DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0090
7o NATURAL HISTORY
with reverted head, and raised foreleg, appears not to occur on the vases of any
other school. The related design, in which the lions are standing, also appears
to have been current at Corinth.1
A later Corinthian lion, characteristically mannerized (cf. the stone lion
pi. 50, 7) is illustrated in pi. 37,6; on the hydria no. 1449, pi. 37, 3, we have
a direct copy of the Attic type used by Lydos and contemporary painters.
On the popularity of the panther in the Corinthian period, see p. 67. The
name is conventional, and simply implies a leonine animal with a frontal head.
Sometimes this animal is obviously a lion (e.g. on no. 253, where it has a
cross-hatched mane).2 Sometimes the neck is marked with small incised lines
or circles (e.g. pis. 17, 9-10; 22, 4); the lion's mane is never rendered in this
way, and a different animal therefore is intended in these cases: a leopard, no
doubt, when the neck, or the whole body (Corfu pediment, Francois vase &c.)
is marked with circles. Both male and female panthers appear on no. 144.
Boars* bulls,4 stags,5 rams, and goats6 are among the favourite animals of the
late seventh and early sixth centuries; the first four are not found on late
vases, and they are not common on those of the latter part of the middle
period. There is little change in the types.
In contrast with the foregoing, Corinthian horses show a progressive
development in type as time goes on. It is true that this development is
not absolutely consistent, and that very archaic types survive on some sixth-
1 Cf. the lions on the crater of the fat comast movement of these: compare Dugas, Delos x, pi. 61
(pi.44,5; B.C.H. 1895,2276^.) and the bronze mirror and Kinch, Vroulia, passim. Contrast also the soft,
from Corinth, Eph. Arch. 1898, pi. 7, 2 (v. infra slack modelling of East Greek plastic vases (Maxi-
fig. 102); cf. Filow, op. cit. figs. 10, 12, perhaps mova pis. 19 and 23) with the angular Cretan and
also Corinthian. Peloponnesian types (Rev. Arch. 1904, ii, 220
2 Thiersch, p. 102, is misleading on this point. (Buschor, Krokodil 28), and Fouilles, de Delphes
3 Examples: pis. 14, 17, 22-4. Note the resem- iv,pl. 3). The stylization of the dewlap in the Europa
blance between pi. 17, 8 and 13 and the late Proto- metope from Selinus is a regular Corinthian charac-
corinthian pi. 9, 8. An example from a middle teristic: cf. pi. 9, 1, &c.
Corinthian cup, fig. 16, compares interestingly with 5 Pis. 10, 11 bis, &c: usually of the kind identified
a metope of the 'Sicyonian' treasury at Delphi with the red deer; on no. 114 A and on the hunter
(Fouilles de Delphes iv, pi. 3 ; Poulsen Delphi, fig. metope from Thermon we have the Ionian fallow
23), and is a good deal nearer in style to the metope deer with spotted coat. Often there seems to be a
than the Caeretan hydria which has been cited for confusion between the two, for though the coat may
comparison (Loewy, Jahreshefte 1911, 19). Corin- not be spotted, the horns appear to be palmated (cf.
thian boars never show the break in the centre of the pi. 13, 5; 23,4; 29,5). The hornless doe (pis. 8,9;
spinal bristles which, as Furtwangler pointed out (Kl. 10,3) is also aregular motive, especially on late vases.
Schr. i, 488), is characteristic of the Ionian type. The 6 Atypical Corinthian goat is shown in pi. 25,5; the
winged boars and winged bulls of Ionian art are horns are here clearly differentiated from those of the
not found in the orientalizing styles of the mainland. Cretan-Rhodian species. The latter, however, is not
On boar-hunts, see p. 116. infrequent on Corinthian and Protocorinthian vases
4 Examples pis.9,11, 13,21-3,25; on Corinthian, (e.g.pi. 14 or nos. 39,675,688,^.); in this horns are
as on Protocorinthian vases, the type is fixed in this not recurved, and the notches occur at greater inter-
scheme : it reminds one of Aristophanes' ej3\e>pe yovv vals. But the two types are often confused, and in
ravprjSov iyKvtpas Karco. East Greek bulls have such vases as pi. 13, 5 and pi. 16, 4, the artist
neither the massive proportions nor the rhythmical clearly had no distinct form in mind.
with reverted head, and raised foreleg, appears not to occur on the vases of any
other school. The related design, in which the lions are standing, also appears
to have been current at Corinth.1
A later Corinthian lion, characteristically mannerized (cf. the stone lion
pi. 50, 7) is illustrated in pi. 37,6; on the hydria no. 1449, pi. 37, 3, we have
a direct copy of the Attic type used by Lydos and contemporary painters.
