70 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTOR STATUES AT OLYMPIA. 
of the canon with this statue seems to be attested by the anecdote told 
of Lysippos that the Doryphoros was his master,' and by Quintilian’s 
statement that sculptors took it as a model.? The best-preserved 
copy of the Doryphoros, despite its rather lifeless character, is the 
one discovered in Pompeii and now in Naples (Pl. 4).2 As other 
late Roman copies do not conform to the identical proportions of this 
copy, it is perhaps difficult to say exactly what the canon of Poly- 
kleitos was. Possibly the original, if it had been preserved, would also 
strike us.as somewhat lifeless; but we must remember that the statue 
was made merely to illustrate a theory of proportions. The dimen- 
sions of the Naples statue are known from very careful measure- 
ments and the proportions agree with those given in the description 
by Galen to be mentioned. It is almost exactly 2 meters, or 6 feet 8 
inches, high.4- The length of the foot is 0.33 meter,-or one-sixth of the 
total height, while the length of the face is 0.20 meter, or one-tenth of 
the height. E. Guillaume® has made a careful analysis of it in refer- 
ence to Galen’s® statement that Chrysippos found beauty in the pro- 
portion of the parts, “‘of finger to finger, and of all the fingers to the 
palm and wrist, and of these to the forearm, and of the forearm to 
the upper arm, and of all the parts to each other, as they are set forth 
in the canon of Polykleitos.”” He has found thee the palm, 7. ¢., the 
breadth of the hand at the base of the fingers, is a common measure 
of the proportions of the body. ‘This palm is one-third the length of 
the foot, one-sixth that of the lower leg, one-sixth that of the thigh, 
and one-sixth that of the distance from the navel to the ear, etc. 
Such a remarkable correspondence in measurements would seem to 
show, 1f we had no other proofs, that the Naples statue reproduces 
the canon of Polykleitos more closely than any other. 
A good example of asymmetry is afforded by the so-called Spinario 
of the Palazzo dei Conservatori in Rome’ (Fig. 40). This justly 
prized statue shows more asymmetry, perhaps, than any other down to 
its date—just before the middle of the fifth century B.C. Though its 
composition is such that there is no vantage-point from which it forms 
1Cicero, Brut., 86, 296. On the fame of the Doryphoros, see 1d., Orator, Pee 
*Instit. Orat., V, 12.21. In Philon’s treatise epi Bedomotixar, IV, 2, we read: 78 yap 0 mapa 
Muxpov 61a ToAAGv apLOuev e—n yiveoOar, sc. Hodvkdextos ,(‘ osu he said, “‘was produced 
from a small unit through a-long chain of numbers’’), a description which Higlerly characterizes 
the Doryphoros. The system given by Vitruv., III, 1, hardly agrees with Polykleitan statues and 
so has beenconnected 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, 
OD. Citi, pe 329, 
3Guida Museo Napoli, no. 146; Collignon, I, Pl. XII, opp. p. 488; Bulle, 47 and analysis on 
pp. 97-102. 
4Kalkmann, op. cit., p. 53, gives the height as 1.98-1.99 m.; Bulle, p. 97 to no. 47, ash. 99am. 
‘In Rayet, I, Text to Pl. 29; reproduced in Etudes d’art antique et moderne, 1888, pp: sa ts 
cf. also Collignon, I, pp. 492 f. and.P: Gardner, Principles of Greek-Art, pp. 21 f. 
SDe plac. Hipp. et Plat., 5. 
"By B.,.5212 Helbie: Fiche 1,956; Guide, 617; F. W., 215; to be discussed.infra, pp. 201 2: 
