68 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTOR STATUES AT OLYMPIA. 
what Kalkman has done for the face. In fact, anthropometry in 
relation to Greek sculpture has now become an exact science.' 
The greatest artists—architects, painters, and sculptors—of all times 
have taught and practised the doctrine that certain proportions are 
beautiful, ¢. g., the proportion of the height of the head or the length 
of the foot to the whole body, or the length of parts of the head or body 
to other parts. In modern times we have only to mention such names 
as those of da Vinci, Duerer, Raphael Mengs, and Flaxman.’ In 
Greek days there were many artists who formulated such canons of 
proportions. Greek sculptors followed ratios of proportions so closely 
that we have statues of various schools, which are distinguished by 
fixed proportions of parts, such as the Old Attic, Old Argive, Poly- 
kleitan, Argive-Sikyonian or Lysippan, etc. Some of these schools 
used the foot as the common measure, while others used the palm, 
finger, or other member.? ‘The earliest works on Greek art were trea- 
tises, now lost, by artists in which they worked out their theories of the 
principles underlying the proportions of the human figure.* We shall 
briefly consider a few of these canons, together with the usual pose of 
body which conformed with them. ‘The earliest Peloponnesian canon, 
which we can analyze, was that followed by Hagelaidas of Argos and his 
school, a canon which was still used in the Polykleitan circle. Here 
the weight of the body rested upon the left leg, while the right one was 
slightly bent at the knee, its foot resting flat on the ground; the right 
arm hung by the side and the left was usually in action, and the head 
was slightly inclined to the left side; the shoulders were extraordinarily 
broad in comparison with the hips, the right one being slightly raised. 
These qualities produced a short stocky figure, firmly placed.’ In 
the middle of the fifth century B.C., Polykleitos worked out a theory of 
proportions in the form of a commentary on his famous statue known 
as the Doryphoros. This canon was characterized by squareness and 
massiveness of build. The weight of the body generally rested on the 
right foot, while the left was drawn back, its foot touching the ground 
with the ball only. Sometimes this pose was reversed, the left foot 
carrying the body-weight, as in the three bases of statues by the master 
found at Olympia (i. ¢., those of the athletes Pythokles, Aristion, and 
1F, W. G. Foat, of. 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. 
On the influence of such canons of proportion on contemporary artists, see Balcarres,. Evolution 
of Italian Sculpture, p. 128. 
3Cf. Vitruvius, quoted above. The scholion on Pindar, O/., VII, Argum., Boeckh, p. 158, speaks 
of mnxGv recodpwr Saxridwv wevre as the height of the statue of Diagoras at Olympia, etc. 
4Vitruvius, de Arch., VII, Praef., 14, lists writers who praecepta symmetriarum conscrip- 
serunt. See V. Mortet, Rev. Arch., Sér. 1V, 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. 
5See Furtw., Mp., pp. 49-52. As examples, he gives the statue of Apollo from the Tiber now in 
the Museo delle Terme: M>., pp. 50-51, figs. 8 and 9; cf. R. M., 1891, pp. 302, 377 and Pls. X—XII; 
the Mantuan Apollo: cf. sostes Berliner Winckelmannsprogr., p. 139, n. 61 (for replicas); etc. 
