DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0252
XVI
CORINTHIAN SCULPTURE
IT will, I think, be some little while before we can form a clear and com-
prehensive idea of the sculptural style of Corinth. At present we can define
certain groups of works as Corinthian, and with these as a basis we can form
a general idea of the Corinthian tradition as a whole. But a picture obtained
by these means will certainly err on the side of formality, and will almost in-
evitably exclude much that we should find to be Corinthian if Corinth had
suffered less, and had been more completely explored. But it is better to exclude
too much than too little, and I shall therefore confine myself to a consideration
of works which are connected with Corinth by definite evidence of some kind.
The first systematic attempt to distinguish Corinthian sculpture from that
of Sicyon, Argos, and other Peloponnesian schools, was made by Langlotz
in his recent book Friihgriechische Bildhauerschulen. A number of related
works are there collected, several of them clearly embodying a single tradition
and these are no doubt representative of one school. It cannot be proved that
this school was Corinthian, though there is reason to regard this as very prob-
able. Langlotz's Corinthian group is, however, the product of a short period-,
the earliest works belong to the later sixth century, the latest to the middle of
the fifth. The Corfu sculptures are, it is true, recognized as Corinthian, but
they are placed in the seventh century, and, we are told, there is no certain
evidence for the style of the intervening period. Langlotz is not primarily
concerned with the most primitive styles, and this attitude towards the
earlier Corinthian material is therefore, perhaps, not unnatural. The fact
remains, however, that it implies an inversion of the real condition of our
knowledge. The century from 650-550 B.C. is the one which has left us a
rich series of unquestionably Corinthian works; from the succeeding period
we have comparatively little that is quite certainly Corinthian.
The early material is almost entirely of clay; it consists primarily of the
female heads which form the handles of Corinthian pyxides, but there is much
important supplementary material: Protocorinthian vases with plastic heads,
and Corinthian plastic vases such as the fat comast illustrated on pis. 44,5; 48,
14-15. These areallworkson a modest scale,but are they insignificant for that
reason ? Are they not quite as good evidence of sculptural style as bronzes like
that illustrated in pi. 46, 2? True, they are incomplete, and the bronzes are
full figures; but what there is, is far more sharply characterized, and therefore
tells more of the contemporary tradition. I find it hard to believe that heads
like those of pis. 47-8, would not have been recognized as having a distinct
importance, if only they had been larger, and made of stone or bronze.
As it is, scarcely any of them have ever been published so that its sculptural
character could be fully appreciated.
CORINTHIAN SCULPTURE
IT will, I think, be some little while before we can form a clear and com-
prehensive idea of the sculptural style of Corinth. At present we can define
certain groups of works as Corinthian, and with these as a basis we can form
a general idea of the Corinthian tradition as a whole. But a picture obtained
by these means will certainly err on the side of formality, and will almost in-
evitably exclude much that we should find to be Corinthian if Corinth had
suffered less, and had been more completely explored. But it is better to exclude
too much than too little, and I shall therefore confine myself to a consideration
of works which are connected with Corinth by definite evidence of some kind.
The first systematic attempt to distinguish Corinthian sculpture from that
of Sicyon, Argos, and other Peloponnesian schools, was made by Langlotz
in his recent book Friihgriechische Bildhauerschulen. A number of related
works are there collected, several of them clearly embodying a single tradition
and these are no doubt representative of one school. It cannot be proved that
this school was Corinthian, though there is reason to regard this as very prob-
able. Langlotz's Corinthian group is, however, the product of a short period-,
the earliest works belong to the later sixth century, the latest to the middle of
the fifth. The Corfu sculptures are, it is true, recognized as Corinthian, but
they are placed in the seventh century, and, we are told, there is no certain
evidence for the style of the intervening period. Langlotz is not primarily
concerned with the most primitive styles, and this attitude towards the
earlier Corinthian material is therefore, perhaps, not unnatural. The fact
remains, however, that it implies an inversion of the real condition of our
knowledge. The century from 650-550 B.C. is the one which has left us a
rich series of unquestionably Corinthian works; from the succeeding period
we have comparatively little that is quite certainly Corinthian.
The early material is almost entirely of clay; it consists primarily of the
female heads which form the handles of Corinthian pyxides, but there is much
important supplementary material: Protocorinthian vases with plastic heads,
and Corinthian plastic vases such as the fat comast illustrated on pis. 44,5; 48,
14-15. These areallworkson a modest scale,but are they insignificant for that
reason ? Are they not quite as good evidence of sculptural style as bronzes like
that illustrated in pi. 46, 2? True, they are incomplete, and the bronzes are
full figures; but what there is, is far more sharply characterized, and therefore
tells more of the contemporary tradition. I find it hard to believe that heads
like those of pis. 47-8, would not have been recognized as having a distinct
importance, if only they had been larger, and made of stone or bronze.
As it is, scarcely any of them have ever been published so that its sculptural
character could be fully appreciated.