n - Historia Antigua

100 lllE ATTIC PYXIS 101
ring rom diffel1i in that its outer contour is straight and the line
tram its apex slants upward to the edge of the flange as in Berlin
JJ08. The knob h conical. The framing elements 3rc similar in
Iype and placement 10 the other ,oases of the class. The body is
lomall and sqU31. the diameter al the rim being 0.084, slightly
greater than the height of 0.082. In proportions. the body thus
resembles London E 773 (no. 2). The artist is an unnamed
follower of Douris. The vase was dated to ca. 470 B.C. by
Kiibler,lJ Judging by the profile and framing elements and
especially by the palmette scroll on the lid (discussed below), the
date should he slightly later, perhaps around 460 a.c. not 50 far
removed from the date of the London pyxidcs. The running pose
of the Nereids with the forward fOOl off the ground gh'~s an
earlier feeling to the style than the static positions of the figures
in London E 773 and E 772. This is lhe conventional running
ruse employed by Oouris for his Ncreids On cup exteriurs with
representations of the struggle of Pelculo llnd ThetisY The Early
Cla~loical folluwers of Douris adopt this cOlwentiulI for loimilar
reprcscntations on p)'xides. The figures of Nereids and also of
Peleus on a pyxis in Munich (no. 8)1!i and another in
Copenhagen ll by the Painter of Villa Giulia should be compared.
A noticeable differenc~ may be seen in the treatm~nt of the
drapery. The zigzag lower edg~ of th~ drapery in the representations
of running Nereids by Oouds is replaced by a simple wavy
line or series of arcs by the followers of Oouds in response to the
advance of naturalism in the treatment of drapery of the timeY
No. 8. Munich (ex von Schoen). is smaller and som~what
squalter than th~ other pyxides of the class. The lid is missing,
giving the pyxis a strongly d~apitated aspect panicularly since
the side of th~ lid probably was decorated with a tongue and dot
patlern to match that below the frieze. The concav~ curve of the
hody is normal for the class. The outer contour of the low gla7.ed
foot is convex but notched thrice. which makes it uncanonical.
Huwever. when one considers the height. the profile of the fool
and lhe fact that it is glazed. the nOlching may be thought of as a
,ariation perhaps under the influence of the contemporary
Penthesilea Workshop. The subject maller is mylhological as on all
\'alo~ 01 thc class. rhe slory of Peleus and Thetis is a favorile and
most 'lppropriate as decoration fur vases used by women primarily
for their adornment. The m)1hologicaltale of marriage by capture
adorn~ t"o other \3.!>CS of the class. no. 5lPI. 64).11 no. 6 and one 10
be \'·ompan:d. C0tK'nhagen 4735 by th~ Villa Giulia Paint~r. The
\3.se has been datcd ca. 460 B.e. by Lullies ll and ca. 450 B.e. by
Schclold. 1O
rhe ppis Cambridge 19.1.1.1 (no. 6. PI. 65.2) poses sC\'cral
lhflicult questions. It is attributed to Ihe manner of Oouris and is
{,;ldier than the other ,'ases of the class. dating ca. 470 B.C. ll The
p'aintcr is nearer in style and time to th~ late work.s of Oouris.
Ncrcids arc figured in the frieze. and on~ runs in the cOh"entional
manner described abme with the forv.·ard foot in Ih~ air. Th~ ba.se
line of the chiIon i.s \Io'avy as is normal in th~ Early Classical
period. bUI the further edge of the garment i.s shown. an arehaism
lot the limen and a trait not seen in olher depictions of Nereids
on \';lSCS of this class.
Thc \':\se is small. m~asuring 0.08 in height. and so quite
canonical for the class. The canonical knob though brok~n
seemed to Miss Lamb to belong to Ih~ vase and its shape. though.
more sknder. rescmbks the C~ranlicus ppis (PI. M). The
pla\'"Cm~nt and choice of uniform patterns of tongue and dot to
frame the frieze are usual. The low. ring foot is more pronounced
in the convexity of its contour than the twO Lllndlln pyxides (nos.
2 and 3), but olherwise is similar in pro£i1e. The foot is resen'ed
which is unusual. The concave curv~ of the walls is slightly deeper
than the rule. The va.se lhen appears to be the earliest member of
the class followed about fifteen years lal~r by London E 772 and
E 773. the Ceramicus pyxis and Berlin 3308. It leads one 10
inquire ~hether th~ type could have originated in the workshop of
Douris. There is liule e"idence but the little there is does not
..eem to support this conclusion. There is only onc fragmentary
pyxis. type A. presen'ed from Ihe hand of Oouds. London E 807.
The fragment presen'es th~ inset flange. a moulding below Ihis
and a small portion of th~ friez~.l) Th~ band of ~gg pattern abov~
the frieze is an unusual pattern for the class and its placement is
uncanonical. In addition the projecting moulding is nOI a feature