504 Scherer, pp. 9 f., and especially p. 13; Lessing, Laokoön, II, 13, made Pliny’s words a text for a famous passage.

505 For the latest discussion of Pliny’s passage, see Inschr. v. Ol., pp. 236 and 295–6 (the latter in reference to the inscribed base of the statue of Xenombrotos to be discussed a few lines infra).

506 Klein, quoted by Jex-Blake, p. 14, footnote to line 7, believes Pliny’s statement apocryphal, an idea escaping all scholars except, perhaps, Bluemner in his commentary on the Laokoön (p. 503). Evidently Pliny, or his source, is explaining the discrepancy between ideal and portrait statues as the result of an improbable rule, since the ancients applied little historical criticism to art, and hence did not distinguish between works representing types and those representing individuals. Dio Chrysostom, in his treatise Περὶ κάλλους (Orat., XXI, 1, p. 501 R), tries to explain the difference between early and late statues on the ground of physical degeneration in the latter.

507 Inschr. v. Ol, 170. He won in Ol. (?) 83 ( = 448 B. C.): P., VI, 14.12; Hyde, 133; Foerster, 327. This date follows the reasoning of Robert, O. S., pp. 180 f. Pausanias, l. c., mentions another monument of the victor, the inscribed base of which has been found: Inschr. v. Ol., 154, though Dittenberger wrongly refers it to Damasippos: Foerster, 812; Hyde, pp. 53–4. The same authority refers no. 170 to the middle of the fourth century B. C., or a couple of decades later, because of the lettering and orthography. The monument of no. 170 must, therefore, have been set up long after the victory—about a century later.

508 Dittenberger, Inschr. v. Ol., p. 296, compares two other inscriptions with no. 170, viz, no. 174 (in which the words ὧδε στάς occur) and C. I. G. G. S., I, 2470, l. 3 (where the words τοίας ἐκ προβολᾶς occur). However, as he says, these two refer to the poses of the statues of gymnic victors and not to portraits. Pausanias frequently uses the word εἰκών for ἀνδριάς (e. g., III, 18.7) of a victor, but this seems to be no indication of a portrait statue.

509 Cf. Dittenberger, op. cit., p. 296. Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 530, think the case of Xenombrotos may simply be exceptional.

510 VI, 3.11–12; he was three times victor in running races in Ols. (?) 95, (?) 97, and 99 ( = 400, 392, 384 B. C.); the latter date is attested by Afr.: Hyde, 33; Foerster, 307, 315, 316. For the epigram on the base of one of these statues, see A. G., XIII, 15.

511 VI, 4.1; he was three times victor in the pankration in Ols. 104, (?) 105, (?) 106 ( = 364–356 B. C.): Hyde, 37; Foerster, 349, 353, 359.

512 VI, 17.2; he was thrice victor in running races in Ols. 129, 130 ( = 264, 260 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 173; Foerster, 440–2, 444–5.

513 VI, 15.9; he was four times victor in the pankration, once in hoplite running, and once in the δίαυλος, at unknown dates: Hyde, 149; Foerster, 767–72. We can not say that his victories fell at a date when iconic statues were in vogue.

514 VI, 6.6; he won in Ols. 74, 76, 77 ( = 484, 476–2 B. C.): Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207; Inschr. v. Ol., 144.

515 E. g., VI, 13.3–4 and 8: Hermogenes, five times victor in running races in Ols. 215, 216, 217 ( = 81–89 A. D.): Afr.; Hyde, 111a; Foerster, 654–6, 659–660, 662–4; Polites, three times victor in running races in Ol. 212 ( = 69 A. D.): Afr.; Hyde, 111b; Foerster, 648–50; Leonidas, four times victor in running races in Ols. 154, 155, 156, 157 ( = 164–152 B. C.): Afr.; Hyde, 111c; Foerster, 495–7, 498–500, 502–4, 507–9; Tisandros, four times victor in boxing in Ols. (?) 60–3 ( = 540–528 B. C.), at a date too early for portraiture: Hyde, 119a; Foerster, 115, 119, 123, 124. There are other examples from the early fifth and the sixth centuries B. C.

