CANONS OF PROPORTION. 69 
Kyniskos, to be discussed later), and in the works of some of his pupils, 
notably in those of Naukydes, Daidalos, and Kleon.! Euphranor, 
who flourished, according to Pliny, in Ol. 104 (=364-361 B.C.), and 
wrote works on symmetry and color, was the ‘‘first’’ to master the 
theory of symmetry.” Pliny, however, found his bodies too slender 
and his heads and limbs too large, a criticism of his painting which 
must have been equally applicable to his sculpture. His canon did 
not make much headway, as the majority of sculptors in his century 
were still under the domination of the canon of Polykleitos. It was 
left for Lysippos, in the second half of the fourth century B. 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. 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.4- While Polykleitos 
madé 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.2 Pliny mentions other artists who wrote on art, 
and it is probable that theories of proportions formed the main element 
of such works.°® 
The best example of symmetry, 1. ¢., 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.’ The identity 
1For Polykleitos’ canon, see Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 55; S. Q., 953 f.; Furtw., Mp., p. 249. 
250 Pliny, op. cit., XX XV, 128; cf. J. Six, Jb., XXIV, 1909, pp. 7 f. 
8H. N., XXXIV, 61; see Jex-Blake, p. xLvuul. 
4H. N., XXXIV, 65. 
5However, other fourth-century artists, notably Praxiteles, used impressionism in the treatment 
of the hair: see Bulle, pp. 444 f. 
6In 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: J. 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 (Kiess- 
ling and Wilamowitz, Philolog. Untersuchungen, IV, 1881), Ch. I, pp. 7 f. 
7H. 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. 
