Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic ArtHyde, Walter Woodburn
History
Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art
Hyde, Walter Woodburn
Olympics; Sculpture, Greek; Sports -- Greece
C.,
finally to break this domination of the great fifth-century sculptor.
Pliny quotes Douris as saying that he was the pupil of no man, and
that because of the advice of the painter Eupompos he was a follower
of nature—which appears to be a cut at the schools which mechanically
followed fixed rules.[601] His statues had smaller heads, and more
slender and less fleshy limbs, than those of his predecessors, in order
that the apparent height of the figure might be increased.[602] While
Polykleitos made his heads one-seventh of the total height of the
statue, Lysippos made his one-eighth—if this change may be seen in the
_Apoxyomenos_ (Pl. 28), which is certainly a work of his school, if not
of the master himself. Pliny further records his saying that while his
predecessors represented men as they were, Lysippos represented them as
they appeared to be. This means that Pliny regarded him as the first
impressionistic artist.[603] Pliny mentions other artists who wrote on
art, and it is probable that theories of proportions formed the main
element of such works.[604]
The best example of symmetry, _i. e._, of the ratio of proportions, in
Greek sculpture is afforded by the _Doryphoros_ of Polykleitos, which
Pliny says was called the _Canon_, and he adds that this sculptor was
the only one who embodied his art in a single work.[605] The identity
of the canon with this statue seems to be attested by the anecdote
told of Lysippos that the _Doryphoros_ was his master,[606] and by
Quintilian’s statement that sculptors took it as a model.[607] The
best-preserved copy of the _Doryphoros_, despite its rather lifeless
character, is the one discovered in Pompeii and now in Naples (Pl.
4).[608] As other late Roman copies do not conform to the identical
proportions of this copy, it is perhaps difficult to say exactly what
the canon of Polykleitos was. Possibly the original, if it had been
preserved, would also strike us as somewhat lifeless; but we must
remember that the statue was made merely to illustrate a theory of
proportions. The dimensions of the Naples statue are known from very
careful measurements and the proportions agree with those given in the
description by Galen to be mentioned. It is almost exactly 2 meters,
or 6 feet 8 inches, high.[609] The length of the foot is 0.33 meter,
or one-sixth of the total height, while the length of the face is 0.20
meter, or one-tenth of the height. E. Guillaume[610] has made a careful
analysis of it in reference to Galen’s[611] statement that Chrysippos
found beauty in the proportion of the parts, “of finger to finger,
and of all the fingers to the palm and wrist, and of these to the
forearm, and of the forearm to the upper arm, and of all the parts to
each other, as they are set forth in the canon of Polykleitos.” He has
found that the palm, _i. e._, the breadth of the hand at the base of
the fingers, is a common measure of the proportions of the body. This
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account