DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2532#0223
'tailtvi„„
catting.
Wt"<l»tof0
a p°lnt ■"
t shghtlj
»se clearly,
air : the
ives wayandspal
heads. Culs
Bulge out stro.
•eal curls worked iis:
sting point: ITS
les we have really dx
relief, the flat
other parts. S
the engraving
lorus. Nay,tl
at shows in U
of hair furthei
y—?
he ear in front
which w«
d in his praised I*
, is a curious-
3f our meWF"
, the bro*'1.
1 tu T*
define*
*beu; <i
iritisb^6
.........<
i.....£>
POLYCLEITUS AND THE 1IEKAEUM MARBLES
173
depression under the left eye of the head,1 a degree of " literalness " in detail modeling
which is paralleled by the curious rise in the groin of our torso from the Heraeum
metope. And this work cannot be placed later than 420 b. c.
The result of any careful comparison of these heads shows that the Doryphorns, as
well as the Diadumenus, is clearly Polycleitan ; and that the Diadumenus marks a distinct
advance in freedom and delicacy of modeling over the Doryphorns. Furtwiingleiy
while assigning to the Doryphorns and the Amazon the date B. c. 440, thinks that the
Diadumenus should probably be assigned to the same later period of the artist's career
as the Hera (b. o. 420). "I think," he says, "lam not mistaken in finding certain
kinship with the coin of Hera." Without attempting to assign any precise date, all that
we are prepared to state is that the Diadumenus presents the master's latest style ; that
all these heads of the Diadumenus are of the same general character as the head of our
yoxith from the Heraeum metopes, and that some of them invite interesting comparisons
with our larger female head, which we have called Hera, and that it was the revelation
of finish and delicate modeling in our torso from the metopes which enabled me to
appreciate these qualities in the heads of the Diadumenus.
A full appreciation of the Diadumenus and of our Heraeum finds gives us quite a new
conception of the art of Polycleitus. For years I had in my teaching constructed a view
of Polycleitus based chiefly upon the Doryphorns, the poor copy of the Diadumenus from
Vaison,3 and the Amazon, as well as upon the chief passages referring to him in Pliny4
and Quintilian.5 In this light Polycleitus appeared as an artist of undoubtedly great
talent, but devoid of genius, who never attained to the truly artistic and spiritual expres-
sion, the grandeur of a Phidias, and was wanting in weight — deesse pondus. And
though he may have added ideal beauty to his statues, he never attained that ideal which
the Greeks, like Phidias, embodied in the statues of their gods — nam at humanae formae
decorem addiderit supra verum, ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur. His
great merit lay rather in the academic direction of sober construction, drawing together
in a masterly manner, in technical and more theoretical control over his art, the separate
currents of genius in the various Greek artists that made for the pure beauty, grace, and
grandeur which Hellas has handed down to posterity — erudisse but not aperuisse.
The highest praise bestowed upon him and his works is more of a theoretical and sober
nature, diligentia ac decor. He is thus able to establish a canon of human proportions
from which subsequent artists could take the rules of art as from a law — quem canona
artifices vocant liniamenta artis ex eo ptetentes veluti a lege quadam. But he achieves
this at the cost of the spontaneity and variety of his productive genius and imagination.
And thus there is a certain sameness in his work, which a mere survey of the subjects
ascribed to him — chiefly athletes and purely masculine figures — suggests, so that they
tures. It is another strong point showing that all these
heads, including our Heraeum heads, are of the same
school.
1 See account of the head at end of previous footnote.
2 Meisterwerke, p. 442.
3 In the British Museum. This copy has long been
recognized as inadequate and as being worked over in the
head. It appears to me as if there had not been sufficient
marble on the left side of the head, or that some acci-
dent had forced the copyist into greater flatness here.
4 JV. H. XXXIV. 50 : Proprium ejus est uno crure
ut insisterent signa excogitasse, quadrata tamen esse ea
tradit Varro et paene ad exemplum.
s Inst. Oral. XII. 10. 7 : Diligentia ac decor in Poly-
cleto supra ceteros, cui quamquam a plerisque tribuitnr
palma, tamen, ne nihil detrahatur, deesse pondus putant;
nam ut humanae formae decorem addiderit supra verum,
ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur ; quin
aetatem quoque graviorem dicitur refugisse nihil ausus
ultra leves genas.
catting.
Wt"<l»tof0
a p°lnt ■"
t shghtlj
»se clearly,
air : the
ives wayandspal
heads. Culs
Bulge out stro.
•eal curls worked iis:
sting point: ITS
les we have really dx
relief, the flat
other parts. S
the engraving
lorus. Nay,tl
at shows in U
of hair furthei
y—?
he ear in front
which w«
d in his praised I*
, is a curious-
3f our meWF"
, the bro*'1.
1 tu T*
define*
*beu; <i
iritisb^6
.........<
i.....£>
POLYCLEITUS AND THE 1IEKAEUM MARBLES
173
depression under the left eye of the head,1 a degree of " literalness " in detail modeling
which is paralleled by the curious rise in the groin of our torso from the Heraeum
metope. And this work cannot be placed later than 420 b. c.
The result of any careful comparison of these heads shows that the Doryphorns, as
well as the Diadumenus, is clearly Polycleitan ; and that the Diadumenus marks a distinct
advance in freedom and delicacy of modeling over the Doryphorns. Furtwiingleiy
while assigning to the Doryphorns and the Amazon the date B. c. 440, thinks that the
Diadumenus should probably be assigned to the same later period of the artist's career
as the Hera (b. o. 420). "I think," he says, "lam not mistaken in finding certain
kinship with the coin of Hera." Without attempting to assign any precise date, all that
we are prepared to state is that the Diadumenus presents the master's latest style ; that
all these heads of the Diadumenus are of the same general character as the head of our
yoxith from the Heraeum metopes, and that some of them invite interesting comparisons
with our larger female head, which we have called Hera, and that it was the revelation
of finish and delicate modeling in our torso from the metopes which enabled me to
appreciate these qualities in the heads of the Diadumenus.
A full appreciation of the Diadumenus and of our Heraeum finds gives us quite a new
conception of the art of Polycleitus. For years I had in my teaching constructed a view
of Polycleitus based chiefly upon the Doryphorns, the poor copy of the Diadumenus from
Vaison,3 and the Amazon, as well as upon the chief passages referring to him in Pliny4
and Quintilian.5 In this light Polycleitus appeared as an artist of undoubtedly great
talent, but devoid of genius, who never attained to the truly artistic and spiritual expres-
sion, the grandeur of a Phidias, and was wanting in weight — deesse pondus. And
though he may have added ideal beauty to his statues, he never attained that ideal which
the Greeks, like Phidias, embodied in the statues of their gods — nam at humanae formae
decorem addiderit supra verum, ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur. His
great merit lay rather in the academic direction of sober construction, drawing together
in a masterly manner, in technical and more theoretical control over his art, the separate
currents of genius in the various Greek artists that made for the pure beauty, grace, and
grandeur which Hellas has handed down to posterity — erudisse but not aperuisse.
The highest praise bestowed upon him and his works is more of a theoretical and sober
nature, diligentia ac decor. He is thus able to establish a canon of human proportions
from which subsequent artists could take the rules of art as from a law — quem canona
artifices vocant liniamenta artis ex eo ptetentes veluti a lege quadam. But he achieves
this at the cost of the spontaneity and variety of his productive genius and imagination.
And thus there is a certain sameness in his work, which a mere survey of the subjects
ascribed to him — chiefly athletes and purely masculine figures — suggests, so that they
tures. It is another strong point showing that all these
heads, including our Heraeum heads, are of the same
school.
1 See account of the head at end of previous footnote.
2 Meisterwerke, p. 442.
3 In the British Museum. This copy has long been
recognized as inadequate and as being worked over in the
head. It appears to me as if there had not been sufficient
marble on the left side of the head, or that some acci-
dent had forced the copyist into greater flatness here.
4 JV. H. XXXIV. 50 : Proprium ejus est uno crure
ut insisterent signa excogitasse, quadrata tamen esse ea
tradit Varro et paene ad exemplum.
s Inst. Oral. XII. 10. 7 : Diligentia ac decor in Poly-
cleto supra ceteros, cui quamquam a plerisque tribuitnr
palma, tamen, ne nihil detrahatur, deesse pondus putant;
nam ut humanae formae decorem addiderit supra verum,
ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur ; quin
aetatem quoque graviorem dicitur refugisse nihil ausus
ultra leves genas.