DOI Heft:
Nr. 3-4
DOI Artikel:Edgar, C. C.: Remarks on egyptian 'Sculptors' Models
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12682#0157
150
REMARKS OF EGYPTIAN 'SCULPTORS' MODELS
Diodorus is speaking was the older canon which had gone out of use many centuries
before his time.
If Diodorus had said 221/4 instead of 211/4, his statement would have been more
readily accepted, for that is practically the height of a figure in the later canon. But
there is probably no error in the number. 21 1/4 is practically the height to the top
of the forehead, and Prisse has already suggested that this was what Diodorus or his
informants meant. Taken in conjunction with a remark of Lepsius on the subject of
the earlier canon this explanation seems to me to be at least very probable. Lepsius'
observation has been already referred to, but his worcls are worth quoting in full :
it should be noted that he was not thinking at ail about Diodorus and the later canon.
It had struck him formerly, he says, "ohne dass ich es erklâren konnte, dass der
Scheitelpunkt von allen am wenigsten berucksichtigt wurde, fast nie sein Quadrat aus-
fûllte und sehr wechselte, oft kaum ûber das 18t0 Quadrat hinausreichte1. Dies erklârt
sich jetzt, da wir wissen dass man auch in alter Zeit das Stùck von der S time bis
zum Scheitel garnicht mit in die Proportionen aufnahm, sondera die Mannshôhe von
der Sohle bis zur Stirnhôhe in 6 Fuss teilte." If this way of reckoning the height
of a ligure prevailed in the earlier period, we may reasonably suppose that it continuée!
in force uncler the later canon. One can see too that it may have been a convenient
methocl of reckoning, as in so many cases the contour of the skull was hidden by the
headdress : the top of the forehead was the greatest common visible height of ail
figures. There are thus two ways of explaining the statement of Diodorus : lie may
either have made a mistake of 1 unit in describing the height of the canon, or his
worcls may be literally correct as interpreted above. I prefer to believe that on this
point he was not misinformed.
In ail the published examples of reliefs and drawings the height is twenty-one
units and a fraction, but the exécution is not so uniformly accurate that one could say
whether the fraction was meant to be exactly a quarter. Thèse little différences are
not sufficient to disturb the literary évidence. The canonical height of a striding statue
may safely be put down as 21 1/4 units.
Diodorus implies that the Samian artists, Telekles and Theodoros, studied and
copied the Egyptian canon. The time of their visit to Egypt would of course be in the
Saitic period when the later canon had already been established. Whether this system
of division was ever actually followed in Greek lands we cannot say, yel it is by no
means improbable that it was. If the remains of an archaic studio should ever be dis-
covered in some Ionian town, it would not be at ail surpi'ising to find traces of measu-
rements similar to those which we have just been discussing.
1. C. Blauc, Grammaire, pp. 49-51, also admits that the height of the skull was more variable than that
of Ihe other main points.
REMARKS OF EGYPTIAN 'SCULPTORS' MODELS
Diodorus is speaking was the older canon which had gone out of use many centuries
before his time.
If Diodorus had said 221/4 instead of 211/4, his statement would have been more
readily accepted, for that is practically the height of a figure in the later canon. But
there is probably no error in the number. 21 1/4 is practically the height to the top
of the forehead, and Prisse has already suggested that this was what Diodorus or his
informants meant. Taken in conjunction with a remark of Lepsius on the subject of
the earlier canon this explanation seems to me to be at least very probable. Lepsius'
observation has been already referred to, but his worcls are worth quoting in full :
it should be noted that he was not thinking at ail about Diodorus and the later canon.
It had struck him formerly, he says, "ohne dass ich es erklâren konnte, dass der
Scheitelpunkt von allen am wenigsten berucksichtigt wurde, fast nie sein Quadrat aus-
fûllte und sehr wechselte, oft kaum ûber das 18t0 Quadrat hinausreichte1. Dies erklârt
sich jetzt, da wir wissen dass man auch in alter Zeit das Stùck von der S time bis
zum Scheitel garnicht mit in die Proportionen aufnahm, sondera die Mannshôhe von
der Sohle bis zur Stirnhôhe in 6 Fuss teilte." If this way of reckoning the height
of a ligure prevailed in the earlier period, we may reasonably suppose that it continuée!
in force uncler the later canon. One can see too that it may have been a convenient
methocl of reckoning, as in so many cases the contour of the skull was hidden by the
headdress : the top of the forehead was the greatest common visible height of ail
figures. There are thus two ways of explaining the statement of Diodorus : lie may
either have made a mistake of 1 unit in describing the height of the canon, or his
worcls may be literally correct as interpreted above. I prefer to believe that on this
point he was not misinformed.
In ail the published examples of reliefs and drawings the height is twenty-one
units and a fraction, but the exécution is not so uniformly accurate that one could say
whether the fraction was meant to be exactly a quarter. Thèse little différences are
not sufficient to disturb the literary évidence. The canonical height of a striding statue
may safely be put down as 21 1/4 units.
Diodorus implies that the Samian artists, Telekles and Theodoros, studied and
copied the Egyptian canon. The time of their visit to Egypt would of course be in the
Saitic period when the later canon had already been established. Whether this system
of division was ever actually followed in Greek lands we cannot say, yel it is by no
means improbable that it was. If the remains of an archaic studio should ever be dis-
covered in some Ionian town, it would not be at ail surpi'ising to find traces of measu-
rements similar to those which we have just been discussing.
1. C. Blauc, Grammaire, pp. 49-51, also admits that the height of the skull was more variable than that
of Ihe other main points.