DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0370
350 APPENDIX III
and water-snakes at its roots, which Cypselus dedicated at Delphi. This remarkable object, which
one would greatly like to be able to visualize, was the only surviving votive in the Corinthian
Treasury in Plutarch's time.1
We do not know that it was of 'Corinthian bronze'—that is of the peculiar mixture of gold, silver,
and bronze, for which the Corinthian fabrics were famous;2 though it is, of course, likely to have
been Corinthian in the ordinary sense of the term. The earliest 'Corinthian bronze' proper of which
we hear is probably the Amazon Euknemos of Strongylion;3 among the other very numerous
references to Corinthian bronze there are exceedingly few which give us even the vaguest indication
of date.4 In general it is quite certain that the 'Corinthian bronzes' which the Romans prized above
all others were antiques—or at least that they passed as such. This is clear from Pliny's remarks
on the subject of Corinthian bronze,5 and is supported by other testimony.6 On the other hand, it
is also clear that not all the bronzes which were spoken of as Corinthian came from Corinth; some
of these pseudo-Corinthian pieces must have been antiques of other kinds,7 others Roman
imitations. It is highly probable that some at least were Roman; for we know that 'Corinthian
bronze' of some kind was made in the Roman period.8 And it is further probable, to say the least,
that the Romans themselves found great difficulty in distinguishing genuine Corinthian works.9
Corinthian bronze, in the technical sense, is therefore not strictly relevant to our subject, for in no
single case can it be proved to refer to the archaic period. And I do not think it very likely that the
bronze necrocorinthia mentioned by Strabo were what the Romans called Corinthian bronzes. The
fame which the Corinthian bronzes brought from Corinth, when the city was sacked by Mummius,
acquired, would, no doubt, have given these a certain preliminary prestige; but we have Strabo's
own statement that necrocorinthia soon went out of fashion, and it is obvious that the kind of bronzes
which are found in graves in Greece would rarely have reached the fabulous prices paid by the
Romans for Corinthian bronze. This is perhaps worth stressing as it has more than once been
stated that these prices were paid for actual necrocorinthia.
Corinthian dedications. The bronze palm-tree at Delphi has already been mentioned; the other
votives at Delphi of which we hear were foreign.10 AtOlympia there were two famous dedications—
1 Plutarch, Pyth. Or. 12: ev Se t<3 Kopivdlcov o'kco tov
falvixa Bewjxevois tov ^aA«ow, ocrrrep en Xomos eari twv
avadrj/xaTaiv, ol Trept tt)v pl^av ivreTopev/ievoi. fiarpaxoi Kal
v&poi 8avp.a tu> Aioytvtavw 7rapelxov> dp-dXet 8e Kal rjp.lv ; cf.
id. Sept. Sap. Conviv. 21.
2 Pliny 34, 8; Barth, Cor. Com. et Merc. Particula 20;
Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 72 ff.; BiichsenschUtz,
op. cit. 36 ff.; Pottier in D.-S. s.v. Corinthium Aes.
3 Pliny 34, 48 and 82. Herodotus (iv, 180) tells us that
Corinthian helmets were prized by the Machlyes of Libya;
we do not, of course, know that these were of Corinthian
bronze.
4 Alexander had statues of Corinthian bronze (Pliny 34,
48); Hippolochos, (3rd cent. B.C.) quoted by Athenaeus
iv, 128 D, speaks of a mva£ ^aAicos twv KoptvBicov KaraaKfva-
ap.ar(ov; cf. the Sauroktonos mentioned by Martial 14, 172,
and the gold, or gilt-bronze, craters mentioned above (p.
210, note 1).
5 Pliny 34, 6 ff.
6 Cf.,for example, Pliny, Ep. 3, 6: 'Corinthium signum.
. . . Aes ipsum, quantum verus color indicat, vetus et
antiquum'; the principal supply of 'Corinthian bronzes'
must have reached Rome after the city was sacked by
Mummius.
7 This is specifically stated by the elder Pliny, who says
that other towns besides Corinth were plundered of their
bronzes in the Roman conquest. Pliny indeed adopts an
incredulous attitude towards the whole question of
Corinthian bronze, and most unreasonably accepts the
fantastic tradition of the origin of the Corinthian alloy
(see next footnote) in order to deny that any so-called
Corinthian bronzes were really Corinthian.
8 Cf. Mommsen, Inscr. Regn. Neapolit. no. 6908:
'imaginem Corintheam Traiani Caesaris'; Josephus, Bell.
Iud. v, 201: Corinthian bronze used in Herod's temple;
compare, too, the title 'faber a Corinthiis' (Gruter, Inscr.
p. 639, no. 8), which might of course refer to the business
of cleaning and repairing, but would naturally mean one
who actually made Corinthian bronzes. Further, the
tradition that 'Corinthian bronze' was the result of a
fortuitous mixture of metals, which took place in the sack
of Corinth, clearly shows that later bronzes were known as
Corinthian.
9 Cf. the criterion of smell (Petronius, Sat. 50: 'certe
non olent'; Martial, 9, 59: consuluit nares an olerent aera
Corinthon); the colour, which could not well be an infal-
lible criterion, was of course the regular test.
10 i.e. the throne of Midas and the whole series of
dedications by Gyges (Herod, i, 14), the golden lion and
four silver vessels, dedicated by Croesus and placed in
the Treasury after the temple was burnt (Herod, i, 50),
and the thymiaterion dedicated by Euelthon of Salamis
in Cyprus (Herod, iv, 162); on these, and on the Treasury
in general, see Pomtow's detailed commentary in R.E.