516 Princ. Gr. Art, Ch. XI (Portrait Sculpture), pp. 165 f.

517 Gardner, p. 165, cites Bernouilli, Griech. Ikonogr., 1901, as listing 26 known portraits of Euripides and 32 of Demosthenes, and calls attention to the fact that 870 plates in the Bruckmann series, Griech. und Roem. Portraets (ed. Brunn und Arndt), from 1891 on, are of Roman portraits. On the subject of Græco-Roman portraits, see also Bernouilli, Roem. Ikonogr., 1882–94; Hekler, Greek and Roman Portraits, 1912; and the works of E. Q. Visconti, now antiquated: Iconogr. gr. (Paris, 1808) and Iconogr. romana (Milan, 1818).

518 XXXIV, 74. Pausanias mentions a portrait of Perikles without naming the artist, I, 25.1; cf. I. 28.2. The inscribed base was found in Athens in 1888: Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον, 1889, pp. 36 f. (Lolling). A terminal portrait of Perikles, extant in several copies, has been identified as a copy of this work, e. g., one in the British Museum: B. M. Sculpt., I, no. 549; Furtw., Mp., Pl. VII, opp. p. 118 (profile, fig, 46, p. 119); Hekler, op. cit., Pl. 4 a.; F. W., 481. Another replica is in the Vatican: Helbig, Fuehrer, I, 276, and Nachtraege, II, p. 471; Visconti, Iconogr. gr., I, Pl. XV; B. B., 156; Hekler, op. cit., Pl. 4 b. However, Hitz.-Bluemn., I, p. 307, ad loc. Paus., think that the word ἀνδριάς used by Pausanias can not apply to a terminal bust; Furtw., Mp., p. 117, n. 4, says that the word does not necessarily mean a whole statue. Cf. Bernouilli, Jb., XI, 1896, pp. 107 f.; Furtw., Mp., pp. 117 f.

519 See I. G. B., 62, 63.

520 Philopseudes, 18 f.

521 Αὐτοανθρώπῳ ὅμοιον, §18.

522 A good example of a Roman copy (from the age of Hadrian) of an original iconic athlete statue in bronze from the end of the fourth century B. C., is a bearded head in the Museo Chiaramonti; its swollen ears and the deep furrow in the hair for the metal crown show that it is from the statue of a victor. See Amelung, Vat., I, p. 483, no. 257 and Tafelbd., I, Pl. 50; Arndt-Bruckmann, Gr. und Roem. Portr., Pls. 223–4.

523 XXXV, 153. Jex-Blake, p. 176, justly remarks that this invention had nothing to do with the custom of taking death-masks.

524 Xen., Symp., IV, 17: θαλλοφόρους γὰρ τῇ Ἀθηνᾷ τοὺς καλοὺς γέροντας ἐκλέγονται κ. τ. λ.; cf. Aristoph., Vesp., 544, and Athen., XIII, 20 (p. 565) and scholion.

525 XIII, 90 (p. 609 e, f); here he quotes a history of Arkadia by Nikias.

526 Athen., XIII, 20 (pp. 565 f and 566 a); cf., Theophr., apud Athen., XIII, 90 (pp. 609 f, 610 a).

527 Athen., XIII, 90 (p. 610a): here Athenæus is also quoting Theophrastos. In XIII, 20 (p. 565), he quotes Herakleides Lembos as saying that in Sparta the handsomest man and woman were especially honored.

528 Hdt., V, 47; Eustath. ad Iliad, III, p. 383, 43; Foerster, 138.

529 P., IX, 22.1.

530 P., VII, 24.4; cf., VIII, 47.3, for a similar custom at Tegea.

531 See O. Mueller, Die Dorier¹, 1824, II, p. 238 (quoted by Krause, I, p. 37, n. 19). For references to contests of beauty in Greece, see ibid., pp. 33–38.

532 On this subject, see the recent essay by W. H. Goodyear, Lessing’s Essay on the Laocoön and its Influence on the Criticism of Art and Literature, Brooklyn Museum Quarterly, Oct. 1917, pp. 228–9.

