Crete, which are noticeable in the eighth century, without ever going very deep. In fact, an evident divergence of artistic trends clearly appears, from the turn of the seventh century till well into the sixth. Though of Dorian stock, the inhabitants of the Dodekanese is-lands and of their Asiatic hinterland willingly submit-ted to the supremacy of Ionian art ( for exceptions, see below, p. 54) .

By about 700 B.C., Geometric decoration in Rhodes had disintegrated so completely, that only particles of it remain, scattered freely among the purely Oriental-izing animals and monsters which had invaded all



54 GREEK PERSONALITY Ionian pottery a little earlier. They rapidly attain an unrivalled daintiness and elegance. The transitional stage is represented in Rhodes by a series of high two-handled pithoi or jars, that served as receptacles for human remains and carried, on one side only, moulded designs and figures impressed from cylindri-cal stamps. In spite of this oriental technique, the style is purely Hellenic. The earliest specimens still recall Late Geometric works from the Mainland (above, p. 27), but they are actually sub-Geometric or Early Orientalizing; the latest Rhodian pithoi are hardly much older than 600 B.C.

The repertory of the entire series is rather restrict-ed: rectilinear and curvilinear patterns exactly like those on painted Rhodian vases; bulls, centaurs and Herakles carrying a double axe or a sword, two-horse chariots with two warriors. These narrow bands of tiny figures are out of all proportion with the dimen-sions of the vase ; the general impression is fussy and confused, without any of the tectonic qualities of re-lief ware in Crete, Laconia or Boeotia.

The terracotta figurines of Rhodes range from prim-itive rudeness to late seventh century types, in which Cypriote influence is often apparent. The genuine Dorian note in Rhodian art is sounded in the fine jew-ellery discussed below, pp. 100 f. The numerous rude statuettes in soft limestone belong to the sixth century and do not concern us here.2® There seems to be no earlier sculpture in the Dodekanese.

2. The Dorian Mainland Our survey must naturally begin with Corinth, by

far the largest and most flourishing Mainland city in



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 55 early archaic times. Moreover, the unrivalled wealth of ceramic evidence and its admirable discussion by Humfry Payne provide a firmer foundation here than any other site can offer.27 Corinth rapidly rose to its dominating position as the greatest trading mart be-tween East and West, soon after 750. During the cen-turies that precede this turning point, local Geometric pottery is practically our only evidence for Corinthian art.27 Its technique is excellent, but in range and variety of designs it is inferior to most other Geometric wares : curvilinear designs are conspicuous by their absence, and an almost excessive predilection for plain hori-zontal lines, ringing the body of a vase, characterizes the severe precision of an ultra-refined, rarefied style, "colorless, unambitious, but exceptionally competent" (Payne, NC., p. 1). It has the beauty of its narrow perfection, but it lacks vigor and imagination. In its latest phase, around 750 B.C., it might be compared with an admirably built, bare house waiting for new furniture.

It had not long to wait. The rise of the Bacchiad dynasty to power and wealth, the rapid expansion of trade and colonizing ventures, opened veritable flood-gates to oriental influences, during the short phase called Protocorinthian Geometric (750-700 B.C.).28

But the old native style was by no means submerged or swept away, as in other Greek areas. Vases with the same jejune linear designs continued to be made at Corinth, during the whole seventh century. But on the great majority of Protocorinthian vases such patterns were reduced to subordinate positions, while above or between them the friezes of elaborate Orientalizing



56 GREEK PERSONALITY designs, animals, monsters and human figures occupied the place of honour.

The plastic qualities of Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian pottery are clearly indicated by the vase shapes evidently copied from metal prototypes,29 and by a predilection for human or animal heads and fig-ures in the round, which form the necks or handles of oil flasks ; in other cases, the whole vase is shaped as a lion, an owl, a partridge or a duck.80 These tiny animals rank among the very finest of all Greek plas-tic vases. They combine accomplished mastery of plastic values with exquisite precision in the decorative patterns into which the lion's coat, the bird's wings have been transformed. Yet they are anything but over-stylized or rigid. The duck is resting peacefully, but its eyes are open to any danger. The partridge is gazing into the distance, very alert ; the owl, bent for-ward as if to peer through a twilit wood, its great head turned and top-heavy with monstrously large disk-shaped eyes, has the kindly wisdom of its sisters in fairyland. Altogether these tiny oil flasks are akin to Chinese trinkets of ivory or jade, both in full three-dimensional effect and in sleek surfaces that one likes to caress as one turns such little masterpieces in one's hand. Nothing shows more clearly the refinement of Corinthian civilization at this time, when increasing wealth and the luxurious life of a brilliant court soft-ened the ancient Dorian austerity. This can hardly have been due only to the fortuitous advantages which Corinth owed to her key position West of the Isthmus. After all, Sicyon and Argos also enjoyed favorable—though by no means equally command-ing—locations. There must have been a subtle dif-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 57 ference in spirit and in outlook which made the Co-rinthians more accessible to Ionian influences, more ready to accept compromises between East and West.81

What we know of sixth century Dorian art tells the same story (below, pp. 123 fi.).

