DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0368
APPENDIX III
i
NeKpoKoptvOia
STRABOviii,6,23 : woAuv hexpovovepripyq p,elvaaarjK6piv9os,dveX-q<J)9rjTrdXiv vtto Kaurapos rov 9eov8idrqv
evqbvtav, eTTOiKovs rrepiipavros rov drTeXev9epiKov yevovs rrXeiarovs. 01 rd epelma Kivovvres Kai rovs ra<f>ovs
awavaaKarrrovres evpioKov oarpaKivcov ropevp.drojv vXqd-q, woAAa Se Kal ^aA/ccu/xaTa. Oav/xd^ovres he
rrjv KaraaKevrjv ovheva rd<f>ov doKevojprjrov e'iaaav, Store evTroprqoavres r&v roiovrcov Kal 8ian9e[i,evoi
ttoXXov veKpoKopivQloiv eTtXrjpwaav rrjv 'PiOjxrjV ovroj yap ckoXovv rd eK r&v rd<pojv Xrj(f>9evra, Kal
p.dXiara rd oarpaKiva. Kar dpxds p<ev ovv inp.rf9r) a<j)6Bpa opaiois rois xaX«ojp,aai rois KopivQiovpyeaiv,
e£r' iiravaavro rrjs aTrovSrjs, eKXmovrayv r&v darpaKow, Kal ov8e Karop9ovpievojv r&v rrXeiarajv.
The meaning of the word necrocorinthia—objects from Corinthian graves—is, of course, per-
fectly clear;1 and it has been plausibly suggested that the word was formed on the analogy of
acrocorinthus, the citadel of Corinth.2 It is more difficult to say with confidence precisely what
kind of objects the Romans discovered in these graves.
The matter is complicated at the outset by the possibility that the text is corrupt; several hands
give ropevyLara for ropevpAruiv, and it is at least conceivable that ropevfiara was originally a gloss on
Xa.XKajp.ara, which was later changed to the genitive and introduced into the text.3 But oarpaKiva
ropevjiara, though curious, is not impossible, and therefore it can scarcely be legitimate to alter
the established text.4 It has been held by more than one authority that these oarpaKiva were vases
of the kind which we call Corinthian;5 and if ropev/xara can be explained away as a gloss there is
nothing in the text to prevent this identification—though it is surely difficult to imagine that
archaic Corinthian vases would have won in Rome even such momentary popularity as Strabo
describes: Rome rarely took much account of early archaic Greek art, and even more rarely showed
any disposition to collect it. This however is scarcely relevant; for if we are to identify the oarpaKiva
with archaic Corinthian pottery it is plainly necessary to delete ropev^drcov, and that is a step which
cannot be justified,6 if only because the process described by ropeveiv could be applied to other
materials than metal. This is proved by some of Martial's epigrams, in which vases of clay and
glass are described as ropevftara;7 and in the phrase luteum toreuma, which occurs in one of these,
we have an interesting parallel to Strabo's oarpaKiva ropevp.ara. Martial's vases must, of course, have
been vases with relief decoration, and it is in this sense, as various authorities have seen, that Strabo's
words are to be interpreted.8 Small vases with relief decoration are always rare in the archaic
1 Translations, however, vary: thus from H. C. Jones's
(Loeb series) we learn that Rome was filled with Corinthian
'mortuaries': (here there is some subtlety which escapes
me); other scholars, by begging the question discussed
below, reach more picturesque results—'works in pottery
with figures on them' (H. Hamilton—a creditable effort
on the part of a translator in Bonn's 'literal' series), or
'Corinthian funeral urns' (Tozer).
2 Kramer, Vindiciae Strabonianae 125; Kramer also
suggests that the cemetery in which these graves lay was
known as the NeKpoKopivdos, which would, of course, be an
exact analogy to 'AKpoKopivQos.
3 Kramer, Strabonis Geographia, ad loc. C. Miiller
suggests rpoxq^drcov, which seems scarcely to improve
matters, as Topevpa is not an impossible description of a
clay object (see below). Meineke supposes a lacuna
between oarpaKivwv and TOpev/xaTOiv.
4 Cf. Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 73, note 9.
5 This was long ago suggested by Kramer and Gerhard
(A.Z. 1846, 309), and has been repeated at intervals since:
of., for example, Rayet and Collignon, Hist, de la Cer.
Grecque 60-1 (who even confuse the Corinthian [bronze]
vases which were collected by wealthy Romans, with
painted Corinthian vases); Pottier in D.-S. i, 2, 1508,
note 11; Platner, Art and Archaelogy 1930, 257.
6 It is clearly impossible to retain Topevp.a.Twv as referring
to the incised details of black-figure decoration. Incising
a vase might conceivably be described as ropeveiv, but a
black-figure vase^—a vase with painted decoration on which
details are incised—could not reasonably be described as a
ropevp.a; it would be but little less logical to describe a
painted marble statue as a marble painting.
7 Cf. Jahn, Vasenkat., Introd. xxiv, note 90: Martial
iv, 46, 16 ('Hispanae luteum rotae toreuma'); xiv, 102, 2
('Surrentinae leve toreuma rotae'); Professor Jacobsthal
drew my attention to xiv, 94,1 ('audacis plebeia toreumata
vitri').
