DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0266
246 CORINTHIAN SCULPTURE
This positive evidence, however, affects only a part of the supposedly
Corinthian group—bronzes like that illustrated in pi. 46, 2 and the other
kouroi illustrated by Langlotz in his pi. 42, and mentioned in his catalogue.
More considerable works, like the Zeus from Lykaion, and the finest of the
series, the head from the Acropolis, and the original of the Citharoedus in
Naples, cannot be said with certainty to be involved. We have to be content
with a possibility which is not yet reinforced by facts. I would suggest,
however, that the finds at Corinth, casual though they have been, point to a
much wider scope for the Corinthian school than Langlotz's Corinthian
category allows. To take the most obvious point: it is hard to believe that the
series of second-rate mirrors attributed by Langlotz to Corinth really reflects
the Corinthian output. In the earlier period, as we have seen, Corinth was
one of the most important centres of this industry; in the fourth century she
was certainly predominant; and the evidence of the finds alone compels us to
take the view that she maintained her importance in the fifth century. For
more caryatid-mirrors have been found at Corinth than at any other single
site in the Peloponnese. One of the mirrors from Corinth, an admirable piece
of work dating from about 510 B.C., Langlotz does not mention: I give
two photographs of it which, unfortunately, scarcely do justice to its plastic
qualities, in pi. 46, 1 and 4 (cf. Eph. Arch. 1875, pi* x4> 1 > Papaspyridi,
Guide du Mus. Nat. 213, fig. 40)} This mirror may well be Corin-
thian work: the figure has the slight proportions which we know to be
characteristic of the period, and though the features are not precisely like
those of any of the other 'Corinthian' bronzes they are far from being such as
to preclude the attribution to Corinth.2 The other caryatid mirrors from
some numbers at Corinth: sixty-eight examples of A.J .A. loc. cit. and 1926, 448, Art and Arch, xxiii,
no. 3 are mentioned in AJ.A. 1898, 212 and thirteen 115, and two primitive objects in the British
of no. 4 in the same article, p. 214. They may there- Museum (nos. B 34,36) which are said to come from
fore reasonably be regarded as Corinthian and their Corinth), but are almost uniformly weak in style. It
occurrence in the west is a fact of interest in view of is not till the fourth century (or at earliest the latter
the other evidence of Corinthian influence in that part of the fifth) that Corinthian terra-cotta figures
region. The first two may alsd be Corinthian, as become objects of real artistic interest. The series
they are evidently close in style to 3. None of these from Corfu published by Lechat in B.C.H. 1891,1 ff.
throw much light on the question of the sculptural (cf. Winter pp. lvi, 96 ff.) contains some examples of
style of Corinth in the late sixth century. They give the quality which Corinth might have been expected
the current proportions of the female figure—and to produce.
these are certainly interesting because they are indi- 1 Alinari 24494 (retouched in places); Petrizis'
vidual, and have an analogy in some of the bronzes photograph, though smaller, is better. I reproduce
mentioned above—but they yield little information it in pi. 46,4; Athens, Nat. Mus. 11691. Previously
as to details: the surfaces, if they ever had much published also in Dumont-Chaplin, ii, pi. 33.
precision—which one may doubt—being now ruined 2 The nearest parallel seems to be the Zeus from
by attrition. Lykaion (Langlotz no. 14, pi. 41, b), and this is fairly
The archaic terra-cottas of Corinth are, indeed, an close; the Zeus is, of course, a little earlier than the
unusually poor lot, and stand far below the plastic mirror. In profile the caryatid shows the very
vases, adjuncts to vases, antefixes and acroteria. sharp protruding chin which we have already seen
They go back to an early period (cf. Winter xxvi, to be characteristic of some Corinthian work.
This positive evidence, however, affects only a part of the supposedly
Corinthian group—bronzes like that illustrated in pi. 46, 2 and the other
kouroi illustrated by Langlotz in his pi. 42, and mentioned in his catalogue.
More considerable works, like the Zeus from Lykaion, and the finest of the
series, the head from the Acropolis, and the original of the Citharoedus in
Naples, cannot be said with certainty to be involved. We have to be content
with a possibility which is not yet reinforced by facts. I would suggest,
however, that the finds at Corinth, casual though they have been, point to a
much wider scope for the Corinthian school than Langlotz's Corinthian
category allows. To take the most obvious point: it is hard to believe that the
series of second-rate mirrors attributed by Langlotz to Corinth really reflects
the Corinthian output. In the earlier period, as we have seen, Corinth was
one of the most important centres of this industry; in the fourth century she
was certainly predominant; and the evidence of the finds alone compels us to
take the view that she maintained her importance in the fifth century. For
more caryatid-mirrors have been found at Corinth than at any other single
site in the Peloponnese. One of the mirrors from Corinth, an admirable piece
of work dating from about 510 B.C., Langlotz does not mention: I give
two photographs of it which, unfortunately, scarcely do justice to its plastic
qualities, in pi. 46, 1 and 4 (cf. Eph. Arch. 1875, pi* x4> 1 > Papaspyridi,
Guide du Mus. Nat. 213, fig. 40)} This mirror may well be Corin-
thian work: the figure has the slight proportions which we know to be
characteristic of the period, and though the features are not precisely like
those of any of the other 'Corinthian' bronzes they are far from being such as
to preclude the attribution to Corinth.2 The other caryatid mirrors from
some numbers at Corinth: sixty-eight examples of A.J .A. loc. cit. and 1926, 448, Art and Arch, xxiii,
no. 3 are mentioned in AJ.A. 1898, 212 and thirteen 115, and two primitive objects in the British
of no. 4 in the same article, p. 214. They may there- Museum (nos. B 34,36) which are said to come from
fore reasonably be regarded as Corinthian and their Corinth), but are almost uniformly weak in style. It
occurrence in the west is a fact of interest in view of is not till the fourth century (or at earliest the latter
the other evidence of Corinthian influence in that part of the fifth) that Corinthian terra-cotta figures
region. The first two may alsd be Corinthian, as become objects of real artistic interest. The series
they are evidently close in style to 3. None of these from Corfu published by Lechat in B.C.H. 1891,1 ff.
throw much light on the question of the sculptural (cf. Winter pp. lvi, 96 ff.) contains some examples of
style of Corinth in the late sixth century. They give the quality which Corinth might have been expected
the current proportions of the female figure—and to produce.
these are certainly interesting because they are indi- 1 Alinari 24494 (retouched in places); Petrizis'
vidual, and have an analogy in some of the bronzes photograph, though smaller, is better. I reproduce
mentioned above—but they yield little information it in pi. 46,4; Athens, Nat. Mus. 11691. Previously
as to details: the surfaces, if they ever had much published also in Dumont-Chaplin, ii, pi. 33.
precision—which one may doubt—being now ruined 2 The nearest parallel seems to be the Zeus from
by attrition. Lykaion (Langlotz no. 14, pi. 41, b), and this is fairly
The archaic terra-cottas of Corinth are, indeed, an close; the Zeus is, of course, a little earlier than the
unusually poor lot, and stand far below the plastic mirror. In profile the caryatid shows the very
vases, adjuncts to vases, antefixes and acroteria. sharp protruding chin which we have already seen
They go back to an early period (cf. Winter xxvi, to be characteristic of some Corinthian work.