533 Thus we have Polykleitos of Argos and Patrokles, perhaps his brother; Naukydes of Argos and Daidalos of Sikyon, sons of Patrokles; the younger Polykleitos—who called himself an Argive—the brother of Naukydes; Alypos of Sikyon, the pupil of Naukydes; etc. Statues by all these sculptors except Patrokles are known to have stood in Olympia.

534 Hbk.², p. 254.

535 His criticism of painting occurs in Poet., 1448a, 5, 1450a, 26, and Polit., V, 1340a, 35. In Eth., VI, 1141a, 10, he says that Pheidias and Polykleitos were masters in marble and bronze respectively. For a discussion of Aristotle’s æsthetics of painting and sculpture, see M. Carroll, in Publ. of Geo. Washington University, Philol. and Lit. Series, I, 1 (Nov., 1905), pp. 1–10; and for both Aristotle and Plato on art, see Kalkman, 50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., 1890 (Proport. des Gesichts), pp. 3 f. and notes.

536 I, 5, 1361b; Oppian, Kyneget., I, 89–90, speaks of the similarly well-developed bodies of hunters.

537 Mem., III, 10.6–8. For his visit to the painter Parrhasios, see ibid., 10.1–5.

538 Following the suggestion of Klein, II, p. 143, and W. L. Westermann, Class. Rev., XIX, 1905, pp. 323–5. The latter gives several examples of similarly shortened forms of names and believes the passage in Xenophon emphasizes the fact that Polykleitos was employed at Athens. Plato frequently mentions Polykleitos by his full name: e. g., Protag., 328 C (sons of Polykleitos), 311 C (Polykleitos and Pheidias). P. Gardner justly observes that the statues of Polykleitos “however beautiful, are scarcely life-like:” Prince. Gk. Art., p. 15, n. 1; Grammar, p. 17.

539 II, 17: τὰ σκέλη μὲν παχύνονται, τοὺς ὤμους δὲ λεπτύνονται, κ. τ. λ.

540 See schol. on Plato, Amatores, p. 135 E; cf. Epiktetos, Encheir., Ch. 29.

541 P., VI, 10.5; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 97; Foerster, 240; cf. Krause, Olympia, pp. 302 f.

542 His date is uncertain: P., VI, 15.9; Hyde, 149; Foerster, 767–772.

543 P., VI, 3.2; he won at Olympia some time between Ols. (?) 99 and 102 ( = 384 and 372 B. C.): Hyde, 23; Foerster, 335.

544 P., I, 29.5: Hdt., VI, 92; IX, 75; cf. Krause, I, pp. 495–6.

545 E. g., Phaÿllos of Kroton was famed for his fleetness, his jumping, and his throwing the diskos. See Aristoph., Acharn., 212; Vespes, 1206; A. G., App. 297; cf. Hdt., VIII, 47; P., X, 9.2. He won at Delphi only.

546 E. g., Myron at Delphi: Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 57; Alkamenes, ibid., XXXIV, 72; etc.

547 656 E, 657 A.

548 Pliny, H. N., XXXVI, 39. These works were probably critical as well as descriptive.

549 E. g., of Pasiteles, XXXVI, 39; of Arkesilaos, XXXVI, 41; of Koponios, ibid.

550 18(70). In this passage he also gives similar judgments on several painters. On Cicero on art, see Grant Showerman, Proceed. Amer. Philol. Ass’n, XXXIV, 1903, pp. xxxv f. He shows that Cicero’s references to art proceed from his instinct as a stylist and not from any enthusiasm for art itself.

551 Imag., 6, p. 464. His eclectic statue is made up of works by Praxiteles, Alkamenes, Pheidias, and Kalamis.

552 Rhetorum praeceptor, 9–10. He spells the two first names Ἡγησίας, Κράτης.

553 XXXVI, 37. For careful judgments of Pliny’s work, see Jex-Blake, pp. xci f.: Kalkmann, Die Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius, 1898; Robert, Archaeologische Maerchen, 1886, pp. 28 f.; F. Muenzer, Hermes, XXX, 1895, pp. 499 f. (and Beitraege zur Kritik der Naturgesch. des Plinius, 1897); Botsford and Sihler, Hellenic Civilization, 1915, pp. 551–8 (= Translation by Jex-Blake of Pliny, XXXIV, 53–84 [sculptors], revised by E. G. Sihler); pp. 558–567 (= Pliny, XXXV, 15, and 53–97 [painters], revised by E. G. S.). For short estimate of Pliny’s work, see Mackail, Latin Literatures, 1895, p. 197.

