Chapter III., regarding the use of clay in general in classical times.

But there are some features of work in terracotta which are peculiar to this people. For their extensive use of this material we are quite prepared by the evidence of the pottery found in their tombs, which shows that they understood the processes of manufacture perfectly, even if they failed in their attempts at decoration. As we shall see, they employed it constantly, not only for finer works of art, but for ordinary and more utilitarian purposes. This we know not only from the existing remains, but from many passages of ancient writers, who speak of the Etruscan preference for clay and their skill in its use. Pliny, in particular, speaks of the art of modelling in clay as “brought to perfection in Italy, and especially in Etruria.”[2337] He attributes its introduction to the three craftsmen whom Demaratos brought with him from Corinth in the seventh century B.C.—Eucheir, Eugrammos, and Diopos—whom he styles _fictores_.[2338] This story of its origin need not, of course, be implicitly believed; nor, on the other hand, need the statement of Tatian,[2339] who, followed in modern times by Campana and other Italian writers, claimed for Italy a priority over Greece in the art of making terracotta figures. For their statues the Etruscans certainly seem to have preferred clay to any other material. Although few of these have descended to us, there are many passages in Roman literature which imply their excellence, and it is chiefly from these that our knowledge of Etruscan statues in terracotta is derived. The Romans, unable themselves to execute such works, were obliged to employ Etruscan artists for the decoration of their temples, as in the notable instance of that of Jupiter on the Capitol. A certain Volca of Veii[2340] was employed by Tarquinius Priscus, about 509 B.C., to make the statue of the god, which was of colossal proportions, and was painted vermilion, the colour being solemnly renewed from time to time. The same artist made the famous chariot on the pediment of the temple, which, instead of contracting in the furnace, swelled to such an extent that the roof had to be taken off. This circumstance was held to prognosticate the future greatness of Rome.[2341] Volca also made a figure of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, and we read that Numa consecrated a statue of Janus[2342]; but the material in the latter case is not actually specified as terracotta. Pliny goes on to say that such statues existed in many places even in his day. He also speaks of numerous temples in Rome and other towns with remarkable sculptured pediments and cornices; the existing remains of some of these will presently be discussed. There is no doubt that the use of terracotta for the external decoration of temples was even more general in Etruria than in Greece; and, whereas in Greece it ceased in the fifth century, in Etruria it lasted down to Roman times. The use of bricks in Etruria seems to have belonged entirely to the time when it had lost its independence, under Roman dominion. For instance, the brick walls of Arretium, which are highly spoken of by Pliny and Vitruvius,[2343] do not belong to the Etruscan, but to the later city; and although Gell alleged that he saw tufa walls with a substructure of tiling at Veii, Dennis sought for these in vain[2344]; even a pier of a bridge resting on tiles which he found there proved to be later work. For buildings and for tombs the principal material seems to have been tufa, but the tiles of the roofs were probably of terracotta, as were sometimes those used for covering tombs.[2345] Etruscan temples were also largely built of wood, with a covering of terracotta slabs, as the evidence of recent excavations shows. This method of decoration, which, as we saw in a previous chapter (Vol. I. p. 100), was largely practised in Italy and Sicily, and even spread thence to Greece, as at Olympia, is not alluded to by Vitruvius in his description of Etruscan temples (iv. 7), although he speaks of the wooden construction of the roofs; but he alludes to _antepagmenta_ fixed on the front of the temples, which may refer to the terracotta slabs.[2346] Earlier restorations made after his descriptions are imperfect in this respect, only regarding construction and not decorative effect.[2347] It is at any rate clear that the roof had a pediment on the front only, the other three sides projecting over and forming eaves, round which hung the pendent slabs (see below); they were not required in front because of the portico. Araeostyle temples, the same writer tells us, had wooden architraves and pediments, ornamented with sculpture in terracotta. The cinerary urns often supply evidence as to the construction of the roofs, with their exact imitation of tiles. We have now remains of at least four temples built in this method, or, rather, of their terracotta decoration: from Cervetri in Berlin, from Civita Lavinia in the British Museum (Plates II.-III.), from Alatri (1882), and from Falerii or Civita Castellana (1886).[2348] Other remains of architectural terracotta work come from Orvieto,[2349] Pitigliano,[2350] and Luni (see below), and from Conca or Satricum,[2351] the latter being chiefly antefixal ornaments of the ordinary Italian types. The Cervetri remains consist of roof-tiles, antefixal ornaments with figures in relief in front, and friezes with chariots and warriors.[2352] Portions of a similar frieze from the same site are in the British Museum,[2353] as are also three antefixes in the same style as one in Berlin from Cervetri (Plate LIX.).[2354] They belong to the fifth century, and illustrate a later development from the ordinary archaic type—idealised female heads or heads of Satyrs with rich polychrome decoration. Another example in Berlin appears to represent Juno Sospita.[2355] The friezes are a good example of the Italo-Ionic style of the end of the sixth century, the points of comparison with the Chalcidian and other B.F. vases being particularly noteworthy.[2356] But for information on the form of the Etruscan temple these are too fragmentary to be of any use. The remains from Alatri, Civita Castellana, and Civita Lavinia are much more illuminating. The last-named, of which some description has already been given (Vol. I. p. 101), are partly archaic, partly of the fourth century, the two former wholly of the later date; but allowing for differences of style, the general arrangement was in all cases practically the same. The front of the temple was in the form of a pediment supported on columns, with ornamental raking cornices, and _akroteria_ in the form of figures or groups. Along the sides and back ran gutters, with lion-head spouts at intervals, faced by upright cornices, with pendent plates of terracotta, or “barge-boards” hanging free and ornamented with patterns in relief. These were for protection against weather, like the edgings to the roofs of Swiss châlets and modern railway stations. The practice was quite un-Greek, and peculiar to Etruria. The antefixal ornaments were continued along the sides above the cornice. The architraves were also ornamented with terracotta slabs, on which were palmette patterns; and thus the whole formed a rich and continuous system of terracotta plating which completely covered the woodwork of the architraves and roof. All the slabs were ornamented with coloured patterns in relief, or simply painted on a white slip, such as maeanders, tongue, scale-pattern, lotos-flowers, or various forms of the palmette. * * * * * ------------------------------------------------------ PLATE LIX [Illustration: