Part One - Vilanovan and
Orientalizing Periods

Etruscan Art on the Italian Peninsula
Chapter IV, Orientalizing Art in Etruria (cont.)- Notes

These three points are more or less true of al Orientalizing styles of the eighth and seventh centuries. The styles were decorative, primarily, not withstanding the fact that the development of figural representation was their chief business. They also were 'animal styles' to some degree, but not to the same degree: the relative frequency of animals, compared with other representations, always remained higher in Etruscan art than in most other Orientalizing schools except, perhaps, the Rhodian. For instance on the Protocorinthian vases which were so popular in Etruria, human figures are much more common. Obviously the native workshops absorbed the foreign influences only partially.

On the other hand the animal representations are more assimilated to eastern styles than they ever were before. As in all Orientalizing art, the figures--monsters and animals-are lined up in horizontal processions marching quietly from one side to the other. Such rows of animals had long been a standard feature of oriental art, especially in the Near East. The superimposed zones of the Regolini-Galassi bronze stand were also used in these styles from the earliest times. However, to assemble a variety of different animals in each zone is a Greek trait; so is the free mingling of fabulous and natural zoology.[15] Oriental art liked to assign one species of animals to each row. While therefore, by general arrangement, the decoration of the bronze stand is related to Greek Orientalizing art, it can hardly be explained as a mere translation into bronze of a Greek model; for instance, of a Protocorinthian vase. The rendering of the animals is not identical with any specific Greek style. We must consider it an Etruscan variant of the common Orientalizing animal style.

Examination of details leads to the same conclusion. From the point of view of eastern art one is dealing here with a mixed iconography. The sphinxes with the Egyptian 'apron' between the forelegs render a Phoenician type.[16] Their wings, too, are stylized in an oriental [p. 57] manner; the wing growing from the averse side bends downward.[17] On the other hand there are two varieties of lions, and those with wings may well depend on Greek, Corinthian representations. Those without wings form a very special race, however, because of their long manes. Ultimately this manner of drawing the mane, as if it consisted of long strands of hair, may also have derived from Protocorinthian models, sloppily rendered.[18] But the result was a new type, distinctly Etruscan; the lions on the golden fibula from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb are of the same breed [32]. Furthermore, it will be noticed that most of these animals walk on curiously high legs. The taste for these stilted creatures must have been acquired from Greek Cycladic art, or perhaps from Crete; it was scarcely Corinthian. As the style of the Regolini-Galassi bronze stand and similar monuments emerges from this analysis, one may call it eclectic; but to me it seems best described by a proper name, such as Etruscan-Orientalizing. [p. 58]

Regional Characteristics
In so far as this Etruscan production now appears as a fully-fledged if somewhat irregular variety of Orientalizing art, one must be able to name its regional properties. I shall point out two such characteristics. One regards its approach towards the animal form as a problem of design. What makes these animals look so strangely undecided, undramatic and loose-jointed? In that respect they still resemble the engraved beasts of the first period; and they differ, most obviously, from their eastern counterparts, especially the Greek. Again the explanation must be the same as before. Not that the designers had no talent; what was lacking was the firm, Geometric training which their Greek contemporaries possessed. With each step in the Italian development which we are in a position to follow, this circumstance stands out more clearly, as something constitutional in Etruscan art; it was the one basic factor which made it a different art from the Greek. Greek Orientalizing art in its rather stylized images did incorporate abstract, geometric principles. To much oriental art, also, a simple but effective geometry was basic. In detail the Etruscan artists adopted many stylizations which their prototypes offered. But during the period with which we are dealing here, they certainly showed no interest in the structured character and the geometrically controlled, rational form of their models. Their emphasis was on representation, not structure. And they persisted in their tendency to conceive of an image as an outward form defined by delineation rather than by structure from within.[19] [p. 58]

Space and Ground
The other point which I wish to make here regards a problem of pictorial composition. It is true that the three examples under discussion in this section are reliefs embossed on thin sheets of metal, not true paintings or drawings. However, in all early arts, reliefs, though endowed with a degree of sculptural elevation on the surface, follow the same general laws of representation as paintings and drawings. Like paintings, and different from statuary in the round, which is essentially three-dimensional, they relate all forms to the level ground on which the images are drawn or from which they emerge; and side views constitute their preferred mode of representation. In this inclusive sense the reliefs of ancient art, and indeed most reliefs, can be treated as equivalent to painting.

