DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0066
46 THE EARLY CORINTHIAN ORIENTALIZING STYLE
late Corinthian involves no progress in this sense, merely a difference in
point of view. If archaic art is interesting simply as showing various degrees
of understanding, or misunderstanding, of natural forms, the history of the
Corinthian orientalizing style is therefore a matter of little importance; if,
on the other hand, particular styles are valuable for their own positive
qualities, it may, perhaps, claim a certain interest. The fact that many of the
late vases are works of little intrinsic importance does not affect the general
principle involved: even confections like those illustrated in pi. 36 have an
interest as the expression of a particular period, and as one stage in the history
of a great tradition.
Let us begin by comparing the early Corinthian group with the Transi-
tional. It is evident, at a glance, that the new style brings a new conception
of the relation between the design and the space which it fills. The beginning
of the change can be traced back to the end of the Transitional period, when,
as we have seen, small alabastra were normally decorated with a single design
which spreads over the whole surface, instead of with a narrow frieze of
animals running round the centre of the vase.1 In the early Corinthian
period, the same principle is applied to large vases. Large alabastra and
aryballoi are now regularly enveloped in a single design, and on oinochoai,
where the frieze system is retained, the divisions of the vase are much wider
in proportion than before. In late Protocorinthian and Transitional oino-
choai, the animal-friezes are invariably very narrow: where there are two
animal-friezes, these always occupy less than half the surface of the vase (cf.nos.
144-5,15^)- The artist clearly has a definite idea of the right relation between
the size of the figures and size of the whole vase. The Corinthian artist has a
different system of proportions; if, indeed, he can be said to have a system at
all. For we find aryballoi and alabastra with a single spreading design (cf. pis.
18; 23, 2), olpai with two broad friezes occupying the greater part of the vase (pi.
21,1, 9), and, side by side with these, vases like the amphora pi. 23,5, divided
into a number of comparatively narrow bands. But there is consistence in one
thing; the friezes are almost invariably fewer, and consequently larger, than is
usual in the Protocorinthian or Transitional periods.2 This is a point of some
importance,for the narrow friezes which we find in Protocorinthian andTran-
head of the sphinx in pi. 37,2 (late Corinthian) with
that of pi. 2i, 2, 7 or 9 (early).
1 Cf. p. 18 supra, where attention is drawn to an ana-
logous change in the decoration of pointed aryballoi.
2 The olpe in Madrid, no. 767, has five friezes, but
the vase is abnormally large—55 cms. high. The
area covered by these five friezes is nearly 40 cms.:
in the Transitional olpe no. 146, which is typical of
the whole class, four friezes are required to cover a
height of about 20 cms. It is quite certain that if
the olpe in Madrid, the amphora pi. 23, 5, and the
jug no. 1095 had been painted by late Proto-
corinthian artists, they would have carried eight or
nine friezes at least. It is worth remarking that the
Corinthian animal friezes tend to absorb the patterns
which were a prominent feature of the earlier vases;
thus there are few Corinthian oinochoai with
animal friezes, and with the tongue pattern on the
shoulder as well: but the result is not that there are
more friezes, simply that they are larger than before.
if
Coring
pat pro
vases,
fi follow t|
fbeseen,
late Corinthian involves no progress in this sense, merely a difference in
point of view. If archaic art is interesting simply as showing various degrees
of understanding, or misunderstanding, of natural forms, the history of the
Corinthian orientalizing style is therefore a matter of little importance; if,
on the other hand, particular styles are valuable for their own positive
qualities, it may, perhaps, claim a certain interest. The fact that many of the
late vases are works of little intrinsic importance does not affect the general
principle involved: even confections like those illustrated in pi. 36 have an
interest as the expression of a particular period, and as one stage in the history
of a great tradition.
Let us begin by comparing the early Corinthian group with the Transi-
tional. It is evident, at a glance, that the new style brings a new conception
of the relation between the design and the space which it fills. The beginning
of the change can be traced back to the end of the Transitional period, when,
as we have seen, small alabastra were normally decorated with a single design
which spreads over the whole surface, instead of with a narrow frieze of
animals running round the centre of the vase.1 In the early Corinthian
period, the same principle is applied to large vases. Large alabastra and
aryballoi are now regularly enveloped in a single design, and on oinochoai,
where the frieze system is retained, the divisions of the vase are much wider
in proportion than before. In late Protocorinthian and Transitional oino-
choai, the animal-friezes are invariably very narrow: where there are two
animal-friezes, these always occupy less than half the surface of the vase (cf.nos.
144-5,15^)- The artist clearly has a definite idea of the right relation between
the size of the figures and size of the whole vase. The Corinthian artist has a
different system of proportions; if, indeed, he can be said to have a system at
all. For we find aryballoi and alabastra with a single spreading design (cf. pis.
18; 23, 2), olpai with two broad friezes occupying the greater part of the vase (pi.
21,1, 9), and, side by side with these, vases like the amphora pi. 23,5, divided
into a number of comparatively narrow bands. But there is consistence in one
thing; the friezes are almost invariably fewer, and consequently larger, than is
usual in the Protocorinthian or Transitional periods.2 This is a point of some
importance,for the narrow friezes which we find in Protocorinthian andTran-
head of the sphinx in pi. 37,2 (late Corinthian) with
that of pi. 2i, 2, 7 or 9 (early).
1 Cf. p. 18 supra, where attention is drawn to an ana-
logous change in the decoration of pointed aryballoi.
2 The olpe in Madrid, no. 767, has five friezes, but
the vase is abnormally large—55 cms. high. The
area covered by these five friezes is nearly 40 cms.:
in the Transitional olpe no. 146, which is typical of
the whole class, four friezes are required to cover a
height of about 20 cms. It is quite certain that if
the olpe in Madrid, the amphora pi. 23, 5, and the
jug no. 1095 had been painted by late Proto-
corinthian artists, they would have carried eight or
nine friezes at least. It is worth remarking that the
Corinthian animal friezes tend to absorb the patterns
which were a prominent feature of the earlier vases;
thus there are few Corinthian oinochoai with
animal friezes, and with the tongue pattern on the
shoulder as well: but the result is not that there are
more friezes, simply that they are larger than before.
if
Coring
pat pro
vases,
fi follow t|
fbeseen,