DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0254
234 CORINTHIAN SCULPTURE
necessary flatness of the mouth of the vase. But we find precisely the same
formula in the head Johansen pi. 32,1, in the pediment, and, in fact, in all
Protocorinthian work.
The date of this sculptural style will naturally be that to which we assign
Protocorinthian painting of the kind shown in pi. 1, 7-11. As we have seen
there is good reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that Johansen is right
in dating these vases at c. 650 B.C.1 And a comparison of these heads with
those of Corinthian vases provides entirely independent confirmation of this
view. For the Corinthian heads are unquestionably all of more developed
style.
The earliest Corinthian type, from a pyxis painted in the style of the later
seventh century (no. 669), is shown in pi. 47,7-9. Of many inheritances from
the earlier period, let us notice one: the treatment of the eyes, with their high
arching brows. This is important, because it has been said that such eyes
are characteristic of Sicyonian sculpture; but here we have them in an
admittedly Corinthian work. And we shall find them elsewhere (cf., for
instance, pi. 49, 1).
But though the general conception of form, and certain details, are the same
as in the Protocorinthian heads, there are manifest differences. I do not refer
to the rather different treatment of the hair at the sides of the head, for we find
'layer hair', like that of the Protocorinthian heads, on many much later works.2
What is striking is the greater depth of the head, or rather of the face (for
one cannot yet describe the profile as that of a head) in profile, and the
different treatment of the upper part; for the hair now curves round the fore-
head instead of cutting across it in a horizontal line. The new rendering is
less harsh than the other, and will obviously facilitate the conception of the
forehead as three-dimensional; we shall find it, in different forms, in all the
heads on Corinthian vases. Further, is there not a suggestion of yet another
change—a new feeling for the plasticity of the face ? The planes are not quite
so spare and dry as in the earlier heads. For all these reasons I think it is
natural to regard the Corinthian head as later than the others. It is not merely
different; it points the way to a new development.
Now, what other heads are there which show the same style ? The earliest
antefix from Thermon, pi. 47,10 (certainly Corinthian work if only because it
belongs to the earliest series of metopes, which is proved Corinthian by an
inscription) is obviously very close to the head from the pyxis. But in side
view it is even flatter,3 and the hair, still rendered in spiral locks, cuts straight
across the forehead. It may well be rather earlier, therefore, and may, as the
style of the metopes indicates, belong to the period of transition from Proto-
corinthian to Corinthian. The earliest antefix from Calydon, pi. 47, 11,
1 Johansen, Rev. Arch. 1921, i, 17 ; vide supra 2 Cf., for instance, pis. 48, 6, 12; 49, 1-2.
P- 22- 3 A.M. 1914, 250, figs. 7, 8.
necessary flatness of the mouth of the vase. But we find precisely the same
formula in the head Johansen pi. 32,1, in the pediment, and, in fact, in all
Protocorinthian work.
The date of this sculptural style will naturally be that to which we assign
Protocorinthian painting of the kind shown in pi. 1, 7-11. As we have seen
there is good reason to believe, and no reason to doubt, that Johansen is right
in dating these vases at c. 650 B.C.1 And a comparison of these heads with
those of Corinthian vases provides entirely independent confirmation of this
view. For the Corinthian heads are unquestionably all of more developed
style.
The earliest Corinthian type, from a pyxis painted in the style of the later
seventh century (no. 669), is shown in pi. 47,7-9. Of many inheritances from
the earlier period, let us notice one: the treatment of the eyes, with their high
arching brows. This is important, because it has been said that such eyes
are characteristic of Sicyonian sculpture; but here we have them in an
admittedly Corinthian work. And we shall find them elsewhere (cf., for
instance, pi. 49, 1).
But though the general conception of form, and certain details, are the same
as in the Protocorinthian heads, there are manifest differences. I do not refer
to the rather different treatment of the hair at the sides of the head, for we find
'layer hair', like that of the Protocorinthian heads, on many much later works.2
What is striking is the greater depth of the head, or rather of the face (for
one cannot yet describe the profile as that of a head) in profile, and the
different treatment of the upper part; for the hair now curves round the fore-
head instead of cutting across it in a horizontal line. The new rendering is
less harsh than the other, and will obviously facilitate the conception of the
forehead as three-dimensional; we shall find it, in different forms, in all the
heads on Corinthian vases. Further, is there not a suggestion of yet another
change—a new feeling for the plasticity of the face ? The planes are not quite
so spare and dry as in the earlier heads. For all these reasons I think it is
natural to regard the Corinthian head as later than the others. It is not merely
different; it points the way to a new development.
Now, what other heads are there which show the same style ? The earliest
antefix from Thermon, pi. 47,10 (certainly Corinthian work if only because it
belongs to the earliest series of metopes, which is proved Corinthian by an
inscription) is obviously very close to the head from the pyxis. But in side
view it is even flatter,3 and the hair, still rendered in spiral locks, cuts straight
across the forehead. It may well be rather earlier, therefore, and may, as the
style of the metopes indicates, belong to the period of transition from Proto-
corinthian to Corinthian. The earliest antefix from Calydon, pi. 47, 11,
1 Johansen, Rev. Arch. 1921, i, 17 ; vide supra 2 Cf., for instance, pis. 48, 6, 12; 49, 1-2.
P- 22- 3 A.M. 1914, 250, figs. 7, 8.