Thus in looking once more at the Regolini-Galassi bronze stand [30] one will notice that all the animals seem to move with a peculiar airy lightness. They tread the ground rather insecurely; as if the artist were not yet quite convinced of the necessity of a firm base line.[20] Indeed this is the salient point. It has long been observed that the animals of these friezes, except in the one next to the bottom, walk directly on the ornamental braided ribbons which separate the superimposed zones.

The matter is one of prime importance for all ancient art. Egyptian art first made base lines obligatory for every object represented in a [p. 58] painting or relief. The reason was partly to introduce an element of formal order. Without base lines the silhouetted images would lack stability and firm direction; they would look haphazard, prehistoric even; that is, less civilized. But another consideration probably also played a role in this Egyptian attitude. The base line effectively severs the figures from the surrounding ground, which by this means, as by an act of will, is declared something outside the representation. Ground and representation become contrasts: the ground has no part in the representation: it has no meaning. Thus by rendering as real the solid soil on which we exist, the Egyptian reliefs eliminate the disquieting notion of the undefined space in which we exist, and which they refuse to represent.

In the light of these considerations it is astonishing how often, in Etruscan Orientalizing art, animals and other figures were still represented without any base line, as if floating in mid-air. The Regolini-Galazzi bronze cauldron and the bronze stand are not the only examples. The five lions on the golden fibula from the same tomb show an identical mode of composition [32]

This free, unsupported manner of representing figures, once outlawed by the Egyptians, subsequently became very rare in most ancient arts. It was not infrequently employed, however, in Assyrian reliefs, probably in order to create the very effect which the Egyptians sought to avoid: to make the relief ground a part of the representation, interpreted as a continuous terrain or open field in which the figures move. By the middle of the seventh century Assyrian reliefs were probably the only leading art form where such representations might still be found. Whether or not this fact had a bearing on the Etruscan monuments before us it is impossible to tell. One thing is certain. From the point of view of Greek orientalizing art these Etruscan representations constituted an irregularity; indeed, an offense. For Greek art, likewise, avoided the unsupported representation of figures, if for different reasons from the Egyptians. The Greeks were not averse to showing space, but they did not want to symbolize it by a mere superimposition of figures. Their Geometric training had taught them to insist on an almost architectural, systematic visualization of the effects of mass and weight; and for this reason the figures in a painting must not appear to float. For Greek art, the base line became a necessity. For the Etruscans at the same time it was still a dispensable detail. [p. 59]

THIRD STAGE: CULMINATION
Wider Range of Art
As the seventh century approaches its last quarter, one notices a palpable change of pace in the development and expansion of Etruscan Orientalizing art; only then did it gain real momentum. This observation is borne out by two statistical facts. First, according to our present knowledge, analysis of the finds has shown that in a tumulus as rich as the Regolini-Galassi Tomb the majority of the contents belongs to the latest burials, dating to the last three decades of the century or even a short time beyond. Second, Orientalizing materials with definite stylistic characteristics become really plentiful only during the same decades. The description of style during the two preceding stages had to be based on comparatively few objects, and in each successive period on only one truly outstanding tomb group. Beyond these narrow limits it is still difficult to establish the status of Orientalizing art in Etruria during its early phases. The last stage offers an entirely different picture. First-rate examples attributable to the last quarter of the seventh century have come to us, not only from the ancient heart district of Etruria--the coastlands around Tarquinia, Cerveteri, and Vetulonia--but from all parts of the country, including such outposts as Palestrina [Praeneste] in the Sabine Hills. These materials corroborate each other. The rule of Orientalizng art had now become very nearly complete. Concomitant with it went an enormous upswing in the popular arts and crafts, which often dealt with the new currents in most [p. 59] interesting ways of their own, as will be seen in Chapter 6. [p. 60]