Fortunately, our evidence for the second half of the seventh century is not based upon pottery alone. A certain Butades of Sicyon, who had migrated to Co-rinth, was credited by later Greek historians of art with the revolutionizing invention of roof tiles in terra-cotta.82 They supplanted the ancient thatched roofs and paved the way for the splendid development of artistic revetments, first in clay and then in poros and marble, one of the great achievements of Hellenic ar-chitecture and sculpture. Recent researches have cor-roborated what used to be considered the "legendary invention of Butades" : with the exception of a separate short-lived branch centred in Sparta (below, p. 128), the art of terracotta revetments was dominated by Corinthian workshops, during the seventh and sixth centuries, not only on the Greek Mainland, but on a number of islands, and by Corinthian influence in the flourishing colonies of M^gna Graecia and Sicily.88

Most of these heavy pieces were not exported ready made. Corinthian craftsmen would take drawings and moulds, as well as a store of their fine native clay for the coating of decorative members, with them to foreign sanctuaries; and naturally local imitations would soon develop, especially in colonies of Dorian race. Thus not only Corinthian painted decoration, but the plastic art of water-spouts, antefixes and acro-teria spread rapidly over a large area. For the latter, our earliest evidence, undoubtedly prior to 600 B.C.,



58 GREEK PERSONALITY comes from Northwestern Greece, the sanctuaries of Thermos and Calydon in Aetolia and the oldest temple of Corfu ( Corcyra), the flourishing Corinthian colony off the coast of Epirus.34 Antefixes with female heads, water-spouts in the shape of fierce lion's heads, or—at Corfu—female heads between symmetrical pairs of lions and sphinxes form an early group closely akin to the Protocorinthian vases mentioned above.

Evidently such lifesize heads were not evolved from tiny ceramic trinkets. We may confidently assume that bronze works inspired both. Here again literary tra-dition is confirmed by at least a few recent discoveries. Corinthian bronzes were famous in later Greece, both for their precious alloy, which contained gold and sil-ver, and for their artistic excellence. Three outstand-ing masterpieces, dating from the late seventh century, votive offerings of the tyrant Cypselus or his successor, are known to us ; two of them survived to the second century A.D.:35 a bronze palm-tree with frogs and water-snakes on its base, which stood before the Co-rinthian Treasury at Delphi, and a great chest of cedar wood at Olympia, richly encrusted with reliefs in ivory and gold, which Pausanias describes in detail. For these reliefs, a treasure of gold and ivory fragments, retrieved from bothroi (pits) on the Sacred Way at Delphi, offers enlightening parallels, though of con-siderably later date.88 As for the animals below the palm-tree, Perachora has yielded two exquisite bronzes of the same period, a rampant lion and a dove.87 Both are undoubtedly Corinthian, and they show most in-structive resemblances and discrepancies to their Pro-tocorinthian contemporaries.

The lion (Plate IV) is not an independent work:



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 59 with a counterpart now lost, it probably formed an antithetic group which adorned a great tripod stand or some similar object. The figure is cast solid, with delicately engraved details. These show the peculiar "calligraphic quality" of Protocorinthian vases; but instead of the profusion of detail in which the pot-ters revel, the master of the Perachora lion shows great restraint. H e concentrates with complete suc-cess on the plastic values of body and head. Although made primarily for a side view, the lion is amazingly three-dimensional. Payne (pp. 130 f.) has pointed out how "the heavy volume of the figure is contained by a system of long raking curves, with here and there a sharp re-entrant angle or curve which emphasizes the unbroken sweep of the main lines. The line which runs from the top tip of the mane, bending strongly, and then less strongly, finally swerving and doubling back in a semicircle over the hind feet, is a true inspi-ration." "The same Curves which form the body are seen at work on the face : the forehead is nearly flat and leads by a delicate change of plane to the part between the eye and the ear and on to the muzzle, each of which surfaces is rather flat; the ridges under the eyebrows stand up from this system of planes. The cheek-bone is very strongly marked, and between it and the mouth the surface is sunken, a sinking which continues up the side of the face just inside the ruff . . . This compli-cated play of planes, which gives a most varied surface, especially to the cheek, is unlike any other bronze of an early period; it has its nearest parallel in late archaic work. The simplicity of conception, however, and the whole style and especially the character of the



6o GREEK PERSONALITY line mark it off definitely from any late archaic bronzes."