554 See his characterization of the great Greek painters and sculptors in Inst. Orat., XII, Ch. 9.

555 Also in the work of H. Stuart Jones, Select Passages from Anc. Writers Illustrative of the Hist. of Gk. Sculpt., 1895; cf., A history of classical writers on art from Xenokrates to Pliny, in Jex-Blake, pp. xvi-xci; cf. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Antigonos von Karystos (Kiessling and Wilamowitz, Philolog. Untersuchungen, IV, 1881), pp. 7 f.; P. Gardner, Principles of Greek Art, Ch. II, pp. 13 f. (Ancient Critics on Art); etc.

556 A. Pl., 2; Bergk, P. l. G., III⁴, no. 149, p. 498. Theognetos won in Ol. 76 ( = 476 B. C.): P., VI, 9.1; Oxy. Pap., Hyde, 83; Foerster, 193 and 193 N.

557 H. N., XXXIV, 88. Kallias won in Ol. 77 ( = 472 B. C.): P., VI, 6.1; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208; Inschr. v. Ol., no. 146.

558 Ibid., XXXIV, 71.

559 Kalamis made the horses and jockeys, Onatas the chariot: P., VI, 12.1; Hiero won twice in the horse-race and once in the chariot-race in Ols. 76–78 ( = 476–468 B. C.): Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 105; Foerster, 199, 209, 215.

560 VI, 6.6. He won in Ols. 74, 76–7 ( = 484, 476–472 B. C.): Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207.

561 VI, 4.4. He won in Ols. 81 and 82 ( = 456–452 B. C.): Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 38; Foerster, 202, 203.

562 VI, 9.3. He won in Ol. 83 ( = 448 B. C.): Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 88: Foerster, 285.

563 V, 27.3.

564 Bulle, p. 104, remarks that up to the present no single Roman copy can be proved to be that of an Olympic victor statue. This fact must be constantly borne in mind.

565 No. 6439; Staïs, Marbres et Bronzes, pp. 299–300 and fig.; Ausgr. v. Ol., V, Pls. XXI, XXII, and p. 14; Funde v. Ol., Pl. XXIII, and p. 16; Bronz. v. Ol., Textbd., pp. 10–11; Tafelbd., Pl. II, 2 and 2a; Boetticher, Olympia, Pl. XI, 1; Baum., p. 1104 00, figs. 1296, a and b; F. W., no. 323; Bulle, 235 and fig. 154, on p. 501; von Mach, 482; B. B., 247.

566 Furtw.-Wolters, Beschr. d. Glyptothek,² 1910, no. 457, pp. 398 f.; Furtw., Mp., p. 291; Mw., p. 507; F. W., no. 216; B. B., 8; Bulle, 207 (front and side); Kekulé, A. Z., XLI, 1883, Pl. XIV, 3, p. 246; H. Schrader, Jh. oest. arch. Inst., 1911, p. 74; Hauser, R. M., X, 1895, pp. 103 f. Kekulé, because of its similarity to the Apollo of the West Gable, derived it from the art of the Olympia pediment sculptures; Flasch, Verh. d. 29sten Philologenversamml., Innsbruck, 1874, p. 162, and Brunn, Beschr. d. Glypt.⁵, no. 302, and Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1892, p. 658, classed it as Polykleitan; Bulle calls it Attic-Argive without Polykleitan influence, while Furtwaengler finds it Polykleitan-Attic. The latter gives several replicas, two of green and black basalt respectively, in the Museo delle Terme, and a marble head in the Museo Chiaramonti, no. 475. Bulle gives the height of the Munich head as 0.23 meter.

567 Αἰδώς; cf. decor, applied to the work of Polykleitos by Quintilian: Inst. Orat., XII, 9. 7–8; cf. also Vitruvius, de Arch., I, 2.

