DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2532#0219
POLYCLEITUS AND THE HERAEUM MARBLES
169
more-
;m»!
Meilichius1 was a marble statue. No actual marble statue is ascribed to Phidias. More-
over, bis very excellence as a TrXda-Trjs, as a modeler, would make Polycleitus best fitted
to make the wax or plastic models, tvttoi, for the architectural compositions such as the
Epidaurian inscriptions tell us were made by Theotimus for that neighboring temple, the
figures to be carried out in marble by his colleagues and pupils.
Furthermore, these deviations from the treatment of hair in the Doryphorus type are
to be ascribed to the peculiar constructive purpose which these heads, as metope heads,
served in the architectural scheme of the temple. Small heads seen at such a height in
the building by the spectator below could not receive the same delicate, almost engraved,
work in the modeling of the hair as is given to the Doryphorus heads seen on the eye-
line ; and thus they required the bolder and
more massive subdivision of locks, which is
found in ours. We know from the study of
the Parthenon marbles how carefully these
conditions of distance, lighting, and peculiar
position of the works in their relation to the
spectator were considered by the sculptor.2
Finally, we must not forget the natural
development and advance of the sculptor him-
self in his actpiisition of greater breadth and
freedom. On this point I have been ably
anticipated by Professor Furtwangler,3 who, in
discussing the development of Polycleitan art,
arrives at a conclusion which I had reached
independently, and which our finds strikingly
confirm; namely, that we can distinguish an
earlier, severer, and a later, freer style in the
master's work on his Doryphorus and on his
Diadumenns. This is clearly noticeable when
we compare the heads of these two statues with
each other and then perceive the advance in modeling and general freedom of composi-
tion and execution in the Diadumenus (Fig. 87).4
With a very slight turn to the side, the head of the Doryphorus is placed almost
upright and at right angles to the chest in the simple and severe manner of earlier art.
Now, a marked feature is the "build of the skull" (Sch'ddelbau), which is square in
its outline. The hair is laid over the square structure at an even height, never pro-
jecting strongly so as to interfere with the marked suggestion of the construction of
Fig. 87. ■— Head of the Diadumenus.
Ancient marble copy, now in Dresden.
cms
1 Pausan. II. 20. 1: Ai<>s MeiAixi'ou, XiBov Aevmv, noAu-
KAelrov Se ipyov. This work is ascribed by some to the
younger Polycleitus.
2 See Waldstein, Essays on the Art of Pheidias, p. 79,
note 1 ; pp. 201 ff. ; note D, pp. 227 ff.
3 Masterpieces, pp. 243 ff.
4 Before our finds at the Heraeum led me to recon-
sider carefully the extant monuments and records concern-
ing Polycleitus, I was wont to explain the difference of
phraseology applied to the two works by Pliny (N. H.
XXXIV. 55), fecit molliter juvenem, for the Diadumenus,
and viriliter puerum, for the Doryphorus, as devoid of any
purpose of special characterization or distinction between
the two works, but simply as arising out of a literary
desire of the author to give variety of style. Pliny, or
the writer from whom he copied, I thought, desired to
avoid the repetition of the same phrase, and thus chose
terms which in a different form expressed the same fact.
The technical distinction in ancient Greece marked by the
ephebic age was conveyed by the technical meaning of
juvenis and puer; and thus the molliter drew down the
juvenis, as the viriliter drew up the puer to the same point
of age between youth and manhood. Though such a
literary desire may still have been active, I now think
that the two terms do qualify and actually distinguish the
two different works.
Wff
169
more-
;m»!
Meilichius1 was a marble statue. No actual marble statue is ascribed to Phidias. More-
over, bis very excellence as a TrXda-Trjs, as a modeler, would make Polycleitus best fitted
to make the wax or plastic models, tvttoi, for the architectural compositions such as the
Epidaurian inscriptions tell us were made by Theotimus for that neighboring temple, the
figures to be carried out in marble by his colleagues and pupils.
Furthermore, these deviations from the treatment of hair in the Doryphorus type are
to be ascribed to the peculiar constructive purpose which these heads, as metope heads,
served in the architectural scheme of the temple. Small heads seen at such a height in
the building by the spectator below could not receive the same delicate, almost engraved,
work in the modeling of the hair as is given to the Doryphorus heads seen on the eye-
line ; and thus they required the bolder and
more massive subdivision of locks, which is
found in ours. We know from the study of
the Parthenon marbles how carefully these
conditions of distance, lighting, and peculiar
position of the works in their relation to the
spectator were considered by the sculptor.2
Finally, we must not forget the natural
development and advance of the sculptor him-
self in his actpiisition of greater breadth and
freedom. On this point I have been ably
anticipated by Professor Furtwangler,3 who, in
discussing the development of Polycleitan art,
arrives at a conclusion which I had reached
independently, and which our finds strikingly
confirm; namely, that we can distinguish an
earlier, severer, and a later, freer style in the
master's work on his Doryphorus and on his
Diadumenns. This is clearly noticeable when
we compare the heads of these two statues with
each other and then perceive the advance in modeling and general freedom of composi-
tion and execution in the Diadumenus (Fig. 87).4
With a very slight turn to the side, the head of the Doryphorus is placed almost
upright and at right angles to the chest in the simple and severe manner of earlier art.
Now, a marked feature is the "build of the skull" (Sch'ddelbau), which is square in
its outline. The hair is laid over the square structure at an even height, never pro-
jecting strongly so as to interfere with the marked suggestion of the construction of
Fig. 87. ■— Head of the Diadumenus.
Ancient marble copy, now in Dresden.
cms
1 Pausan. II. 20. 1: Ai<>s MeiAixi'ou, XiBov Aevmv, noAu-
KAelrov Se ipyov. This work is ascribed by some to the
younger Polycleitus.
2 See Waldstein, Essays on the Art of Pheidias, p. 79,
note 1 ; pp. 201 ff. ; note D, pp. 227 ff.
3 Masterpieces, pp. 243 ff.
4 Before our finds at the Heraeum led me to recon-
sider carefully the extant monuments and records concern-
ing Polycleitus, I was wont to explain the difference of
phraseology applied to the two works by Pliny (N. H.
XXXIV. 55), fecit molliter juvenem, for the Diadumenus,
and viriliter puerum, for the Doryphorus, as devoid of any
purpose of special characterization or distinction between
the two works, but simply as arising out of a literary
desire of the author to give variety of style. Pliny, or
the writer from whom he copied, I thought, desired to
avoid the repetition of the same phrase, and thus chose
terms which in a different form expressed the same fact.
The technical distinction in ancient Greece marked by the
ephebic age was conveyed by the technical meaning of
juvenis and puer; and thus the molliter drew down the
juvenis, as the viriliter drew up the puer to the same point
of age between youth and manhood. Though such a
literary desire may still have been active, I now think
that the two terms do qualify and actually distinguish the
two different works.
Wff