DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2532#0192
142
MARBLE STATUARY FROM THE IIEKAEUM
Width between outer angle of eyelids ........ 12.
From pupil to pupil ........... 8.30
From root of nose to extant end of nose ....... 8.20
" " " " end of forehead, middle of hair.....4.70
From temple to temple .......... 17.30
The head is evidently iconic, as is clear from the receding forehead with projecting
brows, beneath which the eyes appear deep-set and at the same time bulging and heavy,
encircled by band-like eyelids. These eyelids seem to join at the outer edge on the same
plane, and thus, in connection with their band-like treatment and the bulging iris, sug-
gest (when viewed hastily or from a distance) an archaic character, like that of the eyes
in the heads from the Olympia pediments. But upon closer inspection it will be seen
that a slight line at the outer angle of the juncture of the lids marks the continuation of
the upper lid over the lower lid — a characteristic which, I have long since maintained,
marks the change from archaic sculpture to the highest freedom about the year 450 B. c.
The superficial " archaic" appearance of the eye is thus counteracted as regards the
lids, and the later character is further accentuated by the deeply cut eyeball with pupil.
Though I think the prevailing impression which has found its way into literature, that
the indication of the eyeball by sculptured incision marks a late Roman origin, is as
unfounded as it is widespread, the peculiar deep cutting of the pupil noticeable in the
left eye of this head seems to me to point to a later period. In general, however, it will
be wrell for us to remember that in marble statues of all periods where the iris is not
indicated by incised lines, it was painted in; and that in heads like the very early head
of Hera from the Heraeuin at Olympia (Olyinpia, III. pi. i.) there are indications of the
incised iris; while in bronze and chryselephantine sculpture the eye was generally ren-
dered in its detail by various materials. It was only later, when in the Hellenistic and
Roman period the sculptor, reveling in his technical skill as a pure modeler, dispensed
with polychromy in sculpture, that the deeper carving of the pupil came in.
The iconic character of the head is produced further by the deep hollowing below and
round the lower eyelid, and the sinking in of the temples at the end of the frontal bone;
and the farrow slanting away from the nostril and accentuating the fleshiness of the
cheek gives individuality, while indicating a more advanced age.
The elaborate arrangement of the hair, with braid following upon braid wound round
the head, is paralleled in many heads of the Roman period, and appears to me character-
istic of the coiffure adopted by priestesses. From this fact alone it is not impossible
that the statue may have been that of a priestess of Hera in Roman times which, accord-
ing to Pausanias (II. 16. 5), stood before the temple. But the late character of the
work is manifest from the mechanical and, at the same time, slovenly treatment of the
braids or twisted meshes of hair. These are indicated by means of shallow parallel
grooves subdividing the hair at equal distances, without any variety or modeling to
suo-o-est the real texture of hair.
No. 2 is the largest fragment probably belonging to this statue. It seems to represent
the shoulder and upper arm covered by drapery. The dimensions are : —
From top of shoulder to massed folds below centre (in centimetres) . . 46.
Extreme height ............ 53.
" width . . ......... 29.
depth............ 22.50
The folding is flat and superficial on the side of the shoulder and arm, deeper on the
MARBLE STATUARY FROM THE IIEKAEUM
Width between outer angle of eyelids ........ 12.
From pupil to pupil ........... 8.30
From root of nose to extant end of nose ....... 8.20
" " " " end of forehead, middle of hair.....4.70
From temple to temple .......... 17.30
The head is evidently iconic, as is clear from the receding forehead with projecting
brows, beneath which the eyes appear deep-set and at the same time bulging and heavy,
encircled by band-like eyelids. These eyelids seem to join at the outer edge on the same
plane, and thus, in connection with their band-like treatment and the bulging iris, sug-
gest (when viewed hastily or from a distance) an archaic character, like that of the eyes
in the heads from the Olympia pediments. But upon closer inspection it will be seen
that a slight line at the outer angle of the juncture of the lids marks the continuation of
the upper lid over the lower lid — a characteristic which, I have long since maintained,
marks the change from archaic sculpture to the highest freedom about the year 450 B. c.
The superficial " archaic" appearance of the eye is thus counteracted as regards the
lids, and the later character is further accentuated by the deeply cut eyeball with pupil.
Though I think the prevailing impression which has found its way into literature, that
the indication of the eyeball by sculptured incision marks a late Roman origin, is as
unfounded as it is widespread, the peculiar deep cutting of the pupil noticeable in the
left eye of this head seems to me to point to a later period. In general, however, it will
be wrell for us to remember that in marble statues of all periods where the iris is not
indicated by incised lines, it was painted in; and that in heads like the very early head
of Hera from the Heraeuin at Olympia (Olyinpia, III. pi. i.) there are indications of the
incised iris; while in bronze and chryselephantine sculpture the eye was generally ren-
dered in its detail by various materials. It was only later, when in the Hellenistic and
Roman period the sculptor, reveling in his technical skill as a pure modeler, dispensed
with polychromy in sculpture, that the deeper carving of the pupil came in.
The iconic character of the head is produced further by the deep hollowing below and
round the lower eyelid, and the sinking in of the temples at the end of the frontal bone;
and the farrow slanting away from the nostril and accentuating the fleshiness of the
cheek gives individuality, while indicating a more advanced age.
The elaborate arrangement of the hair, with braid following upon braid wound round
the head, is paralleled in many heads of the Roman period, and appears to me character-
istic of the coiffure adopted by priestesses. From this fact alone it is not impossible
that the statue may have been that of a priestess of Hera in Roman times which, accord-
ing to Pausanias (II. 16. 5), stood before the temple. But the late character of the
work is manifest from the mechanical and, at the same time, slovenly treatment of the
braids or twisted meshes of hair. These are indicated by means of shallow parallel
grooves subdividing the hair at equal distances, without any variety or modeling to
suo-o-est the real texture of hair.
No. 2 is the largest fragment probably belonging to this statue. It seems to represent
the shoulder and upper arm covered by drapery. The dimensions are : —
From top of shoulder to massed folds below centre (in centimetres) . . 46.
Extreme height ............ 53.
" width . . ......... 29.
depth............ 22.50
The folding is flat and superficial on the side of the shoulder and arm, deeper on the