568 Furtw.-Urlichs, Denkm. d. gr. und roem. Skulpt., Hdausgabe,³ 1911, p. 102, n. 1. He adds that it is das Ideal von Reinheit, Unschuld, liebenswuerdig edler Groesse, eines der herrlichsten griechischen Originale, die uns erhalten sind. It is photographed ibid., figs. 30, 31. In the Beschr. d. Glypt., p. 399, he says it is das edelste und vollendetste Werk, das die Glyptothek besitzt—ihr kostbarster Schatz, etc.

569 Formerly in the Coll. Tyszkiewicz: B. B., 324, (two views); Bulle, 206 (two views); von Mach, 481 (two views); Mon. Piot, I, 1894, pp. 77 f. (E. Michon) and Pls. X, XI; S. Reinach, Têtes,[P2, looked in original] Pl. 72 and p. 58; Kalkmann, Prop. d. Gesichts, p. 27 (vignette); Collignon, II, Frontispiece and p. 169; Gardner, Sculpt., Pl. XL; Furtw., Mp., pp. 290–1 and Pl. XIV; Mw., p. 507. The best illustration of the head is given by de Ridder, Les Bronzes antiques du Louvre, I, 1913, Pl. I (and text p. 8, on no. 4). It is 0.33 meter in height (Bulle).

570 Preface to Furtw., Mp., p. xiii.

571 So Furtw., l. c.; Bulle, however, sees in it only Attic work and finds it slightly coarser and harder than the Munich head described.

572 Invent. 5633; Bronzi d’Ercol., I, 73, 74; D. Comparetti e G. de Petra, La Villa Ercolanese dei Pisoni, 1883, XI, 1; B. B., 323 (two views); Rayet, II, Pl. 67; Furtw., Mp., p. 291; Mw., p. 508; the latter believes that it, like the preceding two heads, is Polykleitan and Attic.

573 Bedeutung der Gymnastik in d. gr. Kunst, 1905; cf. also Gardner, Sculpt., p. 23, and Hbk., p. 215.

574 Furtw.-Urlichs, Denkmaeler, already cited, p. 63, n. 3. (Translated under the title Greek and Roman Sculpture by H. Taylor, 1914; p. 119.)

575 See F. W. G. Foat, Anthropometry of Greek Statues, J. H. S., XXXV, 1915, pp. 225 f. (p. 226).

576 Plato, Phileb., 64 E, regarded μετριότης and συμμετρία as qualities of beauty and virtue; cf. Aristotle, Metaphys., X, 3.7, and Nicom. Eth., V, 5.14, 1133b. Vitruvius, de Arch., I, 2, makes symmetry in architecture a quality of eurythmia: Item symmetria est ex ipsius operis membris conveniens consensus ex partibusque separatis ad universae figurae speciem ratae partis responsus.

577 I, 2: Haec [eurythmia] efficitur, cum membra operis convenientia sunt, altitudinis ad latitudinem, latitudinis ad longitudinem, et ad summam omnia respondent suae symmetriae; cf. III, 1; Lucian, pro Imag., 14 (ῥυθμίζειν τὸ ἄγαλμα); Clem. Alex., Paedagog., 3.11 and 64 (εὐρυθμὸς καὶ καλὸς ἀνδριάς); Xen., Mem., III, 10.9 (ῥυθμός, of corselets); Plut., de Educ. puer., 11 (τῶν σωμάτων εὐρυθμία); Diod., I, 97. 6 (ῥυθμὸς ἀνδριάντων, i.e., rhythmic order or grace in statuary): id., II, 56.4.

578 Vitruv., III, 1: <proportio>, quae graece ἀναλογία dicitur. Proportio est ratae partis membrorum in omni opere totiusque commodulatio, ex qua ratio efficitur symmetriarum.

579 H. N., XXXIV, 65.

580 Op. cit., e. g., XXXV, 67 and 128.

581 Ueber die Kunsturteile bei Plinius, Ber. ueber d. Verhandl. d. k. saechs. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, II, 1850, p. 131; cf. H. L. Urlichs, Ueber griech. Kunstschriftsteller (Diss. inaug., Wuerzburg, 1887).

