Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art by Walter Woodburn Hyde

_Proportionsschluessel_, 1849, and of C. Carus, _Die Proportionslehre der menschlichen Gestalt_, 1874. See also P. Richer, _Canon des proportions du corps humain_, 1893; E. Duhousset, Proportions artistiques et anthropométrie scientifique, _Gaz. B-A._, III, Pér. 3, 1 90, pp. 59 f.; E. Guillaume, art. Canon, _Dict. de l’Acad. des B-A._; E. Gebhard, in Dar.-Sagl., I, 2, pp. 891-892; _cf._ Collignon, I, pp. 490 f. [594] F. W. G. Foat, _op. cit._, offers a scheme or typical design, based on wide data, which will serve as a universal basis for securing facts about any statue under examination. [595] On the influence of such canons of proportion on contemporary artists, see Balcarres, _Evolution of Italian Sculpture_, p. 128. [596] _Cf._ Vitruvius, quoted above. The scholion on Pindar, _Ol._, VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 158, speaks of πηχῶν τεσσάρων δακτύλων πέντε as the height of the statue of Diagoras at Olympia, etc. [597] Vitruvius, _de Arch._, VII, Praef., 14, lists writers who _praecepta symmetriarum conscripserunt_. See V. Mortet, _Rev. Arch._, Sér. IV, XIII, 1909, pp. 46 f, and figs. 1 and 2. In this discussion of ancient canons he shows that the chief ratio was that of the head to the height of the body; the proportion of 8 heads to the body was that adopted by da Vinci and J. Cousin: 7 to 8 is found in the figures of the Parthenon frieze; a little under 7 in the _Diadoumenos_ of Polykleitos. [598] See Furtw., _Mp._, pp. 49-52. As examples, he gives the statue of Apollo from the Tiber now in the Museo delle Terme: _Mp._, pp. 50-51, figs. 8 and 9; _cf._ _R. M._, 1891, pp. 302, 377 and Pls. X-XII; the Mantuan _Apollo_: _cf._ _50stes Berliner Winckelmannsprogr._, p. 139, n. 61 (for replicas); etc. [599] For Polykleitos’ canon, see Pliny, _H. N._, XXXIV, 55; _S. Q._, 953 f.; Furtw., _Mp._, p. 249. [600] So Pliny, _op. cit._, XXXV, 128; _cf._ J. Six, _Jb._, XXIV, 1909, pp. 7 f. [601] _H. N._, XXXIV, 61; see Jex-Blake, p. XLVIII. [602] _H. N._, XXXIV, 65. [603] However, other fourth-century artists, notably Praxiteles, used impressionism in the treatment of the hair: see Bulle, pp. 444 f. [604] In XXXIV, 80, he mentions Menaichmos, who wrote on the toreutic art probably in the fourth century B. C.; in XXXIV, 83 (_cf._ XXXV, 68), he mentions Xenokrates, of the school of Lysippos, who wrote books on art; he is probably identical with an artist of the same name known to us from inscriptions from Oropos and Elateia: _I. G. B._, 135, a, b (Oropos), c (Elateia); _Arch. Eph._, 1892, 52 (Oropos); the identity is doubted by Jex-Blake, p. xx, n. 2. In XXXIV, 84 (_cf._ XXXV, 68) he speaks of Antigonos, who wrote on painting and who was employed by Attalos I of Pergamon to work on the trophies of his victory over the Gauls. For Antigonos as a writer on the criticism of art, see Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, _Antigonos von Karystos_ (Kiessling and Wilamowitz, _Philolog. Untersuchungen_, IV, 1881), Ch. I, pp. 7 f. [605] _H. N._, XXXIV, 55. According to the exact words of Pliny, the _Canon_ and the _Doryphoros_ were distinct works. It is probable, however, that Pliny’s words conceal the same statue under two names, his commentary on each coming from a different source: see Furtw., _Mp._, p. 229 and n. 4; _Mw._, p. 422 and n. 2; _cf._ Muenzer, _Hermes_, XXX, 1895, p. 530, n. 1. [606] Cicero, _Brut._, 86, 296. On the fame of the _Doryphoros_, see _id._, _Orator_, 2. [607] _Instit. Orat._, V, 12.21. In Philon’s treatise περὶ βελοποιϊκῶν, IV, 2, we read: τὸ γὰρ εὖ παρὰ μικρὸν διὰ πολλῶν ἀριθμῶν ἔφη γίνεσθαι, sc. Πολύκλειτος, (“Beauty,” he said, “was produced from a small unit through a long chain of numbers”), a description which rightly characterizes the _Doryphoros_. The system given by Vitruv., III, 1, hardly agrees with Polykleitan statues and so has been connected by Kalkmann, though on insufficient grounds, with the canon of Euphranor: see _50stes Berlin Winckelmannsprogr._, 1890 (Proport. des Gesichts), pp. 43 f.; _cf._ H. Stuart Jones, _op. cit._, p. 129. [608] _Guida Museo Napoli_, no. 146; Collignon, I, Pl. XII, opp. p. 488; Bulle, 47 and analysis on pp. 97-102. [609] Kalkmann, _op. cit._, p. 53, gives the height as 1.98-1.99 m.; Bulle, p. 97 to no. 47, as 1.99 m. [610] In Rayet, I, Text to Pl. 29; reproduced in _Études d’art antique et moderne_, 1888, pp. 399 f.; _cf._ also Collignon, I, pp. 492 f. and P. Gardner, _Principles of Greek Art_, pp. 21 f. [611] _De plac. Hipp. et Plat._, 5. [612] B. B., 321; Helbig, _Fuehrer_, I, 956; _Guide_, 617; F. W., 215; to be discussed _infra_, pp. 201-2. [613] _Orat._, XXXI, 89 f. (614 R). [614] In the present discussion we shall confine ourselves to the assimilation of mortal types to those of athletic gods and heroes, omitting the larger question of assimilation to divine types in general. A good example of the latter is afforded by P. VIII, 9.7-8. Here, in noting that the Mantineans worshipped Antinoos as a god by the erection of a temple and the celebration of mysteries and games, he says that images and paintings of the hero were in the Gymnasion there, the latter Διονύσῳ μάλιστα εἰκασμέναι. [615] Kabbadias, no. 218; _Rev. Arch._, III (1er Sér.), 1846, Pl. 53, fig. 2; Ph. Le Bas, _Voyage archéologique_ (ed. Reinach), Pl. CXVIII, p. 107; B. B., 18; von Mach, 191; F. W., 1220; Reinach., _Rép._, II, i, 149, 10. [616] _Marbres et Bronzes_, p. 49. [617] Kabbadias, no. 219. [618] Formerly known as the _Antinous_: M. W., II, Pl. 28, 307; Clarac, IV, Pl. 665, 1514; Reinach, _Rép._, I, 367,2 (with restored arms); von Mach, no. 192; Amelung, _Vat._, II, no. 53 (pp. 132 f.) and Pl. 12; F. W., no. 1218; Baum., I, pp. 675 f. and fig. 737. [619] _B. M. Sculpt._, III, no. 1599 and Pl. IV; Clarac, IV, Pl. 664, 1539; Reinach, _Rép._, II, i, 149, 1; Springer-Michaelis, p. 317, fig.