This volume is dedicated to a detailed examination of the iconographic programme behind the decoration of the Late Protocorinthian olpe, now in the Villa Giulia in Rome, its possible reflection of Bacchiad society and its discovery in Etruria. The book is an expansion of a paper published in E. Mugione (ed.), L'Olpe Chigi. Storia di un agalma (Atti del convengo di Fisciano, Università di Salerno, 3–4 giugno 2010), 2012.
Its basic thesis is that a consistent programme explains and links, horizontally and vertically, the three friezes that decorate the vase. In this, D'A. follows others but goes beyond them in seeking a more comprehensive understanding of the unifying themes. For him the programme is a true symbol of Corinthian elitist power.
He begins with its discovery in a princely tumulus in Monte Aguzzo, Veii, concluding that it must have been deposited no later than the beginning of the sixth century and possibly earlier. A detailed discussion of the painter's works follows, most prominently, the aryballoi in London and Berlin, and fragments from Aegina, Bonn and Erythrai, within a floruit of c. 670–630, the olpe forming the latest work, c. 650–640 b.c.
Most of the book is dedicated to the iconographic programme of the three friezes. Reading these scenes as reflections of Corinthian social structure, D'A. identifies the lowest fox-hare hunt as ephebes in training (paideia); in the overlying lion hunt and associated procession, two of three classes of adult Corinthian society, the hippeis and chariot owner, who are engaged in the lion hunt; at top, the third class, hoplites, engaged in combat.
D'A. addresses many issues within this framework. Both the lion hunt and hoplite combat become symbols of ‘arete’ and kaloi kai agathoi Corinthioi. The hoplite scene is examined in detail with emphasis on armour and weaponry, especially the use of two spears and no sword. Three moments are reflected in the scene: arming at left, running to engage, followed by the moment before actual engagement. D'A. sees it as a transitional phase in the development of hoplite warfare.
In the middle frieze, three seemingly disparate parts, a procession of horsemen and chariot, double-bodied sphinx possibly identified as a Ker, and lion hunt, are interrelated, the hunters belonging to four led horses and chariot. The lion hunt's meaning is examined and its possible association with Near Eastern imagery, this lion being the earliest example of the so-called ‘Assyrian’ type in Corinthian art. Citing an oracle recorded in Herodotus (5.92), D'A. asks whether the lion represents Cypselus. He rejects both this and the hunt's possible interpretation as a scene of ‘stasis’, preferring to read in them symbols of oligarchical ‘arete’.
The most perplexing aspect of the vase and, perhaps, the least satisfying part of the discussion, is the solitary mythological scene, the judgement of Paris, placed directly under the handle, where least visible. Various interpretations and associations to the other scenes are suggested: it is a paradigm for marital trials, since Aphrodite's promise leads to Troy's destruction; eros in antithesis to the Corinthian world shown in other friezes; young exiled Paris, raised as a shepherd, likened to youthful Cypselus, who grew up in Olympia – this rejected by D.; an indirect association of Aphrodite with war (hoplite combat) through her relation to Ares. Here D'A.'s reference to Pausanias' citation of hoplismene Aphrodite on Acrocorinth is out of place since this is a Roman aspect of the goddess. Comparisons are drawn with Cypselus' chest at Olympia. Perhaps the simplest and most satisfactory of these suggestions is that which draws attention to Aphrodite as Corinth's city goddess.
Another important subject is the relation of the vase-painting to monumental painting. This subject has become more critical, as D'A. rightly shows, with the discovery of the painted hoplite frieze from Kalapodi in Locris. Citing material from Isthmia, Corinth and Thermon, he asks whether, in fact, the vase's themes derived from monumental compositions, whether the artisans were the same, or whether the vase painter was independently inspired. A continuing theme is also the artist's relation to elitist commissions.
In attempting to identify the Chigi painter, D'A. reminds us that some characters in the painted inscriptions in the judgement of Paris are not Corinthian. Although there is no consensus, the letters have been variously identified as Syracusan, Rhodian, Laconian, or an epic form of a non-Ionian dialect. Arguing that painter and ‘writer’ were the same here, D'A. concludes that the painter worked at Corinth, since the clay is clearly Corinthian, but was either born elsewhere or taught writing by a non-Corinthian.
A critical issue is the possible relation between the painting and the fall of the Bacchiads and the possible association of hoplite warfare with the rise of tyrants. While admitting that conclusive evidence is lacking, D'A. prefers to see elements of Bacchiad oligarchic principles in the iconographic details. He suggests that the vase was specially commissioned by a Bacchiad for use in symposia. Its discovery in the Etruscan tumulus raises many interesting speculations: the history of the exiled Bacchiad trader, Demaratus, who brought Corinthian artisans with him; the growing evidence for contact between Etruria and Corinth; elitist commerce. D'A. proposes that an exiled Bacchiad carried the vase to Etruria when Cypselus came to power and gave it to a princely Etruscan, whose family then placed it in the family tumulus no more than 50 years after its production. Alternatively, it could simply have been bought.
D'A.'s book is a fascinating and thorough analysis of one of the most important pieces of early vase painting. He covers many more subjects than can be addressed in a review of this length. His extensive bibliography attests to the breadth of his research, as do his very useful footnotes. There is a helpful English summary and a list of works attributed to the Chigi painter and his circle. This list is then broken down into a table according to scholarly attributions. The colour and black-and-white images are excellent.
I would suggest one small correction to D'A.'s identification of the participants in the lion hunt. Faced with four riderless horses, a chariot driven by a charioteer, and five participants, D'A. identifies the belted figure behind the lion as the owner of the chariot, the belt symbolic of Geometric and Protoarchaic elites. I wonder if the chariot owner, however, is not the last figure to the right. Although largely destroyed, that figure is substantially taller than the other four, and holds two spears in preparation to cast the final blow.
Second, the whole question of the vase's relation to Corinthian monumental painting now has further ramifications, regrettably too late for D'A.'s study. In 1984 in Cheliomodi (Ancient Tenea?) a bulldozer exposed a seventh-century poros sarcophagus, the cover of which is richly painted on its interior with two large-scale lions, standing face-to-face. Now published by E. Korka, ‘Η γραπτή πώρινη Σαρκοϕάγος, Φανερωμένης Χιλιομοδίου Κορινθίας’, in K. Kissas and W.-D. Niemeier (edd.), The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese (2013), 305–11, the lid must be drawn into the discussion.
Throughout his excellent study D'A. consistently makes us aware of the exceptional quality of the vase, its innovative shape and use of polychromy, its unique depiction of a phalanx. Whether or not one accepts all interpretations, and D'A. himself rejects some, the reader is led through a thorough examination of the vase and is encouraged to think less traditionally of the potential interrelation of seemingly disparate scenes on a single vase. By presenting the vase in its mid seventh-century historical context, a period of great change in the city, D'A. raises the question of the possible relation between vase painting and contemporary events. He also gives to Corinthian art, once again, the high tribute it deserves.