Suppl. iv, 1325 ff.; cf. also Weickert, Archaische Archi-
tektur 24, and p. 160 above.
and water-snakes at its roots, which Cypselus dedicated at Delphi. This remarkable object, which
one would greatly like to be able to visualize, was the only surviving votive in the Corinthian
Treasury in Plutarch's time.1
We do not know that it was of 'Corinthian bronze'—that is of the peculiar mixture of gold, silver,
and bronze, for which the Corinthian fabrics were famous;2 though it is, of course, likely to have
been Corinthian in the ordinary sense of the term. The earliest 'Corinthian bronze' proper of which
we hear is probably the Amazon Euknemos of Strongylion;3 among the other very numerous
references to Corinthian bronze there are exceedingly few which give us even the vaguest indication
of date.4 In general it is quite certain that the 'Corinthian bronzes' which the Romans prized above
all others were antiques—or at least that they passed as such. This is clear from Pliny's remarks
on the subject of Corinthian bronze,5 and is supported by other testimony.6 On the other hand, it
is also clear that not all the bronzes which were spoken of as Corinthian came from Corinth; some
of these pseudo-Corinthian pieces must have been antiques of other kinds,7 others Roman
imitations. It is highly probable that some at least were Roman; for we know that 'Corinthian
bronze' of some kind was made in the Roman period.8 And it is further probable, to say the least,
that the Romans themselves found great difficulty in distinguishing genuine Corinthian works.9
Corinthian bronze, in the technical sense, is therefore not strictly relevant to our subject, for in no
single case can it be proved to refer to the archaic period. And I do not think it very likely that the
bronze necrocorinthia mentioned by Strabo were what the Romans called Corinthian bronzes. The
fame which the Corinthian bronzes brought from Corinth, when the city was sacked by Mummius,
acquired, would, no doubt, have given these a certain preliminary prestige; but we have Strabo's
own statement that necrocorinthia soon went out of fashion, and it is obvious that the kind of bronzes
which are found in graves in Greece would rarely have reached the fabulous prices paid by the
Romans for Corinthian bronze. This is perhaps worth stressing as it has more than once been
stated that these prices were paid for actual necrocorinthia.
Corinthian dedications. The bronze palm-tree at Delphi has already been mentioned; the other
votives at Delphi of which we hear were foreign.10 AtOlympia there were two famous dedications—
1 Plutarch, Pyth. Or. 12: ev Se t<3 Kopivdlcov o'kco tov
falvixa Bewjxevois tov ^aA«ow, ocrrrep en Xomos eari twv
avadrj/xaTaiv, ol Trept tt)v pl^av ivreTopev/ievoi. fiarpaxoi Kal
v&poi 8avp.a tu> Aioytvtavw 7rapelxov> dp-dXet 8e Kal rjp.lv ; cf.
id. Sept. Sap. Conviv. 21.
2 Pliny 34, 8; Barth, Cor. Com. et Merc. Particula 20;
Blumner, Gewerbliche Tatigkeit 72 ff.; BiichsenschUtz,
op. cit. 36 ff.; Pottier in D.-S. s.v. Corinthium Aes.
3 Pliny 34, 48 and 82. Herodotus (iv, 180) tells us that
Corinthian helmets were prized by the Machlyes of Libya;
we do not, of course, know that these were of Corinthian
bronze.
4 Alexander had statues of Corinthian bronze (Pliny 34,
48); Hippolochos, (3rd cent. B.C.) quoted by Athenaeus
iv, 128 D, speaks of a mva£ ^aAicos twv KoptvBicov KaraaKfva-
ap.ar(ov; cf. the Sauroktonos mentioned by Martial 14, 172,
and the gold, or gilt-bronze, craters mentioned above (p.
210, note 1).
5 Pliny 34, 6 ff.
6 Cf.,for example, Pliny, Ep. 3, 6: 'Corinthium signum.
. . . Aes ipsum, quantum verus color indicat, vetus et
antiquum'; the principal supply of 'Corinthian bronzes'
must have reached Rome after the city was sacked by
Mummius.
7 This is specifically stated by the elder Pliny, who says
that other towns besides Corinth were plundered of their
bronzes in the Roman conquest. Pliny indeed adopts an
incredulous attitude towards the whole question of
Corinthian bronze, and most unreasonably accepts the
fantastic tradition of the origin of the Corinthian alloy
(see next footnote) in order to deny that any so-called
Corinthian bronzes were really Corinthian.
8 Cf. Mommsen, Inscr. Regn. Neapolit. no. 6908:
'imaginem Corintheam Traiani Caesaris'; Josephus, Bell.
Iud. v, 201: Corinthian bronze used in Herod's temple;
compare, too, the title 'faber a Corinthiis' (Gruter, Inscr.
p. 639, no. 8), which might of course refer to the business
of cleaning and repairing, but would naturally mean one
who actually made Corinthian bronzes. Further, the
tradition that 'Corinthian bronze' was the result of a
fortuitous mixture of metals, which took place in the sack
of Corinth, clearly shows that later bronzes were known as
Corinthian.
9 Cf. the criterion of smell (Petronius, Sat. 50: 'certe
non olent'; Martial, 9, 59: consuluit nares an olerent aera
Corinthon); the colour, which could not well be an infal-
lible criterion, was of course the regular test.
10 i.e. the throne of Midas and the whole series of
dedications by Gyges (Herod, i, 14), the golden lion and
four silver vessels, dedicated by Croesus and placed in
the Treasury after the temple was burnt (Herod, i, 50),
and the thymiaterion dedicated by Euelthon of Salamis
in Cyprus (Herod, iv, 162); on these, and on the Treasury
in general, see Pomtow's detailed commentary in R.E.
Suppl. iv, 1325 ff.; cf. also Weickert, Archaische Archi-
tektur 24, and p. 160 above.