8 Cf. Panofka, A.Z. 1846, 309; Jahn, op. cit., loc. cit.;
Walters, Hist. Anc. Pott, i, 89 and 134; Wilisch 107;
Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 73, note 9; Buchsenschutz,
Hauptstatten des Gewerbefleisses in Kl. Alterthume 18,
note 6.
i
NeKpoKoptvOia
STRABOviii,6,23 : woAuv hexpovovepripyq p,elvaaarjK6piv9os,dveX-q<J)9rjTrdXiv vtto Kaurapos rov 9eov8idrqv
evqbvtav, eTTOiKovs rrepiipavros rov drTeXev9epiKov yevovs rrXeiarovs. 01 rd epelma Kivovvres Kai rovs ra<f>ovs
awavaaKarrrovres evpioKov oarpaKivcov ropevp.drojv vXqd-q, woAAa Se Kal ^aA/ccu/xaTa. Oav/xd^ovres he
rrjv KaraaKevrjv ovheva rd<f>ov doKevojprjrov e'iaaav, Store evTroprqoavres r&v roiovrcov Kal 8ian9e[i,evoi
ttoXXov veKpoKopivQloiv eTtXrjpwaav rrjv 'PiOjxrjV ovroj yap ckoXovv rd eK r&v rd<pojv Xrj(f>9evra, Kal
p.dXiara rd oarpaKiva. Kar dpxds p<ev ovv inp.rf9r) a<j)6Bpa opaiois rois xaX«ojp,aai rois KopivQiovpyeaiv,
e£r' iiravaavro rrjs aTrovSrjs, eKXmovrayv r&v darpaKow, Kal ov8e Karop9ovpievojv r&v rrXeiarajv.
The meaning of the word necrocorinthia—objects from Corinthian graves—is, of course, per-
fectly clear;1 and it has been plausibly suggested that the word was formed on the analogy of
acrocorinthus, the citadel of Corinth.2 It is more difficult to say with confidence precisely what
kind of objects the Romans discovered in these graves.
The matter is complicated at the outset by the possibility that the text is corrupt; several hands
give ropevyLara for ropevpAruiv, and it is at least conceivable that ropevfiara was originally a gloss on
Xa.XKajp.ara, which was later changed to the genitive and introduced into the text.3 But oarpaKiva
ropevjiara, though curious, is not impossible, and therefore it can scarcely be legitimate to alter
the established text.4 It has been held by more than one authority that these oarpaKiva were vases
of the kind which we call Corinthian;5 and if ropev/xara can be explained away as a gloss there is
nothing in the text to prevent this identification—though it is surely difficult to imagine that
archaic Corinthian vases would have won in Rome even such momentary popularity as Strabo
describes: Rome rarely took much account of early archaic Greek art, and even more rarely showed
any disposition to collect it. This however is scarcely relevant; for if we are to identify the oarpaKiva
with archaic Corinthian pottery it is plainly necessary to delete ropev^drcov, and that is a step which
cannot be justified,6 if only because the process described by ropeveiv could be applied to other
materials than metal. This is proved by some of Martial's epigrams, in which vases of clay and
glass are described as ropevftara;7 and in the phrase luteum toreuma, which occurs in one of these,
we have an interesting parallel to Strabo's oarpaKiva ropevp.ara. Martial's vases must, of course, have
been vases with relief decoration, and it is in this sense, as various authorities have seen, that Strabo's
words are to be interpreted.8 Small vases with relief decoration are always rare in the archaic
1 Translations, however, vary: thus from H. C. Jones's
(Loeb series) we learn that Rome was filled with Corinthian
'mortuaries': (here there is some subtlety which escapes
me); other scholars, by begging the question discussed
below, reach more picturesque results—'works in pottery
with figures on them' (H. Hamilton—a creditable effort
on the part of a translator in Bonn's 'literal' series), or
'Corinthian funeral urns' (Tozer).
2 Kramer, Vindiciae Strabonianae 125; Kramer also
suggests that the cemetery in which these graves lay was
known as the NeKpoKopivdos, which would, of course, be an
exact analogy to 'AKpoKopivQos.
3 Kramer, Strabonis Geographia, ad loc. C. Miiller
suggests rpoxq^drcov, which seems scarcely to improve
matters, as Topevpa is not an impossible description of a
clay object (see below). Meineke supposes a lacuna
between oarpaKivwv and TOpev/xaTOiv.
4 Cf. Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 73, note 9.
5 This was long ago suggested by Kramer and Gerhard
(A.Z. 1846, 309), and has been repeated at intervals since:
of., for example, Rayet and Collignon, Hist, de la Cer.
Grecque 60-1 (who even confuse the Corinthian [bronze]
vases which were collected by wealthy Romans, with
painted Corinthian vases); Pottier in D.-S. i, 2, 1508,
note 11; Platner, Art and Archaelogy 1930, 257.
6 It is clearly impossible to retain Topevp.a.Twv as referring
to the incised details of black-figure decoration. Incising
a vase might conceivably be described as ropeveiv, but a
black-figure vase^—a vase with painted decoration on which
details are incised—could not reasonably be described as a
ropevp.a; it would be but little less logical to describe a
painted marble statue as a marble painting.
7 Cf. Jahn, Vasenkat., Introd. xxiv, note 90: Martial
iv, 46, 16 ('Hispanae luteum rotae toreuma'); xiv, 102, 2
('Surrentinae leve toreuma rotae'); Professor Jacobsthal
drew my attention to xiv, 94,1 ('audacis plebeia toreumata
vitri').
8 Cf. Panofka, A.Z. 1846, 309; Jahn, op. cit., loc. cit.;
Walters, Hist. Anc. Pott, i, 89 and 134; Wilisch 107;
Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 73, note 9; Buchsenschutz,
Hauptstatten des Gewerbefleisses in Kl. Alterthume 18,
note 6.