I have quoted Payne's description verbatim, since it could hardly be improved. I would only add, in support of his dating, around 650 B.C., and the attribution to Corinth, that the masterly simplicity and the perfec-tion of line which distinguish the lion are apparent in a Cypselid dedication that has survived almost miracu-lously : a magnificent golden bowl, now in Boston ; it is said to have been found at Olympia, probably in the bed of Alpheios, from which more than one outstand-ing work has been recovered. The dedicatory inscrip-tion proves it to have been a royal offering.98 The tri-pod and bowl to which the Perachora lion and his he-raldic counterpart probably belonged would have been quite as worthy of a ruler's gift to Hera Limenia.

The life-size bronze turtle dove from the same sanctuary is no doubt akin to the lion, both in middle-seventh-century date and Corinthian origin. From the traces of attachment Payne has ingeniously deduced that it may have been held in the hand of the cult statue of Hera, made of wood encased in bronze sheets, like the Dreros bronzes (below, p. 95) . Among bronze statuettes of women holding a dove in this way, one at least, a mirror caryatid of late sixth century work, actually comes from Corinth.39

At least one work of considerable importance gives us an idea of what Corinthian sculptors in stone could achieve in the seventh century. It is a great poros lion from the necropolis of Corcyra, discovered more than a century ago," but insufficiently published and appre-ciated up to recent years. Stretched out on its base, the huge beast might at first sight appear at rest, but for



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 6ι the concentrated ferocity of the face, the most terrify-ing of any Greek lion known to me. The fangs are bared in a vicious grin, the muzzle deeply wrinkled, the great round eyeballs glaring. The turn of the head completes and accentuates the outline which leads from the slim lowered flanks to the power-ful neck: a line at once firm and tensely alive, like a steel spring ready to unfold in an instant. This impression is heightened by the wide horizontal curve of the whole body: seen from above, the hind quar-ters are turned slightly back, shoulders and head abruptly forward—a three-dimensional effect doubly amazing in a mid-seventh-century statue. It expresses the extreme tension which immediately precedes a murderous attack. No grander rendering of the watch-ful, menacing, daimonic protector of a tomb can be found in Greek or any other ancient art. Nobody questions the priority of oriental art or its influence ; the types of the couchant lion evidently go back ulti-mately to the colossal guardians of Assyrian palaces. Syrian and Micrasiatic intermediaries can be assumed, and all these influences naturally struck Eastern Ionia before reaching the Greek Mainland. But Ionian lions in stone are essentially different from ours, nor have any seventh century examples been found as yet ( below, p. 197). The small ivory figures from Ephe-sus are dominated by oriental prototypes; while the Corfu lion is an independent creation, one of those monuments of Hellenic freedom, on which all genuine European art is founded. Rodenwaldt has justly claimed this liberation as "the greatest revolution in the world's history of art."

The kinship between the statue in Corfu and the



ξ>2 GREEK PERSONALITY bronze f rom Perachora is apparent. Though ma-terial and motif differ, the spirit of both works and their plastic conceptions are the same. W e can fol-low both a step further back, beyond 650 B.C., if I am right in claiming for Corinth the oldest stone lion of this series, a large fountain-spout of poros, unique of its kind, which was discovered in the old excavations at Olympia, but has only recently received the atten-tion it deserves.41 I t is a good deal more archaic than those just mentioned, and schematic in details. But the spring-like elasticity of the tautly arched body and the terrible fierceness of the face are imbued with the same artistic spirit. T h e great brute, 79 cm long, is crouching on its hind legs, its body thrust forward and upward in a long, elastic curve, which ends in the arched neck and lowered head. T h e forelegs lay light-ly on their base. T h e whole figure is braced to leap upon its prey, every curve and line instinct with fe-rocious vitality. If only the body were preserved, we would probably consider it much later than the head, with its huge protruding eyes under sharply jut-ting eyebrows, proves it to be. T h e lower jaw is lost. The maw, wide open, shows a row of powerful teeth. Seen from the front, the head at once recalls the Gor-gonic masks f rom Tiryns (p. 32, pi. I l l ) . T h e mane is rendered by incised scales; their flat surface en-hances the plastic value of the terrible face. T h e clos-est parallel to this treatment of the mane is provided by a lion on the Protoattic Nessos amphora in New York. These parallels show that our lion cannot be very much later than 700 B.C. And this is cor-roborated by Payne's classification of the successive stages through which the type has.passed in Corinth.



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 63 The lion of Olympia was not a free statue, but a

fountain-head, as the channel for a waterpipe through its withers proves. It is by far the first example of a very rare type that we can trace to the late sixth cen-tury, while lion's heads alone are infinitely more popular, both as fountain-spouts and gargoyles. Our statue no doubt adorned a fountain or tank within the sanctuary, probably on the site where Herodes Atticus built his ornate exedra, nearly nine centuries later. It is the oldest extant monument of Olympia, certainly of Peloponnesian, probably of Corinthian or Argive origin, and pre-Daedalic in style ; truly one of the foun-tain-heads of Dorian sculpture in the early seventh cen-tury.