582 Principles of Greek Art, 1914, p. 20 (= Grammar of Greek Art, 1905, p. 22).

583 Quoted by Gardner, op. cit., p. 22 (= Grammar, p. 23), from two papers by H. Brunn, Ueber tektonischen Styl in der griech. Plastik und Malerei, in Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1883, pp. 299 f., 1884, pp. 507 f. Overbeck, I, pp. 266–277, explains rhythm in art as the Ordnung der Bewegung, in accordance with the definition of Plato: τῇ δὴ τῆς κινήσεως τάξει ῥυθμὸς ὄνομα εἴη: de Leg., 665 A.

584 H. N., XXXIV, 58 (S. Q., 533): Numerosior in arte quam Polyclitus et in symmetria diligentior. The interpretation of this disputed passage depends, of course, on the meaning of numerosior, and whether we accept the curious statement of the manuscript that Myron surpassed Poykleitos in symmetry, or, by omitting the et (with Sillig), make it mean just the contrary and in harmony with the usual ancient view that symmetry was the salient characteristic of Polykleitan art. The passage, then, would contrast the symmetry of Polykleitos with the variety of Myron. This accords with Pliny’s use of numerosus elsewhere (e. g., XXXV, 130 and 138), which always refers to number. See Gardner, Hbk., p. 275 (note).

585 Op. cit., XXXIV, 65, he says: Nova intactaque ratione quadratas veterum staturas permutando.

586 Op. cit., XXXV, 67.

587 VIII. I. 47.

588 The Egyptians divided the front view of the body into 19 parts (or 21 parts and a quarter, including the height of the head-dress): Diod., 1, 98. See Lepsius, Monum. funéraires de l’Égypte (figure, reproduced in Dar.-Sagl, I, 2, p. 892, fig. 1125); cf. his Descript. de l’Égypte, IV, LXII; Wilkinson, History of Egypt, p. 113, Pl. IV; these references are given by Foat, op. cit., p. 225, n. 1.

589 Vitruv., I, 2. However, in thus following the statement of the Roman architect, it must be said that the attempt to recover and establish such a canon in Greek architecture is still unproved. The subject is complicated and has led to very different views. Thus, while many scholars have defended the theory of the canon (e. g., Pennethorne, Geom. and Optics of Anc. Arch., 1878; Penrose, in Whibley, Comp. to Gk. Stud.¹, 1905, pp. 220–1; Ferguson, Hist. Arch., ed. 1887, I, p. 251; P. Gardner, Princ. Gk. Art., p. 21; Statham, Short Crit. Hist. Arch., 1912, p. 130), others are opposed, and believe that design in Greek architecture was a matter of feeling, and that the orders were first reduced to formulæ in Roman days (e. g., A. K. Porter, Med. Arch., 1909, I, 9; Goodyear, Greek Refinements, Studies in Temperamental Arch., 1912, esp. p. 83, quoting Joseph Hoffer from Wiener Bauzeitung, 1838). See on the subject a recent article by my pupil, Dr. A. W. Barker, in A. J. A., XXII, 1918, pp. 1 f., in which the above and other references are given.

590 Gardner, Sculpt., pp. 22–3, says: “Paradoxical as it may seem at first sight, the very freedom of Greek sculpture is to a great extent due to its close adherence to tradition.” He shows how the free play of imagination depends on external conditions and tradition.

591 E. g., Vitruv., I, 2; especially these words: Ut in hominis corpore e cubito, pede, palmo, digito, ceterisque particulis (partibus) symmetria est eurythmiae qualitas; also III, 1: Pes vero altitudinis corporis sextae <partis>; cubitum quartae; pectus item quartae, etc. Also Philostr., Imag., Proem.; the third-century A. D. (?) treatise called de Physiognomia; St. Augustine, de Civ. Dei, XV, 26. 1; the poet Martianus Capella, of the middle of the fifth century A. D., who says, VII, 739: septem corporis partes hominem perficiunt; etc.

592 Die Proportionen des Gesichts in der griechischen Kunst (= 53stes Berliner Wincklemanns programm, 1893).

593 Gestalt des Menschen, in Verh. d. Berl. Anthrop. Gesell., 1895. This work is based on the older investigations of C. Schmidt, 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.