DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0061
PROTOCORINTHIAN AND CORINTHIAN 41
of vase fabrics, Rhodian, Cycladic, Attic, Etruscan, and the like, which really
do show Corinthian influence—and these tell a very different story. Further,
there is a certain a priori improbability in the view that Corinth was content
to transmit to Sicyon the exotic material on which the orientalizing style is
based, import the Sicyonian products, and then carry them overseas (for
no one doubts that it was Corinthian, not Sicyonian, trade which was
responsible for the distribution of Protocorinthian pottery)—and this when
Corinth was the home of a famous school of primitive painting. I mention
these points not as proofs that the separatist theory is mistaken—that seems
to me to follow from much stronger arguments—but to show that it in-
volves difficulties which have not, perhaps, met with the recognition they
deserve.
I have little doubt that at the back of the belief that the Protocorinthian style
does not belong to Corinth lies a difficulty in imagining that the minute and
exquisite drawing of Protocorinthian vases could really be connected with
the broader, showier, and far less careful tradition which is characteristic of
the 'Corinthian' period. But this is an objection which cannot be justified by
a detailed study either of the Protocorinthian, or of the Corinthian, series.
For there are Protocorinthian vases quite as rough in execution as the
roughest Corinthian,1 and there are Corinthian which are at least as fine, if
not as minute, as the average production of the earlier period:2 the difference
in quality therefore does not hold good as a distinction between the two
fabrics. And to object that the Protocorinthian vases could not have been
made at Corinth because their style is in many ways more attractive than that
of the 'Corinthian' series, is idle. The two groups belong to different periods,
and they reflect the taste and the point of view of different periods. That the
Corinthian style was immensely admired throughout the Greek world is
proved by the innumerable imitations of Corinthian vases which were made
in Attica, Boeotia, the islands, Eastern Greece, and the far west, often to the
detriment, and sometimes to the ruin, of the native tradition. And do we
not find an exactly analogous phenomenon in Attica ? Does any one suppose
that the bowl with Perseus, in Berlin, which has animal friezes of a kind
closely akin to Protocorinthian, could not be Attic because the animals are
better than those of any Vourva vases ? In its extreme form, this argument
seizes the contrast between the Chigi vase and some ordinary Corinthian
piece, as proof that the two styles have no connexion. This procedure can
to be interpreted as a small part of the development 1 Cf. for instance Johansen pi. 20, 2; pi. 24, 1-3,
from the simplicity of Protocorinthian painting to especially 2; pi. 29, 2 which looks far neater in the
the complexity of Corinthian. The tripartite wing drawing than it deserves.
and incised belly-stripe can also be traced far back 2 Cf. pi. 31, 1, 5-8. These vases are both made
into the pre-Corinthian period: cf. pi. 4, 2 and, for and decorated with precisely the same finish as
the latter, pi. 3, 2 (further Johansen pis. 26, 4; 28, 2 Protocorinthian.
and p. 137).
3575 r
of vase fabrics, Rhodian, Cycladic, Attic, Etruscan, and the like, which really
do show Corinthian influence—and these tell a very different story. Further,
there is a certain a priori improbability in the view that Corinth was content
to transmit to Sicyon the exotic material on which the orientalizing style is
based, import the Sicyonian products, and then carry them overseas (for
no one doubts that it was Corinthian, not Sicyonian, trade which was
responsible for the distribution of Protocorinthian pottery)—and this when
Corinth was the home of a famous school of primitive painting. I mention
these points not as proofs that the separatist theory is mistaken—that seems
to me to follow from much stronger arguments—but to show that it in-
volves difficulties which have not, perhaps, met with the recognition they
deserve.
I have little doubt that at the back of the belief that the Protocorinthian style
does not belong to Corinth lies a difficulty in imagining that the minute and
exquisite drawing of Protocorinthian vases could really be connected with
the broader, showier, and far less careful tradition which is characteristic of
the 'Corinthian' period. But this is an objection which cannot be justified by
a detailed study either of the Protocorinthian, or of the Corinthian, series.
For there are Protocorinthian vases quite as rough in execution as the
roughest Corinthian,1 and there are Corinthian which are at least as fine, if
not as minute, as the average production of the earlier period:2 the difference
in quality therefore does not hold good as a distinction between the two
fabrics. And to object that the Protocorinthian vases could not have been
made at Corinth because their style is in many ways more attractive than that
of the 'Corinthian' series, is idle. The two groups belong to different periods,
and they reflect the taste and the point of view of different periods. That the
Corinthian style was immensely admired throughout the Greek world is
proved by the innumerable imitations of Corinthian vases which were made
in Attica, Boeotia, the islands, Eastern Greece, and the far west, often to the
detriment, and sometimes to the ruin, of the native tradition. And do we
not find an exactly analogous phenomenon in Attica ? Does any one suppose
that the bowl with Perseus, in Berlin, which has animal friezes of a kind
closely akin to Protocorinthian, could not be Attic because the animals are
better than those of any Vourva vases ? In its extreme form, this argument
seizes the contrast between the Chigi vase and some ordinary Corinthian
piece, as proof that the two styles have no connexion. This procedure can
to be interpreted as a small part of the development 1 Cf. for instance Johansen pi. 20, 2; pi. 24, 1-3,
from the simplicity of Protocorinthian painting to especially 2; pi. 29, 2 which looks far neater in the
the complexity of Corinthian. The tripartite wing drawing than it deserves.
and incised belly-stripe can also be traced far back 2 Cf. pi. 31, 1, 5-8. These vases are both made
into the pre-Corinthian period: cf. pi. 4, 2 and, for and decorated with precisely the same finish as
the latter, pi. 3, 2 (further Johansen pis. 26, 4; 28, 2 Protocorinthian.
and p. 137).
3575 r