Formalization of the Animal Style
Also characteristic of this stage is a noticeable increase of Greek influence, reflected especially in the animal friezes, which begin to favour a definitely Greek-Orientalizing selection of imagery. By the same token genuinely oriental details like the Phoenician sphinxes disappear from the Etruscan monuments. In their place appear new beasts of fable like the Greek chimaera, illustrated for example on the bronze skyphos in the Villa Giulia from the Barberini Tomb at Praeneste[21]; Fluted bowls, without foot: the form [33,34]. In examples such as these, Etruscan art shows the effect of the tendencies which then prevailed in the Greek Orientalizing schools, resulting in a more standardized selection of their ornamental zoology. After all, this was the time when Greek art acquired the stock of animals and monsters which has remained a conventional stand-by of all European decoration ever since, including its indelible lions, griffins, and sphinxes.

At the same time, under the influence of both Greek and oriental prototypes, a tendency to subject decoration and animal representation to a stricter concept of geometric order comes to the fore in many Etruscan works. A measure of geometric discipline develops in Etruscan art of the late seventh century. The famous ivory goblet from the Barberini Tomb, now in the Villa Giulia, offers an instructive example [35].[22] The cup itself was the imitation of an oriental fluted bowl, placed on a high foot and surrounded by four supporting statuettes or caryatids; a fashionable form in Etruria at that time. The reliefs round the rim indicate that the artist had knowledge of foreign, probably Syrian, ivory carvings. But the goblet as a whole was an Etruscan work. And the animals which form its frieze certainly look different from those of the Vatican bronze stand [30]. A new formal order has established itself. It is a geometric order, though hardly of inner structure. Each animal can be fitted in a nearly square frame. The order which meets the eye consists in the distribution and equilibrium of visible shapes within an invisibly prescribed, geometric field. What mattered was the resulting normalization of the forms, from the outside, as it were. This geometric order proved quite compatible with the typically Etruscan mannerisms, as for instance the unnaturally long legs of the animals, whose height strangely enhances the softness of their feline walk.

The fact that the animals are securely placed on a base line representing the ground on which they move only carries the obvious insistence on formal stabilization to its logical conclusion. On the whole, this is a new trend in Etruscan art. However, within its own time the Barberini goblet was not an isolated instance. A similar desire for formal stabilization and normalization makes itself felt in other Etruscan works of the same period, for instance the curious ivory hands from the same tomb and in the same museum,[23] the forearms of which are decorated with carved reliefs perhaps imitating embroidered sleeves [36]; more examples will be met with later. We cannot doubt that the future belonged to this trend.

In surveying Etruscan art of the seventh century one may well be astonished at the diversity of formal concepts, exemplified at such short intervals. Almost side by side we find intuitive-fantastic, objective-naturalistic, and geometric-abstract forms. Al these were recognized and practiced simultaneously as possible modes of art; none was binding. Among these materials, [p. 61] a representation like the animal frieze of the Barberini goblet will be judged on exceedingly formal work. If it incorporates progress in one direction--formal order--the freedom and innocence of earlier Etruscan animal drawings were lost in the process. A case can perhaps be made for the greater spontaneity expressed, with a certain pleasing ease, in those earlier and coeval works of Etruscan art which were not so much exposed to the mathematical discipline of the eastern arts. Nevertheless the subsequent development disavowed the earlier works, however much their freshness and innocence may attract us; in retrospect, their now appears the obsolete performance. [p. 62]