DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0253
CORINTHIAN SCULPTURE 233
Besides these, we have several other important clay heads of much larger size
—sphinx-heads and antefixes from various sites, notably Thermon, Calydon,
and Thebes—and complete figures of stone, in the pediment from Corfu and
the Apollo of Tenea. That these, like the small clay heads just mentioned,
are authentic examples of Corinthian sculpture, cannot be doubted; there is
still much that we do not know—we have not a single complete female figure
(save the Corcyrean gorgon!)—but there is surely enough to tell us something
definite of the Corinthian style before the middle of the sixth century.
We begin, as usual, with Protocorinthian work of developed style, with the
group of vases of which an admirable example is illustrated in pis. 1,8-11; 47,4-5 •
There is much to be said about the plastic heads of these vases which cannot be
said here, since this is no place for a history of Daedalic sculpture. Suffice it
to say that this style, which has rightly been compared with the fragmentary
' pediment' from Mycenae (detail pi. 47,3)/differs slightly, though consistently,
from the early Cretan style whence it is derived, and from the other principal
groups of Daedalic sculpture, the Laconian and the early Rhodian.2 The
schemes employed in all these schools are often virtually identical, but the
Protocorinthian alone is free from the uncouthness of most primitive plastic
work. In pi. 47, 1-2, I show details of two Cretan terra-cotta plaques, one
in Oxford (Poulsen, Orient, 148, fig. 173), the other in the Louvre (Miiller,
Friihe Plastik, pi. 30, 333), which throw into sharp relief the precision and
accomplishment of the Protocorinthian work.3
Let us notice one or two of the essential points of the Protocorinthian
heads: first, that the head when seen in side view is unnaturally flat. Now
there is no reason why this should be so. The Louvre head pi. 47, 4-5 was
made to be seen from all points of view, and the head from Mycenae is part of
a 'high relief— for other fragments of relief from the same series are modelled
in the round. The flatness is therefore not the result of technical considera-
tions : it is simply part of the style. As we trace the history of this tradition
we shall notice a growing ability to conceive the head as a solid in a three-
dimensional space. Secondly, the curious treatment of the fringe of hair. It
is remarkable, is it not, that it cuts straight across the head immediately above
the eyes. This again is clearly a part of the Protocorinthian tradition. It
might seem that in the head pi. 47,4-5 the artist has been constrained by the
1 Jahrbuch 1901, 18 ff.; Poulsen, Orient 150; A.M. as it is sometimes shown.
1914, pp. 251, 3 figs. 9, 11. Most authorities speak 2 On Rhodian Daedalic, see V.Miiller in Berl. Mus.
of this head as part of a metope, but Koch (A.M. Ber. 1923, 28 ff.; Laconian Daedalic heads are often
1914, 251, note) says that it is from a pediment; indistinguishable from Cretan,
this has been explicitly contradicted (Montuoro, 3 I would suggest that a comparison of pi. 47,2 with
Mem. Ac. Line. 1925, 314, note 1), yet it is im- the bronze kouros from Delphi (F. de D. v, pi. 3;
possible to make sure which explanation is right. Uxkull, Arch. Plastik fig. 25) is sufficient to show
The only thing which is certain is that the figure that the latter is not Protocorinthian, but Cretan
stood exactly vertical and not inclining to one side, work.
3575 H h
Besides these, we have several other important clay heads of much larger size
—sphinx-heads and antefixes from various sites, notably Thermon, Calydon,
and Thebes—and complete figures of stone, in the pediment from Corfu and
the Apollo of Tenea. That these, like the small clay heads just mentioned,
are authentic examples of Corinthian sculpture, cannot be doubted; there is
still much that we do not know—we have not a single complete female figure
(save the Corcyrean gorgon!)—but there is surely enough to tell us something
definite of the Corinthian style before the middle of the sixth century.
We begin, as usual, with Protocorinthian work of developed style, with the
group of vases of which an admirable example is illustrated in pis. 1,8-11; 47,4-5 •
There is much to be said about the plastic heads of these vases which cannot be
said here, since this is no place for a history of Daedalic sculpture. Suffice it
to say that this style, which has rightly been compared with the fragmentary
' pediment' from Mycenae (detail pi. 47,3)/differs slightly, though consistently,
from the early Cretan style whence it is derived, and from the other principal
groups of Daedalic sculpture, the Laconian and the early Rhodian.2 The
schemes employed in all these schools are often virtually identical, but the
Protocorinthian alone is free from the uncouthness of most primitive plastic
work. In pi. 47, 1-2, I show details of two Cretan terra-cotta plaques, one
in Oxford (Poulsen, Orient, 148, fig. 173), the other in the Louvre (Miiller,
Friihe Plastik, pi. 30, 333), which throw into sharp relief the precision and
accomplishment of the Protocorinthian work.3
Let us notice one or two of the essential points of the Protocorinthian
heads: first, that the head when seen in side view is unnaturally flat. Now
there is no reason why this should be so. The Louvre head pi. 47, 4-5 was
made to be seen from all points of view, and the head from Mycenae is part of
a 'high relief— for other fragments of relief from the same series are modelled
in the round. The flatness is therefore not the result of technical considera-
tions : it is simply part of the style. As we trace the history of this tradition
we shall notice a growing ability to conceive the head as a solid in a three-
dimensional space. Secondly, the curious treatment of the fringe of hair. It
is remarkable, is it not, that it cuts straight across the head immediately above
the eyes. This again is clearly a part of the Protocorinthian tradition. It
might seem that in the head pi. 47,4-5 the artist has been constrained by the
1 Jahrbuch 1901, 18 ff.; Poulsen, Orient 150; A.M. as it is sometimes shown.
1914, pp. 251, 3 figs. 9, 11. Most authorities speak 2 On Rhodian Daedalic, see V.Miiller in Berl. Mus.
of this head as part of a metope, but Koch (A.M. Ber. 1923, 28 ff.; Laconian Daedalic heads are often
1914, 251, note) says that it is from a pediment; indistinguishable from Cretan,
this has been explicitly contradicted (Montuoro, 3 I would suggest that a comparison of pi. 47,2 with
Mem. Ac. Line. 1925, 314, note 1), yet it is im- the bronze kouros from Delphi (F. de D. v, pi. 3;
possible to make sure which explanation is right. Uxkull, Arch. Plastik fig. 25) is sufficient to show
The only thing which is certain is that the figure that the latter is not Protocorinthian, but Cretan
stood exactly vertical and not inclining to one side, work.
3575 H h