I believe we can associate another group of plastic works, both with this period and with Corinth—or at least with the Northeastern Peloponnese, if Herodo-tus rightly calls the great offering of Kolaios at Samos (above, p. 47) "a krater of Argolic type." Corinth lay within the Argolid in its broader sense. The mighty bowl was adorned with griffon heads, or rather pro-tomes ; and though the monster is undoubtedly of ori-ental origin, by far the earliest examples of such bronze heads have been found in Mainland sanctuaries, at Olympia and Perachora.42 They belong to the end of the eighth century and clearly mark the commence-ment of the series. The type has not yet attained full plastic and stylistic individuality: there is something tentative and uncouth about these griffons, though they already show signs of a development which seems to have led pretty rapidly to heraldic grandeur. This is apparent in a small group of heads, cast hollow, but fixed on repoussé necks, which appear in Olympia, Del-



64 GREEK PERSONALITY phi and Athens.48 The culminating point is reached by three unusually large, massive heads, no doubt from the same bowl, that surpass all others in wild ferocity. Our Plate VI reproduces one of these, found at Olympia in 1937. The neck is too badly crushed for reproduction, but that hardly impairs the truly terri-fying impression. The beak and tongue recall the fangs of a vicious steel trap ready to crush its prey, the stare of the slanting, closely placed eyes gains a note of merciless avidity by the three wrinkles above them. All this as well as ears upright like spearheads and a high-stemmed knob on the top of the skull, trans-form the most dangerous bird of prey into a monster remote from reality, yet full of convincing and terri-fying vitality. This was enhanced by the eyeballs which we can reconstruct from Etruscan imitations of such griffon protomes: here the irises are of blue, the pupils of white glass paste. T h e neck was more powerful than that of later protomes, but less thick and heavy than the earlier type mentioned above. Long spiral curls fell over a delicately engraved coat-ing of scales, which enlivened the broad sweep of the neck without impairing its plastic effect.

These mighty griffons are purely Greek and essen-tially Dorian. Their artists have discarded every trace of oriental spirit ; and it is significant that several of the "siren" attachments found at Olympia and Del-phi are equally remote from Eastern prototypes and closely akin to Daedalid heads (below, p. 86) . Un-doubtedly the kraters to which such protomes belonged also carried purely Hellenic "sirens." Moreover, our griffons are clearly related to the lions discussed above, in the felicitous rendering of great sweeping curves



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 65 and their elasticity, as well as in an unusually sensi-tive comprehension of three-dimensional effects. These were especially apparent as the protomes jutted out from around the great bowls and were visible from every angle.

These relentlessly cruel griffons were shortlived. They must have been made in the second quarter of the seventh century. After 650 the griffon is still fero-cious, but it has lost the aggressive forward drive of its immediate predecessors. And in the course of a generation the monsters appear to grow tamer. Though the head is still threatening enough, the un-dulating lines of the long, slender neck impart a new elegance and grace to these protomes.45 This evident-ly became the standard type all over the Hellenic world. We find it on Rhodian jewellery and Early At-tic vases, and the krater protomes from Southern France and Spain represent it.4® We cannot say where the original home of these later griffons lies ; the type can be termed Panhellenic and lived on well into the sixth century. Olympia has yielded several speci-mens, and also a unique illustration of griffon fam-ily life on a large bronze repousse plaque: a for-midable griffoness suckling her baby. The tiny mon-ster's beak seems to be soft, cartilaginous, lest it should injure its mother's teats. This charming and humor-ous idyll would fit well into the development of Co-rinthian art in the later seventh century, as we know it from the well-known votive clay tablets of Pentes-kouphia Southeast of Corinth, and from certain vases with scenes of revelry and dances.47

The griffoness plaque is not the oldest of such bronze reventments, which may have adorned wooden



66 GREEK PERSONALITY boxes ; an early seventh century example, found in the same campaign, bears a scene favored by contempo-rary artists : two centaurs are pounding the otherwise invincible hero Kaineus into the ground by heavy blows of uprooted trees.48

Olympia has likewise yielded some of the finest specimens of a series of narrow repoussé bands (orig-inally used as shield-straps), which have long been known as "Argive-Corinthian reliefs." Since only a few of these are earlier than 600 B.C., they will be discussed in a later chapter, pp. 119 f. But though they are conspicuous by their absence in the Argive Herae-um, this great sanctuary has produced at least one large-sized bronze plaque, discovered by Biegen in 1925 and associated in date and style with the Kaineus relief just mentioned.40

Naturally Corinth cannot be regarded as the only artistic centre of the Argolid (in its broader sense) during the seventh century. Sicyon, some fifteen miles to the West, and Argos, a long day's tramp to the South, both flourished at the time. And though lack of scientific exploration and fortuitous finds leave Si-cyon blank on a map of early archaic art, Argos at least shows several individual characteristics and important differences from Corinth.50 Argive Geometric, amply represented by pottery from the Heraeum and from graves at Tiryns, is hardly, if at all, influenced by con-temporary Corinthian, while there are unmistakable affinities with Attica. And this is even more striking-ly apparent during the Orientalizing period. As was —and is—so often the case in Greece, relations be-tween two regions may be far easier and more fre-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 67 quent by sea than by land, even if the latter route be shorter. For Athenian exports to Argos, Aegina of-fered a convenient stepping-stone. Early Attic vases were eagerly bought in Aegina and imitated there, and Argos followed similar lines. A few vases from the Heraeum and several important pieces from Tiryns show the same turbulent and even explosive invasion by Orientalizing forces which characterizes contempo-rary Attic pottery.51

On the other hand, small works of art actually im-ported from the Middle East reached both Corinth and Argos in appreciable numbers, though only a few have survived. Perachora has yielded one of the curi-ous Luristan bronzes which have also appeared in Crete and in the Samian Heraeum.62 And an unusual proportion of Assyrianizing bronzes, probably from Eastern Asia Minor, were found in the Argive Herae-um. However these oriental objects, though evi-dently much appreciated, were not copied or trans-formed into Hellenic types, like the "siren" attach-ments or the lion protomes mentioned above (pp. 63 fi.). Greek artists of this period had a sure if eclectic taste, none more so than the Corinthians.

The artistic preponderance of the Northeastern Peloponnese is apparent in the whole of Central Greece, except Attica which calls for a separate treat-ment (below, pp. 77 ff.). The backward regions of the West, Phokis, Aetolia, Acarnania, had hardly any na-tive art that could resist Corinthian domination during the early centuries. And the same is true of the North-ern Mainland, Epirus and Thessaly. Only Boeotia and the adjoining district of Locris hold a place apart.



68 GREEK PERSONALITY Here an ancient and wealthy Mycenaean civilization may have left its traces in the race, though its monu-ments had been destroyed four or five centuries be-fore. Trade connections developed on all sides, with Attica by easy mountain passes, with the flourishing Ionian cities on the neighboring island of Euboea and with Corinth across narrow belts of sea. Thus Ionian and Dorian influences met in Boeotia, and their inter-play is evident from Geometric times onward. The results were not often satisfactory, sometimes hybrid and provincial. Yet they are characteristic enough in the later eighth and seventh centuries. Boeotian painted vases are less remarkable than certain bronzes, espe-cially engraved fibulae, and a series of huge storage pots or pithoi, decorated on the front with moulded fig-ures in low relief.53 These belong to the fully devel-oped Orientalizing style of the seventh century and, like the fibulae, offer an unusually varied and rich rep-ertory of Hellenic myths, treated in a broad, impres-sive manner which occasionally attains a truly mon-umental grandeur : witness the great Mother Goddess assisted by her small twin acolytes or the procession of Trojan women carrying a costly cloak to the sanctuary of Athena : a scene imbued with true Homeric vigor. But the style cannot maintain this high level long : it hardens and weakens rapidly—if such a combination of contrasting attributes is permissible. And Boeo-tian vase painting becomes really provincial from the end of the seventh century. Frederick R. Grace has called attention to the strong influence which re-poussé metal work must have exercised on the makers of the relief pithoi. H e specially compares the large plaques from the Argive Heraeum and Olympia men-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 69 tioned above, pp. 65 f., whose figures resemble those of the pithoi in size. Evidently the poetry of Hesiod and his followers exercised a powerful influence on the art of their native land. And the sturdy peasant race that lives on in Hesiod's Works and Days expressed some of its personality in a long series of clay figurines, uncouth and harsh, yet with a character of their own. Grace has given us the best discussion of these figurines, a short time before his untimely end.54 H e has con-vincingly shown how Boeotian plastic art was most original and individual before 650 B.C.; then it was "dimmed" by contact with cosmopolitan Corinth, whose influence is predominant in the second half of the century—though I agree with Grace in connect-ing the style of the relief pithoi with the Ionian is-lands."

The long series of flat figurines stretches through the later seventh and sixth centuries into early classical times. They represent successive styles, from the long-necked and "bird-faced" types to those with moulded heads that often show surprising vigor and vitality. These heads best express the severe, harsh Boeotian spirit, in the early years of the sixth century. Later they reflect strong Corinthian and after 550 B.C. what appears to be Ionian influence. But though such changing phases are no less clearly indicated by the patterns painted on the bodies, these retain the ancient plank-like shape without any modelling and with tiny stumps for arms. Similar "idols," both standing and seated, have been found in various places, notably in the sanctuaries of Hera at Tiryns and near Argos, of Demeter near Tegea and recently in the tiny archaic shrine under the temple of Nike at Athens.06 But none