On the popularity of the panther in the Corinthian period, see p. 67. The
name is conventional, and simply implies a leonine animal with a frontal head.
Sometimes this animal is obviously a lion (e.g. on no. 253, where it has a
cross-hatched mane).2 Sometimes the neck is marked with small incised lines
or circles (e.g. pis. 17, 9-10; 22, 4); the lion's mane is never rendered in this
way, and a different animal therefore is intended in these cases: a leopard, no
doubt, when the neck, or the whole body (Corfu pediment, Francois vase &c.)
is marked with circles. Both male and female panthers appear on no. 144.
Boars* bulls,4 stags,5 rams, and goats6 are among the favourite animals of the
late seventh and early sixth centuries; the first four are not found on late
vases, and they are not common on those of the latter part of the middle
period. There is little change in the types.
In contrast with the foregoing, Corinthian horses show a progressive
development in type as time goes on. It is true that this development is
not absolutely consistent, and that very archaic types survive on some sixth-
1 Cf. the lions on the crater of the fat comast movement of these: compare Dugas, Delos x, pi. 61
(pi.44,5; B.C.H. 1895,2276^.) and the bronze mirror and Kinch, Vroulia, passim. Contrast also the soft,
from Corinth, Eph. Arch. 1898, pi. 7, 2 (v. infra slack modelling of East Greek plastic vases (Maxi-
fig. 102); cf. Filow, op. cit. figs. 10, 12, perhaps mova pis. 19 and 23) with the angular Cretan and
also Corinthian. Peloponnesian types (Rev. Arch. 1904, ii, 220
2 Thiersch, p. 102, is misleading on this point. (Buschor, Krokodil 28), and Fouilles, de Delphes
3 Examples: pis. 14, 17, 22-4. Note the resem- iv,pl. 3). The stylization of the dewlap in the Europa
blance between pi. 17, 8 and 13 and the late Proto- metope from Selinus is a regular Corinthian charac-
corinthian pi. 9, 8. An example from a middle teristic: cf. pi. 9, 1, &c.
Corinthian cup, fig. 16, compares interestingly with 5 Pis. 10, 11 bis, &c: usually of the kind identified
a metope of the 'Sicyonian' treasury at Delphi with the red deer; on no. 114 A and on the hunter
(Fouilles de Delphes iv, pi. 3 ; Poulsen Delphi, fig. metope from Thermon we have the Ionian fallow
23), and is a good deal nearer in style to the metope deer with spotted coat. Often there seems to be a
than the Caeretan hydria which has been cited for confusion between the two, for though the coat may
comparison (Loewy, Jahreshefte 1911, 19). Corin- not be spotted, the horns appear to be palmated (cf.
thian boars never show the break in the centre of the pi. 13, 5; 23,4; 29,5). The hornless doe (pis. 8,9;
spinal bristles which, as Furtwangler pointed out (Kl. 10,3) is also aregular motive, especially on late vases.
Schr. i, 488), is characteristic of the Ionian type. The 6 Atypical Corinthian goat is shown in pi. 25,5; the
winged boars and winged bulls of Ionian art are horns are here clearly differentiated from those of the
not found in the orientalizing styles of the mainland. Cretan-Rhodian species. The latter, however, is not
On boar-hunts, see p. 116. infrequent on Corinthian and Protocorinthian vases
4 Examples pis.9,11, 13,21-3,25; on Corinthian, (e.g.pi. 14 or nos. 39,675,688,^.); in this horns are
as on Protocorinthian vases, the type is fixed in this not recurved, and the notches occur at greater inter-
scheme : it reminds one of Aristophanes' ej3\e>pe yovv vals. But the two types are often confused, and in
ravprjSov iyKvtpas Karco. East Greek bulls have such vases as pi. 13, 5 and pi. 16, 4, the artist
neither the massive proportions nor the rhythmical clearly had no distinct form in mind.