DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0056
36 THE RELATION BETWEEN
be understood. So long as it is possible to point to vases like those illustrated
in pi. 36 as typical examples of the 'Corinthian style', and consequently to use
these as evidence of the difference between Protocorinthian and Corinthian,
the issue must inevitably be confused. It is only when we realize that pi. 36
represents a phase long after the Protocorinthian had passed away, and that
the earliest Corinthian vases are inextricably bound up with the Transitional,
and, through these, with the Protocorinthian, that we are in a position to
face the problem of the relation between the Protocorinthian and Corin-
thian styles.
The case for the separate origin of the Protocorinthian style has received
its most detailed exposition, and its ablest defence, in Johansen's book; in
taking that work, therefore, as embodying the point of view of those who hold
the 'separatist' theory, I shall admittedly be meeting the argument in its most
convincing form. Let us, therefore, make a brief survey of the position
adopted by Johansen.
After the middle of the seventh century, it is said, the Protocorinthian style
undergoes various changes, and certain decorative motives and forms of
composition which are characteristic of Corinthian vase-painting appear.
As the period in question is that which saw the rise of the Corinthian school,
it is inferred that the Protocorinthian style is falling under Corinthian in-
fluence. The Corinthian school, the hallmark of which is the decoration of
the field with 'solid', incised, rosettes, instead of with linear filling ornaments,
is something 'new and original':1 it begins in the latest Protocorinthian
period, but it is not a development of the Protocorinthian—a 'direct con-
tinuation', to borrow Johansen's words again2—and since the origin of the
'Corinthian' vases is fixed beyond the possibility of doubt at Corinth, the
origin of the Protocorinthian series must be sought in another centre.
Technical considerations, and the admitted stylistic connexion with Corin-
thian pottery, make it quite certain that this centre must be in the North-
eastern Peloponnese, and the attribution to Sicyon, which was first made by
Loeschcke, and which is widely supported, appears to receive striking con-
firmation from the occurrence of a Sicyonian epsilon on a Protocorinthian
fragment.
There is no doubt that the view outlined above is attractive: it seems to
account for the similarities, and for the differences, between Protocorinthian
and Corinthian pottery, and it offers an easy solution of the apparently abrupt
end of the Protocorinthian industry; for if Corinth and Sicyon were to become
nvals, it would be only natural that Corinthian wares, backed by the most power-
ful commercial system of the time, should ultimately drive the others from the
field. And yet, attractive as it is, the 'separatist' theory fails in one essential
respect—namely to account for all the evidence which arises from a study of
1 Johansen p. 168. 2 p>
be understood. So long as it is possible to point to vases like those illustrated
in pi. 36 as typical examples of the 'Corinthian style', and consequently to use
these as evidence of the difference between Protocorinthian and Corinthian,
the issue must inevitably be confused. It is only when we realize that pi. 36
represents a phase long after the Protocorinthian had passed away, and that
the earliest Corinthian vases are inextricably bound up with the Transitional,
and, through these, with the Protocorinthian, that we are in a position to
face the problem of the relation between the Protocorinthian and Corin-
thian styles.
The case for the separate origin of the Protocorinthian style has received
its most detailed exposition, and its ablest defence, in Johansen's book; in
taking that work, therefore, as embodying the point of view of those who hold
the 'separatist' theory, I shall admittedly be meeting the argument in its most
convincing form. Let us, therefore, make a brief survey of the position
adopted by Johansen.
After the middle of the seventh century, it is said, the Protocorinthian style
undergoes various changes, and certain decorative motives and forms of
composition which are characteristic of Corinthian vase-painting appear.
As the period in question is that which saw the rise of the Corinthian school,
it is inferred that the Protocorinthian style is falling under Corinthian in-
fluence. The Corinthian school, the hallmark of which is the decoration of
the field with 'solid', incised, rosettes, instead of with linear filling ornaments,
is something 'new and original':1 it begins in the latest Protocorinthian
period, but it is not a development of the Protocorinthian—a 'direct con-
tinuation', to borrow Johansen's words again2—and since the origin of the
'Corinthian' vases is fixed beyond the possibility of doubt at Corinth, the
origin of the Protocorinthian series must be sought in another centre.
Technical considerations, and the admitted stylistic connexion with Corin-
thian pottery, make it quite certain that this centre must be in the North-
eastern Peloponnese, and the attribution to Sicyon, which was first made by
Loeschcke, and which is widely supported, appears to receive striking con-
firmation from the occurrence of a Sicyonian epsilon on a Protocorinthian
fragment.
There is no doubt that the view outlined above is attractive: it seems to
account for the similarities, and for the differences, between Protocorinthian
and Corinthian pottery, and it offers an easy solution of the apparently abrupt
end of the Protocorinthian industry; for if Corinth and Sicyon were to become
nvals, it would be only natural that Corinthian wares, backed by the most power-
ful commercial system of the time, should ultimately drive the others from the
field. And yet, attractive as it is, the 'separatist' theory fails in one essential
respect—namely to account for all the evidence which arises from a study of
1 Johansen p. 168. 2 p>