7o GREEK PERSONALITY of these groups can compare with the Boeotian in its long unbroken continuity. In a country rich in Cad-mean traditions and monumental evidence of that great age, one is tempted to recall the flat, armless Mycenaean figurines, especially since the survival of Late Minoan idol types into Early Hellenic has been amply proved in Crete.67 But here the tradition is unbroken and was evidently preserved by the pre-Hel-lenic Eteocretan part of the population, while in Boeo-tia there is a gap of at least four centuries between the latest Mycenaean and the earliest "bird-faced" figur-ines, and genuine Geometric and sub-Geometric Boeotian terracottas present an absolutely different type, with tiny rounded heads on elongated necks, huge bell-shaped bodies and separate legs swinging freely from strings or wires.58 These figurines may well represent a Mother Goddess such as we know from the celebrated relief pithos. And many of the lat-er figurines may have a similar significance. The preva-lence of a goddess of fertility in a region where agri-culture predominated to such an extent would be nat-ural enough. But no actual proof is as yet available, either from literary or monumental evidence.

The soil of Boeotia has not been generous of larger Orientalizing plastic works. The only extant terra-cotta of considerable size comes from Halae. It stands alone, though certain details connect it with the relief pithoi.

Two remarkable bronze statuettes said to have been found near Thebes have reached America from the famous collection of Count Tyszkiewicz in Rome.5® The first, a standing nude youth, carries on his right leg the engraved dedication of a certain Mantiklos to



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 71 Apollo. The legs below the knees are missing. Com-plete, the figure must have measured some nine inches, an unusual size for such an early bronze. The left fist is pressed against the chest, the right arm, now lost, seems to have been stretched forward. This varied movement of the arms might recall the sub-Geomet-ric Attic bronze mentioned above (pp. 31 f. ) ,-were not the style of Mantiklos's youth essentially different and even antagonistic. Head, body and legs alike are of an exaggerated rigidity and frontality. The latter is em-phasized by a vertical groove which runs down the unnaturally long broad neck, framed by stiff strands or plaits of hair. The same uncompromising rigid-ity is apparent in the long, narrow face. Yet the most striking impression it conveys is an amazing vitality; the great round eyes must have been all the more im-pressive when the eyeballs, no doubt of glass paste, were in place. The great beak of a nose dominates the receding mouth and chin. The first scarecrow-like im-pression changes to one of concentrated individuality on closer scrutiny. The survival of Geometric tradi-tion is evident in every trait of this figure ; it is, in fact, too Geometric, "frozen" in a conservatism which has outlived its time. A date around 700 B.C. has been almost unanimously accepted for the offering of Man-tiklos. It finds its place in Boeotian art just before the Daedalid style came over from Corinth.

The second Tyszkiewicz bronze, a standing woman, has a very different character, though it is also un-doubtedly Boeotian and not more than a generation later. The full, almost flabby face, with its large round eyes, small mouth and heavy chin and, most of all, the upward tilt of the head connect this statuette




with the "bell-shaped" clay figurines and the Mother Goddess on the relief pithos. Very probably this like-wise is a goddess; she held a cup on her flat, out-stretched right hand. As for the forms of the body and the long, tight-fitting garment girded at the waist, the board-like Boeotian terracottas offer no parallels. But we shall find them in Daedalid poros statues de-scribed below.

In Laconia the situation again differs from those we have discussed, during the sub-Geometric and Ori-entalizing periods. The century of Tyrtaeus and Ale-mán, of Terpander and Thaletas represents the finest flower of Spartan culture, when Dorian virility had not yet degenerated into totalitarian militarism.60 Just as these poets and musicians came from the Ionian East (or were at least imbued with its spirit), so the artistic cravings of seventh century Spartans turned Eastward. The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia" con-tained a remarkable series of ivory reliefs and figurines, ranging from sub-Geometric to the very end of the Orientalizing style. Many such were undoubtedly im-ported from Ionia, though the imperfect state of our knowledge does not allow us to circumscribe their place of origin. But the bulk of the Spartan ivories must have been carved on the spot. They illustrate the transition from what may be called a predilection for anonymous monsters and daimons—heritage of the Geometric age—to a new delight in the myths in which such beings play a part ; a transition from fear to rever-ence towards the supernatural in the spiritual attitude of the people, and, in art, from apotropaic appari-tions to stories of gods and heroes. The general he-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 73 roic temper of the epics was transmitted to the poets' own generation, and the fear of pallid, shadowy Hades vanquished by the immortality which valiant combat and a hero's death in battle can assure. We find some-thing of this spirit in the Ionian elegists, Kallinos of Ephesos, Archilochos of Paros; but no one has ex-pressed it as forcibly and proudly as Tyrtaeus. One could aptly illustrate his poems with contemporary Laconian paintings and reliefs; and the grace and the virginal charm of Alcman's hymns for the choruses of noble Spartan maidens are at least faintly reflected in a few of the finest ivories and terracottas. How-ever, just as the Ionian elements of Spartan poetry are transformed by a spirit as Dorian as their dialect, so the essentials of Laconian art harmonize with the rest of the Peloponnese. They will therefore find their fitting place in the next chapter, together with what is known of Daedalid art from the Cyclades.

3. Crete The case of Crete is unique in the Orientalizing pe-

riod. A famous passage of the Odyssey (XIX. 175 ff.) mentions the tribes which inhabited the great island in Homer's day : Achaeans, Eteokretans, the descend-ants of what we call Minoan stock, proud of being "Genuine Cretans" ; Dorians, Pelasgians, Cydonians. The latter remain as nebulous to us as their capital Cy-donia (on the site of modern Canea), since western Crete is still almost unexplored archaeologically. The Dorian element of Cretan art is clearly apparent, the Eteotretan more elusive. But it is gaining clearer outlines, as successive excavations uncover sites in the East and the centre of the island where an unbroken



74 GREEK PERSONALITY continuity links Late Minoan or sub-Minoan to Geo-metric and Orientalizing culture. The settlements of Vrokastro and Karphi, inhabited from the twelfth to the seventh century, thus carry the development to the short period when the Sacred Cave of Zeus on Mount Ida gained great renown. And important corol-laries are provided by continuous series of tombs, es-pecially at Knossos and Arkades (Frati) in central Crete, as well as by smaller sanctuaries, from Prinia on the northern slope of the Ida massif to Praisos, the Eteocretan capital, and the temple of Diktaean Zeus at Palaikastro on the eastern coast, above the ruins of a Minoan harbor town.62 A comprehensive study of Cretan civilization from 1200 to 600 B.C. might thus be attempted now, though it will always be difficult to "isolate" the Minoan elements that may have survived.

With one exception. There can be no doubt of the unbroken continuity between a peculiar type of Mino-an clay idols in the shape of short cylinders topped by a rude female bust with arms usually raised, and sim-ilar objects from tombs at Prinia and sanctuaries at Karphi, Gasi and near Rhethymno in the West.63 The latter have heads which can hardly be earlier than about 700 B.C. They differ from other contempo-rary Cretan terracottas in their Baroque headdresses which may recall an earlier practice of adorning such idols with flowers.

Apart from these freakish and artistically infer-ior objects and the capital discussed above, p. 16, early Greek art in Crete has borrowed very little from Minoan: sub-Geometric and Early Orientalizing Cretan pottery displays a rich if rather hybrid com-bination of simple linear patterns with oriental, spe-



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 75 cifically Cypriote motifs. And the same influence is apparent in a series of polychrome vases which have no counterpart outside of Crete and Cyprus. Payne has given us an exhaustive analysis of this develop-ment, with excellent coloured plates and a summary of motifs.®* A number of original traits appear on these vases: the lid of one of the great ovoid jars is topped by a clay copy of a Dorian tripod (above, p. 21 ) ; on either side of another such pot the painter has placed a pair of human figures standing on low bases. It is difficult not to recognize statues here, or at least votive statuettes.

Both in their color scheme and their patterns the polychrome vases form a group by themselves. Nor do I know of similar Cypriote influence on any other class of Aegean pottery; altogether there is a pronounced originality about all Orientalizing Cretan ware. Two sherds from Knossos show what one might call twin and quintuplet swans, with two and five or six heads ; the lid of a jar is adorned with the earliest figure of Zeus, brandishing his thunderbolt before a tripod, under which a female head, perhaps Gaea, rises from the ground. Of the numerous interesting paintings on the Arkades vases I mention only a Potnia theron with a Gorgonic face in relief, between two swans.85

While we are impressed by the lively imagination of these Cretan potters, by their uninhibited daring which recalls Minoan art, we should not be blind to their lack of consistence and firmness. They are prone to accept foreign motifs and to combine them rather thoughtlessly with their own decorative tradition. The result is often a medley of elements which do not really harmonize. It is enlightening to compare the



76 GREEK PERSONALITY far more felicitous solutions applied on Samian pot-tery in the East, Protocorinthian in the West. One is tempted to explain the Cretan situation by the mix-ture of Hellenic and un-Hellenic races on the island and to recall a similar combination of Byzantine, Ve-netian and Oriental elements in Cretan embroideries of recent centuries.

All this offers a key to the bewildering variety of motifs and styles on the most characteristic and pecu-liar Orientalizing metal work in Crete: the bronze shields, discs and bowls of which a number came from the Idaean cave, while others have since been found in sanctuaries and tombs:®6 The shapes are all orien-tal, as is proved by finds and illustrations from Assyria, Syria and Phoenicia. A few of the bowls are actually imported Phoenician ware, and some of the shields, a disc or cymbal from the Idaean Cave and an em-bossed plaque from Kavousi in Eastern Crete are of almost unadulterated Assyrian or Phoenician style, evidently little more than copies of oriental originals. Soon, however, the divergent temper of the Cretan craftsmen appears, tentatively at first, then rapidly gaining in assurance, till both the embossed reliefs (lines or groups of wild beasts, monsters and divini-ties, many-figured hunting and battle scenes) and the fully plastic eagles and lions' heads in the centre of the shields increasingly display the essentially Hel-lenic quality of this art, under its oriental disguise. Traces of Minoan tradition are extremely faint, "the decayed nobleman's mite towards the formation of the Greek style," as Beazley has aptly put it.

