No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A ‘Polycleitan’ Head in the British Museum1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
Extract
The artistic character of Polycleitus is attested by ancient writers in remarkably clear and definite language; his position at the head of the Argive School of sculpture during the latter half of the fifth century also seems easy to understand. Friedrich's identification of the Doryphoros, which has met with universal acceptance, supplied the necessary link between the literary evidence and extant sculpture; and with this help the Diadoumenos and the Amazon soon fell into their places. But even here the study of the work of Polycleitus is by no means free from difficulty; the extant copies of the Diadoumenos vary perhaps more than those of any other well-known work, and there are associated with them other statues, whether variations on the same type or different renderings of the same subject, which have added to the confusion. Then there is a whole mass of statues which have been loosely grouped together as ‘Polycleitan,’ some of them perhaps copies of the master's own work, others probably to be attributed to his pupils or his direct influence, others more remotely affected by the traditions of his school; and in some of these the influence of Myron, of Cresilas, or of other sculptors, has to be recognised and assigned its proper value. It is evident therefore that the study of a ‘Polycleitan’ head offers a problem by no means so simple as it appears at first sight. At present we are concerned only with one of the numerous types that fall into this category; but it is difficult if not impossible to consider any such type without some general discussion of the larger class to which it belongs.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1911
References
1a These three are placed together for conenience of comparison in Pl. II. I am indebted to Mrs. Strong for the Bariacco photograph.
2 Burlington Catalogue, No. 45. Arch. Anz. 1900, p. 107.
3 This impression is borne out by the measurements. The measurements, hair-brow, brow-tip of nose, tip of nose-chin (which are equal in heads undoubtedly Polycleitan), are, in the Westmacott head 39 mm.: 54: 53; in the Apollonia head, 40: 55: 50. Again, the breadth across the temples and between the outer corners of the eyes is, in the Westmacott head, 114: 89, in the Apollonia head, 114: 90. The slightly greater breadth at the eyes, combined with the smaller measurements of the lower face generally, has a great effect on the visible proportions.
3a Furtwängler, , Masterpieces, p. 258Google Scholar, Fig. 107.
4 Ἐφημ. Ἀρχ. 1890, p. 207.
5 For a list of these see Furtw. l.c. p. 252, note 6.
5a No. 934. Mr. Norman Gardiner, to whom I owe this comparison, describes it as a good Roman bronze, showing an athlete scraping his shoulder blade with strigil. The right hand is just behind the head, the left leg is somewhat advanced. According to the catalogue it is evidently a copy of some larger work.
6 Polyklet und seine Schule, p. 50.
7 J.H.S. 1885, Pl. LXI. I assume that this statuette is genuine, a matter on which some doubts have been expressed.
8 Furtwängler, Masterpieces, Fig. 107.
9 Masterpieces, p. 250.
10 Sieger in den Olymp. Spielen, i. n. 255; this was written before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. But Robert's dating of the Cyniscus is only reached by a process of exclusion; and there are other possible gaps, besides 460, where Cyniscus can be fitted in. Cf. Robert, , Hermes, xxxv. p. 185Google Scholar.
11 N. side, No. 131 (Michaelis).
12 Furtw. l.c. p. 256.