Side by side with such hybrid combinations a Hel-lenic style in all its severe purity developed in Crete



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 77 during the Orientalizing period. The evidence for it is less abundant and has not been comprehensively studied as yet. One of the earliest examples, an en-graved bronze mitre or belt-plate from Axos in West-ern Crete, illustrates the transition from sub-Geomet-ric to Early Orientalizing, towards the end of the eighth century. Somewhat later a small group of open-work reliefs, heroes, huntsmen and game, evidently carry on the technique, but not the style, of Late Geo-metric precursors (p. 23).67 Thin and awkward, they yet show a true sense of outline and of fleeting move-ment. They differ so deeply from the Orientalizing shields and bowls, that we would not recognize them as Cretan works of the same period, but for the evi-dence provided by several deposits of terracottas, both figurines and moulded reliefs, which range from the earliest seventh century to the sixth, and by contem-porary pithoi in the same technique and style.

4. Attica There could hardly be a stronger contrast than be-

tween the latest Geometric styles in Attica and the Peloponnesus. Instead of the increasing atrophy of Laconian or the crystalline, but frigid Corinthian, Attic Geometric is very much alive in its last phase. Animal and human figures, which had been spaciously disposed on the fine Dipylon vases, now are crowded together, with the interstices filled, to an almost in-tolerable degree, by rather irregular simple patterns. The "close" style thus produced lacks the order and precision indispensable to a pleasing effect. At the same time, movement grows more violent: horses, four abreast, rear and strain at their reins, men rush




and leap in an ungainly fashion. Vitality is not in-creased by such artificial intensity; one feels that thi? sort of thing cannot continue long ; the style is near dis-integration. At the same time, oriental elements grow more numerous ; perhaps the most significant of these is a large bowl with griffon protomes and a conical stand of Phoenician type, curiously drawn in section, on an Athenian vase of "close," but still purely Geo-metric, or pre-Orientalizing style, which we can date to the last decades of the eighth century (above, p. 18) .e8

Shortly after this, well before mid-seventh-century, Attic Geometric died.

It was anything but a peaceful end. W e are amazed by the violence with which the old style was shattered : the impact of oriental influence has something of a bomb-explosion. For a time, a chaotic diversity dom-inates vase-painting, the only branch of Attic art whose uninterrupted sequence we can trace in the seventh cen-tury. What we call Protoattic was formerly repre-sented by a tiny group of vases, each showing individ-ual traits, so that neither a stylistic unity nor a satis-factory chronological system could be established. The only common traits seemed to be uncouth crudity and ungainly lack of balance. But within the last decade numerous graves of this period from the Dipylon to the Areopagus, and the vast cemeteries of Vari recently opened up by the Greek Archaeological Service, have yielded an enormous mass of Protoattic ware. Clan-destine excavations in Attica and Aegina have in-creased it considerably :ββ after long drouth, a great flood of evidence, which cannot be properly sifted yet.

However, the main points emerge already. Rem-nants of an older tradition survive, side by side with



IN ARCHAIC SCULPTURE, CH. III 79 divergent new tendencies. Some of these are tumultu-ous, reaching out beyond the powers of their genera-tion, and at least partially doomed to failure. But others strive successfully to master the great difficul-ties of totally unaccustomed stylistic trends. Within a few decades they succeed in evolving an entirely new art : strong and wilful, yet governed by the Attic meas-ure which, for a short time, seemed unaccountably to have disappeared. Moreover, in their ripest works, and they are numerous, the Athenian painters of the later seventh century have achieved both a restrained dignity and a monumental grandeur unequalled by any extant vases from other parts of Greece. Most of the vases from Vari, including the most magnificent paint-ings of their time, are still unpublished ; but specimens from Aegina can illustrate what I mean, both for the turbulent intermediate phase and the one which im-mediately precedes masterpieces like the famous Ne-tos vase in Athens, which carries us to the limit of Protoattic, well before the end of the seventh century.

In the plastic field, clay sphinxes and female figu-rines from the Kerameikos, and a couple of terracotta funeral reliefs give the first clear conception of Late Orientalizing Attic sculpture (below, p. 240) .

Altogether this new material is doubly precious, since it provides our only evidence for the personality and spirit of Attica in the obscure and troubled period between Cylon and Solon, when architecture, sculpture and poetry seemed equally non-existent. These ceramic works now explain what had appeared unaccountable : that Athens should suddenly have created a great new art of her own, around the turn of the century, just as Solon still ranks as the first creator of Attic poetry.



Download - Greek Personality in Archaic Sculpture () || III. THE ORIENTALIZING PERIOD

Top Related